PostPoems Be Artistic. Be Creative. Be Inspired!

by Jeph Johnson 

When it comes to a social safety net (health care, welfare, unemployment insurance, pretty much anything that would benefit the poor) many Republicans and most Libertarians really do not want the government involved.  

They do however love what they call "the free market."

But the poor (by definition) do not have money to play in "free market" political games. 

How do we balance the playing field that so favors the rich?

Now keep in mind, I'm all for a free market dictating stuff that is frivolous, "sinful", regal, unimportant or excessive.  I like that the collective pocketbooks of the consumer put a stop to the Pet Rock after only one Christmas, and made a beloved talent like Leonard Cohen rich, but for some strange reason Libertarians want to kill this free market concept when it comes to our collective political desires. 

Oh I'm not saying politicians are not being bought by the highest bidder, that's exactly what's happening!   But it's not a true free market because money is not equally distributed among people.  Political ideas need to be a free market of people not a free market of money.  People are equally valuable. 

I'm not going so far as to say all people should be financially equal, there are undeserving deadbeats and heroic occupations that we place a priceless value upon.  In so far as what people accomplish in life those with talents should be treated better off.  

But that's still going to happen when corporate influence into politics is eliminated.

The money spent on influencing politics and public policies and essential programs should be focused on government programs and not squandered on politicians simply to get legislation passed.  Corporate monies should not have an influence in political policies.

Another Republican talking point I'm proud to admit to having would be defunding programs that are non-essential. Because things like art, the lottery, sex, sports, movies, ice cream, guns and muscle cars are all non-essentials, they will remain in the hands of a robust economy free to flourish under the auspices of free market capitalism.  

But the essential stuff everyone needs (basic food, shelter, health care etc.) let a retooled government deal with it.  

Not the inept government we have now, but one that's not corrupted by money and free from unnecessary pork.  Pork that seems to get added now because of lobbyists!

Of course artists, football players and ice cream vendors would continue to be well compensated in the free market of capitalism, and the big shots who own buildings and shopping malls can free up their money they'd otherwise be spending on lobbyists and compensate artists to beautify their properties, still pay giant contracts to their quarterbacks and strike it rich with each new frozen yogurt flavor.  

The poor would have their burdens of mandatory existence lifted so they could work not out of need but out of actually want.  This makes for much happier humans. They'd also occasionally have the opportunities to go get an ice cream cone, buy that fancy car or go to that football game.

The money that is currently being spent by a small handful of extremely wealthy individuals would indeed be redistributed.  

How is this a bad thing? 

These upper 1 or 2 percent have no concept of what is best for the common person. 

If the free market works so well, shouldn't the same "people's spending habits best dictate the success or failure of an industry" attitude apply to the will of the people?  

It starts by replacing "spending habits" with "votes."  Votes alone should be the only currency when dictating political policies, otherwise we are not allowing the free exercise of the people's will to be realized.  The "free market" of good ideas is ignored under the current system where only money calls the shots in politics. 

Lobbying should be allowed with ideas ONLY rather than monetary bribes.  

Any monies given to politicians outside of the salary their office allots them should be a crime punishable by death. Okay maybe that's a little harsh, but they should be ridiculed severely.  

Eliminate term limits and let them earn their keep through financial incentives.  Still allow a politician to get filthy rich, but this time by serving the will of the people!  You see, each term they are given a raise. 

Do good for the populace? We don't mind at all doubling your salary the next term.  Do poorly?  You're voted out AND we save a bit on our taxes because the new senator-elect is going to be making a "first term senator's" wage.  

I repeat, financial incentive would be based on HOW WELL POLITICIANS SERVE "WE THE PEOPLE" not based on how well they serve the corporations paying them...or the speaking fees lining their pockets etc.

I'm quite happy for my taxes to go to essential programs that help the masses and to pay politicians a handsome salary too since they, for once, would be doing the actual will of what the people want rather than the will of the highest corporate bidder (whose interests are generally not our interests).