Millennials, Government Spending, and Hopes

        "So what are millenials known, so far? Well, to start the obvious, we're fucked financially" Remember that time you were in middle school or high school and were introduced to the U.S. debt clock. Whether it was the total or per capita bullshit amount we owed as a nation, that amounting sum was somewhat beyond comprehension. I mean, this money is what paid through the wars the slaughtering of thousands. Sure, some of it had gone to foreign aid, domestic policy, this and that, but think of the more absurd expenses that take place in politics. That's what I hope to achieve with my final post for our PS300 course. 

       First let me point out some of the wilder 'loans' that government and political figures have together dispersed without hesitance: the ridiculous government employee bonuses, irresponsible tax cuts for corporate America, government sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac high risk mortgages, and particularly of interest to me, presidential campaign spending. The issue I have is not just a contemporary one. It has been growing since the end of the nineteenth century. The graph below taken from Forbes shows us that high budget spending is not atypical of the present. 

        Why am I picking out presidential spending among all the other? First, this topic of interest is not just a contemporary one. It has been escalating since end of the nineteenth century. That long ago, can't say I know a great deal about the spending of that time. My most vivid memory of a presidential election was one between Al Gore and George W. Bush. What I remember were the many promises made by Bush which were in fact never kept during his presidencies. More recently, I remembered Obama's campaign and his stance on privacy. I wanted to check on what the president's opinion was regarding NSA policy and particularly private surveillance. I came across what I thought be a contradiction to the president's original position, one that aimed to uphold the constitutional rights of privacy.

      It may just be me who thinks this, but I don't believe that private funding of presidential campaigns should be legal. It's the equivalent to pooling money (happens in Corporate America through the sales of consumer goods and services), and choosing which of the two dominant contenders they'll sponsor. This would be alright if the individual or group sales were aligned with the corporate view, but they're not. Only the public, meaning individual citizens, should be allowed to donate to U.S. presidential elections beyond the primaries. Corporate America has a goal, and it is certainly not the same as the rest of America. Lobbying is a big business and it has very little to do with making our lives any easier. Couldn't you imagine our own funding of presidential campaigns. Perhaps in lieu of making empty promises, candidates could potentially give back the funds in creative ways that bolster our communities and local economies? It's a nice a thought. Better than to think of the two billion dollars that was never to be seen again past donation time during the 2012 elections.