As if they needed it, more perks for the politicos

As if the politicos don’t get enough perks from being in office that we lowly constituents never get a chance at, here’s another instance in which some of the privileged are taking advantage of being in the right position at the right time.  U.S. Representative Darrell Issa, a California republican who happens to chair the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has asked for a House Ethics Committee investigation of four House members he says have received VIP discounted loans from the former Countrywide Financial Corporation.  Countrywide just happens to be the company whose subprime mortgages were largely responsible for the nation's foreclosure crisis, according to congressional investigators, as cited in a CNN story.

Apparently, Countrywide offered VIP treatment to select people who were considered “Friends of Angelo,” specifically Angelo Mozilo, Countrywide’s former CEO.  Two loan recipients have already been cleared of any wrong doing, Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), the former chairman of Oversight and Government Reform, has acknowledged receiving two loans through the VIP program. Towns stated that he was not aware of his inclusion in the program, known as “Friends of Angelo” within Countrywide. And of course that clears him of any ethical issues, although it would be pretty hard to convince me that he was unaware of the terms of the loan and what must have been a too-good-to-be-true rate.  The Senate Ethics Committee investigated two lawmakers - Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and former Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) - who also took part in the Countrywide VIP program. No charges were filed against the two senators, but the Senate Ethics panel said both Conrad and Dodd “should have exercised more vigilance” in their dealings with Countrywide.  What exactly does more vigilance mean? Should they have looked behind the terms of the loans? Did they think that senators, because they are senators, deserved such discounted rates?

This is not new news. Countryside was investigated about this in 1998, at which time they were found to be currying favor with VIPs by offering loans; they also gave loans to 153 people working for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But all of that aside, don’t our lawmakers have enough income and perks without having to take advantage of questionable borrowing?

Let’s see, their annual income is a paltry $174,000 per year; up 17 percent from the minimal 145,100 they took home, I would say earned but that is debatable, 10 years ago.

But wait, there’s more:

Retirement benefits:  they receive either Civil Service Retirement or the newer Federal Employees’ Retirement System, enacted in 1986 for employees hired after Dec 31, 1983.  Under CSRS, a member is eligible for benefits upon retirement from Congress, if they are 62 with five years of congressional service, 60 with 10 years of service, or 50 with 20 years of service.  Under FERS, a member is eligible for benefits upon retirement from Congress if they are 62 with five years’ service, 50 with 20 years’ service, or any age with 25 years’ service.

Personal Staff Allowance: Representatives’ staff allowances can be used to hire up to 18 permanent and four non-permanent aides divided between the members’ Washington and district offices.  Up to $75,000 of staff funds can be transfers to the official expense account for use in other categories, such as computer and related services.  The top salary allowed for House personal staffers in 2005 was $156,848.  A senators’ personal staff allowance varies in accordance with the size of the members’ state. Senators may hire as many aides as they wish within their allowance; typically ranging between 26 and 60, depending on the state and the salaries offered.  The max salary allowed to senate staffers in 2003 was $150,519, and for senate legislative staffers, it was $153,599. Nice salaries for someone he chooses.

In addition, the congressmen also get expense allowances.  For members, these are kept separate from personal staff allowances, and include domestic travel, stationery, newsletters, overseas postage, telephone and telegraph service, and other expenses in Washington and the members state or congressional district.  They also have a thing called the Franking Privilege, which allows them to mail official letters and packages under the members’ signature without charges for postage.  Domestic travel is included in office expenses at a minimum of $9,700 for house representatives as of 2003; and for the Senate is part of the overall population and distance, and includes travel. Foreign travel is also covered, providing they are conducting government business.  Outside employment income is limited to 15 percent of the members’ pay, but cannot be for real estate, insurance sales, law practice, medicinal practice, or service as a corporate officer or board member.

Really, it’s no wonder people want to get elected. How much do they earn?  That’s too much calculus for me to figure, although I’ve never seen a poor senator or congressman.  There seems to be no limit to their income or their ability to anoint friends and relatives with high-paying government jobs. I suppose, if one were to believe in reincarnation, it would be good to come back as a professional politician; but with my luck I would just miss the congressional cut-off and come back as a cockroach instead.

Newt: how to mount a losing campaign

How is it possible that someone running for the highest office in the land would not be able to hit the mark in his own state to get included in the primary ballot?  That is a colossal blunder, and it makes one wonder about what else is going on in Mr. Gingrich’s campaign if they can’t even pass muster on such a simple objective as garnering 10,000 signatures.

The GOP certainly has let the ball drop in this instance.  At a time when we should want every potential campaigner to be included, one of the supposed top two won’t even be on the ballot. The Republican Party of Virginia should be rightly and justifiably embarrassed that this took place.

For his part, Newt has taken the high road and has accepted responsibility for the miscue. Talking to News 4 in Washington two weeks ago, he said, “We're disappointed, but it was our fault [as a campaign].”

That’s big of him to take the hit, but there is much more to worry and speculate about than him trying to get included in a massive write-in campaign.  What you ask? Well, I guess I should just tell you; if the Republican Party can’t get that right, what does that say about their chances at getting the right man to the polls in November?

How about slim, none, nil.  What is going on with these people? It would seem a simple enough matter to get someone on the ballot. After all, I am sure there are more than 10,000 registered Republicans who would be more than willing to sign on the dotted line to allow Newt to get on the ballot.

With all the social engineering going on today, it doesn’t take but a few minutes to contact thousands of people. Getting them to sign a simple form would seem like child’s play. And children playing it must be, because somehow, someway, they missed the boat on this one.

That’s not to say that Mr. G would be my choice for a presidential candidate. I worry about having the same tired horses out in the race that failed the time before. Can we really expect such tread-worn creatures to rise to the fore and take down the dreaded Obama crusade? Puhlease!

The entire Democratic Party must be chuckling at this latest maneuver. Talk about The Gang who Couldn’t Shoot Straight, this action reeks of poor planning, horrible execution, and gross incompetence.  If you want to run for President you ought to have had the necessary signatures before you even set foot on the campaign trail in Virginia.

But Newt wasn’t alone in missing the 5 p.m. deadline; Texas Gov. Rick Perry also failed to meet the requirement.  But wait, there’s more, also missing the deadline are these also rans: Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman.

What does that mean? That means only two GOP candidates will be listed on the Virginia primary ballot: former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Representative Ron Paul.

Now you tell me how those two managed to get it done, and the other five, and most specifically, Newt, a Virginia resident, couldn’t figure out how to get on the ballot.  Upon further review, as important as this may or may not be, it points up a practical future concern. It doesn’t really matter how important it might be to be on the primary. Maybe it is important in the national scope and maybe not.  But if I were running for President, I would want to be included on all the primary ballots, even those where I hadn’t a chance to win.  To miss this only begs the question about what else might be missed in the future.  What if it came to signing a bill concerning nuclear proliferation, or a balanced budget amendment (please don’t snicker), or perhaps introducing a bill recommending salary cuts across the board for politicians (snicker now)?  Could we be sure that Newt, or any of the other four unfortunates, would be able to sign the bill in time?  Would they be able to generate enough enthusiasm to get the bill passed? Or would they just leave it up to a write-in campaign to make such a decision?

Tell you what, I have an even better idea. Why not come up with a referendum limiting time in office for all these politicians. At some point it would be nice if we could simply drive out these lame individuals and host a new crop of legislators who are more for the country and less for their own pockets. Yeah, I know, it’s a pipe dream. There’s no way they would vote in favor of it; it probably wouldn’t even get on the ballot.

Bloggers against drunk drivers

Recently my family got news about a friend of ours whose sister was killed in a drunken driving accident. She was a passenger in a car driven by another teen, who, the reports say, may have been drinking. He lost control of the car and our friend’s sister died in the crash. The driver survived, as often seems to be the case in these events.

Now, in addition to the horror he has to live with for being responsible for the death of a friend, he also has legal troubles including negligent homicide, which generally carries a 10-year sentence.  It’s a sad thing because the driver had no intention to cause such a problem, and in all likelihood thought he was doing “a good thing” by providing transportation.  But it just shows how a simple thing can turn so disastrous in a second.

As a parent my biggest fear is having to answer the doorbell in the early morning hours to face a Virginia State Trooper whose sole presence at my house is to inform me of a tragedy with either of my kids. That’s usually how it happens. A three-in-the-morning doorbell chime and the man in uniform reporting the kind of news that he doesn’t like to give anymore than you might like to get it.

It’s unimaginable how people can handle such news. For me, it would be numbing. I know I would be able to function, but a little of the luster would be gone, a little of the panache would disappear. It’s one of the two biggies I have when it comes to driving: no drinking and wear your seat belts.

When my boys were learning how to drive, I made a point of cutting out every serious accident report I could find.  Time and again, and especially in the fatal wrecks, either alcohol, failure to wear seatbelts or both were determining factors in the death.

Legal ramifications notwithstanding, just the horror of having been in such an accident can be harrowing. It happened to me when I was 16. A friend and I were hitchhiking home from town and another person we knew stopped to pick us up. We could tell he had been drinking, but it was a ride and we still had miles to go.

He was driving a maroon ’63 Chevy Impala. When we got to my friend’s house, about half way to my house, my buddy said, ‘I made it this far, I might as well see if we can make it the rest of the way.’ Never were more fateful words ever spoken.

We managed to do pretty well the rest of the way despite some perilous turns.  But then we got to the street where I lived.  Making a right hand turn at 60 miles per hour doesn’t usually work, and the physics of this one turned out as one might expect. What really saved all of us was that the car narrowly passed between two trees on our trip out into the field.  Both sides of the car were pushed in, and the force caused the hood to pop up. A couple bounces later and the hood went back down, but that just let us see the huge maple tree that was about to cause us to stop.  Had we met the Maple tree first, I probably wouldn’t be here to write this, but by the time we hit the tree we had slowed considerably.

It was no surprise that the car was totaled. It was a huge surprise that none of the three of us were seriously hurt. Sometimes, I think, the good Lord looks out for people.

Since then, as a result of having worked as a reporter, I know that typically incidents like the one I survived often end up much more tragically.  I remember scores of car wrecks that I had to report on over the years. There is a process that you go through when you take such reports, and after you listen to whatever the authorities have to say, there are the two big questions: 1. Were the occupants wearing seat belts; 2. Was alcohol involved?

There were three big accidents during the time my older son, Geordie, was getting his license. In each one, someone was either drunk or the victim wasn’t wearing a seat belt. My intent wasn’t to scare them, but to make them aware of the danger and how quickly a good time can turn into the worst event of your life, or the end of your life.

I know they think I was being overly protective, but then things like this happen and someone they know becomes a victim. In my mind, it’s worth repeating everyday:  if you drink don’t drive and if you drive, wear a seat belt.

Can I please have my spy drone back?

What’s a president to do?

Now that the Iranians have one of our drone aircraft, the best thing to do, at least according to comments by our President, is to ask them to return it.  I’m not saying that such a suggestion is childish, although it is, but to think that a country like Iran would even consider giving such a prize back is beyond the absurd.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must be laughing out loud at such a naïve suggestion.  Capturing one of the US government’s highly touted drone spy craft has to rank at the tippity top of Iran’s normally blustery anti US tirades.  What better evidence to prove that the US is spying on them than to show one of our spy planes on TV?  That seems to justify and support all the other accusations they have made over the years. It’s like, ‘see, we told you they were evil.’

But how foolish to think we could simply ask for our drone back and they would say, ‘why yes, how did it get here anyway?’  To think they might treat it like a proverbial dropped hanky is beyond ridiculous.  It would have been better to just ignore the fact that they have it.

But how about setting the darn thing up so that it self-destructs when we lose command? These things cost only a few million, a drop in the comparative bucket when we consider war machinery. Why not set them up to destroy themselves when they fall into enemy hands—that makes perfect sense to me.

So what can the Iranians figure out from one of our drones?  Well, probably how we go about flying them, the frequencies we use for the controls, and all sorts of post-modern aircraft architectural design.  I guess that’s not too much, and I guess the Iranians would just capitulate to such persuasive negotiations.  Hah!

Hawk Iranian General Hossein Salami, deputy commander of Iran’s military, went so far as to say that it didn’t matter where the aircraft originated. It was still an act of invasion and belligerence.

Well, invasion is debatable since it was indeed an unmanned and unweaponed drone; and belligerence is also debatable, since it wasn’t a Reaper or any of the other myriad drones that come armed.  So it’s a spy plane. It’s job is merely to look things over and check out what’s happening. But then, why do we really need these?  Don’t we get enough information from the spy satellites that hover over the world and send back stellar High Definition photographs of whatever we decide we want to see? I in fact ordered one of those photographic gems that showed my wife kissing Santa Clause.

There’s little question that we, as a country, totally miscalculated everything in Iran.  We backed the wrong government under the Shah, and compounded that ever since. The whole Jimmy Carter-era escapade to try to free the hostages was another high-point of diplomacy between the US and Iran.  Interestingly, it took only days after Ronald Regan’s election to have those hostages released.  But then, I guess the Iranian’s realized they wouldn’t be dealing with rhetoric any more, they would be dealing with air strikes and missiles, ala Lebanon.

I can’t tell when this situation will turn around. But I can tell you that in terms of diplomacy, asking for our drone back is beyond naïve. I guess it’s what you do when you have no other idea at all what to do but feel compelled to do something. I read, earlier this week, that we thought about trying to run a mission to get the drone back but opted not to due to the cost-benefit ratio.

But why not have some kind of kill switch built into the drone to make it fry its circuits, or even catch fire?  Doesn’t that make sense?  Maybe I am being naïve here, but I thought things like suicide pills were common to avoid interrogations. Wouldn’t some kind of kill switch serve the same purpose here?

Lock him up, please

All I can say is it’s about time.

The recent CNN report that Jerry Sandusky has been jailed, at last mind you, and didn’t have time to arrange to post a $250,000 bail has been a long time coming. This sad excuse for a man needed to be locked up a long time ago, and that he wasn’t is a shame on Penn State, Joe Paterno, and the Penn State football program.

To think that the hierarchy of that school allowed a child sex predator to remain at large, and in an environment in which his victims roamed unaware of him lurking behind every corner and every shower stall, is appalling. I don’t for a minute believe the school, at least in the person of Joe Paterno, hadn’t an inkling of an idea that something was amiss with their defensive coordinator.

It begs credulity to think that Sandusky could go from the anointed ranks to retiring in one season.  At one minute, he was hailed as the likely successor to the Penn State Football Program, and the next minute he stepped down and took an early out. What could possibly have changed to create that big a difference?

While the physical proof may not have been manifest in those earlier incidents, pre-2002; it’s entirely likely that Paterno and the rest of the football team leaders knew there was a rat in the wood pile. Things like this, until they become unmanageable, happen all the time. There’s always that cryptic warning of ‘watch out for so and so’ and the likes of that.

As much as I know about teams, there isn’t much that’s hidden.  The players, I know, are aware of strange encounters, and people, like Sandusky, whose actions are just a little bit out of kilt, so to speak. Such things come to the fore quickly in sports.  It’s not something easily hidden, and there are certainly enough wary athletes who would sniff out Sandusky’s oddities without much additional proof.

Proving things like that are much harder. But with Sandusky there seems to have been substantial circumstantial evidence.  The Penn State investigator isn’t starting his investigation with the 1998 Bowl Game incident that was pushed under the rug.  I think if you look deeply and darkly enough into Sandusky’s past, I am sure there are many other victims, and quite possibly another monster or two, since I don’t believe people like him just crop up. Something probably happened to him when he was a young lad, too.  But that needs to come out. Right now, we have the picture of Sandusky the boogeyman.

There is now more coming out about the actions of the Penn State staff, and the inner workings of The Second Mile.  The interrelationship between the Penn State staff, the Second Mile, and the university itself seems to be loaded with nepotism, favoritism, and special deals.  The initial auditing forays have returned some interesting results. I don’t know if any laws have been broken outright, but there certainly seems to be some cause for wonder. Some of the reports read like the Begat sections of Genesis.

On another front, it looks like Bernie Fine will escape prosecution for his child molesting due to statute of limitations.  Should there even be a statute of limitations in such cases? I don’t believe so. In fact, I think it’s tantamount to murder.

The people who perpetrate these kinds of crimes against innocent youngsters need to be stopped, hampered to such degree that they can no longer hurt anyone, or just plain put away.  There may well be some rationale for their actions; typically people who molest children were at one time molested themselves.  That being the case, they likely need help themselves. But no one can deny they represent a danger to innocents who are incapable of protecting themselves.  That’s when it becomes the province of society to step in and put a stop to it.

All I can say is I hope the civil case against Mr. Fine has enormous negative results for him. And as far as Sandusky is concerned, I would be careful with the soap in your new abode.

Not exacty Jerry's kids

The continuing sad saga at the University of Pennsylvania surrounding former Defensive Coordinator Jerry Sandusky has taken a turn for the worse.

Say it ain’t so, you say?

The papers recently provided yet another instance in which Sandusky is alleged to have sexually abused a teen, making the total now 11:  the original eight victims, two more reportedly out of his own home, and now this one, which dates so far back that the case isn’t even being considered for the upcoming trial. Nope, this is one that Jerry won’t be getting jail time for; instead, this is the first of the cases for which Jerry, The Second Mile, and quite possibly Penn State, may end up forking out big bucks.  This is the first of what I am certain will be a long line of civil suits seeking monetary compensation for the victims.

When this first broke, I felt it was just the tip of the iceberg. These kinds of allegations are rarely made up.  To have so many of them surface telling essentially the same exact story is an indication of modis operandi, and not some great right wing conspiracy.  It is beyond belief that people can still think that all of these allegations were dreamed up, or in some way, all of these victims got together to destroy one man’s life.

At the time, I felt there would be a lot more bad news coming out of this, and sure enough three more victims have stepped forward. My feeling now is that we have only just begun.  This scandal is going to be far worse than it is already, and if and when it is all hashed out, we will be wondering how on earth such a thing could happen right in the midst of, arguably, one of the better universities in the country.

But just as this is coming out now about Mr. Sandusky (expletives deleted), there is much more going to come out all around the US.  This scandal relates directly to the incident at The Citadel and the one coming out of Syracuse. Anyone want to take bets on whether any more such cases will be coming out of the woodwork in the next year or two?

Not me.

I expect there to be a huge jump in sexual abuse cases coming out of colleges and universities.  Why? Because the lawyers will be looking for the next in the long line of big pay days.

What do I mean, The Lawyers?  I mean, Big Tobacco has pretty much settled down now for big money lawsuits and the Catholic Church child sex abuse cases are on the wane. So the lawyers are back in their roosts, looking for the next piece of road kill to fatten themselves up on. It’s amazing to me that we continue to find ways to feed them.

OK, so that rant may be a bit over the top, but it is essentially true. And, I am not saying that someone shouldn’t come to the aid of these victims, and that the people who perpetrate these crimes should not be tried, jailed, and then sued for all they have.

When these kinds of allegations come forward, there are always those who choose not to believe them, like Coach Jim Boeheim at Syracuse.  He stepped forward adamantly, and to some extent foolishly and perhaps naively, in support of his long time assistant, Bernie Fine.  He knew that there had been allegations against Fine in the past, and that he had been “cleared” of those allegations.  That doesn’t mean they were investigated properly, and it also doesn’t mean there weren’t more victims.  I think, ultimately, the tape recording of Fine’s spouse likely made Boeheim rethink his initial comments.

Why is it so hard for these people in authority to believe that people like Fine and Sandusky exist right in their own back yards, or front yards for that matter?  In the case of Sandusky, I am convinced that at least Joe Paterno was aware of issues with Sandusky. Why else would he have gone from favored child to retirement virtually overnight?

So we have two examples now on what not to do when such a scandal comes to your door. The proper thing to do is to step out of the way, do not make any brash statements, and allow the investigation to proceed.  When the investigation is over, then you can make statements, such as “We never doubted Bernie Fine’s integrity, but we had to let the legal system run its course” or, “We are horrified at these allegations, and feel for his victims, their families, and anyone affected by his alleged crimes.”