On Presidential Pardons and Libraries

Today's 'Post has an interesting read on how the donations to the Presidential Libraries (in Clinton's case, totalling $165million) aren't things that have to actually registered and made public knowledge, even though the public (in this case, the national archives) is managing the site once its built.

It shows, by mentioning the case where a sizeable donation came about from the wife of someone who received a last-minute pardon from Clinton, that its one of those "soft-money" cases where favors can be bought by a standing President.

To my mind, I'm concerned about the use of the Presidential pardon, particularly in the case where the illegal activity was happening "for the good of the nation" and/or "under orders of the President".  The example that comes to mind is Weinberger's pardon by Bush Sr., for the illegal activities of Iran-Contra under Reagan.

Bush doesn't deny the guilt, which I suppose is a good thing.  In fact, the main reason he cites is to bring peace and closure to that rough time in history (the same rhetoric that Ford used to pardon Nixon with).  Had others not already won on appeal (Poindexter), I would surmise that they too would have received Bush Sr. pardons.

However, it still leads open the issue of what is the morally correct thing to do when a corrupt administration actually gets caught.  At what point is the threat of a pardon looming overhead override the need to punish the corrupt?  I surmise the idea that a pardon was likely is what led to the amnesty grant by Congress to Ollie North in exchange for the testimony.  If he's going to "get away with it" anyways, why not at least figure out what the hell "it" was in the first place, right?

Just one of those things.  The Pardon has its legitimate uses, but it can also be abused as part of the overall cover-up operations of a corrupt administration.  Who decides (besides pundits today and historians tomorrow) which is which?

What is a Democrat? (editorial in the 'Post)

Yet another interesting editorial in the 'Post on the democrats and their future.  Naturally, the call seems to be how to define themselves by something other than "we who hate republicans".

Word of the day

"punditocracy"

discovered from a recent editorial in the 'Post

he may just be playing the doomsayer, but i'd like some confirmation

on this speculation about getting rid of corporate tax breaks for group health benefits and personal federal tax breaks on state/local taxes...

or maybe not.  The Post is writing:

Instead the administration plans to push major amendments that would shield interest, dividends and capitals gains from taxation, expand tax breaks for business investment and take other steps intended to simplify the system and encourage economic growth, according to several people who are advising the White House or are familiar with the deliberations.

The changes are meant to be revenue-neutral. To pay for them, the administration is considering eliminating the deduction of state and local taxes on federal income tax returns and scrapping the business tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance, the advisers said.

Where "advisers" is left undefined in the article (bad Washington Post! No Buscuit!) I'd really like to know who these people are who are giving the President such "advice".

where are they all?

On the statistic that 45% of the American population don't "believe" in evolution, someone inquired "Where do they all live?"

To which I replied:

Kansas. Dover, PA. Cobb County, Georgia. Grantsburg, WI.

I could go on...