Tag Archives: lobbyists

Billions for Big Oil, Nothing for the Unemployed

04 Sunday Jul 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Deepwater Horizon, economy, Gulf Oil Spill, lobbyists, Obama administration, oil exploration, Politics, special interests, Unemployment

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

We can’t afford to extend unemployment benefits, but:

“…an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.”

Take, for instance, two of the major players in the Gulf oil spill—Transocean and BP:

“When the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform set off the worst oil spill at sea in American history, it was flying the flag of the Marshall Islands. Registering there allowed the rig’s owner to significantly reduce its American taxes.

The owner, Transocean, moved its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Cayman Islands in 1999 and then to Switzerland in 2008, maneuvers that also helped it avoid taxes.

At the same time, BP was reaping sizable tax benefits from leasing the rig. According to a letter sent in June to the Senate Finance Committee, the company used a tax break for the oil industry to write off 70 percent of the rent for Deepwater Horizon — a deduction of more than $225,000 a day since the lease began.”

Congress and the Obama administration are working (allegedly) on legislation that would cut $20 billion in oil industry tax breaks. The response from the oil companies? One wrong move and the economy gets it:

“Jack N. Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, warns that any cut in subsidies will cost jobs. “These companies evaluate costs, risks and opportunities across the globe,” he said. “So if the U.S. makes changes in the tax code that discourage drilling in gulf waters, they will go elsewhere and take their jobs with them.”

What are the chances of Congress eliminating these subsidies? Slim and none:

“Efforts to curtail the tax breaks are likely to face fierce opposition in Congress; the oil and natural gas industry has spent $340 million on lobbyists since 2008, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors political spending.”

An example is Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) who is co-sponsoring the legislation that would end the tax breaks, but:

“While the legislation would cut many incentives over the next decade, it would not touch the tax breaks for oil refineries, many of which have operations and employees in his home state, New Jersey.”

Advertisement

Senate Votes on Financial Regulation Amendments

12 Wednesday May 2010

Posted by in bailout, Congress, Democrats, economy, financial reform, financial regulation, lobbyists, McCain, Politics, Progressives, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Any time anything passes in the Senate by a vote of 96–0 I’m suspicious. Those numbers are usually reserved for meaningless proclamations declaring ‘National Be Kind to Puppies and Kitties Day.’ But such a vote took place yesterday on Sen. Bernie Sanders’ amendment to audit the Federal Reserve.

Sanders’ original amendment would have required the Fed to submit to regular audits, but the watered-down version passed yesterday is for a one-time audit with a specific scope and time frame. This only adds to my suspicion that the newer version is more than likely toothless:

“A Fed spokeswoman declined to comment on the Senate action, but Fed leaders, who previously have objected to broader efforts to review monetary policy, have not opposed the most recent version of Sanders’s proposal.”

A more accurate gauge of where the Senate stands on REAL financial reform can be found in other amendments taken up yesterday, like the one proposed by David Vitter which called for the stronger provisions contained in Sanders’ original proposal. It was voted down 62 to 37 with only 6 Democrats voting “Yea”—Cantwell, Dorgan, Feingold, Lincoln, Webb, and Wyden.

Another amendment, proposed by Sen. McCain, called for a time frame for winding down and eventually ending the government’s conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That failed by a vote of 56 to 43 with only 2 Democrats–Bayh and Feingold–voting “Yea.” An alternative to the McCain amendment, proposed by Chris Dodd, called for “the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct a study on ending the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” That passed by a margin of 63–36. Russ Feingold (I detect a pattern here) was the lone Democrat voting “Nay.”

Credit where credit is due, Sen. Shelby is right on the money (so to speak):

“Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were at the heart of the financial crisis,” Shelby said Tuesday. “How we can have basic regulatory reform, financial reform, if we’re not going to include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?”

Also set for a vote this week is Sen. Lincoln’s amendment which would place strong restrictions on derivative trading. Needless to say, Wall Street is going all out to kill this:

“…the five [largest] banks together have mustered more than 130 registered lobbyists, including 40 former Senate staff members and one retired senator, Trent Lott. The list includes former staff members for the Senate majority and minority leaders, the chairmen and ranking members of the banking and finance committees, and more than 15 other senators. In the first quarter, the banks spent $6.1 million on lobbying.”

Why are the banksters fighting so hard to stop it? Follow the money:

“The change could cost the industry a lot of money. Banks reported $22.6 billion in derivatives revenue in 2009..”

Pre-Existing Condition Loophole?

26 Friday Mar 2010

Posted by in Congress, health care, lobbyists, Politics

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

When Speaker Pelosi said of health care reform legislation on March 9 that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy,” I would guess she was referring to all the positive elements of the bill which would come to light after all the sturm und drang of the debate had passed. However, there appears to be some controversy only 2 days after the bill’s passage over the ban on denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. From AP via Firedoglake:

“President Barack Obama’s new health care law has a gap when it comes to one of its much-touted immediate benefits, improved coverage for children in poor health, congressional officials confirmed Tuesday.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill that Obama signed into law Tuesday.”

According to Kaiser, the language in the legislation is a bit murky (intentionally perhaps?) :

“…health advocates and some insurers say the law does not clearly state that such protection starts this year. If it doesn’t, uninsured children with pre-existing conditions might not get help until 2014, when the law requires  insurers to issue policies for all applicants regardless of health condition.

…One thing is clear: The law does nothing to stop insurers from charging higher rates for children with pre-existing illnesses until 2014 when insurers can no longer use health status in setting premiums.”

Of course the insurance companies and their lobbyists jumped all over this possible loophole:

“Randy Kammer, a vice president for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, the largest health insurer in that state, said she interprets the law as allowing insurers to reject coverage for children in some cases until 2014.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, the main insurance lobbying group, says through a spokesman that it interprets the new law as not requiring insurers to cover all child applicants this year.”

It’s almost as if the insurance companies knew the loophole was there. Couldn’t have anything to do with Liz Fowler, a former VP of WellPoint, being a senior aide to Sen. Baucus and director of the Senate Finance Committee health care staff, could it?

The response from the administration is that “clarifying regulations” will be forthcoming from the Department of Health and Human Services. “Clarifying regulations” for 2-day old legislation? The old carpenter’s adage about ‘measure twice, cut once’ comes to mind.

The Washington–K Street Revolving Door

17 Wednesday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, lobbyists, Politics, Republicans, special interests, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No need to pass the hat for retiring members of Congress, they’re unlikely to join the ranks of the unemployed:

“Lawmakers retiring this year have little reason to fret the job market: Some of K Street’s biggest players have top openings with seven-figure salaries…At least four major trade associations are looking to hire for their high-profile jobs, each of which could command a salary in excess of $1 million a year.

The growing list of members who have decided not to seek reelection, combined with top-notch job opportunities, will only further the trend of ex-lawmakers lobbying for interests they once oversaw.”

Ah yes, the old D.C. revolving door:

“Public Citizen, a watchdog group, reported that 43 percent of members who left Congress between 1998 and 2004 became registered lobbyists, a figure that does not include political consultants who don’t register” [like former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.]

A few other examples:

“Retiring Democrats like Sens. Christopher Dodd (Conn.) and Byron Dorgan (N.D.), and Reps. John Tanner and Bart Gordon, both of Tennessee, are names mentioned as possible hot prospects downtown.”

“Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) announced his retirement from Congress last fall and instead of finishing his term, he immediately took a job with law and lobbying firm DLA Piper (though he did not register as a lobbyist).

Then there’s the soon-to-be retired senator from Indiana, Evan Bayh, who, “a day after he announced his retirement..declined to rule out a career as a lobbyist.” A good fit for Senator Bayh might be the job recently vacated by another former member of Congress who moved on to the greener pastures of lobbying, the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) which was held by Billy Tauzin, and pays fairly well:

“Tauzin, a collegial dealmaker who entered Congress as a Democrat and left as a Republican, is resigning from a job that paid him a total compensation package in excess of $2 million a year, according to the association’s 2007 tax records.”

Since Senator Bayh’s wife sits on the board at insurance giant WellPoint, I suspect there might be a place for him there as a lobbyist if he so chooses. There is one small matter Bayh needs to clear up, what to do with the $13 million campaign war chest he has on hand. There are a few options:

a) keep the cash in his own account for a possible future run for office
b) transfer it to a newly-created PAC
c) return it to the donors
d) give it to charity
e) give it to the Indiana Democratic Party
f) give it to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), or the Democratic National Committee (DNC)

I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess (a). Just a hunch.

Financial Reform? Don’t Count On It

12 Friday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, economy, Financial Crisis, lobbyists, Politics, Republicans, special interests, Wall Street

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

While watching the Senate Banking Committee Kabuki theater on reforming and regulating the financial industry, keep in mind the findings of this study from Consumer Watchdog:

* The financial sector is the largest source of campaign contributions to federal candidates and parties. Members of the Senate Banking committee aretop recipients of that largesse. Senate Banking committee members have received $41.9 million in campaign contributions from PACs and individuals in the financial sector since 2005.

* 24 former Senate Banking committee members or committee staff currently lobby on behalf of the financial sector. The total includes 4 former Senators and 7 former committee staff directors.

* Committee chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) raised $9 million from the financial sector, 51% of his fundraising over the five year period. Ranking member Richard Shelby (R-AL) raised $2.5 million, 28% of his total money raised, from the financial sector.

* Last November, Chairman Dodd tasked himself and seven other Banking committee members with re-drafting the major sections of financial reform legislation. These eight senators – Dodd, Shelby, Corker, Crapo, Gregg, Reed, Schumer, and Warner – have received the lion’s share of financial sector contributions to the committee: a total of $26.1 million.

* The financial sector and its lobbyists hosted at least 43 fundraisers for 11 members of the Senate Banking committee in 2009.

But on the bright side, jobs are being created:

* The financial sector hired 2567 lobbyists in 2009 and, in the first three quarters of the year, spent over $336 million lobbying Congress.

Who’s In Charge Here? Follow the Money

06 Saturday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, Financial Crisis, lobbyists, Politics, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The Washington D.C. game of finger-pointing, blame-shifting, and buck-passing rolls on. Robert Reich in Thursday’s Salon:

“Senator Chris Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, scolded Wall Street representatives at a hearing Thursday for sending “an army of lobbyists whose only mission is to kill the common-sense financial reforms” needed by the public. “The fact is,” Dodd said, “I am frustrated, and so are the American people.” He charged that Wall Street’s intransigence was the reason for Congress’s failure to pass any bill to regulate the Street.

Dodd left out the most telling detail, of course. Wall Street is where the campaign money is. Dodd of all people knows that. He’s been on the receiving end of lots of it over the years.

…In other words, it isn’t Congress’s fault. It isn’t the Senate Banking Committee’s fault. It certainly isn’t Dodd’s fault. The reason more than a year has passed since the biggest bailout in the history of the world and nothing has been done to prevent a repeat performance…is what, exactly, Senator? Because the Street has sent an army of lobbyists to Capitol Hill?

Call me old-fashioned, but I thought Congress was in charge of passing legislation, not Wall Street.

A little over $6 million, that’s all. Which leads to the REAL reason for the lack of Congressional action:

“Congress isn’t doing a thing about Wall Street because it’s in the pocket of Wall Street. Dodd’s outburst at the Street is like the alcoholic who screams at a bartender “how dare you give me another drink when all I’ve done is pleaded with you for one!”

Democrats Schmoozing the “Fat Cats” They Despise (Allegedly)

03 Wednesday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, lobbyists, special interests, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The hypocrisy never stops. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) in a press release last Wednesday following President Obama’s State of the Union address:

“In the upcoming elections, voters will face a choice between Republicans who are standing with Wall Street fat cats, bankers and insurance companies – or Democrats who are working hard to clean up the mess we inherited by putting the people’s interests ahead of the special interests.”

From Politico yesterday:

“Twelve Democratic Senators spent last weekend in Miami Beach raising money from top lobbyists for oil, drug, and other corporate interests that they often decry, according to a guest list for the event obtained by POLITICO.

Across the table was a who’s who of 108 senior Washington lobbyists, including the top lobbying officials for many of the industries Democrats regularly attack: Represented were the American Bankers Association, the tobacco company Altria, the oil company Marathon, several drug manufacturers, the defense contractor Lockheed, and most of the large independent lobbying firms.”

The guest list for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s “winter retreat” at the Ritz Carlton South Beach Resort doesn’t include the price tag for attendance, but the maximum contribution to the committee, typical for such events, is $30,000. There, to participate in “informal conversations” and other meetings Saturday, were senators including DSCC Chairman Robert Menendez; Michigan’s Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow; Bob Casey of Pennsylvania; Claire McCaskill of Missouri; freshmen Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Begich of Alaska; and even left-leaning Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Nice job, Bob. I’ll sleep better at night  knowing you’re looking out for the “people’s interests” and sticking it to those “fat cats.”

A "Deficit of Trust," Mr. President? Here’s Why

29 Friday Jan 2010

Posted by in Obama, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

President Obama in last night’s State of the Union Address (emphasis mine):

“We face a deficit of trust — deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years.  To close that credibility gap, we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue — to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve.”

From The Hill this morning:

“A day after bashing lobbyists, President Barack Obama’s administration has invited K Street insiders to join private briefings on a range of topics addressed in Wednesday’s State of the Union.

The Treasury Department on Thursday morning invited selected individuals to “a series of conference calls with senior Obama administration officials to discuss key aspects of the State of the Union address.”

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

…The invitation stated, “The White House is encouraging you to participate in these calls and will have a question and answer session at the end of each call. As a reminder, these calls are not intended for press purposes.

…A handful of lobbyists told The Hill on Thursday morning that they received the invitations and were planning to call in.

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.”

A “deficit of trust” Mr. President? I can’t imagine why?