The Menedez Plot Thickens ...

Paul Mulshine undertook a little shoe leather journalism to establish more of the facts surrounding the burgeoning scandal surrounding Bob Torricelli’s ... er, Bob Menendez’s ethics, or the want thereof. As mentioned here the other day, it very much appears as if the "Community Service" organization to which Menendez rented his palatial digs paid substantially more than the fair market rent for its use of the premises. The inevitable conclusion at which an impartial observer arrives is that his political pals did the Congressman a favor, using taxpayer dollars he helped them secure to fatten his wallet "legally".

Menendez contends that the transaction was an "arm’s length deal", but given how cozy he was with the folks who ran this entity – he got them federal funds and they sent him tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions – that contention strains credulity. This appears to be something like Honest Graft, right out of Plunkitt of Tammany Hall.

(As a aside, the Dems and ethics appear to be moving further down the road to a complete divorce based upon irreconcilable differences. The papers today report that our assertedly clean Governor made a huge gift to Reginald Jackson -- who, coincidentally, then provided the Guv with a key endorsement -- then delayed reporting it so that it would not appear on his campaign forms in the year he gave it. (It was just a "loan", don’t ya know? Like the "loan" to Carla Katz, which became a half million dollar gift to the person in charge of negotiating union contracts with the man who gave it.))

All of this appears to be the result of fundamentally different perspectives respecting the rationale for governmental service. Tom Kean continues a family tradition of service for its own sake. Just about every Republican in office approaches it the same way; not many rely upon governmental service for their livelihood. To most GOP officeholders, service represents something of a sacrifice; their governmental compensation pales in comparison to their private income. Or, alternatively, they simply don’t need the money.

There is nothing inherently wrong with relying solely upon one’s governmental salary. Scott Garrett, for instance, comes to mind as a man who values service over material advancement. But there’s the rub: governmental service is – or should be – a sacrifice. The salaries and benefits it offers should not compare with those in the private sector, especially on the elected levels. One chooses that career path out of devotion to society, not out of desire for high incomes.

Although the greed-disease does not exclusively infect Democrats, far too many Dems – especially urban Dems – see government as a way to become wealthy. They see government less as an opportunity to serve for the betterment of the community than as a chance to rape the taxpayer for the benefit of themselves and their friends. Once admitted into the inner sanctum, they secure numerous public sector jobs and shower goodies upon themselves, their families, and their friends. It becomes an incestuous mixture, worse by far than the over-hyped "pay to play" nonsense, with a cabal using public funds to enrich its members at public expense, creating "make work" jobs, paying inflated salaries, and, in effect, using taxpayer dollars to run a political machine, as the grateful beneficiaries happily contribute to keep their sugar daddies in office and the taxpayer boodle flowing.

It’s damn sleazy, even when it’s "legal".

Now, I don’t know anything about the real estate market in Hudson County, buy $450,000 for a rowhouse Mulshine referred to as a "dump" on a narrow street in beautiful, upscale Union City seems a tad much. It would be interesting to see who bought it, and whether that was an "arm’s length" transaction, too.