The Debt

The Debt

Even though Republicans got most of what they wanted in the debt-ceiling deal, including a long-term deficit reduction plan, the debt is not going away, either as a problem or a talking point. And it's true: the debt is a big problem. A mammoth one, in fact. However, if the House and Senate let the debt become the biggest issue of this and next term, they will be throwing away any tentative, stumbling progress the US economy has made and will send a message to the more than nine percent of Americans who are unemployed that they do not matter.
After all, the debt is a long-term problem; it has been around for decades and will be around for decades. Any serious solution to the deficit will be a big one and will involve years worth of budget-reassessment and will probably include cuts into the big three: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as well as gigantic, damaging cuts into non-defense discretionary spending.
Now, though, is the worst time to make damaging cuts into non-defense discretionary spending, which includes education, infrastructure, job creation, and many other crucial government programs that are both the base of the US job creating ability and its "win the future" programs that make up most of President Obama's docket. These programs have already been cut to the bone through the debt-ceiling deal as well as from other budget cuts that were passed in this Congress, and cutting them any more would be devastating. There are school districts in America that will start up school in September with its students going to only four days of classes, and American students need to be in school more days, not less. Rabid debt-cutters always remind the US public that the deficit is putting a burdon on America's children, which is, generally, true. But that is not as big as a burden for American children as the one of school budget cuts. American children are mis- and under-prepared for a world economy, less educated then their foreign peers, and barely reaching standards that are dwarfed by those of Europe and Asia.
And then there is the matter of unemployment, the real problem in America, not the debt or budget deficits. When over nine percent of job-seeking Americans are unemployed, it is the responsibility of Congress to invest in job-creating measures. And it's not that hard; Congress has the power to fund desperately-needed projects for infrastructure or research or scientific development and to re-saturate the budgets of school districts. That's how jobs are created by the government. Some argue that it should be businesses creating jobs in America. Well, that's fine; they can. But in order for businesses to have any kind of incentive to move their job-creating factories and other means of production (after all, America is supposed to be a production-based economy) back to the US, Congress has to impose taxes on goods created out of the United States, even if the companies that make those goods are based in America. Otherwise, the jobs that left America will not return and nine-percent unemployment will become the norm while blooming overseas markets capitalise on low minimum wages and workers rights to attract the companies that once fueled US employment.
These are the important economic issues in America; these are the ones that need the imminent attention of Congress. While the debt is a problem and does require a long-term conversation on how to reduce it, the paramount issue is the jobs crisis America is facing and the elimination of non-defense discretionary spending that could have helped America "win the future."

Read more »

Big Bird: An Endangered Species

Big Bird: An Endangered Species

In the midst of unimaginable crisis in Japan and Libya, as well as extended protests across the Midwest, it is possible that the conservative Congressional leadership thinks that Americans are not paying attention, and they are probably right. So while the American people are preoccupied by much more terrifying problems, Congress has gone on an attack of its own, taking a lesson from all of the gun rights advocates and hunting down Big Bird.
The end of publicly funded television and radio programing could be devastating for Americans. Perhaps that sounds hyperbolic, but it is not. Programs like National Public Radio (NPR), the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) are not the entertainment-based, liberal subsidies that the conservatives in Congress like to pretend they are. In fact, they provide vital services to all Americans.
PBS offers unique programing for young children through PBS Kids. Programs like Sesame Street, Arthur, and Cyberchase provide educational television for preschoolers and elementary school students. Where else could this sort of early-education television be found? The fact is, no other network does for children what PBS does. Families that cannot afford early education may find some substitute in the math and reading-centric shows PBS carries. No show on Disney or Nickelodeon or any other kid's channel provides such educational benefit.
And NPR, too, provides a valuable service to Americans. In a radio format, NPR is able to truly break down news and make it understandable to average people, while also delivering world and local news as well as giving a voice to issues that media that has to pay for itself cannot afford to cover. Cutting NPR funding means cutting easy access to news and information to thousands of people. NPR remains one of the most comprehensive and investigative journalistic outlets in the United States. Beyond losing news access, cutting NPR funding means eliminating one of the only truly journalistically responsible news organizations in the country.
Cutting funding to federally funded broadcasting companies is one of those political choices that has no real benefits and serious ramifications. In a world without PBS and NPR, low-income children are at an even further disadvantage than they are now; the achievement gap grows beyond recognition; good journalism is punished in favor of weakly constructed political fights; Americans lose trusted news. How is this worth cheap political points?

Read more »

Violence

Violence

When volatile political rhetoric inspired the murder of Dr. George Tiller, one of the country's only late-term abortion doctors, nothing changed. Sure, Fox News stopped referring to him as "Dr. Tiller the baby killer," but nothing really changed. When political extremism led to the Oklahoma City bombings carried out by Timothy McVeigh, nothing changed. Commentary television and radio programs continued to feature divisive, polarizing voices. Now that six innocent Arizonians (including a nine year-old girl and a federal judge) are dead and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, as well as a handful of others, are severely injured after a politically-charged shooting, will anything change? The past record indicates no.
The volatile nature of political rhetoric today is incredible. With subtly violent undertones, political speech- whether that be from commentators of politicians themselves- has inspired acts of violence before and probably will continue to.
Too often in America, commentators don't understand the repercussions when they insinuate that politicians ought to be physically targeted or promote "second amendment remedies" to "take out" an opponent. Some people, like Jared Loughner, the man charged with the Arizona crimes, are bound to take that rhetoric literally.
But even with this consideration, a real change in political speech is unlikely. American violence metaphors are simply rooted too deeply in the political system. Mainstream politicians like Sharon Angle and Sarah Palin use hunt-like and attack-based language too casually and without real consequence. Conservatives, of course, do not own the territory of violent rhetoric nor of mentally deranged extremists, but it is undeniable that the most recent and controversial examples of these can be traced back to ultra-extreme conservatives. Anti-Obama Americans who attended 2009 town halls with the president were seen on several occasions with guns strapped to their person and wearing shirts with slogans like "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants," which has its own bloody past in the history of political assassinations.
Unfortunately, these sort of actions and speech aren't going to change anytime soon. But if the rhetoric can't change, then maybe the policies can. Loughner passed the federal background check to buy his automatic weapon with flying colors, and purchased a 30+ round magazine without a problem. These are not weapons of self-defense or of hunters. A magazine with that many rounds should be exclusive to the military and to the police force, just like it was through the 90s.
Six innocent people died last weekend in a violent attack in a time of politically charged speech. This attack could not have happened if Loughner did not have access to the weaponry he used.
It is horrendous that this attack occurred. It is even more so that it could have been prevented by regulations to gun control (to which, sadly, Congresswoman Giffords was opposed) or by a conscious realization by commentators that their rhetorically violent flourishes are not always as level-headedly received as they may think. But what is most unfortunate is that these commentators may never have this realization or make a change.

Read more »

We Shouldn't Have To

We Shouldn't Have To

Tyler Clementi, an eighteen-year old college student in New Jersey, committed suicide last week after being harassed for being gay. Clementi's death follows those of Billy Lucas, age 15, Ashter Brown, 13, and Seth Walsh, also 13, all gay teens who recently committed suicide, purportedly due to constant bullying. Looking back further, Clementi's death has echos of the murder of Matthew Shepard in 1998, which lead to the enactment of hate crime legislation in several states, including the targeted deaths of gay men and women as hate crimes. These deaths are rapidly becoming the rule, not the exception, for gay youths.
Simply put, this is disgusting. The unhappy losses of these young people only further magnifies the central issue when fighting for gay rights in America: there is a culture in the country that tells children there there is something inherently wrong about being gay, something so heinously wrong about it that it's better to kill themselves than to live as gay men and women.
The blockage in the Senate of the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell is only another organization telling these children that because they are gay, they are not good enough. Not good enough to serve America, not good enough to get married.
We shouldn't have to tell LGBT youth not to contemplate suicide. We shouldn't have to tell them that they just need to 'hang on' through the harassment until it gets better, or that yes, they are just as important as everyone else. We shouldn't have to read stories or hear commentary about the deaths of gay youths. We shouldn't have to because the harassment shouldn't exist in the first place.
America must allow Clementi's death to do what Shepard's did in the 90s: make progress for the rights of the gay community. If not a change in the laws surrounding gay marriage, it must act as a motivator to finally repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. It would be irresponsible for the US Senate to look at the influence they can potentially have upon gay youths like Clementi and not pass the retraction of Don't Ask Don't Tell. The change of this policy could, quite literally, save lives- not only in the military, but also at home. It could validate to scores of gay youth their importance to America, and if that is a possibility at all, it is worth it to repeal just for that. Using Clementi's death to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell would not be politicizing it. It would be possibly saving some other Tyler Clementi out there from committing suicide because he didn't think he was good enough.

Read more »

Filibustered!

Filibustered!

It is incomprehensible as to how a legislative body, faced with the necessity of repealing a law that is declared unconstitutional, does not do so. And yet, yesterday Senate Democrats were unable to gather enough support to break a Republican filibuster against a bill that includes a proviso to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell, the military policy limiting the service of gay soldiers that was recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge. Though Democrats courted the support of Maine Republican Susan Collins, who, rhetorically, is in favor of Don't Ask Don't Tell's repeal, Collins did not vote for cloture in the end, along with a handful of Democrats.

However, this legislative battle is unnecessary. Don't Ask Don't Tell was originally created through a presidential edict during the Clinton administration. Therefore, President Obama, as Commander-in-Chief of the military, could simply dissolve the policy. At the very least, President Obama could place a stay on Don't Ask Don't Tell, stopping soldiers from being actively discharged from military service until Congress reaches a policy agreement. President Obama has declared his support for the revocation of the policy, as have a majority of his military advisors, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
President Obama has the means to and the political climate conducive to repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell. Between the military and policial leaders condemning Don't Ask Don't Tell and socially prominent figures, like Lady Gaga, leading an offensive against the policy, President Obama should have no political reason not to repeal the policy.
This fight is not about how Republican- and some conservative Democrat- elected officials feel about gay marriage. It is not about any mislead fears they might have about soldiers spreading "the gay", as Rachel Maddow calls it. It isn't even about public opinion about gay marriage or Don't Ask Don't Tell. This is one of those issues where public opinion shouldn't have much weight. Don't Ask Don't Tell is a fight over the most basic of American principles, equality. It is about one party fighting for equality and the other blocking it. It is not just unequal to bar gay soldiers from service, it is against everything that any fight for equality in America has stood for. 

[photo credit: cnn.com]

Read more »

Popular Populists

Popular Populists

Democratic ads heading into the midterms have taken an odd, if not unexpected turn. Liberals and left-leaning moderates have feverishly distanced themselves from the majority party's impressive political accomplishments this year and set themselves up to be angry, populist-style advocates for disenchanted voters, especially Republican ones. Some don't even note being a Democrat (Rep. Glenn Nye's, D-VA, rather conservative seeming video is below). The assumption, at least in Washington, is that the anti-incumbent, and, to a lesser extent, the anti-Democrat, sentiment in the country this voting cycle is so strong that detaching oneself from the many policy goals which were completed last year is the only way to survive the midterms.
To the contrary: many voters' biggest issue with the last Congress is what they consider its inability to bring progress to the nation. A representative who absolves him or herself of responsibility for what is, in actuality, an impressive repertoire of accomplishments, does not help their chances of re-election. If anything, they hurt them. Voters want to see something being done to fix the problems in America. Oftentimes, any action is better than no action
"Its about the conservative movement hating the Republican establishment," Rachel Maddow said of the supposed anti-incumbent attitude. She noted that there was no real comparison in the Democratic party. If this is true- and there are many examples of it being so (Delaware, for instance), then the fear among Democrats shouldn't be that they appear to be, well, Democrats. It should be that they appear to have wasted away the last year.
And they haven't. The Democratic congress accomplished a lot this year, and, for all of the legislations' faults, several of the decades-long Democratic goals were met. Truthfully, if the Democrats cannot learn to focus on their progress and the great things passed this year, they will lose the House, because voters- especially the much sought-after moderates- don't really care if you're a Democrat or a Republican. They care if you're getting things done.

Rep. Glenn Nye (D- VA): Path

Read more »

Getting Better

Getting Better

The economy, no matter what else can be said about it, is both undoubtably improving and not yet where it ought to be. While a lethargic Congress is unable to squeeze out anything remotely resembling a follow-up to the promising yet incomplete economic recovery bill, it's still difficult to tell how much more and what kind of recovery is needed, due in equal parts to the general ambiguity of the economy's signifiers for stability and the reluctance of Congress to re-approach the issue. Instead of taking real steps to continue to ensure the stability of the American economy, elected officials have taken to either singing the praises of what they consider to be an already recovered economy, or have begun to relentlessly bemoan the status of the market without offering any, much less any helpful, solutions.
Many people, including economists, look at stocks to prove the health of today's economy, rather than unemployment numbers or other signifiers, the reasoning behind this being that stocks, while not exactly a measure of the spending or financial security of the American people, act as a tangible measurement for the health of American business (or, rather, America's corporations). However, stocks are designed to both rise and fall- nearly always both in one day. If you were to take a year's measure of the stock market as comparable to the health of the economy, it is possible you could achieve an accurate- if far from full- picture. Days, months and even quarters of dips and swells in the market do not prove anything about the economy in the long run, except that it is stil working on some level.
Other analysts use the unemployment numbers, the job creation rates, the national debt or the GDP to measure the economy. Truthfully, no one number will provide a full view of the shortfalls and surges in today's market. Still, it is doubtless that, while the US economy has improved greatly, it is still not in a 'normal' or stable state.
Therefore, shouldn't Congress be doing more? Since Capitol Hill has become effectively allergic to anything that involves national spending, even that of the most rationalized kind, spending that feeds directly back into the economy, economic bills have been few and far between. The state-aid bill passed by the Senate today is certainly progress, but not quite enough. It's Congress' job to spend on the American people, so it would be beneficial for elected officials to get over their fear of using money meant to help Americans to actually help Americans.

Read more »

Leak

Leak

The one thing President Obama did not need following the resignation of General McChrystal was another scandal in Afganistan. And yet, with the unearthing of thousands of wartime documents from 2004 onwards that paint a bleak picture of the war and tell of a double-dealing Pakistani government, it seems that the tide will turn rapidly against the already unpopular war, both at home and with the "shocked" Afghan leaders.
Although the Pakistani Intelligence officials have already refuted the yet-unconfirmed documents that detail alleged exchanges with the Taliban where the Pakistanis conspired against American forces, including attempts to assassinate Afghan officials. The American government has been careful when dealing with the Pakistani officials in the past, and there is a serious risk of diplomatic problems if these documents turn out to be legitimate. If the Pakistani government is as close to the Taliban as the documents imply, the American government could find itself in a dangerous position.
The Obama Administration has stayed firm on its decision for an end date in Afghanistan. Today, especially in the face of these new materials that show a war that, if to end with America's goals completed, is far from over, the Obama Administration faces criticism of the 2011 end date from both sides. At the same time, Americans are growing more distasteful of the war that seems endless and increasingly useless.
Popularity should not define a president's decisions, especially in terms of foreign policy. Still, when the midterms are so close, it's likely that the pubic's opinion will influence the President's- and Congress'- choices.
The Obama Administration has already begun to feel the public pressure to extract the American forces from Afghanistan, and, if not to completely leave, also extreme pressure to reexamine the counter-insurgency strategy President Obama reaffirmed his belief in by nominating General Petreus for the vacancy left by General McChrystal. The doubt in the current path is not just from the outside- Administration insiders are beginning to question the policy.
Now, President Obama has two options. He can either move the exit date up and remove forces from Afghanistan as quickly as possible, or he can impart, somehow, knowledge to the American people that refutes or overrides these documents, proving the Afghan war successful and moving in a positive- and eventually terminable- direction.

Read more »

Excess

Excess

Last year, failing banks handed out billions in bonuses to executives after taxpayers had bailed them out, rationalized by politicians calling these banking conglomerates 'too big to fail'. Now, the Obama Administration and Congress have taken a major, sweeping step towards ensuring that no bank is to big to fail and that never again will a late-night vote taken by Congress lead to taxpayer dollars being shoveled into the pockets of bloated banks.
The banking regulation reform bill orchestrated by Senator Chis Dodd and Representative Barney Frank, for whom the bill is named, will protect American consumers more than any financial regulations in history. In the past, nearly a dozen shrunken agencies were tasked with protecting consumers in different areas of the complex financial market. Resultantly, some areas were overprotected, with the bureaucratic mess making true consumer advocacy nearly impossible, while other sectors of the market were left completely untouched. Now, one reaching organization will protect Americans from all practices in the financial markets. Additionally, tough restrictions will provide new stability in the markets while pruning practices that endanger Americans.
Still, this bill is not quite as reaching as it ought to be. While in theory banks may now be 'too big to fail', this only applies to taxpayer bailouts. Banks can still combine and bloat, becoming impossible to regulate by any agency. Gramm-Leach-Blily, the law that allows consumer banking to meld with banking insurance companies and insure themselves is still enacted, creating a dangerous investment for consumers who assumed their finances were protected. Also, though regulation is now tougher than ever, the government is still unable to insure against taxpayer-hurting practices, like Wall St. banks frivolous handling of the TARP funds last year.
Even though the new law is far from perfect, it offers protection to consumers like never before. If the current regulations had been enacted a few years ago, the Goldman-Sachs fraud case would have been either more sparse or would have not happened at all, due entirely to the creation of the new protection agency.

Read more »

Getting Mad

Getting Mad

President Obama's speech last week, if nothing else, conveyed how he truly cares about the people living around the Gulf of Mexico and his serious desire to stop the leak and begin cleanup. However, while President Obama's words may have been emotion-filled, the entire speech felt very much like 'the President's Weekly Adress' to be released for internet hounds and podcast subscribers; it was very informal. President Obama was not angry. He was not furious with BP. He needs to be.
Sure, BP is not entirely at fault. Lackadaisical federal regulators did not do their job, and Congress did not do its job. None of this, however, excuses BP for their horrific business practices.

BP's rescue plan in the case of an oil disaster was the equivalent of a seventh grader's semi-plagiarized term paper. BP has threatened to fire any and all employees who wear pertinent protective gear while working on the cleanup, presumably for PR reasons. This goes beyond terrible regulation. This is disgusting. Why aren't congressmen- why isn't President Obama- mad about this? The righteous, populous anger America so desperately needs right now was glimpsed when Rep. Joe Barton apologized to BP. The remarkable unity seen in response to Barton's comments needs to be channeled, and channeled towards getting something done. 
In a time when an endless swarm of indistinguishable voices dictates the personality of the internet, when rant-like, all-caps comments are posted on extremist sites, providing the textual equivalent of screaming at your idealogical twin, it may seem that instigating more anger is not the solution. However, it is the responsibility of Congress to get angry at corporations that hurt the American public and precious American environment, to get angry at regulators who fail to even basically protect Americans, and even to get angry with themselves and their institution for doing nothing. The solution is not instigating more anger; the solution is instigating the right anger.

Read more »

The Create-a-Few Jobs Bill

The Create-a-Few Jobs Bill

Although America may no longer technically be in a recession and although the job market has shown promising upwards trends, the American economy is far from fully recovered. The US Congress has the responsibility to work to improve the economy, including instituting programs that will create jobs for average Americans. Originally proposing a huge amount of jobs, the Senate jobs bill has shed billions of dollars in compromise with Republicans.
Senate Democrats have failed this year at standing their ground and protecting what they believe in. Sweeping compromises were made on the health care bill, but no Republicans voted for it. The potential regulation being proposed for the banking industry is being promised away for a few, possibly nonexistent votes. Now, the jobs bill is being cut and consolidated to the point where none of the originally beneficial parts of the bill will make much difference.
The Senate Republican caucus has an incredible ability to maintain party unity- possibly a little too well. However, compared to the Democrats' complete inability to stand firm on a single issue, the Republicans appear positively adept.
It is imperative that the Democratic party learns to stand together on important legislation. The regulations that were talked about a month ago in the Senate for the banking industry had the potential to protect consumers from risky business practices by banks. However, due to the Democrats' incessant need to compromise, the restrictions being discussed today are unlikely to make a difference.
Bipartisanship is a fantastic concept. However, bipartisanship requires two parties willing to compromise. Bipartisanship is not one party giving into the other's every demand in exchange for nothing.
Politicians who are in office today made a promise to the American people to improve the economy and attempt to secure American jobs. This won't get done unless either the Democrats can stand strong or the Republicans can learn to compromise.

Read more »

Do Repeal [Don't Ask]

Do Repeal [Don't Ask]

Tonight, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted through a provision allowing the Defense Departement to take action to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, the ban on openly gay men and women in the military. Both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and President Obama are supportive of repealing the regulation that originated under President Clinton. The vote was 16-12, with Maine Senator Susan Collins the only Republican to vote for the provision.
As the bill continues on to the full Senate and eventually to the House, it is important to keep in mind why it is imperative the ban is lifted in the military. Thousands of American troops have been kicked out of the armed forces through Don't Ask Don't Tell. Just as, earlier in our nation's history, the military faced a major overhaul when it was desegregated, the armed forces must now end this discrimination of gay soldiers and allow all qualified people to serve together in the military. Even if this takes a long and bitter partisan fight, not unlike that of the sixties as segregation of races was called into question, this is a civil rights issue that deserves to be resolved. It is not patriotic to weaken our military by kicking out qualified soldiers, though it is what some politicians would have you believe. The ridiculous rebuttals offered by politicians to those who are attempting to support the administration in repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell only further clarify the necessity for imminent action. One Congressmen expressed concerns that the rule's repeal would result in "overt" sexual behavior in the military. The idea that gay men and women would encourage more "overt" sexual behavior in the armed forces than straight ones would is completely baseless, and relatively hypocritical. The endless stream of alleged and confirmed affairs of Congressmen demonstrates more "overt" sexual behavior than ever is heard of from the military.

Read more »

Primaries (Part One)

Primaries (Part One)

As campaign season looms before us, we will take a look at the initial primary results as a gauge for the attitude of the nation and as foreshadowing for midterms. 
Pennsylvania 
Democratic primary: former party-switcher Arlen Specter was defeated by Joe Sestak in this week's primary. Spector had been a Republican for nearly thirty years but decided to caucus as a Democrat last April. Spector's loss was not exactly shocking, as his idealogical switch was highly controversial at the time. If Sestak, a major advocate of Wall Street reform, wins the general election, the PA seat will have become decisively more liberal, although it would not change the party holdings in the Senate.
Republican primary: Pat Toomey, previously a member of the House of Representatives, gained the support of the GOP in his race for the PA Senate seat. Toomey would certainly swing the seat to the right, and he has already begun to paint his challenger as a Washington insider, as compared to his time in Pennsylvania.
Special Election: Late Representative John Murtha's seat was also contested this week. The seat stayed in the hands of the Democratic party, whose candidate, Mark Critz, defeated Republican Tim Burns. The race was seen by many to be an indicator of how the midterms will play out.
Kentucky 
Democratic primary: Jack Conoway, the state's Attorney General, won over Kentucky Lt. Governor Daniel Mongiardo, both moderates. Mongiardo had run for the US Senate unsuccessfully in the past, and Conoway had similar results in his prior bid for the House.
Republican primary: Conservative Republican and son of failed presidential candidate Ron Paul, Rand Paul, overtook Trey Grayson, Kentucky Secretary of State, in the GOP primary. Paul is viewed by many to by extremely conservative, a point his new challenger has already begun to capitalize upon.
Arkansas 
Democratic primary: Due to overly close and severed votes, a runoff election will be held between incumbent Senator Blanche Lincoln, who was the youngest woman to be elected to the US Senate, and Lt. Governor Bill Halter. The Arkansas seat has been held by a Democratic candidate for over 130 years.
Republican primary: Representative John Boozman fought for and won the GOP primary. He will be facing tough opposition by whoever wins the Democratic run-off and will have a difficult time swinging a liberal state. Still, discontent with Senator Lincoln's positions may prove a blessing for Boozman as voters turn to other solutions.

Read more »

Please Don't Drill Baby, Drill

Please Don't Drill Baby, Drill

It is approximated that only six percent of the world's crude oil lies in the United States- and about a fourth of the world's crude oil can be found in Saudi Arabia. However, America is the top consumer of oil in the world. Thus, even if America was able to harness all of the projected oil resting in its reservoirs, the oil found would not be anywhere near enough to make a true difference in oil cost for Americans, and it would be a huge expense and an even bigger step backwards for clean energy efforts in America.
President Obama has proposed, in his new energy plan, to begin drilling in and around several stretches of American coastline. "The likely return... [is about] two week's supply [of oil]," Keith Olbermann said on his show tonight. Obama's plan, which is seemingly a grab for some Congressional support from Republicans, will not provide any substantive energy to Americans.
Congressional Republicans don't seem interested in offering support, however. Some have begun to make statements against the plan, and other Republicans, outside of Congress, have done the same. Sarah Palin tweeted against the plan, and others have had similarly negative reactions. This proposal will decrease support from both liberals, who don't want to see any increase in drilling, and conservatives, who also oppose the plan for either not being sweeping enough or, quite simply, for being Obama's plan.
Several environmental leaders have spoken out against the proposal. Obama's plan would allow America to continue to rely on oil, rather than promoting new, 'green' energy methods. "We are seriously disappointed with the President," Eric Pica, of Friends of the Earth, said, although he noted that if this was attached to a green energy bill aiming to reduce climate change the proposal could be accepted by the community.
Still, any increase in drilling is negative. President Obama must remember that he was elected on a platform that focused on energy efficiency and that he was elected instead of a man whose vice presidential pick made a name for herself by calling out "drill baby, drill."

Read more »

A Matter of Life and Death

A Matter of Life and Death

The House just passed the Senate's edited version of the reconsolidated health reform bill, marking the end of a year-old polarizing debate. However, it is imperative that this legislation is kept in perspective. Although congressmen and women vehemently fought each other over small pieces of the bill, Americans need to remember that health care is, quite literally, a matter of life and death. Reforms are nice. Regulations are nice. Caps and changes and extensions are all nice. But real health reform will not have been achieved until every American has affordable and comprehensive health care insurance. Neither the current law nor the recently passed reconciliation do this. And until this real health reform is achieved, less Americans will be able to receive imperative surgeries and treatments, less will be diagnosed with illnesses by qualified doctors, and more Americans will become ill.

Read more »

Post-Nothing

Post-Nothing

A year ago, the American media was quick to declare the budding Obama presidency a result of a new, post-racial America.  It sounded nice, as though the traditional biases held by average Americans had finally been dropped and America, now free of bigotry, would emerge victoriously as a completely accepting nation.

However, racial discrimination in America has not ended. Some of it, in fact, is aimed at the president who seemed to be above it all, like the often made- sometimes even by elected officials- claims that President Obama was not born in the United States, but rather, in Kenya.

“Barack Obama's presidency will not deal a death blow to racism. Racial inequality still affects the quality of the air we breathe, the quality of our health, the likelihood of being erroneously shot by police, the likelihood of being poor, of having little education and of being unemployed. Race is sticky and racism is real. Being black will still mean living poorer and dying younger,” wrote Mellissa Harris-Lacewell, an associate professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, in a piece for The Nation in 2008. In the piece, Lacewell talks of the great strides made by the African-American community, both separate from and due to the election of Barack Obama. Still, Lacewell acknowledges that his presidency will not mean a post-racial America. Rather, it will lead to a more racially-empowering America.

Another epithet the media likes to attach to America when referring to the Obama presidency is ‘post-partisan’. But as the health care debate has shown, Washington is anything but. The American people and their representatives are now more polarized than ever, partisan politics suddenly becoming imperative to survival in Washington. The media may wish to, in the future, about declaring America done with any terrible action or unfortunate habit. 

Read more »

Reform?

Reform?

It has been nearly four months since the Senate passed their health care reform bill. And yet, despite this seemingly lethargic pace, the House of Representatives voted late last night, 219-212, to pass the Senate's version of the bill. Although this bill is unlikely to be the final piece of health care legislation this year- the promised reconciliation appears imminent- certain assumptions can be made about what reform will actually take place after its signing.
The bill will, over time, extend protections to all Americans who are currently being discriminated against by the insurance companies. 90 days after the bill goes into law, insurance companies will be unable to deny coverage to children with preexisting conditions. Some others denied health care insurance will, soon after, be able to buy plans in a high-stakes insurance exchange.
Eventually, insurance companies will be forced to declare a justify proposed rate hikes before being allowed to enact them. Medicaid will be expanded to include more of the uninsured. Employers will be under more pressure to provide insurance to employees. Insurance companies will be more regulated, and less able to drop customers while being forced to provide minimum care.
However, the reform bill is not nearly as reaching as it could- and should- be. The bill does nothing to provide viable competition for insurance companies, completely ignoring the possibility of a public option, even a reactive one. Despite limitations on companies' ability to raise rates, no plan is given to lower them. The bill offers a mandate, forcing all Americans to buy heath care insurance- but forces them to buy a private plan. By not providing a public option, the US government is forcing Americans to buy a private product.
The bill could act as a stepping stone to more sweeping reforms. It is potential- although unlikely- that the reconsolidated bill will make great strides to cover those still not insured under the current plan. Still, regardless of flaws, the recently passed bill is a step in the right direction. 

Read more »

Infrastructure Spending

Infrastructure Spending

Voters love tax cuts; Republican lawmakers love cutting taxes. Small businesses and corporations alike love paying low, even nonexistent tariffs on their goods and products. Due to the conservative ideal's immense popularity, one may believe that tax cuts are the most effective way to stimulate the American economy.
The logic behind this thinking appears sound- if taxes paid by small business owners are cut, these business men and women will have more money to pour into their companies and, therefore, will be able to provide jobs for more Americans. Moreover, tax cuts, according to the idea's proponents, will give consumers more money to spend on goods and products that may have, in the past, been too expensive for the interested parties. The consumer spending, in turn, would stimulate the economy- or so pro-tax cut politicians say.
However, cutting taxes is not the best way to stimulate the economy, nor is it a particularly effective one. Tax cuts, while popular, will only make a small difference in a huge economy, and do not provide for a scenario in which the small business owners do not return the money saved to their companies.
In order to stimulate the economy, the US government must fund programs to provide jobs to American people, with a heavy focus on infrastructure spending. Infrastructure spending, or government funding of the building of roads, bridges, schools, etc, provides structure to America's crumbling infrastructure.
American buildings are falling apart. Destruction from natural disasters and simple age still ravage America's infrastructure, and the repair of roads and the like has become one of the most important issues today on a local level. America's buildings affect nearly every American every day, as they go to school, work, or home. The long term maintenance of failing infrastructure will result in incredibly high cost for the American taxpayer. If the problems are not immediately fixed, the financial consequences of quite literally rebuilding America will be great.
Additionally, infrastructure spending provides simple, viable jobs to US workers. In the current economy, with the shockingly high unemployment, workers are in desperate need of work that projects created by infrastructure spending will easily provide.
Often, the government will also hire small businesses to restructure the roads and buildings that must be repaired. Not only does that provide jobs, infrastructure spending funds small business, and, by extension, stimulates the economy on a national level.

Read more »

The Reality Candidate

The Reality Candidate

Scott Brown was a model; Al Franken was a comedian. Liberal blogger Mickey Kaus is planning to challenge three-term senator Barbara Boxer in California; noise has been made about a possible Glenn Beck run for office. Going all the way back to Ronald Reagan, our entertainers have been our politicians.

On one hand, entertainers who enter public office have unique abilities to connect with voters and are generally unprecedentedly skilled at pushing a message. People like Reagan are notorious for being popular with voters, and their show business backgrounds give them a certain celebrity that voters long for.
However, more and more instances of pre-made celebrity in candidates can have horrifying effects, in terms of policy.  Electing people who already have American fans outside of the political realm can turn elections into popularity contests and result in policy written by Paris Hilton-like media darlings.
Politicians who were originally elected for political reasons are not blind to the benefits of celebrity. Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his wife have appeared on a slew of reality shows after he left office, poising him to potentially move past his former ethical indiscretions and run for political office again. Tom Delay, the one-time Republican leader, appeared for a short run on ABC's Dancing With the Stars, seriously broadening his national name-recognition, although, at the same time, turning him into a talking show farce.
Becoming a reality show celebrity can be a cheap way for struggling politicians to win votes. However, stunts like these can lose them political points, and, in the long run, flood the American government with under-qualified, yet popular, pseudo-celebrities.

Read more »

Who Killed the Public Option?

Who Killed the Public Option?

It seems determined now, regardless of incessant complaints made by congressional Republicans and issues brought forth by liberal Democrats, that the Democratic caucus will attempt to pass both the original Senate bill in the House and a reconsolidated version in both the House and the Senate. Certain elements of health care reform are unable to be passed through reconciliation without sixty votes, for instance, the bill's language on abortions and the public option, as these are not directly related to the budget. Having a viable government-based competition and choice for consumers could have been the best received government program in years. A comprehensive public option would have provided insurance to most, if not all, uninsured Americans.
Who killed the public option? Who is to blame for the future and current absence of competition and protection? Ultimately, the blame lies with for specific groups: congressional Democrats, congressional Republicans, the Obama Administration, and the American media. These factions of American politics are in no way solely blamable for the loss of a useful and imperative government program, yet all contributed to its demise.

Congressional Democrats did not set their legislative aims high enough, were unable to control their caucus, and did not make an attempt to dominate the national debate. Additionally, at town halls Democrats did not respond to their constituants concerns in a manner that clearly explained the facts of the debate. All too willing to make fruitless compromises, Democrats consolidated their original ideals to please a few conservative members of their party and far too many disinterested Republicans.
Congressional Republicans, on the other hand, encouraged obstructionism and propagated misinformation, often through right-wing radical groups. Seemingly unwilling to compromise, few Republicans even engaged with Democrats during the critical stage of the bill being drafted, and none were willing to vote for it.
The Obama Administration, like the Democrats, were weak with their message and unsure of policy aims. By initially staying out of the debate, Obama appeared to have allowed Democrats to consolidate the bill to its current form.
Finally, the media assisted various groups by not checking facts, allowing the propagating of misinformation, and using loaded terms like 'socialism', 'Communism', and 'government takeover'. The media's purpose of unbiased reporting and the perennial fact-checker was not fulfilled, and reporters' public fact-mangling only led to further debate.
These groups are not alone. Others had heavy hands in the death of the public option, like the 'Tea Party', but it is these elected officials and trusted informants who are the most responsible.

Read more »