All I can say is after 15 years of military action not working to produce a successful nation, something has to be done about the broken state of Afghanistan. And, yes, Pakistan, another basically failed nation, has to be part of the solution. You can't fix Afghanistan if the Pakistani's don't control their own state, and groups like the Taliban are allowed to operate like a baby ISIS. The Taliban flow back and forth across the border like Americans and Canadians cross their border. And until Pakistan controls their border, there will be no military solution in Afghanistan.
So, Trump is right that their has to be a successful military in Afghanistan to fight the many radical Islamic groups that operate there and in Pakistan, and Pakistan needs to be part of the solution, but they also have to solve their issues. Remember, Osama Bin Ladin hid in Pakistan for many years before being found. And Pakistan sent terrorists to India. I don't know if the Taliban can be a responsible negotiating partner, I am not sure they are interested in governing a country in a manner acceptable to the West and India/China. But I am quite sure that we cannot defeat the Taliban as long as they can run back to Pakistan and regroup. And that is the state of that part of the world today.
I am a part of Indivisible Westchester, but I am not as liberal as many who are in that organization. Long time readers know I am open to the argument that market forces have a role in managing society. What I am not open to is what I read about in this week's NYT book review. James Buchanan, who won a Nobel Prize for his advocacy of the role for market forces as the most efficient form of managing society, also advocated a dark state of monied people doing what they can behind the scenes to prevent the democratic process from taking their wealth. He was obviously prescient as that is pretty much what has developed in the U.S. with Supreme Court decisions by Justices who have undoubtedly read him and met with him.
In today's column, David Brooks advocates why moderation and listening to both sides of the traditional socialist/market force debate is necessary for society to move forward in a balance manner. We are a long way from there today and there is no clear path for American politics to move from its current partisan path to a more moderate path.
Link to Brook's column on Moderates
Showing posts with label Citizens United. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Citizens United. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
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)