Congress smoking cash.


It’s turning out to be quite the day for fiscal revelations. The latest is Pete Visclosky (D-IN), who is celebrating his recent drop in campaign contributions with a request to use what he has remaining for his upcoming legal… expenses:

Visclosky wants to dip into fundraising to pay legal fees

Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.) is seeking to confirm that he can reach into his $900,000 campaign war chest to pay his legal fees arising from an FBI investigation of his campaign fundraising.

In a March letter to the Federal Election Commission released Monday, the treasurer of Visclosky’s campaign is seeking an advisory opinion allowing the use of campaign funds to pay expenses relating to the FBI’s investigation of contributions from the PMA Group and its clients.

See also here (via Instapundit). It’s turning out to be a month for this sort of thing. Visclosky, Thompson, Feinstein, Dodd, Moran, Durbin, Pelosi (with a nod to Harman), Summers, Rattner, Murtha… get the point? Because we can keep going: that list barely touches the House, not to mention the executive branch.

If you’re wondering why it is that the Democrats suddenly seem poised to duplicate a record for financial chicanery in four years that the Republicans allegedy generated in twelve, the answer is actually very simple: government money is crack. And by that I mean that government money is an insanely powerful personal stimulant that gives an intensely euphoric high, a vicious crash, and is almost demonically addictive. When you put people – particularly people who have had to watch other people smoke up all the cash; doubly particularly people who used to be able to smoke up all the cash, but had the cash pipe taken away from them – in the presence of all that money, they will smoke it. They won’t care what you think of them for smoking it, either: a heroin junkie’s got nothing on a cash-addicted Congressman trying to justify why he needs one million dollars for a in-district thimble museum. There’s only one real long term solution to this problem: take away the money and let Congress crash. Because they won’t get better on their own.

Trust us on this. The Right’s already gone through this cycle once or twice.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.


Category: , , ,

RSS feed

15 Comments Leave a comment

A Step in the right direction would be Term Limits

UpLateAgain (Diary) Tuesday, April 21st at 1:42PM EST (link)

Getting reelected these days is a simple matter. It takes a concerted campaign by the opposition party (not just your local opponent) for your demise to happen.

My loyalty is to the country. I advocate voting the party line, because in general Republicans have IMHO been better for the country than Democrats.

But old axiom, that “Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly, and for the same reasons” certainly applies.

You never never never actually need a gun, until you need a gun, and then nothing else will do.

Term Limits are for lazy voters.

NightTwister (Diary) Tuesday, April 21st at 2:47PM EST (link)

Or should I say, non-voters.

Citizens in our country get exactly the representative they deserve. But then, holding your local representative accountable to his voting record might actually make you consider that you should also be accountable for your own actions and, well, people today just don’t really go for that sort of thing anymore.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

Specious argument.

UpLateAgain (Diary) Tuesday, April 21st at 7:33PM EST (link)

I am 59 years old and have voted in every election since I turned 21. With redistricting, virtually any elected official can retain office with only a modicum of effort, and most people in this country don’t know left from right.

We elect on cult of personality anymore, not political acumen. And when the guy/gal doesn’t have a personality (Harry Reid is a prime example), many people just vote the incumbent without having a clue as to whom they are electing. I

t’s also true that even when folks think Congress as a whole sucks, they generally think “their guy” is the exception, because he brought home the bacon on that absolutely necessary barbed-wire museum.

That notwithstanding, even the guys we support seem to go bad with all too great a regularity if left in office too long. Just something about Washington that changes something about them.

And in ’06, Republicans lost Congress NOT because Americans wanted bigger government, but because the party lost its base. It was the base NOT VOTING that cost the Republicans Congress. Conservatives were delivering a message that they were not going to support a candidate just because he had an ‘R’ after his name, and was therefore automatically the better choice than the guy with the ‘D’. True conservatives have always had principals.

As to the public at large, Congress =bad, but their guy = good, so nothing ever changes.

You never never never actually need a gun, until you need a gun, and then nothing else will do.

So you agree people in the U.S. get the government they deserve. -nt-

NightTwister (Diary) Tuesday, April 21st at 10:32PM EST (link)

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

I guess I do agree.

UpLateAgain (Diary) Tuesday, April 21st at 11:43PM EST (link)

People do get the government they deserve.

However, I’m not willing to just forgo the greatest experiment in liberty in mankind’s history, just because the beneficiaries of that system are on the whole not typically involved enough to really understand what they are doing with their vote; to see beyond the limits of their immediate comfort level.

The education system is already strongly geared to the left, and has been in the process of dumbing-down America for the past fifty years. They are succeeding beautifully.

The unfortunate part of it is that the politicians fully understand what they are doing. Obama is not taking us down the road to socialism accidentally, and he couches his actions in shallow, great-sounding soundbites that biased media will extol without hesitation or analysis.

Do Americans deserve to get fleeced? You can make a great argument that they do; that they have brought it on themselves. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take steps (when you can) to limit the damage that can be done.

Financial establishments and the police routinely tell people about things they can do to reduce the possibility of being taken by scam artists. They don’t merely sit back, watch it happen, and say, “Too bad. You were dumb enough to fall for it.”

And our whole system was set up with a number of checks and balances to keep too much power from accumulating in one area. When power is dispersed, a mistake only adversely effects the immediate proximity of the mistake maker. When power is centralized, it effects everyone adversely.

Term limits are just another “check” to reduce the probability of power becoming too centralized.

Diane Feinstein, for example, has been a Senator forever. It was just revealed that she introduced legislation that would route 25 Billion dollars to a branch of the government that has already promised to give major financial support to a company her husband owns. He’ll be the guy selling foreclosed housing and taking as much as a thirty percent commission for doing it.

I’m sure the Feinsteins had no idea this was going to happen when they bought controlling stock in the company and watched it rise 40%in the past few of months. Given her tenure in the Senate, and her power within the Democratic Congress, I will be AMAZED if the is any kind of Congressional investigation into the propriety of it all.

And that kind of play is just the kind that I’m sure happens almost everyday in the hallowed halls of Congress under what would be easily understood as “insider trading” if it happened on Wall Street. I just think that without term limits…. there are WAY too many “insiders.”

Congressional term limits would not, of course, be a panacea. But they would give us a bit more of a fighting chance.

You never never never actually need a gun, until you need a gun, and then nothing else will do.

BTW

UpLateAgain (Diary) Wednesday, April 22nd at 1:42AM EST (link)

Here’s the WT reference to the Feinstein scandal.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/senate-husbands-firm-cashes-in-on-crisis/

You never never never actually need a gun, until you need a gun, and then nothing else will do.

 

How about we get out there and convince people that our ideas are better.

NightTwister (Diary) Wednesday, April 22nd at 9:56AM EST (link)

Then elect people that agree and hold them accountable.

Naw….that would actually require effort. It’s much easier to sit around and complain. Not that I’m saying you’re doing that, but enough people are, and that’s why we’re here now.

Term limits would simply kick the can down the road. Colorado has term limits for House & Senate, but that hasn’t stopped our legislature from moving to the left with each election. It’s simply not a short-term or long-term solution.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

We completely agree on one thing.

UpLateAgain (Diary) Wednesday, April 22nd at 3:21PM EST (link)

We do indeed need to be active in showing people that our ideas are better.

California too has term limits, and it hasn’t stopped CA from going hard to the left. But at least we don’t have one guy ramming his personal agenda down our throats interminably, and at least every eight years the voters have to make a choice. Prior to term limits in CA, it was not at all uncommon for certain seats to be gained every four years unopposed.

Then again, term limits are not supposed to provide a preference for one party over the other. Our fostering of ideas does that… as you say. Term limits just stops the same set of crooks from building an unbreakable power base from which to manipulate governance.

You never never never actually need a gun, until you need a gun, and then nothing else will do.

Let me give the other side of the argument.

NightTwister (Diary) Wednesday, April 22nd at 11:06PM EST (link)

Bob Schaffer was one of the most popular U.S. House Representatives in Colorado. He could’ve died in that house seat if he’d wanted to, but he came in with others in 1994 and promised to term-limit himself. He stuck to his promise, and we got Marilyn Musgrave, who ended up turning an R+10 lock seat into a democrat-controlled one now (Betsy Markey). Also, with Bob Schaffer out of the limelight, it allowed Mark Udall to gain popularity. Schaffer was out of sight, out of mind and ended up losing to Udall. So we turned two gimme R seats (one Senate and one House seat) into Dem seats. All because of term limits.

It’s simple, really. If the guy is doing the job and representing the people, he should stay no matter how long it is. If the guy’s a crook, he should get booted out, no matter how short of a term he’s served.

If people choose to elect and re-elect a crook to represent them, they deserve to have a crook represent them.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Why oh why is this guy my representative...

TheHUTMan (Diary) Tuesday, April 21st at 1:48PM EST (link)

He’s been around forever it seems … a big United Steel Worker Union guy, pretty much the big factor in this area. Much of Northwest Indiana (where his district is) is very liberal, might as well consider it a suburb of Chicago (with just about equal buffoonery and scams).

I don’t see why he needs to spend so much and raise so much, he usually wins by a fairly wide margin. Unless that’s a means to get more money (which it is) and then to spend (which it is).

Sigh. Maybe one day this place will wake up and smell the pile-o-**** we’ve gotten all these years.

 

The real culture of corruption

10ksnooker (Diary) Tuesday, April 21st at 1:57PM EST (link)

Cannot be hidden, no matter how the Paravda media tries.

Did you see the NYTimes … Timber, look out below.

 

so he wants money...

LoveThatConstitution Tuesday, April 21st at 2:28PM EST (link)

So, let me get this circle straight…

he want to use money…

that he got from fundraising…

to pay for the charges of crooked fundraising…

how ironic! would doing that actually be some other count of a crime after the fact if he gets convicted of the first?

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
- Ronald Reagan

So....

restofva (Diary) Tuesday, April 21st at 5:01PM EST (link)

if you plan to rob a bank, be sure the take is large enough to hire the finest defense lawyers.

Yes! And then avoid messy headaches...

LoveThatConstitution Wednesday, April 22nd at 10:31AM EST (link)

….of having to ask for it to be “released” by just storing it in your freezer until you need it.

:-)

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
- Ronald Reagan

 
 
 

Perfect diary, Moe nt

itrytobenice (Diary) Wednesday, April 22nd at 10:32PM EST (link)

Proper grammar saves lives.

Let’s eat Grandma.
Let’s eat, Grandma.


Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots