He's not wrong here: Matt Gaetz

[George K]

He's kind of a douchebag, but here, he makes good points.

[Jolly]

He's right.

Now...Waiting for Phibes to tell us what a horrible person he is, so he should be ignored.

[Horace]

Good stuff.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Jolly said in He's not wrong here: Matt Gaetz:

Now...Waiting for Phibes to tell us what a horrible person he is, so he should be ignored.

[Jolly]

Nothing passive about my statement. You stand on a heap of shot messengers.

[Horace]

Messenger mass murdering monster.

[Doctor Phibes]

Fucking messengers. I hate them all.

[Mik]

I could get behind all that, especially the single subject rule. These patchwork bills are where spending goes wild.

[Doctor Phibes]

I actually agree with all of that, although I don't think a life-time ban on lobbying is realistic.

Maybe they should pay members of congress more as a base salary, and then remove all the opportunities for corruption?

[Mik]

There isn't enough money in the world to do that.

[jon-nyc]

(1) is posturing as it's already been ruled unconstitutional.

(2) I'm ok with but it doesn't animate me all that much. It would just empower senior Hill staffers more, a group that already has a high outflow to lobbying firms.

(3) Hear, hear.

(4) I get his point but it's impractical. Major legislation on any particular subject area is too infrequent, so you need the flexibility to get tweaks and changes into whatever bill is gaining momentum. That's how the legislation I've been pushing will end up getting passed.

[Jolly]

Infrequent is good. I'd like to narrow it down a bit and let the Congress critters actually read and discuss non-byzantine legislation.

But I would also be in favor of a calendar where no major bills would be discussed and voted on, and only less expensive minor bills would be considered. Or where multiple minor bills could be grouped under one subject area.

[LuFins Dad]

@jon-nyc said in He's not wrong here: Matt Gaetz:

(1) is posturing as it's already been ruled unconstitutional.

(2) I'm ok with but it doesn't animate me all that much. It would just empower senior Hill staffers more, a group that already has a high outflow to lobbying firms.

(3) Hear, hear.

(4) I get his point but it's impractical. Major legislation on any particular subject area is too infrequent, so you need the flexibility to get tweaks and changes into whatever bill is gaining momentum. That's how the legislation I've been pushing will end up getting passed.

1. Listen again. He’s not proposing legislation, he’s proposing Constitutional Amendments. Can a Constitutional Amendment be found Unconstitutional?

2. It seems you would also need to ban immediate family members as well, and that starts getting iffy.

3. Yes.

4. We’re not talking about tweaks, we’re talking about completely unrelated topics.

[taiwan_girl]

I think he does make a lot of good points, especially the first one. Large donations to a candidate are kind of like "official bribes". If someone (or some organization) donates thousands or millions to a candidate, you can be sure that they want something in return.

Regarding salaries. I think I have mentioned this before, but Singapore saw this as a problem. Some of the best people that would help run government were not available because they could make much much more in the private area. Their philosophy was that if someone is going to be named as head of a multi-billion dollar organization that has thousands or employees, then we have to be competitive with industry if we expect to get the best people. (This may not apply directly to elected officials, but maybe their salaries should be higher.)