The Weiner Component #156 – Fear & the Economic Situation

Official photographic portrait of US President...

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Starting slowly, probably around the 1970s, the process of splitting real estate loans into a few parts began, and then, with the election of Ronald Reagan as President of the United States in 1981, the concept took off on a refined bases, with each real estate mortgage being broken into innumerable parts and having each piece put into a different hedge fund and sold as a safe investment. It was considered safe because any single or few losses on any one of these hedge funds would be so small that it wouldn’t be noticeable and would not really affect the amount of the dividend.


Two things occurred from the 1980s on: one was the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency of the United States and the imposition of a total Free Market Economy and the other was an incessant need in the general society for a much greater cash flow.  We were in a period where there was not enough money available to serve the overall needs of the population.  More cash was needed for the economy to function.


The agency of Federal Government that was supposed to be keeping track of this problem and monetarily serving the needs of the nation was the Federal Reserve.  It’s Chairman from 1987 to 2006, Alan Greenspan, like the President believed in a totally Free Market that would automatically adjust itself.  Consequently he and the FED did nothing to alleviate the problem. 


This in turn left the need prevalent and either purposefully or inadvertently it was picked up by the banks which were also deregulated by the Reagan administration.  They, at first, gradually and then, with ever increasing speed, using real estate as their base, picked up the speed of creating new value or money throughout the society.  This was to continue through late 2008 when the banks had far     exceeded the amount of money needed for the society to properly function and the Great Real Estate Crash occurred.


What happened was that the banks, by their lending policies from the 1980s until late 2008, over 28 years, created trillions of dollars of additional value based upon the public housing industry within the United States.  In addition deregulation also allowed them to freely invest their deposits into the agencies or funds that directly serviced this expansion.


By 2007 most bankers were aware that property values had far exceeded a sane level and that a crash was probable.  But by 2007 most of the bankers had been making high commissions on the property market for most, if not all, of their banking careers; they were in denial that conditions could ever change. 


The Real Estate Market crashed or the Real Estate Bubble burst in late 2008 under President George W. Bush.  Virtually overnight the economy of the United States went into an instant depression.  There was suddenly mass unemployment, many people owed more on their homes than they were then worth.  Some people just walked away from their homes, others stayed, the hedge funds, which many or the deregulated banks had also invested in, collapsed from non-payment on mortgages.  Bush and his Treasury Secretary bailed out some of the banks; then his term ended and Barack Obama became the next President of the United States.


Barack Obama would spend his eight years in office dealing with this mess.  For his first two years he had a Democratic Congress and their full support.  From 2011 on the House of Representatives gained a Republican majority and thereafter passed no legislation that dealt with the economic emergency.  In fact they passed economizing laws that actually increased the disaster.  President Barack Obama and the Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, using Creative Monetary Policy were able to change the depression into a recession.  The country is still dealing with this problem that the House of Representatives refused to deal with.


Conditions have improved.  Unemployment is now at about 5%, a long way from the initial 12½%  The Republicans still have done nothing to improve conditions, instead they have actually worsened them.  They are a great political party for complaining and blaming.  But what they are blaming President Obama for, is mainly for what they, themselves, have not done, passing fiscal laws creating jobs and upgrading the infrastructure.


In 2008, the year of the Real Estate Crash, the Gross Domestic Product   was at 800 trillion dollars.  In 2009 it dropped to 700 trillion dollars.  By 2010 it was slightly above where it had been the year before.  By 2015 it was in the area of 17.95 trillion dollars.


Keep in mind that the GDP refers to the market value of all goods and services produced within the country during the fiscal year.  Interestingly the United States is now ranking first in the world’s GDP level.  That makes it, even now with 5% unemployment, the world’s richest nation.


If, as we’ve seen in the GDP, the overall wealth within the United States was continually increasing by 2010 above the 2008 Real Estate Crash level then why was the U.S. up to 12 ½% unemployment?  The answer, of course, comes into the area of spending priorities mostly by the United States Government and the overall population.


Congress, from 2011 on, with a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, was on an economizing bilge. The country underwent and is continuing to undergo Sequestration, spending cuts across the board in virtually every area.  The President, on the other hand, particularly in 2009 and 2010 underwent expansive spending programs to avoid a depression greater than that of 1929.  Basically what started from 2011 on was a redistribution of income, with gradually more and more money going to the upper echelon of society and less and less being available for the middle and lower classes, these amounts increasing yearly.


In 2009 and 2010 the Obama Administration spent inordinate amounts of money extending unemployment benefits, saving the American banking and auto industries, among other things.  From 2011 on gradually most of these programs ended and government began a struggle between the House of Representatives and the President.  In 2013 we had both Sequestration and a shutdown of the Federal Government from October 1 through October 16, 2013, for 15 days.  The shutdown was over the issue of government funding for Planned Parenthood in the 2014 funding bill.  The Republican House of Representatives attempted to force its will upon the President and the Democratic led Senate.  The President and Democratic Senate would not cooperate with the Republican led House of Representatives.  In many cases Congress has refused, or through different Republican disagreements, has been unable to act.


The positive movement that had occurred in the economy, turning a potential Great Depression into a Great slow-moving Recession came about through Creative Monetary Policy, government spending policy, by the Federal Reserve with the compliance of the President.  In essence it’s been a battle between the President and the Republican House of Representatives, with the administration slowly winning since national unemployment is today in the area of 5%.


The question that arises: if the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) today is greater than it was in the period prior to the 2008 Real Estate Crash then why is the middle class in the United States continually shrinking and why are more and more people continually having a harder and harder time economically surviving?  The answer to that questions is that the National Income is like a balloon filled with helium, slowly and continually rising and becoming part of the incomes of the top few percentile, the upper 5 or so percent of the population.


In essence the rich are getting richer and everyone else has less money.  It would seem that the society is geared so that the rich pay a lower percentage of their incomes in taxes than everyone else does.  For example: Donald J. Trump, who is running for the presidency in 2016 as the Republican candidate, has refused to show his tax returns for any prior year.  Trump claims to have over ten billion dollars.  The probability is that he is not showing his income taxes because he doesn’t pay any of these taxes.  Being in real estate he would have endless write-offs and building depreciations.


But it isn’t just people in real estate who have these tax advantages, it’s anyone who earns over $464,850.  The income tax system is graduated up to that point; that is the more one earns, the higher a percentage of his/her income he/she pays in taxes.  Anyone earning over $464,850 pays the same rate as those earning that amount.  A person earning a million dollars or 25 million a year pay the same percentage of the incomes as the person earning the above figure.


While the number of individuals is not large compared to the overall population of 350 million people, yet the taxation system is rigged in favor of the very rich.  The more they earn over $464,850 the smaller a percentage of their income do they pay in taxes.


This change or decrease in taxes was brought about during the last five years of the Obama administration.  The Republicans actually lowered taxes for the very rich.  The Democrats were forced to go along with this in order to pass other similar required legislation.


The Republican argument for this action is that the rich need more money because they are the ones who invest in new industry.  Without them there would be no growth in the economy.


This argument that has been endlessly repeated over the years sounds wonderful.  But it is a myth.  It has never happened.  The rich invest their surplus incomes in old established industries that pay a set reasonable income or they, like Mitt Romney, bank some of it overseas where somehow they pay no taxes on the interest received.


Taxes are geared so the less an individual earns the higher a percentage of his/her income is paid in taxes.


The United States is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world.  Yet its unequal taxation system taxes the poor and middle class far more than the wealthy, they pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.  It also has an underclass that is so poor they live in the streets and even though these people pay no income tax they also pay a higher percentage of their incomes in other taxes than the rich.  The national distribution of income is today a farce.  Someone like Warren Buffet has remarked that it’s a strange situation where he pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary.


In 2016, the year of the next Presidential Election, this created a strange phenomenon within both political parties within the nation.  Currently there is a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress.  Very little if any needed legislation is being passed.  This situation has existed since 2011 when the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives.  In both major political parties there are large numbers of people who are totally frustrated with their Federal Government.  Many of whom are not overly well educated or generally too busy with their lives to follow what is actually happening in Washington D.C.  Their knowledge of the government is what they’re told by the news media, which can be tilted to the right or the left by which channel they are watching.  This doesn’t really answer their questions or needs. 


What exists today are large segments of the population which are looking for easy answers to what seems impossible questions or problems.  They want a simplistic solution which, in essence, is a return to a past which never existed.  They want a simplistic solution to their economic problems, to bring the manufacturing jobs back to the United States and allow people to earn more money so they will no longer be economically stressed out.  Whether this is real or not is beside the point; there is a strong desire among many for a simplistic change within the society.


For the Republicans the person who will do this is Donald J. Trump.  He claims that he will force the companies that have moved their manufacturing overseas or to Mexico to bring these jobs back to the U.S.  In addition he will get rid of all illegal foreigners in the U.S. and lessen competition so that there will be jobs available for everyone who wants to work.  He will also make the U.S. safer by not allowing alien radicals to migrate to the U.S. and keep Mexicans out of the country by building a wall between the United States and Mexico.  And so on.  He will bring us to a golden age that never existed in the U.S.


In essence Trump is feeding on all the basic prejudices and fears that seem to still exist in this country.  He is opposed to Mexicans, Hispanics, Muslims, Syrians, Blacks, Women having a right to deal with their own bodies, and the list goes on.  Trump has promised to take us all to-never-never land if he becomes president.  He seems to open up all the hidden prejudices in a large percentage of his followers.  He has also increased bullying among the children of his followers.


For the Democrats there is Senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic Socialist.  Over a year ago he changed his party registration from an Independent Socialist who always caucused with the Democratic Party to a Democrat.  Sanders now calls himself a Democratic Socialist.  This has enabled him to run as a Democratic candidate for the presidency in 2016.


I strongly suspect that Bernie Sanders initially expected to run as a protest candidate with no chance of winning.  However he inadvertently tapped into the younger generation of voter; those who had been too young to vote in prior Presidential Elections.  To these people and the others who have joined them he offers a utopian future. Free education from pre-school through college and free medical coverage for everyone.  He supports abortion rights and a more liberal drug policy.  He believes in gun control, immigration reform, LGBT rights, expanding social security, and tax reform.  Among other things he has stated: “We need to get big money out of politics and restore our democracy,” and “Climate change is real, it is caused by human activity.”


He has also brought large numbers of Independents and some older Democrats to his cause.  His campaign took off like a rocket shooting upward and Bernie could almost taste victory.  But he never quite caught up with his competition, Hillary Clinton. 


He is promising a new society with benefits for everyone.  And all this will be paid for by the rich who have up to this point exploited their position in society.  The image is wonderful but the reality doesn’t exist.


I suspect that the majority of the population agrees with most of if not all of Senator Bernie Sander’s goals.  But they would have to be paid for if they were to be put into laws.  And his solution to this is rather naïve.  He says he would put a tax on Wall Street’s excess profits.  Traditionally in United States history, going as far back as the Revolutionary War from 1776 on the practice has been to make someone else pay for what you want.  The Southern planters owed millions to English merchants which they never paid after the Revolutionary War.  Afterwards Daniel Shay, a Revolutionary War veteran, led Shay’s Rebellion where the inland farmers refused to pay taxes that were brought into being by the Tidewater merchants in the coastal cities.  In recent years there was an attempt on the California side of Lake Tahoe to tax the Time Share facilities to pay for the public schools in the region; it failed.  It’s always nice to get someone else to pay for what is needed or wanted but generally it doesn’t work.


The term Wall Street is an abstraction; it has no specific meaning.  Are they talking about the banks or the large commercial corporations, or any company that sells stock?  An excess tax on the sale or purchase of stock or company profits would bring about economic disaster.  A tax on profits already exists, increasing it could destroy incentive.  Senator Bernie Sanders funding solution sounds just but it is nonsense.


Hillary Clinton is much more pragmatic.  The very existence of Senator Bernie Sanders has pushed her farther to the left in her own position.  She may be able to achieve many of Bernie’s goals which he should be able to get into the 2016 Democratic Platform. 


Sanders, on the other hand, as President would face endless frustration, even if he were to get Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress, which is a low probability.  In all likelihood the House of Representatives will retain its Republican majority.  And even if Senator Bernie Sanders were to get an all Democratic Congress he would still have trouble both passing and funding his program.


In the early 1800s England began the Industrial Revolution in the cotton industry.  Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin which allowed the cotton plant to be quickly separated from it many seeds.  Machinery was developed for spinning the cotton plant into thread and machinery was also invented for weaving the thread into cotton cloth.  Overnight spinners and weavers became obsolete, their occupation ceased to exist.  Some became luddites, breaking into factories and destroying the new machines in an attempt to bring back the past when they had a functioning occupation.


 Even if Trump, by some strange miracle, were to get elected the probability is that the results of the 2016 Presidential Election would leave a number of people totally dissatisfied  with the changes that don’t seem to be happening,  You can’t bring back the past, real or otherwise. 


Can conditions be improved?  Jobs are available in the United States.  The problem is that they require training and mobility.  It now requires a trained skilled employee for the jobs that pay a decent wage.  For those who refuse to undergo any training or move to where these jobs exist there are public sector occupations that do not pay much but that take almost no skills to do.

English: Seal of the President of the United S...

English: Seal of the President of the United States Español: Escudo del Presidente de los Estados Unidos Македонски: Печат на Претседателот на Соединетите Американски Држави. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)



The Weiner Component #138 – The Current System of American Taxation: Loopholes & Special Privileges

Distribution of U.S. federal taxes for 2000 as...

English: Tim Walz, candidate for United States...

English: Tim Walz, candidate for United States Congress, at a Memorial Day picnic in Rochester, Minnesota (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: Grover Norquist at a political confer...

English: Grover Norquist at a political conference in Orlando, Florida. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In this year of 2015 the American System of Taxation is set in such a fashion to totally favor of the wealthy and the large corporations, at the expense of everyone else.  Probably not since shortly before the French Revolution in the late 19th Century has a system of taxation been so unfair as to place most of its burden upon the middle and lower classes.  If the general public became aware of the total extent of this there would be an outcry throughout most of the society.


In prerevolutionary France the nobility and church paid no taxes and wealthy members of the middle class paid a bonus one year to the government and never again had to pay taxes for themselves or their businesses.  Poorer class of society bore the burden of paying taxes.  In the United States we have lobbyists representing the wealthy and their businesses and they tend to control much of the legislation passed.


The very wealthy have somehow created the illusion that taxing the rich limits economic growth, particularly among members of the Republicans Party which they largely finance.  Their slogan is that the rich create jobs.  Of course there has never been any evidence of this.  Invariably, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, has stated publically that the very rich create jobs.  He has strongly implied that taxing them would limit economic growth.


Practically all federal, state and municipal taxes are regressive.  The income taxes for a married couple filing jointly is graduated up to $457,600, but regressive for any amount above that figure.  Above that amount it becomes $127,962.50 no matter how high the earnings go, to one million, to one billion or beyond.  The maximum graduated level is slightly lower for a single filing his or her taxes.


All other taxes with the exception of federal and state income taxes up to a certain level, are regressive.  Most are usage taxes.  Here the argument for them is that they are fair because everyone pays the same amount.  The fallacy here is that if all these taxes are taken as a percentage of income then the more the individual earns the lower is the tax as a percentage of his income.  Consequently the poor and middle class, the overall majority of the population, pay a larger percentage of their incomes in these so-called fair taxes where everyone pays the same amount regardless of their actual incomes.


The United States tax code is 71,000 pages.  This document was not written all at once; it came into existence on a piecemeal basis over a large number of years.  Many bits and pieces were passed for the benefit of specific individuals and companies or special interests mostly with aid by lobbyists.  A goodly number of these taxes were sentences or even clauses added to other bills at the last minute and had no relationship to the bill in which they originally existed.


And since for the last six or so years every Republican has signed a pledge to Grover Norquist not to raise taxes.  This has made all these subsidies and loopholes sacrosanct; doing away with any of them would be raising taxes.  It could also cut political contributions to their political party.


It is important to remember that a Congressional Bill does not have to deal with just one subject.  It can deal with any number of topics.  But that bill has to be passed as one whole unit or not passed.  In addition any number of amendments on virtually any subject can be added to it.  Unlike some of the states which have a line item veto, that is any sentence or group of sentences can be individually vetoed by the governor before he signs the bill, a federal bill can only be signed and totally approved by the President or vetoed and totally rejected.


Perhaps it time to reform this practice.  Ronald Reagan, as President, had a line item veto when he was Governor of California but not as President of the United States.  He complained vociferously about this fact.  Numerous other presidents have made similar comments.  Whatever it would take to change the current practice would be a long step in the direction of reform.


Too many times a bill has to be passed and unrelated changes have been added to it.  In order to keep the government functioning the President has to sign the bill.  A line item veto would certainly make his job both easier and saner.


The tax code allows numerous deductions that are taken from the yearly income.  Some of these have definitions that have been expanded phenomenally.  For example in 1913 the home mortgage interest deduction was added.  It was added to encourage home ownership.  (Interestingly countries like Australia and Canada do not have a similar law but do have the same large amount of home ownership as the United States.)  The law was to make home ownership more affordable.


In more modern times Congress declared in a new bill that boats can be homes if they have a kitchen, bathroom, and sleeping quarters.  The luxury boating industry had been able to buy its way into home mortgages.  Three percent of the boating industry qualifies as homes and interest paid on their purchase loans is deductible.


For example someone like Microsoft CEO, Paul Allen, has a $200 million yacht that comes equipped with an indoor pool, basketball court and its own submarine.  It also has a kitchen, bathrooms, and sleeping quarters.  He is able to deduct the interest paid on his ocean going home from his yearly income taxes.


One Congressman, Tim Walz (D-Minnesota) stated that the law was passed to make home ownership more affordable for the middle class.  He wrote a bill: Ending Taxpayer Subsidies for Yacht’s Act, hoping to end the practice by the wealthy.  The chairman of the committee that handled the bill in committee is a Republican and did not even allow the bill to come up for examination.  The bill died in committee; it never even came up for a vote there.  Would it have passed if it came up on the floor of the House?  This is a tax loophole that benefits a few people at the very top, according to Walz.


The House of Representatives is composed of 19 standing committees and the Senate of 17.  The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate is responsible for assigning bills to the proper standing committee.


The House Rules Committee manages the flow of bills to the full House by scheduling their flow.  They can also ignore a bill if they think it appropriate.  In the Senate the majority floor leader controls the bills.  He can also ignore a bill.

The Standing Committees generally have jurisdiction over a specific set of issues such as Agriculture, Appropriations, Foreign Affairs, and Commerce.  Each has one or several functions.  They hold hearings, can amend, and report a bill under their jurisdiction.  The chairman can also remove a bill from consideration and the committee votes on whether or not to forward a bill to their entire house or remove it from consideration.

The House originates all revenue bills and the Senate has the power of “advice and consent” over the President’s appointments and treaties.  Whatever is not directly stated in the Constitution is controlled by the Ways & Means Committee, which has more representation by the majority party.  The Ethics Committee has equal representation by both parties.


Obviously the committee system is necessary because there are too many bills proposed for them to go directly to one of the Houses of Congress.  Obviously the Committee, or Subcommittee for that matter, which is made up of a small number of Congressmen and women, can more easily do everything necessary, marking up the bill and even possibly changing it.  It can kill the final version or recommend it for passage by the full body of the House or Senate.


In addition, as we’ve seen, the chairperson of the committee, who comes from the majority party of his/her particular House has almost dictatorial power in running  the committee he/she chairs.  This person does this by almost completely controlling the agenda of the committee.  They can and have ignored one or some of the bills the committee is supposed to deal with.  In this way a bill can be killed without ever having a hearing.  And this can be done to a bill that will probably pass.  It can even be done to a bill that has been passed in the other House.  Once this is done it is almost impossible to bring such a bill before the House or Senate.  And this is what has happened to every bill that has attempted to do away with any subsidy or tax loophole.


In all fairness it should also be stated that the same power exists in both Houses of Congress.  Both the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate have done so with and without good reason.


From 2011 on, when they took control of the House of Representatives, the Republican majority had passed a bill to do away with Affordable Health Care (Obamacare) at least 50 times.  Harry Reed, the then majority leader of the Senate never once even brought it to the floor of the Senate.  The same thing happened to a large number of bill passed by the then Democratic Senate.


Interestingly after the Republicans won control of the Senate in 2014 by a slight margin both they and the House, which has no Constitutional ability to do so, attempted to stop the President from negotiating with Iran.  The negotiations were being done by the leaders of the United Nations, which also included the U.S.  It was not an American treaty.  It did, however, include the U.S. as one of the six nations negotiating with Iran.  Both Republican Houses of Congress wanted to pass laws controlling this two year process.  Apparently the members of the House hadn’t read the Constitution or didn’t care what it said; and young Senator Tom Cotton attempted with 46 other Senate signatures to openly negotiate with Iran.


Can reform be brought about in the Committee System?  One possibility would be to change the rules on Committees requiring that all bills be examined that receiver a 40% approval rate by all the members of the committee.  This could be done once a week and would require a bit more work by the committee.  It would be following the example of the Supreme Court.  It takes four affirmative votes out of nine for them to accept a case.  Would Congress be willing be willing to bring about such a rule change?


Barak Obama, during his campaign for the presidency in 2008 promised, among other things, to end numerous loopholes and subsidies but he couldn’t get any of those bills through Congress.  He wanted to eliminate “special tax breaks for oil and gas companies, including special expensing rules, foreign tax credit benefits, and manufacturing deductions for the rich oil and gas firms.


The American Petroleum Institute stated, I imagine proudly, that none of President Obama’s proposed bills, which would be presented by a member of Congress in one or both Houses of Congress, were enacted into law; in fact, they were dead upon arrival in either House.  Is lobbying sometimes open bribery?


When a bill is presented in either House of Congress it is given a number and sent by the Ways & Means Committee to a specific Standing Committee to be examined.  Each member of Congress is generally on at least two committees.  In the case of the House of Representatives most committees are also broken into subcommittees.  The Chair of each committee sets the agenda for each meeting.  From 2011, when the Republicans gained the majority in the House of Representatives, the chairman became a Republican and, from what I understand, no tax reform bill made it to a committee for examination and recommendation.  This also occurred in the Senate from 2014 on when the Republicans received a slight majority there.


From 2009 to 2010 both the House and Senate were very busy fighting off a giant depression and Republicans were busy fighting off Affordable Health Care (Obamacare) which they failed to keep from passing.  There would have been little or any time for the Democratic Congress to do anything else.  And if such a bill came up in the Senate it could have been easily filibustered.  In the House of Representatives extended debate and amendments to the bill, which would add endlessly, to the extended debate, would have easily killed any bill.


If we ask why any loophole of subsidy bill would present a problem?  The answer is that a very large percentage of Congressmen or women are dependent upon these very companies for large political contributions.  Are they then dependent upon bribes?  The answer is legally no, but technically yes.


In order for an individual to run for either House of Congress he/she needs large amounts of money for staff, adds, mailings, television commercials, etc.  This money is supplied for Republicans and many Democrats by political contributions.  For example Ted Cruz’s current presidential campaign is currently being financed mostly by four very rich individuals.  I suspect that if he got elected he would do nothing to make any of these individuals unhappy about anything.  The same attitude would be true for any House or Senate member.


The contributors, individuals and companies, which make large contributions to political campaigns have purchased almost instant access to the people they have financially funded.  In addition many government officials also have use of company jets and free expensive vacations.  Is it bribery or an exchange among friends?  The legislators are supposed to represent their constituents who elect them.  But who is primary?  Is it the constituents or the large contributors?


Whether the legislator truly believes he is acting for the good of his state or understands that he is paying a debt by supporting his major contributor’s interests is really beside the point.  The interests of the large contributors are primary in the minds of the legislators.  To go against their interests would be an act of financial suicide.  It would cut off large portions of their funding and they could easily loose them the support of their party as well as that of the large contributor.


Why then have the Republicans, as a group, refuted the concept of climate change.  Presumably for them the planet is getting less inhabitable not because of man’s increasing pollution but probably because God is ticked off with people.


Can the current system be adjusted so that Congress can go back to the original purpose of the Founding Fathers, to serve the people of the United States?  Interesting question!  Not too long ago the Supreme Court in the Citizen’s United Case expanded the meaning of a part of the First Amendment to make the spending of money part of the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.  This has led to almost unlimited spending in political elections because money is now an expression of free speech.  To limit contributions in a political election is now to limit the expression of free speech.


The political system, by the way it is set up, practically puts every politician susceptible to some level of corruption.  Can this system be changed?  Another interesting question.  Can tax reform come about?  Not by the current organization of Congress.

English: This is a chart created to demonstrat...