Transterrestrial Musings

Defend Free Speech!

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay

Site designed by

Powered by
Movable Type 4.0
Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Math Is Hard | Main | One Of The (Many) Reasons »

Sweet Deal

If I were George Bush, and Congress overrode my veto of the criminally outrageous agriculture bill, I'd take Tim Carney's suggestion, and have the Justice Department start investigating all those who vote to override for bribery. Republicans and Democrats alike.


0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Sweet Deal.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Jim Harris wrote:

You're certainly correct that the agricultural bill is outrageous. The New York Times agrees too. Their unsigned editorial on this issue openly sided with Bush and said that he should veto the farm bill, although regrettably that may only be symbolic.

However, investigating politicians just because of the way that they vote would be a cure that's worse than the disease. It's common to see countries like Pakistan and Russia substitute criminal indictment for democratic choice. It's a sign that the rule of law in those countries is shot to hell.

Habitat Hermit wrote:

Jim, your second paragraph is like shards of glass in a yummy cake of agreement. Please don't effortlessly equate investigation and prosecution of criminal politicians with criminal misuse of the judiciary system for political reasons, the two are probably as close as one can get to total opposites.

I'm not going to draw parallels but if everyone does what you did (and only the Rand Simbergs of this world seem not to, a minority unfortunately) then one ends up without measures; everything becomes "wrong" and nothing can ever be won or improved.

Jim Harris wrote:

Tim Carney talks as if a bad Congressional vote is prima facie evidence of a crime. That is exactly misuse of the judicial system for political reasons. We can only hope that it's criminal misuse --- if it were entirely legal misuse, then we'd really be up a creek.

ken anthony wrote:

Money corrupts. Our senators and representatives should collect a salary equal the the mean of the country (not the average which could be manipulated by a few very high salaries.) This might give them the proper incentive to work for the benefit of everyone. Any money they receive beyond that (from ANY source) should be cause for immediate impeachment.

If they can't stand such restrictions perhaps they shouldn't be in congress. Yes, I realize this is an idea that will never happen on this planet. I'm full of such good ideas. ;-)

But back in the real world, absolutely they should be investigated.

Dennis Ray Wingo wrote:

While I agree that it is disgusting that politicians are lining their pockets on this, let me give a faint hope that there are some honest ones out there.

Scott wrote:

Much as I hate to agree with Jim on anything (just seeing that we share the same opinion dramatically undermines my confidence), he is absolutely right. Once we begin (however simion-pure our intentions) to turn the judiciary system loose on the workings of the legislative proceess (however richly they deserve it), we have taken a huge step down the road to a third-world style tyranny.

While I don't share all of the libertarian leanings of many here on this blog, I sympathize with their frustration and share their anger at what seems to be obvious corruption on both the Dem and Rep side of the aisle. The solution to this however, is to work to limit the scope of govt, so it becomes less profitable to bribe our solons, not to engage in an fruitless (and ultimately destructive, as it will inievitably become politicized) hunt for that thin line between bribery and lobbying.

Jay Manifold wrote:

When Jim's right, he's right. I despise those pr*cks as much as anybody, but going after them this way would be a nightmarish separation-of-powers issue. The last time I heard somebody suggest something like this, it was the inimitable L. Neil Smith calling for the prosecution of members of Congress who vote for firearms-control legislation. IIRC it was another Libertarian, Mark Slagle of San Diego, who demolished that argument. Show trials may satisfy an emotional need, and they might even dispose of actual bad guys, but that doesn't make them a good idea.

Habitat Hermit wrote:

I don't get the worries, we've got separation of powers over here and a crime is a crime no matter who commits it (ok there's sort of an exception for HRM since we're a constitutional monarchy but he has declined to make use of it upon occasion if my memory serves me correctly). It doesn't amount to showtrials and it isn't politically masterminded and directed. Sounds almost like you're describing a US without a independent judicial system in the first place if it's so easily thwarted.

(And I don't agree with Jim Harris' characterization of what Tim Carney wrote; he's not that over the top).

Rand Simberg wrote:

I don't agree with Jim Harris' characterization of...[whatever][

Generally, few sane people do.

Leave a comment

Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on May 19, 2008 7:39 AM.

Math Is Hard was the previous entry in this blog.

One Of The (Many) Reasons is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.1