Deficits and Military Spending

Just a quick post on war and economics.

Southern Beale wrotethis concerning the truth about some deficit hawks.

And try reading the full article concerning World Military spending. here
The article is both textual and visual, full of charts. This is an updated article and is one you may want to read and re-read. (I find I must read it in pieces to get full value from it. Getting old ya know.)

Now, tell me why am I cynical.

More on We Want but...

I may have to eat my words.

As an update to my rant I add these points that may be of interest.
In my own fine state, it appears we close schools while keeping a nice tax break for large boats, I call them lake yachts. According to a report in the KC Star we cannot be sure of the costs to the state,

In the last seven years, the state auditor has asked the Revenue Department three times to come up with such a figure, but revenue officials declined, maintaining that it would “increase the burden of reporting on taxpayers.”

As recently as last month, the auditor noted that “the cost in terms of reduced state revenue for each exemption cannot be determined.”

Read more: In a time of budget cuts, yacht sales sail through untaxed in Missouri - KansasCity.com link

And go to this link for a few states that handled their budget problems differently. Just look for the section marked State Progressives in bold type. In that section will be many more links if you want to be sure of what you read.

Maybe some are willing to pay for what they want. Maybe just maybe I will have to eat my words.

Getting Money Out of "OUR" Government, maybe

When you look at what is happening with the so-called health care reform maybe you are like me thinking why. Answer:There is a huge problem--the monies the lobbies and the corps spend. This problem seems to rear its ugly head issue after issue.

So what to do???
Maybe the answer lies in campaign reform.

Meanwhile, the states have been plagued by the same problems afflicting campaigns for federal office. As the costs of campaigning for statewide office and state legislative seats skyrocketed over the last few decades, legislators have begun to place greater emphasis on fundraising. PACs,

http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_pac.shtml ,

and large donors have played an increasing role as sources of campaign revenue, and incumbents have been outspending challengers by larger and larger sums.

http://www.newrules.org/governance/rules/campaign-finance-reform

About the only way I can think of to change the balance is to challenge the way “our” elected officials get money for campaigns. But, what about the free speech issue and freedom of the press? http://www.newrules.org/governance/rules/campaign-finance-reform/campaign-finance-reform-buckley-v-valeo And See: http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/court.html

Basically the courts say that candidates' must be given the right to opt in or out of any system of campaign finance. Maine is one state where the court upheld their version because it is voluntary.
The Maine law is a little different though:

Maine's campaign finance law, known as the Clean Elections Act is different from those in other states because those who agree to accept public funding must forgo any private contributions (beyond a small amount of "seed money" and qualifying contributions) and run an entirely "clean" campaign.
The law was passed by Maine voters in a referendum in 1996 and came into effect in 2000. Candidates who demonstrate citizen support by collecting a set number of $5 qualifying contributions from voters within their districts (50 contributions for a State House race, 150 for the state Senate, and 2,500 for a gubernatorial race) are eligible for fixed and equal campaign funding from the Clean Election Fund. To receive their money, candidates must agree to forgo all private contributions (including self-financing), and limit their spending to the amount from the fund.

http://www.newrules.org/governance/rules/campaign-finance-reform/campaign-finance-reform-maine

Other states have “clean election” laws.

A Supreme Court decision in January 2000, Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, was the court's first ruling on campaign contributions and free speech since Buckley v. Vale. In it the court essentially reaffirmed Buckley vs. Valeo, by allowing state limits to campaign contributions, but not spending, so long as the contribution limit was not "so radical...as to...drive the sound of a candidate's voice below the level of notice, and render contributions pointless." However, the decision did counter a trend whereby federal courts have recently been striking down contribution limits even above the $1,000 (per individual) permitted in Buckley v. Valeo.
As of 2008, five states have passed "clean election" laws, laws that provide public money for state election campaigns if a candidate agrees to strict spending limits.
Maine was the first state to enact such a law, by voter referendum, in 1996.
In June 1997, Vermont became the first state to pass a bill modeled after the Maine law through its legislature. Both laws served as models for the clean election initiatives passed by Arizona and Massachusetts voters in November, 1998. The Massachusetts law, however, was repealed by the legislature in 2003. Connecticut's legislature passed a clean election bill in 2005, and it was amended in 2006 to remove an unnecessary step for third party candidates.
New Mexico expanded the program to include candidates for judgeships on the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court of New Mexico in 2007.
New Jersey's legislature passed a clean elections pilot project in 2004, which put into place two legislative districts for the November 2005 election. Following its success, three more districts have been selected to be part of the 2007 Fair and Clean Elections Pilot Project.
Out of State Contributions
Out-of-state or out-of-district campaign contributions corrupt the political process because an elected official may become more beholden to these contributors than to the community she represents. Alaska and Oregon have adopted limits on out-of-state or out-of-district contributors. Both have been overruled by federal courts as violations of the First Amendment. While the Oregon law has been repealed, the Alaska law has been suspended and is on appeal in the Alaska Supreme Court.
Because these laws so well embody the principles of localism and republicanism, the New Rules Project offers them here as models that should be reinstated.

http://www.newrules.org/governance/rules/campaign-finance-reform

All this is really great but as long as it is voluntary, in the name of free speech, I am not sure what good it all is. (By the way another thought just occurred to me. Note the Out of State restriction on Alaska's law. Maybe this is why Palin left office early? Why wait for the Alaska Supreme Court to decide. Maybe you just run from another state?)

I really do hate“Out of State Contributions”. It lets any big group, or its lobby, to select even your state and local candidates for you. Suppose you are big Energy and there is a reliable Energy candidate in some state-you will put your money where their mouth is. Now I realize too that the reverse may be true, Green Energy may like a candidate in your state or local government so they can back them.
But shouldn't each state's population be deciding their own government therefore their own laws and taxes spent. Maybe that wouldn't work either. Some would just move from a red state to a liberal blue state somewhere. Or the conservative would move to a nice red state. Actually this is happening on a small scale already. Well, one thing about it when the media draws its election forecast maps it would be easier. Or would some pay somebody else to move into the opposite view state. Hey this has the makings of a great movie or short story.
So just as the health care laws are difficult and hard to write, I can imagine the nightmare of election reform. Nothing worthwhile is ever easy and laws are, or at least should be, difficult to write. But, it may be the only chance we have to get at least some money out of the system.

For those who love charts and statistics here is an interesting site. http://www.cfinst.org/data/VitalStats.aspx

Here is a link to a “working paper”, for a forthcoming book, on campaign finance “after Obama”. The beginning sentence is an attention grabber about the total collapse of public funding for Presidential campaigns. http://www.cfinst.org/president/pdf/PresidentialWorkingPaper_April09.pdf

I highly recommend you visit Vote Smart to take a look information on Congresspersons. It is an excellent site. I thought about volunteering to work for them years ago. Very fair-minded site. http://www.votesmart.org/ I couldn't get their widget added but will try again. Also this group may be one to consider a donation if you can.

Then too maybe we just need to redefine corporations as entities when it comes to the Constitution. This will be the next post.

P.S. Note the italics on the section about the "Oregon law". I stand corrected by Dan(please see comments section). He states it is not a law it is an amendment to the Oregon Constitution and has not been repealed. Also see where they were working to change http://www.afd-pdx.org/E-mails/2009_CAMPAIGN_FINANCE_REFORM-1.html

What a mess.

As I read this morning; liberals- President Obama's supporters, are not fighting back against the mobs threatening the town-hall meetings of Congresspeople. I read there are even death threats received by some Congressmen. How do you fight that kind of mentality? I am too old and too little to brawl.

What Can Be Done?
It's time that this whole shabby (and insane) business be exposed, vilified in run out of town on a rail by whatever responsible Republicans -- if any -- that are still in the party and who want to see the fortunes of their party revived. Republican leaders taking insurance industry money via lobbying firms and using it to organize what amounts to roving bands of thugs not only need to be exposed but thrown out of the public debate forever.  They should become absolute pariahs.  

It's time to give this garbage in name: insurance industry funded fascism.
Right-Wing Turncoat Gives the Inside Scoop on Why Conservatives Are Rampaging Town Halls

By Frank Schaeffer, AlterNet. Posted August 7, 2009.

Of course Republicans aren't the only ones getting monies from the health-care big boys. But they are the ones behind most of the mobs.

Then too there are the brilliant ones at FOX news. Here is a fine example of the brilliant bulbs' work. (Be sure to read what the real story is on the great conspiracy.)
Beck conspiracy theory: "Cash for clunkers" site lets Feds control your PC, by Jed Lewison Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 09:32:03 AM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/1/760538/-Beck-conspiracy-theory:-Cash-for-clunkers-site-lets-Feds-control-your-PC

So all an older lazy person like me is try to put out the REAL word as best they can find anyway.

Republicans Propagating Falsehoods in Attacks on Health-Care Reform
By Steven Pearlstein
Friday, August 7, 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/06/AR2009080603854.html?hpid=news-col-blog

Here is another interesting viewpoint to read. You Do Not Have Health Insurance
Wednesday 05 August 2009by: James Kwak as posted on truthout.org.

And now in defense of President Obama in general. Let's have a little list of unimportant accomplishments for which this President is responsible.
Unemployment is slowing earlier than expected. (We know how we got the high numbers in the first place now, don't we. I don't think the present Administration caused it.)
We have a new Supreme Court Justice. (Not a right-winger either.)
The Cash for Clunkers program is working better than expected. (Now, why is it we needed it? Oh, previous administration again.)
Soldiers are leaving Iraq. (Don't blame this President if Iraq becomes a mess either. We all know how we got there.)
There are more soldiers and equipment in Afghanistan. (If you are going to have war, at least put some effort into it. Previous Administration again.)
As of yesterday the DOW was up 17% since President Obama took office. (Can we remember how we got this mess in the first place?)

So when this President is losing poll numbers, I think we have very short memories and expectations were very high when he won the election. But, read Vanity Fair, February, 2009 and you will think this guy is a gift from above. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/02/bush-oral-history200902

The right and corporate America use tactics learned from Bush's great one, Karl Rove. What a guy!
From the Vanity Fair article this quote: “I remember that Rove was out there talking at some events about how we'd use 9/11, run on 9/11 in the midterms and that it was important to do so.” (Scott McClellan) And: “Karl wasn't receptive to ideas that would've called the country to certain things and brought them to a common purpose...Karl came from a perspective of you defeat people in politics by calling one side bad and one side good.” (Matthew Dowd)

There is an article too in the issue Fannie Mae's Last Stand. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/02/fannie-and-freddie200902 . “...But, for decades, Fannie Mae had been under siege from powerful enemies, who resented its privileged status, its hard-driving C. E. O.'s, and its huge profits.”

And please don't give me the old stuff like: “That's right bring up Bush.” I will and I shall.
He is responsible for the messes with which this President is dealing. Future Presidents will be dealing with them too for a long time to come. We all will! Eight years of disasters leaving a legacy for years and years to come. I still wonder if that was the plan all along.

How Not to Write or What a Wonder, the Internet

What can I say. As I do research on a subject of interest I find so much on so many related areas, I can't stay focused.

So far the past few days I found much on the military-industrial complex which led to the military budgets since WWII, which led to government spending, which led to budget comparisons of many slices of the budget pie. (By the way, I'm not sure we can call it a budget.)

Guess it is time for an outline. I am older-we were taught to use outlines. Maybe I should say it is time for multiple outlines.

The more I use this wonderful tool, the Internet, the more I appreciate it.
What a great library. Not that I still don't value libraries, the brick and mortar types. Yet it sure is handy to sit in your pj's while you learn so much.

See, here I go:
It occurred to me the other day when the government had to fly Senators back and forth to get them to vote on the "stimulus package" that our government has not figured out some way to use IT to better advantage. You would think they could figure out some way to let those people who are ill or some such to vote from another location. Where is Homeland Security on this one. I remember a dedicated line between the White House and the Kremlin.

The previous paragraph was not a complete digression. It had to do with my appreciation of the availability of information and of the wonders of this age.

Yes, this age has many downsides but many wonders too.