Civil War, Part II

[kandrathe]

On the whole, there is plenty of truth in your bleak assessment of the ways in which the wealth and power (or lack thereof) in one generation is passed down to the next, although I'm not sure I'd go as far as you do in saying that these are absolute shackles.

Then there is a glimmer of hope.

I see progressive taxation and social programs as a major help towards minimizing these problems. Kids from poor families are never going to be on equal ground with rich kids, but at least if they get public school, health care, and enough money to survive on, they're going to be a whole lot more competitive than if their parents have to yank them out of school and cancel their medical insurance just to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

Then, again, you are still exhibiting your socialist side. :) I can be FOR free education, affordable health care, and social safety nets, without being FOR excessive or progressive taxation.

Education: First, and most important for me would be to clearly define what the desired outcome should be. Otherwise, as we have seen, education is a black hole into which you can pour ever increasing amounts of money with nary a blip in measured results. So, for public education, I would trim it back to the bland basics that would qualify any graduate placement into the college of university of their choice. At the Federal or State level everything else must go. Let localities decide on their schools which is generally paid with property tax money. Yes, poor schools will look at the rich schools and see a discrepancy. This is the basic problems with wealth disparity. I believe the solution is not to burden the working people with 60% tax burden, but rather to elevate the workers such that they can afford the same amenities. One way to do that is to reduce the tax burden on the workers.

Health Care: First, and most important for me would be to again clearly define what the desired outcome should be, and the government would supply very basic health care services to only those who cannot otherwise be insured. The whole insurance racket, when in bed with government makes for bad bed fellows. So, A) government becomes the insurer of last resort,B)health care needs to be portable and not tied to employers, C) all the programs need to seamlessly fit together, and D) most of this needs to be coordinated in the private sector, and regulated by the government.

Safety Nets: Need to focus on a process which helps people get back into a mode where they can take care of themselves.

However, the idea that the very wealthy are able to simply buy elections, but the Common Joes cannot collectively raise enough funds to be competitive is just wrong. This last presidential election, Obama raised over $250 million on donations less than 200$. That's a staggering quantity of money, in very small chunks. That's working and middle class people raising a little bit of cash, and sending it off. Democracy in action; the candidate people wanted won, and certainly not because he comes from some bigwig elite family!

Anecdotally, there are obvious cases where the general rule does not appear to apply, but an examination of where the bulk of $656,357,572 came from shows that it is not the common people. By the way, Pres. Obama was in Las Vegas and Los Angeles the past few days at democratic fund raising $16,000 per plate dinners for the high rollers and Hollywood elite. Do you really believe the fairy tale of the poor Chicago boy who was elected by the collective $200 donations of an adoring nation? I see that the glamor has not yet worn off, but then Pres. Obama has not ended his popularity campaign either.

I'm all for getting corporate money out of politics, but the wealth effect just is not that large. What was the last election Alan Keyes won? Or Steve Forbes? When you run the regressions, wealth only counts for a shockingly small fraction of a candidate's electability. The effect is disguised by the fact that popular candidates attract more cash, but in the end, they're winning because they're popular, not because they have the cash.

Alan and Steve are two very bad examples of people who do not understand how to play the game. They are quixotic in their approach, and I think like Mr. Jesse Jackson, Ann Coulter, or any number of talking heads, they use the political stage as the theater of self promotion or at least providing them a national soap box from which they can preach their ideas. Unfortunately, such people may never see through their veil of narcissism to realize they are actually not that appealing to other than a dedicated fringe. You are getting close though with the "popular" notion, and then consider that in order to "get popular" one needs positively spun national media exposure.