DoD braces for a fight with Pelosi

[Psephos]

Source: The Hill

Pentagon officials are bracing for a fight with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) over her desire to allow lawmakers’ adult children to tag along on taxpayer-funded travel for free. Pelosi wants them to be able to fill the role of lawmakers’ spouses when the latter are unable to make a trip because of health issues or work commitments.

“It has been longstanding policy that, in the absence of a congressional spouse, the adult child of a member of Congress may accompany the member on official U.S. government travel abroad for protocol reasons and without reimbursing the U.S.Treasury,” Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said. “Speaker Pelosi believes that a modern policy must reflect the professional responsibilities or health realities that might prevent a spouse from participating, and instead permit an adult child to fulfill the protocol needs of the official trip.” Pentagon officials say the policy is that the Treasury must be reimbursed at commercial rates for children who accompany members on such trips, often called codels.


<snip>

But taxpayer watchdog groups and ethics advocates said they were surprised Pelosi would seek more perks for members. “One of the things she was praised for when she came in was her sweeping reforms on gifts and travel,” said Craig Holman of Public Citizen. “It is very disheartening if she is, in fact, backsliding on this.”



Read more: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dod-braces-for-a-fight-with-pelosi-2007-06-14.html

---

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guards?) - Juvenal

[IndianaGreen]

1. Pelosi won't fight for impeachment or to defund the war, but she will fight for a perk?

Congress is polling lower than Bush at 23%. The Beltway Democrats have misjudged the voters and they are positioning themselves to be punish by them in 2008.

Way to go Nancy!

[Faux pas]

2. Hey Nancy, I call total BS! n/t

[opihimoimoi]

3. The Democratic Party Needs a Training Dept and Filter to Insure our Elected do the Best for us

If and When they do, and evidence shows our Leaders can really LEAD..and show us firm positive results...then and only then should they ask for those dubious perks....as a....reward if you will...

This is poor timing to ask and/or poor wording/description

[anitar1]

4. I am not happy with Pelosi, but this smells like BS to me. n/t

[maddezmom]

5. So Rummy sends a military plane to take his wife to Taos

but reimbursed the gov't at commercial rates? Hmmmm, was she flying standby or did he just order a flight out for her?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

9. I didn't read it that way. Rummy took the mil. plane to Taos

and his wife accompanied. No special flight for her. The fact that he reimbursed (probably at cabin-class rates) is a plus for him. Not that it balances the three thousand minuses, though.

[acmavm]

6. Wonder if Ms. Pelosi is just too damn obtuse to understand that it's this

greedy grasping shit from politicians that we (the people footing the bills) are sick and tired of?

Lovely bunch of dems we sent to Washington last November, aren't they? So far all they've been good for is selling out the very people who elected them. Now we can send their adult children all around the world with 'em.

My suggestion is that they just forget traveling if they can't go it alone. And get into another line of work if they don't understand why we're sick of them with their hands in our pockets.

[marshall]

10. Why just allow adult children?

I would find the proposal more palatable if it weren't tailor made for Nancy's benefit. What about law makers who don't have adult children or don't have children who can accompany them? What about including siblings or other family members?

[DrDan]

7. lets throw a little fodder to rush and sean and glenn

like they don't have enough already

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

8. Thankfully, it's not Republican corruption this time ...

Democratic corruption is much more palatable.

Does this perk require a vote? Or is it just pressure "under the table"?

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. "fulfill the protocol needs"? Huh?

Is she saying that a lawmaker needs a spouse or adult child with them when travelling? That's bollocks. What about unmarried, childless people? Is she saying they aren't suitable as lawmakers?

On visits, people accept spouses tagging along because it's considered polite to do so - nothing more. Times when a spouse isn't getting a freebie foreign trip should be considered a good thing - it means they'll concentrate on real work, rather than sightseeing and fine dining.

When mere mortals like us get sent on buisness trips for a few days, we don't get to take our families along free with us. The idea that we should take an adult who doesn't even live in the same house as us is idiotic.

It's also ammo for the Republicans to use. Why on earth would she suggest it?

[Solly Mack]

12. ...

"Pentagon officials say the policy is that the Treasury must be reimbursed at commercial rates for children who accompany members on such trips, often called codels."


“It has been longstanding policy that, in the absence of a congressional spouse, the adult child of a member of Congress may accompany the member on official U.S. government travel abroad for protocol reasons and without reimbursing the U.S.Treasury,” Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said"

Those 2 statements are in direct contradiciton of each other


If it's policy then there should be a piece of paper stating as much. Produce the paper and find out which conflicting statement is true.



Keeping in mind that "longstanding" practice and policy are not the same thing. Something that has been a practice does not translate into policy.


and this:


“Speaker Pelosi believes that a modern policy must reflect the professional responsibilities or health realities that might prevent a spouse from participating, and instead permit an adult child to fulfill the protocol needs of the official trip.”

If it is already policy (as stated in her previous statement) then what "modern policy" is she talking about?

She said:"...and instead permit an adult child to fulfill the protocol needs of the official trip.” "

Instead of what? (the spouse, of course - which is policy)

Permit? as in they aren't permitted to now?

Yet in her first statement she talks as if it is already policy to permit adult children


“It has been longstanding policy that, in the absence of a congressional spouse, the adult child of a member of Congress may accompany the member on official U.S. government travel abroad for protocol reasons and without reimbursing the U.S.Treasury

Now, I don't know if the above article is accurate...but just going on the quotes available

Seems to me someone is defining a longstanding practice as policy...and the two aren't the same

I'm no fan of the honesty (lack) of the Pentagon...but that aside - I see no reason to pay for the Bush twins to travel with either of their parents and I wouldn't want to pay for the adult children of Congress either. Minor children I fully understand - pay for them.

[cloudbase]

13. Meet the new boss,

you know the rest.