Rich Liberals Champion the Poor to Maintain their Privileged Lives

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 2nd, 2011

Per-Vote-Subsidy replaces Corporate and Union Money

Canada has a spoils system when it comes to public financing of political campaigns.  The big pile of public money ‘donated’ by the Canadian taxpayer is divided between the parties by vote.  The more votes a party gets, the more tax subsidies that party gets.  The Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, wants to do away with these subsidies (see Harper vows to scrap per-vote subsidies by CTV.ca News Staff posted 4/1/2011 on CTV.ca).

Currently, political parties receive a $2-per-vote subsidy, but Harper has long opposed the system, which was brought in by the Liberals when corporate and union donations were banned.

He said Friday that political parties already enjoy “enormous tax advantages” and taxpayers should not have to support parties they don’t support with their votes. Harper added that the subsidy only helps to ease the way for frequent elections.

Interesting.  Unlike the United States, Canada does not allow corporations or unions donate to political parties.  And when that ban went into place, the liberals brought in the per-vote-subsidy.  It takes money to win political contests.  And when you shut down two big sources (corporations and unions), that money has to come from somewhere else.  So the liberals decided to get that money from the taxpayer.  Fair, right?  I mean, without these subsidies, political power falls to the rich.  And that’s not fair, is it?

The Liberals are the Rich trying to Buy Political Power

When they banned corporate and union donations that left private donations.  From actual people.  So I guess we would have to see how that money flowed to see whether the per-vote-subsidy is fair and serves its purpose.  To keep the rich from wielding political power over the poor (see Analysis: Fears about scrapping per-vote subsidies wildly off target by Patrick Brethour, Vancouver, posted 4/2/2011 on The Globe and Mail).

Data compiled by the website Punditsguide.ca show that funds raised by the parties largely come from small donors, in amounts that would make few Canadian households cringe…

Take the Conservative Party in 2009, which raised… an average [per person] donation of $174.60…

The story is pretty much the same with the other parties: the NDP, with an average donation of $169.11; the Bloc Quebecois, average $102.63; Green Party, $123.21; and the Liberals, with an average of $239.23, the highest of the major federal parties.

Looking at the average per-person donation, it appears the liberal donors are richer than the conservative donors.  Kind of goes against everything the liberals tell us.  That conservatives are nothing but a bunch of rich fat-cats who want to use the poor as footstools.  Either that or conservatives are just cheap bastards.

The same picture emerges when looking at the distribution of donations by size. For the Conservatives, about 10 per cent of the funds raised came from those giving between $1,000 and the maximum of $1,100; conversely, two-thirds came from those giving $400 or less. The NDP were similar, with 7 per cent coming from the highest donated amount, and 70 per cent coming from donations $400 and under. The Liberals – who have fulminated against the perils of the rich controlling the political process – were actually the party most dependent on big donations, with 35 per cent of their cash coming from donors giving between $1,000 and $1,100, while sub-$400 donors accounted for just 38 per cent of the funds the party raised.

In fact, the Liberals outperformed among big donors, raising $3.2-million to the Conservatives’ $1.7-million. The Tories made up that ground, and more, with small donors.

And what do these numbers tell you?  Liberals rely on rich people for their political donations.  Conservatives rely on the little guy, the average working person who can barely afford to donate $200.  And the big corporations and the big unions pour money into liberal political parties.  In ‘soft ways‘ these days.  In Canada.  In the United States.  All around the world.  So much money that it was hard for the little guy to fight against it.  Leaving political power in the hands of the rich.  Much like the liberals say they want to prevent with the per-vote-subsidy.  But, in fact, that’s exactly what they want to do.  Leave political power in their rich hands.

You see, the crony capitalists and the snooty rich don’t like the little guy.  They like the good life that few can enjoy.  And sometimes they need special favors from government to continue that privileged life.  Which is why they donate to liberal parties.  But when they banned ‘hard money’ donations from corporations and unions, liberals had to scramble for other financing.  Because the majority of people don’t support their views.  So they need to ‘force’ donations through these per-vote-subsidies.  For it is the only way they can continue to rule against the will of the people.

The People who Supported Obamacare get Obamacare Waivers

It’s always about the money.  Whenever you’re confused about some political debate, just ask yourself this simple question.  Where’s the money?  Take health care, for example.  The goal of Obamacare was to provide everyone with high-quality yet affordable health care insurance.  Sort of like paying for a Big Mac and getting filet mignon.  Impossible, yes, but that’s what they told us. 

Big Business and the unions were all behind it.  Everyone (employers and unions) wants to dump their health care costs.  That’s why they were anxious for that public option.  Well, they didn’t get the public option.  Not yet.  First Obamacare has to put the private insurers out of business.  Once it does that then the government can step in as the insurer of last resort and, presto, they’ll get their national health care.  But leaves a costly problem for the here and now.

To ‘pass’ CBO, they had to include some onerous requirements.  The new law forced everyone to buy insurance.  The insurers had to cover preexisting conditions.  And they forbade insurance companies to recover their full overhead expenses.  Suddenly affordable insurance was going to become unaffordable.  Or people were simply going to lose their insurance because they couldn’t afford the premiums that were necessary to comply with the requirements of Obamacare.  So many of those who supported this legislation want no part of it.  For themselves, that is.  It’s okay for us.  But not for them.  So they’re asking that the law does not apply to them.  Only us (see List of health reform waivers keeps growing by Jason Millman posted 4/2/2011 on The Hill).

The number of waivers the Obama administration has awarded for a provision of the year-old healthcare reform law grew by 128 in March.

With the new waivers, that means 1,168 businesses, insurers, unions and other organizations have received one-year exemptions from a healthcare reform provision requiring at least $750,000 in annual benefits.

Nancy Pelosi said we needed to pass Obamacare to learn what was in it.  Apparently another 128 insurance plans learned what was in it this past March.  And they want out.  Like the majority of Americans.  Which really begs the question why Obamacare?  It isn’t popular.  They had to pass it quickly before anyone could read the bill.  None of the unions want it.  So why have it?  Because liberals want it.  And why do politicians want anything?  Follow the money.

The Free Market provides High Quality and Low Prices

Hillary Clinton tried to socialize our health care.  Now Obamacare is a short step from doing just that.  Because they said only government could step in and fix our health care system.  That the so-called free market had failed.  Really now?  Because that’s the one thing that has been missing from our health care system.  Market forces.  Doctors providing medical services for a fee that their patients actually pay for.  Not a third party insurance bureaucrat.  But the actual patient.  Until now, that is.  And that free market?  It works.  It’s providing a fully funded quality system that people of average means can afford (see High-end medical option prompts Medicare worries by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press, posted 4/2/2011 on the Sun Journal).

Every year, thousands of people make a deal with their doctor: I’ll pay you a fixed annual fee, whether or not I need your services, and in return you’ll see me the day I call, remember who I am and what ails me, and give me your undivided attention.

But this arrangement potentially poses a big threat to Medicare and to the new world of medical care envisioned under President Barack Obama’s health overhaul.

The spread of “concierge medicine,” where doctors limit their practice to patients who pay a fee of about $1,500 a year, could drive a wedge among the insured. Eventually, people unable to afford the retainer might find themselves stuck on a lower tier, facing less time with doctors and longer waits.

People actually paying to see a doctor?  Imagine that?  Just like in the old days.  Before there was a health care crisis.  The patients are happy.  The doctors are happy.  And making a very nice living.  You can’t get much more of a win-win situation, can you?  Who could find fault with this?

The trend caught the eye of MedPAC, a commission created by Congress that advises lawmakers on Medicare and watches for problems with access. It hired consultants to investigate.

I guess the government could.  Big Brother is everywhere.  And he is looking at this free market solution.  And Big Brother is not amused.  People paying for their own medical care?  That’s a problem for those in government.  A big problem.

Several members said it appears to be fulfilling a central goal of Obama’s overhaul, enhancing the role of primary care and restoring the doctor-patient relationship.

Yet the approach envisioned under the law is different from the one-on-one attention in concierge medicine. It calls for a team strategy where the doctor is helped by nurses and physician assistants, who handle much of the contact with patients.

John Goodman, a conservative health policy expert, predicts the health care law will drive more patients to try concierge medicine. “Seniors who can pay for it will go outside the system,” he said.

MedPAC’s Hackbarth declined to be interviewed. But Berenson, a physician and policy expert, said “the fact that excellent doctors are doing this suggests we’ve got a problem.”

You see, one-on-one concierge medicine is bad because it lets doctors work freely with patients.  The government would prefer something along the current lines.  You treat patients.  And then we’ll think about paying you.  And how much we’ll pay you.  Like in the Medicare program now.  That way you’re our bitch.  But if you work outside the system, you and your patients will be free.  And we don’t like that.  Why?  Follow the money.

Follow the Money for the Money Never Lies

Politics is always about the money.  Always has been.  Always will be.  Because it takes money to gain and maintain political power.  Whether you’re running a political campaign.  Or supporting a campaign with your union dues in exchange for political favors (such as legislation that limits competition so unions can maintain their high wage and benefit packages).

Liberals are a minority of the population.  Wherever you are.  The majority of people don’t belong to a union or work for the government.  This majority has jobs.  They take care of their family.  And want Big Brother to leave them alone.  Union dues from a small percentage of the population can greatly influence elections, though.  They can’t donate directly.  But that money finds its way to liberals.  Liberals in the U.S. desperately need this money.  In fact, union dues have become so important to the ruling liberal elite that they created an entire new class of union-paying people.  The public sector union class.  Who has but one purpose.  To launder tax dollars from taxpayers to the Democrat Party.

The 2010 mid-term elections shook up the political establishment.  Conservative governors are fighting back against this new political class.  And the liberal left is attacking these governors.  Even President Obama sent activists to Madison, Wisconsin, to protest against Governor Walker as they voted to make their public sector workers live more like the rest of the people in Wisconsin.  This is why Obamacare is so important to the left.  Health care is 17% of GDP.  That’s a lot of money.  That’s why the public option is so important.  Why nationalized health care is so important.  Because of this money.  Liberals want this money to pass through Washington.  Where they can easily skim a little off the top for their political needs.  And to live well.  Without actually having to work.  Like that majority that pays all those taxes.

Life’s greatest question can be easiest answered by following the money.  For the money never lies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #59: “When the Right partners with business the Left calls it crony capitalism. When they partner with business the Left calls that smart government.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 29th, 2011

The Right likes Capitalism, the Left likes Marxism

Crony capitalism isn’t capitalism.  At best it’s mercantilism.  At worse it’s autocracy.  But the critics of capitalism haven’t the foggiest clue of what capitalism is.  They think it just exploits the working class.  Like Karl Marx said.  Of course, Karl Marx was wrong.  His philosophy has never worked.  Whereas capitalism, true capitalism, has.  Try to point to a successful Marxist country today.  You can’t do it.  Because when you take from those according to ability and give to those according to need you have everyone trying to show as little ability and as great need as possible.  Put yourself in that position.  Do you want to show some genius and work 12-hour days and see all of your earnings go to people sitting at home collecting state benefits?  Or would you rather not work those 12-hour days, relax at home and collect those state benefits?  If these are your choices, you don’t have to answer.  Because everyone is going to choose to stay at home and collect benefits.  Because no one volunteers to be a slave.

In such a world try to imagine how many cellular towers people would install when no one wants to work.  Not many.  Which means no cell phones, no text messaging, no internet on your mobile device and no sitting in your favorite coffee shop Internet hotspot.  For no one will spend the excruciating time, money and effort to create something while he or she is paid less than those with greater need who do nothing.  In other words, there is no incentive to work hard.  So no one will work hard.  Just like you won’t work hard by working overtime hours for free.  And why won’t you?  Because when you work you sell your time to an employer.  It’s your time.  If no one is paying you for it, you’d rather do something fun.  We all would.  Because it’s our unalienable right to pursue happiness.  Like Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence.  And pursue it we do.  Because when it comes to our happiness, we’re all Jeffersonians.  Even Alexander Hamilton.  Even though they often saw things differently.

And one of those things was capitalism.  Jefferson didn’t like bankers.  Especially when they were in tight with the government.  Hamilton, on the other hand, liked the bankers.  Because he knew the difference between money and capital.  Assume everyone has a few bucks in their pockets.  What is that going to buy these individuals?  Not much.  Certainly no cellular towers.  But when you pool that money together you get capital.  And capital can buy cellular towers and the other conveniences of modern society.  And this is capitalism.  There’s a little more to it but the point is capitalism provides incentive.  And incentive stimulates innovation.  People take risks, work hard and create great things.  Marxism, on the other hand, provides no incentive for anyone to innovate.  There are no risk takers and people work the bare minimum they can get away with.  And there is nothing great in a Marxist society except misery, hunger and fear.  North Korea and Cuba are about the last of the Marxist societies remaining.  The Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and Mao’s People’s Republic of China are relics of the Cold War.  Now on the ash heap of history.  And all of these countries have/had sealed borders.  People could not leave.  If they tried they often died.  Many still risked it.  Because life was horrible under Marxism.

Jefferson the anti-Capitalist turns to Capitalism

Now whenever you gather money in great big piles you invite corruption.  Especially in government.  Which is what Jefferson feared.  You need money to do things.  And if government had access to great pools of it, they could do a lot of things.  Build armies.  Build navies.  Fight wars.  Grow the size of government.  Increase the size of the federal payroll.  Buy favors.  Sell patronage.  So more and more people became part of a growing, bloated federal government.  Who then had a vested interest in seeing it continue to grow to protect and increase the power and money they had.  All the great cities in the old world (London, Paris, Madrid, etc.) were corrupt.  The bankers were in bed with the politicians.  And the people suffered.  In his beloved France, Jefferson saw firsthand this insidious combination of money and power impoverish and starve the masses.  He saw revolutionary fervor grow in the Jacobin clubs.  And witnessed the outbreak of the French Revolution.  To check the power of the absolute monarchy and instill republican ideals.  And he liked what he saw.

With the backdrop of history, two men (and their followers) pulled America in two directions.  The Hamiltonians wanted to model America after the British Empire.  Rich and powerful.  Jefferson envisioned a nation of citizen farmers.  Simple farmers toiling the land.  Free from the corruption of the banks and the merchants.  With limited government.  Working with a modest federal budget.  Without any debt.  Of course, this all went out the window with the Louisiana Purchase.  When he needed a big whopping pile of money.  And a little extraconstitutional authority as well.  Sort of like a European monarch.  Which he took.  And thanks to a little thing called capitalism, the British and Dutch put together some creative financing for the French and the Americans.  They paid cash to France in exchange for the American bonds they just underwrote.  Some would say it was a bit hypocritical considering his attacks against Hamilton, but the U.S. profited very well from that purchase.  The point being is that even an ardent anti-capitalist like Jefferson had to turn to capitalism to close this deal.  Because there was no other way a young and poor nation could ever come up with that kind of money without borrowing it.

But all politicians aren’t like Thomas Jefferson.  In fact, shortly after the Founding Father generation, government began to grow.  There were political favors.  Pandering.  And corruption.  As the quality of the politician declined more unscrupulous people were attracted to government.  A growing nation needed to grow.  It needed to build things.   Armies.  Navies.  Forts.  Government buildings.  Post offices.  Canals.  Railroads.  As the nation grew it collected more taxes.  It soon had a lot of money to buy these things.  And issuing contracts for these things could be a very lucrative endeavor.  For the unscrupulous politician.  Who would only contract with those who made it worth his while.  The unscrupulous businessman.

Buying and Selling Favors for Personal Gain

This is crony capitalism.  The joining of business and government in backroom deals.  This isn’t laissez-faire capitalism.  This is the buying and selling of favors for personal gain.  And this is what many people think capitalism is.  Especially those critics on the Left.  Who think in zero-sum terms.  The only way some people can have more money is if other people have less.  Some people are lucky.  Some just aren’t.  Ability and ambition have nothing to do with it.  It’s all based on who you know.  And when money and power is concentrated in too few hands, it shuts out others from the market place.  And that’s just not nice.  Good people will be unable to make other and more important things.  So unless someone smart steps in and coordinates this economic activity, that activity will be inefficient.  It will build the wrong things.  And the wealth will accumulate in the wrong hands.

These politicians want to partner with business to make the right things.  By the right people.  The things they want to see built.  And not the things they don’t like.  A good example of this today is the electric car.  And the internal combustion engine.  They love one.  And despise the other.  They put in policies to increase the cost of gasoline-powered cars.  And the cost of gasoline.  And provide subsidies to electric car companies to help them build cars no one wants to buy.  And subsidies to consumers to reduce the price on electric cars.  So they’ll buy something they don’t want.

Currently, there is no market for the electric car.  People are buying it now for one of two reasons.  Because of the subsidies.  Or the smugness.  Yet companies are building these cars.  Why?  Well, they’re not doing it to lose money.  They’re making money.  Somehow.  But it isn’t in the market place.  And if it isn’t the market place, it can mean only one thing.  They are getting some sweet federal subsidies to build these cars no one wants.  And this just isn’t capitalism.  It’s another example of crony capitalism.

The Left hates Shareholders, not Corporations

The Left attacks the Right for being the party of the big corporations.  They’re nothing but a bunch of crooks.  The corporations.  And the Republicans.  Republicans pander to the corporations.  They want to deregulate their industries.  While consumer safety suffers.  As does the environment.  And they want to cut their taxes.  Paid for by tax hikes on the poor and working class.  To those on the Left the business corporation is evil incarnate.  Unless they want to partner with them.  And build things together.  Then they’re okay.

The Left hates corporations.  Yet it’s always the left that favors corporatism.  The partnering of business and government.  Like in Mussolini’s fascist Italy.  Or outright nationalization of the corporation.  A complete takeover by the government. Like in Hugo Chavez‘s Venezuela.  It apparently isn’t the corporations per se they hate.  It’s the shareholders.  They have no problem with these corporations making obscene profits.  As long as the politicians can share in these profits.

So there you have it.  The difference between crony capitalism and smart government.  It all depends on the amount of money flowing into the government’s coffers.  If the shareholders keep the full return on their investment then the business and Republicans are practicing crony capitalism.  If the shareholders share their return on their investment with the Democrats, then that’s smart government partnering with business.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,