Committee positions are, AFAIK, given out entirely at the discretion of the party leadership. Is it better or worse that the usual reason for deciding who gets what committee seat has more to do with party loyalty than public image? (There may be good reasons to keep 90K in cash in your freezer, but there aren't many.)* I'm a firm believer in the saying, "the problem in Washington isn't what you can't get away with, but what you can", and assigning powerful committee seats and chairs on the basis of party loyalty has always bothered me-- bothers me more than this preemptive move against Jefferson, in fact.
Would he keep retirement benefits? Google is your friend. Yes. On a partisan note, yes, the Dems aren't going to tackle the problem, but Republicans had twelve years to change the rules too, with the added benefit of kicking former Dems like Rostenkowski off the government teat. (And really, what kind of opposition could there have been to such a move?) Premonition? Members only privilege? Elite vs "the rest of us"? All I can say is that it's a good reason why conservative pundits spend more time attacking Democrats~ than promoting Republicans-- they may be politicians you like, but they're still politicians.
*In fact, IIRC, large sums of cash are probable cause for law enforcement agents to investigate you. Apparently there aren't enough old-timers who distrust banks any more to give cash hoarders the benefit of the doubt.
~And for the peanut gallery at Newsbusters, consider how many felons are getting back their vote, with minimal opposition from Republicans or conservatives. I seem to recall rather heated discussions at Plastic over the topic in 2002-3, so the silence over these moves is indeed notable.
Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras
12
 11
|
Re: Committees And Corruption
Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 01:06:01 PM EST
|
*In fact, IIRC, large sums of cash are probable cause for law enforcement agents to investigate you. Are you serious? If I was not loitering in a known drug sales area and had a ton of cash on me or crossing a border with that kind of dough that would be PC for an investigation?
and assigning powerful committee seats and chairs on the basis of party loyalty has always bothered me-- bothers me more than this preemptive move against Jefferson, in fact.
I thought it was on the basis of party seniority, at least in the senate (which has nothing to do with this case). Or does seniority generally correlate highly with loyalty and influence?
13
12
|
Yes, I Think So
Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 01:23:38 PM EST
5.00 (informative, brilliant)
|
Large sums of cash are taken as a sign of either tax evasion, or for the purchase of illicit substances like guns or drugs. Of course, the question is how much is too much; I've known guys who felt better if they could flash having 500 bucks or more in their wallet, but I doubt any of them would have been investigated as a result. 5K is probably a good place to start, being 50 hundreds (you've got to notice that, right?), but that's just a guess. Of course, the SCOTUS has decided that the cops can pretty much strip search your car for not wearing a seat belt*, so I can't say this really surprises me much.
Well, seniority and party loyalty usually go together, so committee assignments aren't usually a problem. If you read The Hill every once in a while, you'll read about someone getting miffed at not getting a seat or chair that they wanted. For the most part, the game is so much understood by everyone involved that its rarely an issue.
*Happened to a buddy of mine in Texas. No seat belt + long hair= a twenty minute search of his car. The only reason he didn't do time was because the weed was stashed in metal kayak paddles, hollow metal ones that click together, and the cop didn't think to look inside.
Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras
22
13
|
heh
Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 04:16:31 PM EST
4.00 (astute)
|
The only reason he didn't do time was because the weed was stashed in metal kayak paddles
So, the cop was right about the profile, but just not diligent enough. Classic.
14
13
|
Re: Yes, I Think So
Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 04:00:46 PM EST
|
*Happened to a buddy of mine in Texas. No seat belt + long hair= a twenty minute search of his car. The only reason he didn't do time was because the weed was stashed in metal kayak paddles, hollow metal ones that click together, and the cop didn't think to look inside.
"Officer, I know you want to do your job, but I do not consent to any searches of my private property."
18
14
|
Well, Y'Know
Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 06:03:24 PM EST
|
I'm pretty sure he was stoned at the time :)
Seriously, though, it was a bit of a "changes in latitude, changes in attitude" story. In Washington State, especially in the medium-small town he was from, no cop would have looked twice at his rig, or his hair, because there's a fair amount of people who look much the same on the roads every day-- living within 100 miles of the Columbia River and all that. He just never thought about it enough to think beforehand what he might do in that situation. Good link, though I'm not sure I'll ever need it on my bicycle; the cops would have to notice me first, and even with my hair dyed green, that just doesn't happen.
Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras
15
13
|
Bwuh?
Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 04:30:30 PM EST
|
No seatbelt...long hair...kayak paddles?
Shoot...I thought those three things together were considered iron clad probable cause in Texas.
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine
