Good idea, wrong problem
Its definitely too early to be blogging, but then again its way to early to be in class but i am there anyway. So this will at least keep me awake and it will also let me disseminate some more interesting news. Since both parties have put forth plans to work on ending the corruption, i see this as a very good thing. The party in power is usually the one what is focused on because they can effect more changes. Common sense really. This whole lobby scandel involves 5 congressmen last time i checked, 3 Republicans, and 2 Democrats. I'll try to look up names later but don't hold your breath. Really, the democrats plan here seems better, as i am not a fan of lobbiests in the first place. But there is still the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.
What i think really needs to be done isn't to limit the contact with lobbiests and the small kickbacks, although this does help. The problem i have is the total motivation behind the effort. The root cause if you will. The reason that lobbiest can do so much and peddle so much influence is that the congressmen can support their special interests without seeming too. Its the whole culture of spending and pork projects that is the problem. When you can slip a few million here and a few million there, or even worse tack riders onto existing legislation that has nothing to do with what is being voted on, then its easy to slide stuff around. Until this problem is tackled, the measures that are being taken by both parties will help, but not end the corruption in Congress.
What i think really needs to be done isn't to limit the contact with lobbiests and the small kickbacks, although this does help. The problem i have is the total motivation behind the effort. The root cause if you will. The reason that lobbiest can do so much and peddle so much influence is that the congressmen can support their special interests without seeming too. Its the whole culture of spending and pork projects that is the problem. When you can slip a few million here and a few million there, or even worse tack riders onto existing legislation that has nothing to do with what is being voted on, then its easy to slide stuff around. Until this problem is tackled, the measures that are being taken by both parties will help, but not end the corruption in Congress.
posted by Maddawg at 1/19/2006 07:52:00 AM
4 Comments:
It's the return of the Madcow!
I agree with you on this issue, Jim. As you probably know, progessives or "liberals," most specifically Democrats, are all about transparency in government and accountability to the people. Anonymous holds in committee and "earmark" funds are two "institutions" of our legislature which greatly diminish both of these essential ingredients to a functioning government of the people, by the people, and for the people. As such, I am in favor of whatever efforts, however posturing they may seem, in stemming the tide of corruption in our government system.
But if you'll allow, I'd like to address something that you Republicans with your billion dollar-budgeted think tanks and media centers have been shaping and molding. What is this issue known commonly as? "Lobbying Reform." LOBBYING Reform? Dear me. What does that evoke? It evokes the idea that the LOBBYISTS are at fault, and THEY need reforming. But do lobbyists really need reforming? No. What needs reforming is the BRIBERY that's being accepted by our ELECTED OFFICIALS. We don't need Lobbying Reform. We need Corruption Reform, or Bribery Reform.
It may seem like a small and trivial thing, but when you're talking about the men and women who make all of the decisions in this country which affect EVERYONE'S lives, there needs to be a frankness. This monniker was created and circulated by design. Should we be angry at lobbyists for attempting to and succeeding at bribing some Congressmen and Senators? Sure. But shouldn't we be MORE angry at the Congressmen and Senators that betrayed their constituents trust for their own benefit? OF COURSE!
Anyhow, one excellent point I heard on C-SPAN Radio, although I can't remember who to credit this to, was in regards to the politicians complaining on the $20 cap on meals. He said something to the effect of "Most Americans don't spend more than $20 for lunch, so why should we be getting more than $20 lunches?" And it's true.
Contrary to popular theory, namely the Great Backlash theory, "liberals," progressives, and namely Democrats, aren't elitist. America's LEADERS are elitist. There is no party line when it comes to elitism in Washington. Guess what? Sam Brownback comes from one of the wealthiest families in Kansas. And yet he claims to be a meager farmer from Kansas. He is an elitist. Likewise, Ted Kennedy, whose lineage I shouldn't need to list, is an elitist. That's the way of Washington.
Alright, I'm done. Jim, seriously, read Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and I'll read any fascist, right-wing conspiracy theory book you throw at me.
I blame it on two things. The first is mentioned in the main post that mostly its the problem of having so many oppertunities. As was said by Ben Franklin, an unenforcable law is no law at all. That really applies to all standards of conduct. If congress can slide riders on everything and make all these pork projects that really have little to do with the federal government into bills, and there are so many bills passed every day, its too easy. Congressmen are people like everyone else and you have to expect it to happen. Even more when you know that its helping the people who directly vote for them. It helps their voters, and each one isn't a big deal so its almost a no harm no foul.
The second problem is no term limits in Congress. If you know that you can keep giving what amounts to kickbacks to your voters, you can make being a Congressman a profession. That really hurts our government that the people making decisions are so far removed from real life. Changing that would be a huge help, limiting individuals power and family powers.
Also, don't just harp on Republicans for million dollar think tanks, the democrats have their share as well. George Soros anyone? Oh yeah the elitest thing is mostly true. If you look at voting records, the two institutions known for huge majorities of liberalism is academia and the media. These are jobs that do not depend on result that is where the ivory tower, elitest stereotype comes from. Not just about the money but about the unaccountable influence. There will be Republicans in unaccoutable jobs, but its the huge majority in academia and the media that lead to the generalization
Well, the idea that there are no term limits is a feeble one. Dick Armey (husband of Vagina Coastgaurd, *snicker snicker*) said this very morning on C-SPAN's Washington Journal that when he became a Congressman, he left a tenured professorship. He continued by saying that he went from having what I believe he called "academic liberty" and a GAURANTEED job, to having to go to the people in his district every two years and asking to keep his job. I don't believe setting term limits is a good idea, simply because it throws the good out with the bad. I believe that there are politicians of all stripes, of all parties, of all beliefs, and of all positions who genuinely want to help their constituents achieve their goals. That means for some goals there will need to be long term changes that require many years of service. For some goals that just means having someone, i.e. the particular official, to uphold the status quo of goals previously achieved. Anyway, I think setting term limits is a way of looking like you've solved the problem without really adressing the root of the problem, which is the corruption and bribery.
Personally, I think it's on THE PEOPLE to fix it. Education and awareness needs to be raised. Public interest could stand a bump, as well. I believe it was Jefferson who said something to the effect of an educated people is the most important part of a successful democratic (or republican) government. I hate it when people say, "Well, I voted for my Congressman, so he can worry about all the stuff I don't want to have to worry about, so that I don't have to pay attention." To me that's insane! You're basically granting him the freedom to do whatever he pleases, indeed with your BLESSING! There's not a problem with transparency as far as bills and laws go. Could they be advertised more and reported in much more lay-person terms and more in depth? Sure. But they're there for you to read if you're so inclined. It's just that there's only a handful of us that are inclined.
The media picks up on some of the big ones, like the bridge to nowhere in Alaska. But I think ALL earmarks and pork barrel projects are wrong. The reason the NEWS doesn't focus more on it is because the people aren't interested in the FIRST place. The news is a ratings-driven beast like everything else. They need to sell copies and advertisement space, so if it bleeds, it leads. I think it's more a reflection of us as a society than that they're all corrupt politicians. I believe that if we were more watchful, they'd be more trustworthy. It's like in "Clerks," when they're behind the counter with the change bowl and the sign out. Dante says something to the effect of "If people see money laying out and a sign to be honest, they generally think they're being watched," implying they won't steal. Guess what? Congress knows that, for the most part, they're NOT being watched.
Anyway, that's one hell of a ramble. I shall await your response.
The problem is that its in the constituets' interest to have pork barrel programs. The more money that goes to that state, the better for the people that live there. Its just not in the interest of the country as a whole. You get a system where congress just trades pork barrel projects back and forth and money goes everywhere.
As for limits, i am not saying it would solve all the problems but it removes a primary motivation. Its a great idea to say you want to get rid of corruption, in fact its a very noble idea. Problem is, what do you want to do about it? Education is nice but how do you make people interested in it? I obviously am interested but people as a whole arn't, and don't want to be. Its been that way in this country for 225 years now. The whole idea of a republic is so that you elect people to represent you. Its alot of work having to be knowledgable on every issue, in fact its a full time job. So its a little sad but thats the way the world works, we as a whole don't want to worry about politics most of the time. Thats not a changable issue.
As for the media, they sell entertainment now. It is a ratings game for them but that is something that is new for this country. That was not the case up till about 30 years ago when it was just about information. The problem is that the media as a whole claim they are just presenting facts when they are really putting forth an agenda, even if its inadvertent its still a large bias.
Post a Comment
<< Home