The Republican Party completely confuses me. What do they want? I understand that in today’s hyperpartisan political environment, everything that one party does the other must decry as the beginning of the apocalypse. But attacking Obama has had some low points that seem to contradict Republican ideology.
During the 2008 campaign, Sarah Palin was the first to attack Obama for being a community organizer, as if that was worse than abortion doctor and easier than a toll clerk on the highway. But isn’t community organization exactly what the Republican Party should be championing? Conservative ideology stresses that government should get out of the way and that the best way for social ills to be addressed is through personal responsibility and decentralized power/control. I understand (but don’t share) the skepticism of the federal government its role in improving the quality of life of its citizens. I understand (and do share) the belief that local governments and individuals can greatly influence and better the lives of the people. But with Sarah Palin’s bashing of community organizers and Rush Limbaugh’s tirade against Obama’s call for national community service day in honor of the 9/11 attacks, I just get confused on what Republicans want. Actually, I understand what they want; they want the Democrats and Obama to fail so Republicans can have the power back.
I refuse to believe that Republicans as a whole don’t really care about the lives and well being of the less fortunate but it seems they have this false ideology that they seem to not really support when the Democrats and Barack Obama promote the same thing. Republican ideology and rhetoric are falling out of sync. If Republicans believe in local and personal responsibility why do they not support the President when he calls for community involvement? Why do they not praise community organizations? It can be argued that community organizations, such as ACORN, can be used primarily to gain influence in the federal government. This could be true, but this is not what the President was calling for today. Obama simply calls on every American to think of other Americans and lift a hand to help, if only for a day. Isn’t that the Christian way? Isn’t that what Republicans should be all about? So far that has been an outcry against Obama’s promotion of community service by the right-wing media. There is not much being said about this by elected officials on the right (yet), but the question remains for everyone on the right to answer; if not the feds and not organized community groups, then who? Who?
Maybe Rush is just scared that if people start to realize that it can be very rewarding to help out those in need, that maybe this healthcare reform will pass. One of the most famous rhetorical lines of all time is “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Kennedy was right and Rush is wrong. Kennedy did not mean “what can you do for you government”, he meant “country” as in a collective whole comprised of the people of the United States. This is EXACTLY what Republicans claim to be for; how individuals can help the people/country not how the government can help its people. But just like everything else, Republicans are just going to jump and yell at everything that the Dems and the President do simply just because. It is shame we can’t agree even when we agree.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Common Sense
Common sense itself would tell you that everything the Republicans are saying about the health care debate is lies. I have already written about how they are actually scared of competition. They are afraid that private health insurers can’t compete with a government supported plan (their fear is valid but their arguments are weak). But nowadays we are hearing lies about the bills that just by using common sense, one would easily realize that they are not true.
The goal of all politicians should be to advance the needs and desires of the public. I think we can all agree that the vast majority of legislatures actually vote according to what will best keep their seats in Congress instead of what their constituents actually need or want (usually/hopefully these coincide). Everything they do seems to be geared towards re-election and often this means keeping the status quo. So let’s take that hypothesis of how things are actually viewed by Congress and apply it to the “death panel” controversy. Obviously the words “death panel” do not appear anywhere in any version of any bill, but neither does the premise behind the fear mongering words. If the Democrats and their bills, enacted a policy that actually did line up the elderly and disabled and deemed them unworthy of receiving care, they would be ensuring their own political demise. That would be the very opposite of what everyone does agree on, that politicians act to protect their own seats (and their party’s). Democrats would be ensuring a Republican majority for generations to come.
Unlike the private industry, the people actually have the power to hold representatives accountable. People on the Right love to tout using the power of the market to solve problems; however, the mere fact that we are having a health care debate means this theory has some major flaws. Elections are the ultimate measure of holding decision makers accountable. Legislatures would lose their seats in the very next election if they were to enact something as vile and evil as what the right-wing is accusing the Democrats are writing into the bill. Every decision and initiative the Democrats are writing into their bills is most likely overwhelmingly governed by ensuring they do not upset the current quality of health care in this nation. There are fears being spread about seniors not only being “put to death” but that care will be rationed (even though it already is by private insurers) and lines so long you won’t be able to see a doctor for months. These are very concrete fears, which is why common sense should tell you that they probably won’t happen! The health care reformers aren’t so stupid to diminish health care quality to the majority of the country so as to provide it to the smaller faction who currently needs it. If there is a significant and noticeable decrease in health care quality of any kind to the majority of the current health care holders in America, political heads will role. Politicians know this and will do everything in their power to ensure they don’t upset their masters. At least that is what common sense is telling me.
The goal of all politicians should be to advance the needs and desires of the public. I think we can all agree that the vast majority of legislatures actually vote according to what will best keep their seats in Congress instead of what their constituents actually need or want (usually/hopefully these coincide). Everything they do seems to be geared towards re-election and often this means keeping the status quo. So let’s take that hypothesis of how things are actually viewed by Congress and apply it to the “death panel” controversy. Obviously the words “death panel” do not appear anywhere in any version of any bill, but neither does the premise behind the fear mongering words. If the Democrats and their bills, enacted a policy that actually did line up the elderly and disabled and deemed them unworthy of receiving care, they would be ensuring their own political demise. That would be the very opposite of what everyone does agree on, that politicians act to protect their own seats (and their party’s). Democrats would be ensuring a Republican majority for generations to come.
Unlike the private industry, the people actually have the power to hold representatives accountable. People on the Right love to tout using the power of the market to solve problems; however, the mere fact that we are having a health care debate means this theory has some major flaws. Elections are the ultimate measure of holding decision makers accountable. Legislatures would lose their seats in the very next election if they were to enact something as vile and evil as what the right-wing is accusing the Democrats are writing into the bill. Every decision and initiative the Democrats are writing into their bills is most likely overwhelmingly governed by ensuring they do not upset the current quality of health care in this nation. There are fears being spread about seniors not only being “put to death” but that care will be rationed (even though it already is by private insurers) and lines so long you won’t be able to see a doctor for months. These are very concrete fears, which is why common sense should tell you that they probably won’t happen! The health care reformers aren’t so stupid to diminish health care quality to the majority of the country so as to provide it to the smaller faction who currently needs it. If there is a significant and noticeable decrease in health care quality of any kind to the majority of the current health care holders in America, political heads will role. Politicians know this and will do everything in their power to ensure they don’t upset their masters. At least that is what common sense is telling me.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Show me the money!
With all this health care talk there are ideologies at war. The Republican ideology states that lower taxes on businesses result in higher profits that are used by the business for reinvestment and growth and all the benefits that accompany growth. These benefits are, in theory, past on to the consumer. Republicans believe in trickle-down economics or supply side economics. Democratic ideology is more based on trickle-up economics, otherwise named demand side economics. By improving the lives and pocket books of the lower and middle classes, Democrats believe consumption will increase which then spurs business growth to meet the increased demand. In the health care debate, the Democrats tend to be pessimistic of for-profit health care while the Republicans feel for-profit anything is the best solution for anything.
The Republicans are afraid that a government public plan will destroy the private market for health care insurance which will in turn destroy health care as we know it today. Republicans tend to believe that unfettered capitalism will regulate itself and benefit the masses. Through this, they decry that huge health care profits should be applauded. But shouldn’t we take a second look at huge profits and how businesses use them especially when quality and affordability is declining? The theory of reinvestment using profit sounds good to me, but capitalism is a theory that looks at the long term and seems to ignore the personal aspect of capitalism and the American/business culture of immediate self-gratification. I do believe that businesses do use profits for reinvestments but I would like to see the hard data and I think Republicans should tout the facts along with the theory.
By allowing for-profit health care, where are the consumer gains? Insurers and pharmaceuticals reap billions annually in profits; however, we keep hearing that health care costs increasing so quickly that the country is going to go bankrupt while not seeing an increase in health care quality. Is the industry really reinvesting their high profits as capitalism suggests they should be? I am sure the industries are reinvesting some of their profits but the product doesn’t suggest there are reinvesting enough. Prices are not related to profit, prices are related to demand. It seems that the health care industry seems preoccupied with maximizing their profits with the customers they already have instead of increasing their market size. If health care was in fact growing, expanding, and becoming more efficient; all be signs of reinvestment; please just show us the data. Now is the time to do it. Show us all the new jobs health care creates each year. Show us the increased efficiency and effectiveness of the product. Show us how the costumer is also winning because of reinvestment and growth.
Again, I believe the theory of high profits lead to reinvestments that benefit everyone, but please show us. Data shows that more and more people cannot afford health care and it is bankrupting the country. Fewer and fewer people are insured each year. A company that reinvests should be growing their customer base. By lowering costs and increasing effectiveness, businesses should be able to sell their product to a larger base of consumers. Lower prices with more customers usually are more profitable than high prices with fewer customers; just look at Wal-Mart. But since health care is practically essential, the health care industry can abandon traditional capitalistic theory and increase prices without worrying about their customers. By squeezing out those who cannot afford health care, they are maximizing their profits from those who can afford health care. If for-profit health care were working effectively, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. The government public plan will promote competition which will force the health care industry to come back to traditional capitalism. Health care has the capital and profits to increase their customer volume, reinvest and grow their business. If government can’t run anything as famously and repeatedly stated, private industry should easily be able to use their profits to beat the public plan in the market. I believe in capitalism, I am just waiting to see it work for more than the CEOs.
The Republicans are afraid that a government public plan will destroy the private market for health care insurance which will in turn destroy health care as we know it today. Republicans tend to believe that unfettered capitalism will regulate itself and benefit the masses. Through this, they decry that huge health care profits should be applauded. But shouldn’t we take a second look at huge profits and how businesses use them especially when quality and affordability is declining? The theory of reinvestment using profit sounds good to me, but capitalism is a theory that looks at the long term and seems to ignore the personal aspect of capitalism and the American/business culture of immediate self-gratification. I do believe that businesses do use profits for reinvestments but I would like to see the hard data and I think Republicans should tout the facts along with the theory.
By allowing for-profit health care, where are the consumer gains? Insurers and pharmaceuticals reap billions annually in profits; however, we keep hearing that health care costs increasing so quickly that the country is going to go bankrupt while not seeing an increase in health care quality. Is the industry really reinvesting their high profits as capitalism suggests they should be? I am sure the industries are reinvesting some of their profits but the product doesn’t suggest there are reinvesting enough. Prices are not related to profit, prices are related to demand. It seems that the health care industry seems preoccupied with maximizing their profits with the customers they already have instead of increasing their market size. If health care was in fact growing, expanding, and becoming more efficient; all be signs of reinvestment; please just show us the data. Now is the time to do it. Show us all the new jobs health care creates each year. Show us the increased efficiency and effectiveness of the product. Show us how the costumer is also winning because of reinvestment and growth.
Again, I believe the theory of high profits lead to reinvestments that benefit everyone, but please show us. Data shows that more and more people cannot afford health care and it is bankrupting the country. Fewer and fewer people are insured each year. A company that reinvests should be growing their customer base. By lowering costs and increasing effectiveness, businesses should be able to sell their product to a larger base of consumers. Lower prices with more customers usually are more profitable than high prices with fewer customers; just look at Wal-Mart. But since health care is practically essential, the health care industry can abandon traditional capitalistic theory and increase prices without worrying about their customers. By squeezing out those who cannot afford health care, they are maximizing their profits from those who can afford health care. If for-profit health care were working effectively, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. The government public plan will promote competition which will force the health care industry to come back to traditional capitalism. Health care has the capital and profits to increase their customer volume, reinvest and grow their business. If government can’t run anything as famously and repeatedly stated, private industry should easily be able to use their profits to beat the public plan in the market. I believe in capitalism, I am just waiting to see it work for more than the CEOs.
Friday, July 10, 2009
HEALTHcare
It isn’t going to be long before we start hearing from the GOP about Big Brother and government controlling our lives. Right now the talk is about how Obama’s health care program is a move towards socialism and how it will cause lines to form from the doctor’s office back to the house from which you came. But as soon as the GOP begins to see that something will inevitably be done about health care in Obama’s first term (and probably his first year) they will dampen their socialism attack angle and begin Big Brother rhetoric and the fears of government intervention into our everyday lives. But would they be wrong? Not exactly.
I think the opposition would be absolutely correct (a Republican first) in acknowledging that once the US government starts to provide a public health care policy, government will begin to legislate new laws and enact new taxes on the American people. Taxes will increase on items such as sodas, alcohol, and cigarettes. I don’t think it would be a far stretch to see the government increase taxes of food providers such as McDonalds and Burger King and tax sugary foods higher than fruits and vegetables. State money will also not be used to provide unhealthy foods in our schools cafeterias. Tax increases will extend past final food products to agriculture and industry; raising emission and pollution standards and changing current agriculture subsidies and tax break policies. Republicans and some Democrats will be in an uproar about these impending laws, regulations and taxations. There will be the usual screams that government intervention and free market manipulation will destroy the businesses in question and how the government can’t be allowed control how we live our lives.
The future debates over health care reform are predictable, but I do not believe they are entirely warranted. Time and time again, the American public has shown that they cannot control themselves as a whole. Our finance consumption and reckless behavior has led us to our current economic recession. Our health habits are bringing us to a different type of disaster. Currently it is relatively difficult and expensive to eat healthy. Not only will prices of unhealthy foods increase through new taxes, but prices of fruits and vegetables will probably decrease through government subsides and tax breaks. Sometimes the American public need a little nudge to move in the right direction. This country is becoming increasingly unhealthy but hopefully the right policies can be adopted to help transition America to a more health friendly culture.
To control health care costs, preventative care will become just as important as the help we receive at the time of need. Americans should have the freedom to eat what they want, when they want, but the government shouldn’t have to pay for it down the line. The government will have to try to tax Americans into being healthier. By decreasing pollution, cigarette use, alcohol use, and sugar consumption, the government will be altering America’s food culture which will in turn decrease somewhat preventable diseases; diabetes, heath disease, blood pressure etc. and keep health care costs low. Since nothing in this country is a pure free market, I believe the government has the right to protect its health care investment by trying to make America a healthier country. No legislator is crazy enough to enact a dramatic and immediate policy that will cripple businesses. Policy and taxation, when used correctly can be used to safely steer industry down a new path without being too restrictive and without paralyzing the dynamics of the American economy that made this country so strong. The measures taken to make us healthier should be applauded for trying to improve the lives of Americans. America will continue to be a country based on consumption; however, that consumption needs to be much less destructive.
The passing of health care reform is going to lead to widespread changes in taxes and regulations in numerous aspects of the American economy. Health care reform will not only help those in need afford health care, but it will also help make the country lead healthier lives. Sure it appears health care reform is going to alter American culture through government action, but I think in this the case the ends will definitely justify the means.
I think the opposition would be absolutely correct (a Republican first) in acknowledging that once the US government starts to provide a public health care policy, government will begin to legislate new laws and enact new taxes on the American people. Taxes will increase on items such as sodas, alcohol, and cigarettes. I don’t think it would be a far stretch to see the government increase taxes of food providers such as McDonalds and Burger King and tax sugary foods higher than fruits and vegetables. State money will also not be used to provide unhealthy foods in our schools cafeterias. Tax increases will extend past final food products to agriculture and industry; raising emission and pollution standards and changing current agriculture subsidies and tax break policies. Republicans and some Democrats will be in an uproar about these impending laws, regulations and taxations. There will be the usual screams that government intervention and free market manipulation will destroy the businesses in question and how the government can’t be allowed control how we live our lives.
The future debates over health care reform are predictable, but I do not believe they are entirely warranted. Time and time again, the American public has shown that they cannot control themselves as a whole. Our finance consumption and reckless behavior has led us to our current economic recession. Our health habits are bringing us to a different type of disaster. Currently it is relatively difficult and expensive to eat healthy. Not only will prices of unhealthy foods increase through new taxes, but prices of fruits and vegetables will probably decrease through government subsides and tax breaks. Sometimes the American public need a little nudge to move in the right direction. This country is becoming increasingly unhealthy but hopefully the right policies can be adopted to help transition America to a more health friendly culture.
To control health care costs, preventative care will become just as important as the help we receive at the time of need. Americans should have the freedom to eat what they want, when they want, but the government shouldn’t have to pay for it down the line. The government will have to try to tax Americans into being healthier. By decreasing pollution, cigarette use, alcohol use, and sugar consumption, the government will be altering America’s food culture which will in turn decrease somewhat preventable diseases; diabetes, heath disease, blood pressure etc. and keep health care costs low. Since nothing in this country is a pure free market, I believe the government has the right to protect its health care investment by trying to make America a healthier country. No legislator is crazy enough to enact a dramatic and immediate policy that will cripple businesses. Policy and taxation, when used correctly can be used to safely steer industry down a new path without being too restrictive and without paralyzing the dynamics of the American economy that made this country so strong. The measures taken to make us healthier should be applauded for trying to improve the lives of Americans. America will continue to be a country based on consumption; however, that consumption needs to be much less destructive.
The passing of health care reform is going to lead to widespread changes in taxes and regulations in numerous aspects of the American economy. Health care reform will not only help those in need afford health care, but it will also help make the country lead healthier lives. Sure it appears health care reform is going to alter American culture through government action, but I think in this the case the ends will definitely justify the means.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Regulations
The purpose of industry regulations, in general, should be obvious. Regulations protect the public sector from the private sector. There is always a call for deregulation, usually by the Conservatives, stating that regulations shackle the private industry and inhibit them from growth. Conservatives tout that the free market will provide for self regulations: a business will be controlled by the demands of the public through their purchasing power. A simple look at history has shown that the free market system is not sufficient to protect the public.
In 1906, Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle, which portrayed the horrors of the meat packing industry. In particular, the book focused on food safety issues. The book led to public outcry which then led to the passage of the Meat Inspection Act, the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 and eventually the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
In 1966, Congress passed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act through the efforts of Ralph Nader. GM and other car manufactures now would become regulated by the United States government protecting the consumer. This led to the addition of seatbelts and stronger windshields.
These are just two high profile regulations in America. There are thousands of regulations that the general public is unaware about that were enacted to protect the public and keep the economy moving forward. Where would we be without them? Many of us wouldn’t even be here today if it weren’t for some of these regulations. The purpose of regulations is to protect the public, or sometimes even the economic system itself from free market capitalism.
The problem with the free market solution and self-regulations can be easily seen in the current economic crisis. Sub-prime mortgage loans were being given by lenders to customers they knew could not repay. Then the bad loans were packaged and sold off to investors. It was the lack of regulations and oversight that allowed for this risky behavior to continue and eventually bring down the entire world’s economy. Regulations are meant to protect the average public from the free market. A truly free market has one goal and one goal only: make money.
In a truly free economy there would be no regulations and business changes would just be reactions to consumer demands through purchasing power. However, things are too complex for the consumer to be aware of EVERYTHING nor should they have to be. The reason our society is so successful is that we are not “jacks of all trades”. The workforce is trained to have individuals accomplish specific actions while someone else will take care of another part. Our faith in the efficiency and honesty of all the other members in society leaves us to become not only more efficient in our specific tasks but also spend our free time doing the things we enjoy, which in the hopes of the US economy is to CONSUME. That is why in college we pick a major; so we can be as efficient as possible in something specific and trust other to do the same in another field. As bad as it sounds, the American people should not have to waste their time being fully aware of all the intricacies of all aspects of the economy. A major part of our economy’s superiority is the trust we can (should) have in others.
In the example of the food packing industry in the early 1900s, the general public was not aware of all the problems within the industry, nor should they have been expected to be. Without The Jungle, people would have continued to be in the dark. It takes congressional passing of acts and regulations to ensure quick, decisive, and informed protections (in theory). Free market change in the example of the food industry would have been slow and inadequate. Industries have always shown that they will do the bare minimum in addressing consumer wants, nothing more nothing less. The more complex an industry, the more imbedded aspects might be that need to be regulated for consumer protection as seen in the current financial meltdown. Congressional legislation has the ability to investigate, debate and enact changes that hopefully are broad enough to cure the cause and not just the symptoms of what ails (or could ail) the economy. The purpose of the government is to protect its people, not just from foreign powers, but from internal capitalistic powers.
In a truly free economy, business would have the freedom to do as it pleases leaving the public to fend for themselves making changes in business through their purchasing power. There are currently thousands of regulations that protect the consumer. Throughout history the government has come to the realization (usually through tragedy or public outcry) that there must be rules and regulations. It is true that there is a very fine line between sufficient and too much regulation. Without regulation we would be completely vulnerable to the will of greedy free capitalism. However, the aspect of the America’s economy that keeps us on top of the world market is our dynamism. Our businesses have the freedom and flexibility to adjust and evolve quickly to market fluctuations keeping the economy moving and growing. Without this ability, which excessive regulations can inhibit, the US economy could possibly lose their number one position. Congress should always be very aware of this fine line but also always be aware of the perils of free market capitalism. This is how our economy has always functioned. The US has always been a mixed economy; capitalism with a dash of socialism. A free economy up to a point is important but then the government must move in to protect the public. Some may call this socialism but I call it common sense.
In 1906, Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle, which portrayed the horrors of the meat packing industry. In particular, the book focused on food safety issues. The book led to public outcry which then led to the passage of the Meat Inspection Act, the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 and eventually the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
In 1966, Congress passed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act through the efforts of Ralph Nader. GM and other car manufactures now would become regulated by the United States government protecting the consumer. This led to the addition of seatbelts and stronger windshields.
These are just two high profile regulations in America. There are thousands of regulations that the general public is unaware about that were enacted to protect the public and keep the economy moving forward. Where would we be without them? Many of us wouldn’t even be here today if it weren’t for some of these regulations. The purpose of regulations is to protect the public, or sometimes even the economic system itself from free market capitalism.
The problem with the free market solution and self-regulations can be easily seen in the current economic crisis. Sub-prime mortgage loans were being given by lenders to customers they knew could not repay. Then the bad loans were packaged and sold off to investors. It was the lack of regulations and oversight that allowed for this risky behavior to continue and eventually bring down the entire world’s economy. Regulations are meant to protect the average public from the free market. A truly free market has one goal and one goal only: make money.
In a truly free economy there would be no regulations and business changes would just be reactions to consumer demands through purchasing power. However, things are too complex for the consumer to be aware of EVERYTHING nor should they have to be. The reason our society is so successful is that we are not “jacks of all trades”. The workforce is trained to have individuals accomplish specific actions while someone else will take care of another part. Our faith in the efficiency and honesty of all the other members in society leaves us to become not only more efficient in our specific tasks but also spend our free time doing the things we enjoy, which in the hopes of the US economy is to CONSUME. That is why in college we pick a major; so we can be as efficient as possible in something specific and trust other to do the same in another field. As bad as it sounds, the American people should not have to waste their time being fully aware of all the intricacies of all aspects of the economy. A major part of our economy’s superiority is the trust we can (should) have in others.
In the example of the food packing industry in the early 1900s, the general public was not aware of all the problems within the industry, nor should they have been expected to be. Without The Jungle, people would have continued to be in the dark. It takes congressional passing of acts and regulations to ensure quick, decisive, and informed protections (in theory). Free market change in the example of the food industry would have been slow and inadequate. Industries have always shown that they will do the bare minimum in addressing consumer wants, nothing more nothing less. The more complex an industry, the more imbedded aspects might be that need to be regulated for consumer protection as seen in the current financial meltdown. Congressional legislation has the ability to investigate, debate and enact changes that hopefully are broad enough to cure the cause and not just the symptoms of what ails (or could ail) the economy. The purpose of the government is to protect its people, not just from foreign powers, but from internal capitalistic powers.
In a truly free economy, business would have the freedom to do as it pleases leaving the public to fend for themselves making changes in business through their purchasing power. There are currently thousands of regulations that protect the consumer. Throughout history the government has come to the realization (usually through tragedy or public outcry) that there must be rules and regulations. It is true that there is a very fine line between sufficient and too much regulation. Without regulation we would be completely vulnerable to the will of greedy free capitalism. However, the aspect of the America’s economy that keeps us on top of the world market is our dynamism. Our businesses have the freedom and flexibility to adjust and evolve quickly to market fluctuations keeping the economy moving and growing. Without this ability, which excessive regulations can inhibit, the US economy could possibly lose their number one position. Congress should always be very aware of this fine line but also always be aware of the perils of free market capitalism. This is how our economy has always functioned. The US has always been a mixed economy; capitalism with a dash of socialism. A free economy up to a point is important but then the government must move in to protect the public. Some may call this socialism but I call it common sense.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Sex and Politics
Monday there was an article on Politico.com about how David Vitter, Republican Senator from Louisiana enjoys a 60% approval (73% amongst Republicans) and feels confident about his re-election in 2010. He has raised more than $2.5M and so far his most notable challenger is an ex-porn star, Sunny Daniels (this is not a joke!). In 2006, Vitter was nationally exposed for his patronage of a Washington escort service.
Vitter seems to have escaped ANY repercussions. The first and most important note is that he did not lose his wife. During the Clinton-Lewinski scandal Vitter’s wife said that she did not agree with Hillary’s decision to stay with Bill and that she would have “pulled a Lorena Bobbit” on Vitter if he were to cheat. But at the press conference where Vitter admitted his wrong doing and apologized, his wife remained by his side to support the family. Understandable hypocrisy when the shoe is on the other foot.
Politically speaking he has suffered even less. After two weeks, a new story had developed and quickly inundated the media and the public. The American public has a short attention span and demands something new to get in an uproar about every few weeks (i.e. Tea Parties, Sotomayor, Palin’s wardrobe etc).
Vitter is not the only one to have fallen to carnal temptations. Larry Craig was caught soliciting sexual favors in an airport bathroom in 2007. Bill Clinton was “caught” having sexual relations with an intern. John Edwards possibly fathered a child with his mistress. Eliot Spitzer chose the same path as Vitter and spent thousands on escort services.
However, they all succumbed to different fates. Larry Craig at first said he would retire early. He then decided to stay his remaining year in office and not run for re-election in 2008. Gay sex is an enormous scandal for someone who was considered a staunch conservative, but Larry Craig realized he only needed to ride it out a couple weeks before the media moved on. No one had the power to throw him out.
Bill Clinton also chose to ride it out. Being President of the United States this was the biggest sex scandal ever seen. He was not able to run for re-election and did not face criminal charges so he had nothing to lose by riding it out and fight off the impeachment trials. Clinton was not removed from office solely because the political makeup of Congress at the time was not enough get the votes and he most likely knew this before he decided to fight. Bush ran on restoring honor to the W.H. which probably got enough votes to help him pull a couple of states. (I like to think it was not Nader who lost the election for Gore, but Monica Lewinski; and therefore, she should be blamed for being the initial cause of the Bush presidency’s destruction that ensued!!!)
John Edwards’ political career is most likely completely over. It was easier for him to disappear since he was not currently in office.
Eliot Spitzer chose to resign and avoid being thrown out by NY legislatures (assuming they had the legal means to do so).
Because Vitter had a heterosexual affair, kept his wife, and was not the head of a political body as both Clinton and Spitzer were; he was able to keep his job and even run for re-election. His affair was yesterday’s news. It will have happened 4 years before his re-election campaign in 2010, which in political years is an eternity (political years are much shorter than dog years!). His challenger will most likely rehash this scandal; however, it will have little power since it is such an old story and has lost its effectiveness. His challenger is going to have to find something more current, and in such a red state like Louisiana it is going to have to be something juicy.
This blog entry could have very well addressed the hypocrisy of the whole situation. The Republican Party (politicians and citizen supporters) wants to eat alive all Democrat politicians who cheat on their wives, but when one of their own does it, it is not necessarily forgivable, but it seems to at least be forgettable. Louisiana is a staunchly conservative state with “family” values. Yet they cannot even come up with a challenger to run against Vitter in the primaries. Hypocrisy is at the core of all things political. Democrats do the same thing. Nonetheless it is always surprising when it is as obvious as the Vitter re-election.
Vitter seems to have escaped ANY repercussions. The first and most important note is that he did not lose his wife. During the Clinton-Lewinski scandal Vitter’s wife said that she did not agree with Hillary’s decision to stay with Bill and that she would have “pulled a Lorena Bobbit” on Vitter if he were to cheat. But at the press conference where Vitter admitted his wrong doing and apologized, his wife remained by his side to support the family. Understandable hypocrisy when the shoe is on the other foot.
Politically speaking he has suffered even less. After two weeks, a new story had developed and quickly inundated the media and the public. The American public has a short attention span and demands something new to get in an uproar about every few weeks (i.e. Tea Parties, Sotomayor, Palin’s wardrobe etc).
Vitter is not the only one to have fallen to carnal temptations. Larry Craig was caught soliciting sexual favors in an airport bathroom in 2007. Bill Clinton was “caught” having sexual relations with an intern. John Edwards possibly fathered a child with his mistress. Eliot Spitzer chose the same path as Vitter and spent thousands on escort services.
However, they all succumbed to different fates. Larry Craig at first said he would retire early. He then decided to stay his remaining year in office and not run for re-election in 2008. Gay sex is an enormous scandal for someone who was considered a staunch conservative, but Larry Craig realized he only needed to ride it out a couple weeks before the media moved on. No one had the power to throw him out.
Bill Clinton also chose to ride it out. Being President of the United States this was the biggest sex scandal ever seen. He was not able to run for re-election and did not face criminal charges so he had nothing to lose by riding it out and fight off the impeachment trials. Clinton was not removed from office solely because the political makeup of Congress at the time was not enough get the votes and he most likely knew this before he decided to fight. Bush ran on restoring honor to the W.H. which probably got enough votes to help him pull a couple of states. (I like to think it was not Nader who lost the election for Gore, but Monica Lewinski; and therefore, she should be blamed for being the initial cause of the Bush presidency’s destruction that ensued!!!)
John Edwards’ political career is most likely completely over. It was easier for him to disappear since he was not currently in office.
Eliot Spitzer chose to resign and avoid being thrown out by NY legislatures (assuming they had the legal means to do so).
Because Vitter had a heterosexual affair, kept his wife, and was not the head of a political body as both Clinton and Spitzer were; he was able to keep his job and even run for re-election. His affair was yesterday’s news. It will have happened 4 years before his re-election campaign in 2010, which in political years is an eternity (political years are much shorter than dog years!). His challenger will most likely rehash this scandal; however, it will have little power since it is such an old story and has lost its effectiveness. His challenger is going to have to find something more current, and in such a red state like Louisiana it is going to have to be something juicy.
This blog entry could have very well addressed the hypocrisy of the whole situation. The Republican Party (politicians and citizen supporters) wants to eat alive all Democrat politicians who cheat on their wives, but when one of their own does it, it is not necessarily forgivable, but it seems to at least be forgettable. Louisiana is a staunchly conservative state with “family” values. Yet they cannot even come up with a challenger to run against Vitter in the primaries. Hypocrisy is at the core of all things political. Democrats do the same thing. Nonetheless it is always surprising when it is as obvious as the Vitter re-election.
Friday, May 22, 2009
What are you so scared of?
What are health care insurers so afraid of? Are they afraid of socialism or are they afraid of capitalism? One of the three top priorities of the Obama administration is to bring health care reform to the United States. Insurance, pharmaceutical, and general health care costs are out of control and costing the country and the consumer billions annually. Along with increased efficiency through electronic record keeping and medical infrastructure improvements, Obama wants to offer public plans for citizens to purchase through the Government. The American Hospital Association and the lobbying firm, America’s Health Insurance Plans, have offered their support for reigning in health care costs. However, lobbyists are at work to persuade Congress to not allow for the public plans. Blue Cross and Blue Shield has begun to re-use Harry and Louise style ads to scare the public into thinking that Government run health care would be disastrous. Harry and Louise ads from the Clinton era told the public that Government health care would result in immovable patient lines and the Government telling the patient which doctors they can see. Contemporary insurance providers could run the attack ads against themselves for denying coverage for certain procedures, disgustingly confusing bureaucracy, and stipulated covered doctor.
Are health care insurers trying to protect the people from socialism or are they trying to protect themselves from capitalism. First and foremost, the Government will not be nationalizing current health care insurers nor controlling health care decisions. The current providers are on-board with Government assistance to control prices and increase efficiency but they are not comfortable with Government insurance plans. They aren’t legitimately sacred of socialism.
Health care insurers are scared of capitalism. The private sector fears their possible lack of capabilities to compete with a Government run insurance plan. The proposed Government actions are expected to lower all private insurance plans as well as provide for tax breaks to employers who provide private health care to employees. These should help BRING consumers to the private insurers. Lower insurance costs should also soften the blow of a likely increase in taxes to pay for this and other programs. It can be assumed that private costs will be more expensive than Government plans; however, the private should have nothing to worry about if they feel they can provide superior coverage as they insinuate in their TV ads. Those who are currently happy with their providers will most likely not switch to the public plans.
The proposed actions provide another option for Americans, specifically those who need something more practical for their financial situations. Current insurance providers will not be controlled by the Government and they will be open to internal change to compete with the Government plans. If they cannot compete in price, they can compete in quality. Are they afraid that Government health care will actually be well run and no one would want private insurance any more? As long as the people have a choice, this is capitalism. Capitalism is a legitimate fear if you are on the losing end, but they have no one to blame but themselves.
Are health care insurers trying to protect the people from socialism or are they trying to protect themselves from capitalism. First and foremost, the Government will not be nationalizing current health care insurers nor controlling health care decisions. The current providers are on-board with Government assistance to control prices and increase efficiency but they are not comfortable with Government insurance plans. They aren’t legitimately sacred of socialism.
Health care insurers are scared of capitalism. The private sector fears their possible lack of capabilities to compete with a Government run insurance plan. The proposed Government actions are expected to lower all private insurance plans as well as provide for tax breaks to employers who provide private health care to employees. These should help BRING consumers to the private insurers. Lower insurance costs should also soften the blow of a likely increase in taxes to pay for this and other programs. It can be assumed that private costs will be more expensive than Government plans; however, the private should have nothing to worry about if they feel they can provide superior coverage as they insinuate in their TV ads. Those who are currently happy with their providers will most likely not switch to the public plans.
The proposed actions provide another option for Americans, specifically those who need something more practical for their financial situations. Current insurance providers will not be controlled by the Government and they will be open to internal change to compete with the Government plans. If they cannot compete in price, they can compete in quality. Are they afraid that Government health care will actually be well run and no one would want private insurance any more? As long as the people have a choice, this is capitalism. Capitalism is a legitimate fear if you are on the losing end, but they have no one to blame but themselves.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Obama's Hypocrisy
This will be my first criticism of President Obama. I first saw it in The Economist in an article “An Offer You Can’t Refuse” . Then I saw George Will sight the same article in The Washington Post. George Will takes it to a level I am not going to touch because I believe it raises a Democrat/Republican hypocrisy that I just don’t want to get into. I just want to discuss Obama’s policy hypocrisy.
The purpose of the bank bailout is to start the flow of credit once again by cleaning up the current mess. This country’s economy is based on credit which is essential to investment and economic development. Business owners rely on credit to increase internal investment acting to increase production, labor and numerous other methods to develop their business. Consumers rely on credit to borrow the money they need to purchase various expensive goods (i.e. houses, cars, education etc.). Consumer credit and business credit are essential to one another. Without this flow of credit, economic and consumer growth is stunted. The Obama administration has spent billions of dollars in order to clean up the largest banks in America, hoping to free up capital for lending. The Federal Reserve has also dropped interest rates to a record low to promote borrowing. Borrowing and lending money is the primary goal of the administration to get the economy moving.
The auto industry bailout by the Obama administration seems to be counterproductive for promoting industry investment. Chrysler’s secured creditors will be receiving 28 cents to the dollar for a claim totaling $7 billion. These secured creditors supplied cheaper funds to Chrysler for more secure claims if the company were to experience difficulties. The United Auto Workers union will receive 43 cents on the dollar with claims totaling $11 billion. The union members will receive a greater return even though contractually, the secured creditors were to have a stronger guarantee.
I feel George Will is correct by saying this is corruption. Unions can usually be tied to Democrats and I think there is something a little fishy about Obama’s decision. George Will’s article mainly discusses Obama over-reaching his power and abandoning the Constitution. (The hypocrisy of George Will’s criticism at this point in time while remaining relatively silent during Republican years is mind blowing and I can’t even begin to write about that whole issue!). Personally I think this issue is more significant for its ideological hypocrisy. Confidence in the system is a major component for this economic recovery. If lenders cannot have confidence in contractual obligations, they will be less likely to lend. When the Government favors one group over another (common) by braking contractual obligations (uncommon), confidence in our system is damaged. It is important to remember that lenders are not necessarily rich fat-cat individuals but actually commonly an investor representing everyday people and families trying to get involved in the investment markets. The administration’s decision to break and misconstrue Chrysler’s obligations has directly impacted the confidence and pocketbooks of Chrysler’s secured lenders, but more importantly he has indirectly hurt the confidence of lenders everywhere.
Disclaimer: I feel like I need to add a disclaimer here. I by no means am an economist. I do not pretend to understand every aspect of the bailouts, neither bank nor auto. But I do have confidence in Barack Obama. These articles point out that he is not going to be perfect and that shady actions are going to take place, I just hope he doesn’t do so many questionable things without full explanation to the people.
The purpose of the bank bailout is to start the flow of credit once again by cleaning up the current mess. This country’s economy is based on credit which is essential to investment and economic development. Business owners rely on credit to increase internal investment acting to increase production, labor and numerous other methods to develop their business. Consumers rely on credit to borrow the money they need to purchase various expensive goods (i.e. houses, cars, education etc.). Consumer credit and business credit are essential to one another. Without this flow of credit, economic and consumer growth is stunted. The Obama administration has spent billions of dollars in order to clean up the largest banks in America, hoping to free up capital for lending. The Federal Reserve has also dropped interest rates to a record low to promote borrowing. Borrowing and lending money is the primary goal of the administration to get the economy moving.
The auto industry bailout by the Obama administration seems to be counterproductive for promoting industry investment. Chrysler’s secured creditors will be receiving 28 cents to the dollar for a claim totaling $7 billion. These secured creditors supplied cheaper funds to Chrysler for more secure claims if the company were to experience difficulties. The United Auto Workers union will receive 43 cents on the dollar with claims totaling $11 billion. The union members will receive a greater return even though contractually, the secured creditors were to have a stronger guarantee.
I feel George Will is correct by saying this is corruption. Unions can usually be tied to Democrats and I think there is something a little fishy about Obama’s decision. George Will’s article mainly discusses Obama over-reaching his power and abandoning the Constitution. (The hypocrisy of George Will’s criticism at this point in time while remaining relatively silent during Republican years is mind blowing and I can’t even begin to write about that whole issue!). Personally I think this issue is more significant for its ideological hypocrisy. Confidence in the system is a major component for this economic recovery. If lenders cannot have confidence in contractual obligations, they will be less likely to lend. When the Government favors one group over another (common) by braking contractual obligations (uncommon), confidence in our system is damaged. It is important to remember that lenders are not necessarily rich fat-cat individuals but actually commonly an investor representing everyday people and families trying to get involved in the investment markets. The administration’s decision to break and misconstrue Chrysler’s obligations has directly impacted the confidence and pocketbooks of Chrysler’s secured lenders, but more importantly he has indirectly hurt the confidence of lenders everywhere.
Disclaimer: I feel like I need to add a disclaimer here. I by no means am an economist. I do not pretend to understand every aspect of the bailouts, neither bank nor auto. But I do have confidence in Barack Obama. These articles point out that he is not going to be perfect and that shady actions are going to take place, I just hope he doesn’t do so many questionable things without full explanation to the people.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Rush to finish
Over the past few days there has been talk of the Republican “listening tour” in Virginia. The “listening tour” was spearheaded by Eric Cantor of Virginia’s 7th District. The “listening tour” was headlined by himself as well as Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush. All three of them several times have acknowledged the importance of the “listening tour”. Why do I keep saying “listening tour” and using quotes? Because now the language is changing. Rush Limbaugh on his radio show said that the Republican Party does not need a “listening tour”, but instead a “teaching tour”. He says that instead of the party listening to its constituents and adapting; it should instead be informing the constituents of true Conservative principles. For a party that was up in arms, yelling that Obama was “preachy” and “professorial”, I hope they are quick to see that it has now become a Conservative plank to “teach” and not to “listen”.
Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, you should be offended when a party leader says elected officials of the party shouldn’t be listening to their constituents to better address the needs/wants of the people. But this type of language is safe for Rush to use since he is not an elected official. Eric Cantor, just as other GOP leaders have in the past few months, has backpedaled and bowed down to the party leader Rush Limbaugh, saying that the “listening tour” is not really a “listening tour” (hence the quotation marks). Why are the Republican officials listening to Rush, a talking head, and not their constituents? Rule No. 1 for a politician should be that when their constituents are not being represented to their liking, they risk loss of support and may be removed in the next primary election or, even worse for the party, the general election.
The United States is a republic where officials are elected to represent the people. The people elect their officials to make decisions in the best interest of the constituents. NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE IDEOLOGY. Defending an ideology to the death risks losing both the ideology and the party. I personally would rather be alive with only one leg than dead with both. It is doubtful a “listening tour” would turn these hard Conservatives into bleeding heart liberals, but it is highly likely it would increase the Republican base, promote reelection, and keep their ideology and principles alive. A small change now would prevent the even larger change that will be needed if the party and people separate much more.
Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, you should be offended when a party leader says elected officials of the party shouldn’t be listening to their constituents to better address the needs/wants of the people. But this type of language is safe for Rush to use since he is not an elected official. Eric Cantor, just as other GOP leaders have in the past few months, has backpedaled and bowed down to the party leader Rush Limbaugh, saying that the “listening tour” is not really a “listening tour” (hence the quotation marks). Why are the Republican officials listening to Rush, a talking head, and not their constituents? Rule No. 1 for a politician should be that when their constituents are not being represented to their liking, they risk loss of support and may be removed in the next primary election or, even worse for the party, the general election.
The United States is a republic where officials are elected to represent the people. The people elect their officials to make decisions in the best interest of the constituents. NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE IDEOLOGY. Defending an ideology to the death risks losing both the ideology and the party. I personally would rather be alive with only one leg than dead with both. It is doubtful a “listening tour” would turn these hard Conservatives into bleeding heart liberals, but it is highly likely it would increase the Republican base, promote reelection, and keep their ideology and principles alive. A small change now would prevent the even larger change that will be needed if the party and people separate much more.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
100 Days
Today marks the 100th day of Obama’s Administration. His success or failure is completely subjective. Republicans will tell you that he has failed. They will say he has weakened the country by banning torture, closing Gitmo, and going on an apology tour in Europe and the Americas. Republicans will say he is a tax and spend liberal on steroids, leading this country to bankruptcy and socialism. Democrats will take all the same facts and spin them in a different direction. Democrats will say that he has restored America’s moral leadership in the world from changing the Bush policies of foreign and wartime relations. They will also say that we are now investing in essential infrastructures in the US that will enable us to flourish more than ever. I am going to tell you what I think.
I am sitting here listening to Obama answer his first question at his 3rd primetime conference. Is it just me or does he look tired? I don’t blame him. Has done more in these 100 days than Bush did in his 8 years. One of his very first actions was to begin the closing process of closing Guantanamo Bay along with banning “enhanced interrogation techniques” aka torture. For a country that’s rhetoric suggests we are nation governed by our high standards of morals this is an important step. There is a current debate whether torture leads to reliable information but there is no debate that torture was the number one recruiting tool for terrorists of all sects. Those in the military and intelligence communities that are opposed to torture argue, with merit, that important information can be extracted by humane methods. This coupled with the fact that terrorist recruitment will drop, will keep America safer than increasing the waterboarding spa treatments as posed by the right wing.
Obama went on tour of Europe and the Americas to prove that America can listen and is understanding of America’s mistakes. The old adage that you can learn more from your mistakes than your successes is not lost on our new President. Whether it is our economic failures he is combating or our foreign policy mistakes that have led to nuclear advancements in North Korean and Iran; Obama is listening and acting as not only a scholar but also a leader.
This Presidency has begun to invest in our country. Leading economists agree (despite what Republicans believe) that in order for an economy based on consumption to get out of a recession, the government will have to spend when the private market is not. Obama is giving tax cuts to the largest purchasing power in the world; the American middle class. Obama has also quickly passed a stimulus bill of more than $700B to help jump start the economy with infrastructure measures that will hopefully put people back to work. This will hopefully be the spark that the markets need to get restarted towards positive growth. Obama has also begun investing in the future of our healthcare system. Medicare and Medicaid are major consumers of federal money. Much of this consumption is waste. His investments hopefully will increase efficiency and draw more people into the system. Lowering healthcare costs for all and increasing citizen care will increase disposal income for consumers to further inject into the market.
But are these successes to other besides me? Polls and politics in general suggest that, yes, he has been successful. Some polls show that Obama and the Democrats have a 63% and 51% favorable opinion by the public while the Republicans lag at 39%. Obama is personally more liked than his policies but his popularity gives political strength in passing legislation.
In politics, Obama’s success can also be seen. Tedisco vs. Murphy in NY was a special election to fill the seat of the representative called up to fill Hillary’s seat in the Senate. Murphy (D) narrowly won the election but it was a telltale sign for the Democrats and Obama. The election was during the very stressful time of budget and stimulus package votes. This can be read that even though New Yorkers are divided by Obama’s agenda, they are still willing to put another chess piece on the table for the Democrats. This followed by the switch of Arlen Specter to the Democratic Party further note the country’s move towards the left. Specter was in trouble to win re-election as a Republican in Pennsylvania and his move is most likely selfish in nature. The move does shoe that the Republican Party is beginning to shun and push away moderate Republicans. Specter was one of three Republicans to vote for the stimulus package and now he has switched parties, surprisingly, much to the delight of the Republicans. Specter has realized that his best chance of winning in 2010 is to switch parties. While this is selfish, it is smart. The political tide is moving left and he has recognized this.
In summary, the Democrats, myself, Arlen Specter, Murphy, and the polls easily show that Obama has been very successful in his first 100 days. (to say that any of this policies have been successful is a little presumptuous at this point!)
Ps. Sorry if this was not completely coherent and laden with errors. I did this on the fly. No editing or re-thinking!
I am sitting here listening to Obama answer his first question at his 3rd primetime conference. Is it just me or does he look tired? I don’t blame him. Has done more in these 100 days than Bush did in his 8 years. One of his very first actions was to begin the closing process of closing Guantanamo Bay along with banning “enhanced interrogation techniques” aka torture. For a country that’s rhetoric suggests we are nation governed by our high standards of morals this is an important step. There is a current debate whether torture leads to reliable information but there is no debate that torture was the number one recruiting tool for terrorists of all sects. Those in the military and intelligence communities that are opposed to torture argue, with merit, that important information can be extracted by humane methods. This coupled with the fact that terrorist recruitment will drop, will keep America safer than increasing the waterboarding spa treatments as posed by the right wing.
Obama went on tour of Europe and the Americas to prove that America can listen and is understanding of America’s mistakes. The old adage that you can learn more from your mistakes than your successes is not lost on our new President. Whether it is our economic failures he is combating or our foreign policy mistakes that have led to nuclear advancements in North Korean and Iran; Obama is listening and acting as not only a scholar but also a leader.
This Presidency has begun to invest in our country. Leading economists agree (despite what Republicans believe) that in order for an economy based on consumption to get out of a recession, the government will have to spend when the private market is not. Obama is giving tax cuts to the largest purchasing power in the world; the American middle class. Obama has also quickly passed a stimulus bill of more than $700B to help jump start the economy with infrastructure measures that will hopefully put people back to work. This will hopefully be the spark that the markets need to get restarted towards positive growth. Obama has also begun investing in the future of our healthcare system. Medicare and Medicaid are major consumers of federal money. Much of this consumption is waste. His investments hopefully will increase efficiency and draw more people into the system. Lowering healthcare costs for all and increasing citizen care will increase disposal income for consumers to further inject into the market.
But are these successes to other besides me? Polls and politics in general suggest that, yes, he has been successful. Some polls show that Obama and the Democrats have a 63% and 51% favorable opinion by the public while the Republicans lag at 39%. Obama is personally more liked than his policies but his popularity gives political strength in passing legislation.
In politics, Obama’s success can also be seen. Tedisco vs. Murphy in NY was a special election to fill the seat of the representative called up to fill Hillary’s seat in the Senate. Murphy (D) narrowly won the election but it was a telltale sign for the Democrats and Obama. The election was during the very stressful time of budget and stimulus package votes. This can be read that even though New Yorkers are divided by Obama’s agenda, they are still willing to put another chess piece on the table for the Democrats. This followed by the switch of Arlen Specter to the Democratic Party further note the country’s move towards the left. Specter was in trouble to win re-election as a Republican in Pennsylvania and his move is most likely selfish in nature. The move does shoe that the Republican Party is beginning to shun and push away moderate Republicans. Specter was one of three Republicans to vote for the stimulus package and now he has switched parties, surprisingly, much to the delight of the Republicans. Specter has realized that his best chance of winning in 2010 is to switch parties. While this is selfish, it is smart. The political tide is moving left and he has recognized this.
In summary, the Democrats, myself, Arlen Specter, Murphy, and the polls easily show that Obama has been very successful in his first 100 days. (to say that any of this policies have been successful is a little presumptuous at this point!)
Ps. Sorry if this was not completely coherent and laden with errors. I did this on the fly. No editing or re-thinking!
Monday, April 20, 2009
Cao vs. Cao
In New Orleans on November 4th 2008, approximately 146,000 voters went to the polls to send Barack Obama to the Whitehouse with 70% of the vote (margin of 88,000 votes over McCain). On the same day, William Jefferson, with pending allegations of corruption, won the primary runoff. The fight for the congressional seat would be settled in December. On Saturday, December 6th 2008, 64,418 residence of New Orleans 2nd District showed up to vote in Joseph Cao (R) removing long time incumbent William Jefferson (D) by 1,826 votes. Voter turn out dropped by approximately 55% from the Presidential election to the general election for the House representative. The emotional drain of the Obama election coupled with the lack of excitement for a possibly corrupt incumbent and a Saturday special election date caused the low voter turn out. William Jefferson won Orleans Parish (the heart of New Orleans) by almost 3,000 votes. Cao was able to pick up the bulk of Jefferson Parish which was enough to sneak by Jefferson. The last Republican to hold this seat was Hamilton D. Coleman in 1891.
These factors by no means scream Cao was a shoe in to win New Orleans. Thanks to a perfect storm for New Orleans’ democrats, Cao snuck in. Cao should know this very well and do what is necessary to try to hold on to his seat in 2010. So far it is not looking good. During the first quarter of his tenure, Cao has proven to be a poor fundraiser, raising only $143K of which he only has $61K left. Fundraising is a learnable art; however, his dollar amount is substantially lower than the other freshman Republicans from Louisiana. Being a republican in a sea of democrats doesn’t help. His voting record is not prompting much local financial support. Politico reported that during the economic stimulus package vote in D.C., Cao was noticeably bullied into voting “no” by minority deputy whip, Kevin McCarthy. Before the vote, Cao was recorded as leaning “yes” as his district would benefit greatly from the stimulus as his community is still struggling from Hurricane Katrina. Cao is undoubtedly viewed as a fluke in the New Orleans area; a fluke who is voting against the best interests of his constituents.
If Cao wants any chance of keeping his seat in 2010 he must represent his constituents and not his party. This will be a lose-lose scenario for fundraising. Representing his constituents will boost local contributions; however, bucking the party will hurt his current support from Newt Gingrich and minority leader John Boehner who aided in fundraising in the area on March 17th and 26th respectively. Bucking the Republican Party will gain him nationwide name recognition as well as show his loyalty to New Orleans. His current voting record will only strengthen his Democratic challenger, currently thought to be Cedric Richmond, who will enter the election as the strong favorite. (It should be noted he has voted with Democrats on children’s healthcare (SCHIP) and the Lilly Ledbetter bill for women’s wage equality).
The Democratic Party knows Cao’s weakness and he is on their short list of obvious targets. It would be surprising to see the Republican Party or the Democratic Party contribute much to the LA 2nd District election in 2010 due to the all but certain Democratic victory. Cao’s only hope is to begin voting with the Democrats on more issues that will benefit his district, draft/co-sponsor New Orleans bills, or if all else fails, switch parties.
These factors by no means scream Cao was a shoe in to win New Orleans. Thanks to a perfect storm for New Orleans’ democrats, Cao snuck in. Cao should know this very well and do what is necessary to try to hold on to his seat in 2010. So far it is not looking good. During the first quarter of his tenure, Cao has proven to be a poor fundraiser, raising only $143K of which he only has $61K left. Fundraising is a learnable art; however, his dollar amount is substantially lower than the other freshman Republicans from Louisiana. Being a republican in a sea of democrats doesn’t help. His voting record is not prompting much local financial support. Politico reported that during the economic stimulus package vote in D.C., Cao was noticeably bullied into voting “no” by minority deputy whip, Kevin McCarthy. Before the vote, Cao was recorded as leaning “yes” as his district would benefit greatly from the stimulus as his community is still struggling from Hurricane Katrina. Cao is undoubtedly viewed as a fluke in the New Orleans area; a fluke who is voting against the best interests of his constituents.
If Cao wants any chance of keeping his seat in 2010 he must represent his constituents and not his party. This will be a lose-lose scenario for fundraising. Representing his constituents will boost local contributions; however, bucking the party will hurt his current support from Newt Gingrich and minority leader John Boehner who aided in fundraising in the area on March 17th and 26th respectively. Bucking the Republican Party will gain him nationwide name recognition as well as show his loyalty to New Orleans. His current voting record will only strengthen his Democratic challenger, currently thought to be Cedric Richmond, who will enter the election as the strong favorite. (It should be noted he has voted with Democrats on children’s healthcare (SCHIP) and the Lilly Ledbetter bill for women’s wage equality).
The Democratic Party knows Cao’s weakness and he is on their short list of obvious targets. It would be surprising to see the Republican Party or the Democratic Party contribute much to the LA 2nd District election in 2010 due to the all but certain Democratic victory. Cao’s only hope is to begin voting with the Democrats on more issues that will benefit his district, draft/co-sponsor New Orleans bills, or if all else fails, switch parties.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Socialism?
In the past few months, the term “liberal” has been substituted with the term “socialist”. Paul Krugman feels that “liberal” was not scary enough but “socialist” still holds that memory of the Cold War. Recently, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R) of Alabama says he has a list of 17 members of Congress who are socialists. That is a bold statement. But what is a socialist? Glenn Thrush of Politico.com writes that the left feels the word is “begnin- if outdated” “interventionist government that prioritizes economic security over the unfettered freedom of the marketplace.” The right considers it “Soviet-style Communism or a leap toward a hyper-regulated European brand of capitalism that stifles innovation and hikes taxes”. Neither party seems to look at is as a compliment. But what exactly is socialism? Is the government really moving towards socialism?
“Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation”-Wikipedia
Socialism is; however, largely undefined. There are different types of socialists, some who support meritocracy and other of a more egalitarian mindset. Socialists, for the most part, do agree that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth and restrains all citizens from partaking in an equal opportunity for success. Socialists do not agree how and to what extent the State should intervene to rectify the perceived problem. Socialists that follow the Russian model favor nationalization of all production, exchange and distribution with a centrally planned economy. Market socialists (Chinese, Yugoslavia, Hungary 1970s/80s) promote a mixing of co-operatives and state ownership along with free market pricing and exchange. Social Democrats favor mixed economies with tax-funded welfare programs and market regulation. Libertarian socialists reject state ownership and believe industry should be collectively owned by the workers. Critics of socialism note that state control will inhibit development and growth which are fueled by capitalist profit hunger, as well as, decrease socialism economic and political freedoms.
Is the US a capitalist nation? The US economy is in fact a mixed economy leaning towards capitalism. The majority of the market is privately or jointly owned and free to make government free decisions aside from government regulations that protect the public. The US government does intervene to protect the public from laissez-faire capitalism which almost no “free market capitalist” would sanely want to abolish. The government (state and federal) provides many services that otherwise would have to be provided by the free market. Infrastructure projects would likely be overlooked by private industry due to the lack of profits and lack of the average Joe’s monetary support by free will. The Government provides many services that the public would not willingly pay for however much they actually need; which is the premise of capitalism. Taxes therefore are needed to provide the public with services needed. It would be scary to see our police departments if they were funded only with optional community contributions.
Governments also currently control our markets directly which is against the principles of capitalism and resemble aspects of socialism. Currently the government provides subsidies to the agriculture sector to ensure that food prices remain low. Is this socialism? The government provides subsidies to the oil industries as well to keep gas prices low? Is this socialism? The answer is yes. The people demand socialist actions (without knowing it) when prices are too high as seen this past year with gas prices. The government can control the markets by injecting money into the system (often in the form of huge tax breaks). In a true capitalist market, supply and demand would control agriculture production and prices. In the oil industry, the government acts to protect the consumer from being gouged at the pump. Renewable energy should be allowed to compete without Government intervention in a capitalist market. The Government keeps gas prices falsely low inhibiting renewable energies from effectively competing. Often times the Government supports renewable energies financially at the same time as supporting the oil industry; which is like betting on both red and black. Government interaction manipulates the competition; socialism (mixed economy).
The emerging debate over “socialized” medicine is interesting. The Obama healthcare reform plan does not nationalize the healthcare industry. Doctors will not become federal employees and the neither will the pharmaceutical companies. The Government will not mandate or micromanage patient/doctor decisions anymore than insurance companies currently do. The Government will; however, invest in new methods and technologies to increase efficiency (computerized records) as well as help encourage insurance enrollment and provide a public plan affordable to all; all should lower healthcare costs. The Government will be investing in the current system to improve it, not micromanage or control it. Healthcare will not be nationalized. Helping lower the cost of healthcare in this country is no more socialist than providing subsidies the oil and agriculture industries to keep their costs to the public low. The Government (taxpayer backed) should be looked at as become an investment partner with the savings in healthcare costs benefiting the public. (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf)
Another hot topic is redistribution of wealth. Taxing the rich and giving the poor (whether it be a welfare check, welfare programs, or any benefit for the poor that the rich don’t receive that comes from federal dollars). The foundation of socialism is that capitalism unfairly distributes wealth, benefiting the rich and powerful more than those in need. It is true that the majority of the income tax is paid by the top earners in the country and that some of this money is then passed to those in need in the form of welfare. But why do people complain when federal dollars transfer from rich to poor and not from California to Wyoming? No state receives the exact dollar amount to which their citizens pay the federal government through taxes. California pays more into the system than Wyoming; however, Wyoming receives benefits from a collective pot. Interstate support is why we are considered a country and not independent nations.
Why not people? Those people who currently receive welfare are spending the vast majority of their money on food, clothing and shelter. There will always be stories of welfare check receivers with cable TV and XBOX, which may be considered abuse; however, this is not the case for all. If it is looked at as a percentage, rich pay a smaller percentage of their total assets than the poor. A rich man is accumulating wealth while paying only a percentage of a single year’s earnings. A poor man usually does not have the ability to create wealth through a savings account, long term stocks, and other appreciating assets. Meaning most of all of a struggling person’s money goes towards consumption and taxes. Therefore; welfare stimulation goes directly back into the economy and government income. Welfare checks do not spread wealth, the spread opportunity and help families survive. Any successful system is constantly being scrutinized improved and welfare programs should be as well to minimize abuses and wasteful Government spending. If a team is only as strong as its weakest link, why wouldn’t the country want to help the progress of those in the most need? Welfare programs help boost the country’s overall capabilities by helping the weakest links become stronger and more productive. Abandoning social and welfare programs would further strain the system by adding to crime and punishment costs which is the least effective tax expenditure for strengthening the country. Redistribution of wealth implies others are becoming wealthy; which it is obvious that the current system does not do and should not do. The current system attempts to spread opportunity through progressive programs that develop citizens as well as monetary support to give individuals more of a chance to better themselves and their families by lightening the load.
The current welfare system and the direction the Obama administration wants to take the country is not any more socialistic than our current system. It is an investment in making the American dream more attainable for all citizens. The Government is not nationalizing industry; however, they are putting direction on their investments. Healthcare will see investments to increase efficiency and other measures to help drop costs so people can afford their own insurance or enroll in public insurance. Healthcare costs will be lowered but healthcare decisions will not be controlled or curtailed. We are not a socialist nation. We are a capitalist nation who’s Government protects its citizens from the evils that come along with capitalism. It is not socialism, it is smart governance for a stronger future for all.
“Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation”-Wikipedia
Socialism is; however, largely undefined. There are different types of socialists, some who support meritocracy and other of a more egalitarian mindset. Socialists, for the most part, do agree that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth and restrains all citizens from partaking in an equal opportunity for success. Socialists do not agree how and to what extent the State should intervene to rectify the perceived problem. Socialists that follow the Russian model favor nationalization of all production, exchange and distribution with a centrally planned economy. Market socialists (Chinese, Yugoslavia, Hungary 1970s/80s) promote a mixing of co-operatives and state ownership along with free market pricing and exchange. Social Democrats favor mixed economies with tax-funded welfare programs and market regulation. Libertarian socialists reject state ownership and believe industry should be collectively owned by the workers. Critics of socialism note that state control will inhibit development and growth which are fueled by capitalist profit hunger, as well as, decrease socialism economic and political freedoms.
Is the US a capitalist nation? The US economy is in fact a mixed economy leaning towards capitalism. The majority of the market is privately or jointly owned and free to make government free decisions aside from government regulations that protect the public. The US government does intervene to protect the public from laissez-faire capitalism which almost no “free market capitalist” would sanely want to abolish. The government (state and federal) provides many services that otherwise would have to be provided by the free market. Infrastructure projects would likely be overlooked by private industry due to the lack of profits and lack of the average Joe’s monetary support by free will. The Government provides many services that the public would not willingly pay for however much they actually need; which is the premise of capitalism. Taxes therefore are needed to provide the public with services needed. It would be scary to see our police departments if they were funded only with optional community contributions.
Governments also currently control our markets directly which is against the principles of capitalism and resemble aspects of socialism. Currently the government provides subsidies to the agriculture sector to ensure that food prices remain low. Is this socialism? The government provides subsidies to the oil industries as well to keep gas prices low? Is this socialism? The answer is yes. The people demand socialist actions (without knowing it) when prices are too high as seen this past year with gas prices. The government can control the markets by injecting money into the system (often in the form of huge tax breaks). In a true capitalist market, supply and demand would control agriculture production and prices. In the oil industry, the government acts to protect the consumer from being gouged at the pump. Renewable energy should be allowed to compete without Government intervention in a capitalist market. The Government keeps gas prices falsely low inhibiting renewable energies from effectively competing. Often times the Government supports renewable energies financially at the same time as supporting the oil industry; which is like betting on both red and black. Government interaction manipulates the competition; socialism (mixed economy).
The emerging debate over “socialized” medicine is interesting. The Obama healthcare reform plan does not nationalize the healthcare industry. Doctors will not become federal employees and the neither will the pharmaceutical companies. The Government will not mandate or micromanage patient/doctor decisions anymore than insurance companies currently do. The Government will; however, invest in new methods and technologies to increase efficiency (computerized records) as well as help encourage insurance enrollment and provide a public plan affordable to all; all should lower healthcare costs. The Government will be investing in the current system to improve it, not micromanage or control it. Healthcare will not be nationalized. Helping lower the cost of healthcare in this country is no more socialist than providing subsidies the oil and agriculture industries to keep their costs to the public low. The Government (taxpayer backed) should be looked at as become an investment partner with the savings in healthcare costs benefiting the public. (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf)
Another hot topic is redistribution of wealth. Taxing the rich and giving the poor (whether it be a welfare check, welfare programs, or any benefit for the poor that the rich don’t receive that comes from federal dollars). The foundation of socialism is that capitalism unfairly distributes wealth, benefiting the rich and powerful more than those in need. It is true that the majority of the income tax is paid by the top earners in the country and that some of this money is then passed to those in need in the form of welfare. But why do people complain when federal dollars transfer from rich to poor and not from California to Wyoming? No state receives the exact dollar amount to which their citizens pay the federal government through taxes. California pays more into the system than Wyoming; however, Wyoming receives benefits from a collective pot. Interstate support is why we are considered a country and not independent nations.
Why not people? Those people who currently receive welfare are spending the vast majority of their money on food, clothing and shelter. There will always be stories of welfare check receivers with cable TV and XBOX, which may be considered abuse; however, this is not the case for all. If it is looked at as a percentage, rich pay a smaller percentage of their total assets than the poor. A rich man is accumulating wealth while paying only a percentage of a single year’s earnings. A poor man usually does not have the ability to create wealth through a savings account, long term stocks, and other appreciating assets. Meaning most of all of a struggling person’s money goes towards consumption and taxes. Therefore; welfare stimulation goes directly back into the economy and government income. Welfare checks do not spread wealth, the spread opportunity and help families survive. Any successful system is constantly being scrutinized improved and welfare programs should be as well to minimize abuses and wasteful Government spending. If a team is only as strong as its weakest link, why wouldn’t the country want to help the progress of those in the most need? Welfare programs help boost the country’s overall capabilities by helping the weakest links become stronger and more productive. Abandoning social and welfare programs would further strain the system by adding to crime and punishment costs which is the least effective tax expenditure for strengthening the country. Redistribution of wealth implies others are becoming wealthy; which it is obvious that the current system does not do and should not do. The current system attempts to spread opportunity through progressive programs that develop citizens as well as monetary support to give individuals more of a chance to better themselves and their families by lightening the load.
The current welfare system and the direction the Obama administration wants to take the country is not any more socialistic than our current system. It is an investment in making the American dream more attainable for all citizens. The Government is not nationalizing industry; however, they are putting direction on their investments. Healthcare will see investments to increase efficiency and other measures to help drop costs so people can afford their own insurance or enroll in public insurance. Healthcare costs will be lowered but healthcare decisions will not be controlled or curtailed. We are not a socialist nation. We are a capitalist nation who’s Government protects its citizens from the evils that come along with capitalism. It is not socialism, it is smart governance for a stronger future for all.
Monday, April 13, 2009
“No, No, No. Dig up stupid!”—Chief Wiggum and the GOP
Today there were two great pieces in the NYTimes Opinion section. Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize winning economist dedicated his piece to the childish actions of the Republican Party. As the current minority, they are orchestrating Tea Party demonstrations in the streets all over the country to represent their anti-tax principles. The GOP has succumbed to “socialist” name calling and theatrics like the Tea Parties in response to the actions to likely be taken by the Obama administration. Tax rates for the rich
The childish responses of the Republican Party have also been characterized by a failure to learn from mistakes. They have failed to realize that raising taxes can be a necessary “evil” in some cases. Bush Sr. learned this; however, his broken promise of “read my lips: ‘no new taxes’” led to his reelection loss in 1992. Bush Sr. had to break his tax promise and GOP plank partly in response to the lack of government revenue caused by Reagan economics. Part of the reasons that we are currently in the economic mess that we are in is due to the GOP mantra: deregulation and tax-cuts. Republicans have also failed to see their failures and grow in regards to foreign policy. A second piece in the NYTimes by Roger Cohen has shown that lack of communication in the past 8 years with
The GOP has not learned from history or from their mistakes and they continue to dig deeper and deeper. The Republicans have not learned from the 2006 and 2008 elections that have taken them out of control. The country is currently turning left in response to 8 years of moving hard right. This does not suggest Republicans should jump the fence and play for the Democrats but it should show them that the country wants them at least closer to the center. They cannot successfully continue to present the same ideas of the past 20 years and expect a different outcome or expect the public to support them. Obama is wildly popular and Democrats are posed to pick up more seats in 2010. A moderate improvement in the economy will solidify Whitehouse supporters in congress while destroying non-constructive nay-sayers. The Republican Party needs to take heed of all the signs and give a little more if it is reelection they seek. If they legitimately differ in ideology they should have new ideas and concrete alternatives, instead of empty budget plans as submitted by the House Republicans last month
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Newt Gingrich and the GOP gamble
Newt Gingrich and the GOP are playing a very dangerous game. The POTUS has only been in office for 3 months and has put a lot on the table. If the president's measures prove successful, the GOP and Newt will lose all the chips they have put on the table, and they have put them all up. Obama is currently very popular and the economy, which is today's number 1 issue, will eventually rebound. In all likelyhood it would have turned around with or without the measure taken by the Obama administrations. The new administration's actions; however, will hopefully quicken the turnaround and direct the nation's path towards the future. The inevitable turnaround will be credited to Obama by the American people (whether deserved or not is irrelevant; it is all about perception). The likely success cannot be shared with the GOP or Newt who is, believe it or not, already running for president in 2012. They have not cast a single vote (aside from the 3 GOP senators in re-election trouble from the northeast where Dems and Obama arefavored) to support the presidents measures. If/when the economy rebounds the GOP will have to pick issues such as national debt and fear mongering to persuade voters to side with them. These intangible ideas will be much weaker than the Dems' arguement of a dying Bush/Republican economy fixed by the Obama/Dems (again, whether deserved or not is irrelevant). Those in power receive the glory and the blame. This is the true reason the Republicans don't want Obama to succeed. The midterms in 2010 will be most exciting and very telling of Obama's perceived success or failure. The economy will more than likely have started to make its comeback by election season and, if the public senses that, there will be no saving the Republicans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
