Government
Congress needs to mature, simply communicate
Sunday, February 21, 2010
By Daina Salayon
GVL Columnist
President Barack Obama announced on Feb. 16 the approval of an $8.3 million loan from the Energy Department for the construction of two nuclear reactors in Georgia.
Currently the United States has 103 operating nuclear reactors with none younger than 1973. Greater restrictions for these new nuclear plants are being implemented to protect them against aircraft assailants, which raise the cost of production and possibly make the plants more susceptible to earthquakes.
Similar to many proposed nuclear reactors throughout the years, the plans for the two in Georgia may also be canceled.
Not surprisingly, the announcement of the approval for two nuclear reactors has a very weighted agenda: ease the politics surrounding climate legislation. So, even if the plans are canceled, the announcement is yet another political move to rally Republican support for the clean energy bill.
However, Republicans say the addition of the nuclear reactors to the clean energy bill will have little effect on their votes because they don’t agree with the majority of the bill.
Thus, Obama finds himself caught between a rock and a hard place yet again.
At this point in time, Obama needs to stop focusing on simply giving small concessions to Republicans and effectively communicate with hard evidence the strengths of the bill he has proposed and answer qualms the Republicans have.
In communication, there is a theory called the Social Judgment Theory which, simply put, means people take information and sort it into three latitudes: acceptance, rejection and noncommittal.
Clearly Republicans are in the latitude of rejection. Any bill that has a Democratic name will cause them to simply reject it and cause themselves to believe the ideals are further from their own than they actually are.
This is the challenge all politicians face in a bi-partisanship government, and it truly seems to be an uphill battle, but not everyone in Congress is so absorbed in the latitude of rejection that he or she cannot be open to change with additional information.
The problem with politics is that it, for the most part, fails to convey strong, compelling reasons for proposed bills. Whenever Obama discusses health care, he simply says we have a duty to provide insurance to those who have none.
However, the issue comes from specifics within the bill, and, for some reason, no one in Congress has brought up the fact that Americans already pay for the uninsured through inflated hospital prices and taxes for Medicaid and Medicare.
If congressmen actually took the time to talk with each other and not at each other, then maybe they could come to an understanding.
True, there is no possible way for everyone to agree on everything, but government needs representatives with open minds who can understand different viewpoints and not be blindsided by their own. This simple trait would display maturity, which Congress simply fails to present nowadays.
If Obama wants to push his agenda he needs to present a compelling argument as well as show he is willing to listen and honestly admit errors in his own suggestions and strengths in the Republican view.
d.salayon@lanthorn.com
Posted 2:20 PM
0 Comments
After a pause, America does the right thing
Sunday, February 7, 2010
By Daina Salayon
GVL Columnist
The Department of Health and Human Services in coordination with the Red Cross and the Department of Veteran Affairs successfully transported Haitians with extreme injuries to hospitals in Tampa and Atlanta.
The transfer was put on hold when Tampa hospitals raised concerns about lack of beds, doctors and reimbursement for providing care. The administration answered these concerns Monday promising to reimburse the hospitals with funds from a special provision of the National Disaster Medical System.
Needless to say, the administration faced a lot of slack by putting the transfer on hold. It’s amazing how the question of money can trump our duty to humanity for even one second.
Clearly, the administration needed time to find and approve the funds for reimbursing hospitals for taking care of Haiti refugees. I would argue this is a problem with the American system. The system is based on competing agendas, a system that allows very little room for quick decisions.
When it comes to life and the need for care, there really isn’t much time to waste. We don’t have time to debate where the funds should come from and how to budget it.
The hospitals in Haiti are currently ill-equipped to deal with the injuries many people face, and if Americans are truly dedicated to the relief effort then we need to implement action and discuss how to pay for it later.
I sympathize with the hospitals and understand the burden they face. These are patients who cannot pay for their care and if the hospital is left with this unpaid bill, then they could go bankrupt or take money from other areas, which will cause harm to everyone in the community.
The hospital employees also face ethical dilemmas of who should get beds in the hospital. If someone from Haiti is occupying a bed and the hospital is at full capacity and someone in the community also needs a bed in the ICU, who gets the bed and who gets the shaft?
Most hospitals deal with this issue by the simple rule of “first come, first serve” basis. Is that good enough in this case?
Luckily, in order to address the space strain hospitals are sure to face, hospitals in New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Lyons, N.J., are on call to spread out the load of patients from Haiti.
In the global medical field, if it is our duty to do all we can to save the injured Haitians, then America is doing the right thing; even if it took us a moment to pause before deciding to do the right thing.
d.salayon@lanthorn.com
Posted 1:29 PM
0 Comments
Compromise is not getting your way
Monday, February 1, 2010
By Daina Salayon
GVL Columnist
As I watched Project Runway Thursday evening a statement concerning teamwork struck a chord with me. Two designers of completely different styles were working together to create two runway-worthy designs in two days. As pressure started rising and the two continued bickering, one finally exclaimed: “It’s not both our work if you keep asking me to 100% compromise to your wants!”
As I watched the two bicker, the scene brought to mind the constant problems the Senate and House of Representatives have attempting to pass bills. For some reason each presidency has relied on having party control of the House and Senate in order to pass his agenda.
Obama doesn’t have that control today. He has realized and conveyed in his State of the Union Address that bipartisanship means the two parties have to work together. The two parties have to reconcile and find a middle ground that will please them both.
In Obama’s efforts to rekindle the strong, supportive following he once had, he is changing his focus from healthcare and working toward initiatives Americans want and need most: job security.
Without control of congress, however, nothing is getting done.
The Republicans have gained newfound unification with the Massachusetts win and have stated they are not going to back down on any issues unless Democrats offer significant concessions.
That’s understandable. They have the power and they can do it now. However, completely rejecting every aspect of the Democrat agenda is not helpful either.
With Republicans voting against initiatives just to vote against them, nothing is going to get done and it affects the whole country.
Unlike true compromise, it appears the Republicans are asking the Democrats to leave behind their agenda and give rise to the Republican Party’s agenda.
If history is any indicator, simply going with one party’s agenda never truly works.
Republicans say their way is better.
Democrats say their way is better.
Republicans are rejecting bills even when they were supporters before.
Democrats have threatened to guilt Republicans into voting for their bills.
Neither, apparently, is willing to compromise.
Today, I cannot say I would be proud to be aligned with either party.
Nothing helpful to society will get accomplished in Congress unless those in charge stop acting like children and learn to play nice.
If the opposing sides would merely listen to each other and learn how to give and take then we could have a healthy and helpful government.
Maybe it’s up to the citizens of America to show Congress we’re not pleased with either party and we actually expect them to cooperate for the betterment of America and not just their own personal agendas.
Posted 5:28 PM
0 Comments
Give the people what they want
Sunday, January 24, 2010
By Daina Salayon
GVL Columnist
Massachusetts was supposed to be a no-contest win for Democrats in the election for its new senator. However, the current political climate allowed the state to take a stance and send a strong message of discontent to the White House with the selection of Scott Brown, a Republican, on Jan. 19.
Today the Democratic Party finds itself fighting over who is to blame for losing the majority of the Senate. Not surprisingly, President Obama attributed the citizens’ discontent to a simple aspect his presidency is lacking: communication.
“What they’ve ended up seeing is this feeling of remoteness and detachment where, you know, there’s these technocrats up here, these folks who are making decisions,” Obama said in an interview on ABC News.
The problem with the Obama administration is they are so busy working toward results that they failed to realize what the people really want and need from them.
Healthcare has been an issue in America for a long time and today we’re the only developed country that doesn’t treat everyone, though we treat everything.
Clearly the values of the American society need to be addressed to determine if universal healthcare is right for America, which Obama has attempted to do, but at a rate too fast for America.
Pushing the healthcare bill through just for a result is not what Americans want or need. If there need to be changes to the healthcare bill, then they should be thought out and discussed. At the same time, the healthcare bill should not overshadow other objectives, which is what has happened during the past year and why Americans are so discontented.
As important as the healthcare bill is to the administration, the lack of jobs and increasing poverty is currently what is weighing on the minds of the country’s citizens.
A large majority of Americans cannot afford healthcare insurance and this majority also cannot find jobs. People need to see progress and if they have no job, it’s hard to be concerned about anything else.
For those who have and can afford healthcare, the healthcare bill is going to cost them money and since people are already straining to pay the rising expense of living, being taxed to pay for someone else’s healthcare won’t provide them with much benefit, as harsh as that sounds.
The people of Massachusetts, for example, passed their own healthcare initiative in 2006, and a countrywide bill would mean they would have to pay double taxes for healthcare alone.
Obama’s administration may be able to get things done, but Massachusetts speaks for the whole country when they say it’s time to reprioritize.
d.salayon@lanthorn.com
Posted 2:58 PM
0 Comments
Christmas calls for freedom
Sunday, December 13, 2009
GVL Columnist
Christmas is a special time of the year for many. It is a time to visit family and friends, give and receive gifts and, as is the case in Michigan, enjoy the abundance of snow. Many stores and restaurants voluntarily close on Dec. 25 so the employees can also spend time with family and enjoy the holiday, leaving very few options for outings on this day.
Though these closings are all personal choices for the businesses, Michigan’s government has intervened in businesses on Dec. 25 on one specific matter: the sale of alcohol. The Michigan Liquor Control Commission prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages after 9 p.m. Christmas Eve to before 7 a.m. Dec. 26.
Such a prohibition is entirely uncalled for and an infringement upon each citizen’s personal freedoms.
Very few people are likely to venture outside on Christmas day because many people take the day to relax and just celebrate with family.
However, not everyone celebrates Christmas. Though the holiday has become largely secularized, it is still largely viewed as a Christian holiday and there are other similar holidays for similar religions such as Kwanza and Chanukah.
Restricting the sale of alcohol simply because it is Christmas infringes upon the desires of those who don’t celebrate the holiday and are treating it as a normal day. A normal day for those of age could mean an outing for a drink at the bar after work. This prohibition makes this activity impossible, so one cannot pursue his or her will due to government intervention.
Aside from that important aspect, the law is entirely unnecessary. As already stated, very few people are going to venture out to buy alcohol. If the government is afraid of too many drunk drivers, well, it’s a fear that is prevalent on all major holidays. Alcohol can be sold on Thanksgiving, which is also very family-oriented and secular, so Christmas really shouldn’t be treated any differently.
Government is instated, from a libertarian point of view, to provide security from force and fraud on our personal freedoms. The government we live in has a dual system of both republicanism and libertarianism.
On the state level our personal freedoms should be largely protected. This doesn’t happen when prohibition-centered laws without due cause are put into play.
Drinking is a personal choice, when one is of age to make such a choice, and government should only regulate it when this choice starts to infringe upon another’s freedoms. Selling alcohol on Christmas does no such thing and it can be argued the state is harming open businesses by limiting their sales on Christmas from very little to absolutely none.
Though the issue over no sale of alcohol seems very minute, it is of greater importance to explore the issue of our right to protect ourselves from too much government intervention. Silly laws as such this are unnecessary and should be dismissed immediately.
Posted 4:58 PM
0 Comments
Is nice and sweet going to cut it?
Sunday, November 22, 2009
By Daina Salayon
GVL Columnist
President Barack Obama concluded his four-nation Asia trip Thursday but not with as much progress as U.S. citizens would like, especially in China.
Obama’s strategy focuses on creating peaceful relationships with political leaders, which will lead to cooperation, in theory.
This form of foreign diplomacy, however, brings home fewer results than the typical bringing down the hammer approach, so Obama will have to convince his constituents his baby steps will actually lead to better relations in the long run.
Americans will be difficult to convince. We’re accustomed to having what we want when we want it. We like our food fast, our taxis speedy and demands met now. Naturally many people like Obama, yet disagree with his political policies.
While in China, Obama was met with a fast-rising nation with its own ideas and strong headedness.
The word “no” was reminiscent of this visit. Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner has failed to get China to budge on economic issues affecting the rest of the world and many are strongly calling for his resignation because he has failed to do his job. Apparently this is a large feat as Obama also failed at getting China to budge on economic issues.
The big problem is how should America view China. Is China like a strong-willed child who wants to feel independent and needs to be convinced that by meeting our demands she is calling all the shots? Or is that giving China too much power?
Should, instead, China be seen as an unruly child who is affecting the rest of the world negatively and therefore needs to be coerced into doing our will for the betterment of all? America has always been the one seen as the discipliner of countries walking out of line of our policies. As the discipliner we get what we demand, but this doesn’t lead to healthy relationships.
Although Obama’s foreign policy is far from perfect, his promotion of peaceful relationships has potential. Schools teach us the best way to promote cooperation is to respect one another and create an open form of communication. The dialogue must be two-way without one country usurping the other.
Though progress proves slow, Obama has opened the communication, which can lead to a healthier relationship with China and make negotiations easier. It’s easy to say no to someone you don’t respect, but it’s much harder to deny someone with whom you have a good relationship.
Posted 4:04 PM
0 Comments
Do negative reinforcement policies actually work?
Friday, November 13, 2009
GVL Columnist
Recently, I had the opportunity to experience the Michigan court system at work. In September, I lost control of my car during a rainy day and unfortunately totaled my car. This resulted in a traffic violation of “speed too fast for weather conditions” landing me a total of 2 points on my license according to Michigan’s points system. Needless to say, I decided to take my chances in court. I lost.
The most important lesson I learned from this experience is Michigan’s system of punishment for traffic violations is completely ineffective for so many people, myself included.
During my time in court the judge lectured me on how I should have been smart enough to engage four-wheel drive on my Jeep Liberty, and clearly I shouldn’t have been driving that car in those conditions. Strangely enough, another driver was at court also appealing a crash that had occurred to her on the same ramp, same day, same conditions and same type of car as mine. After hearing her testimony the thought occurred to me that maybe it was the area where the crash occurred that could be the issue, and not the driver. If blaming the drivers is what the state wants to do then clearly isn’t our education of driving such vehicles what is lacking and not our inadequacy as drivers?
Points stay on a driver’s license for two years and then you’re free of this “burden,” but does that create better drivers? Absolutely not. The only tangible consequence of having points on a driver’s license is insurance rates go up, or if you’ve racked up enough points you could have your license suspended.
Since I’m under my parents’ insurance and I don’t pay for it, having points on my license is going to affect my mentality very little. So what lesson have I learned? I still believe my driving is adequate and if I were to be in that situation again I would make the same decisions. The negative reinforcement of the points system merely makes me angry at the system and gives no incentive for me to change my driving habits.
Instead of the points system I would argue Illinois’ system of driver education should be implemented. This system gets rid of the points system and replaces points with a review of a driving course for a certain amount of weeks. If the state is going to blame me for an accident in a motor vehicle then I want them to show me what I should have done better, not merely punish me and insult my intelligence. At least this way the state can produce safer, more informed drivers hopefully resulting in fewer incidents, rather than enforcing punishment that clearly isn’t working.
d.salayon@lanthorn.com
Posted 12:35 PM
0 Comments
