This was a joint decision by the Speaker and the Democratic Leadership, made due to the skyrocketing cost of the program and the fact that most of their duties have become redundant:
It’s probably about time - way past time, actually. I support this move. And I think the Senate should follow suit.
It’s probably best for the safety of those boys, now that Republicans control the House again.
Was that really necessary?
… “screw him out of what?”
I know nothing about the page program, but I’m assuming it mostly consisted of the children of major donors and other “connected” people, right? If so, then fuck them. Let them pad their resumes elsewhere.
Well, yeah. If he was talking about the girls, they’d have to be wary of the Democrats instead.
Not really. It was open to any 16-17 year old with at least a 3.0 GPA. The would be page did have to be nominated by his district’s House member, so at least in theory, it could be biased the way you described, but in practice, I don’t think it usually was.
While it makes sense from a financial standpoint to get rid of the program, and I understand why they’re doing it, I still think it’s sort of a shame. It’s a 200 year old program that’s really part of Congressional tradition.
I know two kids who went into the program. Both were kids of major donors to the congressman who nominated them. Do you have first hand knowledge of any random kid who got through? Not doubting that it happens, just trying to fight my ignorance.
I don’t. But I’d be really surprised if that were the usual case.
That is a vile and unnecessary statement, Diogenes.
:rolleyes:
Geeze, Skald. It seems like all the Republican sex scandals involve a man and all the Democratic ones (including the latest resignee from Oregon) involve a woman as the other party. I know, oversimplification (and also not true) and not fair to the many members who, whether I agree with them or not, would never do anything inappropriate with a staff member or page. And it is a shame that they are canceling the program. So, I agree, rather tasteless. But I could see a similar remark on a late night comedy program.
Let’s not forget that the last Republican House covered up for a pederast for years.
Of course it is.
No, it wasn’t necessary: it was a threadshit. Mr. Moto has an interesting topic here. To boil it down, does tradition trump thriftiness? In this case it appears not to. Especially if, as others have suggested, it was a perk given to donors.
They were asking for it.
I’m moving this to MPSIMS because I don’t see it as a Great Debate. And everybody in the thread is advised to grow up.
To be fair, I’d have made the same joke had Dio not beaten me to it. It was the first thing I thought of when I saw the thread title!
No, no, no! You’re NOT supposed to do that to the pages! Bad Congressperson!
With Kindles you can mark the location in a document electronically, in the old days Congressmen needed to bend over a page.
Considering the scandals involving pages, I would be not surprised if the need for thriftiness is also related to the potential lawsuits resulting from sexual contact with minors.
Maybe I just watched too much West Wing, but I’ve long been under the impression that all the “honorary” or intern-like positions in the House and the Senate went to the relatives of members or donors.