A June 21st USA Today story – “Legislators Trek On Private Dime” – revealed that nonprofits and special interests have so far spent 73 percent more during the first quarter of 2010 for congressional travel and trip expenses than in the first quarter of 2009. According to the story, 24 trips to places like Spain and Israel, wives often included, were paid for with $435,000 in private funds. One would think there is a bustling economy and nothing to work on in Washington these days.
Rather than recognize a potential conflict, many elected legislators work harder to justify the taking of gifts rather than to support laws against it. Voters question objectivity when morality is shaded the color of money. When they run afoul of public scrutiny, Congress blusters a little for show. Sometimes they even admonish someone as a token gesture. Usually, however, before the gavel dust settles, everyone’s moved on to another source of gift taking. Another cookie jar.
If you ask anyone giving or receiving the trip packages, they argue it’s for the purest of reasons. Representative Michael Burgess, for example, took a $7981 trip this year to Spain. He also took seven trips in 2009. He told USA Today, “None of the trips were done for pleasure. The other option is take trips at taxpayer expense and that would obviously raise concerns for people as well.” That reasoning, however, ignores the most obvious option. Don’t take the trip at all. With a staff to research, the Internet as a resource, and options such as gotomeeting.com, is the risk of outside influence excusable? There really are options other than to travel and dine first class at the bequest of professional influence peddlers.
Everybody knows a legislator’s weakness. It’s free goods or services. Cookie jars. Sometimes the gratuity cookie jar is labeled private funds, like a “trip” or “seminar.” Sometimes it’s a public funds jar. The stimulus package cookie jar has been hot lately. Sometimes the jar is labeled “campaign donations” or “speaking fees”. Very often it’s favored treatment, insider loans of low or no interests. Sometimes it’s good old cash. Congress is addicted, but like most addicts they won’t admit they have a problem.
In 2006 Congress passed travel reform. This form of influence actually decreased from $5 million in private money for lawmaker trips in 2006, to $3.5 million in 2008. Things even stayed cool for a while with folks like Charlie Rangel drawing admonishments for taking Caribbean trips in 2007 and 2008. But this spigot was not turned completely off and like a dripping faucet, the intensity is once again increasing.
The problem with piecemeal reform is, it doesn’t work. The gratuity industry needs to be halted. Our elected leaders should not be extended gratuities in any form. Before his conviction, the money Jack Abromoff filtered reached 81 Senators and 227 House representatives. And he’s a drop in the bucket, one of 13,746 registered lobbyists.
Lobbyists spent $3.49 billion in 2009, all of which is to influence judgments. That arrangement in a government designed to represent the interests of its citizens is never appropriate.
Deficit spending is a pretty obvious sign that the judgment of our governing representatives is questionable. The best solution is to vote against any incumbent who votes for spending, regardless of the bought and paid for justification. We’re beyond broke. We’re 14 trillion in debt. Conversely we need to vote for any representative who votes to reduce spending. Right now that’s not many representatives.
If cleaning house means changing out every member of Congress every two and four year election cycle, so be it. We should continue changing incumbents until they realize outside influences can’t keep them in Congress, but only voters can.
For those who decry that the constant change means that nothing will get done politically, my reply is, that’s a lot better than the wrong thing getting done repeatedly. As long as our representatives resemble lobbyist lap dogs, getting nothing done is progress.
Sadly we have the best Congress money can buy. That’s what we need to change the most.
About the author
William Burton wrote 26 articles on this blog.
A political junkie with a home spun view of politics, passionately conservative. Published writer (short stories, political essays, poems), and public speaker. Profiled in, "The Ridiculous Race" by Steve Heely.
Legislators Defend Free Trips To Spain
A June 21st USA Today story – “Legislators Trek On Private Dime” – revealed that nonprofits and special interests have so far spent 73 percent more during the first quarter of 2010 for congressional travel and trip expenses than in the first quarter of 2009. According to the story, 24 trips to places like Spain and Israel, wives often included, were paid for with $435,000 in private funds. One would think there is a bustling economy and nothing to work on in Washington these days.
Rather than recognize a potential conflict, many elected legislators work harder to justify the taking of gifts rather than to support laws against it. Voters question objectivity when morality is shaded the color of money. When they run afoul of public scrutiny, Congress blusters a little for show. Sometimes they even admonish someone as a token gesture. Usually, however, before the gavel dust settles, everyone’s moved on to another source of gift taking. Another cookie jar.
If you ask anyone giving or receiving the trip packages, they argue it’s for the purest of reasons. Representative Michael Burgess, for example, took a $7981 trip this year to Spain. He also took seven trips in 2009. He told USA Today, “None of the trips were done for pleasure. The other option is take trips at taxpayer expense and that would obviously raise concerns for people as well.” That reasoning, however, ignores the most obvious option. Don’t take the trip at all. With a staff to research, the Internet as a resource, and options such as gotomeeting.com, is the risk of outside influence excusable? There really are options other than to travel and dine first class at the bequest of professional influence peddlers.
Everybody knows a legislator’s weakness. It’s free goods or services. Cookie jars. Sometimes the gratuity cookie jar is labeled private funds, like a “trip” or “seminar.” Sometimes it’s a public funds jar. The stimulus package cookie jar has been hot lately. Sometimes the jar is labeled “campaign donations” or “speaking fees”. Very often it’s favored treatment, insider loans of low or no interests. Sometimes it’s good old cash. Congress is addicted, but like most addicts they won’t admit they have a problem.
In 2006 Congress passed travel reform. This form of influence actually decreased from $5 million in private money for lawmaker trips in 2006, to $3.5 million in 2008. Things even stayed cool for a while with folks like Charlie Rangel drawing admonishments for taking Caribbean trips in 2007 and 2008. But this spigot was not turned completely off and like a dripping faucet, the intensity is once again increasing.
The problem with piecemeal reform is, it doesn’t work. The gratuity industry needs to be halted. Our elected leaders should not be extended gratuities in any form. Before his conviction, the money Jack Abromoff filtered reached 81 Senators and 227 House representatives. And he’s a drop in the bucket, one of 13,746 registered lobbyists.
Lobbyists spent $3.49 billion in 2009, all of which is to influence judgments. That arrangement in a government designed to represent the interests of its citizens is never appropriate.
Deficit spending is a pretty obvious sign that the judgment of our governing representatives is questionable. The best solution is to vote against any incumbent who votes for spending, regardless of the bought and paid for justification. We’re beyond broke. We’re 14 trillion in debt. Conversely we need to vote for any representative who votes to reduce spending. Right now that’s not many representatives.
If cleaning house means changing out every member of Congress every two and four year election cycle, so be it. We should continue changing incumbents until they realize outside influences can’t keep them in Congress, but only voters can.
For those who decry that the constant change means that nothing will get done politically, my reply is, that’s a lot better than the wrong thing getting done repeatedly. As long as our representatives resemble lobbyist lap dogs, getting nothing done is progress.
Sadly we have the best Congress money can buy. That’s what we need to change the most.
About the author
William Burton wrote 26 articles on this blog.
A political junkie with a home spun view of politics, passionately conservative. Published writer (short stories, political essays, poems), and public speaker. Profiled in, "The Ridiculous Race" by Steve Heely.
Shortlink: