(Freedom.news) These are frustrating times for the average American. Good-paying jobs are increasingly scarce. Our cities and communities are being inundated with illegal immigrants. Our religious freedoms are under assault, especially if you’re a Christian. And politicians in Washington seem to be as out-of-touch as ever, as evidenced by Congress’ historically low approval.
Now for the really bad news: Things aren’t likely to improve much, at least in the short term, despite the implications in a recent New York Times story regarding the primary source of campaign cash for presidential candidates in both major parties.
According to the paper, just 158 families, along with the companies they control, have contributed a whopping $176 million during the first phase of the campaign cycle. The Times, like all liberal publications, hates this, and you’ll see why in a moment.
“Not since before Watergate have so few people and businesses provided so much early money in a campaign, most of it through channels legalized by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision five years ago,” the Times reported.
Most of the donors have profited in just two industries – finance and energy – even though the U.S. has made billionaires in many industries. And overwhelmingly, the Times reports, they support Republicans.
Bingo.
The candidates most of these donors support explains why the Times put so much effort into this story. The paper has long been a bastion of progressivism, and it has always irked Democrats that many big-dollar donors contribute mostly to GOP candidates. It is also why Democrats detest the Citizens United decision, even to the point where President Obama took the highly unusual step of criticizing Justices, on national television, during his 2010 State of the Union Address:
But a closer analysis of the Times’ report belies the underlying truth that, despite the amount of money being spent on Republicans, the kind of government Americans are getting is nothing like the one GOP donors are attempting to build.
Though Democrats have continually painted these wealthy Republican donors as self-centered elitists who are only interested in the enactment of policies that benefit them (and some likely are, same as rich Democrat donors), most are actually interested in pushing policy and regulatory reforms that, while enhancing their bottom lines, would at same time boost incomes and opportunities for Americans across the political and economic spectrum.
The Times notes:
…[R]egardless of industry, the families investing the most in presidential politics overwhelmingly lean right, contributing tens of millions of dollars to support Republican candidates who have pledged to pare regulations; cut taxes on income, capital gains and inheritances; and shrink entitlement programs. While such measures would help protect their own wealth, the donors describe their embrace of them more broadly, as the surest means of promoting economic growth and preserving a system that would allow others to prosper, too. [emphases added]
“It’s a lot of families around the country who are self-made who feel like over-regulation puts these burdens on smaller companies,” Doug Deason, a Dallas investor whose family put $5 million behind Gov. Rick Perry of Texas and is being courted by many of the remaining candidates now that Perry is out. “They’ve done well. They want to see other people do well.”
Why is this a bad thing?
Much of the rest of the Times article – you can read it here – attempts to paint these uber-wealthy individuals as even more out of touch than Congress, but there are slivers of truth buried within it that reveal just how out of touch the paper, and Democrats, are with the American dream.
For instance, the article notes that the vast majority of these big-time donors – 119 – are self-made, while just 37 of these donor families comprise inherited wealth (which is not a knock on them, either; “inherited” wealth is wealth that still comes from some American who had enough ingenuity to build it some years ago).
But regardless of the policy objectives of these GOP donors, anyone who is being honest knows that, for all their money and donations, very little of what they seek has come to fruition, especially during the Obama Administration.
In fact, on many levels, just the opposite.
Without a doubt, the regulatory burden is much higher now than it was when Obama first took office. Costs on business are higher as well (think Obamacare, for starters). Employment is down (as in, labor force participation is at a 40-year-low). Taxes on the wealthy – something the Times says most Americans want to raise even further – are at some of the highest rates in decades. Same for corporations.
So, for all the Times’ ideological bluster about the supposed policy influence of super-wealthy Republican donors, what, really, has all of their money bought? If only one-tenth of what they sought was enacted into policy, it’s incalculable the good it would do the country, its economy and its beleaguered population. But that hasn’t happened; just the opposite, in fact. Government has only grown larger, more pervasive and more powerful, and its appetite for our money only more voracious.
The fact is, Americans don’t have the best government money can buy. If that were the case, and these GOP donors had their way, there’d be a lot more freedom and liberty, not a lot less of both.
Stay up to date with freedom news and information at AlternativeNews.com.
See also:
