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.
No comments:
Post a Comment