May 27, 2004
RECOGNIZE THE DISEASE (via Tom Corcoran):
Treat the Disease: Campaign spending will keep increasing as long as government does. (Patrick Basham , 5/25/04, National Review)
[T]he most important factor driving campaign finance upward is "more government." Simply stated, the growth of government spending fosters the growth in campaign spending. Taxes and regulations on society have increased the ambit of government at all levels. Increasing government activity leads to more efforts to influence political decisions, including spending on campaigns, a relationship confirmed by scholarly studies.As government does and spends more, individuals try to influence government, both to advance their causes and to protect themselves from abuse. And government has grown enormously. In 2000, the federal government taxed Americans to the tune of $2.03 trillion, a 250-percent real increase since 1970. On the expenditure side, federal-government spending reached $1.79 trillion in 2000, a 915 percent nominal increase over the previous 30 years.
Government has assumed the additional power to regulate all kinds of private conduct, especially regarding economic life. Economist Thomas Hopkins estimates that the cost of complying with these federal regulations exceeds $700 billion. The desire to gain benefits or avoid costs from regulation also pushes campaign contributions upward.
These levels of taxation and regulation indicate that government has vast power over many aspects of American life — from wealth redistribution, to the nature of housing, agriculture, education, and health care, to trade, energy, and telecommunications, to gun ownership, to the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs. Almost 70,000 government bodies are authorized to impose taxes on Americans.
Is it any wonder, then, that several billion dollars are spent lobbying politicians during each election cycle?
Suppose you had a democracy and it turned out the people wanted stuff from the State, but I repeat myself... Posted by Orrin Judd at May 27, 2004 8:53 AM
What if you had a constitutional republic?
Posted by: Tom Corcoran at May 27, 2004 9:21 AMAnd the good people of New Hampshire are certainly doing their part. Saw on Fox News this morning that New Hampshire was #4 on the list of government pork recipients.
Posted by: Rick T. at May 27, 2004 9:34 AMoj-
Finally, you recognize our constitution as the non-entity it has become.
Posted by: Tom Corcoran at May 27, 2004 9:57 AMNot a non-entity, just insufficient to withstand democracy--though because we have it we've fared far better than any other.
Posted by: oj at May 27, 2004 10:03 AMA friend of mine who was otherwise sensible went ga-ga over Perot in '92. He didn't know where K Street was, but convinced himself that 'K Street lobbyists' were the scourge of the Republic. I replied that, with the federal government grabbing %20+ of GDP (not to mention adopting regulations which could swing huge amounts of money), it would be positively un-American not to get in on the deal.
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at May 27, 2004 10:15 AMWho is more admired in America: Corporal Klinger or Aunt Bea? Scrounging will win every time.
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 27, 2004 2:04 PM