占领运动最有力的统一因素是它清楚、简洁地指明了美国社会的关键问题：人口中绝大多数人，99%的人，与最富有、最有权势的1%的人之间的分裂。
这个99%/1%的公式不只说明了今天美国的收入不平等，它也说明了1%的人在很大程度上已控制了政府并因此能够操纵法律、税收及规则以使其对自身有利。
如果你来看一下征富人的税、管制华尔街、创造就业、通过削减赤字来优化经济增长或保留与保护社保、医保等问题的民意调查，你会发现，大多数人通常都一边倒地反对紧缩并赞成“财富重分论者”的政策。
然而这个失效的政府看来没有能力甚至不感兴趣于去做能满足这些大众要求的任何事。相反，当2008年金融危机来临时，国会反应神速，迅速拨出几千亿美元给那些银行和其它企业，一点也不在乎赤字。
理论上，我们在票箱面前全都平等，因此大众能让政治家替他们来表达关注。但占领运动如火一般燃起，因数百万美国人认识到，华盛顿的实际运行方式与政治教科书上的解释根本不是一回事。
那么，1%的这些人是如何做到这些的呢？
一个公司有、公司治、公司享的政府
政治学家谢尔顿·沃林（Sheldon Wolin）把美国称为“逆向极权主义”的一个例子——在美国，公司凌驾于政府之上，投票只是唯一可接受的政治参与方式，民主被操纵于只产生政府与企业想要的结果。沃林认为，公司操纵的媒体扮演的角色是控制民主，虽然它们自夸为自由媒体。
不可否认的是，公司在政府中总是扮演一个主要角色。美国富豪的巨大财富中的大多数都是由资本家通过使用政府的权力来取得超过竞争对手的优势或直接从公共资源中牟利而来。例如，镀金时代（Gilded Age）的财阀，the Vanderbilts, the Astors, the Stewarts, the Goulds，在联邦及国家1亿美元补助及2亿英亩联邦土地补助的基础上获得了基于铁路的财富。在今天的经济中，核能业及因特网都是政府实验室开发出来的技术私有化后的产物。
尽管自由市场空想家们大谈“大政府”会抑制“大企业”，真相是大企业总是发现，为获取能增加他们利润的政府政策，投资于政治家及其政党是非常有用的。
因此，在1980年代的存贷危机中，国会在一个听证会前盘问S&L crook Charles Keating时，一个代表问是否他认为给政治家的几千美元将买到影响，Keating 回答，“我肯定希望那样。”
美国政治中的这两个主要资本主义政党在支持不同的行业领域时有特定的倾向：共和党总体上得到石油与天然气行业、农业、军工业的支持，民主党从硅谷、好莱坞及华尔街获取钱财。实际上，根据最近华尔街日报的一篇报道，金融部门在2008年选举期时为参选各方提供的资金占全部竞选费用的30%。
但如果因此得出结论民主党仅代表一个领域、一个联盟或一个行业，共和党代表另外一些，那就错了。
这种两党制的方法能确保美国企业间的界限都很特殊且不会固化入某一意识形态阵营。企业必须学会在美国联邦制内运作，这意味着企业在总统大选时可以是共和党的捐赠大户，也可以是本地民主党政治组织的捐助者。
第二，公司们喜欢增加他们的议价能力。他们想从他们的政治介入中获取尽可能多的东西， 他们让两个党相互斗争。
最后，寻求政府支持的公司和投票人一样，都喜欢“危害最小化”。国会里的多数党通常都获得竞选活动的多数捐款。因为它的领导者们将获得国会的权力位置，有权立法，企业为保持自己的“门路”，将为他们捐款。
美国公司对他们的投资的期望是什么呢？2008年总统选举总计花费50多亿美元。这看起来有点让人惊愕，但事实上，它表明仅在四年的时间里总统选举费用已大幅增长，等同于一家中等规模公司的股票市值。换名话说，比Panera Bread公司的大，比Chipotle Mexican Grill公司的小。
实际上，最值得注意的是，对政治家们相对较小的的投资将如何为“投资者们”带来巨大的回报。
相对于回报，这些投入都微不足道。军工业从伊拉克战争中获得几百亿美元的回报，华尔街则从联邦政府的救助中获得数万亿美元。2007年的一份研究分析了1979-2004年间公司捐献与公司股价表现的关系，发现给政治候选人捐得最多的公司，其股价每年都比大盘平均高2.5%。
两党骗局
尽管从各行业、区域发出大量的反政府的声音，统治阶级还是需要一个资本主义国家来保证它的财产与权势，以应对其它资产阶级的竞争。
只要这个政权的政党仍效忠于这个国家，大企业可以遵守政府的改变。但为确保政府不颁布损害这些企业的政策，资本家们尝试组建并控制为上台执政而竞争的政党。通过这种方法，资产阶级可以协调解决目标和计划方面的冲突。
对资本家有利的政策不是来自于一些企业的阴谋，如共谋论者们断言的那样。它充斥于不同的私人基金与思想库、大学、半公共机构及政党中。所有这些组织都从企业界招收专家来把公司的政策变成政府的政策。只要想一想如比尔.盖茨与埃利·布罗德一样的亿万富豪设法通过“教育改革”来影响政府政策，就可明白他们的花样之多了。
特别是，政府，作为执行机构，如同马克思所说，是“一个处理全体资产阶级共同事务的委员会”，它的政策的目的是为了在短期经济与政治需求间、甚至在不同区域的资本间，寻求平衡。
在这个意义上，资本主义国家政权与其说是资本家们手上的一个工具，不如说是他们协调各方利益的场所。
民主党与共和党都效忠于资本主义并推进美国的海外利益，这种观点已不是什么新闻了。但资产阶级什么也不会承认。它对政党们施加持续的压力以确保它的利益能实现。在政党与大企业间有无数的触角相互联系着，与此同时，公司影响力的两个主要方面突显出来：候选人选举，公司游说与政策建议。
美国选举中的合法贿赂
马克.汉纳(Mark Hanna)，第一个现代政治捐款筹集人与确立人，他帮助共和党在1896年完胜民主党与平民党，他曾说：“政治中有两件事很重要，第一是钱，我记不得第二是什么。”
一个当今的类似人物是芝加哥市长拉姆·伊曼纽尔（Raham Emanuel），他在进入奥巴马的白宫任办公厅主任前负责民主党国会竞选委员会。他授受DCCC记者采访时曾说过：“竞选中第一个三是钱钱钱，第二个三是钱钱媒（体），第三个三是票媒钱。”
任何人想成功竞选议员，需要花费数百万美元。在2010年的国会选举中，每位众议员候选人的平均竞选费用差不多是170万美元，每位参议员的平均竞选费用是310万美元。每位任职参议员（incumbent senator）的竞选费用则超过900万美元。
选举费用意味着主要的党派都渴望得到富人与公司的资助。感谢最高法院对“联合公民”（Citizens United)的判决把竞选开支等同于言论自由，我们有了非盈利的超级政治行动委员会 (Super PACs) ，它可从公司筹集数百万美元现金用于竞选，而不用透露捐献者是谁。
这种为美国政党提供财政支持的有组织贿赂的制度，使任何欲挑战当前这种制度的人都无能为力。“任何期望能出现在超级政治行动委员会名单上的候选人，都清楚地知道‘裁缝’的要求，如果不完全清除，也会避免任何平民主义倾向。”一位民主党国会助手告诉记者亚历山大.科克伯恩与肯.席尔瓦斯泰因。“这套规则不是对所有人都打开大门。候选人都有明确的标准和条件。”
或许这就毫不奇怪了，2010年选出的众议员新人中40%都是百万富翁。
即使民主党从工会获得了大把的捐献，但仍改变不了公司捐款远多于工会捐款的事实。在2008年的选举期间，民主党仅从金融、保险及房地产业收到的捐款就达8370万美元，这比从所有劳工与自由主义组织收到的钱全加起来的7990万美元还多。
狐狸们守着鸡笼
一旦上台，新政府就承受着大公司的持续压力，使其只能采纳对大公司有利的政策。
从1930年代起，贸易委员会(Business Council)，一个由美国主要大公司的总裁们组成的咨询机构，在每一届政府中都扮演着有利于企业的政策的宣传员及建议员的角色。所有的美国总统都要定期地咨询这个委员会及其它组织，如经济发展委员会。民主党和共和党政府都安排贸易委员会及经济发展委员会的人到政府咨询小组及政府行政职位上。
企业维持着这些类型的组织，以及其它如世界大型企业联合会、美国商会及国家制造者协会( the Conference Board, the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers)等类组织，以便能获得更多新的职位。这样，他们的意图就能通过被选出的政治家与执行分支机构提交给政府。
企业并不总能成功获得他们所想要的一切，但它总能获得它所能获得的东西。
当政治家们试图在许多主题中的任何一个上制定一些政策时，他们发现企业智库已作好准备为他们提供建议了。一个特别拙劣的例子是前民主党的参议员比尔.布拉德利，他代表新泽西，18家最大制药公司中的10家在新泽西。布拉德利的演讲是在“鹦鹉学舌，有时甚至一字不差地，照搬美国医药研究及制造商这个主要游说团体生产出来的的背景材料。”科克伯恩与席尔瓦斯泰因写道。
同样，华盛顿州的前鹰派参议员亨利.杰克逊，多年来一直以“波音参议员”闻名，他为他们州最大的军火商的利益奔忙。如今，在国会中参议员Charles Schumer以“华尔街地鼠”闻名。
统计显示，与投资竞选相比，企业投入更多的金钱与时间在游说与辩护上。这是因为对企业来说真正的富矿出现在关闭的门后，常出现在法律、规定不可思议的细枝末节处。这里就是公司能获得好处的地方，或者，同样重要的是，改写规则以支持他们的赚钱活动，让环境或消费者见鬼去吧。
这就是为何法律或法规中的一条简单条款就可让政治家的竞选承诺变得无意义。广义上说，这也是为何“我们这边”总是完全失败。在2001年布什政府“辩论”减税法案时，国会巴结每一行业的游说者，寻求他们的支持。与此同时，劳联、产联只有一位游说者为这作了少量工作。
根据我们已知的这些，对12名国会“超级委员会”成员因建议削减联邦赤字1.2万亿美元而获得更多捐款，或数千游说者组织国会成员来对超级委员会施压，有什么好奇怪的呢？
当国会的多数党由于选举而改变时，游说公司的人员及国会成员也会同时一起改变。如今，一个前保险行业协会的游说者担任着筹款委员会（House Ways and Means）的职员主管，一位前洛克希德.马丁公司的游说者主管着拔款委员会（House Appropriations Committee）的职员。
所有这些，形成了一个行业“铁三角”，国会及其执行机构，不管选举结果如何，在很大程度上都是不可触动的。这保证了不管是哪个党派被选举上台，大企业的利益总是被照顾。如今甚至更是这样，因为游说团体与政府官员间的旋转门已制度化了。
对企业老板来说，这就是两党制的美妙之处。如果一个党失去选民的喜爱，总有另一个党——准备好政策——等在旁边。
中云译，2011-11-2
*Lance Selfa, 《The Democrats: A Critical History》一书的作者。本文原题：How the 1 percent rules，发于socialistworkers.org, 2011-10-26
---------------------------
自由市场的神话
Dean Baker
华盛顿那些真正的大人物（Very Serious People）正忙于寻找一种创造性的方法，以从中产阶级与中等收入家庭身上削减社保、医保并拿走其它福利。问题是我们再也不能承受他们的这种行为了。
这个故事有两点可让我们其它人发狂。难于判断哪一点让人更愤怒。
第一，我们知道这个国家有许多人富得不可思议。如伊丽莎白.沃伦委婉地提醒我们的，他们的财富全都不是靠他们自己得来的。但沃伦教授在她的估计中实际上是过于宽宏大量了。
虽然有不少富人是通过努力工作、聪明或有创造性而取得成功的，但许多真正的富人是直接或间接地通过政府的大手在场上偏向于他们而赚大钱的。他们的努力工作包括操纵规则以确保自己能成为最终的最大赢家。
在任何一个地方都比不上在华尔街能更好地看清这一点。华尔街塞满了千万、亿万富翁，他们通过利用他们的“大到不倒”的银行、用政府担保的存款进行赌博、敲诈国家及地方政府的养老金管理费、以及政府数万亿美元的、利率远低于市场水平的救助金等等，来使自己处于财富的顶端。这些人清楚地知道政府的角色，然而他们却假装这是一个完全自由的市场。
但银行不是唯一操纵规则的人。医药公司从政府授予的专利垄断权中大量获利。药品通常都很便宜，这就是为什么可在药品连锁店买到数百种5-6美元/处方的普药。因有专利保护，医药公司的专利药能卖数百或甚至数千美元/处方。结果，我们每年花了差不多3000亿美元（每人约1000美元）在药上，在一个“真正的”自由市场里这大约应只是300亿美元/年。
政府也通过其它方式为有钱、有权的人搭建平台。在当前强制性的劳动法下，政府如无数砖块一样压迫着下面任何敢违反规则的工会——如举行非法罢工。与此相反，公司甚至能逃避最臭名昭著的违反劳动法之类的风险打击。
我们的贸易政策被设计来把工资压力向下压到这个国家大多数劳动者的身上，把他们置于与发展中国家低工资工人的直接竞争中。由于美元的高估值，这种影响被加剧。同时，那些相对有特权的一些职业，如医生和律师，仍很大程度上地被保护于国际竞争之外。
富人们设计规则以确保能保住财富并变得更富的方法可列得很长。但那些真正的大人物正打算削减老年人社保及失业者医疗补助，而Countrywide的安吉洛.莫齐洛与花旗集团的罗伯特.鲁宾却仍非常富有，这一事实就是公众该对那些掌权的人愤怒的第一原因。
第二，当前低迷的原因。我们之所以有2600万人失业、未就业或未在职，不是因为我们穷，而是因为我们富。我们的经济面临的直接问题不是产品与资源太少，而是需求太少。这就是使华尔街占领者及任何其他人对我们国家的领导者们完全愤怒的原因。
如果人们口袋里有更多的钱，那么他们就会买更多的产品与服务，公司就会雇更多的人去生产这些产品与服务，我们也就会有更多的工作。这个国家正经历的失业与贫困完全是政治失败的结果。
如果联邦政府增加在基础设施上的投入，让十多岁的孩子有打扫街道之类的工作，让州及当地政府有钱给老师及消防队员并鼓励雇主缩短工作时间而不是解雇工人，我们将能很快让经济重回完全就业状态。经济学家们知道这些已有70多年了，但不知何故，创造就业在华盛顿并没排在削减社保及医保之前。
简而言之，我们的经济制度，即使当它在有效运转时，它也被操纵于将财富分给富人。我们的政治制度，在巨大的经济危机时，它更集中于削弱对工薪家庭的支持而不是修复经济。难于理解为何每个人不去占领华尔街。
*Dean Baker是一位宏观经济学家及华盛顿经济政策研究中心的董事之一。之前他在Bucknell大学工作。他也是Truthout的专栏作家。本文发在socialistworker.org网。
--------------------------------------
How the 1 percent rules
Lance Selfa, author of The Democrats: A Critical History explains how the 1 percent has rigged the supposedly democratic political system so they"re always the winners.
October 26, 2011
THE OCCUPY movement"s most powerful unifying factor has been its clear and simple identification of the key problem in American society: the divide between the vast majority of the population--the 99 percent--and the richest and most powerful 1 percent.
This 99 percent/1 percent formulation isn"t just a statement about income inequality in the U.S. today. It"s also an acknowledgement that the 1 percent largely controls the government and is therefore able to rig laws, taxes and regulations in its favor.
If you look at opinion polls on questions like taxing the rich, regulating Wall Street, spending money on jobs, prioritizing economic growth over cutting the deficit or preserving and protecting Social Security and Medicare, you"ll find popular, often lopsided, majorities opposed to austerity and in favor of "redistributionist" policies.
Yet the dysfunctional government seems incapable--and not even much interested--in doing much of anything to meet these popular demands. By contrast, Congress acted with tremendous speed--and with little regard for the deficit--to appropriate hundreds of billions of dollars for the banks and other corporations when the financial crisis struck in 2008.
In theory, we"re all equal at the ballot box, and so popular majorities should be able to force politicians to address their concerns. But the Occupy movement has caught fire because millions of Americans realize that the way Washington works in reality bears no resemblance to the political science textbook explanations.
So how does the 1 percent get away with it?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A government of, by and for the corporations
The political scientist Sheldon Wolin has gone so far as to call the U.S. an example of "inverted totalitarianism"--where corporations dominate the government, voting is the only acceptable political participation, and democracy is "managed" to produce only results that the government and corporations want. To Wolin, the corporate-controlled media play a role in helping to manage democracy, even behind its conceit of being a free press.
It"s undeniable that corporations play a major role in government--and always have. Most great American fortunes were made by capitalists who used the power of government to gain advantages over competitors or to profit from public resources. For example, the Gilded Age plutocrats--the Vanderbilts, the Astors, the Stewarts, the Goulds--built their railroad-based fortunes on the foundation of $100 million in federal and state grants and 200 million acres of federal land grants. In today"s economy, the nuclear power industry and the Internet are both products of the privatization of technologies developed in government laboratories.
Despite the free-market ideologues" rhetoric about "big government" pitted against "big business," the truth is that big business has always found it useful to invest in politicians and their political parties to win government policies that improve their bottom lines.
Thus, during the 1980s savings-and-loan crisis, Congress hauled S&L crook Charles Keating before a hearing and one representative asked if he thought the thousands of dollars he had given to politicians was to buy influence. Keating answered, "I sure hope so."
The two main pro-capitalist parties in U.S. politics have certain tendencies of supporting different industrial sectors: Republicans generally win the support of the oil and gas industry, agribusiness and defense, and Democrats rack up money from Silicon Valley, Hollywood and Wall Street. In fact, according to a recent Wall Street Journal report, the financial sector accounted for 30 percent of all spending on all sides during the 2008 election cycle.
Still, it would be misleading to conclude the Democrats simply represent one section or coalition of business, while Republicans represent another.
The operation of the two-party system assures that these divisions within American business are ad hoc and don"t congeal into permanent ideological camps. Business must learn to operate within the U.S. federal system, which means that industries that may be big Republican donors at the presidential level support, but also contributors to local Democratic political machines.
Secondly, corporations like to increase their bargaining power. They want to get as much as they can from their political involvement, and it helps them to play one party off against the other.
Finally, corporations seeking government favors subscribe to "lesser evilism" as much as voters do. The majority party in Congress is usually assured a majority of campaign contributions as well. Since its leaders will be in positions of authority in Congress, with the power to advance legislation, business will contribute in order to maintain their "access."
What does Corporate America expect for its investment? In total, the 2008 presidential election cost somewhere north of $5 billion. While this seems like a staggering sum--and, indeed, it represents a huge increase in the cost of the presidential election in just four years--it is equivalent to the size of an average "mid-cap" company, as measured by the value of all its stock. In other words, larger than Panera Bread, but smaller than Chipotle Mexican Grill.
In fact, what"s most notable is how a relatively small investment in politicians will bring big returns for the "investors."
For what amounts to peanuts, the defense industry won tens of billions in business from the Iraq war, and Wall Street scored trillions from the federal government"s bailout. A 2007 study analyzing corporate donations and company stock performance between 1979 and 2004 found that corporations which contributed the most to political candidates had stock prices that beat the overall stock market by an average of 2.5 percentage points annually.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The two-party swindle
Despite much anti-government rhetoric that emanates from business sectors, the ruling class needs a capitalist state to guarantee its property and its influence against rival capitalist classes.
As long as the regime"s political parties remain committed to maintaining that state, big business can abide changes in government. But to assure that governments don"t enact policies that work too much to the detriment of business, the capitalists attempt to shape and control the political parties that regularly compete to run the government. This is one way by which the capitalist class mediates conflicting goals and agendas.
Pro-capitalist policy doesn"t come from some business cabal, as conspiracy theorists allege. It flows through different private foundations and think tanks, universities, quasi-public agencies and the political parties. All of these recruit professionals from the corporate sector who are groomed to carry corporate policy into government. Just think of the many ways in which billionaires like Bill Gates and Eli Broad have managed to influence government policy on "school reform."
The government--and in particular, the executive branch acting as what Karl Marx called "a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie"--pursues policies that balance between short-term economic and political needs, and even between sections of capital.
In this sense, the capitalist state is less of a tool in the hands of capitalists as an arena in which capitalist interests are mediated.
The idea that Democrats and Republicans are committed to capitalism and to advancing U.S. interests overseas is hardly news. But the capitalist class takes nothing for granted. It exerts constant pressure on the political parties to assure that its interests are carried out. While there are numerous tentacles that tie the parties to big business, two major areas of corporate influence stand out: candidate selection, and corporate lobbying and policy advice.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Legal graft in U.S. elections
Mark Hanna, the first modern political fundraiser and fixer who helped the Republicans sweep to a landslide victory in 1896 over the Democrats and Populists, once said: "There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can"t remember what the second one is."
A modern-day equivalent might be Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee before advancing to chief of staff in Barack Obama"s White House. He once reportedly told DCCC staffers: "The first third of your campaign is money, money, money. The second third is money, money and press. And the last third is votes, press and money."
Anyone hoping to mount a successful campaign for national office needs millions of dollars. In the 2010 congressional election, the average House candidate spent almost $1.7 million for his or her seat. The average senator spent $3.1 million. The average incumbent senator running for reelection spent over $9 million.
The expense of electioneering means that both major parties look to wealthy individuals and corporations for their funding. And thanks to the Supreme Court"s Citizens United decision equating campaign spending with free speech, we have the rise of Super PACs--non-profits that can collect millions in corporate cash to spend on campaigns without disclosing their donors.
The system of organized bribery that finances American political parties assures that no one who might challenge this status quo becomes a serious contender. "Any candidate that expects to show up on the PAC lists is well aware of the need to tailor, if not eliminate, any populist leanings," a Democratic congressional aide told investigative journalists Alexander Cockburn and Ken Silverstein. "It"s not a formula that opens the door to any but establishment candidates."
Perhaps it"s no surprise, then, that 40 percent of House freshmen elected in 2010 are millionaires.
Even the fact that Democrats gain the bulk of contributions from labor unions doesn"t change the fact that corporate money swamps labor money. In the 2008 election cycle, the Democrats collected more money from just the finance, insurance and real estate industries ($83.7 million) than from all labor and liberal organizations combined ($79.9 million).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Foxes guarding the chicken coop
Once in office, administrations are subject to constant pressure from big business to adopt pro-corporate policies.
Since the 1930s, the Business Council, an advisory organization composed of chief executive officers of major U.S. corporations, has acted as a sounding board and proponent for pro-business policies within every presidential administration. All U.S. presidents have regularly consulted the Council and other organizations, like the Committee for Economic Development (CED). Democratic and Republican administrations have appointed Council and CED members to government advisory panels and to government administrative positions.
Business sustains these kinds of organizations--along with others like the Conference Board, the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers--to be able to develop class-wide positions on a range if issues. These can then be presented to the government through elected politicians and through executive branch agencies.
Business isn"t always successful in getting everything it wants, but it always gets what it can.
When politicians seek to develop policies on any one of a number of topics, they find business think tanks ready to offer advice. One particularly crude example was that of former Democratic Sen. Bill Bradley, who represented New Jersey when it played host to 10 of the largest 18 pharmaceutical companies. Bradley"s speeches "parrot[ed], sometimes virtually verbatim, background material produced by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry"s chief lobbying group," wrote Cockburn and Silverstein.
Likewise, hawkish former Sen. Henry Jackson of Washington state was for years known as the "senator from Boeing" because of his devotion to the interests of his state"s largest military contractor. Today, Sen. Charles Schumer is known as Wall Street"s gopher in Congress.
The statistics show that business devotes more money and time to lobbying and advocacy than it does to electioneering. This is because the real bonanza for companies takes place behind closed doors, often in the arcane minutiae of legislation and regulations. Here is where companies can get favors for themselves, or--equally as important--rewrite regulations to support their profit-making endeavors, the environment or consumers be damned.
This is where a single line in legislation or regulations can undo or render meaningless any politician"s campaign promises. It"s also the place where "our side," broadly defined, is completely overmatched. During the 2001 "debate" on the Bush administration"s tax cut legislation, Capitol Hill was crawling with lobbyists from every conceivable industry, seeking favorable treatment. At the same time, the AFL-CIO had one lobbyist working quarter-time on this.
Given what we know, is it any surprise that the 12 members of the congressional "super-committee" charged with proposing $1.2 trillion in cuts to the federal deficit have seen increased contributions to their coffers? Or that thousands of lobbyists are organizing members of Congress to pressure the super-committee?
When elections change the congressional majority, there is a parallel changing of the guard in lobbying firms and congressional staffs. So today, there"s a former lobbyist for the Securities Industry Association serving as staff director for the House Ways and Means committee--and a former lobbyist for Lockheed Martin running the staff of the House Appropriations Committee.
All of this helps to create what"s been called an "iron triangle" of industry, Congress and the executive branch, which remains largely intact regardless of election results. It assures that no matter which party is officially in power, big business" interests will be attended to. This is even more assured today, as a revolving door between lobbying groups and government officials becomes institutionalized.
For industry bosses, this is the beauty of the two-party system. If one party falls out of favor with the voters, there"s always the other one--with predictable policies--waiting in the wings.