The American Spectator

We should honestly assess whether reducing the size of government to any realistic level (“what is proper for the federal government to do”) would truly solve this problem. Even should federal government spending be curtailed to a fiscal conservative’s fondest dream (let’s imagine spending only for the Pentagon, Homeland Security, and the Interstate Highways), in this day and age, would those hundreds of billions of dollars not still be enough to attract an army of lobbyists, or tempt the politicians with its oversight? The logical corollary to believing this is to be astonished to find any corruption in state or local governments, all of which have budgets far smaller.

Campaign finance laws or other ethical hurdles may be incremental at best, and disingenuous at worst, but should we abandon all attempts to define what is “proper for a congressman to do”?

p>In the end, there is no magic bullet, or easy answer; only by deciding that corruption is inexcusable can the public be rid of it. The American voter is told, with increasing sophistication, by party leaders and pundits, that allowing the opposition candidate to win would be far worse than any wrongs perpetrated by our guy. We’re told that our ends are worth the means, while theirs are just plain corruption. Until conservatives and liberals decide that our own agendas are not more important than honesty and fairness, we’ll keep getting more of the same. br> — Evan Humphreys br> Reno, Nevada /p>