rickyp wrote:danivon

On politicians and insider trading - as insider trading is illegal anyway, of course politicians "can't" do it

Actually, they can. They are exempt from insider trading laws...

A 60 Minutes report on Sunday examined the ways that members of Congress trade on inside, privileged information to make themselves rich — without breaking any laws. Even though many positions in the federal government are bound by conflict of interest laws, Congresspeople are exempt from insider trading rules and are perfectly free to make business deals based on information they learn through their jobs

.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ns/308692/

this is an inddepth article on the astounding legal loophole

Well, I hope this is not a surprise! Of course, Congress rigs the system as much as they can, while pretending to look out for our interests. But here is another angle at how duplicitous and self-serving our elected officials can be (at local, state and federal levels, all at once):

One of thousands of NPOs in our State has recently come under fire for financial mismanagement by its CEO, Bill Davis, who is charged with spending NPO moneys on lavish cruises and vacations, gifts, personal perks, etc., even getting a so-called "loan" from the NPO's own budget to buy a new car (his annual salary is over $200K). Apparently, other Board members profited from this lavish spending. The NPO was created to provide financial assistance to low-wage families to help pay for utilities, rent, etc. There are other improprieties that have been placed at the feet of this organization conducted in an audit by the State's Dept of Human Services. Apparently, there have been issues going back as far as 1997, based on a whistle-blowing State Senator.

When asked about the propriety of taking a paid-for trip to the Bahamas, CEO Bill Davis said it was " for a Ben & Jerry’s franchise convention to speak about running a youth training program out of an old Ben & Jerry’s on Washington Avenue". He brought along his fiance, which was also paid for, because "My board had provided a provision that allows me to take a family member on one trip a year to promote family.” Not yet married, but she qualifies as family.

We've all seen this type of behavior before. Here is where it gets appalling: the Board of Directors had several "celebrity" members, including one US Senator, one State Senator, and the President and Vice-President of the Minneapolis City Council. What was their role in this? They never attended any meetings! They all appointed de facto proxies to stand in for them, and those proxies apparently never bothered to keep the politicians updated. After this audit was published, these professional politicians suddenly "resigned" from the Board they never sat on, publicly casting stones at the CEO, saying they had NO IDEA this was going on (at least THAT was the truth), calling for investigations and running as far away and fast as possible. But not accepting responsibility. of course.

All of these politicians and the CEO belong to the same political Party. Of course, this state (Minnesota) has been a largely one-party government at state for the past several years and is likely to continue, in spite of scandals like this.

Big Irony (if we wish to give it that much stature): This political Party is well-known for harping on how focused they are on helping the poor, the oppressed and the down-trodden, going after those corrupt rich boys in the GOP. These duplicitous politicians got to enjoy bragging on their resumes and in their many fund-raisers how they are keyed in to the local needs of their people, how they were (modestly) doing their part to help. Help themselves, of course. And our governor - also the same Party - is a Rich Boy who inherited all of his wealth (to his credit, he does not flaunt it).

That early whistle blower from 1997 also belongs to the same political party, by the way. Now, I'm certainly NOT trying to say that only one Party is capable of corruption and hypocrisy (though hypocrisy seems to be an ongoing characteristic of this Party). It is quite ironic that this happened to involve a non-profit organization designed to help the kind of people who usually feel compelled to vote for these scoundrels. It might have happened to the other main political party, the one that is usually blamed for being insensitive to the poor. But it did not, this time.

This happened, I think, because the voters here were foolish enough to believe that a one-party government would be an honorable, care-giving, people-oriented, tree-hugging government run by politicians of Their Party But what have we all learned? All parties and politicians have the same - or similar - goals. And they have nothing to do with the people who elect them to office. And it will be a cold day in Hell before any of the self-serving politicians who lent their names (but not their concern or responsibility) to this organization face a day in court or resign from their office from shame.

George
http://www.startribune.com/local/minnea ... 97731.html
http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/277224892.html
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2014 ... candal.php
And for some really grisly details of self-serving corruption:
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/governan ... polis.html

We've all seen this type of behavior before. Here is where it gets appalling: the Board of Directors had several "celebrity" members, including one US Senator, one State Senator, and the President and Vice-President of the Minneapolis City Council. What was their role in this? They never attended any meetings! They all appointed de facto proxies to stand in for them, and those proxies apparently never bothered to keep the politicians updated. After this audit was published, these professional politicians suddenly "resigned" from the Board they never sat on, publicly casting stones at the CEO, saying they had NO IDEA this was going on (at least THAT was the truth), calling for investigations and running as far away and fast as possible. But not accepting responsibility. of course.

Same thing happened in Bell, California. The average city councilman's salary was a few thou. Strangely they were making hundreds of thousands per year. How? Because the charter (that they wrote) allowed them to be paid for sitting on the city agency boards. Yet, they were getting paid for meetings they didn't attend, somehow. It's all in The Dictator's Handbook: How Bad Behavior is Sometimes Good Politics.

One Party state? Welcome to my world (e.g., Maryland). Been a one-party state since Andrew Jackson.

hacker

I'm curious Ricky. I salute your efforts to seek out and find only information that precisely supports your point of view...I don't doubt that maybe some of them get away with what's clearly illegal, good for you to point that out to me. Thank you very much. However, I'm curious how you do it. The moment someone argues something here, you Google it to prove them wrong?

There is a convention on this board that usually if you offer something that you purport to be fact, that you back it up with evidence. And usually that means a link to the source of your information. (I find that quoting from books isn't as well received as offering a link. Certain participants always want to check the content verbatim.)

I have learned much from discussions on this board. And Ive changed my opinion on some things. (like home schooling for one...).
But what i often find is that posters often some things as factual which are mythical. Some Big Myths deserve to be challenged. Because they often form the basis of a skewed view point of reality.
In your case, the notion that Congress functions well, or to the benefit of the US deserves to be challenged. if you are unaware of the level of corruption that exists, and is pureposfully allowed to exist, then I can understand how it may be difficult to also understand how a system designed in the 1780s has evolved to where it has today and to a point where it doesn't really work that well anymore.
On the other hand, the Constitution's protection of individual rights and the way it is applied to institutions... is remarkably flexible, that an issue like Gay Marriage can be turned on its head in little more than a decade. In a society that is as religiously conservative as the US, the notion that the indivual liberties espoused in the Constitution have expanded to include freedom to marry between same sex is remarkable... On this board some people said this would never happen only 3 or 4 years ago.

Sassenach wrote:There really weren't a lot of open-minded liberals in the coal mining communities back then. Even today you're far more likely to find examples of every kind of bigotry down your local working men's club than most anywhere else in the country.

But you are less likely to find social clubs, as a lot of them are finding fewer customers and costs are high.

Looks like local polling for the three byelections has Labour 1st and UKIP 2nd in Middleton, and UKIP 1st and Tories 2nd in both Clacton and Rochester.

But at the same time we have seen three YouGov polls in a row with small Tory leads nationally. I wonder what Friday morning will bring?

Friday morning is fairly predictable I think. Labour are bound to hold Middleton, probably by a healthy margin (albeit on a low turnout) and Carswell will hold Clacton by a hefty margin with the Tories a distant second and everybody else nowhere. This is already priced in. The Rochester result is more interesting and has the greater potential to shake things up. I wasn't aware that this seat was held by Labour until 2010 (Bob Marshall Andrews' old seat I believe, with revised boundaries). I was reading today that the local party are disgusted by Miliband's refusal to throw any resources into trying to win it back in the by-election, particularly given the likelihood of the Tories and UKIP splitting each others vote. It's like Labour have essentially given up on the south.

Sassenach wrote:Friday morning is fairly predictable I think. Labour are bound to hold Middleton, probably by a healthy margin (albeit on a low turnout) and Carswell will hold Clacton by a hefty margin with the Tories a distant second and everybody else nowhere. This is already priced in. The Rochester result is more interesting and has the greater potential to shake things up. I wasn't aware that this seat was held by Labour until 2010 (Bob Marshall Andrews' old seat I believe, with revised boundaries). I was reading today that the local party are disgusted by Miliband's refusal to throw any resources into trying to win it back in the by-election, particularly given the likelihood of the Tories and UKIP splitting each others vote. It's like Labour have essentially given up on the south.

Well, the boundary changes for 2010 did change it a little. Oddly, I just had saw some invitations for Labour activists to go to Rochester & Strood last night. I suspect that attention is focused on making sure that Middleton is held well (because a loss there would be a disaster, and a close result would not be great), and there is campaigning going on in Clacton. Also, the election hasn't officially been called yet.

But there is perhaps a feeling that it would be worse to try hard and still end up in 3rd place (which is a distinct possibility), than to keep powder dry and hope that the Tories losing to UKIP is the main story the next day.

But there are parts of the South where Labour will be challenging to win back seats. I expect a strong challenge in Crawley and in other places where we had MPs 1997-2005/10.

By the way, the results of these byelections may be 'priced in' to the thinking of those paying attention, but many people being polled (and the majority of voters) are not as close to the events as we are. While a share price does 'price in' likely future events, this is because the people buying and selling have a direct interest in getting the current/future price right. Voters and poll-respondents have no risk/reward in being part of a correct prediction themselves, they are just giving their current opinion/intention, which could be swayed in the future by events they are not bothered about trying to foresee.

So, I suspect that if on Friday we see UKIP have won a seat for the first time in a Parliamentary election, there will be an effect in the polls. I expect that this is why UKIP and Mark Reckless decided not to hold the second byelection at the same time - better to ride a wave and boost his chances - but not so close, so as to try to sustain any boost over several weeks.

But there is perhaps a feeling that it would be better not to try hard and still end up in 3rd place (which is a distinct possibility), than to keep powder dry and hope that the Tories losing to UKIP is the main story the next day.

Sure, I get the reasons for the decision, it's still a strange one though because you'd think Labour ought to be fancying their chances of nicking the seat. Part of me wonders whether they don't actually want to win the seat because it would play into the Tory narrative of vote UKIP get Miliband.

By the way, the results of these byelections may be 'priced in' to the thinking of those paying attention, but many people being polled (and the majority of voters) are not as close to the events as we are.

This is quite true of course, but at the same time the sort of people who would actually pay any attention to by-election results are likely to have followed the developing story in advance. Anybody who pays the slightest attention to politics will be expecting Carswell to win tomorrow.

There is a convention on this board that usually if you offer something that you purport to be fact, that you back it up with evidence. And usually that means a link to the source of your information. (I find that quoting from books isn't as well received as offering a link. Certain participants always want to check the content verbatim.)

I realize that Ricky. Of course. And you still haven't commented on my comments on the paper on the Gingrich senators, by the way.

Some Big Myths deserve to be challenged. Because they often form the basis of a skewed view point of reality.
In your case, the notion that Congress functions well, or to the benefit of the US deserves to be challenged. if you are unaware of the level of corruption that exists, and is pureposfully allowed to exist, then I can understand how it may be difficult to also understand how a system designed in the 1780s has evolved to where it has today and to a point where it doesn't really work that well anymore.

No, I believe ALL myths need to be challenged. And again--for about the 500th time--I already agreed with you on one helluva lot. Yet you seem to think I do not believe you on the polarization thing. I do. And nobody knows that out of the four principal participants in this thread, than me. And I agreed about the gerrymandering thing. That's something I have often told my Democrat friends in this state, who don't seem to care, as long as it benefits their party. I NEVER said Congress was functioning "well", although several of you did enlighten me as to the depths of the problem. Thank you very much.

Now to be honest, I didn't know about the insider trading thing. Thank you for pointing that out.

Ricky, please do not be upset when I say this, but you have to learn that there is a difference between "enlightening someone" and just "rubbing it in their face". One major difference is that the former usually succeeds, while the latter usually fails. Now, am I supposed to believe every word that comes out of your mouth or anyone else's? (Or from your keyboard, rather.) Should I not question a source, no matter how infallible you may believe it to be? I am sorry if it offends anybody that I don't believe them right away. I strongly suspect that you are of the same stock, friend. Some of the source you've brought up haven't been very...well, sometimes you do not put much effort into your arguments. For example, earlier in this thread, you showed me a book review on Amazon, of a book you had not yet read yourself, and wondered why I was a little skeptical that all political scientists in the United States believe exactly the same thing. If you had at least read a few chapters, I would most likely have given it more consideration than I did at at the time.

Besides, while there is a lot I may not personally know about it, as I have never served at the highest levels; between the four of us, I'm the only one here who is an American citizen, and who has PARTICIPATED in the system, albeit at a lowly level. It has, however, brought me into contact with many other people, other Americans, who have participated at the higher echelons. Now i"m absolutely impressed with your knowledge, and Danivon's, and Sassenach's, etc., of the United States.

And of course, there's no way to "prove" the system does not work. The only proof is when it collapses in violent or semi-violent revolution. The thing about the American system is that it works when those in office are ones willing to compromise. Right now, the atmosphere in Washington, I will admit (and already HAVE admitted), is less than gentlemanly...to put it very mildly. I again said over and over again that I already agreed with many of the problems you pointed out. I already admitted that. Now I didn't know about the insider trading thing. Now I do. Happy?

I ask only one thing: please do not talk down to me, just because I do not believe everything that comes out of your mouth. I have a feeling that I could have presented you with the Holy Writ of God himself, giving His 100% truthful opinion on this or that, and you'd be just as skeptical of it. As odd as this may seem to both of us, I don't think there are too many differences between you and I in that department. There have been times where I could have said something slightly differently, or worded this or that in a different way, that would have much more easily swayed or impressed my listeners.

On the other hand, the Constitution's protection of individual rights and the way it is applied to institutions... is remarkably flexible, that an issue like Gay Marriage can be turned on its head in little more than a decade. In a society that is as religiously conservative as the US, the notion that the individual liberties espoused in the Constitution have expanded to include freedom to marry between same sex is remarkable... On this board some people said this would never happen only 3 or 4 years ago.

Agreed. So maybe our system isn't so bad after all? By your own admission just now?? Jefferson said that when a government fails to protect its citizens rights, it is their right to sweep it into the gutter of history and replace it with something that will. Having a vested interest in the aforementioned subject (same-sex marriage) I feel that our government has done, if not a perfect job, at least quite a bit of rather admirable progress has taken place, protecting my individual liberty and that of others. Like the back of the one dollar bill, the pyramid is unfinished. But a lot of work is constantly put into building that pyramid.

Now, am I supposed to believe every word that comes out of your mouth

You'd be the founder member of a very exclusive club if you do. Ricky often has some interesting things to say, but typically he belabours them to the point of absurdity. We all have our foibles of course...

Sassenach wrote:

But there is perhaps a feeling that it would be better not to try hard and still end up in 3rd place (which is a distinct possibility), than to keep powder dry and hope that the Tories losing to UKIP is the main story the next day.

Sure, I get the reasons for the decision, it's still a strange one though because you'd think Labour ought to be fancying their chances of nicking the seat. Part of me wonders whether they don't actually want to win the seat because it would play into the Tory narrative of vote UKIP get Miliband.

Well, there is that - and that is another reason it is less strange.

What I will say is that the past year seems to have been a continual set of Labour campaigning in particular places, with byelections here and there as well as the Scottish Referendum, and it's been difficult to get contact from regional offices as they are all elsewhere in the country being busy. So if I can't get hold of them next week, I'll know that they are moving down to the Hoo Peninsular...

By the way, the results of these byelections may be 'priced in' to the thinking of those paying attention, but many people being polled (and the majority of voters) are not as close to the events as we are.

This is quite true of course, but at the same time the sort of people who would actually pay any attention to by-election results are likely to have followed the developing story in advance. Anybody who pays the slightest attention to politics will be expecting Carswell to win tomorrow.

Oh, I expect that Carswell will be re-elected, based on polling and anecdote before today. But the reality is that most 'real people' are not paying that much attention and it will still be a 'shock result' - the media will be all over it.

Now, am I supposed to believe every word that comes out of your mouth


You'd be the founder member of a very exclusive club if you do. Ricky often has some interesting things to say, but typically he belabours them to the point of absurdity. We all have our foibles of course...

Well put. Not that I do not have my own faults I'll admit.

These by-elections in the UK: how often do they occur? From what you guys have said it seems like there have been quite a bit of them.

I have not looked on the No10.gov.uk (I forget the address, usually just google it) yet but what exactly have British leaders promised Scotland? (I'm assuming they had to cut some sort of public deal, else the Scots would have left, no?)

A by-election occurs when an MP leaves his seat midway through the term. They happen for all kinds of reasons. Often it occurs through the death of the sitting MP, but sometimes they're forced to resign through some kind of scandal or they leave Parliament for personal reasons. David Miliband, the current Labour leader's older brother who was defeated by Ed for the leadership in act of political fratricide, decided that he couldn't face hanging around the backbenches in his brother's shadow so after a year or so he resigned to take on a well-paid job running a charity and his seat was vacated. Louise Mensch was a Tory who was only elected in 2010 but she found that being an MP was playing hell with her personal life because her husband lived in New York and it was placing stress on her marriage, so she just quit.

There were two of them last night. The Heywood and Middleton by-election came about through the death of the sitting MP but the Clacton one was much more interesting. Douglas Carswell was the sitting Tory MP but he defected to UKIP. Normally when an MP defects to another party he just crosses the floor and starts sitting on the opposite benches and doesn'thave to face the voters until the next general election, but Carswell took the honourable step of resigning his seat and fighting it in a by-election as a UKIP candidate. He seems to have won handsomely as well, but he was always popular locally so that's no great surprise.

A byelection is what you would call a special election, Hacker.

Whereas in the USA posts can remain vacant for a long time, or in some states be filled by an unelected nominee at the behest of a Governor, in the UK a vacant seat can have an election called once it is called in.

I love the generous treatment of Louise Mensch there Sass. You wouldn't guess that her local unpopularity or being out of her depth had anything to do with it.

I think I have heard them called by-elections, before, in the United States. My question was only why they seem to happen more often in the UK than in the US (which you answered).

Actually, I'm not entirely sure how long a seat remains vacant, or who can fill it, and how. That actually begs several questions. For a vacancy in the House of Representatives the Constitution is pretty specific:

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

So there must be a by-election just as there would be in Britain, according to the actual, written Constitution. It does happen from time to time. If, a year ago, the Distinguished Rep. Chris van Hollen (D-MD) was mortally wounded in an attempt to dislodge a wayward bottle of Coca-Cola from a vending machine in the House cafeteria, Governor O'Malley would have to do precisely that: issue an order to hold a special by-election, to enable the voters in district 8 to elect a new congressman.

Then again, suppose Mr. van Hollen's unfortunate assassination by the vending machine occurred today, only three weeks and four days before the regular, biennial election on November 4, 2014? Would the governor of a state be allowed/required hold a by-election to fill a vacancy that close to the regular election? Probably not. The Constitution is clear on what is supposed to happen, but does not get into details (as usual). I am assuming the exceptions for either 1) the governor making his own temporary appointment, or 2) neither the governor nor the people of a vacant district fill it at all, and just leave it vacant, have long since been "cleared up" by state and/or federal law. Your statement that they're left vacant for a while is probably half-true, but it piqued my curiosity.

Ditto for senators; Amendment XVII states:

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

Sounds like the same thing is supposed to happen, with the stated caveat allowing the Governor to appoint a temporary senator until the actual by-election can be held. Which leads me to believe it takes a while to arrange a by-election in the United States Congress.

And in either case, House or Senate, I have no clue who is eligible to run (like, do they have to have a primary, or can any fool with 10,000 signatures on a petition for office get on the ballot? No clue. That got me thinking about that for some reason. And nothing is on the agenda for today so I think I'll check.

In the UK: What's the process in the UK; does the PM have to ask the Queen for a writ? And how long does it take to arrange the by-election? Do the candidates get a while to campaign?

Also, does the [seemingly] greater number of by-elections in your country (compared to mine) have to do with the rigid party discipline? Are MPs forced to resign, or willingly resign, because they disagree with a vote the party is pretty unanimous in taking?

There are 650 MPs in the Commons against only 435 Congressmen and 100 Senators, so proportionately you'd expect them to be more common over here.

Since 2010 there have been 20 by-elections, so an average of 5 per year. This means that every year 0.76% of MPs either die or are forced to resign their seat, which isn't really all that high a number. I'm not sure how to go about finding the numbers for America to compare with, but I bet you'll find there has been a not too dissimilar figure. In fact it may even be higher. Every time the President appoints a member of Congress to his administration it will necessitate a by-election.