How is this crap legal?

[Fenixgoon]

Pa. (state level) Senator gets free SuperBowl Trip from oil/gas company - http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20110213_Perks_from_Pa__drilling_interests.html

(federal level) Senate Appointees Required to Divest Stock, Senators Not - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/18/AR2010121802499.html

federal employees are only allowed to accept certain level of "gifts" from business partners, amounting to...more or less virtually nothing (something like $60 total per year, no more than $25 on a single occasion).

Now on the other hand, our representatives are able to accept tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gifts from lobbyists either by actual gifts or generous campaign donations. and they worry about federal employees being influenced by companies?

bullshit if you ask me. this kind of stuff pisses me off.

 

[werepossum]

I agree. Senators and Representatives at the state and federal level should be required to place all investments into blind trusts for the duration of their service. That way they could not be sure if a particular bill is going to help their bottom line or hurt it. (Though in reality, spouses' accounts would have the ability to determine this, and I doubt that such trusts would truly be blind no matter the law.) Otherwise such rules should be relaxed for government appointees as well.

On shame on Pennsylvania for allowing such lucrative gifts.

 

[shiner]

I agree. Senators and Representatives at the state and federal level should be required to place all investments into blind trusts for the duration of their service. That way they could not be sure if a particular bill is going to help their bottom line or hurt it. (Though in reality, spouses' accounts would have the ability to determine this, and I doubt that such trusts would truly be blind no matter the law.) Otherwise such rules should be relaxed for government appointees as well.

On shame on Pennsylvania for allowing such lucrative gifts.

Take it a step further. All their investments should be liquidated the day they take office and when they leave office they get their money back plus or minus what growth took place in the economy while they were in office.

Economy grew at 7%? Then they get their investments back + 7%. Economy shrank by 4%? Then they get their investments back - 4%.

Sure that's a bit simple, but my wife just informed me while I was typing this that it was "time for bed" so I'm not going to waste anymore time here typing.

 

[Infohawk]

I'm guessing federal employees don't have to make the public disclosures that politicians do. As a practical matter that is the difference.

You can't stop the flow of money from corporations and the rich to people in power. I don't see much point in regulating it except mandating that it be disclosed, which it most cases it is already. What you can do is vote the politicians that take advantage of it... But most people don't give a shit.

 

[werepossum]

Take it a step further. All their investments should be liquidated the day they take office and when they leave office they get their money back plus or minus what growth took place in the economy while they were in office.

Economy grew at 7%? Then they get their investments back + 7%. Economy shrank by 4%? Then they get their investments back - 4%.

Sure that's a bit simple, but my wife just informed me while I was typing this that it was "time for bed" so I'm not going to waste anymore time here typing.

Works for me.

I'm guessing federal employees don't have to make the public disclosures that politicians do. As a practical matter that is the difference.

You can't stop the flow of money from corporations and the rich to people in power. I don't see much point in regulating it except mandating that it be disclosed, which it most cases it is already. What you can do is vote the politicians that take advantage of it... But most people don't give a shit.

Arguably the present system is even worse in military procurement. Way too many generals and colonels retire and go to work with the big arms manufacturers, and often their job seems to be nothing more than reminding other generals and colonels that they too can have cushy and lucrative jobs after retirement as long as they don't buck the system. All too often it seems that this system results in less capable, less useful equipment reaching the troops at greatly enhanced prices. As an example, when the decision to buy the Stryker was made by Shinseki, Congress forced trials between the Stryker and a modernized version of the old M113. Although the M113A3 beat the Stryker hands down in the road march, the Stryker was adjudged the winner. Although the Stryker had no historical information trail on operating costs, it was assigned operating costs of $5/mile rather than using the costs of the closest thing to a Stryker, our LAV fleet, which made it the winner over the M113 which was set at $15/mile - the average cost of operating our M113 fleet in aggregate rather than the $7.50/mile of operating our M113A3 fleet. (Last I read the actual operating costs of our Stryker fleet was $50/mile and through better maintenance and operating restrictions they were hoping to eventually reach a goal of $25/mile.)

I don't know how one breaks such a cycle, but it is both driving up our defense costs and reducing our capabilities.

 

[dmcowen674]

Now on the other hand, our representatives are able to accept tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gifts from lobbyists either by actual gifts or generous campaign donations. and they worry about federal employees being influenced by companies?

bullshit if you ask me. this kind of stuff pisses me off.

Why do you think someone spends tens of millions for a $400,000 a year job?

 

[sandorski]

Works for me.


Arguably the present system is even worse in military procurement. Way too many generals and colonels retire and go to work with the big arms manufacturers, and often their job seems to be nothing more than reminding other generals and colonels that they too can have cushy and lucrative jobs after retirement as long as they don't buck the system. All too often it seems that this system results in less capable, less useful equipment reaching the troops at greatly enhanced prices. As an example, when the decision to buy the Stryker was made by Shinseki, Congress forced trials between the Stryker and a modernized version of the old M113. Although the M113A3 beat the Stryker hands down in the road march, the Stryker was adjudged the winner. Although the Stryker had no historical information trail on operating costs, it was assigned operating costs of $5/mile rather than using the costs of the closest thing to a Stryker, our LAV fleet, which made it the winner over the M113 which was set at $15/mile - the average cost of operating our M113 fleet in aggregate rather than the $7.50/mile of operating our M113A3 fleet. (Last I read the actual operating costs of our Stryker fleet was $50/mile and through better maintenance and operating restrictions they were hoping to eventually reach a goal of $25/mile.)

I don't know how one breaks such a cycle, but it is both driving up our defense costs and reducing our capabilities.

Stuff like that is a bigger problem. Not just with Military, but Politicians as well. A 5-10 year Ban on Employment with those they were associated with while in Office would be a good first step. Not just them though, but their immediate Family as well.

 

[Fenixgoon]

I'm guessing federal employees don't have to make the public disclosures that politicians do. As a practical matter that is the difference.

You can't stop the flow of money from corporations and the rich to people in power. I don't see much point in regulating it except mandating that it be disclosed, which it most cases it is already. What you can do is vote the politicians that take advantage of it... But most people don't give a shit.

not public disclosure, no, but you do have to make a disclosure, and may even be required to divest your stocks as a federal employee. congressmen only have to make the disclosure - they do not have to divest.

Why do you think someone spends tens of millions for a $400,000 a year job?

because you want to serve the country. duh. how worthwhile is it to become president? arguably the most stressful job period. do you really gain that much?
which brings me to a 2nd point - campaign finance reform. but that's a whole different topic

 

[Triumph]

this has always been a sore point for me, I, a lowly federal worker, with little to no influence on anything of real monetary affect, am restricted to $25 per even or $50 per year from any one company. all under the guise of preventing corruption and showing impartiality in the gov't. yet the people who hold the purse strings get to go to the superbowl?

 

[OBLAMA2009]

so the rules are different if youre rich and powerful...get over it!

 

[Paratus]

this has always been a sore point for me, I, a lowly federal worker, with little to no influence on anything of real monetary affect, am restricted to $25 per even or $50 per year from any one company. all under the guise of preventing corruption and showing impartiality in the gov't. yet the people who hold the purse strings get to go to the superbowl?

To make it clear, that means when a govt contravtor holds a week long meeting to cover the requirements of their project besides providing coffee and donuts they also provide a jar for civil servants to re-imburse the cost of any donuts or coffee taken.

 

[DesiPower]

ya... that's unbelievable... politicians getting free stuff from special interest groups and not giving a damn about the law... WTF???

 

[xj0hnx]

Take it a step further. All their investments should be liquidated the day they take office and when they leave office they get their money back plus or minus what growth took place in the economy while they were in office.

Economy grew at 7%? Then they get their investments back + 7%. Economy shrank by 4%? Then they get their investments back - 4%.

Sure that's a bit simple, but my wife just informed me while I was typing this that it was "time for bed" so I'm not going to waste anymore time here typing.

Politicians pay should definitely be somehow tied into job performance. As it is now there's really no system of accountability other than being voted out.

because you want to serve the country. duh. how worthwhile is it to become president? arguably the most stressful job period. do you really gain that much?
which brings me to a 2nd point - campaign finance reform. but that's a whole different topic

The presidency is the ultimate welfare case, a taxpayer funded paycheck, health care, and security for the rest of your life, for four to eight years worth of work.

 

[Paul98]

Yep this kind of thing is just wrong. Rules need to be changed to stop this sort of thing. Now I do see some problems with making a change. But it needs to be done.

 

[alkemyst]

because you want to serve the country. duh. how worthwhile is it to become president? arguably the most stressful job period. do you really gain that much?
which brings me to a 2nd point - campaign finance reform. but that's a whole different topic

The president doesn't gain much? wait wut?

 

[her209]

Take it a step further. All their investments should be liquidated the day they take office and when they leave office they get their money back plus or minus what growth took place in the economy while they were in office.

Economy grew at 7%? Then they get their investments back + 7%. Economy shrank by 4%? Then they get their investments back - 4%.

Sure that's a bit simple, but my wife just informed me while I was typing this that it was "time for bed" so I'm not going to waste anymore time here typing.

In order for that to work, you'd have to assume that politicians have 100% effect over the economy, not just a company or even industry. And then you'd have the politicians that come into office, give away everything to companies and reap the benefits of the bubble created, then leave office and let the next guy clean up the mess after the bubble popped.

 

[piasabird]

Basically you are saying that a politician is not allowed to invest? Get a life!

 

[Vette73]

Politicians pay should definitely be somehow tied into job performance. As it is now there's really no system of accountability other than being voted out.



The presidency is the ultimate welfare case, a taxpayer funded paycheck, health care, and security for the rest of your life, for four to eight years worth of work.

I know that is not true. I think the rule/law was changed when Clinton was in office to affect the next Prex, i.e. Bush2. Bush2 will only get it for 8 or 10years if I remember correct.

EDIT: Yep I was right, its 10year now.

In 1994, Congress limited this protection to ten years after leaving office.[34][35] Individuals who were in office before January 1, 1997 continue to receive Secret Service protection for their lifetime. Therefore, Bill Clinton is the last president to receive lifetime protection.

 

[lothar]

In order for that to work, you'd have to assume that politicians have 100% effect over the economy, not just a company or even industry. And then you'd have the politicians that come into office, give away everything to companies and reap the benefits of the bubble created, then leave office and let the next guy clean up the mess after the bubble popped.

This.

 

[Martin]

Well, corporations are people and people have freedom of speech. I can invite my buddies over to the Superbowl (and pay for their tickets/booze/hotel rooms/hookers), so why can't MegaCorp Inc invite Joe Politician?

You people just don't understand freedom.

 

[her209]

This.

After the poor guy is finished cleaning up the mess, then the other politician will swoop in with his rhetoric of "remember the days when we were prosperous? If you elect me, I will take us there again!"

 

[Darwin333]

I agree. Senators and Representatives at the state and federal level should be required to place all investments into blind trusts for the duration of their service. That way they could not be sure if a particular bill is going to help their bottom line or hurt it. (Though in reality, spouses' accounts would have the ability to determine this, and I doubt that such trusts would truly be blind no matter the law.) Otherwise such rules should be relaxed for government appointees as well.

On shame on Pennsylvania for allowing such lucrative gifts.

Didn't I read that the insider trading laws do not apply to Congress?

 

[airdata]

Aren't corporations now considered to be individuals?

This is the world we live in. It really doesn't matter if you vote, since you're not donating millions to the people in power.

 

[werepossum]

Didn't I read that the insider trading laws do not apply to Congress?

I believe that is true. One of the first things the Republicans did after the '94 takeover was to change the rules so that Congress could not exempt itself from any law it passed, but I believe that particular exemption still stands.

 

[xj0hnx]

I know that is not true. I think the rule/law was changed when Clinton was in office to affect the next Prex, i.e. Bush2. Bush2 will only get it for 8 or 10years if I remember correct.

EDIT: Yep I was right, its 10year now.

In 1994, Congress limited this protection to ten years after leaving office.[34][35] Individuals who were in office before January 1, 1997 continue to receive Secret Service protection for their lifetime. Therefore, Bill Clinton is the last president to receive lifetime protection.

So what? Ten years of Secret Service protection, a paycheck, and medical benefits is still ridiculous.