Perks Of A One-Party Town

David Corn

August 04, 2005

David Corn writes The Loyal Opposition twice a month for TomPaine.com. Corn is also the Washington editor of The Nation and is the author of The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers).

Ahhh, the benefits of a one-party town. For the party in charge, that is—not the citizens.

Consider this. Senior White House aides leak classified information to discredit a policy critic—an action that may have imperiled important anti-WMD operations of the CIA—and Congress doesn't bother to investigate. In fact, Sen. Pat Roberts, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has said he would investigate special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's inquiry, rather than the initial wrongdoing (which may or may not be a crime). Why are no congressional GOPers publicly upset about the Plame/CIA leak? Could it be that the leaks were committed by fellow Republicans? Capitol Hill Republicans cannot argue that Congress should not investigate the leaks because a special prosecutor is already probing the matter. During the Whitewater days, Republicans routinely investigated issues being scrutinized by an independent counsel. No, it's duck and cover (up).

Over on the House side, somebody—I wonder who—inserted a provision into the energy bill that would set up a fund (of up to $1.5 billion) that energy firms, such as Halliburton, could tap into for money for exploration activities. According to Representative Henry Waxman, this measure was slipped into the bill after the legislation was officially settled, and most of this fund is expected to be managed by a big-energy consortium based in Sugar Land, Texas—which just happens to be in the congressional district of a fellow named Tom DeLay.

Doesn't this just cry out for an investigation? Not necessarily because it was criminal—though who knows?—but because it was wrong. (This may be the best recent proof of the axiom that not all wrongdoing in Washington, not even most of it, is illegal.) But don't expect any House GOPer to express indignation over such a flagrant abuse of power and brazen expropriation of taxpayer money. (At $60 a barrel, energy companies need incentives to find new sources of oil? Where's Milton Friedman when you need him?)

It's basically impossible these days to read the newspaper and not see a story that wouldn't make for a fine congressional investigation. But where are the investigations? The Republicans have largely abandoned the oversight responsibility of Congress. Why? Because they don't want to investigate other Republicans. After the Enron scandal broke, congressional Republicans refused to examine Enron's political connections. When Democrats have urged Republican committee chairmen to look into Halliburton's contracts in Iraq, they have been repeatedly rejected. Billions of dollars are at stake in Iraq. There have been credible allegations—some from inside whistleblowers—of contracting abuses. But Republicans in Congress have cared not a whit. (Democrats have been forced to mount their own unofficial hearings on Halliburton, as well as on the Downing Street Memos and the Plame/CIA leak.)  Republican Senator Norm Coleman did manage to conduct hearings on the UN oil-for-food scandal. And Senator John McCain has been investigating how Jack Abramoff and other GOP consultants ripped off Native American tribes to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. But McCain has not probed how these consultants exploited their close ties to Republican elected officials. (One of the players in this scandal, Ralph Reed, the former boy-leader of the Christian Coalition, has not been inconvenienced by the hearings; he still is running strong for lieutenant governor in Georgia.)

In the meantime, the pork multiplies. Congress passed a $286.5 billion transportation bill that, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, has 6,376 earmarks—or, special projects—in it totaling $24 billion, nearly ten percent of the entire measure. And every state scores; every one gets money for bridges, roads and the like—whether such projects are needed or not. And here's a surprise: one of the big winners is Alaska. Representative Don Young, a Republican from Alaska, chairs the House transportation committee. Once again, Republicans have demonstrated that they do love big government when big government can be pickpocketed by Republicans. The energy bill, too, is full of special-interest provisions beyond the DeLay payoff, including $85 billion in various tax breaks and subsidies for energy companies, with more going to traditional energy firms (such as oil, nuclear and coal companies) than businesses developing alternative energy.

To be fair, throwing money at earmarks and corporate tax breaks is often a bipartisan endeavor. (Vermont, quite a blue state, won $5.9 million for a snowmobile trail in the transportation bill.) But Congress could use its own official watchdog or inspector general to make sure that the usual congressional excess does not turn into mega-excess. Imagine if there was a congressional office—a taxpayers' advocate—staffed by non-partisan individuals (if that's possible in Washington) who could vet pending legislation and tell the public what these measures really cost, who's responsible for each provision, and whether everything is on the up-and-up. I know—that's dreaming. When Republicans control Congress, they are reluctant to investigate a Republican White House. When Democrats control Congress, they are reluctant to investigate a Democratic White House. But no matter which party is in charge of Congress, congressional leaders don't want to investigate Congress.

I'd settle, then, for one or two congressional investigations of alleged impropriety elsewhere in the U.S. government. A few months ago, I was talking to Waxman, the senior Democrat on the House government affairs committee. He noted that he had recently been speaking with a member of the Israeli parliament. The Israeli mentioned that he was chairman of the parliament's oversight committee. Wait a minute, Waxman said, you're a member of a party that is not in the governing coalition. Yes, the Israeli said, and he explained that in the Israeli system the chairman of the oversight committee has to come from a minority party.

I can easily envision Waxman's wistful response to this piece of news. ("If only….") But it makes sense to have someone from the party that's out keeping track of those in the party that's in. But this is not how it works in Washington. In between elections, power is often unaccountable. Partisan loyalty trumps loyalty to the citizenry (and to the taxpayers). And when the government is so thoroughly controlled by one party, the partying can really get out of hand.