The Sunday New York Times had a depressing cover story on how so-called ethics reform is likely to fare in the new Congress. Here's the kind of "boldness" we can expect:
"None of the measures would overhaul campaign financing or create an independent ethics watchdog to enforce the rules. Nor would they significantly restrict earmarks, the pet projects lawmakers can anonymously insert into spending bills, which have figured in several recent corruption scandals and attracted criticism from members in both parties. The proposals would require disclosure of the sponsors of some earmarks, but not all."
Some Dems are content to blame increased corruption on the Republicans, but:
"Democrats, of course, have also cultivated close ties to lobbyists, who play a major role in campaign fund-raising for members of both parties. Indeed, ethical violations and house-cleaning efforts have both been bipartisan activities over the years. Congress has seesawed between public calls for changes and a reluctance to cramp incumbents’ campaign fund-raising and political power."
Democrats probably won't pass even something as simple as legislation that bloc a lawmaker from requesting an earmark that benefits family members or former staff members. Such legilsation probably won't pass, "in part because many have close ties to former staff members or family members in the lobbying business."
The full story is here (registration required).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I'm not going to register with the Times to read that thing, but I also have been quite skeptical that (although it is a frequently mentioned campaign promise) we will see any significant finance reform.
I feel that, particularly in the case of officially non-partisan shadow groups (who behave in very partisan ways), that there will be zero movement to limit their behavior, or to increase the info. disclosure requirements upon them.
Democrats (behind always in ability to raise hard cash) rely more upon these types of supplementary groups than Republicans and will be unlikely to shoot themselves in the feet. So at best, the Dems will promote reforms in areas that benefit themselves little and the Reps a lot, while protecting the types of funky financing that DOES benefit them, and the Reps vice versa - therefore, no movement.
The astute blog reader may note the appearance of do-gooder blogs lately, and they seem to be putting down deeper roots at a time when other bloggers have quit or scaled back due to post-election exhaustion/boredom. I don't think interest groups and their blog-voices are going away any time soon.
On a personal level, I find it disheartening to be blogging "alongside" people (who often seem to have very similar "core values" that I do) but who are likely paid, have talking points, and are dedicated to advancing, not "the truth" (as defined by a process of multiple-viewed critical thinking and/or open democratic discourse by average folk) but a set agenda arrived at by some kind of group-think method, the group itself being comprised of a very select few.
The bottom line that I think we will see is non-movement on several issues and then blame placed on obstructionist Republicans (the main skill of Trent Lott, accounting for his return, is supposed to be his "ability to tie up the floor" -WTF does that say about our representatives intention to lead the people? Lordy!) so, the Reps will blame obstructionist Democrats and they'll all continue to flap about healthcare which no one will move against big-medicine and big-pharma and we can't afford it anyway. Not on any level of Gov't.
Federally we are trillions in the hole, the state books are still FUBAR and all municipalities are talking cut cut cut. So IMHO this whole healthcare thing was just a red herring to detract from the horrors the neo-cons have wrought, that the Dems will find too difficult to reverse. So let's talk about healthcare.
I have a pal whose hero is Kurt Vonnegut and he says that Kurt says we are done - no hope - too F-ed up. I doubted that until...
Yesterday I read the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, most of it anyway. I stopped when I realized that with each new section (all brief paragraphs describing a different basic human right) that I could easily think of an example where the US has recently committed flagrant violations of that particular human right. The good old land of the free and home of the brave, violating right after right. Negating stuff that our WWII grandma and grandpas made fusses about, sacrificed and had victory gardens and Rosie rivetted and all that. And here we all are.
So recent calls to "be nice" or stop saying "un-cheerful stuff", and "give the Dems a chance" (they've been on vacation I guess and didn't know), well it's enough to make you start blogging about the TomKat wedding. But honestly there's nothing I'd like more than two years from now to look back on all the stuff I just said and have been proved wrong and just a hot-headed extremist. That would be excellent,
but...
Post a Comment