Money, politics, and the future of American democracy.
he American political system is in the midst of a transformation. This change was not sudden, nor was it unpredictable. The role of money in our electoral process, political discourse, and our everyday lives has grown as our nation as aged. We are about the experience the most expensive Presidential race in the history of our country. This fact has consequences for everyone, but the poorest and most vulnerable of us will pay the largest price.
The democratic ideal of “one person, one vote” is now a thing of the past. Our electoral system demands that politicians raise enormous amounts of money in short periods of time. Failure to do so will result in an inability to compete, thus dooming the candidate to defeat. The money that candidates use for campaigning is collected from various sources such as political action committees (corporations and unions), fundraiser’s, and individual contributions.
The growing importance of money in political campaigns logically implies that the more capital a candidate has, the more votes he/she is capable of receiving. This means that the contributions that we as individuals give to the politicians we support are also of growing importance in the current electoral process.
This is a system that strengthens the influence of the rich in our society, and diminishes the role of the poor. It is well known (and has been proven) that money equals votes; therefore we can conclude that if I am a wealthy individual that chooses to donate a significant amount of money to a candidate I am not only letting him/her know that they have my vote, I am also guaranteeing them more votes. If I am a poor American however, my resources are limited and therefore my contributions to my candidate of choice will be limited, thus my influence is reduced.
In order to protect American democracy, we must promote the public financing of campaigns. While there is a system in place, the current laws governing our elections make it politically impossible for a candidate to accept these funds without starting the campaign at a disadvantage.
I understand that many view individual contributions as a free speech issue (including our Supreme Court) and therefore reject the idea of publicly financed campaigns. While I do understand this argument, I find it ethically troublesome that the rich have a more of a right to free speech than the poor. Especially at a time when income distribution is so lop-sided and our government continues to push for pro-corporate policies, and insists on cutting taxes for the wealthiest in our society.
It is also important to note that the poorest in our society make up the majority of our military. Should those brave individuals fighting and dying overseas have less of a voice than the wealthy at home in America enjoying their governmentally subsidized tax breaks?
OpenCongress.org
I wanted to point out a new web site that may be the most useful I have every stumbled across. OpenCongress.org is the most efficient way to stay updated on events taking place in the US Congress, as well as track the activities of your own Senators and Representatives (including their funding).
Check it out and bookmark it, it will prove useful for you in the future.
A quick run-down of the 2008 presidential race.
It’s helpful every now and again to look ahead to important events. I figured I would provide a breakdown of the 2008 presidential race, given its growing influence in national politics. According to the New York Times this is how things look as of today:
spacer
DEMOCRATS
OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCED
* Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware
* Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York
* Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut
* John Edwards, former senator from North Carolina
* Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio
* Senator Barack Obama of Illinois
* Tom Vilsack, former governor of Iowa
ESTABLISHING EXPLORATORY COMMITTEES
* Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico
WIDELY MENTIONED
* Al Gore, former vice president; from Tennessee
* Gen. Wesley Clark, retired NATO commander; from Arkansas
OFFICIALLY NOT RUNNING
* Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts
* Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana
* Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin
* Mark Warner, former governor of Virginia
spacer
REPUBLICANS
OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCED
* Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas
* Representative Duncan Hunter of California
* Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts
ESTABLISHING EXPLORATORY COMMITTEES
* Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas
* Senator John McCain of Arizona
* Rudolph W. Giuliani, former mayor of New York
* Tommy G. Thompson, former governor of Wisconsin
* James S. Gilmore III, former governor of Virginia
* Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado
* Representative Ron Paul of Texas
WIDELY MENTIONED
* Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska
* Gov. George E. Pataki of New York
* Newt Gingrich, former House speaker from Georgia
OFFICIALLY NOT RUNNING
* Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee
spacer
This race, both the primary’s and the national election is no doubt ‘wide open’ when compared to recent presidential races. There are several candidates on both sides of the aisle representing a variety of different views and opinions. I think that this race will prove to be one of the most interesting in a long time… and possibly one of the most important.
Veterans facing future budget cuts.
I stumbled upon an article from Yahoo! news that points out a disturbing fact about the administrations proposed budget. It proposes a cut in Veterans health care, when the amount of Veterans entering the system is rising at 5 percent per year.
The Bush administration plans to cut funding for veterans’ health care two years from now even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.
Bush is using the cuts, critics say, to help fulfill his pledge to balance the budget by 2012.
Source: Veterans face consecutive budget cuts - Yahoo! News
This is rather ironic given the Presidents constant assertion that we must support the troops. This move by the administration implies that after you serve, you are no longer a part of the ‘troops’ and therefore it is justifiable for you to suffer cuts to your benefits.
So how would we define ’supporting the troops’ in the administrations moral sphere? Logically, supporting the troops seemingly involves providing them with the weapons and tools they need to do what is asked of them, even when the mission is undefined and its motives ethically questionable. It seems to me that providing them with the resources they need once they return from battle should also be a part of the equation.
Those who have served this country deserve an equal opportunity at life. After serving this requires both medical and psychological treatment. Without providing funding for these necessary programs we are dooming our heroes to a difficult life filled with emotional and physical hardships. This proposal by the administration is unjust at best, and criminal at worst.
As a society, we must understand that those who served did so for our benefit. They deserve our support during battle, and throughout the remainder of their lives. It’s sobering that the Bush administration fails to understand this.
Bush asks for larger military.
During the state of the union address Tuesday night, we heard something that had already been brought out into the open: Bush is hoping to expand the military in order to ‘prepare for future threats.’ Here is what he had to say about this expansion during his speech:
One of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military, so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years.
Source: Time - transcript
While I personally believe we do need to expand our military (I agree with Bush), the question now becomes how we go about doing so. Recruitment becomes difficult during war time, especially a war as unpopular as the war in Iraq. Something along the lines of a draft or conscription is out of the question, given its political implications. So what are we left with?
The answer seems to be a lowering of standards in our military, along with a willingness to accept individuals of questionable character. So what effect have these changes had on our military? And what will happen when we are forced to lower standards even further in order to recruit the 92,000 soldiers Bush has asked for? The answer to the first of these questions can be found in this illustration:
As you can see, the U.S. military is literally being transformed from the robust force it once was, into something that is much less familiar to this country. What will we have to do in order to recruit the 92,000 the president has asked for? I hate to imagine the effects a further lowering of standards will have on our military. But that seems to be the only avenue we have left to explore, besides further raising enlistment bonuses and pay (which should probably occur despite this current demand).
Unless the president has a unique, ingenious plan to add to the ranks of our military we should avoid pushing for such an expansion. While it is needed, sacrificing the character and ability of our military in favor of sheer numbers is a mistake.
A congressman’s anti-muslim letter.
Here is an interesting story for you… a congressman sends out a letter filled with xenophobic and anti-Muslim rhetoric and implies that our freedom to practice religion in the United States should be limited to Christianity. When confronted, the congressman’s office replies stating that “he has no intention of apologizing and he stands by the letter.” Scary.
Virginia representative Virgil Goode (Republican) mistakenly sent out the letter to an individual who had written him about environmental issues. Needless to say, the individual that was concerned about the environment did not fit into the “everything that is not Christian is evil” mold that many in the Republican base fit in to. Concerned about the content of this letter, the recipient of the letter decided to share it with his fellow citizens. Here is the letter:
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-4605
December 7, 2006
Mr. John Cruickshank
7—— S—————————— Dr.
Earlysville, VA 22936
Dear Mr. Cruickshank:
Thank you for your recent communication. When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.
The Ten Commandments and “In God We Trust” are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, “As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office.” Thank you again for your email and thoughts.
Sincerely yours,
Virgil H. Goode, Jr.
70 East Court Street
Suite 215
Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151
This letter speaks for itself. Since C-Ville Weekly broke this story, outrage has grown thoughout much of the country. I understand that Goode does not represent us here in Idaho, but I still feel it is my duty to write him a letter. I hope you, wherever you are from, will do the same.
Democrats could lose majority.
Before I begin this blog I want to point out that although I am going to write about the political aspect of this story, that does not mean that the politics are of greater importance than the life of Senator Johnson. Like most in the country, I am hopeful that he will recover from this tragic event and return to his family as soon as possible. I am not going to speculate on the chances of this happening, but simply wanted to point that his condition is indeed more important than the politics that I am going to discuss here.
spacer
spacer
The Democrats are at risk of losing their majority in the US Senate. Senator Tim Johnson from South Dakota has suffered what has been described as a brain hemorrhage and has undergone surgery to repair the damage. If Senator Johnson does not recover and tragically passes away (we all hope that doesn’t happen) the Democrats will most likely lose control of their majority in the Senate. This is because of the power the 17th ammendment grants the states.
The 17th ammendment to the US constitution gives states the power to chose how to replace a Senator. South Dakota has chosen to give the Governor the power to appoint a replacement of his or her choosing. This places the power in the hands of Republican Governor Mike Rounds. It safe to assume that Governor Rounds would not choose a member of the Democratic party to replace Senator Johnson. He would no doubt return the Senate to the Republicans, thus mocking the democratic process and scorning the electorate (who voted to be represented by a Democrat).
The Republicans would retain control until the end of Senator Johnson’s term, which is 2008. During this 2 year extension of Republican power, the Senate will be allocated 50-50, with Dick Cheney holding the tie-breaking vote.
It is important to remember however, that all of this depends on the condition of Senator Johnson. According to cnn.com, even if the Senator becomes incapacitated he will be able to retain his seat:
South Dakota Secretary of State Chris Nelson said the appointment would fill the vacancy until a general election could be held in November 2008.
There are no restrictions on whom the governor could appoint beyond meeting the legal requirements for Senate membership, Nelson said.
Although the definition of incapacitation is not spelled out in state law, Nelson said there would be “precedent at the federal level.”
One precedent, however, is the case of Sen. Karl Mundt, also from South Dakota, who suffered a debilitating stroke in 1969.
He remained in office until January 1973, when his term expired.
Mundt offered to resign but only on the condition that the governor appoint his wife to fill the vacancy. The governor refused, and Mundt retained the Senate seat.
This seems to imply that Senator Johnson would need to die in order for him to lose his seat. This is encouraging for those of us who prefer a Democratically controlled Senate. It will also provide Senator Johnson a fair amount time to rehabilitate himself if he recovers as well as all of us hope he does.
Edwards is ready for the fight.
John Edwards has officially entered the presidential race in 2008. I am personally excited about this given his position on several issues such as the American presence in Iraq.
“We need to make it clear that we intend to leave Iraq and turn over the responsibility of Iraq to the Iraqi people… The best way to make that clear is to actually start leaving.”
I am not sure whether or not he is going to be my choice for President, but he is at the very least a worthy candidate. Below are a few articles that highlight many of his positions and puts his decision to run into context.
The Boston Globe
Business Day - News
The Los Angeles Times
The costs of war falls on the backs of the poor and elderly.
The cost of the Iraq war is now approaching the cost of the Vietnam war. While one could speak at length about the wasted resources in Iraq, this is not necessary given all of the great articles available from various sources both online and in print (CBS story on wasted resources). In this short blog I want to highlight the impact this waste has had on the poor and elderly in America, as illustrated by the President’s newly proposed budget.
The 2.9 trillion dollar budget includes 100 billions dollars for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, on top of the 70 billions dollars already allocated by Congress. This money is surely needed, given the current surge in Iraq and to battle what appears to be a strengthening Taliban resistance in Afghanistan. Where will the administration find the resources needed to pay for these ongoing conflicts?
The answer is both troublesome and problematic. Instead of asking Congress to repeal Bush’s tax cuts for households in the top 1% of the income bracket, the administration decided that the elderly and the poor should shoulder much of the burden. The new budget calls for 66 billion dollars in cuts to medicare and medicaid over the next five years (article).
This move by the administration implies that tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals in America, should be placed above social programs to assist the elderly and the poor.
The graph above highlights this fact. The 66 billion dollars that the administration is aiming to cut from medicare and medicaid would not be necessary if the tax cuts for the top 1% were repealed.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are our wars. The majority of the American population supported both wars during the initial stages and therefore we all should shoulder the burden. The administrations proposed budget directly implies that the wealthy should be exempt from this process, and the poor and elderly should burden the costs.
This is not ethically nor logically acceptable. In our flawed democracy (all are after-all) the wealthy hold political office, have more influence over policy, and overwhelmingly dominate the focus of economic and social institutions. Logically, it is safe to say that they should burden the costs of these wars equally to those being held responsible today… if not more.
It’s going to be surprising if this aspect of the budget makes it through the Congressional process given the Democratic majority. However, the very fact that the administration proposed it is troubling, and further highlights their disconnect with the American public. The costs of war should not be placed upon the poorest and most vulnerable Americans in favor of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.