EASY

Get rid of s hit like this.

Biden charging Secret Service for cottage rental - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/31/biden-charging-secret-service-cottage-rental/)

"money he collects from the Secret Service: “Every elected official can do the same thing average Americans can, which is to write a check to the Bureau of the Public Debt to bring down the national debt.”"

I'd call it collusion and bid rigging......

This is pennies in the big picture of what it costs to protect POTUS, Vice POTUS, SEc State, etc. IF you only had an idea on how much $$ security is for a presidential visit domestically or even worse, abroad. This cottage is a drop in the bucket.

Every drop adds up to a full bucket.

I don't see anything wrong with this, in fact it would be improper to not pay rent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You never see anything wrong with Govt waste

This is first of all ILLEGAL. It's called COLLUSION and BID RIGGING.

The Govt is REQUIRED by law to go to bid for anything over xx dollars. I know the State is $10k and I believe Feds are the same. It's supposed to be advertised and accept SEALED bids for services.

So to get around this they write 2-3 "little" contracts and they don't go to bid. All great...cept it's the same person receiving benefits and it's STILL ILLEGAL.

The Federal Govt shouldn't be putting more money in this jackwads pocket in this fashion...

I'm betting there's a whole bunch of people that would like to have the govt as a tenant....not some illiterate sponge like this.

So are you having cake on Thursday? Or did you get a super secret invite to MV in a few weeks and will be celebrating there? :hee:


I don't see anything wrong with this, in fact it would be improper to not pay rent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You never see anything wrong with Govt waste

This is first of all ILLEGAL. It's called COLLUSION and BID RIGGING.
I don't see this as waste, the SS has the duty to protect the VP.

I'd also be willing to wager that the SS is exempt from laws requiring contracts be put to bid. There's no way you can be responsive and provide security under such rules.

It sounds like the property is ideally located for the mission and has an established rental value. For the SS *not* to reimburse Biden could create a conflict of interest.

Unless the property was very difficult to rent or clearly not adequate for the task I'm not sure what the argument is.

Unless it's just to bitch.

-spence

yea it's just to bitch. That's it. :wall:

According to the Article its perfectly legal.....:huh:

I don't have much problem with it as it probably enhances security in some respects (though on the other hand you become an easier target if something were to go down).

However, if this were Cheney and not Biden it would be the lead story at CNN, NYT, etc...

I'm a little disappointed if there is no early termination clause for end of January 2013. Would be a shame if Guvmint had to pay all the way to fall 2013 :devil2:

If it was Cheney the story would have been about the hardened bunker he had built under the back shed ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When we protect a dignitary, whether foreign or domestic, a threat assessment is taken. The level of threat determines the size of the protective detail as well as any attachments of specialized personnel, command posts, where the agents lodge, where the vehicles are located, physical security measured, uniformed presence, etc. All this adds up to $$ but its not a frivolous expense. Its to keep these people alive. POTUS, VPOTUS, Sec State, etc get the full deal. This is part of the package. Whether its paying the Waldorf Astoria in NYC a few grand a NIGHT for a command post and associated rooms, or paying Biden to rent his cottage & pay utilities, its a necessary expense and part of the package of protecting him. When the POTUS comes to NYC, even for a day, it costs several million dollars. Should the city not charge the federal government for use of their police department and other resources? Should all of the venues that are visited be "on the arm"? Should everyone just give out a freebie to the government in the name of national security? Should hotels give free use of their facility for the USSS because they are claiming it? Should Biden be out of pocket for the electricity and use of his property? i dont think so.
You want to fix the budget, go after the benefit fraud. Its disgusting the #^&#^&#^&#^& that goes on. We were doing an investigation a few months ago and had to talk with Section 8 to track someone down. Out of curiousity i ask for the income levels to be eligible for Section 8. It was a lot more than you think. I want to say a family of 2 needed to make under 57k a year to claim section 8. The gov pays 70% of your rent if you are making 56,999 a year. This isnt even fraudulent.
kik out the illegals who drain the system and dont pay into it, increase enforcement on those who defraud the government welfare programs, let banks default instead of giving them free $$. This will have a much greater impact than payments made to Joe Biden the landlord.

While it si perfectly legal and does not require going out for bids, I fully support Salty's opinion. If he were really serious about doing his part he would allow them to use the facility free of charge. After all, it is his tail they are protecting.

Instead, like all the politicians, he's making money from the deal.

Instead, like all the politicians, he's making money from the deal.

They all speak with forked tounge. Never heard of a former VP, Pres.
or Congressman go on unemployment or welfare after going out of office.