As Congress has continued to grow, their reliance on committees and subcommittees for writing the details of most legislation has given outsiders many points of contact with legislators and their staff. This access has encouraged the formation of groups to facilitate communication between their agencies and the sector they serve in order to build support for their own programs and budgets. These groups then hire lobbyist who work toward finding legislators willing to champion their causes. Lobbyists need members to introduce their proposals as legislation, offer amendments in committee and on the floor, and to help them get issues on, or sometimes keep issues off, the agendas of committees and subcommittees.

Lobbyists know that most representatives are in Washington for three or more nights a week without their families. They use this time to build personal relationships and attempt to gain policy insight. Successful lobbyists develop access to well-placed members and staff on Capitol Hill by using their network of contacts, mastery of the political process, and money. The most obvious and/or important tool lobbyist have is their money, or access to money, that can be used for campaign contributions for reelection. Some lobbyists are able to make considerable contributions themselves, while others are able to pull funds together from various political action committees or wealthy individuals to maximize their influence.

More often than not, interest groups seek out members in key positions, such as party leaders or committee chairs specifically related to their efforts. In recent years, representatives have increasingly called upon lobbyists to organize fundraising activities on their behalf. From the resulting behaviors of the interest groups, we can infer that there are returns to making these contributions.

The American Medical Association, or AMA, is one of these groups lobbying Congress. Founded in 1847 and incorporated in 1897, the AMA’s mission is to promote the art and science of medicine for the betterment of the public health, to advance the interests of physicians and their patients, to promote public health, to lobby for legislation favorable to physicians and patients, and to raise money for medical education. Despite only representing 18-20% of American physicians, the AMA is still regarded as one of the country’s premier lobbying forces and may be one of the most trusted voices by the public in the health care debate.

Apart from its self-proclaimed public service nature, the AMA’s political positions through history have been highly controversial. After nearly 60 years of vehemently opposing any government overhaul of health care, the AMA is now lobbying and advertising to win public support for President Obama’s sweeping plan –a proposal that promises hundreds of billions of dollars for America’s doctors. With the goal of eliminating cuts in Medicare spending and the potential expansion and reformation of health insurance, the government has become a vital source of revenue and stability for doctors. Since the beginning of 2008, the AMA has spent $30 million on lobbying, a sum only surpassed by the United States Chamber of Commerce.

When Congress is drafting tax legislation, there is no committee busier and more popular than the House Ways and Means. Lobbyists often pay people to stand in the corridors of Congress watching every move. Because when it comes to this type of complex legislation, every detail counts for something. Special interests often use these behemoth bills as vehicles for their legislative wish lists, hoping the sheer size of the proposals will divert attention from their sought-after provisions. Since tax bills affect so many industries’ bottom lines, it is little surprise that members should attract generous donations from a variety of sources, including health professionals and insurance companies.

In addition to the House Ways and Means, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, formerly known simply as the Commerce Committee, is often where some of the biggest legislative battles get started. From deregulating the telecommunications industry, to relaxing promotional standards for drug companies, to changing the nation’s health care laws, this committee’s members are often the subjects of intense industry lobbying. Without question, these two committees, their chairmen, and their health care subcommittees are a prime target of lobbyist interested in the health care debate.

The AMA, an association that had traditionally supported Republican candidates, agreeing with the Grand Old Party on such issues as medical malpractice reform, has begun to shift their support to Democrats in favor of their attempts to pass legislation for an expanded role of the government in health care. The swing in support can clearly be seen from the nonpartisan center for responsive politics, OpenSecrets.org. Since the 2004 campaign cycle, the percentage of money given directly to representatives from the AMA has seen a 28 point shift from 76% Republican to 52%Democrat. While those number alone prove nothing, taking a closer look, during the 2010 campaign cycle, the top two committees receiving funds from the AMA are the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Ways and Means Committee. Together, these two committees account for 31% of all money given by the AMA.

Of the top 24 individual recipients of AMA money, nine (38%) of the representatives are either on the Energy and Commerce or Ways and Means committees, including both Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Representative Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), chairman of the Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Health. Interestingly enough, these two representatives combined have received over $6 million (out of $10.7 million) from the entire health care industry, putting them head and shoulders above the rest.

Why would these two men be individually targeted? Rangel is one of three heads of committees responsible for drafting the legislation on health care reform, while Pallone’s subcommittee has sole jurisdiction over Medicaid. Pulling specifically from the AMA’s “Vision for Health System Reform,” two of their top goals are: insurance market reforms that expand choice of affordable coverage and eliminate denials for pre-existing conditions, and a repeal of the Medicare physician payment formula that would trigger steep cuts and threaten seniors’ access to care.

In addition to the $8.2 million spent on lobbying efforts in the first six months of 2009, the AMA has spent even more money advertising in an attempt to sway public opinion of the president’s proposed reforms. For example, since August 13, viewers in key markets have seen $8 million in ads sponsored by the “Americans for Stable Quality Care,” an organization that includes the AMA and a handful of other institutional backers of Obama’s proposal. Most of these ads have been focused on the states of key representatives and where conservative Democrats are thought to be wavering.

As mentioned before, while the AMA may be one of the most trusted voices by the public in the health care debate, some economists argue that it helps perpetuate one of the biggest problems with the American system: a cartel that limits the number of doctors. President Obama and his fellow Democrats blame the current health care mess on the free market. But a free market can’t exist when a cartel with the ear of the government is allowed to control the key input for its own self-aggrandizement. It is very clear that the AMA, while appearing to have the best interest of their patients in mind, clearly have self-serving interests in regards to their lobbying efforts, their money, and their authority.

Over the course of the decade, the ability of the American people to buy new cars, houses, and other good began to weaken. At the time, the weakening economy was masked by a bull market that gave the appearance that the increase in wealth, through stocks, would never end. However, that aura of invisibility did end. On October 29, 1929, known to many as “Black Tuesday,” the stock market crashed. Within a couple of months investors had lost nearly $40 billion dollars, uninsured deposits caused banks to fail and spending had nearly come to a halt. The “Great Depression” began.

In 1935, rather than letting the business cycle correct itself, President Franklin Roosevelt introduced an economic stimulus plan known as, the “New Deal.” The overarching goal of the plan was to sure up the economy, reform business and financial operations and give aid to the unemployed and worker’s who had lost their pensions. While many of the programs lasted only until World War II, one of the largest programs still in existence today is Social Security.

From its compassionate, early beginnings Social Security was an attempt to limit what some saw as the dangers of modern American life. This included providing benefits to retirees, the unemployed, and lump-sum benefits upon death. This social insurance act established the framework for the American welfare system.

Upon its inception, the Social Security program was meant to pay benefits out of a large reserve fund. However, an amendment in 1939 changed the system to a “pay as you go,” model. With the switch, the fundamental flaws and numerous problems of the Social Security program began to come into light. In addition to the problem of the pay as you go model, Social Security increased the size of the government, not only in expenditures but also in its encroachment on personal liberties. With the changing demographics of the public, and without major reform, Social Security is on a path to insolvency.

Unlike private insurance or private pension models, Social Security was designed (after the amendment in 1939) to pay out benefits before adequate contributions had been amassed. The monies were to be collected by a payroll tax known as FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act), under the guise of making it appear as though people were contributing to a fund that was designated specifically for them. In reality, nothing could have been further from the truth. Essentially, benefits of current retirees were to be paid for partially, and sometimes wholly, out of the contributions of current workers. Although a partial reserve was set up by investing surplus Social Security taxes into government bonds, those reserves were far from sufficient to cover accrued liabilities. Since the reserves were in government bonds, they amounted to little more than IOUs that would have to be redeemed by future taxpayers. When those workers eventually retire, their benefits, in turn, depend on the ability and willingness of the next generations of workers to pay. This threat was either overlooked or ignored, despite the final report of the 1937-1938 Advisory Council on Social Security proclaiming, “No benefits should be promised or implied which cannot be safely financed not only in the early years of the program but when workers now young will be old.”

As mentioned previously, when tax revenues exceed the paid benefits, the surplus funds are placed into the Social Security Trust Fund. In turn, the trust funds are invested in special government treasury bonds. This cash flow helps ease other financial pressures on the government and the general fund budget, but has created a perfect storm for failure in regards to the Social Security program. Based on the OASDI (old age, survivors, and disability insurance – official name of Social Security) Trustee’s report in 2007, the program cost will begin to exceed its tax revenues in 2017. When the time comes for the next generation to begin drawing on the trust funds to pay out benefits, the federal government will face a very difficult fiscal situation. If Social Security is to pay out the promised benefits, the government will have to find the money to repay what it borrowed from the trust funds, with interest. However, the federal government doesn’t have any cash or other assets with which to pay off the bonds. It can obtain the cash only by borrowing and running a larger deficit, increasing taxes, or cutting other government spending. By 2041, the Social Security Administration projects the trust funds to be empty, and the tax revenue to only be able to finance 78 percent of the scheduled annual benefits.

“The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” (Margaret Thatcher)

If financing of Social Security weren’t an issue, there is still the notion of the changing demographics of beneficiaries and tax payers. Longer life spans and changing birthrates have dramatically affected who retires, how many years of retirement are supported, and how many people in the work force provide the funds necessary to support the retirement system. Thanks to significant advancements in health care and standards of living, larger portions of the population are living beyond their adult years and into old age. When Social Security was first introduced only 54 percent of men and 61 percent of women born in 1875 would survive from age 21 to age 64 in 1940, the first year benefits were available. In contrast nearly 72 percent of men and 84 percent of women who were born in 1925 survived to age 65 in 1990. The Social Security Administration projects that the amount of years retirees will live past retirement age will approach 20 in the coming years, thus placing a larger burden on tomorrow’s tax payers.

The birthrate is another major demographic factor that strongly affects both benefits and taxes within Social Security. Following the baby ‘bust’ of the Great Depression, the post World War II baby ‘boom’ swelled the size of the labor force and increased Social Security taxes during their working years. Beginning in 2010, however, the leading edge of the boomers will start to retire. After that, the retirement population is expected to increase dramatically, while the size of the working-age population will have become rather stagnant due to the low birthrates since the mid-1960’s. By 2030, about one-fifth of the population is expected to be receiving Social Security benefits. Compared to the 16-to-one workers-to-retirees ratio in 1950, today that ratio is 3.3-to-one, and is expected to hit 2.2-to-two, putting a huge burden on workers as they pay for retiree benefits in an intergenerational transfer of wealth.

“Security will never come from a Social Security system in an expansive welfare state. It can only be realized when the source of security is discovered to lie within the individual himself.” (Hans F. Sennholz)

The annual cost of Social Security benefits represented 4.3 percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in 2007 and is projected to increase to 6.1 percent of GDP by 2035. Further, the $500 billion spent on Social Security benefits made it the largest government program in the world and the largest expenditure in the federal budget at 20.9 percent, compared to 20.1 percent for military expenditures. This massive amount of spending does more than create financial burdens on tax payers it also encroaches on personal liberties, as it allows government to determine retirement ages, incomes, and investments.

Keep in mind that the government produces nothing. Thus, when it gives benefits to its citizen, whether ‘free’ or at a bargain cost, it must first had to have taken it from the citizens, in hidden or direct taxes. Then is returns a portion of the benefit at its discretion. If a welfare state truly worked, then as the nation became more affluent, you would expect the need for welfare to diminish, but in fact the opposite seems to be true.

One of the issues of infringing on personal liberties is the fixed retirement age. Cases can be made for both raising and lowering the retirement age. If the age were raised, more taxes would be paid in, and fewer benefits would be paid out, thus lowering the overall program cost. Likewise, if the retirement age were lowered, many workers may opt to retire early, while they have good health and can enjoy their leisure time, post-career. The United States has already seen a movement in that direction, especially in the more affluent, that choose to retire early. Another benefit of a lower retirement age is the potential job opportunities for unemployed youth.

In addition to the age itself, there is the so-called “retirement test,” that penalizes recipients of Social Security benefits that opt to supplement their income with additional work. If the program is truly a social ‘insurance’ rather than a means-tested benefit, recipients should receive benefits as a mater of right.

Another concept to consider is that Social Security is somewhat of a forced pension plan. Workers pay 7.65 percent of their income into the program which is matched by their employer, for a total of 15.3 percent. Self employed persons bare the entire burden. If an average college graduate made $30 thousand per year, and never received a raise, they could expect to pay $664 thousand in Social Security taxes over the course of their working life. For those taxes, they would receive $3.5 thousand per month in benefits. The rate of return is negative 1.85 percent. However, if they had been able to invest all of their taxes into a personal retirement account, and a conservative rate of return of 4.89 percent, they would have a total of $1.8 million when they retired, and would receive monthly benefits of $15.5 thousand dollars. Instead, they miss out on $11.8 thousand monthly, under the guise of ‘insurance.’

By giving workers the choice to determine their own retirement, they could yield a much higher rate of return. With that, the more money retirees made, the more they would spend, which ultimately would increase the total economic gain.

Without mentioning the rate of inflation and the decreased buying power of the dollar, it is easy to see that the Social Security program in America is flawed. From its inception it could be labeled as a pay as you go “Ponzi scheme,” that has greatly increased the size of government, created a welfare state, and infringed on the personal liberties of its citizens. Without drastic changes to the way the program is funded, or to the benefits that are received, the program will be bankrupt by the mid twentieth-first century.

We must take control of Federal spending. As a country, we are over $10 Trillion dollars in debt. That equates to nearly $34,534 per citizen. We cannot allow that number to increase, and must work toward reducing the burden. In 1997 the Clinton administration worked with the GOP controlled congress to enact the Balanced Budget Agreement. The essence of the agreement was to restrain the growth in spending and cut taxes over a 10 year period. Although, clearly not followed, our government needs to run like any corporation; we need a balance sheet that controls expenses in relation to income. The man to do this, is John McCain.

On top of all of that, we are still engaged in a war in Iraq. A war that was mistakenly dubbed ‘mission accomplished.’ A war that has now lasted longer than WWII. Regardless of whether or not you support the war in the geographical area known as Iraq, we are at war against terrorism. There is a grave threat still looming in the Middle East, and it must be resolved. The United States is the leading country in the world, not because we wanted it, not because we strived for it, but because our form of government has produced it! We need a Commander-in-Chief that understand this threat, and will work on the offensive, rather than the defensive. That man, is John McCain.

On the home front we are faced with another battle by way of illegal immigration. Understand that we are all immigrants. Unless you are Native American, this was not your family’s original home. For over the last 200 years, we have made this nation into what it is today. The United States of America. We’ve become an empire recognized and sometimes despised globally. However, to continue this empire, we must stop the influx of illegal immigration. We must secure our borders. If you understand world history you will know that the great Roman Empire fell due to the illegal German immigrants. The Germans did not believe in paying taxes and began taking the land, and calling it their own. The Roman natives began to change their culture as they agreed with the Germans. Today, we read about Rome only in the history books. Unless we want to follow the same fate, we need to elect John McCain.

In regards to taxes, we all know that if we want a sound national infrastructure we have to invest in it. That said we must have a clear understanding of how our tax system works. Considering our tax code is over 67,000 pages, that is pretty tough to do. Know that, 70-80% of all businesses in the United States are small businesses. Thus, the number one issue crippling innovation is payroll taxes. It is the small businesses that create jobs for America. When they want to expand, they have to look at the tax implications of hiring additional staff. Lowering capital gains will do nothing for these businesses. We must also understand that large corporations do not pay taxes. They simply pass that expense on to the consumer. It is estimated that our current tax code is embedded in the price of our goods and services by the amount of 22%. We need these business owners, both large and small. The Federal government is not in a place to create jobs. If we truly want the economy to rebound, we must elect John McCain.

For too long now, the citizen’s of this great country have propped up their lifestyle by way of debt. In fact, the most aggressively marketed product in this country is debt. Countless people are making $40K a year, but living on $75K-$80K with nothing in savings. We’ve bought houses that are bigger than what we need and allowed people to purchase more than they can afford. We’ve seen people spend more money on cars than they put into a retirement account. We must get this inline and instill a sense of personal responsibility in people. Our current credit crises has been perpetuated by our overextended consumerism. The man to help us along this path, is John McCain.

I could belabor points forever, but I will choose to stop here. In five days we will cast a vote for a President who will lead us out of our current situation and set the path of this country for years to come. The man we need is John McCain.

Immediately, I laughed and said to myself “yeah right.” First – why in the world would they care about my logo, and second – HOW in the world did they find MY blog??

Now, anyone who knows even the slightest about me knows that my absolute favorite board game of all time is… MONOPOLY!!! So, when I wanted to officially start blogging (somewhere other than MySpace), I decided to create an ‘online brand’ for myself. There are several things that could be used to describe me – Monopoly, entrepreneur, Captain Morgan, Marine, Republican, etc.

I took all of those things into consideration and decided that since my life as an entrepreneur always seems to have me in a world of chaos – I needed to include that word. Okay… so we have part of the brand – what else? I really do love Monopoly so, I wanted to find a way to incorporate that as well. As I thought to myself about what a ‘monopoly’ was I mixed that idea with my conservative Republican nature, and decided that since our (Republican) beliefs are the only ones that should matter – we want to ‘monopolize’ the country. Thus – Monopolized. Put the two together, and you get Monopolized Chaos!

PERFECT! Jim Brown IS – Monopolized Chaos.

So, what’s next? I need a logo – right? Of course I do – I have to also rely on my design background! What would represent my new brand and persona better than the Monopoly logo? After doing a little digging, I figure out what font they used to create the logo, changed the name to Monopolized, and the color to orange (my favorite color – again, has to represent me), added Chaos, and viola!!! We have a logo!

Fast forward nearly six months later and I get the letter below from Hasbro demanding that I immediately cease the use of my ‘infringing’ logo. Are you serious? Again, I ask the question, HOW in the world did they find my blog? But it gets better – read the letter…

Hasbro states that the use of my logo will cause “confusion with respect to Hasbro’s authorization or sponsorship of or association with your activities,” and further the use of the logo will, “dilute the distinctive quality of the MONOPOLY® logo.”

Still laughing.

I guess I should feel honored that Hasbro thinks that my little blog on my portion of the internets (Insert George Bush parody here), will impact so many people that it will cause confusion of their brand.

Wow.