Capitol Riot Has Cost Taxpayers $30 Million (& Still Rising)

The Pro-Trump Capitol riot on January 6th caused damage to our democracy (especially our electoral system). But that wasn't all it cost this country. Repairing the damage done to the Capitol Building and providing security for it is also costing taxpayer money -- about $30 million so far, and that cost will rise further.

Here is how National Public Radio (NPR) is reporting this: 

The cost of repairing damages from the attack on the U.S. Capitol and related security expenses have already topped $30 million and will keep rising, Architect of the Capitol J. Brett Blanton told lawmakers on Wednesday.

The events of Jan. 6, he said, were "difficult for the American people and extremely hard for all of us on campus to witness."

Blanton said that congressional appropriations committees have already approved a transfer request of $30 million to pay for expenses and extend a temporary perimeter fencing contract through March 31.

But more money will be needed, he added: "History teaches us that project costs for replacements and repairs beyond in-kind improvements across campus will be considerable and beyond the scope of the current budgetary environment."

The price tag will go even higher, Blanton told lawmakers on the House Appropriations Committee, if the fence and other security measures are needed beyond March.

In his prepared testimony, Blanton described how his employees tried to minimize the threat to the Capitol and lawmakers on Jan. 6, when thousands of former President Donald Trump's supporters breached security perimeters at the Capitol grounds. Many of them then engaged in a pitched battle with police and security personnel.

"[Architect of the Capitol] employees sheltered congressional staff in their shops to protect them from the roving mob," Blanton said, adding, "Other members of our team raced to the roof to reverse the airflows within the building to help clear the air of chemical irritants, like bear repellents and pepper spray, while more team members rushed bottles of water and eyewash stations to Capitol Police officers in need of assistance."

When the mob thronged the Capitol, the Architect of the Capitol's painters and artisans were laboring to complete the massive task of readying the campus to host a presidential inauguration.

"Over the course of a couple of hours, the hard work of our team was destroyed," Blanton said.

"The [inauguration] platform was wrecked. There was broken glass and other debris. Sound systems and photography equipment was damaged beyond repair or stolen. Two historic Olmsted lanterns were ripped from the ground, and the wet blue paint was tracked all over the historic stone balustrades and Capitol building hallways."

In the Capitol building complex, historical statues, murals and furniture were damaged, mainly from pepper spray accretions and residue from chemical irritants and fire extinguishers, requiring expert cleaning and conservation. Work crews covered gaping holes with plywood and cleared "a small mountain of debris left behind on the west and east fronts," Blanton said.

Blanton also said many lawmakers have asked his office about preserving mementos from the unprecedented violence wrought by U.S. citizens on their own Capitol. While most damaged items had to be removed because of safety concerns, he said his staff preserved the panels of the historical Columbus Doors on the east front "for a potential presentation or display."

The Biggest Welfare "Queens" Are Giant Corporations

Republicans would like to cut welfare (or eliminate it altogether). These heartless individuals don't care about helping hurting Americans. They will be quick to tell them they just need to pull themselves up by their boot straps, and get a job (even though most of the poor already have a job -- one that keeps them in poverty).And while they want to cut all forms of welfare for the truly needy, they refuse to raise the minimum wage (which would help millions out of poverty).

But when it comes to corporations, the Republicans sing a different tune. They can't seem to give enough "welfare to the corporations -- even though they don't need it. And this corporate welfare costs American taxpayers far more than help for needy families.

Here is what former Labor Secretary Robert Reich (pictured) has to say about corporate welfare:

You often hear Trump and Republicans in Congress railing against so-called “welfare programs” – by which they mean programs that provide health care or safety nets to ordinary Americans. 

But you almost never hear them complaining about another form of welfare that lines the pockets of wealthy corporations. We must end corporate welfare. Now.

There are several ways corporations get rich on the taxpayer’s dime. The most obvious comes through subsidies or tax breaks for certain businesses or industries.

Consider the fossil fuel industry, one of the most profitable and privileged sectors of the economy. Every year, oil companies get to deduct millions of dollars from their tax bills for the cost of new wells, oil exploration, and other drilling and mining expenses. 

It’s been estimated that repealing these special tax breaks would save taxpayers $39 billion over 10 years.

Other examples of corporate welfare include billions in government subsidies for agricultural conglomerates, pharmaceutical makers, tech giants and defense contractors. 

Other industries don’t get these benefits. Meanwhile, most families don’t even benefit from tax credits and deductions for childcare.

State and local governments are also handing out corporate welfare, often with no strings attached. In 2013, for example, the state of Washington approved a record $8.7 billion handout to Boeing in order “to maintain and grow its workforce within the state.“ What did Boeing do? In the following years, it laid off more than 12,000 workers in the state.

State and local tax breaks for corporations are estimated to cost local schools almost $2 billion a year in lost tax revenue. 

It’s argued they create jobs, yet nationwide, not a single new job is created. At most, the jobs are merely moved from state to state. 

How do corporations get this corporate welfare? Follow the money. They spend hundreds of millions on lobbying and campaign contributions. 

An even more insidious example of corporate welfare occurs when corporations don’t pay their workers a living wage. As a result, those workers often have to rely on programs like Medicaid, public housing, food stamps and other safety nets.

Which means you and I and other taxpayers end up subsidizing these low wages so those corporations can enjoy even higher profits for their executives and wealthy investors. 

For example, every year, Americans spend an estimated $153 billion in taxes and on programs to subsidize McDonald’s and Walmart’s low-wage workers. 

Here’s the bottom-line: When corporations get special handouts from the government, it costs the rest of us. We have to pay more in taxes to make up for these hidden tax breaks, subsidies, and loopholes. In turn, there’s less money for good schools and roads, Medicare and national defense, and everything else we need.

So the next time you hear conservatives railing against welfare handouts for the poor, remind them that we should really be cutting corporate welfare – unnecessary and unwarranted aid for dependent corporations.

Congress Protects Its Sex Abusers (& Bills The Taxpayers)

(Cartoon image is by John Deering in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.)

Since 1997, the government has paid out at least $17 million in workplace claims against members of Congress -- much of it for sexual harassment/abuse claims. That's $850,000 a year for the last 20 years, and the people footing the bill for that are the American taxpayers. That's right -- when a congressman discriminates against an employee, or abuses that employee sexually, they don't have to pay their victim. They pass the cost on to taxpayers.

And making matters worse, the offending members of Congress are not revealed. Before receiving any settlement, a victim must sign a nondisclosure agreement, and congressional rules prevent the offenders names from being made public. As a taxpayer, you don't even get to know whose crimes and unethical behavior you are funding.

Is this OK with you. It's not OK with me. I believe Americans deserve to know what their taxes are being spent on. And they, especially the voters, deserve to know which members of Congress are violating ethical or criminal rules. Anytime a payment is negotiated and agreed to, it should become public information -- and the name of the member of Congress that caused it should be made public (along with the charges resulting in the settlement).

Readers will know that I am a die-hard Democrat, but this is an issue that transcends party labels. Any member of Congress that discriminates against, to sexually harasses or abuses an employee should be named publicly -- and that is true whether they are a Republican or Democrat.

We expect people in other professions to adhere to a high standard of conduct. Why should we expect any less from members of Congress? I think a case could be easily made that they should be held to a higher standard.

Sexual Harassment Is Being Exposed - Except In Congress

The "me too" campaign has taken social media by storm -- showing that sexual harassment is a serious problem in this country. Some men are surprised by the deluge of women saying they've been the victim of sexual harassment. They shouldn't have been. We live in a patriarchal society, where many men still consider women to be second-class citizens, and subject to the whims of their male peers (especially men in a position of power).

Personally, I am thrilled to see this campaign being so successful, and I hope it signals the beginning of a societal change (which is long overdue) -- a change that brings about true equality.

This change doesn't need just to happen in workplaces, public places, and schools. It evidently also needs to happen in the very halls of our government. It seems that some of those elected to represent us in Congress are guilty of taking advantage of the women they work with. Consider this:

“Congress makes its own rules about the handling of sexual complaints against members and staff, passing laws exempting it from practices that apply to other employers. The result is a culture in which some lawmakers suspect harassment is rampant. Yet victims are unlikely to come forward,” the Washington Postreports.

“Under a law in place since 1995, accusers may file lawsuits only if they first agree to go through months of counseling and mediation. A special congressional office is charged with trying to resolve the cases out of court. When settlements do occur, members do not pay them from their own office funds, a requirement in other federal agencies. Instead, the confidential payments come out of a special U.S. Treasury fund. Congressional employees have received small settlements compared to the amounts some public figures pay out. Between 1997 and 2014, the U.S. Treasury has paid $15.2 million in 235 awards and settlements for Capitol Hill workplace violations.”

Why does Congress get to make their own special rules for the sexual complaints against its members? And why do the taxpayers have to pay for that sexual misconduct? Shouldn't those payments come from the miscreants themselves (or from the money they raised from their misguided supporters)? Taxpayers didn't commit the crime, and they should not be the ones to pay for the misdeeds of congressional sexual predators. Also, anytime a settlement is reached and money paid out, that should be made public -- giving the name of the congressman who was the guilty party.

We are supposed to be equal under the law in this country -- and that includes those elected to Congress.

Donald Trump - Golfer And Grifter

Trump's promise to stay in the White House instead of playing golf (as he accused President Obama of doing too much) was just another campaign lie. As the top chart shows, he has spent much more time on the golf course than any of the last three presidents in the first 81 days (or even all three of the last presidents combined).

I'm not so sure that's a bad thing though. At least, while he's on the golf course worrying only about his next bad swing, he's not signing some odious executive order or pondering a policy that will hurt more Americans than it helps. In fact, the safest time for most Americans right now is very likely the time Trump spends playing golf.

I'm not so forgiving of the second chart though -- showing the time he has spent at Mar-a-lago, which he owns. Every time he leaves the White House, it seems he goes to a hotel/resort/golf course that he owns -- and it is done at taxpayer expense. That money the taxpayers spend then goes directly into Trump's pocket, since he has refused to divest himself of his business interests.

This grifter is making himself richer, and he's doing it with taxpayer dollars. If that is not illegal, it certainly should be.

(NOTE - The charts above are from the New York Times.)

House GOP Wastes No Time In Attacking Obamacare

(This caricature of the GOP elephant is by DonkeyHotey.)

The Republicans told us they would try to destroy the Affordable Care Act (even though they have no replacement for it) if given control over both houses of Congress -- and in the first week of the new 114th Congress, they have started to make good on that promise. It looks like they are trying a different tactic though. Instead of trying to repeal the whole health care law, they are going to attack it in bits and pieces (sort of a "death by a thousand cuts" approach).

This week the House passed a bill to modify the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Obamacare required larger employers to provide health insurance for any employee working at least 30 hours (or pay a penalty to the government to help the government finance that insurance). The law intentionally set the limit at 30 hours to make sure all full-time employees would get health insurance. The new House bill would raise that limit to 40 hours.

The House Republicans bragged that their bill would "protect" the insurance for full-time workers, but that is nothing more than an outrageous LIE. The effect of the bill would be to do just the opposite -- take the insurance guarantee away from any employee working less than 40 hours. This means an employer could cut an employee's hours by one hour (limiting him/her to a 39 hour work week) -- and in doing so they would still basically have a full-time employee, but would no loner have to provide health insurance or pay the penalty for not providing it.

This would shift the burden for paying for health insurance from the employer to the taxpayer, who would then have to pay for that employee to either get on Medicaid (if a low-wage worker) or get a government subsidy to buy private insurance. This bill was not passed to help or protect workers or taxpayers (because it hurts both). It is nothing more than a GOP payback to corporations for donating huge sums to help them get elected last November.

Some may think that corporations (and other large employers) won't take advantage of this new bill if it becomes law. If you think that, then you don't understand either capitalists or human nature. I have no doubt that many employers will take advantage of the law by cutting hours to 39, and putting the money that should go toward providing insurance into their own pocket, letting taxpayers foot more of their labor costs.

This horrendous bill must be stopped before it becomes law. Hopefully, that can be done in the Senate with a filibuster. If not, this would be a great opportunity for President Obama to put his veto pen to work.