This democrat congressman from La. is a real package. I remember his name as the guy who diverted the national guard from Katrina rescue operations to take him to his house to retreive some "important documents". And now, apparantly, he has joined the ranks of Duke Cunningham in the corruption club.

It was a pretty dicey strategy for the democrats to accuse the reps of having a "culture of corruption" Did they really think one of their own wouldn't bubble up to the surface with their own scandal?

There's definitely a culture of corruption in government, I think we all agree with that. But to accuse the other party of having a monopoly on it is laughable.

So how do we reduce this culture? Perhaps it comes down to the nature of congressional spening
Milton Fiedman outlined four basic ways to spend money..

1) You spend your own money on yourself. With this, you will usually be the most careful. wanting to get the most value for the least money.

2) You spend your money on some one else. Perhaps a gift for a loved one. Again, you will be fairly diligent, trying to get the biggest bang for your buck.

3) You spend other people's money on yourself. An expense account would be an example. You aren't as eager to get the best value, since your money is not involved. And the more money you can spend on yourself increases your happiness without much penalty.

4) You spend other people's money on other people. This is the arena of most gov't spending. Here, there is little incentive to economize and get the best value for the money. Politicians vote to spend our money on other people. And here lies the problem. They can gain power and money by spending the money in a way that primarily benefits them first and the recepients second. The incentive to control this type of spending is almost nil. Since the more you spend, the more power and influence you generate.

This is why it is so dangerous to give too much spending power to the gov't. The founders set up a fairly small amount of specific responsibilites for the congress to carry out. The Common Defense clause of section 8 does not give gov't permission to spend our tax money to benefit specific groups of people or businesses.

As long as there is politics, there will be plenty of corruption to go around. But by reducing the ways for politicians to be able to spend other people's money on other people, we will begin to nibble away at this culture of corruption that engulfs government today.


the story on the corrupt democrat congressman...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052101148.html

5/22/2006 10:43:25 AM

uhm

how about we just stop letting members of congress pick their electorate

that should be step 1 in any plan

5/22/2006 10:48:44 AM

well, not to cross threads, but repealing the 17th amendment would reduce the effectiveness of special interrest related corruption.

"Before taking effect, legislation would have to be ratified by two independent power sources: the people's representatives in the House and the state legislatures' agents in the Senate."

"The need for two powers to concur would, in turn, thwart the influence of special interests, and by satisfying two very different constituencies, would assure the enactment was for the greatest public good."

In other words, by making the two houses differently elected by different constituencies, corrupting influences will conflict and cancel each other out to an extent not possible under the current system.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/09/17/fl.dean.17th.amendment/index.html

[Edited on May 22, 2006 at 11:14 AM. Reason : .,.]

5/22/2006 11:11:34 AM

Quote :

"stop letting members of congress pick their electorate"

Quote :

"repealing the 17th amendment "

Ok..two good ideas, both of which would require the attention and will of the voting public. That is another problem, we all have lives, it's hard for us to keep paying attention to those rascally wabbits in Washington. How can we set up some passive safeguards against gov't corruption? Or are we forever doomed to the "constant vigilance" required to protect our liberty?

5/22/2006 11:20:47 AM

There was plenty of corruption before the 17th amendment, and would be plenty after a repeal. Eliminating the direct election of Senators would undoubtedly change the nature of political machines, and could potentially result in a different balance of power. You could argue that in the end different states and national parties will balance out (although there is no way of knowing this), but I imagine the end result would be more money funneled down to state and local races, redistricting being an even bigger problem, and possibly the rise of Boss Tweed style politics in local elections.

Before pushing for a change in the Constitution, you really need to look at what is your goal and will this "solution" really reach that goal.

5/22/2006 11:42:36 AM

Quote :

"what is your goal "

Always a good question. For the purpose of this thread's discussion: The goal is how to reduce/prevent politicians from using their position for personal gain in both power and money.

As Markgoal points out, we must also consider the effects of unintentional consequences in any adjustments we make.

5/22/2006 11:52:25 AM

^^ I have, and so did the founding fathers, and while it might for a short period of time inflict hardship upon state elections, the effect should be temporary. Local petty interests will often mean much more to voters than the indirect national interests. We have over 100 years of history before 1913 to draw on and find out how such a system worked in practice. We can see that such instances as bribery and corruption did occur, and thus would probably do so in the future. However, "Zywicki's analysis shows that, in fact, the corruption was nominal, and infrequent."

"Fortunately, Professor Zywicki offers an explanation for the amendment's enactment that makes much more sense. He contends that the true backers of the 17th amendment were special interests, which had had great difficultly influencing the system when state legislatures controlled the Senate. (Recall that it had been set up by the framers precisely to thwart them.) They hoped direct elections would increase their control, since they would let them appeal directly to the electorate, as well as provide their essential political fuel -- money."

"This explanation troubles many. However, as Zywicki observes, "[a]though some might find this reality 'distasteful,' that does not make it any less accurate."'
cite: same link as above

Of course, it must be said, if in fact we owe the 17th Amendment to a push from special interests, then it is very likely that they would be able to prevent its repeal.

[Edited on May 22, 2006 at 12:11 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/22/2006 12:10:21 PM

I don't see how this proves that the current lot of Republican's don't have a culture of corruption.

Also, I don't really see people defending this guy, like what was done for DeLay and his crew.

5/22/2006 12:53:30 PM

Quote :

"Zywicki's analysis shows that, in fact, the corruption was nominal, and infrequent."

Is dead wrong, unless rampant patronage and voter fraud are nominal or uncorrupt. Other progressive era reforms were more responsible in the reduction of this than the 17th amendment, but it's naive to say corruption wasn't rampant in the late 19th-early 20th century. While the progressive movement may have had xenophobic undertones, real corruption was still unmistakably there.

5/22/2006 1:09:05 PM

^ I'm fairly sure he was referring exclusively to corruption steming from the appointment of senators, which makes sense. vote trading and influence from special interests in the sellection of senators is not a form of corruption, neither is special interests getting you elected through huge campaign contributions. Legislators can vote however they wish and so can voters, whether their motives were honorable or not is a separate question.

That corruption existed in the 19th century is undeniable and it is a stretch to argue that the 17th Amendment engendered corruption, such an argument cannot be proven. But only because the serving of special interests is not a form of corruption, merely a sign of poor governance.

"patronage and voter fraud" had nothing to do with the apointment of senators and were instead an endemic problem of corruption. "patronage and voter fraud" are far easier perpetrated in a general senatorial election compared to a state legislature. It is fairly obvious if a legislature containing 100 representatives had 110 votes cast.

[Edited on May 22, 2006 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .,.]

[Edited on May 22, 2006 at 1:23 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/22/2006 1:20:33 PM

Quote :

"I don't see how this proves that the current lot of Republican's don't have a culture of corruption."

Who is trying to prove that? The whole bunch of them are rife with corruption, bribery and scandal.

How do we hold the corruption down a bit? Term limits? Watchdog oversight? What about a law that the party out of office in the presidency automatically gets to appoint the attorney general.

5/22/2006 9:49:15 PM

Don't vote incumbent.

Seriously.

5/22/2006 11:13:06 PM

Quote :

"Don't vote incumbent"

Why sanction the corruptors?

5/23/2006 1:31:11 AM

This is funny. Instead of being about the bribery, it's about the gestapo-like tactics of the FBI.

[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 7:52 PM. Reason : sdfsdf]

5/23/2006 7:35:51 PM

Nancy Pelosi is backing Alcee Hastings to head the House Intelligence Committee. What's next, Cynthia McKinney for the committee on Homeland Security? Democrats are controlled by the CBC.

In case you've forgotten who Alcee Hastings is,

Quote :

"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi wants Florida Congressman Alcee Hastings, who was impeached as a federal judge in 1989, to be vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. "Nancy Pelosi wants to dump Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat who is a moderate, and replace her with Alcee Hastings," Klein said. Appointed to the bench by President Carter in 1979, Hastings was impeached and removed from office in 1989 on two counts, perjury and conspiracy to obstruct justice. The Florida Democrat, an African-American, blamed "institutional racism" for the charges lodged against him. Hastings was elected to the House in 1992. "

5/23/2006 8:04:26 PM

The hue and cry from incensed democrats for rep. Jefferson's resignation has been deafening, hasn't it? It's been about as loud as all of the republicans call for Duke Cunningham to resign.

Rather than the scummy criminal behavior of one of their own, what are Washington politicians pissing their pants over? Being investigated...

Quote :

"House Majority Leader John Boehner: "I clearly have serious concerns about what happened and whether people at the Justice Department have looked at the Constitution lately" "

Quote :

"Democrat Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer: "No member is above the law, but the institution has a right to protect itself against the executive department going into our offices." "

Quote :

"In the Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist expressed concern about the search and Mississippi Republican Trent Lott said his Rules Committee was looking into the situation. "There's a right way and a wrong way to do everything," Lott said. "We don't want a situation where the FBI just shows up at will and starts rummaging around here." "

Lest the congress-corruptors forget...the capitol building belongs to "We the Freaking People" not to them. We should be able to send any representative we want into their offices and just check up on them if we so desire. I say rummage at will! Politicians should have no more privacy in our capitol than high school kids do with their lockers.

Private citizens have the right to be left alone by gov't. They are responsible for themselves. But politicians holding public office are a different bunch all together. They hold the privilage we have given them of police power. And they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy time and time again. They deserve no presumption of innocence when it comes to investigating graft and corruption. They should be kept in a state of constant terror of having their offices rummaged through..at any time...just to make sure they're not up to something funny.

5/24/2006 12:22:59 AM