Diminished People Holding Elected Office

There’s a discussion on another post, and I think all of us have brought it up here at one time or another, and I know I’m too soft-hearted and worry about elder abuse, and now finally others are calling it out for the abuse of people that it is. I used to say it often before Trump finally left the White House, that he was being abused for nefarious reasons; he’s so disliked that few cared about him being abused. Here’s a story from a publication that’s been around for generations, always bringing me important info, first on recycled newsprint paper, now online. And I’m still pleased I spent 6 hours phone banking for Annie Kuster* a few years back, even though I’d hoped for her more liberal primary oppo. She’s been a fine US Rep. (I also phone banked for Marcy Kaptur under the same condition-different election, and it was time well spent. But Annie Kuster is one subject of this story, so I had to fix that. It was late when I scheduled this, my apologies.)

Elder Abuse Is No Way to Run a Government

The corridors of power increasingly resemble a nursing home—if not a hospice.

Jeet Heer

This year, two veteran members of Congress, Republican Representative Kay Granger from Texas and Democratic Representative Annie M. Kuster of New Hampshire, announced that they were retiring from public service, but the story of their last days played out very differently, illustrating the dangers of a political system that enables both gerontocracy and elder abuse.

In March, Granger, age 81, announced that she was stepping down from her powerful post as chair of the House Appropriation Committee and would not seek reelection, even though she would finish out her term. She cast her last vote on July 24, and has appeared in Washington only once since. For all intents and purposes, Granger had disappeared from public visibility.

On December 20, The Dallas Express, a conservative online publication, revealed that Granger had been living in an independent living facility. Prior to that discovery, Granger’s office was not returning phone calls to the Express or anyone else. Visiting her office, reporter Carl Turcios found “the door locked, the front door glass window covered, no one inside, and no sign of the office continuing to be occupied.”

Responding to these reports, the congresswoman’s son, Brandon Granger, stated that his mother suffered from “dementia,” a condition he claimed was diagnosed in September. Granger’s office shared a statement where she purportedly said that “since early September, my health challenges have progressed, making frequent travel to Washington both difficult and unpredictable. During this time, my staff has remained steadfast, continuing to deliver exceptional constituent services, as they have for the past 27 years.”

This version of Granger’s story, which places the onset of dementia in September, makes little sense, since, as Ken Klippenstein reports on his Substack, there is evidence that as early as March she had difficulty reading even from a prepared statement without painful effort. Further, she sold her home in early July, which indicates that her move to the independent living facility was already in the works at that time.

Granger eventually resigned her seat—but too late. If she had left public service a few years ago, she’d be remembered as a pioneer, the first Republican woman to lead the House Appropriations Committee. Now, there is a pall on her legacy since, as The New York Times reports, she has “brought renewed attention to how Capitol Hill is powered by a crop of septuagenarians and octogenarians, including some who refuse to relinquish power even far past their primes.”

Granger’s fellow congresswoman Annie M. Kuster, age 68, offers a telling contrast. In an interview with The Boston Globe, Kuster made clear that she is leaving Washington not just for personal reasons but also to show that lawmakers do in fact have the ability to reject gerontocracy. According to Kuster, “I’m trying to set a better example. I think there are colleagues—and some of whom are still very successful and very productive—but others who just stay forever.”

The Granger case, along with new reporting making clear that Joe Biden has served as a diminished president, is forcing gerontocracy onto the agenda in Washington. Aside from Biden and Granger, there are now increasing expressions of concerns about the advanced age and healthcare struggles of former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and outgoing Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (both of whom, despite formally giving up powerful posts, remain kingmakers in Washington). Questions have also been raised about Democratic Representative David Scott of Georgia, with even fellow Democrats expressing skepticism about his ability to serve. The decision to sideline young congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the House Oversight Committee on behalf of Gerry Connolly, who is 74 and suffers from cancer, has been criticized even by centrist Democrats such as Jen Psaki as proof of entrenched gerontocracy.

This is a major shift from recent years, when a bipartisan code of silence protected elected officials and judges from being criticized even though there was ample evidence that age had made them incapable of serving.

Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky responded to the Granger story by tweeting, “I’m more concerned about the congressmen who have dementia and are still voting.”

Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California tweeted:

Kay Granger’s long absence reveals the problem with a Congress that rewards seniority & relationships more than merit & ideas. We have a sclerotic gerontocracy. We need term limits. We need to get big money out of politics so a new generation of Americans can run and serve.

Khanna’s statement has the virtue of moving the discussion beyond just the individual choices of lawmakers and into the wider system that has made gerontocracy possible. Republican firebrand Kerri Lake, who rarely agrees with Khanna on anything—and is seldom a voice of reason—also offered a systemic analysis, tweeting, “Washington D.C. shouldn’t be a retirement home, but the entrenched forces there are so desperate to hold on to power that they will reject fresh voices while pulling stunts like this.”

Khanna and Lake are accurate in seeing the problem as entrenched systems. The rules of Congress reward seniority with more power, which also makes it logical for voters to keep voting for longtime lawmakers even past the decline in their capacity. Those lawmakers have staff who can make sure that the perks of power are still shared with constituents.

What AOC had to say about the House bathroom ban

Please listen to the audio as the written part doesn’t fully capture what she said and why she said it.   This is also in a post Ali made from friend Janet at her blog which I will link below.  Janet is an amazing woman and I enjoy reading her blog.  But AOC mentioned what this is about is targeting people who do not fit the people on the right view of who looks like a man to them or who looks like a woman to them.   

Also Johnson said this was not a hardship for McBride as she could use all the public bathrooms or I guess they have private bathrooms in their offices?  Well why couldn’t Mace also do the same or use her own bathroom rather than making the spectacle and forcing all trans people to be targeted with suspicion from people.   She was the only one complaining?   Well if he told her that they couldn’t make a big deal of it, Johnson wouldn’t be able to push his Christian cred and Mace wouldn’t be able to carry on for a week on a crusade against someone not harming her in any way.  Hard to fund raise off a threat that doesn’t exist unless they can make it seem like one.    Hugs.

AOC comes out swinging against a Nancy Mace for targeting Sarah McBride."They're doing this so that Nancy Mace can … fundraise off an email. They're not doing this to protect people. They're endangering women, they're endangering girls of all kinds. And everybody should reject it. It's gross."

Alejandra Caraballo (@esqueer.net) 2024-11-21T02:48:10.270Z

House Republicans’ congressional offices spent millions more on taxpayer-funded travel than Democrats since 2023

Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) in the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 27, 2023. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images)

House Republicans outspent their Democratic counterparts in taxpayer-funded travel expenditures by nearly $8 million since the start of 2023, a new OpenSecrets analysis found. 

Eight out of the top ten biggest spenders between the start of 2023 to March 2024 were Republican members of Congress. They accounted for 7% of total taxpayer-funded travel spending by GOP members of Congress and with each of the top spenders spending two to five times more than the average House office. (snip-there’s a graph; the embed link doesn’t seem to be working.)

(Graph on the page)

The total travel spending reported by House Republicans’ offices exceeded $23 million from January 2023 to March 2024 — nearly $8 million more than House Democrats spent on travel during the same period. Despite having only a seven-member majority, House Republicans have significantly outspent Democrats. Congressional offices of House Republicans spent around $102,000 on average for travel during that period, while the average spent by House Democrats sat around $70,000, according to the House Statement of Disbursements

According to the Congressional Management Foundation, the average total annual budget of a House office is around $1.5 million, which is distributed across a variety of categories such as personnel compensation, franked mail, supplies and materials and travel. 

The most commonly cited travel expenses are lodging, meals, wifi on travel and parking as well as the transportation expenses themselves such as car rental, airfare and taxis. Entertainment or recreational activities are not considered to be a part of the travel category and are not covered by taxpayer money, according to Public Citizen

House Statements of Disbursements are public reports featuring all receipts and expenditures of offices of the U.S. House of Representatives, as required under federal regulations. These reports are released quarterly by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House.

Since 2009, House Statements of Disbursements have been accessible to the public. However, they do not reflect information about the purpose of the travel, travel destinations or specific transportation details. 

Of all 435 House Member offices, the top spender on travel was the office of Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) which spent about $379,000 on travel expenditures since the start of last year, nearly 5 times more than the average House member office. Gooden’s travel spending constitutes more than 16% of his office’s budget, also higher than the average of around 4% spent by other House offices, according to OpenSecrets’ analysis. 

Gooden is known to be an active traveler with high spending on both office and campaign-related travel, according to Roll Call. After winning reelection to his second term in 2022, Gooden spent leftover campaign money abroad and at popular destinations, including New Orleans, La., and Las Vegas, Nev. 

Gooden himself has been spotted in a meat boutique in Israel, a bar in New York and Trump’s Mar-A-Lago resort in Florida. The office declined our request for comments about the purpose of the travel, its details, or sources of funding.

The second biggest spender was a Democratic member from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Rep. Gregorio Sablan. Yet, Sablan’s office represents a territory almost 8000 miles from Washington, D.C. managed to incur around $90,000 less than Gooden from Texas. 

Bob Schwalbach, Sablan’s chief of staff, told OpenSecrets that the high travel expenditures simply reflect the costs of getting to the district. 

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2024/08/house-republicans-congressional-offices-spent-millions-more-on-taxpayer-funded-travel-than-democrats-since-2023