Welfare for Democrats

James Carville and Paul Begala's editorial in Washington Monthly is titled "Abramoff Proof Politics." Republicans can only hope that this is a glimpse of the mysterious Democratic 2006 platform. "Cutting off the encumbent" is one such idea from Begala and Carville. (Ed. - Dennis Miller recently described Carville as looking like a muppet washed in hot water. Now that he mentions it...)

First, we raise congressional pay big time. Pay 'em what we pay the president: $400,000. That's a huge increase from the $162,000 congressmen and senators currently make. Paul, especially, has been a critic of congressional pay increases. But he is willing to more than double politicians' pay in order to get some of the corrupt campaign money out of the system. You see, the pay raise comes with a catch. In return, we get a simple piece of legislation that says members of Congress cannot take anything of value from anyone other than a family member. No lunches, no taxi rides. No charter flights. No golf games. No ski trips. No nothing.

In other words, the way to get rid of lobbying money is to make it mandatory, through taxation. This could more precisely be described as the "Surrender Platform." Just take the money and give it to the Congress.

It is truly reform written for Congress, by Congress.

And when it is campaign time, incumbents would be under a complete ban on raising money. You read that right. No president or member of Congress could accept a single red cent from individuals, corporations, or special interests. Period.

I don't see how the American electorate could see this as anything but a minority party trying to change the rules with a direct assault on the free speech of the electorate. It gets better though...

Challengers, on the other hand, would be allowed to raise money in any amount from any individual American citizen or political action committee. No limits, just as the free-market conservatives have always wanted. But here is the catch: Within 24 hours of receiving a contribution, the challenger would have to report it electronically to the Federal Election Commission, which would post it for the public to see. That way, if you want to accept a million dollars from, say, Paris Hilton, go for it. But be prepared for voters and reporters to ask what you promised her in exchange.

The treasury, not surprisingly, would also credit the incumbent's account with 80% of the million dollars. The federal government would also match any funds spent by a candidate spending their own money.

When it is all said and done, Begala and Carville's idea of reform is to completely eliminate the marketplace of ideas from elections. All ideas and all candidates become equal. It is a money pit for candidates and ideas that can't survive the scrutiny of an open marketplace.

With party coffers woefully low, a trend of losses at the ballot box, and no attention to any kind of party platform, Carville and Begala introduce an election reform package that boldly tries to correct what the free market and the electorate have cast aside.

In the immediate sense, it isn't reform at all. It's election welfare for the Democratic Party, and frankly, a free pass for the party to move well beyond the level of liberalism that the American public have deemed palatable.

Kudos to Carville and Begala for at least trying, but if padding the salaries of the already rich and socializing the federal election system is what the left intends to champion, they are even more woefully out of touch than even I gave them credit for.