And this is all about economics? It is primarily two systems of economics battling it out. It is about a redistribution system, going up against a capitalist system. So let's take a moment to look at both, then perhaps discover a course of action.
The redistributionist, sometimes called Liberals, or Progressives, or Socialist, or Left wing, or what ever they change to next, believe that the only fair way for society is if all economic out come is balanced. The State should control the means of production, and dole out resources in areas where they feel it needs to be. Can you remember the stimulus? That money was doled out, and who got it? Those companies with connections in DC. And those who had connections with those doling it out got the bulk of the money, which then was funneled back as campaign donations. Because the President is Democrat, companies like Solyndra and GM received the hand outs. And these handouts were just adding to the debt. And for it, we got bankruptcies. How is that helping a child eat or Grandma get affordable health care? And no jobs to boot.
The Capitalists, Conservatives, Neo Cons or what ever they are calling themselves, one would think, would be protective of capital. Not entirely true, because if this were the case they would be negotiating to take uncertainty out of the market, giving capital a chance to work more productively. Some say that the Capitalists are being played by the President. I do not believe that to be the case. The Bush administration would have been favored by the Capitalists, and yet we had TARP. A different group, but still picking winners, a job neither side does well. Just think AIG, which today I heard was trying to sell their airplane leasing business to the Chinese.
Throughout my lifetime, it has seemingly made less difference which party is in power. They no longer look at the United States as a sovereign nation they are sworn to protect. They all, and again I mean ALL, seem to be in it for the power and prestige. And a fair percentage to get rich. Think about it. The Presidents salary is $400,000 a year. Yet between President Obama, and Mitt Romney they spent over $2,000,000,000 to win the election. Four years of salary is $1,600,000, grant it a tidy sum, but it hardly warrants spending $1,000,000,000 to get it. So why would they spend so much? And I would suggest if we lowered the salary to $0 there would still be a fight to be President. Bill Clinton wasn't particularly rich, but in retirement he lives pretty well. A big house in New York, travel, an office staff, I imagine George Washington is turning over in his grave. This is not to pick on President Clinton, I'm sure the other modern presidents have done well too, look at the big libraries.
Because our government has strayed so far from the Constitution, the job means money and power. The same applies to serving in Congress. A member of Congress makes $174,000; leadership slightly more. It is not the salary, but rather the ability to cut deals that enrich themselves, their families, and their friends. I have come to the opinion they they don't give a hoot about their constituents. That is sad. To win a seat in Congress is like winning the lottery. But winning is less about qualifications, and more about networking. Charlie Crist announced he was a Democrat, after being the Republican Governor of Florida, that makes my point doesn't it, they really don't care, as long as they win. It is NOT a philosophical battle going on, rather it is an economic battle; not our economics, but theirs.
Where I see sanity is in the people. While I might disagree with Washington State's legalization of marijuana, they voted yes. Now what happens? The politicians are writing regulations, and figuring ways to tax it. Most new jobs in this time of economic stress are government. More and more common people are just not looking for work any more, that is why the unemployment rate reported on the news is going down, not because of the strength of the economy. And this is hurting Main Street, the Mom & Pop businesses, even mid level business; and that sucks the will out of producers. They, the politicians, are coming after your money, regardless if you're rich, poor, or middle class.
So what can or should we do? Thomas Jefferson, the original Democrat, said a little revolution is a good thing. Now, I do not believe we should take up arms against government. Ours can be a peaceful revolt through the ballot box. At the very least, vote against incumbents. And past that, consider running for office. I'm serious, if the ballot has multiple choices instead of one or two, the chances of taking money out of the equation is greater. It would be much too hard to run a negative campaign against 10 people, than it is to run one against one opponent. At that point maybe we would hear legitimate campaigns on just what will be done if you win, not what bad things your opponent will do if elected. There might even be coalitions developed, moderating the extreme views we have now.
The Health Care law that was the crowned jewel of the President's first term, does little to help those in need of health care, but it has so far generated 159 pages of IRS regulations. Is that health care, or a money grab by those in power? We need to take money out of government, and by that I'm not talking salaries. If government is put on a short leash, and are required to follow the Constitution, then this ridiculous spending can stop, the current political class WILL NOT do this, not now, not ever. No matter their party affiliation.
No comments:
Post a Comment