weekly response

Our White Grandfathers

By Leo Brown

[President Obama's Weekly Address]

65 years ago, America stood tall upon the shoulders of the disenfranchised and silenced. Schools across the nation were segregated. The women who sustained our industry during the war were hustled back to the kitchen.  Jackie Robinson had yet to break Major League Baseball's color barrier.  Japanese internment camps were just shutting their doors.

While inequality, inequity and institutional cronyism still plague our society, we have made some progress. However, this progress has left us facing a pickle that many have yet to acknowledge, let alone swallow. Because while greater opportunity has expanded America's overall potential, when you divide up our output somewhat equally, there is less for the formerly privileged. Even releasing the income of the super-rich would not change this, though it would surely help, if you factor in the bill that's about to slam our Social Security coffers.

Our higher education system is a telling case of the changes America has seen. The GI bill was crucial to the success of our grandfathers' generation, and current GI initiatives provide veterans with needed educational opportunities. But armed with bachelor's degrees, will these young men and women contribute more than the millions of unemployed college graduates? Only as a result of tax incentives for hiring veterans. And today, because college degrees are available to so many students instead of only the lucky few, a ticket to the middle class costs thousands. No longer do complimentary high school degrees pave the way to a reliable job and enough income to support a family. Many Americans can borrow to afford a BA, but we know where this strategy tends to leaves them.

We cannot realistically hold ourselves to our white grandfathers' standards, and nor should we aspire to them. If we hope to achieve a culture of equal opportunity, we'll have to give up some of the prizes enjoyed by the bullies of generations past. This means that an average white kid college graduate, the sort that might have grown up to pull the strings of society, will be lucky to get a job as a secretary.

This is equality.

I was tweeting about my unencumbered right to run, or even patronize, a fast food chain. As of now, any deft entrepreneur is free to purvey addictive poison to our confused, vulnerable citizenry.  We don't need this right.

But if the same thing happens to Prohibition 2.0 and we become a nation of fast food moonshiners? That would be great! In fact, that would be the point. Unlike the Noble Experiment, I'm not suggesting that we mandate what people consume. Rather, we need to manipulate access in order to curb fast food's current plague status. If people want to concoct something like a Big Mac at home, more power to them.

Furthermore, by passing a thorough, unambiguous law, there would be no need to dissemble McDonald's and the other giants. They could be preserved as economic engines and symbols of American prosperity. They would simply be required to restructure and meet serious quality standards. Meal prices would rise, and the poor who wrongly believe that fast food is their cheapest option would discover frozen vegetables and rotisserie chicken in the grocery store.

In his weekly address, President Obama beseeches Republicans in Congress to authorize the creation of a consumer watchdog agency. The goal is to prevent slick, powerful interests from taking advantage of uninformed consumers who are too busy managing their personal lives to do the necessary digging. Senator Lindsey Graham has led the Republican opposition, denouncing the proposal as "something out of the Stalinist Era."

Is it just me, or are some of our liberties causing more trouble for the country than they're worth? What are we even trying to protect anymore? Hopefully, America isn't too drunk on its own ideology to notice some of the cruel, unnecessary consequences.

Why is the Senator at the Fair?

By Leo Brown

[President Obama's Weekly Address]

I don't expect Congressional Republicans to follow this line of thinking. As usual, they will reflexively disagree with the President as part of their transparent, ethically vacant effort to make him seem ineffectual.

However, since President Obama brought it up, I did a bit of research about the House and Senate vacation schedules. The statistics might make you wonder about this whole operation.

To date this year, the Senate has been in session for 155 calendar days, and the House for 160. What about you? How many days have you worked this year?

Make no mistake: many senators and congressmen work hard. Most of their days "off" are spent traveling to events in their districts, attending fundraisers, and meeting with or calling wealthy donors. Not fun. And I don't mean to suggest that their individual priorities are necessarily warped. The fact is, if they don't adhere to this system, they will lose their jobs in a flash. And they know that their replacements will be faced with the same dilemma, and that the system will remain rotten.

So what needs to happen? How can we get these men and women to spend more time doing what they were hired to do? If I were an employer, and my employees needed to spend half of their time traveling the country campaigning to keep their job, my first instinct would not be to fire them. Rather, I would try to figure out why they find themselves in such a silly predicament. Firing and replacing them would not solve my problem.

To solve our problem, we need to choose between seeing our elected officials at the county fair or at their office in the Capitol. Certainly, there is much to be gained by a Congresswoman or Senator shaking the hand of a child who might then be inspired to become an engaged citizen. But for everything, there is an opportunity cost. And maybe that same child would be equally inspired by a government that works together, as a team, to provide dignified, compassionate domestic policy, including quality education and health care.

Such cooperation will not be possible until elected officials are hauled back to Washington. Only then will they be able to hear each other's voices over the din of media and campaign bluster. Ultimately, this change will only be brought about through popular demand and action by Congress itself: legislation dictating the amount of time one may spend at events and fundraisers. But President Obama would certainly have nothing to lose by bringing up the idea. Congressional approval ratings have sat at around 12% since September, so this might be his best opportunity to capitalize on the public's frustration and bring about significant change to the dysfunctional system.

After all, isn't that why we elected him?

The Problems Money Won't Solve

By Leo Brown  

[President Obama's Weekly Address]

President Obama has announced that, after a decade of war and deep involvement in foreign military affairs, "the nation we need to rebuild is our own." We are at a turning point, the President suggests - Muammar Gadaffi and Osama bin Laden have been killed, American troops will leave Iraq by the holidays - and from this point, we can anticipate a more peaceful and prosperous future.

It's a remarkably pragmatic idea. We've made some progress towards our military goals, but meanwhile, our country has hit the fan, and so we'll take this moment to reconsider our game plan.

In theory, the conclusion of the Iraq War should free up some dollars that could be spent solving some of our biggest challenges: the deficit, unemployment, student debt, the education system, and infrastructure. Obviously, students shouldn't have to borrow thousands of dollars to attend a university. Schools shouldn't need to choose between a music department and a gym. And no one should have to wonder whether it's best to buy heat or medicine. We can spend our Iraq money here.

But most fifty-year-olds will never move a touchscreen so nimbly as their daughters. What are they to do when the plant shuts down?

Green and advanced manufacturing can replace some of these twentieth-century jobs. But that might not be enough. So many industries no longer need manual labor. On top of this, advanced technology, touted as our economic savior, often is designed specifically to eliminate human workers. This is their definition of success (see: E-ZPass).

Unemployed college graduates are in trouble, but their parents have it worse. The world is working quickly to make their skills obsolete. And this doesn't only affect people who are approaching retirement: millions of new adults remain undereducated and poor. Fifty years ago, they (the white and male) could have found a job in the plant. But Americans today are not going to compete with illegal immigrants for farm work; they can make more money by collecting unemployment. So what should they do instead? Start a small business? Open a wine shop? Try it. See what happens.

Our economy has seen paradigm shifts before. More than two centuries ago, Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. Until then, cotton was not a very productive crop; though it is easy to grow in the South, it took too long to pick out all the seeds. This was no longer a hindrance, and the American economic capacity skyrocketed.

Likewise, if some genius (or anyone else) can come with an idea to put our undereducated labor to work, a project that truly requires their skills, our economy will once again have a future. For now, we will continue to cannibalize our workforce, churning out "smart" technology that puts the common man out of a job.

It's a fast-paced world and an exciting time to be alive, but we need to work with what we've got. Our current game plan will leave a vast segment of the population unemployed and disenfranchised. This is a problem that money alone will never solve.

The 99%'s Silent Majority
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]

In fact, OWS supporters have lambasted President Obama for suggesting that he is aligned with their movement.  Even if they prefer him to a Republican, many frustrated liberals wish he had done more. Many believe that because of his desire to compromise, America remains mired in a hot mess of unemployment and inequality.

This may be true. But it only tells half of the story, a half that is cemented in the past. What about the American Jobs Act? Can we agree that is a good idea?

We would be irresponsible not to pass the American Jobs Act, but it does not address what (I think) OWS is about. For example, one unifying point seems to be that so many Americans are swamped with student loans that they might never be able to pay off. Or, to put it in broader terms, one expects a baseline level of success upon completing higher education. Protesters, many of whom are college-educated and unemployed, feel that they have been swindled. They can hardly contribute to economic growth or invest in their future burdened by such debt. But the American Jobs Act does not address this issue, or higher education at all, except for an allocation of $5 billion to modernize community colleges.

Another key OWS point, that Wall Street caused the financial crisis and escaped without a scratch, is not at all a focus of the American Jobs Act. The government seems not to have held the financial sector responsible or discouraged them from repeating the same sins. The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill has been a flop. Wall Street chiefs and CEOs continue to line their pockets with bonuses and "golden goodbyes." The big banks may be too big to fail, but they aren't too big to be grounded. Wall Street is spoiled rotten, and the parents are too busy bickering to notice or care.

Instead, the American Jobs Act focuses on traditionally blue-collar priorities: providing tax relief for small businesses, investing in public works projects, extending unemployment insurance, and hiring government employees. Many of these initiatives will help the OWS demographic, but they don't really get to the point.

In the next few months, we will see whether President Obama and OWS can form a powerful alliance to advance the progressive cause. But the current disconnect raises another fundamental question: why is OWS comprised largely of college graduates, anyway? Most Americans do not have college degrees, and these high school graduates and dropouts are the ones who bear the brunt of the recession. Why are they not camped out in Zuccotti Park? What is happening?

College graduates have every right to be angry with their lot, but the fact remains that their less-educated brethren are more numerous and, on the whole, saddled with deeper economic troubles. The plight of these Americans who would benefit most from the American Jobs Act provide a potential link between President Obama and OWS. For now, they remain a silent majority, a massive yet unseen shadow, the fruits of a 20th-century formula gone sour. Can OWS link arms with this majority and blindside a dysfunctional system?

This will change things. Since the 2010 elections, when Republicans took control of the House, they have been putting their chips on government failure. So goes the tired theory: if these four years are miserable, the American people will demand a new president.

This might have worked. But it depended on a broad swath of the electorate getting excited, really amped, about their nominee. And no one is going to get excited about Mitt Romney.

Who would? Who could? It's not that he's a Mormon, though this will certainly turn off extremist Christians. The problem is that he changes his political persuasion depending on the election, and as a result, he is impossible to like. He is uncomfortable in his own skin because he sheds it whenever his aides, or the media, suggest. He's the caricature of a flip-flopping politician.

Sure, many Republicans will choke down their reflux and vote against President Obama - that is, if they can drag themselves to the polls after their candidate's relentless campaign of humiliating, emasculating ass-kissing.

And then there's the rest of the field. I could detail their flaws as candidates, but suffice to say, they are all too conservative, and, in most cases, too inexperienced to run a serious campaign against a centrist, incumbent president. The liberal youth and intelligentsia would come out in droves to vote against Rick Santorum, who proudly bears the flag of homophobic vitriol. No one takes Michele Bachmann seriously following the HPV vaccine fiasco. Herman Cain has never been elected to political office and offers few new ideas. And somehow, after a splashy entrance into the race, Rick Perry has managed to anger virtually all possible constituencies.

In order to see their strategy through to fruition, Republicans in Congress would have to ride a groundswell of enthusiasm, sweeping President Obama and his henchmen out of office in a vindication of conservative values. But with one of these individuals as the standard-bearer? America isn't going to buy it.

This week, President Obama asks Congress to pass his jobs bill once again. But now that we know the field of presidential candidates, the Republican trump card rings hollow. Now that we see the alternatives to President Obama, there is no longer a reason to replace him.

Of course, the Republican strategy will probably not, in fact, change. I expect a long year of forced enthusiasm and awkward rallies as Mitt Romney tries to fire up a crowd. Alternatively, we will have a year of hilarious debates as Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann attempts to outwit President Obama.

The Republican strategy will not change, but the President need not fear. We now know that the opposition has little to offer, and he has even less to gain by appeasing them. There is nothing Republicans can do, in this election cycle, to be taken seriously by moderate and liberal America. 

Finally, hopefully, the President can relax and say more of what he really thinks. Because now that the Republican presidential field have outed themselves, he need not worry about looking comparatively extreme, nutty, or disingenuous. Perhaps, as the opposition comes into focus, more citizens will realize how much worse things could be.

Going on three weeks, President Obama defends the American Jobs Act, and Congress continues to not pass it. The President offers a fair point: if members of Congress have a problem with the legislation, they should present an alternative, or perhaps revisions. Instead, all parties are talking to the media, referring vaguely to the bill's shortcomings, and, apparently, ignoring each other.

It's not at all surprising that Republicans do not want to pass the bill precisely as written. And though he made a show of demanding immediate passage, President Obama has invited Republicans to present their preferred changes. Some Democrats have expressed concern with the bill, and they, too, have the power to offer a revised version. What is stopping them?

Maybe, the problem is that most of these candidates travel to their home districts every weekend to appear at community events. Why do they do this? What if they did this every other weekend? They could spend the balance of their time in Washington negotiating a jobs plan. It's nice to see your Congressman at the county fair, but would you rather have a job?

Some suspect that Republicans are holding up this bill in order to make the President look stupid and inept. This would increase their chances of reelection, so goes conventional theory. But with their approval rating astonishingly low, Congressional incumbents surely realize that their jobs are at stake, regardless of party, if they continue to bicker. Why don't they do their jobs?

There is so much at stake, and yet, our national decision-makers are lodged inextricably in a system that breeds and rewards inefficiency. Must this be?

Here's one idea to kick around: if politicians were disconnected from their constituents as in the days before electricity, they might be more inclined to do their jobs. Rather than tweeting, they might converse. Floor speeches would no longer serve the express purpose of clogging C-SPAN and cable with sound bytes. Rather, Congressmen would take to the floor to address their colleagues. Without bloggers to parse every word, they could speak freely. Perhaps their ideologies would grow and wiggle. Not so today.

The past is gone, but lessons can be learned from earlier imperfect times. The fact is, in the present environment, time spent by politicians addressing the media is time wasted. There is nothing to hear. They will say what they've been told to say, and what they've already said repeatedly.

Members of Congress need to be locked in a room and told that they will have no photo ops, no time to spend with campaign donors, until they have negotiated a revision of the American Jobs Act. It would be only fair.

This past weekend, my girlfriend, Sato, and I were rescued.

We were sailing on a 1970s-era Minifish boat at the time. We quickly capsized - Sato's grandpa had mentioned that this might happen, and we had a plan of action. We were drenched, but hardly dispirited.  

But when we mounted the vessel, the rudder flopped ominously to the side. A bolt had come loose and popped off amidst the fray. In one critical moment, our steering apparatus had become a useless burden.

I can't say for sure how much time passed before the fireboat arrived. We tried to kick the boat towards shore. We tried the "human rudder" technique. All the while, as the tide moved seaward, we drifted helplessly on towards the horizon.

When the fireboat arrived and hoisted us to safety, we thanked our saviors profusely. They were a goodhearted bunch, mostly amused by our predicament. We motored to shore, and I asked one of the crew how much the rescue operation was going to cost me.

He explained that, in fact, the rescue was a free service. It is what the fire department does.

In our society, endangered citizens do not hesitate to call 911. Imagine if the police sent someone a bill after investigating an armed robbery or sexual assault. In America, we can do better than that.  As such, even though Sato and I faced a danger rather mundane, something more like an embarrassing inconvenience, we were rescued for free.

Unfortunately, this logic does not hold true in so many regards. We can afford to save poor people from burning buildings, but they will need to choose between electricity and insulin.  Or maybe they won't be able to afford either.

This double standard illuminates the basic incoherence of modern budget hawkery. There are certain rights (and, granted, a large region of gray area) required by every citizen.  This is why we don't privatize the police. And, when the time comes to consider our budget priorities, these basic rights should not be used as bargaining chips; they should not be on the table.

President Obama, in this week's address, asks Congress to renew a transportation bill so that roads, bridges, and highways can be repaired and maintained. This is a responsibility that Congress needs to bankroll with federal dollars, regardless of our fiscal dilemma. It will be a sound investment in terms of job growth, efficiency, and quality of life. But just as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor questions whether government can afford to provide emergency assistance to Irene victims, Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates have made a habit of disregarding these basic rights in what the President labels "political gamesmanship." 

We will see in the weeks to come whether the transportation bill will precipitate another rancorous stalemate or, at long last, bipartisan compromise. The President is worried, which is understandable, following the summer-long debt ceiling theatrics. But I would rather wait for Republicans to flesh out a coherent response before invoking panic and dire warnings. Best not to cry wolf. And it would seem that if Congress can agree on anything, filling potholes would be a good place to start. 

I say, let's hope Washington puts pavement before politics, and enjoy the free roads while we've got them.