Government is not the solution to our problem, it IS the problem

Our government, at the federal, state, and local levels, is the single greatest polluter in the land.

Originally Posted by tonton

Anyway, the first thing we should do to make Government more efficient is to get rid of the filibuster. I don't care if it's done when the Republicans have a majority or when the Democrats have a majority. It needs to be killed.

When President Obama announced a new $50 billion stimulus plan Labor Day weekend, conservatives scoffed -- and rightfully so.

Who does this guy think he's fooling? After the $700 billion TARP bailout, the auto manufacturer bailout, and an $800 billion stimulus, does this president actually think a measly $50 billion is going to successfully turn around an economy where greater sums have failed? But the president and his party have a ready reply for such naysayers: "Imagine if we did nothing?" This open-ended question will undoubtedly continue to provide cover for stimulus-loving liberals, no matter how often conservatives insist that their government intervention simply doesn't work.

When my commentary on the ninth anniversary of 9/11 was broadcast on WTMA, a number of callers were angry I suggested that our policy of foreign intervention does not work. No matter how much I explained how our incompetent government does more damage than good abroad, my critics sounded pretty much like Obama: "But Jack, imagine if we did nothing?"

So yes, let's imagine these scenarios. What if the Federal Reserve had never artificially lowered interest rates and created a housing bubble? What if the Fed had not printed literally countless dollars out of thin air, further weakening our currency? What if we never had borrowed money from China to pay for bailouts and stimulus? Would we be worse off financially than if the government had never done any of these things? Any conservative worth his salt recognizes the absurdity of these arguments and also recognizes that such fear-mongering is typically used as an excuse for more statism.

But such fear-mongering is also used by those on the Right to support our equally statist foreign policy, particularly when they portray radical Islam as somehow a threat on par with the Soviet Union or talk radio's favorite comparison, the Nazis. Although I agreed with some callers that there probably is a uniquely medieval aspect to Islam not present or as prominent in other major religions, I asked, "Why did Americans not have to worry about Islamic terrorism in the 1940s, '50s, and '60s? What has changed? Islam? Or our foreign policy?" The question answers itself in the sense that we don't have to "imagine" what might happen if we "did nothing" in the Middle East today, precisely because when we did little to nothing decades ago, there was no terrorist threat to the United States.

A few of my critics immediately and predictably called me an "isolationist" in much the same way Obama now chides conservative Republicans as belonging to the "Party of No" for opposing every new government intervention the Democrats come up with. Government must do something, you see, and no doubt Obama would readily paint anti-stimulus Republicans as some sort of domestic, economic "isolationists" if such jargon came into fashion. Luckily for conservative hawks, such jargon is well-established but is no less absurd. Compared to how engaged we are today in the Middle East, did the U.S. have an "isolationist" policy toward that region in the first half of the 20th century? Is Switzerland asking for trouble due to their long history of neutrality or isolationism? Are 99 percent of nations "isolationist" for not mimicking the foreign policy of the U.S., arguably the most ambitious imperial power in world history?

When conservatives suggest that we should apply free market solutions to financial crises, liberals dismiss those who make such proposals as libertarian wackos who don't realize that it was the lack of government regulation that led to such problems in the first place. This is similar to the claim many conservatives make concerning foreign policy: that if the U.S. does not drop bombs on certain Third World countries indefinitely, station troops in some Mideast sand pit for decades on end, and regulate the world stage, our refusal to do all this will somehow put Americans at risk.

It's time for both sides to start imagining what they fear most: What if we did nothing? What if our federal government didn't spend or borrow beyond its means or constantly meddle domestically? What if our federal government did not constantly intervene overseas, spending and borrowing well beyond its means to do so?

We used to have a Constitution which restricted our federal government from doing such damage, and if we could only return to that charter, this entire column would be a moot point. Yet the prevailing belief that government must always do something both domestically and abroad will not be discarded by the Left or Right anytime soon. Both sides have an enduring attachment to statism, born not only of their particular ideologies but political identities, and they will continue to create new problems using government intervention in the name of solving old ones, blind to the fact that the larger mess is almost entirely of their own making.

WASHINGTON House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised four years ago that Democrats would lead "the most honest, most open, most ethical Congress in history."

But as her party defends its record with its majority in jeopardy, two prominent Democrats await ethics trials. Two other party members gave Congressional Black Caucus Foundation scholarships to relatives. Most importantly, lobbyists, corporations and special interests still have unimpeded ways to buy access to members of Congress.

Take House Majority Whip James Clyburn's annual charity golf tournament, which provides college scholarships for needy students in his South Carolina district and funds the endowment he established at South Carolina State University.

It sounds like a worthy cause, but it's a stretch to believe that national companies which sponsored the event randomly chose students in the 6th District of South Carolina as a priority for charitable giving.

"It really doesn't matter what the money is used for," says Fred Wertheimer, who heads the Congress-watching private group Democracy 21. "If you're asked to provide a large amount of money for something that is important to a member, you are doing a financial favor for the member. That benefit buys influence."

Wertheimer credits Pelosi with going far beyond previous speakers, saying she changed what Democrats once called a "culture of corruption" under Republican rule.

Yet, her reforms didn't touch access-buying opportunities like campaign fundraisers, corporate-sponsored events for informal lawmaker organizations, or sports tournaments held by members' charities.

The Sunlight Foundation, which tracks congressional fundraising events, has identified more than 9,500 since President George W. Bush signed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act in September 2007. The law embodies reforms cited by Pelosi as proof that she kept her promise to "drain the swamp" of congressional corruption.

Pelosi was instrumental in winning increased disclosure of lobbyists' spending and contributions; a ban on lobbyist gifts to lawmakers; the end of cheap rides on corporate jets; curtailment of privately financed trips that often amounted to free vacations; creation of an independent ethics office; and the identification of sponsors of "earmarks" congressional spending given to favored recipients, who often returned the favor with campaign contributions.

And while it may be just good fortune, Democrats can claim that another Jack Abramoff has not arisen on their watch. The influence-peddling lobbyist, who showered lawmakers and their staffs with favors and eventually went to prison, had strong ties to Republicans.
One Pelosi reform failed miserably when given a reality check.

An Associated Press review last year found that few members of Congress were disclosing that lobbyists were helping them raise campaign cash despite a provision of the Honest Leadership law designed to shed light on the ties between lawmakers and the capital's influence brokers.

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said Democrats "have taken major steps to fulfill this promise, including passing the landmark Honest Leadership and Open Government Act in 2007 and creating the independent, bipartisan Office of Congressional Ethics in 2008. As we consider further reform, we will examine updating these laws and the bipartisan comprehensive campaign finance reform law passed in 2002."

Pelosi favors public financing of campaigns, but hasn't had the votes to pass it. If she remains speaker, she'll face a major test early next year on retaining the independent House Office of Congressional Ethics, which she calls a success story.

The office, which conducts preliminary ethics investigations, is run by a board of non-legislators. Its investigations have irritated enough members that several want to curb its authority or eliminate it. Republicans almost succeeded in blocking creation of the office in 2008, as Pelosi won a 207-206 procedural vote to have the matter considered.

Republicans, trying to win back control of the House, now cite ethics charges against Reps. Charles Rangel of New York and Maxine Waters of California to argue that the speaker broke her word to run the most ethical Congress.

Rangel, former chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, is charged with financial and fundraising misconduct, and has acknowledged some ethical lapses.
Waters, a senior member of the Financial Services Committee, is contesting allegations that she sought federal aid for a bank where her husband is an investor.

Republicans on the House ethics committee demanded Tuesday that the Rangel and Waters trials be completed before the November elections.

The Republican decision to issue the demand in a public statement and expose a partisan rift in the committee makes it unlikely that Democrats would agree to October trials.

Democrats can now argue that the GOP wants to politicize the trials by having them in the weeks before the election and that it would be more fair to wait until after the voting.

Recent news reports also revealed that Reps. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, and Sanford Bishop, D-Ga., awarded Congressional Black Caucus Foundation scholarships to relatives. The foundation has close ties to the Congressional Black Caucus, although it is run separately as a tax-exempt organization.

And last week former lobbyist Paul Magliocchetti, who helped defense clients secure government contracts, pleaded guilty to illegally funneling more than $380,000 in campaign contributions to House members controlling the Pentagon's budget. Three top Democrats he worked with Jim Moran of Virginia, Peter Visclosky of Indiana and the late John Murtha of Pennsylvania directed $137 million in defense contracts to the lobbyist's clients.

While no member of Congress has been criminally charged or found to have violated House rules, outside ethics watchdog groups have criticized the lawmakers' conduct.
Melanie Sloan, director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and a former Democratic congressional aide, said Pelosi has brought about the culture change she promised.

She cites the end of the Republican "K Street Project," used by former GOP leader Tom DeLay of Texas to pressure lobbying firms to hire Republicans who then were given access to top officials.

Republicans are dismissive. Rep. Dan Lungren, the former attorney general of California, said many of the ethics improvements Pelosi takes credit for were the result of bipartisan agreements on the 2007 Honest Leadership law. Republicans were first with the idea of identifying sponsors of special-interest spending, he said.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Not to mention being a stunning over-reach of federal authority. Good God is there anything the feds don't want to control?

A deeply unpopular Congress is bolting for the campaign trail without finishing its most basic job - approving a budget for the government year that begins on Friday. Lawmakers also are postponing a major fight over taxes, two embarrassing ethics cases and other political hot potatoes until angry and frustrated voters render their verdict in the Nov. 2 elections.

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

I suppose you were aware that it's the Bush Administration you're criticizing, right?