Where are all those Special Interest Groups I keep hearing about? (Look in the Mirror...)

I love the way the term 'special interest group' has been sullied in the press and by the left.  The reality of course is that the press IS a special interest group and there are dozens (thousands, really) among those sneering from the left.

First, let's define 'special interest group' and come to a clear understanding of what purpose they serve and how they come to be.  A special interest group is an advocacy group that attempts to influence public opinion and/or policy.  Period.  Groups form around a common goal.  For instance, this from a recent press release:  The Association of Public Television Stations and NPR are consolidating their lobbying efforts to broaden APTS' advocacy work to include public radio. The Public Media Association will be governed by a legislative council of four pubradio leaders named by the NPR board of directors and four public TV leaders selected by the APTS Action board, along with NPR President Vivian Schiller and APTS President Pat Butler. He will oversee the effort. Mike Riksen, NPR’s vice president for policy and representation, will report directly to Butler on government funding issues. Schiller initiated the discussions with APTS several months ago about aligning their advocacy functions. 

So,  public radio and public TV belong to a trade association whose objective is to lobby the government on the issue of their own funding.  Does that make them a special interest group?  Does the association NPR belongs to pay a lobbyist to influence public policy?  Of course, the answer is YES in both cases.  Let's look at who they pay.

This from a very simple google search: Mr. Riksen was the legislative director for Rep. Carl Pursell (R-MI) and senior legislative assistant and press secretary for Rep. Guy VanderJagt (R- MI).


So - The Public Media Association which represents NPR and does public policy lobbying pays a former legislative aide who now spends his employers' money to influence former colleagues' votes on how much to fund public TV and public radio.

Let's look at another example.  America’s teachers unions — particularly the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers — are the most organized and powerful voices in politics. These unions continue to block reforms needed to improve our nation’s schools by putting their focus on teachers rather than on the students they teach.  The nation's largest teachers union, the National Education Association (NEA), was the heaviest contributor to U.S. political campaigns in 2007-08, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.   Early indications show it is a front-runner to be so again. Along with its state affiliates, the NEA took in $1.5 billion in revenue in 2008-09, the Education Intelligence Agency notes. Nearly all of this revenue came from member dues, and most of the war chest will be spent seeking to increase spending and to block those school reforms deemed most threatening to union clout.  This is also the case in each state across the country. 

New Jersey's largest teachers union was the biggest spender among lobbying groups last year, a new report shows.  The New Jersey Education Association spent $6.6 million on television and radio ads and print mailers last year and nearly $6.9 million altogether, according to the annual Election Law Enforcement Commission lobbying report released earlier this year.  The next-biggest spender, Verizon NJ, laid out more than $935,000 for lobbying activities.


I can go on and on.  AARP is the third biggest spender of campaign cash, which makes grandad and grandma part of a special interest group.  State and federal employee unions spend an absolutely grotesque amount of money every election cycle at every level of government.  Wall Street spends billions to make sure that they get their 'voices heard.'  My point is that special interest groups are NOT the problem.  The system that feeds on the 'highest bidder' environment is the problem.  As long as Congress and state legislatures are allowed to sell themselves, we will have special interest groups spending money and making these elected officials rich beyond imagination.

Think about this:  Despite a long and deep recession, the collective personal wealth of congressional members increased by more than 16 percent between 2008 and 2009, according to a study released in November by the Center for Responsible Politics.  The study also indicates that a significant number of members owned shares of major players in the health-care and financial-services sectors, which were the subject of major reform legislation during the period.


The findings-based on federal financial disclosure data released earlier last year-paint a wealthy bunch in Congress, with more than half of all members-261-were millionaires. About one in five of those had average calculated wealth in 2009 of at least $10 million. Eight of the 261 were in the $100 million-plus range.


In contrast, U.S. median household income dropped 3 percent to $50,221 between 2008 and 2009, the second straight decline, according to the Census Dept.  In terms of millionaires, only about 1 percent of the overall population qualifies.

Stock holdings are among the assets covered in the report, and the investing tastes of Congress appear to be somewhat conventional, with large-cap, Dow 30 companies dominating the widely-held list of members.

General Electric (NYSE: ge), parent company of CNBC, is No. 1, with 82 current members of Congress listing it.  Rounding out the top five are: Bank of America (NYSE: bac) (63), Cisco Systems (NASDAQ: csco) (61), Proctor & Gamble (NYSE: pg) (61) and Microsoft (54).

In another context, however, Beltway watchers might find it unsettling that some of the most widely-held stocks are those of companies at the center of the financial crisis in 2008-2009.

"The most popular investment among congressional members reads as a who's who list of the most powerful corporate political forces in Washington, D.C. -- companies that each spend millions, if not tens of millions of dollars each year lobbying federal officials," states the CRP report.

In addition to Bank of America, Goldman Sachs (NYSE: gs) , Wells Fargo(NYSE: wfc) , JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: :JPM - News) and Citigroup(NYSE: c) were popular holdings. All of them received funding under the TARP. Morgan Stanley, General Motors and AIG are not on the list.

Another big sector is health care-drugs, which, like financial services, was the subject of major reform legislation in 2009.

Drug industry giants like Pfizer (NYSE: pfe) , for instance, ranked seventh on the list, with 49 members disclosing ownership.  Rivals Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: jnj) and Merck (NYSE: mrk) also made the list of 50 companies.

Politicians get rich while supposedly watching out for the rest of us, but in reality the only ones they are successfully watching out for are themselves.

So the bottom line is this: The system allows elected officials to pass legislation that impacts the tax code which affects us all.  They pass legislation that regulates industry.  They ask for and receive obscene amounts of cash from EVERYONE and get richer and richer while the rest of us spend every penny we can to compete against each other in the tragic game of 'everyone loses but the political elite.'

I believe that until we change this system, all other debate is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. 

The Devil is in the Tax Code

I will take this space today to explain the quickest and easiest way to bring honor back to public office.  Simplify the Tax Code and make sure it can never be tinkered with again.  99% of all lobbyists and 99% of all special interest campaign money can be traced back to changes and proposed changes in the tax code.  Since WW II, the size and complexity of the US Tax Code has exploded.  From 504 pages in 1939, it grew to 8,200 pages by 1945, the last year of the war.  Today?  In 2010, the tax code stands at 71,684 pages.  Think about that.  Why has that happened?  Because every time an industry or a group sees something they think will help them in the code, they spend the money needed to make that happen.  You know the old saying, "Follow the Money"?  Everyone says we need to get the money out of politics and elections, but no one knows how to do it.  Here is how.  Make the code simple and easy and pass a law that prevents it from creeping up even ONE SINGLE page because otherwise we would be right back here again in 10 years.  If elected officials don't have tax breaks to sell, the money will dry up.  It is that simple.  Take away ALL the deductions and engineer it so that the revenue collected is the same as it is today.  Set it up with 5-7 brackets and so that anyone making less than $40,000 (couples earning $75,000) pay no income tax.  And then keep it that way.

Wall Street spends billions influencing elections because of the tax breaks.  Business and trade associations spend millions influencing elections because of the tax breaks.  The debates never end in Washington because everyone has a vested interest in how the tax code gets changed every year.  Those are the facts.

You want another good reason to do this?  It would save this country a trillion dollars a year because we could stop paying tax attorneys to prepare our taxes and we could jettison 80% of the bloated, evil IRS.  In 1998, on sales of less than $1.5 million, my business paid more than $11,000 for tax preparation.  That is ridiculous.

We all know why this won't ever happen, right?  Why would Congress vote to eliminate the reason they ran for office?  Without this HUGE discretionary power, they become civil servants sent to Washington to represents their districts.  Instead, as it stands now, they are selling tax benefits from the day they are sworn in.  And it doesn't end when they leave office.  You know what happens then, right?  They take jobs with seven figure salaries to stay in Washington and lobby their former colleagues by passing the money from client to politician to keep the whole thing going.  It only gets worse. 

So, just smile at anyone that says we need federally financed elections because that will 'get the money and special interest out of politics.'  It is a ruse proposed by the people that want us to think we have control.  As long as Congress can manipulate the tax code to the benefit of small groups of people for large sums of money, we will never be able to take our government back from the special interests.
         

Why is my government telling me what charitable programs I must support?

I love the arts and I love the parks and I love supporting programs in my community for kids.  So why can't I do that?  Because the government taxes my income at a ridiculously high level so that a few sanctimonious bureaucrats can decide what programs in the country deserve my support.  I get sick of hearing the big-government socialists say, "We need PBS - it is an important part of how we get our information and it would be terrible if it didn't get the government funding it needs to continue to operate."  First of all, every other radio station in the country stays on the air because advertisers (and therefore listeners) PAY for that station to operate because they VALUE its offerings.  So if PBS is so important, then how come the people that cry for it can't support it?

The same thing is repeated over and over again.  The government has to pay for child support, food, housing, job training, on and on.  It is a self-fulfilling prophesy.  When the government taxes us to death and spends our tax money on programs that should be the recipient of charitable giving, it destroys the capacity and desire of citizens to get involved and help each other at the community level.  As long as we are told that these challenges "are the government's job" then everyone else washed their hands and abdicates any responsibility they might have felt to be part of these solutions.

NOW I hear that someone(s) in Washington are talking about reducing the tax deductions people can take for charitable contributions.  That is the next obvious step to completely remove us from the equation.  When that happens we lose whatever connection we might have in managing how our own community would deal with our common needs.  This is one more step in the decades long power grab and buttresses the fear of people that do not want to give up their freedom.   Every time the government takes these decisions away from us and makes them for us, it is one more freedom lost.      

The Next to Last Word

I believe that the world of political commentary is full of half baked ideas and ill informed opinions and I think it is time that I add to the jumble.  This space is going to be dedicated to my views on the direction that this great country is heading and will include discussions on topics big and small, important and trivial.  I will be joined at times by friends - some with opposing views and some with a more rational perspective.  I believe the give and take will be entertaining, if not factual or informative.  I hope you enjoy this approach.  I know I will.