POCKET GOFER 7

ON CORRUPTION AND ACCOUNTABILITY

A BRIEF BACKGROUNDTHOSE GRIM DETAILSJUST A FEW OF THE COSTS TO USWHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT CORRUPTION IN OUR GOVERNMENTCONCLUSION

This pocket gofer is dedicated to Doris Haddock, aka "Granny D," who at age 89 walked 3,200 miles across the USA to draw public attention to a US congress that reeks of corruption. She came into Washington DC and walked up the Capitol steps with a clean sweep in mind. She died in March 2010 at age 100 with the shameless scoundrels in congress unmoved.

Jefferson: "--- shameless corruption in the first and second congresses." Looks like we are off to a shaky start on this one.

Lincoln: "Politicians are a set of men who have interests aside from the interests of the people and who, to say the most of them, are, taken as a mass, at least one step removed from honest men."

Mark Twain: "--- no such thing as a distinctly native American criminal class, except Congress." And all this before the invention of the career politician; see Pocket Gofer 3.

Humorist H.L. Mencken said, “I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty and common decency; this makes me forever ineligible for any public office.”

Damn! Here are wise men thruout our history who think politicians are a bunch of bums. This apparent truth tempts us to think in terms of eliminating the Congress.

The Economist (5/10) accurately described the sickness. "Corruption inevitably begets ever more corruption: bribe-takers keep returning to the trough and bribe-givers open themselves up to blackmail.

"Corruption also exacts a high psychological cost ---------. ------ corrupt business people habitually compare ------- having an affair: no sooner have you given into temptation than you are trapped in a world of secrecy and guilt."

This holds true until the rot takes root and infects nearly everyone. This reduces guilt feelings. All-pervasive corruption can be found in practically every government where accountability is lacking.

It is human nature to promote our own objectives. This applies whether we toil in the private or public sector. Human nature does not change over time.

We might conclude from the above that politicians have surely not changed. Therefore maybe there is little that we can do about the sorry situation in government today.

In this we would be severely misguided. If the Congress and administration were no more corrupt today than they were 230 years ago, we would not be misguided. However, human nature being what it is, by today the government monster has grown to the point where it is eating our lunch.

Never mind all the hype about those terrible Iranians, or North Koreans, or al-Qaeda, or other jihadists. The real enemy is right here at home.

Even worse, the monster threatens to eat our children and grandchildren. Therefore, for the sake of these good people and others yet unborn we had better look into this menace. This pocket gofer will do that, and suggest some things that we can do to smoke it out.

We will look into only a few of the amazing things that some of us do when they are sure they will not be punished. Hence the title of this booklet: CORRUPTION (the things) and ACCOUNTABILITY (lack of, as when no one is watching). We will see that with the second we can minimize the first and then keep much more of what we earn.

A BRIEF BACKGROUND

The theory of representative democracy says the president and members of the Congress are public servants. But today’s president and Congress perceive the White House as a king’s court and not a foundation of democracy.

We will outline behavior patterns of many more examples of this type of public servant, past and present. Together they have created a new version of democracy where anyone can play so long as his/her pockets are deep enough.

We will see that members of the Congress are possibly the worst. This says something important about representative democracy that is worth some serious thought.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution (Section 1) specifies one person, one vote: "------ equal protection of the laws." But if an individual or PAC (Political Action Committee, more on these later) has deep pockets this rule gets bent, sometimes double.

Just who are the servants anyway, when power lies in money and ambitious people, not in ideas and laws and programs built from good ideas (see Pocket Gofer 13)? About the time this country was founded Britain's Lord Acton said, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

As for accountability an old saying still applies: "When the cat's away the mice will play."

Now we are getting down to the core of the problem: it lies in human nature. This is why those 55 dedicated men who compiled the Constitution in 1787 put into it some checks and balances. They were aimed at curbing abuse of personal power in any one branch of government.

These men possessed remarkable insights into human nature, and even today we are grateful for this. Our written Constitution has set a record in the annals of history for its longevity and for the few instances where it needed amendments.

The kicker here lies in a key assumption. The founders made sure that each of the three branches of government checked the other two for any abuses, but they assumed that we citizens would watch all three all the time.

If we don't do this and do it well human nature suggests that members of the three branches will be tempted to combine their efforts in their own interest. If we snooze long enough that temptation will change into action, and we must then put up with an elite class of people ruling over us. Pocket Gofer 19 elaborates.

Government officials are by definition parasites. Reformers in early 17th century Madrid, Spain estimated that the ratio of idle parasites to productive workers in government was about 30:1.

It is the nature of parasites to chomp away and multiply until eventually they have destroyed their host (and themselves). This is what happened to the great Spanish Empire, and to several others over the centuries. There is a lesson in this.

We had an advantage, however, in that we began with a representative democracy. Starting in 1800, about every 30 years or so we put ourselves through what could be called a nonviolent revolution, up thru 1932.

Looking backward, we can see that because of human nature these revolutions were necessary. That is, public officials naturally tend to evolve from public servants to self-servants, and so the occasional revolution acts as a necessary purge to the system.

In fact, Jefferson advocated a periodic cleaning. Just as it is with individuals, every government needs a good and thoro laxative every now and then.

But now it has been over 80 years since the last dose of ex-lax, and we are hurting. We haven't seen an estimate of the above (Spanish) ratio for Washington DC. Nevertheless we think we had better act quickly before it gets to 30:1 and the parasites win.

Historian Alan Brinkley: "The image of (the nation's capital) as an inspiring symbol of (America's) hopes and ideals, presided over by the spirits of Lincoln, Jefferson, and

Washington, must now compete with a counter-image: a city of intrigue and corruption, swarming with greedy special interests."

We're surely glad there is no time machine available to bring these men back to see the mess that passes for government today. Wouldn't want to wish this one on anybody, much less our past heroes.

But it is being wished, on us. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin warned against another part of human nature, called complacency. This feeling of contentment arrived shortly after World War II, when our society became wealthy for the first time in history.

Over the years our country has done admirably well when compared to the struggles of nearly every other nation on the planet. Democracy, capitalism, and limited government enabled our ancestors to build a wealthy nation. It seems only natural for us today to kick back, reap what our ancestors sowed, and let Washington look after itself.

We can be sure that Washington has been doing exactly that, but not in the way we had in mind. Hang in there, as we will soon get into the grim details.

In other words the cat nodded off about 70 years ago, and the mice have been playing ever since. And the prices of their toys keep increasing.

No prize for guessing who is the cat. It's us, friends. Think about it: there is no one else we can trust to watch Washington and keep it shaped up.

Accountability has gradually faded, and Washington insiders know it only too well. Bill O’Reilly: "Too many of us watchdogs have become lap dogs."

And apathetic. We don't give a damn anymore, and the mice love it. All they ask is that we keep on paying the tab. The kicker here is that they don't ask. They pry it loose from us with laws which, if violated, lands the violator into prison. Government is force.

Wouldn't we love it if we could party all the time while a huge bunch of people whom we don't even know pays for it? Reminds us of the old song entitled "Nice Work if You can Get it."

Members of Congress know they aren't accountable to us, so they abuse their privileged positions. Hence the title of this message: ACCOUNTABILITY, and the lack of it leading to CORRUPTION.

Lincoln: "----- and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from this earth." Molly Ivins (3/00 column): "We now have a politics that is about money, of money, by money, and for money. How long can it be before the word ‘politics’ comes to mean money?"

DAMN! Is this lady right?

THOSE GRIM DETAILS

GRIM DETAIL #1 - FAT CATS: In 1970 a few "Fortune 500" (big) companies had offices in Washington DC. By 1980 over 80 percent of them did.

Companies came under pressure to state their case in Washington. This pressure was due in part to many other groups that were part of the consumerism movement of the 1960s.

Company managers saw that they too had to plead for special favors in order to maintain a balance against the consumerists. But today we see that human nature has had its way in the private sector as well as in government: Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, and Ahold (world’s third biggest retailer, based in The Netherlands).

Interesting to observe the avalanche of media attention devoted to these companies and their deceptive top managers. This was to distract the public’s attention from still bigger fraud being foisted upon citizens by government fat cats.

Often when fat cats are assembled to gaze at royalty the press is kept far away. Apparently it would not look good if some maverick reporter discovered there were a couple of guys attending who feed royalty big bucks through their lobbyists.

Economist (1/06): “All you have to do to join a presidential meet-and-greet line is donate a stack of money to the Republican Party.” Clinton hosted coffees in the White House, where the price per cup was $50,000 to the Democratic Party. (Refills extra?)

“Lobbying can’t be banned --- Americans have a constitutional right to ‘petition the government for a redress of grievances.’” Apologies to the Economist, but this is a crock. The first Amendment, from which this quote is taken, says nothing about bringing bags of money when petitioning.

The Constitution specifies free and fair elections. Lobbying distorts election campaigns.

Columnist Reeves (5/00) glommed onto some really rotten stuff. He was bent.

"People here in the capital of the greatest democracy money can buy are a bit upset about the big democratic ‘barbeque’ here the other night. ------- where some folks paid $500,000 for ribs and a Bud light.

"Then came President Clinton talking about his old boots and jeans, trying to say something but realizing his microphone wasn’t working, which gave some spoilsports who had sneaked in the chance to be heard chanting, ‘Stop Corruption Now!’

"The president got upset, turning red, and calling out to the gods of microphones: ‘Turn this on! If you’d turn this on, they could hear me instead of them.’"

Hard to estimate how many of those half-million-type cats preferred to hear the spoilsports, having over the previous seven years heard far too much from Bill. Dare we mention here that in a democracy the president, as a public servant and agent of the people, should spend more time listening than talking?

Reeves could not stop there. "----- perpetual fund-raising is the new lifestyle of American politicians. As television and direct mail have become the media of time-efficient, depersonalized campaigning, the only way politicians can meet people is by taking their money." In this way small-bucks voices are muffled.

"The endless shakedown is also what allows politicians to live far beyond their means. Most everything they do --- from golf to the flights to where the rich and famous congregate, for example --- is paid for by campaign funds."

Friends, shakedown = extortion. This is illegal for us ordinary blokes, but not for the rich and famous.

"In his second term, the president (Clinton) attended at least 350 announced democratic fund-raisers --- those are the ones we know about --- which works out to one every three days. We must assume he worked a little governing in sideways.

“There is a legacy to ponder. The man of the people sold off pieces of himself for eight years. How much is left then? Not much, just the anger at uninvited guests who have the temerity to suggest this is corruption."

Yep, just so long as it folds and is negotiable. Wasn’t this standard procedure in Chicago during the Al Capone era?

Here is a glance into how dirty the game has become. In late 1998 the NY Times observed that Republican politics favored small government, free enterprise, and "—a return to conservative Christian values."

Don Barlett and Jim Steele are part of a rare breed today: investigative reporters. They showed that pieces such as that printed in the Times are a foil designed to distract readers’ attention from what is really going on.

The two men showed that the corrupt system doesn’t work. All those subsidies, tax breaks, bribes, and low-cost loans don’t create any new jobs.

A number? Well, $125 billion is a nice round figure. This is a rough estimate of the total tax breaks and other benefits to corporations. What they gave to politicians in exchange for that huge chunk was not stated (probably around $20 billion).

This means we citizens must make up the deficit. Molly Ivins in a 11/98 column: "Just in federal taxes, it is the equivalent of all the income tax paid by 60 million individuals and families. Lower taxes, anyone?"

We thought Clinton was sleazy. President GW Bush was winging along at full bore; we watched him set a new low (Economist 12/02).

"He stuffed his cabinet with the sort of people whose first reaction to news of some tycoon’s obscene retirement package is to wonder why they hadn’t fixed so luscious a deal for themselves." This opened the door for abuse still wider.

"The lobbyists’ biggest coup has been the revision of the Homeland Security Bill. One new provision allows companies that have registered overseas to escape American taxes when they get contracts with the department.

"A second provision frees companies that make faulty anti-terrorism equipment ------ from liability to prosecution. A third restricts the liability of drug companies that produce smallpox vaccines. A fourth tries to shield Eli Lilly from lawsuits seeking billions of dollars for families of autistic children.

"And there is more ------. Last month the lords of the pharmaceutical industry --- who spent $35m lobbying the two most recent elections --- went into a huddle to plan their next demand."

The writer finished with a brief nostalgia trip. "There was a time when conservative Washington was full of Adam Smith enthusiasts who solemnly intoned that good government must promote competition, not hand out favors to cronies. But most of those young Reaganauts have long since taken the lobbying industry’s dollar."

Alterman and Greene wrote The Book on Bush in 2004. It’s loaded. Bush supported a bill that protects credit card companies from people declaring bankruptcy. MBNA America is the largest such company in the US. It contributed more dirty money than any other corporation during the 2000 election campaign.

Bush-Cheney received $2,636,625 from rich farmers. Huge subsidies paid to them from tax revenues explain why we don’t stop paying for our food when we exit the supermarket.

“Six companies were secretly invited by the pentagon to bid for up to $900 million in initial post war (Iraq) contracts. These six ---------- contributed a total of more than $3.5 million to candidates over the past two election cycles, --------.”

The Bush family has for decades had close ties to Enron and Ken Lay, its former chief executive. Abandoning his old friend, Bush formed a Corporate Fraud Task Force.

Later he took 59 FBI agents off it and sent them to the anti-terror bureaucrats. It looks like the Fraud Task Force is itself a fraud. (Maybe Bush did not abandon Mr. Lay.)

Alterman and Greene summarized: “The problem is that he is determined to serve his political base -------------- the religious right, Fortune 500 CEOs (top dogs), especially those from the oil patch, and neocon ideologues --- at the expense of the rest of the nation.” How is this for public service?

The Economist (3/10) reviewed a book by Simon Johnson and James Kwak called 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown. "---- America's big banks ----- gained political power because of its economic power and then uses ---------- for its own benefit.

"Their tools are the soft power of campaign finance contributions, the revolving door of jobs in government and Wall Street, and the creation of a culture that equated Wall Street's gain with America's gain. (Who can remember "What's good for General Bull-moose [Motors] is good for the USA?")

"But they are no less nefarious. Their power, --------, explains why the Obama team chose the 'blank cheque' option for dealing with the 2008 financial crisis."

Just in case we have not yet gagged, Michael Gindes wrote an article called "The Power of Cash" (Economist 10/30/10): "The now unrestricted financing of campaign ads may not 'buy' the results of elections, but it does gain more favors from elected officials.

"As is, these kinds of donations have already heavily influenced, watered down or completely stopped financial reform, health insurance reform and energy policy. -------------. A good example is the lack of negotiating power over drug prices for Medicare and the continuing restrictions on importing medicines from Canada." Money does not talk in Washington; it shouts.

GRIM DETAIL #2 - ETHICS AND ARROGANCE: Congress passed laws banning discrimination based on race, but exempted itself from enforcement. It passed a Freedom-of-Information Act, but exempted itself.

They voted themselves whopping raises in salary without consulting those who must pay for them: us. (They pulled one of these off at midnight, hoping the news media would be asleep.)

The latest sneaky gimmick has congressmen setting a deadline, beyond which a salary increase is automatic. Then they take a vote and nearly everyone votes against, ---- immediately after the deadline. Then each notifies his/her constituents that he voted against the raise, but was outvoted.

Molly Ivins in a 2/97 column: "Meanwhile, ---- Trent Lott was spending three days at a luxurious, oceanfront Palm Beach resort mingling and schmoozing with fat-cat donors to

the Republican party who have given at least $175,000 over four years. ------- said the big donors should be allowed to give even more because ‘it’s the American way.’"

Mitch McConnell (Economist 9/13/97), does not pretend to favor campaign finance reform. "Spending by candidates, he goes on, is part of healthy debate in America’s democracy. The entire amount spent on the 1996 congressional campaigns worked out at just $3.89 per eligible voter."

This is irrelevant, of course. He uses that small number to distract us from the corrupt truth. Healthy debate? Where do we citizens fit into this burst of health?

Marc Rich is a billionaire who over 30 years ago did some seriously illegal things. He split the country to avoid prosecution, but later wanted back in. He could not buy off Presidents Reagan or elder Bush, but in January 2001 he found Mr. Clinton interested.

Rich’s former wife gave over $1 million to democratic campaigns. Previously she had been a major donor to Clinton, and she begged him to pardon Marc.

Safire (1/01 column) commented: "----- the most flagrant abuse of presidential pardon power in US history. Even Clinton stalwarts are openly disgusted at their man’s departing display of shamelessness." Clinton may have had some strong points, but shame was surely not among them.

Krauthammer chimed in (2/01 column): "Perhaps the best measure of a president’s corruption --- a Presidential Corruption Index --- is how many laws are changed in order to prevent future presidents from acting as scandalously as this one. -------. There is no flurry of proposed changes in the law ------."

Whenever the high and mighty get accused of wrongdoing, the issue seems to habitually fade into nothing while the public salivates in anticipation of the next one. Sound-bite news media sandbag this tendency. We think all this says something about the moral climate of our once-great country.

Economist 1/7/17: “As their first major initiative of the new year, republican congressmen announced a scheme so crassly self-interested as to suggest they had learned nothing from the old one.” This is hardly surprising. “Denizens of a reviled institution, and a party railroaded by Donald Trump’s populist insurgency, planned to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) an independent ------- root out corruption. Less than 24 hours later, after a hail of condemnation, they turned tail; ----------.”

The latest gimmick has congressmen establishing “charities,” which are just additional pockets to dump money into. They also have “personal foundations.” Congress has made both organizations legal, and donations tax-deductible.

Members of Congress have very gradually become a ruling elite. Public servants? HAWGWASH! They have made us the servants.

And suckers. Circus impresario PT Barnum once said, "There's a sucker born every minute." This is inaccurate. In this country there's a sucker born every seven seconds, around the clock.

Economist 12/2/17: Exc piece, but right here at the close the writer omits to mention House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s intense love for money, however acquired. Over decades this career politician has learned in great detail how to game the system. Furthermore her husband suffers from the same ailment. For very capable elaboration, see Peter Schweiker’s book Throw Them All Out.

GRIM DETAIL #3 - POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES: From 1993 to June 1994 PACs threw $100 million at congressmen. How does this money buy influence?

We will take one instance. The PAC made up of candy producers and other heavy users of sugar may be willing to throw in, say, $10 million to get members of Congress to reduce sugar price supports. That is, if the market price of sugar drops below a specified level the government makes up the difference to sugar producers by slipping batches of our money to them.

But the sugar barons' PAC pitches in $12 million to get Congress to hold the supports steady or raise them. This means we pay more than we should for everything we buy that contains sugar.

Looks to us like they could get together and each would save $10 million to spend on research and development, pay higher dividends to shareholders or to increase worker productivity and hence wages and living standards. The kicker is that Congressmen want that $20 million for use in buying our votes.

This action wouldn't fly in Washington, as no one disturbs the gravy train. How about Clinton's health care plan? PACs loaded members of Congress down with somewhere around $53 million. This would be enough to insure around 30,000 uninsured citizens.

Former senator Proxmire: "I can't say that PACs are buying these elections. But you'd have to be a fool to believe that they aren't buying something."

Comfortably retired courtesy of the taxpayer, the good senator could have said that. But at the time he had many friends still in the Congress.

Congress recently changed its organization so that almost every member holds some position of power (real or imaginary). This diffuses the targets, and so any special interest group wanting to buy influence must spread its filthy money among more crooks, er, members. In this way more money is required.

It's to the point where so many congressmen are being bought on both sides of so many issues that few can distinguish between Republican and Democrat by looking at voting

records. Abortion is a good example. Donations on both sides are approximately equal, so they cancel each other out.

This makes it hard for public servants to stake out a position on the issue. That is, it's difficult to predict which position will pay better.

So they resolve the dilemma to suit themselves: delay taking a position or toss out some weasel words and rake in bucks from both sides. Simple, actually.

Recently a lobbyist described procedures for buying senators. Most are flattered, wined, dined, or taken on luxury trips. A lobbyist might serve on an advisory committee. And cash, of course.

There are problems here. The lobbyist indicated that only about 95 of 100 senators could be bought in this manner.

Also, news media expose one scandal after another, which makes it difficult to predict when the lid will blow off. Such is life on the edge.

In October 1996 columnist Molly Ivins wrote a piece entitled "They're Buying Our Government." In it she gets in a couple of good shots. However, we question the accuracy of the title, as it implies that the government is ours to sell, we agreed to sell it, and we are receiving the sales price.

Someone said, "America is the finest country anyone ever stole." This seems more accurate.

Here's more on campaign contributions by PACs. In 1988 they pitched in $150 million. Company managers had congressmen and -women in their pockets.

PJ O'Rourke's interesting book called Parliament of Whores got us this one: "Whenever legislators get involved in buying and selling the first things bought and sold are legislators."

If we were up for sale to the highest bidder, would we be deeply concerned about the taxpayer/voters away back home? Friends, this is corruption.

GRIM DETAIL #4 - ON DOORS: In Washington there has grown up a huge revolving door. We can't see it, but this does not interfere in its functioning. The party keeps going on no matter who occupies public office, and so those few who retire or (rarely) lose elections don't want to leave the biggest bash in history.

They don't want to go home either. They know that we are beginning to get onto their game, and therefore they will not be welcomed.

Taking thousands in dirty money from the NRA (National Rifle Association) and thus voting against gun control means lots of folks back home have guns. Combine our anger, guns, and megabucks flying around Washington, and we can understand their reluctance to return home. (Maybe some cannot remember where home is.)

So they stick around and pass through the revolving door to become lobbyists or "consultants" for special interests. They lobby their former colleagues in the Congress. In this way they keep the easy money flowing into their fat wallets long after "retirement."

The “lobbying reform” law of May 06 states that congressmen and senior aides must wait a year after stepping down, before lobbying their former colleagues. In theory this might reduce some of the worst abuses.

Think again. No bill passed by those who benefit from lobbying can work. Public Citizen reported that nearly half of all congressmen who left office between 1998 and 2004 became lobbyists.

Even when voted out of office (happens rarely) they don’t go home. They turn to lobbying while waiting for the political winds to again blow their way. It’s the money, honey.

We understand that in late 1994 there was a list of 140 former congresspeople doing this. With around a 98 percent success rate of re-election of congresspersons, there must be almost no one doing anything else.

Well, not exactly. Several years ago we noted that Oregon’s Bob Packwood was still around, even though he got pitched out of the senate due to sexual harassment. We guess he didn't want to go home either.

The sex thing was surely bad, but the illegal things that he did to raise money were even more revealing. We understand that the Portland Oregonian newspaper had a reporter looking into Packwood's behavior, but didn't print the story. We will see why below.

Former senator Packwood's diary: "March 6, 1992. Senator (blank) promised $100,000 for party-building activities. And what was said in that room would be enough to convict us all of something.

“He says, now of course you know there can't be any legal connection between this money and senator Packwood, but we know that it will be used for his benefit …….. I think that's a felony, I'm not sure."

It was easy for the senators to convince the news media to hype the hell out of Bob's sexual encounters. Every editor knows sex sells.

Citizens screamed for his scalp. We thought we had got it when he was thrown out on his arse.

Senators breathed a colossal sigh of relief as the tabloid hype buried any reporting on Packwood's diaries. Had the news media cooperated, this one would have burned nearly every senator at the stake.

We are beginning to see how the good ol' boy network stays intact from one election to the next. Whom you know is more important than what you know. (This is also true in places like North Korea.)

It means a targeted senator is an old friend and hence at least partly presold on the issue. It means the lobbyist can command a fatter fee because he is an insider.

Finally, it means that money and personal power are the coins of the realm. Good government means good government for insiders, not us. See Pocket Gofer 13.

During the 2008 campaign both Obama and McCain cooperated with the big lobbies when the going got tough. Money came from the same special interests that they had previously denounced.

GRIM DETAIL #5 - "LEGALITIES:" We should not complete this pocket gofer without covering the lawyers. They also do very little to create new wealth, except for themselves.

A recent estimate suggests that there is a net subtraction from the economy due to their efforts of roughly $600 billion a year. Worldwide spending on legal services per year is about $250 billion, of which 2/3 is spent here in the US (with five percent of the world population).

A major part of this moon-sized lump gets routed to personal injury litigation (Economist 10/02). "A paper published earlier this year by the Council of Economic Advisers estimates that America’s tort system soaks up ------- $180 billion a year.

"And for little purpose: only 20% of the money goes to claimants for economic damages. In a number of mass tort cases, courts have begged Congress to intervene. But politicians hesitate. Reform would tick off the trial lawyers." They regularly dump barrels of money into congressional coffers.

Lawyers stimulate demand for their services through legislation. In this they have a lot of willing hands to assist: about 40 percent of congressmen are lawyers.

The high prices that lawyers command lure talented young people away from the private sector, where their efforts would create wealth instead of transfer existing wealth into deep pockets (including their own).

We already have far too many lawyers, but they go on rigging the market in their favor anyway. This means in the future there will be still more of them settling into posh offices near us.

The ATLA (American Trial Lawyers Association) has thousands of members. Many of these hang around Washington where the big bucks congregate, and therefore they are feelthee rich. ATLA lobbyists splash megabucks around in just the right places.

One of those right places is the White House. Bill Clinton never wavered in his support for these lawyers. We all know he has been known to waver on other issues, but on this one he was rock solid.

In 1996 he vetoed the Common Sense Liability Reform Act. There were two main reasons: $3 million from the ATLA for his 1992 election campaign, and $2.5 million during the first nine months of 1995.

Unlimited liability surely does fatten lawyers, but it also makes companies think twice about putting products on the market. For example, Dow Corning got severely gouged over silicone breast implants.

We think the company decided to stop making silicone "shunts" in the face of threats from law firms. These things keep alive about 50,000 children afflicted with hydrocephalus. Dow has been the only manufacturer.

Anyone else want to have a go? We'll pass. The money is probably pretty good and we like to help chronically ill children, but we have never got many thrills out of swimming in shark-infested waters.

In late 1996 (timing?) the Supreme Court opened up a new way for political parties to work around campaign finance laws. Now parties can run TV and radio ads in congressional races so long as their actions are "independent" of the candidates themselves.

We can't find anyone who believes this one. Let's say it like it is: judge-made law. Now, the Constitution restricts those nine impressively robed justices in the big chairs to interpretation of existing laws. The making of laws is supposed to be done by the Congress.

But a law that encourages corruption is a hot potato. No member of Congress wants to touch it. Therefore the obvious solution is to toss the ball onto the Court (so to speak; sorry). Justices don't need to face voters from time to time.

Friends, this is bad news. The good news is, we will not fill the remainder of this pocket gofer with lawyer jokes.

We understand the head of the California Bar Association suggested that such jokes be labeled as hate mail. Predictably, this remark kicked loose another string of them.

Awright, awright! Just one. Definition of a crying shame: A busload of lawyers went over a cliff, but there were four empty seats.

Lawyer Scott Turow: "When spending is unrestrained, it is almost pointless to limit contributions, since the appetite for money will encourage ever more aggressive contrivances aimed at avoiding the restrictions."

The Court knew that its 1976 Buckley decision would restrict public speech for those who did not have deep pockets, but it apparently did not care. Therefore in basing its decision on the First Amendment to the Constitution it torpedoed that document’s original intent: free speech for all. (A 2009 decision buried the last shred of the First Amendment.)

In a democracy, speech is even more important than voting. Voting is rendered far more accurate and effective if preceded by citizen discussion and debate.

Robert Mutch (7/99 column): "The money-speech equation was a shrewd strategic move because it disguises money’s link to power by attaching it instead to the most widely revered part of our Constitution ----- the First Amendment. It makes the argument appear to be about defending everyone’s right to free speech rather than about protecting wealth’s claim to a larger voice."

Sneaky. See Publius II’s elaboration on sneakiness: Pocket Gofer 19.

Economist 5/9/15: “A hard line on commercial bribery is right. But the system is becoming ridiculous." This situation caters beautifully to an inherent characteristic of many lawyers: greed."Offenses that once drew a slap on the wrist now attract fines in hundreds of millions of dollars as well as prison terms for palm-greasing managers. It is right that bribery should be punished. the economic effects of graft are insidious. -------- distorts competition and diverts resources into crooked officials' offshore accounts.”

As a candidate, Donald Trump promised to ‘drain the swamp’ and make govt work for ordinary Americans. Today it looks very much like the swamp has become deeper: just one more example of political promises.

GRIM DETAIL #6 - THE NEWS MEDIA: Readers and viewers of today's news often cannot tell the difference between truth and lies. This means that an enterprising reporter might dig up some real dirt about a politician and get it published, and we wouldn't know whether to cheer for him/her or ignore the result of some hard work. Maybe it's just another cheap shot at a public figure.

Also, maybe his conclusion is wrong and then the news medium has egg all over its face. If no attaboys come from it, why run the risk?

Furthermore, big newspapers and TV companies are run by managers these days, not journalists. They lack a nose for news, preferring to please their customers with fluff if necessary, rather than to risk the embarrassment (and loss of customers) of being proven wrong. And with lawyers everywhere they might be sued.

Write or say something bad about someone who is high and mighty, and he/she will not return phone calls, much less grant an interview. But today people want to read and hear about the high and mighty. We should realize that in a democracy there are none.

The media today are pussycats. They are the lackeys of the high and mighty.

They seldom dig for truth in politics, primarily because the elites have so fogged the distinction between truth and lies that we can no longer tell the difference. So we get little more besides sex, violence, sports, weather, gossip and sitcoms.

Note how in 1994 OJ Simpson put the country on hold. He could not come even close to doing that while doing something legal like toting a football, however talented he was at that occupation.

This is because personalities are where the action is, rather than in ideas, principles, and accomplishments. If we want to worship or bash idols we should restrict our actions to celebrities and sports stars. See Pocket Gofer 13.

Economist 12/2/17: “Review of The Captured Economy: How the Powerful Enrich Themselves, Slow Down Growth, and Increase Inequality, by Brink Lindsey and Steven Teles. We are especially interested in publications like this one, because recently the media keep preaching the glittering health of the US economy as we continue to believe they lie. “America’s political dysfunction looks forbiddingly irreparable, its govt implacably hostile to expertise.”

There's more. In fact, we would need a book to even briefly mention all of them. Like we said above, if the corruption and lack of accountability were no worse than 200 years ago we would have a country to be truly proud of. (See The Media Saga in PG4.)

Never mind if it's even worse in other countries. Does that fact make it right in this one?

GRIM DETAIL #7 - PETROL: Prices of oil products like gasoline, diesel, natural gas and heating oil are much higher than they would be if Congress had not voted special favors to Big Oil. A recently passed bill includes $85 billion for companies involved in every form of energy production. Against this tidal wave the increase in prices due to Katrina, Rita and BP are small beer.

Clyde Prestowitz in his book Rogue Nation (he means the US) argued that including all the taxpayer bucks spent in the Middle East making wars for oil the actual price of a barrel of the stuff is about $200. (This estimate was prepared before President Bush started another war in Iraq, and before Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.)

So today the actual price of a gallon of gas is not $2.75. Maybe around $8? We don’t know.

Looks like business as usual. A taxpayer would be naïve if he/she believed he finished paying for that tankful when he swooshed his card at the pump.

A 2/09 NY Times article mentioned Dale C Stoffel, a US arms dealer who was killed in Iraq in 2004. Before he was shot ------ drew a portrait worthy of a pulp crime novel: tens of thousands of dollars stuffed into pizza boxes and delivered surreptitiously to the American contracting offices in Baghdad, and payoffs made in paper sacks that were scattered in 'dead drops' around the Green Zone -------." Friends, these are our tax dollars at work.

Even this is not the end of it. Glanz (News & Observer 3/10) reported on US citizens ripping off their fellow taxpayers' money. "Some ---- people who are suspected of having mailed tens of thousands of dollars to themselves from Iraq, -----.

"In other cases, millions of dollars were moved through wire transfers. Suspects used cash to buy BMWs, humvees and expensive jewelry. --------- fraudulent companies to hide the illicit gains."

GRIM DETAIL #8 - ELECTIONS: The cat has stirred from its slumber. Ever hypersensitive Congress heard about it immediately, so they quickly passed a campaign finance law. This solved the problem.

Or so they would have us believe. The reality is that passing such a law by the Congress is just like asking a fox to guard the hen house.

Members love money just like we do. The difference is that we don't have tons of it raining down upon us.

Economist 3/24/18: “High-level politics is increasingly a game for wealthy people. Roll Call, a political newspaper owned by The Economist Group, calculates that America’s senators and congressmen were worth $2.43bn when the 115 th congress began --- 20% more than the previous congress. Ten house members and three senators are worth more than $43m each ----------.” We are to believe these thieves are public servants?

An anonymous "soft money" contributor is amazed concerning the total lack of ethics in campaign finance. He said it makes him angry. But then in his next breath he said he will continue to contribute.

In his 1993 inaugural speech President Clinton: "And so I say to all of you here, let us resolve to reform our politics so that power and privilege no longer shut down the voice of the people. Let us give this capital back to the people to whom it belongs."

A few days later the Democratic National Committee stashed in a bank the $3.5 million it had just raised. The occasion was a dinner in New York's Lincoln Center in which the guest of honor (?) was, --- yep: Bill himself. Guest of honor?

No big deal, we suppose. We have grown used to politicians' speaking with forked tongue (Pocket Gofer 19).

Lest we think it's only the democrats, Newt Gingrich at a meeting of political action committee leaders: "Just put your money in any or all of them, because when I become speaker, for anybody that's not on board now it's going to be the coldest two years in Washington."

In 1998 the House of Representatives planned a full debate on campaign finance. Eleven bills went into the hopper, along with 257 amendments.

The hidden agenda was to put up so many bills that none could muster a majority for passage. Afterward the rhetoric for public consumption would stress our representatives’ deep concern in this matter.

The reality is that most members of the House never even looked at the contents of these bills. They were far too busy: raising campaign money.

The arrogance of the senate is amazing. "--- refused to ban, as nine states do, lobbyists from contributing to legislators when the legislature is in session." Our scenario: senate assembles for floor debate and voting on a bill. A senator whips out his cell phone, calls a lobbyist.

"Hey, pal. Yeah, it’s me. The other side just one-upped you on the bill we’re gettin’ ready to vote on. Thought I’d be a nice guy and give you a chance to sweeten the pot."

After all the hype immediately after the 2000 election about hanging and pregnant chads, etc, we might think that in 2006 the problem would have been rectified. That’s what we might think.

In that election many touch-screen machines were used. For these there is no paper trail, so recounts are impossible. The Economist (10/14):

“In September three scientists at Princeton University got hold of the most popular touch-screen model and took it and its software to bits. They found serious flaws allowing a competent hacker to infect the machine with a program to transfer votes -----.

And -------- found that their program could be spread from machine to machine via the memory cards.” Rigged election outcomes by design? NAH! But then ……..

Gene Nichol (News & Observer 7/09) on campaign finance: "Money flows like waters --- ever seeking the open path. And by cynically equating the payment of huge sums to, or

on behalf of, greedy candidates with Tom Paine scribbling out copies of Common Sense, the supreme court has riddled our finance system with unpluggable holes.

This rot makes us gag. Furthermore it proves once again that the high court has joined the other two branches of government to deceive and rip the citizens.

Nichol: "A government in which those who seek certain policies are allowed to give unlimited amounts of money to those who make the policies may be called many things. But it can't be called democratic. And it can't be called fair."

In June 2010 NY senator Chuck Schumer apparently felt a need to set the record straight. He sponsored a bill called the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act.

Clever, eh? We understand that Chuck has a bridge for sale to anyone who buys this baloney. Hard to avoid the conclusion that he and his colleagues think we citizens are airheads.

GRIM DETAIL #9 - "DEFENSE:" Another grim detail may be found in what President Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex." He retired from office in early 1961 after a long career in public service, most of it as a soldier.

By 1953 the soldier had turned into a peacemaker (from Ambrose’s book Eisenhower). "The truth was that Eisenhower realized that unlimited war in the nuclear age was unimaginable, and limited war unwinnable. This was the most basic of his strategic insights."

He fought the military-industrial complex for the entire eight years of his presidency. Nevertheless, in 1961 "Powerful men, in such bureaucracies as the CIA, the AEC (Atomic Energy Commission), the JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff), and the DOD (Department of Defense), and their suppliers in the defense industry, were firmly opposed to any outbreak of peace (our emphasis), and together they helped to sabotage Eisenhower’s vision." See PGs 11 and 18 where we go eye-ball-to-eyeball with the pentagon.

Friends, there was then and is now HUGE MONEY in the war business. When power-seekers smell this kind of money, world peace gets shifted onto the back burner.

Upon retirement Ike sternly warned against allowing the complex to grow out of control. (Alexander Hamilton gave a similar warning about 230 years ago.)

Ronald Reagan presided over a huge and nearly insane military build-up. Pentagon bosses were hard pressed to figure out how to spend all the money.

No prize for guessing where those billions came from: us, and mostly Japanese lenders. This means we and our children will probably be paying interest to those lenders for many years to come. It will come out of our paychecks before we can deposit them.

This will be true even with instant automatic deposit. The electronic hand is surely quicker than the eye.

Defense contractors are fat cats getting fatter at our expense. They may be among the most voracious feeders at the public trough.

The old and now obsolete national security argument kept most of the really incredible abuses under the cloak of secrecy. Hard to imagine a sweeter deal, so long as the taxpayer is kept in the dark.

As our government tries to do something about over $830 billion of annual defense spending (just what is on the books) it is interesting to watch old warriors in the pentagon trying to reduce it while the "peaceniks" in Congress turn their coats inside out and push for more expensive weapons and preparation for more wars.

The name of the game is not peace, defense, or even war. It is testosterone, money, jobs, and votes.

Now it is easy to see what is going on in the minds of our "public servants" in the Congress. During the Cold War everybody was afraid of those terrible Russians and let's have peace, peace while we carry on building ever more terrible weapons of mass death and destruction.

Contractors shipped many of these over much of the world, often into areas that were already unstable. Never mind that millions of people were being killed and maimed, get those votes. In Pocket Gofer 18 we question the morality of these actions.

Douglas Waller in Time 4/14/97 reported on the sale of fighter planes to Latin America. Of all the corruption in Washington over the past several years, for shear rot within and terrible relations without, this one probably takes the biscuit.

Clinton approved the sale, which lifted a restriction on such sales to Latino governments imposed by President Carter and adhered to ever since by his successors. Waller: "----- classic Washington tale of bureaucratic intrigue, skillful press manipulation, high-powered industry lobbying and fat campaign contributions had foreordained the outcome."

This is business as usual, and it makes us sick. With democracy finally just around the corner, what on earth do Latino countries want with flying super-killers?

And at $24 million a copy, when their economies so desperately need the money for schools and good roads? Fighter planes produce nothing; all they do is destroy.

The kicker on this one showed up when no one wanted to buy the things. Embarrassing. So after all the previous effort the pentagon got involved in extra promotion to arouse interest among the generals.

It hired Puerto Rican pilots to fly the generals around in F-16 fighters. Also, the pentagon sent a fleet of fighters to a big air show in Chile.

At taxpayer expense? Unfortunately, Waller did not say. But from where else comes the money?

During the 12-year interval between Gulf Wars I and II thousands of bombs were dropped on Saddam Hussein’s military installations. This long campaign was intended to prevent rebuilding of military capability and stockpiling weapons.

Today we know that Saddam was not rebuilding. There were and no big weapons to be found in Iraq.

So, have we figured out the real reason for all those bombs? Yep. Exploded bombs must be replaced, which takes billions of taxpayer bucks going to defense contractors, and excess profits become kickbacks to our “servants” in the Congress.

The Center For Public Integrity: “--------Richard Perle, the hawkish chairman of a defense department advisory group, ----------. ----- discovery that nine of ------ 30 members (including Mr. Perle) had business relationships with defense contractors.

“These firms, ------- won contracts worth more than $76 billion (our emphasis) in 2001 and 2002. These relationships between fat cats make it easier to rip off the rabble.

GRIM DETAIL #10 - ANOTHER HUGE SLAB OF PORK: Around 1990 there was a $30 billion NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Agency) project in the mill. Pieces of the work were splashed around as many congressional districts as there are congressmen and -women who could twist committee members' arms and promise to vote for pork for their districts in the future.

This is horribly inefficient, of course. But it's jobs, and votes, and surely the taxpayer won't mind.

Er, back in the dream stage did anyone think to ask if the country needs the project? We could not find any evidence that someone did. Er, did public officials ask citizens in their states/districts to approve the project?

We are discussing the space station. We understand that about 90 percent of the experiments done on space shuttles could be done in unmanned spacecraft at less than one-third the cost. And no dead astronauts.

We also understand that most of planned research projects aboard the space station have little or no value as far as scientists can foresee. (We had to dig to find this info.)

It occurred to us in 1993 that for the few reasonable things our government might want to have done we could lease space aboard Russia's "Mir" (Russian language for "peace") space station for far less money. We even wrote to a prominent news magazine and asked it to determine what the Russians would charge, so as taxpayers we could compare this against $30 billion for our own space station.

We were not favored with a reply. Pocket Gofer 19 helps to explain why.

Oh; we realize that President Clinton selected an option that would cost only $12 billion. But, that figure was for politics only.

NASA wanted a space station, and we were expected to pay for most of it. Hang the lack of necessity and the inefficiency. They could even save billions in launch costs by using a giant Russian "Energia" rocket, but this option was not considered.

We quote former top NASA man Daniel Goldin: "I don't care what it looks like, smells like or feels like so long as the United States of America provides world leadership with a space station." But we taxpayers feel a different odor in our nostrils.

We wish Mr. Goldin would use his own money to feed his ego. We must do so for ours.

This was 1993. Today that $30 billion is now way over $100 billion and counting, and engineers and scientists are still scratching around for projects worth doing.

The Economist continues to help bring us truth (11/98). Editors cannot see any practical use for the space station except as a make-work scheme for astronauts. Nevertheless, NASA scrambled to put up a couple of modules so the project will look like it cannot be stopped.

But, we might ask, did not this bureaucracy recently announce that its policy had changed to "faster, better, cheaper?" This was to emphasize joint projects with private industry, and to de-emphasize manned flights and expensive maintenance of hardware in space. (Mir was jettisoned due to lack of money to maintain it.)

Three years later (10/01) the Economist dished out more common sense. "America should stop putting humans into orbit. We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: sending people into space is pointless. It is dangerous, costly, and scientifically useless."

"--- kept alive by three things. The first is showmanship. ------. Second, ----- helps diplomatic relations with Russia, ----- also keeps lots of Russian rocket scientists out of the pay of countries such as Iraq and North Korea. Third, and most disgracefully, it puts

billions of dollars into the pockets of aerospace companies such as Boeing. It is, ----- a disguised industrial subsidy."

Taxpayers are being forced to pay for high drama and unnecessary danger: Challenger in January 1986, Columbia in February 2003, and other astronauts killed when citizens could get the same benefit from watching sci-fi on the tube for free. Furthermore NASA is not only horribly inefficient due to countrywide distribution of pork; this wasteful bureaucracy is torn between…

"----two contradictory goals. On the one hand, ---- cut costs ---- under the motto ‘faster, better, cheaper.’ On the other, ---- agency’s dedication to manned space flight, which is none of these things."

Retired aerospace executive Thomas Young’s report (11/01) argued that there is enough manpower to keep the albatross in orbit, but not enough to do any "scientific" research.

Here comes another that we don’t see in the US news media (Economist 11/98): "And scientists themselves ------- are lining up to denounce the station as a colossal waste of money. -------. As long ago as 1991, the American Physical Society warned that the potential contribution of a manned space station to the physical sciences had been greatly overstated, -----."

Clinton said he was prepared to spend a lot of money as Russia fails to meet deadlines. He didn’t ask whether we would be so prepared. It’s our money he is spending; he must think we will not complain.

The Associated Press might help our cause. In May 1999 it reported on NASA’s other activities: "Two launch explosions. Three satellites stuck in useless orbits. Another satellite vaporized in the atmosphere.

"The US has had six rocket failures in less than nine months with losses totaling $3.5 billion, mostly at taxpayer expense." Please pass the bacon, Porky.

There are companies lined up to begin commercial space exploration, and with minimum expense to the taxpayer. The Economist: "It would be a shame if, instead of looking forward, NASA persisted with building castles in the sky."

This would be far worse than a shame. Throughout history men have built castles in the sky, but we don’t know of any that gouged US taxpayers nearly as deeply as this one.

There are rich folks and celebrities lining up to splash out for tickets into space at $20 million apiece. There are also wannabees willing to stump up a couple of mil for a brief trip into orbit.

A short while ago a private organization took a man into space for a few minutes, for $20 million. Seems like most taxpayers would be happy to see the entire NASA operation turned over to private enterprise.

It is ready. The bottom line and voluntary shareholder money would replace great gobs of taxpayer bucks collected thru threat of force and splashed over the entire US landscape.

This would enable astronauts to do something productive. And trekkies and lesser wannabees with thinner wallets could continue to watch the action on TV.

Wait. We hear some faint rumblings. The Office of Space and Technology Policy's director requested a review of NASA and its operations. Just maybe the barrel of bucks traditionally taken from the taxpayer without his/her consent has a bottom.

Economist 7/09: "Shortly before he was appointed to the review panel, Jeff Greason, the head of a small spaceship company called XCOR Aerospace, said, possibly prophetically: 'There is a question that gets asked far too seldom, which is why do we have NASA?'"

We have been asking the same question ever since our research got into the miserable job NASA has been doing for decades. It is nice to finally have company.

"---- SpaceX, a small CA firm that is building a series of rockets called Falcon. These will be able to fly cargo to the International Space Station ------."

It is encouraging to note that young President Bush's back-to-the-moon boondoggle has been scratched. Obama demanded a complete overhaul.

While way overdue, we now have NASA encouraging private firms to provide transportation to and from the space station. A company called Space Adventures has already sent seven people to the space station, using Russian rockets.

Economist (2/10): "The original Apollo project was mainly a race ------ superiority of capitalism ----. Capitalism won --- but at the cost of creating, in NASA, one of the largest bureaucracies in American history." This means capitalism did not win because as it grew NASA ignored the basic tenets of capitalism.

Pork is pork, whether it takes the form of a submarine, a dam, a city park, power station, highway, hospital, etc, etc. Dispensing pork is buying votes, which is another form of corruption.

The total number of pork-barrel projects increased from 2,000 in 1998 to around 14,000 in 2005. Ruth Marcus (9/06 column): “------ as I watched members of the House of Representatives debate how to stop themselves --- or, more accurately, how to appear to stop themselves --- from spending money on pet projects.”

Does there exist a moral, upright congressman? Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn tore into congress’s $286 billion transport bill, which provided $24 billion in “earmarks” (read pork) while post-Katrina New Orleans was pleading for help.

When Mr. Coburn criticized a big slab aimed at Seattle Sen. Patty Murray warned of Armageddon: “I tell my colleagues, if we start cutting funding for individual projects, your project may be next.” Coburn does not do earmarks, so he thought “Armageddon sounds like fun.”

We quote him: “I’m going to keep on digging the tunnel under spending. If I don’t get re-elected? Great. The republic will live on.”

A moral member of congress is not interested in re-election beyond one or two terms at max. See Pocket Gofer 3.

In June 07 there was a big push to require porkers to make their capers public. Predictably, the resulting bill was D. O. A.

Today congressmen slip pork into bills at the last minute. Obama promised to eliminate pork, but he left the details of the $787 billion stimulus bill to the congress. Members stuffed this huge bill with pork.

The alternative energy folks are moving in with pork projects. The latest gimmick they are using is global warming.

During 2007 several states put their spending on Web sites so their taxpayers could see where their money was going. Congress has not done this.

Even when embarrassing "earmarks" get outed congress approves the money. It is hard to shame people who have no shame. The looters know we can't touch them.

Wall Street Journal 8/07 described a project by CA senator Diane Feinstein that stupefies the imagination. The senator's $4 billion handout (Yes, you read that right) to wealthy West LA (yes, you read that right, too) is the ultimate example of how powerful members use earmarks to put their own parochial interests above national ones --------.

"------- potential $4 billion worth of help and aid for our nation's veterans goes bye-bye in the name of preserving a view for those Hollywood actors who play veterans in the movies." This one beats even the famous Alaskan bridge to nowhere.

Economist 3/09: President Obama took a shot at the pentagon. "Citing a recent report from the GAO (Government Accounting Office), which found that 95 big weapons contracts were over budget by a total of $295 billion, he contrasted projects 'designed to keep the American people safe' with those 'designed to make a defense contractor rich.'"

Not to nitpick, but this is impossible. they are already filthy rich, which is the direct result of blank checks courtesy of the taxpayer.

Is pork really corrupt? In late 2010 Jeff Flake, an AZ house member, said congressional "leaders" (our quotation marks) use earmarks as bribes to get lower congressmen to "-------- support flawed spending proposals."

Not only this. Money spent to favor selected groups of citizens is unconstitutional.

GRIM DETAIL #11 - A BACON SLICER?: "From now on, presidents will be able to say no to wasteful spending." Bill Clinton in a typical and media-hyped comment referred to the Congress granting him line-item veto authority. This meant he could ax pork from its various hiding places in a giant spending bill of several hundred pages.

Did he exert his newly won power to save us taxpayers from paying for tons of pork? This first time around the overall impact on central government spending came to 0.007 percent of the budget, or $120 million in a budget of $1.7 trillion.

Spending on pork buys votes. Was anyone naïve enough to expect an outcome greater than a spit in the ocean?

Maybe someone did. The Washington Post and the NY Times published editorials against the legislation, claiming it was an unconstitutional power grab by the presidency.

And maybe not. Editors of those newspapers are not that dumb. This leads us to suspect that the whole caper was staged, and the media cooperated with the elites.

There was pressure to grant the president this "power" so it was done, but on two conditions. One, Clinton (and successors, probably) will slice out a few trivial bits placed in the budget only to convince us that he is exerting his power. Two, editors of prominent newspapers would furnish some additional smoke on their op-ed pages. Clever, eh?

And then the Supreme Court killed the line-item veto anyway. Or, was this overkill?

Not only did the line-item fiasco drop out of sight, but even if still there clever politicians would find ways around it. Another way they work around any restrictions on their spending of our money is by using "creative" accounting.

GRIM DETAIL #12 - COOKING THE BOOKS: Pianin and Hager (Washington Post column 10/99) smoked this one out. "Experts say Democrats, GOP have colluded to mask the size of the spending binge, which could create problems when the bill comes due." One wheeze they adopted was to borrow $15 billion from next year’s budget.

"As the ----- Congress struggles to complete work on the budget -------, it is relying to an unprecedented degree on creative accounting tactics aimed at boosting spending beyond what its rules now allow. All told, ------ have manufactured an additional $46 billion to spend this year -----."

But friends, the Congress held hearings into the antics of companies like Enron, who have been caught cooking their books. Is this a double standard, or what?

The Economist (8/03) reported that “The American government’s accounts look about as reliable as Enron’s.” Now we can see why BIG GOVERNMENT leaned so hard on Enron; it was a smoke screen.

Friends, why do we see practically no news like this in US media? See Pocket Gofer 5 on controlling information flows.

Are members of the Congress telling us that they are above the law? Are they telling us that they make rules to control their spending only to fake us into believing them?

We might add that the above dealt only with fiscal year 2000, or just one year. They got away with it that year. What does that result tell them?

The media may have begun responding to the public’s demands for truth. Here is a report on the pentagon, which has roughly $1.3 trillion in assets, $1.9 trillion in liabilities, 3 million people, $635 billion in operating costs, 2,569 facilities in the US, and 807 overseas.

“------ pay the wrong amounts to troops, ------- lose track of its equipment, even hard-to-misplace planes and tanks, and to improperly document trillions of dollars in transactions that leave tax dollars vulnerable to abuse, according to government reports. The agency’s books are such a mess that its accountants have stopped wasting money trying to audit them.

“------ could cost taxpayers $13 billion in 2005, Gregory D. Kutz, a managing director for the investigation arm of congress, the GAO (Government Accounting Office) told lawmakers -------. ‘That’s $35 million a day,’ he added for emphasis.

Jim Minnery is associated with the defense finance and accounting service. “The department (pentagon) for more than five decades has just kind of layered system on top of system on top of system, and not been serious until recent years that this is not an efficient way to protect against waste, fraud and abuse -----------,” he said.

“------ impossible to match checks ------ to the bills that were being paid. ‘Their system can’t keep track of who they’ve sold stuff to, who owes them, who they owe,’ he said.” Maybe we should not wonder why Rumsfeld did such a terrible job as secretary of defense.

Yeah, we have been discussing accounting here, but we should be discussing accountability. Actually we are, and we need to appreciate the difference.

GRIM DETAIL #13 - DOWN ON THE FARM: Farm support programs keep thousands of farmers fat. These used to cost us around $30 billion a year: extra goodies for the two percent of us still on the land. That's about $450 per nonfarm family, but we will see that this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Rich full-time farmers no longer farm the land. They farm Washington DC congressional committee rooms. No need to kick manure off their shoes, but the smell follows them anyhow.

One third of full-time farmers take in (we didn’t say "earn") more money than the average of the richest third of the rest of us. And most of the rest are part-time farmers who have at least three sources of income: farming, taxpayer-paid subsidies and what they do when not farming.

Economists say food is a bargain in our country. However, when they give the figures they often omit the taxes that we pay to help rich farmers get richer.

How can we justify this taking from the not so rich to favor the rich? A congressman will assure us that we need to make sure there will never be a food shortage like there was in the 1930s during the Great Depression.

Maybe this is why several laws and regulations passed in 1933 are still on the books? We cannot avoid suspicion that the business of farming has changed a bit in the intervening 86 years. (It has; back then folks farmed the land.)

There are mountains of wheat, corn, and dairy products in government storage. We conclude only with great difficulty that any projected food shortage today is just as serious as it was in 1933. No need to mention here who is paying the storage costs.

If the price of wheat increases a farmer probably will not be able to cover his loss of deficiency payment from the government. It is much nicer if the price stays low and that check arrives, as that check is a sure thing.

Speaking of sure things, bureaucrats practically never get fired short of murder or mayhem. That paycheck is always there, in contrast with private companies where it is less sure and unemployment is a distinct possibility.

But, that's show bizz in the private sector. Except in so-called private farming.

Here the government has taken practically all of the risk out of the business. That is, a farmer can make as much "profit" as he/she can by shoveling money at congressmen, while his losses (if any) are covered by the taxpayer.

Helluva deal! Where do we sign up?

But maybe something is being done. The 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (FAIR), apparently ended a half century of policy which had the government telling farmers what to grow, when, where, how much, and for how long. Are we to believe that for 50 years bureaucrats pushing paper in the Department of Agriculture knew more about farming than the guys and gals out on the land? Jefferson: “Were we directed by Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want for bread.”

Under the 1996 law farmers would receive $30 billion of our money between 1997 and 2002, but these payments are not dependent on what they do with their land. This seems ridiculous to us, as for most of those 5 years farmers have been more concerned with getting checks from the government than with what happens on the ground.

It might be interesting to see how they made out farming in a free market for the first time in 75 years. But we will be denied this experience, as the money today is just too good. Put another way, we think this is another bit of fakery being trumpeted for the benefit of the taxpayer.

Now we no longer think this; we know it. In Fall ’98 Congress passed a $6 billion special rescue package for farmers.

This was promoted as a one-time fix. But in Fall ’99 along came another $7.4 billion, which combined with other reckless spending to utterly destroy any hope of a budget surplus.

We are not finished yet with this one. Notch the clock ahead to October 2001, when the Economist published an article titled "Just Plant Dollars."

"One of the glories of American farm policy is that, whenever you think it cannot get any loonier, it promptly finds a way of doing so. After pumping some $70 billion of public money into farms over the past four years, and thereby stimulating even more over-production of food, the House of Representatives has now passed a farm bill approving the payment of $173 billion (our emphasis) over the next ten years --------."

Friends, would you believe this is part of the grand plan? Rich farmers and their congressmen knew what would happen.

The 1996 law removed restrictions on planting, so the result was an explosion of production. And the more produced the lower the prices, the more support money went to big farmers, and the more taxpayer money got kicked back into congressional re-election coffers. This transfer of wealth from just plain folks like us to the rich works like a charm.

In another article (12/15/01) the Economist stated that payments to farmers over the past 40 years totaled $350 billion. We challenge anyone to find this figure published in any US news medium, much less the total of $350 plus $173 billion. After writing this we wonder if anyone can be found who would argue that food is cheap in America.

All this feeding of fat cats also screws up worldwide markets for farm products, so that farmers in poor countries cannot export profitably. With free world trade practically everyone lives better in the long run, but fatsos in this country want their megabucks now. Those poor overseas farmers struggling to feed their families will continue to struggle.

In 2005 the government spent over $20 billion on farm subsidies. Sixty percent of farmers got none of this money, while ten percent got 72 percent of it.

A substantial part of this taxpayer money goes to multimillionaire farmers. Much of this gets routed back to Washington and into congressmen’s pockets.

There is another kicker here. Big farmers can afford to bid up the price of land, thus cutting out young farmers who thus cannot afford it.

We often hear rhetoric from our illustrious public servants describing how some of our money helps to maintain economies in small towns throughout the countryside. We now see coming at us yet another barrel of baloney.

The reality is a Congress hastening the deterioration of Small Town USA. If anyone has trouble understanding this invasion of personal freedom, just think money.

WSJ 7/6/07 article titled "Farming for Dollars:" In 2003, drought assistance went to farmers in hundreds of counties where ------- no drought. Farmers in Washington state received earthquake assistance even when their crops were not damaged.

Crowley (Readers Digest 6-7/10): "A dead man farming? ------ Miami TV station -----. By cross-referencing payments against death notices, the reporters found that at least 234 people listed as deceased were still getting checks.

In April 08 the White House said current policy needed to stay the same for another full year so that farmers can plan their harvests. This is a crock. Fat cat farmers are not harvesting crops; they are harvesting taxpayer money.

Economist 3/29/08: "Most legislators probably know the farm bill is a disgrace, but they voted for it overwhelmingly anyway, revealing the cynical genius of the farm lobby. We think this massive transfer of wealth from the us peasants to the rich must stop.

GRIM DETAIL #14 - SPECIAL INTEREST POLITICS: Farmers make up a special interest group, just as do those in oil, defense, organized labor, etc. This is not only corruption; it is tyranny by the minority.

Bill O’Reilly: "For the life of me, I can’t figure out why so many smart Americans don’t, can’t, or won’t see that our government has been corrupted by special-interest money. That’s why guys like Bill Clinton can get elected president, while people with principles can’t even enter the race.

“Without money they’re forced to sit on the sidelines while the games go on. The big-money boys and girls don’t want people who are burdened with inconvenient principles; they want deal makers, people they can ‘work with.’"

The Constitution outlines in careful detail the rights of individuals, not groups. Democracy is majority rule by individual citizens discussing issues, debating them, and arriving at conclusions while preserving basic minority rights.

Where will all this special interest politicking end? During the 1994 and 1996 election campaigns the cat stirred and a few more congressmen than is usual ended up getting the heave ho.

One clever Washington insider was led to observe: "The barbarians are at the gate." We elected these people, so we are in theory their bosses.

We are paying for their inflated and self-voted salaries and pensions, multiple perks, junkets over much of the world, and they call us barbarians?! Brass ones, friends.

Lobbyists are sharp insiders who call on congressmen while bringing along with them sacks full of money. Because members of Congress always need pots of money, it is not difficult to cut a deal.

Kirkpatrick (News & Observer 2/11/07): "The 110th congress opened with the passage of sweeping new rules intended to curb the influence of lobbyists by prohibiting them from treating lawmakers to meals, trips, stadium box seats or --------- private jets."

This may seem encouraging, but never underestimate those career politicians. Now the lobbyists pay a fundraising committee and then the bucks go directly to the congress.

Wall St. Journal 5/12/07: "Behind every policy that does more harm than good, there's a special interest that favors it anyway. -------------------. If special interest legislation were fundamentally unpopular, public relations campaigns would be futile. They would serve only to warn taxpayers about plans to pick their pockets."

But in view of the Constitution’s requirement of equal treatment under the law, how can a congressman justify having lobbyists in his/her office writing special interest legislation that bestows unearned special favors to the organizations who hired them? These meetings result in tax dodges, and so ordinary blokes must make up the deficit in revenue coming to government.

This business has turned nasty, even for the fat cats. Public officials’ insatiable thirst for megabucks urged Kangas (10/99 column) to observe: "For a growing number of executives, there’s no question that the unrelenting pressure for five- and six-figure political contributions amounts to influence peddling and a corrupting influence. What has been called legalized bribery looks like extortion to us."

This is an excellent example of the negative side of human nature: getting some easy money stimulates an appetite for more, and there is no end to it. "------ failing to donate could hurt your company. You must weigh whether you meet your responsibility to your shareholders better by investing the money in the company or by sending it to Washington."

In a January 2006 piece Chris Heagarty asked, “What decent public official could tolerate the selfish indiscretions of peers that disgrace our highest institutions?” The kicker here is that over the past, say, 50 years Big Washington has slowly obliterated decency.

There may be a limit to all this "generosity." The Committee for Economic Development is backed by some of the nation’s largest companies. Twenty of its executives are for banning unlimited campaign contributions.

The president is Charles Kolb: "These people are saying: We’re tired of being hit up and shaken down. Politics ought to be about something besides hitting up companies for more and more money."

We saw a cartoon recently, where several such executives approached a politician with this complaint. His response: "Well, okay; what’s it worth to you?"

Republicans have set up an outfit called "Team $1 million." Predictably, six-figure contributions have grown to seven-figure. These must be for morbidly obese cats.

Fred Wertheimer is a long-term observer of campaign finance: "When you solicit and institutionalize million-dollar campaign contributions, you are putting the government up for sale in a manner that is unprecedented in modern times. The ultimate price will be paid by the American taxpayer in the form of billions of dollars of government favors and tax breaks given to Team $1 million donors."

What really rots our sox is that the same thieves who are operating this rigged game are still trumpeting the virtues of the free market. This notion has become a myth.

This is stinko. Lobbyists convey messages from congressmen that competitors have contributed, "---- implying that you should pay a toll in Washington to stay competitive." These are contributions?

Columnist Krauthammer (11/08): "----- we need to face the two most important implications of our newly politicized economy: the vastly increased importance of lobbying and the massive market inefficiencies that political directives will introduce."

We need to remind ourselves that special interest politics is unconstitutional and corrupt. It means that our hard-earned tax dollars are not being routed to our benefit. Put another way, we are being ripped.

Krauthammer: "The ruling democrats have a choice: Rescue this economy to return it to market control. Or use this crisis to seize the commanding heights of the economy for the greater social good.

"Note: The latter has already been tried. The results are filed under 'History, ash heap of.'"

John J Mearsheimer and Stephen M Walt wrote The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. "------ it has long since become a liability, because by supporting the Jewish state America alienates Arabs and makes itself into a target for terrorists.

"Nor, --------- can support be explained by some moral claim. Israel's existence is nolonger in danger: far from being an underdog, it is the neighborhood bully, denying statehood to Palestinians ------.

"Since Israel is not useful to America ------ something must be behind the --- ever-increasing support. --------- authors conclude, must be the Israel lobby."

In 3/10 Israel announced plans for building 1,600 housing units in the very center of the Palestinian sector of Jerusalem. The Economist: "The towering irony here is a substantial part of the money for these incursions comes from US taxpayers, and al-Qaeda has stated that it will continue to attack US citizens until our government forces Israel to recognize Palestinians as human beings with basic rights.

We taxpayers splash out $2.8-3 billion a year for Israel. Now we see that our own taxes are indirectly striking fear into our hearts. Why has not this devastating policy stopped? No prize for guessing: Israeli lobbyists' tainted money lining looters' pockets.

In 3/10 UN Secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon spoke to the issue. Settlement building on all occupied land is illegal and must be stopped.

Now we have a situation where AIPAC (America-Israel Political Action Committee) lobbyists' money is going against the entire world. The clowns in the congress apparently see their re-elections as a higher priority than the well-being of the world. We suspect that even if the US govt keeps sending our money Israel thru its persistence will ultimately destroy itself.

We conclude that it takes a unique type of moral outlook to do this kind of work, day after day and month after month. And they wonder why the public rates politics as a "profession" right down there with shysters. Trash collectors rate higher.

The major difference is that trash collectors are generally honest, hard-working people. They can hold their heads up because they are not awash in dirty money. They know they have not betrayed the trust put in them by the public.

The elites frequently blather on about protecting us from special interests. Whenever we hear this we need to remind ourselves that by far the most powerful and anti-constitutional special interest is the political class.

Here is a concluding argument from Peterson’s book Will America Grow Up Before it Grows Old? “Many -------- special interests campaigned relentlessly for federal funds, -----------. But since there were no special interests to campaign for posterity, the next generation was left to take care of itself.”

We want big; we want fast; we want now. So, that’s the American way, right? But many of us have children and grandchildren. We may want to rethink this big/fast/now hang-up.

The founding fathers did. This from the Constitution: “----- secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, --------.” Our kids are part of the posterity.

GRIM DETAIL #15 - CARS: Lots of big companies are in trouble, and part of their difficulty comes from going to Uncle, hat in hand, when they should have been rolling up their sleeves, digging in, and beating the competition. During the 1950s the big three car companies gradually came to believe they were no longer in the car business; they acted as though they were in the money-printing business.

The simple reason was a market rigged to limit competition. Then along came the Japanese, and later others. They forced the US companies to shape up. Now we once again have an opportunity to drive quality (except for recalled vehicles).

It often takes a while for the market to work its magic, especially when something gets in the way. In this case something did.

Watch what happens when the hat-in-hand strategy for doing business becomes a habit. Reagan and the Congress were at home when Detroit’s lobbyists came calling and bringing dirty money, so they passed laws restricting the number of Japanese cars and small trucks that could be imported.

Predictably, the law of supply and demand took over, and buyers of Japanese cars paid way over sticker price for them. Detroit saw its chance, of course, so up went their prices also, even though there was no immediate improvement in product quality to match the price increase.

So Detroit, our central government and the Japanese companies sort of worked together to rip consumers. During one four-year period an analyst estimated that the extra money paid by us for new cars, over and above what we would have paid without import restrictions, was about $26 billion.

We wonder how many VCRs, RVs, family vacations, homes, etc. that much money could have bought for us. And how many jobs would have been created in order to make them.

Then the Japanese grew shifty. They took most of those windfall profits and invested them into making still finer cars. The rest they spent in building assembly plants here.

Detroit took most of its windfall and used it to buy back some of its outstanding shares to boost share prices, and maybe tempt some more suckers to buy at higher prices. Managers saw no need to sink money into developing better products as long as Uncle Sugar could be counted on to keep the competition from getting too competitive. We don't know, but a shrewd guess has the rest of Detroit's windfall finding its way into we know whose re-election campaign war chests.

If the competition gets rugged companies must invest to increase their workers' productivity, or output per person-hour. Economists tell us that increases in productivity mean increases in wages and living standards, and better lives for those of us who bend to the wheel and sweat.

Therefore when companies weighed down by low productivity go whining to Uncle rather than invest and scratch harder we all don't make out so well. As workers we get paid less, and as consumers we must pay higher prices.

Fortunately there was a happy ending to this saga. To get around import restrictions the Japanese came over here and built car factories, thus forcing Detroit to make better products anyway. We think we would have been driving better products much sooner and for less money if it were not for those restrictions on car imports.

Today the motor vehicle and air transport markets are saturated. Left to the free market, several big and weak companies in each industry would have folded their tents long ago.

But decades ago big government used taxpayer money to bail out some big companies. So today top managers are following the pattern set back then: when in trouble, look to Uncle for a bailout.

As of 11/06 top executives of Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler have just left a meeting with President Bush. They want the taxpayer to help once again.

As we write this (January 2010) GM and Chrysler are emerging from taxpayer-assisted bankruptcy. We hope they have finally been weaned off the taxpayer's teat.

OTHER ABUSES: The influence-peddling industry in Washington is worth around $25 billion a year. All this money does nothing to create wealth for the nation, as it would if invested in the private sector. Rather, it only transfers existing wealth, largely from us to one fatso or another.

Friends, the grim reality we are confronting is that everything in Washington has become politicized, even science. The Economist reviewed a book by Daniel S. Greenberg called Science, Money and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion.

"Far from being pure, research science involved money-grubbing politics, backroom deals, special pleading, inflated claims, and scare-mongering. Too often in return the public got shoddy science and waste on a monumental scale. It was no surprise that many of science’s great and good tried to drive Mr. Greenberg from the temple."

The 1994 national budget ran to 1,500 pages. Practically every agency sub-budget submitted included lots of money for "other services." In 1993 these totaled $246 billion.

This booklet is about accountability. This number represents nearly $1,000 for every man, woman and child in our country. Does anyone outside the system have the foggiest notion concerning where this mountain of money went?

We surely don't. And it was 16 percent of the entire national budget. Unpleasant odor around here.

Lots of press recently about financing election campaigns. People are obviously concerned, if not downright ticked off. As we indicated in Pocket Gofer 5 on the open society, if there is a need for information someone will find a way to fill it.

The Center for Responsive Politics has a page on the World Wide Web: http://www.opensecrets.org.

We checked in; here is a gold mine of information. There are data on totals raised and spent by every presidential candidate, sources of money raised by congressmen, spending by PACs, individual donors, soft money contributions, and lobbyist spending.

Anyone with a web browser can follow amounts of money contributed state by state and candidate by candidate. It includes proposals for reform of campaign finance, and how the browsing citizen may help.

Recently the FBI comprehensively examined the government of New Jersey. It searched long and hard while attempting to find a clean politician. In 2/10 scandals

pulled down the governor of New York and its foremost representative in Washington. It is just a matter of time before the next shoe drops.

Economist 7/26/97: "--- foreign money provides a convenient distraction. While it is being comprehensively investigated, with CIA men parked behind screens and giant blow-up charts of the destinations of Mr. Huang’s telephone calls, politicians can be left free to attend their dinners, go to their fund-raisers, and continue in all the ways they know best to let their consciences and their legislative proposals be shaped, like warm wax, by the promise of a check."

From the viewpoint of foreigners affected by central government laws and regulations, it is only natural that they want to tap into the system that collects by far the largest barrels of dirty money in the world. Many cannot afford to be absent and still be competitive in their business dealings.

Summarizing this long section, it's all about the money honey. Our money being wasted or just plain ripped off.

We have become highly jaded during our research, but this one slammed into us nonetheless (Economist 1/10): "By a 5-4 majority the (supreme) court ruled that corporations, unions and ideological groups can spend as much money as they like on political ads at election time." Barack Obama said it "------ opens the floodgates -------."

"----- congress has passed laws making it harder to disseminate opinions about politicians. ----- McCain-Feingold --- bars companies, unions and other groups from directly paying for political ads during election campaigns."

The Economist 10/9/10 published "The Best congress Money Can Buy?" Try to find this title in a US news medium.

"----- held that since the first amendment tells congress to make no law abridging the freedom of speech, previous legislation that barred companies, unions and other groups from paying directly for political ads during election campaigns was unconstitutional."

This is so absolutely wrong that it rots our sox. It's not only big money and squelching those without. Special privileges for any group, however large and however much money involved, is in and of itself unconstitutional.

We were in Prague, Czechoslovakia two weeks after the iron curtain fell. We heard a former communist cadre playfully question a citizen.

"Do you see any difference from 20 years ago now that we have obliterated communism?" The citizen replied, "You are a horse's ass. Twenty years ago I could not have said that."

Election campaign rules are extremely complex. This is by design.

We cling to our position taken before the court ruling: special interests can spend any amount for any purpose related to a campaign. Those without big bucks are out to lunch. And with bigger government taking more and more we peasants are destined to remain out to lunch.

JUST A FEW OF THE COSTS TO US

Most times a special interest group lays down bucks at the feet of a government official the result is some kind of unearned break in taxes or the marketplace. This means an extra burden on us taxpayers, as officials’ spending to buy our votes is not about to slow down and someone therefore has to make up the deficit in government revenues.

TAXES ARE HIGHER- Congress gave each TV station a frequency on the airwaves. If these channels had been auctioned to the highest bidder the government would have taken in an estimated $30 billion in one year.

Easy to see through this one. Career politicians rely on television to air their spin-doctored public images and to trash their opponents. Ding the industry for $30 bil, and see how much cooperation results.

But the National Association of Broadcasters wanted to be sure, so it contributed about $850,000 to candidates’ 1996 election campaigns. The organization also launched a $500,000 public relations campaign to paper over any objections. Let’s see. The NAB splashed out a total of $1.35 mil to save $30 bil. Smart investing, we might say.

US News 4/14/97: "Probably the biggest loss was not the money but an opportunity. Many experts agree that one of the most effective ways of reducing the influence of money would be to provide free TV time to candidates.

“The moment when such a change could have been forced on the broadcasters was during consideration of the telecoms bill. In other words, the opportunity to reduce the influence of political money was overwhelmed by the influence of political money." GOOD GRIEF!!

DRUGS COST MORE- Each year patents on brand-name drugs expire. This allows generic drug makers to sell essentially the same medications for around half the price of the originals.

And each year lobbyists come around with the money. They convince lawmakers to extend patents, which then keeps the price to us up there.

CONSUMERS CHARGED BIG LATE FEES- Seems the checks were arriving late, according to the credit card companies. So one congressperson introduced a bill that would force companies to accept a postmark as equal to date of receipt.

We agree that it would be easy for a company to claim a late arrival when in fact it was not. Never mind that.

Enter the lobbyists, who loaded politicians down with $3.6 million to shoot down the bill. Companies apparently want to preserve the option to go dishonest from time to time.

CABLE TV COSTS MORE- The Telecoms Act would stimulate competition in 6-10 years. Meanwhile there were rate ceilings in effect. Lobbyists dropped by with $1.7 million, aimed at killing the rate caps.

ELECTION CAMPAIGNS- Molly Ivins in a 9/99 column reported on some encouraging action in the Senate: "Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who does favor campaign-finance reform, stood there and read aloud the oil company contributions to various senators before the vote, and you should have heard them howl.

“How dare Feingold suggest their votes are for sale, uncollegial conduct, bad taste, etc. These honorable (GAG! --- our comment) members felt that Feingold should be ashamed of himself for doing such a tacky thing."

We have a thought. Mr. Feingold had previously introduced a bill that presumably would comprehensively reform the use of campaign money. The bill, and he, plastered the headlines as the news media reacted to intense public concern. So here he was (above), playing the role for which he, his colleagues, and the media had prepared him.

We are convinced the whole thing was staged. We citizens were supposed to believe that the Senate was working hard on reform.

Now as we write it is over 20 years later and nothing yet. And because the money is too, too good, nothing will be done.

This means the whole performance above was scripted, including the howls. We are to believe that corruption is so deeply ingrained into the fabric of Washington that nothing can be done and so we must live with it.

Friends, these clowns have even politicized corruption! We are pressed to avoid the conclusion that in Washington EVERYTHING has been politicized.

All this is enough to rot our sox. But it is immensely important that we keep our cool. We have in the pocket gofers a unique opportunity to make a tremendous change in the way our nation is governed, but we absolutely must make this change in a nonviolent manner.

Allowing the movement to become violent will play directly into the hands of the establishment. We must avoid even the risk of violence. We will see that there will be no need even for demonstrations that could turn violent.

WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT CORRUPTION IN OUR GOVERNMENT

If professional politicians know they are not being held accountable for what they do, they cease being professional. Money is power and power corrupts, especially without accountability.

This is a part of the seamy side of human nature, and we must accept it. The only one whom we can trust without accountability is God.

We are suggesting that every man/woman has his/her price. This is difficult for some of us to accept, and yet it has been proven again and again that otherwise scrupulously honest people when presented with a big enough pot of money will eventually abandon principle.

And the pots of money in Washington are absolutely immense. Doubters might check to see how many lawyers have their offices inside Washington's beltway road.

Back in the 15th and 16th centuries country governments accumulated wealth by plundering Indians in the New World and wherever else they could take wealth by the sword. Capitalism is the only known peaceable way to create and accumulate wealth.

In the USA capitalism has had a relatively unhindered ability to enable some people who work hard and smart to accumulate vast wealth. There are about 800 billionaires by now, and most of us can't even visualize how much money a billion dollars is ($1,000,000,000). We only know that our public "servants" in Washington spend that much every five hours or so.

And that is based on 365 days. This means they must really hustle on days when they “work.”

We have a handle on the problem, so now to solutions. We have a start right here: get the word out about the abuses.

Little can be done unless we get organized. Special interest groups are well organized. This is why they make out so much better than we do.

Therefore each of us must talk this one up, and try to get behind a microphone if we can. Put pen to paper and get into print. Get the word out.

Not a good writer? Rough out a thought, and then get someone to read it and criticize the content and grammar.

We should put a gofer in every hip pocket and purse. We must discuss and debate the merits of the ideas contained in them.

When we do this we will make a surprising discovery. As we reach out to neighbors who are different from us we will see that, however different, they share the same concern as we do: building good government in our community and neighborhood.

We will learn that they want to work with us toward that objective. Civic pride will leap out of 80-year-old civics class textbooks and into our lives. We will learn that our weird neighbors are actually fine folks.

Warning: We must not wait for our neighbor or someone else. Time is mainly priorities, so if we want a better future for our children and grandchildren we will bite the bullet, screw up our courage, and seize the initiative. (We may not know our neighbor well, but we do know he/she wants better government.)

Next, we will move "professional" politicians out of Washington and state governments and replace them with public-spirited citizens who want to serve. See Pocket Gofer 3.

Right now interest on the huge national debt siphons off nearly one sixth of the money the government takes in. This $400 billion or so does nothing for us, unless we hold US Treasury bonds or bills.

And many of these are held by rich foreigners who are looking for low-risk investments that pay good interest. Here is one more method by which the poor and non-rich pass wealth on to the rich.

Corruption in governments has been around ever since there were governments. The rot infests officials first, and it eventually undermines society itself.

There is finally some help coming from another direction. Berlin's Transparency International has generated some of the passion long possessed by human rights advocates. Recently an international agreement making bribery of foreign public officials a crime went into effect.

Transparency Int’l is dedicated to getting word out about corruption. When people are informed, public officials will think twice before violating their trust. Citizens who can spare some money would do well to donate to Transparency International.

This movement caught fire after foreign aid donors, lawmakers, and businesspeople reinforced the anger long felt by concerned ordinary citizens. Although it is but a start, it is encouraging to see a centuries-old problem being addressed in an organized manner.

What you know must be more important than whom you know, who is for sale, and the price. Reverse this, and society will deteriorate. Leave corruption alone for a few decades so that it can become ingrained, and the task of uprooting it becomes awesome.

Another thing we can do is find some public-spirited citizens and support their quest for office. But we said that every man has his price. Perhaps long ago public-spirited citizens became an endangered species. See Pocket Gofer 3.

"I don’t care. I’ve had it with the whole system. This is just not the party I came here to be part of (Economist 5/3/97)."

Young republican Mark Neumann was elected to the house of representatives in 1994 with no previous experience in government. He quickly became convinced that the party’s principles had been betrayed.

This cat seemed to be a total misfit: a man of principle in Washington. We know the reality in that place has just one principle guiding all behavior: money. Apparently this is not the principle that Mr. Neumann had in mind going in.

So, what happened? Party elders kicked him off the defense appropriations subcommittee after he denounced a bill that was loaded down with pork.

Next he tried to block a proposed 14 percent increase in the money for various House committees, claiming that if the rest of the country had to tighten its belt so also in Congress. They stiffed him on that one too.

Claiming that the whole government suffers a "----- total lack of honesty and integrity," he signed petitions to recall Wisconsin’s two democratic senators. If enough signatures were collected, this would be the first time in the history of the country that senators lost their jobs in this way.

Might this guy be a pioneer? Guts ball, Mark! Publius II salutes you.

The career politician lives a life of fantasy. Each works hard, he/she really does: not for us, but rather for himself.

He works even harder to convince us that he is working for us. See Pocket Gofer 3.

Each knows that reality will eventually hit the fan. Therefore he prays a lot, hoping that this happens after he has left government with a self-voted and super-generous retirement package. Whoever said you can't take it with you?

On this retirement thing, we should know that members of Congress don’t pay into Social Security and they don’t take from it for themselves. However, they ocasionally raid the funds and spend the money on other pursuits.

But here’s the big kicker. When congressmen retire they draw about the same benefit as their salary: at least $160,000 a year.

The average monthly government retirement benefit for us peasants is $1,000. Now, the part that makes us gag is this. Congressmen pay zero dollars into their retirement fund. That $160,000+ is courtesy of the taxpayer. Helluva deal!!

Reality will hit shortly before the parasites in government have consumed their host entirely. This point in time is a judgment call, and no one can call it accurately. Therefore they hang in there with bags packed and the Mercedes full of fuel, looting as much money and power as possible.

Big Government supports the career politician as he/she eats extremely high on the hog. Therefore our job as taxpayers supporting this house of cards is to blow it down.

Small government is the only way for us to acquire accountability. We need this because of something that we can't change: human nature. See Pocket Gofer 15.

If we make fewer demands on our government it will shrink to the point where it can function without gridlock. Most of today's central government activities can be carried out much more efficiently at state and local levels of government and in the private sector. And more to our liking.

We will raise the money we want to spend here at home in our neighborhoods and communities, and we will keep it right here. Chop Big Washington off at the pockets and watch the thieves, parasites, lawyers, lobbyists, bums, hacks, and conmen abandon the place in droves. (They are in town only for the money.)

Today the IRS forces every employer of more than a few people to collect taxes and send the money to Washington. The IRS pays them nothing for this service. Big Government has amply proved that we cannot trust it, so we will work with local officials whom we can watch.

CONCLUSION

George Washington was appalled, as he talked to an old friend. “-------- over cast and clouded by a host of infamous harpies, who to acquire a little pelf, would involve this great Continent in inextricable ruin.”

Political parties "appear to quarrel while they agree to plunder." We quote Thomas Paine, who wrote about European governments in 1792. Due to human nature and lack of accountability, factors that continue to affect us today, government officials in Washington are repeating history.

Today’s Washington is literally awash in bucks. Place seekers, lobbyists, lawyers, "consultants," hacks, conmen, and thieves are streaming into the city by the thousands.

Today’s monster is thus out of control, even by Washington insiders. We have referred to them as lemmings near the edge of the cliff. Here could be additional evidence of truth in our conclusion.

The First Amendment includes the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Therefore in theory we can sue the government and win. Badnarik in his book Good to be King reveals the reality.

“Unfortunately our ‘justice’ system is dominated by corrupt judges and lawyers, so our chance of prevailing in our effort currently fall between ‘slim and none.’”

Our political system is the world's oldest "democracy." Judging by the accumulation of barnacles/parasites, it surely does show its age.

The same goes for the approximately 80,000 state and local government organizations. In fact, nearly all political institutions in this country are hopelessly antiquated and constipated. PLEASE PASS THE EX-LAX!!

The systematic theft of taxpayers' money has been going on for decades. Practically every politician has been involved.

It has become so ingrained that they no longer see themselves as thieves. They believe no one notices as billions of bucks get routed to only thousands of pockets. We divided that one out, and it comes to millions per pocket on average.

We are going to put gofers in our hip pockets and purses. But we will leave room in other pockets for the money that we earned and that we will claw back from the parasites in our government.

Early 1990s: In Ethiopia, an African country, government officials who had behaved in the past like terrorists against their own people were placed on trial. After a revolution the new government even paid lawyers to defend the accused. Ordinary citizens who had seen relatives tortured and killed especially appreciated the trials.

There is in this a valuable lesson for any country, including ours. If government officials suspect that they may some day be caught and held accountable to the public for their deeds they will think long and hard before they betray their citizens' trust.

This applies to financial wrongdoing as well as physical. Some time spent in discussion of applications to our situation is surely in order.

Tough job, but someone has to do it and there is no one else who can handle it.

Therefore we will do it, and not just for us (we know we deserve nothing less). We will also do it for our children, because if we don't the monster will be still bigger when they are in a position to confront it.

Our children and grandchildren will be eternally grateful. They see our slumber as permitting the monster to grow.

But then they will see us awaken, rise up and confront this threat to our and their future. In their eyes we will stand tall, and we will feel damn good about our accomplishment.

Some of us have got stuck on the notion that as parents we can command our children's respect. This never did fly.

As in every aspect of human relations, we must earn it. Here is an opportunity to go a long way toward closing the generation gap.

………. PUBLIUS IIGot room in pocket for a gofer. Maybe two?

TITLES OF OTHER POCKET GOFERS WHICH WE CAN DIG INTO, DISCUSS, CRITICIZE AND ACT ON:

PG 1 - ON HEALTH AND FITNESS IN THE USAPG 2 - ON VOLUNTEERISMPG 3 - ON THE CAREER POLITICIAN IN A DEMOCRACYPG 4 - ON THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH TO GETTING THINGS DONEPG 5 - ON THE COMING OPEN SOCIETYPG 6 - ON MAKING A CONTRIBUTIONPG 8 - ON GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF BUSINESS AND THE PHANTOMPG 9 - IT'S ALL IN THE FAMILYPG 10 - ON EDUCATION IN THE U.S.A.PG 11 - ON THE US AS A WORLD CITIZENPG 12 - ON THE UN AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTSPG 13 - ON PERSONAL POWER AND IDEASPG 14 - ON RESPECT FOR TAXPAYERS' MONEYPG 15 - ON BIG, SMALL, AND GOOD GOVERNMENTPG 16 - ON DEMOCRACY AND OUR CENTRAL GOVERNMENTPG 17 - ON LEADERSHIP IN A DEMOCRACYPG 18 - ON WAR, WEAPONS, AND PEACEPG 19 - ON THE GRAND DECEPTIONPG 20 - ON LIFE IN A DEMOCRATIC COMMUNITYPG21 - PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF A CONSTITUTION