It's a good thing Kirsten Gillibrand isn't going to be the Democratic candidate for president in 2020 because this is pretty close to the stupidest idea anyone has ever proposed about anything.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., unveiled a plan on Wednesday to give every voter up to $600 in what she calls "Democracy Dollars" that they can donate to federal candidates for office.
In an exclusive interview with NBC News to discuss the roll out of her first major 2020 policy initiative, Gillibrand said her "Clean Elections Plan" would help reduce the influence of big money in politics.
"If you want to accomplish anything that the American people want us to accomplish — whether it's healthcare as a right, better public schools, better economy — you have to take on the greed and corruption that determine everything in Washington," she said.
Under Gillibrand's plan, every eligible voter could register for vouchers to donate up to $100 in a primary election and $100 in a general election each cycle, either all at once or in $10 increments to one or more candidates over time. Each participant would get a separate $200 pool for House, Senate and presidential contests for a total maximum donation of $600 for those federal offices.
There would be strings attached for both donors and candidates. The money could go only to elections in the donor's state, although they could be used for House candidates outside the voter's district.
Here's the deal, Kirstie. If you ever gave me $600, it would be a cold day in Hell before I wasted it on any politician and I don't care what their party is. I've got food to buy and bills to pay, the sort of stuff that people with actual lives deal with every single day.
But hey, you do you.
Moron.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., unveiled a plan on Wednesday to give every voter up to $600 in what she calls "Democracy Dollars" that they can donate to federal candidates for office.
In an exclusive interview with NBC News to discuss the roll out of her first major 2020 policy initiative, Gillibrand said her "Clean Elections Plan" would help reduce the influence of big money in politics.
Under Gillibrand's plan, every eligible voter could register for vouchers to donate up to $100 in a primary election and $100 in a general election each cycle, either all at once or in $10 increments to one or more candidates over time. Each participant would get a separate $200 pool for House, Senate and presidential contests for a total maximum donation of $600 for those federal offices.
There would be strings attached for both donors and candidates. The money could go only to elections in the donor's state, although they could be used for House candidates outside the voter's district.
Here's the deal, Kirstie. If you ever gave me $600, it would be a cold day in Hell before I wasted it on any politician and I don't care what their party is. I've got food to buy and bills to pay, the sort of stuff that people with actual lives deal with every single day.
But hey, you do you.
Moron.
9 comments:
Should have said so before, but welcome back! I again look forward to your thoughts daily...and you make a difference being here. All the best!
Just from the description of Gillibrand's idea, the potential for fraud and mismanagement is obvious. Plus, government money should never be used to promote anyone's candidacy. I always check "no" on the income tax form for the Presidential campaign slush fund -- which so far as I know, is dormant anyhow.
Does she think that money grows on trees? Obviously this would be tax dollars simply being "redistibuted" and the money would come from some new tax, or an increase in an existing tax.
Secondly, yes, possibilities for fraud and mismanagement would be rampant. What's to prevent someone from hitting the local Wal-Mart and buying that 55" TV with the money or the local liquor store (or "packie" as we say here in New England.)
Thanks, Anonymous. Just wanted someplace to vent since Twitter kicked me off.
Don't you ever get it into your head that this is a poor second to Twitter.
Spending $600 from the Gov't on a TV is fraudulent?
I've seen worse ideas.
Here's a suggestion. You send out the vouchers and give the recipient a choice. They can turn in the vouchers to the Treasury in return for a sum of money equal to a particular % of the sum of their federal income tax and Social Security tax payments the previous year (but not exceeding the face value of the voucher) or they can donate the vouchers to candidates they choose. The vast majority will send the vouchers back and take the cash. Only a single-digit proportion of the population are interested enough in electoral politics to contribute to campaigns.
Re: "If you want to accomplish anything that the American people want us to accomplish — whether it's healthcare as a right, better public schools, better economy -..."
Wake up Cupcake. We already have a better economy. Booming, in fact.
Secondly, we've been working on "better schools" for nearly as long as I can remember. Throwing money at school departments hasn't worked. Strengthening families, placing more emphasis on technical and trade-school education, and trying to restore some moral values might help, but, in the last analysis, you can't fix stupid.
They don't want better schools. They want more spending on schools. Timothy Noah during his years covering the education beat summarized the education establishment's agenda thus: no more interference from state legislatures, more federal money, and abolish standardized tests. Michelle Ker's offered many years later that the one thing that obsesses teachers' college faculty is 'the gap'. They don't care about schooling-in-general (though they may care about their own children). Democratic pols broker competing interests. Remember these are among the interests.
Post a Comment