I was not exactly stunned and shocked to learn that the so-called “Supercommittee” reported failure to achieve anything, and isn’t even bothering to meet today. There were probably a handful of people across the nation who thought maybe these 12 folks could come to consensus on some cuts and tax tweaks. But those who thought the committee might accomplish anything at all are the eternal optimists who see a pile of manure and think “oh boy, there’s a pony around here somewhere!!!”.
There is no such thing as reason in Congress any more. It’s all political push-pull, driven by seemingly unlimited cash spent to buy influence, and the constant quest for party advantage and re-election. A corollary to this is the signing of “pledges” by so many of these dweebs: pledges about taxes, abortion, marriage definition, and so on. Pledges seldom allow for compromise of any sort, regardless if it’s for the greater good.
We need term limits. Rare are the people like Scot Klug, who kept his word and served as long as he said he would.
We need to stanch the flow of influence-buying cash. That means we need election contribution reform.
Perhaps as much as anything else, we need an electorate that takes the time to really learn about candidates and issues. We need fewer Tea Parties and fewer Occupys and fewer one-issue groups and more informed voters.
We may need to fire the lot of them, the Members of Congress, and start over.
ELECTION cash?
ReplyDeleteOnly a piddle in the ocean of "insider-trading" cash available, not to mention lobbying cash, yadayadayada.
Want to de-fund them?
Move the power out of DC. IOW, try using the 10th Amendment for a change.
The Citizens United decision by the activist judges on the U.S. Supreme Court has already caused enormous damage, and the insuperable flow of cash it loosed will continue to make matters worse until, as our blogger suggests, sensible controls are put on the way elections can be bought (make that funded).
ReplyDeleteCommenter Dad29 suggests "... using the 10th Amendment for a change." That's a curious suggestion, considering the neoliberals (aka Conservatives) use its Commerce Clause - notorious for its ability to wreak creative mischief - to their advantage all the time.
Neocons are not Conservatives, but that could go over your head.
ReplyDeleteThe ComCla has been abused principally by Progressives (both Roosevelts--notoriously, the Filburn decision), not "NeoCons."
Not surprisingly, those Progressives first secured favorable SCOTUS majorities before they commenced perversions.
Its a democracy, if you can keep it.
ReplyDeleteNot neocons, Dad29. I said neoliberals. That is what these people masquerading as Conservatives really are. Their agenda is radical change. That, by definition, is not conservative.
ReplyDeleteThese political vandals would throw out things that promote the general welfare (Social Security, Medicare, Middle Class, etc.) They would cut taxes for the rich, at the expense of everyone else, and they embrace the corrosive change that allows unfettered election-buying by those with the money to do so.
Conservatives espouse traditional attitudes and values, and are cautious about change or innovation, especially in politics or religion.
What sort of traditional values call for rewarding the people who ruined the world's economy?
Better to run off immigrants and the poor and the unions, and make it as difficult as possible for any of them to cast a vote at the polls.
What is conservative -- or newly conservative, for that matter -- about any of that?
Neocons are associated with promoting democracy. The neoliberals I refer to (is it possible you are one?) are proponents of class war, bent on shrinking democracy until it is the exclusive province of the wealthy and well-connected.
I'm trying to be nice about this. Sensible Progressive change is one thing. But the free-market (READ: No regulation), carry-a-gun-anywhere, smaller-than-Somalia's small government, I-got-mine mantra of these false conservatives is something more selfish, more deliberately damaging, more extreme than most anarchists would brook.
Umnnnhhh.....
ReplyDeleteWe await Holder's prosecution of banksters.
Ball's in his court, ya know!
By the way, I'm not a hardliner on tax issues. But what you describe is not really a tax issue; it is a moral issue--and/or a matter of real personal responsibility: to live the Beatitudes.
Not easy for anyone.
By the way, Conservatives don't spend a lot of time polishing up Envy. That's the Left's game.
One more point re: taxes.
ReplyDeleteK'hammer points out that tax RATES are insignificant. It is tax REVENUE which counts. IOW, if the Feds could take $100Tn of revenues from a two percent tax-rate, there would be no problems, right?
Well, there's "no problem" if the Feds are only spending $100Tn (in that example.) But they spend more.
It's a spending problem.