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

"Do as I say, not as I do. "

Staunch fiscal conservative, Tom Price, charged $300,000 in chartered flights so far.

The Health and Human Services' inspector general is now investigating HHS Secretary Tom Price's reported frequent use of government-funded private charter planes for work, CBS has confirmed, making Price the second cabinet member whose travel is under review by an agency watchdog.

The OIG is looking into Price's travel habits, amid a Politico report that Price has used private charter planes at least two dozen times to the tune of $300,000 since he joined the administration in February, sometimes on jaunts that typically have a number of commercial flights scheduled.

"OIG is conducting a review of Secretary Price's federal travel using chartered aircraft," HHS OIG spokeswoman Teisa Williams told CBS. "The review focuses on whether the travel complied with federal travel regulations, but may encompass other issues related to the travel. "We take this matter very seriously, and when questions arose about potentially inappropriate travel, we immediately began assessing the issue. I can confirm that work is underway and will be completed as soon as possible."

Price's reported travel is particularly under fire because he preached fiscal conservatism in Congress, and because Republicans are trying to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act to stabilize government spending.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hhs-watchd ... es-travel/

Well then

I guess this invalidates fiscal conservatism

No defense from me, even if we're talking about changing 7th significant digit of the budget deficit.

Did know this administration was fiscal conservative. Thanks for letting me know.

Hard to get too worked up about this one - at least two dozen flights totaling $300,000. That's a maximum of $12,500 per flight, and they didn't say all of them had commercial alternatives. Even if they did, this amount of money is chump change in terms of what government routinely wastes. I get it that it's fun to pick out stuff like this, but it doesn't really amount to very much. Just more partisan talking points as the GOP does the same when the tables are turned. Meanwhile Rome burns.

....exists only in conversation. There isn't any R or D actually PRACTICING it.

It's why I became a libertarian.

GannonFan wrote:Hard to get too worked up about this one - at least two dozen flights totaling $300,000. That's a maximum of $12,500 per flight, and they didn't say all of them had commercial alternatives. Even if they did, this amount of money is chump change in terms of what government routinely wastes. I get it that it's fun to pick out stuff like this, but it doesn't really amount to very much. Just more partisan talking points as the GOP does the same when the tables are turned. Meanwhile Rome burns.

Fiscal conservatives love to talk about $500 toilet seats and $16 muffins. I bet there are loads of Price quotes complaining about relatively small portions of government spending.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Hard to get too worked up about this one - at least two dozen flights totaling $300,000. That's a maximum of $12,500 per flight, and they didn't say all of them had commercial alternatives. Even if they did, this amount of money is chump change in terms of what government routinely wastes. I get it that it's fun to pick out stuff like this, but it doesn't really amount to very much. Just more partisan talking points as the GOP does the same when the tables are turned. Meanwhile Rome burns.

Fiscal conservatives love to talk about $500 toilet seats and $16 muffins. I bet there are loads of Price quotes complaining about relatively small portions of government spending.

Exactly, a bunch of partisan sniping from both sides and very little gets done about it, or, more importantly, about the other issues that matter. Just read a good article in Time about the poor state of the Democratic party, historically speaking, and there was a telling quote in there, not sure if from Rahm Emmanuel, but that the focus has to be on winning elections, period. Sounds great, but it's also why we've gotten to were we've gotten to - all about winning the next elections, with very little focus on the governing that happens in between elections.

GannonFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Fiscal conservatives love to talk about $500 toilet seats and $16 muffins. I bet there are loads of Price quotes complaining about relatively small portions of government spending.

Exactly, a bunch of partisan sniping from both sides and very little gets done about it, or, more importantly, about the other issues that matter. Just read a good article in Time about the poor state of the Democratic party, historically speaking, and there was a telling quote in there, not sure if from Rahm Emmanuel, but that the focus has to be on winning elections, period. Sounds great, but it's also why we've gotten to were we've gotten to - all about winning the next elections, with very little focus on the governing that happens in between elections.

And even less focus on the long term. Which means anything longer than the two-year election cycle.

GannonFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Fiscal conservatives love to talk about $500 toilet seats and $16 muffins. I bet there are loads of Price quotes complaining about relatively small portions of government spending.

Exactly, a bunch of partisan sniping from both sides and very little gets done about it, or, more importantly, about the other issues that matter. Just read a good article in Time about the poor state of the Democratic party, historically speaking, and there was a telling quote in there, not sure if from Rahm Emmanuel, but that the focus has to be on winning elections, period. Sounds great, but it's also why we've gotten to were we've gotten to - all about winning the next elections, with very little focus on the governing that happens in between elections.

And how has that focus worked out for Dems as they've pivoted to the right?

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Exactly, a bunch of partisan sniping from both sides and very little gets done about it, or, more importantly, about the other issues that matter. Just read a good article in Time about the poor state of the Democratic party, historically speaking, and there was a telling quote in there, not sure if from Rahm Emmanuel, but that the focus has to be on winning elections, period. Sounds great, but it's also why we've gotten to were we've gotten to - all about winning the next elections, with very little focus on the governing that happens in between elections.

And how has that focus worked out for Dems as they've pivoted to the right?

Dems taking any positions, left or right, have not been very successful anywhere other than the large metropolitan areas on either coast. That's why they are where they are right now in terms of election outcomes. There's an argument to be made that the pivoting and then sprinting to the far left by the already protected candidates in those Democratic safe districts has had as much to do with Dems losing in the flyover states as the actual performance of those failed candidates themselves. The GOP has been effective at casting the Dems as the party of Pelosi and then Clinton, and even with Hillary running as anything other than a far left candidate couldn't shake the negatives she and the party had in all those places where they're losing.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
And how has that focus worked out for Dems as they've pivoted to the right?

Dems taking any positions, left or right, have not been very successful anywhere other than the large metropolitan areas on either coast. That's why they are where they are right now in terms of election outcomes. There's an argument to be made that the pivoting and then sprinting to the far left by the already protected candidates in those Democratic safe districts has had as much to do with Dems losing in the flyover states as the actual performance of those failed candidates themselves. The GOP has been effective at casting the Dems as the party of Pelosi and then Clinton, and even with Hillary running as anything other than a far left candidate couldn't shake the negatives she and the party had in all those places where they're losing.

JSO assures us repeatedly that the death of the Republican party is nigh.

AZGrizFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Dems taking any positions, left or right, have not been very successful anywhere other than the large metropolitan areas on either coast. That's why they are where they are right now in terms of election outcomes. There's an argument to be made that the pivoting and then sprinting to the far left by the already protected candidates in those Democratic safe districts has had as much to do with Dems losing in the flyover states as the actual performance of those failed candidates themselves. The GOP has been effective at casting the Dems as the party of Pelosi and then Clinton, and even with Hillary running as anything other than a far left candidate couldn't shake the negatives she and the party had in all those places where they're losing.

JSO assures us repeatedly that the death of the Republican party is nigh.

JSO probably cries himself to sleep at night with a worn out Hillary Clinton poster as a pillow.

Good article in Time magazine last week. Apparently the guy who did that research and said the browning of America meant that the Democratic party was due for a multiple decade supremacy in elections all over the country has revised his forecast. Apparently not all people of any color, when they vote, if they vote, all vote as monolithically (i.e. all for Democrats) as he had predicted. What a shocker.

"Flight furor: Obama officials also took pricey, non-commercial planes

.....In 2014, Holder, while attorney general, boarded a government-owned Gulfstream and flew to the Belmont Stakes Thoroughbred horse race in New York with his daughters, their boyfriends and two security officers.

According to records obtained by The Daily Caller from the Department of Justice, that trip cost the government $14,440. But Holder only had to reimburse the government $955 for that flight -- the equivalent cost of a coach commercial airline ticket for each non-law enforcement passenger....

....According to statistics provided by a senior administration official, the Trump White House has authorized fewer trips on military planes for senior officials than the Obama administration did during the first eight months in office.

From Jan. 20 to Sept. 19, the Trump administration authorized 77 military flights, while the Obama administration allowed 94 flights during the same time period, according to the stats.

Leon Panetta, who served as both CIA director and defense secretary during the Obama years, frequently used a government airplane to commute back and forth from Washington to California nearly every weekend at taxpayer expense.

The Washington Times reported then that each flight cost about $32,000 but Panetta only had to pay $630 per trip, because that was the cost of an equivalent round-trip commercial flight. It noted that the government required defense secretaries to use a military plane for travel, and Panetta had the approval of Obama to fly home every weekend......"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09 ... lanes.html

Price is gone.

Another one bites the dust.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Price is gone.

Another one bites the dust.

And if he was a donk under a donk POTUS, he'd still be there. Unlike donks, conks hold their Secretaries to a higher standard..

LOL - Price spent over a million on flights. JACKAAASS.


Filling the swamp with fellow crooks - the Trump legacy

Not one vote from D's... not even Manchin for his confirmation

HHS nominee Tom Price bought stock, then authored bill benefiting company
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... /97337838/

Preet Bharara was investigating it before he was fired by Trump.

https://www.propublica.org/article/pree ... ck-trading

In December, the Wall Street Journal reported that Price traded more than $300,000 worth of shares in health companies over a recent four-year period, while taking actions that could have affected those companies. Price, an orthopedic surgeon, chaired the powerful House Budget Committee and sat on the Ways and Means Committee’s health panel.

In one case, Price was one of just a handful of American investors allowed to buy discounted stock in Innate Immunotherapeutics — a tiny Australian company working on an experimental multiple sclerosis drug. The company hoped to be granted “investigational new drug” status from the Food and Drug Administration, a designation that expedites the approval process.

Members of congress often try to apply pressure on the FDA. As ProPublica has reported, Price’s office has taken up the causes of health care companies, and in one case urged a government agency to remove a damaging drug study on behalf of a pharmaceutical company whose CEO donated to Price’s campaign.

GannonFan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
JSO assures us repeatedly that the death of the Republican party is nigh.

Good article in Time magazine last week. Apparently the guy who did that research and said the browning of America meant that the Democratic party was due for a multiple decade supremacy in elections all over the country has revised his forecast. Apparently not all people of any color, when they vote, if they vote, all vote as monolithically (i.e. all for Democrats) as he had predicted. What a shocker.

Got a link? I'd like to see it.

Of course not ALL people of any color vote one way. Otherwise, I never heard of the idea that there was one guy who predicted that the democrats will eventually dominate. I certainly don't base my expectation on what one guy said. In fact I just base it on the obvious trends. Nobody HAS to say it.

Not ALL Blacks voted Democrat in the 2016 Presidential election. But the Democrat beat the Republican among Blacks by 89% to 8%.

Not ALL Latinos voted Democrat. But the Democrat beat the Republican among Latinos by 66% to 28%.

Not all Asians voted Democrat. But the Democrat beat the Republican among Asians by 65% to 27%.

The basic pattern held. The Democrat beat the Republican by overwhelming margins among non Whites.

The basic trend towards a shrinking percentage of the vote accounted for by Whites also held.

We don't need "the guy" you're talking about to anticipate what's inevitably going to happen if the basic pattern of non Whites voting overwhelmingly for Democrats doesn't change. Or I guess we could add if the trend towards Whites being a smaller percentage of the population doesn't change. But I don't see any way that one is going to change.

If there's any hope for the Republicans in the long term, it lies in finding a way of changing that basic pattern of the overwhelming majority of non Whites voting Democrat.

BTW, if you think it's just Presidential elections, here are some 2016 exit polling results for the total national vote in House elections.

Blacks: 88% Democrat, 10% Republican
Latinos: 67% Democrat, 32% Republican
Asian: 65% Democrat, 34% Republican

Non White overall: 74% Democrat, 24% Republican

If you don't think that combined with the fact that the overall percent of the vote accounted for by Whites continues to decline is bad news for the Republicans if they don't do something to change it you're just not being rational.

And remember. We are already to the point where the overall split is very close. The Democrat won the popular vote in the Presidential election by 48.5% to 46.4% while the Republicans won the total House vote by 49.1% to 48.0%.

We really don't need some big sophisticated analysis by whoever "the guy" in that Time Article is to tell us the Republicans have a problem with respect to the future. Not that I don't like sophisticated analysis. But this is not a situation that needs one.

BDKJMU wrote: And if he was a donk under a donk POTUS, he'd still be there. Unlike donks, conks hold their Secretaries to a higher standard..

More like Kelly tightening the reins.

Remember, this is the WH that thought it was a good idea to keep a National Security Advisor in position for ~3 weeks after being warned that he may be compromised by foreign governments.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

BDKJMU wrote: And if he was a donk under a donk POTUS, he'd still be there. Unlike donks, conks hold their Secretaries to a higher standard..

More like Kelly tightening the reins.

Remember, this is the WH that thought it was a good idea to keep a National Security Advisor in position for ~3 weeks after being warned that he may be compromised by foreign governments.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
More like Kelly tightening the reins.

Remember, this is the WH that thought it was a good idea to keep a National Security Advisor in position for ~3 weeks after being warned that he may be compromised by foreign governments.

What if...it's wrong...when either side is guilty?

More Conk fail

http://verifiedpolitics.com/fox-news-ju ... mediately/

The Obama administration people that took private planes are required to buy law Health and Human Services secretary is not once again the party of corruption and white racism strikes again the only loser is United States of America

Retweeted Natasha Geiling (@ngeiling):

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has spent **$913,000** on private flights, 24/7 security, and that soundproof booth https://t.co/HbNIzr3u0U