More Corruption Swept Under the Rug

I don’t know which I’m more distressed about, Rep. Charlie Rangel’s alleged tax and ethics violations, or the seemingly wafting sense of apathy throughout the public about these activities. Yes, the media has jumped aboard the “Scandal Train”, with their usual rehearsed shock and awe, yet I can’t help but feel that everyone is merely going through the motions, that we’re not even surprised any longer when our entrusted public servants use their privileges to line their pockets. It’s almost as if we have an implied understanding between all of us. The politicians pretend to be honorable, and say whatever they need to in order to get into office, then lie, cheat, and steal from us, then the media covers the story between sound bites of the latest celebrity gossip, people stand up and proclaim, “it’s an outrage” then we simply all go about our lives, business as usual. Nothing changes if nothing changes.

This circus begins with the announcement of a formal investigation of New York Rep. Charlie Rangel who is facing 13 allegations of violations relating to his tax filings for properties he owns in the Dominican Republic and the use of four rent-controlled apartments in pricey New York City. Apparently, these violations have been occurring for some time now, and Rangel had been in backroom negotiations along with his attorneys to strike a deal that would settle the matter without a public trial. Really? Is this the type of “transparent government” that Obama and the Democrats promised they would instill when they took office. The fact is that the House Ethics Committee is pushing for the least-punitive action against Rangel — a reprimand! Yes, that’s right, only a reprimand! Of the options available, a reprimand is the most lenient of the three, the other two being censure and expulsion. A Congressional Research Service report indicates that a "reprimand expressly involves a lesser level of disapproval of a Member than that of Censure, and is thus a less severe rebuke by the institution." If the full House votes for a reprimand, Rangel would have to stand in the well of the House and listen to his punishment being meted out by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Really! Is that punishment! If I cheat on my taxes and steal money can I stand up in the living room of my home and be chastised by my Mom?

To clarify, the House has utilized reprimands in the past, but only occasionally. The House voted to reprimand Rep. Barney Frank in 1990 for using his office to "fix" parking tickets for Steve Goble, a male prostitute who used Frank's home (don't get me started). Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was also reprimanded and fined in 1997 for his ethics transgressions (which some have dubbed his Contract ON America). Recently, the House did NOT reprimand Rep. Joe Wilson for his shout "You lie" at President Obama last year during the State of the Union Address, however in an attempt to evoke the “I know you are but what am I” rule of mud slinging, the House did vote to "disapprove" of his actions. Well played House Members, you really put him in his place with that one. I’m sure that the public was glued to CSPAN during those proceedings.

Now, if I may be so bold, I wish to call the kettle black here and suggest that all these House Democrats who coddled and sheltered Charlie Rangel all these years are nothing short of two-faced “swamp creatures”, a term I borrow directly from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In case you don’t recall, Pelosi is the one who claimed top spot in the House with rhetoric about how she would promise to “drain the swamp” and preside over the “most ethical Congress in history”? She essentially rode the Bush-Donkey into office citing every sneaky, shady, and back-door dealings that former President Bush ever engaged in (and many more than he never did), proclaiming that the “new Democratic Party” would raise the stakes of integrity in government. Don’t take my word for it, let Nancy speak for herself.

Jan. 12, 2006: “It is long past time for the Congress to address the systemic Republican culture of corruption that has undermined the American people’s confidence in this institution,”Pelosi said. “I am proud that some of the best minds in our Caucus will be leading the Democratic effort to clean up the corrupt Republican Congress. These great leaders will work to restore truth and trust to the People’s House.”

Oct. 13, 2006: Pelosi said, “Maybe it will take a woman to clean up the House and a new speaker to restore civility."

Haven’t we heard all this before? Politicians latch onto anything they can about the “other side” and then use it to promise change and elevate themselves into power, only to engage in the same underhanded dishonest practices for their own personal gain. We hear it so often, that we are almost unfazed anymore. We almost expect it. Nancy Pelosi and the House knew of Rangel’s violations, yet they did nothing, they kept quiet. Then, when the stench of it all finally hits the fan so that it can no longer be ignored, does Nancy come out with guns blazing at her party counterpart, does she put the integrity of the office and the needs of the people first – no. Instead, Pelosi stood at a press conference attempting to preempt the House Ethics Panel’s announcement of 13 ethics and federal regulation charges against Rangel, and actually claimed credit and “great pride” in her swamp-draining record. Like a drone in the headlights of oncoming adulation, Nancy Pelosi suggested that the House trial against Rangel is proof that the “process” is working, even while admitting that they dragged their feet for two full years and that they are understaffed and ill-equipped to handle such cases. Ever the programmed “Manchurian Candidate” politician, Pelosi, with a straight face (no doubt the result of years of practice with pretending to believe her party’s blind rhetoric) could not help but fall back on the old standby: Bush Bashing. A full eighteen months after his presidency ended, and in the midst of her own party’s ethics scandal, Nancy actually carped about Bush-era GOP corruption in the same press conference. Can someone get Nancy a calendar so she knows what date it is. Through the fog of distraction being put up by the Democrats, Nancy was surprisingly silent about Charlie Rangel’s lobbyist-funded attorneys frantic negotiations behind the scenes to avoid a congressional trial. Of course, a public trial, we can’t have that can we? A public trial would thoroughly air his self-dealing, habitual bad-faith failures to report income, multiple House gift ban and solicitation ban violations, flouting of franking privilege, and a blatant disregard for the laws of this nation, but hey, that’s not that big a deal, right?

Bush-bash all you want, and lecture us (the blind public – isn’t American Idol on tonight?) all you want about ethics and how you plan to “clean up the mess”. Nancy, you, Charlie Rangel, and your cronies are the very reason why so many Americans have so little trust in our government. Say what you will, but the Rangel stench is overwhelming. Over the past several months, while he quietly leveraged every possible tactic to avoid scrutiny, he failed to produce documents, he obstructed House investigators, and he hid behind a wall of apathy and protection from the other House Democrats, his partners in crime as they sling mud at the Republicans, all the while ignoring the plank in their own eye. Entitlement politics is nothing short of an arrogance that you are above the law, and I for one am disgusted with the “business as usual” practices of Washington when it comes to dealing with this type of blatant criminal activity. And to Nancy and her friends, I suggest that there is nothing noble in the Democratic enablers who display their long pattern of indifference for honest, open, and transparent government.

Stop talking and start doing. Maybe then it would be easier to take you seriously.

Kerry Saying One Thing, then Doing Another

I find Doug Power’s Blog article: John Kerry Gets a Long Face When Reporters Confront Him About Taxes on the SS Rhode Island, interesting because the implications of this news story reach beyond the acts themselves. The story is about how Massachusetts Senator and former Presidential Democratic Nominee avoided paying his state’s luxury taxes on his 73-foot yacht by keeping it in Rhode Island. In his blog, Doug Powers alludes to Kerry’s discomfort and apparent back peddling when asked about the issue by reporters. He even includes the news video footage itself, which I find lends credibility to his assertions. It allows the reader to see for them self what point the author is making by introducing the source directly.

Given that he’s writing for a conservative blog, his audience is obviously right leaning. However, Powers does a good job at holding back any flurry of anti-liberal attacks, giving his post an air of objective news reporting, at least for a blog. Still, he does write with a slant, even ending his blog with a “swift boat” reference obviously intended to lay a connection between Kerry’s yacht incident to the past Presidential election’s allegations that Kerry lied and flip-flopped on important issues about his past. That said, I found the main theme of the post credible because Powers listed several facts about the tax issues relating to this incident which helps make his point, without relying on passionate argument. For example, Powers points out that Kerry’s claim that placed his boat in Rhode Island for repairs seems questionable because the boat repair industry in his own state is in desperate need. He further illustrates that the Massachusetts luxury tax policy – which Kerry championed – actually drives business away to other states. The effect of all this is that the blog post touches upon a sensitive unspoken issue of distrust that citizens have for politicians and their policies. The real thrust in Power’s writing is that he allowed me to form my own emotions about what I feel about politician’s saying one thing, then doing another – without telling me how to feel. Powers effectively allows Kerry to bury himself, letting the facts speak for themselves, and in doing so, I feel he makes a stronger point versus simply yelling and hurling hatred at Kerry and the left. Sometimes less is more, and facts speak for themselves, and you can only diminish their impact with more words and more rhetoric.

Finally, I felt the strongest statement in Power’s post was his call to action to Kerry. You would think that such a blatant move to avoid the very taxes he so vocally postured for would bring forth Power’s allegations that Kerry was a liar, a slick, corrupt politician, or a loophole schemer. Instead, Powers does what I feel is too-often overlooked in blog reporting: he puts the attacks aside and gets to the truth that many people already feel. Powers simply suggest that instead of paying the taxes which Kerry sneakily avoided, that he just admit that those types of taxes are unfair and in essence, don’t work, and they have the opposite of the intended effect. He asks Kerry to admit that overly taxing people, even for luxury items, sounds good in election speeches but fails as public policy. Overall, I would say that Powers succeeds in pandering to his base audience, while also presenting a subtle, semi-objective blog post that few can argue with.

Protect Free Speech or the Public Interest?

My critique is about an editorial published in the Austin Statesman on Friday, July 16, titled, Some public officials just don't get it, do they? The focus of the editorial is to express outrage about a recent lawsuit filed by 17 elected officials from 4 cities in Texas, including Pflugerville. The lawsuit claims that the Texas Open Meeting Act violates their First Amendment rights to free speech, as the law prevents them from holding private meetings about public business. The author of the editorial targets the general public in an attempt to both draw attention to the possibility of elected officials holding private meetings about public business, and to solicit support for opposing the lawsuit.

The author uses inflammatory language and imagery to suggest that these elected officials will get together in private and discuss government business, make laws, and decide important issues – all “in secret”. He does present details about the Texas Open Meeting Act, approved in 1967, stating that “a quorum of any government body cannot talk about official business in private”, with violators being subject to six-months in jail and a $500 fine. However, I felt that the author presented only one side of this argument, and he could have been more objective about the plaintiff’s viewpoint for their lawsuit.

Essentially, the editorial paints a picture of conniving politicians meeting in secret to make decisions against the common good, with the public powerless to stop them. He lays out several potential scenarios about lawmakers “huddled up in their living rooms” deciding budgets, or school board members pulling “a closed-door all nighter to rejigger” the boundary lines that determine where your child attends school. None of these meetings are actually taking place, yet the writer uses them to establish a precedent of opposition against the lawsuit filed by the elected officials. However, upon closer examination, it’s fair to say that the lawsuit only seeks to banish the criminal penalties and not the law itself. They plaintiffs claim that any law which prevents or monitors when choose to speak is an infringement on their freedom of speech. The editorial offers no acknowledgement for the importance of protecting free speech, and dismisses the claim by proclaiming that the lawsuit is not “about protecting free speech, but protecting secret speech”. He also reminds readers that public officials serve at the will of the people, that they volunteered to serve, and they are welcome to step aside at any time if they don't like the law. In closing, the author does a good job of including statements for the plaintiff’s lawyers as well as the Texas Attorney General who is defending the statute, as both sides have public statements strongly supporting their viewpoints.

Overall, I can’t find fault in the editorial message about protecting the public’s interest through transparency in government, and the author does a good job of calling people to action to pay attention to this lawsuit and what possible implications can arise from a ruling either way. While it may seem to be only a minor adjustment to remove the criminal penalties for meeting in private to discuss public business, the author suggests that without any penalties there really is nothing to deter such occurrences. There are two major political implications for how this lawsuit plays out. The first being the obvious protection of the public’s right to have full access to government proceedings, which is the thrust of the editorial’s message. However, I see a second possible outcome for impacting the First Amendment interpretations, as a ruling for or against the lawsuit establishes a precedent for free speech that may be called upon to support other causes in the future. While I don’t find fault with the editorial’s one-sided message to it’s intended audience, I would suggest that anyone wanting a clearer picture on the veracity of this lawsuit, do more research themselves.

Cautious Optimism about Stopping the Oil Leak

The Los Angeles Times posted an article today stating that BP claims to have stopped the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The claim stems from BP’s assertion that a test valve they have placed over the well has finally stopped the oil from flowing. Initial response from, BP executives and other experts were positive yet cautious, as these types of value measures can often uncover hidden leaks in pipes buried deep underground and yet unrealized.

In the article, President Obama called Thursday’s successful test by BP to cap the well that has been spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico since late April “good news,” however BP Senior Vice President Kent Wells summed up everyone’s hesitant optimism, “As you can imagine, it felt good not to see any oil going into the Gulf of Mexico,” before going on to add, “What I’m trying to do is maintain my emotions. Remember, this is the start of our test.”

The bottom line is that the cap may or may not completely stop the flow of oil permanently, and only more data, time, and testing will reveal how successful the fix is. All parties involved, including BP, regulatory officials, and the White House have used this announcement to timidly claim victory while at the same time laying the groundwork for back-peddling when and if the cap fails. President Obama packaged his statement with an announcement that he and his family are planning to travel to Maine for a weekend getaway.

This is an important article to read for a couple reasons. First, the oil crisis might, just might be heading to a close, at least with relation to the spill itself. Secondly, it’s important to observe just how each party might leverage this news to their advantage. If the well is capped, will everyone who passed the buck around during the crisis suddenly claim victory? Will aggressive action be taken to repair the environmental destruction? Will people and businesses affected by this tragedy finally get some reprieve? We can only watch and see. I’m trying to remain optimistic, but it’s getting harder every day.

A little about my ideology .....

I like politics, insofar as I beleive we all enjoy the privledge of living in this nation, and we should care about how we collectively govern it. That being said, I'm put off by the corruption, special agenda's, lack of integrity, and continual demise of our nation's image both domesticaly and internationaly. My family is deeply immersed in politics and community activism: my father was a 2-term Alderman Council Member, and I was able to serve on both his election campaigns. Recently, he was offered the position of CIO for the State of New Mexico by Governor Bill Richardson, and I was subsequently allowed access to both Richardson’s and President Obama’s campaigns. I have also volunteered for Bill Clinton and Governor Pete Wilson of California when he was still Mayor of San Diego. While most of my family consider themselves Democrats, I lean toward the moderate-conservative side. I tested 83% on the Civics Quiz and answered 9 out of 12 questions correctly on the Current Events Quiz. I enjoy insightful and even heated debate and discussion about current national and world events, and I’m taking this course to both refresh my exposure to American government, and hopefully re-focus my personal grasp of my own political ideology.

Welcome to the Discussion

Welcome to my Blog for my US Government class. I look forward to lively and interesting discussions on a variety of topics relating to our political system and pressing current events. Feel free to vote on the poll I've posted, or simply offer any comments or thoughts on whatever is on your mind. One of the truly defining elements of our democracy is the inclusion of free speech, and as Benjamin Franklin observed in his Silence Dogood Letters, "Without Freedom of Thought there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as Public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech".