With all of the economic misery

[Elvado]

should the taxpayers really be picking up the bar tabs of our elected representatives? This is a wholly bipartisan rant. The most recent glaring example is Nancy Pelosi's $101,000 bar tab for drinks consumed on various trips taken by elected representatives and guests.

I know that when I travel, even on business, I pick up my own tab as regards liquor.

I also know that this particular form of corruption knows no partisan affiliation, but why aren't people outraged that we are essentially running a 24/7 open bar for Congress?

[Boz]

This either needs to stop immediately or I need to be invited.

[Cambridge]

I'm with Boz. This is OUTRAGEOUS...unless I'm on the list.

[Bando]

The Booze Party. Could that work?

[The Stig]

Feb 2, 2010 14:03:44 GMT -5 Bando said:

The Booze Party. Could that work?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_parliamentary_election,_1991

[SFHoya99]

I'm with you, Elvado.

Companies often fund employee booze, and I put this somewhere around there...

Except few companies fund a booze bill like that. Granted, Pelosi is pretty high up in the company that is government, but this is also public service.

The other one that KILLS me is security details. Stop it. Like six people in the whole government need a security detail. I think the New York Governor's is bigger than Obama's.

And we should make them all return pensions for any year in which their income returns a certain amount. I don't want my ex-Senator going homeless, but if they are making $6M in a book deal, they don't need my $200,000, either.

[SFHoya99]

Actually, you know what the worst part is? Invariably, there are lobbyists at these things.

If they can donate all they want to elections now, can we at least have these organizations pick up the freaking bar tab?

[jerseyhoya34]

The bar tab issue would probably fall under the pizza rule. I am not sure where that stands now, but I think it was a well-intentioned effort to limit the freebies that Congresscritters can get from lobbyists, i.e. free late night Domino's for the staff.

I generally do not approve of the Pelosi bar tab, but, at the same time, the money may actually be appropriated somehow as part of the budget. If so, I'd attack that rather than Pelosi specifically because you know Denny Hastert liked him some booze too.

[H2Oya 05]

I've got no issues with the bar tab. I would guess that some of the booze was drank by her staff. With all of the lobbying restrictions and gift bans, staff need whatever food or drink they can. Either, Congressional salaries are either too low to support competent non-corrupt individuals so we should raise them, or the staff isn't corrupt so we should let them at the least get some free meals from their former coworkers (lobbyists).

[Bando]

Feb 2, 2010 16:54:14 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

I'm with you, Elvado.

Companies often fund employee booze, and I put this somewhere around there...

Except few companies fund a booze bill like that. Granted, Pelosi is pretty high up in the company that is government, but this is also public service.

The other one that KILLS me is security details. Stop it. Like six people in the whole government need a security detail. I think the New York Governor's is bigger than Obama's.

And we should make them all return pensions for any year in which their income returns a certain amount. I don't want my ex-Senator going homeless, but if they are making $6M in a book deal, they don't need my $200,000, either.

Oh god yes, re the security details. They're basically status symbols for politicians nowadays. Governors, mayors, county executives, and council presidents do not need security details. Security for big events can be provided just fine by the local police, and in extreme cases by federal authorities or outsourced private security.

[SFHoya99]

How many staffers does Pelosi have?

[jerseyhoya34]

I have seen bar tabs exceeding 100K, but that was in a more corporate context. Do we feel the same way about that as we do with the Pelosi tab and presumably other bar tabs of government officials in DC?

[The Stig]

Ambassador - I don't think this falls under the Pizza Rule. The Pizza Rule is about buying gifts for others with your own money. Elvado is saying that Pelosi and others are charging their bar tabs to their office expenses, which are funded by taxpayers. I haven't seen the evidence for that (because I haven't looked), but it wouldn't surprise me. It's not illegal, but it shouldn't happen.

[TBird41]

Feb 2, 2010 18:26:21 GMT -5 The Stig said:

Ambassador - I don't think this falls under the Pizza Rule. The Pizza Rule is about buying gifts for others with your own money. Elvado is saying that Pelosi and others are charging their bar tabs to their office expenses, which are funded by taxpayers. I haven't seen the evidence for that (because I haven't looked), but it wouldn't surprise me. It's not illegal, but it shouldn't happen.

You're right. These tabs aren't being paid to replace gifts from lobbyists or anything like that. These are official trips (and likely legitimate) paid for by taxpayers and so all the expenses, including these bar tabs are either being paid for out of office expenses or by DoD depending on which of the two is paying for the trip. Either way, it's coming from the taxpayer.

And the difference b/w a corporation paying for it and a government official is paying for it is that a corporation isn't using taxpayer money to fund it (bail out companies excluded, of course).

[jerseyhoya34]

Thanks for clarification. I didn't read the original post.

I don't see the corporate distinction as significant. I'm sure some shareholders would like to see some of the money used for bar bills if only in a measly dividend or better earnings statement/balance sheet. I know I'd rather it be that way. For companies that routinely lose money, the funding for this stuff has to come from somewhere. AIG took heat for its boondoggles before and after its collapse as much for the taxpayer issue as the supposed bad optics of living large in the midst of a near collapse of the economy. The issue of Wall Street bonuses also takes place to some extent in this context.

It is also objectionable for other reasons, namely that a spare 100K would be better spent on a productive job or two.

[SFHoya99]

Feb 2, 2010 18:32:48 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Feb 2, 2010 18:26:21 GMT -5 The Stig said:

Ambassador - I don't think this falls under the Pizza Rule. The Pizza Rule is about buying gifts for others with your own money. Elvado is saying that Pelosi and others are charging their bar tabs to their office expenses, which are funded by taxpayers. I haven't seen the evidence for that (because I haven't looked), but it wouldn't surprise me. It's not illegal, but it shouldn't happen.

You're right. These tabs aren't being paid to replace gifts from lobbyists or anything like that. These are official trips (and likely legitimate) paid for by taxpayers and so all the expenses, including these bar tabs are either being paid for out of office expenses or by DoD depending on which of the two is paying for the trip. Either way, it's coming from the taxpayer.

And the difference b/w a corporation paying for it and a government official is paying for it is that a corporation isn't using taxpayer money to fund it (bail out companies excluded, of course).

I'm sorry, I'm uncertain what business trips require $100,000 in expenses.

Listen, I get travel. I get hotels -- though stay in a freaking Courtyard please. I get food, though there's absolutely no reason for any Congressman to go to a super nice dinner on the taxpayer's dime.

But alcohol? And nice/lots of alcohol? I'm sorry, no.

In what situation is a congressperson not the "customer" in a relationship? These aren't international envoys, folks -- nearly always it seems to me the other person at the table wants something from the Congressman, not vice versa. They don't need to impress and wine and dine -- the other person does. Unless they are fundraising, and then that's ridiculous.

There's simply no reason for them to be staying at posh hotels, going to top restaurants or drinking alcohol on our dimes.

I stay in $120/night hotels, get cheap food and pay for my own drinks at work. I fly at inconvenient times to save hundreds of dollars.

I don't think these people are doing this. This isn't a staff celebration party or working late -- does anyone believe that? Maybe the staffers but not the actual congresspeople.

I go to a TON of nice restaurants, drink a lot of expensive wine and alcohol, but I rarely do it on the company. Pretty much only when it is a team event and then "expensive wine" is a misnomer - we're talking $50-60 bottle at a restaurant, which is like $20-30 retail.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

If I have to stick to hotel and meals per diem rates and am forbidden from buying alcohol with it, so too should Congesspersons and their staffs. No excuse for this. They could have spent that money in much better ways.

Boz/Cambridge corollary aside, of course ;-)

[The Stig]

Feb 2, 2010 19:17:21 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Feb 2, 2010 18:32:48 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

You're right. These tabs aren't being paid to replace gifts from lobbyists or anything like that. These are official trips (and likely legitimate) paid for by taxpayers and so all the expenses, including these bar tabs are either being paid for out of office expenses or by DoD depending on which of the two is paying for the trip. Either way, it's coming from the taxpayer.

And the difference b/w a corporation paying for it and a government official is paying for it is that a corporation isn't using taxpayer money to fund it (bail out companies excluded, of course).

I'm sorry, I'm uncertain what business trips require $100,000 in expenses.

Listen, I get travel. I get hotels -- though stay in a freaking Courtyard please. I get food, though there's absolutely no reason for any Congressman to go to a super nice dinner on the taxpayer's dime.

But alcohol? And nice/lots of alcohol? I'm sorry, no.

In what situation is a congressperson not the "customer" in a relationship? These aren't international envoys, folks -- nearly always it seems to me the other person at the table wants something from the Congressman, not vice versa. They don't need to impress and wine and dine -- the other person does. Unless they are fundraising, and then that's ridiculous.

There's simply no reason for them to be staying at posh hotels, going to top restaurants or drinking alcohol on our dimes.

I stay in $120/night hotels, get cheap food and pay for my own drinks at work. I fly at inconvenient times to save hundreds of dollars.

I don't think these people are doing this. This isn't a staff celebration party or working late -- does anyone believe that? Maybe the staffers but not the actual congresspeople.

I go to a TON of nice restaurants, drink a lot of expensive wine and alcohol, but I rarely do it on the company. Pretty much only when it is a team event and then "expensive wine" is a misnomer - we're talking $50-60 bottle at a restaurant, which is like $20-30 retail.

The sad fact is that a lot of government officials, elected and unelected, and in both parties and in non-partisan positions, tend to forget that they're playing with taxpayer dollars.

A big chunk of Senators and Congressmen are millionaires. They can afford their own drinks. The irony is that one of the least wealthy among them (Feingold) is the one insisting they should pay for things with their own money, not taxpayers' money.

[Elvado]

In the SOTU, the President quite aptly called for belt-tightening. Eradicating this type of abuse would be an easy first step for the Congress, no?

[The Stig]

Feb 3, 2010 6:35:16 GMT -5 Elvado said:

In the SOTU, the President quite aptly called for belt-tightening. Eradicating this type of abuse would be an easy first step for the Congress, no?

feingold.senate.gov/deficit/rls_113009.html

Its chances of getting passed are about as good as the public option's chances right now, but like most things the proposal's out there.