Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2017 23:45:28 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 0:07:59 GMT -5
more in this article. Of note, George W's and Obama's ethics counsels issued a joint statement: and then there's this: Yeah. This smells pretty foul to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 3, 2017 8:23:02 GMT -5
There is no such committee for investigating the Senate. Or the Presidency. Or the Supreme Court.
Frankly, the whole thing should be scrapped imo, not just curbed. It's not that it's a bad idea, it's just that there really shouldn't be "independent" (someone gets to fill the positions, no?) committees running around doing their own thing. There's a House ethics committee. There's the Justice Department. Plus, there are investigative journalists. And if the first does a really shitty job, the solution is the ballot box.
Seriously, the "oh, there's a problem? Let's set up a blue ribbon panel to investigate it" approach to politics is something we need less of, not more of imo, swamp or no swamp.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 8:36:59 GMT -5
Surely it is more independent than having them investigate themselves without it.
Waiting about for investigative journalists to sniff out an issue and hammer it down, or until a Congress critter's term is up and it is time to vote does not seem to me to be the most efficient guarantee corruption gets addressed.
What good does it do to gut it? What will it improve? That's a serious question. What are the benefits? Why did Paul Ryan and party leadership (not to mention the Democrats and the counsels for W and Obama) oppose gutting it, if it is so useless?
I can't see any benefits to scrapping it. What I see is that a single party is now in control of every branch -- and the first thing they do to remove yet another check on their actions.
I don't normally dwell in Paranoiaville, but I find that disturbing.
Eta:
It also bothers me that it's their first priority on reconvening.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 3, 2017 9:07:31 GMT -5
Investigating allegations of potential criminal activity is a job for law enforcement, not a panel of appointed hand-grabbers. And checks on power are established by the Constitution. Again, there is no committee like this for the Senate. Or the Admin. Why just for the House? I'm not saying it's useless, as a matter of course. But again, the House--like the Senate--has an ethics committee. If and when they fail, the solution is the ballot box. We are--as a population--seriously lazy when it comes to our government. We--those of us who vote--keep electing people who cross ethical lines and/or don't do their jobs. Look at this list: oce.house.gov/reports/investigations/Most of the Reps flagged for violations are where? Still in office. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 9:13:02 GMT -5
The House is a much larger body than the Senate, the Supreme Court, or the Presidency, with a lower bar to entry (we've got all kinds of weirdos in there) and more potential for corruption. The independent panel also had mechanisms the House's own committee doesn't -- being able to accept anonymous tips and make findings public, for example.
Also, my understanding is that the committee was put into place because the House's own committee had a pretty shoddy record of investigating corruption.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 3, 2017 9:24:12 GMT -5
Disagree on the "potential for corruption" angle. A lot.
And again, if the House committee is doing a bad job, the fix is the ballot box. House critters who cross lines can be tossed out every two years.
And I'm not actually willing to allow that it's an "independent" committee. The members are appointed by the House leadership.
Regardless, my issue is with creating more government, more spending, as a solution to everything. This committee was put in place by Pelosi so she could claim she was "draining the swamp." Eight years later, can we evaluate it? Has the swamp gone down an inch or two, or maybe just stopped rising so fast? My survey says "no."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 9:43:06 GMT -5
To me, more bodies = more potential for corruption all on its own, just as a math thing. Especially so when getting elected to the House tends to be easier, requiring less of a track record that getting elected to the Senate (and certainly than getting onto the Supreme Court, where you get vetted to hell and back).
I'd be fine with only one committee -- but I think the one committee should have as little incentive as possible to simply sweep things under the rug.
ETA:
Alas. I'm not sure most voters are alert enough or give enough of a damn to weed out the swamp at the ballot box.
What we could use most is an engaged electorate. But I don't know that we're going to get it. Most people can't name their congress critter, I'd wager.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 3, 2017 9:45:51 GMT -5
I'd prefer voters actually not return scumbags to office, just because of the letter by their names. I know, I'm a dreamer...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 9:50:04 GMT -5
oh, you pollyanna visionary, you.
ETA:
See my ETA to my previous post. I don't disagree with you -- I just don't see enough people getting engaged enough for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jan 3, 2017 12:58:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jan 3, 2017 13:19:32 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 13:24:28 GMT -5
Well. I'm happy to be able to applaud a Trump tweet for a change. And to agree with him.
ETA:
Not that he and I have the same list of priorities, but I fully agree this, of all things, is a pretty lousy thing to put on top of the list.
|
|
|
|
Post by perks on Jan 3, 2017 14:12:09 GMT -5
Okay, this whole exercise was super weird.
(My contributions, thus far, have been so enriching to the conversation. #saiditbeforeyoucould)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 14:37:27 GMT -5
My dear Perks, we are delighted to have your contributions, whatever size and form they might take.
Yes, the trajectory of this was abundantly weird.
|
|
