Shameful
Supreme Court Decision
Lousy
$$$ Politics Become Worse
It’s
a good thing that Orangutans aren’t known for being rich or this SCOTUS night
decide they’re people, too.
I can’t believe there are many Americans who
believe that we don’t spend enough on our federal elections and that more
money—as an expression of our First Amendment rights—is the answer to better,
more effective, and more responsible public policy.
There is so little official integrity left among
Washington politicians, now, as Senators and Members get in line, beg, and roll
over to get as much cash as they can from the moneyed interests, while prostituting
their Constitutional roles as the people’s representatives.
This conservative-dominated United States Supreme
Court first decided, in Citizens United
versus the FEC, that corporations were people, which opened up vast amounts
of poisonous political spending, and now it’s decided, in McCutcheon versus the FEC, that there is no cash limit to what people
can give to federal office seekers.
Merde!
Yes, I can see someone arguing that it is an extension of
free speech but when does the highest court in the land look beyond that index
and judge the implications of its actions?
Who benefits from more money going to politicians, only
the folks who have the financial resources available to buy the majority of
congressional votes which support their own agendas?
Don’t you dare believe any pol who claims that his/her contributors don’t influence their voting prerogatives.
Don’t you dare believe any pol who claims that his/her contributors don’t influence their voting prerogatives.
It’s a good thing that Orangutans aren’t known for being
rich or this SCOTUS night decide they’re people, too.
Like it or not, agree or not—even with plenty of examples of
wealthy Democrats and Democrat money rolling into races—this is just another
elevation of the GOP’s advantages and priorities at the expense of those who
don’t agree with the Republican credo (or
is “buy into” the right verb phrase?).
I guarantee that in coming days most of the post decision
commentary will split along party lines with the R’s cheering the ruling and
the D’s damning it.
Karl Rove may be having a 24 hour—not four hour—Cialis
moment!! Someone watch him close.
The SCOTUS decision came two days after I wrote the next
segment. The Court’s result just ratified some of the pregnant fears I penned
earlier this week.
It may not be the most articulate discussion of what
worries me, but I think most people will get the point.
Warfare,
Will Those Shut Out Retaliate
I’ve have a recurring nightmare. It’s about the
possibility of a future domestic conflagration and sustained violence between
US “haves” and “have not’s,” driven by increasing public extremism and the widening
gap between those Americans who say they are happy/content and the remaining discontented
Americans.
I started thinking about this disparity as I looked back
on my own somewhat vanilla ice cream, in comparison, political machinations,
mainly the non-lethal verbal/rhetorical combat in which I’ve engaged for about
30 years working for and—more recently--writing about Fannie Mae issues.
No stranger to conflict and often an active participant,
I’ve won many small battles, lost some, and saw Fannie Mae (along with Freddie)
expropriated under questionable circumstances.
Nonetheless, the people I encountered on the “other side”
of the issue—for the most part—were/are professionals who have their own perspective
and grounded rationale for their positions (or just were "hired guns.")
While I always wanted to prevail, I never wanted my opponents to suffer or die (maybe experience just a few months of ailments
relived by some regular Pepto Bismol).
As heated as the GSE debate sometimes has gotten, at the figurative
end of the day, everyone goes home to their family and real world reality and gets
on with their lives.
Major
Damage, But No Intentional Fatalities
Although careers intentionally were ruined and lives
disrupted, there have been no fire bombings, car bombs, familial kidnappings, or
associated wanton violence with the assault on Fannie and Freddie.
But Elsewhere in Easy View..
What troubles me, though, is the never ending mayhem, domestic
and international, where antagonists don’t just walk away. Hostilities are religious, geographic,
ideological, or ethnic. They feature blood lust and often culminate in ferocious
violence where hundreds if not thousands are killed.
Millions in our country daily watch and read about them; they
present/handy for us in the United States--because of 24-7 news and today’s instant
communications--and might appear to many downtrodden US residents as a model to
express their frustrations.
“Can
It happen Here in Our Nation?”
My answer is, “Yes.”
In some of the relentless extreme positions which I see
US elected officials engage—at all levels—I wonder as they unknowingly plant seeds of injustice and hate or spread
manure on what has been long sown in our country, risking a true United
States version of racial, economic, and class fratricidal warfare.
At what point do the poor and mainly minorities get tired
of constantly getting the short end?
After what calamitous and brutish public action, do they strike
back, because they have been embarrassed too often, ignored, ground down,
marginalized, abused, overly jailed, disenfranchised, lied to, dealt out America’s
bounty, and ostracized by the establishment?
Do
only “Crazies” respond to “news stories?”
Read some of the readers’ commentary on any news story
which appears on the Internet version of a publication or network news and see
how quickly they become instant “us versus them” with epithets, insults and
put downs hurled by people who take advantage of the Net’s anonymity to spew hate filled messages.
We have enough domestic firepower available and accessible to
fuel those kinds of battles and the masked hatred I see buried in congressional
maneuvers and votes against the interests of the least among us, poor, Black and Brown i.e. voter registration, immigration, food stamps, incarceration, and
on and on seems like putting a lighted match near a fuse.
At what point do some people just strike out at the tyrannical
majority, who may enjoy that label in power but not numbers, and say “enough is
enough.”
Don’t repeat, "It can’t happen here, it can’t happen here,
it can’t happen here. "
Really?
Some might argue that things are shaping up to indeed
make it happen here.
Remember, it’s happened here before, with the urban
violence in the 1970’s and 1980’s.
But when you have an upside down economy which continues
to favor the very powerful and wealthy (the “1%”), how much state
gerrymandering, displays by an ineffective Congress substituting the priorities
of their campaign supporters over common sense and the public’s will, and
similar transgressions will it take before downtrodden people—of all colors and
stripes-- explode taking out their frustration on everyone and every
institution around them which they associate with their despair?
Please
wake up Congress and America.
Take away from this screed what you will, but, tying it
down a bit to what this blog generally discusses, when I see Congress—with no
inhibitions—rushing to give the nation’s primary and secondary mortgage markets
to a group of large banks which seldom go a week without seeing their names
linked to some US or global financial manipulation, I wonder where the common
sense and good judgment of so many went deaf, cold, and then died.
Did I mention a SCOTUS—largely unchanged from today’s
members—violated the GOP’s cherished states’ rights principle and decided the
Florida election for George W. Bush denying the presidential election he won in
2000?
(The
following paragraph was revised slightly after yesterday's SCOTUS decision.)
How about when they opined that corporations are people.
Or this week decided that there is no cap on what folks can spend to pursue
their personal priorities, I see nothing in those which are good for anybody
but the appropriately named “1%.”
We have November elections which now will feature even
more cash thrown to those determined to fence off their perceived "lesser" from
enjoying what the “I always vote GOP” citizens enjoy and take for granted.
If many of the states continue on their path, fewer and
fewer will be allowed to reach the polls, what about that
aspect of America’s First Amendment Rights?
We need to do a hell of a lot better, America.
Maloni,
4-3-2014
(I
am anticipating a lot of negative feedback from those used to reading only
mortgage issues and politics on this blog. The virtue of blogging is that—every
now and then—I get to discuss something truly important and that’s what’s
above.)
8 comments:
Good write-up, Bill. I agree with you...have seen this kind of thing happen.
Sam.
Thanks, Sam.
The scary thing is we have no idea just what will act as a trigger, until it happens and then the response will be overwhelming firepower, which just may not be that overwhelming.
Can it happen here?
If sports fans can riot after a stupid game.
DM--I agree, but that's likely episodic and gets handled that night or over the next day or two, when the booze wears off.
I am thinking bailout a searing cross cultural event which then triggers multiple scenes of sustained rioting and killings, where all sorts of grievances are cited as justification.
Bill
Would you agree that unions should be limited in how much time and money they are allowed to spend in electing officials vs. improving workers conditions? Or giving members of unions the right to have their dues opted out of the political activities of the union?
I do not see liberals so eager to run out and support limiting their funding sources but only those of the opponents. If you do not support the limitations on unions your argument is crass politics trying to defeat one political party and not so much caring for america or any noble cause.
I laugh when you say this is a republican driven item since the D's have had a huge funding advantage in the past two presidential elections. They might be publicly railing against this for political points but they benefit from the money rolling in just as much.
Our founding fathers protected us against people who limit our rights, such as you propose, in the name of "fairness". I agree there is too much money but once the government bans on what the citizens can do to elect someone then all you have left are the wealthy individuals fighting over marketing to the masses to get out the message or, even worse, people are dependent on the whims and biases of the media to pick the winners and losers.
As you see around the world where dictators control all the money and access, the people will rise and rebel if the policies are not correct. If people can be bought off through a deluge of money than they are dumb enough to get the bad politicians they deserve. The winner is not always the person with the most dough.
Rod--Thanks for reading and writing.
Yes, I do think that trade unions should be limited in their spending. They, too, were unleashed in the Citizens United decision.
I also believe that there should be damage/ liability caps on financial damage awards (sorry Trial Lawyers). The latter would/should cut down on those medical costs associated with astronomically night medical insurance fees.
Some of the SCOTUS commentary when discussing this decision are ludicrous(yes, you can hear their voices but not see their pictures).
I don't have the FEC numbers handy, but I will bet--confidentially--that most of the major donors, and many more of them, gave to the GOP.
I am sure that the greatest number, smaller donors, gave to others, mostly Democrats.
You agree with me that there is "too much money in politics." What's your answer to removing some of that money?
Beyond Congress passing a new law, the two court decisions I mentioned--involving, broadly, who can give and how much they can give in federal elections-- set some broad parameters.
But, I would welcome an honest conservative (sorry, I sense that in you) suggestion.
This was a great post. I believe a lot of people feel this way. The level of shamelessness in government has never been higher. The GSE stockholder situation should be a case study in how co-ordinate d the corruption in government is. When you know the truth of a situation down to the most mundane detail because of due diligence or other reason, that is the real eye opener. It truly is scary how bad it is.
Anon--Other than trying to shine a light on this stuff and shouting for others to do the same, I don't have any magic elixirs.
In the F&F case, I am hoping the media--who can reach every Senator on Banking--would query them on what they believe they are doing and why it is dramatically different from what we have?
Do Senators really believe the unbelievably challenging and obstacle filled process they are creating, is worth the effort, especially when consumer costs likely will be much higher and the resulting system won't be as efficient?
Its been in various media but the Senate this past week approved an $85 Billion package of short term tax benefits and paid for them with future federal borrowings, meaning with deficit spending.
How many Senators will own up to that folly or just claim that it will "boost jobs?"
Post a Comment