It's the Government! No, it's the Corporations! No, it's the Government!

[lektrode]

Re: It's the Government! No, it's the Corporations! No, it's the Government!

...But political office can still become very lucrative. Post-office a politician can get a choice job or a seat on a board of directors as repayment for their deeds.

precisely.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/index.php is illuminating, as is:

MF Global Saga Spotlights Crony Capitalism and Washington-Wall Street Revolving Door


but here's the most damning evidence: (from just last fall)

Former Alaska governor and GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin blasted rampant corruption in the marbled halls of Congress Friday, calling it an “endemic problem” affecting both parties.

“The only solution to entrenched corruption is sudden and relentless reform,” she wrote.

Palin’s remarks came in an op-ed column in The Wall Street Journal, in response to revelations this week that Congress has exempted itself from the prohibitions against insider trading that all other Americans are subject to.
Under current law, members of Congress are free to profit off of equity swings tied to pending legislative actions decisions they are privy to as members of Congress.

The Center for Responsive Politics has determined that 47 percent of all members of Congress are millionaires. This compares to about 1 percent of the population generally.

“How do politicians who arrive in Washington, D.C. as men and women of modest means leave as millionaires?” Palin asks in her column. “How do they miraculously accumulate wealth at a rate faster than the rest of us? How do politicians’ stock portfolios outperform even the best hedge fund managers?”

Palin’s answer: “Politicians derive power from the authority of their office and their access to our tax dollars, and they use that power to enrich and shield themselves.”

Special exemptions that Congress has written for itself to insider trading and other laws have come under intense scrutiny this week, in part due to the illuminating new book by Hoover fellow Peter Schweizer titled: “Throw Them All Out.”

“The very idea that politicians trade stocks while they are considering major bills comes as a shock to many people, but it is standard practice in Washington,” Schweizer writes in the book. As to Palin’s WSJ column, he tells Newsmax: “Governor Palin understands how Washington works and the battle that needs to be fought.”

A CBS 60 Minutes expose on Sunday highlighted trades made by former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and by Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., chairman of the House Financial Services committee.

Schweizer said Bachus received private briefings in 2008 from the Treasury Secretary and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve warning that the financial system was about to implode. He then made a series of investments that would generate profits as the market tanked. Bachus disputes Schweizer’s allegations, however.

Pelosi, a Democrat from San Francisco, also has denied making any inappropriate investments. Sources say Pelosi and husband Paul, an investor, bought stock in Visa when the House was considering a bill that would limit credit card companies’ ability to levy fees on consumers -- a significant source of their revenues. In response, Pelosi has touted her record as a champion of pro-consumer reforms.

Among the “money-making opportunities” for members of Congress Palin exposes in her column:

Insider Trading – using government information not available to the public at large to predict which companies’ stocks will rise or fall.

IPO Gifts – While it is illegal for members of Congress to accept cash gifts from interested parties, there is no restriction on their being offered initial public offerings in firms, which can be very profitable.

Self-Serving Earmarks – Some members of Congress have submitted infrastructure earmark requests for their districts that appeared to increase their value of their real estate holdings.

Encouraging Campaign Donations – Palin calls this “subtly extorting campaign donations through the threat of legislation unfavorable to an industry.”

Palin wrote that the revelations don’t surprise her, owing to her experience fighting cronyism as governor of Alaska. She said that Congress has largely exempted itself from compliance with the Freedom of Information Act used to obtain public documents. Also, unlike other government officials, members of Congress can punish staff members who expose abuses with impunity, because they aren’t subject to whistleblower laws, she said.

Palin called for “real transparency."

“From now on, laws that apply to the private sector must apply to Congress, including whistleblower, conflict-of-interest, and insider trading laws,” wrote Palin. “Trading on nonpublic government information should be illegal both for those who pass on the information and those who trade on it.”

On Tuesday, GOP Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts filed a bill to make it illegal for members of Congress or their staffs to disclose information or make investments related to pending legislation based on nonpublic government knowledge.

and more:
old news, yeah - but still as pertinent today as it was a year ago and yet we hear NOTHING about it THIS YEAR???

references Peter Schweizer's book Throw Them All Out.

According to a new book called Throw Them All Out by Peter Schweizer, as relayed by Dave Weigel at Slate, Rep. Bachus made more than 40 trades in his personal account in the summer and fall of 2008, in the early months of the financial crisis.

Weigel quotes from Schweizer's book.

On the evening of September 18, at 7 p.m., Bachus received [a] private briefing for congressional leaders by Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Ben Bernanke about the current state of the economy. They sat around a long table in the office of Nancy Pelosi, then the Speaker of the House. These briefings were secretive. Often, cell phones and Blackberrys had to be surrendered outside the room to avoid leaks.
As Paulson recounts, “Ben [Bernanke] emphasized how the financial crisis could spill into the real economy. As stocks dropped perhaps a further 20 percent, General Motors would go bankrupt, and unemployment would rise . . . if we did nothing.” The members of Congress around the table were, in Paulson’s words, “ashen-faced.”
Bernanke continued, “It is a matter of days before there is a meltdown in the global financial system.” Bachus was among those who spoke. According to Paulson, he suggested recapitalizing the banks by buying shares.
The meeting broke up. The next day, September 19, Congressman Bachus bought contract options on Proshares Ultra-Short QQQ, an index fund that seeks results that are 200% of the inverse of the Nasdaq 100 index. In other words, he was shorting the market. It was an inexpensive way to bet that the market would fall. He bought options for $7,846 on a day when the Dow Jones Industrial Average opened at 8,604. A few days later, on September 23, after the market had indeed fallen, he sold the options for over $13,000 and nearly doubled his money.

Lest you think that only Bachus was involved, Blodget also mentions John Kerry and Dick Durban. 60 Minutes interviewed Schweizer on November 13th. Here's part of that report.

When Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, and other lawmakers wouldn't answer Steve Kroft's questions, he headed to Washington to get some answers about their stock trades.

Go for it Steve!

Most former congressmen and senators manage to leave Washington - if they ever leave Washington - with more money in their pockets than they had when they arrived, and as you are about to see, the biggest challenge is often avoiding temptation.
Peter Schweizer: This is a venture opportunity. This is an opportunity to leverage your position in public service and use that position to enrich yourself, your friends, and your family.
Peter Schweizer is a fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford University. A year ago he began working on a book about soft corruption in Washington with a team of eight student researchers, who reviewed financial disclosure records. It became a jumping off point for our own story, and we have independently verified the material we've used.
Schweizer says he wanted to know why some congressmen and senators managed to accumulate significant wealth beyond their salaries, and proved particularly adept at buying and selling stocks.
Schweizer: There are all sorts of forms of honest grafts that congressmen engage in that allow them to become very, very wealthy. So it's not illegal, but I think it's highly unethical, I think it's highly offensive, and wrong.
Steve Kroft: What do you mean honest graft?
Schweizer: For example insider trading on the stock market. If you are a member of Congress, those laws are deemed not to apply.
Kroft: So congressman get a pass on insider trading?
Schweizer: They do. The fact is, if you sit on a healthcare committee and you know that Medicare, for example, is considering not reimbursing for a certain drug that's market moving information. And if you can trade stock on-- off of that information and do so legally, that's a great profit making opportunity. And that sort of behavior goes on.
Kroft: Why does Congress get a pass on this?
Schweizer: It's really the way the rules have been defined. And the people who make the rules are the political class in Washington. And they've conveniently written them in such a way that they don't apply to themselves.

I have searched for just the right response to this stuff, and I think I found it in something Matt Taibbi said while talking about the meaning of the Occupy movement.


We're all born wanting the freedom to imagine a better and more beautiful future. Modern America has become a place so drearily confining and predictable that it chokes the life out of that built-in desire. Everything from our pop culture to our economy to our politics feels oppressive and unresponsive. We see 10 million commercials a day, and every day is the same life-killing chase for money, money and more money; the only thing that changes from minute to minute is that every tick of the clock brings with it another space-age vendor dreaming up some new way to try to sell you something or reach into your pocket.


The relentless sameness of the two-party political system is beginning to feel like a Jacob's Ladder nightmare with no end; we're entering another turn on the four-year merry-go-round, and the thought of having to try to get excited about yet another minor quadrennial shift in the direction of one or the other pole of alienating corporate full-of-shitness is enough to make anyone want to smash his own hand flat with a hammer...

and on and on and ON:

Congress cleaning up its act? Don’t count on it





By JONATHAN ALLEN | 12/6/11 11:31 PM EST
House Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus made hundreds of financial transactions as the stock market plummeted and spiked in 2008, sometimes turning five-figure profits in a matter of hours.
Now, he wants to ban that practice.

Continue Reading


The sudden interest in financial ethics comes after Bachus, who sat in on high-level financial bailout meetings in 2008, was profiled in an unflattering new book and a companion “60 Minutes” piece on potential insider trading in Congress. Bachus’s new bill would require lawmakers to put their investments in blind trusts.

But here’s the kicker: The punishment for breaking the blind-trust rule, if it was enforceable, would be a $50,000 civil penalty — reminiscent of paltry pro-football fines that for years made after-the-whistle cheap shots on the quarterback seem worth the price.

Fine print aside, what the Bachus measure really shows is just how sensitive members of Congress have become to the public perception that they use their offices for personal gain. It’s just one of a bumper crop of feel-good ethics bills that have popped up as Congress’s approval ratings have cratered around the 10 percent mark.

Some lawmakers see this as a critical moment in trying to regain the trust of voters.

“We cannot survive as a democracy unless there is more confidence in our elected officials than there is now,” Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) said Tuesday at a Financial Services Committee hearing on the STOCK Act, which takes a different approach than the Bachus bill to preventing insider trading on Capitol Hill. “The first step to restore their trust is to be trustworthy.”

But are these types of bills going anywhere? Not likely — many don’t stand a chance of passing, but they make for good press release fodder.

Rep. Tim Griffin (R-Ark.) introduced a bill just before Thanksgiving that would end the congressional pension system for new members and force current members to opt-in if they want to continue to accrue benefits; Illinois Republican Tim Johnson’s “STAY PUT” bill would enact a moratorium on lawmakers using public money to take foreign trips; Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) wants to require members of Congress to disclose any tax liabilities so that their wages can be garnished; and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) wants to crack down on pay raises and foreign trips.

That’s the same McCaskill who used public funds to pay the costs of flights on a private plane that she and her husband co-owned with other investors. After POLITICO questioned McCaskill about the arrangement in March, she decided to reimburse the Treasury $88,000. Later that month, McCaskill announced that she would pay $287,273 in back taxes on the plane.


With the public angry at Congress, there’s a lot of incentive for a lawmaker to draw up a bill that limits congressional pay and benefits, even if it’s just a showpiece to demonstrate to constituents that the local congressman or congresswoman is fighting the powers-that-be on Capitol Hill.

So who could resist an effort — any effort — to clean up Congress? Well, the folks who would have to live under the new rules, of course.

In a thinly veiled swipe at “60 Minutes” and author Peter Schweizer, freshman Rep. Francisco Canseco (R-Texas) argued Tuesday that “innuendo and bad research” aren’t reason enough to approve the STOCK Act, which he said “would have the perverse effect of decreasing transparency.”
Canseco has his own solution: A resolution that would change House rules to require the use of blind trusts — a move that could happen without Senate action.
Critics across the ideological spectrum said the bill’s provisions cracking down on insider trading on Capitol Hill could have a chilling effect on lawmakers’ constitutionally protected speech.
Bachus announced Tuesday that his committee will vote on the STOCK Act next week, but he notes that current law already prohibits members of Congress — just like everyone else — from improperly using inside information to profit in stock deals.

“There is an erroneous perception that insider trading laws do not apply to members of Congress and congressional staff. That perception is unfortunate because it is false,” Bachus said in a statement. “However, legislation that clarifies and improves the existing law would be welcomed and committee members will have the opportunity to consider, debate and vote on H.R. 1148.

It’s possible that public outrage — and political need — could push legislation like the STOCK Act or the Bachus bill forward in advance of the 2012 election, but they haven’t gained that kind of traction yet.
John Wonderlich, policy director for the nonprofit Sunlight Foundation, said it will be a while before the STOCK Act or any of its cousins become law.

“One of the biggest hurdles to the insider-trading bills moving soon is a lack of consensus in Congress about what the right approach is to dealing with it,” he said.

That suggests that any insider-trading rules or laws would be written by congressional leaders, who would have to sort out those varying approaches and then come to a bipartisan agreement between the chambers — a tall order under any circumstances. But for now, everyone has a bill to point to as the means to clean up Washington.

“There’s almost always a sincere intention,” Wonderlich said of the members who introduce ethics bills. “And then there’s almost always an effort to tap into populist rage at the way Congress is functioning.”

right...
esp when their up for re-election.

so when anybody tells me that TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS isnt at least ONE way, if not The Best way to begin the process to fix the mess THE BOZOS OF THE BELTWAY HAVE CREATED ??

IMHO - they are PART OF THE PROBLEM and merely apologists for the status quo and continuation of the BLATANT AND IN YOUR FACE CORRUPTION that passes for 'governance'.

you can blame wall st all ya want, but its the political aristocracy that enables them!



TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS, NOW!

its really quite simply The Only Hope for REAL change we can believe in.

[Ghent12]

Re: It's the Government! No, it's the Corporations! No, it's the Government!

+1
and the main reason why we need T E R M L I M I T S for congress now

I really don't see how term limits serve to ameliorate any underlying cause of the mess we're in now. Seems like it would just result in fresh faces receiving the support of special interests for their promises of government support. It does nothing to address the matters of voting under extraordinary ignorance, the one-party/two-flavor system, or the reach that the private sector has into the public sector. Have Presidential term limits had the desired effect of addressing those or other factors you consider important in the political process? Empirically, I would answer no.

Term limits just seem to be a red herring. It seems to operate on the same level as prohibition--address the symptoms and not the disease.

[gwynedd1]

Re: It's the Government! No, it's the Corporations! No, it's the Government!

Some people value power and control over others far more than just money. In fact, many seek out wealth for the same end. It gives them power and prestige. Most billionaires are not in it for the cars, jewelry, homes, and yachts. If that were the case most would retire early and start enjoying themselves. Instead you see people like warren buffet working on until they drop. Its the game politicians and power seekers are both interested in. They just receive payment in different forms. Obama would probably choose 4 more years over a billion dollars. Not everyone is motivated by the same rewards.

But political office can still become very lucrative. Post-office a politician can get a choice job or a seat on a board of directors as repayment for their deeds.

They may value the power and control, however they don't bloat asset prices by requiring people to buy them with large debts. An expensive party in the white house? The scale is just not in the same category. Political power tends to be more labor intensive then the automatic wealth machines of land and money. That is why political and military acquisitions just don't compete with monetary and private land appropriation. FIRE sector economy is the primary power of the 21st century. Political and military power is like a model-T.

[lektrode]

Re: It's the Government! No, it's the Corporations! No, it's the Government!

I really don't see how term limits serve to ameliorate any underlying cause of the mess we're in now. Seems like it would just result in fresh faces receiving the support of special interests for their promises of government support. It does nothing to address the matters of voting under extraordinary ignorance, the one-party/two-flavor system, or the reach that the private sector has into the public sector. Have Presidential term limits had the desired effect of addressing those or other factors you consider important in the political process? Empirically, I would answer no.

so, we should just let the current occupant stay for life?
because throwing him out wont solve anything?

i'm quite sure this is how they rationalize things in the communist/3rd whirld/dictatorship countries as well.

i mean, look how things have worked out for cuba, syria, afghanistan, iran - and hey!
russia sure embodies the ideal of 'elections' when they pass the baton back n forth tween putin-kremlin&co - right?

Term limits just seem to be a red herring. It seems to operate on the same level as prohibition--address the symptoms and not the disease.

and your definition of the disease is what?

my definition of the disease:

an entrenched political aristocracy has allowed/enabled/legislated the corporate takeover of our government - their primary concern is maintaining their office/hold on power - this overides any other factor in how they vote on any given issue - their 'seniority' in the committee structure then allows them to 'horsetrade' with each other, as they cover for each others gorging at the federal hogtrough: you vote for my states's boondoggle and i'll cover yours - as the budget process has completely broken down (esp since 2007) there's NO sense of responsibility, NO concern whatsoever over trillion dollar deficits - the only thing that matters is getting re-elected and they then solicit and accept contributions from those most likely to have extreme conflicts of their citizens interests, if they are LARGE ENOUGH - to allow them to rationalize their 'end justifies any means' necessary.

couple this with one party being beholden to the public sector unions, maintaining of the status-quo buracracy that supports the education/welfare-industrial complex at any/all costs - never mind the big banking interests of lower manhattan - and with the other beholden to big oil and the military-industrial complex - with the medical/drug/insurance/legal/tortbar-industrial complex playing both sides against the middle...

then couple this with - what - 98% incumbency?, year after year, decade after decade for some of them - elected once and die in office????

methinks if the founding fathers saw what was going on, they too would demand term limits.
i also think that it never occurred to them that elected office would allow the accumulation of the wealth that we have seen or they certainly would've put term limits in place

its simple, in my simple little mind: if they knew beyond any shadow of doubt that they would be OUT OF OFFICE on some certain date, they would be far more likely to do the right thing, rather than do whats most politically expedient, for their own re-election and the larger public be damned - which is precisely whats been on full display - esp since 2007!

and that would include passage of legislation shutting down the influence-peddlers and their flow of campaign contributions that allow the various industrial complexes to target their enemies, replacing them with handpicked successors who will vote for their special interests

at least if they were automatically disqualified from returning to office, new ideas and strategies that have better chance of fixing things would be more likely to get attention - vs the status quo based upon seniority that guarantees its own continuation.

the status quo is killing us and the only way to fix it is to bring in new people on a regular basis, as the maintainers of the status quo have no intention whatsoever of changing a thing.

and the events since 2007 have proven this, conclusively, IMHO.

[lektrode]

Re: It's the Government! No, it's the Corporations! No, it's the Government!

They may value the power and control, however they don't bloat asset prices by requiring people to buy them with large debts.

no, the 'federal' reserve covers that function for them - and with the fine people running the fed, who needs politicians?

An expensive part in the white house? The scale is just not in the same category. Political power tends to be more labor intensive then the automatic wealth machines of land and money. That is why political and military acquisitions just don't compete with monetary and private land appropriation. FIRE sector economy is the primary power of the 21st century. Political and military power is like a model-T.

ok - but how did we get here?

1 - the 'federal' reserve (along with its re-instatement of the income tax)

2 - failure to dismantle the mil-industrial complex after ww2 (leading us directly to vietnam)

3 - allowing the unionization of the .gov labor force

4 - creation of the dependant-class with the 'great society' programs of the 60's

5 - "the liberal's" interpretation of the constitution

6 - repeal of glass-steagall

(and i'll hafta stop here, since i get quickly in over my head and cant spend all day typing or i'll get hell from the other half ;)

[gwynedd1]

Re: It's the Government! No, it's the Corporations! No, it's the Government!

no, the 'federal' reserve covers that function for them - and with the fine people running the fed, who needs politicians?



ok - but how did we get here?

1 - the 'federal' reserve (along with its re-instatement of the income tax)

2 - failure to dismantle the mil-industrial complex after ww2 (leading us directly to vietnam)

3 - allowing the unionization of the .gov labor force

4 - creation of the dependant-class with the 'great society' programs of the 60's

5 - "the liberal's" interpretation of the constitution

6 - repeal of glass-steagall

(and i'll hafta stop here, since i get quickly in over my head and cant spend all day typing or i'll get hell from the other half ;)

I still don't get the point? How do politicians benefit from public budgets because of this? The bulk of the money must come from the private sector. No former politician competes financially with these people.

His employers constitute the third order, that of those who live by profit. It is the stock that is employed for the sake of profit, which puts into motion the greater part of the useful labour of every society. The plans and projects of the employers of stock regulate and direct all the most important operations of labour, and profit is the end proposed by all those plans and projects. But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity, and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin. The interest of this third order, therefore, has not the same connection with the general interest of the society as that of the other two. Merchants and master manufacturers are, in this order, the two classes of people who commonly employ the largest capitals, and who by their wealth draw to themselves the greatest share of the public consideration. As during their whole lives they are engaged in plans and projects, they have frequently more acuteness of understanding than the greater part of country gentlemen. As their thoughts, however, are commonly exercised rather about the interest of their own particular branch of business, than about that of the society, their judgment, even when given with the greatest candour (which it has not been upon every occasion) is much more to be depended upon with regard to the former of those two objects, than with regard to the latter. Their superiority over the country gentleman is, not so much in their knowledge of the public interest, as in their having a better knowledge of their own interest than he has of his. It is by this superior knowledge of their own interest that they have frequently imposed upon his generosity, and persuaded him to give up both his own interest and that of the public, from a very simple but honest conviction, that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the public. The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

-Wealth of Nations.

The new breed landed gentry to exist in a democracy had to adjust their methods to that of the merchants where now the national wealth is acquired by the same means the merchants would use in their industry. The only reason to act against the public is explained by special interest. Otherwise their public compensation would benefit from the general rise in prosperity.

[lektrode]

Re: It's the Government! No, it's the Corporations! No, it's the Government!

I still don't get the point? How do politicians benefit from public budgets because of this? The bulk of the money must come from the private sector. No former politician competes financially with these people.

ok gwyn - methinks yer eggin me on here and of course i'm getting in over my head, but thats not quite enough to stop me, so i'll bite (again) - tho i think you know the answer as well as i:

"How do politicians benefit from public budgets?"

well - lets start with their salaries - congress makes what, 175grand/year?
plus bene's that very few other than the top1% will ever see (former queen nancy's private 757 being 'exhibit A')

has an insiders track on what the next juicy investments will be - esp after they rig the game in favor of who's ever paying them the most bribes... i mean.. campaign contributions.

get to scatter fed'l largesse at whatever pet project some sliver of the electorate is agitating for, thereby using the budget (that they have failed to even come up with for the past 6years) to buy a few more votes - regardless of how big the deficits have become, there is NOTHING MORE VALUABLE that this power and it is an ABSOLUTE POWER, which then corrupts absolutely

but maybe only a guy from new hampster can think this way tho, so i dunno....

His employers constitute the third order, that of those who live by profit. It is the stock that is employed for the sake of profit, which puts into motion the greater part of the useful labour of every society. The plans and projects of the employers of stock regulate and direct all the most important operations of labour, and profit is the end proposed by all those plans and projects. But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity, and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin. The interest of this third order, therefore, has not the same connection with the general interest of the society as that of the other two. Merchants and master manufacturers are, in this order, the two classes of people who commonly employ the largest capitals, and who by their wealth draw to themselves the greatest share of the public consideration. As during their whole lives they are engaged in plans and projects, they have frequently more acuteness of understanding than the greater part of country gentlemen. As their thoughts, however, are commonly exercised rather about the interest of their own particular branch of business, than about that of the society, their judgment, even when given with the greatest candour (which it has not been upon every occasion) is much more to be depended upon with regard to the former of those two objects, than with regard to the latter. Their superiority over the country gentleman is, not so much in their knowledge of the public interest, as in their having a better knowledge of their own interest than he has of his. It is by this superior knowledge of their own interest that they have frequently imposed upon his generosity, and persuaded him to give up both his own interest and that of the public, from a very simple but honest conviction, that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the public.

The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens.

The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention.

It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

-Wealth of Nations.

The new breed landed gentry to exist in a democracy had to adjust their methods to that of the merchants where now the national wealth is acquired by the same means the merchants would use in their industry. The only reason to act against the public is explained by special interest. Otherwise their public compensation would benefit from the general rise in prosperity.

sounds like the best arguement for TERM LIMITS IN CONGRESS that eye've seen lately, if'n ya asks me.

i would also go further and say that once out of office, they get nothing more than what the citizenry gets in the way of social security and medicare vs the lifetime gravytrain of bene's they themselves have voted for themselves.
read: they get to go back to work for a living, just like the NH state legislators do.
which keeps their interests directly aligned with The Rest of Us.

[cjppjc]

Re: It's the Government! No, it's the Corporations! No, it's the Government!

ok gwyn - methinks yer eggin me on here and of course i'm getting in over my head, but thats not quite enough to stop me, so i'll bite (again) - tho i think you know the answer as well as i:

"How do politicians benefit from public budgets?"

well - lets start with their salaries - congress makes what, 175grand/year?
plus bene's that very few other than the top1% will ever see (former queen nancy's private 757 being 'exhibit A')

has an insiders track on what the next juicy investments will be - esp after they rig the game in favor of who's ever paying them the most bribes... i mean.. campaign contributions.

get to scatter fed'l largesse at whatever pet project some sliver of the electorate is agitating for, thereby using the budget (that they have failed to even come up with for the past 6years) to buy a few more votes - regardless of how big the deficits have become, there is NOTHING MORE VALUABLE that this power and it is an ABSOLUTE POWER, which then corrupts absolutely

but maybe only a guy from new hampster can think this way tho, so i dunno....





sounds like the best arguement for TERM LIMITS IN CONGRESS that eye've seen lately, if'n ya asks me.

i would also go further and say that once out of office, they get nothing more than what the citizenry gets in the way of social security and medicare vs the lifetime gravytrain of bene's they themselves have voted for themselves.
read: they get to go back to work for a living, just like the NH state legislators do.
which keeps their interests directly aligned with The Rest of Us.

Seems like that covers alot. I also wonder if because of the constant groveling for money and votes, many of these life time members feel entitled to the perks you listed.

[gwynedd1]

Re: It's the Government! No, it's the Corporations! No, it's the Government!

ok gwyn - methinks yer eggin me on here and of course i'm getting in over my head, but thats not quite enough to stop me, so i'll bite (again) - tho i think you know the answer as well as i:

"How do politicians benefit from public budgets?"

well - lets start with their salaries - congress makes what, 175grand/year?
plus bene's that very few other than the top1% will ever see (former queen nancy's private 757 being 'exhibit A')

OK my statement was ambiguous. How do politicians benefit from mismanaging the country? I offer that they don't. They only benefit from mismanagement when public funds are converted to private funds.

has an insiders track on what the next juicy investments will be - esp after they rig the game in favor of who's ever paying them the most bribes... i mean.. campaign contributions.

That's the private link. That is not from the public budget.

get to scatter fed'l largesse at whatever pet project some sliver of the electorate is agitating for, thereby using the budget (that they have failed to even come up with for the past 6years) to buy a few more votes - regardless of how big the deficits have become, there is NOTHING MORE VALUABLE that this power and it is an ABSOLUTE POWER, which then corrupts absolutely

Politicians don't have absolute power. Politicians are public. In any strategic art I have engaged in it was identifying targets that was key. Senators used to be killed all the time. Billionaires from behind the scenes have power, not these puppets who play an open handed deck.

]
but maybe only a guy from new hampster can think this way tho, so i dunno....



sounds like the best arguement for TERM LIMITS IN CONGRESS that eye've seen lately, if'n ya asks me.

i would also go further and say that once out of office, they get nothing more than what the citizenry gets in the way of social security and medicare vs the lifetime gravytrain of bene's they themselves have voted for themselves.
read: they get to go back to work for a living, just like the NH state legislators do.
which keeps their interests directly aligned with The Rest of Us.

At this point, along with term limits I think candidates should be randomly picked from the jury system. Have it randomly pick a thousand people and then vote for one of them. If our government of checks and balances is what we say it is, even if all of them are bad as a statistical fluke we are good. No one can tell me that's crazy. What we are doing is now is lunacy.

[santafe2]

Re: It's the Government! No, it's the Corporations! No, it's the Government!

This is a very short term view of modern politics. It's not a new version of the original statement, just a negative view down the rabbit hole. The middle man has been removed. Your post allows one to assume that iTuip thinks FIRE is winning. It is not. FIRE lost in 2007 but it will take another generation or two to purge it from our culture.

The iTulip version.

[Ghent12]

Re: It's the Government! No, it's the Corporations! No, it's the Government!

so, we should just let the current occupant stay for life?
because throwing him out wont solve anything?

Only one President has served more than two terms, yet there was no legal restriction against third or subsequent terms until after his death. I am willing to "let the current occupant stay for life" if that's what voters decide is best. I would prefer that we have a better stock of voters, however.

and your definition of the disease is what?

my definition of the disease:

an entrenched political aristocracy has allowed/enabled/legislated the corporate takeover of our government - their primary concern is maintaining their office/hold on power - this overides any other factor in how they vote on any given issue - their 'seniority' in the committee structure then allows them to 'horsetrade' with each other, as they cover for each others gorging at the federal hogtrough: you vote for my states's boondoggle and i'll cover yours - as the budget process has completely broken down (esp since 2007) there's NO sense of responsibility, NO concern whatsoever over trillion dollar deficits - the only thing that matters is getting re-elected and they then solicit and accept contributions from those most likely to have extreme conflicts of their citizens interests, if they are LARGE ENOUGH - to allow them to rationalize their 'end justifies any means' necessary.

What's the alternative? You talk about how politicians should be concerned about responsibility and their citizens' interests, yet taken to a logical extreme if you were to set the term limit at one term then you lose all accountability to voters. At least when politicians are trying to get re-elected they have the incentive to make decisions that will at least be presentable as positive in the near to mid-term. Even when they are overtly corrupt or irresponsible to their duties they must still win re-election. It is the fault of the citizens if they re-elect an ineffective politician, no matter how much spin is involved. The real disease resides in the voting public and the extraordinarily lax standards in who gets to vote. Have a pulse and have been on the planet for 18 revolutions around the sun? Okay, then you get to decide the fate of the country. Term limits do absolutely nothing to address this significant impediment to good governance.

[don]

Re: It's the Government! No, it's the Corporations! No, it's the Government!

Term limits do absolutely nothing to address this significant impediment to good governance.

Term limits, under the current setup of $$$ buys elections, along with blaming the gummit for every malfeasance, is - intentionally intended or not - simply a smokescreen for FIRE, a half-step from FOX newz explanation for Whatz Up.

[lektrode]

Re: It's the Government! No, it's the Corporations! No, it's the Government!

Term limits, under the current setup of $$$ buys elections, along with blaming the gummit for every malfeasance, is - intentionally intended or not - simply a smokescreen for FIRE, a half-step from FOX newz explanation for Whatz Up.

so - again - we should just not 'rock the boat' - right?

and just sit back/rest easy and let the political aristocracy continue on their merry way, spending The Rest of Us into bankruptcy/oblivion, and indentured servitude/slavery while they - having no incentive whatsoever to do anything but what their campaign CONtributors (FIre, big unions, big ed, big oil, big law, big meds, big mil) bid them to do - and perhaps throw a few crumbs to the masses, shower a little more regulation here n there, give a few more cronies a tax break here n there, dump another few more billion into 'education' here n there (that continues to dilute the value of said 'education', just like they and the fed have done to the dollar)

while further padding their own salaries/benefits/retirement plans, while ours get stripped, via 'moderating inflation' and the fraudulant CPI

and everything will be just dandy - right?

not that 'the current setup' exists because thats the way they set it up - or -

simply because why should or would they ever change it?

hey - mights well just vote for the incumbents - after all, they've all done a simply smashing job - esp the prez - i mean he didnt really sell us down the river to bailout the banksters - right?

and those wonderul new laws we got the past 4 years are gonna fix everything - we just need to give em some time and - well.... we can always buy gold - so - whats to worry about - right?

our government really does have our best interests in mind - right?

so why even bother with the farce of elections anyway - right?

again i say: those who say term limits wont solve anything are merely enablers and apologists for the status quo.

but then... i dont watch foxnews, i watch pbs.

[lektrode]

Re: It's the Government! No, it's the Corporations! No, it's the Government!

Only one President has served more than two terms, yet there was no legal restriction against third or subsequent terms until after his death. I am willing to "let the current occupant stay for life" if that's what voters decide is best. I would prefer that we have a better stock of voters, however.

considering the results of the last one (2008) i would agree most whole-heartedly with you there.

What's the alternative? You talk about how politicians should be concerned about responsibility and their citizens' interests, yet taken to a logical extreme if you were to set the term limit at one term then you lose all accountability to voters. At least when politicians are trying to get re-elected they have the incentive to make decisions that will at least be presentable as positive in the near to mid-term. Even when they are overtly corrupt or irresponsible to their duties they must still win re-election. It is the fault of the citizens if they re-elect an ineffective politician, no matter how much spin is involved. The real disease resides in the voting public and the extraordinarily lax standards in who gets to vote. Have a pulse and have been on the planet for 18 revolutions around the sun? Okay, then you get to decide the fate of the country. Term limits do absolutely nothing to address this significant impediment to good governance.

i guess your right - the voting public is to blame - we just keep re-electing the same career political hacks because, well - they dont mean to be corrupt, but when faced with the loss of their gravytrain-for-life... well - what would any of us do - right?

and even tho they allowed - nay - legislated the failure of the financial system, they didnt really mean for that to happen - so we'll just BLAME THE VOTERS FOR BEING STUPID AND MISLED/BRAINWASHED BY THE LAMESTREAM/LIBERAL-RUN MEDIA - ok, i get it now.

i got ya - yep - guess its just too bad that i grew up in a place that has no income tax, no sales tax and a legislature that makes 100bux a year, while maintaining one of the best quality of living environments in the US - so i got no idea what life in the 'real world' is all about - guess its too bad i didnt grow up in NY or IL or CA - where the voters are just soooo smart/educated - right?

guess its not all glamor being the redneck/hillbilly that i am.

[don]

Re: It's the Government! No, it's the Corporations! No, it's the Government!

"Throwing the Bums Out" on anything but a local level is a waste of good intentions. 'tulipers are well versed in the monumental obstacles to political representation that can afford, or even want to, run counter to their absolutely essential bagmen and their agendas. Fitts is right. If you're burning to make a difference, do it locally where you have a shot. Anything beyond a city council or small mayoral contest is blown away by the money needed to run. Nobody gets to state level without being vetted that they are players and not crazy shit disturbers. A few mavericks are tolerated only if they never present real obstacles to essential legislation. If they do they are dealt with. That's the historical record. (and none of this takes into consideration other factors - refined voter fraud (diebold), an historical context to our domestic politics - wherever we are in the downward arc of the American Century, reflected in the increasing concentration of power in the executive branch - the security state construct, etc.) "Throw the Bums Out" . . . if only it was that simple.