Just what in the world are they doing?

Washington D.C. is full of activity.  Hearings, meetings, press conferences, press releases, media appearances, fundraisers, round tables, and the three square meals of the day, breakfast, lunch and dinner, which have been drafted into a flurry of political activity.  So just what in the world is all this activity and why does it seem to be accomplishing so little?

Committee Hearings - There are 20 standing committees in the House of Representatives and 16 standing committees in the Senate.  A standing committee is just another name for a permanent committee.  These committees are the most powerful committees in Congress (we won't waste time on the other committees right now) that handle legislation on all areas of government activity.  You can see a list of all committees in the House and Senate by clicking on the embedded links. 

Committee hearings serve several purposes.  They are where legislation gets "marked up" first.  The mark up process is essentially an amendment process where members of the committee get to make changes to a bill before it is reported to the House or Senate floor where it can be further amended.  It is much easier in some ways to amend a bill in committee than on the floor of the full chamber of the House or Senate.  However, the committee is dominated by its chairman so if you want to amend the bill in a way the chairman doesn't support you have virtually no chance of success.  In practice mark up hearings are the final step of a process that unfolds almost entirely outside the hearing room.  All amendments that are offered have been pre-approved by the chairman and vetted with staff, leadership, and maybe even outside interests. 

Committee hearings may also be informational.  The committee will invite experts on an issue and take their testimony.  Members of the committee will also be able to ask them questions to further explore the concept being discussed at the hearing.  Like the mark up hearings, informational hearings are very orchestrated events.  The witnesses are carefully selected to deliver the message that the committee wants to hear.  The majority and the minority both get to invite witnesses so you do at least typically get to hear both sides of an issue (if there are three or more sides you may be out of luck). 

Finally, committee hearings offer a way for the committee to exercise its oversight function by calling witnesses from government agencies to explain their actions.  Like the other hearings, these oversight hearings are very orchestrated events.  Depending on whether the committee is friendly or hostile to the witnesses the questions asked and the tone of the hearing will be designed to bolster the witness or rip the witness to shreds.  The government witness will be from the executive branch and, again depending on hostility or friendliness, will either typically either stonewall the committee or make comments in support of the committee's theme for the hearing.

Meetings, press conferences, press releases, - A favorite activity in Washington for both parties is the daily flailing of arms in search of attention from anyone with a viewing, listening, or reading audience.  Most of the things American see on the evening news are not candid shots or clips of legislators as they go about their daily work, but carefully staged and scripted events designed to communicate a specific political message.  The media is often prepped before the event happens with press releases and background information from a politician's press shop. 

Articles that appear in newspapers with quotes from politicians are often, but not always, similarly scripted.  When a reporter wants a quote from a politician for a story they can either try to physically locate the politician and extract a quote from him or her on the spot.  This sometimes works, but if the issue is controversial or the political figure doesn't know anything about the issue they will usually decline to talk to the reporter.  A surer way to get a quote is to contact the politician's press shop.  The politician's press secretary and other staff will collaborate, along with the politician, to craft a precise quote for the story.  The press secretary may also provide information "on background" which will influence the story's outcome, but won't be cited in the story as a source of information.  Since the press relies on politicians to get quotes and information for their story political figures have a great deal of ability to influence what appears in the press.  For this reason (and there are many other reasons we won't get into here) no press story should be taken at face value.  Even if the story is accurate it has likely been influenced and shaped with the intention of giving the reader a certain impression.

Fundraisers, Round Tables, and Three Square Meals a Day - A huge amount of effort goes on in Washington to raise money and network (which helps raise more money).  Of course, as the old saying goes, money is the mother's milk of politics.  To the extent that politicians raise money to relieve the financial burden on political supporters (like grass roots Tea Party individuals) that's a good thing.  Unfortunately, as we've touched on before, all too often the race to raise money becomes an end unto itself rather than a means to an end.  If a politician isn't careful to only raising money from his allies he can also end up with an additional pressure to be "flexible" on future legislation that big donors support.  So how is all this money raised?

Fundraiser events are specially held events for that purpose.  An invitation list will be created, typically by a professional fundraising firm that gets a commission on all money raised.  The fundraiser may have a theme (save the endangered species, support the widget industry, friends of turnip farmers) and all the donors who come to the event to give money will be associated with this particular cause or industry.  The fundraiser then not only raises money, but also becomes a way to network, befriend the politician who is benefiting, and discuss issues important to the people throwing the fundraiser. 

Other fundraising events are not themed, but merely a gathering of potential donors in large or small settings.  These fundraising events are typically accompanied by expensive meals (if not individually, then collectively, since dozens of people may attend).  Due to the prohibitions against lobbyists purchasing meals for a Member of Congress the Congressman's campaign will almost always pick up the bill for the cost of food and other expenses at the fundraising event.  Of course, since the lobbyists will be giving money to the Congressman's campaign fund, in reality, the lobbyists are picking up the bill anyway.  This is probably one of the clearer examples of why campaign finance reform was a failure, but we won't go into those details here, or why campaign finance reform is almost certainly a violation of First Amendment political speech rights.

Let's talk about professional fundraisers for a moment too.  These firms essentially make their living by matching up donors with politicians who need donations.  They get a flat fee plus a considerable percentage (usually 10%) of the funds they raise.  Networking is their primary function.  This is one of the biggest ways in which new representatives to Washington are able to tap into the establishment quickly and easily.  It is also one of the ways in which weak-hearted politicians are co-opted by the system because they are suddenly confronted by a lot of new donors with political interests to be fulfilled. 

The system also encourages active fundraising.  Members of both parties have "dues" which they are informally expected to pay in fundraising dollars to the national party they're associated with (Republican or Democrat).  The higher ranking the politician is the more money they're expected to raise.  So the Speaker, for example, is expected to raise the most money, then the rest of leadership, then important committee chairmen, then other rank and file members, etc...  Being a good fundraiser makes politicians more powerful and popular with other members of Congress and is probably the number one way to advance in leadership over other members. 

So what is the solution to the problem of money in politics?  It isn't more laws, since those will be worked around or will create serious constitutional concerns.  The solution is for the public to stop being so heavily influenced by name identification and negative advertising.  All campaign money can buy is name identification through heavy advertising and negative attacks on political rivals.  If the public didn't vote overwhelmingly based on these two factors then the advantage of money and incumbency would greatly diminish.  Like most problems in politics today, the solution is a more engaged and informed public!

Just Who is in Charge in Washington?

When talking with people who have no experience or information about the inner workings of Washington D.C. I get the sense that there is a lot of misunderstanding about who is "in charge" of our nation's government.  The answer is complex; mostly it is "no one," but also to a lesser degree it is "everyone."  I shall attempt to explain.

 

Since is an article geared toward politics from a Tea Party perspective we will ignore the judicial component and focus on Congress, the president, and outside special interests.  The president is often considered the "most powerful man in the world."  In reality, the president is much less powerful than many other chief executives in other countries politically.  The perception of the president as the world's most powerful man comes from his role as commander in chief of the world's most powerful military force.  Even in that role, however, Congress plays an important balance in deciding the scope of any American military action.  Let's ignore the military component and focus on politics since that's the purpose of this article.

The president has several tools, both formal and informal, at his disposal to shape the political agenda in Washington.  The president is a highly visible figure and the only politician which is elected nationwide.  This gives him a unique political mandate and a position from which to communicate to the whole nation in a way that no other single politician can.  The president is also typically considered the leader of his party which translates into increased influence in Congress if his party holds the majority there as well.  When Congress acts to support the president, in essence adding its authority to his own, the president is at the peak of his political power.  We most recently saw a president and Congress acting in harmony during the first two years of President Obama's presidency.  The president's party had a large majority in the House of Representatives and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  These majorities were large enough that the president was able to pass his signature health care law without a single vote from the opposing Republican party.  Since Congress cannot typically deliver such large majorities, President Obama was an uncommonly powerful president during the early years of his first term in office.  After Republicans gained control over the House of Representatives the president's political power has declined and he has been unable to pass any other signature pieces of legislation.

Additionally, the modern regulatory state has given modern presidents more power than early presidents possessed.  Starting in the early 20th century Congress began erecting large new bureaucracies to regulate society, especially the economy.  These agencies were delegated legislative powers from Congress which are today referred to as rule making authority.  These agencies are a part of the executive branch and accountable to the president.  This means that modern presidents have significant tools to change the law without Congressional input by regulating under authority that Congress has already granted to the executive.  These regulatory powers are most useful to the president when his political party does not control all of Congress and cannot be relied on to deliver favorable legislation through the normal legislative process.

The president also has several checks on his power, both formal and informal.  We'll explore these limitations as we talk about other centers of power in Washington D.C.  

Next let's look at the Speaker of the House.  Today's speakers are much less powerful than even other recent modern speakers and much less powerful than earlier speakers.  The power of the Speaker of the House probably peaked in the first decade of the 20th century under Republican Joe Cannon, who was simultaneously the Chairman of the Rules Committee and who had the power to appoint all other committee chairmen.  This meant that Speaker Cannon controlled all aspects of the legislative process in the House, including what amendments could be offered to bills and what bills would be voted on.  While modern speakers no longer had sole authority to appoint chairmen or direct control over the Rules Committee, they were still very powerful.  Modern speakers had the ability to exert great influence over chairmen positions and to dispense earmarks, or grants of money for special projects in legislation, along with other lesser powers.  Today's speaker retains only the ability to influence the appointment of chairmen due to the House ban on earmarks.  As a result, the speaker cannot deploy many tools to keep discipline in the caucus he leads.  

For example, the speaker may usually control what legislation comes to the floor of the House for a vote.  However, if a majority of members sign a discharge petition they can bring a piece of legislation to the floor of the House for a vote without the legislation being approved by a committee or the speaker.  

The speaker may reassign unruly members from desirable committees to less influential committees.  However, most members view reassignment from choice committees to be inconvenient at best and may not be dissuaded from engaging in the conduct that leadership seeks to discourage.  The speaker cannot reassign very many members, nor can he use this particular tool very often, because he relies on a strong majority of his conference to maintain his own position as speaker.  

The speaker may also try to punish members by using his influence over the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) to deny unruly members access to campaign funding assistance.  Again, members that are personally wealthy or who have access to a strong fund raising base which is loyal to them personally will not find this tool particularly threatening.  

As a result, today's speaker is not particularly powerful and lacks any reliable means of keeping his conference in order.  This has made the modern speaker more of a consensus builder and negotiator rather than a strong leader that issues commands.  In order to get anything accomplished the speaker must try to get different factions within his conference to work together to accomplish the party's goals.   

The Senate Majority Leader is somewhat stronger than the Speaker of the House because the majority leader has more power over what legislation is considered by the whole Senate and because the Senate's procedural rules give the majority leader more tools to influence legislation (what amendments are offered, etc).  Of course, Senate rules also empower individual senators to a much greater degree than individual Members of the House of Representatives.  An individual senator can do far more to disrupt and shape the legislative agenda in the Senate, including many informal rules (for example, it has been tradition that if a senator from a judicial nominee's home state objects to the judicial nominee, that nominee will not proceed to confirmation).  

The dynamic between the president, Congressional leadership, the bureaucracy, and individual Members of Congress is further complicated by a plethora of special interests, including lobbyists who contribute significant sums of money to political activities.  It isn't strictly accurate to say that lobbyists purchase votes in Congress or favorable regulation from the president.  However, lobbyists (I will use lobbyists as a short hand for all special interests, including issue advocates, not just economic special interests) do use their money to gain access to the legislative process where the decisions on many critical issues are made.  Lobbyists have access to other resources beyond money, such as information.  They use this information to present a case to legislators to persuade them to pass laws or regulations which are favorable to the lobbyists.  Lobbyists will boil down complicated issues into easy concepts for legislators to understand, especially on complicated or obscure issues where individual Members of Congress are unlikely to be subject matter experts.  By controlling the information that legislators receive lobbyists are able to exert immense influence on how legislation is crafted.  Indeed, lobbyists may create first drafts of legislation to help legislators begin the process of making a new law or rule on an issue.  This process also occurs in the bureaucracy, but with an added layer of lobbyist influence because many bureaucrats were either former members of the industry they regulate or anticipate leaving the bureaucracy to join the industry they regulate.  

While this is a corrupting process, this is not necessarily a criticism of individual legislators or bureaucrats.  These individuals want to do a good job for the American people, but they lack the information they need to make rules on so many different industries and activities.  No person can be an expert on banking, car manufacturing, health care, endangered species, monetary policy, airline travel, deep sea fishing, and the thousands of other activities the government regulates.  Of course, this is why the Tea Party, and others like us, advocate for less government intervention in every part of society.  Central planning will always lack critical information, which makes the central planners (legislators) ripe for capture by industry backed subject matter experts giving them information designed to help established interests.  

So who is in control of Washington?  No one, really, and everyone.  The Congress still reacts to the will of the people, but it also reacts to whoever is shouting loudest at any given moment, including many vested special interests.  Questions?  Comments?  Leave them in the comment section below.

Contacting Your Congressional Office 201: What are they doing?

I've entitled this section, "what are they doing?" because we want to look further at what actions you may expect your congressman's office to take and whether those actions are significant or not.  We'll also hopefully help you decide when it is worthwhile to contact your representative's office to show your support for specific actions.  This section deals with legislative issues, not general constituent contacts over personal problems with the bureaucracy. 

In each two year session of Congress there are thousands of bills introduced by Members of Congress.  Only a very tiny minority of these bills ever pass a single chamber and even fewer still ever get signed into law.  Of those that are passed and signed, only a fraction are substantive laws.  Many of the new laws that are passed are still laws that don't impact how the nation is governed, such as commemorative coin laws, laws giving post offices names, and other similar acts.  Many of the bills Members of Congress introduce are "stand alone bills" that contain a specific issue fix or a specific policy change.  These bills are often used purely as messaging bills to allow the representative to show that he or she is taking action on an issue.  However, as a caveat, it is also true that sometimes these bills are incorporated into larger bills, known as "vehicles" which have a good chance of being implemented as law.  Still, there are far more bills introduced merely to look good to the public than are introduced with the intention of achieving a change in the law.

When a bill vehicle is on the floor there will often be many amendments offered.  Amendments that are non-controversial will typically be lumped together and voted on all at once.  Amendments that are supported by leadership, such as the Speaker or the Chairman whose committee reported the bill to the entire chamber, may be included in what is known as a manager's amendment.  Amendments in the manager's amendment are also usually non-controversial and may include technical changes to the bill text such as fixes to typographical errors.  Like bills, amendments are often offered for purposes of messaging even when the Member of Congress knows that his or her amendments have no chance of being added to the vehicle.  Amendments can also be used as political tools to require other Members of Congress to make unpopular votes on specific issues.  This tactic is especially used by the minority, since it lacks the ability to bring its own bills to the floor for consideration. 

Next, Members of Congress can write official letters to each other and other parts of the government.  These letters usually either ask for a government action, cessation of a government action, or express support or opposition to a particular policy.  These letter do not have the force of law, so the only useful thing they do is show how many Members of Congress are supportive of the policy position put forward in the letter.  Unfortunately, many Members of Congress use official letters as a way to "show action" to their constituents when in reality they either cannot or will not do anything substantively to address the issue. 

In addition to official acts, such as letters and legislation, Members of Congress (and their offices) can also do a number of informal things.  A Member's staff can push for a specific policy with the committee of jurisdiction, they can contact the relevant government agency responsible for the issue and pressure them to take administrative action, and sometimes even reach out to important lobbyists to have them advocate a position to the government from the outside.  Of course, lobbyists have their own agenda, but every side of every issue typically has lobbyists and they're often eager to coordinate with a friendly Member of Congress on advocacy for their issue.  Lobbyists are also susceptible to logrolling and can be convinced to lobby for an issue they care about less in order to get assistance with their core interests.  It isn't unusual to see odd combinations of lobbyists on certain issues that are susceptible to this kind of coalition building.

How dedicated your Member of Congress is to a specific issue can often be gauged by how many of these tactics he or she is willing to engage in.  If the Member is dropping bills and amendments, writing letters, and leading a coalition of groups on an issue then he or she is probably using all the influence they possess to achieve an outcome.  If the Member just dropped a bill and issued a press release, or just wrote a letter, then there is some commitment, but it may or may not be that deep.  Keep in mind that Congress is controlled by leadership.  Leadership decides which bills comes up for votes, which bills move through committee, what policies are priorities in conference committees, etc...  Your representative may be writing ineffective letters and dropping bills that have no chance of passage because there is literally nothing else he or she can do. 

So how should this affect your thought process when you want to contact your representative's office on a legislative issue.  First, think about what issue you're planning to contact your representative about.  Is it a hot button issue that's a part of a bill that you know is coming, like the annual budget, but hasn't been introduced yet?  If so, this is probably your best opportunity to contact your representative, especially if he or she is in the majority.  Leadership wants to pass these big ticket bills so they try to craft them so that all their party members can support the bill.  This means they'll be whipping your representative on the bill (leadership asking about or pressuring a Member on legislation is referred to as a whip).  Your representative will likely be thinking a lot about the constituents back home when deciding what to ask for on the big ticket bill. 

Is the bill a single issue bill?  Your representative is likely getting whipped hard on these kinds of bills.  If you want an outcome different than leadership you need to let your representative know that his or her district supports that different outcome.  Members can get a "pass" from leadership if they really need to vote their district.  (This, of course, is one of the problems with D.C.  A lot of Members vote one way and hope the other.)  If your Member is a principled person your call of support will help even more, because he or she is probably voting against leadership without getting a pass, which can have negative consequences in things like fundraising and even committee assignments (if your representative is a habitual violator).  Your representative will be more likely to take the heat if there is a lot of constituent support for defiant actions (note, supportive statements probably shouldn't include a threat if the Member caves or a reference to who pays who's salary). 

We've looked at a couple of examples of when you should call your Congressman, but when is it probably a waste of everyone's time?  Is the issue you're calling about one of those thousands of bills with few cosponsors or only minority party cosponsors?  Is the bill in question still in that subcommittee it's been in for the last six months?  Chances are, it isn't going anywhere.  Unless your representative sits on the subcommittee in question there probably isn't any point in contacting your representative about this issue.  Keep an eye on the bill and if it gets reported out to the full committee then pick up the phone.  Bills that aren't moving in committee will not come to the floor.

Is the bill a House bill or a Senate bill?  There probably isn't any reason to call your Senators about House bills or your Representatives about Senate bills until it looks like those bills may pass the full chamber.  There may be a companion bill with the same or similar language in the other chamber though, so you might want to call about that instead.

Is the issue you're calling about a political question?  If you don't like the way a cabinet official is doing his or her job there's no point in calling your Member of Congress.  They can't affect how those officials are doing their jobs either.  Yes, the Congress can conduct oversight hearings (maybe we can talk about the effectiveness, or lack thereof, in another post) and have some official tools they can use, but ultimately all those things are probably not going to change the behavior of the executive branch.  You'll have to elect a different president to get different executive branch policies.

So take the time to investigate the issue you're planning to contact your representative about.  Make sure you're not wasting your time on non-issues and learn to evaluate your representative's commitment to an issue by asking about the specific steps he or she is taking to advance the preferred policy.  If it isn't clear what they're trying to accomplish or what they think is going to happen on an issue, then ask them.  For example, if they say they've written a letter to an agency to address a problem ask them whether they think the agency will change its policy.  Ask if they can share the agency's reply letter to you when it arrives (typically within 6-8 weeks).  If you take the time to ask questions and properly inform yourself on an issue you'll be much better able to evaluate your representative's performance and to influence how they handle the issues that matter to you.

Have additional questions?  Leave them in the comment section below.

Congressional Staff 101:

We noted in an earlier post that most Congressional offices have legislative staff based in Washington D.C. and casework staff based in the Congressional district. In this post we'll examine those two types of staff and also talk about the career path most Congressional staffers follow.
Each Member of Congress in the House of Representatives may have 18 paid employees. These employees will be split between the Washington D.C. office and the district office. Many offices will place more employees in the district office so that the Congressman can have his staff representing him at many events across the district.

District staff are usually drawn from the district and are often either career Congressional staff, former government employees in the civil service, or political operatives from a Member of Congress' campaigns. A district office is headed up by a District Director who oversees all activities and personnel in the district. The District Director may also be involved in fundraising and other political activities. If so, he or she will be paid by the Federal government and the Member of Congress' campaign at the same time. Under the District Director will be several field representatives who also serve as caseworkers. These staffers will represent the Congressman in the district at a variety of political and community events. They will also perform casework for the public, which is essentially any function of the Congressional office not related to legislation. As we noted, it most typically includes activities like helping the public navigate the bureaucracy. The district office may also employ support staff, such as a secretary or scheduler, and often has several interns to answer phone calls and do other routine office work.

The Washington D.C. office will be headed up by a Chief of Staff, who is also the highest ranking staffer in the office. The Chief of Staff is also the ultimate supervisor of the district office, though the day to day management of the district office is usually left to the District Director because of the typical distance between the D.C. office and the district office. The Chief of Staff is responsible for the Member's representational allowance, which is a lump sum of money given to each Congressman to operate his office. The typical Member of Congress receives around $1.1 to $1.3 million to run his office each year, though that amount varies based on the distance between the Member's district and Washington D.C. Members with districts that are further away get more money to cover the increased cost of travel between D.C. and their district. The Chief of Staff also does campaign work, such as fundraising, and will often act as the Congressman's campaign manager or the individual who hires the Congressman's campaign manager. The Chief of Staff makes many strategic decisions for the Congressman and advises him on overall political strategy.

Directly below the Chief of Staff is the Legislative Director, who is also sometimes called a Legislative Counsel or a Deputy Chief of Staff. This person will be in charge of all legislative strategy for the Member of Congress and the person ultimately responsible for the day to day legislative operations of the office. The Legislative Director oversees the Congressman's committee work, advises him on how to vote on legislation before the House, and serves as a liaison with special interest groups that seek to lobby the Congressman. The Legislative Director is expected to make sure that the Congressman's legislative actions further the Congressman's legislative agenda and do not cause the Congressman problems with interest groups, leadership, or voters back in the district. The last major duty of a Legislative Director is to oversee all outgoing office communications with constituents, which means approving letters and setting the tone of the communication strategy.
Legislative Aides serve below the Legislative Director and shoulder some of the same responsibilities as the Legislative Director, but they have less authority to make decisions. They will advise the Congressman on votes, specific pieces of legislation, and work with special interest groups, committees, leadership, and constituents.

Legislative Correspondents write letters at the instruction of the Legislative Director and manage all incoming constituent contacts. Congressional offices receive on average around 25,000 contacts per year, or more, so there is enough work writing letters and managing incoming contacts to keep one or two people fully busy at this job.

Staff Assistants are an entry level position. These individuals answer phones, greet visitors to the office, handle routine office logistics, take visitors to the office on tours of the Capitol, answer the phones, and perform any other task assigned to them.

Schedulers handle the continually changing schedule of the Congressman. They manage meeting requests, campaign events, floor votes, committee schedules, and all other movements of the Congressman to make sure that the Congressman is in the right place at the designated time. The Scheduler may also answer phones and do some other limited office logistics, but the job of keeping a Member's calendar is a full time job.

The Press Secretary handles all of the office's interaction with the media. They schedule interviews, write op-eds, create quotes that are attributed to the Congressman in press articles, talk to reporters, and develop the Congressman's media communication strategy. Today's Press Secretaries also handle the "new media" platforms that are growing popular as a means of political communication.
There are two main ways that an individual "breaks in" to Congressional staffing work, especially in the Washington D.C. office. The first way is through the Congressman's campaign. When a new Member of Congress is elected he may decide to bring some personnel with him who helped him win election. Campaign personnel may start at any level in the office; some Members will put a trusted campaign manager or other advisor in charge of their new office as a Chief of Staff. This happens often enough to be worth mentioning, but it is by far the less common route for a Congressional staffer.

The vast majority of Congressional staffers begin their careers on "the Hill" (as it's called in D.C. parlance) in entry level positions such as an intern or a staff assistant. Once the new staffer masters his or her current job they will seek to advance to the next level. A Staff Assistant becomes a Legislative Correspondent. A Legislative Correspondent becomes a Legislative Aide. A Legislative Aide becomes a Legislative Director and a Legislative Director becomes a Chief of Staff. It usually takes around ten years for a new staffer to go from Staff Assistant to Chief of Staff.
Congressional staff may have other experience, such as prior private sector experience and a significant number are attorneys. However, most Congressional staffers are fresh out of college with a standard degree, often in political science. The average age of a Congressional staffer is very young, 22-28, though there are a very few career staffers who spend their entire lives on the Hill, usually as very senior staff. As a result, the pool of Congressional staff is a very hidebound institution. Staffers frequently move between offices and develop deep ties in the Hill community. Since the Hill community places are great degree of value on personal relationships most staffers are eager to conform to the community norms. Staffers will try to promote each other as much as possible in other offices so that they will have connections to those offices. This aids staff in lobbing each other for legislation and other types of cooperation.

Senior staff receive significant pay, but junior staff receive very little pay. A Chief of Staff may receive between $100,000 and $160,000, while a Staff Assistant will receive between $20,000 and $25,000. Legislative Assistants will receive in the $30-$40,000 range. Legislative Directors will receive between $60,000 and $90,000. Schedulers and Press Secretaries typically are in the $50,000 to $60,000 range. Of course, the pay of any staffer is at the discretion of the Chief of Staff and, ultimately, the Member of Congress.

The reason that Congressional staff are willing to work for long periods of time in a high cost of living area (Washington D.C.) at modest pay for much of their career is because few staffers remain on the Hill after 10-15 years. After spending 2-5 years at a senior staff level (Legislative Director or Chief of Staff) the vast majority of Congressional staff "go downtown." That is, they become lobbyists. By the time the average staffer becomes a lobbyist he or she has likely worked for a half dozen Members of Congress or more. Their previous bosses are most likely still on the Hill and reaching the point in their careers where they have significant seniority. If the staffer is lucky an old boss will have a high rank on an important committee. Staffers use their previous jobs and far flung network of acquaintances on the Hill, along with their knowledge of how Congress works, to market themselves to lobbying firms or other groups that have interests in legislation. An average staffer can make two or three times the salary lobbying that they could make as a senior staffer. The best staffers, which is to say the most connected staffers, can command prices in excess of a million dollars per year to lobby. This is the career endpoint that most Congressional staffers have in mind when they begin their careers on the Hill.

As you can probably see at this point, the system has some significant weaknesses that many Tea Party activists are critical of. When a new Member of Congress arrives on the Hill he or she is immediately confronted by an entrenched staff that try to make their new boss conform to the orthodox methods of operation. A Member of Congress that wants to shake things up must not only resist the bureaucratic inertia of the government and other Members, but also his own staff. Of course, a sufficiently strong Member of Congress can be fully in control of what happens in his or her office, but unfortunately, too many Members are all too willing to integrate into the system. A deeper critique of the Congressional staffing system is beyond the scope of this post. Hopefully you now have an idea of how Congressional staffing works. If you have any questions please let me know in the comments below.

Contacting a Congressional Office 101:

Contacting your representative in Congress is one of the most simple steps you can take to make your opinion known.  Yet unfortunately most of the general public has no idea how a Congressional office operates and so they contact their representative in a way that may diminish the effectiveness of their effort. Let's talk about how a Congressional office operates and then we'll go over a list of tips to observe when calling to voice your opinion.

All Members of Congress have a Washington D.C. office and most have one or more offices in the district they represent. The district offices primarily handle casework helping people who need something from government.  For example, if a senior citizen isn't getting their Social Security check a Congressman's district office will be tasked with calling up the bureaucrats and sorting out the problem.  If you want to inquire about a Congressman's position on a legislative issue or leave your opinion about a legislative issue then you want to contact the Congressman's Washington D.C. office.

A Congressional office has a number of different ways for constituents to contact it and a number of staff that are partially or completely dedicated to handling constituent inquiries.  The easiest and best way to contact a Congressional office is usually e-mail, for several reasons that we'll discuss below.  You can also contact through the phone, or direct mail, but the latter method should be avoided whenever possible. 

Before you start, make sure you know the district you're located in.  This may seem like something that goes without saying, but the reality is that if you call a Member of Congress that doesn't represent you, he or she will likely disregard your contact completely.  At best, they may pass it on to your actual representative.

If you contact by e-mail you'll likely use an online form at your Congressman's website.  You can find your Congressman's website and contact information using this handy website: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/  If you're looking for your Senator go here: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Your e-mail will go into a central database that your representative maintains specifically for constituent mail.  This database will record whatever contact information that you provide and the contents of your message.  If you want your Congressman to pay attention to your letter it is important to at least leave your name and zip code so it will be clear that you are a constituent.  If you want a response letter then you must leave a method of contact, preferably an e-mail.  Some offices will call you back or send you a physical letter if you do not leave an e-mail address, but not all will.  Leaving an e-mail address is the best way to ensure that you get a response.  A Congressional office typically receives around 25,000 pieces of mail per year, a Senate office can receive many times more, so the harder you make it for your representative's staff to answer your contact the less likely it is they will be able to respond to you.

Your e-mail will then be sorted by a Legislative Correspondent, who is a staffer completely dedicated to handling constituent mail.  If your contact expresses an opinion on an issue before Congress, for or against, that information will be noted and your contact will be assigned a form letter.  Some offices will give you a substantive response that explains your representative's opinion on the issue that you wrote in about.  Other offices will give a more generic response.  The quality of the response you receive will depend on your representative.

Congressional offices generate the form letters used in responses in a number of ways.  I will describe the most typical process.  The Legislative Correspondent will draft a letter to cover an incoming batch (Members of Congress usually receive dozens of contacts on the same issue, especially if its a "hot" issue in the news) of constituent letters.  The Legislative Aide that handles the issue in the contact may review the letter, or if the issue is particularly difficult the Aide may draft the letter.  A Legislative Director, the person who oversees all legislative issues in a Congressional office, will then review the letter again and approve the letter.  Some Members of Congress will also review and approve all letters that their office sends out, but most will only review the difficult or controversial letters.  Once the letter is approved, it is available to send out to all constituents who contact the Member of Congress on that particular issue.  If you don't know what a Legislative Aide or a Legislative Director is, don't worry.  We'll talk about Congressional staffers in another post.

If you decide to call your Congressional office to voice your opinion you should almost always contact your representative's Washington D.C. office.  Remember, it is the Washington D.C. office that handles legislative issues.  The person that answers your call will probably be an intern, a Staff Assistant, or a Legislative Correspondent.  These staffers will most likely not have detailed knowledge of the issue that you're calling in about.  If you're calling about a "hot" topic in the news they may have a script, but they will not have the knowledge or the authority to discuss the issue with you or sometimes even to tell you what the Congressman's position is.  They will dutifully take down your contact information and put your message into the constituent contact database for a response.

At this point you may be tempted to ask for a higher level staffer who can answer your question more definitively and discuss your representative's position.  This is not usually advisable for several reasons.  If Congress is in session senior legislative staff will be busy assisting the Congressman with committee assignments, floor debates, votes, meetings, and other similar duties.  Remember, the average office receives around 25,000 contacts per year.  That works out to nearly 70 contacts for everyone one of the 365 days in the year, including Sundays, a staffer's birthday, their kid's little league championship, and everything else.  If 70 people per day asked for a personal phone call and a lengthy discussion a Congressional office literally would be unable to handle the volume without massive increases in staffing.  It also isn't necessary; more on that later.

The third major way to contact a Congressional office is through standard postal mail.  This is the least desirable way to contact a Member of Congress because it is very slow.  Due to concerns over explosive, chemical or biological attack, all physical items that are mailed to a Congressional office must go through a rigorous scanning process prior to delivery.  This adds several days on to an already slow process.  If you send your representative a physical piece of mail it will likely be over 2 weeks before your Member of Congress receives your mail and then an additional period of time before it can be processed and answered.  It goes without saying that if the object of your contact is urgent or time sensitive in any way you should e-mail or call instead.  This same delay also applies to packages and overnight mail.

Now that we know something about how the process works the question I suspect many people have is, "Why bother?"  If my representative isn't even going to see my message then why send it to him?  The answer is that even though your representative won't see your specific message he will hear your opinion and in an amplified way.  Your Congressman's staff will tally up all the contacts that are received and let him know how many people were for or against a particular issue.  That may not sound like much, but think about it this way.  Let's say 500 people write in about one bill, 200 are in favor and 300 oppose.  In the mind of the Congressman this is fairly compelling and he will probably draw generalizations about the feelings of his district based on this information.  One of 500 seems insignificant until you remember that each Congressional district has over 700,000 constituents in it.  You just went from being one in 700,000 to being one in 500.  Not bad.

Finally, some people want to meet their Member of Congress in person.  This usually isn't necessary, but it can be desirable and it is typically very possible because relatively few people want to meet their Member of Congress in person.  The easiest way to meet your representative is to contact his district office and see if he keeps regular office hours when Congress is not in session.  If so, his Scheduler will likely be able to work with you to set up a time for a face to face meeting.  Additionally, most Members of Congress have dozens of events in their district throughout the year, many of which are open to the general public.  The Congressman's district Scheduler will again be able to help you find a time to attend one of these events.

Other tips:

1. Be polite.  Congressional staff are routinely abused by constituents who are angry, incoherent, and demanding.  They're not in charge of anything; indeed, if they're interns, they're likely not even getting paid.  They're just someone's granddaughter who is trying to learn about our system of government and get some office experience over their summer break or through a college program.  Be nice to them.

2.  Know what you're talking about.  Constituents waste large amounts of their own time and Congressional staff time by submitting inquiries about issues that a person should be able to reasonably research on their own.  Chain e-mails, disreputable "news" websites, and plain old rumors can and should be dispelled by doing some background research before calling your Congressman.  Visit Thomas.loc.gov to find out about legislation, including its status in the legislative process.  We'll go into more detail in a future post, but there are thousands of bills introduced in Congress each year.  99% of them are never passed into law or even considered by the full House.  Learn to figure out which bills should worry you and which are dead on arrival.  If you know what you're talking about you will have much more credibility and respect with your representative and his staff.

3. Don't believe everything you hear.  This goes hand in hand with #2.  The world of politics is filled with people who are trying to get what they want and they need your help.  They'll try to enlist you in their cause in any way possible, including with false information.  Make sure that you really support their cause before you call your Congressman or donate money on their behalf.

Please keep in mind that this guide is not comprehensive.  Each Congressional office and Congressman is different.  If you have knowledge of your Member of Congress or his office that you trust then you should tailor your contact based on that information.  This guide is meant to outline how things typically work.

If you have any questions or comments please leave them in the feedback.  I will do my best to be responsive.  

Blog Reborn

I originally started this blog to comment on news items of the day.  I still plan to do that.  However, our nation has plenty of talking heads rattling off their opinions.  Instead of just commenting on the news I plan to offer a series of posts about how the average Tea Party Patriot can better influence Congress, communicate with their representative, and hopefully provide some insight into the inner workings of Congress as events unfold. Also, if anyone has questions please let me know in the comments section.

No promises on how rapid updates will be.  If there is no interest in this I may not keep at it very regularly. 

The Republican Institution

Political campaigns have become far more shallow over the years as orthodox political strategy has evolved to stress appearances over substance. Most candidates try to craft a message designed to offend as few voters as possible. This works fairly well in many Congressional districts, which are usually drawn to include comfortable majorities of either Republican or Democrat voters. Even some states are amenable to this approach to campaigning. However, a Presidential candidates must ultimately appeal to a broad base of voters that have many different regional, economic, and social concerns. The difficulty of making this kind of appeal in a convincing way seems to be increasing as voters become more skeptical of politicians in general. When candidates have trouble selling their candidacy to the voters they may decide to poison the electorate against their competitor. However, when a candidate attempts to attack a rival he often ends up telling us more about himself than he does about the candidate he is attacking. I believe that this is the point we have reached in the Republican Presidential nomination battle.

Mitt Romney is a squishy moderate or a true conservative, depending on who you listen to, but no matter what you think his political leanings are I think it is safe to say at this point that Mr. Romney's real passion in life is winning the next election. If you look at Mr. Romney's political positions over the last 10-15 years what is most striking is how they have evolved in a way that appears calculated to appeal to that maximum amount of the voters that I mentioned earlier. His left leaning positions on taxes, the Reagan legacy, and abortion slowly melted into a slightly right of center platform that you can almost plausibly call conservative by the time he was running for the GOP nomination for the first time in 2008.

The same could be said of the GOP establishment, if you can figure out who or what that is. The precise combination of lobbyists, politicians, bureaucrats, think tanks, and media personalities that make up the GOP 'establishment' has never been clear. Many of the groups that get lumped in this classification are happy to be GOP insiders when their interests align with the Republicans, but are quick to do some bipartisan outreach when they need something from the government that GOP members running in conservative districts don't quite feel safe signing on to. The GOP establishment, like its champion Mr. Romney, sometimes has unexpected evolutions in its adherence to standard conservative ideology. Just in the last few years we had an outbreak of big government feavor that manifested itself in the Troubled Assest Relief Program (TARP) and some mild bailout bloating. Upon the rise of former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who isn't the first suspect that you would round up if you were trying to find an 'outsider,' the GOP establishment worked itself into a frenzy to defeat him. This has been perplexing to many people who see little difference between the Romney insider and the Gingrich insider, but that isn't the point. The real problem with Mr. Gingrich isn't insider or outsider, but who is in control now.

Mr. Romney has a lot of friends, some of whom are especially friendly because they're on his retainer. Since Washington is a spider web of influence the friends that Mr. Romney has retained can also tap into many more friends. If they have a hard time rallying around Mr. Romney's 59 point economic agenda they thankfully have a much more plausible point of common interest, namely their own power. I think what we're seeing on display in the GOP Presidential nomination process is the institutional inertia of the Republican Party. Winning the Presidency is secondary to keeping themselves in power and for whatever reason the GOP establishment has decided that their lives will be easier with Mr. Romeny, even if he goes down to defeat in November.

I know that the establishment would argue that this conclusion simply isn't true. It is widely claimed that Mr. Romney is the most electable candidate because he can appeal to moderates. I don't know whether Mr. Romney is the best candidate for appealing to moderates, but apparently he isn't the best candidate to appeal to Republicans, which one would think would also be an important quality. The whole point of the primary system is to pick the most electable candidate; indeed, the most electable candidate should be the one that wins the primary elections. Instead of that, we've learned which candidate will best protect the interests and the perks of the institutional Republicans. We can only hope that he also happens to be the candidate who is best equipped to win in November.

Did the Greeks Ruin A Free Lunch?

The economy in Greece is sagging, as is their solvency, as a result of massive debt run up by their government. Interest rates on government bonds are over 7% as lenders no longer have confidence that Greece will be able to pay back the immense sums that it owes. How can this be?

President Obama just signed into law a massive new health care program. Admittedly, it isn't as good as the single payer type system that the President would have liked to have had were we "starting from scratch," but the President still touts his program as a net savings for the nation. Greece has had an Obama style health care system for decades now, along with large public unions, and a generous welfare system...just the kind of policies that the Democrats are telling us will result in a fair, fraternal, prosperous society. The result isn't a utopia of high wages, great public services, and affordable government, but a broken system of corruptions, huge black markets, high unemployment, massive deficits, and now rumblings of civil unrest as people take to the streets to keep their handouts.

I'd say that Greece's experience is more instructive of the outcome of the President's policies than tortured CBO estimates that incorporate what could only be described as legislative fantasies of savings by cutting current entitlement programs. The modern welfare state is a walking corpse from the instant its set up. There is no tweaking that can make the model work. Inevitably the welfare state consumes society's wealth and then collapses on itself.

The Sinister White North

Today Michael Medved asked a question to conservatives: Is Canada Evil? He maintains that it is not, and if you compare Canada to Soviet Russia he might be right. Unfortunately there is a lot of evil between "Good" and being a totalitarian regime that slaughters and oppresses millions. I contend that Canada is evil.

Mr. Medved argues in his column that Canada is not evil, even if it is less free than the United States and to support that argument he cites statistics on Canada's relative economic prosperity. I disagree with his methods of proof for two reasons. First, material well-being has no bearing on morality as commonly understood in Western, that is to say Christian, society. Secondly, the assertion that Canada's material well-being is still acceptable under its system of government is misleading, despite the indicators he cited, and I believe, incorrect. Let me explain one step at a time.

I trust that no further explanation be needed about morality being independent of wealth. The rich man may have been wicked, but it wasn't because he had riches, but because he placed them above the Lord.

I don't dispute the accuracy of Mr. Medved's analysis about the relative levels of spending, taxes, and the like, but the way he presents them would lead the reader to believe that America and Canada exist in isolation from each other, as if America were on Mars and Canada on Venus. That is not the case, however, and it seems to me that it is impossible to calculate how much Canada has been enriched by America's good behavior over the decades. Canada has socialized medicine, which he notes is a travesty, but as abysmal as Canada's health care system is, it would be all the worse if not for Canada's proximity to the United States. Every time a Canadian comes to America for medical care it relieves some of the strain on Canada's system and lessens the expense. Moreover, Canada's health care industry benefits from the untold billions of dollars that American corporations have poured into research and development over the years, not to mention the millions of medical man hours developing new techniques that our for-profit doctors have put in. Likewise, Canada's comparable level of spending in terms of GDP is only possible because a muscular American military stands ready to repel all threats and provide a nuclear shield for the relatively defenseless Canada. The same can be said about many aspects of Canadian life; the bulk of the technology Canada and the rest of the world uses was developed or greatly improved by the power of American free markets.

So if Canada isn't the axe wielding lunatic filling mass graves and enslaving everyone around him, our neighbor to the North is at least a shifty ne'er-do-well who makes his neighbor do all the work and goes out to pickpocket during the evening hours. Canadian welfare mentality proffers as its basis the notion that the government ought to provide the public with "services" using confiscated money from productive citizens. Canadian socialized medicine accepts, in reality if not in doctrine, that many people should die prematurely or suffer treatable illnesses longer in order to pay homage to their shibboleth that everyone deserves medical care. Even the limitations on speech are more serious than you make them out to be. Lacking speech rights seriously harms a person's autonomy and degrades society's ability to watchdog its own government.

Canada's multicultural state has left it a moral wasteland where any number of vile ideologies have inserted themselves. Anti-Semitism is on the rise and its the kind that threatens violence. Israeli supporters were, just yesterday, attacked with a machete on a college campus. Standing by and tolerating radical beliefs in the name of multiculturalism is like watching someone get murdered and doing nothing to stop it. Right now I'm just using that as a simile, but if the machete-wielders get their way it may not stay that way for long.

Canada is a nation that robs disfavored classes of its people (the "rich"), oppresses freedom of speech, contributes to the death of its citizens (health care), and looks the other way when hateful ideologies reach for their machetes. Is it beginning to sound a little closer to Stalin than first suspected?

So yes, Canada is evil and becoming more so all the time.

As an aside, Canada has sheltered in the strength of American power, but has starved from a lack of American ideology responsible for American power. We have done the entire world a great disservice because we're too focused on the material well-being of other nations even as their civic institutions are rotting. The world didn't need America's wealth to survive and prosper, it needed America's ideology. We have failed to export the one true thing we have of indispensable value: our beliefs.

Government's Helping Hand of Decay

Mark Fisher had an interesting article in Bloomberg Press today about the parallels between Rome's decline as a nation and America. In it he argues that we're reaching a tipping point where decline will be inevitable as a result of permanently poor economic performance, the shrinking military power that accompanies it, and a listless dependent society. Unfortunately there is a lot of truth in his analysis. However, despite recognizing the outcome of our bloated bureaucratic government, as it rapidly takes over every meaningful part of society, Mr. Fisher embodies the mindset that has created the problem.

Unless the government creates a massive jobs program, cuts spending and taxes, and gains control of the national budget and the balance of payments crises, we should fear for our future. Unless our fellow Americans relearn the value of hard work, no government plan stands a chance.

Cutting spending and taxes are all well and fine, but if Mr. Fisher is going to wait on the government to create jobs he'll need to dig in for a lengthy stay. The government can't create jobs that are of any meaningful use to society and various attempts to do so over the years is a big part of why we're in the dismal shape that Mr. Fisher has determined that we're in. Government jobs typically don't produce anything, they simply regulate or engage in other meaningless bureaucratic tasks. Government jobs that do attempt to create something of value inevitably do so less efficiently than the market and usually produces things that society doesn't really want which is a waste of resources.

The government needs to get out of the way. The market can create jobs, but only if a locust swarm of government officials aren't standing by to consume everything that's produced as soon as private citizens finish producing it.

The Road to War is Paved with Peace Treaties

Today President Obama announced new limits on the American nuclear strategy that would for the first time declare that the United States would not use nuclear weapons even in self defense after having been attacked with chemical or biological weapons.

For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

As if promising to fight with both hands tied behind our back, with eyes closed, whilst humming a dapper tune were not enough, the President has also decided to unilaterally obsolete America's nuclear weapons over a period of time by refusing to develop new weapons platforms as technology advances.

To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.

To set an example indeed. It will be interesting to see how many other nations follow our example. Somehow I can't imagine Mahmoud Ahmadinejad putting off the pending arrival of the 12th Imam by giving up his development of the weapon he thinks will hasten in the world's end. He's already widened out the streets of Tehran after all. The only other detail left to attend to is the destruction of the Zionist Entity.

No one should be surprised by the President's actions though. President Obama I mean, not President Ahmadinejad. The President has a view of the world that is widely shared in the halls of the more elite university campuses. America's possession of nuclear weapons makes other nations "insecure," which causes them to develop nuclear weapons, which then puts the whole world at risk as everyone races to build arms. If we draw down our forces, so the theory goes, everyone else will draw their forces down too.

The problem is that this kind of behavior has never happened in the history of the world, especially not when dealing with authoritarian nations. Weakening America's military only gives the potential for aggressors to develop a dangerous new calculus, namely that they have just enough strength in light of America's new weakness to put their objectives within the realm of possibility. A nation that would never engage in hostilities in the face of a strong America just might be willing to roll the dice in the presence of a weakened America.

That isn't something that the forces of peace should relish.