Forwarded from Anthony (elections)

Jose G. Perez jg_perez at SPAMbellsouth.net
Sat Nov 11 19:06:06 MST 2000



>>Starting with Cabinet secretaries, but including all appointess made by
the
President and his surrogates. I bet salaries alone are well above
$10,000,000 (US). Small change to oil barons, but big bucks to political
consultants - and politicians who view such an apponitement as the road to
a seat in Congress, etc.<<

THIS -- I think more than any difference over oil or other policies -- is
what is fueling the spat between the Goreites and the Bushites. Both, in
their own view, are right. Gore feels entitled to the victory in Florida
since he was clearly the choice of most voters, while Bush insists on the
unwritten gentlemen's agreement that there's no point in trying to get the
exact vote down to the last person, whoever wins on election night is the
winner, anything else is sour grapes. Gore's answer is sure, but not when
you throw out 30,000 votes (that, by the way, is the REAL figure for the
West Palm presidential votes being discounted) in one county, about 6-7% of
the total vote there.

The actual amount is way, way over $10 million/year. There are some 4,000
political appointees in the executive branch. Apart from some on the White
House staff, these are all the top managers and administrators, and we can
safely assume an average annual salary of at least $125,000 each plus
another $25,000 in "perks," pensions, fringe benefits and so on. That works
out to some $2.4 billion over the life of an administration, and once the
"m" in million rolls over into a "b," you're dealing with real money (even
for an oil company).

The Republicans' move to challenge the Florida election law which provides
for manual recounts in federal court on the grounds it is unconstitutionally
vague in not defining "standards" by which to judge visually when someone
has voted for a given candidate appears to be an act of desperation.
Elections are state matters, and this lawsuit is almost certainly going to
get thrown out. I suspect though they will try to use it to maneuver their
way into explaning the need for a state-wide recount, as the court will
certainly tell them that the claim of discrimination based on counting
ballots in two different ways --by machine in  Bush areas, by hand in Gore
ones-- cannot be presented in federal court until and unless Bush has tried
and exhausted his local administrative remedies. That will the allow the
Bushites to gracefully climb down from their "no recounts" position.

The reason the Bushites are in federal court with this is that they can't
very well ask a state court to look into the fairness and best way to count
the votes. State courts are bound by law and precedent to try to determine
the real intent of each and every voter, to look for any irregularities
which may have affected the outcome of a race, and if they determine that
happened, they have pretty much a blank check in fashioning a suitable
remedy. State courts in Florida in recent years have done everything from
ordering new elections to overturning the election night results and
declaring the "loser" to be the winner (by throwing out all absentee
ballots).

At any rate, Bush is already an automatic party in the state court
challenges to the West Palm vote; going into court unilaterally was, from a
strictly judicial point of view, superfluous, and this is obviously a
political public relations ploy.

José

----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Proyect" <lnp3 at panix.com>
To: <marxism at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 3:12 PM
Subject: Forwarded from Anthony (elections)


Hi Lou!

Please post this.

More about the elections and a possible constitutional crisis.

No doubt the people who wanted to vote for Al Gore, should have their
ballots counted for Al Gore.

And marxists should promote that right to the limit that we can support
bourgeois democracy.

And we should promote that right as far as we can to promote a crisis of
the constitutional system.

That system is a great obstacle to social revolution.

However, I think that such a crisis will come only if the bourgeoisie
itself does not close ranks, and make a backroom deal to avoid a crisis. If
they do not, the reason will be mother's milk

Howard Baker suggested that Gore and Bush get together and decide which one
will be the president. But they haven't done that.

Why not, if both parties are the same? Or so close it doesn't matter? why
not if ideologically both men are so close that it's hard to tell where one
begins and the other ends?

Money is the mother's milk of all politics.

Here are the reasons there may be a constitutional crisis.

1. Alaskan oil

2. The arms budget.

These are two issues where the two men differ substantially, not because of
ideology, but because they represent different sectors of capitalism.

At stake are $10s of billions of dollars. Who gets the cash, depends on who
occupies the White House.

3. Lots of jobs.

I wonder if anyone has recently added up the amount of money the Federal
government pays political appointees.

Starting with Cabinet secretaries, but including all appointess made by the
President and his surrogates. I bet salaries alone are well above
$10,000,000 (US). Small change to oil barons, but big bucks to political
consultants - and politicians who view such an apponitement as the road to
a seat in Congress, etc.

4. The intangibles - i.e. control of the Supreme Court.

Anthony


Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org










More information about the Marxism mailing list