Political Pirates

In today’s column, Tom Moran laments the latest in a never ending stream of convictions of influential Democrats for massive corruption.

Most serious political corruption tends to be an urban problem. And a Democrat problem. Not because Republicans are inherently more virtuous, but because they tend to approach government from a different perspective than do Democrats. Dems see government as an engine for legally stealing from A to benefit B. Republicans, contrariwise, see government as a bulwark to prevent B from stealing from A.

The Dem mentality inevitably gives rise to corruption, both of the illegal and legal sort.

First, victims of theft tend to object, but if the thief is playing Robin Hood, he creates a substantial constituency for theft. If the beneficiaries of the theft are the residents of a particular district, while the victims live somewhere else, Robin will repeatedly win office in a landslide, even if he’s not exactly pure of heart, and takes a cut for himself and his band of merry maruaders.

Consider Sharpe James and Wayne Bryant, the poster boys for (apparently) "legal" corruption. If one lived in Newark or Camden, and benefitted from the huge amount of boodle these two legislators managed to secure for their constituencies, how would one vote? Put another way, if Sharpe delivers hundreds of millions in pork each year – goodies that his constituents enjoy at someone else’s expense – are yachts, a Rolls, and trips to Rio too high a price to pay? If Camden gets billions due to Bryant’s efforts, are governmental jobs for his entire family unreasonable compensation? Why should the voters of Newark or Camden care? They aren’t paying the bills.

Or consider public employee unions. While it’s a mistake to scapegoat public employees – they’re not doing anything any other folks wouldn’t do, to wit, trying to maximize their wages and benefits – their interests are distinct from the rest of society, in that they directly benefit from higher taxes and greater spending. If the unions can buy off 41 Assemblyman and 21 Senators, the interests of the taxpayers can be subordinated to the interests of public employees. Or, indeed, if they simply use their concentrated political muscle generally (whereas that of the taxpayers’ tends to be diffuse and unfocused) they can secure unwarranted benefits from frightened legislators.

Disproportionately, the Dems rake in huge sums of public employee union cash and support, then vote in a manner contrary to the taxpayer interest.

While Tom’s a personable bloke, he likes the idea of a government which robs from A to give to B. Hence, it’s somewhat amusing to watch him suffer when the champions of his favored policies employ government, in part, for their own ends. Such results are inevitable so long as government acts as a transfer agency, taking from A to give to B.

If we adopted a simple policy – no governmental employee may participate in partisan politics – that, right there, solves much of the problem. Many of the present dual office holders – undersheriffs, tax collectors, teachers, school administrators – would be instantly evicted from the Legislature. Too, those folks with an particular personal interest in employing the political system for their own benefit would find it much more difficult to do so if neither they nor their unions could overtly affect political campaigns, with either cash or troops.

And much of the balance of the problem could be addressed simply by making lines on a map mean something. That is: NO PORK. If legislators could not pillage A for B’s benefit – if B had to pay himself for the benefits he receives – B would have a huge incentive to vote for responsible representatives rather than pirates. If, for instance, the State were constitutionally proscribed from giving money to Newark, and if the people in Newark were confronted with the consequences of electing rogues, they might tend to vote differently.

Put another way, and to paraphrase Charles Peters, that which is illegal is NOT the scandal; there will always be criminals in any profession, even politics. No, that which is PERFECTLY LEGAL needs to be changed, so that folks cannot enrich themselves, their friends, their families, or their constituencies at the expense of others. The people of Newark – or of Morris Township, for that matter – might occasionally elect a scoundrel, but the consequences of that foolish electoral choice will fall upon the backs of those who cast the vote, not upon their neighbors, who bear no portion of the blame.

Chris Christie, in his news conference, points out the necessity for the people to exercise their franchise carefully. But for elections to function properly, the consequences of foolish electoral choices must be visited upon those who made them. It will not do to lament poor choices and, yet, create a system which provides huge incentives for the residents of particular districts to ignore the obvious piracy of their elected officials.

For the antiseptic of elections to work as designed, the people must be informed and involved, and elections must mean something. On each level of government, the people who benefit from spending MUST be the same folks who pay the underlying taxes. In that fashion, the people will promptly evict representatives who feather their own nests at collective expense, because that particular electorate will be paying the bills. Eliminating "corruption" – defined as employing the mechanisms of government to benefit oneself, one’s friends, or one’s constituency at the expense of others – requires responsibility. If the consequences of bad electoral choices can be foisted off on others, what incentive exists for the voters to care?

Prohibiting the political piracy of pork and evicting those with a vested interest in higher taxes and greater spending from the political process would do much to reform government, reduce corruption, and make elections meaningful.