September 06, 2006
Hoodwink Cycle in Full Spin Mode
Protect your mind, they are out to twist it, deceive it, undermine its integrity, and manipulate it. They are politicians, and they will say anything, do nearly anything, to get you to vote for them. They will bribe you with federal tax dollars while increasing the national debt. They will lie to you, telling you how wonderful things are becoming under their leadership. They will threaten you with mayhem, terrorist attacks, and loss of jobs if you vote for the ‘other guy’. What is a voter to do?
The things politicians will do to get your vote are incredible. In Arizona, Republican candidates are telling the National Republican Congressional Committee to go away and stay out of Southern Arizona politics until after the elections. Reason: the NRCC backed a Republican moderate leaving 4 competing Republican candidates swinging in the wind. Which begs the question: are these Republican candidates loyal to their party. They are certainly not loyal to their party's decisions. Appears these candidates are only loyal to themselves, and if the party stands in their way, they will tell the party to get lost.
Sen. Lieberman said the same thing to his party when he lost the primary election. What does this say about the respect that these candidates will give voters, who have an opinion or directive, different from theirs? Speaking of Lieberman and party loyalty, it appears the White House may have funneled millions into Lieberman's primary campaign. How is that for party loyalty? Party loyalty is for the chumps who will buy into it, not for the party leaders, obviously.
The problems Congress should be addressing for the sake of the nation and the people are on hold; all save one, if what Republican leaders say is true. Congress has returned to devote the entire month to national security. Sorry, no time to deal with deficits and debt, no time to deal with illegal immigration or education quality, or saving social security or reforming Medicare so we can halt its march toward bankrupting the nation. They have no time to deal with deadly heroin coming from the New Taliban in Afghanistan filling our hospital emergency rooms with overdosed users. No time for insurance, tax, voting, or campaign finance reforms. Failing to address any of these issues in the past effectively, Republicans are going to spend the month addressing the one issue a slight majority of Americans still give them credit for, national security.
The reason is simple. Before an election, play your strong suit. In this case, the Republican's only apparent strong suit is national security. The plan is simple. Spend the entire month trying to pass legislation on national security issues, which Democrats will not go along with. This will permit Republicans to enter the campaigns for Senate and House seats yelling that Democrats are opposed to national security. But, it is pure theater. And like theater, it isn't real. Republicans are going to propose legislation even a majority of Americans would not want passed. However, since, Americans don't watch the workings of Congress from day to day, there is little for them to fret. The sound bites are what they are going for. Here is an example from the Republican Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist this week: "Democrats have urged retreat from Iraq. And that's where this whole theme of 'cut and run' has come up again and again." When, if ever, do Republicans anticipate our leaving the money pit, called Iraq? It is an important question for a majority of Americans which goes unanswered.
Democrats are going to play the game they have played all along, which is to give Republicans all the rope they want to hang themselves on Nov. 7's election day. There plan is to stay low key, under the radar, and make one simple point. If national security is such a priority for Republicans, why are our nation's borders still wide open 5 years after the 9/11 attacks? It is a powerful retort. But, if you are looking to find out what Democrats will do to end our occupation in Iraq without loss of face, don't hold your breath while searching. Also, you won't be hearing Democrat's plans to reform campaign finance, taxes, voting, or resolve the mushrooming national debt, either.
Oh, yes, and lest we forget, Congress is putting together a 2.7 percent raise for white-collar and blue-collar government employees. Surely, Americans will not want to miss the opportunity to vote incumbents back in office so that, after the elections, they can vote themselves yet another pay raise to keep ahead of what the other white and blue collar government employees are making. Pay raise is not the only item Republicans and Democrats have in common this legislative session however. It is hard to find daylight between them on their fervent prayers that previous non-voters, third party voters, and independent voters, who are sick of the waste, fraud and abuse of office by Congress, all stay home on November 7. On this issue, Democrats and Republicans pray to the same god of politics.
Republicans are praying the anti-incumbent sentiment in America does two things, keep voters home, and those who show up, vote against Democrat incumbents as fervently as Republican incumbents. Democrats of course, pray their smaller number of incumbents will result in less anti-incumbent votes against them. What is a voter to do? Voters are concerned about national security. They are concerned about what will happen if we leave Iraq. They are concerned about the next terrorist attack and where, when, and whom will be its targets. Should voters make this election a single issue election based on national security?
Let's look at this issue closely. Slightly less than 3000 Americans died on that remorseful day of September 11, 2001. But, more than 10,000 Americans have died as a result of drivers under the influence of intoxicants and speeding on our highways. Almost 1 million Americans have died since 9/11 because of medical malpractice in our hospitals.
Only about 25% of Americans who entered college, will ever graduate, and that shortage of college graduates will have to be made up with immigration from nations where the educational standards are far superior to our own. With the national debt doubling in 8 years since 2001, our children's taxes will need to be significantly higher than our own to pay the interest on that bloated debt and bring the level down to earth again so, our country has an economic future worth saving.
For many 10's of millions of working Americans, the amount of goods they can purchase with their paycheck has gone steadily down, year after year since 2001. This has been caused by the rising costs of gas, electricity, home heating oil, health care costs and insurance premiums, skyrocketing property taxes, and education costs, which have far exceeded what these Americans have received in tax cuts and wage increases.
Should voters make this election a single issue election based on national security? The truth is, we as Americans are facing a far greater threat from our own internal mismanagement of everything from education, law enforcement, energy, greed and taxes, than from terrorists, who still find the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans formidable barriers to overcome in attacking us. Moreover, even if they do manage to attack us again, the losses are likely be less than the number of Americans who die in our hospitals each year from medical malpractice and greed; 192,000.
Our founding fathers and our Constitution provide an answer to this question. They set out to grant stakeholders in the American dream a simple voting measuring stick and method to control politicians. The measuring stick was the question: Are my and my children's, future being served or harmed by government? The method for controlling politicians, which our founding fathers provided, was the vote. So, if one is confused by how to vote, or whether to vote this November 7, there is a simple exercise to follow. If you and your children's future are being served by government, then vote to keep the politicians who have made it so. On the other hand, if you and your children's future are being harmed by government, then you have an obligation to vote, and to vote for some candidate other than the one who has governed in this harmful manner.
As I have said many times, in many places, and oft quoted:
"The anti-incumbent vote is the power our Constitution provides the people to control their elected representatives and process of government."
Is this a power, you the voter, should exercise this November 7? Or, should you just succumb to the hoodwink cycle in full spin mode?
Posted by David R. Remer at September 6, 2006 10:47 PMI live in Illinois’ 6th district, which has been Henry Hyde’s seat since dinosaurs roamed the earth. He is retiring after this term (which I think is because he got the fight of his life last time from Maureen Segalis, and he knows he won’t get re-elected), which means, either way, we get new blood. On one side, Peter Roskam (R), state Rep and personal injury lawyer, on the other, Tammy Duckworth (D), paraplegic Iraq war vet. Already the fecal matter is flying, mostly over taxes and immigration, and mostly from the RNCC, though Duckworth is getting a few good licks in, mostly over Roskam’s low-rent-injury-lawyer past. Fun stuff, if you’re a political junkie like me. Just hope Duckworth wins.
L
Posted by: leatherankh at September 7, 2006 12:02 AMDavid stated:
“The things politicians will do to get your vote are incredible. In Arizona, Republican candidates are telling the National Republican Congressional Committee to go away and stay out of Southern Arizona politics until after the elections. Reason: the NRCC backed a Republican moderate leaving 4 competing Republican candidates swinging in the wind. Which begs the question: are these Republican candidates loyal to their party. They are certainly not loyal to their party’s decisions. Appears these candidates are only loyal to themselves, and if the party stands in their way, they will tell the party to get lost.
Sen. Lieberman said the same thing to his party when he lost the primary election. What does this say about the respect that these candidates will give voters, who have an opinion or directive, different from theirs? Speaking of Lieberman and party loyalty, it appears the White House may have funneled millions into Lieberman’s primary campaign. How is that for party loyalty? Party loyalty is for the chumps who will buy into it, not for the party leaders, obviously. “
David - These two paragraphs make it seem like you are against those who break the party line, or party loyalty. Breaking from the party line, or from party loyalty, brings about more opinions than just one ‘unified’ voice for each major party, and thus a supposed two voices which somehow represents all Americans.
Next to third parties, breaking of party loyalty is the closest thing we have to a multi opinion system.
Posted by: Richard Rhodes at September 7, 2006 01:14 AMLeathernakh,
Well, the taxes issue is Roskam’s unless Duckworth can tie the tax cuts to the national debt. Immigration is a toss up, though it leans a bit as an issue toward Democrats (except in Mexican border states), since the President’s plan is pretty much the same as Democrats, and the Republican Congress hasn’t done squat about it in the 5 years since 9/11.
Pocketbook issues are surfacing fast as a prime mover in this election according to new polls, which should heavily favor Democrats in districts with majority hourly and blue collar working families. Haven’t a clue how your district measures up on that demographic.
I was pleased to see Chris Matthews (Hardball, MSNBC) and some of his guests today bringing up the anti-incumbent sentiment again and again. It’s about time MSM began to notice what the polls have been showing for some time now.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 7, 2006 01:20 AMRichard, I am all for all politicians ignoring their parties and paying far more attention to the nation’s needs and their constitutents. I have written on this topic many times.
But, for voters who believe in party solidarity, it was appropriate to bring up the fact that party leadership pays no loyalty to its own when it suits the party, but, they expect total loyalty from their candidates after elected and punish them severely if they stray.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 7, 2006 01:26 AMAnd breaking party ranks because it’s politically expedient to help get re-elected is not the same thing as breaking party ranks on the merits of an issue.
Posted by: Zebster at September 7, 2006 11:49 AMDuckworth has kicked around repealing the “death tax”, which the NRCC has jumped all over with the same old scare tactics. As far as demographics, that’s why Hyde had such a hard run last time, because there has been a huge influx of Hispanics in the area over the last decade or so, which has swung things to the Left. That’s why the whole immigration issue is so big. The Chicago area has the largest Hispanic population outside of the Southwest, so it really polarizes things; whites against, Hispanics for, you get the picture. Haven’t seen any polls lately, so I don’t know how things are shaping up.
Posted by: leatherankh at September 7, 2006 11:56 AMI wonder what the people of Connecticut wonder about most of Joe Lieberman’s money coming from outside the state? Do they really care?
The antics on TV recently are interesting. GITMO, existence of secret CIA prisons, “IRAQ is the front of the war on terror”, Republicans distancing themselves from Bush, excited Democrats that believe they’re about to get their turn at being the “In Party”.
Hmmmmm m m m … Does it have anything to do with coming elections?
Nothing says campaign donations can’t come from just about any where (not even from outside his state), but there is something fundamentally wrong with this whole picture. If the people of Connecticut re-elect Lieberman (which could happen, considering Congress’s 90% re-election rate), it will probably be mostly due to money, because 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money.
So, looking at Joe’s and Ned’s money, Joe has a big lead (over $8.9 million, more than twice that of Ned). Now, perhaps I’m too cynical, but if Joe maintains such a huge lead in money, and 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most, there is a strong possibility that Joe could win. Do voters really care that Joe is running as an Independent? We will see, and there are exceptions, but money will have a lot more to do with who wins than anything else. 83% of all donations ($200 or more) come from a mere 0.1% of the U.S. population ($2.0 of $2.0 billion of 2.4 billion in 2004).
That doesn’t seem quite fair to the remaining 99.9% of the U.S. population.
And, don’t overlook the many unfair advantages that Joe Lieberman still has:
- (a) Perk$ of Office: Each member of Congress has an office budget allowance (provided by tax-payers). That allowance is large enough to employ a sizable staff both in Washington, D.C. and in their home states or districts. This staff provides a huge advantage, and tax-payers fund it. In addition, members of Congress also have travel allowances for trips between Washington and their constituencies, and also for trips inside their states or districts. Also, House and Senate members can use the United Stated Postal Service for free for informational letters or announcements to their constituents.
- (b) Time: Members of Congress and their staffers not only get paid (by the tax-payers) while campaigning and raising money for their campaign war-chest, but they have the time (as part of what they are supposed to do within their job description). But challenging candidates are not provided the time or money by the tax-payers. In contrast, a candidate challenging an incumbent is not paid to do those things, but must determine how to fund it. Many candidates go into debt.
- (c) Visibility and Access to News Media: Members of Congress have visibility by virtue of being elected, have easy access to the news media, make appearances on television, radio, and are frequently mentioned in newspaper articles and editorials.
- (d) Campaign Organization: Members of Congress have the advantage of the experience of having managed a campaign organization (and winning), and already have a volunteer campaign organization in place.
- (e) Money: The biggest advantage that incumbents have is the ability to raise large contributions. Big-money-donors prefer predictability. Incumbents that refuse to cater to their big-money-donors are not likely to receive more big-money contributions.
- (f) Apathy, Complacency, Futility, and Despair: This works to the advantage of incumbents. Name recognition is important (and that takes money).
Regarding the death tax: The death tax should not be eliminated. It should simply be modified to a rate that is equal to that of the income tax. We don’t need to scrap the current tax system. We just need to simplify it. One obvious simplification would be a flat 17% income tax rate (only on income above the poverty level). The U.S., based on $2 trillion annual tax revenues and $12 trillion GDP, could get by (with only about 6% cuts in spending) on a 17% flat income tax rate of 17%. For example.
The obvious problem with the current tax system is all the loop-holes, and congress likes it that way (just the way they perverted it), and so do those that use the loop holes. Most agree the tax system is ridiculous, yet no one will simplify it. Instead, the tax code grows and grows like the government, to nightmare proportions.
Posted by: d.a.n at September 7, 2006 01:11 PMThe things to remember about politicians are that:
They will spend $500,000,000 to get elected to a $200,000 job.
They will promise $2,000,000,000 in benefits from $2,000,000 in taxes.
They will deliver $200,000 in benefits from $2,000,000,000 in taxes.
Then try to convince you they’re doing you a favor.
And the sad thing is a lot of folks fall for it.
Great points, Ron, and Dan.
Dan, the flat tax would put the fiscal management of this country more into the hands of the people. If everyone’s taxes had to go up or down everytime Congress wanted to bribe some voters or spend more on pet projects, they would alienate more voters than they bribed.
Hence, as you so adroitly explain, we have the fiscal management system precisely the way politicians want it, where they can borrow and spend or tax and spend to their hearts content while confusing the hell out of the public as to just what they are doing with our, and our children’s lifelong working wages.
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
