Friday's Odds and Ends

This post originally appeared in October 2008, but it could apply to today's political race with just a few name changes. It is either incredibly sad or incredibly funny that history just keeps repeating and repeating and repeating....

Let's All Take a Break

The latest political news has Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama declining public funding for his campaign. He says because of problems with the system, but some political analysts say the reason has more to do with the fact that by declining to participate in public funding, Obama can raise double the $85 million that is the most allowed in the public funding system.

$170 million dollars on a political campaign?

Oh, wait. That is only part of the total to be spent between now and November because on the Republican side, John McCain will raise at least $85 million. So at a minimum, $255 million is going to be spent buying votes. I don't know what you think, but I think that is obscene, especially because that is on top of the millions that have already been spent on the primaries.

I briefly thought I would like to know what the total is that all candidates spent since the primaries began, but decided my blood pressure is better off not knowing.

Here's a novel idea. Why don't we all take a break from politics. Gosh, it's not like we don't know everything we need to know about these candidates after years of the primary campaign.

Okay, it was only one year, but it felt like twenty.

The candidates could take a two month break and rest up for the last big push in September and October. And instead of wasting $255 million dollars, maybe each candidate spends about $10 million in those two months on national advertising.

And in those ads, they can tell us what they are going to do about key issues like the war in Iraq, the budget, health care, global warming, and revamping the political system so it doesn't pander to special interest.

It was once said that anyone could grow up to be president of the United States. Maybe that was true in the late 1800's, but not any more. You have to grow up to be incredibly rich first.

Want My Vote?

Looks like we dodged the bullet one more time and the whole global financial system is not going to implode after all. The stock market has recovered somewhat, and banks are getting assistance from government. The financial life of the world goes on.

But have we learned anything from this near-disaster? Is anything going to change in the way business is conducted? Are we going to continue to over spend, over borrow, over speculate, and over lend?

And what is this bailout going to do to the national debt?

The money has to come from somewhere, and since we are already borrowing millions, maybe billions, to cover the cost of government, the cost of the war, the cost of social services, where is this extra money coming from?

I am not an economist, and some people may find my approach to global economy a bit too simplified, but I'm savvy enough to know that borrowing to solve the banking problem is a short-term fix with some serious long-term negative effects.

So, to me, balancing the federal budget has become the primary issue for the coming election and is what the government should be focused on for the foreseeable future.

And may I make a suggestion to the next president-elect, why not cancel 95 percent of the inaugural ceremonies and parties that cost millions of dollars, and ask the lobbyists who pay for most of the parties to donate those millions to the cause of saving the economy. If you thought the general public was disgusted with the AIG execs who partied hearty after their recent bailout, imagine the reaction to the lavish inaugural parties.

Whoever is willing to do that, as well as stop all non-essential spending will have my vote.

We Don't Need no Stinkin' Superdelegates

With the presidential candidates from the Democratic party in a race that may not be decided by the primaries and caucuses, the 800 super-delegates might get to pick the nominee for that party. And one newscaster recently commented that, "they can vote on a whim."

A whim? One of the most important political decisions in this country can be decided on a whim?

Does anyone else find this beyond believable?

We have gone so far from "representation of the people" that it is no wonder we have such poor showings at the polls. Too many people think that government no longer responds to the voters so why bother.

Well, we do need to bother, and maybe that way government will start listening. But that is a topic for another blog.

The other day I had lunch with a friend, whose intelligence I highly respect, and we discussed this whole mess of a political system. She agreed with me that there needs to be some changes, but didn't agree that significant change was possible. Her comment was that the system is way too big and interdependent to be able to simplify.

We did agree that in an ideal world, all leaders would be benevolent and truly work for the people, but we don't live in an ideal world. Governments are run by people and people are flawed creatures. They don't always do the right thing.

But I don't think that fact leaves us at the mercy of the status quo. There is still room for political reform, and I think the first thing to go should be the super-delegates. Then maybe do away with delegates all together. Let the nominee be picked by the popular vote, and maybe save the millions that are spent on the conventions.

Just a thought.... Anyone else?