The top 12 revolving-door moments of 2015

The top 12 revolving-door moments of 2015

The revolving door kept spinning through 2015, as Washington kept getting richer at the expense of the rest of the country. Hundreds of government employees went to K Street and Wall Street and hundreds went the other way. Here were the 12 most noteworthy spins...

This is definitely not a partisan problem... prominent members of both major parties are represented. For example, representing the Republican side we have Paul Ryan:

4.) Deposing John Boehner for Paul Ryan was a Tea Party coup that left many Tea Partiers nevertheless uneasy. These skeptics felt vindicated by Ryan's first big hire: revolving-door lobbyist David Hoppe as his chief of staff. Hoppe ran his own law firm for the past couple of years, with Delta and Ford among his clients.

And for the Democrats:

1.) Nobody loved to attack Republicans as stooges for industry more than Barney Frank did. Nobody, before Elizabeth Warren, was touted as a scourge of the banks more than Barney Frank. No legislation since Glass-Steagall was portrayed as an attack on the banks as much as Dodd-Frank.

Of course, whereas Glass-Steagall did in fact restrict the banksters in significant and important ways, Dodd-Frank was a sweetheart deal for the banksters who destroyed our economy and housing/mortgage market, as it was intended to be... even as they lied through their teeth and told us they were doing it for our benefit. All it really did was hurt the big banksters' competition, the independent community banks.

Forbes: Dodd-Frank Is Killing Community Banks

Killing Off Community Banks - Intended Consequence of Dodd-Frank?

And this incestuous relationship between Big Biz and government is how we get Regulatory Capture:

Regulatory capture is a form of political corruption that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.

Banking is just one of many industries...Big Pharma is another, and Big Ag, and on and on. The foxes aren't just guarding the henhouses, they're devouring everyone in it.

ETA: I'm actually working on a similar thread regarding the medical industry, focusing in particular on the equally incestuous relationships within the FDA and the CDC (govt offices) and the CDC Foundation (quasi-private organization), but there's much to research and make sense of. "O what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive."

a reply to: Boadicea

I will go out on a limb and add; I beilieve this one to be the biggest "shocker" / sarc.... I still say its #1

3.) President Obama said he was going to stop the revolving door, and he spoke as if Obamacare was a broadside to the industry. If you believed either of these lines, you were surprised in 2011 when Obama picked hospital executive Marilyn Tavenner as Medicare administrator. Not done with the revolving door, Tavenner cashed out in 2015 to become president of America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest lobby for the insurance industry, which is — thanks to Obamacare — increasingly dependent on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for profits.

a reply to: ReadLeader

And I won't argue

Obamacare itself is -- and always was -- a big fat ugly example of revolving door politics and regulatory capture. It was never meant to work for our best interests, and has nothing to do with our health... just big fat healthy wallets for the few at the expense of the many.

a reply to: Boadicea

I remember prior to it being put into "ObammaLaw" watching a gentleman on Youtube; he went through the plan page by page (just like in bible study) LOL & gave page, statue and title for all of the 'underlying' items that they were slipping in to the Act.

I watched this for a few hours in astonishment...

Also earlier this year-Obamacare 'robbed' Medicare of $700B, says Huckabee

And dont forget this ""Obama: I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period.""

www.factcheck.org...

He He.... Yea, Boad, right on target revolving door politics and regulatory capture.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ReadLeader

And I won't argue

Obamacare itself is -- and always was -- a big fat ugly example of revolving door politics and regulatory capture. It was never meant to work for our best interests, and has nothing to do with our health... just big fat healthy wallets for the few at the expense of the many.

That's how it works in a capitalistic economy. The corporations pay the politicians to implement their desired results...profit. I'm at a loss to understand how Obamacare can be called "socialist" when it's the insurance company's investors that reap all the profit.

You think voting for a faux conservative capitalist like Trump is going to aid the common man? Or any politician for that matter. ....





It's a shame that people are so enamored with Trumps rhetoric that they refuse to see thru his BS..

originally posted by: ReadLeader
a reply to: Boadicea

I remember prior to it being put into "ObammaLaw" watching a gentleman on Youtube; he went through the plan page by page (just like in bible study) LOL & gave page, statue and title for all of the 'underlying' items that they were slipping in to the Act.

I may have watched the same video...

I watched this for a few hours in astonishment...

And then that astonishment turned to horror, eh?

Also earlier this year-Obamacare 'robbed' Medicare of $700B, says Huckabee

And dont forget this ""Obama: I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period.""

www.factcheck.org...

He He.... Yea, Boad, right on target revolving door politics and regulatory capture.

Thanks for contributing such good stuff to the thread! Knowledge is power...

a reply to: olaru12

That's how it works in a capitalistic economy. The corporations pay the politicians to implement their desired results...profit.

Well, that's certainly how it works in this capitalistic economy... but it doesn't have to be. I'm an optimist at heart. When we know better, we can do better.

I'm at a loss to understand how Obamacare can be called "socialist" when it's the insurance company's investors that reap all the profit.

Probably for the same reason as the gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands at the mere thought of "deadbeat homeowners" getting "free houses" after the mortgage crash in '08... which never happened, of course, and was never going to happen, but you couldn't tell the LIVs that -- Limbaugh-informed-voters. I remember having a huge argument about it with my sisters at the time...

You think voting for a faux conservative capitalist like Trump is going to aid the common man? Or any politician for that matter. ....

Huh? Did you mistake me for a Trump supporter? One word: Kelo.

The Trump comment was rhetorical and not directed at you but the LIVs....

I was in retail/mfg. in the 80s and suffered a catastrophic loss. It took awhile to recover but I educated myself how to profit from trends. Perhaps I'm part of the problem.

a reply to: olaru12



Didnt you mean to say faux conservative crony capitalist ? I'll take Mr. Trump ANY day over the evil Billery

Is it true that in some instances the corporations or maybe industry actually write the law they want implemented?

Then I guess get their lobbyist to buy a congressman/senator to sponsor or introduce it?

Why can't they come up with some law that makes lobbying a fee based activity?

base rate to lobby a new bill $100

every 10 pages after that 1 million dollars,

after 100 pages 1 billion? lol.....

That would be in normal size font, not microfiche lol

a reply to: tinner07

I would agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY ! ! ! !

Just got me thinking, so I want to define...

A lobbyist is someone hired by a business or a cause to persuade legislators to support that business or cause.
Lobbyists get paid to win favor from politicians. For example, oil companies send lobbyists to Washington to try to make life easier for oil companies. Sometimes they do it by making a great case for their cause, but often it involves fancy dinners and golf outings. If that sounds kind of shady, it is. But remember that women's rights groups and cancer research foundations have lobbyists, too — it's just one way to get your voice heard on the Hill.

rings alot of bells (Bills) says Me

originally posted by: olaru12
The Trump comment was rhetorical and not directed at you but the LIVs....

Whew! Though I am enjoying the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth Trump's causing among the old guard and the elite

I was in retail/mfg. in the 80s and suffered a catastrophic loss. It took awhile to recover but I educated myself how to profit from trends. Perhaps I'm part of the problem.

Not necessarily part of the problem... but you know better than I so I'll leave that to your own conscience to decide!

originally posted by: tinner07
Is it true that in some instances the corporations or maybe industry actually write the law they want implemented?

Yes, it's true. Here's a little on ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council. Among other things, they've been behind utility companies charging extra fees to consumers with solar panels...

Then I guess get their lobbyist to buy a congressman/senator to sponsor or introduce it?

Pretty much, yeah. They may have standing agreements with some congress critters for all we know!

Why can't they come up with some law that makes lobbying a fee based activity?

base rate to lobby a new bill $100

every 10 pages after that 1 million dollars,

after 100 pages 1 billion? lol.....

That would be in normal size font, not microfiche lol

That would make too much sense... and besides, whose lobbyists are going to pay the congress critters for that???

a reply to: ReadLeader

I'll take Mr. Trump ANY day over the evil Billery

As my only choices, so would I... but I can't see it ever coming to that. I'm still hoping Gary Johnson throws his hat in the ring. At this point, my vote is his to lose as my son says. "On The Issues" has his positions here.

a reply to: Boadicea

Yup, we have what we have, it is what it is; the lesser of the two......


Aside from Billery being such an evil person, we dont need another Clinton in the White House.

a reply to: ReadLeader

Yes, it is what it is... for now. But I am encouraged that it's changing. That people are changing. For the better. At one time, Billary could do no wrong -- and the MSM made sure of that. But that's changing slowly but surely. And if Bernie ever gets decent media coverage, I'm sure his numbers would increase exponentially, just like Trump. I'm pretty sure their high numbers are more a representation of the anger and contempt of the public toward the status quo and political class, rather than the public's overwhelming support for their positions on the issues.

Let's just hope folks use that anger and contempt to educate themselves on not just the problems, but how they pervert and extort the system to get away with it -- like crony capitalism and lobbying and regulatory capture -- and the best ways to provide real solutions for the greatest good. To that end, we the people are both the problem and the solution.

Speaking of the Clintons:

Bill Clinton's speaking fees draw new attention as they line up with actions his wife's State Department took between 2009 and 2013

~~New report says two dozen different organizations paid former president for speeches while they had issues pending before the State Department while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state

~~Clinton campaign, newspaper both say there is no evidence the speeches are linked to the department's actions

~~Some of Clinton's speeches were given overseas, such as the city of Abu Dhabi

a reply to: Boadicea

Everyone knows this is an issue and agrees it's a problem. Literally everyone from the random guy on the street to the law makers in office. The question no one has been able to answer is how do we fix it?

Regulators need to know an industry, and that means they need current high level experience in that industry. The only place you're going to get that is from the large successful corporations in that industry. Since regulators are appointed for relatively short terms, it's not a career path, you become a regulator for a couple years and then go back to doing what you were doing before.

If you make things difficult for your industry, how will you ever go back to getting a job?

originally posted by: Boadicea
Probably for the same reason as the gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands at the mere thought of "deadbeat homeowners" getting "free houses" after the mortgage crash in '08... which never happened, of course, and was never going to happen, but you couldn't tell the LIVs that -- Limbaugh-informed-voters. I remember having a huge argument about it with my sisters at the time...

Considering we now have situation in some cities where there's more empty homes than homeless people, and the banks are sitting on these homes that are nothing but liabilities to them, perhaps we should have handed out free houses.

originally posted by: tinner07
Is it true that in some instances the corporations or maybe industry actually write the law they want implemented?

Then I guess get their lobbyist to buy a congressman/senator to sponsor or introduce it?

Yes it's true, and if you think about it, it actually makes sense. I don't know what you do for a living but would you want someone who knows nothing of your industry and has no experience in it writing the laws that mandate how your industry runs?

I'm not sure that would be any better than what we have now, in fact it's probably worse.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Boadicea

Everyone knows this is an issue and agrees it's a problem. Literally everyone from the random guy on the street to the law makers in office. The question no one has been able to answer is how do we fix it?

I would say that's the question that no one with the power to change it wants answered, because they're the ones profitting most from the corruption.

Regulators need to know an industry, and that means they need current high level experience in that industry. The only place you're going to get that is from the large successful corporations in that industry.

That may be true in a few industries, and in a few situations, but not overall... this is why we have colleges and universities and continuing education... everyone learns somewhere. Regulators can and do learn in exactly the same way. Perhaps if you gave me some examples, I could better address those.

Since regulators are appointed for relatively short terms, it's not a career path, you become a regulator for a couple years and then go back to doing what you were doing before.

Let's start there. If an industry needs regulation today, it needs it tomorrow and the day after and the day after that... why would the positions be temporary? Health inspectors for restaurants aren't short-term positions... building inspectors aren't short-term positions. Why would any regulatory position need to be short-term?

If you make things difficult for your industry, how will you ever go back to getting a job?

See above. But more to the point, if you're screwing us taxpayers by only pretending to "regulate" and PROTECT the consumer and/or taxpayer, why do we want to give you that job? (We don't.)

ETA:

Considering we now have situation in some cities where there's more empty homes than homeless people, and the banks are sitting on these homes that are nothing but liabilities to them, perhaps we should have handed out free houses.

Perhaps we should have... Back in '08 or '09, I read a proposal for a "bailout" for homeowners -- all homeowners on their residence (not investment properties), and not just the ones hurting. I don't remember the details, but basically all adjustable rate mortgages would be frozen to a fixed rate, all principal balances would be reduced to then-current market value, and those who owned their properties free and clear would have been given a one-time tax credit or something. Anyway, the point was that it was the mortgages that were bad and mortgages that needed to be fixed. Since something like 90+% of home mortgages were owned by the Feds under one agency or another, this could have easily been done and cost far less than the bankster bailouts. It would have been a HUGE boost to the economy. And I seriously doubt we'd still be in this position we are now. Instead, the feds sold these homes to banksters and investors for a song, and they now sit rotting and empty while good folks are struggling.

Since the bankster fraudclosure settlement in 2011 only required the banksters to cease their practices for three years, and since Dodd-Frank did nothing to fix the root problems, I expect we will be seeing a replay soon... I wonder if we'll learn from our past mistakes and demand better next time? (Hint: I'm not holding my breath)