Governmental Corruption: How Easy Is It, Really, to Get Hooked?
I'm stunned by AOC's remarks of yesterday, 12 June 2019, demanding a Congressional pay raise of a measly $4,500 a year on top of an already-excessive salary of $174,000 a year.
Let's break that down so we ordinary working people can deal with it. A congresscritter earns $174K, before taxes, a year. This works out to $14,500 per month, or $3,346 per week. For a married congresscritter at their current salary, using the very worst assumptions (no deductions, two dependents total including self, married), the tax liability is approximately $32,000. This would reduce the gross salary to a $142,000 net per year. This is usually called take-home pay, and is not counting FICA/Medicare, state income tax withholding and other factors that further reduce net. For giggles, let's say the congresscritter has a residence in Connecticut, which has a 6.5% flat income tax rate at that income level, for another reduction of $11,500, for a net-net (take home pay) of $130,500 per year.
A take-home check of $130,500/year works out to $10,875 per month, or $2,510 per week. That's more than I take home, for certain. I'm pretty sure that is more than the vast majority of Americans make ... I won't even guess at the percentage of Americans that would kill to take home $2,500 per week.
Freshman Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) proposes a Congressional pay raise of $4,500 per year, or a gross $375 per month. The net-net on this is a piddling amount. Over this, she says "give me the pay raise or I'll go corrupt" -- a bald-faced extortionist threat. The problem is that it won't be enough to make much of a difference, given the costs of living in NYC and DC ... she'll eventually go corrupt anyway once she figures this out.
What I find appalling is that a freshman congresscritter finds it so easy to link up with corrupt organizations who'd want to buy her vote. And this just isn't a one-shot deal: once you take a bribe, you're hooked ... you can't get out of the relationship with your corrupt master because all they'll have to do is threaten to expose you. That's it: you're now a slave for as long as you hold that Congressional seat, and perhaps even after you leave office.
This is a serious problem which has been around longer than I have (I'm 63), and probably dates back to the late 19th Century, when the current congressional system of party whips took root. The question is, to me, not how long has this been going on; rather, how do we end this? How can we, through legislation and other actions, force the corrupt influences to keep their hands off our representatives?
I've been of the opinion for a very long time that any lobbyist caught anywhere within 100 mile radius of Washington DC needs to be criminally charged with a very serious felony that carries the Federal death penalty as a maximum, with a minimum 20 years' prison term and prohibition against holding any other governmental office (see Title 18, United States Code for the penalties for the crime of treason). In my view, lobbying and treason are crimes on the same level.
Lobbying is a perversion of the Constitutionally-prescribed representative republic the USA is supposed to be. It is an offense against the nation and its people, and should be statutorily recognized as such. I can't break the link between lobbying and corruption like that AOC threatens us with ... it's just too easy. An honest lobbyist? I'd imagine there are a few; but when push comes to shove, if needed to help sway a vote or perhaps change the wording of legislation, it's pretty easy to shove big, untaxable dollars at a representative or Senator ... the lobbyist's employer just may consider it a worthwhile expense of doing business. I don't find it difficult to imagine that most congresspeople have taken bribes and influenced the laws you and I have to live by.
Lobbyists, when successful in swaying a representative's vote, have cancelled out your voice: that representative is supposed to represent you. When you call your rep to complain about something, that rep should be listening to you, not outside voices. Of course, when you don't have a couple million bucks, or hundreds of thousands of voters both in and outside your district "locked up", as a union or major employer might, we can conclude that your opinion is worth much less to that representative. We need to stop these undue influences. Dead cold. The question is "how?"
Unless they somehow identify themselves and register, lobbyists would be difficult to even identify. Any person would find it easy to operate outside the law, were it to change to prohibit all lobbying. Even being a lobbyist should be a crime, but I don't think we'll ever be able to completely suppress lobbying behaviors: it's too easy to call a congressman at home, or meet geographically far away from DC. However, making lobbying an illegal behavior just might go far towards putting society -- its people, corporations, and organizations -- on notice that our representatives are supposed to be untouchable. However, as it's been said, you can't legislate morality. So let's look at some laws that sanction the behaviors, instead.
I can't help but think that rooting out corruption in Congress is going to be as difficult as rooting out corruption in the NYPD has been. No matter the number of crooked cops that have had their careers changed from officer to inmate, more corrupt cops seem to pop up and take their places. Would it be fair to presume that the number of corrupt cops, after a 50-year campaign against them, has dwindled to much lower numbers? We'll never know, really: since all this activity is illegal anyway, it all takes place under the covers ... an organization like the NYPD has to keep both eyes open for corrupt behavior 24x7. I'd imagine, since the stakes are much higher relative to Congressmen, corruption will be much more difficult to detect and root out.
I think a much better idea is term limits for all elected Legislative and Executive Branch office-holders. Two terms in each possible role. That's it, all you get -- no loopholes, no exceptions. You can serve a total of two terms in the House (no more than 4 years), two terms in the Senate (no more than 12 years), and two as the President (no more than 8 years, even if you served part of a previous POTUS' term). If you make it all the way to POTUS, your Federal political career can last no more than 24 years: that's plenty. Even if you start in the House and don't make it to the Senate, your Federal political career can last no more than four years. I'm good with that. Term limits would probably go a long way toward reducing the influence of a corrupt politician, since the propensity to campaign for the next election would be greatly reduced (I'd hope), and a lobbyist can't buy a politician for life -- they'd only be exposed for a two-term period. The attempt to always have congresspeople in your pocket will get much more expensive than it is today, let's hope prohibitively so. Those who get elected up through the ranks (first House, then Senate) will certainly attract public scrutiny, since the ability of any one person to serve is limited. Citizens should come to expect that a political career is short. Period.
We have a problem here: under the American system, an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Perhaps that assumption shouldn't apply to elected Federal officials. Let's see tax returns for everybody from POTUS on down, no exceptions; when you file to the IRS, send a copy to the new Congressional "internal affairs division". Let's see if there is evidence of illicit income to all those we trust to represent us, and enforce new anti-lobbying laws (notice I'm not going to propose what those laws should be, coupled with a 2-term limit amendment to the Constitution) every couple of years: when the House of Representatives gets a biennial tax review, let's do it for the rest of Federal Executive and Legislative Branch officers ... every one of them, no exemptions, no excuses. All we want to know is "how much did your wealth increase in the past review period?" If the subject of the review can't explain it, presume bribery and indict.
Early in the life of our nation, a Congressperson wasn't supposed to be a full-time job. You were paid the modern equivalent of $20,000/year, and expected to fund the rest of your life yourself. You had to sustain yourself when you came to sit in Congressional session, then leave DC and go home afterward. I'm not sure when this changed, but when it did, it set in motion the eventual corruption we see today. Another benefit of part-time legislators would be the removal of the temptation to sit around and scheme how to spend the taxpayers' money. We saw this happen in Connecticut, where full-time legislators didn't exist until 1992. The years since 1992 have seen massive increases in Connecticut's government spending, accompanied by the constant prospect of deficit operation and a pernicious State income tax.
Congress has sessions that last perhaps 6 months out of the year (less, perhaps?) ... Congresspersons should only be paid for the time they're in session, and I'd settle for an hours-actually-worked (i.e. present in sessions) salary basis. Out of session, our representatives should be at home, available to be seen and talked with by their constituents, should they decide to make themselves available. Should they not, I don't see them being able to argue for re-election to their second term. It's supposed to go with the job.
We, the people, can't afford the present situation any more. It's not about tax rates, it's about justice under the Constitution. The Constitution itself needs to protect us from these activists who get themselves elected once, then depend on their bribe masters to keep their campaigns so well funded that incumbency is a rule, not an exception. We can't expect fair representation when the temptation to corruption is ever-present. I'm sure we have some honorable people serving as Congressmen; but there don't seem to be very many of them. We need many, many more honest, honorable representatives to serve us.
Let's break that down so we ordinary working people can deal with it. A congresscritter earns $174K, before taxes, a year. This works out to $14,500 per month, or $3,346 per week. For a married congresscritter at their current salary, using the very worst assumptions (no deductions, two dependents total including self, married), the tax liability is approximately $32,000. This would reduce the gross salary to a $142,000 net per year. This is usually called take-home pay, and is not counting FICA/Medicare, state income tax withholding and other factors that further reduce net. For giggles, let's say the congresscritter has a residence in Connecticut, which has a 6.5% flat income tax rate at that income level, for another reduction of $11,500, for a net-net (take home pay) of $130,500 per year.
A take-home check of $130,500/year works out to $10,875 per month, or $2,510 per week. That's more than I take home, for certain. I'm pretty sure that is more than the vast majority of Americans make ... I won't even guess at the percentage of Americans that would kill to take home $2,500 per week.
Freshman Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) proposes a Congressional pay raise of $4,500 per year, or a gross $375 per month. The net-net on this is a piddling amount. Over this, she says "give me the pay raise or I'll go corrupt" -- a bald-faced extortionist threat. The problem is that it won't be enough to make much of a difference, given the costs of living in NYC and DC ... she'll eventually go corrupt anyway once she figures this out.
What I find appalling is that a freshman congresscritter finds it so easy to link up with corrupt organizations who'd want to buy her vote. And this just isn't a one-shot deal: once you take a bribe, you're hooked ... you can't get out of the relationship with your corrupt master because all they'll have to do is threaten to expose you. That's it: you're now a slave for as long as you hold that Congressional seat, and perhaps even after you leave office.
This is a serious problem which has been around longer than I have (I'm 63), and probably dates back to the late 19th Century, when the current congressional system of party whips took root. The question is, to me, not how long has this been going on; rather, how do we end this? How can we, through legislation and other actions, force the corrupt influences to keep their hands off our representatives?
I've been of the opinion for a very long time that any lobbyist caught anywhere within 100 mile radius of Washington DC needs to be criminally charged with a very serious felony that carries the Federal death penalty as a maximum, with a minimum 20 years' prison term and prohibition against holding any other governmental office (see Title 18, United States Code for the penalties for the crime of treason). In my view, lobbying and treason are crimes on the same level.
Lobbying is a perversion of the Constitutionally-prescribed representative republic the USA is supposed to be. It is an offense against the nation and its people, and should be statutorily recognized as such. I can't break the link between lobbying and corruption like that AOC threatens us with ... it's just too easy. An honest lobbyist? I'd imagine there are a few; but when push comes to shove, if needed to help sway a vote or perhaps change the wording of legislation, it's pretty easy to shove big, untaxable dollars at a representative or Senator ... the lobbyist's employer just may consider it a worthwhile expense of doing business. I don't find it difficult to imagine that most congresspeople have taken bribes and influenced the laws you and I have to live by.
Lobbyists, when successful in swaying a representative's vote, have cancelled out your voice: that representative is supposed to represent you. When you call your rep to complain about something, that rep should be listening to you, not outside voices. Of course, when you don't have a couple million bucks, or hundreds of thousands of voters both in and outside your district "locked up", as a union or major employer might, we can conclude that your opinion is worth much less to that representative. We need to stop these undue influences. Dead cold. The question is "how?"
Unless they somehow identify themselves and register, lobbyists would be difficult to even identify. Any person would find it easy to operate outside the law, were it to change to prohibit all lobbying. Even being a lobbyist should be a crime, but I don't think we'll ever be able to completely suppress lobbying behaviors: it's too easy to call a congressman at home, or meet geographically far away from DC. However, making lobbying an illegal behavior just might go far towards putting society -- its people, corporations, and organizations -- on notice that our representatives are supposed to be untouchable. However, as it's been said, you can't legislate morality. So let's look at some laws that sanction the behaviors, instead.
I can't help but think that rooting out corruption in Congress is going to be as difficult as rooting out corruption in the NYPD has been. No matter the number of crooked cops that have had their careers changed from officer to inmate, more corrupt cops seem to pop up and take their places. Would it be fair to presume that the number of corrupt cops, after a 50-year campaign against them, has dwindled to much lower numbers? We'll never know, really: since all this activity is illegal anyway, it all takes place under the covers ... an organization like the NYPD has to keep both eyes open for corrupt behavior 24x7. I'd imagine, since the stakes are much higher relative to Congressmen, corruption will be much more difficult to detect and root out.
I think a much better idea is term limits for all elected Legislative and Executive Branch office-holders. Two terms in each possible role. That's it, all you get -- no loopholes, no exceptions. You can serve a total of two terms in the House (no more than 4 years), two terms in the Senate (no more than 12 years), and two as the President (no more than 8 years, even if you served part of a previous POTUS' term). If you make it all the way to POTUS, your Federal political career can last no more than 24 years: that's plenty. Even if you start in the House and don't make it to the Senate, your Federal political career can last no more than four years. I'm good with that. Term limits would probably go a long way toward reducing the influence of a corrupt politician, since the propensity to campaign for the next election would be greatly reduced (I'd hope), and a lobbyist can't buy a politician for life -- they'd only be exposed for a two-term period. The attempt to always have congresspeople in your pocket will get much more expensive than it is today, let's hope prohibitively so. Those who get elected up through the ranks (first House, then Senate) will certainly attract public scrutiny, since the ability of any one person to serve is limited. Citizens should come to expect that a political career is short. Period.
We have a problem here: under the American system, an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Perhaps that assumption shouldn't apply to elected Federal officials. Let's see tax returns for everybody from POTUS on down, no exceptions; when you file to the IRS, send a copy to the new Congressional "internal affairs division". Let's see if there is evidence of illicit income to all those we trust to represent us, and enforce new anti-lobbying laws (notice I'm not going to propose what those laws should be, coupled with a 2-term limit amendment to the Constitution) every couple of years: when the House of Representatives gets a biennial tax review, let's do it for the rest of Federal Executive and Legislative Branch officers ... every one of them, no exemptions, no excuses. All we want to know is "how much did your wealth increase in the past review period?" If the subject of the review can't explain it, presume bribery and indict.
Early in the life of our nation, a Congressperson wasn't supposed to be a full-time job. You were paid the modern equivalent of $20,000/year, and expected to fund the rest of your life yourself. You had to sustain yourself when you came to sit in Congressional session, then leave DC and go home afterward. I'm not sure when this changed, but when it did, it set in motion the eventual corruption we see today. Another benefit of part-time legislators would be the removal of the temptation to sit around and scheme how to spend the taxpayers' money. We saw this happen in Connecticut, where full-time legislators didn't exist until 1992. The years since 1992 have seen massive increases in Connecticut's government spending, accompanied by the constant prospect of deficit operation and a pernicious State income tax.
Congress has sessions that last perhaps 6 months out of the year (less, perhaps?) ... Congresspersons should only be paid for the time they're in session, and I'd settle for an hours-actually-worked (i.e. present in sessions) salary basis. Out of session, our representatives should be at home, available to be seen and talked with by their constituents, should they decide to make themselves available. Should they not, I don't see them being able to argue for re-election to their second term. It's supposed to go with the job.
We, the people, can't afford the present situation any more. It's not about tax rates, it's about justice under the Constitution. The Constitution itself needs to protect us from these activists who get themselves elected once, then depend on their bribe masters to keep their campaigns so well funded that incumbency is a rule, not an exception. We can't expect fair representation when the temptation to corruption is ever-present. I'm sure we have some honorable people serving as Congressmen; but there don't seem to be very many of them. We need many, many more honest, honorable representatives to serve us.
Comments
Post a Comment