FCC Commissioner - I scrub your back, you scrub mine

[soulcougher73]

Wait, what?

Public servant. Look at that term for a moment... A public servant should be someone in a government capacity who serves the public. However, if there's a quid pro quo understanding that this "public servant" is going to act against the public's interest (and in favor of a specific corporate interest), and then subsequently be rewarded by accepting a job at that same corporation... YOU DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THIS?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

This. Unfortunatly everything needs to be regulated because there is always some asshole who will take everything twenty steps to far to make a profit. Destroy property, pollute, hire slave labor etc. Regulations are neccessary to avoid people abusing other people for profit. That is the theory at least. The US sure sucks at regulating in both directions. Either too much or too little.

 

[Craig234]

CPA does have a point - it shouldn't be illegal (and in fact it's probably unconstitutional) to bar a man from gainful employment anywhere he'd like to go. He has another point in that the reason it's so lucrative to buy these people off is that these regulatory bodies have immense power. Those are two statements I think we can agree are factual.

If you are of the opinion that these regulatory bodies are necessary, then the question becomes how to best firewall the regulators against outside influence. Banning those who were recently in power from then working in a related private sector area is supposedly done to deny use of special inside knowledge or contacts within government. Perhaps it would be better to simply compensate these top regulators better so that they will harder to bribe? Sounds odd but it could work.

It's funny that the same people who yell 'government is bad' are the same ones who demand policies that make government bad.

The Congressman who led Medicare Part D through Congress and resigned weeks later to head the lobbying for big Pharma left to a $2 million a year position.

So, we should pay all Congressmen $2 million a year?

Then again, Robert Rubin, who pushed so much Wall Street friendly de-regulation, left to be an executive at Citibank.

Oh, wait, our Treasury Secretaries have been coming from heading Goldman-Sachs.

So, let's pay our secretaries and senior economic advisors whatever they'd make as Citibank executives or heading Goldman Sachs.

I don't mean to be abrupt to what I assume are your sincere views on this, but you are quick to express a quite wrong opposition to a helpful policy on 'constitutional' grounds, in part. Those sorts of restrictions are not 'unconstitutional', any more than requiring confidentiality agreements by CIA employees are violations of free speech, regarding classified information. They're terms of employment voluntarily accepted.

There are real questions how best to do this - and we should recognize that people give up large amounts of money to serve in the government. Robert McNamara gave up a fortune as the head of Ford to join the government; Supreme Court Justices (and other judges) make a fraction of what they could as powerful private lawyers; some in Congress make far less to serve there (Ted Kennedy wasn't a Senator for the money).

But we do have terrible financial incentives now, even with the limited restrictions; hundreds of former members and staffers from Congress are now lobbyists, and current members and staffers, while they can't take bribes now, are aware of those opportunities that might be affected by what they do in office.

The unlimited corporate contributions, which can pay for expensive and massive ad campaigns that turn a corporate whore selling out the public into Abraham Lincoln in the ads, are another part of the problem and corruption. (Of course they can also turn Abraham Lincoln into Hitler).

It's hard to see how to keep public servants serving the public without limiting their being able to receive great rewards soon after from powerful interests.

 

[werepossum]

This. Unfortunatly everything needs to be regulated because there is always some asshole who will take everything twenty steps to far to make a profit. Destroy property, pollute, hire slave labor etc. Regulations are neccessary to avoid people abusing other people for profit. That is the theory at least. The US sure sucks at regulating in both directions. Either too much or too little.

I'd say the US puts in place far too much regulation and enforces far too little regulation. CPA makes an excellent point about lobbyists not being needed or cost-effective if the government didn't have its fingers in every possible nook and cranny of our society. Lobbyists exist to try to remove an impediment to business, to try to obtain free money or resources, to try to handicap one's competition, and to protect oneself from the government. (Just ask Microsoft.) If government were concerned with fewer things and had less regulations and lower taxes, we'd have fewer lobbyists. Unfortunately this is largely a function of the number of people we have. For example, with a few million people in a country the size of ours we need no environmental laws, but with 300+ million we'd be a stinking, denuded cesspool without strong environmental laws and regulation. The more people, the more dickheads, and the more those dickheads affect everyone else.

I seriously doubt this can be solved. As far as leaving government to take a lobbying job, about all that can be done is to prohibit government employees and elected officials from meeting with them; you can't prevent a man from earning a living. And I have no way to tell if Obama's "no lobbyists" promise was a blatant lie or an honest misjudgment later corrected, but personally I prefer seeing people brought in who have actual industry experience rather than a bunch of university toadies or community organizers without any practical, real-world industry experience. They may well push the RIAA agenda by preference, but in the end all appointees do the bidding of the President or they get sent away. Considering this, at least they are people with actual industry experience, not just people who have lectured about real world experience from a safe, secure, tenured university perch.

 

[JockoJohnson]

you can't prevent a man from earning a living.

In certain industries, you can prevent a person from leaving a job and going to work for your competitor. I know this scenario is not the same but certainly those stipulations can be made when they become employed by the government.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
And, your criticism is highly one-sided -

'Irony meters' exploding all across the internet......

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Fern

Idiocy meters see a surge in repairs needed.

 

[Craig234]

dp

 

[werepossum]

In certain industries, you can prevent a person from leaving a job and going to work for your competitor. I know this scenario is not the same but certainly those stipulations can be made when they become employed by the government.

I think that's more a matter of intimidation than of law. Unless it's part of a settlement, with the person leaving compensated in return for his non-compete clause, they are not generally valid.

 

[Zebo]

Every single bill is written by lobbyists and pols readily admit they don't even read them because all they need to know is whom they empower.

Beyond patronage, the legislative system, and the FED, picks economic winners and losers and I don't see how we are any different than the soviet union once was.

LOL@ Craig cheering for his team who is just as complicit. I am afraid only bankruptcy and rev... word will change it. System is FUBAR.

 

[LegendKiller]

Every single bill is written by lobbyists and pols readily admit they don't even read them because all they need to know is whom they empower.

Beyond patronage, the legislative system, and the FED, picks economic winners and losers and I don't see how we are any different than the soviet union once was.

LOL@ Craig cheering for his team who is just as complicit. I am afraid only bankruptcy and rev... word will change it. System is FUBAR.

Obviously you never studied how the USSR was, otherwise you'd never make that comparison.

 

[yllus]

It's funny that the same people who yell 'government is bad' are the same ones who demand policies that make government bad.

The Congressman who led Medicare Part D through Congress and resigned weeks later to head the lobbying for big Pharma left to a $2 million a year position.

So, we should pay all Congressmen $2 million a year?

Sure, why not? Each Congressman makes spending decisions on behalf of his/her constituents in the tens of millions of dollars a year, if not hundreds of millions a year. If he sticks with his principles for just one contract that goes with a cheaper alternative to the tune of a measly $2 million you just broke even.

Then again, Robert Rubin, who pushed so much Wall Street friendly de-regulation, left to be an executive at Citibank.

Oh, wait, our Treasury Secretaries have been coming from heading Goldman-Sachs.

So, let's pay our secretaries and senior economic advisors whatever they'd make as Citibank executives or heading Goldman Sachs.

You probably should. If all of the bright boys and girls who flock to Goldman Sachs instead worked at the SEC because the pay was generally equitable, I guarantee that a lot of your current woes would have been avoided. Penny wise, pound foolish.

 

[Craig234]

Sure, why not? Each Congressman makes spending decisions on behalf of his/her constituents in the tens of millions of dollars a year, if not hundreds of millions a year. If he sticks with his principles for just one contract that goes with a cheaper alternative to the tune of a measly $2 million you just broke even.



You probably should. If all of the bright boys and girls who flock to Goldman Sachs instead worked at the SEC because the pay was generally equitable, I guarantee that a lot of your current woes would have been avoided. Penny wise, pound foolish.

It's funny, I make the argument you basically made there, but you take it a lot further.

I think it's pretty crazy to suggest paying each of the 535 the Goldman Sachs CEO pay.

And another thing is, though, even if we DID pay them a fortune - which isn't going to happen, of course - they'd still be incented to keep the people who hire lobbyists happy so that when they lose an election, they have a place to go, unless you suggest continuing their salary after they leave office. No, we need something better for this.

I'm ok with asking organizational consultants for suggestions, but basically, we need to be removing incentives for them to get favors later.

We also need to stop them needing so much money to get elected.

 

[mchammer187]

Sure, why not? Each Congressman makes spending decisions on behalf of his/her constituents in the tens of millions of dollars a year, if not hundreds of millions a year. If he sticks with his principles for just one contract that goes with a cheaper alternative to the tune of a measly $2 million you just broke even.



You probably should. If all of the bright boys and girls who flock to Goldman Sachs instead worked at the SEC because the pay was generally equitable, I guarantee that a lot of your current woes would have been avoided. Penny wise, pound foolish.

The counter to that is then you have life long politicians afraid to do what is right because they are too afraid of jeopardizing their political career which is something we already have too much of right now.