Richie Waves

Lobbyists Call On Barack Obama To Tone Down Anti-Lobbyist Rhetoric

Wrong Weatherwax

"We have big backers who are willing to pay you to shut up about us."

__________________
An education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease. It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on. -Terry Pratchett

The QuietOne

Not for nothing, but most of them have always been soulless influence peddlers. But I at least gave them credit for owning their shit...but to whine about Obama being a meanie to them? Seriously?

And since average Americans can't afford lobbyists, why should we care their feelings are hurt? They make millions selling time and access to politicians. Me thinks someone is cranky about the STOCK Act.

If you're going to be a lobbyist, I say go for it, but at least own who you are.

Cory Edo

FREE BUSINESS TIP: When you write an open letter to the President representing your profession, spell his freakin' name right you bunch of amateurs

Ann Otoole

Elected reps accepting money should be illegal. But they would simply do it at offshore banks via fake companies instead.

I can't believe these guys misspelled the President's name lol. Major points there hahahah.

Imnotgoing Sideways

Why would they bother spelling his name right? They barely recognize him as president... Let alone American... Let alone human... (=_=)

__________________
Link

Jahar Aabye

Actually, they do kinda have a point. Yes, I know, "lobbyists r bad, mmkay" but what they are saying is that the Obama administration has hired people who were lobbyists in all but name after they left. Most public policy analysts have engaged in lobbying or at least worked with lobbyists or in environments where lobbying took place (ie conference calls discussing how best to present an issue to congressmen). So when the Obama administration says "our employees won't become lobbyists for two years after leaving", they really mean they won't be a part of subset of lobbyists who were the ones who were required under law to register as lobbyists.

Here's why Obama's policy is idiotic: Someone who worked for the administration, let's say as an undersecretary at HHS, wouldn't be allowed to then, after leaving, work to prevent legislators from passing these asinine restrictions on womens' health for two years. Or someone who worked at the Department of Energy wouldn't be allowed to advocate for subsidies for green energy or a higher tax on gasoline for two years after working there.

Or at least, that's what his policy says. Technically they can't register as lobbyists, but they can engage in lobbying in many different ways. So all that the policy amounts to is demeaning lobbyists without actually doing anything.

I think it's a major mistake for Obama to criticize lobbyists even while he works with and has friends and former employees who are lobbyists in all but name. I get that bashing lobbyists is hip and cool and all, but it's complete bullshit lip-service. It's like the old saying that a special interest group is any group whose views you don't like (in other words, groups you support, you don't consider to be "special interest groups").

I understand, politically, why Obama does this, but that doesn't mean that I think it's a particularly intellectually honest way of doing things. I don't think that he should place more restrictions on the political activities that his employees engage in after leaving, but the alternative is that he has to address the really prejudiced and unrealistic views that most people have about "lobbyists", and explaining a complex topic to the general American audience is pretty much impossible.

__________________
He pulled a Captain Ahab and Jaharpwn'ed her. - Trout

Richie Waves

Your a shill Jahar... a shill. I really hope people know when they read Jahars posts on here that he's nothing but that.

Wrong Weatherwax

Demeaning? I disagree, rather those restrictions have to be loose to even constitute reasonability or consideration in a contract. You can't very well hamstring a person's livelihood based on a policy consideration alone. Contracts, especially restrictive contracts that stipulate clauses like this, similar to non-competes must conform to certain exceptions that don't negate the entirety of a person's skill set.

So the President pursues the only path that's really available to him legally in these separations.

Jahar Aabye

Yeah, but that's part of my point, why does he need to go down that path in the first place? All that he's doing is perpetuating ignorant misunderstanding of what lobbying is, pandering to...well to people like Ritchie, for example.

Dancien Graves

It was driving me nuts.

Wrong Weatherwax

Because it reflects policy? The idea being that at least at separation there is no direct lobbying action even though someone with a modicum of contract law understands that it can be worked around. Its a token gesture in my opinion.

As to the issue of lobbyists, I agree that there is a large misunderstanding of what lobbies do for America, though I don't think there is any misunderstanding in how its turned policy into a corporate shark tank. Personally, I'd love to see the practice of cash for policy votes go the way of the dodo but I'm realistic enough to believe that sort of legislation will ever come from the top offices.

And so, they make a token gesture like this.

Joshua Nightshade

US Politics | AMERICAblog News: "Selling out pays"—When a Congressman becomes a lobbyist, he gets an average 1,400% raise

This is, ultimately, the problem. People are using their time in a public office as a stepping stone to more lucrative work down the road. It's not about serving your country, or even your constituents; it's about sucking whatever you can from a role in order to make more money when you finally get voted out.

That sort of job-jumping is frowned at even in the corporate world (suggesting your interest in a position is only for what it can do to get you a better one is the fastest way to not get hired) so it's pretty shameful to be the only objective when you work in government too.

__________________

Baltha

I'm almost beginning to believe that public office should be treated similarly to jury duty.
If your SSN gets drawn from the hat, you get to spend a year in Washington as a representative with your employer being compensated from the public purse. A plan like this may be unworkable but holding office needs to be treated as a duty and an honour, not a prize trip to the hog trough.

__________________

Jahar Aabye

I think that you are dramatically overestimating the intelligence of the average person.

Baltha

Probably but I'll take my chances with stupidity vs knowing, deliberate, avarice any day.

Joshua Nightshade

I'm frankly more worried about intelligent people in office than idiots.

Han Held

I'm more worried about True Believers in office, regardless of intelligence...

__________________
Drama is easy
with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you read

Joshua Nightshade

Han, are you implying lobbying is a religion?

Kara Spengler

Maybe the post office should have returned it marked that there was no such person at that address?

Or does him having a letter with that big a goof make them lose even more credibility?

__________________

Kara Spengler

I just found another goof. When addressing the president, ESPECIALLY formally, you do not address him by name but by title. Like "Mr. President, "Dear Mr. President", or "The President of the United States of America". Lobbyists are paid to know things like that.

Jahar Aabye

I think that the Bush administration demonstrated fairly well how avarice will easily take advantage of stupidity and ineptitude. Additionally, at least one would think that a greedy but intelligent person would at least try not to fuck things up too badly, on the grounds that it would hurt those people too.

I'm not saying that greed is good, only that it's got nowhere near the destructive power of pure unadulterated incompetence. Look at it this way, regardless of whether greed was one factor in getting us into the war in Iraq, it took incompetence of astronomical proportions to then begin the invasion without any plan at all for postwar occupation. The result turned a horrific event into a decade-long orgy of destruction, violence, and instability.

Adam Zaius

I'd have to vote for malevolent dictator over incompetence too.

At least the bastard will respect his investments; and likely has the intellectual chops to make the most of it.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Ignore Adam, he's just a troll.

Darnk Yun

__________________
Ahaha, such a simpleton. It'z so much fun playing jokez on you. I waz only here to see how she waz doing, but I had fun while I waz at it. So long, Sere, au revoir, mon ami! Pleaze dream of moi every night! Oui! ~ Harle

http://leechmouth.deviantart.com/

Jahar Aabye

Usually the competent ones don't go the route to becoming a malevolent dictator, though. It's the incompetent ones whose biggest fear is someone smarter than them. The Khmer Rouge even went as far as imprisoning and/or killing people who wore eyeglasses because it was seen as a sign of being intellectual.

Mao probably holds the record for most subjects killed via incompetence, although I doubt his record will hold forever. I doubt that Bush's death toll, even if one includes non-Americans, would come close, but I wouldn't be surprised if a Palin presidency challenged the record.