The Sage Grouse

The thrill is in the deal

Is it possible to set aside personal political/social/religious biases and just talk rationally about where we should spend our money?

I just read a blog which stated that $6 billion will be spent on U.S. elections in 2012.

I think we could pave all of North Korea for that money. Whoa, say stupefied readers, why would we do that. Whoa, say I, why not? They cannot successfully do anything else on that land; let’s pave non-paradise and turn it to a parking lot.

Can we ask the U.S. Supreme Court, which unleashed rampant floodgates of cash in the Citizens United case, to decide whether we can pave North Korea?

Absurdities these are, and yet, imagine the starving children, medical, substance-abuse counseling needs out there; what could six  &%&*## billion dollars do for these needs?

The bedside alarm sounds in the Romney household: it is 5 a.m. Time for some quick calisthenics, a peck on the cheek, and off to a tightly scripted day of baby-kissing and Obama-bashing. Why? Is it the adrenaline rush of winning? Let’s ask eBay customers, isn’t it fun to be the winning bidder? Car dealers and their customers, isn’t it a thrill to make the deal? But there’s the morning-after syndrome, buyer’s remorse. The thrill is in the deal, not the car, or baby carriage, or on-the-job training President you won.

Imagine getting out of bed and turning on CNN to learn that a bunch of moneyed folks are pouring millions into your PAC. Obama, Santorum (not any more), Romney; it’s all the same. Wake up, kiss spouse, turn on TV and be blown away by the huge amounts of money wasted on this nonsense.

Why would conservatives spend millions to save a few thousands on taxes?

REPUBLISH THIS STORY: For details on how you can republish this story or other WyoFile content for free, click here.

If you enjoyed this article and would like to see more quality Wyoming journalism, please consider supporting WyoFile: a non-partisan, non-profit news organization dedicated to in-depth reporting on Wyoming’s people, places and policy.

Join the Conversation

4 Comments

WyoFile's goal is to provide readers with information and ideas that foster constructive conversations about the issues and opportunities our communities face. One small piece of how we do that is by offering a space below each story for readers to share perspectives, experiences and insights. For this to work, we need your help.

What we're looking for: 

  • Your real name — first and last. 
  • Direct responses to the article. Tell us how your experience relates to the story.
  • The truth. Share factual information that adds context to the reporting.
  • Thoughtful answers to questions raised by the reporting or other commenters.
  • Tips that could advance our reporting on the topic.
  • No more than three comments per story, including replies. 

What we block from our comments section, when we see it:

  • Pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish, and we expect commenters to do the same by using their real name.
  • Comments that are not directly relevant to the article. 
  • Demonstrably false claims, what-about-isms, references to debunked lines of rhetoric, professional political talking points or links to sites trafficking in misinformation.
  • Personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats.
  • Arguments with other commenters.

Other important things to know: 

  • Appearing in WyoFile’s comments section is a privilege, not a right or entitlement. 
  • We’re a small team and our first priority is reporting. Depending on what’s going on, comments may be moderated 24 to 48 hours from when they’re submitted — or even later. If you comment in the evening or on the weekend, please be patient. We’ll get to it when we’re back in the office.
  • We’re not interested in managing squeaky wheels, and even if we wanted to, we don't have time to address every single commenter’s grievance. 
  • Try as we might, we will make mistakes. We’ll fail to catch aliases, mistakenly allow folks to exceed the comment limit and occasionally miss false statements. If that’s going to upset you, it’s probably best to just stick with our journalism and avoid the comments section.
  • We don’t mediate disputes between commenters. If you have concerns about another commenter, please don’t bring them to us.

The bottom line:

If you repeatedly push the boundaries, make unreasonable demands, get caught lying or generally cause trouble, we will stop approving your comments — maybe forever. Such moderation decisions are not negotiable or subject to explanation. If civil and constructive conversation is not your goal, then our comments section is not for you. 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. There is a lot wrong with your chart Inky, for example, why show to 2013? Why not show the massive projected increases projected in the decade following 2013 from PPACA? Or why not stop at 2012 and show actual spending? Could it be they cherry picked the year that makes President Obama look the best? Also in 2009 there is a huge spike, which consisted of the one time spending of the bailouts (Bush) and stimulus package (Obama), then it dips slightly to a much higher level then it was under President Bush who was himself a big government spender. Maybe you better focus on something else Inky. May I suggest focusing on the point of the article which is to decry the “massive” (pennies on the dollar) amount of money spent by conservatives (not progressives of course) on politics?

    Reply
  2. Reply

  3. Conservatives spend money on politics in order to buy the loyalty of politicians that will enact tax breaks, privatize public services, weaken or cut regulations, weaken and cripple unions (one of the few counterweights to conservative business power) and stack the courts with ideologues that will protect plutocratic power for generations to come. That means MONEY, lots and lots of money.
    We are seeing the rise and entrenchment of a new aristocracy — the Koch brothers and Wyoming’s Foster Friess are just two examples.
    Liberals spend money on politics, not because of return on the dollar, but for emotional reasons and disillusionment can be costly.

    Reply

  4. 6 Billion or about 20$ per American is a very small figure when compared to the 3.2 Trillion or about 10,000$ per American that is the annual federal budget. If you want less spent then shrink the government and take away their power to pick winners and losers. Citizens United did not affect spending on elections in the least, all it did was take the money out of the shadows. Barack Obama massive increase in the size of the government and thus control of hundreds of billions of dollars interests corporations a whole lot more then any supreme court case.

    Reply