Homestead mailing list

[Gene GeRue <genegerue AT ruralize.com>]

Yeah, I know, putting Congress and ethics in the same sentence is an 
oxymoron. These people are beyond arrogant; they are the epitome of the 
axiom that power corrupts. We need a system to oversee the system.
The only one I know is to always vote against the incumbent. An extremely 
high majority of congresspeople are reelected; to be elected the first time 
is to almost ensure a career of working the system, then either retiring on 
far more than most Americans or walking across the street to begin work as 
a lobbyist for the companies once watched. In the meantime, they give 
themselves pay raises and benefits, get a fine health care plan, and 
maneuver for ever more power. Party line votes do not reflect 
representation of the folks who elected them. The reflection that saddens 
me most is that obvious scoundrels are reelected. That reflects badly on 
the intelligence or the values of voters.

Ethics in the House

Published: January 5, 2005

Congressional Republicans are actually trying to claim the side of the 
angels in their forced retreat from defending the ethical lapses of the 
majority leader Tom DeLay. "I feel like we have just taken a shower," one 
G.O.P. lawmaker said. Not hardly. While taking a half-step from Mr. DeLay's 
more embarrassing machinations, the Republican majority made sure to strike 
a potentially lethal blow to the enfeebled House ethics process.
A rules change engineered by the leadership means that corruption 
complaints against lawmakers will automatically expire if the evenly 
divided ethics committee finds itself in a 5-to-5 party-line standoff. As 
hobbled as the old system was, a standoff at least meant that the complaint 
went to a subcommittee for investigation. That produced three warnings for 
Mr. DeLay last year.
Speaker Dennis Hastert is also reported to be intent on purging the current 
chairman, Joel Hefley, a Colorado Republican who shocked his party by 
suddenly taking the job seriously. Mr. Hefley dared to sign off on the 
three admonishments of Mr. DeLay for cutting ethical corners by buttering 
up lobbyists, arm-twisting for floor votes and siccing federal agents on 
the Democrats who fled his gerrymandering intrusion into the Texas 
Statehouse. Hardly a career firebrand, Mr. Hefley, if he is to go, should 
be replaced by someone truly dedicated to rebuilding the House's tattered 
ethical reputation.
An unbowed Mr. DeLay was able to rally the G.O.P. troops in November for a 
shameless rules change that would have meant he wouldn't have to step aside 
as leader should he be indicted in a Texas grand jury inquiry into his 
fund-raising activities. But even Mr. DeLay had to endorse the scrapping of 
this shield as he faced growing resistance this week from Republicans 
concerned that his ethical arrogance had become a defining issue for the 
Democrats.
Still, the Republicans' belated realization that they needed to put limits 
on Mr. DeLay's demands for ethical sanctuary would have seemed more sincere 
if they'd done without the sleight of hand that makes a greater mockery of 
the ethics process.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/05/opinion/05wed2.html