The Washington Cesspool

Corruption has now become so routine in Washington that improprieties far worse than Turbo Timmie’s implausible failure to pay taxes on income from his days working as a consultant to the World Bank barely evoke a yawn from the media. Apparently the fourth estate is either so bedazzled by star turns, like Michelle Obama presenting at the Oscars (!!!) or so cowed by the prospect of being cut off from information that it dutifully falls in line.

Lest the reader believe that Lew is a unique problem, they should read Ms. Smith’s entire piece. Her conclusion is:

But the lack of consternation about Lew’s financial record, and the way some respected members of what passes for the left (Robert Reich and Jamie Galbraith) have defended Lew, in part also shows how much things have changed in a mere four years. Obama’s lying has become so predictable that it’s hard to stir up any outrage over it.** And since fish rot from the head, one of Obama’s singular accomplishments is in defining deviancy down throughout the Beltway. For instance, Obama took the unheard-of step of collecting “unlimited corporate cash” in the words of Roll Call, with virtually nil in the way of disclosure, took even stalwart supporters like the Grey Lady aback.

So Lew is indeed perfect for his new role, just not in the way ordinary Americans expect him to be.

The corruption between Washington and major corporations is beyond what the average American could possibly suspect. And, it is this average American who is unknowingly paying for this corruption.

In terms of Ms. Smith’s “fish rot from the head” comment, this short article by Tom Lester seems appropriate if not exactly timely:

Using Sequestration as the Next Campaign Narrative

I watched the President in an earlier speech telling the Republicans he would veto any attempts by the Republicans to change any portion of the sequestration. That was before the election. Today, however, he demonizes the Republicans for not only proposing it but for not coming to the table to offer an alternative to the “massive cuts” it employs.

What’s wrong with this picture? For one, it’s just blatantly dishonest. Dishonest is the term that some might use but more accurately, it’s filled with bold-face lies.

First, the idea of sequestration was not the brainchild of a Republican Congress. It was the idea proposed by the White House as a means of getting through the election without having to propose any tax cuts to the Federally bloated spending budget. At worse, Republicans went along thinking that at last the President might finally propose cuts with which all could live.

Secondly, it was postponed until after Obama’s re-election to allow the promotion of tax rate increases during the fiscal cliff negotiations. Negotiation normally means that both sides surrender something in compromise. Not much of a negotiation when only one side gives up something. The Republicans acquiesced on tax rate increases, the Administration didn’t have to propose any tax cuts.

Thirdly, those “massive cuts” don’t do a thing to a massively bloated Federal budget. The Congress has too long allowed base-line budgeting and it has become the cruise-control for a Congress that wants each year to award each government department and agency a bit more to spend the following period. Of course, “a bit more” is more frequently a number consisting of at least six to nine zeros. For the uninformed that means if a particular department had a $500 million budget during the base-line year, the subsequent year will be $500 million plus an increase of 5%, or whatever percentage that is currently in effect. Thus, that department’s new budget is $525 million.

continue at Economic Noise:

http://www.economicnoise.com/2013/02/27/the-washington-cesspool-2/