When a politician says “reform,” be afraid

In Washington, "reform" is a synonym for "destroy."

Welfare “reform” meant wiping out welfare.

Education “reform” meant cutting funds from 1st grade through college.

Campaign “reform” meant opening the flood gates to bribery.

We saw the results of election “reform” in 2000 and 2004.

“Reform” in military waste ($800 toilet seats) brought us Blackwater.

Washington's “reform” list is endless. And now we’re about to get health care “reform.” Be afraid. Be very afraid. The med insurance companies have screwed us in the past. But I suspect that the real screwing is about to begin.

On edit: To the best of my knowledge Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson never used the word "reform." They just did what they thought was right and gave us social security, the right to unionize, medicare, and the civil rights and voting rights acts, just to name a few of their accomplishments.

It's an arrow pointing in the right direction. FIRST we need to end the corporate ownership of those who make and enforce our laws. Then, and only then, will we be able to take steps on other matters that do not get bent at every turn to the wishes of big business.

Take Chris Dodd for example. He was involved in bribery so obvious a child could see it (Countrywide's sweetheart "VIP" mortgage deals). Yet the Senate Ethics Committee cleared him of wrongdoing. The citizens of Connecticut were not fooled; Dodd's chance of remaining in his seat now are remarkably low for a longtime incumbent under a regime designed to keep incumbents in office.

Dodd was the head of the Senate Banking Committee, writing and voting on laws that directly helped Countrywide perpetrate its mortgage scheme, a scheme that played a major role in stuffing our banking system full of bad debt. And he's still there.

Would you trust banking legislation that came out of his committee? What odds would you give a real, effective reform bill proposed in that committee, to make it to the Senate floor?

They basically state that as long as what you do has more than a self serving end, it is ethical.

Di Feinstein is in large part in charge of this. She gets to oversee who is on the Senate Ethics panel. And what principles they employ.

Thus, with the provision that aas long as something is not done ENTIRELY for the sake of the polcitican, there is no longer, according to Di FI's "ethics" definition, any wrong doing. Nor is there any possibility of a charge of conflict of interest being filed.

Thus rather than recusing herself, she could vote for the Iraqi War Resolution, and watch her husband sign onto governemnt contracts based ont that resolution's appsssage, as long as the resolution brought about "the benefit" of war, and not just her husband's benefit (To the tune of 27 Million bucks!)

EFerrarai also once named the guy in charge of this ethics panel - also a Di Fi appointee, and he is one of the more ethically challenged humans to ever grace the halls of the Capital Building.

I was only familiar with one of their principles: "whatever you can get away with"

Jeb Bush is a menace. He fancies himself as **The Reformer**. It's no longer merely about Florida any more.


Be warned.

will be a good thing.