CAMPAIGN FINANCE & LOBBY REFORM WON'T DO THE JOB

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

In the wake of the Abramoff scandal, the clamor for reform rises to a crescendo in Washingtn DC and reverberates across the land. But a wise man long ago once advised that when people learned they could use money to buy advantages from their government, and when politicians learned they could use your money to buy your vote, it would be all over.

One modern wise man knows that new laws, rules, and regulations re campaign finance and lobbying will never solve the problem so long as Congress has the power to favor one person or group over another. He proposes that we take away that power. He favors the following:

Quote:

Whatever Congress does for one American it must do for all Americans. . . If Congress makes payments to one American for not raising pigs, every American not raising pigs must also receive payments. Obviously, were there to be such a law, there would be reduced capacity for privilege-granting by Congress and less influence-peddling.

So what do you think? Do you favor a government that treats everybody absolutely 100% the same and thus makes it virtually impossible to favor anybody? Or should some groups receive special consideration?

You can read the whole essay on this subject HERE

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,205 • Replies: 20

No top replies

For every difficult problem there's a simple solution - that's wrong - Albert Einstein

Demanding that everyone be treated equally would mean the government couldn't do anything at all.

Legislation itself defines victim and offender - well that's not equal treatment. Didn't read the essay - but the idea doesn't stand up to reducto ad absurdem.

0 Replies

I agree with the basic premise of the start of this thread. The reason lobbyists are even needed is because government is involved in things it should not even stick its nose into. They love to tweak peoples private business through tax law and all kinds of regulations. The legislators conducting all this frivolous government intrusion are mostly lawyers, that know little or nothing about agriculture, energy production, manufacturing, or any business for that matter. They know how to argue the law. That is their trade, so they love to make laws. Businesses and people are therefore by necessity having to hire lobbyists and band together in all kinds of organizations in an effort to first educate the politicians to some extent, and then try to ward off the worst kinds of legislative activity they possibly can.

Part of the problem also is that a large portion of the American people pay no income tax, so that they will naturally vote for anyone that will promise to give them something for nothing. If you don't have to pay for something, why not vote for it. It turns out that there is a free lunch after all.

I think there is rampant unethical government at all levels these days. Example. Local government offers a 5 year moratorium on property taxing a business, such as Home Depot, in order to lure the business to locate a new store in their town. Meanwhile, the local hardware store down the street has been paying taxes for the last 35 years, and no offer is extended to them. This type of thing has been going on all over the country. I think it is not only unethical, but should be unconstitutional. Frankly, I don't know why somebody hasn't tested more of this in the courts.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I agree with the basic premise of the start of this thread. The reason lobbyists are even needed is because government is involved in things it should not even stick its nose into. They love to tweak peoples private business through tax law and all kinds of regulations. The legislators conducting all this frivolous government intrusion are mostly lawyers, that know little or nothing about agriculture, energy production, manufacturing, or any business for that matter. They know how to argue the law. That is their trade, so they love to make laws. Businesses and people are therefore by necessity having to hire lobbyists and band together in all kinds of organizations in an effort to first educate the politicians to some extent, and then try to ward off the worst kinds of legislative activity they possibly can.

Part of the problem also is that a large portion of the American people pay no income tax, so that they will naturally vote for anyone that will promise to give them something for nothing. If you don't have to pay for something, why not vote for it. It turns out that there is a free lunch after all.

I think there is rampant unethical government at all levels these days. Example. Local government offers a 5 year moratorium on property taxing a business, such as Home Depot, in order to lure the business to locate a new store in their town. Meanwhile, the local hardware store down the street has been paying taxes for the last 35 years, and no offer is extended to them. This type of thing has been going on all over the country. I think it is not only unethical, but should be unconstitutional. Frankly, I don't know why somebody hasn't tested more of this in the courts.

They don't test more of it in the courts because the legal profession is too often as corrupt as is business. I'm not talking about honest lawyers taking honest cases and contributing legal expertise to the benefit of the community. Such lawyers, however, have to make a living and going against the legal fortresses of the politicians would be a very expensive proposition with no real hope of recouping one's expenses. And small business has to be careful about filing unwinnable suits lest they set unfortunate precedents that will make winning even harder.

Hingehead writes

Quote:

For every difficult problem there's a simple solution - that's wrong - Albert Einstein

Demanding that everyone be treated equally would mean the government couldn't do anything at all.

Legislation itself defines victim and offender - well that's not equal treatment. Didn't read the essay - but the idea doesn't stand up to reducto ad absurdem.

I agree that that there is not a simple solution for every problem. I disagree that there is no simple solution for this one or that demanding everybody be treated equally would mean that the government couldn't do anything at all.

Demanding that everybody be treated equally by government would simply remove government's ability to grant favors, buy votes, or have anything to gain from lobbyists.

It might even actually turn the ear of Congress back to the people and we would again have a truly representative government.

I think it's worth exploring.

0 Replies

What does it mean to treat everyone equally? I've never raised pigs, but I should get a tax break for not raising pigs? Makes no sense...

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

What does it mean to treat everyone equally? I've never raised pigs, but I should get a tax break for not raising pigs? Makes no sense...

No it does not mean you SHOULD get a tax break or subsidy for not raising pigs. But if ANYBODY gets a tax break or subsidy for not raising pigs then EVERYBODY who doesn't raise pigs gets the same tax break or subsidy. In other words it makes it unfeasible to do and greatly reduces the ability of the pig farmer lobby to buy special favors from legislators.

The one problem is that there would then be no incentive not to raise pigs, the market could be flooded making pork dirt cheap for the consumer but unprofitable for the farmer to produce, and pretty soon there could be pork shortages. Then farmers would begin to raise pigs again to meet market demand. I think eventually the old law of supply and demand would kick in so that just the right amount of pork was being produced. So there would be some gain and some pain in the process, but in the end we would have removed one way that politicians can be corrupted.

0 Replies

OK, how about this real-world scenario:

Last year I got a tax break for buying a hybrid car. This was because, presumably, the gov't wants to encourage people to buy fuel-efficient vehicles. Should a person buying a Humvee get the same tax break?

Or is the real agenda here to get the gov't out of the whole deal, and let the market decide. Because that's what it sounds like...

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

OK, how about this real-world scenario:

Last year I got a tax break for buying a hybrid car. This was because, presumably, the gov't wants to encourage people to buy fuel-efficient vehicles. Should a person buying a Humvee get the same tax break...

Well, without presuming to be an expert on this and with the understanding that I'm just applying my sense of logic to the issue, I think that is a different thing. If government has a good reason to influence a particular behavior and uses tax incentives to accomplish it, then I don't have a huge problem with that so long as it is applied even handedly across the board. So as long as anybody and everybody can benefit from a tax break by buying a hybrid car and every car maker has the option to produce them, then why not? I'm for reducing taxes any way it can be done just so long as everybody is treated the same as everybody else.

Quote:

Or is the real agenda here to get the gov't out of the whole deal, and let the market decide. Because that's what it sounds like.

Would that be such a bad thing? It would greatly hinder the ability of special interest groups to buy favors from their legislators.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
Or is the real agenda here to get the gov't out of the whole deal, and let the market decide. Because that's what it sounds like.

Would that be such a bad thing? It would greatly hinder the ability of special interest groups to buy favors from their legislators.

It would be a bad thing, in my opinion. If the market controlled everything, there wouldn't be zoning laws. There'd be no low-income housing, because the returns are better for higher priced housing. And so forth.

On the other hand, I do agree that the market can be effective in changing behaviors. The fact that GM and Ford are dying because they depended on SUVs for so long is a good example. Gas prices go up, and all of a sudden people worry about their mileage. That's the free market at work!

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
Or is the real agenda here to get the gov't out of the whole deal, and let the market decide. Because that's what it sounds like.

Would that be such a bad thing? It would greatly hinder the ability of special interest groups to buy favors from their legislators.

It would be a bad thing, in my opinion. If the market controlled everything, there wouldn't be zoning laws. There'd be no low-income housing, because the returns are better for higher priced housing. And so forth.

On the other hand, I do agree that the market can be effective in changing behaviors. The fact that GM and Ford are dying because they depended on SUVs for so long is a good example. Gas prices go up, and all of a sudden people worry about their mileage. That's the free market at work!

I'm not intending to argue with you here, D, because you very well may be right on this. I honestly don't know.

But it seems to me that zoning laws are something entirely different from what we're talking about here. And do you honestly think that builders would not meet the market demands anyway? There is no money in building high value housing if there are no customers to buy it and I can't believe the entire industry would turn up their nose at a huge market in lower income families and first time home buyers. And what politician is going to intentionally alienate 50% of their constituency?

The market can be a great equalizer too. If GM management is too stupid to read the market and build cars that people want, and their competitors got it right, then GM does not deserve to survive. Somebody is still going to produce the cars that the people want. Ford actually had a pretty good year in 2005 and are downsizing to meet the new market demands as they read the tealeaves probably more accurately than did GM. They aren't dying; just restructuring.

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

If the market controlled everything, there wouldn't be zoning laws. There'd be no low-income housing, because the returns are better for higher priced housing. And so forth.

Interestingly enough, in MA the main complaint is that people are using the zoning laws to keep out low income housing. The "free market" developers have been trying to build complexes in several areas but the zoning laws are constantly used to block them.

0 Replies

Foxy - Your link doesn't seem to be working. Can you repost it? I'd like to read the entire essay before I comment on what sounds like an absurd idea.

0 Replies

Hi Fishin. LTNS. Good to see you.

Don't know what happened to that link up there but here it is again:'

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/06/lobbyists.html

0 Replies

Thanks Foxy!

I did read the essay. It's waaaay short on any sort of specifics and while I agree with it's general sentiments I don't see any sort of pragmatic plan coming out of it.

0 Replies

No, sometimes he gives a lot of specifics but in this particular essay he was stating an economic principle. Paraphrased, I think his point is that no amount of campaign finance or lobby reform is going to be effective in curbing congressional graft so long as people are able to receive special favors from Congress.

Pig farming was just a good way to illustrate it and suggested a remedy: you won't be allowed to give favors to one group without giving favors to all.

0 Replies

I'm back absurdo reducting again

Shouldn't the employed get unemployment benefits?

Shouldn't every American get free flights in Air Force One?

Shouldn't the White House be available on a time share scheme?

Not too mention sorting out pay inequities between gov and non gov employees.

The point to this silliness is 'treating everyone equally' as a policy or guiding principle in terms of govt finance is silly. The point of political power is to improve things (which means change) but if you apply the same force to all objects then as far as the objects' frame of reference is concerned nothing has changed.

0 Replies

hingehead wrote:

I'm back absurdo reducting again

Shouldn't the employed get unemployment benefits?

Shouldn't every American get free flights in Air Force One?

Shouldn't the White House be available on a time share scheme?

Not too mention sorting out pay inequities between gov and non gov employees.

The point to this silliness is 'treating everyone equally' as a policy or guiding principle in terms of govt finance is silly. The point of political power is to improve things (which means change) but if you apply the same force to all objects then as far as the objects' frame of reference is concerned nothing has changed.

No, I think you're missing the point which is to remove or greatly reduce the ability of a wealthy few to buy favors from the government at the expense of everybody else. We aren't talking about government programs with fluid beneficiaries. We are talking about cash being infused into the system to manipulate tax codes, regulations, subsidies, and other such benefits that go to a select, well-financed few.

0 Replies

No, I don't think I'm missing the point, and I entirely agree with the sentiment on being funded for not growing pigs, however - the reasons for introducing no pig funding were real at the time - it's just the lack of review or sunset clauses that make them seem ridiculous after time.

Markets are a great mechanism for sorting out where resources go, on the downside they treat people like sh1t. Which is why govt's use the tools at their disposal (like tax cuts, subsidies, tariffs, monetary and fiscal policies) to try and make market shifts less 'people unfriendly'.

I entirely sympathize with your aims - I just don't trust simple answers in complex enviroments.

0 Replies

And sometimes we miss good solutions by dismissing the obvious as too simple or too easy.

0 Replies

Maybe. But I don't think anything that involves people can be simple.

Some people see the world in black and white. To me there's infinite shades of grey.

0 Replies

CAMPAIGN FINANCE & LOBBY REFORM WON'T DO THE JOB

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know