-
Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 27 comments
-
Putting Heritage in DeMint Condition
May 10, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Military Might, Out of the Wilderness
May 8, 2013 | 115 comments
-
Not Wanting to Write About Nothing Good
April 30, 2013 | 126 comments
-
Perez Abomination Grows
April 23, 2013 | 81 comments
Streetcar Line
A Feat of Congressional Bipartisanship
It’s gone unreported but the House Ethics Committee has done a remarkable job.
Amidst all the criticism of the congressional term that ended last week and its Members (not all of it deserved, but that’s another story), there was one area in which the House at least made remarkable improvements. As was evidenced in a committee report released Dec. 31, the House Ethics Committee achieved several important and praiseworthy things that merit some attention.
First, let it be said that service on the Ethics Committee is a thankless task. Being put in the position to adjudge one’s own colleagues, in the midst of horrible partisan (and otherwise political) pressures, is no walk in the park. Moreover, Ethics Committee members are almost always blasted by some members of the public (and press) who don’t understand the committee’s role, its powers, and the limits on the same. What ordinary people might consider “unethical” in common parlance may well not violate specific rules of Ethics — and it is the latter, not the former, that the committee must apply; and it can apply no others. (This is somewhat, but not entirely, akin to saying that not everything that is wrong is illegal — as in, in ordinary life, it is wrong to tell a malevolent lie, but unless one is under oath it is almost never a crime to tell such a lie.)
As one last bit of explanatory prologue, consider this a lament that society has in some ways made the committee’s sanctions obsolete. There was a time when a official “censure” from Congress was treated by the public as a major sanction, the effect of a public shaming so severe that no decent person would want to endure it and which would certainly suggest that a resignation or other major act of public penance was in order. But “shame” is not in vogue these days. Standards have dropped so that what once seemed appalling now is broadcast to the world brazenly, with no personal reticence. Because shame is such an unfamiliar emotion (or experience, or whatever it is), an act of public shaming no longer carries the same power that is once did, or that it is intended to do. Thus, for instance, that which by the Ethics Committee’s (and Congress’s) own rules merits Censure now can be almost laughed off, as Rep. Charlie Rangel did, while the public accuses the committee and Congress of gutlessly “going light” on Rangel by not expelling him. It is not only the Members (like Rangel) who do not take shame seriously; so, too, does the public think it an utterly inadequate punishment. This says something bad about society, but not about the Ethics Committee, which operates under a code in which personal honor is still supposed to be taken seriously. It is unfair to blame the committee for “going light” at times when its own rules, which are more reasonable than ever, were followed to the letter.
That said, the report linked in the first paragraph above provides instructive reading. It shows a committee, chaired by Jo Bonner of Alabama (with Linda Sanchez of California as ranking member), that handled an astonishing amount and variety of work in the past two years.
Which brings us, finally, to the “remarkable achievements” mentioned also in this column’s first paragraph. The most significant — and, for those who have seen the process close-up, an almost astonishing one — was the news that, I believe for the first time in history, every single committee vote last Congress was unanimous. Every one. This indicates that the committee has finally lifted itself above the usual partisan tit-for-tat, and that the longstanding wish from outside watchdogs for a professional, non-partisan process has finally, at least for now, become a reality. This is no mean achievement. It shows that Congressmen are indeed capable of telling the difference between ethical disputes and political ones. In past years, going back decades, it was commonplace for the committee to split on important matters along exactly partisan lines, without exceptions, and with politics leading to cover-ups to protect one political party or the other. Now — no longer. Good stuff.
The second achievement lies in the sheer scope of the committee’s work. Pages two and three of the report tell the tale by numbers, among which (there are plenty more numbers) are: The committee issued more than 900 formal advisory opinions, fielded more than 40,000 phone calls for ethics guidance, provided training to 10,000 Members and staff, conducted all or parts of 96 separate investigations, and filed 14 full reports with the House, comprising some 1,700 pages.
The third achievement was the posting online of every single committee report going back to 1967 — a great advancement for transparency and the public record.
The fourth achievement, perhaps more mundane, was the adoption of revised regulations regarding what sorts of third-party-paid travel is and isn’t allowed for Congressmen and staff. Because some such travel actually provides great public good by allowing Members to do their jobs better (as in fact-finding missions, etcetera), and does so without forcing taxpayers to foot the bill, it is important that both Members and the public understand what is and isn’t allowed. Tightening restrictions to avoid things publicly described as mere “junkets,” while clarifying which sorts of travel are okay, is an important step toward transparent government and cleaner politics (and also makes it harder for campaign opponents to take “cheap shots” at Members who, believe me, often would much rather spend time at home than traveling half-way around the globe while enduring exhausting meetings).
None of this might make for a very “sexy” column, but it is important. And it’s only fair to give credit where due: At a time when Congress is less popular than the flu, the public needs to know when Congress does something right. A hat tip therefore, to Chairman Bonner, ranking Member Sanchez, and their committee colleagues. Maybe their constructive bipartisanship can set a template for future congressional subjects other than ethics.
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.7.13 @ 7:22AM
Perhaps you're right.
I read an article recently that leadership from both parties would love nothing more than to see this Congressional entity smashed out of existence.
TLP| 1.7.13 @ 7:43AM
Frankly, I don't see the conundrum in sitting on the Ethics Committee, if you are a person of Good Moral Fiber. A Crook's a Crook. And, if the "Rules" are such, that, what We The People plainly see as Obviously being Unethical or Illegal, may not be either of those at all? Then it's time to get some new Rules. I have always been of a mind that: Unethical and Illegal are a lot like Pornography. Maybe you can't always Explain it? But, you know it when you see it.
Plus, I can't believe that there's a single Republican, in either House, that can possibly still be so Stupid, as to think that anyone on the Other Side is His or Her "FRIEND". And, if they do? They should be REPLACED. After all of the Vicious Lying Attacks from everyone in the Democrat Party, you think they're your friends? Lies about Black Congressmen being Spit Upon by Tea Party Members, Harry Ried claiming - from the Well of the Senate - that Mitt Romney hasn't paid any Taxes in 10 Years Ads that Blamed Mitt Romney for some Union Hack's puke wife Croaking. (THAT'S RIGHT, I SAID IT!) Hat Tip - Mark Levin.
As to this Column..............Is this a Joke?
We're going to Hell, on a Hypersonic Jet, but we can all take solace in the fact that we (Metaphorically Speaking) did get a Sign put up in the Congressional Washrooms, reminding them to "Wash Their Hands".
Methinks that the Rarified Air in Mr. Hillyer's Ivory Tower doth render his Cerebral Cortex, inoperable.
Or, he just thinks we're Stupid.
Take your pick.
Tom Kyba| 1.7.13 @ 11:12AM
Bingo again. Sounds more like a government make work project.
TLP| 1.7.13 @ 2:44PM
You're my new Best Friend.
Can I borrow money from you?
Pecos Pete| 1.7.13 @ 4:26PM
Watch out, Tom, he can turn on you in a second, put you in a foxhole and call you Pretty. Tim can do that because he is Beautiful.
TLP| 1.7.13 @ 4:54PM
I am laughing my ass off.
Thanks, Pesco.
TLP| 1.7.13 @ 4:54PM
How's your Horse?
Pecos Pete| 1.7.13 @ 5:00PM
Horses. Cold, but puleeese don't call PETA, FEMA or the TSA.
bopberrigan| 1.7.13 @ 7:57AM
By the way, couldn't you have cited one or two examples of the committee's magnificent efforts, just for the hell of it?
c. j. acworth| 1.7.13 @ 8:00AM
If public shaming no longer works, Mr. Hillyer, do you suppose we could amend the rules to bring back tar and feathers?
JimH| 1.7.13 @ 8:09AM
Maybe we could set up some stocks outside Congress, put the miscreants in and make government surplus tomatoes and eggs available for passers by.
irish19| 1.7.13 @ 11:22AM
I like the way you think.
I would only add that charging for the produce would probably help reduce the national debt as I can see a LOT of it being sold.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.7.13 @ 3:50PM
Don't forget the rail folks used to be run out of town on...
Hardcard| 1.7.13 @ 8:58AM
mr. hillyer another waste of time (reading this article) this is the most corrupt bunch of political hacks to be assembled in our country. The fox is watching the henhouse so to speak at the ethic committee. Is maxine waters, charlie rangel,barney frank, nancy pelosi, jesse jackson jr., concerned about oversight by their peers???
Pecos Pete| 1.7.13 @ 8:58AM
Okay, Quin: "Ethics for some, but none for me."
Congress members go to DC poor and retire rich on the Taxpayers' dime.
Gary B| 1.7.13 @ 9:59AM
Don't forget the power, sex and booze.
Pecos Pete| 1.7.13 @ 11:33AM
Yeah, I forgot those perks.
Gary B| 1.7.13 @ 11:45AM
A few days ago Gary North wrote an article about this. First, these creeps strive to get some power - committee positions, etc. After that, the money and sex arrive automatically. The booze is optional. He claims all of these perks are why the worst possible people in the country are attracted to that cesspool and will hang on at all costs. I suppose passing girls around qualifies as bipartisan. It's a hopeless mess.
Gary B| 1.7.13 @ 11:49AM
Considering the immoral body pile and double dealing in DC, the Ethics Committee must feel like the orchestra members playing classical music on the deck of the sinking Titanic. A valiant effort, but ineffective.
TLP| 1.7.13 @ 4:56PM
That's the Gary B I like.
Seriously.
I do Like you.
fmm| 1.7.13 @ 10:42AM
It is on no use whatsoever to have an in house committe with no teeth look into supposed ethics violations. If the ethics committee were replaced with a third party organization outside of congress with well delineated violations and punishments to address these types of issues, I might agree that progress would be made.
Pecos Pete| 1.7.13 @ 11:39AM
I'd accept Prosecutors, Grand Juries, Juries and Courts all populated with honest Citizens. And some sharp guillotines to keep 'em down once convicted.
It can happen ... e.g., William Jefferson (D) late of Louisiana and now a resident in a federal prison. Of course, assuming he is not pardoned by King O.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.7.13 @ 3:55PM
For those who would like to write (in case Ben Stein doesn't start featuring letters in his column):
WILLIAM J JEFFERSON 72121-083
FCI BEAUMONT LOW
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
P.O. BOX 26020
BEAUMONT, TX 77720
Pecos Pete| 1.7.13 @ 4:30PM
googly moogly! X3. (I'm still stealing from Alan's Girl and El Coronel.) 10 minutes after reading and I'm still laughing.
Controse| 1.7.13 @ 12:53PM
I liked the part about the unanimous votes within the committee. I appreciate the handy link to the report. A brief sentence or two about how many ethical violations were found and what the consequences were for the violating members if any would save us pouring through the report. Unanimous votes finding no ethical faults would be unsurprising as well as unimpressive.
BShep| 1.7.13 @ 2:39PM
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha. You are funnier than Ben Stein.
You do realize there is no such thing as an ethical politician, right? The thought of an Ethics committee is even more outrageous.
Hanging is too good for them! Feed them all to the wood chipper to be used as slop for the pigs (Thanks, Fargo).
cicero| 1.7.13 @ 4:19PM
The fact that all of the votes were unanimous, and accepting that at least some of them were on the "guilty" side, this tells you how lightly these folks take the code of ethics. Figureing that they wrote the thing for themselves, you know that it is very pourous. Considering that for them to vote unanimously on an allegation, the evidence had to be bi-partisanly obvious. The fact that no one was thrown out of a job, scoriated in the press, or voted out of office as a result, it becomes clear as day that none of them really care about ethics violations. The equally sad thing is that the public hold them in such low esteem that the voting public has accepted this as normal.
Of course, given the exemplars of the past 2 decades, is it any wonder. What would have happened if Harry Truman or Dwight Eisenhour had been caught playing "hide the cigar" with an INTERN? Even one of our more colorful southern pols was aware that if he hadd been found in bed with a live boy or a dead girl, he would probably not be reelected.
The only way to clean it up is to make it an endeavor of public service. Nominal salaries; no pensions; no lifetime benefits. Just go and serve tha public. Then, go home and live under the laws you just passed.
Pecos Pete| 1.7.13 @ 4:32PM
cicero: You are on fire today! Stay hot, my friend.
Third Army| 1.7.13 @ 7:28PM
Ridiculous column. Maxine Waters, anyone? Of course their votes are unanimous--they all want to keep their jobs. It's a club. A den of theives. What about Nancy Pelosi's excesses on her jet? Charlie Rangle is still there. Linda Sanchez is extremely dishonest.
CHAUSSURES FEMME AIR MAX LTD | 1.7.13 @ 10:32PM
which operates under a code in which personal honor is still supposed to be taken seriously. It is unfair to blame the committee for “going light” at times when its own rules, which are more reasonable than ever, were followed to the lett