The Gov did WHAT with My Money?

[lindajdunn]

Given all the news about what's happening in Britian with lawmakers enjoying some luxuries at the expense of the public and recent postings about what US lawmakers are doing with our money, I thought we needed a separate discussion thread.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elec...ing-purchases/

Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings spent $24,730 in taxpayer money last year to lease a 2008 luxury Lexus hybrid sedan. Ohio Rep. Michael Turner expensed a $1,435 digital camera. Eni Faleomavaega, the House delegate from American Samoa, bought two 46-inch Sony TVs.

The expenditures were legal, properly accounted for and drawn from allowances the U.S. government grants to lawmakers. Equipment purchased with office expense accounts must be returned to the House or the federal General Services Administration when a lawmaker leaves office.

The Wall Street article is here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124364352135868189.html

The fourth-quarter congressional expense records, bound in three thick beige-colored volumes, show that Rep. Rodney Alexander of Louisiana paid $20,000 for a 2009 lease on a Toyota Highlander, a hybrid SUV. Mr. Alexander said in an interview that the vehicle was for his state director's official business. The Highlander was appropriate, he said, given the size of his district and House rules setting fuel-efficiency standards for leased vehicles. "We have a large district, the largest in Louisiana," he said. "We didn't want to lease a bicycle for him to ride on."

And

Many lawmakers don't spend their full allocation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) had about $57,000 remaining in her budget at the end of 2008. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) had $228,000.

A somewhat related article in the WSJ is this one:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123854799133476409.html

While Congress has been flaying companies for giving out bonuses while on the government dole, lawmakers have a longstanding tradition of rewarding their own employees with extra cash -- also courtesy of taxpayers.

Last year alone, more than 200 House lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats, awarded bonuses totaling $9.1 million to more than 2,000 staff members, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of office-disbursement forms. The money comes out of taxpayer-funded office budgets, and is surplus cash that would otherwise be forfeited if not spent.

Payments ranged from a few hundred dollars to $14,000. Lawmakers, at their own discretion, gave the money to chiefs of staff, assistants, computer technicians, and more than 100 aides who earned salaries of more than $100,000 a year.

and

Disbursement forms show that dozens of aides working for the Financial Services Committee got a bonus from panel Chairman Barney Frank. Spokesman Steven Adamske said the Massachusetts Democrat gives bonuses to staffers because "government workers are pretty low paid." He said several aides who got bonuses had worked long hours during 2008 on the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program.
==

Personally, I have no problem with the level of bonuses paid to aides. We're not talking about multi-million dollar bonuses and they're not exactly working 9-5. Still, I suspect this isn't going to play well in places like Detroit, Michigan.

[Inquartata]

Depends on whether or not they are sleeping with said staffers and aides...

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Hmmm...does that warrant an extra housing allowance?

[trickery dickery dock]

Yeah, its amazing what that liberal trash will do. Don't forget how the government is paying crackheads to pop out babies. They even have a saying for that: "Mo' chillin'z, mo' money!"

[Fencer X and Y]

Didn't you promise us all that you were going to leave?

[lindajdunn]

Yeah, its amazing what that liberal trash will do. Don't forget how the government is paying crackheads to pop out babies. They even have a saying for that: "Mo' chillin'z, mo' money!"

I used to work in the accounts and audits section of the state welfare department. Anyone who thinks the benefits paid exceeds the cost incurred needs to take remedial business math.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...4/ai_17599588/

Welfare in America is funded federally, but benefit levels are established at the state level. In 1990, support for a single mother with two children varied from $8,695 in Connecticut to $2,746 in Virginia...

and

The average expected annual per child welfare allocation was $1,690. Effective welfare support levels do not lift families out of poverty. As family size grows, the family is plunged deeper and deeper into poverty. Effective welfare levels have eroded slightly over the past decade, and there is no detectable convergence towards a national standard. The economic viability of this nation's poorest families continues to depend upon an accident of geography. For those who believe that poverty is a national problem, and that the relief of poverty should not depend upon internal borders nor the limited resources of individual state governments, the statistics estimated herein support the view that a national program with uniform standards is required. For those who believe that the linking of welfare support to the number of children promotes larger family sizes, these statistics provide substantial evidence that having children on welfare is a losing proposition.

[Hauptman]

Didn't you promise us all that you were going to leave?

The Ignore list is your friend. I am a happier person for having found it.

[I_luv_saber]

I used to work in the accounts and audits section of the state welfare department. Anyone who thinks the benefits paid exceeds the cost incurred needs to take remedial business math.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...4/ai_17599588/

Welfare in America is funded federally, but benefit levels are established at the state level. In 1990, support for a single mother with two children varied from $8,695 in Connecticut to $2,746 in Virginia...

and

The average expected annual per child welfare allocation was $1,690. Effective welfare support levels do not lift families out of poverty. As family size grows, the family is plunged deeper and deeper into poverty. Effective welfare levels have eroded slightly over the past decade, and there is no detectable convergence towards a national standard. The economic viability of this nation's poorest families continues to depend upon an accident of geography. For those who believe that poverty is a national problem, and that the relief of poverty should not depend upon internal borders nor the limited resources of individual state governments, the statistics estimated herein support the view that a national program with uniform standards is required. For those who believe that the linking of welfare support to the number of children promotes larger family sizes, these statistics provide substantial evidence that having children on welfare is a losing proposition.

However, there are people out there who do live off of the system. I know, I've met them and know them. I'm not saying it's profitable... but there are lazy people out there who do not want to work and are happy kicking back and getting money. It does happen.

That being said, I am 100% for programs to help people get back on their own two feet. Regardless of what some people think, there are many, many people out there who have found themselves in a position of extreme poverty or homelessness by no (or very little) fault of their own. There should be a "safety net" for these people to help them crawl out of their situation, and start to earn a living on their own.

That being said I have no idea how the best way is to do this while putting protections in place to keep those who are happy to just mooch the system from doing so.

[fencerchica]

Interesting sidebar: Reagan's tired little anecdote about the "welfare queen" was a fabrication.

[jeff]

Yes, dear old Ronnie made up a lot of his best anecdotes. When your attitude is "facts are stupid things" maybe you care less about being factual.

[Phaeton]

If Fox has taught me anything...

Reality has a liberal bias.

[lindajdunn]

http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/...mic-Stats-Lie/

This could also be labeled Lies, Damn lies, and Statistics.

Two bright people might see sharply different things in those numbers. To one, the shrinking economy is a healthy unwinding of past excess, for example, while to another it’s a dangerous downturn that calls for bold government action. But what if the numbers themselves are something we should be debating? In the alarming view of a vocal few, America’s economic measures are misstated -- rigged, really.

If Williams is right, unemployment is over 20%, gross domestic product is shrinking by 8% and consumer prices are jumping by nearly 7%. His forecasts border on apocalyptic. The government is creating so much new money, he says, that the all but inevitable result is hyperinflation, where “your highest denomination, the $100 bill, becomes worth more as toilet paper than money.” Buy physical gold, he advises.

[Inquartata]

The average expected annual per child welfare allocation was $1,690. Effective welfare support levels do not lift families out of poverty.

And you're extrapolating averages to ALL families in these situations?

As family size grows, the family is plunged deeper and deeper into poverty.

Then they continue to do it because....?

Interesting sidebar: Reagan's tired little anecdote about the "welfare queen" was a fabrication.

Which proves...what? That anecdotal evidence is seldom good evidence? I'll buy it. That politicians lie? I'll buy it. That there is no such thing as welfare fraud or people who have figured out how to live on it indefinitely rather than working? Not so much.

But how did we get onto this, from political corruption and largesse to staffers?

[lindajdunn]

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

The average expected annual per child welfare allocation was $1,690. Effective welfare support levels do not lift families out of poverty.

Inq:
And you're extrapolating averages to ALL families in these situations?

No. Just the average ones. You know. The ones that have 2.5 children or some such fractional number. When I was a child, I wondered if this was something like a quarterhorse.



Quote:
As family size grows, the family is plunged deeper and deeper into poverty.

Then they continue to do it because....?

Well... when the little bumble bee likes the other bumble bee a WHOLE lot and there are flowers nearby....

Seriously, birth contol is not 100% effective (even when used as directed) unless you count sterilization and the poor seldom have good health insurance to cover this.

[Inquartata]

Birth control is pretty effective. The failure rate is not high enough to explain a kid every year for a decade...

[lindajdunn]

Birth control is pretty effective. The failure rate is not high enough to explain a kid every year for a decade...

Define "pretty effective".

Let's look at this comparison

http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_he...bc_chart.html#

Birth Control Patch, Pill and Ring: 5 to 8 out of 100 women using this will become pregnant within one year.

Female Condom 21 pregnancies for each 100 users per year

Male condom 15 out of 100

Diaphragm 16 out of 100

Not Using Any Birth Control 85 out of 100



I note that some medications will render birth control pills ineffective and that one has to be careful to take them at regular intervals. It was pointed out to me by someone working in the field (at least 30 years ago) that the birth control failure rate is much higher for those below the poverty line. There are numerous reasons for this. Insufficient funds to obtain birth control. An inconsistent schedule (leading women to take birth control pills at irregular intervals).

[Inquartata]

For me, condoms have been 100% effective. Anecdotal to be sure, but statistically valid nevertheless.

Everyone may now say "Eeeeewwww!"

[lindajdunn]

For me, condoms have been 100% effective. Anecdotal to be sure, but statistically valid nevertheless.

Everyone may now say "Eeeeewwww!"

And for me, not so good. I am the result of failed birth control.
Anecdotal to be sure, but as valid as your contribution.

[Inquartata]

And for me, not so good. I am the result of failed birth control.

Egad! Your parents were mean!

[Phaeton]

And that's why people should use redundant systems.


If condoms are 98% effective if used properly, and the pill is 98% effective as well...

Then you have a 2/100 x 2/100 chance of getting pregnant.


That's what... a .0004% chance?