Obama opts out of public campaign financing

Today, Senator Barack Obama opted out of public financing for his presidential campaign, becoming the first major party candidate to do so since the system was created in 1976. Oddly, I'm fine with this.

The public financing system limits the amount that a candidate can spend to spread his message, but it does nothing to stop advocacy groups from spending all sorts of money to promote their ideas and candidate, or from spending all kinds of money to disparage a candidate or someone else's ideas. Who can forget the Swift Boat Veterans for (their version of) Truth?

Because we live in what we should call the Swift Boat Vets era of campaigning and campaign financing, it is unrealistic for a candidate to limit himself to public financing and its restrictions. Political action committees, with their nudge-nudge, wink-wink relationships to major candidates, can attack from any angle, sometimes with devastating effectiveness. Campaign finance restrictions like those we have in place lead to a battle of the PACs, and the veneer-thin notion that our candidates (and their supporters) are not skirting the rules. It all appears just the tiniest bit dishonest. Just a tiny bit.

Frankly, I think that our campaigns need to borrow a page from the Securities and Exchange Act. Since the 1930s, if your company is selling stock, you need to make a book available to the public that describes everything your company is doing, has done, and will do. Everyone knows your business. We need to do the same for candidates. I don't care how much money a candidate gets, I just want to know how he got it, and who from. The FEC already keep this kind of information. Now, we need to make the candidates get pro-active and send this info out to whoever wants it.

Bad Ideas by Hillary Clinton

Maybe it's all the whiskey and beer she swilled with the common people of Pennsylvania. Maybe it's the fatty foods she's been eating with people like us common folk impairing her judgment. Maybe it's good old pandering. But something has turned otherwise bright and intelligent Hillary Clinton into a damned fool.

Clinton has joined with John McCain in endorsing a gas tax holiday that would stretch through the summer travel months, an idea that Barack Obama appears to have rejected out of hand. Yes, Barack and a number of leading economists.

The idea is simple enough: during the summer months, you would pay no federal gas tax on your gasoline. The tax works out to a little more than 18 cents per gallon, so, if you pump nearly 11 gallons at a time like me, you'd save a whole two bucks. That two bucks makes a world of difference to Senator Clinton, who touts the plan as a way to cut the burden on us, the underclass. Nevermind the fact that the increased demand on gasoline would, probably, hugely increase already massive oil company profits.

Senator Clinton's idea is dumb, and there seems to be no serious support for it. I'd be mildly shocked if it ever came to fruition, and I say mildly because we do actually live in an era of zero responsible leadership. My problem is what it represents. First, in my mind, it shows no reflection or serious thought on Clinton's part. You endorse this kind of idea when you are thinking of getting votes only, and avoid considering the long-term ramifications of an plan like this. She is a bright person, and when bright people make terrible decisions, you must question their motivation. She's desperate to paint herself as the people's candidate, so desperate that she's willing to eschew reason to get a vote. Poor show, Senator.

Second, this "fix" demonstrates our national ignorance to the energy problem. We're dumb, writes Thomas Friedman. There is no leadership on national energy policy. No one is willing to go out on a limb and explain how we'll reduce our dependence on oil, how we'll reform our industry to address the rising cost of energy, and (inexplicably) no one is touting the benefits that naturally occur when an economy jettisons old tech for cutting-edge tech. Some people, like Vermont Law School's Energy Institute, understand the problem, though it is questionable whether they see the totality of the problem, or whether they only grasp the environmental aspect of it. We clearly need some ideas.

So, I have one. If our government doesn't want the two bucks for each fill-up, instead of cutting the tax, let's redirect it. Take the two bucks from every fill-up and create a giant investment fund. Some non-partisan, government group will administer it. We'll send use the money to figure out what the hell is wrong with us, how to fix it, and to invest in smart companies that can, well, save our world.

But, that'll never happen.

Public School Educational Trusts: A DC & H Policy Idea

Hate to say it, but we're all still broke. We can't really climb into holes and hibernate until we're not broke anymore, so we have to face some of our financial problems. That'll take some creativity. One problem that confronts people from all over the country is the problem of funding public education. I'd like to talk about that one now.

I'm going to address this in a Vermont-specific context, firstly because I'm familiar with it and secondly because I think the problem is particularly acute here. Vermont's state constitution mandates that every child have access to a public school education. It wasn't some liberal, New Deal idea: the mandate was included in our first constitution back in the days when we were an independent republic. To fund this mandate, Vermont uses a system of both state funding and local property taxes. The taxes are getting out of hand, and people (mostly misinformed about the debate) are basically trying to overthrow the tax system without proposing a funding system to replace it.

So, taxes are a problem. Rather than complain without proposing a solution, I'm going put forward my idea, one that might work in Vermont and elsewhere. I'll call it the public educational trust.

A trust is a simple legal device that allows one person (the trustee) to hold and invest money for the benefit of another person (the beneficiary). The trustee has to follow the instructions of the person (the grantor) who gave her the money or property she holds for the beneficiary. Unless the document establishing the trust (the trust instrument, which can be a freestanding document or something like a will) is vague or otherwise unenforceable, the beneficiary has enforceable rights under the trust, meaning she can sue the trustee if the trustee fails in her obligations.

There are several different subgroups within the trust category, including the so-called charitable trust. The charitable trust allows a grantor to give not necessary to a person but to a cause, such as the advancement of science, education, or religion.

Trust me (sorry), my idea is not revolutionary. My idea is that we create charitable trusts for our schools, and encourage our communities to donate to the trust. I'd structure the trust so that it pays out the interest gained from the trust each year, and I'd specifically include as one of its goals the goal of reducing the public educational tax burden. I might even go so far as to encourage local legislative bodies to reduce the tax burden as the trust grew. The trust could have the benefit of both funding education and reducing the need for public money.

The power of private giving is huge, probably because it lets people feel good about themselves, feel like they are making a difference. Why not use this for public education? Or, in the alternative, for reducing taxes? This is why I think my idea could work. It would appeal to liberal-minded folk who want to help kids get an education, and it would appeal to conservative-minded folk who want to reduce the tax burden. Everyone wins.

But, like I said, it's not a earth-shakingly brilliant idea. I've just not heard it discussed in this way. What do you think?

Discussion in the comment thread.

Dews Policy Ideas...

Saving the world, one idea at a time!

Random ideas for a wednesday, though I had discussed some of these with our Legal analyst DC&H, so hopefully he'll chime in with his thoughts on the subject as well.

First up, a nation-wide high speed Mono or mag rail line system. Powered exclusively by new nuclear plants placed throughout the route (back off hippies!). Obviously this is going to be extremely expensive, so I propose we take social security and use the funds as an investment "in ourselves", ie the national infrastructure. Think its a smarter investment then T-bills anyway...

Honestly, I don't see people giving up their ability to be mobile and drive everywhere and anywhere, so the only way I see us combating the more frivolous wasting of fossil fuels is by giving a fast, safe and cheap alternative. Hell, the average trip time with these trains in Europe is not all that different then flying.

Why not show some initiative and get our country to actually DO something again? We haven't had a national project since FDR it seems, but also doesn't seem like we're inclined to do anything until its too late.

Thoughts?