Political Traffic

Sitting in traffic, annoyed because of street closures, I wonder if it is all worth the while, all worth the effort that is of President Obama visiting the University of Texas at Austin campus to deliver a speech. While there is no denying the honor and excitement of the President visiting my college campus, I wonder if it is all worth the while.

So after putting up with my fair share of traffic for a speech I did not even witness, I google for the record of the speech online. Upon finding the speech, I decide to copy it into http://www.wordle.net/create to see what were the President's main points with seeing which words were repeated the most throughout the speech. To my surprise, the words "Education," "Make," and "College," were the most repeated. I had gone into my search thinking it was more a a publicity stunt than the President actually talking about a relevant topic to his audience.

However, somehow I could not get over the trouble the US Government had to take so the President to could speak to college students when Congress is having a hard enough time passing bills that could save our planet. Maybe it could have been the traffic that ticked me off, or the witnessing of government taxpayer dollars used to block streets and direct traffic, but still couldn't President Obama be making more of an effort to help build bridges in Congress instead of blocking the already clogged Austin streets?

Not Quite the Same Thing...

In response to your post, Re: Arizona's New Immigration Law, I will have to say your argument that illegal immigrants sometimes actually hurt the economy by sending much of their earnings abroad is sound, I will have to disagree that the discrimination of the Arizona Immigration law is similar to a clerk asking for an ID at the liquor store. While the discrimination of Arizona's Immigration Law seems to be suspicious, when a clerk asks for identification they ask all people he or she believes to be under-age, not just a particular race or ethnicity. They are not discriminating because he or she usually asks ALL young buyers whereas in Arizona the law seems to have targeted a specific race of illegal immigrants, not the illegal immigrant population as a whole.

For example, when the bill was being signed, according to New York Times article "Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html), "Hispanics, in particular... railed against the law as a recipe for racial and ethnic profiling." This demonstrates that even the local population felt that the law was not going to be applied equally to all illegal immigrants which makes it different from a young person walking into a liquor store feeling like he or she will be asked for an ID because of her age because it is usually applied to all suspects not just one race.

Moreover, as I can agree with your argument that illegal immigrants might do more harm than good for the U.S. economy when they send earnings abroad, supporting a law that is clearly a target for a particular race is not the answer. If anything the law was a cry for help from Arizona to the United States Government to fulfill promises on immigration reform.

Two Nauseating Issues

While you, Ashty, discuss several issues in your post The gentlemen will observe regular order and sit down!, the ruthlessness and confusion of Congress as well as if the first-responders to 9/11 deserve medical compensation, as much as I agree with the former I tend to disagree strongly with the latter issue. Yes, Congress is confusing and there is probably an excess amount of bargaining and as you say "teasing." It is very upsetting that party lines can draw such a rift between Congressmen causing them to focus more on what his or her party wants rather than what is in the public's best interest. Therefore I am very much in agreement with your stance on this point of your post.

However, your choice to take the stand of not being a supporter of giving medical compensation to the first-responders is very upsetting. Yes, you mention that the danger is part of the job and those who signed up should have realized this, as seen with your comparison to the military. But, veterans today receive ample federal aid especially if they are injured in the line of duty. For example, on the website: http://www.veteranprograms.com/ veterans are given access to federal funded counseling, hospitals, and other compensation. Therefore, your argument that those in dangerous professions that serve our country do not deserve medical compensation is questionable seeing as though the United States gives veterans much more than financial support.

In all, no matter your stance on the particular issue of medical compensation for first-responders the chaos and tension rising in Congress is far more upsetting.

Party Pressure: Will it cause Government to Break?

A fear from the beginning, political parties, though they seem inevitable seem to put excess pressure and obstacles into the political system. As seen in Congress, especially recently with the climate change bill failure, the tension between political parties seems to prevent legislation that is actually in the interest of the public (not just Democrats or Republicans) to be passed. We all breathe the same air, walk the same ground, drink the same water and to see a bill fail that would take steps to protect these resources all humans take advantage of because the GOP is adamant to prevent any Democrat favored legislation to be passed is upsetting.

It seems as though we as a nation have forgotten what Government’s role as a whole is and party ties are stronger than seeing the big picture. Government is not supposed to be about making alliances and trying to take power from others. It is there to serve the people. However this begs the question is the public, of which Government is supposed to come from, doing its job in making sure that their best interest, is being served. Should there have been more mobilization from voters concerning the climate change bill? Would this have made a difference? Maybe, maybe not, but shouldn’t we have tried.

Furthermore, every day I feel more and more pressure, to choose a side, to tie myself to one party or another. I am not sure where this pressure is coming from, whether it is reading articles that are clearly slanted in one direction or from hearing about legislation being delayed because of a lack of compromise, or even from learning that Republican representatives from my own state of Texas are up in arms to fight the passed bill of Healthcare Reform that was generated by the Democrats. I feel as though if I am feeling this pressure and I am barely involved, how those directly involved in government must feel the extreme pressure to stay loyal to his or her party of choice in all situation, regardless if staying loyal means forgetting the public’s best interest (as seen with the failure of the climate change bill). This is worrisome, because as it is probable the public is not as well informed to see how these party ties are creating more problems than they are solving and see the loyalty of Congressman as an admirable quality rather than a hindrance.

As I see it, the United States Government could stand to see a few more moderates join the act. This would allow for more compromises to be made and more people to bridge the gap and allow legislation to actually be passed that would benefit the nation as a whole. It is just going to be a matter of time for us to realize what is good for us and make a stand. But, is it going to be too late?

Mother Nature Forces Involvemnet

In his article, “We’re Gonna Be Sorry,” New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman criticizes Senate Democrats for choosing to “…[abandon] the effort to pass an energy/climate bill that would begin to cap greenhouse gases that cause global warming and promote renewable energy that could diminish our addiction to oil.” Seeing as though Mr. Friedman has served as a economic correspondent in Washington and chief White House correspondent for the New York Times he is probably well informed about how Congress works and apt to criticize as well. Friedman points out that he could blame Republicans for not voting for the bill or hesitant Democrats or even President Obama, but he point out when it comes down to it “…the public, confused and stressed by the last two years, never got mobilized to press for this legislation.” He suggests that it was the public who were the ones who did not use the system to promote legislation that is in the public’s interest.

This is upsetting because it shows where the public is failing. The public is given the right to petition for legislation through multiple ways and still did not mobilize for this bill. Friedman points out that this is especially upsetting because the public is messing with “Mother Nature” who, according to Friedman, “Mother Nature is going to do whatever chemistry, biology and physics dictate.” Global warming is happening whether we want it to or not and it is dangerous for us as the public to just watch and let political games dictate whether or not legislation gets passed to help protect the earth we all live in. This is the time, where information and communication is readily available and easy to use, the public should be figuring out what is in their best interest and doing what they can to protect it. To put it simply, the failure for this watered down energy bill to pass is a wake up call for the nation to get involved in the democracy the Framers built or else we will regret it.

Is the Economy the Bottom Line?

On Sunday July 18, 2010, in the New York Times published article “The Pundit Delusion,” columnist and current Economics and International Affairs professor at Princeton University, Paul Krugman suggests that the ‘… “Obama paradox” — the supposedly mysterious disconnect between the president’s achievements and his numbers…’ is based on the health of the nation’s economy. Well versed in the subject of Economics, Krugman supports his claim by showing the evidence of a poll conducted in 1996.

“In 1996 voters were asked whether the deficit had gone up or down under Bill Clinton. It had, in fact, plunged — but a plurality of voters, and a majority of Republicans, said that it had risen.”

Krugman demonstrates that even though during this time Democrats had actually reduced the national deficit, when people did not experience economic improvements in their own lives they were more likely to blame those in office. Krugman goes on to make the point that citizens facing economic troubles in their own lives are more likely to blame those currently in charge than someone who is not. Even though those currently in office are not the cause or only part of the problem, it is what citizens perceive and it is the citizens’ perceptions of what is going on in government that dictate approval ratings. Then, Krugman suggests that if perception is key for approval, maybe the Obama Administration was too concerned about, “…how its policies would play in the news rather than on their actual impact on the economy.” The author points out how this concern could ultimately ruin chances for Obama’s re-election and how people “…will say that it was because Mr. Obama was too liberal — when his real mistake was doing too little to create jobs.”

I personally agree with Krugman’s logic in his argument. When people do not experience immediate change in their personal lives and economy when legislation is passed, people become hesitant to believe that such legislation will ever change anything. As much trust as one can have in this nation’s government, when still facing economic and job problems when promised change is disheartening and can cause one to look for someone to blame. Usually, it is then easiest to blame those who hold power, because it is with their power they should have changed things right?

However, even though Krugman suggests that the economy is the top dictator of approval ratings, isn’t it in the citizen’s best interest to become more informed about legislation to see how this apparent success might or might not affect his or her personal future? Then, his or her approval would be based on that rather than making the executive the scapegoat for the whole situation. But, as nice as this would be, when we are currently in a state as a nation where not all voters are informed even for a presidential election, is there any motivation to be informed for a simple poll? Politicians, at the moment, are better off taking the risk riding the economy’s waves of ups and downs rather than relying on informed voters to make decisions based on the facts.

One Regulator that didn't make the Cut

On Monday July 12, 2010 The New York Times published the article “Financial Bill to Close Regulator of Fading Industry.” The article describes, that despite the call for more regulation within the banking and market systems within the financial reform bill, “…Democrats hope to send the president this week is the directive to dismember and close the Office of Thrift Supervision.” This is interesting because lack of oversight was part of the cause of both the 1980 and 2008 financial crises and one would think a regulation agency would be safe from closing during the current financial reform. The article explains this anomaly with the suggestion that “…the agency is being buried with its industry.” The suggestion is then explained with describing that it was because of this office’s lack of regulation and not doing their job that caused institutions such as Washington Mutual, IndyMac and Countrywide Financial to fail. Furthermore, such savings and loan institutions are now being integrated into major banking corporations. Therefore, it is quite logical that Congress would attempt to close the Office of Thrift Supervision because it did not do its job and is becoming inert. This article is valuable to the American public because it describes some of the inner workings of Congress regarding the financial reform. It reveals logical steps that are trying to be taken to correct the financial crisis of 2008, something that is still affecting most Americans. Reading more similar articles is a step the American public should take to become a nation of more informed voters.