Free parking: Not only do members of Congress receive parking on Capitol Hill, but they also receive free (prime) private parking spots at the two nearby airport, Reagan National and Dulles airport.

Salary: The current salary for a member of Congress is $174,000. However, Congress has the authority to raise their salary as they wish, without having to hold a vote. It’s also interesting to note that during the great depression, members of Congress voluntarily took a pay cut… I somehow don’t think we’ll see that happen these days.

Perks from Lobbyists: Despite a slew of ethics regulations regarding gifts from lobbyists, Members of Congress are still able to use their lobbyist tiesto get into events that regular people simply do not have access to. For example, if a Member of Congress wanted a prime ticket to a sold-out event, he could still get that ticket from lobbyists he’s close with, as long as the face value of the ticket is reimbursed by the Member. However, this money doesn’t have to come from the Member’s pocket, but instead can come from the usually deep campaign account, which usually contains money from lobbyists and their associated PACs.

In public-sector America things just get better and better. The common presumption is that public servants forgo high wages in exchange for safe jobs and benefits. The reality is they get all three. State and local government workers get paid an average of $25.30 an hour, which is 33% higher than the private sector’s $19, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Throw in pensions and other benefits and the gap widens to 42% …

I realize that government workers shouldn’t work for peanuts, as should no worker; however, government workers must also keep the perspective that their wages are paid for by the labor of others. Yes, certainly not all employees in the private sector pay directly for their salary–however, the profit motive drives people to work. Without that in government, there seems to be no inspiration to work hard and innovate. However, in taking a government job, there should be a realization that the job would not exist without the consent and work of the people (although often “consent” is rather flimsy, but that is a discussion for another day). The services government workers provide are often times vital to the proper functioning of society, but people work hard to bring in the money that pays for these services, and in my view they deserve to have the government keep salaries balanced to the money brought in by private sector workers. Yet many government workers seem to suffer from the same “me me me” mentality that often plagues people in the public sector. 

Perhaps our public servants and elected officials need a civics lesson to remind them just why they are there?

H/T The Corner

When I first saw that the Senate was considering the measure, I reverted to my usual misanthropic and felt that, in the midst of one of the deepest recessions in American history, that such matters really had no business being considered. However, the RTD made the opportunity so just so darn irresistible:

The legislation describes the turtle as “a most useful creature serving to control harmful insects and acting as one of nature’s clean-up crew helping to preserve the purity and beauty of Virginia’s waters.”

The turtle would join a powerhouse lineup of “official” Virginia creatures that includes the brook trout (official fish), the tiger swallowtail butterfly (official insect) and the Virginia big-eared bat (official bat).

That didn’t placate me, but I figured that no one would be interested because, after all, such measures are “tradition” and a “fun diversion.” At worst I would be considered an ogre because the legislation was probably dreamt up by some first graders who wanted to learn how a bill becomes a law, no matter how inane. So I scuttled the post. 

However, it appears that at least fifteen Senators agree with me that this is a bad idea. Likely for varying reasons, as some may prefer a cooler animal such as the Iguana (which doesn’t live in Virginia in so far as I know, but still wicked awesome). Still, at least one Senator spoke out for sanity: our very own Senator Mark Obenshain. From his weekly update:

No, I don’t object to turtles; I object to wasting time on trivialities while seriously contemplating pushing back the budget for some later date. I have nothing against the Eastern Box, but I do have a problem with the amount of time we’ve spent this session on bills that have nothing to do with making our Commonwealth a better place, to say nothing of getting our economy back on track. This bill is just one isolated, albeit absurd (okay, even slightly amusing), example of a larger trend.

Right on. I don’t think average citizens understand just how much frivolous “legislating” goes on in Richmond. The House will approve over 248 resolutions; the Senate, “just” 159. As for state symbols and songs, the numbers this year are relatively small. Of the 1,049 bills originating in the House, six (about half a percent) had to do with such measures, though some of this may have had to do ; of the Senate’s 749, 3 were about designations (about four tenths of a percent). Relatively small percentages–but remember that each and every one of these bills and resolutions was written by a professional, paid with your tax dollars. And I limited my research to state designations–who knows what ridiculousness could be found throughout the stack of bills. I’m not saying that legislators should not be allowed to discuss things if they so please–it is their right, ultimately, to set their own boundaries. I am saying, however, that representatives should think about just why they are in Richmond–and that the people back home should home them accountable when legislators overstep their authority and responsibility. To use Senator Obenshain’s words:

You know, we have a state shell as well. Increasingly, though, I think our state shell should be the one some in government are hiding under they we wait for the economic ill winds to pass us by. One of the counties I represent has an 11.7% unemployment rate, and they’re not alone. People are struggling to make ends meet across the Commonwealth, and they need the General Assembly to redouble its efforts to promote economic recovery, not ignore the problem in the hopes that it will just go away.

• $100k for doorbells in Laurel, Mississippi
• $500k for a dog park in Chula Vista, California
• $621k for intercom and PA upgrades in Anchorage, Alaska schools
• $1.5 million to discourage prostitution in Dayton, Ohio

All worthy projects, but worth putting up to two generations of Americans another trillion dollars in debt?

But, this latest indiscretion has gone unnoticed by the media – a donation in the amount of $2 million to the ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) Housing Corporation of Chicago, according to a document posted on Bank of America corporate philanthropy Web site – which shows the bank had given the total amount in grant money from October 2007 through June 2009.

…..

ACORN has been associated with cases of voter fraud, accounting improprieties and has lobbied for obligatory housing assistance from the federal government for home borrowers that got in over their heads with recent mortgage woes.

The media have not only been eager to attack banks like Bank of America for their corporate expenditures and compensation, they have found other ways to go after these institutions. As ABC investigative correspondent Brian Ross pointed out – with his usual knack for finding lavish spending by corporate entities – Bank of America also sponsored a Super Bowl party at a 5-Star Resort in Palm Beach, Fla.

So lemme get this straight: Things are so bad at Bank of America that they need $20 billion of taxpayer dollars to stay afloat, but not so bad that they need to cancel their Superbowl Party and not give to groups who have had multiple employees arrested for voter fraud? 

Well, at least ACORN won’t be getting any money directly from the government…..oh wait, they might be eligible after all. 

I realize that Bank of America is under pressure here to help out people whose homes have been foreclosed and ACORN has the momentum right now, despite their dubious political activities, but being principled never goes of style. 

H/T VIrginia Virtucon

The Senate bill includes a tax break worth up to $246 million over 11 years for investors in bigger-budget movie projects that don’t necessarily qualify for incentives currently. The provision is backed by firms like the Walt Disney Co., and the industry trade group the Motion Picture Association of America, according to aides and lobbyists.

….

But a problem arises for pictures that cost $30 million or more, which the option to instead use bonus depreciation attempts to resolve.

It probably wouldn’t benefit blockbusters that take years to produce, a lobbyist said, given that, to benefit, a firm’s asset must be placed in service — hitting the theaters or video market — during that time.

Of course, a tax break is a bit better than direct use of our tax dollars, as in the case of part of the $4 billion that went to Chrysler back during the fall being used for product placement in the upcoming Terminator film. From worldcarfans.com:

The American automaker recently received $4 billion in a taxpayer-funded government bailout. Chrysler was reportedly on the verge of bankruptcy, and would not have been able to pay their suppliers without the loan. Still in a dangerous position, the privately-owned company cut over a third of their employees.

Chrysler was shut out of many product placement deals recently. General Motors inked a deal with The Transformers live-action films. Ford got in on the action with theirKnight Rider deal, featuring a Mustang, Flex, and F-150.

In completely unrelated news, the top 10 films last week grossed a combined $96 million, and revenues are up over 20% for January last year, while attendence was up 16%.

Poor, poor Hollywood.

The House Rules Committee on Tuesday killed three resolutions to confer the status on various songs composed by Virginians.

The state has been without a tune since 1997, when “Carry Me Back to Old Virginny” was retired because of its lyrics. The song is about a slave fondly recalling the days toiling for “old Massa.”

The Rules Committee for years has been hearing and rejecting potential new state songs.

Actually, its not just the Rules Committee that suffers through greatly enjoys listening to potential offerings. The year I worked in Richmond, there were at least three CDs that came through the office with potential offerings on them. I know that replacing the song has been a pet project of “beloved” State Senator Emmett Hanger, but, come on. Number one, do we really have to out and out replace the state song? Wouldn’t a few changes have fixed the two? Number two, twelve years???? It’s been twelve years, and from my research no less than 23 songs have been considered by the Senate and the House regarding the state song.

However, this doesn’t even include the hard work of the State Song Sub-Committee of the Virginia Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relation. This is the group that worked for 2 YEARS to first whittle the list down to 59 songs then to eight grand finalists. They ran into some flack over Jimmy Dean’s submission being favored and again when another contestant didn’t want to sign over the rights to his song, and then the Committee was abolished in 2004. Apparently, according to the Washington Post, it was only due to the fact that the committee lost the staff person who was keeping track of the votes during that year’s budget crisis. 

Your tax dollars in action. Just pick a damn song already! I don’t even care if its “Meet Virginia” by Train at this point. At least it has the state’s name in it.

At the core of the agenda is government transparency, which as anyone who has spent more than, say, five minutes on my blog knows is an issue that is very close to my heart. Senator Ken Cuccinelli is carrying SB936, which would require that the state put up a searchable database of all state expenditures, revenues and appropriations. The bill has the support of Bob McDonell, the GOP’s presumptive nominee for Governor, and Bill Bolling, the incumbent Lieutenant Governor. Such support indicates that transparency and limited government may in fact become a cornerstone of the Republican’s 2009 efforts.

TQ even has Senator Chap Petersen from deep blue Fairfax carrying the measure. You would think that a bill with bipartisan support would have plenty of support in and around Capitol Square….

However, Norm Leahy over at TQ’s blog is hearing whispers that some in state government are opposing the measure on the grounds that it would cost too much. However, Norm (one of my all time favorite bloggers) points out that experience proves otherwise:

* The federal government’s budget transparency site,www.usaspending.gov, cost about $600,000 to create and launch. It tracks contracts, grants, loans and other spending throughout the federal government. If the feds can manage to put their $2 trillion in spending into an online, searchable and highly-detailed format for just $600,000, surely Virginia could do the same for its $78 billion budget.

* Alaska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina were able to create budget transparency sites and spent no new money to do so. Nebraska’s site will cost $39,000 and Mississippi’s will cost almost nothing because they will be using free transparency software available from the federal government.

* Texas spent $300,000 on their transparency site, but since its creation, they have used it to identify $2.3 million is savings by consolidating contracts and eliminating duplication between agencies.

Methinks that the opposition of bureaucrats may not be based so much on moral duty to the taxpayers as fear that their pet projects might just fall under public scrutiny.

However, members of Citizens for Honest Government complain that alternatives to new construction have not been seriously considered.

“We’ve been against [building new schools] all along,” Citizens for Honest Government’s Fred Hughes said Wednesday. “We’ve suggested redistricting. We’ve suggested to them that there’s no real need for schools at this time, no proven need in the future. We’ve suggested that they build up instead of out.”

Hughes provided a list of options he said he presented to the supervisors and School Board members in December 2007. These included moving fifth-graders to the middle schools at the northern and central campuses, using portable classroom trailers, eliminating the use of empty classrooms for teacher planning time, adding on to current schools and redistricting.

But, those options weren’t given proper consideration, Hughes said.

“The only people that the supervisors are listening to is the school board, and the school board is not listening to anybody,” he said.

Suzanne Curran had even hotter words for the Board:

he public’s money is still paying for the projects, Suzanne Curran, of Citizens for Honest Government, said Wednesday. She wasn’t at Tuesday’s meeting.

“The government, whether it be local, state or federal, does not ever earn money on its own,” she said. “It takes money from those of us who earn it. Any money that they have tucked away some place was tax money to begin with. Right now, the General Assembly is in session determining how much money they’re going to cut from local education pots of money.

“It’s just nuts. Maybe this money was going to be needed to offset what doesn’t come from the state so we can keep functioning here. We don’t know how long this economic downturn will continue. I’m offended by what I see as poor decision-making.”

The board defended itself by saying that this was a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and that the move did not constitute an endorsement for school construction. However, some of the Board member’s individual involvement seems to indicate otherwise. Additionally, I hardly think the school board will view this as less than an endorsement. Indeed, Superintendant Rowland quickly came out swinging for two new schools, even going so far to acknowledge that a tax increase will be needed. 

I agree that due dilligence was not given to all the suggestions from CHG, which from my understanding were first presented to the School Board over a year ago. Here they are:

• Moving Grade 5
• Portable Classrooms
• Conversion of special instructional spaces
• Revised scheduling
• Reducing planning time
• Redistricting 
• Smaller buildings 
• Build additions to existing schools

Granted, I’m not sure how many have merit–the fifth graders were already moved less than a decade ago. Also, many of the suggestions will not be met without public concern, if not in some quarters downright outrage. You’ve never seen an angry parent in a rural area until you bring up the words “redistricting.”

Still, I will admit, I am not a structural engineer, so I don’t if we can build up instead of out as CHG suggests. However, I’m man enough to admit it, and I would at least like to know before I make up my mind. So far, I haven’t gotten an answer. I think a combination of these suggestions could likely bring about a workable solution. 

Frankly, I think our current problems stem from the decision over 40 years ago to move to the campus system. This further divided the communities and created a precedent for moving kids up through the same campus. I will grant that this does provide more community support throughout a child’s early years, but now you have the problem of uneven growth in the county and therefore major issues in the lower levels. 

But that’s the past: Let’s find a workable solution NOW, particularly when we have major issues with our economy.