Congress Ignores the Will of the People

Who Do These People Think They Are? In short, they think they are our rulers and we are their servants, instead of it being the other way around. We elect them to serve their country and its people. Instead, they represent their own best interests and those of the wealthiest one percent. The fact is that most of them care much less about the country's welfare and much more about their own welfare and that of the richest among us.

Do We Have the Right People in Congress? Absolutely not! Members of Congress are the select few (535, to be exact) chosen from our entire population of 307 million who have been elected to represent the best interests of the entire country. Each House member represents an average of more than 700,000 citizens, and each Senator represents an average of more than 3 million citizens. That's a pretty heavy burden to bear, so it stands to reason that these representatives should be selected from among the cream of the crop of the political elite when it comes to intelligence, creativity, leadership, and the ability to accomplish meaningful legislation on behalf of their. Based upon the performance and achievements of the both the 112th and the 113th Congress (so far), we and they have failed miserably.

Who Are Their Constituencies? As stated elsewhere in this blog, Congress members have multiple constituencies, interests, and priorities. Often, these conflict with one another. That is when their priorities come into play. Here is my summation of the priorities of typical politicians at the state and federal levels.

• Once in office, their first loyalty is to themselves and doing anything they can to ensure that they get reelected. One of the greatest fears of any Congress member is to get voted out of office.
• Next is their allegiance to their political parties to ensure that enough of their members get elected to push their political agendas through their legislation. This will also help gain party support when the officeholder seeks reelection.
• Third are their financial backers – the corporations and the super-rich who contribute heavily to Congressional campaigns, and who run ads supporting their anointed candidates while excoriating their opponents. This includes lobbyists, PACs, Super PACs, 527 Groups and other special interest groups. The ;politicians have to give something back to these entities in order to secure their financial support for reelection. Money talks, and politicians have perfect hearing – especially whenever the words “contribution”, “donation,” or “check” are mentioned.
• Fourth come the people who voted for them. In public, most Congress members say these people are their constituents, but you can see just how high they come on their priority list. During election years, you will see them pandering to those whose votes they need to get reelected. In other years, they will do little for their benefit. However, when they do something for them, they will trumpet it from the heavens as though they are the second coming of the Messiah.
• And dead last come the rest of the people in the country whose best interests they are also supposed to represent. This group represents the overwhelming majority of us. This is supposed to include voters and non-voters alike, whether children or adults, and whether they are eligible to vote or not.. However, most legislators tend to consider their state or district constituencies to be only those who voted for them prior elections.

Why Do They Ignore the Will of the American People? The simple reason for this is “because they can.” They know that they can thwart the will of the American people and still get reelected. They can do this for the following reasons:

1. There is a built-in bias toward incumbents. Poll results released in October, 2011, showed that Congress had an approval rating of only 9%. However, another poll released in December, 2011, showed that:, although 76% of the people feel that most members of Congress don't deserve to be re-elected As a result, in 90% of the races, the incumbent gets reelected.
2. Incumbents are able to raise more money than new office seekers. And it is well known that in more than 90% of the elections, the candidate who raises the most campaign funds wins the election.
3. Electoral districts in most states are determined by politicians. As a result, the party in power generally secures a redistricting plan that is designed to keep party incumbents in office. Gerrymandering may be a dirty word to voters, but it is a Godsend to incumbent politicians because candidates from opposing parties are generally helpless in opposing this process.

This is by no means an all-inclusive list of why it is so hard to unseat incumbents. With the deck stacked so heavily in their favor, it is little wonder that politicians turn a deaf ear to the people of this country.

What is the Effect of Incumbent Bias? When the same people get elected to Congress again and again, we get the same old ideas, the same old practices, and the same old cronyism . In essence, we have a stagnant Congress, but one that has a stranglehold on our country . These politicians don't care much about the will of the people, and they don't care at all about public opinion, whether expressed in letters, e-mails, tweets, or polls, because they have rigged things in favor of their election, term after term after term. This is certainly not to the advantage of our country.

People First. The people must come first, not last, and those who do not see that, agree with that, and legislate to that end do not represent the people and deserve to be voted out of office. That includes virtually every member of Congress, and it is almost impossible to determine the few who are the good apples in a basket of rotten ones. So, we might have to sacrifice a few of the the good ones for the sake of our country, its citizens, and our democracy.

Use Your Clout and Vote Them Out. It is time for us to muster our collective elective strength and vote as many incumbents out of office as we possibly can. We need to send a very strong but clear message to the remaining representatives that we are “mad as hell and we aren't going to take it any more.” At the same time, however, we don't want to vote in party politicians who are going to fall right in line with their cohorts and work for the same priorities as their predecessor. We don't just need new blood in Congress. We need a new source of that blood, and it preferably won't come from either the radical right or the extreme left. We need progressive populists who know the Constitution and what it stands for, and who will to restore to this country once again a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

The Great Economic Divide

The Increasing Gap Between the “Haves” and the “Have-Nots."  Surveys taken over time show that the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots” is very wide and continues to get wider with each passing year. Most people know that a gap exists, but few truly comprehend just how wide that gap has become, that it is actually increasing, and that the impact that this gap has on our government and our economy. Here are a few examples of the disparity:

Wealth Disparity. A 2001 survey reported that the top 1 percent owned 39.7% of the non-home wealth, while the bottom 95 percent owned 32.5%

.

By 2004, the gap grew, and the survey reported that the top 1 percent owned 42.2% of the non-home wealth, while the bottom 95 percent owned 31%.

By 2007, the gap widened more, as the survey reported that the top 1 percent owned 48.4% of the non-home wealth, while the bottom 95 percent owned 20%

In only six years, the non-home wealth of the top 1% went from 39.7% to 48.4%, up by 8.7%.  Meanwhile, the non-home wealth of the bottom 95% went from 32.5% to 20%, down 12.5%.

The gap between these two groups widened from 7.2% to 28.4% – almost a fourfold increase in a six-year period. Yes, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. And, if something isn't done about it, that gap will just continue to widen, along with all the political clout and influence that wealth brings to what is, in sheer numbers, an infinitesimal minority called the super rich.

Nota Bene. Keep in mind that these figures are comparing a very small 1%of the population against a huge 95%, which makes the results far more dramatic. They also do not include homes, which are generally going to cost significantly more for the exceedingly wealthy, and are likely to include second and third homes, and more. costing millions of dollars. The inclusion of these would make the disparity even wider.

Privately-Held Wealth Disparity. In 2007, the top 1% (the uppermost class) owned 34.6% of all privately-held wealth in this country. The next 19% (mostly managers, professionals, and small business owners) held 50.5%, As a result, this 20% minority owned a huge 85% of all privately-held wealth, while the bottom 80% (primarily wage and salary workers) were left with only15% of all privately-held wealth – a tremendous disparity.

Stock Ownership Disparity. When it comes to stock ownership, we see similar disparities:  The top US 20% owned 89.1% of the stock in 2001, 90.6% in 2004 and 91.1% in 2007.  The bottom 80% owned 10.7% of the stock in 2001, 9.4% in 2004, and 8.9% in 2007.  The top 20% (in actual numbers, only one-fourth the size of the bottom 80%) owns ten times more stock.

Income and Capital Gains Tax Rate Disparity.  To add insult to injury, Forbes Magazine recently reported that the The 400 Richest Americans pay their federal income tax at an effective rate of on;y 18% That's right – only 18%. Even Warren Buffett, one of America's riches, reports that his effective tax rate is only 17.4%, while the 20 people who work for him in his office pay at rates ranging from 33% to 41%.  The wealthy elite once paid an average 30% of their total income in taxes, but now they pay 40% less, thanks to the Bush era's income tax cuts and a cut in the capital gains rate -- both of which favor the wealthy..

Sharing the Pain?  Forbes also noted that “Shockingly, the plan to raise the debt ceiling collects nothing from the wealthiest Americans to reduce our budget deficit.” Nor does it address our national debt, the burden on the average citizen, or the huge and growing disparity between the super-rich and the rest of the population. Forbes states further, “It’s a sad day for the principle of sharing the pain equitably.”


Coming Up. 

	How the Pursuit of Profits Kills Innovation and the Economy
	An Open Letter to the One Percenters
	Duopoly and Wealth: The Ties that Bind
	Political Duopoly: Working Partner of the Plutocracy

Political Duopoly: Working Partner of the Plutocrats

Definition Of Duopoly.  The American Heritage Dictionary defines a "duopoly" as: "An economic or political condition in which power is concentrated in two persons or groups." (source: http://www.dictionary.com/duopoly)
             
The Problem With Duopolies.  The people who are dependent on a duopoly for necessary goods or services are only slightly better than those subject to a monopoly,  Because the two entities that comprise the duopoly are the only providers, they jointly control all aspects of research, development, production, marketing, pricing, and delivery of their products and services.  In so doing, they exercise an inordinate amount of power and control over their customers, and their customers have little or not control over them.
 
Our Political Duopoly.  The same problem described above also applies to our political system.  We have a  political duopoly.  The Republicans and Democrats dominate American politics, and minority voices are usually either drowned out, forced out, or made irrelevant. Our elected officials in Washington are supposed to represent their country first, and then the citizens in the areas they represent (regardless of political affiliation).  However, they appear to represent their own personal interests first (doing whatever they think will get them re-elected), their party's bidding second, and their financial backers third. If they listen to the "people back home," it is usually only to those of their own political persuasion, because, after all, they are the ones who are most likely to vote for them again.

Lack of Accountability.  Members of the federal government cannot be recalled by the people. Therefore, elected officials are pretty much free to do whatever they want between elections, and many do not feel that they need to be accountable to the people they were elected to represent. This works to the detriment of a democracy, even a democratic republic.
    
Presidential Debates.  This are a prime example of an area in which the duopoly dominates.  These debates are administered and controlled by a non-profit organization founded by the duopoly.  They set the rules, and the rules essentially exclude any participants other than Democrats and Republicans.  Ross Perot was allowed to participate in the debates in 1992, and viewership was the highest for any presidential debate at almost 70 million viewers.  However, he was excluded in later years, thereby losing major exposure to the voting public and all but killing his chances for success.a plutocracy governed by a duopoly.

By excluding third-party candidates from the debates, the duopoly is able to deprive the American voter of exposure to the positions and issues of the third-party candidates, and the duopoly is, to a great extent, able to direct the outcome of the elections to one of the members of the duopoly.
   
Political Appointments.  A particular danger with our political duopoly lies in the fact that the president makes appointments to the Supreme Court.  While such appointees are supposed to be non-partisan, they almost never are, and both the president who nominates them and the Senate who approves them tend to do so purely along their party's ideological lines.  Inasmuch as these are lifetime appointments, they can have very long-lasting effects -- for good or for bad.
   
Congressional Deadlock.  Another negative effect of our particular duopoly is that it can become highly polarize and rigid along party lines, and the two parties can get locked in disputes that do not serve their constituencies or their country well.  This can drastically slow down the legislative process to the detriment of our country and has resulted in a government shutdown in 1996 and threats of a shutdown and a financial default in 2011.  The people are powerless in these sorts of situations.  They can write to their Congressional representatives, but they seem to get ignored unless they agree with what their representatives wanted to do in the first place.
   
Coming Up:

	Plutocracy to Plutonomy: From Bad to Worse!
	Campaign Funding's Impact On Democracy
	Money Talks, And Politicians Listen!
	U.S. Congress: Bought And Paid For

Democracy, and What It Means to Us

Before starting our discussion, it might be good to define a few terms so we are all coming from a common understanding.  Let's start with "democracy."

What is Democracy?
While there may not be any universally held definition of democracy, there are some commonly-held definitions that can be found in many authoritative sources. Here are five representative examples:

1. Government by the people, a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
   (source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy)
   
   
2. Government by the people; especially: rule of the majority
   (source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
   
   
3. A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives .
   (source: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/democracy
   
   
4. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
   (source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/democracy)
   
   
5. U.S. president Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) defined democracy as: “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.”
   (source: http://www.democracy-building.info/definition-democracy.html)

I have boldfaced the text that I perceive as being the most important portion of the various definitions, that is to say – democracy is government by the people. It is not government by monarchy, dictatorship, aristocracy, theocracy, oligarchy, or plutocracy, but by the people.

People Power.  The word democracy itself comes from the Greek: δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (Kratos) "power," and thus its true meaning: “people power,” or, as emphasized above, “government by the people.” Ultimate power originates from and resides in the people. Whenever this power is usurped, democracy fails to exist.

A New Nation, Conceived in Liberty.  Our founding fathers and their fathers before them were subjects who bowed before monarchies, aristocracies, and theocracies.  Their new nation was based upon the power of the people, which required the transformation of subjects into citizens.

Are We Citizens?  A citizen within a democracy is endowed with certain inalienable rights, including the right to self-governance. A citizen is allowed to participate freely and fully in the process of governance. This, however, can be a two-edged sword, inasmuch as it is both a right and a responsibility.

Or Are We Subjects?  Subjects have little or no power or control over their government and sometimes even over their personal lives. They are subject to a higher power, be it a monarchy, an aristocracy, a theocracy, a dictatorship, or any other form of government that subjugates its people to their authority and treats them more as property than as people. Subjects have few rights and virtually no voice in their government.

Democracy and the Constitution.  Our founding fathers decided that their new country would be a democracy, or more specifically a democratic republic,  in which ultimate power for governance rested in its people.  Do you feel that is how things are today?  If you do, you need to read on.

Related Topics:   
       Democracy: From Definition to the Constitution

Are We a Democratic Republic or a Plutocracy? Major Threats to Our Democratic System

        

We Must Drive Big Money Out of Politics!

Fundamental Reasons Why We Must Do This To Save Our Democracy.

Words of Wisdom From Two Great Republican Presidents

Introduction. The thoughts expressed herein are a reflection of my personal interests and beliefs. They are the reason for this blog. We have a great country, but it is not as great a country as our forefathers envisioned. The problems that beset us today are not new. We have faced them and conquered them before. We must once again regain our democracy or forfeit it forever.

Popular Government Must Triumph. "Our country -- this great Republic – means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy, the triumph of popular government, and, in the long run, of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him."

Promises Without Action Are Empty.  “… words count for nothing except in so far as they represent acts. This is true everywhere; but, it should be truest of all in political life. A broken promise is bad enough in private life. It is worse in the field of politics. No man is worth his salt in public life who makes on the stump a pledge which he does not keep after election; and, if he makes such a pledge and does not keep it, hunt him out of public life."

“In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will."

Duty of Humankind.  Theodore Roosevelt referred to Abraham Lincoln as “the man to whom we owe (the) most,” and cited a couple passages from The Great Emancipator:

"I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own condition, but to assist in ameliorating mankind."

Labor Is Superior To Capital.  And again:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

Special Interests Are Entitled To Justice ...”Now, this means that our government, National and State, must be freed from the sinister influence or control of special interests. Exactly as the special interests of cotton and slavery threatened our political integrity before the Civil War, so now the great special business interests too often control and corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit. We must drive the special interests out of politics. That is one of our tasks today."

… But Not To Political Power.  “... every special interest is entitled to justice, but not … to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public office. The Constitution guarantees protection to property, and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation.”

The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have called into being.”

Control of Corporate Political Activity. “There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done”.

“It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced. Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public-service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs.”

Corporate Accountability. “I believe that the officers, and, especially, the directors, of corporations should be held personally responsible when any corporation breaks the law.”

Duty of Congress. “The duty of Congress is to provide a method by which the interest of the whole people shall be all that receives consideration."

Change Is Needed. “The prime need to is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise.”

“We grudge no man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows. We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.”

Government Intervention Required. “This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.

The Path To Ruin. “Those who oppose reform will do well to remember that ruin in its worst form is inevitable if our national life brings us nothing better than swollen fortunes for the few and the triumph in both politics and business of a sordid and selfish materialism.”

Government Responsiveness To The People. “If our political institutions were perfect, they would absolutely prevent the political domination of money in any part of our affairs. We need to make our political representatives more quickly and sensitively responsive to the people whose servants they are. More direct action by the people in their own affairs under proper safeguards is vitally necessary.”

Removal of Non-Responsive Representatives. “I believe that the prompt removal of unfaithful or incompetent public servants should be made easy and sure in whatever way experience shall show to be most expedient in any given class of cases.”

Government Should Serve People, Not Special Interests.  “One of the fundamental necessities in a representative government such as ours is to make certain that the men to whom the people delegate their power shall serve the people by whom they are elected, and not the special interests.”

The Bottom Line.  “The object of government is the welfare of the people. The material progress and prosperity of a nation are desirable chiefly so long as they lead to the moral and material welfare of all good citizens.”

The Moment Of Truth.  Although I agree with and embrace all the statements made above, I cannot claim authorship of any one of them, Although we are at a time in history when these statements and observations are extremely appropriate, they weren't made in recent times, but they were made to address the same type of situation such as we now have. The people who made them were both Republicans who saw the same kinds of problems for our country that beset us again today. The bulk of the comments were made by Theodore Roosevelt, with a couple of additional comments from Abraham Lincoln. These are all extracted from a speech that Roosevelt delivered approximately 100 years ago. His message is just as pertinent today as it was back then. The full text of his speech can be found at http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=501.

It Is Time To Reclaim Our Democracy.  The past has repeated itself inasmuch as big financial interests (private, corporate, and political) have once again wrested our democracy away from the people and usurped it for their own gains. Can we also repeat the past and rid ourselves of their stranglehold, thereby restoring democracy to its rightful place with the people of America? Our country's fate is in our hands.

Coming Next:  First, Let's Define Democracy.