Did government control really change hands?
Only ending political corruption will allow voters to rule
By Jack E. Lohman
Barack Obama now has the reigns, or at least he thinks he has.
The real power remains in the hands of the unelected special interests, the guys who fund the elections and never run for office.
The Republicans will retain filibuster power in the US Senate and will still control much of America’s direction. But don’t you worry, they’ll still try to blame the Dems when they block progress.
I’m worried about Obama’s penchant for earmarks, and I’m not happy with his reversal on taking public funding for his campaign. But the R’s aren’t much better, so we’ll see how this plays out.
Let’s get jobs coming back to our country. Eliminate taxes for companies that keep jobs in the US; increase taxes for those who outsource; eliminate employer healthcare costs by switching to a taxpayer-funded Medicare-for-all system; provide financial incentives for development of renewable energy, develop a taxpayer-owned offshore drilling effort to compete with OPEC et al; and develop a taxpayer-owned credit agency that loans money when banks won’t and guarantees loans when they will.
(And incidentally, rather than a government bailout of the auto industry, as is being discussed, let’s implement the HR676 Medicare-for-all system and it will eliminate the $6500 per year the industry is currently spending per employee for health care. And for all other industries as well, it will save money and keep jobs in the country!)
Government hiring must stop and useless departments closed. This is a chore for the GAO. Employees must be moved to replace others who retire. We must eliminate waste, but even more so, we must eliminate wasteful privatizing. Paying five times more for Blackwater troops is not just stupid, it is blatantly corrupt.
Yes, some socialism is in order, but it shouldn’t be giving $700 billion to the bankers so they can pay executive bonuses and shareholder dividends, as they are doing now with taxpayer dollars. That must stop and the crooks must go to jail.
It won’t be easy, because the unelected fat cats that fund the campaigns are still in power. Their job is to redirect well-intended taxes to ill-chosen causes, and their campaign cash accomplishes that. Only public funding of campaigns will reverse this corruption, and in the process redirect government spending to repair our economy.
Let’s call it like it is. Eight years of George Bush and his free market capitalism and spending failed. The R’s blew it big time and the little people voted them out. They don’t get to speak often, but this time they spoke loudly.
Our corrupt political system got us into trouble, and only eliminating the corruption will get us out. Public funding of campaigns is absolutely necessary if we are to stop the free fall!
– Lohman is a retired business owner from Colgate and publishes http://MoneyedPoliticians.net. He authored “Politicians – Owned and Operated by Corporate America” and can be reached at jelohman@gmail.com.
Mr Lohman,
“Obama’s penchant for earmarks” ?
–If that’s all you’re worried about, rest easy. He’s going to leave the Senate very shortly. Me? I’ve got a whole lot of OTHER things to worry about.
.
“I’m not happy with his reversal on taking public funding for his campaign.”
–That’s usually the case when one party raises a ton of money and the other doesn’t.
.
“But the R’s aren’t much better, . . . ”
–Huh? $10,566,870,637,263.35 . . . national debt as of Nov 5th this year. 84.5% higher than when Dubious took office.
.
You’ve also got some pretty expensive tastes in policy. How do you propose to pay for them?
“Eliminate taxes for companies that keep jobs in the US; increase taxes for those who outsource;” AND eliminate employer healthcare costs by switching to a taxpayer-funded Medicare-for-all system”? AND “Provide financial incentives for . . . AND “develop a taxpayer-owned credit agency . . . ” ?
.
Very expensive stuff!
David, if we increased everybody’s taxes by 30% to cover all of the above, and pull this country out of its current tailspin, it would be well worth it. We can adjust taxes downward afterward, but let’s get the economy saved first.
Jack
I agree, at least with the first paragraph. And as a big proponent of “rule of law” I would hope more Americans would see the benefit here as it applies to the PIGs (politicians in general)
Fictitious Donors Found in Obama Finance Records
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/us/politics/10donate.html?partner=rssnyt
Thanks for the link Bill. Of course, if we had public funding of campaigns this kind of crap wouldn’t go on.
Mr Lohman,
What part of “increased everybody’s taxes 30%” relates in what way to “pull this country out of its current tailspin” ?
This humble economist sees those two options as mutually exclusive.
Well David, I’m not an economist but I do not in any way believe that a tax cut for the wealthy added jobs in the US. It did make a lot of rich people richer. And most certainly that money benefited India and China.
Our taxes are already going to be increased as a result of the bailout (unless there’s some pot of gold we haven’t been told about).
The taxpayer bailout was the direct result of a corrupt political system, and the right wingers disagree. Only getting the payola out of the system will allow it to stabilize.
I pretty much agree. Meet the new boss, he’s the same as the old boss. Another President that’s bought and paid for.
And others agree: http://www.alternet.org/workplace/106195
Mr Lohman,
A tax cut for the wealthy did not create new jobs? OK.
Does it follow that a tax increase will create new jobs? No, not at all.
.
Oh, and the comment about India and China was off the mark. They benefit from effective US tax cuts, the kind that stimulate the economy. Dubious & Co’s 2001 give-away was the worst possible kind, and didn’t help anyone but the rich.
David,
So, Bush’s tax cut created jobs? Are you not following the numbers? And okay, so India and China benefit from our “effective” tax cuts. It isn’t the US that is benefiting! The only Americans that benefited were the rich (as you point out).
No, Bush’s tax cuts didn’t create jobs. What I said was, effective tax cuts may benefit India and China, i.e., those who make the things American consumers buy.
Trade debt does matter Dave!
Good Lord, man, surely you know the difference between a fiscal deficit and a trade deficit!
For what it’s worth Guys: Tax Cuts: The B.S. and the Facts