Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 238 posts

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#81

Post by galleywest200 »

amalcon wrote: post #76
BurningFrog wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't think of any other situation when one person getting a job puts legal obligations on their spouse, but I haven't looked into it.

Your spouse can definitely affect your ability to get a security clearance. Last I heard, cannabis use is still relevant to this, even if you live in a state where it's legal. Your spouse being a foreign national can also be significant, depending on which country and their connections there. It's not really a legal obligation as such ("only" putting the job at risk), but it does cover rather a lot of jobs.

> Last I heard, cannabis use is still relevant to this, even if you live in a state where it's legal.

The process of doing away with this entirely started last year: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-agencies-could-hire-for...

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#82

Post by dabluecaboose »

roflyear wrote: post #72
ccppurcell wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about they do their jobs, and put off making money in other ways till after their term ends. Maybe they can buy government bonds.

Honestly, congress salaries (not considering insider trading!!!) are really low. They're lower than many software dev salaries, and they generally have to have two homes (someplace to sleep in DC at least + their home in their district). I think if we raised salaries your sentiment could work, but good luck with that.

Fortunately for Congress, they have the power to raise their own salaries.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#83

Post by munchler »

harry8 wrote: post #42
plim8481 wrote: post #26

Never thought I'd see the day Kirsten Gillibrand and Josh Hawley would co-author a bill

This kind of thing, outsiders from both sides of government joining to try to get something done is the only way you will ever get any reform. Also why the insiders from both sides will be so scathing about outsiders on the other side and claim they are literally $evil_person_from_history

I'm scathing about Josh Hawley because he encouraged a coup against the US government, not because he's some sort of "outsider".

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#86

Post by Xeamek »

digdugdirk wrote: post #36
carimura wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm certainly not advocating for our ruling class but also consider that the cost to run and win a senate seat is something like $15M and a house seat over $2M (and that was data from a few years ago and only took averages, not the top races which were dramatically higher). And they are full time jobs that require an enormous amount of personal ambition (which is usually tied to wealth) so one can argue even being in…

... Is this the other side of the argument? If so, it really helps frame just how messed up this system is.

No, not really. As far as "it would be nice" for politics to be free market of ideas, having to deal with scale is simply an inherent part of the world we live in.

Like What system would You propose where campaigning funds don't matter? What, public fund where every candidate gets a fair share and they are prohibited to, for example, printing flyers on their own? In the land of free, nonetheless? Ofcourse it costs a lot to campaign for high positions in country as big as the US. Actually, in any country.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#87

Post by lesuorac »

respondo2134 wrote: post #78
lesuorac wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or perhaps the salary of congress critters /etc should be significantly higher than it is. Is the CEO of Tesla (~50B ?) really more impactful than the US president (~400k/yr) ?

This is a problem in a countries like Canada, where the old "we need to attract the BEST talent for [government|not-for-profit|etc]" argument makes politics the best way to get an incredibly lucrative job when you don't have the skills to do it any other way. Compared to the US where the formula is typically 1. get rich 2. buy power How about a public service that DOESN'T attract people who's primary directive is get…

If government is the best way to get a lucrative job then why are only the incompetent people applying?

I suspect government is actually not nearly as lucrative as non-government and that's why people who "don't have the skills" are in government.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#89

Post by bell-cot »

anonym29 wrote: post #30
bell-cot wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...iterative process... ...When (not if it gets circumvented), that's when... If the politicians manage the process correctly, they can forever be passing "reform bills" which sound good...but have enough loopholes so that nothing resembling actual reform ever happens. Rule of Thumb: If somebody claims they want to build a transportation system, then starts with a square wheel and talks about improving it as the ne…

Inefficient action being taken is still better than absolutely zero action being taken in addressing a problem. Think, for instance, about how many more people might become aware of / interested in the problem, who were previously unaware or uninterested in insider stock trading by members of congress, should a historic bill be passed to initialize the process of stopping the problem.

> Inefficient action...

For actions which are not free (and getting any bill through Congress sure as h*ell isn't), one can write a very simple "break even" formula - relating the cost of action A, the efficiency of action A, and the value of the benefits that a 100%-efficient action would provide.

For actions falling short of break-even, it's generally considered wiser to spend the resources on something else.

You can spend money re-roofing your house with cotton candy - because shingles were too expensive, or unavailable, or whatever. Yeah, that does scratch the itchy need to "do something!". But longer-term...

Post reply on HN