Ordinary Americans have a low opinion of Washington, but they’re underestimating the extent of the problem.
The nation’s capital is basically a playpen for special interests. It’s now the richest region of the country, with lobbyists, bureaucrats, contractors, politicians, and other insiders and cronies getting fat and happy thanks to money that is taken from people in the productive sector of the economy.
Republicans play the game and Democrats play the game, with both sides getting undeserved wealth at our expense.
Let’s take an up-close look at how this sordid game is played.
Here are some excerpts from a column by Catherine Rampell in today’s Washington Post.
The GOP is no longer the Party of Reagan. It’s the Party of Michael Cohen. …the Cohen blueprint for achieving the American Dream: Work minimally, if you can, and leverage government connections whenever possible. …following Donald Trump’s unexpected presidential victory,
Cohen cashed in. …Cohen told companies that he could provide valuable “insights” into the new administration. Huge multinational corporations lined up to purchase these “insights,” dumping millions into Essential Consultants LLC… Cohen is hardly the only prominent Trumpster invoking White House connections… Cabinet members and other senior government officials, too, have enjoyed a sweetheart apartment deal, lobbyist-arranged vacations and private jet rides. These are not amenities secured through brains, honesty and hard work, the virtues that Republicans traditionally say are required for upward mobility and financial comfort. They are the fruits of luck, cronyism and a loose approach to ethical lines.
This is disgusting. Republicans often come to Washington claiming they’re going to “drain the swamp.” Many of them, however, quickly decide it’s a hot tub.
But don’t forget that sleaze is a bipartisan activity in Washington.
Here are excerpts from a Wall Street Journal report about influence-peddling on the other side of the aisle.
Tony Podesta was in line to be king of K Street. His lobbying firm ended 2015 as the third largest in Washington, D.C., with nearly $30 million in revenue from more than 100 clients, spanning Alphabet Inc.’s Google to Wells Fargo & Co. With his longtime friend Hillary Clinton expected to win the White House,
2016 promised to be even better. Mr. Podesta…hosted lawmakers and power brokers at his flat in Venice during the Art Biennale. It was one of many homes around the globe, including the Washington mansion where he displayed a collection of museum-grade artwork. In early 2016, he was ready to buy a $7.4 million condo overlooking Madison Square Park in New York City. …At age 59, he married Heather Miller, a congressional staffer 26 years younger. …Mrs. Podesta started her own lobbying firm, Heather Podesta + Partners, and they emerged a Washington power couple. …Mr. Podesta drew an annual salary of more than $2 million and made millions more in commissions and bonuses. …The Podesta Group grew from the 20th largest lobbying firm to third in three years, in terms of domestic and foreign lobbying revenues, propelled by business during President Barack Obama’s first term.
But this story of graft and corruption has a happy ending.
Then he fell, a calamitous collapse… The Podesta Group lost its banker over news the firm did work for the U.S. subsidiary of a Russian bank under sanctions. …Mrs. Clinton’s…victory would go a long way to fixing many of his problems. She lost…and Mr. Podesta, like many who had banked on her victory, did too. Clients who had hired him for access to a new Clinton administration fell away. By the end of the year, the departures cost the firm more than $10 million in annual business… the Podesta Group did public relations work in 2015 for Raffaello Follieri, an Italian businessman who had pleaded guilty to swindling millions of dollars from an investment fund run partly by Mr. Clinton, one of Mr. Podesta’s early patrons. …Before closing the firm’s doors, Mr. Podesta gave himself an advance on his lobbying commissions.
The common theme, as explained by Karen Tumulty for the Washington Post, is that D.C. is an utterly corrupt place.
…the game in Washington never really changes. The only things that shift from election to election are the most sought-after players. …When Trump won, the traditional rosters of lobbyists — ex-congressmen, lawyers from white-shoe firms, former congressional staffers
— were of little use in figuring out and gaining access to a band of outsiders who came to town vowing to demolish the old order. Cohen was not the only Trump insider to see a chance to cash in… The president’s former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, along with former Trump aide Barry Bennett, also opened a consulting firm, which quickly had more business than it could handle. “It was like shooting fish in the barrel,” Bennett told The Post. …Nor is Team Trump unique in seizing these opportunities. President Barack Obama had not been in office a month before his 2008 campaign manager, David Plouffe, was paid $50,000 to give a speech in Azerbaijan to a group with close ties to that repressive government. …Washington continues to have a most durable ecosystem: The swamp is never drained; it just gets taken over by different reptiles.
Utterly nauseating.
But allow me to point out that lobbying isn’t inherently bad. And neither are campaign contributions. It all depends on the reason.
If a company hires a lobbyist or give cash to a politician because it wants handouts or government intervention that will produce unearned profit, that’s wrong. Sort of like being a co-conspirator to a crime.
However, if a company hires a lobbyist and donates money because it is fighting tax hikes or new regulatory burdens, that’s noble and just. Sort of like engaging in an act of self-defense.
But wouldn’t it be wonderful if there wasn’t a need for either the bad type of lobbying or the good type of lobbying?
Richard Ebeling, a professor at the Citadel, offers a very good solution in a column for the Foundation for Economic Education. He starts by explaining that government and corruption have always been connected.
The corruption of government officials seems to be as old as recorded history. …the ancient Roman senate passed laws
against such political corruption in the first century, B.C. …Emperor Constantine issued one of the strongest decrees against corruption during this time in A.D. 331. …Today, high levels of political corruption remain one of the major problems people confront around the world. …Political corruption, clearly, is found everywhere around the world… Why?
Richard answers his own question, pointing out that big government is a major enabler of corruption.
Part of the answer certainly…can be found in the relationship between the level of corruption in society and the degree of government intervention in the marketplace. In a generally free market society, …government officials have few regulatory or redistributive responsibilities, and therefore they have few special favors, privileges, benefits, or dispensations to “sell”… The smaller the range of government activities, therefore, the less politicians or bureaucrats have to sell to voters and special interest groups. And the smaller the incentive or need for citizens to have to bribe government officials to allow them to peacefully go about their private business and personal affairs. …On the other hand, the…interventionist state…taxes the public and has huge sums of money to disburse to various programs and projects. It imposes licensing and regulatory restrictions on free and open competition. It transfers great amounts of income and wealth to different groups through sundry “redistributive” schemes. …Those in the government who wield these powers hold the fate of virtually everyone in their decision-making hands. It is inevitable that those drawn to employment in the political arena often will see the potential for personal gain… The business of the interventionist state, therefore, is the buying and selling of favors and privileges. It must lead to corruption because by necessity it uses political power to harm some for the benefit of others, and those expecting to be either harmed or benefited will inevitably try to influence what those holding power do with it.
So what’s the bottom line?
Ending global political corruption in its various “petty” and “grand” forms, therefore, will only come with the removal of government from social and economic life. When government is limited to protecting our lives and property, there will be little left to buy and sell politically.
Amen. That’s the message I also shared in this video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity.
Sadly, Donald Trump’s promises to “drain the swamp” don’t seem to have been very sincere. Earlier this year, he meekly acquiesced to a budget deal that produced a feeding frenzy among the swamp creatures.
How is that any different from what would have happened if Hillary Clinton was in the White House? Big government doesn’t magically become less harmful and corrupt just because Republicans are in charge.
Indeed, there’s some hard evidence the problem actually becomes worse.
As Ms. Tumulty wrote, “Same swamp, different reptiles.”
[…] I have also asserted over and over again that big government is a racket for the benefit of […]
[…] I have also asserted over and over again that big government is a racket for the benefit of […]
[…] P.P.P.P.S. At the risk of stating the obvious, corruption in Washington is a bipartisan problem. […]
[…] breeds corruption by giving sleazy people a way of obtaining unearned wealth. Politicians and special interests are the winners and workers, […]
[…] remember, this is a problem with both political parties, and it’s a near-inevitable consequence of having a bloated federal government that is […]
[…] we have an actual photograph of a restaurant window across for the Treasury Department, but, if we believe in truth in advertising, the reflected sign may as well be a banner hanging from all government […]
given current circumstances… the only way we can reduce the size and scope of a runaway federal government is to cut it’s money supply…the politicians are not going to do that on their own… the idea that we can somehow magically create a congress peopled by sane… moral… and reasonable men and women… willing to act in the best interests of the country is an outdated fantasy… there are real issues in the world… and they are not being addressed by our elected officials… in fact we now have one political party actively working to weaponize and hijack the mechanisms of our federal government in order to depose the leadership of the opposing party… our long standing tenant of “loyal opposition” is gone… lobbyists… bureaucrats… special interest groups….and politicians have successfully gained control of the federal government… and thus control of the most intimate details of our day to day lives… we are spied on… forced to spend money on inferior products… taxed…. and abused by armies of federal bureaucrats… and our political class continues to mortgage the future of our great grand children… a lot of Americans have had enough! and it is up to us to put a stop to it…
as i see it… the only way we can do that is with an article v spending cap and term limits… transfer a good part of the power back to the states… and fight the good fight at the state level…if California and other selected socialist bastions choose to go the route of Venezuela… let em go… but fight the Marxist battle at the state level… return the federal government to it’s constitutional role… and insure it only has sufficient funds to accomplish it’s duties…
it’s the only way… are there risks? sure… but it doesn’t take much imagination to see where we’ll be in a decade if we don’t act…
btw… when the full force of the technological revolution hits the labor market… we could well have need for a temporary UBI system… particularly… if it is less expensive than traditional welfare… last night over 55k people slept either in shelters… or on the streets of Los Angeles… that’s one city…… in good times…
v-max
I agree with the spending cap proposal. What worries me is other attempts to “improve” on our current constitution.
Top-Gun:
The UBI should be instituted with a flat tax under the income tax amendment. It is a practical replacement for our horrible welfare/tax code system.
I see that Liberal nedlamp is still pushing UBI. Hey bud, we’re a Constitutional Republic. And there’s nothing in our Constitution about UBI…
There is plenty about defense, and a justice system.. Take your UBI nonsense elsewhere..
the solution is a spending cap… [say 5% of the nations economic output?] as I understand it… it can be done with a constitutional amendment under the auspices of article v… a “convention of states” could impose a spending cap and TERM LIMITS on all federal politicians… and judges…
if the political class doesn’t have an unlimited supply of money…and decades to fine tune the system to their personal economic advantage… we can stop most of this crap……… cold…
it certainly worries the socialist democrats:
There are two ways to smaller government: (1) Less money spent, or (2) Fewer bureaucrats.
A poverty level UBI combined with a Flat Tax would leave spending levels where they are currently, but would reduce the number of bureaucrats by almost one million. Because future spending levels relating to the UBI would increase by 0.9% (population growth) plus an inflation adjustment, the increases should be less than economic growth, causing a relative decrease in the size of government.