The line between success and corruption in politics - if there is one

The news of Illinois Governor Blagojevich's "auctioning" of Barack Obama's vacated Senate seat is a hot story and has been covered extensively in the past week. However, Liz Halloran of NPR highlighted a new take on the news with her article, "Pay-to-Play Politics Versus Political Favors."

Although Halloran doesn't explicitly defend Blagojevich, a figure that are quick to condemn, she does present an alternate point of view - that although his actions were wrong, in the context of today's politics, they aren't unheard of. With an unassuming tone - she admits in casual language that quid pro quo politics "can get pretty confusing" - she points to cases of corruption in the past, including ones in Connecticut. Halloran puts our state up next to Illinois and Louisiana for the "corruption crown," which surprised me at first, but with indicted officials including Waterbury Mayor Joseph Santopietro, his successor, the mayor of Bridgeport, and of course Governor John G. Rowland, it's a legitimate comparison.

Halloran raises the following question: Where is the line drawn between crimes like Blagojevich's and the quid pro quo exchanges that have driven American politics since the birth of the country? One thing's for sure - that line's not a clear one. One person quoted, Connecticut defense lawyer Hugh Keefe, said "Politicians exist and thrive on legitimate political contributions, but there has always been a vague line between those contributions and the point at which bribery and personal gain come into play." There are always big donors that receive some sort of benefit for their support in political campaigns. Unfortunately for Blagojevich, his chances of sliding under the radar are shot. The tapped phone calls that incriminate him will probably be more than enough evidence for jurors, who, as Halloran points out, are already suspicious of public officials. However, Hubert Santos, a defense lawyer that represented former Connecticut State Treasurer Paul Silvester, makes a good point - that no money or favors have actually changed hands.

The aspect of Blagojevich's dealings that will seal his fate is the upfront nature of his Senate seat auction. Politicians can usually get away with exchanges as long as they're not explicit, but this was not the case for Obama's successor in the Senate.

I do think that Halloran presents the story with an interesting slant, and I commend her for reporting the news with an alternate point of view. It's always good to make yourself think about things in a different light, and if we had more dissenting points of view represented in the media, we would be a much better educated public. Personally, though, I think Blagojevich (like a lot of other politicians) is a pig, especially in his persistent claims that he did nothing wrong and his stubborn refusal to back down from his governorship. I hope the American justice system is functional enough to give him all the consequences he deserves.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98326848

Auto companies - Just another bailout?

I'm not quite sure where I stand on the bailout of the the auto companies GM and Chrysler, and as an undecided reader, Herszenhorn's article on the issue was unsatisfying.

While the politics behind the vote were explained well, I wasn't impressed with the explanation of the arguments for and against the bill. Herszenhorn talked about how the Democrats in Congress were working with White House officials to finalize the details of the bill and rally support for it, which they need desperately because it needs 60 votes in the Senate in order to pass. The bill is sort of a long shot in the Senate because the Democrats hold 50 seats right now and the Republicans hold 49 (the missing senator is President-Elect Barack Obama), and there are a number of Democrats, the party that is generally in favor of the bill, that actually oppose it. Ten of them voted against the $700 billion bailout, which may indicate that they'll vote against a $15 billion bailout for the two companies, and two Democrats, Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, will be overseas for the vote.

It seems like it'll be a difficult feat for the lame-duck Congress to pass any legislation, but the Detroit 3 are important enough to demand the legislators' attention. The rescue plan up for vote grants $15 billion in emergency loans to GM and Chrysler, which are worse-off than Ford. The two auto companies would accept, along with the loans, a "car czar" - an individual named by President Bush to have a high level of government control and oversight. Under the bill, long-term viability plans would have to be developed for each of the companies by March 31, otherwise the "car czar" would either impose a viability plan (which could include Chapter 11 bankruptcy) or demand repayment of the administration. In face, the "car czar" can demand repayment of emergency loans at any point if the car companies fail to reorganize or meet other obligations outlined in the bill.

This is what Herszenhorn explains in his article, but for me, it's not what I really want to know. I want to know how the bailout proposal would affect me and my family should it be passed, and how the failure of these auto companies could if it doesn't. I don't think I'm alone either. Obviously a downside to the bill is that it would raise taxes for Americans, but what about the consequences of its potential failure? These are elements of the story that were absent from Herszenhorn's article - elements that were sorely missed.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/business/10auto.html?_r=1&ref=us