Politicians provide themselves Top Secret Status

B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
Our fabulous congress, not to be outdone by all those working to avoid the news lately, has come up with a plan to offer fellow members "protection" from enraged constituents, that even outdoes the anonymous riders that they now can add to bills. I cannot wait for them to frame this one with the American Flag; voters the fate of the American way of life depends on you not knowing what your Senators are doing!

Corporate Sell-Outs Exploit a Secret New Gimmick
August 1, 2013

by David Sirota

With more and more operations of the executive and judiciary branches happening behind closed doors and out of public view, the legislative branch was bound to join Washington’s secrecy-fest at some point. That point apparently is now.

As The Hill reports, the U.S. Senate’s “top tax writers have promised their colleagues 50 years worth of secrecy in exchange for suggestions on what deductions and credits to preserve” in a tax “reform” bill that aims to overhaul the tax code from scratch. The system, reports the newspaper, allows only 10 congressional staff members to have “direct access to a senator’s written suggestions” and “each submission will be given its own ID number and be kept on password-protected servers, with printed versions kept in locked safes” in the National Archives until the end of 2064.

The architects of this scheme, Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) suggest that secrecy is the best way to facilitate input from all senators, as lawmakers will know they can make substantive suggestions without the fear of political retribution.

An optimist might initially see some merit to that logic – after all, as The Hill notes, there is “enormous pressure being brought to bear by K Street lobbyists, who are working furiously to protect their clients and the tax provisions that benefit them.” So, theoretically, detaching senators’ identity from the specific tax initiatives they are proposing could be a way to encourage them to do the right thing. It could, for instance, give them a means of offering much-needed proposals that end various wasteful corporate tax giveaways without having to fear political retribution (nasty television ads, contributions to opponents, etc.) from the corporations that benefit from such giveaways.

But theory is different from reality. And here’s the reality: secrecy is more often than not the instrument that helps Washington do things that are bad for the general public and, thus, wildly unpopular – but good for the politically connected.

In the national security realm, for instance, secrecy has fostered stuff like the government’s unpopular warrantless surveillance and unpopular mass data mining – stuff that is bad for the average American’s civil liberties but good for both government officials who seek monarchical power and for private defense/intelligence contractors seeking to expand their profits.

A similar dynamic plays out with economics. In that policy realm just a few years ago, secrecy famously shielded policymakers from public outcry and resulted in a stealth $16 trillion bailout that handed out huge tranches of taxpayer cash to some of the largest corporations in the world. Now, as Businessweek’s Brendan Greeley notes, it’s the same dynamic playing out on tax policy (emphasis added):


Sausage is gross, and backroom deals are necessary. But these secrets, the scraps of paper on which senators write their wishes, vouchsafed in a hope chest at the National Archives, are so precious that they can’t even be trusted to a back room. Senators are scared. Some tax loopholes are just indefensible to voters. There is no way to pretend that they help our kids, or jobs. They just go to people and companies that donate money. That’s what this secrecy is for. The only possible reason for it to exist is to prevent senators from having to defend their choices to the public.

So here’s what we know about Baucus and Hatch’s “blank slate” process, which wipes the tax code clean, forcing senators to justify every loophole they ask to have written back in. We know that some of the loopholes just aren’t defensible, so toxic to voters that not only can we not know them, we may not ever know them… xAny senator with a tax plea so secret it has to be physically locked away is definitely, absolutely not requesting it for the voters.

To know Greeley has it right, just consider the career of one of the architects of this scheme, Max Baucus.

The retiring Montana senator is the senior Democrat on the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee. In that position, he hasn’t used his power to rid the tax code of corporate-written loopholes, subsidies and handouts – the public record shows that he has used his power to riddle the tax code with those expensive giveaways. In exchange for embedding those handouts in the tax code, Baucus has been rewarded handsomely with campaign cash to the point where he has been famously labeled “K Street’s Favorite Senator.” That label is particularly appropriate considering a recent dispatch from The New York Times showing that “no other lawmaker on Capitol Hill has such a sizable constellation of former aides working as tax lobbyists.”

In light of such a record, the notion that Baucus has built the anonymous submission system in order to help challenge K Street is, in a word, absurd. Having spent so much political capital enriching his corporate donors and lobbyists at the expense of taxpayers, he is retiring with one last gift to those benefactors – a secrecy system designed to let them rewrite the tax code from scratch in a way that most serves their interests.

Of course, senators don’t have to allow their tax proposals to be hidden for the next 50 years. They can, for example, follow the lead of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders who declined the secrecy offer and voluntarily made his proposals public on his website.

Now that the submission deadline has passed, senators could also move to open up the secrecy system and immediately release all the proposals to the public. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), in fact, seems to be in a perfect position to do that. He has been a vocal proponent of government transparency, generating international headlines demanding an end to the secrecy surrounding the NSA surveillance programs. As a senior member of the Finance Committee – and potentially the panel’s next chairman – he is in a perfect position to apply his pro-transparency principles by calling for a disclosure of all the submitted tax proposals.

This or something like it is the only way Americans will know how their new tax code is being constructed, because Congress exempted itself from the Freedom of Information Act and the public therefore cannot compel transparency. Without a group of lawmakers standing up for transparency, we will never get to see the most basic information that should be accessible in a functioning democracy – the information that lets voters know what proposals their elected representatives are putting forward on their behalf. By design, we will also never get to see how campaign donor cash prompts tax policies that deliberately send public money back to the donors.
 

Black Irish

Wise Guy
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
602
I think Russia now has a more open and transparent government than we do. Putin transparently runs things with an iron fist and will openly have you killed if you stand in his way.

In my country, politicians recall you!
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
But but but...AL-QAEDA MUST BE DEFEATED! Just go shopping already and stop paying attention!
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
I actually think this is a bit defensible. Maybe not ideal, but it's not all bad.

The reason nobody wants to reform the tax code is that you can't change any rates without class warfare rhetoric.

A modification to captial depreciation, for example, may be the best idea since sliced bread, but nobody will touch it with a 10 foot pole because CORPORATE WELARE TO OIL COMPANIES!!!!.

So it's basically either (1) reform the code without revealing who votes for what, or (2) don't reform it at all.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
I can change the tax code without class warfare; everybody pays their fair share. Everybody gets insurance and everybody gets a job. The people that do real good and excel, get real good jobs.

Everybody that gets the benefits pays for the battleships and aircraft carriers. ETC.

Everybody gets computers, software, and drugs at a fair and affordable rate. ETC.

You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/7S94ohyErSw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Last edited:

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
I can change the tax code without class warfare; everybody pays their fair share. Everybody gets insurance and everybody gets a job. The people that do real good, get real good jobs.

Everybody that gets the benefits pays for the battleships and aircraft carriers.

Everybody gets computers, software, and drugs at a fair and affordable rate.

Right...any dictator can change the tax code to suit their fancy. (Free ice cream for everyone on Fridays!)

But we're taking about the U.S. Congress. Congressmen are primarily concerned with being re-elected (which is how they got where they are in the first place). Hence the perceived need for secrecy. So it's either (1) let them vote on it in secret, or (2) they won't vote on it at all.
 

Rack Em

Community Bod
Messages
7,089
Reaction score
2,727
I can change the tax code without class warfare; everybody pays their fair share. Everybody gets insurance and everybody gets a job. The people that do real good, get real good jobs.

Everybody that gets the benefits pays for the battleships and aircraft carriers.

Everybody gets computers, software, and drugs at a fair and affordable rate.

How is that reform? That's communism and a recipe for economic disaster.

I'm with IH, every Senator/Congressman will not vote for tax reform that negatively impacts their constituents or various interests in their district/state. Without this type of blind representation, tax reform will end up some disjointed piece of legislation that has more of a negative impact on business (see Dodd-Frank Act) by stifling growth. Companies will act in their economic best interests by finding ways around disjointed legislation to maximize profits. (And for everybody out there that hates companies that maximize profits...sorry, that's the way the world works. Adam Smith believed developed Classical Economics and we've come full circle as the academic community is rejecting Keynesian Economics in favor of Neoclassical Economics.)

I'm not sure what the exact formula is for tax reform, but involves removing loopholes.

On the flip side, it does create a potentially bad precedent if Congress can vote anonymously.
 
Last edited:

AvesEvo

Well-known member
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
372
How is that reform? That's communism and a recipe for economic disaster.

I'm with IH, every Senator/Congressman will not vote for tax reform that negatively impacts their constituents or various interests in their district/state. Without this type of blind representation, tax reform will end up some disjointed piece of legislation that has more of a negative impact on business (see Dodd-Frank Act) by stifling growth. Companies will act in their economic best interests by finding ways around disjointed legislation to maximize profits. (And for everybody out there that hates companies that maximize profits...sorry, that's the way the world works. Adam Smith believed developed Classical Economics and we've come full circle as the academic community is rejecting Keynesian Economics in favor of Neoclassical Economics.)

I'm not sure what the exact formula is for tax reform, but involves removing loopholes.

On the flip side, it does create a potentially bad precedent if Congress can vote anonymously.

Oh no, not communism! Everybody run for your lives!!!
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
How is that reform? That's communism and a recipe for economic disaster.

I'm with IH, every Senator/Congressman will not vote for tax reform that negatively impacts their constituents or various interests in their district/state. Without this type of blind representation, tax reform will end up some disjointed piece of legislation that has more of a negative impact on business (see Dodd-Frank Act) by stifling growth. Companies will act in their economic best interests by finding ways around disjointed legislation to maximize profits. (And for everybody out there that hates companies that maximize profits...sorry, that's the way the world works. Adam Smith believed developed Classical Economics and we've come full circle as the academic community is rejecting Keynesian Economics in favor of Neoclassical Economics.)

I'm not sure what the exact formula is for tax reform, but involves removing loopholes.

On the flip side, it does create a potentially bad precedent if Congress can vote anonymously.

I don't want to get into civics or politics. The statement was made that it couldn't be done without; "The reason nobody wants to reform the tax code is that you can't change any rates without class warfare rhetoric. "

I did it with my proposal. Got everybody a slice without putting anyone down.

No attempt at communism was envisioned. My attempt was fairly free market. That was the part where people that excelled got better jobs. The only thing I didn't include was today's screw the poor mentality. (The poor gets screwed in many ways including getting started on welfare which is like the social equivalence of hard drugs.

I am absolutely amazed that few of you can see what this is, an attempt by congress to bring home the bacon for their employers, the lobbyists.
 

Rack Em

Community Bod
Messages
7,089
Reaction score
2,727
I don't want to get into civics or politics. The statement was made that it couldn't be done without; "The reason nobody wants to reform the tax code is that you can't change any rates without class warfare rhetoric. "

I did it with my proposal. Got everybody a slice without putting anyone down.

I disagree. You proposed an end without the means. It's wonderful to think that everyone will pay their fair share, have insurance, and have a job; but it's unrealistic to pull that off in a market economy.

Economists, for a long time, have believed that there is a normal rate of unemployment. It's manipulation of the economy by the Federal Reserve that forces this to fluctuate (this is another story for another time, though). So not everyone is going to have a job - it defies basic economics. Even John Maynard Keynes (one of the most liberal economists ever) believed in natural unemployment. It's just not feasible for everyone (or close to everyone) to be employed.

With regards to insurance (I'm assuming health insurance and not homeowners, car, etc.), I don't believe everyone SHOULD have insurance. It's not a rational decision, in an economic sense, for every consumer. Every consumer will value health insurance differently and should be able to purchase it accordingly. Some (risk averse) only want minimal coverage and others (risk-taking) want a cadillac plan; some might want none at all. Everyone knows full well the risks of not having insurance and can weigh those against the probability of using it. Consequently, anyone who does not purchase it should bear the consequences. In summation, I don't believe everyone will purchase it (if given a decision, which the federal government is eliminating) and it is "unfair" to make them.

Two side notes on health insurance since my specialty in law school is Health Law:
1) Health insurance is stupid. Third-party payers drive up the price (yes, "price" not "cost") of health care because it takes the accountability out of care. Doctors have no reason to not run a costly test and label it as "preventative" nor does a patient have an incentive to say "Wait, how much will this cost?" due to moral hazard. Having a system in which consumers use health savings accounts will drive down prices (a lot actually) because consumers will have the ability to "shop around" and will regain the pricing power they have lost to insurance companies. There is power in cash, people.

2) Crap, I already forgot what point 2 was.

"Fair share" is a very subjective term with regards to taxes. Personally, a x% tax rate for everybody is fair, regardless of income. Everyone benefits from the battleships, interstates, national parks, etc. right? Therefore everyone should pay in for their upkeep and installation. Can't argue that there's class warfare there because everyone is chipping in. Closing loopholes will allow "x" to be lower across the board too.

No attempt at communism was envisioned. My attempt was fairly free market. That was the part where people that excelled got better jobs. The only thing I didn't include was today's screw the poor mentality. (The poor gets screwed in many ways including getting started on welfare which is like the social equivalence of hard drugs.

I know you don't want to argue civics and politics (though I believe one's civic/political bent will inherently shape one's view on the tax code, etc.) but that's why I originally labeled what you said as "communism". It shared the underlying principles of 20th century communism in that everyone pays into the system and everyone is employed.

I agree about welfare. It's a broken system and has evolved into an entitlement program. However I completely disagree about the poor getting "screwed". The bottom 10% have a better quality of life than they did 50 years ago and have a better quality of life than the vast majority of the bottom 10% of OECD countries. Relative statistics aside, air conditioning, computers, and cell phones increase the quality of life for them too (compared to, say, 1960). Technology continues to make lives better even if it takes a while to trickle down. Fun fact: my parents help me out with my groceries since I haven't had a paying job in 2 years (thanks law school!). I get less money from them every month for groceries than if I were on food stamps...

For the rest of my thoughts on welfare read "If You Give a Moose a Muffin".

Fun story (and yes I know it's an anecdote), when my dad was a child my grandparents qualified for free/reduced lunches. When my dad would come home with that letter, my grandmother would throw it away. Both of my grandparents have an 8th grade education and paid to send all 6 of their children to Catholic grade school and high school. They qualified for welfare but refused it out of principle. They have also generously donated money to all 14 of their grandchildren to help with college. They are truly self-made people and made sacrifices for the betterment of their children and grandchildren.

I am absolutely amazed that few of you can see what this is, an attempt by congress to bring home the bacon for their employers, the lobbyists.

Blind voting on tax reform isn't some big conspiracy. And I don't understand the wide disdain for lobbyists. They simply work to push legislation through for the interests they represent! What's bad about that? That's their job!
Read Justice Kennedy's decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Money = Speech. People donate money to causes and interests they believe in. Those organizations turn around and lobby Congress on behalf of their supporters. IMO, it boils down to freedom of speech and the democratic process.
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
I don't want to get into civics or politics. The statement was made that it couldn't be done without; "The reason nobody wants to reform the tax code is that you can't change any rates without class warfare rhetoric. "

I did it with my proposal...

You didn't "do" anything. You wrote an anonymous internet comment. The people who make class-warefare rhetoric don't care about your internet comments. Their job is to criticize Congressional voting.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
I disagree. You proposed an end without the means. . . . it boils down to freedom of speech and the democratic process.

Didn't I politely ask not to make this into a discussion of politics? I am not going there. This is exactly how these people are manipulating you.

Politics and religion are the two areas where a person will not abandon his preconceived notions no matter what. I don't give a shiit what anyone wants as long as it includes returning to one man, one vote. In other words, we are done if we don't get the money out of it.
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
I actually think this is a bit defensible. Maybe not ideal, but it's not all bad.

The reason nobody wants to reform the tax code is that you can't change any rates without class warfare rhetoric.

A modification to captial depreciation, for example, may be the best idea since sliced bread, but nobody will touch it with a 10 foot pole because CORPORATE WELARE TO OIL COMPANIES!!!!.

So it's basically either (1) reform the code without revealing who votes for what, or (2) don't reform it at all.

If they made it top secret for 12 years, then maybe I could understand. Maybe but 50 years is Bullshit. I would prefer if it was done completely transparent. That way people will actually know if they should vote for their Senator during the next election or not.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
You didn't "do" anything. You wrote an anonymous internet comment. The people who make class-warefare rhetoric don't care about your internet comments. Their job is to criticize Congressional voting.

All I was saying is it can be done. All day long. Do you think it is intellectually honest to say congress gives a shiitt about these rhetoric bombers? No fvckin' way, bro! They just don't want to let everyone in the country see them selling the country out. Period.
 

Rack Em

Community Bod
Messages
7,089
Reaction score
2,727
Didn't I politely ask not to make this into a discussion of politics? I am not going there. This is exactly how these people are manipulating you.

Politics and religion are the two areas where a person will not abandon his preconceived notions no matter what. I don't give a shiit what anyone wants as long as it includes returning to one man, one vote. In other words, we are done if we don't get the money out of it.

Bogs, tax code reform is politics. I was pretty non-confrontational with my statements.

And don't tell me that anyone is manipulating me like I don't have the ability to think for myself.
 
Top