Then how do businesses stay in business? It seems every four years billions of dollars are sucked out of the economy to finance political campaigns. No one seems to want to talk about how that is affecting the economy. It may be, in good times, it has little effect, but in bad economic times it may.
There are several ways campaign fundraising affects our economy. The shear value of the dollars is not very high, so in the grand scheme it doesn't hurt that much, unless times are bad. If we look at what the campaigns do with their money, I believe there may be harm coming from it in monetary and non monetary ways.
The non monetary ways include sucking up available radio and TV time, blocking business from effectively advertising their product or service. If they can't promote themselves, they cannot maximize sales. When sales are maximized, then employment occurs. Without sales, there is no need of employees. Last night, as I had the TV on, every commercial break was full of commercials about this politician or another. Most of them negative. It angers me that a candidate, or their PAC is so uncomfortable with their position, that they have to tear apart their opponents. All of them, up to and including the Majority Leader in the US Senate, Harry Reid seem guilty of negative advertising. Opposition Research is one way they find stuff then spin it to their advantage. I even noticed one PAC didn't endorse a candidate at all, who do we get angry at? The truly savvy can probably figure out which candidate they are promoting (the only one they didn't bash), but will the general public, who aren't living and dying politics going to know? It is a horrible practice, one that ALL parties and candidates seem to use. There is a US Senate primary around here, I did notice the least offending candidate seems to be in the lead. Perhaps this is a trend.
If money leaves the economy through expenditures by campaigns, which are not productive, then that money is not available to buy productive things like cars, furniture, or appliances. Again in good times this may not affect the economy in a negative way, but in these days there are a number of small businesses that may not survive. Yet the candidates are saying they got your back. They want to put America back to work and other dribble. If that were the case, lead by example; enact policies to enhance job creation. Sadly, neither major party seems to really care, it is all about power, and who gets to sit in the big chair. With power comes money. With money comes corruption, at least in politics. Many candidates seem at the beginning of their tenure to be more altruistic, then they get sucked into Washington, DC and corrupted. Then they just switch chairs, Congressman to Senator, to VP to President, or Cabinet officer or Ambassador. If your a good soldier, the Party will take care of you. But what of the citizens who are not politically connected?
A third way that political campaigns affect the economy is by promoting attitude. Our economy relies on the aggregate mental attitude of the population. Negative ads spawn negative attitudes, only magnified in bad economic times. In a way, the economy dips because of negative ads. Yet each of these candidates would say they are for economic growth. Really?
Revolutions are fueled when the political leadership becomes blind to the general population. When they insulate themselves from the masses. The Soviet Union comes to mind. Or any other tin plated dictator in history. Our political system is getting perilously close to that point. But We the People, can still vote. And vote we must. An informed vote. My grandfather sat me down at my 18th birthday, he said "voting is easy, you just yank the donkey's tail." Isn't that one of the problems? About 1/3 of the voters are Democrat, 1/3 Republican, and 1/3 non declared or independent. Of the independents a number of them vote only because they feel they must, without preparation or research into the candidate. As long as American Idol, or what ever other pop show continues, all is good and one side is as good as the other. Believe it or not, it was even that way in 1776. Then a King decided that he needed money from his colonies, without consideration of what it would do to their economy. Today our elected national leaders want more and more of our money to fund unproductive things like the bridge to nowhere... Is there really a difference?
No comments:
Post a Comment