Pocket Gofer 3

POCKET GOFER 3

Download the Pocket Gopher 3 Here

ON THE CAREER POLITICIAN IN A DEMOCRACY

• A BIT OF HISTORY
• TODAY’S CAREER POLITICIAN
• THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC-SPIRITED CITIZEN
• SOMETHING OF VALUE IN THIS
• CONCLUSION

“And he gave it for his opinion, that whoever could make two ears of corn or two blades of grass to grow upon the spot of ground where only one grew before, would deserve better of mankind, and so do more essential service to his country, than the whole race of politicians put together.” (Quote from Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels)

We have a cynical friend who claims that over the past 60 years or so the title of this pocket gofer has gradually become a contradiction in terms.  He believes that in a true democracy there is no place for the professional politician.  We have been listening to him, and thinking.

Bill O’Reilly may be a kindred spirit.  “A deep cynicism has descended upon the American people.  We believe that too many politicians are self-centered crooks.  This cynicism, in the long run, is very dangerous for the ideals that led to the founding of this nation in 1776.”

Nevertheless we will maintain an open mind as we explore this issue.  If we end up agreeing with our friend thousands of long-time public servants (we will soon call them something else; read on) will probably get severely bent out of shape when they read this pocket gofer.

Actually, if the pocket gofers circulate widely many more thousands of folks will get bent.  Thomas Jefferson said our country needs a major change in our thinking and practice of government every now and then if we are to remain a healthy society.

Jefferson composed most if not all of the Declaration of Independence.  “—— endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ——– That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the governed, ———.”

The theory of representative democracy suggests that citizens should have something to say about how they are governed, and that public officials will listen to and act on calls for change and improvement.  It further suggests that this is the way society moves forward.

With citizens involved in governing it is difficult for politicians to rig the outcome of an election.  Also the desire to serve will act to keep public officials doing things in accordance with the people’s will.

President Lincoln supported this theory in 1863 when at Gettysburg he said, “And that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from this earth.”

It’s time for a reality check:  How are we doing today?  How does today’s career politician fit into the practice of democracy?  This pocket gofer will look into these crucial questions.

A BIT OF HISTORY

During and after the Revolutionary War there was agreement among subjects who became citizens that man was a sovereign person under God.  Therefore it was logical and even necessary to put together a government that preserved his/her personal freedoms.

The kicker here lies in human nature: this logic is not and almost never has been government logic. If citizens permit even well-meaning officials to remain in office long enough they will eventually step to a different tune.

When the proposed Constitution was completed in 1787, Benjamin Franklin spoke: “I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.”

OUCH!!  Friends, that one smarts.  What right has this man, however great, to call us corrupted?  Maybe he was not referring to us; after all, it has been over 200 years.  But if not, to whom?

We look up to Dr. Franklin as a man, publisher, inventor, statesman, and Founding Father who contributed heavily to the making of the Constitution.  Should we believe his long-range prediction?

In 1830 a Frenchman named Alexis de Tocqueville paid a visit to our young country.  He wrote about a society that closely conformed to the theory of representative democracy.  Citizens were excited about the United States of America and its potential for greatness as they argued positions on issues prior to voting.

Even though they were extremely busy as they scratched for a living, they took time to actively participate in getting and keeping good government at local, state, and national levels.  As he traveled about the place de Tocqueville got excited too.  He described Washington DC as a “sleepy little town.”

Government at all levels was small, poor, and responsive.  Officials knew they had to be on their toes or the people would be all over them.

Citizens back then could recognize baloney no matter how it was sliced.  Older folks among them well remembered the variety served up by King George III of England shortly before their sons and grandsons fought in the Revolutionary War.  This legacy caused all citizens to maintain a healthy skepticism of government officials at all levels.

We don’t know whether de Tocqueville read any of Ben Franklin’s writings.  Nevertheless he apparently was a kindred spirit.  He predicted that violations of laws would eventually lead to a stronger emphasis on law and order, and that this was a vicious cycle that would eventually lead to tyranny.  (Other pocket gofers elaborate.)

One hundred years later citizens suffered through a terrible depression.  Unemployment grew to an unbelievable 24 percent.  It seemed that no one had any money.

In 1932-3 Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt got congress to pass many laws aimed at curing the Great Depression.  One of these that is still around was Social Security.  At that time the S.S. programs were primarily intended to help the disabled and poor widows with children.

Members of the Supreme Court of the 1930s didn’t need to get elected.  They properly saw their job as interpreting the Constitution and judging each new law concerning how well it conformed.

Roosevelt’s “New Deal” laws didn’t conform worth a damn, so the Court kept killing them.  He got frustrated.  He tried to stack the Court in favor of his programs by threatening to appoint many judges to it who agreed with his views.

Unfortunately he won this one.  Some of those laws (plus many others) are still on the books today, and we see the result: lots of vote buying, career politicians getting re-elected, tough fiscal decisions delayed indefinitely, and a $23 trillion national debt increasing by $2.4 billion every day.  (We wrote this before Covid-19.)

Interest on this money mountain must be paid to the rich folks and foreigners who hold Treasury bonds by our not-so-rich children and grandchildren.  This roughly $400 billion a year is a direct transfer of wealth from the non-rich to the rich.  (More later on this whopper.)

The Roosevelt government increased spending by 83 percent, and the national debt by 73 percent.  Roosevelt was convinced that businessmen’s actions hindered the recovery.

Politicians have always been great finger-pointers; he needed a scapegoat to blame for the failure of his New Deal programs.  But government survives by taxing the business sector, so the president of the US repeatedly bit the hand that fed him in order to save face.

About this time Roosevelt’s chief adviser Harry Hopkins was quoted as saying “We’re going to spend and spend, and tax and tax, and elect and elect!” This became the guiding light of the career politician, who later learned how to hide tax increases from public view.

Came 1937 and the economy was still dragging its behind.  World War II finally provided the big push needed to get things rolling again.

By 1945 people had been hurting badly for years, so they believed clever politicians when they claimed that FDR’s New Deal delivered the economic recovery.  This belief caused a major switch, to abiding faith in government as a solver of social problems.

So ended the tradition of healthy skepticism that began with the formation of this country.  Politicians saw this switch as open season: no one was watching them.

But 75 years later we know better.  The pocket gofers are about truth and reality, so let’s have a good look at what politicians did not then and even now will not tell us; that is, what really happened during the Great Depression.

In 1913 the Federal Reserve Board (the “Fed”) was created to regulate banking.  During the late 1920s the Fed got concerned about wild speculation in the stock market, so it raised interest rates.

This increase made it more expensive to borrow money and invest in the market.  In 1929 this action caused business to rapidly slow down, and then came a recession.

At that time the country was on the “gold standard:” paper money had to be backed by gold.  Also, whenever a country’s business exports increase the trade balance goes to surplus, and money will flow into that country (to pay for imports).

Because new money could not be issued without gold backing, this process would enable expansion of the supply of money. Economic theory dictates that with more money available business would pick up, hire workers, and end the recession.

But the Fed made a policy that stopped these natural flows.  Money grew still tighter.  As money continued to flow out of the country due to imports, things got desperate.  No one had any money.

To solve (?) this problem the government in 1930 passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which stopped nearly all imports.  This, followed by similar actions by foreign governments, plunged the entire trading world into a deep depression.

An old saying: “When goods don’t cross frontiers, armies will.”  Well, during the 1930s German businesses could not sell to the big American market so the German government could tax the revenues and reduce some of its tremendous World War I debt.

The German economy tanked.  Politicians everywhere are opportunists, and Adolph Hitler was no exception.

If we can believe it, the government was not yet finished with jacking the economy around!  Banks had no money to lend, and the Fed would not lend them money without a kind of security to back the loans that banks didn’t have.

Nearly half of all banks went belly-up.  We wonder why the entire country did not simply expire.  We apparently underestimate humankind’s survival instinct.

Most of this explanation came from an interesting 1998 essay by Lawrence W. Reed.  In closing we quote him: “The nation managed to survive Roosevelt and his New Deal quackery, and now the American heritage of freedom awaits a rediscovery by a new generation of citizens.  This time we have nothing to fear but myths and misconceptions.”

Are we Mr. Reed’s new generation?  See Pocket Gofer 20.

So much for theory, and the grim reality.  Returning to Social Security, career politicians saw an opportunity to get re-elected again and again by spending our money.  They did this by increasing benefits to old folks to where they far exceeded the total that each plus his/her employer had paid into the retirement system plus accumulated interest.  They did this by stealing money from the large and growing pot in the three Social Security accounts (SS, survival and disability).  They left unsecured IOUs in their place.

These increases occurred every election year from 1950 to 1960, and they were timed to take effect one month before the election.  In just half of those years the total increase more than doubled a typical recipient’s benefits.

Due to much of wartime taxation being still on the books, huge barrels of money were sloshing around Washington.  Politicians got the idea they could make a career out of politics.

Where’s the problem? said the shysters, —- er, politicians.  It’s not our money.

All this means that Social Security retirement has long since quit being a pension system.  Today it is a tax on the young to support the old. (Geezers vote a lot more often than the young).

On average America has the richest population of oldsters in history, thanks in part to struggling young workers.  Seems there is a rumor floating around about a generation gap …….

We put this one in our pipe and puffed on it for a while.  We concluded that few of today’s citizens have really thought this one thru.  Who will reveal the real truth here?

We could not find anyone else to do the job, so we will take a shot at it right here.  We were young during the 1950s and no politician told us the truth then.  It is time to remove the tight lid of secrecy put there by career politicians of that era and kept tightly clamped ever since.

So here it is: Career politicians of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s bought votes among old folks by spending today’s money.  As time passed, high tax receipts were not enough to cover huge increases in spending, so they put us into deep debt.

Young workers of today are being forcibly taxed to support generous benefits to the old.  To complete this grim picture, those benefits were financed from our tax money thruout several decades right to the present.

Even this is not all.  Struggling young workers must also pay much of the interest on that $23 trillion national debt, and they get no benefit in return for this.  Finally, they had no control over its accumulation.  Much of it accumulated before they were born.  Jefferson foresaw this huge rip-off: “——– the dead rule from the grave.”

Proud parents don’t see it, but today every baby born has a $120,000 debt strapped to its back.  And even this is not all: the contingent debt (probably must pay a large part of it) is another $100,000 or so.

Unless something is done our children and grandchildren will continue shelling out thru the indefinite future.  Two additional thoughts come to mind.  One is today’s workers will probably be bent when they realize this truth.

The other consists of an apology from us old folks.  We who have children should have got up on our hind legs and shouted down this abuse away back then (as did Jefferson AWAY back then).

But we did not.  Our parents’ abiding faith has morphed into blind faith, and the career politicians love it.

If there were public-spirited politicians in office (see below) then they would not have stolen from future generations.  Even if they did they would have told us what they were going to do and sought our consent.  But, we should also have been watching, human nature being what it is (hence the apology).

This political logic eventually gave birth to today’s “entitlement” programs. These programs are “spend spend, tax tax, and elect elect.”  They give back to millions of us some of our own tax money, cause us to elect and elect, and are eating us alive today.

We cannot help but suspect that this information has our nation’s millennials stirred up and thinking.  We like this, because it will take some time to remove the present bloated and corrupt government and install a democracy.  (See Pocket Gofers 19 & 20.)

We will not be around to see the result, but they will.  Therefore our efforts are intended primarily to help future citizens in their quest for good government.

But we old folks can and should contribute, so don’t count us out.  Most of us have children, and many have grandchildren whom we love and want to help.

Our wisdom will be valuable.  Furthermore, as explained above we owe it to them, so the first priority is to stop the abuse.

Or, are we getting ahead of ourselves?  Curious citizens young and old might have a look at Pocket Gofers 7, 16, and 19.

Over coffee three surgeons discussed which type of patient was easiest to operate on.  The first maintained that an electrician was easiest, because when opened up everything was color-coded.

The second begged to differ.  A librarian is easiest, he argued, because when opened up everything is in perfect alphabetical order.

The third surgeon allowed as how they were both wrong.  A politician is by far the easiest.  When opened up there are no guts, and the one end is interchangeable with the other.

TODAY’S CAREER POLITICIAN

President Lincoln gave his famous Gettysburg address in 1863.  Today our cynical friend swears that this type of government has perished from this earth.  He maintains that we no longer have government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Before Lincoln’s time people could understand the spoken word but many could not read.  These folks had to depend on what others said to them for learning and understanding.

Those who were good orators naturally assumed positions of prominence.  Some of these people had good intentions and some not so good.  So there came the question of separating wheat from chaff, or truth from lies.

How was this done?  Ordinary citizens formed groups for discussion and debate.  These discussions had their beginning long before there was anything resembling modern democracy.  Great orators knew about these discussions, appreciated them, and therefore organized their speeches to emphasize truth.

Forward to today.  Most people don’t get together to discuss national politics and government.

Combine this grim reality with television and social media and the result is thousands of talking heads. Each says either what he/she thinks people want to hear or does what will get them more TV appearances (pretty smiles, push-up bras) and citizens are left confused.  What happened to truth?  The media story in PG5 will shock any reader.

Career politicians decades ago saw this opportunity to b-s the troops, and they jumped on it.  They have fogged the distinction between truth and lies, so they can get away with treating us like mushrooms: kept in the dark and fed huge batches of b-s.

Here is a truth that applies to both politicians and us peasants: When you put your head in a hole to hide from the truth, like an ostrich you don’t always show your better parts.

Without truth there can be no democracy.  Today there is only one time when we can be sure a politician is telling the truth.  That is when he/she calls another politician a liar.

We think democracy is great.  Apparently it has been stolen, so we are deeply concerned.

Our friend looks us straight in the eye and flatly states that today we have a government of the people, by the politicians and for the politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, lobbyists, and special interest groups.  If there is any truth to this someone or something surely took a wrong turn 70 or more years ago.

The first part of Lincoln’s statement seems accurate: we are being governed.  We have a government of the people.

Is it a government by the people?  We retain the privilege of voting and of contacting our representatives in the congress and administration by letter, by telephone, fax, e-mail, Instagram and even in person.

In a democracy we are their bosses.  In today’s Washington rich, elite donors (and some big corporations) are public officials’ bosses.  There are about 650,000 of these fat cats, which is ¼ of one percent of the population.

They buy all manner of favors; he (80 percent are men) who has the gold makes the rule.  Voting today is not a privilege or obligation.  It is an empty exercise.

If we were to bug a Washington congressional office where an old hand is breaking in a rookie we might get something like this: “Honesty and sincerity are the keys to success in today’s politics.  If you can fake those you’ve got it made.”

We elaborate on this theme in Pocket Gofer 19.  In all due (or undue) modesty, we think that one is a ding-wowser.

Friends, the sober fact is that to a career politician elections are a bloody inconvenience.  For 435 of them in Washington DC this inconvenience comes around too often: every two years.

Therefore each of them must spend massive amounts of time, energy, and money to get re-elected (TV is not cheap).

The result is that on average perhaps 40 percent of our representative’s time is spent on fundraising and campaigning instead of representing our interests.  But this too is a sham, as we will see below.

THE SYSTEM: Therefore upon initial arrival in the big city the aspiring career politician must immediately grow a pair of hypersensitive antennae that are oriented toward money.  He/she will quickly learn where huge quantities of the stuff may be found and how to grab onto them.

In other words he will learn the system and how to game it.  We must ask, is this why we voted for him/her?

That bug mentioned above would reveal more.  The young rookie might play the idealist role: the government is screwed up and he/she was elected by citizens who expect that he will set things right.

The old pro has heard this one often enough that he knows exactly how to handle it.  Of course the government is sick and desperately needs attention, but that will come with time.

The places from which to exert the personal power that is necessary to really shake things up lie in key committee chairmanships.  To earn such a place the young hero must serve time in office.

This means getting re-elected several times.  Therefore in the short term it’s “To get along you must go along.”

The young tiger buys this line; what choice does he/she have?  Time passes, truck-loads of money are raised from special interest groups who want certain anti-constitutional laws and regulations passed that favor them, and elections are rigged —- er, won.

By the time he finally gets one of those posh and all-powerful chairperson jobs our tiger is not so young anymore.  He has lost his teeth and claws.

He owes favors to the many friends who have helped him advance to his present position.  They caution him against rocking the boat, because they too are working the system.

So there goes yet another fire-breathing rookie turned wimp.  And the system lives on, unchanged, unmolested.

We agree with the old pro: money and personal power make up the name of the game.  Money does not talk in Washington and in state governments; IT SHOUTS.  But we don’t have to like it.

Now we believe in friendship.  We belong to an international organization called The Friendship Force, which believes that “a world of friendship is a world of peace.”

Washington also believes in friendship, but of a very different kind.  This type is called cronyism, where at the highest level of government friends who help get officials elected are rewarded.  Successful candidates dole out choice jobs with high prestige and power, and that pay very well.

Young President Bush set a new standard in cronyism.  People who assist the campaign often work very hard getting out the vote, arranging public appearances, TV interviews, and debates, doing mailings, etc.  After the election it’s payback time.

Most of us know the tradition in our culture since 1789 has been merit and excellence.  However, today a posh job will go not to the most qualified but rather to a person who helped the cause.

Unlike in the private sector, these privileged folks are practically never fired.  But Bush apparently pushed it way too far in his blind defense of the secretary of defense.  Even then we were surprised when Donald Rumsfeld got canned.

From the beginning Bush gathered yes-people around him.  Therefore he got no sound advice in setting policy, and he did not listen to criticism or different ideas.

Loyalty is a part of cronyism, even when it becomes pig-headed.  After his first two years in office Bush fired Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill.  The man would not stop telling the truth, and by doing so he was not toeing the line.

In a democracy power and money should remain in the citizens and their ideas.  When citizens freely debate ideas and recommendations they open themselves up to criticism.  See Pocket Gofer 13, where we show how debate can add muscle to a good idea or proposal just as quickly as it can identify and reject a poor one.

A CHILLING CONTRAST: When we write to or go see a congressman we are concerned about only 1-2 issues.  These don’t touch our life so deeply that we are motivated to bring huge money to bear, even if we could afford it.  Other individual citizens face the same situation.

Special interest groups such as trade unions, industrial organizations, minority groups, etc. are much better organized.  They are focused on 1-2 specific issues dear to them, and they can raise lots of money.

When their lobbyists come a-calling on congressmen those antennae spring erect.  We heard it said that the chairman of the House or Senate finance committee or House ways and means committee can lock his office door and money will be shoved under it and over the transom above it.

Lobbying congressmen and bureaucrats has become a $25 billion business today.  Almost the only winners are these two groups and the special interests, as we will see in Pocket Gofer 15.  No prize for guessing who are the losers.

Lobbyists assure us that they do research on important issues.  They thus save a congressman and his/her staff a lot of time and effort by providing vital information to help in making the “right” decision.

What is discouraging is that the news media cooperate.  Several years ago they played up Clinton’s White House coffees, to which fat cat donors were invited after each had coughed up big bucks for the democratic party.

Clinton’s campaign staff invented the permanent campaign.  Obama’s people invented a couple of new twists.

During the 2008 campaign they faked Hillary out of her jock by using the Web to contact millions of small donors while her campaign went traditional: schmoozing the fat cats.  Well, he won both nomination and election.

Twist #2 started in 2009 and it is still alive and well.  Obama’s campaign manager repeatedly contacts millions of donors, but this time he was selling the boss’s policies instead of grubbing for money.

Er, maybe not well.  Obama staked huge political capital on Afghanistan as a major part of his foreign policy.  The war was and is not going well.

During the headline-grabbing coffee caper company-paid lobbyists were busy writing regulations that would govern decisions by the same companies.  But this part of the action remained well beneath journalists’ radar screens. See PG8.

In these instances at least, the lobbyists are surely correct.  This is vital information.

Not long ago the media reported that a “committee on campaign financing” spent about $5 million to investigate $3 million of foreigners’ money donated to candidates.  This turned out to be a taxpayer-paid distraction: the megabucks donated by US special interest lobbyists at that time dwarfed that $3 million, but we heard nothing about this.

In England candidates cannot advertise on the tube or radio.  This forces them to meet personally with citizens, and take the otherwise-avoidable vast quantities of guff from them.  Meet face-to-face, and the whole picture changes dramatically.  A citizen can ask a candidate where he/she stands on an issue, then another.

If he refuses to commit or weasels around the issue, purveyors of over-ripe tomatoes will do one helluva business. And they will be on hand.

Lobbyists’ money seldom goes directly into “our” congressman’s pocket.  That would be dishonest, corrupt.

Rather, it (or most of it) goes into his/her re-election campaign war chest.  We think any time money is paid to influence actions such as laws that favor some people over others (frequently us) that is corruption.  It is also unconstitutional.  See Pocket Gofer 7.

While politicians like to think of the money as contributions, special interest folks know it as investments that will generate a return far in excess of the money put in.  Otherwise they would not “contribute.”

Since Bush became president the number of lobbyists for special interests increased from 16,000 to about 35,000.  From these deep pockets comes most of that $25 billion each year.  To paraphrase the marines: “The money has landed and the situation is well in hand.”

Few of us realize that election campaigns are indirectly paid for by us.  The favors handed to special interest groups include tax breaks, subsidies, waivers of regulations, tax credits, etc.  Without these favors these groups would be paying much more in taxes.

Someone has to make up the deficit, as government officials are hooked on the spending drug and they are not about to slow down for lack of money available.  No need to guess who that “someone” is.

Furthermore a law says that each qualifying presidential candidate gets $55 million of taxpayer money.  So we are also directly paying for each hugely expensive election campaign.

Also, due to less competition companies get less efficient and must charge higher prices to stay afloat.  Again, no need to guess who pays the extra.

PJ O’Rourke in his book Parliament of Whores: “Whenever legislators get involved in buying and selling, the first things bought and sold are legislators.”

Dwight Morris has a database on how politicians spend this money.  He indicates that many are living well beyond their means.  A part of Washington, DC is the nation’s wealthiest community.

Even candidates who run unopposed raise hundreds of thousands of bucks.  Maybe we are not supposed to ask what happens to this money.

But, not to worry.  It’s legal.  Actually it is no problem for today’s lawmakers to make practically anything legal.  They know they can get away with it.

Senate candidates raise between $10 and $30 million.  This means each senator must raise around $30,000 to $90,000 every week of his or her six-year term.

TIME FOR REFORM? They know we are thoroly bent, so they introduce clean-up bills, —- and bills and bills.  Dressed up as “campaign finance reform,” they will go nowhere, as their only intent is covering arses.

Finger-pointing is also in, of course.  Those who generated the loudest windbaggery about Clinton and Gore were also the ones who were deepest into the pockets of the special interests.

Politicians know we want reform.  But they don’t.  The money is just too, too good and life in Washington is one great bash.  So they use every gimmick to convince us they are trying to reform but cannot seem to bring it off.

For example, then-senate majority leader Trent Lott put forth an amendment to the McCain-Feingold bill.  If it failed a vote the democrats would continue to push the bill even though the republicans had promised a filibuster.

But if it succeeded the democrats would filibuster.  Therefore both parties were planning on gridlock.  (A filibuster extends debate for so long that it practically always kills the bill.)

OH, DARN!  Nasty break there.  Good try, guys!

A politician will bend over backward to be nice to us.  He/she wants us to believe he needs our votes fully as much as he needs big bucks.  PJ O’Rourke wrote that politicians are interested in people; fleas are interested in dogs.

Does this tend to make a liar out of a career politician?  We’re fighting it, but we cannot stifle that suspicion.  His ears and mouth are oriented toward us, especially at election time.  But his actions are aimed toward the money.

Madison, Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, and many others at that time were forceful in their assertion that citizens would have a voice in government.  Another point worth mentioning: they were honest men.

The Constitution specifies an equal voice for each citizen.  This does not mean only if he/she or an interest group has got the price.

Citizens’ values vary greatly, and the elitists know this.  They also know that we citizens share a common interest, which is good government.

But it is their interest to make it nearly impossible for us to organize and assert our interest, because good government for us is not good government for them.  In a democracy there is no “us versus them” and no elite class in government.

MORALITY: Stephen Carter wrote a book called Integrity. “We the People of the United States, who a little over two hundred years ago ordained and established the Constitution, have a serious problem: too many of us nowadays neither mean what we say nor say what we mean.  Moreover, we hardly expect anybody else to mean what they say either.”

Hard to say who set the trend in this matter.  All we can do is observe that it has always been the custom for citizens of a country to look to their government for leadership.

We feel a need to ask, how can citizens of any country do business on this basis?  What standing has any agreement, any contract, any law?  Communist top leader Lenin said, “First confuse the vocabulary.”  Did he start this trend?

We inaugurated a president in January 2005 who swore on a Bible to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.  Do we know if he really meant it?  (More on this later.)

Carter again: “Integrity, —- requires three steps: (1) discerning what is right and what is wrong; (2) acting on what you have discerned, even at personal cost; and (3) saying openly that you are acting on your understanding of right from wrong.”

If we use the same breath here to mention our national government, we fear that most of us would gag.  That tawdry outfit has fuzzed up the distinction between right and wrong, but not for our benefit.

“A person of integrity lurks somewhere inside each of us: —.”

YES!! We believe there is a vital truth here, as we have faith in people and their abilities to solve their own problems.  Without this faith we could not have researched and written the pocket gofers.

Today’s career politician is accountable to no one.  What is his/her source of satisfaction, aside from unearned wealth and schmoozing with the glitterati?

Here is info not to be found in US news media (The Economist, Fall 2002).

“—— the House of Representatives — no more than 20 of the 435 races look competitive.  In any other evenly divided country’s lower house, one in every five members of parliament, ——— would be a nervous wreck by this stage; ——-.”

The figures for Fall 2004 are similar.  In September the same newspaper said, “North Korea might be proud of the incumbent re-election rate: 99%.”

(Back to 2002): “The reason is redistricting, the rejigging of (congressional) district boundaries to take account of demographic changes.  In most countries, this is done by independent bureaucrats.  In virtually every American state it has been done by state legislatures, but now national career politicians are displacing them.

“Redistricting lumps democratic voters into one district, republican in another.  This scam (our emphasis) guarantees that the current office-holder will win the next election.

In 2002 every incumbent who ran won in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.  There are apparently many ways to rig elections, and our “public servants” are inventing new ways.

CA was the worst, with 53 House seats supposedly up for grabs.  Not a single challenger won as much as 40 percent of the vote.

An election like this was completed at about the same time in Iraq:  Saddam Hussein won 100 percent of a presumed 100 percent turnout.  The Economist finished with an accurate shot:

“Given all the other advantages that incumbents have, in terms of name-recognition, money-raising powers and the ability ——- to bring home pork, this makes for a travesty of democracy (our emphasis).”

Members of congress have stacked the cards high against any third party candidate.  Congressman Ron Paul ran for president in 1988 representing the libertarian party.  He got practically no news coverage.

So in 2008 he ran as a republican in order to get coverage.  His campaign raised very respectable money, which indicates that his positions on personal freedoms and small government are popular.

Thousands of fans attended a huge counter-convention across the river from the official one in Minneapolis.  He arrived at the republican convention loaded for bear, but the great white hunters were ready and muzzled him.

In 2/2010 the Conservative Political Action Conference held its annual meeting.  It ended with a straw vote.  Interesting to note that Ron Paul got 31% of 2,395 votes cast.  He is not a conservative.

News pundits claimed that voters could pick either a black president or a female vice-president “breaking new ground either way.”  Friends, this is a crock.  The voters are just the audience.  Furthermore the system will grind on, pretty much as if there had been no election.  See the essay on campaigns.

In presidential elections both major party candidates are always career politicians.  By definition a career politician is not a leader.  He/she may appear to listen to the people, but his actions are guided by the money.

Friends, even this is not all.  Congressmen intimidate major contributors into supporting them, reminding donors that even if they lose they will still be around long enough to bring harm.

This is not campaigning; it is Al Capone-style extortion.  If any of us ordinary blokes tried this he/she would be salted away in the slammer.

Sometimes career politicians in both major parties combine forces to screw up the campaign of that rare challenger who looks like he/she has a chance to win.  We are forced to conclude that at the national level voting in this country is a fiasco.  (For any doubters there is still more in Pocket Gofer 7.)

Some career politicians “retire” from the Congress, but they seldom go home.  For example, in 1997 long-time senator and 1996 presidential candidate Bob Dole was a hot property.  A high-prestige law firm in Washington hired him to “make rain,” which means use his connections in the congress to generate millions of dollars’ worth of billable hours for the firm.

Now, he doesn’t lobby; that would be beneath one with such a high profile.  Rather, he provides “strategic advice:” read this as contacts with senators who can rig laws favorable to the law firm’s fat-cat clients.

Dole on lobbying: “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it.  You have the right and all that constitutional stuff.”

The Constitution specifies one-person-one-vote.  Lobbying bends this one double, and Mr. Dole knows it.  But he is unlikely to go back home to Kansas; that is not where the money is.

What you know weighs not nearly as much as whom you know, just like it is in the governments of China, Iran, Cuba, Nigeria, and many other countries.  There is a heavy implication here, as shown in Pocket Gofer 10.

How could this tragic decline in morality happen in the greatest nation in the world?  A British writer named Thomas Mann apparently has a different perspective than we do, and he pulls no punches.

“Americans will look on with seeming carelessness as their political system appears to be hijacked in 2000 by the power of money.  They will know perfectly well that their democracy is being distorted by vast payments of cash from ‘special interests.’  They will accept with insouciance the most cynical view of politicians selling their souls and votes to the highest bidder (our emphasis).”

This acceptance has gradually made inroads into our consciousness.  But what is still worse is our apparent reluctance to do something about it.

It’s human nature: the longer we futz around without acting the worse it will get.  Gotta cram a bunch of gofers into pockets and purses, and crank up some discussions.

GD Gearino drew on the abiding faith in government about which we wrote near the beginning of this pocket gofer.  “Too many people these days firmly believe that the candidate they support has cornered the market on virtue and honesty.

“If you’re one of those people — and you’ll have to excuse my lack of diplomacy here — then you’re a fool.”  There is a lot of truth in the old saying: “A fool and his money are soon parted.”

THE HYPE: OUCH!! This one from the Economist 1/1996 (British publication) really bites where it hurts: “What Americans need in 1996 is a referendum on government, rather than a referendum on rhetoric about government.

They can have the former if they reject the latter.  Put another way, stop the b-s.

“But if they again vote for candidates who bash government while promising to save Medicare, support students, defend farmers, bolster defense, protect pensions, and generally preserve all the nice bits — then let them stop raging against the government they get.  It is no more messy and muddled than they are.”

Maybe Benjamin Franklin was right (above)?

Well, now.  The writer argued here that it is not enough for us to demand that government cut the b-s.  We must go beyond that, and demand a major change in the way our nation is governed.

In 1997 the British held national elections, which lasted a whole six weeks.  There was no radio or TV allowed, so the average politician spent about $6,000 on his/her campaign.

In America in 1996 the average House race cost $4.8 million.  And for how long will we citizens be forced to gut our way through these empty campaigns?

Many of us would respond, “Don’t ask.”  Publius II is asking.

Politicians don’t want to derail this gravy train, so back in 1976 they got the Supreme Court to rule that campaign spending was free speech and therefore could not be restricted due to the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Now, that Amendment does in fact guarantee free speech.

However, we need to ask how free is the speech of the candidate who cannot raise great gobs of bucks?  How free is the voice of the citizen or candidate who has integrity and so cannot bring him/herself to accept huge quantities of dirty money?

CONTROLLING THE MONSTER: Back in 1830 citizens watched their elected officials like hawks.  But friends, just how do we keep a close eye on a $3+ trillion operation?  That is roughly the size of the central government’s annual budget.

This money gets split among close to 200,000 different accounts.  We can’t even comprehend how much money that is, nor visualize 200,000 accounts.

We think of the task as such: 200 million adult citizens watching over tens of thousands of politicians and bureaucrats as they spend $3 trillion of our money.

The annual central government budget deficit dropped to a 15-year low in 1996, and career politicians immediately took full credit.  Senator Pete Domenici in October 1996 commented: “This is good news for American taxpayers.  It shows that when Congress really wants to control spending it can.”

This is a crock.  And quoted by the Associated Press yet!  The deficit for fiscal year 2006 was about $400 billion.  This is control, senator?

Everyone who understands the first thing about government and economics knows that government policy has practically no effect on a nation’s economic health.  The fact is the only thing government can do is get in the way of economic activity by horning in where the Constitution says it has no business (Pocket Gofer 8).

What actually happened in 1996 was that the economy motored along very nicely in spite of the efforts of the good senator and his colleagues, and not hardly because of them.  But career politicians always develop keen noses for votes.  Whether they are earned through dedicated and effective public service is another matter.

We admit defeat; we can’t figure how we citizens can keep a close watch over all that loot.  The Internet, maybe?

The government is apparently not all that good at it either.  A spring 1998 GAO (Government Accounting Office) report showed that there was no accounting for billions of dollars of property, equipment, and materials.

The government could not accurately estimate the cost of most credit programs, nor could it estimate costs of environmental disposal programs.  And it could not pin down the amounts of reported liabilities.

Friends, this is our money.  But maybe we should not blame the government.  No one short of God can keep track of such stupendous sums of money.

The biggest problem of all lies in a combination of entitlements: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, (and about 12 smaller programs).  They are devouring the central government budget.

Everybody in Washington knows that the solution is to privatize all three.  This single act would cut government spending in half.

The kicker: it would take guts.  But the third surgeon was right; there aren’t any in today’s Washington.

TEMPTATION: All we can conclude is that $3 trillion is a helluva lota bucks.  We recall our theory of accumulation of money.  It suggests that whenever a huge mountain of money accumulates in one place and stays there for longer than, say, a few weeks bad guys/gals will be attracted to that place.

They will work out ways to dip into it.  Career politicians know that the bigger the mountain the less the accountability.

This is just like when we were kids.  If the cookies stayed in the jar long enough, hands would find their way in.  Human nature doesn’t change over life spans.

But the number and size of the cookies sure as hell has, and we taxpayers are providing them.  If the pocket gofers really catch on we could catch many folks with hands in the public cookie jar.

We citizens must watch over our money really closely or ever-larger bits of it will be ripped off.  But how?

Charles Krauthammer in a 10/1997 column: “If Willie Sutton were around today, he’d be breaking into government, not banks.”  Mr. Krauthammer, Willie Sutton lives!

Today there are thousands of reincarnations of his career, daily shopping in Washington’s Grand Bazaar.  The man would be impressed; indeed, awestruck.

That is, the traditional role of the elected politician as public servant has been reversed.  The servant perceives him/herself as the master and we voters as servants.  Any one of us who has been audited by the IRS knows the feeling.

SPECIAL INTERESTS: The 14^th Amendment to the Constitution does not provide for extra privileges for groups.  This applies no matter how much money they bring with them when they ask for special favors.

This from the Amendment: “—— nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Note the emphasis on the individual person’s rights.  There is nothing in the Amendment about group rights, nor is there anywhere else in the Constitution.

Maybe the founding fathers did not mean the national government when they wrote “State?”  But in a democracy “due process” implies that citizens make the laws.  Who enjoys “equal protection” when he who has the gold makes the rules?

Apparently we furnish much of the money that career politicians are using to buy our votes.  If we can handle it, what this means is that we are paying for those ridiculous political ads that we see on the tube.

How did this mess we’re in come about?  We can’t put all the blame on career politicians.

Maybe us?  We remember (ca. 1963) when Pogo said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”  If the buck stops here, that smarts.  We don’t want to admit it.

We need not.  Actually, the whole thing took so long and was so sneaky that we cannot clamp the blame on anybody.  Our recent ancestors and we have simply not been watching.  So much for blind faith.  See PG19.

THE $CENIC ROUTE & CAMPAIGNS: In fact, it has been said that the central government does little more than collect money and write checks to people.  Most of these people are taxpayers, which raises a question of efficiency.

Why ship the money to Washington, which skims 25 percent off the top and ships about half of what is left back out to the hinterlands?  Why not just reduce taxes on those individuals and organizations that are going to get money back?

The answer is the money must go to Washington first so when it goes back outward career politicians can appear to be providing nice things for very little tax money.  This is one way that they buy our votes.

An 18th-century Scottish historian said, “No democracy can last forever.  It can last only up until the point where a majority discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.”  Are we having fun yet?

Enter the career politician, who seems to be always facing a re-election campaign.  The USA is a big country now; states have populations up to 34 million.

The only really effective way to reach large numbers of voters with his/her promises is through television or social media..  As we mentioned, TV is not cheap.

We have noted that politicians almost never take a position on any important issue.  Such courage might cost votes.

But a candidate also knows he cannot appear to be a wimp.  So his campaign manager orders him to snarl on the tube, and to heave buckets of horsy-go-potty at his opponent.

Members of political parties call this image merchandising or spin doctoring.  We have another name for it.

We are left scrounging for a solid reason to vote for one clod or the other.  Maybe the one who can make more of the stuff stick?

We conclude that politics is one of the rare professions where experience is a negative asset.  Apparently human nature has an impact here.

Thinking citizens have already realized this grim fact, so they have been pushing for limits on length of “service.”  Such limits would eliminate the career politician.

In 10/2010 we found SC repr John Spratt seeking a 15th term; MO repr Ike Shelton an 18th; TX repr Chet Edwards an 11th; MN repr James Oberstar a 19th; and MS repr Gene Taylor a 12th.  These bums have long since learned how to work the system, and obviously they have been working it hard.  We should fire each and every one.

It is not hard to imagine the reaction in the congress, so this democratic movement has gone nowhere.  The Economist (3/18/2006): “When Idaho’s voters passed a term-limit statute, their legislature repealed it.”  We think it is time to repeal some legislators.

Actually, the legislators saw this one coming thru a ballot initiative.  So they passed a term-limit law ahead of the election, broadcast it everywhere, and then repealed their own law afterward.  Clever, eh?

Modern politics attracts seekers of personal power.  Unless restrained, these people will concentrate power in central locations (read “in themselves”).

The temptation for abuse is too strong to resist.  So, if we buy this one who will do the restraining?

Lord Acton once said, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  It looks like our cynical friend has a point.

Bonner in his book Empire of Debt: “Politics is a pernicious and barbarous occupation.  There is nothing quite so satisfying in politics as, say, forcing the Religious Right to pay for an abortion clinic or making tax-paying pacifists pay for a bomb so you can blow up some poor foreigner on the other side of the earth.”

“——- deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, —–.”  So wrote Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.  For many years after that time there were no career politicians in the American government.

As recently as late 1999 a prominent columnist wrote, “Begin with allegations of ‘corruption.’  Contributions to candidates and parties today do not line anybody’s pockets, ——–.  Vigilant media and law enforcement now nip improper personal enrichment in the bud, as politicians involved in the savings-and-loan scandals found out to their detriment.”

Friends, this is bilge water.  A curious citizen such as Publius II can learn that many career politicians raise far more money than they think they will need to get re-elected. 

After the campaign they pocket the extra bucks.  Donors of that money don’t know it is going directly into a politician’s pockets, so they can’t ask for any special favor in return.

Bill O’Reilly: “Politicians take your dollars and give them to their friends and patrons.  What sense does this make?  Well, it works because politicians know that you won’t notice that you’re being stiffed as long as the malls stay open late and our cable system provides 24-hour sports coverage.”

The 1988 savings-and-loan bank scandal originated in congress.  A law passed by that group of shysters said that profits are okay but any losses will be picked up by the taxpayer.

Naturally, S&L managers played fast and loose with depositors’ money.  Many lost millions, a few of them billions, and the chump taxpayer got stuck for about $100 billion just as the law provided.

Columnist Nichol in late 1999: “Apparently too many senators were tied to the six-figure contributions that make a literal mockery of the federal campaign finance system.  Majority leader Trent Lott gleefully explained that ‘campaign reform is dead.’”

This is astounding arrogance.  Moreover, it is just this kind of crap that drives us to write the next pocket gofer.

Nichol was not through: “(senator) McConnell argued that reformers like Senator John McCain are ‘speech police’ trying to ‘take away your right to speak.’  As if forking over a $250,000 check constitutes the heart of Jeffersonian expression.”

After the 2000 election columnist Thomas Friedman saw that foreigners had been watching the action, but they were not listening.  They knew the blizzard of words blasted throughout the airwaves by career politicians had no meaning.

“—- neither candidate offered any inspiring vision of America — any argument for why its values and institutions were important for the world, or why the world, with both its needs and aspirations, was important to America.”

Politics has been reduced to how much a particular interest group can pry out of government.  “Who could blame foreigners for feeling that these candidates were the political equivalents of genetically modified food?

“Both men were ———– produced by consultants with poll-tested positions geared to interest groups but with nothing to say about America as a whole.”  Thomas Neill: “Of those who say nothing, few are silent.”

Mr. Bush was a “compassionate conservative” kind of guy during that campaign.  But immediately after 9/11 he “—- made up my mind at that moment that we were going to war.”

So for the 2004 campaign he reinvented himself as a warrior.  For that year’s presidential and congressional races politicians blew a total of $4 billion.

Pocket Gofer 18 proves that there is far more money for the elite class in war than in peace.  This is why there are so many wars in the world while top career officials continue to preach peace.  There is a place in history for the citizen who can tell this to Bush and get him to listen.  See Pocket Gofer 11.

We feel we must ask, is there any truth to all this?  We are asking.

The neat thing about a true democracy is that personal power is diffused.  It is kept within the people and their ideas: Lincoln’s government by the people.

In this way no one person can accumulate such power as to become corrupted by it.  This system minimizes abuses by public servants.  See Pocket Gofer 13.

We also conclude that the career politician fits into today’s democracy like a square peg into a round hole.  We need something different.

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE:  In January 2000 Steiber argued that this system has “been broke for over two centuries ——.”  Few of us even today know that even if all else was honest our individual vote does not directly apply to electing a president.

“Each state is assigned as many electors as it has US representatives and senators combined —–.  The winner in each state gets to send his slate of electors to the Electoral College.

“The loser, even if it’s only by one vote, gets to send none.  In other words, as far as the national (presidential) election is concerned, his votes simply disappear.”  (A few states divide their electors according to party voting.)

In the past up till 2000 there were three occasions where the winner of the popular vote did not make it to the White House.  In 2000 and 2016 we added two more..

“It disenfranchises voters.  If you’re a republican living in Massachusetts or a democrat living in Texas, you might as well not even show up at the polls — your vote simply won’t count in the national election.

“It discriminates against independent candidates.  Every time an independent —— loses a state, he also loses all the votes he garnered in that state.

“That means he can’t build coalitions across state lines — which is the only way an independent can win.  This is a fine state of affairs for the morally bankrupt republican and democratic parties, but it’s hardly a benefit to the rest of us.”

The horses’ patoots in the congress have us citizens hawg-tied in so many knots, it’s hard to determine where to start flushing them out of Washington.  Stay tuned.

Here is a thought.  ON RATS DESERTING A SINKING SHIP

News & Observer  1/12/2014, pg. B2; and “Under the Dome,” pg. B3)

“US Repr. Mike McIntyre says he made his decision not to seek a 10th term in congress after consulting with family members (emphasis added).” 

“Three state legislators announced on Friday that they won’t be running for re-election:

sen Thom Goolsby —- ; sen. Michael Walters —–; and Repr. Mark Hollo ——-.

“All said they wanted to spend more time with their families (again).”  If our analysis of these moves is accurate the conclusion is GREAT NEWS!!  Esp McIntyre: savvy career politicians smell big trouble ahead and so they are bailing. 

We look forward to many more.  Bear in mind that they can run but they cannot hide.  Thruout the 75 years since WWII (roughly, the birthday of the career politician) these thieves have rigged the system so we taxpayers can not touch them.  But soon world history biggest and longest bash will be over.  Citizens will clean house in Washington.

Here are two examples of sound thinking on this issue. 

Proposed 28^th amendment to the US constitution – Congress shall make no law that applies to citizens of the US that doesn’t apply equally to the senators and representatives; and, congress shall make no law that applies to senators and representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the US.

Congressional reform act of 2011

1. Term Limits – 12 years only; one of the possible options below:

Two six-year senate terms

Six two-year house terms

One six-year senate term and three house two-year terms

• NO TENURE/NO PENSION – A congressman collects a salary while in office but receives no pay when they are out of office.
• Congress (past, present and future) participates in Social Security.  All funds in the congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately.  All future funds flow into the Social Security system and congress

participates with the American people.

• Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just like each and every American.
• Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.  Congressional pay will rise by the lower of the CPI or 2.5%.
• Congress loses their current health care system.  Congress will participate in the same health care system as the American people.
• Congress must equally abide by all laws.  No special exemptions or treatment.

All contracts with present and past congressmen are void.

We have thought of a third action.  PG21 advocates a constitution that eliminates the congress.  After looking over pocket gofers showing these people as a bunch of thieves, herein lies evidence that we citizens no longer need them: warts on the arse of progress.

THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC-SPIRITED CITIZEN

Someone recently said, “Politicians are like diapers.  They need changing from time to time, and for much the same reason.”  This is a less polite way of saying that in politics experience is a negative asset.

Ronald Reagan: “Government is like a baby.  An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”

David Gergen on the 1996 campaign: “— whoever wins in November, the country will be in safe hands. All four men at the top of the national tickets — Dole, Kemp, Bill Clinton, Al Gore — are seasoned professionals fit to serve, —-.”

Surely looks like our cynical friend is gaining on us.  There comes a point in the career of a politician when he/she stops serving and starts siphoning.

It has occurred to us that if we are to cause a truly effective and sweeping change in our government the required force must come from outside government.  This is what the pocket gofers are about.

We are about as outside as anyone can get and still be American citizens.  May the force be with us, all of us.

PERSONALITY POLITICS AND PRINT: “The politicians are a-swarming in already, and ma’am, if’n there’s any worst pest than grasshoppers it surely is politicians —–.”

Today criticizing top politicians is great sport.  One reason for this popularity is that he/she got elected on his presumed strength of personality and charisma.

The big players behind the radar screen select candidates for office based in large part on charisma.  Naive voters are led to believe they are selecting candidates.

The naive voter thinks he/she knows the person, although in fact the personality that he came to know on the tube is far from the true person.  It is a product crafted by spin-doctors.

It is easy to attack a personality, whereas to attack an idea we must first become familiar with it.  This means listening and thinking, both of which require effort.

Career politicians have a standard approach to thinking.  If you make people think they’re thinking, they will love you.  But if you really make them think they’ll hate you.

It also means reading; television will not help here.  Furthermore, relatively unbiased information is hard to find in any news vehicle, including social media.  But if we citizens in good numbers demand it we can get it.  PG5 states that whenever there is a need for information someone will find a way to fill it.

A word about the nearly lost art of reading and study surely seems to be in order.  Now, we can still be fooled by print; our research is stark testimony to this truth.

However, it is generally a lot more difficult to fool thinking and concerned citizens when print is used in public officials’ formal contacts with their voters.  Print can stick around, be mulled over, and criticized.  Then it can provide the basis for free and open discussion and debate among citizens who are concerned about knowing the truth about what their public officials are really doing.

Career politicians are no dummies; they know this.  And so they give us very little print, and what they do provide can also fool us because we don’t gather together to discuss and criticize it.  (Yeah, we know.  But Covid-19 will eventually be destroyed.)

The result today is frustration with and contempt of government.  We feel a need to slam something or someone.  For all it accomplishes we may as well kick the dog.

No seriously aspiring public servant wants to be treated like this.  Therefore the folks who run for election are those who find compensation for all the mud slinging in the seeking of personal power.  This is why prominent economist Friedrich Hayek claimed, “Only scoundrels seek public office.”

THE PUBLIC-SPIRITED FEELING: We have described how Washington works when career politicians and bureaucrats are running the show.  Let’s dream up a democratic scenario that has no place for the career politician, and contrast it with what we saw above.

A person is a success according to his/her definition.  This definition is far from uniform, although in the American culture money often plays a prominent part.

It need not.  Someone who is far from wealthy may develop an urge for public service.  If his/her ideas are good enough and he can sell them to people and organizations he will recruit sponsors to help him realize his ambitions.  Pocket Gofer 13 describes the potential power of ideas.

Enter the public-spirited citizen.  He/she would make few promises, especially ones that he knows he cannot keep.  This presents a smaller target for the mudslingers.

He would state his position on as many issues as the people desire.  But he would retain an open mind.  Whenever he heard the loud bark of someone complaining he would invite the caller to suggest something better.

This invitation would stop around 95 percent right there.  These are the bitchers.

The remaining 5 percent would have thought about the issue and developed some organized thinking on it.  These are the constructive critics.  A public-spirited citizen would have time to listen to these concerned and thinking dissenters.

He/she would take time to listen.  He would know that if he did not he would quickly be replaced by someone who would.

A well-cultivated habit of listening would quickly improve on that 5 percent.  Every public-spirited citizen in public office would hold dear a slogan: “A closed mouth gathers no foot.”

He may debate issues with them, and in this way his thinking might change.  This is the way to progress; no more gridlock.  See PG20.

When we think about it we realize that even with a bit of effort an idea is far easier to understand than a person.  We know of couples married for 30 years or more where partners still have difficulty in truly understanding one another.

An idea can change for the better far more easily than can a person.  We should let ideas guide our behavior rather than personalities that we cannot hope to understand, especially those that don’t exist in the real world (Pocket Gofer 13).

A public-spirited citizen would not be a hero, nor would he/she aspire to hero status or wealth.  Aspiring heroes would become stars in sports or other forms of entertainment.  Seekers of wealth would enter the private sector, where accumulation of wealth is the result of hard and smart work (and often some degree of luck).

Stephen Carter’s Integrity comes to mind.  But alert citizens and shareholders would pounce on anyone entrusted with their money who bends principle before temptation.

Some wise one once said, “That society which routes its best and brightest young people into the public sector, which spends wealth, and not into the private sector, which creates wealth, will not last very long as a viable society.”

A public-spirited citizen would be only moderately intelligent.  The more important traits would be dedication and a strong desire to serve, to make a contribution (Pocket Gofer 6).  The job of understanding and carrying out the public will on any issue does not require an intellectual giant.

The elites in Washington and in state governments would have us peasants believe that today’s political issues are so complex as to defy our understanding.  Therefore we are advised to leave these vital matters to them.  They will look out for our interests.

The kicker is that human nature has every one of us tending to look out for number one.  A public-spirited citizen who does not function next to a mountain of money but rather beneath the news-media-enhanced glare of concerned citizens can suppress this tendency.  A career politician cannot.

Also, we’re smarter than that.  If an issue is put to us in ordinary English we can understand it, discuss it, and state our preference.

REAL PUBLIC SERVICE: With this type of person public service would be public service, not self service.  There would be no need for megabucks to pay campaign staffs, spin doctors, and media expenses.

There would be no need for special interest lobbyists steering truckloads of money.  There would be no need for political parties collecting money and staging media circuses masquerading as political conventions.

Because political power would be in WE THE PEOPLE and in our ideas.  Our active participation in government would guide our servant’s actions.  He/she would be our servant in fact, not in fiction as it is today.  Ben Franklin argued that when a dedicated public official leaves public service he/she undergoes “a step upward.”

It was this type of citizen who in 1787 responded to the call to work together with others of like mind on the Constitution of the United States of America.  There were 55 men involved, representing 12 of the 13 states in the new union.

As travel was difficult in those days, there never was a time when all 55 were together in one place.  But all made contributions to the final document.  None was a career politician.

A lot of us don’t appreciate the magnitude of their achievement.  The Constitution is by far the longest-standing written document guiding national governments in history that is still in effect.

Each of those 55 men sacrificed much in order to shape this land into a potentially great country.  However, the document is not perfect.

A true agent of the people would not feel a need to be re-elected time and again.  There would be no huge pile of money and personal power corrupting his/her decisions.  The prevalent feeling would be that of doing things for people instead of for himself and to the people.

This is politics as it should be in a democracy.  It is far from the sleazy business that it has become in our country.

SOMETHING OF VALUE IN THIS

We have concluded that no government, — kingdom, dictatorship, socialist government or democracy — can be all things to all citizens.  Therefore the big push for improvement must come from somewhere else.

This means the primary responsibility for our betterment lies within us.  The enemy is us.  If we want it badly enough we must get off our duffs.  We must get our rears in gear.  Don’t trust Washington to do this vitally important job.

This is the meaning of equal opportunity and individual initiative.  This is what those 55 men back in 1787 were about when they put the big one together.

This is what they wanted for us: “— for us and our posterity,” as they put it.  We, our children and generations to come are the “posterity.”

If we accept responsibility for creating good government we would take the ball from our forefathers and run with it.  How close we come to establishing and operating a constitutional democracy is up to each of us, individually.

If we buy this argument we will take along a shovel and broom when we go to Washington and to state governments.  The present system has had 75 years to dig in.

Because BIG GOVERNMENT + SPECIAL INTEREST POLITICS = GRIDLOCK.  The career politician gets tugged in so many different directions at once that he/she quickly becomes fragmented and ineffective from our viewpoint as citizens.

SMALL GOVERNMENT – SPECIAL INTERESTS = GOOD GOVERNMENT.  See Pocket Gofer 15.  This may not do the whole job, but we think it would be a damn good start.

The new public-spirited citizen coming to Washington will not find everyone working the system for personal gain.  He/she will not find an all- pervasive “What’s in it for me?” mentality.

On the contrary, he would find a Washington immersed in a “What can I contribute?” mentality, if there be a majority of public-spirited citizens already in place and serving.  Pocket Gofer 6 elaborates.

But Washington is not about to put such people in place.  The personal power and money are far too good as is.  No elitist is about to derail the gravy train.

The insiders don’t know it yet, but through their self-serving actions they are indirectly handing the ball to us.  We think the timing is good; folks are really steamed.  So we’re going to run with it.

CONCLUSION

The 2010 election is history and the republicans and their tea party sidekicks are settling in.  We are starting to wonder if Thomas Paine’s warning “While they appear to quarrel they agree to plunder” still holds true.

We may be entering an era where two dogs are fighting over one bone while a third dog makes off with the prize.  There may be a duel at sunrise which will, hopefully, destroy both parties and open the field for some seriously new and constructive thinking.  Democracy is always a work-in-progress, building better government.

Friends, the third dog we have in mind is us.  We have the opportunity to redefine the bone/prize: public service under democracy instead of self-service under a top-down and deceptive govt.

Only 13% of citizens approve of the job Congress is doing.  Members of the House of Representatives apparently don’t care, as they recently increased their own salaries to $162,100 plus around $50,000 in perks.

The same percentage came from a survey by Ipsos MORI in 10/2010.  It asked whether politicians can be trusted to tell the truth.  Judges were trusted by 80 percent.

But over some 40 years we have observed the supreme court making laws when that is not in its job description.  The court should obey the Constitution and remain free of politics.

So, whom can we trust?  Publius II’s hand just shot up: How about the citizens?

It is interesting to note that the 27th and last amendment to the Constitution was ratified in May 1992: NO LAW, VARYING THE COMPENSATION FOR THE SERVICES OF SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES, SHALL TAKE EFFECT, UNTIL AN ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL HAVE INTERVENED.

It is also interesting to note that this amendment was originally proposed on September 25, 1789 along with those that became the Bill of Rights.  It was not ratified then, and apparently no one saw fit to push it until University of Texas student Gregory Watson initiated a letter writing campaign aimed at state legislatures in 1982.

Of course, in modern times career politicians find this amendment no problem whatever.  Waiting until the next election requires no sacrifice; nearly all will still be there to cash in.

The Economist (7/15/2006): “But Congress’s problems are more than a matter of a few bad apples.  There is something seriously wrong with the whole tree.

“The founders wanted Congress to be the first branch of government — the one organization that truly represented a vast and diverse country.  They also wanted it to exercise careful oversight over the executive branch.

“Would Mr. Bush have been able to get away with invading Iraq with such sketchy plans for reconstruction if congress had been doing its job?  And would the Department of Homeland Security have developed into such a disaster if congress had been more critical from the start?”

“Politicians have come close to making themselves obsolete in American life.  They’re below the radar screen, as far as many voters are concerned.  They are looked upon as charlatans, thieves, liars, and exploiters.  The most harmless of them are simply clowns.  To recall the Reagan ads, it really is ‘morning in America’ — we’ve awakened to the realization, at last, that we can’t stand career politicians.”

We have suggested a significant improvement on how Washington, DC and state governments operate today.  If a time warp brought back the man for whom Washington was named the poor man would flip his wig.

For several decades there have been 535 legislators and one person in charge of the executive branch of government, as there are now. But decades ago these people had an outlook and purpose which is far different from today.  That outlook was “What can I contribute?” and the purpose was public service.

Most of these people had previously made it in some other area of accomplishment.  They felt no compelling need to prove themselves by accumulating money, prestige, personal power or any combination.

They came to Washington with a desire to know what they could do to enable citizens to maximize their potential as each perceived this in his/her own unique way.  They realized that in order to guarantee citizens the freedom to do this the central government should address issues pertaining only to the nation as a whole and delegated to do so by citizens..

In 1774 the British political philosopher Edmund Burke said: “Parliament is not an assemblage of ‘ambassadors from different and hostile interests,’ its business is the national interest, not ‘local purposes’ or ‘local prejudices.’”

The vast majority of issues pertaining to their daily lives would be addressed in neighborhood meetings, where citizens lived and could personally follow up on all decisions. They would permit city, county, and state governments to handle issues as delegated by them to these respective levels.

We admit that it was not exactly this way.  But we provide these observations in order to contrast the mess we are struggling with now against the democratic process as outlined in the Constitution.

What are the appropriate national issues?  Foreign policy and diplomacy is one.  National defense is another (but see Pocket Gofers 12 and 18 on this one).  Helping states to coordinate their public actions would be another.

Other functions would probably include management of the money supply to permit economic growth while keeping inflation to a minimum, and immigration and naturalization of foreigners who can make a contribution to our economy.

None of these functions have any immediate impact on our daily lives.  When we get into this we may find that the only proper function of government is to help us citizens protect our basic human rights.  We can do the rest as individuals, as we are the only ones who know ourselves well enough to determine what is best to do for ourselves.

Even small government will cost something.  Therefore we will need to permit government to tax us, but we will bloody well have something to say about this issue.  And our elected public servants will bloody well really listen to us, or they are toast.

No master should need to take any guff from a servant.  However, they are not our slaves.  Each one volunteered to be a servant, because he/she wanted to help us help ourselves.

Because there is much to be said for competition (Pocket Gofers 1 and 8) many of the functions managed poorly today by government will be handed over to private sector companies and non-profit organizations.  Privatization will greatly help make government smaller.

We would like this, because we are taxpayers.  We would have met the enemy, but he would be us no longer.

We would be the bosses.  If we blow it, it would properly be on us.

FOR ALL ITS VIRTUES, DEMOCRACY DOES NOT RUN ITSELF.  Jefferson understood this: “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”

We would be able to understand relevant issues.  We would debate them.  We would be able to vote intelligently; there would be no clods slinging mud at other clods.

A public servant would stand or fall on these issues and his/her positions.  If he should fall the result could be just like in the private sector: pick up the pieces and have another go.

He would not get on the tube speechifying, telling each group of voters what they want to hear.  That’s what career politicians do.

There would be more listening than speaking.  God gave each of us two ears and just one mouth.  We believe He had a reason.

People like this would be unimpressed with titles, prestige, the ability to swing weight, connections with high potentates, and whom you know.  Rather, they would be much more impressed with what you know, and with how this knowledge can help them do a better job on behalf of their bosses —– us.

They therefore would want to learn from us.  They would enter office ready and willing to listen and read, as that is how everyone learns.  We had better have some good, well-organized ideas ready for discussion and debate.

These people would value ideas much more highly than personalities.  In fact they would believe that real power lies in ideas, and in people’s ability to identify good ideas and put them into practice. 

Because of this they would value constructive criticism.  They would actively seek this.  They would know that criticism has the ability to separate good ideas from poor ones, and to add muscle to good ones (Pocket Gofer 13).  They would know that good ideas help society to improve.

They would have acquired the self-discipline that is necessary to avoid getting ego-involved in their own ideas.  Therefore they could be open to others.

For good government we want an emphasis on merit.  We are convinced that we citizens can have this kind of government, and we can obtain it without violence.

In fact this would be not only the best way to accomplish this vital task on behalf of ourselves and our children.  It may be the only way.

Washington needs public-spirited citizens in public office.  Because we do.

—— PUBLIUS II

TITLES OF OTHER POCKET GOFERS WHICH WE CAN DIG INTO, DISCUSS, CRITICIZE, AND ACT ON:

PG 1 – ON HEALTH AND FITNESS IN THE USA

PG 2 – ON VOLUNTEERISM

PG 4 – ON THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH TO GETTING THINGS DONE

PG 5 – ON THE COMING OPEN SOCIETY

PG 6 – ON MAKING A CONTRIBUTION

PG 7 – ON CORRUPTION AND ACCOUNTABILITY

PG 8 – ON GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF BUSINESS AND THE PHANTOM

PG 9 – IT’S ALL IN THE FAMILY

PG 10 – ON EDUCATION IN THE U.S.A.

PG 11 – ON THE U.S. AS A WORLD CITIZEN

PG 12 – ON THE U.N. AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS

PG 13 – ON PERSONAL POWER AND IDEAS

PG 14 – ON RESPECT FOR TAXPAYERS’ MONEY

PG 15 – ON BIG, SMALL, AND GOOD GOVERNMENT

PG 16 – ON DEMOCRACY AND OUR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

PG 17 – ON LEADERSHIP IN A DEMOCRACY

PG 18 – ON WAR, WEAPONS, AND PEACE

PG 19 – ON THE GRAND DECEPTION

PG 20 – ON LIFE IN A DEMOCRATIC COMMUNITY

PG 21 – PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF A CONSTITUTION