The Democratic Conflict of Interest

Scrutiny is often applied to drug manufacturing companies, because people question whether or not the drug companies could actually be curing the diseases that they are currently only helping to maintain. The scrutiny is rooted in the fact that if drug companies started curing every disease they would be much less needed, and that in turn cuts into the drug companies profits. It could very easily become (not to say in any way that it actually is) a conflict of interest. Yet rarely do people realize that this same conflict of interest exists in politics. The Democratic party has a conflict of interest with solving the issues it claims to champion.

The most prevalent example of this is the issue of income. Democratic politicians often put a lot of effort into appealing to lower class voters. They shout loudly about how their party will increase the amount of welfare that is handed out, and then talk about raising the minimum wage so that people can be “lifted out of poverty.” Consider this though; if the minimum wage raises and other democratic policies really did solve the problem of poverty, how long would it be before the people started voting more Republican to save themselves on taxes. For the Democratic party to have faith that every one they brought out of poverty (this being said under the hypothetical that all policies would work) would vote Democrat is an awfully large assumption. Possibly, it could be even better if more people were in poverty because it could mean a larger amount of people in to appeal to. In truth, it is much better for the leaders of the party if people remain in poverty, so that they can yell at Republicans and continue to talk about solving poverty.

The same conflict of interest resides with the issue of racism and sexism. This is another heavily talked about issue of the left, and one that would really be a harm to the Democratic party were it to go away. Think about how much time is spent on the issue by the left, and then consider how much of that time is spent attacking the right. More often then not, actual issues of racism are used to promote political agendas than they are to solve racial issues. If those issues were to never even have to spoken about again, the Democratic party would lose major talking points. So when you find yourself wondering about whether or not the Democratic party is helping to contribute to racial divides; it logically makes sense.

If people were inherently good this would not be a necessary topic of discussion. Yet if the average American knows anything about politics, they know that more often than not a politician cares more about getting re-elected than they care about the people they were elected by.




The Mighty Dollar

dollar1The Democratic party recently saw a movement among its voters, a movement that urged the adoption of socialistic policies. People said they supported the movement because business are taking advantage of consumers. They charge people too much money, or do not pay their employees enough. The solution of these people turned out to be tying to elect someone to pass laws that require business to uphold their views. Yet there is actually a simpler and more effective way.  Use the mighty dollar to influence the businesses!

The primary purpose behind any consumer driven industry such as a grocery store is to make money. The most famous of these would of course be Walmart. Many people complain that Walmart has taken away from Main Street America, and say the reason is because Walmart has cheaper prices than mom and pop stores can offer; however, these lower prices would be meaningless if nobody spent their money at Walmart. Returning Main Street to its former glory is as simple spending money appropriately.

The same goes for workers’ wages. If people start only spending their money at business that pay employees at higher than the required wages, an appropriate amount of businesses will adapt to meet the consumers need. This will require businesses to charge more and therefore the consumers to spend more, but that is the power of the dollar. No law can create a situation where businesses can pay their employees more money without finding the money somewhere, and that somewhere is most generally through raising prices.

Choosing how you spend your dollar can also effect how much you contribute to policies you disagree with, primarily taxes. The way a business is set up determines how much they pay in taxes. Large companies like apple are taxed on profits they make, then the money is taxed again when shareholders receive profits, and then the money is taxed again when it is spent. However, with a small business like a sole proprietorship or a Limited Liability Company (LLCs) the profits are only taxed as income to the business owners, which removes a level of taxation.

The lesson to be learned is this: the dollars that Americans spend have far more power than the votes that are cast, so act accordingly!

The Case for States’ Rights

Consider feeding 50 people at a restaurant versus doing so at home. At a restaurant everyone chooses individually which dish they would like to eat, generally from a select category, such as barbecue. There could be polar opposites in taste; for example one person might want pork, whereas another person might want brisket. All 50 people might want their own different dish. That is okay though because both can have what they want and the restaurant can flourish because no one is trying to order egg rolls. On the other hand if you try to feed all 50 people at home not everyone gets what they want because 50 it is unreasonable to make everyone their own dish. So instead there is a lot of compromise and fighting and in the end no one is truly happy. It is the same with laws in the United States.

To further explain the metaphor: Why is everyone so caught up having the same policies nationwide? Instead of the 50 people trying to be happy with dinner, there are 50 states that all want to have laws which represent them and their citizens. So if the federal government were to quit trying to make one policy set for all 50 states and instead let each state make their own, they could have 50 happy customers instead of none. As long as all of these customers stick to the same category (constitutional), everyone can be more satisfied.

Look for a moment at Texas. The majority of Texans are very big on interpreting the 2nd amendment as everyone should be allowed to carry their own gun. Californians on the other hand are vastly in support of an interpretation that only the state’s malitia (i.e. California National Guard) should be the ones with the guns. The Federal Government works to try to make a policy that makes both of these areas happy, yet neither will be happy until they completely have their way. So instead of one policy for both, each could have their own policy. Plus for the people who disagree with the majority of their state, there would be the option to move to a state more aligned with your views. As long as the constitution is not directly violated (i.e. no one can have guns) then both can be happy and the constitution is being upheld.

Additionally there is another case for states to make more of their own policies. If you look at the national congressmen, they all represent huge amounts of constituents and spend the majority of their time many miles from home. On the other hand, state congressman are never so far away from the constituents, of which there are less.

states-rightsConclusively: the federal government needs to take a step back and allow the states to make more of there own decisions. Each individual state can have policies that reflect its citizens exclusively, rather than an entire nation that might disagree.