Friday, January 06, 2006

The Washington Mobster


He's even dressing the part!

A mobster is exposed! One assumes that Jack Abramoff and his associates will surely do time after ratting on the many congressional contacts to whom he generously shared what appears to have been very ill-gotten gains (from various Indian tribes around the country). Some might even believe it follows that Congress is on the verge of collapse, and anyone receiving money from the crook for whatever reason is also tainted. Of course, if the Left weren't scared to death that party stalwarts will be long on a list the federal prosecutors are busily compiling, they'd already be trumpeting Abramoff's extortions and embezzlements as constituting a massive "Republican Cultural Scandal."

I too am outraged, but not because congressmen were receiving "tainted" money for their campaign re-election war chests (mainly by promoting legislation that would benefit Indian casino business ventures)--that's legal and old hat in Washington. What enrages me is that Abramoff crafted an almost perfect scheme to scam our Native Brothers on their generally miserable reservations. In recent decades they had finally discovered the perfect way to rake in the big bucks with minimal capital investments: the Halls of Gambling that much of America seems incurably and insatiably addicted to. The ironic aspect of this growing industry on the reservations is that they're finally realizing in spades for what their white oppressors did to them in the 19th century: Legally fleecing them cleanly.

As to the outrage that the media are expressing--and it seems so far successful in whipping up their readers in middle America--placing the focus on Congress and the 35,000 registered Washington lobbyists, it's a case of completely misplaced emphasis. I've got my own (great big) beef with the elected big free-spenders of our (legally) confiscated money in Washington--and I've no doubt there may have been some legislators were directly engaged in the fraud that Abramoff was perpetrating. But they probably amount to precious few.

Recently, I had an exchange with a blogger, a (Leftist) professor of economics at a major university, over his over-zealous condemnation of politicians (especially G.W. Bush). His assertion was that our representatives, everyone one of them, are corrupt to the core and should therefore be fired, and replaced with "honest citizens" (under a system Karl Marx referred to the "enlightened proletariat," enroute to Eden or Communism) who would, overnight, bring everlasting peace, harmony, and economic equality to America. When I responded to his apocalyptic view of American government by citing a few facts against his pure illusions and fabrications, he became livid and denounced me as "obviously an active member of The Conspiracy" (I presumed he meant Hillary's "vast Right-wing conspiracy"). Proffering this kind of worldview is what severely damaging the very foundation of American governance. The professor would also contend that Jack Abramoff is a White House undercover "plumber" doing the nefarious work of The Conspiracy. The mainstream press accounts of Abramoff's criminal activities during the past decade are simply framing the professor's view of American politics.

However, I stand in stark contrast to that view of the "lobbying scandal." I don't see it as a "lobbying scandal," but as the gullibility of so many who were defrauded by Abramoff, and the weakness of a few Washington operatives. I also happen to believe our 200-plus year old system, with all its warts and fault lines, is still the best, proven system ever invented and has provided me and mine a standard of freedom and living undreamt of by even my own father. And lobbyists have been an inherent element of our system even before the Constitution was concluded, when interest groups tried actively to influence the framers of our Constitution to shape it to their own visions and perceived needs.

While I recognize it's fashionable to attack lobbyists and try to cast shadows on legislators who accept donations to their political re-election war chests, I don't see myself as political posture as "fashionable." The fact is, Congress couldn't operate (not under the present set-up we like to call a "free-market") without having the court attendants helping legislators to acquire knowledge of the 1,001 things they and their staffs must know in order to fulfill their duties to their constituencies. (Please don't get side-tracked here--I recognize a strong case is made for far less legislation, which would eventually have the effect of cutting down on the size of government, reducing the federal budget, and eliminating most of the excess flow influence through monies throughout the Halls of Congress--all interesting libertarian-like arguments--for another day.)

There's no doubt the lobby system tempts and it also may exert undue pressure on otherwise honest legislators--that's simply a fact of life. Former congressman, now MSNBC TV pundit, Joe Scarborough, made that observation last night in an interview with MSNBC TV interviewer, Chris Matthews, that those who cross the re-election campaign coffers with silver will get first attention from the firms for whom lobbyists work--"it's a fine line [between being tainted and honest brokering]" he said. But when an elected legislator falls for and partakes of the forbidden apple, he or she must bear the full weight of the law and ethical shame.

Just what constitutes "the forbidden apple"? It's clear to me and most Americans (excepting lawyers and politicians who try to wiggle out of accountability): After accepting money for legal re-election campaign purposes, if a legislator agrees to draft legislation or vote the way a lobbyist's client wants without considering all facets of the issue, then that's corruption. Or, as in the recent case of Air Force Vietnam Phantom (F-4) jet fighter pilot ace, "Duke" Cunningham, if a legislator accepts gratuities clearly out of proportion to the inherent sense of propriety (never mind the limits specified in the House and Senate Ethics guidelines), that's corruption. In other words, we have the smell test of common sense and famous "I'll-know-it-when-I-see-it" test. Honorable people know what corruption is. Less-than-honorable people know. Only truly evil individuasl wouldn't know, but the optimist in me says we send very few of that kind of people to represent us. No legislation is necessary in the wake of Abramoff.

The real story here is Jack Abramoff and his immediate willing associates who scammed eager but innocent people into channeling huge sums of money into Abramoff's several companies, in the naive belief their money would insure the success of their casino operations, through favorable decisions from the Department of Interior (via the Bureau of Indian Affairs) and from Congress as well. Their naivete was overwhelming naive! Without doing basic due diligence, they trusted a crook enough to turn over millions of dollars to him personally, or to dozens of fake lobbying companies. Any congressional electee--and officials, including congressmen, their staffs, and career or appointed bureaucrats found complicit in the multiple fraud schemes devised by Abramoff--should be shown no mercy after juries pass their verdicts.

Is there a "cure" that would effectively end the temptation of green--the "apple"? Perhaps the assignment of independent oversight bodies inside Congress and the bureaucracy, accompanied by the certainty of vigorous prosecution would curb the worse excesses. But to advocate the elimination of the lobby system is foolish and ignorant. Lobbyists not only represent corporations as well as the likes of the Indian gaming industry, they also represent thee and me in ways we seldom appreciate: Insurance of various kinds: medical, vehicle, property; retirement benefits; drugs and medicines; legal and judicial abuse; travel;business; education--an endless list of interests to a nation of 300,000,000 souls. In fact, lobbyists are a vital conduit to legislators. To suggest their elimination would throwing the baby out with the bathwater and would paralyze the nation almost immediately.

No comments: