For almost 150 years campaign finance reform has been a topic of discussion in American politics. The first real nationally successful reform occurred in the 1970's in the form of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). This Act, of course, did not settle the debate over campaign finance. In the years that followed both political parties staked out their position with Republicans generally favoring unlimited campaign funding and Democrats generally preferring to limit all funding.
Regardless of where you fall on this debate there is one trend that should disturb everyone - out of state money. While many on both sides of the aisle complain about the influence money buys on a politicians voting record, studies apparently don't support this claim. But that doesn't mean money doesn't affect the direction of this country. Instead of paying off a politician for a yes or a no vote on a particular piece of legislation today's special interest groups spend millions of dollars to make sure the candidates that match their ideology get elected. After all, why buy one vote when you can buy them all with the right candidate?
The real problem with all of this outside money is that it turns what should be local elections representing local constituents and their concerns into national elections. So when John Boehner gets over $6 million of his $7 million from out of state contributors it has more to do with his 100% party line voting record than what he brings back to his district. And when Richard Mourdock defeated Richard Lugar in the May 8th Republican primary it was in large part thanks to special interest spending from groups like Club for Growth and FreedomWorks which according to ABC News "routinely pick inexpensive states and vulnerable Republican incumbents, attacking them for moderate votes" to support individuals like Mourdock who wants to "do away with the Department of Education, Energy, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development".
What groups like FreedomWorks and Club for Growth understand is that a certain level of spending is required for a candidate to be competitive. They supply the funds for these lesser known fringe candidates and then pour millions of dollars into advertisements to set the agenda for the campaign. It is these special interest groups that have turned “moderate” and “compromise” into dirty words and put constitutional bans on gay marriage on the ballot to mobilize the zealots.
The overall effect of these tactics is a shift away from the center towards the radical fringe. This combined with our sound bite obsessed media, has led to the increased partisanship and subsequent political stalemate that we are currently experiencing in this country.
Our current system is a perversion of the constitution's requirement that congress represent the people of the state and their opinion. By allowing out of state funding, which clearly affects election outcomes, we are allowing those outside of a district or state a considerable amount of power over the results. Eliminating out of state money could have a dramatic affect on the lack of civility and production present in today’s politics while also forcing politicians to put the concerns of their constituents above those of their party or of their special interest sugar daddies.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Friday, May 25, 2012
Power over ideology
About a year and a half ago Mitch McConnell let the world know his top priority - to make sure Barack Obama was a one term president. So while unemployment crept higher the only job Mitch McConnell was concerned about creating was the one the president currently occupies.
To make sure this happens McConnell and his Republican brethren have done everything thing in their power to make government look incompetent leading to the lowest congressional approval rating in the history of this country.
It's one thing to object to the president’s plans because of ideological differences but today's Republicans have altered their beliefs simply to make the president look bad. One of the core concepts of the Mitch McConnell led Republican recovery plan is to reduce government spending. As my colleague Libby Spencer pointed out recently increases in government spending have slowed to historic lows and these cuts in spending have cost around 600,000 public sector jobs. According to the Economic Policy Institute these public sector job losses have cost the economy another 500,000 private sector jobs. So while Republican's lament the slow job growth their own best recovery plan has cost the economy over 1 million jobs.
The real problem I have with Republicans in this situation is that when it was George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan trying to pull the economy out of a recession the obsession over government spending and public jobs was completely non-existent. As a matter of fact it can be argued that it was this exact government spending and public sector job growth that led to an economic recovery for both Bush and Reagan. It should also be noted that the growth in private sector jobs under Obama outpaces both Reagan and Bush after their recessions hit bottom.
This sort of gamesmanship is emblematic of the issues our country faces. Politicians and the powerful have made the collection of power their number one priority using the rest of us as pawns to fight against our own best interests. We deserve a congress that represents their constituents and values the success of the country over their own personal gain. But until that happens, we will continue to see politicians demonize the other side and let their desire to rule, control their political ideology, regardless of how hypocritical it makes them.
To make sure this happens McConnell and his Republican brethren have done everything thing in their power to make government look incompetent leading to the lowest congressional approval rating in the history of this country.
It's one thing to object to the president’s plans because of ideological differences but today's Republicans have altered their beliefs simply to make the president look bad. One of the core concepts of the Mitch McConnell led Republican recovery plan is to reduce government spending. As my colleague Libby Spencer pointed out recently increases in government spending have slowed to historic lows and these cuts in spending have cost around 600,000 public sector jobs. According to the Economic Policy Institute these public sector job losses have cost the economy another 500,000 private sector jobs. So while Republican's lament the slow job growth their own best recovery plan has cost the economy over 1 million jobs.
The real problem I have with Republicans in this situation is that when it was George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan trying to pull the economy out of a recession the obsession over government spending and public jobs was completely non-existent. As a matter of fact it can be argued that it was this exact government spending and public sector job growth that led to an economic recovery for both Bush and Reagan. It should also be noted that the growth in private sector jobs under Obama outpaces both Reagan and Bush after their recessions hit bottom.
This sort of gamesmanship is emblematic of the issues our country faces. Politicians and the powerful have made the collection of power their number one priority using the rest of us as pawns to fight against our own best interests. We deserve a congress that represents their constituents and values the success of the country over their own personal gain. But until that happens, we will continue to see politicians demonize the other side and let their desire to rule, control their political ideology, regardless of how hypocritical it makes them.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Mitt Romney doesn't get it
At a recent campaign fundraiser Mitt Romney complimented the hosts accommodations noting the pool and golf course. But rather than just stop there Mitt decided to take a shot a Democrats using a commonly held fallacy stating "You know, if a Democrat were here he’d look around and say no one should live like this. Republicans come here and say EVERYONE should live like this."
This is a popular idea among conservatives and it shows just how little people like Mitt Romney really understand the common man. If you ask Mitt Romney why a majority of Americans want to raise taxes on the rich he will say it's because people envy his wealth. The problem here is the Mitt Romney has never been an average American so he doesn't understand that what really matters to the American people is that our system is fair - that everyone has the same chance to succeed. People currently feel that the system favors the rich, making it unfair. But rather than attempting to understand the common man's concerns people like Mitt dismiss these concerns as unjustified.
So if you complain that Mitt Romney earns like the top 1% yet pays a tax rate closer to those in the middle class, you're just jealous. If you want to become rich like Mitt Romney he thinks you should just borrow $20,000 from your parents and start your own company. Never mind that Romney himself never started his own company and even held back from joining Bain Capital until the companies partnership agreement was restructured to remove all financial risk for Mitt. And when it comes to bailouts Mitt supported the one saved his investments while attacking the one that supported 13 million working class American jobs.
Given that Mitt has never had to struggle with money it's no wonder that he can't relate to the average American but the more concerning issue with his statement is that it shows he can't put himself in other peoples shoes. Just because Mitt Romney and others have put wealth as their top priority doesn't mean that everyone else places the same value on money.
I imagine very few people who join the Clergy because they see it as their path to fame and fortune. The people drawn to teaching have college degrees yet have no illusions of joining the top 1%. Firefighters and policeman probably don't put wealth as the number one reason for pursing their career. And even in occupations like Lawyers and Doctors there are those that place a higher value on helping those in need over high wages like Doctors without borders and public defenders who could easily make more in private sector.
The thing that Mitt doesn't get is that not everyone is motivated by money and not everyone values big homes and expensive things. Sloughing off this difference in personality as jealousy or envy is insulting and it shows an extraordinary amount of ego and ignorance on Mitt's part. But he represents a party who thinks being gay is a choice, being part of the working poor means you're lazy and "reverse racism" is a bigger problem than actual racism so the fact that he doesn't understand how other people think is not surprising.
While Mitt Romney will suggest his business background makes him more qualified to turn the economy around this same logic also means he is completely unqualified to help the poor and middle class realize the American Dream having been part of the rich his entire life. But Mitt Romney doesn't get that his dreams may not be yours. He doesn't get what it is like to live pay check to pay check. And he doesn't get how his agenda of making life better for the top 1% may seem unfair to the other 99%. Because, at the end of the day, Mitt Romney doesn't get it.
This is a popular idea among conservatives and it shows just how little people like Mitt Romney really understand the common man. If you ask Mitt Romney why a majority of Americans want to raise taxes on the rich he will say it's because people envy his wealth. The problem here is the Mitt Romney has never been an average American so he doesn't understand that what really matters to the American people is that our system is fair - that everyone has the same chance to succeed. People currently feel that the system favors the rich, making it unfair. But rather than attempting to understand the common man's concerns people like Mitt dismiss these concerns as unjustified.
So if you complain that Mitt Romney earns like the top 1% yet pays a tax rate closer to those in the middle class, you're just jealous. If you want to become rich like Mitt Romney he thinks you should just borrow $20,000 from your parents and start your own company. Never mind that Romney himself never started his own company and even held back from joining Bain Capital until the companies partnership agreement was restructured to remove all financial risk for Mitt. And when it comes to bailouts Mitt supported the one saved his investments while attacking the one that supported 13 million working class American jobs.
Given that Mitt has never had to struggle with money it's no wonder that he can't relate to the average American but the more concerning issue with his statement is that it shows he can't put himself in other peoples shoes. Just because Mitt Romney and others have put wealth as their top priority doesn't mean that everyone else places the same value on money.
I imagine very few people who join the Clergy because they see it as their path to fame and fortune. The people drawn to teaching have college degrees yet have no illusions of joining the top 1%. Firefighters and policeman probably don't put wealth as the number one reason for pursing their career. And even in occupations like Lawyers and Doctors there are those that place a higher value on helping those in need over high wages like Doctors without borders and public defenders who could easily make more in private sector.
The thing that Mitt doesn't get is that not everyone is motivated by money and not everyone values big homes and expensive things. Sloughing off this difference in personality as jealousy or envy is insulting and it shows an extraordinary amount of ego and ignorance on Mitt's part. But he represents a party who thinks being gay is a choice, being part of the working poor means you're lazy and "reverse racism" is a bigger problem than actual racism so the fact that he doesn't understand how other people think is not surprising.
While Mitt Romney will suggest his business background makes him more qualified to turn the economy around this same logic also means he is completely unqualified to help the poor and middle class realize the American Dream having been part of the rich his entire life. But Mitt Romney doesn't get that his dreams may not be yours. He doesn't get what it is like to live pay check to pay check. And he doesn't get how his agenda of making life better for the top 1% may seem unfair to the other 99%. Because, at the end of the day, Mitt Romney doesn't get it.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Christian group bullying the Daily Show
The Catholic League recently manufactured some flap over a Daily Show segment which they claim is "anti-women" and "anti-Christian".
First it should be noted that the folks at the Catholic League are no saints when it comes to exercising the right to free speech having apparently slandered Hillary Rosen, compared Kathleen Sebelius to neo-Nazi's and skinheads, and lied about statements from the founder of planned parenthood in an attempt to portray her as a racist.
Having said that, I certainly support their right to free speech and to pressure the sponsors of the Daily Show. But I would hope that these advertisers would realize, like the Kellogg company did, that the Catholic league has only 233,000 members while the Daily Show has over 2.3 million views per episode. I doubt very highly that the viewers of the Daily Show see this joke in the same light as the Catholic League and suspect that the vast majority of the "complaints" that the Daily Show advertisers will receive will not be from people who actually watch the Daily Show.
With this in mind I think viewers of the Daily Show who support the Daily Show's right to free speech should use the Daily Show advertiser contact list the Catholic League has been kind enough to provide and defend the right of the Daily Show to speak their mind even if that might offend a teeny tiny portion of the population.
First it should be noted that the folks at the Catholic League are no saints when it comes to exercising the right to free speech having apparently slandered Hillary Rosen, compared Kathleen Sebelius to neo-Nazi's and skinheads, and lied about statements from the founder of planned parenthood in an attempt to portray her as a racist.
Having said that, I certainly support their right to free speech and to pressure the sponsors of the Daily Show. But I would hope that these advertisers would realize, like the Kellogg company did, that the Catholic league has only 233,000 members while the Daily Show has over 2.3 million views per episode. I doubt very highly that the viewers of the Daily Show see this joke in the same light as the Catholic League and suspect that the vast majority of the "complaints" that the Daily Show advertisers will receive will not be from people who actually watch the Daily Show.
With this in mind I think viewers of the Daily Show who support the Daily Show's right to free speech should use the Daily Show advertiser contact list the Catholic League has been kind enough to provide and defend the right of the Daily Show to speak their mind even if that might offend a teeny tiny portion of the population.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
John Thune's not responsible
While most conservatives are big on personal responsibility John Thune is apparently not one of them. Mr. Thune recently set out to explain the problems with our economy and not surprisingly he lays all of the blame at the feet of Democrats and the president.
He starts off his attack by suggesting the Democrats shifted money from the student loan program, which has recently come up for debate, to pay for the Affordable Care Act (ACA). According to Thune this $9 billion shift shows that Democrats never took an "honest look at our financial situation." It should be noted that repealing the ACA, which Thune supports, would actually add more to the Federal Deficit than leaving the legislation alone. It should also be noted that when talking about the nearly $47 billion in additional revenue that the Buffet Rule would have captured John Thune stated that this rule would only "raise about half of one day's worth of federal spending." If $47 billion is a waste of time then why would Mr. Thune make a mere $9 billion the centerpiece of his argument.
Of course this doesn't end John Thune's finger pointing. Next he asserts that Democrats are to blame for increases in the national deficit while failing to mention the affects of the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Great Recession. All of which Mr. Thune had a hand in. Perhaps MR. Thune would also like to blame Democrats and the president for the deficit increases in Europe as well even though those countries have enacted the austerity measures that Republicans believe will save this country. Mr. Thune also never discusses that under President Obama we saw the first reduction in government outlays in nearly 50 years.
To further complicate things Mr. Thune suggests that the president’s current 2013 budget will lead to a massive loss in jobs yet he provides no evidence for such a claim. This could be based on some actual data but it could just as well be another politician with an errant opinion.
Next up in the blame game is the lack of jobs for college students. According the John Thune Democrats and the president are at fault for students who are struggling to find jobs in their chosen field. Unfortunately for Mr. Thune the facts don't back up his claim. The reality is there are millions of unfilled jobs in the US and the main reason that these jobs exist is because there are a lack of qualified candidates to fill the positions not because of some Democratic agenda.
Beyond the fact that his opinion is not supported by the available data, the cuts that Mr. Thune and his Republican brethren have demanded have put an additional 600,000 Americans out of work and further constricted the economy and job prospects
Over the first three years of President Obama's term the only thing that Republicans and John Thune have been willing to offer is excuses and blame. If Mr. Thune truly cared about anything other than election year politics he would take an honest look at our financial situation and accept a little personal responsibility for the current state of the economy because while blaming the other guy may be good for getting reelected it does nothing to solve the real issues that American's desperately want our legislators to work together on.
He starts off his attack by suggesting the Democrats shifted money from the student loan program, which has recently come up for debate, to pay for the Affordable Care Act (ACA). According to Thune this $9 billion shift shows that Democrats never took an "honest look at our financial situation." It should be noted that repealing the ACA, which Thune supports, would actually add more to the Federal Deficit than leaving the legislation alone. It should also be noted that when talking about the nearly $47 billion in additional revenue that the Buffet Rule would have captured John Thune stated that this rule would only "raise about half of one day's worth of federal spending." If $47 billion is a waste of time then why would Mr. Thune make a mere $9 billion the centerpiece of his argument.
Of course this doesn't end John Thune's finger pointing. Next he asserts that Democrats are to blame for increases in the national deficit while failing to mention the affects of the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Great Recession. All of which Mr. Thune had a hand in. Perhaps MR. Thune would also like to blame Democrats and the president for the deficit increases in Europe as well even though those countries have enacted the austerity measures that Republicans believe will save this country. Mr. Thune also never discusses that under President Obama we saw the first reduction in government outlays in nearly 50 years.
To further complicate things Mr. Thune suggests that the president’s current 2013 budget will lead to a massive loss in jobs yet he provides no evidence for such a claim. This could be based on some actual data but it could just as well be another politician with an errant opinion.
Next up in the blame game is the lack of jobs for college students. According the John Thune Democrats and the president are at fault for students who are struggling to find jobs in their chosen field. Unfortunately for Mr. Thune the facts don't back up his claim. The reality is there are millions of unfilled jobs in the US and the main reason that these jobs exist is because there are a lack of qualified candidates to fill the positions not because of some Democratic agenda.
Beyond the fact that his opinion is not supported by the available data, the cuts that Mr. Thune and his Republican brethren have demanded have put an additional 600,000 Americans out of work and further constricted the economy and job prospects
Over the first three years of President Obama's term the only thing that Republicans and John Thune have been willing to offer is excuses and blame. If Mr. Thune truly cared about anything other than election year politics he would take an honest look at our financial situation and accept a little personal responsibility for the current state of the economy because while blaming the other guy may be good for getting reelected it does nothing to solve the real issues that American's desperately want our legislators to work together on.
Friday, May 4, 2012
War on America
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan represent a couple of ideological hypocrisies for Republicans that the media seems to largely ignore.
Republicans tend to identify themselves as extremely patriotic more than any other group in America yet they are the first group in the history of this country to go to war without implementing some form of tax to pay for the war. Of course making matters worse, not only did Republicans avoid paying for these wars they actually cut taxes. In the past paying some form of war tax was considered your patriotic duty and a way to support the troops with shared sacrifice.
Republicans are also the group that wants to cut government spending yet every time we go to war we increase the size and cost of government. While it should come as no surprise that this occurs, the real issue is that once the war is over we almost never fall back to spending levels at or below pre-war levels. Essentially by going to war we are permanently increasing the size and cost of government.
As an example of this the base cost of defense spending (not including the cost of the wars) has increase from $407 billion in 2001 to $553 billion in 2011. This steady rise has added over $1 trillion to the deficit. If you add in the actual costs of these wars, Defense Spending accounts for nearly a third of today's national debt. A shocking number for a group that considers the increase in national debt as a greater concern than any other group in the country.
Basically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan represent a massive increase in the national debt and a permanent increase in the size and cost of government while also managing to be the poorest showing of patriotism for any military activity in our nation’s history.
Ironically the best solution to this problem is declaring war on America, but like it was done in the past. The kind of war where we increase taxes to fund the war effort and cut spending to make sure our resources are best focused on one common goal. The kind of war where the good of the country takes priority over the good of the political party. The kind of war that unites individuals, regardless of status, behind our leader, regardless of ideological differences.
While we do have legislators like Tom Coburn who are willing to work across the aisle, regardless of the political ramifications, the reality is that we have allowed our country to become a place where compromise is a dirty word and the number one objective of nearly every politician is getting elected. The only war really being fought is a civil war over power. This war has no winners, only losers.
Republicans tend to identify themselves as extremely patriotic more than any other group in America yet they are the first group in the history of this country to go to war without implementing some form of tax to pay for the war. Of course making matters worse, not only did Republicans avoid paying for these wars they actually cut taxes. In the past paying some form of war tax was considered your patriotic duty and a way to support the troops with shared sacrifice.
Republicans are also the group that wants to cut government spending yet every time we go to war we increase the size and cost of government. While it should come as no surprise that this occurs, the real issue is that once the war is over we almost never fall back to spending levels at or below pre-war levels. Essentially by going to war we are permanently increasing the size and cost of government.
As an example of this the base cost of defense spending (not including the cost of the wars) has increase from $407 billion in 2001 to $553 billion in 2011. This steady rise has added over $1 trillion to the deficit. If you add in the actual costs of these wars, Defense Spending accounts for nearly a third of today's national debt. A shocking number for a group that considers the increase in national debt as a greater concern than any other group in the country.
Basically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan represent a massive increase in the national debt and a permanent increase in the size and cost of government while also managing to be the poorest showing of patriotism for any military activity in our nation’s history.
Ironically the best solution to this problem is declaring war on America, but like it was done in the past. The kind of war where we increase taxes to fund the war effort and cut spending to make sure our resources are best focused on one common goal. The kind of war where the good of the country takes priority over the good of the political party. The kind of war that unites individuals, regardless of status, behind our leader, regardless of ideological differences.
While we do have legislators like Tom Coburn who are willing to work across the aisle, regardless of the political ramifications, the reality is that we have allowed our country to become a place where compromise is a dirty word and the number one objective of nearly every politician is getting elected. The only war really being fought is a civil war over power. This war has no winners, only losers.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Unions and the political influence fallacy
Anytime I discuss unions one of the commenter’s will undoubtedly bring up campaign contributions and how the Democrats are being bought by unions. If the idea is that money is ruining our democracy, I agree. That, however, never seems to be their point since the criticism always stops at union contributions. It appears that there are some who truly believe that unions and unions alone are setting the agenda for Democrats.
It is no secret that Democrats fight for labor but they do so because of a shared ideology not because of political contributions. The same is true of organizations like the NRA and anti-abortion groups and their unabashed support for Republicans. Groups like this spend money to convince voters who to vote for not to convince politicians to support their agenda.
So just what percentage of the contributions to Democrats are coming from labor? 75%? Nope. 50%? Not quite. 25%? Still too high. The reality is that labor makes up only 5% of the contributions to Democrats. Business on the other hand accounts for nearly 75% of contributions to Democrats and 83% of the contributions to Republicans.
The idea of labor wagging the dog is just a political tactic meant to fool voters into believing that labor and business represent an equal force in the election process. The fact is business is outspending labor by a margin of 15 to 1 so this fallacy of labor's political spending power is yet another false equivalency being propagated by the media. Even politicians have bought into the illusion. As an example, Governor Chris Christie enacted an Executive Order to limit the political contributions by labor unions which was later ruled as unconstitutional.
The flap over labor contributions is just a diversion to keep people from some of the more disturbing contribution tends such as the rise in individual contributions. This year the top 100 individual contributors have contributed nearly as much to political campaigns as labor has contributed to Democrats. The reason this should concern people is how much influence is being concentrated with such a small number of people. Labor represents over 14 million people but they are being outspent by less than 0.000001% of the population. This is a clear perversion of the principles of democracy.
Is money ruining our democratic process? Absolutely. But the reality is that labor is a drop in the bucket when compared to the influence of business and individuals.
It is no secret that Democrats fight for labor but they do so because of a shared ideology not because of political contributions. The same is true of organizations like the NRA and anti-abortion groups and their unabashed support for Republicans. Groups like this spend money to convince voters who to vote for not to convince politicians to support their agenda.
So just what percentage of the contributions to Democrats are coming from labor? 75%? Nope. 50%? Not quite. 25%? Still too high. The reality is that labor makes up only 5% of the contributions to Democrats. Business on the other hand accounts for nearly 75% of contributions to Democrats and 83% of the contributions to Republicans.
The idea of labor wagging the dog is just a political tactic meant to fool voters into believing that labor and business represent an equal force in the election process. The fact is business is outspending labor by a margin of 15 to 1 so this fallacy of labor's political spending power is yet another false equivalency being propagated by the media. Even politicians have bought into the illusion. As an example, Governor Chris Christie enacted an Executive Order to limit the political contributions by labor unions which was later ruled as unconstitutional.
The flap over labor contributions is just a diversion to keep people from some of the more disturbing contribution tends such as the rise in individual contributions. This year the top 100 individual contributors have contributed nearly as much to political campaigns as labor has contributed to Democrats. The reason this should concern people is how much influence is being concentrated with such a small number of people. Labor represents over 14 million people but they are being outspent by less than 0.000001% of the population. This is a clear perversion of the principles of democracy.
Is money ruining our democratic process? Absolutely. But the reality is that labor is a drop in the bucket when compared to the influence of business and individuals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
