Is Civil War on the Horizon?

 

You don’t need a crystal ball to tell you that America is more divided than at any time in its history. More so than years leading up to the American Revolution. More than the decade preceding the Civil War. More than during the era of Women's Suffrage, Prohibition, or the Great Depression. Even more so than the turbulent 1960's.

In fact, the division may be so deep and the gulf so wide that it may never be bridged. We have become a nation of diverging ideals.  The recent presidential and national elections (such as in New York and Virginia) has served only as dark mirrors of our division. What have we've become?

One ideal is in the belief of a small or limited federal government. Low taxes, a level economic playing field, and government our of our private lives. The other ideal is one where government is the sole source of our social and economic salvation. The first believes in opportunities where one succeeds or fails by their  own efforts.  Neither the government or society  owes you anything.

The other believes in entitlements, where all aren't just equal in the government's eyes, but some are more equal and should be given special consideration for one historical slight or another.  One believes success comes from a good education and hard work, be it white collar, blue collar, pink collar or any other collar; that teachers are there to teach the skills one needs to survive in society, not to babysit. They believe everyone needs a helping hand from time to time.

The later believes in downgrading the quality of education so that everyone "succeeds" or is a “winner”. A society  where mediocrity is superior to a society of meritocracy; that successful people "owe" those who aren't as successful because they spent their time skipping school or goofing off or playing sports is more important than studying English, math, science, or history; that they are owed a living just for showing.

They believe they should be "forgiven" of their school debt because they received degrees which aren't marketable but fail to explain how taxpayers, who must pick up their defaulted debt, are responsible for their bad decision making. 

Our Founding Fathers envisioned a nation of "Yeoman farmers" and local merchants. We're a long way from that. They envisioned a nation free to believe what they wanted without being manipulated. They believed that the right to petition their representatives meant the right to question them and if necessary recall them. They believed in transparency in government. They believed that no matter how well intended, government had no business in our personal business. There's’ no doubt this belief would extend to corporations as well.

They believed America should look after America first and no “foreign entanglements”.  Indeed, our Founders were ardent nationalists. They believed in the right to own arms. Not just for hunting or self-defense, but because recent events had proved their mistrust government.

An armed citizenry was much harder to intimidate than an unarmed one (just look at England now). Most importantly, they believed in a small federal government with little taxation power because they knew they the way to destroy freedom can come from just as easily from the ability to tax as surely as it can from the barrel of gun. Power should rest primarily in the hands of the States. Local control was the best control.

Forty-three percent of registered voters now identify as Independent, and that doesn’t include those who are members of third parties like the Libertarians or the Greens. That means that both of the two corporate owned parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, are minority political parties. That also means that the majority of Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired of the petty partisan bickering and legacy media propaganda.

We elect individuals to go to Washington, to our state capitols, or to City Hall and to work together to solve problems, but all too often those problems are the result of backroom dealing making or making unnecessary laws while we are left dealing with the mess. 

We constantly hear how it's always the “other side” who won't cooperate. It's more like how the other side won't simply roll over and let them have their way. Playground antics and high school bullying instead of trying finding common ground is the rule, not the exception. They play economic chicken with the welfare of the people they were elected to serve. Anything goes as long as their master---big business--- profits.

Who is the "big business"? They are the ones who bankroll both political parties and pull their strings. They are the ones you are never allowed to see at the national conventions. They are the ones who draft the laws to allow them to make more money while avoiding taxes. They are the ones who walk through the revolving doors of Wall Street boardrooms to government bureaucracy and back again. They are the corporate lobbyist and Beltway insider.

They're the new and improved global military-industrial-technological complex President Eisenhower tried to warn us about. They are the exploiters of people and resources while selling us illusions of how our lives could be in ten second TV spots or 8 x 10 retouched glossy magazine photos if we only bought their product.

They know no national loyalties and are restricted by no boundaries. They have turned us from self-sufficient producers and citizens to mere global consumers. We’ve become indentured economic serfs and captives to credit ratings, manipulative consumption, and built in obsolescence. They are the ultimate users and corruptors.

So, what are we to do? Can we mend this divide or is it too late? Frankly, I don't know. But this I do know. The system as envisioned by our Founding Fathers no longer exist. Our constitutional republican government is beyond mere reform. Many already recognize this. A few more are finally waking up. Some, however,  may never. They prefer to remain blissfully naive, while others couldn't care less as long as the they're getting theirs and someone else is picking up the tab.

Uncle Sam is on life support while his two hopeful murders, the Democrat and Republican parties, have their hands on the plug as they argue over the treatment, Meanwhile, you and I are soon to become orphans. The only real question my dear readers, is what will you do? One thing is for certain. Inaction is not a choice any longer. 

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

11 Reasons Why the American Middle Class is Doomed


11 Graphs that Allegedly Prove That the West Is Doomed


Does the US have a bubble economy and doomed to fail?

The Case of the Vanishing Republic: The Morphing of America’s Democracy

 

It seems that the Right is perpetually speaking about Democrats leading us down the road to socialism's perdition. With Donald Trump in office, the Democrats and those on the Left kept comparing "The Donald"  with Hitler and Republicans with fascists (hence the thinly vailed “No King” protests). It seems that neither side is familiar with history.

First off, there's no way those in power on the Left or Right would allow this country to become "socialist", Communist or anything else that requires them to surrender their wealth or power to the State. Secondly, the two party system is a farce. Wall Street owns both parties and they make no secret of it. What we see on a daily basis is political “kabuki” theater.  

The only real difference between the two parties is the two competing corporate cliques. Citizens United has ensured corporate control of the political system. It has put political reform all but out of reach of the average American. Corporate lobbyists write the laws, leaving voters with the illusion of choice. 

As for fascism, it was (and remains) a partnership of sorts between the government and Big Business. In the past, the latter assumed a junior role, but nowadays, we all know Wall Street wouldn’t go for that.  

Actual socialism, which remains an abstract idea since it has never actually been implemented, means that the people essentially own everything. Under actual socialism  political power and the control of wealth would be in the hands of the working class. Businesses would be typically employee owned and run while others, particularly essential businesses, would be controlled or heavily regulated by the State.

Nevertheless, I don't see Wall Street or their K Street lobbyists allowing anything like that to happen do you? Certainly not after the "Citizens United" or "McCutcheon's" decisions by the Supreme Court which gave them carte blanche to the halls of power and the public trough! 

What passes for "socialism" today is an admixture of capitalism, democracy, and a welfare state comprised of social programs  under the heading of "Democratic Socialism", which is common in Scandinavia and places like Germany and Netherlands. Think of it as "capitalism with a friendly face".  Of course, that hasn’t kept some authoritarian states from usurping the term. It’s like North Korea calling itself the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”.

Nevertheless, despite high taxes (especially on the wealthy and corporations), the democratic socialist form of government have proven to be quite popular with the masses, with practically everything being subsidized. However, it requires everyone to pitch in and contribute back into the system. But when you have a mass of people who draw on the system without contributing to it, it fails, which is what seems to be happening in Scandinavia and other parts of Europe.  

Under Communism, which is often---though incorrectly--- used interchangeably with socialism, there are again no privately own properties, businesses or corporations. The State owns everything. Everyone works for the State. The State is everything. Do you see corporations like Google, Lockheed Martin, Exxon or people like Zuckerman, Musk, Bezos, or Buffett  surrendering their power and wealth to Washington? So, what is America is morphing into? The answer is a Corporatocracy, which is a de facto form of neo-fascism.

Fascism is, as its founder Benito Mussolini said, was more accurately described as "corporatism". Specifically, Mussolini said "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power". Novelist Upton Sinclair called fascism "capitalism plus murder" while Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin referred to fascism as "capitalism in decay".

Politically speaking, fascism isn’t stagnant. It borrows some of its goals and techniques from the Left and some from the conservative Right, including militarism. It grafts various national traditions and values to its cause as needed and jettisons whatever is no longer of use.  Corporatism is, if nothing else, adaptable. It's objective, however, is always corporate control plain and simple. The role of government is to serve as the lesser partner and "middleman" between the "elites" and masses. It's objective is to serve the rich.

Under a Corporatocracy, there is little to no strong middle class; certainly not in the way we're used to. There's the insanely rich and then there's everybody else. There is a two tier justice system. One for us and another for the elites. Sound familiar? Can you see the one percenters giving up their money; their penthouses; their private planes and yachts if we were truly becoming “socialist”?  

As an aside, some less informed individuals and groups (and few who should know better) want to convince you that Nazism was a Leftwing “socialist” movement because they used the term “socialist” in their name. Hitler’s definition of the term was that of a community of likeminded Germanic people (aka “Volk”) with a shared culture, values, and heritage. Also, unlike communism or socialism, it was strictly nationalistic, not international.

Consider this too, while unions exist in a Corporatocracy, they are weak and fairly ineffective. A far cry from the unions of old. Their primary purpose is to keep the masses in their place---on the job and off the strike line---while generally backing the decisions of the corporate bosses.  They serve the interests of the corporation, even if it means cutting benefits, pensions, and hours.  

So, in reality, we are morphing into something akin to a neo-fascist corporate State where we see the top 10% owning 52% of all wealth. The ultimate goal is to diminish the autonomy of the individual, as well as our economic and political power, while increasing our dependence on the State, which in turn, is controlled by Wallstreet and the corporate elite. 

In short, we're to become economic serfs with the government serving as our overseer and corporations as our masters. Of course, the "big prize" is the creation of a single interlocking global corporation with a single government. A digital ID will serve as our chains. That means creating and using global organizations to serve as the intermediaries on global projects and national one's on more regional projects with the legacy media selling a siren’s song.  

Under corporatocracy we can expect national governments become ever more pervasive in their role of overseer while local and state governments become weaker and more dependent on the federal government.  This role also enables corporations an ever growing access to taxpayer money to acquire resources domestically and globally while at the same time shielding their intentions behind the illusion of a sovereign government.  

They can also use the national government take other actions on their behalf, like wars, trade agreements, or treaties, to enhance their wealth and power on the taxpayer's dollar.  In further defining corporatism, its founder, Benito Mussolini said, “Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity, quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace.”. In short, war and the threat of war is good for business.

Il Duce was also talked about was the concept (novel for his time) of what we're now experiencing, that of perpetual war---like the "war on terrorism"---to maintain control over the population and the exploitation of resources by corporations, be they natural resources or national resources for the sake of the bottom line. It artificially stimulates the economy, masks actual unemployment numbers, and allows for near unlimited deficit spending. Sound familiar? We get crumbs and they call it a “victory”.

As an aside, what did Mussolini think of socialism? After all, his father, Alessandro,  was a prominent Italian socialist and Benito started off his political career as a socialist. This was his opinion, "Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail".

So, when someone starts complaining about America becoming "socialist" or "Communist", remember that famous line from movie "The Princess Bride" as uttered by the swordsman Inigo Montoya (played brilliantly by Mandy Patinkin), "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".  

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

Eight Billionaires Own asMuch as the Poorest Half of Global Population

 

The Rich 1% Own Almost Half the World's Wealth & 9 Other Mind Blowing Facts About Wealth Inequality

 

The Time for Political Change is Now: Term Limits, Transparency, and Partisan Gerrymandering

 

When our Founding Fathers embarked on this unique experiment we called the United States of America, they drew on many sources ranging from ancient Greece, the Roman Republic, the ideals of the Enlightenment, and even Judeo-Christian traditions. Their hope was to create a Constitutional Republic which provided just enough government to enable society to flourish with a bare minimum of political interference.

In doing so they opposed the creation of political parties (what they called "factionalism") which they believed would divide Americans and eventually usurp political power from the citizenry and encourage the creation of special interests groups which would, in time, come to control political agenda and the levers of power which rightfully belong to the American citizen. 

They hoped that this new form of government would encourage the development of the "citizen legislator". That is, ordinary citizens from all walks of life who would take their turn in coming to Washington, local councils, and state government, serve a term or two, and then return home. Thus, allowing most everyone an opportunity to participate in controlling their own destiny.

The Founders never intended on the creation of political factions as mentioned above. They opposed the creation of another professional political class like the one they had just thrown off; one comprised of  wealthy upper crust aristocrats. They viewed these individuals as having no connection with the ordinary colonist. They were considered haughty and elitist. They were too inclined to tax ordinary citizens while exempting themselves and their cronies. Laws which applied to the common farmer or business owner didn't apply to them.

In short, our Founders wanted to avoid what we have today---a professional political class of wealthy individuals belonging to competing political factions controlled by powerful special interests groups who've made it all but impossible for the average citizen to participate in the election process. This is thanks mainly to partisan gerrymandering of districts which all but guarantees no party turnover; unlimited financing of not just campaigns, but of legalized bribery through so-called "leadership PACs" which serve as a near bottomless source of funds for the officeholder thanks to Citizens United; the co-opting of the legislative process by very well paid lobbyists (many of whom are former politicians or staffers) who "help" write legislation and then ensure its passage through the maze of committee chairmen "gatekeepers" who get their cut at each stage of the process; and, of course, unlimited terms which means that a well funded politician can hold onto an office virtually for life, just like those old aristocrats. In fact, it's not uncommon for their children, relative, or close friend to pick up the seat after they retire with a full salary and benefits for life---all paid for by you and me.

It's the latter issue, unlimited terms, that I want to briefly discuss. Prior to 1947, the President of the United States could serve indefinitely. However, almost all had previously self-limited themselves to two four year terms out of tradition based on George Washington's example. The one exception was the 32nd President, Franklin D. Roosevelt (aka "FDR"). Roosevelt, a Democrat, was elected in 1933 amid the Great Depression. Through essentially a reworking of government regulations and a series of economic measures and public work projects, he staved off the collapse of the economy, at least for awhile.

However, by 1941, it was beginning to appear that the country might be starting to slip back into, at the very minimum, a recession, if not another depression when the Imperial Japanese Navy struck Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The next day America was at war with Japan and a few days later, with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy and their combined allies. Although Roosevelt faced elections every four years, the American People believed that wartime was no time to change leaders. Unfortunately, he never saw the war conclusion. He died just a month shy of Germany's capitulation and four months shy of Japan's surrender.

Nevertheless, the American People seemed to agree, perhaps after seeing the toll that 12 years in office took on their beloved president. It was decided that two four years in Washington's tradition were enough. So, on February 27, 1947, the Twenty-second Amendment was ratified limiting the presidency to eight years. What was not changed, however, was the tenure of Congress. The Senate tenure remained six years per term while the House stayed at two years per term. However, there was no cap placed on how many terms they could serve.

In those days there was more participation in politics. People trusted their government (and the media).  Gerrymandering hadn't quite become the science it is now, and special interests hadn't yet seized total control of the political process. People voted (61.4% in 1964 vs.55.7% in 2016). It was still possible for a "Mr. Smith" to afford to run for office and go to Washington. Compromise and civility was more the norm than the visceral extremism of today.

Of course, that's all changed now. Today, the average cost to run for a U.S. Senate seat is approximately $15 million dollars. To run for a House seat, the average cost is (ready for this?)...$2 million dollars. The reelection percentage of incumbents range from 91% in the House to 84% in the Senate and has been that way (or higher) for a very long while now, and yet the approval rating of Congress (as of February 2020) is only 23% (it's been as low as 9%). To put it another way, 77% of your employers think you're doing a lousy job and yet you're rehired almost 100% of the time. I don't know about you, but I find something very unsettling about this.

As everyone knows (or should know), the U.S. has become what our Founders feared---an oligarchy. We have a professional class of plutocrats who think they know better they we know about how to run our lives. They've created a system which makes us dependent on them. They even bribe us with our own tax dollars. They've created a surveillance state within a neo-fascist corporatocracy, and are awaiting the opportunity, be it real or manufactured, to impose a police state (the so-called "digital ID" being rolled out in Europe and Canada may be the opening salvo). 

Here's another way for you to think about it. During its heyday, the central governing body of the USSR (or the "Axis of Evil" as President Ronald Reagan called it), the Soviet Politburo, had a higher turnover rate of its members (all of whom belonged to just one party---the Communist) than the members of Congress with their two parties. Of course, nowadays have a single political party too. It's the corporate party, with a Left and Right wing. It kind of makes you wonder who provided the best representation to its citizenry doesn't it? So then, what are some of the pros and cons of term limits?

First, by establishing term limits it would restrict the amount of time an individual has to spend on raising money. Right now the average politician has to raise at least $18,000 every single day for themselves plus at least that for party leadership. On average, a politician will spend six hours of their day just on raising money. That's six hours every day not working on issues. That's six hours per day of not working for us. If their terms are limited they would be more willing to take a stand on key issues rather than hedge their bets in order not to offend some powerful special interest.

It's no secret that the very nature of politics corrupts. Even a person with the best intentions will get "dirty" sooner or later. The longer you're in office the more likely the chances. By limiting terms, it would limit the corruption. Of course, if you're dirty going in or lean that way, limiting the term won't change a thing. A limited term would also reduce the time powerful corporate interests have in gaining control over you. However, given the costs of running for office, unless you're super rich, the chances are pretty good that a least a few have already got their hooks into you.

Congress (or even state or local legislatures), ironically, don't function much like a democracy. They are seniority based with committee leaders and party whips (who ensure you vote the way you're told), and so forth. By restricting tenure, it would increase turnover of these committees and thus by necessity make them more democratic. It might also cut back on a lot of the political shenanigans played out daily behind closed doors. It forces politicians to focus on three or four key issues they intend to accomplish.

By increasing the turnover in Congress you would obviously bring in fresh blood. That means Congress would react faster to changes taking place in society. It would automatically create a closer connection between representatives and those they're supposed to represent. At the same time, by removing individuals long disconnected from their districts (many don't even return home until nearing election time) it would bring in a plethora of new ideas.

Increased turnover too would force members of Congress back to the political center (where the overwhelming majority of Americans are) and to learn once again how to compromise in a true bipartisan manner. Wouldn't a Congress without all the viral hatred and bickering be a good thing for this country? Just think of how much more could get accomplished. It could also increase the need to streamline how things are done, which just might force Congress to cut back in their involvement in our lives.

Term limits do have some drawbacks to consider too. In the process, we could lose some of very few "good" politicians as well as reduce the level of experience level of those who know how to get things done. It could also impact the working relationships which exist between politicians. Given that their time is limited, it could produce a "don't care" attitude among some. However, that would soon be thinned out by voters. 

Nevertheless, despite the negatives, 84% of Americans would like to see form of term limits. So, with a majority like that, why are we still tolerating unlimited terms?  Perhaps limit the Senate to a maximum of three six year terms which would be 12 years. The House could serve the same through six two year terms and expand the presidency to three four years terms. That way, everyone served equally with no more than 12 years max.  If you are one of the "good" ones, that would be enough to get things done. Lastly, I would go one step further by limiting federal judges (including the Supreme Court) to 12 years as well. Too many times, they has proven to be out of touch with society. 

Of course, term limits by themselves won't be enough to retake the government from the ruling Oligarchy. We need to remove Citizens United and cut unlimited corporate money out of politics. We've got to prevent lobbyists from writing legislation in the name of elected officials. We need to given the president and the governors line item veto authority in order to cut out bad projects and special perks tacked onto bills. At the state and local levels, we need to have the final say on all tax, rate and salary increases for elected officials. In addition, we need citizen directed referendums and initiatives.

Speaking of which, no more salaries and benefits for life. Any and all legislation must apply to elected officials, not just us. Government must also become more transparent. Partisan gerrymandering must stop. Instead, turn over redistricting to a non-partisan agency like the Federal Defense Mapping Agency or to local universities on a rotating basis. Currently districts are drawn to benefit parties, not voters. That must change.

Lastly, and this a pet peeve of mine, I'm tired of all the partisan bickering. Next to nothing gets done for the American People. Regardless of their political party, I would like to see everyone elected to office resign from the party upon their election. They are there to represent all voters, not just their political clique. In addition to their oath of office, they need to take an oath to represent their districts, their state, and the American People irrespective of any partisanship. 

At present, over 43% of voters are registered Independent, and that number is growing while the number of registered Democrats and Republicans are continuing to shrink. It's time for both parties to accept the fact that their days of "divide and conquer" are over.  Additionally, with our "winner-take-all" political system, when one party wins, all those on the other side are left unrepresented. That needs to end. It's time that every American should be represented...just as our Founders intended. What do you think?

 Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 


Voting in Early America

Statistical Summary of 18 Month Campaign Activity of the 2017-2018 Election Cycle

OpenSecrets: Costs of Election

OpenSecrets: Election Trends

Gallup: Congress and the Public

OpenSecrets: Reelection Rates Over The Years

Congress Spends More Time Dialing for Dollars Than Legislative Work

The "Gospel" of Partisan Politics

I am a frequent and often requested respondent on the site "Quora". Over the past 5 or so years, I've had somewhere in the neighbor of 10 million viewers and have my answers included in a number of dedicated spaces which are similar to encyclopedia entries. My specialties are history (especially military history and WWII in particular), economics, theology, humanities, community organizing and activism, management/employee relations, sociology, and of course, politics. 

Recently I was asked a rather unusual political question. The individual wanted to know which of the two corporate controlled parties (the Democrats or the Republicans) considered their particular brand of political dogma to be "gospel", which I took to mean as not based on their professed "ideal", but on their reality. Below is my answer. How would you have answered?  Does either party govern the way they claim to do? 

Which party sees its dogma as political “gospel”? Simple. They both do. That’s why we have such a wide and deep partisan divide. Each believe they know what’s best for the country and the American People. Each has a nearly inflexible political dogma which has lead to intolerance for anyone who isn’t as “pure” as they are. Compromise, which used to be considered the hallmark of modern politics , is now viewed with contempt.

The only thing the two corporate owned parties seem to agree on is their opposition to third parties and Independents (who happen to the nation’s majority voters) because they represent a threat to their control and power. Independence of thought or the development of critical thinking skills are to be discouraged and ridiculed.

Secondly, both agree on pursuing every means of self-enrichment, primarily for the benefit of their controlling corporate clique. It’s not by chance that power doesn’t rest in the hands of the voters, but boardrooms. There’s a reason why we’ve transitioned from a Republic to a corporatocracy and why we’re led by an oligarchy of very wealthy individuals.

As long as we remain divided, we are easier to control and manipulate, which is why both parties have largely purged moderates/centrists for their ranks. It’s why money is “free speech”. It’s why corporations, those legal fictions, have not just the same rights as people, but in many cases, have rights that exceed flesh and blood citizens. So, which party sees its ideology as “gospel”? The answer is that both do, and their gospel was written on Wall Street and their prophets can be found on “K” Street. 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

Welcome to the New Reality: The Death of the Republic and Rise of the Corporatocracy

 

As most everyone knows, aside from their role as legislators, one of the key functions of Congress is to act as the keeper of the nation’s wallet. They are the ones who approve and allocate our tax dollars. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “It is the duty of the President to propose, and it is the privilege of Congress to dispose”, and indeed it is.

What happens when the government has a debit crisis or to use an accounting expression, when our “outflow exceeds our inflow”? In short, the government is spending more than we bringing in? No business can do that for long and stay afloat, and no ordinary household can survive for long before the bill collectors come calling. Government has no mandate like the rest of us to follow a strict budget. So what then? 

In the case of the United States Government, there is no one coming to bail us out.  The government's credit is based on nothing more than its "good faith", which is short for "trust us". Those who own our debt are mostly other countries like Japan ($1.1 trillion), the UK ($690 billion), and China ($749 billion); they're essentially stuck. They have no hard collateral like the Capital Building or Mt. Rushmore to foreclose on and sell off on the steps of the ICC to the highest bidder. The most they can do is ride out the financial storm or throw more money at the problem and hope “we” (that is, the President and Congress) can somehow work it out.

The usual answer is raising interest rates, which increases the cost of borrowing money from the Federal Reserve. This, in turn, typically means a hike in wholesale prices which means, as nearly always, ultimately gets passed on to you and me. As a result, we are the ones who ultimately take the hit for their bad policy decisions and mismanagement.    

Sometimes, war is used to artificially stimulate the economy and reduce high unemployment numbers. But as for Congress itself, there are no real consequences and yet, aren't they ultimately responsible for the problem itself? 

Well, yes, but Congress goes happily on their merry way without having to take responsibility for their actions (or in some cases, inactions).  For decades now, their approval rating has been in preverbal toilet, typically ranging from a low of 9% in 2019 to a high of 29% as of February 2025, but do you think they care? Nope. Not really. Have you ever wondered why that is?

According to Open Secrets, in 2024 Democrats received $1,163,550,563. Of that, $1,187,730 came from political action committees (“PACs”). $1,802,512,049 was from individuals. Republicans raised $637,855,365. PACs were responsible for $1,018,830 while individual contributions made up $581,463,551. The majority of the money came from corporate donors and very wealthy families, and we can thank the 2010 Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court for that.

Elon Musk, owner of SpaceX and current satrap of DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency), for instance gave $291,482,587, all to the GOP.  Timothy Mellon gave $197,047,200 with the overwhelming majority going to the Republican Party as well. Miriam O. Adelson (owner of the Sands in Las Vegas and the Adelson Drug Clinic) donated $148,304,900, also to the Republicans.

Michael Bloomberg, the former Mayor of New York, gave $60,839,734 to the Democrats and a token $1 million to the Republicans. Dustin Moskovitz, owner of Asana, Inc, dropped $50,671,800 to the Democrats as well.

Steve Swartzman of Blackrock Group contributed $40,178,539 to the GOP while Bob Bigelow, owner of Bigelow Industries, gave them $34,990,500. Reid Garrett Hoffman, owner of LinkedIn, gave the Democrats $28,804,480 and a polite $400,000 to the Republicans.

When it came to corporate donors, SpaceX was again on top with $287,930,952 going to the Republicans. Another $767,131 went to the Democrats. The Fund for Policy Reform contributed $60,000,000 to the Democrats. Ripple, a software developer, gave $15,685,583 to the Democrats as well and $2,970,303 to the GOP.  Building America’s Future donated $33,470,000 to the Republican Party.

These are just a very small sample of the big dollars that went into the elections of 2024. In addition, most of these groups also donated money to smaller outside organizations. For instance, Citadel, Inc., a preeminent multinational hedge fund, amassed $108,669,316 in contributions (making it the fourth largest corporate donor) spent the bulk of its money on Republican groups which included Keystone Renewal PAC, American Patriots PAC, Fix Washington PAC, and the Senate Leadership Fund just to name a few.

Greylock Partners, one of the nation’s oldest venture capital firms, donated $35,900,577, ranking it the 26^th largest corporate donor, gave all of it to exclusively Democratic related groups that included WelcomePAC, American Bridge 21^st Century, Granite Committee, and Future Forward USA to name just four.

There were quite a number of PACs (some of which were self-funded by members such as the NRA and AARP) which made heavy political contributions as well. Many choose to hedge their bets by contributing to both parties. However, the lion’s share of their money went to incumbents irrespective of party.  The reason is because, thanks to partisan gerrymandering and the absence of term limits, 97% of Congressional incumbents were reelected in 2024. It was the same at the state level. 94% of state executives were reelected as were 92% of state judicial incumbents. Those are better percentage than even the old Soviet Politburo had!

Another reasons Congress couldn’t privately care less about voter opinion is that the majority are millionaires. They don’t need the job. This is basically about acquiring power and making connections, and if you can pick up a few extra million along the way, well so be it. Let’s take a look.

Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida has a net worth of around $549.91 million dollars. Everyone’s favorite Democrat, Former Speaker of House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi of California is believed to have a net worth of $267.6 million dollars!  In 2023, she listed the value of her household assets at $92 million. Not bad for having a combined salary of $250,000 a year ($174,000 base plus leadership and committee bonuses).

As of 2024, there were 13,043 lobbyists operating in Washington, mostly along “K” Street, which employs roughly 100,000 researchers, analysist, public relations and media specialists, data entry, and others needed to support the influence industry while many of the lobbyists themselves are former legislators or senior staffers.

Despite that number, much of the business is handled by just 300 firms. Most represent corporations, trade associations, and unions.  In that same year---2024---they invested just over $4.43 billion dollars to get their message (and candidate) across the finish line.

 Unfortunately, those that represent ordinary working class Americans are few and far between. Corporate donors, on average, give close to ten dollars for every two unions contribute and, in an election related crunch, they’re quite capable of  ponying up a lot more, further dwarfing anything unions can come up with. 

Lastly, and I want to be clear about this, you can bet your house, your children, or whatever else you hold dear, that money of this magnitude isn't given to be "patriotic" or be seen as being a "responsible citizen". It's an investment like any other. They intend on getting their money's worth and then some from this "investment" and when it (or they) cease to be useful, they'll quickly move on and find another that is.  I suppose you could think of primaries as political search engine of sorts; a way to find the next compatible cog for the machine.  

Another reason voters get a yawn, as noted above, is due to partisan gerrymandering. President John Adams originally said that redistricting should provide an “exact portrait, a miniature” of the nation as whole.  He would be deeply disappointed to see what redistricting has become. Every ten years states are supposed to redraw their legislative and Congressional districts following the results of the census so that voter demographics are properly represented, but that’s not what has happened.

Nowadays, redistricting tends to happen along the lines of majority political party in power, meaning that if the Republicans for instance control the State Legislator, the districts will be redrawn accordingly. Same if the Democrats are in charge while the nation’s largest political demographic, Independents, as well as third parties, are ignored. Thus, you end up with districts which are intended to virtually ensure the dominant political party retains control of those districts. Hardly fair or balanced.

Attempts to reform redistricting has typically run into stone wall erected by both parties in order to protect “their” political turf. A case in point was the 2019 Supreme Court’s Rucho v. Common Cause decision is a great example. Although the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibit racial discrimination, the court decided that while partisan gerrymandering was “incompatible with democratic principles”, it could not be addressed at the federal level! That meant returning to the state which was responsible for the situation to begin with and leaving the matter unresolved.

A few states have taken the bold step of taking the power to gerrymander out of the hands of the state legislators and assigned them to non-partisan institutions such as universities and colleges on a rotating basis or independent commissions, but don’t expect to see this spread nationwide until voters stage a ballot box revolt and start automatically voting against the sitting party in that district.   

The absence of term limits is another main reason members of Congress (and the federal judiciary) doesn’t particularly care about voter opinions. Image having a job where no matter how crappy of a job you do, you won’t get fired. Well, that’s Congress and judiciary.  How’s that possible?

Well, thanks to a political system which has been corrupted to the point where vested interests financially underwrite the campaigns of those who are to regulate them, where they fill party coffers, write the legislation which affects them, where districts are redrawn to give one group a perpetual partisan majority over another, make decisions contrary to the interests of the people they’re supposed to represent, and then ensures that they can serve almost indefinitely.  

It bears mentioning that the majority of Americans want to see term limits. According to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 82% of Americans want term limits. Of this, 89% were Republicans,  83% were Independents, and 76% were Democrats. Obviously, there’s no ambiguity here.  

Americans want an end to a corrupt system which caps the President to two four year terms while giving Congress unlimited terms and the federal judiciary life appointments.  Even at the individual state level, voters want to see term limits. In Kentucky it’s 84%. In Maine it’s 75%. 84% in Montana. 75% in Utah. 80% in Georgia. 77% in Florida, and 78% in Alaska.

This is the political system we now have. It isn’t the Republic envisioned by the Founders of this country of a limited government or one run by and for “citizen legislators”.  This is the vision of  our new Founders, the ultra-wealthy Oligarchs, and the creation of a neo-fascist corporatocracy, leaving us with a “managed limited democracy” and a surveillance state. President Trump may try to restore the Republic, or what’s lefts of it, but the corruption has become institutionalized,  and both sides benefit from it. The only losers are those for whom the nation was created----its citizens. Welcome to our new reality.

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

Lobbying in the United States

Citizens United v. FEC

Lobbying Data Summary

Rucho v. Common Cause 18-422 588 U.S. 684 (2019)

Election results,2024: Incumbents wins by state

Tomboulides Testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee

Term Limits Polling Results

 

 

 

Is the United States Undergoing a Marxist Revolution?

Recently, I had a reader ask me if the U.S. was surreptitiously becoming a "Marxist" country. The reader pointed to presence of  Left wing groups like Antifa. LGBTQ, and Black Lives Matter (which have gone quiet lately) and the hesitance of government officials (especially Democrats) to act, not to mention the politicization for the Justice Department and law enforcement agencies such as the FBI. They also wondered if the comically misnamed "January 6th Insurrection" was part of it, perhaps a "false flag" designed to rally the Left and shine the spotlight on Right winger agitators and leaders.

While there's no doubt the protest of January 6th was out of years of pent-up frustration, triggered by what many saw as a "stolen election", it was by no means a "false flag". It was genuine anger, and as the last four years has borne out, a justifiable anger.  The Biden Administration hasn't done America any favors domestically or overseas. So, is America on the road to Marxism? Here's my response. I hope you find it informative.

Is the U.S. becoming Marxist? Hardly. In fact, we’re aren't in the midst of a revolution of any sort (at least, not yet).  However, the United States is and has been undergoing a corporate coup in slow motion for some time now. Wall Street has been growing its power and influence over politics in the U.S. ever since the “Citizens United” blunder in 2010 by the Supreme Court, which effectively removed the ordinary citizen voter from any meaningful impact on elections.

Citizens United declared that corporations, which are nothing more than legal fictions, have the same rights as you and I while employees are denied many of the basic rights they have outside of the business. It means that not only does the artificial entity itself have a voice in a election, but so to does the individuals who control the company. In addition, the Supreme Court blunder said that money is equivalent to free speech.

It also said corporations can donate what they please while we’re still capped in what we can donate, not that it matters. Corporations can give millions which far exceeds anything the average citizen voter can ever hope to give. These corporations even donate more than unions by a 10 to 1 margin.

Thus, corporations can buy the candidate of their choice. They also underwrite the two principal parties, the Democrats and Republicans (what in truth we have is simply two competing corporate cliques with many corporations giving to both parties). They also fund so-called “leadership PACs” which are basically slush funds for politicians to use as they please.

There are literally hundreds of lobbyists per legislator (who often call on the senior staff as well). How many lobbyists represent “Joe and Jane Public? you ask? Virtually none, and what does exist can’t come close to matching what Wall Street gives.

In addition, because politicians don’t have the time or staff to read every bill coming across their desk, corporate lobbying firms do have the time and staff to reading incoming bills, as well as provide summaries and recommendations on how to vote. On many occasions, this is done strictly for the party leadership, who then pass their marching orders down the line. As an aside, legislators typically spend the majority of their day fund raising for the party and party leadership as well as themselves.

Corporate lobbyists help legislators to research and/or write bills (and have been known to write the bills in their entirety) and then help shepherd them through the maze of committees (albeit often quietly picking up some "riders' (better known as “pork”) along the way.

Now, if that’s not enough, corporate lobbyists provide all sorts of perks, ranging from the use of private planes, boats, beach houses, “investment advice”, and vacations (typically under the heading of a “seminar” or something educational). In addition, the majority of legislators leaving office find themselves working for one or more of these lobbyist firms and/or Wall Street corporations making ten times what they did in Washington (many under the moniker of <wink wink> “consultant”).

Just five corporations now control 96+% of all media—-print, electronic, internet, television and radio. They determine what you hear and see (until recently it was six). They decide what you should know and how it’s to be presented. They also entertain you with regular programming (some with a political slant and some not), sports, video games, talk shows, magazines, and so forth. Some of it is obvious but most of it isn’t. It’s barely noticeable and subtle. Bread and circuses made new.

So, does any of that sound like “Marxism” to you? Most political scientists agree that the United States is nowadays a neo-fascist Oligarchy. The debate has become over which term best describes the nature of our servitude --- a “plutocracy”, "oligarchy", or “kleptocracy”, but does it matter? The end result is the same. We've ceased being citizens. National pride is passé, even frowned upon. Nowadays, we are global consumers loyal to some soap or deodorant. 

America is no longer a Republic, although the illusion will continue to be perpetuated for a bit longer just as it was under the early Roman Caesars shortly after the fall of the Roman Republic. The Caesars offered security and economic stability in exchange for power, wealth, and the freedom of the Roman people. 

The United States has become a corporatocracy through a process known as "gradualism"; shot incremental steps which, while appearing to go backwards here and there, steadily advances elsewhere. Sometimes it makes giant bold moves while at other times its movements through the halls of government are so subtle as to be barely noticeable.   

We've devolved into a surveillance state where privacy has become a quaint notion of a bygone age, where democracy is parceled out, and our freedoms are managed for our own good. Any government which has taken upon itself the power to a lot you any measure of freedom can just as easily take that freedom away without civil recourse. Government should serve the people, not serve them up on a platter. 

There are literally dozens of books, articles and videos about our metamorphosis from a democratic Constitutional Republic into “USA Inc”. I’ve provided just a sprinkling of links below to whet your curiosity. I do hope you will check them out.

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you found our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free thinking individuals. We do ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever site you found us on, and that you please pass our post along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

The Media Oligopoly: How a Handful of Companies Control Nearly All of the Media in the U.S.

The Myth of U.S. Democracy and the Reality of U.S. Corporatocracy

The Corporate Takeover of American Politics

How the US Became an Oligarchy

The American Oligarchs Have Arrived to Destroy US Democracy | Common Dreams