I don't know what Dennis Hastert was seeking to hush...

[crazed_hoosier2]

...but perhaps the first thing that jumps out at me about this story is that he apparently had (or had access to) $3.5 million to pay to keep somebody quiet.

Everybody's speculating about what "bad acts" he was trying to keep quiet. Not that I'm uninterested in that -- but how is it that nobody blinks an eye about him having that kind of cash?

Dennis Hastert was a teacher before he took his first public office in 1981. He left public office in 2007 and became (of course) a lobbyist. So he's had about 8 years outside of government to build that kind of fortune.

Influence within government has become extremely valuable -- and, to me, this is Exhibit A that government itself has become too powerful.

If we want to reduce the role of money in politics, the only way to do it is to reduce the role of politics in money.

 

[Sope Creek]

...but perhaps the first thing that jumps out at me about this story is that he apparently had (or had access to) $3.5 million to pay to keep somebody quiet.

Everybody's speculating about what "bad acts" he was trying to keep quiet. Not that I'm uninterested in that -- but how is it that nobody blinks an eye about him having that kind of cash?

Dennis Hastert was a teacher before he took his first public office in 1981. He left public office in 2007 and became (of course) a lobbyist. So he's had about 8 years outside of government to build that kind of fortune.

Influence within government has become extremely valuable -- and, to me, this is Exhibit A that government itself has become too powerful.

If we want to reduce the role of money in politics, the only way to do it is to reduce the role of politics in money.

So . . . Dennis Hastert (1) does something to someone that behooves him to pay $3.5 million in hush money, and (2) violates federal law in organizing the money with which to pay the hush money . . .

. . . and your response is that government = bad?

I guess that just goes to show that if the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. (Where did I hear that before . . . .)

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

If we want to reduce the role of money in politics, the only way to do it is to reduce the role of politics in money.

Not true. There are plenty of other ways. For example, we could ban all privately-funded campaigning, and give all candidates who gather enough signatures to appear on the ballot in a given state the exact same amount (much less, of course, than what they spend now) to use for advertising. First Amendment, I know...

 

[Marvin the Martian]

It is going to come out that he worked for FIFA.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

So . . . Dennis Hastert (1) does something to someone that behooves him to pay $3.5 million in hush money, and (2) violates federal law in organizing the money with which to pay the hush money . . .

. . . and your response is that government = bad?

I guess that just goes to show that if the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. (Where did I hear that before . . . .)

You really need to read my post again, Sope. This is a common problem with you for some reason.

 

[Sope Creek]

You really need to read my post again, Sope. This is a common problem with you for some reason.

Nope, it's an exact summary of what you posted, but in a light not as flattering as you would prefer.

You need to read your own post. Essentially, it's "because Dennis Hastert is corrupt we need to get rid of government".

 

[Rockfish1]

You really need to read my post again, Sope. This is a common problem with you for some reason.

I don't think the problem lies with Sope.

The Event: A former Republican House Speaker is indicted for concealing blackmail payments to someone he allegedly molested decades ago when he was a high school wrestling coach.

Your take: "Influence within government has become extremely valuable -- and, to me, this is Exhibit A that government itself has become too powerful."

My take on your take: #RorschachTest

Silly Policy prescription: Since former public officials are only vulnerable to blackmail if they have money to pay blackmailers, we should insure that former public officials have no money.

Subtext: Perhaps sexual abuse, blackmail, corruption, and lies can exist even without Big Government. Maybe it says more about you than it says about the story that your first reaction to this tawdrid, quintessentially human story is "Government = Bad."

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Nope, it's an exact summary of what you posted, but in a light not as flattering as you would prefer.

You need to read your own post. Essentially, it's "because Dennis Hastert is corrupt we need to get rid of government".

No, it isn't. I don't think he got rich by way of corruption. In fact, best I can tell, his corruption has nothing to do with how he got rich.

He got rich legally and within the system. That is the problem. Political influence is worth too much. And that's because government has an outsize role in determining where dollars flow.

My post had little to do with Hastert's law-breaking. I'm complaining about what he apparently did within the law.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I don't think the problem lies with Sope.

The Event: A former Republican House Speaker is indicted for concealing blackmail payments to someone he allegedly molested decades ago when he was a high school wrestling coach.

Your take: "Influence within government has become extremely valuable -- and, to me, this is Exhibit A that government itself has become too powerful."

My take on your take: #RorschachTest

Silly Policy prescription: Since former public officials are only vulnerable to blackmail if they have money to pay blackmailers, we should insure that former public officials have no money.

Subtext: Perhaps sexual abuse, blackmail, corruption, and lies can exist even without Big Government. Maybe it says more about you than it says about the story that your first reaction to this tawdrid, quintessentially human story is "Government = Bad."

Yes, it does. And you missed my point as badly as Sope did.

Let me put it this way: I'd have the same gripe if Hastert had never broken any law and never been indicted.

His political influence turned him from a teacher and wrestling coach into somebody who can afford to pay $3.5 million in hush money after 25 years in political office and 8 years out of it.

This is a problem -- and it's a symptom of an incredibly powerful and influential government. It's the kind of thing you'd expect to see in post Soviet Russia.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

No, it isn't. I don't think he got rich by way of corruption. In fact, best I can tell, his corruption has nothing to do with how he got rich.

He got rich legally and within the system. That is the problem. Political influence is worth too much. And that's because government has an outsize role in determining where dollars flow.

My post had little to do with Hastert's law-breaking. I'm complaining about what he apparently did within the law.

Yes, but it still boiled down to your claim that the only possible solution was to weaken government, which is, I think, what both Sope and Rock are taking issue with (as well as what I took issue with above).

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Yes, but it still boiled down to your claim that the only possible solution was to weaken government, which is, I think, what both Sope and Rock are taking issue with (as well as what I took issue with above).

Well, Hastert apparently got rich -- legally -- on his influence *after* leaving office. There's nothing that campaign finance laws are going to do to that. And they already have rules governing lobbying.

The real source of the value of political influence is the degree to which that influence can direct dollars. As such, no rule is going to devalue that influence -- it may, at best, redirect it. But it won't devalue it.

The only real way to devalue it is to decrease the power that government has to direct dollars. If we don't want to do that, then we'd better get used to big dollars heading towards politicians -- both those seeking office and those who leave it.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Well, Hastert apparently got rich -- legally -- on his influence *after* leaving office. There's nothing that campaign finance laws are going to do to that. And they already have rules governing lobbying.

Sure it will. Lobbying is only as lucrative as it is because of the ability to direct private money into campaign funds. It's legalized vote-buying.

With publicly-funded campaigns, we'd still have lobbyists, sure, but at least they wouldn't be funneling money directly into the campaigns of the people they are trying to get votes from. The unspoken quid pro quo disappears.

 

[Rockfish1]

His political influence turned him from a teacher and wrestling coach into somebody who can afford to pay $3.5 million in hush money after 25 years in political office and 8 years out of it.

It'd be fine with me if the law severed the link between K Street and members of Congress. Or if it disadvantaged groups like ALEC that operate like a government in secret. Or if it reversed the Citizens United trends that corrupt our discourse. By all means let's make government less corrupt. By all means let's honor the glory of Cincinnatus and his plow.

But let's not tear down government because shameless Republican concern trolls see an opportunity in the disgrace of one of their own to denigrate government itself. You guys see one thing and one thing only, because you just don't see very well.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

FWIW, according to the NYT, Hastert was already rich before he was elected to Congress, thanks to some valuable land holdings.

As an aside, ignoring for the moment what horrible things Hastert may or may not have done in the past, am I the only one bothered by the fact that the crime he's actually being charged with - essentially, making a bunch of small withdrawals - is even a crime at all?

 

[Rockfish1]

FWIW, according to the NYT, Hastert was already rich before he was elected to Congress, thanks to some valuable land holdings.

As an aside, ignoring for the moment what horrible things Hastert may or may not have done in the past, am I the only one bothered by the fact that the crime he's actually being charged with - essentially, making a bunch of small withdrawals - is even a crime at all?

I haven't thought carefully about that, so I don't know. But unless Hastert did something truly reprehensible in his past -- and maybe even if he did -- I'm not sure why we care about this, decades later, long after he's gone from the scene.

Again, if there are crimes here, then probably they should be prosecuted. But I'll let others write the Aesop's Fables.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I haven't thought carefully about that, so I don't know. But unless if Hastert did something truly reprehensible in his past -- and maybe even if he did -- I'm not sure why we care about this.

Well, we care about it because JUICY GOSSIP!!!! obviously, but what bothers me is that Hastert is being charged with a crime because of what he did with the money. In a situation where he was technically the victim (apparently).

I'm not saying it's good that rich people can cover up their past mistakes with money. But I'm not sure I'm comfortable with it being criminalized in this way. Imagine a situation where you want to take $20K out of your bank, fly to Nevada, and blow it on perfectly legal gambling and brothels. You certainly don't want to explain to the bank or the FBI why you're taking the money out, even if it is perfectly legal, so you take it out in a few smaller increments. BAM. You just broke the law.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It'd be fine with me if the law severed the link between K Street and members of Congress. Or if it disadvantaged groups like ALEC that operate like a government in secret. Or if it reversed the Citizens United trends that corrupt our discourse. By all means let's make government less corrupt. By all means let's honor the glory of Cincinnatus and his plow.

But let's not tear down government because shameless Republican concern trolls see an opportunity in the disgrace of one of their own to denigrate government itself. You guys see one thing and one thing only, because you just don't see very well.

I'm not really denigrating government though. I'm simply pointing out that one undesirable side effect of a very powerful government that has hands in virtually every pie is that the commodity of influence within it necessarily becomes quite valuable.

That's why a guy can go from being a wrestling coach to the sort of person who can blow $3.5 million on hush money in a relatively short period of time.

For this model of society on steroids, check out the oligarchs in Russia, how they used government influence to become fabulously wealthy, and how Putin -- a career intelligence officer -- can himself become (by some reports) a billionaire.

The problem here isn't really corruption -- it's the stakes.

 

[Rockfish1]

Well, we care about it because JUICY GOSSIP!!!! obviously, but what bothers me is that Hastert is being charged with a crime because of what he did with the money. In a situation where he was technically the victim (apparently).

I'm not saying it's good that rich people can cover up their past mistakes with money. But I'm not sure I'm comfortable with it being criminalized in this way. Imagine a situation where you want to take $20K out of your bank, fly to Nevada, and blow it on perfectly legal gambling and brothels. You certainly don't want to explain to the bank or the FBI why you're taking the money out, even if it is perfectly legal, so you take it out in a few smaller increments. BAM. You just broke the law.

You make good points, unless Hastert turns out to be an actual molester. If that were true, this would be just the tip of a Titanic-class iceberg, and Hastert should be on suicide watch. That would trump any good-government arguments. Which isn't to say that this ought to be so. But since there is sex lurking in this story, that's likely to be all that it is, for better or worse.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Yes, but it still boiled down to your claim that the only possible solution was to weaken government, which is, I think, what both Sope and Rock are taking issue with (as well as what I took issue with above).

Weaken government?

There is a reason why the wealthiest zip codes in the United States produce no economic value, all that is produced in those zip codes are influence and laws and regulations that the influence produced. Maybe you think this is evidence of strong and good government but I don't. It causes everything from weapons the military doesn't need, to infrastructure that doesn't serve a purpose, to trains and busses with no passengers. There is more as you well know. The concentration of wealth and influence wasn't always this way. As far as I am concerned diminishing the roles of unaccountable bureaucrats and the influence peddlers is a good thing. This isn't getting rid of government and it doesn't weaken government.

The problem isn't the first amendment or Citizens United. It's the money and influence that a guy like Hastert can control. The way to fix that is to lower the stakes and not put government in every issue.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Weaken government?

There is a reason why the wealthiest zip codes in the United States produce no economic value, all that is produced in those zip codes are influence and laws and regulations that the influence produced. Maybe you think this is evidence of strong and good government but I don't. It causes everything from weapons the military doesn't need, to infrastructure that doesn't serve a purpose, to trains and busses with no passengers. There is more as you well know. The concentration of wealth and influence wasn't always this way. As far as I am concerned diminishing the roles of unaccountable bureaucrats and the influence peddlers is a good thing. This isn't getting rid of government and it doesn't weaken government.

The problem isn't the first amendment or Citizens United. It's the money and influence that a guy like Hastert can control. The way to fix that is to lower the stakes and not put government in every issue.

Your argument would hold more water with me if it were an argument anyone ever actually made. But they don't. The people who claim they want to reduce the influence of government never talk about unnecessary weapons systems or useless pork barrel bridges. They talk about the EPA forcing them to install pollution controls in their factory. They complain about the creation of the (nonsensical) "dependency class." In other words, 99.999999999% of the time, your small government friends are specifically targeting those few areas where government should be involved.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So . . . Dennis Hastert (1) does something to someone that behooves him to pay $3.5 million in hush money, and (2) violates federal law in organizing the money with which to pay the hush money . . .

. . . and your response is that government = bad?

I guess that just goes to show that if the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. (Where did I hear that before . . . .)

Speaking of hammers and nails

You have a one track mind when it comes to conservatives. Crazed pointed out the money Hastert apparently commanded as an influence peddler was bad and you turn him into an anarchist or something. Even Obama whines about influence peddling. His solution is to change the first amendment. There is another way, such lowering the rewards for influence peddling. That would give us better government.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Speaking of hammers and nails

You have a one track mind when it comes to conservatives. Crazed pointed out the money Hastert apparently commanded as an influence peddler was bad and you turn him into an anarchist or something. Even Obama whines about influence peddling. His solution is to change the first amendment. There is another way, such lowering the rewards for influence peddling. That would give us better government.

No, it would give us smaller government.

Changing the First Amendment? That would give us fairer and more open elections. That would be more likely to lead to better government.

Funny that in a post in which you accuse Sope of having a one track mind, you so easily fall into the cliche conservative trap of assuming that the only possible better government is a smaller one, while simultaneously defending crazed against the same exact charge.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

No, it would give us smaller government.

Changing the First Amendment? That would give us fairer and more open elections. That would be more likely to lead to better government.

Funny that in a post in which you accuse Sope of having a one track mind, you so easily fall into the cliche conservative trap of assuming that the only possible better government is a smaller one, while simultaneously defending crazed against the same exact charge.

Maybe you could get a law job in Washington

Advocating for elementary school kids right to have a chocolate chip cookie in school. That is a very important and weighty issue that* "good government" has weighed in on. But maybe the job is taken.

*trigger warning: big government fans may have an adverse reaction to sarcasm.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Maybe you could get a law job in Washington

Advocating for elementary school kids right to have a chocolate chip cookie in school. That is a very important and weighty issue that* "good government" has weighed in on. But maybe the job is taken.

*trigger warning: big government fans may have an adverse reaction to sarcasm.

Do you not think fairer elections and a weaker lobbying industry might not just be the best way to get the government out of those areas it doesn't belong?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Do you not think fairer elections and a weaker lobbying industry might not just be the best way to get the government out of those areas it doesn't belong?

Of course

But I don't see the first amendment as a problem here. The problem is those who think good government is more government and more government concentrated in a single place.

Do you really think the rush to federalize local cops is a good thing ? We are watching a whole new K Street lobby effort develop before our eyes , complete with activists, agitators, unions, and state and local government law enforcement associations setting up shop. No matter what you think of the state of policing in the country, I don't think this is the road to good government , only more government.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Of course

But I don't see the first amendment as a problem here. The problem is those who think good government is more government and more government concentrated in a single place.

Do you really think the rush to federalize local cops is a good thing ? We are watching a whole new K Street lobby effort develop before our eyes , complete with activists, agitators, unions, and state and local government law enforcement associations setting up shop. No matter what you think of the state of policing in the country, I don't think this is the road to good government , only more government.

Straw man argument.

I haven't said bigger government is better. Nor have I said concentrated government is better. I'm simply taking issue with the idea that both you and crazed have very clearly advocated in this thread - despite some denials - that the only solution to bad government is to shrink it. I'm saying government can be made better.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Straw man argument.

I haven't said bigger government is better. Nor have I said concentrated government is better. I'm simply taking issue with the idea that both you and crazed have very clearly advocated in this thread - despite some denials - that the only solution to bad government is to shrink it. I'm saying government can be made better.

Doing the twist

You don't say bigger is better but you deny smaller is better. Whatever. I'm cool with that. I happen to think government is too big to be good. It is too big to be effective. It's size is fraught with redundancies, special interests, and it is unmanageable. Those in charge mostly have no clue of what goes on in their agencies. Check out the Denver VA hospital mess. One billion over budget on an original 800 million budget. Horrible incompetence do to lack of management due to lack of oversight due to size of agency which allowed incompetence to flourish. There thousands and thousands of similar examples.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Doing the twist

You don't say bigger is better but you deny smaller is better. Whatever. I'm cool with that. I happen to think government is too big to be good. It is too big to be effective. It's size is fraught with redundancies, special interests, and it is unmanageable. Those in charge mostly have no clue of what goes on in their agencies. Check out the Denver VA hospital mess. One billion over budget on an original 800 million budget. Horrible incompetence do to lack of management due to lack of oversight due to size of agency which allowed incompetence to flourish. There thousands and thousands of similar examples.

There is a very large difference between the statement that one of the ways to improve government in some (or even most) situations may be to scale it back, and the statement that smaller government is per se better. The former has the goal of improving government, and the latter has the goal of shrinking government, improvement be damned.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

There is a very large difference between the statement that one of the ways to improve government in some (or even most) situations may be to scale it back, and the statement that smaller government is per se better. The former has the goal of improving government, and the latter has the goal of shrinking government, improvement be damned.

There is no difference

Every operational fault of government whether it is Amtrak running off the rails, not seeing the Benghazi danger, to the GSA hot tub party, to the private email mess, to the VA hospital mess can be traced back to mismanagement because of size. And this doesn't even include the size of the shadow government we like to call "consultants" or "contractors" which are really ways to avoid government compensation and employment rules. Smaller would be better. Period.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

There is no difference

Every operational fault of government whether it is Amtrak running off the rails, not seeing the Benghazi danger, to the GSA hot tub party, to the private email mess, to the VA hospital mess can be traced back to mismanagement because of size. And this doesn't even include the size of the shadow government we like to call "consultants" or "contractors" which are really ways to avoid government compensation and employment rules. Smaller would be better. Period.

That you cannot tell the difference is the problem. You have become so obsessed with a particular solution, that the solution itself has become your goal. You can't even conceive of the possibility that a situation might exist where less government is bad.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That you cannot tell the difference is the problem. You have become so obsessed with a particular solution, that the solution itself has become your goal. You can't even conceive of the possibility that a situation might exist where less government is bad.

Cripes goat

I can easily see where less government is bad. You are just being reflexive again.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Cripes goat

I can easily see where less government is bad. You are just being reflexive again.

No, I'm being responsive. Responsive to exactly what you said word for word two posts ago: "There is no difference...Smaller would be better. Period."

 

[Rockport Zebra]

FWIW, according to the NYT, Hastert was already rich before he was elected to Congress, thanks to some valuable land holdings.

As an aside, ignoring for the moment what horrible things Hastert may or may not have done in the past, am I the only one bothered by the fact that the crime he's actually being charged with - essentially, making a bunch of small withdrawals - is even a crime at all?

I was contemplating that tonight. Any banking transaction above 10000 is tracked. That is another consequence of the "war on drugs". Why would he do this if the crime is past the statute of imitations? Lets make a rule, don't elect wrestling coach's speaker of the house. PS most of your favorite news outlets reported that he was the longest speaker of the house. Really.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

No, I'm being responsive. Responsive to exactly what you said word for word two posts ago: "There is no difference...Smaller would be better. Period."

No you aren't.

I said "smaller" you said "less". Less implies elimination of activities. Smaller doesn't. I'm willing to discuss less but that is more complicated. I think with some functions less would also be better.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I was contemplating that tonight. Any banking transaction above 10000 is tracked. That is another consequence of the "war on drugs". Why would he do this if the crime is past the statute of imitations? Lets make a rule, don't elect wrestling coach's speaker of the house. PS most of your favorite news outlets reported that he was the longest speaker of the house. Really.

Actually, all the ones I saw said (correctly) that he was the longest-serving Republican Speaker. But, I could see our vaunted American television journalists easily making that mistake.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

No you aren't.

I said "smaller" you said "less". Less implies elimination of activities. Smaller doesn't. I'm willing to discuss less but that is more complicated. I think with some functions less would also be better.

L. O. L.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

If you pretend he's talking about women it makes perfect sense. He doesn't want less women, just smaller ones.

 

[Rockfish1]

Orin Kerr wins the internet with this takedown:

If I understand the history correctly, in the late 1990s, the President was impeached for lying about a sexual affair by a House of Representatives led by a man who was also then hiding a sexual affair, who was supposed to be replaced by another Congressman who stepped down when forced to reveal that he too was having a sexual affair, which led to the election of a new Speaker of the House who now has been indicted for lying about payments covering up his sexual contact with a boy.
​

Maybe the problem here isn't that government is bad. Maybe the problem here is that Republicans are bad. (See also the Mark Foley scandal that ushered Dennis Hastert into the private sector.) Isn't this at least as plausible as this thread's absurd thesis that Hastert's scandalous behavior proves that we need a smaller government? Why shouldn't we all join Goat in laughing out loud at Republicans' preposterous responses to the scandal embroiling one of their own?

 

[meridian]

Yes, but it still boiled down to your claim that the only possible solution was to weaken government, which is, I think, what both Sope and Rock are taking issue with (as well as what I took issue with above).

Perhaps, what crazedHoosier is saying is that, if we weaken the government enough, the government may not have enough power/resources to find out Hastert did something naughty. Problem solved!

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Perhaps, what crazedHoosier is saying is that, if we weaken the government enough, the government may not have enough power/resources to find out Hastert did something naughty. Problem solved!

I think that is exactly what "small government" means to the Republican Party.