Before the beginning of this election cycle I thought with glee how the far right would go into shock if Senator Clinton became President. I started out wanting Senator Edward's to win. But he could not get the traction needed. It was funny to watch Edward's propose something, then Obama and Clinton would go along with is and present it like it was their idea in the first place.
Once Senator Edward's dropped out and I had to decide between Clinton and Obama. They both had similar positions, I ended up supporting Senator Obama. I thought he was a person that would make the Democratic party stronger in the long run. Also most his financing came from small donners, Clinton on the other hand appears to me to be beholding to the big lobbyists and contributors that she started with.
I see Senator Clinton now and it is like Governor Huckabee earlier this year. Even though it was virtually impossible for Governor Huckabee to win he continued on until Senator McCain won a majority. The same as Senator Clinton is doing now. They were both being told they should step down for party unity. Both continued even against the nay sayers. What saddens me and yes at time angers me is that unlike Governor Huckabee, Senator Clinton keeps trying to damage Senator Obama, which is something that Governor Huckabee did not do with Senator McCain. On top of that she is appearing to be a sore loser. She wants to change the rules at the end of the contest so she can have a chance to win. Even though these were the rules she agreed to play by at the beginning of the campaign.
Senator Obama perceived the weaknesses that Senator Clinton had and still has. She focuses only on the big states. Senator Obama's team focused on all states. She went for the big contributors, he went for many more small ones. He was able to swing things his way despite all of Senator Clinton's advantages. He and his team were just plain smarter than Clinton and her team was. This means that Senator Obama has much bigger coat tails than Senator Clinton has. Obama already has organizations in all 50 states. With him as the candidate, we will elect more democrats down ticket than Clinton would. Obama has bourght in more people into the party than Clinton and will continue to do so in the future.
It pains me that Senator Clinton appears to be setting Senator Obama up for failure in FLorida and Michigan. I know she wants to win, but at what cost. A broken and shattered party?
I do not doubt that Obama's supporters would turn on Clinton at this point. I know the exit polls say Obama's voters say they would vote for Clinton, but it is easy to say that when your candidate is winning. If the roles were reversed you would see Obama's supporters saying what Clinton's supporters are saying now. Even worse Clinton would have to basically cheat to win, which would turn off even more people. At this point , if Clinton became the Democratic candidate I would not vote for her. I would vote for some third party candidate instead. I have done so more than once in the past.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Accountable congressional wages
Politicians love to talk about how people should be paid according to their performance. But are not willing to let that happen to them.
What I would love is to have all our federally elected officials (President, VP, Senators and Congressmen) wealth and pay be directly connected to the median household income after taxes and healthcare costs.
This would be easy to do for their salary. Just find how much you have to multiply the current median household income after taxes and healthcare to get their current salary. Then just keep using that multiple each year. That way if people get more disposable income then our elected officials get a raise. If on the other hand people have less disposable income then our elected officials salaries get docked.
We would need to do the same type of thing with their wealth. We do not want conflict of interests. So they would only be allowed to keep one home in their district, one home in Washington DC and one vacation home. They would have to divest themselves of all other investments. They would then put the money into a governmental fund. This fund would be like a mutual fund but is tied to median household income after taxes and healthcare.
When a person leaves office they would then be able to invest in whatever they wanted. Also the homes they kept would be appraised when they first came into office and when they left office. If the home went up more than the government fund did, then the amount would be subtracted from how much money the person would get out of the fund. On other hand if the values did not keep up with the fund, they would get that much more money out of the fund.
This way our elected federal officials are now interested in the fate of the average man, rather than the wealthy or the elite.
What I would love is to have all our federally elected officials (President, VP, Senators and Congressmen) wealth and pay be directly connected to the median household income after taxes and healthcare costs.
This would be easy to do for their salary. Just find how much you have to multiply the current median household income after taxes and healthcare to get their current salary. Then just keep using that multiple each year. That way if people get more disposable income then our elected officials get a raise. If on the other hand people have less disposable income then our elected officials salaries get docked.
We would need to do the same type of thing with their wealth. We do not want conflict of interests. So they would only be allowed to keep one home in their district, one home in Washington DC and one vacation home. They would have to divest themselves of all other investments. They would then put the money into a governmental fund. This fund would be like a mutual fund but is tied to median household income after taxes and healthcare.
When a person leaves office they would then be able to invest in whatever they wanted. Also the homes they kept would be appraised when they first came into office and when they left office. If the home went up more than the government fund did, then the amount would be subtracted from how much money the person would get out of the fund. On other hand if the values did not keep up with the fund, they would get that much more money out of the fund.
This way our elected federal officials are now interested in the fate of the average man, rather than the wealthy or the elite.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
The politics of non-responsibility
I often find it amazing that we talk about people being accountable for their actions, then create laws that protect business people from being accountable.
A good example of what happens now happened a few years ago.
The manufacturer of the bullet proof vests that knew their vests were degrading over time and that they were starting to fail. Did they inform the police departments that had purchased the vests several years before? No? What did the the top executives of the company say? When cops start bleeding then they will know. Several police officers died before they told their customers about the problem.
For me this should be involuntary man-slaughter. If they told their customers about the problem before anyone had died. Fine, then the people would have known the vests may not be as good as they should be and may have been a tad more cautious.
Why can't we pass a law that makes the executives criminally responsible for their actions in cases like this? It would make it so they would want to get out detrimental information about their product instead of hiding it. If it hurt sales of the product so be it. But people have the right to know both the good and bad things about a product.
A good example of what happens now happened a few years ago.
The manufacturer of the bullet proof vests that knew their vests were degrading over time and that they were starting to fail. Did they inform the police departments that had purchased the vests several years before? No? What did the the top executives of the company say? When cops start bleeding then they will know. Several police officers died before they told their customers about the problem.
For me this should be involuntary man-slaughter. If they told their customers about the problem before anyone had died. Fine, then the people would have known the vests may not be as good as they should be and may have been a tad more cautious.
Why can't we pass a law that makes the executives criminally responsible for their actions in cases like this? It would make it so they would want to get out detrimental information about their product instead of hiding it. If it hurt sales of the product so be it. But people have the right to know both the good and bad things about a product.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)