Richard Dreyfuss

Has he finally been mugged by reality?

Here’s a flashback:

Dreyfuss, who in 2006 called for the impeachment of then-President George W. Bush, has long been a critic of special interest money in politics; in 2011, during an appearance at the National Press Club, he called for a constitutional amendment “prohibiting money, politics and television.” He also started The Dreyfuss Initiative in support of teaching civics in schools.

Well, the latest piece is at least consistent with that. And at least he recognizes that “getting money out of politics” would require a Constitutional amendment. But he doesn’t seem to recognize that the best way to get money out of politics, at least federal politics, would be to remove the incentive, by limiting the power of the federal government to what the Founders intended, particularly restoring the 9th and 10th Amendments.

[Late Tuesday-morning update]

Given the turn the comments have taken, this seems relevant: Government corruption, from the IRS to the DOJ.

[Bumped]

50 thoughts on “Richard Dreyfuss”

  1. When you want the Government to do everything for everyone, you can’t also want to gut its powers.

    … which leaves you fuming about the wrong people daring to influence matters.

    I don’t trust anyone who wants “money and influence” out of politics – all they ever want in practice is money and influence they don’t agree with out of politics.

  2. But disempowering official Washington wouldn’t get to the policy outcomes he blames the big money for thwarting.

    1. Jim, “In order to solve the problem of people wanting to influence the government, we must give the government more power and make it illegal for certain groups to speak. This means they won’t be able to speak out and we can implement the policies that we want without criticism. Sure, they will want to speak out about the policies that affect them but it is illegal so it doesn’t matter. We also need to make it easier for other groups to influence the government. These groups need special privileges and government funding to engage in their most special work.”

  3. Do people understand how a medium of exchange and specialization works in any economy past the stone age? I am supposed to do what I am good at – programming computers – get money, and pay it to get what I am not good at – influencing politics. You can no more take money out of politics than you can take air out of breathing – and it is morally wrong to try.

    Yours,
    Tom

    1. Venn diagram would so huge overlap between those wanting to overturn Citizens United and those wanting to tax the air we exhale. If they could take the air, they would.

    2. Why should your degree of influence on the government depend on your ability to program computers for pay? Why is one dollar, one vote a better ideal of self-government than one person, one vote?

  4. remove the incentive, by limiting the power of the federal government to what the Founders intended

    The founders intended that the federal government oversee defense. Today that’s a $700b business all by itself.

    There’s no way to shrink the federal government to the point that those with money would be indifferent to its decisions; the incentive to buy a more favorable federal government will always be there.

      1. And defense costs roughly half what we spend annually on means tested welfare programs.

        1. Is your suggestion that we not have any means-tested welfare, because that would reduce the influence of big money in politics?

          1. Are you saying that no one profits off welfare benefits or that groups don’t advocate for them? Are these groups going to be allowed to for tax exempt groups, petition the government, and communicate with private citizens?

            Are some special interest groups more equal than others to you?

            Should we be surprised that your criteria of who is allowed to speak closely aligns with who supports your political ideology?

          2. No, I’m not saying any of those things. I’m just asking whether Ctrot is suggesting that we abolish means-tested welfare as a way to reduce the influence of big money in politics.

    1. —remove the incentive, by limiting the power of the federal government to what the Founders intended

      The founders intended that the federal government oversee defense. Today that’s a $700b business all by itself.—

      As other have said military budget is small portion of Federal government. And according to wiki, 2015 was 637 billion:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
      Also personnel costs of about 30% of the budget. As one find at wiki
      or:
      http://www.voicesfortroops.org/Learn_More/Learn_About_The_Issues/Fact_vs__Fiction_on_Military_Personnel_Costs.html
      So is cost employee actually part of this business?
      So 637 bilion .3 is 191 billion- wages for active soldiers, medical cost, and disability and pension.
      But another aspect of defense business is not part of defense budget- is sells stuff to other nations. Also one has black mostly space related government spending which would not included

      –There’s no way to shrink the federal government to the point that those with money would be indifferent to its decisions; the incentive to buy a more favorable federal government will always be there.–
      The federal government is in the business of healthcare, SS, and medicare, and using federal dollars to control what States should do.
      So it’s not doing a good job of doing this. Citizens tend pay into these “businesses” more than the benefits to get out of them, plus it’s citizens as it controls the States- making them do what they would not otherwise choose to do. Another big factor of what Federal govt does is it gets it’s self into large debit- which also form of taxation.

      Any ways if instead Federal government had half of budget military spends [which still large amount] then the federal would be completely different animal. And since State collect taxes and pay for education and over 1/2 trillion per year. Education per other State spending would larger than military spending.
      The result would less political money going to DC and more political money related to State politics.
      And if think individual States are problem rather the Federal Government- you would not want that. A large reason for modern Federal government was that individual States were hopeless corrupt and one needed a more powerful Federal government to “fix the problem”.
      And seems to me it didn’t fix the problem- it made it worst.
      Which could have been easily predicted. Founder knew it over 200 years ago.

      1. Thanks for the correction, my $700b DOD budget estimate is a few years out of date. So call it $600b, plus non-DOD defense spending at DHS, DOE, VA, etc.

        And seems to me it didn’t fix the problem- it made it worst.

        Really? My sense is that there was much more political corruption a century ago.

        1. It was more blatant a century ago, but it’s more endemic, implicit and accepted today. For example, your complete complacency about the weaponization of the IRS against the citizenry. It doesn’t bother you, because you agree with the administration that its political enemies deserve it.

          1. It doesn’t bother you, because you agree with the administration that its political enemies deserve it.

            No, I don’t accept your premise that the IRS has been weaponized for political purposes.

          2. “I don’t accept your premise that the IRS has been weaponized for political purposes.”

            That explains why the Obama administration has been so forthcoming in halting the illegal behavior and upfront with the courts and congress. Is it even possible to imagine a more transparent and accountable way that this whole thing could have been handled?

            The scandal spans several agencies and the agencies in question have acted to defend each other rather than hold anyone accountable or even stop the behavior. Regardless of whether or not Obama gave the initial order, he allowed the behavior to continue after it was known to be happening, fought all efforts to stop it, lied to the congress, lied to the courts, lied to the public, engaged in a coverup, destroyed evidence, and even used his victims to shield the administration. That Obama did all of these things shows his complicity in the scandal.

            But hey its not like people were being shipped off to the camps and even if Lerner and the DOJ had their way, it would have only been a few tens or hundreds of people imprisoned, just enough to send a message but not enough to be a human rights disaster right?

            You do remember that the IRS already admitted to having a program that targeted non-Democrat groups for the application of punitive behavior?

          3. No, I don’t accept your premise that the IRS has been weaponized for political purposes.

            There you go again.
            I suspect Rand lets you stay here for the comedy.

          4. You do remember that the IRS already admitted

            I remember what they admitted, and it wasn’t using their powers for political purposes.

    2. “The founders intended that the federal government oversee defense. Today that’s a $700b business all by itself.

      There’s no way to shrink the federal government to the point that those with money would be indifferent to its decisions; the incentive to buy a more favorable federal government will always be there.”

      Massive strawman: nobody says all waste, fraud, big money influence and abuse can be wrung out of the government. But if you reduce the Federal budget to handle only those items specified in the Constitution (defense, weights and measures, census etc) then all the influence waste abuse and fraud for about 3/4 of the government instantly vanishes.

      This is a plus.

      If much that the Feds to devolves upon the States then every member of that State has far more control and influence than they do over Federal actions.

      This has been explained to you a dozen times. You’ve repeatedly asked over the years for lists of things that could be eliminated and they have been provided to you. Repeatedly.

      You’ve learned well from your messiah Obama – you are a great little Obama-bot:

      You accuse the other side of wanting perfection. Since it can’t be had, you then conclude the idea is meritless.

      Witless dweeb.

    3. There’s no way to shrink the federal government to the point people would be indifferent to its decisions;

      FTFA

      Do we embrace freedom and human nature or do we deny them by deciding what groups have the right to speak based on progressive ideology?

  5. “There’s no way to shrink the federal government to the point that those with money would be indifferent to its decisions. . . .”

    Or so you hope. Reduce it to minimalist size and the power to sell influence wanes automatically.

    1. Or just moves. As functions performed by the federal government devolves to the states and localities, the political money follows.

      1. …Where you, a member of that State, have a LOT more power and control over what is done than you have over Federal actions.

        Sheesh do you ever stop to think for at least a SECOND?

        1. Your power over state actions is today, and would continue to be, highly dependent on your ability to give money to politicians and PACs. So you haven’t solved the problem, you’ve just moved it around.

          1. “So you haven’t solved the problem, you’ve just moved it around.”

            What problem? The problem of the interaction between the government and the population it governs? This can’t be done away with, it will always exist. It isn’t even a problem. It is something that is needed to have a healthy free society.

            “and hope that “the ludicrous and frustrating facts of civic engagement” will reverse themselves?”

            Perhaps people would become more engaged if there was greater speech activity in their own area about issues that matter to people who live in the area. Groups and individuals would have to appeal to the local populace rather than people who neither know or care about what the locals have to deal with.

          2. Or sit in his living room and urge him to support a particular position. Yes, I have done those two things, just not on the same occasion. My (now former, thanks to term limits) state rep could greet me by name, and knew who was. My congressman, not so much.

            Several years ago, a bill (which a group of citizens including me opposed) was still in committee. Over 1,000 of us showed up at the state capital on under 24 hours’ notice, to lobby the state legislature to amend it. The original sponsor of the bill came out and publicly apologized to the gathering. An amendment was passed which corrected the troubling section. That is how it is supposed to work. It is much more likely to work that way at the state level than at the federal level.

      2. “As functions performed by the federal government devolves (sic) revert to the states and localities where they properly belong, the political money follows.”

        Fixed that for ya…

        I’d be tickled pink if people paid even HALF as much attention to local matters as they did to the presidential race. The vast majority of a person’s property tax liability is tied up in school district taxes, yet the turnout at most school board elections is under 5%. The rest of the property tax liability for people is in their other local taxes, and people show up at less than 30% (usually less than 20%) to vote for the people who set those rates.

        What do people show up to vote for? They show up for the guy (or gal) who has no direct effect on a person’s tax liability (unless that guy/gal happens to pass all sorts of legislation by illegal executive fiat). They show up even less for Senator, then Governor, and on down the line. In fact, the level of civic participation in elections is generally inversely proportional to the effect that the electee has on one’s life.

        It’s one of the most ludicrous and frustrating facts of civic engagement, and is perpetuated by the celebrity status that we afford to our national representatives and the major two-party system that has grown and protected itself so well over the years.

        1. It’s one of the most ludicrous and frustrating facts of civic engagement

          That’s exactly right — states and localities already wield enormous power, without corresponding scrutiny by the citizenry. And your proposal is to give them even more power, and hope that “the ludicrous and frustrating facts of civic engagement” will reverse themselves?

          1. If a town or state is corrupt, one can move to another town or state (cf. Detroit). If the federal government is corrupt, to what other USA can people move?

          2. Without scrutiny by the citizenry?

            You emasculate the rural counties using Baker v Carr and Reynolds v Sims. You allow public unions to dominate the urban vote, rallying en masse for city and state officials with a quid pro quo in benefits.

            You take away the local representative’s ability to vote for the respective state’s senator which demands that voters then concentrate their attention on national issues.

            You encourage hedonism (if it feels good, do it–Frankfurt School), you destroy civic values and frugality by “smashing the patriarchy”, white priveledge, etc ad nauseum using the educational system and Hollywood.

            And, you create nameless bureaucracies that have law enforcement agencies that give the average citizen a feeling of hopelessness and helplessness.

            And you have the temerity to imply the average voter doesn’t care about local politics. You’re a true gem.

      3. What’s wrong with that? If your statist policies destroy New Hampshire (as it is already happening), one can move elsewhere.

        But where would be the fun of bossing only a few million people around when you can boss 300 million? Much more gratifying for the sociopaths.

  6. Rule of law would help. But that ship has sailed.

    Rock the vote isn’t helping either.

    The only way Hillary could become president is ignorance of several decades. Check!

  7. Curt,
    The percentage has dropped as your link shows, but the absolute amount of loot is well enough to hold the attention of the military industries.

  8. The incentive to spend to influence government is not just to get government to spend money to your benefit. There’s also regulations that may put your competition, or you, out of business. Or regulation forcing someone else to spend money to your benefit. The measure of big government is far more than just how much money passes through the treasury.

    1. That’s right. As long as the government cares about air or water quality, or food safety, or aviation, or any of thousands of other regulatory questions, there will be people with a powerful financial incentive to influence its course.

      1. That’s right. As long as there is government, there will be people with an incentive to influence its course.

        FTFY

        People, even groups of people, have the right to speak out about the policies that affect them. There will always be a government and people who want to have influence over the policies and regulations they have to live under.

        Give government a less intrusive role and less people and groups of people will be speaking out about government policies or advocating the government for various causes. Although, there will always be those who will petition the government or speak in the media for government to have a greater role in things.

        Strangely enough, when Democrat activists riot in the streets and engage in acts of violence as a form of petitioning the government this is viewed as social justice but non Democrat groups will not even be allowed to run commercials or associate with more than one other person without being attacked by the federal government.

        Rather than give the government a less intrusive role, Jim would rather give the government more control by taking away people’s right to speak and preventing them from interacting with government officials.

        But the test of whose speech is taken away and who is prevented from interacting with the government isn’t based on an ideal* that would be equally applied to all, it is applied on how close one aligns with the Democrat party. We can’t have businesses speak out about the punitive regulations placed on them. We can’t have victims of SWAT raids speak to the press about what happened. We can’t have non-Democrat party activist groups participate in our democracy.

        * Even if this was carried out without the one sided enforcement, it is still unethical and anti-American.

        1. It may help Jim to understand the issue is we state it in his terms:

          A group of people get together, and in order to influence a large government they form there own smaller government. Participation in this smaller government is voluntary – and they even manage to get things to work without involuntary taxation. Anyone and everyone can form these voluntary government groups. These groups then spend their resources to influence the larger government.

          These voluntary government groups are these “corporations” we are discussing.

          1. The question is the degree to which wealth should be allowed to amplify particular voices. Wodun seems to argue that there should be no limits on political spending at all, because to him it is all speech. I would argue that such an approach makes government beholden to the highest bidder, rather than to the citizenry at large.

  9. Dreyfuss lives in a pretty exclusive area of north San Diego county, mostly surrounded by people who got rich due to their hard work and who now enjoy the fruits of their labor. These people tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Perhaps Dreyfuss was like that already and is just now realizing it, or has grown to appreciate that viewpoint after living immersed in it…

  10. The best way to get money out of politics, at least federal politics, would be to remove the incentive, by limiting the power of the federal government to what the Founders intended, particularly restoring the 9th and 10th Amendments.

    Great, how? This is the fundamental problem with every minarchist argument. If the people with the guns and the power only did XYZ then everything would be fine! Great, but they have the power, so what’s going to stop them from doing whatever the heck they like?

    It seems to me that the only way to prevent massive accumulation of power is with massive decentralization, and a pervasive culture dead set on keeping it that way.

    1. For almost 200 years, an enforced Constitution worked pretty well. Then Adams’ caution and de Toqueville’s bleak prediction got together and had a devil baby.

    2. “Great, how?”

      Simple. Get rid of 2/3’s (or more) of the agencies of the Federal Government. Sell all government lands. Reduce the range of taxes the Feds can levy and insist the Feds do only those things enumerated by the Constitution. Revoke the 17th amendment.

      The solution isn’t hard to see.

      1. Yes, but the challenge is doing any that given the current state of clueless voters and endemic corruption.

        The desired destination is well identified. The course to get there is rough.

      2. Or just wait until it all falls apart from internal or external means.

        We only have a country if we can keep it.

Comments are closed.