As scandal continues to blow through HUD, the giant federal Housing and Urban Development agency, it's clear the agency is in need of a thorough housecleaning and change of attitude.
Congressional investigators have uncovered so much evidence of influence peddling, embezzlement and mismanagement that they scarcely know where to look next. What has been found so far is probably only part of the story.Yet President Bush is correct in saying that energies should be devoted to cleaning up the mess, rather than looking for scapegoats. Much of what has gone on - while ethically reprehensible - probably cannot be prosecuted.
Certainly, where embezzlement and fraud have occurred, prosecution should follow. But what HUD and much of the rest of Washington needs is a new level of ethical behavior.
Particularly in need of reform is influence peddling. Investigators have uncovered numerous instances of well-connected insiders, lobbyists and former officials using their personal relationships with HUD officials to get federal money granted to specific projects and picking up hefty "consulting" fees in the process.
As the president said this week, the challenge now is to guarantee that "we are not going to have cronyism and special favors and giving contracts because of who you know." That is the least that can be expected.
One underlying cause of the HUD scandal is the $20 billion a year the agency has at its disposal to give away or make loans to help provide decent shelter for low-income Americans. That much money invariably attracts crowds of fast-buck operators.
Add to this attraction, the fact that HUD seems to have been poorly run, with not enough accountability, and the possibilities for fraud and favoritism are greatly expanded. Many programs seemed to run without any checks or audits.
For example, nine mortgage companies are being investigated for their roles in $650 million worth of HUD loan defaults. Three have already been suspended from doing business with the department.
Part of the problem, not only with questionable activities at HUD but with bureaucracies and Congress in general, is that they have a peculiar attitude about federal funds. Too many people seem to think that Washington has bottomless pockets.
In reality, that government money handled and spent so carelessly and profligately represents a personal sacrifice from the household budgets of individual Americans.
Such money ought to be regarded as a sacred trust instead of a slush fund for lining the pockets of influence peddlers and special interests.