It has become obvious that the present campaign reform proposals will reform very little. They are filled with loopholes and will be opposed by the media, who depend on political advertising for a huge source of revenue.
The obscene cost of campaigning has given growth to an entire industry built around fundraising. If you are a computer user I am sure that every day your In Box has numerous requests for donations. While they ask for as little as $3, these requests are repeated almost every day and you are asked to sign petitions which which put you on more lists soliciting more donations.
Lobbyists are a large part of this obscenity. They raise money to disperse to candidates and elected politicians so that they can get favorable laws for their clients. The Supreme Court has compounded this problem by giving corporations the same rights as individuals when it comes to donating money. This has raised the stakes further by forcing politicians to spend ridiculous amounts of time fundraising and promising favors to everyone with a big checkbook.
Unfortunately, when it comes to buying influence, the middle class cannot compete with the corporations. That is why our government is being bought and sold by Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, etc.
The reason why campaign reform won't work is simple. No one benefits except the little guy - and no one cares about the little guy.
Politicians need the big money to run for office. Lobbyists need access to the big money to buy influence and keep their jobs. The media needs big money in the game to pay for all the advertising.
Many of our elected officials are so cosy with the huge dollars of the lobbying industry, they use their elected positions as a stepping stone to employment as lobbyists when their time in office is up.
We need to stop the madness. Between partisan politics and a Congress on the payroll of corporate America, there is almost no chance for meaningful legislation to help the poor and middle class.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Taxes and reality
It sounds so logical to hear the average citizen call for increasing corporate taxes to make for a fairer taxation policy. Unfortunately that system does not work as long as the corporations can raise the prices so that you end up paying the increase.
Who do you think paid the taxes levied on phone companies? Who do you think paid the higher prices at the pump on the taxes to the oil companies? Who do you think pays the real estate taxes? The home owner, the co-op buyer and the renter. Whenever a company's real estate taxes go up, the consumer pays. The mortgage companies, the banks, your cable companies all raise their fees, and the list goes on and on.
Trickle down economics work if you're a corporation. Whatever costs are levied on companies at the top, are trickled down to the consumer at the bottom. But increased profits? They usually go to increased CEO salaries, cash reserves or stock buybacks. The cash rarely trickles down.
The fairest way is to close the loopholes on income tax benefits to incentivize companies spreading their wealth around instead of concentrating it at the top and to eliminate special tax benefits for companies who take their money and jobs out of the country,accounts out of the country.
It is obvious the present tax policy only benefits the wealthy. No matter how much they complain about their tax burden, the disparity between rich and poor keeps growing.
Who do you think paid the taxes levied on phone companies? Who do you think paid the higher prices at the pump on the taxes to the oil companies? Who do you think pays the real estate taxes? The home owner, the co-op buyer and the renter. Whenever a company's real estate taxes go up, the consumer pays. The mortgage companies, the banks, your cable companies all raise their fees, and the list goes on and on.
Trickle down economics work if you're a corporation. Whatever costs are levied on companies at the top, are trickled down to the consumer at the bottom. But increased profits? They usually go to increased CEO salaries, cash reserves or stock buybacks. The cash rarely trickles down.
The fairest way is to close the loopholes on income tax benefits to incentivize companies spreading their wealth around instead of concentrating it at the top and to eliminate special tax benefits for companies who take their money and jobs out of the country,accounts out of the country.
It is obvious the present tax policy only benefits the wealthy. No matter how much they complain about their tax burden, the disparity between rich and poor keeps growing.
Friday, April 8, 2011
The 2012 presidential election
It is early, but I will make a prediction as to what I believe will happen in the 2012 presidential election.
Obama will win.
Does he deserve to win based on his accomplishments up to now? I am not sure. Do I approve of what he has done? I give him a a 6.5 out of 10.
He was given a chance to fulfill his promises of change. but what has he changed? Very little. He had a chance to be a statesman and settled for politician.
He has allowed the Republicans to dictate the agenda, by not going to the public with candor as to why he has not achieved the changes he said he would fight for.
He did not fight for single payer health reform, although all the polls showed the public favored it. He was lukewarm on the health care issue all along. The openness of the government has not come to be. He has not brought to the table the gun and ammunition issue and the NRA is still dictating gun policies. He promised to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and has not really explained why he cannot achieve this goal. It is possible he may have a valid reason, then have a fireside chat and explain the reason.
He has decided he has the progressives in his pocket, so he has to go to the middle of the road.
So why does he win if he has not done the great job everyone expected?
He wins because when the voter realizes what the opposition has offered and done, enough of them will come to their senses.
He wins because I do not believe the Tea Party has gotten the attention of disaffected Democrats or Independents. What the Tea Party has done is taken disaffected Republicans into their corner. These are votes they had in the last election.
They did not win then.
The disaffected Democrats have no choice but to vote for what might have been and may still be.The Independents also are too smart to go along with the Republicans who were more interested in defeating President Obama than making some of the things they disagreed on more palatable.
And one other reason Obama will win: After 2012 he can't run again, which will free him up to do more of what he believes in without having to deal with political fallout.
The most powerful politician is the one with nothing to lose.
Obama will win.
Does he deserve to win based on his accomplishments up to now? I am not sure. Do I approve of what he has done? I give him a a 6.5 out of 10.
He was given a chance to fulfill his promises of change. but what has he changed? Very little. He had a chance to be a statesman and settled for politician.
He has allowed the Republicans to dictate the agenda, by not going to the public with candor as to why he has not achieved the changes he said he would fight for.
He did not fight for single payer health reform, although all the polls showed the public favored it. He was lukewarm on the health care issue all along. The openness of the government has not come to be. He has not brought to the table the gun and ammunition issue and the NRA is still dictating gun policies. He promised to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and has not really explained why he cannot achieve this goal. It is possible he may have a valid reason, then have a fireside chat and explain the reason.
He has decided he has the progressives in his pocket, so he has to go to the middle of the road.
So why does he win if he has not done the great job everyone expected?
He wins because when the voter realizes what the opposition has offered and done, enough of them will come to their senses.
He wins because I do not believe the Tea Party has gotten the attention of disaffected Democrats or Independents. What the Tea Party has done is taken disaffected Republicans into their corner. These are votes they had in the last election.
They did not win then.
The disaffected Democrats have no choice but to vote for what might have been and may still be.The Independents also are too smart to go along with the Republicans who were more interested in defeating President Obama than making some of the things they disagreed on more palatable.
And one other reason Obama will win: After 2012 he can't run again, which will free him up to do more of what he believes in without having to deal with political fallout.
The most powerful politician is the one with nothing to lose.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Bribery
Our elected officials are in a position of trust.
Bribery is money, favor or promises to a person or persons in a position of trust to influence their judgment or conduct. Bribery is a form of corruption. I always understood bribery of an elected official to be a crime.
If that is true why haven't the Koch Brothers been indicted?
Banks, oil companies and other major corporations are all guilty of this practice as are the lobbyists who work for them. But it is up to the attorney generals and district attorneys to bring these cases to justice.
Some unions have given unions a bad name by being as corrupt as politicians, but good unions have raised the standard of living for the middle class, and along the way helped make many people rich. Isn't it absurd that billionaires who've gotten rich off the system are now blaming the system and finding fault with the middle class union workers who've been asked for wage givebacks and risk losing a piece of their pension - a pension that they negotiated for with their employers in good faith. Isn't it absurd that politicians who get the best healthcare plan our money can buy, who make sure they get their own pensions and who use their expertise and influence as politicians to later work for the industries they helped legislate are blaming the middle class union worker for the nation's budget ills.
Who's the problem here? The billionaires who've bought the system or the working class trying to live within it? Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has said his state faces a $3.6 billion shortfall for the next two years. Now think about the fact that the Koch brothers, who helped fund his campaign, helped fund the Tea Party, are behind his move to break the unions and may soon end up running a Wisconsin public utility (as a present of privatization), are worth, according to Forbes, over $40 billion by themselves.
Really, it's the school teacher who's the problem?
Not every elected official is on the take - there are some good ones - but until we can get bribery out of public life we will never have honest government and we will never have government that works for the working class majority instead of the wealthy minority.
Bribery is money, favor or promises to a person or persons in a position of trust to influence their judgment or conduct. Bribery is a form of corruption. I always understood bribery of an elected official to be a crime.
If that is true why haven't the Koch Brothers been indicted?
Banks, oil companies and other major corporations are all guilty of this practice as are the lobbyists who work for them. But it is up to the attorney generals and district attorneys to bring these cases to justice.
Some unions have given unions a bad name by being as corrupt as politicians, but good unions have raised the standard of living for the middle class, and along the way helped make many people rich. Isn't it absurd that billionaires who've gotten rich off the system are now blaming the system and finding fault with the middle class union workers who've been asked for wage givebacks and risk losing a piece of their pension - a pension that they negotiated for with their employers in good faith. Isn't it absurd that politicians who get the best healthcare plan our money can buy, who make sure they get their own pensions and who use their expertise and influence as politicians to later work for the industries they helped legislate are blaming the middle class union worker for the nation's budget ills.
Who's the problem here? The billionaires who've bought the system or the working class trying to live within it? Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has said his state faces a $3.6 billion shortfall for the next two years. Now think about the fact that the Koch brothers, who helped fund his campaign, helped fund the Tea Party, are behind his move to break the unions and may soon end up running a Wisconsin public utility (as a present of privatization), are worth, according to Forbes, over $40 billion by themselves.
Really, it's the school teacher who's the problem?
Not every elected official is on the take - there are some good ones - but until we can get bribery out of public life we will never have honest government and we will never have government that works for the working class majority instead of the wealthy minority.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Rating "The State of the Union"
If I were giving points on delivery it certainly deserves a nine-and-a-half. The oratory was great and even had spots of humor.
On substance i would give it no more than a 7.
It sort of reminded me of the fantastic speeches Mario Cuomo used to give for a progressive agenda, but when push came to shove his agenda was watered down. He spoke Democrat , but pushed a moderate Republican agenda. That is if there is such a thing as a moderate Republican.
Obama's speech also reminded me of Mayor Bloomberg's speeches. Mayor Bloomberg talks middle class values then pushes an agenda that favors his Wall Street friends, his real rstate pals, and his insurance buddies, to name a few.
Based on performance up until now, I don't want to hear good speeches, I want to see good results. You should not go to the middle of the road at the expense of the progressives. The middle of the road is where the independents should go. You can win Independents' votes by having a sensible well thought out plan, and follow up. It may be possible to win the so called moderate Republican, if there are some.
I will still support Obama if there is no progressive who can win puts his hat in the ring. A "Conservative" like our previous president almost brought us to bankruptcy .
On substance i would give it no more than a 7.
It sort of reminded me of the fantastic speeches Mario Cuomo used to give for a progressive agenda, but when push came to shove his agenda was watered down. He spoke Democrat , but pushed a moderate Republican agenda. That is if there is such a thing as a moderate Republican.
Obama's speech also reminded me of Mayor Bloomberg's speeches. Mayor Bloomberg talks middle class values then pushes an agenda that favors his Wall Street friends, his real rstate pals, and his insurance buddies, to name a few.
Based on performance up until now, I don't want to hear good speeches, I want to see good results. You should not go to the middle of the road at the expense of the progressives. The middle of the road is where the independents should go. You can win Independents' votes by having a sensible well thought out plan, and follow up. It may be possible to win the so called moderate Republican, if there are some.
I will still support Obama if there is no progressive who can win puts his hat in the ring. A "Conservative" like our previous president almost brought us to bankruptcy .
Monday, January 17, 2011
"States rights" or wrongs
For many years now the National Rifle Association has pleaded the case of "States Rights." They have argued that the way they read the Constitution the state has the right to have a militia. They've further argued that this allows an everyday citizen to arm himself or herself.
As Seth Meyers joked on "Saturday Night Live," however, when the Second Amendment was written into the Constitution, the arms in question were not Uzis or Glocks, but muskets. It's not that easy to kill a man with a musket and even if you do it, you can't kill too many at once. You couldn't conceal a musket, couldn't sneak up on anyone with your musket.
There's no evidence that the founding fathers, who couldn't possibly envision the firepower of today, would have wanted everyone to carry any type of weapon they could get their hands on - and also be able to hide them in their pockets.
It's ridiculous, therefore when the NRA argues that sane people should have the right to have a gun that can shoot thirty shots or thirty rounds. Such a gun is not a means of protection it's an offensive weapon. It's not to defend, it's to kill. I find it inconceivable that if Representative Giffords, the Federal Judge and all the people shot that day in Arizona would have been protected if they had more weapons in their hands. Who would have fired first? How many more people would have been shot in the crossfire.
As Seth Meyers joked on "Saturday Night Live," however, when the Second Amendment was written into the Constitution, the arms in question were not Uzis or Glocks, but muskets. It's not that easy to kill a man with a musket and even if you do it, you can't kill too many at once. You couldn't conceal a musket, couldn't sneak up on anyone with your musket.
There's no evidence that the founding fathers, who couldn't possibly envision the firepower of today, would have wanted everyone to carry any type of weapon they could get their hands on - and also be able to hide them in their pockets.
It's ridiculous, therefore when the NRA argues that sane people should have the right to have a gun that can shoot thirty shots or thirty rounds. Such a gun is not a means of protection it's an offensive weapon. It's not to defend, it's to kill. I find it inconceivable that if Representative Giffords, the Federal Judge and all the people shot that day in Arizona would have been protected if they had more weapons in their hands. Who would have fired first? How many more people would have been shot in the crossfire.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Scaredycrats
I watched C-Span because I was interested in how the tax cut vote would go.
When the Democrats were in power in both houses they got very little of their agenda passed because the Republicans mostly unanimously with the help of the Blue Dogs somehow blocked most of it. They even did everything they could to stall necessary judicial appointments.
I did not believe the tax cut bill that was presented to the president, that he compromised on, would create those jobs he was led to believe. To me it was a more expensive version of the failed trickle down theory.
The vote was illuminating. On the Pomeroy amendment which dealt with the estate tax, not one Republican voted for it - again treating the president and House Democrats like dogs who are asked to beg at the table and not given any food. Then when it came to the final vote almost as many Democrats voted for passage as Republicans.
Democrats previously voted to give senior citizens $250 to help defray their medical costs, but lost that battle. The Republicans explained that the government could not afford to put that burden on future generations.
HOGWASH!
I can only hope that I am wrong and that the president and the House Democrats who were humiliated turn out to be right, especially when I was led to believe that the House Democrats were really going to fight for a better bill.
When the Democrats were in power in both houses they got very little of their agenda passed because the Republicans mostly unanimously with the help of the Blue Dogs somehow blocked most of it. They even did everything they could to stall necessary judicial appointments.
I did not believe the tax cut bill that was presented to the president, that he compromised on, would create those jobs he was led to believe. To me it was a more expensive version of the failed trickle down theory.
The vote was illuminating. On the Pomeroy amendment which dealt with the estate tax, not one Republican voted for it - again treating the president and House Democrats like dogs who are asked to beg at the table and not given any food. Then when it came to the final vote almost as many Democrats voted for passage as Republicans.
Democrats previously voted to give senior citizens $250 to help defray their medical costs, but lost that battle. The Republicans explained that the government could not afford to put that burden on future generations.
HOGWASH!
I can only hope that I am wrong and that the president and the House Democrats who were humiliated turn out to be right, especially when I was led to believe that the House Democrats were really going to fight for a better bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
