ELECTION FEVER

 

 

 

I am a registered Independent. I find it abhorrent to bond with either major political party after the divisive governance of the last few Administrations. As an Independent I also avoid unwanted party junk mail and political phone solicitations for contributions during election season. It is my hope that eventually enough independently minded voters will encourage a charismatic, intelligent and qualified individual with the ability to direct a viable third party and counter the monopoly of our dual party system to make a bid for the presidency.

 

Some casual observations from atop of my tractor in Westcliffe:

 

The Republicans believe that every problem in America can be solved by fostering large, medium and small businesses. There is merit to that theory, but the people guiding these principles in Congress and the Executive branch are generally far from astute business people. Some of them, excluding their time in public service, have rarely had to dirty their hands as wage earners. With their astounding lack of knowledge about commerce, they rely on various lobby groups to fine tune laws and taxes that usually include vast lapses in consumer protection. At the same time, they have their own social agenda concerning key global issues like same-sex unions and abortion. Republicans believe that individuals, not the government, should be responsible for themselves. That is unless the individual happens to be a Congressional member and has access to lavish expense accounts and pensions.

 

The Democrats admire themselves from a perch of intellectual social responsibility. Although many are as wealthy as some Republicans (inherited wealth in some cases), they tout income redistribution, confident their own funds are safely ensconced in tax shelters and trusts. Their social engineering programs are often covert, but they are well entrenched in our public education system and other unionized monopolies.

 

The current Democratic platform calls for more taxes and more spending, as opposed to the Republicans who support less taxes and more spending. Democrats believe the government should be more intrusive in individual’s lives and their party should provide moral and ethical leadership models.

 

Although, both parties are proponents of family values, neither appears to be libido challenged. They each have sterling representatives like Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, Jesse Jackson, John Edwards, Henry Hyde and Mark Foley. Financial improprieties abound with Ted Stevens seemingly in the lead with the latest round of abusive practices while in office.

 

The dual-party problem is perpetuated by the media. If one is Liberal-leaning he gathers his relevant political information from Air America, MSNBC or the network nightly news. If one has conservative tendencies then Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity are programmed into TV and radio dials. Incessant fringe ranting from talk show hosts serves to reinforce one’s core beliefs, as listening to the other side might provoke a horrible case of enlightenment. I am not a fan of Michael Moore, Al Franken or Rush Limbaugh, but the folly of their never ending diatribes should eventually enable intelligent interchange amongst more reasonable people. Without dialog, progress becomes impossible.

 

The bane of the airwaves, though, is Ann Coulter. Her often bigoted, egregious and empty remarks must fall on the most ignorant ears. She is an expert at creating extreme psychodrama from any tidbit of minutia. If Ann Coulter looked like Janet Reno instead of a retro playboy bunny, her celebrity wattage would be zero.

 

Our electorate often gathers and forms political viewpoints from the most biased sources. One should not assume that a TV or radio commenter actually has an in-depth understanding of any issue. They are simply reading texts prepared by their staff whose job it is to slant news to accommodate the perceived listening audience. They are not educating us, but reinforcing our own beliefs. When radio talk show hosts take telephone calls on the fly, they often have assistants readily available with relevant answers and occasional facts. (Political opinions aside Mike Rosen is an exception as are Jim Lehrer and Gwen Eiffel from PBS. The loss of Tim Russert has been a devastating blow to insightful interviewing and journalism in America.)

 

If we all remain content to rely on the propaganda produced by negative political campaign ads, then we will get the leadership we deserve. The most incompetent people will surface to power solely for employing the right advertising agency, wearing the right clothes or choosing the right photo opportunities. We are drawn to froth instead of substance because watching TV or listening to radio is easier than reading impartial books or searching the internet for accurate facts.

 

The number of registered Independent voters is growing substantially in America. This is a positive sign; the thoughtful political middle is hopefully beginning to exert some common sense that will eventually show the way to quality leadership in the White House and the halls of Congress.

 

HELP ME VOTE in this election by registering and responding with your comments to www.kwmv.org/blog

 

 

The Chains of Change

It appears Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) is the latest example of the lapse of ethics in Congress. He has not done anything technically corrupt under the Congressional rules. He has merely failed to report the value of a rebuilt house and a new car which were gifts. I am not sure the Jack Abramoff scandal has been swept under the rug, but on the precipice of the November elections it appears both Republicans and Democrats show little interest in exposing the extent of lavish lobbying in exchange for favorable legislation. William Jefferson (D-Louisiana) has given new meaning to the term “cold cash,” and legally pursuing this discovery appears to have been swept under the freezer until after the election.

 

My friends point out that the Bush administration has systematically gutted the Congressional Ethics Committee. They may be right. I wonder why an ethics committee should be necessary when, by virtue of their office, Congress should abide by the highest individual and collective moral and ethical standards. There was a time when good governance was an aspiration before it deteriorated in to a commercial enterprise for a chosen few in both political parties.

 

We continually seek honesty and competence in government and we are continually disappointed. It would seem that term limits have been long overdue but this would mean our Legislative branch would need to legislate their own demise. Tenure generates mediocrity, fosters corruption and frequently prevents more qualified candidates from attaining office. Many former congressional servants decide that a career in lobbying is even more lucrative than public service. This option is permitted after a two-year hiatus from Congress. It should be prohibited altogether as profiteering from access to government officials crosses ethical boundaries.

 

Laws should only have a life of five years, at which point they should be reviewed, tweaked and examined as to their effectiveness and their renewal open to debate. The General Accounting Office should be able to disclose the five year cost to taxpayers and the estimate for future costs. Every law has consequences, many unintended and unexpected. For example, funding provisions that lose relevance over time often remain part of the ever-expanding federal budget; temporary solutions always find their way to permanency.

 

It is no wonder congressional approval is at a lower level than our President’s. In spite of the abysmal approval numbers for Congress, sometimes in the single digits, on average 97 percent of incumbents get re-elected. Educated electorate has become an oxymoron.

 

The 110^th Congress, now in recess, passed only a minimal amount of legislation, none of which truly addressed the obvious ongoing problems in our country. Of the 260 laws that were passed, 74 were for renaming post offices.  

 

Bills that go through Congress are often not even read by our representatives. A bright young staff is always available for the grunt work of reading a piece of legislation on behalf of our congressperson. These bills are produced like sausage:  A little bit of good meat is used but most of it comprises parts that should have been thrown out. Bills have titles that are sexy and politically important, but they always include unrelated items and earmarks that are rarely challenged.

 

The noble sounding American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 contains many nonrelated items. One is a provision that the federal government is to track, aggregate and report all credit card and debit card transactions to the IRS. Big brother is watching through a microscope at another excessive cost to the taxpayers.

 

Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) has been consistent in his criticism of this process and has been castigated by his own party. He finds little support on either side of the aisle in his battle against the overwhelming pork or costly items constantly hidden in legislation.

 

Lawyers account for about 70 percent of Congress, hardly a good demographic representation of our country. An affirmative action program might be considered to elect plumbers, teachers and other people who actually have had the experience of earning a living in America. Short of out-sourcing, it is difficult to envision anything better than more of the same if we continue to keep in office the identical group that has brought this country to near crisis in many areas.

 

If our new president wants to change anything, he must have the courage and tenacity to attack the system. He must be willing to appoint the best candidates for the most crucial positions in his administration and not incompetent party hacks or large donors. He must not rely on Congress to police itself, but he will need to be proactive and impose the highest ethical standards to change the mentality of feeding at the public trough.  He must be willing to impose programs that are best for our country even if they alienate a voting block. As we have seen with too many presidents, it is the system that put them in office and after elections they have little incentive or motivation to change it.