A Question of Disclosure

Mitt Romney has been dogged by a few issues over this campaign, but the one that he can't quite put to bed is his refusal to release more than two years of tax returns. And one of those won't show up till a month or two before election day. Is this odd? Well, it's somewhat out of step with decades of precedent, but there's nothing requiring him to do it. However John McCain is the only other major candidate to release less than three years of returns in the last 34 years, so it could be argued that three years of returns is the traditional minimum.

Now do I think this is a huge issue? Initially, I would have said probably not. But the irony here is that the more Romney digs in his heals on the question, the more interested I become. To paraphrase the old saying, me thinks he doth protest too much. After all, the best way to put it all to rest is to just release a couple more years and tell everyone, politely, to take them and shut up. Nothing stokes curiosity like avoidance. It should also be pointed out that Romney has, at many times during his previous Senate and Gubernatorial campaigns, demanded his opponents release returns. In the case of his Gubernatorial opponent, who had released hers, he even made a point about how her husband hadn't released his returns. The big kicker to this though, is that Romney apparently handed over 23 years worth of returns to John McCain when he was being vetted for the VP slot in 2008. (This is where you would insert the joke about McCain looking at them and promptly turning to Sarah Palin.) But of course we have no idea if the returns had any bearing on McCain's decision at all. The only salient point is that Romney wasn't stingy then, yet now, on the public stage he's getting all shy and retiring.

There are all sorts of theories for why he's not releasing them, ranging from them showing he paid no taxes to whether they would show something fraudulent. Personally, I think it's likely that the reason he won't release them is because they show that, through purely legal means, he made massive amounts of money and paid shockingly little in taxes. That's probably the real bombshell here, that the wealthy have so many tricks and loopholes these days that they can get away with paying a comparative pittance in taxes. In this economy, that could strike a very sensitive nerve. If people struggling to make ends meet see an incredibly rich candidate who consistently paid tiny sums while they send out more than they can afford, it could stir up a lot of animosity. Americans are fine with wealthy people, contrary to the blather you sometimes heard around the 'Occupy' protests, but they are not very forgiving of people they feel are gaming the system.

I don't think this issue is going away. First because he's probably the richest major party candidate who's ever run for President and it seems perfectly reasonable for his employers to know something about his finances. Second, because he's dug in his heels and that will only make people more suspicious. It's a question of why not show them if you have nothing to hide? As many prominent Republicans have rightly suggested it's best to get it over with now. If there's something embarrassing there get it out in the open and put it to rest, then he can move on. But if Romney thinks he can just keep laughing mechanically and saying 'no' without consequences, he may find that the question will never disappear and instead will nip at the heels of his campaign all the way to November. And every time he has to deal with the question, it will force him onto the defensive. Not a good place to be when you are trying to unseat an incumbent President.

Dictator for a Day: Campaign Finance

As we drift into the election season I'm feeling that same old, sinking feeling I get every time the talking head parade begins. The feeling got worse after the Supreme Court's inexplicable 'Citizens United' decision a few years ago that all but wiped away any meaningful campaign finance restrictions.

Particularly over the last 30 years, our election system has become increasingly corrupted by money. Money in the hundreds of Millions of dollars floods into groups associated with candidates and political parties. Until recently there were a hodgepodge of campaign finance laws that made at least a valiant attempt to stem the tide of cash that surged into every election. But with one ruling, the now infamous 'Citizens United' decision, the Supreme Court swept most of them away. There are now only a few threadbare restrictions on the Who and How Much of campaign finance. Kind of like patching a dyke with a screen door. There are more than a few avenues and sleights of hand in place to allow anyone or any organization in America to donate without limit.

A great example is Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS. It's a so called 501(C)(4) group that not only can accept unlimited sums of money, but doesn't have to tell anyone where the money comes from. The only ghost of a restriction is that they are not allowed to coordinate with individual candidates, as if that's any functional impediment. GPS and its sister group, which does divulge its donors, spent roughly $71 Million in support of Republicans during the 2010 midterm. About 90% of GPS' total collections for that cycle, according to some sources, came from just a few Billionaires. For the 2012 elections they are setting a goal of $240 Million! That's just for two, supposedly independent, groups. If this kind of money, for the Right or Left, doesn't scare you, then you are not thinking it through to its logical conclusion.

This trend is toxic for a functioning democracy. The more money the wealthy and big corporations spend the more control they gain over the system. Sure we all still get a vote, but big money is gaining more and more control over who the candidates are, what we hear about them and what their policy positions are. Money determines what messages are broadcast into our family rooms and how often we hear it. Even a stupid idea, repeated loudly enough and often enough will start to take hold. There are just too many Americans who are either too naive or too lazy to look past the bullet points. They just let ads, pundits and party loyalty guide them blindly along the path without ever asking themselves if what they are being told even makes sense.

Just look at the 2008 financial debacle, if you don't believe me. Various parts of the United States financial industry destroyed the nation's economy and kicked the legs out from under much of the industrialized world. There isn't really even any debate over this fact anymore, aside from the question of whether it was a case of apathy or ignorance. But having done that, and then being rescued because we were all terrified of what might happen if the big banks actually failed all at once, they used every bit of pressure they could bring to bear to kill or weaken any attempt at true, meaningful reform. Even the financial reform bill that did finally emerge has been beaten and bloodied ceaselessly by Wall Street lobbyists to protect their astoundingly profitable casino. Actually, I should apologize as that's an insult to casinos who, unlike our banks, are required to actually have enough money on hand to cover all their bets. So even a blatantly obvious need to reform the banking system can't stand up to the massed checkbooks of that same industry.

If I was Dictator for a Day, the first thing on my list would be a Constitutional Amendment completely revamping campaign finance. Put simply, the days of big money control of US elections would be over.

First, no group, PAC, union or corporation of any kind could donate to political campaigns. Period. This would include these supposedly independent groups like Crossroads GPS. The only legal way to donate would be from individual citizen contributions.

Second, there would be a cap on individual donations, similar to current standards, with a $2500 per election cycle and $5000 per calendar year limit, adjusted for inflation in odd calendar years. Anyone found in violation of these limits would be guilty of voter fraud, face heavy fines and would be barred from donating to any candidate for at least one election cycle.

Third, each candidate would be allowed to create or hire ONE company/organization to manage the collection and disbursement of donations. They would all be licensed & renewed yearly. Their donation records would be available under normal Freedom of Information act rules. Anonymous donations would be illegal. Each group would face at least two random audits per election cycle. The audits would check general fiscal operations as well as take random samplings of donation records to confirm they are indeed real adult, US Citizens. Groups in violation of these rules, beyond a tiny margin for legitimate errors, would face draconian financial penalties, immediate cessation of campaign finance operations, a freeze on all funds and lose their license for a minimum of 2 years.

Fourth, candidates could not use their own personal funds for their campaigns. They would only be able to donate as individuals with the same limits.

Fifth, 'gifts' to candidates would be heavily restricted and fully public under Freedom of Information like rules.

I'm sure there are many details that would have to be ironed out or added, but you get the idea. This would go a long way towards leveling the playing field for voters. The wealthiest individuals and companies would no longer be able to simply buy elections. Sure there's no way to completely bolt the door shut, not considering how devious some of these people are. But it would make it much more difficult and if they were caught they would face more than a slap on the wrist. This amendment would also have the added benefit of preventing the waste of hundreds of Millions of dollars that could be put to far better use. Look, we have a big problem with our election system, but it's not yet too corrupt to reform. Unless of course we continue to ignore the problem till election day becomes nothing but a technicality to placate the masses.

Think it Through

Am I the only one who has noticed the flood of vague and/or unworkable policy positions from Conservatives, especially Tea Party candidates? It's starting to get on my nerves. Particularly as some of the most fringy candidates are sheltering in the friendly embrace of the conservative media so as not to be faced with the indignity of an inquisitive thought. In that climate they are able to say almost anything and not be asked any inconvenient questions like, "How would you go about that?" or "Could you clarify what you meant when you said . . . ?" Therein lies the problem. Candidates are making claims that go virtually unchallenged. Not that this is entirely new since the Republican party as a whole has been doing that ever since they lost big in 2008. However some of the ideas that are fashionable on the Right are getting a bit on the extreme side.

One of the Tea Party favorites is the idea of privatizing Social Security. You hear this popping up all over the campaign trail. Some even use the euphemism of 'personalizing' rather than privatizing. Sounds better, but it means the same thing. This plan would move your Social Security nest-egg out of the Federal government and into the private sector. In other words, into the Stock Market. As I understand it you would manage it like a 401K account by picking which investment vehicles to invest your bundle of retirement cash in. Of course it takes only a brief glance in the nation's rearview mirror to see a glaring example of why this is a stupid idea. Just remember the near collapse of the financial system only a few years ago. You don't even need to flex your imagination since we just saw it in brilliant technicolor. For something that's supposed to be a minimum, reliable retirement income, risking it in the stock market may not be the best idea. Yes you could do well, but you may not and you can't really plan on the best case scenario. One other thing to think about, what do we do as a nation if a crash does wipe out a large percentage of the privatized Social Security nest eggs? Odds are, and you know it's true, that the government would end up stepping in to help reimburse those who lost most or all of their investments. So any savings to the country would be wiped away when we bail out retirees. It's called 'cause & effect' and it transcends all political parties and philosophies.

A perennial favorite of Conservatives is what I call the 'Magic Tax Cut'. According to Conservative lore, the bigger and more wide ranging the tax cut, the more the economy will grow! This is, of course, impossible. The 'Magic Tax Cut' also pays for itself! This is, of course, impossible. Doesn't stop them from pretending it's true though. Less taxes means less money into the government. Now if the economy is booming then it will equal out to some degree. But as a stimulant to a sluggish economy, it's not that effective. The economy runs on consumers spending money. The more money we have to spend, the more cash is pumped into the economy. A tax cut is only going to put a few dollars a pay check into consumers' hands. Nowhere near enough to make a difference in spending habits. But wait, just like all things in the universe, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In the case of a tax cut that means that the government will take in much less money than it otherwise would. The one way to make tax cuts less problematic is to make cuts somewhere else so that they are paid for. This rarely happens, particularly with Republicans. No politician wants to undermine the propaganda value of cutting taxes by also cutting services. In fact both tax cuts instituted by the G.W Bush administration are partly to blame for current deficits as they were never offset by any cuts. In other words, un-paid for. Sadly amusing to now hear many of the same Conservatives that were so supportive of the Bush tax cuts now moaning at the insanity of expenditures that aren't paid for. Funny how perspective changes everything.

Look, we all love the idea of less money siphoned from our paychecks by the government. It's also a great talking point as it feeds the idea that 'The Man' is taking our hard earned cash for some shadowy purpose that doesn't benefit us. But think about it for a minute. Where do you think the money comes from to pave the roads? Fund the Police, Fire and Rescue services? Help clean up after a natural disaster? Fund agencies that test our food, water and air for safety? Protect and maintain parks, not just Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon but also the national battlefields and other parks? Provide security at border crossings, airports and seaports? Fund our global military commitments? Finance a public education system so kids of any economic background can get a basic education, not to mention the publicly funded colleges and universities? Student loan guarantees? Medicare for older Americans who would have a hell of a time getting affordable health insurance on the open market? Any of these things sound familiar? Contrary to the propaganda, taxes are not inherently evil. Yes there is some waste, inevitable whenever humans are involved, but most of it goes to support the things we use every single day. And yes, we all have things we wish our taxes didn't pay for, but so what? That's the price of living in a country like America. We should stay on top of our government to make sure they are spending our money as wisely as possible, but we have to stop acting like taxes are always evil and that 'Public' means 'Free'.

Then we have one of my personal favorite Conservative mantras; Small Government. One well known Conservative, Grover Norquist, famously quipped "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub". What I find so annoying is that the people who proudly proclaim support for this idea are the same ones who are demanding that homosexuals be barred from legally being married. They are the same people who support kicking gay service members out of the military simply for their sexual preference. They are the ones ready to enshrine the Ten Commandments into law and push other Christian doctrine on a secular nation made up of large numbers of non-Christians. They are the same people who think that once an egg is fertilized that the government assumes control of a woman's reproductive system. Some of the current crop of Conservatives are even now claiming that a woman be forced to carry their rapist's child or a pregnancy from incest. Sharon Angle, Tea Party candidate for Senate in Nevada, actually stated that it was God's plan and a woman in this situation should "make lemonade from lemons". This is the small government many Conservatives want. A government with no ability to regulate corporations, but with the right to dictate citizens' personal choices. That's not small government, that's dictatorial government.

There are many more items I could pick on, but the bottom line is that when a politician makes a statement, even if it does resonate with you on some level, think it through. Follow the train of logic, if one even exists. Don't just take it at face value and assume they've already checked all the angles. The only angle they're really concerned with is the one that gets them into office. Just like a PR firm, a politician is trying to grab you with catchy phrases and emotional hooks. And a politician who is campaigning for office is not concerned with accuracy or workability. It's about motivating you to vote for them. A great example of this is health reform. Republicans will freely admit support for most of the individual parts of the law, yet in the media they are blathering on about "Repeal & Replace". Believe me, if they actually could repeal it, highly unlikely, they would replace it with something almost identical, but with a more flowery name. Of course to repeal it would require not just control of both houses of Congress, but a solid 2/3 majority in both to ensure an override of the inevitable Presidential veto. So you see, a politician can promise you anything he wants, but that doesn't mean he can or even wants to actually do it.

We have lots of problems and few, if any, have solutions so simple that they will fit on a bumper sticker. Cutting taxes will not, by itself, fix the economy or take millions off the unemployment roles. Tax cuts are also not without cost. And less money into the government means less money for the things we all demand our government do. It's fine to believe in small government, but if you do then you better be able to tell us what you're willing to do without. You can't support a government small enough to "drown in a bathtub" yet continue to pretend that it can do everything it does now. And if you really want a smaller government presence, then start by keeping it out of our personal lives. It has no place dictating personal choices that do no harm to others.  We, as voting citizens, have to hold all candidates and sitting politicians accountable for what they say and demand that they tell us how they plan to implement these grand ideas. What many candidates most fear is that voters will actually question their statements and realize that the only thing beneath the catchy tag line is their own personal ambition.