Does lobbying matter? Of course not. I'm only bringing this up because I hate the President and want the country to collapse.

Fausta points out that the number of lobbyists in high places--despite the Executive Order prohibiting them--continues to multiply:

• William Lynn, deputy secretary of Defense (and registered lobbyist for Raytheon from 2003 to mid-2008)

• Bill Corr, deputy secretary of HHS (and registered lobbyist as recently as September 2008)

• Mark Patterson, chief of staff of Treasury Department (and registered lobbyist as recently as last year)

• Tom Vilsack, secretary of Agriculture (and registered lobbyist until March 2008)

• Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs (and registered lobbyist as recently as last year)

How much does the presence of those once and future lobbyists matter?

Just visit Nancy at Delaware Way for a discussion of the effectiveness of the PMA Group in the current Congress:

In the spending bill managed by Murtha, the fiscal 2008 Defense appropriation, 104 House members got earmarks for projects sought by PMA clients, according to Congressional Quarterly's analysis of a database constructed by Ashdown's group....

Those House members, plus a handful of senators, combined to route nearly $300 million in public money to clients of PMA through that one law (PL 110-116).

She includes this link so you can see, Congressman by Congressman, exactly how a major lobbying effort co-ops our government.

The PMA Group has been shut down, but the great game of lobbying for the public's money continues.

And the existence of highly placed former lobbyists in the Obama administration suggests that when they knock on the door somebody will be answering.

Comments

Anonymous said…

Vilsack appears to have gotten in under the radar on a number of points. Lobbiest, policies, lack of ethics and transparency.

Dixie Burkhart
Facts Don't Matter
www.eloquentbooks.com/FactsDontMatter.htm

February 23, 2009 at 12:57 PM

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

Search This Blog