Murtha's Death Side Effect - Congressional Charges Against Rangel?

About a year ago I had heard an interesting theory as to why Congressman Charlie Rangel was not likely to face an ethics investigation in the US Congress for his ever-growing list of questionable, possible un-ethical (and possibly illegal) activity. This came from a lobbyist and former Capital Hill staffer.

As it was, the Congressional Black Caucus was already pissed over Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi doing nothing to protect Former Congressman William Jefferson, who had hid $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer.

Going after Congressman Rangel, would result in a second member of the Congressional Black Caucus turning out to be crooks. The problem for Mrs. Pelosi is that the Congressional Black Caucus might have a problem with Congressman Rangel being investigated while other White Congressmen continue to be protected by the speaker. The most obvious example was her friend Congressman Murtha who had, among other questionable activity, connections to Lobbyist firm PMA which is currently being investigated by the FBI. But he never faced an Ethics investigation by Congress.

So it is funny to see that soon after Murtha's death, Congress finally decides to move forward with charges against Congressman Rangel. As they say, 'I question the timing'. After all, they waited years before deciding to charge him...

P.S.

I was also told that many members of the Congressional Black Caucus has been behaving unethically, violating rules if not outright breaking the law, especially in terms of receiving 'gifts'. as part of being the party in power. I guess time will tell.

Update: 26 July 2010

The Wall Street Journal gives a summary of what Congressman Rangel has been up to:

Allegations include Mr. Rangel's failure to report assets and income totaling at least a half-million dollars that, when he "amended" his reporting last year, doubled his net worth; his use of four rent-stabilized apartments in New York's tony Lenox Terrace complex, including one that he used as a campaign office; concealing taxable rental income from his Dominican Republic beachfront villa at the Punta Cana Yacht Club; and using his official Congressional letterhead to solicit donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York. - WSJ

Also, don't forget that he illegally parked a car for years in the House of Representative's garage as well as claimed that he was a DC resident in order to take advantage of a tax break:

City officials said Rangel, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, got the tax break from at least 1995 until 2000, amounting to $288 per year, said Natalie Wilson, a spokeswoman for the Office of Tax and Revenue. Officials yesterday continued researching whether the break covered a longer period.

The exemption is designed as a break for people who buy a home in the District and use it as a primary residence. But Rangel always has maintained his primary residence in New York, making him ineligible. - Washington Post

Who knows what else he has been up to...

-------------------- --------------------

USS JOHN MURTHA (LPD-26) Ship Emblem

Here is what I think of the news that the US Navy plans to name a ship after corrupt former US Congressman (and ABSCAM crook) John Murtha.

Yes, the pig is from the Porkbusters logo.

As for a motto for the ship, how about 'Bringing Home the Bacon!'

Click on the Murtha tag below for previous posts on Murtha.

Also, see more at CDR Salamander.

-------------------- --------------------

Murtha Dead - National Deficit Reduced

Today comes new that Congressman Murtha has died.

Personally I would have preferred to see him ejected from Congress somehow, either by the voters or stuck in a jail cell for crimes related to the mass of pork-barrel funding he stole from the American people each year.

Instead I guess it is enough to know that thanks to his death the deficit for years to come will be reduced, since it is unlikely that any other Congressman will be able to get away with grabbing as much cash as he did.

You might say that his death was his last act of service. One that will be reflected in budget bills for years to come.

You might call my comments nasty, but he should not have been a Congressman attracting this attention. (Click on the image for previous Murtha posts)

(Congressman Murtha 'covering' the ethics of earmarks)

-------------------- --------------------

FAA Playing Stupid on Earmarks

Take this recent statement by the FAA concerning the approval to waste more money over at the 'Fort Murtha' Johnstown airport:

DOT spokesperson Jill Zuckman said the review was undertaken after a "senior policy" official at DOT decided he wanted to reconsider the project, but she declined to identify who that was or detail the reason for the reconsideration. She said the runway's concrete hasn't been replaced in many years and is in need of repaving.

"The bottom line is it deserved the money based on the merits," Zuckman said. "It's not an earmark." - Washington Post

Nice try buddy, but unless this is how funding is obtained to pave most airports in America, then it is an earmark.

Nice also to overlook that the airport itself is one big earmark. And earmarked infrastructure needs to be maintained like all other. Just imagine if the 'Bridge to nowhere' had been built. We would have had to listen to years of excuses on how millions of Federal dollars being spent to paint the bridge are not earmarks because the bridge needs to be painted!

-------------------- --------------------

"Murtha's Nephew Got Defense Contracts" (Without Donating to Democrats!)

So you have probably already seen the story linked at Drudge:

The headquarters of Murtech, in a low-slung, bland building in a Glen Burnie business park, has its blinds drawn tight and few signs of life. On several days of visits, a handful of cars sit in the parking lot, and no trucks arrive at the 10 loading bays at the back of the building.

Yet last year, Murtech received $4 million in Pentagon work, all of it without competition, for a variety of warehousing and engineering services. With its long corridor of sparsely occupied offices and an unmanned reception area, Murtech's most striking feature is its owner -- Robert C. Murtha Jr., 49. He is the nephew of Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has significant sway over the Defense Department's spending as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. - Washington Post

OK, it does not look so good, considering that his Uncle is a member of Congress. And it does not help that his uncle is not any member of Congress, but one who most any American would believe is partly the reason for his nephew's success. It also does not look very good that they either never won, or never even tried to win any Government contracts that came to bid. So maybe this company is just extremely lucky for the fact that the Government had no-bid contracts out there to keep this company in business.

Now you would think that his uncle would be able to count on his nephew for some money come campaign time, right? Well, according to OpenSecrets.org, Robert C. Murtha Jr. is not big when it comes to donating to Democrats, or anyone lately. If I read the data right, he has never donated a reportable amount to his uncle, or even to Democrat candidates for President. So, on the surface at least, it does not appear that he is trying to win over any Democrats via direct donations. (There are donations listed for 'Robert C. Murtha' which would most likely be his father)

Neat trick isn't it to get all that Government contract money and not make any payments to the 'party'. Maybe Murtha never asked his family to support his election bids for Congress and just maybe no other Democrats have the balls to ask him for money either, fearing the wrath of Congressman Murtha if they do.

Oh, and I do not see any sort of donations from Murtech employees to anyone either. It is possible that the company is gaining influence through the use of a lobbyist, but normally, the lobbyist needs their client's to make donations to get the attention of the relevant Congressman.

Just to be clear, I don't think the nephew has done anything wrong. Anyway, how could he, without some sort of assistance from his uncle, Congressman Murtha, who is the insider. It is after all the insider who obtains access for others...

Then again, this can just be simple proof that you don't have to play political games to become a Government Contractor. Time will tell.

-------------------- --------------------

Senator Schumer on Theft: “The American people really don’t care”

Just got back from spending the day at the hospital to this fine example of why our leaders suck:

-----

-----

“The American people really don’t care” - Senator Chuck Schumer on Government waste through pork projects

I am so glad to hear that Senator. Nice of you to stick your hands in my pockets and help yourself. Why not just take it all?!?!?!?!?!?

The Senator does point out one big issue for the Democrats. These guys are counting on the rest of us to not care. For the longest time they have gotten away with it, especially considering that the majority of people who do vote for the Democrats are net recipients and not net payers. But it does come at a price. For every $1 billion in what Senator Schumer admits is 'Porky Amendments' costs each American over $3. That is no big deal right? It is only $3, but they go and take that much from everyone. So for a family of 4, that comes out to over $13.

Take Ex-Governor Blagojevich's $2 Billion Earmark for an outdated/obsolete carbon energy plant that is apparently going to come back to life through the 'stimulus' bill, after being canceled by the Government as waste. This project alone will cost a family of four $26.

The $800 Billion 'stimulus' bill will cost each American about $2,700. That is over $10,000 for a family of four. And since half of Americans are paying no income tax, the price tag is much higher for the half of the population that is paying taxes. How much of this is for pet projects, payoffs and waste? Keep in mind that this is your cost for just this one spending bill! Congress tosses in crap pork projects in many bills that they pass.

When is America going to figure out that none of this spending is being done for their benefit?

And finally, I would like the Republican members of Congress to ask their three fellow Senators to re-think whether or not it is a good idea to vote against all their fellow Republicans for this sham of a 'stimulus' bill. They are selling the rest of us out almost more so than the Democrats, since they are the ones with the power to kill this bill. And all of the Republicans in Congress should be held partly responsible for the actions of Republicans Collins, Spectre and Snowe.

Video found via Michelle Malkin.
-------------------- --------------------

Video : John Murtha's Pork Addiction

Congressman John Murtha is the poster-child of what is wrong with our Congress. The Jawa Report recently posted this video which does a great job summarizing his use of the US Treasury as if the money were his own to do with.

Direct YouTube Link - "Congressman Murtha's Earmarks - Paid for by You"

The video really says it all, for now. Remember, he is not the only problem in Congress. Then again, there are all those idiots that keep voting this guy back into Congress like the good little democrat pets that they are.

Video : John Murtha's Pork Addiction - The Jawa Report


(Congressman Murtha 'covering' the ethics of earmarks)

Previous:

Murtha Pork Theft Update - 29 Feb 08
Murtha in My Pocket - 14 Aug 07
Omnibus Spending Bill Earmarks - $78.36 From Each Of Us - 19 Dec 07
Congressman Murtha's Treasonous Statement - 21 Nov 07
$20 billion in pork = $66 Each = AMT Fix - 18 Nov 07
Truth about Iraq Thanks to Senator Lieberman - 30 Nov 05
Congress Wants more info but doesn't bother to read what they got already! - 18 Nov 05

-------

Murtha Pork Theft Update

It is so hard to have a least-favorite member of Congress, since there is such a large pool or poor-quality talent there. However, Congressman John Murtha is surely in the top three. One of the reasons why is his constant abuse of public money (our tax money) through the awarding of earmarks for his donors. As it turns out, Congressman Murtha just had a fundraising dinner for lobbyists. Thankfully, this time around, others were willing to bring this backroom business of his into the light of day:

Too many members of Congress are securing millions of tax dollars in earmarks for campaign contributors at the expense of our nation’s legitimate needs. Rep. John Murtha secured at least 40 pork-barrel earmarks in last year’s defense bill for private companies at a cost to you of over $114 million. Every single company showered with your hard-earned tax dollars has contributed to Rep. Murtha’s campaign.

Rep. Murtha’s abuse of tax dollars not only comes at a huge cost to taxpayers, but also poses a significant risk to our national defense. Decisions on how to spend tax dollars and protect our nation shouldn’t be made based on what companies contributed to whose election campaign last year. - Americans for Prosperity

They didn't just stop with an internet campaign, they actually went to protest outside the event:

I'm happy to report that last night's "Murtha Bash - Pork Crash" was a resounding success. A solid crowd of taxpayer advocates braved brutal winter winds to help expose the connections between Congressman John Murtha's campaign contributors and the taxpayer-funded pork-barrel earmarks he secures for them. - AFP

Good for them. Here is a copy of the flier they were handing out. It is a good start for targeting this guy.

In somewhat disappointing news, it seems that the only serious contender for Murtha's seat has been thrown for the ballot because his application came in about 7 signatures too short. That's fine, let Murtha go back to Congress. We just have to get the other members of Congress to control him and get the press to finally shame his activities for what they are. There is no reason that he can’t be a great asset for Republican’s to use as the poster child for what is wrong with the Democrats in Congress, but to do that, they are going to have to stop their earmarking abuse first. As a bonus, it would be interesting to see him trip up and have his donations-for-pork activities run afoul of the law. Members of Congress have been going to jail. Murtha should be the next one. (And as bad as this guy is, his constituents must either be dumber than bricks, or looking for handouts from this guy.)

(Congressman Murtha 'covering' the ethics of earmarks)
Previous:
Murtha in My Pocket - 14 Aug 07
Omnibus Spending Bill Earmarks - $78.36 From Each Of Us - 19 Dec 07
Congressman Murtha's Treasonous Statement - 21 Nov 07
$20 billion in pork = $66 Each = AMT Fix - 18 Nov 07

Omnibus Spending Bill Earmarks - $78.36 From Each Of Us

So Congress has passed the Omnibus spending bill and apparently once the differences between the House and Senate versions are hammered out, and expecting that the revised bills are passed again, it will be signed by the President.

Too bad.

There is so much wrong with this Bill, from weakening the border fence to paying close to $200 million to pay for debt counseling, which payment for by those being counseled should be lesson one in the value of money. Then there are the earmarks. Thousands of earmarks. There are many things wrong with our Government and earmarks is the perfect example of that. We are burdened with paying for earmarks because the Congressmen we elect stab us in the back to payoff their political contributors, friends, family and themselves. In a bill like this that forces much of the earmarks to be concentrated in one place, it gives you a good idea how much this is costing each of us.

According to the Heritage Foundation's Omnibusting site, the Omnibus Spending Bill contains $23,508,442,253 in Earmarks, better known by most people as 'Pork Projects.'

Divided up between the 300 million Americans, the earmarks in this bill cost each of us $78.36. Since I am the only wage earner in my family of four, this one bill will cost me next year $313.45.

That's like the Government pulling an extra dollar out of my pocket AFTER they took their taxes out of me. I consider it an extra dollar as this is money that is completely wasted and really should either not have been collected, or used to pay off the deficient and hopefully the debt. Hell, how about earmarking a little less and use this money to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) that they kept promising to do. It looks like they finally will, but check out how hard it became to find money to do something that will actually benefit Americans.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The congressional struggle over how to protect millions of middle-class people from getting soaked by the alternative minimum tax this year entered its final stage Tuesday as the Senate rejected a House demand that the $50 billion in tax relief be paid for.

The Senate voted 48-46 for the House-passed bill, well short of the 60 needed to advance the measure to shield 21 million from an average AMT bill of $2,000. The measure would have covered the cost of the lost revenue by closing a loophole on offshore tax havens.

With that vote, the House was scheduled to vote Wednesday on a Senate-passed measure that fixes the AMT for a year but provides no offsets to pay for it. - AP

These congressmen have all sorts of time to fund all sorts of money for pork-barrel projects, yet when it comes to doing one thing for Americans, their response is F-you.

Now you might be thinking that $78.36 ($313.45) is not much. Well that is exactly how they get away with it. They are grabbing Billions because each Congressman is not grabbing that much. They are counting on you not to care. This way they can get away with this theft again next year. That is what this is, legalized stealing from the American People.

Note: Drunken sailors spend their own money. Congress is spending your money as if it were theirs.

Link:
Earmark Totals - Heritage Foundation's 'Omnibusting'

Previous:
$20 billion in pork = $66 Each = AMT Fix - 18 Nov
Murtha in My Pocket - 14 Aug
Alaska Screws over Rural Residents in Quest for Pork - 4 May

Congressman Murtha's Treasonous Statement

Congressman Murtha is out again doing his best to sabotage our efforts in winning the War in Iraq:

"Look at all the people that have been displaced, all the [lost] oil production, unemployment, all those type of things," said Rep. John P. Murtha, chairman of Appropriations defense subcommittee. "We can't win militarily." - Washington Times

OK.

Let's take a look at each of his points above:

• "Lost oil production" - This complaint is odd. Think about it. All of the detractors have claimed that Bush invaded Iraq for the oil. What Congressman Murtha seems to suggest was that we were better off getting our oil from Saddam. In other words, to get the oil, it would have been better not to invade Iraq, but just let Saddam pump it for us. Speaking of oil production, isn't it the Democrats in Congress who continue to ban oil exploration in almost all domestic offshore oil production. (See map below. On the bright side, by slowing production, we probably pushed back the 'Peak Oil' point, if you happen to believe in such a thing.)


• "Unemployment" - Then I guess Congressman Murtha would have been in favor of ending sanctions against Saddam as it was sanctions that created this problem in the first place: "It noted that the breakdown of the Iraqi economy due to the sanctions has resulted in widespread unemployment, a huge increase in poverty and the collapse of the educational system." Sanctions, of course, were Saddam's fault. By the way, unemployment statistics in Iraq are highly unreliable as many people work in black market trades.


• "All the people that have been displaced" - This one is easy. I covered this in my post "Iraq, Zimbabwe and Mexico" where I note that the displacement problem in Iraq is not as bad as it is in Zimbabwe and Mexico, two countries not undergoing a war. Also, people are returning home in Iraq. (1,000 a day according to this BBC story published today.) Can't really say that for the other two countries, especially Mexico, where their citizens are fleeing to Canada instead of returning home.


• "We can't win militarily" - Congressman Murtha can't prove this one either. We can look back at Vietnam where the current thinking is now shifting common belief from: 'We lost the Vietnam war and therefore pulled out' to the more accurate: 'We lost the Vietnam War because we pulled out.'

As I pointed out in an earlier post about Senator Reid's treasonous statements, we, the public, have limited options in finding out what is going on in Iraq. And thanks to the distorted press coverage, we have no shortage of bad news and an almost complete blackout on any good news. (Thankfully, this is starting to change.) However, Congress has access to information that we do not concerning the current situation in Iraq. They also have the ability to visit Iraq and see for themselves what is going on. Obviously, many of them are ignoring this source of information. This is nothing new. Most of Congress didn't think it was worth the time to read the NIE about Iraq before deciding to invade the country:

Lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page NIE about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But, as The Washington Post reported last year, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary. - Seattle Times

Yet, despite not reading this report, they later complained that it was inaccurate.

Murtha's statement that "We can't win militarily" means one of two things; Either he has neglected his responsibility to review this information, instead obtaining his opinion from the evening news and his anti-war constituents, or if he has reviewed the information available to Congress, he has either just released secret information to the public (That we are in fact losing this War) or more likely is lying about the present situation as presented to congress for political gain. It is hard to say which possibility is worse, but either way, the Congressman is wrong. (And one could say, intentionally lying.)

The thought that the US might be 'losing' in Iraq as idiotic. After all, we have taken and held Iraq for over four years. The only way that those who continue to fight against us can win is if we pull out of the country, leaving it mostly undefended in our wake. The attacks against the US, the Iraqi Government and the people of Iraq take no possession of any land. There is no government that is fighting against the US in Iraq. (Except maybe Iran) Most of the attacks no longer even target the US. Instead, terrorists are simply killing for no reason, other than to instill fear in the local population and provide useful idiots, like Senator Reid, with the ammunition they need to further their own agenda. In exchange, these terrorists expect to be rewarded with a withdrawal of American troops.

This is what Congressman Murtha appears to be promising them.

His latest rant this week is in response to the Pentagon's current plans to layoff over 100,000 people working for the Pentagon, employees and contractors who are not essential to the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is in order to stretch out their available funds as the Democrats in Congress are refusing to approve any more money unless it includes a timeline for withdrawal. This is a very sensible more for the Pentagon. After all, you are not going to need the 'pencil pushers' in the rear if you lose the game at the front. Murtha, who is 'in the rear with the gear' thinks otherwise, demanding instead that the troops at the front be withdrawn.

That Murtha is speaking out about this funding issue is actually amusing considering that this Congressman is the #1 abuser of taxpayer money through the use of earmarks. Maybe he should tighten his belt and let the troop have some of the money he has been earmarking for friends and political contributors.

Also, remember that Congressman Murtha voted in favor of going to War against Iraq. He even spoke out against withdrawal in 2005:

A premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable could rapidly devolve into a civil war which would leave America’s foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America’s judgment but also its perseverance - Murtha, Wikipedia

Congressman Murtha has been wrong on a number of issues about Iraq. (Including his snap judgment of US Marines accused of killing civilians in Iraq, who were later exonerated. He has since refused to apologize.) Sure, you can change you mind about Iraq. But that does not change the fact that we are already there and already have commitments to finish the fight and win it.

Let’s stop kidding ourselves. This man is simply driven by Pork projects and Politics. He is a perfect example of what is wrong with our Government. Not only that, it does not say much good about the people who continue to vote him into office. They should all get their heads examined.

(Congressman Murtha's Ethics Paint Shield)
Area in Blue off limits to oil production:

Previous:
Murtha in My Pocket - 14 Aug 07
Senator Harry Reid's Treasonous Statement - 22 Apr 07
Congress Wants more info but doesn't bother to read what they got already! - 18 Nov 05
$20 billion in pork = $66 Each = AMT Fix - 18 Nov 07

$20 billion in pork = $66 Each = AMT Fix

I am my favorite earmark. Unfortunately, nobody in Congress is interested in slipping an earmark into a spending bill for me. Maybe that is because I have no intention of donating money to any of them.

That doesn't mean that the process isn't costing me.

Citizens Against Government Waste, which closely monitors federal spending, is putting the finishing touches on its tally of pork projects in the pending spending bills — and the picture isn’t pretty. The group estimates that there will be at least 8,000 earmarks this year, costing U.S. taxpayers, $18 billion to $20 billion. - Politico

Figuring on 300 million Americans, that comes out to $66 each. Since I am the only wage earner in a family of four, my share comes out to $266. According to the story, the previous year's total was $29 billion. My share of that was $386. That's over $650 of my money wasted in just two years. Wasted by politicians who pip themselves out for political donations.

Just imagine what the total for next year will be if Congress passes a mortgage bailout. (Although that is not technically an earmark, it will be 'earmarked' for people who don't deserve it, just like earmarks.)

Now to put this all in perspective, take the Alternative Minimum Tax. This is a tax that each year negates tax deductions for more taxpayers, forcing them to pay a higher alternative rate instead. Congress has given us their worthless assurances that they are working on the problem, but as of yet, they have not come up with anything promising.

Congress is considering a patch that would temporarily increase income exemption levels and allow for certain personal exemptions normally disallowed in computing AMT liability.

The patch is expected cost roughly $50 billion in projected federal tax revenue over 10 years. The cost of the other 32 breaks under consideration is $21 billion. That means Congress will have to come up with a total of $71 billion in revenue raisers if they observe pay-go rules, which require lawmakers to raise as much in tax revenue as they cut, or to cut spending as much as they cut taxes. - CNN

You see, they need to figure out how to replace the revenue they would have collected by not fixing the AMT. What they are not planning on doing is cutting Government spending, which would eliminate the need to collect the money in the first place. That is unfortunate, as the amount needed to patch the AMT is only $5 billion a year according to the story above. For those not paying attention, that is only a quarter of what was wasted by Congress on earmarks this year. So, not only can Congress stop the creep of AMT onto ever-more taxpayers, but they can do it without raising anyone's taxes. There is even enough left over to cut some taxes. But our fine Congressmen are sure to need the money for earmarks. Maybe that is the secret in fixing the AMT, have someone earmark a fix.

Previous:
Murtha in My Pocket - FFI 14 Aug 07

No Bailout for Homeowners in Trouble - FFI 6 Sept 07

Murtha in My Pocket

There is all this talk about earmarks lately. Personally, I think earmarks are completely wrong and at best a form of socialism where money is taken away from the people and given to others who otherwise would not be able to survive on their own.

Here is how I see earmarks. What is my share of that earmark? I mean, how much would I get if the earmark was divided equally between all 300 million Americans. (Lets just use that number. Sure the population keeps growing, but so do the amount of earmarks.) Take these two Congressmen, one bill and their earmarks in it:

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Appropriations defense panel, has secured the most earmarked dollars in the 2008 military spending bill, followed closely by the panel's ranking member Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.). Even though Young secured 52 earmarks, worth $117.2 million - and co-sponsored at least $27 million worth of others - Murtha's 48 earmarks amount to a total of $150.5 million, according to a database compiled by the watchdog organization Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS). - Newsbusters

Murth's earmarks in this bill cost each American 50 cents. Since I am the only wage-earner of a family of four, this one Congressman's allotment of pork in this bill cost me $2.

50 cents is nothing to complain about right? Well that is how they get away with it. The amounts don't really amount to anything by themselves, but rob 300 million people and it will add up. Even taking a penny adds up to $3 million if you take one from each of us. Sure, the amounts are small. That is their defense.

Now let's take a look at Young's earmarks in this bill. They cost each American 39 cents. His earmarks cost me $1.56. Between the two of them, I got shafted $3.56. Of course there is more pork in this bill. The Newsbuster's post lists another $202 million in earmarks. That is another 67 cents per American and another $2.69 bringing my total to $6.26.

Keep in mind that the $6.26 is what this bill cost me in earmarks alone. (It is a $459 billion bill. $1,532 for each of us. $6,128 would be my family's share. But for that amount, I pay for two wars. But this is what taxes are for. Not for pet projects.)

Congress's Pork projects in the 2008 Defense Appropriations bill cost me at least $6.26. However, there is good news. It seems that the pork in last year's bill was twice as much. So there is another $12.50 from my pocket to theirs. The bad news is that this is one of many bills that gets stuffed with pork.

Let's take the bridge to nowhere. Actually, there were two bridges to nowhere.

One of the Alaska bridges, dubbed the "Bridge to Nowhere" by its critics, would connect one small town to a tiny island. It received $223 million in the highway bill that Congress passed this summer. The second bridge, named "Don Young's Way" in honor of its patron, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska), received about $230 million -- but that is just a down payment on a cost that could hit $1.5 billion. - Washington Post

$443 million for two bridges in Alaska. Now keep in mind, Alaska has no state income tax. If they really wanted those two bridges so bad, they could have taken it out of State Revenues. They can do this as there is a state revenue surplus and each State resident get a share in it. But, there is no need to use State funds as long as they can get the money from the rest of us.

$443 million. $1.48 each. $5.90 for a family of four. If they manage to get the full $1.5 billion for Don Young's Way, each person in the US will sport $5 for a bridge they will never see. $20 out of my pocket.

The Club for Growth is one of a number of groups investigating earmarks. They recently came out with their RePORK Card. The card lists close to $104 million in earmarks where amendments were submitted to cut funding for. There were 50 amendments and only one, to cut funding for a 'Perfect Christmas Tree' project passed. ($129,000 not wasted.) The RePORK Card documents who voted to take 35 cents from each American and give it to their friends. That's another $1.39 out of my pocket.

So what to do? Despite pressuring Congress to make changes, they are just too addicted to pork to stop. It doesn't help to have shameless porkers like Congressman Murtha in the House for other Congressmen to hide their earmarks behind. Well these clowns are not the only guilty parties here. Let's not forget the recipients of this money. Sure some of the money is going to states and local governments and there is no way to shame them, but there are the businesses who also get pork and they might be sensitive to negative press.

Take Sherwin-Williams Co. They are getting $2 million for development of a 'paint shield'. Surely, they did not expect their name to get dragged through the press for being associated with a pork project. Surely, when this is all over, they will have lost over $2 million in goodwill. If this project was worth it, they would have spent $2 million of their own money to develop it. Instead, this is a fishing expedition. If something good comes out of it, great. If not, they lose nothing and can always go back and ask for more funding to keep the additional revenue alive. Now if they really want to score points with the American people, then they would come out and publicly refuse to take the earmark. Until then, Sherwin-Williams will not get any of my business. Not a cent. They can enjoy their pork instead.

(Murtha's Ethics Paint Shield)

Targeting the corporations should not be too difficult. Take the issue of candidate donations made by Rupurt Murdoch and News Corp/Fox executives to Democrats. That money has become toxic to their reelection campaigns.

There is no reason why earmarks can't be seen as equally poisonous for business. This will not stop earmarks in support of big government, like the $39 million going to the 'National Drug Intelligence Center' which survives solely due to Murtha's yearly earmark. (Sidenote: Empoyees rate the NDIC as a poor place to work) Even some of the businesses and 'foundations' will not care, like the 'Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service' ($2 million earmark) which in itself is a reason to question their very existence. But other businesses will. I bet Shermin-Williams does.

This is not a solution, but it would be a step in the right direction.

Note: Original Photo found here - "Murtha put war at top of agenda in House"

.

Election Day 2006 Update (Updated Post Election)

Just got back from Voting in McLean, VA. Over 600 people have voted in the first half of the alphabet (last names) and the line for the second half of the alphabet was much bigger. With this being Northern Virginia, I am not sure if that is good or bad, but I will take it as a good sign.

I waited ten minutes in line to vote. There were at least six machines and they were electric touch screens. Once my turn was up I had my two-year old daughter work the machine without any problems.

There was still a steady stream of voters as we left just before 6. There is just an hour left of voting.

I still feel confident to stand by my earlier prediction that the Republicans will retain both houses of Congress, and that the will be a general meltdown within the Democrat Party. Lets see what happens. It should be interesting. Time to pop the corn and pop open the sparkling wine.

POST ELECTION UPDATE:

Seems that my prediction was a little off. No matter, it's all good. I look forward to the Democrats explain just what their new direction is.

Pelosi, Murtha, Conyers, Rangel and 'Freezer' Jefferson (yes, he won too) will provide no end of amusing material to blog about.

God help us if the terrorists attack us again. Strange that the areas most likely to be attacked by terrorists are those who voted Democrat. Isn't that ironic.

As for the Republicans. Time for you guys to clean out the dead wood. It should not be hard to find good people to run against some of these Democrats.

Time to Register as a Republican

I have not been a member of either major party for at least 5 years and most likely more than 7 and possibly as long as ten years. I have long considered myself an independent. The last time that I can remember choosing a party affiliation was when I first registered to vote when I was eighteen. I registered as a Republican. I never participated in any politics, other than voting. I would like to think that I would vote for the best candidate, Democrat or Republican. I have voted for candidates of both parties. One year, I was really pissed as nobody I voted for won, including the Democrats that I had voted for. Since I had the belief that members of both parties left much to be desired, I had decided that it was better to not be affiliated with either.

However, with the recent statements made by the leadership of the Democrat Party, I am put in a difficult position. If I am faced in the next election with the choice of a good Democrat ad a less-good Republican, my inclination would be to vote for the Democrat, because he is better. But this increases the chances that the Democrats might regain control of Congress. So my vote for the better candidate might result in giving Pelosi, Boxer, Dean, Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha and their allies like the ACLU and Moveon.org control of which direction this country heads in the future. I am not interested in going down that road.

In the last couple of weeks the Democrats have done a great job of losing any prospect of winning my vote for any congressmen. Sure there are good Democrats out there. Everyone is talking about Joe Lieberman right now. As an example of the lack of sanity within the Democrats, there is talk of finding a replacement to defeat Mr. Lieberman in the next Democrat Primary because there is a lack of acceptance of his comments about Iraq and failing to project the Democrat Party’s lies. (Yes, it is the Democrats that are lying.)

A work of advice: Be careful what you ask for. Just because Mr. Lieberman doesn’t have a serious Republican challenger for his seat, doesn’t mean that another Democrat running for the same position won’t be as lucky. (there is a reason people don't run against him.) I am sure the Republicans would love to see Mr. Lieberman beaten in a Democrat Primary so that they can win his Senate Seat in the General Election. You can bet that the President will find a post for him if it turns out that Democrats don’t want him to represent them in the Senate.

I think the President is doing a great job. I believe that what we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is right. The price paid in lives is small compared to the benefit. Unfortunately, there are families that will suffer losses and they have a right to question if THEIR sacrifice was worth it. There is probably a good chance that if we did not go into these countries that we would be mourning many more losses than we are now. Our responsibility to those who have fallen is to ensure that the goals that they were fighting to attain are reached. We are well on the way of completely reforming Iraq and Afghanistan. (More on this subject here.)

With my move to Virginia, I need to get a new driver’s license and at that time I will register to vote. When I do, I will register as a Republican. While I have problems with the party, I can probably do more good working from the inside than as an outsider.

Truth about Iraq Thanks to Senator Lieberman - FFI

Congress Wants more info but doesn't bother to read what they got already! - FFI

Lieberman Wins Republican Friends, Democratic Enemies With Support for War - Washington Post

--------------------

I am: 66% Republican.

"I bet you'd like Democrats okay if they wouldn't keep handing out your paycheck to urban welfare cheats, right? (And you probably don't want me to be saying anything about 'urban' being some kind of code word, I bet.)"

Are You A Republican?

Truth about Iraq Thanks to Senator Lieberman

On 18 November, I dared any Congressman to speak up about the current situation in Iraq. Somehow I am not surprised that it was Senator Lieberman to be the one to set the record straight on what is going on:

I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.

Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is
progress.

Read the whole encouraging article here.

For some reason it seemed like Congress believes the distorted news coverage. We have limited options in finding out what is going on in Iraq. Unfortunately, most people want to believe that Iraq is a mess and the press happily provides them with what they need to believe the lie. However, Congress has access to information that we do not, including the ability to visit Iraq and see for themselves what is going on. Obviously many of them are ignoring this source of information.

Senator Lieberman's statement sharply contrasts with that Of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi

"I'm endorsing what Mr. Murtha is saying, which is that the status quo is not working and that we need to have a plan that makes us safer and our military stronger and makes Iraq more stable," - Nancy Pelosi

No thanks. I'll stick with what the US Military is saying and what Senator Lieberman knows to be true. Perhaps it's time that Congresswoman Pelosi take another trip to Iraq to see what is really going on. Has she been back there since March? Back in March she admitted that it would take some time before the Iraqi's could manage their own security:

One of the primary purposes of our mission was to assess the political and security situation in Iraq, especially efforts to establish an effective Iraqi police force and army. Although some progress has been made, there is a significant way to go until the Iraqis are capable of providing for their security. - Nancy Pelosi, March 2005

How is the US pulling out going to make Iraq more stable when even Congresswoman Pelosi admits that they cannot secure the country without our assistance. Today she was bitching that the 35 page summary released by the White House was not enough. Of course she is ignoring the classified documents that she has access to. From what I can tell it's Pelosi's turn to provide us with her pullout plan that documents how the US can cut and run in a way that results in a situation better than we have now.

She doesn't have one. Nor does she care, other than to the extent that the war can be used to win seats in the next election. Lets face it, success in Iraq is not going to win the Democrats any votes.

Our Troops Must Stay - Opinion Journal
Top House Democrat backs Murtha on quick withdrawal from Iraq - Breitbart.com
A Little Perspective On Military Deaths - FFI

A Letter To Nancy Pelosi - California Conservative

Democrat 'Unity' Unravels On Iraq - Captain's Quarters

Pelosi: ‘The President Has Dug Us into a Deep Hole in Iraq; It Is Time for Him to Stop Digging’

Congress Wants more info but doesn't bother to read what they got already!

How embarrassing. Congress comes out demanding more information on what's going on in Iraq and many Congressmen are claiming that they were misled concerning pre-war intelligence. It is now being reported that only a handful of congressmen and only 6 Senators bothered to ready past an executive summary of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq. Of course more of them did read the executive summary. Anyone familiar with these types of reports knows that only the most basic points make it into the summary.

So why would they not bother to read the full report? Could it be that they thought that Saddam was guilty? Could it be that they did not have the time to spare? It does not really matter the reason. They didn't think it was important enough.

So why are they asking for more reports to not bother reading?

Was Senator Murtha one of the six who bothered to read the report?

Lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page NIE about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But, as The Washington Post reported last year, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary. - Seattle Times

Warning to Republicans
Your success in 2006 is tied directly to the President. So don't bother abandoning the White House like it's a sinking ship. That's not going to win my vote in 06. The public is being bombarded with distorted news from Iraq but they should know better the true situation in-country. They should speak up to correct the distortion. Instead they are being idiots in chasing approval polls, which are distorted to begin with.

Warning to Democrats
Don't take the above to mean that I'm going to vote for you guys. Give me a reason to. I've gone to vote before and left votes blank. Tell me that you were lied to just tells me that you guys are idiots to have been fooled and now that we all know that you were fooled because you didn't/could not read doesn't really encourage me to throw votes in your direction. Remember that there is no shortage of video of Democrats stating how dangerous Saddam was, including many statements made before 2000, which would mean that the Clinton White House must have also been lying...

I dare any Congressman to come out and explain to the public that they understand that their opinion of the war has changed but we made a commitment to do this when they were in favor of it and we just can't cut and run because they're no longer happy. It's not that easy to 'abort' our being in Iraq. Worse, it will prove the terrorists right, that it only takes a couple lives to get us to quite a war. So far, we've been really lucky in Iraq. Remember Beirut, Somalia? To this day more people died during 9/11 than soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. They knocked down a couple buildings and we replaced the management in two countries. Think about that.

Bush defense of decisions on Iraq correct, to a point - Seattle Times

A Little Perspective On Military Deaths - FFI