'FOXES' IN GOVERNMENT, WAR ON DRUGS

There's an old adage about the foolishness of asking a fox to guard
the henhouse. Yet in many areas of public policy, that's exactly what
we've done. The politicians who make decisions about how our
government runs are not doing the job we want them to do.

Like foxes at the henhouse, they're doing what's best for themselves,
not for us.

For example, President Barack Obama's nominees to several high-level
administration posts have been found to be not quite on the straight
and narrow.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson had to step down from his nomination
to be secretary of commerce because of an investigation into his
relationships with contractors who received state contracts after,
allegedly, doing favors for the governor.

Personally, I like Richardson. He's been a good governor and proven
his abilities in several other federal positions. But he seems to
have gotten his fingers caught in the cookie jar.

Our new secretary of the treasury owed back taxes to the Internal
Revenue Service. He paid what he owed, plus accumulated interest and
fines, once Obama nominated him for his new job. Now he's head of the
Treasury Department, and thus boss of the IRS.

Sen. Tom Daschle, nominated to be secretary of health and human
services, had to back out because he too has tax problems. Much the
same with Nancy Killefer, who dropped out after being nominated to be
the "chief performance officer" in the Obama White House.

These very public gaffes have strained Obama's credibility as far as
his promise to end "politics as usual" in his administration. More
than that, they might just be the tip of the iceberg. How many
members of Congress and high-ranking public officials have played
fast and loose with their tax returns?

If you or I tried to fob off the IRS, we'd end up in court or even in
jail. Yet the people we expect to run the government seem to be
getting away without paying the taxes they owe -- until the light of
public scrutiny is focused on them.

Is this the insolence of office? Are these Washington insiders so
arrogant that they feel they don't have to obey the laws that we voters do?

We need a full disclosure from all our elected and appointed
officials about their taxes.

Then there's the so-called war on drugs. Since the Nixon
administration, at least, the government has spent trillions of
dollars in a largely futile effort to crack down on the trade in
illegal narcotics. It hasn't worked. From all indications, it's never
going to work.

There are two reasons for this. One, many people want narcotics and
are willing to buy them. Two, there's so much money involved in the
drug trade that law-enforcement efforts are subverted by bribery and
payoffs. In nations such as Colombia and Mexico, the drug dealers
challenge their governments for control of the country. And they
outgun the police.

Why not call the whole thing off? Why not decriminalize narcotics,
just as we decriminalized alcohol after the debacle of Prohibition?

Up until the Wilson administration, circa 1912, narcotics were
available to anyone who wanted to buy them. The prevailing
interpretation of the Constitution was that the government had no
right to tell citizens what they could or could not put into their bodies.

But under pressure from church groups and health organizations, the
government gradually tightened controls over sales and distribution
of narcotics. From marijuana to heroin, they were all effectively made illegal.

Over the intervening century, the narcotics trade has grown to a
multibillion-dollar industry, despite government efforts to ban drugs
and jail drug users.

What would happen if narcotics were decriminalized? If narcotics
sales were regulated by government the same way that alcohol is?

For one thing, the illegal trade in narcotics would collapse as major
corporations moved in. Tobacco and pharmaceutical companies would
find lucrative new markets. The tax revenues from narcotics sales
would probably balance the federal budget. A major source of funds
for terrorist groups such as the Taliban and al-Qaida would shrivel
away. Overcrowding in our prisons would be cut.

Would more addicts be created if narcotics were legalized? It's
possible, although the legalization of alcohol after the end of
Prohibition didn't lead to a nation full of hopeless alcoholics.

Why not try an experiment and decriminalize narcotics for a specific
period of time, say five years, and see what the results are?

It won't happen because too many politicians are afraid of the
screams of people who regard narcotics as inherently evil. And too
many government bureaucrats draw their pay from the ongoing and
never-ending war on drugs. And, most unfortunate of all, too many
law-enforcement officers are involved in the drug trade themselves.

Foxes guarding the henhouse.

Much the same problem prevents us from getting term limits for
Congress. The president is limited to two terms, but Congress refuses
to limit the number of terms that a senator or representative may serve.

There are arguments against term limits, to be sure, but I think the
arguments in favor are stronger. Politicians can't help but become
arrogant when they feel they're in office for life. Why do you think
a senator like Daschle felt he could avoid paying all the taxes he owed?

Unless lightning strikes, a senator or representative can stay in
office as long as she or he wants to. That leads to a separation from
the needs and wants of their constituents and to the kind of
"politics as usual" that we all decry.

Ask your senators and representatives if they would vote for term
limits for newly-elected members of Congress. Today's incumbents can
stay in office, but tomorrow's congresspersons and senators would be
limited in the number of terms they could serve.

It's time to get the foxes out of the henhouse.