The Center of the Universe

St Croix, United States Virgin Islands

MOSLER'S LAW: There is no financial crisis so deep that a sufficiently large tax cut or spending increase cannot deal with it.

Not all the candidates for Senate will be debating

Posted by WARREN MOSLER on September 22nd, 2010

Reads like McMahon and Blumenthal won’t attend if I’m included:

Not all the candidates for Senate will be debating

By David Collins
Publication: The Day

 
Now that a final schedule of televised debates for Connecticut’s Senate race seems to be coalescing, it is becoming clear to the two independent candidates on the ballot that they are not going to be included.

 
Warren Mosler, the exotic car manufacturer who petitioned his way onto the ballot as the candidate for the The Independent Party, sent out a cheery press release last week saying he had been accepted by the vetting committee of the League of Women Voters to be included in their Senate debates.

 
Alas, a spokesman for the group explained to me this week that it is having a hard time getting commitments from other candidates and a broadcast television partner.

 
So far, there are officially no televised League of Women Voters Senate debates for Mosler to be included in.

 
I suspect, from what I heard from the league, that the major party candidates, Democrat Richard Blumenthal and Republican Linda McMahon, would not want to participate in a debate in which they would share the stage with the two minority party candidates who are also on the ballot.

19 Responses to “Not all the candidates for Senate will be debating”

  1. Tom Hickey Says:

    “Exclusion” or “marginalization.” I’d say exclusion. This is not exclusive to politics, it happens in academia and even in science. The mainstream is very resistant to intruders. It takes a revolution to change an established paradigm, since those who are heavily invested in that paradigm defend their position to the last breath, even as the paradigm is breaking down all over the place. It’s a sinking ship.

    Reply

    beowulf Reply:

    That’s very strange. Both of the major party candidates have pollsters and strategists, you’d think one candidate would benefit (or is being told they’d benefit) from you being on stage.

    I guess both campaigns figure the less publicity you get, the less risk there is of you making them sound like Gilligan (or Ginger) to your Professor on economic issues.

    Reply

  2. Dave K Says:

    Sounds familiar, if you can’t beat a Mosler, get it(him) excluded from the competition.
    -Dave

    Reply

  3. rvm Says:

    I think the political election process should be changed in a way that the money factor, if not fully eliminated, is greatly diminished.
    Pure ideas only should be freely competing for the votes.
    Haven’t thought how this could be achieved yet.

    Reply

    Tom Hickey Reply:

    I have been saying for years that nothing will change substantially until we get the money out of politics and lock the revolving door. Those are the sine qua non of “change we can believe in.” Otherwise, there will be bills with fine sounding name and no teeth, and laws and regulations that are not enforced.

    How to do this? reminds me the story of the mice that were being severely oppressed by a cat. One of the mice came up with the brilliant idea of putting a bell on the cat. Then came the inevitable question from the rest of the mice, “Who is going to bell the cat?”

    Reply

    rvm Reply:

    Tom, seriously, have you thought of a way to do it?

    Reply

    Tom Hickey Reply:

    rvm, I think it may take a systemic breakdown like the Great Depression, and then the outcome could as easily be a Hitler or a Mussolini as an FDR.

    Ravi Batra sees such a breakdown coming, followed by a new golden age.

    The New Golden Age: The Coming Revolution Against Political Corruption and Economic Chaos.

    ESM Reply:

    “I think the political election process should be changed in a way that the money factor, if not fully eliminated, is greatly diminished.
    Pure ideas only should be freely competing for the votes.
    Haven’t thought how this could be achieved yet.”

    How about getting rid of ALL the campaign finance laws? Let anybody throw as much money into any race as they want. That would solve the problem lickety-split. And then rich guys like Warren could back somebody who had political skills and actually wanted to run for office instead of running himself.

    Here’s the theory behind the proposal:

    As the total amount of money spent on a race goes up, there is a diminished return to each dollar spent in terms of votes. Bloomberg’s last mayoral run was a perfect test case. I don’t think Bloomberg would have received even 2% more votes if he had doubled his campaign budget.

    So, if you get rid of all the restrictive laws, you would reach the saturation point very fast (probably at about $10MM for a congressional race). What the laws are currently doing is creating a situation where it takes $10-$100 of work to raise $1 in campaign funds. This truly makes each contest a race for money. Get rid of the finance laws, and it will only take $1 to raise a $1, we’ll hit saturation in every election, and it will be a fair fight from that point on.

    Reply

    Min Reply:

    ESM: “What the laws are currently doing is creating a situation where it takes $10-$100 of work to raise $1 in campaign funds. This truly makes each contest a race for money. Get rid of the finance laws, and it will only take $1 to raise a $1, we’ll hit saturation in every election, and it will be a fair fight from that point on.”

    So your point is that we already have a plutocracy, let’s make it a fair and efficient plutocracy?

    Reply

    ESM Reply:

    Well, that’s one way of putting it, although I don’t see why a plutocracy (where power accrues to wealth) is any worse than a system where power accrues to power, or power accrues to celebrity status, or power accrues to skill at demogoguery and puffery. At least everybody has a decent shot at becoming wealthy through skill and hard work.

    In any case, raising a few million dollars in the absence of campaign finance restrictions in order to make a credible run for Congress has got to be easier than getting the name recognition to get started in the first place. I doubt that Warren is polling above 1% in CT even though he has a successful blog and appears from time to time on financial news channels.

    Min Reply:

    ESM: “At least everybody has a decent shot at becoming wealthy through skill and hard work.”

    That’s the myth in the U. S., and it used to be the case for WASP males, I suppose. But now it seems that Europe is the Land of Opportunity, more so than the U. S. :(

  4. Winslow R. Says:

    We need new voices, but it seems we get old, recycled, broken paradigms.

    “Jack Lew, the new budget director — he held the same position under President Bill Clinton — is also emerging as a powerful voice, especially as the president puts more emphasis on cutting the federal deficit.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/business/22summers.html?_r=1&ref=sheryl_gay_stolberg

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Lew

    Reply

    Tom Hickey Reply:

    And it sounds like Obama is floating the idea of replacing Summers with a “well-respected corporate executive.”

    From the frying pan into the fire.

    Reply

  5. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Says:

    When you think of a way to repeal the First Amendment to the Constitution, you may be able to get money out of politics. Until then, Warren Mosler will have to find angels who will support his candidacy.

    Rather than futilely railing at how unfair it is for money to have so much influence in our lives, work within the system that has existed for thousands of years. Contact rich people and get them to spend Money for Mosler.

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    Reply

  6. Tom Hickey Says:

    Rather than futilely railing at how unfair it is for money to have so much influence in our lives, work within the system that has existed for thousands of years. Contact rich people and get them to spend Money for Mosler.

    Look at how well that worked for the Democrats. As soon as they started dissing Wall Street and the oligarchs and talking about allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse for the wealthy, big money switched its contributions to the GOP. This is a “pay to play” system. Just because the rich and powerful have always been in control does not mean that it is the way it has to be.

    The wealthy have not been in control of thousands of years. Its only been a couple of hundred years since capitalism replaced feudalism after feudalism degenerated into landowners in control instead of warriors (the British manor system, for example). There are essentially four classes. The intelligentsia (including the technocrats), the warriors, the acquisitors, and the workers. Power switches among them. Now the acquisitors are in control. That won’t last forever, as some erroneously think. History is cyclical, and what goes around comes around.

    Reply

  7. ESM Says:

    “As soon as they started dissing Wall Street and the oligarchs and talking about allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse for the wealthy, big money switched its contributions to the GOP.”

    You have the causality backwards. Big money switched to the GOP as soon as (and because) it became apparent that the GOP would win big. Big money anticipates and follows winners, just as it did in 2008. It is having no material effect on the outcome.

    Reply

    Tom Hickey Reply:

    I agree that there is that, but there is also the fact that the GOP said tax cuts regardless of deficit and no regulation under us, with a wink-wink toward privatizing SS, while the Dems were pushing back against the wealthy in order to hold their base. But in the end it is largely money that decided elections. Virtually no candidate can win without it. The TP would be nowhere without the billionaires like the Koch’s backing it, and it is the front men for the money, like Dick Armey, that are providing the organization.

    Reply

    Zanon Reply:

    Who is funding you Tom hockey?

    Reply

  8. rental contract Says:

    I think by excluding the candidates who have qualified their names in the ballot we are not giving the voters a choice.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>