Elaborating on my $700 Billion Idea

A few days ago, I wrote a post detailing what I believe the government could do with $700 Billion that would really help our economy and protect, for once, those of us who have been struggling for years to make ends meet, secure affordable health insurance and maybe, if we're lucky, have some money to spend on what we want, not just what we need. This is the American Dream, right?

I'm writing on this topic again because it seems that my idea is one shared by many. Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner and Joan Blades, founders of MomsRising.org, recently published an article in the Milford Daily Press highlighting the financial struggles American families face and have been facing for years and basically echoing the ideas from my recent post. While the authors reflect mainly on the financial woes of mothers, something I can't relate to, they make many points in their article which apply to most working families throughout the country:

"What's wrong with our nation? That bailing out the big corporations is deemed acceptable, while helping families meet basic needs and protecting women from discrimination is too often dismissed as unnecessary and even un-American?

It's time to change the conversation away from the tired, old trickle-down theories that got us into this mess, where the rich get richer as it gets harder and harder for working folks - and mothers in particular - to make ends meet. The price of milk is up. The price of gas is up, and so are the prices of childcare, healthcare, and the number of hours that need to be worked each day in order to keep up with monthly costs."

All feminist ideals aside--the facts that women make less than men in most cases, the glass ceiling, mothers having it harder than anyone else in the workforce--these issues are becoming so widespread that they are felt by workers of all genders, races and ages throughout our country. The price of everything is up. Peoples' homes are being foreclosed. Why not take that money, even a portion of it, and help the majority of American citizens who are struggling in this recession. Isn't that what we pay taxes for, after all? Or is it to save big companies who have essetially screwed many of us over and, if bailed out, will probably not only continue to do so but also send out the message to other companies that they can do the same, and instead of being punished for their misactions, will be bailed out by our government.

I, for one, am very satisfied that the Bailout Plan was rejected. Not only is the fact that the bill was to be un-reviewable by pretty much anyone and non-subject to any court (which sounds utterly illegal and unconstitutional to me) but the very fabric of the idea behind the bailout plan is wrong.

When Congress sits down to re-analyze this crisis and come up with a new plan, hopefully they will remember who in this situation really deserves the bail-out. Not the corporate executives who have been sitting on top of five-figure and over salaries and running their businesses poorly, but rather American citizens who, though they may have made some bad decisions, truly deserve the bailing out.

Round One!!!!

DING DING DING...LET THE FIGHTS BEGIN!!!!!

Last night our nation's presidential candidates officially kicked-off their series of presidential debates, both fighting for undecided voters and trying to show our country who hands are dirtier with DC corruption.  

My first comment on this first debate is this:  Obama and McCain went after each other almost violently, slinging corruption allegations at each other.  At one point I actually said out loud to the television screen, "You're both politicians, you're both corrupt, now say something of value!"  I suppose that pointing out your candidates downfalls is a valuable tactic (or would that be a strategy, McCain?) but the scene of them going back and forth like a couple of school-girls--"You did this", "Oh yeah well do did this!"--often times just repeating allegations they had already made and that had little to nothing to do with the topic at hand, seemed a little ridiculous at times.

Last night was supposed to be all about foreign policy issues, but with the recent economic crisis, about half of the debate was taken up by this topic.  I don't know how anyone feels, but I don't feel like I got a direct answer from either one of them about how they plan to solve this problem.  They are still both in Congress so that may have something to do with it, but I still don't feel that I know what they're planning to do to solve this crisis.  I do, however, prefer Obama's bottom-up approach, as told by my previous post.

As far as the foreign policy part of the debate, McCain harped on Obama's lack of foreign policy experience--Obama harped on McCain's affiliation with the Bush administration and McCain's bad fortune-telling skills as far as Iraq goes.  Obama wants to take attention off of Iraq and put it on Afghanistan and possibly even Pakistan--McCain wants to fulfill the wishes of the few soldiers in Iraq he spoke to (as well as those who re-enlisted) and stay in Iraq until "the job is done", and said of Obama's statement about attacking Pakistan, "You just don't say that!"

The essential differences I found during the debate were unfortunately not so much what the candidates were saying but rather how they were saying it.  Obama was very straight-forward and concise in his speaking, appearing more as a leader or a salesman (I guess at this point both) than McCain.  McCain, on the other hand, appeared to be attempting to use the Bush tactic (or is it strategy??) to win over voters--acting like the every-man.  McCain was relatable, taking your attention off of what he was actually saying and making you feel like you just wanted to say, "Yeah, yeah I see what you're saying, buddy", instead of actually paying attention to what was coming out of his mouth.  He did make many strong points, all backed up by his laughing and scolding while Obama spoke.

Hopefully this tactic/strategy won't have too many voters fooled, however my hopes as  far as voter's attention to detail/policy over presentation/gender have been highly let down during the course of this campaign.  We'll see during the VP debates whether Palin goes down the same road--appearing as the Hot Hockey Mom instead of future VP--or if she'll actually join a Toastmaster's group and maybe make a valid point for once.   

Here's a thought on what you can do with $700 billion

In the wake of the recent Wall Street financial crisis and the potentially devastating proposed solution to this crisis, I began to think of all the things our country could do with $700 billion. So many cracks in the foundation of our nation that could be melded together. It is, of course, extremely offensive (at the least) to all the American non-corporate executive multi-millionares to assume that taxpayers would or SHOULD be expected to bail out these executives. Why should we? Why are we protecting those who don't need the protection and making those who do need it clean up their mess?

If we're going to spend $700 billion to clean up this mess, here's my proposal on how to use the money. Instead of the appreciated but also insufficient $600 (or more for those with dependents) economic stimulus checks we all received with our tax refunds, why not use $700 billion to give citizens a susbstantial economic stimulant? Working from the ground up, this money would surely not only give a boost to our economy, but also (even slightly) help those in the debt that's causing this financial crisis to pay some of it off.

And what about the Fannies and AIG and the other failed corporate execs? Either they did themselves out of the grave they dug for themselves or they go under. And if they do go under, perhaps new businesses which will take a lesson from them and run their business properly can emerge. And what's wrong with that?

This may be an over-simplified solution--in fact I'm sure it is. Unrealistic even, perhaps. I've never studied business or economics and honestly don't even fully understand the situation. I think the point I'm trying to make is that there are other solutions out there. And maybe a bottom-to-top solution will do us a lot more help than the already proven to not work top-down approach.

Any other solutions? Please share!

Keep Your Friends Close and Your Enemies Protesting

I found this to be pretty enlightening:
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/525008.html

Keep in mind, those who have actually been governed by Palin know her best! Let them tell you how qualified she is.

What's Right and What's Feminist

I have recently begun a paid internship with a feminist organization. That's right, I'm no longer unemployed. Still uninsured but who really cares about me....

As I was saying, I have recently begun a paid internship with a media-based feminist organization. Part of my daily responsibilities is to go through all of the organization's (general) e-mails, most of which are comments in response to news briefs the organization puts out to its subscribers. Many of them salute the work of this organization, some are trying to promote their own work, and then there is a fairly substantial amount who write to voice their disappointment at this organization for being a feminist media organization and yet still bashing Sarah Palin.

I stick to my beliefs fully and I expect others to do the same. Which is why a large part of me sympathizes with these commentators. As a feminist, media-oriented organization, what are our goals? Sarah Palin, for all of her faults, is a woman in a position of extreme power and media-attention. She is the first woman to be a nominee for a GOP presidental position. Whatever the motives behind her selection and no matter how much she may or may not be qualified for her proposed position, she is still a woman in an incredible place. Without really thinking about it, you could say that she is a breakthrough for women. No Hillary Clinton, who really earned her position in politics, but she's still there none the less.

As a feminist organization, where does that leave you? Ok, Palin doesn't support abortion at all, for any reason, but she does still consider herself a feminist. Why, I'm not sure, but she apparently does. And even if she didn't, she's still a woman. What does a feminist say to this? How does a feminist organization deal with the fact that our country's first female Vice President does not agree with its values? Do you not support her because you tend to be a liberal organization (as many feminist organizations do and many feminists are) and she is very conservative? Do you shun her because her values are not the same as yours? If you do, aren't you going against the very fiber of your beliefs?

This is surely a very troubling spot to find oneself, as a feminist, in. I am all for women's rights but have never waved the feminist flag too much myself, so I have the pleasure of not being faced with this problem. Plus, I am a single person, allowed as many opinions and hypocrisies as I please. But as an organization...with a motto....with a code of ethics....with RULES....what do you do? Support a woman in that position simply because she's a woman--the organizational way to approach the issue-- or shun her because, despite her gender, she just does not believe in the same things as you do--a much more individualistic way to approach the issue.

This is a sticky subject indeed and, to be honest, I can't help but nod my head to those e-mails I read shaming us for our anti-Palin actions.

If These Walls Could Talk....

...they would probably say, "Stop getting us involved!"

I had a strange moment the other day...a moment when, while simultaneously looking at a picture of one thing and a bunch of words written about something else, and suddenly a whole new thought came into my head. The picture was of the wall being built in our country's southern borders with Mexico and the bunch of words had something to do with Obama's support of AIPAC. Suddenly, it came to me, this new idea.

The Great Wall of China must seem like a cure-all solution for the US and Israel today. When you don't want someone coming into "your" country, just build a wall! Much like people not wanting people to come to close to them so they build an emotional wall...some of you may be better able to relate to that.

Why does this seem like such a good idea? Why does simply putting a band-aid (or in this case a giant wall) on the wound seem like it will make it heal? The Great Wall of China may have been successful in keeping the Mongols out, but we are not living in barbarians days anymore. We live in a world of dipolmacy...of democracy...of the United Nations...why can't we find other ways of solving our problems?

Another advantage of our modern times is our modern technologies. The Mongols may not have been able to break down the Great Wall with their swords or their testosterone, but today there are new options for people really, really wanting to get through a wall.

And what about the other feature of our modernity: the recognition of human rights? You know, we may still be living in a world of barbarians, but are they still the ones trying to get over the wall?

Who, exactly, is a "real" politician?

One of the many highlights of the RNC was the GOP bashing of....senators??

What?

One of their 'tactics' was to talk up 'real' politicians, like Palin, who serve as governors of their proud state, and to down talk those money-grubbing, soap-opera watching, DC politicians. Wait a second....doesn't the man running for President in your party reflect those qualities? He's a seasoned senator...he's spent lots of time in DC...his wife is a multi-millionaire...

By attempting to make Palin look like a legitimate, qualified candidate for VP, they just went ahead and made McCain look...well...like an illegitimate, underqualified candidate for President. All the things they said make up for a bad politician are all things that McCain is.

Another point for the RNC! Actually, this one should qualify as a three-pointer.

The RNC: Repetition Equals Success?

Can the RNC speakers do anything other than hate on Obama and talk about how McCain was a P.O.W.?  Here's a hint Guiliani and Co.: Talking down Obama does not equal talking up your party.  Get something real to talk about. 

Conservatives + Republicans = What the &$*@

As I sit here watching Mike Huckabee going on about how McCain was his second choice for GOP presidential nominee (hardy-har-har) and how all GOPs really just want smaller government, I am struck by a question that has haunted me since PolSci 101 in college...How the hell did conservatives ever manage to merge into the Republican party?  And how did Liberals become Democrats?  It's truly one of the most ass-backwards features of our nation's political system.

As the history of our country's two-party system (one that I disagree with, but that's another topic for another day) shows, historically the two parties' ideals were sort of switched.  Historically, Republicans represented more truly liberal ideals...smaller government, bigger liberties for Americans.  The party stood for economic and social liberalism.  You were a Republican if you believed that the government's involvement with your life should be as minimal as possible.  In today's world, a traditional Republican would stand for the lowest taxes possible as well as for limited government intervention in social affairs, such as gay marriage, abortion and other morally debatable issues.

The democratic party, on the other hand, stood for bigger government.  Government charging higher taxes to provide our country with more.  Economically--as a business owner under a Republican government, you could either become as wealthy as possible without any government interference or begin a business that goes down in flames costing you everything, and not have the government to fall back on.  Under a democratic government, if your business was wildly successful you would be held accountable by the government to give back to your country a portion of the wealth you have accumulated, and if your business goes down in flames costing you everything you have your government to fall back on and to take care of you.  That's traditionally the purpose of a Democratic-led government...to have the government to take care of you/to hold you accountable for giving back to your country.

My confusion comes in here: at whatever point in time it was that the Republican party also became the party of social conservatives.  I suppose there's really no way they could fit into the Democratic party, but why the Republican party?  How is it that Mike Huckabee can stand up at the RNC and proclaim that his party asks only for smaller government and minutes later rant about how women shouldn't have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies?  Why can what you do with your body or your choice to marry whoever you want be the business of our government but how much you have in the bank cannot?   Why do Republicans feel that American citizens should NOT be accountable for sharing the immense wealth they may make as business owners with struggling single mothers without access to affordable healthcare, but feel that they should be forced by the government to follow their moral values?  The moral values that may have put that struggling single mother in the place she is in the first place.

This has always been my primary example of how much sense the GOP party doesn't make: Republicans oppose abortion, but also oppose paying the taxes to support all those struggling mothers forced to have their children young and uneducated.  They oppose abortion and then also tend to oppose teaching sex education in school.  It's perplexing.  But here I am digressing a bit.

I'm just wondering where and how the Republicans adopted the conservatives and why it makes any sense.  A conservative Republican...looking at it historically, this is the oxy moron to end all oxy morons.

I will never forget the day I realized that, traditionally speaking, I would probably be a Republican.  A student in one of my PolSci classes proclaimed himself to be Republican.  He stated that he supports gay marriage, he supports abortion, he supports people doing whatever they want and the government keeping its nose out of the peoples' asses.  What happened to you, Republicans?  What happened to the days you could call yourselves the Grand Ol' Party and really deserve it?

Smells Like Teen Pregnancy

When I first heard the news that Sarah Palin's 17-year old unmarried daughter is five months pregnant, I'd be lying if I said that one of the first thoughts in my head wasn't, "Yes!  Now I get to use that blog post title I thought of a few nights ago and have been dying to use!"  I figured I would have to wait for another Jamie Lynn Spears incident of teenage starlette pregnancy, but apparently I got lucky.  Now I can fit the title into my blog in a completely relevant manner!  

My blog-centered joys aside, this news brought the same delight and fear that any other news I've heard about this Palin character has brought to me.  Delight at the fact that I now know that not only is she completely inexperienced and underqualified to be vice president, but I now know that she is also a mother of five, one of whom is a pregnant seventeen-year-old, and the youngest of whom is a four-month-old with Down's Syndrome.  No way can this woman be our country's VP!  Not that I have anything against Palin's family facts...in fact it's quite admirable to know that she manages to hold her post as Alaska state governor while also dealing with these 'issues'.  Clearly she has accepted and embraced these things that most people may see as misfortunes and continues on with her responsibilities both to her family and her job.  But not as VP.  There is simply too much going on that would fall on her shoulders and too many distractions in her family for her to take on this magnitude of responsibility.  Even if her youngest child did not have Down's Syndrome, requiring more care and attention from the family, it's still a four-month-old child who needs his mother more than our country does.

The fear that I feel is the fact that this woman actually could become our VP.  It gives me a headache just thinking about it.  And the fact that this is clearly just a ploy of McCain's (or whoever's pulling his strings) to get him into office, but what then?  What happens when we realize that our VP is completely unavailable because she's busy attending to her plethora of family issues.  Family does come first, but when taking on a position as globally involved as the VP of America is--at a time when our economy is basically in a recession, we are in a seemingly never ending military entanglement with Iraq and Afghanistan, globalization is at its peak, our environment is deteriorating--the person assigned that post should definitely have the family issues at a minimum.  

I hope I've managed to make my point without sounding too arrogant or anti-feminist.  If not, as long as I made my point I'm at peace with it.