Public Corruption

A wag once noted that, in government, the scandal lies in that which is perfectly legal, not that which attracts that attention of the US Attorney.

Consider: Senator Wayne Bryant faces the possibility of a significant vacation at a federal facility, at taxpayer expense, because he allegedly secured a no-show (or almost-no-show) job for himself in conjunction with a massive pork project he secured for a state institution in his district. The total cost to taxpayers: maybe $40K per annum.

At the same time, Lawnside, his home town, boasts a brand new, $350K fire truck, purchased by the State taxpayers at Bryant’s behest.

So, screwing the state taxpayers out of $350K to underwrite what should be a local expense passes muster, but taking a small piece for yourself does not. Makes perfect sense, right?

As others point out more eloquently than I, we have become an increasingly corrupt society, if only because we fail to realize that BOTH of the examples above define corruption. Perhaps, then, we require a simplified definition of that word, such that people can identify it when they see it, even -- especially -- in themselves.

"Corruption (n): using political power to secure a benefit for yourself at someone else’s expense."

Examples of perfectly legal corruption abound, such as when public employees wield their political power to secure benefits, at public expense, far in excess of that which their private sector counterparts command. (Private sector managers are, generally, not subject to being voted out of office) Or consider urban municipalities, which employ their substantial voting power to shower themselves with goodies for which they do not pay.

But it runs even deeper than that.

The modern Democratic Party exists expressly to support corruption, in the sense of declaring that it’s perfectly acceptable for society to put the distribution of our neighbors’ income up to a vote. Virtually the entire Party consists of a coalition of folks banding together, demanding that someone else pay their bills. When The New York Times complains that spending cuts (not that we’ve actually seen any) elevate "tax cuts for the rich" over governmental programs, that translates into an assertion that we, the people, may properly seize a portion of what our neighbors’ earn, and use it to subsidize our own desires.

Take a concrete, wildly popular example: college tuition subsidies.

College tends to cost a great deal because professors work too little and are paid too much. Because colleges now resemble resorts more than schools. Because virtually every college offers wholly frivolous areas of "study", such as "Women’s Studies", "Black Studies", "Queer Studies", and the like. And because, increasingly, the people who receive such education don’t pay for it and, hence, don’t care about the cost. When tuition increases threaten, instead of looking at their college presidents and demanding an explanation – "Excuse me, sir. Why are we paying a FOOTBALL COACH more than a $1 million per year? I thought the purpose of a college was education, not football. Indeed, sir; why are we paying you three times as much as we pay the Governor?" – they turn to their legislators and demand additional subsidies.

Sometimes, it’s pleasant to imagine a discussion between such a supplicant and the taxpayer who actually pays the bills:

Student: "College is too expensive. I need help paying my tuition."

Taxpayer: "I sympathize. But I don’t remember adopting you. By what right do you demand of me that I subsidize your education?"

Student: "Er, well, ..."

Small wonder, then, that representatives like Wayne Bryant win election overwhelmingly, and are hugely popular at home. Bryant pillaged the state treasury for the benefit of his constituents; if he reserved a small stipend for himself, why should they complain? If a pirate presents you with millions in plunder, do you really care that he took a few thou for himself?

But Bryant’s finder's fee presents small threat to self-government; as this indictment demonstrates, the law already provides a remedy for representatives who take a cut of the boodle. Rather, the boodle itself constitutes the most egregious threat. The idea that it’s proper to wield government as a sword, to steal from our neighbors and pocket the proceeds, is pernicious in the extreme.

A number of years ago, I proposed legislation to require the reading of a small portion of the Declaration of Independence before each school day, the purpose being to remind our children, every single day, of the basis for self-government. Perhaps, it would behoove us to compel the recitation of Jack Kennedy’s "ask not" paragraph, to remind our people that we should not be approaching government with our hands out – the equivalent of thrusting our hands into our neighbors’ pockets; that -- competent, responsible adults -- we are entitled to nothing we don’t earn.

As long as the people accept pillage as the legitimate province of government, men like Wayne Bryant will continue to oblige. His corruption pales in comparison to that of the people, and his illegal actions represent chump change compared with his perfectly legal piracy.

Bryant, clearly, saw governmental service as a way of enriching himself at collective expense. Unfortunately, the people, apparently, differ little, seeing government as a way of benefitting themselves at the expense of their neighbors. This collective corruption presents an infinitely greater threat than does the apparent greed of one man.