Catastrophe - Dick Morris [87]
In 2007, Rangel submitted an earmark for $1.9 million to fund the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City University of New York.318 Now, that takes nerve! Using your power as a congressman to appropriate federal tax money to finance your favorite egotistical project.
Some of the congressman’s colleagues in the House were not amused by Rangel’s self-celebrating earmark. Congressman John Campbell challenged Rangel: “You don’t agree with me or see any problem with us, as members, spending taxpayer funds in the creation of things named after ourselves while we’re still here?”319
“I would have a problem if you did it,” Rangel replied, “because I don’t think that you’ve been around long enough that having your name on something to inspire a building like this in a school.”
Rangel refused to see anything wrong with the project. “I cannot think of anything I am more proud of,” he said.320
CBS News quoted from promotional brochures for the Center, which promised:
a new “Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service,” the “Rangel Conference Center,” “a well-furnished office for Charles Rangel,” and the “Charles Rangel Library” for his papers and memorabilia. It’s kind of like a presidential library, but without a president. In fact, the brochure says Rangel’s library will be as important as the Clinton and Carter libraries.321
Really, Charlie? That’s how you see yourself?
As the debate on the earmark was ending, Congressman Campbell summed up Rangel’s hubris: “We call it the ‘Monument to Me,’ because…Congressman Rangel is creating a monument to himself.”322
Perhaps Rangel became so obsessed with the monument to himself that he lost sight of what was acceptable conduct for a congressman.
It should go without saying that no member of Congress should be permitted to sponsor an earmark for—that is, spend the taxpayers’ money on—a personal project.
But when the taxpayers’ money was not enough to fund Rangel’s Monument to Me, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee decided to hit up his good buddies at AIG and other corporations for big donations.
THE CONGRESSMAN AND AIG
As mentioned above, Charlie Rangel wasn’t always so critical of AIG. The company had provided campaign money to him over the years and he and its former CEO, Maurice Greenberg, had become friends. In fact, according to published reports, Greenberg had helped to steer a $5 million contribution from a foundation to Rangel for his eponymous Center.
But Rangel wanted more. And so did City University, which, according to the New York Times, was hoping to get a $10 million contribution from AIG.323 A meeting was set up, and Rangel made a pitch for a contribution. It’s what happened next that has raised questions.
One of the attendees at the meeting wrote to Rangel and asked for his support on a tax measure that would be worth millions to AIG, a tax measure that Rangel had opposed in the past. And guess what? He changed his position. Rangel claims that he had decided to change his mind about the bill well before he ever received the AIG letter.
Of course.
You see the problem: The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who has almost unilateral power over tax legislation, is meeting with a company that wants a tax break. And the purpose of the meeting is for Charlie to beg for money. It doesn’t look good, does it?
Not surprisingly, AIG made assurances that its request had nothing to do with Rangel’s own bid for $10 million for his center.
Of course not.
Because if a legislator does something as a quid pro quo, it is a crime. And neither Rangel nor AIG would ever want to get involved in such a thing.
Probably squeamish about the appearance of such a deal, AIG never donated the $10 million. But Rangel must still have been grateful for the $5 million AIG’s former chairman Greenberg had steered his way.
Rangel got into even more trouble over his aggressive fund raising tactics. The New York Times reported that Rangel had used his