1:49 pm, March 29, 2015

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 6
       

  • Bad bad bad on Obama.
    obscurechemist
    As a retired civil servant and an up-till-now supporter of Obama, I am grossly disappointed. What exactly do the more highly paid civil servants (all of my supervisors and all of their supervisors) have to hide? Anyone in a position to influence purchasing or policy should open all of their personal financial dealings. I would. Why would I not? Who do they think they are? And why are they opposed to transparency? I conclude that they are ashamed of something. If they don't want to reveal their motivations by revealing their finances and thereby gain my trust, they can get the heck out of government and go work in the private profit-taking sector. They are not good enough as persons to qualify as civil servants.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • If you think...
    mk
    ...someone leading hundreds of people who is being payed $160,000 a year in Washington DC is "highly payed", you are dreaming. The current financial disclosure requirements are really quite stringent - maybe you have never filled in "The Senate" form. Having to make your personal finances so readily available online is excessive. Is there any evidence of pervasive conflict of interest problems in the SES? No. This is simply a continuation of the Congress's Fed Bashing, which is a diversionary tactic. The economy is still in the toilet, and Congress cannot pass any legislation that addresses either that or the budget deficit. In fact, Congress has been unable to pass any substantive front-burner legislation for the past 4 years.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • MK
    NormalDude
    Simultaneous post. I agree with you.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • I never said that.
    obscurechemist
    Your citation,"highly payed", is OUT OF CONTEXT. Read what I said: "the MORE highly paid civil servants", compared to me. NOT absolutely highly paid, but RELATIVELY highly paid. I wrote that sentence very carefully and I stand by it. You need to think about the public trust that is the responsibility of all civil servants, some of whom control expenditures. We civil servants, especially these days, are better served by transparency. Unless of course we have something to hide.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Could not disagree more.
    NormalDude
    Disclaimer: I have no dog in this fight. I think this should only apply to elected officials who vote. They are the ones who bent the rules to profit in the stock market based on privileged information that only they had access to. Not regular civil servants, included SES folks. Just because someone moves up the civil service ranks doesn't mean you need to be able to examine their finances. The whole deal is 'insider trading.' These folks are out of the loop.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Plenty inside info to go around.
    obscurechemist
    "Just because someone moves up the civil service ranks doesn't mean you need to be able to examine their finances". I agree 100%. The pay level is not relevant. Influence is relevant. If a person becomes responsible for, and in control of, large expenditures, and has access to inside information (e.g. imminent approval or disapproval of a drug by the FDA), they are just as susceptible to human frailty as anyone else, and can buy or sell their Pfizer stock at "convenient" times. How can we expect the public to trust us? My goal is to regain the public trust in our invaluable civil service by going the extra mile.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }