A fair amount of what I read in editorials is writers on both left and right justifying their sides position or pointing out flaws or hypocrisy on the other side. It's not universal, but is pervasive. Today, however, I read two articles that bucked the general trend.
One is by JC Watts, former Republican congressman, who notes that spending is a bipartisan problem. It's easy on the right to point out the excess spending by Democrats, but Republicans spent like drunken sailors when they had the House, Senate, and White House during W's presidency.
The other is by Gretchen Morgenson in the New York Times, which points out the spin involved in GM's "repayment" of the bailout money. The Times is no adversary of the Obama administration, but at least (in this instance), they allowed sunlight to shine on the shady dealings and press of GM paying back taxpayer money with other taxpayer money.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
I might get a bumper sticker
I went and saw Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, and William Bennett speak last night in Roseville. What they had to say was very familiar to what's on their radio shows, though without the commercials, and it was a good evening.
Dennis said he's making bumper stickers with the following statement, and I just might get one:
"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."
Dennis said he's making bumper stickers with the following statement, and I just might get one:
"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."
Monday, April 26, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
A substantive health care reform proposal
Michael Tanner @ Cato injects some (free market) reality into the health care debate here.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
A video is worth how many words?
The expansion of federal power via the unpopular health care "reform" has hit several stumbling blocks, including the senate filibuster. Democrats are now threatening to ram through legislation now without regard to the filibuster, in move called reconciliation. Not so long ago, however, Democrats were the minority party, and these same politicians (Obama, Hillary Clinton, Biden, and Reid, to name a few) had a very different view of bypassing the filibuster. I can't recommend this video highly enough.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Editorial of the day
A couple Utah state legislators make a very interesting proposal.
A modest proposal to the federal government: Let Utah do it
I've often thought that the federal government tries to do things better left to the states, though to be fair I think government at all levels is generally too big. The experiment they propose deserves consideration in DC, though I doubt it will receive it.
A modest proposal to the federal government: Let Utah do it
I've often thought that the federal government tries to do things better left to the states, though to be fair I think government at all levels is generally too big. The experiment they propose deserves consideration in DC, though I doubt it will receive it.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Seriousness of purpose
On the same day is posted this video, of Barack Obama stating that
"The people who sent us here expect a seriousness of purpose that transcends petty politics."
while his press secretary is busy ridiculing Sarah Palin.
Can anyone explain to me how ridiculing the other party lives up to your talk of a seriousness of purpose that transcends petty politics?
"The people who sent us here expect a seriousness of purpose that transcends petty politics."
while his press secretary is busy ridiculing Sarah Palin.
Can anyone explain to me how ridiculing the other party lives up to your talk of a seriousness of purpose that transcends petty politics?
Friday, February 5, 2010
Editorial of the day
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/rolling_in_dough_IEQqExWnRonswRVQZcl3WM
Rich Lowry opines on the contrast between the employment situation in the public and private sectors during this recession.
Rich Lowry opines on the contrast between the employment situation in the public and private sectors during this recession.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
What passes for policy debate in America today
The following sentence from an article about a study released by health insurers is hardly encouraging:
And sure enough, what follows in the article is not an argument on the merits, but rather:
If you are an insurer, what rate should you charge if many of your policyholders are only ever signing up for coverage when they are ready to submit a claim? Hint: the answer is it will cost more than today. If you are an insurer, and you used to deny some claims because they were submitted for pre-existing conditions, and you now have to pay additional money for those claims, how much should you then charge? Hint: the answer is it will cost more than today.
There can certainly be a debate as to how much premiums will go up, but ceteris paribus, they will go up.
The real "distortion" in this case is the White House calling a report that points out an important aspect of health care policy that they are trying to gloss over a distortion. The real fundamental dishonesty is for the AARP to call such a common sense application of the incentives people will face "Fundamental dishonesty." The real hatchet job is for Sen. Baucus to not to come out and acknowledge the (unintended?) consequences of his legislation, but to instead call a report that does a "hatchet job."
How discouraging that the White House, the AARP, and the Chairman of the Senate Finance committee are avoiding an honest, rationale, discussion of the impacts of health care reform.
Democrats and their allies scrambled on Monday to knock down a new
industry-funded study forecasting that Senate legislation, over time, will
add thousands of dollars to the cost of a typical policy.
And sure enough, what follows in the article is not an argument on the merits, but rather:
"Distorted and flawed," said White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass.But what exactly is so "Fundamentally dishonest?"
"Fundamentally dishonest," said AARP's senior policy strategist, John Rother. "A
hatchet job," said a spokesman for Senate Finance Committee chairman Max
Baucus, D-Mont.
At the heart of the industry's complaint is a decision by lawmakers to weaken the requirement that millions more Americans get coverage. Since the legislation would ban insurance companies from denying coverage on account of poor health, many people will wait to sign up until they get sick, the industry says. And that will drive up costs for everybody else.Isn't that kind of a no-brainer? Why pay for health insurance when you're not sick if you can just wait and get it when you are? If the government forces insurers to provide insurance on the spot without limitation for covering illness or injury that they already had, they will be creating an incentive for people to go without insurance. People will only sign up when they are getting ready to submit claims.
If you are an insurer, what rate should you charge if many of your policyholders are only ever signing up for coverage when they are ready to submit a claim? Hint: the answer is it will cost more than today. If you are an insurer, and you used to deny some claims because they were submitted for pre-existing conditions, and you now have to pay additional money for those claims, how much should you then charge? Hint: the answer is it will cost more than today.
There can certainly be a debate as to how much premiums will go up, but ceteris paribus, they will go up.
The real "distortion" in this case is the White House calling a report that points out an important aspect of health care policy that they are trying to gloss over a distortion. The real fundamental dishonesty is for the AARP to call such a common sense application of the incentives people will face "Fundamental dishonesty." The real hatchet job is for Sen. Baucus to not to come out and acknowledge the (unintended?) consequences of his legislation, but to instead call a report that does a "hatchet job."
How discouraging that the White House, the AARP, and the Chairman of the Senate Finance committee are avoiding an honest, rationale, discussion of the impacts of health care reform.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Ellsworth Monkton Krugman
I think anyone with half a brain and enough time spent following American politics would agree that there is "over-the-top" opposition on both the left and the right towards the other side. If that premise is correct (and I think it is), then to suggest otherwise means that someone either:
1. is stupid
2. is uninformed
3. is twisting the truth to present the portion of it that they want you to see.
If I had to bet, I'd go with option #3 for Paul Krugman. In his recent NY times piece, he not only isolates Republicans as being "so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?" he also generalizes any opposition into the "essential truth about the state of American politics" that "the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple."
Being a Republican, which Krugman is not, I prefer to speak for myself. I am not guided by pure spite, or even impure spite. I chose the Republican party in my early twenties because I thought they were the closest philosophically to my view of the role of government: a limited one. I thought the Republicans were at their best in the mid 90's when they fought for limited government, and at their worst a decade later when they spent like big-government fools during W's two terms.
Back to Krugman, he conveniently leaves out any Democrats that have been over the top. Would it be fair for someone on the right to pluck a few choice quotes from ACORN, for example, and generalize all Democrats accordingly?
He writes "Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama must have forgotten the Clinton years." Or the Bush years, maybe? Was there no over-the-top opposition then?
To call someone out when they go over the top is certainly fair game. To imply that it's only one party that does so, however, is the work of a spin doctor. It's a piece that I think Ellsworth Toohey, the antagonist in Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" would have been proud of.
1. is stupid
2. is uninformed
3. is twisting the truth to present the portion of it that they want you to see.
If I had to bet, I'd go with option #3 for Paul Krugman. In his recent NY times piece, he not only isolates Republicans as being "so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?" he also generalizes any opposition into the "essential truth about the state of American politics" that "the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple."
Being a Republican, which Krugman is not, I prefer to speak for myself. I am not guided by pure spite, or even impure spite. I chose the Republican party in my early twenties because I thought they were the closest philosophically to my view of the role of government: a limited one. I thought the Republicans were at their best in the mid 90's when they fought for limited government, and at their worst a decade later when they spent like big-government fools during W's two terms.
Back to Krugman, he conveniently leaves out any Democrats that have been over the top. Would it be fair for someone on the right to pluck a few choice quotes from ACORN, for example, and generalize all Democrats accordingly?
He writes "Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama must have forgotten the Clinton years." Or the Bush years, maybe? Was there no over-the-top opposition then?
To call someone out when they go over the top is certainly fair game. To imply that it's only one party that does so, however, is the work of a spin doctor. It's a piece that I think Ellsworth Toohey, the antagonist in Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" would have been proud of.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
First Amendment justice
I haven't taken a single law class, so am posting in a state of ignorance. If I understand the current jurisprudence on freedom of speech (huge if), then whatever moron launched the "Should Obama be killed" Facebook poll may not ultimately face legal penalties.
After doing a little surfing, I found the following on Wikipedia:
To discuss the impeachment of a president (as some on the left did for much of Bush 43's presidency) seems to be well within acceptable speech. If someone doesn't like Obama and wants to put "Impeach Obama" bumper stickers on their car, let them. I don't agree with them, but recognize their right to that kind of speech. But "Should Obama be killed?" crosses the line.
Let's hope that the perpetrator of this poll is caught, and justice is served.
After doing a little surfing, I found the following on Wikipedia:
The doctrine states that speech that will cause, or has as its purpose, "imminent lawless action" (such as a riot) does not have constitutional protection. As of 2009[update], "imminent lawless action" continues to be the test applied in free speech cases.It seems like there would be sufficient distance between taking a Facebook poll and "lawless action" so as to protect the poll under the First Amendment. Let's hope there is some other legal route by which the creator of this poll is punished.
To discuss the impeachment of a president (as some on the left did for much of Bush 43's presidency) seems to be well within acceptable speech. If someone doesn't like Obama and wants to put "Impeach Obama" bumper stickers on their car, let them. I don't agree with them, but recognize their right to that kind of speech. But "Should Obama be killed?" crosses the line.
Let's hope that the perpetrator of this poll is caught, and justice is served.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
ObamACORN pt. 2
If a picture is worth a thousand words, what's a video worth? The video below seems to contradict Page's claim that "The organization and the former community organizer have not had much contact since, other than connections that have been alleged or exaggerated by conservative media."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU
ObamACORN
Clarence Page writes that the "right's recent obsession with ACORN... grows largely out of a faint hope that bringing down ACORN will help them to bring down Obama"
Being on the right, which Page clearly isn't, I can say that I hope ACORN gets "brought down" for a different reason: they are for things that I am against. Their reform consists of an even greater government intervention into the daily lives of all Americans, and removes even more of the voluntary exchange between free people. They want wages to be set, not by the market, but the government. They want the number of sick days to be set, not by an agreement between employer and employee, but by the government. They want to rewrite contracts that were voluntary entered into by both sides after the fact, so that lenders are forced to take it on the chin when homeowners stop paying their mortgages.
I'll leave their views on immigration out, because it's a different issue, but the above three are all instances of government restricting the freedom of both (yes both) parties in a voluntary exchange. This is America, and they are free to have their opinions on the proper role of government, along with everyone else. Why is it, however, that money is taken from me and given to them by the government?
By the way, you'd think that ACORN might be grateful to the hand that feeds them. Instead, they are now in the news for offering advice on how to set up a brothel with 13 underage El Salvadoran girls (Page's column conveniently leaves that part of it out) so as to avoid paying taxes.
For Page, the concern seems to be what impact this may have on President Obama, and his piece seems intent on short-circuiting any connection. After noting that "back in 1995, young Harvard law grad" Obama helped ACORN, he goes on to state:
"The organization and the former community organizer have not had much contact since, other than connections that have been alleged or exaggerated by conservative media."
Really?
Factcheck.org notes that
In addition, during the campaign, the Pittsburgh Tribune review reported:
Being on the right, which Page clearly isn't, I can say that I hope ACORN gets "brought down" for a different reason: they are for things that I am against. Their reform consists of an even greater government intervention into the daily lives of all Americans, and removes even more of the voluntary exchange between free people. They want wages to be set, not by the market, but the government. They want the number of sick days to be set, not by an agreement between employer and employee, but by the government. They want to rewrite contracts that were voluntary entered into by both sides after the fact, so that lenders are forced to take it on the chin when homeowners stop paying their mortgages.
I'll leave their views on immigration out, because it's a different issue, but the above three are all instances of government restricting the freedom of both (yes both) parties in a voluntary exchange. This is America, and they are free to have their opinions on the proper role of government, along with everyone else. Why is it, however, that money is taken from me and given to them by the government?
By the way, you'd think that ACORN might be grateful to the hand that feeds them. Instead, they are now in the news for offering advice on how to set up a brothel with 13 underage El Salvadoran girls (Page's column conveniently leaves that part of it out) so as to avoid paying taxes.
For Page, the concern seems to be what impact this may have on President Obama, and his piece seems intent on short-circuiting any connection. After noting that "back in 1995, young Harvard law grad" Obama helped ACORN, he goes on to state:
"The organization and the former community organizer have not had much contact since, other than connections that have been alleged or exaggerated by conservative media."
Really?
Factcheck.org notes that
They also note that ACORN's Political Action Committee endorsed Obama.When Obama was on the board of directors of the Woods Fund, the foundation gave grants of $75,000 in 2001 and $70,000 in 2002 to ACORN's Chicago office.
In addition, during the campaign, the Pittsburgh Tribune review reported:
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an
offshoot of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
I certainly hope that the connection between Obama and ACORN, both financially and philosophically, doesn't "bring down" the president's efforts to avert a nuclear Iran, for example. I do hope, however, that this latest ACORN scandal will slow any momentum in imposing their leftist agenda on America.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Can you feel the "Change" in Washington?
I can't say that I'm shocked that federal government employees acted "innappropriately" in an 8/10/09 conference call where National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) employees joined with White House staff to discuss ways of using taxpayer dollars to fund art projects that would promote President Obama's agenda.
While it's wrong in multiple ways, it's not Obama's problem as much as it's a problem with government at every level.
More on the systemic problem in a moment, but first off, exactly what do we need the NEA for?? Why is money forcibly taken from me and every other taxpayer to pay for "art" that we have no say in? It isn't like without government support, there wouldn't be any art. In fact, many of our richest and most famous citizens are artists, and their money comes from the voluntary patronage of their fans.
Put another way, if whatever art is being funded wouldn't survive from the willing patronage of American citizens, then why should we fund it with the involuntary taxation of American taxpayers? Isn't forcing someone to pay for something they don't want contrary to freedom and liberty?
While I'm sure the White House at least wishes this call hadn't been made public, and maybe even that it hadn't happened, this is in no stretch of the imagination a problem unique to President Obama. At the local level, public employee unions (police, firefighters, teachers, office workers, garbagemen, you name it) take money from the wages that taxpayers fund, give it to the politicians who negotiate their contracts, and the politicians sweeten the deal. The politicians get campaign money, the unions get power, the public employees get paid and the taxpayers get screwed. The same thing happens at the state level. In California, the union for the correctional officers (the CCPOA) wields enormous influence in state elections. At the federal level, politicians get contributions from entities that benefit from the local projects that they fund from their earmarks.
So this cycle of taxpayer dollars being spent in a political fashion, while disgusting, is certainly not a problem unique to Obama, it happens every day at every level in our society.
While it's wrong in multiple ways, it's not Obama's problem as much as it's a problem with government at every level.
More on the systemic problem in a moment, but first off, exactly what do we need the NEA for?? Why is money forcibly taken from me and every other taxpayer to pay for "art" that we have no say in? It isn't like without government support, there wouldn't be any art. In fact, many of our richest and most famous citizens are artists, and their money comes from the voluntary patronage of their fans.
Put another way, if whatever art is being funded wouldn't survive from the willing patronage of American citizens, then why should we fund it with the involuntary taxation of American taxpayers? Isn't forcing someone to pay for something they don't want contrary to freedom and liberty?
While I'm sure the White House at least wishes this call hadn't been made public, and maybe even that it hadn't happened, this is in no stretch of the imagination a problem unique to President Obama. At the local level, public employee unions (police, firefighters, teachers, office workers, garbagemen, you name it) take money from the wages that taxpayers fund, give it to the politicians who negotiate their contracts, and the politicians sweeten the deal. The politicians get campaign money, the unions get power, the public employees get paid and the taxpayers get screwed. The same thing happens at the state level. In California, the union for the correctional officers (the CCPOA) wields enormous influence in state elections. At the federal level, politicians get contributions from entities that benefit from the local projects that they fund from their earmarks.
So this cycle of taxpayer dollars being spent in a political fashion, while disgusting, is certainly not a problem unique to Obama, it happens every day at every level in our society.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
The Hope of racism
Jimmy Carter, Eugene Robinson, Maureen Dowd, and Bob Herbert all have two things in common:
I suspect they have a third thing in common also: They want Obama’s critics to be racists.
Please note that I said I suspect that they want it, not that they do. I am no more able to see into their hidden desires and motivations then they are able to see into Joe Wilson, or anyone else they associate racism to based on criticism of Obama’s administration.
Assigning racial motives to any criticism of Obama, however, does afford them some benefits. It allows them to feel morally superior, to look down on someone as a backwards bigot. To the extent someone is a backwards bigot, and you are not, you should feel morally superior. But only to the extent that both of those are true. If someone isn’t motivated by racism in criticizing Obama, however, and you look down on them as a racist, I think you’ve lost more than a little of your moral high ground.
It also spares them of having to deal with the inconvenient reality that whatever proposal of Obama’s is being criticized may actually make things worse. An honest, objective assessment of whatever it is may lead you to the conclusion that, in that particular instance, Obama is wrong. Really understanding an issue honestly and objectively, however, takes a lot of work. You can certainly spare someone having to do that work by dismissing any criticism of Obamacare, for example, as racially motivated.
I have no doubt there are people in America who can't stand Obama because he's black. But what of those who criticize Obama based on a different view of the role of government than he's been promoting? Joe Wilson's pathetic outburst may be viewed by some as a gift to be exploited... an opportunity to change the discussion away from the wisdom of an expanded federal role in health care to the racial motivations of those who question that role.
1. They are Obama supporters
2. They’ve all stated recently that varying degrees of the criticism directed towards Obama are motivated by racism.
I suspect they have a third thing in common also: They want Obama’s critics to be racists.
Please note that I said I suspect that they want it, not that they do. I am no more able to see into their hidden desires and motivations then they are able to see into Joe Wilson, or anyone else they associate racism to based on criticism of Obama’s administration.
Assigning racial motives to any criticism of Obama, however, does afford them some benefits. It allows them to feel morally superior, to look down on someone as a backwards bigot. To the extent someone is a backwards bigot, and you are not, you should feel morally superior. But only to the extent that both of those are true. If someone isn’t motivated by racism in criticizing Obama, however, and you look down on them as a racist, I think you’ve lost more than a little of your moral high ground.
It also spares them of having to deal with the inconvenient reality that whatever proposal of Obama’s is being criticized may actually make things worse. An honest, objective assessment of whatever it is may lead you to the conclusion that, in that particular instance, Obama is wrong. Really understanding an issue honestly and objectively, however, takes a lot of work. You can certainly spare someone having to do that work by dismissing any criticism of Obamacare, for example, as racially motivated.
I have no doubt there are people in America who can't stand Obama because he's black. But what of those who criticize Obama based on a different view of the role of government than he's been promoting? Joe Wilson's pathetic outburst may be viewed by some as a gift to be exploited... an opportunity to change the discussion away from the wisdom of an expanded federal role in health care to the racial motivations of those who question that role.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Civil discourse
Last week, when President Obama asserted that health care reform won't cover illegal aliens, Rep. Joe Wilson shouted "You lie!" A week later, the house admonished him. On Tuesday, President Obama called Kanye West a "jackass" for hijacking Taylor Swift's acceptance speech. I don't expect any such admonishment to be forthcoming on this.
As far as Wilson goes, he got what he deserves. He may have been right that Obama wasn't being completely truthful about the ability of illegal aliens to access healthcare, but that wasn't the time, nor the way, to express it. It may even be true that some democrats aren't as interested in civil discourse as they are in scoring some cheap political points (I seem to recall a fair amount of uncivil discourse directed towards Bush 43), but it doesn't excuse Wilson, who brought it on himself.
As far as Obama goes, that may not have been the zenith of the dignity of his presidency, but it wasn't out of bounds, either. Kanye certainly acted the part, and all Obama did was state the obvious.
As far as Wilson goes, he got what he deserves. He may have been right that Obama wasn't being completely truthful about the ability of illegal aliens to access healthcare, but that wasn't the time, nor the way, to express it. It may even be true that some democrats aren't as interested in civil discourse as they are in scoring some cheap political points (I seem to recall a fair amount of uncivil discourse directed towards Bush 43), but it doesn't excuse Wilson, who brought it on himself.
As far as Obama goes, that may not have been the zenith of the dignity of his presidency, but it wasn't out of bounds, either. Kanye certainly acted the part, and all Obama did was state the obvious.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Political advancement via schadenfreude
Attached is a letter I sent to Ben Stein, who wrote recently in the American Spectator about the GOP reviving due to Obama's mistakes.
Dear Mr. Stein-
Reading your article reminded me of a time, years ago, when I was in a Las Vegas casino on the opening weekend of the NFL season. In the sports room there were two guys watching the team they had bet on lose, and they weren’t taking it well. At one point, the other team’s star player had the ball, and one of the guys yelled at the TV to his defense to “Break his f***ng leg!!!”
I agree with you that Obama has had multiple missteps so far in his administration, and his public approval is slipping as a result. I think this is a different issue, however, than a GOP revival. In football terms, Obama’s offense is now throwing incomplete passes and being called for penalties. That’s different from the GOP getting sacks or interceptions. I haven’t seen the GOP offense do any scoring, either.
The Republicans went from the party of limited government in 1994, to the spend-like-a-drunken-sailor party during the Bush 43 years. It isn’t like the GOP is back after the first few months of Obama.
A real GOP revival will depend on the GOP, not on hoping Obama will break his (political) leg.
Sincerely,
Brian Whipple
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Is that all they hope to get out of the speech?
President Obama, whose push for socialized medicine in America is not going as well as he has hoped, is now asking school children to help him. He'll be giving a speech on Tuesday that school age children are being asked to take time away from their normal school activities to watch.
Accompanying this speech is a "Menu of Classroom Activies" that the Department of Education is sending to all schools. One of the activities is for children to write about "how they could help the president."
I thought schools were for education, not indoctrination, but I guess I was wrong. Call it the Obama Jugend.
On a related note, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan stated
If that were true, the activity should have been for them to write about being a better student, not about advancing the President's partisan agenda. Even if that were the agenda, shouldn't we have higher expectations? As much as I dislike most of Obama's policies, many people find him very persuasive. I would expect school children, who haven't developed good critical thinking skills, to be even more persuaded by his words. There are millions and millions of school age children. If just one goes from a C to a B, then it's successful?
Do you know what I think would be "worth it?" The statistics for blacks on graduation rates and out of wedlock births are dismal. President Obama has been remarkably successful in educational achievement and appears to be a good father. I think he can speak to and inspire the black community in America like no other person on earth can. If he is successful in having an impact there (in the community, not on one person!), he will have done something I think all Americans will be proud of him for.
Accompanying this speech is a "Menu of Classroom Activies" that the Department of Education is sending to all schools. One of the activities is for children to write about "how they could help the president."
I thought schools were for education, not indoctrination, but I guess I was wrong. Call it the Obama Jugend.
On a related note, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan stated
"At the end of the day, if the president motivates on C student to become a B
student, or one thinking of dropping out to stay in school to take their
education seriously, it's all worth it."
If that were true, the activity should have been for them to write about being a better student, not about advancing the President's partisan agenda. Even if that were the agenda, shouldn't we have higher expectations? As much as I dislike most of Obama's policies, many people find him very persuasive. I would expect school children, who haven't developed good critical thinking skills, to be even more persuaded by his words. There are millions and millions of school age children. If just one goes from a C to a B, then it's successful?
Do you know what I think would be "worth it?" The statistics for blacks on graduation rates and out of wedlock births are dismal. President Obama has been remarkably successful in educational achievement and appears to be a good father. I think he can speak to and inspire the black community in America like no other person on earth can. If he is successful in having an impact there (in the community, not on one person!), he will have done something I think all Americans will be proud of him for.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
This is how to decide public policy?
The government will either make things better or worse if some form of healthcare "reform" passes. They may end up doing both (making it better for some, worse for others). Whatever the merits of whatever proposals are being evaluated, however, isn't it the merits that should determine what unfolds?
Not if you're Jesse Jackson. He argues in a recent editorial that
So a bill so momentous it will impact 1/6 of the economy and every one of the hundreds of millions of Americans is to be passed because one 77 year old senator came to the end of his long, full life? Of all the reasons I've heard for and against health care, this is by far the least persuasive.
Not if you're Jesse Jackson. He argues in a recent editorial that
The Senate should honor the legacy and service of its colleague and friend not
by fine speeches, but by clear action. Democrats should join together to pass
Kennedy's health care bill,
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Unity?
The editors at the New Republic have recently lent their views to the partisan aspect of the health care debate in an op-ed titled "Long live the death of bipartisanship." Attached are the comments I submitted to them:
I agree with you that Democrats don't have to work with Republicans in a bipartisan fashion. Furthermore, if I was in favor of additional government intervention in healthcare (I'm not) I would likely see things the same way: Why risk getting what you want (or dilute it) by seeking a "bipartisan" bill?
But what of the President? One of the central themes of candidate Obama was unity and an end to partisanship. If you were in the middle (and neither of us are), what if you voted for Obama because you thought he would bring the country together? All the major legislation thus far has been very partisan: the stimulus bill, the budget, cap and trade, and now health care. Do you think he has been successful in bringing the country together?
The fault (to the extent that partisanship is a fault) is certainly shared between Obama and Republicans for not working together. I think, however, that candidate Obama's words about unity are an important aspect of the partisanship of the health care debate. Don't you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
