politics

by

Political Tomfoolery


In this election year, the Republican Party has taken our economic condition as its cudgel. Similarly, the Democratic Party has taken abortion as its cudgel. Neither position helps the American public to any great degree.

The Republicans a very disingenuous in using the economy. In my undergraduate studies, oh so many moons ago, I minored in business administration. But even in those days, it was made very clear to us that we live in a world of a global economy. Simply put, every nation in the world is affected by the actions of either a handful of large economies of any single nation or that of a handful of small nations tied together.

Over the last 10 years, one of the world’s largest economies, China, has affected the rest of the world. China supplied, and still supplies, the world with electronic components and toys among to many other items. In return, China imported many food stuffs, particularly from the United States. When the corona virus hit the world, supply lines everywhere were negatively affected. Christmastime last year those supply line issues were shown to us via the major news outlets. Everything seemed to be in short supply, which was true. And who was to blame? Absolutely no one! The simple fact that many workers were too ill to work caused shortages which were entirely because of the pandemic. Recently, China has taken the stance of cancelling many of its food imports.

During those two years, many of those workers dropped out of the work force entirely, some never returned. Additionally, sectors such as transportation laid off huge numbers of their employees entirely because of the lack of demand. But in all cases, many of those workers who were of an age to retire, did so. Others got themselves trained for jobs which were still available and did not return to their previous job. Were there no pandemic, it is not unreasonable to assume they would have stayed on well beyond today. This was not because of the action or inaction of either political party. It was a simple and predictable part of economics. One such example is the oil industry. When demand goes down so do prices, a simple principle of economics. But the response of oil producing countries was to lower supply, an entirely reasonable response. This has the effect of raising prices even in a down economy. But this particular industry is somewhat unique. As the demand for oil started to rise, there is no reason for oil producing countries to increase production even though the United States was able to get OPEC to briefly raise production. Recently, OPEC decided to reduce production again.

Americans, thinking locally have taken this personally, and have disregarded this as a global issue, which, of course, it is. Right now, it is President Biden who is taking the heat for something over which he has no control, a global issue. The entire world is suffering the effects of higher oil prices with no country immune.

Our economy, like every economy in the world, is affected by the whims of stock markets, and in particular, that of the “futures” guessing game within stock markets. Easily spooked and too often wrong, these markets affect the prices we pay in the supermarket. Does the President of the United States or the entire 535 members of Congress has any sway over these things? It is foolish to think they do.

Politically speaking, neither party has the power to change our present economic situation. The best tact for each party is to explain to the public the truth, as I have just laid out, how our challengers with China, the war in Ukraine, the problems with the European Union economies, political unrest in Africa, food shortages world-wide, and so many other ills, all play into the economy in which we now find ourselves. One of the best moves, which Pres. Trump started, and which Pres. Biden has continued in earnest, is to make America lest dependent on supplies from other countries. No place is this more evident than in the automobile industry where new car availability is difficult at best. Pres. Biden has called upon industry to manufacture more electronic components here rather than relying upon other countries to supply them. But that is not an isolated example. Our export deficit has been plaguing us for decades with U.S. businesses sending more jobs overseas in search of lower manufacturing costs. There is one place that politics can take action, if unpopular to business, the resulting effect would be positive to Americans, in supply availability but in job availability.

It would be far more responsible were politicians to honestly educate Americans on the realities of economics than playing the us-against-them ideology being practiced today. All 535 members of Congress plus the President and his political appointees are responsible for seeing that through.

by

Time to Change or Eliminate the Electoral College


The Electoral College is an anachronism which dearly needs to be eliminated. The Electoral College was created to give more power to the smaller less populous states in our nation’s early years. It was a concession given because a state such as Delaware feared that a larger state such as Pennsylvania might take advantage of its size and essential rule over the smaller state. But it was still a compromise to bring peace and agreement to the then Federalist form of government. You must remember that we started at 13 individual republics who via the Constitution were united in to a singular republic with a strong central government but still allowing states certain powers of anonymity.
But as we have grown to 50 states and nearly 300 million people, the original algorithm to provide equality is now having the opposite effect. The reason is simple: state political parties pick their electors but the prevailing party always ends up with all the electors. For example, Massachusetts has 9 U.S. Representatives and 2 U.S. Senators giving it 11 electors. As Massachusetts is a strongly blue state, the entire representation will be Democrat and the electors will vote accordingly. But Massachusetts has a rather conservation portion of the state, Western Massachusetts. It is not difficult to have that political district vote Republican but their votes will count for nothing.
Texas is a good example of the opposite situation. Texas could easily vote 55% to 45% favoring the Republican candidate. Texas has a population of about 28 million people. That means the 12 million people who voted Democratic will have not voice in the presidential outcome. The same is true of California which typically votes Democrat but which has very large portions of the state which vote Republican.
The point is, if you are going to keep the Electoral College then it must be modified to accommodate that portion of a state’s population which does not vote with the majority political party. By attaching electors who represent the majority view of their political district, the Electoral College will become much more effective and fair.
The other thing to do is to eliminate the electoral college completely and have Presidents elected directly by the people which ultimately is the most fair solution. The impact of this with regard to previous elections is that at least 5 people who held the office of President but lost the popular vote would not have made it into office. To allow the minority vote to have purchase over the majority is an injustice and certainly something which keeps so many people away from the polls as they believe that their vote really does not count, and sadly, that may be the exact case.

by

Put Politics Aside: We Need a New Supreme Court Justice


In Webster’s Dictionary few words are defined by a single word. Balderdash is just such a word. Webster’s uses the word “nonsense” as the descriptor! Ergo, my dictum of the political circus that has been going on can be described quite aptly by the word balderdash!

Yesterday, the Honorable Mr. Antonin Scalia died. Although I was not a fan, as much as anyone can be a fan of a Supreme Court Justice, Mr. Scalia suffered no fools and never minced his words. Even in the midst of disagreement to the extreme, I always respect anyone who can define their starting place and never vary from that. Thus was Mr. Scalia. From the outset of his career on our nation’s highest bench, he described himself as an “originalist” where the constitution is concerned. He remained faithful to that definition oft times to the scorn of his supporters. Originalism means applying the ideas of those who wrote the constitution to legal decisions. He quite openly stated that the framers never considered homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion and a myriad of other issues when they wrote the document. He believed that making a decision which revised the constitution without the use of the Amendment procedure was simply wrong. Hence his stand of opposition of Roe v. Wade.

I have just spent too much time describing a man I can admire, even though I bitterly disagree with ideologically, why? Because of where we go from here, who will be the next justice.

I decided well over a month ago that the Democrat candidate for president will be Hillary Clinton with Bernie Sanders as her running mate. The Republics I feel are likely to nominate John Kasich as their presidential candidate. Kasich will have the unenviable job of choosing a running mate from a party so splintered it has become an amorphous rendering of its past glory. I suspect Ted Cruz will emerge for ethnic identification and to assuage the far right, a.k.a. Tea Party.

Scalia was not dead two hours when Sen. Mitch McConnell announced President Obama would not be allowed to have a nominee take Scalia’s place. What! He is hoping that his party will retake the White House. He can effectively bottle up any nominee procedurally in the Senate so the candidate’s name never comes up for a vote. I cannot help but believe the Mr. Scalia would have reprimanded McConnell for such chicanery.

The 114th Congress, now in session, is far from the most contentious. That dubious honor is owned by the 37th and 38th Congresses. Those are the sessions held during President Lincoln’s tenure and were well known not just for their theatrics, long and boisterous arguments but also for physical altercations. There were “war democrats” and “peace democrats,” “war republicans” and “peace republicans.” There was also the “Constitutional party.” It amazed many that these congresses were able to get anything done.

Is that where we are at today? The Republicans hold 56% of all House seats and 55% of all senate seats, Bernie Sanders and Angus King declaring themselves Independent. That means neither is veto proof but that the Republicans have enough power to slow down if not totally stop any and all Democrat initiatives, which they have shown a propensity for doing these past 4 years.

The prime purpose of each senator and representative is to champion the desires of those he supports. But you would not know that by the rhetoric coming out of Washington. A recent Gallup poll shows that Americans favor abortion 80% to 20%. That is an overwhelming majority and yet to hear Washington politicians speak one would think the American populace is evenly divided if not slightly tilted towards against abortion.   The American public wants abortion and it is the responsibility of the elected officials not only to respect that view but push aside attempts to countermand that.

On other issues it is tighter but still a message is being sent. On the issue of tighter gun controls, Gallup polls show 55% want stricter gun control while only 33% want the laws left as they are. Sixty percent of Americans favor gay marriage, but disapprove of the Affordable Care Act 50-44%. That last poll cautions, however, that the ACA, or Obamacare, shows 57% of all Americans were unaffected by the law. The caution here is that the ACA has more importance, more impact and a much more positive view by younger and ethnic Americans than by older Americans.

I would ask only that each U.S. Representative vote according to: 1. The desires of their district, 2. The desires of their state, 3. The desires of all Americans, and 4. Their conscience. I fear that Republicans as a whole put number 4 as their first priority and that Democrats put number 2 as their first. Neither is correct considering the mandate of the voter is always to do his desire.

I doubt most Americans can give a reason for why we even have a Supreme Judicial Court but that notwithstanding, they would likely want a vacancy filled reasonably quickly. That’s just how most Americans want most things done.

by

Who Owns America? Not You!


American political parties today are dominated by political action committees. Democrats and Republicans both have PACs who make large contributions to support their various causes. It may come as a surprise to you but the limit for giving, individually, is $35,000. There is, as there always seems to be, a catch.

Let us say, for example, that I am Charles and David Koch with more money than I know what to do with. And I decide I want Joseph Stumblebum to be president of the United States. I start by giving my $35,000 directly to Joe’s campaign. Then another $35k from my wife, another $35k from each of my kids but his kids are all grown. But there is no limit to how much I can give to a national PAC which is not directly supporting a particular candidate.   That is the loophole.

As of February 9, 2016 (www.opensecrets.org) there exist in America today 2,197 groups which are classified as Super PACs! There is no limit on how much money I can give a Super PAC. And of the top 20 Super PACs you have to go all the way down to number 20 to find the first one which supports liberal candidates. But to be fair, of those 20 top Super PACs, one claims no political persuation.

The number 1 Super PAC, which happens to support Bush (Right to Rise USA), has raised a whopping $118,300,000!

According to Forbes Magazine (October 2, 2015) Super PACs have raised over ½ billion dollars for this election cycle. The Forbes 400 estimates the contribution by those 400 to be approximately $66.5 million. But there is a problem with these figures. Like dark matter which is undetectable, Forbes has deemed this sort of giving to be “Dark Money.” It effectively challenges anyone to figure out how much it is and who exactly is giving it.

The original political action committees were formed in the 19th Century to lobby Congress for their various projects and desires. And for all of the 19th Century and a good part of the 20th Century these groups stayed away from political campaigns. It was deemed dishonorable but as soon as campaign finance reform became an idea, certain large industrial groups fearing heavier regulation, transparency of operation and being held accountable, brought the Super PAC into existence.

I am not a supporter of Bernie Sanders but God bless Bernie Sanders because he has done something no one else has had the courage to do. He has flatly refused all PAC money and is at this point running a very successful campaign for president. Bernie has flatly stated that if we want our government back we have to turn away the PACs.

Without regard to party, our Congress has abdicated its obligation to the citizens of the United States favoring the opinion of the PACs and the corporations behind those PACs. Every candidate will make the claim that he, or she, promises to do the will of the people. A multitude of polls have shown the will of the people includes, legalized abortion, tougher gun laws and controls, a higher minimum wage, a better health system (we are 37th in the world just ahead of Slovenia and behind Morocco and Colombia to name a few). Americans want a curb put on jobs being sent overseas, want their roads fixed, their water systems made safe, and their voice heard!

Sadly, America is run by about 1000 people total and not a single one is an elected official. How can I say that? The phrase Political Action Committee is merely a euphemism for political control. The majority of the most power PACs are conservative in nature but there are many liberal PACs as well.

Well, why don’t we just outlaw PACs? Seems like a reasonable solution however it would unconstitutional. It comes under protected speech of the 1st Amendment.

I believe the most reasonable solution is the enacting of term limits for members of Congress limiting any member of Congress to a total of 20 years. That would mean 3 terms for senators and 5 for representatives.

There is no simple solution to the afore-mentioned problems but Americans are going to have to come to terms with these problems if they care to regain control of their government. But until that day, regardless of your political persuasion, the person you put in office will do the bidding of the PACs they are beholding to.

by

Politics and Religion Do Not Mix!


The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment is actually very complex taking on no fewer than 5 separate issues. My interest here is in only one of them, religion. I will start with the man who wrote this amendment, James Madison. Madison was central to writing the base document as well. Madison was an Episcopalian. His colleagues in writing the basic document were:

http://www.internationalman.com/articles/framers-of-the-american-constitution

 

Adams was a Congregationalist, Dickinson a Quaker, Edmund Randolph was an Episcopalian, and Thomas Jefferson was a Deist which meant he did not adhere to any religion in particular. Such was the make-up of those who wrote the Constitution and helped with its first 10 amendments. But only a few of them could be found with any regularity at the church of their choice, except for Madison. The wisdom among each of these men was their ability to compromise because they recognized that to have the new country not only get off to a successful start, but to have a secure future. Going back to 1775, the only man of repute who helped get our country started but held disdain for organized religion was Benjamin Franklin. And yet to this day he is revered.

Strangely, the early 21st century, where politics is concerned, is sounding a lot like the early 19th century when America experienced the 2nd Religious Revival. Politicians from the Republican Party are particularly enamored allying themselves with Evangelical Christians. Curiously, only about 13% of the entire population clings to Evangelical beliefs. As a country, the US is about 71% Christian. Therefore, even among all Christians the Evangelicals can claim about 18%. Why is such a minority so important? When lawyers investigate certain types of individuals during a criminal investigation they are told to follow the money. I believe that it exactly what is happening in the Republican Party today and that is a real shame.

The historical man Republicans love the most is Abraham Lincoln, and for good reason. He brought the party back to life and gave it direction. But Lincoln never joined any particular religion. It was not important to him.

Why then, are today’s Republicans so intent on infusing their religious beliefs on American society in general? Follow the money! Even though I have no proof, I believe many of the Republican PACs are funded mostly, if not entirely, by Evangelicals. This needs to stop, now!

I am not a big fan of Bernie Sanders politics, not because I am a Republican which I am not, but because of his socialist beliefs. And yet he has done something truly remarkable. He is waging a pitted battle against Hilary Clinton but Bernie receives zero PAC money while Hilary relies upon it. But Bernie has made an extremely strong statement in the way he is funded and that is he does not owe a PAC anything. With the exception of Donald Trump who can fund his own campaign, all the rest of the Republican candidates are deeply indebted to multiply PACs. And they know that the Evangelical based PACs are particularly adept at energizing the public to support their candidate.

“Their candidate” should be seen as a curse to every American. The two people who run for president representing their political party should be our candidate. Bernie is on to something because he has shown that individual Americans are more than willing to support a candidate at a level that makes the candidate viable. I expect Hilary will eventually become the Democrat candidate for president and that she will ask Bernie to be her running mate. He is charismatic and will energize the public, particularly young people.

Religion has no place in the American government. Our first amendment says as much. But more importantly, Americans need only look to otherwise democratic countries which do allow religion to mix with the government. In general they are a mess.

It is really quite simple, Jews do not want my Catholic ideas impressed upon them. Southern Baptists have absolutely no interest in embracing Unitarian beliefs, and so forth.

I ask only one thing:

PLEASE KEEP YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OUT OF MY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT!

PLEASE KEEP YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OUT OF MY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT!

 

PLEASE KEEP YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OUT OF MY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT!

 

PLEASE KEEP YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OUT OF MY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT!

 

 

 

by

A New American Polical Party: The Moderate Party


 

This country has been a two party nation since Thomas Jefferson ran for president.   He called himself a Democratic Republican in opposition to the Federalists and John Adams in particular who he ran against. Since then we have always had two major political parties. Since 1858 it has been Democrats and Republicans. Prior to the present day Republicans there was the Whig party.

I am personally tired of the self-serving rhetoric coming out of both parties. Each party has its own fringe although the Republicans seem a bit splintered. The Tea Party of today is just a reincarnation of the Moral Majority of 20 years ago. The wrapping is different but the message is the same; they will settle for nothing less than a Christian nation.

I am hereby inaugurating the Moderate Party. It is my belief that such a party will actually represent the general views of well over 50% of the people of this nation at any given moment. We will take what we believe to be the best of both parties and embrace them. We will as political aspirants sign a pledge to never take a single penny from any PAC. We will listen to those PACs but we will never compromise ourselves by taking money from them to support our election.

Today’s Moderate Party will neither embrace the socialist views of Sen. Bernie Sanders nor the Xenophobic racist views of Donald Trump.   We will not make campaign promises of going to war in any part of this world as a solution to regional or world problems. We will look for ways to reduce the tax burden on the middle class. We will end federal subsidies to otherwise profitable corporation. We will tighten the tax laws to close all loopholes available only to the rich or to large corporations.   We will impose a minimum tax rate on all persons and corporations that realize a certain level of income after reasonable expenses have been accounted for. We will vigorously support the second amendment while putting into place gun laws which afford the general public a reasonable feeling that all guns are being sold only to those who have photo IDs showing themselves as legitimate buyers and they will not be kept from buying any gun they desire to include assault weapons. We will also require all gun dealers to be federally licensed and be required to complete a simple background check on all customers. They will be required to keep extremely accurate records of all gun sales.

At the start we will neither support nor withhold support for abortion or the death penalty. The position of each will be decided by a caucus of representatives of all 50 states and 4 territories.

We will look for ways to reduce the size of our government without eliminating existing services. For example, all parts of the Department of Homeland Security can be folded into the Department of Defense. And where it is necessary for such jobs as airport security come into play, those jobs will be held by the military police of the Army, Navy, and Air Force however their will wear a non-traditional military uniform. These men and women will be entirely made up of reservists and national guardsmen. The Veterans Administration will be transferred to the Department of Defense and all veterans with an honorable military discharge will be able to avail themselves of the medical services on any military installation. Veterans educational programs will become an extension of civilian oriented military training.

We will re-write the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) so that access to it and what it offers will be close to what Americans who are part of group plans can expect. We will also require all insurance companies offer health benefits under this act or be sanctioned.

normal67

What you see above is what is referred to as a standard bell curve. The way to read it is simple. Look at the straight line at the bottom. The -3 to +3 represents an entire population, of anything, but in this case I am using it for American citizens. The points between -0.5 and +0.5 are where you will find the position most Americans on any given subject. I believe that we can actually extend this between -1 and +1. The slope of the curve represents how strongly people feel in one direction or another about any particular subject. It is my belief that the 68% represented by these two points is where you can find most Americans and their willingness to work together. The remaining 16% on each side are those so deeply entrenched in an idea that you would be hard pressed to get them to change.

This bell curve is extremely important right now because it is my belief that the beleaguered Republican Party is being ruled by the 16% on their side of the curve. To be certain, many of Bernie Sanders’ ideas lie well within the 16% of the Democrat side and are simply not palatable to the other 84% of Americans, regardless of how hard he pushes.

I believe 68% of Americans are not interested in any particular groups religious beliefs, gun beliefs, money making beliefs or philosophical beliefs. They hold and want recognized their reasonable and moderate view of the world, the United States, and the town the live in to be respected. This is something that is not now happening.

I only wish I had the resources available to start such a party because I would. As a registered Democrat I embrace certain Republican views and find that among my Republican friends, we generally agree on most things. This, to me, epitomizes what the Moderate Party represents.

by

Dealing With ISIS


The terrorist attack on Paris is despicable, to say the least. The group that calls itself ISIS claims responsibility. Those are all the facts, there are no more. Politician in this country, and probably all others, debate what sort of response should be taken. The responses I have heard from politicians in this country have been anywhere from measured to outrageous.

The good thing about this country is we get to say whatever we believe and the government cannot restrict that. That works well until you enter the national and international arena. Once you find yourself on the national stage this wise response is always the measured response. Many of the Republican presidential candidates have made the decision that the best and only response the U.S. can make to terrorist attacks is by sending in the army. Such remarks are not only ill-considered but irresponsible.

Governor Christie has said he would send in the troops. Trump, Rubio and Bush have said as much. It is this kind of thinking that gets the United States into trouble over and over.

The military of the United States, and of any country, is an extension of that country’s political system. The two prime reasons for having a military is first to defend your country against those who attack you and second, to take the battle to those countries which present a real and present danger to your well-being. A secondary reason is going to an ally’s aid and defense.

That ISIS presents a real and present danger in the world is unarguable. ISIS, however, it not presently claimed by any country in particular nor has any country come out in support of ISIS. It is my belief that there is not a country in the middle-east, North Africa, southeastern Europe, the Balkans and probably all of central Asia which does not have a contingent of ISIS living within its borders. This makes attacking ISIS problematic, at the least, because of where it exists. For example, ISIS probably exists substantially in Lebanon and Lebanon borders Syria. Right now, neither of those countries have invited the U.S. inside its borders.

Former President Bush used the pretense of weapons of mass destruction the attack Iraq. We now know for fact that we were fed half-truths and absolute lies when the real motivation was to remove Saddam Hussein from power. I only mention that to pre-empt the idea of entering Syria to eradicate ISIS, and oh by the way, we remove Assad from power.

Right now the only nation that has an iron clad reason to attack ISIS with troops on the ground is France, and so far they have shown no desire to do such. Why? Because they probably realize that their chances of successfully destroying the entire central leadership of ISIS with infantry is minimal at best. And even if France were to decide to use ground troops, I think anything beyond existing NATO agreements and UN agreements is unwise. And anything beyond logistical support would be going too far. And that logistical support would exist only in Iraq in the Middle East.

The greatest threat ISIS is to the world now is mostly peace of mind. It is obvious that Europe has got to figure out a way, quickly, to secure its borders. The U.S. is already doubling down on its security, really the only thing we can do. The next right step the leadership of the world has to figure out is how to contain ISIS. For all the Middle Eastern countries this means they will have to use a combination of civil policing and military actions within their borders. For the U.S. this means we are going to have to secure the borders of both Afghanistan and Iraq. That may require additional infantry troops. Neither country is strong enough by itself to provide for its own security against the likes of ISIS.

The United States has a lot of experience in attempting to deal with an unseen enemy such as ISIS. That enemy was called the Viet Cong and the war, of course, was Vietnam. We failed miserably trying to root out the Vietcong with conventional military. ISIS is no different.

The bottom line is simple: we are already stronger than ISIS, we just need to be smarter than them to defeat them.

 

by

Where Has America Gone?


I went to graduate school to study U.S. History. I have always wondered how we, as a country, have gotten to where we are. I still wonder that but at least now I have a good working knowledge of the forces which brought us to this day. I have a deep appreciation of George Santayana’s words: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

I, like so many Americans today, look upon our Congress as the most dysfunctional body imaginable. The present Congress in its dysfunctionality is not, in my opinion the worst ever. That honor, if you will, belongs to the various Congresses which presided during our Civil War of 1861 to 1865. Both major parties where so horribly splintered it is amazing they ever agreed upon anything. It was only a few years earlier, 1856, when Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina attacked Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts on the senate floor, literally with his cane, beating him so badly he required medical attention. Brooks was ostensibly defending the honor of Sen. Andrew Butler whom Sumner had earlier called an “imbecile.” For his actions Brooks was fined $300.

It is of note that members of Congress in the 19th century were seldom millionaires although most were from well-to-do families. They were elected because they espoused the desires of their constituency and, as in the case of Brooks, were willing to literally fight for those desires. Brooks was incensed over the personal verbal attack abolitionist Sumner made on Butler by saying, “Senator Butler has chosen a mistress. I mean the harlot, slavery.”  These men were obviously and heatedly devoted to those causes important to their state.  Sadly, I do not believe such can be said for any member of Congress today.

Every American has 3 representatives in Congress, two senators and a representative.  But if someone were to ask me what any of those three people has done for my state, Massachusetts, lately, I quite honestly could not say a thing.  I simply do not know even though I do my best to remain informed.

At its inception the United States could easily have broken apart into 13 separate countries.  After all, each state had long before adopted its own constitution, set up its own form of democratic elections, and put together a fully and independently functional state government.  But by 1783 the colonies had come to realize the value of coalescing into a single and strong central government.  Still, they were bitterly divided upon what that government would look like and how each state could maintain a reasonable level of autonomy within the structure of a federal government.  To that end they decided on an election process which provided for the possibility of a complete turnover of the federal government at 6 year intervals.

That process was designed prior to political action committees, huge and rich corporations, and even, yes, political parties.  Thomas Jefferson believed that their need only be a single party made up of the “wise and well-born.”  But Jefferson actually oversaw that exact change when he departed from the Federalist party line, with which he greatly disagreed, and stated the Democratic Republicans.  He realized that Virginia’s needs were frequently at odds with those of Massachusetts or New York.  The original fight over state autonomy versus federal regulation continued until 1868 and the adoption of the 14th Amendment which, in part, bars states from enacting laws contrary to federal law.  At that time states fought jealously to preserve the general good and well-being of the residents of their state.  They did this through those elected to Congress.

At the beginning of the 20th Century politicians who were called “Populists” saw well-moneyed interests exerting control of the US Government to the detriment of the individual citizen.  Industrialists like Vanderbilt had lobbied and secured eminent domain so they could gain control of otherwise privately owned property.  Rockefeller who was able to gain monopolistic control of the fledgling oil industry, Carnegie the same in the steel industry and other “tycoons” of the day.  Congress enacted anti-trust laws, monopoly laws and in 1934 the Securities and Exchange Commission.  It took well over 30 years but Congress properly recognized that corporate America had systematically diluted the power of the individual American for its own use.

From 1900 until 1980 Congress and the President did an excellent job of insuring that the rights of the individual American were not trampled on by a few powerful interests.  But when Ronald Reagan became President the executive and legislative elements of our government began undoing all the work of the previous 80 years.  Reagan used sleight of hand by breaking up the communications monopoly AT&T had created while his real agenda was something entirely different.  Reagan started the charge against the average working man when he successfully oversaw busting the air traffic controllers union.  It was an entirely unnecessary action as the power of the president has always allowed for his ending a strike when he believed the national interest and the national defense were at issue.  Previous presidents had used this power to end lengthy coal miners’ strikes for example.  But none ever considered breaking up a union as this would have been viewed as un-American.  He effectively declared open season on America’s unions even though the power of all unions was lessening and the frequency of strikes decreasing.

He then took aim at the federal regulatory process, in particular financial interests.  He declared that such institutions were too heavily regulated and unnecessarily regulated, that they were self-regulating by their very nature and in their own interest.  This gives rise to the question of why the stock market crash on 1987 happened.  Is it possible that the sudden deregulation had gone contrary to the public good?  Congress ostensibly righted that ship by putting in place laws which would limit or stop stock trading should the market give signs of being in a free-fall.  But the deregulation continued.

Since 1980 control of the Congress has switched between the Republicans and Democrats many times.  But they have increasingly shown an inability to come to a consensus of compelling domestic and foreign issues, not the least of which is the regulation of the giant conglomerates existing in the United States today.  While America’s infrastructure deteriorates at an alarming speed, Congress is having a food fight over taxes, entitlements, and defense.

No state and nor individual, conservative or liberal, is benefiting from the actions of today’s Congress.  If individual members of Congress were truly interested in the welfare of their constituents, they would be figuring out how many multiple trillions of dollars it will take to bring our infrastructure back to where it should be rather than allowing it to continue where it where it is.  Such an investment would of course greatly benefit corporate America but unfortunately they are totally devoted to their own selfish interests.  Every year corporate America spends literally billions of dollars lobbing Congress to do their bidding while trampling on the rights of private Americans.  For example, the energy industry has long touted how “clean” burning natural gas is while failing to reveal that in reality from its mining to its burning natural gas actually hurts the environment more than coal!  But who has more money to spend on lobbying, environmentalists or the energy industry?  The energy industry has done such a great job of championing their cause that they have been able to get local environmentalists to do their bidding, vis-à-vis closing coal burning electric generating plants.  It would be fine if they actually maintained the 3% pollution rate they claim rather than the 16% reality.

Starting around 2006 and continuing for the next 5 years the foreclosure rate in American sky-rocked mostly because of a mostly unregulated banking industry which allowed sub-prime loans to people who had little idea of the agreement they had entered into.  Worse, these very same large financial institutions were making bets on the success or failure of marginal investments.  It came to light that these institutions were cooking the books, so to speak, to justify what they did.  First came Enron, then Morgan Stanley, then Shearson, and so on.  A few failed but most were propped up thanks to the federal government, “too big to fail” was the war cry.  Why did it happen?  Deficient regulation and oversight.

Sadly, while all this was happening, Congress was kowtowing to the moneyed interests which got them elected while to some extent, if not completely, ignoring the welfare of the individual American.  Democrats and Republicans had obfuscated their duty to the individual American rather than anger the PACs which got them elected.

At this point I should come up with a solution.  Sadly, I do not have one short of saying America needs to toss out everyone who now populate Congress and put in new people.  That is not going to happen but something akin to it needs to happen.  Today’s members seem to feed on being antagonism and lack either the will or ability to come to any sort of an understanding with their adversary, they seem to believe that maintaining an adversarial relationship is the recipe for political success.  They use that very negative adversarial and contentious mood to invigorate those who voted them into office.  They sell it as acting in their constituents’ best interest when nothing could be further from the truth.  Members of Congress keep their attention focused on the next election and how they will get re-elected while subordinating the needs of those they represent.  Congress has become adept at selling Americans a ticket to hell and having those same Americans out beating the bushes for directions.

I fear for the future of my children and grandchildren, it seems very bleak right now.  I fear the America my ancestors fought and died for has been purchased by corporate America and that future governance is being decided in America’s boardrooms rather than America’s living rooms.  America is in desperate need of a revolution, a revolution that will empower them and put them back in control of their future.

by

The Deplorable State of American Politics


enemy

The cartoon above, from the strip “Pogo,” first appeared in 1952.  Walt Kelly produced this comic strip from 1948 to 1975.  Pogo Possum was a humble, personable and philosophical character who spoke on many subjects.  This particular one, I believe, speaks most tellingly about the state of our present politics.

In 1994 a Republican think tank came up with the idea of the “Contract with America” which all its members in both the senate and house signed.  In its most basic form it was a wonderful and powerful idea.  But those behind it had other ideas, sinister ideas.  Certain non-elected people had a very deep hatred for President Bill Clinton and this was supposed to be their open foray into removing him from power in 1996.  It failed simply because Clinton co-opted them by endorsing certain portions of the contract, most especially balancing the budget.  But those power brokers knew quite well how to win wars while losing a battle or two.  Clinton gave them that opportunity by having an affair with Monica Lewinsky and then denying it ever happened.  For the first time since Andrew Johnson a president was impeached.  Clinton’s crime?  Not that he had the affair but that he lied to Congress.  With attack dog Kenneth Starr at the forefront running a broad and unrestricted investigation, it was game on.

Who was behind this?  It was not the members of Congress but those moneyed interests behind the Congressional powers.  To be certain, David and Charles Koch were two of them.  Other powers behind the scenes were Republican strategists such as Karl Rove and talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly.  What each of these men knew, and relied upon, was the average American’s disinterest in discovering the truth about any particular subject.  They knew their target audience would take them at their word despite the use of hyperbole, exaggeration and out right lies.

The Democrats have been equally as bad though usually not in the same way.  While Democrats love to use hyperbole, exaggeration and out right lies too, they are not nearly so well organized as Republicans and other conservatives.  And while the Democrats certainly have their share of moneyed interests, the do not have a strategist who approaches the ability of Karl Rove and have virtually no presence, let alone following, on the air waves in the form of an O’Reilly or Limbaugh.

Although I am a life-long registered Democrat, of late I have made a habit of voting Republican in Massachusetts elections.  This has been because of my disgust by state-wide politics as a whole, and those who are running for office in particular.  The brilliance of Senator Elizabeth Warren is unimpeachable but she is an uninspiring academic who had previously no civil experience.  She won, not on her merits, but because she was the Democrat who opposed Republican Scott Brown.  This sort of politics exists in every state which holds a large majority in one party, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming for Republicans, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Michigan for Democrats.

I find it troubling that the Republican Party has found itself split between their long standing moderates and those who have given their allegiance to the Tea Party.  But if you look at it closely, you will find the Tea Party is simply a reincarnation of the old Libertarian Party with a new platform.  The Democrats have their own group on the far left who, although without name, are equally as polarizing.  It is this polarization that causes intransience over issues which desperately need resolution.

The only resolution to these issues is for all Americans to hold their elected officials, those who the voted for, to back up their stands with absolute truth, to work in the best interests of their constituents and not the PACs, and to always work towards a common ground with members of the other party.  I would say that any member of Congress who votes in excess of 75% along party lines should deemed as of suspicious designs.  Each senator and representative should be able to report back to his constituents on a regular basis how each of his votes worked to the favor of the majority of those he represents.

Americans seem to be of a mind that politics as a whole are disgusting, but until each American decides to hold those he has voted into office to a higher standard, then nothing will change.

by

Holding Politicians Accountable


Within our Federal Government there exists two sets of rules: one set is for civil servants while the other is for politicians and political appointees.  Within the former are a set of very strict standard which must be adhered to.  This group includes the members of our military which has an even more strict set of rules than those for civil servants.  The latter, however, seem to have no particular set of rules save that one indicated in the Constitution, “high crimes and misdemeanors.”  So very vague is that rule that only two presidents and a rather small handful of others have ever been held to it, and none successfully.

The members of our military are held to what is called the Military Code of Conduct, a set of 131 rules to which the must adhere, some of which seemingly contradict the Constitution itself, but which when challenged in the US Supreme Judicial Court have never been found lacking or at fault.  Civil servants are required to undergo an annual code of ethics training course which is given, generally, by a lawyer from that department’s office of ethics.  One portion of those ethics quite clearly set out a standard that states unequivocally any semblance “of a conflict of interest” will not be tolerated.  In any given year, hundreds of federal employees are tried in a court of law for violations of this code, and that is a good thing.  It is meant not only to enforce the law, but to give the public confidence in how federal employees conduct themselves.  To show the strictness of such rules, one states that no federal employee may accept any gift of greater value than $25 which includes meals, educational opportunities, etc.  The lone exception is if such gift is open to the public in general and that anyone, upon application, can avail themselves of such gift.

Now comes our political appointees.  In particular I want to bring about the person of General David Patraeus.  He graduated from West Point in 1972 and got an advanced degree from Princeton University.  He served a particularly distinguished career which elevated him to four stars, the greatest rank any military person can aspire.  Then in 2011 he was appointed to head the CIA.  In every respect he is an American hero who rose the well-earned heights.  It all came crashing down when it was revealed he had had a dalliance with Paula Broadwell.  The shame in all that is not that he had the affair, but that he was forced to resign.  If such dalliances meant an end to political careers the wreckage of such during our history would have easily end the career of half our presidents and probably equal numbers of Congress.  So corrupt was the administration of warren G. Harding that is has long be speculated had he not died first he would definitely have been one President who would have been removed from office by Congress.  If you want to know more about this, look up what is called “the teapot dome scandal.”

Most, if not all, of our US Senators are millionaires and are either so far removed from the middle-class, if they had ever been a part of it, to remember what it is like to be a part of it.  None came from poverty.  The same can be said for much of the House of Representatives.  That might not be so bad if not for the fact that they seldom represent the will of their constituency.  For them, quid pro quo is the only business they understand.  Simply put, that means those who contribute the most to their reelection get the greatest part of their attention and can count on their vote going their way.

They say it is impolite to speak ill of the dead, but to make a point I feel I must.  Sen. Edward Kennedy represented Massachusetts from the early 1960s until his death.  He was a decidedly unethical and devious man.  He was absolutely at fault in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, July 18, 1969.  He was obviously not run from office, as he probably should have been, but was given a 2-month suspended jail sentence for “leaving the scene.”   Even though I have always been a registered Democrat, I never once voted for the man as I felt him incapable of honesty.  When he ran unopposed, I wrote in my own name on the ballot.  I also requested assistance from his office with a problem I was have one time.  After visiting there I never got so much as a polite “we cannot help you” response from them.  But then, that is what unprincipled self-important people do.

Today, Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, is acting in much the same way.  He claims he wants Wall Street reform and stricter regulations on financial institutions.  He says he wants to kill the 15% tax of earned interest that only the very wealthy enjoy.  That means, the top rate paid on all earned interest, by millionaires in particular, is 15%.  An average person who got lucky and won a million dollars would pay close to a 35% rate on that income while the millionaire will be assessed only 15% on his multiple of millions earned in interest.

Members of congress are regularly wined and dined at very expensive restaurants, given expensive gifts, given free memberships in exclusive clubs, and so forth.  It is hard to imagine that these members of congress will concern themselves quite so much with their constituents who sent them to congress to do their bidding than with those who spend lavishly on them.

I think politicians should be held to many of the same rules that civil servants are held to.  I also think campaign finance laws should be written to prohibit contributions to any single person or party except from individual voters, and that such amounts would also be limited.  The only way we will ever get Congress to listen to the will of the people is to limit the ability of the will of the PAC, the corporation, or any non-individual to be minimized.