Politicians

 

Editorial

      The present political campaigns are abusive, without specific suggestions, full of hate, and carry their war cries with radio, television, and personal appearances. Do we have to put up with this for the rest ofthe year? I suppose we do. Some say this is the price we pay for freedom, or democracy, or something like that. It is a high price. I have the naive notion that good manners could be observed even in elections. They will not be observed because, while candidates say they are interested in the welfare of the country, they are principally interested in glory, getting and spending money, and, in the present election, cultivating hatred of President Bush. One can only guess at reasons for this hatred. Is it because he is a simple person, that is, without affectation, with a simple religion, clear notions of right and wrong, a belief in American traditions, freedom, and responsibility? In today’s climate, these beliefs are naive.

      We have had legislation recently to purify election campaigns. In 1974, the Federal Elections Campaign Act made it illegal in some circumstances to publish opinions about candidates running for office. The 2002 Campaign Reform Act went further. There shall be no soft money contributions and/or issue ads on television and radio. This denies the U.S. Constitution which says there will be no abridging freedom of speech, or of the press. That justices of the Supreme Court of the United States would deny the basic principles of the country astounds us more than the denial of freedom to the people asserted by Congress. This is the kind of behavior practiced by dictatorships.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), said,

This bill is about slowing the ad war. It is about slowing political advertising and making sure the flow of negative ads by outside interest groups does not continue to permeate the airwaves.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Cal.) said,

These so-called issues ads are not regulated at all and mention candidates by name. They directly attack candidates without any accountability. They are brutal. We have to stop that.

      When legislation overturns the U.S. Constitution and our cherished freedoms, we have to ask the purpose. The purpose is obvious: those in office will do anything to keep themselves in office. For the past ten years, the average reelection rate for incumbents was more than 98 percent. In several recent election cycles more incumbents died in office than were defeated at the polls.

      McCain-Feingold legislation prevented competition for seats and limited personal contributions to $2,000. Candidates get around this inconvenience by financing themselves or setting up foundations, foundations that return it to the politicians. The latter is deceitful; the former opens the door only for millionaires. Senator Kerry uses his wife’s money, which is in excess of $300 million. Senator Dayton of Minnesota used $6 million of the fortune he inherited to get himself elected to the Senate. Senator Edwards, presently running for office, made millions of dollars as legal counsel for malpractice suits, one of the major reasons for the problems of medicine. The pursuit of glory can be expensive, particularly at the federal level, but many candidates think it worth every penny.

      Tom A. Coburn, M.D., Republican, a former U.S. Congressman of the class of ‘94, has written Breach of Trust, How Washington Turns Outsiders into Insiders. You should buy and read this book if you want to know how government works. Congressional bills are so massive and complicated legislators have little understanding of their content. They neither read them nor write them; they are written by legislative assistants. Said Dr. Coburn about his class,

With 35,000 aids, Congress had nine times as many staff as any other legislative body in the world, including the old Soviet Parliament.

Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.V.), a joke in Congress in spite of much pontificating, and a great promoter of pork for his state, was caught in an interesting statement.

Do I know what’s in this bill? Are you kidding? Only God knows! If the voters really understood what we were up to they’d vote us out of office.

This confession of corruption did not stop him from getting $100 million for a new prison and $2 million for the National Center for Cool and Coldwater Aquaculture, both in his home state.

      Not all, but much of the corruption in office is centered in the Appropriation Committee. The first duty of the Appropriation Committee is to funnel money to members whose reelection is doubtful. They get pork. If a representative objects, he is quickly told that no measure he supports will receive any vote for anything. There may be a genuine need, but that is of no importance. He has to obey the rules—“Your vote depends on you voting for my project.”

      The spoils system is followed by Republicans and Democrats. Tom Coburn was offered $15 million for anything he wanted. Lindsey Graham was offered $15 million for anything he wanted. Sue Rick was offered $15 million for her vote, which she reported to ABC’s Evening News. Tom Burn reported his unasked-for gifts to the media, making Chairman Shooter livid, and moving him to write a long letter justifying the unasked-for gifts. Burn pointed out that President Eisenhower’s interstate highway system was built without pork, the largest construction project of all time. President Reagan vetoed a bill with 150 pork projects, but the bill presented in Coburn’s time had 1,400 pork projects. He wrote,

Every $7 million transportation museum or $4 million bike path diverts funds from higher priority projects when safety might be a serious concern.

      Newt Gingrich was supposed to be the leader in the reform Congress in 1994, but he betrayed his principles early. He secured $450 million for the construction of seven C-130J transport planes in his district, though the Pentagon ordered only one, and he consistently opposed those who put principle before money. Republicans who had spent ten to twelve years in the minority, and many of those who got elected by advocating term limits, quickly saw the light and refused to do anything that would return them to exile. They decided to behave as did the Democrats and become career politicians, voting for what would bring them or their districts privileges, ensuring their reelection.

      Early in his career, Tom Coburn spoke with Speaker Hastert about the need to rein in spending. Speaker Hastert knew the problem and listened sympathetically. Senator Lott came in. After listening to Coburn’s remarks,

He rested his chin on his hand and said in his Mississippi, baritone drawl, “Well, I’ve got an electon coming up in 2000. After that we can have good government.”

      The corruption in our legislature is not total because there are some honest men in both parties, and some legislative sessions are conducted with good manners and attention to the subject matter; but many investigations that are televised nationally are vicious though they have a pretense of good manners. Would the behavior be different if the session were not televised? It would be worse. Legislative investigations are political tools as well as examinations of problems.

      We have an election this year, and we should know the real division between the two parties. The Democrats believe in taxing and spending. This pleases their special interests, chiefly minorities, unions, and romantics who believe money can solve social ills. They centralize power to achieve these goals. The Republicans are supposed to believe in restraining spending and the centralization of power. They promote the historic principles of the country, normal morals, limited government at the federal level, freedom, and individual responsibility. They support business because it is the only activity that produces wealth. Sadly, Republicans have been out-spending Democrats in the present Congress. This has to stop if they are to retain their base.

      All politicians are beholden to special interests and hire lobbyists to achieve their goal. Cities press for favors at the expense of other cities. Any group that wants something hires a lobbyist. Corporations hire lobbyists because politicians attack them and regulate them; they must defend their existence. Corporations are so wealthy that they are fair game, according to politicians. I would like someone to name these wicked, wealthy corporations so I could invest in them. Politicians use businessmen to collect taxes they impose. While lambasting business as evil and demanding money from them, there is no recognition that corporations pay no taxes; they add taxes to the cost of their products if they are to stay in business. Consumers pay all taxes.

      Some politicians argue that they will increase employment and make up for the loss of jobs that result from the global economy. The closing of our borders will decrease employment and wealth. The cry to close our borders is impossible. This is not to deny that globalization brings problems, but candidates for office who promise to increase employment by closing our borders demand increased regulation of business. Business cannot be regulated without destroying it. If business is competitive it will be honest. The enemy is monopoly, which will not be if we have competition. We should check our memory of socialist societies. Life flows and we must flow with it. We did this when telephones replaced smoke signals and automobiles replaced horses, and we have to do it now.

      Medicine is said to be a great problem. It is. I submit that the centralization of medicine in Washington is not the answer. The federal government is too large and too corrupt and financially irresponsible to be trusted with taking care of our health. Governments that socialize medicine have medicine that is unsatisfactory in cost and quality. You wait in line for treatment, and it could take months. Countries with centralized medicine are poor, made poor in part by their centralizing the cost of medicine. Doctors are loaded with red tape as they conform to the instruction of politicians, detracting from efficiency, and they practice medicine in fear of malpractice suits.

      Minnesota has a health plan that could be a model. I have heard no criticism of it. Minnesota Care is for those who have no insurance, paid for by taxes and premiums from those enrolled. The premiums vary according to the income and family size of the enrollee. Those under 21 years of age and pregnant women make no co-payments. Inpatient hospital services are limited to $10,000, with a co-payments of 10 percent for those over 21. Dental services are included in the program. The Minnesota program may not be perfect. The great advantage is that it is local and there are no complaints. It is harmonious with American traditions that locate authority downwards.

      I do not know a satisfactory solution for medical needs and I am perhaps naive in believing that an important part of the solution is love and respect among members of a family. There was a time when children took care of their aged parents when they could not look after themselves. With a standard of living that demands husband and wife both work, this is almost impossible, but it should be remembered. I recall a conference I attended many years ago when a young lady from Iceland said a home would not be a home without an old person.

      The anticipated cost of Medicare at $534 billion over the decade ending in 2013 can be added to the Social Security disaster when income from tax revenue will not be sufficient to pay committed expenses; but the problems are not discussed. The present unfunded liability of Social Security is nearly $12 trillion, and no one turns a hair! Social Security income still exceeds expenses but the surplus is spent on current programs. There is no Trust Fund, and there cannot be without the Federal government becoming a major player in the business world.

      Added to our financial folly, we have extensive moral corruption: vulgar language in public discourse, beastly television programs aimed at children, attacks on marriage in the courts and in politics. We have a world-wide guerilla warfare with intelligent, well-armed barbarians who live to kill us and Western civilizations; and we answer these problems with a presidential campaign based on hatred, with no constructive suggestions. Is the two-party system the root of the problem? The two-party system was not favored by the founding fathers, save Jefferson, because of the dreadful behavior that flows from politicians who sink to any level to achieve glory.

      The country must preserve our best traditions: limited government and individual responsibility. The federal government must be limited to areas defined in the U.S. Constitution. If politicians run on this platform, we may give our children a vibrant country without corruption. Reagan succeeded on this platform, and so must we.     Ω

“Of what use can equality in ballots be when power is so unevenly distributed, and political decisions must obey the majority of dollars rather than the majority of men?” —Will Durant, Pleasure of Philosophy, P. 291