Making Trade and the Global Economy Work for the American Worker

The global economy is a fact and there is no avoiding it.  Trade is also a necessary fact of economic life.

The question is, how to make the global economy and trade work for America.  And by work I mean work for the American worker, not allowing corporations to prosper and investors to get rich at the expense of workers.  In today’s multi-national corporate world, we must remember that the interests of the corporation are often if not mostly not in line with the interests of their workers because of off-shoring and out-sourcing; we are increasingly not producing here to send abroad, but producing abroad to import here.

As I’ve stated previously, corporate interests have been the true driving force behind most government decisions in this as in all areas for the last 3-4 decades.  While that should continue to be part of our strategy, for the health of both corporations and investors are  very important to our economy, those interests should not be the driving force.  Instead, our most important goal must be to make the global economy work for the American worker.

As I stated in my 2004 book, We Still Hold These Truths, the American worker is the backbone of the American economy.  “Whether blue collar or white collar, whether skilled or unskilled, whether managing a major corporation or a local fast-food operation … each individual American worker contributes to and sustains the American economy.  He/she is both producer and consumer.”    I would note as an aside that American independent farmers, as opposed to big farm corporations, are self-employed American workers and so very much part of the backbone of our economy.

It is the American worker as consumer, together with constructive government action, that has enabled our economy to sustain itself and recover from hard times.   Not corporate America.

How would this revised decision-making perspective impact government policy in the areas of  trade, industrial development, infrastructure investment, worker education, and Third World development?  I am not an expert on economics, and so I will not pretend to have solutions or opinions on how best to implement such a strategy.  

We will need to develop new economic models that show how the American economy and its workers can prosper in this changed environment.  We must ask questions, like, are even “smart” free-trade deals that harm American workers while enriching corporations better for the economy and the worker than having no free-trade deals?  What is the role of government-funded infrastructure projects, so badly needed for our future economic health, to providing un- or under-employed ex-factory workers with good-paying jobs?  How do we encourage corporate investment in manufacturing jobs in the United States?  Is the best way of restoring the economic strength of the middle-class worker to bring development and rising wages to the Third World?

Let me just say a few words on this last point.  It is to the American worker’s benefit for our government to aid Third World development.  Why?  As the standard of living rises in the Third World, wages will rise and the benefit of off-shoring or out-sourcing work will decrease for American business.  That has already happened to some extent with China where companies have transferred production to lower cost countries in Southeast Asia.  When their wages rise, as they inevitably will, jobs will start returning to the U.S.  This is admittedly not a short-term solution, but it must be part of the strategy.

The Democratic Party must make this an important part of its 2020 campaign platform.  It fits seamlessly with the Democratic vision statement I proposed in my post, “The 2020 Election Is about the Survival of American Democracy, Our Historic Values.”  

And it provides an important differentiation between Democratic policy and Trump policy.  Despite his rhetoric, Trump has approached nothing, including the revision of NAFTA, with the interests of the American worker as the driving force.  It’s been business as usual, what’s best for corporate interests.  Democrats must make this startlingly clear.

So They Want Class Warfare? Let's Have It Then.

Major corporations and financial institutions, and the 1% behind them, have been waging class warfare against the average person for years.  They act in total disregard for the common good and have perverted our democracy into government of industry, by industry, and for industry.  President Eisenhower’s prescient warning against the power of the military/industrial complex has come true.  It is now past time to fight back.

What do you think is the major problem facing the United States today?  If you think it’s unresponsive government, government gridlock, the Democrats, or the Republicans, you are not getting at the underlying problem.  If you think it’s discrimination and bigotry, that’s certainly a big one, but that’s not it either.  

The major problem we face is the control that corporations and financial institutions have over government and our lives.  Whether you are a small farmer, an under-employed former middle class factory worker, a consumer with a huge credit card debt, a person of color living in the ghetto whose children go to schools that aren’t schools, a resident of rural or urban America who sees your life getting worse, not better … the underlying problem is the same.

The problem is that because of the control of corporations and financial institutions, the focus of government is on their needs and interests, not the needs of the people.  They are not the same.  We long ago gave the lie to the saying, “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country.”  Government thus is not meeting its purpose, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, of securing the peoples’ right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Class warfare is a dirty word in the United States.  Whenever someone makes an argument against the power of corporations or the moneyed class, they are stuck with that critical label.  This was certainly the case with Bernie Sanders.  The implication is that class warfare is un-American.  It reeks of Communism or Socialism.

No type of internal warfare, whether with arms or merely verbal, is desirable in a civilized society.  But we have come to the point in the United States where class warfare is necessary if we are to survive as a democracy dedicated to government of the people, by the people, and for the people. There is no other way to reverse the control corporations have amassed.

The United States in 2017 is a land where all real power rests with major corporations and financial institutions.  Through their lobbying and vast donations to campaigns, corporations have taken control of Congress and their interests prevail.

Yes, we the people still vote and elect our representatives and the president.  But even that has been corrupted because corporate-funded political advertising, thanks to Citizens United, now exerts a huge influence on how we vote.  We are bombarded with deceitful messages in support of those who protect corporate interests, and so people have been fooled into voting against their best interests.  As Lincoln is credited as saying, “You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time.”

And so big money has gained effective control of Congress and is now moving on the regulatory process.  This isn’t just a criticism of Republicans.  As I’ve stated in previous posts, while Democrats certainly fight for the interests of the average person and protect the environment, they too are beholden to big money interests.  And so while their legislative agenda is liberal and primarily centered around doing things that benefit the average person, the general good, everything they do is circumscribed by their need to not disturb big money donors too much.  That affected Dodd-Frank, it affected Obamacare, it affected the people President Obama brought in to run the Treasury Department … it affects everything.

Why is it so harmful for big money interests to control Congress?  Why is it that we can’t allow our country’s welfare to rest in the hands of the top 1%?  Many Americans think that powerful, rich people clearly know what they’re doing and so they are the logical people to entrust our welfare to.

The problem is that while they certainly know what they’re doing, it’s all about furthering their own interests.  If that’s at the expense of the interests of the average person, the consumer, the greater good … too bad.  Such is life!

Corporations exist for one reason and one reason only … to make and constantly increase profit for the benefit of shareholders and management.  Today that bottom line focus is worse than ever given the pressure of the stock market’s expectations.  

As for the top 1%, who are usually part of this corporate/financial establishment, they have concern only for themselves.  They are the ultimate poster child of the “me” generation.  

Corporations and people with that kind of money have become so separated from the average person that they just don’t connect anymore.  They have no concern for the needs of the average person or the greater good.  The fact that so many are now multi-national and as a result their prosperity is not tied to the United States economy makes their separation even more pronounced.

And so, as I’ve argued previously, we need to have a soft revolution in the United States.  The people need to rise up and truly take back government.  Not by electing a Donald Trump who has no intention of giving government back to the people … talk about putting a fox in charge of the hen house! … but by electing representatives who are honestly dedicated to protecting the interests of the average person by restoring and improving the balance that the United States built during its progressive period … roughly the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt through Jimmy Carter, 1901 - 1980.

The United States came to its full maturity and strength (economically and militarily) during the 20th century because it harnessed the potential of both the American people and its corporations.  It did this by creating a balance between private rights, the public good, and government.

Because it’s about restoring this historic American balance, the soft revolution proposed is not about emasculating corporations, about removing the profit incentive, or removing them from positions of influence.  It is not about becoming a Socialist country.  Corporations are very important to the well-being of our country and its citizens, and so they not only deserve a seat at the table, they need to be at the table.  

But this revolution is about limiting their power, reducing the greed that currently drives corporate actions and causes them to disregard even the interests of their consumers, let alone the general public.  Even during our progressive period, there is no shortage of examples of corporations acting against the interests of their consumers and the general public.  The decision-making process in corporations needs to be transformed.  

But it should not be the role of government to micro-manage corporations.  We should not have to resort to regulations.  That is not healthy and it is not efficient.  What we need is the creation of an evolved corporate persona and decision-making process that is not at odds with the interests of their consumers, the greater good, and the environment. 

This will not happen without the aroused involvement of voters across traditional party lines in favor of Congressmen who will truly protect and further their interests, who see it as their prime responsibility to secure the right of all Americans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Who will work with corporations and financial institutions but insure a balance between private rights, the public good, and government.

Hopefully we will prove the truth of the final part of Lincoln’s remark noted above … “But you can’t fool all the people all the time.”  Rise up America.

What Drives Policy Decisions? - The Theory v The Reality

Since the establishment of representative democracies, the role of government has been to promote and secure the safety and well-being of their people.  As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the first official document stating this concept of government, “That to secure these rights [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  That is at least the theory on paper.

From the beginning, a tactical problem was encountered in that the interests of all the people are rarely, if ever, in agreement.  Added to this complexity are the varied interests of organizations and corporations which, while creatures of the law, nevertheless should also be promoted by government since the law provides for their existence because they are thought to contribute to the good of the whole.  

To deal with this multiplicity of interests, the concept arose of government promoting the greater good.  The question is always whether a policy is in the interest of the people as a whole, or at least not contrary to their interest.  

For example, if a policy is good for wealthy individuals but harmful for the rest of society, then it is not in the greater good.  Likewise, policies that favor particular corporations to the detriment of the public are not in the greater good.  The old saying, “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country,” was debunked many years ago.

However, corporate and public interests are not always at odds.   A policy that favors particular corporations could be in the interest of the people because, for example, it is directly tied to creating jobs or encourages the development of products at a reasonable cost that are needed for the welfare of the people.  

One used to say that policies that promote robust corporate growth are on their face for the greater good because that means more jobs and better wages.  However, in modern times that is not the case.  Policies have fostered corporate growth and profit, but workers have not benefited and even been harmed, either because jobs were sent overseas or because wages stagnated.

Needs and interests are not just competing but are often in conflict.  In its effort to promote the safety and well-being of all, government’s policies need to be balanced so that at a minimum all have their most critical needs met and have the opportunity to prosper.

But what is the reality of government decision making?  While the people do vote for their representatives, it is the corporations through their lobbyists and campaign donations who have control of government.  It is true that Democrats are more attentive to “the public good” than Republicans, but even they are deeply influenced by corporate interests which, while not wiping out their support of various programs or efforts, does often weaken the programs’ effectiveness by lessening their impact on corporations and the corresponding protection afforded the public.

While the influence of corporations has been a recurring issue during our history, it is only in the post-WWII era … remember President Eisenhower’s admonition to beware the growth and influence of the military-industrial complex … and even more so beginning with the Reagan years that corporate influence has become so predominant as to render our representative democracy to a large extent illusion.

To understand the terrible human cost of this development, let’s look at some examples of both domestic and foreign policy.  (Although the Declaration of Independence only deals with the relationship between the American government and its people, these same principles should govern foreign policy decisions by government because ultimately the people are affected.  And also because this is what we say we stand for.)

The most horrendous example in recent foreign policy was of course the Iraq war.  Although the talk was to save U.S. citizens from Saddam’s missiles and the Iraqi people from his tyranny, the reality was that the invasion of Iraq was to enhance corporate interests by gaining control of Iraqi oil and establish a friendly base in that economically and militarily strategic part of the Middle East.  But when we left Iraq, not only had we not gained our corporate and geopolitical goals, but we left a people who were worse off in almost every aspect than they were under Saddam.  

Perhaps worst of all was the impact on our own people.  The war created another generation of severely damaged, both physically and psychologically, young American men and women.  And it had placed such a burden on this country’s finances that it made future needed investment in our people and in our infrastructure almost impossible.

A more recent example where the welfare of a foreign people was not the concern is Syria.  The U.S. has long wanted to be rid of Assad in Syria.  Not for any concern for the welfare of the Syrian people, but because during the cold war and its aftermath, Syria under Assad was in the Russian sphere of influence and not friendly disposed to American interests, both corporate and geopolitical.  So when the rebellion started, we gladly lent some aid, even though the fight was again not so much to better life for the Syrian people but to change who or what group was in power and control.  Certainly, the Syrian people have done nothing but suffer during this rebellion because no one on either of the various sides really has had any concern for their welfare.  

True, as regards the American people, the Syrian conflict has not had much impact because the U.S. does not have boots on the ground and the cost of our “aid” has been relatively modest.  It appears the government has at least temporarily learned the lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan.  And, we have accepted almost no Syrian immigrants, which is a matter I will not go into here.  That burden has been left to Europe.  But the policy approach to the extended Syrian conflict has nevertheless been an unmitigated human disaster.

Domestically, while the impact of a decision-making process concerned more with corporate geopolitical interests than with the welfare of the people has had effects arguably not as dramatic or violent as these foreign policy examples, the effects have been in other ways even more devastating for the American people.

The two domestic examples I will site are the background and aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and the politics of transportation policy/energy policy/global warming.  Since the Reagan years, when government was declared to be the problem not the solution, there had been a steady increase in the deregulation of business, which regulation had been put in place to begin with to protect the people.  But regulation interfered with business and their profits, and so it almost became un-American.  

One of the hallmarks of deregulation was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had prevented banks from having both banking and investment operations.  Glass-Steagall was passed during the Depression in an effort to prevent banks from diverting bank assets into speculative operations, to keep them free of the manipulative methods and volatility of the investment market … for the good of the people.  Banks had long chafed under these restrictions, and under the leadership of Republican Senator Phil Gramm the act was repealed and the legislation was signed into law by President Clinton, who had many Wall Street advisors surrounding him, in addition to having received massive amount of campaign donations from Wall Street.

The result was the development by the biggest banks of a whole host of unscrupulous and manipulative investment strategies that benefited their bottom line and amassed huge wealth but screwed the public, even including at times their own customers.  When the bubble inevitably burst, several banks and the economy came crashing down and would have entered a severe depression, were it not for the government bail-outs.

Now one might have hoped that in the aftermath of such clear unethical behavior the government would reimpose strict rules on investment banks.  But even with a Democratic-controlled Congress in the Obama’s administration’s first 2 years, it was a fight to get the Dodd-Frank Act passed, and in the end it was not as strong as it could or should have been because of Democrats’ desire to not “unduly” harm banking interests.  The Act has been further weaken by prolonged fights over implementing regulations which have also turned out often to be far less strict than they should have been.

As for the interrelated policies regarding transportation, energy, and global warming, corporations have again been in control.  Transportation policy has always been a function of what is best for those being regulated (auto manufacturers, railroads, airlines), not the people.  The result is a terrible transportation system which is outdated, environmentally inefficient and provides bad service to the public.  Energy policy likewise has been a creature of corporate wishes, for the most part.  Under Bush II, Vice President Cheney even took the unbelievably bold public move of convening a meeting of energy execs to devise the administration’s energy policy.  No one representing the public was present.  The result not surprisingly was a policy which did not protect the interests of the public nor did it even give a nod towards the issue of global warming.

With regard to global warming itself, I will only say that while there has been to-date a confluence of corporate opposition and, given our addiction to cheap energy, people opposition to necessary measures, there is no doubt in my mind that even had there been a strong and vocal majority in favor of such measures, the corporate world still would have managed to water down almost anything that passed.

As I have said at the conclusion of many prior posts, our system of representative democracy is broken.  The reasons are various, but certainly the outsized influence of money and corporations on policy is a major factor.  The system can only be fixed, and the people’s welfare be protected, with a soft revolution in who has power in Congress.

Back to the Future, But Not Too Far!

We are a country that is obsessed with the future, with facilitating the next phase of our “progress.”  In the process, we have lost our collective, our societal mooring to what has made the United States a great social and political experiment.  

As I’ve noted in previous posts, our society is dysfunctional in many respects.  But there are two central problems.  One is that virtually all political power is now in the hands of major corporations and the rich; they call the shots in Washington, not the people.  The other is that these same actors, as well as many average citizens, seem to have no concern for the welfare of their fellow citizens, and in the case of corporations, their workers.

One can place a band-aid here, and another there.  But that will not change any of the basic problems that we are facing and which are pulling the United States down from its great potential.

I have therefore argued for a revolutionary change in attitude and perspective on the part of our political parties and citizens.  This revolutionary change is not to something “new,” some utopia, but rather back to ideals and standards that served this country well and made it strong during the 20th century.  

In the first 125 years of our country’s history, things were pretty much a frontier-style free-for-all.  Each person for himself.  People who needed help generally weren’t helped, and those who were on the make pretty much got away with anything they tried.

But at the turn of the 20th century, the country took a progressive turn in its politics under Republican President Theodore Roosevelt.  The government and people saw that things had gotten out of hand and that there was massive inequality in power and wealth in the country.  Because such inequality did not square with our founding ideals, there was a realization that government needed to become a more active player to insure that the average citizen wasn’t exploited, and that power was more evenly distributed.

Thus, during the first 20 years of the new century, the progressive income tax was introduced, the robber barons were regulated, massive holding companies like Standard Oil were broken up, and workers were given the right to unionize.  And women were finally given the right to vote.  

As I state in my book, We Still Hold These Truths, a social contract developed that gave practical shape to Lincoln’s famous, “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”  There was an increasing emphasis on a balance between rights and obligations, between business interests and the public good, with each person contributing to support the government’s efforts to level the playing field, each according to his ability.

Following the 1929 stock market crash and the resulting Depression, government saw the need to increase its role both in providing a hand to those in need (for example, the enactment of Social Security) as well as regulating the excesses of big business (for example, the Glass-Steagal Act).  In the mid 1960s, Medicare was enacted together with a host of measures to further improve the balance and fairness of our society. 

Congress also passed major civil rights legislation in the 1960s, although it must be said that while these laws resulted in certain improvements in their lives, the basic standing of most black Americans in our society and the conditions in which they lived and were educated were left virtually unchanged.  And they were still frequently subject to various forms of both institutional and private discrimination.  (See my posts, “The Mirage of Civil Rights,” and “Our Failed Economic/Social/Political System.”)

But I don’t want to overstate my case.  Needless to say, throughout these progressive periods, there were plenty of people, both in Congress and in the populace, primarily Republicans, who were against both measures to regulate business and efforts to increase government spending or other efforts to help those in need.  Even during the Depression and its immediate aftermath, there were people, and not just the rich, who literally hated FDR!  In 1932, the height of the Depression, Roosevelt only got 58% of the popular vote when he ran against Hoover, although he swept the electoral vote.

In this regard, it should be noted that regardless of the huge changes shown in the electoral vote map, indicating landslide years, the popular vote has never been a landslide.  For example, in 1972 when Nixon got 96% of the electoral vote, he received only 61% of the popular vote.  Likewise, when FDR got 98% of the electoral vote in 1936, he got only 62% of the popular vote.  The country has historically been quite divided.  

Then along came Ronald Reagan, the same man who had campaigned vigorously against the enactment of Medicare, who as President famously said that, “Government is not the solution to the problem.  Government is the problem.”  Reagan didn’t invent a new movement.  He just gave voice and a popular face to deep feelings that have always been held by a large percentage of the voting population, legitimizing those perspective.

The fervency and bitterness of these feelings grew and deepened over the following years, culminating in the Tea Party movement and the current crop of Republican radicals (they should not be referred to as “conservatives”) in Congress.  What they, led by the billionaire Koch brothers and others who back them, want is nothing less than a return of this country to its 19th century ethos, when it was each man for himself, without any interference from or help by the government, of course with the exception of Social Security and Medicare from which most of them directly benefit.  Unfortunately, they don’t see the irony in this.

What I am calling for is a return to the 20th century ethos (Reagan excepted) of balance and social responsibility plus a changed attitude towards black Americans.  

This is not a soak the rich movement or class struggle.  It is a movement that seeks a return to the ethos where we are all part of a society, that recognizes that many people are born into situations that place huge obstacles in their attempts at pursuing the American dream of happiness and equality, and that those who have made it, who have benefited from the system, have a responsibility as citizens to help the government in its efforts to assure that all have true equal opportunity.  

In this regard it should be noted that for most of the income tax’ existence, the highest tax bracket ranged from 60 - 94%, dropping down to 50% during the Reagan years.  So the current top rate of 39.6%, and even the various suggested increases, are historically low.  It should also be noted that regardless of the tax rate, the rich have always remained rich.

Nor is this an anti-business movement.  The health of our economy and of the businesses that make it prosper are of critical importance to the well-being of all Americans.  Business interests must always have a significant place at the table.  But we have learned all too often that it is nevertheless not true that what is good for corporate America is good for all Americans.  Thus there must be a balance between the needs of business and the greater public good.  Maximizing profit cannot be the sole goal of a responsible corporation in a democracy.  

For example, the New York Times just reported that corporate lobbyists working with their friends in Congress (on both sides of the aisle) inserted a provision in the omnibus spending bill that just passed that continues a tax loophole that benefits casino and hotel owners as well as major Wall Street investors to the tune of $1 billion.  That is to say that our tax revenues will continue to be reduced by that amount from what they otherwise would be.  That is unconscionable.

Nor is this a big government movement.  I for one feel strongly that government should be as small as it can be while executing the functions that are its responsibility.  There should be no holy cows.  Every aspect of government must be justified by the purpose it serves and its effectiveness.

What I seek is simply government of the people, by the people, and for the people … all the people.  Not government of the people  (they do still elect), but by corporations, and for corporations.  Which sadly, is what our government has to a large extent become.

The citizens of this country deserve better.

Our Political System Has Failed Us

The health of our democracy depends on three components, among others.  The first is an informed electorate which has the responsibility of electing those who will both represent  it and help lead the country.  The second is leaders who both represent their constituencies and act for the greater good of the country.  The third is an electorate and leaders that respect that all are working in the best interest of the country and accept the inevitable loss, whether of a legislative bill or an election, that is part of the democratic process.

On the first point, we have always been weak.  From the very beginning of our country, the electorate base was not well-informed about the issues, in the sense of being able to think rationally about the choices.  Not that they weren’t or aren’t capable of it.  But politicians (even the august Thomas Jefferson, through surrogates of course) have often played more to the electorate’s emotions than its mind and have often used inflammatory words, making reckless, deceitful charges, in order to rouse the populace in their favor and against others.

As to the second point, while American politics, especially elections, have always involved a good amount of mud-slinging, historically politicians on the national level once elected have generally speaking comported themselves appropriately and have, while representing their constituents, acted in what they saw as the national interest.  Except on the issue of racism (or in the pre-Civil War years, slavery), ideology was not a controlling factor in actions of Congress.  

And although there has always been a strong element of conflict between the powerful central government forces v the small/weak central government forces (the parties names have changed over the years), those arguments were, once the Constitution was in place, more on peripheral issues.  Even a staunch small central government advocate such as Jefferson, presided over a huge increase in the responsibility of the federal government.  Similarly George W. Bush presided over a huge increase in the federal deficit as a result of his policies.

But the art of compromise in Congress had been weakening and the nastiness of interchange increasing since the election of Bill Clinton in 1992.  Since the election of Barack Obama and the 2010 midterms, the functioning of Congress has basically come to a halt.  

The Republican Right has taken control of the party and the Republican Congressional agenda.  With their extreme ideological rigidity, the Republican majority in the House and the Republican minority in the Senate (which can stop any legislation or appointment through the filibuster, even when a majority of the Senate is in favor) have been able to halt any legislation that addresses the national interest from other than their narrow perspective. 

The most egregious example of this was in the recent debate on expanding background checks for gun purchases.  90% of Americans surveyed, and 85% of NRA members, supported expanded background checks.  A bi-partisan compromise measure was introduced lead by arch gun rights advocates, one Republican, one Democrat.  And still the measure was defeated through the filibuster process by Republicans joined by a few Democrats.  

That this measure, which would not have kept a single gun of any type out of the hands of anyone who was legally entitled to own one and thus, as the Republican co-sponsor said, was really not a gun control measure, was defeated despite overwhelming popular support and desperate need shows the total failure of our system.  It also shows clearly another aspect of the system’s failure ... the preponderant influence of corporate America.  The only powerful interests against the Senate measure were firearm manufacturers and their de facto voice, the NRA.

Corporations have for more than a century had a strong voice in Congress through their lobbyists and political donations.  And this has impacted both parties.  Both are in thrall to and support the power of the big corporations, although the Republicans more so than the Democrats because they have been the greater beneficiary of corporate dollars.  

The old saying, "What's good for General Motors is good for the country," was discredited years ago, and yet that still is often the marching tune for both Republicans and Democrats in Congress.  What happened to the concept that, while being supportive of a strong and healthy business sector, an important role of government, and therefore Congress, is to protect the general public from the excesses of corporate activity and power? 

This can especially be seen in the federal response to the recent financial crisis ... nothing has really changed; the same financial practices that led to the collapse are ongoing; regulation has not really improved; no one in the big investment firms has been brought to justice for their shady practices; it's business as usual on Wall Street.  It can also sadly be seen in the team that President Obama put together after his inauguration to advise him on such matters ... all seasoned Wall Street types who were prime actors in the period leading up to the collapse.  

But since the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling that corporations can spend unlimited sums supporting someone’s candidacy through PACs, the power of corporations not just over the actions of Congressmen, but on who gets elected, has been increased manyfold.  Through huge purchases of advertising air time to support candidates favorable to them, they have been able or tried to influence the electorate and change the outcome of close elections.  If ever there was an argument for Federally-financed elections, this is it.

The third point, which has always been the most solid aspect of our democracy, is under threat.  The basic premise, that each side respects the other’s bone fides in working for the national interest, has been gravely weakened if not destroyed.  Neither side trusts the other nor will it give the other credit for acting in the national interest.  Instead, each side accuses the other of special interest politics and being a threat to the nation’s well-being.  

There have even been some who have voiced the possibility of violence if their position does not win the day.  And there has been a substantial rise in the number of right-wing militias around the country since the election of Barack Obama.  While there is no danger of the constitutional transfer of power being interrupted, there is certainly a danger that the peacefulness of that transfer or the peacefulness of legislative losses may become a thing of the past.

This situation cannot continue unabated without seriously damaging our democratic system.  Several actions are necessary.  At a minimum, all federal elections should be publicly financed.  That would have the benefit of putting all candidates on an equal footing ... winning an election should not depend on how much money you can raise ... and would greatly decrease the prevalence of advertising, which is almost never informative.  Second, all broadcasters, who use federally-licensed air waves, should be required to provide a certain amount of free advertising and speaking time to all candidates.  This should help increase the exchange of ideas rather than sound bites.  Third, no other organizations should be allowed to take out advertising to influence elections or pressure their employees to vote a certain way; contrary to the recent Supreme Court opinion, corporations are not people ... they don’t have a vote and likewise they shouldn’t have a voice.  Fourth, religious organizations who are granted tax-exempt non-profit status should be held to the regulations regarding that status, which prohibit supporting candidates for political office.  Finally, there should be a truth in campaigning measure passed which disciplines candidates who not just stretch the truth but lie and sets up a nonpartisan group to monitor all campaign statements and literature,

The factor of money must be removed from elections and politics.  And the electorate must be communicated with in a way that engages their mind on competing ideas rather than on competing emotions.