|
|
| Posted: 02 Aug 2011 17:47 |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
The Washington Times reports that Biden has collected $13,200 from the Secret Service since April to rent a cottage adjacent to his Wilmington, Del., home and continues to charge the agency rent. The Secret Service has agreed to pay $2,200 per month for use of the house in order to provide security to the Biden family, according to Edwin M. Donovan, special agent in charge at the Secret Service's Office of Government and Public Affairs in Washington.
(By the way, that's no discount on the rent--the Times reports that's the amount paid by the previous tenant.)
source: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/joe-biden-collecting-rent-secr ...
Why is it Democrats want to tax the rich, but never want to give up any of their money? Of all the lousy tricks to charge money to the secret service so they can protect him.
If he really wants to not look like a hypocrite he needs to stop that mess right now. Talk about nerve.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 03 Aug 2011 07:13 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
So to sum up the non story.
The secret service regularly rents locations to use as a base of operations near the homes of those they are assigned to protect.
Prior to this cottage becoming available they had paid rent to someone else for this purpose.
Upon Biden's renter moving out, the Secret Service asked to rent the property and the Biden's said sure.
Are there any actual controversial facts of this case?
|
| Posted: 03 Aug 2011 14:24 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I think it's a interesting story in that it shows hypocrisy on the Dems side when it comes to money. Sure raise taxes, but don't take their money. Call it exhibit A.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 03 Aug 2011 15:34 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Actually, there is likely some ethics violation that would occur if the vice president provided his established rental property free of charge to the Secret Service.
Likeiwse I don't see how taxes enter into it. As liek most politicians the dems are as likely to be in a high tax bracket as the republicans, they are asking to raise thier own taxes.
This story illustrates the situation as it exists, that is, a rental property was available that the Secret Service wished to Rent, and they did.
Again had he given the property for free, or even given a better deal it would have likely been a violation of the ethics of the agency or the office of the Vice President, as it could have implied untoward collusion between himself and the service.
We have all sorts of ethics rules in place to avoid untoward influence, and sometimes they cause strange set ups, but they are necesary to avoid abuse.
|
| Posted: 03 Aug 2011 17:55 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
How would it be ethically wrong to give agents a free place to stay while they are protecting you?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 03 Aug 2011 18:34 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Well, most ethics rules are about the value given, so if the value of the place crosses a certain threshhold it could be considered extravagent, and there by could be be seen as an attempt to influence officials of the government.
Again there is an illogic to it, but such illogic is intended to thwart the legal finageling of persons who would exploit such a loophole.
The question that comes up from a persepctive of ethics is, was the same procedure followed for this political or government official as would be followed for anyone else.
So from Biden's side, the question is would he have given the space for free to a non government official, and from the service's side the the question is would they have accepted such a freebie from someone. I think in both cases, the answer is likely no, because something given for free would have an implication that something expected in return of equal value, even if that wasn't the intneion, to avoid the apperance of impropriety you have to act as if it were.
As a counter example, think of an alternate universe where he did give the space for free, and what a conservative group might wish to make of it. Is he lavishing gifts on his detail in order to influence his detail, is he planning on having one of his men lower their guard if they get assigned to Obama? Or perhaps one of the GOP Candidates? Is he forming his own hit squad or personal army?
Sure it's outlandish, but more outlandish things have been said about politicians with far less evidence, and gotten play in the media at large.
|
| Posted: 03 Aug 2011 19:38 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Sometimes it's just about doing what comes right naturally.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 03 Aug 2011 22:13 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
|
Actually, no, it's about following the law, but that's fine.
|
|
