Obama takes tough questions from House GOP

Obama accepted an invitation from House GOP leaders to address their caucus. His speech Friday was followed by an often pointed question-and-answer session.

President Barack Obama on Friday accused Republicans of portraying health care reform as a "Bolshevik plot" and telling their constituents that he’s "doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America."

Speaking to House Republicans at their annual policy retreat here, Obama said that over-the-top GOP attacks on him and his agenda have made it virtually impossible for Republicans to address the nation’s problems in a bipartisan way.

“What happens is that you guys don’t have a lot of room to negotiate with me,” Obama said. "The fact of the matter is, many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable with your own base, with your own party because what you've been telling your constituents is, ‘This guy's doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America.' ''

After State the union speech in Congress, Obama addressed as a more conservative democrat to have the Republicans on his side too. But his recent speech twisted that points of view as a reflection in the citizens' perspective.


Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/29/obama.gop/index.html?hpt=C2

Watered Down Purity Test

Today the Republican National Committee approved a watered down version of the "purity resolution". The "purity resolution" was created by conservative Republicans who wanted Republican candidates to support certain conservative positions such as the war in Iraq, and abortion in order to receive financial aid from the Republican party. Republican leaders opposed the original "purity resolution" fearing that it could eliminate candidates and annihilate certain group of voters.

The watered down version of the "purity resolution" has the Republican National Committee urging candidates and members of the Republican party and organizations to overlook the conservative list of positions and determine which issues to express on the party platform. Also it urges that any candidate who doesn't support the party platform not be given any financial support. Using the word "urges" under technical terms makes the resolution a suggestion rather than mandatory or binding. I personally feel that this is basically going to annihilate all non-conservative Republicans from the Republican party and will make it harder for Republican candidates to gather the support of the entire Republican party making it more difficult for them to get elected, and this will give more support to the Democratic party.

Source: New York Times
Link: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/gop-waters-down-purity-test-for-its-candidates/

Obama v. Supreme Court?

The past few days in American politics have been tumultuous ones, from the precedent-overturning decision by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, to the shocking rebuke of the Court's decision President Obama made during his State of the Union address.
While past presidents have often clashed with Supreme Court rulings, none thus far have been so bold as to voice their disapproval to the Justices' faces as Obama did Wednesday night. Usually, disapproval would be presented in a written statement, a press conference, or a statement from a third party such as a lawyer or spokesperson in order to distance the president from the disagreement with the highest court in the nation.
But Obama's literally head-on approach, as six of the justices, an unusually high number, were sitting directly in front of him during the State of the Union, has dissipated this distance and highlighted not only the national partisanship issue, but the issue of partisanship within the Supreme Court. Designed by the framers of the Constitution to be a wise, nonpolitical, and law-abiding body, the court is, unfortunately, not without divisions, if not by party lines than by liberal and conservative ideologies.
Some say that throwing the spotlight on the Supreme Court was an unwise decision. Peter G. Verniero, former Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court, said that the rebuke will lead to individual justices being thought of in "political terms," taking away from the desired nonpartisan nature of the Supreme Court.
But in the end, there will not always be agreement, or even respect, between the executive and judicial branches of government due to controversial decisions such as the one made last week. Perhaps the Supremem Court Justices can take a page from former Justice William Rehnquist, who skipped President Reagan's State of the Union address in order to attend a water color class at the YMCA. In this article, Liptak suggests that it is the responsibility of the justices to stay out of political affairs in order to uphold the reputation of the Supreme Court.

Source:
"Supreme Court Gets a Rare Rebuke, in Front of Nation"
by Adam Liptak, New York Times
www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/politics/29scotus.html?hp

Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that "the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections." A 5-4 decision took place in which the Supreme Court was clearly divided over the principle of political spending/campaign finances. Specialists in campaign finance law claim that this decision will result in many new election reforms and new methods in the way they are conducted. The decision is widespread and affects many groups that influence election outcomes, including labor unions. The midterm elections are fast approaching and we are almost sure to see the effects of this jurisdiction. Obama cited those who will be benefited by this decision as well. He called it "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." In other words, Obama demonstrates that this decision really is influencial upon every type of American citizen, but unfortunately will support the powerful corporations and powers that have already taken large advantages of average Americans. This ruling (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) overruled two very strong court decisions made within the past couple of decades: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates) and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) (upheld a part of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions). The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act/McCain-Feingold Act banned "electioneering communications" funded by corporations and labor unions in the 30 days prior to a presidential primary and the 60 days prior to the general elections. The case decided this week was inspired by notions set in "Hillary: The Movie," composed of political commentary and advocacy journalism and released during the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries. Altogether, the main issue at stake was the First Amendment rights of corporation, and Justice Stevens felt that this court decision was legitimate.
I would also agree that this court decision is justified. As Justice Kennedy states, "The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves." I understand that limits must exist when deciding upon campaign finance in order for the elections to be fair and to limit corruption within politics. However, heavy restrictions should not be placed, because every citizen in our nation possesses "the freedom to think for ourselves." Why should one be so heavily banned for stating an opinion? Yes, it is important to control political spending. It would have been difficult to have produced smooth election outcomes for all these years without it. However, some freedoms must exist, and I feel that the freedoms granted in this court decision yesterday are suitable for the current dilemma we have been in over campaign finance reform for a significant allottment of time.

With Populist Stance, Obama Takes On Banks

With the current republican win for the Massachusetts Senate and the health care bill out of the spot lite, President Obama has began to focus on the large banks repaying the tax payers for the billion dollar ball out money they used. The large banks are now in a comfortable situation where they no longer fear of going under and instead are beginning to pay the top executives their large bonus's again. President Obama anticipates a strong resistance from the banks as he proposes a tax on over fifty of America's large banks. He is regaining public support for his presidency by allowing the health care bill to take the back seat and showing American's that he can and will do all he can to bail America out of the worst economic situation since the great depression in the 1920's. Thursday's meeting concerning the banks repayment of the bailout, President Obama stated " Never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by a bank that is too big to fail". This article praises President Obama for taking the lead as First Populist, supporter of the people's rights and power. It is refreshing to the public's view to see a new headline in the newspaper for what our government is doing today instead of, what seems like, a stand-still with the health care bill. Plus with talk of more reform and a chance something may better the economy, public support is bound to raise. By enforcing a tax upon these big banks, may help America climb out of the slumping economy and leave President Obama's presidency with the legacy of reforming America for the better. Although the only concerning effect of taxing the large banks would be the increase in power the national government has, but as long as America seems to be getting better the general public is not immediately concerned.

The health care bill which has been working its way through our government has been many months in the making. Although it was very partisan the fact was that it had not really mattered until recently when the democrats lost their super majority in the senate when Massachussets elected republican senator Scott Brown.

Although the democrats lost the super majority which enabled them to override any republican filibusters, the fact remains that the democrats have the largest majority seen in years. Still, president Obama has expressed his acceptence of a scaled down version of the bill that would attract bipartisan support although it is still unclear if even a stripped down version of the bill would pass. Obama says that right now the two parties should focus on the things in the bill that they can agree on. Although this would leave universal coverage of the table. Even though there are many methods which the democrats could use to pass the bill as is, many feel that the final word on healthcare reform has to be something that everyone accepts.

Senator Susan Collins a republican from Maine said "What I hope the White House will do is start from scratch. instead of pushing this bill through." with all the trouble that democrats have gone through in trying to pass this particular bill the question is wether or not it is worth it to start over or to continue struggling even though they no longer have a super majority.

www,nytimes.com/2010/01/21/health/policy/21health.html

Drug Making’s Move Abroad Stirs Concerns

Today the United States faces a large problem with health care and increasing rate of job losses. This could largely be a result of the reliance of drugs from oversees. Pharmaceutical companies are relying on plants in China and India to produce their drugs because the cost of the drug is cheaper oversees. However, this causes there to be very few factories that produce drugs here in the United States. This has prevented many people from jobs as well. These drug factories could potentially employ many people.

The Pharmaceutical companies reliance on these plants had essentially led the United States to be a weaker nation. Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio states that, “The lack of regulation around outsourcing is a blind spot that leaves room for supply disruptions, counterfeit medicines, even bioterrorism.” Pharmaceutical companies play a large role in the daily life of American citizens. People need medicine to live. If these medicines are disrupted then Americans will face great danger. For example, the popular allergy medicine prednisone that is used by many people is manufactures in China. If the production of the medicine is disrupted many people will be denied their allegery medicine and depending on how severe the allergic reaction is, will put someones life on the line.

According to Harris 43% of medicines were produced in China. The United States only produces approximately 13%. Enrico Polastro, a Belgian drug industry consultant who is an expert in antibiotics, said, "If China ever got very upset with President Obama, it could be a big problem." Since the United States relience on China has such a detrimental effect, the United States now has to be careful to not run into any issues with China. However, it should not be like this, the United States should not have to rely on China for their medicine. The U.S. is a powerful nation that should be able to produce it's own medicine. For that reason experts and lawmakers are calling for a law that would require that certain drugs be made or stockpiled in the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/health/policy/20drug.html?_r=1&scp=7&sq=january%2020,%202009&st=cse

For Democrats, Mass. Loss Triggers Finger-Pointing

As you all can imagine, the Democrats are extremely upset by Republican Scott Brown's victory over Martha Coakley for the Senate seat once occupied by Ted Kennedy. The blame is distributed to many people, including Martha Coakley, Democratic voters, and Barack Obama. Democrats were really hoping to have Martha Coakley in office in order to more easily implement Obama's plans for the Health Care Bill and other legislation dealing with the economy, the environment, education, etc. Even more so, Democrats feel that Obama is not making his plans for legislation more personal to the citizens and instead is making it better "for the nation". To the Democrat's disappointment, Martha Coakley simply could not slide into the Senator's chair by coattailing.
Now, legislation is going to be tougher to pass since the Democrats are doubting Obama. The president, according to Peter Fenn, has to "come out swinging." To be approved by the majority of the country, I think Obama has to prove to the people that his ideas can be passed through legislation and not just be discussed.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122758019

Let's Break a Fillabuster!

That's right. The fillabuster vote that Democrats have in Senate has officially been broken today when Brown, a Republican, was elected to the seat held formerly by Kennedy, a Democrat.

And in Massachusetts no less!

Wow, so where do I start with this one? Well first of all, we can definitely assume that a health care reform bill is going to take longer to pass. Without that 60th guaranteed vote, the Democrats are going to have to scramble to find a Republican to vote in favor of the proposed bill. And if I'm not mistaken, havn't they been doing that for a while? And, on top of that, if one Republican got elected, you can expect more Republicans to be elected by November midterm elections. So that can't be good, at least for the Democratic Party.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are having a change of luck. Or is it just history repeating itself? I mean it has been a confirmed trend over the years that when a president of one party is elected, a congress of the opposite party is elected during midterms.

Well, either way, like I said, they're getting a good chunk of Congress back. And the neat and tidy democratic majority is going to turn into either a minority or a half of the legislative branch.

In any other circumstance, I might end the blog here. But something struck me on the money paid towards this campaign. The National Republican Senators Commitee spent $500,000 towards Brown's campaign. Now that's a good amount of money. Wonder where it all came from? And yes, that's an actual question. Think about it. All of the PACs' and individuals' contributions really add up huh? But I guess the idea behind campaign finance reform is not who gets how much money but how much money can be given without giving that group too much influence over a candidate.

So how do you guys feel about this? Is it good to have a better variety of congressman to come, or is this just going to cause inactivity among Congress?

Honestly, I believe in the later. When I told my mom about Brown's election and what it could mean, she responded wishing that 'congressmen could just try to compromise for once instead of worrying about party lines'. And there is a point there. How is anything going to get done in this government if Congress can't agree on anything? It could take years for this bill to pass. And while it does, what other issues will this Congress being ignoring while it is squabbling over this bill? I mean, of course focus will shift, but it will always come back to the healthcare bill.

Than again, maybe this is showing a shift in public opinion. And if it is, then the ideas of these people could be represented in Congress more, especially when relating to the healthcare bill. Maybe, when the bill passes...if it passes, the bill would be something that will be able to make more people happy than just one party. Let us not forget that this government was not only made to respond to the majority, but to protect the minority. This could ultimately mean a better healthcare bill. Of course, that really all depends on what you think is good healthcare reform.

As I imply with most of my blogs, we'll just have to wait and see.

Based on the Article: "Brown Beats Coakley in Massashusetts Senate Race" from FOXNews

A link will be provided in my comments...

Warnings from Science

On Tuesday January 12th 2010, a devistating 7.0 magnitude earthquake hit Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and even though the damage has been done and people around the world are helping in the rebuliding process, scientists are forwarnning of more to come. Scientists have been studying the fault line systems in the area and are finding that more danger may lye ahead in the future. The fault system in the area is hundreds of kilometers long, however the fault that caused the quake was only 80 kilometers long, and was not even directed under the area in Haiti that was hit. Also scientists have looked at surrounding fault line systems, and it has been over 800 years since the last time a quake has occured some also close to the Dominican Republic. So the question is when will the next quake be, where will it be, and how destructive will it be. Also many scientists presented findings to Haiti's government and even had meetings with the Prime Minister. All of the findings and warnings were heeded by Haiti's government, however do to Haiti's economic struggles little could be done to bulid up defense for the quake in time, Haiti had also been hit by four hurricanes in the last year, and that damage still needed to be repaid.

So this is the sad reality we live with, living on our planet. Humankind my refuse to admit it, but we are still held vunerable to the power of the elements of nature. We can not control earth quakes just like any other natural disaster. All we can do as people is to try and prepair for the worset and rebulid what we can. There is nothing else that can be done.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/haitiquakesciencegeology;_ylt=AqXdPnEFimQYKCMRXiYvo6qs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNqMThpcDBwBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTE4L2NiX2hhaXRpX2VhcnRocXVha2UEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwMxBHBvcwM5BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNzY2llbnRpc3RzaGE-

Obama Takes to the Pulpit

President Obama chose to speak at an all black church at the nation's capital about the issues regarding health care reform and his eagerness to get the wheels turning faster. This is noteworthy because President Obama has not been to church very often since he has been elected. This intertwining of government and religious affairs may not have appealed to those attending the congregation, and may have rubbed them the wrong way. These people attended the service to hear the words of God, and in addition heard the words of their President.

This could be seen in a way as a lack of separation between Church and State. Mr. Obama also spoke about blacks and whites investing themselves in reality television, doing anything to become a celebrity. This is interesting because President Obama took a stand as a regular person instead of being seen as our President. In this way, he can be seen as a Superman and an Every man.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/obama-takes-to-the-pulpit/

Obama Takes to the Pulpit

President Obama chose to speak at an all black church at the nation's capital about the issues regarding health care reform and his eagerness to get the wheels turning faster. This is noteworthy because President Obama has not been to church very often since he has been elected. This intertwining of government and religious affairs may not have appealed to those attending the congregation, and may have rubbed them the wrong way. These people attended the service to hear the words of God, and in addition heard the words of their President.

This could be seen in a way as a lack of separation between Church and State. Mr. Obama also spoke about blacks and whites investing themselves in reality television, doing anything to become a celebrity. This is interesting because President Obama took a stand as a regular person instead of being seen as our President. In this way, he can be seen as a Superman and an Every man.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/obama-takes-to-the-pulpit/

Iraq Says Raid Uncovered a Plot to Bomb Ministries

BAGHDAD - A wide ranging plot to bomb government ministries and other public spaces, to be followed by a wave of political assassinations, was uncovered by Iraqi officials, who responded Tuesday by bringing much of the capital to a virtual standstill while security forces conducted raids that netted large quantities of explosives, officials said.

At least 4 suicide car bombers - and as many as 10 - were apparently on their way to government buildings Tuesday morning when they were stopped by the police and arrested authorties said.

During raids on homes and warehouses in Baghdad that began early in the morning and lasted throughout the day, the authorities arrested 25 people and recovered more than 440 pounds of TNT and C4, about 66 gallons of ammonium nitrate solution and 60 mortar shells, according to a statement from Maj. Gen. Qassim Atta, spokesman for Baghdad Operations Command, which is responsible for security in the capital.

The American military and the Iraqi government have said they expect violence to increase sharply with the approach of the country's scheduled March 7th national elections as political parties vie for advantage and insurgents seek to spread chaos.

It leaves me feeling sick hearing of all these bombings, deaths, and possible wipe-outs. The fact that we Americans are still in Iraq fighting this point less war truly amazes me; in addition, that they expect there to be much more violence in the near future is absurd. There has got to be a way for the military to keep this violence and chaos under control, since it seems near impossible to end it all complelety. Something seriously needs to be done, before matters get even worse, if that is possible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?hp

G.O.P. Chairman Urges Reid to Step Down Over Remarks

Today the Republican Party chairman Michael Steele called for Harry Reid to step down as U.S Senate majority leader after the revelations of his comments about Obama's skin color and dialect in 2008. A book about the campaign in 2008 says that Reid stated that Obama can become the first black president because he was "light-skinned" and had " no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." Yesterday, Harry Reid issued a public statement apologizing for this statement. He also called Obama and apologized, and the apology was accepted. Michael Steele, who is also black, thinks that this is not enough punishment and that Reid should resign.
I think that this comment was not as bad as I initially thought it would be. By seeing that people think he should resign I thought it was very racist and used foul words. Although it is rude and inappropriate I think Reid took the right path by apologizing publicly as well as to Obama himself.

Democrats Face Shifting and Perilous Political Environment

Senators Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota announced that they would retire. This is crucial for the democrats, because at the current time they hold a slight majority over the republicans, which would be lowered if they left. Given the difficulty of passing the health care bill in the senate, the loss of two senators makes it even harder for Obama to pass any bills.

With the retirement of the two senators, there is thought of a domino effect, which will cause some democrats who are debating between re-election to opt out of running. It also may cause less centrist Republicans to lean slightly towards the democratic side. But perhaps this retirement does not mean much to the democratic party. In Connecticut, a republican has a very slim chance of winning because the state's attorney general decided to run. In addition, the republicans have to defend the places of the many senators who retired last year.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/for-obama-a-dispiriting-reality/?scp=1&sq=democrats%20anxious&st=cse

Obama Urges Excise Tax on High-Cost Insurance

Health-care legislation calls for an excise tax on expensive insurance policies, exceeding $8,000 for single policies and $23,000 for family policies. This excise tax would raise about $149 billion dollars in the next ten years. This is a small amount compared to the cost of the program; $871 billion in ten years for the Senate bill, and for the House bill, about $1.1 trillion. Both bills rely on slow economic growth and decreased spending on Medicare to fund them. In addition to this tax, they also would increase the Medicare payroll tax for the more wealthy people, making upwards of $200,000 a year.

The senate approved their bill 60-39 on December 24th, and the house approved theirs 220-215, a close margin, allowing only 2 votes to slip in order to get it to pass. As this goes on, Obama waits silently and listens to the content in each bill as he decides on which policies to include in the final bill. Hopefully, he can make the correct decisions that will please the american public and also be rewarding to the governments financial status.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/health/policy/07health.html?scp=13&sq=january%207%202010&st=cse

Yemen’s Chaos Aids the Evolution of a Qaeda Cell

Better late than never..Happy New Year :]

As time continues, the Yemeni government has been weakened by the powers of Al Qaeda. This is because Osama Bin Ladin started Al Qaeda in Yemen and from there, it was able to branch out into areas such as Saudi Arabia. Although the group is thought of have about 200 members, they are still 200 members strong. The power has been distributed to leaders such as prisoner, Nasser al-Wuhayshi, while other rivals for leadership lurk.

It's difficult to hear in the article that "In recent years, Al Qaeda has had an increasingly rich recruiting pool." I mean. How disturbing of a thought is that? All these years, we've been trying to be the United States of America, and yet we're turning into the United States of fighting terrorists. Especially being in a "recession" and along with families wanting soldiers back home, how are we supposed to accommodate to these things? The "recession" is currently hitting people in socioeconomic hardships and when they can't afford to get a job or make money to support, they join the army. When that isn't enough for their families, all hell breaks loose and suddenly people don't know what they want or what they'll do. As we're stuck in this confusion, there are people who are trying to attack this country- awesome.

The people of Yemen are having a tough time too because Al Qaeda basically wants to recruit them or kill them off. As we wait to see, today's newspaper had some really interesting words said by Thomas L. Friedman..

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/world/middleeast/03yemen.html?ref=politics

Health and Security laws take effect in 2010

One could imagine that in the beginning of the new year, there would be spouts of optimism for the country and it's health. In a way this is true, as according to CNN, state legislatures enacted in a total of 40,697 laws, many of which took place on the 1st of January, many created as responses to previous problems with cell phones, tanning, trans fat servings, lighters, and smoking.
For instance, New Hampshire, Oregon and Illinois have recently joined 16 other states that prohibit motorists from sending text messages while driving. Gloria Wilhelm fought for the Illinois law after her son, Matt, was struck and killed while he was riding his bike by a driver who was downloading cell phone ring tones. She describes those who use cell phones are, "incredibly selfish and dangerous behaviors."
In Texas, there is a new law forbidding teenagers under 16.5 years of age from tanning. Those 16.5 to 18 must be accompanied by an adult. This is certainty a step in the right direction for Texas, as many recent studies have concluded correlations with excessive exposure to UV rays and skin cancer. This will be a proactive way to prevent teens from divulging in tanning at such an early age where the allure of fitting in overrides their desire to remain healthy.
As another example of state laws changing to become active on their citizen's health, a newly enstated California measure limits trans fat in restaurant food also takes effect January 1. It requires eateries to use oils, margarines and shortenings that have less than half a gram of trans fat per serving. A similar provision will apply to baked goods in 2011.
Another law is that of Louisiana, which will now forbid any lighters that may appear appealing to children, i.e., lighting up or in the shape of animals or characters from being sold. Another good step in the right direction.
In addition, a statewide smoking ban in bars and restaurants that will take effect in North Carolina, the nation's biggest producer of tobacco.
All in all, many individual states are taking a significant jump to help protect their citizens by enforcing safety and health provisions. Overall, the United States of America has made sufficient laws so that the year 2010 pointed in the correct direction, instilling hope in the quality of American life.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/01/new.laws/index.html

Food Stamps...through thick and thin

Throughout the past years the economy has left families with absolutely nothing. The "American Dream" has been attained and within months ripped away from people across the United States. However, according to the article, "The Safety Net, Living on Nothing but Food Stamps" the only steady and reliable source of monetary value are Food Stamps. People in our very own country are solely living on these items given monthly. As the number of families that depend on food stamps increases a demand for social welfare has exponentially increased.
Washington is already trying to help these factions of people through the health care bill. Giving them the opportunity to have health insurance and not causing the rest of the public to pay through taxes. One thing known though since Food Stamps has been consistent through all these harsh times it is important that tax money continues to be allocated to Food Stamps. This subject is essentially a double-edged sword. Does the government further dig into it's imaginary funds or do the American people continue to suffer the plights of the recession. Let's face it.....it is a Catch-22.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/us/03foodstamps.html?scp=2&sq=food%20stamps&st=cse

A Less Mature America

Our government and other institutions are run by humans. Americans today do not seem to realize that. All humans make mistakes. Americans today can not accept that.

Americans are no longer as mature as they once were. As David Brooks states: "During the middle third of the 20th century, Americans had impressive faith in their own institutions." This is no longer the case. He goes on to say that "it was not because these institutions always worked well." This was, and will always remain true. The government will always try its best to serve its people, but it does not run perfectly and will never run truly perfectly. This is not what Americans today expect of the government. They expect it to be running perfectly all the time. This shows America's lack of maturity. This is an inherent flaw in Americans that must be changed. We must become more accepting of what the government does and realize that we are lucky that it is actually doing something for us, unlike many other government across the world.

With the happenings of the past decade, and particularly this past year, this attitude towards government has become even more prevalent. Americans first blamed the government for the fall of the economy and are now blaming it for not doing enough to bring it back. At the same time we are also angry at the government for the bailouts, for we feel that they should be helping the average American, not the financial powerhouses which run the economy. We - for some reason - expect government to be able to do more than is humanly possible. We need to realize that the government is doing its best to try and help the country and its citizens, and we need to accept that. We need to accept that like us, the government is run by humans, and that mistakes will be made.

This major shift in attitude and feelings has occurred mostly during the decade which just ended. The past decade was certainly a tumultuous once, but this was no reason for us to shift our views on government and hold it accountable for every bad thing that has happened. As a new decade starts, I can only hope that the upcoming years are better and that Americans stop regressing into childhood and be more mature in the future.

Source: The New York Times