Major Robert Dump
01-18-2006, 16:09
Forget left vs right just for a minute. Forget the war.
Instead what I want you to think about are the men and women in Washington who make $60,000k+ a year with outstanding benefits and comprehensive insurance, who get 20%+ of the year OFF work, who rarely pay for their own lunch, who rarely pay for their own travel, who have unlimited budgets for their offices, who have personal staffs of sometimes more than 40 people, who have amazing employment opportunites after they leave office because of being "in the know", who can call in sick just about anytime they want and not get fired, who can claim ignorance of the law means its okay to break it, AND HERE IS A BIG ONE-- WHO CAN LOOK ( AND RUN) FOR OTHER JOBS WHILE ON THE CLOCK.
Welcome to the Congress of the United States.
It's a ridiculous place. A place where the very people sworn to uphold the Constitution don't even read the legislation they vote on. Where bills become nearly unreadable because every tom dick and harry put an unrelated amendment on it for the sake of "getting things done quickly." Where they patronize our troops by gladhanding them about their "service to the nation" all while treating the military machine like a business, like running a grocery store. Where items are attached to bills out of trickery, so if a member votes no to a Education Funding bill because it had 37 other attachments the member disagrees with he will be accused of being "anti-education." Where changing your mind on an issue when new info or research comes to light makes you suddenly a "flip flopper."
Where else but the government can people do things like this at work without being fired? How funny would it be for an executive order making Congressional seats all pay by the hour, with a time clock and everything.
First, read this article by George Will. You may learn something about the way things work you likely were not aware of, particularly the last few paragraphs regarding earmarks and when they can be attached to the bill. You guys who rattle on and on about "my tax dollars" might find this especially interesting :
WASHINGTON -- Disraeli knew of a lady who asked a gentleman if he believed in Platonic friendship. He replied, ``After, but not before." For congressional Republicans, after has arrived.
After Abramoff. After DeLay. After the ``K Street Project" -- the torrid and mutually satisfying dalliance of Republican members with lobbyists. Now Republicans are prepared to be, or at least want to be seen to be, chaste. They are determined to devise reforms to steer Congress away from the shoals of sin, so they are receiving many suggestions from Washington's permanent cohort of Dawnists.
Those are people who believe that, given good intentions and institutional cleverness, an era of civic virtue will dawn. They are mistaken, but there are some reforms that, although they will not guarantee virtue, will complicate vice, which is as much progress as is possible in this naughty world.
End the use of continuing resolutions. Adopted at the end of fiscal years when Congress does not complete appropriations bills, continuing resolutions usually authorize the government to continue spending at current levels. If Congress had to get its work done on time -- if the only alternative were a chaotic government shut-down -- it would. Then Congress would have less reason to loiter in Washington doing mischief. Speaking of which ...
Forbid appropriations to private entities. Government money should flow directly to government agencies -- federal, state or local. And those agencies should be required to formally testify that local projects receiving national funding serve (BEG ITAL)essential(END ITAL) national needs. Appropriations that are, effectively, cash flows from individual representatives to private entities are invitations to corruption. Federal money directed to private entities was what ex-Rep. Duke Cunningham, R-Calif., was bribed to deliver.
So, end ``earmarks." They write into law a representative's or senator's edict that a particular sum be spent on a particular project in his or her state or district.
Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, has written to the House leadership that, ``With the number and dollar value of earmarks more than quadrupling over the past decade, pork-barrel spending has become an unfortunate hallmark of our Republican majority." Arguing that additional restrictions on lobbying, although perhaps needed, would be ``peripheral reform at best," Flake says, ``We first have to look at our own conduct." To do otherwise ``would do more to feed public cynicism than restore public confidence."
Often, earmarks are included in neither the House nor Senate versions of an appropriations bill, but are inserted surreptitiously and at the last minute in the report of the conference committee -- and the House rule against this is routinely waived. Flake's legislation, H.R. 1642, would prohibit federal agencies from funding any earmark not contained in a bill's actual legislative language. And the bill would allow a point-of-order to prevent the waiving of House rules against including non-germane spending -- earmarks not included in either House or Senate spending bills -- in conference reports.
The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin of Ontario, Calif., reported last week that a $1.28 million earmark put into the transportation bill by Rep. Gary Miller, R-Calif., is for improving streets in Diamond Bar, Calif., in front of a 70-acre planned housing and retail development of which Miller is co-owner with those who are his largest campaign contributors. He says Diamond Bar requested the money.
No doubt it did: If the federal government is going to finance localities' infrastructures, localities will rush to the trough. And most House members believe that abstaining from earmarks would be career-killing folly. But when a primary challenger faulted Flake for never delivering earmarks -- and for that reason three of the five mayors in Flake's district endorsed his challenger -- Flake won easily.
Still, many Americans unblushingly enjoy in practice what they deplore in principle -- Washington's expensive refusal to limit itself to proper federal business. So, a final, and whimsical, proposal:
The public today is denouncing Congress for its promiscuous attention to the public's appetites for government favors. Although it is a principle of Washington discourse that no discouraging word shall ever be said about the American public, nevertheless:
On the door of every congressional office into which favor-seekers troop, there should be a sign with these words from the late George Stigler, the Nobel Prize-winning economist from the University of Chicago: ``I consider it a cowardly concession to a false extension of the idea of democracy to make sub rosa attacks on public tastes by denouncing the people who serve them. It is like blaming the waiters in restaurants for obesity."
Many people attacking Congress are also attacking themselves. And they are correct. Twice.
Now, boTh parties are suddenly vying for the ethics high ground and currently working on new ethics rules that do things that makes one wonder why they havent been already done say, like, 50 years ago. Its rules regarding travel expenses and meals paid by lobbyists, making foreign campaign donors more transparent, the allotment of pet distict appropriations, just to name a few.
so why? why now? Could iT be because the age on the net and the age of mobile communications makes it harder to be a sleazeball? Or perhaps its because theres nothing like a good ole war to make the public scrutinize the actions of its leaders. I mean, afterall, if you are going to send the underpaid men and women of the nation to fight for our "freedoms" then the least you can do is show up to work and not waste the same money you arent spending on the troops, right?
If any of you can swing it, maybe you should read "Parliament of Whores" by PJ O'Rourke. It's a little dated, 16 years old I think, but you will see that very little has changed.
And now for your homework, give me an example in your discrict or state ofd the very Thing I'm discussin here. I'll give you a one:
In Elgin, Oklahoma, a factory was being planned to manufacture a new kind of support artillery system That was still in the protoype phase. It was a bulky thingy with disproportionately large cannon on it, like the old GI JOE vehicle. IT looked ridiculous.
It was called the Crusader. RighT there on the Interstate outside of Elgin was a huge billboard that said "Welcome to Elgin, Home oF the Crusader"
The White House wanted the program killed and said it was an outdated piece of equipment that would be of little use in the war on terror due to its bulk and the protection it would require because it was very vulnerable to small arms fire.
Heres a link to a transcript and a CBS report (video at top of page) to some of the debates and hearings, i suggest watching it.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june02/crusader_6-19.html#
Notice the most vocal defenders of the system in Congress were from Oklahoma, and notice how many contractors and employees were already building the system. The fact that the House voted to keep it alive really means nothing, in light of the tit-for-tat Congress pulls in doing favors for each others states.
Now, your opinion of the system may vary. But heres something to consider:
The new Factory for the Crusader was already being built in Elgin, a farm community of 1200 people. The Factory would bring 700+ jobs to the town. And Nickles, Inhofe and Watts were all major land owners in and around the Elgin community, but had not purchased the land until just before the project announced elgin as its home; All three had recieved the maximum campagn donations for their previous campaign and their next campaign from 17 of the contractors involved and small donations from most of the others, in addition to donations from the cattle owners in Elgin and all of the large business owners in Elgin; All three had family members employed with the contractors, as well as family stock interests in the project; And Watts family property management firm was already laying the framework for a large apartment community halfway between fort sill and Elgin. In addition to the officers who supported and endorsed the program, at least 14 were retired officers from Ft Sill who were also land owners in and around Elgin.
Funny, isn't it? How theres a fine line between national interest and personal interest? And matters of military strategy are in part decided by people who not only never served but pretend it has NOTHING to do with rewarding their constituents. Is this how The congress should work?
Watts and Nickles did not run for re-election the following terms.
Instead what I want you to think about are the men and women in Washington who make $60,000k+ a year with outstanding benefits and comprehensive insurance, who get 20%+ of the year OFF work, who rarely pay for their own lunch, who rarely pay for their own travel, who have unlimited budgets for their offices, who have personal staffs of sometimes more than 40 people, who have amazing employment opportunites after they leave office because of being "in the know", who can call in sick just about anytime they want and not get fired, who can claim ignorance of the law means its okay to break it, AND HERE IS A BIG ONE-- WHO CAN LOOK ( AND RUN) FOR OTHER JOBS WHILE ON THE CLOCK.
Welcome to the Congress of the United States.
It's a ridiculous place. A place where the very people sworn to uphold the Constitution don't even read the legislation they vote on. Where bills become nearly unreadable because every tom dick and harry put an unrelated amendment on it for the sake of "getting things done quickly." Where they patronize our troops by gladhanding them about their "service to the nation" all while treating the military machine like a business, like running a grocery store. Where items are attached to bills out of trickery, so if a member votes no to a Education Funding bill because it had 37 other attachments the member disagrees with he will be accused of being "anti-education." Where changing your mind on an issue when new info or research comes to light makes you suddenly a "flip flopper."
Where else but the government can people do things like this at work without being fired? How funny would it be for an executive order making Congressional seats all pay by the hour, with a time clock and everything.
First, read this article by George Will. You may learn something about the way things work you likely were not aware of, particularly the last few paragraphs regarding earmarks and when they can be attached to the bill. You guys who rattle on and on about "my tax dollars" might find this especially interesting :
WASHINGTON -- Disraeli knew of a lady who asked a gentleman if he believed in Platonic friendship. He replied, ``After, but not before." For congressional Republicans, after has arrived.
After Abramoff. After DeLay. After the ``K Street Project" -- the torrid and mutually satisfying dalliance of Republican members with lobbyists. Now Republicans are prepared to be, or at least want to be seen to be, chaste. They are determined to devise reforms to steer Congress away from the shoals of sin, so they are receiving many suggestions from Washington's permanent cohort of Dawnists.
Those are people who believe that, given good intentions and institutional cleverness, an era of civic virtue will dawn. They are mistaken, but there are some reforms that, although they will not guarantee virtue, will complicate vice, which is as much progress as is possible in this naughty world.
End the use of continuing resolutions. Adopted at the end of fiscal years when Congress does not complete appropriations bills, continuing resolutions usually authorize the government to continue spending at current levels. If Congress had to get its work done on time -- if the only alternative were a chaotic government shut-down -- it would. Then Congress would have less reason to loiter in Washington doing mischief. Speaking of which ...
Forbid appropriations to private entities. Government money should flow directly to government agencies -- federal, state or local. And those agencies should be required to formally testify that local projects receiving national funding serve (BEG ITAL)essential(END ITAL) national needs. Appropriations that are, effectively, cash flows from individual representatives to private entities are invitations to corruption. Federal money directed to private entities was what ex-Rep. Duke Cunningham, R-Calif., was bribed to deliver.
So, end ``earmarks." They write into law a representative's or senator's edict that a particular sum be spent on a particular project in his or her state or district.
Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, has written to the House leadership that, ``With the number and dollar value of earmarks more than quadrupling over the past decade, pork-barrel spending has become an unfortunate hallmark of our Republican majority." Arguing that additional restrictions on lobbying, although perhaps needed, would be ``peripheral reform at best," Flake says, ``We first have to look at our own conduct." To do otherwise ``would do more to feed public cynicism than restore public confidence."
Often, earmarks are included in neither the House nor Senate versions of an appropriations bill, but are inserted surreptitiously and at the last minute in the report of the conference committee -- and the House rule against this is routinely waived. Flake's legislation, H.R. 1642, would prohibit federal agencies from funding any earmark not contained in a bill's actual legislative language. And the bill would allow a point-of-order to prevent the waiving of House rules against including non-germane spending -- earmarks not included in either House or Senate spending bills -- in conference reports.
The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin of Ontario, Calif., reported last week that a $1.28 million earmark put into the transportation bill by Rep. Gary Miller, R-Calif., is for improving streets in Diamond Bar, Calif., in front of a 70-acre planned housing and retail development of which Miller is co-owner with those who are his largest campaign contributors. He says Diamond Bar requested the money.
No doubt it did: If the federal government is going to finance localities' infrastructures, localities will rush to the trough. And most House members believe that abstaining from earmarks would be career-killing folly. But when a primary challenger faulted Flake for never delivering earmarks -- and for that reason three of the five mayors in Flake's district endorsed his challenger -- Flake won easily.
Still, many Americans unblushingly enjoy in practice what they deplore in principle -- Washington's expensive refusal to limit itself to proper federal business. So, a final, and whimsical, proposal:
The public today is denouncing Congress for its promiscuous attention to the public's appetites for government favors. Although it is a principle of Washington discourse that no discouraging word shall ever be said about the American public, nevertheless:
On the door of every congressional office into which favor-seekers troop, there should be a sign with these words from the late George Stigler, the Nobel Prize-winning economist from the University of Chicago: ``I consider it a cowardly concession to a false extension of the idea of democracy to make sub rosa attacks on public tastes by denouncing the people who serve them. It is like blaming the waiters in restaurants for obesity."
Many people attacking Congress are also attacking themselves. And they are correct. Twice.
Now, boTh parties are suddenly vying for the ethics high ground and currently working on new ethics rules that do things that makes one wonder why they havent been already done say, like, 50 years ago. Its rules regarding travel expenses and meals paid by lobbyists, making foreign campaign donors more transparent, the allotment of pet distict appropriations, just to name a few.
so why? why now? Could iT be because the age on the net and the age of mobile communications makes it harder to be a sleazeball? Or perhaps its because theres nothing like a good ole war to make the public scrutinize the actions of its leaders. I mean, afterall, if you are going to send the underpaid men and women of the nation to fight for our "freedoms" then the least you can do is show up to work and not waste the same money you arent spending on the troops, right?
If any of you can swing it, maybe you should read "Parliament of Whores" by PJ O'Rourke. It's a little dated, 16 years old I think, but you will see that very little has changed.
And now for your homework, give me an example in your discrict or state ofd the very Thing I'm discussin here. I'll give you a one:
In Elgin, Oklahoma, a factory was being planned to manufacture a new kind of support artillery system That was still in the protoype phase. It was a bulky thingy with disproportionately large cannon on it, like the old GI JOE vehicle. IT looked ridiculous.
It was called the Crusader. RighT there on the Interstate outside of Elgin was a huge billboard that said "Welcome to Elgin, Home oF the Crusader"
The White House wanted the program killed and said it was an outdated piece of equipment that would be of little use in the war on terror due to its bulk and the protection it would require because it was very vulnerable to small arms fire.
Heres a link to a transcript and a CBS report (video at top of page) to some of the debates and hearings, i suggest watching it.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june02/crusader_6-19.html#
Notice the most vocal defenders of the system in Congress were from Oklahoma, and notice how many contractors and employees were already building the system. The fact that the House voted to keep it alive really means nothing, in light of the tit-for-tat Congress pulls in doing favors for each others states.
Now, your opinion of the system may vary. But heres something to consider:
The new Factory for the Crusader was already being built in Elgin, a farm community of 1200 people. The Factory would bring 700+ jobs to the town. And Nickles, Inhofe and Watts were all major land owners in and around the Elgin community, but had not purchased the land until just before the project announced elgin as its home; All three had recieved the maximum campagn donations for their previous campaign and their next campaign from 17 of the contractors involved and small donations from most of the others, in addition to donations from the cattle owners in Elgin and all of the large business owners in Elgin; All three had family members employed with the contractors, as well as family stock interests in the project; And Watts family property management firm was already laying the framework for a large apartment community halfway between fort sill and Elgin. In addition to the officers who supported and endorsed the program, at least 14 were retired officers from Ft Sill who were also land owners in and around Elgin.
Funny, isn't it? How theres a fine line between national interest and personal interest? And matters of military strategy are in part decided by people who not only never served but pretend it has NOTHING to do with rewarding their constituents. Is this how The congress should work?
Watts and Nickles did not run for re-election the following terms.