Self-Enrichment in Government

Just because people benefit from a policy doesn't mean they're corrupt.

September 21, 2007

Changing Parties: It's not always a bad thing when officials change parties.

Clean Coal: Those who oppose replacing old plants are just blocking environmental progress.

Confidentiality: My safe guards against revealing political secrets on NYC.

Conservatism: A look at real conservatives.

Democrats and Taxes: Overcoming the weakness Democrats have on the issue of taxation

District Attorneys as Agents of Political Change: District Attorneys have an important role beyond just enforcing the law.

Global Warming: Global warming is a real problem needing real solutions.

How a Liberal Can Win in a Conservative Countryside: Some thoughts on new libertarian Democrat.

Liberal Cowboy: Why one liberal is proud to wear his cowboy hat.

Liberalism v. Conservatism: Neither ideology is desirable in it's pure form.

Libertarianism: A pratical look at libertarianism.

Non-Partisan as Liberal: Many organizations claim to be without partisan affiliation, but are they really?

Progressives: An Uneasy Relationship: Progressives need to do more to change insitutions and not individuals.

Radicalism: What does it mean to be a radical?

Ron Paul's Revolution: His libertarian ideas deserve consideration, as does the commitment of his supporters.

Shovel the Cow Dung: Sometimes you just have to get a little dung on your shoes to be succesful.

What is a Watt?: People don't often under the cost of energy.

Why Ideology Based Parties are Bad for America: A short essay discussing the pitfalls of ideology and politics.

Self-Enrichment in Government

"They are only into it for their own self benefit" is a common compliant lodged against elected officials by reformers and political opponents.

This complaint ignores the passion and the ideology of many the people involved in government. It also ignores the natural human interest in presuing policies in areas where a person has an personal interest.

Every action an elected official or even a civil servant has in a policymaking position is likely to affect somebody financially. Policies can have a variety of consequences, some benefiting one group over another.

Sometimes these affect the same people who created the policy either directly or indirectly. The question has to be is the policy that may be self-enriching right for the people the person represents or serves. Is there transparency, and was the decision made after significant discussion of the pros and cons of a policy. A personal benefit does not necessarily mean a lack of a community benefit.

There are so many examples of this in government. For example, husband of the person who oversees the environmental monitoring for confined animal feeding operations in New York State, operates a small beef cattle operation. Regulations, which effect big farms, can add costs and burdens that would improve her family's profitability. On the other hand, don't you want people who regulate or make policy in industries that they understand through close connections? It would not necessarily be in the state's interest to have people working to develop policies that are unable to sympathize or understand the problems those industries are facing.

When people have a financial stake in what they do politically, it does not mean they are automatically corrupt. While their actions deserve more scrutiny, having a stake means that better policy will be developed and ideas will be much better thought out.