The Add Jay wrote:you get the point.

vladimir wrote: You guys got your butts kicked sooo many times, just admit it, Iraq is a cock up of the worst order.

OD, explain one thing: 911, iirc 19 of the guys involved were from Saudi. Why not invade Saudi?

Oh, and can you explain WHY 911 happened. WHY did they do it? Not that it's relevant in any way, just wondered why it has always been fobbed off as 'Oh they envy our lifestyle".

That's right, they killed themselves and thousands of others cause they wanted your iPods. Duh.

I'm just amazed that you two clowns can be sooo blind/fanatical as to defend every foreign policy action of your idiot government unquestioningly.

Republicans, the new Nazis.Go, guys.

During the 2008 election season, politicians from both sides of the aisle promised to rid government of lobbyists’ undue influence. For the authors of Lobbying and Policy Change, the most extensive study ever done on the topic, these promises ring hollow—not because politicians fail to keep them but because lobbies are far less influential than political rhetoric suggests.

Based on a comprehensive examination of ninety-eight issues, this volume demonstrates that sixty percent of recent lobbying campaigns failed to change policy despite millions of dollars spent trying. Why? The authors find that resources explain less than five percent of the difference between successful and unsuccessful efforts. Moreover, they show, these attempts must overcome an entrenched Washington system with a tremendous bias in favor of the status quo.

Though elected officials and existing policies carry more weight, lobbies have an impact too, and when advocates for a given issue finally succeed, policy tends to change significantly. The authors argue, however, that the lobbying community so strongly reflects elite interests that it will not fundamentally alter the balance of power unless its makeup shifts dramatically in favor of average Americans’ concerns.

In the early days of 1999, representatives from a large telecommunications company and two
large trade associations made a visit to a relatively junior member of Congress. They had an
issue that they thought he would be interested in hearing about. It involved cutting taxes in a
time of tax surpluses, promoting consumer interests and rolling back a policy that no longer had
any reasonable justification. It had the backing of nearly 100 groups, both within the business
community and within a wide array of citizen and consumer groups. The backers had money,
and their diverse membership seemed to assure that they would have legitimacy in the public eye
as well. The issue had no organized opposition and seemed unlikely to develop any, since the
issue had no natural enemies. Given all this, would the congressman be willing to serve as the
issue’s champion in the House? The interest groups would provide the organizing skills and
media push outside Congress, but they needed someone inside Congress to bring the issue
forward. The primary benefit to the junior member of Congress was a chance to be seen as a
person who could get things done—a mover and shaker who led a popular bill through to
fruition, later taking credit, perhaps, for saving consumers millions of dollars in taxes. The
junior member said yes, and the fight to eliminate the 3 percent federal excise tax on
telecommunications began in earnest.
Sometimes a policy proposal seems to have it all, yet still fails to pass. The effort to end
the 3 percent excise tax was just such an issue. Telecommunications companies hated the tax
because it was costly to collect and made their customers irritable, and efforts to eliminate the
tax dated back more than 15 years. The tax—which was applied to all phone bills, cell phone
bills, and cable television bills—began in 1898 as a luxury tax on a newfangled invention. Its
proceeds were to help defray the costs of the Spanish American War. More than a century later,
the fund created by the tax was not dedicated to any specific program, and in a time of budget
surpluses, it seemed like a good time to let it go. Proponents of eliminating the tax were well
connected, gave plenty of campaign contributions, and had hired Jack Quinn, a former Clinton
White House counsel who headed the prominent lobbying firm Quinn and Gillespie. Their issue
was popular with the public, garnered respectable press coverage, and had no organized
opposition. It was “good for the poor and old people” because it eliminated a regressive tax. On
May 25, 2000, the bill passed the House with only two members voting against it. Time,
however, was not on its side. Postponed on the Senate schedule because leaders had other
priorities, the bill languished until the end of August, and with elections approaching the session
was essentially over. A last-minute attempt was made in October to attach it to the general
Treasury appropriations bill, but that bill was vetoed on other grounds. Supporters hoped to
reintroduce the bill and pass it during the 107th Congress. When the next session arrived,
however, the federal budget surplus had evaporated—and with it any chance of the excise tax
being eliminated. The issue died in committee.

vladimir wrote:Go, on, tell the government doesn't care about the lobbyists! I'll believe you.