Multi Billion Dollar Election Sinkhole
As I was pondering the elections this weekend I could not help but reflect that the Presidential race alone is expected to spend upwards of a one or two billion dollars. Add in the Congressional races and you get to perhaps three billion or more.
And what will the result of all that spending be ?
The most likely outcome is pretty much status quo.
President Obama is very likely to be re-elected and the GOP is very likely to keep the House.
The Senate may shift parties but the balance will be close enough that not much will change from the current situation.
Even if things go strongly one way or the other it won’t be much of a shift. A President Obama with narrow control of the House and narrow control of the Senate is unlikely to be much different from the current situation (indeed with a stronger control of both houses didn’t do a whole lot in 2009-2011.
A President Romney with both houses is also likely to be in the gridlock mode.
In short we will see billions spent and get no real change.
Too bad we can’t figure out a way to just skip the campaign and spend the money on helping those in need.
13 Responses to “Multi Billion Dollar Election Sinkhole”
On the bright side, at least they found a shovel-ready stimulus project.
Well, in the macro-economic sense, the money is just going from one pocket to another, so I don’t think “sinkhole” is the right world.
But yes, I’m sure there are better ways to spend that money, if that were our choice to make.
In the 2008 election 5.8 billion was spent. The 2012 election expenditure is expected to top 11 billion. But your point is taken no matter what the final total.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/fecrecord/2012/january/messagefrom2012chair.shtml
But, CS, what are they shoveling? The guy that follows the circus elephant parade loves that he is part of show business.
Why is this bad. It just fits nicely into Obama’s wealth redistribution programs.
Of the billion or two that will be spent, most of that is coming from large rich donors (the 1%’ers)and going to advertising companies, television and other media outlets. They employ thousands of employees which these ads go to pay some of their wages.
The only difference in Obama taking from someone on their taxes and giving to someone else is the person receiving the end benefit of the money is actually doing something to earn that money.
I think you are looking at it all wrong. The money isn’t being spent to drive the country in a new direction. The money is being spent to buy influence. Which regardless of whatever party hold power after November, the wealthy will still have. Every election they have to pay their dues or they don’t get their calls returned. Most of the smart big money donors give money to both parties. They don’t care who is in office, just so long as they get to keep them on speed dial.
Agree with slamfu– its just lobbying without a lobbyist
I hate to see all that money spent too (you can thank a republican supreme court for this) and yet it is a power struggle. If you believe there will be no difference between the candidates, then you will see it as money wasted. Those of us who recall the legacy of Obama’s predecessor realize there are pitfalls to that sort of thinking.
Well Zephyr, the last big spending splurge was in 2008 prior to Citizens United and the Obama camp blew all prior records out of the water, so I think this a bipartisan thing.
Just think of all of the new jobs that could be created with the money “donated” by private people and industry in elections!
Granted, some people would also lose jobs, but are jobs supported by political campaigns really the jobs of the future?
Sadly, they may be the only jobs left.
I disagree vehemently with one of the author’s main claims. Obama did very little with his first Congress? Hello? Affordable Care Act, bailout of Chrysler and GM, passage of Dodd-Frank (granted that much of the ‘fill-in’ is not going well, but at least they f***ing tried), stimulus plan (although unemployment went to 10%, original claims were 8.5%; many economists believe unemployment would have topped 11% w/o that stimulus bill), cash for clunkers (not my way to do stuff–but still, it was passed).
The author seems to be under the delusions of the Republican propaganda machine. The claim that congress and the president never did anything is amazing, given that Republicans regained the House by vilifying all the things that the president and congress did.
Rcoutme
That’s the beauty of being a politician – we can argue about which side does it better – they can vote against spending by the other side (and gain votes), then they can complain about both the spending that was done (to gain votes), and also say the opposite – that nothing was done – (and gain votes) never blinking an eye at the incongruity. Note: another word may be substituted for “incongruity”.
Good one, O,…………….