Do you remember this summer (actually it went on for quite sometime after that and had been pushed back from quite some time before) when the president and the speaker of the house and members of congress were trying to come up with a plan on how to deal with the budget crisis? And everyone actually had to come to terms with the national debt ceiling and even though it has been raised a dozen times before, people thought that they should finally take a stand and enact some things to change our path of escalating debt?* This quote by Arthur Bloch just reminded me of that time in political news history, though it applies to really anything that the Democratic and Republican parties have to come together to work on.

“The compromise will always be more expensive than either of the suggestions it is compromising.”

I know at the time I thought that the republican speaker was being foolish and uncompromising..I can’t recall the details of my argument, but from my understanding, there was nothing to gain from standing so steadfast to an ideological position reflective of the Tea Party.

I suppose even if compromised policy (consider anything, but perhaps Obamacare** as an example) is literally more expensive, even of reduced quality, it is worth it to hedge their bets (I considered using “our”, since it is tax payer money and public interests at stake). Mostly I think it is a case of ‘I won’t ever be able to convince you that I am right’ and ‘Neither of us want to lose the support of our base or party’ so people come to some sort of agreement that minimizes the most objectionable pieces of the other person’s plan in return for losing some of the defining characteristics (though objected to) of their own.

*I’m pretty sure I’m mixing up two different national budget related events, but my inaccuracy doesn’t matter right this minute.

**I dislike using “Obama care” to refer to the health care reform legislature called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but in this case it is shorter and more recognizable.

“But Americans also hear in the invocation of equality an appeal to the redistribution of income. Americans don’t mind if income is redistributed as long as it is done by market forces and not the government.”

Fish claims that the President has very intentionally chosen to emphasize fairness instead of equality in his speeches, because of the semantic load of each. Politically, it will prove to be successful for him. I read into his message that he was talking about reducing economic inequality, whereas Obama had actually been using the word fairness all along.  We are all more comfortable with simply stopping the wealthy from playing by their own rules, even if they still come out on top.

Even though I included the link to Fish’s page, and you could read the comments that people left there, I just had to include this one, by R.F of Lancaster. Whoever it is, he/she has no idea that these two sentences struck me as so perfect and thought-provoking:

“To me it boils down to a single question: Are you ok with starving, uneducated, unhealthy children in your society? If not, then you have to take steps to make sure there is a safety net regardless of whether the children’s parents are deemed worthy of it.”

However, the idea of 3ft by 5ft signs in waiting rooms reminds me too much of fast food restaurants. If it’s more than I want to pay, should I just tell the ambulance to give me a lift back instead of proceeding to the next drive-thru window?

We run the risk of price becoming the only deciding factor whether individuals without insurance seek care, at a time when it has become very clear that early treatment and preventative care are resolutely more cost-effective. Legislators need to think hard about the potential consequences for physicians and the uninsured. There is a lot of potential here for them to analyze what is good about these bills and draft something else that will achieve the transparency and competition without decreasing the likelihood of persons to seek and receive care when they need it.

I plan to post much more on the topic of health services, because it is very important to me.

“We’ve all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who
couldn’t afford them, and buyers who knew they couldn’t afford them.
That’s why we need smart regulations to prevent irresponsible
behavior. Rules to prevent financial fraud, or toxic dumping, or
faulty medical devices, don’t destroy the free market. They make the
free market work better.”           – 2012 State of the Union

I am not convinced that less government, specifically less regulation on corporations and trade, will solve our economic problems or create jobs. Lowering corporate taxes and deregulating industries such as oil may help our economy the fastest, but it will fail to create the quality or number of jobs that is needed to secure our economic and technological advantage in the future. It will surely create more economic inequality in this country, already one of the worst income disparities among developed nations. If you haven’t heard that before, you really need to read this and take a sociology class.

Speaking of, I agree that the U.S. needs a public education system that will better serve its students. This is one of the areas I think needs reform, but would not benefit from the excessive regulations, such as No Child Left Behind, that has forced standardized testing on us.

I look forward to doing some research and critical thinking about other regulations, but for now I’ll end with another State of the Union quote about economic inequality, even though it isn’t my favorite. It goes a little too far. I’m not naive enough to think it’s the federal government’s responsibility to make everyone equal. However, when wealth buys you powerful lobbyists, the regulations are not going to be in the best interest of all Americans.

“We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”

There is little the U.S. can do to replace the regime that is responsible for moving towards nuclear armament, other than offer incentives and impose sanctions and oversight to prevent Iran from gaining possession of a nuclear weapon. The President must hold over Iran the threat of military action, especially during this election year when Obama will have to run on his record. However, many believe that bombing or similar actions would only strengthen the Iranian population’s opposition to the U.S.

The good news is that the rest of the world is beginning to unite with us following our earlier efforts at diplomacy with Iran. At some point, we may be able to strike our enemies through economic warfare, if other wealthy countries were to join us in an international boycott  of Iranian oil.

Certainly there are other foreign policy issues to consider, but this is likely to be the most politically relevant as we head towards November. Every candidate insists that his or her strategy is better, that they would act with more resolve or eschew certain long-term military operations, but at this time I find President Obama’s acceptable. Ron Paul’s position on foreign military involvement is extremely interesting, and I think that the U.S. certainly needs to hear about it. Hopefully using words OTHER than “isolationist.”

I intend to initiate action by becoming informed and thinking critically about political issues and social responsibility, beginning with the following topics, which President Obama covered in his address:

1. Corporate taxes and U.S. job creation

2. Workers who are qualified for the jobs of tomorrow

i. science and technology industries

ii. education reform

iii. immigration of talented, hardworking students

3. Innovation and publicly funded research

i. basic and applied research ie cancer research

ii. energy

4. Reforming government regulations in oil and environmental protection and health care coverage and wall street

5. Foreign policy, specifically Iran

6. What should have been mentioned: poverty