Maglev- Transportation in all Kinds of Weather

Ernest M. Fazio

As I was listening to the news the morning of the blizzard the big news was how the transportations systems were in disarray due to the weather.

We all know that air travel is dysfunctional even in the best of times, but given difficult challenges like blizzards, it is flat-line dead. Rail traffic on the other hand is too slow for regular intercity use, and during a blizzard they cannot operate either. So what is a better way to transport ourselves?

The modern 2^nd generation Maglev that has been developed on Long Island by Gordon Danby and James Powell can operate in almost any conceivable weather. (These are the same inventors that created the 1^st generation Maglev that is now operating in Japan) That may sound like too large a claim, but consider this. The 2^nd generation Maglev which is known as Maglev 2000 can run on an elevated beam with all the electrical components inside completely protected from the weather. The snow accumulation on the carrying beam would be small as the wind would blow most of it off. What little snow that may remain would not stop the train because snow and ice are magnetically transparent. The train itself has a high lift about 6 inches from the carry beam, therefore there will be no physical impediment to the trains forward motion.

The Maglev 2000 uses electronic switches, therefore, no frozen switches. Those flames you may see coming from the tracks on an icy day on the LIRR are propane heaters to keep the switches operating. Electronic switches are relatively cheap to build. By building into the system many switch alternatives we can by-pass stations easily to improve commuter schedules.

The Maglev is fast and extremely efficient, but it does not have to go fast to still be worthwhile. It is ideal for commuter trains because it uses the kinetic energy in the vehicle itself to brake. A conventional train has brakes similar to the brakes on a car. The steel and brake pad dust goes into the air we breath. The residue on the walls of the subways we ride in are caused by the braking action. In a conventional commuter train we throw away all of the energy we created in the vehicle every time we stop it With the Maglev, 90% of the kinetic energy is converted back to power in the guideway.

Another consideration is freight. The trucks that carry freight are just as vulnerable to bad weather as planes and conventional rail. The Maglev 2000 has enormous lift capacity. A specially designed Maglev car can carry two fully loaded 50 ton trucks and move in all kinds of weather at speeds of up to 300 MPH. The savings to the truckers would be substantial and the reliability of on-time shipping would be greatly enhanced. This would be a boon to the freight industry, while at the same time creating an entirely new manufacturing industry.

One of the original concerns about Maglev was that it would require an entirely new infrastructure and that would be too costly and disruptive to create. The inventors have devised a cost effective modification that will allow the Maglev to operate on conventional right-of-ways such as the Long Island Railroad. The modification would not prevent conventional trains from operating when the Maglev was not in service.

The question some of you may have is; What is the economic viability? The Maglev infrastructure cost is considerably less that the wheel and track so called high speed rail that is used in other countries, and it is inherently faster. The HSR being promoted by Germany and Japan as well as other designs cannot carry freight. Freight is important because it is the most profitable part of the transportation system. All of these systems being promoted from outside the country will have to be subsidized forever. Maglev can stand on its own economic merits.

Ernest Fazio is Chairman of Long Island Metro Business Action (LIMBA) and spokes person for Maglev 2000 see maglev website www.magneticglide.com

Ernie@limba.net

Republic Airport

The airport has considerable value to the general aviation that it serves. It is subsidized 80% by the federal government. If the well-off, if not to say rich, Long Islanders think this airport is so valuable, perhaps they should pay for it. Why do these privileged few need help from the rest of us?

We may want to stay away from that “class warfare” argument altogether because that goes nowhere. We should look at this valuable piece of real estate in terms of “the best and highest use’ concept. Are the taxpayers of the Town and County getting the same tax revenue as they would from say, a research park? Are they getting any tax revenues? Could multi-family housing be incorporated into the property? Could high-tech manufacturing be done here? Could all, or some of these things be done while preserving an emergency landing facility? If we did keep the runway available on an emergency only basis could we continue all or part of the federal subsidy?

These are some of the questions we should be asking. I have no objections to the property continuing as an airport, but if you want it, pony-up. Don’t lay it on the general public.

When you add up all of the costs to prop up Republic Airport maybe we should just consider closing it.

Ernie Fazio
LIMBA

War On Oil

I would like this country to declare war. Not the kind of war we are used to. The kind of war we need to engage in is much more difficult. It will be a war without blood and guts, but a war that will require real heroism.

The war we need to declare is the one against oil. This will be a war on oil, not the countries that produce it. How do we begin? First, use all of the present technology we presently have, and then go on from there.

Technology Development
The technology that will be generated by this concerted effort has value to the U.S. far beyond our own supply of electricity. We can sell this technology to the world creating an inflow of dollars that will bolster our economy. The technology we sell to others will further diminish the need for oil from other nations. As that happens the oil producing countries have to change their basic economies. At present most oil producing countries don’t share that wealth with their people. Nigerians are, for example, dismally poor. Depriving that country would have a very small economic impact on the people, but a large impact on those that are presently exploiting that resource.

Global Warming
As we develop carbon neutral solutions to energy we clean up the air as a by-product and slow down the progression of climate change. Some people will argue that burning fossil fuels or anything else does not cause global warming that human beings do. I disagree, but instead of having that argument, why not point out that cleaner air is just plain healthier. This healthy air that is available for us to breathe will reduce health costs.

Electric Power Conservation
Electric power is wasted in this country in ways that other countries find hard to believe. The litanies of possible improvements are enormous, but let’s start with conservation:

Light Emitting Diodes (LED) use about 3% of the power that is used by an incandescent lamp. Presently they are suitable for traffic lights, exit signs, and numerous other 24/7 applications. (Traffic lights have four 150 watt lamps on at all times, that is 600watts 24 hours per day 365 days a year. The total kilowatt hours per year are 5,256 @ 12cents/kwh which costs the municipality $630 per traffic signal. The annual cost of operating an LED traffic lamp is $19.

Buildings
The best building codes in the country have heat transfer guidelines that are woefully lower than what we’ve known to be possible for at least 40 years. We can double the requirements on homes and commercial establishments. We can do this with no new technology. The additional cost of a $300,000 home is about $10,000. The annual savings is about $1,000 estimating a 900 gallon savings at $2.50. Payback will be less than 5 years. If the cost oil increases the payback period will be shorter.

Motor vehicles
At the same time double the required gas mileage on trucks and personal cars. At the moment the only technology that can achieve this is the Hybrid engine design. The cost of driving a car 20,000 miles that gets 20 miles per gallon, using gas that costs $2.80 per gallon is $1,800. Presently the hybrid costs about $3,000 more. The payback is less than 3.5 years and maintenance costs are lower.

All Electric cars are on the horizon and we will see production of these vehicles this year.
The electric car will obviate the need for liquid fuel. It will also make power plants more economical as otherwise idle power plants produce during the night. The economic gain to power producers will stabilize or reduce electric rates.

Hydrogen powered cars using fuel cells will eventually be practical and the benefit here is also a no oil result. Equally important there are no emissions. The chemical process that drives the car has a waste product of pure water. In this case we need a cost that would make it acceptable. We’re not there yet!


Rail Transportation
Maglev
Developing Maglev will mean that no oil will be needed for this means of transportation.
CSX runs advertisements that tell us they can transport a ton of freight almost 500 miles on a gallon of diesel fuel. That’s excellent, but it’s still oil. The Maglev can do a lot better than that using of clean electric energy generation. The Maglev being a frictionless mode of rail is extremely efficient. Using Maglev we can move freight at high speed. Perishables that we move by truck can be transported longer distances without spoilage when we reduce a 4-½ day journey to one day. For intercity passengers, Maglev will reduce airline traffic. Airplanes are one of the most obnoxious polluters, and what is worse is that they pollute at high altitudes where they do the most damage to the earth’s protective envelope. Here the benefits are many. We reduce significantly our need for oils, streamline intercity travel, clean up the air, and make the nation more efficient for conducting commerce.

Geothermal
Heating and cooling can be accomplished by extensive use of ground source heat exchangers. These systems use only a small fraction of the power required by electric resistive heating and no on premise burning of fuel.

In Summary
If we as a nation resolve to utilize these measures we put ourselves in a very good negotiating position when we deal with the rest of the world. Instead of rolling out billions of dollars worth of military equipment to secure our share of the world’s oil we merely tap our own resources. With all these measures in place America will have enough oil from domestic sources.
We have given these dictators around the world a cudgel with which they periodically beat us. By embarking on aggressive energy programs we merely take back the weapon we gave them

An America without a need for foreign oil dramatically changes our foreign policy. The technology allows us to deal with difficult regimes without fear of being cut off from our supply. I believe it was George W. Bush who used the term “addiction to oil”. It was a very apt term. Drug addicts behave in irrational ways to secure what they need. Robbery and burglary committed by the addict to provide funds for the addiction is comparable to the U.S. going to war to secure a stable supply of oil.

Whenever large vision efforts are undertaken there are many unforeseen fortuitous gains. When we went to the moon we needed a better computer. The on-board board computers that were on the first Apollo mission were less sophisticated than your pocket calculator, but the quest for better devices was set in motion giving the marvelous computers we now take for granted.

When we embark on the road to new discoveries we never know where we will wind up. Just ask Christopher Columbus. He was looking for India, and look what he found. Discovery is exciting but we will never meet the challenges that are there if we don’t change some fundamental elements. Our education systems range from very poor to extremely good, but even in the best schools we may be missing the boat. The schools in some Long Island districts have great teachers and students that are truly achieving, but if you drill down and see what they are learning they may not be learning what they need in a world that wants to make things. Turning out the brilliant minds that can dream up new financial instruments that can get them rich, may not be the skills that make the country rich. We have to ask our educators how many scientists, engineers and chemists are we producing. The answer is embarrassing.

Ah, the Mosque!

The mosque that has been proposed for a location in downtown Manhattan has been causing quite a storm. Here is the controversy as I see it:

Not every opponent who has addressed this issue is a bonehead. Some have deep feelings for the awful events of that day. I think we should respect their feelings. We who support that group of Americans that want to build that facility must explain in a rational way why it should be built.

That building site was on the market for redevelopment for eight years. There were no takers. This group wants to make that derelict real estate into something beautiful and useful to the whole community, in the same way that the 92nd Street Y serves that community. The local neighbors in New York City know these people and a large majority support the building of the complex. Even people who have lost family members when those criminals did their dreadful work support the developers.

I heard a report that 67% of Americans oppose this project, but 67% of all Americans do not live in New York, and their voices are not as important as those who do live there. In any case, that majority, or any majority opinion, does not trump the US Constitution. We profess to live under a guiding law, always, not just when it is convenient to our way of thinking.

As I said when I began, not all opponents are bigots and haters, but some are. We have to resist the ranting of the lunatic fringe, while recognizing that some opponents are not part of that group of haters. George Bush must be given credit for making the distinction between Muslims and terrorists when he was president. My guess is that he would have said something similar to what President Obama said.

Some say why create the tumult of this argument? Why not do what Governor Patterson suggested and do a land swap for another location? Here's why not. When you are in retreat from the forces of bigotry, there is no compromise. As people back you into a corner and you agree to another solution, they are never satisfied. There is no place that you can go that would be satisfactory to those that oppose you. All around the country there are objections to the building of mosques. They are nowhere near "ground zero", so it’s hard for me to buy the argument that retreat would be a good thing. If I were that leader I'd be damned if I'd retreat. Loving this country means supporting the laws that govern us. We can, of course, change the Constitution, but I don't think any of us of sound mind want to live in a country that condones the harassment of any religion or group. We tell people of the world “We’re better than that”. Now let’s live up to our boast.

Ernie Fazio

No Little Plans

Those who are critics of this administration's attempts to revive the economy may have a point. Creating jobs that merely put money in the pockets of people who will, make that must, spend it, is short sighted even if it works.

"Make no little plans, they have no magic to stir men’s blood!", said Daniel Burnham, Chicago architect (1864-1912). Nothing has changed since those words were spoken. We still need grand dreams to unite us, to motivate us, and to inspire us. But what do we get? "Leaders" who are deathly afraid to lead.

This is not just a failure that is pervasive in government; it is also a failure in the business community. Large businesses do not venture far from what is making money today. Where is their nerve? Where is their imagination? Would we have MRI technology if we waited for GE to invent it? I don’t think so. Would we have the personal computer if we waited for IBM to invent it? These companies did not have imagination nor did they have the entrepreneurial spirit. They may have seen the future coming down the pike, and either ignored it because they thought it wouldn’t work, or they waited until the development is well under way, so they could steal it.
Phil Farnsworth invented the all electronic television that was later stolen by Sarnoff at RCA. Dr. Raymond Damadian, primary inventor of the MRI, fought years to win a patent infringement suit. against GE, Mitsubishi, and others. It was the little guys with big dreams that advanced science.

State and federal governing bodies have shown themselves to be inept at governing in the past several decades. The Republicans are retrograde (they were against women suffrage, civil rights, labor unions right to organize, Medicare, and, ... well, you get it). The Democrats on the other hand have been gutless, and therefore no better. The Dems are just as manipulated as the retrograde party by the corporate interests that fund them, but they talk a better game. So hooray for the Democrats; they sound better.

When the Republicans announce that they will filibuster legislation the Democrats run for the hills. The rest of us wonder why. Many of us had to confront a bully along the way to growing up. One day you turn around and do battle. You take your lumps, or maybe you kick his butt. In either case the bully is likely to seek out a new victim, after all, you just became too much work. The Republicans are bullies too, but no one will confront them.

Do we need a national system of electrical grids to collect and distribute power from all sources to all destinations? Do we need a high speed, national ground transportation system to efficiently move people and freight? Do we need to reform public pensions? Do we need to address shortfalls in Medicare and Social Security? Do we need to ferret out waste and fraud wherever it exists so that we can be a highly completive nation? Do we need to reign in our military so that we don’t war ourselves out of existence? The answers to all of those questions are a resounding yes! The list goes on, but this will do for starters. I think most people are tired of the talk that we hear reported from elected officials in Albany and Washington. Most of what politicians are saying when they speak are well rehearsed bumper sticker type slogans, and they insult our intelligence when they give us those stock, "poll tested" responses.

If ever there was a time when a third party could make a showing, it is now. We may be going there.

Oil is Passé

Oil is the best liquid fuel that is available. It has far more heat value per gallon than propane, and ethanol. As far as ethanol is concerned you would need all of the arable land in the country and you would still not be able to meet the demand for liquid fuel and in the end you would have an inferior product that is also corrosive and creates problems in systems.

Our principal uses of oil are transportation, heating, and power generation. Natural gas is much less polluting than oil and can be easily used in stationary applications. Such as space heating and power generation. With a concerted effort we could convert 100% of those needs to natural gas.

In addition to using natural gas, power generation can employ a variety of generating methods including solar photovoltaics, wind power, river flow generation, conventional hydro, and yes, nuclear. In the development stages are electrical generation systems that will create even newer means. It is feasible with known technology we could eliminate oil for electrical generation.

However the same cannot be said about transportation uses of oil. Other than a relatively small number of electric and hybrid powered vehicles, cars, trucks, diesel locomotives, and airplanes need liquid portable fuel. You can make the argument that trucks and cars can use natural gas, but that too would require an enormous infrastructure.

Electric vehicles and trains are the only way to reduce or eliminate oil for surface transportation. The sources of electric generation are myriad and none of them would use oil big part of that transportation will no doubt be Maglev. More on that later.

Feel free to comment.

Ernie Fazio

Rethinking Our Military

America spends more on its military than the next ten military budgets combined. More money than the France, England, Germany, Japan, Israel, Russia, China, and several others combined. Why is that? And for all of that spending, the vast majority of Americans are not employed by the military.

There is also a curious funding scheme for our military. The Navy has the same budget as the Air Force and the Army. The funds are wracked up more or less evenly between the different fighting units. Does this funding square with reality? Do each of these entities need the same resources all of the time? No, but that is the deal that was cut after WWII and that is how it has remained.

We believe an overwhelming military keeps us safe, but does it? Did it stop 9-11 from occurring? Will it stop other attempts at destroying our citizens and our infrastructure? I doubt it. We are devising better methods of detecting threats on the homeland, but those defensive instruments are not tanks, ships and planes. If we are able to thwart another attack it won’t be because we have that kind of fire power. Prevention will be the product of good intelligence. We have to remember the weapon of choice in the case of 9-11 was a box cutter. You don’t need a military to stop that; you need to know what is going on.

Other than the pitifully naïve, no one thinks we do not need a military, but that force should be small by design. Having a robust military, according to some people prevents war. Actually the opposite is true. If you are trained as a military officer, you tend to want to test your metal.

Here is another point to ponder. Nothing saps the life out of a country than the enormous expense of the military. Military product research throws off some beneficial technology that can be used in civilian life, but so does space research, or energy research, or medical research, or any basic research for that matter, but all of those research areas create useful tools for civilian use as the primary product. Military products are designed to destroy and not much more.

We spent over a trillion dollars on an idiotic war in Iraq. We suffered more than 4,000 dead soldiers and 35,000 more wounded, some of whom bear mental scars that may never heal. It is a travesty. At the same time the rest of the world applies its resources to developing new systems and products (even some that were invented in the US).

We could have used that money to rehabilitate and modernize our entire national rail system. The result would have been a more efficient country moving people and goods and adding substantially to our national wealth. Shame on our leaders for taking us down this road! Shame on us for not throwing these bastards out of office!

Ernie Fazio

Values

“And this government of the people by the people, for the people will not perish from this earth” -- Abraham Lincoln

About $36 billion was proposed and rejected by the congress for extending unemployment insurance. The reason it was rejected is because it adds to the deficit. That's a good argument, at least on the surface, but there is another factor at work here. "Unemployment insurance leads to continued unemployment." In other words, bad behavior is created by the legislation. I wonder if the same applies to bailing out the financial institutions, maybe. We did bail out the banks and that bill came close to being a $trillion

Should we have done that bail-out? Probably, and we should also bail-out the individuals too. At least unemployment insurance goes almost 100% back into the economy. The same cannot be said for bank bail-outs. Have we become "government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations"? Somehow that does not have the same inspiring effect as the original phrasing.

Ernie Fazio

Maglev - A Vision of Future Transportation - printed in Newsday, December 4, 2009

Two hundred seventy miles per hour was the reading on the digital speed indicator as we swiftly moved from Shanghais to the airport. We were riding the Maglev in China. The Maglev is a transportation system that travels on a dedicated guideway and is supported by a magnetic field and moves without mechanical friction. The result is a very quiet, efficient, and fast mode of transportation.

The Chinese Maglev was the product of an effort that was made on Long Island by Drs. Gordon Danby and James Powell while they were working at Brookhaven National Laboratories. The Germans built this Maglev train, employing the inventors as consultants.

There is a version of the technology that has been built in Japan as well, also inspired by the inventions of Danby and Powell. It is remarkably successful. The Japanese version has carried many thousands of passengers and has recorded its highest speed of 361 MPH. Japan is now building a 300 mile link connecting Tokyo and Osaka. They plan on being able to move 100,000 passengers per day at 300 MPH.

Senator Patrick Moynihan passed a bill in the Senate in the early 90’s that provided $750 million for the testing and building of the first Maglev in America. But corresponding legislation was killed in the House of Representatives because of the pressure created by various interests including, airlines, truckers and auto manufacturers.

Creating a working American Maglev is a matter of national pride. It is also a matter of not letting an economic opportunity slip through our fingers. If we do not manufacture enough of the world’s important technology, we will be beholding to those countries that do. In the process we lose the high skilled, high paid jobs that the American worker has proved that he or she can do. We can’t afford to lose that segment of our society. We need to create those jobs again.

America has an extensive rail network. That network and right-of-ways are an incredible resource. We can move freight on that network using Maglev, and we can do it inexpensively. In fact we can move entire tractor-trailers in aerodynamic envelopes across the country at 300 MPH and save $3,000 worth of fuel and tolls. The trip will take less than a day and deliver a refreshed driver on the other end. The trip will be half the cost to the trucker , and profitable to the Maglev owners.

This is a more advanced Maglev system than the first generation system now operating in Japan and China. The cost of making this new system is a fraction of the cost of those versions. The Chinese Maglev floats on a magnetic cushion that has very critical clearances (about ½ inch). The process of building that system is costly and time consuming.

Danby and Powell have never stopped improving their Maglev design. Their second generation superconducting Maglev system allows the vehicle to float 4 ½” to 6” above a guideway. That system can be built in a factory and shipped by truck to a construction site, and be quickly erected using ordinary cranes. The higher clearances allow the vehicle to operate in ice storms, and snowstorms. Another innovation that Danby and Powell have solved is the compatibility with existing rail tracks. The modification is low in cost and allows conventional trains to operate alternately.

This project will take as long as Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System. There will be jobs created on a long-term basis. We project Maglev manufacturing, and guideway fabrication will extend thirty years out, and all of that investment can be privately funded because it will be profitable. Presently the inventors and the Town of Riverhead have government grant in process to prove the new technology an a three mile track at Calverton

Ernest M. Fazio, Director of Communications- Maglev 2000 and Chairman of Long Island Metro Business Action (formerly Long Island MidSuffolk Business Action)

The Country That Almost Wasn't

There is the notion that the July 4th holiday is one that was born out of an outcome that was predestined. The progression to nationhood was "in the stars" as it were. Not at all, the people of the days when this nation was forming were as confused and divided as we are today. The Loyalists were the conservatives of their day. They were British and that is where their loyalties would continue. So attached to the status quo were they, that some of them sailed to England to escape the carnage they knew would ensue. They were convinced that the British would prevail and life in the colonies would become infinitely worse. I don't blame the Loyalists for feeling the way they did. We damn near lost that war. But for a little luck, and the French at our side, we probably would have.

Despite the heavy handed governing of the British, life in the colonies was not unbearable. The real tyranny was toward the business class who were restricted from manufacturing anything substantial, Wood, cotton and other resources could be grown and harvested, but the raw materials had to be sent back to England where finished products could be made and then sold in England and the colonies around the world, including America. This arrangement insured that a certain level of wealth could happen here, but the real wealth was to be in the hands of the influential people in England.

For all that we laud the great sentiments of freedom expressed in the documents that spelled out our new nation's vision and purpose, the underlying impetus was economics. Economics are as important as personal freedoms, and personal freedoms are all but impossible without an economic system that addresses the needs of the people.

A great framework was needed to enlist the support of all the people, but even the lofty words of the Declaration of Independence, and later the Constitution, fell short of perfection. After all, the institution of slavery remained intact, but it worked anyway.

When the war was over and the Constitution was agreed upon, Benjamin Franklin said "We have given you a country, if you can keep it." We have kept it, but the struggle was long and it continues, and will continue. It never has been a straight-line progression to a better country. And yet, we are a better country. We will continue on that path as long as we look inside ourselves and constantly rediscover what made us great.

In the words taken from an Arlo Guthrie song "Hello America, how are ya?"
Happy Birthday America!

Ernie Fazio

Term Limits or No Term Limits? That is the question.

The benefits and liabilities of term limits should be weighed. Let me have an argument with myself and you can decide the merits of the case.

If we limit an elected official we run the risk of term limiting a devoted public servant and replacing him with a less able office holder, or worse, a crook.

If we reject the notion of term limits, the power of incumbency will allow a slug, who may be a good campaigner stay long after he has any new ideas.

With term limits we would remove from office a Ted Kennedy, a Michael Bloomberg, a Mario Coumo, a Bob Dole, or an Orin Hatch. Well, depending on your politics, you may say, "Yeah so, who cares?" If that is your stand, let me hasten to add, each of these people were competent and trustworthy. You can take issue with that point too. I don't care it's my opinion. In addition there is institutional memory that is lost when term limits are enforced.
But . . .
A Term limit has the benefit of introducing more people into the democratic process. The more opportunities there are, the more people will feel they have a chance of getting into that realm. We will almost certainly see more talent and ideas. When you create a constant need for elected talent you get it.
And . . .
Term limits will mute the power of lobbyists. Lobbyists are useful because they represent the needs of specific groups. But if they have the opportunity to build long relationships with an elected official they can distort the perspective of that official, particularly if they are supplying campaign funds.
And What if;
A person that is term limited out of office aspires to another office? I say why not. If he left his last office as a shinning star he should be able to run for another office. This would not in any way corrupt the term limit principle. In fact this progression would be desirable. The candidate would have experience and be in a fresh arena. He or she would still have to compete without the benefit of incumbency. The other corrupting force is campaign funds. Campaigns should be relatively short and publicly financed

S-o-o-o, maybe the winning combination would be to have term limits and publicly financed campaigns. Hmmmm What do you think?

Corporatocracy

I know the title probably is not a real word, but I am also sure that we all know what it means. Our country is in a sour mood, and the focus of the people’s malcontent is government. There are many things that government has done, and in some cases, has not done that rile us, but the bigger problem is the power of corporations. Corporations have enormous power in this country. We all know why and how they have gotten great power. The financing of political campaigns puts an implied obligation on our public officials that is nearly impossible to resist.

There isn’t a public official in any political party that will admit that they have been influenced by campaign money. They will tell you;“Even as I accept campaign contributions I always vote on the merits of the legislation being voted on.” The ordinary citizen is rarely listened to, and almost never is consulted. Why because either we can’t afford a campaign contribution or the $25 or $100 we do contribution doesn’t warrant a serious ear.

Recently the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can contribute to political campaigns without limit. If that is true what chance has the ordinary citizen have in competing with that, and getting any attention. Furthermore, as a stockholder, does the president and the corporate board ask me what I think. No! So the corporation can back a candidate that is proposing legislation that hurts the stockholder, essentially using the stockholder’s money to support a position that is diametrically opposed to the interest of the stockholder. Where is the fairness in that?

Years ago we argued the merits and shortcomings of communism. That failed model of governing stifled innovation, created shortages that central planning could not anticipate. An elite emerged from this and most people remained relatively poor. Products were shoddy, expensive, and limited. What do you suppose happens when corporations rule? What happens when corporations have a monopolistic hold on the country? Innovation is stifled, products are progressively shoddy, more expensive than they could be with real competition, and they become limited. An elite class is formed at the expense of the small businessman and workers in those businesses. In other words communism and unfettered capitalism is bad for the country for more or less the same reasons.