The ‘So Much’ Scandal-Grassroot Perspective – Jan. 24, 2006

article top

It’s called the “Abramoff Scandal” because calling it the “Washington Scandal” would hardly distinguish it from others.

But it’s really a rather typical Washington scandal. Mr. Abramoff was clever, in that he played two sides of Washington’s regulatory power both for and against the people who paid his bills, the better for him to squeeze them harder. He was a fool, in that he got caught.


Lots of Republican congresspeople are involved. A few Democrats. But this isn’t a partisan issue. Were the Democrats in power, it would be a Democratic scandal.

You see, at base it’s a ”’government”’ scandal. When government can, capriciously, both ruin or make a business, ”’of course”’ businesses and other concerns are going to be more than concerned. They are going to “invest” in the people who determine who gets favored and who gets hurt.

This won’t stop as long as governments run so much, ruin so much.

The trick is, how can we get all that “so much” out of politics?

At the federal level, there doesn’t seem to be a clear and immediate way. Only at your local and state level do you and I have anything like a modicum of control. If we fight for clear and simple laws at our local level, and against the institutions of special favors, regulations, and pork, ”’then”’, eventually, the federal government can be whittled down to size.

Before that?

I’d like to know how.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

”’Paul Jacob is Senior Fellow of U.S. Term Limits, a national grassroots organization committed to restoring citizen control of government by limiting the terms of politicians at the local, state and national level. See:”’

”’This editorial is intended to provoke thought, discussion and an examination of issues. It does not reflect official policy of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. See the GRIH Web site at:”’

”’ reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to”’



Daily Policy Digest


Recently, Canada has blamed the United States for its dramatic increase in violent crime; but the problem isn’t Americans illegally running guns to Canada, but Canadian criminals illegally importing guns from wherever they can get them, says Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation.

Canada’s experience simply demonstrates that no matter what kind of gun control law a government passes, that law is doomed to failure because instead of keeping guns out of the wrong hands, it disarms the wrong people, says Gottlieb.

According to researchers:

Canada’s overall crime rate is now 50 percent higher than the crime rate in the United States; since the early 1990s, crime rates have risen in six of the 10 Canadian provinces and in seven of Canada’s 10 biggest cities.

In 2003, the violent crime rate in the United States was 475 per 100,000 people, while up north, there were 963 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

The figure for sexual assault in Canada per 100,000 people was more than double that of the United States, 74 as opposed to 32.1, and the assault rate in Canada was more than twice that of states, 746 to America’s 295.

In 2005, Toronto had 78 murders; that’s a 28 percent increase in homicide since 1995.

Moreover, this shift in crime rates between the two countries has occurred while dozens of U.S. states have adopted “right-to-carry” and “shall-issue” handgun laws. During the same period, Canada’s gun laws have gotten more restrictive, with the national gun registry being implemented, says Gottlieb.

Furthermore, the disparity in crime rates says it all about how well gun registration works to stop crime, as opposed to actually carrying guns to deter criminals, and fight back if necessary, says Gottlieb.

Source: Alan Gottlieb, “As the crime situation up north goes south,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, January 20, 2006.

For text (subscription required):

For more on Crime:

”Sprout of the Day”