"My deepest feeling about politicians," said W.H. Auden, "is
that they are dangerous lunatics to be avoided when possible and
carefully humored; people, above all, to whom one must never tell
the truth."
I agree with the first part about the dangerous lunatics and
avoiding them, but I don't see much reason to humor them or protect
them from the truth.
Why, for instance, humor the crooks in Pennsylvania's General
Assembly who tried their best to collectively pick our pockets with
their illegal post-midnight money grab? What's the difference,
except for the neckties, between the politicians who attempted to
pull off that act of organized crime and a gang of hoodlums who are
out in the middle of the night sticking up convenience stores?
True, there's a difference in the amount of the money grab and
the size of the gang. In Harrisburg, both numbers are higher.
Size-wise, with 253 senators and representatives in the General
Assembly, plus their bloated staffs and the assorted lobbyists and
other hangers-on who show up each day to try to get a piece of the
action, we're looking in Harrisburg, at a minimum, at a
Capone-sized criminal enterprise.
There's also a clear difference, of course, in how
Pennsylvania's judiciary treats a thug who grabs $200 at a Rite Aid
at 2 a.m. and a legislator who grabs a yearly pay hike of $32,000
at 2 a.m., pocketed unconstitutionally by the way in unvouchered
expense payments. For the former, it's jail time for the poor devil
if he's caught. For the latter, it's a friendly nod and a thumbs-up
stamp of approval from the state's judges so long as they're
included in the money grab.
It's no different at the national level, except more thieves and
more money are involved, as is currently being demonstrated in the
ever-growing corruption probe into the allegations of wide-ranging
fraud and bribery on Capitol Hill by super-lobbyist Jack
Abramoff.
In his pay-to-play game, Abramoff, as it's alleged, raked in
multimillion-dollar fees from his clients, including tens of
millions from casino-rich Indian tribes, in order to buy the votes
of Washington's politicians on policy matters and contracts in a
way that was designed to generate a highly profitable flow of
public dollars into the coffers of the aforementioned clients.
In this "government-to-the-highest-bidder" manner of running
things, the lobbyists get rich, the paying clients get their rich
contracts, the purchased politicians get their gifts, bribes and
campaign donations, and the rest of us get stuck picking up the tab
in the form of a corrupted government, inflated costs and higher
taxes.
Correctly, P.J. O'Rourke, more than a decade ago, called such a
government "a parliament of whores." Today, commenting on the
Abramoff bribery scandal, Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican
congressman, says, "A lobbyist can't be corrupt unless he has
someone to bribe, and we've created a culture that just breeds
corruption." Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had much the same
analysis, warning that politicians will try to get off the hook for
their part in the corruption by making Abramoff the scapegoat. "You
can't have a corrupt lobbyist unless you have a corrupt member and
corrupt staff," said Gingrich. "This was a team effort."
And the team had no shortage of players from both sides of the
aisle. On the national level, according to the Center for
Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in
politics, Republican campaign groups received $1.24 million from
sources linked to Abramoff since 1999, while Democratic groups got
$844,000 during the same period.
Washington Post staffers Susan Schmidt and James
Grimaldi recently reported on how Abramoff operated in Washington:
"Jack Abramoff liked to slip into dialogue from 'The Godfather' as
he led his lobbying colleagues in planning their next conquest on
Capitol Hill. In his favorite bit, he would mimic an ice-cold
Michael Corleone facing down a crooked politician's demand for a
cut of Mafia gambling profits."
The playacting provided insight into how Abramoff saw himself,
write Schmidt and Grimaldi, i.e., as "the puppet master who pulled
the strings of officials in key places."
Theodore Roosevelt had it right a century ago: "When they call
the roll in the Senate," he stated, "the senators do not know
whether to answer 'present' or 'not guilty.'"
Or as Socrates put it more than 20 centuries earlier: "I was
really too honest a man to be a politician and live."
topics:
Taxes, Constitution, NATO
