It's the power, stupid

TownHall.com ^ | 29 January, 2006 | Paul Jacob

[Radigan]

Congress is a mess — and so is the federal government it controls. But this is nothing new. The realization that Congress is a cesspool of corruption may have been heightened by the Abramoff scandal, but is not exactly a shock. Americans have long held Congress in low esteem.

How low? A New York Times poll finds that 77 percent of us believe that lobbyists bribing members of Congress is "the way things work in Congress." Only 16 percent think the recent scandals are "isolated incidents." A Rasmussen Reports release on its polling tells us, "Americans Not Shocked by Abramoff," and that 40 percent of Americans judge used-car salesmen to be "more ethical than members of Congress."

The problem of a corrupt Congress is compounded by three bigger problems:

1. Congress has effectively escaped citizen control, 2. Congress has far too much power, and 3. Congress will use this scandal not to clean up its act but to further entrench itself.

Many will quibble with the assertion that Congress is somehow beyond our control. As Lily Tomlin once joked, "Ninety-eight percent of the adults in this country are decent, hard-working, honest Americans. It's the other lousy two percent that get all the publicity. But then — we elected them."

So why not just blame the voters? Well, put it in perspective. Voters are given two choices. They switched parties barely a decade ago, replacing a corrupt Democrat-controlled Congress for one under Republican control. The new members, half of them never having served as politicians before, enacted some meaningful reforms. But the old guard Republicans remained and the incentive structure in Congress quickly turned the new Congress into nothing better than a more brash version of the power-mad Democrats they had replaced.

The voters asked for a revolution . . . and they got a slight re-arrangement of deck chairs. Sure, there are new people skimming and scheming, but there's been no substantive change.

No wonder voters have become more and more disgusted with Congress.

So how do you explain re-election rates that are consistently over 98 percent? Well, the voters could switch parties again, if they thought it would do any good. But a Rasmussen Reports poll showed that 63 percent of Americans think corruption would be as bad or worse under Democrats.

And switching parties wouldn't be easy, even with a slim Republican majority. You see, incumbents have voted themselves so many advantages that voters wind up with almost no viable alternatives. Most political observers are familiar with the litany of freebies to which incumbents take advantage: radio and TV studios used to beam messages back home, mass mailings to voters. But the real advantage incumbents in Congress have is power. A large part of that power is the trillions of dollars they spend, some in slices of pork they can send back home, and for which they take full credit.

But their power doesn't just stop there. Congress also has the power to regulate. Congress can make or break any business in America. Got a competitor? Congress has regulations! We're talking power that is worth trillions more. Good, negotiable power. So, is it surprising that interested parties would hire lobbyists to protect themselves or advance their own economic agenda?

he solution? The power of individual congressmen must be reduced by limiting time in office. And the awesome power that the federal government has snatched from the people and the states must be pried out of the fed's cold, callous fingers.

As U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) put it, "The problem is us," adding, "We're not going to change anything till we change the motivation that the next election is more important than anything else."

But reforming themselves is not on the agenda of Congress. Nor is reducing congressional power. Instead, Congress is looking to enact band-aid reforms along with attacks on free speech by groups that might seek to take politicians to task. Somehow one way to reduce the public's disgust for Congress is to prevent the groups from speaking out about it.

Already the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law has silenced many non-profit citizen lobbies from speaking out on the public airwaves anytime close to an election, and Congress is still ruminating on to whether or not to regulate the Internet's blogs. Recently, a radio talk show host's comments were found to constitute a "contribution" in a political campaign and thus, according to a judge, would allow state regulation of his talk show.

That's not enough. U.S. Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) are now looking to further restrict 527s that have been vocal during political campaigns and other vehicles for grassroots communications. As Lieberman put it, "We now have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reach agreement on a broad set of lobbying reforms that will reduce the cynicism."

But cynicism is highly called for. Today, to be cynical about government just means you have your eyes open. To seek to squash cynicism is to suppress truth.

And good ol' Joe Lieberman and John McCain aren't alone in their desire to squash honest dissent. After all, how can they and their friends on Capitol Hill be sure of re-election if all of a sudden there was unfettered free speech and everyone started speaking truth to power? Why, the whole corrupt system might fall apart!

[Radigan]

- But cynicism is highly called for. Today, to be cynical about government just means you have your eyes open. To seek to squash cynicism is to suppress truth.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[JOE43270]

"As U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) put it, "The problem is us," adding, "We're not going to change anything till we change the motivation that the next election is more important than anything else.""

I say this man made a great point. I live in Ohio so don't think I have a political connection with him.

[manwiththehands]

"But cynicism is highly called for. Today, to be cynical about government just means you have your eyes open. To seek to squash cynicism is to suppress truth."

Just don't say anything bad about Bush or "Republicans" on FR.

[MaDeuce]

Ain't nothing gonna happen ... as usual. Only way it will change is when a few million Americans take things into their own hands and the corrupt pols will be hanging from light posts in the hot DC summer sun.

Check this graphic out and see where we are on the scale
http://www.nhccs.org/Civilization_a.JPG

[MCCRon58]

"As U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) put it, "The problem is us," adding, "We're not going to change anything till we change the motivation that the next election is more important than anything else.""

So, whats the solution? How about:

Just as we require our elected rep's and gov't officials to recuse themselves from any vote where they can personally gains, should we not require voters to "recuse" themselves from voting in any election from which they also can gain some unearned gov't largess?

I say that if we truly want to remove the profit motive from gov't (and thus truly break the addiction from O.P.M.(other peoples money)) we must restrict voting only to those who DO NOT receive any unearned benefit from the public coffers.

This would mean recipients of welfare, food stamps, farm subsidies, corporate welfare (I.e. advertising for "american products, etc.) would not be allowed to vote in any election until such time as they were free of the "taint" of receiving "aid" for a period of 6 months prior to the election.

Congress, as it exists now, is similar to a bunch of drug pushers, addicting the american people to that most addictive substance known to any self regulating society; O.P.M. Until such time as we break this addiciton, corruption will always have a fertile ground upon which to thrive.

[abclily]

Congress is so corrupt and greedy for Arab oil money from lobbyists that they keep us from becoming energy independent. Congress keeps this nation from pumping and refining our own oil.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

We need more like Tom:

As U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) put it, "The problem is us," adding, "We're not going to change anything till we change the motivation that the next election is more important than anything else."

Power corrupts, and so many of our GOP Senators (bridge to nowhere) don't want to give up the power of the purse. I say bring on the fair-tax. Also, change the law on earmarks. Those two things will make a huge difference.

[JOE43270]

I think your on track. I know some people don't like term limits, though I feel that when some people are in congress for thirty and forty years they start to be working more for themselves than us. My feelings are that if when elected and spend two terms then if you have a good resume then run for another office. J.C, Watts and John Kasich left the House of Representatives after a couple terms and if they would decide that they wanted to come back and run for the Senate, President, or Vice President. I would be for them.

[Kay Syrah]

A nice pipe dream would be elimating gerry-mandering. Just draw districts by geographical lines, and let the chips fall where they may. The tax code reduced to a simple fair tax/flat tax would eliminate a lot of problems as well. Term limits for me is an imposition I could reluctantly support, but might not be needed with the above mentioned reforms, which of course will never happen.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

I have mixed feelings about term limits. Clearly there are good people that we need to keep. I would go for a two term limit in the Senate and 10 years in the house. Term limits is not the answer, but it would help.

[jec41]

Congress has been a cesspool since it's inception. Nothing new. Its how change comes about. The court has ruled in effect that money is free speech. Those who pay the most money get to be heard.

[jec41]

I have mixed feelings about term limits.

We already have term limits. They have to be voted in for each term.

[ndt]

"A New York Times poll finds that 77 percent of us believe that lobbyists bribing members of Congress is "the way things work in Congress.""

The remaining people were not sure what "congress" was.

[Adiemus]

"Check this graphic out and see where we are on the scale"
http://www.nhccs.org/Civilization_a.JPG

I'd say we are between apathy and dependence, closer to dependence than apathy.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

I think we are in the abundance phase. Of course one must assume that this model applies to us. Civilizations have failed or shrunk (in power) through historical events. The British Empire did not fall, it changed because colonialism became a thing of the past. The UK is still a viable force in the world, but with diminished power compared to its past power. France was very powerful under Napoleon, but took on the world and as a result France was no longer the dominant power. Germany under the NAZIs was very powerful as was the Soviet Union largely because both states were military dictatorships.

The USA has the requisite courage and abundance to sustain its power for quite some time, or system of free enterprise and liberty can sustain a vitality for some time. However, the threat to us if that we stop believing in ourselves.

The Roman Civilization lasted over a thousand years, and in the form of the Byzantine Empire over two thousand years until 1453. Rome changed from a city state with a Republic to an Empire and was destroyed for a variety of reasons. The pressure of Barbarian invasions coupled with weak leadership in the Fifth Century that overtaxed the population and fostered few of the virtues of the original Roman Civilization. Romans were Christians by then and ironically, as Gibbon points out Monasticism contributed to this fall.
In conclusion, I opine that civilizations do evolve over the years, and depending on the history at that time, they thrive or fall, however, there are internal factors that are important to the viability of a country. Roman values upheld Military virtues. The military was well organized and held an high place in society. Gibbon called it civic virtue.