Politics
I told my buddy Zack I was thinking about posting a political entry. We both agreed there's nothing that hasn't been discussed yet. Still, I have some things I've been thinking about. I'm pretty plugged into politics, even though I don't get cable TV. Hey, I can read. Dylan said, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." Besides, I think the 24 hour TV news cycle has become more entertainment than news. And I think these "news shows" add to the problem rather than clarify it.

I don't want to talk about Judge Roberts (he'll get confirmed--save your venom for that sawed-off little memo writer Gonzalez); Katrina (everybody is to blame--the city is below sea level); or the war (no smart quip here--it's just bad). I want to talk about the game itself: politics.

How much does it cost to run for political office? Thousands of dollars for local races, millions for national ones.

Aggregate costs of House and Senate campaigns increased eightfold between 1976 and 2000, from $115 million to $1.007 billion, while the cost of living rose threefold."

Congressional Research Service, 2003. How that money is raised has become a major bone of contention among politicians and the media and so therefore is thrust upon the electorate. The simple fact remains, those with the money find a way to contribute to these increasingly expensive campaigns. What do they want?

The same thing anyone who makes an investment wants...a return on their money.

Everyone has lined up neatly into two camps--donkeys or elephants, Coke or Pepsi. Two choices. We're a nation of over 295 million and we get two major political parties. Vanilla or chocolate, fer us or again us. Black or red on the political roulette wheel. Nobody should be happier than the people stroking the checks; if you only have two real candidates with a snowball's chance in hell of winning, your expenditures are going to be much less than if there are 3, 5, or (gasp!) 10 political parties with viable candidates.

So with these two parties controlling the game, what do we get? Predictably, issues get boiled down to two sides for every debate. Packaged and sold by the same ad agencies that try to convince you that this shaving cream is better than the rest. It becomes "branding;" so the estate tax is no longer the estate tax, it's the death tax. Nevermind it only applies to 1.25 percent of all estates and its repeal will have no impact on the vast majority of the electorate, it's been branded.

Repeal [of the estate tax] will have no impact at all on the vast majority of people, but you wouldn't know that if you lived in a state with a wavering senator. There, advertising campaigns claim that small-business owners and family farms suffer from the estate tax. In fact, there are provisions in the law to ease the effect on both groups and an estate has to be large to face any tax at all. As a result of the 2001 tax act, which gradually phased out the estate tax, estates of those who die in 2005 will not be taxed on the first $1.5 million of assets, a figure that rises to $2 million next year and to $3.5 million in 2009.

The New York Times, September 13, 2005. This repeal will result in estimates of lost revenues of approximately $280 billion--just to keep the richest of the rich from paying. They will still use public roads and will still require the military to keep them safe--but the truly wealthy, those with income generated by stock dividends, will pay no taxes.

But no one wants to deal with the details, least of all a well-fed, well-entertained electorate. All they want to know is which side are you on.

Meanwhile, the politicians attach themselves to such nonsense issues as flag burning and gay marriage, issues which no party is really going to address but which "energize the base." So we the electorate get dragged into these media created issues and are forced to take a side. What does it matter that the flag is being burned if our schools are crumbling? Who cares if gays are getting married when children are being born into homes where they are neither wanted nor cared for? But these are the difficult issues that require something more than platitudes and our politicians don't want to wade into these issues for fear of losing their office. So the politicians give the 98.75% of the body politic without estates of $1.5 million juicy issues we can all get excited about (and which will never have any impact on our lives) and to the real power they give the real reward--wealth accumulation without taxation (again--stock dividends are not taxed) and the promise to pass it along to the next generation--again without paying taxes. Wages will continue to be taxed, thereby making it more difficult for a wage earner (most of us) to get ahead whereas someone inheriting wealth can structure this so as to avoid taxes.

Thus the aristocracy is born. Suprisingly enough, it's called the "ownership society." Eliminate the defined benefit programs (i.e. pensions) and replace them with defined contribution plans (your 401K if you have one). Even now there is the call to eliminate the biggest defined benefit plan, social security. By the way, Congress has the best pension plan in the country. But let's make sure no gays are getting married and no flags are being burned.

[I do believe that the flag stands for a country great enough to tolerate all speech--even including speech critical of this country.]

Okay, I'm done. Talk amongst yourselves...