A Very 'Special' Committee
Published in Le Monde
(France) on 28 September 2011
by Sylvain Cypel (link to original)
(France) on 28 September 2011
by Sylvain Cypel (link to original)
Translated from
by Gillian Wright.
Edited by Mark DeLucas.
We already call them the “Twelve": six senators and six representatives, half of them Democrats, half Republicans. All of them are today the subject of endless concern from interest groups registered at Congress. The matter is urgent. The “Twelve” who make up the "special committee" were put into place after the elected representatives' vote for a simple plan for the reduction of public deficits over 10 years, at the beginning of August.
This text joins them together with the objective of thinking up a wider “anti-debt” action plan: a minimum of $2.4 trillion, $1 trillion more if the elected representatives hit it off. The due date is fixed for the American Thanksgiving holiday, on the last Thursday of November. If they do not meet with a compromise, another plan, which is less ambitious but already established, will be imposed on authority. Many sectors — for example, the defense sector, which would be affected in this case — are really hoping for a change in things, because the Pentagon would then be able to cut back on over $50 billion a year in expenses.
Representing all domains — from health to real estate, farmers to finance — lobbyists are now coming to knock on the door of the “Twelve” before it is too late. Nobody denies the urgency of reducing the debt, they explain, but the elected representatives give themselves credit for cutting expenditures in sectors other than those that they themselves represent.
Here, the subliminal is often appropriate. By moving their pawns forward, the lobbyists do not need to remind them: The elected representatives know that, sooner or later, they will put their mandate back into play. This will be the case for the six representatives, in 13 months time, and, in 2012 and 2014 for three of the six senators. There will therefore be calls for favors from the same lobbyists in order to fight their campaigns.
Let’s take a closer look. The case of Patty Murray is the most spectacular. This Democratic senator from the state of Washington has been greatly financed by Microsoft and Boeing, the second having every reason to fear a decrease in military expenditures. The senator was also financed by Emily’s List — a leading American pro-abortion rights association — and by pension funds. However, family planning and the retirement system are the objects of vague radical attacks from the Republican side, deemed inevitable by Democrats.
But that is not the main point: Ms. Murray is also chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the party's fundraising tool for Senate elections. From this came the accusation of “conflict of interest” between this function and her status as one of the “Twelve.” Who could believe, she retorts, that she could be sensitive to interests other than those of her voters?
Data from the Center for Responsive Politics, which counts up the known donations to electoral representatives, gives rise to several questions. In effect, it is deemed legitimate to wonder whether Chris Van Hollen, Democratic representative from Maryland, who counts Northwestern Mutual (the large financial product management company) as his main contributor — and the insurance sector as a main source of support — or the Republican Reps. Jeb Hensarling (Texas) and Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania), who are both almost exclusively supported by the banks and financial companies (in the lead: Visa first, the ultra-liberal employers association Club for Growth for the second), could support an increase in taxes on capital gains without suffering negative consequences?
Who could truly believe that Democrat Xavier Becerra (California), funded primarily by the health sector (in first instance lobbies from radiologists and physical medicine), will remain insensible to lobbyists' fears when he engages in the battle over public coverage of health care?
One could ask one of these types of questions for all of the members of the committee: the Republican Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) greatly values American Financial Group and General Electric; the Democratic Rep. James Clayburn is supported by financial auditing, electrical services and leisure activity companies. One cannot forget the ethanol or private jet lobbies, who worry about the possible cancellation of various beneficial tax breaks and subsidies. Evidence for all of this fiendish lobbying can be found in countless tax returns.
That’s how an increasingly paralyzed American institutional system goes, crippled not only because of the Republicans' refusal to “play the game,” but also because every elected representative, stuck in a permanent campaign, must work to please voters while at the same time satisfying the expectations of those who provide the means to campaign.
None of the members of the National Commission on Debt Reduction — neither the more modest politicians (the Democrat Beccera, who according to 2011-12 campaign accounts raised $345,000) nor the more richly-endowed old veterans (the Republican Toomey and the Democrats John Kerry and Max Baucus raised between $10 and $18 million each over the past five years) — have seen fit to decree, for example, a moratorium on fundraising activities during the time it would take for the “Twelve” to finish their mission of determining who will suffer and who will come out undamaged from the cuts made to the national budget.
This text joins them together with the objective of thinking up a wider “anti-debt” action plan: a minimum of $2.4 trillion, $1 trillion more if the elected representatives hit it off. The due date is fixed for the American Thanksgiving holiday, on the last Thursday of November. If they do not meet with a compromise, another plan, which is less ambitious but already established, will be imposed on authority. Many sectors — for example, the defense sector, which would be affected in this case — are really hoping for a change in things, because the Pentagon would then be able to cut back on over $50 billion a year in expenses.
Representing all domains — from health to real estate, farmers to finance — lobbyists are now coming to knock on the door of the “Twelve” before it is too late. Nobody denies the urgency of reducing the debt, they explain, but the elected representatives give themselves credit for cutting expenditures in sectors other than those that they themselves represent.
Here, the subliminal is often appropriate. By moving their pawns forward, the lobbyists do not need to remind them: The elected representatives know that, sooner or later, they will put their mandate back into play. This will be the case for the six representatives, in 13 months time, and, in 2012 and 2014 for three of the six senators. There will therefore be calls for favors from the same lobbyists in order to fight their campaigns.
Let’s take a closer look. The case of Patty Murray is the most spectacular. This Democratic senator from the state of Washington has been greatly financed by Microsoft and Boeing, the second having every reason to fear a decrease in military expenditures. The senator was also financed by Emily’s List — a leading American pro-abortion rights association — and by pension funds. However, family planning and the retirement system are the objects of vague radical attacks from the Republican side, deemed inevitable by Democrats.
But that is not the main point: Ms. Murray is also chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the party's fundraising tool for Senate elections. From this came the accusation of “conflict of interest” between this function and her status as one of the “Twelve.” Who could believe, she retorts, that she could be sensitive to interests other than those of her voters?
Data from the Center for Responsive Politics, which counts up the known donations to electoral representatives, gives rise to several questions. In effect, it is deemed legitimate to wonder whether Chris Van Hollen, Democratic representative from Maryland, who counts Northwestern Mutual (the large financial product management company) as his main contributor — and the insurance sector as a main source of support — or the Republican Reps. Jeb Hensarling (Texas) and Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania), who are both almost exclusively supported by the banks and financial companies (in the lead: Visa first, the ultra-liberal employers association Club for Growth for the second), could support an increase in taxes on capital gains without suffering negative consequences?
Who could truly believe that Democrat Xavier Becerra (California), funded primarily by the health sector (in first instance lobbies from radiologists and physical medicine), will remain insensible to lobbyists' fears when he engages in the battle over public coverage of health care?
One could ask one of these types of questions for all of the members of the committee: the Republican Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) greatly values American Financial Group and General Electric; the Democratic Rep. James Clayburn is supported by financial auditing, electrical services and leisure activity companies. One cannot forget the ethanol or private jet lobbies, who worry about the possible cancellation of various beneficial tax breaks and subsidies. Evidence for all of this fiendish lobbying can be found in countless tax returns.
That’s how an increasingly paralyzed American institutional system goes, crippled not only because of the Republicans' refusal to “play the game,” but also because every elected representative, stuck in a permanent campaign, must work to please voters while at the same time satisfying the expectations of those who provide the means to campaign.
None of the members of the National Commission on Debt Reduction — neither the more modest politicians (the Democrat Beccera, who according to 2011-12 campaign accounts raised $345,000) nor the more richly-endowed old veterans (the Republican Toomey and the Democrats John Kerry and Max Baucus raised between $10 and $18 million each over the past five years) — have seen fit to decree, for example, a moratorium on fundraising activities during the time it would take for the “Twelve” to finish their mission of determining who will suffer and who will come out undamaged from the cuts made to the national budget.