We are sorry for the two month delay in posting our time has been divided between our new South Dakota political blog, The Angry River Rat, and the Common Civic Good. We should be back up and running at full speed for the summer. Thank you for your support.
Editorial Staff
Common Civic Good
14 April 2011
19 February 2011
Protests in Wisconsin Shows Peoples' Anger to Governor Walker's Budget Measures
In the past week since the fall of the Mubarak Regime in Egypt protests have been springing up against governments in the Middle East and in Wisconsin. The uprisings in Middle East come from anger of autocratic rule, but the protests in Wisconsin about state governments taking away unions to produce collective bargaining agreements.
Collective bargaining defined by the Legal Information Institute from Cornell Law School states, " Collective bargaining consists of negotiations between an employer and a group of employees so as to determine the conditions of employment. The result of collective bargaining procedures is a collective agreement. Employees are often represented in bargaining by a union or other labor organization." The benefits of this are that individual workers join together to gain a better deal, and management is able to work more efficiency by listening to one voice instead of many. Overall, a win win situation for both sides.
In times of economic prosperity, collective bargaining groups do not reap the financial compensation that is awarded to the private sector counterparts, but receive a better benefits package instead. The problem that occurs in times of hardship,the recession, groups that collectively bargain seem to have a better situation than private individuals due to the agreements made previously. A real world example would be if someone would buy a hundred gallons of gas at 2 dollars a gallon, and could reap the 2 dollar price even if the price rose to 3 dollars a gallon. People who did not lock in the price would be upset of the benefits received by the person who locked in the price. Now if the price went down to a dollar the person paying two dollars a gallon is still stuck with the price unless he renegotiates, and would only get it dropped to 1.50 instead of the dollar. The person with the gas contact would not have to worry about the market fluctuations, but might might not get the best deal all of the time. In a time of economic distress and high unemployment people see Unions as a target.
Now to the issues in Wisconsin and their budget fight. The problem lies with a 137 million dollar shortfall that needs to be paid by July 1st. Governor Scott Walker's plan to cover this shortfall is to not allow collective bargaining by public unions except for pay, and that could not rise higher than the Consumer Price Index. If this arrangement would be passed by the Wisconsin State Legislature, public unions would not be able to collectively bargain for their benefit packages. Walker is quoted in an ABC News article by saying,"If we don't do this, there will be layoffs. By July 1, when the next budget starts, we'll have to have layoffs of 5,500 state workers plus a similar number of county and city workers."
The issue that arose from this is how did this 137 million dollar deficit form? Some sources argue, such as Ezra Klein from the Washington Post, that a majority of this deficit came from actions done by Walker in a Special Session of the Legislature in December. The Wisconsin Fiscal Bureau stated that earlier estimates put the state budget at a 120 million dollars in black, until the December session with the passage of health savings account, tax cuts for new and relocated businesses, and tax exclusion for new employees. This helped cause the 137 million dollar shortfall. According to
Overall, the Unions are doing what they are suppose to do, protecting their workers rights. No one should complain that the protests are unnecessary. Protests are part of democracy. When the Tea Party shows up with their heroes to support Governor Walker lets hope that the peaceful protests will continue, and hope that they will not act in the way of Mubarak protesters in Egypt and cause a violent confrontation. For democracy to work the best it needs to be done in a peaceful and respectful manner, and we hope these issues are resolved peacefully and that both sides are content with the outcome.
Collective bargaining defined by the Legal Information Institute from Cornell Law School states, " Collective bargaining consists of negotiations between an employer and a group of employees so as to determine the conditions of employment. The result of collective bargaining procedures is a collective agreement. Employees are often represented in bargaining by a union or other labor organization." The benefits of this are that individual workers join together to gain a better deal, and management is able to work more efficiency by listening to one voice instead of many. Overall, a win win situation for both sides.
In times of economic prosperity, collective bargaining groups do not reap the financial compensation that is awarded to the private sector counterparts, but receive a better benefits package instead. The problem that occurs in times of hardship,the recession, groups that collectively bargain seem to have a better situation than private individuals due to the agreements made previously. A real world example would be if someone would buy a hundred gallons of gas at 2 dollars a gallon, and could reap the 2 dollar price even if the price rose to 3 dollars a gallon. People who did not lock in the price would be upset of the benefits received by the person who locked in the price. Now if the price went down to a dollar the person paying two dollars a gallon is still stuck with the price unless he renegotiates, and would only get it dropped to 1.50 instead of the dollar. The person with the gas contact would not have to worry about the market fluctuations, but might might not get the best deal all of the time. In a time of economic distress and high unemployment people see Unions as a target.
Now to the issues in Wisconsin and their budget fight. The problem lies with a 137 million dollar shortfall that needs to be paid by July 1st. Governor Scott Walker's plan to cover this shortfall is to not allow collective bargaining by public unions except for pay, and that could not rise higher than the Consumer Price Index. If this arrangement would be passed by the Wisconsin State Legislature, public unions would not be able to collectively bargain for their benefit packages. Walker is quoted in an ABC News article by saying,"If we don't do this, there will be layoffs. By July 1, when the next budget starts, we'll have to have layoffs of 5,500 state workers plus a similar number of county and city workers."
The issue that arose from this is how did this 137 million dollar deficit form? Some sources argue, such as Ezra Klein from the Washington Post, that a majority of this deficit came from actions done by Walker in a Special Session of the Legislature in December. The Wisconsin Fiscal Bureau stated that earlier estimates put the state budget at a 120 million dollars in black, until the December session with the passage of health savings account, tax cuts for new and relocated businesses, and tax exclusion for new employees. This helped cause the 137 million dollar shortfall. According to
Overall, the Unions are doing what they are suppose to do, protecting their workers rights. No one should complain that the protests are unnecessary. Protests are part of democracy. When the Tea Party shows up with their heroes to support Governor Walker lets hope that the peaceful protests will continue, and hope that they will not act in the way of Mubarak protesters in Egypt and cause a violent confrontation. For democracy to work the best it needs to be done in a peaceful and respectful manner, and we hope these issues are resolved peacefully and that both sides are content with the outcome.
17 February 2011
In Defense of Public Broadcasting Part 1
Funding for Public Broadcasting is up on the chopping block. Many Republican Representatives in favor of removal of funding argue that cutting all funding will save the U.S. tax payer money for an unneeded item. We would disagree that Public Broadcasting is an unneeded item with its 170 million monthly users. Compared to the U.S. Census numbers of 310 million Americans, Public Broadcasting is used by fifty-five percent of the population. We think that it would be hard to find another item that fifty-five percent of the population uses.
Over thirty Representatives want to eliminate funding and the Corporation of Public Broadcasting. They believe that Public Broadcasting should not be in existence or federally funded. To put this in prospective, Public Broadcasting reaches 99% of public households compared to cable or satellite services, which only cover about 33% of all households. People that do not have the means to pay for television programming of the Discovery Channel can turn to the quality programming of their local PBS station.
Public Broadcasting is a great source for information, educational entertainment, documentaries and local events. Shows like Nova, Nature, Bill Moyers Journal, News Hour with Jim Lehrer, and Frontline. These shows provide new information to a vast public audience. Educational entertainment come from Sesame Street, Word Girl, Barney, and Clifford the Big Red Dog. These shows teach children at a young age skills that they will need the rest of their life. One story in particular comes from Andy Dehnart in an audio essay for All Things Considered in November of 2009. Dehnart could apply the lessons that he had learned from Sesame Street into real life. There are very few shows where life lessons taught to children at the age of 4 that can be applied at 40. Another item is the documentaries that Public Broadcasting helps produce and distribute. In addition to Frontline, Nature, and American Experience; there are the documentaries done by Ken Burns which include Baseball, The War, The Civil War, and Lewis and Clark Expedition. Finally the local programming, is a very important aspect of Public Broadcasting. Local news, entertainment, state issues, and even athletic events were covered by their local Public Broadcasting stations. In all reality your PBS station can cover all your needs, especially now with the splitting of the signal into three channels. We have only covered the tip of the iceberg in the great programming of PBS and the importance that it plays in society.
Overall, society has benefited from Public Broadcasting. The withdrawal of funding from it will hurt future generations of Americans. This funding is needed and should be protected. There are other areas of spending that could handle a cut, but Public Broadcasting is not one of them.
Tomorrow I will cover the importance of National Public Radio and the reason for the assault on Public Broadcasting.
Over thirty Representatives want to eliminate funding and the Corporation of Public Broadcasting. They believe that Public Broadcasting should not be in existence or federally funded. To put this in prospective, Public Broadcasting reaches 99% of public households compared to cable or satellite services, which only cover about 33% of all households. People that do not have the means to pay for television programming of the Discovery Channel can turn to the quality programming of their local PBS station.
Public Broadcasting is a great source for information, educational entertainment, documentaries and local events. Shows like Nova, Nature, Bill Moyers Journal, News Hour with Jim Lehrer, and Frontline. These shows provide new information to a vast public audience. Educational entertainment come from Sesame Street, Word Girl, Barney, and Clifford the Big Red Dog. These shows teach children at a young age skills that they will need the rest of their life. One story in particular comes from Andy Dehnart in an audio essay for All Things Considered in November of 2009. Dehnart could apply the lessons that he had learned from Sesame Street into real life. There are very few shows where life lessons taught to children at the age of 4 that can be applied at 40. Another item is the documentaries that Public Broadcasting helps produce and distribute. In addition to Frontline, Nature, and American Experience; there are the documentaries done by Ken Burns which include Baseball, The War, The Civil War, and Lewis and Clark Expedition. Finally the local programming, is a very important aspect of Public Broadcasting. Local news, entertainment, state issues, and even athletic events were covered by their local Public Broadcasting stations. In all reality your PBS station can cover all your needs, especially now with the splitting of the signal into three channels. We have only covered the tip of the iceberg in the great programming of PBS and the importance that it plays in society.
Overall, society has benefited from Public Broadcasting. The withdrawal of funding from it will hurt future generations of Americans. This funding is needed and should be protected. There are other areas of spending that could handle a cut, but Public Broadcasting is not one of them.
Tomorrow I will cover the importance of National Public Radio and the reason for the assault on Public Broadcasting.
04 February 2011
South Dakota GOP Mandates Gun Ownership as a Joke, But leaves Door Open for the Individual Mandate
Earlier this week, the South Dakota State Legislature introduced House Bill 1237. HB 1237 would mandate all South Dakotans to purchase a firearm of their liking for self defense at the beginning of 2012. The only exclusions to gun ownership would be criminals that are not allowed to have them by law. This story broke in the South Dakota's Argus Leader and in local liberal blog The Madville Times on Monday. The national websites at Talking Points Memo and Politico picked up the story on Tuesday. All of the comments from the local sites and national sites show people upset with this law. When asked by the Argus Leader, State Representative Hal Wicks sponsor of the bill stated, "we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance." Later on Wicks said that this bill was a joke, which did not sit well with many South Dakotans who are worrying about a 107 million dollar deficit shortfall. This joke by these state legislators brings and interesting discussion about the Individual Mandate.
The point of their failed exercise was to prove that the Individual Mandate is Unconstitutional, but they forgot that state governments are different than the Federal Government. The first item that they are not aware of is that state governments are allowed to have Individual Mandates. An example of this is automobile insurance, which every state requires of automobile owners to have the insurance or these owners have to pay a fine. It is mandated by the state that automobile owners are required to have the insurance. This gun law like the automobile insurance law is created by the state regulated by the state. Therefore there is no correlation between South Dakota's Gun law and the National Healthcare Law. This attempt by these Legislators failed miserably.
Since these legislators were looking to make an example of how in their view that the Individual Mandate was Unconstitutional, lets give them another example how the Individual Mandate is Constitutional and employed by our Founding Fathers. One example is the Militia Act of 1792 signed into law by George Washington on May 8, 1792. In the organization of the Militia by the Militia Act of 1792 required white males between 18 and 45 to join a militia and be able to supply themselves with the necessary equipment. As seen here in section one:
The Militia Act of 1792 was repealed with the Militia Act of 1903, because of the need to update standards and to add Federal funding to state militias. Not to argue that the requirement of militiamen to supply their own equipment was Unconstitutional. No one had challenged the Militia Act of 1792 in the 111 years of existence. It had been amended, but no one challenged the Constitutionality of the requirement for militiamen to obtain their own supplies for military service. Overall, this Individual Mandate was unchallenged and accepted.
The Individual Mandate will be argued until the Supreme Court makes their ruling. Both sides will try to make their own points in the matter. As the South Dakota Legislators tried to make a point, and my blog post is an attempt to counter their argument. I have tried to provide accurate evidence that back up my points with respectable links. Hopefully, this will be resolved soon.
The point of their failed exercise was to prove that the Individual Mandate is Unconstitutional, but they forgot that state governments are different than the Federal Government. The first item that they are not aware of is that state governments are allowed to have Individual Mandates. An example of this is automobile insurance, which every state requires of automobile owners to have the insurance or these owners have to pay a fine. It is mandated by the state that automobile owners are required to have the insurance. This gun law like the automobile insurance law is created by the state regulated by the state. Therefore there is no correlation between South Dakota's Gun law and the National Healthcare Law. This attempt by these Legislators failed miserably.
Since these legislators were looking to make an example of how in their view that the Individual Mandate was Unconstitutional, lets give them another example how the Individual Mandate is Constitutional and employed by our Founding Fathers. One example is the Militia Act of 1792 signed into law by George Washington on May 8, 1792. In the organization of the Militia by the Militia Act of 1792 required white males between 18 and 45 to join a militia and be able to supply themselves with the necessary equipment. As seen here in section one:
That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack...As section one reads,"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia." The only people that were considered citizens at this time were white landed males over the age of eighteen, which this law mandated their military service. This is one example, but playing devils advocate we can argue that this does not require people to buy things. Now if you read further into the act, you can find where the government mandates its citizens to purchase items. As it mandates their militiamen to supply their own supplies for training. This can be seen again in section one:
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder.This is an mandate by the United States Government for its citizens at the time were required to purchase items for military service. Clearly the United States Government created an Individual Mandate to its citizens and required them to purchase the necessary means for militia service.
The Militia Act of 1792 was repealed with the Militia Act of 1903, because of the need to update standards and to add Federal funding to state militias. Not to argue that the requirement of militiamen to supply their own equipment was Unconstitutional. No one had challenged the Militia Act of 1792 in the 111 years of existence. It had been amended, but no one challenged the Constitutionality of the requirement for militiamen to obtain their own supplies for military service. Overall, this Individual Mandate was unchallenged and accepted.
The Individual Mandate will be argued until the Supreme Court makes their ruling. Both sides will try to make their own points in the matter. As the South Dakota Legislators tried to make a point, and my blog post is an attempt to counter their argument. I have tried to provide accurate evidence that back up my points with respectable links. Hopefully, this will be resolved soon.
25 January 2011
Representative Paul Ryan Contradicts himself
Watching Paul Ryan's response to the State of the Union response was kinda weird and seemed to be contradicted himself. Some items I would like to point out Government help innovation, Free Enterprise, and Limited Government helps people. We will take time to look at these statements.
Lets start with Ryan's argument that government does not help innovation. Without government help or need to fund the space program we would not have made the leaps and bounds to be behind the Soviets in 1957 to beat them to the moon in 1969. Without Government funding the innovations for this to happen, we would not have beaten the Soviets to the Moon. That is just one example to prove Ryan's statement wrong. Another one, the U.S. Government created the Internet. It was our need for a communication system if phone lines were down during a nuclear attack that birthed this great innovation. The second point I would like is Ryan's statement of Free Enterprise is better than Wall Street and the Government intervention. The problem with this Wall Street is our Free Enterprise system. Wall Street is our example of Capitalism working, if your for Free Enterprise you are for the reckless handling of our economy two years ago. If Rep. Ryan was against Wall Street, he should have argued that Wall Street reform benefited Americans, but he did not and rallied for Limited Government. Going to his final argument that Limited Government did not help the American people. Granted even the President made this point in his speech, but Rep. Ryan did not accept the idea of some expansion of government was necessary in protecting the American people. If we had the Limited Government we would not have Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Labor Laws, and Food Safety Laws. The near crash of the Financial system shows a need that government in regulation, and the programs mentioned in the last sentence show that Government involvement is supported by most people. Rep. Ryan wants a small Limited Government, which will contradict his ideas toward stopping special interests like Wall Street.
The problem with the policies that the Republican House will promote is that they are based on shaky truths. Yes, sometimes government bureaucracies hinders innovation, but if an overall tally was done it would probably favor that the U.S. Government helps innovation more than hurts it. Free Enterprise does help people prosper from humble beginnings, but it also helps Corporations have a tighter hold on the market and makes competition more difficult. Limited Government is a nice idea to have a government that can flexible and nimble, but are we ready to remove safety nets and cut our ties to a safe Social Security?
Their is a pro and a con to all three items. We look forward discussion all these items on the blog. It was a joy for me to watch the State of the Union Address and the Rebuttal by Rep. Ryan. I hope we move to a more meaningful conversation and improve this country for the better.
Lets start with Ryan's argument that government does not help innovation. Without government help or need to fund the space program we would not have made the leaps and bounds to be behind the Soviets in 1957 to beat them to the moon in 1969. Without Government funding the innovations for this to happen, we would not have beaten the Soviets to the Moon. That is just one example to prove Ryan's statement wrong. Another one, the U.S. Government created the Internet. It was our need for a communication system if phone lines were down during a nuclear attack that birthed this great innovation. The second point I would like is Ryan's statement of Free Enterprise is better than Wall Street and the Government intervention. The problem with this Wall Street is our Free Enterprise system. Wall Street is our example of Capitalism working, if your for Free Enterprise you are for the reckless handling of our economy two years ago. If Rep. Ryan was against Wall Street, he should have argued that Wall Street reform benefited Americans, but he did not and rallied for Limited Government. Going to his final argument that Limited Government did not help the American people. Granted even the President made this point in his speech, but Rep. Ryan did not accept the idea of some expansion of government was necessary in protecting the American people. If we had the Limited Government we would not have Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Labor Laws, and Food Safety Laws. The near crash of the Financial system shows a need that government in regulation, and the programs mentioned in the last sentence show that Government involvement is supported by most people. Rep. Ryan wants a small Limited Government, which will contradict his ideas toward stopping special interests like Wall Street.
The problem with the policies that the Republican House will promote is that they are based on shaky truths. Yes, sometimes government bureaucracies hinders innovation, but if an overall tally was done it would probably favor that the U.S. Government helps innovation more than hurts it. Free Enterprise does help people prosper from humble beginnings, but it also helps Corporations have a tighter hold on the market and makes competition more difficult. Limited Government is a nice idea to have a government that can flexible and nimble, but are we ready to remove safety nets and cut our ties to a safe Social Security?
Their is a pro and a con to all three items. We look forward discussion all these items on the blog. It was a joy for me to watch the State of the Union Address and the Rebuttal by Rep. Ryan. I hope we move to a more meaningful conversation and improve this country for the better.
Happy State of the Union Address Day!
Updated: Its on right now!
Today, the State of the Union Address will be made in Washington D.C. It is as exciting as a high school prom for some Senators. There are many outlets to see the State of the Union, but so far whitehouse.gov seems the most interesting site to watch the State of the Union. I hope to have more interesting information as it gets closer to the speech and some after speech commentary and some opinions of the rebuttals by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and by Rep. Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota. It is going to be a great day.
Today, the State of the Union Address will be made in Washington D.C. It is as exciting as a high school prom for some Senators. There are many outlets to see the State of the Union, but so far whitehouse.gov seems the most interesting site to watch the State of the Union. I hope to have more interesting information as it gets closer to the speech and some after speech commentary and some opinions of the rebuttals by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and by Rep. Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota. It is going to be a great day.
24 January 2011
Investment is a Code Word for Insane Spending?
An outline of President Obama's State of the Union Address was presented via an online video today. In that outline today he mentioned investment in Education, Green Technology, and Infrastructure. These are important items. Analysts argue that President Obama's State of the Union Address is going to be a call to arms for investment in these three areas. These are good goals. Investing in these areas will help boloster job growth in this country.
For example, Education will create jobs and train future generations for the work needed to be done in the future. Green Technology will provide jobs that cannot be outsourced to China or India. Jobs for Americans in America providing alternatives to foreign oil and dirty energy. By moving to a Green Technology, we stop damaging the Earth. These innovations in Green Technology cannot happen without a great educational system to teach future generations and challenge them to become better. The last item is Infrastructure. We have not made a revolutionary change on our Infrastructure since the Interstate Highway System during the Eisenhower Administration back in the late 1950s. An update is needed for America to stay competitive in the 21st Century we need to update our roads, bridges, and rail to support the economy of the future. All three of these items go hand and hand. Without an educated workforce creating and installing the green technologies, and the infrastructure to move this technology where it is needed America will not prosper.
Even though it seems like Investing in these three items would be a smart long term investment key Republicans are starting their assault on this plan from both houses. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Fox News Sunday,"anytime they want to spend they call it ‘investment,’ so I think you’ll hear the president talk about investing a lot on Tuesday night. We’ve got a huge spending problem here.” This sentament was also spoken by House Majority Whip Eric Cantor on Meet the Press,"when we hear invest from anyone in Washington, to me that means more spending.” These ideas are coming before the State of the Union is even presented. What Republicans are trying to do with these comments is not allow the idea of investment in programs settle into minds of U.S. citizens, but to make it all about government waste. Republicans came back into power in the House under the idea that they would cut the decifict and create jobs.
The problem with that agenda is to coin an old phrase," you have to spend money to make money." Without investing in America, America cannot rebound. The Great Depression was solved not by the budget cuts of 1937, but by the mass industrialization of the country by World War II. We did not beat the Soviets to the Moon by sitting idle and saving money, but by spending on our rocket programs and providing science scholarships to students to help produce a booming technology economy. America does not slove its problems by cutting and reducing, but by investing and reaping the rewards. Another example of investment is the GI Bill given to soldiers after World War II. Seven billion dollars was given to GIs in educational loans and the return was 48 billion dollars. Almost a return of seven dollars for every dollar spent. That is a great return.
We now have an opportunity now to do what we did back then. We have the need and we need to act upon it. For the United States to stay a major player in the world we need to retool for the 21st century we need investment in Education, Green Technology, and Infrastructure.
For example, Education will create jobs and train future generations for the work needed to be done in the future. Green Technology will provide jobs that cannot be outsourced to China or India. Jobs for Americans in America providing alternatives to foreign oil and dirty energy. By moving to a Green Technology, we stop damaging the Earth. These innovations in Green Technology cannot happen without a great educational system to teach future generations and challenge them to become better. The last item is Infrastructure. We have not made a revolutionary change on our Infrastructure since the Interstate Highway System during the Eisenhower Administration back in the late 1950s. An update is needed for America to stay competitive in the 21st Century we need to update our roads, bridges, and rail to support the economy of the future. All three of these items go hand and hand. Without an educated workforce creating and installing the green technologies, and the infrastructure to move this technology where it is needed America will not prosper.
Even though it seems like Investing in these three items would be a smart long term investment key Republicans are starting their assault on this plan from both houses. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Fox News Sunday,"anytime they want to spend they call it ‘investment,’ so I think you’ll hear the president talk about investing a lot on Tuesday night. We’ve got a huge spending problem here.” This sentament was also spoken by House Majority Whip Eric Cantor on Meet the Press,"when we hear invest from anyone in Washington, to me that means more spending.” These ideas are coming before the State of the Union is even presented. What Republicans are trying to do with these comments is not allow the idea of investment in programs settle into minds of U.S. citizens, but to make it all about government waste. Republicans came back into power in the House under the idea that they would cut the decifict and create jobs.
The problem with that agenda is to coin an old phrase," you have to spend money to make money." Without investing in America, America cannot rebound. The Great Depression was solved not by the budget cuts of 1937, but by the mass industrialization of the country by World War II. We did not beat the Soviets to the Moon by sitting idle and saving money, but by spending on our rocket programs and providing science scholarships to students to help produce a booming technology economy. America does not slove its problems by cutting and reducing, but by investing and reaping the rewards. Another example of investment is the GI Bill given to soldiers after World War II. Seven billion dollars was given to GIs in educational loans and the return was 48 billion dollars. Almost a return of seven dollars for every dollar spent. That is a great return.
We now have an opportunity now to do what we did back then. We have the need and we need to act upon it. For the United States to stay a major player in the world we need to retool for the 21st century we need investment in Education, Green Technology, and Infrastructure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)