Aw, C’mon, Governor Perry

Posted on | November 16, 2011 | 62 Comments

by Smitty

This is either a result of (a) incomplete analysis, or (b) a cheap populist appeal:

“Any congressman or senator that uses their insider knowledge to profit in the stock market ought to be sent to jail—period,” said Mr. Perry, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination.

This sounds swell, but is going to hit a major brain freeze right around Article 1, Section 5:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

What I think would be effective, if I may utter the dread words “Constitutional Amendment” is along the lines of:

Every Congress, in the 18th month thereof, shall require a confidence vote by at least two thirds of the legislatures of the States. Failure to meet this confidence threshold shall result in no member of that Congress being allowed to retain their seat after that seat is next up for election.

I call this the “Kill Switch” Amendment. It’s not an individual term limit, but rather a global one. Chemotherapy, sadly, wipes out a few good cells with the bad. But don’t let your love of good tissue trick you into tolerating cancer. The Paul Ryans and Allen Wests are going to get themselves re-elected. If the Congress fails its confidence vote, they can either run for a Senate seat, state office, or just take a two-year sabbatical.

Example reasons for amputating a Congress en masse could include, but are not limited to:

Failure to balance the budget.
Failure to limit the federal government to the enumerated powers of the Constitution
Failure to check the Executive branch.
Failure to do more than insult the notion adhering to ethics.
Failure to read legislation prior to voting on it.
Failure to adhere to the Oath of Office.

I’m not going to say I had Princess Pelosi in mind when I wrote that list.

The argument that “government is too complex; we need to retain experience” is mostly specious. When someone says it’s too complex, the follow-up question is why we haver permitted the cancer of complexity to overtake matters. For example, in doing the homework for the simple act of retaining a nanny for The World’s Youngest Blogger, I have two words for the IRS, the second of which is “you”. The only reason that Doing The Right Thing with respect to taxation resembles a course in Differential Equations is that we have allowed to many “experts” to obfuscate matters.

The notion of a Kill Switch has the virtue of brutal simplicity. Possibly there would be a way to rig the idea; but would you vote for somebody willing to change their name legally just to get into office?

I predict that, with enough fresh blood and reduced incumbency, the Congress could move closer to serving the people, and resemble less an obnoxious aristocracy. You see that in the relatively less corrupt military; when the people are shifted around often enough, the focus moves more to accomplishing the mission. Sure, people end up making themselves look good, but that remains more a by-product of getting things done. Arguably, there is some loss to the size of mission scope brought on by lack of experience. However, I’m contending here that less scope is better. Or did you think ObamaCare was a keen idea?

Now, the idea of judicial term limits may be worth exploring. And one can admire the way Rick is willing to stir the pot, as with telling the truth about Socialist Security. Meanwhile, Governor Perry, can you please quit with the emotionally nifty appeals that are not going to mean much in the real world?

Update: linked at Dustbury.

Category: Rick Perry

Comments

62 Responses to “Aw, C’mon, Governor Perry”

Quartermaster
November 16th, 2011 @ 7:55 am

And your point is?

C’mon, criminal behavior is criminal behavior, it doesn’t matter if it’s one of us mundanes, or a congresscritter. Perry is right, the congresscritter should be in jail. Nothing wrong there.

What is silly is your inconsistency. What you are proposing is even weaker than what Perry wants. Just what is the chance of geetting your “kill switch” amendment through the criminals sitting in Congress right now? Same with Judicial term limits.

The elites like what we have now. They get the bennies, we get the raw deal.
Mike Rogers
November 16th, 2011 @ 7:55 am

Sexual Harassment (or is that Her-Ass-Ment?)!!
You mentioned the words “Princess Pelosi”.
Let’s ridicule the left!
smitty
November 16th, 2011 @ 8:36 am

But if there is no way under the sun to effect ‘should be in jail’, then what are you suggesting?
My point is that you either talk about systemic improvements, or just quit boring folks with all the butt-hurt about actions that don’t pass the smell test.
smitty
November 16th, 2011 @ 8:36 am

Indeed, it meant a lot to me.
Jack Okie
November 16th, 2011 @ 8:44 am

Smitty, you have been consistent in advocating for repeal of the 17th Amendment. Won’t that result in significantly diminished scope for Congress? Your “kill switch” idea seems to assume the power remains in DC.

I’d rather have a “kill switch” on the SCOTUS. Here in Oklahoma our Supreme Court justices have to be affirmed at the polls every so often. How about the state legislatures have to affirm the SCOTUS justices every four years. Simple majority to keep their seats. That might raise their consciousness re the 9th and 10th Amendments, and the unlimited Commerce clause.
smitty
November 16th, 2011 @ 8:48 am

I’m still firm on repealing Amends 16 & 17, and Ending the Fed. But one varies the tunes so as not to sound a broke record.
jwallin
November 16th, 2011 @ 8:53 am

You’re reading that incorrectly.
There’s nothing that says that investing in the stock market while a member of congress can’t be made a crime.

It wouldn’t be a good idea, neither would the amendment that you offer (that’s got trouble written all over it) but the point is moot as no congressman would vote for either one.
Anonymous
November 16th, 2011 @ 8:59 am

This is a problem in general for insider trading. And frankly a lot of the stuff that the SEC “enforces.” It’s all very subjective and difficult to enforce. And of course prosecutors (when it suits them) stretch the definitions.

Still, I don’t think that there’s a Constitutional reason why this couldn’t be done. It just needs the Congress to set up a rule to make it so. Just like they’d need to agree to, say, reform the tax code. Not that I expect that they would do it.
Anonymous
November 16th, 2011 @ 9:00 am

Smitty, can you still prosecute Congresscritters for bribery? Because that’s what the insider information is: Financial gain in exchange for votes. No new laws or amendments needed. Just a President with the stones to prosecute. Sounds like another reason to vote for Perry.
smitty
November 16th, 2011 @ 9:05 am

Look at the case of ‘Cold Cash’ Jefferson and tell me. Our faux-aristocracy may be faux, but it sure is jealous of its prerogatives.
smitty
November 16th, 2011 @ 9:06 am

Some newer ones, elected with reform in mind, might.
Possibly my suggestion works better as a thought experiment: how do you change the game, instead of just hating on the playahs?
Jack Okie
November 16th, 2011 @ 9:11 am

Well, you’ve got a good point, there.

I’d be interested in your thoughts on my “kill switch”.
smitty
November 16th, 2011 @ 9:35 am

Are you suggesting the potential for a new SCOTUS every four years? Sure, the Lefty Justices are odious, but I wonder if you’re not broaching a cure worse than the disease.
The Phantom of the Intarwebs
November 16th, 2011 @ 9:41 am

Um, the Senate -is- part of Congress. Unless you’re talking about the House
of Representatives alone for your solution. Though frankly, you might
as well slap Senators with that as well, then say that anyone booted on
a ‘no confidence’ vote can’t run for either chamber again…
Rob Crawford
November 16th, 2011 @ 9:50 am

So, Smitty, it’s your belief that members of Congress may commit murder and not face criminal charges unless the rest of Congress agrees?
DaveO
November 16th, 2011 @ 9:50 am

Direct response to Smitty’s question:

This is Perry’s getting votes by going after Pelosi and her amazing 62% increase in wealth due to insider trading/successful lobbying.

Pelosi, and Holder, while they may be safe from arrest, provide some big targets for Republicans this cycle.

Again, if the RNC were a professional political organization, they would be running ads on Pelosi’s new wealth and Holder’s collusion almost daily on every radio station near a major university in the blue states; and through a bullhorn directly at the OWS idiots.
Rob Crawford
November 16th, 2011 @ 9:50 am

Start by talking like an adult?
Rob Crawford
November 16th, 2011 @ 9:51 am

“But if there is no way under the sun to effect ‘should be in jail’, then what are you suggesting?”

Why do you assert there is “no way under the sun” to prosecute crimes?
DaveO
November 16th, 2011 @ 9:53 am

America used to say it had a Meritocracy. Going to USNA, or being a successful entrepreneur had positive merit. Now it’s legacies – merit awarded the child that is bought and paid for by the grand-parent or great-great-grand-parent.

Smitty: does USNA recognise legacies that same way USMA does?
smitty
November 16th, 2011 @ 9:53 am

I quoted the Constitutional reason why it will not be done.
smitty
November 16th, 2011 @ 9:54 am

Can you name a larger contradiction in terms than the “House Ethics Comittiee”?
smitty
November 16th, 2011 @ 9:57 am

You’ve focused on my use of informal diction, at the my larger point.
In its own small way, this is the same problem as with the insider trading: you’ll make some law, and then the corruption will ooze around the edges of that law.
The point is that we have to alter the rules. Term limits would be another, even more ham-fisted approach.
smitty
November 16th, 2011 @ 9:59 am

Yes, I my rule would trigger increased turnover in the Senate.
Though I would prefer to nuke the 17th Amendment, and have Senators more beholden to their States, like they should be, as opposed to their parties.
smitty
November 16th, 2011 @ 10:00 am

Ted Kennedy?
smitty
November 16th, 2011 @ 10:01 am

Concur, it’s good grandstanding. But, as the post argues, feckless.
smitty
November 16th, 2011 @ 10:10 am

I think you get a feather in your cap when applying, though I don’t know what the current value is.
You get an automatic nomination as the offspring of a Medal of Honor winner.
My route was the SECNAV nomination, which is kind of a back door route, of sorts.
richard mcenroe
November 16th, 2011 @ 10:17 am

You said “kill” switch! You all H8ters who want to shoot the White House!!!!11!!! eleventy!!

Seriously, though, feckless is not a selling point. I know the Kinkster is endorsing Perry now, but back when he wrote his book about his own gubernatorial run, Kinky Friedman made a strong case for Rick Perry as a smiling empty suit who did what he was told.

We already know what a smiling empty suit doing what Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod tell him to do looks like in the White House. Do we want to chance a smiling empty suit doing what he’s told to do by the current RNC?
Anonymous
November 16th, 2011 @ 10:28 am

Cold Cash isn’t in Congress any more, and his prosecution is a big part of why. Prosecution will allow you to conduct discovery, and those are public records, available to all. Even if you get a typical LA (or OJ) jury, those records are hard to explain away.
Anonymous
November 16th, 2011 @ 10:29 am

The result of the MA prosecutor refusing to prosecute the state charge. Federal bribery charges, OTOH, just need an AG whose party affiliation isn’t Copperhead.
Anonymous
November 16th, 2011 @ 10:31 am

Nope. If Eric Holder wasn’t AG, I suspect there’s Federal charges possible. Again, just need a President who will tell DoJ to pull the trigger.
smitty
November 16th, 2011 @ 10:39 am

Right. Now, do you recall the flap when they raided Jefferson’s office? It wasn’t because an innocent man was being leaned on by thuggish cops.
smitty
November 16th, 2011 @ 10:41 am

But the Senate just magically blows off investigating? Would such have occurred for a Republican? Maybe so, with the gentlemanly air of the Senate, but maybe not, with Reid at the helm.
steve benton
November 16th, 2011 @ 11:40 am

The bigger question is does he know where Libya is? I think he does.
Anonymous
November 16th, 2011 @ 12:14 pm

I kind of thought it was more at “desperate.”

The silver lining is that I cannot recall a primary where so many libertarian ideas have been brought forward and discussed seriously.
Quartermaster
November 16th, 2011 @ 12:42 pm

Hardly. The reason it won’t be done has utterly nothing to do with the constitution. What you quoted doesn’t even give an excuse to do nothing.
ThePaganTemple
November 16th, 2011 @ 1:34 pm

Just curious Smitty, what would you replace the Fed with? You might want to rethink repealing the 17th Amendment. When the Tea Party first started pushing that, if it had been repealed at the time we would have had 66 Democrat Senators. Unfortunately, there was a great deal of corruption that went into appointing US Senators. We’re talking heavy duty bribery by special interests, both in and out of state. Repeal the 17th sounds like a good rallying cry, but as in anything else, buyer beware.
ThePaganTemple
November 16th, 2011 @ 1:40 pm

I still say have an even number of justices and most of our problems go away. Not all of them, but it will go a hell of a long way toward reining in the excesses of the judicial branch of government, which as it stands now is bought and paid for and has no checks and balances to its virtually unlimited power. Ten justices, equals, a 6-4 vote required to overturn a law, or conversely to overturn a lower court judgement against a law. Either one works for me. At least it will provide some sense of finality.
ThePaganTemple
November 16th, 2011 @ 1:46 pm

The way to go after this problem might not be so much the insider trading aspects, but in the conflict of interest. Any public official should be open and above board about all secondary sources of income, including those put in a trust. If they’re buying stocks in companies that they are likely to be involved in regulating, even if that’s merely by way of their one each individual vote on a bill, should be considered grounds at least for censure. What is really potentially corrupt is if they stand to make money from companies at the expense of those companies competitors. The only thing you’re going to do about the law about insider trading as relating to Congress is, uh, pass a law, so let’s just forget that. That leaves just holding them to the light of scrutiny and shaming them, and hoping at least some of them have some sense of shame.
Anonymous
November 16th, 2011 @ 1:46 pm

So, your argument is that we should hand more power to the 9th Circuit?
Jack Okie
November 16th, 2011 @ 2:32 pm

There’s not a lot of corruption with our current setup?

I would imagine the repealing Amendment would specify that the reversion to election by state legislatures would coincide with the standard cycle for electing senators. With the current makeup of the legislatures (majority Republican) that looks like a win to me.

Pagan, the virtue of repeal of the 17th is that the voters in each state then get to decide how much corruption they’re willing to tolerate. More importantly, it puts even the Democrat legislatures in conflict with Washington for power. Ask Speaker Willie Brown if he would have allowed his senators to screw the California legislature by voting for high federal taxes. Remember, with this change, the senators are no longer loose cannons – they serve at the sufferance of the state legislature, which is going to want every last penny of tax revenue going to them, not DC.
Anonymous
November 16th, 2011 @ 2:38 pm

More importantly, it puts even the Democrat legislatures in conflict with Washington for power.

QFE QFT
Jack Okie
November 16th, 2011 @ 2:40 pm

Yes, it could get out of hand. The threshold would have to be something like 2/3rds of the state legislatures voting no, or a similar formula.

If the 17th Amendment were repealed, we could expect over time to get a SCOTUS more congenial to the Constitution, but now, with the only recourse impeachment, we’re going to be stnck with Kagan a long time.
smitty
November 16th, 2011 @ 2:42 pm

The semi-snarky answer is to quote Sowell, when posed that question: “With what do you replace cancer?”
What I would do is tell the other 49 states beside North Dakota to start up their own banks, then push some responsibilities to States to fend for themselves, and leave a diminished Federal Reserve with some limited, accountable oversite role.
Adjoran
November 16th, 2011 @ 4:04 pm

Congress isn’t immune to prosecution because of Article I, 5 or the Immunity Clause – which only protects them from criminal prosecution while in session. They specifically exempted themselves from this (and much other, including ObamaCare) legislation.
Adjoran
November 16th, 2011 @ 4:05 pm

The Ethics Committee does not supersede the Code. Ask William Jefferson how it worked out for him, or Duke Cunningham.
Adjoran
November 16th, 2011 @ 4:07 pm

Kennedy faced the criminal justice system. That you and I disagree with the outcome doesn’t make it less true.
ThePaganTemple
November 16th, 2011 @ 4:19 pm

Yeah that sounds good. That’s the key, oversight, as opposed to outright control. That’s the way the federal government should act towards the states in regards to shared regulatory laws, by the way. Of course that always brings up the question, who oversees the overseers.
Adjoran
November 16th, 2011 @ 4:23 pm

First of all it is necessary to note that the most egregious example of Pelosi’s windfall with the IPO is NOT technically “insider trading” at all. “Insiders” buy stock on the market with information the public doesn’t yet have access to, so they have an advantage there. IPOs – “Initial Public Offerings” – are when a company first goes public. Typically only “insiders” like early investors and venture capitalists, key employees and perhaps their families, and others close to the company are allowed to buy at the opening offering price, which typically goes up sharply if the company’s stock is seen as desirable. Al Gore made his fortune on Google IPO and stock options which were basically given to him by the founders. But he was out of government.

In effect, they were handing Pelosi a big fat bribe.

True “insider trading” is a completely different issue. There are many economists who believe it doesn’t do any good at all to regulate it, and possibly some harm. No one ever has perfect knowledge in the market. Perhaps executives should be prohibited from dumping their own stock when they know it is going to take a hit, but other than that, the rules don’t accomplish much if anything.
ThePaganTemple
November 16th, 2011 @ 4:25 pm

You make it sound good. Unfortunately, I can answer your question for you. The voters are willing to tolerate quite a bit of corruption as long as they are bought off sufficiently, and that’s the ones that care enough to vote in state elections. You’re also taking for granted that the current makeup of the legislatures will always be Republican. That’s a bridge too far for me to ever be able to accept. In theory, I do agree with you it should go back to the way it was. Unfortunately, there were way too many shady politicians in way too many states that were more than willing to hand off their responsibilities, as long as they could keep their positions and their largesse. One could make the argument that the change actually made it easier for them to not be accountable to the will of the voter. I’m as much a federalist as anybody, maybe more than most, but I never make the mistake for one second of romanticizing the allegedly noble intentions of state and local politicians.
Adjoran
November 16th, 2011 @ 4:26 pm

The “kill switch Amendment” is counter to everything the Constitution stands for. Why should state legislatures (historically and currently notoriously more corrupt than Congress ever has been) have such power? Why should a collection of other states’ legislatures be able to tell South Carolinians who we can elect to Congress?

If such a proposal had been brought forth at the Constitutional Conventions, the proposer would have been hanged amid great cheering and toasting.