Each house of Congress has the constitutional prerogative to set its own rules. Which is a fancy way of saying this isn’t a bill: it won’t be voted on by the Senate nor will it be sent to the President for approval. Thus, attaching a rider would be pointless.
(Yes, the article describes this as a “bill” but I figure it must be wrong in doing so, as it also indicates the rules would apply to the House immediately upon a majority vote in that chamber. Go go sloppy journalism.)
I wish somebody else would take the Senate Majority Seat. I don’t like Reid.
Interesting. How will that last little bit be implemented? Does the House have the power to just create a new administrative body, or is that going to require a separate bill?
Rather selective quoting.
$115m isn’t even all earmarks. Later the article mentions that the actual number is $31m, and for…
…bridges, subways, converting an abandoned building into a museum (and revenue generator). As the Speaker says in the article, earmarking for public works isn’t the evilest of evil. Yes, it’d be great to have such riders available for public scrutiny before congress votes on them, but that’s the provision in Pelosi’s new rule, so full speed ahead.
If “we’ve always done it this way, so I can’t change now” is the barrier to enacting reform, we’re in serious trouble.
Color me cynical, but I think one of two things will happen.
The Dem’s put up the appearance of a valiant fight, but lose. They do not actually try that hard to win and then blame the republicans.
They adopt the rules with a whole lot of whoop-la about how great it is and then several months later, quietly when no one is paying attention anymore, they repeal the rules.
I’m the same way… but one can HOPE, can’t one?
I like all of them but this one. I like it in spirit, but in practice it would make it hard to job hunt for honest workin’ joes. Member ok, staffer not so much.
. . . no member or staffer will be able to negotiate for employment in the public sector without disclosing such contacts to the House Ethics Committee, and within three days of such contact being made.
But if it’s only a matter of disclosing, I have no issue. They aren’t saying “You can’t X” they are just saying “tell us about it”. It’s to avoid conflict of interest, and that’s a good thing, even for staffers.
Staffer, who works for Congressperson X, is approached by firm X, saying they want to interview him. Or, calls up firm X and approaches them, either way. It’s just exploratory. Are you looking? Are you hiring? Now disclosure comes.
Staffer is now potentially blackballed from further career development because the chief of staff of Congressperson X thinks they are looking around and cannot be relied on to be there long term. Especially if they get approached/look around more than once.
Would you like to have to be forced to disclose any conversations you have about change of employment with your current employer? How do you think that would affect your long term career prospects at your current employer?
It’s good in theory, but terrible in practice. For staffers.
There could easily be confidentiality rules that prevent most abuses of the kind you suggest. The member you work for need never find out, at minimum.
What kind of career is capitol hill staffer? Where does that lead? The whole business of politics makes me uncomfortable. I’m sure there’s money involved somewhere.
Usually idealists. You don’t go into government work for the money. It’s a different mentality, I tells ya. You should see all the non-profit workers in this city.
That’s an excellent point. Have it be totally confidential and removed from the legislative offices. Perfect.
Given that, good rules!
That part may require a bill, unless it can be shoehorned into the DOJ’s existing authority.
I actually almost feel badly about calling her a “moonbat” now.
If she gets it passed, I take it back.
I always thought that many Hill Staffers are the kids who run for student body in junior high and get swirlies. Although there are some good folks but there’s a lot of arrogant 23 year olds who are a bunch of dumbasses.
Some hill staffers come to the hill, have fun and then head to law/business school. Others become fulltime staffers with scary power. Others become lobbyists or think tank heads or even professors. It varies depending on the person.
Hill staffers do deserve some respect. Many of them toil crazy hours for crappy pay and seriously abusive bosses. A kid making 30 bones may be working 80 hour weeks and staying up till 3 am for some dinky vote on an educational bill that may or may not happen. You put in some serious dues before you can cash out(lobbying job).
Yeah but you can get tons of ass. Both kinds!
Actually, if Jessica Cutler is to be believed, you end up giving a lot of ass, just to make ends meet.
In Backing Murtha, Pelosi Draws Fire
House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi’s endorsement of Rep. John P. Murtha’s bid for House majority leader set off a furor yesterday on Capitol Hill, with critics charging that she is undercutting her pledge to clean up corruption by backing a veteran lawmaker who they say has repeatedly skirted ethical boundaries.
Pelosi (D-Calif.) directly intervened in the heated contest between Murtha (D-Pa.) and House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) on Sunday by circulating a letter to Democratic lawmakers. The letter voiced her support for Murtha and put her prestige on the line in a closely fought leadership battle. Some Democratic lawmakers and watchdog groups say they are baffled that Pelosi would go out of her way to back Murtha’s candidacy after pledging to make the new 110th Congress the most ethical and corruption-free in history.
These things seem like a no-brainer to me. It should have been this way from the start.
glyc