Something simply *has* to change in politics

[SLM]

Yeah, I get that a lot. Fact is, it was mostly blind luck I ended up in government. Applied for a summer job as a student and got it. Had a fantastic summer job, did well, came back next summer and they offered me a job when I graduated. Jobs were hard to come by in that era, so wasn't that difficult a decision for me.

Good decision or bad? Well, hindsight's 20/20. I've got it pretty good, all things considered. I'd be making a lot more in the private sector, but now I've got 20 years in, so it's tough to walk away from that pension. And it's tough that some people just think you're a uselss bag of crap sucking the public teat, but some folks (hint: you) just need to take others down a notch to make themselves feel better. My guys get headhunted on a regular basis by private companies.

Government is inefficient. Always has been, always will be. I could write a treatise on the reasons why--the natural risk aversion of elected officials, lack of profit motivator, administrative burden of large organziations, unions, yadda yadda yadda. If you want to compare efficiency of government with a small business, obviously it's no contest. But having seen and worked with governments in other parts of the world--most recently Afghanistan--it could be a lot worse.

First of all, I'm not the one who suggested that the reason for the high salaries and generous compensation packages was to attract top talent. (Interesting though how you could be making more in the private sector. So either the government has to pay top dollar for top talent or they get away with paying them less. Which is it?)

Now the top two, in terms of monetary compensation packages awarded, from the article are a failed PC election candidate and a former Federal MP. Looks and smells like a patronage appointment to me, and not "stacking her office with talent".

I have absolutely zero problem, ZERO, with paying someone, anyone, with strong skill set a competitive salary. In fact I would have zero problem with a generous bonus that was tied to results, not unlike the private sector does. Seems smart to me, because that's paying for talent. And those would be results that benefit everybody, including the taxpayer that is footing the bill.

So no, I am not trying to make myself feel better by thinking all government employees are useless bags of crap. My son happens to be employed in the public sector and I know for a fact he works hard and deserves every penny he earns. That the branch of government that he works in can be run in a manner the boggles the logical mind is not his, nor his coworkers, fault.

Incidentally, just because 'it's way worse somewhere else' is not a justifiable reason to not demand better here in my book. This is our government, they work for us. Period, end of story.

 

[darkbeaver]

[/QUOTE] Again, you have not provided any reasons why you think a leader would want an unqualified person working in their office in the first place. The dead weight guys are going to be shuffled off into some middle management job in some other part of the government, and we obviously can't have hearings over every single government hiring.

As far as separating special interests from government, the only fool proof way to do that is if people start caring about the issues more. Special interests can only really affect things that the general public doesn't care all that much about. The Government is always going to side first and foremost with whatever gives them the best chance to be reelected, which means they can't piss off the voters too much. The problem is that the voters don't take notice of 99% of what goes on, so they can easily do favors for people on those issues.
[/QUOTE]
I can think of a dozen reasons why an elected official would want to have a relative or friend or sack partner working in their office. Of course the problem is the voters (democracy always falls into despotism) Plato, we are in that period now at the national and international level and the same disease is clareingly apparent in municipal governments all over the west. The problem requires a radical/miraculous reawakened voter. I don't think it will happen, education has ensured that I think. We infrequently get the straight explanation of any issue, particularly international issues.

 

[Zipperfish]

Fi

So no, I am not trying to make myself feel better by thinking all government employees are useless bags of crap. My son happens to be employed in the public sector and I know for a fact he works hard and deserves every penny he earns. That the branch of government that he works in can be run in a manner the boggles the logical mind is not his, nor his coworkers, fault.

Yeah it's pretty bad some days.

 

[Kreskin]

What's going on in government these days is insane. Feds and Provincial.

 

[Locutus]

Time for the masses to don the cone of common sense and develop that sense of ripped-offery; confront this festering money/power/prestige club and sort it out. Never mind dead giraffes, fags, nazis, warm/cold call-me maybes, highrise/lowrise, hookers, boat people, 40% biracial grays, seal clubbers, cell phone rates and even mari-jew-wanna for a little bit.

Maybe instant firings or recalls, minimum jail times, restitution first, void employment contracts, property and asset seizures if needs be. I dunno, sure wouldn't want to be too harsh towards those that fuk the public purse and trust over, I'm sure the suggestion box could narrow down a handful of gentle changes that might cause a potential public servant (servant...ha!) or erstwhile public teat douchebag to think twice if that's what it took before diving into the fray.

Or we could maintain the division of our power as we gripe and moan, snipe and groan about the varied assortment of clowns we have stuffed into the 3 or 4 main teams.

Jeepers, this reeks of occupy stuff. Now I feel kinda queasy. All dirty-like.

 

[BornRuff]

I can think of a dozen reasons why an elected official would want to have a relative or friend or sack partner working in their office. Of course the problem is the voters (democracy always falls into despotism) Plato, we are in that period now at the national and international level and the same disease is clareingly apparent in municipal governments all over the west. The problem requires a radical/miraculous reawakened voter. I don't think it will happen, education has ensured that I think. We infrequently get the straight explanation of any issue, particularly international issues.

Can you name one or two?

It is obviously common to bring people in who they have worked with before. You need people that you trust and you can't really build trust just through a job interview. But they trust these guys for a reason.

 

[JLM]

Death is about the only change that would accomplish anything!

Former premier Alison Redford's nine staffers leave with $1.3 million in severance | Alberta | News | Calgary Sun

It just doesn't get any more obscene than that!

 

[BornRuff]

Time for the masses to don the cone of common sense and develop that sense of ripped-offery; confront this festering money/power/prestige club and sort it out. Never mind dead giraffes, fags, nazis, warm/cold call-me maybes, highrise/lowrise, hookers, boat people, 40% biracial grays, seal clubbers, cell phone rates and even mari-jew-wanna for a little bit.

Maybe instant firings or recalls, minimum jail times, restitution first, void employment contracts, property and asset seizures if needs be. I dunno, sure wouldn't want to be too harsh towards those that fuk the public purse and trust over, I'm sure the suggestion box could narrow down a handful of gentle changes that might cause a potential public servant (servant...ha!) or erstwhile public teat douchebag to think twice if that's what it took before diving into the fray.

Or we could maintain the division of our power as we gripe and moan, snipe and groan about the varied assortment of clowns we have stuffed into the 3 or 4 main teams.

Jeepers, this reeks of occupy stuff. Now I feel kinda queasy. All dirty-like.

Lets be realistic. You never want to see waste, but we are in a pretty good spot overall when this kind of stuff is the largest concern that we have with our government, and we can deal with it openly like this.

There are lots of countries in the world where leaders do get lynched when they fall out of favor. It is not a sign of good governance and not indicative of a place I would want to live.

 

[Kreskin]

Some yahoos in BC went to Disneyland on the tax payers bill. Spent outrageous money on accommodations, food, and assorted high on the hog excesses. I think a 45k computer was part of it. That sort of stuff should never happen. They should get approval from auditors before embarking on squander. In the private sector you don't spend to the nines, file your expenses and hope no one looks. You would be fired out the door in a flash.

 

[PoliticalNick]

What are you really asking for?

Financial and criminal accountability of all government officials and employees!

It doesn't make sense to try to have the electorate micromanage staffing decisions. The elected officials are tasked with doing whatever it is we sent them there to do, and that includes assembling the team to get that work done. Whatever happens, they are responsible.

They are definitely responsible but unfortunately, by legislation the slimes have passed, are not held responsible. They don't have to foot the bill and cannot go to jail. There is no accountability and until there is nothing will change.

Again though, do you, or anyone else, really think that any leader, aka, PM or Premier, would staff their office with anyone other than the people that they think are best for the job? If they were inclined to hire someone who they didn't have absolute trust in, it would probably be for some middle management job in another department, not someone directly involved in helping them craft their legacy as a leader.

Unfortunately the people considered 'best for the job' seem to be the ones willing to do all kinds of pretty shady stuff and then take the fall to save the PM/Premier/President when the media/public find out.

Can you name one or two?

It is obviously common to bring people in who they have worked with before. You need people that you trust and you can't really build trust just through a job interview. But they trust these guys for a reason.

Duh! The mob doesn't outsource either. When you are involved in criminal enterprise that trust in your underlings to take the fall and do the time while keeping their mouth shot is of paramount importance and don't ever kid yourself into thinking our governments are anything but criminal enterprise. So much of what they do under the guise of governance fits precise definitions in the criminal code.

 

[BornRuff]

Financial and criminal accountability of all government officials and employees!

What exactly does that mean? Doing your job poorly isn't a crime. You just get fired.

They are definitely responsible but unfortunately, by legislation the slimes have passed, are not held responsible. They don't have to foot the bill and cannot go to jail. There is no accountability and until there is nothing will change.

Redford no longer has her job. That is the punishment for doing your job poorly. If you commit a crime, that is a different situation.

Unfortunately the people considered 'best for the job' seem to be the ones willing to do all kinds of pretty shady stuff and then take the fall to save the PM/Premier/President when the media/public find out.

How is that relevant in this situation? Redford was the one who resigned, not her staff.

 

[JLM]

Some yahoos in BC went to Disneyland on the tax payers bill. Spent outrageous money on accommodations, food, and assorted high on the hog excesses. I think a 45k computer was part of it. That sort of stuff should never happen. They should get approval from auditors before embarking on squander. In the private sector you don't spend to the nines, file your expenses and hope no one looks. You would be fired out the door in a flash.

But don't you realize these people are important?

 

[PoliticalNick]

What exactly does that mean? Doing your job poorly isn't a crime. You just get fired.

It means when you perpetrate a fraud upon the taxpayers, when you file illegitimate expenses, when you spend $45K to travel to a funeral, when you spend taxpayer money to fly your daughter and her friends around and put them in 5 star hotels. When you make backroom deals with corps to give them taxpayer dollars etc, etc, etc.

Right now they all get a free pass. Well I propose that anything they do that is not entirely in the public interest or fiscally conservative with the public purse should come with criminal charges and financial accountability. You f*ck over the people and you go to jail and pay back every penny plus some extra. Letting them 'just get fired' is bullsh*t! Send a couple to prison and take their houses and investments and the rest will toe the line in a hurry.

Redford no longer has her job. That is the punishment for doing your job poorly. If you commit a crime, that is a different situation.

So you think it is ok to waste millions of taxpayer dollars and the only 'punishment you face is losing your job? These f*ckers have bent over the people so much to benefit corporations and CEOs that getting fired means a big pay raise to go work for their corporate cronies, usually advising them how to lobby and buy elected officials in order to get more taxpayer funded benefits for their business. Firing Redford isn't punishment, sending her to prison for 5 years and confiscating all her assets is punishment.

How is that relevant in this situation? Redford was the one who resigned, not her staff.

I know simple logic is difficult for you so I will indulge in trying to explain. If Redford hadn't been engaging in fraudulent use of public funds then her staff would still have their jobs so let her pay their severance. She also would have had a hand in giving them what are obviously extremely lucrative and one-sided contracts that require such exorbitant pay-outs from public funds so let her foot the bill. Are you still missing the 'relevance' of this or are you just plain stupid?

 

[JLM]

Redford no longer has her job. That is the punishment for doing your job poorly. If you commit a crime, that is a different situation.

I think a valid point could be made that she did commit a crime. Stealing from the electorate!

 

[BornRuff]

It means when you perpetrate a fraud upon the taxpayers, when you file illegitimate expenses, when you spend $45K to travel to a funeral, when you spend taxpayer money to fly your daughter and her friends around and put them in 5 star hotels. When you make backroom deals with corps to give them taxpayer dollars etc, etc, etc.

Right now they all get a free pass. Well I propose that anything they do that is not entirely in the public interest or fiscally conservative with the public purse should come with criminal charges and financial accountability. You f*ck over the people and you go to jail and pay back every penny plus some extra. Letting them 'just get fired' is bullsh*t! Send a couple to prison and take their houses and investments and the rest will toe the line in a hurry.

So you think it is ok to waste millions of taxpayer dollars and the only 'punishment you face is losing your job? These f*ckers have bent over the people so much to benefit corporations and CEOs that getting fired means a big pay raise to go work for their corporate cronies, usually advising them how to lobby and buy elected officials in order to get more taxpayer funded benefits for their business. Firing Redford isn't punishment, sending her to prison for 5 years and confiscating all her assets is punishment.



I know simple logic is difficult for you so I will indulge in trying to explain. If Redford hadn't been engaging in fraudulent use of public funds then her staff would still have their jobs so let her pay their severance. She also would have had a hand in giving them what are obviously extremely lucrative and one-sided contracts that require such exorbitant pay-outs from public funds so let her foot the bill. Are you still missing the 'relevance' of this or are you just plain stupid?

Lol, wow. Your brain must be a very angry and confusing place.

You need to learn what fraud is. Redford never deceived anyone about these expenses. If you disagree with how she spent the money, that is a different issue. It isn't fraud, it is a question of how she chooses to operate as Premier.

If she was making false travel claims and pocketing the money, that is fraud. If she was lying about the purpose of a trip, that is fraud.

So far I have not heard any accusations of that. The problems were simply in how she chose to conduct herself on the job.

Obviously a law where you could send a politician to prison and personally bankrupt them if enough people disagree with their policies or actions is crazy. The criteria you set out are subjective. You can't do stuff like that to someone unless there is actually a clear cut law.

I think a valid point could be made that she did commit a crime. Stealing from the electorate!

Well, no. Spending more than the public would like on travel isn't stealing in the legal sense of the word.

 

[JLM]

Lol, wow. Your brain must be a very angry and confusing place.

No, Nick is actually correct there. Just from the fact the woman was Premier of the province is an indication of some level of intelligence and understanding. When you are drawing from the public purse your first question re any expense incurred must be "would I make the expenditure if it was coming out of my pocket"? Is spending $45 grand to attend a funeral, reasonable? Clearly it's not. I know, she could try to fly the argument that she is going as a representative! Tough, it still doesn't fly.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Lol, wow. Your brain must be a very angry and confusing place.

You need to learn what fraud is. Redford never deceived anyone about these expenses. If you disagree with how she spent the money, that is a different issue. It isn't fraud, it is a question of how she chooses to operate as Premier.

If she was making false travel claims and pocketing the money, that is fraud. If she was lying about the purpose of a trip, that is fraud.

So far I have not heard any accusations of that. The problems were simply in how she chose to conduct herself on the job.

Obviously a law where you could send a politician to prison and personally bankrupt them if enough people disagree with their policies or actions is crazy. The criteria you set out are subjective. You can't do stuff like that to someone unless there is actually a clear cut law.

Right now the only 'clear cut law' surrounding politicians is the one where they have given themselves immunity from prosecution for almost everything short of murder. It would seem you support this which leads me to believe you are either stealing from the taxpayers along with the politicians or are just a poor bastard with an IQ slightly lower than a boston fern. If you wish to ignore the whole 'conservative' platform of her govt so as to convince yourself she isn't a fraud I can't stop you but I sure as hell don't have to buy the kool-aid you're drinking. You are the biggest problem we have with govts today in the fact you will let this sh*t go by without anything but a stern warning for the 8 millionth time. I can't even lump you in with the 80% of the population who create these issues with their apathetic attitudes towards govt and its' leaders. No, you are in a very special class where you actually seem to support frivolous use of public funds for personal reasons.

Now I will concede that by definition she may not have committed fraud, except in presenting herself as conservative and then engaging in liberal spending (mostly on herself and her family), so call it theft or misappropriation of public funds or whatever the f*ck you want to call it but it is still, and always will be wrong and deserves more punishment than resigning with all benefits and pensions in tact and keeping all the ill-gotten gains.

 

[JLM]

Well, no. Spending more than the public would like on travel isn't stealing in the legal sense of the word.

Perhaps not in the legal sense of the word but in the moral sense of the word it is. There are all kinds of distasteful stuff that we can legally do, but people we elect to public office should be above that. The woman knew full well what the impact of her expenses were.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Well, no. Spending more than the public would like on travel isn't stealing in the legal sense of the word.

Do you work as an apologist for politicians as a real job or just on here? Sending $45k on a trip that another politician made for $1k is certainly something besides honest and being a little liberal in your spending. It is misappropriation of public funds on a grand scale and deserves a grand response from the people to set an example to all remaining and future politicians. Personally I would like to see her lose everything she owns to be sold and the funds put into the public purse followed by a long public flogging and 15 years of forced labour on projects to benefit the people but there are too many bleeding hearts and apologists like you to get that done so let's at least be frank and call her a crook and take away her pension/benefits etc.

 

[JLM]

Do you work as an apologist for politicians as a real job or just on here? Sending $45k on a trip that another politician made for $1k is certainly something besides honest and being a little liberal in your spending. It is misappropriation of public funds on a grand scale and deserves a grand response from the people to set an example to all remaining and future politicians. Personally I would like to see her lose everything she owns to be sold and the funds put into the public purse followed by a long public flogging and 15 years of forced labour on projects to benefit the people but there are too many bleeding hearts and apologists like you to get that done so let's at least be frank and call her a crook and take away her pension/benefits etc.

You don't want to get too carried away, Nick, we have to reserve a proper level of punishment for the likes of Wallin and Duffy.