Swedish Meatballs
5 hours ago
Saturday, March 05, 2005
Living the high life as a Congressional Staffer
Lots of money gets thrown around on the Hill. And, according to an editorial in today's Washington Post, the booty isn't limited to just Senators and Representatives. It extends to their staffs.
The E Channel has a show called "It's Good to Be....", usually reserved for the very rich or super stars. They need to do an episode titled "It's Good to be a Congressional staffer for Conrad Burns and Tom DeLay." The Post editorial examined the lobbying behind a budget earmark Burns got for a wealthy Native American Tribe. It highlighted the perks made available to staffers, then questioned the ethics behind it:
We are watching the manifestation of the saying "Power tends to Corrupt. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely." Read More......
The E Channel has a show called "It's Good to Be....", usually reserved for the very rich or super stars. They need to do an episode titled "It's Good to be a Congressional staffer for Conrad Burns and Tom DeLay." The Post editorial examined the lobbying behind a budget earmark Burns got for a wealthy Native American Tribe. It highlighted the perks made available to staffers, then questioned the ethics behind it:
Nor, the senator's spokesman adds, did the Super Bowl weekend enjoyed by two aides to Mr. Burns, one his chief of staff (who later departed to work for Mr. Abramoff), the other the staffer who pressed Interior officials to let the tribe get the funds, have any effect. The trip, which several staffers for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) also made, featured travel on a private jet and an outing to a gambling ship partly owned by Mr. Abramoff. Will M. Brooke, the former Burns chief of staff, said he understood the trip was allowed under Senate ethics rules, which make an exception for gifts -- including travel -- from government entities, including tribal governments.Super Bowl, private jets, cruises on gambling ships, that is life in the lap of luxury. Probably, and this is just a guess, not many of the actual constituents of Mr. Burns or Mr. DeLay live like that, but it doesn't matter. They are in power and they are making the rules.
In fact, the trip was paid for by Suncruz, the Florida casino cruise line partly owned by Mr. Abramoff, which would have made it impermissible. But that's not really the point. The point is the revolting mind-set, all too prevalent on the Hill these days, that says it's fine to take lavish gifts from lobbyists seeking favors simply because the loot can be crammed through a loophole in the ethics rules. "Senators and Senate staff should be wary of accepting any gift where it appears that the gift is motivated by a desire to reward, influence, or elicit favorable official action," the Senate Ethics Manual advises. Too bad that it's the earmark for the Saginaw Chippewas, not that maxim, that better reflects business as usual in the halls of Congress these days.
We are watching the manifestation of the saying "Power tends to Corrupt. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely." Read More......
The power of the Internet - cool story
From a DailyKos diarist. Absolutely wild, even a bit creepy, but in a good way.
Read More......
Rob in Baltimore Blogging from The Principles Project Conference
In addition to blogging here on AMERICAblog (and a day job), I've been helping out on The Principles Project - a project to create A Declaration of Progressive Principles. Sponsored by 2020 Democrats, and involving 17 different partner groups including America Coming Together and Campaign for America's Future, The Principles Project created a space for these groups to join together and collectively write a one page statement of who we are as Progressives, what we believe and why we believe it.
The conversation has been going on over the past six weeks and has culminated in a final document voted on by over 1,100 individuals. Today and tomorrow in New York, participants and partner groups are in conference talking about how to take these principles and create concrete actions. I'll be posting on the conference blog for the next couple of days. You can check it out here.
-- Rob in Baltimore
UPDATE: I've been skipping text blogging and going for the photos. We've made a little QuickTime movie of this morning's photos. You can find it here. (QuickTime required)
(And yes, I'm doing all this on a Mac, with photos contributed from 4 different people's cameras, no driver updates needed, audio in from iTunes. Try THAT on a PC. :) ) Read More......
The conversation has been going on over the past six weeks and has culminated in a final document voted on by over 1,100 individuals. Today and tomorrow in New York, participants and partner groups are in conference talking about how to take these principles and create concrete actions. I'll be posting on the conference blog for the next couple of days. You can check it out here.
-- Rob in Baltimore
UPDATE: I've been skipping text blogging and going for the photos. We've made a little QuickTime movie of this morning's photos. You can find it here. (QuickTime required)
(And yes, I'm doing all this on a Mac, with photos contributed from 4 different people's cameras, no driver updates needed, audio in from iTunes. Try THAT on a PC. :) ) Read More......
Bush: Heck, I've Been Lying For Years
Thanks to A Hidden Saint for reminding us that Bush had plans to privatize Social Security before the election, but when it proved politcally damaging he called everyone within sight liars and insisted it wasn't true. This is from a Salon article about the fallout from a NYT Magazine feature.
Per Slate 10/19/04: "The latest volley came over the weekend when Republican campaign officials accused the Times Sunday magazine of fabricating a provocative quote from Bush in which he bragged -- behind closed doors and speaking to wealthy supporters -- that he would announce plans for "privatizing of Social Security" early next year, after his reelection. When Democrats jumped on the remark, dubbing it the "January surprise," Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie dismissed the Times' work as "Kitty Kelley journalism," insisting Bush never uttered the phrase attributed to him. But the Times stands by the 8,300-word story by Ron Suskind, author of "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill," a revealing account of the former secretary of the treasury published earlier this year."
Questions for Bush:
1.Why did you lie right before the election? It's especially obvious you're lying because of the numerous features you've cooperated in the last few weeks in which your fascination with dismantling -- excuse me, reforming -- Social Security has been a pet project of yours since you were Governor of Texas.
2.Why did you deny it in October 2004?
3. Why weren't you straight with the American people?
4. Will you apologize to the New York Times and Ron Suskind?
5. If Social Security is in crisis, why do you refuse to offer a detailed plan of your own?
Questions for the New York Times:
1. What is wrong with you? We may have forgotten about this fracas, but surely YOU didn't. The second Bush proposed dismantling Social Security, the NYT should have been all over him, repeating the story it had run in October and Bush's heated denials and the truth. Why wouldn't they trumpet their own reporting? And if they had, Bush would have been on the defensive from the very start.
Finally, can we all agree to refuse any attempt to call what Bush is doing as reforming or fixing Social Security? What Bush is proposing is DISMANTLING Social Security, pure and simple, replacing a safety net with a "good luck" and a pat on the back for the elderly.
Read More......
Per Slate 10/19/04: "The latest volley came over the weekend when Republican campaign officials accused the Times Sunday magazine of fabricating a provocative quote from Bush in which he bragged -- behind closed doors and speaking to wealthy supporters -- that he would announce plans for "privatizing of Social Security" early next year, after his reelection. When Democrats jumped on the remark, dubbing it the "January surprise," Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie dismissed the Times' work as "Kitty Kelley journalism," insisting Bush never uttered the phrase attributed to him. But the Times stands by the 8,300-word story by Ron Suskind, author of "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill," a revealing account of the former secretary of the treasury published earlier this year."
Questions for Bush:
1.Why did you lie right before the election? It's especially obvious you're lying because of the numerous features you've cooperated in the last few weeks in which your fascination with dismantling -- excuse me, reforming -- Social Security has been a pet project of yours since you were Governor of Texas.
2.Why did you deny it in October 2004?
3. Why weren't you straight with the American people?
4. Will you apologize to the New York Times and Ron Suskind?
5. If Social Security is in crisis, why do you refuse to offer a detailed plan of your own?
Questions for the New York Times:
1. What is wrong with you? We may have forgotten about this fracas, but surely YOU didn't. The second Bush proposed dismantling Social Security, the NYT should have been all over him, repeating the story it had run in October and Bush's heated denials and the truth. Why wouldn't they trumpet their own reporting? And if they had, Bush would have been on the defensive from the very start.
Finally, can we all agree to refuse any attempt to call what Bush is doing as reforming or fixing Social Security? What Bush is proposing is DISMANTLING Social Security, pure and simple, replacing a safety net with a "good luck" and a pat on the back for the elderly.
Read More......
Bush On Social Security: I Promise To Keep Lying
Bush is barnstorming the country to try and raise a little support for his plan about rescuing Social Security -- even though Social Security doesn't need "rescuing" according to his own government and Bush refuses to endorse any particular plan.
Bush was "challenging skeptics to put their own ideas forward," according to the New York Times, which takes a lot of chuztpah when you haven't put your OWN idea forward yet. (Mainly because your own idea begins with creating trillions in debt and cutting benefits by 40%.)
Then, in classic Orwellian style, Bush just started lying and renamed one facet of his proposal, giving it the same name as a DIFFERENT proposal made by some Dems. No, he didn't change anything about his murky plan -- except the name.
"See, personal accounts is an add-on to that which the government is going to pay you," Bush said, according to the NYT. "It doesn't replace the Social Security system."
That's a lie. An add-on is what some Dems have stupidly suggested, that private accounts be created as an option alongside the current Social Security system. People should be encouraged to save for their retirement and make investments -- we don't need a massive new federal government program to accomplish that. Plus, most Dems think if you being private accounts alongside SS, that soon enough the Republicans would be chipping away at SS, snipping and snipping at it on the edges until they'd accomplished the same thing they want today: to dismantle SS and leave elderly Americans without a safety net.
But Bush's proposal is NOT an "add-on." Benefits are cut by 40% in the most "popular" Republican plans (popular on Wall Street and with those who think the elderly have it too cushy -- not popular with the vast majority of Americans). And the private accounts are part of your basic benefits package, they are not in addition to your benefits, they ARE your benefits. And if your investments go sour, you're out of luck. His spokesperson explained that Bush hadn't embraced the idea of "add-ons" as everyone else understood the term -- he'd just decided to call what he was doing by a different name.
So Bush just lies and calls apples oranges and up down and stupid smart.
The Dems continue to show a lot of discipline, with their own barnstorming getting a lot of attention. I really liked Senator Richard Durbin's description of Bush's "ownership society" -- "We're all in this alone."
Bush says: "Well, I'm going to keep telling people we've got a problem until it sinks in, because we've got one. You can't dodge whether we have a problem or not. Because, see, the next follow-on question to that is, if you've got a problem, what do you Republicans and Democrats and a few independents intend to do about it up there? Are you going to sit around and play politics? Or are you going to get at the table and do your duty as public servants?"
Again, remarkable since Bush REFUSES to offer up his own plan. With Bush, it's always "politricks," as Bob Marley would say. Read More......
Bush was "challenging skeptics to put their own ideas forward," according to the New York Times, which takes a lot of chuztpah when you haven't put your OWN idea forward yet. (Mainly because your own idea begins with creating trillions in debt and cutting benefits by 40%.)
Then, in classic Orwellian style, Bush just started lying and renamed one facet of his proposal, giving it the same name as a DIFFERENT proposal made by some Dems. No, he didn't change anything about his murky plan -- except the name.
"See, personal accounts is an add-on to that which the government is going to pay you," Bush said, according to the NYT. "It doesn't replace the Social Security system."
That's a lie. An add-on is what some Dems have stupidly suggested, that private accounts be created as an option alongside the current Social Security system. People should be encouraged to save for their retirement and make investments -- we don't need a massive new federal government program to accomplish that. Plus, most Dems think if you being private accounts alongside SS, that soon enough the Republicans would be chipping away at SS, snipping and snipping at it on the edges until they'd accomplished the same thing they want today: to dismantle SS and leave elderly Americans without a safety net.
But Bush's proposal is NOT an "add-on." Benefits are cut by 40% in the most "popular" Republican plans (popular on Wall Street and with those who think the elderly have it too cushy -- not popular with the vast majority of Americans). And the private accounts are part of your basic benefits package, they are not in addition to your benefits, they ARE your benefits. And if your investments go sour, you're out of luck. His spokesperson explained that Bush hadn't embraced the idea of "add-ons" as everyone else understood the term -- he'd just decided to call what he was doing by a different name.
So Bush just lies and calls apples oranges and up down and stupid smart.
The Dems continue to show a lot of discipline, with their own barnstorming getting a lot of attention. I really liked Senator Richard Durbin's description of Bush's "ownership society" -- "We're all in this alone."
Bush says: "Well, I'm going to keep telling people we've got a problem until it sinks in, because we've got one. You can't dodge whether we have a problem or not. Because, see, the next follow-on question to that is, if you've got a problem, what do you Republicans and Democrats and a few independents intend to do about it up there? Are you going to sit around and play politics? Or are you going to get at the table and do your duty as public servants?"
Again, remarkable since Bush REFUSES to offer up his own plan. With Bush, it's always "politricks," as Bob Marley would say. Read More......
The Associated Press does it again
This is absolutely amazing. It's the kind of incident that makes you convinced AP has a grudge against one of the candidates, or a crush on one of the others. Either way, they printed an outright lie, they knew it, yet didn't challenge it, correct it, or let the other side counter it.
Read this from MyDD.com. It's disgraceful. And the fact that the reporter knew damn well the truth, he had spoken to someone about the other candidate at length, makes it seem as if this "mistake" was intentionally made to favor or disfavor a particular candidate for election. And that isn't just awful, it strikes me as unlawful coordination with a political campaign. Read More......
Read this from MyDD.com. It's disgraceful. And the fact that the reporter knew damn well the truth, he had spoken to someone about the other candidate at length, makes it seem as if this "mistake" was intentionally made to favor or disfavor a particular candidate for election. And that isn't just awful, it strikes me as unlawful coordination with a political campaign. Read More......
Busy week for new Democrats - finally, some criticism of Greenspan
I was starting to wonder what the problem was because the he sure was getting a free pass from the Democrats during his search for past glory. It might take a little effort though and they're going to have to speak loudly because Greenspan's head is so far up Bush's ass he might not be able to hear. Greenspan, who talks about deficits without mentioning his own collaboration with those tax cuts that have brought on the problem, is now joining the GOP chorus singing the praises of Social Security private accounts is somehow missing the reality that the program would only compound the deficit problems.
Could we be seeing a new Democratic party who is willing to stand up and fight back? Heavens. Read More......
Could we be seeing a new Democratic party who is willing to stand up and fight back? Heavens. Read More......
Dem's continue to show a little spine - this time on deficit
It's time to pile on people. The Congressional Budget Office is reporting that Bush is going to miss his goal of cutting the deficit, even before adding in the costs from Afghanistan, Iraq and the Social Security boondoggle. As you recall Bush's drunken-sailor spending does not sit with anyone, including conservative Republicans and the annoying little boot licker, Greespan. Dem's are speaking out (finally) but it's high time they keep pounding away on this issue because it wins over people on all sides.
Read More......
Questions have arisen as to how AP survives
Just when you thought AP couldn't report this story any worse than they've done to date, they give us this:
Kaptur-Gannon ControversyThere are another two sentences that shed no more light on the story. Yes, our entire probe has been distilled down to "questions arose about how he got there." I suspect had AP been around when the Nazis invaded Poland they'd have reported:
Congresswoman joins call for probe into conservative reporter
TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) - Ohio congresswoman Marcy Kaptur is joining fellow Democrats in calling for a probe into controversial reporter Jeff Gannon.
The self-described conservative journalist lost his place in the White House press corps earlier this year when questions arose about how he got there and the slant of questions he posed.
WARSAW, Poland (AP) - Winston Churchill voiced concerns about Adolf Hitler being spotted in Warsaw today. Questions arose about how he got there.Read More......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
