Great, hope it goes through. But why isn’t the judicial branch included?
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
85 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
5 readers
28 users here now
@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.
founded 2 years ago
I agree, but if we can clean up some of the blatant corruption in Congress then maybe the corruption in the SC and elsewhere can also be addressed.
I assume if the judicial branch were included it would be found "unconstitutional". Maybe this has a shot of getting through the supreme court and then we can go from there.
I'll be mildly curious to see how it will fail to pass.
That it will fail to pass is guaranteed.
Can’t fail if it doesn’t hit the floor. It will get caught in limbo. This will be the last we hear of this
Oh, finally! I'm certain it's going to fall completely on its face, but at least they're finally acknowledging that the issue exists.
The only thing bipartisan about this is the knowledge that such a bill will never pass. That's why these psychos introduce it every so often. Just a publicity stunt.
Psychos? I’m sure the publicity doesn’t hurt, but it’s a good policy. There’s been enough shady insider shit to warrant shutting this down.
IMO every other issue in congress stems from blatant conflict of interest like this, and like donations. To a point where even if youre a single issue voter for something like healthcare, or budget, etc, this is still the first step to resolving your concern. How are drug and health insurance prices ever going to be regulated in favor of those that need it, if representatives financially benefit from doing the opposite?
People elected to federal government are already entitled to salaries they can comfortably live on. And they should really be living on that exclusively while serving.
People elected to federal government are already entitled to salaries they can comfortably live on. And they should really be living on that exclusively while serving.
It's amazing to me how passionately people I've known personally will defend politicians 'right' to effectively profit from their service far beyond their salaries. Arguments like "If we don't let them earn more money talented people won't enter politics" and "It's not fair to punish them for being successful". It's just insane to me.
just one of those symptoms of the belief that only money=success.
They're not going to vote against their own interests.
Hawley doing something not awful? Has hell frozen over?
He knows the bill is dead in the water. No way he'd support something sensible that had a chance of ever seeing bidens desk