Two high-profile ethics hearings will take place in Washington, D.C., probably next month.

A full airing of charges against U.S. Reps. Charles Rangel of New York and Maxine Waters of California will give both sides a chance to present their case.

And while Republicans will no doubt try to use the ethics scandals for political benefit in the November elections, the GOP might be restrained by its own recent experiences involving former Reps. Tom DeLay, Mark Foley and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Now, the Democrats get their time in the ethics spotlight, which is not surprising because it is often the party in power that is hit with ethics scandals.

Some weeks ago, there was speculation that Rangel would cut a deal to avoid embarrassment for himself and his party. But Rangel rejected making a deal.

That's good. Maybe not for Democrats. But it is good for the American people who will get a glimpse into the Washington culture of entitlement that some members of Congress embrace.

As the Chicago Tribune said in an editorial a few weeks ago, cutting a deal might have served Rangel and Democrats by avoiding embarrassment. But a deal "wouldn't have served Rangel's constituents, or the rest of this country. Not at all."

Charges against Rangel include failure to disclose up to $1 million in assets, failure to report income on a villa in the Caribbean, and abuse of several rent-controlled apartments in New York City. Rangel also reportedly took corporate-paid trips to the Caribbean, and also allegedly used his office and official stationery to make requests for a building at a New York university named in his honor.

If true, these charges suggest abuse of power and arrogance.

The case against Waters involves her efforts on behalf of a California bank in her district. But it happens it was a bank where her husband was on the board of directors and also owned $100,000 worth of stock, which was dropping in value during the recent financial crisis.

Waters' efforts seeking special treatment for OneUnited, a Boston-based bank, suggests attempted abuse of power, given that Waters set up a meeting with then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in 2008, at which the bank's CEO made a pitch for a special $50 million bailout. The bank received $12 million.

It's interesting to note, though not relevant to the charges against Waters, that Kevin Cohee, the bank's CEO, also has been in the spotlight. While promoting the bank as responsibly serving minority and poor customers, Cohee lived a lavish lifestyle, which included a bank- leased mansion in Santa Monica, costing $26,500 a month. The bank also bought Cohee a Miami Beach condominium for $880,000. The bank also paid for Cohee's Porsche, but at some point federal regulators complained and some of Cohee's perks were trimmed.

But if the trial shines light on the banker's lifestyle, while he pleaded for federal bailout funds, it would be another beneficial eye-opener for taxpayers.

As charges against Waters and Rangel emerged, pressure mounted on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for transparency in these cases, since she famously vowed to "drain the swamp" and create the most ethical Congress in history, when she and Democrats ran in 2008, eventually taking over control of the House and Senate.

Democrats might not like the timing of the hearings, but a full airing of the charges against both Rangel and Waters is good for voters, taxpayers and even for Congress.

The evidence in the hearings will likely show Americans that some elected officials come to believe that they live in a world where rules don't apply to them.

These cases and the resulting testimony will be a welcome peek into how Washington, at least parts of Washington, works.