Government vs. State, Again

Posted on by

Matt Ygelsias, commenting on Spencer Ackerman’s dispatch on the armed services’ plans to resist cuts in their budgets, nicely illustrates the antagonism between democratic government and the permanent state:

Note that “the services’ legislative outreach and public-affairs offices” are technically part of the United States government. Indeed, they’re technically not supposed to be doing any lobbying at all. In fact, they regularly lobby congress against positions taken by the civilian leadership of the United States and on behalf of the defense contractors they’re hoping will employ them post-retirement. 

Part of what you’re doing when you’re paying taxes is paying for functionaries of the permanent state apparatus to lobby the elected government to ensure that you never stop paying the taxes that finance their “vital functions.”

14 thoughts on “Government vs. State, Again”

  1. I seem to recall that “legislative outreach” was the first position John MCain held after his return from capitivity, and that the job had been specially arranged for him by his four-star father — who held the position before him.

    Remind me again how McCain was/is supposedly a different kind of politician?

  3. Remind me again how McCain was/is supposedly a different kind of politician?

    The funny thing is that even Matt Welch's book, which (accurately) criticized the idea that McCain is some uniquely different kind of politician, agreed that he is one of the best in killing pork barrel defense projects and unnecessary military spending.

    You can see the cite here, for example, along with other cites.

    So he hasn't shilled for the defense contractors, unlike nearly everyone else.

    Plenty of things to criticize him about, but even Matt Welch would agree you're barking up the wrong tree here.

  4. Of course, the defense industry is hardly the only one that does this. (Fannie and Freddie did a ton as quasi-governmental bodies, too.) Matt just blindly ignores the other examples, though certainly this is ridiculous.

  5. Pingback: Government vs. State, Again

  7. I think the ONDCP is another high-profile perpetrator of this sort of behavior. They use our tax money to agitate against any attempt to legalize/decriminalize any of the substances that fall under its purview. In fact, I believe the Office is duty-bound by law to behave this way. It's madness.

  8. This post title also pretty much sums up the idea behind the sitcom “Yes Minister”.

  10. Raivo Pommer
    raimo1@hot.ee

    New-York-Frankfurt

    Merrill hat nun vor dem obersten Gericht des Staates New York Klage eingereicht. Eric Heaton habe am 3. Februar bei Merrill gekündigt und noch am selben Tag bei der Deutschen Bank angefangen. Er habe damit Konkurrenzschutzklauseln verletzt, erst nach Ablauf eines Jahres hätte er bei einem Wettbewerber beginnen können. Außerdem breche die Deutsche Bank den Schutz von Firmengeheimnissen, Heaton habe Kenntnisse über sensible Informationen wie Kunden und Geldquellen von Merrill Lynch. Die Bank will nach Angaben ihres Anwalts 100 Millionen Dollar Schadenersatz.

    Die Deutsche Bank wollte sich zu dem Streit nicht äußern. Aus ihrer Abwerbestrategie macht sie allerdings keinen Hehl. Bei der Bilanzpressekonferenz Anfang Februar hatte Vorstandschef Josef Ackermann angekündigt, die Bank wolle die Krise nutzen, um Talente von schwächeren Konkurrenten zu locken. Er deutete damals an, er könne sich vorstellen, dass vor allem Mitarbeiter von Banken unter Staatseinfluss gerne zu einem Institut wechseln, das frei von politischen Einflüssen sei. Die amerikanische Regierung hat die Bank of America, die Merrill Lynch im Herbst übernommen hatte, mit 25 Milliarden Dollar gestützt. In Bankenkreisen heißt es, angeschlagene Häuser wie Merrill wehrten sich auch deswegen so aggressiv gegen Abwerbeversuche, weil sie fürchteten, dadurch weiter geschwächt zu werden.

  11. If you used this as a standard for what not to write about, you'd be pretty bored, but Boaz has been hammering at this issue for years. It's one of the more disturbing trends in government.