Did You Know...

   

Deadbeat Dem defaulted on three home loans while lending her campaign $77,500. Hellllooo, Congress?

Share
By Michelle Malkin  •  May 27, 2008 08:25 PM

Here’s another installment in the deadbeat Dem/defaulting Hillary superdelegate chronicles of Congresswoman Laura Richardson (D-Calif.) in case you missed it over the holiday weekend. It’s getting smellier and smellier. Turns out she has defaulted on not one, but three home loans–yet somehow managed to loan her election campaign $77,500. In fact, it appears there is a pattern here of cashing out her homes to fill her campaign coffers. But there has been no uproar in Congress over this lawmaker’s appalling behavior. Why? Because it would upset the bipartisan narrative that all homeowners are victims, all lenders are sharks, and that no bad incentives to walk away exist.

Quick refresher: On May 21, we learned that Richardson had bailed on a Sacramento home and walked away from her $535,000 mortgage on the property. She denied the charges. On May 22, evidence piled up that contradicted her denial; moreover, we learned that she didn’t bother to pay utility fees and property taxes on the house. On top of that, the Daily Breeze confirmed that she did, in fact, receive a per diem housing allowance from the California state government. This woman has the gall to fashion herself a spokeswoman on behalf of aggrieved homeowners and wants to testify in front of the Senate while she swims in debt:

While Richardson did not apologize for her actions, she did attempt to explain them.

In 2005, Richardson was a Long Beach councilwoman and a staffer for Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante. She was elected to the Assembly in 2006 and then to Congress in 2007, to fill a seat vacated by the death of Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald.

Richardson loaned her Assembly campaign $100,000 in the summer of 2006, borrowing against the equity in her Long Beach home. After her election, she raised enough money to pay herself back, but immediately had to plow $77,500 in loans to her congressional campaign.

“I am not financially wealthy,” she said. “I am not a millionaire. – Based upon what I was going through, changing four jobs in less than one year, I think any American would understand what that does in terms of a person’s financial stability.”

As a member of Congress, Richardson makes $169,300 a year. As a member of the Assembly, she made about $116,000, plus a per diem for living expenses in Sacramento.

When it was pointed out that the average American makes far less than that, Richardson responded, “The average American is not responsible for maintaining several households.”

Richardson said she did not make an effort to sell the Sacramento home, even after she was elected to Congress, and still hoped to rent it out.

Richardson attempted to link her situation to the plight of others facing foreclosure, and said the experience would help make her a better advocate on foreclosure issues.

“I think this is what many Americans are unfortunately facing right now,” she said. “I am concerned that I can take what I have learned from this to help somebody else. – Many people are one step away from issues that are life-changing moments. When a person moves across the country, that is a life-changing moment.”

Richardson noted that unlike the state Legislature, the U.S. Congress does not provide for living expenses.

“On the federal level, there is no per diem,” she said. “They don’t pay for you to move.”

Richardson is renting an apartment in the Washington, D.C., area. She declined to disclose or discuss her credit score.

She has begun to pay down her congressional campaign debt, and repaid herself $18,000 of the $77,500 in personal loans. She still owes $220,000 to her campaign consultant – which is unusual for a successful campaign – and about $330,000 overall.

Watch this woman’s words and actions closely as Congress returns from the Memorial Day holiday and takes up the business of reconciling the housing aid bills. More importantly, watch the silence and inaction of her colleagues on both sides of the aisle who prefer to remain blind, deaf, and dumb to the congressional speculator in their midst.

Yet another sordid chapter in the continuing saga of San Fran Nan’s “most ethical Congress in history.”

blog comments powered by Disqus
~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's Email List:

Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook