Just let the taxpayers pick up the tab

What a gig being a congressman must be. You can ogle, tickle, grope and otherwise sexually harass your staff and not pay a dime for it.

In fact, you can just hand the bill to the US taxpayers and they'll take care of it for you.

Although Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) continues to deny Lauren Greene's allegations of sexual harassment, he used money from an Office of Compliance account to pay an $84,000 settlement in the matter. Those funds came from taxpayers.

And lest you think I am unfairly singling out Mr. Farenthold for stealing taxpayer money to pay for his contemptible behavior, the Office of Compliance has paid out $199,000 to settle four sexual harassment matters since 2008.

The rules and requirements of the Office of Compliance have come under scrutiny after a handful sexual harassment complaints have been publicly lodged against congressmen, forcing some to resign and others not to seek reelection. The lack of transparency in the formal process has raised concerns over the ability of congressmen to quietly settle complaints without any real consequences. What we do know is: “the Treasury fund, which was created under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, has paid more than $17 million for 264 settlements and awards involving offices on Capitol Hill,” according to the [Washington] Post.

This is just another incident that highlights the bubble that members of Congress live and work in. Rarely are there any consequences for their behavior or actions that can't be hushed up and kept out of the public sphere.

Don't let the door smack you in the ass on your way out, Blake.

Do as I say, not as I do

So, you want to take advantage of some information you obtained as a result of your position to make some money in the stock market? Some information that ordinary members of the public are privy to?

If you work in the private sector, just pack your toothbrush if you do because los federales will throw the book at you. Nevermind that markets operate on imperfect information and those who make money do so because they're able to take advantage of the information gap.

We can't have corporate executives taking advantage of their inside information to turn a buck on Wall Street, can we? Putting their own financial interest above that of the company they were hired to run - that just won't do.

But, if you are a sitting member of Congress, by all means, trade away. Gather up all the information you can at that subcommittee meeting. Take notes when that guy from Treasury gives you a briefing. Figure out who's going to win, and who's going to lose, under the terms of that proposed bill.

It's all okay.

After all, the rules that apply to the rest of us don't apply to the 535 men and women in Congress. Or, if they do, they sure as hell aren't applied the same way.

Take insider trading, for instance. There is no statute that makes trading on inside information illegal. Rather, when los federales charge someone with securities fraud, the allegation is generally either that the defendant breached a duty to the source of the information or to the person he traded with.

Of course congressmen have a duty, too. It's a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the United States of America - not in the best interests of the representative from some little town in Iowa. But when congressmen trade on the basis of information they've received solely because they're in Congress, they are violating that duty.



Now, thanks to a recent piece on 60 Minutes, the tide is turning. With congressional popularity at an all-time low, there really was no other choice. Now, for the first time since legislation was introduced in 2006, Congress looks to be on the verge of passing legislation that will ban members from trading on information obtained through their role as congressmen.

Bk

A BALK is an illegal act by the pitcher with a runner or runners on base, entitling all runners to advance one base.

MLB Rule 2.00


The pitcher, following his stretch, must (a) hold the ball in both hands in front of his body and (b) come to a complete stop.  This must be enforced.  Umpires should watch this closely.  Pitchers are constantly attempting to “beat the rule” in their efforts to hold runners on bases and in cases where the pitcher fails to make a complete “stop” called for in the rules, the umpire should immediately call a BALK. 

MLB Rule 8.01(b)


If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when— 
(a) The pitcher, while touching his plate, makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch and fails to make such delivery; 
(b) The pitcher, while touching his plate, feints a throw to first base and fails to complete the throw; 
(c) The pitcher, while touching his plate, fails to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base; 

(d) The pitcher, while touching his plate, throws, or feints a throw to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play; 
(e) The pitcher makes an illegal pitch; 
(f) The pitcher delivers the ball to the batter while he is not facing the batter; 
(g) The pitcher makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch while he is not touching the pitcher’s plate; 
(h) The pitcher unnecessarily delays the game; 

(i) The pitcher, without having the ball, stands on or astride the pitcher’s plate or while off the plate, he feints a pitch; 
(j) The pitcher, after coming to a legal pitching position, removes one hand from the ball other than in an actual pitch, or in throwing to a base; 
(k) The pitcher, while touching his plate, accidentally or intentionally drops the ball; 
(l) The pitcher, while giving an intentional base on balls, pitches when the catcher is not in the catcher’s box; 
(m) The pitcher delivers the pitch from Set Position without coming to a stop. 
PENALTY:  The ball is dead, and each runner shall advance one base without liability to be put out, unless the batter reaches first on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, in which case the play proceeds without reference to the balk. 
MLB Rule 8.05

Oops!

The prosecution in the Roger Clemens trial got caught throwing an illegal pitch on Thursday and the umpire judge granted Mr. Clemens' request for a mistrial.

The prosecutor played a videotape of Mr. Clemens' 2008 testimony before Congress - the only problem being that someone forgot (?) to redact the portion of the video where Rep. Elijah Cummings referred to a conversation between Andy Pettitte and his wife after being instructed by Judge Reggie Walton not to mention  it.

After speaking to a friend of mine I'm a bit curious as to whether it was just (to paraphrase the NASCAR boys) "one of them trial thangs" or if it was a deliberate attempt to get a mistrial because the prosecutors thought the jury might be a little bit too friendly to the Rocket.

Either way this farce represents a huge waste of taxpayer dollars - made even worse by the budget and financial crisis the country finds itself in. So what if Mr. Clemens lied to Congress. Our representatives up in Washington were on a little fishing expedition in the first place. We're talking about a bunch of athletes accused of using performance enhancing drugs -- we're not talking "serious" issues affecting the welfare of the nation.

No one cares if the latest Hollywood starlet has silicon in her chest and botox in her lips. No one cares if her leading man is injecting steroids to look more ripped. No one cares who's smoking and snorting what. It's all entertainment.

And who is Congress to act pious because they don't think Roger Clemens told the truth in that hearing room? Each and every member of that institution will look you and me straight in the eye and lie like a cheap rug. What's worse: a ballplayer lying about taking steroids or a Congressman lying about what he's going to do with your tax dollars?

Will anyone stand up for the Constitution?

The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, posts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States... 

The Congress shall have the power to declare war... 

-- United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8

Last week, ten members of Congress filed suit in federal court seeking an injunction against President Obama's intervention in Libya.

Their action comes about 61 years late. Congress sat on its hands in 1950 when President Truman sent American troops to fight in Korea. The president didn't seek a declaration of war and Congress obliged him by doing nothing.

Then President Eisenhower thought it would be a grand idea to send American "military advisors" to Vietnam to get involved in a messy little domestic dispute that turned into a nasty civil war. No one in Congress raised their voice as more "advisors" were sent to Southeast Asia. The American presence escalated under President Kennedy to a chorus of silence from Congress.

Then came the "incident" in the Gulf of Tonkin. President Johnson decided it was time to send in more troops. Congress passed something called the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution by which they formally ceded their constitutional duty to declare war.

Under President Nixon the war became the military equivalent of Uncle Remus' tar baby. Just like Brer Rabbit got himself stuck in that little ol' ball of tar, the American military found itself in a war it couldn't win. Congress finally got around to asking themselves if it might be a good idea to declare war considering the number of troops on the ground in Vietnam.

But alas, Congress couldn't bring itself to actually doing its job. They passed a little something called the War Powers Act that was as clear a breach of the Constitution as anything that came through the nation's Capitol. The imperial presidency was now complete.

Presidents Reagan, Bush (the Elder), Clinton and Bush (the Younger) all sent young Americans into harm's way without so much as a peep from Congress -- unless someone thought they could wrangle some votes in the next election by appearing to have a backbone.

And now, 70 years after the last time Congress declared war on anyone, some members of Congress have decided that enough is enough and are challenging the president's ability to send troops into war without the authorization of Congress.

One might argue, however, that the doctrine of laches would defeat any attempt by Congress to regain a power that they have failed to exercise since 1941. Allow someone to do a certain thing over and over without raising a stink about it and a court is likely to decide that you were just fine with what that certain someone was doing. There's also that little sticking point known as the separation of powers. Does a federal court have the power to issue an injunction preventing the president from doing anything?

And that brings me to another question -- if Congress controls the purse strings of the federal government, why don't they just vote not to fund any military operation in Libya? If Congress were to challenge a president when it comes to sending our young people to war, maybe, just maybe, we might see the US involved in fewer conflicts overseas.

Of course if Congress were to call a vote on blocking funding of the military intervention, then some folks up in Washington would actually have to take a meaningful stand and put their butts on the line. Does anyone in Congress have the guts to stand up to the president and demand that Congress' power to declare war be observed?

While I can think of a couple of folks who might be so inclined, for the most part, our legislators in Washington sold their souls a long time ago for the almighty campaign contribution. You see, if you take a principled stand you're bound to piss someone off and since very few politicians have the courage to stand for their convictions, Congress' power to declare war will continue to be honored more in the breach than in the observance.

Reviewing the nation's blueprint

This morning members of the House of Representatives read the Constitution. Of course, they couldn't agree on how the document should be read.

Do we read the entire document, including those provisions that have been superseded by amendment?

Do we read that messy little section that talked about some folks only being worth 60% of what other folks are worth?

Should we just skip over that whole Prohibition thingy?

Under the new regime, all bills must cite the Constitutional provision that gives Congress authority to take action. Does that mean members might have to read the provision of the 4th Amendment that bans unreasonable search and seizure? Does it mean they might have to review the 5th Amendment to realize that criminal defendants have a right to remain silent (whether or not they announce their intention to remain silent)? Will they look at the 6th Amendment and remember that criminal defendants have the right to have an attorney and to confront their accusers?

Maybe it means someone will think twice before creating yet another federal crime and duplicates what's on the books in the states.

If these guys and gals can't even agree on how to read the blueprint of our democracy, how can we expect them to get anything done? Of course that might not be a bad thing, if you know what I mean.