What's Wrong With Doing Right? Part 2

Continued From Part 1...


When I look at the country, I see a country that allows for unlimited potential for the individual willing to exert—what has increasingly become necessary for success—a Herculean amount effort in order to overcome social and economic impediments. Granted, many individuals fail because of bad personal decisions, an equal number fail due to the conflicting individual and/or group ideologies of those who legislate on our behalf and their supporters. Needless to say, this creates a paralysis of over-analysis and promotion of individual interests of those whose desires run counter to the greater need. Take for example the need for universal health care.
Whenever someone proposes a solution to the issue of the lack of health care for the 45-50 million Americans without it, I find that ideologically-based hair-splitting tends to come into play to dispute the numbers, or to malign any possible legislation and implementation of any policy addressing that would address this inequality. On the conservative-leaning websites that I frequent, those opposed to redressing this issue often cite “many of those without health insurance are illegal aliens/undocumented residents,” which may be true. But those numbers come directly from the U.S. Census Bureau, and I doubt that there are enough illegal residents to skew those numbers to the point where their validity become questionable. And given my own experiences in working with nonprofit organizations, I personally know far more individuals living without insurance—affordable or otherwise—than those who have any significant level of coverage…and I’ll wager that most of those reading this piece fall into the same dynamic. But many of those of a conservative ideologically are simply not willing to think, look, or even step outside their own personally-held beliefs and experiences to see that there is a completely different reality for a great many Americans, and one not tied to poor personal decision-making (just ask those growing numbers among the Middle Class who are finding it increasingly harder to choose between eating, mortgage, and health care coverage). Such a mindset creates a blind support for any ideology which would challenge such a progressive cause, and invariably leads to demonizing any proposition which would address it. With the issue of health care, one needs only mention tackling this issue with a prescribed solution in order to hear the labels “socialism” or “socialized medicine” in order to maintain a sacred free market status quo that clearly isn’t working for many.
On the other side of the coin, while those coming from a conservative ideological perspective cannot comprehend that the free market cannot solve every socioeconomic issue, those with liberal leanings do not understand that the government cannot either. With respect to this notion, the issue of taxing and spending public money in order to balance social and economic inequities—with the exception of these unprecedented times—is not a policy that can bode well for the country. I’m a firm believer that true change is a matter of unimpaired rational personal decisions. To this effect, funding for programs which assist or supplement those of limited economic means is necessary for some, due to more variables than I can list here. However, I do not condone enabling via social programs. We should assist those of limited means to the point where it is necessary and realistic; just throwing dollars at a problem or disqualifying someone from help just because they make 5 dollars more than the maximum cut-off figure does nothing to address an issue. At the same time, I’m personally more of a proponent of putting curbs and other forms of fiscal restraint on spending rather than putting the brakes on taxing. But these opposing political philosophies of reckless open-spending and the self-serving calls of cutting taxes (i.e., “putting money back in the pockets of the people”) do nothing but add to the lunacy of political inaction. In addition, most of the time, this conflict of ideologies results in half-crafted policies that are borne more out of political compromise rather than pragmatic need.
And because those who hold their political ideologies so dear are unable to think outside the ethos that they create in their minds, their actions become self-serving to the point where they are more a victim of both, their own thinking and circumstances rather than master of either. Perhaps the examples of Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman demonstrate this best. Specter’s affiliation switch Tuesday from the Republican to the Democratic Party, and Lieberman’s decision to run in the general election of 2006 as a third party candidate—the former because of his anticipated inability to win re-election in 2010 as a Republican, and the latter because of his loss in the primaries earlier that election year due to his unpopular support of the war in Iraq—exemplify how holding dear to a set of ideological beliefs can reveal the true colors of political self-interest in the name of (primarily) holding onto one’s public office and (secondarily) promoting blindly these beliefs. This sounds more like self-service than “public service.”
It seems every election cycle throughout America, perennial disenchantment with the way in which our elected legislators act on “our behalf” is revealed in our reverberating chants of “throw the bums out!’ Although a good idea, we must more importantly take the ideological elements out of policymaking. We must learn to out-shout, talk over, and ignore the voices of those who feel that governing based on ideology will bring an end to the problems we face rather than simply attempting to address the problems with competent, pragmatic, and logical legislation and problem-solving. While idealism is fine, a My-Way-Is-Better-Than-His approach does nothing more than divide, and allows problems such as inaction to conquer.

Read More

What's Wrong With Doing Right? Part 1

Earlier last week, the Obama Administration released a Bush Administration-era memo revealing both the techniques and the guidelines for its policy of interrogating terror suspects…what critics to this policy call torture. While I am opposed to the notion of torturing criminal suspects in order to obtain confessions or other information—in principle—I fully endorse it (in a relative sense) in the defense of American citizens and to prevent another 9-11-type attack. What I mean is, as far as I am concerned, questionable techniques for obtaining information for the aforementioned reasons are excusable…insofar as they do not result in physical mutilation/permanent physical damage or death.
Why is this an issue on Beyond The Political Spectrum? In and of itself it is not. However, there is something questionable about the revelation of information to the world at large, and to potential terrorists in particular about the lengths and limits the country will go to in order to defend itself and keep its citizens safe. If a potential terrorist plot is uncovered and suspects are rounded up and interrogated, what good is the need to try to obtain information about co-conspirators or knowledge of similar plots when the suspects know what’s going to happen to them and how far their interrogators are willing to go in order to extract information needed to foil a threat? This action seems geared toward appeasing those on the political left who were not fond of the Bush Administration’s policy on (certain aspects of) the War on Terror. The politics surrounding the release of this memo is an example of why it’s so hard for government to do the right (read: “practical”) thing…namely our ever-present need to put politics, political ideologies, and personal desires ahead of what’s needed.
This is not meant to pick on only liberal Democrats; I find conservative Republicans even more complicit in the ideological and political tit-for-tat which stymies pragmatic policymaking. There is something abhorrent about a group which seeks to govern based on ideological principle rather than reality, and history is replete with examples of why this should be avoided…the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the Apartheid government of South Africa, etc. Granted these are extreme examples, the dynamics are pretty much the same…policy over need. Take for example the touchy subject of gay marriage.
Personally, I think the notion of two men or two women marrying each other is as wrong as two left shoes (I'm not going to pretend that I understand what homosexuality is. I have my own theories, but I will save them for another time and another argument), especially considering that most of us can agree that the Founding Fathers didn’t fathom the notion when they crafted the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, nor was it even contemplated when it came to the 14th Amendment—the equal protection clause. However, its safe to assume that gay people aren’t going anywhere soon, nor is it likely that they will cease their continual attempts to address the “right” to marry someone of the same sex, simply because it offends our religious and/or cultural mores. Yet conservative ideologues continually adhere to their personally-held beliefs that homosexuality is a biblically-proven immoral lifestyle, and therefore continue to ignore the demands of homosexual activists for total social equality. Whatever one’s philosophical beliefs are, the fact is that an ideologically-based party or group, especially one that is in power, cannot be given the green light to ignore an entire segment of a population based solely on personally-held beliefs. If anything, some kind of compromise should be struck to the point where the solution doesn’t violate the traditional sanctity of marriage, but at the same time recognizes some kind of civil union or civil recognition of domestic partnerships that would allow for benefits to be shared between partners (and for their part, gay activists need to concede that their cause and lifestyles are choices which should be protected by law, but not sanctioned by law to such a ridiculous degree. There is something existentially limiting about anyone who's identity is based on their sexuality rather than their humanity).
Part of the problem with political ideology being the root of policy paralysis is plain old political and personal selfishness. This was why both the U.S. and the world stood idly by during the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. While the Clinton Administration split hairs on the distinction between what was actually occurring in the African nation—genocide—and what definition would safely keep it from sending American and other Western troops as per the United Nations charter —“acts of genocide”—some 800,000 ethnic Tutsi (and sympathizers) would be slaughtered while the world did nothing. Granted, America and President Clinton were still smarting from the highly-publicized death of U.S. soldiers during the during the ill-fated U.S.-led peacekeeping mission Somalia from the previous year, what was occurring in the African nation was a humanitarian crisis on a scale that hadn’t been seen since the 2nd World War, and demanded a equally humanitarian response if only for the reason that it was the right thing to do. But as with most thing that involve policy, we allow our ideological and/or personal beliefs to get in the way of doing the right thing. We like to say that we "love America," but how many of us are willing to set aside our desires for political power, to advance our ideological agendas, or our selfish desires to make it a better place?

To Be Concluded

Read More

A Nation of Whiners - Part 3 (Conclusion)

After his 2003 HBO special, Victory Begins at Home, comedian and social commentator Bill Maher caught no small deal of flack for his harsh critique of our morphing social values, which has resulted in—in his words—the “feminization of America.” By this, Maher noted that America as a nation has become a place where sensitivity is more important than truth, and feelings are more important than facts. The more dogmatically adherent or PC-bound among those who hear this would conclude that such words were the rantings of a Neolithic-era misogynist; a more open-minded person would see that there is a great deal of truth behind them.
From job interviews to the Bully Pulpit of politics, we Americans would rather hear what sounds pleasant rather than what has validity…what makes us swoon rather than what makes us suspicious. This mindset has carried over into almost every aspect of our daily life, as evidenced by our daily walk over eggshells in order to avoid saying something which may offend those who elect us to office, those who hire for employment us, or even those who are supposed to teach us. Truth, humor, or—God forbid—the freedom to speak one’s mind no longer seems to matter; all that matters is the single-minded social mandate not to hurt someone’s oh-so-precious feelings. It’s gotten so that anyone can be offended by anything that anybody says at anytime. As a result of this evolving (or devolving) "need" to put our emotions in the driver's seat, so to speak, the need to express opinions or glean facts suffers. The ability to critically analyze and think suffers. The idea of free speech suffers. The need to tolerate what are (questionably) intolerable thoughts and ideas suffer. And in the end, progress suffers…or do I have to mention that at one time, a great many ideas and words that we were, at one time, quick to malign as “offensive” have become a part of mainstream thinking.
There is nothing wrong with having passion for a cause or idea that we hold dear. The problem arises when we make those ideas so sacrosanct that we attack and malign anyone we perceive to assail them (shades of Galileo being threatened with execution by the then-all-powerful Catholic Church for daring to question the "divine" belief that the sun revolved around the Earth). America was founded on the idea of the FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS, which in a less-than-perfect world, should occur without censor or sanction. The bottom line is that just because something offends someone doesn’t mean that it should not be said, nor does it mean that what is said is inherently wrong just because it "offends" us. We're "appalled" when President Obama compares his poor bowling skills to a Special Olympics level of play, but we all but ignore the continuous stream of taped messages from Bin Laden & Co., that warn us infidels of the next wave of impending attacks on American interests...clearly our "sensitivities" are misplaced.
The solutions lay in the fact that we as individuals need to expect the truth at times, as opposed to “correct answers,” understand the context in which something is said, look at the intent of the statement rather than its emotional effect on you, and, for God’s sake, grow up! Not everything someone says is meant to be offensive. Sometimes, we have to take utterances at face value. If we have problems with words, thoughts, and ideas which—without intent—offend us, one has to wonder how in the world we are going to deal with the same uttered by individuals who truly are out to hurt us. Are we to curl up into a fetal position in the nearest dark corner, like frightened little girls, sucking our thumbs whenever someone hurts or offends our “sensitivities,” or do we “cowboy-up” like adults…whom at one time were admired for their physical and emotional toughness?

Read More

A Nation of Whiners - Part 2

So, since it’s now known that Americans have become so overly sensitive when it comes to virtually any public statement made in the course of expressing one’s opinion that we are, in essence, a nation of crybabies and whiners, does that mean that we shouldn’t become offended at something untoward that someone says? Of course not. The problem lies in the fact we fail to recognize the context in which, the intent of, or the merit of what someone says; we reactively go right into a mode of thought and actions which force us to conclude, “That’s offensive.”
Here’s the difference. As an African-American, I was not at all offended when the always controversial animated series South Park aired a true-to-it’s-form ire-raising episode “With Respect to Jesse Jackson” in March of 2007. For those who aren’t familiar with the episode, it was a tongue-in-cheek look at the use of the N-word in response to Seinfeld alumnus Michael Richard’s now infamous N-Word-laden tirade against a heckler at a comedy nightclub, which was caught on camera and subsequently broadcast worldwide. The episode turned the tables on racial bigotry via role reversal; a white man was put in the position of social pariah for his “accidental” use of the N-word on The Wheel of Fortune as he sought to solve a puzzle.
My lack of personal offense to the episode’s generous use of the N-word was due to the way in which I viewed it. I was totally cognizant of the context in which it was used…social commentary by use of parodying one of the more ridiculous aspects of real life.

On the other hand, it was a little harder for me to accept director Quentin Tarantino’s use of the word in the movie classic, Pulp Fiction. In one scene, assassins Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta’s characters inadvertently shoot an unexpected black hostage in the head (while matter-of-factly trying to have a conversation) in the back of their moving getaway car, creating a gruesome mess that’s sure to draw unwanted attention. Jackson’s character seeks the assistance of a fellow acquaintance in the underworld—a man of obvious Italian descent married to a black nurse—to help get rid of any and all incriminating evidence related to the cold-blooded shooting. Angry that the two assassins would dare to show up at his home (and at the risk of his wife finding out), the man openly displays his hostility to the gall of such a move by saying, “…and you bring a dead nigger to my house knowing that my wife is going to be home soon…! Or words to that effect. Call me a little nit-picky, but that exchange seemed to be totally gratuitous. It asked me as a movie-goer to suspend my belief a bit too much; a white man married to a black woman, using the N-word around an angry black assassin? It totally lacked artistic appreciation. As an African-American, I was offended by this gratutious use of the word (in much the same way that I am whenever African-Americans use the word to degrade and call each other).
The latest object of "offense" is the new commercial by the Burger King Corporation, which is marketing its latest themed burger meal for children, the SpongeBob Squarepants meal.
The ad, which I thought to be hilarious, was a parody of the music video to Sir-Mix-Alot's 90's hit, Baby Got Back. But as usual when it comes to notions of "protecting the children," people were offended because it's "adult" content was clearly out of place with its emphasis on "sexuality," which I'm willing to bet any amount of money was not the intent when the marketing barrons who created the funny piece decided to go with it. Again, people fail to take notice of either intent or context when it comes to their sensitivities.

To be Concluded...

Read More

A Nation of Whiners - Part 1

Nearly two Thursdays ago—for better or worse—President Barack Obama made an appearance on NBC’s Tonight Show with host Jay Leno, the first sitting commander-in-chief to make such a late night television appearance. And as with any give-and-take involving a sustained level of tongue-in-cheek conversation, the humor tends to become subjective at times. Such was the case with Obama’s appearance on the late-night talk show.
During one exchange with the reigning king of late-night T.V., Obama joked, comparing his abysmal bowling skills to that of a Special Olympics athlete. And predictably, some complained about the “insensitive” nature of the remark, which was meant to be taken as self-depreciating humor. As a result, the president was forced by a growing chorus of political-correctness-inspired catcalls to issue a personal call to the chairman of the Special Olympics and apologize for the quip.

President Barack Obama & Jay Leno on NBC's Tonight Show (March 2009)

So, at the risk of being similarly labeled “insensitive,” I’m going to speak my mind and say that America has become a nation of whiny, limp-wristed, sissified girly-girls. There. I said it. If you’ve noticed, the sky failed to fall, the space-time continuum didn’t collapse in on itself, and (unless you’re the individual who draws the short straw of fate), the sun will tomorrow. Now check your pulse…heart still beating? No cuts, abrasions or bruises? That’s what I thought.
My point is that those of us who grew up in a certain era remember the old childhood declaration that “Sticks and stone can break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” However, we Americans seemingly take every joke, innocently-meant statement, or off-the-cuff remark as a slight against some group, oppressed minority, or individual—no matter how innocuous it was meant to be. This almost universal level of sensitivity has forced many to engage in a burdensome degree of self- or institutional censorship; many, like myself are forced to speak in measured tones for fear of offending some whiny crybaby who hasn’t gotten over the fact that he or she must now grow out of the “need” to continue suckling from their mother’s tit (yes, I said it and it felt damned good).
As you read this, you may have already have adopted one of two possible positions; you may think that this overall assertion is nothing more than subjective hyperbole on my part, or that I myself am insensitively naïve as to the power of words to hurt. Both conclusions contain a level of validity, depending on your perceptions. However, for every Don Imus-like remark about “Nappy-headed hoes,” there seem to be a dozen or so instances where the social mandate to speak in only politically correct terms reveals that people have simply become too thin-skinned. It seems that many of us have a gripe about some impending “hurtful” statement already cocked and loaded, and we’re ever-ready to pull the trigger of condemnation faster than you can say either “oppressed group” or “insensitive remark.” In short, we have become a country of PC crybabies that even French late-night comedians can now joke about as being as weak and surrender-prone.

To Be Continued...

Read More

Politics & The Art of Bullsh...

As I was watching the various Sunday morning talk shows, I was struck with an unexpected feeling for the appreciation of the humor I often find in politics. Indeed, if not for the way politics impedes the passing of practical legislation based on the needs of the people rather than ideology-peddling and power-politics one-upsmanship, I would find the “process” to be downright hysterical. Take for example the aforementioned Sunday morning talk shows.
As I was watching CBS’ Face The Nation, it was kind of difficult to keep a straight face as the White House’s National Economic Director Lawrence Summers struggled with host Bob Schieffer’s query as to how insurance giant—and the recipient of taxpayer-funded bailout money—American International Group (AIG) could justify its intent to distribute $165 million of the money in bonuses to its employees, both past and present. The individual bonus amounts varied, with payouts ranging from $1,000 to a single $6 million “bonus.” And as if that were not insulting enough to the American taxpayer, 11 of the bonuses recipients are no longer employees of the industry pariah.
The overall bailout of individual financial institutions was part of both former President Bush’s and current President Obama’s plan to deal with the meltdown in the lending and financial industries. But as this latest outrage of financial company excesses came to light, it was obvious that the Obama Administration has been forced to put a spin of justification on AIG’s actions. According to Summers,

"If we simply throw up our hands, refuse to deal with any of this, we'll have the kind of financial catastrophe that we saw after what happened at Lehman Brothers,…[Treasury] Secretary Geithner has negotiated very forcefully with AIG. He has done everything that is legally permissible for the government to do to limit the payment of bonuses. But where there are contracts, binding contracts that were entered into long before the government put any money in to AIG -- we're not a country where contracts just get abrogated willy-nilly."

http://www.joost.com/097top0/t/Face-The-Nation-3-15-09

Predictably, Summers defended the “right” of bailout fund beneficiaries to use the money pay contractual obligations by citing that such a practice was a way for American companies to retain the “best, brightest, and most talented” employees. Yeah…I too thought that was quite the humorous (if not ironic) defense of such an unethical move considering that these “best and brightest” made incompetent decisions which, in addition to driving AIG to near-liquidation, resulted in the company’s recent posting of the largest quarterly loss ever recorded by a company.
What Summers obviously didn’t want to admit is that there were two distinct possibilities underlying the decision were at work here. First, the ball was dropped when it came to crafting regulations regarding the use of the bailout money given to recipients. One has to ask where was the foresight to attach stipulations to the bailout money that would have prohibited any recipient from doing what AIG had decided to do (these bonuses were paid out this past Friday, by the way). Such requirements wouldn’t be all that unusual in the grand scheme; bankruptcy judges modify and even abrogate altogether contracts in the name of repaying creditors. And all of the major automobile makers are currently in negotiations with the United Auto Union, attempting to re-negotiate the terms of their contract in order to save both American jobs and the companies staffed by union members. But in a logical defense—and setting aside the cynical observation that in politics, nothing happens without reason or purpose—it was hard to imagine that any American company would have the brass pair to even considered doing what AIG has done. And this leads to the second possibility that given the signs that AIG and other financial institutions were in trouble due to their greed in trying to capitalize on the open-season atmosphere of the housing bubble, was the possibility that AIG would use taxpayer money to pay out undeserving bonuses known by those who made the decision to prop up the insurance giant? I didn’t envy Summers’ job of administration spin doctor for one second; how could I when I was having so much fun watching him sweat out a defense for the legality of AIG’s actions in front of millions of people?
Going from the ridiculous to the sublime, I decided to flip over to NBC’s Meet The Press, preparing myself this time for some serious political discourse. Imagine my surprise when the theme of trying to make the ridiculous sound sane continued on the network famous for its peacock. In one of those great universal ironies, CBS’ network competitor had a representative of the opposing party on the hot seat. This time, it was Minority Whip and Republican Eric Cantor (R-VA).
Cantor and many Republicans have complained about the cost and the level of spending anticipated by the recently passed and implemented financial stimulus package championed by the Obama Administration. Particularly, they’re concerned with how much such spending will add to the growing federal budget deficit. Many point out the many earmarks stuffed into the stimulus plan inserted by lawmakers from both parties in order to fund pet projects in their local districts as examples of “out of control” deficit spending. Granted that pork spending has always been a concern (and should be outlawed), what I found amusing was the timing of this sudden “concern” about fiscal conservatism.
As host David Gregory rightfully pointed out, Republicans who voted along party lines for former President Bush’s military spending during the early period of the nation’s military action in Afghanistan and later in Iraq had no such qualms about ballooning the deficit then. Consider this exchange between Gregory and Cantor:


MR. GREGORY: Where was all the concern about fiscal conservatism and reining in spending from you and your Republican colleagues during the Bush years?
REP. CANTOR: Well, well, listen, David, if you're asking could we have done better, absolutely. If you're asking us did we blow it in terms of restoring fiscal sanity into this system, absolutely. But that doesn't give now the Democrats in power in this town to go in and repeat the mistakes that perhaps we may have committed in the past. You know, you look at this budget, how can it be that they claim that they're balancing the budget when they are doubling the debt, when they are increasing the deficit to record levels of a trillion, seven hundred billion dollars this year? How is it that, that that is a fiscally sane plan? We've got to remember...
MR. GREGORY: Did you oppose President Bush's budgets that increased the deficit or the debt?
REP. CANTOR: Well, David, we were in a time where I think the priority then was to make sure that we could deliver the money for our troops. And I joined along with Democrats on, on the other side of the aisle as well as my colleagues on mine to say the most important thing we needed to do at the time was to support the efforts of our military to insure our national security.
MR. GREGORY: So it was OK to, to support deficit spending at wartime, but it's not OK now during an economic crisis, when Warren Buffett calls that the equivalent of Pearl Harbor?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Such policy flip-flopping occurs all the time in realm of politics, and such talk shows provide the forums by which astute and politically savvy individuals such as Summers and Cantor attempt to paint themselves and their political persuasion as the guys in the white coats, while maligning their ideological opposites' stances. And sadly, political independents, aligning themselves with neither ideological pole, stand idle and accept such transparent politicking as the way of things. If not for realizing the earnest consequences resulting from this verbal three-card Monte, I would have broken out in full laughter watching.
The problem I have with this weekly airing—nightly if you’re addicted to such shows on CNN or the Fox News Channel—of such ideological smoke and mirrors tends to, without fail, obscure the facts behind the issue(s) at hand. And in a nation of time constraints, where individuals are forced to rely on political bullets and soundbites for their information on important issues, that makes for a dangerous combination. Moreover, the large numbers of politically apathetic and individuals too lazy to research an issue affecting their lives from all angles is what drives these political monsters. Knowing this is how the dynamics of political disinformation works, politicians have a moral responsibility to put aside such politicking and inform the public along the lines of facts, not ideologically-driven rhetoric; if they were true statements rather than opportunistic, power-driven ideologues, they would make the effort.
Citizens too are complicit as cogs in the political bullsh** machine. People must take it upon themselves to both make themselves informed electors, and to insulate themselves from such issue-obfuscation (In fact, a strong argument can be made that part of the reason that so many printed newspapers are folding is because people don't take the time to buy a daily paper and inform themselves of issues which affect their lives).
People love to complain about their government and the officials we elect to represent us. But too often, they wilfully allow the selfish ambitions and ideological agendas of those same representatives to be the sole motivations for the legislation they impliment in our names.
Whether they succeed or not in this endeavor, we cannot continue to complain about self-serving polticians and policies until we start making better choices in who we elect, whether we choose or not to hold these individuals to a standard of accountability, and how much we choose to inform ourselves to the facts of the issues.

Read More

Will Ideology Block Possible Economic Assistance?

Well, it’s the start of a new month, and hopefully, the start of warmer weather and political tidings in Washington…the kind of potential issue that Beyond The Political Spectrum was created to explore. However, my suspicions are that last night’s piece on CBS’ 60 Minutes about Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal—a rising star of the Republican Party—will portent the usual amount of acrimony in national political discourse that we’ve seen over the years.
Why do I say this? Because Jindal, along with the governors of South Carolina, Idaho, Alaska, Mississippi, and Texas all question whether or not the nearly $800 billion earmarked for the economic stimulus plan championed and signed almost 2 weeks ago by President Obama will work to stimulate the country’s ailing economy. For this reason, most of these same governors say (ostensibly) that they will not accept [some] portions of the stimulus fund money. Although this is a valid concern, avoiding anything short of full compliance with implementing the plan smacks more of politics than statesmanship by these governors, especially given the unprecedented nature of not only the country’s current economic situation, but those of the very same states where these governors serve the interests of the people.

Rising political star among conservatives, Republican Govenor Bobby Jindal of Lousiana, along with others opposes the stimulus plan

What can it hurt to support the stimulus plan? If it fails, opponents can justify their stance without the taint of trying to sabotage it by choosing not to accept all of the financial assistance the money is intended to provide; the president and his supporters would be forced to eat crow, and Republicans could then ride another 1994-like wave back into power and show us how the economy should be dealth with. If it succeeds, then the country is better off, and the people can get on with their lives of the living-by-credit and paycheck-to-paycheck status quo that was the reality prior to the now 15-month long economic downturn.
A cynical analysis would conclude that these governors—all Republicans—are putting their political party’s ideology, along with possible political aspirations of a 2012 White House run in ahead of the immediate needs of the people of their respective states. This cynicism could be supported, in a sense by Jindal’s revelation in the 60 Minutes interview, that he considers the late former President Ronald Reagan to have written the book on creating a healthy economy, ideologically speaking. And when pressed about his future aspirations as to a potential White House run, Jindal simply answered “I have the job I want (as governor).” In political parlance, that translates to “I’m leaving my options open…but I don’t want to telegraph my intentions just yet.” Sounds somewhat justified.
And aside from their beliefs that the stimulus plan may fail are their individual arguments. For example, Texas Governor Rick Perry’s concern “is there’s going to be commitments attached to it that are a mile long.” As my teenager nieces would say, “Well, duh…” What money from the federal government doesn’t have some strings attached? How much more different is this aspect of the stimulus package than other federal funds sent to the states? If any of these governors “sees” any difference between the attached “strings” of the economic stimulus package and other funds distributed by the feds to the states, then it is as surely as an ulterior motive in politics to be a perspective that is politically inspired. This is especially true considering that built-in provisions in the stimulus package allows for state legislatures to accept any money that their governors reject; these governors could reject the money and still look like staunch conservatives in front of their core ideological constituents.
It seems that upon simply examining possible options, any reservations that the governors of the various states in questions have do not stand up to the yardstick of impartial or justified concern. Consider Mississippi’s Haley Barbour’s contention that accepting unemployment dollars offered up by the stimulus package would “force his state to eventually raise taxes when the stimulus money runs out.” Is it too difficult for a state’s legislature to enact fiscal policies tied to spending any stimulus-related money that wouldn’t interfere with its mandated use and distribution? Come on…what happened to the thinking and problem solving acumen that conservatives were supposed to be so noted for?
So, as a public service to those of a particular ideological bent who do not want to appear to be (irresponsibly so) putting their personal aspirations or petty dogmas ahead of the needs of their constituents, I have a simple suggestion for those governors even thinking about not accepting any money from the president’s economic stimulus package…simply give your portion of it to the other states which are experiencing similar economic issues. I’m sure they wouldn’t mind taking it…just offer it up to states with economies on life support like Michigan and California. Just simply ignore the fact that your own state economies are pretty much in the same crapper as those of many other states who could benefit from your generosity and selfless philanthropy. Only then can I and others across the country accept that your reservations are devoid of selfishness.

Read More