California leads the way

[gunnergoz]

(snip)

3)This went on until the banks were giving loans to deadbeats. The banks didn't care (snip)

4) eventually a day comes when a significant portion of these deadbeats (you may prefer a different term) who had an expensive house but perhaps no job could no longer afford their payments. This topples the whole ponzi scheme, and home prices begin to drop, which snowballs.

5)government, who fed the flame all along and ignored the bad underwriting practiced in place during the boom, ignores it's own role in the whole thing, and of course posits that is what is really needed is tighter oversight and control of finance.

And the fancy financial industry's manipulation of these shady derivatives markets had nothing to do with anything?

You blame "government" for all these problems. I blame selfish and heavily influenced elected officials who sold out to the banks and financial institutions by discouraging and underfunding regulation.

Government is not the problem. Bad leadership is the problem. That and unfettered greed. Government's function is to provide a check upon such negative factors in the marketplace. The elected officials running government failed to live up to the obligations of their offices.

Government is a tool. Used badly, it works badly. Blame the tool user and not the tool.

[dieseltaylor]

I do wonder if there is a problem in that in the US peoples value is only wealth and acknowledged influence.

Consider the situation where people could actually be awarded roles for good citezenship - like blowing the whislte on the house of cards, or being Warren Buffet, or being benefactor by honest public works. A counter to the elected bought politicians that occupy the seats of power.

However, and despite me being a conservative by nature, I am beginning to believe the biggest problem for America is inherited wealth. When 1% of the population recieves 23% of the annual income something sucks mightily.

We're in a Recession Because the Rich Are Raking in an Absurd Portion of Wealth

Our economy can't thrive when the richest 1% get an ever larger share of the nation's income and wealth, and everyone else's share shrinks.

July 7, 2010 |

Wall Street's banditry was the proximate cause of the Great Recession, not its underlying cause. Even if the Street is better controlled in the future (and I have my doubts), the structural reason for the Great Recession still haunts America. That reason is America's surging inequality.

Consider: in 1928 the richest 1 percent of Americans received 23.9 percent of the nation's total income. After that, the share going to the richest 1 percent steadily declined. New Deal reforms, followed by World War II, the GI Bill and the Great Society expanded the circle of prosperity. By the late 1970s the top 1 percent raked in only 8 to 9 percent of America's total annual income. But after that, inequality began to widen again, and income reconcentrated at the top. By 2007 the richest 1 percent were back to where they were in 1928—with 23.5 percent of the total.

Each of America's two biggest economic crashes occurred in the year immediately following these twin peaks—in 1929 and 2008. This is no mere coincidence. When most of the gains from economic growth go to a small sliver of Americans at the top, the rest don't have enough purchasing power to buy what the economy is capable of producing. America's median wage, adjusted for inflation, has barely budged for decades. Between 2000 and 2007 it actually dropped. Under these circumstances the only way the middle class can boost its purchasing power is to borrow, as it did with gusto. As housing prices rose, Americans turned their homes into ATMs. But such borrowing has its limits. When the debt bubble finally burst, vast numbers of people couldn't pay their bills, and banks couldn't collect.

China, Germany and Japan have surely contributed to the problem by failing to buy as much from us as we buy from them. But to believe that our continuing economic crisis stems mainly from the trade imbalance—we buy too much and save too little, while they do the reverse—is to miss the biggest imbalance of all. The problem isn't that typical Americans have spent beyond their means. It's that their means haven't kept up with what the growing economy could and should have been able to provide them.

A second parallel links 1929 with 2008: when earnings accumulate at the top, people at the top invest their wealth in whatever assets seem most likely to attract other big investors. This causes the prices of certain assets—commodities, stocks, dot-coms or real estate—to become wildly inflated. Such speculative bubbles eventually burst, leaving behind mountains of near-worthless collateral.

The crash of 2008 didn't turn into another Great Depression because the government learned the importance of flooding the market with cash, thereby temporarily rescuing some stranded consumers and most big bankers.

But the financial rescue didn't change the economy's underlying structure. Median wages are continuing their downward slide, and those at the top continue to rake in the lion's share of income. That's why the middle class still doesn't have the purchasing power it needs to reboot the economy, and why the so-called recovery will be so tepid—maybe even leading to a double dip. It's also why America will be vulnerable to even larger speculative booms and deeper busts in the years to come.

The structural problem began in the late 1970s, by which time a wave of new technologies (air cargo, container ships and terminals, satellite communications and, later, the Internet) had radically reduced the costs of outsourcing jobs abroad. Other new technologies (automated machinery, computers and ever more sophisticated software applications) took over many other jobs (remember bank tellers? telephone operators? service station attendants?).

By the '80s, any job requiring that the same steps be performed repeatedly was disappearing—going over there or into software. Meanwhile, as the pay of most workers flattened or dropped, the pay of well-connected graduates of prestigious colleges and MBA programs—the so-called "talent" who reached the pinnacles of power in executive suites and on Wall Street—soared.

The puzzle is why so little was done to counteract these forces. Government could have given employees more bargaining power to get higher wages, especially in industries sheltered from global competition and requiring personal service: big-box retail stores, restaurants and hotel chains, and child- and eldercare, for instance. Safety nets could have been enlarged to compensate for increasing anxieties about job loss: unemployment insurance covering part-time work, wage insurance if pay drops, transition assistance to move to new jobs in new locations, insurance for communities that lose a major employer so they can lure other employers. With the gains from economic growth the nation could have provided Medicare for all, better schools, early childhood education, more affordable public universities, more extensive public transportation. And if more money was needed, taxes could have been raised on the rich.

Big, profitable companies could have been barred from laying off a large number of workers all at once, and could have been required to pay severance—say, a year of wages—to anyone they let go. Corporations whose research was subsidized by taxpayers could have been required to create jobs in the United States. The minimum wage could have been linked to inflation. And America's trading partners could have been pushed to establish minimum wages pegged to half their countries' median wages—thereby ensuring that all citizens shared in gains from trade and creating a new global middle class that would buy more of our exports.

But starting in the late 1970s, and with increasing fervor over the next three decades, government did just the opposite. It deregulated and privatized. It increased the cost of public higher education and cut public transportation. It shredded safety nets. It halved the top income tax rate from the range of 70–90 percent that prevailed during the 1950s and '60s to 28–40 percent; it allowed many of the nation's rich to treat their income as capital gains subject to no more than 15 percent tax and escape inheritance taxes altogether. At the same time, America boosted sales and payroll taxes, both of which have taken a bigger chunk out of the pay of the middle class and the poor than of the well-off.

Companies were allowed to slash jobs and wages, cut benefits and shift risks to employees (from you-can-count-on-it pensions to do-it-yourself 401(k)s, from good health coverage to soaring premiums and deductibles). They busted unions and threatened employees who tried to organize. The biggest companies went global with no more loyalty or connection to the United States than a GPS device. Washington deregulated Wall Street while insuring it against major losses, turning finance—which until recently had been the servant of American industry—into its master, demanding short-term profits over long-term growth and raking in an ever larger portion of the nation's profits. And nothing was done to impede CEO salaries from skyrocketing to more than 300 times that of the typical worker (from thirty times during the Great Prosperity of the 1950s and '60s), while the pay of financial executives and traders rose into the stratosphere.

It's too facile to blame Ronald Reagan and his Republican ilk. Democrats have been almost as reluctant to attack inequality or even to recognize it as the central economic and social problem of our age. (As Bill Clinton's labor secretary, I should know.) The reason is simple. As money has risen to the top, so has political power. Politicians are more dependent than ever on big money for their campaigns. Modern Washington is far removed from the Gilded Age, when, it's been said, the lackeys of robber barons literally deposited sacks of cash on the desks of friendly legislators. Today's cash comes in the form of ever increasing campaign donations from corporate executives and Wall Street, their ever bigger platoons of lobbyists and their hordes of PR flacks.

The Great Recession could have spawned another era of fundamental reform, just as the Great Depression did. But the financial rescue reduced immediate demands for broader reform. Obama might still have succeeded had he framed the challenge accurately. Yet in reassuring the public that the economy would return to normal, he missed a key opportunity to expose the longer-term scourge of widening inequality and its dangers. Containing the immediate financial crisis and then claiming the economy was on the mend left the public with a diffuse set of economic problems that seemed unrelated and inexplicable, as if a town's fire chief dealt with a conflagration by protecting the biggest office buildings but leaving smaller fires simmering all over town: housing foreclosures, job losses, lower earnings, less economic security, soaring pay on Wall Street and in executive suites.

Legislation to improve America's healthcare system illustrates the paradox. Initially, the nation was strongly supportive. But the president and Democratic leaders failed to link healthcare reform to the broader agenda of widely shared prosperity. So as unemployment rose through 2009, the public understandably focused its attention on the loss of jobs and earnings, to which healthcare appeared tangential. Consequently, the nation was not as actively supportive of reform as it needed to be in order to weaken the hold of Big Pharma and private health insurers, who demanded that any so-called reform improve their bottom line. The resulting law is fodder for the right, because it won't adequately control future costs and requires Americans to pay more for health insurance than they would have had the deals not been made.

Much the same has occurred with efforts to reform the financial system. The White House and Democratic leaders could have described the overarching goal as overhauling economic institutions that bestow outsize rewards on a relative few while imposing extraordinary costs and risks on almost everyone else. Instead, they defined the goal narrowly: reducing risks to the financial system caused by particular practices on Wall Street. The solution thereby shriveled to a set of technical fixes for how the Street should conduct its business.

Even the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico could have been put into the larger frame of how giant corporations use their influence to capture regulators and impose risks and costs on the broader public, and the central importance of public health and environmental safety to widespread prosperity. But here again, the administration and Democratic leaders failed to connect the dots. The disaster morphed into a technical question of how to plug the gusher and a policy discussion of how best to regulate deepwater drilling.

If nothing more is done, America's three-decade-long lurch toward widening inequality is an open invitation to a future demagogue who misconnects the dots, blaming immigrants, the poor, government, foreign nations, "socialists" or "intellectual elites" for the growing frustrations of the middle class. The major fault line in American politics will no longer be between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. It will be between the "establishment" and an increasingly mad-as-hell populace determined to "take back America" from them. When they understand where this is heading, powerful interests that have so far resisted reform may come to see that the alternative is far worse.

A virtual pendulum underlies the American political economy. We swing from eras in which the benefits of economic growth concentrate in fewer hands to those in which the gains are more broadly shared, and then back again. We are approaching the end of one such cycle and the start of the next. The question is not whether the pendulum will swing back but how it will swing—whether with reforms that widen the circle of prosperity or with demagoguery that turns America away from the rest of the world, shrinks the economy and sets Americans against one another.

None of us can thrive in a nation divided between a small number of people receiving an ever larger share of the nation's income and wealth, and everyone else receiving a declining share. The lopsidedness not only diminishes economic growth but also tears at the social fabric of our society. The most fortunate among us who have reached the pinnacles of economic power and success depend on a stable economic and political system. That stability rests on the public's trust that the system operates in the interest of us all. Any loss of such trust threatens the well-being of everyone. We will choose reform, I believe, because we are a sensible nation, and reform is the only sensible option we have.

Robert B. Reich has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He also served on President Obama's transition advisory board. His latest book is Supercapitalism.

[Michael Emrys]

DT, could you provide a link to that? I have some people I'd like to share it with.

Michael

[dieseltaylor]

http://www.alternet.org/story/147469/we%27re_in_a_recession_because_the_rich_are_raking_in_an_absurd_portion_of_wealth?page=entire

[Michael Emrys]

dt,

Thanks.

Michael

[gunnergoz]

I do wonder if there is a problem in that in the US peoples value is only wealth and acknowledged influence.

Consider the situation where people could actually be awarded roles for good citezenship - like blowing the whislte on the house of cards, or being Warren Buffet, or being benefactor by honest public works. A counter to the elected bought politicians that occupy the seats of power.

However, and despite me being a conservative by nature, I am beginning to believe the biggest problem for America is inherited wealth. When 1% of the population recieves 23% of the annual income something sucks mightily.

I agree with you - the overpowering accumulation of national wealth in this 1% of Americans is what is causing the entire system to go "Tilt." Now I just wish we could press the "Reset" button. Having this much power (for money is in the end, the means to an end) in the hands of a few is so anti-democratic that I cannot believe that so many people do not see it as such.

I don't care if a person is GOP or Dem, conservative or liberal, in the end their vote is as meaningless as mine if the system is corrupted by all this money being applied to serve the interests of a very few. We all have a dog in this hunt.

That is why election reform like this one, http://www.fixcongressfirst.org/pages/fair-elections-now-act/ is so important to our future as a democracy. Without such reform, we will just end up a tinpot dictatorship hiding in an Uncle Sam suit.

It may already be too late. The economy is on the skids and there is little hope of recovery as long as this 1% hangs on to all the wealth, or squirrels it away overseas.

How many billions does a guy need? Apparently, you can't have enough. You can't have a game of marbles if one kid owns them all. Unless, of course, you charge the other kids to rent from you the marbles that were formerly theirs, you could have a game of sorts. That's where we are now, I think.

[Stalins Organ]

how do yuo figure concentration of wealth is anti democratic? should the population be allowed to vote on who gets rich, or what?

I can certainly see that extreme wealth can be used to influence democracy via propaganda, editorial slant, lobbying, etc.

But is that actually _anti_-democratic? Or part of the democratic process where those with teh wherewithall get to spend it to persuade those without to vote 1 way or the otehr?

[dieseltaylor]

Anti-democratic? I don't think per se wealth is anti-democratic anymore than dandruff shampoo is.

I think concentrated wealth in any system is probably a recipe for dissent/problems. That it occurs in a democracy rather than a dictatorship is a bigger problem as voters confuse one man one vote to also mean equal opportunities. Daft buggers eh!

If I hold a portfolio of $100M in stocks/bonds/assets I can get an easy couple of million a year and re-invest a little. If I have an easy lifestyle I could invest a lot, if I am greedy I could overspend.

If I have $250M I can invest loads and live like a happy pig also. So at the end of a decade with standard inflation and reasonable investments I would have doubled my asset value. And of course I may be an absolute twit but thankfully my parents, or grandparents were smart and I am doing nothing apart from growing richer and richer by owning more and more assets which thankfully the taxation system colludes in.

Its good us rich folk have enough leverage to make it so.

Some of us actually go into politics just to make sure it stays that way [and we like the power] but I just give parties for politicos and contribute to the war chest of the right candidate. Easy life.

Of course there is nothing stopping poorer folks buying shares and property, we like that because they then have a vested interest in lower tax on invested income. They are saving for a good retirement where all of this will be spent in due course. As it happens of their 50000$ annual income after paying for the mortgage, food, healthcare etc they may only be able to invest $5000 if they are very careful so in a 30 year working life, reduced by children cost ets, they may have a $200000- $500000 portfolio. Sounds a lot but with inflation it is buying less and they may 20 years of living off the portfolio and paying medical fees etc. So really zilchio at the end.

Me, well I invest about $5000 per day because I have a bigger income stream than I can manage to spend. As for the children , well they will only get a house each when I die and will have to live off only 100M$ each. However if they are frugal they should be able to live on $1m a years and invest the other couple of million so over 50 years they will be worth a bit.

http://afferentinput.blogspot.com/2007/12/if-america-had-100-and-100-people.html

is interesting.

Inherited great wealth is better done away with. Care has tto be taken to see that everlasting corporations do not then occupy the same position and just incidentally recruit the same family members at very high salaries .... : )

[gunnergoz]

how do yuo figure concentration of wealth is anti democratic? should the population be allowed to vote on who gets rich, or what?

I can certainly see that extreme wealth can be used to influence democracy via propaganda, editorial slant, lobbying, etc.

But is that actually _anti_-democratic? Or part of the democratic process where those with teh wherewithall get to spend it to persuade those without to vote 1 way or the otehr?

Actually, it is pretty self-evident, I thought. Extreme concentration of wealth is anti-democratic because, given the lack of regulation of campaign spending in our country in particular, those possessing this extreme wealth (the top 1% of earners) can sway elections by mounting massive and deafening propaganda campaigns that sway voters into selections based upon factors other than reason and national interest. The ability of the rich to use their wealth to consolidate political power thus wrests that power from the voters, who only get to hear what the wealthy want them to hear about and vote for who the wealthy make available to run for office.

Mind you, I am talking about extreme wealth, not just ordinary investors and people earning less than $400,000 per year, which is what the cutoff is for the definition of the 1% club.

And if one thing history has taught us, money is power and concentrating one is the same as concentrating the other. Democracy can not work in an environment where power is so skewed towards those that can dictate political campaign themes and candidates. It applies to both parties, too.

[gunnergoz]

Anti-democratic? I don't think per se wealth is anti-democratic anymore than dandruff shampoo is.

I think concentrated wealth in any system is probably a recipe for dissent/problems. That it occurs in a democracy rather than a dictatorship is a bigger problem as voters confuse one man one vote to also mean equal opportunities. Daft buggers eh!

(snip)

Some of us actually go into politics just to make sure it stays that way [and we like the power] but I just give parties for politicos and contribute to the war chest of the right candidate. Easy life.

Of course there is nothing stopping poorer folks buying shares and property, (snip)

http://afferentinput.blogspot.com/2007/12/if-america-had-100-and-100-people.html

is interesting.

Inherited great wealth is better done away with. Care has tto be taken to see that everlasting corporations do not then occupy the same position and just incidentally recruit the same family members at very high salaries .... : )

This all sounds peachy, and if it happens to be true, I'd congratulate you upon your great good fortune (pun intended) but my concern is that today we have a wealthy elite that is hoarding the nation's wealth for their own purposes. What is not squirreled away overseas in tax shelters is used to buy luxuries, but it is certainly not put to work in the economy. Through their control of the financial industry (where a number of these 1%'ers have made their bucks) and banking, the wealthy can cause the American economy to stall or to move forward - whatever their political inclinations decide is right for them at the moment. Right now, they'd love to usher out Obama and reinstate a GOP ruled Congress, so it is eminently in the interests of the wealthy to let ordinary Americans swing on the rope and suffer, encouraging them to vote out the Democrats in favor of Republicans, who are more easily manipulated and who already buy into the ethos of wealth and power.

I have nothing against the wealthy, but I think that some of them are actively pursuing and enlarging their wealth at the expense of other Americans and the national interest. The shift of money to them over the past 30 years, gutting the middle class, is proof of that fact.

[dieseltaylor]

I liked your post 84 - I wish I had said it.

Sorry the I references were to get me into the right mood. I am not a powerbroker and the Banks worry about me paying them : )

[Stalins Organ]

Gunneroz - sorry - it's clearly not self evident, and if you look at your own post you shuld see why - using wealth, or any amount, to INFLUENCE VOTERS cannot possibly be ANTI_democratic.

Influencing voters (as opposed to coercing them) is part of the democratic process.

Using wealth to persuade people to vote how you want them to is pro-democratic, not anti.

Actually buying votes, or using wealth to force people to vote one way or another - that I can see as anti-democratic.

But not persuasion - regardless of whether you use perjorative terms such as propaganda or not.

[dieseltaylor]

Are you being deliberately naive?

If money is rquired to run a successful election TO BE a candidate for your Party then you will be beholden to your sponsors. Then when you have become the Party nominee running for Representative or Senator you will need money again.

However in both instances, that is in both Partys, the candiadtes that the electorate will finally vote for have been pre-selected by the power-brokers and money men. It does not matter too much who gets elected - the veneer of democracy is observed - but the candidates are the chosen ones already.

Jordan Senator Durbin’s Floor Speech 3/21/07

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, imagine a President coming before a joint session of Congress and using his bully pulpit to call for a fundamental change in the way we fund political campaigns in America. Imagine a President saying we need to buy back our democracy by replacing special-interest-funded elections with publicly funded elections .

As hard as it may be to believe, that happened. An American President did say that--100 years ago. His name was Teddy Roosevelt, and his call for public financing of campaigns was the cornerstone of his 1907 State of the Union Address.

I know the Senate moves slowly, but a century is long enough to wait. Congress can pass all the lobbying and ethics reforms we want, but we won't get to the heart of the problem when it comes to the confidence of the American public until we address the issue of campaign financing. Special interest money and influence will always find new loopholes, until we change this political system fundamentally.

Just yesterday, Senator Specter and I introduced a plan to do that. It is called the Fair Elections Now Act. Our bill will create a pool of public, accountable funds that qualified Senate candidates can use to fund their campaigns in place of special interest dollars and dollars from wealthy donors. The program we propose is strictly voluntary, and it is consistent with our Constitution.

For years, I have always resisted the idea of public financing of political campaigns. I used to have this kind of quick response when people asked me about public financing. It was a pretty good one. I used to say I don't want a dime of Federal taxpayer dollars going to some racist such as David Duke running for office. It was a pretty good response, but frankly, as I reflect on it now, it ignores the obvious. For every miscreant like David Duke, there are thousands of good men and women in both political parties who were forced into a system that is fundamentally corrupting.

The stakes right now are too high in America not to change. A lot of people in America on both sides of the fence have a sneaky feeling that our democracy is in real trouble. No wonder. Look around at all the scandal and suspicion, the so-called ``culture of corruption.'' Take a good look at the political money chase that consumes more of our time every year.

That is time a Senator and a Member of Congress doesn't have to devote to being a Senator. We can use that time talking to people we represent, people who might not have $2,000, $3,000, $4,000 to give to us but people who are even more important than those donors. That is time we could use to study and try to solve some of the big challenges facing this country, such as our reliance on foreign oil.

There are many good, honest people in politics, and this Senate is guided by the best of intentions, but we are stuck in a terrible, corrupting system.

Take a look, if you will, at the cost of running Senate campaigns. This chart is an indication of what we are up against. This is the average spent by candidates in the 10 most expensive Senate races between 2002 and 2006. Mind you, this is the average of the 10 most expensive races. Go back to 2002, and you see the number is somewhere short of $20 million. Now go to 2004 and the number is up to $25 million. Now come to 2006 and the number happens to be $34 million. That is $34 million on average spent by the 10 most expensive Senate races by both candidates--$34 million, the average amount.

The cost of running for the Senate is out of control. To think that the cost of running a Senate race between 2002 and 2006 in the 10 most expensive races has more than doubled tells us this is unsustainable.

Let me show this chart as well. It is a little hard to read because the charts are smaller. Here is another figure that is hard to imagine. It takes a mountain of money to lose a Senate campaign today. On average, to run and lose a campaign for the Senate costs $7 million. That is to lose. That figure, too, has doubled since 2002. Who knows what it is going to cost in 2008.

These figures are the averages spent by winners and losers for the Senate in each of these years, and one can see from these charts what is happening. Losers, $7 million to lose a Senate race; those running and winning, $12 million.

Then take a look at the total amount spent in Senate races between 2002 and 2006. We have now broken through the $500 million barrier. We are on our way to spending in total for about 33 races every election $1 billion. We are on our way there. There is no doubt we are going to hit that and soon. That is the reality of what it means to be elected to this important body.

The costs increase dramatically with every election . I am up for reelection in 2008. Candidates, if they are honest with you, will tell you they spend too many waking moments worrying about raising money, getting on the telephone, setting up fundraisers, traveling around the country, where good people--I thank them for helping me--are asked to give contributions. It becomes a consuming passion because you understand you are going to need that money to be reelected.

Mr. President, do you know why I am raising money? I am raising money to create a trust fund in Illinois for television stations. That is right. I am begging money from everybody I can find in order to buy television time next year. I need millions of dollars because the cost of television is soaring.

Take a look at the amount spent on political TV advertising. To give you a notion, political ad spending in millions of dollars, starting in 2002, $995 million; 2004, $1.6 billion; 2006, $1.7 billion; and 2008, I can't even guess where that figure is going to go.

Does anyone think our democracy is stronger and healthier because of this explosion in drive-by political TV ads? Have you ever met a voter who said: You know what the problem is with political campaigns? They are just too darn short. We need longer campaigns; we need to see more of your ads. I have never heard that. But I have heard the opposite. I have heard people beg for mercy: Are you going to have another week of those television commercials going?

The candidates hate raising the money for it, the people hate watching it, but the TV stations love it.

I visit TV stations in my State when it gets close to election time, and I meet with the managers. I met with one in downstate Illinois in this last election cycle. Nice fellow. I have seen him in Washington a lot. He runs a nice little station downstate. He had this big smile on his face.

I said: Things going OK here? Yes, they sure are. I said: Lots of political ads?

He said: Senator, I am the luckiest guy in southern Illinois. My TV station plays into Missouri. You know what is going on. We may not have a big Senate race in Illinois, but in Missouri, there is a big red hot contest between an incumbent Senator and a challenger, and they are buying every single minute I will sell them. To be honest with you, I have no time to sell to other advertisers because these political candidates are here.

Senators are spending more and more time each year when they are up for reelection creating these trust funds for wealthy broadcasting corporations instead of doing the work the voters sent us here to do. This is not good for our democracy. Our democracy cannot afford to let this system continue.

The plan Senator Specter and I have introduced is simple and constitutional. In order to receive Fair Election funds, candidates first have to prove they are real candidates. It isn't enough to think you are going to run; you have to have some support. People have to believe you are a real candidate. You prove that by, as a candidate, collecting a minimum number of small contributions.

What does it mean? You have to be a fundraiser, and in my State of Illinois, it would mean you would have to have 11,500 $5 contributions. I think that a person who is not a serious candidate would have a tough time raising 11,500 contributions in a State such as Illinois, but it is worth the effort because if you can raise that to prove you are a viable candidate, you can qualify for these funds to run your election campaign.

What happens if you are running against a millionaire or a billionaire? And believe me, a lot of political parties spend time searching for these so-called self-funders, people who pay for their own campaigns. Or what if you get caught in the crosshairs of some shadowy attack group that has decided they are going to take you on by running ads against you? In that case, the candidate who has agreed to be part of the Fair Elections financing can receive additional funds to level the playing field. All candidates who voluntarily agree to abide by Fair Elections rules will receive vouchers for free TV time and discounts on additional TV-radio time.

That is a major way in which our plan will help slow the explosive growth of campaign spending. The only thing the Fair Elections candidates cannot do is accept private, special interest or big-donor funds. With the exception of those 11,500 contributions of $5, you are not in the fundraising business. Maybe a few startup funds, but by and large, the qualifying $5 contributions is the end of your campaign fundraising.

This is not a naive, idealistic, over-the-Moon theory. Some of the programs are already working in Maine and Arizona. They were enacted by public referenda. They went to the voters of those two States and said: Do you want a shorter, cleaner, and fairer campaign? And the voters said ``yes.''

They were enacted by public referenda, and they have been sustained through election cycles because they are producing shorter and better campaigns. They are producing better debates in place of a terrible avalanche of political ads that we see almost everywhere. Fair Elections in Maine and Arizona are helping those States pass the kinds of reforms Americans want, such as affordable health care.

Fair Elections are bringing new faces and new ideas into politics. They are helping level the playing field between incumbents and challengers because we see, under this system, the incumbent Senator doesn't get any more money than the challenger. They get the same amount of money, fair play.

Some may wonder why Senator Specter and I would support a system that weakens the incumbent advantage. The answer is simple: We believe that America needs a system that rewards candidates with the best ideas and principles, not just the person who is the most talented in raising special interest money.

Supporters of the current system who don't want to change say the public will never support Fair Elections . They are wrong. Take a look at these polling results when it comes to the idea of public financing of elections . Support is increasing for the idea of public financing in Fair Elections : Seventy-four percent of all voters support public financing in Fair Elections ; 80 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of Republicans, and 78 percent of Independents.

This is an idea whose time has clearly come. These are the results of a national survey conducted for Common Cause and a group called Public Campaign. Three-quarters of Americans--Republicans and Democrats and Independents--support Fair Elections and public financing. It cuts across party lines, regional lines, and gender. Public financing will only cost us a fraction of what the current system costs. Make no mistake, if you are listening to this and saying: Why in the world would we want any tax dollars to go to campaigns, let them pay for it themselves, the harsh reality is America pays for the way we fund our campaigns.

We are sustained on both sides of the aisle. Unless you are a self-funding millionaire, we are sustained by special interest groups and wealthy donors.

I ask for those contributions because I am not a wealthy person. I do my best to come and vote my conscience, but the fact is, there is always a suspicion that when I cast a vote, it is because I received a contribution.

How much will it cost? About $1.4 billion a year, $2.8 billion per election cycle. About as much as we spend in 1 week on the war in Iraq is the amount it would cost us to publicly fund all House and Senate campaigns.

People who say the public shouldn't have to pay for elections miss the point. We are already paying for them in the hidden ways that favor incumbents and special interests. We pay when special interests are allowed to literally write their own bills. We pay every time a line is slipped into a bill anonymously, a big bill, behind closed doors giving some well-connected corporation tens of millions of dollars in tax breaks.

Fair Elections aren't just better than what we have now, ultimately they are less expensive to the taxpayers.

It has been a century since Teddy Roosevelt challenged Congress to get to the heart of the problem and get the special interest money out of the public elections 100 years ago. The American people do understand what is at stake. They understand our democracy is in trouble because special interests and big-donor money is choking the system and preventing us from facing up to the big challenges of our time.

I wish to say for the record what I said on the floor before in the midst of corruption and scandals: I want to make it clear, the overwhelming majority of men and women serving in Congress in both the House and Senate, those serving today and those I have served with over the years, are honest, good people trying to do the best in public service.

I am not suggesting otherwise, but the way we finance our campaigns is unfortunate, forcing many of us into compromising situations which are becoming increasingly difficult.

The American people are ready for Fair Elections . Fair Elections are already at work in several States. After a century, it is time for the Senate to accept President Teddy Roosevelt's challenge: Buy back our democracy from big donors and special interests and make Fair Elections the law of the land.

[Stalins Organ]

No more than you are being deliberately rgumentative.

What is democracy? It is the people chosing their own representatives. As long as they are free to do so then I cannot see how you can call something ANTI-democratic.

You can rail against money allowing "excessive influence" or whatever .....and I have no trouble at all seeing that more money = better chance of winning an election, and that forcing parties to spend an = amount of money and restricting lobbying changes the equation.

But that's not ANTI-democratic - that's a completely predictable set of stimlae & responses within a democratic system.

ANTI-democratic is something that destroys democracy......and whether you like it or not, being allowed a "free vote" for lobby/money-influenced/corrupt politicians is still democracy.....as long as it is actually a free vote & they can actually be voted out of office.......if the vote is ignored, or it is coerced, or ballots are stuffed - THAT is anti-democratic.

No amount of propaganda or influence, on its own, is anti-democratic.

[gunnergoz]

Gunneroz - sorry - it's clearly not self evident, and if you look at your own post you shuld see why - using wealth, or any amount, to INFLUENCE VOTERS cannot possibly be ANTI_democratic.

Influencing voters (as opposed to coercing them) is part of the democratic process.

Using wealth to persuade people to vote how you want them to is pro-democratic, not anti.

Actually buying votes, or using wealth to force people to vote one way or another - that I can see as anti-democratic.

But not persuasion - regardless of whether you use perjorative terms such as propaganda or not.

I guess you see no problem with a system where unlimited funds allow one side to set the tone and topic of the debate, the people who will run for office and the environment that the elected officials will have to function in.

I'm more of a populist. I don't want money to dictate election results, rather issues and candidate positions on them should. Accumulated wealth allows the issues to be framed and the discussion shaped however those funding the advertising and candidates choose.

And why should allowing corporations to influence elections be considered in any way democratic? Should I get two votes because I am (1) a voter and (2) a major stockholder in some major firm? That is what I see you saying.

Anything that allows power and wealth to tilt the election process is not influence or persuasion, it is subversion and economic bullying.

[gunnergoz]

No more than you are being deliberately rgumentative.

What is democracy? It is the people chosing their own representatives. As long as they are free to do so then I cannot see how you can call something ANTI-democratic.

You can rail against money allowing "excessive influence" or whatever .....and I have no trouble at all seeing that more money = better chance of winning an election, and that forcing parties to spend an = amount of money and restricting lobbying changes the equation.

But that's not ANTI-democratic - that's a completely predictable set of stimlae & responses within a democratic system.

ANTI-democratic is something that destroys democracy......and whether you like it or not, being allowed a "free vote" for lobby/money-influenced/corrupt politicians is still democracy.....as long as it is actually a free vote & they can actually be voted out of office.......if the vote is ignored, or it is coerced, or ballots are stuffed - THAT is anti-democratic.

No amount of propaganda or influence, on its own, is anti-democratic.

Do you know how incredibly naive that sounds? That no matter how much money influences election processes, it is all good because the voters still vote.

But what if the issues the voters get to consider and the candidates they get to choose from are totally framed by the ultra wealthy elements of society. It is like telling voters, "you get to vote for my guy here, or my guy there...choose." It is no better than Communism, Fascism or Nazism. It's our candidates or none. And that is what we are moving towards in this country. If you have money, you can swing elections your way. Over time, you can totally control what the voters choose from to suit you.

What you guys do not see is that when extreme wealth corrupts democratic processes, you are left with only one party to choose from - the party of money, because that is the only arbiter of victory in the end.

[Stalins Organ]

did you actually read what you quoted, or just leap in to a preconceived notion of what you think I said?

Look - the only issue I have is with your idea that extreme wealth is ANTI_democratic.

It's a very limited issue - just one of wording really - as you would ahve realised if you'd bothered to comprehend my posts - whether you agree with them or not.

I have no problem whatsoever with the notion that extreme wealth can influence democracy in ways that the voters may not realise and that thsi is normally not a good thing . I said as much in the 3rd paragraph you quoted above but clearly didn't bother to read!

Sometimes I despair of the ability of people here to understand that not everyone is talking about world shattering revelations......some times a little point is just a little point!

And jsut to show that _I_ do read _your_ posts, I dont' believe there is only 1 "party of money" either - that populist headlining - the moneyed elite have as many different opinions as anyone else - there are moneyed fascists and moneyed socialists, moneyed Greens and moneyed Industrialists and hte idea that htey are all secretly having tea together and laughing at us poor schmucks is a nice conspiracy theory that's right up there with the elders of Zion.

[dieseltaylor]

Well SO. if you are saying that you were only making a simple point of semantics .....

I would like to state publicly that I do not believe money has any conscious thoughts and even piling all the money in the world in one spot would not be anti-democratic in any way shape or form.

People kill democracy not money [catchy huh!]

With possible exclusions I think very rich people tend to have a vested interest in remainingh rich and to this end tend to support those who would help them remain rich or get richer. In electoral systems, particularly where there are only two parties, the chances of candidates to be influenced by wealthy donors is high.

In the broadest of terms any system that is seen to favour one group to the detriment of others is liable to breed discontent and that when this group manipulate the system this may be anti-democratic. So what is democracy?

de·moc·ra·cy

   /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Show Spelled[dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA

–noun, plural -cies.

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.

5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

So it seems that definition 4. is what fits most precisely the ethos where as definition 5. touches upon the nub of the percieved problem. In any event 1% of the population recieving 23% of the wealth does argue a big problem and mkaes one wonder how that comes about in a democracy.

Either there is a fault in the system, the system is being abused, or I am wrong in my view of what should be a more reasonable distribution of wealth in a modern society - and that the mass of people actually understand these things and vote to keep rich people rich. However I suspect that throwing in issues like abortion, race , religion, warfare, and how poor the economy is for most people, tends to cloud the picture.

Still they vote either Democrat or Republican to improve things - and judging by the graphs of distribution haven't they just.!

[gunnergoz]

If each voter has but one vote and the issues were decided by rational discourse and by election of the politicians who best represent a particular position on an issue, then we have a basically democratic system.

My problem is when the influence of large sums of money pumped into political campaigns starts to skew the campaign towards issues that are favorable to those with the money, and politicians are offered up for election that will be favorably inclined towards those who provided all that campaign cash.

If the system works well, political parties should be able to raise cash for campaigns from individual voters and things should even out pretty well.

But if the system permits corporate and other wealthy entities to literally throw any amount of money into a campaign, it skews everything away from the individual voters and towards the providers of all this campaign cash.

So, the argument goes, the voters will still decide the outcome. OK, that may be true if only one political party is indebted to the corporations and wealthy lobbies. The other political party can do more fund raising among voters to attempt to equal or exceed the campaign funding of the other side.

But what if both political parties are more or less completely in the pockets of the corporations and wealthy? What if all the candidates running for office from both parties are front men for the wealthy and corporations?

This is what I think has happened over the course of the past 30 years. Americans assume that the parties are differentiated somehow and represent different political philosophies, but it is increasingly evident that Democrats are just as heavily influenced by all those campaign contributions they receive from Corporations and the wealthy as are the Republicans.

Neither party can be said to host politicians whose primary priority is to look after the vested interests of voters - instead, they focus upon what is good for their corporate sponsors, and couch it in terms that sounds like it is good for the nation and good for their constituents. It is so much Kabuki and means nothing.

Most people keep going to the polls that are run in this system, they vote and then they think they will get different results...and are surprised when they get more of the same only with a different last name on the desk.

[dieseltaylor]

Yes California does lead the way. The DEA does seem a bit out of order in general

Feds Raid Legal Marijuana Farm, Destroy Crops

Agents descended on the property of Joy Greenfield with guns drawn, tore out the plants and took Greenfield's computer and cash.

July 12, 2010 |

Advertisement

The federal Drug Enforcement Administration has flouted Mendocino County, California’s newly enacted medical marijuana ordinance by raiding the first collective that had applied to the sheriff’s cultivation permit program.

A multi-agency federal task force descended on the property of Joy Greenfield, the first Mendo patient to pay the $1,050 application fee under the ordinance, which allows collectives to grow up to 99 plants provided they comply with certain regulations.

Greenfield had applied in the name of her collective, “Light The Way,” which opened in San Diego earlier this year. Her property had passed a preliminary inspection by the Mendo sheriff’s deputies shortly before the raid, and she had bought the sheriff’s “zip-ties” intended to designate her cannabis plants as legal.

In the days before the raid, Greenfield had seen a helicopter hovering over her property; she inquired with the sheriff, who told her the copter belonged to the DEA and wasn’t under his control.

The agents invaded her property with guns drawn, tore out the collective’s 99 plants and took Greenfield’s computer and cash.

Joy was not at home during the raid, but spoke on the phone to the DEA agent in charge. When she told he she was a legal grower under the sheriff’s program, the agent replied, “I don’t care what the sheriff says.”

When she returned to her house she found it in disarray with soda cans strewn on the floor. “It was just a mess,” she said. “No one should be able to tear your house apart like that.”

Greenfield called the raid a “slap in the face of Mendocino’s government.”

The DEA has been tight-lipped about the raid, but claims it was part of a larger investigation involving other suspects.

“Here Mendo is trying to step out in front by passing this ordinance, and what do the Feds do but raid the first applicant,” said Greenfield’s attorney, Bob Boyd of Ukiah.

“The DEA is stepping all over local authorities trying to tax and regulate,” Boyd said.

Neither Boyd nor other locals believe that the sheriff tipped off the DEA or gave them any information about permit applicants.

Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman confirmed Friday that the property owner had the proper paperwork and the marijuana was legal in the eyes of the county.

“This was a federal operation and had nothing to do with local law enforcement,” Allman said. “The federal government made a decision to go ahead and eradicate it.”

Sheriff Allman has been highly supportive of efforts to bring local growers into the permit program. Nonetheless, observers fear the raid will have a chilling effect on medical cultivators, possibly causing supply problems for local patients.

“This raid is clear evidence that the DEA is out of control,” said California NORML director Dale Gieringer. “A change in federal law is long overdue.”

http://www.alternet.org/story/147506/feds_raid_legal_marijuana_farm%2C_destroy_crops

[Michael Emrys]

Yes California does lead the way. The DEA does seem a bit out of order in general

Federal law supersedes local and state law, so this was predictable.

“A change in federal law is long overdue.” That's the key. Congress needs to pull it's collective fingers out and change or simply void existing laws governing the growing and use of marijuana and should have done so 80 years or more ago. The existing laws are nothing more than stupidity enshrined.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

When she returned to her house she found it in disarray with soda cans strewn on the floor. “It was just a mess,” she said.

That's why they are called pigs.

Michael

[ASL Veteran]

Either there is a fault in the system, the system is being abused, or I am wrong in my view of what should be a more reasonable distribution of wealth in a modern society

So Dieseltaylor ..... do you consider 'wealth accumulation' to be a zero sum game?

If wealth is to be 'redistributed' then who decides how to redistribute it? I don't mean how you would redistribute it, but who you think is the best qualified to decide how to redistribute it and why?

Do you think that 'wealth accumulation' and 'incentive' or 'effort' have any relation to each other, or is 'wealth accumulation' completely divorced of 'incentive' or 'effort'?

[Stalins Organ]

The peoples comissars are obviously the best people to determine and then overseea the coming redistribution of wealth.

[dieseltaylor]

ASLVeteran

What do you consider a reasonable distribution of income wealth in the US system? I say nearly a quarter to 1% is wrong. Do you consider it is right, or should be lower or higher?

I assume you would agree that 100% to 1 would be wrong so you must have some idea.

Most democracies have taxation systems instituted or overseen by the duly elected politicians. I am not sure that I have said anything to suggest that commissars, or any other body is required. One might argue that taxation , as a subject, is important to everyone but not a taught subject for most people.

If you recall I talked of inheritance taxes as I am a great believer in people being rewarded in their lifetime for the efforts they put in. However I am not to keen on inherited wealth where it is considerable sums given to people who have done nothing.

BUT it is nice for people to leave a couple of million or so so their children can live reasonably comfortably for life.

Warren Buffet agrees with the idea I think. He is leaving 1% to his children, which is quite a lot currently, but he is giving away very large chunks to worthwhile charities.

Conrad Hilton gave away most of his wealth, or tried to.

So n case it is not clear:

Do you think that 'wealth accumulation' and 'incentive' or 'effort' have any relation to each other, or is 'wealth accumulation' completely divorced of 'incentive' or 'effort'?

I am all in favour of effort and reward.

Hilton was born in New York, NY to Richard, a businessman, and his wife, Kathy Hilton (née Avanzino), a socialite and actress. She is the oldest of four children: she has one sister, Nicholai Olivia "Nicky" Hilton (b. 1983) and two brothers, Barron Nicholas Hilton II (b. 1989) and Conrad Hughes Hilton III (b. 1994). The family had Norwegian, German, Irish, and Italian roots.[3] Hilton is a niece of two child stars of the 1970s, Kim and Kyle Richards.

Hilton moved between several exclusive homes in her youth, including a suite in the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in Manhattan, Beverly Hills, and the Hamptons. As a child she was good friends with other socialites as Nicole Richie and Kim Kardashian. She attended her freshman year of high school at the Marywood-Palm Valley School in Rancho Mirage, California followed by a short time at Convent of the Sacred Heart (which she attended with Lady Gaga[4]) and the Dwight School in New York for her sophomore and junior years. She was then transferred to the Canterbury Boarding School, in New Milford, Connecticut where she was a member of the ice hockey team.[5] In February 1999, she was expelled for violating the school rules[6] and later earned her GED.[7][8]

In December 2007, Hilton's grandfather Barron Hilton pledged 97 percent of his estate to a charitable organization founded by his father, the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation. An immediate pledge of $1.2 billion was made, with a further $1.1 billion due after his death. He cited his father's actions as the motivation for his pledge. According to reports, the potential inheritance of his grandchildren is sharply diminished.[9][10]

The older Hiltons worked for their money.

And just to set the picture, what people do for their friends :

Reagan very significantly increased public expenditure, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this numbers in 4 different years. All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973.[14] In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the very wealthy, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.[15] As a result of all this, the budget deficit and federal debt increased considerably: debt grew from 33.3% of GDP in 1980 to 51.9% at the end of 1988 [16] and the deficit increased from 2.7% in 1980 to more than double in 1983, when it reached 6%; in 1984, 1985 and 1986 it was around 5%.[17] In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion,[18] and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[19] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[18]