Congress has lost its mind...

[Clodfobble]

*snicker* Griff is far less party-affiliated than you, good sir.

[classicman]

took the post right outta my keyboard, Clod.

[Shawnee123]

Ramahkable.

[classicman]

At a forum Monday, Rangel popped off over an Obama comment last month that the 80-year-old congressman should "end his career with dignity."

The President spoke after Rangel was slapped with ethics charges. "Frankly, he has not been around long enough to determine what my dignity is," Rangel said Monday.

"In the next few years, I will be more likely to protect his dignity."

Rangel said last night his retort wasn't meant as a slap but admitted, "Obviously, it didn't go over big." As for Powell's argument: "I think that Obama would say that I'm one of his best friends. And certainly one of his strongest supporters — I admire him. I respect him."

He said Obama's remark had rankled because "I just thought dignity was an individual thing other people can't really describe."

But, he conceded, "You don't zing the President of the United States if you're interested in working with him."

From the Daily News

[TheMercenary]

Paul Krugman's New York Times column for August 23 on extending the Bush tax cuts is not merely misleading; it is an outright and deliberate fabrication. For more than a decade, Krugman has been writing two columns a week for the New York Times opinion pages. Opinion pieces are designed to express a point of view, but the argument is supposed to be supported by facts.

Krugman is a Princeton economics professor who won a Nobel Prize in Economics. So the alternative explanation for Krugman's column today -- that he is just stupid, and very bad with numbers -- would seem far less likely than that he lies in order to deliberately mislead Times readers and the general public.

Krugman never liked the Bush tax cuts of 2001. The economy was in recession at the time the cuts were passed, and Krugman, who is a Keynesian, generally supports lots of stimulus to address weak economies. However, he prefers massive injections of government spending to tax cuts, and if tax cuts are a part of any stimulus package, he thinks the cuts should not include any tax reductions for wealthy people. The Bush tax cuts included cuts for all taxpayers, and they were set to expire at the end of 2010.

Krugman, who seems utterly unconcerned with deficits today -- he wants much more government spending and an extension of most of the Bush tax cuts -- railed at the Bush tax cuts in 2001 for their impact on the deficit (estimated revenue loss of $1.2 trillion for ten years when passed). He admits in his column today that extending the Bush tax cuts that President Obama wants to continue for another ten years is expensive. Those tax cuts are for individuals earning less than $200,000 a year, or families earning less than $250,000. In his article, Krugman does not provide any numbers for the cost of extending the tax cuts for those earning less than the target amounts. Those tax cuts are by far the biggest share of the cost of extending the Bush 2001 tax cuts. Despite that, Krugman lets loose this whopper in relation to the cost of extending the 2001 tax cuts to the highest earners:

And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. But that's the least of it: the policy center's estimates say that the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. Take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick the one with the highest income; he's going to get the majority of that group's tax break.

Quite simply, if you take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans and pick the one with the highest income, he is not likely to get a majority of the tax benefit of that group. Far from it.

The article Krugman links to in order to support his conclusion was written by Adam Looney for the purportedly non-partisan Tax Policy Center, a joint effort by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute (about as non-partisan on tax matters as the Cato Institute and Grover Norquist). But even this liberal analysis does not support Krugman's lie. Krugman provides data that the total cost for extending the Bush 2001 tax cuts to the top one tenth of one percent of Americans, the 120,000 with the highest annual incomes, would be $360 billion over ten years. But this number is the result of extending not only the 2001 Bush cuts on income tax rates, but also extending the 2003 tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. This is a common game for Krugman -- mix and match, and hope nobody notices. In his article, Krugman never mentions the 2003 tax cuts, but instead focuses exclusively on the income tax rates in the 2001 tax cuts.

The Tax Policy Center lays out these numbers for extending the Bush 2001 income tax rate cuts to the top two brackets -- $36 billion a year on average for ten years. But these brackets account for far more than the top 0.1% of earners, the group Krugman singles out. In fact, the group in the 33% and 35% tax brackets impacted by the Obama proposal is twenty times as large -- over two million taxpayers (or as the president commonly states, 2% of all Americans). The Tax Policy Center analysis indicates that extending all the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 would cost $3.7 trillion over ten years. Extending only the tax rate cuts from the 2001 Bush tax cuts would cost $1.57 trillion over ten years -- more than 77% of which, $1.21 billion, would be the cost for extending the 10%, 15%, and 28% rates. The cost of extending the tax cuts for the two top brackets is $360 billion over that period, less than 25% of that total. Part of the $360 billion cost is attributable to the top 0.1%, the 120,000 highest earners. How much? It is not clear from the Tax Policy Center study. But let us assume it is 50% of the total. Then the total cost of extending the 2001 tax cut to the top 0.1% of earners would be just over 10% of the total cost of extending all the tax cuts. So if you take a group of a thousand randomly selected Americans, there is no way that the highest earner in the group would get a majority of the total tax savings from that group.

The Tax Policy Center also estimates that the total cost of extending all the 2001 and 2003 cuts for all taxpayers would be $680 billion more than the cost of just following the Obama recommendations and raising some of the rates. In other words, Obama's proposals call for extending 82% of the $3.7 trillion in tax cuts from these years, at a cost of over $3 trillion to the Treasury. The Tax Policy Center estimates that the top 0.1% would receive an average of $310,000 a year in extra tax cuts over ten years if all 2001 and 2003 cuts were extended. Krugman summarizes this as 120,000 taxpayers receiving on average $3 million over ten years, or $360 billion in total. Again, it does not take a Nobel Prize-winner to see that 360 billion is less than 10% of $3.7 trillion in total tax cuts. So if one were more honest than Krugman, and looked at a thousand randomly selected Americans and picked the highest earner, and looked at his total tax savings over the next ten years from extending all the 2001 and 2003 cuts, the highest-income individual's share would be less than 10% of the total, hardly a majority of the group's tax savings.

I have no problem with the National Tax Center arguing that the cuts for the highest earners are wrong or unfair or too much. At least they provide honest numbers to make their case. But why does Krugman feel the need to lie and argue that the share for his group is more than five times its real share of total tax savings?

A close look at the National Tax Center numbers shows that the biggest costs by far from extending all the tax cuts are for retaining the lower rates for the lowest three tax brackets and for Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) relief. You won't find this in a Paul Krugman column.

Of course, other articles are needed to discuss the fact that lowering tax rates in 2001 was considered deficit expansion, but raising rates in 2011 is considered deficit neutral, or analyzing whether government spending or tax cuts does more to produce economic growth and create jobs. In the real world, any rise in tax rates is anti-stimulative. Krugman has argued for trillions more in stimulus spending (and an enormous increase in deficits and national debt) because the economy remains weak. So his push for raising some tax rates has nothing to do with his concern about deficits, or a concern with the state of the economy and economic growth. It can be explained only by the desire to spread wealth around -- to redistribute.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...r_does_th.html

[Griff]

Yesterday, there was a candidates forum for the 30th District Congressional seat, which is now held by embattled Rep. Charles Rangel. Even though his rivals discussed his "years and years of corruption" and "The corruption that Congressman Rangel is a part of is being in Congress for 40 years," the NY Times reports that the crowd was pro-Rangel, booing and jeering his challengers. And Rangel took President Obama to task for suggesting he should retire and "end his career with dignity." The 80-year-old said, "Frankly, he has not been around long enough to determine what my dignity is. For the next two years, I will be more likely to protect his dignity."

Whatever happened to dignity? NSFW

[busterb]

The American Legion mag has a thing about Congress, by the numbers. I guess it came from here
Anyway. There's 168 representatives and 57 senators with law degrees. Any wonder that they've lost their mind? Nuff said.

[classicman]

First there was Charlie Rangel then Maxine Waters, now I introduce Eddie Bernice...

U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson awarded eight scholarships last year to her grandsons and a top aide's children – bringing to 23 the number of awards she handed out since 2005 in violation of Congressional Black Caucus Foundation eligibility rules.

The Dallas Morning News reported Sunday that over the last five years, the Dallas Democrat has awarded up to $20,000 in 15 scholarships to two grandsons, two great-nephews, and aide Rod Givens' children between 2005 and 2008. The 2009 awards – reflected in a previously undisclosed list provided Monday by the foundation – push that above $25,000.

of course once caught ...

"While I am not ashamed of helping, I did not intentionally mean to violate any rules in the process," Johnson said in a written statement issued Monday night, after two days of national scrutiny and sniping from critics, including her campaign opponent. "To rectify this matter immediately, I will reimburse the funds by the end of this week."

However ....

Sloan said it might be politically dicey for the ethics committee to target another black lawmaker, now that two – Reps. Charlie Rangel of New York and Maxine Waters of California – face rare ethics hearings in coming months. "There's just too many issues with African-American members," she said.

Baran disagreed. "If a member is committing fraud and getting money for relatives in improper ways, I don't think that's going to stop the ethics committee from taking a look as to what actually transpired," he said.

All from dallasnews.com
Wow really? If there were three white people would they not investigate the fourth?
Thats a pretty outlandish thing to say.

[Clodfobble]

Sloan (whoever that is, I admit I didn't read the link) didn't say that the committee shouldn't investigate a third black legislator, simply that it would be "politically dicey" for them to do so, which I think has a reasonable possibility of being true. I'd like to hope that, say, Al Sharpton wouldn't jump up and shout "racism!" over such a pattern, but I wouldn't hold my breath over it.

Sloan also said in the same article " she doubts any crimes were committed, because "as unethical as it sounds, it's not done with taxpayer money or campaign money."

And also suggested that any investigation should begin with the Congressional Black Caucus since it was CBC Foundation money....and other ethics experts agree.

And yes, I think it is unethtical, even if there is no evidence of unknowingly violating CBC Foundation rules

Originally Posted by classicman

Wow really? If there were three white people would they not investigate the fourth?
Thats a pretty outlandish thing to say.

IMO, its pretty outlandish to start screaming for an Ethics Committee investigation and raising questions of race without looking objectively at the fact that perhaps it should first be addressed, as Sloan suggested, within the CBC Foundation. .

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yeah, nobody reads EULAs.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Yeah, nobody reads EULAs.

Its more a jurisdictional issue than understand the CBCF rules regarding awarding scholarships.

The House Ethics Committee has two primary functions: to investigate violations of law regarding use of public (taxpayer) funds or campaign funds and to investigate the conduct of members that may violate the Code of Conduct which may occur most often when a member is charged with a crime not related to the above (eg when a Senator is charged with soliciting sex in an airport mens room).

This should be subject to an internal CBCF investigation and if the finding is a crime has been committed and she is charged, an Ethics Committee investigation may then be appropriate.

I dont condone her actions.

And I dont claim to be an expert on Congressional ethics laws.

But I do recognize racially charged remarks ("if there were three white people would they not investigate the fourth") from one who knows even less about how the Congressional ethics process works.

[xoxoxoBruce]

CBC Foundation EULA, not congressional committee EULA.

[classicman]

on another note...

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- U.S. Rep. John Spratt will debate his Republican challenger Mick Mulvaney on Tuesday, but the only people who will get to see any of it have already bought tickets to the sold out dinner at a South Carolina Lions Club.

Reporters will be allowed, Spratt's campaign asked for no audio or video recording of the debate between the candidates.

Mulvaney's campaign protested the request when agreeing to the debate, then sent out a news release Monday slamming Spratt saying "in this country, we have open debates."

Bold mine. from here

Why would he not want as many people as possible to know what his positions are?

[classicman]

Step right up....

Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.) awarded three scholarships from the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation to his stepdaughter and wife’s niece between 2003 and 2005, according to records from the nonprofit group.

Bishop is the second Democrat found to have funneled CBC Foundation scholarship funds to relatives, threatening to turn the program into a larger political problem for the party. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) recently paid back $31,000 to the foundation for scholarships that she improperly awarded to various relatives and children of a top staffer.

Read more: