Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
guest post
Who Cares About Obamacare Versus Romneycare?
By Jamal Jefferson
During a recent Republican primary debate in Jacksonville, Florida, Senator Rick Santorum questioned Governor Mitt Romney's electability. Governor Romney, who was the probable nominee at the time (Senator Santorum has won three of the five primaries since), continues to defend his involvement in Massachusetts’s Health Care Insurance Reform, which he engineered while serving as governor of Massachusetts. The issue at hand is that the Massachusetts law is similar in its framework to President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Senator Santorum called this a "fundamental issue" that Republicans could not tolerate. The "fundamental issue" is that both the Massachusetts law and the new federal law require individuals to purchase health insurance.
The individual mandate is a feature that is considered by many to be anathema to conservative philosophy. Governor Romney, if he wins the Republican nomination, will have to answer tough questions in the general election as he defends why he would repeal the PPACA when Obama himself claims that Romney's reform was the model for the national bill. In a heated quarrel, Santorum said, "I read an article today [and it] has 15 different items directly in common with Obamacare." Unfortunately, it has been difficult to locate this article.
Nevertheless, I have come across several websites that stack up Obamacare vs. Romneycare. Some of the same issues raised during the passage of PPACA bill appear. Yet some of these points were, and still are, irrelevant.
The national healthcare law is over 2,000 pages long, while the Massachusetts bill is only 70 pages. This is a fact that cannot be disputed, but it does not come as a surprise. As the national bill pertains to all 50 states and not just one, it makes sense that the bill is more complicated, and it follows logically that lawmakers needed more trees to create the bill. PPACA was about 1,000 pages in its genesis, but doubled to a little over 2,000 as lawmakers made amendments in efforts to make sure that the bill appeased both sides of the aisle.
Such length is not unusual for national legislation. Major spending bills frequently run more than 1,000 pages. According to Slate Magazine, "[the 2009] stimulus bill was 1,100 pages. The climate bill that the House passed in June [of 2009] was 1,200 pages. Bill Clinton's 1993 health care plan was famously 1,342 pages long. In 2007, President Bush's [budget bill] ran to 1,482 pages."
Furthermore, if you actually read the bill, or any bill, you will notice that not every page is filled like a textbook, or even an essay with 12 point font and one inch margins. Page numbers can be misleading because of these assumptions. In fact, if you take a look at the number of actual words, the bill is as long as a Harry Potter book (counting substantive language), though probably not as gripping, entertaining and comprehensible if you haven't attended law school.
A shallow comparison of these two separate bills allows us to say that they are indeed different, but nothing definitive about the content. However, in the following weeks I will examine the substantive differences between Obamacare and Romneycare. In the mean time, check out Governor Romeny's plan to repeal and replace PPACA that he presented last May in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
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 posts regularly as part of an ongoing "Guest Blogger" series. If you're interested in writing, do click the link and be in touch!
By Jamal Jefferson
During a recent Republican primary debate in Jacksonville, Florida, Senator Rick Santorum questioned Governor Mitt Romney's electability. Governor Romney, who was the probable nominee at the time (Senator Santorum has won three of the five primaries since), continues to defend his involvement in Massachusetts’s Health Care Insurance Reform, which he engineered while serving as governor of Massachusetts. The issue at hand is that the Massachusetts law is similar in its framework to President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Senator Santorum called this a "fundamental issue" that Republicans could not tolerate. The "fundamental issue" is that both the Massachusetts law and the new federal law require individuals to purchase health insurance.
The individual mandate is a feature that is considered by many to be anathema to conservative philosophy. Governor Romney, if he wins the Republican nomination, will have to answer tough questions in the general election as he defends why he would repeal the PPACA when Obama himself claims that Romney's reform was the model for the national bill. In a heated quarrel, Santorum said, "I read an article today [and it] has 15 different items directly in common with Obamacare." Unfortunately, it has been difficult to locate this article.
Nevertheless, I have come across several websites that stack up Obamacare vs. Romneycare. Some of the same issues raised during the passage of PPACA bill appear. Yet some of these points were, and still are, irrelevant.
The national healthcare law is over 2,000 pages long, while the Massachusetts bill is only 70 pages. This is a fact that cannot be disputed, but it does not come as a surprise. As the national bill pertains to all 50 states and not just one, it makes sense that the bill is more complicated, and it follows logically that lawmakers needed more trees to create the bill. PPACA was about 1,000 pages in its genesis, but doubled to a little over 2,000 as lawmakers made amendments in efforts to make sure that the bill appeased both sides of the aisle.
Such length is not unusual for national legislation. Major spending bills frequently run more than 1,000 pages. According to Slate Magazine, "[the 2009] stimulus bill was 1,100 pages. The climate bill that the House passed in June [of 2009] was 1,200 pages. Bill Clinton's 1993 health care plan was famously 1,342 pages long. In 2007, President Bush's [budget bill] ran to 1,482 pages."
Furthermore, if you actually read the bill, or any bill, you will notice that not every page is filled like a textbook, or even an essay with 12 point font and one inch margins. Page numbers can be misleading because of these assumptions. In fact, if you take a look at the number of actual words, the bill is as long as a Harry Potter book (counting substantive language), though probably not as gripping, entertaining and comprehensible if you haven't attended law school.
A shallow comparison of these two separate bills allows us to say that they are indeed different, but nothing definitive about the content. However, in the following weeks I will examine the substantive differences between Obamacare and Romneycare. In the mean time, check out Governor Romeny's plan to repeal and replace PPACA that he presented last May in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
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 posts regularly as part of an ongoing "Guest Blogger" series. If you're interested in writing, do click the link and be in touch!
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
guest post
Whistling Past the Center
By Stefan Ward-Wheten
Bemoaning the failures of the democracy we have is the spectator sport of every election season. The refrain is a familiar one. The two-party system is broken, so goes the logic: left- and right-wing partisans alike are to blame for both the hyperbolic ignorance of the public discourse and the failure of our political institutions to effectively address the acute and growing issues at hand. Columnist David Brooks recently offered up a neat opening statement for the prosecution in the New York Times. "The Democratic and Republican parties used to contain serious internal debates - between moderate and conservative Republicans, between New Democrats and liberals. Neither party does now." Brooks closed by prognosticating that some "third force" would emerge to sweep away the gridlock in Washington in a quasi-Biblical flood.
Right on cue, a third force has indeed emerged from the wings. Americans Elect, a cohort of largely anonymous movers-and-shakers of diverse partisan shades, is organizing a political movement on the sidelines. They've already qualified for the ballot in 14 states, and the campaign, utilizing more than three thousand paid organizers, has raised $22 million so far. The kicker? There isn’t even a candidate yet. Once a slate is assembled, Americans Elect will host the nation's first online primary in June: the candidates will answer questions from AE's members (about 300,000 so far have signed up through the website), and then one will be elected on the Web. Among the prospective hopefuls: Jon Huntsman, former U.S. ambassador to China and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Third parties are often relegated to the butt end of jokes, or at least the quixotic end of political idealism, languishing as they often do under a steep disadvantage in media access, organizing ability and, most crucially, money. Even billionaire Ross Perot, who garnered millions of votes in the 1992 and 1994 elections, garnered mostly derision from his portrayals in the press. This time may be different: Americans Elect appears to have the support, or at least the sympathy, of both the conventional media and of some deep-pocketed donors. Though the full list isn't public, most of known backers come from preeminent business or financial backgrounds. The coverage has been markedly favorable so far, as well. Thomas Friedman, another gadfly from the pages of the Times, eagerly anticipated that the new kids on the proverbial block would "blow the doors off" this election. "Write it down: Americans Elect," Friedman insisted.
One reason for this preemptive welcome, aside from the prospect of spicing up the news cycle, is that rather than distinguishing itself with innovative policies or campaign tactics, Americans Elect presumes to speak from the ideological center. "Our goal is to open up what has been an anticompetitive process to people in the middle who are unsatisfied with the choices of the two parties," declared Kahlil Byrd, CEO of Americans Elect, speaking to Friedman in that same piece. Unlike outsider mavericks like Perot or systemic critics like consumer advocate Ralph Nader, Ackerman and company claim to represent a frustrated but heretofore disenfranchised swath of "middle America" - a new silent majority, if you will.
Such sentiments dovetail nicely with those of commentators like Friedman and Brooks. It is less clear, however, that they will find such a comfortable niche in the current electoral marketplace. Other critics have been less kind to the neophyte caucus. "No one from labor, the clergy, the environmental community, civil or women's rights groups, anti-tax organizations, or any political activist group of any persuasion is on the list," notes Harold Meyerson, writing in the American Prospect. Richard Hasen, a prominent political scholar, pointed out bylaws in the campaign that allow the board and its selected committees to overrule candidate nominations even over members' objections, lambasting the project's leaders for its "democratic deficit."
More partisan critics are quick to point out that the political "center" is a crowded place. "We already have a centrist party," groused Robert Kuttner at the left-liberal online journal AlterNet. "It's called the presidential Democratic Party." By this logic, centrism is based on a misguided belief that both parties have raced towards the radical margins. However, President Obama has aroused the ire of many in his own party by compromising on budgetary and policy issues, and even the more ideologically rigid Republican base sees electability in Mitt Romney’s moderate image. Neither party will cede ground among moderate voters without a fight.
Despite financial heft and media savvy, Americans Elect may well be muscled out of the running by the institutional strength of the 'Big Two,' have many third party hopefuls before them. Still, it's telling that an as-yet-untested electoral model can muster this amount of buzz. For the first time in recent memory, nearly every sentient American is deeply dissatisfied with the political system. Such collective disenchantment, however, disguises fundamental differences in opinion regarding just how to fix things. Staunch left-liberals like Kuttner and Paul Krugman offer a separate diagnosis of current political ills from that of David Brooks, who in turn sees things very differently than libertarians like Ron Paul.
A true "e pluribus unum" moment will not come to pass unless the public is allowed to have honest debates about what they want the United States of America to look like. A high-minded appeal to vague cross-partisan solidarity is unlikely to spark such a moment, and certainly not one that eschews policy in favor of rhetoric. Instead, it requires a transparent and accountable political and business class, an independent and rigorously accurate news media, and a genuine willingness on the part of every citizen to take seriously the task of democratic self-governance. Reformers of any stripe should see to it that these demands, uncomfortable though they are, do not fall by the wayside.
Stefan Ward-Wheten graduated from Williams College in 2011 with majors in Political Science and Comparative Literature. His post is one of an ongoing "Guest Blogger" series. If you're interested in writing, do click the link and be in touch!
By Stefan Ward-Wheten
Bemoaning the failures of the democracy we have is the spectator sport of every election season. The refrain is a familiar one. The two-party system is broken, so goes the logic: left- and right-wing partisans alike are to blame for both the hyperbolic ignorance of the public discourse and the failure of our political institutions to effectively address the acute and growing issues at hand. Columnist David Brooks recently offered up a neat opening statement for the prosecution in the New York Times. "The Democratic and Republican parties used to contain serious internal debates - between moderate and conservative Republicans, between New Democrats and liberals. Neither party does now." Brooks closed by prognosticating that some "third force" would emerge to sweep away the gridlock in Washington in a quasi-Biblical flood.
Right on cue, a third force has indeed emerged from the wings. Americans Elect, a cohort of largely anonymous movers-and-shakers of diverse partisan shades, is organizing a political movement on the sidelines. They've already qualified for the ballot in 14 states, and the campaign, utilizing more than three thousand paid organizers, has raised $22 million so far. The kicker? There isn’t even a candidate yet. Once a slate is assembled, Americans Elect will host the nation's first online primary in June: the candidates will answer questions from AE's members (about 300,000 so far have signed up through the website), and then one will be elected on the Web. Among the prospective hopefuls: Jon Huntsman, former U.S. ambassador to China and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Third parties are often relegated to the butt end of jokes, or at least the quixotic end of political idealism, languishing as they often do under a steep disadvantage in media access, organizing ability and, most crucially, money. Even billionaire Ross Perot, who garnered millions of votes in the 1992 and 1994 elections, garnered mostly derision from his portrayals in the press. This time may be different: Americans Elect appears to have the support, or at least the sympathy, of both the conventional media and of some deep-pocketed donors. Though the full list isn't public, most of known backers come from preeminent business or financial backgrounds. The coverage has been markedly favorable so far, as well. Thomas Friedman, another gadfly from the pages of the Times, eagerly anticipated that the new kids on the proverbial block would "blow the doors off" this election. "Write it down: Americans Elect," Friedman insisted.
One reason for this preemptive welcome, aside from the prospect of spicing up the news cycle, is that rather than distinguishing itself with innovative policies or campaign tactics, Americans Elect presumes to speak from the ideological center. "Our goal is to open up what has been an anticompetitive process to people in the middle who are unsatisfied with the choices of the two parties," declared Kahlil Byrd, CEO of Americans Elect, speaking to Friedman in that same piece. Unlike outsider mavericks like Perot or systemic critics like consumer advocate Ralph Nader, Ackerman and company claim to represent a frustrated but heretofore disenfranchised swath of "middle America" - a new silent majority, if you will.
Such sentiments dovetail nicely with those of commentators like Friedman and Brooks. It is less clear, however, that they will find such a comfortable niche in the current electoral marketplace. Other critics have been less kind to the neophyte caucus. "No one from labor, the clergy, the environmental community, civil or women's rights groups, anti-tax organizations, or any political activist group of any persuasion is on the list," notes Harold Meyerson, writing in the American Prospect. Richard Hasen, a prominent political scholar, pointed out bylaws in the campaign that allow the board and its selected committees to overrule candidate nominations even over members' objections, lambasting the project's leaders for its "democratic deficit."
More partisan critics are quick to point out that the political "center" is a crowded place. "We already have a centrist party," groused Robert Kuttner at the left-liberal online journal AlterNet. "It's called the presidential Democratic Party." By this logic, centrism is based on a misguided belief that both parties have raced towards the radical margins. However, President Obama has aroused the ire of many in his own party by compromising on budgetary and policy issues, and even the more ideologically rigid Republican base sees electability in Mitt Romney’s moderate image. Neither party will cede ground among moderate voters without a fight.
Despite financial heft and media savvy, Americans Elect may well be muscled out of the running by the institutional strength of the 'Big Two,' have many third party hopefuls before them. Still, it's telling that an as-yet-untested electoral model can muster this amount of buzz. For the first time in recent memory, nearly every sentient American is deeply dissatisfied with the political system. Such collective disenchantment, however, disguises fundamental differences in opinion regarding just how to fix things. Staunch left-liberals like Kuttner and Paul Krugman offer a separate diagnosis of current political ills from that of David Brooks, who in turn sees things very differently than libertarians like Ron Paul.
A true "e pluribus unum" moment will not come to pass unless the public is allowed to have honest debates about what they want the United States of America to look like. A high-minded appeal to vague cross-partisan solidarity is unlikely to spark such a moment, and certainly not one that eschews policy in favor of rhetoric. Instead, it requires a transparent and accountable political and business class, an independent and rigorously accurate news media, and a genuine willingness on the part of every citizen to take seriously the task of democratic self-governance. Reformers of any stripe should see to it that these demands, uncomfortable though they are, do not fall by the wayside.
Stefan Ward-Wheten graduated from Williams College in 2011 with majors in Political Science and Comparative Literature. His post is one of an ongoing "Guest Blogger" series. If you're interested in writing, do click the link and be in touch!
Sunday, February 19, 2012
2012.02.18 Weekly Address: Continuing to Strengthen American Manufacturing
How to Bring Jobs Home
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
Though China can produce goods more cheaply, "we can make things better." And the cost of setting up shop abroad is rising. And so, the President says, with middle-class families struggling through a slow recovery, we need to give tax breaks to companies that manufacture at home, and not the other way around.
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
Though China can produce goods more cheaply, "we can make things better." And the cost of setting up shop abroad is rising. And so, the President says, with middle-class families struggling through a slow recovery, we need to give tax breaks to companies that manufacture at home, and not the other way around.
Apple springs to mind. Apple has taken a torrent of flack over the past few weeks as human rights organizations, including SumOfUs.org and Change.org, have singled out the labor conditions of its factories in China.
President Obama doesn't mention this controversy. Instead, he announces that "we can make things better," by which presumably he means 'higher quality,' a claim that anyone who has laid their hands on an iPhone knows is false. Even if products 'Made in America' were, once upon a time, objectively better than imports, this is no longer so. The myth of American exceptionalism is a wan distraction from the threats and opportunities of emerging economies.
President Obama doesn't mention this controversy. Instead, he announces that "we can make things better," by which presumably he means 'higher quality,' a claim that anyone who has laid their hands on an iPhone knows is false. Even if products 'Made in America' were, once upon a time, objectively better than imports, this is no longer so. The myth of American exceptionalism is a wan distraction from the threats and opportunities of emerging economies.
Apple, and plenty of other companies, have figured out a way to manufacture goods abroad both cheaply and well. This leaves the President with only one indisputable leg of his argument: that jobs continue to seep offshore, and the government needs to stem the tide as our nation gropes for a semblance of economic vitality.
Tax breaks for companies that manufacture in our country make complete sense. This is a straightforward approach to leveling the playing field in our country of high living costs and stringent labor laws. The President would strengthen his argument by acknowledging the disparity between American labor laws and those of China, India, and other outsourcing hubs. Perhaps this is what he means by saying that "we can make things better," but we can't afford to grant President Obama the benefit of the doubt.
The iPhone may never come home. But if the President wants to bring any jobs back to America, he needs to make a clear case that labor conditions abroad are unacceptable and come down hard on companies that pay little heed to the rights of their employees. Not only could this be considered a moral obligation, it would be a much more compelling case for moving jobs home than "we want them back."
Ignoring the problem won't make it go away, and waxing eloquent about the quality of American goods won't move the bottom line. The President wants to adjust the tax code, and there is a good reason to do it; we are waiting for him to spell it out.
Tax breaks for companies that manufacture in our country make complete sense. This is a straightforward approach to leveling the playing field in our country of high living costs and stringent labor laws. The President would strengthen his argument by acknowledging the disparity between American labor laws and those of China, India, and other outsourcing hubs. Perhaps this is what he means by saying that "we can make things better," but we can't afford to grant President Obama the benefit of the doubt.
The iPhone may never come home. But if the President wants to bring any jobs back to America, he needs to make a clear case that labor conditions abroad are unacceptable and come down hard on companies that pay little heed to the rights of their employees. Not only could this be considered a moral obligation, it would be a much more compelling case for moving jobs home than "we want them back."
Ignoring the problem won't make it go away, and waxing eloquent about the quality of American goods won't move the bottom line. The President wants to adjust the tax code, and there is a good reason to do it; we are waiting for him to spell it out.
Monday, February 13, 2012
2012.02.11 Weekly Address: Extending the Payroll Tax Cut for the Middle Class
Culture War Queen
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
Much ado has been made of the American tendency to vote against our own economic self-interest. In his famous response to Karl Rove's 'conservative coalition' of the 2004 presidential election, Thomas Frank published a book entitled What's the Matter with Kansas? Mr. Frank makes the case that social issues are used as a distraction while the conservative elite push through discriminatory tax and spending policy.
In a two-party system, there might not be a candidate who opposes gay marriage while favoring progressive tax policy, and poor evangelical Christians don't have the option of mixing and matching.
Eight years after the beginning of President Bush's second term, social issues - the 'culture wars' - remain at the fore, but the terrain has shifted. As state after state legalizes gay marriage, LGBT rights are increasingly considered civil rights, if only as a matter of grudging pragmatism. Other social issues that were once blamed on immorality and the degradation of Western culture, such as abortion rights and environmental activism, have been complicated by a richer understanding of our circumstances. Less often, today, do we hear about the supposed Judeo-Christian origins of our nation. Tempers and passions may not have chilled, but a sense of slight chaos has permeated some of these most iconic ideological standoffs.
Budget concerns, on the other hand, have emerged as the latest opportunity for posturing and political feud. It's clear that over time, all but a few pariah states will legalize gay marriage, but no one is sure how the budget mess will resolve. In this sense, it is a perfect political tool, allowing for grandstanding and condescension from all angles.
Furthermore, though Americans have been receiving handouts from the government since the Declaration of Independence, it seems to have become passe to publicly ask for them. This is a familiar and sad perversion of 'self-sufficiency,' a most treasured folk value firmly grounded in American exceptionalism.
In his weekly address, President Obama asks us to consider how $40 per paycheck might impact a working family's financial situation. It's clear where he is going with this. Will the underprivileged masses vote with their wallets, or will they buy a manufactured narrative of warped nostalgia that disregards their economic needs? Will they choose cash or pride?
Republican voters have found in a presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, the embodiment of their oppressor. The enormously wealthy Mr. Romney doesn't seem to viscerally feel the 'culture war' values of the Republican base, but he croons conservatism and callous economic policy. It remains to be seen whether Republicans primary voters will buy his pitch.
Certainly, Mr. Romney's family wouldn't miss $40 per paycheck. But how would he answer President Obama's thought experiment? Regardless of whether Mr. Romney really believes conservative economic policy is best for our GDP, does he realize how it would impact an average family? Has he ever bought his own groceries or a tank of gas?
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
Much ado has been made of the American tendency to vote against our own economic self-interest. In his famous response to Karl Rove's 'conservative coalition' of the 2004 presidential election, Thomas Frank published a book entitled What's the Matter with Kansas? Mr. Frank makes the case that social issues are used as a distraction while the conservative elite push through discriminatory tax and spending policy.
In a two-party system, there might not be a candidate who opposes gay marriage while favoring progressive tax policy, and poor evangelical Christians don't have the option of mixing and matching.
Eight years after the beginning of President Bush's second term, social issues - the 'culture wars' - remain at the fore, but the terrain has shifted. As state after state legalizes gay marriage, LGBT rights are increasingly considered civil rights, if only as a matter of grudging pragmatism. Other social issues that were once blamed on immorality and the degradation of Western culture, such as abortion rights and environmental activism, have been complicated by a richer understanding of our circumstances. Less often, today, do we hear about the supposed Judeo-Christian origins of our nation. Tempers and passions may not have chilled, but a sense of slight chaos has permeated some of these most iconic ideological standoffs.
Budget concerns, on the other hand, have emerged as the latest opportunity for posturing and political feud. It's clear that over time, all but a few pariah states will legalize gay marriage, but no one is sure how the budget mess will resolve. In this sense, it is a perfect political tool, allowing for grandstanding and condescension from all angles.
Furthermore, though Americans have been receiving handouts from the government since the Declaration of Independence, it seems to have become passe to publicly ask for them. This is a familiar and sad perversion of 'self-sufficiency,' a most treasured folk value firmly grounded in American exceptionalism.
In his weekly address, President Obama asks us to consider how $40 per paycheck might impact a working family's financial situation. It's clear where he is going with this. Will the underprivileged masses vote with their wallets, or will they buy a manufactured narrative of warped nostalgia that disregards their economic needs? Will they choose cash or pride?
Republican voters have found in a presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, the embodiment of their oppressor. The enormously wealthy Mr. Romney doesn't seem to viscerally feel the 'culture war' values of the Republican base, but he croons conservatism and callous economic policy. It remains to be seen whether Republicans primary voters will buy his pitch.
Certainly, Mr. Romney's family wouldn't miss $40 per paycheck. But how would he answer President Obama's thought experiment? Regardless of whether Mr. Romney really believes conservative economic policy is best for our GDP, does he realize how it would impact an average family? Has he ever bought his own groceries or a tank of gas?
Friday, February 10, 2012
guest post
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!
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!
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)