They used to call it "graft"

How does it work? This is how it works.

When in Congress, pass legislation at the behest of some giant industry, and pay no attention at all to what will actually help the citizens in your district. Heck, let the industry WRITE the laws if they want to. In exchange, they'll give you tons of contributions allowing you to flood the airwaves with spin, deflection and lies so you can get re-elected, and eventually reward you with a million dollar job.

Retiring Representative Billy Tauzin, who led the House committee that regulates drug makers, will become head of the industry's top lobbying group next month.

Tauzin said his most important challenge will be improving the image of drug companies, which has been damaged by soaring prescription drug costs and high-profile safety issues with the arthritis medication Vioxx and other medicines.

Public Citizen and Common Cause, two watchdog groups, criticized Tauzin for using his public service for his personal benefit. They pointed to his deep involvement in developing legislation last year for Medicare prescription drugs. Opponents said the law provides billions of dollars to the pharmaceutical industry while failing to slow increases in drug prices.

"We think that it stinks," Common Cause spokeswoman Mary Boyle said. "Whose interests did he have at heart, those of the American people or his future employer?"


And the worst thing? This sort of shit is actually legal.

Graft is legal.


Display:


Now they call it Christmas. (none / 0)

No wonder the neo-cons are fighting so hard these days for Christmas.
by afs on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 02:08:25 PM EST

Party Down (none / 0)

The Washington Monthly had a good historical overview comparing today's Republicans to the Democratic party of the 70's Like the Democrats during the 1970s, today's GOP is hidebound and out of touch

Over the last few years, such party operatives as Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, and Tom DeLay have cowed Democrats with chesty, blustering talk about a "permanent majority." But like the Democrats circa '76, Republicans entered Washington three years ago under an ideological banner that had already lost its relevance to most Americans.

Twenty years earlier, a policy agenda of tax cuts and smaller government made practical sense for the country. Reagan succeeded in cutting taxes, and his successors, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, eventually got government spending under control. By the 2000 election, upper-bracket tax rates had been steady for two decades at a rate far lower than they were through most of the previous 50 years, and the federal government's share of GDP was 18.4 percent, well below where it had been during the Reagan administration. While short-term, broad-based tax cuts still made sense as a recession-fighter, the big challenges America faced--chiefly the unrecognized danger of terrorism and the coming retirement of the baby boom generation--could not be solved with further tax and spending cuts. If anything, the opposite would be called for.


by Gary Boatwright on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 06:04:35 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.