Lobbying: How to Get Rid of it, Once and For All

by

Two articles:

One: Redress Petitioners (Lobbying is a right under the first amendment.)

Two: House Demo’s priorities: union bosses before kindergartners (WA dem house takes money from kindergarten and gives it to teachers.)

The first article is full of wisdom. If you want to have people stop doing something, you have to remove the incentive for doing it. Why would any corporation send lobbyists to get a special regulation or tax code that favors them? Why would they want to get earmarks and favorable officials? Because, of course, they can. If we had a federal government that reflected the 19th century, then there wouldn’t be any power or favors in Washington DC to dole out. There would be no lobbyists since there would be no money to be made lobbying.

The second is right along with it, except it has to do with state government. Why does the teacher’s union have so much influence over the state legislature? Because they have an incentive to do so. As long as the state legislature determines what the teacher salary is in Washington State, the teacher’s union is going to be a fixture in Olympia, sucking money out of the taxpayer’s pockets and putting it into the teacher’s pockets.

The way to get rid of lobbying, once and for all, is to reduce the size of government so that there is no reason to lobby.

If the federal government simply focused on national defense and regulating interstate trade (rather than limiting that trade), if the federal powers ended when the constitution said they ended, then there would be a tiny budget that was a fraction of what it is today, even if we kept the same level of defense spending. Defense spending is, after all, a fraction of our overall federal budget compared to all of the social welfare and entitlement programs.

More importantly, if we had a tax code that didn’t allow for loopholes or exemptions or special favors, if we treated all industries the same, there would be no need for special tax laws that favor one industry or one sector of an industry.

And if we didn’t have so many officials, there wouldn’t be so many officials that could be influenced by lobbyists.

And we can end lobbying and the interference of private industry, such as the teacher’s union, in our state politics and government if the state simply stayed out of the education industry and all the other industries. If it simply took up a role as a provider of the infrastructure, such as roads, and a keeper of the law, then there would be no reason to see representatives from Boeing, Microsoft, and the teacher’s union in Olympia.

It seems Ronald Reagan was right. Smaller government is the answer, because government is the problem.

About these ads

8 Responses to “Lobbying: How to Get Rid of it, Once and For All”

  1. tom Says:

    sounds good in theory, but how can we engage these lobbyists to hinder their influence?

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Remove the honey and the flies will go away. In other words, dramatically cut the federal budget from billions to mere millions. When there is more money in the private sector than in the government, people will go to the private sector to get it.

  2. Richard Says:

    i fully agree that lobbiest should be removed from grovernment as well as getting rid of party designation on ballots(people would actually have to educate themselves on the candidates before voting rather than picking D or R)
    but
    i think getting rid of government regulation would make the situation worse.
    would you rather the country be ran by a group of ceo’s or by elected officials?

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      You can fire a CEO, or at least his company can go under. When people get on the taxpayer payroll, however, you can’t fire them and the “corporation” (the government) will never go out of business.

      If a CEO is providing a valuable service, the corporation will benefit because it is helping people by producing something people are willing to pay more for than it costs to make.

      In the current culture, the big corporation CEOs are hired because they can get the most favorable treatment from Washington DC, because Washington DC has way too much power.

  3. Twoeyes Says:

    seems somewhat shortsighted. Government programs didn’t develop just because they wanted to suddenly create programs. You will always have social issues that need to be handled. If it wasn’t for public education you would have a nation of stupid people and would be a third world power. Unions were created because of abusively businesses and government sanction of the abuse. So who handles social ills? The states? Then the states need to lobby the government for funding or tax increases to help their poor, damaged, mentally ill. Insurance companies won’t create institutions for these people. I just think your article is a nice little surface article, but really doesn’t address the entire complexity of how government evolved, the intense corporate takeover of the government to obtain what they want…Such as a company is considered an individual under our current tax law…All gained by corrupt CEO’s and massive companies bent on increasing their own bottom line. Of course they line up their own people to get what they want from politicians, none of which the common citizen has any defense to.

  4. Jonathan Gardner Says:

    Government programs were started in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s for the express purpose of expanding the role of government in our lives. It was socialism, Marxism, and all the other terrible -isms that still ail us today.

    While it is true that we will always have social ills, the answer is not the Government. If someone is hungry, you feed them, you don’t empower bureaucrats to steal from the rich. If someone needs medical assistance, you render aid, you don’t write a bill that makes it all but impossible to run a hospital.

    The original purpose of unions was not to end abuses at the hands of evil corporations. The original purpose, and look at the history carefully, was to bring about the economic ruin of our country and others, so that we can practice Marxism. Unions were and are a tool of the Marxist.

    Social ills are handled first by the individual, then the family, then the churches and communities all across the country. As Americans, we give more aid to each other and the world, voluntarily, because we are a charitable people. If there is a legitimate need, we don’t need government to tell us to take care of it.

    Insurance corporations are a creation of the government. They wouldn’t otherwise exist, and certainly not in the form they are in today. if it weren’t for our regulations and tax codes.

    The reason why corporations are focused on the bottom line is because it is the bottom line that fuels growth. Growth means more jobs, more capital being spent, and inventories being amassed. Growth means a fatter paycheck, more jobs, more food, more homes, more clothing, and more of everything people need. Without profit, we would not have the things we take for granted today. Yes, people work hard to accumulate wealth. Why? Because wealth can only be produced when you give someone something that is more valuable than what they gave up. Everyone should be focused on becoming wealthy, and then using that wealth to help each other become wealthy.

    • G.J.Espo Says:

      While some of what you say is true, when it comes to these companies seeking to change laws to increase the bottomline we see that they will burn half America down to get cheaper raw materials. Take the private prison lobbies for example. It is in their best interest to keep people in prison, so they lobby for tougher penalties, harsher laws, and more ways to breal them. All these things HURT the American people yet fill their pockets. Where is a lobby for you or me? There is none, which brings the second biggest problem with lobbys. They undermine the representation of the people.

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:

        Once again, the solution is not to hunt down and kill the prison lobbyists; the solution is to take the power away from the state so there is no lobbying in the first place.

        Our laws shouldn’t be something we do on a whim. We should carefully think about what our laws should be, make them match as closely as possible the laws of nature, and then let them be. The Founding Fathers didn’t comprehend that the legislature would want to be in session more than a few months a year. Here in Washington State, we only have our legislature meet for a few weeks a year. After all, our laws are pretty good, and there’s only one or two changes we want to make each year. The vast majority of their time is spent hammering out the biennial budgets.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 98 other followers

%d bloggers like this: