It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Key Republican asks businesses which rules to change

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
www.rawstory.com...




The incoming Republican chairman of the House oversight committee is seeking counsel from business groups about what federal regulations Congress should relax.

Rep. Darrell Issa of California has sent letters to 150 companies, trade organizations and research groups asking them what rules they believe are stifling innovation and job growth, the New York Times reported.

As the head of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Issa will wield considerable influence over the nature and application of federal regulations over industry activity.

Politico reported that Issa reached out to, among others, the oil industry, drug manufacturers, health care providers and telecommunications companies.


Apparently it's official.... the taxpayers are just chattel to the GOP. All favor goes to the Corporatist. Inflation and prices are going to skyrocket now that Big business calls the shots. Bend over America the neocons are going to stick it to you again.

This thread isn't partisan as I feel Obama is wedded to the neocon agenda too.

God help us!
edit on 5-1-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


He/they should absolutely reach out to business. The government at all levels pass onerous laws with no thought or insight into their ramifications they have on groups impacted by those laws. Of course Congress should solicit input from all corners of society, including business.

Why does it make sense for the government to reach out to every pressure group, e.g. minorities, environmentalists, gays, unions, but when they seek the advice and counsel from the folks/organizations that actually provide jobs for folks it is somehow crossing some imaginary line?

I'm no fan of the integration of any group, including business into the goverment. I don't like or trust the revolving door between business, pressure groups, lobbiests, government staff, congressional staff and the whole lot, but suggesting that somehow reaching out to business groups is more of a sell out of the government than reaching out to unions is preposterous.

Perhaps Congress will hear that pieces of legislation like Sarbanes/Oxley are a monumental waste of energy and provides absolutely no benefit to the country and actually drives firms overseas (both Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers received their Sarbox certifications within 6 months of them going out of business for inadequate controls surrounding capital structures and risk management, the very things Sarbox is meant to fix). Perhaps they will hear that some of the federal reporting requirements stemming from groups like the EEOC and EPA are onerous and wasteful. Perhaps they will hear about how the new "green" buillding requirements are going to kill jobs, drive down the construction market and significantly raise the cost of construction.

There are things that the business community can tell these folks that no other group can. Does that mean that they need to move in lock-step with the business community? No. No more than the notion that congress should reach out to unions but should not move in lock-step with them.

I would personally rather have congress move in lock-step with business interests than any of these other groups. I might actually get a job from a business. I doubt that the Rainbow Coalition or NAMBLA is going to hire anyone soon.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Politico reported that Issa reached out to, among others, the oil industry, drug manufacturers, health care providers and telecommunications companies.


There is no need to reach out to these industries, they have been buying government for years. I guess Issa wants to make sure he gets his cut too.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


I somewhat agree with you but when gas hits $5.00 a gal. Bread at $4.00 a loaf; who are the voters going to be looking at. Do you think that the dembs are going to be pointing to the likes of Issa?


Stupid, low class hyperbole doesn't become you!




I would personally rather have congress move in lock-step with business interests than any of these other groups. I might actually get a job from a business. I doubt that the Rainbow Coalition or NAMBLA is going to hire anyone soon.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by righteyered
 


They have all been buying government for years. The unions buy the government, the pressure groups buy the government and business buys the government. Funny how the two former groups almost exclusively buy government from the democrat party while the latter is pretty much split between the two parties..

To the extent that we have this perverse system, all sides need to be given equal treatment and get an equal hearing from the government. It would obviously be best if the corruption was eliminated, but that will never happen.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
According to your link, he's asking them for their opinions on why job growth has been stifled. In light of the current situation, I see nothing wrong with it. Its not like any of the idiots in DC have any idea how to create the conditions for job growth in this country. I don't trust business leaders either, but at least they need some knowledge of how the world actually works in order to be successful.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
how do we grow the economy and add more jobs? reduce the tax and administrative burden on businesses.
this isn't about gummint helping business, just a business-friendly congress getting gummint out of the way.
business/industry/commerce are the engine(s) that make this country work, not beaureaucrats.
edit on 5-1-2011 by works4dhs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
. I don't trust business leaders either, but at least they need some knowledge of how the world actually works in order to be successful.


Do you think that big business doesn't know exactly how to play the game?
Don't be naive.

www.sourcewatch.org...

www.opensecrets.org...

www.guardian.co.uk...

there's plenty more....



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
As much as we hear the crybabys' "socialist" "communist" refrain; I think we know who controls the bureaucrats.

projects.publicintegrity.org...

www.dmoz.org...

investigativereportingworkshop.org...

www.texasdentalinsurance.info...

www.huffingtonpost.com...
edit on 5-1-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


As I said, I don't trust them and yes, I know exactly what they're doing. Still, what's the alternative? Do you think these dumba$$es...Democrats and Republicans alike...actually have any idea how to create jobs? Some of them have never held a real world private sector job in their lives and most of the rest haven't done so in 20+ years.

I'd rather have a little outside influence on the issue than leave it to the idiots currently running the asylum, even if I know that influence is partially self-serving. Besides, its not like Congress isn't self-serving in its own right.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I am not savvy enough to know the ramifications of such actions. However I can not help but be reminded of a quote...

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
I am not savvy enough to know the ramifications of such actions. However I can not help but be reminded of a quote...

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.


Here's another....

“Fascism is capitalism plus murder.”

Upton Sinclair

another....




"That which the Fascists hate above all else, is intelligence."

Unamuno, Miguel De

edit on 5-1-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


AFSCME - a single union spent $87.5M on the November elections. They spent their normal cash, then dipped into their emergency fund to the tune of $16M. That wasn't enough and they had to take out a $2M loan to attempt to keep the democrats in power. That is 1 union.

All of the pressure/interest groups are equally corrupt. All of them have an unhealthy relationship with the political class. At least when business gets benefits from corrupt practices folks wind up with jobs. Now they may be doing things in those jobs that are not ideal for the country or world, but they are putting folks to work. When the other groups get the influence they simply continue to pursue economy destroying practices.

www.foxnews.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by whaaa
 


AFSCME - a single union spent $87.5M on the November elections. They spent their normal cash, then dipped into their emergency fund to the tune of $16M. That wasn't enough and they had to take out a $2M loan to attempt to keep the democrats in power. That is 1 union.



I'm a proud member of AFTRA/SAG/IATSE in the film industry. Without my union representation, I would be paid min. wage for my years of education and perfecting my craft, if at all. I'm still waiting to be paid on a movie I worked on after 9 years. Profit is the only interest of the producers and that is why we need collective bargaining. I don't begrudge my union dues going to lobby in my interests. I would be a fool to think that corporations wouldn't do the same. It's a broken system... What do you suggest to change it?
edit on 5-1-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


I think fixing it would be difficult, but a few things come to mind

1. Term limits would directly limit the amount of time politicians have to build relationships with these groups and decrease the incentives for them to curry favor with politicians as they would only have a limited amount of time to engage with them.

2. Elimination of ear-marks

3. No direct awarding of federal/state contracts. No no-bid work. All federal contracts strictly fixed bid. There is a reason why in government a project is estimated at $2 and winds up costing $6. Its because once you've spent the $2 you're in too deep to kibosh the effort and when the contractor can simply write change orders that get rubber-stamped, they build in an infrastructure to do exactly that. They purposefully low-ball the bid with full knowledge that they will drive the total cost (and revenue) of the job way beyond that estimate. That kind of thing simply does not happen in the private sector. There are types of federal contracts that are simply given to specific firms, no competetive bidding required.

4. Reduction of congressional staff by 75%. The staffs are as big a problem as are the elected officials. Many of them have been there for decades, moving from one committee or congressperson to another. They write the bills, they write the contracts (or at least approve them).

5. Make it illegal to work for a lobbying firm for 10 years after serving as either a senior member of the administration, a congressional staff or an elected official.

6. Eliminate about 2/3 of the Executive branch/Federal government. If we did not have a Department of Agriculture we would not be spending $billions on corn for ethanol we do today, things like that.

7. End these senseless wars. Just out today another $20bn to be spent on "training specialized workers" in Afganistan. Thats a problem because its tough to train a population when 70% of them can't read or write. Shops like Northrup, Blackwater, Haliburton are going to get all of that cash and there will be absolutely nothing to show for it.

8. No direct movement of folks from specific private sector jobs to parts of the Executive Branch charged with regulating them. No way should someone like Hank Paulson, CEO of Goldman Sachs be allowed to move from Goldman to Sec. Treasury. No way. Treasury is charged with, among other things regulating that industry via the SEC and other regulatory bodies. Wonder why simple regulatory reforms have not been put in place since the financial meltdown? Take a look at who's running the SEC and Treasury Department and its not to hard to figure out.

9. Eliminate PACs

10. Dramatically increase transparency. Which firms give to which elected official, what committees do they serve on and what federal monies are going to those firms awarded by those committees. Make it mandatory, put it on-line, make it a federal law to distribute all of that material in an easily readable format to all voters prior to every election. Put earmarks in the material as well. Make it simple and easy to find out which senator is pushing for a woodchuck museum in his district.

More stuff too, and none of them are all that difficult in concept or principal, yet likely impossible due to the massive influence and intrenched interests.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by righteyered
 


To the extent that we have this perverse system, all sides need to be given equal treatment and get an equal hearing from the government. It would obviously be best if the corruption was eliminated, but that will never happen.


This isn't all sides, it's just the sides with the money. Each one is advocating for their own interest. For all their faults at least unions try to protect the middle class Americans that are their members. Never heard of the industries he's reaching out to advocate good wages and domestic jobs.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by righteyered
 


No, you're right. What they do is push and extort the inclusion of contract provisions down the throats of their employers that cause the employers to either move inside or outside the country, not hire, make their products/services uncompetetive or exit businesses all together.

Just out last week - the average stagehand in New York's Lincoln Center makes $290K/year. Thats the average. This is for someone who puts up sets, hangs lights, etc. Thats the power of organized labor. How about they normalize that pay structure and put another bunch of folks to work?

washingtonexaminer.com...
edit on 5-1-2011 by dolphinfan because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join