Since the Nixon Administration, we've had a crazy policy of subsidizing corn production. It's a bonanza for the big agricultural companies like ADM and has become a bit of a political sacred cow - big shock. Between ADM and other companies exercising their lobbying clout and the Iowa caucuses being so important in the presidential election process, it's become as American as apple pie and baseball.
The consequences are tragic. Cheap corn made corn syrup a staple in processed foods, making the least healthy food the least expensive. Corn became the feed of choice for cattle and pigs, enabling the creation of mega cattle and pig factories and the necessity for using antibiotics to keep those cows and pigs "healthy." Fast food and soft drink sales exploded. So did childhood and adult obesity. So did drug-resistant diseases.
In recent years, ethanol became a more popular alternative to or additive to gasoline, as mandated by the government. That, in term, increased demand for corn and drove the prices up, making food that depends on corn (beef, pork, etc.) more expensive.
NPR has a series on ethanol, and one installment discusses this crazy aspect of our corn subsidies - which need to end. Decades or centuries from now, historians may well look back on American corn subsidies as one of the stupidest and dangerous government policies of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Like so many other policies that need to change, this one is tough because the status quo serves the interest of big business. But it's killing us.
Friday, January 07, 2011
Acting like Soviets
When I lived in the Soviet Union during its last years, one of the things that struck me as a critical difference between Soviets and Americans was the attitude when your neighbor had something you did not.
In America, if your neighbor bought a nice, shiny new car, you wanted one. You tried to figure out how you could get a car just like it - or better. We called it, "Keeping up with the Joneses." This mentality helped fuel economic expansion in the 20th century by increasing demand for consumer products and rewarding innovation. Your neighbor got the new color tv? Well, you had to get one, too. Sometimes that meant trying to get a promotion or bonus, or maybe even switch companies so you could earn more money. When it got out of control, it meant over-borrowing by running up our credit card bills or by borrowing against the equity in our houses.
In the Soviet Union, if your neighbor got that nice, shiny new car (ok, they weren't that nice or shiny...), you thought, "How did they get that? Must have paid someone off. I should report them to the authorities so they will take it away! I can't afford one, and even if I could, I'd have to wait 5-10 years on a waiting list in order to get one. Ivan shouldn't be able to buy one now!" People resented any evidence of success or wealth or improvement in the standard of living of their neighbors.
Now I am not a big fan of America's consumption mentality. I think it is a source of unhappiness and stress and waste. But it also is a source of innovation and ambition and progress. It is part of what unites us in the pursuit of the American dream - that we will live better than our parents and that our kids will live better than we do.
The current attacks on public employees and their unions smacks of a Soviet-style attitude of resentment: "Why should government workers have cheap health insurance or a decent pension when private sector employees increasingly do not?" Rather than denying public workers affordable health care and a pension, why don't we have a national conversation about how to really make health care affordable for all - beyond what Obamacare might or might not do? Why not discuss how everyone will live comfortably in old age, especially as life expectancy increases? Will 401k's and Social Security be enough? Can Social Security and Medicare be made solvent for the long term without making them ineffective as safety nets? If most people do have to save for their own retirement now, how can we better educate and empower them to do it wisely and successfully? After all, most high school students never learn about financial planning and investing, yet most will be responsible for managing their finances, saving for their kids' college educations, and building a pretty big nest egg for retirement.
Let's not make public employees the villains here and try to tear everyone down to a poor lowest common denominator. Let's figure out what or new vision of the American dream is and then figure out the best way to make it happen!
In America, if your neighbor bought a nice, shiny new car, you wanted one. You tried to figure out how you could get a car just like it - or better. We called it, "Keeping up with the Joneses." This mentality helped fuel economic expansion in the 20th century by increasing demand for consumer products and rewarding innovation. Your neighbor got the new color tv? Well, you had to get one, too. Sometimes that meant trying to get a promotion or bonus, or maybe even switch companies so you could earn more money. When it got out of control, it meant over-borrowing by running up our credit card bills or by borrowing against the equity in our houses.
In the Soviet Union, if your neighbor got that nice, shiny new car (ok, they weren't that nice or shiny...), you thought, "How did they get that? Must have paid someone off. I should report them to the authorities so they will take it away! I can't afford one, and even if I could, I'd have to wait 5-10 years on a waiting list in order to get one. Ivan shouldn't be able to buy one now!" People resented any evidence of success or wealth or improvement in the standard of living of their neighbors.
Now I am not a big fan of America's consumption mentality. I think it is a source of unhappiness and stress and waste. But it also is a source of innovation and ambition and progress. It is part of what unites us in the pursuit of the American dream - that we will live better than our parents and that our kids will live better than we do.
The current attacks on public employees and their unions smacks of a Soviet-style attitude of resentment: "Why should government workers have cheap health insurance or a decent pension when private sector employees increasingly do not?" Rather than denying public workers affordable health care and a pension, why don't we have a national conversation about how to really make health care affordable for all - beyond what Obamacare might or might not do? Why not discuss how everyone will live comfortably in old age, especially as life expectancy increases? Will 401k's and Social Security be enough? Can Social Security and Medicare be made solvent for the long term without making them ineffective as safety nets? If most people do have to save for their own retirement now, how can we better educate and empower them to do it wisely and successfully? After all, most high school students never learn about financial planning and investing, yet most will be responsible for managing their finances, saving for their kids' college educations, and building a pretty big nest egg for retirement.
Let's not make public employees the villains here and try to tear everyone down to a poor lowest common denominator. Let's figure out what or new vision of the American dream is and then figure out the best way to make it happen!
Fixing education in America - are we on the wrong path?
The Economist has a hopeful article about education reform in the US. While I am glad that we seem to be in the early stages of a more serious debate about the future of America's schools, I am very concerned that the debate is merely accelerating a move in the wrong direction. Seemingly every day, I hear or read about someone pointing the finger at teachers and teacher unions as the problem. We need more accountability for teachers! Let's test kids more so we can use those tests to determine how well teachers teach, then fire the ones whose students do poorly on the tests and increase the pay for the ones whose kids improve the most. Yet while some talk about needing to recruit better-qualified teachers and pay them more if they are effective, governors across the country this week are targeting public employees, their unions, and their benefits (health care and pensions) in order to address dire fiscal crises. So we're going to cut teacher pensions and health care, and cut teaching positions and/or slow the growth in salaries?
I've been teaching for over a decade now. I love it. It's harder than I ever thought, and I hate grading. But it's incredibly rewarding, challenging, and interesting every day. I learn so much from my students and about myself. I get up at 5am every day and I can't wait to get to school!
I'm also incredibly fortunate to teach in an affluent school district with supportive parents and more resources than many districts in the country. I've had supportive administrators, too, including my first principal who was a mentor to me and encouraged me to take risks and develop my own philosophy toward teaching.
So while I acknowledge that my perspective is somewhat limited, I'd like to weigh in on the growing debate in the US about how to improve our sub-par educational system.
I think we've been moving in the wrong direction in terms of national policy for a decade. No Child Left Behind created underfunded mandates for states and put us firmly on the track of relying on standardized tests to judge effectiveness. That's extremely flawed and, overall, harmful to education. The Obama/Duncan approach toward education reform similarly emphasizes testing, but now to evaluate teachers, not just schools.
Standardized tests have their place. Designed well, they can be one way of measuring minimal standards of proficiency for certain skills. But, in the end, they merely measure how each student can do on one given day on a limited range of tasks. They often test how well kids memorize material that, two weeks later, they forget. They really test how well you take a test. When is the last time you took a multiple-choice test where you work?
The reliance on standardized tests, I believe, has helped dumb-down America's schools in all too many cases. Rather than raising standards, they have often lowered them. Many teachers now "teach to the test," relying on lecture-based instruction to "cover" material that might be on a test and assessing students' learning by giving them tests that mimic the standardized ones at the end of the year.
The purpose of America's schools shouldn't be to raise test scores. I believe the purpose of America's schools should be to prepare our kids for 21st century careers and to teach them how to participate successfully in our society. Kids need to learn how to innovate, problem-solve, and collaborate with peers. They need to learn how to research, analyze, and communicate effectively, in writing and verbally. They need to understand how the economy works, how to budget and manage their money, and how to invest for the future. They need to know how to take care of their bodies through exercise and good nutrition. They need to know how to evaluate a doctor's advice and how to understand news about medical and scientific studies. They need to know how to be effective citizens in a democracy - how to follow and understand the news, how to discuss political and economic issues with their relatives, friends and co-workers, and how to participate in a democracy. Kids need to know how to figure out for whom to vote, how to vote, how to lobby their elected representatives, and how to share their opinions with their fellow citizens (letters to the editor, Twitter, Facebook, blogging, etc.).
For the most part, standardized tests do not assess how well we are meeting those needs. We will not have the best chance of meeting those needs by teaching to the test by lecturing kids and having them memorize facts they can look up online in 30 seconds. If we lower our expectations to the standards of the tests, teachers and kids will lower their expectations and those needs will not be met. Basing teachers' salaries and job security on how well their students do on standardized tests is the path to mediocrity, not innovation and excellence.
We need better and higher standards. We need better ways of evaluating what we do in the classroom. We need better ways of preparing kids in poor inner city and rural districts for elementary school, so they can read and write and focus the rest of their academic careers on rising to high expectations. We need to train our teachers to be more innovative and creative, to take risks in the classroom in order to best address the needs and aspirations of the students they work with each year.
What do you think our goals should be? What's the best way to achieve them? How do we do it in this fiscal climate?
I've been teaching for over a decade now. I love it. It's harder than I ever thought, and I hate grading. But it's incredibly rewarding, challenging, and interesting every day. I learn so much from my students and about myself. I get up at 5am every day and I can't wait to get to school!
I'm also incredibly fortunate to teach in an affluent school district with supportive parents and more resources than many districts in the country. I've had supportive administrators, too, including my first principal who was a mentor to me and encouraged me to take risks and develop my own philosophy toward teaching.
So while I acknowledge that my perspective is somewhat limited, I'd like to weigh in on the growing debate in the US about how to improve our sub-par educational system.
I think we've been moving in the wrong direction in terms of national policy for a decade. No Child Left Behind created underfunded mandates for states and put us firmly on the track of relying on standardized tests to judge effectiveness. That's extremely flawed and, overall, harmful to education. The Obama/Duncan approach toward education reform similarly emphasizes testing, but now to evaluate teachers, not just schools.
Standardized tests have their place. Designed well, they can be one way of measuring minimal standards of proficiency for certain skills. But, in the end, they merely measure how each student can do on one given day on a limited range of tasks. They often test how well kids memorize material that, two weeks later, they forget. They really test how well you take a test. When is the last time you took a multiple-choice test where you work?
The reliance on standardized tests, I believe, has helped dumb-down America's schools in all too many cases. Rather than raising standards, they have often lowered them. Many teachers now "teach to the test," relying on lecture-based instruction to "cover" material that might be on a test and assessing students' learning by giving them tests that mimic the standardized ones at the end of the year.
The purpose of America's schools shouldn't be to raise test scores. I believe the purpose of America's schools should be to prepare our kids for 21st century careers and to teach them how to participate successfully in our society. Kids need to learn how to innovate, problem-solve, and collaborate with peers. They need to learn how to research, analyze, and communicate effectively, in writing and verbally. They need to understand how the economy works, how to budget and manage their money, and how to invest for the future. They need to know how to take care of their bodies through exercise and good nutrition. They need to know how to evaluate a doctor's advice and how to understand news about medical and scientific studies. They need to know how to be effective citizens in a democracy - how to follow and understand the news, how to discuss political and economic issues with their relatives, friends and co-workers, and how to participate in a democracy. Kids need to know how to figure out for whom to vote, how to vote, how to lobby their elected representatives, and how to share their opinions with their fellow citizens (letters to the editor, Twitter, Facebook, blogging, etc.).
For the most part, standardized tests do not assess how well we are meeting those needs. We will not have the best chance of meeting those needs by teaching to the test by lecturing kids and having them memorize facts they can look up online in 30 seconds. If we lower our expectations to the standards of the tests, teachers and kids will lower their expectations and those needs will not be met. Basing teachers' salaries and job security on how well their students do on standardized tests is the path to mediocrity, not innovation and excellence.
We need better and higher standards. We need better ways of evaluating what we do in the classroom. We need better ways of preparing kids in poor inner city and rural districts for elementary school, so they can read and write and focus the rest of their academic careers on rising to high expectations. We need to train our teachers to be more innovative and creative, to take risks in the classroom in order to best address the needs and aspirations of the students they work with each year.
What do you think our goals should be? What's the best way to achieve them? How do we do it in this fiscal climate?
Thursday, January 06, 2011
I've had it!
I am increasingly frustrated and angry with the direction of our country and the tragically flawed nature of our political system. I'm looking for people who share my concern so we can figure out what to do - how we can raise our voices and join together to make sure that we and our kids have a brighter future.
The root of all evil seems to be the infection of the political system with corporate money. How can we expect the government - no matter which party is in charge - to do what is best for the common good when corporations and other wealthy donors have bought access and influence that is unchallenged? Just this week, we learned that hedge funds bankrolled the GOP toward the end of the midterm elections, providing $10 million in campaign financing.
Why should it surprise us when Obama appoints a top JP Morgan Chase executive to be his chief of staff? Why should we be surprised when his budget director leaves to go work for Citigroup?
Why should we be surprised when the first step in health care reform was to cut a private deal with the major companies involved in health care?
Why should we be surprised that the GOP had as its top priority to extend tax cuts on the wealthiest 2%? Why should we be surprised that the most likely solution to fixing Social Security's solvency is to make middle and working class people pay more in payroll taxes and postpone retirement, rather than reducing future benefits for the wealthy or taxing more of their current income?
Why should we be surprised when eight presidents - from Nixon to Obama - fail to provide a serious energy policy to get us off our addiction to Middle East oil? Why should we be surprised that oil companies are among the most heavily subsidized by the government?
Why should we be surprised when some of our leaders ignore science and deny climate change? Why should we be surprised when even those who believe in science do nothing to address the need to reduce carbon emissions?
Why should we be surprised when the US government spends tens of billions of dollars subsidizing agriculture in ways that make our citizens - and especially our kids - obese?
Americans need jobs, we need to rebuild and modernize our infrastructure, we need major investments in new energy technology, and we need to fix and better fund our educational system. But who is lobbying Congress to make sure that gets done? And who is lobbying Congress to make sure it gets done not by borrowing from our children's future income but by asking those who benefit the most from our country's wealth to pay more according to their means and by ending subsidies that keep us addicted to oil and unhealthy food?
We're a great country, capable of solving our problems and giving our kids - and the world - a brighter, healthier, safer future. Our challenges might be great, but so is our capacity for innovation and hard work. But unless and until our government stops serving the needs of the few and puts the needs of the average American first, much of that capacity will go to waste.
Thanks to the Supreme Court, the only way to remove the stranglehold big money has on our political system may be to amend the Constitution. So do we need to rally together to make that happen? Is it even possible? Will politicians in DC and state legislatures choose to cut off the hand that feeds them? Or do we need a third party that will counter the Tea Party and raise support for a platform that will fix our fiscal mess while investing in our future? Is there another way, one that is more unconventional that takes advantage of social networking and the technology of the 21st century to truly transform grassroots activism?
I would love to hear from others who share my frustration and anger. I especially would love to hear from younger Americans - those in their teens and 20s - who have the most to gain and lose. You have the power - and the time and energy - to make a real difference. Time to stand up and be heard!
The root of all evil seems to be the infection of the political system with corporate money. How can we expect the government - no matter which party is in charge - to do what is best for the common good when corporations and other wealthy donors have bought access and influence that is unchallenged? Just this week, we learned that hedge funds bankrolled the GOP toward the end of the midterm elections, providing $10 million in campaign financing.
Why should it surprise us when Obama appoints a top JP Morgan Chase executive to be his chief of staff? Why should we be surprised when his budget director leaves to go work for Citigroup?
Why should we be surprised when the first step in health care reform was to cut a private deal with the major companies involved in health care?
Why should we be surprised that the GOP had as its top priority to extend tax cuts on the wealthiest 2%? Why should we be surprised that the most likely solution to fixing Social Security's solvency is to make middle and working class people pay more in payroll taxes and postpone retirement, rather than reducing future benefits for the wealthy or taxing more of their current income?
Why should we be surprised when eight presidents - from Nixon to Obama - fail to provide a serious energy policy to get us off our addiction to Middle East oil? Why should we be surprised that oil companies are among the most heavily subsidized by the government?
Why should we be surprised when some of our leaders ignore science and deny climate change? Why should we be surprised when even those who believe in science do nothing to address the need to reduce carbon emissions?
Why should we be surprised when the US government spends tens of billions of dollars subsidizing agriculture in ways that make our citizens - and especially our kids - obese?
Americans need jobs, we need to rebuild and modernize our infrastructure, we need major investments in new energy technology, and we need to fix and better fund our educational system. But who is lobbying Congress to make sure that gets done? And who is lobbying Congress to make sure it gets done not by borrowing from our children's future income but by asking those who benefit the most from our country's wealth to pay more according to their means and by ending subsidies that keep us addicted to oil and unhealthy food?
We're a great country, capable of solving our problems and giving our kids - and the world - a brighter, healthier, safer future. Our challenges might be great, but so is our capacity for innovation and hard work. But unless and until our government stops serving the needs of the few and puts the needs of the average American first, much of that capacity will go to waste.
Thanks to the Supreme Court, the only way to remove the stranglehold big money has on our political system may be to amend the Constitution. So do we need to rally together to make that happen? Is it even possible? Will politicians in DC and state legislatures choose to cut off the hand that feeds them? Or do we need a third party that will counter the Tea Party and raise support for a platform that will fix our fiscal mess while investing in our future? Is there another way, one that is more unconventional that takes advantage of social networking and the technology of the 21st century to truly transform grassroots activism?
I would love to hear from others who share my frustration and anger. I especially would love to hear from younger Americans - those in their teens and 20s - who have the most to gain and lose. You have the power - and the time and energy - to make a real difference. Time to stand up and be heard!
Monday, August 23, 2010
Sobering op-ed from Friedman
Tom Friedman had a sobering and, as usual, pretty on target op-ed on the structural problems the US is facing in the coming years.
Our political leaders are not likely to forge the "grand bargain" Friedman calls for, so who will? Or who will demand it? The Tea Party is a ridiculous anti-tax, conservative movement. But it has proven that it is possible to get the country's attention with some grassroots activism.
Time for people who care about our country's future and want to really make America strong and prosperous in the 21st century to organize and demand:
- a new stimulus bill that invests in infrastructure, education, new energy technologies, and tax breaks for new businesses
- an end to the Bush tax cuts once unemployment drops below 7 or 8 percent
- a plan that will make Social Security and Medicare sustainable for the foreseeable future while preserving their support for those Americans who most need it. That means Bill Gates and Warren Buffett may get less...
Our political leaders are not likely to forge the "grand bargain" Friedman calls for, so who will? Or who will demand it? The Tea Party is a ridiculous anti-tax, conservative movement. But it has proven that it is possible to get the country's attention with some grassroots activism.
Time for people who care about our country's future and want to really make America strong and prosperous in the 21st century to organize and demand:
- a new stimulus bill that invests in infrastructure, education, new energy technologies, and tax breaks for new businesses
- an end to the Bush tax cuts once unemployment drops below 7 or 8 percent
- a plan that will make Social Security and Medicare sustainable for the foreseeable future while preserving their support for those Americans who most need it. That means Bill Gates and Warren Buffett may get less...
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Reply to an important comment - why should the wealthy pay more?
Someone posted the following comment in response to an earlier post:
I don't think many would disagree that we should be paying taxes. The real debate (in my opinion) is not should we pay taxes but why should those who earn the most be supporting those who contribute the least. I certainly expect to "pay for what (I) get" however my question is why should others "get" what I am paying for?
I don't think many would disagree that we should be paying taxes. The real debate (in my opinion) is not should we pay taxes but why should those who earn the most be supporting those who contribute the least. I certainly expect to "pay for what (I) get" however my question is why should others "get" what I am paying for?
I hear this a lot and it is an important and common point of view. I'd love to take a crack at replying...
First, I think a lot of people don't like paying taxes think they are "Taxed Enough Already" (the TEA Party people), and would like to see their taxes cut further. Unfortunately, no one really forces them to acknowledge that we pay little in federal taxes compared to other developed nations and, because we cut taxes almost a decade ago, we end up borrowing from our kids' future earnings to finance much of what our government does.
Also, in my experience, most people who are reluctant to pay more in taxes can't come up with a credible plan for spending less so we don't have to borrow. And most of the ones that I know have at least one or two major budget items they fervently want to protect (defense spending, Social Security, Medicare for their elderly parent, etc.). In general, we Americans want more from the government but refuse to pay for it. That is fiscally irresponsible and morally wrong.
Now, as to the main point in the comment, about "paying for what I get" but not wanting to have others "get" what the wealthy in America pay for, it's a fundamental question of what is fair and sensible in American tax policy.
The fundamental reason for a progressive tax system, in which those who make more pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, is that those who earn more can afford more (the poor and middle classes spend most or all of their income on necessities - the rich have more discretionary income and can afford to pay a higher percentage of income in taxes). In addition, the theory goes, wealthy Americans benefit more, overall, from having a government that protects us, makes sure the financial system functions well (um, that is, most of the time?), and insures a healthy level of economic competition and the rule of law. I agree that, in general, a progressive system of taxation makes sense and is "fair" for those reasons. So does Warren Buffett. In fact, he has argued that our tax system offers so many loopholes and deductions for the wealthy that in many cases they pay less than middle class Americans.
But I also think it is ok to think selfishly. The reality is that wealthy people in this country generally do better when the middle class is growing and prospering. A healthy middle class buys more goods and services from businesses that the wealthy class owns and invests in. So if we make sure that the middle and poor classes pay less in taxes and have more money to spend, that's good for everybody. Just look at the 90s - the wealthy paid more in taxes than they do now, but the middle class did better and so did the overall economy - and the rich got richer!
There's one final point I'd like to make: we are in this together as a country. We choose to live here and participate in a social contract that tasks the government with providing for the general welfare of the country and its citizens. That means that, sometimes, those of us who have more provide aid and support to those who have less. It is one of our greatest traits as a people, I would argue. We are, generally, a kind and generous people. That's why we have had a social safety net for seven decades. And, while it does not work perfectly and there are those who take advantage of it, in general it serves us well and I am proud that we have one.
Thanks for the important comment and the chance to respond.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Some things should be sacred
The insane debate over the proposed Mulsim community center and mosque near - not at - Ground Zero in Manhattan is incredibly frustrating and disappointing for me. I fully understand and, sadly, accept the current state of politics in this country, in which every issue is partisan and where politicians carefully couch their statements in response to the current winds of public opinion or the latest statements of pundits on FOX News or MSNBC.
But some things in this country should be sacred, like freedom of religion. I know that separation of church and state can be murky, at times, but every American - especially our political leaders - should cast aside partisan agendas when it comes to our core freedoms. If someone wants to build a mosque, or a church, or a synagogue near Ground Zero, that is their right (provided they meet whatever local zoning and building codes apply). Period. Politicians should not try to score political points - or capture votes - by suggesting one religious group should be treated differently than any other.
I also am disturbed by Newt Gingrich - who, in spite of his intelligence is a crass political opportunist primarily concerned with his own political future - suggesting that Islam is the equivalent of the Nazis. So now Newt - and all too many Americans - would have us condemn all Muslims for the sins of a small number of crazy radicals. Great. That really is crazy.
No American who truly cares about the values millions of Americans have fought to defend should allow this line of reasoning to go unchallenged.
I know next to nothing about the group of imam behind the proposed community center and mosque. But I do know Rabbi David Saperstein, head of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and and one of the most honorable Americans I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with. Rabbi Saperstein wrote eloquently and powerfully in support of the proposed community center/mosque. That's just about the best endorsement you can get.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Where are the Millenials - and their parents?
There is a serious crisis looming for the Millenials (people in their teens and twenties), but most of them seem oblivious.
Our exploding federal debt and the financial woes of Social Security and Medicare (though the health care reform helped this a bit) threaten to doom my kids and others of their generation to a bleak economic future. Left unchecked, current trends will leave them with much higher income taxes to merely pay the interest on our debt while at the same time having fewer jobs and lower wages because our country can't afford to fix/improve education and infrastructure. Moreover, if waiting to fix Social Security and Medicare results in draconian benefit cuts down the road, our kids will have to spend more of their money taking care of us, their parents. Yikes! My generation is on course to be the first in over a century to leave our kids with fewer opportunities and a lower standard of living than we had.
Now, one of the problems in tackling this issue is that, right now, we actually need to spend and borrow more to make sure the fragile economic recovery takes hold. If we don't, the deficit will soar even more as the economy tanks and tax revenues evaporate. We need a solid economic recovery to create jobs, which will raise tax revenues and make it easier to get our fiscal house in order.
There are some Millenials who get it - like We Have POWER Now (http://wehavepowernow.org). But more need to join their cause - NOW! And we, their parents, need to join forces, too, to force our elected leaders to have some guts and make the tough but smart choices. It means having clear priorities and, ultimately, it means paying slightly higher taxes and, once the current economic crisis has passed, reigning in spending so our kids won't face astronomically higher taxes for a crippled government in a stagnant economy. It's called being the responsible adults.
Our exploding federal debt and the financial woes of Social Security and Medicare (though the health care reform helped this a bit) threaten to doom my kids and others of their generation to a bleak economic future. Left unchecked, current trends will leave them with much higher income taxes to merely pay the interest on our debt while at the same time having fewer jobs and lower wages because our country can't afford to fix/improve education and infrastructure. Moreover, if waiting to fix Social Security and Medicare results in draconian benefit cuts down the road, our kids will have to spend more of their money taking care of us, their parents. Yikes! My generation is on course to be the first in over a century to leave our kids with fewer opportunities and a lower standard of living than we had.
Now, one of the problems in tackling this issue is that, right now, we actually need to spend and borrow more to make sure the fragile economic recovery takes hold. If we don't, the deficit will soar even more as the economy tanks and tax revenues evaporate. We need a solid economic recovery to create jobs, which will raise tax revenues and make it easier to get our fiscal house in order.
There are some Millenials who get it - like We Have POWER Now (http://wehavepowernow.org). But more need to join their cause - NOW! And we, their parents, need to join forces, too, to force our elected leaders to have some guts and make the tough but smart choices. It means having clear priorities and, ultimately, it means paying slightly higher taxes and, once the current economic crisis has passed, reigning in spending so our kids won't face astronomically higher taxes for a crippled government in a stagnant economy. It's called being the responsible adults.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Exit strategies and deadlines
As I have been working through my personal beliefs about the war in Afghanistan, it has reminded me of something Josh Muravchik said in the mid-1990s during the debate over the genocide in Bosnia. When someone asked about what the US exit strategy might be if the US got involved militarily, Josh essentially said, "When we send troops into war, the other guys should be the ones looking for the exits! I'm not interested in exit strategies, I'm interested in success strategies." (Hope I did justice to Josh's quote...)
I think that's a great philosophy. We need clear goals and a sensible plan for achieving them. We leave when our goals have been achieved - not when an artificial deadline was passed. I understand the rationale behind having deadlines, but they usually seem to be a counterproductive substitute for clear, achievable and observable goals and the will to achieve them.
Unless President Obama can provide those goals - and the ones we have right now do not meet those standards - we should not be wasting lives or money there.
I think that's a great philosophy. We need clear goals and a sensible plan for achieving them. We leave when our goals have been achieved - not when an artificial deadline was passed. I understand the rationale behind having deadlines, but they usually seem to be a counterproductive substitute for clear, achievable and observable goals and the will to achieve them.
Unless President Obama can provide those goals - and the ones we have right now do not meet those standards - we should not be wasting lives or money there.
My tipping point on Afghanistan
I guess the thing that finally led me to essentially give up on Afghanistan was the Wikileaks publication of US military documents on the war in July. Based on what I have read about them so far, the documents don't offer much we didn't already know or suspect. But, for me, the war in Afghanistan has really been about Pakistan for years. Once the Taliban was routed and bin Laden escaped, I believed we needed to stabilize Afghanistan in order to help stabilize Pakistan. I feared that if we abandoned Afghanistan - or looked like we were going to - the Pakistani government would hedge its bets by increasing its support for the Taliban.
The Wikileaks dump of Pentagon documents was a wake up call for me - the Pakistani government has continued to support the Taliban in Afghanistan and will continue to do so. they believe we won't stay in Afghanistan forever. In addition, they see the Taliban as a counterweight to increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan. Obama's deadline of next summer for beginning a US withdrawal just reenforced Pakistan's conclusion that we will inevitably pack up our troops and leave.
In terms of stabilizing Pakistan, it seems that what we do now in Afghanistan will make little or no difference. Indeed, one could make the argument that, if anything, our involvement in Afghanistan increases anti-American sentiment in Pakistan.
In the end, if what we really care about is the stability of Pakistan - and its nuclear weapons - and trying to go after Al Qaeda and extremists who seek to destabilize Pakistan's government, then we should focus on what we can reasonably do inside Pakistan and reducing tensions between Pakistan and India.
The Wikileaks dump of Pentagon documents was a wake up call for me - the Pakistani government has continued to support the Taliban in Afghanistan and will continue to do so. they believe we won't stay in Afghanistan forever. In addition, they see the Taliban as a counterweight to increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan. Obama's deadline of next summer for beginning a US withdrawal just reenforced Pakistan's conclusion that we will inevitably pack up our troops and leave.
In terms of stabilizing Pakistan, it seems that what we do now in Afghanistan will make little or no difference. Indeed, one could make the argument that, if anything, our involvement in Afghanistan increases anti-American sentiment in Pakistan.
In the end, if what we really care about is the stability of Pakistan - and its nuclear weapons - and trying to go after Al Qaeda and extremists who seek to destabilize Pakistan's government, then we should focus on what we can reasonably do inside Pakistan and reducing tensions between Pakistan and India.
Time is up in Afghanistan
While the New York Times reported this week that Gen. Petraeus and other US military officials in Afghanistan are arguing for more time to implement their counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan, it seems pretty clear that it is actually time to hasten our withdrawal and scale back our goals.
When we first invaded Afghanistan in 2001, our goals were clear and sensible: Attack and destroy Al Qaeda camps, kill or capture Al Qaeda members and leaders, and remove from power the Taliban leadership that had provided Al Qaeda with a safe haven from which to operate. While we allowed Osama bin Laden and some of the Al Qaeda leadership to escape to Pakistan, we otherwise accomplished these clear and achievable goals.
After that, our goals became increasingly unclear and less achievable. According to the same NYT article this week, President Obama's goals include:
"securing Afghan population centers so that Al Qaeda could not use the country again as a launching pad for attacks on the United States, promoting good government, anticorruption and rule-of-law measures..."
Al Qaeda is now using Pakistan, Yemen, and other countries as bases of operations. Permanently preventing it from returning to Afghanistan is not necessary - Afghanistan is not indispensable to bin Laden.
I am all in favor of "good government," fighting corruption, and promoting the rule of law, but those are not clear goals that are observable and achievable. How would one know when we've achieved them? Do we keep tens of thousands of US soldiers there until we are sure we have? And should we spend billions of dollars and risk countless more US (and Afghani) lives while we ignore violence and horrors in Darfur, Congo, and elsewhere?
Moreover, we really can't afford this war anymore. Sure, if it were a battle to the death between us and bin Laden, I'd want us to sell as many Treasury bonds as we could to finance it. But I am not willing to mortgage our country's future (my daughters' futures) to pursue Obama's vague goals. It is time to invest in our future, rebuild our infrastructure, develop new energy technologies, and fix our schools. As Tom Friedman says, the nation-building we most urgently need is right here at home.
I really don't like the overdrawn Vietnam War analogies, but it is starting to feel like Obama is acting like LBJ - he knows we can't "win," but he is determined to not be the president who "loses."
When we first invaded Afghanistan in 2001, our goals were clear and sensible: Attack and destroy Al Qaeda camps, kill or capture Al Qaeda members and leaders, and remove from power the Taliban leadership that had provided Al Qaeda with a safe haven from which to operate. While we allowed Osama bin Laden and some of the Al Qaeda leadership to escape to Pakistan, we otherwise accomplished these clear and achievable goals.
After that, our goals became increasingly unclear and less achievable. According to the same NYT article this week, President Obama's goals include:
"securing Afghan population centers so that Al Qaeda could not use the country again as a launching pad for attacks on the United States, promoting good government, anticorruption and rule-of-law measures..."
Al Qaeda is now using Pakistan, Yemen, and other countries as bases of operations. Permanently preventing it from returning to Afghanistan is not necessary - Afghanistan is not indispensable to bin Laden.
I am all in favor of "good government," fighting corruption, and promoting the rule of law, but those are not clear goals that are observable and achievable. How would one know when we've achieved them? Do we keep tens of thousands of US soldiers there until we are sure we have? And should we spend billions of dollars and risk countless more US (and Afghani) lives while we ignore violence and horrors in Darfur, Congo, and elsewhere?
Moreover, we really can't afford this war anymore. Sure, if it were a battle to the death between us and bin Laden, I'd want us to sell as many Treasury bonds as we could to finance it. But I am not willing to mortgage our country's future (my daughters' futures) to pursue Obama's vague goals. It is time to invest in our future, rebuild our infrastructure, develop new energy technologies, and fix our schools. As Tom Friedman says, the nation-building we most urgently need is right here at home.
I really don't like the overdrawn Vietnam War analogies, but it is starting to feel like Obama is acting like LBJ - he knows we can't "win," but he is determined to not be the president who "loses."
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Some thoughts on the federal debt...
I guess my beliefs on the federal government's debt are pretty straightforward - and, at least I'd like to believe, fairly reasonable, logical, and sound from an economics point of view:
- The government owing money is not a bad thing. Governments need to borrow money, and at times it is the best way to pay for something, especially a short-term, unexpected expense (stimulus spending during a recession, a sudden military buildup at the stat of a war, etc.)
- In normal times - decent economic growth, low unemployment, and relative peace - the federal government should not borrow much, if any, money. That's the time to pay down existing debt (so you have room to borrow in future crises, plus it frees up capital for private borrowing/investment) and invest in the future: improve education, fund more research in medicine and new technologies, repair old roads and bridges and build new ones, add new infrastructure (nationwide wifi, for example), etc.
- Government debt can be a bad thing when it becomes too big a percentage of GDP (the tipping point is probably somewhere around 90 or 100% of GDP). Just ask Japan. It can suck up too much of the available capital, stifling private investment. Interest rates go up, making all borrowing more expensive and suffocating economic growth. And taxes need to be raised during what is likely a period of economic stagnation, because the government can't borrow as freely (or cheaply) and just making the interest payments becomes a huge part of the government's budget. Other budget items need to be cut - defense, education, care for the poor and elderly - because the debt payments squeeze them out.
So what does that mean about current fiscal policy? Well, it means Bush got it wrong - he cut taxes and borrowed heavily during "normal" times, then added to the borrowing during two wars, never raising taxes to help finance them as they dragged on endlessly. He also added a historic unfunded entitlement - medicare prescription drug benefits for the elderly - which compounded our fiscal woes.
As for Obama, he seems to be trying to hit the mark. Short-term additional borrowing to prevent the Great Depression II and spark a sustainable recovery. If anything, we might need more stimulus borrowing in the short-term. But he says he wants to start looking toward getting our fiscal house in order as soon as it is feasible - and has commissioned a bipartisan task force to come up with recommendations by December. We'll see if that bears fruit. He also has Defense Secretary Gates proposing cost-cutting measures to responsibly shrink the defense budget. The devil is in the details, but that is something that has to happen. Obama also wants to, eventually, end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. That's a no-brainer.
So Obama may be on a sensible course. But the politics of fiscal policy in the US have been crazy ever since Reagan and the GOP made paying taxes almost seem unpatriotic. We pay less in income taxes than most, if not all, developed countries. Most of us pay less than we did two years ago. And many Americans pay little or no income taxes. It's time we all grew up and acknowledged that we need to pay for what we get - not just expect to get what we pay for. Time to pay our bills, not borrow from our children's future earnings.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
An initial draft of the "vision"
While my list of issues is a bit daunting, I thought I'd take a first crack at the vision piece. Not sure how many of the issues it will encompass, but here's a first draft. Again, feedback/comments are welcome.
A Vision for America's 21st Century
The first priority is making sure that we have a sustainable economic recovery that includes investments in our long-term prosperity and competitiveness. If we don't do that, we won't be able to afford to address any of the other problems. That means additional short-term borrowing (fortunately, at close to zero percent interest!) to provide more federal spending on infrastructure repair and upgrades (roads, bridges, electrical grid) and new technology (nationwide broadband/wifi), education, and new energy (expanding the investments in last year's stimulus package).
Even before the recovery is assured, we should commit to putting our fiscal house in order, so we don't bankrupt the country and have our kids paying half their income in taxes to pay the interest on our debt. The actual steps in this direction might have to wait until the recovery is assured, but then it means a combination of reforming Social Security and Medicare so they are sustainable for the long-term, plus raising taxes some (eliminate Bush's tax cut on wealthy and add a value-added tax; this combo might allow us to eliminate or at least reduce income taxes on those making less than 10k/year). And we need to reduce spending - phase out subsidies for corn (and reduce obesity as an added benefit) and oil companies, end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, reconfigure our military (beyond what Gates has proposed) so we can address the threats of the 21st century more cost effectively, etc. This must include reduced dependence on military and intelligence contractors. We can neither afford to pay a premium for those services, nor can we feel comfortable financing the creation of private armies and intelligence services.
Our long-term focus then turns to:
A Vision for America's 21st Century
The first priority is making sure that we have a sustainable economic recovery that includes investments in our long-term prosperity and competitiveness. If we don't do that, we won't be able to afford to address any of the other problems. That means additional short-term borrowing (fortunately, at close to zero percent interest!) to provide more federal spending on infrastructure repair and upgrades (roads, bridges, electrical grid) and new technology (nationwide broadband/wifi), education, and new energy (expanding the investments in last year's stimulus package).
Even before the recovery is assured, we should commit to putting our fiscal house in order, so we don't bankrupt the country and have our kids paying half their income in taxes to pay the interest on our debt. The actual steps in this direction might have to wait until the recovery is assured, but then it means a combination of reforming Social Security and Medicare so they are sustainable for the long-term, plus raising taxes some (eliminate Bush's tax cut on wealthy and add a value-added tax; this combo might allow us to eliminate or at least reduce income taxes on those making less than 10k/year). And we need to reduce spending - phase out subsidies for corn (and reduce obesity as an added benefit) and oil companies, end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, reconfigure our military (beyond what Gates has proposed) so we can address the threats of the 21st century more cost effectively, etc. This must include reduced dependence on military and intelligence contractors. We can neither afford to pay a premium for those services, nor can we feel comfortable financing the creation of private armies and intelligence services.
Our long-term focus then turns to:
- Fixing education so it offers a real path out of poverty and encourages creativity and innovation, not rote memorization and regurgitation.
- Reforming campaign finance and the role of the government so the focus is on government protecting us (from unsafe water, chemicals in our consumer products, food, etc.), not protecting the companies and donors.
- Creation of new private sector jobs in new energy and other 21st century technologies.
- Preparation for the long-term effects of climate change that may no longer be reversible.
- Making America the true beacon of human rights, again, by making the fight against human trafficking and for empowerment of women a global priority.
- Reforming our military and intelligences services to focus on the specific threats to America's security (loose nukes, leaders and training centers for terrorists, etc.) and joining with our NATO allies to combat mass murder and genocide (Congo, Darfur, etc.).
Well, that's a first draft. Comments/thoughts/suggestions?
The issues...
So here is an initial list of the issues that I think are important/critical and in dire need of attention. Part of my goal in blogging is to come up with a more focused list of priorities and some way of forging my thoughts about them into some kind of coherent vision. I eagerly welcome comments/feedback on the list and my thinking about it as it evolves. I started this list as part of an email exchange with a friend, who added to it.
The Issues That Concern or Scare Me Most
The Issues That Concern or Scare Me Most
- Exploding federal debt
- Systemic poverty in the US
- The growing gap between the rich and everyone else; this includes the stagnation and decline of the middle class
- Dependence on fossil fuels, especially foreign oil
- Nuclear proliferation and loose nukes
- Our inefficient and costly healthcare system (we'll see how well the recent healthcare reform fixes this. It is at least a first step...)
- Human/sex trafficking
- Campaign finance reform
- The future of the media (Fox News, decline of newspapers, etc.)
- Climate change
- Decline of infrastructure
- Water quality in US
- Water shortages worldwide
- Lack of public faith in government/politics
- Outsourcing of military and intelligence work to contractors (Blackwater, etc.)
Moving forward on the blogging...
This blog has been an afterthought for the most part. I have other things that have been more "urgent" or important, or I just wondered whether anyone else would even be interested in what I have to say on a regular basis.
I guess from here on out my philosophy is this: I will blog when it moves me or when it is useful to get some thoughts or reactions down in writing. Making it "public" rather than a private journal is useful because it forces me to be a bit more thoughtful and take ait a bit more seriously, because someone might actually read it.
But I also hope to blog from time to time because my voice does matter. Everyone's does, and I mean that. I have seen how one person can make a difference, how an "average American" can affect the course of history. But I also believe my voice matters because I have a unique perspective as a teacher and former diplomat and activist. And I care about some issues that are critical to our country's future and my views tend to be pretty well-informed. So maybe, just maybe, someone will read this and it will make them think a bit more about something important. And that's a start.
My first order of business is to try to use this space to flesh out a vision for America in the 21st century. A modest goal, I know. ;-) But I have a huge number of issues I care about and that all seem "urgent," so I need a place to think through the priorities and see if I can construct an overall vision that seems to address the big ones. We'll see if I succeed on any level.
I guess from here on out my philosophy is this: I will blog when it moves me or when it is useful to get some thoughts or reactions down in writing. Making it "public" rather than a private journal is useful because it forces me to be a bit more thoughtful and take ait a bit more seriously, because someone might actually read it.
But I also hope to blog from time to time because my voice does matter. Everyone's does, and I mean that. I have seen how one person can make a difference, how an "average American" can affect the course of history. But I also believe my voice matters because I have a unique perspective as a teacher and former diplomat and activist. And I care about some issues that are critical to our country's future and my views tend to be pretty well-informed. So maybe, just maybe, someone will read this and it will make them think a bit more about something important. And that's a start.
My first order of business is to try to use this space to flesh out a vision for America in the 21st century. A modest goal, I know. ;-) But I have a huge number of issues I care about and that all seem "urgent," so I need a place to think through the priorities and see if I can construct an overall vision that seems to address the big ones. We'll see if I succeed on any level.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Monday, March 01, 2010
Zakaria: How to Solve America's Debt Problem - Fareed Zakaria - Newsweek.com
Zakaria: How to Solve America's Debt Problem - Fareed Zakaria - Newsweek.com
Fareed, as always, is right. Time to start paying the bills while continuing to invest in our future.
Today's youth - 18-30 year olds, the people with the most to gain and lose in this struggle - need to speak up and demand to be heard. Here's a starting point for them to demand of our leaders:
1. Fix entitlements. Raise the age of retirement and link it to life expectancy. Tax benefits of the wealthy or have some kind of needs testing - Bill Gates shouldn't get Social Security, or he should at least pay taxes on it. Crack down on Medicare fraud (I think it's about $60 billion a year!).
2. Restore "PayGo," or "Pay As You Go," effective in the FY 2012 budget. If Congress wants to cut taxes or raise spending, it must find a tax to increase or spending to cut to offset it.
3. Abolish the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy ASAP.
4. Commit the country to energy independence from foreign oil by 2020. Invest in truly green energy and offer tax credits to businesses and homeowners who go green.
5. Eliminate agricultural subsidies that are making big agribusinesses richer and America's kids fatter. Kill the corn subsidies and you start to save lives - and make balancing the budget easier.
6. Eliminate the homeowner's tax deduction. I love it as a homeowner, but it makes no fiscal or policy sense. Phase it out over the next 5 years.
7. Phase in a Value Added Tax (VAT). While it is regressive - it hurts the poor and middle class disproportionally - it could help balance the budget and still allow for lowering income taxes on the working poor and many in the middle class. That might work out ok. Worth a closer look, at least.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
A bit more on the GOP
The GOP is severely lacking in vision and leadership. How else can you explain Sarah Palin? What would I like to see from the GOP? Serious solutions to our big challenges:
Job Creation - We need to get businesses hiring quickly and help foster new enterprises with new, higher paying jobs for the future.
New Energy - We need to develop new energy technologies to accomplish ALL of these goals: reduce/eliminate dependence on foreign energy supplies; reduce carbon emissions; AND create new jobs and new intellectual property here, not in China or India.
Healthcare - We need to do all of these: provide safe, reliable healthcare to everyone; reduce costs for large and small US companies, the US Government, and the consumer; AND make all fields of medicine more appealing as a career choice (address tort reform, for one).
Education - We need to provide a good education to all Americans (black, white, rich, middle class, poor, urban, suburban, rural, etc.) and an excellent education for as many as possible. We need to make college more affordable and accessible to all. We need to entice more kids to go into engineering, math, and medicine. We can't compete with China and India, or provide more and better healthcare here at home, without more kids studying math, science, medicine, engineering, etc.
At least the Democrats have some ideas about some of these challenges. The GOP really has little to offer on few of them. I get it. Their leadership is weak and fractured. The ruled the White House for 8 years and both the WH and Congress for 6 of those years and really screwed things up while allowing the problems to fester. So they need to reinvent themselves. But they need to do so quickly. There are some core Republican principles they could rely upon to craft a new vision, including:
Fiscal responsibility - this may be tough given the need to spend more money on these challenges, but the GOP could lead the way on eliminating real waste, setting priorities, and reforming Medicare and Social Security not by privatizing them but by embracing higher taxes for them in return for reduced benefits for the wealthiest recipients.
Individual empowerment - Rather than seeking more tax cuts for the wealthy, how about being creative about using the tax code to encourage private investment in solving the above-mentioned challenges?
American competitiveness - An honest appraisal of what it would take to make America more competitive in the 21st Century would inevitably lead the GOP to focus its efforts - and the hearts and minds of Americans - on these challenges.
Job Creation - We need to get businesses hiring quickly and help foster new enterprises with new, higher paying jobs for the future.
New Energy - We need to develop new energy technologies to accomplish ALL of these goals: reduce/eliminate dependence on foreign energy supplies; reduce carbon emissions; AND create new jobs and new intellectual property here, not in China or India.
Healthcare - We need to do all of these: provide safe, reliable healthcare to everyone; reduce costs for large and small US companies, the US Government, and the consumer; AND make all fields of medicine more appealing as a career choice (address tort reform, for one).
Education - We need to provide a good education to all Americans (black, white, rich, middle class, poor, urban, suburban, rural, etc.) and an excellent education for as many as possible. We need to make college more affordable and accessible to all. We need to entice more kids to go into engineering, math, and medicine. We can't compete with China and India, or provide more and better healthcare here at home, without more kids studying math, science, medicine, engineering, etc.
At least the Democrats have some ideas about some of these challenges. The GOP really has little to offer on few of them. I get it. Their leadership is weak and fractured. The ruled the White House for 8 years and both the WH and Congress for 6 of those years and really screwed things up while allowing the problems to fester. So they need to reinvent themselves. But they need to do so quickly. There are some core Republican principles they could rely upon to craft a new vision, including:
Fiscal responsibility - this may be tough given the need to spend more money on these challenges, but the GOP could lead the way on eliminating real waste, setting priorities, and reforming Medicare and Social Security not by privatizing them but by embracing higher taxes for them in return for reduced benefits for the wealthiest recipients.
Individual empowerment - Rather than seeking more tax cuts for the wealthy, how about being creative about using the tax code to encourage private investment in solving the above-mentioned challenges?
American competitiveness - An honest appraisal of what it would take to make America more competitive in the 21st Century would inevitably lead the GOP to focus its efforts - and the hearts and minds of Americans - on these challenges.
Some things that concern me...
Just a list of some things that are bothering me lately. No particular order:
- Obama's failure to present a clear vision to the American people and to get the word out about what he has already accomplished and why. He is gifted in so many ways as a communicator. But he and his staff suck at this. How hard would it be in this day and age to get people to buy into: "New Jobs, New Energy, and New Schools"? Link healthcare to jobs. Tell people we need new energy for new jobs and to stop fighting wars in the Middle East. Then get a new Education Secretary and offer real education reforms. Change the way schools are funded and encourage ad reward new teaching methods, not standardized tests.
- The privatization of the US military. We have as many contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan as we have GIs. The contractors operate without direct congressional oversight or civilian chain of command - and often without being held accountable under local or US laws. This allows the USG to carry out wars with no clear goals and weak public support. We need a draft for national service. Pick 2 years in military or 4 years of either Peace Corps or AmericaCorps.
- Cyberterrorism.
- Exploding federal debt at a time when we need to spend more money to rescue the economy, create jobs, and invest in our crumbling infrastructure, education, and new technologies (energy, especially).
- The lack of a loyal opposition party with real ideas. The GOP is a joke, and we are all paying for it.
- The Democrats' lack of strong leaders.
- Our ignorance of the impact of chemicals in our water and homes. Are we poisoning ourselves and our kids?
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Initially, I was not so discouraged by Scott Brown's victory in the MA Senate special election this week. I figured Obama would get the House to pass the Senate's version of health care reform - a flawed bill, for sure, but far better than nothing. The President would sign it in the coming weeks and attention could turn to financial reform and jobs creation.
Instead, the President and House Speaker Pelosi are indicating that the House will not pass the Senate version. Obama is talking about a more modest bill, which would probably have to be quite limited in its scope and impact to pass the Senate. But Senate Majority Leader Reid seems to be more interested in jobs legislation than more battles on health care.
This is starting to feel like deja vu.
I had hoped we'd see a little fight from Obama.
Instead, the President and House Speaker Pelosi are indicating that the House will not pass the Senate version. Obama is talking about a more modest bill, which would probably have to be quite limited in its scope and impact to pass the Senate. But Senate Majority Leader Reid seems to be more interested in jobs legislation than more battles on health care.
This is starting to feel like deja vu.
I had hoped we'd see a little fight from Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)