Representative G. K. Butterfield, Democrat of North Carolina, asked Mr. Chisam point blank: "Do you see any evidence of personal financial benefit or corruption?"

Mr. Chisam responded in measured tones:

I see no evidence of corruption. It's hard to answer the question of personal financial benefit. Do I believe, based on this record, that Congressman Rangel took steps to enrich himself based on his position in Congress? I don't.

NYT

It puzzles me though, as a former staffer, that his staff didn't do a better job of protecting him and alerting him to the ethics issues they were themselves involved in on some of these undisputed charges.  It's not like this is rocket science or even news to staff who must take and retake these classes yearly (no politics on public time on public property by public employees with public money...period...since the early 90s or even before).

    * Count 2: Violating code of ethics for government service: Accepting benefits under circumstances that could be construed as influencing the performance of his governmental duties, with respect to soliciting donations and other things of value on behalf of the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Policy at City College of New York.

    * Counts 4 and 5, merged into one count: Violating postal service laws and franking commission regulations: Mr. Rangel was accused of using his franking privileges for the benefit of a charitable organization and for solicitation of funds.

    * Count 6: Violating House Office Building Commission regulations. Mr. Rangel and his staff drafted solicitation letters on House property.

    * Count 7: Violation of the Purpose Law and the Member's Congressional Handbook: Mr. Rangel used House employees and other official House resources for work related to the Rangel Center and used his Congress member's allowance to pay expenses related to the Rangel Center.

    * Count 8: Violation of letterhead rule: Mr. Rangel sent letters related to the Rangel Center on House letterhead.

    * Count 9: Violating Ethics in Government Act and House Rule 26: Mr. Rangel submitted incomplete and inaccurate financial disclosure statements, and failed to report or erroneously reported items he was required to disclose under the Ethics in Government Act from 1998 through 2008. In particular, Mr. Rangel amended certain financial disclosure statements only after a House committee began investigating his reporting of income from his Dominican villa.

    * Count 10: Violating code of ethics for government service: Mr. Rangel leased a rent-stabilized apartment on Lenox Terrace in Harlem for residential use only, but was allowed by the landlord, a developer whom Mr. Rangel dealt with in his Congressional capacity, to use the apartment as office space for his campaign committee. The arrangement could be construed as influencing the performance of Mr. Rangel's official duties.

    * Count 11: Violating the Code of Ethics for Government Service: Mr. Rangel violated the code by failing to report rental income on his Dominican villa.

    * Count 12: Violating the letter and spirit of House Rules listed above.

"Their proposal would have serious consequences for lower and middle class Americans, and that is why I cannot support it," says Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) in a statement.
...
It makes provision for another $200 billion worth of stimulus to take the form of unemployment insurance extensions and additional aid to states.
...
On spending, the Schakowski plan calls for $8.55 billion in non-defense discretionary spending cuts in 2015, largely by ending overpayments by federal agencies for various programs, including Medicaid. She says her plan would save over $110 billion on the defense side, by reducing overseas troop deployments, and shrinking the nuclear arsenal, among numerous other options.

By adding a robust public option to the health care law and requiring Medicare to bargain down drug prices, among other options, Schakowsky says she can save over $17 billion of mandatory spending in 2015. link

More progressive goodies and her plan includes no cuts to Social Security but eliminates the Social Security payroll tax cap on the employer side.

The full body scans we've been promised would never be saved, archived, reproduced, or made available to the public?  Here's an early release of 100 leaked scans.  Careful, I guess this link could be considered nsfw soft-core pron:)

So, you can have a stranger all up in your junk or end up being some freak on the internet's jollies...at least we got choices people!  

"Researchers who track American elections say Tuesday's was notable not because the country swung radically to the right, but rather because it accelerated a 30-year trend in American politics: the widening ideological gulf between Democrats and Republicans."

This is fun:

"The Democratic caucus will be decidedly more liberal -- of the 54 conservative "Blue Dog'' Democrats in the House, only half survived Election Day."

I ended up in a 3 year old post and the new comments were the only ones the commenter had ever made.

Murkowski: When Obama does well, that means the country's doing well

the reaction of the right is predictable:

Is that right? Every last Obama legislative victory necessarily means that America's welfare improves? This is Rush's "I hope he fails" edict turned on its head, for which Murky will be roundly congratulated by liberals. I can't wait until the GOP is in control of government again and that gets turned around on them. Social Security and Medicare reform: Because when Republicans do well, that means America does well.