|
|
It's Not Too Late To Be LEARNING ABOUT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES [Update 1/6/01]..Nov 01 '00 (Updated Jan 06 '01) Write an essay on this topic.In November, at last, I want to look -- in a very limited way -- into the 21st Century. (Yes, I am one of those weirdoes who still thinks he is living in the 20th Century, an ultra conservative position, at the moment.) I have been impressed by the ingenuity of the views of several Epinionators on Elections 2000. There is "benagee," for instance, a computer devotee, studying to be a pastor in rural Alabama, who has written five or six "comparisons" of the promises of Presidential Nominees George W. Bush and Al Gore, coming down hard for Governor Bush, in the "Kids and the Family Category." (As I told "benagee," we pay for Presidents and they certainly affect kids and families!) "MsHooterville," on the other hand, a Republican for Gore, analyzes the two Candidates in two Epinions in this category from the viewpoint of a professional newsperson, and she implores us to vote, at least "for someone." Many others have expressed their opinions, but, while wandering away from my usual concerns, I came upon these two Epinionators mentioned, whom I recommend for their zeal and enterprise. My main outside source will be THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, which I find a useful source of information on a variety of subjects. Its method is to have qualified reviewers, like John Updike on Literature, Christopher Hitchens on Politics or Brian Urqhart on International Affairs, write essays about the subject matter of one, usually several recent books. The editors also have a correspondent or two who write on our Nation's current affairs. (If you have not looked at this periodical, I recommend it, although its multi-column format requires concentration.) My question is, what will be the effect of a George W. Bush or an Al Gore presidency? Obviously, I can't cover, far less predict, everything. Let me just comment on four vital areas about which Governor Bush and Vice President Bush have debated: 1) The Surplus, 2) Social Security, 3) Medical Benefits, and 4) Education. First, a thesis: Generally speaking, Democrats believe in government as a means of ensuring every citizen Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness (or at least due process). Practically, that means, what the States will not guarantee, the Federal Government will provide and enforce. MONEY in the form of services is apportioned (in theory certainly) to those who most need them. Republicans, generally speaking, believe in Property, and feel, aside from using the MONEY to maintain a strong Armed Forces, Banking and Corporate Structure, that matters of Life and Liberty should be left to the States to regulate. It has been a long time, however, since the Democratic Party of the New Deal has entirely pledged itself to protecting the PEOPLE. And it has been a long time since the Republican Party stood for the fiscal well being of a Main Street Businessman or a Middle Class Member of a local Country Club. The New World Order of former President George Herbert Walker Bush pretty much put a final end to that in both the major Politcal Parties. Most of the arguments in our 2000 Election boil down to whether the Federal Government will use the "projected" Surplus to pay down the National Debt, and provide aid to Social Security, Medical Benefits and Education, as Vice President Gore states; or if, according to Governor Bush, the "projected" Surplus will be used to fuel the eventual privatization of these great traditional governmental markets at a State and Local level. I'll begin with an extremely easy prediction: None of the proposals of a President Bush or a President Gore will become law as either Candidate has stated it over the last several months. Each plan, in the "real world" of 2001, will undergo changes before it is submitted to Congress. Then Congress will modify, perhaps scrap, each of the proposals as it goes through Committee. Any bill produced from these modifications will face amendment, and any bill that survives for a final vote, in its House and Senate versions, may look very different the bill sent up to The Hill by the President, and from the original proposal shown by the Winning Nominee to the American Citizenry. If passed in each House, the bill may undergo further changes, in the Conference Committee of the House and Senate, and in back and forth with the White House, before an agreed upon compromise piece of legislation is presented to the President for his signature. If he actually signs the measure, which he may no longer agree with, the President must see that it is implemented and carried out by the Departments represented by his Cabinet officers, and enforced by the Justice Department. (The States, especially lately, may be very recalcitrant!) Local government and individual citizens often protest a law. And course, one or more of the laws may be further modified or thrown out by the Supreme Court. Don't expect any results, one way or the other, on the legislative front at least, for some 18 months. That is our System, which evidently a majority of Americans don't like very much. And how often in the Nominees speeches to the Conventions of the two Major Parties, or in all the Presidential debates (unlike the bad old days of the past), did you hear the Nominees implore the American People to elect a House or Senate Majority from their respective parties? Not often; indeed, I think not at all. And yet, if the Democratic Party takes the House or the Senate, a President Bush will not pass as proposed anything like his extreme Commercial and Christian Coalition plans. If the Democratic Party DOES NOT TAKE BACK the House or Senate, a President Gore will find it difficult to "wipe out" the National Debt or pass his Social Programs. That, too, is our System, but neither the Political Parties, nor the American People, insist that the Congressional Majorities pass the laws promised by a winning Presidential nominee. Some people enjoy this lack of "party discipline" (a staple of most successful political parties in other democracies), saying that it is an additional "check and balance," but many of our Citizens hate it, nevertheless, because, when we vote for a Presidential Candidate, a Representative or a Senator, a great many of us want the winners to do exactly what he or she promised. Hence, increasing numbers vote for the Green Party, the Independent Party, the Natural Law Party or (literally) a 1,000 other "parties." In fact, a majority of Americans will not vote at all. We shall be lucky if the Winner in the Great Presidential Lottery receives 25% of the vote of our Electorate. This disinterest and lack of responsibility does not bode well for the future of the Republic. And then, of course, there is Fate. What if "global warming" does exist, and a President Bush has given most of the Surplus back to the very wealthy to purchase a chunk of Andorra or to the working poor to enjoy a few more snacks at MacDonald's? The President is going to get more than his feet wet, and be held responsible. What if a President Gore learns that the Dot.Com Bubble just doesn't suffer from a slow leak but has exploded messily over all Americans? Up goes the Debt, up must go Taxes, as whatever majority in Congress tries to give housing assistance to the destitute nouveau riche, and establish bread lines for the rest of us. 1) The Surplus (from which all tax relief or programs shall flow): According to Professor Robert L. Solow, 1987 Nobel Prize winner, in the October 8, 2000, NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, the National Debt, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, fell from a peak of 110% in World War II rather sharply to about 35% in the mid-1970's, when the deferred inflationary costs of the Vietnam War began to lift it moderately. As Ronald Reagan came into office the Debt stood at 700 Billion dollars. One would have expected a Republican to attempt to prudently reduce taxes and expenditures. Working with a Democratic Congress, he did succeed in reducing taxes, mainly for the wealthy, by rolling back the Progressive Income Tax (while eliminating loopholes for the middle class, such as credit card deductions). But he borrowed huge sums, much of it from overseas, encouraged domestic debt through consumer spending to pay for it, and in the collapse of our Balance of Payments, we became a Debtor Nation. For several years in President Reagan's First Term, Inflation rolled along in double digits, reaching 21% at one point. (Ordinary people have never recovered from this disaster.) By the time he left office, beloved and still smiling, the Debt was over Three and one-half TRILLION Dollars, still climbing, and requiring hundreds of Billions a year just to pay the Interest on it. While the Debt, at its peak in the early 1990's was only 55% of the now inflated GDP, it was a terrific drain on the Nation, especially the lower Middle Class and the Poor. Downsizing and holding the line on wages, in the Reagan and Bush years, became the means of braking Inflation. Couples learned that each must work to maintain the life style held out to them on TV. Many people took two or more jobs at once. The deterioration of the American Family accelerated. Wealthy individuals prospered. (Many CEO's in the period saw their total income rise from 42 times the lowliest worker's salary to hundreds of times that figure.) To this day, adjusted for inflation, the average American makes less than he did in 1973. In recent years, we have slowly reversed the National Debt process, at least, creating a "projected surplus" that seems, using the present Tax and Revenue Structure, to run by itself ten years or so into the future. The Debt now stands at 38% of GDP and continues to be modestly reduced. The big financial question for us in the Beginning of the 21st Century is how should we fairly and sanely use the "projected surplus"? So-o-o-o-o, what should we do, give the "projected" Surplus back as George W. Bush wishes to, a practice Ronald Reagan used often when Governor of California, or pay down the Debt? If things are as they seem, Professor Solow, weighing both sides of the question, favors Vice President Gore's main objective to "eliminate" the Debt. He reasons that both Government and Business will be stronger and more flexible, ready to meet their respective challenges without the burden of past borrowing. Governor Bush's plan to spend a large portion of the "projected" Surplus on returning tax money, putting aside the question of to whom the return goes, Professor Solow fears might enflame Inflation throughout the economy, destroying a principal accomplishment of President Clinton, Fed Chairman Greenspan and Secretary of Treasury Rubin. And in the case of a serious recession (that Dot.com exploding bubble), the "projected" surplus would largely dissipate. A final point on this subject: at the moment, we still spend over 200 Billion dollars a year for Interest on the remaining Debt. (That will go on for some time, even if we are lucky.) [1/6/01]: In the face of the coming recession, it is unclear how much of the "projected" surplus (always a bit nebulous) will actually materialize in the next few years. President Bush's resolve to control the recession by giving a huge chunk of projected income back to Americans in tax relief is, in the view of many observers, economic stupidity. No doubt wiser heads will prevail in the narrowly controlled Republican Congress. The tax return will be scaled back, and monetary policy will be used to rescue our Society. (Largely undiscussed by either George W. Bush or Al Gore, was the subject of Balance of Payments, the only area of our financial planning that has continued, since President George H. W. Bush's Administration, increasingly to bleed red. We shall now have to deal with it.) 2) Social Security: When it was it was brought forth in 1935 by FDR, Social Security was denounced as Socialism (and of course it was, having been part of Socialist Candidate Norman Thomas's Platform in several elections). People fell in love with it, however, and neither Party has seriously considered doing away with it for sixty years. Social Security was set up on the regulations that govern most State and Federal pensions. All the money a Citizen pays into such a plan is paid back to him within the first seven years of retirement, sometimes less. After that, the Government (We the People) provides the promised financial support for the life of the individual. It has always been this way, but many Americans have never understood the concept, and the framers of Social Security never foresaw that, in our time, many poor Americans would live beyond the Biblical age of 70. Governor Bush proposes that we use part of the "projected" Surplus to shore up funds for Retirees over the next 15 years. In that time, he wants to phase in a part-privatization of this huge new market. Some observers, particularly in the Gore Camp, according to NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS Washington Columnist Lars-Erik Nelson (October 19, 2000), feel this is a prelude to turning all of Social Security over to the New Market Place. [1/6/01] Wherever the Market goes now, the recession mentioned in Category #1 is inevitable. How serious this recession will be no one can say, but no matter how much President-elect Bush may claim it is not his fault, he will have to deal with it. In any case, the privatization of Social Security is dead for the indefinite future. 3) Medical Benefits: FDR tried to connect a National Health Benefit Program to Social Security. He withdrew it as part of the compromise that made Social Security possible. Harry Truman put out feelers after World War II for the enactment of a National Health Service, such as most Civilized Nations of the World were establishing (or had established 40 years earlier), but it was denounced by Republicans and the once supremely powerful American Medical Association as Socialism (which, for the most part, it was). By the time, LBJ, in the name of the martyred JFK, rolled out Medicare in 1965, horror stories had been circulated about the horrible "socialized" medical treatment in Europe. (Anyone who has had medical or dental attention in Britain, for instance, knows how absurd this is. Elective surgery, like a nose or boob job, may take eons, but most medical procedures are quick, efficient and inexpensive.) As a result, Medicare has always been a hybrid of Federal and State funding, plus private medical services or insurance. Bill Clinton came into office just as the pressures of Drug Companies and Health Providers were sending Medicare costs through the proverbial roof. He and Wife Hillary proposed an ambitious, simple plan -- Go to your doctor, get treatment, give your Social Security Number to the doctor, and the Government will reimburse the doctor for his or her time and skills. The doctors, many of them ashamed of our medical service distribution system and the rise of the HMO's, were possibly amenable, but the plan ran into a stone wall of Conservative Democrat, Republican, Drug Company, and commercial resistance. The whole thing went down in a welter of Blue Ribbon Panels, charges and counter charges, and the blame fell on both Clinton and his wife as Whitewater engulfed them. Today, with medical and drug costs rising much faster than Inflation, HMO's holding doctors to unprofessional practices to protect their profits, and 40 % of the populace -- many children -- without coverage, both Candidates have presented new Health Benefit plans to the Electorate. Governor Bush would essentially extend medical services to the poor, and people without coverage, through subsidies to Insurance Companies; and he would revamp Medicare to provide partial or delayed drug benefits to the retired and elderly. Vice President Gore promises more comprehensive coverage for all Americans and larger, quicker, more generous drug benefits to the elderly. The bottom line here appears to be that both plans will work through -- at in least part -- the present commercial/government patchwork. A majority of the money, in both schemes, would go to the administrative costs and profits of the HMO's and Health Insurance Companies, as it does today. It only took the United States 30 years and a war to catch up with Britain in abolishing Slavery. We are overdue in equaling them in creating a National Health Service. But as long as MONEY is the object, we shall tout our wonderful equipment, but millions of children will go without regular medical treatment until absolutely necessary. (Have you ever gotten a bill for treatment at an Emergency room? Thousands do every day right now, exorbitantly expensive, and we Taxpayers quietly pick up the bill.) Oh yes, as has been pointed out ad infinitum, both Candidates appear to be in favor of some form of "Pro Choice" in the matter of abortions. Governor Bush, in the Third Presidential Debate, and occasionally since, says, as a "Compassionate Conservative," that he favors abortion to save the life of the mother, or in the case of rape and incest. However, his Republican Party Platform, on which he is "pledged" to run, opposes abortion totally. And asked what Supreme Court Justices he admired, he named "Pro Life" Anthony Scalia and Clarence Thomas. (As president, Governor Bush would likely replace several Justices in his first term.) Vice President Gore stands totally for a woman's choice in Abortion. In addition to the general populace, this matter is obviously important to many women, who must live with the results, either way. [1/6/01]: It seems clear that at least a start will be made on Government assisted medications for the elderly, and perhaps the poor, by the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress. Whether or not medical insurance and the crazy quilt of Medicare will be reformed seems in the balance. Finally, Education #4), which I really know something about, but which I have little space left to discuss. America pioneered Public Education to the Third Grade in the 18th Century (largely so children could learn to read their Scriptures). Gradually, Education was extended to the 6th Grade for most children in the 19th Century, in order to deal with Immigrants and our increasing Industrial needs. But the majority of American kids left school before the 8th Grade until well after World War II, when automatic machinery began replace factory and manual labor. [Fewer than half the kids who went to the First Grade with me graduated from High School.] A main problem with American Public Education is that, using traditional standard IQ tests as a measure, roughly half of students cannot progress intellectually beyond a real 6th Grade reading level (speed + vocabulary AND comprehension). This competence is fine for reading newspapers, directions, citizenship, etc. However, these often hard working students have real difficulty succeeding beyond the 10th Grade, and they often become discouraged and embittered. (The problem is exacerbated by a general view in American schools, and among parents, that children go to school only to somehow enter college.) That is why most Advanced Nations (if they have not been sold "The American Comprehensive High School Model") provide extensive training and apprentice programs in their educational systems. But American Schools, from both a Labor and Business standpoint, have always discouraged such "old fashioned" programs as harming adult workers financially, or as costing too much in taxes. The resulting student failures are blamed on conspiracies to ban phonics or the evil actions of "The Big Teacher Union." (Many political critics seem ignorant of the fact that there are several competing unions, with rather different agendas, the largest being The National Education Association [originally a "company union] and the smaller American Federation of Teachers.) Another major problem is Local Control, an Icon in both Republican and Democrat circles, which means that a majority of students who graduate from high schools in some parts of the U.S. do not have the skills of Eighth Graders in other parts of the country. This failing may be a matter of financial support, but often it is because one board of education may indeed have funded training programs, or made sacrifices to field Arts or Music Education, when one in another state, or even in another county, school boards refuse to pay for social studies, or discard accepted biological science, in favor of Team Sports or Creationism, etc. It all depends on the State laws, who is on the boards of education, and which parents have the "juice" -- or what "the boys down town" think. We need National Standards or we shall continue to come in 8th out of 10 in most surveys of Educaton in Modern Developed Nations. When Ronald Reagan became President, he thought so little of our Schools that he appointed a mediocre dentist, who hated Public Instruction, as his Secretary of Education, and attempted to have the Department abolished. It fell to the Governors of the States to a create something called "The National Assessment" (read, National Testing) to attempt to establish some standard of educational progress in the U.S. Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush was a rather loopy, laid-back liaison from the White House, but when Bush became President, he knew enough to praise the work of Colorado Governor Buddy Roemer and Arkansas Governor William J. Clinton. Then, when forces of the Right Wing and the Christian Coalition caught wind of The National Assessment, talk radio for years was full of dark, confused talk of what The National Assessment might mean. Suddenly, we need a "World Class Educational System"! The National Assessment seems forgotten, no one speaks of abolishing the Federal Department of Education, a Republican Congress is pouring Federal funds into education (still a drop in the bucket), and both Presidential Candidates have plans to test students. To be sure, George W. Bush wants the tests mainly on the State level (which may mean the tests will either not be worth a damn or continue the unequal situation of the present), but George W. Bush, hard pressed to find many accomplishments from his tenure as the Governor of Texas, is boasting of higher educational scores in Texas; and that, after returning most of the Surplus to individuals, Education will be his great priority. He says he intends to give Parents more responsibility and a $4,000 voucher to pay for instruction in an array of present private schools, or new ones that will soon pop up. In some places, the money will get a poor kid in the door, but in most schools with small classes, it won't pay the gym, lab, uniform and book bills. Vice President Gore speaks of National and State Testing in Education, and of a number of programs to encourage excellence, Charter Schools, or to finance the taking over and reconstitution of public shools. He is opposed to vouchers, except as a last resort because it would weaken Public Schools, and involve us in Constitutional conflicts and discord over providing funds to religion-based schools. Neither Candidate has said a word about the terrible, yawning problem, only a few years away, when a majority of High School students, and a high proportion of College Graduates, will not be able to find respectable work at a living income because they cannot master technical concepts or because their work or professions have been eliminated by cybernetics. Neither Candidate is preparing the Public for the coming need of brilliant ideas and immense expeditures Federal and State funds to meet this anarchic crisis! That leads us to a final little understood truth about American Education. Any new program, good, bad or indifferent, takes 12 to 16 years to fully evaluate. (A majority of programs I worked in didn't last four years. A new governor, a board of education or an administrator swept out "the old" and made a reputation with THE TRENDY NEW!) Whatever improvement in educational scores in Texas should be praised, but half the credit claimed to Governor Bush belongs to the school staffs and the two governors before him. And what will a President Gore do when he does get the results of the various tests? The real value in his program, valuable as National Standards may be, is how he can encourage and enforce educational improvements through our multifarious State systems. Pride, reputations, careers, and ambitions are involved, which may take precedence over the well-being of our children, as has too often been true in this country up to now. Cries of "States Rights" will soon be heard. [1/6/01]: Well, I have certainly called one thing right. The newly met Republican Congress says Education will be its top priority. Senator Trent Lott (R, Mississippi), Majority Leader of the Senate, knowing this view sits well with both Republican and Democrat constituencies, tells us major funding will go to American schools -- in a complete reversal of 20 years of Republican thinking. President Bush, however, is still talking about vouchers and "States Rights." Should he prevail, a combination of aid to private schools and State control of the funds will cause chaos, no matter what Federal Standards are set up. While patting ourselves on the back as usual, we shall sink farther behind the rest of the civilized World. If so, we shall, however, produce more teen age pregnancies, some neat sexy teen clothing, a lot of violent cyber games, an encouragement of vulgar teen music and popular art, and more teen murders and suicides. That will be our primary contribution to civilization in The New World Order! In all these matters I've discussed, we REALLY ain't seen nothing yet! As "Ms Hooterville" might write: After an immensely expensive process that has taken a couple of years, please show your responsibility as a patriotic American and "vote for someone." And before you vote for one of the thousand-odd other Presidential Candidates, consider you may be throwing your vote away. Or inviting "unintended consequences." [In 1980, in order "to teach Jimmy Carter a lesson," I voted for Third Party Candidate John Anderson (who?), and I consider it the one political act of my life for which I am truly ashamed.] [1/6/01]: Without commenting on "unintended consequences," no one could foretell at the end of October the Electoral ordeal the Nation would witness. It seems clear that campaign funding and how we count votes in America should be a crucial subject for reform at the State and Federal levels, after what we have been through. Though a few of the States may standardize and update their voting machines, and Senator McCain (R, Arizona) will try to send a campaign finance bill out of his Committee, I doubt the root of our political rot will really be touched by the Bush Administration. "States Rights" would cause any Federally regulated ballot reform to be still born, and both the Republicans and the Democrats like and need those campaign checks. A new factor was raised by the Election, that of the ethics of the Networks. Much has changed since the days of Uncle Walter Cronkite. On Tuesday, November 7, 2001, an important TV news outfit, Fox, was directed by a former Chairman of the Republican Party. The Fox executive in charge of their Election Coverage, John Ellis, called Florida for Vice President Al Gore early in the evening. The Major Networks, not wanting to appear caught napping, followed the Ellis' lead quickly. All the Networks, to save money, had contracted with the same tracking service. It began a farcical series of blunders that may have influenced the final outcome of our Election. The final shoe will soon drop, although it is problematical whether or not anything will come of it -- unless proposed Attorney General John Ashcroft is approved by Congress, and proves as religiously ethical as his supporters claim. You see, we now know that Fox's John Ellis had been in touch with Governor Jeb Bush of Florida several times before he made the call for Gore. Means nothing, I suppose, except in the realm of Journalistic Ethics. John Ellis, working for a former Chairman of the Republican Party, is Governor Bush's First Cousin. The Governor's name is really John Ellis "Jeb" Bush. Perhaps a small question might be raised about that coincidence. And a question comes to mind: Who is stupid? President George W. Bush or the American Electorate? We shall see, perhaps. As I said have above, we REALLY ain't seen nothin' yet!  |
| Read all comments (9)|Write your own comment |
- Top 100|
Ads by Google
|
by PacManY2J
by texas-swede
by kairosdreaming
