Ah, Leap Year. We get one more day of February and an extra day of this mindless endless campaign to be the next President, which of course happens every Presidential election. You think the founding fathers intentionally wanted an extra day of campaigning for the Presidency or it just happened that way with the timing of the founding of the nation?
Did you know Donald Duke endorsed Donald Trump? So the KKK supports Trump. What does that make Trump supporters and endorsers like Chris Christie and Sarah Palin?
There is a movie named "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot" coming out in March based upon a book written by a journalist who was in Afghanistan and Pakistan for several years in the late 2000's. The one pertinent comment she made about the whole Western approach to the issues with the Taliban and ISIS is her hope for her movie. "Maybe more people will start talking about a holistic approach to the region rather than the Whack-a-terrorist game we seem to be playing." But we won't expect any of the GOP candidates to understand the need to explore that.
Meanwhile, with Hillary's big win and her obvious qualifications to understand the issues of the Presidency, I am still troubled by her baggage and will fill in the dot for her name because the alternatives are so awful. Bernie Sanders cannot achieve his dreams and he will be as ineffective as Barack Obama has been. How can President Obama win so decisively and not have longer coat tails? And there is no need for me to go on at any length about how the GOP candidates refuse to propose policies that will actually help people. If they would discuss how they would replace Obamacare while not allowing insurance companies to charge more for pre-existing conditions, balance the budget and keep the government operating to protect the public safety, I would consider voting for a GOP candidates.
On that last point, the Zika Virus certainly shows the need for a public health system and the CDC.
At least Hillary is qualified to be President. But I understand the American desire to have someone new in the Presidency. Newness brings hope and a possibility of change. When someone has been part of the national political scene for 24 years and counting, while that brings qualifications, it also means many voters just simply want to move on.
And Ross Douthat went on a rant today about how Obama is responsible for the rise of Donald Trump. While Douthat does acknowledge some Republican responsibility for the support of Donald Trump by Reagan Democrats (I would point out that I was Reagan Democrat, but I became a RINO and then returned to the Democrats), he then goes on to lay the blame on the Imperial Obama Presidency. I am virtually speechless in my political rage at this. Does Mitch McConnell and the let's ruin this Presidency deserve no blame for the "Imperial Presidency". What about the absolute need for the government to operate and protect the people? What about GOP punditry that did not rail against the GOP for failing to negotiate and compromise? As I wrote yesterday, Democracy requires compromise.
And Obama asked the Congress to authorize the activities in Syria against ISIS and the Congress refused. So when Douthat says "The current President has expanded executive authority along almost every dimension: Launching wars without Congressional Authorization, claiming the power to assassinate American citizens", he is going against the grain of actual GOP support for all this and a GOP desire to actually do more of the same.
So my only takeaway on Dothan's column is that he has gone off the rail in his angst about Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio dominating the GOP.
link to Douthat column
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Insulting People is now Standard Operating Procedure and a Danger to our Democracy
David Brooks wrote an outstanding column yesterday on what the design of democracy creates and how the current political atmosphere created by Grover Norquist, the NRA, the Tea Party, and personified by Donald Trump's authoritarian philosophic tendencies is poisoning our Democratic traditions and despite these people wrapping themselves up in the Constitution, the process they are employing to try and implement/enforce their positions has little basis in a well functioning Democracy. So this election is evolving into a referendum on how a American Democracy should function and it is the GOP that is offering something very radical.
Link to David Brooks Column
I know RedStateVT hates the Kardashianing of America, yet he can be prone to copying Donald Trump's pattern of using partisan characture to slam individuals without showing respect for those individuals, and the acceptance of this behavior as appropriate is closely related to the popularity of the Kardashian's. It is a focus on celebrity fandom as a cultural phenomenon, and the use of it as a political tool to trash political opponents.
So it is no surprise that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have a mutual admiration society for each other as they both use this technique to advance their political fortunes. And that is only one reason I detest Donald Trump.
I have detested Donald Trump for many years as a High Yield Bond Analyst. I never had his bonds in my portfolio because I found him untrustworthy and he actively use bankruptcy remote corporate structures to rake in money for himself and then let the company go bankrupt as was his legal right.
He also trades in his name, selling it to others so he can get paid and they can attract uninformed people who think that by associating themselves with Trump, they will achieve personal benefit. That was the business model of Trump University which failed to educate its students. So it is no wonder that Trump says he loves the uneducated, they paid tuition to him with student loans they cannot pay back. As President, would he forgive those loans?
And today we read in the Sports Section, that the members of a golf resort in Florida that Trump bought before it went bankrupt have a Class Action lawsuit against Donald Trump. The Class had refundable deposits that when Trump bought the gold course assumed as part of the deal, meaning he owed the money. Trump then proceeded to try and strong arm people into giving up their rights to a refund for pennies on a dollar by threatening them with other possible economic paths that would harm them. Doesn't Donald Trump love golfers too?
So Chris Christie in an effort to find a job for himself after he fails to win reelection as Governor of New Jersey endorses Donald Trump and we have one bully fawning over another bully. In the process Governor Christie called Donald Trump an honorable man.
An honorable man does not conduct business like Donald Trump conducts business. An honorable man does not insult entire classes of people. People deserve respect. That is above all else what our Judaic Christian history as a democratic country is founded upon. Respect for individual rights and a democratic process which involves negotiation to maintain a stake in government for all.
And meanwhile, there is a news article that one reason for Japan's economic malaise is the fact that the population has declined by 1 mm people over the last 5 years. This supports my position that if Trump deports 11 mm people from the U.S., the U.S. economy will go into a recession that will last for years which will expand the fiscal deficit and ruin fixed income as an asset class for another decade, at least. That is hardly making America Great Again. America is great when our economy is great.
RedStateVT claims that the passage of ObamaCare violated this tradition of respect. But ObamaCare was designed by the Heritage Foundation and implemented by a GOP Presidential Candidate in his state first, where it was successful. So Mitch McConnell in his desire to make Obama a one term president, tries to foil Obamacare and demonizes GOP ideas on how to improve the populations health and then the GOP punditry blames Obama for poisoning the atmosphere. I have no idea what else the President could have done to make the GOP happy beyond taking the blueprint of a right wing market based Think Tank and making it happen. My memory has faded on the political machinations of 2009/2010.
This is what GOP punditry has become; using Falsehoods to belittle people: the President is not an American, he is a Muslim Socialist, an all powerful political manipulator. He is anti-Democratic. I could go on but if you read this far, I know I am trying your patience by trying to express my disgust for lying.
As a manager, I fired anyone who lied to me and it happened 3 times in my 15 years as a manager. Lying is a fireable offense and I acted upon it. I would not like to say that I will not vote for a lier, but since all politicians shade the truth, we are left trying to pick out the least offensive individual in that regard. But the GOP has become so anti-Democratic, that none of them can be trusted with anything. 7 debates and I don't know what any of them would do to reform health care except return us to the hell that was health insurance before ObamaCare. And they want to balance the budget; how will that happen? They want to create a War budget for the Middle East and the Ukraine, and sub-Saharan Africa, and Libya and the South China Sea and ......, but cut taxes, not raise taxes to pay for it. And will all this conflict play out in the valuation of global wealth?
If you read this far, thank you for reading. This election is trying my soul and I get so agitated that I need to vent. I hope other Democratic voters exist in sufficient number to protect our Democracy.
The GOP is truly insane now from a policy standpoint.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
GOP Senators Are Close to Shutting Down the Government
While they will pass a budget, campaign season has shut down the process of the Senate considering appointments for the people who actually do stuff that keeps the government operating properly. So in no particular order, we have
1) a promise to not appoint a replacement for a dead Supreme Court Justice or any lower court Justices;
2) a now 15 month failure by the Senate Banking Committee to approve 16 replacements for positions in the Federal Reserve, the Exim Bank (which can no longer approve loans > $10 mm because of insufficient staff), and the Treasury, where failure includes the approval of the person in the US Treasury overseeing research into terrorist financing; all because a Senator Shelby is afraid of a primary fight. He is 81 and the primary issue his opponent is running on is that he is old (and one could add ineffective). Not running a committee to perform its basic functions would get you fired in the private sector.
3) and I am sure there will be more examples as we move through the Spring.
One can only hope the voters notice. We cannot shut down the government every two years waiting to see who controls the Senate for the next two years.
Meanwhile, I cannot believe that the deep bench of candidates that so many RedState pundits were crowing about 6 months ago have generated a situation where Donald Trump is the most likely person to win the nomination. This is a man who has defaulted on his debts, insults people from all walks of life, has been unfaithful to past wives and lies about any number of other things. And to top it all off, he even insults certain GOP policies of the past.
And the GOP Senators want to entrust future appointments to Trump??? He fires anybody who displeases him, and when you see some of his supporters as I have in some circles, you wonder what rock they crawled out from under.
Oy veh!!!
1) a promise to not appoint a replacement for a dead Supreme Court Justice or any lower court Justices;
2) a now 15 month failure by the Senate Banking Committee to approve 16 replacements for positions in the Federal Reserve, the Exim Bank (which can no longer approve loans > $10 mm because of insufficient staff), and the Treasury, where failure includes the approval of the person in the US Treasury overseeing research into terrorist financing; all because a Senator Shelby is afraid of a primary fight. He is 81 and the primary issue his opponent is running on is that he is old (and one could add ineffective). Not running a committee to perform its basic functions would get you fired in the private sector.
3) and I am sure there will be more examples as we move through the Spring.
One can only hope the voters notice. We cannot shut down the government every two years waiting to see who controls the Senate for the next two years.
Meanwhile, I cannot believe that the deep bench of candidates that so many RedState pundits were crowing about 6 months ago have generated a situation where Donald Trump is the most likely person to win the nomination. This is a man who has defaulted on his debts, insults people from all walks of life, has been unfaithful to past wives and lies about any number of other things. And to top it all off, he even insults certain GOP policies of the past.
And the GOP Senators want to entrust future appointments to Trump??? He fires anybody who displeases him, and when you see some of his supporters as I have in some circles, you wonder what rock they crawled out from under.
Oy veh!!!
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Sunday Musings on a Saturday 2/20/16
Some people are bemoaning the collapse in support for Jeb Bush and the rise of Bernie Sanders vs Hillary Clinton. Regular readers know I have had reservations about both "entitled" candidates since the beginning of the campaign. It is not that they are not qualified to be President, they most certainly are from the standpoint of having the temperament for the job and the knowledge to handle the myriad issues thrown at them every day. But they have been on the scene for over 20 years through their family situations.
Many voters are apparently not doing what I have done, which is reluctantly acknowledge that they are the best choice for putting a responsible person in charge, and instead are rejecting them in the primary preferring to reach for the allure of extremely partisan positions that don't have a chance in hell of getting implemented if the Senate is split within the 55- 45 range as it is almost certainly to be.
This is a very high risk position for both parties, but then the consequences of the next election when it comes to the Supreme Court are very significant so it will be important to rile up the bases and get them to turn out for the election. But you have to have a candidate who can win the middle while turning out the bases. I have no idea how the middle of the swing states will split with a 75 year old liberal and a Right Wing Nut Case running to restore the 18th century as our primary reference point for governance.
All I know is the election for the Senate will determine how we are actually governed on most issues and I expect it will not be pretty for the next two to four years, not that this year is going to be any better.
It is enough to make me angry enough to vote for Bernie in a general election and wish Joe Biden had run. But then he is 73. Oy Vey!!!!
Many voters are apparently not doing what I have done, which is reluctantly acknowledge that they are the best choice for putting a responsible person in charge, and instead are rejecting them in the primary preferring to reach for the allure of extremely partisan positions that don't have a chance in hell of getting implemented if the Senate is split within the 55- 45 range as it is almost certainly to be.
This is a very high risk position for both parties, but then the consequences of the next election when it comes to the Supreme Court are very significant so it will be important to rile up the bases and get them to turn out for the election. But you have to have a candidate who can win the middle while turning out the bases. I have no idea how the middle of the swing states will split with a 75 year old liberal and a Right Wing Nut Case running to restore the 18th century as our primary reference point for governance.
All I know is the election for the Senate will determine how we are actually governed on most issues and I expect it will not be pretty for the next two to four years, not that this year is going to be any better.
It is enough to make me angry enough to vote for Bernie in a general election and wish Joe Biden had run. But then he is 73. Oy Vey!!!!
Sunday, February 14, 2016
My Week in Political Thought 2/14/16
I started the week learning a lot about a segment of the underclass of America because I am doing taxes for the working poor and elderly, pro bono, meaning I don't earn any money doing this so it will not help me stay in my high property tax condo two blocks from a train station. Or as my friend Howard said to me when I complained about my need to make some money to pay property tax increases in the future, "you haven't really downsized yet". There is some truth in that.
Anyway, I digress. The truth is that the working poor are very gracious and thankful that someone like me will help someone like them. If they are in a difficult situation, they try to find happiness in what they can and they are generous when they can. A disabled man, who lives in a rooming house, played a $1 on powerball and won $10,000. This automatically triggered tax withholding, so he came to our site. I asked him what he had done with his winnings. He said, he had given some to the mother of his child so she could do something for him. He had paid off some bills and he had helped some friends who needed help. I then asked him what he would do with his tax refund. He said, buy some dentures because he hadn't had any teeth for 5 years. Medicaid doesn't cover dental or vision, so he probably didn't take good care of his teeth and this is the result. And he is only one example of what I am finding across all my clients.
As for the primary election, I had to go north for an unfortunate funeral. I stayed with a friend, who like me, is pretty much middle of the road, has never voted for Bernie while either of us lived in Vermont (He still does), but are aghast at the right wing agenda and their dominance of the GOP. I asked him how his 3 boys felt about the election. He told me that they supported Bernie even though my friend sees the high risk that Bernie will lose all the swing states electing a GOP, and he has tried to explain that to them. But they see Obama as a Middle of the Road politician who failed them in their desire to see policies implemented that will save the environment. As much as I am a one issue person on access to health insurance, the environment is the most important issue for them. And either they don't trust Hillary or they see her as another Obama and they want someone to stand up for what they believe in and Bernie presents that to them.
So we will have a wide open election and the probability is high that the GOP will win. Because, if Bernie runs, Bloomberg will run and Bloomberg will have to attract 40% of the electorate and win the swing states as well as most of the Blue States to become President. And because I believe most of Bloomberg's voters would vote Democratic otherwise, that will likely throw the election in favor of the Republican, even if the Republican is Trump or Cruz.
The one caveat to all this is Mitch McConnell. He will stall on Obama's Supreme Court nomination to replace Antonin Scalia. If it looks like he is "trying to shut down the Judicial branch of the government" in doing so, he may give the Democrats and Bloomberg a chance to win especially if Trump or Cruz are the nominee because do you want to trust them with your Supreme Court appointments?
It is clear that the U.S. politics are polarized, volatile, and ironically, the likely Presidential candidates will be dedicated to policies that the other side hates and detests and this will make them even more angry.
Anyway, I digress. The truth is that the working poor are very gracious and thankful that someone like me will help someone like them. If they are in a difficult situation, they try to find happiness in what they can and they are generous when they can. A disabled man, who lives in a rooming house, played a $1 on powerball and won $10,000. This automatically triggered tax withholding, so he came to our site. I asked him what he had done with his winnings. He said, he had given some to the mother of his child so she could do something for him. He had paid off some bills and he had helped some friends who needed help. I then asked him what he would do with his tax refund. He said, buy some dentures because he hadn't had any teeth for 5 years. Medicaid doesn't cover dental or vision, so he probably didn't take good care of his teeth and this is the result. And he is only one example of what I am finding across all my clients.
As for the primary election, I had to go north for an unfortunate funeral. I stayed with a friend, who like me, is pretty much middle of the road, has never voted for Bernie while either of us lived in Vermont (He still does), but are aghast at the right wing agenda and their dominance of the GOP. I asked him how his 3 boys felt about the election. He told me that they supported Bernie even though my friend sees the high risk that Bernie will lose all the swing states electing a GOP, and he has tried to explain that to them. But they see Obama as a Middle of the Road politician who failed them in their desire to see policies implemented that will save the environment. As much as I am a one issue person on access to health insurance, the environment is the most important issue for them. And either they don't trust Hillary or they see her as another Obama and they want someone to stand up for what they believe in and Bernie presents that to them.
So we will have a wide open election and the probability is high that the GOP will win. Because, if Bernie runs, Bloomberg will run and Bloomberg will have to attract 40% of the electorate and win the swing states as well as most of the Blue States to become President. And because I believe most of Bloomberg's voters would vote Democratic otherwise, that will likely throw the election in favor of the Republican, even if the Republican is Trump or Cruz.
The one caveat to all this is Mitch McConnell. He will stall on Obama's Supreme Court nomination to replace Antonin Scalia. If it looks like he is "trying to shut down the Judicial branch of the government" in doing so, he may give the Democrats and Bloomberg a chance to win especially if Trump or Cruz are the nominee because do you want to trust them with your Supreme Court appointments?
It is clear that the U.S. politics are polarized, volatile, and ironically, the likely Presidential candidates will be dedicated to policies that the other side hates and detests and this will make them even more angry.
Sunday, February 7, 2016
Sunday Musings 2/7/16
The Rise and Fall of American Growth
There is a new book by this name in the New and Notable book list in the NY Times Book Review list. I will not buy it or read it because I am sure it is quite droll.
But the title did start me musing on how many goods does the average person need as a goal for political policy. It you take the Grover Norquist view, we shouldn't pay any taxes so we can take our money, spend it on anything we want to, and pass on as much as we want to our children.
But, not everyone wants a power boat, nor ski vacations, nor to fly in an airplane, nor to own multiple houses or even a house. Nor should public policy be really concerned with anything other than personal safety, access to shelter, health care, food, and education. One might wonder where financial regulation comes in there and I would say protection from fraud is a matter of personal safety and helping people preserve their access to shelter, health care, food and education.
Now I guess Conservatives would say that those with capital know how to use capital to create more capital and since Capital creates jobs, it is best to preserve that capital with those who know how to use it most productively.
That strikes me as a false reality. Almost all capital is managed by professionals who are well paid and have every incentive to try and manage that capital we well as they can so they will continue to be well paid. Most capital traditionally was owned by Banks, Pension Plans and Insurance Companies who used professional money managers to allocate capital. Those professionals were smart people and even they make mistakes, and don't need any tax incentive to work hard because they are well paid and have very gracious life styles.
As for the new wealth, there is an awful lot of capital sloshing around the carried interest world being taxed at capital gains rates for their professional money manager. Why, in the name of lower thy taxes to create jobs, should these asset managers be favored over the other asset managers?
So the argument for lower taxes to create jobs really falls on the entrepreneurs who work in the actual businesses and self fund their growth. That is a very small subset of the population and they probably can manage their taxes reasonably well already and perhaps some of these schemes should be preserved in any future tax reform.
Anyway, what I was really wanted to discuss was the interaction of tax policy and life style support in the general population. The more I think about it, it seems to me the only coherent link is people with a lot of money give a lot of money to politicians who will not raise their taxes and these politicians support lower taxes so they will continue to get this campaign money and seek to maintain their salaries as government officials. I think economists call this rent seeking. And successful rent seeking is usually bad public policy from both a liberal and conservative point of view.
I guess I support cleaning up money in campaigns somehow.
There is a new book by this name in the New and Notable book list in the NY Times Book Review list. I will not buy it or read it because I am sure it is quite droll.
But the title did start me musing on how many goods does the average person need as a goal for political policy. It you take the Grover Norquist view, we shouldn't pay any taxes so we can take our money, spend it on anything we want to, and pass on as much as we want to our children.
But, not everyone wants a power boat, nor ski vacations, nor to fly in an airplane, nor to own multiple houses or even a house. Nor should public policy be really concerned with anything other than personal safety, access to shelter, health care, food, and education. One might wonder where financial regulation comes in there and I would say protection from fraud is a matter of personal safety and helping people preserve their access to shelter, health care, food and education.
Now I guess Conservatives would say that those with capital know how to use capital to create more capital and since Capital creates jobs, it is best to preserve that capital with those who know how to use it most productively.
That strikes me as a false reality. Almost all capital is managed by professionals who are well paid and have every incentive to try and manage that capital we well as they can so they will continue to be well paid. Most capital traditionally was owned by Banks, Pension Plans and Insurance Companies who used professional money managers to allocate capital. Those professionals were smart people and even they make mistakes, and don't need any tax incentive to work hard because they are well paid and have very gracious life styles.
As for the new wealth, there is an awful lot of capital sloshing around the carried interest world being taxed at capital gains rates for their professional money manager. Why, in the name of lower thy taxes to create jobs, should these asset managers be favored over the other asset managers?
So the argument for lower taxes to create jobs really falls on the entrepreneurs who work in the actual businesses and self fund their growth. That is a very small subset of the population and they probably can manage their taxes reasonably well already and perhaps some of these schemes should be preserved in any future tax reform.
Anyway, what I was really wanted to discuss was the interaction of tax policy and life style support in the general population. The more I think about it, it seems to me the only coherent link is people with a lot of money give a lot of money to politicians who will not raise their taxes and these politicians support lower taxes so they will continue to get this campaign money and seek to maintain their salaries as government officials. I think economists call this rent seeking. And successful rent seeking is usually bad public policy from both a liberal and conservative point of view.
I guess I support cleaning up money in campaigns somehow.
Thursday, February 4, 2016
Newt Gingrich (R) and Tom Daschle (D) Propose a Middle Ground for Health Insurance
And the legal basis is already in the Affordable Health Care Act, aka Heritage Foundation, Romney, ObamaCare.
At last an idea to put some acrimony behind us, hope springs eternal.
Link to Op-Ed Piece
And meanwhile, we find out in this mornings paper that even Tea Party politicians lie. Ted Cruz apparently is happy to take money from conservative gay people saying he doesn't care what states to for gay marriage. But what happens to a gay person in Texas if they can be legal in Vermont or NY or California and they work for the Federal Government in Dallas? Is their spouse entitled to benefits or inheritance in the same manner as heterosexual couples?
And of course, Marco Rubio is all over the place on immigration depending on the moment. He is even both radical and floppy floppy on taxes and the notion of balancing the budget, something he has never seemed to accomplish in his personal finances.
It seems like the only person who is consistent is The Donald, who is the closest thing to a Fascist I have ever seen in my lifetime. I was born when McCarthy was having his way.
At last an idea to put some acrimony behind us, hope springs eternal.
Link to Op-Ed Piece
And meanwhile, we find out in this mornings paper that even Tea Party politicians lie. Ted Cruz apparently is happy to take money from conservative gay people saying he doesn't care what states to for gay marriage. But what happens to a gay person in Texas if they can be legal in Vermont or NY or California and they work for the Federal Government in Dallas? Is their spouse entitled to benefits or inheritance in the same manner as heterosexual couples?
And of course, Marco Rubio is all over the place on immigration depending on the moment. He is even both radical and floppy floppy on taxes and the notion of balancing the budget, something he has never seemed to accomplish in his personal finances.
It seems like the only person who is consistent is The Donald, who is the closest thing to a Fascist I have ever seen in my lifetime. I was born when McCarthy was having his way.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
The Conservative Case for Campaign Finance Reform by Richard Painter
"ALL Americans should be alarmed about the effects of money in politics. But it is conservatives who should be leading the fight for campaign-finance reform. Unfortunately, none of the Republican candidates for president have taken on this issue."
"Why should conservative voters care? First, big money in politics encourages big government. Campaign contributions drive spending on earmarks and other wasteful programs — bridges to nowhere, contracts for equipment the military does not need, solar energy companies that go bankrupt on the government’s dime and for-profit educational institutions that don’t educate. When politicians are dependent on campaign money from contractors and lobbyists, they’re incapable of holding spending programs to account."
"Campaign contributions also breed more regulation. Companies in heavily regulated industries such as banking, health care and energy are among the largest contributors. Such companies donate with the hope of winning narrowly tailored exceptions to regulations that help them and disadvantage their competitors. Politicians sometimes say they want to roll back regulations wholesale, but they rarely follow through because they know that less regulation will remove the incentive for future contributions. Some would call it extortion, but that is how the regulatory game is often played."
"Social conservatives and faith-based voters should care about big money in politics because it drowns out their voices on issues from abortion and euthanasia to gambling and pornography. Churches and other charitable groups are prohibited from contributing to campaigns or even endorsing candidates. Politicians pay them lip service, but their influence pales in comparison to large for-profit enterprises. Values don’t pay for campaigns; health insurance companies, entertainment businesses, the gambling industry and its online counterparts do."
"Remember the poor widow in the Gospel of Luke who contributed coins to the temple treasury? She is the values voter of today. If religious conservatives want to accomplish their goals, they first need to drive the big spenders out of the temples of our democracy."
"Our campaign-finance system is also a national security risk. In a global economy, corporate wealth is no longer mostly American. American companies are owned by, borrow money from, and do business with foreign governments, companies, sovereign wealth funds and oligarchs. Equating corporate wealth with free political speech, as the Supreme Court did in its 2010 Citizens United decision, means that global economic power will help choose our government. Organizations that are not required to disclose the identities of their donors use their “free speech” rights to produce election ads; only the most naïve can believe the money behind those organizations is all American."
"It is, of course, illegal for foreigners and foreign companies to contribute to American political campaigns. Those restrictions, however, are as easy to evade as underage drinking laws on college campuses. There is a big money party going on in Washington and telling well-heeled foreigners that they can’t attend simply won’t work. They may act more discreetly than their American counterparts, but they will be there, and that so little of what goes on at the party is disclosed makes foreign participation that much easier."
"All this is a betrayal of conservative values. Conservative political leaders from Edmund Burke in the 18th century to Senator John McCain in the 21st have expressed dismay over the cost of elections and the corrupting influence of money in politics. The 1964 Republican presidential nominee, Senator Barry Goldwater, in his 1960 book “The Conscience of a Conservative,” wrote: “In order to achieve the widest possible distribution of political power, financial contributions to political campaigns should be made by individuals and individuals alone. I see no reason for labor unions — or corporations — to participate in politics.” He also strenuously objected to the Supreme Court’s obstruction of campaign finance reform beginning in the 1970s."
"More important, the system is a betrayal of the vision of participatory democracy embraced by the founders of our country. They rebelled against oligarchy and corruption in England. They tossed the British tea into Boston Harbor in 1773 and demanded taxation only with representation. We should do the same."
"Taxation in the United States should be conditioned on every individual taxpayer’s being allowed to designate the first $200 of his or her taxes to support a political candidate. Such a “tax rebate for democracy” would bring billions of small donations to political candidates, who would no longer depend on a tiny sliver of the population for the money they need to get elected. Government contractors and other beneficiaries of wasteful spending would have less influence, and ordinary voters would have a fighting chance to make sure the rest of their tax dollars were spent conservatively and responsibly."
"This and other reforms, including greater transparency about who is paying for election ads, and a less activist Supreme Court that would allow Congress and state legislatures to address campaign finance, would go a long way toward restoring the republican form of government that our founders embedded in the Constitution."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)