Political Predictions For 2011

This year I decided to ask our staff and our consultants what their New Year’s predictions are for the political world. I will add mine at the end of this column, but we will start out with their views of 2011.

Richard F. Miller, military correspondent and military historian:

The economy: By the end of 2011, Americans will bless ourselves that we are not Europe or China. Unemployment remains at 9 percent and the economy remains flat, but the indicators are mixed. Both the economy and President Obama are flat.

The year will be a year of foreign policy disasters or opportunity. How President Obama deals with foreign policy will determine his electability. Obama could make miscalculations, or he could be on target. One of three things will happen, and they will be around the “axis of evil” or Russia. There will be trouble around the 38th parallel with North Korea, Hezbollah or al-Qaida becomes more aggressive pushing Obama into action or Putin decides to invade a former Soviet satellite state.

People will be quick to draw comparisons between Lincoln and Obama on the 150th anniversary of the Civil War.

Bob Ney, former Republican representative from Ohio and Talk Radio News’ political analyst:

Bob predicts that the neo-cons want an attack on Iran. He says that, although Vice President Dick Cheney was successful in his invasion of Iraq, he never got what he really wanted, an attack on Iran. Now that they’re in control of the new majority, neo-cons (the Cheney crowd) will try to get “investigations going” that will lead toward ginning up more anger with Iran and build a case for “attack.”

Jay Goodman Tamboli, Supreme Court and legal correspondent:

I think a lot of the incoming tea-party candidates are going to have trouble adjusting to the realities of Washington. I predict that at least a couple of them are going to run into serious ethics charges. What’s coming out with Christine O’Donnell shows that the tea-party candidates don’t understand how the Federal Elections Commission and ethics laws work. I think the tea partiers are coming to Washington with an idealized view of how the government should work, and I think they’re going to have a lot of trouble adjusting to the realities of financial disclosures and lobbying rules. Someone’s going to slip up and take a fall.

Jack Rice, legal and international correspondent:

The liberal wing of the Democratic Party will be progressively alienated by Afghanistan. Some troops will start to leave in 2011, but the numbers will be too small. However, they have no alternative, so they will fall in line behind President Obama into 2012.

Justin Duckham, Pentagon and Capitol Hill correspondent:

As the White House undergoes a cabinet shake-up, one Republican senator will put an anonymous hold on key administration officials’ nominations, including the defense secretary or Treasury secretary.

Tea-party Sen. Jim DeMint will rise in prominence this year following his attention-grabbing stunts around the START Treaty and the earmark ban. It will be followed by serious 2012 talk.

Biden will buck the rumor mill and stay on as vice president.

The summer 2011 drawdown in Afghanistan will be much smaller than progressives would like and cause serious unrest in some Democratic quarters.

With Republicans becoming more lockstep in their ideology, either Scott Brown, Lisa Murkowski or Olympia Snowe will pull an Arlen Specter and caucus with the Democrats.

Geoff Holtzman, congressional correspondent and news director:

Mike Bloomberg and Mitt Romney will emerge as the top two challengers to Obama in 2012.

Tala Towlatshahi, U.N. bureau chief:

The Turkish government will manage to persuade Iran to get back to the nuclear negotiation table.

Ellen Ratner, Bureau Chief

On the presidential race, I predict we will see Gov. Haley Barbour and Gov. Sarah Palin in the debates in New Hampshire and South Carolina.

The health-care bill will get a ton of hearings in the House of Representatives but will get nowhere. The House will attempt to cut off money for implementation of the bill but will not make much progress because the Obama administration will move money around.

The House and Senate will agree, even though there will be huge partisanship, on a jobs bill. The newly elected Republican members will vote for an increase in the debt ceiling while holding their noses and complaining about spending.

President Obama looks presidential as he negotiates with Speaker Boehner. Minority Whip Steny Hoyer increases in influence with his party.

The repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is implemented. Aside from a few stories in the mainstream press, it is a yawn, and no one cares by the year 2012.

Democratic members of Congress, who have lost their seats in 2010, will plan a strategic fight to take back their seats, mounting line-by-line objections to legislation that the winners are filing.

(source:talkradionews.com)

Lobbyists Furiously Lobby White House to Preserve Lobbyist Power

ABC News' Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
(Randy Sager/ABC News)













Lobbyists have been furiously lobbying the Obama White House to oppose restrictions on their ability to lobby.

The kafuffle began on September 23 when special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform Norm Eisen wrote that "the White House has informed executive agencies and departments that it is our aspiration that federally-registered lobbyists not be appointed to agency advisory boards and commissions."

How many Industry Trade Advisory Committees -- ITACs -- are there?

The Washington Post says the system of these committees is "so vast that federal officials don't have exact numbers for its size; the most recent estimates tally nearly 1,000 panels with total membership exceeding 60,000 people."

"These appointees to boards and commissions, which are made by agencies and not the President, advise the federal government on a variety of policy areas," Eisen wrote. "Keeping these advisory boards free of individuals who currently are registered federal lobbyists represents a dramatic change in the way business is done in Washington."

The White House wasn't kicking lobbyists off the ITACs. Rather, Eisen wrote, "there are many registered lobbyists who currently serve on these committees as a result of a prior appointment. When these appointments expire, it is our hope that agencies not reappoint anyone who is currently registered as a federal lobbyist at the time of their potential reappointment."

Needless to say, there was an uproar on K Street.

A unanimous vote at a meeting of the American League of Lobbyists Board of Directors on October 19 reflected opposition to Eisen's views.

Sixteen lobbyists who chair ITACs -- including executives from Boeing, Harley-Davidson, the International Association of Drilling Contractors, Fanwood Chemical Inc., IBM and others -- wrote to the president to protest the decision.

In another letter to Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and US Trade Representative Ron Kirk, the lobbyists said that a "quick review of the impact of this new policy suggests that dozens of the most active -- and most knowledgeable -- Committee members who generate many of the documents needed by the Committee and our trade negotiators will be dismissed once the new charter term begins. This occurs because individuals who specialize in trade policy matters in their particular sectors often find that such specialization and expertise pushes them above the 20 percent lobbying activity threshold that triggers registration under the Lobbying Disclosure Act" or LDA.

The letter said "the sudden ejection of over 130 advisors from the system will depopulate many of the committees and instantly remove many voice from around the table."

These are people whose "talents" were likely irreplaceable, the letter said. "We understand that public perceptions of lobbyists have been tainted by the criminal and unethical activity of a few individuals," they wrote. "We must stress however that it is wrong to prejudge an entire class of people because of these actions."

Eisen wrote back on October 21.

"I assure you that our action was not provoked, as you suggest, by the 'criminal and unethical behavior of a few individuals,'" he wrote. "Indeed there have been some egregious abuses, but this decision was not meant to besmirch everyone who is a registered federal lobbyist. It's the system as a whole that concerns us. It's an indisputable fact that in recent years, lobbyists for major special interests have wielded extraordinary power in this town. The result has been a national agenda too often skewed in favor of the interests that can afford their services."

Eisen suggested that powerful industries are well represented in Washington, DC -- with banking lobbyists paid to "gut meaningful financial reforms," an "army" of health insurance industry lobbyists unleashed to "frustrate" health care reform efforts, oil and gas company lobbyists sent to undermine energy reform all present and accounted for. "But industry representatives shouldn't be given government positions from which to make their case," he wrote.

"While we recognize the contributions some of those who will be affected have made to these committees, it is an indisputable fact that in recent years, lobbyists for major special interests have wielded extraordinary power in Washington DC, resulting in a national agenda too often skewed in favor of the interests that can afford their services," Eisen said again in an October 21 blog post. "It is that problem that the President has promised to change, and this is a major step in implementing that change."

On October 28, David G. Wenhold, the president of the American League of Lobbyists and Peter G. Mayberry of its board of directors wrote to President Obama belittling the notion that his "administration will be better served by precluding industry experts from serving on Federal advisory groups simply because they are legally required to comply with provisions contained in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995."

Wenhold and Mayberry took "exception to Mr. Eisen’s efforts to paint all LDA registrants with the same broad brush and demonize our profession. In addition, by taking the steps outlined in both of these communications, we are specifically concerned that your administration will deprive career public officials of the knowledge, perspective, and insight offered voluntarily and free of charge from many of the industry experts who will be precluded from serving as formal advisors under this policy, due solely to their LDA status."

They also took issue with the fact that no one had told them about this decision. Rather, "instead of offering some preliminary signal that this shift in long-standing policy was being contemplated and/or inviting debate on such a drastic change, it was delivered, seemingly fully formed and final, as a blog posting by Mr. Eisen."

Eisen responded to Wenhold and Mayberry in a November 9 letter taking issue with their failure to "address the main point of our October 21 letter: that it's the system as a whole that concerns us."

He disagreed with a number of points raised by the lobbyists, stating "we do not believe that the Administration's actions will 'deprive career public officials of the knowledge, perspective and insight' offered by lobbyists. Should members of the Administration wish to hear from anyone affected by this policy, they are free to call on such individuals for testimony or input. What the policy restricts is giving these lobbyists a government position at the same time they are initiating their own separate contacts with the government to advocate for the positions of the special interests they represent."

He also took issue with the idea that the lobbyists should have gotten a heads-up on the decision, and with the notion that individuals affected "are experts who
merely 'happen to be' lobbyists."

Also on November 9, a number of lobbyists currently on ITACs met with members of the White House staff. The White House, seemingly relishing this spat, posted the list of attendees.

"Just a quick post to report on a meeting today with a group of lobbyists and others who currently chair Industry Trade Advisory Committees (ITACs)," Eisen wrote on his blog that same day. "The group had objected to the Administration's new policies barring the appointment (and reappointment) of federally registered lobbyists to agency boards and commissions…

"We explained to the ITAC chairs that this issue is not about the few corrupt lobbyists or specific abuses by the profession, but rather concerns the system as a whole. For too long, lobbyists and those who can afford their services have held disproportionate influence over national policy making… we decided that while lobbyists have a right to petition the government, it would best serve the interests of a fairer and more representative democracy if we limited their ability to do so from special positions of privileged access within the government. The result will be a Washington that is more reflective of all of America."

Source:abcnews.com