Could the European Elections Be Telling Us Something?

Now that the Obama administration and the tail-wagging Dems in Congress have decided to go down the road to European socialism, it is interesting to take a look at the recent European Union’s elections .

EU's biggest-ever election concluded June 7th and social democrats got the worst results ever in their election history.

The European Parliament election in June 2009 was the biggest trans-national election in history.

About 375 million European citizens were eligible to vote. But the voter turnout was a record low in the June elections to the European Parliament (43.09%). After these turnout rates, results started to be discussed.

In Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary and the Czech Republic, the center right won the elections.

In Britain, PM Gordon Brown's political fortunes have spiraled downward with the electoral drubbing the ruling Labour party has suffered in recent days, but the party's slide has been years in the making -- rooted in a nasty internal split, divisions over the Iraq war, a deep recession and a steady drip of scandal.

Labour finished third in elections for seats in the European Parliament -- behind not just the opposition Conservatives, but also the fringe UK Independence Party, a weak showing for the party that has governed the U.K. since Tony Blair became prime minister in 1997. Labour captured just 15.7% of the vote, its lowest share of a national vote since 1910.

The results are widely seen as further evidence that Labour will be ousted by the Conservatives and their leader, David Cameron, in U.K. general elections that must be held within the next year, and have added to pressure on Mr. Brown to step aside sooner than that.

Now maybe one could care less about Europe’s politics, and I am not going to give a primer on how the EU was morphing into a U.S. of Europe, but let’s focus on the main reason for Europe’s shift to the right. Spending, borrowing, and more spending…to escape the world-wide economic recession.

Couple that with financial scandals in Britain and you have the perfect recipe for “throwing the ninnies out.”

I can’t help bring up our own spending scandals. Obama’s approval rating is still an unbelievable 67%, despite his plans to bury our descendants in unpayable debt. What is more to the point of “scandal” is the influence lobbyists still have on Congress, both Republicans and Democrats.

USA TODAY undertook the first comprehensive analysis of the lobbying reports and found 2,759 payments, totaling $35.8 million, were made in 2008. The money went to honor 534 current and former lawmakers, almost 250 other federal officials and more than 100 groups, many of which count lawmakers among their members.

The total cost is roughly equivalent to what the U.S. government spends to operate Yellowstone National Park each year.

Most of the money — about $28 million — went to non-profit groups, some with direct ties to members of Congress. In two cases, USA TODAY found, the donations to non-profits associated with a member of Congress came in response to a personal appeal for funds from the lawmaker.

The money came from companies, trade associations and labor groups that lobby Congress and the government on a range of issues, from seeking a share of last year's $700 billion financial bailout package to trying to shape the debate on climate change.

The donations cover various activities — from a golf tournament that raises money for a lawmaker's non-profit to gifts to the alma mater of a powerful House committee chairman.

Most people are unaware of this end-run violation of basic ethics…just as in Britain most were not aware of what the MPs were doing. (MPs are Members of Britain’s House of Commons, not MEP’s, aka members of the European Union Parliament.)

The heart of the problem is that MPs, who are paid roughly $100,000 a year, work at Westminster in London, but generally live with their families in their constituencies. So they receive an allowance of about $30,000 for furniture, accessories, repairs and mortgage interest relief for a second home.

The accusation is that they have used the expense claims on their second home as an alternative income stream to pay for gardeners, chandeliers, dog food, wine, duck houses, and horse manure. Several MPs, most notably a senior member of Gordon Brown's cabinet, have been accused of changing the designation of their second home. That's a practice known as flipping, so that the allowance can then be applied to another property.

Here in the U.S., “You can still have a gala or something or the other for a charity and earn some favor with members of Congress, which is what the gift ban was put in place to avoid,” says Dan Danner, CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business and a veteran Washington lobbyist.

The spending demonstrates the subtle ways that special-interest groups try to sway lawmakers, without making "something as crass as a payoff," says Kenneth Gross, a former Federal Election Commission official.

USA TODAY singled out as examples of this practice donations such as the $40,000 AT&T gave in December to the Blanchette Rockefeller Neurosciences Institute, which researches Alzheimer's. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., founded the non-profit, which is named for his late mother, and he is the honorary chairman of its board.

Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the House energy committee, asked an energy company to donate to a foundation that bears his name. His daughter-in-law, Amy Barton, is the unpaid director.

Utility giant Exelon gave $25,000 to the non-profit last June and $50,000 in 2006, according to federal records and interviews with company officials.

Health care groups, for instance, give millions to the planned Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate in Boston. Pharmaceutical giant Amgen wrote the biggest check — $5 million in December — to the institute, which will honor Kennedy's more than four decades in Congress and promote the study of the U.S. Senate.

Aetna insurance company donated $50,000.

Of course, all of these contributions are legal, and, unlike the British abuses of power by many of their MPs, the organizations members of Congress have personally founded or support may actually help people, but they are yet another way for votes to be swayed to favor the donor’s interests.

I say thumbs up for term limits on members of Congress, or, if failing that, I agree with the Brits that it’s time to “throw the ninnies out.” Where is there a land where irresponsible spending by a socialist president, complacent lawmakers, and a lobbyist-influenced Congress does not exist? I guess it must be Oz. It isn’t here, or across the pond. But the times…they are a’changin…maybe as soon as 2010, but for sure in 2012.