Ralph Nader talked about the poor state of America's infrastructure on Meet the Press this morning. In an earlier post, I discussed the need for upgrading our nation's water infrastructure. Am I alone is also noticing that our roads seem to be in worse shape, too?
Construction projects have always taken a long time - when I was a kid, the Southeast Expressway in Boston was perpetually under construction. But working here in suburban NY - one of the most affluent areas in the country - I am struck by how ridiculously long roadwork can take and how limited funding forces some projects to be mothballed in the middle of the construction so that resoruces can be diverted to another project. More recently, I have been disgusted and shocked by the state of some local highways - most noticably the Saw Mill and Taconic Parkways. The potholes I encounter every day are deeper and more numerous than I can ever remember. And it would seem to be worse than can be reasonably expected even with a tough winter. I lived in Moscow for two years during the collapse of communism, and their roads were never as bad as these roads are.
What's going on?
Sunday, February 22, 2004
More on gay marriage...
The panel on Chris Matthews' show this morning did a good job on this issue. As Matthews and Andrew Sullivan both pointed out, politically there is no middle ground on this issue. Politicians who come out in favor of both a ban on gay marriage and provisions allowing for civil unions for gay couples alienate both sides of the debate. This is one issue where you need to pick one or the other: you're either for equality for gays or you're not. Trying to chart a middle course means angering both sides.
If I were a politician, I'd also see the growing support for gay marriage in various cities and states around the country (including some that are far more conservative than San Francisco and Massachusetts!) - and the apparent lack of a backlash in mainstream America - as a signal that this train may be leaving the station.
If I were a politician, I'd also see the growing support for gay marriage in various cities and states around the country (including some that are far more conservative than San Francisco and Massachusetts!) - and the apparent lack of a backlash in mainstream America - as a signal that this train may be leaving the station.
Social Security
My last post mentioned the coming Social Security crisis: we'll have lots more retirees with fewer people working and paying into the system. As a result, it is almost inevitable that the system will go bankrupt.
Here's an important reminder: Social Security is retirement insurance! It is not a savings account. People who don't need it shouldn't be collecting it. Just like I can't collect on my life insurance if I'm still alive. Or get a payment from my health insurance policy if I'm healthy. Social Security is a safety net to insure that poor senior citizens don't go hungry or end up homeless. We will not keep the system solvent if baby boomers with 401ks and healthy pensions and bank accounts collect just because they paid into the system. They were paying an insurance premium that covered the costs of retirees at that time. Someone needs to explain this to the American people. We'll understand.
Asking retirees with sufficient means to support themselves to accept the fact that they will not get Social Security benefits to pay for their green fees is the first step toward a solution. Then we should start talking about other options like pushing back the age of retirement and, possibly, increasing the payroll tax. I know - that's a tax increase. But we have to pay our bills somehow, don't we?
Here's an important reminder: Social Security is retirement insurance! It is not a savings account. People who don't need it shouldn't be collecting it. Just like I can't collect on my life insurance if I'm still alive. Or get a payment from my health insurance policy if I'm healthy. Social Security is a safety net to insure that poor senior citizens don't go hungry or end up homeless. We will not keep the system solvent if baby boomers with 401ks and healthy pensions and bank accounts collect just because they paid into the system. They were paying an insurance premium that covered the costs of retirees at that time. Someone needs to explain this to the American people. We'll understand.
Asking retirees with sufficient means to support themselves to accept the fact that they will not get Social Security benefits to pay for their green fees is the first step toward a solution. Then we should start talking about other options like pushing back the age of retirement and, possibly, increasing the payroll tax. I know - that's a tax increase. But we have to pay our bills somehow, don't we?
Kerry and Edwards on This Week... And here comes Nader
I have to admit that I was a bit surprised today with the relatively strong showing by John Kerry and the lackluster performance by John Edwards on This Week with George Stephanopolous this morning. Kerry seemed so well prepared and confident. Edwards, however, kept harping on his working class upbringing and protectionist trade policies. On other issues, he was vague, at best.
Then, on Meet the Press, Ralph Nader announced he would be running as an independent this year. Count me as someone who does believe that Nader's candidacy was one of the reasons why Gore "lost" in 2000, but I was impressed with Nader's vision of this country's problems and some of his general solutions. His rhetoric is a bit too strong to catch on with the mainstream, but his message is compelling. As one of my friends said today, "Could you imagine if Edwards had Nader's message?" Wow. That would be a powerful combination.
I want to hear someone talk about real issues surrounding education today - especially the gross inequality between some inner city schools and the more affluent suburban schools. I yearn for a candidate who can talk about ways to address the loss of American jobs overseas and our trade deficit without being a knee-jerk protectionist. I want someone who can talk about the federal debt and looming social security crisis in a way that helps us tackle it now with real solutions - including a tightening of the belt in Congress while asking wealthy Americans to pay more into social security and/or not take it when they retire. I want someone who can spark and engage in a debate over the conduct and course of American foreign policy in this new world we find ourselves living in.
I want real debate this year - not just electioneering. I know that's a lot to ask, but aren't we worth it?
Then, on Meet the Press, Ralph Nader announced he would be running as an independent this year. Count me as someone who does believe that Nader's candidacy was one of the reasons why Gore "lost" in 2000, but I was impressed with Nader's vision of this country's problems and some of his general solutions. His rhetoric is a bit too strong to catch on with the mainstream, but his message is compelling. As one of my friends said today, "Could you imagine if Edwards had Nader's message?" Wow. That would be a powerful combination.
I want to hear someone talk about real issues surrounding education today - especially the gross inequality between some inner city schools and the more affluent suburban schools. I yearn for a candidate who can talk about ways to address the loss of American jobs overseas and our trade deficit without being a knee-jerk protectionist. I want someone who can talk about the federal debt and looming social security crisis in a way that helps us tackle it now with real solutions - including a tightening of the belt in Congress while asking wealthy Americans to pay more into social security and/or not take it when they retire. I want someone who can spark and engage in a debate over the conduct and course of American foreign policy in this new world we find ourselves living in.
I want real debate this year - not just electioneering. I know that's a lot to ask, but aren't we worth it?
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Gay Marriage
This issue has been raising my blood pressure all year, for two primary reasons:
1. I have had a lot of gay friends in my life, and they have all been amazing people I have been proud to count as friends. Some of the gay couples I have known have been incredible role models for happy, healthy, successful marriages. In fact, most of the long-term gay relationships I have known have been a lot more impressive than most of the straight marriages I have known. So it really burns me that anyone would suggest that gays are less worthy than straight couples when it comes to enjoying the rights and priviledges of marriage. I hate the fact that friends of mine - or anyone for that matter - are being discriminated against for something that harms no one else and is at the core of their own pursuit of happiness.
2. The talk of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages - or, as the President and his allies put it, "protecting" marriage - is blasphemy to someone who cherishes this country, our values as a nation, and the Constitution as the most amazing political document in history. We have only amended the Constitution 27 times - ten right away with the Bill of Rights. Of the 17 that came after the Bill of Rights, only one set out to limit citizens' rights rather than protect and defend them. That one instance of limiting rights - Prohibition - was a dismal failure that was eventually rendered moot by a subsequent amendment. Are we seriously going to even consider an amendment that would turn the Constitution into a document that limits freedoms for its citizens rather than protects them?
Others have wisely pointed out that there are other "threats" to the institution of marriage that seem more relevant to the status of the institution in American society: Las Vegas "drive-thru" marriages like Britney Spears' latest PR stunt and a divorce rate where more than half of American marriages will end in divorce come to mind. And is gay marriage a bigger threat to American society than the poverty gap, failing schools in our cities, an impending Social Security solvency crisis, and a federal debt that now exceeds $7 trillion dollars?
Talk of amending the Constitution to ban gay marriages is an outrage. I just hope our politicians realize it before the debate goes too far. And let's hope they start talking about real issues and real solutions to our problems. While we're at it, can we also ask for some positive vision about where American can and should be headed in the 21st century?
1. I have had a lot of gay friends in my life, and they have all been amazing people I have been proud to count as friends. Some of the gay couples I have known have been incredible role models for happy, healthy, successful marriages. In fact, most of the long-term gay relationships I have known have been a lot more impressive than most of the straight marriages I have known. So it really burns me that anyone would suggest that gays are less worthy than straight couples when it comes to enjoying the rights and priviledges of marriage. I hate the fact that friends of mine - or anyone for that matter - are being discriminated against for something that harms no one else and is at the core of their own pursuit of happiness.
2. The talk of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages - or, as the President and his allies put it, "protecting" marriage - is blasphemy to someone who cherishes this country, our values as a nation, and the Constitution as the most amazing political document in history. We have only amended the Constitution 27 times - ten right away with the Bill of Rights. Of the 17 that came after the Bill of Rights, only one set out to limit citizens' rights rather than protect and defend them. That one instance of limiting rights - Prohibition - was a dismal failure that was eventually rendered moot by a subsequent amendment. Are we seriously going to even consider an amendment that would turn the Constitution into a document that limits freedoms for its citizens rather than protects them?
Others have wisely pointed out that there are other "threats" to the institution of marriage that seem more relevant to the status of the institution in American society: Las Vegas "drive-thru" marriages like Britney Spears' latest PR stunt and a divorce rate where more than half of American marriages will end in divorce come to mind. And is gay marriage a bigger threat to American society than the poverty gap, failing schools in our cities, an impending Social Security solvency crisis, and a federal debt that now exceeds $7 trillion dollars?
Talk of amending the Constitution to ban gay marriages is an outrage. I just hope our politicians realize it before the debate goes too far. And let's hope they start talking about real issues and real solutions to our problems. While we're at it, can we also ask for some positive vision about where American can and should be headed in the 21st century?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)