Going To Bat For Charlie Rangel

Corrupt Democratic Congressman from Harlem Charles Rangel has come under increasing pressure from various Democrats in Congress since the House Ethics Panel listed 13 charges against him that could possibly lead to his expulsion from Congress. Over the weekend, President Barack Obama weighed in and suggested Rangel resign to avoid taking down his fellow Democrats in tight races in the 2010 midterm elections. Why is New York Governor David Paterson going to bat for Rangel?

Paterson, appearing on Kiss- FM's "The Open Line," said it's wrong to call on someone to step aside who has chosen to fight to clear his name.

The governor did not refer specifically to Obama, who said on Friday that the hopes Rangel ends his career "with dignity."

But New York's first black governor said he is "especially surprised when people from our own community do it because we've been the greatest victim of it for centuries."

It was only last fall when a top Obama aide told a beleaguered Paterson that the White House preferred he not run for election this year.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a loyal friend of the 80-year-old Rangel, was also kinder in her words than Obama, who repeatedly referred to Rangel in the past tense.

"Any personal respect and affection we may have for people makes us sad about the course of events," she said on ABC's "This Week."

But Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the House had to adhere to high standards. "When I came in, we said we'll drain the swamp. And we did," Pelosi said after a week that saw the venerable Harlem Democrat nailed by 13 charges of ethics violations and California Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters headed for an ethics trial of her own.

Here's the missing context from Gov. David Paterson's attempts to back embattled corrupt Democrat Charles Rangel.

So, why is Paterson coming out to defend Rangel?

It goes back to the Harlem Gang of Four. The four Harlem politicians, former Mayor David Dinkins, Basil Paterson (David's father), Rangel, and former Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton, wielded tremendous power in Manhattan politics and their shadow continues to loom large. This is little more than calling in a favor for a fellow member of the elite group.

Rangel bristles at any calls for his resignation and he's quite secure in the belief that his constituents will send him back to Congress (and I think he's right to think so given the way that they voted for him in 2008 when the tax evasion and other legal and ethics woes were first uncovered).

At the same time, it's laughable for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to talk about draining the swamp of corruption when she refused to raise her hand against Rangel's corruption in 2008 on the eve of national elections that swept Obama into the White House. She refused to move against Rangel as the tax evasion charges piled up or any of the other ethics charges lest she incur the wrath of the powerful Congressional Black Caucus. Hers is not a profile in courage, but rather political expediency. She's protected the corrupt Democrats for years - and it's only the overwhelming stench of that corruption that has forced her hand while she's trying to do all she can to retain the majority in the House. Moving against Rangel now is one of the few ways in which she thinks she can retain the House.

Pelosi: Taxes Cause Job Flight

Yes, you read that right. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is on the record as stating that taxes imposed on financial transactions would have to take effect internationally to prevent Wall Street jobs and related business moving overseas.

Any tax imposed on financial transactions would have to take effect internationally to prevent Wall Street jobs and related business moving overseas, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday.

"It would have to be an international rule, not just a U.S. rule," Pelosi said at a news conference. "We couldn't do it alone, we'd have to do it as an international initiative."

The top Democrat's comments seemed to spell longer odds for the Wall Street tax, which some Democrats in the House of Representatives are proposing as a way to pay for job-creating legislation.

The tax, which could raise $150 billion per year, would tap into widespread public outrage at Wall Street in the wake of the financial crisis, but support is lackluster among key legislators.

So, if higher taxes cause job flight, why then do Democrats repeatedly push for tax hikes at the national, state, and local level? This is an inadvertent admission that fiscal conservatives have been right all along that higher taxes result in job flight and that higher taxes on Wall Street will result in further job losses.

It also points to a fundamental disagreement between the Speaker and New York Democrats, who have repeatedly used Wall Street as their personal cash cow to fund an overblown and bloated state budget. Now, in a recessionary economic climate, the House Democrats are wary of imposing further taxes unless everyone around the world does so in order to prevent still more job losses.

Now They Notice?

The New York Times has spent years supporting Democratic control in Albany, maintaining a status quo for Democrats who have held the Assembly chamber for decades and gained control over the Senate this past year. Now, they suddenly realize that Albany is a cesspool in need of a vast cleansing?

New Yorkers have been complaining for many years about their abysmal state government, but it has simply grown worse. The state has become a national embarrassment, a swamp of intrigue and corruption, a $131 billion monster controlled by a crowd of smug officials whose main concern is keeping their soft jobs. By now, most New Yorkers have given up hope that these officials are capable of cleaning up their own mess.

The clock is ticking. In one year, unless the Albany crowd pulls off some miracle, which we doubt will happen, it will be up to the voters to get them out, all of them.

To recap some recent outrages:

Former Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who promised to reform Albany on Day One, was forced to resign on Day 441 after his bizarre antics with a prostitute. His replacement, David Paterson, has been weak and ineffective. The state comptroller was forced to resign after confessing to a felony involving his misuse of state resources. Three of his close associates have been arrested on charges of bribery and grand larceny.

A dozen legislators in the last few years have been convicted of serious crimes including bribery, mail fraud, extortion and racketeering. Joseph Bruno, the Senate majority leader who resigned last year, is fighting federal charges that he collected more than $3 million in fees from companies trying to do business with the state.

After failing to do the people’s business for years, the Senate was shut down for a month this summer by two Democratic senators. Pedro Espada Jr., one of them, is under investigation for not filing campaign finance forms and over allegations that he funneled state money into his own business. The other, Hiram Monserrate, was convicted last week of assaulting his girlfriend.

How do we let such people anywhere near a legislature? The answer is in voters’ hands. It is time to change the culture.

Maybe there's a real good reason that the Times had to can another 100 people in their newsroom today. Maybe it has something to do with myopia and a failure to report the massive failure of the state government for years on end that now culminate in a $50 billion deficit due to the state spending billions more than it could ever hope to take in due to unfunded mandates, a bad state economy (and even worse upstate economy that has been reeling for years due to a collapse of the state's manufacturing base and key companies like IBM, Xerox and Kodak).


For starters, voters must realize that the politicians that they've repeatedly reelected to office are incompetent and incapable of making any decision tougher than rubber stamping a decision by the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the Assembly and the Governor to produce an annual state budget that empties taxpayer pockets and leaves the state budget in tatters.

They also have a way of electing politicians who assault their girlfriends and engage in all manner of illicit activities. To their credit, Sen. Charles Schumer and Sen. Kristen Gillinbrand (both Democrats) called on Monserrate to step down (but don't expect that to happen, or expect voters in his district to even notice).

And the problems aren't just in Albany. The same exact problems occur in Washington; Speaker Pelosi promised to drain the swamp of corruption, and yet she ignores multimillion dollar multiple ethical, legal and tax problems with none other than senior New York Congressman Democrat Charles Rangel. The Times called on him to step down from the post, but that's met with deaf ears.

The problems are also severe in New Jersey, where dozens of politicians have been indicted and convicted on corruption charges. Yet, we've got Republicans pushing candidates who apparently have unsavory connections to the porn industry, while Democrats have to run away from their "achievements" like Jon Corzine, because the economy is in tatters, state taxes have risen, and the only growth has been in the size of the state workforce.

It's time that the taxpayers cut through the crap spewed by the politicians. That means journalists doing more actual reporting of the news and less editorializing in hard news stories.

Congressional Democrat Health Care Overhaul Roundup; Now Including Windfall Profits Taxes On Insurers?

Sen. Max Baucus' health care proposal hasn't been reduced to legislation which is clear from the CBO and JCT treatment (both noting that there is no legislation based on the Baucus version), and that abomination likely will be twice as expensive as the CBO claims. Then there are the taxes imposed to make it work. The Baucus plan would result in marginal tax rates as high as 70%.

The CBO and JCT also note that the taxes imposed under the proposal kick in three years before the benefits start (10 years of revenues, 7 years of benefit, in the 10 year period being studied). Any shortfall in revenues in the first three years will compound shortfalls later and result in an ever more unbalanced situation.

With all these shortfalls creeping into every bill, no matter how expensive and how much Democrats have tried to hide the true costs, the need to raise revenue is all too necessary under all these plans.

Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now urging Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY/tax cheat) to consider a windfall profits tax on health insurance companies, in lieu of either the surtax on wealthy taxpayers currently contained in HR 3200 or the tax on high value plans proposed by Baucus.

Never mind that the windfall profits tax will never provide the kind of revenue necessary to make the plan work. Never mind that a windfall profits tax will be passed on to the consumer because the entities involved will not absorb the cost but rather pass it on to their users.

Never mind that windfall profits taxes are a mighty difficult thing to do when the profits in the health care insurance sector are roughly 3%, or lower than what you'd find in the technology sector. This is razor thin profits, but Pelosi and Democrats know that raising taxes on most Americans is a nonstarter. They have to find a way to increase those taxes by any means necessary, even a back-door tax such as through a windfall profits tax.

If 3% is considered a windfall profit, how long before these same redistributionists look at the other companies on the list for windfall profits? When the taxes hit, the profits will disappear altogether, along with the services provided.

UPDATE:
The Hill has posted a story relating to the windfall profits tax.

ACORN's Ethical and Moral Flexibility On Display Again

ACORN announced yesterday that they would shut down their homeowner assistance programs pending an independent review of the situation. That's a good start. The problem is that ACORN's problems run much deeper than that which has been depicted on the videos so far.

The latest video, coming from San Diego, shows one of ACORN's employees soliciting Hannah Giles for sex in exchange for providing assistance on smuggling girls into the US to engage in child prostitution.



ACORN has tried to cast these videos as random and isolated incidents, but the fact that it was so easy to get this kind of response from workers at multiple offices shows that ACORN's problems run much deeper than that.

They hire people with a certain moral and ethical flexibility, who show a depressing absence of understanding right from wrong. If they were so quick to provide assistance on how to break the law on any number of issues (child prostitution, tax evasion, etc.) what other kinds of questionable advice are they providing to the communities they claim to assist.

After all, ACORN claims that they want to help the lower classes advance and yet we see that their definition of advancement includes turning a blind eye to child prostitution and tax evasion.

So, while ACORN has fired several people in connection with the videos, the ACORN leadership has thus far escaped serious civil and criminal repercussions.

I expect that to change with the release of these videos and subsequent investigations opened in places like New York City and New York State. It would be a gross dereliction of duty on the part of state attorney generals around the nation not to take a closer look at whether ACORN's activities there are legal - including whether they are operating without licenses as in the case in Maryland.

Until ACORN can show that it has cleaned up its act, it should get no government assistance and any money earmarked to housing assistance should be reappropriated to other groups that have legitimate programs, such as Nehemiah Housing.

ACORN makes a big deal about providing homeowner assistance to underprivileged communities, and yet one has to question the kind of advice and assistance provided based on these videos. People coming in for assistance need to know the proper and legal methods of handling the real estate transactions they're interested in, and evading the law perpetuates problems within the community. Excusing such behavior as the ACORN leadership has done by claiming that this is a problem limited to a small group of its employees doesn't wash. It throws into question all of their operations nationwide, and ACORN has repeatedly had egg on its face by claiming that this was first an isolated incident, and then by claiming that its other offices weren't taken in by O'Keefe and Giles. They lost credibility - rightfully so.

Roger Stone at Big Government notes that NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo may have to investigate the Workers Families Party (WFP), which I've previously highlighted as having been cofounded by ACORN and which has had problems keeping track of monies.

Cuomo has to investigate these groups, and promising that he will insure that monies for ACORN goes solely to the homeowner assistance programs is insufficient. Member items (also known as earmarks and as pork) in New York are doled out to groups all across the state, and ACORN gets its share of member items. They don't specify that the money goes to homeowner assistance, but rather to the group generally.

For example, the 2009-2010 budget bill includes the following language from page 183 and 185:

45 ACORN/NYACA ... 5,000 ................................... (re. $5,000)
28 NY ACORN ... 10,000 .................................... (re. $10,000)
29 NY Acorn ... 2,500 ...................................... (re. $2,500)

That's a reappropriation of those monies. It doesn't specify what program the money goes to. It is the same for all the other programs listed in the budget bills.

Legislators know, or should know, that the money goes to a variety of operations within the groups it funds. For ACORN, they know it covers overhead, the homeowner assistance programs, and the political organizing, even though such organizing would conflict with its tax exempt status.

The best way for the Attorney General to get to the bottom of matters in New York is to conduct a full audit of ACORN operations to see where all the money has gone. Simply promising to ensure that the money goes to homeowner assistance doesn't address systemic problems within ACORN. Moreover, it doesn't address the questionable advice provided by ACORN to those seeking assistance.

UPDATE:
The House voted by a wide margin to defund ACORN. 345-75, with 2 present and 11 no votes. However, missing among the counts is none other than Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who earlier claimed she had no idea what the Senate had done. Totally clueless. Fitting.

It was bipartisan, but some of the usual suspects wanted to protect ACORN's funding, including Democrat Charles Rangel (D-Tax Cheat, NY). All 75 voting to protect ACORN's funding were Democrats. Birds of a feather.

UPDATE:
ACORN is finally trying to strike back at O'Keefe and Giles, claiming that their Philadelphia office called the cops on O'Keefe. They have a copy of a police report claiming that O'Keefe caused a disturbance at the office on 7/24/2009. However, the precise nature of what happened in the office on that day isn't clear, and someone ought to ask O'Keefe about it.

One Year Since NY Times Called On Rangel To Step Down

Today marks one year since the New York Times called on Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) to step down as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. In the intervening year, Rangel has remained as chairman precisely because he's insulated from any criticism by his fellow Democrats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wont do anything until the ethics committee takes action, which so happens to include three members who received campaign contributions from Rangel (who also happens to be one of the top fundraisers for Democrats in Congress).

The malfeasance that the Times considered sufficient to demand him stepping down has increased since then:

1. Failed to reveal more than $3 million in business income;
2. Failed to report income from sales of real property;
3. Failed to report income from Punta Cana hacienda;
   
4. Failed to pay property taxes on Glassboro, New Jersey property for several tax quarters ($159.39 is most recent tax due for 2Q and 3Q 2009);
5. Failed to report $430,000 in stock transactions;
6. Had to dramatically revise House filings to show hundreds of thousands of dollars in transactions - unreported assets that concealed anywhere from $38,000 to $116,000 in income for 2007 alone;
7. Failed to report a checking account that was worth between $250,000 and $500,000.
8. Failed to report income to the IRS; paid $10,000 in back taxes but no penalties or interest was apparently assessed (Rep. John Carter (R-TX) introduced the Rangel rule to codify the IRS treatment of Rangel, but it was defeated by House Democrats);
9. Pay to play with AIG and CCNY over the financing of the Charles Rangel Center for Public Service;
10. Broke House rules on reporting trips;
11. Broke New York State Rent Stabilization laws by owning four units and using one as an office (anyone else in that situation would have been booted from the properties);
12. Alternatively broke New York State Rent Stabilization laws or lied on mortgage application documents claiming primary residence status for either the rent stabilized apartments in Harlem, or other properties - the outcome of which is that he received better mortgage terms, or enabled himself to unjustly enrich himself over the span of decades by obtaining a rent stabilized apartment at a time when there's a regular shortage of affordable housing in Manhattan;
13. Fails to meet New York State Rent Stabilization income guidelines with new revelations that he's making more than $175,000 - and quite likely much more than that based on hidden income over the years (rent stabilization means that he's saving nearly $4,000 a month over market rates for same property - a perk that means he's saving $48,000 a year or more than the gross income of many of his constituents);
    
14. Paid lawyers hired to unravel Rangel's tax situation $121,000 from his campaign committee funds, which violate federal election laws (Rangel claims that he got a waiver from FEC; FEC says otherwise);
    
15. Unjustly received a homestead property tax deduction on a D.C. property (again claiming primary residence status);
    
16. Gave contract to his son's company worth nearly $80,000 for building websites that were non-functional and whose value experts believe cost no more than $100; and
    
17. Failed to report imputed income from long term use of House parking lot to store vehicles, which was also a violation of House ethics guidelines.

Pelosi Lets Rangel Continue Overseeing Cesspool of Scandal

Once again, Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi shows that nothing will get between her agenda, not even the tax cheat Charles Rangel. She will take no action to depose him from his post as the House Ways and Means Committee Chairman, even though he's engaged in egregious tax dodging - failing to report hundreds of thousands of dollars of investments, real estate transactions, and that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of House ethics violations or the rent stabilization laws he broke in New York.

No, Pelosi is keeping Rangel on as lifeguard of the cesspool of scandal. You see, he's a reliable vote and she knows that he'll see the agenda through, regardless of the dings he's taking from his failure to adhere to the very laws that his committee has written over the years.

She's got her flacks out claiming that they wont take action until the House Ethics Committee reports, but this is the same person who did nothing against fellow Democrat William Jefferson when he was found with $90,000 in bribes stuck in his freezer. She wants people to think that she'll take action if and when the committee reports or a prosecutor brings charges.

Given that the ethics committee isn't likely to bring charges anytime soon, and they're still busy considering only the tip of the iceberg - the rent stabilization racket Rangel ran (being one of several items), it's all too likely that he'll get a slap on the wrist for something that would have sent many others to jail.

Meanwhile, the NY Post says what I've been saying for a while - that Rangel should be fired - and at least removed from the chairmanship. The problem is that his constituents will vote him back into office. It goes back to the old adage of hating Congress but loving your representative. Rangel is beloved by his district, where he can do no wrong in their eyes. It doesn't matter how many tax dodging schemes are uncovered, the graft, corruption, or anything else he's done. They'll continue to reelect him.

UPDATE:
Here's a scoresheet of what Rangel has done to date that violates various state and local tax laws, House ethics violations, New York State rent stabilization laws, and other sundry matters. One of the reasons that there are ranges on many of these items is that Congressional filings allow the reporting of income and various business transactions to be done in ranges:

1. Failed to reveal more than $3 million in business income;
2. Failed to report income from sales of real property;
3. Failed to report income from Punta Cana hacienda;
   
4. Failed to pay property taxes on Glassboro, New Jersey property for several tax quarters ($159.39 is most recent tax due for 2Q and 3Q 2009);
5. Failed to report $430,000 in stock transactions;
6. Had to dramatically revise House filings to show hundreds of thousands of dollars in transactions - unreported assets that concealed anywhere from $38,000 to $116,000 in income for 2007 alone;
7. Failed to report a checking account that was worth between $250,000 and $500,000.
8. Failed to report income to the IRS; paid $10,000 in back taxes but no penalties or interest was apparently assessed (Rep. John Carter (R-TX) introduced the Rangel rule to codify the IRS treatment of Rangel, but it was defeated by House Democrats);
9. Pay to play with AIG and CCNY over the financing of the Charles Rangel Center for Public Service;
10. Broke House rules on reporting trips;
11. Broke New York State Rent Stabilization laws by owning four units and using one as an office (anyone else in that situation would have been booted from the properties);
12. Alternatively broke New York State Rent Stabilization laws or lied on mortgage application documents claiming primary residence status for either the rent stabilized apartments in Harlem, or other properties - the outcome of which is that he received better mortgage terms, or enabled himself to unjustly enrich himself over the span of decades by obtaining a rent stabilized apartment at a time when there's a regular shortage of affordable housing in Manhattan;
13. Fails to meet New York State Rent Stabilization income guidelines with new revelations that he's making more than $175,000 - and quite likely much more than that based on hidden income over the years (rent stabilization means that he's saving nearly $4,000 a month over market rates for same property - a perk that means he's saving $48,000 a year or more than the gross income of many of his constituents);
    
14. Paid lawyers hired to unravel Rangel's tax situation $121,000 from his campaign committee funds, which violate federal election laws (Rangel claims that he got a waiver from FEC; FEC says otherwise);
    
15. Unjustly received a homestead property tax deduction on a D.C. property (again claiming primary residence status);
    
16. Gave contract to his son's company worth nearly $80,000 for building websites that were non-functional and whose value experts believe cost no more than $100; and
    
17. Failed to report imputed income from long term use of House parking lot to store vehicles, which was also a violation of House ethics guidelines.
    

His constituents will continue voting for him, even if he misses more time than practically anyone else in Congress and that's with him being the chair of one of the most important committees in Congress. One other reason that Rangel remains untouchable? He's a top fundraiser for Democrats.

UPDATE:
To further show the disparity in treatment between Rangel and the rest of us, a New York printing company owner was sentenced to jail and forced to pay penalties for failing to report nearly $190,000 in income.

The owner of a New York City printing business was sentenced today to one year and one day in federal prison for not reporting about $189,520 in tax returns, authorities with the Internal Revenue Service said.

David Waxtel, of Westfield, must also pay a fine of $5,000 and serve two years on supervised release after prison. Waxtel plead guilty last October before U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan on charges of tax evasion.

As president of Quantum Printing Company, Inc., Waxtel failed to report a number of payments in 2003 from customers that he deposited into the business bank accounts and then diverted to his personal checking account or his personal investment accounts. He also didn't report income from two rental properties, each with multiple rental units, that he owned in Brooklyn, New York.

It's funny, but that fact pattern is quite like that of Rangel - who failed to report income from rental properties over a period of years, and yet has skated on the penalties that the IRS can and should be imposing.

Pelosi and Hoyer Opine On Un-American Dissent To Health Care Steamroller?

So, USA Today published an op-ed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

That they published the op-ed isn't unusual.

What is unusual is what they said and claimed.

In the meantime, as members of Congress spend time at home during August, they are talking with their constituents about reform. The dialogue between elected representatives and constituents is at the heart of our democracy and plays an integral role in assuring that the legislation we write reflects the genuine needs and concerns of the people we represent.

However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland and protesters holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another congressman in Texas, where protesters also shouted "Just say no!" drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion.

Let the facts be heard

These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.

Health care is complex. It touches every American life. It drives our economy. People must be allowed to learn the facts.

The first fact is that health insurance reform will mean more patient choice. It will allow every American who likes his or her current plan to keep it. And it will free doctors and patients to make the health decisions that make the most sense, not the most profits for insurance companies.

I will tackle this in turn.

First is the actual claim that opposing views are being drowned out. That has been witnessed on several videos from town hall meetings where Representatives have found crowds hostile to the evasive answers provided by said represenatives. They can't honestly answer basic questions about the health care plans being proffered, and some in those crowds have gotten heated.

Then, there's the astounding claim that such dissent is Un-American.

Really?

Would that be like the crazies in Code Pink who routinely sought to disrupt Republicans speaking in Congress or other leftists in and around the country seeking to do the same to President Bush? After all, current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once opined that dissent is the highest form of patriotism and that they have the right to question the Administration.



I guess that now the Democrats are in charge, dissent from the left's positions aren't nearly as patriotic. How quaint.

None of the dissent and heated town hall meetings means that anyone on either side of the aisle has a right to engage in violence, or threaten to violence. There is a way to handle matters in a civil matter, but those boundaries are being pushed from all sides.

That's pushing the actual debate on the issues to the sidelines and allowing radicals to dictate what gets coverage, rather than showing the empty promises of the Administration's claims to savings as a result of imposing the health care plans.

Now, as to the claims that the opposition is somehow misrepresenting what is stated in the health care bill. It's quite easy for Pelosi and Hoyer to claim that things are misrepresented, but that misrepresentation includes the Administration and supporters of the bill. This massive legislation continues to undergo amendments, but key components should raise serious questions over core components of Obama's claims - namely that you'll be able to keep your existing health care plan. You might be able to keep your plan now, but what about next year (after your annual renewals?) What about companies that are exempt from ERISA?

More importantly, how is all of this going to be paid for when the CBO and other critics (nonpartisan and partisan) don't know how any of the numbers add up unless there are significant taxes imposed on the middle class (and surely below the threshold claimed by President Obama on the campaign trail).

No, Reps. Hoyer and Pelosi clearly want to undermine debate on the matter, and the Administration's attempts to rush through this legislation with a minimum of debate shows that there is a fundamental dishonesty by these leaders and an intent to deceive the American people about the true costs of the health care plans under consideration.

The fact is that most Americans are happy with their existing health insurance and health care plans. Access to health care is provided, but many question the cost. This health care bill intends to rework the entire system to promote "access" to a small portion of people in the US, and it is by no means clear that it will result in more accessibility to care, let alone maintain the existing level and quality of care.

Examples from overseas suggest that government mandated health care results in lower quality of care, and examples from US states' experiments in government health care has resulted in severely underestimating the costs, which must be made up through higher taxes or curtailing benefits.

The Runaway Pork Train Continues

The Democrats continue demanding that this massive load of pork, redistribution of wealth and a not so stealthy overhaul of medical care be passed immediately. House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi is looking to get this massive pork offal passed as quickly as possible so that she can jet off to Rome, Italy. What's more important? Pelosi's travel plans or close study of the largest spending plan in the history of the nation? Pelosi's travel plans of course.

This is a 1,000+ page monstrosity and I doubt any member of Congress has actually read all of it. Many members in the House may never get the chance to read this mess before they are asked to vote on it because Pelosi has gone back on her pledge to get them a clean copy of the bill on which they are to vote.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) notes that many wont get a chance to read the bill. Even if they're provided copies, I doubt many have read all of the summations of this bill given that they are so substantial in and of themselves let alone the budget projections that show what a mess this bill makes of the economy going forward and the true cost to the nation. It isn't merely the $789 billion right now, but the $2.3 trillion or more that future generations of Americans will be paying off (if at all).

It's hysterical to hear about how the Obama Administration blames President Bush for leaving him with a trillion dollar deficit, and yet Obama is about to triple it in one fell swoop with this stimulus package, even as the Democrats ponder a follow on stimulus package that would be nearly as costly. The CBO doesn't take kindly to any of this either, and has a handy dandy graphic to highlight what this does to 2009 alone. How is any of this fiscally responsible.

It isn't.

That's why so many people are starting to balk at the package. Sen. Harry Reid doesn't know if he's got the 60 votes needed to close debate and bring the measure to a floor vote. Now that Sen. Judd Gregg is back in consideration after bailing on the Commerce Secretary nomination over the porkfest and census data grab by the White House, the numbers are even tighter.

UPDATE:
Will the stimulus stimulate the economy? Nope.

The compromise economic stimulus plan agreed to by negotiators from the House of Representatives and the Senate is short on incentives to get consumers spending again and long on social goals that won't stimulate economic activity, according to a range of respected economists.

"I think (doing) nothing would have been better," said Ed Yardeni, an investment analyst who's usually an optimist, in an interview with McClatchy. He argued that the plan fails to provide the right incentives to spur spending.

"It's unfocused. That is my problem. It is a lot of money for a lot of nickel-and- dime programs. I would have rather had a lot of money for (promoting purchase of) housing and autos . . . . Most of this plan is really, I think, aimed at stabilizing the situation and helping people get through the recession, rather than getting us out of the recession. They are actually providing less short-term stimulus by cutting back, from what I understand, some of the tax credits."

It's also curious to watch Democrats cheer the tax cuts that might provide $500-600 to many Americans when they pooh-poohed the same when President Bush offered additional rebates in that amount last year. In fact, Michelle Obama lambasted the Bush tax break, claiming that the $600 would buy only a pair of earrings. The Anchoress has more, but what is also important is that the federal government is going to provide tax breaks at a time when the states are looking to raise taxes to cover their costs.

Consider that New York City has already stated that they're not going to give the expected property tax rebates. That's roughly $400 per homeowner. In New Jersey, Gov. Corzine has contemplated something similar, and the property tax relief in New Jersey would have exceeded the amount provided by the Obama tax cut. In other words, taxpayers in many parts of the country will never see the benefit of the tax cuts because localities are busy raising taxes or cutting rebates that siphon off still more taxpayer dollars. It's a shell game, and no one can keep track of where all the money is going.

UPDATE:
The House has voted to pass this porkfest 246-183. All GOPers and seven Democrats voted against (one Democrat voted "Present"). It was bipartisan opposition to this mess.

You Don't Say: Pelosi Worried About Murtha Corruption Probe

You could have fooled me that the House Democrats were worried about corruption and the appearance of impropriety. After all, they have been extremely busy defending Rep. Charles Rangel from a GOP effort to strip him of his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee as an ethics panel investigates his tax evasion and ethics violations.

They have been busy ignoring Rep. William Jefferson's freezer stuffed with cold cash that is now the subject of a federal bribery and corruption investigation.

And now, they're worried about the reprehensible Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania who was reelected to his seat despite showing utter disdain to his own constituents and the residents of rural Pennsylvania and the ongoing concerns about his ties to lobbyist groups and improprieties.

It turns out that there was good reason to be concerned about this former unindicted coconspirator of the ABSCAM case. The FBI is busy looking through the records of close associates.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders are “concerned” by a widening criminal probe that may involve Rep. John P. Murtha, but sources close to the leadership say there’s no move afoot to force him out as chairman of the powerful Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.

“We are watching to see what happens,” said a senior House Democratic aide. “At this point, there is nothing for us to do. There is not a clear indication yet that Mr. Murtha has done anything wrong or that the Justice Department is targeting him in any way, so there is no reason to take any action.”

The new worries about Murtha come in the wake of news of a November raid of the PMA Group, a lobbying firm with close ties to the veteran Pennsylvania Democrat.

PMA was founded in 1989 by former Murtha aide Paul Magliocchetti and was ranked the 10th biggest lobbying firm in Washington as recently as last year. But a source close to the firm said it has “disintegrated” over the past few days, with Magliocchetti heading off to potential retirement in Florida and other top lobbyists there busy starting up their own new company.

Several sources told Politico on Wednesday that Magliocchetti has hired a criminal defense attorney to represent him in the probe, but attempts to reach Magliocchetti for comment were unsuccessful.

Note too that they're not so concerned that they would strip him of his chairmanship either.

This is getting to be a regular pattern with the Democrats since Pelosi took over. She regularly looks the other way as her caucus engages in corrupt and unethical practices, and continues to appoint these individuals to high ranking posts.

The Porkfest Has Its Supporters

Where is the money going to go in New Jersey? Herb Jackson spins such a rosy picture with his breakdown of where our tax dollars will be going. Oh wait. It's not our tax dollars since this is all debt financing and the federal government is borrowing a trillion dollars to put these new programs and spending plans in place. Does anyone actually think that any of this federal money is going to make its way into repairing roads or bridges in 2009, when it is most needed? I don't. New Jersey's experience in building schools has shown that it is an awful steward of tax dollars - your money. Rosy pictures of hundreds of school projects completed accompanied the plans of the School Construction Corporation (now the School Development Authority) and the billions that were appropriated for school projects. That ended up in a cesspool of corruption and half finished projects, if they were ever started at all. Consider that Jackson notes that $420 million will go to school construction and renovations. Here's New Jersey's record with a far greater sum:

The SCC was founded after July 18, 2000, when the New Jersey Educational Facilities Construction and Financing Act allocated $8.6 billion for public school construction and renovation statewide, which included $6 billion for the 31 urban "Abbott" special-needs districts.

In July 2002, then Gov. James McGreevey created the New Jersey SCC to oversee the school construction projects.

However, over the last few years, the SCC was criticized for overspending on projects and fiscal mismanagement.

When Corzine took office in 2006, he created a committee to review SCC operations and develop a new process for school construction. The committee recommended a complete overhaul of management.

Since its inception, the SCC has completed 30 new schools and 26 major renovations. But funding shrank with only a few of the beginning projects underway, with over 300 projects still pending.

Billions of dollars spent and a grand total of 56 major projects were finished out of more than 300 proposed. The New Jersey portion of the porkfest will be a drop in the bucket based on how New Jersey spends money on schools. It certainly wont provide the kind of infrastructure improvement Obama claims, and it certainly wont help this year. It probably wont even help years from now as the backlog of projects from the original SCC is so long, and that's assuming that the projects have been spec'd out. The state will likely roll the money into the general fund so as to help the bottom line of the state, rather than address the structural problems with the state budget.

Even President Obama's choice for budget chief, Peter Orszag, who previously ran the Congressional Budget Office, thinks that stimulus plans such as the one that President Obama and the Democrats are ramming through Congress are awful and do nothing to actually stimulate the economy:

Timing. The timing of fiscal stimulus is critical. If the policies do not generate additional spending when the economy is in a phase of very slow growth or a recession, they will provide little help to the economy when it is needed. (Over the long term, the key constraint to economic growth is the rate at which the capacity of firms to produce goods and services is expanded—not aggregate demand.) Poorly timed policies may do harm by aggravating inflationary pressures and needlessly increasing federal debt if they stimulate the economy after it has already started to recover.

For numerous reasons, discretionary fiscal stimulus may not be properly timed, and it has often been mistimed in the past. The failure to forecast a coming slowdown or contraction in economic activity is generally thought to be the most important reason for poor timing and is referred to as a "recognition lag." Additional problems can arise if the policy change that is adopted does not affect spending immediately or if there are lags in enacting or implementing policies.

The historical record on the effectiveness of efforts to provide discretionary fiscal stimulus is mixed.8 Much of the research indicates that fiscal policy in the 1960s and 1970s was poorly timed and, in some instances, destabilizing. By contrast, the tax rebate in 2001 provided stimulus during the recession of that period.

The recognition lag is a major challenge in applying discretionary fiscal policy, but it may not be as critical as it was before the 1990s. One of the most severe recognition lags occurred in the 1974 recession, when economists generally did not perceive the economy to be in a recession until well after it had begun. This meant that the tax rebates ultimately adopted to spur the economy did not take effect until March 1975, after the economy had already started to recover. During the two most recent recessions (in 1990 and 2001), by contrast, economic weakness was recognized relatively quickly. Concerns about slow growth—a slowing that subsequently was dated as a recession that started in August 1990—were raised in September 1990. Similarly, the stock market crash that started early in 2000 alerted economists to the possibility of a recession, and by January 2001 economists generally expected very slow growth. The 2001 recession was subsequently dated to have begun after March of that year. One of the problems that made it difficult to recognize the poor state of the economy during the 1974 episode—a high rate of inflation that distorted the perception of the underlying weakness in real economic activity—has not been a problem in recent decades.

The current porkfest doesn't actually increase spending right now while we're in the recession, but actually backloads the spending into 2010 and beyond, when economists already predict a recovery even without any stimulus package.

James Pethokoukis notes the following as well from the CBO:

"Practically speaking, however, public works involve long start-up lags. Large-scale construction projects of any type require years of planning and preparation. Even those that are "on the shelf" generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy. For major infrastructure projects supported by the federal government, such as highway construction and activities of the Army Corps of Engineers, initial outlays usually total less than 25 percent of the funding provided in a given year. For large projects, the initial rate of spending can be significantly lower than 25 percent.

Some of the candidates for public works, such as grant-funded initiatives to develop alternative energy sources, are totally impractical for countercyclical policy, regardless of whatever other merits they may have. In general, many if not most of these projects could end up making the economic situation worse because they would stimulate the economy at the time that expansion was already well under way."

He further notes that only 15% of the entire porkfest will actually be spent during the fiscal year ending in October. In other words, the overwhelming majority of this money (which the nation doesn't even have) isn't going to be spent until well into the future and when its effects are going to be dubious at best.

Wall Street pundits may approve of the stimulus package passage because they think that it gives them a sense of stability, but it doesn't actually improve the economic outlook. Wall Street is into whatever will provide them with free money, and a porkfest is just the thing. That's why they were cheerleading for the last stimulus package, TARP, and now the current effort. They like stability, and that the bill passed gives them hope that things will stabilize, even though it papers over real problems with the economy and doesn't actually address the supposedly critical pieces of infrastructure that Obama claims must be improved.

Speaker Pelosi says that Democrats will be held accountable for the spending. Really? When have they ever been accountable for spending? Have they ever produced a budget that was smaller than the year prior because revenues didn't match projections? Have they ever practiced fiscal responsibility? She's just trying to spin the fact that the GOP didn't go along with the porkfest as something to be proud of. The "stimulus" package still includes pork such as providing money for contraceptives and the NEA and other government entities that provide no net benefit or job creation.

And you wonder why people think that the spending isn't going to be temporary?

Pelosi's Inane Rant of the Day

Well, this should get your blood boiling. Apparently birth control is good for the economy.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

She's attempting to justify porkbarrel spending on a pet program - contraceptives and birth control - by claiming that birth control will reduce the need for education, health care, and everything else.

If these leftists are so interested in saving the economy and environment, how about doing it themselves by not procreating. You don't need the government to do that, just self-control. That would save everyone from all the hot air we're exposed to incessantly by the radical leftists.

Pelosi is basically telling people to do as I say, but not as I have done, as she's a mother of 5 children and has 6 grandchildren. I don't see her telling her kids to stop having kids.

It is without a doubt expensive to have kids. There's production costs for all the stuff that growing kids need, from baby formula, strollers, clothes, to costs of education. That's money that goes to school districts, teachers, and all the related industries that support school operations (publishers, manufacturers, maintenance, construction, etc.) All that money goes somewhere, and that includes corporations that pay taxes on that income, wages earned by all the people working for those stores, businesses, schools, and ancillary activities that people rely on.

It costs $190,000 to raise a child to the age of 18, and that's a conservative figure at best. Throw in college, which can cost another $100,000, and you're talking real money.

That's real income earned by all those people, and Pelosi is telling us to throw that all away because it costs money, but contraceptives will save us money in the long run?

Expect to hear lots more of this claptrap in the years to come.

UPDATE:
Here's the video, courtesy of Ms. Underestimated:



Note too that contraceptives and birth control will also include abortions, which is one of the pet causes of the left. Nice. The Democrats now think that the way to stimulate the economy is to encourage abortions and birth control.

Hope and Change: Rangel Ethics Investigation Panel Virtually Disbanded

House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi once proclaimed that under her tenure we'd have the most ethical Congress ever. Apparently the Democrats definition of ethics and mine differ sharply.

Under Pelosi, she condones criminal conduct, including tax evasion by Chairman Charles Rangel. The ethics panel that was supposed to investigate Rangel has barely met and isn't expect to reach a decision anytime soon. Some of the delay is the result of the change in personnel between the outgoing Congress and the new 111th Congress.

The panel created on Sept. 24 to probe the Harlem Democrat's alleged ethical lapses has been virtually disbanded, after meeting only twice in four months on the matter, The Post has learned.

Of the four congressmen named to look into the powerful Ways and Means Committee chairman, only one remains - Alabama Republican Jo Bonner. The three others left the Rangel probe last month when they were "rotated" off the 10-member Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

The dormant investigation won't be jump-started until three incoming ethics committee members are assigned to the Rangel probe later this month.

Because the committee conducts its work in secret, it is not clear if any progress has been made on the Rangel investigation. In the committee's recently released 100-page report on its work in the 110th Congress, only four paragraphs mention the Rangel probe, listing five alleged ethics breaches and noting that the panel had not been able to complete the investigation.

The panel has already missed Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Jan. 3 deadline for filing a final report on Rangel.

The investigative subcommittee was convened three weeks after a Post exposé reported that the 38-year lawmaker failed to declare rental income on a beachfront villa he owns in the Dominican Republic.

Among other alleged breaches referred to Congress: Rangel's use of four rent-stabilized apartments in Harlem; his use of congressional stationery to solicit donations for an academic center named in his honor at City College; his storage of a vintage Mercedes at a House parking garage; and a $1 million pledge to the Rangel Center from an oil-drilling company that benefited from Rangel-sponsored tax legislation.

Critics say the shuffling of committee members will delay an already lackluster probe.

Rangel broke the law when he failed to report rental income. He broke the law when using rent stabilized apartments in New York City for office purposes. He broke the law by failing to report capital gains from the sale of real property, and he broke the law by failing to report imputed income from using a House parking spot for long term storage of his car. He repeatedly broke IRS rules and guidelines when it comes to paying tax.

Rangel doesn't have Tim Geithner's TurboTax defense handy. He also lacks any semblance of records to substantiate how and why he filed his returns in the manner that he did.

Did I mention that Rangel is the head of the House Ways and Means Committee, which sets tax policy for the nation? It's reprehensible that Pelosi continues to stand by Rangel despite the mountains of evidence of malfeasance, but that's par for the course.

You Don't Say: Rangel Broke House Rules On Trips

None of this is surprising. Democrat Charles Rangel openly flouts laws and rules, whether it's tax law or House ethics rules. His latest screwup? Trips to the Caribbean appear to have broken House ethics rules.

For at least five of the last six years, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and several other members of the Congressional Black Caucus have spent a few days each fall at a different luxurious Caribbean island resort.

The trip’s official mission is to facilitate business and diplomatic relationships between the region and the United States.

This year’s trip took place Nov. 6 to 9, the weekend after the election, on the sun-swept 10-acre Sonesta Maho Beach Resort in St. Martin. The ethics committee approved the Caribbean trip, as it has done for several years, but new information uncovered about its corporate funding raises questions about whether the trip violates a two-year-old ethics rule passed after Democrats regained the House.

The New York Carib News Foundation, a nonprofit affiliated with a newspaper geared toward the city’s Caribbean community, is listed on members’ travel disclosure documents as the trip’s sponsor.

When the nonprofit’s CEO, Karl Rodney, sought ethics committee approval for the trip, as the new rules require, he checked a box on the form certifying that the foundation “has not accepted from any other source funds earmarked directly or indirectly to finance any aspect of the trip.”

After House Democrats regained the majority on a campaign of draining the Washington swamp, they passed tougher new rules governing privately funded trips for members. The ethics rules bar corporations or other entities that employ or retain a registered lobbyist from paying for multi-day trips, either directly or indirectly.

Yet two spokeswomen for American Airlines, the largest carrier from the U.S. to the Caribbean, told The Hill that the company recently provided in-kind donations of tickets for Rangel and five other members of Congress to fly from their districts to St. Martin, a tropical island in the northeast Caribbean. According to ethics experts, the American Airlines donation of tickets for members to use for a specific trip is a clear violation of House ethics rules governing travel. American Airlines has spent more than $6 million on lobbying in the first three-quarters of this year.

He and his fellow Democrats have broken the House ethics rules for five of the last six years. It wasn't until some journalists began digging into Rangel's actions following the revelations that Rangel was evading taxes on multiple instances that we're beginning to learn the audacious scope of Rangel's malfeasance.

I'm not holding my breath to see if House Democrats take action against Rangel. They have refused to force him to step down as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which sets tax policy for the nation despite being a chronic evader of taxes by failing to report taxes on multiple instances and across a wide range of tax issues (real estate, imputed income, rental income, etc.). They've refused to force him to step down despite breaking House ethics rules.

The rules simply have not applied to Rangel for years, and as we've come to learn, they don't apply to many members of the House, particularly if they're Democrats. Had these been Republicans, the scandal would be front page news and demands for his resignation would have been made loudly by House Democrats. Here, it's the silence of the caucus that is deafening. House Speaker Pelosi, a Democrat, has professed that this would be the most ethical Congress ever, and rose to power on the heels of scandals that laid the Republicans low. Nice to see that she's found ways to scrape the bottom of the barrel even lower.

Don't Take My Word

Read what the Democrats have planned for what they assume will be an Obama victory in two weeks:

1. Massive tax increases.
2. Massive cuts in defense spending. Defense spending cuts on the order of 25%? Are you kidding me? Thanks Barney Frank. You're not only responsible for aiding and abetting the toxic paper scandal by pushing lenders to give loans to subprime borrowers without regard to the ability to repay, you now want to gut America's national defense.
3. Democrats are considering playing Socialism: Take 401(k).

None of this is sound policy judgment, but yet that is precisely the direction Democrats want to head. The most extreme elements of the Democratic party are hoping that an Obama presidency gives them the opportunity to remake the government in their distorted image.

Let's also point out that the most ethical Congress ever (as claimed by none other than Speaker Nancy Pelosi) continues to do nothing about Tim Mahoney (or delve into what Rahm Emanuel knew and when he knew), Charlie (I'm the tax man, but wont pay my taxes) Rangel, William (Cold Cash) Jefferson, or investigate the toxic paper meltdown until after the elections precisely because so many Democrats are up to their necks in enabling that mess.

Do we really want these people in charge:

These people are not for honest leadership, for if they were, Rangel would have been tossed from his chairmanship, Jefferson would have been booted, and the Democrats would have disassociated themselves from Mahoney. Instead, we've got Pelosi enabling these corrupt politicians by dragging her feet and doing nothing to stop the cesspool of corruption among her own caucus.

Mahoney Mess: Divorce Filings and Media Incuriosity

Why is the media continuing to essentially conduct a blackout on news about Democrat Tim Mahoney and his affairs (the extramarital affair with a campaign staffer and then the affair with a FEMA worker)? Well, this is a self-answering question: the answer is already in the question. Mahoney is a Democrat.

Just two years ago, the media circled around Rep. Mark Foley (R), and seized on GOP leadership's knowledge and actions on the scandal to play up the fact that the GOP were corrupt or somehow damaged. It helped play a role in costing Democrats the election.

Here? You're getting crickets, despite the fact that Mahoney was Democrat leader Rahm Emanuel's pick for replacing Foley. How and why Emanuel chose Mahoney is a mystery to local Democrats, who were pretty much ignored in the process because Mahoney was quite wealthy. Money talked, and Emanuel pushed Mahoney.

It's also apparent from various sources that Emanuel and other Democrat leaders knew about at least one of the affairs and did nothing.

Now, sometimes the ethics panel starts investigations after an official complaint is filed by a member, and occasionally it launches a probe on its own. What it doesn't normally do is this -- announce that it is "reviewing" a topic without actually forming an investigative subcommittee. The statement also sparks more questions: Who exactly is the committee going to interview? Will it seek testimony from Democratic leaders?

This last issue is important, because Reps. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) and Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), the current and former chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, have both acknowledged talking to Mahoney about the allegations before the story broke.

Democrats demanded hearings in which GOP leaders had to testify as to their knowledge of Foley's mess in 2006. Where is Speaker Pelosi and Emanuel to testify here on Mahoney?

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has issued a statement saying, "In 2006, House Republican leaders voluntarily testified under oath in the matter of disgraced former Congressman Mark Foley. Will House Democratic leaders, including Speaker Pelosi, Congressman Emanuel, and Congressman Van Hollen, agree to do the same? The American people deserve to know what House Democratic leaders knew about Congressman Mahoney's reprehensible actions, what they did with the information."

So much for the most ethical Congress mantra that Pelosi has chattered about for two years without so much as taking a single step to deal with any number of Congressional Democrats who have engaged in unethical or illegal actions, including William "Cold Cash" Jefferson and Charlie "I am the tax man" Rangel.

Emanuel and the leadership had been trying to keep the story buried until after the election, but ABC News managed to break the news. It's been an incurious media since then that hasn't forced the Democrats to answer for their actions in the same manner in which Republicans were raked over the coals in 2006. That cannot be attributed to anything other than bias in the media. After all, we're talking about the same kinds of salacious issues that newspapers usually love to cover: sex, power, politics, and corruption.

Meanwhile,
Mahoney's wife is finally taking action - she's filing for divorce. I hope she takes him to the cleaners.

Don Surber has more.

UPDATE:
Jammie reports that Mark Foley has been sighted, and now supports Sen. Barack Obama for President. Obama can have him. Foley also expressed some pleasure at watching Mahoney's meltdown and all signs point to the Republicans picking up the seat.

UPDATE:
Drudge is now carrying the following from Mark Foley:

FOLEY: 'An online article posted today on Variety's website innaccurately reported that I was supporting Barack Obama. The story on Variety's website, based on a second or third-hand account of my private conversation, is incorrect. I have already voted by absentee ballot in Florida. Although I didn't vote for Senator Obama, I intend to keep my choice private.'

Great reporting by the drive-by media in claiming that Foley was voting for Obama.

Democrats Exhibit Hypocrisy On Rangel

So, this is how Rep. Nancy Pelosi is supposed to make this the most ethical Congress ever. Her grand plan involves looking the other way while her Democrat colleagues engage in illegal conduct - evading taxes is a violation of state and federal law - to say nothing of moral and ethical lapses that accompany such actions. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) got a talking to by Rep. Pelosi, the House Majority Leader, but the outcome remains this: he's still the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee - the very committee that writes the federal tax code and handles appropriations.

That's no place for an individual who not only can't seem to get his own tax situation correct, but has apparently submitted incorrect tax returns for the better part of a decade by misstating income earned from real estate holdings in the US and elsewhere.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday privately pushed Rep. Charlie Rangel to give up his chairmanship of the influential House tax-rules committee amid explosive revelations that his personal tax filings were riddled with errors and omissions, a well- placed source said.

Rangel, the Democratic chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, has been resisting growing calls to step down from the high-profile leadership role since The Post reported the Harlem congressman failed to disclose rental income from his Dominican Republic beach home.

Rangel subsequently admitted owing at least $10,000 in back taxes and became a target of Republican political attacks.

One member of the New York congressional delegation who supported Pelosi's decision said, "You have to have one standard - you can't have one for [Republicans] and one for us."

It is curious how the Democrats suddenly have said that they're not going to treat Rangel any differently than Republicans treated their own when caught in such circumstances. How exactly does that make it right (and that's assuming arguendo that the Democrats are indeed following the GOP position of not dispatching their own when they engaged in illicit conduct). How exactly does that make it right? It doesn't.

Shouldn't there be one standard? If you commit illegal acts, you lose your seat. If you engage in illicit conduct, you must lose your chairmanships until the legalities are resolved. Why is such things left to the whims of those holding the reigns of power as the majority leader of the House or the Senate? That would eliminate the supposed hypocrisy of one party acting one way while the other doesn't.

This once again shows that the Democrats have absolutely no interest in making this the most ethical Congress ever, but rather seek power and will say and do anything to obtain it.

UPDATE:
For those who need a scorecard on what Rangel has done, consider the following:

1. Rented four rent-subsidized apartments in New York City, using one as an office, in direct violation of state rent guidelines.
2. Used official stationary to solicit donations for a CUNY school that will soon bear his name;
3. Rangel failed to account for income earned from a Punta Cana villa in the Dominican Republic on his state and federal income taxes (which so far he has copped to being short $5,000 on each state and federal returns). He also attempted to blame the situation on his wife, who he claimed was responsible for putting together the joint tax returns.
   
4. He paid no interest on the mortgage for that villa after the first two years (and apparently the value of the mortgage keeps shifting as well), which raises questions of impropriety as the waiver of interest could be considered a gift and taxable income.
   
5. He failed to account for income earned on multiple properties, including the sale of a property more than a decade ago.
6. Rangel has taken lobbyist junkets without proper reporting under Congressional guidelines.

The excuses given by Rangel to explain his incorrect tax returns are laughable, considering that he lives and represents a district inhabited by a large Dominican contingent, and he's been known to speak Spanish nearly as well as many resident Dominicans.

UPDATE:
If Pelosi acts and strips Rangel of his chairmanship, she creates a huge headache with the New York delegation, which can't come at a worse time. Sen. Obama's polling appears to have slipped in New York and if the scandal festers, voters might take it out on Democrats up and down the ticket. If she doesn't act, the Republicans will rightfully claim that the Democrats are hypocrites and have no problem with a tax cheat running Ways and Means. It's a no win situation and Pelosi can't afford to make a decision in either direction. So, she's hoping that Rangel makes the decision for her. Fat chance.

Jammie also weighs in.

UPDATE:
Here's a catalog of Rangel's various excuses and spin to explain away his legal and tax woes.

UPDATE:
Rangel refuses to step down, even temporarily at the behest of Rep. Pelosi. He doesn't think he's done anything wrong; his fellow NY Democrats don't think he's done anything wrong; and Pelosi isn't going to act on her own to make him step down.

Watch for the next step to come from the IRS or the NYS Dept. of Taxation and Finance.

The Tax Prof has more. In one of his prior posts the Tax Prof quips that if Rangel, who's been involved in crafting the tax law for 38 years, can't figure out what is taxable income and what is excluded, how can anyone else be expected to do the same. Indeed.

Pelosi's Full of Natural Gas

Well, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is certainly full of something, and it isn't intelligence, as she continues to thwart domestic energy exploration and offshore drilling. Her latest clueless statements, as reported by the WSJ, tries to separate natural gas from other fossil fuels.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, the speaker twice seemed to suggest that natural gas – an energy source she favors – is not a fossil fuel.

“I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels,” she said at one point. Natural gas “is cheap, abundant and clean compared to fossil fuels,” she said at another.

The speaker apparently was trying to contrast her support for expanded use of natural gas as a motor-vehicle fuel, and many Republicans’ preference for more domestic oil drilling — particularly through opening up more of the Outer Continental Shelf for exploration.

Natural gas is a fossil fuel.

Natural gas is plentiful, but when you oppose offshore drilling in places where it's known to exist, you drive up the costs. When you threaten windfall profits taxes on energy companies, you're not going to get new exploration or development of those plentiful energy deposits.

Maybe that's why other zero-growth eco-leftists like Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) or Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) oppose any offshore drilling along the New Jersey coastline, even though natural gas deposits are known to exist there.

As the WSJ notes, even Rep. Pelosi knows that natural gas deposits are plentiful and cheaper than other energy plays. Yet, these Democrats all oppose offshore drilling that would open up new energy sources and which would drive down the costs of energy production and provide a stable source of energy for years to come.

Menendez is trying to link his opposition to offshore drilling to his opposition to the war in Iraq - claiming that it's the right thing to do even though it's unpopular.

The Democratic senator from New Jersey, -- who is sponsoring legislation to permanently bar drilling in the outer continental shelf -- said his opposition to drilling has not wavered despite two recent polls showing New Jerseyans open to the prospect of new drilling, perhaps even in their own back yards.

"The bottom line is there is real risk here," Menendez said. "Unless we want to lose the $20 billion economy of the shore and do it for a lot less energy than we'd get for pursuing the renewable energy tax credits, then I think drilling doesn't make a lot of sense."

Sorry, Bob, but you're on the wrong side of both issues. Opposing offshore drilling is not a principled stand by one of NIMBY. You claim to take the position because of the concern for the Jersey Shore tourism industry, yet blatantly ignore the fact that people simply aren't going to travel to the Jersey Shore if it costs more to get there and people will not spend if they actually do go.

Menendez wants to see energy costs soar. That's what a permanent ban on offshore drilling would bring.

I'll also note that offshore drilling would bring badly needed jobs to the state of New Jersey and could provide a lucrative revenue source to Trenton if they decided to impose severance taxes on oil and gas.

Pelosi Will Continue Holding US Energy Policy Hostage

House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) continues to hold America's energy policy hostage to the zero growth eco-left. She refuses to allow a floor vote on the lifting of the Congressional moratorium on offshore oil drilling.

Instead, she said, she wants Congress to tackle a compromise comprehensive energy plan that would include alternative energy sources and curtailing tax breaks for oil companies.

"You want to drill? We want the royalties for the American people, and we want that to pay for renewable energy resources," the San Francisco Democrat said in an interview for KQED television's weekly news show, "This Week in Northern California." "We want to connect all that together."

Pelosi couldn't be more hopelessly wrong or misguided. The government already gets royalties. It's called taxes on all those leases - regardless of whether they are active drill sites or not. Meanwhile, the more offshore drilling, the more royalties are delivered to the government. The government can decide to set aside every penny received to develop alternative energy programs (but it can't because it needs that money to pour into entitlements and other programs), but as I've noted previously, the Europeans have had higher energy taxes for years and are no closer to developing alternative energy than the US. More to the point, the Europeans are looking at a situation where they need to build more coal-fired power plants and keep nuclear power plants in operation despite a pledge to shutter those nuclear power plants.

Pelosi is hopelessly beholden to the eco-left, which demands nothing less than zero-growth and a declining standard of living in the US.

What exactly is this so-called hoax that Pelosi speaks of. You produce more oil from offshore oil wells, that's more oil that can be used to bring down the price of oil - supply and demand. They did teach that in schools years ago; and economics 101 is a concept that anyone in office should understand. Applying Pelosi's energy policy to other areas of life shows the utter absurdity of refusing to develop energy resources domestically.

Spinning Pelosi's Stubborn Refusal To Drilling

That's right folks, Nancy Pelosi's refusal to allow offshore oil drilling measures come up for a vote is part of a plan by Pelosi to allow members of the Democratic caucus to go outside the box and express themselves independently so as to fend off GOP attacks.

California Democrat Nancy Pelosi may be trying to save the planet — but the rank and file in her party increasingly are just trying to save their political hides when it comes to gas prices as Republicans apply more and more rhetorical muscle.

But what looks like intraparty tension on the surface is part of an intentional strategy in which Pelosi takes the heat on energy policy, while behind the scenes she’s encouraging vulnerable Democrats to express their independence if it helps them politically, according to Democratic aides on and off Capitol Hill.

Pelosi’s gambit rests on one big assumption: that Democrats will own Washington after the election and will be able to craft a sweeping energy policy that is heavy on conservation and fuel alternatives while allowing for some new oil drilling. Democrats see no need to make major concessions on energy policy with a party poised to lose seats in both chambers in just three months — even if recess-averse Republicans continue to pound away on the issue.

Those are mighty big assumptions the way the energy issue is biting into what should be a Democrat sweep in November. Heck, it's an oversized ego to think that the planet needs saving in the first place given that it was here before mankind, and will outlast mankind all the same.

Pelosi's positions are based on power and control. She thinks that high energy prices are crucial for the Democrats to increase their power and control - government imposed efforts to control larger and larger portions of the economy through mandates and laws designed to limit personal choices and the market.

Those Democrats who are starting to express their displeasure with Pelosi are doing so not because they've been given permission from the eco-leftists like Pelosi, but because they see the polling in their districts and nationally and recognize that most Americans want to open up the opportunity for oil companies to drill offshore domestically since it could not only lower oil prices, but provide a stable and secure oil supply without reliance on places like the Middle East, Nigeria, or Venezuela.

The eco-leftists, like Pelosi, think that high energy prices is a good thing, and is seeking to drive them higher. They think that your misery is a good thing when you go and pay more at the gas pump because it might get you out of your car and relying on mass transit instead and that it makes the imposition of various mandates all the more possible.

Then again, Pelosi represents San Francisco, where the trash police will start imposing serious fines for throwing garbage into the wrong bins. She probably figures that if San Francisco residents don't mind having the nanny state rammed down their throats at every turn, no one else should mind it either.