Money, Money, Money

     Is it really all about money?
     Apparently so.
     Politicians – a lot of them, anyway – spend more time raising funds than governing.
     Money is the same as speech. Everyone knows that.
     Last week we were treated to news stories about the governor of Kansas getting a law passed that would defund courts if they overturn another law he likes.
     Money, money, money.
     Try to think of anything governmental or legal that doesn’t revolve around money.
     So why don’t we just admit that we’re a fundocracy, not a democracy, and simplify everything?
     Elected offices should go to whomever pays the most for them. In most cases this happens anyway, so why not have all those billions of dollars go directly into the Treasury instead of being wasted on bumper stickers and scandal investigators?
     You get the best fund raisers into office and solve the budget crisis at the same time.
     Some of you may be thinking this would give an unfair advantage to the fabulously wealthy 1 percent and disadvantage poor people.
     Nothing could be farther from the truth.
     Consider the numbers. Figures vary, but it’s been estimated that the top 1 percent in the United States own 40 percent of the nation’s wealth – so they’re not in control. The other 99 percent can gang up on them.
     And there are rich people – one or two at least – who side with poor people anyway.
     I know this is balanced out by the fact that poor people are less likely to want to part with money they need for necessities like food and HBO subscriptions, but they don’t have to give a lot. They’ve got numbers and they can give those donations to people who promise to get them more money.
     If rich people focus their spending on top jobs like the president, poor people can take control of Congress and cause gridlock.
     So it would be pretty much the same as what we’ve got now, but with a smaller deficit.
     Send some money to someone who will support this idea.
     Kansas Dream: This may already have played out in Kansas by the time you read this, but let’s have some fun supposing what might happen there.
     Let’s say the Kansas judges strike down the law the governor likes and their funding gets cut off.
     Do they just pack up and go home? Will Kansas be left without any courts?
     Or do they stay on the job pro bono?
     And what does the governor do then?
     My guess is that they’ll strike down the first law and then strike down the law defunding themselves.
     Then the governor will call out the militia and the courts will hold the governor in contempt and order bailiffs to bring him in, and innocent civilians will flee the state.
     Or maybe not.
     Civilians should consider fleeing the state anyway.
     Quote of the Week: This is from a story posted by a website called
     “In an exclusive conversation with Gossip Cop, Frederic Truskolaski, an owner of Oops and a defendant in the lawsuit, acknowledges that the magazine knew its ‘scoop’ was untrue. He says his staff read numerous stories ‘saying they were together,’ but noted ‘we didn’t know’ if Rihanna was pregnant, adding, ‘We thought she might be. We were not sure, of course.'”
     That’s how you make journalism a much easier profession.

%d bloggers like this: