Politicians will protect biggest donors Bailing out billionaires is not something that the average taxpayer is equipped to do. Thirty years of increasing income inequality has insured that this is true. We have to tap the rich because that is where the money is. Otherwise, expect greater than 10% inflation over the next few years with no increase in your income if Secretary Henry Paulson's plan is enacted by Congress. That is what creating the money for bailing out Wall Street could cost us. Why won't Congress protect the average taxpayer? Because members don't work for us. They work for their biggest contributors. Letting the self interested wealthy largely finance election campaigns is the worst bargain taxpayers ever made. If every citizen contributed $10 a year to finance federal campaigns, that would be sufficient to finance all contestants in each federal campaign. Even if we make it $20 a year it is a bargain. Allowing the wealthy to finance campaigns has resulted in laws and regulations that have allowed this financial calamity that Paulson wants to pass on to taxpayers. That could total $3,000 per citizen, or $9,000 for a family of three. Doesn't $20 a year or $60 a year sound like a bargain in comparison? We shouldn't try to limit contributions by wealthy individuals. Just provide each candidate enough money to run a campaign costing 125% of the average campaign during the last election cycle. And require broadcasters to give substantial free time for advertisments to candidates as part of their public service requirements.
Bailing out billionaires is not something that the average taxpayer is equipped to do. Thirty years of increasing income inequality has insured that this is true. We have to tap the rich because that is where the money is. Otherwise, expect greater than 10% inflation over the next few years with no increase in your income if Secretary Henry Paulson's plan is enacted by Congress. That is what creating the money for bailing out Wall Street could cost us.
Why won't Congress protect the average taxpayer? Because members don't work for us. They work for their biggest contributors. Letting the self interested wealthy largely finance election campaigns is the worst bargain taxpayers ever made.
If every citizen contributed $10 a year to finance federal campaigns, that would be sufficient to finance all contestants in each federal campaign. Even if we make it $20 a year it is a bargain. Allowing the wealthy to finance campaigns has resulted in laws and regulations that have allowed this financial calamity that Paulson wants to pass on to taxpayers. That could total $3,000 per citizen, or $9,000 for a family of three. Doesn't $20 a year or $60 a year sound like a bargain in comparison?
We shouldn't try to limit contributions by wealthy individuals. Just provide each candidate enough money to run a campaign costing 125% of the average campaign during the last election cycle. And require broadcasters to give substantial free time for advertisments to candidates as part of their public service requirements.
