Posted on 07/26/2008 6:35:12 AM PDT by quintr
Well, well, well. About those leased cars that congressionals push off onto us taxpayers -- I've been doing a little looking up and found some very interesting tidbits.
For instance, Jesse Jackson, Jr. leases (at taxpayers expense) a Ford Expedition for $1,161 a month.
Bobby Rush likes his Lincoln Navigator that costs $746 a month.
And John Shimkus has a Jeep Commander that costs $627/month.
But then there's Dan Lipinski (D-Ill). Lipinski pays for his own vehicle. He says charging taxpayers raises too many questions.
You can see more on the list. Not all the congressionals fleece us taxpayers by renting expensive cars. Some have leased vehicles that come in under $300 or $400.
But I don't think any of them ought to get a free ride to work. With the money we're already paying them, the least they can do is pay for their own personal vehicle and the gas to go in it. Here's an interesting article that has more politicians named: http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/congressmen.taxpayers.cars.2.724709.html
And then there's these two from California. Laura Richardson likes her Lincoln Town Car. It costs $1300/month. That's a lot more than Diane Watson's Town Car which costs the taxpayer $686/month. Both are from California. So why is Richardson's car costing more money? Supposedly there was some customizing done to it.
Huh? Like what, for crying out loud! Here's the article: http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_9740150
Gregory Meeks has a Lexus that costs $998/month.
But the best alibi that I've heard for some time is Charles Rangel's (from New York) excuse for his Cadillac Deville which costs taxpayers $774/month. Rangel says it's his way of showing respect for the taxpayers in his district.
Is this a good argument for term limits or what!
And it doesn't seem to matter that the approval ratings for congress keep going down, down and down. They're probably just sitting up there under The Dome when the new ratings go down another notch and say, "So what? We get what we want so who cares?"
It's just greed. They're just greedy. And it's not just the cost of their leases. Add to that the cost of gasoline and registration costs and auto insurance.
But listen to this: Senators don't lease cars at taxpayers' expense. They aren't allowed to.
Read more: http://ballyblog.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/congressmen-lease-luxury-cars-paid-by-tax-dollars/
As long as Nancy Pelosi is so all fired up about House Ethics, etc., she ought to favor legislation that would ban tax money being used for the House members' leased vehicles.
Thanks for posting. Throw-the-bums-out BUMP!
I would like to see none of them get any federal tax payer benefits at all. Not even a paper and pencil allowance. Let each state budget and pay for the keep of their own.
Let's say your employer assigned you to work in another city for two years. Wouldn't that employer pay your expenses, including transportation?
Give them government basic cars or whatever, but I think it's fair that they get expenses at a reasonable level. Yes, even democrats.
Matter of fact, I cannot see we taxpayers paying for a national palace at 1600 Penna Ave either!
Nor the palace guard (lifetime security), and the countless other overkill benefits routinely sucked up by the king, and the sub-kings from the 50 states (countries) too.
Give the basturds a minimum housing allowance just like our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen are entitled to.
Security? One armed Marine should do it nicely, whether it be only one riot or just one flake politician, whatever.
No free haircuts, either!
Semper Fidelis
Dick Gaines
~~~~~
Specific to your concerns, my Washington , D.C., office currently employs nine full-time staff members in addition to myself. Of these, three staff members walk to work, three use public transportation, two drive, and one rides a bicycle. While in Washington, D.C., I usually commute to work in a 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee and in Northwest Indiana I drive a 1999 Buick Century. You should know that I own both vehicles myself, and do not lease cars or purchase gasoline using public funds."
Although I do not agree with the man politically I can appreciate his actions with regards to this subject.
He was pretty pissed when Rahn Emmanuel (D-IL), Senator Durbin and Senator Hussein essentially killed the expansion of BP's Whiting Refinery (IN) in our congressional district.
Government basic cars would be a good alternative. They’re usually stripped down versions that would never be classed as a “luxury” unless, of course, you had nothing.
IMHO, getting a salary of $162,500 ought to give them some money left over to supply their own transportation at their own expense. If they’re frugal in other matters. Giving them a blank check to go off and rent any car that suits them is ridiculous.
Disagree. Long term incumbency leads to legislators identifying with the government and not the electorate.
>>Not an agrument for term limits. The next people will do the same.
Let’s say your employer assigned you to work in another city for two years. Wouldn’t that employer pay your expenses, including transportation?
Give them government basic cars or whatever, but I think it’s fair that they get expenses at a reasonable level. Yes, even democrats.<<
False logic. If my employer assigns me to work in another city, not all expenses would be reimbursable. They also have no concept of what is reasonable.
Besides, I would be expected to perform at a reasonable standard for the pay I receive.
It never ceases to amaze me how these blood-suckers will spend millions for a job that pays “only” $150K+. Take away all those “freebies” and we won’t have to worry about term limits.
Three cheers for your congressman! There are some who won’t fleece the taxpayers.
We moved from the Chicago area about two years ago and I will admit that we weren’t all that thrilled with Dan Lipinski, but after reading his comment about why he didn’t hit the taxpayers up for his leased vehicle, I like him a little better now.
If the politicians are really smart, they’d decline the leased vehicle charge-off and use the rationale for concern for taxpayers as part of their re-election PR.
But add in all the freebies that they’ve voted in for themselves and they’re making a whole lot more than $150 a year. I’d just bet they don’t pay taxes on the “fair market value” of their charged-off leased autos either.
Wouldn’t be surprised if each congressman and senator gets closer to a quarter mil by the time you add in all their nestegg presents from the taxpayers.
These people in Congress think they’re Hollywood stars who should be treated like royalty. There aren’t too many people on the Hill who aren’t interested in feathering their own nest.
We already have term limits. We, as voters, have the ability to limit the amount of time any congress-critter stays in ovvice by exercising our right to vote them out of office. Unfortunately, this right is not exercised to its fullest potential.
Thanks for making a valid point. Sometimes I get caught up in the details and forget the most important point of all. You’re absolutely right. We can vote them out of office.
The problem is — seems to me — that insofar as the low approval ratings for congress are concerned — it’s about congressionals in other districts. If every voter disapproved of their own congressperson, then they’d get voted out.
Every two years. It’s sure worth a shot. Get some fresh ideas in there and some commitment from new people to turn off the milking machine.
Bill Clinton is the last president to get lifetime security. Those that come after him only get 5 years at taxpayer expense.
Give them the same vehicles that their state government uses...and let the state pay for it all. In fact, the states should be “sponsoring” their delegates.
They don’t pay taxes, so that $186,000 a year is really like earning $250,000 a year. Also, if they reach tenure (two terms I think), they collect that salary for life as a pension. This is the equivalent of being handed around $3.5 million dollars and then living off the interest. Not a bad retirement plan.
I think these people should be paid minimum wage or jury duty wages and forced to drive Priuses to work. They should also have to fly Southwest back and forth to Washington DC.
Too bad RICO laws can’t be used against Congress.
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.