Comments on: Congressmen: Their booze, your bill

By: Caleb Powers

Caleb Powers — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:12:23 +0000

Julian, I don’t know if I agree that the Beer Summit was a great success, but I agree that it was well intended. Interestingly, did you notice that both Obama and Biden drank cheap domestic beers (Bud Light and Miller Light as I recall) while the guests had a Red Stripe and a Blue Moon. I suppose the Prez and the Veep wanted to be seen as working class Joes (no pun intended) drinking working class American beer.

My father owned bars and restaurants most of his working life, including a fairly rough working class bar near downtown Lexington (in which I bartended, of course) and was generally a reverse beer snob, selling loads of Pabst Blue Ribbon, which is now amazingly making a comeback. I knew he had turned the corner one day when I was helping behind the bar in one of his joints and he told me he had some St. Pauli Girl in the cooler.

By: perplexed

perplexed — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:34:10 +0000

Guy’s you forget the power of a drink or two. In situations concerning commerce a good Kentucky Bourbon can loosen up the hardest ego. It makes communication much better between parties. I’m sure that the visit to Europe had official business and winding down with a stiff drink often opens the door to friendship that can overcome political differences. By the why, I heard the Pope likes his wine!

By: Julian Malakar

Julian Malakar — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 01:42:07 +0000

Caleb, surely we always do not agree with disagree, I agree that one or two beers can save lives and millions dollar worth property damage due to riot or even war, caused by mere misunderstanding of two parties or partners. President’s beer party with Prof. Gates and Officer Crowley indeed reconciled the tension of misunderstanding and ultimately taxpayers are gainer paying alcohol beverage cost for such party. Alcohol beverage cost for government spending must be reasonable, allowable and allocable. I know for certain government grant funds can not be used for alcohol, which is unallowable.

By: José

José — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:31:52 +0000

I used to drink Hamm’s. The one with the bear.

By: Caleb Powers

Caleb Powers — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 20:39:18 +0000

Just to show that Julian and I don’t disagree on everything, while I rarely drink alcohol, I do like Heineken beer, too; primarily the dark beer.

By: Caleb Powers

Caleb Powers — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 20:37:51 +0000

Sorry for the mistake, Julian. It’s still not a good idea to feed Heineken to bears, though. As to the legality of the government paying for alcohol, I assume you’re right, though certainly in high level gatherings such as White House dinners and state department soirees, they do serve alcohol, and we know that the president and vice president both had a beer with Prof. Gates and Officer Crowley, and the beers were presumably paid for with taxpayer money.

By: Julian Malakar

Julian Malakar — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 20:22:58 +0000

Caleb, I know you are corporate lawyer; your eyes would not miss spelling mistake like “Heineken beer” which is my favorite. Please read “beer” instead of “ bear” in my above posting for unallowable cost in government spending and thanks for wild life advice.

By: Caleb Powers

Caleb Powers — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 19:47:24 +0000

Julian, it is generally illegal to serve alcohol to bears, unless one is invoking the right to keep and arm bears under the second amendment, and then only when the bears are in enclosed places. You wouldn’t want to get a wild bear drunk.

Jose, the reason you don’t often see this sort of thing coming up is that most lawmakers, of both parties take junkets paid for by big business. I’ve been around enough politicians over the years to see this over and over: They’ve gotten pretty good at hiding and covering it up; it’s only the messier ones like Ted Stevens’ dream house in Alaska that make the news. It’s not as bad now as it used to be, but historically Congressmen have traveled on corporate jets, used corporate facilities, and received all manner of benefits from the very corporations they’re supposed to regulate. It’s a cesspool out there.

By: Julian Malakar

Julian Malakar — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 19:41:28 +0000

As per Code of Federal regulations (CFR) under standard cost principle alcohol is not allowable cost even for a single bear. A bill for collection should be issued against the voucher paid.

By: José

José — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:48:44 +0000

Aw gee, WND? Really?

OK, two questions here. First, is this really just a Pelosi / Democratic Party thing? Was there any research about excesses by GOP legislators and bureaucrats? Why not? I found the WSJ article that seems to have triggered this report. Yes, it mentions Speaker Pelosi but also Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Sen. Inhofe (R-OK).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704362004575000943067824382.html

It wasn’t that long ago that Republicans controlled both houses in Congress. Did they act differently? The fact that WND goes ballistic on the current Democratic leadership but does not question anything by the other party, well that speaks for itself.

Second question. Are these expenses excessive, and if so then what is reasonable? The WSJ article mentions a trip in March 2008 by Pelosi and nine others. They visited three European countries, and amassed a bill of about $440 for alcohol. I don’t know how long the trip lasted but let’s say it was a week, so the bill was about $6 per day per legislator. That’s about one drink at my local watering hole. Would you say that was too much for an American official who was travelling on official business? What do you suggest instead? The White House has a budget for entertaining. Some of that goes for wine and liquor. Should we taxpayers balk at that also? I expect that generals likewise have an allowance for entertaining. What about them?