Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Partisan bickering continues with stimulus bill

In the newly christened era of hope and change, the debate on how to stimulate our pitiful economy has become all too familiar.

Oddly enough, it seems generally agreed upon that there needs to be a drastic amount of government spending to get things going again. That’s the good news. The problem is not “if” to spend the $800 billion, it’s simply “how” we’re going to do it.

For the Democrats, it’s the belief in major public works programs to get people back to work – for the federal government. Republicans, naturally, are arguing for tax cuts to allow the struggling private sector to recover faster.

The unfortunate thing is, neither side is making a real effort to find the best possible solution. Each is holding on to their tired ideological histories amid concerns of being re-elected and staying true to their strict stances. Given our odd intolerance to politicians changing their opinions, it’s not surprising that everyone’s holding steady, if no more to avoid being labeled a “flip-flopper.”

Another question this whole situation brings up is the idea of big government. Do we really know that it’s a bad thing? After all, the only kind of government we’ve ever known is a limited one, and obviously a limited government will not solve many problems. Hence, we’ve developed this idea that government helps no one. Is that really the case?

However, the Democrats have won the stimulus battle, for better or worse. This means potentially bigger government, something that we’re not used to. The essential question that remains now is if the U.S. is able to adapt to real change.

Friday, February 6, 2009

Time is right for campaign finance reform

As we face difficult times, I can't seem to help but think about the influence that special interest groups had to get us to this point. Fair elections are much-needed in our state as special interest groups continue to throw more and more money at our representatives.

This spring we will have a race for the Wisconsin Supreme Court and both candidates will raise a great deal of money from a variety of sources. It is unacceptable to allow our judges, the ones who are supposed to make the ultimate unbiased decisions, to be corrupted and influenced by money. Most times, trial lawyers account for a huge majority of the money raised for judicial races. Does that strike anyone as a conflict of interest?

Money in politics is simply the most important issue out there today. Since 1990, the insurance and financial sectors have contributed over $2 billion to candidates and parties. During that same time, we saw a great deal of deregulation of those industries, leading to where we stand today.

When congressmen are forced to raise millions of dollars to get re-elected, they end up owing a lot of favors. It's time for Wisconsin – and the United States – to embrace public financing. These systems are already widely popular in Maine, Connecticut and Arizona, with more states on the way. With widespread campaign finance reform at all levels, we can look forward to having elections based on issues, not cash.