California Senate Fat Cats Go On A Tiny Tax Dollar Diet
Per a Patrick McGreevy LA Times story, I learn that we California taxpayers have been funding state senators' coffee breaks, snacks, and meal expenses. In the future, the senaturds will cover these expenses. Poor dears. McGreevy writes:
"It has been a long tradition in the Senate that our coffee room provides snacks for members on session days and meals in situations where the Senate remains in session over normal dining hours,'' Steinberg wrote in a memo to his colleagues. "However, not all traditions can or should be maintained indefinitely," he wrote. "Our institutional practices should reflect our best judgment as times and circumstances change.''The Times reported Sunday that in addition to the public money the Senate has spent on food this year, taxpayers picked up the tab last year for more than $23,000 worth of meals during a 115-day budget standoff. An additional $2,900 a month paid for granola, yogurt, fresh fruit and sweet snacks during the impasse, according to a review of Senate receipts.
This year's expenditures were 10% more than last year's, even as lawmakers approved a 6% cut in the budget for services to Californians.
Lew Uhler, head of the California-based National Tax Limitation Committee, had criticized the meals spending as double dipping, because senators also get $143 per day, tax free, for expenses such as meals and lodging while they are in Sacramento.
granola, yogurt, fresh fruit and sweet snacks
Finally! An explanation of why they are known as fat cats!
gharkness at November 10, 2011 2:54 AM
Off topic
"BOTU finally crossed the line about 6-8 weeks back. Amy finally had had enough and put his IP in the permanent spam filter."
Can anyone please narrow down the date a little more. I could not find his comments that made Amy mad.
chang at November 10, 2011 4:22 AM
My company accounts for meal times as well. They provide a cafeteria. Unfortunately, I have to buy my own meals, regardless of whether I work over or not. I'm going to talk to my boss about this discrepancy....
Renee at November 10, 2011 4:26 AM
<Off topic>
"BOTU finally crossed the line about 6-8 ...
It was somewhere around here, but I can't find the post where Amy blocked him. Or the comments that led up to it.
He had finally gotten to the point of being rude and offensive to others he was going after our charming hostess repeatedly.
www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/09/22/bullied_boy_kil.html
</Off topic>
Jim P. at November 10, 2011 6:24 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/10/california_sena.html#comment-2755261">comment from Jim P.As many of you know, this is free speech site that welcomes disagreement (even profanity-packed disagreement -- no biggie) and allows assholes of all stripes. The thing is, you have to be an on-topic-striped asshole and not just be interested in making every comment you make about getting attention -- for you, your rectum and anal sex. If you do this, you'll eventually get banned -- for being offensively boring, not for being offensive.
Amy Alkon
at November 10, 2011 7:48 AM
Yonder
I don't think private bloggers should be defensive about it. "Free speech" is when you start your own blog, which is free and easy. Amy's house = Amy's whims. No shame in that.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 10, 2011 10:30 AM
"Amy's house = Amy's whims."
Agreed. That is why I never say anything negative to Amy directly. She has a right to kick me out of her party if she thinks I had too much drinks.
It is too bad that BOTU didn't get that memo.
Anyway, BOTU gave a very good and different perspective on the issue when he was on.
Otherwise, this site was frequented by the people who keep asking "what is in it for me?"
chang at November 10, 2011 12:22 PM
What on Earth do you mean?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 10, 2011 12:26 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/10/california_sena.html#comment-2755718">comment from changThat is why I never say anything negative to Amy directly.
Oh, please. I'm not exactly a priss. Numerous people have attacked me over the years. Again, the standard here was not disagreeing with me -- I have not a problem in the world with people who do, and find a discussion more interesting if there's disagreement.
If your every post is about your rectum, someone else's rectum, anal sex, etc. -- always utterly unrelated to the topic -- you are an attention-whoring bore, and you mess up the discussion rather than adding to the debate.
"Otherwise, this site was frequented by the people who keep asking 'what is in it for me?'"
Huh? Coherence is always a good thing, Chang.
And again, I've banned about seven individuals since 2003, and two of them were BOTU. (He got a new IP and came back and I'd hoped he'd stop posting about his rectum, my rectum, my vagina, etc., but he got right back to it.)
Amy Alkon
at November 10, 2011 12:35 PM
Eagerly awaiting a cite from Chang of this "very good and different perspective" he mentions... None come to mind.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 10, 2011 4:59 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/10/california_sena.html#comment-2755977">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Likewise, Crid.
Amy Alkon
at November 10, 2011 5:08 PM
Wow BOTU got banned. I was noticed he was gone. I thought he might have got distracted by something else.
Yes the senators deserve some snacks. Put in some vending machines. Stocking it with raisins or fruit if you want.
John Paulson at November 10, 2011 7:19 PM
Leave a comment