News & Articles

There’s So Much Money In Politics Today Expensive “Free Speech” Doesn’t Mean Anything

The Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) and the Earth Institute at Columbia University has surveyed 157 countries to find the “world’s happiest place” based on such facts as Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDP), social support, healthy life expectancy, freedom to make life choices, generosity, and income. All of the top ten “happiest” are countries that have some form of Democratic Socialism government, led by Denmark and followed by Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Canada, Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia, and Sweden. The U.S. was 13th, England 23rd, France 32nd, and Italy 50th. The bottom ten were Madagascar, Tanzania, Liberia, Guinea, Rwanda, Benin, Afghanistan, Togo, Syria, and Burundi. Professor Jeffrey Sachs, director of the SDSN and an advisor to U.N. Secretary Ban Ki-Moon, had some strong words for us in an interview: “There is a very strong message for my country the United States, which is very rich, has gotten a lot richer over the last 50 years, but has gotten no happier. The message is clear. For a society that just chases money, we are chasing the wrong things. Our social fabric is deteriorating, social trust is deteriorating, faith in government is deteriorating…When countries single-mindedly pursue individual objectives such as economic development to the neglect of social and environmental objectives, the results can be highly adverse for human well-being, even dangerous for survival. Many countries in recent years have achieved economic growth at the cost of sharply rising inequality, entrenched social exclusion, and grave damage to the natural environment.”  His comments could be essential sections from the platform of one of our political parties.

Happiness: A  $9.95 Timex or a $815,000 Gruebel-Forsey Quadruple Tourbillion  Wristwatch

Social research indicates that a man who earns $75,000 a year is as happy as a man who earns $75 billion a year, but our society does not seem to follow that science. TAG Heuer is a Swiss watchmaker that makes a wristwatch with a mechanisms called  tourbillions, an intricate mechanism, very accurate, which they sell at $815,000 each. Evidently its very attractive on the wrist and eliminates any idea of minor deviation from the absolute correct time because in the escapement there is a balance spring and balance wheel inside a tiny rotating cage to fight the effects of gravity on time. Frankly, I’m a cheap watch guy. Over the years I used free gift watches for years provided by magazines and mail order companies when buying subscriptions or just “stuff.” Two or three of them lasted for ten years or more and kept good time, even in extreme gravity. Sometimes I have lost wristwatches overboard while fishing the mighty walleye. Or I have broken crystals while using hammers and other tools. I finally had to buy a watch a month ago because of brushing up against a door frame. I splurged for $9.95. It keeps great time and even glows in the dark. I’m happy with it. It must be my peasant background.
Hall of Fame basketballer “Sir Charles” Barkley, who always moved his black 280-lb frame into the right spot to get a tough rebound, is my favorite sport and social critic. He always tells it like it is—or should be. He recently put together the following diatribe: “I’ve always voted Democratic. Always. I don’t know why. I’m trying to figure out what they’ve done for us…The whole thing has turned me off…The Republicans disagree with everything he (Obama) says. I feel bad for the American people. It’s going to have zero effect on my life who the president is. I’ll be rich either way….All politics is rich people screwing poor people.”  The wisdom and words of a black urban philosopher.

Perhaps Billionaires Have Bought The Presidency And The Congress, But Have They Bought The Voters?

Jeb Bush jacked up the super-Pacs created by Citizens United for over $118 million for his run at the Republican presidential nomination, but ended up in “over-my-dead-body” land. ‘Tis said it cost his rich backers $1,000 for each vote he received in the primaries until he flamed out. Poor Jeb—he was just a tetch smarter than his brother—maybe. The primary, which has a stretch to go, has become known as the billionaire’s primary. The 100 biggest donors have put in $195 million in an attempt to buy the presidency. So far, Bush got $49 million, Hillary got $38 million (with an additional $8 million from Democratic moneybags George Soros), Senator Ted Cruz $37 million, and flame-out Senator “Little Marco” of Florida got $22 million. The following proves you don’t have to be smart to make a billion bucks. The super-rich spent $181 million supporting empty suits for the Republican nomination for the presidency, finally realizing there was nothing at the end of the rainbow except losers: Lindsey Graham, who, with John McCain, always wanted to go to war with everybody; Mike Huckabee, who thought he had the chairseat at the right-hand; George Pataki, (who?); Rick Perry, whose rich top hair conceals nothing; and Scott Walker, who groveled and whined before the Koch brothers for a dime. Real ugly.

Now We Have Another Complex

Not only do we have a military-industrial complex that promotes the manufacture of military hardware and equipment in most of the states by lobbyists who move from the Pentagon to manufacturers and back again on moving sidewalks, we now have an election-industrial complex because of Citizen’s United in 2011. Andrew Cockburn in his Harper’s Magazine article expresses the main idea of this new “complex” that the Supreme Court’s approval of this case has promoted: “the core belief of modern American politics is that votes can be bought if the check is big enough.” But maybe there is such a pile of money in politics today dark cash has lost all meaning. The departed Jeb Bush spent $78.4 million before a primary vote was cast—and didn’t win a single primary or caucus. “Little Marco” Rubio blew $40 million winning only three primaries. Scott Walker of Wisconsin fame was in the pockets of the esteemed billionaire Koch brothers with a $20 million super-PAC and was chased out of precincts before he even got into the 2016 voting booth. Both parties spent $100 million on TV ads before the New Hampshire primary—and election experts claimed it didn’t change a single vote. In 2012, before Citizen’s United got rolling, the parties spent only $2 million! Casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson blew $150 million on Republican candidates in the 2012 election—and most of them lost anyway.

When Mother’s Milk Sours

Weird Ben Carlson, a neurosurgeon who must have thought politics was really rocket science, raised $64 million in 2016 through super-PACs and other campaign committees—and then spent $57 million of it raising more money. Oh, the high-life of political consultants! A rat’s nest of Carson’s friends made millions running PR and other companies for his campaign. Even the wife of a consultant picked up $1.3 million over three months for undisclosed work. After Newt Gingrich bailed out of the 2012 race and spending a lot of Adelson’s money, his campaign sold his donor list to other campaigns for $1 million each. Mitt Romney’s donor lists can now be rented for $131,468. Consultants have become millionaires by pocketing over 60% of the donations. According to Cockburn, a study of the effectiveness of TV ads in 2008 indicated people didn’t pay any attention to TV ads (God bless the remote inventor!), In fact, voters who did not listen or view ads voted more than those that listened to all of the ads. Even the “autopsy” conducted by the Republican Party after Romney’s loss in 2012 concluded that “the extraordinary amount of money” spent on TV did not change the final results of the election from polls taken six months earlier.  Research seems to prove that the only way to change votes is to talk face-to-face with voters. That method also costs money, but at least the politicians are hiring people to do it instead of cameras.
The 2012 defeat of Virginia Republican Representative Eric Cantor, who was majority leader of the House, is instructive for all politicians. His constituents did not like his backing of Wall Street bailouts and Cantor’s support of  Chamber of Commerce policies, so they ran a little-known right-wing college professor against him in the primary. Cantor’s campaign spent millions for a ton of TV ads and outspent the challenger 41 to 1. Cantor’s campaign spent $168,000 for restaurant tabs alone—almost equal to what the challenger spent on his entire campaign!  Cantor’s pollster said he would win 60% of the vote a week before the vote. But the challenger Dave Brat clobbered Cantor by 12 points. Lesson: Money, often called “the mother’s milk of politics,” sometimes sours quickly.

How The Ultra-Rich Bought Democracy And Replaced It With Oligarchy

The big political problem now  is Congress and state legislatures stay bought. The One Percent has more assets  than the bottom 99 Percent, and  has bought a Congress which provides them with  special social and political welfare insurance plans. As an example, the Internal Revenue Service has approved Karl Rove’s creation, Crossroads GPS, as a nonprofit social welfare group, the same tax-standing as the American Red Cross, the Humane Society, and the Little Sisters of the Poor. But Crossroads did not save or assist one puppy or kitten, one homeless veteran, one hurricane victim, one victim of fire, disaster, flood, or collapse; did not serve one meal in a soup line, did not deliver a single hot meal to the elderly, nor pay for a penniless patient in a hospital emergency room. It spent every donation—tax deductible—totaling $330 million, on political campaigns opposing Democrats and other liberal groups. Three Crossroads donors gave more than $10 million each, 53 gave more than $1 million each. As Leo Gerald of the United Steelworkers says, “One Percenters have it all, extra houses, extra cars, even if they kill, ‘affuenza,’ to keep them out of jail.” Why should the rich get a tax deduction for benefitting only the rich—all done in secret? Donors do not have to reveal their names. And Congress? They passed a law which prohibits the IRS from defining what “social welfare” means for two years!
Because of our complex laws and loopholes sneaked into the 70,000 pages of tax laws by Congress, companies in 2015 avoided $695 billion in taxes by parking profits in overseas tax havens. The Citizens for Tax Justice estimate the amount of unrepatriated foreign profits stashed overseas has reached $2.4 trillion, and reports that “Every dollar shifted to an offshore tax haven means less federal revenue to pay for the infrastructure, education, and other public services that help our economy grow.”

Congress Has Created Another  “Complex,” The Pharmaceutical-Complex

   The obscene prices of drugs set by the pharmaceutical complex is only exceeded by the “chutzpah” of saying research and development of new drugs exceeds the cost of marketing. Gilead Sciences charges $84,000 for a 12-week course of treatment for hepatitis C while the same treatment in Egypt is priced at $900. The pharmaceutical- complex, the election-complex, and the military-industrial complex have to be forced to explain the costs of research and development (drug companies spend only 1/5th of what they say they spend!) and the pricing of products. The drug industry can start by explaining why:

 • Kalydeco, a cystic fibrosis drug, is priced at $300,000 per year per patient.
 • Acthar, a seizure drug that treats infants under 2 years of age, is priced at $300,000 per year.
 • Kadcyla, a breast cancer drug, is priced at $94,000 a year.
 • Zyddelig, a leukemia drug, is priced at $57,755 a year.
 • Hetlioz, a drug that treats non-24 sleep disorder affecting blind people, is priced at $60,000 a year.

Perhaps the pharmaceutical-complex could save a few bucks by not advertising the ravages of toe nail fungus and the excitement of Viagra every five minutes. Please take four hours off.