Here are some highlights from the study issued Monday by the Center for Public Integrity, as reported by The Washington Post:
Republican and Democratic lawmakers accepted nearly $50 million in trips from January 2000 through June 2005.
House and Senate members and their aides were away from Washington for more than 81,000 days — a combined 222 years — on at least 23,000 trips.
About 2,300 of the trips cost $5,000 or more, at least 500 cost $10,000 or more, and 16 cost $25,000 or more.
Lawmakers and their staffers were treated to $25,000 corporate-jet rides and $500-a-night hotel rooms.
Lawmakers accepted thousands of costly jaunts — one worth more than $30,000 — to some of the world’s choicest destinations: at least 200 trips to Paris, 150 to Hawaii and 140 to Italy.
Of the 25 individual lawmakers who accepted more than $120,000 worth of travel during the period, 17 were Democrats.
There likely is a place for some sponsored fact-finding and educational trips. But as the report noted, “some trips seem to have been little more than pricey vacations. . . . In many instances, trip sponsors appeared to be buying access to elected officials or their advisers.”
Meanwhile, Congress remains deadlocked on whether to impose new ethics standards.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Too many exemptions
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Let immigrants run
- Politico on Too many exemptions
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Chrisfrommactown on Let immigrants run
51 Comments
Democrats are the best lawmakers money can buy. They’ll do anything for a vote.
If our media were the watchdogs and protectors from government corruption they claim to be, there would be no such thing as authorized bribery. The furor they would raise would overshadow all other issues and wreck their little racket in a heartbeat. It would be pasted across the front page of every paper coast to coast, never to disappear until their objective had been met. Will this happen? Hell no, it will disappear like every other filler that makes room for the first ad that can take it’s place.
Joe, You’ve got some nerve criticizing democrats after all of the money and criminal behaviour it took for Bushco to become reelected.
Congress can’t find the ethics to become ethical.
Nick, It looks like the Washington Post and the Wichita Eagle have made a pretty good start. Now if the rest of the newspapers will follow their lead, maybe congress will straighten-up.
“Meanwhile, Congress remains deadlocked on whether to impose new ethics standards.”
Hmmm.. they could follow the Boeing lead, and make all the pages, assistants, office help and gophers take “ethics training”!
Democrat/Republican, it just doesn’t matter.. this needs to be monitored and controlled by independent audit.
Cynical?Understatement.
Angry?YES.
Bastille Day?PRICELESS!!
Not surprising. So far, I haven’t been able to learn names of Kansas big-wigs who hitched long range rides illegally on Westar’s corporate jet. These costs/exenses need to be reimbursed to Kansas electric power ratepayers and stockholders who paid for their trip. So if you know these names, please divulge this information to the rest of us Westar customers.
It is becomming my mantra..
Don’t re-elect ANYONE!
” The reason so many of us are caught in illegal and unethical acts is, we are not paid enough to afford to live in Washington”.
“If you want me to stop doing crime, pay me not to steal”.
One was said by a U.S. Senator, one was said by a small time burglar. Can you tell which said which? And does it matter?
RAPTOR: No incumbents! A problem would be we would lose some good elected representatives. But if this “no incumbent” philosophy would be inculcated into the mind of the voting public, it would give all candidates the incentive to get out, go door to door, meet voters and explain their positions.
Personally, I haven’t seen a political candidate walking door to door on my street in the years I have lived here in Wichita.
If you have noticed, terms of elected offices have gotten longer so politicians don’t have to work as hard to convince voters to vote for them. Most terms that were formerly two years are now four year terms. So the old idea of “if you don’t like them, vote them out” is now, wait four years and if you are still mad, vote them out!
Bottom-line, I agree start with the premise of “no incumbents” to force all incumbents to tell voters why they should be returned to office.
The Eagle buried the story about the city of Wichita buying E. Kellogg property for 10 million and then selling it 6 years later for 400k. How about exposing the corruption a little closer to home, it’s not like there isn’t plenty of it.
I learned about that from one of the local TV stations that the Eagle seems to hate.
That wasn’t corruption, other than I think that the City of Wichita paid a little too much for the land.
It’s called “just compensation”. With the Kellogg Expressway project, they had to tear down the iconic Hamburger Church and take most of it’s property as a frontage road for the Woodlawn bridge.
What was left of the property was a few classrooms. The city looked at possibly using that site for commerical purposes, but it couldn’t be rezoned properly since it was too close to residential *cough* Eastbourgh *cough*.
Somebody wanted to buy that portion that was left, the school, and asked a fair price. The city took it.
You also probably don’t know that the city just bought another hotel and they will run it. The Clubhouse Inn on Kellogg and Webb. Bet that will get your blood boiling. ;)
Of course does anyone stop to think why special interests think it’s worth spending $50M to influence legislators/staff? Because the gov’t doles out BILLIONS in favors. People, the real problem is the size of gov’t. You downsize that, you downsize the need to try and persuade lawmakers. Just think about it, that’s all I’m saying.
Joe…But they won’t sell the Clubhouse Inn for 400k.. I think the plan is to run it a few years and then tear it down.
BTW.. anyone know how much the Stevens’ got for the Rock/Kellogg Spangles?
Joe Blow.
Politicans crave power and the people crave a handout.
This circle will continue forever.
Yea, there’s a culture of corruption. It’s Washington, and not limited to either party. State houses are not much different; local governments are probably the worst, but don’t get the headlines.
Money is the mother’s milk of politics; always has been, always will be. The reality is that this isn’t even particularly unusual, historically, this kind of stuff has ALWAYS gone on.
Is there a fix? Electing people of character, and PAYING ATTENTION to what they do. This has nothing to do with party. Right now, Congress has a re-election rate of roughly 99%. Only when THAT changes will the culture change.
Kansassam you’re right. They have actually done that will most of the commerical property they bought.
I need to go back and check to see how mcuh they paid for Spangles, but they bought that property a few years ago and Spangles has been paying rent to the city ever since.
Joe -
Ultimately, you’re right. But don’t hold your breath.
A modern industrial nation is going to have a large regulatory state. It’s simply reality; big business is no more trustworthy than big government (though less dangerous in the long run).
When the SCOTUS effectively eliminated the interstate commerce clause from the constitution, the way to big gov’t was open. And once the voters figured out how to vote themselves bread and circuses, and pass the costs to someone else, it was all over.
It will never go away.
“Right now, Congress has a re-election rate of roughly 99%. Only when THAT changes will the culture change”
And that wont change as long as you continue to kiss ass and give a pass to your incumbents.
You actually have to question elected officials before anything will change. As long as you ignore the truth and blindly support the incumbents, nothing will change.
But maybe you all like it that way.
Once again the glaring sameness of republicans and democrats comes into focus.
I think I’ll run for office, I LOVE to travel!
GMC70
You make some great points, but the Commerce Clause was one of the greatest weapons the Federal Government used against the states and able the Federal Government to grow into its mad growth state it is now.
Everything they did was because of the Commerce Clause.
So it is a bad situation. Let the Federal Government broadly interpret the Commerce Clause or try to check that power with the Supreme Court only to find them going along with it. We all lose! :(
“Our next meaningful discussion will be face to face.
Consider it carefully.”
When people make physical threats and use intimidation, they deserve to be trolled.
Or would you rather be told you should be run over by a truck?
Peace,
Mike
What are you going to do, Brad, beat me over the head with a dead child? Or maybe just change your name again. Let’s see…too gutless to come to any of the meets, too gutless to discuss anything face to face and demonstrate any courage for your convictions. Brad, you’re a sniveling coward.
“When people make physical threats and use intimidation, they deserve to be trolled.”
This from the blogger who wets his panties most about trolls.
“Or would you rather be told you should be run over by a truck?”
Unlike you, I’m not a coward. Bring on your truck. Better make the first pass count.
” The reason so many of us are caught in illegal and unethical acts is, we are not paid enough to afford to live in Washington”.
Oh, boo hoo hoo.
If these Congressmen and their ilk didn’t think they had to live in the MOST expensive homes, their pay would more than cover the cost of a home. Wait, make that 2 homes. Or 3. Or however many some of these people have.
No pity from them in this corner.
XXX
The purple chicken made a late night visit. He didn’t want to get hit by a truck.
“buying E. Kellogg property for 10 million and then selling it 6 years later for 400k.”
Todd, are you sure you wrote that sentence right? In your case above, it would mean they took a huge loss. Or am I just not getting your point?
http://ksnw.com/news/stories/13169518.html
RD – I think the point that Todd was making is that the city bought this piece of property for a very large sum and sold it (potentially – I’m not sure – to ‘friends’) for a pittance in the name of ‘iminant domain’. kinda makes you wonder.
Damoon – Can I be your chief of staff? I like to travel too!:)
I’m glad you’re on today, XXX.
I’m sorry I posted over your name. That was trolling pure and simple, and I got knocked so off-balance by all the hate directed at me, I wasn’t thinking straight.
I should not have done it, and I publically apologize.
As for bringing up Luke Tiahrt’s suicide, I regret it. I was honestly interested in his exact cause of death, and I couldn’t find it by GOOGLING it, even though I looked at quite a few sites.
I phrased the question in a tactless, mocking way. That was wrong. I apologize for the insensitive wording. I intended it to provoke a response, but I never dreamed those responses would include death threats.
My intention was to communicate my scorn for the idea that people who feel protected by guns (like Tiahrt apparently who passes everything the gun-lobby wants) ignore the fact that guns are in and of themselves dangerous and can cause death as often as they prevent it.
That was the intention of my seven word question. I regret that I didn’t make myself clear.
However, you have to understand, XXX, that no matter how offensive my position is to you that threatening people with violence, intimidating people is utterly out of line.
At the last meetup, I heard you brought a big handgun and showed it off.
And now you’re telling me “I better not miss on the first pass.” “That you have nothing more to say to me until you say it in person” and you riding around with a .50 caliber pistol in your car?
Well, dude, you win.
I’m outta here. You want to scare off the people you don’t like, you got it.
You can call me “coward” if you like. I call it “smart.”
XXX:
You apparantly know TB personally; I know neither of you. Aside from a line on a blog, you don’t know me.
But I’ll call this one as I see it too.
TB was out of line with his cheap shot involving Tiahart’s son.
You’re out of line writing threats and intimidation. The same rules apply to both “sides” here.
Cool down. Step back.
You’re not responsible for TB and his defender’s statements; it is to their shame they continue to wallow in the cesspool they’ve dove into.
Please don’t continue to join them there.
GMC – I tend to agree with you that one should not take cheap shots about Tiahrt’s tragic loss. Just as one should not do so about the widows who lost their husbands on 9/11. What do you think of Ann Coulter stating that the widows “enjoyed” their husbands’ deaths?
“In her book, Coulter said, “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.”
The women are Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza of New Jersey. Coulter refers to them as the “Witches of East Brunswick,” the New Jersey town where two of them live. “
And TB:
Apology accepted. Better late than never.
Perhaps we can get to merits of issues rather than be drug down by name-calling and cheap-shot tactics. We should all be careful not to paint those we disagree with with too wide a brush.
Screaming “they started it” as justification for never-ending mud flinging only puts more mud on everyone. I for one will do my best to have no part in it.
The real shame is that in all the hoopla, real issues got lost.
I’m a gun guy. Won’t deny it. I will give no quarter to those who would chip away at my rights until they are gone; many do so disingenuously under the guise of “common-sense regulation.”
But I’m willing to listen and see if there is common ground we can agree on; I suspect there is. We just gotta get our facts right as a start.
Ben:
I’ve never defended Coulter and I won’t now. She’s a nut.
It sells books. I don’t know if she writes what she writes because she believes it, or just because it sells books.
There may be legitimate criticism to be leveled, even on as touchy a subject as 9/11 (or suicide). Tact is called for, but tact doesn’t sell books. Reason is needed, but reason doesn’t sell books. Being outrageously nutty sells books.
Don’t look to me to defend Coulter.
It is becoming impossible to tell who is who.
The assertion that XXX brought a big gun to the last meet up and showed it off is possibly misinformed but nonetheless a stretch of the truth. This invites the reader to imagine XXX brandishing a weapon at a picnic! I know because I was there that XXX invited me and others to go up to his vehicle to see the gun.
Nathan can tell you and XXX will confirm that I did not attempt to confiscate his gun!
Nick:The minute anybody tries to do meaningful coverage of government and politics, you get all of the above responses:a) Management: “It’s not local enough”.b) Younger people in the newsroom: “Politics is boring. Nobody cares.”c) People with political views: “Your coverage is slanted”.d) Mothers without political views: “I only want my children to see positive things on television.”Now, just try to get through all that crap and report something meaningful.Todd:”I learned about that from one of the local TV stations that the Eagle seems to hate.”What, you mean it’s NOT my imagination???GMC:Interesting how the Commerce Clause only comes up when it’s con-veen-ient.
Since I cannot go there and have no idea where that battle has gone, I feel a little reluctant to comment further on what is becoming the most posted thread in history. That it has spilled over to this thread affords me the opportunity.
I say again that I expect there to be just as much righteous indignation the next time someone on the right steps “over the line”. Thus far, they have always gotten a pass from their posters of like mind.
JR -The purple chicken cut and pasted a big ol’ thread in an email to you.
MC:
I’ll bite. To exactly what do you refer? Don’t be coy, spell it out. We may well agree.
and JR:
If a poster on the other “side” (I truly hate those imposed divisions) steps as far out of line as TB did (and it’s over and buried as far as I’m concerned), I’ll call him/her on it. Already have.
JR -Purple chicken is sending 12 mini eggs your way
GMC70,Sage advice. I’ll follow it. You’re a reasonable man. And as a point of information, I don’t know TB.
TB, left-handed as your apology is, I accept it. I know it’s hard for you.
I also offer my apology to you and all WE bloggers for a veiled threat made in a moment of anger. That was wrong and I accept full responsibility. Note that it didn’t take 300-odd posts.
My coop runneth over!
I need Julie and XXX to take some of these purple chickens!
Thanks to Julie for helping me to read the “gun” thread.
XXX I’d not call what you posted a threat.
GMC as I recall you did make something of an effort on my part when I was unfairly attacked. If I did not acknowledge my appreciation then I do so now.
Okay, thanks, XXX.
I appreciate hearing from you on this.
This blog is a powder keg waiting to blow.
The WEBlog editors have no idea of the monster they’ve created.
I’m not going to be here when it does.
JR,That damn chicken is at it again.
“This blog is a powder keg waiting to blow.”
Welcome to the real world. This is nothing.
“When the going gets tough, the tough get going”
I am sending your purple chicken back XXX.
Here, I will throw another log on the bonfire of cynicism. Ain’t our judeo-cpitalist-democray gran? rotflmosrfao
V.L.R.B!!
WASHINGTON — For Henry Paulson Jr., a Goldman-sized tax loopholeawaits his pleasure.
High-flying business executives almost always endure financialsacrifice when they make a detour into public service. Paulson is nodifferent: The Goldman Sachs boss will see his annual paycheckshrink from last year’s $38 million to a paltry $183,500 once hetakes over the job of Treasury secretary.
But don’t shed too many tears for Paulson. He has amassed quite afortune–a roughly $700 million equity stake in Wall Street’spremier investment banking house. And soon, he will have the chanceto diversify a good chunk of those holdings without paying a dime tothe Internal Revenue Service.
By accepting the Treasury post, Paulson is poised to take advantageof a tax loophole that allows government officials to defer capitalgains taxes on assets they have to sell to avoid a conflict ofinterest, as long as the proceeds are reinvested in governmentsecurities or a broad array of mutual funds approved by thegovernment within 60 days.
Technically, the tax kicks in once these replacement assets aresold, using the purchase price of the original assets as the costbasis, says Tom Ochsenschlager of the American Institute ofCertified Public Accountants. But why sell when you can avoid thetax altogether?
“The idea is never to sell,” says Robert Willens, the top tax andaccounting analyst at Lehman Brothers. “If you’re able to hold ontothe replacement assets until your demise, you never have to pay it.”
The tax break was designed to ensure that the wealthy are notdeterred from taking posts in government because they fear a big taxhit. But it amounts to a significant perk of public office.
Paulson’s huge equity stake in Goldman served him well as he flittedaround the globe singing the firm’s praises to potential clients andinvestors. It was hard evidence of his faith in Goldman’s continuedsuccess. But once he is gone from the bank, such a giantconcentration of assets could be somewhat of an albatross forPaulson, who, at 60, is surely considering the tax consequences ofdiversifying his fortune.
It is not a stretch to suppose that, at the margin, the chance tounwind his stake in Goldman Sachs tax-free may have had an influenceon his decision to take the Treasury job. After all, if he were tocompletely divest himself without any tax relief, he would bestaring at a tax bill of well over $100 million, Willens says.
Paulson need only obtain a “certificate of divestiture” from theOffice of Government Ethics to sell off his 3.23 million Goldmanshares, worth about $484 million, tax-free.
But he may not escape paying taxes on the sale of the rest of hisGoldman holdings, which are made up of restricted stock and options,depending on whether he received them as part of his pay package.Proceeds from the sale of assets received as compensation would betreated as ordinary income rather than a capital gain and thus wouldnot qualify for the tax break.
Plenty of wealthy public servants, including Defense SecretaryDonald Rumsfeld and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, havetaken advantage of the tax break since it was introduced in 1989under the administration of President George H.W. Bush. Deputy Chiefof Staff Karl Rove has obtained a certificate of divestiture forstock sales in 23 companies since he joined the administration.
To get the tax relief, it must be deemed “reasonably necessary” fora public official to divest his shares, or a congressional committeemust require the asset sale, according to section 1043 of the taxcode.
Paulson should have no trouble passing this test: A large stake in aglobal financial firm would seem a clear conflict of interest withthe duties of Treasury secretary, which include ensuring the smoothfinancing of the current account deficit and helping to managefinancial crises.
Even a stake in an industrial company is enough to raise eyebrowsnowadays. Outgoing Treasury Secretary John Snow, the former chairmanof CSX Corporation, dumped more than $20 million worth of his formercompany’s stock to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.And Snow’s predecessor, Paul O’Neill, the former chairman of Alcoa,was dogged by criticism of his $100 million stake in the aluminumgiant until he finally unloaded it. That’s still small potatoescompared with Paulson’s nest egg.
It is always possible that Paulson could follow in the footsteps offellow Goldman alumnus Robert Rubin and avoid divesting his Goldmanstake by placing it in a blind trust. But even the former Treasurysecretary, who was the richest member of the Clinton administration,made ample use of the tax break, diversifying other portions of hisfortune.
Poor Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey, who launched a successful bidfor the U.S. Senate after Paulson shoved him aside to become the topdog at Goldman, wasn’t so lucky. While serving on the Senate bankingcommittee, he was pressured to sell off his $300 million stake inthe investment bank. But alas, the tax perk is only available tomembers of the executive branch.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gata/message/3938?l=1
Thank you, Julie. It wasn’t making sense to me, but that DOES.
GMC, I was actually agreeing with you.
This petition is starting to make more and more sense:http://www.petitiononline.com/asfmac/petition.html