There is no reason to believe that pursuit of money is any less powerful an incentive in politics than it is in business. Unfortunately, pursuit of special interest money often rewards political service to the special interest with little or no regard to its impact on the public interest. That is a statement of fact, not a criticism. A great deal of money is necessary to attain political power and influence policies and the terms of debate. To get that power and influence, politicians spend time pursuing special interest money and/or serving special interests (as much as 50% of their time). Much of that time is sacrificed serving the special interest without much consideration to the public interest.
MV-22B Osprey
U.S. training exercise - February 2011
Salient points and counterpoints are summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------
Point 1: Special interest money always serves the public interest because it fosters political policies that create jobs and defends America's economy and securityCounterpoint: Special interest money serves the special interest because it fosters political policies that advantages the special interest, which is largely unconcerned with America's economy or security; Policies and spending flowing from serving a special interest can be positive, negative or neutral to the public interest, but the effects are typically negative
Point 2: Special interests need to spend money so that they can have access to politicians
Counterpoint: Special interests do not need to spend any money because they can have access to politicians or parties simply by picking up a phone and scheduling a meeting; There is absolutely no constitutional requirement that says obtaining access requires giving any money to any politician or political party
Point 3: Special interests have a constitutional right to spend money influencing politicians, political parties and politics because doing that is protected free speech
Counterpoint: Under current law, that point is correct and is not disputed
Point 4: Special interests have a constitutional right to advocate for advantage to the special interest without regard to, or even adverse impacts on, the public interest, America's economy or the general welfare of the American people
Counterpoint: Under current law, that point is correct and is not disputed
Point 5: Special interest money does not corrupt politicians or political policies
Counterpoint: Special interest money does corrupt politicians and political policies; The U.S. tax code and implementing regulations are prime examples of how special interest money deflects money from the American treasury by purchasing politicians and political parties
U.S. Marine training Colombian Navy infantryman
U.S. training exercise - February 2011
Point 6: Special interests gain political or economic favors or advantage only if what is asked from politicians or parties is merited; Special interests win policies or favors strictly on the merits
Counterpoint: Special interests usually gain political or economic favors or advantage when the merits of what is asked from politicians or parties is not merited; If it were otherwise, special interests would not need to spend any money because the political ask would be an obvious policy or favor to legislate without any money changing hands; Special interests win policies or favors (i) to a significant extent or (ii) largely on the amount of money involved
Point 7: Politicians, political parties and special interests all uniformly and vehemently argue that special interest money in politics has absolutely no undue or adverse impact on any political policy, the public interest or any law, including any tax law
Counterpoint: The evidence that special interest money adversely affects political policies, political parties and the public interest is overwhelming; Examples range from Jack Abramoff and Bob Ney to the corruption riddled U.S. tax code, which costs taxpayers hundreds of billions of lost tax revenue every year
Point 8: When a special interest donates money to a politician or political party and then lobbies for and obtains a favor or proposed legislation, jobs are created and that benefits the public interest
Counterpoint: That is true when and only when the favor or legislation was merited in the first place; If the favor or legislation was simply bought and not earned on the merits, then the political action was, e.g., (i) less effective, (ii) less efficient and/or (iii) less favorable to the public interest (as defined by the Centrist Party) than (a) implementing a better competing policy option or (b) doing nothing, if that is the better option
Point 9: The Centrist Party's definition of "public interest" is deeply flawed and incorrect, i.e., it is not a balance between serving American national domestic and foreign interests, defending its economy, defending personal freedoms and protecting the environment as the Centrist Party asserts - for example, protecting the environment is irrelevant to the public interest because it is something that the government has no constitutional concern with; Special interests always act in the public interest as special interests define "public interest"
Counterpoint: The Centrist Party is willing and able to defend its definition of what the public interest is against any other definition; The Centrist Party definition of the public interest is firmly grounded in the constitution; The Centrist Party is the true defender of the public interest, not any special interest including the Democratic and Republican parties
Point 10: The Centrist Party's definition of what the "public interest" is a cynical attack on the political status quo
Counterpoint: The Centrist Party's definition is an attack on the status quo, but is it not cynical; Definitions of what the public interest is frames the issue and the debate; The Centrist Party refuses to allow others to frame the debate according to their definitions - allowing others to frame issues as they wish unfairly stacks arguments in favor of the advocate's preferred definitions and interests
Point 11: The Centrist Party's definition of what the "public interest" is self-serving
Counterpoint: The Centrist Party definition of public interest is not self-serving because by definition, the Centrist Party serves the public interest above any special interest; What others may contest is how one defines the public interest
Point 12: Special interests do not always act against the public interest, e.g., non-profits doing charity work in the public interest
Counterpoint: That point may very well be correct, especially if the special interest gets its favors on the merits without money changing hands; When money changes hands, there is simply no way for the average American to know if a policy or favor was merited or simply purchased from the political system; The two-party system has failed and it no longer deserves the benefit of a doubt on the issue
-----------------------------------------------------------
Navy Blue Angels - F/A-18A
Traning for air show - March 2011
In view of the foregoing points and counterpoints, all of which have been given full, fair and respectful consideration, the Centrist Party (CP) concludes that special interest money corrupts American politics and unduly damages the public interest. The CP therefore advocates establishing one or more incentives to counteract at least some of the corrosive influence of special interest money on American political parties and politicians. Incentives should be established at least at the national level.
One way to establish a powerful incentive is to publicly match 2-for-1 or even 3-for-1 tax dollars to incumbents, challengers and political parties that flow directly or indirectly from any special interest. That was explained in detail earlier. Another option is to give voters or adults a voucher that is good only for political contributions. Both of those could be used together. Other ways to reward, i.e., incentivize, service to the public interest before self-interest or other special interests, may also be possible. The goals would be (i) to make it impossible and essentially pointless for special interests to even try outspending money from the public and (ii) thereby making special interests argue their cases on the merits with less regard to special interest money.
United Arab Republic F-16E Desert Falcon
Joint U.S. training exercise in Nevada - February 2011
To pay for public financing, the CP advocates matching increased tax expenditures by (i) limiting or eliminating ineffective tax loopholes that special interests have purchased and/or (ii) enforcing tax laws that are not not enforced via purchases by special interests. Those two revenue sources alone are much more than adequate to pay for any additional federal spending. The same revenue source could be tapped at state and local levels to offset some or all increases in state or local spending.
Other points or arguments not given above may be important to consider. If they do exist, they will be fairly considered and given appropriate weight. Real adult politics is open to any rationale or idea that can improve the American political system, including ones that contradict the CP's current policy. Politics should focus on defending the public interest and the American standard of living, not defending ideology or special interests.
No comments:
Post a Comment