When $3.7 Billion Dollars Is Not A Lot of Money. No, Really!
Posted by Ryne McClaren on February 23, 2010
DrewM at the delightfully tacky Ace of Spades blog details the semi-annual MSM “ZOMG, we spend so much money on political campaigns!” news season.
Drew’s post highlights a Center for Responsive Politics post that says:
With Democrats battling to keep control of both chambers of Congress and Republicans eager to make gains, the money race is fast underway for 2010’s federal midterm elections.
By the time that every dollar is spent and every check is cashed, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics estimates the cost of the Nov. 2 contests will be more than $3.7 billion.
$3.7 billion dollars is, quite frankly, chump change in this era of Obama/SEIU/Soros/ACORN monkey business, considering what’s at stake in the 2010 midterms: Massive Government vs. Even More Massive Government.
The post at AoS is full of illustrations as to how $3.7B isn’t a lot in the era of Hope ‘n Change and blowout sports contracts. Below, Drew presents us with the takeaway quote that’s worth repeating:
If you really want to see less money spent on politics, shrink the size and influence of government.
While that would be a novel approach, one that would make your humble author’s heart swell with gladness… well, I forgot what I was going to say.
Imagine if we lived in some Byzantine era, one in which every vote cast didn’t influence the selling price and production cost of, well, everything. The mind practically balks at the consideration.
By the time that Barack Obama and the Chicago Machine roll into 2012, $3.7 billion probably won’t even keep a mid-sized Florida bank afloat. So what we need is perspective, people!