Rand Paul Discusses Big Picture Ramifications From Current JoeBama Policy
Senator Rand Paul appears on Maria Bartiromo to discuss the ongoing ramification from current leftist policy as being produced on Capitol Hill. The interview begins with Senator Paul discussing the leftist definitions of ‘infrastructure’ and how left-wing groups are beneficiaries of trillions of taxpayer funds.
On the economic ramifications Senator Paul notes the impact of massive capital gains increases and how increasing corporate income taxes only provides incentives for national companies to establish themselves overseas to avoid tax liability. The multinational corps, those already positioned overseas, do not have the same risk exposure to corporate tax increases, thus they do not oppose legislation that hurts national business and small U.S. corporations.
Overall the points made by Rand Paul are all valid; however, those in DC still hold back from pointing out the intent of the JoeBama group – that’s frustrating. This game where incompetence is claimed under the guise of ‘benefit of doubt’ is a severe weakness within the GOP. The refusal to aggressively confront Obama 3.0 is beyond frustrating.
Anyone who believes Democrats own exclusive opposition to the America First principles are completely ignoring the deliberate construct of the republican party. There are just as many -if not more- natural enemies within the Republican apparatus as there are within the Democrat group. “America-First” is antithetical to the UniParty.
The frustration amid the MAGA community is valid. Everything about it is righteous. The mechanisms that run the system in DC must be deconstructed if we are to win the battles and the war against this massive enemy. We have the largest coalition of American patriots on our side; however, there are only a handful of representatives willing to confront with the needed ferocity.
Multinationals want control; some call that corporatism…. but the names are moot. Multinationals want control, and capitalism does not allow them control; that is why multinationals do not want capitalism. Multinationals use lobbyists to generate regulations that stall competition.
Multinationals do not want competition; they are, by nature of their interest, anti-capitalists.
This misunderstanding is everywhere.
Most people think when they vote for a federal politician -a House or Senate representative- they are voting for a person who will go to Washington DC and write or enact legislation. This is the old-fashioned “schoolhouse rock” perspective based on decades past.
There is not a single person in congress writing legislation or laws. In modern politics not a single member of the House of Representatives or Senator writes a law, or puts pen to paper to write out a legislative construct. This simply doesn’t happen.
Over the past several decades a system of constructing legislation has taken over Washington DC that more resembles a business operation than a legislative body.
The for-profit groups (mostly multinational corporations) have a purpose in Washington DC to shape policy, legislation and laws favorable to their interests. They have fully staffed offices just like any business would – only their ‘business‘ is getting legislation for their unique interests.
These groups are filled with highly-paid lawyers who represent the interests of the entity and actually write laws and legislation briefs.
In the modern era this is actually the origination of the laws that we eventually see passed by congress. Within the walls of these buildings within Washington DC is where the ‘sausage’ is actually made. Again, no elected official is usually part of this law origination process.
Almost all legislation created is not ‘high profile’, they are obscure changes to current laws, regulations or policies that no-one pays attention to. The passage of the general bills within legislation is not covered in media. Ninety-nine percent of legislative activity happens without anyone outside the system even paying any attention to it.
Once the corporation (multinational) or representative organizational entity has written the law they want to see passed – they hand it off to the lobbyists.
The lobbyists are people who have deep contacts within the political bodies of the legislative branch, usually former House/Senate staff or former House/Senate politicians themselves.
The lobbyist takes the written brief, the legislative construct, and it’s their job to go to congress and sell it. “Selling it” means finding politicians who will accept the brief, sponsor their bill and eventually get it to a vote and passage.
Corporations (special interest group) write the legislation. Lobbyists take the law and go find politician(s) to support it. Politicians get support from their peers using tenure and status etc. Eventually, if things go according to norm, the legislation gets a vote.
Within every step of the process there are expense account lunches, dinners, trips, venue tickets and a host of other customary financial way-points to generate/leverage a successful outcome. The amount of money spent is proportional to the benefit derived from the outcome.
The important part to remember is that the origination of the entire process is EXTERNAL to congress.
Congress does not write laws or legislation, special interest groups do. Lobbyists are paid, some very well paid, to get politicians to go along with the need of the legislative group. When a House or Senate member becomes educated on the intent of the legislation, they have attended the sales pitch; and when they find out the likelihood of support for that legislation; they can then position their own (or their families) financial interests to benefit from the consequence of passage. It is a process similar to insider trading on Wall Street, except the trading is based on knowing who will benefit from a legislative passage.
When we understand the business of DC, we understand the difference between legislation with a traditional purpose and modern legislation with a financial and political agenda.
If you know a better solution to this mess than repeal of the 17th amendment, I am all ears.
If, as the constitution outlined, the Senate were still a place where all legislation required a 2/3 majority for passage; and if, as the constitution outlined, the Senate were a body filled with representatives selected by State Houses instead of popular election – then perhaps Senators could not be purchased by multinational interests. Alas it is not.
Passage of the 17th amendment took away the very intentional roadblock of the Republican framework that Jefferson spoke of when he called it a saucer to cool the hot emotional tea of short-sighted legislation. The constitution outlined consent as “two-thirds” (66), which was progressively watered down to become “three-fifths” (60) as the majority rule; and substantively, as it now stands according to democrats objectives, one-half plus one (51).
We are on the precipice and the GOP operate as if the constitution burning can be restored if they just reach across the aisle more.
.
Post a Comment