Tim Bishop likes manufacturing. The manufacturing of campaign issues, that is. In his effort to manufacture a campaign issue around overseas outsourcing, he got a lifeline from the White House yesterday when President Obama held an “insourcing” forum yesterday to encourage companies to “bring jobs back to America.” An editorial in the Wall Street Journal titled, “Insourcing for Dummies” describes the effort.

Having spent his entire adult working life at either Southampton College, which went out of business and was acquired by the State University of New York, and the House of Representatives, Mr. Bishop should be forgiven if his grasp of economics is lacking. So let’s try to help get him up to speed.

Coming from academia, I am sure Mr. Bishop will give due deference to a study on outsourcing from an Ivy League University. Matthew J. Slaughter, an economist at Dartmouth’s Amos Tuck School of Business, conducted a study where he found that for every job outsourced overseas, two jobs were created in the U.S. How could that possibly be? It works something like this.

Let’s say a company has an opportunity to outsource its call center overseas and takes advantage of doing so. It utilizes a well-educated work force in India, and let’s say it cuts its cost allocated to that call center in half. It now has additional capital to invest in growing the business. To do so, it hires more sales people, who in turn need sales engineers to explain their widgets to their perspective customers, and when the customers buy more widgets, more people are needed to process the orders and build the widgets. This boost of growth results in a boost in jobs.

Slaughter studied Bureau of Economic Analysis data, reported annually between 1991 and 2001 for 2,500 multinational companies. This was a time when India and China were ramping up their operations to take on outsourcing roles. What Slaughter found was that while employment in their foreign affiliates grew by 2.8 million jobs, U.S. based employment in the parent firms grew by 5.5 million jobs. Taking it a step further, when that job growth is compared to total job growth, those multinational created more jobs faster than the economy as a whole.

Tim Bishop’s Plan

So what is Tim Bishop’s big idea? He wants companies to shut foreign outsourcing or have two call centers that callers can choose between. That means there is no savings from the call centers, which translates into fewer profits to use to grow the business and hire fewer people. Also lower profits, means less tax revenues because what are companies taxed on? Correct! Profits!

So in the midst of a dastardly economy with high unemployment, and staggering deficits, Tim Bishop wants to curtail corporate growth, reverse conditions for job growth, and reduce tax revenues. What a trifecta! This is all so that Tim Bishop can have something, anything, to build a reelection campaign around. There no major call centers in his district, so this is a bald-faced effort to cling to office. If he was serious about the economy, he would be advocating for slashing the corporate tax rate or even backing the Fair Tax, so that money held overseas could flow back to the U.S. and perhaps other countries would build factories here and create even more jobs. But that would require a grasp of economics, instead of an iron grasp on his House seat.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

The Tea Party has some major accomplishments to their credit that will be on display this week.  The first is a reading of the Constitution in the House of Representatives to open the 112^th Congress, the second is the change to rules that require any bill to state where in the Constitution Congress has the authority to enact that legislation.

Members of the House and the Senate, and the President of the United States take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.  The legislative branch of the federal government, that is the Congress, is responsible for making law.  Here is how old time progressives view that function

 Henry Waxman, outgoing chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, all but dismissed any role for Congress in assessing the constitutionality of its actions: “Whether it is constitutional or not is going to be whether the Supreme Court says it is.”

That is like saying that professional baseball players don’t need to read the rulebook.  They’ll just play the game and let the umpires tell them if they are playing correctly or not.  Can you imagine what that would look like?

While it may be true that the Supreme Court can rule on the Constitutionality of any law, the first step should be for the Congress to determine if it even has the authority to make a particular law.  The function of the court is to interpret the law, that is, if there is disagreement over what a particular law means, the courts serve to interpret that meaning.  The clearer the law, the less there is for the court to interpret.  But to dismiss the Constitution out of hand or any need to even read it, mocks the very oath of office the member takes.

Consider price controls.  There is no authority in the Constitution to set prices of goods and services and the Founders would be appalled at any attempt by the federal government to do so.  But Congress passed such laws that resulted in Supreme Court cases such as Wickard v. Filburn, where a farmer was told that he couldn’t exceed  his quota for wheat production, even though it was entirely for consumption on his own farm.  That Supreme Court case is being used as a foundation for the requirement in ObamaCare to make us buy insurance or pay a fine.  Now if the Congress had read the Constitution and understood it had no such authority, the matter would have ended sixty-some odd years ago.  But now we have an expansive government and bad law built upon the foundation of prior bad law, when such laws should never have seen the light of day.  But progressives like Waxman says that Congress can take on anything it wants and just throw it over the fence and let the Supreme Court sort it out.  This has led to the contentious selection process of Supreme Court  nominees because that is where the laws are finally made.

By adopting this new process perhaps we can make members of Congress do their jobs, and the Supreme Court do theirs.  The states will become more prominent and the federal government will shrink back.  Just because someone thinks, “Hey, that’s a good idea, someone should do that,” does not mean that Congress has the power to act. 

There was a debate on the O’Reilly Factor last night about the poor job of clearing snow off the streets of New York after the recent blizzard.  There were some accusations that the unions were dragging their feet in the cleanup because of recent layoffs by the Bloomberg administration.  The host asked the question, “Should the feds step in?”  No, No, NO!  It is not a function of the federal government to oversee all state and local government and if they find incompetence, step in.  It is up to the people to throw the bums out, and put in place a local or state government that works.  The federal government has a limited number of functions.  Everything else is the responsibility of the states and the people.  It is time to get back on the course the Founders plotted.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

The injustice of it all.  Poor Charlie Rangel ran out of money for his attorneys and stomped off saying he wasn’t going to play anymore, because his fellow House members were being unfair to him.  As many a parent has said to their recalcitrant child, “You should have thought about that before you [fill in the offense here].”  It is most likely that Mr. Rangel will be censured, just like his predecessor in that same Congressional District, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was censured.

So what does censure actually mean?  According to the CRS Report for Congress titled, “Expulsion, Censure, Reprimand, and Fine: Legislative Discipline in the House of Representatives” it says:

In the House of Representatives, a “censure” is a formal vote by the majority of Member present and voting on a resolution disapproving a Member’s conduct, with generally the additional requirement that the Member stand at the “well” of the House chamber to receive a verbal rebuke and reading of the censure resolution by the Speaker of the House.

There was probably a time, where personal honor and dignity were values held in high esteem, where this meant something.  In today’s world of trash talking, smash mouth politics, this is almost embarrassingly inane.  Picture Charlie Rangel with his toothy grin standing in front of fellow House Members while Nancy Pelosi delivers the slap on the wrist.  Do you anticipate a scathing, dressing down of Mr. Rangel by Nancy?  Neither do I.

On another front, actor Wesley Snipes has just been sentenced to three years for tax evasion.  Yes the amounts Mr. Snipes was convicted of withholding from the government were more substantial than anything Mr. Rangel purloined.  But Mr. Snipes used a firm to prepare his taxes that had a history of filing false return and taking a percentage of the refund.  I don’t seek to defend Mr. Snipes.  But I find it ironic that Mr. Snipes faced the challenges of someone complying with the tax code, ran afoul of that and now faces jail time.  Mr. Rangel, on the other hand, headed up the committee that wrote the tax laws and when he didn’t follow them, he gets to listen to Nancy Pelosi call him a bad boy.  Maybe those are equivalent punishments, but in the latter case it will be over more quickly.

So Mr. Rangel can continue to draw his $174,000 salary courtesy of you and me; he can remain in at least three of his four rent controlled apartments, while his poorer constituents battle with the rent being too damn high; and at 80 years  of age, he could also retire to some pretty good sunset years.

As far as the claim that he didn’t know rent was being collected on his condo in the Dominican Republic and therefore not paying taxes on it was an honest mistake, that goes out the window with the evidence that Rangel instructed the management of the condo complex to deposit the rent directly in his personal account.

But Mr. Rangel is a Democrat.  So the Democrats, will circle the wagons. John Lewis will come out and make a speech saying that although he knows nothing about the facts, he is sure this is racially motivated.  Republicans are not a choir of angels, but when one of theirs cross the line, they are typically dealt with honestly and swiftly.  Rangel spent many months in the chairmanship seat while these claims swirled around and it wasn’t until a formal hearing and trial imminent did he finally give up the gavel.

So perhaps Mr. Rangel can visit Mr. Snipes in prison and explain the tax code to him in detail so that he doesn’t embarrass himself again, when he is released.

Over the past few days we have learned of a new tack by Al Qaeda on how to strike at America.  It is not by commandeering planes and crashing them into buildings, it is not by putting homicide bombers into passenger seats, it is now by sending packages with bombs inside from overseas to targets in the U.S.   It is very disturbing to know that Al Qaeda is not giving up, despite the piles of olive branches Barack Obama has laid at the feet of these despots.

Equally disturbing, for those of us in the First Congressional District in New York, is the scorecard just issued by national security organization Keep America Safe, which just gave Congressman Tim Bishop its lowest possible score, an “F”.  It explained:

Bishop’s grade of F is based on a comprehensive study undertaken by the group, which analyzed every significant national security vote cast by Rep. Bishop since he assumed office in 2003. Bishop’s failing grade is rooted in his multiple votes to transfer terrorist detainees, currently housed at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to U.S. soil, thereby granting them additional Constitutional rights and hindering intelligence gathering.

Bishop further cast a vote against allowing the U.S. military to develop a contingency plan to deal with the growing threat posed by Iran.

The ranking was based on House member’s votes on twenty-seven national security rated bills.

As our enemies continue to try to kill us, can we afford weakness in our resolve to defeat them?

Other scorecards

How has Tim Bishop measured up on other scorecards?  Here is a sampling:

• ACLU – Tim Bishop has an 83% lifetime favorable rating from the organization
• The Club for Growth is an organization that supports policies that will help grow the economy through limited government and economic freedom.  A growing economy, naturally, creates jobs.  Mr. Bishop’s rating is 0% from the Club for Growth
• Another security organization, the Center for Security Policy, gives Mr. Bishop a score of 25%
• The American Conservative Union gives Mr. Bishop a lifetime score of 2.86% favorable, with a rating for 2009 of 0%.  While I understand Mr. Bishop is not a conservative, neither is he middle of the road. You cannot get much further left than a 2.86% lifetime rating from the ACU coupled with voting lockstep with Nancy Pelosi 97% of the time.  Some of Mr. Bishop’s positions that earned him this low rating include:
  • He voted against a bill to end TARP and return the unspent TARP money to the Treasury
  • He voted for the stimulus
  • He voted against a Republican proposal to balance the budget within ten years and extend the Bush tax cuts and $482 billion in spending cuts over five years.  In his debate with Randy Altschuler he scoffed at Republicans seriously having a plan to cut spending. Well there it is, and he voted against it.
  • He voted against deleting an earmark for an airport in Rep. John Murtha’s district in Pennsylvania.  Murtha, one of the kings of pork before passing away, channeled $150 million to this airport that handles six flights a week. A Wall Street Journal reporter visited this airport and said that they walked around for fifteen minutes before seeing another person.  Just what the taxpayers in New York need Tim Bishop to vote for, wasteful spending in Pennsylvania.
  • He voted against additional funding for missile defense, a function of Congress that is actually in the Constitution.
  • He voted for Cap and Trade, that will cause energy prices like home heating oil and gasoline to skyrocket.  Most of Long Island’s electricity comes from fossil fuels so this should also drive up electricity prices, already among the most expensive in the country.
  • He defeated an amendment to impose spending caps through 2014, limiting spending and deficits to a percentage of GDP.
  • He opposed spending cuts to the budgets of the Housing and Transportation departments by 5%.
  • He voted for ObamaCare over the strong objection of his constituents
  • He voted against extending the ban on the death tax, which could impact many small businesses and family farms in his district.
• The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council gave Tim Bishop a rating of 0%.

It is clear that Mr. Bishop is not a moderate, middle of the road, Democrat.  He often votes against the concerns of his constituents and in lockstep with the leadership of his party.  That would be an indication that he has his focus on moving up the ladder of his party and getting more power rather than serving his district.  At a time when jobs and the economy are critical to get our country moving again, Tim Bishop’s record is among the most anti-business in the entire Congress.  It is business that creates jobs, not government.  How can Mr. Bishop possibly hold the solution to the problem?

Mr. Bishop’s Support

So where does Mr. Bishop’s support come from?  In reading news stories, comments on newspaper articles, blogs and the like, the constant theme that I hear is that Mr. Bishop is responsive to the individual needs of his constituents and helps them with their problems.  Okay, that may be true and I have also heard the arguments from the other side that if you disagree with him, he is deaf to your requests for support.

Let’s talk about what is commonly known as constituent service, that is, helping people in the district with their individual problems.  This is a noble thing to do, but let’s also look at why they need the help?  How did the problem come about?  It is probably because government has gotten so big, and so complex, and is increasingly embedded in our lives, that we sometimes need to reach out to those more powerful (Mr. Bishop) to cut through the red tape.  But here is a thought experiment for you.  What if the government wasn’t so big?  What if Washington didn’t try to tell you what kind of light bulb to buy, what kind of toilet to install, how many thousands upon thousands of tax regulations you have to follow?  What if the government in Washington focused on those powers given to it under the Constitution and left the rest to state and local government and to ourselves?

What the people who support Mr. Bishop speak most passionately about is little more than a Tammany Hall fixer.  He wants his constituents to depend on him.  The more he can help out, the more they will vote for him and get their friends to vote for him.  So he is motivated to make the government bigger and more complex and then rather than deal with it yourself, you go to him to deal with it for you.  It’s time to break the cycle of dependency.

An Historic Moment

This election day presents an historic moment to turn the tide against big government.  Government that doesn’t listen to the people because it thinks the people are incapable of taking care of themselves.  Tim Bishop thinks he is smarter than all of us and he has proven that he thinks the fundamental purpose of the Constitution is to provide for the common good.  The Constitution says no such thing.  The purpose of the Constitution is to limit government to the few things that are best done for all of us, such as, national defense, a common currency, a court system, delivery of the mail, and manage or relationships with foreign nations.  It is not about light bulbs or toilets or government run health care.  It is for those things that affect all Americans, equally.  The reason we have legislation that is two and three thousand pages long is because this leviathan government has its tentacles into the far corners of our lives.  It is time to vote for a change.  It is time to start putting the monster back in its cage, where we are the masters, not the slaves.  Where we have the freedom to live our lives without interference from government intrusion.

Do you want your freedom for yourselves and your children, or do you want to continue to grow a massive government that will condemn your children, grandchildren and generations onward to a debtor’s prison, forever paying for the choice we make tomorrow?  Think carefully, my friends, your family is depending on it.

In their pledge of openness and transparency in government the House of Representatives takes some pride in putting the health care bill online for 72 hours before voting on it.  Sounds like a good step, no?  Well… that is until you to the math.  If the bill they are voting on is 2,500 pages long you would only have 1.7 minutes to read each page provided you did not eat, sleep, rest your eyes, use the restroom for three straight days!

We have Nancy Pelosi’s famous cry for support, “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”.  Turn one-sixth of the economy over to the government, first, then find out what’s behind door number 1, door number 2, or door number 3.  If you remember from that game show, what was behind one of the doors was a real stinker.  The problem here is we got all three doors.

AT&T reports that they are writing off $1 billion to pay for compliance with the new health care bill.  Guess where they are going to get that $1 billion?  That’s right watch your phone bill.  You are going to be paying for this health care monster in places you never imagined.  Caterpillar announced they were writing off $100 million, John Deere $150 million, and AK Steel $31 million.  So look for more expensive roads, farm equipment (food), and more expensive cars.  This is from companies that have figured this out in less than a week.  It will take time for thousands of other companies to tally up the cost.

Henry Waxman to the Rescue

But don’t worry folks, Congressman Henry Waxman is riding to the rescue:

Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, said he would hold a hearing next month to investigate the effects of the law on big companies. He asked the chief executives of Caterpillar, Deere & Company and Verizon for financial data to document the projected impact of the law on their companies, and he asked them to explain their accounting methods.

“The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs,” Mr. Waxman said, adding that he would be concerned if it drove up costs.

I’m sorry to have to say this, but he has to be the dumbest man in the House of Representatives.  Members of the House are supposed to REPRESENT  the people.  The people have been screaming their opposition to this for months.  Obama dared his opposition to campaign on repealing his prized piece of…er, work.  Here’s news for you Mr. President, according to a Rasmussen poll 55% of Americans favor repealing this monstrosity.

But let me get back to Mr. Waxman, who is surprised that health care costs could actually increase.  Listen to the American people:

Most voters still believe cost is the biggest problem with health care in America today, but most also think passage of the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats will drive costs even higher.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% rate cost as the biggest problem, a finding that has been consistent for months.

If Mr. Waxman got his head out of the sand or wherever else he conveniently parks it, and out into the fresh air, he might have realized that he is among the very few who actually believe this was going to lower costs, because there is nothing in this bill that addresses costs.  It’s all about tweaking reimbursements to health care providers, which will accomplish nothing but drive doctors and other providers out of business, ration health, and expand government control.  Oh, but wait, that is the Democrats plan.

The Silver Lining

But there is a silver lining.  Communist dictator Fidel Castro loves it! 

Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform “a miracle” and a major victory for Obama’s presidency

Bill O’Reilly, do you still think President Obama is not  a socialist?

Congressman John Conyers made this remarkable statement regarding reading a bill before voting on it?

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.

“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

Here’s the video:  Why would I read health care bill John Conyers.  These people are paid $169,300 a year and they are voting on legislation that will alter 1/6 of the American economy and they don’t know what they are voting on? Who demanded that this be done in two days?  Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama.  If it takes them six months to read the bill, then TAKE THE SIX MONTHS!!! We wonder why there is so much government waste and fraud?  It’s really quite simple.  All the crooks and lobbyists are reading the bill very carefully, every page, probably 2-3 times.  Why?  Because as soon as it is passed they will know exactly where all the loopholes are, where the best opportunities for fraud are, so that they can rip off the taxpayers for billions, while Congress says, oh well, we better make the program bigger and put in more regulations and enforcement.

How much money do you make?  In your job, what would happen to you if you did your job without following instructions and did so willfully?  If you were a nurse and administered medication without following instructions what would happen to you?  If you were a fireman and rushed into a building without following safety procedures that are there to protect your fellow firefighters what would happen to you?  What is the fundamental job of Congressman, if not writing laws?  And they can cavalierly say, they don’t read what they are voting on?

Why does Texas have such a booming economy?  Could it be their legislature only meets once every two years?  Could it be they are required by law to complete their business in 140 days?  Could it be the legislators are only paid $7,200?  Think about it.

In the beginning days of 1789, Congress was paid only $6 a day, which would be about $75 daily by modern standards. But by 1965 members were receiving $30,000 a year, which is the modern equivalent of about $195,000.

Currently the average lawmaker makes $169,300 a year, with leadership making slightly more. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) makes $217,400, while the minority and majority leaders in the House and Senate make $188,100.

John Adams made $6 per day, $75 per day in today’s dollars.  Nancy Pelosi makes $217,400 per year.  Whom do you admire more?  If that doesn’t make you ill, you are made of sterner stuff than me.

Code of Hammurabi

When I was in engineering school, I was introduced to this part of the Code of Hammurabi, an ancient Babylonian king:

• If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.
• If it kill the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be put to death.

It was intended to drive home the point that as engineers we should take what we do very seriously as someone may get killed if we get careless.  What could be more careless than what Conyers said.

I have said this before, the bill that created the Interstate Highway System, was only 29 pages long.  Our tax code is horrendous and incomprehensible, the stimulus bill is a disaster, Cap and Trade is another unread boondoggle, and health care is following.  And for this we pay these people, or should I say they pay themselves since we don’t vote on their salaries, more than four times the national average?

Read the 10th Amendment folks, we have got to take back our government and cut it down to size.

WASHINGTON (AP) – Vice President Joe Biden said the Obama administration “misread how bad the economy was” but stands by its stimulus package and believes the plan will create more jobs as the pace of its spending picks up.

Does that mean Obama lied?  Biden lied?  Where’s the outrage?

There is none, which is how it should be.  But it is instructive to contrast this with what happened with President Bush.  Bush relied on intelligence from the CIA, the French, the British and others.  It all pointed in the same direction.  The information was shared with Congress and there was overwhelming bipartisan support authorizing the use of force in Iraq with 40% of Democrats voting in favor in the House and 58% in the Senate.  The senior members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Republicans and Democrats saw the intelligence.  When it was later determined that weapons of mass destruction could not be found, the mantra was “Bush lied.”  The Democrats hid under their desks rather than refute that remark.

In the case of the stimulus, the projections of unemployment capping out at 8% rather than where it is today, prompting Biden’s mea culpa, was entirely within the control of the administration.  It wasn’t corroborated by other nations’ agencies.  In addition, every Republican in the House voted against it and all but three in the Senate.  So in which situation would there be a more credible charge of lying?

But unlike the Main Stream Media and the statists, I am reluctant accuse them of deliberately lying about their policies.  Perhaps, the aforementioned Main Stream Media and the statists will show some restraint in the future and return to the days of a spirited but honest debate on the issues?  I’m not holding my breath.

Eleven days to go before the 2008 election and the talk seems to still revolve about this being a Democratic year and where big gains are expected in both the House and the Senate.  When you stop to think about it, does this make sense?  Sure, President Bush has extremely low approval numbers and regardless of who wins the Presidential election on November 4th, it won’t be him.  But what about Congress?

The 110th Congress, led by the Democrats, has the lowest approval rating in history, around 12%, and yet, the American people are expected to not only return them to Congress but increase their numbers.  Wasn’t it bad enough?  Do they need to reach zero in the approval department?

Just what, exactly have they accomplished?  Sure, they raised the minimum wage, which will help about 4% of the population, at least those who don’t also happen to lose their jobs as a result because their employer can’t afford the increase, especially now that we are looking at a recession. But what else have they done?

Nancy Pelosi promised the most ethical Congress in history.  How’s that working out, Nancy?

• Well let’s start with a twofer.  Congressman Charlie Rangel of New York, who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the committee that writes tax law, forgot that he had to pay taxes himself.  It seems he has this villa in the Dominican Republic, that he rents out but that he hasn’t reported the income on his tax filings.  Closer to home, it was learned that Congressman Rangel has not one, not two, not three, but four rent controlled apartments.  Democrats have staunchly defended rent control as being necessary to provide people with affordable housing.  Never mind that in the seventies it led to large swaths of burnt out buildings in New York and other cities because landlords couldn’t afford to maintain them when the rents wouldn’t keep up with the runaway inflation.  But Congressman Rangel needs affordable housing because his Congressional salary is only $169,300 per year.  Although he said he will give up one of the apartments that he uses as a campaign office, which may be illegal.  Does Nancy Pelosi know this is going on?  Because you don’t hear much about it.
• As our financial system is on the brink of collapse, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, chairmen respectively of the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee, are wondering how this all happened.  Despite calls for increased regulation by the Bush administration, shortly after they took office, Barney and Chris said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were just fine.  Dodd may have even gotten a sweetheart mortgage from Countrywide mortgage for being a “friend of Angelo” Mozilo, CEO of Countrywide, but that was before Countrywide collapsed and was acquired by Bank of America.  But don’t worry, Henry Waxman of California is holding hearings on the whole financial mess.  He will also address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac once he finishes pillorying the executives of every firm on Wall Street, but he probably won’t get around to it until after the election.  Busy, busy.
• Have you heard about Tim Mahoney?  He won the seat formerly held by Mark Foley in Florida.  If you recall, Mark Foley was sending inappropriate e-mails to some congressional pages, and rightfully lost his seat.  Not to be outdone, Tim Mahoney steps in and ends up paying off, to the tune of $121,000 his mistress who he fired from a job on his congressional staff.  He met her during the campaign and hired her at $36,000 per year.  When she found out the married congressman was having affairs with other women, she broke it off and was then fired.  Is Nancy on the case making sure that the pristine ethical standard that she set isn’t besmirched?  Well, Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL), chair of the Democratic Caucus is working diligently to keep this buried, so that it doesn’t hurt Mahoney’s reelection chances.  Nancy Pelosi, call your office.

Have you had enough, yet?