Friday, December 3, 2010


No, I'm sure there must be some mistake...

Members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus may tout their commitment to cutting government spending now, but they used the 111th Congress to request hundreds of earmarks that, taken cumulatively, added more than $1 billion to the federal budget.

According to a Hotline review of records compiled by Citizens Against Government Waste, the 52 members of the caucus, which pledges to cut spending and reduce the size of government, requested a total of 764 earmarks valued at $1,049,783,150 during Fiscal Year 2010, the last year for which records are available.

"It's disturbing to see the Tea Party Caucus requested that much in earmarks. This is their time to put up or shut up, to be blunt," said David Williams, vice president for policy at Citizens Against Government Waste. "There's going to be a huge backlash if they continue to request earmarks."

In founding the caucus in July, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said she was giving voice to Americans who were sick of government over-spending.

I've been asked why I write about this stuff, and haven't mentioned Charlie Rangel. It's pretty simple, really. What Charlie Rangel does has no impact on me. (Same reason I didn't mention Tom Delay, now that he's out of Congress.) If he did something wrong*, I'm glad he was censured; but it doesn't affect our country one way or the other.

What does affect our country, and what I feel like writing about, are the big-picture issues: like how teabaggers have been sandbagged by their chosen party; how the people they elect aren't just frauds: they're actively and happily stupid, hypocritical, and about to take our country in a very destructive direction. Namely, the very direction that Obama and the Democrats were tasked with reversing and repairing the damage thereof. Except this time around, it'll be worse. We'll not only be led by a bunch of uninformed and anti-intellectual people; we'll be addressing our most impactful problems with Bible quotes.

And of course I do criticize Ds. Often. For their lame policies, their constant caving, poor messaging, and worse.

Charlie Rangel?


Returning to the proven-failed policies of Bush and Reagan, amplified by biblical certainty and ignorance?


The internet is full of people ranting about Charlie Rangel and Obama hugging the MOH winner. Devoid of actual policy, it's all they've got. I prefer to talk about the important stuff.

Not that anyone listens.


*Added after comment by Molly NYC, below. Thanks, Molly.


  1. OK, I know I'm playin into all your Ann Colter right wing fantasies, I mean Stereo-types...
    Maybe I AM stupid, or at the least, ignorant.
    I'd never seen Charlie Rangle until yesterday, I don't watch much Hard News, Hard Core, yes, Hard News, No.
    I'd heard him a few times, OK, YES, on Shawn Hannity, which my Teabagger(I wish) Wife insists on listening to the rare occasions we're in the same car from 4-6pm.
    And I'd always loved his accent, sounds alot like my Father in Law's Bronx/Brooklyn/Long Island Brogue and it wasn't till last night when I clicked away from the Miami/Cleveland game...
    CHARLIE RANGEL'S BLACK?!?!?!?!?!?!? At least thats what they say, although I think he borrowed Floyd Bentsen's hair(and if you can figure out that reference, its sad)

    and sorry I don't really have a point to make, but its so sad when nobody else comments...


  2. Chuck Rangel's ethics violations are even smaller potatoes than you think. What he's accused of is

    (a) Not paying taxes on a house in Dominica--and okay, they have him there. But compared to the stuff other congressmen get into, it's squat. And naturally, the congress members who are most outraged about Rangel not paying taxes are the ones who usually take the position that paying taxes is the worst thing in the world.

    (b) Retained a rent-stabilized apartment. In NYC nobody gives up a rent-stabilized apartment. The only local who would give a crap about this would be the landlord--only the landlord didn't bother either, so even he must have been okay with it. (Oh, and of the non-locals, who complained the loudest? Mr. Ethics himself, John Boehner--who distributed checks from tobacco lobbyists on the House floor, immediately before tobacco-subsidy votes.)

    (c) This last is the accusation that, to me, really represents how mean-minded this matter is: Rangel had a sit-down with someone who later gave money, not to Rangel, not to his family, not to his staff, but to CCNY, the biggest public university in his district. I.e., he did what congressmen are supposed to do: brought some money to his district. Rangel, like I say, doesn't make a dime off this. However, after serving this community for half his life, this 80-year-old man gets his name attached to a subsection of the performing arts department of a local state university: this is supposed to constitute an "ethics violation."

    This isn't about ethics, It's about sticking it to Rangel.

    Inasmuch as this was the worst they could dig up on him after 40 years in office, I'd say he was clean as a whistle.

    Molly, NYC

  3. Thanks for that, Molly. Fact is I hadn't followed the story much, and I have to admit I didn't know the details. I think I'll have to edit my post a little, adding "If he did something wrong".

  4. Ummm maybe I over slept, but isn't it a DEMOCRAT Congress that's "Sticking it" to Rangel??
    and I know the Congressional Basketball Team, I mean the Congressional Black Caucus, didn't join in, but the vote against him was truly the Bi-Party Coalition you sissies so desperately long for...
    And whats so bad about a "Censure" anyways? Not like he'll be doin jail time/fine or even community service.
    So he has to stand there and listen to his colleages say mean things, some people would like that, I'd ESPECIALLY like that, especially if Nancy Pelosi would shake her sexy index finger at me...



Comments back, moderated. Preference given for those who stay on topic.

Popular posts