Tag Archives: Political

by

Procrastination In Politics

It is a well-known fact that college students, regardless of their majors, spend endless hours each semester studying the art of procrastination.  In the past this skill was criticized and deemed detrimental to success in the “real world”, but no longer.  Thanks to the 2012 election cycle, procrastination equals votes or at least the attention of voters.

In Speaker of the House John Boehner’s recent interview, he spoke on the issue of Student Loan Interest Rates and the need for legislation to keep them low.  He stated, “Democrats and Republicans knew that this was going to take effect. Democrats and Republicans fully expected this would be taken care of and for the president to make a campaign issue out of this and then to travel to three battleground states and go to three large college campuses on taxpayers’ money to try to make this a political issue is pathetic and his campaign ought to be reimbursing the Treasury for the cost of this trip.”

In three months’ time, if legislation is not passed, student loan interest rates will jump from the current 3.4% to 6.8%.  Such a startling and seemingly arbitrary increase makes for a wonderful campaign topic. It is not surprising that congress has waited until now to decide how to avoid such an increase.   Ironic that it was a Democratic controlled House in 2007, which set the July 1, 2012 date for the 3.4% to disappear.  Now as Speaker Boehner asserts, both Republicans and Democrats alike are working together to make future student loan recipients happy.  Awe, bipartisan cooperation at last.

Yet timing is everything, and now the Republican controlled house is acting quickly to assure young voters of Republican interest in their welfare.  Too bad the President already had his three-state tour planned before Boehner made his public declaration of support for younger voters.  I guess the President could have changed his travel plans, or at least his talking points, but he didn’t.

Nevertheless, all this attention must be making college students giddy. Back in 2008, college age voters turned out to support President Obama.  By the time the Republicans figured out the political momentum of young, tech savvy voters, it was too late to make headway with this voting group.  This time around, Republicans are paying attention.  That is what is really important here – paying attention to the youth.

Presidential campaigning via Air Force One has been standard since before the current president was born.  Presidents go from place to place shaking hands, kissing babies and posing for pictures, all while taking their work and staff with them.  During these trips, the “common man” has a rare opportunity to meet with our highest elected official.  The fact that in this case the “common man” is a bunch of students, rather than business men or politicians does not change the value of presidential meetings with the public.

In an age where money equals voting power, it is nice to see the moneyless college masses actually matter to the politicians.  Republicans should be avoiding further procrastination and jump on the band wagon.  Rather than railing against the President for spending taxpayer money on visiting students and discussing student concerns, maybe they should be celebrating the fact that our younger voters matter.  It is going to take years to fix the mess in D.C. It is going to take fresh ideas. The youth of today will inherit the mess their fathers and grandfathers created, and it will be the youth of today that will find the solutions.  Politicians should stop procrastinating and recognize that young voters are just as important as old voters.  While they might be cash poor, they are idea rich.

by

A Dilemma to Ponder

A recent media blitz has centered on whether men or women have been more adversely affected by the current U.S. recession. It is just the latest in a long line of discussions about unemployment and the slow economy. Democrats have pointed to the fact that the bad economy began during the Bush years.  Republicans have pointed to the fact that Obama hasn’t “fixed” the economy during his three years. It seems everyone has an opinion about rich people’s taxes, rising gas prices, and the ineffectiveness of government.  

With all of these opinions, is it strange that there is confusion on what the candidates believe? 

So when a candidate actually speaks about what they plan to do if they are elected, I like to take notice.

 “I’m going to take a lot of departments in Washington, and agencies, and combine them. Some eliminate, but I’m probably not going to lay out just exactly which ones are going to go,” Romney said. “Things like Housing and Urban Development, which my dad was head of, that might not be around later. But I’m not going to actually go through these one by one. What I can tell you is, we’ve got far too many bureaucrats. I will send a lot of what happens in Washington back to the states.” Mitt Romney 15Apr2012

It is important to remember that for every “bureaucrat” who works in D.C., there are dozens of regular support staff who are simply trying to earn a wage. It won’t be easy for them to find replacement jobs, even if jobs get sent “back to the states”.

While I agree that the federal government is too big and could use some serious pruning, I wonder if a recession is the right time to be talking about large scale downsizing.  

It does make for a dilemma…

by

Common Sense??? – A Cry for War?

Is a cry for war an acceptable political slogan? It has been used as one often, and it does make a good rallying point for the fearful masses.

It makes me think back to the days prior to the American Revolution. I can imagine the debate between two cousins. Samuel Adams would have been accusing John Adams of being too rational and pointing out that there was no negotiating with a crazy king.  John would have been arguing for the use of diplomatic relations, and going to war only as a last resort.

The cry for war is not a new tactic, the speed of the cry reaching the world has accelerated and the scope has amplified. Crazy or not, I am sure that no king likes to be called names or given demands and ultimatums.  I doubt that leaders of the 1700’s would have heard the words of every rhetoric shouting hot head with an agenda.   Today it is easy to hear, record, and catalog all the rhetoric.  It is also easy for leaders to use the rhetoric as an excuse for aggressive behavior under the pretense of defensive international policy.

While I believe most international leaders recognize the current rhetoric spewing coming from the mouths of presidential wannabes as nothing more than campaign politics, I suspect there are a great many civilians who hear real threats to their nations and their safety when US candidates call for tougher US foreign policies.

At some point the politicians and citizens of the United States need to recognize that while we may not always like or get along with our neighbors, we don’t have to go to war with them over it.  There very well may reach a time when physical conflict cannot be avoided. First strike capability is a good tool in our defense arsenal, but flexing our muscles too often makes us a bully and not a world leader.

by

Don’t Tell Me What to Do – You’re Not the Boss of Me

Why should a king be able to tell his subjects what to do, or a parliament, or a president for that matter? “No taxation without representation,” was not a battle cry for independence, but a cry for a voice.  Unfortunately, a crazy king sort of thought, “I am king, my voice is all that matters.” Rational voices advising the king were ignored.  Hot heads in the colony ignored their moderate comrades, took advantage of the king’s attitude, promoted independence, war broke out and the rest is all history.

Well, except for the fact that nobody knew how they were going to fund the new nation. That issue took a few more years for the wrinkles to be worked out. Luckily there was plenty of land wealth just to the west; land filled with untapped natural resources and rich farmland.

That great expanse of land to the west served a couple purposes for the new nation. The first was it acted as a great national income booster; land speculation and sales have always been good money makers. Secondly, it afforded people a place to migrate when they began to feel penned in by civilization and all the terrible ills of government.  History tells of land rushes and land deals, of frontiersmen and pioneers, all taking advantage of the great western territory, ripe for the taking and cheap.  True there was hardship and uncertainty, and one can’t forget the peoples that would have to be removed, displaced or killed, but what is a little hardship and genocide if it keeps your citizens happy and your national coffers from running dry?  As long as the land didn’t run out, everything would be fine.

Yes, I am being a bit flippant with the issue, but barring a full history lesson which would probably bore you, this quick synopsis does the trick of setting up my point.  You see as long as there was open land to the west, unhappy citizens could pack up their gear and move when they decided the government was interfering too much in their private lives. It is what our ancestors have been doing ever since the first European feet were planted on North American soil.  True the rebels of the American Revolution told the king to take a hike, but then they turned around and created a government based on the constitutions of British colonies (i.e. Massachusetts and Virginia). Yes, yes, and yes, I hear your arguments streaming in, they did reform, reorganize and design a constitution of the people which could continually evolve as the nation grew.  They did an excellent job, but citizens still got miffed and moved west from time to time. “Don’t tell me what to do – you’re not the boss of me,” was an attitude that settled the west.  Just look at Texas, Oregon and Utah.

In the end, the government remained the boss.  Contrary to what some might want you to believe, our current president is not a Crazy King George and still listens to the people.  The same holds true for the majority of our elected officials and for the political candidates seeking office. However, with all the shouting, distrust and propaganda coming from all sides of the political world, it might be hard for any of them to actually hear what the citizens are saying. Too much noise and sensory overload can seriously get in the way.  So if you really have something to say then research your point well, write a polite letter, and remember to sign your name.  That is what rational, mature citizens do.

Oh, and if you want to know why the US government can tell you what to do, it is the price of citizenship.  Don’t believe me, just check out the oath all new citizens take.  “…I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America…” 

by

Responsibility of Speech

A worry…

Historically other US presidents and politicians have been disliked.  Some have been assassinated, sadly by US citizens.  I am sure hate rhetoric has always been part of US politics and culture. Isn’t it sad that with new media technology, the hate rhetoric of today is recorded for all to see? Is spread by the click of a button? I wonder if studies will now be conducted on how often someone posts, “the president needs to go, and we shouldn’t wait until November”.

These thoughts bring me to another, why is President Obama so disliked? Is it because of his policies?  Is it because he continued the bailouts President Bush started?  Is it because he has not produced a miracle and returned the economy to some undefined economic glory days of the past?  Is it because he didn’t spend all of his youth living in the United States? Is it because his parents’ union would have been against some state laws during a more ignorant past?

Whatever the reason, it makes me worry anytime someone lightly speaks or writes about the death of another.  It especially makes me worry when it is our president.  Only the crude, the ignorant or the anarchist would wish the President of the United States dead. Oh yea, and a few terrorists.

Freedom of Speech is well and good, but responsibility of speech needs to be encouraged more.  Not political correctness but ownership and understanding of what you actually say and spread.  I believe there will be a judgment day, and I suspect that what we say, what we write and what we share with our friends will be on the list of items we must account for to the Almighty.  Passionate debate, strong beliefs and political rhetoric have a place in society, but the crudeness of political speech that is becoming more prevalent, is something we should not support or encourage.

Defend Freedom of Speech, but also promote Decency and Responsibility of Speech.

by

The Birds and The Bees

Back when I was still in high school, my grandfather, a dairy farmer by trade, decided to make sure I had a clear understanding of the birds and the bees.

Grandfather:  Do you know how a woman gets pregnant?

Me: Yes, sir.

Grandfather: Do you know how a woman does not get pregnant?

Me: Yes, sir.

Grandfather: Good, remember that.

My take on this conversation – only abstinence prevented pregnancy.  Thanks to Steven Colbert of the Colbert Report, I now know there is one other sure way to not get pregnant – “Be a man”.

by

Political Spew – Who cleans it Up?

It is a sad state of affairs that in a time when there is so much information available so few politicians take the time to seek a balanced understanding of the issues they choose to use as sound bites, before they spew them.  In the past when news took days to travel the nation, a politician could arguably spew crap and not have a wide spread stink fest.  There was time to retract, dispute and rebut before the masses became aware of the crap and absorbed it as truth.

In a time when it takes minutes, if not seconds for news to travel, it is important for politicians to do more homework, have their staff do more homework, and be more informed before they speak.  In a good debate you always know your opposition’s standpoint.  You never go in with only half the argument.  If you really want to win, you really have to be prepared.

When a politician spews crap, who is responsible to clean up the crap?  When the sound bites and election is over, who will instruct the masses that the political rhetoric is just that – rhetoric and not reality?

In the good old days of politics, the candidates bashed each other, spewed misinformation, spun webs of confusion, and appeared to really dislike each other.  In some cases they may truly have been adversaries, but in most cases once the campaigning was finished, they returned to respectful associates, if not friends.

This was how politics worked.  Once the newspaper was thrown into the trash, and the world moved on, the masses went back to worrying about their own worlds and forgot most of the spew of the election.  This is not the case now.  When a candidate spews crap, it sticks around.  Others add to it, littering the internet and cable channels with more crap.  The piles become so large that they remain long after the election is over.

Over time and with more experience, the candidates become better educated on specific issues and often change to a more moderate stand, thereby becoming flip-floppers.  It is then up to them to clean up, not just their previous spew, but all the crap heaped on top of it. Sadly the more they work to clean up the mess, the more they are painted as wishy-washy.  So they often just let the crap stand, leaving us all to wither in the stink.