{"id":1262,"date":"2011-07-24T23:16:07","date_gmt":"2011-07-25T05:16:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/?p=1262"},"modified":"2011-07-25T14:58:31","modified_gmt":"2011-07-25T20:58:31","slug":"the-earth-is-round","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/?p=1262","title":{"rendered":"The Earth is Round"},"content":{"rendered":"

Yes, it\u2019s true, a small busy-body organization in Washington called the Center for Responsive Politics has discovered that the Earth is round.\u00a0 Well, not exactly.\u00a0 They\u2019re not into astronomy, but they have published a report on congressional staffers, by Sarah McKinnon Bryner, titled, \u201cFrom Hired Guns to Hired Hands: \u2018Reverse Revolvers\u2019 in the 111th<\/sup> and 112th<\/sup> Congresses.\u201d\u00a0 Their conclusions are such that, in the real world of American politics, their report is roughly equivalent to a conclusion by a fourth grade science class that the Earth is round.<\/p>\n

In the introduction to her report, the author explains that Congress is \u201cone of the nation\u2019s longest-standing institutions\u201d and that it \u201cemploys thousands of people.\u201d\u00a0 She also reports that many congressional staffers \u201care former campaign staffers for senators and representatives.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, instead of stating the obvious, it would have been far more useful to disclose what sort of expertise those former campaign staffers bring to their jobs.\u00a0 True, members of Congress have a right to hire whomever they please; however, before we proceed to tar all lobbyists with the same brush, we should make an informed judgment of the value of the former lobbyists, vis-\u00e0-vis the former campaign staffers who are often young people, in their late teens or early twenties, who have never held a job outside government and who could easily write their resumes on the back of 3X5 cards.\u00a0 Many are the sons and daughters of major contributors who have, in effect, bought their kids a job.\u00a0 Does the name Monica Lewinsky ring a bell?<\/p>\n

The author tells us that \u201cOthers are policy experts with years of experience.\u00a0 And hundreds are former lobbyists who used to lobby the very institution for which they now work.\u201d\u00a0 While it is true that there are thousands of so-called \u201cpolicy experts\u201d on Capitol Hill, the report would be of far greater value if the author had discussed how and where most of those \u201cexperts\u201d acquired their years of policy experience.\u00a0 What the author fails to explain is that many of the so-called \u201cpolicy experts\u201d are former academics, strong on theory, but with no real world experience; many have gained their experience through on-the-job training as committee staffers; many had previous careers in the federal and state bureaucracies; and many more\u2026 and please don\u2019t tell anyone\u2026 gained their expertise in the private sector, in trade or \u00a0professional associations, or in the Washington offices of corporations, labor unions, or special interest pressure groups.<\/p>\n

And since no member of Congress could possibly be familiar with even a fraction of the bills they vote on, these are the people who tell their members how to vote.\u00a0 Lest we forget, and before we become too sanguine about the motivations of these so-called \u201cpolicy experts,\u201d it is important to remember that it is they who wrote the 2,300 page Obamacare bill which Nancy Pelosi told us had to be passed \u201cbefore we can find out what\u2019s in it.\u201d\u00a0 Obamacare was written by committee staffers and not a single Democrat who voted for it had the foggiest notion of what was in it.\u00a0 The fact that Obamacare even exists today is a perfect example of what is referred to by government relations professionals as \u201cstaff advocacy.\u201d<\/p>\n

The report goes on to say that, \u201cThe Center finds that the number of lobbyists employed in these positions is rising. \u00a0In all, the number of lobbyists in Congress has increased by more than two-fold between the 111th<\/sup> and 112th<\/sup> Congress, these lobbyists representing a variety of industrial sectors and special interest areas.\u201d\u00a0 But then, in a display of undisguised political bias, the author proceeds to point out that, \u201cThere\u2019s also a partisan nature to the increase in lobbyists, with an influx of lobbyists working for freshman Republican representatives.\u201d\u00a0 She goes on to say, as if suddenly discovering some new universal truth, that \u201cFurthermore, several major companies\u2019 former hired guns now work for the very congressional committees they used to lobby.\u201d<\/p>\n

Surely the author is aware that there was an elections on November 2, 2010 and that, in those elections, Democrats received a well-deserved \u201cshellacking,\u201d to use Barack Obama\u2019s term.\u00a0 In that election, Republicans gained 63 seats in the House and 6 seat in the U.S. Senate.<\/p>\n

With each House member employing approximately 22 full and part time staffers, with each member of the Senate employing roughly 40 staffers, and with some 112 House committees and subcommittees undergoing change in leadership, this means that, as of November 3, 2010, some 1,850 Democrats were suddenly unemployed and had to be replaced with Republicans.\u00a0 Surely the author would not expect the winner of, say, Florida\u2019s 8th<\/sup> Congressional District race, former state senator Daniel Webster, would simply move in and retain the staff of losing Democrat Alan Grayson, the most despicable human being ever elected to public office\u2026<\/p>\n

The author also appeared mystified that many of the new Republican committee staffers were drawn from the ranks of corporate lobbyists.\u00a0 It seems hardly reasonable to think that newly-seated Republican committee chairmen would recruit committee staff from among the ranks of labor unions, public employee unions, trial lawyers, unionized public school teachers, or radical environmentalists.\u00a0 Their primary concern would be to hire committee staffers who, unlike those they replaced, actually know a thing or two about the issues that come before them.<\/p>\n

But the most stunning part of the report implies some sort of dark motivation on the part of lobbyists and former lobbyists.\u00a0 The author writes, \u201cBut questions remain.\u00a0 For example, why do these lobbyists return to the public sector?\u00a0 And, what does the preponderance of former lobbyists in Congress mean for the future of American democracy?<\/p>\n

The 1st<\/sup> Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to \u201cpetition the Government for a redress of grievances.\u201d\u00a0 So why do lobbyists return to the public sector?\u00a0 For the author to question why those who feel strongly about the direction of public policy on key national issues\u2026 especially with a totally inexperienced and totally incompetent Democrat in the Oval Office\u2026 is beyond comprehension.\u00a0 Could it be that the author of the report is so blinded by her own liberal views that she fails to understand that real Americans may also feel the need to have their grievances redressed?\u00a0 But an even more sinister implication of the question is that, somehow or other, when an otherwise moral and ethical individual decides to work as a lobbyist they, of necessity, check their honesty and integrity at the door.<\/p>\n

What the author clearly ignores is the fact that, in the lobbying profession, there are Democrat lobbyists and there are Republican lobbyists.\u00a0 To understand what that means, one must first understand that the Democrat Party is comprised almost entirely of special interests, all wanting something from<\/em> government at the expense of everyone else.\u00a0 For example:<\/p>\n