Following my rant yesterday about the passage of the stimulus bill, Tom H. e-mailed me a link to an editorial at Reuters. It's so apposite that I simply have to pass on parts of it here.
Can any U.S. administration avoid the fate spelled out in the following 12 words? “We were elected to change Washington and we let Washington change us.”
Thus spoke John McCain when he formally accepted the Republican party’s nomination for president last September. He then listed a number of reasons why the party had lost the trust of the American people, including that “some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption”.
Those temptations cut across party lines and stem from the relentless rise of a system, over the past three decades, which has given special interest groups enormous influence over policy-making and led to what Robert G. Kaiser, author of a just-published book on lobbying, calls “a kind of ethical rot in the nation’s capital”.
. . .
The industry is one reason why the United States does not score very well on an international index on corruption compiled annually by Transparency International, a corruption watchdog based in Berlin. The U.S. comes in at number 18, below European and Asian countries ranging from New Zealand and Singapore to Germany and Britain.
In his book (So Damn Much Money, the Triumph of Lobbying and the Corrosion of American government), Kaiser ascribes the growth of the system partly to the perennial need for money by congressional candidates to pay for their increasingly expensive election campaigns. In 1974, the average winning campaign for the Senate cost $437,000; by 2006, that had grown to $7.92 million. The cost of winning House campaigns grew from $56,500 to $1.3 million.
Congressmen face re-election every two years, which means they are perpetually on the stump. The money they need for this can be raised from the interest groups and individuals for whom the politician can do favors in the future.
Forty years ago, according to Kaiser, lobbying was done by a small group of lawyers and fixers. Today, it is a multibillion-dollar industry of thousands of people, including nearly 200 ex-senators and congressmen, both Democrats and Republicans. It’s an establishment and a culture that looks change-resistant - presidential promises notwithstanding.
There's a lot more at the link, including examples of how the Obama administration is already falling into the 'lobbyist trap', despite its promises to 'change' Washington. Highly recommended reading.
I have an idea. Next election, why not cut out the middleman (i.e. the politician), and simply vote for the lobbyist of your choice?
Peter
3 comments:
The solution to this is a modification of what everyone proposes as term limits: no limits on the number of terms served but no more than two terms may be consecutive, regardless of office, and once an individual serves in federal elected office (notice, "served" not "elected to", so the act of being sworn in triggers this) he or she is forever banned from employment in and receiving compensation from, in any form, including benefits and retirement, from the federal government save for regular salary and benefits appropriate to earned rank for duty in the active military or reserves or salary and benefits for elected service. Since the military by statute is prohibited from political activity, "free parking" in a fake generalship for Congressman Joe would be of no benefit.
So, Congressman Joe can become Senator Joe, but then he's prohibited from becoming President Joe for one election cycle. Likewise, Senator Bob can become President Bob, but only for one term before standing down for a cycle.
The prohibition on federal employment and compensation prevents Congressman-then-Senator Joe from a position in President Bob's administration to position himself for a run for President in 4 years, including operating as a consultant to the feds.
There should also be no retirement benefits for service in elected office.
And, I would go one further on federal sevice: save for military service, no one may receive compensation in any form, including retirement and benefits, from the federal goverment for a period longer than 18 years. Let federal employees fund their own retirement with 401(k)s and IRAs, and shorten the employment cycle to purge entrenched bureaucrats.
Constitution, as amended, provides for a President to serve only 2 (two) terms. Total of 8 years.
How about 2 terms for Senators. Period. Stop. That would allow for 12 years. Enough to share their experience in service to their respective states and the nation. As well cut their ability to peddle their supposed "power" to the highest bidder.
Representatives? Perhaps, in light of recent developments, our forefathers had it right. Keep them close to the people -- so, the idea of 2 years in office is a good one. Now, let us then consider that it is good to have fresh ideas from the people on a fairly regular basis. Why not limit a representative to a total of 4 terms or 8 years? If you cannot accomplish your responsibilities to your district in that time, maybe you should leave earlier....
Absolutely concur on the elimination of lifetime pensions for these individuals. That is outright theft on top of all the other perks they have managed to vote for themselves.
One other thought -- noticed how many members of either chamber of congress have offered to take a pay cut to do their part in sharing the economic burden?
Kind of like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. Runs counter to their version of life and besides, they only answer to themselves on such matters.
One last historical note about Congress. When Social Security was about to fail (economically) in the 1950's, how did they fix it?
By forcing the U.S. Military into the system under the guise that there was no guaranteed retirement. Ergo, they were protecting the service members.
Interestingly, the rest of the Federal Government was not required to join the Social Security system at that time. They had their own retirement system with plenty of perks and funded by the taxpayers.
Nice folks, those congresspeople....
I don't think any scheme will work. Whenever you have a concentration of power, people will flock to try to influence that power. The only solution is to remove the attraction...remove the power itself.
Sadly, I don't think that is how the governments work. They don't reduce their power...they expand it. And so the abuses will get worse, until the whole thing collapses. We may be closer to that than we know.
Post a Comment