Numerous talks I’ve had with friends over the last week or so have come back to one central point, which in turn boils down to one central word: corruption. Our government leaders are not in a position to make good, honest choices that will serve their constituents, due to the enormous power exerted on them by the corporate entities that enabled them to get into office in the first place and the force of lobbyists in leaders’ day-to-day decision making. Unless we force dramatic campaign finance reform, we’re really wasting our breath in asking government to bring us the things virtually all of us want: universal healthcare, a clean energy policy, honesty in lending, acting decently outside our borders, etc. And, obviously, this can only come from a loud public outcry; do not expect the fox that guards the henhouse to reform itself.
Although there are several reasonable scenarios for fair campaign financing, I suggest this: all campaign money, raised from whatever sources, is divided equally among all candidates who can raise the required number of signatures to get on the ballot, and media are required to devote equal airtime to all candidates.
Politics
campaign finance reform, corruption
I would think that all this talk of healthcare reform and its trillion-dollar pricetag would start people talking about the cost of single payer — even though it’s a non-starter inside the Beltway. Aren’t advocates forced to answer the tough question: who’s going to pay to insure those 40 million people currently without coverage? Here is the surprising answer.
Politics
single payer healthcare
As I’ve suggested, we’ve long since passed the point at which we had the technology to harvest sufficient energy from the sun all the people of Earth. At this point, the political and financial issues are the gating factors, not our ability to make it happen technologically. This article is just one example of how the coal industry has presented a totally false picture of its value. Until we can get our leaders to see past this garbage and embark upon a full and fair discussion of the true costs and benefits of each technology, renewable energy will remain a pipedream.
Politics
coal, nuclear, petroleum, renewable energy, solar thermal
As I wrote in my essay on the society ALMOST everyone wants, “lobbying is the practice by which wealthy people and the organizations they control exert disproportionate influence on lawmakers; the word is nothing more than a euphemism for ‘corruption.’”
Of course, there are dozens of good examples of this each week. But you’ll travel a long way to find a better one than the debate (or lack thereof) on single payer health coverage. The vast majority of Americans — as well as a full 59% of physicians — favor single payer. But this is a total non-starter on Capitol Hill. The voters simply cannot get their elected officials to enact this extremely popular, fair and just piece of legislation because of the intensity of the pressure they’re under from a few extremely moneyed and influential groups.
Sorry, guys, that’s not what our forefathers fought and died for. Want the US to return to its former glory? Corruption isn’t the way to do it.
Politics
corporate lobbying, corruption, democracy, single payer healthcare
My friend writes back:
I must say I am surprised at your response to the NBC (Natural Born Citizen) issue. I think that what you said was that if an anti-Constitutionalist communist born of non-U.S. citizens wants to be our President then if the electoral majority vote him/her in then so be it. That is troublesome for me . . . But even more troublesome is that the idea of a democratic majority overruling our supreme law and the legal contract between the people of the U.S. and their government.
The U.S. Constitution may not be perfect, but it opened itself up to change via the amendment process or via Constitutional Convention.
To which I reply:
I’m not suggesting that the president has powers beyond those granted in the Constitution, nor that he’s not bound by the limits set forth in the Constitution. And yes, I understand the difference between a republic and a democracy, i.e., the will of the people needs to be ignored if it’s inconsistent with the supreme law of the land. In fact, as I wrote in my piece on Sandra Day O’Connor (”Celebrating the Constitution”) a couple of weeks ago, our mutual respect for the Constitution and rule of law is the only thing separating us from the banana republics.
If the critics of the (GW) Bush administration have a solid point to make, it is that the years 2001 – 2008 saw dozens of profound abrogations of the most fundamental tenets for which millions of brave patriotic men and women have died in wars over the last 235 years.
My only point about the NBC rule (i.e., the importance of the place of one’s birth) -– and I admit that I still may be missing something — is that it seems arbitrary, and not to really accomplish anything, given the extremely clear and explicit rights and duties laid out in the one document that defines who we are as a nation.
Politics
Bush, Constitution, Natural Born Citizen
A dear friend writes:
I have never understood why there is a law requiring the wearing of seat belts when I am constantly getting my doors blown off by motorcyclists not wearing helmets. Of course being of the libertarian mindset, I think we should be free to kill ourselves in a manner of our choosing.
.. to which I respond:
As you know, I’m largely a libertarian too, in that I believe the government has no right to do a great number of things that it does every day. In particular, I support people’s rights to kill themselves in MOST ways of their own choosing. What I DON’T support is idiots taking actions whose consequences cost you and me money. Thus my support for things like motorcycle helmet laws, where public dollars are often required to fix the broken skulls of morons who don’t see the danger in not wearing helmets.
I guess the take-away here is that getting rid of the notion of a “victimless crime” is sometimes not as black and white as it at first appears.
Politics
government rights, individual rights, libertarianism
I am disappointed that PBS didn’t respond to this piece that I wrote about their sponsors. I even sent it to their “ombudsman.” I would have thought it was the job of such a person to respond to constructive criticism like this.
Politics
Chevron, Coca Cola, Ecuador, PBS, PBS' sponsors, Walmart
Since I was a teenager, my mother and I have had this liberal/conservative thing going on, not unlike the old “Point/Counterpoint” segment of “60 Minutes” in the 1970s. I love her and respect her deeply, but there is no doubt that we tend to infuriate one another with our clashing politics.
Today, she sent me this very brilliant article….
To which I responded….
Wow, that guy is good. What a voice! I wish I could write like that.
From a political perspective, though, I’m not sure how fair it is. Obviously, what happened to Ricci was completely gross. But as I wrote here: legislatively/judicially-caused redistribution of wealth happens around us 24 hours a day. Taxes rates, incentives, unclosed loopholes, etc.–have resulted in a huge shift of wealth in favor of the richest 1% Americans in the past few decades. Yet have you noticed that conservatives tend not to complain about that? In fact, they pretend they don’t even notice.
I know–I’m infuriating. 
Politics
conservative, liberal, Point/Counterpoint
I just happened to read the complete article to which I had linked in the piece I wrote the other day on corruption in our local government. My essay concerned an obviously useless but fantastically expensive bridge, ostensiby built to facilitate the movement of fish in a steam that is normally as dry as a bone:
“It will be very positive for the fish once the water gets back in there,” Robinson said.
Apparently no one saw that as absurd.
Politics
corruption, local government
A reader writes:
There’s lots of talk - notably from the Republican side - about “living beyond our means” and about the people of California “getting what they asked for.” There’s very little mention of anything like the need to raise revenue in a truly progressive fashion, that requires those better off among persons and corporations within the state to help the people at the bottom to be stronger citizens - who can then further contribute to society, and patronize those large businesses that benefit from our higher standard (and cost) of living and our beautiful climate.
To which I respond:
I hear you. But at a certain point, it becomes both unfair and impractical to ask/force the rich to “help the people at the bottom to become better citizens.” The fairness issue can be debated, but the practical issues are quite real. Tax revenues are down in large part because a great many companies–and wealthy individuals–have left because of onerous regulations and high taxes. Making this state even more unfriendly to wealth creation is not going to help.
As I see it, the big problem is essentially the inefficiency of government due to a blend of bureaucracy and corruption. Have you ever tried to get a permit to build anything in this state–even something minor, like converting your garage to a playroom? It costs a fortune and can take literally years to happen. And have you noticed that some of the public works projects we DO pass are an obvious waste of money? You don’t live around here, so you’ll have to take my word for it, but this bridge (over a seasonal creek in an uninhabited forest) and this new passing lane are totally unnecessary. The only possible explanation? Somebody bought somebody off. Those tens of millions of dollars could have lowered the deficit, or been invested in something that would have truly made a difference.
Politics
bureaucracy, corruption, fairness, progressive politics