Re. the GSA scandal: What are these people in Washington THINKING of? And speaking of power corrupting, time to say good night, Charlie?

When now ex-GSA Administrator Martha Johnson (seen here in 2010 with Homeland Security Sec'y Janet Napolitano at left) was finally confirmed for her job, after one of those endless Senate confirmation struggles, she said famously that ethics was "a big issue for me." Now wags want to know what exactly the issue was.


"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

-- Lord Acton (1834-1902)

by Ken

From Ed O'Keefe's washingtonpost.com "Federal Eye" blog this afternoon:

Congress will investigate GSA scandal

By Timothy R. Smith

Congress will investigate the misuse of federal money by the General Services Administration that brought down the agency's administrator and two of her senior deputies on Monday.

When Congress returns from recess April 16, the public buildings subpanel of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will conduct "a full hearing on this and other matters, trying to hold GSA accountable for taxpayer waste and inefficiency," said Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the full committee.

GSA's inspector general issued a scathing report Monday that detailed misuse of funds and federal contracting violations over an $823,000 employee training conference GSA held in Las Vegas in October 2010.

"The Las Vegas fiasco is just the tip of the iceberg," Mica said. He cited billions of dollars of misused funds and 14,000 vacant or underused buildings the government owns.

The public buildings subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Jeffrey Denham (R-Calif.).

Mica offered tepid praise of the Obama administration for not obstructing the agency's investigation and taking swift action when the revelations were made public.

A spokesperson for Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said, "The current Administration took immediate action against those accused and asked for Johnson's resignation although she was not directly involved in the scandal."

I'm thinking it was during the 2010 electoral cycle that a progressive colleague with firsthand working knowledge of the machinery of the federal government tried to rouse interest among fellow progressives in championing a concerted attack on wasteful government spending, only to be generally attacked himself on the ground that government waste is "their" issue and raising it only plays into their hands.

The colleague counterargued, still almost entirely in vain, that:

(1) There is, in fact, a good deal of wastful spending in government.

(2) Especially at a time when it's increasingly difficult to fund the legitimate functions of government properly, it's good policy as well as common sense to find needed find mind that can be redirected from wasted currently being misdirected.

(3) And it's kind of crazy, isn't it?, to unilaterally cede to the other side a talking point that tends to resonate strongly with ordinary Americans.

I thought he was 100 percent right, but then, what do I know? Smarter people with their presumed inside knowledge harrumphed that doing what this madman was suggesting would just be doing the Republicans' job for them.

Now it's in part because our side has ceded the issue of wasted spending that we're now faced with inquisitions from criminal sacks of doody like Darrell Issa, in his capacity as the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Oversignt and Government Reform, or to the impending spectacle of a hoped-headline-making, thieving-scumback-led investigation of the appalling GSA scandal.

Note that I said "the appalling GSA scandal." Is there anyone who isn't appalled. I'd like to see the response to the GSA IG's report go beyond firings to prosecutions and, ideally, executions. Now that might teach a lesson or two. At least we could expect that the person(s) executed wouldn't do it again.

What the hell goes through these people's minds? Except, of course, the universal 21st-century refrain: Me-me-me-me-me-me -- and, oh yes, ME. The guiding, er, "ethical" principle would appear to be, "Since everybody does it, I'd have to be nuts not to grab everything within reach which isn't nailed down." That is, assuming these people even feel the need for a guiding ethical principle.

And on this count, lame as Oversight Committee ranking member Elijah Cummings's response is, it does indeed count for something that in the Obama administration an ugly report like that of the GSA IG led to immediate action. This is even grudgingl acknowledged by that scourge of corruption, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica, who you'll recall "offered tepid praise of the Obama administration for not obstructing the agency's investigation and taking swift action when the revelations were made public."

Maybe Chairman Mica thought it too well-known to required pointint out that this is the exact opposite of the policy -- and it's policy that was rigidly enforced -- under the Bush regime, where the invariable practice in the executive brance was, first, to have inspectors general who either (a) were buffoons to begin with or (b) understood that any embarrassing revelations they might at any point consider revealing would be met with the most ruthless campaign of suppression mountable by people of surpassing excellence at ruthless suppression. And of course while the executive branch was being transformed into a crime ring, the Republican-controlled Congress was in 24/7's rape, pillage, and extort mode.

I suppose I could be doing an injustice to corruption- and waste-fighters like Chairman Mica and public buildings subcommittee Chairman Jeffrey Denham. In fairness, then, I will offer them a Hypocrisy Waiver good for all the headlines they can garner for corruption and waste dollars uncovered up to the total dollar amount each went after in the Bush regime. I don't have the exact figures handy, but I'm guess that should bank them an Earned Investigative Credit balance of roughly zero.


SPEAKING OF ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTING ABSOLUTELY,
CHARLIE RANGEL DOESN'T INTEND TO GO OUT QUIETLY

NYS Sen. Adriano Espaillat announced Sunday that he's forming an exploratory committee to consider a run for the Democratic nomination for the redrawn 13th CD, now represented by Charlie Rangel.

I was already thinking about this business of institutionalized government corruption with the announcement on Sunday that my state senator, Adriano Espaillat (who ran for the uptown Manhattan seat vacated by Eric Schneiderman in anticipation of his ultimately sucessful run for state attorney general), a good guy, is going to challenge 10-term Representative Charlie Rangel in his bid for the Democratic nomination to an 11th term. Charlie has been sweating bullets for months now to see what if anything would be left of his 13th CD under whatever redistricting plan is finally adopted, eliminating two CDs from the state's delegation. (The slugs in the state legislature couldn't get it done, so finally the courts took over.)

From DNAinfo.com yesterday:

Espaillat Announces Run for Uptown Congressional Seat

April 1, 2012 8:48pm | By Carla Zanoni, DNAinfo Social Media Editor

spaillat announced that he is planning to run for 13th Congressional District in Upper Manhattan, setting up a showdown with the longtime symbol of Harlem politics Rep. Charles Rangel, DNAinfo has learned.
The announcement was made Sunday at the annual fundraiser for the Barack Obama Democratic Club of Upper Manhattan, which Assemblyman Keith Wright, City Councilmen Robert Jackson and Ydanis Rodriguez, and several other political figures attended, sources said.
After Espaillat told the crowd about his intentions during a speech kicking off the event, several people in a packed apartment at 565 W. 169th St. began clapping enthusiastically.
Espaillat, who made history as the first Dominican-American to be elected to a state legislature in 1996, will battle Rangel because a panel of judges decided not to create a separate majority Latino district in the neighborhood, as some advocates had called for. . . .

Rangel, 81, has served Upper Manhattan since 1971 and is the dean of New York's congressional delegation.

Although he recently announced he would run for a 22nd term, people in political circles have been murmuring that he might to try to hand his seat over to someone such as Wright, if elected, rather than serve the full two-year term.

Bob Liff, Rangel's campaign spokesman, declined to comment, but reiterated that the Congressman is running to serve a full term.

Democrats Joyce Johnson, Vince Morgan, Craig Schley and Clyde Williams, a former advisor to President Bill Clinton, have also declared themselves candaites for the Congressional seat.

In recent years, Rangel's image has been marred by scandal, including the use of rent-regulated apartments for office space and failure to pay taxes.

In 2010, after a two-year ethics investigation, he was censured by the House.

And in late March, Rangel reportedly agreed to pay a $23,000 fine to settle campaign finance violations related to a rent-subsidized apartment in Harlem.

Rangel's future with Congress was further thrown in turmoil this year as a result of New York's redistricting process. . . .

There's time yet for the intricate politics of it all. In the end it may be that the free-for-all developing to shove our Charlie out of Congress winds up enabling him to keep his butt parked there. For now, though, don't you have to wonder, why can't he just call it a day?

A lot of what I think when I think of Charlie Rangel is gosh, that's sad. I like to think, at least, that he wasn't always as we see him now, that he once placed the people's business ahead of his own. But here he is now, at 81, clawing and scratching, even without his lost House chairmanship holding onto his seat for dear life. Is it just habit? Fear of sinking into invisibility if he were to just retire, unloved -- and bereft of influence? Or fear of being unable to afford the lifestyle to which he has become accustomed?

Hey, Charlie, is this really what you got into public life for in the first place, back in the day?

#