From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: More of the House Bank "scandal"  (was Pardon stuff...)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 00:01:13 GMT

In article <1jic1jINN7uk@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.223006.12627@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> dsc@gemini.gsfc.nasa.gov (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:
>>In article <1j9pj8INNa8o@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:

>>>Suppose they had been returned--who would have caught flack? 

>>If they had been returned it would have been in violation of 'bank' policy.
>>So, this hypothetical event is clearly non sequitor.

>The written bank policy limits checks to a "line-of-credit" equal to a
>month's salary. Honoring checks beyond that amount was against written
>bank policy. So, this hypothetical event is not at all a non sequitor.

That was written bank policy, but it wasn't bank custom.

>>>                                                              You would have
>>>seen the man running the bank out on is rear end so fast. . . And then
>>>replaced with someone who would do it 'right' (read: the way they want it
>>>done)! The house knew all along what was going on, and didn't mind this extra
>>>perk, despite that it was done with TAXPAYER MONEY, NO FELLOW CONGRESSMEN'S
>>>MONEY!

>>Well, every congressman's paycheck consists of taxpayer's money, does it not?
>>Is this the basis for the statement you were making above when your Caps key
>>got stuck?

>Not at all. The "line-of-credit" was not yet their salary. It was therefore
>still taxpayer money, plain and simple, without caps.

No, IT WAS OTHER CONGRESSPEOPLE'S MONEY.  NOT TAXPAYER'S.  

>>>So either it was fraud, or it was a perk that no one else gets (as if they
>>>needed any more). None the less, lack of financial accountability is clearly
>>>shown in the running of the 'bank' and therefore we cannot trust congress
>>>with financial accountability in the spending of our tax money.

>>No, as clearly stated above, it was not fraud.  It was a perk.  No either
>>about it.  I have perks that Congressmen don't have (e.g. Usenet access).
>>So what?

>Again, it was a perk at taxpayer expense with taxpayer money. This is
>call misappropriation of funds. If they are so careless (or dare I say
>criminally negligent) in the running of their own 'bank', why does it
>surprise us that they cannot seem to spend only what they bring in via
>revenues?

Because they were neither careless nor criminally negligent.  It is not
careless or criminally negligent to write a check which you know will be
covered.

>>At least one of the Congressmen managed his (er, his fellow congressmen's)
>>money quite intelligently.  He used overdrafts to loan money to his campaign
>>fund.  Then, after winning reelection (maybe befor, I'm not sure) his campaign
>>fund repaid him with interest.  He then repaid the 'bank' without interest.
>>Pretty smart eh?   This is an example of abuse of a perk.  The routine over-
>>draft protection most of the Representatives received was hardly something
>>to be upset about.

>I am not upset about routine overdraft protection. But those whose overdrafts
>amounted to ten of thousands, well beyond their "line-of-credit" is plainly 
>irresponsible.

No, voting for an budget which contains agricultural subsidies amounting
to tens of BILLIONS which amount to welfare for the obscenely rich is 
irresponsible.  

Overdrafting in the tens of thousands doesn't even compare.

Worry about the direct things, and not the side issues.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Newsgroups: misc.legal