For all too long, reasonable candidates have been elected to Congress promising to excercise fiscal restraint, only to wind up as big spenders in DC. I first read of this in a series of columns by Lewis Lapham who was editor of Harper's Magazine in the early 70s.. The author compared the scene in DC to the court of Louis XVI of France, which he described as an incestuous pit of back stabbing vipers. The Crown (Congress)  recieved a procession of supplicants(lobbyists) who were beseeching the Crown for dispensatiions and sponsorships (legislative favors and gubmint contracts). The court (DC social scene) was inhabited ba an assortment of shallow, self-serving synchophants(the press and punditry of the coctail party circuit)  who would trade their mother for a favorable place to satnd at court.. Kings (Presidents) would come and go but the courtisans (synchophants) would always be there and they held the real keys to power. The influence of the chattering class works like this, a freshman arrives in Congress full of intent to be fiscally responsible. He is roundly criticized in the press as being "insensitive to the needs of the people" and receiving none of the coveted invitations to DC cocktail parties. After months of such ostricism, the newbie changes his position, not only in response to this pressure, but in recognition of the rules of the game which is a legislative form of horse trading. Our erstwile conservative thus begins to cast votes supporting liberal giveaway programs. After this change, he is hailed by the pundits and at cocktail parties as "becoming understanding and compassionate". Little did I know when I read these articles how prophetic they would become in 20 years or so.