Could it be...real reforms?
by David Atkins
This is interesting:
In a sign of just how unpopular Congress has become, rank-and-file senators hijacked this week’s debate over a narrow-tailored conflict-of-interest bill and turned it into the chamber’s most sweeping ethics debate in a generation.
From conservative back-bench Republicans to liberal junior Democrats, senators launched an ethical arms race of amendments by offering far-reaching reforms that were not even considered when Congress last re-wrote its ethics rules five years ago.
Freshman Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered an amendment that would require former congressmen to forfeit their federal pension and insurance plans if they become lobbyists after retiring from Capitol Hill. Not to be outdone, freshman Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) offered an amendment that would impose a lifetime ban on lawmakers ever becoming federal lobbyists.
Leave to Rand Paul to go after pensions and insurance again. That guy really hates federal guarantees, doesn't he?
Beyond that, though, it appears that the mass of public sentiment against revolving door corruption is large enough that legislators are stepping all over each other to put in their own amendments. The key provision that got it all started was a ban on Congressional insider trading. But the collective weight of the amendments could mean some very serious reforms.
But one "reform" being considered is a very bad idea: an attempt to ban earmarks:
Even this scaled-down collection of amendments has alarmed some senior senators, who did not anticipate having such a full-throated debate on ethics at this point in the year. Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, took to the floor to defend a senator’s right to dedicate earmarks to his or her state as part of the Constitution’s grant of the “power of the purse” to Congress and not the executive branch.
“Each one has issues that cannot be fully understood by civil servants located thousands of miles away,” said Inouye, the second-longest-serving senator in history. He then noted the obvious: “However, trust in the Congress is at an all-time low.”
Earmark "reformers" seem not to understand that eliminating earmarks doesn't mean that the money won't get spent. It just means that the Executive Branch will make all the decisions about where the money goes. Those who are very concerned with the overweening power of the White House should be extremely worried about this. Under Republican Administrations, that means that blue states will get screwed out of funding. Under Democratic Administrations it means the money will be spent evenly across political lines but without the intelligence of local input. Dems won't pursue partisan funding because Dems are more ethical, actually in believe in the power of government to do good, and have the spinal fortitude of invertebrates. So hopefully that particular "reform" will go down to defeat.
In any case, Reid and others are doing their best to slow this train down, lest their gravy train be threatened. When it comes to bills like this, speed if the reformers' best friend, before the corporate lobbyists can gum up the works. So let's hope the final vote is taken quickly.
.