more money than they knew what to do with before they shut down and they handed it out, and some are eye popping numbers, and some were already earning six-figure incomes. what do you think? guest: most of us in the private sector did not get bonuses this year. it is absolutely an outrage and every red blooded tax-paying american who has paid a bill ought to stand on their sofa and cream screaming about this. this is what we have been talking about for two years. but they are saying some of these guys, look, this was money that was earmarked, bad word, for the offices anyway, if not spent, it is gone, so they gave it to the people for whom it was probably intended. what do you say? guest: it belongs to the taxpayers, and it was never their money to give away. neil: so they gave it away
as lawmakers battle offer how to cut spending one group wants congress to spend more, another $400 billion more saying they will cut the unemployment rate in happen. and now, go to have you. your group, with the amount of money you want, is $1 trillion we spent in the stimulus has not helped marries any, if anything, the unemployment rate is higher than it was, and it might be coming down. hopefully. how is spending more going to help? gues we have 14 million who through no fault of their own lost their jobs and they would like the opportunity to work for a paycheck instead of drawing unemployment. our plan directs public jobs so we can direct government problems and puts people back do
work. that s official in action. the next paragraph says specifically officials cannot retain any money for transportation, lodging, meals, food or beverage. that is different going to a state-funded conference that the state approves but the state has not approved this so if you take money directly and the money comes from the union or the committee itself and it is going to the coffers whether for the hotel or into someone s checking account so they can pay their mortgage when their salary is not coming in, that is a direct conflict. neil: what if it is coming through other channels, like union money through howard dean. that is when it is . guest: sure, that is a conflict of interest. you are paid, by, say it is funneled through the union to the person, people who do business. to not vote, to not act on, what, a union measure.
how is that different from the unions trying to coerce a vote like going out to dinner or a fundraising event. guest: you are not supposed to accept a certain amount of money and there are lobbying rules. and that is for campaign funds, as well, and this is money that is going into their pockets to pay for, if it is true, to pay for the hotel bills. neil: and the wisconsin is a gulf-time job and we know they are not made a great deal. guest: and they are allowed to accept outside employment. neil: so at the least it does not pass the ick test. guest: it does not pass the ick test. is there theft involved? what would that be? the theft of time being taken away from the wisconsin taxpayers who are paying the
neil: you give in and maybe we will come back the message from the 14 runaway wisconsin democrats calling for a it is down with the governor. but there is no shortage of cash if they decide to stay out. more than $590,000 raised to keep them on on the lam including money collected by a group headed by howard dean and part of the money came from public workers in the last two election cycles. is this legal? a legal can of worms. there is a good chance it is not legal because i pulled down the wisconsin statute today on appearance of conflict of interest conduct and it says specifically that no one in the legislature may accept money for something that looks like it is considered reward for official action or in action. in other words you are getting paid to stay at the hotel to not