To argue that the dysfunction of the federal government is purely a Republican issue would be naïve. Long unable to move forward on Democratic legislation, the new Congressional majority of 2009 was quick to let loose and take advantage of a Democratic executive branch.

The ARRA was the first significant legislation to wear the stamp of a Congress controlled by Democrats. Although it has been successful, in spite of Republican spin, one has to wonder how effective it might have been if more keenly honed to address directly the specific issue of job creation. It’s true that it included $288 billion in tax relief that cut the tax bills of 95% of Americans, and that it also sent $224 billion to aid the states and pin up Medicaid and unemployment insurance. But the $275 billion that went to direct investment was not, like the other portions, intended to sustain current spending and break the fall. It was allocated for the express purpose of creating jobs.

It is within this direct investment component of the stimulus that the Democrats established their most resounding successes, but unfortunately it also exhibits their most disappointing failures. There’s little room for legitimate complaint about the $90 billion allocated for clean energy or the $20 billion that will fund the digitizing of medical records. Both of these programs will pay dividends to American taxpayers far into the future. But the vast sum of grant money distributed into the black hole of government gives cause for concern and lends substance to the Republican argument that Democrats are all about bigger government.

Though the data is not coded to ease such extraction, a brief analysis of the information provided for download at http://www.recovery.gov/ reveals some interesting facts. The data representing all allocations through the end of June includes 347,915 awards of contracts, grants and loans, totaling $237 billion. Interestingly, a query of the data looking for “recipients” with a name that includes “school” or “education” finds 59,916 awards totaling $47 billion. Similarly, a search of “college” or “university” nets 26,047 awards for nearly $17 billion. Looking for funding that went to cities, a query of “city of” returns 16,364 award and another $17 billion; counties apparently received on the order of $12 billion, state departments of transportation around $19 billion, and other state departments and housing authorities close to $20 billion more.

All told, on the order of $131 billion appears to have gone to government organizations. This is not to say that none of this funding found its way into the private sector, or that thousands of private sector jobs were not created. Many of these government agencies, from school districts to transportation departments, maintain a practice of subcontracting to industry vendors. But once the money is fed into the bureaucratic machine, suspicion arises, and rightfully so. Such practice is viewed as more SNAFU (Situation Normal All Fouled Up) because accountability and transparency are severely obscured. The result is that both the motivation and effectiveness of the investments is appropriately called into question.

Fortunately for Republicans, not long after the Stimulus, the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. From that point on, steadfast Republican obstruction has reigned supreme over timid Democratic initiative. As stated above, the Republicans, without doubt, deserve their share of the blame in this, but if not for the Democrat’s extreme lack of intestinal fortitude, much more meaningful legislation could have been passed. From healthcare to finance reform, the Democrats have allowed themselves to be bullied, never once requiring the filibustering Republicans to actually stand up and control the floor of the Senate. Instead, each time they compromised and produced diluted legislation of questionable worth.

In the end, the most well defined accomplishment of our near completely dysfunctional Congress is a starkly polarized populace. Americans on both sides of the debate blame the other. The Tea Party blindly carries the banner of smaller government and continues to grow in its numbers, railing against an ineffective government but upholding positions that only promise to make it more so. When will we learn?

Government is not the enemy, but the sorry excuse in Washington sure is. The solutions are before us, but the path we’ve chosen, through two political parties that fight harder for control than for the wellbeing of the nation is leading us to destruction. The American people need to wake up, to refuse to listen to anymore political rhetoric and to start asking more intelligent questions. America doesn’t need smaller government, nor does it need larger — it needs effective government, and it needs it now.

Article first published as I Think I’ll Vote Republican — NOT! on Technorati.

On this, the eve of Glen Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally in Washington, I think it a good time to reflect on what it means to be a conservative in 21^st Century America. Beck has scheduled his rally on the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “March on Washington.” According to Beck, the purpose of the rally is to celebrate “upstanding citizens who embody our nation’s founding principles of integrity, truth and honor.” Such patriotism, such vision, a staunch supporter of the Republican Party, Beck is at the core of contemporary conservatism.

So, what is it that defines today’s conservative? What is the Republican plan for the future of America?

John Boehner shared the Republican vision for America earlier this week. And fortunately for conservative voters, the Republican platform is far more simple than that of their Democratic counterparts. Republicans don’t spend all that wasted time worrying about equity and ethics and all that stupid liberal stuff. Heck, when your objective is limited to maximizing the profits of big-business and minimizing the tax burden of the top 2%, all that fairness stuff just gets in the way.

Oddly enough, the new Republican Party looks an awful lot like the party of George Bush. So drastic is the likeness, that topping their list of priorities is the extension of the Bush tax cuts — for even the very rich, permanently. They even espouse the same disproven Bush tenet that tax cuts pay for themselves. So, although economists contend that the $678 billion price tag to extend the cuts for the top 2% will directly impact the deficit for which the Republicans feign concern — not to worry — we just need to cut spending.

Ah, but where to cut? Not defense! Oh no, the Military Industrial Complex is the heart and soul of conservative America — not to disparage the fossil fuel industry or the gun lobby. But, with defense costing over $1 trillion and representing more than 25% of the budget, where better to slice? Wait a minute . . . what would George Bush do? That’s it — Social Security can be privatized! Never mind that it’s solvent through 2037 and that with minor tweaking it can provide a vital safety net well into the next century; it’s a huge pool of money just begging to be exploited.

But, what about jobs? The problem is that Americans still expect far too much in compensation for their labor. But is it government’s responsibility to get people back to work? Unemployment is actually a good thing, for business, so long as you don’t have to pay benefits. There are really few things better for corporate profits than an abundant supply of labor so desperate for work that pay-scale and fringes no longer matter. So, the solution is self-evident: oppose any government funding of benefits, rail against government investment in infrastructure or energy or anything else that might tip the balance of economic power, and for God’s sake make sure nothing stops the flow of jobs overseas.

So, less taxes, fewer entitlements, an eager workforce, it’s music to the ears of contemporary conservatism. And the final ingredient to restore the Bush recipe for a prosperous upper crust — more deregulation. Just keep those oil wells pumping, those insiders trading, that gas flowing, and blessed will be the fruit of the offshoring multinational. The heck with the environment. What’s a little oil spill here and a little flaming water there? Businesses have to compete on a global scale, and worrying about the environment just isn’t good for profits. Besides, if you’re already exploiting the people, who gives a care about the planet?

Does any of this sound at all familiar? It should, because it’s Bushonomics 101. Today’s Republican Party promises a full return to the very practices that produced the most meager job growth since the 1940s, resulted in the first decline in median household income of any cycle since 1967, set modern records for the concentration of wealth at the very top, crashed the economy, brought us the Massey mine disaster, filled the Gulf with oil, and divided our nation.

The only real difference between the Bush Republicans and the Boehner, McConnell, Palin, Beck contingent is that where the Bushies confined their fear mongering to terrorists and certain foreign enemies, the 2010 Republicans have turned their sites inward. American citizen or not, if you’re Islamic or Mexican, Black, gay or liberal — you are an “Other,” and that makes you the problem . . . or rather the solution, because wealthy or not, the Republicans still need votes, and with a platform that only benefits 2% of the population, distraction is everything.

There are 537 elected officials representing all Americans in our federal government. So, disregarding the inequalities that result from congressional district sizing and the 2-per-state allocation of Senate seats, this means that each elected official represents, on average, around 575,000 Americans. This number alone should raise an eyebrow or two, in that it begs the question of adequate representation, but while the ratio does further dilute the voice of the average person, its impact pales when compared to the effects of a government sold to the highest bidder.

Washington, long ago, lost any semblance of legitimate representation of The People. Being one voice in a half-million may seem weak, but the reality is that the average person’s voice is far smaller than that. Both the Presidency and the Congress of 21^st Century America have been purchased, and unless you have tens of thousands of dollars to contribute to election campaigns, you really have no voice at all.

Elections are costly. Contributions for the 2008 federal campaign totaled $5.3 billion. The average winner of a House seat spent $1.4 million while the average Senate seat went for $8.5 million. Sure, there are many small donors; in fact, about half of the 2008 money came from donations of under $200. Unfortunately, that means the other half came from larger donations, with $1.9 billion coming from donations over $2,300, and $974 million in large donations — over $10,000.

It’s these large donations that do more than merely help support a candidate; they are the currency of government. The average Joe, who donates $10 or $25 to their favorite candidate, expects nothing specific in return, but such is not the case for the Goldman Sachs of the world. As expected, in the shadow of the housing/banking crash, the 2008 election was largely financed by big banks, insurance companies and real estate. The largest contributor to the 2008 election, this sector donated $477 million. And companies like Goldman, who topped bank spenders at more then $7 million, and JPMorgan and Citigroup, who each coughed up over $5 million, don’t spend money unless it improves profits.

The fact that no financial reform legislation was passed, for more than two years after Bear Stearns crashed and started the collapse of the economy, is prima facie evidence of the power of campaign capital. It’s no coincidence that the top donor for Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), the chair of the Senate’s committee for banking and housing, is the securities and banking sector — the very people he’s charged to oversee. The nearly $5 million investment the sector made in contributions, over the 2008 and 2010 cycles, to Dodd and the ranking committee Republican, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), not only helped stall legislation for years, but it paid for the diluted excuse for “reform” that was finally passed.

This is but one example of business-as-usual in Washington.  Healthcare legislation wrangled its way through Congress for most of 2009, while the Health industry was busy greasing the skids with $84 million in campaign donations. Their investment was not in vain. It actually produced excellent returns, netting 32 million new government sponsored patients and nothing in the way of real reform. Energy, Communication/Electronics, Trial Lawyers, they’re all present, and they’re all spending millions to make sure that any legislation that’s passed is favorable to their business profits. With government so clearly under the control of big-business, is it any wonder why the 61.7% voter turnout for the 2008 election was the high-water mark since 1968?

American voters feel increasingly frustrated with Washington politics, and there’s good reason for it. Regardless of which party people support, it’s becoming more evident with every passing year that the will of The People is being ignored, their voices unheard beneath the din of the corporate campaign hijacking.

Angry conservatives are already gathering under banners proclaiming, “Take our country back!” But the loss of voice in Washington politics isn’t a partisan issue. Campaign funding for the 2010 election, and the control that goes with it, is nearly split down the middle between Democrats and Republicans. There may be legitimate political differences being liberal and conservative voters, but neither is served when special interests have bought and paid for the federal government.

If indeed the country is ever to be taken back, Americans from left and right must join forces on this critical issue. Together, they can put an end to big-money control of Congress. It’s time voters stop falling for the blatant misdirection of party talking points and start demanding results. The American people can take back control of the nation, and the surest path to that end is through real campaign finance reform.

The sad truth is that while votes are the mechanism by which politicians are elected, it’s money that makes campaigns — and campaigns are the means through which votes are secured. Today’s system ensures that elected officials are beholding to the big-money donors who finance their election. The People are but pawns in this game of quid pro quo, and they will remain so until and unless they unite and change the system that allows this corruption to exist.

Like students left with the huge loan balances, the present system ensures that our elected officials are left with huge favor balances on their books. To think that politicians will bite the hand that feeds them and vote against the interests of their big-money benefactors is delusional at best. To take back the country, The People must take back the Congress, and to take back the Congress, the politicians must once again be beholding, not to influence peddling special interests, but to the people who elect them. One person, one vote must again reflect the control of the nation.

There’s only one way to make this happen, and that’s through public financing of elections. It’s already working in several states in the form of Clean Elections. And there’s a bipartisan bill in the House and also the Senate to bring similar reform to Washington. Public financing will require that candidates secure significant funding in small donations from their constituents before qualifying for public money. But once established as a viable candidate, public funding would be allocated in amounts sufficient to finance a competitive campaign.

The power of such a system is obvious. For a relatively small investment, American voters could actually ensure that elected officials would owe their loyalty to no one but the people who elected them. It would in essence break the favor bank.

But the benefits of public campaign financing don’t end with properly placed loyalties. The investment would also pay dividends in productivity, as it would mitigate the demand for fund raising by incumbents. In the present system, officials start focusing on the next election cycle as soon as they’re elected. Estimates place fund raising efforts for members of Congress at 20% to 40% of their time. With so much misuse of time, is it any wonder they get so little done? It’s like a business that pays its employees to look for another job two days out of every week.

Public campaign finance is not a silver bullet; it won’t by itself bring the federal government back under the control of The People, but without it — there is no hope of that happening. The removal of special interest influence on election campaigns is a critical first step for Americans to take back the country. Couple public financing with preferential voting, which would allow a significant increase in votes for third party candidates, add congressional term limits and weld shut the revolving lobbyist door, and America may once again return to a government of the people, by the people, for the people.