Posted by Guest
(Post 282065)
BK - I've read your posts carefully and here's where I see things a little differently, and why.
First, I too think it is more appropriate for many life activities to be under local control. You might even say that in most places (except Bell, CA, for example), more can be done more efficiently and with better accountability. I'd even go so far as to make a new axiom I think you'll love: "The farther away things are managed from the local level, the greater the chance for error, inefficiency, and higher costs." But I have one major problem with this. Who is going to protect us from the systematically greedy, the individuals and organizations which have immense power, even to the point of being able to fend of control by anyone, including the federal government? Who is going to defend us against terrorism? Who is going to insure that the Constitution as well as local and state laws are upheld, applied and supported. The answer is the federal government, regardless of how frustrated I am with Washington bureaucracy. Look at Homeland Security for example. Their money has been spent by the truck load for almost 10 years. Even their own officials admit they have often been woefully inefficient. They keep trying new things that don't work very well, but cost a fortune. The story of airline security devices and procedures is almost a comedy - but it isn't funny. But the bottom line is that the rush to respond to 9/11, by thousands of additional employees, at a very high cost, is perhaps why we have not had a couple more 9/11s. It's scary to read of all the plots which get exposed before they unfold in tragedy. I don't believe these stories are cooked up to make us think Homeland Security is just peachy and deserves even more money.
So, with some regret that things don't work better, I am willing to pay the price of living in this incredibly complex America. Our prosperous, free lifestyle makes us the target of every fringe group and half the nations of the world. It will continue to cost a lot to defend ourselves.
Take another example. I hate war more than anything else. I have seldom seen it as productive in any way, while always obscenely costly, especially in peoples lives. In my book, and many historians now agree - perhaps the worst decision ever made by a US President was to invade Iraq. And there is a voice in my head that yells every day: "Get out of Afghanistan NOW". But I know what will happen if we do not accomplish the bulk of our objectives there, as well as in Pakistan. Several million Afghani supporters will be executed, and terrorist forces will achieve an unprecedented legitimacy and power boost. We will lose, short and long term and the future costs of defeat will skyrocket. Regrettably, we simply cannot deal with any of this without a powerful national government and armed force.
I do not let costs determine my political orientation. I've resisted condemning a particular administration or Congress just because of a tax or cost which affected me. I try to hang onto the long view. As a lower middle class kid who's father struggled to put food on the table for seven kids by running a marginal small business, I learned important things by cleaning bathrooms and carrying steel bars from the age of 10. My wife and I lived on a $45 weekly take home check in the summer of 1968 while we looked for teaching jobs. We've worked 40 years to graduate to the full-fledged middle class! Throughout this whole time, the costs imposed on me by ALL of the governments which tax me have only marginally affected my life, despite how conservatives scream that this or that new law will destroy us financially. For me it's probably only been the difference between a Chevy and a fancy Buick. When I think of the enormous cost of keeping this country afloat I am amazed at our stability. Almost every TV person I know admits the same thing: our lifestyle has remained rather stable in recent years. We were not even ruined by the recession, (I'll get to that when I comment about your views on domestic policy), even if we did lose some paper wealth. I can think of two exceptions, both because of health care costs, both who rejoiced the day the health care reform legislation passed. So, my conclusion is that we have the ability to defend our nation without collapsing from within. And regardless of mistakes made by dumb or selfish politicians, we hardly notice the affect, save that awful loss of life.
So, to summarize, I believe we need a powerful federal government, capable of swift and effective response, WHEN NEEDED.
Enough philosophy. Let me apply this to your opinion of the BP escrow case. I'm afraid I disagree that the President's forceful insistence that BP set aside a specific escrow to repair the disaster was either illegal or premature. The Constitution characterizes the role of the President as an initiator, proposer, leader, etc ., with the understanding that this leadership will provide the basis for legislation, where necessary. There are Presidential powers, it is not merely the office of a figurehead. The courts, by design do not impact on situations until decisions and made and actions taken. Using the Constitutional model, President Obama recognized the critical nature of the oil leak crises, the possibility that the company might avoid their responsibility either through bankruptcy or simply dragging their feet forever. He USED HIS INFLUENCE to obtain a decent outcome. BP did not have to comply. But they did!!! They agreed to the escrow. There is no court in the world that would even consider overturning such an action. If it just doesn't seem right to you to give the President some credit, then just say he was lucky to get this concession. I think it's a good example of doing his job to represent the people.
On your concern about oil exploration: The incredible irony of the BP crisis is that the deep-well drilling was done off our coast because it was the only place it would have been allowed! Over recent years, oil companies succeeded in lobbying Congress to water-down drilling regulations. Other countries maintain stronger regulations, but BP was able to drill here, and with less oversight. The awful truth is that if the federal government had kept the regulations we had, and developed stronger ones to address riskier deep-well drilling, the disaster would likely not have occurred. Certainly BP has put up the escrow partly because they know how unreasonably they, their partners and subcontractors acted, taking advantage of a lax situation, falling far short of drilling standards in effect elsewhere in the world. The authors of the effort to relax oil drilling standards were the huge oil companies whose lobbying efforts were so slick and convincing that it was tough for even well-intentioned congressmen to see through them and resist the tempting opportunity to put a few more folks to work in the Gulf.
OK, enough for tonight. You think you're wordy! More on domestic legislation later.
(the wedding was fabulous!)
|
