LOOKING FOR AUTHENTIC PUBLIC SERVANTS!

I started to write another article about polls, but my thoughts drifted into many interweaving and related areas.  Finally, I ended up with notes comparing the thinking, activities and actions of politicians and public servants.  My list(s) are below.

I’m glad I took this detour given that the first Presidential debates are tomorrow.  In addition to using your Listen/Ignore table from yesterday’s post to keep score, ask yourself how each candidate rates according to the points below.  Are they a politician or a public servant?  By my count, there are only three candidates who can fairly call themselves public servants.  See what you think.

Politician

• Pursues and accepts money from special interests, organizations and wealthy individuals in ever increasing amounts.
• They like polls, and can make a negative poll look good, and use a positive poll for negative purposes.  Their focus on polls is strategic in terms of helping them divide voters into groups as they look for our votes.  The terms “divide and conquer” come to mind.
• Use the influence that comes with their office and responsibilities for the benefit of special interests.
• They view their elective office as a career with some taking the word incumbent to the next step of entitlement.
• They are generally willing to sacrifice national progress to further their own interests, or that of the party.
• Views “perks” of their office as required and deserved.  Always in the ready to create more.

Public Servant

• Accepts campaign funding only from individual voters.
• Ignores polls and talks directly with voters.  Their leadership and ideas are based on direct contact with their constituents and their imaginations.
• Voters are the only special interest they serve, and use the influence of their office for.
• They look forward to returning to the careers they left behind to serve in elective office.
• Seek win-win, and compromise, in the interest of America and progress.
• Pursue consensus in word and deed.
• Happy with expense reimbursement and personal benefits during the time they serve, but they leave those behind when they return to their lives back home.
• They have a retirement program back home, and don’t expect one as a result of their relatively brief public service.

DISCLAIMER:  The lists above are mine, but I believe I could objectively find  numerous examples of each point.  Although, it would be more difficult for the public servant points.  Nonetheless, as a responsible voter, please form your own opinion(s), and then vote in secret.

Elective office is a public service opportunity, not a career!

. . .  remember that America’s best days aren’t behind her.   America’s best days are ahead of her.  They always have been and always will be.

Dave

Copyright © 2015 by David William Wygant. All rights reserved.  

The Elephant in the Room

Last week, and again this week, while people have flooded across our southern border, as the conflict between Israel and Hamas has grown in intensity, and ML-17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine, President Obama has had a flood of his own.  He’s attended multiple and numerous fundraisers to raise millions of dollars for the Democratic Party.  

Now, the news outlets have started to focus on the “optics” of how it looks for the President to raise so much money for his party at a time when so many things need his attention.  Of course, he’s not the first President to do this type of thing.  Similar questions were asked when President Bush was slow in visiting the site after Hurricane Katrina.

The commentators and pundits all express different thoughts on whether the President should be in Washington DC to run and respond to the world events of the day.  They ask, “with modern day communications, does the President’s location matter?”  Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn’t. I believe the important point is something else.  It’s not Democrat or Republican.  It’s not partisan at all.

The “elephant in the room” is the damage that money is doing to our American democracy.  The good news is that we voters can “cure” this ailment with our votes.  Let’s practice using “Voting Alert  Beacon #5:  The Money.”  

Below, I’ve copied in the Beacon and add some comments.

Beacon #5: THE MONEY

DO vote for candidates who accept and receive contributions from individual citizens.

[Comment:  The fundraisers that President Obama has been attending recently require attendees to pay in the “ballpark”  of $10,000 per plate.  Any person who pays that amount becomes a “stand-alone” special interest group.  Or, at the very least, everyone attending that kind event is forming a de facto PAC for the evening by their contribution and presence.  In fact, these dinner events are sometimes sponsored by special interest groups or PACs.]

• DON'T vote for candidates that receive and accept money from PACs, Unions, Businesses, etc.

[Comment:  This speaks for itself.  Go to the Federal Election Committee link on the right side of this blog and check to see which candidates take large amounts from “non” individuals or special interest groups.  You won’t be surprised to see most often the incumbents are the most guilty.]

• Vote for candidates with the smallest average contribution from individual citizens.

[Comment:  Again, take a look at the Federal Election Committee link on the right side of this blog.  You can see how much money individuals are contributing to each candidate.  Then, divide the total dollar amount by the number of contributors.   Using “Beacon #5:  The Money,” vote for the candidate with the smallest average individual contributor amount.]

• We can take the improper money and resulting influence out of our government by using our vote effectively.

[Comment:  Folks, we voters are the only ones who can get this done.  I believe we can do it and that we will.  So, let’s get started!]

Spread the word!  Tell your friends about the Voting Alert Beacons!

. . .  remember that America’s best days aren’t behind her.   America’s best days are ahead of her.  They always have been and always will be.

Dave

Copyright © 2014 by David William Wygant. All rights reserved.  

A New Vision - Bring Them Home

What if Representatives and Senators moved their principal office from Washington DC back to their districts and states?  With the transportation and communications systems available in this modern era, there are many reasons why it would work and even more reasons why it would be a good step for better public service and good government.  Keep in mind that very profitable companies now work daily on a global distributive model.

What does some of the fine print look like?  What does this mean?  In terms of the week, this might mean our public servants are in Washington DC on Monday and Tuesday.  For the remainder of the week, they are close to their constituents.  In terms of staying in touch, keep in mind that individuals and groups of people are now routinely connected with each other no matter where they are on the face of the planet. 

What else might change? 

The most important high level change is that they are closer to who they represent.  It is easier for them to remember where they come from.  Their “memberships” in the political parties will be correctly balanced by proximity to their constituents.  Their representation of us becomes stronger then their allegiance to issues and parties. 

The Representatives and Senators are also closer to their state government counterparts.  When they properly work together, they form an important counter weight to the accumulation of power in the federal government.  State’s rights is reinforced.

Special interests would have a more difficult time asserting influence.  The special interests will find it difficult and costly establishing a lobby office in each state.  Now they just set up one office in Washington DC.

Local media becomes more important and pronounced.  National media will have some of the same problems as special interests.

There will be important practical advantages too.  It will be less expensive to set up state or district office versus a very expensive and egocentric DC office.  The perks of office will likely be more normal if the Representative and Senators are close to their constituents.

Goal:  Work toward a time when great ideas will cast a show on the accumulation of great power.

Spread the word!  Tell your friends about the Voting Alert Beacons!

. . .  remember that America’s best days aren’t behind her.   America’s best days are ahead of her.  They always have been and always will be.

Dave

Copyright © 2014 by David William Wygant. All rights reserved. 

IS AMERICAN DEMOCRACY DEAD?

On the CNN news website today, Julian Zelizer posted an opinion article that raised very serious questions about the health of democracy in America because of the influence of money.   It’s hard not to feel a little apprehension after reading it.

In the first paragraph, Mr. Zelizer identifies the problem and underlines its seriousness.  Throughout the article he recalls the history of how we “got here.”  He states what all of us know to be true based on what we see happening around us.

Read his article for yourself here.

It is the season to act!

We voters can do something about this problem.  We can fix it one vote at a time (THINK THE POWER OF ONE).  Voting Alert Beacon #5 drives a stake through the heart of special interests money, and their effect on our democracy.

It’s very simple!  First we all need to vote.  Second, if we follow the basic steps that the Voting Alert Beacons lay out in making our selections in the voting booth, we can shut down the special interest money like a water faucet that doesn’t leak.

Some would say that the Beacons are too simple.  I would say that is the very reason why they will work cleanly and effectively with dramatic effects.

Spread the word!  Tell your friends about the Voting Alert Beacons!

. . .  remember that America’s best days aren’t behind her.   America’s best days are ahead of her.  They always have been and always will be.

Dave

Copyright © 2014 by David William Wygant. All rights reserved. 

Voting Alert Beacon #5 is about eliminating the negative effects of campaign money.  What has not been possible through any other means, voters can do with their vote. 

Over the years Congress has attempted many times to control the collection and spending of campaign funds.  In each case, the laws have generally been found unconstitutional by The U.S. Supreme Court under the FREE SPEECH provisions of the Constitution.  With a little information, and our votes, we citizens can easily straighten this out.

First, we need the information.  The information below is gathered from the Federal Election Commission website.  There is a link on the right side of this blog.  Using the website, it is very easy to find campaign funding information on any candidate.  All voters need to become familiar with where to find, and how to use, this information for both the federal and state candidates.

To get you started, I’ve collected information for each of the Republican candidates now running in the primary season, plus the information for President Barak Obama.  See the table below.

	Gingrich	Paul	Romney	Santorum	Obama
Individual	$20,647,244	$33,128,117	$73,144,957	$15,547,669	$118,793,406
All other (PACs, etc.)	$71,295	$2,670	$516,351	$54,224
$200 and Under	$11,747,790	$20,844,059	$9,253,545	$9,175,297	$94,434,232
$200.01 - $499	$1,897,535	$5,022,494	$2,321,751	$1,470,680	$11,993,951
$500 - $999	$1,806,585	$2,748,744	$4,277,312	$1,317,898	$11,970,167
$1000 and Over	$5,282,101	$4,645,477	$58,370,414	$3,599,996	$58,115,675
Grand Total	$41,452,550	$66,391,561	$147,884,330	$31,165,764	$295,307,431

[Source:  Federal Election Commission, March 29, 2012 at 2:30pm]

What do the colors mean?  Think of the color scheme like a set of traffic lights at an intersection.  Green is good, yellow is caution, and red is stop.  If all of the candidate contributions were coming only from “green” sources or individuals in small amounts, huge distortions in our election system would disappear and we’d be back to discussing only the issues.  On the other hand, when a candidate receives most of their contributions from “red” sources or entities like large amount donors, PACs, associations and unions, then the minimum number of voters or entities like PACs, associations, and unions use a maximum amount of money to distort the election.

OK, this will take a some time to think about, in the meantime here are a few simple rules to follow when you vote.

1. After looking at their positions on the issues, vote for candidates with small donations from a large number of individuals.
2. Never vote for a candidate who receive over 25% of their donations from the combination of large amount donors (over $499), and non-human entities likes PACs, associations, and unions.

A THOUGHT TO REMEMBER:  While large amounts of money can overwhelm a fair discussion on the issues, if the money is given by individuals it is visible to all of us, and in that way fair.  On the other hand, when very large amount donor individuals, PACs, associations, and unions give money, the effect of that money isn’t felt until after the election.  The real damage quietly occurs when a large donor or non-human entity stops by an elected official’s office to remind them of a prior donation and twist their arm.

In my next post:  I will apply as many of the Voting Alert Beacons as possible to what we’re reading and hearing in the news.

In the meantime, remember that America’s best days aren’t behind her.   America’s best days are ahead of her.  They always have been and always will be.

Dave

Copyright © 2012 by David William Wygant. All rights reserved.