« COLEMAN OP-ED ABOUT BRIDGE COLLAPSE IN STAR TRIBUNE; PAWLENTY APPROVAL RATINGS AT 75% | Home | CONGRESSMAN WALZ’S BABYSITTER PROBLEM »
ROCHESTER POST-BULLETIN: “WALZ CAMPAIGN FUNDS USED TO PAY FOR BABYSITTERS”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | August 8, 2007
"WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. Tim Walz of Mankato and his wife, Gwen, have usually called upon family and friends or hired babysitters to care for their two young children when political events made it impossible for one or the other to stay home.
In the past four months, however, the freshman Democrat's campaign has begun reimbursing Gwen Walz for babysitting expenses when she attends fundraisers and other campaign functions. While the total reimbursed through June 30 of $575 represents a tiny fraction of the congressman's campaign spending, it shows the couple has become increasingly sensitive to the incidental costs of political life." Source: Rochester Post-Bulletin, August 4, 2007
Click here for the complete story.
###
After reading the article, I now understand why blogs dedicated to covering the news and activities of Congressman Tim Walz didn't post this article last week.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 66 Comments »
66 Responses to “ROCHESTER POST-BULLETIN: “WALZ CAMPAIGN FUNDS USED TO PAY FOR BABYSITTERS””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 8th, 2007 at 9:05 AM
Holy cow! Can we expense babysitters and still be kosher with campaign finance laws? Is it retroactive? Maybe we can buy that pony the kids want after all!
August 8th, 2007 at 9:51 AM
This isn’t too bad. If I were a Waltz donor, this isn’t as bad as paying $575 for a hair cut.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Tim Walz ran as being for the regular guy. He’s been in Washington, D.C. for seven months making $165,000 a year and he’s already out of touch with how the rest of the people live in his district. I know a lot of people who have to send their kids to daycare and hire babysitters and such just to be able to go to work every day. None of them have a campaign slush fund account they can tap into to reimburse themselves for these expenses. A guy making four times the average salary shouldn’t be using his account as a slush fund either.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:29 AM
Walz and the DFL = Culture of corruption!!
August 8th, 2007 at 10:31 AM
Walz was fortunate to run against Gil in ’06. While the Dems are attempting to spin everyone into believing he’s in no trouble, he is still not that well known in the district and very vulnerable.
Once people realize that Walz’s head is firmly lodged in Pelosi’s ace, I think they will have reservations about his candidacy.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:32 AM
This is the last Walz. A new Day is dawning.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:49 AM
It’s absurd that Walz is trying to pull this off.
Complete questionable and simply not ethical.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Where’s kathy on this one? Here coward, purse-poodle idol is proving to be as inept and as corrupt as they (Democrats) come.
Whoever said it’s right though… it’s not like he paid $400 for a haircut… or had his wife spout off about how he’s not black or a woman.
Walz is a joke and a phony. But the grand prize goes to “Silky Pony” John Edwards!
August 8th, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Cause Republicans don’t do that? What planet are you fools living on?
August 8th, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Kahuna,
How is his action corrupt? How is it illegal?
August 8th, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Hey Emmer, yeah Republicans would never do such a thing… it’s nothing like the $58,800 Dick Day paid to his wife for “campaign work”…
“I give my wife $400 a month. … She does all of the campaign constituent work in Owatonna,” he said. “It amounts to about $4 an hour. She … takes calls and sends cards.”
In previous years Day often paid his wife $600 a month out of campaign funds. “It’s totally legal,” he said.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Ned,
Sen. Day’s wife earned her salary, paid taxes on it and does more than taking calls and sending cards. You edited the rest of the article by your not so clever use of the elipses. Finally, she was paid between $4800 and $7000 a year not $58,800.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:54 AM
For Minnesota State Candidates it is legal to pay daycare expenses for candidates when they are attending campaign events. It does not count towards their spending limit. Doesn’t mention paying for spouses babysitting expenses. Not sure about Federal rules.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Still the facts are that democrats take every advantage thay can from government. If there is money missing you can bet it will be a democRat who took it!
August 8th, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Every day is a campaign event isn’t it?
August 8th, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Which is worse–having a campaign pay for babysitters or having the TAXPAYERS OF MINNESOTA pay for your cable tv bill, like Michele Bachmann did?
http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2006/04/bachmanns-cable-tv-expenses-getting.html
August 8th, 2007 at 12:50 PM
$575 for babysitters? That’s nothing compared to the $6,230 Michele Bachmann paid her husband Marcus for “mileage expenses” last year.
http://disclosure.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00410118/290214/sb/ALL
August 8th, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Actually, the story first appeared in the Post Bulletin on August 2.
Look carefully at the dates on the readers’ comments. They begin at August 2.
Bluestem Prairie posted a link to the story on the date it was published, August 2, as an update in that evening’s post.
See
http://www.bluestemprairie.com/a_bluestem_prairie/2007/08/the-hill-blogge.html
August 8th, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Morning’s post, sorry.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Reimbursement for mileage is a legitmate expense if the spouse was on campaign business. I have to doubt that reimbursing your spouse for babysitting expenses is legit. His wife is not the candidate. He could probably pay the babysitter directly from the campaign funds but I don’t get why he would have to reimburse his wife. Don’t make no sense – but then again he is a Democrat and isn’t expected or required to make any sense…
August 8th, 2007 at 1:09 PM
AND, if you don’t reimburse for mileage you have to count it as a campaign contribution and there are limits to how much an individual can contribute.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Also, the readers forums at the Mankato Free Press started discussing this on August 2 as well:
http://community.cnhi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/71010411/m/903101189
So, we’re curious why MDE waited so long to post about the Rochester Post Bulletin article until this week, when the news was on local blogs and newspaper forums for a week.
Could it be the part of the text not posted on MDE’s front page:
In the past four months, however, the freshman Democrat’s campaign has begun reimbursing Gwen Walz for babysitting expenses when she attends fundraisers and other campaign functions. While the total reimbursed through June 30 of $575 represents a tiny fraction of the congressman’s campaign spending, it shows the couple has become increasingly sensitive to the incidental costs of political life.
Walz’s political director, Richard Carlbom, said the congressman and the campaign discussed the costs of child care when Gwen Walz attends campaign functions before deciding to reimburse her. The campaign also called the Federal Election Commission in Washington to inquire about reimbursing her for babysitting.
Carlbom said the campaign received confirmation that the expense was allowable if tied strictly to campaign activity. The Walz campaign decided to go ahead with the reimbursements, but only for what he called “very unique circumstances,” meaning campaign events.
“We checked with the FEC. We wanted to make sure we were legal in that respect,” he said.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:23 PM
Ollie: The article’s date is listed as August 4th. I received a Google news alert on August 2nd about the article. The article I am sourcing is dated August 4th and that is the date I will use.
My sourcing is correct.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:23 PM
We’d still have an I35W bridge had he spent that money on roads and bridges instead of babysitters.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:28 PM
Ollie: Also, I find it very interesting that you linked to the story at the end of a post on the YearKos convention. Why didn’t write a post on this story?
August 8th, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Michael says: “After reading the article, I now understand why blogs dedicated to covering the news and activities of Congressman Tim Walz didn’t post this article last week.”
Of course you understand. After reading the entire article (not just the part you chose to quote) you can see how carefully Congressman Waltz checked this out to be certain everything was on the up and up. Facts are all there and very clear. Not an issue.
If this were a real issue Ron Carey would have issued 3 press releases and held a press conference or 2.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Why didn’t write a post on this story?
Gee, Mike, what happened a week ago that might have been taking most bloggers’ time?
August 8th, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Karl:
Quoting one of the “Dump” sites as a source of truthful information is pretty comical. Did Eva give you permission to come over here? Better be careful or you will lose your magic “hate Bachmann” decoder ring.
Bradh
August 8th, 2007 at 1:39 PM
After thoughtful consideration, I’ll now be referring to this situation as Walz’s “babysitter” problem.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:40 PM
The “blogs dedicated to covering the news and activities of Congressman Tim Walz” noted the article and linked to it on the first day it was out. You claim “they” did not.
Bluestem Prairie posted the article’s title and a link to the source on August 2.
Had you seen the August 2 post at Bluestem Prairie or not when you wrote this post?
Did you look at all of BSP’s August 2-4 posts, knowing of the August 2 Google News alert before claiming that the story wasn’t noted?
If you ask other blogs to post about an article within a week of its publication, why isn’t MDE to be held to the same standard?
Since you knew about the article on August 2, when you received the alert, why didn’t you mention it then?
August 8th, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Stay vigilant, MDE.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:51 PM
You’re right, Michael, I should have posted this part of the Post Bulletin story:
More specifically, the FEC addressed the question of using campaign funds for child care more than a decade ago, in an advisory requested by U.S. Rep. Jim McCreary, R-La.
A Jan. 11, 1996, letter by the FEC to McCreary said child care was not considered an automatic personal use of campaign money, such as a vacation or a home mortgage payment, but was still subject to the commission’s review on a case-by-case basis.
In his case, McCreary argued that his wife was an “integral part” of his campaign team and was needed to attend campaign events that precluded her bringing their infant son. The commission agreed that the campaign could pay for child care, “because you and your wife both occasionally need to attend the campaign events involved and because the child care expenses will be incurred only as a direct result of campaign activity and would not otherwise exist.”
It definitely is a travesty that I didn’t post that on my blog.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Geoff Fecke — Here is some free advice: stop posting your photo next to your blog posts. You aren’t doing yourself or your blog any favors.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:13 PM
You are right. Ollie should have posted this passage from the PB, too:
“More specifically, the FEC addressed the question of using campaign funds for child care more than a decade ago, in an advisory requested by U.S. Rep. Jim McCreary, R-La.
A Jan. 11, 1996, letter by the FEC to McCreary said child care was not considered an automatic personal use of campaign money, such as a vacation or a home mortgage payment, but was still subject to the commission’s review on a case-by-case basis.
In his case, McCreary argued that his wife was an “integral part” of his campaign team and was needed to attend campaign events that precluded her bringing their infant son. The commission agreed that the campaign could pay for child care, “because you and your wife both occasionally need to attend the campaign events involved and because the child care expenses will be incurred only as a direct result of campaign activity and would not otherwise exist.”
August 8th, 2007 at 2:13 PM
speakingf of babysitters, aren’t you due in like 10 minutes?
I feel sorry for Walz. He doesn’t know what he’s doing and his handlers have completely botched this one.
It’s time to call Dave Colling. If I guy can apply teflon effectively to Ellison he can certainly handle Walz’s babysitter scandal.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Ollie: I’m surprised you didn’t write a specific post on this subject. How come?
August 8th, 2007 at 3:02 PM
bradh:
I cited a Federal Elections Commission link to show that Michele Bachmann paid her husband $6230 last year for “mileage expenses.” Walz’ babysitting money is chump change compared to that. I’d love to see the documentation of those 12,000-some miles Marcus claimed he drove in the 6th CD. Are you saying the FEC report is false?
I also included a link that included Bachmann’s quotes from the Strib article on why she got reimbursed by the State of Minnesota for her cable tv bill. The receipts from the state exist too, provided to Dump Bachmann by a “Republican activist.” Imagine that. I suppose you’re saying those are inaccurate as well.
Unfortunately, the Strib article on Bachmann getting reimbursed by taxpayers for her cable tv bill no longer is online. But when you come up with evidence that the report or the receipts provided to Dump Bachmann were fabricated, please post it here.
Until then, you guys might want to be careful about what you hang around Democrats’ necks. It might come back to bite you in the a$$.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:10 PM
bradh, did you write all that yourself or did mommy help you?
Keep trying big fella, I think you already know Bachmann is untouchable because she is clean as a whistle.
Then let’s look at your side of the aisle. 
Nothing but corruption and lairs.
It seems the best you can do is try to muddy the water so no one can tell who is at fault. Not to worry, most know it will always be a democrat who will abuse a government system.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:45 PM
I’d like to babysit Michelle Bachmann.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:53 PM
So campaign money is going towards daycare so Mrs. Walz can raise more campaign money? Unless she’s really *really* bad at it, one should think the campaign will at least break even on that deal. And really, $575 isn’t that difficult to raise. Odds are the campaign is getting that money back like nobody’s business. Except, you know, it’s everybody’s business.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Why does someone who makes $165,000 a year (not including his wife’s salary) need reimbursed for babysitting expenses? Can’t he live like everyone else or is he that out of touch?
August 8th, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Kahuna,
I believe Bradh was questioning how truthful the information could be coming from DB. He wasn’t agreeing with it.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:05 PM
If Michelle Bachmann’s campaign can reimburse her husband more than 10 times for carting Michelle to Political functions what Gwen was from campaign funds for the kids’ care, what is the problem?? Because Michelle is a Republican and Tim is a Democrat, he is guiltier one??
This is a non-issue. Aa a frequent contributer to Walz, I am glad that his kids are being cared for while at he and Gwen are at functions and on the campaign trail. Everything was on the up and up, legal, and approved by the Federal Election Commission.
August 8th, 2007 at 7:03 PM
kathy,
Tim Walz makes $13,750 a month. Why shouldn’t he and his wife pay for their own childcare? Nobody else in the district can tap into other people’s money to pay for their childcare. Tim Walz has only been in Congress for 7 months and he’s already out of touch with the district.
August 8th, 2007 at 7:07 PM
Chris,
Are you in Walz’s district?
Kathy is, she’s ok with this.
I’m not, but I think I’ll send him check. He’s doing a great job.
August 8th, 2007 at 7:56 PM
Tim,
Yes, I am in Walz’s district. Make sure you thank him for voting in favor of the warrantless wiretapping when you send the check.
August 8th, 2007 at 8:20 PM
April 29, 2006 Saturday
Metro Edition
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 1B
LENGTH: 561 words
HEADLINE: Candidate’s reimbursements for cable TV are questioned;
Michele Bachmann and other Republicans appear headed for a bitter battle in the Sixth District.
BYLINE: Pat Doyle, Staff Writer
exerpt:
Eva Young, active in the Log Cabin Republicans, said a supporter of a Republican competing with Bachmann for the party’s endorsement next month told her about Bachmann’s expense statements from a cable firm. Young would not identify the supporter or the candidate.
Bachmann, a GOP state senator from Stillwater, has sought and received reimbursement from the state for bills from a cable TV company that also provides Internet service. Under Senate rules, members can be reimbursed for up to $125 a month for job-related communication expenses.
The rules say these expenses include “telephone, fax, cell phone, pager, Internet service, etc.”
Young, a Bachmann critic, told reporters about the expense statements. “I can’t see where cable TV would be required for communication with constituents.”
Bachmann said Friday that she received reimbursement for TV expenses in perhaps two months because she used cable TV to watch school board and other government meetings on local public access stations.
“It’s communications,” she said. “If there’s a problem with it, we’ll just turn it back in. We weren’t trying to defraud the state or take anything that we didn’t feel that we should.
“My understanding is that’s considered a permissible use. In the six years I’ve been in the Senate, that is not a regular thing that I’ve put on there.”
Some of Bachmann’s cable expense statements since 2004 on file at the Senate Fiscal Services Office itemized television and high-speed Internet services. She crossed out the television charges and sought reimbursement for the Internet expenses plus taxes and other fees during parts of 2005.
Other statements from the cable firm did not break down whether the expenses reimbursed by the state were entirely for TV or partly for Internet service but some appeared to be for TV. In one month, she was reimbursed for a cable expense of $19.99 for what appears to be for cable TV only. In another month, she was reimbursed $76.38 for a cable expense that was not itemized.
The fiscal services office said it is unaware of another member seeking reimbursement for cable expenses other than Internet service. “I assumed it was Internet,” said Eileen Lunzer, accounts payable supervisor for the office, which approved the reimbursements. She has asked the Senate Rules and Administration Committee to clarify permissible expenses and necessary documentation.
EY: At the time, DB posted scans of the cable bills. I went down to fiscal services, and personally verified those expenses.
August 8th, 2007 at 8:48 PM
“Tim,
Yes, I am in Walz’s district. Make sure you thank him for voting in favor of the warrantless wiretapping when you send the check.”
Chris!!! Had it been Gil still in office, you know damn well he would have voted the same exact way. Who are you kidding???
There are going to be tough votes that Tim makes that we may not agree with. But on the whole, he is doing a great job.
From Project Vote Smart……
Official Title of Legislation:
S 1927: A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to provide additional procedures for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence information and for other purposes.
Link to Legislation: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:s1927:
Senate Passage: 08/03/2007 : Bill Passed: 60 – 28 (Record Vote Number 309)
House Passage: 08/04/2007 : Bill Passed 227 – 183 (Roll no. 836)
Cosponsor:
Sen. Bond, Christopher (R-MO)
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 105 the following:
`CLARIFICATION OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
`Sec. 105A. Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States.
`ADDITIONAL PROCEDURE FOR AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS CONCERNING PERSONS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
After reading the admendment that was voted on, this pretains to people outside the US who are Terrorist suspects who are using their agents within the US to commit Terrorist Acts. Those Americans believed to be in collusion with Terrorists are the ones being surveiled. The common law biding citizen need not worry. My rights are still protected.
August 8th, 2007 at 9:00 PM
” Tim Walz has only been in Congress for 7 months and he’s already out of touch with the district.”
Again Chris, you don’t get it!!! You’re still sore that “do-nothing Gil” lost last year.
Of the Minnesota Congressional delegation, Tim Walz is one of the most visible and accessible Reps. He has held 25 Town meetings, numerous Greet and Meets in HyVee Stores, has a mobile office that travels to other parts of the District, has held several big meetings with members of the Medical field, Business, Farming, etc. to get their input on what more can he do for the District. Apparently you did not read about the Economic Summit he put together that was held in Austin a few weeks back.
Out of touch??? I don’t think so. Even on weekends when Tim is back in the District, he is working, talking with people, attending a forum on somehting that affects the District. Tim Walz has done more, been more accessible to constituents, etc. in 7 months, than Gil did in his 12 years in Congress.
August 8th, 2007 at 9:05 PM
Kathy,
I disagree on FISA. I am very disappointed by the way many Dems, including Congressman Waltz, voted on that one.
Hopefully they will clean it up in 6 months.
On balance, Congressman Walz is doing a great job. I’m not going to agree with anyone on everything.;-)
The GOP is going to pull out the stops on this one. I expect an MDE post anytime now “exposing” one of Congressman Walz’s children being caught stealing another kids juice at pre-school.
I just wrote the check and put it in the mail. Chris, would you care to match it?
August 8th, 2007 at 9:41 PM
kathy,
Justify paying his wife for babysitting expenses when he makes $165,000 a year. There is no justification. They are now in the top 1% of income earners. Why do they need to pay themselves for babysitting out of their campaign account when they clearly don’t need the money? And please don’t say that he sacrificed to run for office. His $40,000 in credit card debt will be long gone by the end of his term. He’ll make $330,000 from two years in Congress – not including his wife’s salary and other income.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:01 PM
And what of Michelle Bachamann’s husband, Chris?
Don’t tell me that he and Michelle were living on Welfare and using Food Stamps when she ran for Congress!! She paid him out of her Campaign donations over $6,000 for carting her around to Political functions!!! Let’s be fair here.
The Bachmann’s could have easily afforded together that expense at 10 times what is being squabbled over with Walz. Does Michelle Bachmann’s reimbursement to her husband make Walz any less ethical regarding $575 ???
August 8th, 2007 at 10:16 PM
It’s not about ethics, kathy. It’s about being out of touch. Paying someone mileage for work is one thing. Paying someone for babysitting expenses is something entirely different. Justify paying yourself $575 out of a campaign slush fund for babysitting when you make $165,000 a year.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:17 PM
And I’d like to know how you know whether the Bachmanns could afford to eat their own mileage or not. I don’t think you have any evidence on that one way or the other.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Is someone here actually arguing Michele Bachmann knows what reality is?
August 8th, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Rex, you suffer from Bachmann Derangement Syndrome.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:50 PM
Washington Post Editorial from May 16, 2006:
Congressional Child Care
Most parents pay the sitter. Rep. John Doolittle has his campaign write a check.
CHILD CARE, most any parent knows, can be a huge expense. Some members of Congress, though, have found an innovative — and brazen — way to defray the cost: Their campaign funds pick up the tab when child care is needed because the candidate is out campaigning. A leader in this creative billing is Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.), who has had his campaign reelection committee and his leadership PAC pay $5,881 in child-care costs since 2001 for his daughter, now 14. This election alone, Mr. Doolittle’s campaign committees have paid almost $975 in child-care bills to a woman who lives near his family’s Oakton home.
An electronic search of campaign spending records from 2001 on shows only a handful of members who billed their campaigns for baby-sitting services. Other than former representative J.C. Watts (R-Okla.), whose campaign paid $3,530 for “baby-sitting services” during the 2002 campaign, none had his or her political committees pick up the tab to the extent that the Doolittles have.
For more, see
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051501694_pf.html
Gee, these guys are both Republicans.
August 9th, 2007 at 12:06 AM
Tim,
Great article. I see you didn’t read where it said:
This may be permissible under the lax guidance of the congressional enablers at the FEC. That doesn’t make it right. It’s the attitude of congressional entitlement to a subsidized lifestyle — cut-rate private jets, lavish private travel — that drives public disdain for Congress. Mr. Doolittle makes $165,200 a year as a member of Congress. His wife has already taken in close to $100,000 in commissions this election as his fundraiser. They should just pay the sitter, as other working parents do.
August 9th, 2007 at 12:47 AM
Chris,
I knew I could count on you for a response.
I didn’t want to post the whole article. That’s why I gave the link. I tried to pull a “Brodkorb” on you. Damn, busted.
If I had a blog the title for the blog entry it would be:
MULTIPLE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE A BABYSITTER PROBLEM RUNNING INTO THE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
Why aren’t you condemning those mentioned in the article? You are certainly outraged about Tim Walz.
August 9th, 2007 at 12:52 AM
I’m open to better ideas on the blog entry title.
Hyperbole required.
August 9th, 2007 at 4:32 AM
Tim, perhaps the two republicans cited in the article you linked to aren’t being mentioned here because they aren’t MINNESOTA politicians.
Now for the mileage question. Employers typically pay mileage for employees when on official business and using their their own transportation. Paying campaign workers, even if it is a spouse, for mileage is acceptable.
August 9th, 2007 at 7:56 AM
Mileage is a campaign expense. Babysitting is not.
Kinda like work… not that Democrats know what that is… you can get reimbursed for mileage travelled on behalf of the business. You can’t get reimbursed for day care.
Walz is a phony, coward purse-poodle.
P.S. Fecke — “what were most bloggers doing last week”… you and your socialist friends were busy slandering the governor. You lying piece of crap.
August 9th, 2007 at 8:12 AM
Mrs. Walz is an unpaid volunteer.
Unlike Dick Day’s wife.
August 9th, 2007 at 9:12 AM
Tim,
Yep you cited an article that said three Republicans paid for babysitters. One isn’t in Congress anymore and the other two are just as out of touch as Walz is. I wonder how upset their constituents are? Unlike you, I don’t justify bad behavior by pointing to more bad behavior. I think a lot of politicians are out of touch with how the rest of the people live in the real world. I agree with the article you linked to 100%: people making $165,000 a year should pay for their own childcare. And no, you weren’t pulling a Brodkorb, you purposely misled and hoped that I didn’t read the link.
P.S. What does Mrs. Walz being an unpaid volunteer have to do with the issue
August 9th, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Honestly, I’m not seeing what the problem is. He gets contributions to help him cover campaign expenses. Finding someone to watch the kids while he and his wife go out campaigning could easily be considered a campaign expense. This is exactly the type of thing the campaign coffer is supposed to do. I don’t think anybody’s arguing that he *couldn’t* easily pay for a babysitter out of his own pocket, but why should he have to pay work-related expenses himself?
November 1st, 2007 at 12:40 AM
People are whipped up about this?! Really?! In the past (not quite) 3 years, we’ve had cocaine, sex/human, and exotic animal body part trafficking uncovered in SE Minnesota. A federal informant also indicated that the same were involved in money laundering – their CPA pleaded to laundering 2.5 million dollars. (His partner got to stay on a local city council, but we’re not supposed to know about any of this so the PB doesn’t write those unpleasant details.) This is OC of the absolute worst type, which the government readily admits costs the taxpayers billions of dollars every year. Mr. Walz payed $575.00 for babysitting out of a “slush fund”. That’s nothing compared with the thousands of dollars local officials have spent in trying to keep a lid on this other “problem”, but with the price of human/sex, drugs and weapons, I’d bet that their “slush fund” is much greater than that of Mr. Walz.