Interest Groups (info)

 

Interest groups…. well first off, interest groups are political organizations comprised of Americans that have shared attitudes that seek government benefits or government relief. This covers three different issues:

1) a “political organization” is an association that makes claims on others behalf in society by attempting to influence government and law, 2) they are “comprised of Americans” that voluntarily join these organizations even though they are very well funded and very large because it gives them a voice and 3) they “seek government benefits”, these benefits are something of value given to citizens by the government at the expense of other citizens. In other words, some citizens receive things they value at the cost of some or all other citizens.

Currently there are over 40,000 interest groups in Washington D.C. These groups blanket virtually every interest, profession, cause and passion found in America. It is estimated that 57% of Americans belong to at least one interest group, 20% belong to four or more and 70% of these groups are of a business related interest. Some examples of these groups are the AARP, the NFIB, the NRA, the Sierra club and so on.

The government benefits these groups receive can be any form of benefit the government can provide. The most common type of benefit is the benefit of material items such as a real or tangible item of value such as money or welfare. There are also other kinds of benefits like regulatory benefits. Regulatory benefits are acts of favoritism in the laws the government creates in regards to business practices; these regulations help established businesses because they make it more difficult for newcomers to an industry because they create barriers to the entry of the industry. Then there are purposive benefits, these benefits are also called moral legislation; they are acts of favoritism in the law in regards to personal morality and values. One thing these groups must do though is look at the cost-benefit/ratio, they need to make sure they are getting their money’s worth out of there investment (whether it be money or time they invested).

Once these interest groups get what they were after it is very difficult to undo what they have created or enacted. The reason for this is these interests form a very strong relationship with the congress that enacts the programs or laws and the bureaucracies that run the programs. This close relationship protects the programs and the relationship is termed “the iron triangle”. It is called the iron triangle due to the fact that it is very hard to get through the “iron” guard these three create. On one side of the triangle you have the congress that guards the program because they want to make the interest groups happy that give congress donations to their campaigns. On the other side you have the interest group that protects the triangle because they have fought hard to get this program they wanted. And on the other side sits the bureaucrats that protect the program because it employs them. These three make it very hard to attack the program and this is why when a government program is created it is generally very difficult to dismantle the program.

There has been a very sharp increase in numbers of interest groups in the last 70 years or so. The number of interest groups exploded during the 20^th century, especially after Roosevelt’s “New Deal”. This rapid growth cannot be tied to the growth of population. The population of the United States in 1850 was 23 million and in 2010 the population was 305 million which is an increase of 14 times more the 1850 number. Also, the growth of these groups cannot be tied to economic growth. The average individual wealth of an American in 1850 was $1,888.00 (in constant dollars) and in 2008 the average wealth was $38,262.00 which is an increase of 21 times the 1850 number.

So, what is it then? What links this sharp increase of interest groups to the United States? Well, there are three primary reasons for the growth of interest groups in America. One of the reasons is the growth of the federal budget. The federal budget has grown over time, it has not just grown with inflation, and it has actually grown in the amount of money it takes in. In 1940, the federal budget was just over $10 billion and in 2010 it was near $3.6 trillion (an incredible and inconceivable amount of money for any individual). That $3.6 trillion is approximately 25% of the national wealth, so it’s a good chunk of change. This in turn promoted the growth of interest groups that try to influence to way those tax-dollars are spent or redistributed by the government.

Next, the number of agencies has grown over time too. The number of federal agencies has grown from 9 in 1890, 145 in 1940 to over 1300 in 2010. These government agencies are sometimes referred to as “alphabet soup” because they usually referred to by their acronyms. For example, some names are NATO, the EPA, the FBI, the CIA, the EPA and so on. There are so many today it would take hundreds or thousands of pages to name all of them. These two affect each other because the growth in the number of these agencies increases the number of interest groups because these interests groups want to influence the way these agencies enforce the laws written by congress. No, business interest can afford to let the federal laws be enforced without being involved in that process, especially when those laws are specific to that interest’s industry.

And now, probably the most popular reason or the most memorable reason for the growth of interest groups in America is because of “Tricky Dick” or Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal. During the Nixon administration we had the Watergate scandal where it was said that president Richard Nixon was receiving “donations” in the form of briefcases filled with cash money. It later came out that Nixon paid the people that broke into the DNC in the Watergate building with those “donations” he was getting from constituents. In turn congress enacted the Campaign Finance Act in 1974 to regulate money in federal campaigns. The reason for the growth of interest groups is because when people get together and form groups they can make contributions that individual can’t. With an individual there is a limit to how much they can donate when it comes to political campaigns. Individual can only donate $2400 to an individual candidate and $45,600 total to all candidates, while they can only contribute $30,400 to the political parties and a total of $69,000 to all. That is a total of $115,500. When people get together in these interest groups they form what are called PACs (PACs can donate much more than individuals can at $5,000 per a candidate with no maximum and $15,000 to the parties with no maximum). This in turn influences people to join PACs especially people that make a lot of money because they are able to donate much more to the causes they support.

The existence of these interest groups has always posed a problem in the democratic theory- most observers have claimed that interest groups are “enormously destructive” to the democratic process. James Madison highlights in Federalist #10 the methods by which the constitution resolves the problem of interest groups, which he defines as;

“A number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

There have been a few ideas about how to ensure that the influence of the interest groups do not corrupt the democratic process. In Federalist #10, Madison notes that there are two basic approaches that a political system may adopt in order to combat the destructive influence of interest groups. The groups themselves can be directly controlled or the groups can be indirectly controlled by addressing their negative effects. A way these groups can be directly controlled can be accomplished by two methods. One, the government could have an outright ban on interest groups, which is the most straightforward method of control. Madison is dismissive of this approach saying, “It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it is worse than the disease”, meaning this approach is worse than the effects of the groups themselves. This is why the founders elected to not employ this approach as it will destroy liberty.

The other approach Madison thought of was an approach that would create a unity of interests. This method directly regulates interest groups by compelling citizens to join “official”, government-run groups to advocate their interests. Short of outright bans on political interest groups, this method permits advocacy but tightly regulates the institutions. Madison is equally dismissive of this approach is “impractical” while the first approach was “unwise”. The founders side with Madison on this approach also saying this approach simply doesn’t work.

The approach of indirectly controlling interest groups also has flaws with its two ideas of control, according to Madison. Controlling the effects of a minority interest (a faction that represents less than 50% of citizens) is unnecessary because any elected official that would support the “sinister views” of a minority will simply be voted out. While controlling the effects of a majorities interest (a faction that represents 50% or more of citizens) the elected official cannot be defeated. But Madison dismisses this because it is less than probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other individuals; there are just too many groups and ideas within the United States democracy.

So, what the founding fathers did is not try to control these groups but attempted to insulate or make the political system immune to most corrupting and undermining effects. Madison says, “It is impracticable and unwise to try to deal with the interest groups themselves – just as it would be to attempt to control the climate outside one’s house”. The founders, instead of control, constructed a system where Americans would compete with one another and check each other in effort to win influence with elected officials. This is an example of political “pluralism”- a system where a diverse and large number of groups of citizens exist and compete for political power, and with none forming a permanent majority. So, in essence without control these groups are abundant and of all forms. Since they all compete for political power they all balance each other out and no one ever truly gets a permanent majority.

Taxes Taxes Taxes…

Here we sit, twenty some odd days until the greatest tax hike Americans have ever seen. How long has our federal government known about these expiring tax cuts? Only for nine years… the Bush era tax cuts have been in effect since 2001 and are set to expire December 31 at midnight. Not only on the lower and middle class tax brackets but the wealthy as well (the top 2%).
On top of all this America is in the midst of the worst recession since the great depression and is looking at the highest unemployment since the Carter administration, at 9.8%.
So, here we are, days before December 31 and what is congress doing about this? Debating. That’s right, they are DEBATING, debating whether or not to raise the taxes on their suffering people.
What is the argument?… Who do we raise taxes on since we can’t control our federal spending.
Republicans seem to somewhat have their heads on their shoulders though. Republicans are demanding that the Bush era tax cuts be extended for all Americans indefinitely. While Democrats stick to their “class warfare” ideals saying, the rich are rich enough and we want their money because we could spend it much better than they could, as if they are entitled to it. The Democrats want extend the tax cuts for the lower and middle classes only, people under the top 2% tax bracket.
It really is to bad, for the Democrats, that the Republicans have the upper hand in this argument since all the tax brackets are looped together, and they are all expiring at the same time. So, without the cooperation of the Republicans the tax cuts will expire and the Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves for not compromising. Technically the Democrats are able to pass bills but they will not be able to pass a cloture vote in the senate (they are not filibuster proof).
The Democrats put on a little show for the American people this week. They tried to pass bills in both the house and senate, bills extending the tax cuts for only those making under $200k as an individual and families making under $250k. With an extra bill  in the senate that would extend the tax cuts for everyone making under $1 million.
Speaker designate Boehner called this political show exactly what it was “chicken crap”. While senate minority leader McConnell calls them, “show votes” for political reasons.
Although, there is a small ray of light on this dark stormy day within the Democratic party. In the house 20 Democrats voted against this “show vote” bill and in the senate 4 Democratic senators along with 1 independent, good old Joe Lieberman, voted against them. That being said, there may be some hope that some of these guys got the message the American people sent them last month.
For once now, Republicans are sticking to their guns…. finally. They are not letting the Democrats get away with this “class warfare” crap. In a recession of this magnitude everyone is struggling rich or poor. They may be struggling in different ways but, everyone is struggling. The class warfare argument only exists because people let it exist in their minds. Some democrats say Republicans are just protecting the rich, millionaires and billionaires. The fact is we all help each other out. The wealthier Americans and entrepreneurs provide the jobs for the people that aren’t as well off, while, the middle and lower classes provide the labor that is needed to run these businesses, big and small.
All anybody has heard from the Democrats is, we are in favor of extending the tax cuts for all Americans except the top 2% of Americans. The problem is they can’t explain why. Arguments have been brought up that the wealthy are not hiring people and America’s deficit and debt is growing. Well, to bad the deficit and debt have nothing to do with taxes, only spending gets you a deficit and debt. And, for the jobs, well do they really want to punish the wealthy, the ones that provide the jobs to the middle class, for the mistakes of the federal government that led America into this recession? If that is the case the Democrats do not care for the middle class like they say they do. That is only the response of someone who doesn’t like the wealthy simply because they are wealthy. On top of all that, raising taxes on that top 2% would ruin any chance that business owners, debating on hiring someone, would hire that person. Which in turn will worsen the state of the economy and devastate the job market, all because the Democrats want to punish the wealthy when they should be punishing themselves for the mess the US is in.
Must we make the entire country suffer because the Democrats don’t like the wealthy?
Now,  the congress has a decision to make, what compromise will they come to? The Republicans want the Bush era tax cuts extended for all indefinitely. The Democrats want the tax cuts extended for Americans below the 2% tax bracket. There have been some ideas out there that show some promise. One of those ideas is to extend the tax cuts for all for a few more years, temporarily, until America is clear of this mess of an economy or until it passes us by.
President Obama did say he will veto any bill that comes to him, that extends the tax cuts for the top 2%, that does not have an extension of unemployment benefits in it. Even though this will add another bill to the long list of bills we currently have that are not currently funded.
Notice Obama proves he has a set when he is battling the Republicans on taxes but misplaces them when he goes into battle with al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iran, North Korea… just a thought.
Anyway, currently, seasoned lawmakers of both parties along with Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner are discussing what is to be done with these Bush era tax cuts. While the parties point fingers back and forth at one another the simple fact remains, no body is going to get everything they want along with nothing they don’t want. There will have to be a compromise somewhere on this issue.
With Republicans actually holding their ground for the first time in the party’s history, the rest of America stands by and watches to find out if the Democrats will ignore their political hunger and extend all these tax cuts. Or, will they stick to their partisan views and prove once and for all they have more hate for the wealthy than they have love for their precious middle class? Some Democrats have even said themselves they would rather see the tax cuts expire for all than see the wealthy keep their tax breaks.
This idea of “class warfare” is a joke. It’s an argument used by a few trying to drive Americans apart and turn them against each other so they can see their power grow. Rich or poor, right or left, conservative or liberal,… whatever you call yourself, we are all Americans and we all need one another whether we like it or not. Now is not the time to be raising taxes on anyone. We need to recognize the fact that we are all struggling right now. But, if we stick together and pull through this horrid mess, we can become the great nation we were before this mess. Lets put aside all these petty differences and refer to one another as simply Americans.


-TSA…. Trent