Do Not Pass Go; Do Not Collect $550 Million

In Meg's Monday blog posting, she writes of a recently passed bill calling for $550 million to be spent on 8 jets intended for representatives from the House. She fumes, "I can not believe that in these tough times that this is what The House of Representatives thinks is most important to spend money on. It makes me so angry..." I understand why she's frustrated--I'm frustrated, too. It seems a trifle irresponsible for government officials of any capacity to frivolously spend money. But at the same time, when set beside how much money a nation the caliber of the U.S. whips through each fiscal year--recession or no--$550 million isn't so daunting. Likewise, I don't entirely believe that the Representatives have passed this bill for the obvious and selfish reasons that Meg and Ria Misra (author of the article Meg cites) bring up. I have, and potentially mistakenly, more faith than that... or, I feel that if the Representatives' intentions are decidedly not sincere with the bill, I hope that they have more creative alternative plans for the jets than just holding down the American economy.

I know it's unfair, but at the same time I can't really hold the passage of this bill against anyone. They are our leaders. It seems like there's more to this story than the few paragraphs the above-mentioned authors have explained (though as of yet, it's hard to pin down more facts and figures). For now, though, I may be indignant that this bill has been passed, however, I do not think it single-handedly signals a deeper and continued recession.

Clinton in the Congo

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a stop in Congo today—the latest in an “11-day journey through Africa to promote development and good governance and underscore the Obama administration's commitment to the world's poorest continent.” But in addition, Clinton had some more sobering news to spread to Congolese youth. She has called upon the youth of the Congo to lead nationwide protests against massive corruption and rampant sexual violence in the country’s violence-torn east.

According to the U.N., at least 200,000 cases of sexual violence have been documented in eastern Congo since conflict erupted in 1996 when rebel forces backed by foreign continental powers overthrew then President Mobutu Seko. Last year alone, 7,703 cases of sexual violence by the army were reported. Here, the armed forces and rebels use sexual violence as a tool of warfare—a particularly gruesome, degenerating, and horrible offense.

But Secretary of State Clinton is certainly attempting to curb such brutalities with the power of the empowered, so to speak. She spoke to the students of a university in Kinshasa, urging them to “prod the government into action.” She stressed, “You are the ones who have to speak out…. Speak out to end the corruption, the violence, the conflict that for too long have eroded the opportunities across this country. Together, you can write a new chapter in Congolese history.”

I was never a Hillary fan. But, her appointment to U.S. Secretary of State has pulled me off the fence and a little closer to the Hillary side. I appreciate what she is doing as Sec. of State—particularly so in eastern Congo. Her words to the students in Kinshasa are uplifting and sincere; in an area where violence, poverty, corruption, and deceit are plagues of everyday life, Clinton has made herself (and by association, America) known as a champion to end all of those plagues. The data are intimidating, and words seem meager in comparison with the violence in eastern Congo, but Clinton’s visit today may have done some good. Clinton realizes government officials in the Congo can only do so much with her prodding (as corruption is just as rampant as sexual brutality), and that it is up to the Congolese that endure violence every day to spur the government into action. It’s a tall and dangerous order, but hopefully with the support of other U.N. nations, the Congolese might end corruption, sexual assault, abuse, and other gender-based violence. Because, as Clinton says, the situation in the Congo is “truly one of mankind’s greatest atrocities.”

Help with quotes from NPR.ORG

"Hit & Run": Cash for Clunkers

The Government's new Cash for Clunkers program, where car owners can get up to $4,500 for trading in their old cars for new, more fuel-efficient ones, has been suffering from a lot of criticism lately. According to her article "Cash for Clunkers Deemed Futile," fellow UT student, Emily, explains the recent obstacles the infant program has been facing. 

 Emily writes, "The program arose from truly charitable intentions.... [but] now the government has suspended the program..."  She explains that while the government's solution to a suffering economy and declining air quality is admirable (the program is designed to stimulate the economy with auto sales as well as decrease auto emissions by encouraging Americans to trade in fuel inefficient vehicles), Cash for Clunkers is, like most government-run programs, just not up to snuff.  After barely a month of Cash for Clunkers making headlines, the program is already %20 over budget: a whopping $221 million total.  While on Friday Emily noted that the program has been temporarily suspended, according to NPR correspondent Scott Simon's Saturday broadcast of Weekend Edition, "...[T]he House voted to pump $2 billion in emergency funds into the program. That money would come from the economic stimulus package." 

I agree with Emily--what the new government program is attempting is commendable, but as of yet, it hasn't really done much to pull the nation out of this economic hole.  

But I'm a little more hopeful than she is. At a glance the program seems like a godsend: up our waning environmental standards while stimulating a faltering economy. But whether the government's Cash for Clunkers is innately doomed exactly because it is a government program, I'm not so sure.  I want to believe in this program because it's such a positive thing for America--like the nation has been waiting around for something hopeful, and here Cash for Clunkers showed up on TV screens around the country giving Americans an opportunity to help out in a really plausible way.  Nevertheless, the Obama's approval ratings are down from 61% to 54%--the lowest they've been since his presidency. 

Though many people predict the inevitable doom of Cash for Clunkers, I hope the program finds a way to stay afloat and achieve the much-needed changes it was designed to. But if it continues to falter, I also hope the government--as per Emily's suggestion--can admit its failure, cut the program and its funding, and find another solution. 

"Sudsy Summit"

It’s 9 o’clock and all is well—especially, I presume, at the White House, where It’s been almost 3 hours since President Barack Obama was scheduled to have a little happy hour with two Massachusetts, residents: Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Joseph Crowly. Just three guys, sharing some beers.

It’s been almost 2 weeks since what has become an infamous incident occurred in Cambridge, Mass. between Harvard professor Gates and Cambridge police Sgt. Crowly. The confrontation arose as a result of what can only be described as an unfortunate misunderstanding, but has quickly escalated into a wildly out-of-proportion (yet nevertheless amusing) fiasco.

Cambridge police responded to Gates’ home late July 13^th after neighbor Lucia Whalen reported “two black males with backpacks” attempting to break into the residence. Guess who the “two black males” were—Gates, returning home from an overseas trip and his driver, who were grappling with a stubborn front door. According to police reports filed by responding Sergeant Crowly, an incensed Gates yelled, “This is what happens to black men in America!” in response to the officer’s appearance. As a result of subsequent and similar exclamations and indignant (with right) responses to the law, a disorderly conduct rap was filed against Gates, but eventually dropped by prosecutors. The police contend they were “just doing their jobs.” But nevertheless, last week President Obama condemned Cambridge cops for acting “stupidly” in this situation.

But now, Obama is attempting to bring the two parties together to make nice over a few brewskies at the White House. As absurd as this all seems—whether the misguided arrest of Gates was actually a racial vendetta, or that the President publicly called the police’s subsequent actions stupid, or that settling matters over a Bud Light in Washington can mend what the damage the arrest has already caused for all three parties, I’m not sure.

But I applaud Obama for trying. I very much appreciate the president’s attempts and successes to be layman or be “just one of the guys” or even endeavor to right wrongs. I think what happened to Gates is embarrassing on behalf of Cambridge police and Gates—the former because they made a mistake, wrongly arrested a man based on a vaguely worded statute, not to mention the arrest was made on the property of the arrested (everyone knows that a man’s home is a well-established American tradition). And the latter because the incident occurred at all. It’s set in motion discussions for a lot of race issues among the talking heads of news media.

Hopefully Obama’s effort to smooth waters between Gates, Crowly, and himself with the long-standing American tradition of alcohol will succeed. Otherwise, I still think he’s done a good job of acknowledging that there was a problem at all.

Luck of the Insured?

In a blog post today on Crooks and Liars, Susie Madrak explains a few things about Americans and health care. With the help of a recent CBS news report regarding President Obama’s promotions of his health care reform, Madrak suggests that most Americans—regardless of social class or political affiliation—only have “the illusions of health insurance.” A large percentage of those against the proposed health care reform are so because they are (oftentimes erroneously) under the impression that they already have health insurance. However, as Madrak cites, “One argument for health care reform is that 47 million Americans are uninsured.... But not everyone knows that another 25 million are underinsured…”

Madrak references the unfortunate situation of John and Linda Stewardson to illustrate the idea of “underinsurance.” John leaves work early every day around lunchtime so that he can make lunch for his wife Linda—a cancer survivor. Linda explains that, while she is now in remission, in March their healthcare insurance capped out at $150,000 of treatment. Now, without insurance but still ailing, Linda and her husband have had to dip deep into their life savings in order to treat Linda’s cancer and its side effects.

The problem of underinsurance is one that plagues millions of Americans, but one that most Americans don’t realize until they have medical problems to face. And when it does come to medical costs, the underinsured are faced with some heavy choices. The Stewardson’s doctor and counselor, Dr. Deepa Subramaniam contends, “I am trying to balance cost and effectiveness in [Linda’s] case… You worry that somehow by choosing a treatment that is less expensive, that we are compromising the quality of the care.”

I think Susie Madrak’s post is incredibly appropriate—not only because health care is at the forefront of every news station and paper, but because her post enlightens many elements of insurance and health care that 25 millions Americans were not privy to: underinsurance and its dangers. Likewise, I agree with her insinuations that Congress approving health care reform would be a positive move for America. She references a slough of respected sources—CBS news, doctors, senators, and Americans directly effected by underinsurance and the health care reform--all of which make her story more compelling, logical, and believable.

Obama's New Initiative for Community Colleges

Sifting through the week's editorials, I was hard-pressed to find a write-up unrelated to the Obama Administration health care issue.  While health care reform is undeniably an important and pressing matter, it is nevertheless a very contentious one at the moment between conservatives and liberals alike.  Which is why I was so relieved to read this Op-Ed by David Brooks in the Dallas Morning News.  I appreciate Brooks’ positive outlook on the Obama Administration: the president recently announced a $12 billion plan to produce 5 million more community college grads by 2020 (community colleges like ACC).  The author explains that while community college enrollment has been increasing at a rate three times as fast as traditional 4-year colleges, the growth in students has not been matched by a growth in funding.  And as a result, the high number of community college dropouts has seen no break—until now. 

As of last week, President Obama has promised community colleges a significant amount of money.  What makes this plan so exciting, though, is that according to Brooks, “the Obama initiative… doesn't throw money at the problem. It ties money to reform and has the potential – the potential – to spur a wave of innovation.”   And Brooks’ logic stands.  Instead of each school receiving funds intended specifically for things like building maintenance or student aid, the Obama initiative is meant to go deeper, to really cure the biggest problems that plague community colleges—dropouts.  “[The initiative] has specific provisions for remedial education, outcome tracking and online education…. [S]uccessful reform has to blow up the standard model.” Evidently Brooks and Obama understand that students at community colleges are much less of a homogenized population than students at a 4-year university.  They have all have different learning styles, interests, goals, and abilities, and as a result often require more diverse approaches to education. 

According to this editorial, David Brooks is a New York Times columnist.  While the NY Times oftentimes takes liberal stances when it comes to politics and government, I think this piece is something most Americans—conservative or liberal, upper, middle, or lower class—can get behind.  Brooks writes in a way that appeals to many different readers—particularly anyone who has ever visited, attended, will attend, or who has known someone who has/will attend college.  Which, in the United States, is almost everyone. His writing is easily understood and accessible—which makes his argument all the more appealing.  I agree with Brooks wholeheartedly that Obama’s new initiative for community colleges is a “smart idea”—especially considering I am currently attending a community college.  More college graduates can translate to better jobs, better education, and better lives.

 

Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court Nomination

Recently, Judge Sonia Sotomayor was nominated to become the nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice.  As a result, the candidate has had to appear for several rounds of questioning by the Senate--one half of the two bodies that make up the legislative branch of government. To be appointed a Supreme Court justice, one must first be nominated by the President and then be confirmed with the the "advice and consent," or majority vote, of the Senate. However, there is some question as to whether or not Sotomayor will gain the "consent" of some Republican senators.  According the article, while several senators have indicated that "her confirmation seem[s] likely," there have also been a few concerns regarding Sotomayor's political feelings about race and gender--implying that the judge may be biased.   

This article is particularly interesting because it is a contemporary display of how part of our government works--specifically, how the judicial, legislative, and executive branches exercise checks and balances on each other.  In the case of Judge Sotomayor, she was nominated by the president.  However, the Senate has the opportunity to check this power by voting against her.  Likewise, Sotomayor has the chance to explain, defend, and speak for herself to the Senate. 

Article found on NPR.org