I wanna cut his nuts off.
Akzed on July 11, 2008 at 8:49 AM

.
Akzed better be of the correct race, with slave blood, or this is a racist comment.
.
/sarc

Rangel has used his entrenched position to enrich himself. His constituency should be outraged.

Surprise!  Charlie Rangel has not one, not two, but FOUR apartments in the same posh building in NYC.
People jump on Gramm like flies on you-know-what while we have an actual case of a government official engaging in shady money and living luxuriously…

fogw on July 11, 2008 at 9:14 AM

It’s all about the children senior citizens.

It really pleases me that (my constituents) appreciate driving in a comfortable car, especially the senior citizens,” Rangel said.

Imagine, if you will, Susan Estrich conducting an interview with Charles Rangel. They would sound like Muppets.

ynot4tony2 on July 11, 2008 at 9:44 AM

NOOOOOOOOOOO!

Like two frogs sittin’ in the lily pond.

These apts he has are actually rent atbilized as oppossed to rent controled, although many outside of here call them all controlled. The difference between the two can be found here in case any of you really want to know. On a vacancy the landlord is allowed a 23% increase and once a one BR or larger hits the $2000.00 mark on a vacancy they can destabilize + the necessary rent guideline increase allowed that year . On a studio with a vacancy the same, although many Landlords have challenged the law and destabizied at $1700.00.

Rent control used to die with the tenant but Rudy sold out the landlords somewhat and made a deal allowing both stabilized and controlled apts to be passed on to a family member who has resided in the space.

Many landlords were praying for ICE to remove the illegal aliens, who occupy many of these apts, although we knew that would never actually happen.

If they were removed it would allow the landlords to basically start deregualting the vacated apts throughout the city and in many cases destabilize illegally.

I may have to Obama my long held convictions.

Cindy Munford on July 11, 2008 at 12:09 PM

Brilliant! Immortality!

I’m crying RACISM!

Rangel’s rent-control mansion

That’s not the Charlie Rangel I used to know!

Suffering from the bigotry of low expectation.

While these marginal tenants get pushed out, Rangel has four apartments at half of the current market rate

It is closer to one eighth.

No one has a problem with Rangel occupying one rent-controlled apartment

Those of us who believe in a market economy have a big problem with it.

Think_b4_speaking on July 11, 2008 at 9:45 AM

that’s what he admits to, dude. I bet he lied right through his teeth on every disclosure statement.

Representative Charles B. Rangel says his leased Cadillac DeVille projects an image of success.

- from Buy Danish’s NYT link {thanks for the link!} Being a politician and a party man are not success in America, Charlie.
Try running a REAL business!

Moreover, Rangel wants to end the Bush tax cuts and responded to attempts to reform Social Security by threatening to impeach Bush over the details.
No wonder Dems like him want to increase our taxes – they need our dough to pay for their lavish lifestyle.
Buy Danish on July 10, 2008 at 11:20 PM

Nothing else to bad to your great analysis!

Don’t give them any perks, it should be an honor serving your country not a jackpot. Give them a very good salary and no perks at all. Let them right off the cost of doing business on their taxes like all other citizens. Then have term limits. Then have a time restriction on them coming back to Washington to be lobbyists. Maybe we will get people who care about the country then. Maybe.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2008 at 9:15 AM

To which I would add, retirement at 75 (to be generous). Also, members of Congress should convene a limited amount of time during the year in DC (less time for mischief); the rest of their year should be spent earning a living in their home districts. Furthermore, those congressional figures incapacitated through long-term illness or debilitation should forfeit their seats, opening the positions to those able to conduct the people’s business.

Obviously, no congresscritter will willingly introduce any of such legislation. Do we taxpayers have the option of crafting a multipart referendum on this representation issue?

Someone correct me if I am wrong here, but isn’t the FEC currently hamstrung because it does not have the requisite number of members on board? And haven’t these positions not be filled because the Dems will not go forward with approvals?

Rostenkowski’s political career was shattered in 1994, when he was indicted on corruption charges for his key role in the House post office scandal. He was forced to step down from all Congressional leadership positions. In elections later that year, Rostenkowski lost his seat and retired from political life.

A long serving Congressman with a deep pocket of favors owed to him by his constituents isn’t an impossible proposition to defeat. Rostenkowski actually lost his seat to a Republican. It lasted one term, but it’s one of the biggest pickups by the Republican party ever.

As the screw turns…