Ch 3: Corruption & Power Imbalance

PART II

Reforms in American Governance

Chapter Three

Corruption and Power Imbalance

Failures in American governance are central to the global climate change problem. American leadership in this energy transition is critical, but a number of problems are delaying this: institutional corruption, public ignorance, and the imbalance of power are the primary causes of this political crisis.

The framers of the Constitution recognized the importance of checks and balances, which is why Madison’s Federalist 51 is such an important essay. Preventing the executive from becoming tyrannical was, at the time of America’s founding, one of the primary concerns. The tendency for a federalist republic (which is what America’s government is defined as) to become corrupt was not as important initially but over the years Madison’s insight about the potential violence of factions in Federalist 10 has become equally important.³⁵ In reality, the tyranny of the executive and the violence of faction are both important components of American political crisis.

Another debate that went on during America’s founding was about the merits of a republic being founded upon a sense of “republican virtue.” This behavioral disposition toward public consciousness on the part citizens was the norm at the time of the American founding, but its maintenance has not been sustained across the fourteen generations since America’s founding in 1776. Discussions of the attitudes antithetical to virtue help define the concept: republics in decline are composed of citizens who are “steeped in luxury,” “fawning,” “submissive,” or “timid” (Abbott, 51).

Failures in Congress are the most worrisome because Congress is the first branch of government, empowered and framed in the first article of the Constitution. “The framers wanted it clear that Congress was to be the first among equals of the three branches: it is clear, when push comes to shove, that Congress can trump the other two branches by overriding a presidential veto, impeaching and removing from office presidents and justices alike, and by changing the size or jurisdiction of the courts. Congress is seen as a powerful, independent body expected to represent a large and diverse republic, to deliberate on important policy questions, and to check and balance the other branches” (Mann & Ornstein: 14).

The American government, specifically the Congressional branch, has clearly demonstrated their inability to fulfill their established duty to society. Corrupt members of Congress have been preventing progressive climate change legislation, in large part because of powerful moneyed interests.³⁶ This power imbalance is in conflict with Congress’ duty to American citizens, and to our posterity, because it has obstructed and demoted the security of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Destructive of these fundamental ends, elected representatives are adding the public’s money to their own campaigning coffers (on the scale of hundreds of millions of dollars per election cycle), giving the public’s money to wealthy interests with record profits at the expense of the least wealthy in society (on the scale of trillions of dollars), and producing policies without compromise or consensus. Widespread corruption and a misuse of authority have effectively undermined our government’s ability to secure the public’s fundamental rights. These developments have placed a great strain on the legitimacy of the American government.

Members of Congress who are in violation of the citizen-state compact must be held accountable and punished. Under the Constitution, members of both Houses enjoy the privilege of being free from arrest in all cases, except for treason (disloyalty to one’s nation), felony (including embezzlement and grand theft), and breach of the peace (a deliberately vague legal term that might be invoked under current circumstances). Representatives are, in fact, being sentenced to prison at an alarming rate.³⁷ However, with lax monitoring and little formal or informal punishments, many are not being punished, those being punished are given sentences disproportionately soft compared to their crime, and acts that are technically legal but in direct violation of the basic citizen-state compact are being overlooked (like laundering the public’s money into their campaign coffers or to their family members).

According to Martin Garbus, a well-respected and successful trial lawyer in the U.S., no American government “has been so criticized and seen as so radical and dangerous to the rest of the world” (Garbus: 29). Corporate powers’ influence on the policy stream is completely off-balance to the detriment of society; the need for change is compelling and urgent. Support for Congress is at a near all-time low with only eighteen percent approval in August 2007 (Saad: 2007). The Gallup News Service reports that Congress’ approval rating is “highly anemic, still registering on the extremely low end of the historical range of Gallup approval scores dating back to 1974” (Saad: 2007).

Congress has abdicated their responsibility as party and ideology trump institution (Mann & Ornstein: 2006). There have been unprecedented breaches of Congressional practice and ethics amounting to a gross abuse of power representing trillions of dollars of wasted public money. The following is, in the classic vocabulary of the Declaration of Independence, an overview of a long train of abuses and usurpations, and an abridged history of repeated injuries.

Fiscal Insanity

Budget debates in Washington are unrealistic and are costing the American public substantially. A Wharton School professor, testifying to Congress, said, “current federal budgetary practices would be illegal in the private sector.” The Government Accountability Office’s (GAO’s) David M Walker, in response to the 2005 Financial Report of the United States concluded:

A significant number of material weaknesses related to financial systems, fundamental record keeping and financial reporting, and incomplete documentation continued to (1) hamper the federal government’s ability to reliably report a significant portion of its assets, liabilities, costs, and other related information, (2) affect the federal government’s ability to reliably measure the full costs as well as the financial and non-financial performance of certain programs and activities, …(4) hinder the federal government from having reliable financial information to operate in an economically, efficient, and effective manner.

The government made thirty-six billion dollars in improper payments in 2005 and over twenty billion dollars could not be accounted for—completely lost. To put this amount of money in perspective, a state-of-the-art high school can cost seventy-five million dollars; twenty billion dollars would buy two-hundred sixty-six of them. A major hospital expansion and upgrade can cost about one-hundred million dollars; twenty billion dollars would get you two-hundred of those.

According to the 2005 Financial Report of the United States, the 2005 deficit was seven-hundred sixty billion dollars, not the three-hundred eighteen billion dollars usually reported.³⁸ The deficit is over six percent GDP and rising, not less than three percent and shrinking as usually reported. America’s debts and commitments are forty-nine trillion dollars (including Social Security and Medicare commitments), not eight-trillion eight-hundred billion dollars (June 2007) as usually reported. In 2000, America’s debt totaled twenty trillion dollars but it has more than doubled in the proceeding five years. House Budget Committee member Jim Cooper said that “During the last five years, President Bush has borrowed more money abroad than all previous American Presidents combined.”³⁹

In 2005 the Bush administration, according to Cooper, borrowed one-hundred seventy-three billion dollars from Social Security and one-hundred eighty billion dollars in 2006. Doing so makes the true federal deficit in 2005 five-hundred seventy billion dollars, not three-hundred eighteen billion dollars. Including the increases in Social Security and Medicare promises, the 2005 deficit increases to three and one-third trillion dollars (equal to China’s and India’s combined GNP) (Cooper: xxv).

George W. Bush has transformed a $5.6 trillion ten-year Bill Clinton surplus into a $5 trillion deficit—a $10.6 trillion shift in wealth from our national treasury into the pockets of the wealthiest Americans, particularly the President’s corporate paymasters. Any discerning observer must acknowledge that the White House has repeatedly lied to the American people about critical policy issues—Medicare, education, the environment, the budget implications of its tax breaks, and the war in Iraq—with catastrophic results. Generations of Americans will pay for the Republican campaign debt to the energy industry and other big polluters with global instability, depleted national coffers, and increased vulnerability to oil-market price shocks. They will also pay with reduced prosperity and quality of life at home. The administration’s attacks on science and the law have put something perhaps even greater at risk—our values and our democracy. (Kennedy: 2005)

America’s financial situation, though difficult to comprehend because of its scale, has been hidden from the public. These records, amounting to an unprecedented breach of government responsibility, illustrate Congress’ inability to be trusted in controlling the U.S. purse—which is their primary function.

Dysfunction

Approximately “1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes,” which are used to overcome filibusters, noted a July 2007 McClatchy report. “If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes—fifty-eight each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002.” In first seven months of the 110^th Congress, the Senate has held forty-two cloture votes aimed at ending debate. Filibusters, or usually only the threat of one, have resulted in the Democrats falling short twenty-two times in trying to deliver on their campaign promises.

In 2007 Republicans have blocked votes on major legislation dealing with energy, labor rights, and prescription drugs. Senator McCaskill (D-MO) remarked “The minority party has decided we have to get to sixty votes on almost everything we vote on of substance. That’s not the way this place is supposed to work.” Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.) complained that “the Senate is spiraling into the ground to a degree that I have never seen before, and I’ve been here [since 1973]. All modicum of courtesy is going out the window” (Talev: 2007).

Filibusters are a common, if controversial, tool used by the minority party. This Congress is taking it to a new level and the result is more polarized politics. Filibusters used to be infrequent, partly because of the custom of civility. At three fifths, or sixty votes, it is seven votes short of the two-thirds needed to override a presidential veto.

Misuse of Authority: Buying Power

Individual legislators are stealing the public’s money: House Representative Alan Mollohan (D-WV, unopposed in an election since 1986, on the Appropriations Committee) has increased his personal wealth from five-hundred thousand dollars in 2000 to eight million dollars in 2005, in part by earmarking two-hundred fifty million dollars for five nonprofit organizations that he created (Morris: 8, 148 & BeyondDeLay.org). Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL, in office 1987-2007), while earmarking two-hundred seven million dollars, profited two million dollars in land sales directly related to his earmarks (Morris: 143). These examples highlight the flow of money from public taxes into our “representative’s” pockets. Individuals running government sponsored enterprises are also stealing public money: Fannie Mae’s CEO Franklin Delano Raines has illegally profited ninety million dollars in six years (Morris: 220).⁴⁰

Comparing America to the fall of Rome, historian Cullen Murphy observes that public transactions are increasingly requiring the payment of money, and the pursuit of money and personal advancement is becoming the purpose of public jobs—which of course themselves cost money to acquire (Murphy: 97). This is a serious problem in a representative democracy in which representatives are supposed to be enlarging and refining the public’s interest.

Big money interests are overriding the democratic process and are paying legislators for access to the policy stream: in the House of Representatives, in one year, Rick Santorum (R-PA, 1995-2007) received over one million one-hundred thousand dollars, Arlen Specter (R-PA, 1981-present) one million dollars, and Harry Reid (D-NV, 1987-present) eight-hundred ninety thousand dollars. In one year of the Senate, Dennis Hastert received nine-hundred twenty-nine thousand dollars, John Murtha (D-PA, 1974-present) eight-hundred sixty-nine thousand dollars, and Jerry Lewis (R-CA, 1979-present) eight-hundred nineteen thousand dollars. These contributions significantly increase the security of their job and make the politicians responsive to their special interest donors more than their constituents.

Legislators are appropriating themselves money for campaigning through business intermediaries: Roy Blunt (R-MO, 1997-present) received two-hundred seventy thousand dollars and James Oberstar (D-MN, 1975-present) received over one-hundred sixty-five thousand dollars from transportation PACS while on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (Moris: 126). This is a rampant practice across Congress with very few exceptions.

Comparing the U.S. to the fall of Rome again, Murphy notes that the legislative institution is corroding: people must pay before officials will act and payment also determines how they will act (Murphy: 98). Just by passing the Bankruptcy Bill, Tom Carper (D-DE, serving 1983-1993 and 2001-present on the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs) received two-hundred ninety-eight thousand dollars, Tim Johnson (D-SD, 1997-present) two-hundred twenty-eight thousand dollars, and Evan Bayh (D-IN, 1999-present) two-hundred thousand dollars.

Another example of injustice is how profits to individual legislators for cutting student loans thirteen billion dollars amounted to fifty-two million dollars in benefits to legislators in 2005-2006 (Morris, 258). It is quite apparent who the winners and losers are.

Moneyed Legislation

When the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act (H.R.6).was going through the Senate in 2007, an amendment was proposed to establish economic incentives for the development of clean, alternative energy technologies, and close loopholes for big oil. But the oil lobby fought hard and got thirty-five senators to vote against the amendment. These senators have received an average of three times, or $161,382 in contributions from the oil and gas industry between 2002 and 2007. The fifty-eight senators voting in favor of the amendment received an average of $56,942 over the same period (CAP: 2007a). Thanks to these thirty-five senators, the progressive tax package fell two votes short of the super majority it needed to overcome a filibuster and H.R. 6 now contains $5.8b in fossil energy subsides.

In the House of Representatives, big oil’s twenty-nine million dollars in campaign contributions between 1989 and 2006 is a trivial investment compared to the sixteen billion dollars per year tax loopholes and royalty relief that the big oil companies are trying to maintain (Weiss & Wingate: 2007). The one-hundred eighty-nine representatives who voted against the H.R. 6 bill received an average of $109,277 in contributions from the oil and gas industry between 1989 and 2006. The two-hundred twenty-one representatives that voted for the tax package received an average of $26,277 over the same period (Weiss & Wingate: 2007). The Center for American Progress said that given its nearly thirty-seven and a half million dollars in direct campaign contributions to House and Senate representatives, “it is unsurprising that when big oil knocks, enough senators answer the call to thwart the will of a majority of their colleagues” (Weiss: 2007).

Since 1990, eighty million dollars of checkbook diplomacy between the automobile industry and Washington has dulled America’s political commitment to fuel efficiency and bought Detroit political connections that rival those of big oil (NRDC: 2002). The energy industry donated one and a half million dollars for Bush’s campaigns from 1993 to 1998, forty-eight million dollars to Bush and the Republican Party in 2000 and another fifty-eight million dollars since the President’s inauguration (Kennedy, 96). The administration’s environmental policies and opposition to the CAFÉ standards clearly represent the interests of their corporate supporters.

Subsidies

Unnecessary subsidizing of industries is a wasteful practice that gives politicians extra campaigning money and obligates taxpayers spend upwards of $1.37 million annually per job saved (Morris, 295). An example of inequitable subsidization is the sugar industry: protecting the sugar industry saves 2,261 jobs and costs $1.87 billion, resulting in $826,000 annual cost per job saved. This hurts the poorest of our neighbors to the south while the industry makes four-hundred million dollars of profits from the higher prices they can charge. The sugar industry then donates $2.48 million to members of Congress (in 2004) (Morris: 2007).

Congress is subsidizing the oil industry about $16 trillion, maritime services $2.5 trillion, the sugar industry $1.8 trillion, the dairy industry $1.6 trillion, $746 million for machine tools, and subsidize at least thirteen other industries over one-hundred million dollars. Three industries are costing over one million dollars per job saved and seven industries are subsidized over five-hundred thousand dollars per job saved (Morris: 2007).

Corporate welfare should be reevaluated in light of climate policy developments. The worst subsidies here are probably that for the sugar and dairy industry because of their unsustainable business practices, negative environmental and health externalities, direct competition for land conservation, and inequitable distributional effects. If the U.S. wants to reduce GHGs then subsidies should not be promoting consumption, but conservation.

Corruption in Contracts

Selling products and services to the federal government represents about three percent of GDP. Contracts account for nearly forty percent ($377 billion) of all discretionary spending in fiscal year 2005. Between 2000 and 2005, total federal contracting increased by nearly one-hundred seventy-five billion dollars, or eighty-seven percent. A lack of transparency and accountability has led to significant abuse. Widespread contract corruption involving tens of billions of dollars are undermining the quality of key government services, from the protection of public health and the flow of commerce to the preservation of our national security. Non-competitive contracting has more than doubled during the first half of this decade, and during the last three years more than five federal officials have been convicted of crimes involving federal contracting (Lilly: 2007).

Congress needs to closely monitor and limit the use of non-competitive contracts. Two examples reveal the cronyism and fraud in government procurement: executives at the dysfunctional Transportation Security Administration (TSA) awarded themselves $1.5 million in year-end bonuses and Boeing has received at least forty-nine million dollars in “extra profits,” according to former Secretary Tom Ridge, for a contract to oversee Department of Homeland Security contracts (Lilly: 2007).

Congress has the responsibility to ensure that the money provided to the executive branch is effectively spent. The Center for American Progress, in a report about the problems with contracts, concludes: “clearly the Congress has failed almost completely in its willingness and capacity to perform the constitutional function of insuring the efficiency and effectiveness of the government that it has funded” (Lilly: 2007).

Holding the Executive to Account

In his 2005 critique of the Bush Administration, Robert Kennedy Jr. writes in Crimes Against Nature that the administration “has sacrificed respect for the law, private property rights, scientific integrity, public health, long-term economic vitality, and commonsense governance” in the pursuit of private profit and personal power. As a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Kennedy exposes the numerous ways in which our government has abandoned its duty to safeguard our health—an abandonment of democratic precedent amounting to fascism.⁴¹

The White House has relied on deception to gain approval for radically new policies even though President Bush had analyses from reputable sources that directly contradict what he was telling the American people. In 2003, the U.S. News & World Report had this to say: “The Bush administration has quietly but efficiently dropped a shroud of secrecy across many critical operations of the federal government, cloaking its own affairs from scrutiny and removing from the public domain important information on health, safety and environmental matters.” As long as the government’s actions are secret, it cannot be held accountable.

There is an unwillingness to conduct tough oversight of executive programs or assert congressional prerogatives vis-à-vis the presidency on matters ranging from the accessibility of critical information to war-making (Mann & Ornstein: 9). This has been particularly detrimental to the international order and the rule of law.

Congress should impeach President Bush for (1) unlawful complacency in torture, (2) unlawful use of force in Iraq, (3) unlawful signing statements and (4) not faithfully executing laws, as mandated by the Constitution.

Complicit in Torture

Congress has failed to hold President Bush accountable for blatantly ignoring well-established laws. Prisoners at Guantanamo could be sentenced to death without a public trial, the presumption of innocence, a right to appeal, or even proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (Sands: 156). The international humanitarian laws violated include the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 75 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III (which is customary international law), and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which provides that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”).

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (S. 3930) even encourages torture. It states that confessions obtained during torture may be used against the victim in their legal proceedings (Garbus: 43).

According to media reports and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), President Bush signed an order giving new powers to the CIA, authorizing it to set up a series of detention facilities outside the U.S. and to question those held in them with “unprecedented harshness.” Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba was established as a place to gather information beyond the constraints of international and U.S. law (Sands: 210).

The notion that the president has the constitutional power to permit torture is like saying he has the constitutional power to commit genocide (Sands: 215). But according to the ACLU and TomDispatch.com, at least twenty-one detainees have been tortured to death during interrogation by Navy SEALs and other government agencies—actions almost certainly authorized by Vice President Cheney (ACLU: 2005 & Jamail: 2006).

An August 1, 2002, memorandum “Re: Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. 2340-2340A,” from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel authorized the CIA to conduct more aggressive interrogations than were permitted prior to September 11, 2001. This memo can be found via a Washington Post (13 June 2004) article Justice Dept. Memo Says Torture ‘May be Justified’.⁴²

Laws violated include the 1984 Convention against Torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 7), the American Convention on Human Rights (Article 5[2]), the 1949 Geneva Convention III, Geneva Convention IV, Geneva Protocol I, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—all of which America is party to and many of which America helped establish. Taken together, the rules prohibiting torture and criminalizing terrorism allow no exceptions. The rationale is simple: torture is morally wrong. And according to the U.S. Army’s Field Manual, it is a poor technique that leads to unreliable results (Patraeus: 2007).

If George W. Bush or Richard Cheney is considered complicit in cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment, they must be punished under criminal law—crimes punishable by death.⁴³ But Congress has failed to check and balance the executive and have subordinated their role in government to an unacceptable level.

Congress is currently in the process of pardoning (freeing from future prosecution) President Bush and his administration for violating the Geneva Conventions. Buried deep inside the War Crimes Detainee bill (H.R. 6166 & S. 3930), which was passed by the House September 27, 2007, is a provision that would pardon President Bush and his administration for violation of the Geneva conventions.⁴⁴ The War Crimes Detainee bill still needs to be voted on in the Senate, and public and media pressure before February 2008 is essential to prevent this from passing.

Unlawful Use of Force

Congress has failed to hold President Bush accountable for unlawful use of force in Iraq, an undeclared war that amounts to the crime of aggression (Sands: 189). Since the United Nations (UN) Charter was adopted it can no longer be argued that the use of force is beyond the rules of international law. The U.S. ignored the Security Council and the U.S.’s interpretation of UN Resolution 1441 has been recognized as absurd (Sands: 191-192). ⁴⁵ The Iraq War will make it more difficult to act when there is a real threat—a time when unity is needed to address real challenges. The failure of Congressional oversight has resulted in actions that have undermined public trust in the intelligence services and in governance (Sands: 203).

Signing Statements

President Bush has been largely unnoticed in using signing statements to nullify laws passed by Congress. The problem is that Bush is using signing statements like line item vetoes. Yet the Supreme Court has declared line item vetoes as unconstitutional in 1988, in the case of Clinton v. New York. According to Phillip Cooper (2005), a leading expert on signing statements, President Bush is rewriting the laws by reinterpreting how the law will be implemented. Cooper judges this action to be “excessive, unhelpful, and needlessly confrontational.”

Cooper has accounted for George W. Bush issuing twenty-three signing statements in 2001 and thirty-four statements in 2002 by raising one-hundred sixty-eight constitutional objections; twenty-seven statements in 2003, raising one-hundred forty-two constitutional challenges, and twenty-three statements in 2004, raising one-hundred seventy-five constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised a remarkable five-hundred and five constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law.

While only vetoing two bills, he has nullified over five-hundred specific parts of bills he has found unconstitutional. However, in the spirit of the Presentment Clause, the president ought to veto the entire bill, not sign it with reservations in a way that attempts to veto part of the bill. ⁴⁶ But this is exactly what President Bush is doing. He is acting as if Congress were a mere advisor (Dean: 2006).

President Bush’s signing statements are also in conflict with the Constitutional implication that a veto is the President’s only avenue to prevent a bill’s becoming a law. It is also in direct violation of Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution which says the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Former Counsel to the President of the U.S. in 1970 and Richard Nixon’s White House lawyer, John Dean (2006) writes:

 

It is amazing that Bush believes he can ignore a law, and protect himself, through a signing statement… Congress wanted to impeach Nixon for impounding money he thought should not be spent. Telling Congress its laws do not apply makes Nixon’s impounding look like cooperation with Congress, by comparison….In short, Bush’s signing statements, which are now going over the top, are going to cause a Congressional reaction. It is inevitable.

President Bush has used an executive order (#13233: 1 November 2001) to ensure that the records of his most secretive administration remain hidden indefinitely. The Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007 (H.R. 1255) would lift this shroud of secrecy from presidential records. The bill, which was introduced by Congressman Henry Waxman passed the House by a vote of three-hundred thirty-three to ninety-three in March 2007. The current status of the bill (as of October 2007) is that Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) objects to moving it forward in the Senate (ThinkProgress.org: 2007).

The public has an obligation to pressure the Senate to pass The Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007—it is a matter of international human rights. Passing this act could be the start of Congress regaining their prominence and holding President Bush in check by increasing transparency.

Action Agenda: Government Reform

The United States government’s legitimacy is being undermined for a wide variety of reasons. The culture of corruption needs to change to prevent such massive waste and unacceptable violations. These changes are not only synergistic with, but are also necessary for achieving GHG neutrality. Corruption is rampant because of sub-optimal accountability, a severe lack of oversight, non-competitive contracts, money laundering for campaigns, personal gain through business intermediaries, and the use distortionary subsidies that appropriate funds inequitably and fuel big money interests. These failures have resulted in the largest market failure ever and trillions of dollars of wasted public money. It is no wonder The Economist magazine’s Quality of Life Index (2005) reduces the U.S. score 37.3 percent for bad governance.

The following is a review of the recommendations made by Thomas E. Mann, Senior Fellow of the Brookings Institution and Norman J. Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Their recommendations are derived in part from legislation previously introduced. These suggestions can be found in Mann and Ornstein’s book The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How To Get It Back On Track (2006, p.226-241). I have also included recommendations from the Center for American Progress, Citizens Against Government Waste, a variety of academic journals, and will conclude this section with a number of bills being considered by Congress at this time.

Near the top of the list for addressing institutional failure is dealing with the problem of redistricting, commonly known as gerrymandering. The focus should be on establishing an independent commission with redistricting authority in each state, such as in Arizona and Washington. The purpose is to prevent representatives from drawing partisan districts that help secure the representative’s chance of re-election.⁴⁷

Also near the top of the list is a change in Congress’ schedule to help create real debate and discussions on the floor of each chamber. Mann and Ornstein suggest going two weeks on and two weeks off, with the two weeks on beginning early Monday morning and going to late Friday afternoon—in other words, a typical work week and not the four day schedule that has become the norm. (An alternative would be to make at least twenty-six weeks a year five-day weeks in Washington.) That kind of schedule change may should trivial, but it is not. If members were at the Capitol for extended periods, including the weekends in between the “on” weeks, they would interact with each other more frequently and more directly, including across party lines, developing interpersonal relationships that are now often nonexistent. Most importantly, full weeks in Washington would provide Congress to do extended legislating.

Schedule changes should be combined with rules changes that would enforce deliberation and restore regular order. Every bill should have a period of at least twenty-four hours, but preferable three days from the time it is reported to the time it is debated on the floor, so that lawmakers know what they are voting on. No vote in the House should last more than twenty minutes unless both party leaders and both party floor managers consent (Mann & Ornstein: 2006; Podesta & Lilly: 2007). Conference committees should not exclude any conference members; nor should they be able to include provisions never considered in either house, eliminate provisions included in identical form by both houses, or add provisions after conferees have signed off on the final product (Podesta & Lilly: 2007).

On the second tier of priorities, Mann and Ornstein suggest reducing harmful and pervasive earmarks. Earmarks, or “pork,” are a line-item appropriation that designates fund for a specific purpose. The 2007 budget had sixty-four billion dollars earmarked for 12,852 items. It is seen as a problem because it advances the careers of Washington insiders rather than being based on the merit of the project. “Waste and abuse have proliferated in the absence of transparency, accountability, and a competitive process” (Finnigan: 2006).

Mann and Ornstein suggest that every lawmaker be required to disclose when he or she has a direct interest, financial and otherwise. Citizens Against Government Waste suggest limiting the amount of projects that each member can request, prohibiting appropriations for any item that has not been subject of a congressional hearing, and extending the waiting period for a former member of Congress to become a lobbyist (Finnigan: 2006).

To provide oversight, the Center for American Progress recommends the leadership of both parties insist that each committee dedicate a greater portion of its staff resources to professionals with the management and budgetary knowledge to conduct effective oversight. Each committee should review all programs and activities within their jurisdiction and establish oversight priorities (Podesta & Lilly: 2007).

Lobbyist reform should address problems of campaign contributions, private jet travel, lavish meals, and trips. There needs to be more effective reporting and disclosure systems. For example, it should be a violation of House and Senate ethics for a member to solicit or accept a contribution from a lobbyist with business before the body. Also, leadership PACs should be banned or sharply restricted. ⁴⁸

Lobbying reforms need to be accompanied by real enforcement provisions, including an independent, outside role in ethics adjudication consistent with Congress’s constitutional requirements. Several reform groups have endorsed the creation of an Office of Public Integrity.

Electoral competition should be increased. Any changes in campaign finance law that steer resources to challengers would help. Mann and Ornstein recommend free air time, incentives for small donors, subsidized voter brochures, other forms of public financing, and more lenient contribution limits for start-up funds. Some have suggested barring members from raising money outside their districts or banning fund raising between January and June every year. This would provide some breathing space for lawmaking without the demands and corrupting atmosphere of fundraising. But such a change would most likely be an ethics matter, not as a law, because it is a ‘free speech’ violation.

Specific Reform Legislation

The Ethics and Lobbying Disclosure Act (S. 1) passed in September 2007 makes a number of important changes (Voting: 96-2 & 411-8). The Act increases the period before an ex-representative can lobby (Sec. 101); it requires lobbyists to report every six months for donations over two-hundred dollars (Sec. 203); it requires candidate committees to report bundled contributions totaling over fifteen thousand dollars within six months (Sec. 204); it requires objections to proceedings be submitted with detailed reasoning within six days of the objection (Sec. 512); it shall publicize earmark requests at least 48 hours before the item comes to a vote (Sec. 512); it requires candidates and members of Congress pay for non-commercial air travel at market value (Sec. 601); and it prohibits members and candidates from accepting free air travel (except for commercial carriers, Federal entities, or foreign states) (Sec. 601).

The Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007 (H.R. 1255), introduced in March 2007, is to nullify the 2001 presidential executive order #13233and restore public access to presidential records. The bill was passed in the House and now has to be debated on in the Senate.

Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (H.R. 2316), introduced in May 2007, is to provide more rigorous requirements with respect to disclosure and enforcement of lobbying laws and regulations. The bill passed in the House three-hundred ninety-six to twenty-two. The bill now has to be voted on in the Senate but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has blocked appointment of Senate conferees so that the bill passed in each chamber can not be reconciled.

The Improving Government Accountability Act (H.R. 928), introduced in February 2007, is to promote independence and accountability for the Inspector General.⁴⁹ This bill passed in the House in October 2007 (404-11). The bill is currently in the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Amendments of 2007 (H.R. 1309), introduced in March 2007, is to promote openness in, and public access to, government information. The bill passed in the House in May 2007 (308-117) and is currently in the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

The Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act (H.R. 1317), which has been introduced by a number of previous Congresses, is to strengthen protections for federal employees who come forward to report waste, fraud, abuse, and national security violations. However, no action is currently being taken on this bill.

Conclusion

Corruption and power imbalance have resulted in clear violations of executive tyranny and factional violence. Lax monitoring and inadequate punishments are providing an accommodating environment for a radical and dangerous government. Congress is wasting trillions of the public money and changes are needed as soon as possible.

Congress is unable to operate efficiently or effectively because of problems with records, documentation, and financial systems. The United States is running a three trillion three-hundred billion dollar deficit (spending more money than is taken in) and total debts are about forty-nine trillion dollars. Bush has lied about a number of polices that has resulted in a ten trillion five-hundred billion dollars shift in wealth to the elite. Congress has been complicit in this and they can not be trusted to make effective decisions. Congressional practices are anything but civil or courteous due to an extreme ideological polarization. The three times increase in filibusters is just one indication of this problem.

Congress is stealing money, transactions with Congress require money, the purpose of public jobs is money, it costs money to get these jobs, members of Congress are clearly beholden to big money interests, and money determines Congressional action and U.S. policy.

Creating effective climate change policies is an uphill battle against the deep pockets of big oil, automobile, and agricultural industries. Subsidies include sixteen trillion dollars per year for fossil energy, one trillion eight-hundred billion dollars for the sugar industry, and one trillion six-hundred billion dollars for the dairy industry. These subsidies need to be re-evaluated in the spirit of sustainability. They need to stop because they are creating many negative social externalities and this change would be synergistic with large reductions in GHGs with net economic benefit.

Transparency, accountability, and close monitoring are vital to put a check on the growth of no-bid contracts. Current practices are undermining the quality of important services. Contracts have increased eighty-sven percent between 2000 and 2005 and now make up about three-hundred seventy-seven billion dollars (Lilly: 2007).

If ever the term “breach of the peace” were invoked, perhaps it is appropriate to describe the complete failure of Congressional oversight to hold President Bush accountable for violations of numerous laws. President Bush has been complicit in torture, a violation of the U.S. Constitution and at least seven international treaties, he has initiated an illegal war, and he has been rewriting and reinterpreting legislation with over 500 constitutional objections. President Bush’s actions are significantly worse than the Nixon scandals: his administration has undermined the public’s trust in the government’s intelligence and governing capacity.

To address these issues, the public has an important role in holding corrupt representatives accountable in elections and make government reform a top priority. The public should pressure representatives to support a number of important reforms:

• H.R. 1255 for public access to presidential records,

• H.R. 2316 to require lobbying disclosure and enforcement,

• H.R. 928 for Inspector General independence and accountability,

• H.R. 1309 for public access to government information,

• H.R. 1317 for protection federal employees who report waste, fraud, abuse, or national security violations, and

• Opposition to H.R. 6166 & S. 3930 that would pardon President Bush from war crimes.

Additional reforms not currently in Congress include:

• redistricting (gerrymandering) reform for more competitive elections,

• increasing Congress’s work schedule,

• reducing earmarks,

• committing more committee resources to oversight and establish priorities for all programs within their jurisdiction,

• prohibiting lobbyist solicitations if they have business before the body,

• creating an Office of Public Integrity, and

• Increasing election competition with a change in campaign finance reform.

The powers granted to Congress are relatively meaningless in the absence of effective Congressional oversight. Such a Congress becomes a threat to our democracy because it fails to exercise the restraint on executive power that our founding fathers so carefully designed it to perform. Such an incapacitated Congress is also a threat to sustainable development. If global climate change is to be addressed at the appropriate scale the American government has to be reformed.

The November 2008 presidential elections will make a significant difference in the dynamic of institutional behavior and the policy agenda. Many of the institutional reforms recommended have been germinating in Congress for a while now and many of the presidential candidates are running on platforms of accountability and governance reform.

Experts believe that the majority of leaders in Congress are not interested in change and that for change to happen it must be forced upon them or they must be replaced (Mann & Ornstein: 2005). Changes in government necessitate a minimal level of public awareness and mobilization. The next chapter will evaluate the health of the American citizenry.