Secretary of the Interior WASTES $245,000 of taxpayer's money
Posted By: on bathroom on 2009-01-07
In Reply to:
A Lavish Bathroom at Interior -
If Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) is confirmed this month as interior secretary, he'll have a snappy, scarcely used bathroom in his fifth-floor office, thanks to Dirk Kempthorne, the outgoing secretary.
Seems Kempthorne spent about $235,000 in taxpayer funds renovating the bathroom a few months ago, which included installing a new shower, a refrigerator and a freezer and buying monogrammed towels, department officials told our colleague Derek Kravitz.
The General Services Administration approved and partially funded the project, an Interior Department official said. The GSA paid about half the cost to refurbish aging plumbing, which needed to be replaced within four years.
But department officials say much of the money was spent on lavish wood paneling and tile. Among the choice items found in the new bathroom: wainscot wood panels extending from floor to ceiling and cabinet doors revealing a working refrigerator and freezer.
"If Gale Norton needed to shower, at least she was conservative enough to go to the gym in the basement of the building," one career employee quipped, referring to Kempthorne's predecessor.
An initial investigation by the department's inspector general, Earl B. Devaney, found no wrongdoing on the secretary's part because the GSA had approved the project.
A department spokesman, Shane Wolfe, did not return messages seeking comment.
Incoming Cabinet officials often waste absurd amounts of money redecorating perfectly posh offices to their tastes. Watchdogs generally decry the waste of money. But if the projects are part of the stimulus package . . .
LINK/URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/04/AR2009010401504.html
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
You mean he might use taxpayer money to
Oh wait....hmmmmm
She said IF taxpayer money was being used
not that it most certainly was.
She made a good point and instead of taking the time to listen, you jump on her over something she didn't even say.
I understand you don't agree with her on anything but is it so hard to listen to valid concerns without having to argue?
Now you can jump on me, LOL.
The truly poor already get money from the taxpayer.
nm
Oh, so it's NOT taxpayer money then, so what's the beef?
x
Can YOU prove it's taxpayer money?
What's the president make? $140,000 yr.? But, it's the perks that are part of his salary - rent free, utility free, a BUDGET for the president to live on. You can simplify it to simply "frivolous" partying, but I do not believe that is the case - there is far more to it than that. There are traditions and a decorum that is expected. I think our president more than fits the bill.
Petty or not, going on a date with taxpayer money
nm
Yeah, spend more taxpayer money on food stamps.
nm
It is waste alright! You dont spend taxpayer money
nm
We care because it's Alaska taxpayer money for her kids to travel, even though uninvited nm
what a joke palin is... she's had it now
WH press secretary would
I do almost feel sorry for Scott. Rove made his 4th trip to testify today as well. Scott better get ready for some major 'splainin' or catapultin'
Secretary of State....(sm)
She's more than qualified and is already respected worldwide. I think it would do wonders in the effort to improve foreign relations.
Secretary Napolitano should be ashamed!!
Now she thinks if you're against abortion, you're an "extremist". If you don't like the government's crap, you're an "extremism". If you want LESS government, you're an "extremist". If you're a veteran, you're a LOT more likely to be an "extremist". This is just the kind of garbage mentality running our country!!! We now let our "extremist" government decide who are the "bad" groups? According to them, ANYONE who opposes their spending activity is an "extremist"!!
She could have just as easily stood at her little podium and stated that all these people have EVERY right to be heard and express themselves, but she didn't. She demonized anyone who doesn't like our present administration or any administration for that matter............. absolutely pathetic!
Given the choice, would your rather see Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State or
held in the wings for a possible appointment as Supreme Court Justice? Judge Stevens is 88 and toying with the idea of retiring(not this year, as he has already hired his law clerk for the coming session) and Ginsberg is 75 and health not too good, so which would you rather see, if indeed, Obama is considering her for either?
H. Clinton inelgible for state of secretary.
ARTICLE BELOW
I heard there is a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton as being secretary of state. Basically needs to be kicked out of the position. The lawsuit is from (I think the news said) a topnotch commander of the military and teaches military pilots (not someone off the street). The person filing the lawsuit stated he needed to do this because it would be against his oath in the military and believes in the constitution and the constitution should be followed.
*************
US diplomat challenges Clinton's appointment
1 hour ago
WASHINGTON (AFP) — A US diplomat has filed a lawsuit charging that Hillary Clinton's appointment as secretary of state is unconstitutional, a watchdog group representing him said Thursday.
The lawsuit filed by David Rodearmel argues that Clinton is "ineligible" for the job because the Senate approved, while she was a senator, a salary raise for her predecessor Condoleezza Rice, Judicial Watch said in a statement.
According to article one, section six of the US constitution: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time."
In the lawsuit filed in a Washington court, Rodearmel wrote that "for almost a century, administrators of both parties have used various legal maneuvers to avoid complying with the constitution's emoluments clause."
He added: "I am bringing suit to finally resolve this issue and to seek compliance with the manifest tenor of the constitution."
The constitutional problem posed by the salary increase granted to Rice in January 2007 was raised last month when Barack Obama announced his intention to name Clinton his secretary of state.
In order to circumvent the problem, Congress decided that Clinton's annual salary would be reduced 4,700 dollars from Rice's at the end of her term, to 186,600 dollars -- the amount Rice earned before January 2007, when Clinton began her second Senate term.
Rodearmel said he was not pursuing "a partisan, political or personal issue."
He added: "To detach ourselves from the text of the constitution is a true slippery slope that would negate the rule of law. If the constitution needs to be changed, it should be done by the means the constitution provides."
H. Clinton inelgible for state of secretary.
ARTICLE BELOW
I heard there is a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton as being secretary of state. Basically needs to be kicked out of the position. The lawsuit is from (I think the news said) a topnotch commander of the military and teaches military pilots (not someone off the street). The person filing the lawsuit stated he needed to do this because it would be against his oath in the military and believes in the constitution and the constitution should be followed.
*************
US diplomat challenges Clinton's appointment
1 hour ago
WASHINGTON (AFP) — A US diplomat has filed a lawsuit charging that Hillary Clinton's appointment as secretary of state is unconstitutional, a watchdog group representing him said Thursday.
The lawsuit filed by David Rodearmel argues that Clinton is "ineligible" for the job because the Senate approved, while she was a senator, a salary raise for her predecessor Condoleezza Rice, Judicial Watch said in a statement.
According to article one, section six of the US constitution: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time."
In the lawsuit filed in a Washington court, Rodearmel wrote that "for almost a century, administrators of both parties have used various legal maneuvers to avoid complying with the constitution's emoluments clause."
He added: "I am bringing suit to finally resolve this issue and to seek compliance with the manifest tenor of the constitution."
The constitutional problem posed by the salary increase granted to Rice in January 2007 was raised last month when Barack Obama announced his intention to name Clinton his secretary of state.
In order to circumvent the problem, Congress decided that Clinton's annual salary would be reduced 4,700 dollars from Rice's at the end of her term, to 186,600 dollars -- the amount Rice earned before January 2007, when Clinton began her second Senate term.
Rodearmel said he was not pursuing "a partisan, political or personal issue."
He added: "To detach ourselves from the text of the constitution is a true slippery slope that would negate the rule of law. If the constitution needs to be changed, it should be done by the means the constitution provides."
taxpayer dollars?
what makes you think that everyone having an abortion is paying for it themselves?
A satisfied taxpayer........ sm
Tax Bill
Dear Internal Revenue Service:
Enclosed you will find my 2005 tax return showing that I owe $3,407.00 in taxes. Please note the attached article from the USA Today newspaper, dated 12 November, wherein you will see the Pentagon (Department of Defense) is paying $171.50 per hammer and NASA has paid $600.00 per toilet seat.
I am enclosing four (4) toilet seats (valued @ $2,400) and six (6) hammers valued @ $1,029), which I secured at Home Depot, bringing my total remittance to $3,429.00.
Please apply the overpayment of $22.00 to the "Presidential Election Fund," as noted on my return. You can do this inexpensively by sending them one (1) 1.5 " Phillips Head screw (see aforementioned article from USA Today newspaper detailing how H.U.D. pays $22.00 each for 1.5" Phillips Head Screws). One screw is enclosed for your convenience.
It has been a pleasure to pay my tax bill this year, and I look forward to paying it again next year.
Sincerely,
A Satisfied Taxpayer
PBS is taxpayer funded
so it must pay back to taxpayers. But .... did you see if the PBS interviewed, asked opinions of the Real People, who created and defended this nation: Machinists, Mechanics, Builders, Truck Drivers, Soldiers and etc? NO! The PBS is a stage for big media sharks as Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, NY Times and etc
It is an obligation of the PBS to pay back to society: broadcast Forums, Debates of Candidates for US Congress (Senate and House), but intentionally, with conspiracy of big media does not do, that pushed Candidates to accept money, to political prostitution.
If it isn't taxpayer funded
then why would Bush cut back funding and why would it hurt PBS so much if they weren't taxpayer funded. Watch who you call ignorant or at least look in the mirror first.
Well, either way, it's a taxpayer thing.....
it's not for hiring anyone! It's for teaching the already hired employees to be friendlier and more "well-mannered", and to "Hello", "thank you", and "come again". What a joke and what an absolutely stupid waste of taxpayers' dollars!!!
If state employees are supposed to be saying these things in the first place and that is a must, then fire them and hire someone who really wants a job! Really, do YOU or I need someone to come in to teach up how to say "come again" and "thank you"? These people are nuts!!!
More than one way to skin a taxpayer
or attack an amendment. What good is a bullet launcher without bullets? I heard that with their allotment of materials, manufacturers have been directed to make ammunition only for the government because of the war. Hold on a second.....isn't the war supposed to be winding down??
Printing money we dont have? Borrowing money
nm
Exactly how do you know both are financed by the RNC on the taxpayer dime?...
And even if it were, it's not up to you how the RNC spends its money.
Ten to one, she pays for her own kids way...about the wardrobe...sounds like you're a bit jealous, is all I can see from here.
Yep, let the hard-working taxpayer pay for those
nm
And it is a CONTINUOUS bonus to the taxpayer's pay, ....sm
Trickle-down economics did not work in all those Republican years, so I guess it might be time to think outside the sandbox,guys? Perhaps a new President with new ideas, since the old ones got us in this predicament in the first place? Why aren't the hard-core Pubs more angry that their government and leaders got us here and kept us here, while feeding the rich more tax cuts, and while taking off all the banking regulations and looking the other way???? Crony-ism at its best!
NYT ad alone cost $200,000 in taxpayer funds. Not a big deal?nm
z
How much are we supposed to stand for???...government keeps trying to turn to the taxpayer ...sm
to fix all these messes when we are not the ones with the money. Go to the CEOs, etc with the huge bonuses and golden parachutes, and ALL the money, and have them bail the banks out. They are the ones who made this mess. I live in a state that already double taxes me on my vehicles, has one of the highest sales tax rates in the country, and we even have taxes/fees our loved ones have to pay when we DIE~!!@!@ I am so sick of this! Think I'll quit paying all my taxes and when the IRS comes knocking on my door, I'm gonna hold my hand out on my way out the door on that Bahamas cruise NOT paying taxes paid for, and say oh please bail me out, I can't pay this. Yeah I'll get bail alright, but not in a good way!
As long as a taxpayer complies with the code as it was written
Taxpayers are not responsible for observing "the intent" of the tax law, but for observing its specific terms.
It's the obligation of the legislature to make sure that the law is written in such a way that it reflects their intentions. Unfortunately (or in some cases, fortunately), the intentions of the legislature are often so ambiguous, inappropriate or impossible to implement by tax laws that such a hope is doomed from the start.
It takes money to make money. nm
Charging is not spending money...it is spending someone elses money!
When you are debt free (as we are) THEN you spend money...anything else is just going into debt. I highly doubt he pays cash for anything.
money was cut due to war
I have compassion for those affected by Katrina. It is Bush and his ilk that I have no compassion for. This article states that the money was cut in 2003 due to the war. That is why I posted it. Money has been cut to the states since Bush's war, we are strapped in many ways in America due to Bush's war. Open you eyes and see your president for what he is..a jerk, a low IQ imbecile, and for what he has done to America due to his war.
Money.........
Well, if they don't have money for birth control, they sure as shoot don't have it for a baby BUT in my neck of the woods, there are LOTS of illegitimate babies, mostly by mothers who started at 12, 13, 14 and by high school, had 2 or more. They even sit in school and brag about getting a bigger paycheck because they are pregnant again. Now, really, does that sound like someone who is interested in birth control in the first place? Some of these girls who get pregnant at 12 or 13 don't even think birth control. They usually get talked into sex by a guy several years older than them in the first place, and he is a loser anyway, and usually has fathered several babies already anyhow. And, belive me, most of these girls because of community experiences, already know where the clinics are and they can get there. They sure as heck don't have a problem getting there for all the free healthcare their child gets, usually in the ER on Friday and Saturday night because they are too lazy to get to the clinic through the week. Planned Parenthood isn't doing anything positive for them.
No, I would rather the money be used for ..sm
necessities for Alaska instead of asking the lower 48+1 to subsidize them.
The money that has gone to the war...
has been appropriated for that specific purpose. It was not just lying around waiting to be spent, so there is no reason to believe that if the war were not going on that amount of money would be spent elsewhere. That is not how the government works.
If the government did not help these institutions out, it would destabilize the economy which could trickle down to our banks and what little money we have in them. At least they learned from the fannie/freddie fiasco...when they gave the loan to AIG they kicked the top folks who ran it out, with no golden parachute and will oversee it...and in this case, finally...since it is a loan...if they stay solvent and pay it back the interest will benefit us all as it will go back into the coffers with the principal.
Exactly the kind of thing McCain has been talking about for years. Glad Bush finally listened.
yes, you can if it is your money..
I have done it already.
Sure there are.......you want all your money given as
xx
Of course you would....it's not your money
You'd be screaming a different tune. Even those without it have better sense than to believe this is a terrible thing. The more he makes, the more people he can hire. So clueless and bitter
No, that's not where he's getting his money
22
I don't think money should be taken from those
who make more AT ALL. I think there should be a tax PERCENTAGE and it is based on income so it is even across the board. I don't think those who make $200,000 should have a higher percentage than those who make $30,000. There is enough crap out there that doesn't need funding that can go to those who HONESTLY need help.
Those who HONESTLY need help are those who are trying to do something to get out of the whole and can't. Not those who go and buy a house that is way out of their price range, or who pop out 7 or 8 kids just to get food stamps. Not those who live in section 8 government housing for $60 a month and then buy a brand new BMW in someone elses name because they make money selling drugs or working under the table and not reporting it.
I said it is based on grades ALSO. Meaning it is based on both income and grades. Which means if I don't TRY and keep my grades up no matter how little money I make, I'm not going to receive it. That's the difference. No one seems to want to TRY anymore. Everyone just wants more, more, more, and they are doing less, less, less.
My argument is that those who do well for themselves should not have to pay for those who don't give a hoot and don't try to do well for themselves and just sit back and try to let daddy government take care of them.
Where did all that money come from?
Scam after scam keeps coming out. Phony donators sending money with prepaid credit cards that can't be traced. Gee, wonder where the money is coming from ? He is not honest or truthful about anything, and so many people trusting him with their future...sad.
With all the money that
Barrack Obama raised for his campaign.....I wonder who he owes now? I mean....surely some of these people who gave a bunch of money want something in return. Are there promises Obama has promised to keep to individuals who gave him money that we don't know about? This is one reason why I hate political parties. The DNC raised all that money and you have some serious extreme left psychos who gives money and then they want something in return. Does this make Barrack Obama the democratic party puppet now? How does that work?
Where is all this money going to come from?nm
x
so where does all this money come from and
when do we STOP bailing companies out? I was not a fan of the first bailout. I think that in the end, all of this will make things much worse and we are just slowing down the process. I understand that both McCain and Bush wanted the bailout, but I am capable of thinking for myself. If you want the auto industry to keep up employment, I would think that the best way to make that happen is to buy American cars, bot hand them over a lot of my hard earned money. I think that the money I paid for my car is enough.
where the money comes from
Okay, those are some interesting links. I feel even better about the job banks program now, because, check it out--this program was *created* to discourage outsourcing. The union felt like it made it too expensive for the car companies to outsource jobs. So the car companies obviously did some calculations and discovered that they could pay these guys not to work, AND outsource, AND still make money (that they failed to make money has less to do with those out of work guys, I suspect, than it does with decades of misreading consumer preferences!). So if this program is a big money-suck, it's only because they insisted on outsourcing.
It's also great to see that this job bank was not available for workers until AFTER they had exhausted their unemployment benefits--and that *those* benefits were also being funded by the automakers. So our tax dollars don't really have much to do with the story. As for the bailout...well, personally I'd rather the bailout money help actual people, rather than Wall Street, so I'm not really concerned about some guys playing checkers.
(as for the $31 an hour, I'm still having trouble doing the math on how a $5 billion dollar committment by GM for 4 years for 5000 workers works out to $31 an hour, but I'll let it go for now!)
I fuss (I like that word!) about spreading the wealth from rich to poor, and about these auto workers, because I think they represent an important case for us to learn from. How will we protect *our* livelihoods? Can companies begin to take us into account, and not at the same time do the same stupid mistakes that always bankrupt them, and not make it look like *our* fault that they're going bankrupt?
me too, me too - I want some of that money
Although I don't use sm as my handle. Does that disqualify me. LOL
why not put the money to better use
come on, there are much better things those donors could do with some of that that money than a ridiculously overpriced a party, for pete's sake.
We owe them money. (NM below)
x
Really! Well, that was exactly what the money was
before they used it illegally push Obama into office...... please stop falling for all this mumbo jumbo hype about non-profit organizations. Acorn will get the money regardless because the liberals nut jobs up there will see to it.
I say - take the money and run!!
from what I've seen, Michigan's economy has been in the toilet for decades...you guys NEED the money - let's just hope they don't do idiotic sh*t like build new malls or luxury hotels...........
Them using their own money???????
Why should they use their own money when they've got ours.
Please show me the link that says they are using their own money from their own bank accounts to fund their party. If I see it I will eat my words and apologize. But it's not just the money.
It's them turning the WH into a party house. This is not what the white house is suppose to be for. And in these times when we have so many people loosing their jobs, and homes, and going hungry this is sending the wrong message to America. "Hey, your out of work, getting ready to lose your home, hungry? Well hold on and I'll address that when I'm done partying dude".
But where does the money come from?
Tax dollars, right? So what O'Reilly stated was really true.
BTW, glad to see you admit to watching Fox once in a while, even if you don't agree with them. 
|
