Posted on 05/22/2006 7:49:11 AM PDT by SmithL
Rep. John Doolittle, R-Roseville, took a hit from the Washington Post last week for using his campaign treasury to pay baby sitters for his daughter, now 14.
"Mr. Doolittle makes $165,200 a year as a member of Congress," the Post editorial said. "His wife has already taken in close to $100,000 in commissions this year as his fundraiser. They should pay the sitter, as other working parents do."
The Post identified $5,881 in child-care costs that Doolittle has paid with his campaign committee funds since 2001. A review of Federal Election Commission reports by The Bee came up with $7,207 for the same period, although a couple of those entries were for "child care and miscellaneous expenses."
Doolittle's press aide, Richard Robinson, denounced the Post editorial as another case of the liberal media picking on the congressman and his family values. Besides, said Robinson, the FEC has determined that the practice is legal.
Also, it makes sense to charge the campaign when the couple have to travel and their daughter can't leave school in Virginia, he said.
"This job is especially hard on the one thing that John Doolittle values most - his family," Robinson said.
Doolittle's Republican primary opponent, Mike Holmes, isn't sympathetic.
"It's pretty sad when he has to use campaign funds for his daughter's baby sitter," Holmes said. "Most working people would pay for that out of their own pocket, and that's where I think it should come from."
According to The Bee's research, it may be a perk on the wane. Doolittle's campaign-financed child-care costs were over $3,500 in 2002. They have dropped every year since, to $975 last year.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Would you say that if it was a Dem?
Snooze. If it's legal, it's legal.
It's legal. Alan Keyes paid a lot of living expenses out of his campaign money, and when questions came up we discovered it was legal. The Post is doing anything it can to assist the Rats, including garbage stories like this one.
Well, then, we should hound him unmercifully...
Doolittle's Republican primary opponent, Mike Holmes, isn't sympathetic.
"It's pretty sad when he has to use campaign funds for his daughter's baby sitter," Holmes said. "Most working people would pay for that out of their own pocket, and that's where I think it should come from."
Opportunistic piece of excrement!
According to The Bee's research, it may be a perk on the wane. Doolittle's campaign-financed child-care costs were over $3,500 in 2002. They have dropped every year since, to $975 last year.
Maybe the kid's getting older? Ya think?
$1000 bucks a year to reimburse for expenses that would not have been incurred had it not been for the campaign related travel? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, even if a Dem did it.
Why did the WaPo and SacBee treat this as news? Ooops, I forgot. Doolittle is a Republican.
I've started an "Is That All You Got?" file where I save articles like this one.
3 rules about "If this story was a about a Dem":
1.we wouldn't know it was a dem until we googled to find the guys website to see what party he belonged to.
2.this story wouldn't be written if it was about a dem.
3.remember rule # 2.
The Sacramento BS is going full bore against Dolittle.
How about Mr.Conyers(DemonRat,MI)?Did they "cover" that story(or just cover it up)??
Cool!
John Conyers uses his taxpayer-funded Congressional staff to babysit for him.
This seems rather tame in comparison, especially considering that it's legal, whereas Conyers' actions were not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.