Lobbying entails different elements which must be addressed for the effort to be a success. To keep this simple I have divided the process into two main elements with sub-elements that further define the main ones.
"RETAIL" LOBBYING: This is why, most often, a lobbyist is retained. "Retail" lobbying usually takes place within the Capitol and relies on the relationships a lobbyist has fostered with legislators and staff.
Meetings: Face-to-face meetings with legislators, their staff, and House or Senate staff to insure that your message is heard. Q & A: Being able to answer questions concerning your issue that may not be covered by any literature you give them. This can include providing testimony in the various committees and sub-committees.
Diplomacy: This is where most amateurs fail. By being overly passionate, they can sometimes insult the very people (legislators) they're trying to win over. A lobbyist should have the reputation of a professional with strong relationships in both houses and, more importantly, both sides of the aisle.
"WHOLESALE" LOBBYING: This type of lobbying is more general than "Retail". It includes more wide ranging campaigns such as: mass mailings, rallies, press conferences, and coordinating constituent visits to legislators. This type of political persuasion is in the background, so to speak, and less one-on-one than retail lobbying. A good lobbyist should be able to these types of campaigns to ensure awareness of the issue at hand.
Mailing Campaigns: A mailing campaign is often one of the least effective methods of lobbying. Legislators receive tons of mail per day and most often don't recall any one piece of mail. This type of lobbying can be more effective if it has aspects of "Retail" lobbying in that a letter from a particular legislator's constituent can be more persuasive than a letter from a faceless organization. This campaign will be comprised of both snail- and e-mail.
Rallies: If your business or organization is large enough to support an effective rally, a lobbyist can plan, coordinate and execute a rally that gets attention and results.
Press Conferences & Releases: The stalwart Press Conference is the king of applying political pressure and can be essential to a successful campaign. A steady stream of press releases to influential reporters can also be incredibly valuable. A lobbyist can draft press releases and organize a strong press conference for you.
Constituent Visits: A legislator will listen to no one more than one of his or her own constituents. Constituents=VOTES! Although this particular element of lobbying can also fit under the umbrella of "Retail" lobbying, often a group from an organization will coordinate visits on a single day. They then split up and visit their respective legislators. A lobbyist will match up any individual with his or her legislator using our relationships to open the door.
In the next installment, I will discuss the process a bill goes through in order to become law, and the lobbyist's role in the process.
For more information, or if you just have questions, please feel free to visit my website at S.E.G. Group, LLC and use the contact area.
Shawn Garza is president of S.E.G. Group, LLC, a lobbying and legislative consulting firm in Oklahoma City, OK. He also owns and maintains MyForex.us.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Fishing in the Potomac River
Are you considering fishing in the Potomac River? If so, you shall use lures if you wish to catch trout and it is better to catch trout away from the shoreline at least 50 yards and if you use live bait you only catch catfish and the bottom feeders close to shore. No, not politicians (bottom feeders). It takes a lobbyist to do that, but occasionally you can catch them.
Maybe if you put $100 bill and caste a line out there maybe you will catch a politician? Apparently the politicians also stay close to the shoreline so they are never too far away from a lobbyist, which will buy them free lunch. If the FBI really wants the cleanup Washington D.C. from corruption perhaps they should finish in the Potomac River using hundred dollar bills and pose as lobbyist. Meanwhile you probably wished to talk about fish don't you?
Well, the reason why fishing in the Potomac produces so many bottom feeders is because the River is very shallow close to the shoreline. And this makes it a great place for catfish and other bottom feeders. The trout like more room to swim in and so you have to find an area that is a little deeper and there are many such areas. If you have a good fish finder and small sonar that will certainly help. Otherwise you need to ask the locals were the best fishing is. Luckily the Potomac River has a lot of fish in it. Please consider this in 2006.
"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance in the Online Think Tank and solve the problems of the World; www.WorldThinkTank.net/
By Lance Winslow
Maybe if you put $100 bill and caste a line out there maybe you will catch a politician? Apparently the politicians also stay close to the shoreline so they are never too far away from a lobbyist, which will buy them free lunch. If the FBI really wants the cleanup Washington D.C. from corruption perhaps they should finish in the Potomac River using hundred dollar bills and pose as lobbyist. Meanwhile you probably wished to talk about fish don't you?
Well, the reason why fishing in the Potomac produces so many bottom feeders is because the River is very shallow close to the shoreline. And this makes it a great place for catfish and other bottom feeders. The trout like more room to swim in and so you have to find an area that is a little deeper and there are many such areas. If you have a good fish finder and small sonar that will certainly help. Otherwise you need to ask the locals were the best fishing is. Luckily the Potomac River has a lot of fish in it. Please consider this in 2006.
"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance in the Online Think Tank and solve the problems of the World; www.WorldThinkTank.net/
By Lance Winslow
Friday, June 22, 2007
I Have a Lobbyist and So Do You
AzNA member Seago shares what she learned from AzNA Lobbyist Rory Hays.
So you are wondering if you have a voice, if what you have to say will be heard among your peers and your government. Enter Rory Hays, JD, a lawyer who represents every member of AzNA. A graduate of Arizona State University (ASU) and a lobbyist for 21 years, she has been with AzNA since 1990.
Hays serves as the middleman, listening to what nurses have to say and then passing that information along to the people who need to hear it most, the legislature. Nurses benefit greatly from having someone to speak on their behalf.
One such success was the passage in 2003 of the Patient Safety Reporting Bill, also called "Whistleblower Protection." It provides nurses job protection in regard to reporting safety concerns. Rory found this bill important because of its content and the allies that were forged in the efforts to fight off the bill's opponents, which included the Arizona Chamber of Commerce. This bill helps to cement nurses' role as patient advocate.
Hays describes her role as threefold: first, representation of AzNA members before the public policy makers; second, to assure that nursing has a voice in the legislature, as well as to provide input on issues concerning health care; and finally, to help nurses get involved in policy-making by means of committees, boards, commissions, etc. The nursing community is being asked to provide input via these groups. Requesting nursing input validates our opinions.
She enjoys representing the voice of nursing for numerous reasons, including patient advocate status and our visibility in the world. As she put it, "Everyone has one [nurse] in their family". She urges all AzNA members to get involved.
Those who attended Nurses Legislative Day on Feb. 24, 2006, had the opportunity to meet Rory in person. As she provided the "Arizona Legislative Healthcare Briefing."
AzNA has a legislative committee and there are other organizations which help affect health care policy- all of these organizations welcome help and guidance. Those of you who think Court TV is interesting, just imagine the State legislature.
I encourage you to attend Nurses Lobby Day on Thursday, March 23, or the Nurse Practitioner Lobby Day on Thursday, March 30. Rory will be an integral part of both days. For more information see the AzNA web site at www.aznurse.org or call 480.831.0404.
Diane Seago RN, MSN, FNP-C, Del E. Webb Pain Clinic
Arizona Nurse, Mar 2006 by Seago, Diane
So you are wondering if you have a voice, if what you have to say will be heard among your peers and your government. Enter Rory Hays, JD, a lawyer who represents every member of AzNA. A graduate of Arizona State University (ASU) and a lobbyist for 21 years, she has been with AzNA since 1990.
Hays serves as the middleman, listening to what nurses have to say and then passing that information along to the people who need to hear it most, the legislature. Nurses benefit greatly from having someone to speak on their behalf.
One such success was the passage in 2003 of the Patient Safety Reporting Bill, also called "Whistleblower Protection." It provides nurses job protection in regard to reporting safety concerns. Rory found this bill important because of its content and the allies that were forged in the efforts to fight off the bill's opponents, which included the Arizona Chamber of Commerce. This bill helps to cement nurses' role as patient advocate.
Hays describes her role as threefold: first, representation of AzNA members before the public policy makers; second, to assure that nursing has a voice in the legislature, as well as to provide input on issues concerning health care; and finally, to help nurses get involved in policy-making by means of committees, boards, commissions, etc. The nursing community is being asked to provide input via these groups. Requesting nursing input validates our opinions.
She enjoys representing the voice of nursing for numerous reasons, including patient advocate status and our visibility in the world. As she put it, "Everyone has one [nurse] in their family". She urges all AzNA members to get involved.
Those who attended Nurses Legislative Day on Feb. 24, 2006, had the opportunity to meet Rory in person. As she provided the "Arizona Legislative Healthcare Briefing."
AzNA has a legislative committee and there are other organizations which help affect health care policy- all of these organizations welcome help and guidance. Those of you who think Court TV is interesting, just imagine the State legislature.
I encourage you to attend Nurses Lobby Day on Thursday, March 23, or the Nurse Practitioner Lobby Day on Thursday, March 30. Rory will be an integral part of both days. For more information see the AzNA web site at www.aznurse.org or call 480.831.0404.
Diane Seago RN, MSN, FNP-C, Del E. Webb Pain Clinic
Arizona Nurse, Mar 2006 by Seago, Diane
Reed admits taking casino lobbyist fees
Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition and now a Republican strategist, admitted that he accepted $1.23 million in consulting fees tied to Indian-run gambling casinos, the Washington Post has reported.
Reed, who also serves as Southeast regional chairman for the Bush-Cheney campaign, received the fees from two lobbyists whose ties to the Indian tribes are now the subject of a federal investigation.
Sources told the Post that Reed's Atlanta-based Century Strategies was paid $1.23 million by public relations executive Michael Scanlon, whose clients included a Louisiana Indian tribe that was trying to prevent other tribes from opening competing casinos. Part of Reed's job was to mobilize Christian ministers and activists against the new casinos.
Century Strategies also received an unspecified payment from another gaming lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. Abramoff's former firm, Greenberg Traurig LLP, said in March that Abramoff was no longer part of the firm because his "personal transactions" were "unacceptable" to it.
In a statement to the Post, Reed said he never worked in law favor of gambling, a vice that many Christian leaders consider immoral. "I have worked for decades to oppose the expansion of casino gambling, and as a result of that, Century Strategies has worked with broad coalitions to oppose casino expansion. We are proud of the work we have done. It is consistent not only with my beliefs but with the beliefs of the grass-roots citizens we mobilized. At no time was Century Strategies ever retained by, or [has it] worked on behalf of any casino or casino company."
Acknowledging he knew that Greenberg Traurig had "certain tribal clients," Reed said "we were not aware of every specific client or interest." The Post said Scanlon and Abramoff are part of a federal probe involving "$45 million in lobbying and public relations fees, alleged misuse of Indian tribal funds, possible illegal campaign contributions and possible tax code violations." --RNS
Christian Century, Sept 21, 2004
Reed, who also serves as Southeast regional chairman for the Bush-Cheney campaign, received the fees from two lobbyists whose ties to the Indian tribes are now the subject of a federal investigation.
Sources told the Post that Reed's Atlanta-based Century Strategies was paid $1.23 million by public relations executive Michael Scanlon, whose clients included a Louisiana Indian tribe that was trying to prevent other tribes from opening competing casinos. Part of Reed's job was to mobilize Christian ministers and activists against the new casinos.
Century Strategies also received an unspecified payment from another gaming lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. Abramoff's former firm, Greenberg Traurig LLP, said in March that Abramoff was no longer part of the firm because his "personal transactions" were "unacceptable" to it.
In a statement to the Post, Reed said he never worked in law favor of gambling, a vice that many Christian leaders consider immoral. "I have worked for decades to oppose the expansion of casino gambling, and as a result of that, Century Strategies has worked with broad coalitions to oppose casino expansion. We are proud of the work we have done. It is consistent not only with my beliefs but with the beliefs of the grass-roots citizens we mobilized. At no time was Century Strategies ever retained by, or [has it] worked on behalf of any casino or casino company."
Acknowledging he knew that Greenberg Traurig had "certain tribal clients," Reed said "we were not aware of every specific client or interest." The Post said Scanlon and Abramoff are part of a federal probe involving "$45 million in lobbying and public relations fees, alleged misuse of Indian tribal funds, possible illegal campaign contributions and possible tax code violations." --RNS
Christian Century, Sept 21, 2004
The golf trip that toppled a lobbyist: how Jack Abramoff went wrong
Last winter, Jack Abramoff wore a really nice hat.
We saw him on television and in the newspapers. He came out of a courthouse after another of his public humiliations. The dark and shiny hat sat forward on his head. Its brim curled toward his eyes.
Jack Abramoff had been a dashing figure in Washington, a bear of a man with a square-cut jaw, flashing eyes and expensively trimmed black hair. He was a high-dollar lobbyist who knew how to move the levers of power in a city where such knowledge is worth millions.
All that had changed. In the winter, leaving a courthouse, Abramoff was furtive, his face empty, his star gone cold before he was 50 years old.
A shame.
But, hey. He earned it. He deserved it. Too bad, in fact, there wasn't more of it, and I'm here to tell you why.
It's not because of the hat, though I swear I heard the fedora say, "I'm Jack's hat. I cost more than your new 460cc driver. You may stand at a distance and admire me. Do not touch."
Nor should we dump more steaming censure on him just because we have learned the details of his trip to the old course at St. Andrews. True, he crossed the Atlantic in August 2002 with seven buddies and his son in a private jet and was limo'd to the first tee. Law-abiding folks would have flown all night in a middle seat between odiferous oafs and then schlepped their bags from Heathrow to Scotland in a train filled with diseased sheep.
It's not that. It's not envy, jealousy or their inbred cousin, class resentment. Here's what frosts our Titleists: Abramoff went to St. Andrews for all the wrong reasons. Passionate golfers think of the old course as a pilgrimage destination. Abramoff made it a payoff for politicians. The old course is heaven with Bobby Jones whispering swing thoughts on the summer air. To Jack Abramoff, it was Bluto's frat house.
"Hey," Abramoff had written to a buddy, naming a mutually disliked acquaintance, "let's bring Jeff to Scotland and hit balls into him!"
Came the reply: "Let's hang him upside down from a crane over the 18th at the old course and use him to line up our drives!"
Abramoff's catering list for the Gulfstream asked for 24 Miller Lites, 12 Bud Lights, two bottles of red wine, a quart of 2-percent milk, one package of Twizzlers (red), three grilled-chicken dinners with sides, five cheese omelets, side of bacon for six, an "assortment of bagels with cream cheese, butter and jellies on the side for four," and "lots of snacks."
Twice before, the lobbyist had gone trolling for political influence at St. Andrews. In 1999 he accompanied six Republican senators, their aides and 50 lobbyists. on his own in 2000 he invited the Texas congressman Tom DeLay, a rising Republican star who once cited golf as the first of his egocentric sins: "It was me, me, me, me, me. It was golf or my business or politics ..."
Abramoff's 2002 itinerary called for the fugitives from the public trough--Republicans all--to tee it up at seven courses in five days. They made the trip in high style. They slept in grand hotels, bellied up to fine dinners, punished themselves at Carnoustie and repaired their wounds at Gleneagles.
They did the whole Scottish golf thing, and--here's a teeth-gritter--they did it for free. Maybe they extracted from way down in their pants pockets a ball-marking dime for tips now and then. But federal investigators decided that Abramoff covered the trip's entire tab, which came to $150,225.
Though Abramoff insisted it was just a boys' adventure in the heather and gorse, investigators decided he'd paid for the trip "in exchange for certain official acts." Meaning, a bribe.
A master of the lobbyist's art, Abramoff paid the fare with someone else's money. It was taken from a foundation he created to fund inner-city youth athletic programs. Most of it came in "donations" from lobbying clients, primarily six Indian tribes that also paid him more than $80 million between 2000 and 2003 to represent their gambling casino interests.
So Jack Abramoff took money from Indians intended for inner-city youth and spent it on Twizzlers for freeloaders on a Gulfstream II headed for the old course.
Is it a surprise, then, that he ignored so many ethical norms, congressional rules and laws of the United States? or that in 2006 he pleaded guilty to conspiracy, tax evasion and fraud? Any surprise that he showed up at the old course with political operatives whose foreheads carried neon signs blinking "For Sale"?
On the old course, one doofus came to the Swilcan Bridge. That iconic piece of stonework has been used for generations, by Jones, Snead, Palmer, Nicklaus, Watson, Faldo, Woods. But when the Abramoff buddy later showed snapshots of the bridge at the trial of another Abramoff buddy, he had no clue.
He called it "kind of a famous bridge before the 18th hole." Kind of?
Next, some dolt will tell us there's this Amen corner place.
Fred Wertheimer, president and cEo of the nonpartisan group Democracy 21 and advocate of tightening congressional ethics rules, says, "The golf caucus on capitol Hill contains a considerable number of members who make playing golf a high priority for the country.
"Especially," he says, "at great golf courses."
H.L. Mencken warned us. The great old curmudgeon newspaperman hated sports, especially one. In 1943 he wrote, "If I had my way, no man guilty of golf would be eligible to any office of trust or profit under the United States."
Such stricture would have saved the Abramoff junketeers some suffering, of players on the trip ...
* Former Christian coalition leader Ralph Reed lost in the 2006 Georgia Republican primary for the party's lieutenant-governor nomination.
* Ohio Republican congressman Bob Ney came under investigation by federal authorities and withdrew from this fall's November election rather than seek a seventh term.
* A Bush administration senior official, David Safavian, became the fifth person found guilty in legal actions connected to Abramoff, with the distinction of being the first convicted at trial; the others pleaded guilty.
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank said Safavian's trial came down to the bribery question: "Was he doing 'official acts' in exchange for 'favors'? And golf was the favor."
Abramoff wanted Safavian's help in acquiring two pieces of federal property. E-mails showed the lobbyist in relentless seduction mode. Safavian once wrote, "can't pull weekday golf until I'm a bit more ensconced as chief of staff," to which Abramoff replied, "Loser! I told you to come with me and not the gov!! You'd be playing golf non-stop."
The reporter Milbank used to play golf. "Before I had a kid." He isn't much good. "I keep score by how many balls I lose." He found the trial testimony golf-y with lots of talk about handicaps and a kind-of-famous bridge. So his column began:
"The way things are going at the David Safavian trial this week, don't be surprised if, in the coming days, a golf cart bursts into courtroom 29A of the federal courthouse and a pair of Scotsmen ask if they can play through."
In the end, maybe, it really was the hat.
I said to Jeff Gregson, a lobbyist in Virginia, "That hat Abramoff wore ... "
The lobbyist said, "It made him look like Lepke Buchalter."
I found a photograph of Louis Buchalter, known by the Yiddish nickname "Lepke," meaning Little Louis. He was 5-feet-5.
Here they are (above) in their hats, Buchalter on the right ...
In New York through the 1920s and '30s, Lepke Buchalter worked alongside Lucky Luciano at the top of Murder Inc. Lepke's career ended in 1944, when he sat in Sing Sing's electric chair.
Abramoff is no Buchalter, but the guilty plea commits him to cooperation with the government's investigations, to restitution of $26.7 million, and probably to 11 years in prison.
In all, if you ask me, a waste of nice hats.
To give feedback, send e-mails to: kindred@golfdigest.com.
Golf Digest, Oct, 2006 by Dave Kindred
We saw him on television and in the newspapers. He came out of a courthouse after another of his public humiliations. The dark and shiny hat sat forward on his head. Its brim curled toward his eyes.
Jack Abramoff had been a dashing figure in Washington, a bear of a man with a square-cut jaw, flashing eyes and expensively trimmed black hair. He was a high-dollar lobbyist who knew how to move the levers of power in a city where such knowledge is worth millions.
All that had changed. In the winter, leaving a courthouse, Abramoff was furtive, his face empty, his star gone cold before he was 50 years old.
A shame.
But, hey. He earned it. He deserved it. Too bad, in fact, there wasn't more of it, and I'm here to tell you why.
It's not because of the hat, though I swear I heard the fedora say, "I'm Jack's hat. I cost more than your new 460cc driver. You may stand at a distance and admire me. Do not touch."
Nor should we dump more steaming censure on him just because we have learned the details of his trip to the old course at St. Andrews. True, he crossed the Atlantic in August 2002 with seven buddies and his son in a private jet and was limo'd to the first tee. Law-abiding folks would have flown all night in a middle seat between odiferous oafs and then schlepped their bags from Heathrow to Scotland in a train filled with diseased sheep.
It's not that. It's not envy, jealousy or their inbred cousin, class resentment. Here's what frosts our Titleists: Abramoff went to St. Andrews for all the wrong reasons. Passionate golfers think of the old course as a pilgrimage destination. Abramoff made it a payoff for politicians. The old course is heaven with Bobby Jones whispering swing thoughts on the summer air. To Jack Abramoff, it was Bluto's frat house.
"Hey," Abramoff had written to a buddy, naming a mutually disliked acquaintance, "let's bring Jeff to Scotland and hit balls into him!"
Came the reply: "Let's hang him upside down from a crane over the 18th at the old course and use him to line up our drives!"
Abramoff's catering list for the Gulfstream asked for 24 Miller Lites, 12 Bud Lights, two bottles of red wine, a quart of 2-percent milk, one package of Twizzlers (red), three grilled-chicken dinners with sides, five cheese omelets, side of bacon for six, an "assortment of bagels with cream cheese, butter and jellies on the side for four," and "lots of snacks."
Twice before, the lobbyist had gone trolling for political influence at St. Andrews. In 1999 he accompanied six Republican senators, their aides and 50 lobbyists. on his own in 2000 he invited the Texas congressman Tom DeLay, a rising Republican star who once cited golf as the first of his egocentric sins: "It was me, me, me, me, me. It was golf or my business or politics ..."
Abramoff's 2002 itinerary called for the fugitives from the public trough--Republicans all--to tee it up at seven courses in five days. They made the trip in high style. They slept in grand hotels, bellied up to fine dinners, punished themselves at Carnoustie and repaired their wounds at Gleneagles.
They did the whole Scottish golf thing, and--here's a teeth-gritter--they did it for free. Maybe they extracted from way down in their pants pockets a ball-marking dime for tips now and then. But federal investigators decided that Abramoff covered the trip's entire tab, which came to $150,225.
Though Abramoff insisted it was just a boys' adventure in the heather and gorse, investigators decided he'd paid for the trip "in exchange for certain official acts." Meaning, a bribe.
A master of the lobbyist's art, Abramoff paid the fare with someone else's money. It was taken from a foundation he created to fund inner-city youth athletic programs. Most of it came in "donations" from lobbying clients, primarily six Indian tribes that also paid him more than $80 million between 2000 and 2003 to represent their gambling casino interests.
So Jack Abramoff took money from Indians intended for inner-city youth and spent it on Twizzlers for freeloaders on a Gulfstream II headed for the old course.
Is it a surprise, then, that he ignored so many ethical norms, congressional rules and laws of the United States? or that in 2006 he pleaded guilty to conspiracy, tax evasion and fraud? Any surprise that he showed up at the old course with political operatives whose foreheads carried neon signs blinking "For Sale"?
On the old course, one doofus came to the Swilcan Bridge. That iconic piece of stonework has been used for generations, by Jones, Snead, Palmer, Nicklaus, Watson, Faldo, Woods. But when the Abramoff buddy later showed snapshots of the bridge at the trial of another Abramoff buddy, he had no clue.
He called it "kind of a famous bridge before the 18th hole." Kind of?
Next, some dolt will tell us there's this Amen corner place.
Fred Wertheimer, president and cEo of the nonpartisan group Democracy 21 and advocate of tightening congressional ethics rules, says, "The golf caucus on capitol Hill contains a considerable number of members who make playing golf a high priority for the country.
"Especially," he says, "at great golf courses."
H.L. Mencken warned us. The great old curmudgeon newspaperman hated sports, especially one. In 1943 he wrote, "If I had my way, no man guilty of golf would be eligible to any office of trust or profit under the United States."
Such stricture would have saved the Abramoff junketeers some suffering, of players on the trip ...
* Former Christian coalition leader Ralph Reed lost in the 2006 Georgia Republican primary for the party's lieutenant-governor nomination.
* Ohio Republican congressman Bob Ney came under investigation by federal authorities and withdrew from this fall's November election rather than seek a seventh term.
* A Bush administration senior official, David Safavian, became the fifth person found guilty in legal actions connected to Abramoff, with the distinction of being the first convicted at trial; the others pleaded guilty.
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank said Safavian's trial came down to the bribery question: "Was he doing 'official acts' in exchange for 'favors'? And golf was the favor."
Abramoff wanted Safavian's help in acquiring two pieces of federal property. E-mails showed the lobbyist in relentless seduction mode. Safavian once wrote, "can't pull weekday golf until I'm a bit more ensconced as chief of staff," to which Abramoff replied, "Loser! I told you to come with me and not the gov!! You'd be playing golf non-stop."
The reporter Milbank used to play golf. "Before I had a kid." He isn't much good. "I keep score by how many balls I lose." He found the trial testimony golf-y with lots of talk about handicaps and a kind-of-famous bridge. So his column began:
"The way things are going at the David Safavian trial this week, don't be surprised if, in the coming days, a golf cart bursts into courtroom 29A of the federal courthouse and a pair of Scotsmen ask if they can play through."
In the end, maybe, it really was the hat.
I said to Jeff Gregson, a lobbyist in Virginia, "That hat Abramoff wore ... "
The lobbyist said, "It made him look like Lepke Buchalter."
I found a photograph of Louis Buchalter, known by the Yiddish nickname "Lepke," meaning Little Louis. He was 5-feet-5.
Here they are (above) in their hats, Buchalter on the right ...
In New York through the 1920s and '30s, Lepke Buchalter worked alongside Lucky Luciano at the top of Murder Inc. Lepke's career ended in 1944, when he sat in Sing Sing's electric chair.
Abramoff is no Buchalter, but the guilty plea commits him to cooperation with the government's investigations, to restitution of $26.7 million, and probably to 11 years in prison.
In all, if you ask me, a waste of nice hats.
To give feedback, send e-mails to: kindred@golfdigest.com.
Golf Digest, Oct, 2006 by Dave Kindred
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Under Pressure, Big 3 Support Fuel Mandates
Automakers decided to endorse a compromise proposal to increase fuel efficiency requirements last Tuesday despite the fact that Detroit's Big Three got a fresh hammering on the Senate floor.
The endorsement is a remarkable departure for the automakers, which have long refuted momentous increases in corporate average fuel economy mandates, known as CAFE. The opposition is mainly because the rules would be expensive to meet and could force them to shun building some popular and profitable product lines simply because they are less efficient.
Automakers believe the compromise proposal offered by Michigan Democrat Sen. Carl Levin is a "stretch," but achievable, although it will still be expensive to meet and breaks with their long-held belief that regulators, not senators, should set new fuel requirements, according to auto executives who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Subsequent to a late-afternoon meeting last Tuesday between automakers and Levin's staff, the nine companies in the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the trade group that represents Detroit's Big Three and the Toyota Motor Corp., decided to endorse Levin's bill. The bill is expected to be released on Wednesday.
Officials from the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, which represents Toyota, Nissan Motor Co. and Honda Motor Co., also participated in the meeting. But they are undecided whether to support the proposal. The compromise bill is in response to a Democratic energy bill earlier passed by the Senate Commerce Committee. The bill would oblige automakers to average 35 miles per gallon for passenger cars and light trucks combined by 2020, with four percent yearly increases through 2030.
An early draft of Levin's bill would give automakers longer to comply and require a smaller overall increase, 36 mpg for passenger cars by 2022 and 30 mpg for light trucks by 2025. The bill was drafted by Levin and co-sponsor Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo. The proponents said that they will try to finalize the language of the draft this Tuesday.
Last week, the CEOs of the General Motors Corp., the Ford Motor Co., and the Chrysler Group were on Capitol Hill to lobby against the Senate Democratic energy bill. However, they did not endorse any measure. The automakers have now decided that they need to support an alternative if they have any hope of beating back the bill. The hot situation needs the breeze of an Eagle cold air intake. This is why the domestic automakers are backing the less stringent and taxing proposal.
"I believe the Big Three will endorse the Levin bill because it has CAFE increases that are economically feasible," said the United Auto Workers' chief lobbyist, Alan Reuther. The UAW has endorsed Levin's proposal.
The Bush administration, on the other hand, after sitting out the debate on fuel economy bills for weeks, repeated its antagonism to formulating specific increases in fuel economy standards and said that it was "strongly opposed" to a provision in the Senate Democratic energy bill that would oblige medium and heavy-duty trucks to comply with fuel economy mandates. At present, the largest work vehicles are exempt.
The automakers' endorsement of Levin's plan came as the Senate began a floor debate on the Democratic energy bill. One by one, lawmakers criticized the Detroit automakers for not doing more to enhance the fuel efficiency of their vehicles.
"It's a sad day for Detroit and I feel bad for an industry that once used to lead the world," said the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Richard Durbin of Illinois. Domestic auto CEOs "have failed to make the right decision about the products they sell." Durbin offered a similar proposal to increase fuel economy requirements a couple of years ago but was defeated. The ground has shifted radically since then.
About the Author
Given her background on cars as an auto insurance director, Lauren Woods finds the world of cars to be constantly changing.
The endorsement is a remarkable departure for the automakers, which have long refuted momentous increases in corporate average fuel economy mandates, known as CAFE. The opposition is mainly because the rules would be expensive to meet and could force them to shun building some popular and profitable product lines simply because they are less efficient.
Automakers believe the compromise proposal offered by Michigan Democrat Sen. Carl Levin is a "stretch," but achievable, although it will still be expensive to meet and breaks with their long-held belief that regulators, not senators, should set new fuel requirements, according to auto executives who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Subsequent to a late-afternoon meeting last Tuesday between automakers and Levin's staff, the nine companies in the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the trade group that represents Detroit's Big Three and the Toyota Motor Corp., decided to endorse Levin's bill. The bill is expected to be released on Wednesday.
Officials from the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, which represents Toyota, Nissan Motor Co. and Honda Motor Co., also participated in the meeting. But they are undecided whether to support the proposal. The compromise bill is in response to a Democratic energy bill earlier passed by the Senate Commerce Committee. The bill would oblige automakers to average 35 miles per gallon for passenger cars and light trucks combined by 2020, with four percent yearly increases through 2030.
An early draft of Levin's bill would give automakers longer to comply and require a smaller overall increase, 36 mpg for passenger cars by 2022 and 30 mpg for light trucks by 2025. The bill was drafted by Levin and co-sponsor Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo. The proponents said that they will try to finalize the language of the draft this Tuesday.
Last week, the CEOs of the General Motors Corp., the Ford Motor Co., and the Chrysler Group were on Capitol Hill to lobby against the Senate Democratic energy bill. However, they did not endorse any measure. The automakers have now decided that they need to support an alternative if they have any hope of beating back the bill. The hot situation needs the breeze of an Eagle cold air intake. This is why the domestic automakers are backing the less stringent and taxing proposal.
"I believe the Big Three will endorse the Levin bill because it has CAFE increases that are economically feasible," said the United Auto Workers' chief lobbyist, Alan Reuther. The UAW has endorsed Levin's proposal.
The Bush administration, on the other hand, after sitting out the debate on fuel economy bills for weeks, repeated its antagonism to formulating specific increases in fuel economy standards and said that it was "strongly opposed" to a provision in the Senate Democratic energy bill that would oblige medium and heavy-duty trucks to comply with fuel economy mandates. At present, the largest work vehicles are exempt.
The automakers' endorsement of Levin's plan came as the Senate began a floor debate on the Democratic energy bill. One by one, lawmakers criticized the Detroit automakers for not doing more to enhance the fuel efficiency of their vehicles.
"It's a sad day for Detroit and I feel bad for an industry that once used to lead the world," said the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Richard Durbin of Illinois. Domestic auto CEOs "have failed to make the right decision about the products they sell." Durbin offered a similar proposal to increase fuel economy requirements a couple of years ago but was defeated. The ground has shifted radically since then.
About the Author
Given her background on cars as an auto insurance director, Lauren Woods finds the world of cars to be constantly changing.
Why Big Pharma employs so many lobbyists
Why Big Pharma employs so many lobbyists By: Cary Byrd
There is a drug war going on behind the scenes in this country, and it has nothing to do with illegal narcotics. It is a war in Washington that Big Pharma has waged to protect inflated prescription drug prices by political connections and money.
A good example of the political power employed by Big Pharma is the prescription drug benefit added to Medicare in 2003. Until recent years, there was little demand for such a benefit, because prescription medications were less expensive and people did not take as many of them. Today, many seniors take five to six medications daily, which translates into thousands of dollars each year paid out-of-pocket by seniors for prescription medications. Since seniors comprise such a large voting block, both political parties were pressured to produce a drug benefit plan before the 2004 election.
Instead of helping seniors, however, Congress passed a confusing, ineffectual bill that prohibits Medicare from using its enormous purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. Medicare still has no control over how much drug companies charge seniors for prescription drugs. To further lessen the legislation’s effectiveness, the drug benefit is not administered by Medicare, but by multiple private companies that have little to no bargaining power.
Every other large purchaser in the world is allowed to negotiate prices — but the largest of them all is not allowed to. Why? The answer to that question begins with the 625 Big Pharma lobbyists on Capitol Hill, more than all the members of the House and Senate combined. During the last election campaign, the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $250 million in political contributions and lobbying activities, as well as $65 million on a television ad aimed at stopping legislation that would force them to reduce their inflated prices.
Big Pharma now reigns as the single most government-protected industry. Merrill Goozner, the author of The $800 Million Dollar Pill, describes on his blog, GoozNews, how Big Pharma is allowed to:
* charge consumers inflated prices * produce clear reproductions of old drugs to increase profits * benefit from lax FDA oversight * receive enormous tax breaks, along with 20-year monopoly patents.
Where does it end?
There is a drug war going on behind the scenes in this country, and it has nothing to do with illegal narcotics. It is a war in Washington that Big Pharma has waged to protect inflated prescription drug prices by political connections and money.
A good example of the political power employed by Big Pharma is the prescription drug benefit added to Medicare in 2003. Until recent years, there was little demand for such a benefit, because prescription medications were less expensive and people did not take as many of them. Today, many seniors take five to six medications daily, which translates into thousands of dollars each year paid out-of-pocket by seniors for prescription medications. Since seniors comprise such a large voting block, both political parties were pressured to produce a drug benefit plan before the 2004 election.
Instead of helping seniors, however, Congress passed a confusing, ineffectual bill that prohibits Medicare from using its enormous purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. Medicare still has no control over how much drug companies charge seniors for prescription drugs. To further lessen the legislation’s effectiveness, the drug benefit is not administered by Medicare, but by multiple private companies that have little to no bargaining power.
Every other large purchaser in the world is allowed to negotiate prices — but the largest of them all is not allowed to. Why? The answer to that question begins with the 625 Big Pharma lobbyists on Capitol Hill, more than all the members of the House and Senate combined. During the last election campaign, the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $250 million in political contributions and lobbying activities, as well as $65 million on a television ad aimed at stopping legislation that would force them to reduce their inflated prices.
Big Pharma now reigns as the single most government-protected industry. Merrill Goozner, the author of The $800 Million Dollar Pill, describes on his blog, GoozNews, how Big Pharma is allowed to:
* charge consumers inflated prices * produce clear reproductions of old drugs to increase profits * benefit from lax FDA oversight * receive enormous tax breaks, along with 20-year monopoly patents.
Where does it end?
Monday, June 18, 2007
Stock Investing - Merck tries new tactic to sell Vaccination Drug - FORCE girls to take it
Giant Merck, a major growth stock for 50 years has seen that growth slowing down along with Pfizer and the rest of the major drug companies. Merck has latched onto a new strategy to build sales again, but it's not just Merck and Pfizer that are suffering. The major pharmaceutical companies around the world are in a slowdown, and panic is starting to set into the executive suite.
Some of these companies are now doing in the tens of billions of dollars per year in sales. The drug industry is the most profitable industry in the world today bar none. The returns on invested capital, and profit margins are extraordinary.
President Bush, and the then Republican Congress created the prescription drug program for seniors in an attempt to reverse the tide for these companies. The drug manufacturers have been a major contributor to the Republican Party for more than a decade. Both Merck, and Pfizer have begun downsizing their sales forces in response to the slow down.
The problem for these companies is that they have gotten so big in terms of their sales bases, that they are having great difficulty generating new drugs on a scale that can compensate for the slowdown of their current portfolio of drugs. In addition many of these fabulous drugs currently being sold are going off patent protection, and that means a collapse in sales revenues. Once the generics take over, than it's over for the original creator of the drug.
What has Merck done NOW?
Merck has created a new cervical-cancer vaccine. The American Cancer Society tells us that a little more than 11000 women this year will be told by their doctors that they have this terrible disease. What's worse is that more than 3500 of those women will eventually succumb to it.
Let's put this in perspective. About 180,000 women this year will be told they have breast cancer. About 40,000 of these previously diagnosed women will eventually die from breast cancer, and its complications. Between 8 times and 10 times the number of women who die from breast cancer, will die from heart disease this year. As you know breast cancer gets all the publicity compared to the other two diseases.
This new anti cervical-cancer vaccine is a wonderful creation,and everyone at Merck who participated in its creation should feel great pride in their work. What about the executives, and marketing people at Merck. Well, that's a different story. Merck has decided to attempt to force the use of this vaccine onto every female pre-teenager, and teenager in America. They are pulling out all the stops in an attempt to influence every legislator they can find to mandate this vaccination be given to children regardless of their parent's wishes.
Merck got TEXAS on board first
Could you believe it? Merck got Texas Governor Rick Perry to sign an executive order. Such an order negates the need for the Texas legislature to get involved. This order will require every young girl in Texas to receive the Merck vaccination Gardasil at $360 for three shots of the vaccine, and yes all three are needed. You are probably aware that there is a measles-mumps vaccine that has been on the market for years. The measles shot costs only $43 per dose by comparison.
The way the deal works in Texas is that unless you can demonstrate proof that you have taken the shots, you are not going to be allowed to go to school. At the moment it looks like your health insurance is going to pick up the cost, but of course there are millions upon millions of uninsured young people in this country. Who is going to pay for them? Apparently a former Chief of Staff to Governor Perry is a lobbyist for Merck, which is the same thing as saying she works for Merck, isn't it. It's amazing what a couple of dollars paid to a lobbyist can achieve.
Merck hiring lobbyists EVERYWHERE
When Merck's back is to the wall, Merck knows how to respond. Merck is feeling the heat from a number of drugs going off patent, and is therefore pulling out all the stops to systematically have each state mandate the use of this vaccine. The states that are currently considering forcing pre-teenage girls to take this vaccine are:
California Maine Colorado Michigan Connecticut Minnesota District of Columbia Mississippi Florida New Jersey Hawaii New Mexico Illinois Oklahoma Indiana South Carolina Kansas Texas (DONE) Kentucky Virginia
The question now becomes how many lobbyists will Merck hire, and how many legislators will receive political contributions in order to create state mandated programs that will result in billions of dollars of this vaccine being sold. There is also the issue of the safety of the vaccine.
When the clinical trials were done, the participants were mostly older women. Only a small minority of the participants were teenagers, yet teenagers are the target market. Without a much broader test of the teenage market, it may be too early to tell if there is a problem. The vaccine is being rolled out in massive quantities in the interim.
Merck and the hit major drug manufacturers are in a state of decline. Their in-house research laboratories can no longer create the drug stream that is necessary to sustain them at their current levels. They are also cutting drug reps by the thousands. These are the good looking men and women with master's degrees that know more about these drugs than the doctors who prescribe them. They visit doctors incessantly, buying them lunches, giving away pads, pens, and gifts in an attempt to convince the good doctor why he should be prescribing certain drugs.
The growth ahead seems to be in the young and middle stage biotech companies that do their research differently than Big Pharma. The biotech research facilities are routinely located in direct vicinity of major college campuses which are receiving billions of dollars of funding from the taxpayer through the National Institute of Health.
If Big Pharma is to effectively compete against the upstart biotech firms, than companies like Merck, Pfizer, and the others will have to continue to cut costs, and exert their political power in an attempt to align their goals with the goals of the federal government. After all, the largest user of drugs in the United States is Medicare / Medicaid recipients, and then the Veterans Administration. It looks like the next year or two is going to be mighty interesting for the old line drug manufacturers. Stay tune for more
Goodbye and Good Luck Richard Stoyeck Value Investing at StocksAtBottom.com
About the Author
Richard Stoyeck's background includes being a limited partner at Bear Stearns, Senior VP at Lehman Brothers, Kuhn Loeb, Arthur Andersen, and KPMG. Educated at Pace University, NYU, and Harvard University, today he runs Rockefeller Capital Partners and StocksAtBottom.com
Some of these companies are now doing in the tens of billions of dollars per year in sales. The drug industry is the most profitable industry in the world today bar none. The returns on invested capital, and profit margins are extraordinary.
President Bush, and the then Republican Congress created the prescription drug program for seniors in an attempt to reverse the tide for these companies. The drug manufacturers have been a major contributor to the Republican Party for more than a decade. Both Merck, and Pfizer have begun downsizing their sales forces in response to the slow down.
The problem for these companies is that they have gotten so big in terms of their sales bases, that they are having great difficulty generating new drugs on a scale that can compensate for the slowdown of their current portfolio of drugs. In addition many of these fabulous drugs currently being sold are going off patent protection, and that means a collapse in sales revenues. Once the generics take over, than it's over for the original creator of the drug.
What has Merck done NOW?
Merck has created a new cervical-cancer vaccine. The American Cancer Society tells us that a little more than 11000 women this year will be told by their doctors that they have this terrible disease. What's worse is that more than 3500 of those women will eventually succumb to it.
Let's put this in perspective. About 180,000 women this year will be told they have breast cancer. About 40,000 of these previously diagnosed women will eventually die from breast cancer, and its complications. Between 8 times and 10 times the number of women who die from breast cancer, will die from heart disease this year. As you know breast cancer gets all the publicity compared to the other two diseases.
This new anti cervical-cancer vaccine is a wonderful creation,and everyone at Merck who participated in its creation should feel great pride in their work. What about the executives, and marketing people at Merck. Well, that's a different story. Merck has decided to attempt to force the use of this vaccine onto every female pre-teenager, and teenager in America. They are pulling out all the stops in an attempt to influence every legislator they can find to mandate this vaccination be given to children regardless of their parent's wishes.
Merck got TEXAS on board first
Could you believe it? Merck got Texas Governor Rick Perry to sign an executive order. Such an order negates the need for the Texas legislature to get involved. This order will require every young girl in Texas to receive the Merck vaccination Gardasil at $360 for three shots of the vaccine, and yes all three are needed. You are probably aware that there is a measles-mumps vaccine that has been on the market for years. The measles shot costs only $43 per dose by comparison.
The way the deal works in Texas is that unless you can demonstrate proof that you have taken the shots, you are not going to be allowed to go to school. At the moment it looks like your health insurance is going to pick up the cost, but of course there are millions upon millions of uninsured young people in this country. Who is going to pay for them? Apparently a former Chief of Staff to Governor Perry is a lobbyist for Merck, which is the same thing as saying she works for Merck, isn't it. It's amazing what a couple of dollars paid to a lobbyist can achieve.
Merck hiring lobbyists EVERYWHERE
When Merck's back is to the wall, Merck knows how to respond. Merck is feeling the heat from a number of drugs going off patent, and is therefore pulling out all the stops to systematically have each state mandate the use of this vaccine. The states that are currently considering forcing pre-teenage girls to take this vaccine are:
California Maine Colorado Michigan Connecticut Minnesota District of Columbia Mississippi Florida New Jersey Hawaii New Mexico Illinois Oklahoma Indiana South Carolina Kansas Texas (DONE) Kentucky Virginia
The question now becomes how many lobbyists will Merck hire, and how many legislators will receive political contributions in order to create state mandated programs that will result in billions of dollars of this vaccine being sold. There is also the issue of the safety of the vaccine.
When the clinical trials were done, the participants were mostly older women. Only a small minority of the participants were teenagers, yet teenagers are the target market. Without a much broader test of the teenage market, it may be too early to tell if there is a problem. The vaccine is being rolled out in massive quantities in the interim.
Merck and the hit major drug manufacturers are in a state of decline. Their in-house research laboratories can no longer create the drug stream that is necessary to sustain them at their current levels. They are also cutting drug reps by the thousands. These are the good looking men and women with master's degrees that know more about these drugs than the doctors who prescribe them. They visit doctors incessantly, buying them lunches, giving away pads, pens, and gifts in an attempt to convince the good doctor why he should be prescribing certain drugs.
The growth ahead seems to be in the young and middle stage biotech companies that do their research differently than Big Pharma. The biotech research facilities are routinely located in direct vicinity of major college campuses which are receiving billions of dollars of funding from the taxpayer through the National Institute of Health.
If Big Pharma is to effectively compete against the upstart biotech firms, than companies like Merck, Pfizer, and the others will have to continue to cut costs, and exert their political power in an attempt to align their goals with the goals of the federal government. After all, the largest user of drugs in the United States is Medicare / Medicaid recipients, and then the Veterans Administration. It looks like the next year or two is going to be mighty interesting for the old line drug manufacturers. Stay tune for more
Goodbye and Good Luck Richard Stoyeck Value Investing at StocksAtBottom.com
About the Author
Richard Stoyeck's background includes being a limited partner at Bear Stearns, Senior VP at Lehman Brothers, Kuhn Loeb, Arthur Andersen, and KPMG. Educated at Pace University, NYU, and Harvard University, today he runs Rockefeller Capital Partners and StocksAtBottom.com
Clean Money, Clean Elections
Clean Money, Clean Elections by The Indy Voice
In 2003 President George W. Bush signed the Medicare prescription drug bill. In addition to the 952 lobbyists that "drug companies, HMOs, their trade associations and industry-funded advocacy groups deployed" to Capitol Hill to insure passage of the bill, 21 drug and HMO industry executives or lobbyists raised a total of $3.4 million for Bush's 2004 presidential reelection campaign. The bill, which clearly favors the profit interests of drug and HMO companies at the expense of taxpayers by prohibiting Medicare from negotiating volume discounts for drugs and disallowing a preferred drugs list, was sold to Congress based upon a projected cost of $395 billion over 10 years. Richard Foster, the chief actuary for Medicare, was ordered not to disclose his projection that the true cost of the bill would be $551 billion. Foster's boss, Tom Scully, who happens to be Bush's appointee as the chief administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services made the order while at the same time failing to disclose to Congress that he was interviewing for employment with a number of the bill's beneficiary drug companies. While this is one of the more gratuitous examples of an evidently quid pro quo arraignment between the President, the Congress and the pharmaceutical industry, this is just one example of many i.e. National Energy Policy Act and the oil and coal companies, the Bankruptcy Reform Act and commercial banks and creditors, Class Action Bill and the varied health interests, etc.
It may be true that the small yet powerful special interests of the drug companies in this case were in some way deemed more important than the interests of the taxpayers by the President and members of Congress but reasonable people are left wondering if major campaign contributors' interests are being served before the people's. In a country where the majority of police officers are considered to be guilty of an ethics rule violation for accepting a free cup of coffee, contributor's interests being serviced after receiving millions of dollars of campaign contributions provides a glaring example of hypocrisy for those making the laws that officers swear to uphold. Despite attempted campaign finance reform in 1971, 1974 and 2002, appearances of the most fundamental ethical violations are still rampant. Publicly funded campaigns are an alternative reform proposed by Rep. John F. Tierney (D-MA) and Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) and cosponsored by 40 Democrats. The proposed bill is H.R. 3099 or the "Clean Money, Clean Elections Act."
The act would require that potential House candidates meet a specified threshold of public support before they receive public financing for their political campaign. According to the authors of the act, privately funded elections undermine democracy for a number of reasons including that they violate "the democratic principle of `one person, one vote'" by "allowing monied interests to have a disproportionate and unfair influence within the political process," they give the appearance of "diminishing a Member of the House of Representatives' accountability to constituents," create conflicts of interest "perceived or real" and impose "large, unwarranted costs on taxpayers through legislative and regulatory outcomes shaped by unequal access to lawmakers for campaign contributors" (such as the example illustrated above). The authors also contend that privately funded elections drive up the costs of campaigns and force out candidates without wealth, make races less competitive by giving a clear financial advantage to incumbents and burden Representatives by forcing them to constantly raise campaign funds instead of tending to the needs of their constituents. They believe that the bill will counteract these problems and thereby "enhance American democracy."
Are publicly financed campaigns capable of doing all that their proponents contend? Most critics oppose the proposal based upon ideological grounds and/or because the initiative would shrink the ability of small minority special interests to influence the creation of policy favorable to them. Opponents to publicly financed elections include free-market think tanks like the Cato Institute, Goldwater Institute, Pacific Research Institute, the John Locke Foundation, in addition to lobbying groups such as Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and literally thousands of corporations representing every industry including oil, gas, tobacco, insurance, health products, beer, wine and liquor special interests, among others.
In reading the policy papers of the free-market think tanks regarding publicly financed elections it becomes clear that their stated belief that the free-market is better suited at accomplishing goals than the government has caused them to manipulate and obfuscate pertinent facts related to the reform and draw conclusions that are dubious at best. While the General Accounting Office (GAO) concluded in a May 2003 report that it is "too early to draw causal linkages to changes, if any, that resulted from the public financing programs in the two states," Maine and Arizona. However, after studying the publicly financed election initiative in Maine, Patrick Basham, Senior Fellow at The Cato Institute, was able to conclude that publicly financed elections "offers few public benefits" by drawing links to changes that the GAO was unable to 7 months later. Additionally, after just 2 election cycles economist Robert Franciosi, former Director of Urban Growth and Economic Development Studies at the Goldwater institute concluded in November 2001 that publicly financed elections "provide no benefits."
The Pacific Research Institute, though publicly against the use of taxes to fund most government initiatives, claims in a October 2006 paper that publicly financed elections "divert money from more pressing needs" such as "education, public safety, and transportation." The Editorial Director and author of the paper for the Pacific Research Institute Lloyd Billingsley, makes the point by quoting Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, a staunch opponent of Clean Elections from a state legislature that has refused to fund the initiative. Proponents on the other hand such as the national consumer advocacy organization "Public Citizen," cite statistics that publicly financed Congressional elections would account for $1.3 billion or .0005% of all federal outlays or $3 per eligible voter, per year. Additionally, Public Citizen contends that, "Congress spends about $47.4 billion each year in direct earmarks that pay back wealthy donors, special interests and big business, costing each citizen of voting age $220 a year. Besides earmarks, compensation for supporters also takes the form of tax cuts for industries such as big oil in the midst of record-breaking profits and for subsidies to drug companies."
Furthermore, according to Public Citizen the states that already have publicly funded elections pay much less than the $3 per eligible voter; "In Maine, the cost per voting age resident was $2.05 for the 2004 elections; while in Arizona, public funding for the 2004 elections cost only $1.61 per voter per year. Connecticut's appropriation for its new public financing law, set to go into effect in 2008, amounts to only $6.24 per voting age resident, and it probably will end up not even costing that much."
These are just small examples of the reality that almost all of the arguments made by these free-market think tanks can be factually rebutted or proven to be the cause of some other effect. However, for the sake of brevity this paper will cover their major obfuscations in order to address the realities of public financed elections. It should be mentioned that while the arguments and conclusions made by many free-market think tanks against publicly financed elections are debatable, this paper will not draw such uncertain conclusions and only seeks to point out the factual pros and cons of the proposal.
Just as these institutes fail in making convincing factual arguments against publicly financed elections many of them also fail at pointing out legitimate possible problems, such as what are the unintended consequences of such a proposal? Much like any government funded proposition there will certainly be some level of fraud and misappropriation of funds but to what extent depends upon the levels of oversight. If H.R. 3099 proposes that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) be strengthened to administer funds, what will be the additional costs for the bureaucracy and exactly how will FEC police abuse and fraud? How will the FEC be empowered to control fraud? In light of the slow response of the FEC to 527 groups that have sprung up after the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), how will they deal with unforeseen problems? (Saxl) Will they have the authority to make changes? Will the commission be protected from the transient concerns of the politics of the moment? Will funding be insured and for how long? At this point we can only speculate as to the answers to these questions but it is important to note that H.R. 3099 doesn't specifically address these issues.
Considerations of these questions may be a moot point as the legislation has very little chance of success so long as there are significant numbers of politically entrenched Republicans and Democrats in Congress that have been enriched by the status quo, not to mention the almost assured veto by President Bush. The situation is a catch-22 whereby the potential changes that could be brought about by publicly funded elections can presumably only be brought about by those not benefiting by the privately financed system. With the thousands of well-financed private interests working around the clock to insure that this bill gets killed it will most likely not make it out of committee barring a groundswell of public support.
While it is certainly true that no system is perfect and publicly financed elections will present entirely new and unforeseen problems, we should not disqualify the proposal as a potential remedy for the problems that grip our privately funded system. In stark contrast to the Medicare Prescription Bill (MPB) illustrated at the beginning of this paper, "Maine Rx" provides an example of the possibilities of publicly funded elections. Unlike MPB where the lobbying arm of the pharmaceutical industry PhRMA wrote the legislation affecting their bottom line, "clean election" candidates like Maine's Senate Majority leader, Chellie Pingree, worked towards providing discounted drugs to Maine's uninsured and poorest citizens in direct opposition to the pharmaceutical industry who immediately filled for injunctive relief following the passage of the bill. (Oliphant) The bill remarkably passed through the state Congress nearly unanimously even after one of PhRMA's lobbyist, who was determined to kill the bill, slipped Pingree a note that read "based on the position the two of you are taking, you will never receive any more contributions from us." Pingree added that the lobbying arm of the pharmaceutical industry was essentially saying "you can't pass this law in the state of Maine." Because of "clean elections," they did anyway.
Works Cited
H.R. 3099: Clean Money, Clean Elections Act. GovTrack. 24 November 2006. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-3099
Aaron, Craig "The Medicare Drug War: An Army of Nearly 1,000 Lobbyists Pushes a Medicare Law that Puts Drug Company and HMO Profits Ahead of Patients and Taxpayers." Public Citizen: Congress Watch. June 2004. 24 November 2006.
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Medicare_Drug_War%20_Report_2004.pdf
"Campaign Finance Reform: "Early Experiences of Two States That Offer Full Public Funding for Political Candidates." Government Accountability Office. May 2003. 24 November 2006. http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d03453high.pdf
Billingsley, Lloyd. "No Clean Sweep: Ten Reasons Why Proposition 89's 'Clean Money and Fair Elections' Proposal is Wrong for California." October 2006. 26 November 2006. http://pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/entrep/2006/CA-props/Prop89.pdf
Franciosi, Robert J. "Is Cleanliness Political Godliness? Arizona's Clean Elections Law after Its First Year." Arizona Issue Analysis #168. November 2001. 27 November 2006. http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/Common/Files/Multimedia/17.pdf
"The Cost of Clean Elections: Myths and Facts About the Costs of Public Funding." Public Citizen. 27 November 2006. http://www.cleanupwashington.org/action/page.cfm?pageid=106
Saxl, Michael and Maeghan Maloney. "The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act: Unintended Consequences and the Maine Solution." Harvard Journal on Legislation. Vol. 41. 2004. 27 November 2006. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jol/vol41_2/saxl.pdf
Oliphant, Thomas. "FCC Fight Helps Energize Common Cause." Boston Globe. 24 June 2003. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0624-02.htm
Palfreman, Jon. "The Other Drug War." Frontline. 2003. 27 November 2006. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/other/etc/script.html
About the Author
www.TheIndyVoice.com has studied poli-sci at NCSU and is a developer of websites: www.We-Buy-And-Sell-Homes.com and www.NationwideHomeBuyer.com, and www.We-Buy-Houses-Nationwide.com
In 2003 President George W. Bush signed the Medicare prescription drug bill. In addition to the 952 lobbyists that "drug companies, HMOs, their trade associations and industry-funded advocacy groups deployed" to Capitol Hill to insure passage of the bill, 21 drug and HMO industry executives or lobbyists raised a total of $3.4 million for Bush's 2004 presidential reelection campaign. The bill, which clearly favors the profit interests of drug and HMO companies at the expense of taxpayers by prohibiting Medicare from negotiating volume discounts for drugs and disallowing a preferred drugs list, was sold to Congress based upon a projected cost of $395 billion over 10 years. Richard Foster, the chief actuary for Medicare, was ordered not to disclose his projection that the true cost of the bill would be $551 billion. Foster's boss, Tom Scully, who happens to be Bush's appointee as the chief administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services made the order while at the same time failing to disclose to Congress that he was interviewing for employment with a number of the bill's beneficiary drug companies. While this is one of the more gratuitous examples of an evidently quid pro quo arraignment between the President, the Congress and the pharmaceutical industry, this is just one example of many i.e. National Energy Policy Act and the oil and coal companies, the Bankruptcy Reform Act and commercial banks and creditors, Class Action Bill and the varied health interests, etc.
It may be true that the small yet powerful special interests of the drug companies in this case were in some way deemed more important than the interests of the taxpayers by the President and members of Congress but reasonable people are left wondering if major campaign contributors' interests are being served before the people's. In a country where the majority of police officers are considered to be guilty of an ethics rule violation for accepting a free cup of coffee, contributor's interests being serviced after receiving millions of dollars of campaign contributions provides a glaring example of hypocrisy for those making the laws that officers swear to uphold. Despite attempted campaign finance reform in 1971, 1974 and 2002, appearances of the most fundamental ethical violations are still rampant. Publicly funded campaigns are an alternative reform proposed by Rep. John F. Tierney (D-MA) and Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) and cosponsored by 40 Democrats. The proposed bill is H.R. 3099 or the "Clean Money, Clean Elections Act."
The act would require that potential House candidates meet a specified threshold of public support before they receive public financing for their political campaign. According to the authors of the act, privately funded elections undermine democracy for a number of reasons including that they violate "the democratic principle of `one person, one vote'" by "allowing monied interests to have a disproportionate and unfair influence within the political process," they give the appearance of "diminishing a Member of the House of Representatives' accountability to constituents," create conflicts of interest "perceived or real" and impose "large, unwarranted costs on taxpayers through legislative and regulatory outcomes shaped by unequal access to lawmakers for campaign contributors" (such as the example illustrated above). The authors also contend that privately funded elections drive up the costs of campaigns and force out candidates without wealth, make races less competitive by giving a clear financial advantage to incumbents and burden Representatives by forcing them to constantly raise campaign funds instead of tending to the needs of their constituents. They believe that the bill will counteract these problems and thereby "enhance American democracy."
Are publicly financed campaigns capable of doing all that their proponents contend? Most critics oppose the proposal based upon ideological grounds and/or because the initiative would shrink the ability of small minority special interests to influence the creation of policy favorable to them. Opponents to publicly financed elections include free-market think tanks like the Cato Institute, Goldwater Institute, Pacific Research Institute, the John Locke Foundation, in addition to lobbying groups such as Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and literally thousands of corporations representing every industry including oil, gas, tobacco, insurance, health products, beer, wine and liquor special interests, among others.
In reading the policy papers of the free-market think tanks regarding publicly financed elections it becomes clear that their stated belief that the free-market is better suited at accomplishing goals than the government has caused them to manipulate and obfuscate pertinent facts related to the reform and draw conclusions that are dubious at best. While the General Accounting Office (GAO) concluded in a May 2003 report that it is "too early to draw causal linkages to changes, if any, that resulted from the public financing programs in the two states," Maine and Arizona. However, after studying the publicly financed election initiative in Maine, Patrick Basham, Senior Fellow at The Cato Institute, was able to conclude that publicly financed elections "offers few public benefits" by drawing links to changes that the GAO was unable to 7 months later. Additionally, after just 2 election cycles economist Robert Franciosi, former Director of Urban Growth and Economic Development Studies at the Goldwater institute concluded in November 2001 that publicly financed elections "provide no benefits."
The Pacific Research Institute, though publicly against the use of taxes to fund most government initiatives, claims in a October 2006 paper that publicly financed elections "divert money from more pressing needs" such as "education, public safety, and transportation." The Editorial Director and author of the paper for the Pacific Research Institute Lloyd Billingsley, makes the point by quoting Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, a staunch opponent of Clean Elections from a state legislature that has refused to fund the initiative. Proponents on the other hand such as the national consumer advocacy organization "Public Citizen," cite statistics that publicly financed Congressional elections would account for $1.3 billion or .0005% of all federal outlays or $3 per eligible voter, per year. Additionally, Public Citizen contends that, "Congress spends about $47.4 billion each year in direct earmarks that pay back wealthy donors, special interests and big business, costing each citizen of voting age $220 a year. Besides earmarks, compensation for supporters also takes the form of tax cuts for industries such as big oil in the midst of record-breaking profits and for subsidies to drug companies."
Furthermore, according to Public Citizen the states that already have publicly funded elections pay much less than the $3 per eligible voter; "In Maine, the cost per voting age resident was $2.05 for the 2004 elections; while in Arizona, public funding for the 2004 elections cost only $1.61 per voter per year. Connecticut's appropriation for its new public financing law, set to go into effect in 2008, amounts to only $6.24 per voting age resident, and it probably will end up not even costing that much."
These are just small examples of the reality that almost all of the arguments made by these free-market think tanks can be factually rebutted or proven to be the cause of some other effect. However, for the sake of brevity this paper will cover their major obfuscations in order to address the realities of public financed elections. It should be mentioned that while the arguments and conclusions made by many free-market think tanks against publicly financed elections are debatable, this paper will not draw such uncertain conclusions and only seeks to point out the factual pros and cons of the proposal.
Just as these institutes fail in making convincing factual arguments against publicly financed elections many of them also fail at pointing out legitimate possible problems, such as what are the unintended consequences of such a proposal? Much like any government funded proposition there will certainly be some level of fraud and misappropriation of funds but to what extent depends upon the levels of oversight. If H.R. 3099 proposes that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) be strengthened to administer funds, what will be the additional costs for the bureaucracy and exactly how will FEC police abuse and fraud? How will the FEC be empowered to control fraud? In light of the slow response of the FEC to 527 groups that have sprung up after the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), how will they deal with unforeseen problems? (Saxl) Will they have the authority to make changes? Will the commission be protected from the transient concerns of the politics of the moment? Will funding be insured and for how long? At this point we can only speculate as to the answers to these questions but it is important to note that H.R. 3099 doesn't specifically address these issues.
Considerations of these questions may be a moot point as the legislation has very little chance of success so long as there are significant numbers of politically entrenched Republicans and Democrats in Congress that have been enriched by the status quo, not to mention the almost assured veto by President Bush. The situation is a catch-22 whereby the potential changes that could be brought about by publicly funded elections can presumably only be brought about by those not benefiting by the privately financed system. With the thousands of well-financed private interests working around the clock to insure that this bill gets killed it will most likely not make it out of committee barring a groundswell of public support.
While it is certainly true that no system is perfect and publicly financed elections will present entirely new and unforeseen problems, we should not disqualify the proposal as a potential remedy for the problems that grip our privately funded system. In stark contrast to the Medicare Prescription Bill (MPB) illustrated at the beginning of this paper, "Maine Rx" provides an example of the possibilities of publicly funded elections. Unlike MPB where the lobbying arm of the pharmaceutical industry PhRMA wrote the legislation affecting their bottom line, "clean election" candidates like Maine's Senate Majority leader, Chellie Pingree, worked towards providing discounted drugs to Maine's uninsured and poorest citizens in direct opposition to the pharmaceutical industry who immediately filled for injunctive relief following the passage of the bill. (Oliphant) The bill remarkably passed through the state Congress nearly unanimously even after one of PhRMA's lobbyist, who was determined to kill the bill, slipped Pingree a note that read "based on the position the two of you are taking, you will never receive any more contributions from us." Pingree added that the lobbying arm of the pharmaceutical industry was essentially saying "you can't pass this law in the state of Maine." Because of "clean elections," they did anyway.
Works Cited
H.R. 3099: Clean Money, Clean Elections Act. GovTrack. 24 November 2006. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-3099
Aaron, Craig "The Medicare Drug War: An Army of Nearly 1,000 Lobbyists Pushes a Medicare Law that Puts Drug Company and HMO Profits Ahead of Patients and Taxpayers." Public Citizen: Congress Watch. June 2004. 24 November 2006.
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Medicare_Drug_War%20_Report_2004.pdf
"Campaign Finance Reform: "Early Experiences of Two States That Offer Full Public Funding for Political Candidates." Government Accountability Office. May 2003. 24 November 2006. http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d03453high.pdf
Billingsley, Lloyd. "No Clean Sweep: Ten Reasons Why Proposition 89's 'Clean Money and Fair Elections' Proposal is Wrong for California." October 2006. 26 November 2006. http://pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/entrep/2006/CA-props/Prop89.pdf
Franciosi, Robert J. "Is Cleanliness Political Godliness? Arizona's Clean Elections Law after Its First Year." Arizona Issue Analysis #168. November 2001. 27 November 2006. http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/Common/Files/Multimedia/17.pdf
"The Cost of Clean Elections: Myths and Facts About the Costs of Public Funding." Public Citizen. 27 November 2006. http://www.cleanupwashington.org/action/page.cfm?pageid=106
Saxl, Michael and Maeghan Maloney. "The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act: Unintended Consequences and the Maine Solution." Harvard Journal on Legislation. Vol. 41. 2004. 27 November 2006. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jol/vol41_2/saxl.pdf
Oliphant, Thomas. "FCC Fight Helps Energize Common Cause." Boston Globe. 24 June 2003. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0624-02.htm
Palfreman, Jon. "The Other Drug War." Frontline. 2003. 27 November 2006. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/other/etc/script.html
About the Author
www.TheIndyVoice.com has studied poli-sci at NCSU and is a developer of websites: www.We-Buy-And-Sell-Homes.com and www.NationwideHomeBuyer.com, and www.We-Buy-Houses-Nationwide.com
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Home Mortgage Insurance --Piggyback Loans Putting Mortgage Insurers in the Trough
Because home prices have made twenty percent down payments impossible for legions of first time home buyers, a dual-loan concept has evolved for home financing that has made home mortgage insurance companies very unhappy. Also known as ‘private mortgage insurance (PMI), this policy is required of every home buyer who is taking out a mortgage of more than eighty percent of the home purchase price. The policy protects the lender against default, while the borrower pays the mortgage insurance premium. The policy is required until the mortgage is paid down to seventy eight percent of the home’s appraised value.
Home mortgage insurance can be expensive: as high as $1,500 per year on a $200,000 home. Divide that by twelve and you have the addition to your monthly mortgage insurance premium. In order to get around PMI, lenders have been offering dual loan packages with a mortgage of eighty percent of the purchase price and a second loan, called a piggyback loan that covers whatever portion of the 20% down payment that the borrower cannot meet. Thus an 80-15-5 loan package is an eighty percent mortgage, a fifteen percent piggyback loan and a five percent down payment.
While the additional loan will be at a higher rate than the mortgage, the interest on that loan is deductible whereas the premium on mortgage insurance is not. As a result, it is often cheaper to opt for the piggyback loan than mortgage insurance. According to one estimate, forty percent of all home purchases with down payments of less than twenty percent now opt to avoid home mortgage insurance.
Even though the borrower is paying closing costs on two loans, avoiding home mortgage insurance is still a better deal in the short run. Whether or not it’s a better deal in the long run depends on several variables. If the buyer is going to be in the home for a long period of time, he may be better off with the larger mortgage at a fixed rate and paying the mortgage insurance premium until he has sufficient equity. Eventually, the cost of the insurance premium will cancel out.
That process could take several years however, and if a buyer is not going to be in the house for an extended period the choice of dual loans and dual interest deductions may be a better bet – particularly if the principal mortgage is an ARM. Home mortgage insurance companies have responded by hurling insults at all things “piggyback” and by introducing products such as mortgage insurance premiums that are folded into the loan interest rate by raising it a quarter point or some similar amount.
With this design the lender pays the mortgage insurance premium. Because it’s folded into the mortgage premium, the policy premium may be deductible as interest. The policy can’t be cancelled in this model, however; in order to remove it from the mortgage you have to refinance. Home mortgage insurance companies have been lobbying Congress aggressively to provide deductible status for their product.
Home mortgage insurance can be expensive: as high as $1,500 per year on a $200,000 home. Divide that by twelve and you have the addition to your monthly mortgage insurance premium. In order to get around PMI, lenders have been offering dual loan packages with a mortgage of eighty percent of the purchase price and a second loan, called a piggyback loan that covers whatever portion of the 20% down payment that the borrower cannot meet. Thus an 80-15-5 loan package is an eighty percent mortgage, a fifteen percent piggyback loan and a five percent down payment.
While the additional loan will be at a higher rate than the mortgage, the interest on that loan is deductible whereas the premium on mortgage insurance is not. As a result, it is often cheaper to opt for the piggyback loan than mortgage insurance. According to one estimate, forty percent of all home purchases with down payments of less than twenty percent now opt to avoid home mortgage insurance.
Even though the borrower is paying closing costs on two loans, avoiding home mortgage insurance is still a better deal in the short run. Whether or not it’s a better deal in the long run depends on several variables. If the buyer is going to be in the home for a long period of time, he may be better off with the larger mortgage at a fixed rate and paying the mortgage insurance premium until he has sufficient equity. Eventually, the cost of the insurance premium will cancel out.
That process could take several years however, and if a buyer is not going to be in the house for an extended period the choice of dual loans and dual interest deductions may be a better bet – particularly if the principal mortgage is an ARM. Home mortgage insurance companies have responded by hurling insults at all things “piggyback” and by introducing products such as mortgage insurance premiums that are folded into the loan interest rate by raising it a quarter point or some similar amount.
With this design the lender pays the mortgage insurance premium. Because it’s folded into the mortgage premium, the policy premium may be deductible as interest. The policy can’t be cancelled in this model, however; in order to remove it from the mortgage you have to refinance. Home mortgage insurance companies have been lobbying Congress aggressively to provide deductible status for their product.
Spend Money to Make Money-Big Pharma Sets Record for Number of Lobbyists
According to examiner.com drug companies and their trade groups spent a record $155 million on lobbying the past 18 months. Issues that top the list for spending include Medicare prescription drug price negotiation and FDA reform.
Drug companies were responsible for the bulk of the spending, employing around 1,100 lobbyists on capitol hill. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturing of America accounted for 18 million of the 155 all by themselves.
According to recent reports, the majority of spending has been directed towards stopping the ability of Medicare to negotiate its prices on prescription medication. Big Pharma by far outspent all other lobbying organizations.
A recent 60 minutes expose entitled Under The Influence, talked about to several senators and other experts to assess the drug lobbyists' role in passing bill that keeps drug prices high. Here is an exert from the program that talks about the Medicare prescription drug bill was passed three-and-a-half years ago;
"The pharmaceutical lobbyists wrote the bill," says Jones. "The bill was over 1,000 pages. And it got to the members of the House that morning, and we voted for it at about 3 a.m. in the morning."
Why did the vote finally take place at 3 a.m.?
"Well, I think a lot of the shenanigans that were going on that night, they didn't want on national television in primetime," according to Burton.
"I've been in politics for 22 years," says Jones, "and it was the ugliest night I have ever seen in 22 years."
The legislation was the cornerstone of Republican's domestic agenda and would extend limited prescription drugs coverage under Medicare to 41 million Americans, including 13 million who had never been covered before.
At an estimated cost of just under $400 billion over 10 years, it was the largest entitlement program in more than 40 years, and the debate broke down along party lines.
But when it came time cast ballots, the Republican leadership discovered that a number of key Republican congressmen had defected and joined the Democrats, arguing that the bill was too expensive and a sellout to the drug companies. Burton and Jones were among them.
"They're suppose to have 15 minutes to leave the voting machines open and it was open for almost three hours," Burton explains. "The votes were there to defeat the bill for two hours and 45 minutes and we had leaders going around and gathering around individuals, trying to twist their arms to get them to change their votes."
Jones says the arm-twisting was horrible.
Visit this Consumer Advocacy website for information on ordering medication from online with no prescription.
Drug companies were responsible for the bulk of the spending, employing around 1,100 lobbyists on capitol hill. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturing of America accounted for 18 million of the 155 all by themselves.
According to recent reports, the majority of spending has been directed towards stopping the ability of Medicare to negotiate its prices on prescription medication. Big Pharma by far outspent all other lobbying organizations.
A recent 60 minutes expose entitled Under The Influence, talked about to several senators and other experts to assess the drug lobbyists' role in passing bill that keeps drug prices high. Here is an exert from the program that talks about the Medicare prescription drug bill was passed three-and-a-half years ago;
"The pharmaceutical lobbyists wrote the bill," says Jones. "The bill was over 1,000 pages. And it got to the members of the House that morning, and we voted for it at about 3 a.m. in the morning."
Why did the vote finally take place at 3 a.m.?
"Well, I think a lot of the shenanigans that were going on that night, they didn't want on national television in primetime," according to Burton.
"I've been in politics for 22 years," says Jones, "and it was the ugliest night I have ever seen in 22 years."
The legislation was the cornerstone of Republican's domestic agenda and would extend limited prescription drugs coverage under Medicare to 41 million Americans, including 13 million who had never been covered before.
At an estimated cost of just under $400 billion over 10 years, it was the largest entitlement program in more than 40 years, and the debate broke down along party lines.
But when it came time cast ballots, the Republican leadership discovered that a number of key Republican congressmen had defected and joined the Democrats, arguing that the bill was too expensive and a sellout to the drug companies. Burton and Jones were among them.
"They're suppose to have 15 minutes to leave the voting machines open and it was open for almost three hours," Burton explains. "The votes were there to defeat the bill for two hours and 45 minutes and we had leaders going around and gathering around individuals, trying to twist their arms to get them to change their votes."
Jones says the arm-twisting was horrible.
Visit this Consumer Advocacy website for information on ordering medication from online with no prescription.
Wall Street's Darkest Secret
Wall Street needs a massive distribution system (650,000 strong) to market the thousands of financial and insurance products that it sells to investors. At the same time, it needs a low cost distribution system that maximizes companies' profits and share prices.
The easiest way to see the impact of the need for cheap distribution is the extraordinarily low standards that Wall Street has established for financial advisors:
* Minimum education requirements: None, not even a high school diploma * Minimum experience requirements: None, not even a day * Minimum age: 18 * Disclosure requirements for credentials: None * Disclosure requirements for compliance record: None * Criminal record: Convicted criminals can obtain licenses as long as the crime wasn't securities related * Licensing requirements: An easy examination that requires very little study * Method of compensation: 85% are paid straight commissions
These are the people who want to plan your future and invest your assets. No wonder there are so many headlines that document abuses. Most investors are usually shocked when they see the low standards. In fact, they are so shocked many can't believe it's true.
The unfortunate reality is most investors assumed financial advisors had the same standards as other professionals, for example CPAs and attorneys. What they didn't know is the other professions are driven by an "advice" culture, while the financial services industry is driven by a "sales" culture. The difference is like night and day.
So why keep the low standards a secret? The answer is winning control of your money. Would you knowingly turn your IRA assets over to an advisor who had no formal education or experience? Of course not and Wall Street knows that so it withholds the information from you. That way Wall Street companies can add thousands of new advisors every year and they can start "selling" the same day they receive their licenses. New advisors feed the industry's need for a massive distribution system and they are cheap, which maximizes profit.
So how do they keep low standards a secret? Wall Street has had decades to develop and refine a strategy that's based on lobbyist activities and advertising. For example, Wall Street companies spend more than $300 million per year on lobbyists whose primary role is to make sure new legislation favors Wall Street and not investors. That's why there are no mandatory disclosure requirements. Then they spend millions or billions of dollars on advertising and public relations that sells an image of competence and trustworthiness. They know most investors buy what they see and hear.
What you can about it? You can't change an industry that's more than willing to put its interests ahead of yours. All you can do is learn to protect your own interests and that means learning to avoid lower quality advisors and select competent, ethical professionals. You can obtain the objective information you need by going to www.paladinregistry.com / Tips-4-Investors and reading the free tutorials. No registration is required to access the content on this website.
The easiest way to see the impact of the need for cheap distribution is the extraordinarily low standards that Wall Street has established for financial advisors:
* Minimum education requirements: None, not even a high school diploma * Minimum experience requirements: None, not even a day * Minimum age: 18 * Disclosure requirements for credentials: None * Disclosure requirements for compliance record: None * Criminal record: Convicted criminals can obtain licenses as long as the crime wasn't securities related * Licensing requirements: An easy examination that requires very little study * Method of compensation: 85% are paid straight commissions
These are the people who want to plan your future and invest your assets. No wonder there are so many headlines that document abuses. Most investors are usually shocked when they see the low standards. In fact, they are so shocked many can't believe it's true.
The unfortunate reality is most investors assumed financial advisors had the same standards as other professionals, for example CPAs and attorneys. What they didn't know is the other professions are driven by an "advice" culture, while the financial services industry is driven by a "sales" culture. The difference is like night and day.
So why keep the low standards a secret? The answer is winning control of your money. Would you knowingly turn your IRA assets over to an advisor who had no formal education or experience? Of course not and Wall Street knows that so it withholds the information from you. That way Wall Street companies can add thousands of new advisors every year and they can start "selling" the same day they receive their licenses. New advisors feed the industry's need for a massive distribution system and they are cheap, which maximizes profit.
So how do they keep low standards a secret? Wall Street has had decades to develop and refine a strategy that's based on lobbyist activities and advertising. For example, Wall Street companies spend more than $300 million per year on lobbyists whose primary role is to make sure new legislation favors Wall Street and not investors. That's why there are no mandatory disclosure requirements. Then they spend millions or billions of dollars on advertising and public relations that sells an image of competence and trustworthiness. They know most investors buy what they see and hear.
What you can about it? You can't change an industry that's more than willing to put its interests ahead of yours. All you can do is learn to protect your own interests and that means learning to avoid lower quality advisors and select competent, ethical professionals. You can obtain the objective information you need by going to www.paladinregistry.com / Tips-4-Investors and reading the free tutorials. No registration is required to access the content on this website.
What is a Lobbyist?
A lobbyist is an activist usually paid by an interest group to promote their positions to legislatures. A lobbyist can also work to change public opinion through advertising campaigns or by influencing 'opinion leaders' or pundits, thereby creating a climate for the change his or her employer desires. The word lobbyist comes from the chambers in which the act of lobbying usually takes place, an anteroom near legislative bodies, for instance, or even the lobby of hotels where important people are staying. In American politics, most lobbyist organizations are headquartered on or near K Street in Washington DC, so "K Street" has become somewhat synonymous for lobbying.
It is very easy for a lobbyist to stray into bribery -- the most direct way to influence legislation, obviously, is to bribe enough law makers to ensure that the bill you support passes. Therefore, lobbying is heavily regulated. Of course, a lobbyist rarely makes the news unless he or she has transgressed the regulations, and as a result, 'lobbyist' has rather negative connotations these days. Measures to control the influence of lobbyists include campaign finance reforms, often promised but rarely passed.
When legislators lose re-election or choose not to run again for office, they often find a second career as a highly paid lobbyist, meeting with their former colleagues and touting the positions they are paid to promote. Of course, these are positions they supported while in office, so such jobs are not completely mercenary, yet they are widely considered an abuse of one's former position. This practice is, however, quite legal. Routinely, political scandals surface that have their roots in some lobbyist activity or other -- usually unlawfully large gifts to lawmakers, or quid pro quos of some form.
It is very easy for a lobbyist to stray into bribery -- the most direct way to influence legislation, obviously, is to bribe enough law makers to ensure that the bill you support passes. Therefore, lobbying is heavily regulated. Of course, a lobbyist rarely makes the news unless he or she has transgressed the regulations, and as a result, 'lobbyist' has rather negative connotations these days. Measures to control the influence of lobbyists include campaign finance reforms, often promised but rarely passed.
When legislators lose re-election or choose not to run again for office, they often find a second career as a highly paid lobbyist, meeting with their former colleagues and touting the positions they are paid to promote. Of course, these are positions they supported while in office, so such jobs are not completely mercenary, yet they are widely considered an abuse of one's former position. This practice is, however, quite legal. Routinely, political scandals surface that have their roots in some lobbyist activity or other -- usually unlawfully large gifts to lawmakers, or quid pro quos of some form.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
