The candidates from the two most successful parties are competing for the “change” image. Both Washington insiders, they’re running as outsiders who are finally going to clean things up. It’s a powerful message because most voters want a Washington clean-up. But we’ve heard it all before and would be naive to expect anything less than business-as-usual no matter who gets elected. Neither has made a substantial comment about what needs to be cleaned up or how it would be done. So, it’s up to the rest of us to open a serious discussion if we want one to happen.
It’s been said before, but the main enemies are pork and corruption. Like a horse and carriage, and like love and marriage used to be, the two go together. The two parties seem to have agreed to replace these terms with “earmarks,” dramatically restricting the scope of federal spending involved in the discussion. Like any other type of funding appropriation, earmarks can be abused. But there are those that, for example, help to improve and maintain the nation’s critical infrastructure.
Incumbent candidates for re-election to Congress often campaign on their record of bringing money to their districts. Candidates controlling the discussion on pork and corruption – seemingly in basic agreement to protect the status quo – have set up a fait accompli. In the end, they will agree that most earmarks are good for states and the people and that everyone should want theirs. Back to business as usual.
Over the past few decades, everything imaginable has been transformed into a federal government program. These programs do not need to do anything of value. Like child support enforcement and protecting women from violence, they only need to sound like a good thing. You’re for support of children, right? You’re against women being abused, right? Decades and billions upon billions of dollars later, with large amounts of money in private hands with questionable relationships to bureaucrats and politicians, we find many people worse off rather than better. The substantial “change†is that the government spends more of our money and a few political insiders got rich.
The fact that improvement is not a result is translated by pork promoters into a reason to continue programs at higher funding levels. Forget your doubts about federal involvement in the first place. Forget even that the federal government is playing and paying in areas forbidden to it by the Constitution. Failure to produce a worthwhile result means the program needs more money and power to attack the “problem.”
It’s gotten so far out of control that we’re already deep into the process of developing the most far-reaching and expensive government con-job in history – political control of climate. Do you want biblical floods and Soylent Green summers? Do you cry for the Arctic Polar Bear? As we contemplate the 100s of trillions of dollars the proposed effort will take, along with the effective destruction of critical infrastructure, keep in mind that people used to handle these problems with a few chants, dances, and drum beats. We could accomplish the same thing just by getting in touch with the appropriate weather spirits. Of course, that wouldn’t involve political control of 100s of trillions of dollars.
At least in terms of general rhetoric, the Republican candidates are, as usual, in a better position to play clean-up advocates than the Democrats. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons the Obama campaign has been so over-compensating in its effort to capture the image. “Change We Can Believe In” if we don’t actually think about what needs to be changed. Barack Obama and Joe Biden consistently promise more federal government, not less, and assure increased funding for pork-barrel programs. The reason Republicans are in the better position is that conservative ideals on limited government are best at this juncture for attacking the real problem. What Republicans have not yet done is list programs that should be eliminated and promise to work to eliminate them. Business as usual.
