The European Parliament: Rejecting the Council’s Proposed Budget

On 16 June, 2026, the European Parliament rejected the European Council’s proposed budget for the E.U. not only because of the proposal’s €32.8 billion budget-cut, which would reduce the six-year 2028-2034 federal budget even below that which the Commission had proposed, but also because the Council had refused to address the issue of federal-sources of revenue, which was made increasingly salient by the increasing need of funds at the federal level. In seeking to keep the federal institutions dependent on money supplied by the states, the Council, which like the U.S. Senate represents states, can be viewed exploiting a conflict of interest at the expense of the ability of the E.U. to operate even within its given mandates. Put another way, the requirement that the Parliament pass any proposed budget can be viewed as a check on the state-centric Council’s proclivity to put the interest of the parts above the whole—the individual states above the Union.

Although the proposed federal budget by the Council represented a political compromise between states that wanted “substantial cuts” and other states that “asked for an increase of the budget for agriculture and regional funds,” enough of the Parliament’s representatives elected by E.U. citizens, rather than appointed by state governments, deemed the Council’s proposal as insufficient.[1] Those representatives were oriented to adequately funding extant federal programs rather than doing the bidding even of their own states. This translates into an orientation to the common good that is implied in collection action (i.e., the whole) rather than to the interests of parts. Because the €2 trillion proposal by the Commission had already been rejected as insufficient by the Parliament, the Council’s even lower figure can be interpreted as perplexing unless the states were making a statement that any federal branch is apt to overstate the E.U.’s funding needs so the Parliament’s rejection of the Commission’s proposal could and should be ignored.

Consistent with the alleged proclivity of federal governmental institutions to over-state the E.U.’s needed funding was the refusal of the Council “to touch the issue of the budgetary correction mechanisms known as rebates, revenues coming from taxes at the E.U. level, known as own resources, and the principle of making the budget conditional on the rule of law.”[2] Refusing to increase the E.U.’s own access to revenue independent of funds contributed (and thus controlled by) the state governments was essentially a decision to maintain power over the federal institutions and thus render the Union subservient to the states. At the time, MEP Carla Tavares told the press, “We need to make progress on own resources. . . . It is difficult to achieve a strong and renewed budget with cuts and without new own resources.”[3] In other words, the common good as funded federally would be diminished by the refusal of the state-centric Council to even consider new sources of own resources at the federal level. The distinctly state-level interest in maintaining (inordinate) power in the federal system was operating at the expense of the whole. The self-interested decision of the states in the Council to refuse to make budget-outlays conditional on rule-of-law being upheld in a given state also evinces an institutional (or structural) conflict of interest because using the budget so state governments do not disassemble rule-of-law provisions is in the interest of the whole (i.e., the European Union). One state government being able to backslide could easily domino across state-lines, and as all of the delegates at the U.S. federal Convention thought in 1787, allowing dictators at the state level would be incompatible with a democratic Union. So, the refusal of the Council to address the matter of conditionality can be viewed as putting the Union at risk. Fortunately, the members of Parliament were foremost oriented to the good of the Union rather than to protecting state prerogatives even at the expense of the Union.

One of the benefits of federalism is that the federal and state levels can act as checks on each other so as to preserve liberty against the threat of tyranny. The Parliament’s role in being a check on the use of the Council by the state governments to put the interests of the state government officials and their respective governments above the interests of the whole is thus vital in safeguarding the E.U.’s federal system and thus the E.U. itself. Moreover, putting the interests of parts above the whole of which they are parts is never a good idea, for the interests of a whole are not identical to the aggregate of the interests of the parts; the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

---

1. Eleonora Vasques, “EU Parliament Rejects Member States’ First Draft of Long-Term Budget,” Euronews.com, 16 June, 2026.
2. Ibid, italics added for emphasis.
3. Ibid.

Behind Political Culture: U.S. President Clinton’s Lying under Oath

The stature that comes with occupying (and even having occupied) public office, whether elected or appointed and especially if high office, combined with the ability to attract the attention of the media such that the (former) official’s statements have the credibility of pronouncements, and thus of being true rather than false statements, is rarely examined for what the stature and societal “mouth-piece” imply (i.e., veracity). A very high former elected representative who has even admitted lying under oath in a court proceeding back while in office can very easily be assumed decades later to be making a true statement by the public even though that statement is practically identical to the statement known (and admitted) to have been false. Even published photos that are strong evidence that the second statement is false can be dismissed by a public too liable to being beguiled by clever political birds of prey. I have in mind here the twin statements of Bill Clinton, who was the U.S. President for two terms in the 1990s and went on to associate with Jeffrey Epstein, the infamous head of the child-prostitute sex-ring, and at least one of his paid girls.

At least three compromising photos of Clinton with girls in close proximity were released by the FBI to my knowledge in 2026. In one photo, Clinton is situated between Maxwell, who was Epstein’s accomplice, and an under-aged girl in an indoor pool at a resort (not in the U.S.). Maxwell would later be convicted (and imprisoned) for her role in arranging girls for Epstein’s clients. In another photo, Clinton is sitting in a hot-tub with an underaged girl. In a third photo, he is seated with one arm (and hand) low around the waist of a girl in what appears to be Epstein’s private jet. To be sure, even though the positioning of Clinton’s arm (and his hand) low around the girl’s waist connotes sexual rather than paternal interest, and that a girl is with Clinton in the hot-tub photo (and the pool photo) are together highly suggestive, none of those photos is evidence that Clinton raped (i.e., had sex with) one or more of Epstein’s girls. Moreover, anyone accused of a crime is assumed to be innocent in any of the United States unless or until the accused is convicted in a court of law of having broken a law.

Even though the arm being around a girl’s waist and being in a pool with an under-aged girl and an adult whom we can now say definitely arranged Epstein’s girls for sex may bring to mind the old phrase, “where there is smoke, there is fire,” I bring up the matter of the photos merely as context to show just how misguided it was for the American public to assume that Clinton was testifying honestly before a Congressional committee in 2026 on his relationships with Epstein and the child-prostitutes. That Clinton was recognizable (i.e., fame) and had political stature as a former U.S. president are not sufficient for the default-assumption to be that even what he has said under oath is truthful rather than mendacious. This is the idea.

Asked under oath while testifying before a Congressional committee if he had had “sexual relations” with the woman in the hot-tub photo, Clinton answered, “No.”[1] Even if the photos make his answer difficult to believe, that he also “denied knowledge of Epstein’s crimes” may be so incredulous that a person could reasonably toss out all of Clinton’s testimony for being deceitful throughout.[2] It is possible that he rationalized lying because, as he had claimed, he believed that the Congressional subpoena, which he had unlawfully ignored, had been politically motivated.  Because Clinton claimed to have been unaware of Epstein’s business (i.e., prostituting girls to the rich and/or famous) in spite of spending leisure time with the criminal and his accomplice, and because Clinton knowingly violated the law by ignoring a Congressional subpoena, a rational basis can be laid for leaning at the very least toward concluding that Clinton lied under oath about having committed statutory rape.

Clinton being asked whether he had had sexual relations with a child-prostitute ought to ring a bell for anyone who was following U.S. politics toward the end of Clinton’s time in the White House. Back in January, 2001, the media reported that in “an 11-hour deal to avoid criminal charges over his sex-and-lies fling with Monica Lewinsky, President Clinton . . . admitted ‘knowingly’ lying under oath.”[3] Clinton had to surrender his Arkansas law license and pay a $25,000 fine. Stating, “certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false,” on his last day in office, Clinton was referring to his responses made under oath in a deposition to questions including, “Did you have sexual relations” with Lewinsky? His answer under oath was a perjurious “No.” Sound familiar? Why would anyone lend any credence to Clinton’s answer to the same question decades later in regard to a child-prostitute? Why would his answer be reported as though his earlier answer to the same question in regard to another woman were truthful?

I contend that a person who has admitted to having lied, under oath, in answering a question of having had inappropriate sexual relations (with an intern) and is asked the same exact question (regarding a child-prostitute) should at the very least be viewed as questionable in terms of whether his second answer can be believed to be true. At the very least, the media should have inserted a footnote to remind readers that Clinton had lied, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” in speaking to the American people about Lewinsky’s “oral” contact with Clinton in the Oval Office. To the extent that the American public’s reaction to reports of Clinton’s Congressional testimony in 2026 was muted rather than publicly raising the obvious point that especially on the matter of sexual relations, Clinton was not to be believed, the undue credit that is implied or inherent in holding (or having held) public office and having a mouthpiece in the established, “main-stream” media can be surmised and judged to be problematic in themselves.

Societal credibility enjoys a certain default that, even if dislodged once as in the case of Clinton, can exist without any real foundation based in the character of the office-holder celebrities.  This is not to say that if they are caught “red-handed,” such as U.S. President Nixon was, and members of Congress have been more commonly, societal credibility can be difficult to regain. My point is that the public tends to swallow too easily that which should at the very least be held as suspect in terms of veracity. That Clinton lied under oath and to the American people about having had sexual relations with Lewinsky in the 1990s should have registered on the media’s radar screen and in popular reaction to Clinton’s answer, again under oath, to the same question, to Congress in 2026. An old dog can indeed learn new tricks, but personal ethical development should not be assumed as if the proverbial dog had not done the old, sordid deed once already.

---

1. Leo Briceno, “WATCH: Bill Clinton Grilled on Shirtless Hot Tub Photo amid Swirling Questions on Epstein Relationship,” Foxnews.com, March 2, 2026.
2. Ibid (on the quoted material).
3. Marilyn Rauber, “Finally Admits He Lied under Oath: Dodges Criminal Charges with a Last-Minute Deal,” California Post, January 19, 2001.

Homelessness in the E.U.: Rectifying a Right

In late 2025, the E.U. Commission presented its first European Affordable Housing Plan. The E.U.’s involvement in “social housing,” which translates into federal funds being used to provide housing beyond homeless shelters for people who cannot afford to house themselves, implies that the programs of the states had been insufficient. The U.S. could take a lesson from the Commission’s plan, which is cleverly multi-pronged in tackling the societal problem. Both in the E.U. and U.S., both federal and state funds were needed even in 2025 when neither economy was in recession. It is better to increase the supply of affordable housing when times are good than when unemployment is soaring. This is an exception in the E.U. to the usual pattern wherein the E.U. increases its competencies, or enumerated powers, in periods of one crisis or another. Russia’s multi-year invasion of Ukraine, which borders the E.U., and the Union’s foreign and defense activity demonstrate how European integration has typically been enhanced by crisis rather than when times are good.

Homeless in both the E.U. and U.S. was a problem in 2024. In its “9^th Overview on Housing Exclusion” in 2024, Feantsa estimated a total of 1,287,000 people “rough sleeping, staying in night shelters, or temporary accommodation” in the European Union.[1] According to the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, 771,400 people were homeless in January, 2024—an increase of 118,300 from 2023.[2] The total population of the E.U. at the end of 2024 was estimated at 450.4 million, and that of the U.S. was 341.8 million (whereas the respective states tended to cluster in the tens of millions). That works out to .0028% and .0023%, respectively. This may come as a surprise because in Europe, housing is more likely to be viewed as a right than in the United States.

Dan Jorgensen, the E.U. Commissioner for Energy and Housing (and the first such commissioner in E.U. history), said at the time of the Commission’s presentation of its proposal, “Housing is not just a commodity; it is a fundamental right. We must mobilise every euro and do everything in our power to make sure that in Europe everyone can afford a decent place to call home.”[3] In the U.S., the lax regulations on investor-speculators on houses, condos, and even apartment buildings evince a commodities-orientation to residential real-estate, whereas in the E.U. the homelessness problem may have more to do with insufficient supply rather than the salience of a political ideology favoring business or disfavoring the poor as deserving their plight.

I contend that permanent housing as a right is a better political ideology than is the business-commodity view of housing units both because being homeless takes such a terrible toll of the human psyche and because society should be obligated via the market or else the state to supply permanent housing because economic interdependence is endemic to a society as opposed to Hobbes’ state of nature, where life is short and brutish. Put another way, being in the state of nature in terms of housing while being in a society does not work because a society and a state of nature are mutually exclusive. 

It is inconsistent to insert, especially within city and even a town, even a slice of Hobbes' state of nature, whether in the form of sociopathic violent gangs for which law in south Chicago in Illinois is wholly disrespected, or homeless individuals in a town or city. Having the state of nature within a society is not like Yin being in Yang, and vice versa, in Chinese philosophy; rather, the state of nature inside a society contradicts the necessity that Kant argued is inherent to law, whether public or moral law. Furthermore, to tolerate homelessness within a society is like inserting a vice like vengeance into omnibenevolence—a point that Nietzsche makes in claiming that the Abrahamic deity is “dead” in the sense of having been discredited by being both vengeful and perfectly benevolent, which are incompatible with each other. Even though the effort to rid humans of vengeance is laudable, the cost in assigning the vice to God was surprisingly overlooked, and still is. Similarly, the utter incompatibility of homelessness and society is seldom recognized. 

By the end of 2025, it was well beyond time for the E.U.’s Commission to come up with a plan to rid the Union once and for all of the sordid plight of homelessness. Ridding Europeans of the constant, underlying existential angst that does not leave a mind that is subtly aware that homelessness could occur in the future can be expected to result in happier, more relaxed people and thus less interpersonal strife. It is indeed realistic that the E.U., together with the member-states, could together, as a shared competency, eliminate  the problem of homelessness in 2026 by relaxing state rules on whom can receive housing assistance (i.e., not just the very poor), using federal “European Social Housing” funds to get homeless people immediately into at least short-term housing (even hotels), and incentivizing the construction of more housing units to meet the demand, and even reducing housing prices and rents for everyone. The sordid commodity perspective in America would be exposed as severely flawed, as it reflects elected officials across that Union being in the campaign-financing pockets of private finance and business rather than looking out for, or protecting, all constituents from the horrible experience of being homeless. Just in virtue of being a human being—how we are hard-wired and how vulnerable the human brain or mind is to the incapacitating harm from severe, existential stress—something beyond short-term housing should be ensured unconditionally. How a human mind reacts to being homeless ought to justify the unconditional aspect, as those who do not work must wander around at all times and be subject to theft is a callous ideological belief.

---

1. “What is Homelessness,” Feantsa, Feantsa.org (accessed 16 December 2025).
2. Lisa McKay and Kenneth Cowles, “Who Is Homeless in the United States? A 2025 Update,” The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, March 14, 2025.
3. Vincenzo Genovese, “EU to Revise State Aid Rules to Address bloc-wide Housing Crisis,” Euronews.com, 16 December 2025.

Empire-Scale Representative Democracy: The American Presidency

On the very day in which a health-care company’s executive collapsed in the Oval Office, with U.S. President Trump being the only person in the group standing and looking away in what looks like callous disregard instead of compassion or empathy, that president directed his Administration to appeal a federal judge’s ruling that the U.S. Government had to immediately fund food-assistance, or SNAP (formerly “food stamps”) completely for the month then more than a week in, in spite of the "government shutdown." On the next day, the Trump Administration demanded that the member-states that had just paid out full November benefits to recipients “undo"  the difference between the partial and full amounts that had just been "paid out under judges’ orders” because the U.S. Supreme Court “stayed those rulings.”[1] The photo of Trump literally looking the other way while everyone else in the Oval Office is bending over the collapsed man out of concern perfectly aligns with his lack of concern for Americans going without food due to the sudden stoppage of money for food without notice. That many employees of the U.S. Government who had been laid off without pay since earlier that November would be especially reliant on food-assistance money precisely because they were no longer obtaining income (or else they were receiving unemployment compensation at less than full pay) could be understood to be a matter of callousness rather than moral sentiments from Trump simply by looking at the photo.

President Trump's emotional indifference is palpable. (source: Andrew Harnik via Getty Images)

Looking at that photo, not even psychologists should conclude that a majority of the electoral (and popular) votes went to elect a psychopath. However, callousness in the face of a medical emergency can reasonably be inferred from the president’s non-verbal stance and emotionless facial expression. Had that photo been available to voters in the days before the 2024 presidential election, Trump may have lost that election. Such a hypothetical is useful ex post facto because it raises the question of whether so many voters as vote in a U.S. presidential election have enough actual information on the candidates. If the photo shocked many such voters just over a year after the 2024 election, the implication is that relying on “brand” marketing by presidential campaigns because so few voters even know people who know even just one of the candidates is deficient.

The Electoral College was established in the U.S. Constitution not only because the member-states, like those of the E.U., would retain some governmental sovereignty, but also because with even just 7 million people voting for president, so few of them could be expected to know the characters of the candidates beyond what reaches news print that a check by electors who could meet the candidates was deemed to be necessary. That the political parties captured the Electoral College such that such a check did not in fact operate means that American representative democracy as regards the federal president of the Union has been allowed to operate at a deficiency, which is to say that the elections have been vulnerable to the electorates (of the states) being misled by presidential campaigns.

In short, my point is that if even some of the millions of Americans who had voted for Donald Trump in November, 2024 were subsequently shocked a year later when they scrutinized the photo of Donald Trump being so visually inert emotionally, and perhaps even annoyed at the unwanted delay in his office, while antipodally the other people there could be seen as so obviously concerned about a guest who had just collapsed. Trump stood out so much from the others that even the president’s supporters could have been surprised, even marveling in the privacy of their own minds that they had known so little about Trump the man when they had voted for him. I am assuming that only a small minority of the electorate would favor voting for a person who at the very leeast appears to be so callous in person, for judgment, which involves not just reasoning, but also emotion, is salient in governing. The photo of Turmp in the Oval Office paradoxically demonstrates the importance of humane emotion in governance by so clearly dipicting the utter absence of emotion in a very human situation in which we would naturally expect to find spontaneous emotion. In this surreal way, Trump's repeated efforts to stop food-assistance from reaching the poor judicially and in policy can be grasped in terms of Trump as a person.

Perhaps as in the E.U., the chief executives of the U.S. member-states should nominate a candidate for federal president, with the U.S. House of Representatives, whose counterpart in the E.U. is the European Parliament, confirming or rejecting the candidate. The idea of the states' chief executives, who are themselves elected closer to the people, choosing the federal president outright was considered in the Constitutional Convention, but the proposal was unfortunately voted down in favor of the ill-fated Electoral College. The U.S. federal system can indeed be improved by borrowing some ideas from the E.U., and vice versa; this just takes some humility on both ends. 

---

1. Scott Bauer and Nicholas Riccardi, “Trump Administration Demands States ‘Undo’ Full SNAP Payouts as States Warn of ‘Catastrophic Impact,’” The Associated Press, November 9, 2025.

Wealth and Ethics in American Fiscal Policy

In a struggle between wealth and ethics, practically speaking the former tends overwhelmingly to win hands down, even if the form of government is at least nominally a representative democracy, but in fact an oligarchy or plutocracy. The influence of the moneyed interest both in the E.U. and U.S. is likely much stronger than most of the respective citizenries know. When the poorest of the poor are to be made worse off financially by cuts in certain government programs while defense contractor companies stand to get more, which tends to mean higher bonuses for executives (and campaign contributions for elected representatives), the skew toward the gilded and away from the most vulnerable economically can be viewed as an x-ray of sorts indicative of rule by wealth rather than by the People. U.S. President Trump’s fiscal budget enacted in 2025 is a case in point by which the questionable morality of the plutocracy or oligopoly form of government can be gleaned.

Plato laid out the following as alternative forms of government, from the best to the worst:

1.       The Ideal State (kallipolis): everyone is doing their respective jobs well; philosophers with knowledge of the good are in charge of making decisions pertaining to public policy.

2.       Timocracy: (e.g., Sparta): people who love honor, social status, and competition are in control. In other words, a military. 

3.       Oligarchy: producers (or suppliers) of goods and services (i.e., business executives and or companies) are in control. That is business runs the government.

4.       Democracy: the “mob” is in control. Direct democracy. Such “mob rule” is volatile, with enacted policies swinging back and forth. This does not include representative democracy, which is better, but not as good as having a philosopher king rule because reason should control the passions in a mind and a city.

5.       Tyranny: a tyrant is in control. This is the worst form of government, for obvious reasons, as an autocrat faces no worldly constraint in unleashing suffering and death on a population. In 2023 through at least 2025, the Israeli government was a tyranny in Gaza.

The three highest Hindu castes fit the three highest Platonic forms of government, with Brahmins, who are ideally priests (or philosophers), soldiers/generals, and merchants in descending order in Hindu society. The “mob” in Plato’s scheme corresponds to the laborers in the caste system. That business managers (including CEOs) running (and thus controlling) government are higher than direct democracy may sound strange to modern ears in the West, even in the E.U., in which Greece is a state unless the difference between well-paid modern elected representatives and a mob of mostly uneducated (i.e., unprofessional) laborers in ancient Athens is grasped. Even in modern representative democracies, complete with terms of office to buffer the momentary passions of the people—passions that can contradict a people’s long-term best interests (i.e., the public good)—corporate interests likely view themselves as superior and thus legitimately at the helm in what is known as a plutocracy, or rule by wealth. The moneyed interests could cite Plato’s hierarchy of government-types without bothering to point out that Plato had mob-rule rather than the U.S. Senate in mind as democracy. We need not pit the reasoning, albeit skewed by self-interest, of CEOs on public policy against what a disorganized mob might come up with as the public good (over partial interests), but we might want to consider whether corporations and individual CEOs should have so much monetary sway with elected representatives and their appointees that a representative democracy is de facto a plutocracy serving the relatively narrow interests of capital. The pecuniary interests of American defense-contractor companies in manufacturing and selling weapons, planes, and tanks to the U.S. Government for use in Israel as it pummeled 2 million residents of Gaza in 2024 and 2025 were not necessarily in the best interests of the United States, which might have been more accurately represented and instituted by the American electorates than business political-action-committees helping representatives get re-elected. Not that any member of Congress cares about that, of course.

Or take the “Big Beautiful Bill” passed by the Republican lawmakers in both chambers of Congress and signed by President Trump in 2025. The projected economic impacts on the different economic tiers of Americans supports Adam Smith’s fear that company managements and government officials would work together at the expense of workers and even competitive markets themselves. On August 11, 2025, the Congressional Budget Office made public its estimates “that the 10% poorest Americans will lose roughly $1,200 a year as they experience restrictions on government programs like Medicaid and food assistance, while the richest 10% of Americans will see their income increase by $13, 600 from tax cuts. Overall , American households will see more income from the tax cuts in the legislation, including middle income households, but the largest benefit will go to the top 10% of earners.”[1] Such a distributional impact could be expected in a plutocracy, even in the form of a hijacked representative democracy. Very poor disabled Americans living on Social Security (SSI) of less than $1,000 a month already faced reductions if they negotiate a good deal on rent, or a friend or relative helps out with utilities or rent. That the U.S. Defense Department budget was increased, with corporate defense contractors set to reap additional profits as a result, illustrates the questionable ethics in taking from the poorest of the poor, who cannot work, and giving more to wealthy corporations (with higher bonuses, everything else equal, going to executives). Additionally, just for added fun, roughly “2.4 million people won’t be eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [i.e., food stamps] under new work requirements” for poor Americans who have not been declared disabled by the Social Security Administration.[2] Food has thusly been declared not to be an unconditional human right. As the work requirement applied to Medicaid, the government program that funds healthcare for the very poor, access to medical services—and thus good health—was also declared to not qualify as an unconditional human right.

In short, the American social contract between the federal government and its people was changed in ways that stood to make many of the poorest Americans poorer while defense contractors could make even more money from that government. The new social contract reflected a plutocracy or oligarchy in the guise of a representative democracy. Although arguably superior to mob rule, such a trajectory for representative democracy may trouble a good many people, financially or otherwise perhaps in conscience. A person need only read John Rawl’s Theory of Justice to realize that a plutocracy gearing public policy to the narrow interests of a part rather than the whole of a society is diametrically opposed, or antipodal, to a system of government and economy in which the poorest of the poor are looked to first such that they can survive and lead decent, albeit not wealthy, lives before other, increasingly better off tiers are taken into account. In a school yard, only a bully goes after the kids with the least to eat for lunch so to enrich himself and his buddies.

---

1. Stephen Groves, “Trump’s Tax Law Will Mostly Benefit the Rich, While Leaving Poorer Americans with Less, CBO Says,” The Associated Press, August 11, 2025.
2. Ibid.

Certifying a U.S. Presidential Election: A Constitutional Conflict of Interest

That it should go without saying that a constitution providing a government with its basic framework and procedures should not contain any conflicts of interest makes it all the more astonishing when an actual constitution is found to contain a obvious yet undetected conflict of interest that could be exploited by an institutional or officeholder and yet is easy to obviate, or fix. The implication in such a case is that a society can be too comfortable with institutional conflicts of interest without realizing that if such a conflict is exploitable, it is likely that it eventually will be even if not right away. Because U.S. President Don Trump’s pressure on his vice president, Mike Pence, on January 6, 2021 to refuse to certify the votes of the electors in some of the states did not result in any serious proposals to have another office than the vice presidency preside, a societal tolerance for even known conflicts of interests in general and in a constitution more particularly can be inferred. I submit that such a tacit willingness to continue with the status quo can eventually put even a republic itself at risk.

Speaking on January 6, 2024, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris referred to her constitutional duty of presiding in a joint-session of Congress tasked with certifying the election that she had lost as something she took very seriously. The American people should not have to worry about whether a vice president might exploit the presiding role by resisting or thwarting a peaceful transfer of power. “Today was obviously a very important day,” she said, “and it was about what should be the norm and what the American people should be able to take for granted, which is that one of the most important pillars of our democracy is that there will be a peaceful transfer of power.”[1] Such a transfer lies at the core of representative democracy, so it is important that any risk of any impediment, whether an opportunistic person outside of a constitution or something lying in a constitution itself, be minimized. It is not, in other words, a minor matter.

Simply tasking the loser of an election with presiding over the counting of votes and the announcement of the winner should give anyone pause. At the very least, no one should be duty-bound to perform such a function—which can be thought of as “rubbing one’s face” in the affair, which can feel humiliating to the person.

Furthermore, politically, whether a vice president is a candidate for president as Harris was or is pressured to do the partisan or personal bidding of a president as Pence had been, having a partisan office preside is itself problematic not only for the presidency itself in terms sheer credibility, but also for a vice president in terms of the election process itself. Simply put, the vice president who is running for president or for another term as vice president is an active player in the contest and thus should not preside over the tabulation and certification of the results. As simple as this is to grasp, it must be difficult for enough Americans that the problem has been allowed to persist.

This is especially damning because the conflict of interest is easy to remove. The chief justice, or any justice, of the U.S. Supreme Court would be a natural fit for the presiding role as the judiciary is not (supposed to be) partisan. Put another way, a sitting president pressuring the vice president to declare some state slates of electors invalid is more likely than pressuring the chief justice to do that same. Institutionally, given the separation of powers in the U.S. Government, reaching out to the chief justice would be much more difficult than trying to pressure a vice president of one’s own administration. Having the chief justice, who swears in presidents, preside over the Congressional counting of the Electoral College votes for president as both the sitting vice president and Speaker of the House look on makes so much sense that it is sad state of affairs when the status quo is almost mindlessly retained even four years after the conflict of interest could have been exploited, with a riotous mob of partisans literally breaching the Capitol to convey additional pressure.

Putting the loser of an election in the position of having to publicly announce the victor is the smoke that points to an underlying constitutional conflict of interest; a mob pressuring a loser on a presidential ticket to abuse the presiding role of the vice president is more like fire than smoke. That the ensuing public discourse did not contain a proposal of a constitutional amendment assigning the task to the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court reflects very badly not only on the elected office-holders (and the media), but also on the American people, as it is government ultimately by the people. Perhaps a people gets the government, and constitution, that they deserve, for institutional conflicts of interest should be obviated whether in government, business, or in non-profit institutions.

Neither institutional relations nor processes should contain conflicts of interest that can be exploited because human nature is itself rather inclined to exploit them because of the instinctual urges that manifest as self-, office-, and institutional-interest even at the expense of the interest of the whole. Even though governments and economic systems tend to be based on such interests, the latter don’t have to be encouraged by the ongoing existence of institutional conflicts of interest. Continuing with the status quo can itself be thought of as a choice—one that reflects a certain underlying set of beliefs and assumptions that are valued, and even the extent of basic awareness.  Having seen not only smoke, but even fire, a people can indeed be faulted for having insufficient awareness, and this verdict is perhaps even more damning than that which concerns the naivete concerning human nature being able to withstand conflicts of interest without exploiting them in the long run. The sting of these verdicts hurts all the more when an institutional conflict of interest can be obviated relatively easily with a solution that is, or should be, obvious. Because power is that which is channeled in a political constitution, risking the exploitation of a conflict of interest that is in a constitution is not a smart choice if a viable, ongoing republic is desired.

---

1. Aditi Sangal, “Congress Certifies Trump’s 2024 Election Win,” CNN.com, January 6, 2025.

On the American Media’s Hyperbole in Politics

If America can be said to have violent cultures, relatively speaking and especially in countries such as Honduras but also in some U.S. states such as Illinois (e.g., Rockford and south Chicago), the media may simply be reflecting the wider culture in writing of political debates by using words like fight and battle in place of argue and debate. One effect is to exacerbate the problem, culturally speaking. Another effect is to garner more attention, which in turn translates into more revenue from selling advertisements. To the media, the latter counts whereas the former does not; the media can blame the “heated rhetoric” of candidates for office and elected officeholders for an uptick in political violence rather than assume some of the responsibility. I submit that journalists are even more at fault when they magnify the significance of a political event to the point of being mistaken, widely missing the actual mark. The lack of any follow-through in the field wherein one media outlet holds another accountable is also a problem, especially when all of the major outlets are on the proverbial bandwagon.

Before the Harris-Trump U.S. presidential debate in 2024, CNN stated, “Harris’ joyful campaign will Tuesday be hit by the blunt force of reality—a debate with Donald Trump—the most menacing political foe of modern times.”[1] Besides the word Tuesday being awkwardly placed before rather than just after the words, be hit, the journalist’s certainty, as evinced in will be instead of might be hit turned out to be wrong. After the debate, Newsweek titled one of its articles on the debate, “’Trump Was So Bad’: Fox News Voter Panel Declares Harris Debate Winner.”[2] Twelve on the panel thought Harris had won, whereas only five thought that Trump had done so. Time titled its debate analysis piece, “Trump Spent the Debate Walking into Traps Harris Laid for Him.”[3] It was Trump, rather than Harris, who refused after the debate to have another debate. That says it all.

So, where was the headline, “CNN Erred in Declaring Trump the Winner before the Debate”? Even with such a headline somewhere in the public discourse, CNN would probably not smart enough from the virtual slap to resist the temptation to be so certain epistemologically in the future, and I suspect that too many viewers or readers would not recalibrate how much credibility they give to definitive assertions made by CNN in the future. Similarly, too many people tend to believe politicians even with a reputation for being pathological liars as if speaking in front of a microphone and camera mean that the person speaking must be declaring truths.

In short, the refusal of the media companies to hold each other accountable when they get something very, very wrong plus the gullibility of people reading or viewing politicians in public discourse enable journalists (as well as the subterranean politicians) to make outlandish claims, including those that are actually the journalists’ opinions being “reported” as if facts of reason. To claim that Harris’s campaign will be hit is an opinion clothed in a stiff, grizzled suit of fact. Alternatively, the journalist could have interviewed a political analyst, who could have given an informed opinion. That would be reporting.

To be sure, debating who won a debate is of questionable importance, really. In fact, with few exceptions—one being the Biden-Trump debate in 2024 and another being the Kennedy-Nixon televised debate in 1960—winning a presidential debate typically has not had much impact on races. Costin Ciobanu, a political scientist at the University of London, presented a study in which he found “that presidential debates have a weak influence on vote choice . . . due to the importance of longer-term structural variables.”[4] The recession in 1991, for example, is generally recognized by political scientists as having a strong impact on George H.W. Bush’s loss. A debate may be momentarily titillating, but people tend to vote figuratively speaking with their pocketbooks or wallets.

Even so, The Huffington Post’s headline prior to the Harris-Trump debate was: “Tonight: As High Stakes As It Gets.” Politico characterized the debate beforehand as “historic.” That reporter, a national political correspondent, was so brazen that he admits that there is “hype” ahead of the debate, but even that does not keep him from declaring “just how momentous” the debate “will be” as if its HUGE significance were a well-established fact of reason.[5] The opinion and its underlying judgment were grossly incorrect; the race between Harris and Trump remained a toss-up.

Why the preposterous hyperbole? Journalistic marketing. It is in the media’s financial (and personal) self-interest that the “must-see faceoff” be watched by as many viewers as possible.[6] Besides the questionable ethics of overselling a debate as a momentous, even historical event, and especially if fabrication is involved, lying in doing so, negative implications could be ripple through the electoral system. To the extent that debates are entertaining “tit for tats” rather than informative on policy positions and rationales (i.e., making the underlying values explicit and perhaps even debating them!), building a societal political norm wherein one is supposed to vote on the basis of who the voter thinks won the debate can undermine the credibility of popular sovereignty (i.e., the People’s power in voting) as the basis or bedrock of representative democracy in a republic. Additionally, given the obscenely long duration of modern presidential campaigns in the U.S., hyping each event along the way as if it will be decisive can exhaust voters and turn some off completely. Take for instance the Christmas season, which seems to get longer every year. By Christmas Day, I wouldn’t be surprised if many people are more than ready to turn off the Christmas music and go to a movie in ordinary time. Imagine if every weekend between Halloween and Christmas, people are told that it is a must-celebrate (and must shop) weekend. You don’t want to miss out on the Christmas spirit! By Christmas Eve, it might be time for a nap. By election day, it might be a time for gratitude that the thing is finally over.

---

1. Stephen Collinson, “Harris Braces for the Most Critical Moment of her Political Career at Debate with Trump,” CNN.com, September 10, 2024. Although the empirical study’s data came from Europe, many American political analysts have reached the same conclusion regarding the American presidency.
2. Joe Edwards, “’Trump Was So Bad’: Fox News Voter Panel Declares Harris Debate Winner,” Newsweek, September 11, 2024.
3. Phillip Elliott, “Trump Spent the Debate Walking into Traps Harris Laid for Him,” Time, September 10, 2024.
4. Costin Ciobanu, “Do Presidential Debates Matter? Evidence from an Eastern European Context,” Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference, Oslo, 06-09 September, 2017.
5. Brakkton Booker, “It’s a Historic Debate Tonight. No One Really Wants to Talk about It,” Politico, September 10, 2024.
6. Ibid.

Goldman Sachs' Revolving Door: Regulatory Capture

In July 2012, Andrew Williams, a former spokesman for U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, announced plans to head over to Goldman Sachs at the end of that month.[1] Williams was the second of the Secretary’s spokesmen to head to theWall Street bank. Such moves may reflect a standing policy at the bank to have a revolving door. The previous U.S. Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, had been the CEO at Goldman. This suggests that the revolving door was to include populating high offices in government, presumably not out of a sense of civic duty, but, rather, to see that Goldman's interests would be protected and even promoted through public policy. Hence President Obama was said to have had a Wall Street government with respect to positions bearing on Wall Street. I submit that deconstructing such a revolving door would be very difficult. 

From the standpoint of a government official being hired by Goldman, the prospect of becoming wealthy is a large incentive to make the jump. Such an official would typically have scruples about using his contacts in government to pull strings for the bank. Mired in scandal following the financial crisis of 2008, Goldman’s leadership no doubt understood the value in hiring good PR men. Such hires could even put a good face on the cozy relationship between the bank and people still in government.

The “revolving door” dynamic is also difficult to break up because it contributes toward the capture of regulators by the regulated. This is known as regulatory capture. The regulated companies supply information that regulators need in order to devise regulations; the companies can use this reliance to their advantage even just in providing tainted, self-serving data. Moreover, the revolving door can make it easier for the managements of the regulated companies to get even high government officials to put political pressure on the regulatory agencies to go soft on regulating. In the case of Goldman Sachs, it is reasonable to expect that Henry Paulson would have bent to the bank's request for lax regulatory oversight from the SEC, which of course had no idea how many subprime-mortgage-derivative bonds Wall Street had been producing and selling up to the financial crisis of 2008. 

 

The SEC can be soft on Wall Street and point to insufficient staffing as the reason, while the reality is far more sordid in terms of the relationship between the regulators and the powerful regulated. 

Legislated restrictions on former government financial officials going to Wall Street banks could of course be circumvented, given the incentives described above, though prohibiting employment (or financial enrichment, such as by consulting) in the industries related to an official's area for many years seems possible. Even if Goldman Sachs could not hire away Treasury or SEC offiicals, the bank could still count on ex-Goldman folks who occupy key offices in the U.S. Government. 

Generally speaking, the financial and related political power of such huge aggregations of wealth such as a Wall Street bank has (and is) naturally overpower weak governments, by which I mean governments that depend on or do not have the will to resist the allure of money (or threats) from entities subject to the government. A government whose elected officials must rely on large sums of donated money just to get reelected is ripe for succumbing to corporate offers with strings attached. A strong government is insulated, whether by law, will, or power generally from such strings. A government that has many points of access (of influence) is likely to be weak in not only rebuffing pressure to reduce taxes and spend more, but also standing up to large corporations. A government in a pro-business society is likely to be weak with respect to the power of business, other things equal. Even more significant than these variables, however, is the tenuous basis of representative democracy amid Wall Street bewindowed towers. 

1. Bonnie Kavoussi, “Andrew Williams, Ex-Treasury Spokesman,Headed to Goldman Sachs,” The Huffington Post, July 12, 2012. 

Big Bankers and the U.S. Government: A Coalition Circumventing Accountability on Wall Street

It is interesting that the U.S. Department of Justice did not pursue the fraudulent bankers on Wall Street not only during the Bush presidency, but also the following presidency, that of Barak Obama.  Not coincidentally, Goldman Sachs was the single biggest campaign contributor to Obama’s 2008 candidacy for president. It would seem that Wall Street had both political parties in a net by the time of the financial crisis in September, 2008. A sector of the economy being able to control both major parties is bad for not only industrial policy (i.e., favoritism), but also democracy. In short, a government should have enough strength to constrain a business sector, rather than being subject to it. The latter condition implies continued vulnerability should greed again get ahead of itself on Wall Street. By nature, greed, if allowed to go on running on its own steam, accumulates more and more momentum. 

The New York Times reported in 2011, “legal experts point to numerous questionable activities where criminal probes might have borne fruit and possibly still could. Investigators, they argue, could look more deeply at the failure of executives to fully disclose the scope of the risks on their books during the mortgage mania, or the amounts of questionable loans they bundled into securities sold to investors that soured. Prosecutors also could pursue evidence that executives knowingly awarded bonuses to themselves and colleagues based on overly optimistic valuations of mortgage assets — in effect, creating illusory profits that were wiped out by subsequent losses on the same assets. And they might also investigate whether executives cashed in shares based on inside information, or misled regulators and their own boards about looming problems. Merrill Lynch, for example, understated its risky mortgage holdings by hundreds of billions of dollars. And public comments made by Angelo R. Mozilo, the chief executive of Countrywide Financial, praising his mortgage company’s practices were at odds with derisive statements  he made privately in e-mails as he sold shares; the stock subsequently fell sharply as the company’s losses became known. Executives at Lehman Brothers assured investors in the summer of 2008 that the company’s financial position was sound, even though they appeared to have counted as assets certain holdings pledged by Lehman to other companies, according to a person briefed on that case. At Bear Sterns, the first major Wall Street player to collapse, a private litigant says evidence shows that the firm’s executives may have pocketed revenues that should have gone to investors to offset losses when complex mortgage securities soured.”[1]  David Skeel, a law instructor at the University of Pennsylvania, remarked, “It’s consistent with what many people were worried about during the crisis, that different rules would be applied to different players. It goes to the whole perception that Wall Street was taken care of, and Main Street was not.”[2]

Elliot Spitzer, the Attorney General of New York, was preparing to go after some big bankers until he stopped when a lawyer at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) told him to back off because the department would be moving against the bankers. However, it did no such thing; the DOJ would not in fact "move" against the bankers. So it is suspicious; the lie may have been fabricated in Washington, D.C. to protect the bankers. If so, elected representatives including the president who had received sizable campaign contributions from the bankers themselves or their banks would be prime suspects. To suggest that an elected official would not protect a major contributor is like asking water to go up hill.  The subterfuge used by the DOJ at the time was that if the department went after the bankers, the banks themselves, which were too big to fail without taking the financial sector and even the economy with them, would become too unstable.
Incredibly, not only did the bankers not get punished; the banks got bailouts, which the bankers could use to pay themselves bonuses! This included bonuses at Goldman Sachs for selling "crap" (i.e., the subprime-mortgage-based bonds) to even good clients and of course lying about how solid the bonds actually were. 

Bank regulators, who can be "captured" by regulatees not only due to reliance on information from them, but also political pressure from the regulatees' political protectors in Congress and the White House, may have played a role too. According to The New York Times, bank regulators referred 1,837 cases to the Justice Department in 1995. In 2007-2010, an average of only 72 a year was referred for criminal prosecution.  “The Office of Thrift Supervision was in a particularly good position to help guide possible prosecutions.” From the summer of 2007 to the end of 2008, O.T.S.-overseen banks with $355 billion in assets failed. The thrift supervisor, however, did not refer a single case to the Justice Department between 2000 and 2010. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, a unit of the Treasury Department, referred only three in that decade.[3]

The relationship between the head of Thrift Supervision and the CEO of Countrywide is particularly revealing.  In March 2007, Countrywide was regulated exclusively by the regulatory agency. That agency was overseen at the time by John M. Reich, a former banker and Senate staff member appointed in 2005 by President George W. Bush. Reich was on all for deregulation. Robert Gnaizda, a former general counsel at the Greenlining Institute, a nonprofit consumer organization in Oakland, Calif., said he had spoken often with Reich about Countrywide’s reckless lending. Gnaizda says that when he suggested to Reich how he could build a case against Mozilo, the CEO of Countrywide, Reich “was uninterested. He told me he was a good friend of Mozilo’s.”[4] Reich subsequently refuted that the two were friends. “I met with Mr. Mozilo only a few times," Reich insisted, "always in a business environment, and any insinuation of a personal friendship is simply false.”[5] Even a few business meetings can be sufficient and the same ideology can be sufficient, however, to bend the ear of a regulator. Besides, Reich had reason after the financial crisis to deny any friendship with a man largely discredited due to the mortgage-producing antics at Countrywide. Mozilo’s flush fingers may have stretched as far as the chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Phil Angelides. The New York Times reported in 2011 that he had told two deputies that Mozilo and Countrywide were off limits, though Angelides subsequently denied having made the statement. Instead, he pointed instead to the Republican opposition to hearings on Countrywide in Congress.

I suspect that whether of the deregulation crowd or Democratic, both parties, being of part and parcel of the establishment, had by the financial crisis of 2008 become too close to the vested interests on Wall Street to effectively regulate its banks and bankers, and thus to be in a position to investigate cases of regulatory failure. In other words, when the necessary relationship between financiers and regulators breaks down, accountability does as well. Without the regulators and DOJ being able to constrain excessive greed by holding the people in the financial sector accountable, continued vulnerability to the financial system collapsing as it almost did in September, 2008 can be expected even if it is ignored.  

See Essays on the Financial Crisis: Systemic Greed and Arrogant Stupidity, available at Amazon.

1. Gretchen Morgenson and Louise Story, “In Financial Crisis, No Prosecutions of Top Figures,” The New York Times, April 14, 2011.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

Holding the U.S. Debt-Ceiling Hostage: A Case of Political Expediency over Statesmanship

In April of 2011, S & P lowered expectations on U.S. Government debt from “stable” to “negative.”  Astonishing, the $14.2 trillion U.S. debt was still rated as AAA. The shift in expectations did not trigger higher borrowing costs because the market presumed that a political deal lowering the deficit would be facilitated by the warning-call. At the same time, Congress and the U.S. president were grappling with the need to extend the federal debt ceiling. The federal government was projected at the time to reach its borrowing limit by May 16, 2011, though the Treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, said he could use accounting options to push the date back to July 8. He assured the public that Republicans in Congress had told President Obama that they would go along with a higher limit. “I want to make it perfectly clear that Congress will raise the debt ceiling,” the Geithner said.  He also said the Republican leaders had assured the president that they “couldn’t play around with the government’s credit rating. They recognize it, and they told the president that.”[1] Such a recognition and statement by the Republican leadership, if true, would evince statesmanship over political expediency, for Republican lawmakers could have leveraged their votes on raising the ceiling to get more in negotiations on the budget. This would be particularly notable considering that appropriations to keep the U.S. Government's non-essential operations going were pawns in a Congressional-presidential power-struggle during the Trump administration. 

However, Rep. Paul Ryan, chair of the U.S. House Budget Committee and later to become Speaking of the House, said that while it was true that nobody wanted the U.S. Treasury to default, “(w)e want cuts in spending accompanying a raising of the debt ceiling. And that is what we have been telling the White House.” A spokesperson for Obama said a debt ceiling vote could not be contingent on upcoming negotiations over the budget.  So, in effect, the matter of default on the U.S. debt was being used for leverage in negotiations rather than held as untouchable.  It is no wonder S & P lowered its expectations concerning the ability of U.S. Government officials to avoid default by failing to raise the federal debt limit. Had the lower expectations been assumed to be a wake-up call for federal lawmakers and the executive, S & P would have been naive.

To say that no one wants default but then to hold it ransom is disingenuous and duplicitous. It is as if to say, “I don’t want to do it but I have to,” when in fact the deed does not have to do it. We see such statements from corporate managers and customer service employees. “Unfortunately, that can’t be done”—weakness that seeks to dominate typically takes assumes the passive voice as if to hide—when in fact the person or especially his boss could. Company policies are in actuality guidelines. Sadly, customers typically enable the false rigidity by taking it at face value rather than questioning it by going above the employee or even manager. 

Rep. Ryan could have resisted the temptation to gain greater advantage on the budget by holding the debt ceiling hostage. Even if he made the statement to cover himself with his political base in Janesville, Wisconsin, he bore responsibility for giving the appearance of putting partisan advantage over statesmanship.  

Given the encroaching nature of expediency whether for power or profit (or both), even verbal statements can get the ball rolling even for other political parties. Soon the government's duty to act in the public interest becomes a mere byproduct, as if by accident rather than primary intention. Given human nature, political expediency and the desire to make even more money are inherently antithetical to any self-enforced limitation. Hence in government, we can say that statesmanship involves voluntarily giving force to a self-imposed constraint or limitation. 

1, “Geithner Confident Congress Will Raise Borrowing Limit,” USA Today, April 18, 2011, p. 6A.

A U.S. Senator Aiding a Contributor While Averting a "Fiscal Cliff": Turning a Crisis into an Opportunity

The law passed by Congress on January 3, 2013 to avert the across-the-board tax increases and “sequester” (i.e., across-the-board budget cuts) was “stuffed with special provisions helping specific companies and industries.” While many of the provisions would increase the U.S. Government’s debt, at least one would decrease it. Is the latter any more ethical because it is in line with the more general interest in reducing the federal debt? Put another way, does the end justify the means?  Do good consequences justify bad motives?  These are extremely difficult questions. The best I can do here is suggest how they can be approached by analysis of a particular case study.

In the legislation, a provision reduced the Medicare reimbursement rate for a radiosurgery device manufactured by the E.U. company Elekta AB. The cut was pushed by a competitor, Varian Medical Systems. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asked Sen. Max Baucus, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, to write the cut into the legislation. While both senators could point to the public interest in the debt-reduction result of the cut, their relationship with Varian makes their motives suspect. Specifically, they may have exploited personal conflicts of interest that eclipsed a more expansive duty to the wider (i.e., not private, or personal) public interest. 

While it is perhaps simplistic to relate campaign contributions to a senator’s subsequent action, it is significant that Varian spent  $570,000 in 2012 on lobbying. The company added Capitol Counsel, which had contacts to Sen. Baucus. Vivian already had connections to Reid through Cornerstone Government Affairs lobbyist Paul Denino, a former Reid deputy chief of staff. Additionally, the leading beneficiary of the contributions of Varian executives and the company’s PAC over the previous four years was Sen. Reid, whose committees received $21,200. Varian’s lobbyists added $42,700 more to Reid’s campaign.[1] While Sen. Reid’s subsequent urging of the reimbursement rate cut could have been unrelated to these contributions and contacts, the senator’s involvement compromises him ethically. Put another way, it is at the very least bad form, or unseemly. It implies that companies making political contributions and hiring lobbyists connected to public officials do so (or worse, should do so) to have special access to those particular officials to turn upcoming legislation to the companies’ financial advantage. Even if the public also benefits, it can be asked whether the companies deserve their particular benefits. In the case of Varian, it may be asked whether the company deserved the cut in the reimbursement rate going to Elekta.

As could be expected, spokespersons at both companies sought to argue the merits of their respective cases in the court of public opinion.  It is more useful to look at the regulators’ rationale for increasing the reimbursement rate for Elekta’s  “Gamma Knife” in the first place. Originally, the knife and Varian’s linac machines were lumped together by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the same CMS code. In 2001, the Centers separated the devices in terms of data collection so an analysis could be conducted on whether the devices should receive different reimbursement rates. The Huffington Post reports that the reimbursement rate for the Gamma Knife was increased because “it typically requires only one treatment, while the linacs often require multiple treatments.” Also, “Gamma Knives machines are more expensive to obtain and maintain due to the storage of radioactive cobalt and regulation by both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Homeland Security. Linacs don’t use nuclear material and are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.”[2] So, due to the cost and use differential, CMS  increased the Gamma Knife reimbursement in 2006 to $7000. From the standpoint of the criteria of regulators, the data-collection and analysis method and the rational rationale are legitimate. In contrast, because neither the use or cost differential had changed by January 2013, the cut in the reimbursement rate cannot enjoy such legitimacy. Hence it is possible that exogenous factors, such as the political influence of Varian’s lobbyists and campaign contributions, were behind the change. From the standpoint of the previous rate differential, the change cannot be justified. Neither Sen. Reid nor Sen. Baucus could justify their actions (and motives) by the substance of the case. However, they could still appeal to the salubrious budget-cutting effect as justifying their involvement.

The question here is whether the favorable consequences of the cut on the government’s subsequent deficits mitigates or reduces the shady scenario of a senator acting on behalf of a company that had contributed to his or her campaign. I would advise a member of Congress to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. If the result in this particular case is in the public interest (i.e., reducing the deficit), does this positive consequence justify the senators’ actions and even the questionable appearance?  It’s a no-brainer that the senators would immediately point to the public interest in the consequence, but does it effectively remove the taint of immoral political conduct (and perhaps motive)?

The link between the company-senator relation, the senators’ action in which the company stands to benefit financially in a material way, and the financial benefit to the company can be distinguished ethically from a good consequence to the public. A bystander would naturally view the consequence to the public as salubrious even while having a sentiment of disapprobation toward the company’s own benefit as well as the senators’ action and relation to the company. In other words, the favorable impact on the public does not remove the stain on the company and the senators. To be sure, that stain would be greater were the public harmed rather than helped, but even with the positive general consequence the senators may have acted for the private benefit. Also, their action could have come from other senators, hence obviating the ethical problem. In short, the public interest does not remove either senator from the ethically problematic situation in which they decided to occupy.  Even if their motive had been solely for the public interest, they violated the appearance of unethical motive and conduct.

“The end justifies the means” is a slippery slope in terms of what the human mind can rationalize as legitimate. Great harm has been seemingly justified by great ideals. Even in the face of the ideals, the harms provoke a sentiment of disapprobation by the observer (excepting sociopaths). This suggests that the ideals cannot completely justify unethical means.  It may indeed be that unethical means are necessary in some particular cases, but this does not render the devices ethically pure. Ethical principles do not know practical compromise. Rather, people do.

---

1. Paul Blumenthal, “Varian Medical Systems Used Fiscal Cliff Deal to Hurt Competitor,” The Huffington Post, February 8, 2013.

2. Ibid.