Keeping Eyes On the Ball

The elections are next year, but some panic mongers are already getting into the whole 'Be careful: naughty people are getting ready to screw up your favorite candidate!  Give us money!' game.  This just might be legitimate, but it could also be a protection racket.

There has always been a lot of money in politics, for sure, but also surrounding politics.  Campaign advisers, marketing consultants, pollsters, demographics specialists, spin doctors, game theorists, make-up artists, talking heads, lobbyists, and all sorts of other people falling into the general category of political engineers, a particularly vicious segment of the trickster population, make tons of money, both from political candidates, and from the people who want them elected.  No wonder our candidates are constantly asking us to "Chip In" with a dollar or two.

Since so many of them are asking us for money, and claiming that the Democratic Party has made a rule that only candidates who have contributions from at least 65,000 supporters will be allowed on the platform for the primary debating season.  This is a just barely reasonable rule for the DNC to impose on this unusually large field of candidates, to try and cut down the numbers.  (We've got to give them credit; if they had said that they would only include candidates who receive total contributions of at least $50,000,000, or something like that, I would be really upset.)  And why do they want some evidence of backing before spending the precious platform time on some given candidate?  Because they don't want to squander the resources of the debating floor on some "loser."

We certainly have had 'losers' in past presidential elections.  Unfortunately, 'losers' on the Conservative side have won, so it appears we have to take 'losers' seriously.  (From what little I know of these things, it looks as though the Republicans might not choose to have a primary election, and instead just ask the incumbent to be their candidate.  That would be pretty entertaining, if they struggle with that decision.)
 

Incumbents vs. Challengers for Democrat Seats; Senior Challengers vs. New Wave incumbents in Democrat Districts:  The dynamics of the 2018 election has created an interesting set of circumstances, especially since the GOP chose to stand behind an outsider who delights in being uncouth, unpredictable, and a scofflaw.  Somehow, the first couple of years of the term of office of our present fearless leader seemed to annoy women, and not without reason.  Men in government have been notoriously insensitive to the feelings of their female colleagues and their female constituents, and quite unreasonably supported organizations that supported family planning for men, but not for women.  In fact, (for apparently Biblical reasons,) there has been even murder aimed at those who supply family planning for women, and help with safe abortions, while being quite happy with giving men family planning at government expense.  Then, of course, there were two instances of sexual harassment that triggered a landslide of harassment accusations of men against women, and as a result, a large number of Democrat women were elected in 2018.  Some few of these displaced male Democrat Incumbents, and senior Democrats generally.

Make no mistake: a seat in Congress is a highly desirable thing to have.  The pay is good, and the benefits are excellent.  To lose a seat, even if to someone younger in your own party, is a terrible thing to happen to one.  But, you know, the electorate--though it accepts the rewards to those in Congress with resignation--is not so much interested in the comfort of the Representative as it is in how well Congress does its job.  The time when a sheer passenger in Congress did little harm if they simply voted with the crowd, is going away.  We need Representatives in Congress (I'm avoiding saying 'Congressmen' out of respect to the ladies in Congress) who can fight even when they're in the minority, as they well might be a few years from now.

Furthermore, two things are creeping up: (1) the cumulative effect of laws that favor the wealthy against the rest of us, and (2) the destruction of the environment, to save the wealth of businesses and businessmen.  Let's look at (1).  Reagan, in 1980, started the trend to reduce taxes for the most wealthy, though at that time, the wealthiest in the US paid far more in taxes than they do now.  They paid for infrastructure, the armed forces (which basically protects the assets of Big Business, if you think about it) the roads (which enables businesses to truck their junk across the country, and tempt us with produce from Mexico, while local produce lies rotting in the fields), for the airports (which enable businessmen to travel around, selling their wares to new and more stupid clients than before), and for education (which enables Businesses to hire people who are supposed to be able to do arithmetic and to spell).  Each successive GOP Congress and President lowered the taxes for the wealthy, and either raised taxes for the rest of us, or reduced services for the poor, which comes to the same thing, and (2) relaxed rules for protecting the environment, because it was inconvenient for Business.  Though this need not be the case, the Business Lobby, mainly represented by the Oil Lobby, has set itself in direct opposition to the Environment.

Democrat candidates, both Presidential and Congressional, have focused either on the environment, or on the amelioration of poverty.  The GOP has catch-phrases for everything, and lessening the effect of poverty is called Income Redistribution.  This is presented by the Haves as something really terrible to do.  But a good new approach to the total problem of poverty, taxation and health, and the environment is to view holistically.

Consider Health.  At present, if you have a job with good benefits, your employer deducts money for your health premiums, throws in its own contribution, and buys health insurance for you.  The Insurer makes some money off this, and the drug companies make money off this, as well as the hospitals and the staff.  If you have no benefits, or very little in benefits, you have to fall back on Medicare, or go to an emergency room, or simply self-medicate, and turn yourself into one enormous pre-existing condition.  Sickness and loss of work will make you poorer than you were before.  It makes a lot of sense to say that Healthcare For All is a matter of social justice.  Some people call it Medicare For All, because Medicare is already in existence.

Moving Too Fast
Many Democrats who consider the new wave of Democrat Congresswomen too aggressive, and, in some cases, too combative, are particularly unhappy with their espousal of the Green New Deal.  This is the name given to a plan whose early form arose from the Green Party of Jill Stein.  The present form of it, as put forward by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is reported by Wikipedia as follows:

• "Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.
• "Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."
• "Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States."
• "Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."
• "Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible."
• "Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity."
• "Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification."
• "Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail."
• "Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible."
• "Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible."

I can just imagine how some conservatives would be incensed by the very thought of supplying ordinary people with a high-paying job, paid vacations, and so on.  OK, we could take paid vacations off the table if absolutely necessary, and add them in as circumstances allow.  The other items all seem preposterous and unworkable, but think.  If half the country is going to be underwater in a few years, why not scrap the armed forces, and use their money to get all this done?  Why waste all that money to protect a bunch of marshland?

Arch