Democracy Dollars

Democracy Dollars for Real Democracy

Modern political campaigns have become dominated by large donations from mega-donors like the Koch brothers and George Soros or large corporate interest driven political action committees and labor unions. Going where the money is has skewed the political agendas of both the left and right and eliminated the voices of everyday people politicians are supposedly elected to serve. 

Two Supreme Court decisions have enshrined these large, dark money donations into our constitutional landscape by making money into “protected” political speech. Those rulings probably will not be revisited, much less reversed, anytime soon. The challenge has become how to dilute the impact of the large donors by giving everyday working people something of value that can be solicited and won with a discussion about issue based platforms politicians run on and promise to enact.

Many working people now are disillusioned with politicians and the political process and believe their individual voices are not being heard by those beholden to large money donors. Many live paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford even a modest political contribution. Those feeling disenfranchised stay away from the polls, feeling their voices no longer matter. Younger voters tend to not even bother to register.

The city of Seattle may have found a solution. The city came up with “Democracy Dollars.” It is simple, elegant, scalable to national proportions and completely constitutional. 

Seattle collects property taxes, as do all municipalities. City leaders decided to add a small amount to each property tax bill, about $11 on a $500,000 home, to fund a voucher program that started initially with Seattle city council and city attorney races. Each registered voter was then given four $25 vouchers to use on those races. Those running for those seats could opt into the voucher program or choose not to, relying instead upon the regular campaign finance rules. Those candidates who opted in had to agree to spend no more than $300,000 on the election. 

Seattle collected $3 million a year in property taxes to pay for the voucher program starting in 2016. Seattle residents spent $1.4 million in vouchers in the last election. The remaining balance will be carried forward for future election cycles. The program is set to expand to more races in coming years as the fund surplus grows. 

A recent study shows that only 8,200 residents gave money to Seattle city races in 2013. In 2016, more than 25,000 residents gave vouchers and money to candidates who ran in those same races. A younger more diverse electorate became involved politically with the implementation and growth of the voucher program. 

The voluntary nature of candidate participation makes the voucher program constitutional. Candidates cannot be forced into a public funded election system under current Supreme Court rulings, unless they agree to public funding for their campaigns.

The Democracy Dollar system scales up well to a national level. Two Yale Law professors wrote the outline in 2017. Given the numbers of registered voters, a voucher system could generate just about the same amount of aggregated individual donations as special interests pump into the system in large contributions. In 2012, all candidates for federal offices and their nominally “independent” supporter groups spent about $7 billion on their races. That went down to about $6.8 billion in federal races last year. With $100 vouchers, registered voters could pump $6.5 billion into the same races.

This year Rep. Ro Kanna, (D-CA) and former Senator Russ Feingold put together a federal solution called the Democracy Dollars Act. It provides 50 “Democracy Dollars” to every registered voter for use in federal elections, $25 for presidential elections, $15 for Senate races and $10 for House campaigns. 

These amounts seem small but when multiplied by millions of voters, the power of the PACs and dark money donors become diluted. Think about a fundraiser for 100 people where you can raise $2500 for a presidential candidate with the best issue based agenda. The system turns individual voters into someone the candidate has to convince in order to obtain that voter’s voucher support. 

If you want a democracy where each voter really has a voice, support Democracy Dollars voucher systems everywhere.

Effective Government

Survival depends on effective government

Less government is not always better

We often hear “big government” vs. “small government” comparisons between candidates for public office. Unfortunately, this has created a false dichotomy used to label and demonize “liberal,” “lefty,” “socialist,” “tax and spend” Democrats and curry support for “taxpayer friendly,” “we’ll all get rich” Republicans. It is a fool’s choice.

The issue is more properly framed by asking is the government “effectively” doing what government is supposed to do?

Ever since humans developed language and survival skills, they have banded together to provide for common defense, provision of food and supplies, nurturing the sick and infirm and raising their offspring. Clans and tribes gave way to feudal monarchies that, in turn, morphed into democratic governments. All of these forms of human governments have, to greater or lesser degrees, provided these basic necessities for survival.

With increased economic wealth and power and much larger populations, governments have grown into massive organizations, but they are still charged with carrying out these same basic functions.

In every era throughout human history, cabals of the rich and those who would be rich have stood up and proclaimed, “We need more wealth.” This is usually coupled with claims that the current organization that ensures the collective survival is “too big” and “too expensive.” If only government were smaller, everyone would get to keep more of the wealth they all coveted. Many get sucked in by the slick snake oil sales pitch, believing in trickle down economic myths and tax scams that benefit only the very few at the top of the food chain. Every era of excesses brought on by these headlong cash chasing folks has ended in flames of recession or depression.

It is time to break the cycle before it goes bust once more.

Governments that ensure survival and growth of their large populations will always be large. They will only be truly effective if they satisfy the basic needs of the clan. With the passage of time and increases in knowledge about the interconnectedness of the human endeavor with the natural world these basic needs have become much more complex to ensure. Now we add in concerns about the environment, patterns of disease and increased violence, income inequality and fairness, the need for wild spaces and wild animals, food security, universal healthcare, quality public education, religious freedom, racial and ethnic diversity and a whole host of other concerns.

Those that see these concerns as nothing more than a drain on their personal pocketbooks, fight back by adding claims that the new concerns are not the business of government at all because they impinge on personal liberty. “Why should we have to pay for what we don’t like and don’t use,” but others need and cannot afford, becomes justification for opposition until the flood or fire comes and help does not. They trot out claims that all these concerns will be addressed when we all have an additional $2,000 in tax savings and can contribute to a local charity.

In our world, populated in the billions with dwindling food and water supplies, an increasingly angry climate and nuclear warheads on missiles that can reach everywhere on the planet, we cannot ever go back to those simpler times when the sailboat and steam engine were the main drivers of economic growth and political power. Personal freedom and individual responsibility are not enough to carry us all through. “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable,” is no longer a workable strategy for resolving conflicts. Larger government only works if it effectively addresses these concerns.

It is time for a return to an approach to our collective problems based upon basic assumptions that everyone can contribute to the solutions and should have a voice in the decision-making. None of the concerns that we demand our government address are solely Democratic or Republican concerns. They are valid human concerns that will have an impact on the collective survival of the human tribe and need a collective response.

In our time of turmoil, we each have a voice in choosing how our collective government will ensure the survival of the clan. Will we contribute more and choose people who will manage those resources effectively for the common good? Or will we contribute less, keep more for ourselves and choose those who will lookout for the wealthy and themselves?

Your vote is your voice.

Waring Fincke is a retired attorney who serves as a court appointed guardian for the elderly and disabled with a Sheboygan county non-profit agency.

The Crossroads

Is America Great Again?

Not even close.

We are one year into Making America Great Again and seven years into the Wisconsin Taxpayer Revolt. We know what this looks like and have reached the crossroads. Is this what we want to become?

Do we want to be a society where everybody is out for himself or herself, looking to amass as much wealth as they can at the expense of those less able or fortunate?

Do we want to live on planet with less clean air and water with a dwindling food supply and a climate that grows ever harsher to human existence?

Do we want to live in a society where the elderly, disabled and different are deemed disposable and expendable?

Do we want to live in communities where women are second or third class citizens whose job it is to pleasure men and have their babies?

Do we want to live in a society where those at the top of the chain are automatically deemed more valuable than those in subordinate positions?

Do we want to end our commitment to universal quality public education?

Do we want to return to a system that only allows white male property owners to decide who gets to govern the country?

Do we want a country that is not respected or supported by the international community?

Do we really want one-party rule in the halls of government?

2018 must be the year we turn away from these goals of Republican governance and return our society back to one based upon mutual respect and taking care of each other.

We need a tax code which requires everyone to pay their fair share to support basic human needs for food security, adequate universal healthcare, a secure infrastructure that supports business ventures and safe commerce, a stable defense for a peaceful world.

We need to protect Social Security and Medicare to make sure that seniors and the disabled do not go back to impoverished lives and dying in back bedrooms. We need to protect retirements for those who can no longer work.

We need to protect the world we live on by doing what science demands to clean our air and water and minimize the disruption of climate change. We need to maximize the use of renewable energy sources to stop the use of fossil fuels.

We need to value those who work by providing safe working environments, family supporting wages and benefits, collective bargaining rights and reasonable working conditions. Family and medical leave policies must recognize the importance strong families play in productive work.

We need strong public schools that support and educate every child to the best of their individual abilities so they can become productive and intelligent members of our communities. We need to recognize that professional and well-supported teachers are critical to the success of their students and compensate our educators accordingly.

We need to finally recognize and promote the equality of women in the workplace and the rest of society by guaranteeing equal pay for equal work and equal access to opportunity. We need an end to sexual harassment and assault everywhere.

We need to end income inequality and value each member of the community for the contribution they can make. The value of one’s opinions should not depend upon the amount they have in the bank. Everyone should be eligible to and encouraged to vote in fair elections. Election districts must be drawn to encourage competitive elections, not to favor incumbent politicians.

We need to expand protections for America’s natural wild areas and make them accessible for all to see and enjoy. Our National and State Parks are the envy of the world and need to be expanded.

We need a return to respectable diplomacy that respects other countries and their cultures and does not seek to impose American values by might.

2018 is the year we can restore the democracy to end the one party rule that favors the few over the many, but only if you vote. Those who stay home elect tyrants and dictators.

Waring R. Fincke is a retired attorney who serves as a guardian for the elderly and disabled.

End One Party Rule

The Alabama Miracle

If they can do it, we can too

We witnessed a political miracle this week when traditionally Republican Alabama voters elected a Democrat to the United States Senate. The demographics of the Alabama areas that shifted political allegiances are fascinating. Many who voted for Donald Trump in the last presidential election switched parties to vote for Doug Jones.

African-American Alabama voters, who apparently stayed home in the last cycle, came out in droves to vote for Doug Jones. They saw through Moore’s racially charged speeches and resisted at the polls. They joined the many disaffected white moderates and independents that voted for Trump and soon saw how he and the GOP sold them out. They were not going to be duped again.

Many will claim that Roy Moore lost because he was a deeply and personally flawed candidate. That he was, but a lot of white, Evangelical Alabama Christians voted for him anyway. They were willing to look past Moore’s accusers who credibly claimed his sexual predilections for young girls, believing instead his professed belief in a Christian God and claims to biblically based racial superiority. For these supporters, his condemnation of abortion and same sex marriage and orientation coupled with his belief that slavery was a hallmark of a great society showed that he shared their moral values.

That President Trump came to embrace Roy Moore in order to salvage his failing efforts to get the GOP tax reform scam through the United State Senate was not enough to swing the election to Moore. Trump’s public support and robo call for Moore appears to have turned the election into a referendum on Trump’s presidency, a presidency has the lowest approval rating of any president in modern American history. Those who might have been willing to close their eyes and vote for Moore were probably pushed to vote for Jones or write in someone else when they realized they would also be supporting a very unpopular and unpleasant president and his failing agenda.

Steve Bannon, the outcast braggart of the alt-right, could not rescue Moore’s candidacy either. Try as he might to rally the white supremacist Alabama Klu Klux Klan believers to support to Moore’s campaign, it was not enough. Bannon’s resort to scare tactics showed he has lost whatever teeth he had when Moore lost. Bannon’s endorsements have now rightly become the kiss of death for anyone seeking political office.

In the end, the Alabama Senate election exposed just how far down into the sewer the alt-right majority in the GOP was willing to go to advance their corrupt agenda. It also showed there is great hope for good Democratic candidates with a message of working together to solve common problems.

Doug Jones has solid government service credentials and a proven record of standing up for justice and equality. He celebrates Alabama’s diversity and brought together a winning coalition of African-Americans, Latinos, middle and working class whites, all of who were undeterred by GOP voter suppression tactics. Without a strong state Democratic Party, he put together a great grass roots campaign that reached into every corner of Alabama with his positive message of inclusion and improving the lives of working families.

The baffling part of the Alabama election is why so many white women and men who call themselves Evangelical Christians supported Moore so fervently. Given the credible accusations of sexual misconduct in his past, I do not understand Moore’s support by so many women. Given Trump’s failures to deliver on his many promises to help white middle and working class men, I find it difficult to understand why they continue to vote against their economic interests. Perhaps his messages of racial superiority and religious purity were enough to blind these voters to the loss of their healthcare insurance, destruction of public education and steep cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security looming on the horizon.

The Alabama election outcome has reinforced resistance to the GOP agenda. Solid Democratic candidates are stepping up to offer meaningful alternatives to that agenda in traditionally republican strongholds, including our own. Just in Washington County, there are two Democrats running for seats in the Assembly.

Dennis Degenhardt, the newly retired CEO of Glacier Hills Credit Union, is running in the special election for the 58^th Assembly seat in January. His campaign stresses fiscal responsibility to fix crumbling infrastructure, healthcare as a right not a privilege, support for increased funding for public education, a re-examination of the Foxconn fiasco and working hard for everyday people and their concerns. Learn more at degenhardtforassembly.com

Chris Rahlf is running a strong campaign for the 60^th Assembly seat, stressing healthcare, public education and infrastructure repair with a return to leadership that listens. Chris is already pounding the pavement in anticipation of her 2018 election in the eastern parts of Washington County. Learn more at chrisrahlfforassembly.com

If you are tired of one-party control of our government, there is an alternative and that is bringing back two-party cooperation to address mutual concerns. Alabama has shown the way, it is now up to us.

Waring Fincke is a retired attorney and serves as a guardian for the elderly and disabled.

When Tax Reform Hurts

GOP Tax Reform Helps the Wealthy

Not the Rest of US

The tax reform bill that squeaked through the House of Representatives this week drastically cuts taxes for the very wealthy and will add $1.5 Trillion to the federal debt over the next decade.  Those of us who work for a living did not fare so well.

People who use deductions and credits for housing state and local taxes, medical expenses and education costs will probably end up paying more in federal income taxes under the current plan.

Using old and unproven arguments, the GOP leadership cut the corporate tax rate on profits from 35% to 20%. Claims that this will lead to more jobs and higher wages do not hold water. What the corporate tax rate cut is much more likely to generate are increased dividends to stockholders and increased executive pay. Interestingly, about $70 billion a year, 35% of the benefits will flow directly to foreign investors who own shares in American companies, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

Real estate partnerships, hedge funds and other business that pass profits through directly to owners untaxed will see significant benefits under the new bill. The GOP leadership wants those owners to pay just 25% on those profits instead of the ordinary income tax rates that go up to 39.6%. The Trump family is a prime example of the type of business owner invested in real estate that will see enormous tax cuts with this new benefit.

The secret backroom negotiations that led to the new code revisions hit middle-class families, especially those in high tax states, the hardest with the elimination of deductions for state and local income taxes, limiting the real estate property tax deduction to $10,000, capping the mortgage interest deduction at $500,000, elimination of deductions for medical expenses, college tuition and interest on student loans.

There are still more Trump family benefitting changes as well. The bill eliminates the alternative minimum tax now paid by wealthy people with lots of deductions. Trump’s leaked tax returns for 2005 show the vast majority of the taxes he paid in that year were based upon the alternative minimum tax. Of course, he has not revealed any of his other income tax returns so we can only speculate on the impact the new code provisions will have on his current business income stream based upon know investments. The other major benefit to Trump and his children is found in changes to the federal estate tax. That tax currently applies to inherited wealth over $5.5 million. The new bills exempt inherited wealth up to $11 million next year and phases out the tax completely by 2024. That single change will benefit just 0.2 percent of the people who die every year, but will cost the government $269 billion over a decade.

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) claims that a middle-class family of four earning $59,000 per year will see tax savings of $1,182 per year under the new plan. Tax experts at New Your University Law School sees the claim as illusory because the cut will evaporate over a decade as several tax credits in the plan expire and inflation indexing changes take place. It is estimated that Ryan’s hypothetical family will see a tax increase by 2024. If the bill simply cut income or payroll taxes for middle class workers and doubled the standard deduction for individuals and married couples, it would be easy for the GOP to make their case for middle class tax relief. They rejected that simple approach.

Another current middle class tax benefit will vanish. Now, parents can claim personal exemptions for themselves, their spouses and dependent children. The new bill eliminates these exemptions in favor of a $300 personal credit for each parent. Even that expires in five years. For larger families, this clearly increases their federal income taxes.

The elimination of the medical expense deduction hits those with chronic illnesses and lousy medical insurance incredibly hard. If you have or make lots of money and can pay out-of pocket medical costs, you win. If you cannot, more of your paycheck vanishes to pay the doctor.

New polling on public reaction to the new plan shows that it is in trouble. A survey by Global Strategy Group in key states show that sixty percent believe the plan favors the wealthy over the middle class. Twenty percent believed they would personally see a benefit. Those responding to the survey voted for Trump by a 13-point margin.

Republicans in key states with high state and local taxes are on the fence as are those aligned with the construction industry that views mortgage interest rate deductions and property tax credits as keys to home ownership. If more Americans see the bill as a gift to those who do not need it and little to no benefit to those that do, it should fail.

Waring R. Fincke is a retired attorney and serves as a guardian for the elderly and disabled.