From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Campaign funding a joke
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,uiuc.politics,alt.politics.elections
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 04:19:37 GMT

Mike Jones (mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com) wrote:
: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
: >Mike Jones (mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com) wrote:
: >: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
: >: 
: >: >I want that our federal government is made up of community leaders,
: >: >who give a few short years of their lives to public service as our
: >: >representatives.
: >: 
: >: Point three.
: >: This is a noble notion to be sure. On the other hand, given the
: >: complications of the modern world, would such a government be able to deal
: >: with the nuances of foreign policy? Weapons negotiations? Would every
: >: President spend the first 10% of his term learning the ropes? I don't think
: >: this is a bad idea, but I do want to point out that it is not without
: >: problems.
: >It is my belief that the president conducts preliminary foreign policy and
: >then sells congress on it.  We have no problems with presidents under
: >term limits doing an able job of it...
: 
: Oh, term limits aren't the problem here. It's the "few short years" part. If
: you want someone like, oh, say, Ross Perot, who has no experience in foreign
: policy, domestic policy, economic policy, etc., etc., then you're going to
: have to expect that he will spend the first part of his term "learning the
: ropes". How much of a President's term are you willing to use up this way?
: 

The more the better, as long as we aren't meddling in the affairs of others
to do so.  

Perhaps it might be a good idea to have two presidents, one for foreign
affairs and one for domestic.

: >Rarely, the government follows the popularity polls regarding the issues.
: >Case in point: codifying Roe into legislation - polls show that people favor
: >both abortion and restrictions on it.  On the other hand, if a wrong decision
: >helps the individual in the popularity polls, the decision (wrong) will be
: >made.
: 
: I'm not sure I understand. In the earlier quote from you above, you say that
: poll data should not be a serious factor. Earlier in the post, you said that
: one problem was that government was not responsive to the people. Now you
: say that government rarely follows the polls in the first place, which would
: seem to refute your own earlier statement. What's the real point here? If
: the proper role of government is being responsive to the people, how can a
: decision that people approve of (as indicated by rising in the polls) be
: wrong?
: 

There's a difference between a congress-critter's popularity rating and
the popularity rating of the legislation he votes for.  In order to get
reelected, congress-critters lobby and barter their principles for pork
barrel projects for the home state.  An example is Dennis DiConcini's
$2Billion drug interdiction program, a noted failure.  That $2Billion
is sure to influence a few voters (infusion of $2Billion of fed money into
the local economy).

: >Perot had nobody from his party running at the grass roots level (state
: >representatives, congress critters, etc.).  And in spite of all his money,
: >he found it impossible to finish in the top 2.  Is it really possible for
: >anyone, no matter how great he is, to finish in the top 2 if not a dem
: >or repub?
: 
: There's a lot of difference between "finish in the top 2" and "get into the
: system". A lot. The Democrats and Republicans have been at this for over 100
: years. They've been building reputations and constituencies. Perot's claims
: notwithstanding, there are a lot of people who think the Democrats or the
: Republicans really do represent most of their views pretty well. Perhaps it
: was the fact that he just waltzed in off the Larry King Show, threw together
: a campaign over a weekend, and had no one running at the lower levels that
: contributed to his poor showing. In fact, considering that I'm amazed that
: he did as well as he did! Now, if he was willing to try to build a political
: party and develop a base constituency, put up some candidates for state and
: local office, and still couldn't get many votes, then I'd say that either
: there are real barriers to third parties *or* people just don't agree with
: him.  If you're arguing structural barriers to electoral success, you'd be
: much better off using the Libertarians. They've at least been trying to
: build a base to work from, and they routinely face more troubles getting on
: ballots in various states than Perot did.
: 

The libertarians are a great example, as well.  But they do not have Perot's
funding for sure.  Or his ability to get free media.  Lack of money got the
best democrat out of the primaries (Tsongas).  The media kept Jerry Brown
from getting a fair hearing (calling him Gov. Moonbeam), yet his appeal
was directly to the people, and certainly uncorrupt.  Nope.  No obstacles.

: >: >                                                  They've built up a
: >: >machine that is a drain on the people.
: >: 
: >: Bald assertion. Care to quantify this, then back it up?
: >Not a bald assertion.  $1.2 Trillion income, $1.5 Trillion spending.  That's
: >a drain.
: 
: But what does it mean? Does Congress represent the people or not? Isn't that
: all spending that the people want? If not, why don't they vote the bums
: out?
: 

What choice do you have, not vote at all?  We do vote the bums out, sometimes,
but we still get what we don't want.  Clinton was able to point to government
NOT giving us what we want, and promised us change and got a plurality.  Add
in Perot's votes and you get a LOT of sentiment for change.  If you believe
Bush stood for change, too, then you have almost 100% of the voters.

As for representation... remember, you get to vote for 1 representative, 2
senators and 1 president.  That's the sum of your representation.

: >: >                                        To support its spending, a family
: >: >that earns $59,000 per year pays 70%+ of his income in taxes to help
: >: >the system use more the next year.
: >: Translated, this claim appears to be that >70% of this family's income goes
: >: to Federal taxes (since you were talking about Congress before). I can't
: >: even begin to believe that. I'd be very surprised to discover that 70% of
: >: *my* income goes to taxes even if you include (New York) state and local
: >: taxes! Care to provide some evidence? I also like the fact that you lay the
: >: blame for taxation completely on the Congress. Certainly Ross Perot would
: >: never sign a tax bill. Oh, except for the gas tax. Oh, except to balance the
: >: budget. 
: >33% federal tax + 15% fica + 10% state + 8% sales tax + gasoline tax  +
: >property tax + utility tax, etc.
: 
: I suspected you'd try to slip state and sales taxes in. No go. You can't use
: state and local taxes to complain about Congress, which you were doing up
: until now. This is the classic bait-and-switch argument used by many
: Congress-bashers. The 15% FICA is misleading, too, unless you add the 7%
: "employer's contribution" back to everyone's salary. I never see that 7%,
: even in my gross pay box. So let's talk direct Federal taxes. I make about
: 45,000/year. I pay 15% federal tax. 7.65% FICA. I commute a lot, so I
: probably spend about $750/year on gasoline for commuting, add in random
: driving, be generous and say $1000/year for gas. The Federal gas tax is, I
: believe, about 12%, which makes $120, which is to say 0.25% of my income.
: That's 22.9%. I'm sure there are other miscellaneous Federal taxes I incur,
: but I can't imagine them coming to more than about $1000/year as a wildly
: generous estimate, which ups the total to a hair over 25%.
: Add in state tax (5.78%), assume I pay 7% sales tax on my *entire* net
: income (generous), and the total is up to almost 38%. 
: 

There's NO bait and switch here, and you are misinformed.  First of all,
your employer "contribution" is YOUR salary.  Instead of giving the money
to YOU, your employer gives it to the government.  It is compensation,
no matter how you look at it.

Second, the gas tax is a per gallon gas tax and not some percentage of
your income.  However, it is a direct and flat tax, and considerable
($.25 per gallon).  California adds a state tax of $.17 per gallon.
And state taxes DO matter, because if the feds didn't tax you, the
state would tax you the difference (probably less than that).  You will
have to check at your gas station to determine your state's gas tax.
But of your $750 figure, close to $250 will be tax.

Third, you are correct about the sales tax being a tax on your net income.
At $59K per year, you're paying $.42 in tax for each $1.00 you spend.

Fourth, at $59K/year, you are in the 33% tax bracket.

: If my income miraculously went up to 59K/year, my Federal income tax burden
: would pop up to 28%, but my FICA percentage would actually go down (I think
: - I've lost track of where the cutoff is). It would still be nowhere near
: 70%.
: 

At $59K per year, you pay $7500.  If you and your spouse each make $59K
per year, you pay $15,000.  FICA.  That $7500 will buy you a multimillion
dollar life insurance policy worth MILLIONS of cash value if you invested
that money yourself, too.

: >: >We can see that the media focuses government-like resources on
: >: >reviewing the government.
: >: In what way does the media have "government-like resources". I'm really
: >: curious; this seems interesting, but I really can't puzzle out what you
: >: mean.
: >As a whole, consider the hundreds and thousands of media personel whose
: >job it is to merely watch and comment on government.  And in many cases,
: >advocate government policy.
: 
: OK. How are they "government-like" in anything other than numbers? They have
: no subpoena power, they have no more power to advocate policy than you or I
: (though they may reach more people with their advice), they have no access
: (typically) to secret information. 

They are members of political parties.  They have as much to do with our
electoral process as the government does.  Consider Rush Limbaugh:  He took
an informal EIB poll on election day and an enormous number of people called
and 95% voted for Bush.  Considering Limbaugh's claim of 13,000,000+ listeners,
one might believe that Rush helped deliver 1/3 of Bush's entire vote! :)

: >The media is freemarket chosen and there is no actual vote for the people
: >who go on TV.
: 
: Again, I don't understand. First, "the media" is a very vague term when used
: this way. I assumed you mean people like reporters and anchormen when you
: say "not...comprised fo representatives".
: 

Yep, those reporters are registered Republican and Democrats.  And they use
government resources/public property (airwaves).  They pick and choose:
to let a Perot buy his way onto TV but to smother the Libertarians...

: >: Perhaps you could also provide some facts to support the statement about
: >: resources; I can't conceive of even the AARP being able to outspend or
: >: out-talk the government.
: >No, but AARP might be able to outspend NOW or other special interests.
: >The amount of money raised by a special interest group is only a representation
: >of how rich its members are, not of how many members.
: 
: Actually, it's a function of both. Still, I don't see how you're going to
: solve this problem without making hash of the First Amendment. It's not like
: they bribe Congressmen with the money they raise; they use it to convince
: voters.
:

I suggest term limits and campaign and media reform.  They go
together.  I see no problem with the first amendment, even.  It is
just that when a PAC uses television for advertising, it is using
public airwaves.  In doing so, we as owners are being deprived of our
rights to that property even.  I do not want to censor anyone, just
allow equal time.  I do not want congressmen to need years of service
to become powerful enough to get things done.  If we need to limit PAC
activity to a balanced level with the media and the government, spending-
wise, it is fine.
 
: >The government has a huge income and budget.  That's what we elect our
: >representatives to manage.  The government has a huge debt, which may or
: >may not be being spent as the people would like.
: 
: One simple question. If the people don't like the deficit, if they don't
: like the way the country's money is being spent, then why do WE (not they)
: keep sending back the people who spend it? Somehow, your entire argument
: glosses over this question; it's almost as though someone came an installed
: a semi-permanent government while we were all asleep.
: 

It doesn't matter WHO you send.  To get reelected, they're gonna go for the
pork, and not govern.  And they're gonna vote the way the PACs want.

: >NOT get a say, period.  We do elect people to represent us, but they represent
: >themselves, as well.  They do not have to live by the laws they make.  They
: >do not have to take paycuts when the goverment is spending at a defecit.
: >They have built up such a machine that it takes long-time acquisition of
: >tenure to be able to fight for things.
: 
: Sorry if I offended by calling you a Perot supporter; I assumed, because you
: mentioned him several times and indicated agreement to several of his
: campaign points, that you were.

Frankly, I like the man a lot.  I am convinced he is a political genius.
I didn't like much of his ideas, and I did not ever consider voting for
him.  I don't know if he'd be worse or better than clinton, but probably
better :)  Why I do bring him up, and Brown too, are the way they ran
their campaigns (from the people).  I believe he could have given Clinton
a run for his money, if he didn't make crazy :) accusations about Republican
dirty tricks (altered photos) and backing out of the campaign until Oct.

: Congress does, by and large, have to live by the laws they make. Much is
: made of the exceptions (and I generally believe they're bogus), but
: Congressmen are not immune to prosecution for theft, robbery or fraud. They
: often seem to get away with a lot, but it's probably no more than your
: average white collar criminal who can afford a good lawyer - it's just that
: it all ends up in the papers when you're a Congressman. 

It ends up in the papers if you are a prominent citizen, period.  I believe
that with term limits that John Glenn would have served a few excellent
terms as senator and some other great person from Ohio would have gotten
a chance.  Instead, the man got a slap on the wrist for a serious offense,
and not because he had a good lawyer.

: Did you know, by the way, that a Democratic Congressman from Oklahoma whose
: name I can't recall at the moment has proposed a term limits system for
: *committee heads*. Now *that* I would support because it would do a lot to
: break up the seniority pork system.
: 

How about the speaker of the house, too?  The problem is with the house rules.
The speaker gets elected by a majority vote.  So do the committee heads.  Guess
why they've been of the same party for 40 years...   You suggest musical
chairs.  For the same reason you like term limits for committee chair positions,
the argument for term limits in general is stronger.

: >Are you aware that the constitution already limits our choices as voters?
: >There are rules and regulations that qualify people who can run and serve
: >in the various offices.
: 
: Yes, I am. Most of the rules have at least a semi-reasonable rationale. I
: don't see an equally good reasoning for adding term limits, including the
: 22nd amendment. Given the chance, I'd vote to repeal it.
: 

Look.  I happen to think Reagan was the best president of this century.  I
would not be upset to see him STILL as president.  That way, he'd have a
similar period that FDR had to modernize the government.  But in spite of
this, I believe that having Bush and now Clinton is more representative
of the people, balances out the supreme court and the rest of the court
system, injects new ideas into the executive branch, and gives a different
bunch the chance to live off the federal dole.  It also forces Reagan,
and now Bush (and carter before him, etc.) to live as a citizen under
the system they devised.

:    Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
: 
: We [the agency] didn't want to know how the Contras were being funded...we
: actively discouraged people from telling us things. We did not pursue lines
: of questioning."
: 	- Robert Gates, then #2 man in the CIA, testifying to the Iran-Contra
:         committee