Tweet
First, many politicians on both "sides" engage in this disgusting tactic, but the recent Bush ads - from alleged conservatives no less - have stuck in my mind. Bush is accusing Kerry of voting against body armor for US troops, expanded health care for them, etc... The image is of a senator who doesn't support the troops. Much of this was a result of Kerry's vote against $87 billion to cover the costs of the ongoing invasion/occupation of Iraq, but Kerry is being attacked for past votes against various defense contracts/weapons...
But change the issue and we can easily see a Democrat accusing a primary or election opponent of voting against "our children" for voting against a huge bill that happened to contain school lunches or drug education funding. And the way it works in Washington, politicians seeking our money to buy votes or campaign donations from people will get their pork barrel appropriations into a larger piece of legislation to ensure they get what they want. So tax dollars go to special interests under the guise of funding health care or education and if anyone votes against it, future opponents point to that "no" vote to accuse the person trying to show some fiscal restraint of voting against all that is good with the world.
The result is a political class who can't afford to vote against looting the treasury...
Solutions:
Line item veto - allowing the President to strike individual appropriations from spending measures - would help and it would slow the bi-partisan looting of our money but wouldn't necessarily help reduce partisan looting.
Requiring the House and Senate to pass spending measures as individual pieces of legislation instead of amassing dozens of measures into one bill. That would alleviate the need for the line item veto.
Of course, abiding by the enumerated powers within the Constitution would eliminate the vast majority of spending, but that ain't going to happen (not that my other suggestions will get passed either).
An informed electorate intent on fiscal restraint.
Allowing only people who pay a minimum of $2000 - $3000 in income taxes every year to vote. Consider that the worst cars to buy are usually former rent-a-cars and you'll understand why private property is better than "communal" property in the long run and you'll understand why it is destructive to let people who pay no income taxes (or actually get "credits", i.e., welfare for working) vote on how much other people pay in taxes...
There is one thing worse than a drunken sailor in a bar, a drunken sailor in a bar with your wallet.
But change the issue and we can easily see a Democrat accusing a primary or election opponent of voting against "our children" for voting against a huge bill that happened to contain school lunches or drug education funding. And the way it works in Washington, politicians seeking our money to buy votes or campaign donations from people will get their pork barrel appropriations into a larger piece of legislation to ensure they get what they want. So tax dollars go to special interests under the guise of funding health care or education and if anyone votes against it, future opponents point to that "no" vote to accuse the person trying to show some fiscal restraint of voting against all that is good with the world.
The result is a political class who can't afford to vote against looting the treasury...
Solutions:
Line item veto - allowing the President to strike individual appropriations from spending measures - would help and it would slow the bi-partisan looting of our money but wouldn't necessarily help reduce partisan looting.
Requiring the House and Senate to pass spending measures as individual pieces of legislation instead of amassing dozens of measures into one bill. That would alleviate the need for the line item veto.
Of course, abiding by the enumerated powers within the Constitution would eliminate the vast majority of spending, but that ain't going to happen (not that my other suggestions will get passed either).
An informed electorate intent on fiscal restraint.
Allowing only people who pay a minimum of $2000 - $3000 in income taxes every year to vote. Consider that the worst cars to buy are usually former rent-a-cars and you'll understand why private property is better than "communal" property in the long run and you'll understand why it is destructive to let people who pay no income taxes (or actually get "credits", i.e., welfare for working) vote on how much other people pay in taxes...
There is one thing worse than a drunken sailor in a bar, a drunken sailor in a bar with your wallet.
Comment