Congress Has Committed a lot of Crimes - In My Imagination.

And, once again, another email decrying the congresspeople that other people elected:

Even if you aren't a Sports Fan this is Very Interesting!

****************
36 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71, I repeat 71
Cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related
Charges
8 have been arrested! For shoplifting
21 currently are defendants in lawsuits,
And
84 have been arrested for drunk driving
In the last year !

Can you guess which organization this is?
Is it the NBA Or NFL?
Give up yet?
Scroll down,



Neither,
it's the 535 members of the
United States Congress
The same group of Idiots that crank out
Hundreds of new laws each
Year Designed to keep the rest of us in line.

You gotta pass this one on!

First of all, even if this was based on actual research (rather than just making things up), it's been circulating around folks' email boxes since 1999, originating from a set of articles in "Capitol Hill Blue".

But, if you look at the articles online, you'll notice a very important thing:  These statistics aren't in the article anymore.

As it turns out, a lot of people wrote to "Capitol Hill Blue".

It seemed a little funny - the previous articles cited sources, and named names.  This list did not.

And a lot of journalists asked for Capitol Hill Blue to do so.  Each time they were asked, they refused.

Finally, according to FactCheck, these "statistics" suddenly disappeared.  When FactCheck asked Capital Hill Blue about this, the proprietor replied, "I did not double check the facts (which I should have done), nor did I write or edit the stories. But they are still my responsibility."

So, there you go.  Even the original author won't stand by what he said.  And neither should your email forwarders.

How hard will YOU lobby to get your $118 back?

After a lot of hand-wringing, congress has finally agreed to raising the debt ceiling, and passing $2.4 billion in cuts to the federal budget.

But not all tax hawks are happy.  They see easy ways to make further cuts.

Well, they're easy until you actually sit down and think about them.

Here's one viral email:

U N B E L I E V A B L E ! ! Read and scroll all the way to the bottom. What is wrong with us??
How they vote in the United Nations: 

Below are the actual voting records of various Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:  

Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time 
Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time 
Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time 
United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time. 
Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time. 
Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time. 
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time. 
Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time. 
Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time. 
Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time. 
India votes against the United States 81% of the time. 
Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time. 
Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.  

U S Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States,still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.

Jordan votes 71% against the United StatesAnd receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

Pakistan votes 75% against the United StatesReceives $6,721,000,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

India votes 81% against the United StatesReceives $143,699,000 annually.

WHY?WHO IN THE HECK STARTEDTHIS AND WHY?THEY ACTUALLY BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS THEM.
Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes. 
Pass this along to every taxpaying citizen you know.

Of course, when complicated statistics are involved, it's always best to check them.

In the case of these countries' voting records, the viral email author doesn't explain his methodology.  Fortunately for us, Snopes made an attempt to compile the statistics.  Fortunately for our email author, they come to similar results, for roll-call votes.  Most "votes", however, are not by roll call (making it impossible to determine who voted with and against the United States), or are voted in by consent (where no one objects).  So, when someone says, "This country has voted against us x% of the time", they're only counting the most contentious issues, for which a roll call was ordered.  Not that it's unusual to disagree with the United States on the most contentious issues - allied countries such as England and France vote against us about 40% of the time.

Now, as for the notion that we should "get out of the U.N. and give the tax savings back to the American Workers"?  Well, our foreign aid to these countries isn't set by the U.N.  They're decided by congress and approved by the president.

And, quite frankly, when even our allies, in the most contentious issues, are voting against us 40% of the time, it's probably in our best interest to be able to cast veto votes in the United Nations.  A power that we'd lose if we left.  A lesson that the U.S.S.R. once learned the hard way.

And if we explicitly tied our foreign aid to U.N. votes... well, I'd hate to see how that would "spin" against us.

But let's take a look at some of these foreign aid figures:

For Egypt - Yes, we are paying two billion dollars annually in aid.  However, the vast majority of this is military aid.  In exchange for this aid, the United States is getting priority passage through the Suez Canal.  And, unofficially, when we're Egypt's biggest arms dealer, the Egyptians have a very good reason to maintain a peaceful relationship with Israel.

In Pakistan - again, most of the money is for military aid.  In exchange, they've pledged to support our actions in the region.  And, as their support has weakened, so has our aid.

And, in Jordan, we're seeing the same trend.  Most of the assistance is military.  With the expectation that they'll maintain peaceful relationships with Israel, that they will provide logistic support to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that they will make efforts to stop militants from attacking Israel.

Now, the wisdom of these schemes are certainly areas of reasonable debate.

"But," our viral emailer writes, "American workers are forced to scrimp and sacrifice to pay" for these programs.

Well, let's take a look.

The IRS says that, in 2009, they processed 144,103,375 individual tax returns.  In 2007, they processed 14,752 corporate returns, and 3,989,893 S-Corporation returns.  And, in 2008, they processed 3,146,006 returns for partnerships.  In total: 151,254,026 entities filed income tax returns.

Okay, not every person or entity filing income tax returns will be required to pay taxes.  Let's suppose that only half of them do.  That would create 75,627,013 taxpayers.

So, if you divide the costs of foreign aid to Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan amongst that tax base - these efforts are costing an average of $118 per taxpayer.

I never said that military hardware was cheap.  But it's not bankrupting too many taxpayers.

When Half-Correct is Fully Wrong

And, once again, in the "White House is Spending Too Much" file, my father sends me these facts:

First Lady Michelle Obama's Servant List and Pay Scale

The First Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants   (Thats 22 Attendants to be exact)
1. $172,200 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)

2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)

3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G.  (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)

4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)

5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)

6. $90,000 -   Medina   , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)

7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)

8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)

9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)

10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)

11. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)

12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)

13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)

14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)

15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary to The First Lady)

16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special=2 0Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide to The First Lady)

17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)

18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)

19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)

20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)

21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)

22. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)

(This is community organizing at it's finest.)

     

There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help,at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President's own pocket.

     

Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to   Europe  .

     

FRIENDS.....THESE SALARIES ADD UP TO SIX MILLION, THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($6,364,000) FOR THE 4 YEARS OF OFFICE?????   AND WE ARE IN A RECESSION?????  WELL....MOST OF US ARE.  I GUESS IT'S OK TO SPEND WILDLY WHEN IT'S NOT YOUR OWN MONEY?????

     

Copyright 2009 CanadaFreePress.Com   

      

Yes, Yes, I know, The Canadian Free Press has to publish this because the   USA   media is too scared they might be considered racist.

                  Sorry   USA !

Yep.  It looks pretty expensive.

Now, I'm sure that the demands on the First Lady's time are extraordinary.  I've never run such an office, and don't know what it would take to retain skilled staff.  So, once again, I will hedge my bets (as well as some of my personal feelings), and call the cost of this staff "a subject of reasonable debate".

"Wait a minute", you may ask.  "If 22 staff members' salaries are unprecedented, then why would you even consider this debateable?"

That's where our anonymous emailer has his facts wrong.

First of all, the claim that Laura Bush had only one staff member?  Wrong.  Here's her list, gathered from the Washington Post:

1. $172,200 - McBride, Anita (Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the First Lady)
2. $147,500 - Medina, Sonya (Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Director of Projects for the First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Zantzinger, Amy (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 - Niemec, Sally (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
5. $102,000 - Armstrong, Sara (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $88,500 - Miller, Sonja Maria (Deputy Chief of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $78,400 - Ballard, Deanna (Director of Scheduling for the First Lady)
8. $63,000 - McArthur, Nikki (Speech Writer for the First Lady)
9. $62,700 - Knutson, Lindsey (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
10. $62,400 - Marshall, Misty (Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
11. $57,500 - Adams, Julie (Deputy Press Secretary to the First Lady)
12. $53,000 - Mende, Kirstin (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
13. $52,200 - Thornton, Dorothy (Deputy Social Secretary)
14. $52,200 - Etter, Marisa Leigh (Deputy Director of Scheduling for the First Lady)
15. $52,200 - King, Kristin (Deputy Director of Advance for the First Lady)
16. $47,000 - Segura, Millicent (Deputy Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
17. $43,000 - Miller, Kasdin (Assistant Press Secretary to the First Lady)
18. $41,800 - O'Connor Erin (Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff to the First Lady)

... and if I wasn't such a half-assed researcher, I'm sure I'd find more.

It's funny how folks only care about the White House budget when their party is out of power...

 

The Secret Service - It Ain't Free.

One theme that's arisen in my father's viral emails has been of the "outrageous" costs of President Obama's trips.  At first, these emails focused on trips he's made for pleasure - first for flying to New York to see a broadway play, then for Michelle Obama's decision to extend her London stay to do some sightseeing with her children.

Never mind that it's clearly noted in the (mainstream) articles above that the President paid for personal expenses out of his pocket.  Right-wing emailers are aghast that they have to spend money on the Obamas' security.

And, other than repeated emails about these two trips?  I thought things had died down for awhile.  Maybe the Obamas have decided to take vacations to places that are less expensive to secure.  Maybe.  And if so, this might not be a bad thing.

But, now, this whole "Oh, the expense" thread has come back:

I READ/HEARD SOMEWHERE THAT THE COST WAS ESTIMATED TO BE 200 MILLION $.  NOT TO BAD FOR A BROKE COUNTRY!

There is no recession in the White House!

Can you imagine what this trip will cost the tax payer?

"It's good to be the King and Queen". All this on borrowed money from China!
 

Barack and Michelle's Mumbai Darshan plans
..........
Obama’s personal security staff itself will be huge, and it has already started making its own arrangements in Mumbai. “A team of secret service agents has already arrived, and has surveyed the areas of his stay and the roads and places on his itinerary,” the officer said.

To ensure fool-proof security, the President’s team has booked the entire the Taj Mahal Hotel, including 570 rooms, all banquets and restaurants. Since his security contingent and staff will comprise a huge number, 125 rooms at Taj President have also been booked, apart from 80 to 90 rooms each in Grand Hyatt and The Oberoi hotels. The NCPA, where the President is expected to meet representatives from the business community, has also been entirely booked.

The officer said, “Obama’s contingent is huge. There are two jumbo jets coming along with Air Force One, which will be flanked by security jets. There will be 30 to 40 secret service agents, who will arrive before him. The President’s convoy has 45 cars, including the Lincoln Continental in which the President travels.”

Since Obama will stay in a hotel that is on sea front, elaborate coastal security arrangements have been made by the US Navy in consonance with the Indian Navy and the Coast Guard. “There will be US naval ships, along with Indian vessels, patrolling the sea till about 330-km from the shore. This is to negate the possibility of a missile being fired from a distance,” the officer said.

The President will be accompanied by his chefs, not because he would not like to savour Indian cuisine, but to ensure his food is not spiked.

US President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama are scheduled to land in Mumbai on November 6 .

Now, wait a minute.

This trip isn't for personal recreation.  This is for state business.  It can't be avoided.  He doesn't have the choice of going somewhere cheaper.  And these hotels have been a target for terriorist attacks.

It's awfully hard to begrudge the need for security.  As well as our nation's need to continue ties with India and the G20.  So, yes, security is absolutely necessary.

But one thing should seem pretty strange.  The techniques of the Secret Service are kept very confidential.  Who actually has access to the budget and plans for President Obama's upcoming trip?

As usual, this has been investigated by Snopes and FactCheck.  Both have verified that the only source to this information has been an unnamed Indian contact.  Who, probably, would not have access to such information.  And certainly not the budget for it.

And, as Snopes and FactCheck point out, even with the measures that this email states are happening, the $200 Million figure seems, well, crazy.  Our war in Afghanistan costs less per day, and uses much more resources.  If the $200 Million were true, this trip would cost $66,000/day per staff member.  So, clearly, this source can't be considered credible.

But, I suppose some right-wing folks still might complain that the secret service is wasting valuable taxpayer money.

That's probably fine.  I'm all for efficient use of government resources.

But one thing I'd ask?  Make it apply across the board.

Remember - the Secret Service provides the security details for both Bush presidents, and Dick Cheney.

I'm not arguing against our needing them.  These figures have been targets of assasination attempts.

But if you're going to complain about the expense of security during campaign rallies and vacations?  Make it apply to our former figureheads' public (and usually paid) appearances and expansive ranches as well.

We don't need two standards.  One is good enough.

Yes, folks. Cabinet members HAVE had real jobs.

Let's get started with this email:

A chart that showed past presidents and the percentage of each president's
cabinet appointees who had previously worked in the private sector - you know, a
real life business,.. not a government job? Remember what that is?

A
private business?
*Roosevelt - 38%*
*Taft - 40%*
*Wilson - 52%*
*Harding - 49%*
*Coolidge - 48%*
*Hoover - 42%*
*FDR - 50%*
*Truman - 50%*
*Eisenhower - 57%*
*Kennedy - 30%*
*LBJ - 47%*
*Nixon - 53%*
*Ford - 42%*
*Carter - 32%*
*Reagan - 56%*
*GHWB - 51%*
*Clinton - 39%*
*GWB - 55%*
*And the Chicken Dinner
Winner is.........................*

*Obama - 8%* ----

This is
the guy who wants to tell YOU how to run YOUR life!

ONLY ONE IN TWELVE,
in the Obama Cabinet, HAS EVER HAD A JOB.
*YEP, (8) EIGHT PERCENT!

And these are the guys holding a "job summit," going to tell us how to
run our businesses, make our decisions for us?
Do you want to trust them
with every aspect of your life?

"When the people fear the Government,
that is tyranny. When the Government fears the people, that is Liberty."
Thomas Jefferson

Wow. That sounds bad.

But, wait. Only one cabinet member in the Obama administration has ever held a private sector job? In order to do that, it seems like he'd have to try to select a cabinet that's never held a job outside of the government. Do you really think the President would deliberately apply such a litmus test to his nominees? That just doesn't sound right.

Let's look a little deeper.

First, let's take a trip to the White House website, and see who's sitting in the President's cabinet.

Wait a minute. I'm counting 15 secretaries. State, Treasury, Defense, Justice, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Energy, Education, Veteran's Affairs, and Homeland Security.

But, according to our anonymous source, "ONLY ONE IN TWELVE" (caps copied from the original) has held a job.

So, it seems that our anonymous email writer is criticising government officials on their qualifications - while he can't even pass 1st grade math.

Okay, let's see how bad this author's math is.

Let's start from the top:

Hillary Clinton: From 1977-1993, worked at the Rose Law Firm. A very large corporate law firm. At one point becoming the first female senior partner. One article critical of the work she did can be found here. Now, corporate law at a private firm... that's clearly not government work. She must be the one, right?

Timothy Geithner: Let's give the writer a break, and say that work at the federal reserve is public-sector. (A subject worthy of debate.) So, let's disqualify that. Before his work for the Fed, he was employed at the Kissinger Institute - a private group offering advice on public policy. Okay, all of his work has been in public policy - either in think tanks, or at the Fed. Arguably, one could make a case that he hasn't had work outside of government policy. It's a stretch, but it's a stretch that one can make. Especially if you're motivated to smear the Obama administration.

Robert Gates: Recruited into the CIA when he started graduate school, and started by serving as second lieutenant in the Air Force preparing intelligence briefings. Far from a cushy political position. Rose to CIA director, after leaving, served in academia and on corporate boards. Personally, I'm happy to have a defense secretary who's spent most of his life in the military. (And so did George W. Bush, who originally placed him in his position.) But, if you really want to stretch it, you could say that undignified and apolitical gruntwork in the Air Force and CIA are still government positions, and corporate board memberships are "vanity" titles. So, you could argue against his having a "real job". If you're narrow-minded enough to define "real" as outside government.

Eric Holder: So, close, Mr. Anonymous writer. Eric Holder has spent almost his entire career after law school in the Department of Justice, primarily in the public integrity division. Charged with persuing official corruption. Under several presedential administrations, both Republican and Democrat. But, he has been a "Litigation Partner" at Covington and Burling - a private law firm. Granted, our writer might spin some fantastic story about how this might be a political favor - but I think the burden falls on our writer here to prove such a wild theory. Looks like s/he missed this one. We're running 2/4 so far.

Kenneth Salazar: Total miss. Worked as an attorney in the private sector for several years before joining the Governor's Cabinet. And he owns a working farm. Making him a business owner. Sorry, Mr. Email writer - I don't think you were paying attention with this one.

Thomas Vilsack: Worked at his father-in-law's private legal firm for twelve years before his first government job - mayor of Mount Pleasant, Iowa. I'll admit - my research here is a pretty half-assed effort, this took me awhile to find. Maybe it was a little more effort than our original writer cared to make. (If s/he made one at all.) But a private sector job it is.

Gary Locke: Once again, our anonymous blogger forgot to include the fact that he was a partner at the private law firm of Davis, Wright, and Tremaine... this is getting to be a bad habit!

Hilda Solis: Her background seems pretty well documented by Wikipedia. (Not that this is 100% accurate, but, like I said, I'm half-assing my research, and this article looks pretty detailed.) An interesting story, but no clear record of private sector employment. They got one right. I suppose that broken clocks do give the correct time twice a day...

Kathleen Sebelius: First job out of college was as director and lobbyist for the Kansas Trial Lawyers' Association. After that, she served elected positions in government. Okay, technically, the trial lawyers' association is a real (private) business - but let's give our anonymous writer a break and call this "debateable." Even if it really isn't.

Shaun Donovan: His biography on the HUD website states that he's worked in the private sector as an architect. My half-assed research can't find many details on this employment, but it's verified by U.S. News and World Report.

Ray LaHood: According to the Department of Transportation biography, before holding elected office, he worked as a high school teacher. Technically, government work. Got one right, as far as I can tell.

Steven Chu: A nobel-prizewinning scientist. Did you think that he's spent all of his life in university studies? I thought so. I was wrong. He's been an employee at Bell Laboratories.

Arne Duncan: Played professional basketball in Australia from 1987-1991. That's about as far from government work as you get.

Eric Shinseki: A career military man, including combat tours in Vietnam. After his retirement, he's served on corporate boards, which critics might call "not real work", I suppose. Okay, he's lost half of one foot while serving for our country, and has had a distinguished military career. But not much outside of the public sector. For all it matters.

Janet Napolitano: Damn! They missed her work for the private law firm Lewis and Roca. Again!

So, our anonymous writer says that only 8% of the cabinet has "previously worked in the private sector". Let's count 'em up...

Documented, almost inarguable private sector work: Clinton, Holder, Salazar, Vilsack, Locke, Donovan, Chu, Duncan, Napolitano = 9

Arguable - worked in quasi-governmental organizations, independent public policy advisors, or on corporate boards (where they may have been "vanity" employees) - Geithner, Gates, Sebelius, Shinseki = 4

No private sector work found in my half-assed google searches: Solis, LaHood. = 2

Giving the writer every unreasonable doubt? I calculate that 60% of Obama's Cabinet has worked in the private sector. A far cry from 8%. And above every other president listed. Not that I trust this author's research on the other presidents' cabinets. But it's still a point to be made.

A friend of mine once said, "63% of all statistics are made up on the spot."

I suspect that nearly 100% of all viral email statistics are as well. Including this anonymous writers'.