Denver councilman wants details on DNC spending
By Daniel J. Chacon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published August 5, 2008 at 10:09 a.m.
A Denver city councilman is demanding specifics from the mayor's office about millions of dollars in expenditures for the Democratic National Convention.
Councilman Doug Linkhart said Tuesday that the council has seen contracts and equipment purchases that account for only $23 million of the $50 million federal grant Denver received to pay for security at the convention.
Of the remaining $27 million in expenditures, Linkhart said he has been assured that none meets the threshold requiring council approval. That threshold is $500,000 for contracts and $50,000 for equipment, he said.
"The pieces don't seem to fit," Linkhart said.
"In doing the math, (legislative analyst) Shelley Smith and I came up with so many missing pieces," he said. "It would be strange to have everything outstanding be under $50,000, so we're just trying to find out what we've missed."
Linkhart hopes to get some answers today. As chairman of the council's safety committee, Linkhart requested a briefing on DNC-related expenditures.
Katherine Archuleta, a senior adviser to Mayor John Hickenlooper and his DNC liaison, said she's willing to answer council members' questions.
"Not every expenditure that is made through the security budget requires approval by council, but we have given them a sense of how the security budget is being spent, and we're happy to brief them further," she said.
Council President Jeanne Robb said she hasn't heard many of her colleagues raising concerns about a lack of information on security spending related to the convention.
"I'm pretty comfortable with the level of information that I'm getting, but my instinct is we always want to know more," she said.
More than $2 million in contracts and equipment purchases were presented at Tuesday's weekly mayor/council meeting. Each was over $500,000.
Linkhart said he's not angry but "mostly curious" about where the rest of the money is going.
"I'm not accusing the administration of trying to get around council," he said. "I'm just concerned that council have more knowledge of how the money is being spent."
Last month, the mayor's office released a "budget overview" of how $18.2 million will be spent on equipping police for the convention. But it "had some pretty broad categories with some pretty big numbers," Linkhart said.
"Everything we've gotten before now has also been sort of hastily done, and that's what I would expect, but I want to remind them that council does play a role in all of this," he said. "We need to be informed and kept informed."
chacond@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5099
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Legislature Blog
Read live updates from the opening of the 2009 legislative session.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Rocky year in photos
View an audio slide show of staff selections from 2008.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Shanahan's career
See photos from Mike Shanahan's career as Broncos coach.
-
12 days of Drew
Look back at the year that has been with Drew Litton.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
August 5, 2008
10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
Hmmmm, just now reviewing contracts. The start date is only a few weeks away.
What happens if they do not approve them? Do they start a new search for possible vendors all over?
Or is this just a formality?
August 5, 2008
11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gonzopozo writes:
Has to be a formality - no way they could find new vendors and negotiate new contracts at this point...
August 5, 2008
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
LingLingfor_prez writes:
Wonder if there is a disclaimer.
August 5, 2008
11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
patchsl writes:
Wow... wish I could run (or ruin?) my finances like this... hope no one has performed work on these contracts before they're signed... good thing we can trust our elected officials to look out for the taxpayers' best interests. Wonder if they'd mind toppin' up my gas tank while they're at it...
August 5, 2008
6:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dub writes:
These two contracts are for " Personal Protection ". With 1405 sworn members on the Denver P.D., this amounts to $816.82 for EVERY sworn member of the Denver PD. Does this mean that everyone gets new "stuff"? And what new stuff? New helmets, vests, underwear, billy clubs, handcuffs,shoe insoles? Lotta moola going out, and for what?Should someone throw the B/S flag?
August 5, 2008
8:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
coarizona writes:
We will be left with a big bill after their party. Dems don't do math.
August 5, 2008
9:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
7_ogNiOj writes:
The biggest shady deal going on, to be sure, is the militarization of our city. Of course, to protect The Spectacle we'll let it slide and deal with the abuse later.
August 5, 2008
9:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
More corrupt, sleazy, unethical antics by the Democrat fatcats that are wasting taxpayer money on a useless political charade.
August 5, 2008
9:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mike846 writes:
It will be interesting to see Hizzoner the Mayor dodge this one. I wonder how many expenses there are that run, oh, about $49,900.00. Naw, they wouldn't be that obvious, would they? Keep pushing for the info, Councilman. Looks like that cookie jar has slammed shut on some more hands. Mike
August 6, 2008
3:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
STOPUSAGiveaway writes:
In the end the diminishing working taxpayer who will be forced to work until they drop dead--will be the payor--not the white collar criminal elites....another pyramid scheme just like the UN & WTO
& NAFTA and the North American Union; and Peso Bailout; and SSP Mexico's 's blaming us dba the USA on anything and everything they don't want to deal with in their own nation and every other nation for that matter and and and and until bankruptcy when he world owns us dba the USA rather than sovereignty
Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto Y o u
One Nation Under GOD
PS and and how could this be forgotten---Barack Obama sponsored in the Senate.S. 2433, The Global Poverty Act of 2007 It’s a very costly bill giving away our Tax dollars to other nations so that we can equalize them with our standard of living.
Please list your blood type, etc for human consumption database catalogue of us dba USA body parts when we run out of worthless paper!!!
dollars
August 6, 2008
5:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shadow writes:
Where is the oversight by the city council. Why is there not a demand from the people of Denver as to where this money is going?
With the convention days away and the contracts not signed , what is to prevent the vendors from saying , "nope, that will cost more".
This is a typical government cluster. Not following threough with things. Down to the last minute and no contracts is absurd. There is too much money floating around here not to have a more specific budget.
Hickenlooper and Ritter wanted this debaucle so bad. Yet it has been a piss poor managed fiasco from the start. The city is scamming, the politicians are scamming, vendors are scamming, and the DNC is scamming on these funds. A full account has to be made of every last penny.
It willl be interseting after this circus leaves Denver to find out what the taxpayer will be stuck paying and who pocketed the money.
August 6, 2008
7:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
SteveFesch writes:
7_ogNiOj writes:
The biggest shady deal going on, to be sure, is the militarization of our city. Of course, to protect The Spectacle we'll let it slide and deal with the abuse later.
Just wait until Hick tries to sell you another tax increase for Fast Tracks. He already fooled us once. Can he do it again?
Shadow: It's amazing to me that people are so concerned about $50Million for the DNC while Fast Tracks is at least $4,000,000,000 over budget. There are some people saying it doesn't matter. Unbelievable. The people of Denver need to wake up and demand a financial audit of RTD not necessarily the DNC.
August 6, 2008
7:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
This is only the security expenditures. What about the overspending for the convention itself? We were told the convention would only cost approximately 40 million, all of which would be covered by donations, yet the figure is closer to 50 million, if not more. Where was that extra money spent and who will make up the difference?
August 6, 2008
7:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
SteveFesch writes:
It's good to see people concerned about government expenditures.
Get ready Denver. Cal Marsella is coming to the table with the revised Fast Tracks figures August 21st. Let's keep an eye on the millions of the DNC but maybe we should be concerned about where the BILLIONS are going at RTD. It's not all diesel, and construction costs. Did you know Cal Marsella is the highest paid government employee in the state?
RTD to roll out revised cost on FasTracks lines
By Kevin Flynn, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
More Traffic
RTD told a legislative committee that it has found little support among local communities for shortening its over-budget FasTracks lines or extending their completion schedules in the face of its inability to deliver the program as promised.
Cal Marsella, RTD general manager, told the Transportation Legislation Review Committee on Tuesday that the transit agency expects to disclose a new bottom-line cost for the FasTracks program, currently at $6.1 billion, at its Aug. 21 board meeting.
Rep. Spencer Swalm, a FasTracks opponent during the 2004 election that approved it, noted that the only remaining option on RTD's list after shortening lines or extending construction schedules was seeking more revenue sources.
"So the only thing you're looking at real seriously is trying to get more taxes?" Swalm asked.
Marsella said the board hasn't discussed that.
Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...
August 6, 2008
7:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Yes Mr. Linkhart, there will be an accounting, followed by accusations, and personally I think this DNC was too big a suit for Mr. Hinkenlooper. But lets be frank as well as fair with the people Mr. Linkhart, I believe you already have stated you are for raising taxes on small businesses, and the people to cover the city's sale tax revenue shortages. Mr. Linkhart, this DNC is the last bang for Denver to recieve world notice, and it's bigger than John Hinkenloopers last name. He is drowning for sure. You, on the other hand can't see the people struggling to survive, small business and it's employees, in your own frontyard. Raise taxes to cover city shortfalls in revenues as you stated not to long ago Mr. Linkhart, your going to kill what little heartbeat, Denver has thus far sustained in this economic downturn. Folks out there, a politician is a politician. Can you afford thier luxury of them raising your taxes, to fund thier agendas, with the bills you're already under? Now you boss calls you in, (probably the owner), because you work in a small business, and he's laying you off to pay a bigger tax bite downtown? We can all cut our teeth into "Mr. Hinkenlooper's World's Bigtop Circus" coming to town, but don't you think you too don't have some issues that the people should address also, Mr. Linkhart? "Johnny, run the lion cage fell apart", is bad alright, but you are no friend of the people either. At least with Mr. Hinkenlooper, the world will have a lasting memory, you? Your a thorn that hurts, and is so hard to find on the bottom of the people's foot, Mr. Linkhart.
August 6, 2008
8:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
FCZ writes:
" good thing we can trust our elected officials to look out for the taxpayers' best interests."
August 6, 2008
8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Chacmool writes:
The Democratic convention is the most important event for mankind since the Big Bang. It is not our right to question that or why a 5 day Infomercial requires hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent. The only question is what will we all do with our lives after the Infomercial is over.
August 6, 2008
9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
Republicans paying for the DNC. PRICELESS.......
August 6, 2008
9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Democrats have LOST more than half of the taxpayer money they were given!
Perhaps the $27 million was spent on Hickenlooper's daisies that didn't grow.
No wonder Obama can't do any better than a tie in the polls with McCain. Democrats should have nominated a real candidate, not a clown.
August 6, 2008
9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
patchsl writes:
Wow... is anyone out there as fed up as I am? Day after day, story after story... we're bombarded with the shenanigans of our representatives and their bufoonery... it really is true that we get the government we deserve... because you and I keep voting them in... oh, and my gas tank's about on empty...
August 6, 2008
10:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Froward69
What is unreal about that cartoon at cagle.com is it is not a joke. Do the research cons and you will find it to be true. But somehow idiots like Gene will some way blame it on the democrats. See these crybabies won't even do the research on how the RNC is facing the same problems we are looking at having here. And most of it if not all of it hasn't even happened yet but they have ( with their sharp minds ) made up their minds it will happen.
August 6, 2008
10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
RickyLee said:
"people in this country are too stupid"
First thing you have said that is right.
"THEY ELECTED BUSH TWICE"
August 6, 2008
10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
dilligaf, why does it have to be only the Republicans or only the Democrats? Do you not believe that it is both parties stealing us blind? But mine is better than yours.......No it is not. Just how they go about doing it. Spending is spending is spending. Congress, Admin are both to blame. All of them. In the end we all have to pick our "poison" but hey is your poison more tasty than mine? Boy that went down smooth..................................
August 6, 2008
11:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
colib, do you have any idea what kind of records the republicans have set for spending over the last 8 years?
they controlled all three branches of gov't for the love of jeebus.
yes....at this point, when the nation discusses spending...the republicans can't "share" that track record with the dems. they need to step and take some accountability for their actions.
their policies have resulted in an inevitable impending tax hike...there's no way around that. they've raised taxes because of their policies. i repeated that because it's important to remember when we discuss fiscal platforms.
i'm not saying that the dems don't spend our money just as effectively as the republicans...but when it comes down to it...which is more expensive in the long run, tax and spend or spend and tax?
August 6, 2008
11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
treecat writes:
I keep saying our GRAND Children will, In the end the working taxpayer who will be forced to work until they drop dead paying the bill for this DNC Grand Spending.
August 6, 2008
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
YES Jay we have talked about it many times. F*&^ck I agree that the Republicans have spent us into the poor house.
PLEASE Read my post and TELL me where I have sided with the Republicans? Where?
In 3+ yrs we will all be talking about the wastes that the Dem Admin is doing. How they are spending us into the poor house........It will happen...........
Key word that you and I both agree on Jay. SPEND. That is where my issues with govt reside................
EXAMPLE. The Hickenlooper Admin here seems that they do not have to have full disclosure of spending to the members.........WHAT? Full Disclosure for any administration, local, state, federal ......Democrat....Republican.....Independent......Libertarian..........Professional Fart smeller........All of them.........
Your last paragraph spells it out......my poison tastes better than yours. All I said is we need to hold them all accountable..........
For the nth time I am an independent. At the end of the day I will have to pull the lever for the person that best brings us to a financial accountability. I bet I have voted for more Democrats than you have for Republicans.......... Vote for the person not the party. Other wise you are no better than the Radio Talk show jocks spouting Party Loyalty above all. Hell I support SSQURED and vote out all Incumbants
August 6, 2008
11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
also Jay I have given examples and proposed solutions to keeping costs down. No where have you discussed the cost reductions, just discussed which platform your view was on......So not sure you are truly concerned about spending and cost reduction as long as everyone has to bleed.......the more money the more blood
Side question. Are you truly for capping pay for executives as you are always accusing them of making too much money compared to the taxes.........................??
August 6, 2008
11:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Elephant08 writes:
Hey Shadow at 5:49 a.m. - Thanks for your comment. It made me think about how interesting it will be to see THE CONTRACTS that were let for the convention. After DMC leaves, demand a full accounting (your right under FOIA) from the Federal Election Commission to see how federal government money was spent. It's not just Coloradoans who pay for this. Federal grants aren't "free" -- they require accounting and receipts to make sure expenditures are within the law and thank McCain for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Also, how is it that CEO of the host committee, Mike Dino, was charged with raising $40.6 million by July 1, 2008 (did he?) and Denver's mayor (poor Hickenlooper!) was stuck doing the fund raising? Mike - How Much Money Did you raise from fellow democrats? Someone please publish that story!
August 6, 2008
11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Elephant08 writes:
To see how and why federal money is spent and how to hold candidates accountable, cut and paste:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/wa...
Title 11--Federal Elections
CHAPTER I--FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
PART 9008--FEDERAL FINANCING OF PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING CONVENTIONS
Then....watch Denver's "tightly scripted made-for-TV spectacle" and see how they did
August 6, 2008
12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
jay writes:
"colib, do you have any idea what kind of records the republicans have set for spending over the last 8 years?
they controlled all three branches of gov't for the love of jeebus."
You should check your facts before you post. During the last eight years, the Republicans held the majority in the senate during the 108th and 109th Congresses. During the 107th Congress the majority flipped a couple of times, with the democrats effectively holding the majority for all but 2.5 months, due to Senators changing parties and elections. In the current congress, the 110th, their are 49 Dem., 49 Rep. and 2 independents, one of whom caucuses with the democrats, giving the majority to the democrats. While it is true that the Republicans held the majority in the House of Representatives in the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses, the democrats currently hold the majority in the 110th Congress.
These congresses cover the years 2001 - 2008. That being the case, the Republicans have only held the majority in both houses of Congress for 4 out of the past 8 years. You can check this out at the following gov. link: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/hist... for the senate and then follow the link at the bottom of the page for the house.
That means that democrats are responsible for much of the spending also.
Also, the three branches of government are the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The Executive and Legislative are party affiliated but the Judicial is not. So explain to me how the Republicans can control all three branches of government.
Also, fyi, the Republicans controlled both houses of congress for the last 4 years of the Clinton administration. So it could be said that they were responsible for the surplus.
Have you people considered the fact that governments spend much more money during times of war than times of peace. I don't like it but it is a fact and most of it necessary to support our military, whether we like the war or not. I am more concerned with pork barrel spending of my tax dollars on things like new parks in Chicago and new theaters in Chicago, just two of the pet projects secured by Obama for his home state. Please give the president the line item veto!
August 6, 2008
12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
FlyfishDude52 writes:
Let's check the math;
$27,000,000 remaining for security expenditures
$40,000 each for remaining contracts (<$50,000)
= 675 additional contracts to be completed @$40,000 each
Where can I get in line?
August 6, 2008
12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"PLEASE Read my post and TELL me where I have sided with the Republicans?"
I never said you did, colib. My point is that you can't share that blame with the dems at this point because republicans need to be held accountable for their policies of the last 8 years largely during which they held all three branches of gov't. it's a little too late to be painting both parties with the same brush on this issue.
"In 3+ yrs we will all be talking about the wastes that the Dem Admin is doing."
really? shall we look at the last three years of the clinton administration? again...i don't think you can back up this kind of statement...other than with generalities about gov't being inherently wasteful.
"The Hickenlooper Admin here seems that they do not have to have full disclosure of spending to the members"
again...this is an inaccurate statement. all that the article shared was that the administration was following the law:
"Of the remaining $27 million in expenditures, Linkhart said he has been assured that none meets the threshold requiring council approval. That threshold is $500,000 for contracts and $50,000 for equipment”
don't get me wrong...i'm all for complete gov't transparency...and hope that the city provides the citizenry with complete public records of the spending for the DNC....but let's not imply that they're somehow underhanded in their dealings with this issue to date. it's interesting when we break down your rhetoric and put it in the proper bucket...you sure don't seem like an "independent".
"Jay I have given examples and proposed solutions to keeping costs down."
i never said you haven't, colib. i'm not sure what your point is. i've said many times that we need to reduce gov't spending...starting with increased oversight of the war dept and the abolishment of corporate welfare. we can save BILLIONS a year right there. i'm all for smaller, more efficient gov't, colib...nearly everyone is...that's the point. gov't is inherently wasteful...so saying both parties are guilty of "wasting money" isn't exactly a solid point...but we can look at the policy stances and track records of both major parties and determine who has been a larger part of the problem....particularly in recent times:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
when you take the time to analyze the track record of the economic policy stances from which we have to choose this election season...i agree wholeheartedly with you that we should just look at the data and make our votes accordingly. considering that obama's platform most resembles a third clinton term and mccain's most resembles a third bush term...we can look at the results of those two sets of policy stances and determine....again...as you suggested...by the data....which has a better track record of success...and again...as you suggested...vote accordingly.
here are those numbers again:
August 6, 2008
12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
REAL GDP GROWTH1
4.09% Over Prior 8 Years
2.65% Over Prior 7 Years
NATIONAL DEBT
$5.7 Trillion
$9.2 Trillion
BUDGET DEFICIT/SURPLUS
$431 Billion Surplus over the Previous Three Budget Years
$734 Billion Deficit over the Previous Three Budget Years
JOBS CREATED
1.76 Million Jobs Per Year
369,000 Jobs Per Year
AMERICANS IN POVERTY
31.6 Million
36.5 Million
AMERICANS UNINSURED & CHANGE IN UNINSURED LEVEL
38 Million Uninsured
47 Million Uninsured
4.5 Million Less in 2 Years
8.5 Million More in 6 Years
ANNUAL TOTAL PREMIUM COST
$6,230 for Family Premium
$12,106 for Family Premium
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME & CHANGE IN MEDIAN INCOME
$49,163
$48,023
$6,000 Increase in 8 Years
$1,100 Decrease in 7 Years
PRICE OF GAS
$1.39/Gallon
$4.07/Gallon
COST OF COLLEGE
$3,164 per year
$5,192 per year
PERSONAL SAVINGS RATE
+2.3%
-0.5%
CONSUMER CREDIT DEBT
$7.65 Trillion
$12.8 Trillion
U.S. TRADE DEFICIT
$380 Billion
$759 Billion
STRENGTH OF U.S. DOLLAR
1.07 Euros per Dollar
0.68 Euros Per Dollar
using the data, it's hard to shift the blame for this track record away from conservatives, colib.
August 6, 2008
12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"That means that democrats are responsible for much of the spending also"
nice try, navymom.
i've seen that talking point before and when you look at the specific votes in congress...the republicans are still far and away responsible for the fiscal irresponsibility of the last 8 years.
August 6, 2008
12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Elephant08 writes:
Right on, FlyFishDude 52...
August 6, 2008
12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
COLibertarian
First it's good to chat with you again. Sorry I will only be popping in every once in a while. I'm very busy today and have only been able to blog once or twice. And this one is on my lunch time.
But yes it is both parties that are taking us to the cleaners. Maybe I didn't make my self clear but I was pointing out mainly that republicans have always referred to themselves as CONSERVATIVES ( less government ). And have called the democrats TAX & SPEND ( with more government ). And has of lately it is the opposite. Now they both spend way to much. The difference they have their own way of spending. The dems spend on social programs the rebs on military. Clinton saved a lot of money by shutting down a lot of military bases that was serving no purpose. And for this he was accused of weakening our military. Must of not weakened to much the way we rolled through Irag in just a few days.
August 6, 2008
12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
Jay AGAIN Fu^^%k Yes I agree that the Republicans have spent us into the poor house.
This article is showing us a Local trend that fiscal responsibility is not needed. As this is being described we non sales people are told to look at the shiny object and not to look here......look at the Republicans ONLY becuase they HAVE spent us into the poor house.............. But wait you are about to say Jay.............Not the same.......the money is not comparible?.............This is how it all begins and ends.
AGAIN irresponsible spending is irresponsible spending is.............
Both Parties are responsible and guilty of spending.........
Your over prior 8 yrs v prior 7 yrs....can you please clarify the date periods for each. Thanks Jay
August 6, 2008
12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
jay, I notice that once again, when confronted with some facts disproving statements that you have made, you refuse to acknowledge that you were in any way wrong. You still refuse to explain, for one thing, your comment about the Republicans controlling "all three branches of gov't" when it is obvious that you are wrong as the Judicial branch is non-partisan, (except for activist judges who want to write law instead of interpreting law).
You obviously, once again, refuse to check your facts as you posted your response to my post and others just 7 minutes after my post. You didn't have time to go the the senate historical page and check the senate record, follow the link to the house page, check that record, then compare the two to see who controlled which house of congress in which years and whether the republicans held the majority for the last 8 years as you stated.
By your own reasoning, if the Republicans are responsible for the spending when they are in the majority, then the democrats are responsible for the spending when they are in the majority. On the flip side of that reasoning, then whoever is in the majority when there are surpluses (which is an oxymoron, if you have debt then you don't have surplus), must be responsible for the surplus. You cannot have it both ways or you are just blaming the Republicans for any and all spending regardless of who is in the majority.
You also never seem to want to address the question of Obama's earmarks, of which he has approx. 320 million of his own and shares with other senators another 78 million, as I have given you the link to his own web page before. Here it is again: http://obama.senate.gov/press/070621-...
These are only for 2007, the first year that they were accountable for under government transparency. No one knows about 2008 yet as those have not been disclosed.
I know that individual senators and representatives have what each of us consider bad voting records. We each set up our own criteria for what constitutes bad spending. I have said many times that we need a line item veto to cut out pork. I at least don't just blame the democrats. There is plenty of fault to be had by all in Washington, including past and present elected officials, lobbyists and the average person who has his or her hand out to the government for entitlements.
August 6, 2008
12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
RickyLee
The #1 way to revolt is a revolt that was gaining steam in the late 70's - 80's and that was the tax revolt. If every American quit giving them your money it would solve 90% of the problem. But this won't happen. They have the American people brainwashed into believing that if you don't pay your "FAIR" share of taxes you are not a true American.
The way they where doing it they where putting tax exempt on their W-2's and not filing a tax return. In fact I had better shut up because big brother is reading. (Remember the book 1984?)
August 6, 2008
1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"This article is showing us a Local trend that fiscal responsibility is not needed."
no...it's not....as we've established.
"the money is not comparible?"
of course not.
see the first link again.
"Both Parties are responsible and guilty of spending"
i never claimed differently....but again...let's not pretend that the dems and rubs are equal in their guilt...the republicans are by far the worst culprits...as we've established.
i'm not sure what you're asking for in regards to the data representing 8 yrs vs. the previous 7yrs..up til jan 2008...and actually the fiscal and job numbers have gotten worse for the republicans since then.
navymom said:
"I notice that once again, when confronted with some facts disproving statements that you have made, you refuse to acknowledge that you were in any way wrong."
not at all navymom...again...nice try.
you can't support your statement when confronted with actual voting records. as i said...i've encountered this right wing talking point before...so of course it didn't take me long to debunk it.
enough said.
August 6, 2008
1:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Elephant08 writes:
Hey everybody, back to the issue of the DNC....all those opposed to the most LIBERAL person of the tax and spend party should be willing to chip in for a big banner like the one in NYC 2004, "DNC Not Welcome Here". Hang them everywhere. Someone in the printing business needs to step up and make a political contribution such as this
August 6, 2008
1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Doesn't surprise me that the Democrats are being shady on spending.
August 6, 2008
1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
jay, you have never confronted anyone with "actual voting records", just your rhetoric with no facts to back up what you post. I have confronted you with this many times, to which your usual response is "nice try".
August 6, 2008
1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
jay - "i've encountered this right wing talking point before...so of course it didn't take me long to debunk it."
How can you "debunk" anything when all you ever say is "nice try" and never actually present supporting facts and links to where you get your "facts" that you say you have but never state.
August 6, 2008
1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Elephant08 writes:
What I want to know is...how did federal funding go from $14.6 Million in 2004 to $50 million in 2008? Does anyone know how / why?
August 6, 2008
1:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
hmmm.... I'll bet that whomever it is at City Hall entering into contracts with the DNC is likely low-balling contracts and agreements below the threshold for approval, and thus creating multiple transactions for the same services - avoiding City Council. It happens all the time when companies and govt's, have a transaction cap on purchases of services and goods.
August 6, 2008
1:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
navymom, this isn't exactly breaking news.
i'm sorry you're not really up to snuff on this stuff.
can i suggest some websites where you can get some more education on the matter?
August 6, 2008
1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Elephant08 writes:
GladysKravitz, please talk more about the process. Sounds like you know what's happening. Please give examples. Thanks
August 6, 2008
2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
ay writes:
navymom, this isn't exactly breaking news.
i'm sorry you're not really up to snuff on this stuff.
can i suggest some websites where you can get some more education on the matter?
You keep talking rhetoric and no facts. Did you not notice or fail to read my last two posts? I have asked you many times for facts to support your view and links to where you get your information, yet you ask "can i suggest some websites?". I am, as are probably most of the people who are familiar with your posts, not anticipating that your reply to this post will be any different than your usual "nice try" or another insinuation that I must be ignorant of the facts and need "some more education".
Give me some specific data to back up your claim that "the republicans are by far the worst culprits". I don't want to hearyou say "nice try" or I have debunked anything without actually giving me data and links.
August 6, 2008
2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Elephant08 writes:
I'm glad the Rocky Mtn News did this story; now it is incumbent upon them to do a follow up and give citizens of Colorado a good, investigative journalism piece called "Contractors of The DNC"...looking forward to buying that issue....
August 6, 2008
2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
Why is everyone worried about this? This is really no big deal and we all should mind our own business. What if they are fleecing the system? Hickenlooper and the DNC know what they are doing with the money. If we overspend, we will find ways of covering the additional costs. To question that fact is not the right thing to do in this instance. They need our support.
Crimeny we are only talking 50+million dollars here. Get over it.
Look at what the Republicans are spending? If you want to blame anyone blame the redardicans. Until Hickenlooper and the DNC p!ss away anything close to what the Republicans are spending, then it is not worth our time or energy.
Vote Obama 08
ps. Beware. Retardicans will try and sell you tickets to Invesco. Dont do it, my prices are much better.
August 6, 2008
2:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Elephant08 writes:
Yeah, right COLibertarian (Donkey in disguise), let's vote to tax and spend....that makes a lot of sense in this economy...guess it doesn't really matter to you that your pet programs have lost $50Million to showcase curious george for one night. Let the Spectable begin!
August 6, 2008
2:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Give me some specific data to back up your claim that "the republicans are by far the worst culprits"."
i already did...see the first and second links i've posted above, navymom.
furthermore, if you're interested in seeing the spending bill voting records of the last 8 years, you can see them here:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/co...
August 6, 2008
2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
steel, thanks for the support.
August 6, 2008
2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Elephant08 writes:
I saw it in a tabloid at the grocery store....never quite made the "connection" until they did it for me. LOL
August 6, 2008
2:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
Elephant 08 please read my posts above my last :-)
August 6, 2008
2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Elephant08 writes:
COLibertarian (Donkey in disguise) Why would I want to buy a ticket to Invesco from you. How much are they --- $49,999?
August 6, 2008
3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
Elephant Please Please Pretty Please read my other posts above.......... Once you do you will realize that it was.......mmmm......errr
and Hell Yea for you $25k but act fast
August 6, 2008
3:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Elephant08 writes:
COL....That's the spirit....but fence-sitting is lame....dude, you need to take a stand.
August 6, 2008
3:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
Elephant
I am an independent and I do Not sit on the fence. Any issue you want to discuss is up for fair game and will defend my positions to the tee.
I am very much a Fiscal Conservative, but on social issues I tend to be more about individual freedoms than anything. Even if I disagree on a social issue, I side with the freedoms of individuals...............
Hence the Libertarian/Independent identification. Has nothing to do with fences. If a Republican is being fiscally irresponsinble and not managing costs and budgets properly, they get the same wrath as a Democrat, Independent, Libertarian.....or Professional Fart Smeller........doing the same irresponsible acts.........Equal opportunity politician hater here.
August 6, 2008
3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
jay, I agree that zfacts shows some pretty intriguing graphs, but you still have not backed up your claim by giving specifics on voting records.
I can and have read many voting records. I have not memorized them, but for every vote that you point to republicans, I can point to democrats for that vote or another vote passing spending bills.
You did not address Obama's 320 million dollars in earmarks in just one year. If every senator and representative did this the total would be $171,200,000,000 or 3 percent of the current national debt every year. I know that it is not that high, but just think if it was. Excessive spending is a problem for republicans and democrats alike. Congress is the only branch of government that can propose bills for spending money. The president only signs the bills. He can request money, but without congress he cannot spend it.
August 6, 2008
3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Elephant08 writes:
...um, YOU'RE the one who said (quote),"Crimeny we are only talking 50+million dollars here. Get over it."(end quote) -- and then one hour later, you said you're a "fiscal conservative" (?) What IS that.
Okay, you want to take on The issue (Read the article): Whether the City and County of Denver actually has a "process" for letting contracts regarding the DNC. If they're just reading them now, two weeks before your slush fund party, I smell a rat.
August 6, 2008
3:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
Elephant I spent plenty of time discussing the fact with Jay that bad spending is bad spending........
I asked pretty please to read the posts above. From that you would have seen that my 2:12 post was Sarcasm..........spoof.....joke......
If not Navymom, Steel and other conservatives would have had me for lunch.
August 6, 2008
4:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
" I agree that zfacts shows some pretty intriguing graphs, but you still have not backed up your claim by giving specifics on voting records."
please see the site i posted for voting records, navymom.
i'm not going to read it for you.
as i said before, this isn't exactly breaking news.
i'd be happy to discuss it with you once you've had an opportunity to get a little more info under your belt.
"Excessive spending is a problem for republicans and democrats alike"
once again the data shows that the republican are by far the guiltier party on this issue.
August 6, 2008
4:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reason writes:
navymom, I'm guessing you aren't familiar with the psychological motivations of juvenile Internet trolls. The more you pay attention to them, the happier they are. The best way of dealing with them is to ignore them as you would a child throwing a tantrum. Soon enough, they'll tire of the keyboard and go watch afternoon cartoons on DailyKos.
August 6, 2008
4:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
COlib, I have read your posts and forgive you for not being republican. On the fiscal side, you would be a great asset.
For your information, I don't think I would care to have you for lunch. I prefer to eat outright liberals. As for my ability to "have you for lunch", I hope that means that I would be a worthy adversary.
I much prefer to have rational discussions with data to back up my view. Jay, on the other hand, prefers to state views and then not back them up. Whereas, I summarized my data and then gave links to back them up, Jay just gives links with tons of data and will not specify which data he wants me to look at or gives data with no support.
As for democrat vs republican spending, I believe there is blame to be shared by both sides as do you.
The difference I see fiscally between Obama and McCain, is that Obama is a major earmark senator and McCain doesn't ask for earmarks. Earmarks, in my opinion, are a big sign of how a person might, and I stress might, govern in the Oval Office because so many earmarks are fiscally irresponsible spending.
There are other reasons why I do not vote democrat most of the time, such as social platform, but they are not pertinent to this conversation.
BTW, I recognized the sarcasm in your 2:12 post. I thought that it was well written sarcasm.
August 6, 2008
4:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
reason, please don't pout.
posting inconvenient political facts isn't "trolling".
August 6, 2008
4:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
Touche, Reason! Very good point.
August 6, 2008
8 p.m.
Suggest removal
GetReal writes:
jay-
Let me remind everyone here how you stated,
upon Tony Snow's slow death due to colon cancer,
that you
"hoped it hurt".
You are literally a piece of human garbage who, if I ever met in person and had the misfortune of hearing your smack, would be spitting up bloody chunks of teeth in a NY minute.
Anything you ever post from here on out will always be tainted, and I will make it my business to let people know of your sick agenda.
Get some professional help like your parents have suggested,
You F'n freak.
August 6, 2008
8:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
GetReal; That is exactly why _______ should not be acknowledged!
Refer to reason @ 4:36pm!
August 7, 2008
10:03 a.m.
jay writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)