Last night, the voters in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, arguably the most liberal state out of all of them, accomplished the near impossible task of replacing Ted Kennedy with a right-leaning Republican. Senate-elect Scott Brown's campaign was energized by the Tea Party crowd, as well as people generally disenfranchised with Democratic leadership, or lack thereof, the opposition to the healthcare bill (which has a snowflake's chance in hell in getting passed now), and the fact that unemployment is in the double digits. While Brown may not be a complete blowhard conservative amongst the likes of Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin (he supports Roe v. Wade, and while personally opposed to gay marriage, he had no interest in reversing Massachusetts' legalization of gay marriage; he also supports the exploration of alternative renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power), the Democratic supermajority has taken a crucial hit with the election of Opposing Health Care Bill Senator #41.
There has been a lot of finger-pointing amongst Democrats on why this happened. And they need to look no further. Obviously they have not learned ANYTHING since the Clinton years. Time and time again, instead of being leaders, the Democrats have become dealmakers. President Obama, especially, has softened his approach towards governing. During his campaign, which was nothing short of electrifying, he vowed to end the War in Iraq, close Guantanamo Bay, create health care reform, and not resort to "business as usual" politics. His term as president got off to a pretty good start, with approval ratings hovering around 70%, and his reversal of the ban on stem cell research. He also signed legislation to have Guantanamo Bay closed by 2010. His nomination of Sonia Sotomayor marked a shift on the Supreme Court bench for the better, and honestly, for the first few months, I was relieved not to see Bush on TV anymore. However, we're still in Iraq, even if the war has significantly shifted its attention to Afghanistan (which we should have done ages ago), Guantanamo's still open, and so-called health care reform resulted in a bill that would benefit insurance companies more than anyone else, and basically all because the Democrats let Joe Lieberman win and have his way by permanently axing public option from the bill.
I probably have said this before, but I generally have a rule of thumb when it comes to presidents or politicians before I start having any criticisms or praises, and I give them one year. One year to get their feet wet, and to adjust to the hard tasks they face (especially during these hard times). Yes, I did not have this approach for George W. Bush when he first became president, probably because he usurped the election, but I was also 15, and not as politically aware as I am now; when I was 15, I was hung up on homosexual rights, abortion rights, and being virulently anti-religious. However, having voted for Obama, I gave him one year. Well, Mr. President, it has been one year to the day since you placed your hand on the Bible taking the oath, and your grace period with me is over. Consider yourself fortunate, Mr. President. There are many who never gave you a chance at all, and there are supporters who jumped off the Change Express before it hit the Nobel Peace Prize landmark in Norway. And right now, I'm in the bar car getting hammered!
Regarding the economy, I understand everybody's frustration. Many people are unemployed, underemployed, or not making enough money. I am one of them. Before the great economic collapse, I was making decent money for a guy still in college and still figuring life out (even if I squandered a lot of it in the name of being young and financially irresponsible). Now, if I get 20 hours a week, enough money to pay my bills, and have some money leftover to have some semblance of a life, I consider myself to be very fortunate. That said, I understand that people are mad that the economy has not gotten better. I do not fault President Obama for that. A collapse that was a good 25 years in the making, especially when our economy under Bill Clinton in the 1990s was at its definite zenith, is determined to hit hard and to linger for years. I didn't shit a brick when Obama passed the surplus bill, high price tag and all. You have to spend money to make money. It created jobs, probably saved a few jobs, and let's face it, some highways desperately needed to be repaved! I'm not an economist, and I probably could use a course in economics, but I do know that the economy is a human creation. It's an illusion. However, I am critical on the bailouts, particularly the bailouts that were given to the Wall Street assholes. They were able to get people scared that if they didn't get billions in taxpayer money, the effects would be traumatizing. In good faith, they got their bailouts under the premise that they would not use them for huge bonuses. Well, they did. I knew that they would. Remember when Obama said that the "trickle-down" approach to the economy doesn't work and hadn't worked for years during his campaign? Just because we changed presidents doesn't mean that the trickle-down approach will magically work, especially since Johnny Bourgeois Fuckface of Citibank got a 1.3 billion dollar bonus come Christmastime courtesy of the taxpayers' dime!
Considering the national debt is high anyway, although it was higher under Reagan in 1982-83 (of course, FOX News will never admit to that), what Obama should have done was give Americans a few thousand dollars apiece to spend however they want. He always said that the economy is built from the bottom up, so what better way to prove that point than to send a guy about to lose his house a check to possibly save his house from foreclosure? When people have extra money in their pockets, they are a lot more eager to spend it. This could give someone working in a store more hours, or quite possibly save their job from extinction. This is the touchstone of our economy, not the assholes on Wall Street who rob us of our money, buy 6 houses, and say "oh well" when the people who trust them become homeless after their hard-earned dollars are squandered. Despite my criticisms of the bailout, I am happy that Obama is asking for a good chunk of that money back. Whether he'll get it or not remains to be seen, but he has learned a good lesson, and has 3 years still of financial decisions to make, so perhaps his judgment will be better. Of course, this is my argument for government regulations on pretty much everything, but more on that later.
While I do keep in mind that Obama really walked into a terrible situation, the "blame Bush" record is starting to get warped due to repeated playing, and my needle is getting worn down to the nub (can my record player get a bailout?). Different people cite when the bubble started to form; some date it back to Carter. Others blame it solely on Bush fucking up. That said, the economy rode high for at least two decades before collapsing significantly. This leaves for a lot of mess, already adding to the mess endured over the last decade. What Obama needs to do is stop playing the blame game. Time, simply, does not stand still because there's a new guy in the Oval Office, and the blame game does not work for very long. People need to make money. People have bills to pay and lives to lead. I think Obama knows this, and I think Obama is fully smelling the coffee.
Unfortunately, Obama no longer has a supermajority of Democrats in the Senate. Election Day came early this year. If this doesn't serve as a catalyst to both Obama and the Democrats to serve the people, and, you know, do stuff, the results come November could be even more cataclysmic. I'm with Barney Frank on working with the Republicans (or at least the few rational ones) and not rushing to pass a bill that sucks anyway.
The election of Scott Brown is a disappointment, especially he ran for Ted Kennedy's seat, leaving me to feel that Ted Kennedy is rolling around in his grave right now since his life's work may be heading down the toilet. Sure, there are ultra-conservative nutjobs in Massachusetts, and the people voted for Brown mostly because the Democrats piddled around in dealing with Wall Street effectively, but it could be a hell of a lot worse. Massachusetts hasn't had a Republican in the Senate since 1972, and just how conservative can one guy from Massachusetts be?
I Got Published
14 years ago
No comments:
Post a Comment