October, 2006. And what was it that happened in November, 2006?
Naw, just a coincidence, I’m sure.
16 thoughts on “When Unemployment Was 4.4%”
Comments are closed.
October, 2006. And what was it that happened in November, 2006?
Naw, just a coincidence, I’m sure.
Comments are closed.
And what was it that happened in November, 2006?
The American people exercised their democracy, that’s what. No to blame but us.
This is what happens when every two years the people are presented with the same two choices as every previous election going back to before the Civil War.
And it’s going to keep happening until we break the Combine’s multi-century grip on power. Simply repealing ObamaCare (if we can do even that much) is barely more than a symbolic gesture. Only real election and campaign finance reform would be an actualy victory.
“Only real election and campaign finance reform would be an actualy victory.”
So which amendment do you propose changing, the 1st or maybe the 17th?
Bill,
Nothing wrong with the 1st. Repealing the 17th would be nice.
But neither addresses the core concerns – that we only have two choices in each election, and those choices are funded by the “permanent elite” moneyed interests.
The first problem (only two choices) is caused by our electoral system where we can only vote for one guy, and plurality wins. In this situation voting for anyone other than the Republican or the Democrat is at best “throwing your vote away” and at worst handing victory to your most hated oppoenent.
If we changed the electoral system to an Approval or Score Voting method, where you could vote for multiple persons (e.g., Ross Perot and George H. W. Bush), viable third parties would emerge and challenge the establishment parties. There would be real competition in the market for political policy, and frictionless market entry. That’s a good thing.
Read Gaming the Vote for more on this.
As for funding, we all know that lobbyists write the laws and buy politicians. It’s upsetting, but not remarkable. This is the case because the politicians are absolutely dependent on the lobbyists for campaign contributions. Without them they cannot get re-elected. This needs to stop.
I would propose a hard limit on campaign length (say, 3 months prior to an election) and a strict, no-exceptions bar on accepting political contributions from anyone not a natural person and constituent of the politician in question. Toss in a fixed personal cap too (say, $10,000/year), to prevent the Bloombergs and Corzines of the world from swamping the common man with their billions.
If the above makes it impossible to run an effective campaign, I’d be find with Federal matching. Just so long as it’s not coming from Verizon or the SEIU.
But don’t debate my proposed fix. Can we agree that lobbyists are evil and their power needs to be broken? That seems like a no-brainer to me. We can argue on the means another time.
No, we cannot agree that lobbyists are evil and their power needs to be broken. Lobbyists are simply those individuals and groups expressing their right to petition the government for redress, a funadmental basis for any free system. Like it or not, when you have a large polity (there are 300 million of us, after all), lobbying is going to involve a lot of money. Are you seriously suggesting that some groups be denied the means of petitioning government? Just how do you propose to define who is worthy and who isn’t?
As long as Government(tm) has the kind of overwhelming power that it has, it will attract the interest of the rich and powerful. Make government less powerful (and thus relevant to our day to day existence) and less money will flow into it. When businesses see government controlling their ability to survive (and thrive), it isn’t difficult to see why they will use whatever resources they have available to influence that government…
In the 1990s Microsoft had one full-time lobbyist in DC, now it has dozens. I was with them when the this change occurred, and it was the anti-trust suit that caused the new policy. Suddenly they realized that the government was going to be interfering in their business on a permanent basis and if they wanted to continue to profit, they were going to have to defend themselves, and perhaps influence government to protect their interests. If the government didn’t have that sort of power int he first place (or if at the very least it wasn’t as pervasive), they wouldn’t be wasting $$$ hiring guys in expensive suits to bribe congressthings…
Campaign reform always seems to boil down to restricting the rights of ‘others’ to speak and petition the government, something that gets out of hand very, very quickly. More, not less, speech is a good thing, but if you really want to get money out of politics (good luck with that), then give it (money) something better to do…. We used to joke that Bill Gates never ran for president because he didn’t see the point in spending $100 million for a demotion…
Scott’s right. When I see my congressman at a community picnic and I talk to him about some issue that is important to me, I’m being a lobbyist. The only thing distinguishing the usual image of a lobbyist from some shmoe at a picnic is money — and I might not have been at that picnic if Obamanomics hadn’t caused me to have a lot more free time than I need.
People who don’t have that free time need some way to communicate with their representatives.
“Lobbyists are simply those individuals and groups expressing their right to petition the government for redress, a funadmental basis for any free system.”
Speech is fine. Let ’em talk. Write your letters. Shoot the shit with Rep. Smith over grilled corn and a Coke. But we all know that when push comes to shove, the Teachers Unions get their way and the students get screwed over for life. And why? Money. The Teachers have it and students don’t. Same for consumers vs. the UAW, savers vs. Wall St., etc. etc.
That. Is. Evil.
The problem isn’t the speech. The problem is the politicians’ dependence on lobbying funding for electoral victory.
Think about it- There are two sources of power in Washington: Votes and Campaign Funding. Both are necessary to win. Only the people can provide Votes, but the people are constrained in their actual use of that power by being forced to choose between the Combine’s left or right hands every two years. There’s no real choice there.
How else can you explain that with Congressional approval at 10-fucking-%, 80% of them will get reelected? Are Americans so stupid or unable to field better candidates that we already have the best we’re going to get? Hell no. The game is rigged. Isn’t this obvious?
Meanwhile the SEIU, Teachers Unions, telecom carriers, and Wall St. banks provide such an overwhelming source of Campaign Funding as to swamp out the persuasive effect of your $100 donation. It’s ludicrous to believe otherwise. Who do you think drafted ObamaCare, or any other law passed this year? Is sure as hell wasn’t you or your Representative.
Hence my two suggestions above-
1. Change the electoral system so there can be real third party competition.
2. Restrict campaign contributions (NOT SPEECH) so that Congres-critters can only accept money from real people within their State/district. Let the Teachers and Banks run their ads, but the Congressmen should work for the People, not the Permanent Elite.
Remember that Congressmen are no different than the rest of us. They probably want to do the right thing but ultimately they answer to the guys that pay them. As long as that’s Wall St. and the SEIU and the Pharma Cos. those corporate interests will be served and the people will be screwed.
Or do you really think the FCC had your best interests at heart when it ruled that Comcast didn’t have to share its physical infrastructure as a common carrier with the likes of Earthlink? Hell no. It created a monopoly therby, and Comcast has reaped billions in profits since, at your expense. That wasn’t an accident. Mission Accomplished. This is just one example.
Scott is 100% right, Brock. You are deluding yourself if you think you can set up some algorithm, commission, or czar to decide what is “speech” by the stout yeomanry and what is eeeeeevil campaign donation “influence.”
Money isn’t stuff that comes out of the ground. Money represents the stored labor and sweat of real people. If they donate it to a cause they believe in, that is political speech. They’re saying by their actions — by being willing to work for the cause — that they want this particular cause to succeed. It’s no different in principle from signing up to ring doorbells or get petitions signed, or participate in get out the vote efforts. You’re donating your labor to your cause.
Furthermore, the fact that money isn’t limited like one-man-one-vote means that people can indicate the degree of their passion and commitment as well. If you really feel strongly about something, you can donate half your income. Or, if you feel mildly about many things, you can spread your influence around. You can also influence things that happen elsewhere — like sending money to Scott Brown in Massachusetts — if that thing is going to, in turn, influence you (i.e. result in Obamacare).
This is democracy in action, genuine grassroots stuff. It’s the left that wants to restrict it, with all their campaign finance reform gimmickry, because they know that money is the only way the rank ‘n’ file have to have influence beyond their plain vote. And if you eliminate it, or restrict it, you leave the same people in power who used to wield power in the days before people gave money to political campaigns: the fixers, the machine men, the fellows who “know” a guy.
Scott’s also 100% right about the correct solution: limit the power of government per se. If it had no great power to interfere so hugely in the lives of everybody, then nobody would be spending $bazillions to capture it Any huge rich prize of power will always attract would-be fascists who want to wield it, and you’ll only be able to defend it against them by very pricy vigilance.
When you find the Ring of Power, throw it into the volcano. Don’t try to use it yourself.
I feel like adding in defense of evil “lobbyists” that this is also the only way small folks get their voice heard in Washington. The CEO of Goldman-Sachs can pick up the telephone and call the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and get him, because no matter how you construct clever finance rules, his enormous wealth will always give him outsize personal influence If nothing else, he can offer Senator Foo a very nice “consulting” job after the latter leaves office.
How are we small fry to compete? Only by banding together. We can join our voices, and our influence, into organizations that represent our interests — unions, if you think that way, or parent organizations, or associations for the disabled, or alt-space fans, or NASA employees, or dentists or dental patients, environmentalist and business groups, and so forth — and hire lobbyists who will then go full time to Washington and remind Senators Foo and Congressman Bar that collectively the organization that sent them has as much influence and wealth as the CEO of Goldman.
This, as I said, is just democracy in action. To be sure, we want to be sure no one interest group gets outsize influence, influence beyond what their sheer numbers and success in the market o’ ideas merit — and that is a good argument for laws that hobble organizations gaining inappropriate influence, like “right to work” laws that prevent unions from snaffling up contributions their unwilling “members” are forced to “donate,” or sunshine laws that force organizations to disclose their funding sources and Congressthings to disclose their donations, and probably many others besides.
But I think the underlying best solution is still throwing the Ring into the volcano.
forced to choose between … no real choice
New rules aren’t going to change the old game. People have to care enough; we need to thank both George and Barack that a lot of people now do.
The thing that’s most encouraging about the tea parties is that it’s not just about national elections. They’re fighting corruption around the country at the local level and will only get stronger nationally over time.
What happened with claiming that the previous executive was the one responsible for the present crisis or bonanza? You know, the theory that George H.W. Bush was responsible for the economic boom during the Clinton administration, or that Clinton was responsible for the economic crisis just after George W. Bush was elected?
Oh yeah, now the president is a Democrat. That was what happened.
Want to know which issues the US has?
One issue is that US infrastructure has been failing from underinvestment. This is especially noticeable in the energy and telecommunication sectors. Remember any news of failing oil rigs? Refineries? Brownouts? Blackouts? Congested cellphone networks?
Another issue is that most US entrepreneurs have no long term vision at all. All that matters is beating market expectations this quarter. Just ask Dell.
Oh and the Fed needs to learn that you cannot inflate a tire while it still has a hole in it.
Although, if you have no air, you can inflate a tire with some gasoline and a match. My brother used to do it in the desert on many occasions. Coolest thing you ever saw.
“What happened with claiming that the previous executive was the one responsible for the present crisis or bonanza?”
Ended on September 11th, 2001.
Go ask Jamie Gorelick.
(actually, it ended even eariler, when Bill Clinton’s recession became “The Bush Economy”… but I figured I’d stick with somethng a little more familiar)
Brock. You are deluding yourself if you think you can set up some algorithm, commission, or czar to decide what is “speech” by the stout yeomanry and what is eeeeeevil campaign donation “influence.”
I’m not sure my suggestion is getting through, because you’ve identified the same concern I have. Carl, read this quote of yours again:
It’s the left that wants to restrict it, with all their campaign finance reform gimmickry, because they know that money is the only way the rank ‘n’ file have to have influence beyond their plain vote. And if you eliminate it, or restrict it, you leave the same people in power who used to wield power in the days before people gave money to political campaigns: the fixers, the machine men, the fellows who “know” a guy.
That’s precisely right. McCain-Feingold restricts speech by restricting who can say what and when. That’s not what I’m suggesting. There’s no algorithm, commission or czar. Anyone can say anything they want, and pool their resources if they like.
The ONLY restriction is on who a politician can accept money from. He can accept money directly from his constituents and no one else. I do not want to “eliminate it, or restrict it”. I want to raise up the power of the little guy to influence policy by restricting his competition – the corporations, banks, labor unions, etc.
The NRA, SEIU, etc. can still pass the hat around, run their ads, hire lobbyists (to speak to Congressmen), etc. They just can’t contribute to a campaign. That’s it.
The whole point is that Congressmen should represent the citizens of their State/district, and no one else. As long as special interests can purchase influence the “Representatives” suffer a conflict of interest as to just whom they represent. I want to take that conflict of interest away.
Scott’s also 100% right about the correct solution: limit the power of government per se. … When you find the Ring of Power, throw it into the volcano. Don’t try to use it yourself.
I appreciate that sentiment, and the metaphor. I can think of several areas where Conress’s power ought to be permanently pruned. The Commerce Clause and the Spending Clause in particular come to mind.
But you can’t throw all of the Fed’s power into the Mt. Doom. The Fed needs some level of power in order to effectively govern. And as long as it has any power, that power can be abused. Thus I think it’s right and proper to make sure the people with access to the levers of power (however large or small those levers are) ought to have the proper incentives, and ought to remember just who they work for and represent.
He can accept money directly from his constituents and no one else.
So how do you stop foreign group wanting to influence our elections from using mickey mouses disposable debit card 1000 times over the net?