Separation of politics, economics
The recent problems with bank and automotive industry failures and government bailouts have shaken the foundations of our pseudo-Capitalist system. However, the more troubling issue is the media and general public's inability to connect the dots. Illinois should serve as clear example for those unable to grasp one simple truth: It is political power, not economic power, that needs to be controlled.
The charges against Gov. Blagojevich serve as a clear example. The federal complaint lists numerous incidents where he allegedly used his political power to force businesses to do his bidding in exchange for economic favors. There were also numerous politicians in the state that were allegedly willing to provide favors for the appointment to President-elect Obama's Senate seat. These activities were so blatant in nature that they shock even the average politician. In reality however, most politicians deal in these kinds of favors. They just do it indirectly with a wink, a nudge, and future promises through subordinates to avoid the very thing that has happened to our governor. Is this any less corrupt or wrong?
Why it is acceptable for politicians to take our tax dollars and use them to control the actions of private businesses? Why should the government be running any business beyond our police force, National Guard, military and the courts? The standard objection to this concept is that businesses would have the power to treat their employees badly or make products dangerous to our health or safety.
But we have always had control over private businesses by what we buy and where we choose to work. Our country was built on personal responsibility and reputations, not by government regulations and controls. Capitalism was the tremendous engine that lifted so many from poverty to the comfort of the middle class, not the government, or socialist/fascist ideas.
Our state legislature should pass a constitutional amendment that places a separation between economic and political power similar to the separation in our federal Bill of Rights between religion and politics. This concept is not new. Ayn Rand understood and articulated it long before many of us were born. The implications are far reaching: No more government funding of businesses, no more government intervention into business decisions, and no more favoritism of one business over another.
This idea scares most politicians because it takes away their "rock star" status, returning them to the part-time civil servants that the founding fathers envisioned. But what a fitting tribute to the Land of Lincoln and the man who sought to rid us of another evil that should never have been part of the lofty ideals the founders envisioned.
Art Mahanna
Geneva