Congress has lost its mind...

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Members of Congress have no authorization to use these jets for commuting to and from work, but solely when acting on Congressional business, particularly when traveling abroad.

You mean particularly when traveling within the US. Which is the problem. They can take military airlift to go overseas. They should not be taking custom jets, flown by our military, for luxury travel overseas. You know sort of when Pelosi flew to Italy for her vacation.

The exception is Pelosi, who is second in line to the presidency...scary, huh?

All the more reason to have her fly in a jet with very poor engines.

[TheMercenary]

An IOU for your great-great grandchildren...

Geithner Asks Congress to Increase Federal Debt Limit

Washington -- U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner asked Congress to increase the $12.1 trillion debt limit on Friday, saying it is "critically important" that they act in the next two months.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124970470294516541.html

[TheMercenary]

Nice...

Deficit grew by $181 billion in July

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...009-08-09.html

[TheMercenary]

It is all about power. Not about getting things done for the people.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Political survival will be high on lawmakers' minds when the Democratic-led U.S. Congress returns to work on Tuesday amid widespread voter dissatisfaction with its performance.

While the debates over healthcare reform, global warming and banking legislation and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will dominate the airwaves, many incumbents, both Democrats and Republicans, are beginning to worry about holding on to their seats in November 2010 elections.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090906/...ngress_preview

[kerosene]

"...many incumbents, both Democrats and Republicans, are beginning to worry about holding on to their seats in November 2010 elections."

As they should.

[TheMercenary]

Taxpayers Face Heavy Losses on Auto Bailout
Congressional Oversight Panel report says most of the $23 billion initially provided to General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC late last year is unlikely to be repaid.

WASHINGTON - Taxpayers face losses on a significant portion of the $81 billion in government aid provided to the auto industry, an oversight panel said in a report to be released Wednesday.

The Congressional Oversight Panel did not provide an estimate of the projected loss in its latest monthly report on the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. But it said most of the $23 billion initially provided to General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC late last year is unlikely to be repaid.

"I think they drove a very hard bargain," said Elizabeth Warren, the panel's chairwoman and a law professor at Harvard University, referring to the Obama administration's Treasury Department. "But it may not be enough."

The prospect of recovering the government's assistance to GM and Chrysler is heavily dependent on shares of the two companies rising to unprecedented levels, the report said. The government owns 10 percent of Chrysler and 61 percent of GM. The two companies are currently private but are expected to issue stock, in GM's case by next year.

The shares "will have to appreciate sharply" for taxpayers to get their money back, the report said.

For example, GM's market value would have to reach $67.6 billion, the report said, a "highly optimistic" estimate and more than the $57.2 billion GM was worth at the height of its share value in April 2008. And in the case of Chrysler, about $5.4 billion of the $14.3 billion provided to the company is "highly unlikely" to ever be repaid, the panel said.

Treasury Department officials have acknowledged that most of the $23 billion provided by the Bush administration is likely to be lost. But Meg Reilly, a department spokeswoman, said there is a "reasonably high probability of the return of most or all of the government funding" that was provided to assist GM and Chrysler with their restructurings.

Administration officials have previously said they want to maximize taxpayers' return on the investment but want to dispose of the government's ownership interests as soon as practicable.

"We are not trying to be Warren Buffett here. We are not trying to squeeze every last dollar out," Steve Rattner, who led the administration's auto task force, said before his departure in July. "We do want to do well for the taxpayers but the most important thing is to get the government out of the car business."

Greg Martin, a spokesman for the new GM, said the company is "confident that we will repay our nation's support because we are a company with less debt, a stronger balance sheet, a winning product portfolio and the right size to match today's market realities."

The Congressional Oversight Panel was created as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. It is designed to provide an additional layer of oversight, beyond the Special Inspector General for the TARP and regular audits by the Government Accountability Office.

The panel's report recommends that the Treasury Department consider placing its auto company holdings into an independent trust, to avoid any "conflicts of interest."

The report also recommends the department perform a legal analysis of its decision to provide TARP funds to GM and Chrysler, their financing arms and many auto parts suppliers. Some critics say the law creating TARP didn't allow for such funding.

The panel's members include Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican, who dissented from the report. Hensarling said the auto companies should never have received funding and criticized the government for picking "winners and losers."

Other agencies have also projected large losses on the loans and investments provided to the industry. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in June that taxpayers would lose about $40 billion of the first $55 billion in aid.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elec...-auto-bailout/

for those of you who don't like fox, the story is from the AP:
http://money.aol.com/article/taxpaye...on-auto/632298

[TheMercenary]

Ladies and Gentlemen I bring you the Chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee of the U.S. Congress...

The Absent-Minded Chairman

When normal people happen to “find” their own money, it might mean a twenty left in a winter coat, or discovering change beneath the sofa cushions. But if you’re Charlie Rangel, it means doubling your net worth.

Earlier this month the Chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee of the U.S. Congress "amended" his 2007 financial disclosure form—to the tune of more than a half-million dollars in previously unreported assets and income. That number may be as high as $780,000, because Congress's ethics rules only require the Members to report their finances within broad ranges. This voyage of personal financial discovery brings Mr. Rangel's net worth for 2007 to somewhere between $1.028 million and $2.495 million, while his previous statement came in at $516,015 and $1.316 million.

When you're a powerful Congressman and working diligently to increase tax rates to pay for President Obama's health-care plan, we suppose it's easy to lose track of one of your checking accounts. That would be the one at the federal credit union with a balance somewhere between $250,001 and maybe as high as $500,000. And when you're crunched for time and pulling together bills to pass in a rush, we guess, too, that you might overlook several other investment accounts, even if some of them are sizable, such as the ones Mr. Rangel missed at JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Oppenheimer and BlackRock.

Oh, and those vacant properties in Glassboro, in southern Jersey? Everybody in Manhattan tries not to think much about New Jersey, so those lots and their as-much-as-$15,000 value must also have slipped down the memory hole. (The New York Post reported yesterday that Mr. Rangel failed to pay property taxes for two of the lots, according to the county clerk's office.)

The Chairman probably isn't doing a lot of dining at KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell or Long John Silver's, either, which may explain why he didn't disclose the $1,001 to $15,000 in stock he owns in Yum Brands, the conglomerate that runs those chain restaurants. Compared to his undisclosed portfolio stake in PepsiCo—$15,001 to $50,000—that's practically a rounding error.

All lawmakers amend their financial reports from time to time, though rarely are the errors this extensive. Via email, a Rangel spokesman declined to offer details about how the errors occurred, noting that "Once the Ethics Committee completes its work, then we can answer questions in more detail." He added that Mr. Rangel is now "confident that his records have been subjected to an exhaustive and complete review, and that the amendments accurately reflect his financial interests."

Among other issues, Mr. Rangel is currently under investigation regarding his use of four rent-stabilized apartments at New York City's tony Lenox Terrace and soliciting donations with his official letterhead for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York, which was itself built with a $1.9 million earmark. Yet another part of the probe is his failure to report $75,000 in income from a rental villa at the beachfront Punta Cana Yacht Club, in the Dominican Republic.

Mr. Rangel blamed that last one on the language barrier because he doesn't speak Spanish. We can only imagine what language he speaks with his accountants and tax attorneys.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB4000...92072820.html#

[classicman]

Removal from office - immediately. (After the pony show of an investigation, of course)


It's the only way they are going to learn.

[TheMercenary]

What?!?!? no comment to support the criminal elements of the Demoncrats in Congress??? WtheFuck? over?

[TheMercenary]

Just for Reflex, another "gottcha moment" or just another double standard for the Demoncrats on the Hill?

Democrats defeat GOP attempt to remove Rangel
By LARRY MARGASAK (AP) – 2 hours ago

WASHINGTON — House Republicans failed Wednesday for a third time to oust Rep. Charles Rangel as chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, but they kept the political spotlight on his ethical problems.

The House voted 246-153 along mostly partisan lines to refer a GOP resolution to remove Rangel to the House ethics committee. The Democratic maneuver rendered the Republican effort meaningless, since Democratic leaders have said they have no intention of removing Rangel while the ethics committee is conducting a long-term investigation of his conduct.

The ethics committee's investigation of Rangel's financial and fundraising activities has been under way for about a year, and that has provided Democrats political cover to avoid taking action.

"We ought to allow that work to continue and to be completed and receive their recommendation, and we will do that," Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Tuesday, when asked how Democrats would respond to the Republican effort.

It is unclear how long the ethics investigation will continue, but the closer it gets to the 2010 elections the bigger problem for Democrats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised to drain the swamp of unethical conduct that plagued Republicans several years ago — and helped cost the GOP control of the House in the 2006 elections.

Rangel, a New York Democrat, faces allegations of financial improprieties, including failure to pay taxes on investment income and neglecting to report assets and income on his congressional financial disclosure forms.

House GOP leadership spokesman Michael Steel said the attempt to remove Rangel "highlights the Democrats' broken promises" for an open and ethical Congress.

"Obviously, given that House Democratic leaders haven't chosen to do the right thing, an important part of our strategy is to make sure the American people know they're trying to sweep these matters under the rug," Steel said. "The American people will certainly remember the Democrats' broken promises on these issues."

The ethics committee is conducting investigations of six Democrats besides Rangel and one Republican. The committee also is reviewing the practice of lawmakers steering money and contracts to favored companies, and then receiving campaign contributions in return for the "earmarks."

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of a subcommittee that dispenses defense dollars, is the most prominent figure in that review, although members of both parties used the same fundraising practices.

A review determines whether an investigation will be initiated.

Conservative Republican talk radio hosts have been using Rangel's case to attack the conduct of Democrats and ridicule Pelosi's promises to clean house.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...AKF2wD9B6FKQ80

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Just for Reflex, another "gottcha moment" or just another double standard for the Demoncrats on the Hill?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...AKF2wD9B6FKQ80

As far as I know, in 200+ years, there is no precedent for the House to formally remove a committee chair unless he/she has been charged with a crime.

The ethics rules provide a process for dealing with any potential ethical violations by any member of the House.

The attempt to remove Rangel from the chairmanship is purely political theater on the part of the Republicans.

Should he step down voluntarily? I would recommend it, but that is for him to decide.

Where is the double standard?

Dont let the facts get in the way of your "gotcha!"

[TheMercenary]

Rangle is a criminal. He should be removed.

[TheMercenary]

Stossel hits the nail on the head...

It's the Spending, Stupid
By John Stossel

"The government who robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul," George Bernard Shaw once said.

For a socialist, Shaw demonstrated good sense with that quotation. Unfortunately, America has become a laboratory in which his hypothesis is being tested.

John Stossel RealClearPolitics
taxes economy

[b]The theory of government I was taught says that government provides benefits, primarily security, to the entire population. In return we pay taxes. But lately the government has been a distributor of special privileges, taking money from some and giving it to others. America is now about evenly split between those who pay income taxes and those who consume them.[//b]

The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center recently disclosed that close to half of all households will pay no income tax this year. Some will pay less than zero -- that is, they'll get money from those of us who do pay taxes.

The Tax Policy Center adds that this year the average income-tax rate for the bottom 40 percent of earners will be negative and that their cash subsidy will equal 10 percent of the total amount the income tax brings in, thanks to the Earned Income Tax Credit and President Obama's "Making Work Pay" program.

The view from the top also shows the lopsidedness of the tax system. The top 20 percent of earners makes about 53 percent of the income in America but pays 91 percent of the income tax. The top 1 percent pays 36 percent. The IRS says the bottom half of earners pays less than 3 percent.

This presents a serious problem because government has such vast powers to dispense favors. As Shaw suggested, people who pay no tax will not hesitate to vote for politicians who promise big spending. Why not? They will get stuff without having to pay for it.

Yes, working people who pay no income tax still pay taxes: sales tax and payroll (Social Security and Medicare) taxes. But the income tax is big and visible, so it's a problem that a growing number of people don't pay, but get benefits from those who do.

Frederic Bastiat, the great 19th-century French economist, defined the state as "that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." I don't know if he envisioned one half of the population living off the other half.

It's important not to confuse the interests of the taxpayers with the interests of the politicians and other tax consumers. Yet that is done all the time. When the government bought toxic assets (of zero market value) from the banks, it said taxpayers would profit when the economy recovered and the assets once again commanded a positive price in the market. Even if we make the dubious assumption that the government is savvy enough to buy low and sell high, it's not the taxpayers who would benefit from any profits. The politicians will spend every penny, rather than cutting taxes.

To put it bluntly, we are not the government.

The built-in unfairness of the tax system has prompted a range of tax-reform proposals, such as a flat tax and replacing the income tax with a sales tax. These alternatives are better, but they have their drawbacks, too. For that reason, there is something more urgent than tax reform: spending reform.

The true burden of government, the late Milton Friedman said, is not the tax level but the spending level. Taxation is just one way for the government to get money. The other ways -- borrowing and inflation -- are also burdens on the people. The best way to lighten the tax burden is to lessen the spending burden. If government spends less, it takes less. And if it takes less, the tax system will weigh less heavily on us all.

Once again, we find wisdom in Adam Smith: "Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ine_98601.html

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Redux

Where is the double standard?

They are your team, Redux, and you love and root for them beyond all reason. You believe that because they are Democrats they inherently can do no wrong. This is magical thinking beyond all magical thinking. You can't see the double standard in play even when it is as plain as the dong in your crotch, to say nothing of the nose on your face and the zits on your nose.

And I call BS. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You haven't the standing to ask where the double standard is. Your party of choice does not accord with your actual intellectual powers, and you repeatedly, habitually, utter the silliest things in Team Rocket's, uh, Team Democrat's support. Your allegiance to the Dems keeps you from using your native intelligence, Redux -- and that's a shame.

Not being enmeshed with the Democrats allows me to think much more clearly.

Your team, sir, is an institutionalized monster of unfairness, as evinced by Rep. Grayson's (D-FL) recent remarks. Let one example stand for one thousand -- and none apologized for nor repented from, like good people would do and your boys don't. YOUR damfool boys have launched a frontal assault on one fifth of the world's economy and are bent on its destruction by socialist redistributionism, economic illiteracy, and buying one helluva cycle of inflation with their inventing budget dollars out of thin air.

The Democratic Party's actions shall prevent me from voting for any Democratic candidate for any office for the rest of my days -- on the grounds of institutional incompetence.

The facts, dear boy, are why there's a "gotcha." Charlie Rangel's "explanation" of the matter -- well, he's stupid enough to think Americans are going to buy it, or shouldn't see any problem with it. Arrogance meets thickheadedness, and thickheadedness is a disqualification for office. Team Democrat, "blasting off agaiiiiiinnnnn...."

UG...if I recall, it was the Republicans who controlled the House for 12 years from 95 through 06 and did absolutely nothing in the way of proposing tougher ethics rules for members.

And instead, created the greatest revolving door between Congress and lobbyists in recent history -- the K Street Project.

The K Street Project is an effort by the Republican Party (GOP) to pressure Washington lobbying firms to hire Republicans in top positions, and to reward loyal GOP lobbyists with access to influential officials. It was launched in 1995 by Republican strategist Grover Norquist and then-House majority whip Tom DeLay.

Shortly after the 1994 elections which gave a majority of seats to Republican candidates, DeLay called prominent Washington lobbyists into his office. He had pulled the public records of political contributions that they made to Democrats and Republicans. According to Texans for Public Justice, "he reminded them that Republicans were in charge and their political giving had better reflect that—or else. The "or else" was a threat to cut off access to the Republican House leadership."

And, now, want to change the rules in the middle of the game because it provides great political theater. That, IMO, is the double standard in play.

I would like to see stronger ethics rules; I have said that repeatedly. The Democrats took a first crack at it in 07 when they took control, but it doesnt go far enough.

But until such time, you play by the current rules.