What caused the debt? That sounds like an easy question. Could that be the problem?

One would hope that our “leaders” could get their arms around a simple question. Well, apparently we never learn.

The short-bus riders on The Hill are pretending to deal with what to do about the debt. It seems logical to ask the question in the title of this article before addressing any possible solutions. Knowing how you got here might be helpful in finding your way back.

Back to the initial debt question.

Even conservative economists acknowledge the role the tax cuts of the early aughts played in eliminating the surplus and creating a major portion of the debt. No rocket science required. No dispute, except among those who prefer playing politics and maintaining “Their” seat in Congress.

Rule of thumb: If a politician considers his career more important than the well-being of the people or the country, he/she does not belong in any public office.

Should American corporations enjoy loopholes that let them snub their noses at our country? Other countries aren’t so considerate. They use our government’s protection, services, infrastructure, airports, ports, education of their employees and enjoy other benefits of being and operating in our country.

Over two-thirds of the largest paid no corporate tax. They are freeloaders. They are parasites. And, many still get subsidies. Even some foreign corporations have discovered how to do the same. That means that you are paying their way. It means you are subsidizing them to send our jobs overseas and pay taxes to other countries. It’s difficult to fully appreciate your generosity.

Our glorious new Secretary of Wars is visiting our money in Iraq and Afghanistan. He tells us that we are close to defeating al-Qaeda. After only 10 years and we are close to defeating them? All 24 of them? Why not throw in another couple of hundred thousand and finish them within this decade?

They tell us they are drawing down a couple of squads this year from the 100,000-plus US troops over there. Why didn’t they mention our mercenary forces? They actually outnumber our troops. Whatever, I have been told in the utmost of secrecy that those military operations added somewhat to our present debt.

The oil industry needs subsidies? Enough said.

There have been various other expenses. We average consuming 170 pounds of sugar every year for every man, woman, child in this country. Aren’t we sweet? But, that just isn’t enough. Somehow, that industry just can’t survive without my pocket change. Ooops! They do survive without it. They get some of that Chinese money that puts us in debt.

If it were only the sweet guys. But, no. You either don’t have enough fingers and toes to count those struggling to get by on corporate welfare, or you belong in Ripley’s Believe It Or Not Museum.

Luckily, I already had 3 years of Chinese language courses in grad school. I can beg in their native tongue.

Cargill, Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM), Land O’Lakes, Monsanto, Dole, Chiquita, Perdue Farms. These are needy family farmers that can’t afford to increase their fleets of corporate jets as much as they would like unless you go deeper into debt. Please, consider helping your neighborhood agricorp.

One more biggie; the drug lords. Medicare Part D. That needn’t cost the government any money, except they agreed to refrain from negotiating with the pushers and pay whatever their asking price is. Medicare is much larger than the Veterans’ Administration. They could have a lot more bargaining weight than the VA, which pays half as much as Medicare.

So, where do we cut?

That’s easy. First you cut Medicare and Social Security. Why? Because old geezers don’t need no stinking private jets, or sufficient and decent food (cat food is cheap and convenient), or full doses of their meds. They can move in with their kids. If those kids are unemployed they can squeeze out a little to help with the mortgage.

Neither Medicare (except Part D) nor Social Security has added a single nickel (or yuán 元) to the national debt. They are paid completely from taxpayer contributions via the payroll tax. Both are, and have been, running large surpluses. Those surpluses are projected to disappear in the future; Medicare, in about 12 years, or so. Social Security in several decades. Whatever, neither has contributed to our present debt problem.

We can save a few farthings by cutting the funding to such frills as air traffic control, highway maintenance, matching funds to states and local governments for practically everything they do (cops on the beat, firemen on pumpers, education, etc.), courts, passports, parks, prisons, paychecks for the troops we claim to support, the FBI, airport security, medical research, subsidies to hospitals and too many more to list.

The President says the Social Security checks may not go out on time next month. I might get upset if they decide not to send my Social Security checks. The IRS charges penalties if my taxes are late. Does anyone have any ideas about what size of a penalty I should impose?

Are our “leaders” serious? Are they planning and preparing for any of those doomsday scenarios that  are no longer unthinkable? Since it has never happened before, we really can only guess at what we will face. No. They are not planning and preparing. No. They are not serious.

Pay Up.

That first item I mentioned as playing a major role in creating our present mess needs revisiting. We have the lowest income tax rates in more than 60 years. Low taxes means the creation of jobs, so we are told. Then why are we creating the fewest jobs of the last 6 decades in the decade since the latest tax cuts? Because that old saw is a lie. With all of the misinformation, ideological nonsense and other lies getting the attention of the media, it’s time to cut through the BS and look at the realities.

For real? That’s the top marginal rates for the wealthiest taxpayers? Actually, not. That fails to take into consideration two fairly important factors. The wealthy have more deductions than those seniors without a private jet (by the way, those jets are deductible). They have so many it pays them to compensate CPAs and tax attorneys very well to make sure they don’t miss any.

The other factor is that most of the wealthiest don’t work for most of their income. They let their money work for them. That’s called capital gains. That little scam is taxed at less than working for a living. The capital gains tax rate is only 15%. Money gets a nice little benefit when it works. You don’t when you work.

You might be interested in a couple of further points about the other countries listed on these graphs. First, surveys have shown that the citizens of each of those countries are significantly happier with their lives than are Americans. Second, the overwhelming majority in each of those countries prefer their health care system to the American system. Are we missing something?

But, Mitch McConnell just repeated on the tube, with 9.2% unemployment, it isn’t the time to raise taxes, particularly on those poor benighted job creators. Well, have I got news for you. All of those other countries in the graph above that have much higher taxes, are all also doing better with employment. Look for yourself.

Note: Since this graph was constructed US unemployment has increased .5%. The others are the same or lower.

Social Security and Medicare are entitlements. We are entitled because we pay for them and were promised, by law, that we would receive them.

So, our “leaders” decide to make those who are entitled to be paid bear the burden while those who are not entitled cavort in their private jets and enjoy unconscionable incomes and subsidies. The 400 wealthiest are worth as much as 150,000,000 Americans on the other end. Yet, many pay no income tax.

We partied on a credit card for the past 30 years and the loudest voices scream for more tax cuts. I’m getting just a mite upset with some of my fellow Americans for wanting more tax cuts so we can consume our way out of debt, while damning everyone but themselves for the debt and proclaiming their patriotism. The new American motto seems to be, “No pain, just gain.”

I was not totally into the celebrations of this 4^th of July. I am not quite in the mood to lead everyone in a chorus of, I’m Proud to Be an American.

Will our honorable representatives treat us fairly? Surely, you jest. I’m inclined to agree with Jay Leno, “If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates.”

. .

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I went to search for some images of the untouchables of India.What appeared was almost entirely from the television show and the movie loosely based on Eliot Ness and his homies.

Is it possible we aren’t all that aware of the rest of the world?

The word untouchables is applied to the crew of Ness and the Dalits of India. I, however, think it an appropriate descriptive for another group.

The Dalits are subjected to treatment that can only be described as horrific. It is as open and cruel as the terrorism of the Ku Klux Klan at its height. I may cover this in detail in another article.

However, my immediate intention is to address a completely different demographic. This is a group of Americans that, unlike the Dalits, are deserving of the discrimination and violence to which those in India are subjected. They are our plutocrats. They are the special people of America who are not subject to the rules and laws that govern the rest of us.

Have you ever watched testimony before Congress? Oil men, tobacco executives, Wall Street vultures, these and others routinely lie to the committees. They aren’t even good liars. They obviously don’t even try to be good liars. They know that it doesn’t make any difference.

Let me be more specific. It is illegal to lie to Congress. Also, it is illegal to lie to the FBI, the IRS, the Department of Justice. In fact, it is illegal to lie to almost every agency and department of the federal government. Similar laws govern the states.

It seems not to have stopped these liars. Could it be because the government almost never pursues perjury charges against these special people? I think that may have something to do with it.

Now, let’s change our point of focus just a little. Let’s look at the hoi polloi. It’s just us. It’s just those who are expected to behave. It’s just those who are really subject to punishment for violation of the laws.

You lie to the IRS at your peril. Lying to the FBI isn’t recommended. Even being dishonest with Congress puts you in jeopardy. Yeah, I know, they prefer testimony by the big shots. They garner more attention from the cameras. But, they do, on occasion, interrogate us peons.

Since few of us have the temerity to lie to big brother, this may not seem to be of much consequence to most of us. That may not be the proper way to look at this particular situation.

However few may be affected by it, you need to recognize how fundamental it is to our status in this society. Those plutocrats who have nothing to fear from breaking the laws stand above the rest of us. In effect, they stand on us. They are the elite. We are the subjects. It puts into sharp relief that we are not considered citizens of this country.

What did he just say? Yes, it’s true. We are not citizens of this country. Citizen and subject are not synonyms. A citizen is a member of the state, the country. He is entitled to rights, civil treatment and has various civic obligations. A subject is one ruled over by another; a monarch or a government.

It isn’t just a matter of semantics. It isn’t just a fine academic point. It is real. It has consequences.

It may seem of little import when one of these plutocrats walks away from the scene of his perjury. You may not be planning on lying to Customs officials on your return trip. But, it does matter.

It matters how those in charge perceive you and me. How they do affects the way laws are written; the way they are enforced. Don’t forget, tax rules and regulations are laws. They throw in a little deduction here and there for you and me. For the elite they make the laws and their lack of enforcement a cruel joke. At least it’s cruel from our perspective.

The mindsets of the government and the elite have other consequences. Have you written a letter to you congressman? Have you complained to the Bureau of Indian Affairs? And, what was the result? Did you even feel that they really paid attention? You mean you didn’t have your lawyer, the one with the K Street address, make the call for you?

We’ve heard the refrain thousands of times: All men are created free and equal. True, we know that should be interpreted as equal before the law. That’s what our social studies teachers told us. You don’t still believe that, do you? Free and equal, in the constitutional sense, are too closely entwined to be separable. If you are not equal, your freedom is less than you might think.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The Democrats will learn the wrong lessons from the election. The Republicans will learn the wrong lessons from the election.

How can I say that? Because of the truth embodied in the old saw, garbage in, garbage out.

The bulk of the society has decided that what they want to be facts really are facts. People actually believe that Obama is a Muslim. They don’t believe it because it is true. They believe it because they want it to be true.

And besides, the Internet told them so.

One of the memorable moments from election night was Rand Paul, in his victory rant, saying that he had a message he was taking to Washington. Americans are going to take back their government. My question is, “from whom?”

Whatever happened to the melting pot? He gets to claim the mantle of American and brand everyone who differs as unAmerican? I grew up imbued with the sentiment behind the statement, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That was then. People now will readily stomp your head for daring to disagree with them.

Sharron Angle speaks of 2^nd Amendment remedies if they don’t get their way. Governor Rick Perry, Congressman Zack Wamp and others talk secession if the Republicans don’t get their way. These are the real American patriots? God help us.

And what is it that tops their lists? Tax cuts for the plutocrats. Next? Repeal ObamaCare.

Yeah, I know. Somewhere in there is to impeach or otherwise rid the country of Obama. Is this where they intend the 2^nd Amendment remedy?

Anyway, what did the Republicans think they learned?

They learned that the nation gave them a mandate to implement their agenda. Wrong

What was the public’s top issue? The economy, at 42%. Where did the public rank tax cuts, the Republicans’ top issue? At 4%. They heard what they wanted to hear.

Every mention of job creation is predicated on tax cuts for the top 2%. It had ten years to create jobs but didn’t. What has changed? Nothing. Let me be emphatic. There is not one shred of evidence that those tax cuts have or will create a single job. There is concrete evidence that unemployment insurance creates jobs. I feel better about ensuring a family has food and a roof than about giving a billionaire an extra half million, or even a whole.

An exit poll showed 30% of voters had a family member who is unemployed or has been since the last election. So, do you still remember the campaigns? The 2^nd Amendment. Immigration. Birthers. Gay Rights. Abortion. A Manhattan Mosque. Sure, any wedge issue to divide a country that needs unity to work its way out of a crisis.

Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are telling every camera that the voters repudiated all of the policies of Obama. Pat Buchanan sees a bit more nuance. He says that the people did want Obama’s agenda two years ago but they no longer want what Obama wants.

In this election the Republicans gathered 5 million more votes than the Democrats. In 2008, 23 million voters in the 18 to 29 age group voted for Obama. This year. 9 million of that age group voted for Democrats. Fourteen million didn’t show up. Why? Not because of what Obama did. Because of the promises Obama failed to deliver. They sat on their hands, not because they wanted to give the Republicans a mandate. They sat it out from disappointment with the Democrats.

The overwhelming Republican turnout failed to materialize. What enthusiasm was seen resulted more from anger than love of the GOP. Polls showed higher approval for the Democrats but that didn’t translate into votes. Many of those who voted for Republicans were simply wanting to send the Democrats a message. It just wasn’t the message Rand Paul heard.

What about ObamaCare? Polls showed a little over 50% opposed it. One poll I recall but don’t have in front of me was 51% opposed, 41% favored. Well, that settles that. Just a minute.

The same poll then asked the same people their positions on six major parts of the healthcare reform that became law. You know, no more denial for preexisting conditions, coverage for kids until 26 years old, etc., etc. Surprise, surprise. Those 51% who opposed it supported every one of those six parts by from 59 to 78 percentage majorities.

Okay. Where is McConnell’s and Boehner’s claimed rejection of ObamaCare? They will not tell you that ObamaCare is almost indistinguishable from what Reagan offered Teddy Kennedy. Kennedy turned it down. He later said that was the political mistake he most regretted. Should we rename it RonnyCare? I guess St. Ronny wasn’t really a true conservative.

Do you realize that if half or two-thirds of that 14 million missing youth had voted, it would have been enough to eliminate every Republican from the House of Representatives and every one of the Republican Senators and governors up for reelection? Has anyone heard that message?

Over half of the conservative Democrats are gone from the House. One percent of the progressive Democrats lost. That makes the remaining Democratic caucus more progressive than before. Obama sees only the smaller numbers of Democrats and accepts the Republican interpretation of the results. One of his first post-election comments was that he may be willing to compromise on the tax cut.

The tax cut is a made to order Democratic battering ram. Regardless of what they say, the Republicans cannot reduce the debt by borrowing more than a trillion dollars. Well, you say, there could be spending cuts.

So, why have McConnell, Boehner and the others absolutely refused to identify a single spending cut? They know, as voters seem not to, that debt service, the military, Social Security and Medicare cannot be cut for legal and/or political reasons and total 93% of the budget. If you cut the FBI, the CIA, Homeland security, everything in that 7%, the government would essentially disappear but the deficit would remain.

The Republicans do not, under any circumstances, want to reduce the deficit. They want it increased. Really? Yes. Despite the Republican demands for tax cuts, the the resulting debt would add to the debt accumulated during Obama’s administration. He would get 100% of the blame. If he is stupid enough to concede anything on that issue, he deserves to be a one-term president, and probably will be.

The right has been louder. The left sat on their hands, with some exceptions, such as Nevada, California and a couple of other places.

The public did not make a big right turn between 2008 and 2010. The support for the progressive agenda is there. It will continue to trend that way if the progressives in Washington get their act together. More youth are coming of age. They lean heavily to the left. The older voters, who tend to be more conservative (as me) are dying off. They need leadership. They want to believe.

These are the times that try men’s souls. It will not be civil but it will be war. It will elicit howls of anger from those who claim the Flag as their own personal property. Obama may be too queasy to lead. If he understands that the Oval Office functions differently than a law school classroom, he has the other attributes to lead. Without that, he needs to step aside for the next election cycle.

One last secret from PoliSci 101. Bringing everyone together, were that even possible, can make a temporary majority. However, it is weak. It is soft. To put such a coalition together requires fuzzing the picture, fuzzing the politician’s image. It will take very little for those weak ties to disappear. The fuzziness doesn’t create enthusiasm.

Even a politician with less than majority support can win by dividing the electorate. That’s what the Republicans understand and the Democrats don’t. Making it us against them, creating strong lines of differences, whether they truly exist or not, generates enthusiasm. These people are motivated to get out and vote.

Bipartisanship is a viable option in an emergency such as WWII. It didn’t last long, even after 9/11. The rest of the time bipartisanship is the mark of the amateur, the naive.

The Republicans understand the above but, as for the results of this past election, they just don’t get it. Obama and some other Democrats seem to agree with the Republicans. Wrong.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I have often wondered if the FBI and the Keystone Cops share the same parentage. I will explain my lack of regard for this august body in just a bit.

The FBI was brought to mind by an article I read. It reported that Wikipedia had been threatened if they did not discontinue displaying the FBI’s logo on their site’s article devoted to the agency.

Silly me. I thought the Feebies were busy catching communists terrorists; saving all of us innocents from what’s-his-name.

The legal office of the FBI opened with:

“Unauthorized reproduction or use of the FBI Seal is prohibited by 18 United States Code, Section 701, which provides:

One would hope that we had put the messianic personality of JEHoover behind us. It has been 40 years and more since I was involved to the extent that I felt I had a realistic take on the tragicomedy that was the FBI. When I was involved, there were eleven investigative agencies in the federal government. The last count I heard was sixteen.

The agency with the best conviction rate was Customs. That was likely because, the way they worked, they almost always secured the evidence at the time of the apprehension.

The FBI had the lowest conviction rate. I lay that to incompetence, sloppiness and hubris. They tended to believe their press clippings.

Have you been watching reruns of The FBI Story, I Led Three Lives or any other series based on that agency? No? You would bust a gut at how consistently cornball those shows were. Hoover’s office demanded and got editorial control of essentially anything portraying the agency. Though several presidents wanted to get rid of Hoover, no one had the guts to upset him.

The majority of cases that the FBI handled, when I was paying attention, were stolen cars. You didn’t know that, did you? When a car was stolen, it was assumed that after 24 hours it had crossed a state line. This caused the local law enforcement to notify the FBI. They, in turn, issued a regional (not all-points) bulletin. Yep. That’s what they did.

When the car was eventually found by a local police or sheriff’s department, they notified the FBI. The FBI fetched the vehicle and returned it to the original jurisdiction. That counted as a successful case for the Bureau. Padding their statistics thusly, they still had the worst record of any agency.

At a Washington party, Hoover once refused to shake hands with the Soviet Union’s ambassador and pretended to ignore him. His obsession with communism caused him, and therefore the Bureau, to see them everywhere. It was said that he could see communists under the bed who weren’t there but couldn’t see a real, live communist standing in front of him.

His devotion of resources to ferreting out communists caused him to flood the Communist Party USA with spies. While there  were only about 9,000 members of the Party, 1,500 were FBI agents. It was truly comic with so many agents stepping on each others toes.

There was a directive sent out to all 1,500 of these agents not to pay their dues on time. They were afraid it would be a giveaway that they were FBI and could afford dues. The average member of the Party was rarely successful enough to be able to afford to pay their dues on time. This is what Hoover feared so much and, by his efforts, brought the public to an irrational level of fear of a takeover of the country.

Did the FBI discover the Shoe Bomber? The Bloomers Bomber? I think ordinary citizens discovered them. The FBI did find a bunch of kids who intended to blow up the Sears Tower, despite not knowing how to construct a bomb and not having enough for bus fare to Chicago. I think they did know that the Tower was in Chicago.

The Brits discovered a plot over there and told the Yanks. They regretted it. It seems Bush needed to boost his image and the Americans forced the operation to be closed down before the British could round up the entire group of plotters. Public relations trumps national security and relations with competent members of friendly foreign agencies.

Please don’t turn me in for posting their badge. If I were eating when they came a-calling, I might choke during my hysterical reaction.

It would not get me in trouble to post the logo of the CIA. It’s likely no one there would recognize it.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

We need to send some senators to Guantanamo. They are far more dangerous to our country than any of the people already in residence there.

I’m certain you have at least heard the name of Christopher Bond, Senator from Missouri. You, however, may be forgiven for not recognizing Martha Johnson’s name.

Miss Martha was the President’s nominee to head up the General Services Administration. It’s difficult to think of a political appointment to a less political position. The GSA is primarily the nation’s landlord and maintenance arm. They do the grunt work so that government employees have a roof over their heads.

What connection is there between these two?

Little Chris (Kit) was pissed about something to do with a new Federal building in Kansas City. So, he did what any grammar school kid would do. He took “his” ball and refused to let the others play. He put a hold on her nomination.

Believe it or not, the Democrats finally showed some backbone and forced a vote. What was the outcome of this controversial nomination? She was confirmed: 96-0.

Senators are so impressed with themselves that they refer to the Senate as the world’s most exclusive club. Sometimes they call it the world’s most exclusive debating club. One problem – they no longer debate. They just pose for the cameras and talk past each other.

Given how impressed they are with themselves, they feel they deserve special privileges. So, they give themselves a bunch of special considerations. My problem with that, beyond the attitude that engenders it, is that essentially all of these privileges are anti-democratic. Somehow that doesn’t seem meet in, arguably, the world’s most successful democracy.

The privilege pertinent to the above embarrassment is the rule that permits any Senator to put a hold on any nominee or bill, for any reason, or for no reason. Any single Senator can put the whole country on hold, at his pleasure. It this any way to run an airline?

Now, another Senator has taken the next illogical step. He has put a hold on all nominations. Who is this terrorist? He goes by the American-sounding name of Richard Shelby. Unsurprisingly, he comes out of Alabama, our leading state – at least alphabetically.

Surely there is a serious national danger that calls for such a drastic measure. What could it be?

Old Dick wants a government contract to go to a defense contractor who would do assembly work on a new tanker back home in Alabama. I’m convinced that he merely wants government-funded jobs for his constituents. It has nothing to do with his being on the contractor’s payroll.

Actually, the Dick has another reason, as well. He wants the FBI to build an explosives testing facility in Alabama. We mustn’t locate such a facility too conveniently to the FBI’s primary offices in Virginia. That would only help one part of the government function more efficiently. That would violate one of his “conservative” tenants.

The Dick is famous for how tentative his tenants can be. He once pontificated, “Far too many of the president’s nominees were never afforded an up or down vote because several Democrats chose to block the process for political gain.” That, of course, was when Bush had a majority of Republicans in the Senate.

Another rule has become a “privilege.” That is the rule requiring a super majority. When the Democrats had 60 votes, that meant any Democratic Senator could stand in the way until he/she got what they wanted. That worked out so well we ended up with a joke called a healthcare reform bill. It was more like a ménages à cent.

Now, with the Republicans having 41 votes, one of that group can either stop the majority or broker a deal to get what they want. What about what the people want? Silly question.

How do they justify these privileges? They sometimes resort to calling them a part of the system of checks and balances. Pure BS.

The Constitution provides for several checks and balances. There are what are considered to be the main ones: between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. We also have another between the two branches of Congress. The primary one was to be between the people, on the one hand, and Congress and the White House on the other. That one has been effectively eliminated by the Senate.

There are several ways to eliminate these anti-democratic privileges. The Vice President could, at the beginning of the next session, declare them eliminated. It seems he is not so inclined. The Senate Majority Leader could also lead. Not much chance of that.

The Constitution begins, “We the People.” Forget the Constitution. The Rules of the Senate take precedence. The people have been beaten into complete submission. Do you really think the people are prepared to take time away from their 50″ flat screens and video games to regain the power promised by the Constitution? Sure, there are the teabaggers but they are a thankfully small group of yoyos that are too easily led by faux populists such as Dick Armey and the corporate interests he represents. They are ready and willing to blindly follow con men to support policies that are against their real self-interests.

It doesn’t make much sense to depend on such as the corporately mislead teabaggers to help rid us of the corporate-owned legislators. What is the solution? Realistically, there seems not to be one. They say knowledge is power. How I wish that were true.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

What’s the difference? Well, they are both smiling. They are both wearing suits and ties. They are both using the flag to make people think they care about America. Neither gives a damn about their constituents.

Among the differences is the fact that one is a Senator; the other is a former member of the House of Representatives. One has been convicted; one hasn’t. One took $100,000 from the FBI. The other takes millions of dollars from lobbyists.

There’s really not that much difference. Why don’t they represent us? Why are they allowed to accept bribes? What standards should we hold them to?

William Jefferson was caught in an FBI sting. He was accused of accepting $400,000 in bribes. In the sting, he was video-taped receiving $100,000 from the FBI. $90,000 of the FBI’s money was found in his freezer. He was just convicted on 11 counts.

Max Baucus takes millions of dollars of bribes. He is an equal opportunity prostitute. He accepts money from any lobbyist that can find the Senate Office Building. He has taken millions from the healthcare industry, among others.

I have difficulty appreciating the difference between what Jefferson did and what all of the others do daily. A court says one is a felon. Is there really a difference?

What can we do? What should we do? I have a couple of suggestions.

When a judge has a relationship with anyone involved in a case before him, be it a litigant or their counsel, that judge is expected to recuse himself. Should such a rule not also apply to legislators? If they receive money from a lobbyist, play golf with a lobbyist or play with an escort provided by a lobbyist, I personally think that sufficient grounds for recusal from participating in the vote of any bill that might benefit that lobbyist or his employer. We might begin to see bills winning or losing by a vote of 1 – 0, or something close to that.

Back to the William Jefferson situation. If a legislator accepts money from a lobbyist, why is that considered legal? I realize that the FBI would have to hire substantial numbers to investigate all of the lobbyist-congressman relationships but isn’t that an important area of concern? I may have discovered the reason for the antipathy so many have for big government. It might have sufficient resources to maintain some semblance of propriety and rectitude.

Jefferson’s indiscretion indicates he is motivated by a venal spirit. Is that a rare psychological defect on Capitol Hill? It certainly doesn’t appear to be all that extraordinary. The Founding Fathers probably hoped that those elected to public office would be public-spirited. It hasn’t worked out quite that way.

These people were elected and are paid to serve the interests of their constituents. You would be hard pressed to cobble together a case for them actually working on our behalf.

They obviously like their jobs. They enjoy the perks, such as government-run healthcare and compliant staffers and interns. Their primary focus is to remain in that special bubble of privilege.

Keeping that office for 3 to 4 decades requires lots of money. You haven’t slipped your Representative a couple of hundred thousands lately, have you? My guess is that he is too busy catering to the moneyed people and their toadies to invite you to the country club for a round. You have no voice. You have no representation.

They will never vote term limits for themselves. They will never do anything to choke off their access to bribes. It is possible to hope that they might become a bit less acquisitive if the FBI and courts considered the largesse of lobbyists to be illegal bribes. These bribes corrupt our entire system. They deny the people’s right to expect the government to be on their side. It just isn’t supposed to be government of the banks, by the health insurance companies and for the corporations.

I should end it here but that last part hit a sore spot. The Founding Fathers, with one notable exception, considered corporations dangerous. The fiction that corporations should have legal personalities is ludicrous. Why is limiting an investor’s liability not considered antithetical to the most basic beliefs of capitalism? The concept reeks of hypocrisy.

There is no extra charge for that last bit of wisdom.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites