Good work, Nancy Boyda!

[banyon]

After being in office a couple of weeks, Nancy gets a decent bill passed unanimously. I'm surprised the Dem leadership let her sponsor it.

House votes to deny corrupt lawmakers pensions
Reuters
Tuesday, January 23, 2007; 3:12 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/02/Nancyboyda.jpg/160px-Nancyboyda.jpg


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives, responding to recent scandals, voted unanimously on Tuesday to deny congressional pensions to corrupt lawmakers.

By margin of 431-0, the Democratic-led House approved a bill to prohibit taxpayer-funded retirement benefits to members convicted of bribery or related conspiracy or perjury.

"Corrupt politicians deserve prison sentences, not taxpayer-funded payouts," said Democratic Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas, chief sponsor of the bill.

The Senate approved a similar measure last week. Differences between the two must now be resolved before a final bill can be sent to President George W. Bush to sign into law.

The measures would only cover crimes committed after enactment of the bill, backers explained, since current law prohibits retroactive punishment.

Democrats won control of Congress from Bush's Republicans in November's elections, vowing to end a "culture of corruption" that featured recent influence-pedaling.

Former Republican Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio was sentenced to 30 months in prison last week for his role in a scandal involving convicted former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Ney had earlier pleaded guilty to accepting trips, meals, tickets to sporting events and other items worth tens of thousands of dollars in return for official acts performed for Abramoff and his clients.

Ney is the only member of Congress convicted in the Abramoff probe, but the investigation has snared a number of former aides and is not yet over.

In a separate case, Republican Randy Cunningham of California resigned from the House in 2005 after pleading guilty to taking $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors. He received a prison sentence of eight years and four months.

On the other side of the political aisle, Democratic Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana is under investigation for suspected bribery. He denies any wrongdoing. Last year, federal authorities found $90,000 in his freezer.

Congressional pensions, which now average about $47,000 a year, date back to the 1940s. Existing law only strips these pensions in cases of treason or espionage-related offenses.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007012300831.html

[banyon]

LOL, I would've liked to see someone want to be on the record against this bill.

[noa]

I'm surprised Dan Burton didn't vote against it. He was the only representative to vote against the ethics legislation.

[pikesome]

LOL, I would've liked to see someone want to be on the record against this bill.

Considering the small number that get caught they probably figure its unlikely this will apply to them.

[recxjake]

Thats to bad that it won't get the ones who already did bad.

[banyon]

Thats to bad that it won't get the ones who already did bad.


That'd be unconstitutional.

[Stinger]

That'd be unconstitutional.

Since when has congress be mindful of the constitution? Yes this is a shot at both parties.

[Mr. Kotter]

That'd be unconstitutional.
Not necessarily....ex post factos laws only apply to criminal matters, not civil. If the government could somehow convince the courts this a "civil" matter.....:hmmm:

[banyon]

Not necessarily....ex post factos laws only apply to criminal matters, not civil. If the government could somehow convince the courts this a "civil" matter.....:hmmm:

Doesn't matter if it is criminal or civil. It matters if there is a penalty or benefit to the proposed law. If there is a penalty involved (which is clearly the case here), then the bill cannot be ex post facto.

[WilliamTheIrish]

Yes, this signals the end of "the culture of corruption".

[Mr. Kotter]

Doesn't matter if it is criminal or civil. It matters if there is a penalty or benefit to the proposed law. If there is a penalty involved (which is clearly the case here), then the bill cannot be ex post facto.

If the penalty is CIVIL.....I'm not so sure. :hmmm:

For example, 1993 Tax Hikes were made retroactive.....that certainly involves a "penalty" incurred by the "new law" which was applied in an expost facto fashion....

[banyon]

If the penalty is CIVIL.....I'm not so sure. :hmmm:

For example, 1993 Tax Hikes were made retroactive.....that certainly involves a "penalty" incurred by the "new law" which was applied in an expost facto fashion....

That doesn't sound right. What did they do, require 100 million taxpayers to file a 1040x for 1992?

[mlyonsd]

Yes, this signals the end of "the culture of corruption".

Yes, thank goodness the democrats are in charge of Congress now so the voters can check that off the list and quit paying attention.

[banyon]

Yes, thank goodness the democrats are in charge of Congress now so the voters can check that off the list and quit paying attention.

1) Is it a positive step or not?

2) Does the bill prohibit them from taking further action in the next 2 years, or are they supposed to clean it all up in one bill?

[Mr. Kotter]

That doesn't sound right. What did they do, require 100 million taxpayers to file a 1040x for 1992?

The law was passed in August 1993, IIRC. They made it retroactive to January....expost facto. There was a big controversy at the time.

[banyon]

The law was passed in August 1993, IIRC. They made it retroactive to January....expost facto. There was a big controversy at the time.


this appears to be a case challening that law :http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5113.html . They appear to approve the retroactive tax b/c no criminal penalty attached. That seems shabby when if they hadn't paid, then it would apply.

I think I agree with the dissent when the judge says "Congress is perfectly capable of raising all the revenue it needs without making its tax laws reach backward..."

[mlyonsd]

1) Is it a positive step or not?

2) Does the bill prohibit them from taking further action in the next 2 years, or are they supposed to clean it all up in one bill?

Are these trick questions? Sure it's a positive step and of course they need to do more.

What does that have to do with my post?

[banyon]

Are these trick questions? Sure it's a positive step and of course they need to do more.

What does that have to do with my post?

No trick, just that your comment was pretty dismissive, as if nothing else would be done.

[mlyonsd]

No trick, just that your comment was pretty dismissive, as if nothing else would be done.
It was dismissive in that I don't believe the democrats riding in on their white horse are going to clean up corruption in politics much and we shouldn't fall for the impression they have.

[patteeu]

It was dismissive in that I don't believe the democrats riding in on their white horse are going to clean up corruption in politics much and we shouldn't fall for the impression they have.

I agree.

I wonder if the democrats will adopt the same rule that they nailed Delay with? The rule that required members to step down from leadership positions if they are the subject of an indictment.

[banyon]

It was dismissive in that I don't believe the democrats riding in on their white horse are going to clean up corruption in politics much and we shouldn't fall for the impression they have.

I don't know about that. There's something to the adage "power corrupts". Maybe if we keep flushing the toilet of Congress out for a few sessions Dem/Repub/Dem/Repub, etc., we will get some legit anti-corruption practices and safeguards. In otherwords, it's not because they are Dems that it will get better, it is because they are new and the public is demanding it right now.

[mlyonsd]

I don't know about that. There's something to the adage "power corrupts". Maybe if we keep flushing the toilet of Congress out for a few sessions Dem/Repub/Dem/Repub, etc., we will get some legit anti-corruption practices and safeguards. In otherwords, it's not because they are Dems that it will get better, it is because they are new and the public is demanding it right now.

Haven't we been doing that for over 200 years? And it's still there. It just morphs into something else.

[banyon]

Haven't we been doing that for over 200 years? And it's still there. It just morphs into something else.

Maybe so, I'm trying to be hopeful.

There's been corruption of some kind since the founding of the Greek city-states and earlier. I guess it just ebbs and flows. Hopefully we are on an "ebb" for a little while though.

[mlyonsd]

Maybe so, I'm trying to be hopeful.



Oh to be young again.....:p