January 30, 2007
Tom Vilsack is In to Win, Too
by Jeremy Freed
One of the most memorable guests last week was Iowa Governor and democratic presidential hopeful Tom Vilsack.
On Friday's program he outlined his approach to reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and made some extremely promising statements about the kinds of commitment it will take to make this happen. Conservation and investment in renewable energy sources topped his list of priorities, predictably enough, but there were a couple of points he made later that resonated strongly with me.
He segued from a story about his mother's triumph over substance abuse into an assertion that the sort of courage he saw in his mother is something that he believes each one of us possesses. Individual courage, he says, is what it will take for Americans to change their habits and triumph over the dire issues they currently face, energy use among them. This sort of Midwestern earnestness, with its emphasis on personal responsibility and individual capability, was appealing and refreshing.
Vilsack went on to discuss the importance of environmental stewardship, a notion he insists crosses religious lines, and is vital to protecting our environment. Again, a simple idea founded in personal action, with equally broad appeal.
This is the sort of sensible, wide-reaching approach that could make Vilsack a contender for the presidential nomination. But does he have what it takes to stand toe-to-toe with Clinton and Obama? As he memorably put it, “They're rockstars, but I'm rock-solid.” It will take more than idealism and a good catchphrase to win this heavyweight match, and by all accounts he has a long way to go, but it's turning into a more interesting race by the day.
January 28, 2007
100 Wasted Hours
by Rose Capozzi
“The plan was to quickly pass several pieces of legislation. Unfortunately, quantity does not always ensure quality. ”
Democrats rejoiced as the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress came to an end last week. Taking a lesson from Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" in 1995, newly elected Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, swore to re-establish the Democratic party as a legitimate force in Washington politics. The plan was to quickly pass several pieces of legislation. Unfortunately, quantity does not always ensure quality. In those first 100 hours, Congress managed to push through several modest proposals, including ethics reform, increasing the minimum wage, and negotiating new prescription drug costs. Generally, these pieces of legislation were supported by Republicans, Democrats, and the public. But were we hoodwinked by Congressmen desperate to fall back into good graces with the weary public? Let's take a look:
Ethics First, Democrats wanted to deal with "Ethics Reform." The problem was that members of Congress were taking bribes from lobbyist. To combat this, they voted to punish lobbyist for offering inappropriate gifts to crooked Congressmen. One would assume that dealing with crooked Congressmen would mean establishing stronger standards for ethical behavior while a member of the body. Instead, and not surprisingly, the men and women of the 110th voted to put restrictions on what lobbyists could do, and in the process restricted American's first amendment rights to petition the government. Putting the blame on "evil" lobbyists for the inappropriate things that Congressmen are doing doesn't seem to get to the root of the problem. The best solution is to put stronger ethics rules in place, but this would involve publicizing that certain elected officials, possibly even some Democrats, need to be restricted like kindergarteners in time-out.
Minimum Wage For nearly 10 years, the minimum wage has been frozen at $5.15 an hour, so Congress voted to raise the minimum wage by $2.10. There is speculation concerning the implications of this kind of increase. One report was released by James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation. According to Sherk, it basically boils down to cold hard economics: when companies have to fork out more money for each employee, they will be forced to cut down on the number of people they are able to employ. Nearly 2/3rds of all minimum wage studies confirm this reality. Obviously no one wants to see people struggling in dead end, minimum wage jobs, but the alternative, increasing the minimum wage, may very well do more damage than letting markets [and job skills] determine pay. After all, a minimum wage job is better than no job at all.
Medicare Part D Another problem Congress decided to tackle was the price of prescription drugs covered by Medicare Part D. Currently under Medicare Part D, the government is explicitly prohibited from interfering with price negotiations between drug companies, pharmacy benefit managers (PBM), and sponsors of the drug plans. The new Congress struck this "non-interference" restriction. They claimed that they will negotiate prices for seniors in order to make drugs more available. In reality, "negotiation" means that the government will set prices below those already negotiated in the market. Again, this boils down to cold hard economics. Setting a market price below the optimal market equilibrium could result in fewer drugs being available overall and less drug innovation in the future.
This rush to pass legislation and prove Democratic legitimacy in lawmaking reminds me of the idiom "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats promised to deliver on traditionally liberal issues, but what will be the results of their hasty decisions? It will take more than 100 hours to figure this one out.
January 27, 2007
A Note on Language
by Jeremy Freed
“While the administration is finally acknowledging that global warming is indeed a "serious challenge," they still intend to deal with it on their own terms.”
One of the most striking things about President Bush's Tuesday night State of the Union address, almost as striking as the total absence of any discussion of the ruined Gulf Coast, was his reference to an issue on which he had heretofore said very little.
Just after the part about his plans and promises for reducing oil consumption, and just before he got to that old standby about winning the war on terror, there was a fleeting mention of global warming. "The serious challenge of global climate change," was the way it came out, and in a speech full of very serious challenges, the fact that this one appeared at all was remarkable enough, and telling. It stands as a testament to the President's growing willingness to "cross that aisle," as he put it, and address some of the issues on which the Democrats have recently gained much ground. Indeed, as Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, was nominated for an Oscar that same day, the timing seemed appropriate, if appropriately late.
The semantics of Bush's statement also struck me as important, saying almost as much about the current administration's stand on climate change as its mention in the speech altogether. Global warming, both the concept and the term, are now fully ingrained in the public's consciousness, in no small part due to Gore's film. It is now the topic of water cooler debates and late-night talk show monologues, widely understood to be both the cause of the strange weather of recent years, and a growing source of concern for the future. Use of the phrase "global climate change," as opposed to the more colloquial alternative seemed formal, scientific, and absolutely not-of-the-people. For this truck-driving, joke-telling, brush-clearing leader of the free world, it seemed a strange choice of words. A long way from the days of "Fool me once, shame on you," to be sure.
To me the choice indicates several things. It reflects a soberer, more subdued George W. Bush, as noted by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer in Wednesday's program. He's stepping into uncharted territory and it shows, using new language which does not fit with his Stay-The-Course persona of the last six years. It also suggests that while his administration is finally acknowledging that global warming is indeed a "serious challenge," they still intend to deal with it on their own terms, not on Gore's. This is a sad thing, if true, which may have dire consequences both for America, and for the planet.
Certainly, with his presidency in its twilight years, and his popularity at an all-time low, our leader is beginning to make larger compromises than ever before. Granted, while such a microscopic reading of a single phrase in a speech containing many important phrases might serve to block the larger picture, it is an ideal example of Hoyer's observation of an overarching sense of "too late and too little." Americans have begun to realize the truth about climate change as we did about the war in Iraq, and it is now the administration's turn to pick up the slack. We've been fooled once, and if recent polls are any indication, we seem to have learned our lesson. But if the State of the Union address is any indication, our president may yet allow himself to be fooled again.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
E-mail a friend