Washington's latest landmark betrayal

[DixieFlatline]

So much for cleaning up Congress. Of course, all this does prove is Congress sucks no matter who is in charge, but they'll tell you its all rosy.

http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulJacob/2007/08/05/washingtons_latest_landmark_betrayal?page=full&comments=true

Chalk up another landmark achievement for congressional Democrats — last week they passed an ethics and lobbying "reform" bill. Or so we're told.

"What we did today was momentous. It's historic," declared Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) after the vote of 411 to 8.

The Washington Post called it "a landmark bill."

When the U.S. Senate passed the bill, sending it to the president, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) dubbed it the "most sweeping ethics and lobbying reform in history," saying it would produce "a government as good and honest as the people it represents."

Is he serious? Can this new law make a rotten Congress "good"? Or honest? Does any sane person really believe that?

Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) sure doesn't. As the Senate's biggest supporter of transparency regarding earmarks and the strongest opponent of such pork in the first place, he has standing.

"This bill is a landmark betrayal, not a landmark accomplishment," Coburn declared after its passage. "Congress had a historic opportunity to expose secretive pork-barrel spending but instead created new ways to hide that spending."

Coburn points out a number of ways the original legislation was gutted:

• The bill was changed to make earmark disclosure voluntary rather than mandatory.

• The requirement of 67 Senate votes to suspend the earmark disclosure rule was changed to 40 votes — less than a majority.

• The language prohibiting a member or staff from promoting earmarks they would personally benefit from was completely eviscerated.

• So was the language prohibiting a member from trading votes for earmarks.

• The requirement that earmarks be put on the Internet 48 hours after their inclusion in legislation was changed to "as soon as practical."

• The non-partisan Senate parliamentarian was replaced by the majority leader as the referee determining whether earmark disclosure requirements are met.

• The bill also weakened other elements of disclosure and transparency.

As the Washington Examiner editorialized, "There are a few positive provisions in the bill, but the bottom line is that it is stuffed with cosmetic changes that fail to address the core issues of congressional corruption spawned by earmarks."

Who could be surprised? It's a familiar paradox: Once again "reform" passes in Washington with those most reform-minded expressing unhappiness while those least so minded demonstrating paroxysms of ecstatic joy. Golly, I wonder why?

It comes down to one's perspective. If you're a career politician, you see earmarks as a way to turn a portion of the federal budget into a favor-producing, fundraising little enterprise. Had Dale Carnegie been unethical, he'd no doubt have suggested earmarks as a great way to "win friends and influence people."

Sure, the power-seeking politician recognizes the unpopularity of pork-barrel spending, the wastefulness. But, you see, the politician benefits. He or she grows more powerful with each big check sent to some people using others' money. So the politician embraces reform, yes; talks reform, sure; even passes reform, of course . . . but makes very certain that there is no reform.

If you're a regular, everyday citizen (or a citizen-legislator like Coburn), on the other hand, you see earmarks as blatantly wasteful spending performed in as corrupting a method as imaginable this side of treason. As Senator Coburn put it:

Earmarks have been at the heart of recent scandals that have sent members of Congress to prison and brought others under investigation. It is no coincidence that as the lobbying industry doubled in size since 2000 so did the amount of money Congress spent on earmarks. The problem in Washington is not the lobbyists. The problem is members of Congress who send earmarks to special interests, and even family members, in an effort to stay in office or feather their own nest.

Last year at this time, the Republican Congress sported an approval rating of 19 percent. The public loathing Republicans engendered stemmed in no small part from their business-as-usual (or even business-run-amok) attitude toward pork. And voters sent enough of them packing last November to snatch away their majority status. (I have heard few regrets expressed.)

Thus one might expect voters to be more appreciative of this relatively new Democratic Congress — especially with all their landmark legislation. One would be mistaken. The Democratic Congress recently garnered a five-point lower approval rating than the vanquished old Republican Congress. The Democrats' 14 percent approval rating is, in fact, the lowest in the history of the Gallup Poll, which began back in 1973.

The American people aren't fooled. The Democrats refusal to enact real reform is only one more exhibit of a sick political system. Given a way to choose something other than the career politician-dominated system, the people will do so in a New York minute.

U.S. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma identifies earmarks as "the gateway drug to federal spending addiction." A Washington Examiner editorial recently compared the behavior of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the ethics legislation to "an addict condemning drugs as he heads to the back room to shoot up again."

Well, I guess it's nice to know there's no longer smoke in those back rooms. Some reform.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Meet the old boss, same as the new?

Can someone run on a platform to pass a constitutional amendment banning earmarks?

[Cskin]

TREASONOUS!!!!!!!!!!! Build the gallows and line them up!!!!! I'm disgusted with the ****roaches in Washington... and absolutely nothing will change until the great sweaty unwashed come together, gain critical mass, and throw these TREASONOUS thugs out of office and into prison.

[AsburySkinsFan]

and we wonder why Congress' approval ratings are lower than the President's.

[DeanCollins]

"• The bill was changed to make earmark disclosure voluntary rather than mandatory.

• The requirement of 67 Senate votes to suspend the earmark disclosure rule was changed to 40 votes — less than a majority.

• The language prohibiting a member or staff from promoting earmarks they would personally benefit from was completely eviscerated.

• So was the language prohibiting a member from trading votes for earmarks.

• The requirement that earmarks be put on the Internet 48 hours after their inclusion in legislation was changed to "as soon as practical."

WTF are they thinking about? these 5 requirements would be deemed esential. How can you not have the 3rd provision preventing personal benefit? This bill is useless

[Larry]

Just admiring all of the people who're "bashing" the Democrats because they passed something that wasn't good enough.

[DeanCollins]

Just admiring all of the people who're "bashing" the Democrats because they passed something that wasn't good enough.

"after the vote of 411 to 8." you can hardly blame just democrats

[dreamingwolf]

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) dubbed it the "most sweeping ethics and lobbying reform in history," saying it would produce "a government as good and honest as the people it represents."

now Im not talking about the few posters on this board who are so righteous and good that they make baby jesus blush, but good god a government as good and honest as the people it represents are they trying to create the most corrupt government ever?

[DixieFlatline]

"after the vote of 411 to 8." you can hardly blame just democrats

And I think its more about saying you're doing something, when you really aren't. Not that its just not quite good enough.

[Cskin]

It's in no way a Left or Right thing... this is simply a Washington Capital problem. Politicians doing whatever they feel like it... then lying to the American people about just what they've done. It's Treason I tell you.... High crimes and Misdemeanors against the American citizens.

It's the same as the Amnesty Bill... which Dems, and some Repubs, exclaimed was the best Immigration Bill we were going to get. What's in the bill? Amnesty for everyone, including felons.... and the crushing influx of some 40-60 million more illegals within the next decade.

Wake up America.... you're career politicians are effing you out of your country, your pursuit of happiness, and your grandchildren's ability to make a living.

[jpillian]

It's interesting; I'm really starting to think with the Internet being more and more pervasive, some sort of "citizen online voting" is the only way that this gets turned around. I'm sure there are a million holes in a scheme of governance by popular referendum -- but something needs to be done. Our representatives are clearly not representing their constituents.

The idea of the republic no longer needs to be a representative construct when it is truly possible for the citizenry to voice their own positions. Not trying to hijack the thread -- just throwing out a "pie in the sky" solution.

[Vinnick]

Reminds me of that Social Security mess from a few years ago. A plan is presented. Its a muddled mess. Nobody likes it, because it sucks. The response? "Well, what's your plan?"

When the only plan is bad, you don't want to follow it always. You need to cancel those stupid month-long vacations and get it right.