Lobbying Expenditures Found to Have Incredible Rate of Return on Investment   [Veronique de Rugy]

The Washington Post reports about this new University of Kansas study:

In a remarkable illustration of the power of lobbying in Washington, a study released last week found that a single tax break in 2004 earned companies $220 for every dollar they spent on the issue — a 22,000 percent rate of return on their investment.

This should make all bloggers, policy analysts, and other pundits wonder whether we are really using the right medium to get our ideas through.

Because Americans are calling for “More pork, please!”

– George Washington, First Inaugural Address, 1789

Source:  Founder’s Quote Daily, a service of The Patriot Post.  To subscribe, link to http://patriotpost.us/subscribe.php.

Sum up:  The Institute for Liberty estimated the carbon emission stats for Inauguration Day.  And it would take the average American household about 60,000 years to match the carbon output of Obama’s supercalifrajilistic party.

I’ve been saying all week that in this age of high-def and live satellite feeds, it is ridiculous that between 1 and 2 million people will be going to D.C. to try to “witness” this event.  Most of them will not be able to get close access or even see Obama with their own eyes.  So what is the point?  It’s a collossal waste of time and energy for very little (if any) return.

Every American with a television or an internet connection can stay home and have a “front row seat” to the swearing-in, speeches, poem readings, parades, confetti showers and joyous weeping.

If they can even stand to watch it, which I doubt I can – knowing that at least $75 million in taxpayer funds will be spent on this one-day event.

Here’s the opening:

I remember reading All the President’s Men and thinking: That’s journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It’s a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can’t repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can’t make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It’s as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn’t there a story here? Doesn’t journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren’t you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

Read the rest when you have the time.

Hat Tip:  The Venerable Mr. Crum (thanks, honey!)

Well, I am not personally acquainted with Leslie Carbone, but I’ve linked to her before and know she’s a true conservative, a very good writer, a prolific blogger and, perhaps most importantly, a Red Sox fan.

And I know she was abruptly and rather rudely disconnected from a White House conference call this week, after being invited by “The Office of Public Liason” to listen in on Barry Jackson, Assistant to the President for Strategic Initiatives and External Affairs.

She speculates that this post may be the reason she was banned.

Oh Yes, How DARE she tell the truth like that!

Seems to me the WH Liason office needs to do some decent Liasing – and at least apologize.

Beyond that, it really burns me that a few negative words about policy can get a blogger-journalist banned from WH conferences.

Please pass this on so it will spread like blogosfire.

(Hat Tip:  Blue Collar Muse)

.

E!! Preview: 

 .

 I’ve seen a few of the trailer/clips (they were good), and if Kevin Farley is half as funny in the movie as he is in person, it will be worth the time and money.

The writer/producer, Myrna Sokoloff, also has a sharp wit – and is a Sweetheart of the first degree.

I had the pleasure of assisting both Kevin and Myrna at the Conservative Leadership Conference here in Vegas last month, and it was one of the highlights of my weekend.

Other cast members:

Kelsey Grammer

James Woods

Leslie Nielsen

Trace Adkins

Robert Davi

And a walk on role for Bill O’Reilly

If you are a conservative, you should see this movie both for fun and “on principle.”  (Maybe if it does well, we’ll see more conservative filmmaking in the future.)

Click here to see Kevin Farley on The View.

And click here to win director David Zucker’s fan contest for a trip to Washington D.C. over 4th of July, 2009.

I do wish names would be Named, no matter the party affiliation:  who started and voted for all of the federal legislation, who harassed the lenders to conform, which lenders not only conformed but went above and beyond the call, and who made big bucks.

It won’t happen, of course, because they are all in bed together to some degree.

As Anne of Idaho quipped, “Someone needs to go to Washington and Wall Street and close down the whorehouses.”