Let me note that I'm writing this before watching Sean Hannity's take on all this. While I value Hannity as a voice for the conservatism, I perceive him as a little boy having a monumental tantrum. He can't seem to come to grips that Obama was elected, and he continues in campaign mode, talking about things that American public said they didn't care about as if it's going to change the outcome of the election that happened 4 months ago. That being said...
Obama is encouraging all Americans to go for higher education at some level. He wants us to be the most educated country in the world. It's an exciting idea to think that our drop-out rate could drop to historic lows and that if you want an education you can get it.
But while I've always been in favor of Pell grants and other means for people without them on their own, I'm doubtful about how this grandiose idea can move forward without adopting a socialistic philosophy. Follow me here:
Tuitions are rising, and I don't think there's anything that can change that. Costs go up, salaries increase, building and infrastructure must commence to stay competitive, and all that costs money. To think that despite that heavy debt I could still get a degree on affordable terms is exciting until you think about the costs. If I'm not paying for the costs of that education myself and government is picking up part of the tab, either through grants or tax credits, that can only mean that the burden for that investment will fall upon the American taxpayer, which is where the government gets its revenue! This boils down to a socialistic philosophy, where the government regulates how commerce is done in our country and lays the financial burden directly on the back of taxpayers. Will people who can't afford an education get an education if they want one? Sure, but it does exactly what Republicans have been afraid of... people who work hard to achieve a life for themselves will have to part with more of their money to help pay for people who may or may not aspire to work for what they get? It's welfare for the poor, and it's socialism for the middle class.
AND by the way, let me add that it gives a blank check to colleges and universities. Currently colleges gauge their tuition advances partly on the economy. If times are tough, many colleges will refrain from rising tuition higher than the current accepted increase in the cost of living, if at all. If the government is willing to pay the freight on everybody's education, what's to stop universities from doing what every other governmental vendor has done historically? Remember the $1,000 toilet seats? This will increase dependence on government, it will end up costing way too much and it'll usher in a new era of government waste.
Secondly. His ideas to make money available to help usher in entrepreneurship, get loans for business expenses and grants to help start-ups are another exciting principle. It magnifies the perception of the American dream. But if loans and grants come from the government, perhaps administered through the SBA, where does that money come from? The American taxpayer. There's no accountability and there's no incentive to save up and plan carefully because the person receiving the government assistance isn't putting up as much of his own risk. Remember what it felt like when your parents cut you off and you had to start buying your own stuff? You spent more carefully, didn't you? You weren't as risky. In this case the government is seen as the great enabler but it says nothing about personal responsibility, or responsibility for the taxpayer investment. It's government-subsidized business on the taxpayer's back.
Third. Obama wants to cut the subsidies to agribusiness. I must admit that I don't understand what all that means, but from my perspective and limited knowledge, let me mention to you how that may effect us. Many Democrats don't understand why we pay farmers not to farm. Why do farmers set aside land that could be farmed? Again, I don't know a lot but it seems to me that if OPEC can regulate the amount of oil they produce so world wide markets can be controlled and regulated, it makes sense for Americans to regulate the amount of corn (and other agriculture-related exports) we produce. But because we want to regulate exports, does that mean the family farmer should suffer? Land has value. What the land can provide has value. If farmers are given the option to help regulate exports by abstaining from cultivating an exportable product, they should be compensated for that value to the economy. Furthermore, many of the acres they set aside are locked into conservation agreements which means a couple of things...
1) Even if the price of corn jumps, they can't plant corn. They're locked into an agreement, so the regulation of exports stays constant.
2) The proliferation of wildlife and their habitat has been an important byproduct of these conservation agreements and many non-profit organizations continue to make the land more productive by introducing and encouraging the propagation of countless species, both endangered and not, and they aid the process by investing their non-profit dollars to do so.
Fourth. Obama said it more than once... "accountable to me". Accountable to Obama? What needs to happen is that the people doing it wrong become more accountable to the American public. Now, while he did mention public accountability as well, let's spell out what we should start to expect. No More Earmarks! Earmarks are pet projects that get thrown into the bill that never get voted on... they never see the light of day. The bill passes, and all this expensive garbage gets thrown in on its way out the door. Harry Reid's multi-billion dollar railway connecting Las Vegas and Disneyland was handwritten onto the stimulus bill. For the lawmakers to be truly accountable to the American public, we need to make them accountable by showing up for hearings, sending letters and e-mails and making phone calls, and organizing productively to make sure our voices are heard. If someone representing our homeland decides to act in their own interest (like Senator Arlen Specter, (R) PA) the voters should act and replace him when the opportunity arises. They work for us and they need to remember it.
Obama seemed to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth regarding national security. He wants to close Guantanamo and disallow "torture". Fine. But now our enemies know that they can kill Americans without the fear of coercion while in confinement. How 'bout we get them cable TV and some La-z-boys? How can you pledge "unyielding support" for our troops in harm's way while pledging to end the incentive to NOT kill Americans, cut our arsenal of weapons and tools of peace and cut the general military budget? You can't stand there and say our troops have unyielding support and work to deter terrorism while exposing a multitude of weaknesses. In the face of terrorism, a whole new type of enemy, our principals need to take a back seat to keeping America safe. Americans want to live. Our enemies don't care if they die as long as they kill Americans, because their second life as martyrs is Allah's best reward.
Sixth. There's an awful lot of immaturity on both sides of the aisle. Obama's "no-one messes with Joe" statement as well as his "inheritance of this debt" horse crap (he voted yes for much of the debt he inherited, but no-one ever mentions that) just continues the partisan poison that permeates Capitol Hill. But its not just Obama. Sean Hannity is one of the most immature conservatives out there. His constant tantrums have become a bore. He's like a kid who doesn't get a piece of candy he wants. "But I want it...but I want it, Mom...I want it. Mom?" Hannity is still campaigning against Obama by talking about the Bill Ayers association, and he continues to harp on his catch-phrases... "largest transfer of wealth from the public sector to the government (ad infinitum)" and just refuses to accept that Obama was elected. He needs to look forward rather behind, but I think we all are guilty of that to an extent. But we must stop it! We have to stop stabbing at each other and propagating a culture of partisan hatred in Washington as well as around the nation.
I received an e-mail the other day with a couple of "jokes" on there. They were mock cereal boxes depicting Obama, Reverend Wright and Congressional Democrats as crooks and cheaters, and to some extent they were even racist. I may be alone in this, but I was not at all amused. Trust me, I have no love for liberalism and what has been perceived as a nation headed for socialism, but there is no room for this level of immaturity in the GOP today.
Here was my response to that e-mail:
"I've always like to think that a big thing that sets us aside from Democrats is our value system. We fight in a mature, respectful manner. Graphics like the ones you attached, the ongoing tantrums of Sean Hannity and the way out ideas of Glenn Beck aren't doing anything to help the GOP rise up and rise above. If we're going to reform the Republican party, it has to start with us so I would encourage you not to succumb to the partisan jokes and disrespectful dialogue. Obama was elected partially because of his calm demeanor under fire while John McCain's pick-pick-picking at the little things kept him from focusing on one clear task - building the public's faith in the GOP. Let's let the Democrats and their mouthpiece, Keith Olbermann continue to be the negative, nasty, angry immature face of the Democratic party, and perhaps of politics in general. We're better than that. Let's think long-term here, okay? We need to move ahead. "He who slings mud loses ground"."
Governor Jindall (R, Louisiana) is not helping either. He touts the fact that he implemented massive tax cuts in his state, yet he's still taking around 90% of the stimulus money that's been offered to Louisiana. How is that responsible governing? If you don't need the money, don't take the stimulus funds. If you do, don't cut state taxes and then expect the entire country to pay for your mistake. He's being seen as an up-and-comer in the GOP. We'll see, but right now he seems like an inexperienced politician to me.
Seventh. The bank bailouts concern me. If you see a bum on the street, maybe you'll give him ten dollars, hoping that he'll get a new pair of socks or something to eat. He thanks you, says that God will bless you and then he goes to the liquor store and spends it on booze. That's the risk you take. You can tell him, "Don't buy booze", but the reality is that you give the power of that money to the bum as soon as you transfer that property to him. You no longer hold the power. The money doesn't belong to you anymore. You gave it away. To hold him accountable for that money after the fact is dictatorial.
But, at the same time, I don't want fat-cat banks spending my tax money on new planes and new drapes either. This is where Rush Limbaugh and I disagree. I think if I offer money with an agreement in place on how that money is to be spent, that it should be contracted that it be spent in the way that I have indicated - this way I do still hold power over the transfer. If my kid goes to college and I'm paying for it, but while he away he spends his textbook money on pizza and beer, he's not getting any more money, and he's going to have to pay it back to me. There's a limit to stewardship, and true-stewardship requires responsibility on the steward and the enabler.
The long of it is this. I love the ideas that Obama puts out. His confident cheerleading is what the country needs. The government does need to help us by cutting taxes, but they also need to decrease wasteful spending, and much of the stimulus is wasteful spending. I don't mind responsible, well thought out, bipartisan, transparent investments being made that create jobs and help build or repair our country's infrastructure, help get businesses started and help get people back to school, but the legislation cannot be bulldozed through Congress without the support of a 75-80% majority and full disclosure to the American public.
MSNBC did an in-house poll today asking their viewers their opinion on whether the Republicans are willing to work with Obama. That's just stupid, and really, the question should have been asked another way.
Republicans proved their ability to work with a Democratic President with Bill Clinton. Many remember the Clinton administration as a time of American success and unprecedented economic growth. Now, it's true that history proves that it wasn't all just that President or all that Republican congress that made that happen, but a combination of that teamwork along with the regular ebb and flow of our nation's economy. Nevertheless, the partisanship was a lot less dominant on Capitol Hill than it is today - so the question should not be whether Republicans are willing to work with Obama... the question should be whether Congressional Democrats are willing to work with Republicans to make sure that the American people are responsibly represented on all sides, and refrain from steamrolling legislation through in complete disregard of overwhelming opposition from the other side of the aisle as well as prevailing public opinion.
So. Consider this a call to action. Obama's ideas are fresh and his readiness to tackle the hard issue that we've avoided dealing with is refreshing - but his implementation must be done in such a way that the majority agrees with it, that the public is fully and honestly informed as to the benefits and the ramifications of proposed legislation and that we remain a government of, by and for the people... not the people of, for and by the government.
God bless America.
No comments:
Post a Comment