The whole idea of defending government officials for expensing personal obligations via public money (any amount) is truly funny. These are all (mostly) individuals who are very wealthy before being elected and then are compensated quite well while in office too (they also get bloated pensions for their new 'career'). The fact that they can't pay their own relatively modest obligations (a $200 meal, $4000 lawyer dues, etc) is quite telling. What else don't they pay that they could EASILY afford but just don't because they can get away with it? Not that I'm outraged over the amounts per se, I just find it amusing that this is all completely acceptable. Money and power is truly all that matters to these parasites and they've even got some of you defending them. Except Redford, whose own misgivings seem to be exacerbated by her own miserable personality more than anything. She took it too far I guess, but what about all the others? Why is it okay to expense personal debts when it's not important to the job at all? Why can't they pay their own way? Don't give me the crap about needing to attract the best possible candidates either. These people are EXTREMELY well compensated and yet the quality of people we get for these jobs are mostly lacking anyway.
|