March 11, 2005
It Is Past Time For Tom Delay to Go!
Does anyone but me get a bad taste in their mouth whenever they utter the words Tom Delay? This man could be the poster child for all that is wrong in the halls of Congress. And one has to ask: at this point is Tom Delay really representing the people of his district, or following his own purulent self interests?
And if the latter is true—how far will his fellow Republicans and constituents let him go before shouting enough is enough? I for one would not shed a tear if Delay were brought down and brought do hard.
The powerful Congressman from Texas has been admonished three times over the last year for official misconduct by the House ethics committee, but still he seems to remain as powerful as ever, suggesting that Republican Party’s claim to the moral high ground on ethics is lodged deep within the bosom of hypocrisy. And once again Tom Delay is in the news for allegedly violating House ethics rules by taking a trip sponsored by foreign interests.
And yet the ten member (five Republicans and five Democrats) House ethics committee formally the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, is powerless to act because of rules changed pushed by Delay’s political toady House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.)—who I am ashamed to say represents my district in Illinois—who recently replaced the chairman and two other Republican members, with Congressmen more loyal to the leadership. Then came the rule changes pushed by the Republican leadership that make it impossible for the committee to investigate a member of the House for wrong-doing without a majority vote. The rules used to stipulate that in the event of a tie an investigation would be triggered thereby upholding the bi-partisan flavor of the body.
The rule changes have effectively stalemated the committee and allowed Tom Delay to thwart the system set up to weed out those who would abuse their power. The committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.), said recently in an interview that
"[T]hese rules undermine the ability of the committee to do its job…an ethics committee has to do a good job if it's going to do any job at all."He made these remarks after the committee met, stalemated, and fail to agree to start an investigation into Delay’s latest violations of House ethics rules.
These are far from Delay’s only flirtation with lapse ethics. In Texas, three of his close associates have been indicted on charges of illegal corporate campaign contributions and money laundering by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, based in Austin. It is alleged that most of the money was raised from corporations in 2002 and fueled the now famous (infamous if you are a Democrat) Republican takeover of the Texas legislature. Such contributions are a violation of Texas state law.
The three associates are Jim Ellis, a close Delay political associate, fundraiser Warren RoBold and John Colyandro, executive director of DeLay's political action committee, Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC). In addition to the charges of illegal contributions, indictments on charges of money laundering were also leveled against both Colyandro and Ellis.
Can any rational thinking person believe the Delay did not have a hand in the wrongdoings? And again House ethics rules were changed by the Republican leadership to protect him in case he is indicted.
What of our vaunted American system of checks-and-balances if one party can run rouge-shot over the other in an undecidedly undemocratic flaunting of power? Has Delay grown too powerful and the Speaker too weak, and the House too sullied with the excrement of the Republicans flagrant and abusive power-grapping shenanigans to be trusted with the peoples business?
Related Storeis:
DeLay linked to fund-raising for PAC under investigation
Texas Dems See Violations in DeLay Actions
DeLay PAC Lawsuit Goes to Trial in Texas
DeLay: More Cash—And More Questions
This Republican has been criticizing DeLay.
Posted by: Chops at March 11, 2005 02:16 PMYes, more than time to get him out of there.
Posted by: Alex at March 11, 2005 02:19 PMClinton was impeached & lost civil law suits, but he didn’t leave!
Posted by: Blaine at March 11, 2005 02:22 PMI know my above post is a classic case of blame re-direction, what happens when a child is accused of something and immediately points out that someone else is guilty, too. But I couldn’t resist the temptation, and I think it is unfair to single out a Republican for censure when there are other politicians on the left worthy of it as well. I really don’t know whether Tom DeLay is guilty and needs to go - it’s rather below my radar screen. At the moment, I don’t care (probably about how the left feels about Ted Kennedy). If I get the time, I may check out those links and decide differently. At the moment, I’m strongly tempted to classify this as left-leaning hate-mail and dismiss it.
Posted by: Daniel at March 11, 2005 02:28 PMBlaine,
This is not about Clinton; its about Delay. And Clinton was impeaced but not convicted, so her was made to account for his actions.
Daniel,
Call it what you will, but the facts speak for themselves. Perhaps you can look the other way when a person who is supposed to be conducting the Peoples business enriches himself at our expense, but I cannot. But then again your response is typical of the lockstep Pavlovian dance the Right seems to be having with itself at the moment.
And how is it unfair to single out the man if he is guilty of malfeasances? Should the House ethics committee wait until they can censure a Democrat before the admonish Delay the next time. That all sounds rather childish don’t you think?
My problem was not with the ethics committee, but with the post. I would feel much better if I thought you would post something against Ted Kennedy, desiring to have him expelled. Since I don’t believe you would, I consider your post left-wing hate-mail. When I am approached by someone who I’m pretty sure doesn’t have a political axe to grind and exhorted to oppose Tom Delay, I’m much more inclined to listen.
Posted by: Daniel at March 11, 2005 03:27 PMPolls in his district indicate he is in trouble, and may not be reelected by his own constitutents. Proof enough that gerrymandering is no insurance against failings as a representative.
Posted by: David R Remer at March 11, 2005 03:29 PMDaniel—
What are you talking about? Have charges been leveled against Kennedy that I am not aware of? Has he been admonished by the Senate for unethical behavior with the last year or so? Why are YOU discussing Kennedy? So from now on in the interest f being fair and balance, I should call for the ouster of some random Democrat because I am calling for the removal of a ethically challenged Republican? Is that how it should work?
David—
I had heard that, so there is hope that Mr. Delay will be gone and hopefully in jail before long—if he is found guilty of course.
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 11, 2005 03:41 PMI totally agree Daniel.
Those calling for DeLay’s head are the same ones who would defend Dems for doing the same thing and the same ones who defended clinton at all costs.
Instead of looking at the crime, people look at the party affiliation to determine guilt or not.
If OJ can get away with murder and clinton can get away with high crimes and misdomeaners then I can pretty much say DeLay will get away with this also, if he is guilty.
It will be up to the vote to determine.
Daniel,
Many aspects of our society are based on competition of ideas and motives. Our justice system, for one, is intentionally partisan and adversarial. Of course the different parties and thier supporters have agendas. We count on the adversarial system to get at the truth. We need the republicans to keep the democrats honest, and the democrats to keep the republicans honest.
Why do you care what axe there is to grind? Look at the facts. Judge for yourself. Just don’t judge for yourself before you look at the facts.
This particular accusation of corruption goes beyond previous examples because of what is being done to prevent any follow-through. House Republicans have changed the rules for the Ethics Committee so that Delay cannot be investigated. Democrats are refusing to go along with the rule change. As a result, the House Ethics Committee is effectively disbanding, all in order to protect DeLay.
Posted by: phx8 at March 11, 2005 04:19 PM“As a result, the House Ethics Committee is effectively disbanding, all in order to protect DeLay.”
Don’t worry. It will be up and running when they need it for someone they want to nail to the wall.
Posted by: bugcrazy at March 11, 2005 04:24 PMTed Kennedy recently has been trying to be a statesman. He is not dishonest, just wrong.
But he wasn’t always that way. Remember the old pro-nuclear power statistic.
More people have died in Teddy Kennedy’s car than in all the nuclear power plant accidents in American history.
I care about the political axe to grind only as a motivating factor. I am not highly motivated to check out Mr. DeLay when I hear Democrats criticize him - that’s what Democrats do, criticize Republicans. Judging from the comments going up, there may be more to this than mere partisan cheap shots. I’ll probably take a look.
It has do with the “grain of salt” factor. When I hear accusations of fraud and malfeasance, I take them with a grain of salt. I take them with a very large grain of salt (maybe a cube) if they come from leftists directed towards those on the right.
Posted by: Daniel at March 11, 2005 04:50 PM“More people have died in Teddy Kennedy’s car than in all the nuclear power plant accidents in American history.”
Oh please. This is the lamest defense I can imagine. Laura Bush caused a fatal car accident also, and Dubya’s drunk-driving certainly could have. And as far as I know, Kennedy’s not taking $100k+ favors from foreign governments.
But if he were, what of it? does Kennedy or Clinton or Martha Stuart or Ken Lay or Saddam Hussein have anything to do with DeLay? did Clinton defend himself with, “hey, look at what Nixon did?” Or maybe you’re saying that if one politician is corrupt, then it’s ok for them all to be?
Posted by: William Cohen at March 11, 2005 04:55 PMWilliam
Mostly it is a joke (and a defense of nuclear power’s safety).
Bush’s DWI was an issue in the election. Laura’s situation was completely different.
The thing people didn’t like about Kennedy was that he ran off and put his own ambitions ahead of the girl’s safety.
But I did (and do) stipulate that he is now a reformed man.
The other joke is that if Teddy Kennedy had been driving a Volkswagen Bug (they float) he would have been president.
Posted by: Jack at March 11, 2005 05:34 PMdid Clinton defend himself with, “hey, look at what Nixon did?
No, but I heard an awful lot of leftists saying that we should get off Clinton’s case, everybody commits adultery. Didn’t a high-ranking Republican resign from the criticism resuling from the discovery of his own adultery? And how about the charges for draft-doging?
Posted by: Daniel at March 11, 2005 06:17 PMWhat did you expect?
The Difference between Clinton and De Lay is that Clinton only hurt himself not the Country, DeLay hurts the Country.
Posted by: Aldous at March 11, 2005 09:01 PMDaniel,
Though I pretty consistenly disagree with Republicans and conservative politicians, I honestly value the need to have those views represented in our national debate. Lack of opposition breeds corruption, and I wouldn’t trust an unopposed Democratic Party much more than an unopposed Republican one.
What I’ve read and seen suggests that Tom DeLay is very seriously and indefensibly corrupt, not simply representing a conservative pro-corporate ideology. Now I admit I have limited knowledge, but the indications are strong enough that I want a fully functioning ethics committee to be investigating him. I would urge you to give this a deeper look.
No, but I heard an awful lot of leftists saying …
Careful Daniel; it’s always easy to find people on the ‘other side’ saying almost anything. It’s tempting to use them in arguments, but the unstated implication that if person with view x says y, then all persons with view x believe y. It’s just not true. Posted by: Walker at March 12, 2005 02:36 AM
The sole purpose for attacking Tom Delay is because he is an effective leader. If he was not in a leadership position, not one person would care about anything he has done. Furthermore, if his constituents want him gone, they will vote him out. It is their responsibilty to remove him, not yours. A perfect example is the previous obstructionist from South Dakota who was removed.
The point being made with Clinton & Kennedy is the double standard of the left & the liberal news media. A few nights ago, Alan Combs (liberal) of Fox News interviewed Robert Byrd of WV. When asked about his involvement in the KKK & his use of the “N” word on TV, his answer was basically that this happened in his past & he had apologized. Because of those words, he is given a pass. On the other hand, Trent Lott also made mistakes & apologized, but he was hounded until driven out of the leadership position in the Senate. Clearly double standards.
For the past couple of years, the left has been calling for the head of Rumsfeld. Why? Because he is effective as the Presidents man & the partisan left can’t stand him. Recently, Admiral North & the commission exonerated him, but that doesn’t mean anything to the left. You will now begin to attack the commission that found neither Rumsfeld nor the Pentagon at fault.
You can’t help yourselves. It is not truth you seek. It is hatred toward this president & everything he stands for. How it must kill your souls to see success in the Middle East. Democracies being established, lives being changed & as usual, the left on the wrong side of history.
Posted by: Blaine at March 12, 2005 09:18 AMV.E.M.,
Isn’t Hillery’s “team” being investigated the same as Delay’s “team” for campaign finance rules ect.?
I’m not ready to convict either one untill all the facts are out in the open.
BTW… Thank you very much for your article on Minimun Wage, It resulted in a (mostly) good debate and was one that I had long thought was due on WatchBlog.
If articles/posts were graded on the # of comments, I would have to give you an A+.
Posted by: Beagle at March 12, 2005 10:16 AMHow sad and typical. Edward has a post documenting a prominent Republican’s corruption, and rather than dealing with his behavior the right-wingers on this site trot out Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy (circa 1969), Robert Byrd, and OJ Simpson (!). As long as some Democrats (and a random Black man) have been naughty, even 36 years ago, Republicans get license for political corruption.
By the way, a lot of conservative Republicans (including Dubya, apparently) thought that Trent Lott should go. Similarly, Bob Livingston, the guy who gave up the Speaker of the House position over adultery, was defended by a lot of Democrats.
Posted by: Woody Mena at March 12, 2005 07:47 PMThe purpose for going after DeLay is that he’s both corrupt and powerful, and that’s a dangerous combination. It’s sad that people like DeLay have that power to set the tone in Washington. I’ve personally known much wiser and more moral conservatives than that man.
The Republican Leadership has been not just trying to win against the Democrats, but trying to break the party’s back once and for all. Unfortunately, this will not do well for the Republicans as time goes by.
First, those with moderate to liberal leanings will want such representation regardless of what happens. If Republicans have to fill that need, they are forced to become a lite version of the average Democrat. Second, they radicalize and motivate the base on the left. That could tip the balance in nation or statewide races, and could also cause a cultural shift as Democrats become more culturally involved. Third, When the liberalized Republicans are then faced with real Democrats, the balance might end up shifting to the Democrat’s side.
In the end, there is a limit to how far the Republicans can go without inspiring a backlash. They’ve already gone too far to defend a strong but crooked leader.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 12, 2005 08:24 PMRobert Byrd is my choice for de-election.
Posted by: ericsimonson at March 12, 2005 10:19 PMBlaine said: “The sole purpose for attacking Tom Delay is because he is an effective leader.”
That is like saying the sole purpose for going after Al Capone was because he was a successful businessman. HA!
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 12, 2005 11:48 PMIt’s interesting to speculate where the line is for the Republicans. At what point will loyalty to the country trump party loyalty? At what point will the traditional conservative and moderate Repuclicans say ‘enough’?
Delay leads a ‘majority within a majority’ inside the House. This bloc, consisting of one group with a right wing social agenda, and another with a right wing ecomonic and foreign policy agenda, currently control the party.
The actions of a corrupt politician like Delay aren’t a surprise. Not one person has attempted to defend Delay in response to the post, not one. But I don’t think this represents the line beyond which conservatives & moderate Repuclicans will refuse to cross.
That line could appear in an unexpected place; for example, the budget. While a debacle like the Bush plan for Social Security Insurance privitazation can be made to disappear in committee, there’s no hiding from the budget.
It may not happen this time around. But at some point, DeLay’s ‘majority within a majority’ may disgust or alienate Republican moderates to such a degree that they bolt. Money talks in congress- just ask DeLay- and the contributions will start to disappear if the economic situation worsens.
Posted by: phx8 at March 13, 2005 12:45 AMPardon. Blaine did defend DeLay. Sort of.
Blaine, DeLay is in serious trouble with the law. It’s not a criticism he’s receiving. It’s not an accusation. It’s not an investigation.
He’s been indicted.
He can squash the House Ethics Committee, but the criminal justice system might be a tougher nut to crack.
DeLay is innocent until proven guilty. Most politicians resign leadership positions in this situation, but do not vacate their office. A leadership position can be resumed, but an office depends upon election. Also, politicians can be a tad sensitive to the negative images that arise when their leader is carted off to jail.
Posted by: phx8 at March 13, 2005 01:27 AMDelay hasn’t been indicted or charged with a crime. Some people on a campaign fund raising committee have been and are now facing charges.
Hillary Clinton hasn’t been indicted or charged with a crime. Some people on a campaign fund raising committee have been and are now facing charges.
Both cases are current, not old news being dredged up.
Both cases appear quite simular as to whether a reasonable person would think both of them must have known what was going on.
I’m not ready to defend or convict either one without proveable facts that will stand up in court.
In both cases the persons charged say the mentioned persons now in office wern’t involved, even though there seems to be a link.
Posted by: Beagle at March 13, 2005 09:12 AMBeagle,
You’re right. I want to correct that, and make it clear DeLay has NOT been idicted. Like you said, three of his staff were indicted last fall. I thought DeLay was also indicted then, but I want to make it very clear, he was NOT indicted. He was “admonished” by the House Ethics Committee, which is a embarrassment, but a much different thing.
Apologies.
It is at once interesting and very, very sad the way those on the right refuse to deal with Delay’s malfeasance and instead drag Democrats into the fray where they clear do not belong. Like our system of justice, each person and case should be heard on its own merits. Delay is abusing the system as three admonishments in the last year by the House ethics committee surely demonstrate.
Those in power have a duty and responsibly to the People and the Constitution to wield that power within the confines of the law and the rules of their respective house of Congress. Abuse of power should not be tolerated and or excused, nor made excuses for. And shame of those who seek to excuse Mr. Delay’s behavior, or who try to drag others into his sphere of shameless behavior. It is this type of ignorance and near-sided allegiance to this man that will ensure our nations continued political decline and hasten our entrance into the pantheon of Third World nations whose leaders know nothing of democracy principles and person integrity.
The problem is not just Tom Delay.
But, he is merely a symptom of the problem
in general.
Most politicians are master parasites,
and we are all stupid sheep for allowing
the corruption and legal plunder of taxpayers.
It’s a cycle of decay that has repeated itself
for centuries, because the problem is us.
We, the cheaters and the cheated ; both too
lazy, corrupt, and apathetic to fix it.
So, maybe there is justice.
Maybe we deserve each other.
And, even if Tom Delay goes, there will be
another master-cheater-parasite to quickly
take his place and sustain the decay.
There is only one simple, and peaceful way
to force government to be transparent and
accountable.
The ONE SIMPLE SOLUTION:
The solution must be simple and directed at ALL politicians and ALL parties (since they are ALL responsible). It must be something that ALL people can easily understand and execute. The SOLUTION is:
Vote out ALL incumbents. NO exceptions. Repeatedly , EVERY election. UNTIL things drastically improve.
[] This ONE simple idea may provide the ONE last way to provide The ONE thing that is missing in ALL other approaches: FORCE. This ONE simple idea may provide the FORCE required to reform government. This ONE simple idea offers many benefits (see BENEFITs / REASONs below).
[] Given the fundamental PROBLEM ,
And the simple SOLUTION , And the BENEFITs ,
Now SPREAD this one simple idea to voters, politicians, internet
web-sites, political parties, news papers, blogs, friends, family, Senators,
Representatives, etc. Feel free to copy this message & share it with everyone.
[] Voters must also find new honest people to place on all ballots; preferably
not previous politicians or persons affiliated with existing main parties.
And, if they don’t work out, vote them out !
[] QUESTION: WHEN DOES IT END ?
When is it OK for voters to vote for incumbents ?
ANSWER: Eventually, politicians will get the message (e.g. after 8 or
12 years; maybe longer). Voters can ease up some:
(a) only after government has implemented the necessary
reforms (see below) which provides voters the means
(i.e. transparency) to quickly and easily identify only
the irresponsible politicians to vote out of office
(i.e. hold them accountable),
(b) and only after things have improved drastically.
Daniel,
It seems to me that you lost.
“Most politicians are master parasites,
and we are all stupid sheep for allowing
the corruption and legal plunder of taxpayers.”
So why defend Delay because he is a Republican and you view this as a left wing hate attack? We all know the answer. But be that as it may, you make good points in your last posts. The problem is that the US public are working too much, being smoothered with entertainment, and not paying enough attention. How about we all just run up on Capital Hill and beat the crap out of the politicians who choose to play with our fears and lie to us like they breathe? The Spainards did it with their ex-prime minister for using Bush tactics of, “the terrorists are going to get you.” Hopefully the stupidity of the public won’t lead to the countries downfall.
Leon,
Nope…you may be jumping to incorrect conclusions.
No…I didn’t lose….not in the sense that
my candidate lost, because I voted Republican in
the last election. But there’s really little
difference between any of the major parties
(e.g. Democrats or Republicans).
But, I just could bring myself to vote for Kerry
because he was just too wishy-washy.
Still, we’re all losers, unless you are part of
the good-ole boy network in control that will
reap the benefits of the legal plunder
(e.g. pork-barrel, theft, bribes, etc.).
I don’t have any respect for most
politicians, because they’re all colluding
to cheat the tax payers. I especially
dislike master-parasites like Teddy Kennedy
(who should be in prison for neglegent homicide),
Kerr, Gephardt, etc.
Yes, you are correct in saying most people
are not paying attention to government.
However, most politicians are master-parasites
that like to over-complicate everything with
one goal in mind…theft ; legal plunder.
The more they over-complicate things, the
easier it is to abuse it, and the harder it is
for us to fix it. To ignore government is to
invite corruption and abuse. That’s why we
need to exercise the one right we have left.
Vote them ALL out every election, until they
implement changes to make everything transparent,
and make government accountable.
Government is like a virus. It spreads and
spreads until it eventually kills the host.
The Government is growing out of control.
This has nothing to do with a specific party.
It has to do with us all…the cheaters and
the cheated that are too lazy or too stupid to
see the one peaceful means to force government
to reform.
I don’t defend or condemn Tom Delay. I simply could care less. He will answer to the voters of his district. Even “if” he were “indicted”, thank you beagle, it would mean nothing. #1, innocent until proven guilty. #2, the indicting party are democrats with the same hatred & agenda.
What about my question, “If Delay were not in a leadership position, would anyone even be talking about this subject?”
I certainly do believe bringing up Hillary, Byrd or any other Democrat is relevant. Simply because of the double standards that are set. Did anyone call for Byrd to step down from a leadership position in the Senate when it was noted his membership in the Klan? I don’t think so. The point is double standards.
Byrd’s involvement was ages ago, and he renounced it as a huge mistake decades ago. Give it up, Blaine. If you can defend Bush’s reformation you can certainly do the same for Byrd’s, eh?
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 14, 2005 01:00 AMSo you think Byrd is different now? I wonder how he voted on civil rights in the 60’s.
I don’t remember defending a reformation of Bush???
Posted by: Blaine at March 14, 2005 01:15 AMByrd is an idiot and another master-parasite.
Who in Congress or the Executive branch do you think is the most honest and respectable ?
That should be too hard. This list is not very long.
Rather than indulge in petty partisan politics
and bickering (designed to distract us from the
true problems), why don’t we all send a message
to government. Lets vote them ALL out next
election. That is the ONLY thing that will work.
And, it is the ONE thing we have a duty to do,
and the ONE thing that is theoretically possible.
David,
You need to re-read my posts if you think what I posted was ages ago, it is current and I compared apples to apples.
For the privalige of posting here, I do my best to present facts or my opinions on issues.
I added no partisan hyperbole and condemmed no one.
Posted by: Beagle at March 14, 2005 11:36 AMDaniel asked:
Who in Congress or the Executive branch do you think is the most honest and respectable ?
My vote goes to Russ Feingold.
That said, I believe it is an oversimplification to damn most politicians with one stroke of condemnation. They are human beings with a mixture of ideals, ideas, ambition, and desires. They sometimes work hard for things they believe in (liberal or conservative or common sense), and they also work within the constraints of a system which is neither perfect nor awful. They sometimes succumb to temptation.
I appreciate the attention V. Edward Martin has brought upon one of the most powerful members of Congress who has consistently shown a willingness to use his influence in a highly questionable manner to push through legislation which would not meet public approval if the details were exposed.
There was huge bipartisan support for limiting media consolidation when DeLay used his perogative to refuse to allow a bill which would do that to come to the floor. In that case he did not do anything illegal, but he clearly subverted the will of the majority. When the so-called prescription drug benefit mega bill came up and he wanted to deliver for the president, his arm-twisting of fiscally conservative Republicans to abandon their principles and vote for this fiscally irresponsible package probably did violate laws. The flow of money between TRMPAC, the RNC, and the state legislature races in Texas was clearly fishy and largely designed to gerrymander Texas’s Congressional Districts in favor of Republicans, and investigating it makes perfectly good sense.
Making note of these things and calling for DeLay to give up his leadership position may look partisan to Republicans, but calling something partisan doesn’t make it unwarranted. Sure there are corrupt Democrats (Ronnie Earle is not one), but there’s a reason to be especially worried about corrupt Republicans right now, since it is they who hold sway in all branches of government right now.
Posted by: Walker Willingham at March 14, 2005 05:22 PMWalker,
Your points are well taken.
However, I submit the idea that what we’re doing now is not working, and this one simple thing may be the only thing that has a chance.
The people have still one thing within their power that could reform government almost overnight. Their VOTE.
If the people hold Congress and the Executive branch accountable (as a whole…one entity), and vote them all out, they will begin to police their own ranks (if they want to remain in office).
The people should continue to vote them ALL out until some reforms are made to make government transparent and accountable. The key word is transparency. If you observe the least corrupt governments around the world, you will see that the most honest governments have high degrees of transparency. In the United States, too much is secret and hidden from the people. Also, politicians (by design) love to over-complicate things so that it is difficult for the people to understand what is going on. The first reform should be to simplify where-ever possible (such as taxation, benefits, etc.), enforce the existing laws better (rather than create more needless laws almost identical to existing laws), and end the pork-barrel politics.
The only hard part about this is convincing the people that this one simple method is possibly the only thing that can reverse the inevitable decay that most governments seem unable to avoid.
Tom Delay said being bribed by lobbyist groups is just fine with him as he denies there was any wrongdoing in taking trips at corporate donors expense. The man just plain believes those with the money should make the policies, laws, and have the ear of representatives pure and simple. Screw the rest…they can’t bribe him, I mean contribute to his financial success.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 16, 2005 05:48 AM
