Posted
by Bill Hoyt
May 22, 2007 at 10:24 p.m.
Hoping against hope
Upon hearing that one perpetual presidential candidate pocketed as much money for a single speech on poverty as half the households in America bring home in a year, [Garling Gauge][1] reveals to us the heart of John Edwards: * By using his affluent position to run a presidential campaign spearheading the issue of poverty, former Sen. John Edwards has donned his green tights, hoping to use the compassion and wealth of our country to help those most in need.Of course, I don't know what John Edwards was hoping to accomplish with his 9-college, $285,000 one-man traveling poverty circus. I'm not in his counsel. But I do know what he did accomplish, and I'm rather proud of him. John Edwards has reduced the number of poor in America by insuring that he, his wife, and his children are never counted among them. What better way to reduce poverty in America than by going out and getting rich?Now I know what you're thinking:_ "Come on, El B, he did it by taking tax money from people a lot poorer than himself - it's Robin Hood in reverse. And besides, he's already rich."_ So what? Don't the rich deserve to get richer? Isn't that the main complaint some level against Halliburton and big oil and corporate farms, that they use the power of government to line their own pockets? I'm disappointed in you. Y'all sound like a bunch of pinkos to me.If only we could find a way for the Other America* to travel around the country making scads of dough while seeking work it would cease to matter if they actually got jobs at all. They wouldn't even need to pretend to don "the green tights" of Robin Hood. They could just be honest and admit that what those who publicly purport to care most about the poor are really wearing are green eyeshades. _
US household median income (2005): $46,326._*"Today, under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one...One America that will do anything to leave its children a better life, another America that never has to do a thing because its children are already set for life." - John Edwards, making damned sure his children live in the better America.technically he was not a candidate, but Garling Gauge notes that "It doesn't matter if former Sen. John Edwards hadn't announced his candidacy yet, he never stopped running." That's true enough. And it's a pretty good gig. [1]: http://garlinggauge.wordpress.com/2007/05/22/carla-marinucci-vs-robin-hood/
Comments
Lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
You know I had to comment - if only to point out the words of a favorite author of mine:
"As for how to pay for things without taxation: "I can think of several ways. Voluntary contributions just as churches support themselves... government-sponsored lotteries to which no one need subscribe... or perhaps your Congressmen should dig down into their own pouches and pay for whatever is needed; that would be one way to keep government down in size to its indispensable functions whatever they may be. If indeed there are any. I would be satisfied to have The Golden Rule be the only law; I see no need for any other, nor for any method of enforcing it. But if you really believe that your neighbors must have laws for their own good, why shouldn't you pay for it? I beg you -- do not resort to compulsory taxation. There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."
thetomdotdot (anonymous) says…
So you are saying there is no value in paying millionaires 6 digit fees to discuss poverty?
Just asking.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
There's plenty of value in paying ME six figures to discuss it. Hell, I'd even give TWO speeches for $55k. Three if they'd throw in a new car.
OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) says…
I won't disagree with the possible irony in high fees being given for a speech on poverty, but the fact is high-profile people get paid ridiculous amounts of money.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?...
http://www.salon.com/news/primary_sou...
Guiliani made $9.2 million last year speaking.
Clinton, Bill made $31+ million btwn 2001 and 2005: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/20...
(note, the cool illustration was made by former l.comrad Adrian Holovaty, which is pretty cool)
I guess my thought is, yes, it would be a great story if Edwards was doing all his speeches for free. But is that smart? If he wants to do the most good for the poor, being President would make that a lot easier and he needs big bucks to get elected.
Being idealistic and running for President w/o raising money because the poor could use it in the meantime isn't very practical.
Now, if he gets the nomination, but loses and still pockets all the money he's raised like Kerry pocketed the $40 mil or so, he deserves some more flak.
MyName (anonymous) says…
See, what I don't understand about this is that it seems like your only critique against Edwards is the fact that he got paid for this trip. If he'd been wandering around doing the same thing on his own dime, you'd seem to be saying it's okay for him to do what he was doing.
My problem with Edwards' ideas is the fact that he doesn't seem to be advocating anything that actually works. I mean, if people want to pay to hear some kind of entertaining speech that makes them feel good about themselves, I guess that's okay, but there's no way anyone should be confused about whether this is good public policy, anymore than one of (the late) Falwell's speeches should be confused with have anything to do with real life.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
Chris: This whole process is a racket by which rainmakers of both parties personally enrich themselves at the taxpayers' expense. The money going into their pockets, whether it's paid for by publicly-funded universities or by corporations that do a significant business with government, is money coerced from people who make and will always make a lot less than them.
I don't criticize Edwards for getting rich. More power to him. I wish we all were. But I do criticize a process whereby the money extorted from your paychecks or built into everything you buy is eventually poured into the pockets of powerful individuals - especially when it's for talking about something in which they have no expertise or bemoaning how the poor never get a break in this country.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
Myname: "it seems like your only critique against Edwards is the fact that he got paid for this trip"
No, it's that he got paid with money coerced from people who did not attend the speech.
MyName (anonymous) says…
>There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.
What a load of bunk! If you want to talk about *real* tyranny lets just parade all of the dictators/monarchs/emperors since the start of recorded history. Those guys took the taxes and bought a posh palace with it.
The reason why public works exist is a purely economic one: there are some goods that are beneficial to all, but which no one wants to own because they are non-excludable. A lighthouse, for example, is something that everyone can agree is a good thing because it keeps ships from crashing into a coast. However, no private entity would want to own one because they would be unable to force ships to pay to use it. The lighthouse is just there for everybody to use equally. However, a public entity, like the government, could collect taxes to pay for the construction and maintenance and avoid the "free rider" problem. Everybody pays because everybody benefits. Much like education, or transportation, etc.
MyName (anonymous) says…
>No, it's that he got paid with money coerced from people who did not attend the speech.
I'm calling BS on this. Edwards' attended two private universities and one public one, UC Davis, and the tab for that speech was picked up by the UC Davis' Mondavi Center, which is affiliated with the university's performing arts center but not funded by the public, anymore than everyone that performs at the Lied Center is funded by the State of Kansas.
You might be able to say that some money from student tuition went towards subsidizing the performance, but then again, they would undoubtedly get a discount towards the tickets, and having people come to the university and speak is one of the costs/benefits of attending the university as far as I'm concerned.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
A lighthouse, for example, is something that everyone can agree is a good thing ....
And so everyone who wants such a lighthouse will pay for it willingly.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"the tab for that speech was picked up by the UC Davis' Mondavi Center, which is affiliated with the university's performing arts center but not funded by the public"
Not completely funded by the public. Mondavi Center gets significant private support, but it also receives student money whether the students attend or not, not to mention that about 1/3 of CalDavis' construction budget comes from state taxpayers. I didn't see numbers for the Performing Arts Center specifically, but the Mondavi Food Institute, part of the same gift, was funded by the state to that extent. Nor do I know the center's operating budget but I would be surprised if it were completely self-sufficient.
However, if the money paid to Edwards was put up privately, then I withdraw any objection to it; I'll only say that it's as big a waste of money as when Patti LaDuke was paid 10 grand to come here and speak to a couple hundred students*. It's a wonderful racket for people who are between jobs, however.
"having people come to the university and speak is one of the costs/benefits of attending the university as far as I'm concerned."
How many people attend Cal Davis? 30k. How many attended the speech? Fewer than 2k, and I'd bet that half of them weren't students. Maybe as far as you're concerned that's part of the college experience, but there seem to be relatively few students experiencing it.
* But since it's a waste of other people's money, more power to them.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
More quotes from same author:
"A managed democracy is a wonderful thing... for the managers...."
"You might even consider installing the candidates who receive the least number of votes; unpopular men may be just the sort to save you from a new tyranny. Don't reject the idea merely because it seems preposterous -- think about it! In past history popularly elected governments have been no better and sometimes far worse than overt tyrannies."
"You have put your finger on the dilemma of all government -- ... The power to tax, once conceded, has no limits; it contains until it destroys. I was not joking when I told them to dig into their own pouches. It may not be possible to do away with government -- sometimes I think that government is an inescapable disease of human beings. But it may be possible to keep it small and starved and inoffensive -- and can you think of a better way than by requiring the governors themselves to pay the costs of their antisocial hobby? "
ChrisKnudsen (anonymous) says…
I think it is perfectly fine that John Edwards got paid money for his speeches. A man needs to make a living somehow even if its technically exploiting homeless people. Homeless people could make money from public speaking too but I don't think there is much of an audience for a speech about how your car broke down in Lawrence and you need gas money to get home which is in St. Louis. Sure, the posters will look grand like its some sort of joke but I doubt an audience of 5,000 plus would appear. If they did, maybe the revolution will finally come.
OtherJoel (anonymous) says…
Blessed are the cheesemakers.
thetomdotdot (anonymous) says…
We should each of us be a light house, a beacon of shining hope for our brethren (and sisteren) in despair, be they princes(ses) or paupers, and let us hope they suffer no sudden withdrawal of library hours over theoretical budget cuts.
mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) says…
thetom, you'd better clean the gigglespit off your keyboard before it dries to ickiness.
thetomdotdot (anonymous) says…
Thats thetomdotdot. Or thetom... Jeez Louise. How would you like it if I started calling you "mitzib?"
See what I mean?
Anyway, I was wondering what that mauve coating is. I was calling it patina. Now I'm like all "ewww!"
..
Tortuca (anonymous) says…
Link Update:
Garling Gauge moved to its own domain a while back. The Garling Gauge link referenced is now:
http://garlinggauge.com/2007/05/22/ca...
Please replace and delete this posting.
Or you can leave this posting here and my little bits of text data can live a comfortable life in your server. Live long little text, live long.
-T