Pro-Jobs or Pro-Environment



If President Obama really is pro-jobs, why hasn't he given his approval of the Keystone Pipeline Project? The Keystone Pipeline project will run a new pipeline through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. They predict that the project would create over 20,000 jobs in 2011-2012. It would also provide 20 billion dollars for the U.S. economy and over 5 billion dollars to the states the pipeline would run through.

Has President Obama not given his approval because he does not want to lose the support of environmentalists in the next election? Is Obama holding off on his decision because he has two different groups giving him money and it is another Moneyocracy problem? One objection to the pipeline is that the company should invest in more clean energy to create jobs. The problem is that creating jobs with clean energy takes longer than the pipeline would if it was approved. The government has been investing in clean energy and has created very little jobs. Others opposing the the project say that they are worried that the pipeline could hurt the environment. My rebuttal to that objection is if our economy goes into a depression or if no one has jobs will the state of the environment matter?

Some of the farmers that own the farmland that the pipeline are also objecting the pipeline because they do not want their land taken from them. I somewhat understand the farmers opposition. Several of my friend and family own land in Nebraska, but the pipeline will not go through their land. The one thing I would ask the farmers that the pipeline would go through would be isn't it worth it if you have to give up a little to help the country you live in?

Is Our Country Ran on Democracy or Moneyocracy?

Lately it seems as if the people's vote in elections matter as much as money does. According to the Federal Election Commission, in the 2008 presidential election Barack Obama raised over 745 million dollars and John McCain raised over 219 million dollars for their campaigns. Obama spent over 729 million dollars and McCain spent over 202 million dollars on their campaigns. In the 2004 election Bush raised over 269 million dollars and spent over 268 million on his campaign. That same election Kerry raised over 234 million dollars and spent over 224 million on his campaign for presidency. When looking at these statistics, the candidate who raised the most funds or spent the most was the one who won the election that year.

So have the millions of dollars in fundraising turned our election process into a moneyocracy instead of a democracy like our founding fathers wanted for America? A person should get voted or not voted into the presidency based on whether or not the people agree with their values, past record, or stance or certain issues. People should not be eliminated from the race because they simply do not have enough money to keep running. What can be done to fix this issue? Should political advertisements be banned? Should there be a cap on how much money one's campaign can raise? Should there be a certain dollar amount on how much one can start their campaign with and then can't raise anymore funds?

The over 745 million dollars that was raised by the Obama campaign could have been used on better things than campaigning. Those millions of dollars could have been used to create tons of jobs or stimulate our economy. If many people or corporations are willing to donate an upwards of 1 billion dollars between two candidates, why are they complaining about paying more taxes? Keep in mind I don't thing raising taxes is the all might solution to our problems.

Anyone have anyother ideas on how to prevent a Moneyocracy from happening in the future?

Sources: 2008 Presidential Campaign Financial Activity Summarized;  2004 Presidential Campaign Financial Activity Summarized