The Other Money Problem
October 22,2006

A new poilitical ad launched in Missouri this week. It features a trembling Michael J Fox stumping for Claire McCaskill versus Jim Talent in the Missouri senate race. There is tremendous emotional appeal in this ad. Unfortunately, it draws a moral equivalence between taxpayer-funded research and the value of the research itself.

Regardless of Jim Talent's personal right-to-life views, he is not advocating the criminalization of stem-cell research. Rather, he is advocating that no tax dollars should be used for this controversial purpose. PurpleThink agrees with Talent that this should be illegal -- and for the same reason you don't teach Intelligent Design as science -- taxpayers shouldn't be forced to support it. Especially in this case, there is ample incentive for private comapanies to make a breakthrough and become gazillionaires in the process.

 

PurpleThink is like most others that look at money in politics in terms of campaign finance. We’ve written extensively about supposed campaign finance reform and this can be considered a sequel of sorts.

Regardless of how much money special interests use to buy votes, or how much money is spent on campaigns, there is a bigger threat to our liberty. Money has become synonymous with the value placed on activities and institutions.

Both Republicans and Democrats gain favor by demonstrating their commitment to education, health care, social security, and other programs. If you don’t spend money on these things (or promise to) you are deemed to be against them. Most political attacks use this approach.

• If you are against government spending on stem-cell research, you are against the promise of medical breakthroughs (and perhaps you're the lapdog of the pharmaceutical companies that treat but do not cure certain maladies).

• If you vote against prescription drug coverage, you are against affordable health care for the elderly.

• If you vote against more education spending, you are against strong public schools.

• If you vote against a new minimum wage, you are against good wages for the poor (heaven forbid you should also vote for your own pay raise).

• If you vote against anti-smoking laws, you are for big tobacco and unhealthy workplaces.

• If you vote against budgets that include wasteful spending, you are against all the good spending in the same budget.

Both major parties reinforce the misconception that government spending equates to approval for societal activities and institutions. The Republicans have officially lost (if they ever had) the high-ground as the party of smaller government and good fiscal stewardship. Bush has exercised just one single veto during his six years in office and non-war spending has skyrocketed under his watch.

It is a common tactic in Washington to add pork to popular bills, knowing they may sneak through. To vote against the bill because of the pork will create fodder for the enemy in the next election. Try telling the public that the reason you voted against killing the retarded is because some senator wanted to build a monument to themselves in Idaho. Voter attention spans are too short to play “yeah, but” politics.

It’s time for a new paradigm. It may be time to again consider line-item vetoes for the President. While PurpleThink is concerned about giving de facto legislative power to the executive branch, we need to get creative about how to curb legislative scope-creep.

Likewise, we need new political candidates willing to challenge conventional wisdom on how and why government exists.

|

 

Home|epinion|Purple People Eater

Feedback@PurpleThink.com

©2006 PurpleThink.com