« | »

Rangel Spent $777 A Month On Cadillac

From the New York Daily News:

House bigs spending tax bucks on autos: Rangel spent $777 a month for lease on Cadillac

By James Gordon Meek In Washington and Celeste Katz In New York

Tuesday, March 31st 2009

The U.S. auto industry may have been sliding down the tubes the last few years, but folks like Rep. Charles Rangel can’t be blamed for it.

Federal records show the dean of New York’s congressional delegation had been shelling out $777 a month from his office account to cruise around in a leased GM Cadillac DeVille, although aides say he recently ditched the ride

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-Queens) went in high style in a Lexus, made by Japanese automaker Toyota, with a monthly lease of $998, according to House records the Daily News obtained for the fourth quarter of 2008 – the most recent available.

And Ulster County Democrat Maurice Hinchey tooled around in a snazzy 2007 BMW 530i that cost taxpayers $499 a month…

Members of the House of Representatives – but not the Senate – can legally use their office budgets to lease vehicles. Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-Brooklyn), for example, had a posh 2008 Lincoln leased for about $715 monthly…

Hinchey spokesman Jeff Lieberson said the upstate Democrat recently ditched the BMW and now drives his own Lincoln. He said Hinchey, a Pontiac fan, ended up with the German car because of a liability-related dispute over car leasing in New York.

Rangel, too, says he’s parked the Cadillac and now uses a car owned by his campaign…

Ah, yes.

‘Gas guzzlers’ for Congressman Rangel – but not for you.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, March 31st, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

11 Responses to “Rangel Spent $777 A Month On Cadillac”

  1. Maybe if he could lose his Job GM would pay for nine months under the new plan they have…?

  2. Colonel1961 says:

    ‘…quasi-mobile office.’ Please, Shrita, you’re cracking me up! Did you really mean that his Town Car was ‘quasi-mobile’ or, perhaps, did you mean to say his ‘mobile quasi-office.’ That whole syntax thingy can be rough on a sixth-grader.

    Just another ‘brilliant’ public servant who will someday soon decide if you may live or die…

  3. proreason says:

    Someone should add up the perks, including health insurance, retirement benefits, office privilges, postage privileges, telecom, transportation, protective servces, etc., etc., etc., etc..

    Want to bet that total comp is over $500K p.a., rather than $167K?

    Of course, the $500K wouldn’t include Stretch…….counting her private Air Force jet, her comp is probably over $5M per year……and at about 1000 hours a year, that’s $5,000 per hour.

    And of course, that doesn’t count what they get illegally.

    • TwilightZoned says:

      I have had it with what these jackasses make above, under the table, tax evation, lobbyists/corporation pay-offs, as well as other “perks”, etc. How can we get a grass roots movement started to term-limit these low-lifes?!

    • proreason says:

      “How can we get a grass roots movement started to term-limit these low-lifes?!”

      That’s the only thing that will get the country back.

      I don’t think the Founders had an entrenched scumbag perpetual political bloodsucking class in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      PR, my friend…..these ticks are dug in sooooo deep that they will never vote or allow a vote to be passed on TERM LIMITS!!
      The real and only way is to “FORCE” these Blood Suckers out of office.
      You don’t think that Waters, Dodd, Frank, Kerry, Kennedy, Rangel, Rogers, Piglosi, Reid and so forth will except the voters will? HELLLLL no!!

      Just look at the contempt they hold towards the voters. They seem to think “WE” don’t know what we are talkin’ about!! The Demoncraps are resorting to stealing the elections nowadays as to hold their bastions of power.

      We….send them tea bags…..they make tea!!
      It’s a joke to them and we are the joke!

    • proreason says:

      You’re right LD. The congressional tapeworms have bored deep and they would gladlly sacrifice a few million voters to maintain their lifestyles.

      Sometimes when the blood pressure medication burns off, I have an optimistic spasm before I can catch myself.

    • TwilightZoned says:

      From: U.S. Constitution Online

      Article V – Amendment Note1 – Note2 – Note3

      The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

      Note 2:
      The Amendment Process

      There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

      The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

      The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

      Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

      The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

      * Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
      * Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
      * Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
      * Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

      It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):

      The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.

      Note 3:
      The normal course of events, when an amendment to the Constitution has been desired by the people, is for Congress to pass the amendment and for the state legislatures to then ratify. Congressional proposal of the amendment is by a two-thirds majority vote in both houses. State ratification is by three-fourths majority.

      The Constitution does provide for one other way to ratify: by convention. A state convention differs from the state legislature in that it is usually an entirely separate body from the legislature. This introduces a different political dynamic into the amendment process.

      The only time that conventions have been used was in the case of the 21st Amendment, which overturned the 18th Amendment. The 18th abolished alcohol manufacture or sales on a national scale. The 21st repealed the 18th, stating instead that each state shall have the ability to set its own laws regarding liquor. The text of the 21st specifically stated that it would have to be ratified by conventions held in each state:

      3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

      Why specify conventions over legislatures, as every other amendment had been ratified up to then? The thought was that the people of the conventions, which would typically be average citizens, would be less likely to bow to political pressure to reject the amendment than elected officials would be. Note that the Supreme Court has ruled that a popular referendum is not a substitute for either the legislature nor a convention, nor can a referendum approve of or disapprove of the legislature’s or a convention’s decision on an amendment.

      For the sake of brevity note 1 is not listed. It discusses the president’s role which is basically none. Seems to me we do have some recourse. Surely a brainiac could find some way to manipulate it to our favor. Anyone want to take a stab at it?

  4. VMAN says:

    Charlie has gots to have him a Cat-O-Lac. Slick shiny suit, Lot-O Lard Palmade hair do and a Cat-O Lac. It Doesn’t gets much better.

  5. MinnesotaRush says:

    The use of a company vehicle is an addition to income and is supposed to be taxed as income. Might be an interesting look up to see how many of our elected officials have been properly declaring these ‘perks’.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »