Rss Feed
Tweeter button
Facebook button
Technorati button
Reddit button
Delicious button
Digg button
Flickr button
Stumbleupon button
Newsvine button

Posts archived in Facts of Life

1 comments

1:16 PM

March 7, 2010

Economic Stimulation, a la Obama

For anyone continuing to think that the Recovery Act (the stimulus) was a waste, think again.

These provide countenance to the fact that not only has our economy turned around, but that said turn-around occurred like clockwork with the Recovery Act becoming law. I was propelled to include these charts after criticism mounted over the supposed “bias-nature” of the graphic released by the White House that was created with the same data that created the above graphs. For a refresher, or for those who didn’t happen to see it, this is the White House’s graphic on job loss/the recession/the stimulus:

Beyond the obvious red/blue divide, nothing more partisan exists. One cannot simply claim the graph is partisan because it displays facts that support the arguments and views of a political party, especially not when these facts are indeed true. Add to the overall objectivity of the White House’s release of stimulus-related and economic data these charts on real GDP and Payroll Job Losses and you can see that there isn’t much room to claim on principle that the stimulus failed. (Both come from a Feb 17th report on the 1 year progress of the stimulus issued by VP Joe Biden).

0 comments

9:12 AM

February 19, 2010

Reconciling Healthy Differences

Well, reconciling something – hopefully this time it will be the reconciling of Washington with what the majority of the electorate wants : comprehensive health care reform with at least a national public plan. I for one have had enough of the emphasis placed upon bipartisanship to pass this legislation (Tom Schaller on 538.com basically ruins the argument that bipartisanship means anything tangible here). That is why I was delighted to read this morning in the NYTimes that the health bill the Obama administration is preparing ahead of the bipartisan summit is being crafted expressly for the purpose of attaching to a budget bill that won’t be subject to minority hijacking (filibuster).

Numerous Democratic leaders in the Senate have expressed their willingness to use the budget reconciliation process in recent days and weeks, but hold outs still exist – those who think that using Senate rules to pass legislation with a simple majority constitutes some sort of disregard for “the will of the Senate” (to borrow a phrase Orrin Hatch used to try and cast Obama as a tyrant over the move to use recess appointments to break the Repub’s stranglehold on his nominees).

On top of all this, it shows that there is still a damn good chance that this bill will be revitalized and removed of certain detrimental give-aways that weren’t meant to improve the bill but rather to gain conservative votes (of which zero were gained).

Monday should be the day that we see exactly what sort of health care bill Obama thinks should act as a jumping off point to pass with a simple majority. I’ve seen many articles on this reconciled bill that seem to cast doubt upon whether or not Democrats have enough votes to pass a comprehensive bill through reconciliation…but I think these folks are forgetting that the Senate bill passed with exactly 60 votes in December, and the House passed a much more progressive piece of legislation in the fall with 220 votes (including 1 republican).

0 comments

1:15 PM

February 18, 2010

Citizens United : corporatism is A-Okay

There has been much speculation surrounding the recent Citizen’s United supreme court ruling, ranging from those who assert that now foreign-owned corporations can and will spend unlimited money to influence American elections to those who assert that this was a major victory for free (corporate) speech. But really this is just speculation. While the ruling is indeed disheartening for those of us who do not control a majority interest in a large corporation, its ramifications have been subject to the typical Washington politicization.

For one thing, there is no way to say for sure if this ruling will lead to increased direct advocacy/partisan activity by multi-national or domestic corporations. The big caveat to the effect of this ruling is that any corporation that engages in direct advocacy could easily become the target of negative ad campaigns, which would potentially effect their customer base, thus throwing a blanket of discouragement on the political agendas of these businesses. The bad news though, is that opportunists on K street have already solved that little dilemma.

Talking Points Memo reported on a “Public Policy and Law Alert” issued by lobbying giant K&LGates last week. This alert indicated that hope remains for those politically-minded corporations who want to pour copious amounts of money into a direct advocacy campaign, while avoiding the burden and bad-business of public scrutiny :

“Currently, any entity, including a corporation that spends more than $10,000 per year on electioneering communications, must file a disclosure statement with the FEC, sometimes within 24 hours of the date of a communication’s first public dissemination. That disclosure must state who makes the expenditure, the amount, the election to which the communication was directed, and the names of those entities donating $1,000 or more to the entity making the disbursements for that communication. Furthermore, a corporation (or any non-candidate funding an electioneering communication) must state at the end of a television or radio advertisement that “ABC Corporation is responsible for the content of this advertising” and must do so in a clear, direct way pursuant to certain technical requirements…”

“…most corporations will probably proceed cautiously. If such independent expenditures are made, groups of corporations within an industry may form coalitions or use existing trade associations to support candidates favorable to policy positions that affect the group as a whole. While corporations that contribute to these expenditures might still be disclosed, this indirect approach can provide sufficient cover such that no single contributing entity receives the bulk of public scrutiny.   Corporations could further lower their profile in such cases by not making contributions specific to a particular expenditure by that third-party corporation. Such independent expenditures can also take the form of advertisements in “under-the radar” sources, such as ideologically-based talk radio, web-based ads or phone banks.”

The thing that still gets me is how the individuals who make the decisions about how a corporation’s money is spent (ceos, board of executives, share holders) are essentially endowed with more rights than individuals such as me, who have no controlling interest in any corporations. Let me explain :

These folks undoubtedly participate in and have an interest in the affairs of a corporation because they see some benefit for themselves (most notably and commonly – they make money because of their involvement in the corporation). So these individuals are already benefiting from their participation in the corporation because it generates some form of income for them. At the same time, these individuals can donate any amount of money into any political campaign, advocacy campaign and so on. The individuals who comprise the corporation had that right – the same right that I currently have – before this supreme court ruling. But now, they have an extra right, a special right that only these folks enjoy. They get to use funds that are not their own personal funds, that are business funds, to advance their own personal agendas (if controlling agents coalesce around issues).

Imagine a scenario where a state is legislating on minimum wage laws, and for fun, lets place this scenario in a tea party conservative’s fantasy – the state is legislating on abolishing minimum wage laws. Now, it would be easy to see how a corporation that has numerous employees could seek to benefit from the abolition of minimum wage laws, so in our scenario this corporation will be donating copious amounts of cash to not only electoral candidates who support the abolition but also to advocacy groups who support it and to other media campaigns supporting their agenda. This is now their right. On top of the expenditure of business funds, each individual who shares a controlling interest in the corporation may also donate as much cash as they like to support direct advocacy campaigns or electoral candidates.  But the effect of the passing of this piece of legislation, whose chances of passing become greater as more money is funneled into the campaign, is clearly detrimental to and against the interest of the employees of that corporation (both present and future employees). Yet the employees are likely to have zero say in the decision made to donate to such campaigns, even though the money being used is in part a product of their labors. The one caveat in this scenario is that the employees, if unionized, can now use union funds to advance their interests in political issues (however, this is a obscenely disproportionate caveat as the only sector of our economy that is unionized to any significant degree are federal employees).

Why in the world is our government actively creating these scenarios? The supreme court ruled in an astonishing rebuke to the balance of influence in politics, removing any barrier from allowing already powerful interests to leverage their power more greatly. The consequences of such a ruling are uncertain, but the fact remains that the ruling set the stage for a remarkable shift in power/influence in American domestic politics that favors large corporations and foreign subsidiaries over individual citizens.

My opinion remains steadfast that no such change was necessary, as the extra rights bestowed upon corporations were already guaranteed to the individuals who comprise those corporations, and that legislative action or constitutional amending will be necessary to re-align the laws governing political activity with our Constitutional tenet of individual rights.

I know the tea-baggers love them some individual rights and freedoms, but remind me – do they support those rights being granted to corporations ? Are they and the Republicans willing to damn their credibility on and emphasis upon the Constitutional rights of the individual to curry the good graces of their corporate sponsors?

2 comments

1:58 PM

February 17, 2010

Mount Vernon Statement = Empty Rhetoric

Well, the self-righteousness has surely hit the fan. Self-proclaimed “Constitutional conservatism” is the hero of the Mount Vernon Statement; however obliquely details, specifics, policies, evidence, history and data enter into this equation.

For one thing, is this supposed to be news? Are we in the public supposed to respect or revere these folks who are indeed, not saying anything new or of substance, while they simultaneously make unsubstantiated claims about our country? While the statement reads as a high school report on conservative talking points through American history, it sure fails to offer itself in the context of our world today and the problems we face. The only effort made to contextualize this statement is provided as follows : “In light of the challenges facing the country and the need for clarity in the age of Obama…” These are somehow new problems for these folks? As opposed to the new challenges that these conservatives did not deem politically beneficial to enunciate during the last decade (aka the lost decade)?

It reduces complex policy debates to a false framework of being against the Constitution or for it, while implicitly targeting and labeling the last year under the Obama administration as not being “consistent with the American ideal,” and a “…movement away from…our founding principles,”.

Blanketed, unsupported claims such as this are necessary to further these “Constitutional conservatives” worldview. The empty rhetorical piece de resistance :

“A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.”

Economic conservatives would probably like to be reminded that despite all the espoused morality of the Bush administration, our economy ran full speed into a brick wall. They would also probably like to be reminded that these “new challenges” we face in the “age of Obama” are a direct result of our economy crashing under Bush and the massive job losses suffered alongside said crash.

Social conservatives would probably like to be reminded that the greatest threat to moral self-government has come in the form of the exploitation of executive power by Bush/Cheney after 9.11 (think state secrets, executive privilege, and signing statements) and the subsequent relegation of habeas corpus (a Constitutionally guaranteed right) to a privilege that can be revoked at the whim of the executive. National security conservatives would likely benefit as well from the reminder that Obama is ending the war in Iraq and successfully turning the war in Afghanistan back toward our favor, most notably with the recent capture of top Taliban commanders. These same national security conservatives, which I hope is not just a term being used in lieu of the political impotence of neo-conservatives, would also benefit from the reminder that Iran is actually negotiating its nuclear enrichment program under 6 party talks that would result in them complying with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and allowing the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) full access to all their nuclear facilities. Oh and about that whole “energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world” assertion : remind me what recent conservative was it that brought about the collective scorn of copious populations abroad because of its reckless, irresponsible, unilateral foreign policy regime? It starts with G and rhymes with shmorge shmush.

So are we to take this statement, if we accept it as news, as a repudiation of Bush’s legacy as none of the above-mentioned values? Or should we just take it as another empty rhetorical indulgence, carried out by conservative ideologues seeking to re-write history?

Somehow the latter option seems more in line with conservatism today.

0 comments

12:38 PM

Education Reform in the Recession

In October, Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced a renewed initiative to reform and critically evaluate the post-graduate programs that certify teachers. In his speech to the Teachers College at Columbia University, Duncan asserts that “by almost any standard, many if not most of the nation’s 1,450 schools, colleges, and departments of education are doing a mediocre job of preparing teachers for the realities of the 21st century classroom…America’s university-based teacher preparation programs need revolutionary change–not evolutionary tinkering,”.

Within that context, of a Democratic administration that is not going to accept the status-quo in America’s education system, the move by President Obama to offer relief from the crushing costs of college tuition and the debt of student loans reinforces the necessity of reform that makes the system work better for those it is supposed to serve. This relief includes the capping of monthly loan payments at 10% of the borrower’s discretionary income, offering debt forgiveness after 20 years (10 if a career in public service is pursued), and eliminating the federal subsidies given to private lenders for student loans and instead expanding the hugely successful Direct Loan/Pell Grant program

.

Now however, the context has shifted a bit. In a time where 35 out of 50 states have budget shortfalls of over 20%, and nearly 2/3 of the stimulus funds meant to ensure that these exact budget shortfalls would not result in cuts to public school budgets has already been accounted for, there is increased pressure on states to proceed with reforms within this cash-strapped environment. The stimulus funds apportioned to this cause were meant to ensure that public school funding would not be cut, but they also provided an incentive to reform those same public schools in the form of additional federal money.

(source : ProPublica stimulus tracker)

The problem, however, is that many states have proceeded to cut their public school funding while simultaneously accepting billions of dollars in stimulus money.  According to an October report issued by the Department of Education inspector general:

“…some states are using the program to reduce their own funding for public education…states can collect billions of dollars in stimulus funding for education, and still reduce their own overall spending on schools to 2006 levels. The flexibility in the program was designed to let states facing severe budget shortfalls, like California, avoid cuts to their total education funding. But according to the IG, even some states that can afford to spend their money on reform may not end up doing so.”

So now, with budget shortfalls looming, stimulus funds drying up and reform efforts, in general, still being supported many states legislatures have turned their sights on public high schools. We’ve mentioned the proposals by Utah state sen. Chris Buttars that seeks to eliminate the 12th grade and bus service as being entirely antithetical to proactive reform. Alongside proposals such as that, many states have had trouble securing the funds necessary to repair their dilapidated schools as provided for in the stimulus.

But amongst this discord and angst, there remains hope for proactive reform that will benefit students.

The National Center on Education and Economy, with the aid of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is organizing a program that would allow students to begin taking college courses after their sophomore year based upon their performance on a series of exams. This notion of increasing reliance upon standardized testing may bring up bad memories of the utterly failed No Child Left Behind Act, which tied federal funding for school districts to student’s performance on certain tests, but rest assured these two programs should not be considered harmonious.

The effort is seeking to capitalize, in fact, on the 350$ million in stimulus funds designated for improving standardized testing in public school. The new series of exams would be based largely upon successful systems in Denmark, England, Finland, France and Singapore. The purpose of such a reform is clear – to allow students who excel to move forward in their education and make college success more tangible, while providing an opportunity for school districts who perform well to lower their spending on public high schools. As well, this effort seeks to decrease the amount of student who enroll in remedial courses in college and thus decrease the amount of remedial courses that need to be offered by community colleges.

Pilot programs for the NCEE’s new coursework and evaluation standards will begin in the fall of 2011 in Connecticut, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.

Notice the distinct difference between a proposal such as this, which seeks to provide more opportunities for students, and the proposal by Buttars which seeks to sell-out students by eliminating the 12th grade?

Particularly, Buttar’s proposal benefits only the budget of Utah and supports only the ideologies of anti-public school activists, while casting off the consequences to be carried by students and teachers.

That is not reform, it is not a step forward; it is a step into uncharted territory that threatens the stability of Utah’s public school system upon which more than 96% of the state’s children depend.

0 comments

7:00 PM

February 15, 2010

Why we need a Big Bank Tax

From the most happening, data-tracking, investigating journalists on the web, ProPublica brings us some perspective on the bailout.

Note the incredible disparity between outflow of bailout money and revenues returned. And for any folks (those in Congress/media in particular) who lament the bailout or consider the national debt a burden on future generations : you must be taking something under the table if you oppose a fee on the same giant banking establishments that our concurrently turning out record profits/bonuses while acting as a vacuum for taxpayer money. THEY OWE US NOW, not the other way around.

0 comments

12:32 PM

Victims of the Recession : Utah Schools

Every so often, school districts face budget shortfalls. They either decide then, to hold a referendum or bond measure, or to cut back in order to work with their revenues.  But in this recession, a budget shortfall is no matter of small consequence.

In Utah, the latest attempt to rectify the state’s budgetary woes comes at the apparent expense of students attending public high school. The latest proposal, seeking to lessen the pain of a 700$ million budget shortfall, calls for the elimination of the 12th grade. Rather, it toys with the idea of eliminating the 12th grade, either fully or through an opt-out sort of arrangement.

Sidenote : the legislator who proposed this is none other than State Sen. Chris Buttars, who so callously opined that he considers gays and lesbians “the greatest threat to America going down,”. But moving on from that…

His proposal also calls for the elimination of bus service for high school students.

Seems to me, as a former public high school 12th grade, bus-riding student, that this proposal is impulsive and short-sighted. If Utah sets the precedent that budget shortfalls can be met by hacking away at the public school system, our country will be in trouble. Public school is not an entitlement, not a spending program, not social welfare and not expendable. Proposals such as this one should be called out for what they are – opportunist and disinterested.

I highly doubt that any legislator who proposes the whole-sale cutting of an entire grade has any interest in improving the public school system. Further, I highly doubt that any legislator who proposes this as a means to rectify a budget gap caused by a nationwide recession should be taken seriously as anything but an ideologue.

But then again, it may be too early to see if anyone actually takes this seriously. Things like this make for great controversy and really stir up the pot, but will it solve any problems? No. It will create a whole new slew of problems, the so-called slippery slope of selling-out Utah’s students. Because if 12th grade is dispensable, why not 11th? Why not just do away with free school lunch programs then too? Or what is to stop these partisans from just cutting all funding for school districts in time of budget shortfalls?

One thing is for sure though. I take pride in my state, Oregon’s, ability to prioritize its public schools above their corporate benefactors. We passed a tax increase, the largest one in Oregon’s history, to ensure that our budget shortfalls do not hurt the public school system and its benefactors (ie, children, students everywhere). Our state legislature passed the tax increase last year, as our 2011 budget was hinging upon the increased revenues from this increase, but it was forced to undergo a ballot referendum because of the anti-tax, Nike lobby. Even within that narrative though, common sense and the common good prevailed when a majority of Oregon voters chose their public schools over their measly 10$ minimum corporate tax rate.

0 comments

9:30 PM

February 11, 2010

Clean Energy a la Obama

The Obama administration loves to tout their support for clean energy. Who wouldn’t? They know it is popular, they know there is a huge market for it and they know it will help our economy in the short-term and long-term.

More importantly though, the awardees of the clean energy manufacturing tax credit have been announced, with the award total reaching 2.3$ billion amongst 43 states and 183 manufacturing facilities (White House press release here). The full list of projects, tax credit requested, technology area, city, state, and description is available here. An abbreviated list of 10 awardees with brief descriptions is here.

Of all the great projects and innovation being supported through this tax credit, one giant contradiction is smacking me in the face.

There are only two projects being awarded tax credits (in other words, only two employable, marketable, innovations) that have anything to do with “carbon dioxide capture and sequestration equipment”, or if you prefer clean coal. Only two projects, less than 5$ million awarded to anything related to clean coal, carbon dioxide capture or sequestration equipment out of the whole 2.3$ billion pot. Yet Obama keeps as a key selling point in his press release. Why?

From the Jan 8, 2010 press release:

Qualifying manufacturing facilities included the production of a wide range of clean energy products:

  • Solar, wind, geothermal, or other renewable energy equipment
  • Electric grids and storage for renewables
  • Fuel cells and microturbines
  • Energy storage systems for electric or hybrid vehicles
  • Carbon dioxide capture and sequestration equipment
  • Equipment for refining or blending renewable fuels
  • Equipment for energy conservation, including lighting and smart grid technologies
  • Plug-in electric vehicles or their components, such as electric motors, generators, and power control units
  • Other advanced energy property designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may also be eligible as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury.

[emphasis added]

One of the projects, based out of Kaukauna, WI, is a system designed to “extract/trap carbon from waste streams from coal fired power plants”. They were awarded a 75,000$ tax credit (awards ranged to 141$ million). Another project based out of Bellevue, WA promises “more efficient and cost effective Carbon capture and storage”, and was awarded 4.7$ million.

What about the gigantic amounts of carbon released in mountain-top removal, which this relatively small investment does not attempt to mitigate? We have seen no action on this contradiction of our energy/environmental policies, and the practice continues to be used in the Appalachians. The renewed support for the EPA under Obama has resulted in less permits being awarded for mountain-top removal mines, but numerous permits are still granted, perpetuating the presence of this horribly destructive practice within our energy policy. Follow this to see the most recent action by the EPA on this issue.

It would be swell if our energy policy supported where we want to go, as opposed to the habits in which we’re entrenched.

0 comments

4:13 PM

February 10, 2010

Health Care Populism

According to a new Washington Post/ABC news poll, 63% of Americans want comprehensive health care reform.

Note that even 42% of Republicans want comprehensive health care reform.

I’m really shocked by these numbers – 63 % of the public still wants comprehensive reform – when you take into consideration the tepid support that Congress has received from the public over the last year in regard to health care reform. Here is the result of a poll conducted in July 09 by the same pollsters, showing 54% of the public supports the legislation in Congress (which included at the time, a public option) :

It remains elusive to me, the logic used by Republican congresspeople and pundits to oppose health care reform which always rests so firmly upon their perception of the public as being completely against anything resembling the current legislation. As well, many suggest that the Senate bill is just too messy and advocate that the only way forward is to “start over”. From an FOXnews interview with House Minority leader John Boehner… Keep Reading »

1 comments

5:19 PM

February 8, 2010

The Wrong Direction

Over the weekend, Iran stated their intent to enrich uranium to 20% and to build 10 new enrichment plants (reacting to the West’s unresponsiveness to Iran’s nuclear offer). This move also signaled Iran’s intent to allow the IAEA to fully monitor the sites where uranium would be enriched to 20%, which Iran argues it needs to continue to produce in order to provide radioactive isotopes for cancer treatment. This all sounds reasonable when viewed outside of its context, but that context is becoming increasingly looming.

This announced has spurred renewed calls for sanctions in the West, this time the idea being prominently pushed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US Defense Secretary Robert Gates. This move is likely to be supported by the US Congress, who as recently as December 09 passed a new gasoline embargo on Iran. As is to be expected, there is still a vocal minority in the US who advocate an all-out war with Iran, including most recently (and visibly) Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Daniel Pipes’ NRO article titled “How to save the Obama presidency: Bomb Iran”. Of the utmost importance to note when considering these urgent statements that advocate more forceful responses (re: Bomb Iran) is that these folks have placed politics as the deciding factor in whether to bomb Iran or not. Here is Pipes’ argument (I’m not paraphrasing, it is literally this shallow):

Keep Reading »

0 comments

1:18 PM

February 5, 2010

Where are the student groups?

The plan for starting to fix the exorbitant costs of college tuition was laid out by President Obama in his SOTU. It included, most notably in regard to student loans (some 10 million loans were taken out last year while the amount of students who defaulted on their loans increased 30%), “limiting a borrower’s payment to 10% of his/her income and forgiving remaining debt after 20 years” (Whitehouse.gov). Such changes would drastically alter the nature of how the college student (or prospective student) makes decisions about their schooling – I would venture to guess that more would choose to seek advance degrees earlier in life (because with the loan forgiveness clause, no school debt by age 45 is a great incentive).

The House actually passed a bill that includes these exact reforms this past September. To see for yourself what it includes, check out the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act H.R. 3221. The president made a specific point to prod the Senate about catching up to the House’s impressive legislative accomplishments this past year, so all we wait upon for the most progressive education reform in decades to become the law of the land – is the Senate.

Trouble is afoot though. Trouble in the form of lobbyists for the nation’s largest private lenders, including Sallie Mae (who originated 22$ billion in student loans last year). These folks are just looking to protect their “sweet deal” as Arne Duncan calls it. “They’ve had a sweet deal. They’ve had this phenomenal deal that taxpayers have subsidized, and that’s a hard thing to give up.” (NYT 2/4/10)

So where are the student groups and parents who would benefit greatly from this reform? Why aren’t they getting sit-down meetings with Senators who are on the fence? Why aren’t college presidents writing editorials and calling Senators? Where are the teachers unions (who recently claimed huge electoral success in campaigning against big businesses like Nike for tax increases in Oregon)? There isn’t any logical reason for Senators to deny help to the millions of families and students who need it most, especially when there is a plan that does so at great lengths – all at no cost to the taxpayer. The claims made by big lenders that this legislation would cause more jobs to be lost is unfounded as well – the plan calls for incorporating the existing lending centers into an improved and more accessible customer service outlet.

It has been too long that students and families have bore the extra burden of college tuition rates that rise at nearly triple the rate of inflation. I’m calling my Senators.

0 comments

3:16 PM

February 2, 2010

Progress in Action

Within the larger context of the national political dialogue, this was somehow lost.

Turns out that Obama has had his hands full rectifying the poor governing habits of previous administration – starting with reestablishing and supporting the regulatory agency’s role in our government. The appointment of public officials who legitimately claim ‘expert’ status in their fields into relevant regulatory agencies is only step 1. What needs to follow is the use of these people’s expertise and knowledge to positive ends, specifically in making the laws we already have work like they were designed to:

“Republican presidents didn’t just undermine scientific administration by making poor appointments; they also slashed or held down the regulatory agencies’ budgets, forcing them to cut personnel. This was a particular problem in the all-important area of enforcement: If regulatory agencies can’t conduct inspections and enforce rules, it doesn’t matter how tough those rules are.” (Judis, “The Quiet Revolution”, 2.1.10)

The relevance this has to our national dialogue though, is huge. The economy, health care, energy – the ability to tackle these issues hinges upon the government’s ability to erect a regulatory regime that is both fair and beneficial to the public at large. Think of the financial sector (particularly, think “Too Big To Fail”). Think of the mayhem that the banking giants have already conclusively proven they can cause when existing regulations fail or when enforcement of those regulations is impossible. That alone is cause to applaud Obama’s initiative to resuscitate our meek regulatory agencies and begin the return to scientific administration.

As a side note, the effort by Obama should work to calm the general public’s dissatisfaction with Congress – as more pressure would be relieved from the idea that we need to make new legislation in order to solve some of our problems. Seems to me like the White House should have played up this notion at least a little, especially during that month or two this summer where all that was coming from the GOP were different versions of the same diatribes against “big government”.

Newer Entries »