Our Government is a Laughingstock
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
For now, I am stranded in London, the result of a travel documents SNAFU. London is not such a terrible place to be stranded.
America looks quite different from across the pond. Who supports the Tea Party, anyway, the Brits ask me. Doesn't the Republican primary contest remind you of reality TV? Do you realize what the stakes are for the next election? Why are American men so obsessed with masculinity?
It's tricky for Londoners to figure out quite why American politics work the way they do, because they're used to something a bit more functional and dignified.
For the last few days, the news here has been all about a proposed welfare cap. Should an unemployed person collect more from the government than the average worker? What about additional benefits for families with children? Can we figure out a plan that is fair, humane, and without a perverse incentive to produce more babies and remain unemployed?
As in America, the debate is based on conflicting theories of what the government ought to do for its people. But here in the United Kingdom, you can see why people might disagree, and you can see where they're coming from. Whereas political sound bytes in America are scripted and calculated, often with little regard for facts or the public good, the UK elected officials speak with passion, conviction, and logical progressions of thought. They prove that two opposing positions can both make some sense. It is inspiring to hear a government argue and weigh the benefits and drawbacks of a proposed bill.
Most Londoners have been confused about why Sarah Palin or Herman Cain are taken seriously as politicians. And yes, folks like these do shame us as a nation. But our more serious problems are the sort that President Obama bemoans once again in this week's address: "the corrosive influence of money in politics," unchecked "personal ambition," and an obsession over political differences. These fundamental problems, more than any laughingstock faux politician, are what threaten our rights as citizens and quality of life.
Of course, the UK government is not perfect. But ours is just embarrassing.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
2012 State of the Union Address
[video] [transcript]
President Obama is determined to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, and he "will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."
But why does he expect Iran to cooperate? He must realize that brutal economic sanctions will turn Iranian people against America and the West while strengthening the rhetoric of Iran's extremist government. And why would President Ahmadinejad listen to America as we chastise him for aspiring to elevate his country's military might? He would probably be less intent on developing a nuclear arsenal if we didn't have one of our own. In any case, if President Obama and NATO somehow bully Iran into publicly backing down, will surely continue a nuclear program in secret.
So it seems that President Obama is setting himself and his country up for the tough choice between failure and war. But what are we doing to brace ourselves and the world for a nuclear Iran? Are we afraid to talk about that?
President Obama is determined to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, and he "will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."
But why does he expect Iran to cooperate? He must realize that brutal economic sanctions will turn Iranian people against America and the West while strengthening the rhetoric of Iran's extremist government. And why would President Ahmadinejad listen to America as we chastise him for aspiring to elevate his country's military might? He would probably be less intent on developing a nuclear arsenal if we didn't have one of our own. In any case, if President Obama and NATO somehow bully Iran into publicly backing down, will surely continue a nuclear program in secret.
So it seems that President Obama is setting himself and his country up for the tough choice between failure and war. But what are we doing to brace ourselves and the world for a nuclear Iran? Are we afraid to talk about that?
Monday, January 23, 2012
2012.01.21 Weekly Address: America is Open for Business
Luring the Russians
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
As Brazil, China, and India develop their middle classes, the United States might benefit from an influx of curious, newly mobile tourists. President Obama speaks this week about the importance of the tourist industry and what he is doing to support it.
Led by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, Congress and the President have already passed the Travel Promotion Act of 2009. This act imposes a $10 fee on international tourists, money which is then used to support Brand USA, an entity charged with promoting the United States as a vacation spot. Now, President Obama is pushing for an easier visa application process, further development of Brand USA, and an expansion of the U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board to include a new group of CEOs in the industry.
This all will help. But if you ask a Russian (yes, Russia's middle class is growing, too) why they haven't visited America, two common responses are:
"It's too expensive to get there," or
"It's too expensive to get around once you're there."
This second issue is huge. Even if Russians could get to America for free, it would still be a better deal to visit Europe, simply because everything there is closer together. Many Russians consider a trip to America silly, but not because they don't want to come here. Their concern is that all of the best-known and most enticing places in America - New York, Miami, Las Vegas, to name a few - are so far apart. For the price of a flight from Washington to Hollywood, a Russian could fly to Paris twice or Thailand thrice. A trip to the States is not cost-effective.
It's safe to assume that Congress will not pass a bill subsidizing flights for Russians tourists who want to hit up Vegas for the weekend. But surely, we could convince Russians that it's worthwhile to visit a section of America rather than the whole thing. As for the northeast, we could capture their imaginations with glossy advertisements for Berkshire leaves while handing out spoonfuls of Ben & Jerry's ice cream. While everyone knows that one can rage on the beaches of Miami, international tourists might not realize that they can drive for an hour in one direction to the Florida Keys or in another to the Everglades. And no tour of central California would be complete without a visit to Fort Ross, the southernmost outpost of the Russian Empire, situated less than an hour from San Francisco. Brand USA is promoting travel to America, but in order to make a realistic and enticing impression, they need to showcase specific regions, rather than the Top Ten Most Famous Spots of Americana, which are undeniably scattered every which way.
Needless to say, our more serious problem with international tourism is the result of American hostility to language learning and non-Americans in general. We could start by translating signage in major cities to Mandarin, Hindi, and Spanish. But while we tackle the endemic malfunctions of our education system and national superiority complex, we might also buy some billboard space near Red Square, or perhaps simply produce some welcoming YouTube videos trumpeting all that specific regions of our country have to offer. No need to keep it a secret.
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
As Brazil, China, and India develop their middle classes, the United States might benefit from an influx of curious, newly mobile tourists. President Obama speaks this week about the importance of the tourist industry and what he is doing to support it.
Led by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, Congress and the President have already passed the Travel Promotion Act of 2009. This act imposes a $10 fee on international tourists, money which is then used to support Brand USA, an entity charged with promoting the United States as a vacation spot. Now, President Obama is pushing for an easier visa application process, further development of Brand USA, and an expansion of the U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board to include a new group of CEOs in the industry.
This all will help. But if you ask a Russian (yes, Russia's middle class is growing, too) why they haven't visited America, two common responses are:
"It's too expensive to get there," or
"It's too expensive to get around once you're there."
This second issue is huge. Even if Russians could get to America for free, it would still be a better deal to visit Europe, simply because everything there is closer together. Many Russians consider a trip to America silly, but not because they don't want to come here. Their concern is that all of the best-known and most enticing places in America - New York, Miami, Las Vegas, to name a few - are so far apart. For the price of a flight from Washington to Hollywood, a Russian could fly to Paris twice or Thailand thrice. A trip to the States is not cost-effective.
It's safe to assume that Congress will not pass a bill subsidizing flights for Russians tourists who want to hit up Vegas for the weekend. But surely, we could convince Russians that it's worthwhile to visit a section of America rather than the whole thing. As for the northeast, we could capture their imaginations with glossy advertisements for Berkshire leaves while handing out spoonfuls of Ben & Jerry's ice cream. While everyone knows that one can rage on the beaches of Miami, international tourists might not realize that they can drive for an hour in one direction to the Florida Keys or in another to the Everglades. And no tour of central California would be complete without a visit to Fort Ross, the southernmost outpost of the Russian Empire, situated less than an hour from San Francisco. Brand USA is promoting travel to America, but in order to make a realistic and enticing impression, they need to showcase specific regions, rather than the Top Ten Most Famous Spots of Americana, which are undeniably scattered every which way.
Needless to say, our more serious problem with international tourism is the result of American hostility to language learning and non-Americans in general. We could start by translating signage in major cities to Mandarin, Hindi, and Spanish. But while we tackle the endemic malfunctions of our education system and national superiority complex, we might also buy some billboard space near Red Square, or perhaps simply produce some welcoming YouTube videos trumpeting all that specific regions of our country have to offer. No need to keep it a secret.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
2012.01.14 Weekly Address: Helping American Businesses Succeed
Skin in the Game
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
President Obama intends to make the government run more efficiently, and he has asked Congress for the authority to merge redundant agencies. This latest move is part of a broad initiative to reduce the size of government and model it after a successful business.
In order for government, or anything, to run like a successful business, the people who make decisions have to have some skin in the game.
No matter what President Obama does to slim down and modernize government, he will remain saddled by this basic fact. While agency directors face budget cuts, legions of public employees operate with a fixed salary and scheduled promotions. And though government jobs are no longer "safe," employees know that their job security depends not on individual performance, but Congressional bluster and budget priorities.
If you work for the government, your job is no longer "safe." But that is beyond your control; working harder won't convince President Obama not to phase out your agency. So either you will be fired for reasons beyond your control or you will keep your job indefinitely, so long as you don't ruffle anyone's feathers. Either way, your individual performance is hardly part of the picture.
Needless to say, if you are a taxpayer, your skin is in the game. We provide the funds for this operation. The United States diplomats who don't speak the language of their post? Their skin is not in the game.
Do you live in Iraq or Iran, Israel or the Gaza Strip? Your skin is in the game. The President of the United States? Unlike career diplomats, he needs to convince Americans to vote for him in order to keep the job. His skin is in that game.
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
President Obama intends to make the government run more efficiently, and he has asked Congress for the authority to merge redundant agencies. This latest move is part of a broad initiative to reduce the size of government and model it after a successful business.
In order for government, or anything, to run like a successful business, the people who make decisions have to have some skin in the game.
No matter what President Obama does to slim down and modernize government, he will remain saddled by this basic fact. While agency directors face budget cuts, legions of public employees operate with a fixed salary and scheduled promotions. And though government jobs are no longer "safe," employees know that their job security depends not on individual performance, but Congressional bluster and budget priorities.
If you work for the government, your job is no longer "safe." But that is beyond your control; working harder won't convince President Obama not to phase out your agency. So either you will be fired for reasons beyond your control or you will keep your job indefinitely, so long as you don't ruffle anyone's feathers. Either way, your individual performance is hardly part of the picture.
Needless to say, if you are a taxpayer, your skin is in the game. We provide the funds for this operation. The United States diplomats who don't speak the language of their post? Their skin is not in the game.
Do you live in Iraq or Iran, Israel or the Gaza Strip? Your skin is in the game. The President of the United States? Unlike career diplomats, he needs to convince Americans to vote for him in order to keep the job. His skin is in that game.
Monday, January 9, 2012
2012.01.07 Weekly Address: Continuing to Grow the Economy in the New Year
Destabilizing China
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
"Insourcing American Jobs" sounds too nice to be true. When I read the four company profiles of "insourcing" leaders, it's hard to imagine that these hundreds of jobs can make a big-picture dent in the Indian IT complex or Chinese manufacturing. But let your imagination wander for a moment.
The Master Lock story is unique, an oddity, but not irrelevant. In a nutshell, conditions in China that were once ideal for manufacturing have slipped. Labor costs are rising and migrant workers have begun to agitate for better work conditions. Most of the Chinese labor force is undereducated, and a company like Master Lock seeks to hire supervisors with graduate degrees.
How will President Obama save the American economy? The Master Lock story suggests that a destabilized China leads to more "insourcing." Even if all jobs don't come directly home, America would diversify its portfolio by relocating some Chinese manufacturing.
How will President Obama destabilize China? A Facebook Revolution? Of course, some of what happened in 2011 was organic, and I believe most of the protesters were earnest in their actions. But it is abundantly clear that unrest in China would benefit the near-term American economy and boost President Obama politically.
Let your imagination wander. Is President Obama going to stand by and hope that the poor migrant laborers of China come upon enough cash to purchase bandwidth and print pamphlets? Keep in mind that the Chinese would need significantly more funding than your typical revolutionary in order to overcome heavy Internet censorship. Moreover, do you think Washington bureaucrats will wait for the President's approval before they act in the name of democracy, security, and the quest for global influence?
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
"Insourcing American Jobs" sounds too nice to be true. When I read the four company profiles of "insourcing" leaders, it's hard to imagine that these hundreds of jobs can make a big-picture dent in the Indian IT complex or Chinese manufacturing. But let your imagination wander for a moment.
The Master Lock story is unique, an oddity, but not irrelevant. In a nutshell, conditions in China that were once ideal for manufacturing have slipped. Labor costs are rising and migrant workers have begun to agitate for better work conditions. Most of the Chinese labor force is undereducated, and a company like Master Lock seeks to hire supervisors with graduate degrees.
How will President Obama save the American economy? The Master Lock story suggests that a destabilized China leads to more "insourcing." Even if all jobs don't come directly home, America would diversify its portfolio by relocating some Chinese manufacturing.
How will President Obama destabilize China? A Facebook Revolution? Of course, some of what happened in 2011 was organic, and I believe most of the protesters were earnest in their actions. But it is abundantly clear that unrest in China would benefit the near-term American economy and boost President Obama politically.
Let your imagination wander. Is President Obama going to stand by and hope that the poor migrant laborers of China come upon enough cash to purchase bandwidth and print pamphlets? Keep in mind that the Chinese would need significantly more funding than your typical revolutionary in order to overcome heavy Internet censorship. Moreover, do you think Washington bureaucrats will wait for the President's approval before they act in the name of democracy, security, and the quest for global influence?
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)