Ok, lots of people keep $90,000 in their freezer. And lots of people use their official office to funnel vast amounts of money to non-profits groups they founded. What's the big deal?
The big deal is that these are both uncommon occurrences. No one with $90,000 in cold cash keeps it in the fridge. If you're going to keep that kind of cash around, you're going to have a wall or giant fireproof safe. Plus, not only having the bribe on tape, but having Congressman William Jefferson joke about evading any FBI investigation does not help Democrats in their quest to tie the corruption issue around the necks of Republicans.
It also doesn't help, that their top member of the Ethics Committee is being investigated for corruption in using his position on the Appropriations Committee to reward his family, friends, supporters and non-profits.
What's likely to happen now that the issue is becoming bi-partisan is that Repubicans can go after Dems for corruption. And there are enough of them that have been lobbyists or engaged in dubious financial issues that Dems could be in for a rough ride. I bet RNC opposition researchers are already looking through annual financial disclosure forms are well as lobbying clients registrations and possible ties to Jack Abramoff.
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
The Delicious Irony of Bribery Taxes
I love the government's sentence of Duke Cunningham (The Republican Chairman of one of hte powerful Appropriations Subcommittees) for bribery. Not only does he go to jail for 8 years and 4 months, he has to pay $3.5 million in "penalties, restitution, and back taxes." It's the back taxes part that really pleases me: essentially all his bribe money (which he has to pay back) was also undeclared income which means he never paid taxes on it. He now has to pay taxes, interest and penalties on all of that money. That's like getting punished twice for the same crime - which he deserves for betraying the public trust.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Joby Fortson & Texas Redistricing
The New Yorker: Fact
Once again, a private email that Joby Fortson sent to a small group of his friends has made it into print in a story regarding the Texas 2002 redistricting. The original article, as well as this one, is unfair to Joby for a number of reasons:
(1) The original email was a personal message sent to a small number of friends, it was chock full of inside jokes that the general public, not being part of that social circle, didn't get; Because it was an email sent to friends, and not intended for outside distribution, comments on its grammar etc. really should be ignored.
(2) Joby is not, nor has he been, a political operative; rather, he is a very well educated person working in politics who took the time to do a quick and dirty analysis of the potential Texas redistricing results. Joby's analysis cannnot be taken to imply any work or assistance by him on the redistricting process;
(3) Any inferred malice on Joby's part was nothing more than good natured ribbing of his many Democratic friends. In fact, as a result of the email's inside jokes, Joby personally apologized to U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee in writing after the email became public.
(4) Politics is a contact sport, and as Joby points out, the Democrats in 2002 reaped what they has sown in the 1990 re-districting.
How do I know all of this? I am a professional colleague of his.
The fact that institutions like the New Yorker continue to use Joby's analysis as proof of Republican malfeasance, simply shows how far the liberal media has to stretch to malign the Republican Party and its members.
Once again, a private email that Joby Fortson sent to a small group of his friends has made it into print in a story regarding the Texas 2002 redistricting. The original article, as well as this one, is unfair to Joby for a number of reasons:
(1) The original email was a personal message sent to a small number of friends, it was chock full of inside jokes that the general public, not being part of that social circle, didn't get; Because it was an email sent to friends, and not intended for outside distribution, comments on its grammar etc. really should be ignored.
(2) Joby is not, nor has he been, a political operative; rather, he is a very well educated person working in politics who took the time to do a quick and dirty analysis of the potential Texas redistricing results. Joby's analysis cannnot be taken to imply any work or assistance by him on the redistricting process;
(3) Any inferred malice on Joby's part was nothing more than good natured ribbing of his many Democratic friends. In fact, as a result of the email's inside jokes, Joby personally apologized to U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee in writing after the email became public.
(4) Politics is a contact sport, and as Joby points out, the Democrats in 2002 reaped what they has sown in the 1990 re-districting.
How do I know all of this? I am a professional colleague of his.
The fact that institutions like the New Yorker continue to use Joby's analysis as proof of Republican malfeasance, simply shows how far the liberal media has to stretch to malign the Republican Party and its members.
Friday, February 17, 2006
The Value of Lobbyists
The rise of the lobbyist is directly related to the poor pay on Capitol Hill and the Executive Branch. Every year or so, the Office of Personnel Management, the General Accounting Office, or the Congressional Management Foundation put out studies comparing the salaries of Hill Staff and Federal employees with their private sector counterparts. The results show private sector employees with the same education and background making upto TWICE as much money as their public sector counterparts.
Why does this matter? Because the people who do the legwork and have institutional memory leave the Hill or Executive Branch due to "status-income disequilibrium" (see Bobo's in Paradise by David Brooks). In other words, their salary is not commensurate with the prestige of the job they hold. So they look for a new position that pays more money. Thus Members of Congress thus lose the people who know best which policies and strategies have and haven't worked in the past.
However, Members still have access to those former staffers turned l0bbyists, and the former staffers still have access to their contacts including members. Without these former staffers turned lobbyists continuing to advise members, individual Congressmen and Senators would have to continually reinvent the wheel.
In short, lobbying provides a valuable service to Members of Congress, which is why they continue to flourish.
Oh- and the idea that a staffer can be bought off for a $50 lunch is absurd. Staffers value their positions, and want to protect their respective members, too much to do so.
Why does this matter? Because the people who do the legwork and have institutional memory leave the Hill or Executive Branch due to "status-income disequilibrium" (see Bobo's in Paradise by David Brooks). In other words, their salary is not commensurate with the prestige of the job they hold. So they look for a new position that pays more money. Thus Members of Congress thus lose the people who know best which policies and strategies have and haven't worked in the past.
However, Members still have access to those former staffers turned l0bbyists, and the former staffers still have access to their contacts including members. Without these former staffers turned lobbyists continuing to advise members, individual Congressmen and Senators would have to continually reinvent the wheel.
In short, lobbying provides a valuable service to Members of Congress, which is why they continue to flourish.
Oh- and the idea that a staffer can be bought off for a $50 lunch is absurd. Staffers value their positions, and want to protect their respective members, too much to do so.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
