With a smidgeon of bipartisan common sense, we could easily deal with the wee problems cropping up among "entrepreneurial" Congressmembers

Reading Howie's report (below) on Orange County congressional sweetheart Ken Calvert, it occurred to me that these little problems could be dealt with by means of some simple, common-sense reforms, which should easily gain bipartisan support. Just to get the ball rolling, here are a couple of samples:

(1) We could start with a constitutional amendment banning the use of government funds to pay for hookers. Once the amendment passes and is formally adopted, it will probably require appropriate enabling legislation—whereby, for example, all government officials will be required to file quarterly reports of all hooker usage, with documentation that no taxpayer money was used in the payments.

(Depending on the wording of the amendment, it might be left to the courts to decide on the constitutionality and/or legality of HookerPACs.)

(2) Both houses of Congress should consider a system of graft regulation that would return a portion of members' loot to the U.S. Treasury, perhaps starting with what we might think of as the "lollapalooza" committtees, like the House Appropriations Committee, through which essentially every dollar the federal government spends is funneled.

There would undoubtedly be philosophical disagreements to work out:

• Advocates of "progressive" graft reform would probably want to see the share paid to the Treasury rise as the level of collections does, so that members would be required to pay, say, 5% of the first $100K, 12.5% up to $500K, 15% up to $1M, 20% up to $5M, and 25% of everything above that.

• By contrast, proponents of "free enterprise" graft reform might agree that it's right for members to "pay their dues" on their initial take, but that as "earnings" increase, it would be un-American to muzzle initiative. So, perhaps, of the first $50K it would be necessary to pay 40%, then 25% up to $250K, 5% up to $500K, and everything above that level is free and clear. (These reformers might argue that, as it would be inappropriate for the U.S. Treasury to profit from graft, the money should go instead to some other recipient, like a network of GraftPACs controlled by the Republican National Committee.)