Amendment XXVIII To The Constitution

For over five years I have been saying that there is too much money in politics and that we should amend the Constitution to take the private money out. The ability of those with a lot of money to use it to influence our lawmakers gives them an advantage over the ordinary working class and deprives the us, the people, of equal access and the ability to be heard. Consequently almost everything that Washington does it does for the benefit of the super rich and the corporations they control. During those five years and more I have found very little support for the idea. Then the Supreme Court gave the corporations the right to spend as much money as they want to influence politicians. And now the idea seems to have gotten wings and is taking off. Its about time!

Representatives Donna Edwards and John Conyers have introduced a bill to amend the Constitution. The amendment would allow the Congress and the states to regulate political expenditures by corporations.

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, the First Amendment shall not be construed to limit the authority of Congress and the States to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity of any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation.

Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

Politicians rightly believe that most Americans decide who to vote for based on the information they get form thirty second TV commercials. And the corporations can buy a lot more really slick commercials than the average citizens can even in groups and organizations. So any politician who doesn't go along with the corporations and give them what they want will find themselves the victim of corporate wrath. They will find that their opponent is supported with far more negative TV ads maligning them and supporting their opponent than they can afford to buy. No politician who isn't willing to stand against the corporations and risk not being reelected or to serve only one term will be elected. They won't even be likely to be willing to run. We might as well dispense with elections and just let the corporations appoint the lawmakers. So this amendment is a good thing. It just doesn't go far enough!

We need to take all private money out of politics completely. As well as prohibiting corporations from funding our elections we should make our elections publicly funded. Elections should be paid for from a fund taken from tax revenue and set aside for that and only that purpose. The funds should be distributed equally to all candidates who manage to get the signatures of a percentage of all registered voters in the district they seek office in. That would give them an equal chance to state their views and their position on issues and to say how they would legislate. It would give us a much better idea of who were voting for and why.

We also need to make it a crime to bribe an elected official. And it should be considered a bribe to give money, or anything of value, to a lawmaker. That includes such things a giving to a charity or institution like a hospital or university in the politician's name. And it should be considered a bribe to take a lawmaker to dinner at a five star restaurant or on a Caribbean cruse or a golfing outing in Scotland, etc. Lobbyists should be restricted to talking to the lawmakers during regular office hours or at town hall meetings where you or I or any ordinary citizen could go and present their case for or against legislation.

It isn't easy to amend the Constitution. It takes two thirds of the Congress and three fourths of the states. Now with the corporations able to spend as much as they want to to prevent an amendment that would deprive them of that ability it will be even harder than it would have been before the Supreme Court ruling. It will take a truly massive grassroots movement. We, the people, must make our Congressmen believe that they will not be reelected if they do not support the amendment. Without it we are doomed to rule by the corporatocracy.

Should We Try AbdulMutallab In Federal Court Or A Military Tribunal?

There is a lot of talk in the news about whether of not we should prosecute the so called Christmas Bomber, AbdulMutallab, in Federal Court as a criminal or in a Military Tribunal as an Unlawfjul Enemy Combatant. There are what sound to me like good arguments for and against both options. There are also what I think are purely political reasons against both options.

On the side for the Military Tribunal option instead of in Federal Court is the cost of a trial in Federal Court. A trial in Federal Court is likely to take five years and cost a billion dollars. The most often given reason that I feel is political is that it would be more secure because it would increase the likelihood of bringing a terrorist attack on the scene of the trial, especially if it is in New York City. New York City is already a prime target for a terrorist attack and has been since the first attack on the World Trade Center. An attack is likely there whether there is a trial there or not. If they can attack New York City they will, whenever they can. So I see no validity in that argument. There is no evidence for that argument. There is only philosophic reasoning behind it and that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. We have already successfully tried several Al Qaeda members here in America in Federal Court and none of them brought a terrorist attack. Several Al Qaeda members are being held in our Federal Prisons and none have yet escaped nor have the prisons they are in been attacked by terrorists. So trying him in a Military Tribunal would not be any more secure than one in Federal Court.

On the side of a trial in Federal Court is that we should show the rest of the world that we are a nation of laws and that we recognize the rights of individuals to due process. Military Tribunals would give the world the impression that we don’t recognize other people’s rights. As already stated we have already given terrorists from other countries the same rights we give our citizens by trying them in Federal Court. We really should take the moral high ground and let the world see that we do. We have enough trouble with the way the rest of the world sees us and we shouldn’t make it worse.

In my opinion it was a big mistake to create the classification of “Unlawful Enemy Combatant”. I think it was immoral! It was done to circumvent the Geneva Conventions and free us from the necessity of following them in the treatment of those taken prisoner in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bush administration didn’t want to be bound by those restrictions. They thought more intelligence could be gotten by using methods that violated the Geneva Conventions. They also thought it would give us the right to hold those prisoners without trial or due process of law for ever. It has increased the hatred of us in the Muslim World and made it easier to recruit terrorists and made it even more likely that we will be attacked. It has cost us our moral standing. Trying AbdulMutallab in Federal Court would help to restore it.

A Tax Rate Increase

Since the inception of the income tax when the maximum marginal tax rate for an individual was above 50% there has been economic stability. When it was below 50% there have been economic bubbles, boom and bust cycles.

In 1913 we got the income tax with the top income rate of 7%. In 1917 the top rate was raised to 67% and it fluctuated between that and 46% with the high being 77% until 1925. Then it was lowered to 25% where it stayed, except for 24% in 1929, and we had the “Great Depression”. In 1932 it was increased to 63% and from then until 1987 it was no less than 50%. Most of that time it was well above 50% with the highest being 94% in 1944 and 1945. Through most of the ‘50s and in to the ‘60s it was 91%. The economy was pretty stable during that time.

The top tax rate wasn’t paid on the total amount of income. It was a graduated rate. The first few hundred dollars went tax free. Then from some figure to another higher one the taxes were at a higher rate. There were several brackets each with its own tax rate. Only the amount above the top bracket was taxed at the top rate.

The top marginal tax rate was dropped to well below 50% to a low of only 28% from ‘88 to ‘90. Ever since we have had the old low tax rate cycles of bubbles growing and bursting. Now it is only 35% and once again America is in real economic trouble.

During the time since the top income rate has been below 50% the rich have increased the disparity between their income from about 20 to over 400 times that of the average worker. There has been a tremendous increase in the wealth of the country but it has all gone to the richest few, those who own the majority of stock in the corporations. And the average citizen has less buying power now than they had before the tax rate was lowered.

American business has been sending jobs to other countries to cut costs so they can sell their goods for less. Unemployment rates have soared! Consequently revenue from taxes has not kept up with the demands of the country. On top of that we have been fighting two wars without paying for them. President Obama has submitted a budget proposal of 3.8 trillion dollars with a deficit of 1.56 trillion. The national debt has increased to 11.4 trillion dollars. Lower taxes have not served the country well!

In light of historical statistics we should increase the top tax rate back to where it was during the times of greatest stability, above 50%, about 70% to 90%. This would place a significant part of the tax burden back on those who benefited the most from the tax structure of the passed years when the top marginal rate was below 50%. It would give the country a lot more money to reduce the deficit and pay for the financial obligations like Social Security, Medicare, education, the infrastructure and defense. It is the intelligent thing to do. It is necessary if we are to get out of the economic doldrums we are in within the next decade or more.

The Budget Deficit

The President is sending a 3.8 trillion dollar budget proposal to the Congress that has a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit for the coming year. The interest on the national debt is one of the biggest financial obligations we have. It is enough to pay for Social Security and Medicare. It is enough to make paying off the debt very difficult when added to the other obligations. We must pay for Social Security and Medicare as well as things like the national defense, education, infrastructure, and running the government. Many economists say our children and grandchildren will still be paying off the debt.

There are basically two ways to reduce the deficit. One is to reduce spending. The other is to raise revenue. Spending could be reduced by cutting or eliminating programs. Revenue could be increased by stimulating business or raising taxes.

There aren’t many non essential programs that could be eliminated if you consider Social Security, Medicare, education and defense essential. There are also few areas where cutting back can be done. We could reduce some of the cost by eliminating fraud, waste and abuse but it wouldn’t be enough. So we are left with the options of waiting for business to increase providing more tax revenue or increasing taxes as well as reducing spending where possible. Waiting for business to increase will take a long time. And many say it will take more spending before that happens anyway. And there is very strong resistance to raising taxes, especially during this time when business is struggling. So what are we to do?

The way I see it we spend way too much on defense. We are maintaining military bases in other countries all over the world. I don’t think it is necessary to do this in order to keep other countries from attacking the U.S. homeland. In fact I think it feeds a negative feedback loop. The more we are in other countries the more other countries hate America and want to attack us, or our interests. I don’t think it is our homeland they want to attack anyway but our interests that we are protecting by being in those other countries. What interests? Business interests! Which businesses? The corporations! Who owns the corporations? Most of the stock is owned by a very few very rich people, not the average citizens. So we, the people, pay for the protection of the interests of the rich. Unfunded wars have been the biggest contributor to the national debt. I think we should decrease the national debt by closing most of our overseas bases.

Rich people control the government by bribing our lawmakers to legislate on their behalf and give the bill to the people. As well as reducing military spending we should raise taxes on the money the owners of the corporations make from the operations of the corporations or the sale of stock in them. I don’t think it would be very detrimental to business expansion to do it and they have ridden the gravy train while the rest of us paid the taxes that kept the country going while protecting their interests. They should be made to pay their fair share. But to do that we need to take the money out of politics so that the ultra rich can’t buy influence with those who can raise their taxes. I think that the only way to do that is with a Constitutional amendment. And to do that we will need a massive grassroots movement. If it doesn’t happen we are likely to become a washed up formerly great country that only has a very small privileged class and a very poor underclass.

Politics by The Parties

I wonder why the founding fathers didn’t provide for political parties in the Constitution. I think it might be that they saw the danger of partisan politics. Perhaps they foresaw that the House of Representatives and Senator might vote along party lines instead of for the good of the country. Maybe they knew that the majority party would shut the minority party out instead of bringing them into the process, thus disenfranchising a large part of the population. If so it was a very prophetic vision! That is what we have happening now.

The Republican Party voted as a block not to pass the Economic Stimulus package. They voted as a block not to pass the Health Care Reform package. Recently seven Republican Senators cosponsored a bill setting up a commission to bring the deficit under control. And when it came up for a vote all seven of them voted against the bill that they thought was good enough to sponsor. Not one Republican voted for the bill and it was defeated. Why? For party solidarity!

The Democrats are no better. For instance, they accepted very few, if any, of the Republican proposals for economic stimulus or health care reform. When it comes to working together for the good of the country it seems like both parties just aren’t interested. They seem to think what matters most is that their party rules! They do their best to not let the other party get anything done.

The really sad thing about partisan politics is that neither party represents the majority of the American people. Independents outnumber both parties yet there are only two independent Senators and no independent Congressmen. The reason for this is because the parties run the primary elections. In most states the major parties automatically get a candidate on the ballot for the general election. An independent candidate can’t even run in a primary and the parties make it almost impossible for one to get on the ballot for the general election. So the unaffiliated voters have only candidates that don’t represent them or their positions to choose from. Its no wonder the American people have a very low opinion of the Congress, the Senate and the Government in general.