YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

[Soldier4Christ]

UnBan the Bulb

Last December, Congress thought they’d help us all out by banning the good old incandescent light bulb. Being the highly trained scientists that they are, Congress thought that by making rules supporting and promoting the use of CFL bulbs, they’d promote the kitschy ideas of forestalling global warming. Of course, the scariest words in the history of man are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you,” and this idiot move by Congress is no exception.

In this case, the our government dolts thought that saving volts was better than worrying if the mercury inside the new CFL bulbs presented a contamination problem for anyone unfortunate enough to break one. It turns out that if someone were to drop and break one of these “earth saving” bulbs it would spread mercury contamination all over the house and special care must be taken to clean up the mess. Yes, the light bulbs that are supposed to save the world are poisonous to our health! (the EPA has published a 7 page instruction manual on cleaning up a broken CFL)

Well, now we can give Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota a pat on the back for attempting to repeal the stupidity of forcing Americans to switch over to these hazardous bulbs with a bill that will repeal the requirements to get rid of the old incandescent bulbs with the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act. (H.R. 5616)

I hope everyone calls their Congressman and urges them to support this bill. Good job, Rep. Bachmann.

MSNBC has given us the latest on the danger that these newfangled CFL light bulbs present.

Compact fluorescent light bulbs, long touted by environmentalists as a more efficient and longer-lasting alternative to the incandescent bulbs that have lighted homes for more than a century, are running into resistance from waste industry officials and some environmental scientists, who warn that the bulbs’ poisonous innards pose a bigger threat to health and the environment than previously thought.

Remember, the government is only here to help!




The light was turned off when this idea came up!

[nChrist]

    

You mentioned the logic meter and all kinds of brilliant bans, BUT you forgot to mention the logic ban in Washington, D.C. Logic and common sense isn't allowed there because it's viewed as anti-government.   

[Soldier4Christ]

I think that we need to ban the bans. Now there is a twist on logic.   

[Soldier4Christ]

Reformed grocery credit tax gives relief to Idaho families

Bryan Fischer of the Idaho Values Alliance says a bill that passed the legislature Friday is a "good, solid piece of pro-family legislation" that is designed to properly offset the cost of paying sales tax on groceries for the state's families.

Executive director of the Idaho Values Alliance (IVA), Fischer is commending state legislators Cliff Bayer (R-House) and Russ Fulcher (R-Senate) for working more than a year on a measure designed to update a grocery tax credit that had only given Idaho families $20 annually since its inception in the 1960s.
 
"Back in the mid-1960s, when Idaho first instituted a sales tax, they established a tax credit that was equal to the amount that the average individual would pay to purchase food that they would consume at home. That was 20 bucks in 1965 -- but it was never indexed for inflation," Fischer contends.
 
Fischer also says in order keep pace with the cost of living and the cost of food today, the tax credit would have to be between $90 and $100. He notes that every year since 1965, Idaho taxpayers have been losing ground.
 
However, the bill championed by Bayer and Fulcher changed that pattern of loss and is now adjusted for inflation to phase-in yearly increases over time -- at least $10 a year -- that will eventually come up to the current cost of living for individuals and families. The phase-in helped get the bill passed out of the legislature over the objections of people worried about how a challenged state budget would afford it, and a governor who, Fischer says, has grudgingly promised not to veto the bill if it reaches his desk.
 
Fischer also believes the bill "could serve as a model for other states that are looking for some way to give a little bit of tax relief for their families."

[Brother Jerry]

Better idea....do away with the sales tax.

Basically giving a credit back is saying "Let the gment borrow your money for you, interest free"  You pay $100 in taxes each year for sales tax and such...the gment gets that $100 and earns $5 in interest...but only pays you back $100.  So instead of you getting that $100 and the $5 in interest..the gment is.

[Soldier4Christ]

I couldn't argue that even if I wanted to. 

[nChrist]

I understand that we will all see a dramatic increase in the price of food next month - April 2008. I'm positive that tax increases or elimination of previous tax cuts would be INSANE!

We must all pay attention to the platforms of various politicians running for office, or we might find ourselves in the position of NOT being able to keep our heads above water. I'm talking about all kinds of GIVEAWAY programs and PORK DELUXE! Someone has to PAY for all of that PIE-IN-THE-SKY BALONEY!  Guess who? NOTHING is FREE from the government, and we should know this. It's our tax money that the BIG SHOT POLITICIANS are playing with. If just HALF of all the GIVEAWAY programs go forward, we will be well on our way to becoming a SOCIALIST - COMMUNIST SOCIETY. It might not bother the rich very much, but it would BREAK THE BACKS of the AVERAGE TAX PAYERS. OUR GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO STOP BEING SO GENEROUS WITH OUR MONEY! WE DO WANT TO EAT AND SURVIVE!

[Soldier4Christ]

Bush administration seeks sweeping economic power
'Our present regulatory framework was born of Depression-era events'

The Bush administration is proposing a sweeping overhaul of the way the government regulates the nation's financial services industry from banks and securities firms to mortgage brokers and insurance companies.
ADVERTISEMENT
clear
clear    Email:
   ZIP / Postal Code:
      clear
clear

The plan would give major new powers to the Federal Reserve, according to a 22-page executive summary obtained by The Associated Press.

The Fed would be given broad authority to oversee financial market stability. That would include new powers to examine the books of any institution deemed to represent a potential threat to the proper functioning of the overall financial system.

The proposal, which will be outlined Monday in a speech by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, is certain to set off heated debates within different sectors of the financial services industry and in Congress, where some Democrats are likely to complain that the proposal does not go far enough to crack down on abuses.

The administration divided its recommendations into short-term goals that could be adopted quickly, intermediate recommendations and an "optimal" regulatory framework, which contains a radical restructuring of how the government supervises banks and other financial institutions.

The recommendations are the product of a yearlong review that was begun in an effort to modernize the government's regulatory structure so that the country's financial services industries could better compete in a fast-changing global economy.

The plan also seeks to address problems that have been brought to light in recent months since a severe credit crisis began roiling financial markets last August.

That crisis has already claimed as its biggest victim Bear Stearns, the nation's fifth-largest investment bank, which came to the brink of collapse before a government-arranged purchase by JP Morgan Chase & Co.

"I am not suggesting that more regulation is the answer, or even that more effective regulation can prevent the periods of financial market stress that seem to occur every five to 10 years," Paulson will say in the remarks he will deliver on Monday.

But the plan does seek to address problems highlighted by the current crisis in which the Fed in an unprecedented move has begun making direct loans to securities firms in an effort to shore up a system badly shaken by billions of dollars of losses stemming from sour mortgage loans.

The proposal would allow the Fed, in its new role as "market stability regulator," to dispatch examiners to check the books not just of commercial banks but of all segments of the financial services industry.

The administration proposal would also consolidate the current scheme of bank regulation by shutting down the Office of Thrift Supervision and transferring its functions to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates nationally chartered banks.

The plan recommends that the Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates stock trading, be merged with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates futures trades for oil, grains and various other commodities.

The plan would create a national regulator for the insurance industry, which is now largely governed by the states, and would create a Mortgage Origination Commission to try to address the abuses exposed in the current tidal wave of mortgage defaults.

The role Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues have been playing to shore up the financial system would be formalized in the administration plan by giving Fed officials greater power to detect where threats might be lurking in the system.

The proposal is certain to generate intense scrutiny in Congress and within the financial services industry, where past efforts to change how regulation is handled have met with fierce resistance.

Many Democrats in Congress are already pushing tougher proposals that would impose much stricter regulation in an effort to crack down on abuses exposed by the current credit crisis.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said he believed Paulson's plan offered some valid suggestions.

"In broad outlines, we agree with large parts of Secretary Paulson's plan," Schumer, chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, said in a statement. "He is on the money when he calls for a more unified regulatory structure, although we would prefer a single regulator to the three he proposes."

Under Paulson's approach, the long-term goal would be to designate the Fed as market stability regulator and to have a financial regulator who would focus on financial institutions that operate with government guarantees such as providing deposit insurance.

The administration plan, which was first reported by The New York Times on its Web site Friday night, also proposes a business conduct regulator who would be in charge of overseeing consumer protection issues.

The initial reaction from the securities industry was also positive.

"Treasury has delivered a thoughtful and sweeping plan which should provoke intense discussion, debate and potential legislative changes," said Tim Ryan, president of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

"Our present regulatory framework was born of Depression-era events and is not well suited for today's environment where billions of dollars race across the globe with the click of a mouse," Ryan said in a statement.

[Soldier4Christ]

While this sounds really good to have the government be able to more closely control financial institutes from abusing their power at the same time this will give the Federal government more power over the people.

[Soldier4Christ]

Supremes to allow 'Statue of Tyranny'?
Group seeking Liberty alternative actually targeting Ten Commandments, critics say

The Supreme Court today announced it will review a case that could be used to install a "Statue of Tyranny" to oppose the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor.

"We're delighted that the Supreme Court agreed to take this critical case – it's exactly what we were hoping for," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which represents the city of Pleasant Grove, Utah, in the dispute.

"The Supreme Court is faced with a dramatic opportunity: Preserve sound precedent involving the well-established distinction between government speech and private speech – or permit a twisted interpretation of the Constitution to create havoc in cities and localities across America," Sekulow said. "The lower court decision – if left unchecked – would ultimately force local governments to remove long-standing and well-established patriotic, religious and historical displays."

The interpretation under review by the Supreme Court was made by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

That court ruled in August against revisiting its original decision in a case involving the Utah cities of Pleasant Grove City and Duchesne City. A lower court had ordered the cities to allow monuments containing the "Seven Aphorisms" of an organization called Summum to be erected on public property. The alternative was for the cities to remove all monuments with other sayings, primarily the Ten Commandments, many of which were donated and erected decades ago.

"The lower court decision misses a key distinction between government speech and private speech," Sekulow said. "The government has to be neutral toward private speech, but it does not have to be neutral in its own speech. The 10th Circuit confused this rule when it said private parties have a First Amendment right to put up the monuments of their choosing in a city park, unless the city takes away all other donated monuments."

The ACLJ's petition argued: "When private speakers have the right to use government property to speak, there is a speech forum. But when, as here, the donor cedes and the government accepts ownership and control of something from a private party, that 'something' is no longer private property. It becomes government property. And if it is a message-bearing 'something,' any communication thenceforth is government speech, not private speech."

It continued: "Accepting a monument for permanent display as the government's own property does not require accepting other monuments in the name of content- or viewpoint-neutrality. Nor does the government's acceptance of a donated monument require that a government park be turned into a cluttered junkyard of monuments contributed by all comers.

"In short, accepting a Statue of Liberty does not compel a government to accept a Statue of Tyranny," the petition said.

The concept of allowing anything as a monument is "scary," Frank Manion, of the ACLJ, told WND earlier. "The Minutemen in Massachusetts? We need a Redcoat. A George Washington statue? Why not George the 3rd. A Holocaust memorial? How about a Hitler memorial?"

Summum lauds the principles of "psychokinesis, correspondence, vibration, opposition, rhythm, cause and effect, and gender," and promotes mummification of both people and pets.

The ACLJ said the Ten Commandments monuments are the real targets of the legal actions, because in many circumstances, cities or other governments likely would order such monuments removed, rather than order acceptance of others.

The ACLJ, which has worked on the case with the Thomas More Law Center, contends that the Constitution "does not empower private parties to force permanent displays into a park, crowding out the available physical space and trumping the government's own vision" for the parks.

"In the Duchesne case, even an attorney for Summum admitted to the federal district court that its position could lead to bizarre results. Summum's attorneys told the court that if a city park is required to display monuments contributed by all comers, the city park may well end up looking like a cemetery with many, many monuments," the ACLJ said.

Under Summum's theology, adherents believe the first set of stone tablets Moses received on Mt. Sinai contained its seven aphorisms, "made by a divine being."

"The first set of stone tablets was not inscribed with the Ten Commandments. Rather, they contained aphorisms of a Higher Law that held very profound and deep meanings," the organization's website says.

The group believes Moses "had been initiated into an understanding of the inner, esoteric source" of those aphorisms, but when he "observed the immature behavior and attitude of the Israelites" he realized they could not understand them too.

"So Moses destroyed the stone tables and revealed the aphorisms to a select few."

The ACLJ warned earlier: "In 1886, the United States government accepted from the people of France a donation of a 151-foot tall colossal statue called "Liberty Enlightening the World. Since that time, the government has displayed this Statue of Liberty in a traditional public forum in New York Harbor.

"For years, demonstrators with messages to deliver have assembled, handed out literature and otherwise expressed themselves at the site subject to certain regulations of the time, place and manner of their expression. But it probably never occurred to any such demonstrators that they enjoyed a constitutional right to insist that the government allow them to erect their own 151-foot tall statue or monument setting forth an alternative message to that conveyed by Lady Liberty," the law firm warned.

"Under the flawed private speech jurisprudence of the panel in this case – there exists no principled basis upon which the government could turn down for permanent display on Liberty Island a donation of a 'Statue of Tyranny,' or, perhaps, a new copper colossus bearing the message 'Pay No Attention to the Lady With the Torch – the Golden Door is Now Closed,'" the legal briefs argued.

[nChrist]

WOW!  We need a high security INSANE ASYLUM FOR THE ACLU! They are definitely a danger to themselves and others!

[Soldier4Christ]

House votes to protect coast from oil drilling

California moved a step closer to permanently protecting its shores from offshore oil drilling Monday when the House approved legislation to ban development in federal waters along all 76 miles of Sonoma County's coastline and off the southern tip of Mendocino County's coast.

The measure would more than double the size of two existing National Marine Sanctuaries near San Francisco and Marin - Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank. The newly protected zone would stretch from Bodega Bay to Point Arena and would extend about 50 miles off the coast - 2,093 square nautical miles, an area roughly the size of Delaware.

Scientists say the expansion would protect the headwaters of one of the world's most productive ocean ecosystems, a nutrient-rich zone that is crucial to every marine species on the West Coast, from whales to sea lions to sea birds to salmon.

"These critical marine areas need our protection," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday, praising the effort to "preserve these areas and protect the diverse animal populations that reside in them."

The measure by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, had faced opposition last month from some Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee, who warned that it would cut off access to potential future supplies of oil and gas. But the House passed it Monday on a voice vote without any fanfare.

The measure now goes to the Senate, where California Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein are pushing a similar version. A spokeswoman for Boxer said the senator is cautiously optimistic it can be moved through the Commerce Committee and passed by the Senate this year.

Woolsey said the bill offers a way to get around the annual debate in Congress where opponents of drilling battle to make sure the state's coast remains off-limits to drilling.

"This will put that to rest," Woolsey said. "Once it's passed out of the Senate, unless there is an act of Congress (to overturn it), there will be a permanent ban on exploration and drilling" off the coasts of Sonoma and southern Mendocino counties.

Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, who was a chief co-sponsor of the bill, said he is already talking to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration about evaluating other offshore areas in Mendocino, Humboldt and Del Norte counties to add to the sanctuary system.

"This section of the coast is a huge treasure," Thompson said. "We need to take the extra steps to protect it."

Already, portions of the California coast have been designated as off-limits to development, including the Monterey Bay and Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuaries. Environmentalists hope to stitch together a protective quilt of sanctuaries up and down the state.

The latest effort drew widespread support, including from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, whose scientists recognized the biological value of the area. The State Lands Commission, the Coastal Commission and the counties of Marin, Sonoma, Mendocino, and San Francisco all supported the legislation.

Fishermen's groups also backed the bill, which does not set any new limits on commercial or recreational fishing in the protected areas. The groups viewed the bill as a way to preserve the ocean food supply that supports healthy fish stocks.

"Some of the most intense upwellings any place in the world occur right there," said Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. "The upwelling brings nutrients up from the sea floor and when those hit the light, the photosynthesis creates the phytoplankton and zooplankton that are the whole base of the ocean food chain."

Susan Williams, a professor of ecology and evolution at UC Davis and the director of the university's Bodega Marine Laboratory, said the key reason to expand the sanctuaries is that the area near Point Arena is where the strongest upwelling begins. The current, driven by high winds, pushes the nutrient-rich waters south toward Bodega Bay.

"The huge biological ecosystem significance of this bill will be protecting the source waters for the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries," Williams said. "That means the food source - the conveyer belt of food for the sanctuaries - is now protected."

The expanded sanctuaries would also help protect threatened species like the Steller sea lions, who have a winter haul-out area near Point Arena. Gray whales use the area between Fort Ross and Point Arena regularly. Northern fur seals, a vulnerable species, use areas north and west of the current sanctuaries that would be protected by the bill.

Williams said the deep waters in the newly protected zones are also home to bamboo coral, which can live for hundreds of years and lay down growth rings, much like trees do. Scientists are already using them as key indicator of the effects of global warming on marine ecosystems.

"By protecting these areas we are also protecting a great source of information about recent climate change," she said.

[Soldier4Christ]

A Good Day, Supreme Court Rules Against Foreign Precedent

In 2003, then Justice of the Supreme Court Sandra Day O’Connor famously posited that our judicial system should take into account foreign court rulings when deciding American cases prompting outraged conservatives to denounce her idea as endangering American sovereignty and destroying the Constitution of the United States of America. This year, the Roberts led SCOTUS has made an important decision that will serve to forestall that possibility.

In October of 2003, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor gave a speech in Atlanta where she predicted that “over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, of international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues.” Naturally, Americans who revere the Constitution were outraged over the thought that we’d place foreign court rulings before our own law of the land, essentially allowing foreigners to decide questions of American jurisprudence.

The fear over allowing foreign precedent or areas of jurisdiction to overlap into ours raises discussion of the very differences between our system of government and legal traditions and that of the rest of the world. Should we rely on foreign precedent, for instance, the very concept of innocent until proven guilty is put into doubt because foreign rulings will not generally be based on that bedrock principle.

Further, should American courts recognize the kangaroo courts of The Hague and the so-called “International Court of Justice” (or the World Court), foreign institutions such as these would have the authority to incarcerate American citizens for their politically motivated, anti-American “trials” at any time. After all, should we cast away our Constitutional rights by allowing foreign rulings to take precedence over our system, this will be bound to occur. What would stop such a thing from happening, anyway?

In any case, the World Court has already made an effort to intercede in our court system with the case of Medellín v. Texas. In this 15-year-old case, a Mexican national named Jose Ernesto Medellín was charged with murder and was sentenced to the death penalty in the state of Texas. As a result of Medellín’s sentence, anti-death penalty advocates in Mexico and other nations took notice and made to intercede with a case brought before the World Court.

Medellín’s attorneys and advocates argued that the U.S. was bound by a World Court decision that Mexican officials had won “ordering” a new trial and that the death sentence be vacated. Not only that, but the World Court also “overturned” the sentences of 51 other foreigners who had become death row inmates in American prisons.

As Ted Cruz of Human Events Magazine writes, “The World Court ruling was unprecedented. In over 200 years of our Nation’s history, no foreign tribunal has ever before asserted the authority to bind U.S. courts, much less to reopen final criminal convictions. And, armed with the decision of the World Court, Medellín argued that American courts had no option but to obey.”

Well, good news was had with a 6 to 3 decision that favors U.S. sovereignty.

The Roberts court ruled that World Court rulings cannot be enforced inside the United States. Since the U.S. Constitution is the law of the land, this SCOTUS decision re-affirms that all jurisprudential power is vested in that document and foreign courts, then, hold no power.

As Cruz notes, “If Medellín had prevailed, it would have elevated the World Court above the Supreme Court of the United States, given that foreign court binding authority, and made its far-away judges the final arbiters of the law that governs American citizens.”

This ruling should effectively make the dangerous and absurd idea that U.S. courts should pay attention to foreign precedent null and void. Let’s hope it is the first of many more rulings that protects American sovereignty.

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

It's hard for me to imagine that three members of our supreme court would vote to yield sovereignty to a world court of clowns. This is an example of why the Founders were BRILLIANT in establishing a BALANCE OF POWER. That Balance of Power is BROKEN from time to time, and it needs to be fixed. If our supreme court had voted the other way, their vote would have been ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL! ONLY THE PEOPLE can vote and give any portion of our sovereignty away. In the absence of a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE, NO SUCH THING IS POSSIBLE! Further, the supreme court doesn't have the power to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, and FOREIGN COUNTRIES ARE NOTHING WE WANT TO EMULATE! If the PEOPLE want to change OUR FOUNDATION, ONLY THE PEOPLE CAN DO IT BY VOTING! Otherwise, the only power our courts have, INCLUDING THE SUPREME COURT, is to ENFORCE THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE!

Bluntly, rogue judges who try to make law and overstep the authority that ONLY THE PEOPLE CAN GIVE THEM need to be removed from any public office forever. The same is true for any other public servant, and ALL JUDGES NEED TO BE REMINDED THEY ARE NOTHING MORE THAN PUBLIC SERVANTS!

I can see that I'm far too shy on this issue! 

[Soldier4Christ]

Federal credit cards misused
Employees paid for lingerie, gambling, iPods, Internet dating

Federal employees used government credit cards to pay for lingerie, gambling, iPods, Internet dating services, and a $13,000 steak-and-liquor dinner, according to a new audit from the Government Accountability Office, which found widespread abuses in a purchasing program meant to improve bureaucratic efficiency.

The study, released by Senate lawmakers yesterday, found that nearly half the "purchase card" transactions it examined were improper, either because they were not authorized correctly or because they did not meet requirements for the cards' use. The overall rate of problems "is unacceptably high," the audit found.

The GAO also found that agencies could not account for nearly $2 million worth of items identified in the audit -- including laptop computers, digital cameras and, at the Army, more than a dozen computer servers worth $100,000 each.

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), who requested the study along with Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), said that money "intended to pay for critical infrastructure, education and homeland security is instead being spent on iPods, lingerie and socializing."

"Too many government employees have viewed purchase cards as their personal line of credit," Coleman said. "It's time to cut up their cards and start over."

The audit is the culmination of a series of GAO reports over the past decade that have uncovered improper use of government-issued purchase cards at agencies, including the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Government employees spent nearly $20 billion last year using "SmartPay" cards and related convenience checks, for items ranging from pencils to computers to utility trucks.

Purchase cards, used by about 300,000 government employees in 2007, are essentially the federal government's equivalent of corporate credit cards. Issued by five major banks, they are primarily for transactions under $2,500 but can be used for larger contract payments. All transactions are supposed to comport with federal purchasing guidelines, including proper authorization and documentation.

The latest study used scientific sampling to gauge problems with the cards across numerous federal agencies from July 2005 to September 2006. The report singles out incidents for special criticism as "abusive," "improper" or "fraudulent."

In the fraudulent category, a longtime employee of the U.S. Forest Service in Oregon, Debra K. Durfey, wrote convenience checks worth more than $640,000 from 2000 to 2006 to a live-in boyfriend, who used the money for gambling, car expenses and mortgage payments, according to the GAO and the Justice Department.

The fraud went undetected until a whistle-blower forwarded a tip to the Agriculture Department's inspector general. Durfey, who headed her unit's purchasing office, pleaded guilty last year and was sentenced to 21 months in prison and restitution.

Another fraud case involved the U.S. Postal Service, where an unidentified postmaster used his card to charge $1,100 over a 15-month period for "various online dating services" while he was under investigation for viewing pornography on a government computer. The employee worked out an agreement to remain on sick leave until he retired in 2007 and paid back the money spent on the dating services, according to the GAO report and a Postal Service spokesman.

In a case the GAO deemed "abusive," the Postal Service spent $13,500 in 2006 on a dinner at a Ruth's Chris Steak House in Orlando, including "over 200 appetizers and over $3,000 of alcohol, including more than 40 bottles of wine costing more than $50 each and brand-name liquor such as Courvoisier, Belvedere and Johnny Walker Gold." The tab came to more than $160 a head for the 81 guests, the report said.

Postal Service spokesman Gerry McKiernan said the dinner was held to entertain large postal customers who were already in Florida for another conference, and actually saved money because it combined four events into one. He also defended the payments for alcohol.

"When you're having dinner with customers, it's normal to have a drink," McKiernan said.

In another case at the State Department, a cardholder spent $360 at the Seduccion Boutique in Ecuador to buy "women's underwear/lingerie for use during jungle training by trainees of a drug enforcement program." The report does not include further details, but it says a State Department official "agreed that the charge was questionable."

The GAO found that 41 percent of the transactions it examined did not follow government purchasing rules. The problem was worse with larger purchases: Forty-eight percent of transactions over $2,500 were in violation of federal rules, the report said.

Levin said in a statement that "although internal controls over government credit cards have improved, we still have a long way to go to stop the fraudulent use of these cards."

In a written response to GAO, acting Controller Danny Werfel of the Office of Management and Budget said the administration "is extremely concerned with the incidences of purchase card abuse highlighted in GAO's report," and said it has agreed to increase oversight to lower the number of problems.

OMB spokeswoman Jane Lee also said the White House supports proposed Senate legislation aimed at reducing "inappropriate purchase card transactions." The Government Credit Card Abuse Prevention Act would require regular audits and other steps to cut down on credit card fraud and abuse.