How Does Supreme Court Decision Serve The People?
The recent Supreme Court decision to allow corporations unlimited spending on political ads was the right decision in the case. It is not something we should be cheering for in the larger sense of what it means for American politics.
One good thing about this decision is that it levels the playing field by granting corporations the same advantages Unions and other organizations have when it comes to political campaigns and support of candidates. Another positive twist is that the level of awareness and debate could increase significantly; specifically by exposing a segment of the population who would otherwise be ill-informed in general about politics because what they know is only what they see in TV advertisements in their respective markets.
But this case is an isolated one, which does not address the real problem…the fact that too much money in politics not only adds to corruption but also makes it virtually impossible for the average citizen to campaign and compete in elections.
Many people on the right argue that this is about the First Amendment right to free speech. I don’t agree with that. The corporation is not an individual that can participate in rights. For example, does a corporation (remember it’s a piece of paper) have the right to keep and bear arms? How about the right to a speedy trial, why would it need that if it is never put in a jail cell? How about the right to the pursuit of happiness? Is a piece of paper capable of being happy or sad?
We have structures in place to allow individuals of a political opinion or ideology to band together and fund the propagation of their ideas. That is a healthy way of getting the opinion of the people into the public view. But I doubt very seriously that Nike will be concerned with individual tax rates if they can find a politician who will grant them special privileges for their business.
I think most Americans would agree that special interests, corporations and lobbyists already have way too much influence over politics and the legislative process. The Court’s decision opens the floodgates for corporations to increase their influence without limits. How does that serve the people? How does that help the people make their voices heard? Will this ratchet up the polarization of debate, further fueling the divisions in the electorate?
Insurance companies are corporations. How on earth will letting them spend freely on politics increase competition in the marketplace allowing us to negotiate lower prices and policies that fit our lifestyles and budgets. What about multinational corporations, which have no allegiance to America but will now have the opportunity to influence our political process through unlimited funding to promote ideologies that serve their particular interests? Think about the potential hazards this could lead to…special interests on steroids. Corporations will be able to fund the people who are friendly to them regardless of what it means to this society and our freedom.
The case I would like the Supreme Court to decide is if the current campaign finance laws are constitutional and actually serve the people. I would argue that we need significant limits on campaign financing activities. We should have a system that encourages average individuals to serve in public office. Today we have a system that encourages wealthy lawyers who can rarely avoid scandal as their power and influence is auctioned to the highest bidder(s).
In short, the money should be funneled through individuals, have low limits and be tax-free. Corporate profits should be directed to equity growth, dividends and R&D; allowing individual investors the opportunity to participate in the wealth generating machine that corporations are capable of being.
The Problem With Cash For Clunkers
Cash for clunkers sounds like a great idea. It seems so simplistic: I get money for turning in my old car. However, there is much more to this than meets the eye.
Cash for clunkers is another brilliant liberal idea, and by brilliant, I mean brain dead.
Liberals say that if you trade in your old used car, you will receive $4.5K for a new one. It can’t be the basic if it comes out of D.C., so why isn’t the media challenging this piece of legislation? We all know the answer to that one…ask ABC.
There are numerous downsides to this bill:
- If dealers anticipate a rebate for a trade in, they will only increase their base price for the car to make up for it.
-People drive old cars because they cannot afford new ones so how will $4.5K actually help? The down payments that many banks are asking for are much higher due to risk and tighter lending practices. The monthly payments are also tough to meet if you are of low income status. I just bought a new Mini Cooper and have a great credit/beacon score… but because I couldn’t put down $15K on the spot, I couldn’t get a bank loan. I had to settle for the higher rate at the BMW dealership.
-This will also increase the cost of used cars. If more people are trying to purchase new cars, then used car dealerships will suffer and will be forced to raise their prices to make a profit, rather than make a profit from volume of sales. In essence, this will hurt the lower middle class and the poor – the very people he professes to help.
-Charities will be negatively affected by this law. There are over 350K charities that are used car donors. These charities will see a direct decrease in donations if people believe they are getting a kick-back. These charities will have to cut staff and operations, causing more unemployment and fewer used cars for those who really need them.
-The proposed cost of this law would be $4B. This is another “government pays” bill. Therefore, one would think that maybe this is another bill that is circular… The Government will tax you to help pay for your car… why not just pay for it yourself then? All estimates that come out of the government are conservative at best; therefore, you can and should always take on another 50% to the original value.
-Other industries may suffer if there are consumer shifts. Priorities of consumers will shift based on whether they think they are getting a better deal. If cars go up something else will inevitably go down.
-The fact that the Democrats are global warming alarmists happens to be another excuse they will use. They will exclaim that used cars cause more pollution… I don’t believe that in the slightest, so I won’t even touch on it. There is still plenty we do not know about hybrids and whether or not they truly are as effective as people would like to believe. I also do not believe in the hoax or the hype – ’nuff said. Personally, my Mini Cooper’s gas mileage goes up as it gets older…just sayin’ 
-This is another pay-to-play scheme to pay off the $400M campaign donations given to Democrats and Obama by the UAW. If old cars are scrapped, new cars will have to be manufactured and purchased and more money into the pockets of the UAW.
This type of legislation has been tried before, in another country no less:
Germany has used a similar program for a few months, and of course it has actually cost at least three times more than government “estimates.” More than this, studies of the German experience have shown it has largely led to a mere shift of spending priorities. Consumer electronics sales fell in ratio to automobile spending meaning there has been no net gain for Germany’s economy.
It is so interesting and disturbing how Obama and the Democrats have gone after charities and small business. Charities have been attacked on both the stimulus front, the taxable deductions front, and now this idea for clunkers. A study showed that conservatives give more to charity than any other ideological group, because they do so through their churches. These churches are involved in many charities across the nation and it’s quite disheartening to see the Liberals be so antipathetic towards religious movements.
Obama and the Democrats are hell-bent on making people so dependent on the government, and only the government, that they will soon need to get their diapers changed by them too. This is insanity!
New Chairman of GM Admits He Knows Nothing About Cars…
Let me see if I have this right… The New GM CEO knows nothing about cars, the 31 year-old, who still hasn’t graduated law school, knows nothing about the auto industry, nor has he had any real life experience, but will be overseeing this, Obama knows nothing about America, and Biden just doesn’t know anything – GIRD YOUR LOINS!
Edward E. Whitacre Jr. built AT&T Inc. into the biggest U.S. provider of telephone service over a 43-year-career. By his own admission, he becomes chairman of General Motors Corp. knowing nothing about the auto industry.
The 6-foot-4-inch Texan nicknamed “Big Ed” said steering the nation’s largest automaker after bankruptcy is “a public service.” People who know him say he can meet GM’s need for the type of transformation he orchestrated at Dallas-based AT&T.
“I don’t know anything about cars,” Whitacre, 67, said yesterday in an interview after his appointment. “A business is a business, and I think I can learn about cars. I’m not that old, and I think the business principles are the same.”
It is true that business principles remain the same, but it’s not always that cut and dry, especially in an ailing industry that has complex problems, requiring complex solutions. If Whitacre has experience negotiating and dealing with unions then that’s a huge plus, but if not, he has some learning to do, and not a lot of time. It’s one thing to reinvent a company like AT&T when you already know the issues and the core competencies of the company, as well as the inner workings of the industry. It’s an entirely different thing if you know nothing about the actual product, life cycle, or process…
Here is some common sense for a second, stay with me:
I worked as a financial analyst/specialist for government contracts at a defense contractor specifically making radars and electronic systems. I switched jobs and was doing the same financial analysis, but for biodefense products, of which I knew nothing. My job requires budgeting, forecasting, scheduling, and analysis. therefore, I must know the process, the program, what to expect, how to fix things, you name it! Because of my lack of experience with the actual product and the knowledge of the company’s competencies, I was not thrown into a leadership position right away. I was given a period of orientation to understand the job and the types of programs being managed. The basic principles of my job stayed the same, but the product and procedures were different – and it makes a huge difference.
Unfortunately, GM needs somebody that doesn’t have to have on-the-job training, but since the government is making decisions and the POTUS is currently practicing his own on-the-job training, this comes to me as no surprise. Heck! my father who has been a GM mechanic for over 30 years could probably be a better chair.
Not to worry, GM is in good hands…/sarc
