Corruption Reform

[Elphaba]

Reform measures usually take place when significant corruption scandals, by either party, have been uncovered. The Republican leadership has announced measures to be taken to lessen the influence of lobbyists, and the Democrats report that they also have a plan in the works.

My opinion is that restricting or requiring more reporting of lobbyist activity is simply treating the symptom. The "disease" for the potential of corruption lies in campaign financing for "career" politicians, which could be solved by term limits. That's not gonna happen, boys and girls, because the decision negatively affects the decision makers.

I would like to concentrate this topic to discussions regarding corruption reform of lobbyists' activities. I have an article below that outlines some initial reform proposals by House Speaker Hastert, and I will be looking for other proposals as they become available.

Please offer your criticisms and/or opinions about what you think would be proper legislation to limit the influence of lobbyists. I also add, by virtue of my deep cynicism, that both parties are likely to be making small gestures to appease "we, the people." Both parties have a long history of corruption, and neither will be giving up a money source easily.

In the following article, a loop hole has been pointed out by a lobbyist to one of Hastert's proposals, which McCain intends to close.

TruthOut Link

Loophole in Lobbying Bill Leaves Wiggle Room
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
The Washington Post

Wednesday 18 January 2006

Lawmakers are about to bombard the American public with proposals that would crack down on lobbyists. Several prominent plans, including one outlined yesterday by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), would specifically ban meals and privately paid travel for lawmakers.

Or would they?

According to lobbyists and ethics experts, even if Hastert's proposal is enacted, members of Congress and their staffs could still travel the world on an interest group's expense and eat steak on a lobbyist's account at the priciest restaurants in Washington.

The only requirement would be that whenever a lobbyist pays the bill, he or she must also hand the lawmaker a campaign contribution. Then the transaction would be perfectly okay.

"That's a big hole if they don't address campaign finance," said Joel Jankowsky, the lobbying chief of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, one of the capital's largest lobbying outfits.

The plans offered by Republican leaders yesterday would change two of the three areas of law or regulation that govern lobbyists' behavior: the congressional rules that limit gifts to lawmakers and the laws that dictate the amount of disclosure that lobbyists must give the public.

A third major area - campaign finance laws - would go untouched, an omission that amounts to a gaping loophole in efforts to distance lobbyists from the people they are paid to influence.

Anything that members of Congress can now do in the pursuit of money for their reelections will still be permitted in the future - including accepting lobbyist-paid travel and in-town meals - unless campaign finance laws are altered.

"Political contributions are specifically exempted from the definition of what a gift is in House and Senate gift rules," said Kenneth A. Gross, an ethics lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. "So, unless the campaign finance laws are changed, if a lobbyist wants to sponsor an event at the MCI arena or on the slopes of Colorado, as long as it's a fundraiser it would still be fine."

The result, he added, "may well be more out-of-town fundraising events than there are at the moment."

Paul A. Miller, president of the American League of Lobbyists, said of the loophole: "You may see a shift from what we're able to do now to the political fundraiser side where it is legal."

Currently, lawmakers and staff members are permitted to take "fact-finding" trips paid for by private groups, including lobbying organizations and corporations. These excursions, whose destinations are often major cities and warm resorts in wintertime, need only be disclosed and include official functions to be acceptable under the rules.

Yesterday, Hastert and high-ranking Senate Republicans, led by Rick Santorum (Pa.) and John McCain (Ariz.), said they would eliminate these privately funded fact-finding trips as part of a comprehensive ethics package that they hoped would begin moving through Congress early next month. The senators also said they would restrict gifts to lawmakers but apparently would not go as far as to ban meals, as Hastert said he intended to propose.

None of the lawmakers, however, said they would end travel and meals supplied by lobbyists as part of fundraising events, which, at least for now, would leave the loophole open. Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), who is Hastert's emissary on the lobbying issue, said he was tasked to deal with lobbying laws, not campaign-finance laws, which he declared a separate issue.

McCain, who has been a leader on matters dealing with lobbyists and campaign fundraising, said he was aware of the problem. In an interview after his news conference with Santorum, McCain said he knows the loophole exists and vowed to close it before the bill becomes a law.

[trickyy]

i guess this sounds good, but it seems like a number of rules were broken in the abramoff fiasco. on the other hand, he did exploit a loophole at first, so perhaps more rules would improve the situation.

more transparency for pork projects would be good. right now it's almost impossible to determine the source of certain spending projects.

[alpha phi]

the biggest problem with legislation to reign in lobbying corruption:
is that all the new rules will make it more difficult
for the average citizen, and small buisness to lobby.
At the same time the major corporations,
the ultra rich, (like Abramhof) will have a team of lawyers
to find and/or buy loopholes around regulations.

The rules are already in place, but
in a corrupt enviroment everybody still looks the other way.

More laws will only make things worse in the long run.
Part of the corruption is a result of big goverment

[pan6467]

I have never been a proponent of term limits because there are some truly good people in office and it may take 3 or 4 terms for them to get the voice to be heard and respected.

Career politicians aren't bad. The way we have allowed the parties to structure districts so that a particular party holds the seat forever, or the way campaign finances make it so that only those with money can run are the 2 issues that have led us into being able to corrupt politicians.

The nature of this society right now is all about greed and watching out for only yourself. It shows in politics and society. You aren't going to correct the problem in congress until you address the problem in society. That is why have we become so less civic minded and why are we so involved in self that we are allowing the infrastructure of this nation to fall apart.

We answer "What happened to community pride and civic responsibility" and develop ways to better the infrastructure and get people involved in community pride, then corruption will take care of itself.

I also think that when we do have scandals and catch people corrupting officials and the officials themselves, these people should not jjust be tried for their corruption, but for treasonous activities. That these people shouldn't be able to come out and write books and become radio talk show hosts and achieve fame, like G Gordon Liddy did.

The reason I say treason is they are destroying government credibility and putting special interests and money ahead of the security and safety of this nation. It is one thing to argue about policy and war, we need that as a way to make sure that the policy does not get out of hand. However, when you have a lobbyist taking money and paying off Congress and the WH for votes on their issues, that is a different ballgame. Then it no longer becomes an issue of policy or philosophical differences, it becomes who has the most money and who will pay the best price. It then becomes a government run not by people trying to better society but by people who are in it for their own gains and fortunes.

I believe, much like the "Contract With America" in '94 this is just a GOP rouse to get votes to say see what we did, and by next election the reforms will have disappeared and will have been forgotten.

Contract with America was fraudulent and a bunch of bullshit to get elected and these reforms will probably show the same results as that did, much hype, promises of responsibility and ethics and then once in power, "what Contract?"

[alpha phi]

Pan your post reminded me of a few quotes.

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild

"Those few who can understand the system (check book money and credit) will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on it favors, that there will be little opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear it burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests." - The Rothschild Brothers of London

"I have never seen more senators express discontent with their jobs. ... I think the major cause is that, deep down in our hearts, we have been accomplices to doing something terrible and unforgivable to this wonderful country. Deep down in our hearts, we know that we have bankrupted America and that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. .. We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected." - John Danforth, Republican senator from Missouri, reported in the Arizona Republic of April 21, 1992

[Rekna]

I think we need teams of special councils constantly investigating all members of congress. If congressmen know they are being watched closely maybe they will behave a bit better... oh yeah and get rid of the money.

[irateplatypus]

the remedy to all these concerns is an informed and responsive electorate.

in a republic where all are free to spend as much money as they like on lobbying any issue... corruption is inevitable. it isn't as if these men were simply doing distasteful things that rub us wrong... they broke the standing law of the land. enacting new laws won't fix a problem when circumventing law is the disease.

if the electorate simply holds politicians accountable: demanding that existing laws are enforced, voting against corruption when they have the chance... that'll go farther than any reform with a prayer of being passed in Washington ever will.

[pan6467]

Alpha Phi - Great quotes man. Especially liked Danforth's, he was a good man.




Irate - You're right they are already knowingly breaking laws so more rules and regulations are just going to hurt the true lobbyists that don't have the money but may have good causes, while those that have the money will be able to hide what they give better.

One of the huge problems I see is that even the honest Congressmen knew and know who is being bought off and they don't say shit. Now is this because the party scares them into silence, they don't want to rock the boat, they use these as blackmail ....... those are the Congressmen that piss me off the most. The ones that know about the corruption and do NOTHING.

An informed electorate can only be as informed as the media and government allows.

Withholding wiretap stories for a year, not making corruption trials and investigations front page news every day, and so on is not keeping the electorate well informed.

And when people do speak out and you have a Limbaugh, a Drudge, a Coulter or an O'Reilly that downplays the corruption, that treats the corruption as though it is only partisan hate politics and there is nothing of true substance there...... you have to ask who are they protecting and if they truly love this country as much as they say they do, then why are they making excuses and trying so desperately to rationalize, downplay and avoid facing the corruption and demanding that we investigate and convict every last guilty congressman regardless of party or who they are???????? But they don't they make more excuses, downplay and outrageous claims, it's as if they are OJ's legal defense, trying to convict the people coming out about the scandals rather than those who committed the crimes..... WHY, WHY IS THAT?????????

And the people that speak out like Springer, Franken, and even here Host, they are met with ridicule attacks and called names, and lengths are gone to harrass them, get into their personal lives, laugh at them, make fun of what they say and say they need psychological help.

These people attack not the corruption but the people informing, doing research into it and trying to blow whistles and hold up red flags.

We are allowing people with hidden agendas to ridicule, harrass and do all they can to discredit not the facts that have been brought out, not the research, but the people themselves.

Doesn't that say something to you? doesn't that tell you something right there?

Perhaps we do need to look at the craziest possible scenarios first and move backward towards the rational to find out what truly is going on and how deep the corruption is.

Also, partisan politics allows and creates corruption. When I'm voting strictly by what my party tells me, am I truly helping the country? Am I truly following what I believe? I don't think so.

And I think we have Congressmen blackmailed by their parties to either, "stay in the fold" or face severe problems when they come up for re-election or "when the next bill comes up don't expect any money to your district" or "don't expect any propsals you may make to be heard" and so on.

Ask Voinivich and Dewine how Bush has threatened them. My father has gotten letters from the GOP to not donate to Voinivich's election funds because the party is looking into and I quote "Someone that represents the party closer to the values you have put on it to have." What exactly is that implying to those who support Voinivich, who truly isn't a bad man and has had some great ideas and policies.

It's more obvious and prevelant in the GOP because they are the ones in power and have the structure and talking heads to take the heat off. When you have a Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter attacking even Republicans for not voting "the party way" something stinks and it ain't the limberger cheese or my feet.

The Dems do it but they aren't as organized, nor truly have the power to attack each other. If they get the power back, and as organized then they'll be just as bad.

So we have to have unbiased, non partisan and untouchable committees that can investigate without any fear of retribution.

We need government to become held accountable again. The people getting it now, Ney, Delay, Taft, Frist and whatever other names are coming out.... are sacrificial pigs, to take the heat off everyone else. They are probably, "team players" that won't blow any whistles", that will take one for the team and not take anyone else down with them.

We also need to ask where is all the money going? How are we having all this deficit spending, yet programs are being cut left and right and we keep hearing how there is no money for this, that and the other thing? When we had a party in '94 vow and sign a contract to not deficit spend and 10 years later they are spending record deficits it tells me someone is making money on our deficit spending. How much of our taxes goes to pay the interest on the deficit?

We need a complete overhaul and we need to check every nook and cranny to make sure that government is acting in the country's best interest and not their own. How we do that, is the $1,000,000 question.

[dksuddeth]

the question we should all be asking ourselves is 'why should we trust them to get rid of their money pot?'

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

the question we should all be asking ourselves is 'why should we trust them to get rid of their money pot?'

The question is how, though.

If we just vote everyone out (and that is great talk but rarely happens as most people don't want to believe "Their congressman is corrupt".

So, say we do elect a whole new Congress, the corruption will still be there. May take awhile for the corruption to reach as many as it does now but it will.

Ok, so then we try the non partisan oversight committee..... well who puts the people in power? It would definately become partisan and when you deal with people anyone and everyone has a price, at least this day and age.

So again, short term it may work, long term it won't.

Stricter rules? No, it'll just drive out the poor legal schlobs that don't have the money and drive the illegal guys deeper underground giving away more and more to the Congressmen.

An informed electorate? No, people will only be as informed and as believing as they want to be. Plus, the media has a price also, as they have interests in government, they want access for interviews and so on, all of which can be taken away. I'll give network XYZ all my interviews and commentaries and in turn they protect me, tell me if someone from another network is going to investigate. (Sounds paranoid, but I'm sure it happens.

It took a small not very famous newspaper (Toledo Blade) to expose the scandals in Ohio. And it took some serious pressure to get all the papers and news coverage of the scandals.... then somehow instead of reporting investigations and what was happening, we were thrown Taft and Noe and everything has gone silent. Even though they were saying how there were politicians in both parties involved and this could reach Federal Congressmen and yadda yadda yadda... It is a dead story now. Why is that?

So none of the above will work.

What is it going to take?

Government has always and will always have corrupt people because there will always be people that are corruptible, it's natural and prevelant throughout history.

What we need to do is reward those honest Congressmen, Pages, assistants and so on, that have the balls to come forth and say, "look this guy approached me and offered me this, that and the other thing. And I know several of my peers who have taken it from him."

Fuck party, fuck friendship, do what's right for the country. You see it, you know who and what is taking place, I'm sure in the circles it's no secret who is having Halliburton/GM/Merck/Exxon/BP/SmithKline/J&J/Medical Mutual/Anthem/the NRA/Pat Robertson and so on pay for their "research trips" to the Bahamas, or Asia or wherever.

But right now the atmosphere is so partisan and hateful and excuse oriented and blame everyone else that at this rate nothing ever will be done.

Look at how we had a SCJ go on hunting trips paid for by the VP, is that not unethical? OF COURSE IT IS!!!!! but the GOP blamed, deflected, made excuses and nothing was done. And that judge has pretty much ruled exactly how the WH has wanted him to and he has not once recused himself even in cases where the VP has interest.

10 years ago had Gore done that there would have been the Right screaming for the head of every Dem in Washington until the Justice stepped down. 20-30-40-50-100 years ago this would have been unheard of. because the people wouldn't have allowed it.

Today, the masses just do not seem to care anymore or have resigned themselves to the fact nothing will change...... thereby making the corruption so much more easier.

So until we truly decide as a people we want something done, nothing will be done. In fact they will get to the point where they will even flaunt it in our faces.

The government didn't go after the Mafia for years because the Mafia was evil, the Mafia was a research program for Congress and government to learn how to get away with things.

[dksuddeth]

at this point in time, the divide between left and right is so partisan that both sides are willing to overlook corruption so long as their own ideals are being legislated. They care more about what they think is right than what actually is right. Talk about moral relativity.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

at this point in time, the divide between left and right is so partisan that both sides are willing to overlook corruption so long as their own ideals are being legislated. They care more about what they think is right than what actually is right. Talk about moral relativity.

Very true..... we may think more alike than either of us want to admit.

[dksuddeth]

never doubted that we have a few things in common.

[maximusveritas]

I agree, there's no way this will happen. They (especially the Republicans) are basically just paying lip service to the notion of reform, just enough so that it won't cost them the next election. The Democrats could take advantage of this if they weren't so dependent on the system themselves.

[Elphaba]

Both parties are now speaking of curtailing earmarks. I believe this may go a long way toward emptying the pig trough that lobbyists depend upon. It would certainly help reduce the exploding deficit.

[maximusveritas]

I think it's just talk though. Even the serial abusers like Trent Lott are talking about it, but you know they'll build in a loophole to get around it. This is how guys like him get elected.

[Elphaba]

I really would like to see the elimination of earmarks, but I suspect your are right, Maximus. I believe those of you that pointed out that we need to enforce the anti-corruption laws currently on the books are also correct.

I found this statement today by Ron Paul (R-TX), and I think he makes a very compelling argument that it is not lobbyists bribing congressmen that we should be concerned about. His primary concern is how our government is financed, and I hope the economy literate among us will chime in with their opinion.

TruthOut Link

Searching for a New Direction
By Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
t r u t h o u t | Statement

Wednesday 18 January 2006

The Abramoff scandal has been described as the biggest Washington scandal ever: bigger than Watergate; bigger than Abscam; bigger than Koreagate; bigger than the House banking scandal; bigger than Teapot Dome. Possibly so. It's certainly serious and significant.

It has prompted urgent proposals of suggested reforms to deal with the mess. If only we have more rules and regulations, more reporting requirements, and stricter enforcement of laws, the American people will be assured we mean business. Ethics and character will return to the halls of Congress. It is argued that new champions of reform should be elected to leadership positions, to show how serious we are about dealing with the crisis of confidence generated by the Abramoff affair. Then all will be well. But it's not so simple. Maybe what we have seen so far is just the tip of the iceberg, an insidious crisis staring us in the face that we refuse to properly identify and deal with.

It's been suggested we need to change course and correct the way Congress is run. A good idea, but if we merely tinker with current attitudes about what role the federal government ought to play in our lives, it won't do much to solve the ethics crisis. True reform is impossible without addressing the immorality of wealth redistribution. Merely electing new leaders and writing more rules to regulate those who petition Congress will achieve nothing.

Could it be that we're all looking in the wrong places for a solution to recurring, constant, and pervasive corruption in government? Perhaps some of us in Congress are mistaken about the true problem; perhaps others deliberately distract us from exposing the truth about how miserably corrupt the budget process in Congress is. Others simply are in a state of denial. But the denial will come to an end as the Abramoff scandal reveals more and more. It eventually will expose the scandal of the ages: how and to what degree the American people have become indebted by the totally irresponsible spending habits of the U.S. Congress- as encouraged by successive administrations, condoned by our courts, and enjoyed by the recipients of the largesse.

This system of government is coming to an end- a fact that significantly contributes to the growing anxiety of most Americans, especially those who pay the bills and receive little in return from the corrupt system that has evolved over the decades.

Believe me, if everybody benefited equally there would be scant outcry over a little bribery and influence peddling. As our country grows poorer and more indebted, fewer people benefit. The beneficiaries are not the hard working, honest people who pay the taxes. The groups that master the system of lobbying and special interest legislation are the ones who truly benefit.

The steady erosion of real wealth in this country, and the dependency on government generated by welfarism and warfarism, presents itself as the crisis of the ages. Lobbying scandals and the need for new leadership are mere symptoms of a much, much deeper problem.

There are quite a few reasons a relatively free country allows itself to fall into such an ethical and financial mess.

One major contributing factor for the past hundred years is our serious misunderstanding of the dangers of pure democracy. The founders detested democracy and avoided the use of the word in all the early documents. Today, most Americans accept without question a policy of sacrificing life, property, and dollars to force "democracy" on a country 6,000 miles away. This tells us how little opposition there is to "democracy." No one questions the principle that a majority electorate should be allowed to rule the country, dictate rights, and redistribute wealth.

Our system of democracy has come to mean worshipping the notion that a majority vote for the distribution of government largesse, loot confiscated from the American people through an immoral tax system, is morally and constitutionally acceptable. Under these circumstances it's no wonder a system of runaway lobbying and special interests has developed. Add this to the military industrial complex that developed over the decades due to a foreign policy of perpetual war and foreign military intervention, and we shouldn't wonder why there is such a powerful motivation to learn the tricks of the lobbying trade- and why former members of Congress and their aides become such high priced commodities. Buying influence is much more lucrative than working and producing for a living. The trouble is the process invites moral corruption. The dollars involved grow larger and larger because of the deficit financing and inflation that pure democracy always generates.

Dealing with lobbying scandals while ignoring the scandal of unconstitutional runaway government will solve nothing. If people truly believe that reform is the solution, through regulating lobbyists and increasing congressional reporting requirements, the real problem will be ignored and never identified. This reform only makes things worse.

Greater regulation of lobbyists is a dangerous and unnecessary proposition. If one expects to solve a problem without correctly identifying its source, the problem persists. The First amendment clearly states: "Congress shall make no laws respecting…the right of the people…to petition the government for a redress of grievances." That means NO law!

The problem of special interest government that breeds corruption comes from our lack of respect for the Constitution in the first place. So what do we do? We further violate the Constitution rather than examine it for guidance as to the proper role of the federal government. Laws addressing bribery, theft, and fraud, already on the books, are adequate to deal with the criminal activities associated with lobbying. New laws and regulations are unnecessary.

The theft that the federal government commits against its citizens, and the power that Congress has assumed illegally, are the real crimes that need to be dealt with. In this regard we truly do need a new direction. Get rid of the evil tax system; the fraudulent monetary system; and the power of government to run our lives, the economy, and the world; and the Abramoff types would be exposed for the mere gnats they are. There would be a lot less of them, since the incentives to buy politicians would be removed.

Even under today's flawed system of democratic government, which is dedicated to redistributing property by force, a lot could be accomplished if government attracted men and women of good will and character. Members could refuse to yield to the temptations of office, and reject the path to a lobbying career. But it seems once government adopts the rules of immorality, some of the participants in the process yield to the temptation as well, succumbing to the belief that the new moral standards are acceptable.

Today though, any new rules designed to restrain special interest favoritism will only push the money further under the table. Too much is at stake. Corporations, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and politicians have grown accustomed to the system, and have learned to work within it to survive. Only when the trough is emptied will the country wake up. Eliminating earmarks in the budget will not solve the problem.

Comparing the current scandal to the "big" one, the Abramoff types are petty thieves. The government deals in trillions of dollars; the Abramoffs in mere tens of millions. Take a look at the undeclared war we're bogged down in 6,000 miles from our shores. We've spent 300 billion dollars already, but Nobel prize winner Joseph Stiglitz argues that the war actually will cost between one and two trillion dollars when it's all over and done with. That's trillions, not billions. Even that figure is unpredictable, because we may be in Iraq another year or ten- who knows? Considering the war had nothing to do with our national security, we're talking big bucks being wasted and lining the pockets of many well-connected American corporations. Waste, fraud, stupidity, and no-bid contracts characterize the process. And it's all done in the name of patriotism and national security. Dissenters are accused of supporting the enemy. Now this is a rip-off that a little tinkering with House rules and restraints on lobbyists won't do much to solve.

Think of how this undeclared war has contributed to our national deficit, undermined military morale and preparedness, antagonized our allies, and exposed us to an even greater threat from those who resent our destructive occupation. Claiming we have no interests in the oil of the entire Middle East hardly helps our credibility throughout the world.

The system of special interest government that has evolved over the last several decades has given us a national debt of over eight trillion dollars, a debt that now expands by over 600 billion dollars each year. Our total obligations are estimated between fifteen and twenty trillion dollars. Most people realize the Social Security system, the Medicare system, and the new prescription drug plan are unfunded. Thousands of private pension funds are now being dumped on the U.S. government and American taxpayers. We are borrowing over 700 billion dollars each year from foreigners to finance this extravagance, and we now qualify as the greatest international debtor nation in history. Excessive consumption using borrowed money is hardly the way to secure a sound economy.

Instead of reining in government spending, Congress remains oblivious to the financial dangers and panders to special interests by offering no resistance whatsoever to every request for new spending. Congress spends nearly 2  trillion dollars annually in an attempt to satisfy everyone's demands. The system has generated over 200 trillion dollars of derivatives. These problems can't be addressed with token leadership changes and tinkering with the budget. A new and a dramatic direction is required.

As current policy further erodes the budget, special interests and members of Congress become even more aggressive in their efforts to capture a piece of the dwindling economic pie. That success is the measure of effectiveness that guarantees a member's re-election.

The biggest rip-off of all - the paper money system that is morally and economically equivalent to counterfeiting- is never questioned. It is the deceptive tool for transferring billions from the unsuspecting poor and middle-class to the special interest rich. And in the process, the deficit-propelled budget process supports the spending demands of all the special interests - left and right, welfare and warfare- while delaying payment to another day and sometimes even to another generation.

The enormous sums spent each year to support the influential special interests expand exponentially, and no one really asks how it's accomplished. Raising taxes to balance the budget is out of the question- and rightfully so. Foreigners have been generous in their willingness to loan us most of what we need, but even that generosity is limited and may well diminish in the future.

But if the Federal Reserve did not pick up the slack and create huge amounts of new credit and money out of thin air, interest rates would rise and call a halt to the charade. The people who suffer from a depreciated dollar don't understand why they suffer, while the people who benefit promote the corrupt system. The wealthy clean up on Wall Street, and the unsophisticated buy in as the market tops off. Wealth is transferred from one group to another, and it's all related to the system that allows politicians and the central banks to create money out of thin air. It's literally legalized counterfeiting.

Is it any wonder jobs go overseas? True capital only comes from savings, and Americans save nothing. We only borrow and consume. A counterfeiter has no incentive to take his newly created money and build factories. The incentive for Americans is to buy consumer goods from other countries whose people are willing to save and invest in their factories and jobs. The only way we can continue this charade is to borrow excess dollars back from the foreign governments who sell us goods, and perpetuate the pretense of wealth that we enjoy.

The system of money contributes significantly to the problem of illegal immigration. On the surface, immigrants escaping poverty in Mexico and Central America come here for the economic opportunity that our economy offers. However, the social services they receive, including education and medical benefits - as well as the jobs they get - are dependent on our perpetual indebtedness to foreign countries. When the burden of debt becomes excessive, this incentive to seek prosperity here in the United States will change.

The prime beneficiaries of a paper money system are those who use the money early - governments, politicians, bankers, international corporations, and the military industrial complex. Those who suffer most are the ones at the end of the money chain - the people forced to use depreciated dollars to buy urgently needed goods and services to survive. And guess what? By then their money is worth less, prices soar, and their standard of living goes down.

The consequences of this system, fully in place for the past thirty-four years, are astronomical and impossible to accurately measure. Industries go offshore and the jobs follow. Price inflation eats away at the middle class, and deficits soar while spending escalates rapidly as Congress hopes to keep up with the problems it created. The remaining wealth that we struggle to hold onto is based on debt, future tax revenues, and our ability to manufacture new dollars without restraint. There's only one problem: it all depends on trust in the dollar, especially by foreign holders and purchasers. This trust will end, and signs of the beginning of the end are already appearing.

During this administration the dollar has suffered severely as a consequence of the policy of inflating the currency to pay our bills. The dollar price of gold has more than doubled ($252 to $560 per ounce, a 122 % increase). This means the dollar has depreciated in terms of gold, the time-honored and reliable measurement of a nation's currency, by an astounding 55%. The long-term economic health of the nation is measured by the soundness of its currency. Once Rome converted from a republic to an empire, she depreciated her currency to pay the bills. This eventually led to Rome's downfall. That is exactly what America is facing unless we change our ways.

Now this is a real scandal worth worrying about. Since it's not yet on Washington's radar screen, no attempt at addressing the problem is being made. Instead, we'll be sure to make those the Constitution terms, "petitioners to redress their grievances" fill out more forms. We'll make government officials attend more ethics courses so they can learn how to be more ethical.

A free nation, as it moves toward authoritarianism, tolerates and hides a lot of abuse in the system. The human impulse for wealth creation is hard to destroy. But in the end it will happen here, if true reform of our economic, monetary, and political system is not accomplished.

Whether government programs are promoted for "good" causes (helping the poor), or bad causes (permitting a military-industrial complex to capitalize on war profits), the principles of the market are undermined. Eventually nearly everyone becomes dependent on the system of deficits, borrowing, printing press money, and the special interest budget process that distributes loot by majority vote.

Today, most business interests and the poor are dependent on government handouts. Education and medical care is almost completely controlled and regulated by an overpowering central government. We have come to accept our role as world policemen and nation builder with little question, despite the bad results and an inability to pay the bills.

The question is, what will it take to bring about the changes in policy needed to reverse this dangerous trend? The answer is: quite a lot. And unfortunately it's not on the horizon. It probably won't come until there is a rejection of the dollar as the safest and strongest world currency, and a return to commodity money like gold and silver to restore confidence.

The Abramoff-type scandals come and go in Washington, patched over with grandiose schemes of reform that amount to nothing but more government and congressional mischief. But our efforts should be directed toward eliminating the greatest of all frauds - printing press money that creates the political conditions breeding the vultures and leeches who feed off the corrupt system.

Counterfeiting money never creates wealth - it only steals wealth from the unsuspecting. The Federal Reserve creation of money is exactly the same. Increasing the dollars in circulation can only diminish the value of each existing dollar. Only production and jobs can make a country wealthy in the long run. Today it's obvious our country is becoming poorer and more uneasy as our jobs and capital go overseas.

The Abramoff scandal can serve a useful purpose if we put it in context of the entire system that encourages corruption.

If it's seen as an isolated case of individual corruption, and not an expected consequence of big government run amuck, little good will come of it. If we understand how our system of government intervenes in our personal lives, the entire economy, and the internal affairs of nations around the world, we can understand how it generates the conditions where lobbyists thrive. Only then will some good come of it. Only then will we understand that undermining the First amendment right of the people to petition their government is hardly a solution to this much more serious and pervasive problem.

If we're inclined to improve conditions, we should give serious consideration to the following policy reforms, reforms the American people who cherish liberty would enthusiastically support:

1. No more "No Child Left Behind" legislation;

2. No more prescription drug programs;

3. No more undeclared wars;

4. No more nation building;

5. No more acting as the world policemen;

6. No more deficits;

7. Cut spending-everywhere;

8. No more political and partisan resolutions designed to embarrass those who may well have legitimate and honest disagreements with current policy;

9. No inferences that disagreeing with policy is unpatriotic or disloyal to the country;

10. No more pretense of budget reform while ignoring off-budget spending and the ever-growing fourteen appropriations bills;

11. Cut funding for corporate welfare, foreign aid, international NGOs, defense contractors, the military industrial complex, and rich corporate farmers before cutting welfare for the poor at home;

12. No more unconstitutional intrusions into the privacy of law-abiding American citizens;

13. Reconsider the hysterical demands for security over liberty by curtailing the ever-expanding and oppressive wars on drugs, tax violators, and gun ownership.

Finally, why not try something novel, like having Congress act as an independent and equal branch of government? Restore the principle of the separation of powers, so that we can perform our duty to provide checks and balances on an executive branch (and an accommodating judiciary) that spies on Americans, glorifies the welfare state, fights undeclared wars, and enormously increases the national debt. Congress was not meant to be a rubber stamp. It's time for a new direction.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I really would like to see the elimination of earmarks, but I suspect your are right, Maximus. I believe those of you that pointed out that we need to enforce the anti-corruption laws currently on the books are also correct.

I found this statement today by Ron Paul (R-TX), and I think he makes a very compelling argument that it is not lobbyists bribing congressmen that we should be concerned about. His primary concern is how our government is financed, and I hope the economy literate among us will chime in with their opinion.

TruthOut Link

I especially liked his 13 policy reforms.

1. No more "No Child Left Behind" legislation;

2. No more prescription drug programs;

3. No more undeclared wars;

4. No more nation building;

5. No more acting as the world policemen;

6. No more deficits;

7. Cut spending-everywhere;

8. No more political and partisan resolutions designed to embarrass those who may well have legitimate and honest disagreements with current policy;

9. No inferences that disagreeing with policy is unpatriotic or disloyal to the country;

10. No more pretense of budget reform while ignoring off-budget spending and the ever-growing fourteen appropriations bills;

11. Cut funding for corporate welfare, foreign aid, international NGOs, defense contractors, the military industrial complex, and rich corporate farmers before cutting welfare for the poor at home;

12. No more unconstitutional intrusions into the privacy of law-abiding American citizens;

13. Reconsider the hysterical demands for security over liberty by curtailing the ever-expanding and oppressive wars on drugs, tax violators, and gun ownership.

[Willravel]

That was written by a republican from Texas....there truely is hope for us all. Very well put, thanks for the link, Elphaba!

[Elphaba]

I am not familiar with him, but if I were to guess I think he leans Libertarian based upon his comments.

[aceventura3]

In general you can not legislate values. The laws of nature are the only laws that truley govern behavior.

Do we actually think that wolves guarding a hen house will pass a rule against eating chicken? Well, actually they would. If the farmer believed them, the farmer is the one truely to blame, isn't he?

People will do what is in their best interest. If we, the people, do not hold our politicians accountable for doing what we want them to do we can blame no one. We have to make sure that what is in the politician's best interest is what is in our best interest. The real problem is too much power centralized in Washington. Today the average person never gets an opportunity to even shake hands with a congress person, forget about actually talking to one. We have let the system get out of control.

[alpha phi]

I'd have to say Ron Paul is a true conservative.
Many in Washington claim to be conservative,
But deficit spending, pork barrel projects, ect.
are not conservative ideals.
Meanwhile spending cuts in education and home ownership programs
may appear conservative on the surface,
however in the long term survival of our economy
they are very important.
These cuts are also not conservative in the long run.
I appreciate Ron Paul's remarks.
I have watched him on CSPAN in the past,
and agree with much of what he has to say.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by alpha phi

I'd have to say Ron Paul is a true conservative.

Does anyone remember this?
What does conservative REALLY mean?
Agreed, whole heartedly, Alpha.

[trickyy]

here is a nice development regarding pork

http://www.townhall.com/docs/blogs/C...inEarmarks.pdf

sorry i can't copy the text...it is a letter to frist from mccain and coburn to challenge future earmarks on the floor. i think following this line will ultimately be more effective than tweaking the odd contribution rules but we'll see how it turns out.

[Rekna]

here is an idea that might help.... eliminate political parties..... think for just one second what would happen if political parties did not exist and people ran on their own beliefs and then when in congress pushed for the beliefs that they were elected for. Polititians no longer owe loyalty to some big political party who funds them. Thus we no longer have partisian issues nor do we have people blindly supporting polititians based on political party. That would be nice..... although i doubt it could ever happen.

[Elphaba]

Post #17

I found this statement today by Ron Paul (R-TX), and I think he makes a very compelling argument that it is not lobbyists bribing congressmen that we should be concerned about. His primary concern is how our government is financed, and I hope the economy literate among us will chime in with their opinion.

I actually was hopeful that true reform would occur when everyone got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. The truth is that both Dems and Repubs depend upon lobbyist cash to finance their next campaign. The reform proposals being offered are laughable, and the citizens are once again distracted. I now agree with Pan that term limits is not the answer, nor the elimination of ear marks. I don't believe we can trust our politicians as long as private money wins elections.

I can be such a hopeless Pollyanna, as many of you know. But the following article renewed my hope that we can take our government back. Small steps can make tremendous change possible. I have highlighted what I think are the important points of this article.


Link

A Culture of Corruption
By Bill Moyers
The Washington Spectator

Saturday 01 April 2006

Let's save our democracy by getting money out of politics.

Money is choking our democracy to death. Our elections are bought out from under us and our public officials are doing the bidding of mercenaries. So powerful is the hold of wealth on politics that we cannot say America is working for all Americans. The majority may support such broad social goals as affordable medical coverage for all, decent wages for working people, safe working conditions, a secure retirement, and clean air and water, but there is no government "of, by, and for the people" to deliver on those aspirations.

Our system of privately financed campaigns has shut regular people out of any meaningful participation in democracy. Less than one-half of one percent of all Americans made a political contribution of $200 or more to a federal candidate in 2004. When the average cost of winning a seat in the House of Representatives has topped $1 million, we can no longer refer to that chamber as "The People's House." Congress belongs to the highest bidder.

At the same time that the cost of getting elected is exploding beyond the reach of ordinary people, the business of influencing our elected representatives has become a growth industry. Since President Bush was elected the number of registered lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled. That's 16,342 lobbyists in 2000 and 34,785 last year: 65 lobbyists for every member of Congress. The total spent per month by special interests wining, dining, and seducing federal officials is now nearly $200 million. Per month.

Numbers don't tell the whole story. With pro-corporate officials running both the executive and legislative branches, lobbying that was once reactive has sallied forth to buy huge chunks of public policy. One example: In 2004 the computer maker Hewlett-Packard sought Republican-backed legislation that would enable it to bring back to the United States, at a dramatically lowered tax rate, as much as $14.5 billion in profits from foreign subsidiaries. The company nearly doubled its budget for contract lobbyists and took on an elite lobbying firm as its Washington arm. Presto! The legislation passed. The company's director of government affairs was quite candid: "We're trying to take advantage of the fact that Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House."

Greed Without Apologies

I am an equal opportunity muckraker. Anyone who saw the documentary my team and I produced on the illegal fund-raising for Bill Clinton's re-election knows I am no fan of the Democratic money-machine that helped tear away the party from whatever roots it had in the struggles of working people. But today the Republicans own the government lock, stock, and barrel. And they have turned their self-proclaimed revolution into a cash cow.

Look back at the bulk of legislation passed by Congress in the past decade: an energy bill that gives oil companies huge tax breaks at the same time that ExxonMobil has just posted $36.13 billion in profits and our gasoline and home heating bills are at an all-time high; a bankruptcy "reform" bill written by credit card companies to make it harder for poor debtors to escape the burdens of divorce or medical catastrophe; the deregulation of the banking, securities and insurance sectors, which brought on rampant corporate malfeasance and greed and the destruction of the retirement plans of millions of small investors; the deregulation of the telecommunications sector, which led to cable industry price-gouging and an undermining of news coverage; protection for rampant overpricing of pharmaceutical drugs; and the blocking of even the mildest attempt to prevent American corporations from dodging an estimated $50 billion in annual taxes by opening a P.O. box in an off-shore tax haven like the Cayman Islands.

In every case the results were produced by rivers of cash flowing to favored politicians from interests whose return on their investment put Wall Street equities to shame. This happens because our public representatives need huge sums to finance their campaigns, especially to pay for television advertising. The masters of the money game have taken advantage of that weakness in our democracy to turn our elections into auctions.

A Walk Down K Street

It's the Wall Street of lobbying, the address of many of Washington's biggest lobbying firms. The "K Street Project" - the most successful shakedown operation since the first Gilded Age - was the brainchild of Representative Tom DeLay and Grover Norquist, the right-wing strategist who famously said that his goal is to shrink government so that it can be "drowned in a bathtub" (when, finally, it will be too impotent to protect democracy from plunder and powerless citizens from the rapacity of corporate power). For his part, Tom DeLay ran a pest exterminating business in Sugar Land, Texas, where he hated government regulators who dared to tell him that some of the pesticides he used were dangerous. He got himself elected to the Texas legislature at a time when the Republicans were becoming the majority in the once-solid Democratic South, and early in his new career "Hot Tub Tom," as he was known in Austin, became a born-again Christian.

In addition to finding Jesus, Tom DeLay discovered the power of money to drive his career. By raising more than $2 million from lobbyists and business groups and distributing it to dozens of Republican candidates in 1994, the year of the Republican breakthrough in the House, DeLay bought the loyalty of many freshmen legislators who helped elect him Majority Whip, the House's number three man.

He wasted no time in inviting lobbyists to write the Republican agenda. Their first priority was "Project Relief" - "relief" from labor standards that protected workers from the physical injuries of repetitive work, "relief" from tougher rules on meat inspection, "relief" from effective monitoring of hazardous air pollutants. Scores of companies were soon adding one juicy and expensive tidbit after another. On the eve of the debate, according to Michael Weisskopf and David Maraniss of the Washington Post, 20 major corporate groups advised lawmakers that "this was a key vote, one that would be considered in future campaign contributions."

The Machine was off and running. As then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich famously told the lobbyists: "If you are going to play in our revolution, you have to live by our rules." The rules were simple enough. Contribute to Republicans only. Hire only Republicans as lobbyists (priority preference: DeLay's own staff). Centralize the power to write legislation in the hands of the party bosses (assisted by hovering lobbyists). Allow no amendments. Produce bills in secret. Permit members no time to read them. Pass important bills late at night. Avoid compromise by banning Democrats from conference committees. Give lobbyists and campaign contributors what they want.

While examples abound of how the rules stacked the deck, consider one: the Medicare prescription coverage bill. Enacted after midnight, its hundreds and hundreds of pages unintelligible to anyone but lobbyists, the legislation enriched the pharmaceutical and insurance companies while giving senior citizens and taxpayers the shaft.

The Money Man

DeLay, who had announced that God had chosen him to return American to a "biblical worldview," needed help to sustain the cash flow necessary for spreading the Gospel of Greed. He found it in a fellow right-wing ideologue named Jack Abramoff, who personified the K-Street money-machine of which DeLay, with the blessing of his party's leaders, was the major-domo. It was Abramoff who helped DeLay raise those millions of dollars from campaign donors to create the base for an empire of corruption.

Abramoff has now pleaded guilty to fraud, tax evasion, and conspiracy to bribe public officials. It's a spectacular fall for a man whose rise to power began in his school days with his election as chairman of the College Republicans. Despite its innocuous name, the organization became a political attack machine for the far right and a launching pad for younger conservatives on the make.

"Our job," Abramoff, then 22 years old, wrote after his first visit to the Reagan White House, "is to remove liberals from power permanently. . . ." (He would later acknowledge that his agenda also included moving K Street closer to the Republican Party.) Karl Rove had once held the same job as chairman. So did Grover Norquist, who ran Abramoff's campaign. A youthful $200-a-month intern named Ralph Reed was at their side. These were the rising young stars of the conservative movement who came to town to lead a revolution and stayed to run a racket.

Casino Royale

Abramoff made his name, so to speak, representing Indian tribes and their gambling interests. As his partner he hired a DeLay crony named Michael Scanlon. Together they would bilk half a dozen tribes who hired them to protect their gambling interests from competition. What the two men had to offer, of course, was their connections to the Republican power structure, including members of Congress, friends at the White House (Abramoff's personal assistant became the personal assistant of Karl Rove), Christian Right activists like Reed, and right-wing ideologues like Norquist. The network hummed smoothly for its inside traders - as, for example, when two lobbying clients of Abramoff paid $25,000 to Norquist's organization, Americans for Tax Reform, for lunch at the White House and a meeting with President Bush in May 2001, according to the Texas Observer.

In a scheme they called "Gimme Five." Abramoff would refer tribes to Scanlon for grassroots public-relations work, and Scanlon would then kick back about 50 percent to Abramoff, all without the tribes' knowledge. Before it was over, the tribes had paid the two lobbyists $82 million, much of it going directly into Abramoff's and Scanlon's pockets. And that doesn't count the thousands more that Abramoff directed the tribes to pay out in campaign contributions.

Some of the money found its way into an outfit called the Council of Republicans for Environment Advocacy, founded by Gale Norton before she was appointed to run the Department of the Interior, which - surprise! surprise! - is the agency most responsible for Indian gaming rights. Some went to so-called charities, set up by Abramoff and DeLay, that filtered money for lavish trips for members of Congress and their staffs, as well as salaries for Congressional family members and DeLay's pet projects.

And some of the money found its way to the Holy High Rollers of the Christian Right. Ralph Reed, for one, had his hand out. Reed had become the religious right's poster boy against gambling ("We believe gambling is a cancer on the American body politic," he had said). Now Abramoff and Scanlon would pay Reed some $4 million to help them protect their own gaming interests. His assignment was to whip up Christian opposition to gambling initiatives that could cut into the profits of Abramoff's clients.

Reed enlisted some of the brightest stars in the Christian firmament in a ruse conducted on Abramoff's behalf: they would oppose gambling on religious and moral grounds in strategic places at decisive moments when competition threatened Abramoff's clients. Bogus Christian groups were part of the strategy. A gaggle of influential Baptist preachers in Texas danced to Reed's fiddling. Folks in Louisiana heard the voice of God on the radio - performed by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson - thundering against a riverboat gambling scheme that Abramoff feared would jeopardize the profits of a client. Reed even got James Dobson, whose nationwide radio "ministry" reaches millions of people (and whose videos helped Tom DeLay find Jesus) to deluge the Interior Department and White House with telephone calls from indignant Christians.

Abramoff arranged for the Mississippi Choctaws, who were trying to stave off competition from other tribes, to contribute over $1 million to Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, which then passed the money along to the Alabama Christian Coalition and to another anti-gambling group Reed had duped into aiding the cause. It is unclear how much these Christian soldiers knew about the true purpose of their crusade, but Reed knew all along that his money was coming from Abramoff. The e-mails between the two men read like a modern version of Elmer Gantry.

As reported by the Washington Post and National Journal, some of Abramoff's money from lobbying went to start a non-profit organization called the US Family Network, founded with the help of a top aide to Tom DeLay while he was still in DeLay's employ (his salary at the time paid by - you guessed it - taxpayers). DeLay even wrote a fundraising letter in its behalf. The group announced that its purpose was to promote policies favorable for "families, the economic prosperity, social improvement, moral fitness, and general well being of the United States," and its fund-raising screeds warned that the American family "is being attacked from all sides: crime, drugs, pornography . . . and gambling." But its first donation came from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, followed by other Abramoff clients who couldn't care less about the professed moral agenda.

The US Family Network turns out to be another scam in the Abramoff-DeLay money laundering machine. Its money paid for attack ads on Democrats, bought a townhouse three blocks from DeLay's Congressional quarters, providing him with free office space where he could go to raise funds for the Machine, and awarded DeLay's wife a sizable salary.

But that's the least of it. Working with Abramoff through a now defunct law firm in London and an obscure offshore company in the Bahamas, oil and gas executives from Russia used the US Family Network to funnel money to influence Tom DeLay, then-majority leader of the House of Representatives. A Christian pastor recruited to serve as the titular president of the organization was told by DeLay's sidekick that $1 million was passed through from sources in Russia who wanted DeLay's support for legislation enabling the International Monetary Fund to bail out the faltering Russian economy without demanding new taxes on the country's energy industry. Lo and behold, there was Tom Delay, appearing on an obliging Fox News television show, arguing the Russian position. The rueful pastor who was the organization's nominal head said he was told, "This is the way things work in Washington."

'Reform' Talk Fizzles

The Republican leaders would have us believe this is just a "lobbying scandal." They assume that if they pass a few minor reforms to put a little distance between the politician and the lobbyist, we will think everything is okay and they can go back to business as usual. Just look at Congressman John Boehner, elected to replace Tom DeLay as House Majority Leader. He's been a full player in the K Street Project and DeLay's money machine. The top lobbyists in town frequent his office. He thinks nothing of cruising with them in the Caribbean or of hopping on corporate jets arranged by them. This is the man who ten years ago moved around the floor of the House - the "People's House" - handing out checks from tobacco executives.

As for Tom Delay? He is under indictment in Texas for money laundering and had to resign as Majority Leader. But just the other day the party bosses gave him a seat on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, where big contributors get their rewards. And - are you ready for this? - they put him on the subcommittee overseeing the budget of the Justice Department, which is investigating the Abramoff scandal, including Abramoff's connections to DeLay. I'm not making this up. It's business as usual. Rotten business as usual.

I have touched on only a few of the astonishing details pouring out about the sacking of Washington. The corrupting power of money in politics is an old story. This time is different, because in a one-party government the opposition is impotent and the corporate media, with a few notable exceptions, have bought into the notion that this is "just the way Washington works." Already the calls for reform are fading away.

Clean Elections

You may say, "What can we do about it? These forces are too rich, too powerful, too entrenched to be defeated." Maybe. But if others had given up before us, blacks would still be three-fifths of a person, women wouldn't have the vote, workers couldn't organize, and children would still be working in the mines. It's time to fight again. These people in Washington have no right to be doing what they are doing. It's not their government, it's your government. They work for you, and if they let you down and sell you out, they should be fired. That goes for everyone, from the lowliest bureaucrat in town to the senior leaders of Congress on up to the president of the United States. The stakes are too high for us to give up.

Fortunately, there is something we can do. A movement is gathering across the country that could restore democracy to a country run by money. It's the "clean money" campaign for the public funding of our elections. Maine led the way in 2000. Arizona followed suit. So have several municipalities, including Portland, Oregon, and Albuquerque, New Mexico. Races are more competitive and attract a more diverse group of candidates.

No sooner had Janet Napolitano been elected governor of Arizona under the state's public financing program than she instituted reforms establishing low-cost prescription drug subsidies for seniors. There have also been advances in Maine in providing low-cost prescription drugs for residents. Why? Because the politicians write the legislation, not the lobbyists.

Look what happened in Connecticut last year, a state rocked by multiple political scandals. People decided to break the link between big donors and public officials. By December the legislature had passed clean-money reform, banning campaign contributions from lobbyists and state contractors. Connecticut is the first state where the legislature and governor have approved full public funding for their own races. In thirty other states clean-money campaigns are also forming. (You can find out more about the movement at the website of Public Campaign.)

While public funding won't solve all the problems - the Abramoffs and DeLays of the world will always find ways to abuse the public trust - it would go a long way toward restoring the hope of government "of, by, and for the people." Even some business lobbyists are having second thoughts. Business Week recently quoted one of them as saying: "As a conservative, I've always opposed government involvement. But it seems to me the real answer is federal financing of Congressional elections."

Just think: For about $10 per taxpayer, per year, we, the people, could buy back our politicians in Congress and the White House with full public funding. But time is running out. Unless we offer qualified candidates a different source of campaign funding with clean, disinterested and accountable public money, the selling of America will go on, and we will wake up one day in a country we no longer recognize.

Just think about it. Every one of us could take the step needed to return our government to the "people." Everything begins locally.

[Elphaba]

More change happening at the state and local level:

Link

Vermont Democrats Call for Bush Impeachment
Reuters

Saturday 08 April 2006

Randolph, Vermont - Democratic Party leaders in Vermont on Saturday passed a motion asking Congress to immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

In an elementary school cafeteria strewn with American flags and copies of the US Constitution, some 100 state party officials agreed to make the request to the US House of Representatives.

"You know in your own hearts and minds that something is terribly wrong in this country," said Margaret Lucenti, a Democrat from Vermont's capital Montpelier.

The measure asks the Republican-controlled House to pass articles of impeachment against Bush for misleading the nation on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and engaging in illegal wiretapping, among other charges.

Democratic state committees in Wisconsin, New Mexico, Nevada and North Carolina have taken similar steps.

With a population of just 621,000 - only Wyoming has fewer people - the rural New England state is considered far left of mainstream American politics.

Last month residents of the Puritan-founded town of Newfane passed a resolution calling for the Republican president's impeachment. Since then at least six other Vermont towns have followed suit.

In 1999, more than two dozen towns called for a reduction in nuclear weapons. In 1974, one Vermont town meeting drew national attention when officials voted to seek the impeachment of then-President Richard Nixon.

"This is far bigger than a fringe movement on the left," said Dan DeWalt, a 49-year-old woodworker who drafted the Newfane impeachment resolution. "Vermont has a long tradition of speaking out on issues beyond our borders."

Vermont is certainly a feisty little state. I see impeachment as a valid, but short term solution to the many problems with our government. Any New Englanders here with an opinion?