« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

The Daily Muck

The Justice Department under Bush has had new priorities. Between 2000 and 2006, the number of defendants in environmental cases is down twelve percent, organized crime prosecutions are down thirty-eight percent, bankruptcy and fraud prosecutions are down forty-six percent, and white-collar crime prosecutions have slumped ten percent. Instead, Justice says it is focused on immigration and terrorism-related investigations. But last year, the department brought only 46 international terror cases, down from 355 in 2002. (Washington Post, New York Times)

The boat that no one loves sits in Seattle. But the Seattle Times, in an ongoing investigation of defense earmarks, is paying it attention. The boat was built by the Navy (who had no intention o f using it), funded by $4.5 million in earmarks (that the government never requested) and then donated to the University of Washington (which has no use for it). It seems the only people who benefited from it are the shipbuilders (who've received over $17 million in earmarks over their career). (Seattle Times)

Attywood recalls all the reasons why the Democrats should have been wary to put Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) in a high profile position. Beyond his talent for writing press releases for high-dollar donors, Murtha is closely tied to CTC, the firm that hired Charles Riechers (without giving him any work) before Reichers' recent tragedy. (Attywood)

Spying is expensive. The cable company Comcast reportedly charges the government $1,000 nearly every time the government wants to monitor or review the activities of a customer, plus an additional $750 a month in maintenance fees. We here at TPM cringe at the the thought of what would happen if the government had to deal with Time Warner. (ABC's The Blotter)

In the trial of defense contractor Brent Wilkes, who is accused of bribing representative “Duke’ Cunningham, Wilkes’ attorney is attempting to show that it is standard operating procedure in Washington for lobbyists to shower representatives with gifts. Recently, a waiter at the ritzy the Capital Grille restaurant in Washington testified that in his thirteen years experience, he never saw a representative pay for a meal with a lobbyist. Apparently in some cases, this type of treating is extended to hookers as well. (Washington Post)

A judge has ruled that the government can withhold the names, salaries and positions of employees of jobs, thus ending a 91-year tradition of transparency. (AP)

A Republican billionaire contributed $29,200 to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer after they helped gain Senate committee approval for a Woodstock concert museum funded in part by that billionaire. The donation came just days after the committee vote. Apparently, this practice is more common than Republicans honoring Woodstock and supporting Hillary. (USA Today)


Comments (4)

Repack Rider wrote on October 17, 2007 10:46 AM:

I love Jack Murtha for his honorable and distinguished military service and his principled and public stance against the war in Iraq, but the rest of his record in congress...not so much.

Retire, Jack. Please.

funny wrote on October 17, 2007 12:16 PM:

You gotta love those cable guys. They know how to overcharge everyone!! I wonder if they tell the government that the service guy will show up between the hours of 8 - 5 pm on next Tuesday.

Eric Ferguson wrote on October 17, 2007 6:29 PM:

I know the odds Hillary arranged a contribution in exchange for the earmark are very low, and lots of congressmen have these convenient coincidences of earmarks and contributions, nonetheless I appeal to that plurality of Democrats who are backing her in the polls. She has a history of associating with wealthy people who want something from her in the way of government favors. It's like a constant drip of little questionable situations which, put together, look like a great way for Republicans to beat back the "culture of corruption" charge. When we have candidates who don't have this problem (or Hillary's other problems), why not pick one of them?

v. popvli wrote on October 24, 2007 5:52 PM:

91 years or 191? the article you linked to quotes the year 1816 as the beginning of the release of federal employees' names & salaries.

and it's totally unbelievable. aren't those people in the fed our employees? they work for us, right? so, as their bosses, we can demand to know who they are and what we are paying them, can't we?

america is turning into bizarro-world.

Post a comment

Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address