An Iron Triangle is when a bureaucratic agency, an interest group, and a congressional committee works together to advance its own agenda and act in its own interests. It is generally considered detrimental to a healthy democratic process because it ignores the interests of the common good for the sake of advancing specific and narrow interests.

Congress giving more funding to the Department of Agriculture (the bureaucracy) would expand the DoA's power base. In return, agricultural lobbying groups (special interests) would gain lower regulation for their constituents. Most likely, Congress would receive electoral funding promises for its efforts. This answer best represents all three point of the Iron Triangle.

There are many concerns regarding the Military-Industrial Complex, including corrupting politicians, disproportionate military spending, an incentive to wage war on others, and private corporations gaining too much control over our ability to wage war.

The biggest problem with the Iron Triangle is it encourages government agencies to pursue more power and funding instead of the public good. Oftentimes, the Iron Triangle will even result in sacrificing the public good in exchange for power, such as lowering environmental protections in exchange for oil money donations that don't benefit the public.

The Iron Triangle establishes relationships between the most influential and informed groups in specific sectors affecting the nation. Improved communication between these groups can grease the wheels of policymaking and sometimes translate into a faster and cheaper public good.

The economic stimulus of having the private sector produce tools of war is well documented. Many economists and historians believe that World War II is the real reason the Great Depression ever ended (instead of FDR's New Deal). None of the other options are considered a benefit of this system (in fact, most of them are drawbacks of the system).

The US has what many consider a ridiculously disproportionate military budget, which is at least partially a result of powerful defense group lobbying. Such spending has increased radically, since World War II, widely considered the beginning of the Military-Industrial Complex era.

While many of these answers sound plausible, the golden parachute generally refers to when a politician involved in an Iron Triangle is promised a well-paying job after his or her stay in government in exchange for political favors. This sometimes also works the other way, with government positions being awarded to generous lobbyists. The idea is that someone can "jump" from the public sector to the private and "settle" comfortably in financial terms.

While the other options may have some effect, they're either unlikely to be effective or won't dismantle the entire Iron Triangle. Only electing politicians that will reject the influence of special interest groups may be a difficult task, but it would be most effective at reducing the power of an Iron Triangle. The principle here, is that the Iron Triangle is quite strong against external influences, and must change from the inside.

The Iron Triangle is used to describe the conspiratorial relationship between bureaucracies, congressional committees, and interest groups. These three points on the triangle often cooperate to further their own financial gains and interests. The Iron Triangle is often used negatively to describe actions that benefit these groups personally but don't benefit the general public (such as lowering regulations for interest groups and to save money for Congressmen). While the Military-Industrial Complex is often considered an example of an Iron Triangle, Iron Triangle is the best choice here.