MELISSA HART'S JUNKER
If you're longing for yet another example of how screwed up our federal government is, look no further than to the case of Melissa Hart's junker.
Ms. Hart, the former congresswoman who represented Pennsylvania's 4th Congressional District, was defeated for re-election nearly four years ago. But her car, a Volkswagen Jetta, has remained in office, so to speak.
As was first reported many months ago, the car was left in the Longworth House Office Building parking garage. Incredibly, such nonsense is allowed. Former members are allowed to park or store their cars in House parking garages free of charge and indefinitely.
With one major exception: You can't be a lobbyist. And since March 2009, Melissa Hart has been just that. Confronted, Hart says she'll remove the junker and donate it to charity.
But Hart feels no compunction to reimburse taxpayers for warehousing her car since she violated the terms of her perpetual perk. At $290 per month — the value the House Administration Committee puts on the space for tax purposes — Hart owes taxpayers about $4,600. She should pay up.
That said, the House should end the practice of free parking and storage for ex-members. It's a ridiculous perk that never should have been offered in the first place and one ripe for abuse, as the Hart incident shows.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.