Primary Education

In spite of the fact that the primary process is not over, it appears that it is.  President Obama after all, was running unopposed for the Democratic nomination, proving once again what George Ade said long ago that, "Anybody can win unless there happens to be a second entry".  In spite of a marginal approval rating and less than marginal economy, President Obama will easily receive his party's nomination to run for a second term.

After the initial assumption by Republicans that no one could beat Mitt Romney for his party's nomination, one that was proved false on more than one occasion, he now appears to be the last man standing in process that proved only slightly more entertaining than the Rosie O'Donnell Show (which the Oprah Network recently cancelled). While Romney hasn't got the delegate count required to officially end the process, even his most ardent detractors are all but conceding his victory, and beginning to fall in line in order to present a united front in time for the convention. 

Looking back at what's gone on so far however, the glaring questions in my mind aren't about the candidates (whose real test is yet before them), but about the primary process itself.  

We might start for example with the insistence on the primacy of Iowa and New Hampshire to kick off the process individually, in spite of a complete lack of credible reasoning to continue this archaic process. Other than drawing attention to states which nothing else normally does, there's no logical reason to allow it to go on.  

Immediately following, we can add in the constant shuffling of primary dates by states across the rest of the country hoping to make their own relevant.  In spite of constant threats by national parties of sanctions for doing so, this never-ending 'me first' attitude has done nothing but drag the process out.  (Isn't it amazing that this infighting doesn't make us question whether political parties who cannot seem to control their memberships are capable of accepting the leadership of a nation?)

Isn't it in fact curious that at a time when so many claim that the big problem with politics today is the money involved, they insist on a long primary process that's as much proof of a candidates ability to raise money as it is to raise the enthusiasm of his own parties political base?  Of course, we're told that as the process continues, we learn more about each candidate.  Bullshit!  All that happens over time is the candidates manage to smooth the rough edges off of stump speeches they'll eventually need in the actual election, while likewise learning to tailor them to individual audiences across the country.

Why must this process (like every other in politics) favor incumbent candidates, who either don't have to compete or spend from their war chests or have money left over from previous efforts?  Why can't this process be about the best people expressing the brightest ideas, regardless of when they hit the national stage?  Why can't those ideas be ones that they've long held and which persuaded them to run for office in the first place, instead of ones that they're only now recognizing as they "travel all across this great land of ours, talking to hard-working American people"? 

Why can't we learn from past mistakes and successes in this process?  So let's take this as an educational example of potential improvement.

Why can't we start the process on April 16, the day after the American voter truly learns what the price of democracy is (more on that later)?  It certainly seems a fitting date.  We can begin with three or four debates to give an understanding of each candidate's principles, and start the actual voting process in the middle of May.

We could then run five "Super Tuesdays" of ten states each; two weeks apart (and if Iowa and New Hampshire insist on being in the first group, that's  OK with me).  Interspersed with these primary groupings, four additional debates could be held if requested or required by circumstances.  The entire process would be over in ten weeks, and still allow Parties to hold nominating conventions in plenty of time for the election. 

Such a concentrated process would make many more of these primaries meaningful, coming as close together as they would.  They would also have the intended consequence that the process would no longer be one of who could raise enough money to last out an admittedly overlong process, but whose core principles would stand up best in this concentrated marketplace of ideas.

While were at it, why not eliminate the ones like Missouri's; which while it allows a popular vote, only allows one that has nothing to do with picking delegates or nominating a candidate.  If these states wish to hold primaries, the least that they can do for voters is to keep them from being a meaningless sham.  

Perhaps most importantly, by changing and concentrating the process, we can make the political parties themselves pay for some portion (if not all) of these private beauty contests.  I can find nothing in the Constitution which mandates the need for political parties, and nothing that therefore requires that the taxpayers of the states holding them foot the bill.  

One could (and perhaps even should) therefore demand that if taxpayers must in fact pay for any part of this party process, that all primaries be open ones in which voters are allowed a ballot regardless of prior party affiliation (or lack thereof).  It seems a violation of voting rights and a particularly egregious offense that Republicans and Democrats are capable of billing the American people for their private processes, and then refusing them the right to participate in them.

Listen, Democracy is never perfect; and even the Founding Fathers recognized the dangers of the representative republic they were creating.  Forming political parties in fact, was something that they did reluctantly.  None of what has become the primary process however, is defined or mandated in the language of the document that created this government.  

It's up to us to do what we can therefore, to see that we get the best possible candidates that we can to hand over the limited reins and responsibilities for the highest office in the land (and those of the legislature).  There's a lot about the twisted path that we find ourselves on that will be difficult to straighten out, perhaps cleaning up the primary process however could be seen as a truly 'shovel ready project'.  

Silly Bits II

I've been trying to follow the results of the "Super Tuesday" voting with some degree of interest beyond a lingering yawn, but find my fervor for the process, and with it my attention span for endless coverage of the minutiae around them are flagging.  As a consequence of this general feeling of listlessness, I find myself without a desire to go into the pontifical rage on any particular subject required for a mid-week effort.  This does not mean that I haven't got a few things on my mind however, or that I'm willing to share them.  I am therefore going to attempt another 'Silly Bits' effort instead.

Rush Limbaugh, the self-appointed savior of talk radio, has stepped in it once again; though I at least give him credit for an apology that was not entirely self-serving.  Unfortunately in spite of a valiant attempt at 20-20 hindsight, the damage has already been done.  Ms Fluke has managed to do exactly what she set out to do, draw attention to herself and change the discussion on the Obamacare mandate which tells the Catholic Church that its health insurance must provide treatments that violate its own doctrine on birth control.  

We're not asking any longer why such treatments must now be provided by any employer for free (and with no co-pay) when they're not that expensive to start with. We're not asking any longer how the government is able to tread over the fine line on the First Amendment or why disaffection with such care should be restricted to only the Church and not to any employer who feels that such mandates violate their personal beliefs. (Though perhaps it would be easier to get waivers if such organizations were simply to unionize.) We're not even asking where the president's executive order (the Stupak promise) that abortions would not be provided under the Obamacare compromise went to.  

Instead we're talking about Limbaugh impugning the character of a woman who's obviously a political activist, and who made her college choice by her own admission, in order to make a policy change at that university.  We're talking about access to women's health care that already exists as if it didn't, because Rush couldn't stop banging an out-of-tune drum that he thought would resonate with his audience.  Maybe his hearing is worse that he thinks, and he suffers from occasional bouts of being politically tone deaf.

(I won't even begin to talk about the disingenuous behavior of the progressive voices in the media, who want Rush's dismissal and an advertiser boycott for using some of the same language that they have in equally public venues when talking about their ideological opponents.)

Gas prices continue to go up, and the president goes out on the campaign trail to tell us that the problem can't be solved by drilling.  Really!  I can't and won't assign any particular blame to this chief executive; like most politicians running for office, he manages to pick and choose the stats he likes to back up his rhetoric, but the 'facts' are often contradictory.

Our president tells us that more oil is being produced in the US now than ever before ... and that this is to his credit.  Really!  What happened to the days not so long ago when he and other politicians told us that it takes 5-7 years for drilling to result in production; and if this is the case, how should he expect credit for drilling that began before he took office?  Meanwhile drilling permits remain at an all-time low, the pipeline from Canada can only be begun by going around presidential approval in an election year, and no new refinery has been built in over 30 years.

Hybrids must certainly be contributing to our ability to stretch the existing production, but the Middle East is becoming a scarier place week-by-week; so counting on them for our future oil seems like a worse plan than usual.  Increasing debt and Fed policies continue to make the dollar diminish in value against a barrel of oil (oil is currently only traded in dollars, though how long that will last is anybody's guess), which likewise contributes to its increased costs in the long term.  

As for electric cars, I am once again forced to point out what seems to escape those inside the Beltway in DC.  Even if we start buying fully electric cars, the electricity has to come from somewhere.  Coal burning power plants are closing, since they can't meet new EPA regulations.  Only one nuclear plant has been approved for construction since the Carter Administration, and it hasn't begun construction.  Solar and wind power generation can help but little (especially when solar panel manufacturers in this country are going down faster than the Titanic), and will never be able to fill the gap created by the impending loss of these coal plants, let alone provide us with the cheap energy which most economists agree is required to stimulate economic growth.  I guess that leaves us with further demands on oil and natural gas, which brings us back to where we started.  

(Then again, maybe the plan is to get us all into Chevy Volts that we can't afford, and with batteries catching fire for no apparent reason, keep us too scared to get into our cars in the first place and thereby reduce consumption.)
 
Super Tuesday winds to a close, and the winners (kind of) and losers (sort of) are both congratulating themselves on the job that they did (even if they didn't really do it).  And while they're patting themselves on the back, and thanking their staffs, their fundraisers, and their supporters; not one of them thinks to thank the American taxpayer; not for their vote, but for picking up the tab.  It is they after all, who are footing the bill for this state-by-state beauty contest; with many educated estimates holding the cost of these candidate benedictions  at $3,000,000 per state. 

Like the broken promises of most of candidates leave behind after an election, this bit of taxpayer largess goes largely unrecognized; something I find especially troubling when so many state budgets are being slashed left and right (pun intended) to at least attempt to meet the mandated responsibilities of a balanced budget.  When are we going to make these political parties pay for their own political parties?

It's a sad commentary on the political process indeed when 'hard working Americans' have to foot the bill so that the self-appointed political elite in this country can decide who's turn it is move up the political food chain.  Regardless of who gets the delegates, once again the American taxpayer has lost.

 

2012 Primaries: Let The Games Begin

The new year has begun and after an endless number of debates, the seemingly endless process of actual voting begins. Iowa got to go first in what they appear to deem a reward for being known for damned near nothing else; except perhaps their ability to produce pork on a scale that only the federal government can compete with.  (In the spirit of full disclosure, I should point out that my father's family came from Iowa, and many of them still reside there.)

Using an arcane caucus process whose rules are so convoluted that no one knows or cares whether they are followed and so ridiculous that even the IRS laughs at them, they managed to produce a virtual tie between the Republican front runner and a guy that a week before was tied for last. Casting aside a 'favorite daughter' in Michele Bachmann that only months before won their straw poll (an equally enigmatic and incomprehensible practice), they gave their blessing (a prediction that has had much the same accuracy as a coin flip) to former Governor Mitt Romney and former Senator Rick Santorum before passing them off to the next stop on the rodeo circuit, New Hampshire.

New Hampshire of course is known for three things: its rebellious "Live Free or Die" state motto, not being Iowa, and getting to vote after them. They were granted this favored #2 spot because they suffer from New England's equivalent of Iowa's dreariness. Unlike their Midwestern counterpart however, they recognized that the odd shape of their state and its pugnacious slogan were enough eccentricity for any one place, and chose instead to use a more normal primary election format to make their own selection. (Pity they didn't show a bit of New England austerity as well, and bill the entire process to the parties involved.) 

As any who follows the primary process knows (very few, except for politicians and political pundits), these selections then move south to South Carolina and Florida before January ends, then scatter like the fall leaves amongst the winter snows in February; with the entire process completed in June.  And in spite of the fact that only one primary has been held, most of those 'in the know' are once again predicting that the entire process will be all but over after just four of the some fifty odd contests (pun intended) are completed. 

I am not counting as part of the fifty, the primaries which are held in Guam, Puerto, or any of the other US possessions, as they are meaningless in terms of sending delegates to the Republican Convention.  Of course the same might be said of the Missouri primary held on February 7th, as delegates to the convention in this state are sent based on a caucus held a month later.  Missourians however, are known to be a stubborn lot, unwilling to surrender their right to choose regardless of how superfluous it proves.  

Primaries in my last three states of residence are strangely enough, grouped together in March; with Georgia on 3/3, Kansas on 3/6, and Ohio on 3/10.  All three share dates with other states across the nation, and curiously two of them share a date with Wyoming (3/6 thru 3/10).  Apparently citizens in Wyoming enjoy the caucus process so much (or things are so boring in Wyoming) that they participate in it for five days, though their ultimate decision gains no more credit than if they had done so in one.  (Maine also has an extended state caucus, one which runs even longer [4/4 thru 4/10], but their eccentricity might easily be explained by similar boredom, and sharing more border with Canada than the rest of the US.)   In perhaps some twisted form of egotism, Utah's primary is the last one held that actually gets to send delegates to the convention.  Though not able to send any great number of delegates, they do have the dubious honor of having their choice be usually and largely irrelevant.

And while the Republican candidate needs the votes of some 1144 of these party representatives, let us not forget that there are 132 'superdelegates' who will also cast votes at the convention.  These delegates are long-time party members in good standing who become a kind of Republican 'Hall of Fame', rewarded with a trip to the Convention held in Tampa, Florida this year in August (not what many would consider much of a reward).  These delegates are not obligated to vote based on the results of the primary held in their state of residence, but can instead simply vote their conscience (assuming after years of party politics, they still have one).  At the very least, they might hope to be courted by a number of candidates and get their names and pictures in the news one last time before sinking back into political irrelevancy and relative obscurity.

According to most of the pundits this whole thing is inconsequential anyway, as Mitt Romney will achieve the nomination because they say he will, because it's his turn after his prior attempt in 2008, or perhaps because he pulled a sword from a stone.  Apparently the only reason that we continue to go through the motions at all is to give the 24-hour news networks something to talk about for the next six months and to provide temporary boons to the economies of each state brought on by campaign events and media buys.  Besides, there is always the off chance that at least one of the candidates (or as in this year, all of them) will say something really stupid at a time when someone is there to record it (which is pretty much guaranteed) and provide sufficient fodder for the media to criticize them now, having previously built up their effort to seek high office.

But what the heck, the media circus involved seems to be providing sufficient distraction for the president to circumvent the spirit and the letter of the Constitution with recess appointments, allows Congress to demonize trading practices as illegal on Wall Street that they legally commit themselves, and have both doing nothing to halt a Federal Reserve increasingly taking control of the economy and a federal bureaucracy intent on expanding its own legislative / regulatory power while the two elected arms of government that are supposed to be in charge seem perfectly willing to cede them such responsibility.

So by all means, let's have more 'bread and circuses' for the masses.  Let these ridiculous, irrelevant, and inappropriately taxpayer funded internal party games begin. 

. 

Paid My Dues

 .
One of the hotbed political issues for Republicans and Conservatives in 2011 (I list these groups separately because all Republicans are not Conservative and many Conservatives are not Republican) is the idea that people shouldn't be forced to join a union in order to participate in certain parts of the economy.  There is likewise a feeling that even such participation should not force one to pay dues to an organization that they either did not and would not join if they had an actual choice in the matter, and that they feel does not represent them in spite of the money that they are forced to contribute.  I could not agree with these sentiments.

How is it then that the greatest offenders on a national scale are many of those same politicians?  Oh, don't get me wrong here, I don't believe that there is a 'politicians union' operating in this country, in spite of the fact that they have much of the same negotiating philosophies with their bosses; and seem perfectly willing to let their job provider (us) go down the tubes as long as they are in a position to collect their healthy compensation & pension packages. There are in fact however, two national organizations that seem to follow many of the same practices as those that (at least on the right) they demonize. 

How else am I to view Democrats and Republicans?  Both of these national organizations, like Unions, normally require proper affiliation before they offer preferred treatment and seek to help you.  Even when membership requirements have been established, they provide only limited assistance when seeking a job (and less than that for Republicans in Lucas County, Ohio).  Both insist on demonstrations of loyalty before power and responsibility are granted within their ranks.  Both seem perfectly content to sacrifice one of their 'brethren' if such sacrifice in turn protects their own position. Both often cause a great deal of damage in the process of exercising their real or imagined power. Neither appears willing to allow secret ballot when voting; and neither appears to be above twisting the truth or using strong arm tactics to see their ends met.

There is a difference however.  Unions at least, only charge their members dues, and do not insist on all of us paying for their internal elections.

How else am I to view the coming 2012 primary season?  While we are told that this is simply the process of picking presidential election contenders, the truth of the matter is that it's no more or less than picking representatives of the two major political parties. As much as members would like us to believe that they are a part of the government, they aren't.  Therefore the picking of their representatives for a political contest is their own responsibility.  Yet over the years, voters in states across the country have become convinced that it is the responsibility of EVERY TAXPAYER to foot the bill for a part of internal party politics.

Argue if you will that the primary process is necessary, such arguments do not make the process of billing the taxpayer for it any less egregious and unfair.  How can it be unfair you say, when all allowed to vote?  Really?  Try voting in a Republican or Democratic primary in many of these contests if you are a registered Libertarian or Independent.  In spite of the fact that all of us are paying for this process, many of us (in what should be considered an obvious case of voter disenfranchisement) will not be allowed to participate, since we haven't joined one of the two big clubs.

Of course we are told that if such restrictions aren't imposed, that members of opposing parties will sabotage elections.  I'm sure that those attempting to enforce 'Jim Crow Laws' had similar defenses used in justification for their deplorable behavior in restricting the right of a citizen to vote in the 19th and 20th centuries.  The possibility of misuse of the right to vote however, has never been seen as legal justification to restrict its exercise.  If the concern for abuse is so great, why not let each voter select a representative from each major political party and let such potential damage (and benefit) be shared equally?  This at the very least, might produce candidates that represent the views of the majority of those exercising the right to vote in such events, rather than the majority of those supporting the political party in question.

Ah, but while such a revision to the process might better serve the people footing the bill, it does not serve the greater goals of the parties themselves.  Apparently Republicans and Democrats do not want the opinions of every citizens (much as they need them in general elections), only those 'loyal to the party'. Well I'm sick of it; and I'm going to keep bringing this up until somebody starts paying some attention to what's going on.  Since it seems that the only way to get attention for an evil in this country (real or perceived) is to complain about it constantly until someone finally does something about it to shut you up, I am going to do so.

After all, it's not as if I haven't earned the right to do so.  If you counted up all of my taxes wasted in the name of Democratic and Republican primaries, you could certainly say that I've paid my dues ...


.

TFP Column: Too Little, Too Late

The results are coming in on the Toledo primaries, and none of them (including the embarrassingly small number of voters who cast ballots) is much of a surprise.  Equally unsurprising was that just a day before voting day, the Sixth District Court of Appeals finally released a decision telling the the Lucas County Board of Elections that they couldn't hold a hearing on whether to remove incumbent Democratic Councilwoman Lindsay Webb from the ballot.

This belated decision merely adds to a seemingly endless chain of overdue actions connected with this situation that I outline in an early effort this week for the Toledo Free Press website.  Come to think of it, writing "Too Little, Too Late" seems an action ripe tardiness itself.

If you want to catch up on the latest results of the Toledo primary and not find yourself late to the party, you'll do what all the other really smart people do.  You'll catch up on everything that goes on in the Glass City by reading not only the mid-week Star edition, but Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's Best Weekly newspaper, the Toledo Free Press.

The Cost of Politics

The latest round of primary elections are over around the nation. Voting machines have been taken down, poll workers are taking a well-deserved rest, and everyone has a chance to catch their breath before the run up to the November Election. Most importantly, we all find ourselves grateful in ways that we cannot begin to explain for the end of the latest round of political commercials on billboards, radio, and TV. And while it appears that fewer than one in five registered voters executed their electoral franchise in the effort overall, we seem to have run up a considerable bill in the performance of this constitutional right and obligation. 


My question is ... why are we paying for it? Yes I know that elections cannot be held without candidates (though there are times when we wish it were so) and that such elections incur costs. I also understand that there are times when more than one candidate representing a political party seeks the same office. Great! Anyone who wishes to run for a political office is free to do so. That there might be a plethora of candidates seeking office could be looked at as a tribute to the desire for public service in this country (or a realization that a political career is a pretty good gig in a tough economy), and is something that should celebrated.  What's wrong with letting any eligible and capable candidates seeking election do so? 


Some will say that while all of this may be true, winnowing the number of candidates (particularly those of the two major political parties) is necessary so as not to dilute the few votes seemingly cast these days. Of course most of those saying so are representatives of the political parties taking advantage of the situation. Even if we concede that this is true however (which I do not), it doesn't justify billing the taxpayer for the costs of an internal party selection process. 


If the Democrat and Republican parties (which are independent political organizations and not constitutionally sanctioned parts of government) feel the need to hold such special selection processes to choose party representation, they should by all means feel free to do so ... and pay for them from their own pockets. It is not within the purview of government to interfere with such an internal process, nor to sanction it by picking up the tab. 


At a time when political parties have become as much an impediment to good governing as they have a method of achieving it, they certainly deserve no special consideration. At a time when government spending has become little more than a political football that these two teams toss around to score political points, wasting tax payer dollars to fund their drafts seems a violation of the rules. 


Political parties are not a Constitutional requirement, and the current ones are in fact only the latest in a long line of such organizations (now mostly forgotten) in this county's history. Assigning them special preference and paying for internal decision making processes seems not only contrary to the founding principles of this country, but outside the limits of government as defined by the documents used to establish it. 


The party politics of government is often one of the reasons for its high cost. Continuing taxpayer funding for these political qualifiers is a political cost however that's simply wrong.

Primary Day

It's primary day in Kansas and Missouri today, and there are some hotly contested issues and races going on (which might explain the 100 degree temperatures here without falling back on global warming). It is likewise primary day in Michigan, near my former home in Toledo.

Voter turnout in both areas is expected to be less than 20%!

It seems both inconsistent and and incongruous that during a period in the history of this country when nothing is more contentious, that so few will bother to take a side and exercise their constitutional responsibilities. With Tea Party protests, progressive counter-protests, and non-stop news punditry on the state of political upheaval in this country so much on the minds and in the media these days, you would think it would be easy to get out the vote ... even for a primary. 


You would of course be wrong in believing so. Don't get me wrong, it's certainly understandable that a person can look at much of politics in general these days, most of the politicians in particular, and the bastardization of the campaign process that's going on; and throw their hands up in disgust. Professional politicians continue to dominate the campaigns for office, their commercials are excruciatingly annoying (on an almost Biblical scale) with a non-stop assault of 'half-truths, mis-truths and outright lies', and primaries often mean so little; that actually having to pick candidates can bring on serious bouts of nausea. 


That being said, the only way that anything has a hope of changing in this country is if as many people as possible participate in the process. So I urge those of you to bite the bullet, hold your nose if you must, and cast your ballot for the candidates that believe most as you do on this election day. 


There will be a notable posting tomorrow for my mid-week rant, both because of the subject matter and because it will be my 600th posting on Just Blowing Smoke. While some of what has appeared here over the years will never be considered timeless prose, much of it has involved a great deal of effort and perspiration, as well as some occasional brain cramping. Because we all like to make a big deal out of round numbers however, I decided that tomorrow's subject would be one of some importance. I urge you to find the time to take a look at it (and carefully).

Why Do We Pay For Primaries?

Candidates are already jockeying for position for state and local elections. Democrat, Republican, and Independent; they present themselves for positions for at-large City Council seats and for Mayor here in Toledo, while Congressional and Senate seats that are also up for grabs in this next election are a constant source of speculation as to who can beat who heads up. 
 
This got me thinking about the election process in general, and these preliminaries in particular. You see before we know it, it will be time for the political primaries. For some reason, the United States seems to have developed as a two party system. There is no real reason for this that I can discover, as there is nothing in the Constitution that mandates or limits the political process to two parties, and many other countries around the world seem to have made a multi-party system work; but it seems that this has been so almost since we first elected a president. 

Beginning with the Democratic-Republicans (curious when we see the two parties using those names today) who wanted a weak central government, a single opposition party grew, the Federalists who wanted a strong central government. Political parties came and went over the years, with such parties as the Anti-Masonic Party (1826-38), the Whig party (1833-56), one of my personal favorites the American party (known as the No-Nothings) (1854-58), the Socialist party of America (1901-73), with the current Democratic Party being formed in 1828, and the current Republican Party having been formed in 1854. 

And while we have often had more than three parties at any one time and there are some 3rd party candidates who have taken quite serious runs at offices in the US over the years (very occasionally even succeeding), for the most part the competition for elected office in the US has generally been a two party battle in this country. The point that I would like to make however is not that the two party system is good or bad, but that these two political parties appear to be quite capable to raise money to elect candidates, raise money to participate in conventions to decide on platforms, and raise even more money to choose candidates to run in their names at conventions. They even attempt to ask for my money from time to time in these efforts (I always refuse), but they never really ask for my input except to request my vote for their candidates on election day. 

They are not run by the government nor really for the government, but the preliminary internal elections that they have to choose their candidates are never the less paid for by the government. So you see, as a registered Independent (and card carrying Libertarian) I have to ask myself why any government money (you know, my money) is being used by either the Democratic and Republican Parties to hold these primaries, especially since I don't get to vote in either.

 Don't get me wrong. I want them to be able to field good candidates to chose from. I want them to be able to debate, share their views, and go through a process of choice to get the best people to run for office. I simply do not understand why this is a cost that should be picked up by the taxpayer rather than the party in question. Third party candidates do not get to utilize such government resources in challenging this two party monetary monopoly. Libertarians as an example, have to spend their own party funds to nominate their candidates. Heck, they have to spend a great deal of their party's funding to even get on the ballot in most cases, let alone to choose a candidate to do so. I see no reason therefore why membership in a one political party over another should rate special funding in running for office. 

Looking back at the amount of money spent during the last election cycle (the largest in history), I can see no reason why this can't be be the case. Both traditional parties proved themselves remarkably adroit in raising funds for campaigns, in spite of the current restrictions of campaign finance law. If that is so, let them raise the money to select their candidates as well. 

Certainly in these days of government funding cut backs and budget crunches, there is ample reason to remove this burden from city, state, and federal budgets. Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate this part of the electoral process. Perhaps in these days of hope and change it's time to divorce the political process from these two traditional parties that have not served it particularly well. Perhaps it is time to level the playing field a bit in order to elect the best possible people to office, rather than those from the two most in control political parties.

 

That's Not Right #9 - The Michigan Primary

Well it has been made official today that the Michigan primary will not be held again, and it will be up to the Howard Dean and the Democratic Party as to whether any delegates from the state of Michigan will be seated at the convention in Denver.

Now I didn't vote in either primary in Ohio (I am registered Independent) and I'm not an expert in Democratic party politics, in spite of the fact that I grew up in Chicago, a city long known for the intrigue and machinations of this particular political party. I seem to remember however, that the whole point of moving the primary up was to have a greater impact on the decision as to who would be the presidential candidate for the Democratic Party for 2008. 

So without attempting to interject any hint of smugness (right ...) at the way you are being treated by your own party, I have to ask ... How's that workin' out for you?

Post Election Depression

Well the Election Day madness is over in Ohio, and a couple of things became apparent. 

On a national level - Who really cares! McCain clinched the Republican nomination and Obama and Clinton are both willing to continue the fight. Blah, blah, blah ... This election has gone on so long that I can't keep an adequate supply of duct tape around the house to keep my head from exploding. I refuse to comment further on that madness, as every news wonk for 10,000 miles around has already talked it to death. 

Besides, I am too depressed to care (and I am sure that you want to know why). It is because on the local level, the city of Toledo voted to continue a .75% income tax and for a 6.5 mil levy for the Toledo Public Schools for the next 5 years by almost a 3-2 margin. 

Now you might wonder why in the world people would vote to remove money from their own pockets, but that would be because you don't understand the politics of the city of Toledo, so let me explain. Toledo is a union town (surprise, huh). In fact, approximately 30% of the population holds union membership. Any reduction in taxes, either in the city income tax or the levy, would predominantly impact the wages of the union workers in Toledo. These workers (police, fire, trash pick up, city office workers, teachers) have some pretty sweet contracts right now. 

Those contracts are negotiated by the politicians asking for the higher taxes. The unions therefore, vote for what the politicians ask for, and in return, the politicians keep the government taps open for these union contracts, as well as any other projects that are required to keep those in power - in power. 

And power in Toledo passes through families as if it were organized crime. Sons and daughters follow fathers and mothers in a form of political genetic engineering that seems to result in the shallow end of the gene pool forever in charge of local government. 

Quite frankly, the entire thing seems like a real-life version of "Groundhog Day". No matter when you wake up, Toledo is the same, and people with the same last names are running it.  

So the insanity continues, and the population of the city of Toledo (at least the smart ones or the ones with choices) seek for ways to escape the madness. I know that I should too, but I am simply too depressed to think about it right now. I am the Brando character in "Apocalypse Now", sitting in the dark, endlessly repeating: "The Horror, the horror ..." 

Election - Words of Wisdom

On this, the day of the Ohio Primary, I thought that it would be worthwhile to share some of the wisdom recorded over the years about politics. For myself, I will say only this, "Get out and Vote!"  

"Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business... frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite."
 - Ronald Reagan  

"We in America do not have government of the majority. We have government of the majority who participate." 

- Thomas Jefferson  

"Liberty without learning is always in peril; learning without liberty is always in vain."
 - John F Kennedy 

"If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one?"
- Abraham Lincoln  

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." 
- H L Menken

"This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer. - Will Rogers