Lawmakers With Relatives on Payroll
There has been much ado about Tom DeLay's skating the ethical line with his trips and employment of family members. The link above shows the list to include both sides of the aisle. The outrage by Senators and Congressmen seems a bit rich. The key difference IMNHO is the amounts we're talking about. Every politician certainly has the right to hire whomever they wish in whatever capacity they wish. However, were I donor, I would look carefully at how my donation is spent. Is the candidates son or daughter holding a degree in government from Harvard or Georgetown? If so, I would have little problem with them being involved in the campaign or even administration. The sheer size of Delay's payroll for his family is what make me balk. Further down the list you'll see people who were re-imbursed $1500 or so for travel and expenses. That, my friend(s), is a mere pittance compared to how much money changes hands in a campaign. The only solution to any and all of this is 100% transparancy. You'll never elminate money from politics because as O'Rourke's maxim: goes: "When legistlators regulate buying and selling, the first thing bought and sold is the legislators."
"But he did it first" is the common cry of children to justify their actions and it doesn't wash with parents nor will it work with voters. Voters rightly perceive politicians to be hogs at the teat drawing as much money as possible from it. Pork barrell projects, free lunches, comps from businesses, free trips under the aegis of "fact finding", sweetheart investment deals like real estate where the parties in question know or can influence the affect of the market price are not uncommon. I have little time for politicians posturing about the misconduct of their colleagues. So please, spare me on this one.
Boortz and Will correctly explain that only a flat tax or national retail sales tax will break the back of K Street which games the tax code to benefit their clients. Without the tweaking of the tax code to benefit their clients, their influence is greatly diminished and we can focus on other things. Would that it were law.
/rant
There has been much ado about Tom DeLay's skating the ethical line with his trips and employment of family members. The link above shows the list to include both sides of the aisle. The outrage by Senators and Congressmen seems a bit rich. The key difference IMNHO is the amounts we're talking about. Every politician certainly has the right to hire whomever they wish in whatever capacity they wish. However, were I donor, I would look carefully at how my donation is spent. Is the candidates son or daughter holding a degree in government from Harvard or Georgetown? If so, I would have little problem with them being involved in the campaign or even administration. The sheer size of Delay's payroll for his family is what make me balk. Further down the list you'll see people who were re-imbursed $1500 or so for travel and expenses. That, my friend(s), is a mere pittance compared to how much money changes hands in a campaign. The only solution to any and all of this is 100% transparancy. You'll never elminate money from politics because as O'Rourke's maxim: goes: "When legistlators regulate buying and selling, the first thing bought and sold is the legislators."
"But he did it first" is the common cry of children to justify their actions and it doesn't wash with parents nor will it work with voters. Voters rightly perceive politicians to be hogs at the teat drawing as much money as possible from it. Pork barrell projects, free lunches, comps from businesses, free trips under the aegis of "fact finding", sweetheart investment deals like real estate where the parties in question know or can influence the affect of the market price are not uncommon. I have little time for politicians posturing about the misconduct of their colleagues. So please, spare me on this one.
Boortz and Will correctly explain that only a flat tax or national retail sales tax will break the back of K Street which games the tax code to benefit their clients. Without the tweaking of the tax code to benefit their clients, their influence is greatly diminished and we can focus on other things. Would that it were law.
/rant
Comments