The amount of money in elections these days is a serious problem

Every election year certain problems present themselves. One minor problem is increased emailing. Many of us have more than one email account, thus the problem is magnified. 

There are lots of campaign emails, most seeking political support, some selling campaign materials. The ones asking for contributions pose a different type of problem.

We are often asked to contribute to candidates from all over the country, not just in our state of residence. Some of these candidates may be known to us and liked, and we may want to support them. Others may be unknown, but we disapprove of their opponents and would like to support them.

But why should anyone — literally any person in the country — be able to contribute to any political candidates that they want to? We can only vote for candidates running for offices representing our state and localities and the presidency, so why can we give money to any candidate that asks for it?

There may be some sensible reasons for being able to contribute to candidates for whom you can’t vote, but not many. Perhaps a relative is running for office, or you have some connection to the area in which the candidate is running, like a business connection or owning property there.

And then there is the situation of political action committees (PACs). From Ballotpedia.com: “Political action committees (PACs) are political committees established and administered by corporations, labor unions, membership organizations or trade associations. The general definition is a group that spends money on elections, but is not run by a party or individual candidate. However, PACs can donate money to parties or candidates they support.

“There are two types of political action committees, separate segregated funds and nonconnected PACs. Separate segregated funds are either established or administered by corporations, labor unions, member organizations, or trade associations. They can only raise funds from individuals associated with the connected groups. Conversely, nonconnected PACs are not connected to any of those groups and may solicit funds from the public. Nonconnected PACs are financially independent and pay for themselves via the contributions they raise. Separate segregated funds are funded by the organization they are associated with. 

“In addition, PACs can be broken down into multi-candidate and non-multi-candidate categories.”

And then there is the super PAC, which Ballotpedia also defines: “A super PAC is a political committee that can solicit and spend unlimited sums of money. A super PAC cannot contribute directly to a politician or political party, but it can spend independently to campaign for or against political figures. These committees are also called independent expenditure-only committees. A super PAC is not legally considered a political action committee (PAC) and as such is regulated under separate rules.” 

PACs and super PACs dredge millions or billions of dollars in contributions from people across the country during an election, and pour those dollars into contributions for and against candidates, political and legislative agendas of their choosing. The additional political contributions and political ads they fund makes running for high profile political offices far more expensive than it needs to be, and ought to be.

According to the reference site thoughtco.com, “In a typical election cycle, political action committees raise more than $2 billion and spend nearly $500 million. There are more than 6,000 political action committees, according to the Federal Election Commission.” At least some of the remaining $1.5 billion goes to staff and expenses. PACs are quite the business.

The Campaign Finance Institute reports that the cost of winning a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2018 was $2,092,822, and a U.S. Senate seat cost $14,863,228. 

The projected cost of all Congressional Races and the Presidential Race for 2020 is $10,838,227,655, according to OpenSecrets.org. That total is divided almost equally between all Congressional Races and the Presidential Race at more than $5 billion each.

By comparison, the 2000 election cycle totaled $3,082,340 for both Congressional Races and the Presidential Race. In six Presidential Election Cycles over twenty years, the total costs have more than tripled.

Opinions vary on whether PACs are good or bad. They receive praise for providing a way for people to combine their money and make their voices heard, but also a way for some to make larger donations, which can create the question of exactly who those elected actually work for.

Another evaluation says that these large contributions come from unknown sources, which were described as “forces of darkness” and “forces of light.”

Proponents of super PACs say they provide additional aspects of freedom of speech, whereas opponents list negative advertising as a major factor produced by super PACs.

It seems that the simpler and more straight forward the election system is, the better, and the easier to manage. You can only vote for candidates in your state and localities, for federal offices representing your state, and for the President and Vice President. Therefore, contributions should have those same limitations.

That would put the decision making where it belongs: in the hands of eligible voters. As things stand now, much control is in the hands of large organizations with specific interests that are not always good for all.

The economy’s strong performance has Trump enemies all flummoxed

Citing President Donald Trump’s “nativist fear” in the opening paragraph of an article in The New York Times titled “Republicans Have a Humming Economy to Tout, but Trump Rhetoric Muddies the Message,” writers Astead W. Herndon and Sydney Ember proceeded to analyze the economy of Trump’s second year.

The article does a passable job of showing the strength of the economy, and it fairly criticizes Trump’s penchant for careless or objectionable language and how it interferes with good news.

Here are some reminders of the economy’s strength:

* 250,000 jobs added in October: Hotels and restaurants added 42,000 jobs; health-care companies hired 36,000 workers; manufacturers filled 32,000 jobs; construction companies took on 32,000 workers

* Unemployment 3.7 percent

* Average Hourly Earnings have risen 3.1 percent over the last year

* Third quarter GDP +3.5 percent

However, Herndon’s and Ember’s comment, "President Trump’s blistering message of nativist fear has become the dominant theme of the campaign’s last days..." is an attention-getter.

“Nativist” clearly implies that Trump favors the interests of Americans, as if it is wrong for the leader of a country to favor that nation over others.

Adding the word “fear,” however, drives the article over the cliff. It charges Trump with being afraid of immigrants and for the country to allow people to immigrate here. That’s an interesting position for a man to hold who has an immigrant wife. It’s equally as foolish as the criticism that he is anti-Semitic, with a son-in-law who is Jewish and a daughter who married him who has adopted Judaism.

As Herndon and Ember are reporters, neither having psychology or psychiatry credentials, their analysis of the president is immediately thrown open to suspicion of reportorial bias, which, of course, is unheard of at The Times (cough, cough).

To any thinking person, the idea that we should at long last secure our borders and tighten up immigration policy to prevent gang members, murderers, drug dealers, child traffickers and other undesirables from getting into the country is a no-brainer.

Not content to go quietly into that good night like his predecessors have sensibly done, Barack Obama, the blessedly formerpresident, is making the rounds criticizing his successor.

Since Election Day 2016 when Trump was declared the winner, the economy has been doing great, and as time has passed that performance has only gotten better. But Obama claims to have started it all  “Where do you think that started?” he asked an audience.

Obama took office in January 2009, as the recession was winding down, officially ending in June. Called “The Great Recession,” the period of contraction lasted 18 months, less than half that of The Great Depression.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta called the recovery “atypical and very weak compared to other post World War II recoveries.” Obama’s policies were responsible for this.

After a recession the economy will eventually produce a weak recovery pretty much on its own, but needs help to prosper. Like a car out of gas at the top of a hill, it can roll toward the filling station on its own until it hits flat land. Then it needs help. Under Obama’s watch, he used the brake on the downhill roll, and didn’t push after that. And that is his basis for taking credit for today’s good economy.

What has transpired since Trump won the 2016 election had nothing to do with anything Obama did, because the results we see today came from doing the opposite. Remember Obama saying, “When somebody says  … that he’s going to bring all these jobs back. Well how exactly are you going to do that?” … “What magic wand do you have?”

Trump’s response: “Here, hold my coffee!”

Obama now defends the thousands of people traveling through Mexico toward the U.S. border, with the idea of busting through our border as they did in Guatemala and Mexico.

"Now the latest, they're trying to convince everybody to be afraid of a bunch of impoverished, malnourished refugees," Obama said, imitating a contestant in a stand-up comedy tryout.  “They’re telling you the existential threat to America is a bunch of poor refugees 1,000 miles away,” Obama said. “They’re even taking our brave troops away from their families for a political stunt at the border. And the men and women of our military deserve better than that.”

As poet Browning said (sort of), “How do I deceive thee? Let me count the ways.”

* Impoverished and mal-nourished? It’s no picnic, but people provide food along the way and often transportation, thanks to their financial backers.

* A serious threat? Yes. Existential? No. Obama grossly exaggerated.

* A bunch of poor refugees? Some of the 5,000–7,000 no doubt are; some, perhaps many, surely are not.

* Taking troops away from their family? Troops deploy; they are sent places, as Obama surely remembers from sending them to the border, and to Eastern Europe.

The Democrats’ desperation is palpable. They’ve resorted to threats, intimidation, exaggeration and untruths trying to save their party in today’s election, and to save the country from the good things that have occurred since that great Election Night in 2016.

Republicans face problems in debates and the House of Representatives

Say what you will about the way CNBC conducted the Republican debate, the business side of NBC News did something that neither Fox News nor CNN were able to do.

All three had similarities, like gotcha questions and efforts to pit one candidate against another, elements that obstructed a discussion of the serious issues of electing a nominee for President of the United States, rather than assisting voters in making an informed decision. To the extent that real issues arose, the combative atmosphere moderators created in all three debates got in the way.

In sharp contrast to the mood in Republican debates was the Democrat debate on CNN, which also failed to reveal important information about the candidates, but approached not doing so by giving hugs and kisses to the candidates.

CNBC was both over the top and under the table. The three moderators were clearly not up to conducting a meaningful debate, not even on business and economic issues, and the muddle that resulted drew almost universal criticism. Moderators were poorly prepared, partisan, thought they were the stars of the show, were argumentative and often interrupted the candidates. While so many TV news people seem infected with the idea that being quarrelsome is cool, CNBC took that to a new level. You can challenge candidates on issues and answers, and still be civil.

However, as horrible as it was, CNBC did succeed in uniting the candidates for the first time since the campaign began, if only against CNBC’s amateurish approach, and the revolt that followed did produce a little discussion of important issues.

The 2016 debate series should be a valuable element in the process of selecting presidential candidates. Along with public and media appearances, the debates are opportunities for voters to hear candidates discuss their platforms and they are the only vehicle where the pros and cons of the various positions are aired in a way that voters have the opportunity to evaluate them side-by-side. 

So far they all have been disappointing, in terms of illuminating the candidate’s views, but CNBC wins the brown ribbon for the absolute worst. In place of questions on substantive issues, the moderators worked hard to trap and demean the Republican participants, which is very different from challenging them on issues.

Unfortunately, our campaign process identifies the best candidate, not necessarily the person best suited to be president. So much is based on appearance and performance, rather than candidates’ understanding of the country’s problems and sensible ideas for addressing them. A track record of success takes a back seat to image, charm and glibness.

And Republicans have the additional obstacle posed by the liberals in the media, who often misunderstand and not infrequently deliberately mischaracterize their objectives, and tell the world how awful they are.

Granted that the GOP is sharply divided, unlike the Democrat Party that pretty much possesses no diversity of thought. But the left portrays this Republican diversity as a weakness, which is interesting, since the left considers diversity one of the most important things in life.

It suits the purposes of the left to mischaracterize and demonize the House Freedom Caucus, the Tea Party groups and other elements of the right, and there are plenty of media sources indulging in that activity.

Some, commenting on Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan’s election as House Speaker, wonder how he will possibly be able to manage such an unruly group. The liberal writers characterize the conservative Republican bloc with terms such as “right-wing fringe” and “radicals.”

The liberal writers are happy to offer guidance to conservatives, such as that if their subgroup wants to set policy for its party, all it needs is to have a majority of the party’s support. And if it doesn’t have a majority, it should meekly abandon its position and support the position of the majority.

And that no doubt would please liberals and Democrats, and many Republicans. However, millions of Republican voters recognize that this approach is largely why things are worse today than when the GOP gained control of the Congress, and why the Republican Congress has been so ineffective at representing their views.

These conservative House members were elected not to offer their ideas and then surrender, they were elected to fight for their supporter’s beliefs in the traditional conservative values that built the country, and to stick by them. Isn’t that what republican government is all about?

The liberals advise that when voters have put one party in charge of the executive branch and another party in charge of the legislative branch, as is the case today, compromise is demanded to move the country forward.

However, compromise does not mean surrender, as many of these “advisors” suggest. One does not oppose a bill with multiple objectionable elements, and then “compromise” by accepting the whole package when others resist changes. The two sides identify those elements they agree on, take the rest out of the legislation, and move the compromise measure forward.

Compromise means that everyone gives up something, not just the conservative Republicans. It is sad – even dangerous – that so many Republicans do not understand this.

Things confirmed and learned at the first Democrat candidate debate

Most people seem to think Hillary Clinton won the first Democrat debate, and she did put forth a good showing, even if the atmosphere and comments from her opponents were decidedly soft and friendly. The other debaters did not challenge the top-rated candidate.

However, fans of Bernie Sanders disagree, believing the Vermont senator was the best of the five. Sanders is the only candidate who admits to being a socialist, a “democratic socialist” to be precise, although he found little opposition to his socialist views from the rest of the group, illustrating that the entire Democrat field shares his affection for socialist dogma.

Reviewing the comments during the debate it was confirmed – if, indeed, there was ever any question – that the Democrat Party is the party of exchanging free stuff for votes, their largess made possible by those of us who pay taxes. There was so little disagreement among the debaters that some observers think that the other four candidates have realized that Clinton will be the nominee, and they seemed to be campaigning not for the nomination, but for a position in the Clinton2 administration.

The “party of diversity” is far less diverse than the Republicans, who have 1 woman, 1 black man, 2 candidates of Cuban descent, 1 of Asian descent, some older candidates and some young candidates. The Democrats, the party of people who are around 70 years old, have 1 older white woman and 2 older white men, and two middle-aged white guys.

Based on questions, comments and crowd response, Democrats do not object to Clinton putting national security at risk by shunning the government email communications system employees are expected to use in favor of her own private system for official government communications. In order to defend the former Secretary of State one must ignore that her decision to do so was “inconsistent with long-established policies and practices under the Federal Records Act and NARA regulations governing all federal agencies,” according to congressional testimony of Jason R. Baron, a former director of litigation at the National Archives. To the Democrats, it is merely a distraction from the business of getting Clinton the nomination.

Reports say that “journalists” in the pressroom exploded in applause and laughter when Sanders said the American people are sick and tired of hearing about the “damned emails!”

It was confirmed that the Democrat candidates and audience members believe the deaths of four Americans in the Benghazi assault are not important. It’s old news; just another distraction. Apparently those of us who think Benghazi is important, or ISIS, or the economy, the national debt, or the millions of potential workers driven out of the workforce by the lousy job market created by the slowest recovery in 80 years are clearly on the wrong track. Climate change, gun control and giving away free stuff are clearly at the top of their agenda. They seem not to understand that nothing is free.

They all think pretty much alike, and believe that any diversion from the “party line” is wrong, whereas the Republican candidates have divergent views about important issues. Their diversity causes a great deal of consternation and disagreement among GOP supporters and conservatives, but reflects the sense of our Founding Fathers that robust debate of contrary ideas is a foundational principal of good government.

Sanders scored points with the statement that the United States “should not be the country that has … more wealth and income inequality than any other country.” Factcheck.org found, however, that the U.S. ranks 42nd in income inequality, according to the World Bank, and placed 16th out of 46 nations in the share of wealth held by the richest one percent of the nation’s citizens. Sanders’ vision of a socialist utopia cannot stand up against the glare of facts.

Clinton gave an interesting answer to the question, “Which enemy that you’ve made during your political career are you most proud of?” In addition to the NRA, the drug companies, the health insurance companies, and the Iranians, she said that the Republicans were her proudest enemy. Interesting that she compares insurance companies, drug companies, the NRA and Republicans to the Iranians.

Jim Webb, by contrast – the former Marine Corps First Lieutenant and Navy Secretary – said he was most proud of having dispatched “the enemy soldier that threw the grenade that wounded me” during the Viet Nam War. While killing that enemy soldier, Webb saved a fellow Marine, and won the Navy Cross. Clearly, his answer wasn’t as appropriate as Clinton’s.

She told viewers that what separates her from being a third term of the Obama presidency is that she is a woman, and mentioned being a woman as a good reason to elect her more than once during the debate. Remembering what happened after the manic drive to elect the first African-American president, we should be very wary of electing someone president because that person is a woman.

That is especially true of one who thinks she deserves to be elected, and cites her gender as the only reason she won’t be a continuation of the disastrous Obama presidency.

Trump seeks the nomination, and it was a “good week for Obama”

Perhaps everyone should have known that Donald Trump threatening to enter the GOP nomination race would have produced so much negativity. First reactions were that he really wouldn’t follow through, wouldn’t take the steps necessary to become a candidate. But as he completed them, one after another, the criticisms only increased.

Love him or hate him (as most seem to) Mr. Trump – “The Donald,” as he is affectionately known – is a force to be reckoned with.

A poll by the Morning Consult online asked people “what they think of when they hear Trump’s name, [and] a majority of registered voters came up with a negative word. ‘Arrogant,’ ‘ego’ or ‘egomaniac’ and ‘greed’ or ‘greedy’ were the most common negative responses.” “Few offered purely positive descriptors; ‘good’ or ‘great’ only came up 14 times among the 1,306 respondents,” less than 1 percent.

With his “no holds barred” approach to life, Donald Trump upsets lots of folks, including fellow Republican candidates. He comes from a different world than the politicians do. In his world, you say what needs to be said, and it may not be the kind and gentle talk that the media and those in politics expect.

In politics you must be careful to never alienate a potential voter, and these days you must not offend anyone. Ever. Therefore, the comments in his candidacy announcement about illegal aliens coming across the southern border really set off a firestorm of criticism.

The Trump style may be blunt and not politically correct, but his points are valid: Our border is a sieve leaking who knows who into the country, among which we know are some criminals, rapists, and drug cartel members, and probably a few terrorists. Although a little later in those comments he said plainly that the bad folks aren’t just from Mexico, they are also from Central America and South America, but they do enter the U.S. from Mexico.

Donald Trump has been wildly successful in business, and you don’t accomplish the things he has accomplished without knowing what needs to be done, and doing it. That no-nonsense approach and plain talk is missing in many or most of our current and potential elected leaders on all sides, although they do have political experience, which he does not have. Political inexperience and his blunt talk likely mean he will not win the Republican nomination.

But you can count on Donald Trump to talk about things many other candidates would rather not talk about, and do so in a manner does not comport with the accepted style. This will provide the media with a great opportunity to distract the public by trying to trap Republican candidates into either defending or attacking him personally, and making the campaign all about Trump, instead of the important issues facing the country.

We have already seen some Republicans fall into that trap, and more of them likely will. Republicans are known for their proclivity to kill each other and themselves off, making the Democrats’ job much easier.

While Donald Trump is being skewered for something he said and how he said it, President Barack Obama is being celebrated for things he had nothing to do with, and for things of questionable value to the United States. 

“Wow! Is President Obama on a roll or what!”  trumpeted columnist Ann McFeatters. The country is just “watching in amazement at what seems like a kaleidoscope of change.” 

She believes that Mr. Obama has reaped benefits for some things he had nothing to do with, like:
A. “In rapid succession, we have seen the Supreme Court rule in favor of samesex [sic] marriage equality, and uphold the legality [of the] Affordable Care Act.” Advocates are unconcerned with the constitutional gymnastics needed to arrive at those faulty decisions.
B. “One hundred and fifty years after the Civil War, the Confederate battle flag, symbolic of racism and rebellion against the United States, is finally ceasing to be flown over public buildings.” She must not know that 57 percent of Americans in a recent poll see the battle flag as a symbol of history, not of racism.

And she gives credit for things of questionable value:
A. “And, now, relations with Cuba! ... For the first time since 1961 Cuba will have a U.S. embassy,” as if giving Cuba this gift really means anything without some substantive results for both the U.S. and Cuba. On the other hand, Americans may at last be able to legally buy Cuban cigars.
B. “Obama is trying hard to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons. It may not be possible, but naysayers to his plan simply do not understand realpolitik in today’s complicated world.” Realpolitik must mean giving up sanctions on Iran and at the same time not blocking that rogue nation from producing nuclear weapons, as well as speeding up the process for the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Obama’s legacy is apparently at the top of his priority list, as so many of his actions demonstrate. But just getting an agreement with Iran to burnish his image is a dangerous and foolish way to do that.