Corporate welfare bums and politics

[eyeball]

You are always obsessing about secrecy but this has to be the most insane idea yet.

Well, as I've pointed out, I'm subject to government video and GPS monitoring when I go to work to verify my claims and to keep me honest. Fishermen are also required to take human observers with them to sea if an audit of their data shows too many discrepancies. This is done to protect your interest.

Do not try to tell me what is impossible or insane. The fact of the matter is this, methods to monitor people for compliance with regulations and to protect the public's interest are not only entirely possible they're being utilized as we speak.

There may not be any need to make everything a politician says or does public, unless discrepancies start showing up.

So even if you did have a 24/7 recording of everything that was said to a politician and what they said back it would be completely useless since their is no way to know what the politician actually believes and actually intends to act on.

That's nut's. You'd have what he does to go by and if it didn't match up in any way shape or form with what was discussed you'd have a pretty obvious discrepancy.

Of course there would have to be penalties to provide incentives to stay honest. Surely I don't have to explain how that little dynamic works.

[TimG]

That's nut's. You'd have what he does to go by and if it didn't match up in any way shape or form with what was discussed you'd have a pretty obvious discrepancy.

Politicians can and should be held accountable for promises made in election campaigns. Expecting that any useful information could come out of monitoring every private conversation is absurd. Especially since people will say things in private that they have no intentions of doing anything about yet the peanut gallery would be up in arms because politician X said Y.

You obviously have a chip on your shoulder because of the regulatory requirements in your industry. But there is a huge difference between using a video camera to estimate the amount of fish caught by a boat and using a camera to determine what is going on in the mind of a politician.

Edited September 26, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

Expecting that any useful information could come out of monitoring every private conversation is absurd.

You dont have to monitor private conservations... you have to make lobbying a PUBLIC conversation. Let special interest groups make their case, but make them do it in front of TV cameras. And impose penalties on both politicans and lobbiests that are caught ignoring the rules. You will never completely take corruption out of any human enterprise, but it would be really easy to have less than we have now.

And dont issue lobbying licenses to people that have held elective office in the last 20 years or so.

Edited September 26, 2012 by dre

[TimG]

ou have to make lobbying a PUBLIC conversation. Let special interest groups make their case, but make them do it in front of TV cameras.

Same dynamics apply. A politician would not be in the habit of annoying lobbyists so private conversations would likely mean the politician agrees with the lobbyist and make promises that he has no intentions of keeping. How could the public gain anything from knowing that such a conversation occurred? The only possible outcome of such a system would be the consulting rate for personal friends/family members would go sky high because they would be allowed to have private conversations with MPs.

[eyeball]

Politicians can and should be held accountable for promises made in election campaigns. Expecting that any useful information could come out of monitoring every private conversation is absurd. Especially since people will say things in private that they have no intentions of doing anything about yet the peanut gallery would be up in arms because politician X said Y.

I bet what they say in secret has a much easier to define intent. I think the peanut gallery will quickly get a grip once it realizes what's really at stake.

You obviously have a chip on your shoulder because of the regulatory requirements in your industry.

Actually I have faith in it. Sur/souveillance works, just ask Conrad Black.

But there is a huge difference between using a video camera to estimate the amount of fish caught by a boat and using a camera to determine what is going on in the mind of a politician.

I don't care what's going in in his mind, I want to know what was said between them and the people lobbying them.

And BTW this actually puts way more onus on the lobbyist to ensure they're playing above board.

[TimG]

I want to know what was said between them and the people lobbying them.

You have yet to establish that such information would be even remotely useful. As I said, people lie in conversations. They say things they don't agree with and make promises they do not plan to keep. You cannot determine what a politician is thinking when these conversations are said therefore knowing what is said is useless. The only plausible outcome is 'real' conversations will take place in channels that are not monitored.

[dre]

Same dynamics apply. A politician would not be in the habit of annoying lobbyists so private conversations would likely mean the politician agrees with the lobbyist and make promises that he has no intentions of keeping. How could the public gain anything from knowing that such a conversation occurred? The only possible outcome of such a system would be the consulting rate for personal friends/family members would go sky high because they would be allowed to have private conversations with MPs.

No the outcome of such a system would be less corruption and more transparency.

For example... I wanted my property rezoned so I could subdivide into 3 smaller properties. In order make sure theres transparency I was required to put a huge sign up in front of my property notifying people what I wanted to do, and posting the date of a public hearing at which people could show up, view my application in its entirely and raise objections if they so choose. Its a structured public process.

If I could just engage a local politician in a private office that would invite encourage corruption.

The only possible outcome of such a system would be the consulting rate for personal friends/family members would go sky high because they would be allowed to have private conversations with MPs.

First of all that would be risky behavior because hiring someone to break the law for you is illegal. But not doubt some would take that risk.

But you are assuming that lobbiests and corporations are all unscrupulous actors that would try to break the law and circumvent the public lobbying process. I dont think they are... I think most of them would follow the rules.

It would just change the game. Companies would have make a convincing pitch the public based on the merits of what they are proposing. After all a lot of what special interests lobby the government for are perfectly reasonable things that the public would probably support. And this process would just help people understand better.

It would also constrain lobbying to special legislative sessions and free up time for politicians to do what they are elected to do. In some cases now we have a whole bunch of full time lobbiests assigned to each legislator, scurrying around after them all day long trying to take up their time. Not a very productive environment.

The fact of the matter is its in the publics interest to know that interaction between a special interest and a legislator has resulted in that legislator pushing for a certain course of action. We are paying their salaries and they are doing this business on our behalf. And we definately have the right to know if there has been any kind of quid pro quo.

Edited September 26, 2012 by dre

[dre]

The only plausible outcome is 'real' conversations will take place in channels that are not monitored.

Again, you assume that these people are all crooked but they arent. Most politicians, and corporations, and lobbiests would obey the rules, simply because they have nothing to hide! The only ones that would hide from a public process are the ones that are lobbying for things that are contrary to the public interest! They might still try to cheat but even a lot of THOSE people would refuse to expose themselves to the possibility of criminal charges or loss of professional certifications, and heavy fines for the both the lobbiest and the special interest that sent them.

[TimG]

For example... I wanted my property rezoned so I could subdivide into 3 smaller properties. In order make sure theres transparency I was required to put a huge sign up in front of my property notifying people what I wanted to do, and posting the date of a public hearing at which people could show up, view my application in its entirely and raise objections if they so choose. Its a structured public process.

So what? These processes exist today. Monitoring every private conversation a politician has is not going to change anything about these processes.

[TimG]

Again, you assume that these people are all crooked but they arent. Most politicians, and corporations, and lobbiests would obey the rules, simply because they have nothing to hide!

Actually, your entire line of argument is based on the assumption that politicians are colluding the background against the public interest. If you actually believed that "most politicians, and corporations, and lobbiests" were trustworthy you would not be demanding such intrusive surveillance.

[dre]

Actually, your entire line of argument is based on the assumption that politicians are colluding the background against the public interest. If you actually believed that "most politicians, and corporations, and lobbiests" were trustworthy you would not be demanding such intrusive surveillance.

No my argument is simply that poticians behave better when theres transparency, and that a better model for democracy is for special interests to make a pitch to both politicians and the public on the merits. That and the fact that its our information anyways, because that business is done on our behalf and funded with our money.

[dre]

So what? These processes exist today. Monitoring every private conversation a politician has is not going to change anything about these processes.

Yes it is. We would be creating a whole new structured process around lobbying and penalties for trying to operate outside the new rules. We wouldnt necessarily have to monitor every conversation.

[TimG]

No my argument is simply that poticians behave better when theres transparency, and that a better model for democracy is for special interests to make a pitch to both politicians and the public on the merits.

On the merits? Who are you kidding? As if merits had anything to do with political decision making. Making these things public would actually make the problem worse because it is impossible to talk about the "merits" when you have a public that jumps on fads and little understanding of economics.

The initiative system in California is a case study of how lobby groups manipulate public opinion rather than individual politicians. It is more expensive and the outcomes are a lot worse by any measure of 'public good'.

Edited September 26, 2012 by TimG

[PIK]

How to make a lefty's head explode:

Point out that subsidies for wind/solar/biomass are likely included in the "corporate welfare" numbers.

It is quite funny to see people who demand that government subsidize any number of economically unjustifiable projects then complain when the dollars are spun as being 'corporate welfare'.

And how many of the constant complainers stand in line for 6 hrs to buy a apple product. A product made by slave labour and very cruel conditions. And I understand they put up nets to catch the employees throwing themselves of the roofs of these plants?

[Shady]

I agree, we really need specifics. What the subsidy is exactly, who it's applied to, and for how much, and at which levels of government, municipal, provincial, federal.

So still no specifics?

[madmax]

So still no specifics?

Didn't see any specifics either. Why not draft up a few from your perspective and see where that goes?

[Shady]

Didn't see any specifics either. Why not draft up a few from your perspective and see where that goes?

I'd love to, but I don't know the specifics. I know in general that there's energy subsidies, farm subsidies, but that's about it, and I don't know any specific details regarding them.