Obama's Staffing Wage-freeze

So I still haven’t heard Obama’s inauguration speech and I probably won’t bother to check it out. I heard it was very glib - intended to alleviate some of the pressure of expectation I'm sure. The day after his speech though, I did hear some clap-clap-hoorahs in and around the office over his “firm-footed” decision making after promising a wage-freeze on White House staffers making over $100k. According to an article published in the Washington Post, the freeze is expected to save the government ~$440k next year. Note: I only have a hard copy but I’m sure you can find the article on their website at washingtonpost.com

A savings of $440k…Whoop, whoop!

*more like clap-clap-clap THUD*.

Obviously Obama is trying to set a tone at the start of his administration by making an example of his own staff. Clap-clap-clap for Obama’s PR skills, but we already knew he led smoothly in that category anyway. What exactly does this accomplish? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nothing good anyway. I’m not balking over a government wage freeze, but hailing this move as a bold stroke from our new, fearless leader seems egregiously underserved, especially considering Bush already increased salaries via executive order on December 18th. DOH!

Did Obama forget to mention that? * Obama says, “My bad.” *

During Obama’s campaign, his economic plan for getting the country out of a recession was essentially government supply side economics. When private enterprise isn't able to stimulate the economy, the government steps in with new spending and government programs to keep money afloat and people in jobs until the country is out of recession. When that happens, government spending takes a backseat while the free market economy flourishes.

And so when government steps in with all these great things, where does the money come from? Tax payers..duh. And this of course, leads us to the conservative argument that increasing taxes during an economic recession is well, stupid.

To stimulate the economy, you want people to spend.

Nevertheless…I guess that just means that the extra taxes off the $440k we might have otherwise received to help pay for Obama’s spending programs, will not be coming from his high-seat government staffers – just everyone else.

Lobbying is Democracy in Action

Oh here we go…

As many know, my blog posting has been in hiatus for nearly three months now. **What can I say, I’ve been in mourning since the dismal outcome of the elections** And I suspect the next two weeks will be nearly as painful as I’ve already started receiving “woot-woot all hail the mighty ‘Bama” messages from many of my liberal friends and family – folks who, if they aren't already, are quickly moving to my “adoringly disillusioned” friends list ;-)

We love them, despite their objectionable political leanings. :-)

So, I’ve been idling my time the last two weeks trying to avoid thinking about the upcoming inauguration, and I started playing catch-up with the pileup of Newsweek issues blocking my doorway (not really). I hit the December 22nd edition on Sunday and came upon this beauty of an article: Lobbying is Democracy in Action.

The underlying premise of the article is, “If people can’t organize to influence the government, then Democracy is dead.” Everybody get that? Ergo, without the lobbyist environment, Democracy is dead. If the author’s intent was to induce a physical reaction, then bravo, it worked. There are so many things wrong with this article; I’m not even sure where to begin but my fingers are twitching violently even as I type.

First: The definition of a Democracy does not hedge on one point. In short, a democracy encompasses all of the following attributes: a form of government that supports free and fair elections, active participation of the people in government and civic life, rule of law that applies equally to all citizens, and protection of human rights for all citizens.

Second: Given that our form of government is not a Democracy, which hinges on a controlling government predicated on ‘majority rules’, how is this article even relevant? Fact: we are a Republic, and yes, there is a distinct difference. **If you didn’t know this, well….** That said, I’d expect a Newsweek author to know better. People frequently mis-apply the term Democracy when talking about our government but it is just that – misapplied.

Third: even if we were a Democracy (which, again – we’re not), since when do lobbyists ever represent the majority? Assuming their intentions are always on the side of ‘the people’ (which - they aren’t), lobbying is the only way to influence government? Really?

And finally: how much success has the lobbyist environment ever really had on “influencing” government anyway – campaign contributions and political briberies aside. On the last two points, I’m sure those are talking points best swept under the rug anyway.

The author must think that the majority of Americans, or those who read Newsweek, are infinitely stupid or just plain ignorant. <>

There’s a reason why lobbyists have a bad rap – and no, it’s not because they represent the 'will of the people' and are therefore every politicians worst nightmare. Sleezy influence merchants who block traffic, clog intersections, pollute the street with useless road signs, spew annoying rhetoric and and touch on your every last nerve? You betcha! Ok, sleezy - not always. But the rest - absolutely!