Regulate us lobbyists? No problem....

[PLC1]

... we'll just call ourselves something else.


Law to Curb Lobbying Sends It Underground

In light of strict new regulations imposed by Congress over the last two years, Ms. Miller joined a wave of policy advocates who are choosing not to declare themselves as lobbyists.

The falloff began shortly after Congress passed a sweeping ethics and lobbying law that imposed on registered lobbyists both heavier reporting requirements and potential criminal penalties. The law required lobbyists to report four times a year instead of two, and to detail any campaign contributions and certain meetings with public officials. The law also made it a crime for registered lobbyists to provide gifts or meals to lawmakers or their aides.

So, lobbyists are now "policy advocates" who aren't subject to the new regulations.

 

[GenSeneca]

It was probably the politicians who wrote the bill that told lobbyists about this "easy out" in order to keep the gravy train moving.

 

[PLC1]

It was probably the politicians who wrote the bill that told lobbyists about this "easy out" in order to keep the gravy train moving.

Could be. There are points awarded for appearing to be in favor of changing the status quo without actually changing it.

Let's see.. how can we appear to be working to stop the legal bribery in Washington without actually stopping it? Hey, I know! We'll simply use semantics! It's the oldest ploy in politics.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Sounds very Republican, the idea of change the name of something to make the people support it...rather then get support on merit and facts..
LIke Tim P here in MN...he said he would not raise taxes....but then puts a Cig FEE out... you see if you charge 5% more in tax thats wrong, but if you chage 2 bucks per pack Fee..its a fee not a tax, thus ok.

Or the Estate Tax....ask most people are you against the Estate Tax.? No...well what if we call it the Death Tax? then yes! Same law, new name.

Then there is the Death Panal, the Death book...

 

[GenSeneca]

Sounds very Republican

I guess in your world, only Republicans ride the gravy train of lobbyist donations while Democrats are pure as the wind driven snow.

 

[BigRob]

Sounds very Republican, the idea of change the name of something to make the people support it...rather then get support on merit and facts..
LIke Tim P here in MN...he said he would not raise taxes....but then puts a Cig FEE out... you see if you charge 5% more in tax thats wrong, but if you chage 2 bucks per pack Fee..its a fee not a tax, thus ok.

Or the Estate Tax....ask most people are you against the Estate Tax.? No...well what if we call it the Death Tax? then yes! Same law, new name.

Then there is the Death Panal, the Death book...

Unfortunately the biggest entity hit by the Death tax is small business.

I saw a study by the American Family Business Foundation that argued the repeal of such a tax could:

• Create 1.5 million jobs
• Increase small business capital by over $1.6 trillion
• Increase the probability of hiring by 8.6 percent
• Increase payrolls by 2.6 percent
• Expand investment by 3 percent

Since the tax only raised around $14 billion in 2009 according to the Tax Policy Center, it makes good economic sense to repeal it.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I guess in your world, only Republicans ride the gravy train of lobbyist donations while Democrats are pure as the wind driven snow.

no both sides use them and its just as bad....My point is the just rename the problem sounds Republican. Not that lobbyist are only a republican problem

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Unfortunately the biggest entity hit by the Death tax is small business.

I saw a study by the American Family Business Foundation that argued the repeal of such a tax could:

• Create 1.5 million jobs
• Increase small business capital by over $1.6 trillion
• Increase the probability of hiring by 8.6 percent
• Increase payrolls by 2.6 percent
• Expand investment by 3 percent

Since the tax only raised around $14 billion in 2009 according to the Tax Policy Center, it makes good economic sense to repeal it.

See thats my point...name one single point you made, that would not be just as valid saying the real name of the Tax. See Republicans could not win saying Estate Tax, even with what they felt where facts....But call it a Death tax, and make it sound scary and evil and make people think its going to hit them....Was it to hard to debate on merit, needed a scary sounding name to win? I could try to go into the figures on who actually got hit with that tax, and if it had anything to do with small business...but thats not the point..the point was, change the name of the tax, not win with facts. thats Republican Politics

 

[BigRob]

See thats my point...name one single point you made, that would not be just as valid saying the real name of the Tax. See Republicans could not win saying Estate Tax, even with what they felt where facts....But call it a Death tax, and make it sound scary and evil and make people think its going to hit them....Was it to hard to debate on merit, needed a scary sounding name to win? I could try to go into the figures on who actually got hit with that tax, and if it had anything to do with small business...but thats not the point..the point was, change the name of the tax, not win with facts. thats Republican Politics

Shaping the debate in your favor is hardly something to be ashamed of. Democrats do it just as much as Republicans.

 

[GenSeneca]

My point is the just rename the problem sounds Republican.

Oh, like changing the "Global War on Terror" to "Overseas Contingency Operation"? Like changing "Terrorism" to "Man Caused Disaster"?

 

[PLC1]

I think we can agree that there are numerous examples of changing the name of something to make it sound more palatable. Where the argument falls apart is whey we try to ascribe using semantics to the "other" party, whichever one that is. It is a political ploy, and the reason it is used so often is that it works.

An "estate tax" might be controversial, but who would vote for a "death tax"? Regulate lobbyists, and they become something else. If we're tired of the "war on terror", let's change the name. (Surely, they could have come up with something better than "overseas contingency operation) People don't like taxes? Let's call them "fees" instead. Plus c'a change, plus c'est la meme chose, (the more things change, the more they stay the same) as the French say, and no, I don't remember how to spell French words very well.

Using the word "war" for what is actually not a war at all is another example. We not only used to have a war on terror, but we still have a war on drugs, and a war on poverty. Since the last two have resulted in more drugs and more poverty, I suggest we start a war on common sense.

 

[GenSeneca]

I suggest we start a war on common sense.

I think they already have... and Government is winning that war.

 

[PLC1]

I think they already have... and Government is winning that war.

It does appear that way. It's too bad they don't conduct the same way that they do the war on poverty and the war on drugs.

Or, maybe common sense is so rare that it is easily defeated, even by ineptitude.

 

[GenSeneca]

Or, maybe common sense is so rare that it is easily defeated, even by ineptitude.

Bread and Circus seem to have all but wiped it out... Perhaps we should put it on the endangered species list and see if that helps.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The war on Terror was dumb from the start...You can't win it. the war on terror would never end. A overseas contingancmy Operation, does not sound as cool and macho...but is something you can actuly win and in fact it what we are doing.

Man made Desaster is dumb...also never head Obama US it, nor do I see Dems running around useing the term much, if ever outside of the case referenced most....Can't say the same about The Death Tax, Death Panals, the Death Book...all that where widly used.