Main
(Photo by Robin Holland)
In this week’s JOURNAL, Bill Moyers spoke with veteran reporter Robert Kaiser of the WASHINGTON POST about the rise of lobbyists – and what they’re up to – on Capitol Hill.
In telling the story of the first modern earmark – a nutrition research center at Tufts University – Kaiser noted that, contrary to popular opinion, lobbyists often promote projects that are in the public interest. Problems emerge, he suggested, because the lobbying process prevents fair competition for scarce public funding.
“The essence of the earmark system [is] the Congressman gets the credit, because the fix is in. The lobbyist gets the money, because he got the fix in. It’s a wonderful system, it pleases everybody, but it doesn’t create a fair, competitive, open system.”
Bill Moyers asked if big money lobbying is inherently part of America’s large federal government.
“What about the fact that some people who defend the system, or explain the system, say that it was when liberal government arose in the New Deal, and Washington began throwing money at so many problems, that it became just a fact of life that there was money to be made by trying to help connect people who needed money with government money that was available?”
Kaiser said:
“When the government spends so much money, we have to be ready to see the potential recipients of that money troop to town and look for their share... There’s no avoiding this, you know? And it’s important to say that lobbying is protected in the same First Amendment to the Constitution that you and I like for journalistic implications. The right to petition the government for redress of grievances is right there in the First Amendment, and that’s lobbying. That’s true that the big government means big spending, means big opportunities, means business for lobbyists, so it’s inevitable.”
What do you think?
Is lobbying a good or bad thing?
Is big money lobbying inherently part of having a large, centralized federal government? Why or why not?
Do you think a policy should be devised to try to limit the influence of Washington lobbyists? If so, what means would you suggest?
In the JOURNAL this week, WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO? authors and budget scrutinizers Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson contend that Washington’s fiscal irresponsibility is propelling America toward troubled times.
Scott Bittle said: “Eventually, if nothing is done, by 2040 every dollar the federal government has will be taken in by Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the money we’ve already borrowed... Right now, one of the few areas of bipartisanship in Washington is the willingness not to deal with the problem... The war is certainly making our financial problems worse. But it’s not the sole cause and it’s not the sole answer."
Jean Johnson said:
“People don’t realize that the country has been in the red 31 out of the last 35 years, in good times and bad... There is no way to solve this problem without either raising taxes or cutting programs, or doing some of both. Right now that is a political death sentence, and we have to change that... We’re all gonna have to give a little and we’re all gonna have to live with some things that are not our first choice, but not doing anything is so much worse.”
What do you think?
How, if at all, do you suggest the tax code be altered to ease the government’s fiscal crunch?
What, if any, programs should be reduced or cut to balance the budget?
What other suggestions do you have to bring the federal budget into the black?
(Photo by Robin Holland)
 Conversing with Bill Moyers on the JOURNAL this week, investigative reporter David Cay Johnston said:
"Get rich by working hard, working smarter, coming up with a better mouse-trap. Don’t get rich by getting the government to pass a law that sticks the government’s hand into my pocket, takes money out of it, and gives it to you. That’s not right. That’s not a fair playing field. Adam Smith warned again and again that it is the nature and tendency of business people to want to put their thumb on the scale and, even better, to get the government to put the thumb on the scale for their benefit... You need entrepreneurs to have a good society. I don’t have any problem with entrepreneurs. But we need to have a system that also fairly distributes... When we have people who make billon-dollar-a-year incomes and pay 15 percent taxes and janitors who pay the same tax rate and school teachers who pay a 25 percent tax rate, something’s amiss."
What do you think?
Is America’s present tax system unfair? If so, what do you suggest?
Does government have the responsibility to pursue redistribution of wealth? If so, what are reasonable expectations for such a policy?
(Photo by Robin Holland)
 In his conversation with Bill Moyers on the JOURNAL this week, Israel Policy Forum analyst M.J. Rosenberg had the following to say about U.S. policy toward Israel and the Palestinians:
“There are lots of right-wingers, hard-liners in the Jewish community, within the Jewish lobby, that are not comfortable with a Palestinian state or with the United States promoting a Palestinian state... they're involved in politics in both parties... hard-liners in the Jewish community give campaign contributions based on that issue… If you’re virulently anti-Palestinian, you’re anti-Israel, because there’s no peace for Israel, no security for Israel unless there’s security and statehood for the Palestinians. So when people get up there and say ‘no Palestinian state, the Palestinians are terrorists, the Muslims are a terrible threat to us all,’ that jeopardizes Israel’s future.”
What do you think? Do you agree with Rosenberg’s analysis?
What policy should the U.S. adopt towards Israel and the Palestinians?
To what extent do you think lobbies like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and Christians United For Israel (CUFI) influence government policy in the Middle East?
How do candidates’ relationships with these lobbies and positions regarding Israel and the Palestinians affect your voting decisions?
*** UPDATE: PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler weighs in at http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/ ***
 If Rupert Murdoch were the Angel Gabriel, you still wouldn’t want him owning the sun, the moon, and the stars. That’s too much prime real estate for even the pure in heart.
But Rupert Murdoch is no saint; he is to propriety what the Marquis de Sade was to chastity. When it comes to money and power he’s carnivorous: all appetite and no taste. He’ll eat anything in his path. Politicians become little clay pigeons to be picked off with flattering headlines, generous air time, a book contract or the old-fashioned black jack that never misses: campaign cash. He hires lobbyists the way Imelda Marcos bought shoes, and stacks them in his cavernous closet, along with his conscience; this is the man, remember, who famously kowtowed to the Communist overlords of China, oppressors of their own people, to protect his investments there.
Continue reading "Moyers on Murdoch" »
More Capitol Crimes...
Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle sentenced J. Steven Griles to 10 months in prison for obstructing an investigation into the Jack Abramoff scandal. As you probably remember, Griles is the former energy lobbyist that became the Deputy Secretary of the Interior in 2001, until he resigned the post in 2004 to set up his own lobbing firm. From a recent WASHINGTON POST story:
Griles asked Abramoff for favors for the women in his life, prosecutors said, and in exchange helped Abramoff's clients with their government business. One of Griles's girlfriends, Italia Federici, got $500,000 for her nonprofit from Abramoff's Indian tribes.
"I concealed the nature and extent of my true relationship with Italia Federici," Griles confessed to the judge yesterday in a statement interrupted by stifled sobs. Choking out the words, a burly, red-faced Griles told Huvelle that "this has been the most difficult time in my life. My guilty plea has brought me great shame and embarrassment."
Capitol Crimes, the recent Moyers report about Jack Abramoff and the dark side of American politics, can be viewed online in its entirety here. Also, for information about Griles and the revolving door, check out this story from NOW with Bill Moyers from May 30, 2003.
Continue reading "Story Updates" »
Friday, June 1 at 9pm on Bill Moyers Journal, one of Washington's most influential public advocates, Joan Claybrook of Public Citizen, talks about what is at stake in the ethical reforms under consideration in Congress.
|
 |
A Companion Blog to Bill Moyers Journal
|
|
|
