Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) is one of the sponsors of the legislation that would create a budget commission to reduce the deficit.
He's also my congressman and the person who over the weekend sent me an expensive four-page mailing that promotes his commission and his role in proposing it.
This is an expensive piece of propaganda. It's four colors, printed on heavy, coated paper, complete with pictures and bleeds. It states that it was "prepared, published, and mailed at taxpayer expense" to what appears to be a large purchased list. I'm going to assume that he only sent it to people in his congressional district, but there's no way to know that.
This mailing would have been acceptable had Wolf used campaign funds or personal money to pay for it. But using taxpayer dollars to ask people to give him credit for trying to reduce the spending of taxpayer dollars is totally inappropriate and utterly ridiculous. The fact that he didn't realize this makes you question rather than admire his budget cutting credentials.
Stan, I sure hope your point
Stan,
I sure hope your point is that he shouldn't use taxpayer dollars for something that you consider to be, in effect, part of his own campaign for re-election (or clearly for self-promotion in some other way), as opposed to arguing that it's inappropriate or "ridiculous" to spend taxpayer dollars to seek spending reductions or a solution to our fiscal imbalance, as the SAFE Commission (with staff, etc.) presumably would do. And it doesn't seem to me that advocacy for this commission would be an inappropriate (or hypocritical) use of franking privilege. If the piece seemed to you to be mostly advocacy (for the commission) rather than self-promotion, would you still consider it inappropriate and "ridiculous"?
Yes
There's nothing appropriate about this mailing.
Stan, Are you saying you
Stan,
Are you saying you consider it inappropriate for a member of Congress to send any taxpayer-funded mailer to his constituents supporting some position on a current issue and related legislation? If not, then help me out with what exactly you see as so clearly inappropriate and so highly objectionable (leaving aside the matter of self-promotion since I asked about a case in which that wasn't the problem and you seem to be responding that this mailer, for some other reason, would still be clearly inappropriate)? Is it just that you are outraged that he chose a heavier, more expensive stock (etc.) for the mailer? Some explanation and distinctions would be helpful and appreciated.
First...He doesn't need to
First...He doesn't need to convince people in his district that he should vote for it, or get their permission because he's already going to vote for it. He's one of the sponsors.
Second, the irony is unmistakable: his legislation would limit unnecessary expensive government spending but his literature is itself expensive government spending.
Stan, Let’s put this in some
Stan,
Let’s put this in some perspective. Wolf is seeking to move our nation toward fiscal responsibility, including (as all sensible people do) some spending restraint vs. projected spending over the long term. The stakes are obviously enormous, with potentially trillions of dollars at stake in terms of spending, deficits, and impact on the economy if we get to fiscal responsibility (or significantly closer to it) sooner rather than later. As part of his advocacy, he apparently (per your description of the mailer) used his franking privilege to inform his constituents about this extremely important issue, advocate for what he sees as part of the solution, and inform them of his (i.e., their representative’s) related efforts (and yeah, the latter is presumably self-promotion, but from the constituent’s standpoint it’s letting them know what he’s doing as their representative so they can judge his performance between elections and eventually decide whether or not to keep him there). And in doing the above he committed the great sin of spending some thousands of dollars more on higher quality paper, graphics and printing, presumably to because it would get more people to read it and perhaps make it more persuasive.
Ridiculing him and charging him with hypocrisy in a blog post seems not just to be making a fuss about what amounts to a microbe on a gnat on an elephant’s ass, but doing so when that microbe is working to heal the elephant of some life-threatening element located in its ass (sorry, had to stick with the metaphor).
And I understand and appreciate symbolism and example-setting, but this seems to be (at best) petty, and with all due respect, I have to wonder if there’s more going on here. Do you dislike Wolf and/or wish someone else (a Democrat perhaps?) were your representative? Do you oppose the SAFE Commission or have something against those involved?
Lastly, regarding the self-promotional aspect, I don’t think a completely different and higher standard applies to a Congressman who is actually seeking fiscal responsibility and responsible containment of spending, nor do I consider his/her use of franking privilege in general (let alone in advocating for fiscal responsibility) hypocritical. If the few who want to get the nation to be fiscally responsible about spending forego use of franking privilege for mailings with some P.R. benefit – and for that matter forego any public matching funds for campaigns (even if it puts them at a disadvantage) and anything that is arguably “pork” for their constituents -- it would have negligible effect on the budget but would rid Congress of those seeking to move the nation toward fiscal responsibility. It would amount to unilateral disarmament of whomever was fighting the good fight on the national level.
Stan, If you have a chance to
Stan,
If you have a chance to scan and post that mailer here or somewhere on the Web, I'd appreciate seeing what you are reacting to.
I don't see anything on Wolf's site that seems to be mailer material, but folks may be interested in his page on the SAFE Commission http://wolf.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=202§iontree=7,202 and links from there.
Why don't you ask him by
Why don't you ask him by email or open letter about legality, opportunity, purpose and usefulness etc. of his mailing?
FYI re: franking law per
FYI re: franking law per http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22771.pdf
The communications may include letters in response to constituent requests for information, newsletters regarding legislation and Member votes, press releases about official Member activities…
The franking privilege may only be used for matters of public concern or public service. It may not be used to solicit votes or contributions, to send mail regarding political campaigns or political parties, or to mail autobiographical or holiday greeting materials.
Official funds must be used in the preparation of materials sent under the frank; no private funds may supplement printing, production, or other costs.
House Members are prohibited from sending mass mailings fewer than 90 days prior to any general or primary election in which they are a candidate, and are prohibited from sending unsolicited mass mailings outside their district
Current law allows Members to send mass mailings in various forms (newsletters, questionnaires, press releases, notices) on a variety of topics, including but not limited to the impact of laws and decisions, public and official actions taken by Members of Congress, proposed or pending legislation or governmental actions, the positions of the Members of Congress on legislation or other public issues, and other related matters of public concern or public service.
The $787 billion stimulus
The $787 billion stimulus plan resulted in:
-- $300,000 allocated for a GPS-equipped helicopter to hunt for radioactive rabbit droppings at the Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington state;
-- $219,000 for Syracuse University to study the sex lives of freshmen women;
-- $800,000 for the John Murtha Airport in Johnstown, Pa., serving about 20 passengers per day, to build a backup runway.
TARP Inspector General Barofsky says the $700 billion TARP will likely produce "negative returns" to taxpayers, because some of the programs are highly unlikely to be repaid (he specifically singled out mortgage modifications).
The AP just reported a government study showing suspected Medicare fraud was $47 billion last year. 60 Minutes recently did an expose estimating Medicare fraud at $60 billion.
In light of the few examples noted above, it's hard to get excited by a Congressman wasting a few thousand taxpayer dollars to garner political support tp try to reign in government spending. Besides, his effort will almost certainly fail, and the glossy mailer can be used by his opponents in the next election to highlight his wasteful spending and get him voted out.
Stan isn't alone in his irritation
vis a vis franking.
My rep (Michele Bachmann - R) used $380K on mailings during the first quarter of 2009 (100K more than the average Congress critter spent during the same period).
MPR picked up on the issue:
"The members of Congress get free postage and in the past they've created newsletter-like mailings to tout their accomplishments. These days, they've dropped the illusion of news and are treating the mailers more like what they really are -- pre-campaign literature.
In the age of 24/7 cable news, congressional Web sites, the YouTube congressional channel, Facebook, and Twitter, it's still 1857 in Washington. Members of Congress say the "franking privilege" is necessary to "keep in touch" with constituents.
Mine arrived last night from my representative -- Michele Bachmann -- touting her opposition to the economic stimulus package. Its claims were unsubstantiated and unattributed."
Source:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/ar...
More on Bachmann's spending:
http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/search/label/Franking
Note that MRA went up 7% for Congressional reps this year . . . most of us didn't get raises to pay our bills. What's with that? Stan makes a very good point, and he's not alone in his irritation with glossy campaign ads sent at taxpayer expense.
Stan's post isn't a rant
Stan's post isn't a rant against franking. Rather, Stan is (inappropriately, per my comment upthread) singling out one member of Congress who used his franking privilege and ridiculing him for supposedly notable wasteful spending, and charging him with hypocrisy.
Waste, waste, waste
I'm on the same page as Stan. Irresponsible spending by our politicians (on both sides of the aisle) is rampant. The best way for politicians like Rep. Wolfe to win the support of their constituency is through leading by example. Spending taxpayer dollars on an expensive mailing campaign has the opposite effect, regardless of the fact that Wolfe may have the best of intentions. Here in Los Angeles, where I live, we're facing a potentially huge waste of taxpayer dollars because the politicans insist on "business-as-usual."
Last year, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services procured for vendor services to operate the county's welfare to work program. Two bids came in from the incumbent company (Maximus, Inc.) and newcomer Policy Studies Inc. (PSI). Both were scored by a neutral third party, and PSI beat Maximus solidly in several categories, including performance and bid price. Maximus protested the results, but they were upheld on 3 levels and PSI was recommended by DPSS to receive the contract.
The Board of Supervisors rejected the recommendation with 3 votes. They claimed the process of consensus scoring somehow concealed bias from the DPSS, though no specific evidence of this bias was ever presented. Furthermore, this scoring process was documented as a valid process which had been used for years prior to 2008, and the same process whereby the incumbent Maximus had been recommended and awarded. The BOS then directed the DPSS to extend Maximus' contract for 6 months while they reissue the RFP and devise a new scoring method. Why the complete 180 now?
The reissue of this RFP makes no fiscal sense whatsoever, particularly given the dire state of California's economy. What's more, the state faces federal penalties to the tune of approximately $185 million if they do not meet a preexisting federal threshold. Why is the BOS insisting on spending MORE of our tax dollars in an effort to maintain their business relationship with Maximus - a company whose performance was scored lower and contract priced higher than PSI? (The county has estimated the cost to reissue the RFP to be $250,000). If PSI had been chosen, their contract would save the county over one million dollars annually. What's going on here?
An LA Times article from last year exposed just how entangled Maximus is with the BOS. In the first half of 2008, Maximus spent over $124,000 on two lobbying firms, more than doubling what they spent on marketing in the past year. Perhaps even more troubling, Maximus donated $1,000 (the maximum allowed) to the campaigns to re-elect supervisors Don Knabe and Michael D. Antonovich. They even gave $1,000 to two members whose terms had 2 years left to run. Apparently, the BOS would rather take $1,000 of easy money than save the taxpayers over a million dollars a year. The math doesn't add up.
In these lean times, the board ought to re-examine their motivation because it's certainly not focused on the bottom line.