I thought my last Blog would generate many comments, and it did. Especially from two of my favorite people who are also vociferous in stating their opinions (not always agreeing with me...).
As of this writing it looks like things are back to square one with Obama and his Democratic Senate refusing to accept anything but "status quo"; raising the debt ceiling and moving forward with more spending increases. These deadlines normally cause politicians to cave and come to some kind of agreement and that may happen this week.
But I wonder if our elected officials are really negotiating and voting for their principles or to protect their job? I suspect the latter. All politicians are sworn to obey the Constitution but many "interpret" it differently. Since the country is split 50/50 then it's reasonable to expect Congressmen and Senators to follow the desires of their constituents...after all that is what a Representative Republic is all about. So maybe gridlock is a perfectly normal result.
The Tea Party takes the brunt of the attack, but I believe only because of the main stream liberal media. I have been to several Tea Party rallies and all these folks want is for the government to stop the madness in spending and get the out-of-control government under control. I have never seen a radical or violent demonstration of any kind at a Tea Party rally, yet that's all you read about in the MSM, while very little is ever read about the "occupy" radicals who practice violence at almost every occasion. If in one of the Tea Party demonstrations across the country someone flies a Confederate flag that's all you will see on the main stream news for days.
So in the end this 50/50 split is good in a way...maybe not if it puts the government into default (which could not happen without Obama directing it), but those Tea Party candidates were sent to Washington in 2010 to stop the spending madness and some I believe are willing to "go down with the ship" and sacrifice their careers for their principles. Smart move; maybe not; but if they lose their careers they will be able to say "I did what my voters sent me to do and what the Constitution required me to do".
In the end, the solution to all this madness is simple, the country needs a leader.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Not much to disagree with except that a minority faction in the Government should not be in control of the House of Representatives. Leadership is lacking in both Houses and the Administration.
President Obama already made a deal with the Republicans back in March. Unfortunately Representative Cruz and the Tea Party threw a tantrum and Speaker Boehner folded like a cheap suit and reneged on the deal. Now the Republicans demand Obama "negotiate" (read capitulate) with a proverbial gun to his head and holding the U.S. economy hostage until the President takes the unprecedented and totally unrealistic step of throwing out his signature health care initiative, ratified by Congress, signed into law by the President and confirmed by the Supreme Court. Actually President Obama IS being a leader: he's telling the Tea Party to go pound sand, and he has the support of a vast majority of Americans except for those in their gerrymandered hard core right wing enclaves. Meanwhile this quixotic crusade by the Tea Party has ironically already cost the taxpayers over $50 BILLION. WTF!
If Obama IS a leader, then I am a Pulitzer Prize winning blogger :)
Kick the can - borrow and spend more - revisit the whole issue again in January - kick the can again - borrow and spend more....
The President proposes a budget, Congress writes and approves the Legislation and the President can either accept it or reject it. The problem you describe is not an Obama problem, its a Government problem and "We the People" elected those bozos.
The solutions are term limits and a better educated electorate, not a single party government. When the Government stops investing in education, particularly math and science, and makes it harder for people of all economic groups to get a secondary education, it sows the seeds of the problem we are experiencing now.
For the past 10 or 15 years the wealthy have been getting richer, the middle class has been shrinking and the lower, uneducated class has been growing. If we stop that trend, however we do it, the problem will resolve itself. You don't see these issues in well educated, generally affluent population groups.
Anonymous - we spend more on education per capita than any country in the world. I believe the "education" problem is caused by teachers unions which accept(and protect) mediocrity and the breakdown of the family resulting in much less parental involvement in their child's education than a generation ago. Allow poor people to have funded school choice and see how quickly the education of these youngsters will change.
As a percentage of GDP the USA is not the highest, but it is high. Spain, Norway, Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Israel, New Zealand, Portugal and surprisingly Cuba are among those that are higher. Cuba spends 18.7% of GDP on education, and is #1, whereas the USA is 5.7%. However, everyone is guaranteed an education by the State in Cuba, so its not a very good comparison. Cuba also trains a lot of Doctors and medical support staff which it exports to the third world. Training Doctors is expensive.
The USA ranks 37th on the Global scale, not #1. In addition, the disparity is based on the high cost of secondary education spending in the USA, not the cost of primary education. The cost of college is huge in the USA compared to other countries, so this distorts the numbers in favor of your high expenditures position. You need to dig into those numbers Chuck to see the true picture. USA spending on primary education is not very impressive. I also don't believe the "cause" of poor performance can be attributed to one factor "unions". It's a complex issue and the reasons are different all over the country.
In addition, five of the seven states that spend the least on education have the lowest level of educational attainment. Those seven states are South Carolina, Wisconsin, Idaho, Kansas, Arizona, Alabama and Oklahoma. I have experience hiring H.S. and trade school graduates from Idaho but they are functionally illiterate. I had to pay to train one of my Idaho educated employees in grammar, punctuation and speech just so he could do his job. It's not uncommon as this company hires many people from across the State border. Based on the above, I think you can draw some connection between funding and level of attainment.
I'll close with a link that shows the levels of attainment as compared to per pupil expenditures that further illustrates the issue. http://febp.newamerica.net/k12/rankings/ppexpend
I wish all problems were as simple as "eliminate Unions" but they are not.
Post a Comment