I sent this letter last week to the Baltimore Sun:
Part Hugo Chavez and part Don Quixote, Blaine Taylor writes that "Just
as, ultimately, the United States will be forced to nationalize the
entire energy industry in order to achieve equality for all of our
people, so, too, must we someday – and the sooner, the better – outlaw
all the lobbyists from the halls of government at every level"
(Letters, May 14).
The more powerful is government, the greater
are the rewards for those who gain privileged access to it. Because
nationalizing industries expands that power, such a move will
inevitably increase the unsavory influence-shopping and
influence-peddling that Mr. Taylor deplores. The solution is not to
outlaw lobbying, for that’ll simply drive it underground. The only
solution is to rid government of the power that makes lobbying
worthwhile.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
I didn’t bother to take issue with Mr. Taylor’s assertion that achieving equality "for all of our people" requires that Uncle Sam "nationalize the entire energy industry." Where would I have started with such a bizarre and baseless belief?
Nor did I bother to point out that banning lobbyists would violate the First Amendment’s freedom-to-petition clause.
Share
{ 47 comments }
The problem is exactly the opposite, we need to allow greater freedom for business and government to cooperate. If government is not allowed to walk toward equilibrium in parceling out goodies and taking in payments, then we would have a revolt.
Efficient market equilibrium is an accepted theory precisely because economists noticed that wars start when government thwarts equilibrium.
Progressives always illustrate the fraudulent nature of the 'progressive' label, except in the sense of a progressively pervasive political sector.
They delude themselves that they would ever be able to outmaneuver slime in the quest for power.
A fun thing to note here is that Blaine Taylor is himself lobbying. Oh the irony.
Maybe if the government didn't stick their nose into everyone's business there wouldn't be a need for so many lobbyists. Remember back in the days when Microsoft didn't hire lobbyists before the government decided they were a monopoly? Can any business afford not to have protection from the government? Does anyone think it is smart to rely on the geniuses in Congress to do the right thing?
Lobbyists are not the problem – they are a symptom of the problem.
Reduce the government's power and you reduce the demand for lobbyists. And you don't have to violate the constitution.
Maybe if the government didn't stick their nose into everyone's business there wouldn't be a need for so many lobbyists. Remember back in the days when Microsoft didn't hire lobbyists before the government decided they were a monopoly? Can any business afford not to have protection from the government? Does anyone think it is smart to rely on the geniuses in Congress to do the right thing?
Lobbyists are not the problem – they are a symptom of the problem.
Reduce the government's power and you reduce the demand for lobbyists. And you don't have to violate the constitution.
Maybe if the government didn't stick their nose into everyone's business there wouldn't be a need for so many lobbyists. Remember back in the days when Microsoft didn't hire lobbyists before the government decided they were a monopoly? Can any business afford not to have protection from the government? Does anyone think it is smart to rely on the geniuses in Congress to do the right thing?
Lobbyists are not the problem – they are a symptom of the problem.
Reduce the government's power and you reduce the demand for lobbyists. And you don't have to violate the constitution.
Maybe if the government didn't stick their nose into everyone's business there wouldn't be a need for so many lobbyists. Remember back in the days when Microsoft didn't hire lobbyists before the government decided they were a monopoly? Can any business afford not to have protection from the government? Does anyone think it is smart to rely on the geniuses in Congress to do the right thing?
Lobbyists are not the problem – they are a symptom of the problem.
Reduce the government's power and you reduce the demand for lobbyists. And you don't have to violate the constitution.
Ahhhh…quadruple post…is that a record?
The solution is not to outlaw lobbying, for that'll simply drive it underground.
But wouldn't driving lobbying underground be a good thing? Outlawing lobbying would have two primary effects.
1) Discouraging all types of lobbying
2) Encouraging the remaining lobbyists to resort to "underground" means such as straight-up bribes.
Both of these effects would increase economic efficiency. The reason the first increasing efficiency is obvious. For the second, since bribes do not directly cause inefficiency because they're just transfers, switching from the current system to underground bribes would reduce the wasteful resources spent on lobbying.
So wouldn't outlawing lobbying be the economically efficient thing to do (ignoring the fact that it would be unconstitutional).?
Economically efficient for whom?
I agree with reducing the size and scope of the government. We can start by slashing the Pentagon's bloated budget in half. Not enough? Okay, I'm agreeable to significantly more.
Bribing should be done by the People and not by slimy lobbyists. Increase the pay of congresspeople ten fold. The congressmen and women need to be in the publics pocket, not a pickpocket for vested interests. A special surtax on overpaid CEOs can be used to fund the increase in salary for public servants aka politicians. How could the CEO of Exxon object to such a proposal. Is he that greedy and unpatriotic?
"A special surtax on overpaid CEOs can be used to fund the increase in salary for public servants aka politicians." – Trumpit
Armpit is sounding a lot like our dearly departed Duck. Anyone believe in reincarnation?
"Armpit" , "Strumpet" I've been called worse. If you disagree with my opinions why don't you say why? Probably because you would be laughed out of decent society for ludicrousness.
Professor Boudreaux, what are the prime virtues a politician should bear?
I would say modesty, cosmopolitanism, and restraint, is there anything missing?
Why stop at corporate CEOs? How about all those overpaid sport, film and music stars? Why is nobody complaining about them?
And if Julia Roberts' and Alex Rodriguez' salaries don't bother anyone, why the hell should they care what Rex Tillerson makes?
Quote from Trumpit: "Bribing should be done by the People and not by slimy lobbyists. Increase the pay of congresspeople ten fold. The congressmen and women need to be in the publics pocket, not a pickpocket for vested interests. A special surtax on overpaid CEOs can be used to fund the increase in salary for public servants aka politicians. How could the CEO of Exxon object to such a proposal. Is he that greedy and unpatriotic?"
Lobbyists are just representatives of groups of "the people". If you consider lobbyists slimy, then the people they represent are just are slimy. You talk as if lobbyists and the people are two different things.
There is only corruption because government has corrupted the extent of it's power granted under the Constitution (as do all governments).
And what does the pay of CEOs have to do with it? What are your definitions of "greedy" and "unpatriotic"?
We shouldn't stop at anyone, or any corporation, that benefits from rent-seeking lobbyists and therefore does not play by the "rules of the game" of so-called free market competition. If you think the oil companies haven't benefited from government policies that have helped create windfall profits for them, you need only discuss the matter, in private, (assuming you are a chummy hunting buddy like Supreme Ct.Justice Scalia is with Haliburton's Dick Cheney) with the Vice-President of the U.S.
Fascist corporatism runs especially deep in the executive branch of the present administration. Watch yourself on that hunting trip though; Cheney is notoriously reckless with a shotgun. All is forgiven for a near fatal injury he caused, so I've heard.
P.S. McCain, appropriately called McBush, is a rotten scoundrel who has repeatedly helped fat cat developers get preferential treatment in his home state of Arizona. Not to mention the Keating 5 scandal that he was part of.
Astounding coherence of argument there Trumpit. Truly, I admire the consistency in logic and restraint from name-calling.
Perhaps you'd like to explain how it is that increasing the pay (tenfold?) of the very people you deride a moment later would help solve the problem. Perhaps a a hundred-fold increase then. Maybe if they all live on yachts in the Bahamas then they'll hire local bribe couriers that do the dirty work for them.
I can tell you one thing. With a salary in the seven figure range, the race to enter politics would suddenly become VERY expensive.
Government has but one mode of operation: the application of force. Our politicians are, in effect, selling the use of government force. The more areas of civil society governemnt attempts to manipulate, the more potential buyers of that force show up to both protect themselves and induldge in rent-seeking.
This process inherently leads to a sort of incestuous corruption that substitutes rule-making for law.
By any intelligent standard of value to wage, the creatures of Congress are vastly overpaid at present, what kind of fool could believe that raising their salaries would improve that?
All you'd get is a higher paid loser.
If it is true that "the government that governs best is the government that governs least", then it makes sense to me that the "government that governs best is the government that governs not at all." H.D.Thoreau.
I never understood why leftists always think the military consumes too much of the US budget. Considering it is much less than even 50% , while being on of the few justifiable functions of the federal government, it would seem there are many things money is budgeted for that should be removed first.
Every time I hear complaints about government lobbying I can't help but think about Willie Sutton's response when asked why he robbed banks: "Because that's where the money is." The federal government takes in 2.7 trillion in taxes and makes 3 trillion in disbursements. The tax code by which this revenue is collected is alomst 6000 pages and over half a billion words while an omnibus spending proposal can run 1000 pages or more. Is anyone really surprised that individuals, groups and businesses pay lobbyists a fortune to influence how nearly 6 trillion dollars is collected and disbursed?
Anyone who is serious about ridding DC of the corrupting influence of lobbyists should support the following agenda:
1. Implement a universal method of revenue collection (I prefer the Fair Tax myself) and repeal the 16th amendment.
2. Dismantle all federal programs save those enumerated by the constitution (State, Defense, Treasury etc…) and return power to the states as required by the 10th amendment.
I wonder how many progressives hate lobbyists enough to support such an agenda?
"Government has but one mode of operation: the application of force."
Egads! Does that make the Guvmint a mercenary force? Thugs and assassins for hire?
"government that governs best is the government that governs not at all."
It looks as though you been converted to anarcho-Libertarianism vidyohs. X) Actually I could easily imagine you being in the "I don't need Guvmint even for policing and national defense, I'll defend myself and my family with my own armaments thank you much" variety. I suppose no law nor regulation makes sense – the law against murder are pointless as people have been and will always continue to be murdered regardless of what the punishment will be.
I think the key point is that there is no return on lobbying the powerless.
If we force government to butt out (hard) or force a super-majority to do anything important (perhaps more plausible), the return on investment for lobbying drops dramatically.
Again, the government has the money and a bloated budget. Why would one not lobby it until those things change?
Blutskralle,
Right, "there is no return on lobbying the powerless." The price which lobbyists pay is the benefit which politicians enjoy, and politicians can raise that price by reaching for more expansive powers. In other words, politicians increase the value of the service they sell–the "legal" use of force–by repealing or ignoring any limits upon their use of force.
The so-called "progressives" usually fail to understand this, and see any limits upon the use of force as impediments to solving urgent social problems. Predictably, politicians pander to this idea, since it increases the value of what they are selling, the "legal use of force" i.e. the freedom of others.
"If you disagree with my opinions why don't you say why?" – Trumpit
I disagree with your opinions because they are socialist-populist ideas that are trumpidiotic on their face.
When you show me 'overpaid' CEOs that are holding guns to the heads of Boards of Directors and forced them to pay said CEO's asking price, then we might be able to seriously discuss 'overpaid CEOs'.
Until you bring some evidence of illegal coercion on the part of CEOs, then all you have is a contract between two consenting parties that is frankly none of your business.
If you're willing to run GE for less than Jeffrey Immelt is being paid, and you're convinced you can do a better job, then by all means submit your resume and see where it gets you. I suspect you're like the 535 CEOs in DC who don't run a business but are sure you could do it better than that asshole – and for a lot less money.
Ummmm Trumpit,
I think you've been called and raised.
Whither now, oh scatter brain?
Let's do some serious immigration reform.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5789864.html
HPD Widow sues employer of husband's killer, Quintero.
Um Um Um, if this flies, I hope I get to do the depositions.
Professor Boudreaux,
I am perplexed as to how anyone can advocate the nationalization of an entire industry to "solve" a problem. Is history not clear that people suffer when the inefficiency of government ownership gradually takes hold?
There must be cycles to the rise and fall of socialistic thought. Is there a pattern?
Many thanks for your work!
"Actually I could easily imagine…
Posted by: Gil | May 19, 2008 11:51:17 AM"
No Gilduck, I don't think so. Imagination is the keystone for intelligence, he who is without imagination is never intelligent nor can he be.
Socialist repetition after socialist repetition is what we get from you.
You've never revealed any imagination before, why would I accept that now you can.
Likewise I could imagine you vidyohsgoose cleaning your gun muttering "the revolution is coming, the revolution is coming". >:)
Brotio,
You are an insulting know-nothing. Every intelligent person knows there's a snafu in grossly over-compensated executive pay packages. I say it is my business. I want those rich bastards to pay their fair share for a civil society and pay for the cost of the war in Iraq. They can afford to do that much better than I can. Bushshit tax cuts for rich folks to make them that much richer is obscene and immoral. Just like your views on political economy. Twerp!
Every intelligent person knows there's a snafu in grossly over-compensated executive pay packages.
How do they "know" this?
How do you "know" this?
Why is it your business?
I know you complain about overpaid businessmen rather than overpaid athletes and actors because you've bought into the Marxist/progressive presumption that profit-making is the root of all evil.
Even with those tax cuts, rich folk still pay a higher rate of taxes on their income than the rest of us.
You rose to the bait and now you've become emotionally involved in the discussion.
It would be better if you just refrained from reappearing.
"It would be better if you just refrained from reappearing."
Don't tell me what to do, Sam. You too are a pimp and panderer for billionaires. Shame on you. You are too gross for words.
"Twerp!"
LMAO!
Just a reminder: taxes weren't cut – tax RATES were cut. Big difference. Those rate cuts resulted in soaring revenue to the treasury, and because of the ACROSS-THE-BOARD rate cuts, the richest ten percent of Americans now pay seventy percent of all income taxes.
"I want those rich bastards to pay their fair share for a civil society…"
'I want! I want! I WANT!' Boo hoo hoo hoo! You're a Democrat's dream.
I apologize for calling you "Armpit". I should stick to making fun of your trumpidiotic ideas, rather than calling you names.
I do think calling you a "Democrat's dream" is a bigger insult than "Armpit", but I'm not taking that one back.
I'm looking forward to your reasoned rebuttal to Sam Grove's post of May 20, 2008 12:15:39 AM. I'm guessing you'll focus on his last paragraph, though, because the first two are much tougher to answer.
"'It would be better if you just refrained from reappearing.'
"Don't tell me what to do, Sam. You too are a pimp and panderer for billionaires. Shame on you. You are too gross for words." – Trumpit's post of May 20, 2008 12:42:06 AM.
HeeHeeHee! I'm a mind-reader, I tell you, I'm a mind-reader!
Remember: billionaires are people too.
Trumpit said:
"Every intelligent person knows there's a snafu in grossly over-compensated executive pay packages"
We have a willing seller of services and a willing buyer of services.
A snafu?
Well Sam,
Take heart that you've chosen well. Being a pimp and panderer for billionaies pays much better than being a pimp and panderer for socialist slugs.
Tacticly and strategically I'm with you, I'm just having trouble with the logistics of finding that billionaire to pimp for.
If ever the complete idiocy of the socialist/communist/liberal/democrat/progressive mindset is on display it is here in this post.
"You are an insulting know-nothing. Every intelligent person knows there's a snafu in grossly over-compensated executive pay packages. I say it is my business. I want those rich bastards to pay their fair share for a civil society and pay for the cost of the war in Iraq. They can afford to do that much better than I can. Bushshit tax cuts for rich folks to make them that much richer is obscene and immoral. Just like your views on political economy. Twerp!
Posted by: Trumpit | May 19, 2008 11:08:38 PM"
The tragedy with Trumpitduck is that like all of those "ducks" he mistakes his programming for independent thought. An enculturated little tool (useful idiot) is all he'll ever be.
I said:
"Government has but one mode of operation: the application of force."
Gil commented:
"Egads! Does that make the Guvmint a mercenary force? Thugs and assassins for hire?"
That's funny, but my point is not trivial (and is actually obvious).
Considering that government operates by applying force, we should be very cautious about what tasks we allow it. The Constitution's orginal design came close to limiting the allowable tasks for government. Indeed, the so-called Bill of Rights is actually a list of explicit prohibitions of government action.
Our failure to insist upon the predominance and protection of individual rights as government's chief task has transformed the nation into a regulatory state in which rules are diverge from law and thus debase law in the same way bad money chases out good money.
Yes well last time I looked a Constitution outlines the rights and restriction of the government in question and hasn't to do with outlining the rights or responsibilty of the people. As Vidyohsgoose would say people don't get rights from the decree of governments. E.g. the U.S. 1st Amendment doesn't give people the freedom to speak it just say the U.S. Government won't interfere with the people who wish to speak in the public sphere.
Don't tell me what to do, Sam. You too are a pimp and panderer for billionaires. Shame on you. You are too gross for words.
I wasn't telling you what to do, I was offering a recommendation.
You've become emotionally involved in defending your ideological position, but because of the emotional involvement, you have very quickly devolved to simple reactive ad hominem attack.
It would be cheap thrills if there were any thrill in it.
If you stick around, you will expend your energy for very little gain.
Some regulars here have very little patience for your ilk and you were drawn in very quickly.
You could develop thicker skin and make more cogent posts, but I think it more likely you will continue your present course till frustration makes the decision to leave this place.
Gilduck,
Is it possible that you will ever learn to read the English language?
Al Abbott writes about one concept and you attempt to counter by writing about an entirely different concept revealing to the world that you have no clue as to what Al Abbott was talking about.
You missed it, duckie. But, then that is a habit of yours.
"Yes well last time I looked a Constitution outlines the rights and restriction of the government in question and hasn't to do with outlining the rights or responsibilty of the people. As Vidyohsgoose would say people don't get rights from the decree of governments. E.g. the U.S. 1st Amendment doesn't give people the freedom to speak it just say the U.S. Government won't interfere with the people who wish to speak in the public sphere.
Posted by: Gil | May 20, 2008 11:43:36 AM"
BTW Gilduck, I still say that vidigoose would just flow so much better and be much less awkward, but you write what you have to scramble and fuck up…..it's your nickle.
If it walks like a duck, writes like a duck, eats bugs like a duck, expresses itself like a duck, it's a Gilduck.
On the other hand if it honks like a goose, it is beautiful and brilliant. Thank you very much.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24717417/
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bb/5791028.html
Here are two prime examples of the USA that has been created by the fools like muirgeo, Gil, trumpit, Noam Chomsky, et. al.