Politics, Government & Public Policy: May 2011 Archives
There has been much huffing and puffing over Kathy Hochul's surprise victory in the NY-26 special election Tuesday. Here's the top-linked Google result. How does it start?
The results from Tuesday’s special election in New York demonstrated the popularity of Medicare and unpopularity of Republican plans to dismantle it. But neither fact should be surprising.Medicare is a universal program for retirees: Everybody has an obvious, direct stake in its future. And the Republican plans for Medicare amount to privatization. Everybody understands what that means and most find it scary.
If you read the whole story you might be convinced, but you'll be missing a key piece of information.
Democrat Kathy Hochul defeated GOP nominee Jane Corwin 48 percent to 42 percent in New York's 26th District on Tuesday, with tea party candidate Jack Davis, a former Democrat, taking 8 percent of the vote.
That's right! None of the top news stories about the special election results include the name "Jack Davis", a phony "tea party" candidate who received 8% of the vote. If Jack Davis had not been in the race, who do you think most of those 8% would have voted for? The Republican or the Democrat? The results would have certainly been much closer, and would have been a likely win for the Republican.
Calling this special election a referendum on Medicare reform is lie. Now, Republicans do need to aggressively market their Medicare vision and make the sale to the American people, but this special election isn't an omen that the debate has already been lost.
Hm, what possible motivation could President Obama have for requiring bidders for federal contracts to disclose their political donations?
In a television interview last October, President Obama accidentally let slip a key element of his political philosophy: “We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”Obama later apologized — not for the underlying sentiment, mind you, but for his word choice. “I probably should have used the word ‘opponents’ instead of enemies,” the president declared.
This incident is worth remembering as the president prepares to issue a far-reaching executive order that would require the government to collect detailed information about the political activities of anyone applying for a federal contract. The proposed order would require businesses to furnish, with each contract proposal, a list not only of their contributions to political candidates and committees, but also their contributions to groups that do not under current law have to reveal their donors. The president’s order would force anyone seeking a federal contract to declare whether they are a friend or an enemy — excuse me, “opponent” — of the Obama White House. Worse still, it would set up a central database listing those contributions at a federal government Web site — creating what amounts to an electronic, searchable “enemies list.”
Does anyone doubt that such a public enemies list would be doubly used by Obama's allies? It seems like the President wants everyone to be more transparent except his own administration.
For at least a year, the Homeland Security Department detoured hundreds of requests for federal records to senior political advisers for highly unusual scrutiny, probing for information about the requesters and delaying disclosures deemed too politically sensitive, according to nearly 1,000 pages of internal e-mails obtained by The Associated Press.The department abandoned the practice after AP investigated. Inspectors from the department's Office of Inspector General quietly conducted interviews with employees last week to determine whether political advisers acted improperly.
The common theme: politics are primary.
I love charts and figures, but supposedly most voters don't? I think Paul Ryan's explanation of why Medicare needs fundamental reform is greatly enhanced by his diagrams.
Contributed by Scott Portman.
For years now, the EPA has gained a notorious reputation with industry and business leaders throughout the United States. It hasn’t been until recently that these business leaders have formally stood up to the EPA’s costly and endless regulations. Along with the GOP, these businesses have fought back at the EPA through a series of budget proposals and acts that are geared to loosen the strangle hold that the EPA carries on many industry leaders in America.
This controversy between business and the EPA is often over the Clean Air Act and the use of Cap and Trade by the environmental agency. Through these initiatives the EPA is able to oversee and regulate the amount of greenhouse gas emission put off by factories and power plants. This, in turn, has been directly affecting the revenue and profits for these businesses that need the emission to thrive. Employment has also been limited with these companies because of the potential downfall in revenue.
As 2011 started, President Obama released his yearly budget proposal with only a slight alteration to the EPA’s budget from 2010. The proposal that the President brought forth only amounted for a small cut to the EPA slate, only having an effect on some minor programs for the environmental agency. GOP leaders were increasingly frustrated with initiatives such as the Clean Air Act, thus a new proposal was brought forth to cut about a third from the 2010 EPA budget. The new proposal would also allow for the lessening of resources for the Clean Air Act, having a direct impact on the gas regulations that hinder a number of businesses.
After the new budget proposal from the GOP, a number of republican senators brought forth the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011. This is an act that would serve to put an end to the EPA’s cap and trade agenda, as well as take some more power away from the EPA when it comes to business. With an end to the cap and trade, there would be an end to the greenhouse gas regulations that constrain many of the industry leaders. Senators James Inhofe, Ed Whitfield, and Fred Upton have been outspoken on the effect that this act would have, claiming in a recent press release that it would “Stop EPA bureaucrats from imposing a backdoor cap-and-trade tax that would make gasoline, electricity, fertilizer, and groceries more expensive for consumers; and protect American jobs and manufacturers from overreaching EPA regulations that hinder our ability to compete with China and other countries.”
What the GOP sees with the EPA is an organization that’s seem to lost priority on some of its major initiatives, while exerting too much resources towards things like the Clean Air Act, which have little direct impact. The EPA should look to exert more of their time and work towards cutting down on environmental health problems such as mesothelioma, asbestosis, and asthma for example. Through initiatives such as asbestos abatement and cutting water contamination, the EPA can have a direct result on the health of the American people, sometimes even preventing life threatening environmental health dangers. For example, mesothelioma life expectancy is highly severe and usually averages only a year after diagnosis. Certainly the EPA has a number of different projects and campaigns that would be more suited in impacting the people of America in a positive way, than something like the Clean Air Act.
The GOP and business leaders have been adamant in saying that they are not looking to remove or cut out the power of the EPA. They simply are looking for less of a power grip from the EPA towards industry and less of a financial impact from the environmental regulations. Through a series of early 2011 budget proposals and introduced acts, there is hope growth for these effected businesses.
