Third Party & Independents: Archives

How long will Americans turn a blind eye to the hypocrisy of incumbent politicians?

Until it becomes too painful.

Regarding loans, mortgages, inflation, bubbles, and money-supply in this country, people should watch this 47 minute video about how money is created and who gets the interest on money created out of thin air.

What part of the two words ‘fiscal responsibility’ do these politicians not understand?

Is that a new exercise routine?

The hypocrisy of Congress and the Executive Branch knows no bounds. Congress just gave itself its 9th raise (in 10 years) while our troops risk life and limb, go without body armor, medical care, promised benefits, and are forced to do their 2nd, 3rd, 4th or more tour in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While Congress and this Administration is giving itself raises, the nation’s most pressing problems continue to go ignored, as they grow dangerously in number and severity.

Most voters polled give Congress a dismal 11% to 18% approval rating, but most voters then do a very strange thing:

• reward Congress with over 95% re-election rates

Posted by: d.a.n at October 8, 2007 10:40 AM

When has the US ever had a majority of politicians who weren’t inept, corrupt, and wrong??? I must’ve missed that time in our history….

Posted by: Rachel at October 8, 2007 12:22 PM

There will be no fiscal responsibility without a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget. Is such a thing even a remote possibility?

You are correct about federal employees -they are often paid and given increases based on what those with similar qualifications in the private sector may expect when in reality there is rarely an issue with employee retention.

Asking candidates to air ads for themselves that may not help their electability is expecting too much.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 8, 2007 12:36 PM

What part of the two words ‘fiscal responsibility’ do these politicians not understand?

Try the ‘responsibility’ part.

Does our national debt surpassing 9 trillion dollars ($9,000,000,000,000.) mean nothing to these politicians?

Why should it? It aint nothing that raising taxes won’t take care of.

Do you voters really have to wait until they bankrupt our government and society before you stop voting these incumbent politicians back into office again, and again?

I’m afraid that’s exactly what it’ll take to wake up a lot of folks David.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 8, 2007 01:00 PM

Schwamp

There will be no fiscal responsibility without a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget. Is such a thing even a remote possibility?

I’m afraid your right there. It’ll take an amendment or a revolt by the voters to get fiscal responsibility in government. And it’ll take a revolt by the voters to get the amendment. The politicians sure as the sun comes up in the morning won’t do it on their own.
The possibility is there. But it’s gonna take the voters voting irresponsible politicians out of office until there’s enough responsible one’s that’ll listen to the voters.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 8, 2007 01:09 PM

The possibility is there. But it’s gonna take the voters voting irresponsible politicians out of office until there’s enough responsible one’s that’ll listen to the voters.

I have mulled these thoughts over on more than one occasion. I do agree that inadequate, inept, and corrupt politicians should be removed from office. As far as I can see this pretty much covers most of our legislative and all or our executive branch. My guess is that we would be very hard pressed to find even one member of congress who lives on the straight and narrow. These folks seem to live in a fantasy world in which they write their own rules dictate their own wages and are not beholden to any real accountability process.

My question is where do we find these honest, responsible, capable and worthy people to replace the bums who currently inhabit congress? And if we do how do we keep them that way. Simply replacing them will get little done as it seems like it would put us in an endless cycle of revolving door politics. I think what we truly need are politicians who are willing to write serious ethics law reforms. Also politicians who are willing to be completely transparent in their dealings. Without transparency we have no way of knowing when corruptive forces are eating into our legislative marrow.

Posted by: RickIL at October 8, 2007 02:25 PM

RickIL asked: “My question is where do we find these honest, responsible, capable and worthy people to replace the bums who currently inhabit congress?”

It’s a great question, but, it doesn’t lead to a constructive answer. The fact is, a very large number of Americans are generally honest, responsible, capable, and worthy people. My doctor is. My auto mechanic is. My County Commissioner is. There are plenty around.

Truth be told, according to political biographies, most of our politicians begin their political careers with these positive attributes. So, finding freshman politicians with these positive attributes is not that difficult. The trick is preventing them from losing those attributes after they have been in office for more than one or two terms.

Our politicians are first and foremost, power brokers. They have the power, and their job is to make decisions that will favor some, to the perceived detriment of others. There is no escaping that. The really relevant question to ask is: “What motivates a politician to decide in favor of these folks, and not those?”

Money for reelection of course is a large chunk of that answer. When you look at where their money comes from, you begin to see patterns in how they decide to wield their power. Why is money from a small number of donors more important in decision making than voter satisfaction with government results? Because voters will reelect them regardless of government results. Donors won’t continue to contribute if decisions don’t go there way.

Politicians need both campaign money and the people’s votes to get reelected. But, our system has evolved to the point that the money for campaigns decides HOW the people will vote. And that is where the corruption of politicians takes place.

The solution is simple. The people need to make their vote more important than the campaign donation money. Which means, the voters must collectively go on an anti-incumbent tear until the replacement politicians get the hint. Then, and only then, will our newer politicians make decisions in favor of the people and their nation with campaign donors taking a back seat.

It is a simple solution. But, implementing that solution requires what? MONEY! Unless and until organizations like Vote Out Incumbents Democracy acquire sufficient funding to carry this message and lesson to 10’s of millions of voters, the groundswell anti-incumbent movement needed to rectify federal government will be left wanting. Organizations like VOID must compete with political party and incumbent campaign advertising. And that requires dedicated believers willing to commit to financially supporting getting this message out.

Like all new organizations, it takes time and the building of trust and confidence for such an organization to achieve critical mass sufficient to make a difference, if it is to succeed.

Hopefully, enough dedicated volunteers will keep organizations like VOID alive until funds become available sufficiently to get the message out in media other than blogs. Only about 10% of the American public follow political blogs. And of those, less than 1/10th of one percent will ever see the anti-incumbent argument and simple solution.

The anti-incumbent solution must reach 100’s of thousands of people before it can acquire the funding needed to carry the convincing argument to millions of voters. Simple solution. Difficult path to effect it. But, not impossible if the hope is kept alive, and memberships and donations continue to grow.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 8, 2007 03:19 PM

Schwamp wrote: There will be no fiscal responsibility without a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget.

An amendment to balance the budget or any amendments of any kind are unlikely as long as Congress chooses to violate Article V of the Constitution. This is not a mere question of interpretation of Article V. The government has ALREADY admitted that the number of states required to call a convention to make amendments do not have to be same-subject applications. The state legislatures of ALL 50 states have already submitted 567 amendment applications and the Congress ignores them. Many in Congress falsely claim that less than two-thirds of states applied as required, but in 1911 when there were 46 states, 31 states applied (on the same subject about direct election of Senators) and the Congress ignored the Constitution then too.

Congress is quite simply violating the Constitution, and guess what? The Supreme Court ruled that Congress could disobey the Constitution. But what’s new? The Supreme Court also ruled in favor of eminent domain abuse too. Also, the government has already admitted that the number of states required is not based on same-subject amendments. It is merely a numerical number of requests per Article V.

Is that OK with you? At any rate, good luck ever getting ANY amendments considered, when Congress admits to violating the Constitution, and refusing to call a convention for addressing amendments. As long as Congress can violate the Constitution, Congress is very unlikely to allow any amendments or common-sense reforms that may even remotely reduce their power, their opportunities for self-gain, or the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies. And too many voters reward them for it with 95% re-election rates.

By the way, send your Senators and Representatives and E-Mail, FAX, or letter asking them about Article V and see what happens. Very few Congress persons are willing to answer the question because they do not want to say anything in writing about what they already know is a violation of the Constitution.

But ask them anything else, and they will probably respond.

Should people obey the law if the Congress doesn’t have to?
Is the federal government enforcing immigration laws?
Is the federal government upholding the Constitution?

Where was Congress with these 10 Regressive systems (below) were sneaked into law and imposed upon most Americans?
Until the following REGRESSIVE systems are fixed, the disparity trend of the last 30 years will continue to widen:

• [01] $9 Trillion National Debt; $22 Trillion total federal debt; $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent out of Social Security funds


• [02] illegal immigration; $70 Billion in annual net losses


• [03] the current federal tax system is REGRESSIVE due to a myriad of tax-loop holes (this is why Warren Buffet pays a smaller tax rate than a secretary making $60K per year)


• [04] incessant inflation; likely to get worse with so much debt and excessive money printing to fuel it


• [05] myriad of REGRESSIVE sales taxes


• [06] corporate income taxes are REGRESSIVE taxes passed on to consumers


• [07] property taxes are often REGRESSIVE, as income decreases, the property tax increases (as a percentage of income). Also, property taxes are double, triple, quadruple, quintuple, … , N-tuple taxation because it is repeated every year! A home owner is taxed every year on what the home owner already owns. A $100K house can taxed $2K every year. That is $10K after 10 years. And rising rates are running some people out of their homes. It forces the elderly to downsize and sell homes they have lived in for many years to reduce their annual property tax.


• [08] Caps on Social Security makes it a REGRESSIVE tax


• [09] Our government is FOR-SALE. An amazingly tiny, tiny 0.15% of all 200 Million eligible voters make 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more). How can the remaining 99.85% of all 200 Million eligible voters compete with that to have an equal voice within government?


• [10] Unnecessary wars; We have had 7 wars in the last 90 years (about 1 war every 13 years).

My question is where do we find these honest, responsible, capable and worthy people to replace the bums who currently inhabit congress?

The current crop in Congress is already spoiled. Put almost anyone in their place, and they too will grow equally corrupt and irresponsible. People will be people. Children will be Children. If you reward bad behavior, you will get more of it. Too many voters reward Congress with 95% re-election rates (as high as 99.9% some years). Congress and government will never become responsible and accountable until the voters do too, and repeatedly rewarding Congress with 95% re-election rates ain’t workin’ is it? Unfortunately, convincing enough voters to stop blindly pulling the party-lever is VERY difficult. Giving Congress dismal 11%-to-18% approval rates, and then pulling the party-lever which rewards Congress with 95% re-election rates makes no sense until you recognize how powerful the partisan brainwashing is. But it is also laziness. It is easy to pull the party lever, but takes time and effort to actually research candidates and their voting records. Most voters don’t do that. Most voters do not even know who their senators and representatives are, much less their voting records. And 40% to 50% don’t even bother to vote at all.

Politicians are experts at tapping into this complacency, apathy, and general laziness. Their best invention was the party-lever. Now voting is easy and quick. Just pull the party-lever while kidding yourself that YOUR party is the BEST, and the OTHER party is evil. And this is what too many voters do. It is easier to blame the OTHER party, fuel the partisan-warfare, and pull the party-lever, than do the real work and research that would tell you that in reality, few (if any) politicians in EITHER party are responsible and accountable.

Until enough voters figure it out, they have the government they deserve, and the 30 year disparity trend (above) will continue. It may not be much longer before the standard of living starts to decline. Wages have already been stagnant since 1999, the federal tax system is now effective REGRESSIVE, incessant inflation is always with us, and our politicians are despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens agianst each other for profits for illegal employers and votes.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 8, 2007 03:29 PM

David… I really don’t like it when I agree with you… ;-)

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at October 8, 2007 06:01 PM

Doug, I know. Agreeing with my mirror is sometimes arrogant and insufferable and it makes me want do penance with self-flagellation. But, It gets to be a real Jeckyl and Hyde performance when I disagree with my mirror. Losing to the image in my mirror is what really pains me. Its humiliating, but, I generally am nicer to myself for awhile afterward. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 8, 2007 07:16 PM

David, good article.

RickIL, terrific post. I agree wholeheartedly with everything you wrote. Only one thing to add to it…
You said:
“My guess is that we would be very hard pressed to find even one member of congress who lives on the straight and narrow.”

I know of one: Senator Russ Feingold from Wisconsin.

I wish we could either clone that man, or somehow find many others who share his level of integrity, honesty, and intelligence, and get them to run for Congress. We’d be in really great shape if we did.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 9, 2007 02:28 AM

Adrienne, I’d like to know where Feingold stands on the weasly extension of unconstitutional wiretapping that Democrats are about to pass. They spent years complaining about it, but, now they have the majority in the Congress they fear being called soft on national security and are poised to rubber stamp Bush’s wiretapping expansion.

Unbloodybelieveable.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 9, 2007 11:36 AM

That depends. Perhaps if none of the following bothers you …

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI):

• Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995) :{figures; most in Congress won’t}


• Voted NO on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999) {keep plundering those surpluses; it’s a ponzi scheme})


• Voted NO on allowing personal retirement accounts. (Apr 1998) (but also voting NO to shore up and stop plundering Social Securty?)


• Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004) (I don’t understand this at all)


• Voted NO on $40 Billion in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005) {spend! borrow! spend! borrow! and print some more money!}


• Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003) (more pandering; nothing like buying votes; yet children go without medical insurance?)


• Voted NO on eliminating the ‘marriage penalty’. (Jul 2000) (that’s real pro-family, eh?)


• Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999) (course not: congress does not want to be fiscally responsible}


• Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006) {minors? seriously?}


• Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs’ effectiveness. (Mar 2007) {figures; and now look at the National Debt: over $9 Trillion!}


• Voted NO on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997) {figures; spend! borrow! print more money; $9 Trillion National debt!}


• Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995) {don’t they see how this is also discriminaiton?}


• Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002) {Hmmm … with 12 million illegal aliens? Gotta get that amnesty soon!}


• Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007) {the SHAMNESTY BILL}


• Voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007) {nor voter ID, eh?}


• Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006) {can’t have that! might lose votes}


• Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)
{selling out Americans}

• Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006). (as if Social Security needs more problems; and how do you determine who paid what and when with so many bogus Social Security Numbers? Nevermind the approaching 77 Million baby boomer bubble)


• Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)
{sure he does; they’ll make great Democrat voters; nothing like pandering for votes, eh?}

• Declines congressional pay raise. (May 2006) {OK, but what about 1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005, and 2007? I commend Feingold for doing this in 2006; the rest of Congress has given itself 9 raises between 1997 and 2007; while our troops risk life and limb, go without armor, medical care, promised benefits, and have to do 2, 3, 4 or more tours in Iraq or Afghanistan}


• Voted NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security. (Mar 2007) {don’t pay attention to the 77 million baby boomers behind the curtain!}


• Voted NO on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999) {we’re supposed to plunder it; it’s a ponzi scheme; that’s what you’re supposed to do}


• Voted NO on deducting Social Security payments on income taxes. (May 1996) {nothing like tax on a tax on a tax, eh? Why don’t the fix the tax system?}


• Voted YES on restoring $550M in funding for Amtrak for 2007. (Mar 2006) {corporate pork-barrel and corporate welfare}


• Gets a Citizens Against Government Waste (cagw.org) report card grade of: 43% {not very good at all, but better than many Democrat politicians}

Posted by: d.a.n at October 9, 2007 03:13 PM

David:
“Adrienne, I’d like to know where Feingold stands on the weasly extension of unconstitutional wiretapping that Democrats are about to pass.”

Feingold is always on the right side of Constitutional issues, so naturally he absolutely hates it.
Here’s the statement he issued today on that very legislation.
The problem my party has is that we clearly elected too many weaselly GOP Lite Democrats in ‘06, rather than Democrats of Feingold’s caliber: Staunch protector of the Constitution, Unafraid to Stand Up and Speak Out about whatever he doesn’t agree with (from the Left or Right), Unapologetic Social Liberal, and a Fiscal Hawk.
If the Dems were smarter than they currently are, they’d have Feingold instead of Harry Reid as the Senate Majority Leader.

“Unbloodybelieveable.”

I couldn’t agree more.

d.a.n.,
It’s not a surprise that you don’t like Feingold, because you don’t like anyone in Congress at all. What you continually do with your lists is show only one side of what those individual votes were for or against. Yet, I’m certain that you know as well as I do that in the Senate, the members sometimes have to vote against things that are good, and sometimes are forced to vote in favor of things that are bad — it all depends on the circumstances, and/or whatever else has been inserted into the legislation — sometimes at the very last minute. You choose not to acknowledge that fact in your comments, and quite honestly, I can’t stand that you’re always doing that, because I know you’re only presenting it that way to get your VOID in edgewise.
Personally, I think it must be hellish to be a Senator in a lot of ways when it comes to the pieces of crap they’re often forced to vote on. To me, it seems obvious that the House has it a whole lot easier overall.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 9, 2007 09:22 PM

Adrienne said: “they’d have Feingold instead of Harry Reid as the Senate Majority Leader.”

That would surely have been the better choice. I will be supporting Feingold again in 2008, not because he is perfect or I think he wears a halo, but, because on nearly all the fundamentals, he is more correct than 95% of the rest of them.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 9, 2007 10:07 PM

Adrienne wrote: d.a.n., It’s not a surprise that you don’t like Feingold, because you don’t like anyone in Congress at all.

Not true. I like all Congress persons that are responsible and accountable.

Adrienne wrote: What you continually do with your lists is show only one side of what those individual votes were for or against.

Not true. It is their vote. If you agree with those votes, then fine. If not, then there is no excusing them for any other reason.

Adrienne wrote: What you continually do with your lists is show only one side of what those individual votes were for or against. Yet, I’m certain that you know as well as I do that in the Senate, the members sometimes have to vote against things that are good, and sometimes are forced to vote in favor of things that are bad — it all depends on the circumstances, and/or whatever else has been inserted into the legislation — sometimes at the very last minute.

That’s all too convenient.

Congress persons voting records are important.
If you overlook that as an excuse, then voting records are not important.
I don’t care what their reasons are for voting on some of these things. If it is because of BILLs full of pork-barrel and earmarks, that is their fault. They created that mess, and can not be immume to it.

Adrienne wrote: You choose not to acknowledge that fact in your comments, and quite honestly, I can’t stand that you’re always doing that, because I know you’re only presenting it that way to get your VOID in edgewise.

Not true. I didn’t mention VOID once in that comment, nor anywhere in this entire thread.

Adrienne wrote: Personally, I think it must be hellish to be a Senator in a lot of ways when it comes to the pieces of crap they’re often forced to vote on. To me, it seems obvious that the House has it a whole lot easier overall.

Oh my, those poor, poor, over-worked Congress person. Oh dear. That have is so, so bad.

Adrienne wrote: I can’t stand that you’re always doing that …

Perhaps what you really can’t stand is that it is all true? I’m just the messenger.

Did that ever cross your mind?
Did you first research it to see if Russ Feingold had to vote on those things even though he really did not want to?
Because that isn’t at all what happened with 95% of those BILLs.
Knowing that, do you agree with all of those things and his voting records?
Do you know that most of those things were not part of another BILL?
That excuse that Congress persons are forced to vote on things they don’t like is pure nonsense.
If it were really true, it would only mean that they have so thoroughly perverted the system, that on one can be held accountable for their voting records.

Personally, I won’t support any Congress person that refuses to secure our borders and stop illegal immigration. Russ Feingold voted against a fence, and voted for the Shamnesty BILL. Democrat politicians want voters, and Demcocrat and Republicans politicians BOTH want profits from cheap labor. And in doing those two things, they are effectively pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other.

So, yes. While I don’t know Russ Feingold personally, I don’t care for Russ Feingold’s voting record. He’s not as bad as most other Congress persons, but his position and voting record on illegal immigration and border security are inexcusable. And the Democrat party may be handing back their short-lived majority because of it. Have you seen the endorsements at all of the organizations calling of legal immigration? Have you seen the report cards for most Democrats? And even though I doubt Republican politicians are any more serious about it, they have voters convinced that they are now serious about illegal immigration. This issue is important enough that it will cook Guiliani since he ran a sanctuary city.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 9, 2007 10:55 PM