In the latest example of porkbarrel spending in the 111th congress, Dem. House Members are spending over a thousand dollars a month, each, on fancy new "green" vehicles
In a story sure to shake up the political scene in Washington on the eve of the all-important House Obamacare vote, Politico reports this morning on the lavish porkbarrel spending of federal taxpayer money engaged in by Congressional Democrats for monthly payments on fancy “green” vehicles:
The economy is still limping along, but some members of Congress are nevertheless riding in style: At least 10 House members are spending more than $1,000 a month in taxpayer money to lease cars.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver appears to be the biggest spender.
In the last quarter of 2009, the Missouri Democrat doled out $2,900 a month to lease a WiFi-equipped, handicap-accessible mobile office that runs on used cooking oil.
“Rather than paying for an additional office, the congressman has a mobile office, with all the capabilities to do casework across the district,” Cleaver spokesman Danny Rotert wrote in an e-mail. “We can go where our constituents are and accommodate those in wheelchairs with the mobile office’s lift.”
But at least nine other members are paying more than $1,000 a month for more basic rides.
Some lawmakers blame their high lease costs on a policy, enacted in a 2007 energy bill, requiring that the vehicles they choose be fuel efficient. Others say their two-year terms in office prevent them from taking advantage of lower-cost, longer-term leases.
A spokesman for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas), who is paying $1,628 to lease a GMC Yukon, cited those reasons — and others.
In all, 10 House congresspeople spend more than a thousand dollars a month on their personal vehicles, with nine Democrats in that group and one Republican. Politico notes the reactions of several of the nine Democrats implicated in this wasteful use of taxpayer money, with one House Dem pointing to the fact that the vehicle was built by a union as justifying the use of federal taxpayer money:
A spokeswoman for Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-Mich.), who spends $1,230 per month on a 2009 Chevrolet Tahoe, said Kilpatrick does it for her district.
“The vehicle is manufactured by a company headquartered in the 13th Congressional District and was made by the hardworking men and women of the United Auto Workers,” spokeswoman Tracy Walker wrote in an e-mail. “The vehicle also meets the tougher environmental standards mandated by Congress.”
Pedro Pierluisi, the Democrat who represents Puerto Rico, spends $1,400 each month on his hybrid GMC Yukon, but a spokeswoman said that figure includes insurance, repair and maintenance costs.
Rep. Harry Teague (D-N.M.) — one of the richest members of Congress, with a net worth of more than $36 million — spends $1,279 in taxpayer money on his vehicle, a 2009 Chevy Malibu that helps him traverse his expansive southern New Mexico district. His cost includes additional mileage to facilitate travel in the sixth-largest congressional district in the country, his office said.
Such excuses from Democratic Congresspeople like Teague, “one of the richest members of Congress”, regarding the clear misuse of federal taxpayer money are unlikely to mollify the average American taxpayer’s outrage at this wasteful spending of federal taxpayer money. As Americans struggle to find work and make ends meet, having a Congressperson with a net worth of more than $36 million charge taxpayers not only for a fancy “green” car but also for “additional mileage to facilitate travel” may seem outrageous to a middle of the road, centrist American citizen but such practices will likely continue in the foreseeable future.
Tags: Casework, Congressional Democrats, Cooking Oil, Democratic House Members, Emanuel Cleaver, Federal Taxpayer, Gmc Yukon, Green Cars, House Intelligence Committee, House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Lease Costs, Members Of Congress, Missouri Democrat, Mobile Office, Personal Vehicles, Republ, Republi, Riding In Style, Silvestre Reyes, Taxpayer Money, Term Leases, Waste Thousands
What is the beef here? Is it that the cars are leased or that the monthly cost is high? $1,000 plus per month is high but it is intended to compensate for the per mileage fee for getting around a congress person’s district. Some districts are quite large. Again, the figure is high, and it sure seems like a waste, but aren’t there bigger wastes of federal dollars out there…like a needless invasion of another country we started some years back and for which over the course of 8 plusyears we have spent millions on no-bid contracts and the like. Are you telling me you couldn’t find anything better to write about???
I agree with Bill, lets look at no-bid contracts worth millions of dollars.
http://5z8.info/molotovcocktail_i7n0g_instant-purchase
Dr. Sapnk — which contract was a renewal of one awarded in 2004 under the Bush administration and which was later cancelled. We are being centrists here, right? Or…are we leaning right…way right? If you are going to engage in a side show…admit it now.
Dear Bill, I thought you were concerned about real waste in government and not the trivial waste (according to you) pointed out in the post above, so I linked to the story in my comment. I’m glad it was canceled, thanks for the info. I might add that with Democrats controlling all the levers of government, if you are seriously looking for government waste then you’re going to be focusing on one side of the aisle. Obama made a pledge to save billions of dollars by limiting no-bid contracts, lets see how he’s doing.
http://5z8.info/taliban-meetup_s4k9u_nic_cage_naked
Well, Bill and Doc, thanks for the interesting discussion. What say you Bill?
Shadyurl is awesome.
First, the problem with any suggestion that Obama’s administration is failing on its promise to eliminate no-bid contracts is misleading. One must admit that the administration has not been as forceful on this issue as was initially conceivid. So,I will admit that. But Obama never promised to completely eliminate these things. Rather, it was a promise to curtail those no-bids above $25,000, a niave promise…no doubt, but better to attempt to eliminate some then none at all.
Second, I find it interesting that this conversation has turned to one about no-bids…wasn’t my original comment on the merits of the posted article which article seems to suggest that high dollar car leases are a bad democrat thing. Can we get back to that comment and can someone tell me whether the article even reveals that these leases go back to pre-Obama years, cause they do and the article does not appear to even address this.
Finally, I have a great concern with this website suggesting it is a centrist site. Isn’t every artice on here bashing the current administration? Why not call the site bashtheadministrationnetblog.com? Wouldn’t a centrist view have started with a headline that was bipartisan like, “House Members…” instead of “Democratic House Members…” since we know it was both sides of the aisle? And don’t bother me with well it more dems then repubs because that only shows furtherthat one is not taking a centrist view but is rather being partisan. Come on, let’s call a spade a spade, you just don’t like this administration. Centrist…ha!!
Bill, what exactly is a centrist in your opinion?
One who takes a position in the political center; a moderate. Is there any other definition?
So a centrist is pro-life, anti-gay marriage, against the health care bill, thinks man-made global warming is unproven, thinks Gitmo should be left open, thinks KSM should not be tried in NY, and hates Congress? Cuz most Americans supports those positions. Somehow, I know it’s crazy, but I believe you think a centrist is something else, so enlighten me.
I find your statements to be a bit conclusory, no?
What makes you think a centrist (defined as one in the political center) IS “pro-life”as you put it. There are just as many polls that will say 51% identify themselves as pro-choice as there are polls that say 51% identify as pro-life. The populous seems to be heavily split on the issue. So, to claim that a centrist must lean one way or the other (as you state above) misses the boat all together.
A centrist doesn’t shut out 49% of the population and deny the viability of all arguments made on that side of the issue. A centrist would consider and advance all reasonable arguments to come to a moderate response to a situation, crisis or problem. A centrist understands that not everything is black and white. For example, while 51% of people surveyed said they were pro-life only 22% of those people believe abortion should be banned under all scenarios. So, there is grey area there to be explored, even within your suggested majority, no. A centrist respects the grey area and does not leap to conclusions as you seem to have done above about me.
You think I think a centrist can’t be anti-gay marriage. I never said that and don’t believe that. Doesn’t your conclusion foreclose the possibility that I think the issue is properly left to the states and each state legislature can decide for the people it governs? Your statement that a centrist IS “anti-gay marriage” fails to leave room for that possibility.
Why can’t a centrist be for health care reform but against the current health care bill? I am.
Man made global warming is unproven? Ok, I am truly not trying to offend, but now you are just showing ignorance. No respected scientist would agree that man’s CO2 emissions are not having any impact on the global climate. None. That is not a question of being left, right, or centrist in political views, it is simply a matter of plain science. If, however, you have bought into the oil company’s propoganda on the issue, I am sorry. But, please don’t even think about debating an issue which even the overwhelming number of politicians regardless of party (and yes that includes Bush) have admitted. Really? Man made global warming…you really don’t get it? Really? Is it the cause or the effect part you aren’t getting? I would think the cause part isobvious…we are emitting now more CO2 then ever and our emissions rates are increasng. I also admit that the effect part is a bit harder to conceptualize, but stay with me. The effect of increased CO2 emissions is that Earth’s near surface air increases in temperature (slightly and over time) so that when we look at chunks of time (decades) we see an overall warming trend which causes negative impacts, such as melting polar ice caps and the like. You are not one of those that says, “But hell, this was the coldest winter on record,” are you? Because then I would have to explain that it is not called “temperature” change, it is “climate” change which is totally consistent with decreased winter temperatures. Or, maybe you do acknowledge climate change and your question above was just hypothetical in nature…I really hope so. I would hate to think we are going to start a whole new thread about this.
Gitmo left open…why?
KSM…I don’t care where he is tried. Do you? Why is that even an issue worthy of discussion? There is likely a mass murderer being tried in your county courthouse today, was one yesterday, and will be one tomorrow. Is this really an issue? Oh wait, that’s rigt, Fox News WANTED it to be an issue, but it never really was one…that’s right.
Evryone hates Congress…but it is the misdirected hatred that is the scariest.
From your post above you seem to suggest that only traditionally conservative positions can be centrist and I hope you now see my point which is to be truly centrist, you have to be open to the idea that with respect to morality or social governance your position is not the only reasonable position. For example, global warming is a fact, but a centrist would be open to many avenues for coping with it. I don’t believe there is only one solution. I don’t say, “Quick everybody stop driving Hummers.” I do say let’s stop politicizing it and start dealing with it, reasonably.
If you agree with many of the points I made above and take offense to the fact that it appears I am categorizing you, then I apologize. I have seen a post from you where you called Obama asocialist and so maybe I wasinfluenced by that. Also, your message to me seemed a bit accusatory in tone, but perhaps I misinterpreted. If so, I do apologize. But, I would ask that you consider what I have said above. It seems to me that discussing things without a left or right leaning approach would be in the interest of all.
The blog ate my return rant. Too bad. I’ll clue you in later. What country are you from?
I look forward to the response – USA.
I asked “Bill, what exactly is a centrist in your opinion?” He responded : “One who takes a position in the political center; a moderate. Is there any other definition?” I then listed where most Americans stand on certain issues. If you define a centrist as someone who “takes a position in the political center”, then this is a center-right nation, no? I think most polls support that notion.
You state : “A centrist doesn’t shut out 49% of the population and deny the viability of all arguments made on that side of the issue.” Who said we should? If you someone has a valid argument then make it, I’ll listen, I also might add that I have taken no position on any of the issues I listed above, only what a majority of Americans think.
As far as man-made global warming is concerned, if you believe in an honest, open debate on all issues then why are AGW skeptics labeled deniers? Why has the peer review process been manipulated to silence skeptic’s views? Why do climate “scientists” hide data, refuse to release data and sometimes trash it? By the way, how confident are you in climate science when climate scientists have to change the terms of the debate to have their theories believed. Is is man-made global warming we’re talking about or “climate change” cuz the climate is always changing. You say CO2 causes temperatures to rise. I say prove it. There is a difference between saying that CO2 has an impact on the planet or climate and what that effect is. The effect may be offset by countervailing forces or may be magnified by them, which I doubt. Or CO2’s effects may have a limit due to the wavelengths they affect. What if all the potential warming CO2 can generate is already accounted for in our temperature data? Here are some more questions : What caused the Little Ice Age? The Mid-Evil Warm Period? What causes Ice Ages in general? The last question is of particular importance since we’re currently in between ice ages. Lastly, you ask : “You are not one of those that says, “But hell, this was the coldest winter on record,” are you?”. Actually I am. I and others do it to point out the abject lunacy of “climate scientists” crediting every severe weather event of the last decade to AGW, excuse me “climate change”. I do it to mock them. Bottom line, the science is not settled. The Earth’s climate is too complex to be understood at this early period, but I welcome more debate and more study.
“Gitmo left open…why?” I guess we could close Gitmo but then what to do with the terrorists housed there? Bring them to the US? You would quickly see them granted a myriad of rights that they don’t deserve but that would be pushed by pro-bono lawyers at some of our biggest law firms. You trust judges in this country on this issue? I don’t. Why do you think they’re housed there in the 1st place? I would add that 2 things that liberals say create more terrorists are Gitmo and killing them; I’m willing to take my chances on both.
KSM. You don’t care where he’s tried. A flippant position if I’ve ever heard one. Who cares about the costs or the security issues. Who cares what the American people think. Why is he even being tried at all? Obama stated he’s not going to be released even if he’s found innocent. I guess he’s a fan of show trials, I’m not, Are you? I was wrong in calling Obama a socialist, he more like a communist.
It is a centrist rigt nation on some issues, sure. That is why McCain got a lot of votes. N one is debating that. What you seem to ignore is that a centrist doesn’t mock the very ideals that put him in the center. You and this site do.
Global warming: You are either very confused or very mislead. By the way you say…up front in your post…you take no position but then you try to argue against man made climate change. Which is it?
The science is solid. If you need your questions answered, go reasearch them. I don’t have time to answer them here and I think it detracts from the rest of the post. (By the way, no one hasever answered my initial questions about the post..just created these other questions to debate). Or, you can om me and I would be glad to further enlighten you. really6625@yahoo.com.
Gitmo…bringing them to the us does not result in the chatter you suggest. These are fearmongering statements. Yes, I trust judges and our system. Why would you trust a judge at gitmo and not a judge here? Makes no sense.
KSM. Same.
Again, feel free to pm me if you are really interested in further discussion. THis thread has gotten too long and lost.
Well, Dr. Spank, I have been thinking and I feel like I must at least work to enlighten you here as follows:
You seem to have a lot more questions then you do answers. I would suggest to you it is because you do not know alot about the issue. Perhaps instead of forming a belief you should investigate. And, this isn’t said to be confrontational, but rather helpful.
I don’t know what kind of background in science you have, but let’s dive into it:
“Why are AGW skeptics labeled deniers?” I don’t label them that way, rather I refer to a skeptic as uninformed and one who has ryushed to judgment. So, let’s call the skeptics “questioners” okay? And, it is okay to be a questioner. Not a bad thing to be. But, I would hope that a questioner would listen to the answers and not choose to reject what they simply are failing to comprehend. I don’t understand quantum mechanics, but it does not make those scientific theories any less viable or true.
“Why has the peer review process been manipulated to silence skeptic’s views?” You choose words like manipulated and silence. These are heavily loaded words. Would you like for me to respond by suggesting that the oil companies manipulated data for years to silence those who believe in the theory? Probably not. Although there is evidecne that they did. So, let’s say that the peer review process has not been as accessible as we would all like. We can’t impugn an intent unless evidence exists to suggest same. And, we can move beyond such a basic argument because the peer review process has for awhile now been equally accessible to all.
“Why do climate “scientists” hide data, refuse to release data and sometimes trash it?” See above. If you have specific examples you want to debate, enumerate them.
“How confident are you in climate science when climate scientists have to change the terms of the debate to have their theories believed.” Very – no one has chanegd terms, it is only as the right wing media becomes less able to make their argument that they stumble upon words that have been used for decades…they just weren’t convenient in the conservative argument. For example, it has always been known as climate change, not temperature change, global warming, etc. Those are tags given to it by questioners. It is easier to trash it when you call it “global warming”. Climate change is meater and requires some explanation so right wing media folks chose not to call it that in the early stages of debate. Much easier to confuse a questioner when you use a terms like “global warming” which the questioner can conceptualize easier.
“Is is man-made global warming we’re talking about or “climate change” cuz the climate is always changing.” Let’s clear the air here. so to speak, since this seems to be a recurring issue for you. Instead of using a headline, let’s spell it out. “Man’s behavior is causing the earth’s climate to change.” Better?
“You say CO2 causes temperatures to rise. I say prove it.” There are literally 100s of studies that do exactly that. Ther evidence goes beyond measured changes in temperature. There is increases in siltation, changes in global rainfall patterns, etc. There are models that have been created by people who specialize in meterology and the like (which I am not one and I can only assume you are not one as you have not offered that you are…so i think we need to rely on those who do, right?). I really don’t know what to say other than if you choose not to beleive the overwhelming research on the effect of CO2 on the earth’s climate, that is your business. If you really do want to understand it (and not just wax politic about it). May I suggest you start by reading this site:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#S3
“The effect may be offset by countervailing forces or may be magnified by them, which I doubt.” Good point, no credible scientist agrees that a “countervailing force” as you put it has offest the effect.
“Or CO2’s effects may have a limit due to the wavelengths they affect.” See above.
What if all the potential warming CO2 can generate is already accounted for in our temperature data? Now, you are really getting to the heart of the matter. Again, see the website referecned above. True, your eyes may gloss over while reading the scientific explanations, but you are interested in the truth and not just spinning your limited knowledge of the issue to a hasty conclusion, right?
What caused the Little Ice Age?
The Mid-Evil Warm Period?
What causes Ice Ages in general?
“You ask : ‘You are not one of those that says, “But hell, this was the coldest winter on record,” are you?’. Actually I am.” Sad. To that I say, localized decreases in winter time temperature is entirely consistent with the climate change discussion. Please, educate yourself on that before you make additional absurd statements.
“The abject lunacy of “climate scientists” crediting every severe weather event of the last decade to AGW” They don’t. Don’t subsribe to the Glenn Beck approach of “everything one believes has to be taken out to its most extreme.” I, as a climate change understander (like that…to be contrasted to a questioner) do not make the lunatic suggestion that every severe weather event of the last decade relates to AGW. Please stop saying that I (as an understander) do. Your gross exaggeration only makes you look foolish.
“Bottom line, the science is not settled.” False. Total nonsense. National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system… There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
Furthermore, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007.
“I welcome more debate and more study.” Again, feel free to PM me.
If you don’t believe the peer review process has been manipulated by climate scientists, you’re clueless. As far as the website you linked, are you serious? I could link a half dozen sites that support everything I’ve stated above. The ICC reports? Really? Get a clue, step outside your tiny worldview and get some knowledge. They are based on manipulated data, period. Modeling? It requires the imput of assumptions; how about doing basic research first? As far as the science being settled, then explain to me why temperatures have been declining the last 15 years as CO2 levels have risen. The historical, and now, current temperature data, do not even support a correlation between CO2 and temperature rise, let alone causation. Oh, by the way, it wasn’t oil companies, who are outspent on AGW research what, 1000 to 1 or more, who said temperatures have recently been declining, it was Michael Mann in a BBC interview.
Dr Spank:
You profess such knowledge but have shown nothing of credentials or accuracy of the methods used to reach your conclusions. You are just brainwashed by the right leaning news you have read. At last, I feel there is no hope for you. Don’t just yell from the roof tops that you are not convinced, try to pay attention and learn.
Manipulated data – an accusation. Where is your proof. And, if you can’t cite to it then at least agree you don’t have a sufficient basis upon which you form your beliefs. Be a man…own up to the fact that you have onthing to offer on this issue then hot air.
I am tired of attempting a dialogue with you. I can only wish that some day you recognize you have simply been under informed and misinformed and are willing to own up to it. Out.
Bill, be happy, your precious Obamacare bill has passed, OBama’s European Socialist utopia is upon the country, go celebrate or something. You won. 🙂
Once again, if increasing CO2 causes temperature to rise then why are temperatures declining? In the East Anglia e-mails they admitted to perverting the peer review process; admitted they had to trick-out the data to “hide the decline”, their words not mine, admitted to trying to avoid FOIA requests. Why would “scientists” do that? Why has the proxy data diverged from the temperature data since 1960? Have you read any of these e-mails? I have. You want links? I promise to supply them when I have time; I’m not sure it will do any good but I’ll do the job for you every self-respecting US citizen should do on their own.
http://5z8.info/alqaeda-message-boards_m0z2r_trojan