5 ms·

Not much new here. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/512201631/trumps-executive-order-on-ethics-pulls-word-for-word-from-obama-clinton http://www.npr.org/2017/01/2

• general_ai 10y ago
  From the same article: Clinton ended up revoking the order (so his order basically did nothing), and Obama gave waivers even to the previous, watered down 2-year version. This new order has considerably more teeth than anything that came before, though of course it remains to be seen if Trump grants any exemptions, or follows what was promised on the campaign trail to the letter. If he does, and if he manages to get congressional term limits passed as well, DC will be in a much healthier state once the current crop of entrenched geezers vacates the premises.
  • noobermin 10y ago
    Or, he could do what the previous presidents have done, rescind the order once he leaves office.
    • general_ai 10y ago
      For better or worse, he's not like the previous presidents in nearly every way.
  • nkozyra 10y ago
    > If he does, and if he manages to get congressional term limits passed as well, DC will be in a much healthier state once the current crop of entrenched geezers vacates the premises. Why would an arbitrary restriction on representative government = a healthier state? Look, I think there are grand problems in the electoral process that lead to the same people getting elected forever. That produces an environment conducive to career politics and incites people to pursue that path over public service. But the public voting for representation is not the problem. The baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.
    • handedness 10y ago
      Whether or not one agrees with it, the idea of arbitrary restrictions on representative government is at least as old as George Washington himself. Were the USA a direct democracy it would be pretty easy to refute the idea of term limits, but as it's a democratic republic, the issue becomes far less clear cut.
      • nkozyra 10y ago
        Even direct democracies have restrictions; it's the arbitrary ones that need some real validation to support. Just cause "throw all the bums out" feels good does not mean it's sound policy for a republic.
        • pzxc 10y ago
          It was arbitrary for George Washington to decline to run for a third term as President, feeling that two terms ought to be enough for anybody. And it took over a century for that wisdom to be codified into the 22nd Amendment.
        • handedness 10y ago
          It doesn't require much abstract thinking to see how legislators (and chief executives) could craft policy to guarantee their reelection. Places without term limits are good examples of how policy can ensure reelection. Whether or not one agrees with it, the concept, at least, of term limits, isn't wholly without merit. It may be feckless, it may be antithetical to the direct democracy many Americans inaccurately assume they live in, but it isn't inherently just some partisan, feel-good policy. This particular implementation of the concept may be, but that's a separate conversation.
      • gozur88 10y ago
        Congressional representatives are chosen directly by the people in their districts. Aside from judges, are there any federal office holders or appointments that don't have term limits or serve at the pleasure of the current administration?
  • dragonwriter 10y ago
    Both term limits and lobbying bans for officials shift the balance of power, experience, and skill to private lobbies and away from the people doing public work, and so would leave Washington in worse shape in terms of ability to serve the public interest than the atrocious status quo. The root of the current problems is in the way the structure of the electoral system fails to achieve effective representation, and none of those address that one bit. They are naive solutions that appeal to people who have a shallow understanding of the symptoms but no grasp of the problem.
    • dllthomas 10y ago
      > Both term limits and lobbying bans for officials shift the balance of power, experience, and skill to private lobbies and away from the people doing public work This is clear to me for term limits, but how does it apply to lobbying bans? (Not arguing that it doesn't, but would like to understand.)
      • dragonwriter 10y ago
        Most political appointees expected term of office is tied to their party controlling the appointed office (and often times the person that appointed them doing so, as even another person from the same party will want to bring in their own people.) Thus, people who consider taking these offices need to have the ability to get other work need to have work they can do in between political appointments, so if you ban them for an extended period from the broad class of out-of-government jobs that the experience and skills developed and used in their public work would be most applicable, then people with viable alternatives are just not going to work in the public sector at all, unless they are so independently wealthy that they don't need work at all.
        • dllthomas 10y ago
          Interesting.