TPM has some stories up about
Murtha's long relationship with sleazy dealmaking, and Harry Reid involved in a
serious conflict of interest by earmarking a bridge that will boost his property value.
Not acceptable.
(1) For Reid, he can claim that this is legitimate, and that he was doing it to alleviate traffic. I propose, then, that his property value increase be capped at the lower of its actual increase, or the statewide average. Any benefit seen beyond that, when realized, must be donated to charity. So say his property was $200k, he bought it in 1990, and sells it in 2015. The average property value increase over that time was, say, 200%, so one would expect his land to be worth $600k. Instead, he gets $1.1M. He must donate $500k to charity.
(2) For Murtha, it's worse. He has actively opposed investigating corporate-greed-driven waste in Iraq.
acknowledges that some Democrats grouse about his history of leading others to vote against party, but says he has always acted on principle, working with Republicans either because he agreed with them or to uphold private agreements about spending bills
This crap needs to be purged from congress. We want fiscal responsibility, and our ability to raise taxes is limited. Therefore spending must be cut. We'd like to get REAL programs in place, so we're going to have to get rid of pork. Reid's bridge may have a legitimate justification, but we need to get the "bridges to nowhere" and their ilk out of the budget forever, and Murtha is an enabler. Possibly, he can change his tune - but if he is a roadblock on the way to reform and fiscal responsibility, he needs to be ousted.