Log In | Register
The Washington Post is in the enviable but also complicated position of being at the nexus of political activity. It relies on information from people inside the government, but it is still a newspaper, and it can't risk becoming just an irrelevant cheerleader. However, if it becomes overly critical, it runs the risk of losing access. It's a thin tightrope.
So that is why a couple of recent investigative reports and an editorial are so fascinating, because they are critical of many of the very lawmakers whom the paper needs to cultivate: these investigations highlight unabashed thievery in Congress.
In the wake of reports that Representative Spencer Bachus of Alabama is being investigated for trading his stock portfolio on information not available to the general public, the paper carried an article suggesting that the Securities and Exchange Commission is not diligent about investigating such abuses among legislators because the SEC is supervised by the Congress. Although it isn't all about the money, it is at least partially about the money: annoy too many people in Congress, and you risk receiving inadequate funding for your agency, no matter how noble it is.
But among the most galling of the paper's recent reports is one that highlights abuses that are less complicated: the use of budget "earmarks" that fund specific projects in the states and districts of our legislators in ways that appear to enrich the legislators themselves.**
According to the Post:
--Representative Kay Granger earmarked nearly $52 million for a project in Fort Worth. Until recently she and her son co-owned a building nearby, and her son is a director of the group in charge of the project.
--Senator Harry Reid got $21.5 million for a bridge linking a popular resort town to Bulkhead City, Nevada. Reid owns 16 acres of undeveloped land in Bulkhead City.
--Senator Lisa Murkowski got a $6.9 million project for a road that begins near a piece of property she bought from a friend at a reduced price.
--Over a period of years, Representative Nancy Pelosi earmarked nearly $50 million for a light rail project that services the area where her husband owns a commercial building.
In all, the article cited 33 different legislators who steered about $300 million to projects that benefitted them personally. Although both Republicans and Democrats have rooted at the trough of avarice, there seems to be a positive correlation between seniority and the dollar value of the graft: the more senior your position, the more money you can steer your way. And the most nauseating thing is that all of it is legal.
Yes, there have been some efforts over the years to eliminate this and other corrupt practices, but they have been middling because Congress seems largely impervious to any public outrage that such revelations generate. In the case of earmarks, we have heard the ludicrous assertion from Capitol Hill that $300 million isn't very much money. Well, in the giant scheme of things, it certainly isn't, but $300 million, even spread over a period of years, can buy plenty of things more beneficial to the nation than the increased financial well-being of senators and representatives.
Because we want them to focus on minding the nation's business and the welfare of us all, we don't want our elected representatives to be impecunious and constantly worried about themselves and not the country, and so we agree that they should give themselves reasonable wages and benefits. But the Congress makes its own rules, and the quality of the rules is a function of the quality of the people who make them. We're paying top dollar for cut-rate people.
------------------------------
**http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/capitol-assets/public-projects-private-interests/
