Manchurian Candidates

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_14239144?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltrib.com

This recent ruling by the Supreme Court that lifts ALL restrictions on the type of spending corporations and unions can and cannot do during elections is one of the most corrupt rulings I have ever seen. In this world of electronic information, unlimited spending by people who can afford it violates every principle that democracy was founded on. We think campaign spending is out of control now, just wait to see what happens as a result of this asinine ruling. Where are Sen. McCain and Sen. Feingold in the wake of this decision? Where is the outrage and condemnation from the most outspoken people when it comes to campaign finance reform? Do these two truly care about reform or do they only care when it is politically expedient and/or beneficial for them? It is one thing to come out and say they are “disappointed” but quite another to go out and fight for what you believe.

I have said before that large campaign donations are in effect bribery. Help us get what we want and we will give you money to keep, or get, you in elected office. With this ruling these corporations and unions will no longer be able to bribe politicians, they will in fact be able to CHOOSE what politicians they do and do not want. In other words, we will have a government FULL of Manchurian Candidates. If Congress and/or the President don’t do what these people want, then they will be able to simply buy and install people who will give them what they want. Also this ruling doesn’t apply to only U.S. companies, it also applies to U.S. subsidiaries of FOREIGN companies. Am I the only one who has a problem with foreign companies being able to sway elections to suit their interests? Say for example, OPEC…

This idea of a corporation being considered an “individual” has gone way too far. The only time a corporation should be seen as a single entity is in a lawsuit (sue just the company and not every single employee) or criminal case (not everyone is responsible) but even then its pushing it. Every citizen of this country gets one vote, corporations are NOT citizens and as a result should not be able to have such an enormous influence on elections. The employees of a company can give their opinions with their VOTE, and not by their company BUYING the election.

Sorry Sen. Bennet, the idea that this is a huge win for free speech is a laughable claim at best. We’ll see if you still stand by such a statement if this ruling leads to a landslide victory to DEFEAT you. This is anything but free speech.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/25/obama.spending.freeze/index.html

Another thing that would save the government money would be to drastically reduce the amount of contractors that the government currently employs. Contrary to popular belief, contracting out a job is not always the cheapest thing to do. In fact it can often be one of the most expensive things a government could do. Let me explain.

A federal, or civil service, employee costs the government health care, wages, retirement, and training. Also as a direct employee of the federal government, the government can better control its quality controls and fire or change anything that isn’t up to standards. On the other hand, when the government hires a contractor the government not only pays for the same things a federal employee gets but they also have to cover the profit margin of the company they contract with. This is a big reason why contractors often get paid more, because the company they work with can gouge (over charge) the federal government for their services. Also, the government often doesn’t have the same power to fire or hire an employee based on performance if they are contracted.

Yes, contracting may be seen as a way to “shrink” the federal government but you have to ask yourself at what cost. Is it worth paying two, three times, or more, for a contract employee to make government seem “smaller” when a federal employee could do the exact same job for less?