Ohio Democrats were roundly defeated in November’s election, because too many Democrats stayed home and simply didn’t vote. A new report from the University of Akron’s Bliss Institute of Applied Politics, “Mapping the Republican Sweep: the 2010 Election Results in Ohio,” shows that of registered Ohio voters, only 49.22% voted in the 2010 election. In the 2006 election, of registered Ohio voters 53.2% voted.

What killed Ohio Democrats is the fact that the decrease in voting from 2006 to 2010 was more severe in Democratic counties. The report notes,

There was, in general, less of a drop in voter turnout in the Republican-leaning western regions of the state as opposed to the Democratic- leaning eastern regions of the state. This indicates that Democratic-leaning counties had less-enthused voters compared to those counties that tend to lean Republican. It helps to explain why Democrats did so well in the 2006 state-wide contests and fared so poorly in the 2010 election.

Particularly important is the fact that young voters failed to vote. In 2008, of voters in the age group 18-29, 51% voted. And in this group 65% voted Democratic. But in 2010, of these young voters, only 20.4% voted.

From the report, "Mapping the Republican Sweep"

As an amazing turn of events unfolds — a Democratic president, with a congress with big Democratic majorities in each house, passing a huge giveaway to the most wealthy — we should take the time to be shocked. This tax agreement outcome is amazing because it is the opposite of what voters who elected Barrack Obama in 2008 would have ever predicted would happen. Let that sink in. The opposite. Amazing. (See what Robert Reich says: The New Tax Deal: Reaganomics Redux.)

Amazing outcomes are seldom accidental. It’s like watching the final moves of a chess game where the player with the weakest pieces and positions suddenly wins — you can’t help but wonder if the stronger player engineered the whole scenario.  What is unfolding in Washington, I’ve got to think, has been well planned and well choreographed for some time. I’ve got to think things in Washington are unfolding according to the wishes of the party in power — the Party of Money. I’ve always liked that speech Dennis Kucinich gave that ended:  “Wake up America.  Wake up America. Wake up America.”  (The video is posted below and is well worth watching.)

The following is from a post I noted over three years ago:  “The Money Party,” by Michael Collins as it appeared Scoop in September, 2007:

The Money Party is a small group of enterprises and individuals who have most of the money in this country. They use that money to make more money. Controlling who gets elected to public office is the key to more money for them and less for us. As 2008 approaches, The Money Party is working hard to maintain its perfect record.

It is not about Republicans versus Democrats. Right now, the Republicans do a better job taking money than the Democrats. But The Money Party is an equal opportunity employer. They have no permanent friends or enemies, just permanent interests. Democrats are as welcome as Republicans to this party. It’s all good when you’re on the take and the take is legal.

This is not a conspiracy theory. There are no secret societies or sinister operators. This party is up front and in your face. Just follow the money. One percent of Americans hold 33% of the nation’s wealth. The top 10% hold 72% of the total wealth. The bottom 40% of Americans control only 0.3% (three tenths of one percent). And that was before “pay day loans.”

The story is as old as civilization but the stakes have never been higher than they are right now.

In every campaign for major office, the party passes out money and buys candidates from both parties. Thanks to the candidates who get elected, this pay to play system remains perfectly legal. Those elected get luxury trips, sweet jobs for family members, and more campaign contributions for the next round of elections. What they do is perfectly legal even though it looks like bribery.

In return for contributions, the election winners come through by fixing the laws so that The Money Party cleans up. Lower taxes, highly favorable business regulations, laws that shield their businesses from real competition all start with the nonstop flow of Money Party funds. Cost is no object, because in the end it’s all paid for with our tax dollars.

The Money Party gets no-bid contracts as well as the ability to lay off their employees and dump their pension plans just about any time they want. It doesn’t get much better than that. It’s welfare for big money and survival of the fittest for the rest of us.

We are nothing to them.

When the White House and Congress ignore the health care crisis year after year, why be surprised? They’re not in office to serve you. The drug companies and hospitals had their bid in first.

When our public servants fail to get us out of Iraq, don’t take it personally. That will happen when The Money Party says so.

When citizens suffer and starve for days after a hurricane, we’re told they should have been better prepared. When levees and bridges collapse, it’s an act of God. But when the fat no-bid contracts show up, The Money Party takes it all.

Unreliable election systems, citizens excluded from the vote on the basis of race and class, and questionable results don’t matter as long as the right candidates get in. We pretend to vote, they pretend to get elected, but there’s no doubt who is in charge – The Money Party.

It’s nothing personal. The party is just doing its job. Why be surprised or disappointed? It’s been happening for centuries. The more some have, the more they want, the harder they fight to keep it. Spread some around so they can get even more. It’s a rigged game from top to bottom.

We let this happen. We can change it. The first step is to name it, and we just did.

The Irish fought for 800 years to win their independence from the world’s most powerful empire. Generations came and went before the goal even seemed possible. They never gave up.

Now it’s our turn.

The Money Party: The Essence of our Political Troubles
Michael Collins “Scoop” Independent News: Washington, D.C.

In response to a recent post concerning recommendations from economist Joseph Stiglitz, Rick wrote: “It should not be the policy of the United States government to reduce inequality. That is not an enumerated power.”

It is American democracy’s right and obligation to create laws and structures so that America will have the best chance of fulfilling its mission: “liberty and justice for all.”

But which comes first — liberty or justice?

For the development of American history, in my view, it would have been better if Patrick Henry would have emphasized justice, rather than liberty and  would have promulgated the idea:  “Give me justice or give me death.” Liberty has remained a driving force of American political thinking. But, when we start with the idea that justice must come first — that Justice Is A Prerequisite For Liberty — then we arrive at a philosophy of government, very different then the philosophy that starts with the idea that liberty comes first.

Although “liberty and justice for all” is our nation’s mission, we are far from realizing that ideal. The problem is, both liberty and justice cost money and in the U.S., a lot of people simply don’t have enough money. We have liberty to freely travel, for example, but, without money to pay for traveling expense, such liberty is irrelevant. We have liberty to enjoy good medical care, but it takes money to do so. We have liberty to seek justice within our legal system, but again, money is important to the whole process.

Since sufficient money is essential in order for an American citizen to enjoy “liberty and justice,” then a good question our democracy must ask and must answer is:  How should Our Society Be Best Organized So That All Citizens Have Access To Sufficient Money?

A reasonable goal is that government should be helpful, via its power to tax and make regulations, in creating a system where all citizens have a good chance of sufficient money to enjoy “liberty and justice.”  Yes, if the least economically successful among us are raised up, then inequality is reduced.  If the economic middle is strengthened then opportunities and goods previously only available to the wealthy become within reach of many more.  Inequality is reduced. If government can implement structure to create such a system, then, in a democracy, it would seem obligated to do so.

The motive for raising up the bottom or strengthening the middle does not come from class envy  and to suggest that those who seek a fair society are motivated by envy amounts to an ad hominem argument.  The motive is to make our society work to accomplish its mission:  “Liberty and justice for all.” The reduction of inequality is not the point, the reduction of inequality is a by-product of a better, a more successful, a more just society.

If a person holds to the principle that the U.S. government should not seek to advance policies that help to more evenly distribute wealth, then the most generous assumption is not that the person is indifferent to suffering or injustice, but, rather, that the person feels that the solution to inequality is through the market and through individual initiative. The second most generous assumption is that the person has irrational views — hatred of government, etc. — guided by an irrational belief system.

I recently bookmarked an article in the The American Prospect that said:

Just as serfs once accepted that their position was allotted to them by a divine order, today’s growing inequality in wealth is considered acceptable if it is the outcome decreed by the ideal, uncorrupted free market.Progressives must make it clear that they support the premise of fair compensation for the contributions of each individual, but dispute the notion that fairness is best achieved by an extreme laissez-faire version of capitalism.

I like the thought that the religion of the free market is used to justify the enslavement of the serfs of today just like religion was used to justify the enslavement of the serfs 500 years ago. Arguably, the irrational reverence shown to “the market” can be explained as evidence of indoctrination, the direct result of the relentless propaganda advanced by the oligarchy.

This religion of the free market advances the belief that given enough freedom, the market will produce a prosperous nation “with liberty and justice for all.” Regardless that this belief has been discredited by much evidence throughout history, it is interesting that millions, to their own disadvantage, continue to hold to this irrational belief as a matter of faith.

The founding fathers, I’m sure, would have been horrified to think that the provisions outlined in the 16th Amendment would ever be part of the constitution.  But the right of government to impose a system of progressive income taxation is now fully constitutional.  When Eisenhower was president the top income tax rate was 91%. Think of that.  After earning enough millions, for every additional million earned, in Eisenhower’s time the taxpayer kept $90,000 and handed $910,000 to the government.

It would be interesting to find congressional testimony that justified the imposition of such a confiscatory tax rate. I wonder if such testimony would reveal that the motive for such a radical tax policy was, in fact, driven by envy of the rich, rather than driven by a rational theory of how to create an economy where everyone is successful.

In conclusion, I agree “reducing inequality” is a poor guiding principle for public policy, and so I agree with the proposition — “The U.S. Government Should Not Advance Policies Aimed At Reducing Inequality.”

However, I support the proposition: The U.S. Government Should Advance Policies Aimed At Empowering “Liberty and Justice For All.” In other words, I support the idea that our government should advance policies whose purpose is  to increase income to all of its citizens so that every citizen can fully enjoy liberty and justice.  When successful, the by-product of these policies would be a reduction in inequality, but even if these policies were fully successful there would remain enormous differences in the wealth of individual citizens.