Some more public policy suggestions from Tony Walther’s Weblog:
Expend a lot fewer resources and energy on the subject. Simply expand Medicare by extending it to those who cannot afford or are not eligible for private insurance, regardless of age. There of course would have to be a strict means test for this. And I don’t mean to suggest that it would be inexpensive to do this, but it might be no more or even less expensive and more practical than what we are doing now or what is being proposed (which is not clear at all). And it could be all done so much quicker (how long has congress faced the health care issue? Decades now).
It occurs to me that health care could be seen as a personal right in our modern society, but it might also be seen as a personal responsibility at the same time. I don’t think those two conditions are mutually exclusive. While it is a personal responsibility, if you cannot afford that responsibility, you need help.
And I realize we read that both the Medicare and Social Security trust funds are fast running out. But something will have to be done about that. I doubt that either program will be cancelled, so our elected representatives will have to, dare I say it, make some decisions and the electorate itself has to accept certain priorities. But it would seem that a secure and stable retirement system and some form of universal health care (I refer to a system in which no one is denied health care simply on the basis of cost) would be at least near the top of those priorities.
Give business back to business for the most part. Stop all bailouts. Let failing enterprises, banks included, go bankrupt. But at the same time offer incentives, such as tax breaks, to businesses that create American jobs (and these need to be jobs that don’t require further government subsidy to workers – such as the old Walmart approach of handing out how-to-get-government-assistance flyers to employees). At the same time apply penalties to businesses that ship jobs overseas, such as high tariffs on products being imported back in. And I was going to write simply, enact penalties for outsourcing (maybe a penalty tax on outsourcing). But I don’t know how practical or practicable that would be. But if there is enough incentive for hiring American, then maybe that would not be necessary.
Our government should encourage a return to the production of manufactured goods and consumer products, again through incentives such as tax breaks.
Also, renegotiate our so-called “free trade” agreements with other nations so that we are all playing on a fairly level field. Other nations subsidize industries and/or have labor forces that work at extremely low wages. We need “fair trade”, not so much “free trade”.
Instead of bailing out failing businesses, divert some of that funding to help displaced workers, but do not make this commitment open ended. The ultimate goal for able-bodied people should be new jobs.
Make our policy one of defense rather than offense. While I don’t think the United States, even under George W. Bush, has been an imperialist nation, we have long held the belief that we have to exert our influence all over the world. I think we should promote our form of democratic government by example more than by force. We should be supportive to the extent we can of nations who would model themselves after us, but leave it at that.
I do, though, realize that in some situations we may find that the best defense is a good offense. This would be in cases of true emergency when it comes to our attention that, say, a rogue nation or rogue regime in a nation might come within grasp of having the means along with the aim of destroying us. Strangely, that last sentence sounds like Bush 2’s rationale for going into Iraq. So, if he and Cheney had been honest about such, that is if Iraq would have really been in the position to attack us or supply weapons of mass destruction to our enemies, I might have seen the Iraq invasion as the necessary choice (although a more surgical choice might have been wiser). But the information that has come out points the other way (and some of this info was at least hinted at even before we went into Iraq). I believe Bush and Co. have even admitted they were wrong (if not that they knew they were wrong at the time). They had a predilection, that is they were predisposed to go into Iraq and then they manufactured an excuse.
Iran’s (reported) continued development of nuclear weapons capability might someday require an offensive, pre-emptive reaction, and perhaps more urgenty, the possibility of Islamic militants getting hold of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. But let’s hope none of that becomes necessary. But let’s also hope no potential adversary doubts our resolve to defend ourselves.
I think the all-volunteer professional military has big advantages and that we should maintain a large and highly-trained and motivated professional cadre, or really a permanent professional force that would be larger than the word cadre connotes. But along with that professional force I would be supportive of a mandatory military service of youth, beginning at age 18. Two years of active duty would seem appropriate, if a little bit arbitrary. There of course would probably be provision for conscientious objectors with some type of compulsory public service. I think with a new military draft or compulsory service you would find that we would be a lot more thoughtful and careful about using military force. We might also have more resolve once we did commit force. And why is it not everyone’s duty to defend the nation?
My reading of recent history is that the so-called neo conservative movement was disappointed with the nation’s lack of resolve in Vietnam and thought it endangered us by making us look weak. The liberals who had pushed for ending the draft got caught in their own trap. The neocons decided that the all-volunteer force would leave so many off the hook that it would be easier to commit forces where they desired. And I think it did make it easier.
But it seems to me we are all in this or should be all in this together. Not everyone serves on the local police force and that is understandable. But too many have come to view the military as a police force that they can simply expect to “handle it”. When only a minority is left with the responsibility to protect a nation I think we lose our sense of nation and one day might be in jeopardy of losing the nation itself.
We need strong public investment in science more than anything else. And it is the government’s job to protect the environment and to enact laws that support that. Environmental regulation needs to be based on science and not politics. We cannot afford to cut off our nose to spite our face by enacting unreasonable and over-reactive environmental regulations that stifle commerce, but at the same time we do not want to destroy our planet or our quality of life.
THE MORAL QUESTIONS:
Societies have rules, often called “morals”. The United States has been unique in that we are a blended society whose members may have similar, but not necessarily the same moral code. We are not all of the same religion and we are indeed not all religious, although for the most part our laws regulating social behavior are I suppose based on Judeo-Christian principles.
For the most part there is not a problem. We virtually all agree, for example, that it should be illegal to murder someone. We don’t all agree on the proper punishment, though. There has been a continuing debate over capital punishment. I think I am correct in saying that the anti-capital punishment forces seem to be holding the edge on this one. I have my own opinion, but I think this has to be left to voters and legislatures, and to some extent the courts (who seem to be frequently confronted as to the question of the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment – you can execute someone as long as it is not cruel? Unusual?).
Abortion and gay (or homosexual) marriage seem to be the hot moral topics now.
As to these two subjects, I have to ask whether there is a rightful governmental interest.
Abortion is a far more complicated topic than those on both sides of the argument make it out to be. But under current law, based on the Roe Vs. Wade decision, the Supreme Court has held that the intent of the constitution was to in the name of individual liberty leave such a personal decision up to the individual. The justices at the time had to reach for that decision by finding it based in part on what was not explicit but what they felt nonetheless was implicit in the constitution. But that is really often the case with decisions in courts. If literal meaning was always evident we probably would not need justices to render decisions (think about it).
As to gay marriage, the only government interest is that marriage is a contract and the government has oversight of contract law. As to the religious aspects, the government has no rightful role. It’s all more a problem of terminology and context and tradition. We have simply called these government-sanctioned contracts between, yes, what have been traditionally men and women, “marriage”. We might have been better off to call all of them “civil unions” from the beginning. Some religious people object to gays forming unions with each other and calling them “marriage”. They have been willing to compromise by accepting “civil unions” for gays. But civil unions are not always equal to marriage and not equally recognized within the 50 states. And if you legislate that only heterosexuals can have “marriages” and homosexuals must have “civil unions”, even if those civil unions were supposedly made equal to marriage, I think you would have something equivalent to the “separate, but equal” doctrine that was used to justify Jim Crow laws that forced black people to be discriminated against. Separate but equal was originally recognized by the Supreme Court, but decades later was struck down by the high court.
Those who oppose gay marriage argue that homosexuality is anti-social behavior. Most everyone else has come to realize by simple observation that homosexuality is apparently genetic and has come to accept it even if they are not always comfortable with it.
One solution would be to take the government out of the marriage business and have it issue civil union contracts to all, straight and gay. The churches could handle marriages as a religious and symbolic ceremony. That seems an equitable approach to me, but might be socially confusing (how would we refer to a couple now joined? they’re married, no they’re “civil unioned”, and how would you refer to already married people under the old rule, and it’s a whole can of worms).
As to the implications on our society moving forward if we fully accept the gay lifestyle under the law by granting gay marriage or unions, I actually think there is a question, but I do not think it is one government can resolve.
One of the problems is that government itself may have lost some of its moral authority.
Just some ideas.