Balanced budget

[spence]

I don't see anything wrong with this, in fact it would be improper to not pay rent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[UserRemoved1]

You never see anything wrong with Govt waste

This is first of all ILLEGAL. It's called COLLUSION and BID RIGGING.

The Govt is REQUIRED by law to go to bid for anything over xx dollars. I know the State is $10k and I believe Feds are the same. It's supposed to be advertised and accept SEALED bids for services.

So to get around this they write 2-3 "little" contracts and they don't go to bid. All great...cept it's the same person receiving benefits and it's STILL ILLEGAL.

The Federal Govt shouldn't be putting more money in this jackwads pocket in this fashion...

I'm betting there's a whole bunch of people that would like to have the govt as a tenant....not some illiterate sponge like this.

So are you having cake on Thursday? Or did you get a super secret invite to MV in a few weeks and will be celebrating there?

Originally Posted by spence

I don't see anything wrong with this, in fact it would be improper to not pay rent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&

You never see anything wrong with Govt waste

This is first of all ILLEGAL. It's called COLLUSION and BID RIGGING.

I don't see this as waste, the SS has the duty to protect the VP.

I'd also be willing to wager that the SS is exempt from laws requiring contracts be put to bid. There's no way you can be responsive and provide security under such rules.

It sounds like the property is ideally located for the mission and has an established rental value. For the SS *not* to reimburse Biden could create a conflict of interest.

Unless the property was very difficult to rent or clearly not adequate for the task I'm not sure what the argument is.

Unless it's just to bitch.

-spence