Lamest pushback ever? Reading Constitution in Congress will cost us $1.1 million!

posted at 10:12 am on January 6, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Brian Faughnan at Liberty Central found this objection to one of the House Republican’s plans to read the US Constitution aloud at Vanity Fair, which Brian called “the stupidest column” ever to run at the magazine.  While that may be a high bar — or low one, depending on your point of view — to clear, the report from Juli Weiner certainly qualifies to be in the running.  In an attempt to shed scorn over GOP efforts at fiscal responsibility, she and author Peter Keating attempt to calculate the cost of reading the document aloud:

It would seem that in an era of Fiscal Responsibility™, a performative rendition of the Constitution might have been one such eliminated endeavor. For an estimate on just how much the Republicans would have saved if they had decided against the tedious exercise, VF Daily checked with Peter Keating, the co-author of “The Cost of No” and VF.com’s resident expert on Congressional wastefulness.

“The amount I get is nearly $1.1 million. $1,071,872.87, to be exact, though of course this is more back-of-the-envelope than exact.

“When one chamber of Congress is in session but not working, we the people still have to pay for members’ salaries and expenses, and for their police protection, and for keeping their lights and phones and coffee machines on. Even Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Mike Pence (R-IN) combined don’t blow enough hot air to heat the Capitol in January.”

Ha ha!  Yes, we can tell that this analysis is strictly non-partisan.  Say, how much did Nancy Pelosi’s speech, complete with its rambling partisan defense, cost us?  Wait, Vanity Fair and Keating are too busy venting outrageous outrage over the reading of the foundational legal document that members of Congress swear to uphold and defend.

How do VF and Keating reach their conclusions?  They take the cost-per-minute of the House being in session, complete apparently to the cost of cleaning staffs, and apply that to the time needed to read the Constitution.  Of course, this is simply bunk.  The House did not come to session to read the Constitution, so those fixed costs — including salaries — would have been spent already regardless of whatever gets said on the floor. The cost doesn’t come from the reading; it comes from the existence of Congress itself.

There isn’t even any opportunity cost involved, since the reading of the Constitution won’t prevent any other business from being conducted.  It will take much less time to read the Constitution than to, say, name post offices and hear debate over whether to designate February as National Toothpick Month, complete with testimonials to the toothpick industry and how it contributed to the greatness of America by removing the remains of porkchops from the teeth of red-blooded Americans.  There actually isn’t much extra cost in those efforts either, except for the paper needed to publish the bills, because once again, Congress would already be in session.  Those cases matter because politicians like to use those resolutions to claim productivity, when in fact they’re wasting time — but not much money.

The idea behind reading the Constitution is to remind lawmakers of the limited power and jurisdiction the document grants the federal government.  What has it cost the US to ignore those restrictions?  Just take a look at the national debt for the answer to that question.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Good Lord, I just saw Sheila Jackson-Lee read a part of the Constitution on tv. That had to be the first time in her life she’s ever read even a part of it.

slickwillie2001 on January 6, 2011 at 11:18 AM

I’m so happy Vanity Fair isn’t biased in any way. /sarc

We have to pay these jackholes whether they work or not, so the $1MM would be spent in any event. However, when they’re not working, they’re not costing us any money or freedoms. So, read away!

NTXLass on January 6, 2011 at 11:18 AM

Many of them are hearing what’s in it for the first time today…

OmahaConservative on January 6, 2011 at 11:15 AM

So, if you, under Oath, agree to protect and defend that which you have not read and do not understand….

Doesn’t this create a case for impeachment?

Key West Reader on January 6, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Tell these liberal/leftist idiots to stick it in their collective ear or the orifice of their choice . . . enough of their stupid whining, slobbering and wetting themselves.

rplat on January 6, 2011 at 11:20 AM

There’s nothing unusual about an organization reviewing it’s mission from time to time. Wiener (any relation to the Congressional hot dog?) and Keating obviously know nothing about how high performing organizations operate. How foolish of them to put their ignorance on display for all to see.

Dee2008 on January 6, 2011 at 11:20 AM

It will be interesting to see who declines to participate. I hope a full list is compiled and published for all the public to see.
We can pressure their offices for the reasons they declined to participate.

OmahaConservative on January 6, 2011 at 11:21 AM

Key West Reader on January 6, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Probably. Most of ‘em are liars, anyway, so they don’t care.

OmahaConservative on January 6, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Let’s see = add up all the Articles and Clauses, plus the preamble, that makes 31.

Divided by $1,100,000, that makes it $35,483.87 per part of the Constitution. Quite a bargain I’d say.

I’ve always been impressed at how simple yet effective the Constitution is. The Founders got to the point, even in the places where they accommodated slavery.

KillerKane on January 6, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Confirmed:

The Left has -finally- admitted to rejecting the Constitution. No more games.

Time to debate.

visions on January 6, 2011 at 10:40 AM

Right you are, visions!

Debate Issue 1.0 — How can politicians whose ideology rejects the Constitution lawfully take their Oath of Office?

petefrt on January 6, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Col. West just read. Good to see him on the job.

OmahaConservative on January 6, 2011 at 11:26 AM

So, if you, under Oath, agree to protect and defend that which you have not read and do not understand….

Doesn’t this create a case for impeachment?

Key West Reader on January 6, 2011 at 11:19 AM

A stronger case yet: Swearing to protect and defend that which you intend to undermine and defeat.

”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

petefrt on January 6, 2011 at 11:29 AM

The Dems are gonna loathe reading Amendments IX and X. Heh.

OhioCoastie on January 6, 2011 at 11:29 AM

OmahaConservative on January 6, 2011 at 11:26 AM

High hopes and high expectations for Col. West. He’s extremely impressive, isn’t he.

petefrt on January 6, 2011 at 11:32 AM

O.T. Boehner getting very prickly with press corps. Go John!!!

Buy Danish on January 6, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Uh-Oh! Disturbance in the gallery about the requirement the president must be US born.

OmahaConservative on January 6, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Wow….I always thought that the Dems were stupid…but after all of the hissy fits over the Constitution I can’t help but wonder if they actually even CARE about America and out beliefs

Cookies Mom on January 6, 2011 at 11:36 AM

“Congress shall have the power to…”

Reps: Power? Oh, goody!!!

“The following powers are reserved to the States”

Dems: States? D@mn, I should have run for Governor!

Steve Z on January 6, 2011 at 11:36 AM

We can pressure their offices for the reasons they declined to participate.

OmahaConservative on January 6, 2011 at 11:21 AM

I think this reading was certainly pre-arranged to provide the most (on both sides) to participate. By the Republican’s procedure, (allowing Dems to also read), the “spirit of bipartisanship” is here for the general public and the media to see. The question of how many legislators have actually read, or heard this document in total, or parts of it cannot be denied from this day forward. Each Congress person reading their part are going on record to have read said part—which is historical.

We, the people of this nation will hold each of these legislators accountable as this 112th Congress goes forward.

I believe this is a proud moment in restoring the credibility of this, The People’s House, which is dearly needed.

Rovin on January 6, 2011 at 11:36 AM

WOW – At the reading from Article II, Section 1 re: “No Person except a natural born Citizen…” SUDDEN STOP – a disturbance in, apparently, the gallery.

One thin’s for sure – this disturbance wasn’t Code Pink!

Suppose we’ll be hearing reports on the details? Fox? CNN? CBS? NBC? ABC? Beuller?

GGMac on January 6, 2011 at 11:43 AM

Boehner is shrewd in doing this.

Each house member, regardless of party that commits an offense against the Constitution can now be impeached. They swore an oath to uphold it, they breached that oath, they understood and read that oath aloud and they breached it… Outta here.

Good move ya Magnificent Bastige! Love Boehner.

Key West Reader on January 6, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Senate Oath of Office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

petefrt on January 6, 2011 at 11:47 AM

To OmahaConservative – yes, we need to see/hear more of Col. West.

I’d like to hear him reading the entire Constitution to those liberal twerps on the hill.

More than that, I’d like to hear him taking the Oath as CIC!

GGMac on January 6, 2011 at 11:47 AM

$1.07 Million to read the Constitution in front of 435 Reps.

Now if we calculated the costs of feeding and housing the Founders in Philly during the Constitutional Convention, added in the costs of horse-and-buggy rides from and to their homes as far away as Georgia, and food and lodging along the way, expressed in hugely inflated 2011 dollars, we’d probably get well over $1 million.

Of course, the Founders funded the Convention themselves, without Government support, and their work resulted in the most stable and prosperous nation on planet Earth. The People’s House, which they invented, can well afford to spend $1 million being reminded of what they are there to do.

Steve Z on January 6, 2011 at 11:49 AM

When do we get to the Good and Welfare claus? (sic)

I want my Good-n-Welfare Claus!

Key West Reader on January 6, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Let’s see… $1,071,872.87 divided by approx 310,591,292 U.S. Residents equals… Hey! My part would be little over a third of a penny. Sounds like a bargain to me !! I’ll take it. Where do I send my check?

Bootleghooch on January 6, 2011 at 11:54 AM

OT – So the Chicago thug-in-chief is going to DC to be thug- chief-of-staff for the US Thug-in-Chief.

Why is this not a surprise?

GGMac on January 6, 2011 at 11:55 AM

I would be extremely glad–honored, even–to go to Congress and read the Constitution for them–for free. I’ll speak slowly so those on the left side of the aisle can understand it, and even explain it later for those who think it’s too complicated.

Bob's Kid on January 6, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Debate Issue 1.0 — How can politicians whose ideology rejects the Constitution lawfully take their Oath of Office?

petefrt on January 6, 2011 at 11:25 AM

We’re not ready as a country for the crap to hit the fan if enforced. But I’ve heard enough Democrats reject large portions of the Constitution to know it’s not an isolated sentiment among them.

scotash on January 6, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Fox just pulled away to commercial showing someone reading the 2nd Amdt! Sweet!

bernzright777 on January 6, 2011 at 11:58 AM

I want my Good-n-Welfare Claus!

Key West Reader on January 6, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Heh, here’s your Good-n-Welfare Claus.

Priceless.

petefrt on January 6, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Ah, but this is better seen as an opportunity cost…while we’re spending a million dollars to read the Constitution, they aren’t spending billions of dollars doing their normal ‘work.’

James on January 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Hmmm. I submitted a brief comment about Boehner getting pr!ckly with the press corps which didn’t make it through. Do I need to use the word “testy” in the future to get passed the censors, or is it just a coincidence that it appears to be lost in the blogosphere?

Buy Danish on January 6, 2011 at 12:05 PM

We’re not ready as a country for the crap to hit the fan if enforced.
scotash on January 6, 2011 at 11:55 AM

My view is the stuff that’s about to hit the fan if we allow them to evade and subvert the Constitution is a lot worse that what might come from enforcing it.

But I’ve heard enough Democrats reject large portions of the Constitution to know it’s not an isolated sentiment among them.
scotash on January 6, 2011 at 11:55 AM

You’re right, of course, that not all Dems are this way. Mainly it’s the radical or ‘progressive’ wing of the party. I’d never question someone like Lieberman, for example. (But how many like him are there remaining, nowadays?)

petefrt on January 6, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Buy Danish on January 6, 2011 at 12:05 PM

Pr*ckly: Pertaining to, or having characteristics similar to the male sex organ?

petefrt on January 6, 2011 at 12:09 PM

So, dem congressman John Lewis, a black guy from Georgia who marched with Dr. King and was pretty active in the 60s civil rights movement, got to read out loud the 13th amendment, the one that banned slavery. He sounded a litle humbled and nearly choked up while reading.

I know he’s a raging leftist who said Mccain was “worse than george wallace”, but still — that was a pretty cool moment!

Everybody stood up and clapped when he finished. Good job all around.

picklesgap on January 6, 2011 at 12:10 PM

“When one chamber of Congress is in session but not working, we the people still have to pay for members’ salaries and expenses…

According to that article, it sounds like Congress is not salaried??? If congress is not in session are we to believe that they are not paid? This is ridiculous!

jeffn21 on January 6, 2011 at 12:10 PM

OT: Daley replaced Gibbs.

OmahaConservative on January 6, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Hearing the Constitution read aloud to Dems = Holy Water hitting Vampires.

44Magnum on January 6, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Senate Oath of Office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

petefrt on January 6, 2011 at 11:47 AM

“But that’s a living, breathing document too!”

/your friends at the law firm of ProudRino & Jimbo 3, and their coffee-fetcher crr6.

Del Dolemonte on January 6, 2011 at 12:15 PM

The House did not come to session to read the Constitution, so those fixed costs — including salaries — would have been spent already regardless of whatever gets said on the floor. The cost doesn’t come from the reading; it comes from the existence of Congress itself.

Don’t worry, the Oppressive-Socialists won’t ever let a good lie get in the way of a bad truth.

Fake8 on January 6, 2011 at 12:15 PM

So it costs us 1 million dollars. In Dem-speak that’s a plus. After all they are the party that believes any kind of spending – no matter how crazy -creates jobs. Think of it as the Republican version of, if it makes you feel better.

Fred 2 on January 6, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Something I didn’t notice until I listened to the House reading the Constitution: Per the 20th Amendment, Section 1 , the terms of Senators and Representatives expire at noon on Jan 3rd.

Section 2 sets noon, January 3rd as the start time of Congress every year, unless a different date is selected by law.

The 112th Congress didn’t really start until January 5th. Was there a law that changed it this year?

SouthernRoots on January 6, 2011 at 12:35 PM

I thought it was a great idea in concept. Unfortunately, in practice, it took away what little hope that I had that this new Congress would be somewhat competent.

The “Reading of the Constitution”, and the arguments preceding the reading, Like: Which Constitution would be read, Who would get to read which parts, In what language it would be read, etc. illustrated all too well that we are not going to get out of this downward spiral.

Before the news coverage cut away from it in boredom, it was pretty obvious to me that about one out of five of them is nearly illiterate, and that four out of five of them have no love nor interest in the Constitution, and would have much preferred to be just about anywhere else doing almost anything else. Pelousy quite literally choked on the words of Article 1 Section 1, despite it being innocuous and not limiting her power to rule over us peasants like some of the later stuff.

And the “I yield to the Gentleman(woman)from (State) Mr.(s) (Name)” in between every paragraph took away any continuity and educational opportunity that could have been provided by the reading, had it been done by one or two good readers who have some passion for the document.

LegendHasIt on January 6, 2011 at 12:37 PM

I watched the entire event. I am more sure than ever that a majority of the Congress has never even read the document.

JIMV on January 6, 2011 at 12:39 PM

Okay, maybe there’s something wrong with my search function? My comment is there with prickly intact.

Buy Danish on January 6, 2011 at 12:43 PM

Read it, then ignore it.

Congressional Plans for today.

PappyD61 on January 6, 2011 at 12:52 PM

How about getting the Ohio GOLDEN RADIO VOICE guy felon to read the Constitution for the lovelies Felons in Congress.

It gives him a job, the Dems HAVE TO BE HAPPY ABOUT THAT right? and it lets the GOP say that THEY CREATED a new job (one more than the DOTUS).

PappyD61 on January 6, 2011 at 12:54 PM

Presidential Oath or Affirmation:

—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Definition of preserve from answers.com:

•To maintain in safety from injury, peril, or harm; protect.
•To keep in perfect or unaltered condition; maintain unchanged.
•To keep or maintain intact

How does any president that beleives in a living Constitution reconcile that belief with the oath they take?

SouthernRoots on January 6, 2011 at 12:57 PM

SouthernRoots, @ 12:57 PM.

Precisely. Thread winner.

GGMac on January 6, 2011 at 1:06 PM

…and the censored version will cost even less to read.

sesquipedalian on January 6, 2011 at 10:46 AM

I’m not sure that word means what you seem to think it does, and I’m not sure I know what you’re trying to say. Are you snarking on the Slate for it’s pretentious display of fiscal discipline or are you snarking on the GOP for reading the Constitution in its present form rather than going step-by-step through every historical iteration?

From this quote, it hardly sounds like it’s a “censored” version, it sounds more like the current draft:

“We’re reading the amended version with all amendments that are currently part of the Constitution,” said Kathryn Rexrode, a spokesman for Virginia Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, who spearheaded the reading. “It will not include any amendments that were in the original but later amended.”

BlueCollarAstronaut on January 6, 2011 at 1:17 PM

SouthernRoots on January 6, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Oath taken by members of House and Senate is even stronger than the President’s oath:

“I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

petefrt on January 6, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Fraud! FRAUD!! They forgot to read the Abortion Clause! Damn those Republicans!!

morganfrost on January 6, 2011 at 1:29 PM

How do VF and Keating reach their conclusions? They take the cost-per-minute of the House being in session, complete apparently to the cost of cleaning staffs, and apply that to the time needed to read the Constitution. Of course, this is simply bunk. The House did not come to session to read the Constitution, so those fixed costs — including salaries — would have been spent already regardless of whatever gets said on the floor. The cost doesn’t come from the reading; it comes from the existence of Congress itself.
There isn’t even any opportunity cost involved,[...]

Ed, yer talking out of your ass here with this combination of Accounting and Economic terms (fixed costs and opportunity costs)

An accountant will tell you that yes, fixed costs are incoporated along with variable costs to determine the final cost. Variable costs are directly tied to the item or thing produced. Fixed costs (like overhead) are allocated to the item(s) to determine the final cost.

If you think reading the Constitution aloud in congress is a good thing, that’s cool. So do I. Make the case that this focuses the congress on their powers, responsibilities and limitations as enumerated in the Constitution they swore an oath to.

But when you try to pretend that you are an accountant, it doesn’t fly.

EFG on January 6, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Reading Constitution in Congress will cost us $1.1 million!

No wonder nobody wants to read 2000+ bills before voting on them. Too expensive!

I must thank Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for their rational frugality the next time I see them.

disa on January 6, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Total Federal Spending from 1900-2010:

$99,715,027,000,000

That’s just under $100 TRILLION for those of you in Rio Linda, CA.

fossten on January 6, 2011 at 1:34 PM

picklesgap on January 6, 2011 at 12:10 PM

I agree.

I watched this and saw some of the preceding pettiness from the Dems. Quite typical and anyone watching who wasn’t a nutroot would recognize how ridiculous they were. These are the hard Leftists on the Dem side so it was to be expected. I’m sure Pelosi orchestrated it.

As for having only one or two readers, I think it was far better to have so many Reps read it. It made it far more of a visible commitment, no matter what they may say or do later.

They’re under oath, they’ve read the document.

INC on January 6, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Now we know why they didn’t read the HealthCare Bill – it would have cost too much.

New House rule: If a bill is too expensive to read on the floor, it’s too expensive to enact.

Stephen Macklin on January 6, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Another thing that was noticeable is that the Constitution is a straightforward document. You have to have convoluted logic or an agenda to deny or misinterpret its provisions.

I also noticed that Goodlett of VA who sponsored and led this read the 10th Amendment himself. He was obviously making a point by so doing.

I thought he came across very well prior to the reading when the Dems were acting like spoiled children.

INC on January 6, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Apparently no one at VF, nor Keating, understands the concept of sunk costs. Following that same rigorous analytical process, the stimulus bill cost taxpayers over $87 million for every hour the last Congress was in session. I guess that means since reading the Constitution prevented the House from acting on another stimulus bill, that the opportunity costs of reading the Constitution save us around $258 million. Reductio ad absurdum – we should insist they continue to read the Constitution for the entire term, and that will reduce deficit spending by some $430 billion this year alone.

Who is providing the adult supervision at VF?

Ironwood297 on January 6, 2011 at 1:43 PM

The linked article is horribly written. Maybe I should be more jaded now, but it reads as though from a high school newspaper; not a professional journolist.

From the quote (emphasis mine), the bias is immediately apparent, and it’s clear with what low regard the author holds the Constitution.

For an estimate on just how much the Republicans would have saved if they had decided against the tedious exercise, VF Daily checked with Peter Keating, the co-author of “The Cost of No” and VF.com’s resident expert on Congressional wastefulness.

He is like a whiny child: Don’t make us sit through a reading of our foundational document and guiding principals, GOP, it’s too boooring!

But then it becomes even more smug and disingenuous:

“The amount I get is nearly $1.1 million. $1,071,872.87, to be exact

I must say, it’s quite admirable to see such precision (down to the penny, no less!) in these figures…

…though of course this is more back-of-the-envelope than exact.

…Wait…what?

BlueCollarAstronaut on January 6, 2011 at 2:04 PM

And worth every penny.

jeanie on January 6, 2011 at 2:19 PM

How much would it cost if a speed-reader read it, while everyone else played solitare on their computers? Cause THAT’S efficiency in action.

DrAllecon on January 6, 2011 at 3:54 PM

I like the fact that it is being read on the floor of the house. This should be done at the beginning of each new 2 year session of congress. It serves as a reminder to all what their limits and responsibilities are. And with so many lawyers, when the investigations begin they cannot say they did not know what the rules when they get caught breaking them.

mechkiller_k on January 6, 2011 at 3:58 PM

I’d rather pay them to not make laws than pay them to make bad laws.

clement on January 6, 2011 at 5:17 PM

…and the censored version will cost even less to read.

sesquipedalian on January 6, 2011 at 10:46 AM

I’m not sure that word means what you seem to think it does, and I’m not sure I know what you’re trying to say.

BlueCollarAstronaut on January 6, 2011 at 1:17 PM

That’s okay, neither does he.

Jim Treacher on January 6, 2011 at 6:32 PM

Who do they think they’re kidding? This is the most productive thing Congress has done in 2 years, 4 years, well, a long time. Too long.

IrishEyes on January 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM

Democrats suddenly care about how much money we spend.

amerpundit on January 6, 2011 at 10:19 AM

+10

Another thing that was noticeable is that the Constitution is a straightforward document. You have to have convoluted logic or an agenda to deny or misinterpret its provisions.
INC on January 6, 2011 at 1:37 PM

crrap6 doesn’t get this. She thinks it’s complicated & that judges need to interpret it for us.
People like that think we need lawyers to understand.
Kinda like how the Church, at least during Henry VIII’s time, used to think at one time it was blasphemous for people to read the Bible for THEMSELVES & to INTERPRET God’s word for THEMSELVES.
We are all heretics!

Badger40 on January 7, 2011 at 10:01 AM

I personally think all of these ba$tard$ should be required to take a Constitutional EXAM.
I have to take a test in order to be a teacher.
THEY should have to take a test in order to be a Congressman.
Failure means you can’t go to Congress, means citizens start picking someone who can get it right.

Badger40 on January 7, 2011 at 10:03 AM

By this calculus, I wonder how much it costs us American taxpayers every time Anthony Weiner goes to the men’s room?

kens on January 7, 2011 at 10:43 AM

kens on January 7, 2011 at 10:43 AM

Ha ha! You said Wiener!

Badger40 on January 7, 2011 at 2:52 PM

We paid the salary and expenses for two senators for two years while they campaigned and didn’t do their jobs. Do people forget this blatant abuse of power?

mixplix on January 8, 2011 at 5:56 AM

Now the question is: how much did the Democrats cost us by calling Congress into session for a minute or so each day over the break to prevent President Bush from making recess appointments?

unclesmrgol on January 9, 2011 at 12:34 AM

Comment pages: 1 2