money vs law

Governing is achieved by law and with money. Peoples do adhere to certain values and these are reflected in a country's laws. Not so regarding money, which in its essence consists of facilitating trade of goods and services, but enables to accumulate possessions and inherent power. The latter contradicts the main principle of law which states that all citizens are born free and with equal rights, moreover keep these during their whole lifetime. That is expressed in the system of elections for representees as in very big societies it is not possible to call meetings for all citizens to participate in counceling and decisionmaking.
In the USA presently democratic processes have deteriorated and no longer reflect the intentions viewed some centuries ago. A main cause is that to reach every citizen for informing him and her about political programs campaigns have to be organised, which cost lots of money. Dollars that are not available to lower classes and as a result members of Congress and Senate belong almost all to well-to-do circles. They represent own financial class best; receiving big salaries from the Treasury means that the majority of middle class and minima has less influence than corresponds with their numbers.
Then monetary feudalism arises.
The secretary or minister of Finance will be chosen from the upper financial class in agreement with the position of parliament. This resulted in the USA into a gap between the richest and poorest citizen of fifty billion dollars wide! While the state has as duty to block the greedy as otherwise they try to take all from non-materialists like vampirs. A christian nation should respect biblical commandments like not to want what belongs to the neighbour or should be his in respect of basic freedom also in a material way. So p.e. multinationals are not to want all oxes in own stable and at old Pentecoste when first products of the new harvest were shared the capitalist who fills own pockets first cannot participate. In ancient Israel every fifty years production means were to be reshared in order to give loosers an new chance but especially to provide youth with equal starting positions. That is quite different from the situation now as about twenty families there possess most of economic power. Today gradual resharing is possible by shrinking private capital a 2 % per year, directing this to the Treasury or to eco-coco (collective, cooperative) enterprises. Such of course does not exclude growth by own labour.
Presently Obama cannot win the battle between law and money because Congress blocks him. His job is the most important one in the whole world and therefore no other person should be rewarded with bigger salary than his, which is about a quarter million dollars. He though may earn a bonus if helping the Westpapuans, the Tibetans, the Kurds, the Basques, those in north-east India towards independance or autonomy. His foreign policy till now reflects interests of money-holders and -wanters, which should cause him loose next presidential elections.

How to reform USA democracy to its original humane intentions? I suggest that the President calls upon every American to elect directly a third parliament which reflects truly the opinion of the vast majority of the people that not money shall overrule law. This new parliament shall insist on sufficient reduction of money power at the favour of law. Good law protects the weaker against the strong, the rich, the cunning, the mean.That will result in heavy taxation of the rich and even more of the superrich. Thus the Americans shall be able to sit at a same dinner table, which is good preaparatiion for the dish in heaven, but on Earth also is rewarding: Good distribution of jobs, money and carriere poosibilities does increase national income. When however the state is forced to lending because the wealthy do not want to take their just share in the burden of taxes then interest has to be paid. This means less spending power for the benefit of the nation and its inhabitants while......the money, that interest, goes to those having already more than they need because they can lend out. As a consequence the poorer half of the nation will become kind of enslaved to those with money, working for them with less reward than correct and rightful according the basic function of money as described above.

Are the citizens free to elect persons who promote their interests best? And have them counceling? Ultimately decisionmaking belongs to the people. There are many men and women who can work out things. And push the president if he is lazy or incompetent.