The BIG LIE about CU is REVEALED

I have grown increasingly frustrated with the deliberate ignorance and BIG LIe that is the argument against the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision. It time that I stop trying to educate individually, rather to take a broader approach with this blog. First let me state that I am no ideologue, I am a life long Republican, but rarely vote for a Republican unless they are deemed by ME as being worthy of my vote which has become a rare occurrence to say the least. I am a center-right voter. What was CU all about? A little history. The McCain/Feingold campaign reform law place limitations on the amount of money a person or corporation could spend on an individual candidate or party. When it came to issue ads, individuals were allowed to spend every dime they had. An issue ad is one that CANNOT be coordinated with any candidate or party. This is an ad that as an individual you want to throw your support to a candidate or party as a private person. PAC's, which are corporations were, by law, limited in their ability to create an issue ad as there was a financial limit to what they could spend. What CU was about was a PAC, which is a corporation created an infomercial attacking then candidate Hillary Clinton. The FEC cried foul as the CU PAC's broke the law by over spending. CU objected and filed suit claiming an infringement of 1st amendment rights of the people who were part of that PAC, a corporation. The Supreme Court agreed. So what was the effect of CU on elections? Now some claim that it means the Koch's and Adelson's of the country were now free to 'buy' an election. This is just not so. These individuals could have always spent unlimited amounts on issue ads PRIOR to CU. So let us put that one to rest. CU had nothing to do with individual's right to spend unlimited amounts of money on issue ads. So lets look at the effect of CU on the last election...Karl Rove's PAC (a corporation)spent $125M to defeat Mr. Obama and install Mr. Romney as President. How did that work out for them? Adelson spent a like amount as an individual for the same purpose and what was that result? So here you have $250 MILLION spent to 'buy' an election and what happened? Complete and total failure. So how can the CU ruling be a good thing? Here is a hypothetical for you to consider. Prior to CU, if David Koch wanted to create an issue ad supporting an anti-environment candidate and the Sierra Club (a corporation) wanted create their own ad, they were limited financially. They could never match Koch's money legally. AFTER CU the Sierra Club can fight him on equal footing. The playing field is leveled. Now this is but one example. Now for those of you who think in terms of say, Walmart being a corporation, which it is and they decide to support some extremist candidate or cause, it would be corporate suicide. First, the board of directors would have to approve the expenditure. Now, do you really think Walmart is going to put their stock price in jeopardy by doing something so stupid? No, they won't. The stockholders would never stand for it. Sure, they may not be known by the FEC, but the SEC would know they spent that money. Look, corporations have lobbyists who are much more effective for the money spent. Why bother with a crapshoot like an election?

Spending...spending...spending.... a solution.

For years the amount of government spending has come under public scrutiny, as in it's way too much or out of control. The problem with that logic is the premise. The premise being, no one really knows what the hell they are talking about. It's easy to say cut the military, cut finding for this and that. Unless we know what it is that should be cut, the perception is simply, cut the whole thing across the board. Of course, this is a fools errand. No one person it seems really knows where ALL of the funding goes. Unlike business, government is guided by law, which allows for certain responsibilities of any given agency or department. The second part of course is funding those responsibilities which is a completely separate issue. The next part of the puzzle is the difference between the needs of that agency or department and the political desires of politicians.

I will try to explain the problem. Let us say Congress creates an law that is responsible for building a bridge to nowhere. Of course, this tidbit will be buried in some other legislation that has national security or other mandatory issues and will pass no matter what. So now this agency is formed with a small budget to establish and man it minimally. Once the ball gets rolling, money is required for pre-construction, permits, other government agency rules and regulations to be implemented. Money is required for design. Say the agency finds an architect that will do the job for say $1M. A Congressman thinks it's not enough and thinks some other firm can do the job for $10M, so pressure is applied (funding threats). The Congressman has a vested interest in his district where the job is going to be accomplished. So instead of taking the guidance of the agency, someone sticks their nose in the deal and the price goes up. The same applies down the road until the project is actually built, or becomes so expensive that it is scrapped and all that money is wasted.

This sort of thing happens all the time, especially when it comes to military contracts. Such was the case for the second engine for the F35, the engine manufacturer was based in Mr. Boehner's district. The USAF said the engine was not needed or wanted, yet Boehner insisted. In the end, the engine was scrapped, but this was the exception rather than the rule. Military contractors are sacred cows, not so much for the military, but the politicians who want to keep their 'friends' happy.

So what is the solution? Transparency in the process would be a great start. A line item veto would be acceptable. Maybe the way funding legislation is written would be a better way to go. What if each department creates it's own budget based upon it legislative authority, that budget is approved by the top level department and that budget is sent to Congress for funding with a simple up or down vote. The Congress then votes on a locked budget without any given member tweaking any part of it. If approved, then the funds are released to the top department for disbursal. If the Congress votes down the budget, which the only possible reason would be it's too much, they can kick it back asking for say a 5% reduction and leave it up to the department(s) to find the savings and they resubmit the budget. Or Congress can simply approve a lower amount, but not higher.

As it stands now, it would take hundreds of accountants, taking each expenditure into consideration to find out where the money really goes. For us to just say, cut this and that means we too have no clue as to where the money goes. Would Congress be more effective by voting on a department budget without investigating  who they buy paper clips from and at what price?