I like his charts. They walk people through the entire financial quandry. The end result is to face up to hard choices. The history of governments and businesses is that the word hard is often avoided. The growing deficit issue has largely been ignored by politicians. Clearly it is being ignored in this upcoming election process. Ultimately, as chart 34 of his series depicts, it comes down to choices on how to deal with the upcoming deficit problems. It comes down to value choices for a nation and its populace. In terms of choices, one thing I go back to is to pull the money out of politics. Entitlement and defense spending are the largest single components of the spending side of things. Businesses wanting a piece of the defense budget get their cut with little oversight from anyone. One element of that are earmarks with an example of the tie ins seen in this thread in which the tie ins between contractors and support of contracts is readily and repeatedly shown. That is the slightest example of businesses paying for politicians and getting paybacks in votes from Congress. Clearly organizations such as AARP, and the drug industry have lobbied long and hard for expansion of entitlements. The Drug industry has been one of the largest funders of elections and got a huge payout in the Drug legislation of the last few years. The education lobby spends huge bucks on supporting candidates that back its agenda. I'd pull the money from all groups out of elections, make them less expensive and see if the results on issues and discussions changed dramatically. I'd ultimately rely on the perspective of the population to determine which way the nation wants to move with regard to solving these financial issues.
Earl, wouldn't pulling all campaign finance and lobbying be a violation of the first amendment right to free speech?
I the infulence of lobbying will decrease more and more as the fundraising is becoming more internet based. this is the biggest change that is happening in the last few elections. within the next 4 to 8 years, this trend is going to pickup and reduce the infulence of all lobbies. No need to do anything else
The influence of money on politics is so enormous. Somehow to me the word "free" from free speech.....and pouring tons of money into campaigns are diametrically opposed. There is a big difference between voicing opinions and the process of buying influence. I think the courts are getting this wrong. IMV, they ought to go back and emphasize the word free. I think I'd start by cutting the time frame of elections. This last primary process just went on too long IMV. Pizzaman: That may be but only time will tell. While that really took off with this campaign, one needs to also look at the impact and monies raised by the "bundlers" upon which most campaigns relied. It is astonishing to me, when one looks at the records of campaign contributions, one finds very large sums representing various interest groups and specifically businesses. Obama raised the most in total and the most from individual small contributors. He also relied on bundlers. I haven't looked at it, but I wonder how a breakdown of his 1/4 billion dollars raised represents individuals versus contributors aligned with groups plays out on a percentage and total dollar basis.
I agree somewhat. The problem primarily is that where ever the legislative, regulatory power (as well as tax revenue) is consolidated, will be a target for corruption and such. I adamantly oppose Earl's modern liberal solution that the problem is not the politicians, it's that the people have the means and opportunity to lobby them, as though greed and corruption are acceptable vices and practices for those in public office to hold. Ron Paul had several excellent points during his campaign. Reduce the legislative scope and tax base of government, and you will reduce the number of lobbyists and the amount of money being thrown at it. Of course, this is a very simply, precise and accurate assessment, which is why people will propose much more complicated measures, with new departments and bureaucracy to enable government to watch itself. Like asking the Fox to guard the hen house while you take a nap.
In fact, proposals to limit money in government come from a wide variety of RETIRED politicians, both Republican and Democrat. They no longer have to play the game of politics. They no longer engage in the level of basic corruptness that it engenders. To paraphrase a comment from a now retired member of Congress that I heard......"I spend my days making bad laws that I don't have a lot of information on....and my nights going from party to party to raise money." As to the Paul suggestions: Ultimately eliminating many of the powers of government leaves the nation pretty much like Lebanon. No power, no ability to stem the strength of groups that fill the power vacuum. Oh yeah, Lebanon, something like 10 million natives have emigrated because it has become such an intolerable, dangerous land. What a shame.
Shame they didn't have the courage to limit their own feeding habits at the money trough when they were representing the people. I have a hard time taking people like this seriously, like Scott McClellan, who come out after they have participated in the crime, to whistle blow and plead moral revelation. That's a strawman, but then that is usually all you have to offer. Dishonest posts. Government vs. private power is a zero sum game. Removing government power is increasing personal liberty. The issue from Paul is not to remove all government per se, but to decentralize and return power to the states. That is how the Republic was intended to function, not with a monolithic Sodom and Gomorrah in Washington. There is no "power vacuum". That"s socialist fear mongering. Indeed. I'm amazed that people can waste their entire lives being dogmatic, self-loathing and subservient.
Do you think that Obama will choose Perot as his running mate and McCain countering with Hillary Clinton?
I see Obama choosing someone who is not as smart, and enjoys being talked down to. I'm not sure someone like Perot fits the bill, at least not on my later talk. McCain, he's already got the Hillary vote, what advantage would there be in having her on the ticket?
It takes several million just to get on the ballot. The only chance a 3rd party has is to have a billion to spend.