Scott Brown and the Tragedy of the Massachusetts Electorate

The Massachusetts electorate showed the country a terrifying side of itself the day they elected Scott Brown to the United States Senate. I know why they did it. And I am not just talking about Republicans and Independents here; many democrats were in fact just as uninspired regarding Martha Coakley and her pathetically heartless campaign. But this is not what has me concerned. In fact, contrary to what many might think, I believe that Brown has the potential to be an effective United States senator. That said, the election of Brown show that even the most progressive state in the country can act as selfishly as the Automotive Giants, who almost exclusively vote not for what is best for the country but for what is best for their companies.

Hold on, wait one moment. In all my years in academia I have been taught that the elected officials from States are supposed to vote in a manner which supports the general view of their electorate. The simple truth here is that the Massachusetts citizenry were not voting for a senator; they were voting against the healthcare proposal currently in front of the House, which will have to make its way through the Senate in order to reach the President’s desk and Obama’s ornate signature.

Massachusetts does not want this legislation passed because it would override their current universal healthcare system, which is far more progressive. What voters failed to comprehend is that a vote for Brown was a vote against the millions of Americans without health insurance in this Nation. And make no mistake, Brown made it inescapably clear that he is against the healthcare legislation. He is also pro-life, for the death penalty, and for tax breaks for the wealthy. In other words, he personifies all that the Republican Party has to offer America. And it is something Massachusetts citizens were all too willing to overlook in order to preserve their own healthcare system. It makes me feel sick to the stomach to see how easily people were willing to discard their beliefs and values for a single issue.

But in all fairness I should say that Scott Brown did run a superb campaign. He is no slouch, having earned law degrees and successfully navigating the private and public sectors for years. He is charismatic and a fresh face for a stale political party.

I have been receiving emails which are already advocating Brown as a “rock star” who will lead the Republican Party against President Obama in the next election. Part of me wants to argue that Brown has truly accomplished nothing to help the average citizen. Then again he hasn’t been given much of a chance on the national level. Time will tell whether or not Brown will be a successful senator. But for now, Brown has everything to prove, yet strangely very little to lose since he was elected on a single issue.

Scott Brown might well be a rock star but I am afraid he is closer to Whitesnake then the Beatles (for those who are unfamiliar, Whitesnake is 1980s band known as one of the many one-hit wonders of the time). Some claim that Brown will help Massachusetts bounce back from this recession, create new jobs and industry, and preserve all that the late Senator Kennedy fought so hard to achieve. And in the long run, Brown might prove a wise choice for Senate  and certainly better than Martha Coakley, who never convinced me that she was worthy of a United States senate seat. However, Brown is no presidential candidate. He is no champion for anyone but himself. And he might well cause over 30 million people to continue to go without health insurance. If you listen very closely, you can hear the insurance companies cheering just below the celebration of the Massachusetts people who are currently blinded by their ignorance and short-sightedness.

The travesty here is not that a republican took Ted Kennedy’s seat. It isn’t even all about healthcare, though it is a topic close to my heart. This is about one state’s eagerness to preserve the status quo at the expense of Americans that are truly in need.

Volunteering Amongst Economic Collapse: Some Troubling Observations

The news, whether it be broadcast or print media have focused so much on the failing of banks, the auto industry, and the general distress of the stock market, that one simple fact has escaped their notice. While nearly 9% of the population are unemployed and looking for work, there is a population actively searching for any type of work, most notably volunteerism. Ironically this is one of President Obama’s pledges to America—that volunteering is one of the greatest things an American citizen can do for his/her country. With that in mind, why is it so hard to find a volunteer position that caters to those people who continue to look for work…say programs requiring 3 months of service?

Volunteerism is great but you can’t make a living off it; it has to be one component of a person’s life, a companion to everything else in order to really matter.

I’ve been searching for a volunteer position for nearly 6 months. I have a BA in Social Work and a MS in Journalism plus a resume that should count for something. Instead I am brushed aside. The most notable case involved a veterans’ care center in central Connecticut. I had contacted them, sent them my resume and was greeted with a great deal of enthusiasm. Of course that was back in January and despite numerous attempts to reach the organization, my efforts have failed. And for those of you unfamiliar with the current situation with returning soldiers, the need for volunteers is only growing. One notion here that was handed down to me was that these types of clinics prefer ex-veterans, regardless of qualifications. of course that is their perogative and I impose no judgment on them.

I have a very logical theory as to why my situation is really anything but unique. It’s not meant as an indictment on non-profit organizations, but it should serve as a wakeup call.

With so many individuals out of work some non-profits may feel as if they are being used as a stepping stone, a way for people to bolster their resumes as they search for full-time work. Another theory is that some agencies are afraid that by bringing someone on as a volunteer may result in the expectation that it should turn into a permanent job. Unfortunately in both these scenarios it is the people in need that suffer. Individual care should always take priority.

Another thing I’ve noticed while searching the internet for potential volunteer opportunities is that they often stipulate that any volunteer must commit to at least 1 year of service. In another economy I would whole-heartedly endorse this idea: it is a way to make sure volunteers are committed and sincere in regards to their desire to make a meaningful contribution to that particular organization. However, as I pointed out earlier in this piece, the very notion of volunteering has changed. In the wake of losing one’s job a person may seek contentment in helping others and in the process feeling less helpless and isolated. But these men and women are still looking for work so non-profits would benefit by being more flexible in their requirements for bringing on volunteers.

In addition to being a constructive critique of the volunteer system, this article should present another, very distinct message, perhaps lost in my discussion. By limiting the types of people who can volunteer, say as a Big Brother or Sister, non-profits may be doing a disservice to both parties involved.

Social Work and all forms of social service are based on the notion that the community and welfare of others is paramount to all else.

It’s time for all community organizations to recognize that times have changed and to accept their responsibilities as stewards of the greater good. If they act fast enough, perhaps fewer children will be left alone, elderly men and women will be more properly cared for, and society can begin to really re-balance itself. I know I would be very grateful to be part of it and others would too.

A Decision Comprised of Indecision

Less than an hour ago the California Supreme Court rejected that Same-Sex marriages are considered equal under constitutional law, however sanctioned the marriages that have already taken place. This decision not only restricts the rights of homosexuals, it undermines the very notion of the Rule of Law.

This decision creates two classes of homosexuals, those who are privileged to have obtained marriages and those who cannot. In essence, the California Supreme Court is rewarding gay couples who got married inside a legal window of time, validating the rights afforded to conventional married men and women, and restricting the rights of everyone else.

In the midst of debating the constitution, it is a modern day marvel that the constitution ceased to be upheld. However when one considers the populace stance on same-sex marriage, this court decision makes more sense. There are two basic premises involved here: 1) that a large segment of the population is afraid of either losing the rights they have already obtained or of being denied those rights entirely and 2) There is an equally large population pushing a religious argument against same-sex marriage. Instead of basing their argument on legal rights, these men and women chose to construct a religious-based offensive, putting individual rights one step below that of religious dogma.

The Court’s decision reflects the contradictions posed in these premises. On one hand, this ruling respects the legality of same-sex marriage but at the same time prevents any further marriages and deems that some homosexuals have fewer rights than the rest of the men and women in this country. The Rule of Law is clear: no man or women can be excused from the law, regardless of their sex, race, political standing, etc.

At best this decision is one based upon fear and popular demand. The ruling is sure to be debated and deconstructed.

But when all the smoke clears from this battle for rights, it must be determined that law cannot be made on a casual basis in order to pacify people for the moment. The welfare of all the people must be taken into account when interpreting the constitution and when creating law.

Pro-Life Polls and Ignorance: When the Wrong Stars Align

Today I read that a Gallup poll revealed that 51% of the United States opposes abortion and that “only” 42% support the Women’s Right to Choose. The article, located in the New York Times opinion section, criticizes President Obama for not addressing this supposedly critical issue. As if universal health care, poverty, and the economy somehow should just be pushed aside in favor of engaging in a debate on morals.

I am in no way surprised that the new Gallup numbers show that 10% more Republicans have declared themselves Pro-Life.

Some political pundits may claim that the President should and will eventually be forced by popular consensus to address the issue of abortion. What these same people fail to grasp is that polls are misleading and seldom accurate. The 2004 Democratic Primary in New Hampshire proved this. Howard Dean was supposed to crush Senator Kerry according to all polls. Those polls were based on an overly frustrated electorate which in their haste to pass judgment on swift boat accusations, simply forgot to vote.

No, the real reason abortion has re-entered the political circus is because Republicans are struggling to re-invent themselves, clinging to archaic moral sentiment regarding gay marriage and a woman’s right to choose. This is a time-tested tactic. Former President Ronald Reagan patented the idea of focusing peoples’ minds on traditional family values, drawing their attention away from nation and international affairs, consequently fostering the comforting notion of national ignorance.

The Republican Party has lost their argument for war in Iraq, which is of course how President George W. Bush shaped the Party, doing so with great success for nearly eight years. The War on Terror, Fear, will bring people together. President Obama’s message of hope and peace has dismantled this notion of silent obedient consent. It has left the Republican Party in ruins, grasping at straws anywhere they can.

Make no mistake, this poll reflects only one thing: the desperation of an elitist governing party that may indeed have little to no place in this new, hopeful America.

Universal Health Care: Socialism or Humaniarianism

The national focus has finally turned to health care. True to his campaign promises, President Obama declared yesterday that “the stars are aligned” to develop a new universal health care policy. While that metaphor is somewhat hokey, with Congress sporting an overabundance of democrats and the Senate at a 60-40 democratic advantage, there may be no better time to pass such controversial legislation.

The reason for this change is apparent to every American not working on Wallstreet or on Capital Hill. Unemployment figures are at 8.9% with nearly 600,000 jobs lost last month alone. Members from both political parties acknowledge that this economy will continue to worsen.

Reports earlier in the week praised the fact that while hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost last month, the fact that the figure was relatively close to the month’s, it proved that the economy was rebounding. Maybe that’s true. It still does nothing to help those men and women losing their homes, cars, and fighting simply to feed their families dinner each night. When people are focused on basic necessities, they are more likely to forgo health care. This sacrifice is unacceptable and President Obama realizes this.

The Senate minority party argues that any form of universal health care is a socialist act and that government control over anything stiffles peoples’ rights. However all people have the right to live and be healthy. It is a basic human right.

Another argument is that by overhauling the health care system would go a long way in terms of worsening the federal deficit. This is a complete fabrication. The health care industry has been able to function without any kind of oversight, increasing costs of care while people’ incomes dwindle. While physicians would be subjected to slightly lower salaries, the majority of Americans will will have the opportunity to get health coverage, many of whom would not seek it otherwise.  In that way, the economy might actually benefit from such a change.

If Republicans choose to call helping people socialism, then so be it. But these politicians should consider that if their constituencies continue to fall below the poverty line (a gross income close to $21,000 for a family), their changes of reelection diminish. Unfortunately this is often what motivates politicians.

Democrats do not need much, if any Republican support to pass this health care measure, but not all democrats are on board either. President Obama needs to make a sound and simple explanation regarding his health care changes, calling upon economists and other not-for-profit organizations. Public perception is a powerful force when it comes to social change, a concept not lost on the President or his advisers.

While a public relations campaign should not be necessary to secure such a basic human right, the reality is that it is.

The exact universal health care plan has yet to be proposed, but it will be before August. Compromises will be made on both political lines. In the end, it comes down to preserving American lives. In that way this is no different than war. But a bullet will not solve this problem. Common sense will.

Cashman Unveils Yankee Decadence

I never thought that a sports franchise could personify all of the things wrong with American culture; that is to say before I saw Brian Cashman, the GM of the New York Yankees, speak at a lecture at Southern Connecticut State this past week. Here is a man who helped usher in a distinct new era: the opening of a $1.5 billion stadium (which might as well be called a cathedral), spending over $420 million in the free agent market, while somehow managing to reduce, in Peter Gammon’s words, “a people’s game,” into one of statistics and arm angles coupled with bat speeds. If one were to look at the current Yankees and nothing else, it would be easy to come to the conclusion that it was still the 1990s, where the budget was balanced and people weren’t being forced from their homes and losing their jobs at a record pace.

At this lecture, Cashman frequently joked about how the Yankees spent money, saying , “the New York Yankees are America’s team and America expects to win. The have the highest payroll for that reason; America and tradition will not accept anything less and that’s never going to change.” He even joked that he had the prefect name for being the GM for the Yanks in “Cash-Man.”

Neither Peter Gammons, who was conducting this lecture/interview, or anyone else in the audience bothered to remind Cashman that The United States was founded by immigrants, the underdogs of the world. The average American is not about money; they cannot spend over $2,000 on a seat to Yankee stadium to see them lose 22-4.  It’s also worth noting that even Bud Selig, the Commissioner of Baseball has taken notice of the Yankees actions and is beginning to step in, speaking with Team Officials regarding ticket costs.

At this point you might be wondering why I am writing about the New York Yankees in a blog specifically tailored to domestic and international political affairs. I mention this because this is the way much of the world is still viewing America, especially with the failing bailouts and recently with Chrysler filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Even in times of great economic stress, 5% of the US is still living overly-lavish lifestyles, oblivious to those suffering. A country run by such narcissistic men and women cannot be expected to lead fairly and it would be a terrible disservice to the international community, which looks up to the United States, to even consider following the United States’ path, which is apparently one consistent with looking back on more stable times and longing for it instead of taking steps to fix the current economic issues and status world-wide.

Since the late 1990s, the Yankees have been known as an evil empire. Now it seems the United States is accepting this label willingly.

Welcome to the new Empire.

Hoping for a Depression

Since 2007 a lot of numbers have been thrown about in the news. Well here is a new one: 8.5%. Yup, that’s the new unemployment rate in the United States, up .4% from its last measurement. It may sound crazy, but this is exactly what America needs; In fact I am hoping unemployment reaches that critical figure of 12.5%. Only then will it truly hit home to every politician, every CEO, and all those in America who claim the economy can simply fix itself.

I have said before that I support President Obama’s economic policy, shifting money to infrastructure and changing the way business is conducted nationwide. But I have also been critical of the President so when I write this please realize that my desire is to see a balanced and secure America.

Government over-site can only do so much. Bailouts have their limits (and quite frankly I am, not exactly crazy about taking loans from China…which we will likely default on anyway). President Obama, for all his promises, which I believe to be genuine, is also just a man. He is a voice of change but a voice too often muffled by the rich in the United States–unfortunately this includes many in our government, both democrats and republicans and so-called independents.

I am not suggesting that the entire political system of the United States needs to change but I am suggesting that it will take drastic problems to shake the government into consensus. Apparently 8.1% unemployment was insufficient and I doubt the new figure will change the opinions of those in the Senate or Congress.

By entering into a new Depression, American politicians will be forced to come together and act in a completely bi-partisan way and swallow their pride. After all their jobs are dependent upon the American peoples’ satisfaction.  It is sad to think this, but maybe all it will take to spark changes in this country–education, health care, and business reform, may be a number and a label.

Maybe the G20 Summit will produce results and the American economy will rebound in an actual sustainable way. Focus seems to be supporting developing countries that are suffering from this economic crisis–hence the 1.1 trillion dollar pledge by the G20 to help them survive. I can only hope that the leaders and people of those nations are viewing the words and actions of the G20 with a bit of smart skepticism.

When President Obama assumed the office of the Presidency he said that there would be many challenges and that people will have to make sacrifices. I believe the American people have suffered enough and that the President concurs; Republican members of Congress and the Senate however seem to think prolonged debate and “business as usual” is still acceptable in an era where the number of homeless families, people losing health benefits and their jobs continues to skyrocket.

In the end there is no debate over one simple fact: this is the worst economic crisis in 6 decades.  But it might take until the percent of unemployment reaches 12.5% for government officials to finally understand their failure; I hope by then they will still be able to correct it.

Has The Government Gone Too Far With General Motors?

While listening to NPR’s Planet Money the other day an interesting notion was presented. While disguised in slight economic language, the question posed was whether or not the United States, through its actions with GM, be considered a private sector owner and therefore be entitled to all rights pertaining to that group?

This is a new idea, at least to me. The most common assertion I have heard people say is that President Obama is ushering in a new era of socialism (such cynics fail to point out that President Roosevelt initiated similar government control over private industry during the Great Depression). My view is that the government has a right to step in and be in control of private industry (acting as an investor) if the industry involved is essential to the nation’s economic infrastructure.

President Obama has made no secret regarding his economic and energy plans, which are intertwined. Clearly he as well as his economics advisers and Treasury Secretary thought General Motors and Chrysler were making substandard efforts to justify government loans and as a result new leadership was needed and consequently initiated by the government.

To be clear to everyone, I want to point out one very important thing: NO JOBS WILL BE LOST as a result of Chrysler merging with Fiat nor will the firing of GM’s CEO cause layoffs of blue-collar laborers.

In actuality, the government’s decision to force GM’s CEO to resign was a very direct measure to hasten positive change and correct significant dysfunction in the auto industry.

Some people have asked why the government is being so direct with its actions against the auto industry and not Wallstreet of Banks. The answer to that is in two parts: 1) Both the Banking companies and Wallstreet have provide adequate justification for the funds they are requesting from the government to save their businesses. 2) The banks are already under tremendous governmental oversight.

After all is said and done, Obama cannot be called a socialist. Rather he is a pragmatist who understands that the role of any government is to help stabilize its country’s economic and social catastrophes. Turning a blind eye and allowing billions of dollars to be spent recklessly or with no regard for fostering positive change is wrong. Doing so would only harm the American people, exploiting their dependence upon CEOs and the corporate institutions that employ them.

If anything, President Obama’s actions are anti-socialist and I challenge anyone to prove my argument wrong.

Falling Housing Costs Offer False Hopes

The price of buying a home in the United States continues to drop. According to the New York Times, “Standard & Poor’s Case-Shiller Home Price Index, a widely watched measure of 20 metropolitan areas, fell 19 percent in January from January 2008.” On the surface this might seem like good news to those Americans trying to secure a fresh start as the economy continues to disintegrate before our eyes. On the other hand, this cost decline is a frightening indicator of just how bad the American economy is fairing.

Of course I could spend forever discussing the economy and housing. the reality is that the figure presented by the New York Times is meaningless because the people who most need a home are still without work and likely end up in debt again if they tried to purchase a home. Also, four walls are hardly a comfort for men, women, and children in need of health care and work.

I lost my job in December 2008. At that time I was looking to purchase my first home at the age of 25. I had hoped to build roots in a suburban community where I could make a family and live a comfortable life…and bear in mind I was not making much money, scarcely more than twebty thousand per year. That dream evaporated in a single moment. This is not a unique story, except to say that I am fortunate. I do not have a family to support and I can pursue advanced education that will overtime prove beneficial even in this economy. Too many people cannot say that.

President Obama understands this crisis. He hears and more importantly sees the effects of this recession. He recognizes that housing is only one aspect of improving the economy and he preaches patience. While I respect him for this desire to remain connected to the American people, I am frusterated that there are those in congress and the senate that would look to block the president’s reforms that will clearly benefit the the lower and middle-class population.

So allow me to offer a message of caution. Housing prices mean nothing on this economy. What we need is drastic reform, not a list of falling costs. Numbers do not put food on the table or help an ailing child.

As upsetting as it may be, people need to keep and open mind and remain skeptical of the news being presented regarding the economy, recognizing potential false hopes.

Link to the NY Times Story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/business/economy/01econ.html?_r=1&hp