Tuesday, February 27, 2007; 1:00 PM
Read his last two columns, "Insurers Prepare a Battle Strategy to Protect a Key Exemption" (Feb. 27, 2007), and "A Few Degrees of Separation From Hillary Clinton's Top Adviser" (Feb. 20).
 |
A transcript follows.
____________________
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Hello everyone.
Thanks for writing in.
I'm looking forward to talking about lobbying and politics today, especially the big money that are involved with both.
And also, we can talk about little money as well. I was surprised to see that the National Association of Manufacturers had spent so relatively little in the last six months of last year on lobbying. Weren't you?
Or am I wrong?
Also, any notion out there why groups are dumping millions on Washington lobbying efforts? I have a few suggested reasons, but I'd love to hear from you.
In any case, let's get started.
_______________________
Fort Lauderdale, Fla.: The media made much of the so-called K Street Project under GOP control of Congress. Now with the Dems in charge we see their old and more subtle approach taking hold, e.g. former staffers to major committee chairmen setting up lobbying shops; Congressmen introducing anti-business bills to help former staffers get clients; companies scrambling to curry favor with key members by hiring their ex-staffers and former Dem. Congressmen. Do you see any real difference in this kind of activity with change in control other than Dems. are less ham-handed and are smart enough not to name their efforts?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
It's an old story but it never ceases to amaze. You are correct. The Democrats, who rode to power in Congress by saying Republicans were "corrupt" and sold their legislation, are now using their top leaders as bait to raise as much money as they possibly can.
Democrats are also flying off the Hill and into lobbying shops to cash in on the change.
Is there something wrong with this? I leave that to you. In fact, I invite you to write in and let me know what you think.
What I say is, well, that's what's happening. No reason to soft soap it. I have gotten lots of angry e-mail about the story I wrote on Saturday with John Solomon detailing the many ways that top Dems are luring big bucks from groups and individuals who have interest in the legislation they direct.
But such is the way it is.
Then again, I do think the Democrats will not go as far as the Republicans did a dozen years ago. Back then the Republicans tried to pressure trade associations to hire Republicans only. That was then called the K Street Project. So far, as far as I can see, the pressure to hire Democrats is self-generated by self-interest on the parts of interests that want entree to the people in power.
Again, that's the way it is.
Should it be? You tell me.
_______________________
Vicenza, Italy: Has any Government agency questioned the possible spending of 800 plus million dollars of tax payer money on opening a new US Army base in Vicenza, Italy? (Oh, by the way, the Airborne Brigade isn't allowed to use the adjoining airfield for any type of deployment activities). Couldn't this money be better spent on armor plating vehicles for our soldiers currently in harms way?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I haven't heard any complaints about this. But I will forward to our national security reporters. If there is a problem, maybe they will write about it. Thanks for the question.
_______________________
Boston, Mass.: Dear Sir,
I'm a French student at Boston College, writing a master's thesis about the regulation of lobbying at the U.S. Congress (which is due March 30).
I was expecting the House to pass a bill similar to S. 1 in February. But apparently it is taking more time than it was predicted. (I understand that nothing has been introduced yet.) Could you please tell me if it is possible that the House moves on such a bill in March?
I thought the House leadership wanted to address lobbying reform by introducing a modified version of Pelosi's bill H.R. 4682, the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006." Do you think I could comment on this bill in my thesis or is totally obsolete?
Thank you!
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thank you for the question.
The House passed part of Pelosi's legislation as a set of rules changes at the very beginning of the new Congress. These included a partial travel ban and a ban on gifts, including meals, from lobbyists.
The Senate acted on some of the same ideas in legislation soon thereafter. But so far, the House has not taken up its ethics bill. And you are correct, I haven't seen the final form of that legislation.
I have heard that the House intends to take up the legislation in March. Then again, I had also heard earlier that it had planned to take up the legislation in February.
I would not hold my breath either way. I am not yet convinced that Congress really wants to approve in final form sweeping ethics legislation. Such legislation was promised last year and it went nowhere.
That could happen again. Lawmakers don't want to impose restrictions on themselves if they don't have to. And the public does not appear to believe that Congress can police itself on ethics. So why should lawmakers even try--or so some of them think.
What do you think, by the way? Should Congress act? Do you believe that Congress can or will ever clean itself up?
_______________________
Bethesda, Md.: Are only Republicans being hired on K Street?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: No. In fact, Republicans are being hired here and there.
But they are not being hired a great deal. Former Senate staffers on the GOP side are still in moderate demand. That's because Republicans in the Senate still hold sway, or at least a lot of sway there. The key to blocking legislation is with the Republicans, so they can still get jobs sometimes.
House Republicans, including former members of Congress, are having a very tough time, however. Lots of former lawmakers from the House on the GOP side, who would have been snapped up in a minute last year, are now going without any offers.
Also, top former executive branch officials are still eagerly courted, in part because Republicans still hold the White House, but also because able people, of either party, are often hard to find.
Most of the new hires, though, are Democrats. In fact, one top lobbyists told me that the demand for Democrats is so large on K Street, and the supply of Democrats so relatively small, that the starting salary for top level though freshly minted Democratic lobbyists is about $325,000 a year, up about $20,000 from last year.
Not a bad salary--to start. Whadya' say?
_______________________
Encinitas, Calif.: What's your take on why, nearly four years after the problems started becoming obvious, our soldiers in Iraq still don't have enough up-armored humvees and personal body armor? It seems a no-brainer to me that US makers of such gear could have filled the pipeline in a few months if not prevented from doing so by budget, politics or lack of concern.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Last I had heard the equipment situation in Iraq had been improving steadily. If it isn't where it should be yet, I agree with you that it's wrong and needs to be corrected fast.
I would check, though, before accusing the Pentagon of still being far behind on this one.
_______________________
Long Beach, Calif.: Excuse me Mr. Birnbaum, but are you being rhetorical:
"Also, any notion out there why groups are dumping millions on Washington lobbying efforts?"
Why, yes. They are buying influence for their limited issues and stealing from the needs of America. Third party, mercenary lobbying should be illegal. All trips and contributions of any kind - down to one penny - should be outlawed.
Let the senator and representative report that they took money from big tobacco, the millitary industrial complex, big pharma, etc... Not some shadowy lawyerly sounding "firm" that happens to be simply pimping for the highest bidder.
It's disgusting to the core and ruining our democracy by selling it to the highest bidder.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Yes I was being rhetorical. This is a Web "chat" after all.
The money flows, in my view, because the money works. Groups that invest heavily in DC persuasion often get their way (though not always of course) and that produces returns that are huge compared to that investment.
That's why the money keeps getting bigger for lobbying every year. So I say. Such as it is.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Is more money being spent on politics today than in the past?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Yes on politics and on lobbying both.
Take a look at the chart that ran with my column today. One group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $49 million in the last six months of 2006 alone. That's on lobbying.
Campaign fundraising is breaking records as well, thanks in part to new higher limits how much people and PACs can give to candidates.
The House Democrats plan one fundraiser in late March that will cost $28,500 per couple. That's a ton of dough in a system that is supposed to be restricted.
And what do these givers get? An audience with 10 important committee chairmen and the speaker of the House. In some ways, that may be a bargain.
I guess.
_______________________
Winterpark Fla.: I for one am a disgusted democrat. I will NOT vote for the repugs but I would love to see a truly independent 'clean up' party that is progressive, socially libertarian, not over constraining of small businesses and entrepeneurs, practical and not interested in telling people what medical, bedroom or religious practices they MUST follow.
Is there any hope at all for such a third party? If not, how disgusted do voters/citizens have to become before something gives? The last election indicated to me that the dems are dancing on the head of a pin and do not have much time to prove they are 'different' -- HA! as if.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I see what you mean.
Dems do have a different set of policy preferences than the GOP, and Democratic partisans say that justifies the heavy fundraising. It's for a good cause, they say.
As for an independent third party, I wouldn't put much money on it, so to speak. I think the two parties have a grip on the big dollars and that makes a lot of difference in elections, I'm afraid. Even a self-financing billionaire like Ross Perot didn't come too close. And a nonself-financing character like Ralph Nader didn't even get 4 percent.
_______________________
Tampa, Fla.: Is it possible Congress could play the life and P&C (property and casualty) insurers against each other by simultaneously proposing to eliminate both the income tax exemption for life insurance proceeds and the anti-trust exemption? I think the life industry would rather keep the tax exemption, as it is the foundation of their sales efforts (buy this policy, it's tax free), while the P&C people would want the antitrust exemption and don't care about the tax exclusion. Sort of a divide-and-conquer strategy.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: A lovely idea--if you don't like the insurance industry very much. And a very good gambit, tactically speaking.
The other item to tweak the life insurers is also already in play--expanding the idea of a Lifetime Savings Account, which would compete with some of their products.
Yes, insurance could end up being a big loser this year if it isn't careful with its public relations down in the Gulf states area, where there are millions of very angry voters.
_______________________
Baltimore, Md.: Jeff: I am a big fan of your column. I'm re-reading "Showdown at Gucci Gulch", it's a great book and quite relevant to what goes on now with respect to the intersection of lobbying and Congress.
I've been looking for an updated version of Hedrick Smith's "The Power Game", or at least, a book that covers the same material as The Power Game but updated with the current movers and shakers. Do you have any recommendations?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thank you so much for the kind words. In answer to your question . . .
Well, if all goes well, I will write a shorter version of Rick Smith's book in a year or two. Stay tuned.
In the meantime, two of my colleagues wrote an excellent book a few years back called The System. You might want to check that one out. It uses health care legislation as a way to explain how the system of government works--or doesn't work.
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.: What is the hottest issue on K Street today?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: For this week, the issue is the card check legislation being pushed through the House by organized labor.
Labor wants employers to be forced to accept unions when enough cards are signed by employees. This would replace the secret ballot system in place today.
Business thinks the open ended card check method would encourage intimidation by union organizers and would allow unions to be formed too easily. Labor uniosn believe they are being shut out now and deserve a more streamlined system.
Both are using the legislation to rally their own troops and raise money.
But neither believes that the legislation has any chance of succeeding in the Senate. It's all an inside game for now.
_______________________
Boston: Is that really such a big deal, the insurance company problem you write about today? Why should I care?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Yes it is a big deal.
First of all, certain lobbies are in town specifically to protect certain benefits for industries.
Alcoholic beverage wholesalers are here in huge numbers to make sure Congress doesn't tamper with the monopolies they have from Prohibition era days.
Baseball and other professional sports lobby constantly to make sure they keep their own antitrust exemptions.
And so on.
What's especially important about insurance and its benefits is that individual families are deeply impacted. Can people get insurance? Can they get it at low cost? Do the companies pay out when they are supposed to?
These are life and death issues for many people and the extent to which government rides these companies can determine the answers.
This is not a small matter and it won't be a small fight. The details along the way may not matter to people. But the outcome surely will.'
_______________________
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Well, thanks for the great questions today. We filled an hour quickly.
Let's do this again in a couple weeks.
Thanks again for writing in and please ask more next time.
Cheers!
_______________________
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
