GSA, the Secret Service, Presidential vacations, and Other Scandals

[Foxfyre]

I did a search and didn't come up with a thread on this so if this is a repeat, I apologize.

The General Services Administration spends the taxpayer money on lavish conerences and makes a video bragging about it.

The Secret Service failed to acquire prositution services secretly.

And the lavish lifestyle of the Obamas on vacation and via presidential parties continues to raise eyebrows.

And these are just the tip of the iceberg.

Why is the mainstream media giving all this such minimal coverage? (ABC and Fox have provided the best coverage and of course these would all be much larger stories if they had occurred during the Bush administration,.) We are talking about hundreds of millions of taxpayers money spent on lavish suites, champagne, and other high roller perks. And yet CBS and NBC are both suggesting that congressional hearings are 'hearings overkill' and politically motivated.

Really?

President Obama is reported to have expressed outrage when a GSA video surfaced in which federal workers mocked the taxpayer as they lived high on the hog at taxpayer expense. Critics of the President claim that the Administration had known of the scandal for months and had done nothing. Supporters say that the President cannot be expected to concern himself with day to day operations of the government. (?)

What do you want Congress to do about this, if anything? What message do we send our elected representatives?

GSA scandal prompts bills to curb spending on conferences

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjFcLqxLrOo]GSA Employees' Spoof Video - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Foxfyre]

Some additional commentary:

ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd said the recent scandals involving the Secret Service and GSA reflect a declining trust in American institutions at all levels.

“The American public has lost faith in every single institution in this country,” Dowd said this morning on the “This Week” roundtable. “They have lost faith in sporting institutions in this country because of many different scandals. They’ve lost faith in the government. They’ve lost faith in both political parties… They’ve lost faith in corporate institutions. They’ve lost faith in the media.”

Dowd said Americans have begun to “roll their eyes” at stories such as the prostitution scandal involving the Secret Service in Colombia, and the recent uncovering of lavish spending by the General Services Administration at a Las Vegas conference.

“Nobody’s willing to fix Washington. Nobody’s willing to fix the crisis of the institutional faith that we’ve lost in here,” Dowd said. “And this to me is just another example of the American public saying, ‘Listen, I don’t trust any of you.’”

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, also said that the lavish spending by the GSA undermines trust in all levels of government.

“The GSA is the agency that’s supposed to be setting the example for other agencies,” Collins said on “This Week.” “It has widespread responsibility for federal contracting, so its actions set a bad example across government. And it’s also unfair to the thousands of federal employees who act appropriately, because this reinforces the worst perception.”

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan said the scandals reflected “a reluctance to leave youth behind and immaturity.”

“You have to wonder what is going on with those adults in serious, responsible, publicly-paid-for positions, who have, it seems to me, less and less of a sense of probity, responsibility, the sort of basic adultness and maintaining of standards that we ought to be used to,” Noonan said. “It seems to me we’ve got a big slip going on there and these two stories are part of it.” . . . .


Matthew Dowd: Secret Service, GSA Scandals Undermine Faith in Institutions - ABC News

 

[Foxfyre]

The media has extensively shown that shrimp running on the treadmill - a federal government authorized study at the cost of tens of millions of stimulus money.

And nobody cares?

 

[rightwinger]

The media has extensively shown that shrimp running on the treadmill - a federal government authorized study at the cost of tens of millions of stimulus money.

And nobody cares?

The shrimp running on a treadmill was a legitimate study and it didn't cost tens of millions of dollars

 

[Full-Auto]

The media has extensively shown that shrimp running on the treadmill - a federal government authorized study at the cost of tens of millions of stimulus money.

And nobody cares?

That was only a small portion of the study.

However it was supposed to stimulate the economy.

It would help if a single democrat understood what the term stimulus meant.

All this was....an attempt at back door funding for a political objective.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, I should have checked my facts better rather than trust the AARP to get it right. The shrimp on the treadmill and the rest of that study was not part of the stimulus package. And it may indeed have been a legitimate study.

But do we approve of our taxes going for things like that?

Do we want the Secret Service on assignment hiring prostitutes?

Do you care that the GSA, the one administration who should absolutely be setting the example for all the others, spent close to a million dollars on an education training conference during which they had a good old time at our expense and very little education or training went on?

Do you approve of government agencies going to lavish resorts for their training? Is that how you want the government to spend the money you expended your time, talent, and sweat to earn?

 

[rightwinger]

Okay, I should have checked my facts better rather than trust the AARP to get it right. The shrimp on the treadmill and the rest of that study was not part of the stimulus package. And it may indeed have been a legitimate study.

But do we approve of our taxes going for things like that?

Do we want the Secret Service on assignment hiring prostitutes?

Do you care that the GSA, the one administration who should absolutely be setting the example for all the others, spent close to a million dollars on an education training conference during which they had a good old time at our expense and very little education or training went on?

Do you approve of government agencies going to lavish resorts for their training? Is that how you want the government to spend the money you expended your time, talent, and sweat to earn?

I worked for the government for 33 years and training was anything but lavish. GSA seems like what may have been a good, cost effective idea ran out of control. I am not ready to say it was of absolutely no value, but the add ons were excessive and a poor use of taxpayer dollars
At the conferences I went to we had to pass the hat just to buy coffee

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, I should have checked my facts better rather than trust the AARP to get it right. The shrimp on the treadmill and the rest of that study was not part of the stimulus package. And it may indeed have been a legitimate study.

But do we approve of our taxes going for things like that?

Do we want the Secret Service on assignment hiring prostitutes?

Do you care that the GSA, the one administration who should absolutely be setting the example for all the others, spent close to a million dollars on an education training conference during which they had a good old time at our expense and very little education or training went on?

Do you approve of government agencies going to lavish resorts for their training? Is that how you want the government to spend the money you expended your time, talent, and sweat to earn?

I worked for the government for 33 years and training was anything but lavish. GSA seems like what may have been a good, cost effective idea ran out of control. I am not ready to say it was of absolutely no value, but the add ons were excessive and a poor use of taxpayer dollars
At the conferences I went to we had to pass the hat just to buy coffee

This is a good point and one made in the links I have provided. The fact that one or more agencies misuses and/or abuses the system should not heap condemnation upon all. That was not my intent here.

How good and cost effective is it though, to fly a large number of Washington DC based federal employees to Las Vegas for training? Are there no suitable meeting rooms for training near the agency? If it is corporate money, fine. It can be a business decision to have a super neat training conference as a perk or bonus for the workers. But that doesn't force anybody else to pick up the tab.

I think government public servants should be just that, however, and should not be taking liberties with the people's money for purposes of morale or any other unprobvable and questionable motives. When you expect somebody else to pay the bill, your responsibilities in controlling the cost should be at a much higher standard.

Ditto the Presidential vacations. I would not mind the Obama's spending their vacations at their very elegant home in Chicago and Camp David is an absolutely gorgeous place with many amenities and is a great place to crash and unwind from the rigors of office. But if they want to take a lavish vacation in Hawaii or other such place, should the taxpayer be on the hook for that? The Obamas net worth is currently estimated at more than $10 million. Could he not have more respect for how hard it is for us regular folks to come up with a million dollars in taxes for him to spend?

Does anybody reading this think that the Obamas have shown any respect whatsoever for the taxpayer in their own lifestyle and behavior?

Would that not set a certain tone or affect the culture of Washington?

Why or why not?

 

[rightwinger]

Okay, I should have checked my facts better rather than trust the AARP to get it right. The shrimp on the treadmill and the rest of that study was not part of the stimulus package. And it may indeed have been a legitimate study.

But do we approve of our taxes going for things like that?

Do we want the Secret Service on assignment hiring prostitutes?

Do you care that the GSA, the one administration who should absolutely be setting the example for all the others, spent close to a million dollars on an education training conference during which they had a good old time at our expense and very little education or training went on?

Do you approve of government agencies going to lavish resorts for their training? Is that how you want the government to spend the money you expended your time, talent, and sweat to earn?

I worked for the government for 33 years and training was anything but lavish. GSA seems like what may have been a good, cost effective idea ran out of control. I am not ready to say it was of absolutely no value, but the add ons were excessive and a poor use of taxpayer dollars
At the conferences I went to we had to pass the hat just to buy coffee

This is a good point and one made in the links I have provided. The fact that one or more agencies misuses and/or abuses the system should not heap condemnation upon all. That was not my intent here.

How good and cost effective is it though, to fly a large number of Washington DC based federal employees to Las Vegas for training? Are there no suitable meeting rooms for training near the agency? If it is corporate money, fine. It can be a business decision to have a super neat training conference as a perk or bonus for the workers. But that doesn't force anybody else to pick up the tab.

I think government public servants should be just that, however, and should not be taking liberties with the people's money for purposes of morale or any other unprobvable and questionable motives. When you expect somebody else to pay the bill, your responsibilities in controlling the cost should be at a much higher standard.

Ditto the Presidential vacations. I would not mind the Obama's spending their vacations at their very elegant home in Chicago and Camp David is an absolutely gorgeous place with many amenities and is a great place to crash and unwind from the rigors of office. But if they want to take a lavish vacation in Hawaii or other such place, should the taxpayer be on the hook for that? The Obamas net worth is currently estimated at more than $10 million. Could he not have more respect for how hard it is for us regular folks to come up with a million dollars in taxes for him to spend?

Does anybody reading this think that the Obamas have shown any respect whatsoever for the taxpayer in their own lifestyle and behavior?

Would that not set a certain tone or affect the culture of Washington?

Why or why not?

I put on a large conference one time in Augusta Georgia. We had people fly in from all over the country for a three day meeting. When we looked at what we paid for airfare to Augusta, room rates, meals and hotel accommodations we joked it would have been cheaper to hold it in Vegas

There are cheap airfares to Vegas from anywhere in the country, hotel rooms are cheap, conference rooms are cheap, meals are cheap. Having the conference in Vegas would have saved the taxpayer a bunch of money
But of course we never would have done it.........it just doesn't look right

Last time I was TDY in Washington DC, perdiem was $225 a night. Rooms are that expensive. Meals were $77 a day. There is no question a conference in Vegas is much cheaper than one in Washington DC. If they had held that conference in DC nobody would have raised an eyebrow

 

[Caroljo]

Okay, I should have checked my facts better rather than trust the AARP to get it right. The shrimp on the treadmill and the rest of that study was not part of the stimulus package. And it may indeed have been a legitimate study.

But do we approve of our taxes going for things like that?

Do we want the Secret Service on assignment hiring prostitutes?

Do you care that the GSA, the one administration who should absolutely be setting the example for all the others, spent close to a million dollars on an education training conference during which they had a good old time at our expense and very little education or training went on?

Do you approve of government agencies going to lavish resorts for their training? Is that how you want the government to spend the money you expended your time, talent, and sweat to earn?

I worked for the government for 33 years and training was anything but lavish. GSA seems like what may have been a good, cost effective idea ran out of control. I am not ready to say it was of absolutely no value, but the add ons were excessive and a poor use of taxpayer dollars
At the conferences I went to we had to pass the hat just to buy coffee

This is a good point and one made in the links I have provided. The fact that one or more agencies misuses and/or abuses the system should not heap condemnation upon all. That was not my intent here.

How good and cost effective is it though, to fly a large number of Washington DC based federal employees to Las Vegas for training? Are there no suitable meeting rooms for training near the agency? If it is corporate money, fine. It can be a business decision to have a super neat training conference as a perk or bonus for the workers. But that doesn't force anybody else to pick up the tab.

I think government public servants should be just that, however, and should not be taking liberties with the people's money for purposes of morale or any other unprobvable and questionable motives. When you expect somebody else to pay the bill, your responsibilities in controlling the cost should be at a much higher standard.

Ditto the Presidential vacations. I would not mind the Obama's spending their vacations at their very elegant home in Chicago and Camp David is an absolutely gorgeous place with many amenities and is a great place to crash and unwind from the rigors of office. But if they want to take a lavish vacation in Hawaii or other such place, should the taxpayer be on the hook for that? The Obamas net worth is currently estimated at more than $10 million. Could he not have more respect for how hard it is for us regular folks to come up with a million dollars in taxes for him to spend?

Does anybody reading this think that the Obamas have shown any respect whatsoever for the taxpayer in their own lifestyle and behavior?

Would that not set a certain tone or affect the culture of Washington?

Why or why not?

Here's an example of just ONE of the 16 vacations that Michelle Obama has taken...I can't afford a vacation across town!

Michelle Obama's Spain vacation cost taxpayers nearly $470G, watchdog group claims | Fox News


"The American people can ill afford to keep sending the First Family on vacations around the globe," he said in a written statement. "There needs to be greater sensitivity to the costs borne by taxpayers for these personal trips. It is hypocritical for President Obama to fire GSA officials for wasteful conference spending, while his family went on a luxury vacation in the Costa del Sol Spain that cost taxpayers nearly half a million dollars."

 

[WillowTree]

The media has extensively shown that shrimp running on the treadmill - a federal government authorized study at the cost of tens of millions of stimulus money.

And nobody cares?

The shrimp running on a treadmill was a legitimate study and it didn't cost tens of millions of dollars

if shrimp running on a treadmill is what the gov. considers legitimate and at the same time is screaming we need to raise taxes.. then somethings wrong in Denmark don'tchyathink?

 

[Wiseacre]

It's somebody else's money. What we see with the GSA and every other gov't agency, it's an outgrowth of the entitlement culture we've created over the past half century or so. If you ain't paying for it, then you want more, and it's getting way out of hand. Sooner or later our gov'ts at every level are going to have to get leaner and meaner about spending. And it starts at the top, until we get a president and an administration who actually pushes this agenda, it ain't going to stop. Rght now, there's little to no accountability; people have to be told it'll cost you your job, and if they do it anyway then you gotta fire their asses.

 

[rightwinger]

The media has extensively shown that shrimp running on the treadmill - a federal government authorized study at the cost of tens of millions of stimulus money.

And nobody cares?

The shrimp running on a treadmill was a legitimate study and it didn't cost tens of millions of dollars

if shrimp running on a treadmill is what the gov. considers legitimate and at the same time is screaming we need to raise taxes.. then somethings wrong in Denmark don'tchyathink?

Shrimp is a major economic factor in the southern states. Forrest Gump even became a multimillionaire as a shrimp boat captain

The EPA regulates the concentrations of certain chemicals allowed in the water. The shrimp on a treadmill study was an attempt to find the point at which certain chemicals start to affect the shrimp. Rather than put shrimp in a tank and see when they go belly up, they devised a shrimp treadmill so they could measure their performance and see at what point the chemicals start to affect them

Makes sense......dontchathink?

 

[Foxfyre]

The shrimp running on a treadmill was a legitimate study and it didn't cost tens of millions of dollars

if shrimp running on a treadmill is what the gov. considers legitimate and at the same time is screaming we need to raise taxes.. then somethings wrong in Denmark don'tchyathink?

Shrimp is a major economic factor in the southern states. Forrest Gump even became a multimillionaire as a shrimp boat captain

The EPA regulates the concentrations of certain chemicals allowed in the water. The shrimp on a treadmill study was an attempt to find the point at which certain chemicals start to affect the shrimp. Rather than put shrimp in a tank and see when they go belly up, they devised a shrimp treadmill so they could measure their performance and see at what point the chemicals start to affect them

Makes sense......dontchathink?

Maybe it makes sense, but I find it a little hard to believe that there are not already plenty of ways on the books to determine when chemicals affect shrimp. And I am also quite certain that the shrimp industry or the environmental movements are funded quite adequately to fund their own research and development.

It all comes down to whether the funds expended promote the general welfare or are designated for certain special interests that too often are simply for political purposes and serves no legitimate purpose.

How much graft, corruption, indifference to the taxpayer, waste, and utter incompetence are you willing to tolerate to defend and support your chosen political party or the government itself? Is there not some point in which we all can draw the line?

 

[WillowTree]

The shrimp running on a treadmill was a legitimate study and it didn't cost tens of millions of dollars

if shrimp running on a treadmill is what the gov. considers legitimate and at the same time is screaming we need to raise taxes.. then somethings wrong in Denmark don'tchyathink?

Shrimp is a major economic factor in the southern states. Forrest Gump even became a multimillionaire as a shrimp boat captain

The EPA regulates the concentrations of certain chemicals allowed in the water. The shrimp on a treadmill study was an attempt to find the point at which certain chemicals start to affect the shrimp. Rather than put shrimp in a tank and see when they go belly up, they devised a shrimp treadmill so they could measure their performance and see at what point the chemicals start to affect them

Makes sense......dontchathink?

how many milllions of years have shrimp grown and thrived without treadmills?

 

[candycorn]

The media has extensively shown that shrimp running on the treadmill - a federal government authorized study at the cost of tens of millions of stimulus money.

And nobody cares?

According to one thread here; we spent $40K a day protecting Gingrich who been out of the race for months. Plenty of waste for plenty of reasons. I feel that we should investigate and dismiss those guilty of misappropriation/mis use.

 

[rightwinger]

if shrimp running on a treadmill is what the gov. considers legitimate and at the same time is screaming we need to raise taxes.. then somethings wrong in Denmark don'tchyathink?

Shrimp is a major economic factor in the southern states. Forrest Gump even became a multimillionaire as a shrimp boat captain

The EPA regulates the concentrations of certain chemicals allowed in the water. The shrimp on a treadmill study was an attempt to find the point at which certain chemicals start to affect the shrimp. Rather than put shrimp in a tank and see when they go belly up, they devised a shrimp treadmill so they could measure their performance and see at what point the chemicals start to affect them

Makes sense......dontchathink?

Maybe it makes sense, but I find it a little hard to believe that there are not already plenty of ways on the books to determine when chemicals affect shrimp. And I am also quite certain that the shrimp industry or the environmental movements are funded quite adequately to fund their own research and development.

It all comes down to whether the funds expended promote the general welfare or are designated for certain special interests that too often are simply for political purposes and serves no legitimate purpose.

How much graft, corruption, indifference to the taxpayer, waste, and utter incompetence are you willing to tolerate to defend and support your chosen political party or the government itself? Is there not some point in which we all can draw the line?

The EPA sets limits on allowable pollution. Don't you think they should have some scientific basis for the limits they set? Knowing at what point the shrimp population is affected is valuable information.

 

[rightwinger]

if shrimp running on a treadmill is what the gov. considers legitimate and at the same time is screaming we need to raise taxes.. then somethings wrong in Denmark don'tchyathink?

Shrimp is a major economic factor in the southern states. Forrest Gump even became a multimillionaire as a shrimp boat captain

The EPA regulates the concentrations of certain chemicals allowed in the water. The shrimp on a treadmill study was an attempt to find the point at which certain chemicals start to affect the shrimp. Rather than put shrimp in a tank and see when they go belly up, they devised a shrimp treadmill so they could measure their performance and see at what point the chemicals start to affect them

Makes sense......dontchathink?

how many milllions of years have shrimp grown and thrived without treadmills?

How many years have the shrimp grown with industrial pollution?

 

[Foxfyre]

Shrimp is a major economic factor in the southern states. Forrest Gump even became a multimillionaire as a shrimp boat captain

The EPA regulates the concentrations of certain chemicals allowed in the water. The shrimp on a treadmill study was an attempt to find the point at which certain chemicals start to affect the shrimp. Rather than put shrimp in a tank and see when they go belly up, they devised a shrimp treadmill so they could measure their performance and see at what point the chemicals start to affect them

Makes sense......dontchathink?

Maybe it makes sense, but I find it a little hard to believe that there are not already plenty of ways on the books to determine when chemicals affect shrimp. And I am also quite certain that the shrimp industry or the environmental movements are funded quite adequately to fund their own research and development.

It all comes down to whether the funds expended promote the general welfare or are designated for certain special interests that too often are simply for political purposes and serves no legitimate purpose.

How much graft, corruption, indifference to the taxpayer, waste, and utter incompetence are you willing to tolerate to defend and support your chosen political party or the government itself? Is there not some point in which we all can draw the line?

The EPA sets limits on allowable pollution. Don't you think they should have some scientific basis for the limits they set? Knowing at what point the shrimp population is affected is valuable information.

Show me that there was not already scientific means to determine that without expending milliions more in taxpayer funds that were already in serious deficit related to spending.

Again, how much graft, corruption, indifference to the taxpayer, waste, and utter incompetence are you willing to tolerate and defend? Is there not some point at which we can all draw the line regardless of which political party is in power?

 

[rightwinger]

Maybe it makes sense, but I find it a little hard to believe that there are not already plenty of ways on the books to determine when chemicals affect shrimp. And I am also quite certain that the shrimp industry or the environmental movements are funded quite adequately to fund their own research and development.

It all comes down to whether the funds expended promote the general welfare or are designated for certain special interests that too often are simply for political purposes and serves no legitimate purpose.

How much graft, corruption, indifference to the taxpayer, waste, and utter incompetence are you willing to tolerate to defend and support your chosen political party or the government itself? Is there not some point in which we all can draw the line?

The EPA sets limits on allowable pollution. Don't you think they should have some scientific basis for the limits they set? Knowing at what point the shrimp population is affected is valuable information.

Show me that there was not already scientific means to determine that without expending milliions more in taxpayer funds that were already in serious deficit related to spending.

Again, how much graft, corruption, indifference to the taxpayer, waste, and utter incompetence are you willing to tolerate and defend? Is there not some point at which we can all draw the line regardless of which political party is in power?

There is no doubt that there is graft, corruption, indifference and waste in every government. That does not mean that every expenditure is without merit. The government has a role on our society and we as a rule benefit from it