lobbying

Audacity has always been a favorite term and mindset of Team Obama. And there was no better display of audacity this week when White House Press Secretary stood before the gathered national media and proclaimed that 110,000 voters was a better indication of President Obama’s policy and political capital than 4.3 million voters.

As several media outlets have reported, last week Gibbs said that Republican gubernatorial victories in Virginia and New Jersey do not signify anything for President Obama, but the dynamics and the Democratic candidate's success in an Upstate New York special election has consequences for the Republicans.

That is audacity Team Obama style.

If the White House wants to convey to a shaken and weakened Democratic majority on Capitol Hill that they have the bandwidth and power to move voters next fall they are clearly overconfident or don’t really care. How can the White House possibly dismiss the voters of New Jersey and Virginia - two trendsetting and economic powerhouse states – and formulate their political calculations on special election filled with more sideshows and spectacles than the Iowa State Fair? Why is the White House not seeing that their leader made five visits across heavily Democrat New Jersey in the closing days of the race which did little to get out the vote? What is the White House thinking now that part of their political coalition of African-Americans and young Americans has clearly proved to be a part time democratic force that sees their work being done as a result of winning last year’s election? It must be audacity.

As I see it, the White House is basing their political calculations on the fact that their term in office is unique and unprecedented. As such, it will demand sacrifice from the most vulnerable members of their party for the greater good. Without doubt, the White House is telling freshman Members of Congress like Rep. Tom Perriello and Rep. Glenn White, without our massive war chest and GOTV efforts last year you wouldn’t even be voting on Capitol Hill – so get inline. The White House surely knows they will lose seats next fall, but will they lose 40 seats; they must not think so. Meaning they can maintain majority control on Capitol Hill that will be diluted but not vanquished while being able to move aggressive legislation before November 2010.

With this mindset coming from the White House, upcoming legislation will be shaped by moving now -you can already see this in play from Saturday's night healthcare vote. Team Obama can realize their dream of changing the country's economic, cultural, banking, energy and healthcare foundations regardless of the outcome next fall. The loss of a few members who don’t really represent Democratic districts or the simple fact that a majority of voters clearly doesn’t support their agenda is of no concern.

Speaking with a former union organizer in Los Angeles the day after the election, he lamented how disappointed, frankly shocked, he was by the lack of turnout by Obama’s coalition. He went onto say, how can his team expect to move their political agenda, their core legislative goals and cherished dream of healthcare reform if those who elected Barack Obama last fall aren’t constantly engaged in the process and not voting. He closed by saying, it is clear that presently a majority of voters are not fully embracing what Obama is attempting to do, but last year’s election is what matters and their great political cause is more important than a tough race for a few Members of Congress or Senators in an upcoming election.

With such thinking coming from liberal activists in the field as well as what I believe to be the internal thinking of the White House, I fully expect condition normal and full speed ahead with Team Obama’s aggressive and multifaceted legislative agenda. As the White House has learned, winning one election means little in America. Other concerned citizens and targeted industries should heed this warning as well.

When your mindset is based on audacity, it is clear you are willing to make sacrifices so long as it moves long held and treasured legislative priorities closer to reality. I suggest to the numerous constituencies that Team Obama hopes to change, regulate and control, last week’s state elections mean little and last week’s federal election means everything to the White House. As they see it, all that matters is the fact that 110,000 voters sent them one more vote in Congress for them to use to pass their agenda.

In most endeavors, you find one guy willing to sell out his principles because he is so smart, and so shrewd that he and his allies will benefit at the expense of the folks he used to work alongside. One rather extreme example was the Godfather charater Fredo Corleone. Passed over for family leadership by little brother Michael, he decides to prove his worth by working alongside rival mob factions.

This year's version appears to be top PhRMA lobbyist Billy Tauzin 

Much as Fredo sold out his family, Tauzin is selling out free enterprise,

Tauzin was once a Democrat from the Louisiana bayou who saw the partisan light after the 1994 tsunami. Then he spent a decade as a Republican and failed to hand the seat off to his son when he retired. Following his departure from Congress, he settled in as top dog for Big PhRMA, an interest group of drug makers heterofore staunchly opposed to socialized medicine.

Well, now, not so much. Tauzin and the Obama camp have made a secret deal to make sure that the taxpayers guarantee the drug companies windfall profits in the health care "reform" bill. And Billy Drugbucks will pony up $150 M in corporate cash for a media blitzkrieg favoring health care "reform" to try and undo the damage ordinary folks have done speaking their mind at town halls.

Needless to say, very few people other than the co-conspiritors have much nice to say about this sleazy deal.

Here's what liberal  former Labor Secretary Robert Reich had to say.   

When the industry support comes with an industry-sponsored ad campaign in favor of that legislation, the threat to democracy is even greater. Citizens end up paying for advertisements designed to persuade them that the legislation is in their interest. In this case, those payments come in the form of drug prices that will be higher than otherwise, stretching years into the future 

On the other side of the ideological aisle, National Review, blasted Tauzin's deal as a scam. Now House Republican Leader John Boehner unloaded on Tauzin's scheme. A few highlights  Boehner accused Tauzin of caving to a bully ( I think he is being waay too charitable, but )

The “bully” in this case is Big Government.  At your behest, PhRMA has chosen to accommodate a Washington takeover of health care at the expense of the American people in hopes of securing favorable treatment and future profits.  It’s a short-sighted bargain that leaves your own customers and employees behind.  And it now has all the markings of a deal gone sour. 

The Wall Street Journal expressed similar sentiments

Yep, now the Democrats think they can get more concessions from PhRMA.  Sorta like if Eliot Spitzer expected a second night of services from the Emperor's Club for the price of one.

Getting back to the Fredo parallel,  all that guy got for buddying up to Hyman Roth and Moe Greene at the expense of the "folks who brought him" was the undying hatred of his brother, who now deemed him "dead to me now".

Conservatives now aren't going to buy the corporate lies about health care from K Street.  That bridge is now burned down. We think the principles of free enterprise are worth more than some secret government payoff.  PhRMA are now no better than any other group that sells out at the taxpayer's trough seeking corporate welfare. This group is "dead to me" now. 

I hope Billy Tauzin has a long healthy life. But after he finds he's spent over  $100 million of his client's money only to be left with no one in Washington who trusts him, or whom he can trust, I suspect his life as a lobbyist will be cut short.     

The meltdown of Fannie and Freddie should be a transformative moment in American politics. It should discredit the whole Democratic economic agenda. It is too bad that it happened in the middle of the most interesting Presidential election in a generation because there are lessons to learn from it. Several points.

Let's start with some numbers. Contributions since 1989(!) to ALL members of Congress. Note that this is an aggregate over time. Note how a guy who has been in Congress for 3 years manages to come in 3rd on the list.

First, this is a Democratic scandal. In yesterday's WaPo Al Hubbard and Noam Neusner ask "Where was Senator Dodd?" The answer is clear. On the take. Open Secrets notes who gets money from these guys:

Fifteen of the 25 lawmakers who have received the most from the two companies combined since the 1990 election sit on either the House Financial Services Committee; the Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee; or the Senate Finance Committee. The others have seats on the powerful Appropriations or Ways & Means committees, are members of the congressional leadership or have run for president. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate banking committee, has received the most from Fannie and Freddie's PACs and employees ($133,900 since 1989). Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) has received $65,500. Kanjorski chairs the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs.

But they miss the important point. The GSEs give to Democrats primarily.

And this is the second point. These are partisan instituttions. Republicans tried to reform it, but got out lobbied every time. Hubbard and Neusner described how this works:

The administration did not accept half-measures. In 2005, Republican Mike Oxley, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, brought up a reform bill (H.R. 1461), and Fannie and Freddie's lobbyists set out to weaken it. The bill was rendered so toothless that Card called Oxley the night before markup and promised to oppose it. Oxley pulled the bill instead.

When there was a Republican Congress, Congressional leadership tried to do the right thing, but Fannie and Freddie's lobbyists picked off some weak Republicans. With a Democratic Congress, Fannie and Freddie just feed at the trough.

Third, these guys are some of the most powerful figures in the Democratic lobbyist-operative firmament. Obama was forced to fire James Johnson, his first VP Vetter. Johnson had been CEO of Fannie Mae.  But it doesn't stop there. Johnson, while a consultant for Fannie and Countrywide, was passing out below market loans to Senator Dodd, among others.

The recent CEO of Fannie was Franklin Delano Raines. (what do you bet his parents politics were?) Raines was a Clinton OMB Director and worked in the Carter White House. Raines was replaced with an actual business guy.

Fourth, it doesn't stop there. Not only that, but the affordable housing racket is also used as a way to launder government money into corrupt Democratic voter registration practices. One of the organizations pushing subprime loans and other "affordable housing" financial vehicles... ACORN, which got a sweet deal in the Housing Bill.

What is the upshot of all of this?  The housing meltdown has both causes and effects that are ideologically aligned with Democratic objectives.  While gutting the regulatory apparatus for a huge segment of our economy, leading Democrats were receiving contributions and below market loans from the very people whose regulations their were gutting. It was used to move money into Democratic grassroots campaign vehicles. And it moved substantial parts of the economy into government control. According to financial analyst Barry Richoltz, "socialism for the rich."

This should be a long-term stain on the credibility of Democratic Party's economic management.  Too bad no one has the attention span to notice.