Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 0306.story

Former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert has plowed through about $1 million in taxpayer dollars in the last two years for an office and staff in west suburban Yorkville, thanks to a little-known perk given to ex-speakers.

Hastert, 68, a lobbyist and business consultant who retired from Congress in 2007, has hired three of his former staffers at salaries of more than $100,000 apiece to run the publicly financed office.

Taxpayers also are paying monthly rent of $6,300 to a company partly owned by three sons of a Hastert mentor and business partner. Other public funds go for an $860-a-month 2008 GMC Yukon leased from a dealership owned by a Hastert friend and campaign donor.

Federal law allows former House speakers to maintain a taxpayer-funded office anywhere in the United States for up to five years. The purpose is to "facilitate the administration, settlement and conclusion of matters pertaining to or arising out of" a former speaker's tenure in the House.

Vote out incumbents!

dbackjon wrote:http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 0306.story

Former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert has plowed through about $1 million in taxpayer dollars in the last two years for an office and staff in west suburban Yorkville, thanks to a little-known perk given to ex-speakers.

Hastert, 68, a lobbyist and business consultant who retired from Congress in 2007, has hired three of his former staffers at salaries of more than $100,000 apiece to run the publicly financed office.

Taxpayers also are paying monthly rent of $6,300 to a company partly owned by three sons of a Hastert mentor and business partner. Other public funds go for an $860-a-month 2008 GMC Yukon leased from a dealership owned by a Hastert friend and campaign donor.

Federal law allows former House speakers to maintain a taxpayer-funded office anywhere in the United States for up to five years. The purpose is to "facilitate the administration, settlement and conclusion of matters pertaining to or arising out of" a former speaker's tenure in the House.

The more important and general questions are: Why do we pay these guys and gals at all? Why do we allow them to give themselves pay raises? Why do we allow them a generous pension package? They are stealing us blind and we are paying them, in perpetuity, to do it. We must be the most stupid people ever.

mainejeff wrote:Vote out incumbents!

That MJ, is a statement I can support.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

mainejeff wrote:Vote out incumbents!

That MJ, is a statement I can support.

You and me both.

dbackjon wrote:
Federal law allows former House speakers to maintain a taxpayer-funded office anywhere in the United States for up to five years. The purpose is to "facilitate the administration, settlement and conclusion of matters pertaining to or arising out of" a former speaker's tenure in the House.

Yeah, that's the part that needs fixing. Heck, what are office costs in San Francisco running these days? We probably need to budget for that soon too I guess.

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Federal law allows former House speakers to maintain a taxpayer-funded office anywhere in the United States for up to five years. The purpose is to "facilitate the administration, settlement and conclusion of matters pertaining to or arising out of" a former speaker's tenure in the House.

Yeah, that's the part that needs fixing. Heck, what are office costs in San Francisco running these days? We probably need to budget for that soon too I guess.

Probably pricey in Las Vegas too, for a certain soon-to-be-former Senate Majority Leader...

Rob Iola wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Yeah, that's the part that needs fixing. Heck, what are office costs in San Francisco running these days? We probably need to budget for that soon too I guess.

Probably pricey in Las Vegas too, for a certain soon-to-be-former Senate Majority Leader...

This just brings to light that we need Speakers from much smaller, less pricey places. When was the last time we had a Speaker from Wyoming?

GannonFan wrote:

Rob Iola wrote: Probably pricey in Las Vegas too, for a certain soon-to-be-former Senate Majority Leader...

This just brings to light that we need Speakers from much smaller, less pricey places. When was the last time we had a Speaker from Wyoming?

Yeah but then you get some dink like Baucus in charge of a powerful committee deciding the fate of healthcare for 300 million people while being elected by less than 500,000 people.

The real story here is if Dback will post the same story when Pelosi gets her dumb cu*t kicked out of congress.........

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
This just brings to light that we need Speakers from much smaller, less pricey places. When was the last time we had a Speaker from Wyoming?

Yeah but then you get some dink like Baucus in charge of a powerful committee deciding the fate of healthcare for 300 million people while being elected by less than 500,000 people.

Well, in the Senate, sure, but in the House, with regards to the Speaker, most represent about the same number of people no matter which state they are from.

And with that said, the whole point of the Senate was that smaller states would have a strong enough voice in one house of Congress to avoid being irrelevant becuase of their smaller population - I don't see a problem with that even today.

mainejeff wrote:Vote out incumbents!

And replace them with who? More career politicians? More people that will gladly trade morals for $$$ and stay there?

We need ordinary people, start fresh. Let's get ordinary people and DEMAND term limits. DEMAND Caps on salary and pensions. If they don't deliver, then we kick them out. It wouldn't be all bad, you'd do it in election cycles so you will have the expirienced there for a while. The staffers can stay, they do the grunt work and grease the wheels. Congressional leaders just make appearances and vote depending on the research thier staff has provided them(with the customary bias of course.)

Ibanez wrote:

mainejeff wrote:Vote out incumbents!

And replace them with who? More career politicians? More people that will gladly trade morals for $$$ and stay there?

We need ordinary people, start fresh. Let's get ordinary people and DEMAND term limits. DEMAND Caps on salary and pensions. If they don't deliver, then we kick them out. It wouldn't be all bad, you'd do it in election cycles so you will have the expirienced there for a while. The staffers can stay, they do the grunt work and grease the wheels. Congressional leaders just make appearances and vote depending on the research thier staff has provided them(with the customary bias of course.)

I'm not a fan of term limits - that just throws out the good legislators with the bad. We still have the ability to vote people out of office, so I'd rather see that then some arbitrary clock expiring because we don't have the fortitude as voters to vote against an incumbent.

GannonFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
And replace them with who? More career politicians? More people that will gladly trade morals for $$$ and stay there?

We need ordinary people, start fresh. Let's get ordinary people and DEMAND term limits. DEMAND Caps on salary and pensions. If they don't deliver, then we kick them out. It wouldn't be all bad, you'd do it in election cycles so you will have the expirienced there for a while. The staffers can stay, they do the grunt work and grease the wheels. Congressional leaders just make appearances and vote depending on the research thier staff has provided them(with the customary bias of course.)

We still have the ability to vote people out of office,

But we don't. That's the problem.

Ibanez wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
We still have the ability to vote people out of office,

But we don't. That's the problem.

IMO, there just can't be a cop out for voter apathy. I don't like throwing in term limits just because we think voters should be voting these guys out but they don't. In the end, the voters get what they want. If voters really want a guy in office for 50 years, that's their perogative. If someone thinks they shouldn't want the same guy in office for 50 years, then they should do what they have to to convince the voters that they should vote for someone else. Term limits are the lazy way of avoiding real political debate.

GannonFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:

But we don't. That's the problem.

IMO, there just can't be a cop out for voter apathy. I don't like throwing in term limits just because we think voters should be voting these guys out but they don't. In the end, the voters get what they want. If voters really want a guy in office for 50 years, that's their perogative. If someone thinks they shouldn't want the same guy in office for 50 years, then they should do what they have to to convince the voters that they should vote for someone else. Term limits are the lazy way of avoiding real political debate.

I don't think anyone goes into politics with horribly bad intentions. They just seem to evolve into that the longer they hold office. The more entrenched and hence powerful they become, the worse they become. Institutionalizing term limits is just an attempt to save us from ourselves. It's sad but sometimes we need to be forced into doing the right thing.

GannonFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:

But we don't. That's the problem.

IMO, there just can't be a cop out for voter apathy. I don't like throwing in term limits just because we think voters should be voting these guys out but they don't. In the end, the voters get what they want. If voters really want a guy in office for 50 years, that's their perogative. If someone thinks they shouldn't want the same guy in office for 50 years, then they should do what they have to to convince the voters that they should vote for someone else. Term limits are the lazy way of avoiding real political debate.

Do you feel the same about the presidency? Governorships?

ASUMountaineer wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
IMO, there just can't be a cop out for voter apathy. I don't like throwing in term limits just because we think voters should be voting these guys out but they don't. In the end, the voters get what they want. If voters really want a guy in office for 50 years, that's their perogative. If someone thinks they shouldn't want the same guy in office for 50 years, then they should do what they have to to convince the voters that they should vote for someone else. Term limits are the lazy way of avoiding real political debate.

Do you feel the same about the presidency? Governorships?

VA governors are term-limited to 1 four year term - creates a whole slew of governance continuity issues...

ASUMountaineer wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
IMO, there just can't be a cop out for voter apathy. I don't like throwing in term limits just because we think voters should be voting these guys out but they don't. In the end, the voters get what they want. If voters really want a guy in office for 50 years, that's their perogative. If someone thinks they shouldn't want the same guy in office for 50 years, then they should do what they have to to convince the voters that they should vote for someone else. Term limits are the lazy way of avoiding real political debate.

Do you feel the same about the presidency? Governorships?

Not nearly as much - big, big difference in power when you compare an executive with a member of a legislature. I've got no problem with the 2 term limit most executive positions have.

GannonFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:

But we don't. That's the problem.

IMO, there just can't be a cop out for voter apathy. I don't like throwing in term limits just because we think voters should be voting these guys out but they don't. In the end, the voters get what they want. If voters really want a guy in office for 50 years, that's their perogative. If someone thinks they shouldn't want the same guy in office for 50 years, then they should do what they have to to convince the voters that they should vote for someone else. Term limits are the lazy way of avoiding real political debate.

No, I think we need term limits becuase the general population lazy and has allowed the good and the bad make a career out of civil service when they don't provide any service. The bad always ruin it for the good.

GannonFan wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
Do you feel the same about the presidency? Governorships?

Not nearly as much - big, big difference in power when you compare an executive with a member of a legislature. I've got no problem with the 2 term limit most executive positions have.

Just curious how you felt. I tend to lean towards term limits (though long term limits--like 4 terms Senate and 10 terms House, for example) just to ensure new blood. I agree there needs to be term limits for executives, but I would prefer one, six year term for President. Term limits for Congress will never happen, so it's not much of a concern for me.

Rob Iola wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
Do you feel the same about the presidency? Governorships?

VA governors are term-limited to 1 four year term - creates a whole slew of governance continuity issues...

In NC, you can't serve more than two terms consecutively. That's how we ended up with the ridiculousness of Jim Hunt being governor for 16 years, with time in between for Jim Gardner. However, thank God it forced Mike Easley out after his disasterous 8 years.