Santorum Rising
By Meredith Annex
Every time Romney's imminent
nomination is banally announced, something seems to happen that
re-opens the fray. This week, that 'something' was Rick
Santorum's three-fold
victory in Minnesota, Colorado, and the Missouri "beauty
contest."
Colorado and Minnesota are both states
that Romney won in the 2008 primary season. As Maggie
Haberman of Politico notes, "four years ago, when [Romney] won
Colorado and Minnesota, John McCain was the likely nominee, and the
former Massachusetts governor was seen as the electable conservative
alternative." Now, Romney is the likely nominee, and the
'electable alternate' is, well, questionable. Until a few days ago, I would
have said Newt Gingrich: a man with a proven track record of
upholding Republic ideals, if not family values. But something,
perhaps the growth of the Tea Party, has led caucus voters to find
themselves with Santorum.
Even more worrying, in this light, are the results in Missouri. Sure, the Missouri poll doesn’t result in
delegates. But in 2008, John McCain, the front-runner and by most
standards the moderate candidate, was voted as Mr. Missouri. How,
then, can we interpret the fact that Missouri finds Santorum prettier
than Romney?
Really,
the most certain conclusion is that voters are still looking for
alternatives to Mitt Romney. In the October
Straw Poll, Nevada voters rode the
concurrent Herman Cain wave, giving the pizza guru a 31% approval to
Romney’s 29%. Similarly, Public
Policy Polling found in August 2011 that,
on the verge of Rick Perry’s rise, Coloradans were equally split
between Perry and Romney. Given the historic eagerness of these
voters to support alternatives to Romney, perhaps we shouldn’t be
surprised to find Santorum topping these caucus results. That’s
not a silver lining for the Romney campaign, but it’s not a
resounding endorsement for Rick either.
A
similarly ambiguous factor is the role of the recent news outbreaks
in the United States regarding abortion rights. Politico’s
Heberman notes
that the Susan G. Komen/Planned Parenthood controversies
likely motivated support from the ultra-right, whose political
positions tend to favour Santorum. If news coverage actually had a
significant role in shaping the primary results, then this goes to
show the volatility of every candidate’s popularity right now.
A final factor to
consider is, of course, money and campaign effort. The Washington
Post reports that, "Gingrich did not compete in Missouri and
spent limited time in Colorado and Minnesota. He looked past
Tuesday's contests and instead campaigned in Ohio, one of several
delegate-rich states voting on Super Tuesday." The Post's
analysis may explain Gingrich’s lower performance, but cannot
account for Romney's poor showing despite having the best-funded
campaign. Perhaps, here, Santorum is on the money when he stated:
"If money made the difference, we wouldn’t have won four
primaries so far...We’re not running for CEO of this country –
we’re running for someone who can lead this country."
Given
this, what should we look for going into Super Tuesday on March 6?
Romney’s superior campaign finance may give him a slight edge, but
so far this hasn’t translated into clear-cut victories. The polls
also indicate a bumpy few weeks. An October poll
has Maine voters supporting Herman Cain over Mitt Romney, suggesting
that this state’s caucus on February 11th could easily follow a
similar pattern to Minnesota and Colorado. Any “surprise”
victories for Gingrich, Santorum, or both in the caucuses leading up
to Super Tuesday would be yet another obstacle for Romney’s
nomination and would make the Republican field that much messier. Yet
winning in Maine, Michigan, and Arizona can’t ensure a victory for
Gingrich and won’t clear a pathway for Santorum either. Super
Tuesday has the potential for some very close races that could change
the tides in this Republican primary season. In the meantime, I’d
suggest keeping up with roller-coaster headlines and finding a comfortable seat.
Meredith Annex is pursuing a master's degree in Environmental Economics and Climate Change at the London School of Economics. She graduated from Williams College in 2011 with a major in Economics and concentration in Environmental Studies. Her post is one of an ongoing "Guest Blogger" series. If you're interested in writing, do click the link and be in touch!
Friday, February 10, 2012
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
guest post
A Fallacy of Comparison
By Jamal Jefferson
In President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address, health care was scarcely mentioned. Only in a segment of his speech in which he speaks about the oil spills off the Gulf of Mexico does he add, "I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny you coverage, or charge women differently from men."
Meanwhile on the Republican presidential trail, the candidates have not been shy on the matter. The remaining four candidates all vows to repeal the bill once elected as President. And if the front runner of the Republican Party, Mitt Romney, does in fact become the Republican Party nominee, this issue will be one of the hot topics of debate, as many claim the Massachusetts health care reform law ("Romneycare") is the framework of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare").
Outside of politics, some in academia are looking at the health care problems in a different light. Instead of focusing on the issues of clinical medicine, some are focusing of the issues of preventative medicine. But the problems are interdigitated between clinical and preventative health and solutions will not come from one branch of medicine or the other. Therefore, strong proponents of preventative health may also miss the mark when it comes to finding truly effective solutions to the US’s health issues.
On December 8th, 2011, Dr. Elizabeth H. Bradley, professor of public health at Yale and faculty director of its Global Health Leadership Institute, and Lauren Taylor, a program manager at Yale’s Global Health Leadership Institute, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times entitled "To Fix Health, Help the Poor." The authors point out that the US spends more on health care than any other country, yet still ranks low in life expectancy, infant mortality, and maternal mortality among developed nations. They claim that the US does not spend enough on social programs, which in turn relates to our sub-par health care statistics. According to Dr. Bradley’s research, in 2005, "Sweden, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark dedicated 33 percent to 38 percent" of their gross domestic product to health and social services combined, compared to the US, which only spent 29 percent. But is it so easy to look at these numbers and simply conclude that spending more on social services would improve US health statistics?
It is doubtful that the reallocation of funds from health care to social programming will have a significant effect on our world health rankings. The article did not present any "real" or applicable examples of reallocation and relied primarily on a macroeconomic approach which would naturally support their conclusion. In fact, the issues preventing the US from improving their world health rankings are far more complicated. When describing the factors particular to health inequity among women in Detroit, where white women experience 4.6 deaths per 1,000 live births while black women experience 16.6 deaths per 1,000 live births, Dr. Talat Danish of the Wayne County Health Department suggested six different issues: 1) unemployment, 2) a lack of education, 3) women being socially isolated, 4) poverty, 5) a lack of gender equity in pay, and 6) the social perception of women. These deeply rooted issues are the crux of many of our health disparities in America. The article did not provide enough evidence to support the rudimentary claim that more money in social programming will sufficiently tackle these complicated issues plaguing America.
The authors' macroeconomic stance bears fallacy because it compares the United States with other countries with dissimilar health care systems. They do not mention that developed countries like Sweden and France have some kind of basic health care systems funded by taxes and levies, allowing citizens access to health care free of charge (not including taxes, of course). For example, preventative health measures are more easily accessed in countries with universal health care systems because they do not pay out pocket for health services. The fundamental differences in how the health care systems work do not allow for accurate systematic comparisons, leading the authors to inaccurate conclusions.
I agree that social programming is needed to improve our health disparities in our country. However, the authors’ large scaled comparison is too simplified for such a complex issue.
Jamal Jefferson works as an aide to a radiologist in Cincinatti, Ohio. He graduated from Williams College in 2011 with a major in Biology. Jamal's post is the first in an ongoing "Guest Blogger" series. If you're interested in writing, do click the link and be in touch!
By Jamal Jefferson
In President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address, health care was scarcely mentioned. Only in a segment of his speech in which he speaks about the oil spills off the Gulf of Mexico does he add, "I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny you coverage, or charge women differently from men."
Meanwhile on the Republican presidential trail, the candidates have not been shy on the matter. The remaining four candidates all vows to repeal the bill once elected as President. And if the front runner of the Republican Party, Mitt Romney, does in fact become the Republican Party nominee, this issue will be one of the hot topics of debate, as many claim the Massachusetts health care reform law ("Romneycare") is the framework of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare").
Outside of politics, some in academia are looking at the health care problems in a different light. Instead of focusing on the issues of clinical medicine, some are focusing of the issues of preventative medicine. But the problems are interdigitated between clinical and preventative health and solutions will not come from one branch of medicine or the other. Therefore, strong proponents of preventative health may also miss the mark when it comes to finding truly effective solutions to the US’s health issues.
On December 8th, 2011, Dr. Elizabeth H. Bradley, professor of public health at Yale and faculty director of its Global Health Leadership Institute, and Lauren Taylor, a program manager at Yale’s Global Health Leadership Institute, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times entitled "To Fix Health, Help the Poor." The authors point out that the US spends more on health care than any other country, yet still ranks low in life expectancy, infant mortality, and maternal mortality among developed nations. They claim that the US does not spend enough on social programs, which in turn relates to our sub-par health care statistics. According to Dr. Bradley’s research, in 2005, "Sweden, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark dedicated 33 percent to 38 percent" of their gross domestic product to health and social services combined, compared to the US, which only spent 29 percent. But is it so easy to look at these numbers and simply conclude that spending more on social services would improve US health statistics?
It is doubtful that the reallocation of funds from health care to social programming will have a significant effect on our world health rankings. The article did not present any "real" or applicable examples of reallocation and relied primarily on a macroeconomic approach which would naturally support their conclusion. In fact, the issues preventing the US from improving their world health rankings are far more complicated. When describing the factors particular to health inequity among women in Detroit, where white women experience 4.6 deaths per 1,000 live births while black women experience 16.6 deaths per 1,000 live births, Dr. Talat Danish of the Wayne County Health Department suggested six different issues: 1) unemployment, 2) a lack of education, 3) women being socially isolated, 4) poverty, 5) a lack of gender equity in pay, and 6) the social perception of women. These deeply rooted issues are the crux of many of our health disparities in America. The article did not provide enough evidence to support the rudimentary claim that more money in social programming will sufficiently tackle these complicated issues plaguing America.
The authors' macroeconomic stance bears fallacy because it compares the United States with other countries with dissimilar health care systems. They do not mention that developed countries like Sweden and France have some kind of basic health care systems funded by taxes and levies, allowing citizens access to health care free of charge (not including taxes, of course). For example, preventative health measures are more easily accessed in countries with universal health care systems because they do not pay out pocket for health services. The fundamental differences in how the health care systems work do not allow for accurate systematic comparisons, leading the authors to inaccurate conclusions.
I agree that social programming is needed to improve our health disparities in our country. However, the authors’ large scaled comparison is too simplified for such a complex issue.
Jamal Jefferson works as an aide to a radiologist in Cincinatti, Ohio. He graduated from Williams College in 2011 with a major in Biology. Jamal's post is the first in an ongoing "Guest Blogger" series. If you're interested in writing, do click the link and be in touch!
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
In response to yesterday's post, a reader brought this Super Bowl ad to my attention, "Halftime in America." Whether or not American values are held in common, whether or not they exist at all, this spot leaves little doubt that the very notion remains powerful in our popular culture.
Moralizing political narratives or otherwise, we've got some soul-searching to do.
Moralizing political narratives or otherwise, we've got some soul-searching to do.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
2012.02.04 Weekly Address: It’s Time for Congress to Act to Help Responsible Homeowners
Doing The Wrong Thing
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
Since I'm still here, I'll pass along a news bit of interest from the UK. There's been a row with Argentina, apparently, about the status of the Falkland Islands. The Falkland Islands were uninhabited until colonial powers started bickering over them in the seventeenth century, and not much has changed since. Today, a few thousand Brits live there, but the Argentinians feel sovereign, as the islands rest on their continental shelf. This all resulted in a war and hundreds of deaths in 1982. So, the question has been kicking around certain circles of London: are these islands really worth it? Why not just repatriate these southerly Brits and end the madness?
For one thing, there might be oil there.
This week, President Obama paints with broad strokes, his narrative of the past decade grounded in morality and "American values like fairness and responsibility." When some of us strayed from those values, our society was punished with a housing crisis and financial collapse.
The President could make just the same policy proposal - providing financial assistance to responsible homeowners who were swindled by the financial industry - without the tale.* But it is election season now, a time of oversimplified scripts that blame a faceless enemy (or an incumbent president) for the nation's woes. For President Obama, especially as the Occupy movement resonates and a campaign against Candidate Romney emerges, bankers and investors provide an excellent moral foil.
President Obama is practiced in making a case based on "doing the right thing." He, as so many American politicians, speaks often of "American values." Perhaps such platitudes from all angles are what have made it so difficult to muster a coherent exchange of ideas.
American values? What are these, and what do we Americans have in common that might endow us with a set of values? Not a common heritage, not a common religion. Our cultural chaos, if anything, might be our most legitimate claim to individuality among nations. Some things that we do have in common, such as democracy and freedom of speech, are no longer especially American. Other things, such as the deranged consumer culture that we export like opium, America could do without. The treasures and shames of our local folk cultures are hardly universally shared or understood.
Fairness and responsibility? Our nation may have been founded upon these ideas, but they are far too subjective to use as a basis for a policy argument. This has been proven time and again, with politicians of all stripes crooning to their bases about "doing the right thing." Because we have so little in common, there is no consensus on what the "right thing" is, so naturally, nothing is accomplished.
On the other hand, we might accomplish a great deal if we seriously engage a popular question of today: what are the government's actual responsibilities? More specifically, what is the government legally obligated to do? As much as I'd like the government to act morally, I know that sometimes it won't, according to my personal views. Put another way, I know that it usually hasn't, and I'm not foolish enough to expect moral justification to suddenly swing in my favor.
I don't expect that Congress would suddenly function if we stop posturing about morality. But it couldn't hurt. And maybe then, once we've acknowledged the absence of a moral consensus about anything, our government could return to its proper business of providing citizens with the services we are willing and able to finance at tax rates that don't favor the oligarchs.
__________________________
*But who is really responsible when a big bank deceives an uneducated homebuyer and bets on their failure, all while managing to obey the law?
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
Since I'm still here, I'll pass along a news bit of interest from the UK. There's been a row with Argentina, apparently, about the status of the Falkland Islands. The Falkland Islands were uninhabited until colonial powers started bickering over them in the seventeenth century, and not much has changed since. Today, a few thousand Brits live there, but the Argentinians feel sovereign, as the islands rest on their continental shelf. This all resulted in a war and hundreds of deaths in 1982. So, the question has been kicking around certain circles of London: are these islands really worth it? Why not just repatriate these southerly Brits and end the madness?
For one thing, there might be oil there.
This week, President Obama paints with broad strokes, his narrative of the past decade grounded in morality and "American values like fairness and responsibility." When some of us strayed from those values, our society was punished with a housing crisis and financial collapse.
The President could make just the same policy proposal - providing financial assistance to responsible homeowners who were swindled by the financial industry - without the tale.* But it is election season now, a time of oversimplified scripts that blame a faceless enemy (or an incumbent president) for the nation's woes. For President Obama, especially as the Occupy movement resonates and a campaign against Candidate Romney emerges, bankers and investors provide an excellent moral foil.
President Obama is practiced in making a case based on "doing the right thing." He, as so many American politicians, speaks often of "American values." Perhaps such platitudes from all angles are what have made it so difficult to muster a coherent exchange of ideas.
American values? What are these, and what do we Americans have in common that might endow us with a set of values? Not a common heritage, not a common religion. Our cultural chaos, if anything, might be our most legitimate claim to individuality among nations. Some things that we do have in common, such as democracy and freedom of speech, are no longer especially American. Other things, such as the deranged consumer culture that we export like opium, America could do without. The treasures and shames of our local folk cultures are hardly universally shared or understood.
Fairness and responsibility? Our nation may have been founded upon these ideas, but they are far too subjective to use as a basis for a policy argument. This has been proven time and again, with politicians of all stripes crooning to their bases about "doing the right thing." Because we have so little in common, there is no consensus on what the "right thing" is, so naturally, nothing is accomplished.
On the other hand, we might accomplish a great deal if we seriously engage a popular question of today: what are the government's actual responsibilities? More specifically, what is the government legally obligated to do? As much as I'd like the government to act morally, I know that sometimes it won't, according to my personal views. Put another way, I know that it usually hasn't, and I'm not foolish enough to expect moral justification to suddenly swing in my favor.
I don't expect that Congress would suddenly function if we stop posturing about morality. But it couldn't hurt. And maybe then, once we've acknowledged the absence of a moral consensus about anything, our government could return to its proper business of providing citizens with the services we are willing and able to finance at tax rates that don't favor the oligarchs.
__________________________
*But who is really responsible when a big bank deceives an uneducated homebuyer and bets on their failure, all while managing to obey the law?
Monday, January 30, 2012
2012.01.28 Weekly Address: President’s Blueprint Includes Renewal of American Values
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.
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.
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
Sunday, December 25, 2011
2011.12.24 Weekly Address: The President and First Lady Thank our Troops for their Service this Holiday Season
Our Heritage
By Leo Brown[President Obama's Weekly Address]
Christmas for Christians, as I understand it, is a time for love, reflection, and gratitude. But in America, there is so much tension surrounding the holiday because we don't know who we are.
I remember the first time a friend announced, as a simple premise, that we live in a Christian nation. I was startled and confused, and not as a matter of principle.
This was the first time I caught wind of such a notion. Sure, the malls are decked out for Christmas, and I've sung plenty of Christmas carols over the years. I usually think Christmas lights and decorations are pretty, though I take issue with inflatable snowmen. This is a lovely season, and more generally, I'm perfectly happy to live in a country where most people are Christian.
But how are we a Christian nation, and why would we be? And if we are, is there any way we can change that? How did we even end up talking about this? The first amendment to the Constitution is absolutely clear. Concise, even.
I've always been proud to live in a secular nation in the sense that the state doesn't interfere with religion. Of course, the United States government has interfered with religion regularly throughout our history, perhaps most notably in its treatment of American Indian religious traditions, which weren't legalized until 1972. But I remain proud to live in a country established upon laws guaranteeing religious freedom, a country wherein no cultural tradition reigns supreme. This is an ideal towards which we can strive.
Perhaps those who wish for a Christian nation will find a better life in England.
Mercifully, President Obama acknowledges the existence and legitimacy of non-Christian faith traditions in this week's address. There might have even been a twinkle in the President's eye as he wished the nation "Happy Holidays" amidst accusations of his supposed War on Religion.
Merry Christmas, and let us each celebrate every day however we see fit.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
call for guest bloggers
I'd like to feature a guest blogger every so often.
You might be thinking, well, that's a neat idea, but it doesn't really concern me, because I'm not a blogger. I urge you to reconsider! You may not be a blogger today, but that will change at the drop of a word.
If you like what you read and want to contribute, please email me at Leo.E.Brown@gmail.com. You might respond directly to the President's weekly address, but feel free to write a post on a different subject entirely. Just so long as it matches the general "atmosphere" of the blog. I'm also completely interested in more creative posts: policy proposals, poetry, and cartoons inclusive.
Thank you for reading, and I hope you will choose to contribute!
Leo
You might be thinking, well, that's a neat idea, but it doesn't really concern me, because I'm not a blogger. I urge you to reconsider! You may not be a blogger today, but that will change at the drop of a word.
If you like what you read and want to contribute, please email me at Leo.E.Brown@gmail.com. You might respond directly to the President's weekly address, but feel free to write a post on a different subject entirely. Just so long as it matches the general "atmosphere" of the blog. I'm also completely interested in more creative posts: policy proposals, poetry, and cartoons inclusive.
Thank you for reading, and I hope you will choose to contribute!
Leo
Monday, December 19, 2011
2011.12.17 Weekly Address: Honoring Those Who Served in Iraq
Our White Grandfathers
By Leo Brown
The Iraq War is over, and many troops will become veterans after years of fighting. President Obama points out that his grandfather's generation returned from World War II "to form the backbone of the largest middle class in history." But why would we expect this to happen today?
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.
Monday, December 12, 2011
2011.12.10 Weekly Address: Ensuring a Fair Shot for the Middle Class
We Need Less Freedom
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
A few minutes ago, I tweeted that the government can have some of my rights back, because I don't want them anymore.
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
A few minutes ago, I tweeted that the government can have some of my rights back, because I don't want them anymore.
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.
The "slippery slope" argument comes to mind. Sure, the world would be better off without McDonald's, but do we really want to go that route? Heavy-handed government control of the free market? A command economy? Sounds awfully red. And look at what happened during Prohibition, our infamous attempt to eliminate alcohol consumption. Everyone knows that Prohibition was a failure.
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.
Monday, December 5, 2011
2011.12.03 Weekly Address: Extending and Expanding the Payroll Tax Cut
Why is the Senator at the Fair?
By Leo Brown
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?
Monday, November 28, 2011
2011.11.24 Weekly Address: On Thanksgiving, Grateful for the Men and Women Who Defend Our Country
On Tastefully Silencing Narratives
By Leo Brown
In President Obama's Thanksgiving Address, which seems to have become one with this week's Weekly Address, he does not mention American Indian peoples past or present.
Why would this supposedly enlightened president ignore the shame of our favorite holiday? It would be a bit different if he were to speak exclusively and generally about blessings, family, and the like. If he were to describe his favorite stuffing recipe, I wouldn't jump down his throat for silencing the oppressed other.
President Obama wanted to avoid mentioning the genocide of our nation's first inhabitants, and he could have done so tastefully by declining to discuss history altogether. Instead, he delves right in to the same old narrative, extolling the character and fortitude of "the pilgrims, pioneers, and patriots who helped make this country what it is."
He does not mention the effort by early settlers to enslave Indians. (Only after this utterly failed did the Europeans begin to import captive Africans.) He thanks the military for protecting us today, but he does not mourn President Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the forced relocation of tens of thousands of Indians from the southeastern states to Oklahoma. Nor does he question the slaughter of the American bison herds, sanctioned by the US Army as part of an effort to starve the remaining Indians onto reservations. He celebrates our "chance to determine our own destiny," but his message further silences the Indian languages and traditions that were extinguished by government-run boarding schools.
We live in a great country, and we have a lot to be thankful for. But this Thanksgiving, President Obama frittered away an opportunity to uphold one of our most powerful values: a willingness to look squarely and honestly upon our legacy. The President has exhibited this sort of courage before, both in his oration and prose, and it is always disappointing when he doesn't live up to his own standards.
Monday, November 21, 2011
2011.11.19 Weekly Address: Creating an Economy Built to Last
We Are Not Alone
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
About a month ago, the traffic on this blog doubled. I couldn't figure it out. Had I become more insightful? Maybe some post had gone viral?
As it turned out, all of the new visitors were from Siberia, where I now live. Because many of my Russian friends and acquaintances want to read what I have to say. In Novosibirsk, direct communication with an American is a rare opportunity. Some people may be less interested in my ideas and simply want to practice their English. Whatever the explanation, my audience has swelled and continues to grow at a quicker rate than before.
This is an opportunity for growth that had not occurred to me, and many American businesses operate with the same narrow perspective. As President Obama mentions in his weekly address, 95% of the world's consumers live beyond our borders. But according to this Washington Post article, 99% of American businesses do not export their product.
Of course, some businesses, due to their size or industry, should not export. But 99%? This couldn't be optimal.
Existing trade laws and tariffs are less then ideal, but President Obama is working to fix this. The trade deals he announced during his Asia Pacific tour will help. The President has repeatedly signalled, through both words and action, his commitment to uphold the campaign promise of doubling American exports by 2014. Based on these facts, we can reasonably expect the government to support an economic climate conducive to exports.
But for all the government can do, American businesses need to open their minds. Because consumers are consumers, whether they hail from Westchester or Tajikistan. Americans may not be buying like they used to, but this needn't destroy our economy. By investing in international market research, businesses might realize opportunities far beyond what a healthy American economy could ever provide. We need to aggressively court the international consumer base rather than treating it like a cheap sideshow.
By viewing the global economy with a wide lens, we can continue to grow as a nation. If we repeat the mistakes of the last ten years or the habits of the last century, the world will leave us choking on its fumes.
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
About a month ago, the traffic on this blog doubled. I couldn't figure it out. Had I become more insightful? Maybe some post had gone viral?
As it turned out, all of the new visitors were from Siberia, where I now live. Because many of my Russian friends and acquaintances want to read what I have to say. In Novosibirsk, direct communication with an American is a rare opportunity. Some people may be less interested in my ideas and simply want to practice their English. Whatever the explanation, my audience has swelled and continues to grow at a quicker rate than before.
This is an opportunity for growth that had not occurred to me, and many American businesses operate with the same narrow perspective. As President Obama mentions in his weekly address, 95% of the world's consumers live beyond our borders. But according to this Washington Post article, 99% of American businesses do not export their product.
Of course, some businesses, due to their size or industry, should not export. But 99%? This couldn't be optimal.
Existing trade laws and tariffs are less then ideal, but President Obama is working to fix this. The trade deals he announced during his Asia Pacific tour will help. The President has repeatedly signalled, through both words and action, his commitment to uphold the campaign promise of doubling American exports by 2014. Based on these facts, we can reasonably expect the government to support an economic climate conducive to exports.
But for all the government can do, American businesses need to open their minds. Because consumers are consumers, whether they hail from Westchester or Tajikistan. Americans may not be buying like they used to, but this needn't destroy our economy. By investing in international market research, businesses might realize opportunities far beyond what a healthy American economy could ever provide. We need to aggressively court the international consumer base rather than treating it like a cheap sideshow.
By viewing the global economy with a wide lens, we can continue to grow as a nation. If we repeat the mistakes of the last ten years or the habits of the last century, the world will leave us choking on its fumes.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
2011.11.12 Weekly Address: Honoring Our Veterans for Their Sacrifice and Service
Plead Ignorant No More
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
Senate has passed the Returning Heroes Tax Credit, a part of the American Jobs Act, which will grant tax credit to businesses for hiring returning veterans. The idea is that America should provide for its soldiers, and that no one, after putting his or her life at risk for country, should have to suffer from unemployment. This principle, upholding the legacy of the GI Bill, found bipartisan support in the Senate.
Fiscal conservatives who support this measure have more to explain than their respect for military veterans. Why, now, should the government meddle with the economy and use tax dollars to influence business decisions? This is not consistent with their commitment to austerity and small government.
Presumably, the thought is that veterans deserve particular respect for their unique form of service. This is the sort of sentiment that Democrats and Republicans usually share.
If this is the case, it points squarely to a troubling conclusion. Though fiscal conservatives usually oppose tax credits, they blink when the beneficiaries are veterans. This is a tacit, but hardly subtle, acknowledgment that judicious fiscal stimulus does work to reduce unemployment. This, of course, is why they are supporting it: it will reduce unemployment among veterans.
But while the national unemployment rate sits at 9%, fiscal conservatives only consent to provide veterans with these benefits. As a result, no other demographic will see their unemployment rate budge. A tax credit incentive to hire recent college graduates, or single mothers, or people with purple hair could reduce their unemployment rate as well. There is now no doubt that Senate Republicans understand this concept.
With such a weak economy, many businesses are reluctant to take on more employees. The Returning Heroes Tax Credit will give some of these businesses an opportunity to safely expand and invest while shielding veterans from unemployment. Hopefully, once Americans see the concrete, indisputable results of this program, they will realize our country's potential and call upon elected officials to act in our best interest.
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
Senate has passed the Returning Heroes Tax Credit, a part of the American Jobs Act, which will grant tax credit to businesses for hiring returning veterans. The idea is that America should provide for its soldiers, and that no one, after putting his or her life at risk for country, should have to suffer from unemployment. This principle, upholding the legacy of the GI Bill, found bipartisan support in the Senate.
Fiscal conservatives who support this measure have more to explain than their respect for military veterans. Why, now, should the government meddle with the economy and use tax dollars to influence business decisions? This is not consistent with their commitment to austerity and small government.
Presumably, the thought is that veterans deserve particular respect for their unique form of service. This is the sort of sentiment that Democrats and Republicans usually share.
If this is the case, it points squarely to a troubling conclusion. Though fiscal conservatives usually oppose tax credits, they blink when the beneficiaries are veterans. This is a tacit, but hardly subtle, acknowledgment that judicious fiscal stimulus does work to reduce unemployment. This, of course, is why they are supporting it: it will reduce unemployment among veterans.
But while the national unemployment rate sits at 9%, fiscal conservatives only consent to provide veterans with these benefits. As a result, no other demographic will see their unemployment rate budge. A tax credit incentive to hire recent college graduates, or single mothers, or people with purple hair could reduce their unemployment rate as well. There is now no doubt that Senate Republicans understand this concept.
With such a weak economy, many businesses are reluctant to take on more employees. The Returning Heroes Tax Credit will give some of these businesses an opportunity to safely expand and invest while shielding veterans from unemployment. Hopefully, once Americans see the concrete, indisputable results of this program, they will realize our country's potential and call upon elected officials to act in our best interest.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
President Obama delegated his weekly address to Vice President Biden this week while he attended the G20 Summit in Cannes, France. Might the President consider other such substitutions from time to time? This was the first time since the 2008 campaign that I've heard Vice President Biden say so many words. I had forgotten what his voice sounds like!
In their weekly response, the Republican party features a different legislator each week. It keeps things fresh. Why not shift the spotlight around the President's cabinet? We could hear from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner about his take on the recession, or maybe Labor Secretary Hilda Solis would care to explain the American Jobs Act. No need to keep such smart and influential people under wraps.
President Obama is a fine orator, but does anyone get the sense that he is a bit weary of repeating himself?
In their weekly response, the Republican party features a different legislator each week. It keeps things fresh. Why not shift the spotlight around the President's cabinet? We could hear from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner about his take on the recession, or maybe Labor Secretary Hilda Solis would care to explain the American Jobs Act. No need to keep such smart and influential people under wraps.
President Obama is a fine orator, but does anyone get the sense that he is a bit weary of repeating himself?
2011.11.05 Weekly Address: We Have to Increase the Pace
As President Obama took a week off from his weekly address, so too will I from this fair blog. Here is the link to Vice President Biden's address, in which he bemoans the mulish ways of Congress.
[Vice President Biden's Weekly Address]
[Vice President Biden's Weekly Address]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)