|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 13 2018 02:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 01:43 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2018 01:32 Plansix wrote:
I have no problem with politicians making money off of their time in office as long as they are done running for office(AKA, like Obama, Bush 2 and so on). In the case of Trump, I feel it is worse than the shadiness created by the Clinton foundation, because there is no attempt to even hide it. The erosion that was started by the Clintons and other congress members after the 1990s has reached its peak with Trump just using public office to enrich himself while in office. There is no point is separating Trump from the rest of DC. seriously? you have no problem with it? this thread has discussed the revolving door between government and private industry plenty of times, including at the SEC, and more recently at the FCC. dont you think ajit pai is going to go work somewhere for milllions and millions after doing his best to trash net neutrality? I will amend my statement to say I have no problem with elected officials making money after they leave office. When it comes to agencies, it is a harder problem to solve. But I agree that the problem exists in the regulatory agencies specifically. What would be the solution, that a person can only work at the higher levels of the FCC(for example) once? I have no idea if that would be viable. Or do we just restrict the pay of people once they leave the agency? Do people give up the right to ask for whatever pay they they can get take these jobs, and if so, how do we enforce that?
The first thing to pop in my mind is your not allowed to work in a sector for X years after holding a position of influence within a regulatory body of that sector.
Kind of like a non-competing clause in contracts.
|
On February 13 2018 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 02:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 01:43 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2018 01:32 Plansix wrote:
I have no problem with politicians making money off of their time in office as long as they are done running for office(AKA, like Obama, Bush 2 and so on). In the case of Trump, I feel it is worse than the shadiness created by the Clinton foundation, because there is no attempt to even hide it. The erosion that was started by the Clintons and other congress members after the 1990s has reached its peak with Trump just using public office to enrich himself while in office. There is no point is separating Trump from the rest of DC. seriously? you have no problem with it? this thread has discussed the revolving door between government and private industry plenty of times, including at the SEC, and more recently at the FCC. dont you think ajit pai is going to go work somewhere for milllions and millions after doing his best to trash net neutrality? I will amend my statement to say I have no problem with elected officials making money after they leave office. When it comes to agencies, it is a harder problem to solve. But I agree that the problem exists in the regulatory agencies specifically. What would be the solution, that a person can only work at the higher levels of the FCC(for example) once? I have no idea if that would be viable. Or do we just restrict the pay of people once they leave the agency? Do people give up the right to ask for whatever pay they they can get take these jobs, and if so, how do we enforce that? The first thing to pop in my mind is your not allowed to work in a sector for X years after holding a position of influence within a regulatory body of that sector. Kind of like a non-competing clause in contracts.
I remember a guy that was going to do that
The vow of a novice Chicago senator to freeze out lobbyists and nail shut the revolving door was no throwaway line in Barack Obama’s stump speech. It was central to the narrative animating his 2008 campaign: a promise of wholesale change to business as usual in Washington. His presidency would be different.
Eight years later, here’s how different it looks: The top lobbyist for the private health insurance industry that continues to battle aspects of Obamacare is a former Health and Human Services official who played a powerful role in implementing the legislation. The head of the software industry’s lobbying group is a former Obama White House appointee who oversaw the negotiation and enforcement of the intellectual property rules essential to that business. And an Obama aide deeply involved in crafting the White House’s broadband Internet policy now serves as the chief lawyer for the telecom industry group seeking to legally overturn those same rules.
Source
One need look no further than the DNC to know without a doubt they did not learn their lesson at all.
The Democratic National Committee has rolled back restrictions introduced by presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 that banned donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees.
The decision was viewed with disappointment Friday morning by good government activists who saw it as a step backward in the effort to limit special interest influence in Washington. Some suggested it could provide an advantage to Hillary Clinton’s fundraising efforts.
“It is a major step in the wrong direction,” said longtime reform advocate Fred Wertheimer. “And it is completely out of touch with the clear public rejection of the role of political money in Washington,” expressed during the 2016 campaign.
Source
ATLANTA ― Democratic National Committee members on Saturday voted down a resolution that would have reinstated former President Barack Obama’s ban on corporate political action committee donations to the party.
Source
+ Show Spoiler +In January 2017, a billionaire donor, Stephen Bittel, became the Florida State Democratic Party chair. He has already managed to offend, insult, and ostracize black Democratic leaders in the state. In May 2017, a party insider, Eric Bauman, became California Democratic Party chair. In 2016, he made over $100,000 lobbying on behalf of pharmaceutical companies against a proposition to lower prescription drug costs. A billionaire donor, J.B. Pritzker, is earning party endorsements in his bid to run for governor of Illinois. Pritzker asked former Chicago Mayor Rod Blagojevich, who is currently in prison for trying to sell Barack Obama’s Senate seat, to be appointed the Illinois treasurer instead of being given the Senate seat in exchange for campaign donations.
Lobbyists remain top campaign contributors to high-ranking Democrats and the DNC—especially because DNC Chair Tom Perez refused to re-enact the ban on corporate lobbyist and PAC donations that was rescinded to benefit Hillary Clinton’s campaign. These lobbyists have a long record of preventing the Democratic Party from embracing progressive policies and reform. For corporate lobbyists, party lines are blurred—they often pour money into both Republicans and Democrats.
Jaime Harrison, who ran for DNC chair and had Tom Perez pay off his debt after endorsing him, spent most of the Obama administration lobbying for the Podesta Group, serving clients like the coal industry, big banks and big tobacco. Harrison now serves as the South Carolina Democratic Party Chair and was appointed associate chairman and counselor to the DNC by Perez.
Several DNC voting members are lobbyists, including Tonio Burgos, who lobbies for Verizon and Pfizer, Joyce Brayboy, Marcus Mason, and Maria Cardona. These members also serve as DNC superdelegates, as well as several other corporate lobbyists like former DNC Interim Chair Donna Brazile, Emily Giske, Jennifer Cunningham, Joanne Dowdell, Bill Shaheen, Dick Gephardt, former Sen. Chris Dodd, and former Sen. Tom Daschle.
Former DNC Chair Howard Dean, who now works for the lobbying team at Dentons with Newt Gingrich, continues to elevate himself as a party spokesperson. Along with lobbyist Minyon Moore, he has been involved in the development of Hillary Clinton’s new Super PAC, Onward Together.
Two former lobbyists were appointed to serve on the DNC Unity Commission. Jeff Berman, a Clinton loyalist and commission member, is a former lobbyist for the private prison company the GEO Group and the Keystone XL pipeline. Berman was also hired by the Clinton campaign to whip superdelegates in her favor. Committee member Charlie Baker, former Clinton campaign chief administrative officer, co-founded the Dewey Square Group, which lobbied on behalf of the health insurance industry during the initial Obamacare debate
Source
You can't make this shit up...
A billionaire donor, J.B. Pritzker, is earning party endorsements in his bid to run for governor of Illinois. Pritzker asked former Chicago Mayor Rod Blagojevich, who is currently in prison for trying to sell Barack Obama’s Senate seat, to be appointed the Illinois treasurer instead of being given the Senate seat in exchange for campaign donations.
Arresting the guy selling the seat and running the guy trying to buy one is so quintessentially Democratic party it almost hurts.
^This would be a week long special on Maddow if it was Trump and a republican from Serbian descent.
|
On February 13 2018 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 02:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 01:43 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2018 01:32 Plansix wrote:
I have no problem with politicians making money off of their time in office as long as they are done running for office(AKA, like Obama, Bush 2 and so on). In the case of Trump, I feel it is worse than the shadiness created by the Clinton foundation, because there is no attempt to even hide it. The erosion that was started by the Clintons and other congress members after the 1990s has reached its peak with Trump just using public office to enrich himself while in office. There is no point is separating Trump from the rest of DC. seriously? you have no problem with it? this thread has discussed the revolving door between government and private industry plenty of times, including at the SEC, and more recently at the FCC. dont you think ajit pai is going to go work somewhere for milllions and millions after doing his best to trash net neutrality? I will amend my statement to say I have no problem with elected officials making money after they leave office. When it comes to agencies, it is a harder problem to solve. But I agree that the problem exists in the regulatory agencies specifically. What would be the solution, that a person can only work at the higher levels of the FCC(for example) once? I have no idea if that would be viable. Or do we just restrict the pay of people once they leave the agency? Do people give up the right to ask for whatever pay they they can get take these jobs, and if so, how do we enforce that? The first thing to pop in my mind is your not allowed to work in a sector for X years after holding a position of influence within a regulatory body of that sector. Kind of like a non-competing clause in contracts.
Those sort of work. But I feel that that will be dodged by the person being hired by a lobbying agency. The value in a former DC employee is their rolodex of contacts in DC and the ability to network. Another solution could be to prohibit existing employees of the FCC/SEC from communicating with former staff members in an official capacity. Limit the ability that person has to peddle influence once they are out of office.
|
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt has spent much of his first year in the role taking first-class or business-class flights, totaling thousands of dollars and often at the expense of taxpayers, The Washington Post reported Sunday.
EPA records show Pruitt typically flies first or business class for unspecified security reasons, according to the report. He has also reportedly used military jets to travel to and from events.
The newspaper found one stretch in June in which Pruitt and his top aides racked up at least $90,000 worth of taxpayer-funded travel.
Pruitt’s aides generally fly coach when traveling to and from trips to speak at conferences and political events, the newspaper reported, but Pruitt flies first or business class, a break in tradition from past administrators.
EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman told the Post that all of Pruitt’s travel expenses have been approved by federal ethics officials.
Federal regulations call for government travelers to “consider the least expensive class of travel that meets their needs,” though agencies can use first-class for security or medical reasons.
The Washington Post found Pruitt frequently used the security exception to justify traveling first-class.
Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tom Price resigned in September following uproar over his use of private jets for official business. His resignation followed Politico reports that his use of military flights and private jets cost more than $1 million.
Prior to his appointment in the Trump administration, Pruitt served as the attorney general in Oklahoma. He has drawn criticism from environmental advocates for questioning climate change.
Last week, Pruitt suggested it’s unclear if global warming is harmful to humans.
Under his leadership, the EPA has rolled back Obama-era environmental policies and withdrawn from the Paris climate accord, which is aimed at fighting global warming.
Source
|
There is a joke in the West Wing where one of the president's senior staff is trying to get home for Christmas and his staff suggests that he hitch a ride on a military cargo plane. And his response is that he would prefer not to trigger a congressional investigation.
The lieutenant governor of my state had to end her political career for using a helicopter to fly to her home for an emergency, because that didn't justify the use of tax dollars.
But apparently all of that is not longer a problem and we get to pay for every agency head to fly first class all the time.
|
On February 13 2018 02:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:On February 13 2018 02:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 01:43 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2018 01:32 Plansix wrote:
I have no problem with politicians making money off of their time in office as long as they are done running for office(AKA, like Obama, Bush 2 and so on). In the case of Trump, I feel it is worse than the shadiness created by the Clinton foundation, because there is no attempt to even hide it. The erosion that was started by the Clintons and other congress members after the 1990s has reached its peak with Trump just using public office to enrich himself while in office. There is no point is separating Trump from the rest of DC. seriously? you have no problem with it? this thread has discussed the revolving door between government and private industry plenty of times, including at the SEC, and more recently at the FCC. dont you think ajit pai is going to go work somewhere for milllions and millions after doing his best to trash net neutrality? I will amend my statement to say I have no problem with elected officials making money after they leave office. When it comes to agencies, it is a harder problem to solve. But I agree that the problem exists in the regulatory agencies specifically. What would be the solution, that a person can only work at the higher levels of the FCC(for example) once? I have no idea if that would be viable. Or do we just restrict the pay of people once they leave the agency? Do people give up the right to ask for whatever pay they they can get take these jobs, and if so, how do we enforce that? The first thing to pop in my mind is your not allowed to work in a sector for X years after holding a position of influence within a regulatory body of that sector. Kind of like a non-competing clause in contracts. Those sort of work. But I feel that that will be dodged by the person being hired by a lobbying agency. The value in a former DC employee is their rolodex of contacts in DC and the ability to network. Another solution could be to prohibit existing employees of the FCC/SEC from communicating with former staff members in an official capacity. Limit the ability that person has to peddle influence once they are out of office.
How about senior officials are given a modest stipend for life depending on service of a certain number of years, but are banned lifetime from employment in fields related to their official work?
|
On February 13 2018 02:58 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 02:18 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:On February 13 2018 02:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 01:43 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2018 01:32 Plansix wrote:
I have no problem with politicians making money off of their time in office as long as they are done running for office(AKA, like Obama, Bush 2 and so on). In the case of Trump, I feel it is worse than the shadiness created by the Clinton foundation, because there is no attempt to even hide it. The erosion that was started by the Clintons and other congress members after the 1990s has reached its peak with Trump just using public office to enrich himself while in office. There is no point is separating Trump from the rest of DC. seriously? you have no problem with it? this thread has discussed the revolving door between government and private industry plenty of times, including at the SEC, and more recently at the FCC. dont you think ajit pai is going to go work somewhere for milllions and millions after doing his best to trash net neutrality? I will amend my statement to say I have no problem with elected officials making money after they leave office. When it comes to agencies, it is a harder problem to solve. But I agree that the problem exists in the regulatory agencies specifically. What would be the solution, that a person can only work at the higher levels of the FCC(for example) once? I have no idea if that would be viable. Or do we just restrict the pay of people once they leave the agency? Do people give up the right to ask for whatever pay they they can get take these jobs, and if so, how do we enforce that? The first thing to pop in my mind is your not allowed to work in a sector for X years after holding a position of influence within a regulatory body of that sector. Kind of like a non-competing clause in contracts. Those sort of work. But I feel that that will be dodged by the person being hired by a lobbying agency. The value in a former DC employee is their rolodex of contacts in DC and the ability to network. Another solution could be to prohibit existing employees of the FCC/SEC from communicating with former staff members in an official capacity. Limit the ability that person has to peddle influence once they are out of office. How about senior officials are given a modest stipend for life depending on service of a certain number of years, but are banned lifetime from employment in fields related to their official work?
Wouldn't that just run into the same problem the Obama administration had with their lobbying and industry restrictions? They straight up couldn't find people to fill a lot of top roles. Most public service jobs at the highest level of short term at best. Especially in the regulatory agencies. Its not like the FBI or Justice department. Maybe if they limited it 5-6 years or so and had the stipend go for that long.
|
On February 13 2018 03:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 02:58 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2018 02:18 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:On February 13 2018 02:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 01:43 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2018 01:32 Plansix wrote:
I have no problem with politicians making money off of their time in office as long as they are done running for office(AKA, like Obama, Bush 2 and so on). In the case of Trump, I feel it is worse than the shadiness created by the Clinton foundation, because there is no attempt to even hide it. The erosion that was started by the Clintons and other congress members after the 1990s has reached its peak with Trump just using public office to enrich himself while in office. There is no point is separating Trump from the rest of DC. seriously? you have no problem with it? this thread has discussed the revolving door between government and private industry plenty of times, including at the SEC, and more recently at the FCC. dont you think ajit pai is going to go work somewhere for milllions and millions after doing his best to trash net neutrality? I will amend my statement to say I have no problem with elected officials making money after they leave office. When it comes to agencies, it is a harder problem to solve. But I agree that the problem exists in the regulatory agencies specifically. What would be the solution, that a person can only work at the higher levels of the FCC(for example) once? I have no idea if that would be viable. Or do we just restrict the pay of people once they leave the agency? Do people give up the right to ask for whatever pay they they can get take these jobs, and if so, how do we enforce that? The first thing to pop in my mind is your not allowed to work in a sector for X years after holding a position of influence within a regulatory body of that sector. Kind of like a non-competing clause in contracts. Those sort of work. But I feel that that will be dodged by the person being hired by a lobbying agency. The value in a former DC employee is their rolodex of contacts in DC and the ability to network. Another solution could be to prohibit existing employees of the FCC/SEC from communicating with former staff members in an official capacity. Limit the ability that person has to peddle influence once they are out of office. How about senior officials are given a modest stipend for life depending on service of a certain number of years, but are banned lifetime from employment in fields related to their official work? Wouldn't that just run into the same problem the Obama administration had with their lobbying and industry restrictions? They straight up couldn't find people to fill a lot of top roles. Most public service jobs at the highest level of short term at best. Especially in the regulatory agencies. Its not like the FBI or Justice department. Maybe if they limited it 5-6 years or so and had the stipend go for that long.
I think we place far too much faith in the capabilities of those that are successful in management in their fields. As if the people making the most money doing things are actually the best and that the data doesn't suggest otherwise.
[W]e found little evidence to show a link between the large proportion of pay that such awards represent and long-term company stock performance. In fact, even after adjusting for company size and sector, companies with lower total summary CEO pay levels more consistently displayed higher long-term investment returns.
Source
Their problem was they were looking for the wrong people.
|
I don't really believe in this "there aren't enough good people to go around." People would certainly want the job, and there are certainly enough people employed by the government. But for some reason they always look for outsiders to come in and run the agency . . . outsiders who leave after a few years and start making way more money in their old jobs. I wonder why.
|
If every agency functioned more like the FBI/Justice department when it came to picking a new head, I think we would be better off. Fuck, I would even appoint them for 10 year terms, just to avoid the gutting of those regulatory agencies with every administration. But that is an issue for congress, since they set the length of the terms for agency heads.
|
Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday brought up sheriffs' "Anglo-American heritage" during remarks to law enforcement officials in Washington.
"I want to thank every sheriff in America. Since our founding, the independently elected sheriff has been the people's protector, who keeps law enforcement close to and accountable to people through the elected process," Sessions said in remarks at the National Sheriffs Association winter meeting, adding, "The office of sheriff is a critical part of the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement."
"We must never erode this historic office," Sessions continued.
Invoking "Anglo-American heritage" seems to have been an impromptu decision by the attorney general. A written version of the remarks says that Sessions was supposed to say: "The sheriff is a critical part of our legal heritage."
The concept of the office of sheriff -- being an independent, elected law enforcement entity -- originates in Anglo-Saxon England. The word "sheriff" combines the Anglo-Saxon words "shire," meaning "county," and "reeve," meaning "guardian," Cato analyst David Kopel notes in The Washington Post.
Source
Anglo American tradition of law enforcement. Man, that is some loaded language that could only be designed to play to one crowd.
In the 2006 bulletin, the FBI detailed the threat of white nationalists and skinheads infiltrating police in order to disrupt investigations against fellow members and recruit other supremacists. The bulletin was released during a period of scandal for many law enforcement agencies throughout the country, including a neo-Nazi gang formed by members of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department who harassed black and Latino communities. Similar investigations revealed officers and entire agencies with hate group ties in Illinois, Ohio and Texas.
Source
|
On February 13 2018 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 03:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:58 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2018 02:18 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:On February 13 2018 02:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 01:43 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2018 01:32 Plansix wrote:
I have no problem with politicians making money off of their time in office as long as they are done running for office(AKA, like Obama, Bush 2 and so on). In the case of Trump, I feel it is worse than the shadiness created by the Clinton foundation, because there is no attempt to even hide it. The erosion that was started by the Clintons and other congress members after the 1990s has reached its peak with Trump just using public office to enrich himself while in office. There is no point is separating Trump from the rest of DC. seriously? you have no problem with it? this thread has discussed the revolving door between government and private industry plenty of times, including at the SEC, and more recently at the FCC. dont you think ajit pai is going to go work somewhere for milllions and millions after doing his best to trash net neutrality? I will amend my statement to say I have no problem with elected officials making money after they leave office. When it comes to agencies, it is a harder problem to solve. But I agree that the problem exists in the regulatory agencies specifically. What would be the solution, that a person can only work at the higher levels of the FCC(for example) once? I have no idea if that would be viable. Or do we just restrict the pay of people once they leave the agency? Do people give up the right to ask for whatever pay they they can get take these jobs, and if so, how do we enforce that? The first thing to pop in my mind is your not allowed to work in a sector for X years after holding a position of influence within a regulatory body of that sector. Kind of like a non-competing clause in contracts. Those sort of work. But I feel that that will be dodged by the person being hired by a lobbying agency. The value in a former DC employee is their rolodex of contacts in DC and the ability to network. Another solution could be to prohibit existing employees of the FCC/SEC from communicating with former staff members in an official capacity. Limit the ability that person has to peddle influence once they are out of office. How about senior officials are given a modest stipend for life depending on service of a certain number of years, but are banned lifetime from employment in fields related to their official work? Wouldn't that just run into the same problem the Obama administration had with their lobbying and industry restrictions? They straight up couldn't find people to fill a lot of top roles. Most public service jobs at the highest level of short term at best. Especially in the regulatory agencies. Its not like the FBI or Justice department. Maybe if they limited it 5-6 years or so and had the stipend go for that long. I think we place far too much faith in the capabilities of those that are successful in management in their fields. As if the people making the most money doing things are actually the best and that the data doesn't suggest otherwise. Show nested quote +[W]e found little evidence to show a link between the large proportion of pay that such awards represent and long-term company stock performance. In fact, even after adjusting for company size and sector, companies with lower total summary CEO pay levels more consistently displayed higher long-term investment returns. SourceTheir problem was they were looking for the wrong people.
I asked this before, and got mocked, but to my knowledge never got an answer. What reforms do you propose? If you're gonna mock anyone who objects to violations of the existing ethical guidelines, you really ought to put forward an alternative
|
On February 13 2018 03:30 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:58 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2018 02:18 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:On February 13 2018 02:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 01:43 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2018 01:32 Plansix wrote:
I have no problem with politicians making money off of their time in office as long as they are done running for office(AKA, like Obama, Bush 2 and so on). In the case of Trump, I feel it is worse than the shadiness created by the Clinton foundation, because there is no attempt to even hide it. The erosion that was started by the Clintons and other congress members after the 1990s has reached its peak with Trump just using public office to enrich himself while in office. There is no point is separating Trump from the rest of DC. seriously? you have no problem with it? this thread has discussed the revolving door between government and private industry plenty of times, including at the SEC, and more recently at the FCC. dont you think ajit pai is going to go work somewhere for milllions and millions after doing his best to trash net neutrality? I will amend my statement to say I have no problem with elected officials making money after they leave office. When it comes to agencies, it is a harder problem to solve. But I agree that the problem exists in the regulatory agencies specifically. What would be the solution, that a person can only work at the higher levels of the FCC(for example) once? I have no idea if that would be viable. Or do we just restrict the pay of people once they leave the agency? Do people give up the right to ask for whatever pay they they can get take these jobs, and if so, how do we enforce that? The first thing to pop in my mind is your not allowed to work in a sector for X years after holding a position of influence within a regulatory body of that sector. Kind of like a non-competing clause in contracts. Those sort of work. But I feel that that will be dodged by the person being hired by a lobbying agency. The value in a former DC employee is their rolodex of contacts in DC and the ability to network. Another solution could be to prohibit existing employees of the FCC/SEC from communicating with former staff members in an official capacity. Limit the ability that person has to peddle influence once they are out of office. How about senior officials are given a modest stipend for life depending on service of a certain number of years, but are banned lifetime from employment in fields related to their official work? Wouldn't that just run into the same problem the Obama administration had with their lobbying and industry restrictions? They straight up couldn't find people to fill a lot of top roles. Most public service jobs at the highest level of short term at best. Especially in the regulatory agencies. Its not like the FBI or Justice department. Maybe if they limited it 5-6 years or so and had the stipend go for that long. I think we place far too much faith in the capabilities of those that are successful in management in their fields. As if the people making the most money doing things are actually the best and that the data doesn't suggest otherwise. [W]e found little evidence to show a link between the large proportion of pay that such awards represent and long-term company stock performance. In fact, even after adjusting for company size and sector, companies with lower total summary CEO pay levels more consistently displayed higher long-term investment returns. SourceTheir problem was they were looking for the wrong people. I asked this before, and got mocked, but to my knowledge never got an answer. What reforms do you propose? If you're gonna mock anyone who objects to violations of the existing ethical guidelines, you really ought to put forward an alternative
The first step is to say that the status quo is unacceptable. As long as it's acceptable people won't be interested in tough solutions.
For context it shouldn't take (official) ethical guidelines for Democrats to shut down the idea of a billionaire, who tried to buy a seat, from running for governor. That should be a non-starter among people who call themselves Democrats or collect money for them.
|
|
|
On February 13 2018 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 03:30 ChristianS wrote:On February 13 2018 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:58 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2018 02:18 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:On February 13 2018 02:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 01:43 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2018 01:32 Plansix wrote:
I have no problem with politicians making money off of their time in office as long as they are done running for office(AKA, like Obama, Bush 2 and so on). In the case of Trump, I feel it is worse than the shadiness created by the Clinton foundation, because there is no attempt to even hide it. The erosion that was started by the Clintons and other congress members after the 1990s has reached its peak with Trump just using public office to enrich himself while in office. There is no point is separating Trump from the rest of DC. seriously? you have no problem with it? this thread has discussed the revolving door between government and private industry plenty of times, including at the SEC, and more recently at the FCC. dont you think ajit pai is going to go work somewhere for milllions and millions after doing his best to trash net neutrality? I will amend my statement to say I have no problem with elected officials making money after they leave office. When it comes to agencies, it is a harder problem to solve. But I agree that the problem exists in the regulatory agencies specifically. What would be the solution, that a person can only work at the higher levels of the FCC(for example) once? I have no idea if that would be viable. Or do we just restrict the pay of people once they leave the agency? Do people give up the right to ask for whatever pay they they can get take these jobs, and if so, how do we enforce that? The first thing to pop in my mind is your not allowed to work in a sector for X years after holding a position of influence within a regulatory body of that sector. Kind of like a non-competing clause in contracts. Those sort of work. But I feel that that will be dodged by the person being hired by a lobbying agency. The value in a former DC employee is their rolodex of contacts in DC and the ability to network. Another solution could be to prohibit existing employees of the FCC/SEC from communicating with former staff members in an official capacity. Limit the ability that person has to peddle influence once they are out of office. How about senior officials are given a modest stipend for life depending on service of a certain number of years, but are banned lifetime from employment in fields related to their official work? Wouldn't that just run into the same problem the Obama administration had with their lobbying and industry restrictions? They straight up couldn't find people to fill a lot of top roles. Most public service jobs at the highest level of short term at best. Especially in the regulatory agencies. Its not like the FBI or Justice department. Maybe if they limited it 5-6 years or so and had the stipend go for that long. I think we place far too much faith in the capabilities of those that are successful in management in their fields. As if the people making the most money doing things are actually the best and that the data doesn't suggest otherwise. [W]e found little evidence to show a link between the large proportion of pay that such awards represent and long-term company stock performance. In fact, even after adjusting for company size and sector, companies with lower total summary CEO pay levels more consistently displayed higher long-term investment returns. SourceTheir problem was they were looking for the wrong people. I asked this before, and got mocked, but to my knowledge never got an answer. What reforms do you propose? If you're gonna mock anyone who objects to violations of the existing ethical guidelines, you really ought to put forward an alternative The first step is to say that the status quo is unacceptable. As long as it's acceptable people won't be interested in tough solutions. For context it shouldn't take (official) ethical guidelines for Democrats to shut down the idea of a billionaire, who tried to buy a seat, from running for governor. That should be a non-starter among people who call themselves Democrats or collect money for them.
Can you be more specific, though? The point of reforms and guidelines is to provide structure to the decision making process of what is and is not acceptable.
|
On February 13 2018 03:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:30 ChristianS wrote:On February 13 2018 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:58 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2018 02:18 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:On February 13 2018 02:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 01:43 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
seriously? you have no problem with it? this thread has discussed the revolving door between government and private industry plenty of times, including at the SEC, and more recently at the FCC. dont you think ajit pai is going to go work somewhere for milllions and millions after doing his best to trash net neutrality? I will amend my statement to say I have no problem with elected officials making money after they leave office. When it comes to agencies, it is a harder problem to solve. But I agree that the problem exists in the regulatory agencies specifically. What would be the solution, that a person can only work at the higher levels of the FCC(for example) once? I have no idea if that would be viable. Or do we just restrict the pay of people once they leave the agency? Do people give up the right to ask for whatever pay they they can get take these jobs, and if so, how do we enforce that? The first thing to pop in my mind is your not allowed to work in a sector for X years after holding a position of influence within a regulatory body of that sector. Kind of like a non-competing clause in contracts. Those sort of work. But I feel that that will be dodged by the person being hired by a lobbying agency. The value in a former DC employee is their rolodex of contacts in DC and the ability to network. Another solution could be to prohibit existing employees of the FCC/SEC from communicating with former staff members in an official capacity. Limit the ability that person has to peddle influence once they are out of office. How about senior officials are given a modest stipend for life depending on service of a certain number of years, but are banned lifetime from employment in fields related to their official work? Wouldn't that just run into the same problem the Obama administration had with their lobbying and industry restrictions? They straight up couldn't find people to fill a lot of top roles. Most public service jobs at the highest level of short term at best. Especially in the regulatory agencies. Its not like the FBI or Justice department. Maybe if they limited it 5-6 years or so and had the stipend go for that long. I think we place far too much faith in the capabilities of those that are successful in management in their fields. As if the people making the most money doing things are actually the best and that the data doesn't suggest otherwise. [W]e found little evidence to show a link between the large proportion of pay that such awards represent and long-term company stock performance. In fact, even after adjusting for company size and sector, companies with lower total summary CEO pay levels more consistently displayed higher long-term investment returns. SourceTheir problem was they were looking for the wrong people. I asked this before, and got mocked, but to my knowledge never got an answer. What reforms do you propose? If you're gonna mock anyone who objects to violations of the existing ethical guidelines, you really ought to put forward an alternative The first step is to say that the status quo is unacceptable. As long as it's acceptable people won't be interested in tough solutions. For context it shouldn't take (official) ethical guidelines for Democrats to shut down the idea of a billionaire, who tried to buy a seat, from running for governor. That should be a non-starter among people who call themselves Democrats or collect money for them. Can you be more specific, though? The point of reforms and guidelines is to provide structure to the decision making process of what is and is not acceptable.
I could, if we're in agreement so far.
|
What the hell people, this isn't the way to go. Hope it was just a really really shitty prank and she is okay
|
On February 13 2018 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 03:56 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:30 ChristianS wrote:On February 13 2018 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:58 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2018 02:18 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:On February 13 2018 02:02 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I will amend my statement to say I have no problem with elected officials making money after they leave office. When it comes to agencies, it is a harder problem to solve. But I agree that the problem exists in the regulatory agencies specifically.
What would be the solution, that a person can only work at the higher levels of the FCC(for example) once? I have no idea if that would be viable. Or do we just restrict the pay of people once they leave the agency? Do people give up the right to ask for whatever pay they they can get take these jobs, and if so, how do we enforce that? The first thing to pop in my mind is your not allowed to work in a sector for X years after holding a position of influence within a regulatory body of that sector. Kind of like a non-competing clause in contracts. Those sort of work. But I feel that that will be dodged by the person being hired by a lobbying agency. The value in a former DC employee is their rolodex of contacts in DC and the ability to network. Another solution could be to prohibit existing employees of the FCC/SEC from communicating with former staff members in an official capacity. Limit the ability that person has to peddle influence once they are out of office. How about senior officials are given a modest stipend for life depending on service of a certain number of years, but are banned lifetime from employment in fields related to their official work? Wouldn't that just run into the same problem the Obama administration had with their lobbying and industry restrictions? They straight up couldn't find people to fill a lot of top roles. Most public service jobs at the highest level of short term at best. Especially in the regulatory agencies. Its not like the FBI or Justice department. Maybe if they limited it 5-6 years or so and had the stipend go for that long. I think we place far too much faith in the capabilities of those that are successful in management in their fields. As if the people making the most money doing things are actually the best and that the data doesn't suggest otherwise. [W]e found little evidence to show a link between the large proportion of pay that such awards represent and long-term company stock performance. In fact, even after adjusting for company size and sector, companies with lower total summary CEO pay levels more consistently displayed higher long-term investment returns. SourceTheir problem was they were looking for the wrong people. I asked this before, and got mocked, but to my knowledge never got an answer. What reforms do you propose? If you're gonna mock anyone who objects to violations of the existing ethical guidelines, you really ought to put forward an alternative The first step is to say that the status quo is unacceptable. As long as it's acceptable people won't be interested in tough solutions. For context it shouldn't take (official) ethical guidelines for Democrats to shut down the idea of a billionaire, who tried to buy a seat, from running for governor. That should be a non-starter among people who call themselves Democrats or collect money for them. Can you be more specific, though? The point of reforms and guidelines is to provide structure to the decision making process of what is and is not acceptable. I could, if we're in agreement so far.
Reforms to money in politics would be a good. What are your specific proposals?
|
On February 13 2018 04:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:56 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:30 ChristianS wrote:On February 13 2018 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:58 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2018 02:18 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
The first thing to pop in my mind is your not allowed to work in a sector for X years after holding a position of influence within a regulatory body of that sector.
Kind of like a non-competing clause in contracts.
Those sort of work. But I feel that that will be dodged by the person being hired by a lobbying agency. The value in a former DC employee is their rolodex of contacts in DC and the ability to network. Another solution could be to prohibit existing employees of the FCC/SEC from communicating with former staff members in an official capacity. Limit the ability that person has to peddle influence once they are out of office. How about senior officials are given a modest stipend for life depending on service of a certain number of years, but are banned lifetime from employment in fields related to their official work? Wouldn't that just run into the same problem the Obama administration had with their lobbying and industry restrictions? They straight up couldn't find people to fill a lot of top roles. Most public service jobs at the highest level of short term at best. Especially in the regulatory agencies. Its not like the FBI or Justice department. Maybe if they limited it 5-6 years or so and had the stipend go for that long. I think we place far too much faith in the capabilities of those that are successful in management in their fields. As if the people making the most money doing things are actually the best and that the data doesn't suggest otherwise. [W]e found little evidence to show a link between the large proportion of pay that such awards represent and long-term company stock performance. In fact, even after adjusting for company size and sector, companies with lower total summary CEO pay levels more consistently displayed higher long-term investment returns. SourceTheir problem was they were looking for the wrong people. I asked this before, and got mocked, but to my knowledge never got an answer. What reforms do you propose? If you're gonna mock anyone who objects to violations of the existing ethical guidelines, you really ought to put forward an alternative The first step is to say that the status quo is unacceptable. As long as it's acceptable people won't be interested in tough solutions. For context it shouldn't take (official) ethical guidelines for Democrats to shut down the idea of a billionaire, who tried to buy a seat, from running for governor. That should be a non-starter among people who call themselves Democrats or collect money for them. Can you be more specific, though? The point of reforms and guidelines is to provide structure to the decision making process of what is and is not acceptable. I could, if we're in agreement so far. Reforms to money in politics would be a good. What are your specific proposals?
That doesn't sound like we're in agreement with the aforementioned starting point.so I don't think it would be fruitful to continue for the reason mentioned at the start.
|
On February 13 2018 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 04:07 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:56 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:30 ChristianS wrote:On February 13 2018 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:58 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2018 02:18 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Those sort of work. But I feel that that will be dodged by the person being hired by a lobbying agency. The value in a former DC employee is their rolodex of contacts in DC and the ability to network. Another solution could be to prohibit existing employees of the FCC/SEC from communicating with former staff members in an official capacity. Limit the ability that person has to peddle influence once they are out of office. How about senior officials are given a modest stipend for life depending on service of a certain number of years, but are banned lifetime from employment in fields related to their official work? Wouldn't that just run into the same problem the Obama administration had with their lobbying and industry restrictions? They straight up couldn't find people to fill a lot of top roles. Most public service jobs at the highest level of short term at best. Especially in the regulatory agencies. Its not like the FBI or Justice department. Maybe if they limited it 5-6 years or so and had the stipend go for that long. I think we place far too much faith in the capabilities of those that are successful in management in their fields. As if the people making the most money doing things are actually the best and that the data doesn't suggest otherwise. [W]e found little evidence to show a link between the large proportion of pay that such awards represent and long-term company stock performance. In fact, even after adjusting for company size and sector, companies with lower total summary CEO pay levels more consistently displayed higher long-term investment returns. SourceTheir problem was they were looking for the wrong people. I asked this before, and got mocked, but to my knowledge never got an answer. What reforms do you propose? If you're gonna mock anyone who objects to violations of the existing ethical guidelines, you really ought to put forward an alternative The first step is to say that the status quo is unacceptable. As long as it's acceptable people won't be interested in tough solutions. For context it shouldn't take (official) ethical guidelines for Democrats to shut down the idea of a billionaire, who tried to buy a seat, from running for governor. That should be a non-starter among people who call themselves Democrats or collect money for them. Can you be more specific, though? The point of reforms and guidelines is to provide structure to the decision making process of what is and is not acceptable. I could, if we're in agreement so far. Reforms to money in politics would be a good. What are your specific proposals? That doesn't sound like we're in agreement with the aforementioned starting point.so I don't think it would be fruitful to continue for the reason mentioned at the start.
I am in complete agreement that the status quo is unacceptable. I am interested in hearing discussing solutions to this problem in detail, can you detail how you feel the problem be addressed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
