Can Congress Be Saved from Its Own Greed?
Charlie Rangel’s ethics situation reminds me of a story my grandfather told about a customer of his grocery store. When grandfather’s back was turned, the man plucked a grape from the display and popped it into his mouth.
“From then on, in my mind, he was a common thief,” Grandpa said. He said two things came to his mind. It was only one grape. It belonged to another. It was the second thought that stuck in his craw. The man damned himself in my grandfather’s eyes, for the sake of one grape. “A thief’s a thief whether it’s a grape or a bundle or a truckload of them.”
He was of Truman’s vintage. I believe he would have enjoyed anecdotes that claimed Truman bought his own stamps for his letters to Bess from the White House.
I cannot say or suggest the rumors about Rangel are true. Did he let corporations pay for his trips to Caribbean conferences? Did he take advantage of his position to park a car for free for a lengthy period? Did he push legislation that favored donors to his charity? Did he make improper use of four rent-controlled apartments? Did he fail to report assets and income to authorities as required by law?
Yes, there is a lot of smoke. But we may never know. His lawyers may or may not work out a deal before his trial in September. He may admit to some infraction and walk away from accusations.
Of course, he joins a long list of politicians accused of theft petty and large over the years. Many landed in jail. It was in contemplation of some of them that brought my grandfather’s story to mind.
From time to time corruption in Washington grows so obvious the pols set up a commission to tell them what is honest and what is not. The commission lists the things they can and cannot accept from lobbyists and friends. It will set dollar limits on items. Politicians will swear to abide by the restrictions. Influence buyers will search for loopholes before the rules are printed.
In my twenties I sat at a meeting of my company’s salespeople. Their discussion swung to expense accounts. This was before credit cards were so widely used. One man said he never put down the full cost of dinners because he ate a lot. He put some of the dinner charges on his breakfast and lunch expenses. Another put down the same amount for meals every day rather than keep track of each meal.
After he heard a number of these strategies, the boss asked: “When you write up your expenses, why don’t you just tell the truth?” By the looks on the faces I guessed this was a new thought for many of them.
We know our politicians accept favors. We know they come up with convoluted systems to disguise the gifts. We know they make sure their fingerprints rarely appear on them. We have heard their glib explanations for sweetheart mortgages and junkets. We have heard them claim that what they received, or took, or extorted was picayune, or taken innocently. None of this differs in nature from nicking a grape or five bucks for a lunch they never ate. A crook is a crook is a crook. Ask a million or a dollar for giving sex and you become a hooker.
It’s simple. Public servants need to be guided by the notion of being good stewards of the public’s money and trust.
That said, most are bought long before they ever reach national office, and they see throwing the public’s money around as simply “greasing the wheels”. Take Barney Frank, for instance. He has no qualms about spending billions and trillions, but he squealed like a pig when he was denied a $1 senior discount at some gay shindig with his “partner”. It only has value when it’s coming out of their own pockets, and they scratch their heads when the public complains when it’s coming out of theirs. Legislators routinely exempt themselves from the same rules they pass for “the little people” to fold under. They get a pass on blatant tax dodging when they should be hauled off to jail, pleading only ignorance, or the machinations of a program like TurboTax to fail to correctly calculate taxes owed.
Anyone who thinks, that in the end, Charlie will face any serious consequences from his deeds is living in LaLa Land. He knows it, we know it and that is what is so infuriating to a lot of us.
!
I don’t know why anyone is surprised. It seems one cannot be in Washington politics and be honest.
Simple, term limits. Also, no golden parachute when your term is up.( Tax payers not responsible for your salary and health care )
I forgot, these are “small people” realities, not those of the ruling elite.
And so the little pot that could called the big, bad kettle black.
A nation consumed with desire, greed and lust; one that is obsessed with instant self-gratification with everything from cars and boats to sleeping with their neighbor’s wives and daughters – a nation absent of God by its own will, now demands that it can pleasure itself with politicians that are as pure and white as fresh driven snow.
Frank love’s to squeal like a pig that he is.Would love to see his head on the chopping block.
“Our congress people are blessed and cursed with the same genes the Watergate Attorney General John Mitchell was.”
I find it curious that you chose Gen. Mitchell instead of Holder as your example of corruption. Sure he was corrupt but in not using Holder as your example you are giving the impression Holder is NOT corrupt.
That is an example of your moral equivalency. The, “both sides are equally guilty of corruption” mantra. Well they are not both equally guilty. Only one side has had the MSM defending them for 70 years while going out of their way exposing the other. Look at how the MSM has covered for Rangel. And he will be re-elected by his constituents. Further testimony to how we have become a dumbed-down society.
Blotto,
Two points: 1. Remember, at this point in the article, I am writing about the Reciprocation Tendency Charlie Munger writes about, not strictly about corruption. Attorney General Mitchell fell victim to this tendency and by giving the nod to the burglars began what became the avalanche of Watergate. 2. Omitting Attorney General Holder (or indeed, anyone) from an article hardly suggests moral equivalency on my part.
Tom Morgan
I believe that all the law-writing and regulations are a great part of the problem of “favors”. A business is in the business of making money to survive. If the regs the government has shackled businesses with will put them out of business, the business is going to do what it must to survive. So, many businesses lobby Congressmen to exempt them in some way or the other from the regulations. And when they lobby they are forming relationships, “you scratch my back…”, etc. It really is a brothel in Washington – Congressmen selling their vote to the highest bidder, and selling their souls and our country at the same time.
Until a lot of laws are taken off the books and we get back to Constitutional governance nationally (aka limited government), we will suffer from this corruption.
Until the punishment fits the crime and the message is sent that stealing will not be tolerated, this behavior will continue. Betrayal of the public trust should be a capital offense. People have, and continue to die because of political corruption. And, it is obvious that government employees and “public servants” cannot be trusted to police themselves. We have no role models – anywhere.
I agree with your statement, that as long as we remain under a Progressive administration, felon criminals, that are ile long politicians, such as Charlie Rangel will flash their crimes in our faces, without fear of prosecution or even being sent out of Congress, even by the people!! This is a true travesty, and proves why term limits should be enacted. Rangel has been calm as a cucumber through this and didn’t even attend yesterday, as he knew he had no true defense of the criminal wrongdoing, even though he said the day before, he looked forward to clearing his name!! what a JERK!!!
It’s like the Keystone Cops turned Mafia; Rangel is displaying, for anyone paying attention, that he knew what he was doing was criminal, and unethical. He expects to step away from this thievery a little embarrassed, that’s all. And he’ll keep all his government benefits and retirement.
He also knew that he could ‘make a deal’ with whomever would press him on his transgressions.
Given his status and longevity as the leader of the House Ways and Means Committee, he should be sentenced to prison and stripped of any government benefits due him for his crimes.
This man was educated in handling money, and he had his chance to handle his own, and The Peoples, and failed.
He is nothing but a common criminal, and should be treated as one.
As long as we remain under the Progressive constitution, the Charlie Rangels will continue, in either party. Most of what the national government, and now state, government does is rent-seeking and rent-extraction. With hundreds of billions of dollars worth of privileges up sale, why are we surprised?
As the SF author John Brunner described one of his characters:
‘A clapped-out old fart, with little left to lose, and
not much time to regret it.’
Throw the Bums out, now.
Tom,
Didn’t realize we had the same grandfather! Guess Rangels could have used a person like that also. Of course, politicians tend to be hard of hearing, (ask their constituents), which often leads to a hearing.
Sheila Dixon, Baltimore’s former Mayor was canned for spending tens of thousands of dollars of gift cards on herself and boyfriend which were intended for the needy.
This t urd Rangel has done FAR more indiscretions through the 4 + decades (BTW, what’s the difference between a career politician and a lifetime welfare recipient? I’m being completely serious.) of encouraging his black majority district to further succumb to Government handouts. In essence, encouraging the further destruction of the ‘American’ way.
Anything less than jail time, loss of ALL benes would be inappropriate.
I know, ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and all – but this ‘Representative’ is blatantly guilty..
The short answer to the question posed by the title here is “No!” In order to run for office (particularly for Congress) you have to sell your soul to someone in order to secure the rivers of cash necessary to support your candidacy. Either that or you are already rich when you start and look on an affluent and privileged existence as simply your due. Nancy Pelosi and her private jet is a typical example.
Then there is the question of character. Modern politicians are almost by definition narcissists who love to see their images endlessly reflected back on them by the omnipresent media. [Take the example of the late Robert Byrd. What sort of neurotic needs to see his name and viasage on nearly every project in his home state?] They are all surrounded by large and fawning staffs who compete furiously to satisfy the every whim of the “chief.”
I could go on but, given this environment, it is amazing when a senator or congressman is NOT some some sort of a sociopath. I know several young politicians in my home town and you can just see it in their eyes and hear it in their voices. They absolutely lust for the money, power, recognition and status that come from high office. They will do anything to serve their ambition and their narcissistic natures will continuously reassure them that anything that they do is all OK. Ther is no little guy in their chariot whispering to them “You are only a man…You are only a man.” That poor schnook got thrown out of the vehicle a long way back.
Only Income Tax Payers should be allowed to vote, skin in the game so to speak, boy, would that change things in a hurry!
I do know, only our guns, will save us from Congress. The voting booth is hardly sacred anymore.
And only freedom comes at the business end of a gun….and it also keeps men honest.
Grandpa was a tough old bird and Sam Walton a wise old man but making it illegal for people elected to public office to accept gifts or favors from lobbyists is expecting a suspension of the laws of human nature.
A better approach (maybe) might be to consider paying these guys an executives salary for some limited amount of time; sought of an inducement for limited tenure. Appropriate levels could be established just as it is in any other business; more pay for more responsibility, more responsibility based on relevant experience. What would it cost the taxpayer if the average elected Federal Government official earned $2 million per year? Outrageous, you say! If you consider all the members of Congress, 435 in the House, 100 in the Senate plus the Vice President and the President, 537 in all: 537 X $2,000,000 = $1.074 billion. What to do about all the other lucrative perks, health care, golden parachute – lifetime retirement, etc. would need to be worked out but how much would $1.1 billion return in the form of the elimination of all these sweetheart deals negotiated and paid for by the so called special interests when the government budget numbers being thrown around daily are in the hundreds of billions?
At these executive salary levels Sam Walton’s admonishments against the acceptance of “gifts” would have a much better chance of success and the inevitable and necessary appeals for taxpayer dollars might actually be allocated on a merit basis rather than on who applies the most grease.
This is admittedly a simplistic scenario but perhaps one worthy of more serious consideration. Voters would have to get over the envy factor instilled by the Democrats in their constant harangue based on Class Warfare. The typical voter apparently has no problem with the multi-million dollar salaries collected annually by major entertainment and sports figures who arguably have absolutely no responsibility for the health and well being of the nation. On that basis, given the awesome responsibility placed on the shoulders of our elected officials, how difficult would it be to convince the electorate that the people they send to Washington ought to be similarly, if not equally, compensated?
Patriotism and love of country are admirable, desirable traits, in all Americans but these qualities in and of themselves do not put food on the table nor entice the most intelligent, ambitious and courageous among us, those who exude the qualities of leadership, to eagerly seek the awesome responsibilities mentioned above. What are the most evident characteristics of those prominent in Washington now with a job performance rating from the people they serve currently at 11%? Thoroughly incompetent with absolutely no understanding of and in many cases experience in, the private sector or the all important international affairs and obsessed with the narcissistic notion that they are the be all and end all to every problem. To be blunt, as a group, too stupid to know their own limitations.
In my view enticement to enter Government service at the Federal level must consist of more than just an appeal to a noble desire to serve. There must be commensurate compensation. We should take that lesson from the private sector. No individual of any commercial value in said sector is motivated to seek positions with significant responsibility based on purely altruistic considerations. Consider it greed, evil, pick your favorite adjective but it’s inherent in our guiding principle of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. People without it derisively call it a “love of money.” I call it a love of the security and freedom from want money, properly managed, can buy. Love em or hate em the folks with it employ a lot of the folks struggling for the same brass ring or whatever piece of it they can get.
I’ve wandered a bit off topic but hope you get the drift.
Just random, spurious thoughts people……..I’m no guru on any of this so have at it.
Grandpa was a tough old bird and Sam Walton a wise old man but making it illegal for people elected to public office to accept gifts or favors from lobbyists is expecting a suspension of the laws of human nature.
A better approach (maybe) might be to consider paying these guys an executives salary for some limited amount of time; sought of an inducement for limited tenure. Appropriate levels could be established just as it is in any other business; more pay for more responsibility, more responsibility based on relevant experience. What would it cost the taxpayer if the average elected Federal Government official earned $2 million per year? Outrageous, you say! If you consider all the members of Congress, 435 in the House, 100 in the Senate plus the Vice President and the President, 537 in all: 537 X $2,000,000 = $1.074 billion. What to do about all the other lucrative perks, health care, golden parachute – lifetime retirement, etc. would need to be worked out but how much would $1.1 billion return in the form of the elimination of all these sweetheart deals negotiated and paid for by the so called special interests when the government budget numbers being thrown around daily are in the hundreds of billions?
At these executive salary levels Sam Walton’s admonishments against the acceptance of “gifts” would have a much better chance of success and the inevitable and necessary appeals for taxpayer dollars might actually be allocated on a merit basis rather than on who applies the most grease.
This is admittedly a simplistic scenario but perhaps one worthy of more serious consideration. Voters would have to get over the envy factor instilled by the Democrats in their constant harangue based on Class Warfare. The typical voter apparently has no problem with the multi-million dollar salaries collected annually by major entertainment and sports figures who arguably have absolutely no responsibility for the health and well being of the nation. On that basis, given the awesome responsibility placed on the shoulders of our elected officials, how difficult would it be to convince the electorate that the people they send to Washington ought to be similarly, if not equally, compensated?
Patriotism and love of country are admirable, desirable traits, in all Americans but these qualities in and of themselves do not put food on the table nor entice the most intelligent, ambitious and courageous among us, those who exude the qualities of leadership, to eagerly seek the awesome responsibilities mentioned above. What are the most evident characteristics of those prominent in Washington now with a job performance rating from the people they serve currently at 11%? Thoroughly incompetent with absolutely no understanding of and in many cases experience in, the private sector or the all important international affairs and obsessed with the narcissistic notion that they are the be all and end all to every problem. To be blunt, as a group, too stupid to know their own limitations.
In my view enticement to enter Government service at the Federal level must consist of more than just an appeal to a noble desire to serve. There must be commensurate compensation. We should take that lesson from the private sector. No individual of any commercial value in said sector is motivated to seek positions with significant responsibility based on purely altruistic considerations. Consider it greed, evil, pick your favorite adjective but it’s inherent in our guiding principle of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. People without it derisively call it a “love of money.” I call it a love of the security and freedom from want money, properly managed, can buy. Love em or hate em the folks with it employ a lot of the folks struggling for the same brass ring or whatever piece of it they can get.
I’ve wandered a bit off topic but hope you get the drift.
Just random, spurious thoughts people……..I’m no guru on any of this so have at it.
We can never hope to keep members of Congress honest. I believe that all politicians (with very VERY few exceptions) find the opportunity to enrich themselves from the public treasuries to be irresistible. Also, the power of the office becomes their drug, their crack- and we are left with pompous self-involved bloviating gasbags instead of public servants.
TERM LIMITS is the only way. Politicians will always be filthy competing pigs at a trough- we need a mechanism to at LEAST keep the line moving, so that perhaps ONE DAY- PLEASE LORD- we my find an honest politician who puts HIS OR HER CIVIC DUTY ahead of lining their pockets with ill-gotten greed and wallowing in gin and hookers.
Democrats are elected to take from those who earn and give to those who don’t. The latter are aware of the dubious morality of the “redistribution”, and thus do not engage in the hypocrisy of examining too closely the morality of their legislators own dealings. There is honor among thieves!
I think, the perks of office lures some people to run for Congress. That is why term limits are needed, and a no nonsense clause for ANYONE committing an infraction. The hiding of misdeeds, is prevalent in both parties. It has to stop, if we want to keep America safe and solvent {HA! to late for that.} The pensions Congress receives, are not in line with the average citizen. If you think, they serve due to their high intelligence- THINK AGAIN! They are elected, by party machines, along with their ability to lie to the public. I also think Congress, should be subject to a mandatory retirement age. To see Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd being wheeled into the Senate chambers was unbelievable. I heard the Thurmond didn’t even know what day it was. His aides acted in his behalf. We have to elect, men and woman of integrity and honor, an who have a strong commitment to the rule of law and Country. We have allowed ourselves to be hoodwinked far too many times. Vote wisely on November 2,2010 and do your homework on the candidates. It’s the only hope we have to regain what we have lost, due to deeds of those who fail to hear our voices.
Please send the Pajamas Media “guidelines” to Mr. Rangel and all members of Congress. Thank you Tom Morgan.
Darryl
Since politicians are unwilling or unable to keep themselves honest we must GRIP get rid of incumbent politicians at every level of government. We must churn them at every election until they realize they work for us.
How can we expect politicians to be honest when the whole country is consumed with greed? Corporate lobbies (oil companies,insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies…) all buy candidates and keep their men in power. Who loses? The average citizen who pays taxes and is fed medications that keep you hooked, foods that make you fat so you’ll have all the diseases to keep the insurance companies rolling in money, and oil instead of green energy so our young men can die in the deserts of our enemies.
How can we expect honest service from the people we elect to office?
They took an oath, the same oath that a newly made private takes, and the same oath that the Presidant takes. We can ensure performance by holding them to that oath.
For national level politicians holding elective office, for Executive Branch political appointees, violation of that oath should result in capital punishment.
How many Charlie Rangles, or Maxine Waters, or Duke Cunninghams, or John Kerrys would be dissuaded from holding public office if they knew that their acts of corruption and treason could get them tried and convicted, not by a congressional whaitewashing committee, but by a court having the authority to hand down a death sentence as one of the possible outcomes of a guilty verdict?
I don’t think these are risk takers, folks. They only go for the sure thing.
The most egregious crime that can be committed by a so-called public servant is the violation of the public trust. In other words, to be an oath breaker.
Earlier this year, in a fit of misguided anger, I thought about filing and organizing a run for a US congressional district in Oregon.
When I realized how many bargins,compromises, promises and relationships would have to be made, before being elected, I gave up. The corruption and cynicism of even getting a campaign manager was more than I could stomach. Its not just that “if you get in a mud fight, you will get dirty;” its that even the act of preparing to get into a mud fight will get you dirty.
The only easy way I can think of to reverse this corruption is via dilution.
If we could somehow make it so that there were 2,000-2500 Congressmen, rather than 435. no one, and no thing could have that much influence over legislation. No one would waste $1-2 million, even for committee chairmen, trying to buy just one vote, if the votes were on the order of 1,024 to 1,240.