Main image
20th April
2009
written by Sean Noble

This story in the Washington Times exposes, once again, the inherent corruption that is too prevalent in Washington, D.C.  When a powerful Senator can, without the slightest hesitation or second thought, introduce legislation that directs money to the agency that is funding her husband’s business, you know the system has failed.

On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband’s real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.

Mrs. Feinstein’s intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn’t a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments – not direct federal dollars.

Having been on the inside of the cesspool that is Washington, D.C. for nearly 15 years, I stopped being surprised a long time ago. Now I’m just disgusted.  This is yet one more example of what is terribly, terribly wrong with Washington today.  And yes, I’m just as disgusted with Republicans who do this kind of thing as well (particularly those associated with the Abramoff fiasco.)

Be Sociable, Share!

6 Comments

  1. Cameron Bolender
    21/04/2009

    Rule 34 of American Government: if there is legislation involving money, then there is corruption regarding that legislation.

  2. Woody
    21/04/2009

    This demonstrates the inherent problem with the massive federal government, and why “States Rights” needs to become a rallying point for America. This kind of patronage is nothing new, and it happens on the local level, but the pols that engage in it locally have to face their neighbors daily. Many if not most of the DC crowd just consider the folks back home an annoying inconvenience.

  3. Frankie
    21/04/2009

    woody, what makes state governments any less corrupt? i think term limits would help more. rotate these guys out every once and a while…

  4. Zach
    21/04/2009

    Term limits do seem like a tempting solution, but it could also create greater troubles. If politicians don’t have to wrry about campaigning again and defending their record, what stops them from padding their retirment plan? No, the root cause is a loss of ethics and the idea among the elite that there is a negotiable center. Until people demand their elected officials have a clearly defined ethical center, there is little hope of improving the situation.

  5. DGN
    21/04/2009

    Term limits are useless. Twenty years ago, the turnover rate at the legislature was about 60 percent over an average ten year period. You had fresh faces every year, but you also had oldtimers who could look at a new bill and say “Hey, we tried that back in ’77 and we found out it’s a bad idea…” etc.

    Term limits for Congress would cure nothing. In fact, having the House up for election every two years is a great term limit in its own right.

  6. Carol
    21/04/2009

    I have to agree with DGN. The problem with term limits is that they result in high turnover. Even though one of the requirements of U.S. Congressmen is to be a quick study, some of the best just start to hit their stride about 6 years into the job. Their staffs are seasoned and things can get done. Also, anything to prevent the slide into “perpetual campaign mode” is welcome.

Leave a Reply