Recall? No, let’s do an early election for everybody!

Congress and Obama have proven themselves totally inept and corrupt! They should be absolutely ashamed of their contribution to our nation’s downfall.

By Jack E. Lohman

All over the world citizens are ousting their governments, and Americans should do the same. Yea, ours is a different form of corruption, but it is a downward spiral nonetheless. They could go peacefully or not, but I expect they will somehow go.

*IF* our politicians had guts, they’d get out now. They’ve already blocked freedom of speech; should we wait until they start shooting American citizens?

All politicians should go the way of Barney Frank… don’t run in 2012. They should get out now and send a positive statement to voters. Let the independents and third parties field candidates.

Especially here in Wisconsin!

The recall is not a vote for or against Scott Walker, it means simply that if enough voters wish, he must run for re-election. The voters will get a do-over, and that’s good for even the Righties. He’ll either come out stronger or not at all.

But the recall process is a valid one, even when used against Democrats. Which it has been and should be when politicians don’t keep their word. (Like, that’s most of the time.)

Corruption is not limited to the Middle East, our politicians partake in it too. That democracy has treated us better than the rest has delayed the eruption, but here we are.

.

And I’m tired of hearing “tax reform, make it fairer.” It ‘sounds’ humane but translates to “cut taxes on the rich, raise them on the poor!” We obviously need new leaders. Now is the time!

I’ve never understood redistricting, until today.

Because it gives both R’s and D’s an equally safe seat. So…

By Jack E. Lohman

…if you protect them equally, who are the losers???

The voters and taxpayers!!! Because the politicians of both stripes no longer worry about losing their seat because of their special-interest votes. They can vote against the best interests of the public and still win re-election. As 95% of incumbents win regularly, even though congress has only a 15% approval rate.

So no, it is not a “partisan plan” to protect one party over the other, it is a stacked deck to protect dishonest politicians from the voters. They may now sell their votes to special interests without fear of the voters casting them aside!

Indeed, even Wisconsin legislators are caught up in the mess, but of course they are as tainted.

Who will win? The politicians, NOT the taxpayers. It is a corrupt game to keep those in power who are destroying our world. It is anti-voter and anti-third party, but if Wisconsinites are smart it will backfire.

The Government Accountability Board, if not interfered with, could create non-partisan districts that are somewhat fair and logical, but “fair and logical” is not in the politician’s vocabulary.

2012 will put Ranked Choice Voting on the map

Only IRV will negate the upcoming political tricks.

By Jack E. Lohman

Massive crossover voting in the primaries will put the weakest politicians on the ballot, and the fix is right in front of us.

We can thank the Occupy groups and Tea Partiers for bringing it to the forefront, but are our politicians wise enough to see ahead? And, at what point are these two groups going to realize that their common enemy is the same batch of politicians? From BOTH parties!

Lefties will vote for Cain in the primaries because they see him as easier for Obama to beat. But then Obama could lose to Cain because voters jumped to third-party candidates because of a massive distaste with both candidates.

And the same could happen with Thompson and Neumann and their run for Kohl’s senate seat.

Aren’t we smarter than this? Both political parties have shunned IRV because — at one time — it benefited third parties most. Now it could create a distasteful win no matter which way it goes.

See Instant Runoff Voting, it is time! and Irish presidential election with instant runoff voting: Voter choice without “spoilers”

Like many laws considered by our “esteemed” board(s) of directors, this one makes sense and thus will be hard to pass.

Time for Independents and Greens???

Campaign bribes may be the problem, but eliminating them with our current corrupt board of directors is not going to happen.

By Jack E. Lohman

The election of independents, in 100% of the political races, is the only thing that will eliminate our illegal and corrupt duopoly. And it is the only thing to guarantee future election reforms.

We must implement public funding of campaigns and other election reforms, like IRV/Ranked Choice Voting and a None-of-the-above ballot choice. But the only way to accomplish it is with non-Democrats and non-Republicans, who have to date been manipulating the rules.

First, this duopoly is an absolutely illegal conspiracy that should be challenged in court, and perhaps our good-government groups will ban together and do that. Secondly, it blows my mind that we have large segments of our population — both Lefties and Righties — that cannot connect the dots between the current demise of our country, and the corrupt politicians that lead it.

Voters and taxpayers are no different from shareholders who own a company. In fact, they have greater control and can re-elect new leaders at will. Let’s do it before our nation’s status dips even further!!! Our current politicians are auctioning off our nation’s assets all to build their own wealth. They must go.

The Dems didn’t bungle the Super Committee talks; they were bought off with campaign bribes. 2012 must be the year of the “Independents!” Fire every current politician, regardless of party!

Should Wisconsin’s recall process be changed?

Absolutely not; unless you are tolerant of incompetence.

By Jack E. Lohman

So now the right-wing wants to change Wisconsin’s recall system because “their guys” were called on the carpet, and they conveniently cite “cost to taxpayers” as the reason. Now THAT will get the people’s attention; you bet!

Whether a Republican or Democrat is being recalled, the recall process is a very valid safety valve given to voters/taxpayers who find out after-the-fact that they put in charge the wrong politician. It’s a small part of our democracy left over, and it should be protected.

I can easily see that politicians would not want this extra voter oversight, but to the right-wingers promoting it I’d say “be careful of what you ask for, your turn will come.”

But sunlight is in order, and union member money and shareholder money should not be used without approval of the owner of the money. (What a novel concept.)

And the threshold of signatures is fair and should be maintained. Somebody put together a good recall system and it should be protected.

The “values” of it all

Yea, I’m talking about “conservatives” that preach “values” but tolerate their absence in our political system. You know; where we have politicians of both stripes having their campaigns funded by the Fat Cats that want in our pockets. And the citizen wackos who want to maintain our corrupt political system because they think they are benefiting from it.

Those “values” people should also want a fair, accurate voting system, but they don’t. I agree with voter-id, and the last thing we should do is return to paper ballots and stuffing boxes with fraudulent votes. I support electronic counting but agree that the software doing the counting should be disclosed to prevent fraudulent software. I like the card readers because they permit recounts.

But solutions on political reform seem to evade us. Maybe some day we’ll be smarter.

The high costs of a privatized government…

Business leaders are not stupid about money; they give cash because cash works!

By Jack E. Lohman

As I listened once again to a state legislator claim that public funding of campaigns would be shot down by the Supreme Court, I shuddered. This is exactly what politicians want us to believe, but it is 100% incorrect.

The conservative Supreme Court “might” shoot down a mandated plan, but even that is not a given. Such would regulate a politician’s taking of campaign contributions but would NOT interfere with how much a special interest or corporation spent on an election.

You know; his “right to free speech.” His right to corrupt politicians who are willing to be corrupted.

But that’s a smokescreen…

We don’t even have to go there with voluntary public funding of campaigns. Politicians have the right to either accept or reject money being given to their campaigns. Our governor and state legislators should immediately break the financial tie that accompanies their legislative votes. They should be embarrassed that it even exists.

This does not obviate the need to repeal the abominable money=speech and corporations=people parts of the Supreme Court ruling being pushed by movetoamend.org.

Public funding of campaigns would cost less than $10 per taxpayer per year, while the private system is costing taxpayers — through the back door and whether you agree to it or not — easily 100 times that when you add all of the unnecessary building of roads and tax breaks that are given by our politicians (mostly to Scott Walker).

Without cash flowing to our politicians we would NOT be in the financial mess we are in. We would not have passed laws that now permit our jobs to be sent overseas, or have given tax breaks to the wealthy or corporations that don’t need them.

But we did, because that’s what the campaign contributors demanded.

If politicians were not taking cash bribes on the side, it would not matter which party were in power. Because they’d be making the right decisions for taxpayers rather than campaign war chests.

How to MOP Congress with the 20% Solution*

WHAT IS MOP?

By Robert Baroody
MoneyOuttaPolitics.org

It’s a very simple idea.

Most members of Congress have one overriding goal: to get elected, and then re-elected. Campaigns now cost obscene amounts of money. The really big bucks come from the largest corporations, narrowly focused interest groups, and extremely rich individuals.

The people behind the money are not stupid—they expect, and get, favors in return for their money. This is legal bribery. Also, politicians can spend as much of their own money as they want to—if a multimillionaire, they can spend millions of dollars to buy an office. It is unlimited.

This so-called system is the opposite of democracy. Americans are so disgusted that in any given contest more registered voters stay at home than vote for any one candidate. If things don’t change, and soon, the U.S. will become a banana republic where the richest 1% control everything. The rest of us will have to make do with the crumbs.

There are many reform proposals that look to change this situation. Most have merits, but, in the end, the ONLY real solution is to get Money Outta Politics (MOP). It really is that simple.

Here’s the plan: the 20% solution

Citizens commit to one-issue voting: the MOP bill. If a candidate pledges, in writing, to vote for MOP, a voter will deliberately put aside all the other political, economic, and social issues for that one election. No matter where the candidate stands on ANY other issue, if he/she supports MOP, you vote for; if not, against. Incumbents who refuse to endorse the MOP legislation are turned out of office.

This can be tough for many people. An incumbent may be good on many issues. An opposing candidate may stand for things you despise. But if that candidate is the only one who pledges to support MOP, or the incumbent will not, he/she will get your vote. Why? Because until we get money out of politics, ALL other issues will continue to be corrupted by big money campaign contributions.

Single-issue strategic voting was used successfully about 90 years ago. The issue was the prohibition of alcohol which was passed as a constitutional amendment even though the majority of the population were drinkers as were a bigger majority of Congress. The goodness or badness of prohibition is irrelevant. It is the strategy that is important.

It took only 10-20% of voters to demand a do-or-die vote to get prohibition passed. A candidate voted for prohibition because if they voted against it, the very worst thing in their life had a good chance of happening: they would be voted out and have to look for a real job. OK, but the majority should rule, not 20%.

Isn’t this strategy itself anti-democratic? No, it is not. Polls consistently show a majority of Americans believe that the system is broken. We are in crisis. It is time for a smaller group of committed citizens to take a leadership position. Exactly as did the patriots who founded our country. Patriots defend the Constitution against its enemies both foreign and domestic, whether from violence or corruption. These patriots, united in support of MOP, are the 20% solution.

Aside from fear—an excellent motivator for those having everything to lose—the passing of MOP would liberate those representatives who still believe in doing good for their constituents. A representative or senator will typically spend close to 50% of their time soliciting funds. Once MOP is passed they will be able to devote this wasted time to actually reading the bills they vote on and becoming better at serving we, the people.

*Warning: Electoral Disinfectant Solution Will Harm Plutocrats at 20% Concentration

For more detail see Money Outta Politics

Democracy is working…. over there!

Now let’s get out of the way!

By Jack E. Lohman

If we’ve learned anything in the last year it’s that, if left alone, countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, and Libya will solve their own problems. The same way America did over two centuries ago… with rebellion and civil war. But the U.S. must now get out of the way.

Let’s get democracy back here!

Yea, we’ve lost it. Our politicians do not work for the masses, but instead for the top 1% who fund their elections. But I’ve said that before; our “esteemed politicians” are corrupt as hell. If we do nothing to change it we deserve the burial we get.

That defense industry cash is flowing to our “esteemed congress” to keep stoking the fire is abhorrent. We are killing people for money. These guys are sick.

What doesn’t work?

Our duopoly!

It’s a conspiracy, probably even illegal, and I’d love to see some smart attorney challenge it in court. That campaign bribes work, and public needs do not, is criminal. These politicians should be jailed.

Indeed the D’s are no better than the R’s. Both get their marching orders from the Fat Cats that fund their elections. Neither do what is in the best interest of the people. Both oppose fixes that would allow third parties to compete fairly in the elections.

You the taxpayers are getting screwed, but you keep voting the corrupt politicians back in. Call it laziness or hopelessness, but we must change or throw in the towel. Politicians have not paid a price for their corruption, and until they do it will continue.

Even the D’s opposed public funding of campaigns when they were in control. It funds third-parties too, don’cha know? Even so-called good-government groups opposed and sued to stop the state from passing election reforms, because they benefit democracy to the detriment of the see-saw duopoly they support.

Neither party wants to upset this balance with — say — fair elections that would benefit the voters and taxpayers.

What do we need?

What the politicians don’t want…

1. Public funding of campaigns: Wisconsin Democracy Campaign (WDC) has recently announced a new plan modeled after the Fair Elections Now Act. When it is introduced as a bill, it must be passed.
2. Ranked choice voting (IRV):  It works!  Yet if you are confused you need only vote for one person, as before. But learn it; your support is critical to the future of democracy. Only IRV would nullify the anti-democracy games soon to be played in the recall elections.
3. A constitutional amendment to make money not equal to speech and corporations not equal to people. So get this: campaign bribes are good but disclosure is bad. WTF??? And these jokers are our leaders?

Neither the partisan D’s or R’s want any of the above, because they are in the best interest of the public and not their own. Yes they’ll get proposed, to gain political points, but final support will be telling.

Do NOT let your good-government group waffle, as they will if reforms are seen to block the payola that benefits their contributors. Money works here, too.

So Clinton’s plan didn’t work?

Florida, Wisconsin and all states need Instant Runoff Voting!

By Jack E. Lohman

Will Wisconsin’s new Republican leadership give the voters what they want and need, Ranked Choice Voting (or IRV)? Will Governor-elect Scott Walker sign it if it gets to his desk?

When Bill Clinton attempted and failed to get Kendrick Meek to drop out of the Florida race for U.S. Senator, nobody had the foresight to say “Wait a minute, Instant Runoff Voting would solve the problem!”

Hell, they could have benefited from that even in 2000 when Ralph Nader took votes from Al Gore and Pat Buchanan took votes from George Bush! When will we learn???

There *IS* a better way!!!

Here’s how IRV would have worked in this particular race with three or more candidates:

1. Marco Rubio (R)
2. Charlie Crist (I)
3. Kendrick Meek (D)
4. None of the Above

Now pick your 1st, 2nd and 3rd choices. If Meek comes in last his votes are moved to the other two candidates in the order of the voter’s choice. If you voted for Meek and he lost, your vote would go to your second choice. Your vote is therefore not wasted, and nobody has to strategically drop out of the race.

Importantly, if None of the Above wins the majority of votes, the race is canceled and a new race must be run with all new candidates!

In Wisconsin’s own 77th Assembly district the final results were:

1. Hulsey , Brett Dem   49%
2. Manski , Ben Grn      31%
3. Redick , David GOP   19%
4. Olson , David CST       1%
5. None of the Above

What would have happened with a system like IRV? We’ll never know who would have won, but we do know that all of the voters would have had their votes better represent their choices. No votes would have been “thrown away.”

Why wouldn’t IRV be good?

Because it makes sense, and is fair and effective and politicians don’t like fair and effective.

1. Current R’s and D’s prefer the 50% odds they currently have, and they do not want third parties or independents in the mix.
2. IRV would allow people to vote without the fear of throwing their vote away. Current politicians don’t like that.
3. It would allow people to first vote for a third party or independent, and if that person did not win their vote would apply to the lesser of the other two evils (obviously, R’s and D’s don’t think they are evil!).
4. It would give third parties and independents a “chance,” and politicians don’t want this additional competition.

But the people do want competitive races, and would sometimes like to vote for a third-party candidate. One would think that the people count more than the politicians, but they don’t usually. How many Meek votes would have otherwise gone to Crist? How many people voted for Meek because they didn’t want to throw their vote away?

Note that if this ballot is too confusing, vote for only one candidate and it still works the old fashioned way.

Resource: Instant Runoff Voting

States must operate like a for-profit company

No, not “owned by” corporations, as we have today.

By Jack E. Lohman

Can you imagine if we had a state that was profitable, and those profits went back to the shareholders, the state’s taxpayers?

It can happen, even still. But voters will have to demand that the current system be fixed. It gets tiresome talking about the same political corruption that created this mess, but it remains, and until we eliminate it the state’s economy will never reverse.

Imagine a governor, or better, a CEO, actually competing with 49 other CEOs to attract companies and jobs and taxpaying workers, rather than trying to satisfy those special interests that fund the elections. He’d be paid on a performance basis and not a guaranteed salary. He’d have to earn it like the rest of us do.

How do we get there?

1) By fixing our current mess. Surely we are spending money on government departments that should have been closed long ago, and at the very least trimmed or merged with other departments.

2) By ensuring that the salaries and benefits of our state employees are consistent with the private sector.

3) By getting rid of the political payola that drives our politicians to dole out wasteful spending and no-bid contracts. They should act as a credible board of directors, and no CEO would allow his or her board to take cash payola and give away corporate assets in exchange. No state should allow it either.

4) By getting smart. Sure it’s popular to nail the big, bad, corporations for taxes. And the higher the better. Problem is, they just pass those taxes back to the public at the cash register. Our CEO/governor should eliminate corporate taxes for companies that employ Wisconsin workers, which will attract new jobs and keep those that are already here. A subsidy per Wisconsin employee will work.

5) Same is true for health care costs, which are also passed on to the consumers. In both of these cases these costs are regressive and are born disproportionately by lower-waged workers. And they cost jobs! Wisconsin should replace ObamaCare with its own single-payer system.

6) All people being honest, privatization is my preference. But all people are not honest, and the taxpayers must ban together and develop their own “public options” where needed.

a) A state-owned bank, like in North Dakota, a state that avoided the housing crisis. By funding our own bank that actually loans money to businesses and finances cars and housing purchases, we could also enjoy their unemployment rate of 4.1%.

b) A publicly funded electoral system so our politicians begin working for us rather than the special interests who want in our pocket. The Fat Cats’ funding of elections is the root of our problems.

Of course the Right will object to any form of “socialism,” but some socialism is in order. Not 100% but also not 0%.  Some things should indeed be government funded, especially those that are vital to the public and have been taken over by the money vultures (like fire and police protection, health care). These are not “constitutional rights,” but they are for the common good of the country.

I’m less concerned about a privatized educational system, as long as it is regulated and we maintain a good public option.

The last item above (6b) is most critical, because until we eliminate political bribery we will remain no more effective than other countries that are run by corrupt hooligans. We will remain in a massive hole with a wide disparity between rich and poor with the associated risks.

Unfortunately our current gubernatorial candidates are ignoring this issue, because (they must feel) these are politicians they will need to rely on once in office. But they miss out on a major issue the public is concerned about.

The public wants change!!!

But is promised more of the same …

By Jack E. Lohman

Our major gubernatorial candidates — Scott Walker, Mark Neumann and Tom Barrett — seem only interested in saying the right words to get elected, all while avoiding a direct attack on the core problem with our political system. None of them want to touch it, yet it is the one-and-only reason our economy has crashed both at the state and federal level.

A discussion on payola and bribes, in terms of special interest campaign contributions, would likely turn off support from the two major parties because that’s their breathing line.

But that’s the problem. For politicians to get elected they need money, and our current system virtually demands that they take it from those who have it… the special interests that want taxpayer dollars spent on their projects, thus increasing taxes to accommodate. The Fat Cats want in our pocket.

How can these politicians totally ignore the corruption that leads them to office in the first place? Or is it the benefits of corruption that attracts them?

So what should they be talking about?

Campaign finance reform… first and foremost, because nothing else really matters. Campaign cash affects every other issue to be discussed. High taxes, low public services, economy, unemployment, you name it. ALL — 100% — are affected by the cash bribes that change hands at the political level. If politicians are to beholden to the taxpayers, only public funding of campaigns will get their attention. But our politicians from both political parties don’t want to talk about it.

Redistricting… It’s coming up. Districts should be established by a non-partisan board like Wisconsin’s Government Accountability Board and its appointed judges. Not a perfect system but better than the current biased one. The parties should not pick the voters, it should be the reverse. Only the GAB can be counted on to do that correctly.

Even a laptop computer program could do it in an unbiased way, but “unbiased” is the last thing the Pols want.

Disclosure… The Republicans have been pushing it for years, though as an alternative to campaign reform. Now they oppose it. But disclosure doesn’t limit speech, it only discloses who is speaking. And whether unions or business, this makes sense. Maybe too much so for those who want anonymity.

Why not “apple pie” issues?

Because they are 100% dependent on the core issue: campaign finance corruption. Who is paying off whom. If politicians were not taking money from special interests they’d be working for the public’s best interest on these issues and it wouldn’t matter which party was elected. Get the corruption out of the system and they’ll find a way to bring jobs back to the U.S..

A Voter Guide for November…

Throw them all out, even if it means a change in leadership. 100%. They are all working for the same special interests anyway, so at least a turnover will send an important message: fix it or you are next.

Over the centuries bad people have learned how to rip off good people, and today the most efficient way is to share your booty with the politicians that make it all happen. Campaign bribes will ultimately kill our democracy, and even today we are seeing people carry holstered guns to rallies. An armed and bloody rebellion is not far off unless we fix the system.

Wisconsin’s screwed-up primaries

But the incumbents like it just fine, thank you…

By Jack E. Lohman

So here we have it. Some really smart politicians twisted the rules to make cross-party voting illegal. In the primary we must vote for candidates in one party or the other, but not a selection from both.

It’s a terrible idea. I prefer an open primary.

I’d like to vote for the least-worst candidate in both the Senate and House races. But if one is a Republican and the other a Democrat, the rules say I can’t do that. That essentially robs me of my right to vote in one of the races. This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Yes, I can see that someone might cross-vote to elevate only the worst candidates in the opposing party, but that will be offset by the evil-doers on the opposing side. That is even possible with the current rules, but it is not justification for restrictions on voting or warping the system. It looks to be just more incumbent protection.

In 2008 I least-wanted to see Hillary Clinton as president, so I voted for Obama in the primary (now regrettably). But I also wanted to vote for Jim Burkee over Jim Sensenbrenner, knowing he was the better candidate. But Obama was a Democrat and he was a Republican and I couldn’t do that.

Burkee got only 20% of the Republican votes as a result of a lot of Republicans voting for Obama, and I’m sure F. Jim liked that just fine. Burkee could have won otherwise.

One thing that would satisfy both sides of the argument is Instant Runoff Voting for all offices. That would allow every voter to vote for three or more candidates, ranked by order of choice. If their first choice fails to win, their vote is transferred to their second choice, and so forth until one candidate gets 50%+1 vote. And it’s all computerized and automated, so it happens instantaneously.

Too simple for politicians to understand? No, it’s too fair because it would level the playing field for even third-parties, and fair is the last thing politicians want. But this year it may indeed be critical with all of the anti-incumbent rhetoric.

This is a clear “party control” thingy, all when the parties themselves are corrupt as hell and should be eliminated rather than coddled. I can only hope for another lawsuit or prosecution for the conspiracy it is.

So, now I’m inclined to vote for the most-worst party candidate in the primary and an independent in the November election. These are the games we have to play to outsmart the incumbents.

War is hell. But very profitable!

If war is necessary and defense products so critical, why the cash bribes to politicians to create more?

By Jack E. Lohman

If I had a product that was that necessary to win wars, I would expect the politicians to be sending me money instead!

Well, actually, they do, as Peace North in northwest Wisconsin so ably demonstrates:

“Perennial top-ranking defense contractor Lockheed Martin took in $32.1 billion from the federal government in 2006, most of it from the Pentagon. These taxpayer dollars made up more than 80 percent of the aerospace giant’s total revenues. In 2007, Lockheed Martin CEO Robert Stevens (right) took home more than $24 million 787 times the annual pay of a typical U.S. worker ($30,617). That placed the company far over the 100-to-1 standard for good corporate citizenship the pending Patriot Corporations Act proposes. To make matters worse, at the same time CEO Stevens and his fellow executives were lining his pockets with taxpayer dollars, government auditors were accusing the aerospace firm of more than $8 billion in cost overruns on weapons development projects.”

If the trend of defense industry bribes is an indication of what’s in store for us, we Americans are in deep trouble. And in this case the Dems pocketed 59% of the cash and the R’s 41%, which is clear proof that it is illegal payola and they ought to go to jail for it.

To be honest, I don’t know if these wars are necessary or not. But if my politician is going to vote on whether or not we send our troops to their potential death, I’d sure like that he not take campaign bribes from the industry that profits so dearly on his vote. I’d like him not on anybody’s payroll but the taxpayers.

And I worry that our congressmen are arming a private militia (Blackwater) in Iraq, rather than funding more US troops (at 1/4th the cost, of course). Why are we doing this? Because Blackwater can give campaign contributions and our army can’t, and that alone would be bad enough.

But what will happen to this company when the wars dry up? What if they have a crackpot, power-hungry CEO? What if he moves to support one of the fringe wacko groups? Will they close down and simply go away? Or move their taxpayer-paid arms to the US and try to overthrow our own government? Is this the legal, private militia the constitution spoke about, and the gun manufacturers love so much?

Speculation, I know, but this will not have a pretty ending.

And now we have BP…

… who not only paid heavy cash to keep the politicians from enforcing regulations, they even paid off government employees in the agencies tasked with oversight. BP (and others) must be forced to invest in the security cap that would not have stopped the explosion but would have contained the damage, but they bought their way out of that requirement. They found the right regulators to buy off.

Will this corruption ever stop? Only if the voters wise up.

.

Only one thing will turn this around: We must pass the Fair Elections Now Act to allow honest challengers to engage in fair, competitive races. . To get there we’ll need to force a 100% turnover in November. ALL incumbent politicians must be unelected. Forced term limits! As long as we keep re-electing the same trash, we will continue on our spiral to a trashed economy. Yes, I know. “Fair” is not in their vocabularies. That’s why they must go. No corporation could sustain itself with a corrupt board of directors, and no country can either.

Scott Walker’s “Privatization”

Privatization can only work if politicians are clean

By Jack E. Lohman

And this applies to Milwaukee’s taxpayer-owned airport as well, which is doing just fine as it is.

Politicians currently tilt toward privatization because they get a piece of the action through campaign contributions. Eliminate the bribes and we may have a workable formula.

Government clearly is not the only way to provide services, and in one major way it bypasses the profitability of the free-market system that at one time made this country great. But our politicians have frittered away even that value. (But don’t you worry; they did it for a price.)

Yes, government employees are overpaid, thanks to their unions and state and federal negotiators who have no skin in the game so they tend to give away the store. And the employees tend toward the bureaucratic side to protect their jobs. But by and large they are cheaper today than private companies who can get away with gouging the taxpayers if they pay off the right politicians.

The most talked about is the Postal Service. Clearly the Internet email and online billing and payment system has harmed them greatly, thus their recent bent on advertising their shipping capabilities. And the Internet has eaten into the business of FedEx and UPS as well, and helped DHL close its US operations.

The USPS should cut deliveries to 3 days a week, because it’s mostly junk mail anyway. Cutting the delivery personnel by half and closing up their small offices is what a wise CEO would do if it were privatized.

Compare the costs of privatization:

If a product or service’s true costs are = $100

$200	Give the job to the government and they’ll charge: $200	$100 + $100 for waste and bloated bureaucrat salaries
$175	Give the job to a good private company without political overhead and they’ll charge: $175	$100 + $75 for profits and CEO salaries
$750	Give the job to a private company that has politicians on their payroll and they’ll charge: $750	$100 + $50 for profits and another $100 to $500 for CEO salaries and bonuses and political payola

These are guestaments and will vary, but they are based on what the government currently spends on private services such as those provided by Blackwater and Halliburton in Iraq and Afghanistan, where private troops are costing us about five times what we spend on government troops.

Whenever we allow politicians to privatize anything, they expect something in return. Yea, a kickback… from the vendor… in the form of campaign contributions… if the vendor wants to be considered the next time around.

And if the vendor is going to play ball, the politicians will have to return the favor. Which they can, because they control the budget of the government agency overseeing the project. Thus oversight and regulations are minimized.

It’s a costly game we taxpayers are funding.

The only solution is to get the politicians off the payroll of corporations, especially the ones contracting with the government but all others as well. Politicians like to take political money and then pass laws or fail to pass laws, all to benefit their funders.

Why are state coffers in such dire condition? Follow the money. It absolutely doesn’t matter what your issue, you’ll find a politician somewhere in the loop taking cash contributions and pulling the strings. Importantly, good laws that benefit the community do not need political cash to flow. Only bad laws do. Good politicians don’t require bribes; only bad politicians do.

Making unemployment pay…

Even eliminating the checks will not solve the problem.

By Jack E. Lohman

A recent FoxPolitics post highlights a problem that must be discussed, but in terms of the cause and not simply the effect.

With combined unemployment (9.9%) and underemployment reaching over 20%, are the jobless workers who continue receiving taxpayer-funded unemployment checks simply slackers who are contributing to the problem?

Indeed 99 weeks of unemployment checks is costly to society, but forcing these people to look for jobs that are unavailable does not change the problem. There will remain six people looking for every job available, though different workers may be drawing the government checks.

And clearly the guy who sits out unemployment for 90 weeks and then starts looking for a job, is not the guy I want working for me. Yes, the money we pay him gets filtered back into the economy, but he — personally — remains a slouch and should do some soul-searching.

Cutting him off at 50 weeks will not help, though it may increase crime and require more cops. But mandating 20 hours of volunteer time per week would help tremendously. It’ll help pay back society while giving the individual even more experience to add to his or her resume. Volunteer at the diabetes center, clean city sidewalks, or whatever. But get off your butt and contribute.

And if you don’t like the term “mandating,” let’s pay him zero for sitting on his tail and $15 per hour (up to 20 hours/week) to work in the “volunteering” capacity and offer free re-education in a new industry.

(For those looking for a job, the US News has great ideas HERE, HERE and HERE. Re-education in these industries is worth it, but pick something that the politicians can’t help outsource.)

We must correct the cause!

Many of us are tired of hearing about political corruption. I know I am. But it is at the core of virtually every public problem, including this one. It cannot be ignored, and this nation’s economy and democracy depends on our eliminating it. If we do not, we’ll likely see total rebellion and a violent attempt to overthrow our government.

I’d like not to see that happen.

The food of our political system is money. Over 90% of the winners of elections spend more money than the losers, and incumbents have more power and thus an easier time raising cash contributions. And if there’s going to be unemployment anywhere, they certainly don’t want to experience it themselves.

And CEOs, not being dummies, know that their money is power and works as intended. By regulating the politicians they can regulate the laws that affect their business and personal income, as the recent federal health care fiasco and financial ripoffs should demonstrate.

Cash contributions bought the politicians who passed NAFTA and sent U.S. jobs to Mexico and overseas, and they also passed laws to provide taxpayer subsidies to the guilty companies. Cash contributions bought the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall banking regulations that precipitated the crash of the world economy, and they bought the 2003 Medicare drug act which was and is a $780 billion giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry.

Yes, we need some targeted unemployment!

In our political system, that is. There’s hardly a decent politician among them. They get elected and enter clean, but become corrupted virtually overnight. And they can’t be thrown in jail because they write the laws they hide behind.

But they can be voted out. Whether you are Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, we must throw the jerks out of office. Massive unemployment amongst our current state legislature and US Congress is desperately needed. Mandated term limits!

At least until we get the bribery out of the political system, or give challengers the resources to compete. Currently our best option is the Fair Elections Now Act, and you should ask your congressman to support it. And push for public funding of campaigns at the state level, remembering that the harder the politicians push back means the closer you are to the solution.