Both Sides Currupt (Clinton's Cisneros Case)

In choosing between Democrats and Republicans, neither side gives me better confidence over the other in terms of dirty-dealing and curruption. As Six might say, "this system is the worst, except for just about anywhere else." I don't say this to diminish the latest wave of exposure for the republican scandals. Back when Clinton was president, these same republicans not only avidly pointed to curruption such as this Cisneros case (and the purchasing of pardons, etc.), but they insisted that republicans were inherently less currupt than democrats. Surely they were wrong.

I have recently seen republican officials on the gab shows defending their party. They really should shut up, except for admitting to their party's curruption, and advocting meaningful reforms. The repo rep last night I saw last night shamed himself, on the one hand claiming that those earmark provisions have actually been going down, and advocating measures to further reduce them. My advice: loudly -- and with the fewest words possible -- admit to the enormity of this practice in general, and call for complete eradication of them. And admit that the repos in the '90s promised to be cleaner than the demos, and they have proven themselves to be liars.

Then: admit that George Will is correct. There is no way to "reform" this mess. The only way to diminish curruption is to diminish the activities of government. For example, if we had a single flat tax system, there could be no lobbiests advocating for changes to the tax code. If the fedl govt got out of the business of building bridges and mueusams, no lobbiests would seek fedl money for "bridges to nowhere" and meusams for cowoys. There simply is no way to curb curruption if congress stays in the business of doing just about everything.