By Jack E. Lohman
Yes, Barack Obama refused public funding of campaigns, and won.
No, this doesn’t help.
Blame it on George Bush. He so trashed the country that even people who couldn’t afford to give, dug deep and gave. Out of desperation they had to create political change even if it meant personal sacrifice, and they made it happen. Even Republicans jumped ship.
Now it’s up to the Democrats to show the colors they promised during the campaigns, and the public expects of them. They must now get rid of our corrupt political system.
Get this, and get it straight: There is but one reason for our current fiscal problems and the loss of American jobs. Our corrupt political system!!! Don’t even think about blaming something else.
The Dems have one year. And if they refuse to fix our political corruption, they must also be shown the door. Our country cannot afford this corruption any longer. Nor can the state. Our politicians must fix it or get out, and that includes the Democrats!
The voters must stay involved with driving politicians in the right direction. Our country depends on it.
In case you haven’t seen it directly, our economic problems are 100% the result of politicians taking bribes and returning the favor in terms of government favors and contracts. This means not just higher taxes but also the diversion of those taxes away from needed social services, and spent instead on unneeded corporate giveaways. Like roads to nowhere.
You can thank both political parties for this corruption! One is no better than the other.
Yes, public funding of campaigns will cost taxpayer money, but nowhere near the cost to the public for having private interests fund them. Just $10 per taxpayer at the federal level, and $5 at the state level, would take the bribery out of the system.
But the public dollars must be flexible, depending on the private candidate’s spending. The $84 million to John McCain could not hold a candle to Obama’s $600 million. It should have been increased, perhaps to $300M, with matching public funds.
At the state level, last year’s Risser-Pocan bill makes the most sense, even while “making sense” is not popular among politicians. It would provide 100% public funding to those opting in. Some politicians prefer partial funding, or partial corruption, however you want to look at it.
Can you imagine an astute business leader allowing an employee to take cash from vendors and give away corporate assets in return? Why should voters allow politicians to do the same?
Generally I favor a universal health care system to bail out all corporations, not just a few. This will save every company $6000 per year per employee, and go only to companies for their U.S. workers and encourage them to hire even more.
However, since GM and Ford are now making more cars in Canada than in the U.S., because of their universal health care system, perhaps CANADA can instead bail out the car companies!
So tell me again: Why are we bailing out a Canadian car company?