« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Education

By: clo in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Sat, 03 Sep 11 6:58 PM | 41 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix
Msg. 05765 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 05763 by Cactus Flower)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Thanks Cactus Flower.

The USA is a young country, especially compared to Europe.
I can see where a "Monarachy" can offer stability, unlike our elections where change can occur every 4 years for president.
Politicians depend on MONEY to get elected, monarchy's don't.

Obama's will spend 1 BILLION dollars according to estimates. A new high!

IMO, this is the core problem with USA elections.
How can politicians represent US, We the people when its BIG MONEY that puts them in office.
Lobbyists are blood suckers, they erode the system.
This piece is dated, the problem is much worse now.
Imagine, the number of lobbyists double in 5 years! clo

The Road to Riches Is Called K Street

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 22, 2005

To the great growth industries of America such as health care and home building add one more: influence peddling.

The number of registered lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled since 2000 to more than 34,750 while the amount that lobbyists charge their new clients has increased by as much as 100 percent. Only a few other businesses have enjoyed greater prosperity in an otherwise fitful economy.

The lobbying boom has been caused by three factors, experts say: rapid growth in government, Republican control of both the White House and Congress, and wide acceptance among corporations that they need to hire professional lobbyists to secure their share of federal benefits.

"There's unlimited business out there for us," said Robert L. Livingston, a Republican former chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and now president of a thriving six-year-old lobbying firm. "Companies need lobbying help."

Lobbying firms can't hire people fast enough. Starting salaries have risen to about $300,000 a year for the best-connected aides eager to "move downtown" from Capitol Hill or the Bush administration. Once considered a distasteful post-government vocation, big-bucks lobbying is luring nearly half of all lawmakers who return to the private sector when they leave Congress, according to a forthcoming study by Public Citizen's Congress Watch.

Political historians don't see these as positive developments for democracy. "We've got a problem here," said Allan Cigler, a political scientist at the University of Kansas. "The growth of lobbying makes even worse than it is already the balance between those with resources and those without resources."

for complete article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062101632.html




Avatar

DO SOMETHING!


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Education
By: Cactus Flower
in ALEA
Sat, 03 Sep 11 5:34 PM
Msg. 05763 of 54959

Hi clo,

Thanks. Very interesting insights. I think there's a lot to be said for what you are saying - especially when thinking about the causes of decline. (ie what was America like when it was successful, and what seems different now). Your post definitely represents a contemporary view I recognise.

I'd just like to point out something in your first point:

"In the USA, you can aspire to become anything you work for, even president, as long as you're born here.
You don't need to be born into a family to become "king or queen.""

Don't forget slavery and the rights of women. The US boom began when the conditions you are describing didn't obtain. So for myself, I would disqualify this point as a fairly late entrant to the US experience and therefore not so much a factor in its formation. Unless, of course, one counts it as a philosophy regardless of the reality.

Also, the job of king isn't available in the US even if you are a freedom-toutin', gun-totin', cigarette-smokin', gubmint-hatin', Reagan-lovin' white male! Nothing you (or I) can do about it, either. And since I think constitutional monarchy adds a layer of trust and unity which isn't present in the US system, and as countries with constitutional monarchs seem to fare relatively well on various measures (eg the Scandinavian countries top many measures of prosperity and social mobility and also have constitutional monarchs), I don't see the relative historical advantage you would expect given your statement of the case. I see this more as a point of pride - which is real and understandable - than of historical advantage.


« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next