Warren Proposes Investing in Congressional Tech Expertise To Diminish Lobbying Power (thehill.com) 138
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Friday proposed reinstating a congressional office dedicated to improving tech expertise in order to beat back the growing power of technology companies' lobbying efforts. From a report: In a plan posted to her website, Warren -- one of the top Democratic presidential contenders -- said she wants to bring back the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), which was set up in the 1970s and dissolved in 1995 under former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). Congress stood up the OTA to deliver technology expertise to staffers and lawmakers, who often struggle to keep abreast with the latest developments in an advanced and complex industry. Since the OTA was defunded, the country's top tech companies, including Google, Apple, Amazon and Facebook, have invested millions in lobbying efforts, filling the knowledge gap, Warren said, with the message, "Trust us because we understand it and you don't." "Members of Congress should have the resources they need to make decisions without relying on corporate lobbyists," Warren said. There's been a recent spike in interest around the OTA, with lawmakers in the House and Senate proposing legislation that would reinstate the tech office to help lawmakers navigate the pressing regulatory concerns around Big Tech.
Bring it back (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bring it back (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Because it becomes even worse. Political "professionals".
Re: (Score:2)
Putting that aside, I'm not sure if it would matter either way. Congress seems to have its mind made up on most matters and only seeks data or input like this after the fact in order to justify the choice that they were
Re: (Score:2)
You would rather Microsoft or Facebook supply the experts explaining tech to congress instead of someone with no ties to the businesses lobbying because that's the way it is now.
Re: Bring it back (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Congress seems to have its mind made up on most matters
So basically, you prefer congressmen to be motivated by their corrupt interest, rather than have a technical agency that can point out why doing it the lobbyist's way will be bad for the taxpayer?
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody voted for this technical agency.
And what's to stop it from being subverted into a lobby group ANYHOW?
Fewer laws, simpler laws (Score:2)
No. Because it becomes even worse. Political "professionals".
How about we just go with fewer laws and simpler language in those laws? It worked for the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes! This. We need to hire more Pakistani Awan brothers [fullmeasure.news] to keep Congress in line.
Re:Bring it back (Score:4, Insightful)
As much as I hate thinking another government agency is needed there's no question congress is too out of touch with tech to decide important issues. So, yes, we need it.
Then this advertisement for the Warren presidential campaign, cleverly disguised as an issue on technology, is working as intended.
Well, not so cleverly disguised because the summary included a link to Warren's campaign website.
Here's an idea, how about we stop electing lawyers to represent us in Congress. Let's get people that know science, technology, business, foreign relations, or business. Let's elect farmers, soldiers, surgeons, nurses, roofers, ranchers, carpenters, plumbers, butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers. Let's get people that know how the world works in Congress. Let them talk to each other on areas of expertise that they bring to Congress. When it comes to matters of law then let the politicians in Congress talk to lawyers they have on hire, or maybe we could have a handful of lawyers in Congress to explain such matters but we need to take care not to let them overrun the place again.
If people are still baffled on how Trump got into the White House then this is an example. Trump was elected because the voting public got tired of seeing lawyers in government, they wanted a businessman. The people are tired of the professional politician. If people want to be in public office then they should prove themselves worthy by first showing they know how the world works, showing success in some area other than just making speeches and spending other people's money.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an idea, how about we stop electing lawyers to represent us in Congress. Let's get people that know science, technology, business, foreign relations, or business. Let's elect farmers, soldiers, surgeons, nurses, roofers, ranchers, carpenters, plumbers, butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers. Let's get people that know how the world works in Congress.
Those people typically don't have the time or money to run. Lawyers can take time off, run & still get paid a minimum by their firm because which law firm doesn't want a congressman/senator in their pocket?
Re: (Score:2)
Lawyers can take time off, run & still get paid a minimum by their firm because which law firm doesn't want a congressman/senator in their pocket?
It may work that way on the state level, but not the federal. If a congressman isn't a partner in the law firm, they're going to sever their legal relationship, because otherwise, the firm is going to have all sorts of conflicts of interest and ethics regs which will make them lose out on retaining clients. If the congressman is part owner, they basically give up the practice, and get partnership dividends, while walling off the practice assets in a trust.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bring it back (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally I wish we could go back to the days where being in Congress wasn't a job. Originally representatives were merchants, intellectuals, doctors, etc. They didn't run for Congress for a job, they did it to help the country. When COngress was in session they would be at the Capital legislating. Out of session, they were at home, working their real jobs. Being an elected official shouldn't be a job, something that you make a living on. In fact, it's gotten worse. The job of a member of Congress is no longer to legislate: it's to get reelected. From the moment they first get elected that is all they care about.
Re:Bring it back (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I wish we could go back to the days where being in Congress wasn't a job. Originally representatives were merchants, intellectuals, doctors, etc. They didn't run for Congress for a job, they did it to help the country. When COngress was in session they would be at the Capital legislating. Out of session, they were at home, working their real jobs.
And in those days, the population of the entirety of the state of Georgia was just over 80,000 people, including 29,000 slaves, and not counting any Native Americans at all. The most populous state in the Union had less than 750,000 people, including 291,000 slaves (Virginia). That includes what would become the population of West Virginia in 1860. No other state at the time had a population of even half a million. Tennessee had a population of just 35,691 people.
In short, a Senator or Congressman in the time you're referring to was the equivalent of a counsel member of a small sized town today. And guess what council members of small sized towns do today? They go work their real jobs after a couple of weeks taking care of council membering every year.
The US government is as big as it is because the US is as big as it is. Government exists for dealing with people problems. People problems increase in frequency the more people there are. The US has the size government is frankly needs, because there are so many people. Nostalgia for a simpler time doesn't help. The people exist.
Doesn't that just mean (Score:2)
See, thing is, if you fight tirelessly for the working class while in office you're likely to piss off a _lot_ of powerful people. That means if you ever have to go back to the private sector prepare to get blackballed.
For my money I'd like to see Congress be the
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I wish we could go back to the days where being in Congress wasn't a job.
This is how you guarantee that all politicians must be independently wealthy, and not actually the run-of-the-mill "merchants, intellectuals, doctors, etc" you are thinking of.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't run for Congress for a job, they did it to help the country
Get real. Yeah, you could do that part-time thing back in the early 1800's. This is 2019, and our Constitutional government doesn't remotely resemble our government today. It requires elected leaders that can specialize with government esoterica, like foreign relations, federal bureaucracy, industry regulation, and that is all now being affected by tech.
The job of a member of Congress is no longer to legislate: it's to get reelected.
Blame the American voter for not managing their Congress. Congressmen need to raise money to pay for polling and electioneering. Make them spend no mor
Draft people into Congress (Score:3)
Personally I wish we could go back to the days where being in Congress wasn't a job.
You walk out to your mailbox. Open the letter from the government, "f*ck I've been drafted for two years, Congress". Of course during induction there is a medical and psychological testing. If all goes well there it is followed by several months of training before the Congressional term begins.
What to do with the losers? (Score:2)
So do you have any solution approach to the problem of professional politicians? Especially the desperate politicians who think they must win or starve? I believe Doonesbury recently worded it as "Always bet on the cornered rat?"
The only solution approach I could come up with involved a guarantee of a government job for the runner up. In theory, that loser should be qualified for the political job he failed to win, so it could make some sense to put the loser in a somewhat lower job with a lower salary (but
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that so few actually choose to have staff members with tech focus says quite a bit
"Congressional Staffer" doesn't pay very well. At least until you reach the chief-of-staff or similar high-level positions. People with tech expertise can make many times more working in the private sector.
Which was the point of the OTA - the much larger pool of funding (all Congress instead of one congressperson) meant that the OTA could pay well enough to hire people with actual expertise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>> This is one of those populist statements that sounds nice, but when you look into it you find it's actually a really bad idea.
> The fact someone is a carpenter doesn't make them an expert on anything other than carpentry,
You are completely missing the point. They still have to follow the Laws like everyone else. They can provide input on when and how future new laws can negatively impact the Carpentry industry. .e.g. The farmer would be against the bullshit DRM laws. [wired.com] When companies hold users
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about lawyers, the same people who overcomplicated the nation's laws such that only lawyers can understand them. Are you sure they're the best people for the job?
Re: (Score:2)
"The fact someone is a carpenter doesn't make them an expert on anything other than carpentry,"
Yeah but we're electing largely LAWYERS.
The fact someone is a lawyer doesn't generally make them an expert on anything other than being an asshole,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Common person with a para-legal on staff (Score:3)
The fact someone is a carpenter doesn't make them an expert on anything other than carpentry, The fact someone is a "scientist" means they're an expert on their field, but says nothing about their expertise anywhere else.
The argument for such individuals is that they are likely to be more honest and hence more likely to listen to the experts. A lawyer is trained and practiced to believe that there is no right or wrong in a professional setting, just that they are assigned a side and must vigorously defend and promote that side by all means fair and foul.
And neither is automatically a great spokesperson for their communities or the things they care about.
You grew up in a city? You are displaying quite an arrogant, ill-informed, elitist attitude.
Nor are they necessarily good at crafting laws, ensuring those laws work the way they're supposed to and don't have obvious loopholes.
They have staff to craft the actual text. They merely have to decide what goes in
Re:Bring it back (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's an idea, how about we stop electing lawyers to represent us in Congress. Let's get people that know science, technology, business, foreign relations, or business.
I suggested this to a busload of lawyer students I met once. Their response was that the day-to-day work of someone in congress is to pass laws; that being a congress-person is itself a practice of law. Congress has few levers at its control other than passing or repealing laws.
I don't agree with the conclusion but I don't know how to argue against it.
Re: Bring it back (Score:2)
The branch of government the United Sates Congress heads is literally called the Legislative Branch.
Legislate: to make or enact laws.
This is on naturalization tests, and high school graduation requirements in most states.
Yup, there should be many lawyers in Congress, but they don't all need to be one just like the president doesn't need to be a former military officer, but you know, it sort of helps.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's an idea, how about we stop electing lawyers to represent us in Congress. Let's get people that know science, technology, business, foreign relations, or business.
I suggested this to a busload of lawyer students I met once. Their response was that the day-to-day work of someone in congress is to pass laws; that being a congress-person is itself a practice of law. Congress has few levers at its control other than passing or repealing laws.
I don't agree with the conclusion but I don't know how to argue against it.
By that logic, we should choose English majors for most jobs, including Congress, since all the work is done in English, and most day to day work is reading and writing in English!
Those law students confused form and function. Yes, the work in Congress is about passing laws, as much as it is about reading and writing in English (the form). However, there are implications and consequences about these laws (the function), that understanding those consequences required expertise in other fields like science,
Re: (Score:2)
"congress is to pass laws"
Someone should tell them to fulfill the requirements of the job they were elected to do. Today the only thing they do is conduct investigations against their political adversaries in order to win the next election.
Re: (Score:2)
Then again maybe the common folk would write something that the oth
Re:Bring it back (Score:4, Insightful)
Senator Warren is running for President, and she has a plan for that. There is no disguise involved. She has a plan to improve technical literacy in the US Congress, and people are talking about it because she's running for President.
In your list of non-lawyers we should elect to Congress you forgot to include teachers. Like Senator Warren. And these are exactly the people who know how to teach other members of Congress about technology.
Re: (Score:2)
But but but... Obama!
Get a life, asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
"The people are tired of the professional politician."
If you get rid of the professionals, all you are left with are the amateurs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, those who have no experience, don't know what they are doing, and aren't taking it seriously.
Does getting rid of professional legislators get rid of the professional lobbyists? No, and now they have easier marks.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Another iteration of the OTA wouldn't help.
Who do you think will be driving the OTA?
The old OTA was and the new OTA will be driven by the "Big Technology" companies. Today that's Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, et al. It was a different set of companies in yesteryear.
Warren is campaigning for Bigger Government.
And another department to blame when she fucks up!
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about creating a government agency, this is just about creating a (literal and figurative) office in Congress where they have staff that can assist Congress Critters in understanding technology.
They would not be regulating or administering anything, so they wouldn't be anything like a government agency. Just like the IMC (Instructional Media Center) in a school isn't a separate school, or even a department. It is just an office, usually run by the librarian, but maybe by somebody else.
It is just
Re: (Score:2)
What? Congressmen can't access TED talks now?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what's worse, a bunch of people screwing with technology because they don't know how it works, or a bunch of people screwing with technology BECAUSE they know how it works.
Re: (Score:3)
Change the way house districts are proportioned to be based on AREA rather than POPULATION.
That's called the Senate.
We already have a problem with cows having more representation in our government than people. We should not make that problem worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you knew it wasn't 1789 anymore, or thought slavery was a bad thing, you would realize the wrongness of your statement.
Re: (Score:3)
We're still the same dumb ass apes suceptible to tyranny of the majority.
Not the problems I'm talking about.
First, Slavery is the primary reason the founders couldn't agree to a single legislature. The slave states realized they were on the path to being outnumbered, so they demanded protection that would prevent the majority from ending slavery. So we got the Senate, with some fancy bullshit about "representing states" instead of people.
Second, the 1789 comment is because we no longer have any part of our government that actually represents the people. The House is supposed
Re: (Score:2)
About the only thing I took out of your entire post was essentially we need to restructure congress and get rid of EC so that we can be a more direct democracy. Sorry but I disagree.
Maybe if voting was something you had to earn but was financially free to do so we could do that. As it stands now, most people don't vote and when they do it's checking a D or R for president based on what their friends told them.
Doing away with the EC just leaves us asking LA and NY cities who we want to run the country. Sorry
Meh.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Warren Proposes Investing in Congressional Tech Expertise To Diminish Lobbying Power (thehill.com)
As long as bribery is legal thanks to the Citizens United v. FEC ruling any other measures are pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as bribery is legal thanks to the Citizens United v. FEC ruling any other measures are pointless.
It actually goes back to Buckley vs Valeo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Meh.... (Score:4, Informative)
Warren has also demonstrated she doesn't care about lobbying except as a political hot button. She "declared war on lobbyists" and the very next day hired one to her campaign.
She's not trying to make lobbyists less effective, she's trying to move them in-house. Easier to receive those bribes when the people you negotiate with them for are in-house.
No she didn't (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
That's a nice talking point but it's wrong. The whole case was about a guy (dinesh d'souza) making a video critical of Hillary Clinton and releasing it during and election. Can the federal government restrict that?
>spend as much money as they want to swing elections
Campaign contribution limits are still in place as the case did not attempt to limit or remove those.
>allowed politicians to take unlimited bribes from corporations and special interests
100% false. You could at least give the courtesy to un
Re: (Score:2)
>You can spend my own money
Whoops.
lol. No you cannot spend my money. But you can spend your money.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a nice talking point but it's wrong. The whole case was about a guy (dinesh d'souza) making a video critical of Hillary Clinton and releasing it during and election. Can the federal government restrict that?
>spend as much money as they want to swing elections
Campaign contribution limits are still in place as the case did not attempt to limit or remove those.
>allowed politicians to take unlimited bribes from corporations and special interests
100% false. You could at least give the courtesy to understand what politicians and corporations can do if you are going to malign the issue. There are some legitimate concerns but to completely dismiss it all as "muh corporations" does not address the fundamental principle of free speech that was at the heart of the issue. If you want to clean up elections and moneyed interests then it's best you stop sounding like a college drop out doped up on hippie bullshit.
The whole point was about whether someone can spend their own money for political purposes during an election. The federal government cannot make any law that restricts that. You can spend my own money to say that Trump is a poopie head and support his political enemies, even during elections. But you cannot coordinate that message and money with a political campaign which will then put you in the sights for campaign contributions of the FEC. "Coordinated" is the issue. If you cannot prove a corporation coordinated with a political campaign, how do you assume or prove any malfeasance occurred?
Yes, but direct campaign contributions do not have any bearing on Citizens United v. FEC since that case had nothing to do with that. Citizens United v. FEC was about whether the government could restrict the amount an entity can spend in support of a politician or to drag his name through the mud. The judges in their infinite wisdom removed all limits on how much these entities can spend. Basically the court said that if the Koch machine, the Mercers or somebody else of that ilk shows up with several tens
Re: (Score:2)
>. Once he accepts such help Teddy is basically their bitch since he'll owe his election to these special interests
There is no accepting. There is nothing owed. There is no quid pro quo. Or at least, how do your prove it and why do you assume it? It's someone, on their own with no coordination or quid pro quo, spend their own money to put their own political message out. You are assuming a crime has been committed without evidence. Was dinesh d'souza apart of Hillary Clintons opponents campaign? You are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see it but good luck (Score:2, Funny)
The problem is such an institution will produce facts and deal with objective reality.
Facts have a well known liberal bias. So one of our political parties will not tolerate it. I'm not naming names.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is such an institution will produce facts and deal with objective reality.
Just because a fact can be true or false does not mean it will be true. And in any case, they are unlikely to be asked for facts, they will be asked for opinions such as 'will this bill help me get reelected?'
Facts have a well known liberal bias. So one of our political parties will not tolerate it. I'm not naming names.
I find that very much depends on who you listen to.
If you listen to CNN or the New York Times, then yes, there will be a definite liberal slant, but those are no longer the only options for collecting information.
Another revolving door? (Score:2)
Ok, so the OTA replaces the lobbing firms, but the employees of said firms probably will just end up in the OTA...
Re: (Score:2)
That what will happen (whether Miss Liz wants it or not)!
Or ... (Score:2)
"Members of Congress should have the resources they need to make decisions without relying on corporate lobbyists," ...
(Note I said, "allow" not that they "will". /cynical)
Quite an idea! What if made a list of what feds (Score:3)
That's an idea. Heck, then California could try out all kinds of things, even of Texas doesn't like the idea. Whenever an idea tried in California actually works, other states could do it too. When an idea backfires in a big way, it only affects the one state that tried it first.
Of course, a few things NEED to be done at the federal level. We probably don't want Vermont, Colorado, New Mexico, and Florida all separately negotiating with Iran. Probably big foreign policy stuff should be done at the federa
Congress has to get involved in Municipal Water (Score:2)
Read up on the history of our infrastructure. Government really was the solution, not the problem. The States just weren't building it. Any time anyone tried they were blocked because a handful of plutocrats didn't want to pay for their servants to have clean water. The reason poor
Re: (Score:2)
The Elizabeth Warren campaign is admitting that most of the politicians in Congress are ignorant and gullible
Believe it or not, it's not possible to be knowledgeable in every subject.
Here's something else I'm hearing from this, that Congress is getting involved in matters that would be better left to matters of state governments.
I eagerly await our 50 different Internet regulations.
Oh wait.....that's interstate commerce, so they can't regulate that anyway and it has to be the feds.
The people in Congress should not have to get into matters of the municipal water quality in Michigan or California
Well, we left that up to the states, the Republicans in MI poisoned Flint. Kinda indicates the state isn't up to it, no?
Also, when you reach the Western half of the country, water isn't an inside-one-state thing. Water there is heavily reliant on rivers that pass through multiple
Warren the 'Wonk' (Score:2, Informative)
Warren's fanboys/fangirls really lap this shit up. They think she's a genius because she comes out with all these "policies". While that's certainly a positive development in US politics, the problem is her policies are all shit, almost without exception. And she could never implement them.
Take her ridiculous wealth confiscation.. I mean "wealth tax" scheme. Will never happen, it's unconstitutional, but it appeals to her rabble base. Anytime you ask how she's going to implement her outlandish schemes they
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Wrong (Score:2)
Taxes are not unconstitutional. That's a lie. Taxes are how our government functions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, taxes aren't unconstitutional. What's your point?
What Warren has proposed is wealth confiscation, not a tax. Claiming it's a tax when there's no rationally defined transaction involved doesn't make it a tax.
Re: (Score:2)
Also false. It's called an "income tax". She is proposing changing the rates of income tax for the wealthiest. Take a deep breath. Calm down. It's not a conspiracy. It's a return to what used to be called normal in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I don't get, half of you people don't even have any grasp on your own candidates. Same with medicare for all, most of you have no idea what it really means.
Try to keep up with your own side's policies. She has pushed forward a wealth "tax" (again, not really) that would tax between 1-3% every year on existing net worth for the very rich. This is different from an income tax, of course, in that income is a transaction that can legitimately be taxed.
So many low information voters out there...I don
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you're right. It's not technically an "income tax". It's a "property tax". I pay them every year on the value of my assets, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Never heard of a healthcare penalty tax either but ACA provided us that and California re-implemented it when Congress took the mandate out.
Why not a federal income tax...oh wait we already have that too. In fact, I pay more to the feds then the state.
Re: (Score:2)
Will never happen, it's unconstitutional
[Citation Required]
The feds tax based on the amount of flammable liquid you put in your car. They certainly can tax based on the quantity of cash in your bank account.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't need a citation, I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim that an unprecedented wealth confiscation scheme is a "tax".
Buying gas is a transaction. What transaction (by any non-lala land, rational definition) is taking place from the assets I already own? Shit, some "billionaires" may not even be able to aford it as most of their net worth is funny money in the stock market or a non fungible business.
Re: (Score:2)
What transaction (by any non-lala land, rational definition) is taking place from the assets I already own?
What transaction is taking place when you pay your property taxes?
Yes, most property taxes are state and local, but there is no place in the Constitution that forbids the feds from having a property tax.
That's why you need to provide a citation for your claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They kind of can. The US supreme court said aca was a tax so apparently Congress can pass any tax it wants. If they want to create a wealth or property tax at the federal level, they apparently can. They already have in the past and could do so in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Use your OWN staff, Warren.... (Score:2)
Overdue, but needs to bbe done right (Score:3)
This would in theory be great, but it needs to avoid having the office staffed by flunkies from the tech industry (i.e. not suffer the equivalent of regulatory capture). Some basic ideas to help this idea succeed, roughly:
- All appointees must be federal employees employed by a national laboratory or other technology based agency.
- All appointees must have been employed at a qualifying laboratory/agency for 3 years prior.
- All appointees will be designated by the laboratory/agency, not requested by congress.
- All appointees will serve a one year term, with a minimum one year gap before serving again.
- Background checks, conflict of interest checks, etc. before appointees are approved.
- ???
Still seems a stretch to make it happen as intended, and assumes that members of congress actually want unbiased information.
CRS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How will this stop tech lobbying?
It won't; but it would give a different voice. In theory what happens now is that politicians listen to Lobbyists because they don't have a different voice.
In practice, I don't know why they can't hire advisors to help them out.
This won't stop lobbyists, and I don't know that tech lobbyists are really any worse than any other kind of lobbyist. Lobbyists of all kinds should be weeded out, but politicians of both parties don't really want to do that because if you remove lobbyists you remove some of the mon
Re: (Score:2)
She's not offering to stop tech lobbying.
Her plan isn't for that.
Her plan is for:
"Members of Congress should have the resources they need to make decisions without relying on corporate lobbyists."
Re: (Score:2)
That only keeps the computers working.
The OTA was about hiring people who could tell you things like "What are the technical ramifications of passing this law?". It's a research service regarding technology, similar to the CBO is a research service regarding economics.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't the lobbyist, it's the voters that constantly (re)elect their faithful servants.
Yes... and... no...
I wish it weren't true, but, money gets people elected. If you can broadcast your message of why you're the best politician ever, and your opponent is the worst politician ever you get more votes than if your message doesn't get shared. Lobbyists help grease the monetary wheels of campaigns.
If you're not a lobbyists' pet, you probably won't win an election. The long campaign seasons in US politics, and the lack of strict laws limiting lobbyists means they hold more power over who get's
Well that's unfortunate... (Score:2)
Naturally that last sentence should say "shouldn't" not "should".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh Please! Just, stop! (Score:5, Insightful)
The easy solution to that problem is term limits for all Congressional positions
This is how you ensure lobbyists have complete control.
The only people who would know how to actually get things done in Washington would be the lobbyists and Congressional staff. And the lobbyists will be able to offer you a lucrative job when your term limit hits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, let's compare this to the FDA.
That would be a terrible comparison, because the FDA is a regulatory agency, and the OTA wasn't.
The OTA could be better compared to the CBO. The CBO provides economic research to Congress. As in "if we pass this law, how much will it change the price of soybeans?". The OTA provided similar research to Congress regarding technology.
Re: (Score:3)
The President proposes a budget. Congress accepts the proposal and creates a budget
Nope.
By tradition, the President proposes a budget, but it has absolutely zero legal effect. All budgets start in the House of Representatives, and the President's proposal is routinely ignored.
Also, the Executive branch doesn't get involved in funding allocations for the Legislative (or Judicial) branch. The assumption is the leadership of the other branches know what they want to do.
Last, the budget wasn't balanced in 1995 when Gengrich axed the OTA (and also drastically slashed all other Congressional
Re: (Score:2)
By tradition, the President proposes a budget, but it has absolutely zero legal effect
Ah, that explains the length Government shutdown over the New Year.