Question about Obama's cabinet

[JDPriestly]

How close are the individuals that Obama has appointed thus far to lobbyists?

How about Hillary? I thought that one of the arguments against voting for her was her reliance on lobbyists for donations.

How about Rahm Emmanuel?

How about the others?

And what do these appointments including the appointment of Robert Gates, a left-over of from an administration that relied primarily on corporations and lobbyists for inspiration and financial support mean about Obama's promise to change D.C.'s dependence on lobbyists?

Any ideas? I'm confused.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

1. Your question needs clarification

What do you mean by "... close..."?

Any elected official in Washington knows lobbyists. That goes without saying.

But what exactly is your question?

[JDPriestly]

3. Many of Obama's appointees have strong ties to lobbyists.

Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emmanuel are two such examples.

I explain what this means in my view:

Obama ran against the dominance of lobbyists and their use of money to elect their friends and gain control of the government in D.C. That's the old D.C. way that he said he would change.

But Clinton and Emmanuel and other appointees like them (and if these two passed the test, there will be more who have accepted enormous amounts from lobbyists) already owe huge political debts to their lobbyist friends. I can believe that Obama can prevent them from accepting lobbyists' money in the future or at least make them report it. But how does Obama plan to prevent lobbyists' from influencing these appointees' ideas and conduct when these appointees are responding to requests for political favors from lobbyists who are their old political friends and allies? To what extent is it precisely because of Clinton's and Emmanuel's ability to call in political debts of their own that they are useful to Obama?

Clinton, Emmanuel and others like them have been described as capable because they are so experienced. To what extent are they considered capable and successful because they were so capable and successful at playing ball with lobbyists?

in my view, a lot. The D.C. game that needs changing is the reliance of lawmakers on lobbyists not just for money but for political direction. Those who have won in the D.C. political game, like Clinton and Emmanuel, have won because they are masters at the lobbyist game -- I scratch your back; you scratch mine.

How does Obama think he can make a change in D.C. if his top aides have drawn their strength, their political clout, their experience, and the know-how that makes us think they are capable through playing footsie with lobbyists? Does Obama expect Clinton an Emmanuel to start playing a new game?

I haven't heard anyone ask Obama about this. I would like to know his answer. I'm not suggesting that anyone in the administration will take money from lobbyists now. I'm asking about the political debts to lobbyists that some of the Obama appointees already owe.

Putting a stop to the corruption -- the pay-offs and influence of lobbyists is the only kind of change that can make this country better.

Thus far, I don't see one glimmer of hope that Obama is thinking about making that change happen. Not based on his appointments.

My question has nothing to do with whether the appointees are liberal or conservative or with their personalities for that matter. I am asking how Obama plans to effect change if he is putting the people who are mired in the old culture in charge? I am also asking what Obama wants to change in the D.C. culture. (I don't think he ever made that clear.) And how he plans to do it? It seems to me that he should finally let us know just what the game plan is on this.

Or if it was just a campaign slogan, I suppose he can forget it and we can all just settle down into four more years of same old same old slopping of the pigs at the trough of D.C.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

4. The world of lobbyists

changed dramatically during the past eight years, primarily due to the machinations of Tom Delay, and we all know how well THAT has turned out (see Abramoff and others).

What Obama is talking about is taking things back to the way it used to be, when lobbying was a necessary part of the political and legislative process.

You are not going to get experienced folks to work for you in Washington who don't have ties to lobbyists across the board. That's just a reality of the business of government.

Once the lobbying is under control, as I believe it will be under an Obama administration, we'll see things running smoothly and correctly again.

It's a complicated business, legislation and lobbying, and after thirty-some years as a Washington lawyer, I'm still quite entranced by how it works. It's complicated, but it's fun.

[JDPriestly]

6. I would like to see a few appointees less tainted by their ties to lobbyists.

So far, everyone he has appointed owes somebody really, really big-time.

A guy like Kucinich owes no one. He can speak his mind freely. Obama has not appointed a single person like that.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

7. Owes?

Kucinich is a remarkable exception, that's very true. But I would like to know exactly what is owed, by whom, and to whom?

Washington runs on lobbying, and to believe otherwise is to show that you don't understand how Washington works. It has always been like this, and I'm hardly defending it, but there is a reality to consider.

So, how do you know about these debts to lobbyists, and what are they?

[JDPriestly]

8. There are all kinds of debts. I heard that Hillary owes a lot to Indian interests

and has supported the special visas that help bring Indians to work in the U.S. as I understand it.

Many of the members of Congress owe a lot to people interested in certain industries such as the nuclear industry or coal (West Virginia comes to mind) or oil (Alaska is a no-brainer). The candidates who have ties with those industries receive donations from the employees of the companies that have interests in their states. To some extent, it is legitimate for Congressmen from states in which an industry operates to want to help and protect that industry. But in many instances, members of Congress have no reason for a close relationship with an industry other than that they receive financial or other support from members of that industry.

It became clear during the recent election cycle that close aides to McCain had very recently received money for lobbying from the country of Georgia. That is another example.

Democrats receive this money from lobbyists also. And sometimes, as with McCain and Georgia, they don't receive it directly. It is received via their aides.

As you are probably aware, at lower levels, too, people in D.C. move in and out of law firms, industry and the government. And when they move into the government, they carry with them their relationships, their friendships and their rivalries, their likes and dislikes and the knowledge that when the elected official that appointed them to office is replaced, they will need to move back into private industry or a private law firm and that they, therefore, cannot afford to offend their friends.

Of course, D.C. insiders, those who move in and out of government profiting from this system, i.e., the lobbyists, believe that they are somehow an essential part of the system, that the system cannot function without them. In fact, they are impediments to change. They "know" a lot, but what they know is what has been done or what their friends want done or not done, not what really needs to be done. They know the limits of what they have been able to do or what the interests they represent want done, not what the people want done or what would be best for the country. Many of them are not close to ordinary people who live outside the D.C. area.

While Obama may need a few "experienced" people, meaning people who have lots of lobbyist and insider contacts in D.C., thus far, he has chosen only people who fit that description.

He could have gone outside, say to university faculties to choose people. He could choose someone from the medical profession or from a non-profit housing service to head some of the Health and Human Services or Housing agencies. He could have chosen a career prosecutor (a la Janet Reno) to head the Justice Department. Instead, he is repeatedly choosing people who are experts at the old D.C. lobbying game, over and over. He ran on change. He promised change to people like me who voted for change. And now, he is choosing the very people who represent a continuation of what has gone before.

There are many good things about Hillary's appointment. One of the bad things is that it is her husband, Bill, who pushed NAFTA through. The Clintons are big supporters of these horrible trade agreements that have put so many Americans out of work and that are impoverishing ordinary Americans as our wages decline (so that we can compete with the poorest of the poor in countries like China and India). Africa will be the next labor pool to be exploited, and who has more experience in closing the deals that permit the exploitation than Hillary and Bill.

No, I am not a happy camper when it comes to all the D.C. insiders that Obama has appointed. I note that he has not yet appointed a Californian to a prominent cabinet position. I suspect he is saving California for the EPA. I can see it now -- Obama appoints Schwarzenegger. I'm joking a bit, but that would be par for the course so far. Schwarzenegger ended the lawsuits that Davis had brought against Enron. I have a lot of questions about his relationship with the whole Enron amnesty in California.

So, this is longer than you wanted and more emotional and less reasoned than I would like, but this is a hot button issue for me. I was an Edwards supporter. His only lobby was plaintiff's attorneys -- and they owe little to anybody in D.C. In fact, plaintiff's attorneys are precisely the kinds of people who know a lot about what needs to be done in D.C. I see that Obama has not tapped a single plaintiff's attorney or consumer advocate thus far. He also hasn't tapped any representatives of working people, no union advocates, no advocates for the poor, no one who gets their hands dirty. Changing from Republican lobbyists to Democratic lobbyists is not the change the nation voted for.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

9. You didn't answer my question

Quotes like "I hear....." and citing the ties that McCain's advisors had to outside interests hardly qualifies as "owing lobbyists."

I think you're earnest and very sincere and very interested in the process, but I also think you must accept the reality of how Washington works, how it's always worked, how it always will work. Legislation doesn't come out of thin air - interest groups provoke it and shepherd it though the process, rarely successfully, but that's what they do. And successful interest groups are always represented by lobbyists.

If you were in business - and politics is a business - with whom would you choose to work: someone you know, someone who's supported you in the past, or a complete stranger?

That's how it works. You're all emotional about something that requires a large element of dispassion and clear thinking. Your initial assertion that the appointees all "owe lobbyists" was nebulous and, most likely, not backed by facts. You're operating without a whole lot of knowledge, and when you do find out how it works, you'll see why Obama's playing such a brilliant game with his appointees, keeping in mind that he's a highly skilled Chicago pol.

Yep, just like the late, great Mayor Daley. Always keep in mind that that's where Obama's from.

It's going to be a whole lot better now, though. The lobbyists have had to back off, the Republican firms cultivated and nourished by Delay and his cronies have gone into deep background, well aware of their impotence in this new climate, and I think you'll see some really remarkable changes coming out of our Nation's capitol. I know that I, after a lot of years of watching all of this and taking part in some of it, am looking forward to what comes next.

We're on a good journey. Enjoy it.

[JDPriestly]

11. So my question is, as an admitted outsider, what kind of changes can we expect?

I do not see how, as long as the lobbyist system survives, we can expect meaningful change.

And I say that as one who lives in Becerra's district. He is far more sensitive to the needs and opinions of his constituents than others in Congress.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

12. First,

I think you're going to see a lot - a whole lot - of what Chimpy Fucknuts has attempted to implement rolled back and negated. That's legislative, but also executive, and it'll take up a lot of the first year, at the very least.

You're going to see a lot more progressive and compassionate programs getting put through Congress, and you're going to see a lot less corporate give-aways and absolutions. The bailouts of the automakers and the banking industry, well, I'm in no way prepared to say which way they're going to go, but, again, that's what the Obama administration is going to have to deal with - cleaning up after Chimpy's mess.

Ultimately, though, I think you'll like the changes that will come. Some will be subtle, others not so subtle. A woman's right to choose and the restraints that have been placed on Roe v. Wade via executive orders and ill-advised legislation will be strengthened, money will be freed up, via work programs and New Deal-like projects that create jobs for people while, at the same time, repairing and renewing our tattered and worn infrastructure.

And, you'll see our standing in the world once again flourish as Obama shows them what America is really about, and we all exhale and remember - never forget - that the last eight years were a horrible aberration.

[JDPriestly]

13. And how is Obama going to do this? And what role will lobbyists

play in his accomplishing all these things?

On edit, I like Obama's vision and goals, but how is he going to change the way things work in D.C. when he has placed experts at playing the current way things work into all the top positions in his cabinet?

I would like to see a lot more receptivity in the White House and Congress to grass roots movements in America.

The homeless, for example, don't really have lobbyists in D.C. Who is going to speak for them?

The lobbyists for the problems of ordinary children and parents are also few and far between and very weak.

The lobbyists for big industries like car manufacturers, even education and what is more for "free trade" and "deregulation" are many and loud. How is the Obama administration going insure that the voices of those not represented by lobbyists are heard?

Homelessness is of special interest to me as are issues concerning families and children. These are issues that cannot compete in a D.C. dominated by corporate lobbyists. Hillary talks the talk for children and families, but they still don't get nearly their due. And the economic team that Obama has assembled does not, as far as I can see, have a single poverty spokesperson on it. It's all wealth, Wall Street and big business. Lobbyists have definitely got their huge feet in the White House door once again. You have talked in generalities about all the wonderful things that are going to happen. Where is the mechanism for that stuff to happen? Why hasn't Obama appointed someone who deals with the problems of real American families and homeless people to his economic team? Now that would shake things up. I would like to see some concern about the thousands and thousands of homeless people at the cabinet level. The presence of homeless people in our cities is a national scandal. It shames us all.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

14. Then get going

and start doing something about it. Come to Washington and go to work for any number of organizations that are, in fact, lobbying outfits for the homeless and the disenfranchised. They're not on K St., NW, and they're not wealthy, but they're doing good work.

It seems you're very ready to criticize and demand information from me, but you have to get your own answers, and that means getting involved. I could give you all kinds of verbiage that I've accumulated in my years in Washington, but, (1) I don't feel like educating anyone who can do it themselves, and (2) you obviously have the passion to get yourself involved and work for the changes.

It's so easy to sit back and critique, but, believe me, the stuff that matters is done by people like you and me. I put in my years as a volunteer in a variety of civil rights organizations - my particular interest - and now it's your turn to do something instead of just wondering how things work.

Do something. Anything. But get involved. That's the only way differences are ever made.

I wish you luck.

[JDPriestly]

15. Obama finally did something really right -- really, really right.

He appointed my congressman, Becerra as U.S. Trade Representative. I can't say enough good about Becerra. He is a wonderful person, compassionate, articulate belong belief, patient and just perfect for the job of representing the U.S. in difficult situations. Maybe I will apply to his office. I speak a couple of languages and have a law degree -- even worked in a minor capacity on a huge trade case once. I don't know whether a congressman can hire someone from his own district if he gets into a federal position like that. We'll see. Just a thought.

Becerra is a Stanford grad -- holds frequent Saturday morning coffees that are open to the constituents and advertised to those constituents who live in the area around the location of the coffee. He is easy to talk to.

I once watched him explain Social Security to an overflowing crowd of constituents in a high school gym near my home. He spoke very clearly so that everyone could understand. And, of course, he is fluent in both Spanish and English. I am excited about this. Becerra is perfect for this job. He will be fair, neither too anti-trade-expansion, nor too pro. Becerra is a great listener and just the best for this job.

[Pastiche423]

5. Well put and excellent explanation!

I am simply stunned at his actions since he won.

Recommend.

[waiting for hope]

17. Here's a handy website -

They will be updating it as new data comes up: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/transition.php

[truedelphi]

2. Geithner, Rubin, and Summer, m y heart sinks every time I think of them

In order to change nothing, the appearance of everything has to change. In fact, only the surface has to change a bit; the new president’s darker skin.
For everything else, maybe it is business as usual. Indeed Obama's cabinet is made up of the same, reckless people.
Let’s see: We have Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and Robert Rubin who have been short-listed for the Treasury Department; all of whom are extreme laissez-faire advocates who believe in an unfettered financial system, enemies of the Glass-Steagall Act.
They are same people who swapped jobs at the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Clinton Administration; played sidekicks for Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, or at the headquarters of Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Geithner); that is the same people who masterminded events before and after the current crisis.
And now Obama lets that trio benefit themselves and the real leader of America - King Paulson.

[leftofthedial]

10. As Obama has increasingly selected established DC insiders and players,

he has also increased the likely role and influence of lobbyists in his administration.

Some things never change.

[meow2u3]

16. Last time I checked, Obama's cabinet was located in the kitchen

Just like everyone else's cabinets :rofl: :silly: :eyes: