I mentioned this to a friend of mine on Facebook recently, but I read an article in Newsweek by Jonathan Alter ("Why the Mid-Terms Matter: The GOP's agenda has to be stopped." Newsweek, November, 1, 2010. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/23/alter-midterms-matter.html) in which he raises the very valid point that it is not the Obama administration that we need to be concerned about in these Mid-Term elections. It should be the concern of handing control back, and so dangerously soon, to the very political party that got us into this economic mess in the first place. It is simply unrealistic to hope that the economy would recover substantially in only a year-and-a-half. It is ironic indeed that the Republicans and the Tea Party are attempting to paint the Obama administration as the primary cause of the severe unemployment and the soaring national deficit. In plain truth, this is not in perspective at all. While it is always true that one can conceivably always find a way to spend less money, the eight years under President Bush (who was elected by many of the same people who are now laying the blame at President Obama) spent a phenomenal amount of money on the Iraq war, a ruinous prescription drug program, and tax cuts which got us into the financial mess we're in; that could be considered "big government" too...but that overly-general and exaggerated perspective depends on who is spending the money and for what.
In short, the electorate should be looking at and criticizing themselves in these Mid-terms, not President Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress. We elected them to try to help repair the crumbling economy, not to take office and do as little as possible. It is very unwise of us as an electorate to judge the proactivity of the Obama administration as "big government" when they are not only taking the plight of the current condition of the country seriously, but also successfully steered the country away from the brink of bankruptcy. Doing that in only a year-and-a-half is no small accomplishment at all!
At the very least, Jonathan Alter's point is that we must not sit these Mid-Term elections out by not voting. Neither anger nor apathy are credible reasons for deciding how to vote. In point of fact, when given the opportunity, one should always vote.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
It's time to end discrimination of ANY kind!
Usually, I don't pay a lot of attention to excess political e-mail, but this morning I received one that contained a video that was particularly aggravating. I have included the link to the video here. Suffice it to say that I will be happy when, like racial bigotry, prejudice against sexual orientation will be a thing of the past. What a waste of time in the least, and unkind and amoral at worst, to spend one's time in discomfort and judgment by trying to prevent people from simply being themselves.
Just let prejudice go already!
http://www.couragecampaign.org/NBCTAKEACTION
(BTW, kudos to the Obama administration for having the courage to hire people based on their qualifications, regardless of their sexuality (which matters not in the least).)
Just let prejudice go already!
http://www.couragecampaign.org/NBCTAKEACTION
(BTW, kudos to the Obama administration for having the courage to hire people based on their qualifications, regardless of their sexuality (which matters not in the least).)
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
The correct title for President Obama's health care legislation, please...
It is annoying, but a bit typical, that the Obama administration's successfully passed health care legislation is not being referred to by its correct title but by a derogatory epithet. The incorrect title (epithet) is "Obamacare." The correct titles are the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act. The epithet is easier to say and read, but it is only designed to chide the legislation and to catch the attention of the reader negatively. It does not respect the meaning of the words of the correct titles nor does it do justice to the significance of the legislation.
Everyone knows that the health care system is broken and we have known it for a long time. Fewer people still realize that the health care system is directly tied into the health of the economy. As a matter of fact, it is one of the primary foundations of a healthy economy (if your citizens are not healthy, there's not much point with anything else) and it should be the first priority in restoring an economy, which is why the Obama administration made it a greater priority immediately than job creation.
Incidentally, even though unemployment is still so high, since the economy is the number one issue in the coming election, it is somewhat surprising that the American electorate would not have been more enthusiastic about the successful passage of the health care legislation. But this is tied to the misperception that most any idea generated by the federal government insinuates "big government." This is, in fact, one of the main purposes for the coining of the term "Obamacare." It is a short, unflattering, and disrespectful way of suggesting that Barack Obama and his administration are taking control away from the citizens of the United States, via the federal government, with the passage of large legislative initiatives. It is true that the Democratic Party (along with the Republican Party) is one of the two largest, wealthiest, and most dominant political parties in the United States. And it is probably true that it is not healthy for there to be only two major political parties in a wealthy country; it probably feels only one short of an implication of a monarchy. But a major difference is who we as a people elect/hire to put into that government. In my opinion we have one of the smartest, most compassionate, least dysfunctional, and proactive administrations in history. It is also the first African-American president who is completely dispelling the ancient and preposterous notion that the African-American is in any way inferior to any other race (it would be nice indeed if the notion of racial inferiority was now a dinosaur). The contrary happens to be true: this particular African-American, Barack Obama, is among the most brilliant of the United States citizens in every way, and he has chosen a like administration.
So instead of deriding what the current administration is doing, I would like to offer that we take more time in our evaluation of their efforts for the country. Let's realize at the very least that they are making a serious effort to do what we hired them to do, and not allow our insecurity and fear of the slow recovery of the economy to cause us to exaggeratedly misjudge their intentions. I am one American who simply has no fear whatsoever that the Obama administration is attempting to turn this country into a Socialist dictatorship. It is the opposite. Our country nearly went bankrupt because of Capitalism run amuck. The Obama administration is trying to show that a little compassion and concern for our fellow citizen with assistance from the federal government -- rather than mostly pursuing individual wealth and reducing governmental regulation of that wealth -- can go a long way toward righting the ship of our economy.
In that spirit, and in the spirit of helping to properly educate each other, let's doff the term "Obamacare" and just use the correct phrases of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act.
Everyone knows that the health care system is broken and we have known it for a long time. Fewer people still realize that the health care system is directly tied into the health of the economy. As a matter of fact, it is one of the primary foundations of a healthy economy (if your citizens are not healthy, there's not much point with anything else) and it should be the first priority in restoring an economy, which is why the Obama administration made it a greater priority immediately than job creation.
Incidentally, even though unemployment is still so high, since the economy is the number one issue in the coming election, it is somewhat surprising that the American electorate would not have been more enthusiastic about the successful passage of the health care legislation. But this is tied to the misperception that most any idea generated by the federal government insinuates "big government." This is, in fact, one of the main purposes for the coining of the term "Obamacare." It is a short, unflattering, and disrespectful way of suggesting that Barack Obama and his administration are taking control away from the citizens of the United States, via the federal government, with the passage of large legislative initiatives. It is true that the Democratic Party (along with the Republican Party) is one of the two largest, wealthiest, and most dominant political parties in the United States. And it is probably true that it is not healthy for there to be only two major political parties in a wealthy country; it probably feels only one short of an implication of a monarchy. But a major difference is who we as a people elect/hire to put into that government. In my opinion we have one of the smartest, most compassionate, least dysfunctional, and proactive administrations in history. It is also the first African-American president who is completely dispelling the ancient and preposterous notion that the African-American is in any way inferior to any other race (it would be nice indeed if the notion of racial inferiority was now a dinosaur). The contrary happens to be true: this particular African-American, Barack Obama, is among the most brilliant of the United States citizens in every way, and he has chosen a like administration.
So instead of deriding what the current administration is doing, I would like to offer that we take more time in our evaluation of their efforts for the country. Let's realize at the very least that they are making a serious effort to do what we hired them to do, and not allow our insecurity and fear of the slow recovery of the economy to cause us to exaggeratedly misjudge their intentions. I am one American who simply has no fear whatsoever that the Obama administration is attempting to turn this country into a Socialist dictatorship. It is the opposite. Our country nearly went bankrupt because of Capitalism run amuck. The Obama administration is trying to show that a little compassion and concern for our fellow citizen with assistance from the federal government -- rather than mostly pursuing individual wealth and reducing governmental regulation of that wealth -- can go a long way toward righting the ship of our economy.
In that spirit, and in the spirit of helping to properly educate each other, let's doff the term "Obamacare" and just use the correct phrases of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
The Stimulus Package needed to be larger not smaller
In an article in the October 25, 2010 issue of Newsweek by Ezra Klein called, "Circle of Trust: Obama Needs Some New Blood,"(p. 24) Klein states that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Stimulus Package) was a good and necessary idea which worked. It saved the United States from bankruptcy.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/16/klein-obama-needs-new-voices.html
But, contrary to the sustained din of opposition to the Stimulus Package, according to Klein it was also not enough. The 10% unemployment is a result not of reckless spending by the Obama administration, but because not enough financial resources were allocated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. And the reason there was not enough was because of Republican resistance and obstruction. In other words, as I have suspected one cannot right a ship that has severe leaks before fixing those leaks. And you can't fix those leaks free of charge or for too little money. The national debt has to be increased in the short term to insure that the economy is made healthy again in the long term. So even though the Republicans and the Tea Party are angrily rallying against the spending in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, that very obstruction is what has largely caused the unemployment that they are accusing the government of not improving; it is "passing the buck." In other words, the irony is that the very thing that people want (jobs, employment) is being stymied by their own refusal to allow the federal government to spend the necessary money to create the jobs they want. They are fearful of the myth that a government that spends money in the short term, even if it's for the long term gain of its citizens, is only a reckless, oppressive, and controlling government. As I have written before, like Glen Beck's reaction to distrusting nearly everyone who runs for public office, this thinking verges on paranoia. It's also operating primarily out of fear which is never productive or healthy. Congratulations to Ezra Klein for the clarification.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/16/klein-obama-needs-new-voices.html
But, contrary to the sustained din of opposition to the Stimulus Package, according to Klein it was also not enough. The 10% unemployment is a result not of reckless spending by the Obama administration, but because not enough financial resources were allocated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. And the reason there was not enough was because of Republican resistance and obstruction. In other words, as I have suspected one cannot right a ship that has severe leaks before fixing those leaks. And you can't fix those leaks free of charge or for too little money. The national debt has to be increased in the short term to insure that the economy is made healthy again in the long term. So even though the Republicans and the Tea Party are angrily rallying against the spending in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, that very obstruction is what has largely caused the unemployment that they are accusing the government of not improving; it is "passing the buck." In other words, the irony is that the very thing that people want (jobs, employment) is being stymied by their own refusal to allow the federal government to spend the necessary money to create the jobs they want. They are fearful of the myth that a government that spends money in the short term, even if it's for the long term gain of its citizens, is only a reckless, oppressive, and controlling government. As I have written before, like Glen Beck's reaction to distrusting nearly everyone who runs for public office, this thinking verges on paranoia. It's also operating primarily out of fear which is never productive or healthy. Congratulations to Ezra Klein for the clarification.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
We're Doing Better Than We Realize
I remember a 60 Minutes piece not long ago about observing countries where the people seem to be the happiest. The winning country was Denmark. The reason: very modest expectations. The people of Denmark are content with simple basics of life: health, education, food, and some nice leisure. What they don't seem to be concerned about is whether their government is out to take advantage of them or is not doing enough to help them. True, their tax system is perhaps quite a bit more excessive than we would be comfortable with in this country (50% of their income goes to taxes, but they are provided with free health insurance, for example, among other benefits), but their citizens don't go wanting for some basic securities of life. They also don't seem to have an unrealistic view of what their government should be doing for them.
I just watched a short video at the White House website showing the trend of the U.S. economy from 2007 to the present. Clearly before President Obama took office the economy was in a downward spiral. But, according to the video, due in part to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act the economy did not "bottom-out" but did indeed recover and has been recovering (albeit very slowly) ever since. The graph shows that we are now about where we were when the recession began, certainly not "out of the woods" yet, but no longer in the severe hole either.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/19/white-house-white-board-cea-chair-austan-goolsbee-explains-jobs-trends
Drawing on the reference to the Danes, what seems to me to be the largest problem is that we are expecting too much from our government too soon. And almost contrary to that, we are deciding that because the federal government is not creating the jobs fast enough for us that the answer is that the government should be involved much less. The obvious question that arises from that is, wasn't it less government involvement that got us into this mess in the first place? Wall Street running amok was because of not enough government involvement (deregulation), not more government involvement (regulation). It's funny that the Tea Party's answer to the continued woes of the economy is to allow the very unbridled market that created this mess to try to fix it as well; that's like going back to the same doctor for more surgery who nearly killed you during your last major surgery. It's already been tested recently and failed miserably, nearly to the point of the demise of the U.S. economy. Makes no sense at all.
Sure, we would like to see more swift evidence already from our new leader that all those who lost jobs during the recession are now working again, but that is not happening because it is simply unrealistic. President Obama seems to have been successful at the first important task, avoiding an economic meltdown. But that also seems to be have been the relatively easy part. The hard part is going to be getting a large enough percentage of all those who lost work back into new jobs, and that will likely not be possible for a while. It is not because of inaction, it is because huge damage takes much longer to repair and that many people being out of work is just not going to be rectified quickly. It will likely take an equivalent amount of time that the recession took to develop in the first place...years more.
So I would like to propose that we are being much to judgmental of the Obama administration in demanding that they be proving already that they can get even a substantial amount of the unemployed back to work after only a year and half. They have already proved that they can bring an overall economy back from the verge of collapse (akin to Captian Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger landing the plane on the Hudson). Let's allow them to continue this good work with the other critical items still on their agenda. It will take more time and more patience on everyone's part.
I just watched a short video at the White House website showing the trend of the U.S. economy from 2007 to the present. Clearly before President Obama took office the economy was in a downward spiral. But, according to the video, due in part to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act the economy did not "bottom-out" but did indeed recover and has been recovering (albeit very slowly) ever since. The graph shows that we are now about where we were when the recession began, certainly not "out of the woods" yet, but no longer in the severe hole either.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/19/white-house-white-board-cea-chair-austan-goolsbee-explains-jobs-trends
Drawing on the reference to the Danes, what seems to me to be the largest problem is that we are expecting too much from our government too soon. And almost contrary to that, we are deciding that because the federal government is not creating the jobs fast enough for us that the answer is that the government should be involved much less. The obvious question that arises from that is, wasn't it less government involvement that got us into this mess in the first place? Wall Street running amok was because of not enough government involvement (deregulation), not more government involvement (regulation). It's funny that the Tea Party's answer to the continued woes of the economy is to allow the very unbridled market that created this mess to try to fix it as well; that's like going back to the same doctor for more surgery who nearly killed you during your last major surgery. It's already been tested recently and failed miserably, nearly to the point of the demise of the U.S. economy. Makes no sense at all.
Sure, we would like to see more swift evidence already from our new leader that all those who lost jobs during the recession are now working again, but that is not happening because it is simply unrealistic. President Obama seems to have been successful at the first important task, avoiding an economic meltdown. But that also seems to be have been the relatively easy part. The hard part is going to be getting a large enough percentage of all those who lost work back into new jobs, and that will likely not be possible for a while. It is not because of inaction, it is because huge damage takes much longer to repair and that many people being out of work is just not going to be rectified quickly. It will likely take an equivalent amount of time that the recession took to develop in the first place...years more.
So I would like to propose that we are being much to judgmental of the Obama administration in demanding that they be proving already that they can get even a substantial amount of the unemployed back to work after only a year and half. They have already proved that they can bring an overall economy back from the verge of collapse (akin to Captian Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger landing the plane on the Hudson). Let's allow them to continue this good work with the other critical items still on their agenda. It will take more time and more patience on everyone's part.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
A responsible (federal) government is not necessarily a "big" government
I just watched the story on 60 Minutes about the Stand Down organization that helps homeless veterans over a three-day period. They are given food, shelter, medical care, and clothing. Some, after interviews and counseling, make it on to further care. Most do not and are forced to return to the streets. Understandably, the ones most eligible for further assistance are those with the most severe crises such as addiction and serious medical conditions. But this leaves the remaining homeless with little options but the streets once again.
The conservative mindset is that the role of the federal government needs to be extremely limited. Small. Less. But the words "limited" or "small" or "less" are all too general and vague. As a result, these words often translate into non-existent. Though I am not a proponent of war unless absolutely necessary (for example if one's country is directly attacked by another nation), what is maddening to me is the fact that because the American attitude toward the federal government is to try to over-limit it, this translates into not enough services for our citizens in need. In this example, we offer the soldiers respect and support for enlisting and serving, but disregard and even ignore them when they return from duty. It is an example of where the conservative mindset of shunning "big government" can be so damaging. In other words, it's not "big government" to spend money on defense in order to fight a war, but it is "big government" to spend money on resources to provide for the comfortable transition and continued care of the same soldiers after they have served. That is simply irresponsible and inhumane. It is also selfish...like wanting someone to fight your battle for you, but unwilling to assist them with their wounds when they return. I'm afraid that this is consistent with the conservative attitude that assisting someone might make them lazy. But there is a big difference between providing for someone permanently and giving them temporary and necessary help. If our country is going to accept a volunteer soldier and deploy them into combat, we as a country need to be equally prepared to provide services for the safe and effective transition of those soldiers in reentering civilian life.
We should be mortified with embarrassment and shame that any of our veterans are homeless after they have served for us in any military capacity. A portion of our tax dollars should go toward offering the best V.A. care money can buy.
The conservative mindset is that the role of the federal government needs to be extremely limited. Small. Less. But the words "limited" or "small" or "less" are all too general and vague. As a result, these words often translate into non-existent. Though I am not a proponent of war unless absolutely necessary (for example if one's country is directly attacked by another nation), what is maddening to me is the fact that because the American attitude toward the federal government is to try to over-limit it, this translates into not enough services for our citizens in need. In this example, we offer the soldiers respect and support for enlisting and serving, but disregard and even ignore them when they return from duty. It is an example of where the conservative mindset of shunning "big government" can be so damaging. In other words, it's not "big government" to spend money on defense in order to fight a war, but it is "big government" to spend money on resources to provide for the comfortable transition and continued care of the same soldiers after they have served. That is simply irresponsible and inhumane. It is also selfish...like wanting someone to fight your battle for you, but unwilling to assist them with their wounds when they return. I'm afraid that this is consistent with the conservative attitude that assisting someone might make them lazy. But there is a big difference between providing for someone permanently and giving them temporary and necessary help. If our country is going to accept a volunteer soldier and deploy them into combat, we as a country need to be equally prepared to provide services for the safe and effective transition of those soldiers in reentering civilian life.
We should be mortified with embarrassment and shame that any of our veterans are homeless after they have served for us in any military capacity. A portion of our tax dollars should go toward offering the best V.A. care money can buy.
"Intelligent," not "Elitist"
Kelly O'Donnell, on the Chris Matthews show this morning, made an excellent point in clarifying/rebutting the derogatory use of the term "elitist" to describe an "intelligent" politician or candidate for public office. President Obama was labeled an "elitist" by many conservative voters during the 2008 presidential campaign, and he is still often referred to as elitist. Many incumbent Democratic Senate candidates up for reelection this November who are educated and intelligent are also being labeled as elitist and "out-of-touch with the people." The label is being used by conservatives, both in the Republican Party and in the new "Tea Party," and it is derogatorily intended to try to paint the person/candidate as one who sees themselves as intellectually superior and unable to identify with or feel compassion for the average, ordinary citizen.
What I find particularly interesting is that this kind of criticism or epithet does not tend to come from people who are educated. It comes mostly from the less educated and less experienced. As Kelly O'Donnell pointed out, intelligence should not imply elitist. The Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines elite as a "socially superior group." So there is a tremendous difference between elite and intelligent. Most of us don't much admire anyone who is interested in feeling superior to someone else. But I don't think anyone who is at all educated would say that it is not valuable to be intelligent. However, I do think that someone who is less well educated might be the first to criticize or condemn someone who is well educated by referring to them as seeming "superior." In my view, some Republicans, and many of the members and candidates of the Tea Party, are not particularly well educated. (Sarah Palin, the ringleader of the Tea Party movement is a case-in-point. One need only watch the interviews of her with either Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric to see the evidence.) This is one of the reasons that they tend to level the epithet of "elite" toward intelligent and highly educated candidates. It is a weak and childish criticism revealing their own insecurity and their probable jealousy of the education of the people they are criticizing.
In short, intelligence is a commodity not a detriment, but elitism, being by definition about superiority, is hopefully never desirable. We have a superbly intelligent president right now with a highly intelligent administration. They are not elitist, but many of them happen to be highly educated people which is one of the criteria I certainly use to vote for anyone for public office. They also seem, by their action in the passage of much valuable and varied legislation, to be genuinely and seriously compassionate to the needs of the American citizens. They also need to be given the time that we gave them (at least one term, not only a year and a half) before we criticize them for not solving all the problems that were dropped in their laps by the previous administration. It takes intelligence not elite thinking to repair the kind of damage that is now crippling this country. We have that in the current administration in the federal government.
What I find particularly interesting is that this kind of criticism or epithet does not tend to come from people who are educated. It comes mostly from the less educated and less experienced. As Kelly O'Donnell pointed out, intelligence should not imply elitist. The Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines elite as a "socially superior group." So there is a tremendous difference between elite and intelligent. Most of us don't much admire anyone who is interested in feeling superior to someone else. But I don't think anyone who is at all educated would say that it is not valuable to be intelligent. However, I do think that someone who is less well educated might be the first to criticize or condemn someone who is well educated by referring to them as seeming "superior." In my view, some Republicans, and many of the members and candidates of the Tea Party, are not particularly well educated. (Sarah Palin, the ringleader of the Tea Party movement is a case-in-point. One need only watch the interviews of her with either Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric to see the evidence.) This is one of the reasons that they tend to level the epithet of "elite" toward intelligent and highly educated candidates. It is a weak and childish criticism revealing their own insecurity and their probable jealousy of the education of the people they are criticizing.
In short, intelligence is a commodity not a detriment, but elitism, being by definition about superiority, is hopefully never desirable. We have a superbly intelligent president right now with a highly intelligent administration. They are not elitist, but many of them happen to be highly educated people which is one of the criteria I certainly use to vote for anyone for public office. They also seem, by their action in the passage of much valuable and varied legislation, to be genuinely and seriously compassionate to the needs of the American citizens. They also need to be given the time that we gave them (at least one term, not only a year and a half) before we criticize them for not solving all the problems that were dropped in their laps by the previous administration. It takes intelligence not elite thinking to repair the kind of damage that is now crippling this country. We have that in the current administration in the federal government.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Enough about "Socialism" already!
I read two very interesting articles in Time magazine. One was by Fareed Zakaria entitled "The New Challenge From China" (October 18, 2010). In addition to Mr. Zakaria being a superb writer and journalist, the article illuminates the tremendous success that China has had in the last decade alone with improving its education system. It easily rivals and even surpasses the United States. Another article by Joe Klein, from the same issue of Time, called "America from the Road" interviews a number of people who are extremely displeased with the direction they feel that President Barack Obama is taking the country. One person was quoted as fearing that we are headed toward a "..'European' style of Big Government..." This is another way of saying "Socialism."
I feel particularly tired of hearing this argument. First, we have carried the term "Socialism" over to the present day from the years of fear of Communism. The Communists employed a "Socialist" government. Their form of Socialism was extreme and brought about the demise of the Soviet Union. However, there is a big difference between being concerned for the welfare of the citizens of your own country and imposing autocratic rule. For starters, it depends very much on who is at the helm, who your leaders are. We happen to have elected a president who is not only brilliantly intelligent but also truly cares about the American citizens. That is certainly being socially compassionate but it is a far cry from Socialism. It's time that we cease the use of the term "Socialism" as a derogatory term to avoid the fact that we as a country do not have enough compassion for our poorest citizens. (I don't recall ever hearing the funding of the Iraq war or campaigning for criminalizing abortion as "Big Government" or "Socialism." That strikes me as a very subjective and hypocritical categorization of the issues.) If we did, we would not hesitate to promote and vote for higher taxes for domestic issues such as education, health care, affordable housing, and other large-scale issues that do indeed need support from the federal government. Though China has certainly been guilty of suppressing human rights, it is also an example of a country that is apparently not concerned about whether their improved education looks like Socialism. Clearly, their Premier, Wen Jiabao, is more concerned with the education of his country's citizens.
Frankly, aside from the fact that the word "Socialism" conjures up the former Soviet Union and Joe McCarthy, I simply don't understand the vehement desire to not want to help our poorest citizens. This is what Vice-President Joe Biden meant when he referred to "fairness." If I could be pretty sure that a portion of my tax dollars would go toward providing universal health care for every person from birth to death, I would gladly agree to my taxes being raised (an additional $100 or $200 a year, for example) as long as that tax increase was applied to everyone who could afford it. That way, I would know that if I ever lost my job and was unemployed that I would be covered under universal coverage until I got another job in which my employer paid toward my health insurance. This, to me, is just normal common sense and compassion.
So please, let's stop referring to valuable governmental assistance with domestic issues as "Socialism." It prevents us from doing on the national level what we would all do in private if faced with helping someone in need.
I feel particularly tired of hearing this argument. First, we have carried the term "Socialism" over to the present day from the years of fear of Communism. The Communists employed a "Socialist" government. Their form of Socialism was extreme and brought about the demise of the Soviet Union. However, there is a big difference between being concerned for the welfare of the citizens of your own country and imposing autocratic rule. For starters, it depends very much on who is at the helm, who your leaders are. We happen to have elected a president who is not only brilliantly intelligent but also truly cares about the American citizens. That is certainly being socially compassionate but it is a far cry from Socialism. It's time that we cease the use of the term "Socialism" as a derogatory term to avoid the fact that we as a country do not have enough compassion for our poorest citizens. (I don't recall ever hearing the funding of the Iraq war or campaigning for criminalizing abortion as "Big Government" or "Socialism." That strikes me as a very subjective and hypocritical categorization of the issues.) If we did, we would not hesitate to promote and vote for higher taxes for domestic issues such as education, health care, affordable housing, and other large-scale issues that do indeed need support from the federal government. Though China has certainly been guilty of suppressing human rights, it is also an example of a country that is apparently not concerned about whether their improved education looks like Socialism. Clearly, their Premier, Wen Jiabao, is more concerned with the education of his country's citizens.
Frankly, aside from the fact that the word "Socialism" conjures up the former Soviet Union and Joe McCarthy, I simply don't understand the vehement desire to not want to help our poorest citizens. This is what Vice-President Joe Biden meant when he referred to "fairness." If I could be pretty sure that a portion of my tax dollars would go toward providing universal health care for every person from birth to death, I would gladly agree to my taxes being raised (an additional $100 or $200 a year, for example) as long as that tax increase was applied to everyone who could afford it. That way, I would know that if I ever lost my job and was unemployed that I would be covered under universal coverage until I got another job in which my employer paid toward my health insurance. This, to me, is just normal common sense and compassion.
So please, let's stop referring to valuable governmental assistance with domestic issues as "Socialism." It prevents us from doing on the national level what we would all do in private if faced with helping someone in need.
To all incumbent candidates: "Stand tall with the president"
The election this November is not about electing a president, but the anger that is fueling the races for Congress is directed mainly at the president. In my opinion, the Democrats have consistently made the mistake of distancing themselves from their own party's president (from Clinton in 1994 for example and the Republicans retook the Congress) instead of campaigning on a platform of supporting what their president has accomplished. It is, in my view, a rather cowardly posture: supporting the president when they're popular, but shunning them when they're not. Shunning is rarely kind or admirable, but especially not when the person being shunned has done well and much of the populace is too ignorant or misinformed (in the current climate because of unrestrained anger) to recognize it. President Obama and many of the Democratic senators have built a substantial resume of successful and beneficial legislation. It is up to the incumbent candidates now to tout those accomplishments, not to be afraid to mention them for fear of being aligned with an unpopular president.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Turn down the anger for these Mid-Term elections
I would like to offer a rebuttal to a recent article in Newsweek (“I’m Mad As Hell…And I’m Going To Vote! The Psychology of an Angry Electorate,” October 11, 2010, p. 29).
The article reports that many voters are enraged and furious with the Obama administration for what they see as reckless spending by the federal government and insufficient assertion (and even absence of anger) in response both to the ailing economy and to the Gulf oil spill caused by BP Oil. These voters see President Obama as both too calm and cool in the face of disaster, and insensitive to the fact that they are still out of work, out of their homes, and fearful of the federal government in general. However, in my view, this anger is inappropriate, misplaced, incorrect, and highly unproductive in a variety of ways.
First, Barack Obama inherited an economy that was crippled by a former president who was elected by many of the very voters who are angry now. So, for starters, these angry voters should be angry with themselves, not at President Obama; one needs to accept lying in the bed of their own making. But some of the angry voters are ones who voted for President Obama but have their sights too short and are too impatient for the change they want and were expecting from him. He has already fulfilled many campaign promises of change, but some of the larger changes his initial supporters want, and that he is working toward, will take much more time to enact.
Second, Obama was hired for his intelligence, compassion, and general intellectual skill with problem solving which are the qualities we should demand in any leader, but particularly ones that are needed in a time of extreme crisis. We are undoubtedly still in an expreme crisis (no matter what any financial expert might say about the “end” of the recession…we are certainly not “out of the woods” yet), and what is needed is level-headedness not anger. Anger is a temporary loss of control. It is healthy to express anger but unhealthy to operate from it. Crises need calm control not loss of control, and Barack Obama is remarkable at calm control. To quote Anna Qunidlen, Obama is “unflappable,” a superb quality and skill in times of crises.
Third, rebuilding a damaged economy takes both time and money. It cannot be one quickly or for free. Since the current economic damage we now face was brought on for eight years under President George W. Bush, and since for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, it will both likely take an equal amount of time to undo that damage and it will take more money in the short term to make the necessary repairs to our economy; these even though the deficit had already been increased to astronomic proportions under President Bush. In other words, balancing the federal budget cannot be priority right now. The repairs have to happen first, which means the federal government will have to spend more money for the repairs for the time being (resulting in the increase of the national debt in the short term) until the economy stabilizes and regains its footing. Then the goal can shift back to rebalancing the federal budget. To react to the passage, signing, and enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as simply reckless spending by the federal government (and the current administration) is to be wholly ignorant of all this. It is necessary short-term federal spending in response to the unwise and reckless spending by Wall Street and the federal government during the Bush presidency. Holding the Obama administration responsible for reckless spending is completely and inappropriately shifting the blame and ignoring the reality of the situation.
The appropriate response to the current economic situation should be patience and appreciation. We have a president and an administration that have approached the job with intelligence, efficiency, and effectiveness. The economy did not collapse (that is evidence of success in this crisis alone) and many effective pieces of legislation have been passed and signed. In short, we now have an administration of adults in the White House. Adults do not exhibit anger carelessly. It was carelessness and recklessness that resulted in the economic situation in which we arrived in 2009. Let’s not make the mistake of reverting back to the behavior that got us into that state in the first place by operating prematurely with careless and reckless anger, particularly toward an administration that is making steady progress in correcting the problems. We need to operate with sober intelligence (patience) in addition to deep emotion (elation or anger). The Obama administration is doing just that and, though not at the pace many would prefer, is slowly righting the ship. You can’t sail a ship with even a small crew (much less a full one) if the ship still has substantial leaks. (The current unemployment state is a result of those substantial leaks and it that will take much longer to rectify. It is completely unrealistic to expect that the Obama administration would have managed to substantially reduce the unemployment rate by now, or even in four years. It will take longer.) But you also can’t repair the leaks with no money, even if the shipyard seems to be on the verge of bankruptcy. The first success of the Obama administration was to successfully prevent the bankruptcy and begin the repairs. That is no small feat.
So please turn down the anger and vote in these Mid-term elections to allow the current federal and state governments to continue the job they are successfully doing. (Also pay a visit to the White House website. One brief browse shows the success.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)