Everyone I know thinks the federal government is corrupt, that it is overly influenced by lobbyists, big campaign contributors, and other pay-to-play arrangements. Yet, inexplicably, about half of the folks who complain about these things, we'll call them Democrats for lack of a better word, want to see ever more and more power concentrated in the hands of that same corrupt federal government. This is roughly equivalent to saying "I know cigarettes will kill me. I think I'll smoke twice as much from now on." The same Democrats who thought President Bush's warrantless wiretapping of international phone calls from suspected terrorists following 9/11 was the most egregious overstep of governmental authority since the Russian Revolution now think it's perfectly fine that the government takes over vast sectors of private industry, from health care to energy to automobile companies to finance to everything else. The same Democrats who thought Bush's annual deficit spending was horribly irresponsible (it was) now think it's perfectly fine that President Obama is doubling those Bush deficits (it isn't). I will never understand.
And the same Democrats who complained about the previous Republican "culture of corruption" under Bush are now openly courting corruption, pay-to-play, influence peddling, government meddling, and cronyism. Don't believe me ? Let's start with a how-to on buying a government position. Consider this report from opensecrets.org titled 'Barack Obama's Obscure Ambassadors Bring Experience, Campaign Cash':
To date, President Barack Obama has tapped 19 individuals to serve as ambassadors…Seventeen of these 19 ambassadors…along with their immediate family members — have contributed about $323,900 to federal candidates, committees and parties since 1989, the Center for Responsive Politics has found.
Moreover, both of the Cabinet-level ambassadors — Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and Ron Kirk, the U.S. trade representative — bundled between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama's presidential campaign, according to CRP's analysis.
Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Miriam Sapiro, who also has the rank of ambassador, bundled at least $100,000 for Obama's campaign — and another $290,000 for his inauguration, according to Public Citizen.
Here's another job handed to a crony, from an opensecrets.org report titled 'Philip Berg, New Ambassador To Germany, Gave Big To Democrats':
Murphy and his "homemaker" wife, Tammy, have contributed nearly $1.5 million to federal candidates, committees and parties since 1989, with 94 percent of that sum going to Democrats, according to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis. They also contributed an additional $100,000 to Obama's inauguration committee.
While other ambassador picks have steered more money Obama's way as bundlers, Murphy, who was not among Obama's bundlers, takes the title of being the largest personal giver to all federal candidates among nominees to date.
It's crystal clear. Want a nice cushy ambassadorship with great perks ? Cough up the cash to the right people. If you don't pony up the cash, talk to the hand.
Or consider this opensecrets.org report titled 'Newly Appointed Wall Street Investigators Are Big Campaign Contributors.' This one shows how those appointed to a bipartisan investigation of the financial crisis are big political contributors. This goes for both Democratic and Republican appointees. The "investigators" are government cronies. Do you think just maybe the investigation will conclude that the housing/financial meltdown and resulting recession was NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S FAULT ? Call me cynical, but I believe that's precisely what will happen (though because this is ObamaTime, they'll probably find something to blame Bush for, maybe all that "Bush deregulation of the financial industry" liberals are always going on about, even though that never happened).
And don't lose sight of the fact that all the cronyism I've described so far is LEGAL. So is the behavior described in this next video, in which Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) talks about Gangster Government, about how who you know in government makes the difference in whether your auto dealership was closed down or allowed to stay in business during the restructing of the car companies. Pay particular attention to the first few minutes:
Rep. Bachmann mentioned all Obama's Czars. He has appointed them to oversee…well, almost everything. We have more Czar's than the Russian Empire had. Nearly three dozen by some accounts. Nobody seems to know the exact number. These Czars are non-elected officials given the tools and authority to do the bidding of the White House. They are accountable to no one except the President. They circumvent Congress. They go through no Congressional confirmation hearings, even though in some cases they oversee confirmed officials. They just…wield power. There is no transparency. Don Obama's capos.
Now, let's turn to companies buying influence in Washington D.C. It's a common misperception that the big boys contribute primarily to Republican coffers, but that isn't quite accurate. From 1989-2008, of the top twenty biggest groups donating to politicians, only three gave more to Republicans than Democrats. Fourteen gave more to Democrats than Republicans, and most gave heavily in favor of the Democrats. Three gave nearly equally to both parties. The Democratic edge comes mostly from the big unions. Corporate donors slightly favor Republicans, but most of the big corporations give to both sides, to buy influence regardless of who runs the show in D.C. They aren't stupid. They know how the game is played.
Does all that money lavished on the politicians by big business interests pay off ? You bet it does. If it didn't, they wouldn't do it. For example, here we are in the middle of the worst recession in 70 years, resulting in a meltdown of the financial industry, and the fourth biggest government donator, Goldman Sachs (over $31 million donated, mostly to Democrats) just turned a nifty $1.8 billion profit for the first quarter of 2009, and an even niftier $3.4 billion profit for the second quarter. Goldman Sachs expects to have record breaking profits this year. Number thirteen on the big donor list is Citigroup, Inc. (over $26.4 million donated, split among Dems and Republicans). They made a $4.3 billion profit for the second quarter. Number forty on the top donor list is Bank of America ($16.4 million donated, split between Dems and Repubs). They made a $2.4 billion profit in the second quarter. You may remember Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Bank of America as being recipients of huge bailouts from the federal government. They were "too big to fail." If they went down, so would our entire financial system, allegedly.
Is YOUR business doing as well ? Did YOUR business get bailed out ? Does the government give a tinker's damn if YOUR business fails ? Didn't think so.
Maybe John Edwards was right about there being two Americas. He just had his definitions wrong.
The first America is the gangster government/financial giant class. They are one and the same, but the financial giants must pay protection money to the gangster government, or they risk being cut out of the scam.
The second America is everyone else. The marks. The ones who pay for it all.
Soooo, again, why is it that about half of Americans, we'll call them Democrats for lack of a better word, are in favor of ever MORE and MORE of this corrupt government ???? Are they just hoping to get initiated into the gang, or what ?
{ 43 comments… read them below or add one }
Mr. King,
The government is corrupt but the gangsters are in finance. It is the result campaign finance laws which restrict participation in the electoral party to those with large sums of money. It is the result of bestowing personhood on companies and allowing them to grow in size until they rivalled government in power.
But your question is about how people (Democrats) could want more of this corrupt government. The answer is that they don't. They want a government which doesn't allow "too big to fail". They want a government that doesn't socialize risk while privatizing return. They want a government that doesn't stumble from war to war in search of an ever illusive sense of security. The "more" is the more of being something other than the guarantor for the wealthy. After thirty years of Republican dominance, people know that it will not come from them. Their hope is for the Democratic party to regain its soul.
from opensecrets.org……..
big hitters 1989 to 2008
ATT $43,206,447 dems 44% reps 55%
2008 cycle
ATT $43,206,447 dems 49% reps 50%
does that even make sense?
King,
Study Germany and Italy under their National Socialist regimes. What is going on here is nothing new. Those in the private sector were allowed to function as long as they supported the regimes policies and goals. Key companies, financiers, and key industrialists were immensely rewarded with huge profits and postions of unquestioned power if they were able to assist the regime in furthering the parties goals. The drive to remake society supersceeded any adherence to the stated laws of the land and did not apply to the "new" elite. The elite within the government and their key supporters wealth and power became absolute while the masses were subject to ever increasing loss of liberties.
This is priceless. You link to Michele Bachmann days after taking shots at Franken.
No one seems able to dispute anything she said, Tbomb. Or is that beside the point?
You gotta be kidding me Da King. Grow up will ya! What a lame argument. Corruption knows no political boundries. At least under this administration we have immensely smarter people to carry out corruption. What a joke!
Yeah, smarter Fred. If this is a 2 term administration you will see the collapse of America. I'm just glad that America is seeing these crooks for who they are.
King is right and so is Bachman. Did you listen to what she said TBomb?
Crooks? Crooks? A lot of politicians are crooks! Dems and Reps. Get over it! In eight years America will still be here. Typical GOP! Scare tactics!
The GOP had there chance for eight years and blew it. Let`s give the Dems four years to see how they do. Hey America, BOO! You Commie pinko COMRADE!!!
Fred says, "You gotta be kidding me Da King. Grow up will ya! What a lame argument. Corruption knows no political boundries"
That was the point I was trying to make, Fred. Regardless of whether Dems or Repubs are in control, they will be corrupt, and the more power we give them, the more corrupt they will be. Thus, it is better to LIMIT the power of the federal government as much as possible, as intended by our Constitution. We are going in the opposite direction, which, by definition, courts ever more and more corruption, and Dems seem to be happy about it. It's illogical.
When has it ever been different?
walter,
It looks like a programming bug on the opensecrets.org website. When you switch back and forth between the 1989-2008 results and the 2008 results, the totals are always showing the 1989-2008 results, while the other columns change.
frank says, "They want a government which doesn't allow "too big to fail". They want a government that doesn't socialize risk while privatizing return"
None of the companies I mentioned (Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Bank of America) really were "too big to fail." That was a misnomer. We didn't need to prop them up at all. If they failed, they failed. That's how private industry and free enterprise is supposed to work. When a company acts irresponsibly, it is supposed to fail. That ultimately strengthens our private sector. Instead, we have what you call "socialized risk and privatized return." That isn't some invention of the GOP, as you seem to claim. In fact, Democrats voted for the bailouts and TARP in far greater numbers than did Republicans. Ditto for Porkulus. It seems to me that the ones who want to socialize risk and privatize return ARE the Democrats. That IS their soul, although it may be that the current admin would be happy to just socialize everything. That seems to be Obama's instinct. The GOP wants to privatize both sides of that equation (there are exceptions there too. Bush was certainly one).
larry,
I propose the following numbering system for liberal arguments:
1) It's Bush's fault (or some other Republican if 'Bush did it' does not apply).
2) Attack the messenger without addressing the argument (as Tbomb did).
3) Class warfare/identity politics.
4) Change the subject.
5) The race card.
If I left anything out, feel free to expand/revise.
Politicians……..let`s call them REPUBLICANS are the biggest hypocrites and crooks in our goverment. Democrats………long live CCCP.
King,
Dont forget —I am correct because I am morally superior
frank put it best.
The conservative Roberts Court is going to take up in September, then strike down, the mildly reformative McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. I wonder why a conservative court would rule for big donor control of the political process.
Do folks agree that money equals free speech?
Do folks agree that a corporation is legally equal to a person?
The conservative court does.
As blogged about previously, the number one threat to American democracy is campaign finance practices. All participate because it is legal.
King's post here is a combobulation of several issues without definition or distinction.
Obama's attempt at transparency is an attempt to shine a light on who pays for what. I don't recall any Republican administration ever seeking to play the money game out in the open. Having said that….it is true that both sides play the game, because the game is still legal.
angry…moral superiority has nothing to do with it.
Finally….Michelle Bachman? Seriously….Michelle Bachman? My goodness.
Rev says: Obama's attempt at transparency is an attempt to shine a light on who pays for what."
Lets have you show me the transparency in Obama's failure to allow 5 days of public debate on all legislation.
Lets have you show me the transparency in passing bills at night that weren't introduced to the floor till that morning and in one case, an amendment of 300 pages just hours before the first vote.
I guess when a lefty defines transparency he doesn't mean the same thing that poor old Webster meant. Is there really a left handed dictionary I haven't heard of till you started talking about transparency?
King, I think maybe you need to add one more disclaimer for Dems to use. Maybe you need to add, "HuffPo didn't say that".
I was laughing my butt off when I saw a lefty complaining about Bachman. I listened to the whole thing and failed to hear her saying anything that wasn't true. Of course, Kos and HuffPo don't like her at all so Leftys of all stripes see her as something that I don't see. I see that woman as one of the biggest enemies the Dems in Congress has and for pretty obvious reasons. Mainly she doesn't like them.
roy…the topic was campaign money. Good to see that you hold Michelle Bachman in such high regard. it means you haven't left the wingnut reservation.
Rev, I have two comments to make. First, I don't think the Supreme Court will be worrying a lot about any specific case in September. Their annual vacation doesn't end till October.
Two, I never do manage to leave that reservation any more than you leave the HuffPo – Kos one. You try leaving yours and I will try something other than reading all the crap libs throw out for me. I read all that crap but seldom go looking for any more than that.
Wrong, my Kansas Cyclone….
Politico….
"In a sign that the Supreme Court is seriously considering overturning one of the underpinnings of modern campaign finance rules, Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday announced that justices would rehear a case challenging restrictions on corporate-funded campaign ads.
The result of the argument, which is scheduled for September 9,…"
And I told you…I never read Huffington…..and very seldom Kos. The liberals have a very deep and intelligent blog bench.
Rev, did you listen to Bachman? If so does what she said concern you? If not, why?
Congratulations Rev,
After I numbered the liberal arguments, you used #1, #2, #3, and #4 in your very next post. I appreciate it.
About McCain-Feingold. It prevents citizens groups from running ads within 60 days of an election that mention a candidate's name. Would you call that an infringement on free speech ? I certainly would. Are only the Democrats and Republicans allowed to have access to the airwaves to air their views ? That doesn't sound right to me. It sounds more like a duopoly. I remember when John McCain said that citizens groups run ads the candidates don't approve of, as if that was a bad thing. Well, why SHOULDN'T citizens groups be allowed to have a voice ? Are we to only hear from the candidates themselves ? That's pretty convenient for the candidates, don't you think ? It's also suppresses opposing or differing views.
I have come to agree with public campaign financing, and we would have had it in the last election except for……….Obama, who broke his pledge to accept it. Obama also set a record for campaign spending, by far, so how has McCain-Feingold helped restrict campaign cash ? It hasn't. Obama, whose biggest campaign donors are the unions, said "I owe them," and admitted he would try to advance their agenda.
Also, McCain-Feingold resulted in soft money contributions being replaced with contributions to 527 groups. If the Reverend thinks groups of people known as corporations are not entitled to free speech, then the Reverend should also believe other groups of people, 527's such as moveon.org, are not entitled to free speech either. And if we stop all manner of groups of people from donating to political campaigns and airing political ads, isn't THAT an infringement on free speech ? Doesn't that also conveniently help to perpetuate the duopoly of the Democratic and Republican parties ?
When George W. Bush signed McCain-Feingold in 2002, he expressed concern over it's constitutionality. He signed it anyway. It's kinda bizarre that a president would sign a bill he thought was unconstitutional, but I think Bush was most likely correct. McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional.
King, I think you may have set Rev's wheels spinning at a speed that he may not get slowed down till he does his next blog.
Good return to the Rev.
angryc proposes a new liberal argument – "I am correct because I am morally superior."
I don't know, ac. The liberals usually use the "moral relativism" argument. I think we should add that one to the list instead. But libs do use the "facts are irrelevant, I am just right" argument as well. I'll have to ponder on it. Maybe we'll add them both.
Roy wants to add "HuffPo didn't say that."
Good, but I think we can include that under the "attack the messenger" argument. They think only THEIR sources are credible, and any others are just lies.
"he expressed concern over it's constitutionality. He signed it anyway"
I took your sentence out of context King to campare it to an exerpt from Tues when Obama was asked about private insurance. He is touting and apparently lying about our future rights to private healthcare. Yet a blogger that probably actually read the bill has to bring this to the forefront. To me this is an impeachable offense. To not know what is actually in a bill is reprehensible. Especially one that will cost us trillions of dollars and send our wealth and future out of the country?
another source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090721114220AA723kD
"During that call, a blogger referenced an article in Investor's Business Daily indicating Section 102 of the House bill would "outlaw" private insurance.
"Is this true?" the blogger asked Obama. "Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?"
The president's response on behalf of the legislation he is pushing through Congress: "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about."
ARE YOU F'ING KIDDING ME?
King's response on McCain-Feingold tickled my Kansas bud, roy.
The very point of McCain-Feingold was to rein in flush corporate saturation of the politcal ad market leading up to an election. King says, agreeing with the arch-conservative Roberts court, that flush corporate saturation of political ads is a guaranteed first amendment right. Who knew?
I saw no answer to my question of whether money equals free speech. Does it?
If money equals free speech….then wouldn't it follow that those with the most, you know, money….would own a privileged position when it comes to exercising free speech? Wouldn't the richest have more free speech rights than everyone else? Is that how it should be?
But this….
"I have come to agree with public campaign financing, and we would have had it in the last election except for……….Obama, who broke his pledge to accept it. Obama also set a record for campaign spending, by far, so how has McCain-Feingold helped restrict campaign cash ? It hasn't. Obama, whose biggest campaign donors are the unions, said "I owe them," and admitted he would try to advance their agenda."
…is simply misleading. Obama, as King knows, filled out a state questionaire stating his opinion that public financing would be a better way to go. Obama's donors, as King knows, were made up of over 2 million individual donors giving, on average, less than $100 each.
The reason conservatives will fight to the death against any form of public campaign financing is because GOP policies favor the wealthiest. In return, those wealthiest pay for GOP campaigns. Yes, Democrats take corporate money as well…..we see that right now with Max Baucus and others…..but as a political party, Republicans are more indebted to big corporate donors.
Hey…the rich shall inherit the earth. Conservatives are simply doing god's work.
average…..Bachmann just says stuff….she's kind of nutty.
But let's take her words seriously……Why did GM and Chrysler come to the government for help? I mean, didn't GM and Chrysler approach government and not the other way around?
They came to government, hat in hand, because last fall their sales plummeted 50% within a 30 day period. The drop was directly caused by the economic collapse brought about by the banksters. We know this is true because Toyota's sales also dropped 35%. The problem wasn't just limited to GM and Chrysler.
Government had two choices. Allow GM and Chrysler to go bankrupt…..creating a few million unemployed basically overnight….or look for another way to lessen the societal damage. The Obama administration sought to save GM and help orchestrate a merger for Chrysler.
GM had to be reorganized to move forward…..and Bachmann is bitching about that reorganization. If government had chosen to allow GM to go bankrupt…NO GM dealers would have survived, none…..in anybody's district. That fact simply goes right over the nutty Congresswoman's head.
Conservatives can choose to call the Obama-led government "gangsters." The real gangsters are seen, however, in the $1.4 million per day spent by big insurance and big pharma to kill health care reform…..and the bankster gangsters still handing out huge bonuses with taxpayer money.
In my opinion Rev the gangsters are the ones that are spending billions a day on stuff that isn't necessary or that we can't afford. Gangsters are the ones that we pay almost $200K per year plus expenses plus, plus, plus and they can't take the time to read a bill so that they know what they are voting on to make sure we the tax payers that pay them are protected. They are voting to promote an agenda and not what is best for the country. They are using their positions to enter a $200K per year job and leaving millionaires with an unmatchable severence package. All on our backs.
The gangsters are the ones that let the economy collapse so they could get their candidate elected. They were to interested in their own personal gain to even threaten to drill on our own land. The land the taxpayers support and own. They went against us purposely and let gas sit at $4 PLUS while they vacationed on our dime.
Isn't it Dodds fault that they get those big bonus', he allowed them in his 3AM bill change.
As far as the automakers. If you had a business and you came to me to borrow money to keep you afloat I would have 2 choices. To look over your business plan and either approve it or not lend you the cash. I don't have the option to forcebly invest, remove your management and then turn over the business your employees and take the rest for myself. This has to scare you rev. unless you are a socialist/communist? I wonder sometimes because you aline yourself with many of their beliefs such as blaming business for our woes, increased and unequal taxation, anti-god, pro-abortion, substandard but equal healthcare for all citizens, not making folks responsible for our own lives and letting govt be their god, even if people must struggle. It's okay if you are.
Rev we could argue back and forth all day using our own truths. Face it, the govt on both sides is treating us like Bonnie and Clyde did the banks. They are robbing us blind.
joe,
C'mon now, you know the President is way too busy to go arounding reading legislation he's about to sign into law.
Rev asks, "I saw no answer to my question of whether money equals free speech. Does it?"
Money, being inanimate, does NOT have First Amendment rights.
People (the creators of money), on the other hand, do have those rights, and may use money to express them in order to support political candidates, no ?
Your apology for Obama breaking his pledge about public campaign financing was just lame, and exposes your true wish – that Democrats should have the advantage at all times, no matter what. That's the same thing Obama saw, and that's why he broke his pledge. He couldn't resist the money. Hopenchange.
But nice job trying to turn this entire thread into a "conservatives are for the rich" paean, especially after the REPUBLICAN McCain (who, btw, sponsored McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, in case that went over your head) took public financing and Obama broke all records for fund-raising. Then you have to audacity to say "The reason conservatives will fight to the death against any form of public campaign financing is because GOP policies favor the wealthiest." That flies directly in the face of the facts of the last election. You are just making it up as you go along.
And you didn't answer my question about whether citizen's groups should be allowed to run political ads and donate to politicians, and whether banning that would be a violation of First Amendment rights ? Would it ? Or are the ONLY recognizable groups the Democrats and Republicans ?
Well said, joe. The gangster government is alive and well, and expanding it's reach faster than ever. One would have to be blind (or blinded by ideology) not to see it.
Rev says, "GM had to be reorganized to move forward…..and Bachmann is bitching about that reorganization. If government had chosen to allow GM to go bankrupt…NO GM dealers would have survived, none…..in anybody's district. That fact simply goes right over the nutty Congresswoman's head."
Uh, no. What Bachmann was complaining about was people like Barney Frank deciding which auto dealerships survived and which were wiped out. She was complaining about how unethical that is, where who you know in government is what makes the difference, where who you know dictates whether you succeed or fail. If you are for that type of government, there is no reason to discuss ethics with you, because you don't have any.
"She was complaining about how unethical that is, where who you know in government is what makes the difference, where who you know dictates whether you succeed or fail."
Like it or not…that's how life works.
But that wouldn't apply to Cheney and Halliburton would it Rev.
I didn't say anything about perpetrators of crimes.
There is no difference in this case.
"Like it or not…that's how life works."
Good one, Reverend. You could also use that argument for the status quo in regard to government-supported corporate power, tax breaks for the rich, the current healthcare system, torture, racism, etc., etc.
Rev is consistently pro-tyranny, as long as his tyrants are in office.
Tyranny: Like It or Not
A good bumper sticker for Obama in '12, if elections haven't been outlawed by that point.
Nah, elections won't be outlawed. We'll just have ACORN counting the ballots.
Has anyone noticed and this is just my opinion. But does ACORN remind anyone of these guys. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletarian_revolution