The People Speak Out - Searching for America's Soul

.

Hillbilly Joe - Another Voice in the Wilderness

Every quadrennial the Colton's Point Times likes to leave our safe haven and find out what the real people out there think.  It always seems more timely when the interview takes place during a presidential election year.

This election we are doing a follow up interview with the most entertaining guest ever to appear in the CPT, Hillbilly Joe.  Hillbilly lives down here in the Yankee Confederate Demilitarized zone in Southern Maryland.

This place was torn during the Civil War being a member of the Union and more Southern than any Southern state of the Confederacy.  In fact Maryland, the Union state, was the most dangerous place on earth for President Abraham Lincoln.

That was about 147 years ago that it ended, or 375,585 days, 5 hours and thirty-seven seconds since the South surrendered and the world came to a premature end according to Hillbilly Joe.

It seems a lot has happened to Hillbilly Joe since our last interview.  First he had a music video with the bad boys John Galt and the Junk Yard Dogs.  Then the people "lost their wits" in Hillbilly's terms and elected that "Barak Obama" as president pretender.

That alone was enough to cause contemplated fleeing to another country but none could be found offering adequate immunity to Hillbilly's family and in particular their beloved "huntin' dawgs", Darrell, Darrell and Darrell of course.

Finally Hillbilly Joe put his foot down and a cloud of dust exploded from the seismic shock, and told his family he was not leaving Southern Maryland cause he wanted to keep his John Deere Dealer and nothing on this earth, preacher included, was as important as a competent John Deere Dealer.

Besides, that dealer gave him a bona fide John Deere hat.  You don't mess with John Deere loyalty in Hillbilly country.

I once asked Hillbilly what political party he joined and he said neither since they both supported the socialist government in Washington, which is only about 60 miles away.  To Hillbilly there is a simple choice between American or Socialist.

So what makes up an American to Hillbilly?

"Real Americans don't allow code enforcement by them bureaucraps," he shot back.  "Ain't nobody gonna tells us what we like, what we eat, or what we think.  And sure as hell no one gonna tell us how to build our homes or what to do with our toilet water.

So what do you think of the job Barack Obama did these last three years I asked?

"Whose he?" Hillbilly said though I think he might be pulling my leg.

"You know, our president," I replied.

"Oh that Obama.  Daddy says he's an alien, like those Avatars from Hollywood.  You know the ones?  Anyway, I think it's time he got a new job."

"So who would you vote for?" I asked.

"Not one of them thieves!" he bellowed, "I ain't even registered to vote and I can't because I might become one of them socialists."

"Either way we got another four years under a minority president and that sucks."

I reminded Hillbilly that Romney was White but Hillbilly said he was also Mormon and that made him minority.

"So what is the biggest problem facing America?" I asked.

"Damn diesel is too expensive for the John Deere.  It's killing us little people.  I tell you if that diesel gets over $5.00 a gallon the Deere people will stop mowing, stop weed cutting, and stop hauling junk to the dump!  We could see the renewal of the Civil War at $6.00 a gallon."

When I asked how the recession affected his life he lit up.

"Can't afford good steaks for the barbeque, got to cook burgers and chicken.  Walmart's been overrun by cheap China stuff.  And they sold Bud to foreigners.  Even the Bud frogs and Clydesdales are foreign owned.   Can you imagine that?

Can't even afford our big trucks anymore.  Now we faced critical decisions.  Do we drive the hog or eat fries and Big Macs?"

"Come to think of it, for the first time in my life as a bona fide bachelor, I had to start thinkun' about how much food my date ate so as I could afford her."

According to Hillbilly downsizing for a Hillbilly or Redneck is impossible.  Most of what they got filling the garage, basement, attic and front yard are priceless treasurers.

Take for example, the Bathtub Mary.  Now that is a shrine like no other.  Old Joe says it is Hillbilly landscaping.  Once the tub stops holding water you turn it into a shrine.  A form of ancient recycling. 

But most junk comes in the form of parts from something that broke, all the left over nails, screws and wood from projects that didn't get finished, and anything he came across that he did not recognize.  You see, if he didn't know what it was then he better hang on to it until he found out.

Hillbilly also went through a real relationship for a time, even attempting the concept of cohabitating for a while.  He thinks he might have been under some powerful kind of voodoo spell then because what else could make him move from the comforts of Hillbilly Heaven to the alien landscape of town.

Now Hillbilly lives in his parent's garage with his car and television which is quite a step up from our last interview before the 2008 election.  Back then he lived in a house trailer in his parents back yard until the giant Pine tree started dropping branches from about 100 feet onto the roof of the trailer.

With his corner condo in the garage he only needs to leave home to go to the bathroom or shower across the yard in his parents house.  As a culture Hillbilly's really have little regard for expensive working bathrooms when Mother Nature has always taken care of things.

Hillbilly left the comforts of home to try his hand at living with someone but a Hillbilly without family is like a Big Mac without meat.  In time he returned to his shed full of parts, skunks under the house, Bathtub Mary and mom's home cooking.

He did blame Obama for some of his recent suffering.  Since Obama started raising the price of diesel and gasoline he was forced to make an economic choice, to get rid of his Ford pick up or John Deere tractor to save money.

No way the Deere was going, I mean it was a true revenue generator bringing in tax free bucks mowing lawns.  So he traded in the Ford truck for a Chevrolet Sonic, a 40 mile per gallon car.

Hillbilly felt bad buying a car from Government Motors Company, GMC, when Ford was the only one to not take a bailout.  But his purchase of a Chev really hurt Hillbilly Joe's pop who was Ford lifer. Hillbilly might as well have become an Obama socialist.

As for the class warfare issue raised by the president, Hillbilly said it was stupid with a capital "D", everyone knows there are two classes, Hillbillies and Inferiors.

On the issue of food quality Hillbilly said people been gettin' sicker ever since the white coats started messing with the food chain and pumpin' drugs into our livestock.

War in Afghanistan?  Why are we fighting there when illegals are running all over our borders back here?  Bring the troops home.

According to Hillbilly Joe it seems we have provided so much protection to the doctors through insurance and government regulations with so many restrictions that they don't do any genuine healing for fear of setting a bad example.

Yet Hillbilly considers himself a true patriot unlike those socialists in DC.  Why isn't it obvious from the Confederate flag flying from the pole in the bzckyard, with the Don't Tread on Me flag below it, while living in the garage condo just a stone's throw from the nearest bathroom.

Okay, we heard enough for this election.  Can't wait for the next quadrennial.

.

Campaign 2012 - The Seven Cardinal Sins of Politics

.

Sins of the past, present & future

1.  Failing to do something about the national debt!

2.  Failing to cut government deficits!

3.  Failing to attack the unemployment and under-employment problem!

4.  Failing to adopt a national energy independence plan!

5.  Failing to stop unnecessary gas, prescription drug and food price increases!

6.  Failing to reduce medical and health insurance costs!

7.  Failing to improve relations with China and Russia!  [They can solve our problems with Iran, Syria, North Korea and the Middle East.]

.

America's Biggest Social Issue - Social Media - Facing the Facebook Psychology

.

When is a Social Issue a Social Issue?  When the media says so!

I've always been intrigued by the public perception of social issues.  What makes something a social issue in your eyes?  Why does a social issue become political?  Is it possible to ever solve a social Issue?

There are many social issues in America covering the entire spectrum of possibilities.  They range from child and female abuse to abortion, legalizing marijuana to poverty, gun control to contraceptives.

It is not often they come to the forefront of political campaigns but this year seems to be an exception.  The Republican primary and President Obama's White House have both raised social issues when they saw a political opportunity to exploit them, and that is rather common in politics.

How can social issues push the recession and economic recovery off the font pages?  Why are social issues dominating our national debate?  What makes health care reform more important than foreign aid or defense spending?

I believe it is the proliferation of social media like Facebook that drives the debate over social issues.  With social media everyone in American can comment on just about anything.  We no longer need to know what we are talking about or even back up what with say with facts.

Truth has been destroyed by unethical and predatory practices of the Internet masters who create all kinds of vehicles for expression but care less about the accuracy or validity of what is discussed.  These avenues of expression, free expression if you really want to buy the bull, are nothing more than ways to increase the ability of Internet service companies to bill clients for clicks.  I believe the driving force behind Internet use is greed, not good, profits, not progress and hits, clicks and cash.

Math & Methodology

But first of all let me qualify my interest.  Back during the Great Society days of President Lyndon Johnson I did some work for the US Census and the US Department of Labor.  Both dealt with statistical analysis and methodology.  Sound boring?  It wasn't.

At DOL I worked with the Bureau of Labor Statistics to develop a methodology for identifying high pockets of unemployment within urban areas.  We found an acceptable solution and the problem was solved.  At the time in the late 1960's this was a big social issue.

At the Census Bureau I was involved in computerizing the Address Coding Guide for Americans which collected the information needed on a national basis that could be converted to block by block data.  The ability to instantly sort data for 250 million people all the way down to a block by block level changed forever the way problems like poverty, unemployment, health and education were identified.

Political Polling

Later I worked in 32 political campaigns at the local (mayor and city council), state (both governors and state senators), and federal (presidential, senate and house races).  Working with all three levels of government gave me the opportunity to understand the inter-relationship and inter-dependence of each level from the executive branch, legislative branch and judiciary which exist at every level.

Beyond that, involvement in the campaign allowed me to play with more statistics as I then had access to polling information.  Once I got into the development of newer and more accurate ways to measure for political purposes I was in heaven.

It was amazing to measure how people reacted to polls, how to make the polls totally objective and representative of the diversity of the public, and how to interpret the results.  A real pollster does not try and confirm anything, but measures the true thoughts of the voter.

Over the decades social issues were almost always an integral element of the polling activity and measuring the true public feeling for an issue could help win elections, especially in limited geographic areas like Congressional Districts.

Through this experience it was always the intent of the polling to maintain absolute integrity over the results.  In other words, the intent of the poll was never to influence people but to understand people.

Focus groups, a key element of comprehensive polling and analysis, became a world of fascinating human reactions and emotions and led us into human response monitoring, an electrical monitoring method of verifying emotional response to any issue, word, phrase, image or color.

I offer this overview to show I've been aware and involved in polling and measuring public response to public issues, often social issues, for over four decades.

Becoming a Social Issue

I believe the point a concern becomes a "social issue" as defined by the media and political parties, is when there is sufficient public interest in any issue to create a reservoir of support for and against the issue.  In other words, when the interest becomes a "special" interest to those for and against something, you have a "social issue".

We searched for a "radical fringe", both for and against an issue, and when it was discovered suddenly the issue could cause polarization.  It was a science to predict the impact on the voting public of a politician taking a side for or against that issue.  There was much research exhausted to find this formula.

In the end you really couldn't, there were simply too many valid variables.  Many consultants tried to capitalize on their version of the truth but trying to manage reaction to social issues is a political time bomb and fraught with dangerous consequences.  There were always exceptions to a rule.

Ronald Reagan could take almost any side of any issue and people still supported him because they trusted him to look out for our overall good.  Reagan never wavered on his patriotism and never wavered on doing what was best for all Americans, not just those who agreed with him.  Few politicians have the trust of people, especially those from all political parties and independents.

Measuring the Importance of Social Issues

This changes from neighborhood to neighborhood, even block to block in some areas.  A strong local church can generate interest in issues that might otherwise never see the light of day.  Urban areas differ from suburbs, cities from farming areas.

In the end there are always two key considerations.  First, the person you represent, the politician you are trying to get or keep elected, better have a clear standing on the issue in the minds of the voters.  And second, if you open Pandora's Box by introducing the social issue to a campaign, you better make sure your opponent thinks the opposite so a clear distinction can be drawn.

Can the social issue ever be solved?

If the wounds of polarization and the emotional pain associated with it are an indication of the consequence of failing to resolve the issue then we better make it a priority.  We were put here to help and serve, not hate and kill.  There can be no higher purpose for mankind.

So we must get beyond the social issues that inspire anger and hatred.  In truth, many social issues have their grounding in religious belief and teachings.  Yet most social issues involve judgment, a function most religions agree is left to God in whatever form you recognize the Deity.

Government cannot legislate God's Law nor take God's place.  Free will, a gift to us from God in most religions, gives us a choice and makes judgment between God and us, not big government and us.  Freedom of religion must be protected, but religion cannot be legislated.

According to the King James Bible, Cambridge Edition, in Mark 12:17, "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him."

Well judging spiritual morality is God's work, not ours.

We must make the laws of man clear, concise and unmistakable in their intent.  But we must not usurp the laws of God.

Social issues, a liberal term for matters of religion, are compromised when they are codified into man's law.  When we try to legislate gay marriage, contraception, abortion and similar issues under our law there is conflict, disagreement and polarization.  There is the conflict between socialism which wants to controls religion and democracy which respects individual rights and freedom.

Man's law can accommodate both sides of most issues if used to achieve fairness and freedom for all.

For example, civil marriage need not specify sex, leave that to the participants.  But marriage in the church, any church, should conform to the dogma of that church.  If you don't agree with the civil law get married in the church where a marriage between man and woman can be required.

Contraception is similar.  The government can make it available but it cannot make it mandatory for those religions that oppose it.  Much is said about the Roman Catholic stand on contraception.  The church is opposed.  Yet many Catholics in America support the use in spite of the efforts of the Bishops to encourage church dogma.

In the end, that is a matter between the individual Catholic and God come Judgment Day.  The individual has the right to use free will and can decide either way.  If they are wrong on their decision, a just God will let them know and pass judgment.

What is the truth about contraceptive use in America?

Here is a recent report by the Guttmacher Institute that attempts to document contraceptive use.

Facts on Contraceptive Use in the United States

June 2010

WHO NEEDS CONTRACEPTIVES?

• There are 62 million U.S. women in their childbearing years (15–44).

 • Seven in 10 women of reproductive age (43 million women) are sexually active and do not want to become pregnant, but could become pregnant if they and their partners fail to use a contraceptive method.

• The typical U.S. woman wants only two children. To achieve this goal, she must use contraceptives for roughly three decades.

WHO USES CONTRACEPTIVES?

• Virtually all women (more than 99%) aged 15–44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method.

• Overall, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15–44 are currently using a method.

• Almost one-third (31%) of these 62 million women do not need a method because they are infertile; are pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant; have never had intercourse; or are not sexually active.

• Thus, only 7% of women aged 15–44 are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives.

• Among the 43 million fertile, sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant, 89% are practicing contraception.

WHICH METHODS DO WOMEN USE?

• Sixty-three percent of reproductive-age women who practice contraception use nonpermanent methods, including hormonal methods (such as the pill, patch, implant, injectable and vaginal ring), the IUD and condoms. The remaining women rely on female or male sterilization.

• Contraceptive choices vary markedly with age. For women younger than 30, the pill is the leading method. Among women aged 30 and older, more rely on sterilization.

• The pill and female sterilization have been the two leading contraceptive methods in the United States since 1982. However, sterilization is the most common method among black and Hispanic women, while white women mostly commonly choose the pill.

• Female sterilization is most commonly relied on by women who are aged 35 or older, women who are currently or have previously been married, women with two or more children, women below 150% of the federal poverty level and women with less than a college education.

• Half of all women aged 40–44 who practice contraception have been sterilized, and another 20% have a partner who has had a vasectomy.

• The pill is the method most widely used by women who are in their teens and 20s, women who are cohabiting, women with no children and women with at least a college degree.

• Some 6.2 million women rely on the male condom. Condom use is especially common among teens and women in their 20s, women with one or no children and women with at least a college education.

• Dual methods (most often the condom combined with another method) are used by 13.5% of contraceptive users. The proportions using more than one method are greatest among teenagers and never-married women.

TEEN CONTRACEPTIVE USE

• Teenagers (aged 15–19) who do not use a contraceptive at first sex are twice as likely to become teen mothers as are teenagers who use a method.

• Twenty-three percent of teenage women using contraceptives choose condoms as their primary method. Condom use is higher among women aged 20–24 and is lower among older and married women.

• Of the 2.9 million teenage women who use contraceptives, 54%—more than 1.5 million women—rely on the pill.

TRENDS IN CONTRACEPTIVE USE

• The proportion of women aged 15–44 currently using a contraceptive method increased from 56% in 1982 to 64% in 1995, and then declined slightly to 62% in 2002 and 2006–2008.

• Among all women, 7% were at risk of unwanted pregnancy but not using a method in 2006–2008, an increase from 5% in 1995.

• Among just those women who are sexually active and able to become pregnant but do not want to become pregnant, 11% are not using contraceptives. That number is much higher among teens aged 15–19 (19%) and lower among older women aged 40–44 (8%).

• The proportion of women using contraceptives who rely on condoms decreased between 1995 and 2006–2008 from 20% to 16%. However, use was still higher in 2006–2008 than it was in 1988.

• Between 1995 and 2002, the share of users relying on the pill increased slightly, from 27% to 31%, but it declined slightly, to 28%, in 2006–2008.

• In 2006–2008, 27% of contraceptive users relied on female sterilization, compared with 23% in 1982.[funded family planning clinic.

• The proportion of all users relying on the IUD has increased substantially, from less than 1% in 1995, to 2% in 2002, to 5.5% in 2006–2008.

Data Sources

• The information in this fact sheet is the most current available. All of the data are from research conducted by the Guttmacher Institute and the National Center for Health Statistics or from Contraceptive Technology.
• U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 2: annual estimates of the resident population by sex and selected age groups for the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008, no date, , accessed May 25, 2010.
• Mosher WD and Jones J, Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008, Vital and Health Statistics, 2010, Series 23, No. 29.
• The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Fulfilling the Promise: Public Policy and U.S. Family Planning Clinics, New York: AGI, 2000.
• Piccinino LJ and Mosher WD, Trends in contraceptive use in the United States: 1982–1995, Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 30(1):4–10 & 46.
• Frost JJ, Trends in US women’s use of sexual and reproductive health care services, 1995–2002, American Journal of Public Health, 2008, 98(10):1814–1817.
• Dailard C, Contraceptive coverage: a 10-year retrospective, Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, 2004, 7(2):6–9.
• Sonfield A et al., U.S. insurance coverage of contraceptives and the impact of contraceptive coverage mandates, 2002, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2004, 36(2):72–79.
• Guttmacher Institute, Insurance coverage contraceptives, State Policies In Brief (as of May 2010), 2010, , accessed May 25, 2010.

Go to Guttmacher Institute website for more information.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

.

Obamaville January 24 - The Millionaire's Club

.

With the President about to come on television and give his State of the Union address tonight I need to get a few thoughts on paper regarding the presidential c ampaign.

Last night we had the 18th out of what seems like 40-50 potential debates between the GOP candidates and if nothing else, it was quiet by comparison to the others.  What a change when the normally rowdy audience has to be quiet.  It was like March Madness without cheerleaders.  Eerie...

In the last 24 hours Gingrich released his contract with Fannie Mae and Romney released his taxes for two years.  Considering the massive hype by the media in demanding the information, most analysts had no clue how to analyze the information.  How could they, they didn't know anyone but Buffett could make that many millions a year.

It seems it took about 400 pages for the Romney taxes to get done under the existing tax laws and the jealously among liberal pundits was obvious.  After reviewing the material all day they are still distorting the information, twisting the facts and mangling the analysis.

Of course that is minor compared to the outright lies by Democratic spokespeople but lies have become institutionalized under the current Administration.  So let me just ask this because I think Obama is a nice guy but ill-prepared to be president, and that is after three years on the job.

Why is it nearly every single Obama economic policy staff member he brought into his Administration is gone, disappeared, silenced?  Why is it the only economic mouth piece for the president are political hacks from the campaign, and not an economist from the White House Council of Economic Advisors?  And why is a multi-zillionaire from Omaha the only economist the president mentions?

Now I like Buffett and I lived in Omaha but he doesn't work for the president, he seldom talks to the president, and even he must be wondering after three years what in the heck is the kid doing in the White House?

About the Romney return, he may not be Buffett but he is definitely the richest candidate for president since John F. Kennedy and I am delighted we finally have a candidate for president who can't be bought because he has all the money he needs.

Obama, the Democrats and even the Republicans have been talking about the need for tax reform.  So why has nothing been done for the last three years?  As I recall, Obama and the Democrats had veto proof majorities the first two years, and controlled the White House and Senate all three years.  So what is the problem?  Probably the same problem as the fact the Democratic controlled Senate has not passed a federal budget for over 1000 days, sheer lunacy in these trying times.

Romney paid about $3 million in taxes and gave $3 million in charitable contributions in 2010, and did about the same in 2011.  Like I said in an earlier article, he gave more to charity than all the other candidates and Obama combined.  Virtually all his income came from investments, was not earned income under tax laws, so it was taxed at 15%.  There is nothing in his return to raise any questions, only jealously from political and media pundits.

I would think the American dream would be for anyone to have been so successful in business that they make $21 million a year from investments, investments in many other companies in our country.  Still, the Democrats will condemn it.  For some reason "making it" in America is a bad thing.

As for Gingrich he may have more to explain than his super rich opponent.  Newt made well over $1 million with a consulting contract with Freddie Mac, the agency behind the collapse of the housing market.  While Freddie was driving more people into foreclosure than any time in our history to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in tax losses, Gingrich was walking away with over $1 million.

Now I agree with Obama on one thing, only the super rich can tell us how to fix the tax code.  Obama has Buffett and I have Romney.  The question we must ask is do you want someone outside the government making these monumental decisions like Buffett, or do you want someone in the presidency who has the knowledge and experience and works for the people of the United States?

.

Obamaville January 23, 2012

.

The Games People Play Now

What a week in America we just experienced.  NFL payoffs led to heart-stopping games and the New York Giants and New England Patriots in the Super Bowl.  With the bitter rivalries between teams and their location in two of the best media markets in the nation is should be a Super payoff for the teams, for the advertisers and for Indianapolis, host of the Super Bowl.

On the never ending political front Omaha continued raising millions of dollars in non-stop campaign events.  Here in the land of the free and home of democracy you could have dinner with the president for about $38,500 a ticket.

Not bad for economic stimulus.  You and your wife, or girl friend for some politicians, could go out to dinner with the president for just $77,000.  That means your tickets cost three times the average annual personal income and one and a half times the total annual household income of all Americans.

No indication of class warfare or political elitism in those numbers huh?  Are you ready to spend three years working to buy dinner for two with the president?

That is just part of the problem with politics in America.  It is not the politicians but the parties that are behind the illusion.  Or is it?

Only once in our history did we elect a president from NO political party, our founding father George Washington.  So what gave rise to the power of the Democratic and Republican parties?

Historically, the Democrats got their start in the 1830's and Republicans in the 1850's.  Both began as policy differences with those parties that did win elections.  The following were all legitimate parties, most of which elected presidents, in our early history.  One other thing they have in common is all are extinct.

Federalist Party
Democrat-Republican Party
National Republican Party
Anti-Masonic Party
Whig Party
Liberty Party
Free-Soil Party
The Know-Nothing Party
Greenback Party

Politics, however, entered the national scene by the 1796 when Washington decided he'd had enough of public service.  You should know, however, that the people who would make politics an American institution were all involved in the debates regarding who would succeed George.

In the middle was Alexander Hamilton, the 1st Treasury Secretary of the US under Washington.  Then there was John Adams, the Vice President under George who became  the second president after George.  Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State under George who lost to Adams in 1796 for president but beat Adams in his re-election campaign in 1800 becoming our third president.

Finally, Aaron Burr, former governor and senator from New York. who ran for president in 1800 against Jefferson but settled for vice president under Jefferson.  He might have become president in 1808 as well had he not challenged his bitter enemy Alexander Hamilton in a duel and killed him in 1804.  By the way, in 1800 Burr and Jefferson tied, both beating incumbent John Adams, as Hamilton now mastered the backroom deal and brokered the election in the House of Representatives.

So, we have always had political parties trying to manipulate our politics and elections.  However, until the 1900's there were many parties fighting it out and presidents from many of them.  What happened next, and please rest assured I know this is an over simplification but necessary to keep from losing the interest of readers, the states, who have always controlled the elections, began trying to manipulate the elections.

This was done so the states could protect themselves from special interests in Washington and probably started with the anti-slavery issue, then the economic issues like the gold standard.  As states watched the federal government get bigger and bigger as we went from 13 to 50 states, the power of the states slipped away.

With so many political parties controlling the policy agenda, the states wanted a stronger role.  So after the modern Democrat party was founded in the 1830's and modern Republican party in the 1850's, states tried to manipulate the election outcome through the use of primary elections and caucus's which remain in place to this day.  Both were efforts to allow the states to limit parties by increasing the complexity and cost of running for office.

Abraham Lincoln was the first and only third party candidate in our history to win the presidency as he led the four year old new Republican party to victory in 1860.  Ever since the two major parties have controlled the outcome through the caucus and primary strategies.  Though third party candidates like Ross Perot in 1992 and Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 most likely changed the election outcome by their presence.

So what is the conclusion in how to get America back from the political parties and fat cats who control or influence the parties?  Realistically, it won't happen.  It hasn't happened since the founding of our country and it may be integral in order for our style of limited democracy to succeed.

There are three powerful forces who can lose sight of the public good and use our political system for their own gain, power and greed.  First, those People with a lot of money.  Make no mistake, money and greed are a part of every political party and a temptation to every politic candidate.

Second the political parties who lust for power and control and do this by convincing various demographic, social, class and cultural groups that their particular party is good and the other is bad.  These two parties use every federal and state technique possible to make it impossible for third party candidates to succeed.

Finally, there are the politicians who do get corrupted by the system, the money People, or the political parties.  Now before you protest I know there are many politicians in both parties or Independents who are dedicated, honest and actually do try to serve the public good.  They haven't got a chance right now however.

I believe we don't need institutional change to make our system responsive, useful, and a lot more concerned about the American people than their own ideological followers.  In spite of our many problems we still have the most successful nation on earth and we remain the envy of most everyone.

We can strengthen our system and reduce the tremendous influence of Fat Cats and corruption, whether financial or moral, with two simple legislative initiatives that won't cost the government a penny to approve but could change the face of government forever and for the good.

First we need meaningful campaign finance laws which President Obama and our political parties refuse to address because it is the very corrupt system that got them in control and elected in the first place.  Second we need conflict of interest and ethics laws passed for our politicians that stop them from figuratively and literally getting in bed with special interests.

They will be the topic of future stories.
.