Blog 6
Why is it that in recent months there has been so much screaming and finger pointing, that the loudest of the protesters are often the only ones heard. There still remains a significicant majority of people who are not raising their voices out of fear and spite. The media grants the people bearing "Obama the Nazi" signs, but does not give the time of day to the 65% of Americans who are comfotable with the idea of a public option, according to a study conducted by The New York Times. This poll also concludes that the health care plan proposed by the Obama Administration is more clear than that proposed by the Rebublicans in Congress.

This debate has been blow way out of proportion, with Congresmembers of both parties acting without the people's needs in mind. While it appears that the Republicans took advantage of the summer reccess in Congress to crash the town hall style meetings. The Democrats, who have a Democratic President and a Democratic Majority should have seen that coming, and been able to counter with own power. The legislative process is not a pretty on, as designed by The Constitution, but with more and more media attention dedicated to the health care debate people are discusted by the cut throat attitude of their own government. However, these people also fail to realize this haggling leds to compromise, which is in fact the key to the success producing bills that cater to the needs of the wide variety of American people.

Bank Oversight Needed Now!

Although there are many causes to the collapse of the banking industry in 2008, there is one common, guilty party, lack of federal oversight.  This lead to the sub prime leading that caused the instability of the whole system.  Now, almost a year after the climax of the banking crisis, lawmakers are finally addressing preventative regulatory issues. Christopher J. Dodd, senator from Connecticut, is the main push behind a new bill that would address the powers of the certain government regulatory industries, mainly the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Comptroller of the Currency.  Mr. Dodd’s plan would merge all the regulatory agencies into one large complex ruled by a powerful council.

This part of the Dodd plan is significantly different than that originally proposed by the Obama administration.  The administration originally proposed a less severe change in the regulatory agencies, the Federal Reserve, Office of Thrift Supervision, The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Comptroller of the Currency.  Although this plan is somewhat different President Obama told Congress to adopt the law quickly.  However, this merge would grant the powerful council the powers to regulate what I call “non-banks.” These “non-banks” are lending agencies similar to General Electric Capital Corporation and pre- takeover Merril Lynch that provide financial capital but escape government regulation.  The chaotic derivatives market would also fall under the new federal jurisdiction, an important step in regulating the turbulent market.

Mr. Dodd faces criticism from members from both parties in his attempts.  His home state, Connecticut, is home to many large banks.  People in the financial service industry are resistant to the Dodd Plan.   Mr. Dodd might be reluctant to take on the banking industry, a big financial contributor to his campaign.  However, he is also eager to appear stricter of them in light of his upcoming campaign to appease the voters who view him as too close. 

 

Push Cap and Trade Up on Agenda

With a new bill going to the Senate as early as this month, the cap-and-trade emissions law would seem like a senate priority.  However, it is being over shadowed by the monstrous health care overhaul debate.  The bill, which proposes the cap and trade emission regulation technique, has already went through the House and is now set to be debated in the senate. The original date of completion was scheduled for September 28; however, the date has been pushed back later toward the year’s end.   Under the cap and trade system all businesses are given a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions.   Then can then trade their allotted emission consumption with other companies if they reduce their own, for example, a company that produces 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide per a year, could reduce the number to 5 billion tons a year and then trade their right to emit 5billiion tons of carbon dioxide to another company.

Although some congress members are reluctant to push for this crucial bill at the same time as the costly health care bills going through congress at the moment.  I think the time is crucial.  The United States, being a large, diverse, area, encompassing many political agendas should have a congress capable of legislating just as many diverse agendas and representing the wide variety of the population.  This is the goal.  Congress should have the breadth and scope to tacked issues such as greenhouse/CO₂ emissions, health care, and taxation simultaneously. The excessive bickering among various groups who are becoming less and less willing to compromise should not get in the way of the most important priority of our representatives, our wellbeing.  Living in a clean, relatively pollution-free environment is a major step in improving the well being of the American citizen, not to mention the rest of the world.

Cap and trade emission regulations are already implemented in some of the most post-industrialized nations in the world, such as all the countries in the European Union.  Additionally, cap and trade emissions policies already exist in the United States for pollutants such as sulfur dioxide.  With the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting on December 7 in Copenhagen, the United States should set a decent example on climate change policies, instead of figure pointing and blaming other countries for not playing on a level field.  There has to be a pioneer in the global scheme.  The debate against cap and trade due to financial burdens being loaded on the taxpayer are true indeed; however, this is the price of doing business in a regulated market, the general well being of the population will precede that of the corporate world.  This will eventually lead to other innovating techniques to attract economic stimulation.

 

Obama’s Pep Talk

The conservative furor over Mr. Obama’s educational pep talk scheduled to take place on the morning of Tuesday the 8^th is frankly ridiculous. There have been accusations on all side of the spectrum about Mr. Obama’s speech, ranging from Suddam Hussien-like to socialists movement inspiring.  The previous is from radical Canadian author and self-proclaimed political guru Mark Steyn, the latter a father of three in Texas, who also happens to be an engineer.  Since I am writing this blog Monday (the 7^th), I have only read the notes for Mr. Obama’s speech scheduled to take place tomorrow morning.  Absolutely nowhere in the text version of this speech does it say anything even leaning toward inspiring a scholastic socialist movement, of creating a personality cult. How about a plain goodwill gesture to America’s school children who might be dreaming about the possibility of another three months of summer and not just there schoolwork. 

Since I do not actually go out sampling public opinion with any frequency, I do not have a first hand experience with any statistical evidence about the following presumptions. In recent weeks, the comments made by sharp spoken, conservative, non-office holding individuals seem to dominate media coverage. I am tired of the Rush Limbaugh/Glen Beck-watching, “keep your government hands off my Medicare” people overshadowing the central-leaning majority, such as me, by garnering more media attention.  Mr. Obama’s speech is simple a goodwill gesture.  His approval ratings have dropped about six percent since his seven months in office.  He is probably wishing to bolster public opinion.

And to the parents who disagree with Obama’s political opinions. Instead of allowing children to not listen to alternative opinions, just because they might disagree with the Presidents other policies, how about letting them listen and formulate their own unique view of the subject matter.  After, parents can talk about the speech with their school children.  Not to mention, many former presidents have addressed schoolchildren during their presidencies, Reegan and Bush Sr. to name two.  The battlefield of the health care debate is the only reason for the opposition to nation-wide airing of the speech.  Some are uncertain and bitter, causing a backlash as what I view as Mr. Obama’s right as president of the United States, parents and critics are basically saying if you don’t agree then just don’t listen. 

Schools to Prisons.

It might seem odd for a civilized society to focus more of their resources on the populations in their prisons than their schools.   However, this is the situation that the state of California finds its self in at the moment. While the whole budget fiasco of California is being resolved, there is one unnecessary inmate death a week in the system of 160, 000.  According to the Associated Press, California spend around 10 percent of its budget on the inmates of the huge system.  There have numerous proposals from all over the board to fix the growing problem; some suggest pay-as-you-go prison for the wealthier inmates, slightly laughable, or reducing the sentence on minor drug offenders, more reasonable, of who make up a large portion of the inmates. 

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed cutting the moneys allocated to the prisons by $1.2 billion.  This proposal has been blocked by Republican lawmakers who are more worried about appealing to their supporters and financial backers by appearing hard on crime. Why is it that California spends more on the 160, 000 inmates than the 226,000 students in the University of California system? Misguided leaders and misplaced fears.  As pointes out by University of California President Mark Yudof there has been 24 new prisons built over the last 25 years while there has only been one new university built in that time.  While I, as well as anybody, know that prisons are necessary and dangerous criminals are supposed to be locked up.  The numbers of misdemeanor drug cases that cause a person to be incarcerated are unnecessary burden on the already stretched system. 

By keeping so many prisoners looked up in inadequate facilities, the health care costs of the system as a whole has doubled in the last nine to ten years.  In light of the whole proposed health care reform going on in the nation it seems odd that prisoners in the California System have some of their health care paid for.  Although, the protection they get from the rampant health problems can be minimal.  Recently, a federal court the system to reduce its population by 25 percent in the next to years, claiming the health conditions in the prisons unconstitutional. How do the republican propose to do that without decreasing the sentence of drug offenders?

Obama’s Signing Statements

While in office, former president George W. Bush issued around 700 so called signing statements.  These statements, first used regularly in the Regan administration, are written comments issued by a president at the time of signing a bill.  These statements usually take three forms.  First, they explain to those interested what the president and their administration thinks about the bill, and how the administration will react to the bill.  Second, signing statements are used by the president to guide those in the executive branch only about what he thinks the law entails.  Lastly, the president can describe when he thinks the law to be unconstitutional.  This last application is considered to be the most controversial. While campaigning, Barack Obama said he would use signing statements minimally; however, he has already issued five signing statement on various bills.

The third use of the signing statement is a way for the president to let his personal interpretation of the law become known.  It is not the president’s job to comment on the constitutionality of a law based on his personal opinion of the constitution, no matter how well educated on the subject he may be, considering Obama’s degree was in Constitutional Law.  Last time I checked, I am pretty sure it is the Supreme Court’s job.  While in office Bush used the signing statement to bypass laws in the Torture Ban and the joke of a bill, the USA Patriot Act.  A tool so misused in the Bush administration, presents Obama with a useful way to clearly explain the relevance of the bill.  However, allowing presidents to use a signing statement is giving them an easy way out. 

Rather than veto an imperfect bill, the president can issue a signing statement, pretty much saying my opinion has the last say in any bill I sign.  I propose the president not issue his opinion on the constitutionality, or in Mr. Bush’s case, grant himself unlimited power to completely ignore the bill in certain contexts, and instead veto the bill, or return it to Congress, until the two bodies of Government, the executive and the legislative are in agreement. If the question of constitutionality arises, the correct branch of government, the judiciary, can settle the issue.  That was, after all, what those grey haired guys had in mind when they wrote that oh so important document a few years back…