Kyle Brady: Blog » Obama

Political Change May Be Coming [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:34:46 +0000

Change, it seems, may be finally coming to American politics.

After almost a year and a half of political wrangling, fake debates, fingerpointing, namecalling, and almost no obvious or momentous progress, President Obama’s campaign slogan appears to have taken Washington D.C. by storm in just a few short days. With a final vote looming on healthcare reform, despite its status as actual reform now being questionable, some members of Congress have taken advantage of the Democratic momentum to propose, or put the finishing touches, on other legislation necessary for not only progress, but also stability, within America.

Depending on the individual, agency, or group counting, the Great Recession began somewhere around two years ago, and, until recently, regulation to address the very problems that caused the financial and economic crash has been sorely lacking. Senator Dodd had expressed interest in passing legislation through the Senate Banking Committee, but his dedication came into question when he announced not running for reelection – it is, therefore, surprising that Dodd announced an upcoming regulatory bill. Some of the details are still murky, but it has intentions to revitalize banking regulation, provide greater watchdog capabilities to both bank shareholders and government, create a “Consumer Financial Protection Agency”, and more. This bill has not yet been introduced, much less voted on, but if even half of it is passed into law, the battle will be well fought.

In addition to the political surprise by Senator Dodd, the FCC has revealed that they are highly interested in regulating the telecommunication industry, with a great focus on the Internet, as well as opening it up to true competition – Net Neutrality would inevitably be a part of such regulation. This action isn’t a surprise to those that have been paying attention to the political climate surrounding ISPs since President Obama entered Office, but it will no doubt surprise, frustrate, and anger Republicans that devoutly oppose what they perceive as unnecessary intervention in the private sector, such as John McCain, despite the multitude of failures by the market to regulate itself.

From Congress itself comes an interest in reforming tax regulation to simplify the tax code to close loopholes, remove deductions, and make understanding it easier – potentially reducing taxes for certain income brackets while increasing tax income from those that weasel out of paying what is simply due to the Federal Government. This move, while potentially politically painful, would satisfy both Republican interests in cutting taxes and the Democratic wish to have corporations play fairly with others, bringing about a rare moment for bipartisan legislation in an era of extreme partisanship. Ironically, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has just produced stern words for the selfsame Republicans that have been stalling any and all attempts at forward progress, a well-timed jab likely intended to scare up legislative support.

What does this signify as a whole? The underlying message of this may be that the Democratic majority have grown tired of the obstructionist tactics of the minority party full of bravado, not brains, and is preparing to move forward with or without them. An important part of this decision may include not only the abject legislative failure of 2009, but also the upcoming midterm elections in November: if Democrats can show that they passed significant and meaningful legislation almost entirely on their own, they have a greater political advantage than if they were to lay claim to thin bipartisanship. The central strategy of Republicans has been to “break” both President Obama and his Congress by preventing progress, in order to retake the majority come election time – a prospect that seems bleaker for them by the day.

Whether or not these specific instances of Democratic showmanship turn into actual legislation is an entirely different matter, but the words themselves have signified a change from even just a few weeks ago – a change that is more than welcome.

The Lie of Bipartisan Politics [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:05:07 +0000

Bipartisanship, in modern politics, is a lie - a falsehood, a hopeless dream, a fantasy based on nothing. And yet this doesn’t prevent either side of the political divide from using the idea of it as a tool for derision, division, and justification, even when those employing it know it to be nothing but empty words.

In the purest sense of the word, bipartisanship is a meeting of groups or individuals with opposing views, while sharing some common points of interest, that results in a healthy compromise between the disparate positions for the overall better. American politics has not seen this kind of bipartisanship in the last few decades, if not longer, and the roots of partisan voting, including its vitriol, can be traced all the way back to the Declaration of Independence, with 2010 Washington doing their very best to continue this unhealthy state ad infinitem.

Recently, bipartisanship, or a lack thereof, has been used by Republicans in attempts to kill legislation of any kind, but their cries of partisanship avoid a certain fundamental truth: President Obama’s Administration, and its Congress, have not been bipartisan for the simple fact that the Republicans have refused to participate. The lack of a desire to govern is not at all comparable to a lack of bipartisan efforts, the latter of which has not been in short supply over the last fourteen months. This is not so much a battle of diametrically opposing ideologies as it is a distinct dislike for President Obama and his efforts and goals, not to mention the striking characteristics of the GOP’s childlike political tantrum.

It’s time to give up, at least for the remainder of the Obama Administration, the idea of bipartisanship – on everything. If the opposing party, in this case the Republicans, wish to participate with the President and his Congressional majority in the process of running the nation, they may do so, but concessions should not be made to a group of corrupt individuals that have absolutely no intention of being part of the legislative process except for their own personal gain. While this applies to Washington at present, the same criticisms can be made for Administrations past, on both sides of the party line, and will no doubt continue into the future.

Until politics reaches a state of enlightenment that includes the ability to have reasoned, unemotional debates, bipartisanship is a lie. Once the American people realize that the idea of bipartisanship is merely a tool used to garner votes for the party out of favor at election time, the country will have a chance at finally moving forward, as those within Congress will recognize the farce as being over. Applied immediately, great benefits could be had within a very short period of time.

Real Healthcare Reform Now – Not Later [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:05:50 +0000

It’s been over a year since the start of the healthcare debate, and for all the progress made there is little to yet show for it; however, President Obama released an outline for what he expects from a healthcare overhaul bill and while his direct intervention, however late, is welcome, it is not without problems. The two glaring omissions of this entire process, President Obama’s efforts included, are that this reform process is not healthcare reform, but rather insurance reform, and that there is sill no public option or extension of Medicare.

President Obama’s outlines for a bill include a requirement for all citizens to purchase insurance plans, or receive a penalty – this is, to bastardize a phrase, feeding the hand that bites you. One of the very reasons that the United States is in its current position of poor healthcare is the insurance companies that are more interested in profit than they are fulfilling the sole reason for their existence. Besides argument of reactive vs. preventative care, insurance companies have continued to raise the financial bar for individuals to simply be able to see a doctor, have a broken bone addressed, or even visit a hospital in an emergency. More importantly, in the event that an individual or family can afford to pay the absurd amounts demanded of them, their coverage is denied for a variety of obscure and self-serving reasons.

The entire process has focused almost solely on insurance, but from the substantially wrong perspective: to provide insurance for the whole country, not to remove or, at minimum, fix the insurance system itself. Rather than provide a Medicare-for-all package, public option, or the easy answer that would be socialized medicine, it has been deemed better to force some small, token amount of regulation on the insurance companies and require that their services be purchased. Quite honestly, rewarding such abhorrent behavior with millions of new, coerced customers is not the rebuke of business and ethics practices that the insurance industry deserves, but is instead a twisted validation.

There is surprising growth of Congressional support for the public option, when it has been thought dead for months, that could be accomplished during the process of reconciliation between the House and Senate bills. No matter that a public option, defined as the ability to purchase into a government-run healthcare plan, is not even close to socialized medicine does not seem to phase the screaming masses that can be found both inside and outside of the halls of Congress. One of the typical arguments is that while Americans may go to Canada or Mexico for medicine, the citizens of those countries come to America for surgical procedures, but, like most of these talking points, it is a false and invalid comparison: America has the best doctors not because of a better healthcare system or medical law, neither of which are true, but rather the simple truth that American doctors have substantially higher incomes and public visibility than any other nation in the world.

While a public option would not solve all the needs of true healthcare reform, where the system would be tightly regulated and converted into that of preventative medicine, it would be a substantial start. A public option, essentially no different than paid-for Medicare, would provide the competition to the insurance industry that is sorely needed in order to stop their disturbing behaviors and insane price hikes. Furthermore, the public option, if proven successful, could eventually be a gateway to a true nationalized healthcare system – one of the few talking points that the reform bill’s detractors have gotten correct.

If healthcare reform is to happen, it must happen now, in the immediate present – but healthcare reform without a public option, tighter industry regulation, or any substantial action against the predatory practices of those who latch on to the pockets of all Americans is not reform and should not, in any fashion, be passed into law. For Congress, and ultimately President Obama, to approve such toothless and ineffective legislation is nothing less than political theater that will inevitably produce results only worse than those that currently exist – especially if the process takes another six months under the guise of false bipartisanship, consideration of a public option, or various other carrots to the American people that are truly just billyclubs.

Real healthcare reform must be passed now, not later, in order for both the American people’s faith to be restored in the political process and their health retained before another medicine, procedure, or facet of care is denied to them under false pretenses.

Guest: A Response to “Big Government Is Absolutely Necessary” [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:46:38 +0000

The following comes from Gibbs Burke, a friend and former coworker, who lives in Maryland and is an Engineer. He took the time to email me a well thought-out response to "Big Government Is Absolutely Necessary" (2/8/2010), and while I don't agree completely with his points, I consider them all to be valid and thought it only appropriate to give it some public attention.

--- --- ---

Kyle,

In knowing you for many years, I am glad to see that you have matured into a well rounded intellectual young man, and although I do not agree completely with you in regards to your political points I find them well researched and educated. I greatly enjoy reading your insights.

I am responding to your piece, Big Government is Absolutely Necessary. I believe that government should play a key role in providing for its citizens the requirements that are needed to carry on basic functions of living. We take for granted the infrastructure that any form of government has provided for us within our daily lives. The roads that we drive on to go to work, the water we drink from our faucet, or management of our waste, are perfect examples of what government should be burdened with doing. However, it continues to be more and more apparent that government itself is not responsible for such things, but rather just provides the funding for such operations and contracts said jobs out to sub-entities. Instead of my property taxes going to pay for the cost of providing me water or disposing of my waste, or even providing me electricity, it in turns goes to pay some cheating politicians pension fund, or paying their 2.5% increase in salary that they themselves vote on.

I am on your side when it comes to smart spending I think that is the key to the turn around. Obama talks about giving students rebates for student loans, or possibly lowering interest rates. But yet there is no evidence of factoring this in with the recent Health Care Reform. People believe that doctors get paid too much, but with the average doctor coming out of medical school with over 500,000 dollars in debt, and over millions of dollars in malpractice cost it becomes more apparent that to reform the healthcare system you need to start from the bottom up. You need to provide reimbursement for individuals who provide medical care to people, and you need to make it harder for individuals to sue doctors over minor implications. I am always boggled to find out that an 80 year old man is suing a doctor over such minor things, and asking for exuberate amounts of money. Its funny you don’t sue your mechanic when he fixes something in your car and then 1000 miles later something breaks down again. Above all we need the tough American attitude that was present in our past. We need the die hard live to be free, and not expect everything to be given to us attitude. We need to understand that life is a gift not a right. If a doctor messed up, one must understand that he is human too. I myself am all too familiar with this, being run over by a lawn mower when I was 5 and having multiple surgeries throughout my life to fix such complications. Do you think I sued the doctors when I didn’t get full feeling back in my right foot? No I took in the satisfaction that I was alive and kicking as the only reassuring factor that they had done their job.

We don’t need more government spending we have enough money to spend we just need to do it smartly. We need smart people in key positions to make the bull-headed decision, and say, “That’s stupid were not spending money on that, now sit down and STFU.” If you want perfect examples just look at projects that are funded by the Federal Government to the States, under the Obama relief at home efforts. Such states as Illinois, putting a bypass in a local town for the train crossing, 1.5 million in spending to do jack crap, or Milwaukee were they repaved tennis courts that get iced over for 9 months out of the year. There are no gray areas for such matters. If they can spend, they will, and they will do it without provocation. So the simple answer is to not allow them to spend. Cut all ability for the government to allocate money.

You in no way can compare the government spending process of today and relate it to World War I and World War II. The government spending during these times was to create new industries and job opportunities that developed into long-term positions. Were as in today’s government spending is in place to save dying industries or provide simple economic blips to give the illusion of growth. The famous Cash for Clunkers for which spent how many millions or billions of dollars to help individuals buy cars to save gasoline, while in doing so saved someone where near a mere 500,000 dollars in gasoline over the next 5 years. This program nether provided no jobs, nor opened any new industry, but rather allowed the American car companies to gather a little more cash to pay off creditors before declaring bankruptcy.

If we must spend we must spend on things that benefit the greatest number of people. I hope to see healthcare reform, because I believe that it is a moral issue not an economic one. I hope to see gay unions be given the same tax rights and legal laws as married couples (just don’t call it marriage). And I hate to see the same people who protested for the freedoms, protest against other people hindering their freedoms.

I vote republican, but as I have communicated with you before it is becoming more and more apparent that the republican point of view is growing tiresomely old along with its main members. I don’t want to have a retired person speaking on behave of my political views. I hope that there is a turnover into a new wave of leadership that sees bipartisanship as the best way to do legislature, instead of this bull-headed “cock block.”

For New Republicans,

Gibbs Burke

Big Government Is Absolutely Necessary [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:05:36 +0000

It’s become fashionable over the last few decades for Republicans, and otherwise conservatives, to proclaim that Big Government is unnecessary, a waste of taxpayers’ money, and generally bad – President Obama’s release of the FY2011 Budget was no exception to such cries of foul against the spending of money by the federal government; however, those who proclaim government spending to have such attributes have missed the central point that such spending is not only not evil, but necessary.

While it may be understandable that significant protests will rise out of announcing a federal budget for a year that numbers in the trillions of dollars in the midst of the Great Recession and record deficit spending, those with complaints should not only remember that President Obama inherited many of the reasons to spend such exorbitant amounts, but that federal spending is the tool that has kept America moving forward. More importantly, federal financial support is the sword that many Republicans/conservatives have fallen upon by proclaiming its evil and then accepting, or even demanding, kickbacks as motivation to pass legislation – Senator Ben Nelson’s recent healthcare reform behavior is a prime example.

Federal spending is what launched American astronauts to the Moon, saw the success of World Wars I and II, built the national highway/interstate system, partially funds the ever-popular Medicare and Social Security programs, subsidizes public education, defends the nation, finances longterm scientific research programs, and considerably more – the federal government is arguably responsible for America being one of the leaders of the world in technology and innovation, as well as allowing the nation to remain a singular entity. For those that believe the intervention, or simple existence, of the federal government is intrusive and unnecessary, a question looms large: would America still be an independent entity encompassing the majority of a continent as a federation of states into a large nation? Or would states have long ago imposed their own border restrictions, broken from the union, or been conquered by other nations? The latter is the likely answer, especially during the earlier years of republic.

NASA has received a budget expansion, so long as the Constellation and its associated endeavors program is terminated, and this has caused an outcry from Congress on both sides of the ideological dividing line – especially from those representing states with substantial interest in the funding of space, irrespective of the definition of “expansion”. Many of these selfsame Congressmen are those that eschew government spending and federal involvement in a state’s business, in which there is substantial irony, or, perhaps, a revelation of corruption and two-faced behavior.

It is absolutely necessary for the federal government to spend money on a large scale, lest they lose control and let the United States degenerate into a chaotic mishmash of nation-states that have no interest in each other. In an era where states are essentially broke and choose to cut funding to education and other important programs, rather than pet projects or their own salaries, federal intervention is more important than ever, and the Obama Administration realizes this.

The most important point, however, is that federal spending is managed intelligently and delivered on an as-needed basis – there is no room, both now or in the future, for wasteful spending and pet projects that should be funded by other means, including the military industrial complex. For the nation to climb out of the massive hole of debt, taxes must be raised on those that can afford it, such as investment bankers, and spending must be trimmed to the minimum amount necessary to continue to exist as a nation and advance its interests. The cycle of tax cuts, corporate loopholes, and increasing debt must be stopped before it’s too late, but not at the expense of the people, their health, their livelihood, or their safety – Big Government is absolutely necessary, but it must be guided by individuals with the requisite knowledge to steer it in the proper direction.

Wishes For 2010 American Politics [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 08:05:16 +0000

The following is a list of ten wishes for American politics in the coming year (2010), in no particular sorting order.

1. Real Healthcare Reform w/ Public Option

The process of attempting to pass healthcare reform in America has taken a full year, and isn’t even complete yet – this needs to be completed in the early weeks of the new year, with a public option included. Since this isn’t healthcare reform, but instead health insurance reform, any measures that do less than fully regulate the industry, provide cost containment, and include a government-sponsored alternative is unacceptably weak.

2. Reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act

The Glass-Steagall Act separated investment institutions from savings banks in 1933 in order to better control the financial industry, and was repealed in 1999. This deregulation of financial institutions paved the way for the Great Recession of late – the only way to curb the behaviors of highly corrupt and self-interested “fatcats” is through regulation, and a reinstatement of this wonderfully foresighted piece of legislation would be a suitable start.

3. Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine

In 1949, the FCC instituted a policy that governed media’s balance between opinion and facts, as well as biases; however, in 1987 it was repealed. Since its demise, FOX “News” and Rush Limbaugh have taken advantage of their ability to present opinions and/or lies as fact to the general public, much to the detriment of the nation. This degradation continues steadily with News Corp. exerting influence on their publications to present information only in certain lights, usually with a highly pro-business, anti-Obama, anti-people slant. With a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, the behaviors of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and their ilk would not only be illegal but land them in a world of trouble with consequences for their abhorrent behavior.

4. Less Partisanship, Grandstanding, and Generic Opposition

2009 was “The Year of ‘No’”, thanks to Congressional Republicans and the sheep-in-wolf’s-clothing known as Blue Dog Democrats – this default opposition to any progressive, liberal, or intelligent ideas resulted in gridlock and extreme partisanship where the two sides were so divided that compromise, at any level, was all but impossible. Shouting during a President’s speech, vitriolic name-calling, and grandstanding for self-interested purposes were all seen throughout the year and must not continue in 2010. It’s highly unlikely that such a corrupt and two-faced group of people, known as Congressional Republicans, can make such a turn around so quickly, but it would be welcomed with open arms.

5. A Return to Intelligence

The election of President Obama was meant to return intelligence to its rightful place within politics and government, but it’s taken the better part of a year to achieve this goal. Within the last few months of the year, the EPA has taken a stance, for the better, on climate change policy, the FCC is investigating the regulation of ISP’s, science is once again valued over generic halftruths – all wonderful in and of themselves. But the larger picture of intelligence within government is taking significantly longer to reappear, and it’s hard to believe change is happening behind the scenes when Congressmen are shouting at each other on national television over minute points – this trickles down to the people, resulting in teabaggers, Sarah Palin, climate change deniers, and Creationists.

6. Anti-Trust Prosecution

Promises have been made by the Obama Administration that Anti-Trust Law will be treated more respectfully than the previous Administration chose to, but the only results thus far have been initial investigations into Intel. If anti-trust immunity for insurance providers were removed, they would be ripe for prosecution, but until that happens there are far more candidates than could be addressed before the end of President Obama’s first Term of Office. Comcast, AT&T, and oil companies could be the start of a long list of companies and industries that come under fire for illegal actions in the realms of competition and collusion.

7. Legitimate News Coverage

American news media has been in a slow decline for at least a decade, and the Great Recession has only hastened the process – more entertainment topics, irrelevant issues, and pseudo-politicians are now covered than actual news, let alone politics. CNN, FOX “News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, and the rest of the networks, not to mention print publications, choose to exchange discussing real issues and their details for the latest celebrity gossip, 20-minute arguments over some embarrassing topic, and the highly questionable opinions of people formerly in the political arena. This lack of news and political coverage has lead to a decline in American understanding of the nation’s issues, as well as the world at large, and contributed to the rise of partisanship and irrational screaming. If some of the news outlets return, once again, to doing their jobs rather than seeking advertising money, the nation will be better off for it.

8. Climate Change Legislation

Since the recent climate change conference in Copenhagen was such an unmitigated disaster, thanks in large part to both America’s inaction and China’s grandstanding, the United States needs to do its part before the world decides the greatest nation in the world is now irrelevant. Rather than arguing over what has long been scientific fact, Congress must pass nationwide restrictions on emissions levels for all relevant gases, without loopholes, and forcefully emphasize the use of green, or at least partially green, energy over current favorites such as coal. Nuclear power is not the perfect long-term solution, but if the federal government chooses to immediately reinvigorate the near-dead industry, it will serve as an effective and efficient intermediary until the nation can become a fully environmentally friendly energy economy.

9. Collapse of the GOP By Their Own Hands

There are many in America that believe the GOP has been committing ritualistic suicide over the last year and a half, due to their abhorrent behavior, and the off-year election in a small, highly conservative, New York District proved exactly what many had predicted: the teabagger sect of the Republican Party passes arbitrary judgment on those within the party, and often finds individuals to be “not conservative enough”. The result in NY was that the conservative vote was split between a Republican candidate and a Conservative candidate, with the Democrat winning – this same behavior is likely to be seen in the midterm elections, essentially removing the GOP from power and allowing a more rational and viable conservative party to rise from the ashes.

10. Handling Rogue Countries

North Korea and Iran have been problematic for years, but 2009 was one of the most politically challenging with these two rogue countries, as Iran had fake Presidential elections that resulted in government assassinations of protestors (among other provocative behaviors and incidents), and North Korea inched ever-closer to actually launching an attack on a nearby Asian nation. Sanctions by both the UN and the United States for these two countries have failed, and a more drastic approach needs to be taken that does not involve American soldiers “on the ground”. Whether this action is in the form of strategic drone strikes within these countries, a corralling of their neighbors into an anti-state coalition, or some other method, Iran and North Korea must be dealt with, effectively, before the end of 2010, lest the problems continue and become something entirely more dramatic and deadly than the last decade has seen.

There Is No Debate On Climate Change [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:05:02 +0000

The climate change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark has been the talk of the last two weeks, where countries argue over what limited emissions targets will be agreed to and how it will be financed, not to mention on what baseline the changes are calculated. But this entire argument between nations has underlined a point that needs to be made, and has been largely ignored by most parties worldwide: while the world’s leaders and their representatives decide how to respond to the growing problem of climate change, the United State is still arguing amongst itself about whether it’s real or fabricated.

To say that there are skeptics in terms of climate change would be a severe understatement, since those that find the evolving, global ecological problem to be questionable do not so much as question its premises as deny its very existence – this is why the label “climate change deniers” has developed. These arguments range from the facts being falsified or manipulated as part of a mass global conspiracy run by scientists (seen in the recent dustup) to the variations in climate being part of normal earthly cycles, with deities occasionally used in the defense of hazardous activities such as burning coal.

Much like the current struggle to wrangle any sort of reform or progress for healthcare in the United States, climate change has become a highly politicized issue that Congressmen are using to grandstanding and appeal to constituents, rather than doing what is so obviously necessary for the betterment of not only the nation, but the world. A majority of the media, however, is not making the situation any more amicable, as they give equal attention to legitimate scientists and bought-and-paid-for individuals that practice pseudo-science at best. Even worse are headlines like “Snow? What about global warming?”.

The point, it appears, has been lost on Congress and a worrisome number of American citizens: climate change is not about temperatures rising across the board for all time, but rather a disruption of normal weather patterns that results in swings to extremes at both ends of the spectrum. Snow, cold temperatures, and other events that are not considered “warm” do not invalidate the existence of climate change as an issue, and yet they are championed as evidence for venerable scientists worldwide to be the ultimate of liars.

It is embarrassing, to say the least, that the United States government, at least on a federal level, has not only been ignoring the pressing issues of climate change and its effects for the last eight years, but have also participated in denying its existence. This behavior has led to the present situation: America is in talks with the world’s nations about a topic that a significant portion of its legislators do not believe is important or relevant and, as a consequence, cannot sign any binding treaties. The rest of the planet has recognized the threat for what it is, and seems to be interested in taking initial measures as soon as possible, and the leader that they expected to set the tone for the negotiations is the very country that cannot participate heavily or credibly.

The time is nigh for politicians to leave science, along with scientific reasoning and judgment, to actual scientists and stick to acting on the credible interpretations of data given to them – this is, ironically, what lobbyists claim as the purpose for their existence. The scientific data behind climate change is real and legitimate, no matter how much those without the education or disposition to say otherwise claim that it is not, and the media would do well to realize this. If the media and politicians do their job correctly, defined as reporting and acting on facts rather than attempting to fabricate them, America can regain its lost credibility within the realm of climate change, and the same principles of rationality apply to what some see as a debate over evolution as well.

There is no debate on climate change, and the arguments need to stop. The only valid debate is on what actions need to be taken, how quickly, and at what cost - all in terms of the continued, hopefully healthy, existence of humanity.

The Disappointing Behavior of Congress [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:23:16 +0000

Congress, it would seem, is hell bent on upsetting and ignoring the American people on a consistent basis, as evidenced by their recent actions within the realm of what is supposed to be healthcare reform.

Even with staunch Republican opposition to any legislation not borne as their own, the House of Representatives passed their version of a healthcare reform bill that stood as a decent start for the legislative process, public option included. While the bill had its flaws, such as a lack of support for abortions within the public option, victory appeared within grasp for the majority of Americans that have been clamoring for such legislation since President Obama proposed this action during his campaign. However promising the bill may have been, the Senatorial half of Congress has proven this so-called reform to be an exercise in futility.

The status of true healthcare reform, the public option, and regulation of insurance companies is quite simple: dead. For all intents and purposes, Democrats, Harry Reid especially, have shown a surprising lack of tactical brilliance by negotiating away any legitimate benefits to the American people almost before it started, all while insisting on a 60-vote passage of the bill, rather than the 51 votes needed for a reconciliation between the House and Senate versions. To many following the issue, the process of reconciliation seemed what the majority party was aiming for after the passage of the House bill, where the bills in each half of Congress could have flaws that would be fixed at a later date with a higher chance of success.

But recent behavior has shown otherwise, as the insistence on 60 votes continues: numerous Democrats have refused to vote for the bill for various reasons that range from the petty to the easily disproved, which has weakened the majority. Furthermore, those in power within the Democratic party have attempted to include Republicans on the making of the bill, despite the last eleven months proving they have no interest in cooperation, only obstruction – this has resulted in the stagnation of the bill and whittling away of any value it once had.

The public option is now considered to be dead, but insurance mandates still exist that would require the purchasing of private insurance by all citizens. There are little to no regulations left to place on the insurance companies. Medicare may be extended to those starting at the age of 55. Insurance companies will still have antitrust protection. How does any of this solve the problem that the legislation was created to address? As it stands, the only real outcome of the Senate’s version of what is decidedly not healthcare reform is a requirement to purchase insurance, and severe penalties for those that do not.

This is as much the Republicans’ fault as it is the Democrats’ – Republican obstructionism forced concessions almost immediately, and the Democrats have shown a considerable lack of spine. It is entirely unacceptable that passing legislation would take an entire year and yet have no tangible, let alone beneficial, results once passed, but this appears to be what Congress prefers. Special interest groups, lobbyists, and corporate pockets have all but prevented progress within the borders of America, and it didn't even require outside influence by nefarious forces.

When Congress’ finances are at stake, they seem to be willing to take quick and decisive action, no matter how much populist anger it may raise: TARP, the auto-industry, and various other situations have proven this since President Obama’s Inauguration. But when those financial interests do not wish to be disturbed, most Congressional politicians take it upon themselves to make sure nothing gets done within their supposedly venerable halls – Joe Lieberman is a prime example of such shamefully unabashed sellout behavior.

The House moved considerably quicker than the Senate, to much greater success, and for this they should be applauded, but one of the key reasons for this was that the methods by which the House operates allow certain voices to be ignored or limited if necessary. The Senate does not have these restrictions, and therefore the debate drags on endlessly to the great frustration of the American people, all while Senators pretend to be making great progress, participate in showboating, and taking extraordinarily necessary means to make a point that has been made many times over.

Unless there is a grand scheme, such as Senate Democrats secretly organizing a 51-vote reconciliation process that President Obama would be clandestinely involved with, true healthcare reform appears dead in the water and will exist as a shameful black mark on the American record for years to come. If there is no public option, no extension of Medicare to all citizens who wish it, and no regulation of insurance companies, then it is not healthcare reform – it's corporate expansion masquerading as social progress.

This is not the time to give up, however. The need is now greater than ever for Americans to attempt to make their voices heard by Congress, the Senate especially – the vocal and irrational minority that has hijacked such an important issue must be drowned out with the proclamation that citizens of the United States of America will not suffer being lied to, manipulated, and deceived. If healthcare reform cannot pass because of sabotage from within the Democratic Party by those that masquerade as liberals, progressives, or even moderates, for them there must be a reckoning.

Congress should be aware, Democrats and Republicans both, that many political careers currently hang in the balance due to their disappointing behavior surrounding the healthcare reform process, and that their party affiliation will not save them from being voted out of office in the next election – from this, President Obama is not excluded. In what was to be one of the defining moments of his Presidency, President Obama appears to be willing to accept any sort of legislation so it can be labeled as groundbreaking progress, and this is unacceptable to many of his greatest supporters that range from young to old, progressive to moderate.

Both 2010 and 2012 may end up being more of a race than incumbent Democrats had imagined.

Afghanistan Should Be An Apolitical Issue [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 08:05:58 +0000

On Tuesday night, President Obama made a speech that outlined his intentions and commitments regarding the American presence in Afghanistan, and the reactions, which began before the speech was even given, have been rather predictable. The decision to add 30,000 American troops to the region, with a subsequent entire withdrawal before January 2012, has redrawn party lines in a noticeable fashion, even though a new-found and unprecedented level of war-time transparency, at least in recent history, has been introduced.

Republicans have been, in general, accepting of the proposal, but are attempting to use it as a tool to predictably block out all other important issues, such as healthcare reform, the re-regulation of financial industry, and Net Neutrality. Democrats, however, are an entirely different issue: opinions on President Obama’s announcement speech run the gamut from those frustrated but in agreement out of realistic necessity to angry pacifists. For once, it seems that the Republicans are the party that seems to be closest to sanity, and this is extremely troubling.

Afghanistan is a tricky issue: the nation is not in any way similar to those found in the Western World – their borders exist only in the loosest sense of the word, the government is a shaky organization that has moderate control of the country at best, its people are divided into different cultural and tribal sects that don’t often cooperate or coordinate with each other, and their enforcement abilities are virtually nonexistent. This set of circumstances existed prior to the arrival of the United States and its Allies into the region eight years ago, but the last near-decade has only exacerbated the situation, as troops press against the declared stateless enemies throughout the region.

Unlike Iraq, the reasoning for having forces inside Afghanistan is clear: Afghanistan exists as a training ground for those who have declared an undying hatred, and holy war, against the Western World, and its issues bleed over into Pakistan, who are themselves part of an unstable relationship with India that is in the world’s best interest to closely monitor. The last eight years, however, have been a half-hearted attempt by the coalition forces in the region to deal with these issues, as attention was quickly refocused on an entirely unrelated Iraqi situation that had questionable intent at best. President Obama inherited this situation, and must now deal with the aftermath appropriately rather than making gut decisions or, even worse, letting the situation continue as-is.

For President Obama, there are essentially five options in Afghanistan: withdraw immediately, continue as-is, continue as-is with an end date, press harder without an end date, or press harder with an end date. Withdrawing immediately would start a catastrophic chain reaction that would invalidate the efforts of recent years, and is therefore not a legitimate option – just as continuing half-heartedly as-is is not. Similarly, continuing as-is with an end date is unacceptable, since it would essentially be admitting defeat, but with an expiration date. This then leaves two options: press harder without an end date, or press harder with an end date.

President Obama obviously chose the latter option, which is the intelligent choice since the military industrial complex would prefer to go on fighting forever rather than give up what they love, and profit from, doing. Contrary to some popular belief, this new policy is not against Obama’s campaign promises – he campaigned on neither a “no war” platform nor a “leave both wars immediately and forever” platform. He had indicated that he believed, as most did, that the situation in Iraq needed to be ended, and focus should be returned to Afghanistan, as that is where American foreign policy concerns directly intersect with domestic security.

This, however, is not understood by those who are typically supporters of the current President – a large number of Democrats, especially within Congress, are essentially pacifists by declaration or behavior, and cannot comprehend this complex issue. Keith Olbermann, while ultimately in disagreement with the President, perfectly encapsulated the problem as "lose to win, sink to swim, escalate to disengage", and several Congressional Democrats have stated they will not vote for the approval of these military expenditures since they don’t see the logic behind increasing troops to leave earlier.

Understandably, this is a complex issue, but politics and ideology should be kept well outside the boundaries of this discussion – the security of America, her borders and people should not be subject to a bickering about beliefs. Progressives and pacifist Democrats need to understand the very clear logic behind committing the appropriate resources to a task in order to accomplish it in a timely fashion, and Republicans must comprehend as well that the military’s endeavors do not eclipse all other issues within the nation. President Obama inherited an unenviable military situation and must now handle it in a fashion appropriate to his intentions, which he has communicated very clearly during the last ten months as reestablishing the power and nobility of America throughout the world.

In order to do this, President Obama must demonstrate to both the American people and the world at large that this country is once again in a position to fully commit resources to its goals. Furthermore, he has merely outlined his policy goals in a brief speech and has not written a dissertation, or even released a full policy description to the public. The longview of America's presence in Afghanistan has been established in the speech, but the minute details are not available, and likely won’t be, for the public to analyze and criticize, invalidating punditry on the viability of granular policy detail.

Presidents do not deserve a dedicated, unthinking following, despite what the previous administration may have believed; however, it is important to leave issues such as the security of the nation and the viability of another, which was severely damaged by the military’s very hands, outside the realms of partisanship, ideology, and high-minded ideals - instead exchanging wishes for reality in a factual, analytical assessment of the situation and its needs.

Barack Obama is the President that was elected for his intellectual abilities – it’s time, once again, to let him exercise them outside the realm of petty party politics.

Politics Is Not A Celebrity Contest [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:05:33 +0000

One of the principle ideas of American politics was that the country should be run by intelligent, capable people who, at least collectively, can make informed decisions on the nation’s most pressing issues, without worrying about personal popularity beyond the general happiness of their constituents.

Sadly, this seems to be a quickly fading idea. As the election cycles press continually on, each election requires ever greater funding to have even a chance at success, banking more on populist gut feelings than policy, reputation, or even ability, and this trend seems to be reaching a breaking point that will soon decide whether or not the country will soon resemble the vane inanity that is American Idol.

The election of President Obama was, for some, worrisome because of his relative inexperience in governance and young age - he has long since proven to be adept at not only governing, but also at managing public perception by winning the hearts and minds of citizens nationwide, leading to criticisms by the opposition-by-choice party that he is more a celebrity than he is President. While President Obama does have the ability to charm millions, possibly eclipsing the known talents of former President Bill Clinton, he sits very solidly within the borders of intelligence, deep thought, and, above all, policy. His worldwide status as a celebrity is due more to his predecessor than any actions of his own, and yet such a reputation has opened the door to a worrying trend: deeply unqualified citizens dreaming of political involvement.

Over the last few months of tumultuous political divide, it has become increasingly clear that the Republican answer to President Obama in 2012 will be to position someone with a public and party-favored persona in opposition – assuming the GOP is even a viable party at that point. This began with the troubling empowerment of Sarah Palin by giving her the position of Vice Presidential candidate for John McCain, a choice that, thankfully, was doomed from the start. Following the election loss, and facing an Federal investigation, Palin then resigned as Governor of Alaska, thereby removing her from any political relevance whatsoever – only she hasn’t become as irrelevant as the intelligentsia would hope.

The early days of a Presidential campaign, masqueraded as a book tour for a rambling memoir about nothing, has stated for Alaska blogger Sarah Palin what she will refuse to admit, and it has her supporters cavorting about with glee, ignoring the fact that she has less relevant experience than Barack Obama did before becoming President, likely has a severely low IQ, and, most importantly, quit her only political position to focus on being more rich and popular. Quitting has, in fact, become a theme for the Palin identity that began in her college years and continues on to this very day, seemingly indicating that if she somehow becomes President, she’ll quit if she ever gets questioned or becomes bored.

Sarah Palin is not alone, however, because both Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck, racist television personalities that spew lies, conspiracy, and hatred to the masses, have recently indicated their own political aspirations – Lou Dobbs even shares a trait with Palin, as he quit his longtime position at CNN after turning it into what could potentially be considered a terrible excuse for a comedy hour. These potential GOP competitors have a shockingly identical background for any Presidential, Vice Presidential, or Senatorial campaigns: zero experience and no relevance.

Most political pundits, news anchors, and talk show hosts will readily admit that they have no business in attempting to jumpstart a political career, Keith Olbermann included. And yet this trend of public personae believing they can have a life involving policy decisions, based purely on their audience size or presumed popularity, is growing and troubling: not only can the number of times a celebrity, loosely defined, that has achieved a political office be counted on but a few fingers, the successful careers of those are even fewer. True, Schwarzenegger, JFK, and others have surprised many by their political abilities, but they are outliers, and should not be used as a tool for the estimation of others’ future successes - most especially Carrie Prejean.

If American politics were truly meant to be a popularity contest, the election process would not be so convoluted, and there would be no Electoral College. Since the Electoral College exists as a buffer between populist opinion and political reality, one would hope that the long-shot election of someone such as Sarah Palin would be overriden by the individuals tasked with defending the political integrity of the nation, disregarding the stupidity of millions for the betterment of the country.

All of this, however, may not matter – Palin may not run because she finds greater celebrity potential in a television show, Lou Dobbs may be rejected by the GOP, and Glenn Beck may be arrested for treason, along with friend-in-arms Rush Limbaugh. President Obama has already begun to insulate Washington from the corporate world by removing lobbyists even further from Congress, so perhaps he will influence Beltway politics enough to prevent the further devolution of the election process, removing the ability of those uniquely unqualified to even be considered pundits, let alone candidates for office.