ForumGarden

This is an excerpt from a syndicated column (Full article Here)

The question, then, isn't why there's governmental corruption -- there has always been and will always be governmental corruption. The question is why that corruption has shifted from the local level to the federal level. And the answer is simple: The increased role of the federal government opens the door to federal corruption. As long as the federal government spends millions of taxpayer dollars on purely state and local projects, lobbyists would be fools to stay away. As long as the federal government spends cash on bridges to nowhere and structures named after senators, political interest groups will lurk in the shadows, offering pay-for-play. Federalism once insulated the federal government from petty monetary corruption -- states were the big spenders. The Founders believed, rightly, that the limited powers of the federal government, combined with the broader electorate for the federal government, would circumscribe corruption at the federal level. Until the time of FDR, the Founders' guardrails against federal corruption remained effective. State corruption was exponentially more prevalent than federal corruption. State legislators could offer their constituents subsidies, local projects and jobs. The federal government could offer patronage, but little else. The major pre-FDR federal scandals were major largely because they were so sporadic -- the Teapot Dome scandal would hardly raise an eyebrow today.

Comments?





.

Accountable;672832 wrote: This is an excerpt from a syndicated column (Full article Here)

The question, then, isn't why there's governmental corruption -- there has always been and will always be governmental corruption. The question is why that corruption has shifted from the local level to the federal level. And the answer is simple: The increased role of the federal government opens the door to federal corruption. As long as the federal government spends millions of taxpayer dollars on purely state and local projects, lobbyists would be fools to stay away. As long as the federal government spends cash on bridges to nowhere and structures named after senators, political interest groups will lurk in the shadows, offering pay-for-play. Federalism once insulated the federal government from petty monetary corruption -- states were the big spenders. The Founders believed, rightly, that the limited powers of the federal government, combined with the broader electorate for the federal government, would circumscribe corruption at the federal level. Until the time of FDR, the Founders' guardrails against federal corruption remained effective. State corruption was exponentially more prevalent than federal corruption. State legislators could offer their constituents subsidies, local projects and jobs. The federal government could offer patronage, but little else. The major pre-FDR federal scandals were major largely because they were so sporadic -- the Teapot Dome scandal would hardly raise an eyebrow today.

Comments?





.


You've nailed it. If local government wants an extra square of toilet paper they have to get a federal grant. We send our local tax dolars to Washington then have to hire people to go beg for it in the form of grants or pretend you like a Congressman to get an earmark.

Scrat;673723 wrote: I was thinking earlier about a few questions in my mind. Who do these people serve? Why do I pay taxes?

And people wonder why I'm so down on America now. :-2

We get f**ked either way.


Well I guess the only thing left for you to do is move to Russia.

The beauty of our government is the system of checks and balances. The check that the founders failed to consider is the one the legislature writes for itself.



Yeh, it's too late, but if their raises were required to be approved by popular vote, do you think they would be approved fairly?

Scrat;678442 wrote: They have more freedom than we do.


How so?