In the United States now, during the reign of George the Lesser, there are more than 35 million hungry people; more than 38 million living in poverty; almost 50 million without health care coverage and millions more having difficulty making payments on almost unaffordable health care coverage; wages are stagnant; cost of necessities increasing; and regular working Americans are struggling to keep their heads above water. 

There is a mortgage crisis with home foreclosures skyrocketing while this country has become a debtor nation and typical working American taxpayers are footing a $1.2 trillion bill for Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq that may reach a staggering $2 trillion or more.

Meanwhile, as Sunday's New York Times editorial states, the price of next year's presidential and Congressional elections is zooming towards the $5 billion mark and by Election Day, 2008, the campaigns of the two presidential nominees may reach $1 billion.

This is obscene and being driven by corporate and special interests tied to corporations who contribute the big money.

While a fractured Supreme Court in 2006 voted 6-3 that Vermont's limit on campaign contributions and spending was unconstitutional, and under the Roberts' right wing conservative court, members who believe in no money limits, Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times wrote, "But it also showed that the court continued to grapple with how far it is permissible to go in limiting campaign contributions, a topic that remains a heated political issue and one likely to come before the justices again." 

And it just may when the electorate has had enough and begins to hold the three branches of federal government accountable.

The Presidential Funding Act of 2007 introduced in Congress this year, which would not take effect until 2012, amends both the Internal Revenue Code provisions relating to public financing of presidential election campaigns and the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, to increase subsidies to realistic amounts allowing for competitive candidates while somewhat restraining the current obscene spending levels, maybe.

Given the multiple crises in this country, including poverty, hunger, and health care, US presence in Iraq and its effect on the domestic economy, it is beyond belief that presidential candidates, especially Democrats, who sometimes campaign on addressing and perhaps solving some of these problems of typical Americans (Republican candidates only care about the have's and have more's) are spending this kind of money to get elected.

This is insanity and needs to change.