Congressman Wants YouTube Video Covered Up 884
Hugh Pickens writes "Wisconsin Republicans claim that no one else can republish a video of United States Representative Sean Duffy (R-WI) complaining about how he is 'struggling' to get by on his $174,000 salary without their permission, even though they originally released the video on YouTube for the whole world to see. Now the GOP is trying to take legal action to stop anyone else from republishing the video. The tape caused a stir for Duffy, a first-term conservative best known for his past as a reality TV show star on MTV's The Real World after Democrats flagged the comments about his taxpayer-funded salary, which is nearly three times the median income in Wisconsin, and criticisms began to flow Duffy's way. Here's a one-minute clip, excerpted from roughly 45 minutes of video of the public Duffy townhall, that the Polk County GOP doesn't want anyone to see."
Ah, the Republican Party ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... champion of traditional American values like free speech and personal responsibility!
The hypocrisy of Walkeristan, exposed. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's OK if you use FOIA to threaten academics, but it's not OK if the GOP gets caught with their pants down?
Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even though I personally think the Republican party is worse there is little integrity from any political party right now. They are for openness until it runs against their own interests then they are against it. They want cuts until it hurts their re-election in their district. They will take any side they are paid to take. Our system has totally broken down and is beginning to resemble the systems that people in the middle east are currently protesting about. It's very sad... the whole thing is going to hell.
7 kids? (Score:5, Insightful)
Having 7 kids without the way to pay for them is living outside of your means.
Isn't that what the GOP hates so much? Why is it so righteous to have so many kids? It's not. It's as bad as the welfare mom that has a Cadillac.
Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't forget that the Democrats have the same championship, really.
Neither side gets an out on this one. And I'd be pissed about someone being so damned wasteful that they're "struggling" on more money than I'm making. If you can't friggin' make do with $174k/yr (and maybe even, God forbid, SAVE money....) then perhaps you should re-evaluate your lifestyle within that budget.
And, I've heard the same damn whining and trying to cover up for that lapse of good judgement by the party in question with the Democrats. In truth, they're naught but flip sides of the same problematic coin. A bad penny that keeps turning up on you.
Re:some day (Score:1, Insightful)
Some day the Liberals will figure out that it's not declaring war on the poor (Heh... You've been "helping" them for decades and we've got more poor each year...) and that the stuff you're peddling is actually hurting the country worse that your claims of the other direction. Simply put, the old saying about Socialism is true- it only works so long as you can keep taking wealth from other people and it quits working when you run out of people to rob.
Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Democrats have done plenty of nasty stuff, to be sure, but I honestly can't think of anything they've done lately, all on their own, that's so blatantly anti-American as this. It's not Duffy's statement itself that gets me, as dumb as it is, as the attempt to use legal means to remove information that's already been deliberately released to the public, which is the exact definition of censorship. The Wikileaks frenzy is similar, but that's a bipartisan madness. This one is all on the Republicans.
Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't forget Unions and people getting social services. Social services are one step away from paying cash for votes.
Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ever here of fair use?
Fair use, a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work, is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use [wikipedia.org]
This could easily count as commentary, criticism, or maybe even news reporting.
Re:some day (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, but by then they'll all be retired, collecting Social Security and Medicare, but still bitching about the "welfare state". From The Truth About the Tea Party [rollingstone.com]
The article is a sad, revealing story of the hypocrisy of the Tea Party and it's members...
Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (Score:5, Insightful)
And, I've heard the same damn whining and trying to cover up for that lapse of good judgement by the party in question with the Democrats.
Can you cite a recent example where a Democrat elected to national office said something really dumb which (a) was deliberately propagated by the Democratic Party, and then (b) the party tried to use legal means to make "unhappen" once they realized how dumb it was? The first happens all the time -- they're politicians, after all -- but the second is what makes it really scary.
Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll take a shot: Have you heard of Obamacare?
AKA, Romneycare? When you're doing nothing but parroting talking points, it means it's too late to look in the mirror.
methinks Sen. Larry Craig doth protest too much (Score:2, Insightful)
And it's a matter of personal responsibility that you maintain the means to secure your own medical care, and not expect society (taxpayers) to foot the bill. Because it's fascism to insist you carry health insurance.
Re:bah! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:some day (Score:4, Insightful)
His point of view is entirely consistent. He's worked his whole life for a modest paycheck, and his wife sounds like she genuinely needs medicare. He's also been told that there are many, many people out there abusing the system and guidelines that he's worked within his whole life.
The sad part is that he seems completely willing to accept a narrative that would prove false if he'd simply spend a few hours on google.
Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (Score:0, Insightful)
The Democrats have done plenty of nasty stuff, to be sure, but I honestly can't think of anything they've done lately, all on their own, that's so blatantly anti-American as this.
Fleeing a state instead of voting against a bill?
Re:republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see, last time we had a depression and recession, it was fixed by raising the taxes on the wealthy (they went up over 75%!!) and then they decided we needed more jobs (despite having lowered unemployment) so we lowered the taxes on the wealthy and businesses considerably. Yet unemployment continued to rise and it didn't change much.
Obviously there are other factors involved here, but it's fairly obvious based on history that taxing the wealthy more will either do nothing or will help. Lowering the taxes on them doesn't create jobs they just concentrate their wealth among themselves. Trickle down economics just doesn't work.
Re:some day (Score:2, Insightful)
Republican economic concept Vs common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Taxes are based upon PROFIT. Give a wealthy man a choice between paying taxes or investing in his assets/employees/business, they will choose to create jobs.
By having low taxes on the top 10%, you encourage them to pocket as much money as they can....and use that money to buy up competition. You are then encouraging larger monopolistic businesses...which I feel are less efficient, worse for the economy, worse for the country, less rewarding to their staff, and then are "too big to fail".
On the contrary, tax the heck out record profits, and you encourage the top 10% to invest in their people/business/assets.....thereby helping the economy.
Am I missing something. Seems like common sense to me. I don't think the democrats understand economics either though....
Re:bah! (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want quality talent, and people more difficult to bribe/influence, you MUST pay them well.
Your proposal has 3 major problems:
1. How well? What's comparable to a president, senator, or representative? I mean, if we're going to pay the president the same as a CEO of a major corporation, we're going to be talking about $50 million a year. If we put senators and representatives at a bit lower on the pay scale, then $10 million wouldn't be unreasonable.
2. If you're going to spend that kind of money on politicians, you're going to need to pay for it somehow. Who are you going to tax, or what agency are you going to cut, in order to pay for it? You're talking about $50 billion here, which isn't exactly chump change.
3. There's no clear correlation between bribery and politician salary. For instance, it wouldn't be hard to argue that bribery in the US is more widespread than in the UK, even though MPs are paid less than Congressmen.
Mortgage (Score:4, Insightful)
In the distinguished and comely congressperson's defense, no matter how much money you're making, all you really need to do to cripple yourself financially is buy a house. My wife and I make decent money and went ahead and purchased a small but expensive (well...it *was* expensive...) home in a quiet neighborhood with a tennis club we could walk to. We have extra income still, but we think of how much more of it we might have if our monthly bills for the house hadn't tripled compared to the last house we owned. But it's a choice, and we have no one to blame but ourselves. Same as this guy in the article.
Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. Your premiums went up because the CxO's in your HMO all got bonuses.
College kids are usually the cheapest for medical insurance. They don't get sick that often. They're healthy.
Re:republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:republicans (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. Why, if GE would've had to pay even a dime of federal taxes this year, the repercussions would've been dire for us all. Dire, I tell you!
An excellent example of exactly what he's talking about. Despite how high taxes are, GE still didn't pay anything. Raising taxes will not change that. The rich who are affected by the high taxes on the rich have the money to pay people to figure out the loopholes so they pay as little as possible. But, with higher taxes, the government expects more money, so they assume they have a larger budget, but when tax time rolls around, oops! No more money than before comes in, putting us further into debt.
Now, tax reform to simplify tax law, reduce loopholes, etc, I think is something both parties can get behind (though getting the politicians to actually vote for it against the wills of the lobbyists would be more difficult). And that, if done right, would actually help.
Re:Congressional salaries (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (Score:4, Insightful)
You have to excuse Tyler for making this comment. He didn't know about TV and spin yet. Had he, he'd have known that you can scare anyone into voting against his own interests.
it's why ayn rand is appealing to the masses (Score:4, Insightful)
ayn rand writes out of concern for the poor downtrodden captains of industry. it sounds like a joke. nominally, this is an audience of 0.001% of the population with every perk in life you can imagine
but aspirationally, everyone is a future captain of industry inside their own minds. so they actually sympathize with the captains of industry, their "peers." while the real world captains of industry are paying off their elected representatives to betray middle class interests to fatten corporate coffers (less safety regulations, lower wages, less healthcare responsibility, etc.)
joe blow imagines himself a big man, inside his own head. waiting for the day he wins the lottery and joins his rightful place alongside other great men like himself. so of course he happily shafts policies that effects his next door neighbors, his city and town, the future of his children and their education, and even himself, his healthcare. so blinded is he
it's a neat psychological trick: everyone is a legend in their own minds. and it is why political philosophies written for the benefit of ultrarich fat cats robbing the middle class blind are seen as normal and appealing to people who otherwise suffer through every day hand to mouth, paycheck to paycheck, with nothing to show for the toil. sad and pathetic, in a way. and completely real, and common
Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (Score:1, Insightful)
You have the free time to post this comment.
You owe that to a Union.
The average would-be-serf is so far removed from the conditions that corporations inflicted upon most of our immediate forebears that they no longer appreciate what corporations would do to us again if they could get away with it.
Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Then what would you call a $3.2 billion dollar tax credit given to General Electric on top of zero corporate income tax? What would you call allowing corporations to pay unlimited amounts of money to finance campaigns of people who will vote for giving them this corporate welfare? That's that's not even one step away from "paying cash for votes". That skips over the whole "votes" thing entirely and is simply paying cash for favorable laws.
"Social services" have not put this country in debt, despite the common meme. The only reason there is a single dollar of government spending in Social Security is because congress after congress sold securities using Social Security money as collateral and now they've got to make those securities good. You could argue that if there had not been the Social Security trust fund (and yes, it's an actual trust fund with actual value) the federal surplus would be much much higher. Social Security is actually keeping the deficit down not increasing it. Social Security has not added one nickel to our debt or deficit.
When Bill Clinton raised taxes on the top tier 3%, to a total 39% (which ends up being about 12% (or less) on total income of the wealthiest) we ended up with a surplus.
Every single time the tax rate on the highest income level went below 50%, GDP dropped, unemployment increased and bubble economies developed because the top income group had to find places to put their money. Every time the tax rate on the highest income levels went ABOVE 50%, GDP increased, unemployment decreased and there were no bubble economies. When tax rates go above 50%, wealthy people start looking for longer term ways to grow their money to avoid paying taxes on it, so they invest in their companies' infrastructure, hire new people, pay dividends, etc.
If you look at a graph of the US economy and overlay a graph of tax rates on the top incomes, you'll see something very remarkable. The most certain way to increase employment, increase GDP, shrink the debt, prevent economic bubbles and to insure long term growth is to simply increase the tax rates on the richest, even though this does not require them to pay more taxes.
Instead, we're looking to blame "social programs" and those greedy, freeloading schoolteachers, firemen, police, janitors, garbage men, clerks for our economic woes. The budget that was recently passed by the Republican House of Representatives, cuts nutrition programs to infants and pregnant women in poverty (the "WIC" program) in order to pay for tax cuts for millionaires. What kind of a third-rate country are we going to become with these jackoffs in control?
Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (Score:5, Insightful)
A union member, a tea party member, and a CEO are all sitting around a table with a dozen cookies.
The CEO takes 11 of the cookies. He turns to the tea party member and says, "look out for that union guy. He's trying to take your cookie."
--Jeremy
Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet the Tea Baggers in Congress aren't pushing for cutting spending.
Where are cuts against military spending? Intelligence spending? Operations spending? Or hell, the 50.3 billion dollars in Black Projects for the DoD?
Where are secret budget items in the US Constitution?
Tax rates are at a 50 year low, so the "Taxed Enough Already" thing is just BS
Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. Someone please tell me: which is the anti-bailout party? Which one says, "Yes, I'm willing to risk a supposed economic upheaval rather than be perpetually held hostage to plutocratic, incompetent banks that want to keep our society in the dark ages of entrepreneurship by having privileged access to ultra-cheap loans and government backstops." (And most Americans would be with such a party that said as much.)
Bush started the bailouts and Obama went right along and continued the same policy. Apparently, no matter what you believe going in, you always encounter some basilisk once gaining power that makes you suddenly think these bailouts are 100% necessary to avoid the apocalypse.
Re:bah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Social services, public employees, working moms, day cares... fuck, you name it, republicans want to cut it... but a wealthy individual should pay 39% taxes instead of 36%... that's UNAMERICAN and it stifles economic development!! Guys like Duffy are the worst kind of asshole... ones with the power to BE an asshole. Democrats might be jerks... but they're not blatant assholes out to strip working people of everything they have left... incensed at the notion that wealthy people should pay more taxes. Mark Dayton, multimillionaire grandson of the founder of Daytons/Target and president of Minnesota advocated raising the top tax rate on wealthy earners such as himself. Republicans like Duffy (and Mike Lemieur, MN 12B - 320-632-3922 ) say No! We need to balance the budget by cutting programs for working families and stripping public employees of their rights... but they'll be DAMNED if you try to raise taxes on high income earners (Sean Duffey, making $175k wouldn't even meet the higher proposed tax bracket... but is STILL an asshole about it).
Fuck this lot of Republicans... THAT'S why people are upset about this. Take take take take... but be damned if themselves or the wealthy should ever have to sacrifice.
Re:7 kids? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it so righteous to have so many kids
It's because he's white silly. Having too many kids and not being able to pay for them is only bad if you're a minority!
Oh and look I don't even have to wait for a lulz-packed response, look at this gem:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2063208&cid=35680422 [slashdot.org]
Straight from the horse's mouth.
Re:Nope. (Score:2, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with regulations or future regulations, right? Nope. And it has nothing to do with subsidizing other people's medical needs? Nope. And it has nothing to do with the high cost of malpractice insurance? Nope. And it has nothing to do with the 1000's of inputs that go into the "medical market"? Nope. According to you, it's just the CxO salaries that moved the needle 20%.
Sir, I think you should apply for a MacArthur Foundation award. You have it figured out and are truly a genius. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re:methinks Sen. Larry Craig doth protest too much (Score:5, Insightful)
If you believe providing healthcare to a country's citizens to be facisim, I'm sure there is space available for you in Somalia (a libertarian paradise). You pay taxes for roads, schools, police and fire protection, regulation that protects YOU (DOT, EPA, etc). Healthcare is no different. We're the only first world country with a pathetic healthcare system, and it'd be cheaper to bitch about it than to go all tea party crazy like you're doing.
Re:7 kids? And vacation home, and a place in D.C. (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, having to maintain two houses is living outside your means. Congress members usually have to maintain their home in-state, and also find a place to live inside DC when Congress is in session.
Considering he was already making $150k before being elected, the bump to 175 isn't a whole lot. He's spending more than he needs to, certainly, with a 5-acre house and another vacation home.
Here's the take-away. He probably is struggling, but he also represents the typical American more than any other Congressman out there right now. Spending what he can afford in terms of monthly payments on debt, not paying cash. Adding a place to crash in D.C. probably made this an overall pay cut form him.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/so-how-rich-is-sean-duffy-not-very-for-a-congressman.php [talkingpointsmemo.com]
the single biggest thing people forget is that Senators and Representatives have to live in a very expensive city. $174k in Washington, with a family house and a D.C. pad is not a pile of money, although it is generous. I'd rather be generous than risk that every single one of them immediately turn to bribes to get by.
Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Now let's begin....so your mother, a high medical risk person, is paying less than the cost for the medical insurance she is getting. Meanwhile, someone else is paying more than their cost so they can subsidize your mother. Or did you think your mother could just "get" $2000 coverage for $700? Whether you realize it or admit it, your mother is subsidized by the rest of taxpayers in your state.
I am not saying that's a good or bad thing. I am simply saying that your mother, by your own admission, is utilizing more medical resources than she can afford. The difference between what she CAN pay and what is being CHARGED is payed by taxpayers.
My only point here is that your "thanks" shouldn't be to Obamacare. Your thanks should be directed to your fellow taxpayers who are subsidizing your mother's medical care via Obamacare.
If I were in your chair, I too would think Obamacare is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But like everything, there are always two sides to the story.
Re:some day (Score:4, Insightful)
"Well," he says, "there's a lot of people on welfare who don't deserve it."
The thing is, story line that Republicans have fed the public for decades is essentially "Democrats have taken your money via high taxes and given it to black crackhead felons in the inner cities as 'welfare', who use it to buy drugs, bling, and fancy cars." So when someone who's heard nothing but this story and never spent significant time in the inner cities thinks about welfare recipients, what they think is not "that guy in my church who gets by on a government check" but "urban black crackhead felon". So what he's actually saying is "stop giving my hard-earned cash to urban black crackhead felons".
This perception doesn't match reality (most welfare recipients are white, many are rural, most aren't felons, most aren't using illegal drugs), but when it's the only message you've ever heard about the issue, it's what you're going to believe, not because you're stupid but because simply because you've never heard or seen anything to the contrary. It would be sort of like living in a time when everyone knows that all the celestial bodies move around the Earth: It sure looks that way, and you've been hearing your priest (who's almost definitely the most educated guy in town, remember) talk about how God made it that way all your life. Chances are you'd believe it.
Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (Score:2, Insightful)
honestly can't think of anything they've done lately, all on their own, that's so blatantly anti-American as this.
Pro-union democrats were ripping up recall petitions two weeks ago in Wisconsin: does that count?
Re:Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of that is all factored in. The health insurance industry is a for profit industry. Each year they post record profits and increase rates. Logic would say that rates should not increase unless REQUIRED to cover policy holders.
But thats not the case. The rates are increased to increase profits.
Yes, malpractice insurance is high.... but for the same DAMN REASON. So you cant say that its malpractices fault, and none of the health insurance industry's.
Insurance is insurance. Its a for profit industry that has squeezed the living shit out of both doctors and patients.
Re:7 kids? And vacation home, and a place in D.C. (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is probably half the problem right there. Perhaps instead all members of congress/senate/president should be forced to have -no- salary and live in taxpayer provided dorm housing w/ meals. With all upgrades to housing and/or meal plans must be voted on on the national level by the registered voting public -not- by the members of congress themselves.
Perhaps if it was a actual sacrifice to serve your country in that particular capacity again we might get some people who are half decent running.
Ahh so much for wishful thinking...
Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or to use my example, how much vote do you think the average share holder of Koch industries has? oh wait they are private....
Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Now let's begin....so your mother, a high medical risk person,
Stop right there. The definition of "high risk pool" does not equate to "high medical risk." Its much more along the lines of "doesn't fit neatly into the system of large employer-based groups."
Essentially EVERYONE who works for a small business (and I don't mean the republican definition of "small business" which is $10M-$50M in yearly revenues) or is self-employed or is a part-time employee of a big corp falls into the "high risk pool" regardless of health status.
I know this from personal experience having transitioned from a large corporate employer with relatively cheap insurance (fully employee paid) to being an independent contractor which raised my insurance premiums nearly 5-fold for roughly the same level of coverage but absolutely no change in medical status. In fact, I have a perfect track record of nothing more than colds for the last 20 years and no medical conditions.
Such pricing is not about a fair distribution of risk, its about a failure of the market.
Re:7 kids? And vacation home, and a place in D.C. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's called rent. And for $1000/mo ($12k/yr) he can easily rent a studio apt in DC that he'll use less than 30 weeks a year (congress has about 22-24 weeks of recess each year). It may even be deductible as a business expense. So for that $25,000, he's got to shell out $12,000 in rent and $3k in utilities.
Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (Score:4, Insightful)
First, I appreciate that you approached this in a cautious way. Nicely stated.
Before we go any further, I wish to respectfully point out a couple of things:
1. The whole idea behind insurance of any sort is that many low-cost users will subsidize the costs incurred by a few high cost users. Nothing has changed here.
2. If I apportion my thanks as you suggest, I can't really thank any government act for any benefit, since they are all paid for by taxpayers. (I suppose I could be thankful if the government gave me a tax break, but my kids are going to pay for that . . . besides, taxes buy civilization.)
Now, to the specifics:
I am aware of how the system works, and honestly, I think this is an improvement. In the previous system, EXACTLY the same thing happens, with the exception that insurance companies (who are motivated by shareholder profit, not any sense of altruism) can selectively price populations out of the market. That they choose to do this to people with expensive medical problems is no coincidence, I am sure.
Now, I believe that insurance serves a valuable purpose, but it requires that lots of people participate in order to work efficiently, and "Obamacare" has been able to extend it to a larger population, in a much more equitable way. I have no objections to this. Also, as a person who kibitzes with doctors on a regular basis, I would point out a benefit that is often overlooked: giving a person access to affordable insurance, even if it is subsidized, reduces healthcare costs for everyone else because hospitals no longer have to recoup the cost of unpaid services from all other patients.
Ultimately, my attitude is this: I, as a taxpayer, am happy to pay a bit extra to help others get the medical care they need. I'm not rich, but I have everything I need, and I can afford to pay a bit more to help out my fellow citizens who lack the means to help themselves. If I may get up on my soap box for a moment: We like to say that we belong to the greatest, richest, most powerful nation on earth. To say that we cannot make a relatively small sacrifice to ensure that our fellow citizens get access to basic medical care says something entirely different about us, something I never want to hear truthfully said about myself.
Re:bah! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Look up something called the Laffer Curve in your vast amounts of spare time and examine the effects of tax rates.
Yes, the Laffer curve is very pretty. Now please present your evidence to support your assertion that we are in the centre or right side of that curve.
Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (Score:5, Insightful)
But those billions for Social Security and Health Care are spent on Americans and paid for by Americans. And neither of those items is part of the discretionary budget which is what people mean when they talk about "government spending". These are both programs which all Americans qualify for (and only Americans) and are the two most popular programs of the federal government by far.
And the $700 billion spent on defense (Department of Defense plus Department of Energy) IS part of the discretionary budget (government spending). And unlike Social Security or Medicare, the level of benefit that citizens obtain from that $700 billion is arguable.
We have had top tax rates as high as 90%. Where do you think "the rich" are going to go to avoid taxes? Even under Clinton (when we had a budget surplus) they were paying the lowest income taxes in the developed world. Are they going to move to Sweden? The UK? IAnd should we really set our top tax rates based upon some fictional Galtian blackmail threat that will never occur?