(July 21) -- Congress requires a lot of stuff to keep itself running. Like coffee. And plane tickets. And student loan payments.
That's the point underscored (and underscored again) by figures collated by the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit that uses technology to try to make government more transparent. In early June the organization released its latest massive data dump on the expenditures that House representatives make from their Members Representational Allowances, or MRAs. Separate from campaign accounts, which have to be filled through fundraising, these sums -- ranging from $1.3 million to $1.9 million in most cases -- come from taxpayers' dollars and are meant to cover a lawmaker's operating, rather than political, expenses. Paying for an attack ad with your MRA is a no-no, for instance.
Together, the Sunlight Foundation's three databases of this internal congressional spending -- prepared in coordination with the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call -- show what the House spent on itself in the last six months of 2009 and first three months of 2010. The files provide an unprecedented window on what legislators buy themselves with your money, and AOL News wanted to know what kinds of eye-opening details they might contain. After combing through the info, we found plenty, from the House's bill for bottled water purchases to what it coughed up for new drapes.
So here are the most noteworthy findings. In the coming weeks, we plan to break these numbers down even further, because, whoa, they're a treasure trove!
» Biggest spender: The second-highest-spending congressional office during the nine months we looked at was that of Democratic Rep. Jim Costa of California, who spent $1.3 million, with nearly a quarter of that being expenditures on staff. He was topped by fellow Democrat Pedro Pierluisi of Puerto Rico ($1.5 million), who cannot vote on legislation.
posted
In 2007, at the height of the “Bush boom,” such as it was, median household income, adjusted for inflation, was still lower than it had been in 2000.
yes, this is the reason i was dumbfounded at how much housing prices were rising.
people (consumers) were already not able to save any money, somebody forgot the old simple rule that says do not devote more than 1/3 of your take home pay on housing, it's the only way that you'll have enough money to live.
even if you bend that rule a little and make it 1/3 of your gross income? normal people (us small people) are still going to be stretched to the very edge of our ordinary means, forget about a disaster happening like having to live in hotel for two weeks due to a storm or even a minor car accident that isn't even your fault...
add to this the fact that people born at the end of the baby boom (45 to 55 yr olds today) have on average held more than ten jobs in their lifetime? not due to their fault, it's just the way society is built now...you are talking about an extremely unstable society....
booms and busts are not "natural" or healthy. the elder baby boomers have boomed and busted just about everything they've touched... stocks, oil and housing? what's next? i want some more boom baby...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Please tell me what year it will not be the fault of Bush. OBVIOUSLY he is part of the equation, but seriously......do you have any idea how old that is getting?
Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
