I suppose that one could possibly interpret this article as a debate between the “haves” and the “haves – nots.” but it is something that I have grappled with for most of my young life; The issue of MONEY.
Everyone knows that in this country an election campaign can cost upwards of millions of dollars. Just where does a person who attempts to venture into the political arena begin in their search for sufficient funds to underwrite such an undertaking? Right! They begin with the “haves.” There is no time to bother with the nickel and dime contributions. They must secure ample financing long before they even consider their platform.
Millions are pledged or donated to the candidate for various reasons: Not the least of which are promises of support for a favorite act of legislation; if the candidate is successful and triumphs in their bid. Multiply these dollars by the number of prospective contestants and you have a rough estimate of the mind-boggling amount that is spent for each election. Add to this a high five-to-six figure income for the winner and you can quickly see that the cost is more than an average citizen will realize in their lifetime.
I am certainly not so naive that I believe a campaign can be successfully administered without the expenditure of vast amounts of money, and that is far from the purpose of this article.
Possibly the uppermost in my assessment would be that before the candidate can be permitted to perform any work, there must be gala affairs combined with their swearing-in ceremonies; at the cost of another million dollars or more. Other millions are spent encouraging constituents to join in their efforts to bulldoze a promised proposal through the Congress.
THEN: When the spending runs rampant and it becomes clear that something must be done to balance a budget: ALL heads turn to the livelihoods of guess who. The “Have-Nots!” They are the ones who lack the power and the money to resist.
Not one word is mentioned of curtailing any of the lavish spending during a campaign. Not one word is mentioned of eliminating the extravagant festivities that presumably are essential for participation in governmental service. Not one word of reducing the insignificant travel arrangements, which accomplish no more than an extended vacation for the legislator. No one speaks of reducing the amounts given to countries that have nothing but scorn for us until it’s time for another handout. AND, heaven forbid: No talk of applying a small percentage of THEIR five-to-six figure income to the reduction of the budget. To do this could alter the amount of THEIR pension, which is already sufficient enough that they have no need for the negligible amount that Social Security would pay to them. “Nuff said!”
It is so much easier to sever the lifeline of the poor and elderly. Giving credence to this line of thinking is the assumption that if these folks have never enjoyed prosperity, there is no reason to believe that: Their affluence will be missed. After all, the only thing that these people can afford to contribute is one vote, and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that this vote can be purchased with the promise of an insignificant tax cut.
Obviously, I am not schooled in the field of high finance, but I fail to understand the importance of a tax cut when the country is in such dire need that, after receiving this tax break, thousands will be required to return as much or more to the treasury in the form of reduced subsistence.
It is truly sickening to hear of all the wasteful squandering of tax dollars; and then hear some “Multi-“Millionaire Member of the Congress assert that the only antidote is to take the food from the mouths of people who struggle to survive, their only hope being the paltry checks from Social Security and the equally small assistance that Medicare or Medicaid provides. I have always been under the impression that we’re ALL in this together.
Apparently; dedicated politicians, that possess either conscience or concern are definitely in the minority.
The Demijon Blog