Our newly conservative President Obama has laid out his vision for "winning the future" and it is largely conservative, Reaganesque bullshit. His SoTU speech was the moderate version of Reagan's old flag waving garbage about how much better the US is than the rest of the nations of the world. We are not in a big tournament against other nations, though the voting public seems to think we are.
It is right that this Democratic President become more conservative in response to the huge conservative win in the fall election. He's dropped any ideas about creating jobs, helping the unemployed and is barely pushing higher taxes on rich people. That's a drag.
As an antedote, I offer some suggestions for getting the US economy chugging in the right direction again. Highlights from http://www.bostonreview.net/BR36.1/galbraith below. I think these ideas are brilliant analytical suggestions that are politically impossible.
Create an "infrastructure bank" that would be called "big gubment" by Republicans. It would plan, fund and oversee upgrades to national systems that need a boost.
Neighborhood Preservation Corps - more "big gubment" federally funded bureacracy to demolish condemned buildings and projects to replace them.
Further federal support for other local services (police, schools, parks, libraries) that are suffering because of loss of tax revenue and laws against deficit spending at the local level.
Increased Social Security and Medicare benefits, and a temporary lowering of the retirement age to 62.
All perfectly sensible stuff to me, but I lost.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
Tucson and small gubment
A crazy guy shot people at a political event after a powerful Republican Pac targeted the politician.
Republicans tell us that this is just what happens in a 'free' society, that nothing can stop it and that we should just string the shooter up and move on. All set. The shooter is solely responsible.
Government can't tighten gun laws.
Government can't expand mental health services.
Republicans certainly can't be asked to be a little bit careful about what they say and how they say it.
I believe all these positions are in the Reagan tradition of 'small gubment' and ultimately harmful to the USofA.
Next week the newly elected Republican House leadership will make a noise in a grandstanding effort to slam "Obamacare". They have no chance to repeal it because they don't have enough power, but they will take up Congressional time to make noise.
President Bush (the junior) signed mental health care parity into law, requiring insurance companies to provide mental health services to their customers. I cheer him for that because as Tuscon points up, mental health is not just a source of suffering for the afflicted it can kick any of us at any time. It is clear to me, even in "The People's Republic of Massachusetts" where we have universal care, that mental health services are difficult to come by even when you actively and aggressively seek them out. I wish that situation were different.
Now, if we can just hold on and let "Obamacare" or TeddyCare take effect we might see currently uninsured people have access to mental health care. Would this have stopped Loughner? Stupid rhetorical question, but it is clear to any thinking person (on the left and center) that this nut could have used some help even if it meant government intervention.
Republicans tell us that this is just what happens in a 'free' society, that nothing can stop it and that we should just string the shooter up and move on. All set. The shooter is solely responsible.
Government can't tighten gun laws.
Government can't expand mental health services.
Republicans certainly can't be asked to be a little bit careful about what they say and how they say it.
I believe all these positions are in the Reagan tradition of 'small gubment' and ultimately harmful to the USofA.
Next week the newly elected Republican House leadership will make a noise in a grandstanding effort to slam "Obamacare". They have no chance to repeal it because they don't have enough power, but they will take up Congressional time to make noise.
President Bush (the junior) signed mental health care parity into law, requiring insurance companies to provide mental health services to their customers. I cheer him for that because as Tuscon points up, mental health is not just a source of suffering for the afflicted it can kick any of us at any time. It is clear to me, even in "The People's Republic of Massachusetts" where we have universal care, that mental health services are difficult to come by even when you actively and aggressively seek them out. I wish that situation were different.
Now, if we can just hold on and let "Obamacare" or TeddyCare take effect we might see currently uninsured people have access to mental health care. Would this have stopped Loughner? Stupid rhetorical question, but it is clear to any thinking person (on the left and center) that this nut could have used some help even if it meant government intervention.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Sarah and Me
Sarah: "There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal."
Buck: Partly true. I do claim the first but only kinda. It is partially to blame. On the claim that this act was apolitical I claim bullshit. When a Congresswoman is shot in the head point blank range at a political event it seems only fair to think the act a bit political.
Sarah: "And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently."
Buck: Complete bullshit that she goes on to attack a fictional argument by an unseen "they"and claim some crazy stupidity based on her personal familiarity with the holy founding fathers. I would say that the debate is not more heated just recently, and that she ought to be responsible and tone her bombastic bullshit down.
Buck: Partly true. I do claim the first but only kinda. It is partially to blame. On the claim that this act was apolitical I claim bullshit. When a Congresswoman is shot in the head point blank range at a political event it seems only fair to think the act a bit political.
Sarah: "And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently."
Buck: Complete bullshit that she goes on to attack a fictional argument by an unseen "they"and claim some crazy stupidity based on her personal familiarity with the holy founding fathers. I would say that the debate is not more heated just recently, and that she ought to be responsible and tone her bombastic bullshit down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
