At Least 13 New Republican Members Of Congress Hire Corporate Lobbyist

1. 86

   Stacie Lposted 12 years ago

   At Least 13 New Republican Members Of Congress Hire Corporate Lobbyists To Manage Their Office
   
    
   To many Americans, Washington is fundamentally broken. While corporations enjoy record profits and executives reward themselves with million-dollar bonuses, lobbyists have gamed the system so corporate behemoths like ExxonMobil and GE pay zero corporate income taxes. During the economic crisis, with high unemployment and stagnant wages, middle class Americans seem to be bearing the sacrifices. Riding a wave of this popular discontent, Republicans won a historical congressional election this year by channeling anger against “Beltway insiders” and Washington corruption.
   
   Perhaps to the surprise of many Tea Party populists who helped elect them, the Washington Post reports, “Many incoming GOP lawmakers have hired registered lobbyists as senior aides. Several of the candidates won with strong support from the anti-establishment tea party movement.” These lobbyists are not public servants. They are experts at carving out special deals and tax giveaways to powerful corporations:
   
   see who they are;
   http://thinkprogr...byist-cos/

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      the plague of government: doing whatever you want, and having the military tell the citizenry that it's in their own interest.

      replyreport
   2. 56

      C.J. Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Of course they hire lobbyist. Who do you think wrote the Healthcare Bill? Thats why the Speaker said "We have to pass it to find out whats in it"

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Doug Hughesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Please - tell me who wrote the Healthcare bill? What group benefited> The Insurance Companies? The AMA? (who has very little clout)  What group benefited? The 30 million who will have access to medical care, perhaps.

         replyreport
         1. 56

            C.J. Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Here is what I know Doug. The largest piece of entitlement legislation in 50 years was passed. The Speaker of the House said "We have to pass it to find out what's in it" That means, one, she, as the senior member of the House had no direct participation in the bills design. Two, she knew exactly what was in it and didn't think the bill would survive if put under any level of scrutiny.
            
            I'm not doing your research. You know as well as I, that MOST of Congress has registered lobbyist or former lobbyist on their staff's.
            
            Besides, Habee just mentioned that President Obama hired 12 after promising he wouldn't during his campaign.

            replyreport
         2. 92

            habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Liz Fowler of Wellpoint wrote most of the Healthcare Bill. Wellpoint is a Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance company. And if you think Obama isn't in the pocket of health insurers, think again. He received MORE money from them than any other candidate in 2008 - WAY more than McCain did!
            
            from HMOs: $1.5 million
            
            from big pharmacy: $2 million
            
            from lawyers: $43 million (no TORT reform)
            
            Here's the link: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=K01

            replyreport
            1. 89

               livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               ...and yet health care reform passed, and the Republicans fought tooth-and-nail EVERYTHING about it. The reason Republicans got less money is that the health insurance industry knew they wouldn't win.
               
               I agree it's sad that lobbyists have a stranglehold on politics - something that's gotten worse due to Citizens United - but often you have to support the lesser of two evils. It was naive for Obama to suggest he could get rid of them.

               replyreport
               1. 92

                  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  LL, I agree that we needed healthcare reform, and I like most parts of the HC bill. I'm just tired of hearing people say that the Rs are the ones who are backed by special interest groups, when the Ds are just as guilty.
                  
                  As for lobbyists, I don't think we'll ever end the corruption in DC until we get rid of them.

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Both parties are supported by lobbyists - otherwise, they wouldn't be in power. Sadly, money increases your chances of a win, although Whitman's defeat in California after spending about $140 million suggests that the link isn't always a hard-and-fast one.
                     
                     The Democrats took money from health insurance lobbyists but pushed through with reform anyway. The Republicans took money and promised to be better stewards of lobbyists' interests.
                     
                     And DC will be corrupt forever. McCain-Feingold was overturned, and Citizens United just made it worse.

                     replyreport
         3. 60

            Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            "What group benefited? The 30 million who will have access to medical care, perhaps."
            
            If you think rationed health care is a good thing then you're right.
            
            If you think Physicians not seeing you because medicare won't pay their price, then you're right.
            
            Obamacare is nothing but a scam and he knows it, one of his lobbyists told him.

            replyreport
         4. 61

            couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            30 million.  1/10th of the population.  Sorry, Mister Salesman, I don't want any but thanks for stopping by.  What, you say, you're not selliing it?  It's free?  Ok, then I'll take it.  Oh, it's not free for me?  You say you're simply going to extort money from me under threat of taking away what's mine?  Then I'm going to call my Congressman.  What? You say they are the one's who authorized this?  Then I'll call the President.  He agreed to it, you say?  Well, in that case, I got two brothers and a uncle who can break your kneecaps for you if you don't get off my property.  Now, where's that 'Guide to Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Creating an Underground Network'?

            replyreport
            1. 56

               C.J. Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Not to mention the supposed author of this bill did so in such a way that it allowed insurance companies to drop people with serious illness. In other words during the time we are being taxed and the coverage becomes effective, loads of people are being dumped off the roles. I wonder why they would create such a provision?
               
               Remember these names:
               
               Liz Fowler, Stephen Northrup, and Michelle Easton
               
               they are the hard core left's version of Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld

               replyreport
   3. 82

      2besureposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      We need to shelve this form of government and start all over. How we run this government is a joke.

      replyreport
2. 86

   Stacie Lposted 12 years ago

   heres the link
   http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/09/gop … byist-cos/

   replyreport
   1. 56

      C.J. Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Wow. Why focus on 13? I guess we can expect that all of them have lobbyist on their staffs.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Doug Hughesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         If you want to SHOW - with a source - that democrats have registered lobbyists managing their congressional office. please cite a SOURCE.
         
         The fact cited in the OP is that THIRTEEN new GOP members of congress have their offices managed by professional whores for big business.

         replyreport
         1. 92

            habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Doug, which party gets the most money from lobbyists?? Here's the answer:
            
            http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/washi … lobby.html

            replyreport
3. 92

   habeeposted 12 years ago

   Obama has 12 or so lobbyists on his staff, after promising he wouldn't hire lobbyists:
   
   http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200901 … tico/18128
   
   We need to get rid of ALL the lobbyists!

   replyreport
   1. 81

      kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, as soon as Geithner and Summers were announced, it was goodbye to hope and change. At least he's still better than the alternative, but I'm getting really tired of "better than the alternative" being my best option.

      replyreport
      1. 92

         habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Me, too! It seems that we always have to vote for "the lesser of two evils." I would love to be frothing at the mouth to vote for someone I was super enthusiastic about!

         replyreport
         1. 0

            luabuposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            if you are a woman then
            vote for a woman
            simple

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Even if you disagree with everything the woman says, VOTE FOR THE WOMAN!!
               
               after all! Women only care about other women, and thus can't handle hard political discussions!!
               
               (this is sarcasm. i'm highlighting the foolishness of "if you're a woman, then vote for a woman" argument)

               replyreport
      2. 56

         C.J. Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Sad isn't it. I didn't vote for the guy. However following the election I saw his stance on lobbyist and the wars as possible possitives to come from his Presidency. Apparently, it's not going to happen.
         I think the guy has looked more "Presidential" since the November elections. He's not selling out his liberal views, he's simply compromising. In fact if he can swing this latest tax cut issue and get clear of Afghanistan. I don't think he's beatable in 2012. He has to focus on things that effect the economy. Leave the liberal pet causes alone. Like Al Gore said..."IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID". The only thing he can do is reduce spending. He's a D, so his first look will be at Defense. It would be a great opportunity to leave the Middle East Conflicts.

         replyreport
4. 79

   lovemychrisposted 12 years ago

   I am grateful to have a president say he's worried about the poor and middle class....what did you think he would have to do with this monstrosity of corporate greed that this country has become? Wish it away?
   
   At least we don't have to hear anymore..."you rotten bums are no good and lazy--here's more for you ka-trillionaires". except on certain web-sites, that is
   
   I'll say this, Bush was more humane than Cheney, but the end result was the same.
   
   Rich got richer, poor got poorer. Deficit exploded, no body cared.
   
   We are a dam sight better now, even if it goes un-appreciated by EVERY side of the aisle.

   replyreport
   1. 92

      habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Most Americans don't feel as you do about being better off now:
      
      http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/are-yo … years-ago/

      replyreport
   2. 59

      BillyDRitchieposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, we're much better off....everybody is getting poorer now....
      
      Still waiting for somebody to tell me when they ever got a job from a poor man.....
      
      Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?  Bueller?

      replyreport
      1. 59

         BillyDRitchieposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Wow, 24 hours and no response.....who'da thunk it?

         replyreport
         1. 92

            habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I think Ferris had to go to the potty.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Yeah, I'm funny that way. How do you release fluids?

               replyreport
      2. 79

         lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I am much better off...I don't know about you.
         I got $400.00 tax cut last time...didn't you? Or is everybody on this web-site $250,000 and over?
         This big monolith of a gvt, to change it you need to take babysteps. It's not a one size fits all country.
         
         President Obama has accomplished a lot, and gotten credit for nothing. You like Republicans, so you aren't happy. But at least you got a shot--most of the past 30 years. Democrats didn't block Republicans every move.
         I like Democrat philosophy so much better than Repub--so I am much better off.
         
         My standard of living dropped in 03. You people are just catching up. But it was inevitable when you take money out of the system, without ending the spending! Raise the prices of everything, and let business and banks run wild.
         
         It was a Robber Barons paradise, and everyone was having a great time.....but for us at the lower middle. We got hit first.
         Then the actual middle class started falling off....while at the same time, the top incomes rose and rose.
         Breaks, loopholes, free-bees, Special Treatment.
         
         Don't blame Obama for that. Blame Bush. We are feeling the aftermath of his policies. You are just now getting it, I knew it a long time ago.

         replyreport
         1. 56

            C.J. Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Not Obama or Bush. It's Congress! Congress has gotten to the point that they are allowing Lobbyist write legislation....

            replyreport
            1. 79

               lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Exactly! This Congress of Republicans has blocked EVERYTHING Obama has wanted to do! They said....2 of them, that their main goal was to destroy Obama's presidency.Stopped everything with their 60 vote filibuster.
               
               Well, congrats. They got their baby little way----got their Uber Tax Bonuses at the expense of fire dpts, teachers, cops, day-care funding, Social security....
               
               All those rotten no-good dirty Americans who don't make a fortune.
               
               Now we'll have billions spent on going after Obama and Islam--McCarthy era bullsh*t yet again.
               And meanwhile, Bushco rides off into the sunset.
               
               You have no moral ground to stand on, none.

               replyreport
               1. 56

                  C.J. Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  What world do you live in? The R's haven't had a majority in the Senate since before 2006! Truth be known, the D's could have ramrod'd anything they wanted through. They had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a strong majority in the House.

                  replyreport
                  1. 92

                     habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     The Dems couldn't agree among themselves, so it's easier to blame the Repubs.

                     replyreport
                     1. 79

                        lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Blue Dog Dem=Repub
                        
                        That's the problem.

                        replyreport
                  2. 79

                     lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     They don't go for gutter politics like the Repubs.

                     replyreport
         2. 59

            BillyDRitchieposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            "Blame Bush. " Who here didn't see that coming?  It has gotten beyond old....

            replyreport
            1. 79

               lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               It's the truth, and until you admit it, we will live it over and over and over and over again.
               
               Trickle down is what is old. But here we are....at it again!!

               replyreport
   3. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Lovemychris, you were just arguing that it was unjust that Republicans cut out $50B of the new budget...
      
      But here you are!!! Mad about deficits exploding!!

      replyreport
      1. 79

         lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I'm mad that all we heard from Rethugs for 2 years is "Obama is ballooning the deficit...Obama is ballooning the deficit....the Grandkids...the Grandkids....
         
         So what is the 1st thing they just have to do? Add MORE to the deficit!

         replyreport
         1. 66

            Flightkeeperposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            How could they add to the deficit if they just cut $50B?

            replyreport
            1. 79

               lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Where did they cut 50 Bil?

               replyreport
         2. 60

            Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I'm still not seeing how that justifies being mad at them for trying to cut $50B from Obama's proposed budget
            
            Unless you can reconcile this, you DO need to admit that your political and economic understanding is flawed.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Their tax bonus for billionaires adds 857 billion to the deficit.
               
               That means that if Ubers could pay at 39% instead of 36%, we would have 857 more that the Grandkids won't have to pay off. Since we're borrowing it from China. So Russsshhhhhhh can have  2 mil more in his fat behind.
               
               What 50 Bil did the Repubs want to cut?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  ...the $50 B that was mentioned in another forum on Hubpages that you commented on...

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Yeah, well I forgot. Where did they cut 50 Bil?

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Here is the link provided...
                        
                        http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/19/ … index.html

                        replyreport
5. 92

   habeeposted 12 years ago

   Why did you assume I was talking to you?? I was just replying to the Ferris Bueller question, which I thought was aimed at everyone on the thread. The poster was asking "anyone."

   replyreport
6. 79

   lovemychrisposted 12 years ago

   Found it...you have got to be kidding me. You people REALLY support this?
   
   By Pat Garofalo on Sep 8th, 2010 at 11:23 am
   GOP Claims $50 Billion For Infrastructure Is Too Pricey, While Pushing $800 Billion Tax Cut For The Rich
   
   "This week, President Obama rolled out a plan to invest $50 billion in infrastructure as a way of boosting job creation, which will be (at least partially) paid for by cutting subsidies to oil and gas companies. Republicans immediately criticized the proposal, with even Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who typically jumps at the chance to approve infrastructure spending, saying he wouldn’t vote for it.
   
   But many Republicans, at the same time that they are claiming that a $50 billion investment in America’s infrastructure is a budget-buster, are pushing to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans. At $830 billion, the price tag for extending that sliver of the Bush cuts is more than 16 times the cost of Obama’s infrastructure proposal:"
   
   
   And you say MY thinking is flawed? Un believable.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well, on this part we just come to a disagreement.
      
      You're saying that it's unfair that government taxes people at different rates.
      
      I'm saying that Lowering taxes simply means that one person is being screwed less than another.
      
      You're arguing that government needs to spend our money for us.
      
      I'm arguing that I'm smart enough to know how to spend my own money, and that I don't support the fact that Gitmo is still open, we're still in 180+ countries and that we're bombing Pakistan.
      
      But I digress.
      
      Oh, Democrats, please save us from the evil Republicans.

      replyreport
      1. 56

         C.J. Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Actually all of the arguments make perfect sense. One party has created loyality by first creating dependence. WELCOME TO THE GREAT SOCIETY!

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Neil Sperlingposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I hope we all grow and mature. We come into this world dependent - most learn (at least to a point) how to become independent..... but when humanity matures as an individual can, to the highest level of maturity, that is inter-dependence..... maybe then we will find the magic balance between left and right.
            
            There is no "I " in Team!
            
            We are after all one breed of animal on the same planet.
            
            Inter-dependent - is beyond dependent by a huge maturity leap. Can society reach for the inter-dependence ideal?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               now the question becomes "what kind of interdependence"?
               
               Should it be voluntary, or coercive?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Neil Sperlingposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Naturally it should be voluntary...... but like a child maturing in a home environment it may need to be coercive until maturity levels grow.

                  replyreport
7. 60

   Neil Sperlingposted 12 years ago

   Too much wealth in the hands of too few is close to a communist control on economics. Governments that are too large and too far left are also too close to communism. We are living in time of rapid necessary change.
   
   The extremes from BOTH sides are the problem. There is no balance!
   
   From the Right - Too much wealth in the hands of too few is close to a communist control on economics... including through tax forgiving incentives to the rich. The rich have too much influence on government bills that benefit them.
   
   From the left - Governments that are too large and too far left are also too close to communism. To many regulatory controls, too many public servants, to many permits required to do anything and too many special interest groups getting funding they should be doing their own fund raising for.
   
   The Middle Class is being attacked from both corporate greed as well as too high a tax on earnings less than 50,000 - 75,000 a year.
   
   (Middle class as I define them are families that can afford two good vehicles, help their children through education, help their children get their first home and also take a holiday a year while saving for their own retirement. To place an income level to the term middle class is impossible because the cost of living varies too greatly from one location to the next.)
   
   Both left and right need a good shake up or the middle class is gone!

   replyreport
8. 79

   lovemychrisposted 12 years ago

   You mean "Gimme MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE" is not a good way to run a country?
   
   You mean, "I'll take 95%, you get 5" is maybe juvenile thinking?
   
   Refusing to let an elected party do their business....maybe a little childish?
   
   Yeah...I agree.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      no body ever took 95% of the wealth.
      
      They voluntarily offered a good or service for the money, and others voluntarily chose to give money for those services.
      
      95 people gained 1% and one person gained 95%.

      replyreport