In contrast to both the U.S. and Canada models, sometimes called the Anglo-Saxon model, is the Scandinavian model featuring much higher taxes on the top earners (63% in Sweden) and near-total government provision of basic welfare services, including college educations. Imagine families not having to go entirely in hock for kids' college. Corporate rates are about the same or lower than in the U.S. to encourage business. Scandinavian countries regularly come out on top in surveys of national happiness. There are still many wealthy people in these countries, but the tax policies keep the middle class in better shape than in the U.S. There are no fears about redistributionism as there are here. Sound good? At least on the surface, it does sound good to me.

This isn't exactly in line with the thread title, but I thought last night's "60 Minutes" was worth mentioning in connection with the topic of money in politics. Jack Abramoff, the infamous lobbyist, was interviewed. I've never seen a more flat-out confession of wrong-doing than Abramoff gave to Lesley Stahl. He was absolutely frank and open and gave himself no slack. A couple of his cronies were likewise up front. At least it's refreshing to see people who did bad things fully fess up. The segment drove home the point to me that once we've talked about campaign finance corruption and tax corruption, we're not done with how money has infected politics. K Street lobbying firms exist to influence legislators--to buy them off for particular favors--and they operate every day of the year.

Lobbying wouldn't be a bad thing if it were so unbalanced by money. How much money can an environmental group raise in contrast to a lobbyist representing multiple Wall Street corporations? Basically, the more money, the more influence, even though Lobbyists are regulated. There are always ways to bend the rules, and they know them all. The way they are organized gives them an unfair advantage as well. Lobbyists can act as third party fundraisers for their favorite campaigners by "bundling" huge sums of money.

I can't think of any way to regulate lobbyists effectively. I would like to see campaign primaries funded by some government escrow account, where the money is split 3 ways between a Dem, GOP, and Independent.

More of an idealist idea; I would love to see an official website that devotes one section each to the primary candidates, well policed and structured in a way to compare apples to apples on various statistics and policies. A committee of Law/Politics Professors from all American universities could have discussions in forums, one forum per candidate, for the general public to review. That would be far more cost effective than television advertisements, which are the epitome of bias.