Great Trump policy!!

[Augustus]

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Monday will propose a five-year ban on executive branch officials lobbying after they leave government if he is elected, according to excerpts of a speech on fixing ethics problems in Washington.

Trump also will say he plans to ask Congress to impose its own five-year ban on former lawmakers and their staff lobbying as well as set a lifetime ban on senior executive branch officials lobbying for foreign governments.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-ethics-idUSKBN12H2NN

He might be a total ****, but credit where it is due. The political corruption of former politicians and government employees going straight into highly paid lobbying positions is an insult to democracy.

10 years would be better, and should apply to all political office holders and senior government employees, but it's better than nothing.

At the moment there is a tacit agreement that after you leave public service you will become rich using your connections to assist private interests as long as you play ball during your time on the public payroll.

Removing this option gives a better chance of people acting in the public interest, rather than their own.

Hopefully Hillary will bite the hand that feeds her and do likewise, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Countries all around the world should be tackling this issue. We can but live in hope.

 

[Scuba Pete]

It's been proposed before and shot down by Congress. He certainly didn't think of it.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

It's a good idea, and I'm glad he brought it up as an issue, even if he didn't think of it.

More should be aware of how corrupting this is.

 

[Augustus]

It's been proposed before and shot down by Congress.

What was the reasoning?

Self interest?

 

[Scuba Pete]

What was the reasoning?

Self interest?

It's come up several times over the years... I haven't seen Trump's suggested policy yet. He often just blurts stuff out that's not thought through or written out. Anyone have a link to this?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

At the same time, the other part of the loop needs to be addressed: people from private companies being appointed to lead agencies and sit on commissions and boards that regulate the companies that they are coming from. Yes, they have important and valuable knowledge about their particular industry, but it is highly likely (and it's been demonstrated to visibly occur) that they will represent the interests of their own company, and/or industry, rather than the interests of the nation.

 

[idav]

Are we kidding ourselves into thinking lobbying doesn't happen during office. If they do that for all branches of government and not just picking on the executive then you have something. As if the executive branch actually passes any laws.

 

[Sunstone]

It doesn't much matter who originally thought of it, but it's a good policy, and I'm glad to see Trump is making it an issue in this campaign.

 

[Scuba Pete]

that they will represent the interests of their own company, and/or industry, rather than the interests of the nation.

Shades of Haliburton's War!!!

 

[leibowde84]

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Monday will propose a five-year ban on executive branch officials lobbying after they leave government if he is elected, according to excerpts of a speech on fixing ethics problems in Washington.

Trump also will say he plans to ask Congress to impose its own five-year ban on former lawmakers and their staff lobbying as well as set a lifetime ban on senior executive branch officials lobbying for foreign governments.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-ethics-idUSKBN12H2NN

He might be a total ****, but credit where it is due. The political corruption of former politicians and government employees going straight into highly paid lobbying positions is an insult to democracy.

10 years would be better, and should apply to all political office holders and senior government employees, but it's better than nothing.

At the moment there is a tacit agreement that after you leave public service you will become rich using your connections to assist private interests as long as you play ball during your time on the public payroll.

Removing this option gives a better chance of people acting in the public interest, rather than their own.

Hopefully Hillary will bite the hand that feeds her and do likewise, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Countries all around the world should be tackling this issue. We can but live in hope.

This has been brought up before, and never made it past congress. Not a new idea, and a failing, unrealistic one at that. So, it's basically just a diversion from his spiraling campaign aimed at fooling the foolish.

 

[Augustus]

This has been brought up before, and never made it past congress. Not a new idea, and a failing, unrealistic one at that. So, it's basically just a diversion from his spiraling campaign aimed at fooling the foolish.

Why do you see an attempt to deal with a serious problem as being a diversion? If Obama had proposed such a policy would it have been a distraction?

Why is it 'failing and unrealistic'? Is it unconstitutional or is congress just too corrupt?

Are we kidding ourselves into thinking lobbying doesn't happen during office. If they do that for all branches of government and not just picking on the executive then you have something. As if the executive branch actually passes any laws.

Better to start somewhere than nowhere.

At the same time, the other part of the loop needs to be addressed: people from private companies being appointed to lead agencies and sit on commissions and boards that regulate the companies that they are coming from. Yes, they have important and valuable knowledge about their particular industry, but it is highly likely (and it's been demonstrated to visibly occur) that they will represent the interests of their own company, and/or industry, rather than the interests of the nation.

Read an example about the UK where the Civil Servant who was in charge of drafting some tax regulations was hired by the private sector as soon as they were completed. His new job? Advising on tax avoidance and taking advantage of loopholes.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's been proposed before and shot down by Congress. He certainly didn't think of it.

This is wrongful criticism.
People deserve credit for a proposal because it is good...not because they invented it.
Original thought is a wonderful thing, but a politician's job is to craft the best public
policy from all available ideas. (Note that Hillary & Gary have no original ideas either.)
It's like engineering...
At times I invented something new, but most of the time I didn't re-invent the wheel.
I'd steal the best ideas I could.
But as someone once said it better....
We stand on the shoulders of giants.

 

[ShivaFan]

This is a great idea, I also saw it proposed among supporters of the anti-establishment base though not worded exactly like this viz 'five years', Nationalists, and among other political affiliations. Actually I have already read this in one Trump literature. This is a concern for a long time, and now more power behind this type of reform.

 

[Scuba Pete]

This is wrongful criticism.

It wasn't a criticism, but a statement of fact. It was being presented as a novel idea, when it wasn't. Why don't you like facts?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why don't you like facts?

They smell like mint.
I hate mint.

 

[Scuba Pete]

They smell like mint.
I hate mint.

At least you admit you don't like them. That's a step in the right direction.

 

[Revoltingest]

At least you admit you don't like them. That's a step in the right direction.

I know you were just being mischievous with the loaded question,
but this is a good opportunity to examine the use of "facts".
Do you know what they are?
They're simply opinions which are so widely held that people believe they're inerrant truth.
Most of the time they're wrong....or worse yet, they're not even capable of being shown false.
(Think of Wolfgang Pauli's criticism here.)

 

[leibowde84]

Why do you see an attempt to deal with a serious problem as being a diversion? If Obama had proposed such a policy would it have been a distraction?

Why is it 'failing and unrealistic'? Is it unconstitutional or is congress just too corrupt?



Better to start somewhere than nowhere.



Read an example about the UK where the Civil Servant who was in charge of drafting some tax regulations was hired by the private sector as soon as they were completed. His new job? Advising on tax avoidance and taking advantage of loopholes.

I'm not saying that it's necessarily a bad idea. It is merely one that has been attempted and has failed. I wouldn't say that congress is too corrupt for it, but they are unwilling, as it would severely limit job prospects for members after their terms. It facially seems like a good idea, but it is asking for members to give up a lot of their own freedom. In other words, I can see where they are coming from.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Just a minor edit: not a ban on lobbying, but a ban on serving as a paid lobbyist.

 

[Augustus]

I wouldn't say that congress is too corrupt for it, but they are unwilling, as it would severely limit job prospects for members after their terms.

This corruption is exactly why they have such job prospects. Play ball and riches could be yours. Even the potential for such split loyalties should be enough to prohibit it, never mind the ample evidence of it occurring.

It facially seems like a good idea, but it is asking for members to give up a lot of their own freedom. In other words, I can see where they are coming from.

It reduces their chance to personally enrich themselves on the back of public office?

It's also hardly giving up 'a lot' of their own freedom, they can do anything they want except leveraging their connections made on the public payroll to become a paid shill for private interests at the public's expense.