Today's Situation Room:

Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-7pm ET on CNN.

Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-7pm ET on CNN.

June 28th, 2011
09:25 PM ET

Taxpayers taken for a ride?

With political rhetoric focused on cutting spending, why are some lawmakers leasing costly cars at taxpayer expense? CNN's Lisa Sylvester reports.

Post by:
Filed under: Congress
soundoff (7 Responses)
  1. ya no

    Uh, why is it they don't have to provide their own transportation? They aren't CEO's pampered by a Board of Directors, they are hired representatives, no more and no less. Whoever decided they should vote on their own perks needs a lesson in basic human behavior, especially humans with monumental ego's.

    January 20, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
  2. Janet

    Yeah, well be ready to get milked some more. HR4646 is looming in the shadows.
    President Obama's finance team is recommending a one percent (1%)
    transaction fee (TAX). Obama's plan is to sneak it in after the November
    elections to keep it under the radar.****

    This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution – banks,
    credit unions, savings and loans, etc. Any deposit you make, or even a
    transfer within your account, will have a 1% tax charged.****

    ~If your paycheck or your social security or whatever is direct deposit, it
    will get a 1% tax charged for the transaction.****

    ~If your paycheck is $1000, then you will pay Obama $10 just for the
    privilege of depositing your paycheck in your bank. ****

    Even if you hand carry your paycheck or any check into your bank for a deposit, 1% tax will be charged.****

    ~You receive a $5,000 stock dividend from your broker, Obama takes $50 just
    to allow you to deposit that check in the bank.****

    ~If you take $1,000 cash to deposit at your bank, 1% tax will be charged.***

    Mind you, this is from the man who promised that, if you make under $250,000
    per year, you will not see one penny of new tax. Keep your eyes and ears
    open, you will be amazed at what you learn about this guy's under-the-table
    moves to increase the
    number of ways you are taxed.****

    ~Oh, and by the way, you receive a refund from the IRS next year and you
    have it direct deposited or you walk in to deposit that check, you guessed
    it. You will pay a 1% charge of that money just for putting it in your bank.
    Remember, any money, cash, check or whatever, no matter where it came from,
    you will pay a 1% fee if you put it in the bank.****

    August 4, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
    • ya no

      Could well be. Saying that it would go to Obama is simply dishonest. Somehow, anti-Obamites just can't resist the embellishments, true or not. What happened to critical thinking, and honest discourse?

      January 20, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
  3. One4Wisdom

    The Super Wealthy got everything they wanted, no questions asked, with the "TARP-Banks-Wall Street-Auto Industry" bailouts. The Super Wealthy got a humongous Welfare Check last December when the Bush Tax Breaks for the Super Wealthy was renewed. And NOW, we are told, they are getting everything they wanted yet again, namely, a complete exemption from having to share in the onerous burden of reducing the deficit, because there's no potential here for a roll-back of their Bush Tax Breaks (Welfare Benefits) for the wealthy.

    The U.S. media refuses to even deem this to be significant, probably because THEY benefit tremendously from those "Welfare for the Wealthy" hand-outs and they surreptitiously silence the issue by shifting focus to the "Default Crisis" – with the curt remark "something for everyone to hate," and with the errant national anthem "pass anything – anything is better than default." Well there's nothing in this plan for the Super Wealthy to "hate." The super wealthy are the only ones being rigorously represented in Congress, in the White House or in the media.

    August 2, 2011 at 10:22 am |
  4. Bill

    This goes to show that our elected officials can sit back and say that cuts need to be made (for everyone else) but leave our perks alone. I realize that eliminating the leasing of cars for the Representitaves would not balance or even come close to balancing the budjet, but if all perks such as these were eliminated it would give us a start.
    I think it is time that we take away the rule that these people can sit in Washington and pass laws that can give them these monetary extras that cost the taxpayers. They can say that they are looking out for the people of the U.S. but in fact are looking out for themselves. Take away the Social Security raise, the Medicare benefits that we have so faithfully paid for all of our working years and let them spend it on non productive items such as these.

    July 11, 2011 at 7:28 pm |
  5. Maggie

    There are no printable words any longer to express my disgust with the entire D.C. crowd. I so wish we could fence them in and start all over. ANYONE would do a better job. I want to see these people approached physically and asked the questions, if you can. Thank you CNN for reporting this.

    June 29, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
  6. Bradley Schneider

    I would like to know how these congressmen are allowed to lease foreign made vehicles using federal dollars. Under the Buy American Act they should be required to purchase/lease a domestically built vehicle, or at least it would appear that they should. They can't claim it was to get a hybrid as in the case of the Lexus SUV, because Ford builds the Escape hybrid that actually gets better mileage than the Lexus. And if it a luxury car they want Lincoln builds the MKZ, and all of these Ford vehicles are made in the US. And considering that the US government just gave the auto industry billions to help them out, why is a US Congressman supporting a foreign automaker by leasing a Lexus, or a BMW? I would like to see a follow up article where some of these congressmen are asked about that. Why is it that they get this ability to lease a vehicle anyway? Senators don't get this privilege. It is once again the politicians thinking that they are privileged and allowed to do as they please even when they are telling others you can have.

    June 29, 2011 at 9:46 am |

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.