The Price Is Right
Millions of dollars are being spent to defeat health care reform. Sadly, this is an accepted point of fact…not a political spin that is even disputed by those who are spending the money. Actually, those who oppose health care reform are proud that they’ve been able to organize such an effective effort. After last Saturday night’s House vote, it appears to many liberal thinkers…and conservatives for that matter…that the massive lobbyist blitz against health care reform has effectively neutralized the most critical parts of health care restructuring, making the House bill basically an exercise in political theater. Time will tell, but at present it appears the lobbyists against health care reform have won…they wield enough control of the purse-strings on Congressional campaign contributions that they can say so far: ‘The price is right.’
Recently, some people have started to take another look at campaign finance reform. And health care legislation isn’t the only reason. Millions of dollars in lobbyist spending is focused also on severely limiting any dramatic changes in financial market regulation or economic bailout accountability. It seems the more you look the more you see…that lobbyists have a large influence in many important legislative efforts. So, where does the money come from…and what does it mean for the stability of our democracy?
I remember having forums on campaign finance reform. Some bold legislation was proposed, but then it was watered-down to the point of being irrelevant. The biggest thing I remember about our forums was that everyone who attended seemed to see themselves as being a political outsider…being shutout somehow from an effective role in shaping legislation. These folks basically expected their voice to matter whether they had money to contribute or not. They quoted the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, focusing their faith and hope in democratic principles. At the end of the day, most believed that if campaign finance reform wasn’t achieved, their voices would remain distant and faint in the legislative process. And they were right.
I’ve come to believe that it boils down to this…either our free enterprise system is meant to support the stability of our democracy OR our democracy is meant to support the stability of our free enterprise system. I wish I could identify another option here, but at present I can’t. While there are many nuances in how this simple priority balance works, the basic question remains: which is primary…and which is supportive? The answer to this question seems to decide where you stand on campaign finance reform.
But why would anyone believe it’s best to let corporate donors and industry lobbyists control the effectiveness of Congress…and the White House? Corporate America was too big to let fail in the second greatest economic collapse in our nation’s history, and stabilizing financial markets is more important than reversing the policies that continue to destroy the American dream for hundreds of thousands of our neighbors every month…our priorities actually seem pretty clear. Corporate leaders in our free enterprise system who value business and investor welfare higher over social welfare continue to exert almost absolute control over Congress and the federal agencies tasked with accountability oversight. My feeling is that campaign finance reform hasn’t been approached, because it’s been decided by our elected officials that our democracy is meant to support the stability of the free enterprise system.
It’s time to return to the issue of campaign finance reform, but not in the same way we did in the last forums. We need to confront the basic priority of our politics and of our culture…to give our neighbors a clear opportunity to decide what’s most important…our free enterprise system or our democracy. I believe this is the most important conversation we’ll ever have about the future of our country.
Comments
Truer words have never been spoken. "Free enterprise" seems to be the holy grail. It's supporters will tell you that our system is the greatest producer of wealth ever seen....amd they are right. It alo happens to be the greatest destroyer of the community,
the environment and social stability. In most politics one must recuse oneself is there is a "conflict of interest." This seems to have been forgotten or ignored in our national system.
Posted by: Clay Berling | November 13, 2009 03:22 PM
I have read the posting above of "deliber8ca" with considerable interest. In recent months I have come to believe that, although I am presently an entrepreneur, I am disillusioned with the excesses of our so-called "free enterprise system," insofar as it is controlled by those with a vested interest in the status quo.
For those who perpetrated the worst excesses, or their supporters, socialism seems to be the catch word, dating back to the fight against health care in President Truman's time. Recently an acquaintance posted on Twitter a reference to www.angrytownhall.com, which is a satirical group which attacks the "socialist fire department" and the "socialist police departments," as well as tax-supported (socialist) libraries, and educational systems. (Yes, these can be considered socialist enterprises!) Most people in the US who participate in Medicare, Medicaid, and the US military's TRICARE seem to be glad to have coverage in these programs, yet we shy from instituting such systems for the greater population of the country.
Regarding the exploitative excesses of the so-called free enterprise system, these seem to be encoded in free enterprise/free market DNA. In the industrial revolution, exploitation of the working class in England was exposed by literary works by Charles Dickens and others. In its natural, unregulated state, capitalism periodically has feverish episodes of excess which can be seen in various ways. Bubbles are well know, in real estate and other assets. The basic problem seems to be the need for unfettered exploitation at each stage of the production of goods.
A general working definition of exploitation is: "to employ to the greatest advantage." Less regulation allows for greater advantage to the corporations that have the capital required for development, obviously, hence the stress toward little or no regulation of finance, or of the marketplace.
Exploitiation of natural resources meant to make some area of land or water more profitable, requiring efforts to minimize expenses of production (labor), regulation (government) distribution (cheap, probably dirty transportation) and finally, the marketplace.
During the colonial period, stronger nations exploited wearker ones, taking the colony's natural resources (copper, diamonds, etc) at the lowest cost possible. As colonies became independent, major corporations then jockeyed for position to obtain favorable rights for commodities extraction.
As the resources are extracted and used in manufacturning, labor costs must be controlled. With the decline in the power of organized labor, offshoring of jobs became prevalent. It is more difficult to exploit labor in the presence of a strong labor negotiator, hence industry turned to cheap foreign sweat shops.
Finally, to move merchandise, it became necessary to exploit market potential by increasing the purchasing power of those willing to buy on credit - which is just about everyone in the middle class. This has been accomplished by offering credit cards to everyone, and by raising credit limits as long as payments were made on time. More and more people used home equity lines of credit and their cards to consume, without regard to their ability to pay back the many thousands of dollars they were borrowing. Those who read the financial pages, saw General Motors described as "a bank that sells cars." This is in reference to GMAC's successful efforts to exploit the consumer and his or her interest in buying larger cars or trucks than they could afford. And so it goes....
My mother considered the commercialization and exploitation of Christmas to be a sacrilege. In the free enterprise system, commercialization and exploitation are simply employing a circumstance to greatest advantage.
Posted by: Jim Stevenson | November 13, 2009 10:52 PM