Obama...worst Thing For America In A Long Time?

[Nimue1995 1]

I agree that "left" and "right" are poor labels these days. I think a better distinction would be:-- Statists: those who believe that central planning works, that citizens are subjects of the state to be used for the greater goodvs-- Individualists: those who believe that individuals engaged in voluntary consensual transactions should be left alone, and that we own our own life and body.For the last several decades, those *had* been historically the left/Democrats, and the right/Republicans, respectively. I don't think that applies anymore. Bush has increased gov't power over individuals in every area of life, and the Democrats biggest complaint against him seems to be that he didn't go there fast enough. So I'd put both the D's and R's firmly in the Statist camp at this point, with the exception of a minority in each group.Again, even that is a sliding scale, so there are few pure statists and few pure individualists, but I think it gives a better idea of what we can expect in terms of laws passed.

I don't believe we can have a stable democracy without both H. That's why I do support capitalism but also support government regulation of that capitalism. For a fact human beings will behave humanly. That's why our forefathers put the checks and balances in government. By the way, our Democratic governor in Montana is currently fighting the unfunded mandate that is Real ID. And idea that was put forth by the Republican Bush administration. If one could identify a good reason for a national ID system, I could listen. When the reasons are so vague as to be intombed in "national security", I'm skeptical. If I recall, the guys who hijacked the planes on 9/11 used box-cutters. Would the situation have been different had they some additional form of ID? Will any foreign national be issued a US ID card? If the issue is hijacking airliners, I tend to think better screening might be a reasonable response. If the issue is having a federal government "keeping better track" of us, let's be honest, and debate whether that's a worthy goal. OR, try to convince me that restricting airline travel to folks with national ID cards will make such travel safer. Schweitzer doesn't have a lot of cards to play. Ultimately, the feds can compell compliance by witholding highway funds, or simply requiring the FAA to verify the national ID of travellers. So, he's ultimately going to fold. Before doing so, I applaud some grandstanding, if it causes people to look at this issue more closely.But at any rate this goes to show that you simply cannot pigeonhole people with labels as much as you might like to so that you can continue to demonize us.

[GeneralGeeWhiz 0]

I think Obama would make a great president. Sorry Nutz but I think you're way off base.

[hblask 1]

I don't believe we can have a stable democracy without both H. That's why I do support capitalism but also support government regulation of that capitalism.

The thing I've been arguing for is rule of law and property rights. That's a lot different than saying "everyone has a right to healthcare" or "we must subsidize farmers"

By the way, our Democratic governor in Montana is currently fighting the unfunded mandate that is Real ID. (...) But at any rate this goes to show that you simply cannot pigeonhole people with labels as much as you might like to so that you can continue to demonize us.

I've been watching the Real ID thing, it's a great story. It's good to see that some states do have a breaking point where they will say "no more". Of course, some states are just doing it to get more federal funding, so that doesn't count, but Montana's stance seems to be due to real outrage.I've tried not to claim that the Dem's are that much worse than the R's. In this country, they both suck, both are in the pockets of corporate lobbyists, and both think they know more about my life than I do. Traditionally, the Dem's embrace their big govt tendencies, while the R's pretend they want smaller govt, but when the result is the same, it's hard to cheer for either.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Hblask, I tend to agree with your analysis of statists and individualists, although I think the Repubs and Dems want different states, obv. Clearly both cry "individual rights!" when it would work toward their ends, and try to suppress individual rights when it doesn't. Misc (none of this, together, will tow either party's line):Healthcare is not a human and/or natural right. Anything that you rely on others to provide for you is not a natural right. You can be part of a society whose gov. promises you healthcare, and then it is a CIVIL right, but it's never, ever a natural right.I do agree with regulation when it benefits the individual. Meaning, regulation to ensure competitive access to the marketplace, etc. I don't believe in taxing people or business just because they make lots of money or are conducting business in the most profitable way possible.Our government and tax system regarding businesses as individuals was a stupid, stupid move.

[hblask 1]

Hblask, I tend to agree with your analysis of statists and individualists, although I think the Repubs and Dems want different states, obv. Clearly both cry "individual rights!" when it would work toward their ends, and try to suppress individual rights when it doesn't. Misc (none of this, together, will tow either party's line):Healthcare is not a human and/or natural right. Anything that you rely on others to provide for you is not a natural right. You can be part of a society whose gov. promises you healthcare, and then it is a CIVIL right, but it's never, ever a natural right.I do agree with regulation when it benefits the individual. Meaning, regulation to ensure competitive access to the marketplace, etc. I don't believe in taxing people or business just because they make lots of money or are conducting business in the most profitable way possible.Our government and tax system regarding businesses as individuals was a stupid, stupid move.

Yeah, and this is why I have trouble talking about left vs right. To me it looks like "people who want to control one part of your life" vs "people who want to control a different part of your life". The Republicans can claim to be the party of smaller government, but it's been a long time since that was the case.

[ratwastard 0]

what ever way your typical 21 year old know nothing college student votes -- i vote the opposite.young people, especially college kids, expect the gov't to hand them everything. and if they don't get it they stand there and cry.signed, college grad who hates liberals

[TheCinciKid 0]

I think Obama would make a great president. Sorry Nutz but I think you're way off base.

Thank you for explaining why you feel this way. Personally, I think my biggest beef with Obama is that he really is a big government liberal. I see McCain as a little bit more of an old school conservative and hence I'm more likely to vote for him.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Thank you for explaining why you feel this way. Personally, I think my biggest beef with Obama is that he really is a big government liberal. I see McCain as a little bit more of an old school conservative and hence I'm more likely to vote for him.

I don't think Obama is a typical big gov liberal per se like the Clintons, more like a liberal idealist who really has no way to achieve his ends besides expanding gov.Remember kids, if you're pissed at your insurance company, you can go somewhere else. When you're pissed at the gov insurance, where can you go?

[akoff 0]

what ever way your typical 21 year old know nothing college student votes -- i vote the opposite.young people, especially college kids, expect the gov't to hand them everything. and if they don't get it they stand there and cry.signed, college grad who hates liberals

Welcome!

[nutzbuster 7]

I think Obama would make a great president. Sorry Nutz but I think you're way off base.

uh...nuh....hu, er...whw...what? Oh sorry......staring at your sig. I don't think I am that off base, and my opinions have some merit.It's a drama bomb for sure but sparking debate was the whole intention.McCain has this one in the bag now anyway, so mute point/thread.

[TheCinciKid 0]

uh...nuh....hu, er...whw...what? Oh sorry......staring at your sig. I don't think I am that off base, and my opinions have some merit.It's a drama bomb for sure but sparking debate was the whole intention.McCain has this one in the bag now anyway, so mute point/thread.

Actually, it would be a MOOT point, but I guess that's not really that important.

[TheCinciKid 0]

I don't think Obama is a typical big gov liberal per se like the Clintons, more like a liberal idealist who really has no way to achieve his ends besides expanding gov.Remember kids, if you're pissed at your insurance company, you can go somewhere else. When you're pissed at the gov insurance, where can you go?

What you say is true, but I think it's more or less the same thing. The end is the same...bigger government and higher taxes, more burden on the middle class. It doesn't matter how much dems talk about taxing the rich, there are just too many loopholes in the current system. The middle class will continue to bear the bulk of the tax burden until and unless we come up with some sort of flat tax (which will never happen).

[GeneralGeeWhiz 0]

I have many concerns with this election. I would vote for Obama, but IDK what he would do about the war. I don't want to just yank the troops out. On the other hand, McCain only talks about the war and not the economy which is what concerns me the most.

[JustDoIt 10]

I have many concerns with this election. I would vote for Obama, but IDK what he would do about the war. I don't want to just yank the troops out. On the other hand, McCain only talks about the war and not the economy which is what concerns me the most.

Obama on Taxes.http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/030..._with_CNBC.htmlWho's paying the bills, don't add up Obama.http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

[Southern Buddhist 1]

What you say is true, but I think it's more or less the same thing. The end is the same...bigger government and higher taxes, more burden on the middle class. It doesn't matter how much dems talk about taxing the rich, there are just too many loopholes in the current system. The middle class will continue to bear the bulk of the tax burden until and unless we come up with some sort of flat tax (which will never happen).

For all the talk of "big government liberals," let's look at what's actually happened in recent history instead of relying on outdated stereotypes and shibboleths.In the past 50 years, the size of government (number of employees and hence money spent on running itself) grew most sharply under two Republican presidents: Reagan and the current Bush. It grew more slowly under LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Bush I. The only administration under which the size of government actually SHRANK was Clinton/Gore. Under Gore's Reinventing Government Initiative, which was aimed at streamlining government, making it more efficient, and saving money, the number of government employees shrank to its smallest size since LBJ's administration. Sure, it grew more slowly under one-termers, for obvious reasons, but among the three two-term administrations, Reagan, Bush II, and Clinton, two of them grew the government and one shrank it, and it was the liberal that did it. [To his credit, hblask has already said this himself. And ditto to his point that conservatives want to control one part of your life (your bedroom and eternal soul) while liberals want to control another part (your wallet).]Republicans have a great way of saying that liberals love big government and that they love small government. They say it so often that everybody repeats it without ever actually looking to see whether or not it's true. They do the same thing with patriotism -- Dems are cowards and draft dodgers and Republicans are patriots who love to serve their country. While McCain did, and his sons continue to do so, look at Dick Cheney's money quote on Vietnam: "I had different priorities in the '60s than military service." Wow, I guess the 58,193 US citizens who died there didn't have any other priorities than dying for a country that would one day be led by someone like Cheney. Clinton says Obama is just running on "change" and that he doesn't have any real ideas, and that charge has been bouncing around the media's vast, empty echo chamber that passes for dialogue, but his website shows all kinds of detailed plans. When ANY politician repeats something over and over, fact check it -- they're probably trying to get a lie to stick.As for a flat tax, I'm always amused at the disconnect that leads conservatives to embrace a flat tax but deride Social Security as a failing scheme. Likewise, progressives go ballistic over a flat tax as being unfairly beneficial to the wealthy, but defend Social Security as a progressive safety net. By far and away the biggest experiment in flat tax this nation has ever done is the Social Security tax -- 15.3% on most wage earners, split evenly between employee and employer. I say "most" wage earners because there's a ceiling -- earnings above $102,000 are not taxed at all for Social Security, so the wealthy pay far less than a full 15.3% on all their earnings. Both sides need to recognize that Social Security is a flat tax, plain and simple, and as experiments go, it has failed dramatically. If you're a conservative, keep on calling for Social Security reform, but stop supporting a flat tax as something that will work. If you're a progressive, keep calling the flat tax unfair, but stop calling Social Security a prgressive program -- it isn't.

[copernicus 0]

As for a flat tax, I'm always amused at the disconnect that leads conservatives to embrace a flat tax but deride Social Security as a failing scheme. Likewise, progressives go ballistic over a flat tax as being unfairly beneficial to the wealthy, but defend Social Security as a progressive safety net. By far and away the biggest experiment in flat tax this nation has ever done is the Social Security tax -- 15.3% on most wage earners, split evenly between employee and employer. I say "most" wage earners because there's a ceiling -- earnings above $102,000 are not taxed at all for Social Security, so the wealthy pay far less than a full 15.3% on all their earnings. Both sides need to recognize that Social Security is a flat tax, plain and simple, and as experiments go, it has failed dramatically. If you're a conservative, keep on calling for Social Security reform, but stop supporting a flat tax as something that will work. If you're a progressive, keep calling the flat tax unfair, but stop calling Social Security a prgressive program -- it isn't.

Wrong. Social Security is mildly progressive. You are only looking at the tax side. The net of benefits and taxes is a transfer from higher paid to lower paid because the benefit formula is front loaded.Also SS has not "failed dramatically", it has been a resounding success at doing exactly what it was intended to do. It has reduced the number of older Americans under the poverty level by 75%. Far from being a "failing scheme", minor adjustments in benefits that will have minimal societal impact as boomers continue to work beyond age 65 are sufficient to put the trust fund back into balance.What would be a colossal failure are taxing all income and privatization.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

"Individualists" versus "statists" is only a good set of names if you're a conservative. It's like the pro-life forces calling pro-choice people "pro-abortion," and pro-choice people calling pro-lifers "anti-choice." Each side tries to define the other in a way that would make the fewest people support them. I agree that right and left are becoming less meaningful, but instead of your alternatives I might say "sink-or-swimmers" versus "community builders" -- which would also be a fair-but-unfair way of putting it. To give each side its own best points, I might use a Buddhist term and suggest "individualists" versus "interconnectedists," but I don't think most voters can handle a six-syllable word.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Wrong. Social Security is mildly progressive. You are only looking at the tax side. The net of benefits and taxes is a transfer from higher paid to lower paid because the benefit formula is front loaded.Also SS has not "failed dramatically", it has been a resounding success at doing exactly what it was intended to do. It has reduced the number of older Americans under the poverty level by 75%. Far from being a "failing scheme", minor adjustments in benefits that will have minimal societal impact as boomers continue to work beyond age 65 are sufficient to put the trust fund back into balance.What would be a colossal failure are taxing all income and privatization.

You're right that Social Security is mildly progressive in benefits, but only mildly, and it is purely flat (with the exception of the completely unnecessary earnings ceiling) in its taxing structure. Bankers still collect far more in benefits than burger flippers, so its progressivism isn't very strong.The program actually HAS succeeded quite well in reducing elderly poverty, which was the reason it was designed in the first place. The rate of elders in poverty in the 1930s was appalling, and the Depression was devastating to people at the end of life.And I also agree that privatizing it would be a colossal failure. I don't support total privatization at all. I could go for a partial privatization for younger workers, but that's as far as I'd go. The reforms I'd like to see are partial, individual privatization (not government-controlled investment of the Trust Fund), elimination of the earnings cap, as has already been done for Medicare, elimination of the 12-year gap in the retirement age increases (so it steps up two months a year to 72 without the 12-year "pause" currently planned), and phasing out of benefits for high earners -- there's no need for Warren Buffett to be getting Social Security benefits, but he is.However, I don't agree that "minor adjustments" are all that is needed. I posted this earlier, but the demographic assumptions that underlie Social Security are that most families will be one-earner families; the birthrate is rising and will continue to rise; and most people will die within two years of retirement. All three assumptions were true in 1935 and all three are false today. We desperately need to re-visit the demographics of Social Security and re-design it, from the ground up, for a world with low birthrates, one mega-generation that is about to retire, two-income families, and people who have been told for decades to plan on spending up to thirty healthy years of their lives in retirement. That's no minor fix. Those demographics, moreover, have been wrong since 1945, when the Baby Boom began. We've ignored this fundamental crisis for 60 years, and that is a massive failure of political will and intelligence on the part of both parties.We could actually put the program almost entirely back in balance by means testing, eliminating the earnings ceiling, and eliminating the 12-year gap -- those three fixes together take care of about 90-95% of the projected shortfall, and I would be satisfied if all three were done and nothing else. But they do nothing to fix the underlying problems. You're right that the program itself, for what it set out to do, isn't a failure, but my argument is that, as a way of raising federal financing, a flat tax is a dramatic failure, and we need only look at the projected shortfall in Social Security to see it. If we had modeled our income tax on the Social Security flat-tax model, the national debt would be even more out of control than it is.

[hblask 1]

Wrong. Social Security is mildly progressive. You are only looking at the tax side. The net of benefits and taxes is a transfer from higher paid to lower paid because the benefit formula is front loaded. Also SS has not "failed dramatically", it has been a resounding success at doing exactly what it was intended to do. It has reduced the number of older Americans under the poverty level by 75%. Far from being a "failing scheme", minor adjustments in benefits that will have minimal societal impact as boomers continue to work beyond age 65 are sufficient to put the trust fund back into balance.What would be a colossal failure are taxing all income and privatization.

Adding in the benefits sides makes SS a *regressive* tax. The poor live much shorter lives than the rich, so they do not collect nearly as much. I saw the numbers once on life expectancy and SS benefits for different income levels, and it's a bit shocking. Basically, SS is a transfer from families of poor people to living rich people.As for SS being a success, it is going bankrupt. Can "minor adjustments" fix it? No, they can patch it for a few more years. Also, notice that these "minor adjustments" are some combination of benefits cuts and tax increases -- the next in a long line of short term fixes for a fundamentally flawed program. It can't work because it is mathematically impossible for *any* pyramid scheme to work -- eventually, you run out of suckers.

[hblask 1]

Individualists" versus "statists" is only a good set of names if you're a conservative. It's like the pro-life forces calling pro-choice people "pro-abortion," and pro-choice people calling pro-lifers "anti-choice." Each side tries to define the other in a way that would make the fewest people support them. I agree that right and left are becoming less meaningful, but instead of your alternatives I might say "sink-or-swimmers" versus "community builders" -- which would also be a fair-but-unfair way of putting it. To give each side its own best points, I might use a Buddhist term and suggest "individualists" versus "interconnectedists," but I don't think most voters can handle a six-syllable word.

I'm not sure why "statist" would be considered a negative word -- it means people who believe in the power of the state to solve problems exceeds that of individuals working together to solve problems. It's basically a literal description of the belief. If people are embarrassed by that belief and for some reason don't want to acknowledge what their beliefs are really about, I can certainly understand that, but hiding behind words doesn't make it something it's not.I'm an individualist (by my definition), but if you want to characterize my belief as "telling individuals that they can no longer rely on the federal government to bail them out, and that they must sink-or-swim in their own communities and peer-groups", I would have no trouble with that. So, given that context, yeah, I'm a proud sink-or-swimmer. Of course, you know that phrase has overtones of casting handicapped kids off bridges. Statism, on the other hand, has no such overtones. It is a simple description of the belief in the state to solve social/economic problems. I would think phrases such as community builder, or communitarian, or anything like that would have more overtones of socialism and would be a bit unfair to statists.

[hblask 1]

It has reduced the number of older Americans under the poverty level by 75%.

I meant to comment on this and forgot:SS has not reduced the number of Americans in poverty, a rising standard of living did that. Poverty has decreased in all age groups. Furthermore, any claim that it has even changed the lifestyle of the elderly is based on an assumption that they've made no changes in their life due to the existence of the SS program. If today someone turns up at age 65 with no savings for retirement, you can't just claim "see, SS saved them", because they've spent their whole life planning on SS being there. A more likely explanation is "see, SS allowed them to blow all their money on cars and trips and still retire at age 65." I'm not sure I'd consider that a noble social goal.

[hblask 1]

And I also agree that privatizing it would be a colossal failure. I don't support total privatization at all. I could go for a partial privatization for younger workers, but that's as far as I'd go. The reforms I'd like to see are partial, individual privatization (not government-controlled investment of the Trust Fund), elimination of the earnings cap, as has already been done for Medicare, elimination of the 12-year gap in the retirement age increases (so it steps up two months a year to 72 without the 12-year pause currently planned), and phasing out of benefits for high earners -- there's no need for Warren Buffett to be getting Social Security benefits, but he is.

I don't think any privatization plans call for immediately yanking the rug from those near retirement age. All plans I've seen call for a gradual phase out, so that those near retirement age can choose to remain in the program or take some for of ownership bond in exchange for what they are owed. Beyond that, they all call for young workers to put a certain amount into an investment fund. America is ready for this; we all understand IRAs and 401Ks now. And no, there is no "market risk" in such a program, because contributing slowly to an account over a 50 year work life guarantees a better return than anything SS currently offers (especially seeing as workers currently entering the system can expect *negative* returns on their SS dollars).SS cannot be fixed with a series of tweaks, tax increases, and benefits cuts. It's already at the point where many people will get negative returns, and with more Americans becoming sophisticated about investing, they will no longer stand for that. People understand that saving for 50 years in pretty much *anything* is better than what SS promises. The mathematics are not there -- there is no way to keep SS both solvent AND returning competitive returns to those currently entering the work force. Raise the retirement age? Worse return. Raise taxes? Worse return. Remove income caps? Worse return. This isn't a program that can be saved; the only question is whether politicians have the guts to fix it before the country is sent to bankruptcy.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

I'm not sure why "statist" would be considered a negative word -- it means people who believe in the power of the state to solve problems exceeds that of individuals working together to solve problems. It's basically a literal description of the belief. If people are embarrassed by that belief and for some reason don't want to acknowledge what their beliefs are really about, I can certainly understand that, but hiding behind words doesn't make it something it's not.I'm an individualist (by my definition), but if you want to characterize my belief as "telling individuals that they can no longer rely on the federal government to bail them out, and that they must sink-or-swim in their own communities and peer-groups", I would have no trouble with that. So, given that context, yeah, I'm a proud sink-or-swimmer. Of course, you know that phrase has overtones of casting handicapped kids off bridges. Statism, on the other hand, has no such overtones. It is a simple description of the belief in the state to solve social/economic problems. I would think phrases such as community builder, or communitarian, or anything like that would have more overtones of socialism and would be a bit unfair to statists.

I think it's just hard to find someone who says, "oh, golly, I just love the state." "State" is a faceless entity that it's easy to hate, like "Congress." Most people hate Congress, and it has an abysmal approval rating, but most voters like their own congressperson, which is (part of) why they have such a high re-election average despite low approval ratings overall. I think "statist" would have the same effect as "Congress" in being easy to hate, while "community" actually evokes your neighbors and friends, the people you smile at and say good morning to on the street (at least we do in my small town) and the pancake breakfasts you attend to help a local kid get a kidney. To me, "community" evokes parks and town squares, while "state" evokes grey Soviet-style bunkers.Besides, I am not sure that it's always a case of thinking the state can do a better job of solving problems than individuals. I think it's a case of believing that the state has a moral duty to get involved in solving the problems, and also a case of believing that if you are the one suffering the problem, your outcome shouldn't be utterly dependent on the individuals who feel like helping you. Instead, you should be able to depend on some set, consistent level of help no matter where you live or who you are -- which can only be guaranteed by the state. For example, is it a coincidence that the people helped by "Extreme Makeover Home Edition" are generally white, generally meet some standard of average good-lookingness (or at least not hideousness), and have moving stories to tell? Of course not -- that makes for good TV. But fat, ugly people who don't have a moving story live in substandard housing too. Individuals choose to help others based on sometimes unfair criteria (faith-based groups are particularly bad about this -- show skepticism about their faith and their help had been known to dry up). The government can -- and should -- even out that tendency.Is that saying government is "better" at helping, or just that government should be involved due to American ethics of "e pluribus unum" and unitedness, and that it might ensure that help reaches all who need it rather than being an ad hoc patchwork?

[hblask 1]

lots of stuff

SB, you bring up some good points. The one thing I can tell you, is that I think at the local level, you and I would agree on much of this. At the federal level, absolutely not. The federal government is *terrible* at solving local problems (Katrina anyone?). What tends to happen is the federal government takes our money, takes a cut of it, makes rigid one-size-fits-all rules of how to spend it, and sends it back to us with strings attached *to solve the problem that we wanted to work on in the first place*. Federal involvement in local issues causes more harm than good. Think of all the crime-ridden housing projects, many now torn down. Think of all the neighborhoods (usually poor people) that have been destroyed by federal road projects or building projects or whatever. Money spent at that level is too subject to public choice theory, and just ends up helping the people who need it the least and hurting those who need it the most.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

SB, you bring up some good points. The one thing I can tell you, is that I think at the local level, you and I would agree on much of this. At the federal level, absolutely not. The federal government is *terrible* at solving local problems (Katrina anyone?). What tends to happen is the federal government takes our money, takes a cut of it, makes rigid one-size-fits-all rules of how to spend it, and sends it back to us with strings attached *to solve the problem that we wanted to work on in the first place*. Federal involvement in local issues causes more harm than good. Think of all the crime-ridden housing projects, many now torn down. Think of all the neighborhoods (usually poor people) that have been destroyed by federal road projects or building projects or whatever. Money spent at that level is too subject to public choice theory, and just ends up helping the people who need it the least and hurting those who need it the most.

I'm sure we would agree on a lot of stuff, even some at the federal level. I don't think the government is best at solving problems, but I'm troubled at the idea of it just turning its back on those problems. When it goes out of its way to save a reckless investment group or to amend monetary policy to prop up the stock market, why turn its back on the disabled, poor, hungry, homeless, etc.? All the social safety net aid we give out in a year is less than the tax breaks and grant programs we give to corporations that are already highly profitable and making their executives very wealthy. So while I don't think government is the best solution, I don't think it should abdicate any involvement.Plus, I suspect if you have any faith in government at all, you have it in local government. Me, I'm more skeptical of state government than I am of federal government. The entire nation watches what the feds do, but state government gets nowhere near that degree of media scrutiny. There's very little oversight of state government, and it often operates in the most corrupt and crony-driven ways. In the state capital, it's all about who you know and who has power. It all operates with hardly any media or public oversight. People who will argue for hours over Obama skip over the stories of what happens in Springfield or Phoenix or Des Moines.