Senator Obama's ethics reforms seem to unfairly target business. His solutions are anti-business and pro-government. He seeks to place more control on business. It is true that corporations and businesses receive billions of dollars of subsidies and tax breaks every year. So do many other non-profits, individuals, and non-corporations. Why not eliminate those as well? That answer is rather simple. The other interests are completely beholden to government money for subsistence. Businesses are not. They are beholden to consumers for their money. They only seek to receive money and tax breaks from the federal government to even the playing field. If every other entity besides businesses received subsidies and tax breaks, it would be difficult for a business to compete with that. Barack seems to wish to blame the receiver of the spending for the excessive spending of the perpetrator, the government. Blaming the recipient of the spending is like blaming the weak kid at school for getting beat up by the bully. Fixing government doesn't mean punishing recipients of spending. No one puts a gun to the government's head and says, "Give me money now." If they did, they would go to jail very quickly. Congress chooses to spend money freely without compulsion. If anything, the people would love to have their money back. If there is an ethical problem, it is with Congress, not with businesses going to Congress for the same goodies that everyone else wants. If businesses didn't go after government money, while allowing everyone else to, they wouldn't be serving the interests of their employees, shareholders, or the consumers of their products. Why Barack wishes to place most of the blame on businesses is beyond me. Placing tighter controls on business for the failings of government only serves one purpose. It tightens the control and power of the government. This is what any committed Marxist or Socialist wants. They want to eliminate every source of competition for power so that, in the end, government is the sole decision maker, not businesses or individuals. This is would appear what Barack's plan is proposing in an indirect, subtle way.
WHAT BARACK SAYS: Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.
WHAT HE FAILS TO SEE: The government is not an unbiased entity. It has its own self-interests. Its self-interest is to perpetuate its existence and to increase in power and influence. These are the same goals of any business. Government is business except when it comes to profits and efficiency. As long as the people are willing to bear the tax burden without revolting, government will naturally grow. One key ingredient to growing is that it must effectively silence its critics. Public financing of campaigns would silence government critics. Here's how it would work. Candidates that would take public money would be beholden to the government who provided them money. Candidates who do not trust government would not take the money. This would encourage more candidates who support big government to run for office, thus squeezing out the candidates who would oppose spending tax dollars in this manner.
Also, not all special interests are bad. Some special interests groups have the general American population's best interests at heart. The government is a special interest as well. If it subsidizes campaigns, then in many cases the candidate will solely take money from one special interest, the government. As long as the taxpayers will pony up the money, the government could sponsor a high percentage of candidates who support the government policy, thus squashing freedom of speech with a clever legislative trick which sounds great upon first pass, but stinks with each additional pass.
The government shall pass no law that restricts the freedom of speech. Public financing of candidates in effect infringes upon the freedom of speech of those who do not support the government or its policies and therefore would find it difficult to compete with candidates who have access to the deep pockets of the government.
WHAT BARACK SAYS: Barack Obama will ensure that any tax breaks for corporate recipients or tax earmarks are also publicly available on the Internet in an easily searchable format.
WHAT HE FAILS TO SEE: Tax breaks and tax earmarks go to non-corporate recipients as well. At least businesses produce products and services that we consume and they do so in a much more efficient manner than non-business recipients of tax breaks and tax earmarks. Once again, he chooses to target business interests while leaving non-profit and other interests alone. It would appear that Barack's plan is nothing more than a Marxist front for anti-capitalism. He seems to be saying that businesses and corporations are bad and that government must protect the people from the evils of capitalism. He conveniently fails to see the real problem in the room, the government. Congress creates the tax code. Congress passes out the earmarks. Eliminate or simplify the tax code and earmarks. Quit blaming businesses for the problems that Congress has created.
In summary, Senator Obama seems to be blaming the recipient of government funds, more particularly one group of recipients, business, for the ethical problems in Washington D.C. He fails to acknowledge that no one is forcing politicians or bureaucrats to disburse money to anyone. They do so of their own free will and choice. If you want to clean up Washington, the best way would be to restrict Washington's ability to spend money. There will always be corruption and ethical problems, but the way to solve it is not by restricting the participants in government to those who support big government by silencing them through campaign and ethics laws that do just that. The way to fix it is not to silence business, whose sole interest is to provide the goods and services that people want. The way to fix it is not to give government a bigger voice. Government's primary goal is not to give the people the goods and services that they want. It gives the people the goods and services that the bureaucrats and politicians think the people should have. Does this type of change really sound like change or more of the same government control that we have been suffering under increasingly since the Great Depression? Senator Obama seeks to make the government the sole stamp of approval on which special interest is allowed or not. That is totalitarianism, not freedom. That is not the type of change that America needs.