POL 213: In a Washington Post article last week, Peggy Noonan postulated about the recent focus on politicians’ faith, and especially in the presidential race:
"There are some people who believe faith doesn't belong in politics. But it does, and it is there inextricably. The antislavery movement, the temperance movement, the civil rights movement, the antiabortion movement, all were political movements animated in large part by religious feeling. It's not that it doesn't matter. You bring your whole self into the polling booth, including your faith and your sense of right and wrong, good and bad, just as presidents bring their whole selves into the Oval Office. I can't imagine how a president could do his job without faith.
But faith is also personal. You can be touched by a candidate's faith, or interested in his apparent lack of it. It's never wholly unimportant, but you should never see a politician as a leader of faith, and we should not ask a man who made his rise in the grubby world of politics to act as if he is an exemplar of his faith, or an explainer or defender of it."
I tend to agree with her conclusions. I too believe that religion is a bias or point of view that is inherent in each individual. It cannot be excluded from our consideration of a candidate or from his view of the world.
Just today an announcement was made that Mitt Romney would speak about his faith in relation to his political ambitions and decision-making processes. According to the statement released by his campaign, the speech “is an opportunity for Governor Romney to share his views on religious liberty, the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation and how the governor's own faith would inform his Presidency if he were elected. Governor Romney understands that faith is an important issue to many Americans, and he personally feels this moment is the right moment for him to share his views with the nation."
Romney is walking in John F. Kennedy’s steps with this decision. Before the 1960 election, Kennedy took time to speak about his Catholic faith and reassure potential voters of his ability to govern well regardless of his religious beliefs. His attempt to assuage their fears appears to have worked! For months now, Romney has avoided the issue, choosing to ignore the fact that some voters may be alienated by his divergence from a mainstream faith. I wonder if the other polarizing candidates (Obama and Clinton, for instance) will choose to address race or gender concerns, or if those have been addressed to the satisfaction of the American public.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Looking back?
POL 213: In “Obama's Amnesia Problem,” Peter Beinart writes about a trend among American citizens, and notably the youngest generation of Americans, toward forgetting the past. He considers this a problem that specifically affects Barack Obama’s candidacy for president. The senator from Illinois stated his opposition to the Iraq war more than five years ago, at the same time that Hillary Clinton voted for it. This should be giving him a lift in popular opinion among the denouncers of the war today, but it seems that his record has been forgotten, or conveniently swept under the rug and out of sight. In fact, the Los Angeles Times reports that, “likely Democratic primary voters who say they want U.S. troops out of Iraq "as soon as possible" choose Clinton over Obama by more than 2 to 1.”
This phenomenon is occurring partly because of Clinton’s political maneuvering to position herself exactly where many Americans find themselves: originally willing to support a war effort, they’re now looking for someone who will stand up to the Bush administration and put an end to the war. Obama, on the other hand, is attempting to focus attention on his track record. He is implying that his qualifications to lead are based on his correct judgment back in 2002, and that her dissenting opinion shows a weakness that shouldn’t be present in the Commander in Chief of the United States. Even though Hillary has no plans to immediately withdraw troops from the region, making her little different from the current administration, she is considered as antiwar as any of the other candidates.
This is the point where American indifference to the past comes most into play. Time and time again we have elected officials who were completely opposed to a plan at the beginning, but changed their tune later on instead of going with the first opponent of an idea. This speaks to our tendency to look forward rather than back. To our self-interest manifesting itself in the willingness to change sides of an idea. To make up our minds as we go along. It may also be a sign of stubborn refusal to learn from past mistakes, or to even admit them. Or of being so interested in the present circumstances that we fail to adequately plan or foresee the consequences of our actions. May this tendency to ignore the past serve as a cautious warning to Americans, and may the best possible leader be elected next fall.
This phenomenon is occurring partly because of Clinton’s political maneuvering to position herself exactly where many Americans find themselves: originally willing to support a war effort, they’re now looking for someone who will stand up to the Bush administration and put an end to the war. Obama, on the other hand, is attempting to focus attention on his track record. He is implying that his qualifications to lead are based on his correct judgment back in 2002, and that her dissenting opinion shows a weakness that shouldn’t be present in the Commander in Chief of the United States. Even though Hillary has no plans to immediately withdraw troops from the region, making her little different from the current administration, she is considered as antiwar as any of the other candidates.
This is the point where American indifference to the past comes most into play. Time and time again we have elected officials who were completely opposed to a plan at the beginning, but changed their tune later on instead of going with the first opponent of an idea. This speaks to our tendency to look forward rather than back. To our self-interest manifesting itself in the willingness to change sides of an idea. To make up our minds as we go along. It may also be a sign of stubborn refusal to learn from past mistakes, or to even admit them. Or of being so interested in the present circumstances that we fail to adequately plan or foresee the consequences of our actions. May this tendency to ignore the past serve as a cautious warning to Americans, and may the best possible leader be elected next fall.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
The Job at Hand
POL 213: Our nation’s Supreme Court recently decided to hear a case to decide the decades-old question of whether or not the Second Amendment applies to individuals, or to the government as a collective whole. Their decision will affect states’ rights to impose gun controls or bans on their citizens. The amendment states: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The current question lies in the meaning of the phrase “the right of the people.” It was decided by the District of Columbia’s Circuit Court of Appeals that the phrase meant the individual, and the ruling in D.C. vs. Heller was overturned to allow possession of handguns. It is this decision that is being appealed to the Supreme Court, and it is their responsibility to interpret carefully.
In the article, “Guns and the Constitution,” the author states that the ambiguity lies in the phrase, “A well-regulated militia.” The judge in this case argued with historical evidence that the Framers of the Constitution had able-bodied men in mind when they wrote this phrase, and not the National Guard of today. In fact, throughout the Bill of Rights, “the right of the people” was used to refer to individual rights and liberties. The First Amendment speaks of their right to assemble, the Fourth to their right to be secure in their possessions, the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth speak of protecting a defendant’s rights. In “Second Amendment Showdown,” Mike Cox writes of Madison’s intent: “Madison's draft borrowed liberally from the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and Virginia's Declaration of Rights. Both granted individual rights, not collective rights.” Madison meant to protect against infringement against the citizen by a large government. He sought to bridge the gap between the Federalists, who favored a central government, and the Anti-Federalists, who feared the corrupting influence of power.
The social culture at the time the Second Amendment was penned lent itself to an idea of the right of the individual as well. Homes were spread out across great expanses of unsettled land. There was no central army to call on in time of need. Instead, the young nation relied on volunteers and minutemen to come to its defense. This doesn’t speak of a centralized “militia,” or of a collective body, but again of an individual citizen.
There is no historical or written evidence to suggest that the Framers had any other idea in mind than to protect the individual liberties of America’s citizens. Because of this fact, I believe that the Supreme Court should uphold the Court of Appeals’ decision to overrule the District’s ban on handguns.
Cox, Mike. “Second Amendment Showdown.” Wall Street Journal Online. 23 November 2007. 25 November 2007.
“Guns and the Constitution.” Wall Street Journal Online. 24 November 2007. 25 November 2007.
In the article, “Guns and the Constitution,” the author states that the ambiguity lies in the phrase, “A well-regulated militia.” The judge in this case argued with historical evidence that the Framers of the Constitution had able-bodied men in mind when they wrote this phrase, and not the National Guard of today. In fact, throughout the Bill of Rights, “the right of the people” was used to refer to individual rights and liberties. The First Amendment speaks of their right to assemble, the Fourth to their right to be secure in their possessions, the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth speak of protecting a defendant’s rights. In “Second Amendment Showdown,” Mike Cox writes of Madison’s intent: “Madison's draft borrowed liberally from the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and Virginia's Declaration of Rights. Both granted individual rights, not collective rights.” Madison meant to protect against infringement against the citizen by a large government. He sought to bridge the gap between the Federalists, who favored a central government, and the Anti-Federalists, who feared the corrupting influence of power.
The social culture at the time the Second Amendment was penned lent itself to an idea of the right of the individual as well. Homes were spread out across great expanses of unsettled land. There was no central army to call on in time of need. Instead, the young nation relied on volunteers and minutemen to come to its defense. This doesn’t speak of a centralized “militia,” or of a collective body, but again of an individual citizen.
There is no historical or written evidence to suggest that the Framers had any other idea in mind than to protect the individual liberties of America’s citizens. Because of this fact, I believe that the Supreme Court should uphold the Court of Appeals’ decision to overrule the District’s ban on handguns.
Cox, Mike. “Second Amendment Showdown.” Wall Street Journal Online. 23 November 2007. 25 November 2007
“Guns and the Constitution.” Wall Street Journal Online. 24 November 2007. 25 November 2007
Sunday, November 4, 2007
A Platform of Trust
POL 213: As I looked at the race shaping up for next fall’s Presidential election, something about the field of potential candidates struck me. I wondered where the sense of trust and dependability in my elected officials had gone. Is it simply my increasing maturity that allows me to see things as they really are, or are politicians really becoming more corrupt? At this point in my life, I can only imagine the multiplied pressures, strains, and temptations that public life can place on an individual. I doubt that I could stand untainted were I to be elected either. But I also recognize an inseparable truth: public officials should hold the trust of their constituents.
Their role is to be one of advocate and representative for the people. If they are going to give an accurate an unbiased consideration to the thoughts of their fellow citizens, they need to have a firm foundation from which to speak. This platform should not be compromised by teetering on both sides of an issue, or by waffling about the specifics of a potential solution. Only when Americans place enough faith in the person representing them in office can they then give credibility to government and our system of representation and choose to honor and obey their direction.
In an article for “World” magazine, Joel Belz brings up the issue of Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith. He wonders, “When, in a relatively short space of time, he seems to be on both sides of the same issue—and when such a deviously confusing approach seems to be consistent with his faith rather than counter to it—that sets off alarm bells for me” (Belz 5). This trend is troubling to me in more than Romney’s situation. It speaks of hypocrisy and political maneuvering. Romney needs to firmly base his campaign in truth by standing by his word. He shouldn’t look to past tendencies to pander to lobbyists or to trivialize constituents’ genuine concerns. Only by establishing a basis for trust can he hope to win a majority of votes on that decisive November day.
Belz, Joel. “Trifling with the Truth.” World. 10 November 2007: 5.
Their role is to be one of advocate and representative for the people. If they are going to give an accurate an unbiased consideration to the thoughts of their fellow citizens, they need to have a firm foundation from which to speak. This platform should not be compromised by teetering on both sides of an issue, or by waffling about the specifics of a potential solution. Only when Americans place enough faith in the person representing them in office can they then give credibility to government and our system of representation and choose to honor and obey their direction.
In an article for “World” magazine, Joel Belz brings up the issue of Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith. He wonders, “When, in a relatively short space of time, he seems to be on both sides of the same issue—and when such a deviously confusing approach seems to be consistent with his faith rather than counter to it—that sets off alarm bells for me” (Belz 5). This trend is troubling to me in more than Romney’s situation. It speaks of hypocrisy and political maneuvering. Romney needs to firmly base his campaign in truth by standing by his word. He shouldn’t look to past tendencies to pander to lobbyists or to trivialize constituents’ genuine concerns. Only by establishing a basis for trust can he hope to win a majority of votes on that decisive November day.
Belz, Joel. “Trifling with the Truth.” World. 10 November 2007: 5.
Monday, October 22, 2007
A Time for Action
POL 213: In an article entitled, “Graduating to Public Service,” Stephen Barr attempts to alert Americans to a growing trend among young college graduates: they don’t have the sense of civic duty, undying patriotism, optimism in the character of men, or financial incentive to motivate them to apply for positions in the federal government. This is a concern for both government officials and for the average citizen because of the imminent shortage of employees to fill critical roles. The Baby Boomer generation is entering the retirement phase of their lives in droves. Who will step up to take control of our nation as they vacate official positions? This question also begs another, deeper uncertainty looming over the American psyche. Namely, why is there such a disconnection between the younger generations and the federal government? And how can we bridge this gap?
The writers of the Anti-Federalist Papers once advocated for individual states that would hold more power than a federal government. For the most part, their opinion reigned during the Constitutional convention. As a result, a national government was formed that required the input of the individual citizen to make it function well. Over the last two centuries, the size of our government has grown exponentially. No longer does an average citizen feel that his vote holds a sway in the direction of our country. In fact, he more often feels that it won’t matter if he votes or not, the decision is made by an electorate far removed from everyday realities. Or why should he petition his congressman, or call his legislator? They are too entrenched in the concerns of lobbyists and campaign contributors to listen to the voice of an individual constituent. Some of this may be due to the population growth of our country. It is true that legislators today represent a much larger number of citizens. Perhaps we do need to modify the required number of representatives. But at what cost? Would the legislature be able to function properly with more than 435 representatives, or would it bog down in committees, party politics, and hidden agendas? As the nation considers its future, there are several citizens finally sounding the alarm. I believe our past actions in allowing big government and its accompanying distance from the individual citizen has contributed to the attitude of apathy among our youth. If we continue to allow this trend, we deserve to suffer the consequences of our actions. I, for one, would hate to see the results of an overextended and understaffed bureaucracy. Or am I staring it in the face?
Monday, October 15, 2007
An indecent proposal
POL 213: I was shocked and taken completely off guard this week. It doesn't often happen that I fail to respond to a situation with words, but this time I was left with none. It happened Monday night, as a co-worker and I left work after our shift at one of the thousands of restaurants in New York. He began, hesitatingly, to tell me his story. How he had come from an Eastern European country with $150 in his pocket and was now attending school and working fulltime to support himself. His story continued with his portrayal of himself as a hard-working individual who lives according to the law and even pays taxes, but is viewed as an illegal alien by the authorities. Evidently his work visa had run out before his student visa application could be properly processed, and now he remained in the United States on the slim hope that he could work something out to be able to stay permanently.
"Mike," as I'll call him here, continued his conversation with me by broaching a subject I'd never have expected. I could tell he was struggling for words and for courage as he finally suggested an arranged marriage between us in an attempt to gain legal status, and possibly even his permanent green card. The price he was willing to pay? $10,000.
I was dumfounded. How was this possible? My response was that no man should ever have to resort to such a desperate measure in order to stay under the law. I told him that I would look into an appeal, and that perhaps my legislative representatives would be able to help.
This scenario again brought the immigration problem to the front of my consciousness. What IS the best way to integrate newcomers to our country? Do our laws serve as aids or hindrances to this process? It is time to review them and discuss our options and responsibilities as citizens of the United States. President Bush has introduced several initiatives. Let's analyze them fairly, apart from our party and personal agendas, and create a workable solution to this problem.
As we do so, we'll need to take several aspects of the debate into consideration. We need to realize that immigration is not going to go away. It's with us for better or for worse. Congress could sign a bill tomorrow granting universal amnesty for all illegal aliens, or they could choose to erect a 2,000 mile wall. Day labor, falsified papers, and arranged marriages will remain a fact of life for thousands of individuals.
Amity Shlaes addresses Mitt Romney's attack on supporters of immigrants in an article entitled Romney Ignores Blessings of New York's Immigrants by stating that historically, "New York may have served as a sanctuary for illegal immigrants, but it is illegal immigrants who have blessed the city, not the other way around." My friend Mike seems to confirm this sentiment with his story, and even though I'm not willing to compromise my moral stand on the sacredness of marriage, I'd like to see him succeed in his quest for citizenship or legal status in my country.
"Mike," as I'll call him here, continued his conversation with me by broaching a subject I'd never have expected. I could tell he was struggling for words and for courage as he finally suggested an arranged marriage between us in an attempt to gain legal status, and possibly even his permanent green card. The price he was willing to pay? $10,000.
I was dumfounded. How was this possible? My response was that no man should ever have to resort to such a desperate measure in order to stay under the law. I told him that I would look into an appeal, and that perhaps my legislative representatives would be able to help.
This scenario again brought the immigration problem to the front of my consciousness. What IS the best way to integrate newcomers to our country? Do our laws serve as aids or hindrances to this process? It is time to review them and discuss our options and responsibilities as citizens of the United States. President Bush has introduced several initiatives. Let's analyze them fairly, apart from our party and personal agendas, and create a workable solution to this problem.
As we do so, we'll need to take several aspects of the debate into consideration. We need to realize that immigration is not going to go away. It's with us for better or for worse. Congress could sign a bill tomorrow granting universal amnesty for all illegal aliens, or they could choose to erect a 2,000 mile wall. Day labor, falsified papers, and arranged marriages will remain a fact of life for thousands of individuals.
Amity Shlaes addresses Mitt Romney's attack on supporters of immigrants in an article entitled Romney Ignores Blessings of New York's Immigrants by stating that historically, "New York may have served as a sanctuary for illegal immigrants, but it is illegal immigrants who have blessed the city, not the other way around." My friend Mike seems to confirm this sentiment with his story, and even though I'm not willing to compromise my moral stand on the sacredness of marriage, I'd like to see him succeed in his quest for citizenship or legal status in my country.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Hidden costs
POL 213--The winning car in this year’s Indianapolis 500 race was completely fueled by ethanol for the first time in the history of the race. The evidence that corn fuel can perform on a level equal to traditional gasoline is plain, and leaves hope for farmers and politicians that it will soon replace traditional sources of fuel in the race to gain independence from foreign oil.
As an Indiana native, I know from personal experience the effects on the local economy that this switch would have. Farmers such as my uncle and grandpa would be motivated to plant more of their fields and fallow land with the corn or soybeans that the market required. Prices would jump, as indeed they already have. My small county has already experienced a tremendous economic boost, as three huge processing and refining companies have moved into the area and are in the process of constructing gigantic facilities to accommodate the local crops. New companies mean jobs, revenue, and a desperately needed positive forecast for the future.
However, the tradeoffs that America is facing as we continue to pour resources into this market are somewhat hidden. The fervor surrounding the possible reduction in emissions and subsequent benefits to the environment has limited testing the effects of ethanol content in fuel. At this point, legislation limits ethanol content to 10% of a gallon of gasoline. They are considering raising this limit to 20%, but have spent very little on testing anything other than air emissions. For an engine, the alcohol content wears the plastic and rubber parts at an extremely high rate. For small car and motorcycle engines, the risks could be tremendous!
Perhaps a better option would be to invest in the newer field of cellulosic ethanol, made of plant materials. The most efficient option would be algae, with its possibility to produce over 5,000 gallons of biofuel per acre contrasted with corn producing around 300 gallons of ethanol in a year.¹ If we were to back the preliminary research now being conducted, perhaps our government wouldn’t need to subsidize oil tycoons, Alaskan pipelines, or corn ethanol. Indiana has a few lakes and bogs in addition to its cornfields!
¹ Bourne, Joel K. Jr. “Green Dreams.” National Geographic October 2007: 38-59
As an Indiana native, I know from personal experience the effects on the local economy that this switch would have. Farmers such as my uncle and grandpa would be motivated to plant more of their fields and fallow land with the corn or soybeans that the market required. Prices would jump, as indeed they already have. My small county has already experienced a tremendous economic boost, as three huge processing and refining companies have moved into the area and are in the process of constructing gigantic facilities to accommodate the local crops. New companies mean jobs, revenue, and a desperately needed positive forecast for the future.
However, the tradeoffs that America is facing as we continue to pour resources into this market are somewhat hidden. The fervor surrounding the possible reduction in emissions and subsequent benefits to the environment has limited testing the effects of ethanol content in fuel. At this point, legislation limits ethanol content to 10% of a gallon of gasoline. They are considering raising this limit to 20%, but have spent very little on testing anything other than air emissions. For an engine, the alcohol content wears the plastic and rubber parts at an extremely high rate. For small car and motorcycle engines, the risks could be tremendous!
Perhaps a better option would be to invest in the newer field of cellulosic ethanol, made of plant materials. The most efficient option would be algae, with its possibility to produce over 5,000 gallons of biofuel per acre contrasted with corn producing around 300 gallons of ethanol in a year.¹ If we were to back the preliminary research now being conducted, perhaps our government wouldn’t need to subsidize oil tycoons, Alaskan pipelines, or corn ethanol. Indiana has a few lakes and bogs in addition to its cornfields!
¹ Bourne, Joel K. Jr. “Green Dreams.” National Geographic October 2007: 38-59
Monday, September 24, 2007
A Gathering Storm
POL 213:
A headline caught my eye today. It seems that our senators are finally realizing the full effects of a looming problem facing our nation. As the Baby Boom generation edges closer and closer to the golden age of retirement, the feasibility of paying their allotment of the Social Security nest egg slims. It's not as though they haven't seen it coming, or that no one has touted a plan to fix it before, but there hasn’t been a sense of urgency that is evident now. In fact, the Senate’s budget writers have proposed creating a task force to recommend solutions to the coming financial drain that would be required to deliver its consensus by December of next year. It would be fast-tracked through both branches of legislature to come to a final vote.
Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota stated, "We cannot ignore the coming crisis and hope that future leaders will solve this problem. The longer we wait, the harder the choices become." He’s right. There is no easy way to fix a system that is beyond hope already. When there are so many frail people depending on those monthly checks, the pressure is even more intense.
The Social Security plan has inherently fatal flaws. The first is that the Constitution gives absolutely no authority for the kind of universal wealth distribution system that the plan espouses. In fact, the Constitution clearly establishes the rights and role of the government (for instance, running a postal system), while leaving all other interests to the private citizen to pursue. The framers knew that individual interests would create a much more efficient and effective system of distribution than anything they could possibly create.
The system was set up with short term vision regarding our country and population demographics. Of course Roosevelt and the legislators of 1935 could not foresee the drastic changes in births from the 1950s to today’s world, but they should have at least considered the potential complications to their plan. At this point, we have a small workforce trying to support a large number of retirees. It simply isn’t sustainable.
There is also no incentive given to create more wealth under this plan. All citizens are treated equally when it comes time to collect their monthly check. It cripples those who would take initiative by requiring them to invest. What if I’d rather privately invest that money? Too bad! I have no choice but to throw more into the system than what I can ever expect to receive in return.
At a rough time in our country’s history, the decision to raise taxes by requiring Social Security payments from both citizens and employers caused nothing but trouble. As employers struggled to pay higher fees, yet weren’t rewarded with any extra business, they were forced to cut back on their number of employees. This made the effects of the Great Depression stretch further into the lives of every American as unemployment skyrocketed.
I wish the new task force well as it embarks on a politically-charged mission to reform a corrupt system. Their job will not be easy. No one seems to have a good solution to the problem. I think that privatizing retirement investment options would be a good start. Perhaps we should even encourage it by eliminating all taxes on investments! This would be a good time to “take one for the team” and correct a mistake made by misinformed or misled former legislators.
A headline caught my eye today. It seems that our senators are finally realizing the full effects of a looming problem facing our nation. As the Baby Boom generation edges closer and closer to the golden age of retirement, the feasibility of paying their allotment of the Social Security nest egg slims. It's not as though they haven't seen it coming, or that no one has touted a plan to fix it before, but there hasn’t been a sense of urgency that is evident now. In fact, the Senate’s budget writers have proposed creating a task force to recommend solutions to the coming financial drain that would be required to deliver its consensus by December of next year. It would be fast-tracked through both branches of legislature to come to a final vote.
Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota stated, "We cannot ignore the coming crisis and hope that future leaders will solve this problem. The longer we wait, the harder the choices become." He’s right. There is no easy way to fix a system that is beyond hope already. When there are so many frail people depending on those monthly checks, the pressure is even more intense.
The Social Security plan has inherently fatal flaws. The first is that the Constitution gives absolutely no authority for the kind of universal wealth distribution system that the plan espouses. In fact, the Constitution clearly establishes the rights and role of the government (for instance, running a postal system), while leaving all other interests to the private citizen to pursue. The framers knew that individual interests would create a much more efficient and effective system of distribution than anything they could possibly create.
The system was set up with short term vision regarding our country and population demographics. Of course Roosevelt and the legislators of 1935 could not foresee the drastic changes in births from the 1950s to today’s world, but they should have at least considered the potential complications to their plan. At this point, we have a small workforce trying to support a large number of retirees. It simply isn’t sustainable.
There is also no incentive given to create more wealth under this plan. All citizens are treated equally when it comes time to collect their monthly check. It cripples those who would take initiative by requiring them to invest. What if I’d rather privately invest that money? Too bad! I have no choice but to throw more into the system than what I can ever expect to receive in return.
At a rough time in our country’s history, the decision to raise taxes by requiring Social Security payments from both citizens and employers caused nothing but trouble. As employers struggled to pay higher fees, yet weren’t rewarded with any extra business, they were forced to cut back on their number of employees. This made the effects of the Great Depression stretch further into the lives of every American as unemployment skyrocketed.
I wish the new task force well as it embarks on a politically-charged mission to reform a corrupt system. Their job will not be easy. No one seems to have a good solution to the problem. I think that privatizing retirement investment options would be a good start. Perhaps we should even encourage it by eliminating all taxes on investments! This would be a good time to “take one for the team” and correct a mistake made by misinformed or misled former legislators.
Monday, September 17, 2007
The Fine Line
POL 213-
In an article published by Bloomberg.com on September 14, Edwin Chen and Aliza Marcus gave an overview of the ongoing competition among the top Democratic presidential candidates to come up with a workable health insurance plan for the nation. It seems that Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama each plan to endorse at least some type of mandatory insurance.
For Senator Obama, the coverage would apply only to children, while former Senator Edwards has espoused a plan for full coverage of all U.S. citizens. Senator Clinton plans to reveal her plan for comprehensive coverage in a speech in Iowa today, but it will most likely have a more practical framework than Senator Edwards’. He opted to create a government-backed system that would compete with private firms, making insurance a viable option for anyone.
The authors hold that Clinton’s choice to ride the fine line between these two plans is an “attempt to convert a potential liability into an asset while opponents seek to make it a fatal flaw.” She faces the backlash from an early 90’s proposal in which she espoused full coverage while failing to set the stage for such a drastic change and to present a feasible plan. In this case, Clinton may have a fighting chance, since cries to reform the gigantic healthcare system are sounding louder and more frequently than they have in the past.
Her situation gives us a perfect example of someone riding the tide of public opinion in order to solve a particular political problem. Will she crash under the lip of another giant wave as constituents balk at another comprehensive plan? Or will she have enough momentum to cruise along the crest of the election tide?
Clinton does maintain a couple of distinct advantages in the insurance plan turmoil. It was certainly in her best interests to delay revealing any kind of plan until after her opponents had the chance to do so first. Her experience with the thwarted earlier attempt also gives her much more experience than any of the other candidates. In July, 65% of Americans stated that they held a “great deal” or a “fair amount” of confidence in her ability to tackle this issue. The election question certainly will not be determined without considering this hot-button topic of health insurance. The candidate able to win the crowd with his proposal looks to gain a significant lead in the polls.
In an article published by Bloomberg.com on September 14, Edwin Chen and Aliza Marcus gave an overview of the ongoing competition among the top Democratic presidential candidates to come up with a workable health insurance plan for the nation. It seems that Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama each plan to endorse at least some type of mandatory insurance.
For Senator Obama, the coverage would apply only to children, while former Senator Edwards has espoused a plan for full coverage of all U.S. citizens. Senator Clinton plans to reveal her plan for comprehensive coverage in a speech in Iowa today, but it will most likely have a more practical framework than Senator Edwards’. He opted to create a government-backed system that would compete with private firms, making insurance a viable option for anyone.
The authors hold that Clinton’s choice to ride the fine line between these two plans is an “attempt to convert a potential liability into an asset while opponents seek to make it a fatal flaw.” She faces the backlash from an early 90’s proposal in which she espoused full coverage while failing to set the stage for such a drastic change and to present a feasible plan. In this case, Clinton may have a fighting chance, since cries to reform the gigantic healthcare system are sounding louder and more frequently than they have in the past.
Her situation gives us a perfect example of someone riding the tide of public opinion in order to solve a particular political problem. Will she crash under the lip of another giant wave as constituents balk at another comprehensive plan? Or will she have enough momentum to cruise along the crest of the election tide?
Clinton does maintain a couple of distinct advantages in the insurance plan turmoil. It was certainly in her best interests to delay revealing any kind of plan until after her opponents had the chance to do so first. Her experience with the thwarted earlier attempt also gives her much more experience than any of the other candidates. In July, 65% of Americans stated that they held a “great deal” or a “fair amount” of confidence in her ability to tackle this issue. The election question certainly will not be determined without considering this hot-button topic of health insurance. The candidate able to win the crowd with his proposal looks to gain a significant lead in the polls.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Leadership structure
Have you ever found yourself placed in a position of authority, wondering how to best involve the members of your group or organization in the mission you all claim to support? You were elected or appointed to this role, and now you're wondering how you can lead effectively. I found this tension described perfectly in the first chapters of a small book entitled Culture Craft. Targeting those in Christian leadership, the book charts the traditional view of organizational structure in the Western world that has spread across the globe. This is a “top-down” approach, where power, results, and influence are implied, if not actually stated, as fundamental principles of the organizational hierarchy. I began to wonder how this view of the chain of command applied to my country, the United States, as well as to the beleaguered government in Iraq.
James Otis, in his "Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved," comments that, “the end of it [the government] is manifestly the good of the whole.” As such, he goes on to state that a democracy is possibly the best way of ruling with a balance of power. Representation was created as a practical means of carrying out the huge task of making decisions for such a large body of people. It was born out of practicality and provides the model for the “top-down” theory that we discussed earlier.
The country of Iraq brings a whole new course to the dinner table. If, like me, you struggle to identify exactly what is at stake in the current war, you may find "Which Iraq War do you Want to End?" helpful in clarifying your thoughts. In this article, Christopher Hitchens describes the conflicts currently at center stage in the Middle East. He explains that there are really at least three wars being waged: "The first, tragically, is the battle for mastery between Sunni and Shiite. The second is the campaign to isolate and defeat al-Qaida in Mesopotamia. The third is the struggle of Iraq's Kurdish minority to defend and consolidate its regional government in the north. " Faced with three such diverse objectives, the lines have blurred between our starting objective and the seemingly hopeless web that Coalition troops are experiencing today.
The occupation in Iraq started with a noble cause. Again according to James Otis, “Whenever the administrators, in any of those forms [of government], deviate from truth, justice and equity, they verge towards tyranny, and are to be opposed; and if they prove incorrigible, they will be deposed by the people, if the people are not rendered too abject.” I am wondering what the mood and attitude of the Iraqi people really was when we invaded. Were they really too spiritless to stand up for themselves, or did they simply realize just how deeply rooted are the lines of conflict in their country?
As is evidenced in the “Iraq Political Structure Rotting from the Inside and the Outside” report, Malou Innocent relates that backbiting Cabinet members, an ineffective Parliament, and the lack of legitimate use of Iraqi forces point to serious problems of functionality in the current system of government. It will take some additional research and reflection to discover just what type of government, if any, would be able to bridge the gaping holes in this country. In any case, James Otis’ point that, “the inconveniencies, not to say impossibility, attending the consultations and operations of a large body of people have made it necessary to transfer the power of the whole to a few,” is well-illustrated in this case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)