onetime: ok, i made my statements without going through the full article...now that I have, I'd like to quote a few more interesting lines:
Quote:
Bringing bias to a federal job isn't new. Presidents of all political persuasions have appointed people who shared their party's values.
As president, Bill Clinton peppered the federal bureaucracy with Democratic state officials, lawyers and advocates from various environmental or public-interest groups.
Only a handful of registered lobbyists worked for Clinton, however.
Bush's embrace of lobbyists marks a key difference because it allows "those who are affected by the regulations to determine what the ground rules should be," said David Cohen, co-director of the Advocacy Institute, which helps teach nonprofits how to lobby in Washington.
While previous Republican presidents hired lobbyists, "the Bush administration has made it rise in geometric proportions," Cohen said, meaning Bush is "capturing the instruments of government and using them for the ends" that favor Bush's political supporters.
|
I had a hard time drawing, from the article, the distinction is between hiring a lobbyist and hiring a non-lobbyist from xyz corporation, and in fact the article itself does not draw any strong conclusions regarding the difference; however, it does provide some interesting examples that suggest that the hirings are in exchange to supporting institutions providing financial/political support to Bush. The mad cow example was particularly interesting. Worth a look (or at least a skim) at the full article.
In any case, here's what I think the distinction is between hiring lobbyists and non-lobbyists. It's a theory, feel free to shoot it down. Lobbyists are not known for their aptitude in their field or for their particular thoughts on an issue--they're known for their ability to support the interests of a company (ie, their marketing ability). Non-lobbyists (ie, lawyers for corporations, since i'm assuming that most of these positions are lawyer positions, now that i've read the article) gain prominence from being successful, either in leadership positions or by taking an intriguing (or conventional) stand on an issue, for being their own person. Therefore, while lobbyists make a living by proving how much they can influence government, following whatever order is issued by the industry for which they work, non-lobbyists make a living by running corporations, handling day-to-day matters and feeling the pains caused by xyz government regulation on a daily basis, or feeling strongly enough on an issue to become a public name.
It's a bit hazy--i don't know enough about the issue to say anything definite, but certainly enough (i work as a government contractor) to say that it warrants investigation. I'm not the type to blindly argue about things i don't know about.