To: "homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org" <homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: [Homestead] D.C. Whorehouse ethics decline further
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 09:08:06 -0700
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.