Slashdot Mirror

isn't it time to start getting overtime?

Yes, but it's not likely, the big tech employers have given politicians a lot of money. Removing the exemption would not sit well with them, and they have their foot in the door in DC.

For the love of Jesus, let the consumers win for once.

Not going to happen. Time Warner, Cablevision, Comcast and all the others have already paid their bribes to the FCC monkeys' bosses, they're going to get results.

You're telling us essentially, that laws are created by public servants whose only interest is the public good, and that these public servants get their campaign funding from corporations whose only interest is making the USA or wherever a better place to live?

Like to explain to us how the DMCA or the bankruptcy bill or laws forbidding municipalities to build their own broadband services even where there is no interest by private companies are doing so fits your version of how and why law is made?

Do you think nobody here knows about campaign financing detabases like OpenSecrets where we can find out for ourselves who are buying our poiiticians? "The good of the public" is the least likely motivation for a law to be passed.

The public contempt for the legal profession exists because it is deserved, and the people in law who deserve most contempt are the people who make it. As for why most legislators are lawyers... in general, an election gives the voter the choice between lawyers for any statewide or Federal public office.

Just as in the Soviet Union, one could vote for the Communist of one's choice.

Will corporate bankruptcies be affected as well?

This 'reform' legislation is paid for credit card companies and other loan institutions. They want to squeeze every last penny out of consumers. Corporations are not the target, this targets chapter 7 bankruptcies (the type most often filed by individuals).

See the open secrets page for info on who's behind the legislation.

What you say may be true, but it's misleading by omission and largely irrelevant.

Microsoft gave money directly to Ashcroft's campaign, and of course he was the guy who ultimately decided not to bother going forward with anti-trust remedies after the company was convicted.

How much they give to Bush and Cheney and the Democrats is really beside the point.

No, politics, just a quick note:

Though the employees are heavily Democratic and the company itself contributes equally to both parties, Bill Gates himself is a staunch Republican.

Take a look: OpenSecrets.

Not only Republican but a clever one at that, he contributed to all the Republican parties in each battleground state.

In the last election cycle, computer companies gave money at the rate of 53/47 to Democrats over Republicans. Does that indicate a new conspiracy on the left wing that we should be worried about? source

There are numerous sites that report Microsoft donations were even more lopsided: they gave at the rate of 58/42 to Democrates. Where's the big stink being made by the "right wing"?

What is Microsoft extorting from the Democrats, hmm? Why aren't you complaining about that as well?

All politicians accept money from many sources, and most industries/companies donate pretty evenly to the major parties. Your obvious statement that one party is obviously doing favors for a particular company because of those donations, while the other party that got almost exactly the same amount of money isn't doing them favors, is unsupported by any facts that you've presented.

Not that the FEC cares about RedCat19's livejournal opinion on Senator Kerry, but what about sites like Eschaton which for a long time had tens of thousands of readers knowing the owner only as 'Atrios'? Duncan Black didn't reveal his real name because of his employment. Certainly many bloggers don't want their employers to be able to search their political (or any other) opinions. How could the FEC regulate internet political content without forcing people to reveal their true names? Would they add people's blogs to those searchable databases of political donors? (Guess we'd finally be able to find out what percentage of bloggers are unemployed.)...

"In the once upon a time days of the First Age of Magic, the prudent sorcerer regarded his own true name as his most valued possession but also the greatest threat to his continued good health, for--the stories go--once an enemy, even a weak unskilled enemy, learned the sorcerer's true name, then routine and widely known spells could destroy or enslave even the most powerful. As times passed, and we graduated to the Age of Reason and thence to the first and second industrial revolutions, such notions were discredited. Now it seems that the Wheel has turned full circle (even if there never really was a First Age) and we are back to worrying about true names again:" Vinge

Having a monopoly in my country does not help me at all. He buys politicians with his money:
Open Secrets
corp watch

Thank god though that monopolies are part of the Anglo American cultural heritage. Now while I'm trolling I can tell everyone that I can't help it cause being a jerk is part of my cultural heritage.

I suppose he might have solicited a donation from Comcast or XM or someone and been snubbed, and this could be retribution for that. It's a lot harder to call than the usual congressperson whoring themselves out, though. Maybe the groups providing the funding are just getting better at hiding their tracks...

and all I could find for Steve Jobs (Apple CEO) is one contribution in 2004. Cheap skate!

We already have such caps. It's at $2,000 per federal candidate right now. Of course, Bill Gates can afford to give that amount to a lot of different candidates, unlike your average mid-west farmer, but there's little the law can (or should) do about that.

But of course Bill Gates has all that money because of his leadership of 2 very large groups of people, Microsoft employees and (much larger) Microsoft customers. Mid-west farmers also have a lot of political clout on issues because they band together and speak through the voices of those evil, pernicious lobbyists that /.ers love to hate.

* (Note - the link to Bill Gates' campaign contributions also includes donations made by his father, who has the same name and is a retired attorney.)

We already have such caps. It's at $2,000 per federal candidate right now. Of course, Bill Gates can afford to give that amount to a lot of different candidates, unlike your average mid-west farmer, but there's little the law can (or should) do about that.

But of course Bill Gates has all that money because of his leadership of 2 very large groups of people, Microsoft employees and (much larger) Microsoft customers. Mid-west farmers also have a lot of political clout on issues because they band together and speak through the voices of those evil, pernicious lobbyists that /.ers love to hate.

* (Note - the link to Bill Gates' campaign contributions also includes donations made by his father, who has the same name and is a retired attorney.)

Thats why campaign contributions should only be able to be made by those legally able to vote. That would eliminate corporate donations, and if some CEO wanted to put up their own money, it would be more visible.

This already the case. When they say "Microsoft gave the republicans $XX million dollars" what they really mean is "Microsoft executives in sum gave the republicans $XX million dollars." It has been illegal for some time for a corporation to donate (directly financially) to a campaign. Only individuals ($2000 limit), the candidate themselves (no limit) or PACs ($5000 limit) can donate to a political campaign.

More specific info can be found at open secrets, as always.

Bush & Co. outspent Kerry by more than $40 million dollars. It took me 60 seconds to verify this.

OK but as I understand it the democrats had more campaign funding(George Soros, etc.) than the republicans, and they still lost!

Bush & Co. outspent Kerry by more than $40 million dollars. It took me 60 seconds to verify this.

I get the feeling that while the OP might like the concept of OSS (free as in speech and all that), he's just as interested in the actual benefits of OSS to end users as opposed to developers (meaning, free as in beer). While the OSS movement may (and hopefully will) benefit from the attention, I think the ideology here is to run a budget-friendly campaign, as the OP put it.

That said, here's what this guy's up against.

because the drug companies wouldnt lower prices. Although I would say that this would easily be overturned/outlawed by the bought and paid for Congress. Although if they were to take patents for drugs, whats to stop them for taking patents for everything else?

Its a shame that the states are doing what the federal govt. should be doing these days.

Go to opensecrets.org. Look for the politicians that have a high correlation between their campaign supporters and the legislation they promote. Don't vote for those fuckers anymore, and convince everyone you know not to. If scouring opensecrets takes too much time, just vote for politicians who refuse campaign contributions as part of their platform.

The latter is literally the only failsafe we have if we expect to be able to trust elected officials not to make decisions contrary to the interests of their constituents. The alternative is to keep an eye on opensecrets and determine who we can and cannot trust according to their performance record.

The information is there. Why do we continue to vote crooks into office? As we continue to do this, more crooks are attracted to public office because they believe they are wanted there. It's a self-perpetuating problem. End it with your knowledge of each candidate and your vote.

Only on Slashdot can someone have their facts wrong and be modded insightful.

So you voted for Nader? Because both the Republicans and Democrats got money from TV/Movies/Music. In 2002, the last election where soft money was allowed, it was $40M.

That's a nice lie you used to prove your point. Too bad the truth proves the opposite.

Another intersting issue is that the top winner of campaign financing was to http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.aspJohn Kerry and the Democrats The GOP tends to be for big business. And, interestingly enough, Microsft gives the most to democrats, not to the reubplicans (60% to 39%). And Bill Gates only gave, personally, $3892 to Federal Elections. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D00 0000115&Name=Microsoft+Corp
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOf Thou=0&txtName=gates&txtState=WA&txtZip=&txtEmploy =&txtCand=&txt2004=Y&Order=N

If your thinking of the 527 groups, the democrats are the winners there. http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527contribs.asp?cy cle=2004

For hard and softmoney organizations and people are limited to relatively the same amount in terms of who can give what and where.

Now, the greasing of the palms. Do you have evidence of this, other than campaign contributions? Frankly, from what I am seeing in this forum is that people are making unfounded acqusations that there is corruption without providing evidence. If Congresspeople are accepting bribes, then the FBI would be all over that.

Oh, yeah. Individuals give far more than companies give. So back up your asserations.

Another intersting issue is that the top winner of campaign financing was to http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.aspJohn Kerry and the Democrats The GOP tends to be for big business. And, interestingly enough, Microsft gives the most to democrats, not to the reubplicans (60% to 39%). And Bill Gates only gave, personally, $3892 to Federal Elections. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D00 0000115&Name=Microsoft+Corp
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOf Thou=0&txtName=gates&txtState=WA&txtZip=&txtEmploy =&txtCand=&txt2004=Y&Order=N

If your thinking of the 527 groups, the democrats are the winners there. http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527contribs.asp?cy cle=2004

For hard and softmoney organizations and people are limited to relatively the same amount in terms of who can give what and where.

Now, the greasing of the palms. Do you have evidence of this, other than campaign contributions? Frankly, from what I am seeing in this forum is that people are making unfounded acqusations that there is corruption without providing evidence. If Congresspeople are accepting bribes, then the FBI would be all over that.

Oh, yeah. Individuals give far more than companies give. So back up your asserations.

Another intersting issue is that the top winner of campaign financing was to http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.aspJohn Kerry and the Democrats The GOP tends to be for big business. And, interestingly enough, Microsft gives the most to democrats, not to the reubplicans (60% to 39%). And Bill Gates only gave, personally, $3892 to Federal Elections. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D00 0000115&Name=Microsoft+Corp
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOf Thou=0&txtName=gates&txtState=WA&txtZip=&txtEmploy =&txtCand=&txt2004=Y&Order=N

If your thinking of the 527 groups, the democrats are the winners there. http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527contribs.asp?cy cle=2004

For hard and softmoney organizations and people are limited to relatively the same amount in terms of who can give what and where.

Now, the greasing of the palms. Do you have evidence of this, other than campaign contributions? Frankly, from what I am seeing in this forum is that people are making unfounded acqusations that there is corruption without providing evidence. If Congresspeople are accepting bribes, then the FBI would be all over that.

Oh, yeah. Individuals give far more than companies give. So back up your asserations.

Another intersting issue is that the top winner of campaign financing was to http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.aspJohn Kerry and the Democrats The GOP tends to be for big business. And, interestingly enough, Microsft gives the most to democrats, not to the reubplicans (60% to 39%). And Bill Gates only gave, personally, $3892 to Federal Elections. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D00 0000115&Name=Microsoft+Corp
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOf Thou=0&txtName=gates&txtState=WA&txtZip=&txtEmploy =&txtCand=&txt2004=Y&Order=N

If your thinking of the 527 groups, the democrats are the winners there. http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527contribs.asp?cy cle=2004

For hard and softmoney organizations and people are limited to relatively the same amount in terms of who can give what and where.

Now, the greasing of the palms. Do you have evidence of this, other than campaign contributions? Frankly, from what I am seeing in this forum is that people are making unfounded acqusations that there is corruption without providing evidence. If Congresspeople are accepting bribes, then the FBI would be all over that.

Oh, yeah. Individuals give far more than companies give. So back up your asserations.

Another intersting issue is that the top winner of campaign financing was to http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.aspJohn Kerry and the Democrats The GOP tends to be for big business. And, interestingly enough, Microsft gives the most to democrats, not to the reubplicans (60% to 39%). And Bill Gates only gave, personally, $3892 to Federal Elections. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D00 0000115&Name=Microsoft+Corp
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOf Thou=0&txtName=gates&txtState=WA&txtZip=&txtEmploy =&txtCand=&txt2004=Y&Order=N

If your thinking of the 527 groups, the democrats are the winners there. http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527contribs.asp?cy cle=2004

For hard and softmoney organizations and people are limited to relatively the same amount in terms of who can give what and where.

Now, the greasing of the palms. Do you have evidence of this, other than campaign contributions? Frankly, from what I am seeing in this forum is that people are making unfounded acqusations that there is corruption without providing evidence. If Congresspeople are accepting bribes, then the FBI would be all over that.

Oh, yeah. Individuals give far more than companies give. So back up your asserations.

Let's see, the current Social Security 'deficit' is $1.8 trillion--all tied up in US Treasury Bonds. Now, I've owned bonds and I can tell you that, printed right on them is the phrase, "backed by the full faith and credit of the United States." Interestingly, I don't own bonds any more because their rate of return was too low. They are, however, regarded as one of the safest investments anywhere.

Digging a little deeper, I see that just over $7 billion in Bonds are in circulation right now. In fact, smilin' George Bush has most of his own money in bonds.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I just want to believe that the old US of A is good for it...

Why do slashdoters assume corporations are run by conservatives?

Ted Tunner is not conservative by any measure. If you say well Ted is no longer in charge, then look at their political donations

Now let's also look at Disney/ABC political donations

Then CBS, risked there reputation with bogus documents against the white house.

NBC is owned by GE. They seem to be on the fence thier political donations

So can you show me real proof that the media are shilling for conservative corporations?

Why do slashdoters assume corporations are run by conservatives?

Ted Tunner is not conservative by any measure. If you say well Ted is no longer in charge, then look at their political donations

Now let's also look at Disney/ABC political donations

Then CBS, risked there reputation with bogus documents against the white house.

NBC is owned by GE. They seem to be on the fence thier political donations

So can you show me real proof that the media are shilling for conservative corporations?

Why do slashdoters assume corporations are run by conservatives?

Ted Tunner is not conservative by any measure. If you say well Ted is no longer in charge, then look at their political donations

Now let's also look at Disney/ABC political donations

Then CBS, risked there reputation with bogus documents against the white house.

NBC is owned by GE. They seem to be on the fence thier political donations

So can you show me real proof that the media are shilling for conservative corporations?

I suppose that lawyers are some kind of new predator on the food chain that's just a part of life now?

I think that you're right--without some serious reform, lawyers and lawsuits are going wreck democracy. But it will never change because lawyers/law firms are the largest contributors to political campaigns. I hate to be so cynical, but I think that the whole process has been compromised.

It's good to see that there are people out there who don't sit on their fortune, but do something good with it. Way to go Bill. (now please, stop making operating systems and port the other products to OS/X)

I guess you missed all the OpenSecrets.org links and Slashdot articles about how heavily the media industry supplements the campaigns of the Democrats. For example: Frtiz Hollings (D-Disney).

Software companies (esp. big ones like MS and IBM) donate down the line between the two parties so don't blame anti-piracy laws on any one party.

I'll bet you think tort reform, phone company monopolies, and poor U.S. education standards are the fault of Republicans too. Hell, even our bloated government bureaucracy is 69'ing the Democrats.

I guess you missed all the OpenSecrets.org links and Slashdot articles about how heavily the media industry supplements the campaigns of the Democrats. For example: Frtiz Hollings (D-Disney).

Software companies (esp. big ones like MS and IBM) donate down the line between the two parties so don't blame anti-piracy laws on any one party.

I'll bet you think tort reform, phone company monopolies, and poor U.S. education standards are the fault of Republicans too. Hell, even our bloated government bureaucracy is 69'ing the Democrats.

I guess you missed all the OpenSecrets.org links and Slashdot articles about how heavily the media industry supplements the campaigns of the Democrats. For example: Frtiz Hollings (D-Disney).

Software companies (esp. big ones like MS and IBM) donate down the line between the two parties so don't blame anti-piracy laws on any one party.

I'll bet you think tort reform, phone company monopolies, and poor U.S. education standards are the fault of Republicans too. Hell, even our bloated government bureaucracy is 69'ing the Democrats.

I guess you missed all the OpenSecrets.org links and Slashdot articles about how heavily the media industry supplements the campaigns of the Democrats. For example: Frtiz Hollings (D-Disney).

Software companies (esp. big ones like MS and IBM) donate down the line between the two parties so don't blame anti-piracy laws on any one party.

I'll bet you think tort reform, phone company monopolies, and poor U.S. education standards are the fault of Republicans too. Hell, even our bloated government bureaucracy is 69'ing the Democrats.

Except for the fact that Hollywood donates twice as much to democrats, you pegged that one pretty well.

There are asswipes from both sides of the aisle, at least those of us on the right recognize that fact.

Open Secrets publishes a lot of interesting info on how various corporation's employees and officers use money to influence the political process. You can go there and tell who they are donating too. What needs to be done is correlate that data with stuff like the ratings of groups like Better Immigration. There are a lot of congressional ratings-what we need to figure out is what are the kinds of voting behavior that really elicit funds from various corporate interests.

Well, sort of. They have been borrowing it. The SS surplus is (by law i believe) invested in Treasury Notes. T-bills being on of the *safest* investments in the economic universe (if the US Gov't stops paying out on those, then you can rest assured we are in shit deep enough that SS is irrelevant), and the same thing that individuals, other countries, investment firms, and even Bush himself (to the tune of *at least* $5,000,000) invests in. There is this myth that come 2013 or 2018 comes around, and some of those t-bills need to be cashed in, that the Gov't won't pay. This is just outrageous, and historically false (SS has cashed in the past many times).

There are going to be more people collecting from SS when the baby boomers retire than there will be contributing to it.

False. Totally false.

The ratio of payee to retiree will decline when the baby-boomers retire, which is exactly why SS was revamped to run a huge surplus until then.

Politicians bought votes in years past by adjusting the cost of living based on wage inflation, versus the previous (more reasonable) way of calculating it based on regular inflation.

Not really, it was a reasonable choice, not a pandering to old folks choice. Wages increase faster than inflation does. That is why the standard of living increases with each generation. You can (in general) live better than your parents did, who lived better than your grandparents. This is life in the US, and has been for a long time. Pensions (including SS) are meant to replace a fixed proportion of you income (for SS it's, on average, ~40%). If you peg SS to inflation, you are decreasing that as time goes on, so the older you get, the poorer you get relative to the rest of the population. And note, that SS has been indexing against wages since the beginning, this isn't a new bit of old-voter pork.

I don't agree with Bush on much, but I like his ideas for SS reform. It's a broken system. You can either start to fix it, or you can try to prop it up until it completely collapses.

You've apparently drunk the kool-aid.

It is *not* a broken system. There is no crisis. According to 1. the SSA trustees, and 2. Bush's own CBO report, SS can meet all of it's obligations until either 2042 (1), or 2050-something (2). Even then, with no changes whatsoever, the benefits will be reduced by only 25% for a relatively short number of years. Keep in mind, these are *conservative* (fiscally, not idealogically) projections for nearly 40 years down the road. Using slightly less pessimistic projections (the SSA uses 3 scenarios, and in the recent past, the most optimistic has been closest to reality), SS is good through 75 years (which is as far out as the projections are made). Calling a possible scenario that is 30 years away a crisis stretches the term to flat-out dishonesty (not that this is unusual for the Bush administration).

What people don't get is that bush's private accounts proposal is flat-out, no-bones-about-it intended to be a step on the path to ending SS. Even calling it the 'ownership society' belies the point. SS is intended to be a collective, universal program...it doesn't work any other way. When you convert it to individual "ownership," you are dismantling it. Period. If that is what people would actually prefer, that is one thing, but trying to claim that you are doing the exact opposite ("saving social security") is wrong, and offensive, and decidedly undemocratic.

-Ted

On the other hand the pro-"leave it as it is" crowd rarely mention the coming boom of retirees and the growth in the number of retirees combined with a shrinking work force. For example; if people live too 100 in stead of 80 because of better nutrition, care and medicine it could cause problem with much higher health care costs than previously though. And the existing solution fail to account for the the slackers that work far less than they could.

So I have come to the conclusion that something needs to be done with the system at a point. But, and there is this this big but, at the same time I don't think the proposed solution is a good one. It seems to create far more problems than it solves. It is basically a free market solution with an add on to solve some of the problems with the people allready "inside" the existing soulution. Since they need to be covered in the future even if their children ("we under 30") stops funding them, Mr Bush needs to visit the bank and borrow an awful lot of money. I don't remember the exact number but i belive it was around $3 Trillion.

Also the new system places a lot of faith on both the market as a mechanism to handle money effectly without waste and more importantly peoples ability to handle their own money on the market. Quite frankly I don't think people will be able to handle their pension. Even if they are forced to invest them somewhere under some program people will waste them on stupid funds, expensive stock and all sort of scams that will pop up. I have faith in Wall Streets ability to lobby the administrators that regulate this new solution but I also think that many folks will lose much or substantial parts of their investment. Just look at how many people today pay insane amounts on various fees and administartion costs on their index funds.
One might think that well that is those peoples problem and lets leave it to Darwin, but there is this problem about what all those partially broke people will do when they approach retirement. My guess is that all those retirees close to 40% of the population and maybe 50% of the voters will vote for a social security system anyway.

So allthough I belive that something needs to be done in the long term; I don't think Mr. Bush is the man to handle such a big reform. Of Bush 20 biggest contributors at least 15 of them, and all in the top 5, have serious finanial interests in this reform and I belive much of the money will eventually end up in their hands.

So as long as the system doesn't need to be changed now I see no reason to change it now with the risk of a failed reform.

Anyway; just my opinion.

Bush is clearly faning the flames of crisis to generate a windfall for his friends at the investment houses...

Generally the Republican party is very pro business.

This is a myth that does not hold up under scrutiny, yet some slashdotters continue to propegate it. Consider:

1. Generally the Fortune 500 is very balanced in donations to political parties.

2. The recording and film industry is exceptionally pro-Democratic (in donations and political support).

3. The richest businessmen in the US are strongly affiliated with the Democratic party, not the Republican party. Microsoft founder and chairman Bill Gates (who was called this week by former President Clinton in order to donate money per the tsunami disaster and embarress the Bush administration) has a growing relationship with predominant Democrats. Warren Buffet, chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, is a long-time established Democrat with great distain for Republicans and their pro-small business tax policy.

4. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) was supported by and signed into law by President Clinton. It was also sponsored by Republicans Boucher (VA), Doolittle (CA) and Barton (TX) and had very strong bipartison support.

5. Unions are businesses that are overwhelmingly pro-Democrat. Many industries lean overwhelmingly one way or the other due to lobbying efforts and recognition/support by the parties. So are powerful lobbying efforts such as the NRA, AARP, etc. In fact, about the only industries that are consistently pro-Republican and do not scatter donations to both parties are those that have been the target of Democratic looting (e.g. the fleecing of the healthcare industry by trial attorneys).

7. Nearly all trial attorneys, owners of much of the wealth in th US, are exclusively Democrats and have significant distain for the little guy. Think about all the class action settlements you've witnessed discussed on slashdot. While the trial attorneys receive tens of millions of dollars *each* in compensation (up to several billion dollars each as was experienced in tobacco class action settlements), the most the "little guy" consumer receives is a coupon for a discount off another purchase, or a few dollars with proof of purchase, etc. A recent Alltel class action settlement resulted in millions in cash being paid to the attorneys, while affected Alltel customers were provided with a $50 coupon off the purchase of a new Alltel phone (at list price, with an extension of their service contract for another service term). One was better off getting a regularly discounted phone at the electronics store rather than the settlement coupon offer.

8. Enron was greasing both parties (although the mainstream media portrays it as a "Republican scandel", prominant Democrats including Sen. Kerry were very closely affiliated with Enron). So was Worldcom, Global Crossing, etc. Marc Rich of Oil for Food scandel fame received a critically timed pardon from Pres. Clinton minutes before Clinton left office, freeing Rich from almost certain capture by Interpol authorities. Chinese businesses are notorious doners to the DNC and congressional Democrats.

Why does the "Republicans are pro-big business" myth continue to propegate? Primarily because it is effective in rallying members of large labor unions against the Republican party (by presenting a fictional advisary for them to hate in traditional Orwellian "5 minutes of hate" fashion). Those that actually believe the myth are referred to as useful fools by both parties. The reality is that businesses donate to whoever is effective in pursuing their objectives.

If you'd like to learn more about this myth, check out opensecrets.org which details donations by various demographics.

The federal government already auctions off spectrum in some cases-it used to just give it away. I see no reason why my taxes or yours should be higher so some fatcat can get cheap spectrum. Likewise, I see no reason why companies shouldn't pay the fair market value for the guest worker visas they want(and assume whatever risks are associated with having those workers in the US).

Secondly, there are no subsidies involved.

I suggest you take that up with Nobel prize winner economist Milton Friedman. Who told you it wasn't a subsidy?

According to the Labor Department, a company hiring an H1B is required to 1) determine the prevailing wage for the position, based on collective bargaining agreeements, government statistics, independent audit, etc; 2) determine the actual wage for the position, based on what the company pays people in the same or similar capacities with similar qualifications and experience; and 3) pay the H1B the higher of the two rates.

If you believe those regulations are enforcable-and that H-1b presence hasn't affected labor markets in the US, you are an absolute fool.

These foreign workers are already putting more tax money into the system than they're taking out.

Actually, recent immigration is associated with long term
economic deterioration.

As for your last point, H1Bs are not immigrants -- they are temporary workers.

The big reason for obtaining the H-1b visa is that it confers a 50% chance at a green card. If it weren't for that, the pool of workers interested in these programs would be much different-and smaller-and they would require fundamentally different compensation.

Once here they can pursue immigration, but that is not a given. Even if they do immigrate, we are talking about people who are highly educated, highly skilled, gainfully employed, productive and law-abiding members of our society -- exactly what every country in the world would like its citizens to be.

When I was at HP, a coworker that was attempting to get funding for a project was told by someone purporting to represent upper management that he could get him funding for his project on the condition that he agree only to hire H-1b workers from India. That simply isn't an example of "law abiding" citizens with whom I want to share a country.

I don't think
that "dilutes the value" of anyone's citizenship. Quite the contrary, I think it enriches our culture and makes all of us a little better off.

If you highly value local diversity, you may be better off. However, over 82 percent of the American public opposed expansion of that program. It took hundreds of missions of corporate donations to buy congress and override popular will. You are welcome to identify with that kind of process if you wish-but you should be aware of what you are doing here. I _can_ believe that 18% of the American public do have a value system by which they benefited here-but I'm clearly not in the 18%.

Problem with your argument is that, if that were the primary motivating force you'd expect the major drug companies to be backing the party in favor of stem cell research, namely the Democrats. Instead, their donations overwhelmingly favor the GOP. See this link for the numbers.

Thus it would seem that drug companies, those most likely to be doing all the patenting, have a great deal more profit to be made and suffering people to exploit by keeping us tied to technologies that require them to develop no new infrastructure.

Embryonic stem cells represent a unique track that holds new promice for medical science. The way all this works is a bit over my head... which is why I'm not a medical doctor. Nonetheless, I can tell you form personal experiance that embryonic stem cells hold promise for specific patients that adult stem cells can no longer help. I've seen children treated with embryonic stem cells successfully when nothing else would work.

So in California you have the distinct honor of going into debt to fund another health industry attempt to gather up some patents, yes. But you might save some lives in the process. It's not ideal, but nothing is.

Perhaps there is something to be said for public funding of political campaigns. Though it might sound expensive, it is important for the government to be responsive to all people.

Those who are interested can take a look at the following for starters:
Public Campaign -- A New Kind of Reform Politics
Public Campaign Action Fund
Campaign Finance Reform: The Issue
Money In Politics - Common Cause

Don't get your hopes up.

Deregulation isn't all it's cracked up to be.

I'm not sure that this is exactly what you are looking for, but you can start at OpenSecrets.org.

http://www.opensecrets.org/

Most large businesses give money to both parties. This link here shows what the "movie production" gave to the parties in the last 8 election cycles. It's almost 3 to 1 Democrat to Republican. I wouldnt say that the MPAA controls Bush.

Here is how H-1b visa expansion was bought.
Basically the major computer/internet corporations massively expanded their level of donations. The big expansions happened in 1998 and 2000--and the donors got good return on their congressional investments. Basically a bunch of congressmen sold their offices-and major media said nothing.