Kathianne
01-28-2013, 08:51 PM
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/
From 2009Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials "No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration."
Today?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01/28/revolving-door-government-ethics/1868597/
Tax the revolving door: ColumnGlenn Harlan Reynolds6:08p.m. EST January 28, 2013
We can't put political corruption out of business, but taxes should make it a bit rarer.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is upset with what she calls the "Wall Street shuffle (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/elizabeth-warren-oped-key-indicators-for-filling-economic-posts-86690.html)," in which government regulators and Wall Street executives exchange places. She's right to be upset, but the problem goes beyond Wall Street.
In truth, we see the "revolving door" in almost all industries and sectors of government, and it's a corrupting influence on both government and industry. So, for example, ObamaCare architect Liz Fowler (http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-improves-another-life-bills-architect-cashes-out-to-pharma-giant/article/2515260) left government for a high-paying Big Pharma job, while top Obama Administration officials are looking for high-paying K street lobbying jobs (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/26/Occupy-K-Street-Obama-Admin-Officials-Looking-To-Cash-Out-At-Top-Lobbying-Firms?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigGovernment+%28Big+Governme nt%29#.UQWxTR3C0bA). How high-paying? "Salaries for former Obama cabinet officials could start at $1 million while former assistants and special assistants can make more than $500,000 and $300,000, respectively." Likewise, in 2011, a few months after approving a controversial merger involving Comcast, Republican-appointed Federal Communications Commission member Meredith Attwell Baker left to take a high-paying job at . . . Comcast.
It's easy to see why companies want to hire people like this. First of all, the architects of complicated regulatory schemes are often the only ones who understand them. But more significantly, when you're the architect of a regulatory scheme, it's handy for companies if it's already in your mind that you might get a lucrative job from them later -- or not. That may not cause you to make the scheme less complicated (heck, complicated regulatory schemes are good for companies big enough to hire lots of lobbyists and lawyers, because they make it harder for upstart competitors to enter the field), but it just might affect the kind of complicated scheme you produce.
When President Obama ran for president in 2008, he promised to "close the revolving door (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8296591&page=1)" and clean up both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, but that hasn't happened. Which isn't to say that it shouldn't happen now. But I don't think the usual ethics-rules approach is enough.
The problem with ethics rules for this sort of thing is that they tend to be ignored, or distorted. So I say, let's involve the most effective behavior-control machinery in America: The Internal Revenue Code.
In short, I propose putting a 50% surtax -- or maybe it should be 75%, I'm open to discussion -- on the post-government earnings of government officials. So if you work at a cabinet level job and make $196,700 (http://dcjobsource.com/presidentialsalaries.html) a year, and you leave for a job that pays a million a year, you'll pay 50% of the difference -- just over $400,000 -- to the Treasury right off the top. So as not to be greedy, we'll limit it to your first five years of post-government earnings; after that, you'll just pay whatever standard income tax applies.
This seems fair. After all, when it comes to your value as an ex-government official, it really is a case of "you didn't build that." Your value to a future employer comes from having held a taxpayer-funded position and from having wielded taxpayer-conferred power. Why shouldn't the taxpayers get a cut?
...
From 2009Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials "No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration."
Today?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01/28/revolving-door-government-ethics/1868597/
Tax the revolving door: ColumnGlenn Harlan Reynolds6:08p.m. EST January 28, 2013
We can't put political corruption out of business, but taxes should make it a bit rarer.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is upset with what she calls the "Wall Street shuffle (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/elizabeth-warren-oped-key-indicators-for-filling-economic-posts-86690.html)," in which government regulators and Wall Street executives exchange places. She's right to be upset, but the problem goes beyond Wall Street.
In truth, we see the "revolving door" in almost all industries and sectors of government, and it's a corrupting influence on both government and industry. So, for example, ObamaCare architect Liz Fowler (http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-improves-another-life-bills-architect-cashes-out-to-pharma-giant/article/2515260) left government for a high-paying Big Pharma job, while top Obama Administration officials are looking for high-paying K street lobbying jobs (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/26/Occupy-K-Street-Obama-Admin-Officials-Looking-To-Cash-Out-At-Top-Lobbying-Firms?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigGovernment+%28Big+Governme nt%29#.UQWxTR3C0bA). How high-paying? "Salaries for former Obama cabinet officials could start at $1 million while former assistants and special assistants can make more than $500,000 and $300,000, respectively." Likewise, in 2011, a few months after approving a controversial merger involving Comcast, Republican-appointed Federal Communications Commission member Meredith Attwell Baker left to take a high-paying job at . . . Comcast.
It's easy to see why companies want to hire people like this. First of all, the architects of complicated regulatory schemes are often the only ones who understand them. But more significantly, when you're the architect of a regulatory scheme, it's handy for companies if it's already in your mind that you might get a lucrative job from them later -- or not. That may not cause you to make the scheme less complicated (heck, complicated regulatory schemes are good for companies big enough to hire lots of lobbyists and lawyers, because they make it harder for upstart competitors to enter the field), but it just might affect the kind of complicated scheme you produce.
When President Obama ran for president in 2008, he promised to "close the revolving door (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8296591&page=1)" and clean up both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, but that hasn't happened. Which isn't to say that it shouldn't happen now. But I don't think the usual ethics-rules approach is enough.
The problem with ethics rules for this sort of thing is that they tend to be ignored, or distorted. So I say, let's involve the most effective behavior-control machinery in America: The Internal Revenue Code.
In short, I propose putting a 50% surtax -- or maybe it should be 75%, I'm open to discussion -- on the post-government earnings of government officials. So if you work at a cabinet level job and make $196,700 (http://dcjobsource.com/presidentialsalaries.html) a year, and you leave for a job that pays a million a year, you'll pay 50% of the difference -- just over $400,000 -- to the Treasury right off the top. So as not to be greedy, we'll limit it to your first five years of post-government earnings; after that, you'll just pay whatever standard income tax applies.
This seems fair. After all, when it comes to your value as an ex-government official, it really is a case of "you didn't build that." Your value to a future employer comes from having held a taxpayer-funded position and from having wielded taxpayer-conferred power. Why shouldn't the taxpayers get a cut?
...