Dems "Easy but Not Cheap" ?

[392cobra]

Lobbyist spending jumps 5 percent last year despite nation's recession woes
By Kevin Bogardus - 02/12/10 01:21 PM ET

Lobbyists enjoyed record revenues while the rest of the country was struggling amid a deep recession, according to a report out Friday.

Last year saw a more than 5 percent increase in lobbying expenditures as compared to 2008, said a new report released Friday by the Center for Responsive Politics, a campaign finance watchdog.

More than $3.47 billion was spent on lobbying in 2009, about $170 million more than in 2008, according to the watchdog’s analysis.

Lobbyists have said business for them managed to remain upbeat throughout 2009 despite the poor economy because of the Obama administration’s aggressive legislative agenda.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbyi...ures-last-year

[computerworks]

and your point?

How is this enriching user visitation to this site?

[392cobra]

Originally Posted by computerworks

and your point?

How is this enriching user visitation to this site?

I and many others who were in support of The One getting a grib on the Lobbyist (and not just their wallet) influence and adding transparency are a little disappointed.
Maybe with more info the users on CC could help guide our mostly infailable leader back on course.This being his only downfalling,I think we owe it to him to help correct this and make him truely perfect.

I hope we can count on your support in this worthy cause.


After Obama rips lobbyists, K Street insiders get private policy briefings

The calls are scheduled to begin at 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, with the first topic being job creation and economic growth.

Another call, at 1 p.m., is on government reform and transparency. Republicans have criticized the Obama White House for not being more transparent in its discussions with Congress on healthcare reform. Obama recently acknowledged that the legislative process has not been as open as he promised on the campaign trail.

Some lobbyists say they are extremely frustrated with the White House for criticizing them and then seeking their feedback. Others note that Democrats on Capitol Hill constantly urge them to make political donations.

One lobbyist said, “Bash lobbyists, then reach out to us. Bash lobbyists [while] I have received four Democratic invitations for fundraisers.”

Lobbyists say the Obama White House has held many off-the-record teleconferences over the past year.

For example, lobbyists and others were invited to a teleconference with “senior Obama administration officials” on Monday to discuss the administration’s plan to improve the lives of middle-class families.

The invitation, which is addressed to “Friends,” emphasizes in bold and italics that “this call is for background information only and not intended for press purposes.” It advises callers to tell the operator “you’re joining the ‘White House Briefing Call.’ ”

Another lobbyist said these types of teleconferences occur “all the time.”

And that is why many on K Street are exasperated with Obama’s use of lobbyists as a punching bag. Some have said they understood why he used strong rhetoric on the campaign trail but are irritated the White House solicits their opinions while Obama’s friends in Congress badger them for political donations.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...vate-briefings

[computerworks]

Originally Posted by 392cobra

I hope we can count on your support in this worthy cause.

Actually, you can't. I personally could care less.

...and I am sure there are sites out there that might rally to your cause.

Inciting a political action on this site may indeed be a violation of terms of service.... I'll have to check on that.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by 392cobra

Lobbyist spending jumps 5 percent last year despite nation's recession woes
By Kevin Bogardus - 02/12/10 01:21 PM ET

Lobbyists enjoyed record revenues while the rest of the country was struggling amid a deep recession, according to a report out Friday.

Last year saw a more than 5 percent increase in lobbying expenditures as compared to 2008, said a new report released Friday by the Center for Responsive Politics, a campaign finance watchdog.

More than $3.47 billion was spent on lobbying in 2009, about $170 million more than in 2008, according to the watchdog’s analysis.

Lobbyists have said business for them managed to remain upbeat throughout 2009 despite the poor economy because of the Obama administration’s aggressive legislative agenda.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbyi...ures-last-year

And from 2007 to 2008 the spending increase was just under 16%. In fact, since 1999, with the exception of 2000-2001 when the tech buble burst and spending only went up 6%, all the other years saw an annual increase around 11%. 1998 to 1999 saw no increase at all.

And the number of active registered lobbists hit an all time high of 14826 in 2007. The number of lobbyists in 2009 was 13741. The number has not been below 14,000 since 2005.

What you and your article fails to mention is that the average spending increase was down by about half, and that the number of lobbyists dropped just under 5% from 2008-2009. And from 2007-2008 the number of lobbyists dropped about 2.5%. Every year from 2001 has had an increase until 2007.

Those numbers seem headed in the right direction, but why let facts get in the way of a good Obama-bash, right?

Steve

[392cobra]

So,if The One wasn't so quiet and humble about victories such as this we would have know this earlier.
We are all grateful Steve,that you are getting this great news out there.
I just hope The O will start doing a better job of tooting his own horn and not have to rely on you so much.

We are all pulling for him,just very little extra polish is needed here and there.

[Dan40]

Wether the lobbyists spent a little more or a little less in 2000, or 2005, or 2010 is not my major concern. Exactly what the politicians did with the money is more relevant. And some HAD to be straight payola.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by 392cobra

So,if The One wasn't so quiet and humble about victories such as this we would have know this earlier.
We are all grateful Steve,that you are getting this great news out there.
I just hope The O will start doing a better job of tooting his own horn and not have to rely on you so much.

We are all pulling for him,just very little extra polish is needed here and there.

You should be thrilled - whether the downward trending numbers are the result of the economy or anything Obama is doing does not seem to be known (though your highlighted 'because of the Obama administration’s aggressive legislative agenda.' indicates that you think the opposite.

Basically, I don't think you have a clue as to what you are posting about - you posted a misleading and poorly researched article. Was that to get the base all fired up over the wrong thing? What is the deal with you GOP types posting nothing but crap here these days? I think there is plenty that Obama and the DNC are making a mess of that you guys could go after without inventing all this BS.
Or maybe this just shows how delusional and unable to deal with facts that the GOP base really is.

Either way, as CW said
How is this enriching user visitation to this site?

Steve

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Dan40

Wether the lobbyists spent a little more or a little less in 2000, or 2005, or 2010 is not my major concern. Exactly what the politicians did with the money is more relevant. And some HAD to be straight payola.

Good point - and it is probably a somewhat consistent percentage every year (think around 92% is close?? ). And if that is true, then it either went down, or did not grow as much, based on previous years.

Steve

[392cobra]

Originally Posted by VRM

Basically, I don't think you have a clue as to what you are posting about - you posted a misleading and poorly researched article. Was that to get the base all fired up over the wrong thing? What is the deal with you GOP types posting nothing but crap here these days? I think there is plenty that Obama and the DNC are making a mess of that you guys could go after without inventing all this BS.
Or maybe this just shows how delusional and unable to deal with facts that the GOP base really is.

Either way, as CW said
How is this enriching user visitation to this site?

Steve

Well Steve,we get to read your enlightened view points.I know I appreciate you taking the time to do so.


No Lobbyist in the Obama Administration ... Except When There Is One

In what ethics-in-government advocates described as a particularly far-reaching move, Mr. Obama barred officials of his administration from lobbying their former colleagues "for as long as I am president." He barred former lobbyists from working for agencies they had lobbied within the past two years and required them to recuse themselves from issues they had handled during that time.

OK. Stand by your guns; fulfill a campaign pledge. I'm with you.

The Republican National Committee criticized that requirement and said the new administration was already violating it. Mr. Obama's nominee for deputy secretary of defense, William Lynn, has been a lobbyist for the defense contractor Raytheon, and his nominee for deputy secretary of health and human services, William V. Corr, lobbied for stricter tobacco regulations as an official with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

A senior White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, conceded the two nominees did not adhere to the new rules. But he said that Mr. Lynn had the support of Republicans and Democrats, and would receive a waiver under the policy, and that Mr. Corr did not need a waiver because he had agreed to recuse himself from tobacco issues.

As the philosopher Scooby Doo might say: Awhroo? (That's cartoon dog for "Huh?")

But if you're going to campaign on sweeping condemnations about the evil of lobbyists and then, with great fanfare, ban them from your administration, you need to live by your own rules; or at least you shouldn't start making exceptions for them on Day 1.

Else the message is: It is important to prevent other administrations from doing business with lobbyists; but we are of such moral character that the rules need not apply to us.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-s...re-is-one.html

[Wes Tausend]

...

Well, I kind of believed John McCain when he said he was going to work to reduce corporate and other special interest in Washington.

But you all are welcome to jump on me for believing any congressman the tiniest bit at all.

I'm beginning to believe John didn't get elected, because he didn't play ball. Everybody, and I mean, everybody else did.

This was the guy, the POW, who wouldn't go home before his turn; even though it must have been what ran through his mind morning, noon and night. How many recess-minded congressmen would do that? So if honorable guys like him can't get elected, partially because of his own party, and definately because of the opposition, where does that leave all of us??

Wes

...

[FWB]

wes...it leaves us....SOL