The shut down and debt crisis is making it clear something
is drastically wrong with the way people think about Washington. Let me explain. Virtually everyone agrees business
interests pay politicians to do their bidding. They vote the way they are told
or they are not re-elected. All evidence points to this. Top revenue producing oil
companies receive subsidies, there are no gun registrations, the top 1% is
getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated
The second part of the puzzle is that if Congress allows us
to step off the fiscal cliff by refusing to pay the countries debt, the stock
market will bottom out and the wealth of the nation will fall 40% or more. The
recovery will stagnate and we will go into a deep recession. All people will be
hurt but the ones with a marginal income will be hurt the most, especially retired
people who live on investments. However,
the richest among us will also suffer huge losses. If the U.S. crashes the
world crashes. A billionaire would have
no place to hide and therefore would end up having $600,000,000. While it is
true that unlike a pensioner living on dog food, he would still be able to buy a
prime rib lunch, he loves his money and it would hurt him to see it go away.
The obvious conflict is there for all to see. If the billionaires
were the ones telling politicians how to vote, why would they not tell them to
prevent the Nation from stepping off the “fiscal cliff”? There has to be an
answer.
I wonder if our premise concerning the buying of politicians
is wrong—at least, partially wrong. Yes, on some issues they response to what
they are told but on others they do not pay any attention to their handlers. My
speculation is that by using the threat of a primary challenger, and financing
the most radical right wing challenger, they have created a radical right wing
minority in congress. By gerrymandering red state legislative districts, they
have concentrated radical votes. In addition, by manipulating time of elections
to off years or low turn out elections and manipulating the timing of party
primaries they have elected a group of people who willingly accepted their campaign
money and support without having loyalty to their donors. The old standard of party
loyalty—the rich get richer philosophy—is gone in the sense of having elected
party politicians who support good old conservative values. The new agenda is
not the conservative part agenda.
It is time to examine what we mean by the pronoun ‘they’
when we talk about rich donors. First, a rich democrat donor donates to
candidates who believe in fairness, openness, equality, etc; what some refer to
as a nanny government. Second, a rich
Republican donates to candidates who believe in deregulation, no taxes, voter suppression,
etc. They are what some refer to as an authoritarian government. This honest
political difference is now in the history of politics in the Untied States. There
is a big difference to what we have now. The new donors are people who do not believe in government of
any kind. They believe their own rhetoric about “all government is bad”, all
taxes are bad, and all regulations are bad. We are talking about David and
Charles Koch; two people who grew up in the toxic environment of their father
Fred Koch and the John Birch Society. If you do not know what that means, then it
is time for you Goggle it and find out. The new politicians are as crazy as are
the two people who are controlling our entire government—with the blessing of
the Supreme Court.
URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated
Just watched President Obama's press conference regarding the shutdown and the debt limit increase problems.
ReplyDeleteWhat a magnificent president we have! Speaking from rough notes (no teleprompter) he was his usual articulate self, placing the blame squarely on the House Tea Party members, and implying that Speaker Boehner lacked the guts to call a floor vote. Congratulations to our President for sticking to his guns. He puts his country ahead of politics in contrast to the Tea Party nut cases.
What a contrast Obama is when compared to the Bushes. He may be an even better president than Bill Clinton, who presided over the best 8 years (economically speaking) of the last half of the twentieth century. It boggles the mind to think of what he could accomplish if it weren't for the snarling pit bulls and yapping Chihuahuas of the Republican controlled House.