Posts Tagged ‘Lobbyists’

I have to say it’s been quite entertaining to watch the parade of people withdraw themselves from nominated positions as they head over to find their places underneath the bus. It’s probably a  fleet of buses or a long train by now there are so many people under it!

 It seems many of them have a hard time remembering  to pay their taxes. Hmm are these the same people who were blathering on about how paying taxes was patriotic and we should all want to pay higher taxes? Isn’t that what Joe Biden said?

Of course I forgot to mention Bill Richardson who is currently under investigation by a federal grand jury in a pay to play scheme thus he had to withdraw from his nomination for Secretary of Commerce.

Then we have Tom Dashel and Nancy Killefer withdrawing for not paying taxes and Tim Giethner was confirmed despite having a similar embarassing problem. Not to mention the whole “nobody will work in my administration if they have been a lobbyist.” thing.

Give us a break! Now the media is finally starting to report on the plethora of problems. Well all I can say is where the hell were they for the last two years? How is it no one saw this coming? WE saw it coming! We told you so idiots!

I’ll tell you why no one saw this coming because the mainstream media deliberately played the role of public relations representative rather than do their job and report accurately the facts and or lack of them in an unbiased and professional manner. They in fact became more than a little responsible for the outcome of the primaries and the election and they will share the responsibility of the aftermath.

I will admit to being pleased with the decision to limit the salaries and bonuses of top executives of companies that take Bailout funds. I think pretty much everybody agrees on that except maybe the execs who will have to take a pay cut.

Listen if they want the taxpayers to bail them out they should expect some conditions. After all if they are in bad shape and need bailing out shouldn’t they be looking for ways to cut expenses and railse more capital? Isn’t that more reasonable than to continue spending on lavish office remodels or over the top business retreats? Or paying say, $400 Million to have your name on a stadium?

If they want us to foot the bill they should expect not to go on as though it’s business as usual. It’s not. Not when you need bailing out that is about as far from business as usual as you can get and still be in business and it dictates that you do some serious evaluation and re-tooling at the very least. To get out of the position where you need a bailout and get to a position where you make a profit they should be thinking this way already.

If they don’t like the conditions they should look elsewhere for help. Now if they want to pull their own fat out of the fire it is their business how they spend their gains. That’s the American way.

Though lately I’ve had some interesting conversations with people on this subject and find myself wondering what some people are really thinking. One friend suggested that we go even further and limit the salaries and bonuses of all company executives regardless of whether they accept bailout funds or whether they are private or public companies.

His theory is that no one can possibly make more than the president without having broken some law or regulation and without having screwed over “the rest of us”. My reaction was something like WTF?

I think that is way too far myself. Isn’t one of the greatest things about our country? Isn’t the American Dream the idea that if you have an idea or a product, a service or whatever and you do what it takes to make a sucsess the sky is the limit? The idea that anyone can make it regardless of who they are?

I understand the anger and the feeling that many times the Big Shots get where they are on the backs of the rest of us. I mean I get just as PO’das the next person over all these people who rip others off or waste money on stupid things then cry about needing a bailout even as their own bad management caused the problem but do we really want to go so far that nobody can make more than a set amount?

Who decides what that amount is? Will that amount be different for different people or will everybody have the same limits? What happens if your idea makes more than that? Should you not benefit from your efforts?

I’m all for doing what we can to preserve the idea of freedom we have here. I want to improve it as well by doing what we can to make all of us more free and insuring equality but if we get too involved in legislating people’s freedom it can have the adverse effect of making us all less free.

JMO what’s yours?




Read Full Post »

And another;

Entry for January 08, 2008
the pot is calling the kettle….well you know
For those who are sick of hearing that Obama and Edwards don’t take money from special interests or that they allow them no influence read below.

Fact Check: Sen. Obama’s Bill Allows Lobbyists To Wine and Dine Members of Congress, As Long As They Are Standing Up
Last night, Sen. Barack Obama bragged that he passed lobbying reform that prohibited lobbyists from buying meals for members of Congress:

OBAMA: I just want to add, I agree with John, which is why I prohibited lobbyists from buying meals for members of Congress…
Sen. Obama forgot to mention that the bill still allowed lobbyists to wine and dine members of congress, as long as they were standing up. ABC News reports:
ABC News found caterers working overtime as once again lobbyists spared no expense to entertain members of Congress and their staffs. Under new congressional ethics laws, lobbyists can spend all they want on holiday parties as long as everyone is standing up.

“You can no longer eat sitting down,” Ellen Miller, co-founder and executive director of the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to making government more accessible on the Internet, said. “There really has to be finger food. I think you can eat food that’s on a toothpick, but if it requires a fork or knife, forget it.”

And ABC News found plentiful spreads of catered food and well-stocked bars at elegant locations all over the capital — the kind of expense only the well-funded can afford.

“There is no way we can compete with that kind of money and that kind of influence-peddling,” Wiles said.


The Chair of Obama’s New Hampshire Campaign Is A Lobbyist For The Pharmaceutical Industry

Though Sen. Obama has also said that he won’t take federal PAC and lobbyist money on his campaign, he does take money from state based lobbyists as previously reported by First Read.

Sen. Obama’s co-chair in New Hampshire, Jim Demers, is a state based lobbyist for the pharmaceutical and financial services industries amongst others.

And there’s more….

From Newsday SpinCycle:
Anti-Lobbyist Obama enlists NH Lobbyist

Barack Obama has backhandedly slapped Hillary Rodham Clinton for accepting contributions from lobbyists and PACs, eschewing cash from both groups because he doesnt want to be beholden to special interests. So it was with great interest that we read in the Boston Globe that BHO has enlisted New Hampshire lobbyist Jim Demers (who represents trial lawyers, firefighters and a major video poker/slot machine vendor, according to his firms Website) to be one of his New Hamsphire co-chairs.

Demers has already helped Obama organize events in the Granite State and has helped establish his organization.

In April, Obama refunded about $50,000 in lobbyist contributions. Its not clear if Demers $2,300 was among the refunds. (His name isnt on Obamas refunds list because the campaign is only rejecting cash from federal lobbyists — an interesting ethical hair-split).

Even if he refunded Demers check  and we have no reason to believe Demers has anything but the purest motives for joining the campaign — the hiring raises questions. What good is returning a few grand from a lobbyist if that lobbyist is going to have unfettered access to the candidate as a volunteer?


Sen. Obama Promised to Support Repealing PATRIOT Act, Then Voted to Extend It
In 2003, Sen. Obama said that he would support a repeal of the U.S. PATRIOT Act:

Q4. Would you vote to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act?” A. “Yes, I would vote to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act, although I would consider replacing that shoddy and dangerous law with a new, carefully crafted proposal& [Illinois NOW questionnaire, 9/10/03]
In 2006, Sen. Obama to extend the PATRIOT Act:

The Washington Post said of the reauthorization, “[T]he Patriot Act fight started with promises of major changes and ended largely with the status quo.” Obama himself said the bill only “modestly” improved the PATRIOT Act and failed to do enough to protect civil liberties. [HR 3199, Vote #29, 3/2/06; Washington Post, 3/7/06; Obama Floor Statement, 2/16/06]

And still more….

Sen. Obama Promised To Oppose Iraq War Funding, Then Voted For Every Iraq War Funding Bill
As a Senate candidate in November 2003, Sen. Obama said he would have ‘unequivocally’ voted against war funding because it was the only way to oppose Bush on Iraq:

“Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars, I said ‘no.’ I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance.” [Obama remarks, New Trier Democratic Organization forum, 11/16/03; Video]
But until he ran for president, Sen. Obama supported every funding bill for Iraq. [2005 Vote # 117, HR1268, 5/10/05; 2005 Vote # 326, S1042, 11/15/05; 2006 Vote # 112, HR4939, 5/4/06; 2006 Vote # 239; 2006 Vote # 186, S2766, 6/22/06, HR5631, 9/7/06]

posted by CQ4hillary in CQ4hillary’s blog

Read Full Post »