You Have To See This
Posted by Andy on July 2nd, 2008
I got this in my INBOX yesterday, but didn’t have time to get to it. Drew Emmer has it up on True North. Must see.
The average House DFLers cast 24 votes to feather their nests in 2007 and 2008. Votes on salaries, expense accounts, year-round housing subsidies, slush funds, and a boost in the House budget of $61,000 per Representative lead the list. These votes were not isolated decisions, a troubling pattern, a disturbing trend, or a nasty habit. This was an orchestrated effort by liberal politicians to grab for your wallet with both hands.
House DFLers think every crowd has a silver lining. Politics is the arena where the deadly sin of greed wears the mask of self-importance. The difference between a hungry dog and a House DFLer is that a hungry dog will not bite you for more after you feed it. A House DFLer who wants to get rich in a day may not be hanged in a year, but might be ejected after two years. The House DFLers told voters that they wanted to do good, but they just came to do well . . . for themselves.
These briefings will give brief descriptions of key votes, followed by detailed end-notes with accessible web-links to prove each assertion. I hope you find them to be useful.
01. A SYSTEM FOR RAISING LEGISLATIVE SALARIES WITHOUT DIRECT VOTES
1. In 2008, House DFLers voted for a constitutional amendment that would have allowed legislators to take future salary increases without voting to approve them. If the amendment were to be approved by the voters, Representatives could take pay raises recommended by a board without ever casting a vote in favor of the raises. [1]
2. On a separate vote, House DFLers voted to apply the same automatic approval for increases in their per diem (or daily expenses) payments. [2]
3. On a separate vote, House DFLers defeated a effort to require legislators to approve formally an pay raise recommended by the pay-raise board. [3]
4. On a separate vote after HF 3796 was amended to get pay raises and boost in expense accounts without a direct vote, the House defeated an effort to require some form of direct approval by the Legislature before Representatives could take board-recommended pay raises. [4]
5. On a separate vote, House DFLers rejected a motion to delay passage of a constitutional amendment that would allow legislators to take future pay raises that were recommended by a board of political appointees, without legislators taking action to approve the raises. [5]
6. On a separate vote, House DFLers rejected a motion to have the proposed constitutional amendment heard by at least one policy committee before it was rammed through the House. [6]
There is a mountain more, go see the rest!!
Sphere: Related Content