Progressive Ponderings: A Genuinely Profitable Investment
By Joe Mayer
This year approximately $2.5 billion has been spent on lobbying in the U. S. capital. Most of this “politician-for-hire” money comes from the corporations and extremely wealthy individuals whose source of wealth is the corporate world. This wealth was not accumulated by making poor investment decisions; investments must pay off. Investing in the same thing year after year happens because it continues to reap benefits. Since investment in lobbyists increases annually, even in bad economic times, be assured these investment are paying off handsomely.
Our democracy is built on the principle of “one person, one vote” (a rather socialist concept). Anything thwarting that principle is anti-democratic. By observing the results of extreme lobbying contracts and campaign contributions, we can conclude that the wealthy in our United States has stolen democracy from its principle of “one person, one vote.”
The last Pondering examined our health care crisis and the effect of corporate money on the democratic process. Today, we’ll touch four others: the financial crisis, the energy/environmental problem, the unemployment problem and unions, and internet neutrality. All of these areas have a significant impact on our lives, but corporate interests oppose what the majority of Americans favor.
Describing the financial crisis, Senator Durbin of Illinois stated, “Congress is completely owned by the banks.” We don’t know how much money was spent by the Federal Reserve to bail out the banks, how that money was used, and whether we citizens will ever be repaid. Bankers were hired by both Republican and Democratic administrations to fix the problems that they, the bankers, had caused. As the banks heal they have declared that mortgaged citizens, credit card holders, student loans debtors, and all forms of regulation are the enemy. Their customers – the source of bank income – are treated with disdain to create a greater imbalance of wealth through financial manipulation.
In the area of energy and the environment, the corporate world has delivered a twofold hit to the American citizen/consumer. First, they convinced our government that the nation’s energy resources should be privatized for the benefit of a wealthy few (think Rockefeller). Second, they convinced the government that air, water, and land provide a free sink for the disposal of their waste. Science demonstrates that this disposal is costly in dollars, health and survival, but they deny science and accountability and want us to pay for their irresponsible behavior. It isn’t enough to appropriate our natural resources; they’ve convinced government to use our military so that they can also claim foreign resources. These energy monopolists and polluters extraordinaire spend millions to defeat the will of their citizen/customers.
Labor exploitation is part of Capitalism’s history; government has forced the common laborer to conform to wealth’s desires. For the past thirty years the nation’s wealth has been decreasing for workers as union memberships drop and an increasing disparity in income and wealth grows between workers and capitalists. As wealth inequality increases, democracy necessarily decreases. Capitalists work against the advancement of both workers and consumers on which the business world survives.
The internet has been a leveling influence in the ability of citizens to attain news and knowledge. The old mainstream media feel the economic pinch, and have less control over what qualifies as “news.” Once again, they are turning to government to provide them with internet control. Net neutrality, a very democratic term, doesn’t fit the desires of the top-down, controlling, anti-democratic elite. Once again the corporate world opposes the desires of the citizen/consumer.
The corporate world has attempted to fuse capitalism and democracy into a single concept. They don’t fit. The strong contest currently in progress between corporate power and citizens’ needs indicates that more is at stake than any of the individual issues. Will we continue to believe that we live under democracy if the corporate world continues to purchase plutocracy?
This year approximately $2.5 billion has been spent on lobbying in the U. S. capital. Most of this “politician-for-hire” money comes from the corporations and extremely wealthy individuals whose source of wealth is the corporate world. This wealth was not accumulated by making poor investment decisions; investments must pay off. Investing in the same thing year after year happens because it continues to reap benefits. Since investment in lobbyists increases annually, even in bad economic times, be assured these investment are paying off handsomely.
Our democracy is built on the principle of “one person, one vote” (a rather socialist concept). Anything thwarting that principle is anti-democratic. By observing the results of extreme lobbying contracts and campaign contributions, we can conclude that the wealthy in our United States has stolen democracy from its principle of “one person, one vote.”
The last Pondering examined our health care crisis and the effect of corporate money on the democratic process. Today, we’ll touch four others: the financial crisis, the energy/environmental problem, the unemployment problem and unions, and internet neutrality. All of these areas have a significant impact on our lives, but corporate interests oppose what the majority of Americans favor.
Describing the financial crisis, Senator Durbin of Illinois stated, “Congress is completely owned by the banks.” We don’t know how much money was spent by the Federal Reserve to bail out the banks, how that money was used, and whether we citizens will ever be repaid. Bankers were hired by both Republican and Democratic administrations to fix the problems that they, the bankers, had caused. As the banks heal they have declared that mortgaged citizens, credit card holders, student loans debtors, and all forms of regulation are the enemy. Their customers – the source of bank income – are treated with disdain to create a greater imbalance of wealth through financial manipulation.
In the area of energy and the environment, the corporate world has delivered a twofold hit to the American citizen/consumer. First, they convinced our government that the nation’s energy resources should be privatized for the benefit of a wealthy few (think Rockefeller). Second, they convinced the government that air, water, and land provide a free sink for the disposal of their waste. Science demonstrates that this disposal is costly in dollars, health and survival, but they deny science and accountability and want us to pay for their irresponsible behavior. It isn’t enough to appropriate our natural resources; they’ve convinced government to use our military so that they can also claim foreign resources. These energy monopolists and polluters extraordinaire spend millions to defeat the will of their citizen/customers.
Labor exploitation is part of Capitalism’s history; government has forced the common laborer to conform to wealth’s desires. For the past thirty years the nation’s wealth has been decreasing for workers as union memberships drop and an increasing disparity in income and wealth grows between workers and capitalists. As wealth inequality increases, democracy necessarily decreases. Capitalists work against the advancement of both workers and consumers on which the business world survives.
The internet has been a leveling influence in the ability of citizens to attain news and knowledge. The old mainstream media feel the economic pinch, and have less control over what qualifies as “news.” Once again, they are turning to government to provide them with internet control. Net neutrality, a very democratic term, doesn’t fit the desires of the top-down, controlling, anti-democratic elite. Once again the corporate world opposes the desires of the citizen/consumer.
The corporate world has attempted to fuse capitalism and democracy into a single concept. They don’t fit. The strong contest currently in progress between corporate power and citizens’ needs indicates that more is at stake than any of the individual issues. Will we continue to believe that we live under democracy if the corporate world continues to purchase plutocracy?
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
Joe,
Always enjoy reading your commentaries.
Isn’t the real question : Will we recognize what is being done to us ?
And the follow-up : How will we react ?
As you ponder that, consider the recent election in NY-23.
Club for Growth, one of the nation's leading free-enterprise special interest groups, spent $1,022,040 in support of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. The expenditures included at least 1,597 television commercials.
The National Republican Congressional Committee spent $897,404 on its candidate, Dede Scozzafava, who dropped out prior to the election. The expenditures included at least 1,520 TV ads. The NRCC gets its funding from individuals and special interest groups.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent $1,111,136 on its candidate Bill Owens which included at least 1,592 TV ads. The DCCC gets its funding from individuals and special interest groups.
Besides this the candidates themselves raised monies and bought television time. There were also smaller (although it would be a significant amount in any of our family’s budgets) amounts spent by AFSCME, SEIU and Common Sense.
So, what was the result of these efforts to influence the voter’s minds and motivate them to go into the voting booth and support the special interests’ candidate ?
With 97% precincts reporting, the winner was declared as Democrat Bill Owens, but the real loser was elected representative government.
Despite all that money, the turnout was lower than previous contests.
Owens got 66,526 votes … roughly what a Democrat would expect to get in this race based on the past three elections (66,448 in 2004, 62,318 in 2006, and 69,112 in 2008)
But the other candidates lost their supporters. Combining the Conservative Party and Republican Party results would be 69,294 … but look at how low that is versus previous cycles. In 2002, Republican John McHugh ran unopposed in a non-presidential cycle, yet still brought out 124,682 voters. In 2004, he got 160,079, in 2006 106,781 and in 2008, he got 129,991. Clearly 40 to 60,000 eligible voters decided they did not want to participate.
The results are that the Special Interest groups have so polluted the election process that voters are tuning out. It is irrelevent that the Democrat won -- the lower the voter turnout, the greater the influence of the Special Interests.
Citing the Internet and Net Neutrality, brings the other real concern. In the old days, the media provided broader coverage and performed a real investigative journalistic function …. Today, with sites like Townhall, Drudge, Huffington Post, etc., people are getting their news from sources that are re-enforce existing perceptions … compound this with talk radio and hosted programs at FOX and MSNBC, and a citizen’s mind is closing to alternative thoughts as “opinion” is being accepted as “facts”.
Post a Comment
<< Home