Campaign Finance Reform

I just read an article in USA Today that Obama leads Romney 47% to 45% -- in money spent on campaign advertising. Curiously that seems to be about the same lead as he has in the real polls, or is that not really a coincidence at all?

How do the hundreds of millions of dollars that are being spent on this year’s presidential election translate into the quality of the United States Government?

Here are a few things to think about:

•      How many people give large amounts of money without expecting something in return? And if they do expect favors, are they really not engaging in legalized bribery?

•      How much time does the president of the United States spend campaigning for the office? How much time does he spend campaigning for someone else who wants to be elected? Several years ago I watched a 60 Minutes interview with a retiring US senator who indicated he spent 60% of his time either raising money for his reelection campaign or actually campaigning for reelection. Is this how we want our elected officials to spend their time? We need dedicated legislators who care as much about the country as they do about keeping their jobs; we don't need professional fundraisers.

Welfare Spending: Are State Restrictions Really the Answer?

USA Today recently carried an article detailing many states’ efforts to curtail how welfare recipients spend their welfare payments. In many states, welfare recipients will no longer be allowed to use their stipends on liquor, gambling, cigarettes, strip clubs, and guns. Apparently it's been decided that these listed indiscretions should only be allowed to those few people who can truly afford to waste their money doing them. (Although it comes as no surprise that those who can afford to do so generally do not). This is the case despite the fact that the same legislators, who are now creating an economic bar to certain specified sins, have long ago declared all these sins to be perfectly legal. Indeed, I presume that many, perhaps most, of the members of the enabling legislatures probably engage in many of these activities themselves. So I guess it’s ok to sin, as long as you do it with money you have earned.

But who gets to choose which uses of welfare benefits are acceptable and which must be outlawed?

Fast and Furious – The Eric Holder Contempt Citation

How ironic it is that the House of Representatives is so upset about the government’s Fast and Furious campaign in Mexico, when nothing fast and furious ever happens in the House of Representatives? Correction, nothing happens particularly fast, but there certainly is a lot of fury – mostly signifying nothing – which of course is the entire purpose surrounding Attorney General Eric Holder’s contempt citation for refusal to cooperate with Congress. How anyone can be cited for refusing to cooperate with Congress when Congress clearly does not cooperate with itself is beyond rational comprehension. Does anyone believe a Republican controlled Congress would have voted for a contempt citation against a Republican attorney general? Would such a citation have been issued if this were not a presidential election year?

The whole sordid episode confuses the real issue – supplying guns to the Mexican drug cartel against whom the guns were intended to be discharged. But then, who really cares about the guns or the people those guns kill? This is an election year, so all that’s important is today’s newspaper headlines. Whatever one has to do to lure the media into printing or broadcasting some story that will hurt his opponent is really all that counts. What other reason is there for holding these hearings?

Under the Microscope: ObamaCare

Do you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court's decision?

This question–asked multiple times by multiple media outlets in the last few days–is totally absurd. In truth, there are only a miniscule number of respondents who are qualified to assess whether the United States Supreme Court correctly applied the federal constitution to the Affordable Care Act. Consequently the results of this poll are totally worthless.

The real question to ask the public should be: Do you agree or disagree with ObamaCare?

At least with this question everyone is qualified to give an answer because the question asks for nothing but a personal opinion. Unfortunately the results of this poll are likewise entirely unreliable. The problem is that the respective proponents and opponents of ObamaCare have generated so much disinformation that the public really has no reliable information upon which to base any opinion. The Republicans and the Democrats alike publish enormous inaccuracies about this law for the sole purpose of influencing public opinion in the upcoming presidential election. So the public is grossly misinformed as to the benefits the law provides, the cost of implementation of the law or the gravity of the regulations the law imposes. Who could possibly cast an intelligent vote under these circumstances?