SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In one of their first moves of the new Congress, House Republicans have voted to gut their own independent ethics watchdog — a huge blow to cheerleaders of congressional oversight and one that dismantles major reforms adopted after the Jack Abramoff scandal.
Monday's effort was led, in part, by lawmakers who have come under investigation in recent years.
Despite a warning from Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), House Republicans adopted a proposal by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) to put the Office of Congressional Ethics under the jurisdiction of the House Ethics Committee.
The office currently has free rein, enabling investigators to pursue allegations and then recommend further action to the House Ethics Committee as they see fit.
Now, the office would be under the thumb of lawmakers themselves. The proposal also appears to limit the scope of the office's work by barring them from considering anonymous tips against lawmakers. And it would stop the office from disclosing the findings of some of their investigations, as they currently do after the recommendations go to House Ethics.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/house-republicans-gut-their-own-oversight-233111
The Office of Congressional Ethics was established in 2008 under House Democrats, in response to the era of lobbying scandals made notable by Jack Abramoff, the former lobbyist who went to prison on corruption charges.
It is the first independent body to have an oversight role in House ethics. There is no Senate counterpart. The OCE independently reviews allegations of misconduct against House members and staff, and if deemed appropriate refers them to the House Ethics Committee for review. The OCE cannot independently punish lawmakers for any ethics violations.
Update: House Republicans pull plan to gut independent ethics panel after Trump tweets
(Score: 3, Informative) by fritsd on Tuesday January 03 2017, @06:07PM
Have you considered that for some people, it feels painful to change their mind, and they don't like to do it? They're not stupid on average, ours than differently works processing logic their but. Capiche?
Go download and read "the Authoritarians" [umanitoba.ca] if you haven't done so yet. Go on, I dare you :-)
(if it's too thick, consider that over half of the book is scientific footnotes, which you can skip)
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday January 03 2017, @06:29PM
I have absolutely read The Authoritarians. I even followed some of Bob Altemeyer's actual peer reviewed poli-sci papers(too bad about him retiring from the field in 2012, I'd love to read his analysis of the whole Trump thing). So no need to worry about me being bothered by the footnotes. I've actually read like a quarter of them.
And one thing to understand about authoritarianism is that it's a personality dimension. A range. Not all of them are the same. And unlike big-five traits I've not read any material suggesting it's deeply ingrained by adulthood and can't be broken. I kinda want to learn how to break people out of that trap.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 03 2017, @07:33PM
You can't. They only learn when they suffer from it, and it has to have a personal face on it; it can't just be something like a stock crash that wipes out their 401K, it needs to be something they can connect (truthfully or not) to a person or entity they place their loyalty in. For example, someone who said he was going to "lock her up" and doesn't :) Or, someone who will take away their healthcare.
Personally I have no sympathy for hard authoritarians. Live by the boot stomping on a human face forever, die by the boot etc etc, end up in Hell with a footprint on your face. Fuck 'em.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @07:58PM
Or, someone who will take away their healthcare.
I read about a lady yesterday. She was mad at Obamacare [nytimes.com] because her son turned 26 and had to be dropped from her health insurance plan. She had no idea that it was Obamacare that let him stay on her plan after her turned 21. Nor was she aware that Obamacare's medicaid expansion is what got him full-court cancer treatment for less than $1 a month.
Personally I have no sympathy for hard authoritarians. Live by the boot stomping on a human face forever, die by the boot etc etc, end up in Hell with a footprint on your face.
If only they would all go off and live in their own hell instead of mucking it up for the rest of us. That's the price of living in a society, you have to work with people who wish you ill.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @10:04PM
I try keeping my head above water but it is all too easy to be swayed by the negativity and forget that probably over 50% of your fellow citizens legitimately have your back.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday January 03 2017, @10:39PM
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @10:52PM
This is a lesson for all those people who think marketing is evil.
Branding matters. Sometimes it REALLY FUCKING matters.
He should have gone whole hog and made Obamacare the official name. Yeah republicans would have accused him of megalomania. But it was the GOP that wanted to tar the plan with his name in the first place. They really wouldn't have anything to complain about.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Tuesday January 03 2017, @07:52PM
Well, then I apologize for egging you on.
And if you find any interesting news on breaking people out of that trap, please share it with us soylentils.