“Have You No Shame, Sir?”

A long time ago, I harshed soon-to-be-former Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA). The post was titled “Why My Ostensible Party, The Democrats, Will Not Be Able To Use Bush’s Corporate History Against Him,” and the story was a simple one, from the New York Times:

Among the biggest beneficiaries [of the proposed bankruptcy bill] would be the MBNA Corporation of Delaware, which describes itself as the world’s biggest independent credit card company. Ranked by employee donations, MBNA was the largest corporate contributor to President Bush’s 2000 campaign.

The company has also recently acknowledged that it gave a $447,000 debt-consolidation loan on what critics viewed as highly favorable terms to a crucial House supporter of the bill only four days before he signed on as a lead sponsor of the legislation in 1998. Both MBNA and the lawmaker, Representative James P. Moran Jr., Democrat of Virginia, have denied that there was anything improper about the loan.

I was appalled.

Clearly, I had my appall-o-meter set too low. Because this week, Billy Tauzin (R-LA) announced that he will resign before the expiration of his term, to take a new job – at well over the $1 million/year he’d been offered to head the MPAA. The job is working for Big Pharma at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the trade group that represents drug giants such as Pfizer Inc. and Merck & Co.

The Post notes today that:

Tauzin was one of the principal authors of the Medicare prescription drug bill, which included several provisions expected to vastly expand the market for prescription drugs among the elderly. In addition to adding hundreds of billions of dollars for drug benefits, the law bars the federal government from directly bargaining down the price of drugs, a provision PhRMA pressed for.

Moran was obviously a piker. Why settle for a piddly $400K loan – on favorable terms – when you can shepherd a bill through, resign your seat, and get a couple of million a year.

I can’t decide if they think we’re stupid or just inattentive. Or if it’s just that they don’t give a damn and don’t need to. Now I think that approbation is well and good, but when I read about things like this, I begin to wonder why it is that tar and feathers went out of fashion just a little too soon.

Someone once said on the Senate floor: “Have you no shame?”

Obviously not.

Update: Did this without looking around the blogs, and went to Kaus and Simon and Instapundit to see if they’d covered it before I emailed them to rattle their cages, and discovered as usual that I’m behind the news curve and they all have. I’m emailing all the conservative bloggers I know, because if this is the kind of kleptocracy – and there’s really no other word for it – that the GOP stands for, GWB deserves to get skinned in November. I’m going to make this guy my hobby, and see if some of the bigger bloggers and eventually the press get on board. J’accuse!

15 thoughts on ““Have You No Shame, Sir?””

  1. Well, Ted Kennedy got away with manslaughter. This only money, although a shitload of money, to you or me. I hope the Blogosphere does a Trent Lott on Tauzin.

  2. The real shame is that this guy is almost certainly going to get a pass, as both parties benefit from such schemes.

  3. If the ‘upper crust’ took the common man at all seriously they’d be more inventive at covering up stuff like this. At least they’d take it seriously.

    I mean, I don’t mind they’re getting a sweet deal out of an arrangement, but at least they could make a token effort at considering possible pro forma objections.

    🙂

  4. P. J. O’Rourke once wrote that which ever party is out of power always says the same thing: the incumbent is robbing us blind – give us a chance.

  5. In Louisiana we’ve always defined an honest politician as one who when he’s bought, stays bought. I guess by Louisiana standards, that makes Tauzin an honest politician. He did deliver his vote for the bribe.

  6. What did you expect? This kind of dealing is simply inevitable when the government is handing out that kind of cash. Sadly, making an example of Tauzin won’t do much in the long run, as it will make it seem as though there’s some fix possible to prevent this kind of bribery. But the only real fix is for government to not spend $534 billion dollars on buying stuff for people.

  7. soon-to-be-former Congressman Jim Moran

    He won last time around, after his rant about the Jews being responsible for the war.

    And he has admitted to shoving his (now ex-)wife, though he claims it was in self-defense.

    And he voted against the *first* Gulf War.

    I can only hope he’s my district’s “soon-to-be-former” Representative.

    Do you know something I don’t?

  8. Let me go this through:

    1)I’m spending my money on myself.Get the best deal possible.

    2)I’m spending someone else’s money on myself.Get the best thing,and damn the cost.

    3)I’m spending my money on someone else.As cheap as you can get it.

    4)I’m spending someone else’s money on someone else.Who cares ?

    5)I’m spending someone else’s money on someone else who’ll give me a cut if I cooperate.Here we come,Bermuda!

    When we spend the money we’ve earned,it’s usually 1) or 3).

    When the government spends money,it’s 2),4) or 5).

    Examples courtesy of Milton and Rose Friedman.

  9. A.L.,

    All you oh so up to date guys are way behind the times. I covered this from another angle about a year ago. Welcome to the club even if you are a bit slow.

    Here is my angle. Anti-anxiety drugs represent about a $40 bn a year market for big pharma. Marijuana if legal would cut significantly into that market.

    Guess which companies are among the biggest supporters of the WOsD? Ta da. Big pharma.

    It is possible that many who support the WOsD are doing it not out of conviction but as covert support for big pharma.

    In economic terms the WOsD is rent seeking by big pharma.

    And you thought the WOsD was all about public health. In a way it is. Tenths of a cent a dose for anti-anxiety medicide or dollars? It is all about who collects for assisting the public health. And how much.

    Now you know I’m tolerably pro Bush. But let me drop this little bomb shell. The Bush family is heavily invested in big pharma.

    The religious bit re: the Drug War is just a cover. It is all about the money.

    So you ave a choice this election season. Vote for the corrupt politician or tthe corrupt politician.

    Sorry to burst yer bubble.

  10. So what is the problem here — that our legislators are whores, or that they’re charging too much?

    Let’s be real here: Annoying Old Guy is, sadly, absolutely right. Everyone is doing this kind of whoring, including the independently wealthy (Kerry and AIG, anyone?).

    This isn’t to defend Tauzin (or Moran or Kerry or whoever). Rather, it is expressing annoyance over the randomness of our outrage.

  11. I’m a pretty staunch Republican, but I haven’t liked Tauzin for a long time. He’s the one who keeps fighting to get rid of Telecommunications act (1985?), which for a computer geek like me means leaving the telephone monopolies in place. I’m happy to see him out of the House.

  12. Tauzin was always an opportunist. He was a Democrat before the 1994 elections, then changed parties and got a major committee chairmanship. Now it appears he sold out to “Big Pharma” (Whatever that is!). Likely as not, they want
    a) a well connected lobbyist (the old revolving door between retired congressman and working for a “major” K-Street law firm)
    b) someone who is well versed in the actual writing of the law to help them navigate the regulation paperwork (I can’t believe I just wrote that!)
    c) Pay-off for writing favorable legislation.

    I’d vote for (a). I wrote (b), but I think that that is transparently silly. (c) seems very popular with the posters above, but this law and regulation are not chiselled in stone and are amenable to change. Tauzin’s future employers want a stake in influencing any changes that are in the wind.
    No one really knows the impact of the new Prescription Drug bill, since it won’t kick in until 2006. But since it now exists, there is something for the drug companies to act on.
    I don’t know off- hand how old Tauzin is, but this is “golden parachute” for him to retire a wealthy man, and he’s taking it.
    Business as usual when, as a poster above noted, the Gov’t want to pay +$500 Billion to buy someone goodies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.