First off, I do not do drugs myself. I just need to get that out of the way. Whenever there's someone advocating the legalization of drugs, I (and you, probably) tend to think that what they're really saying is "yes I do drugs, and I don't want to go to jail over it." I did smoke pot, but that's behind me now. Even still, I want to talk about the legalization of marijuana.
Yes, marijuana. Not cocaine, not meth, not crack. My problems with those drugs lie in the differences between them and marijuana: the high addiction rates, the tendency towards violent behavior in its users.
Let me get right to it: one of two things is true. Either marijuana is bad for you, harms your health, and causes long-term damage, or it doesn't. Studies have been done intending on proving one or the other true over the years.
If it's true, and marijuana is bad for you, harms your health, and causes long-term damage, then it needs to be legalized. Now wait - follow my logic. I'm not suggesting that a harmful substance be 100% legal and packages in Happy Meals. I'm saying, it needs to be inspected and regulated by the government. The fact that it's harmful shouldn't make it necessarily illegal. We have plenty of harmful, health-threatening things that are legal: alcohol, tobacco, guns, cars that pollute, etc. Alcohol and tobacco would be the two most closely paralleled with a legal marijuana: not sold to minors, not to be consumed in public or while driving (like alcohol), inspected and taxed, the whole magilla. My reasoning: people are going to smoke pot whether it's legal or not. We know this. All the drugs laws in the world won't stop it. But making a substance that's already potentially harmful illegal as well means that those who are going to do it anyway are then going to have to resort to going to some shady drug dealer. There's the chance of getting ripped off, having them not show at all (which only makes us seek out even shadier dealers), getting slipped a "mickey" (having the pot laced with something truly harmful, like PCP) etc. If it's legal, or partially legal like alcohol, tobacco etc., then we don't have to worry about any of that. Also, think about this: if pot were legal, pot dealers would be out of business. There isn't an anti-drug crusading soccer mom in America who wouldn't love that. What happened to the speakeasies of the 20's and 30's when they repealed Prohibition? They simply went away, and with it the bathtub gin. Problem solved.
And finally, if it's not bad for you, harms your health, and causes long-term damage, then it needs to be legalized. The laws and the campaigns to criminalize marijuana had very little to do with actual marijuana. The motivations behind the marijuana laws were always suspect. William Randolph Hearst sought to outlaw the plant because hemp paper was cheaper and easier to produce than wood paper. And as Hearst had major investments in the lumber industry, not to mention major pull with the politicians of his day, and major influence over the American public's thinking by way of his publishing empire, he manipulated and coerced until he was able to affect his will on a nation. But in all of his crusading, there was never once an ounce of proof that his "demon weed" really had any more potential to harm than alcohol. Similarly, as marijuana use was often associated with immigrants, marijuana laws were often particularly harsh in areas eager to cook up reasons to deport Mexicans. I think it's safe to say at this point that marijuana is enjoyed equally by all races and ethnicities. To use anti-pot laws as a way of targeting law enforcement towards one race or nationality would be a misguided effort.
Folks, we spend roughly $40 billion each year on pot laws. Enforcing them, housing the offenders, "anti-drug education" all costs our taxpayers money that would better be spent elsewhere. I'm sure our nation's health care system would benefit from such an infusion of funds, or perhaps our border patrols, or maybe the educational system...? Make your list of how we should more prudently spend $40 billion. Got any ideas?
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Obama vs. McCain - Let the Games Begin!
This coming Saturday, Hillary Clinton will announce her support for Barack Obama, essentially making him the Democratic presumptive nominee. And as McCain has been the presumptive nominee for the Republicans for months now, the stage is now set for the Main Event, the One for All the Marbles.
Let me say first that I am a little sorry to see Hillary go. True, she's still a senator, and there's still rumoring about a possible VP spot for her. And while she was never my first choice for Democrats (that was Biden, then Richardson, then Edwards) I think even now that she'd make a good President. She carries the Clinton brand name, which is an accolade by my standards. And regardless of what other shenanigans Bill would have gotten into while Hillary was minding the store, one cannot dismiss the brutal intelligence of the man, and the obvious advantage of having said intelligence at one's beck and call.
Much has been made of the fact that the Democrats didn't get their collective act together vis a vis a nominee until so late in the game, comparatively speaking. With that in mind, there is speculation that those people who spent so long in Hillary's camp have become so entrenched in the "defeat Obama" mindset that now they'd rather vote for McCain than change mantras. I think this ignores the fact that the election isn't for another five months, which is an eternity in the world of politics. The American public has chronic long-term amnesia on most politicians' transgressions, which might also explain how so many of them continue to get re-elected. In November, the Democrats will vote for the Democratic candidate, and the Republicans will vote for the Republican candidate. This is a generalization, and while there will be exceptions, they will be notable only for how infrequently they occur.
To those of you that supported Hillary and now face the prospect of supporting Obama for the next five months, I say: if you truly support the ideals of her candidacy, you are best served by supporting Obama. He and Hillary agreed on 95% of all issues, and that 5% difference is what made it so difficult to choose, hence the long drawn out primary campaign. But that's over now. And if you want to see 95% of what Hillary advocated brought to fruition, go with Obama.
So now we have it, the showdown: McCain vs. Obama. And really, you couldn't have asked for a more symbolic match up: McCain represents much of what Republicans are: rich old white guys with trophy wives and an aversion to change. Obama is young, urban, a little bit angry and definitely a threat to the status quo (see: rich old white guys). Rich white guys have run things for so long, well pretty much since we got started as a country. I think it's a testament to our nation that fifty years ago, Obama wouldn't have stood a chance, and that's we've progressed as a nation to this point. It makes you wonder where we'll be in another fifty years. But I digress.
If McCain wins, it's a safe bet that all the policies and procedures set in place and kept in place with George W. Bush will find another four years of shelf life. Foreign policies, domestic policies, all would receive the cursory re-varnishing that would distinguish them as "new", but basically we'd be looking at business as usual. The question we must ask ourselves as voters is, what will that mean for America, four years hence? Is the path we tread now the same path we want to find ourselves on then? Or has our current idiot in chief so damned us as a nation that to pursue his course of action any further would spell doom for the republic? I tend to think the latter is the more likely. I have ranted at length about the sins of the George W. Bush administrations, and I believe that to pursue his twisted logic as a matter of policy for another four years in any facet of our nation's dealings would ultimately destroy us. We are at war, and for nothing. We are broke, with no plan to remedy our deficit. From health care to education, from the war on drugs to war on terror, Bush's track record is a comedy of what would be errors were they not so mind-numbingly tragic for us as Americans.
Let me say first that I am a little sorry to see Hillary go. True, she's still a senator, and there's still rumoring about a possible VP spot for her. And while she was never my first choice for Democrats (that was Biden, then Richardson, then Edwards) I think even now that she'd make a good President. She carries the Clinton brand name, which is an accolade by my standards. And regardless of what other shenanigans Bill would have gotten into while Hillary was minding the store, one cannot dismiss the brutal intelligence of the man, and the obvious advantage of having said intelligence at one's beck and call.
Much has been made of the fact that the Democrats didn't get their collective act together vis a vis a nominee until so late in the game, comparatively speaking. With that in mind, there is speculation that those people who spent so long in Hillary's camp have become so entrenched in the "defeat Obama" mindset that now they'd rather vote for McCain than change mantras. I think this ignores the fact that the election isn't for another five months, which is an eternity in the world of politics. The American public has chronic long-term amnesia on most politicians' transgressions, which might also explain how so many of them continue to get re-elected. In November, the Democrats will vote for the Democratic candidate, and the Republicans will vote for the Republican candidate. This is a generalization, and while there will be exceptions, they will be notable only for how infrequently they occur.
To those of you that supported Hillary and now face the prospect of supporting Obama for the next five months, I say: if you truly support the ideals of her candidacy, you are best served by supporting Obama. He and Hillary agreed on 95% of all issues, and that 5% difference is what made it so difficult to choose, hence the long drawn out primary campaign. But that's over now. And if you want to see 95% of what Hillary advocated brought to fruition, go with Obama.
So now we have it, the showdown: McCain vs. Obama. And really, you couldn't have asked for a more symbolic match up: McCain represents much of what Republicans are: rich old white guys with trophy wives and an aversion to change. Obama is young, urban, a little bit angry and definitely a threat to the status quo (see: rich old white guys). Rich white guys have run things for so long, well pretty much since we got started as a country. I think it's a testament to our nation that fifty years ago, Obama wouldn't have stood a chance, and that's we've progressed as a nation to this point. It makes you wonder where we'll be in another fifty years. But I digress.
If McCain wins, it's a safe bet that all the policies and procedures set in place and kept in place with George W. Bush will find another four years of shelf life. Foreign policies, domestic policies, all would receive the cursory re-varnishing that would distinguish them as "new", but basically we'd be looking at business as usual. The question we must ask ourselves as voters is, what will that mean for America, four years hence? Is the path we tread now the same path we want to find ourselves on then? Or has our current idiot in chief so damned us as a nation that to pursue his course of action any further would spell doom for the republic? I tend to think the latter is the more likely. I have ranted at length about the sins of the George W. Bush administrations, and I believe that to pursue his twisted logic as a matter of policy for another four years in any facet of our nation's dealings would ultimately destroy us. We are at war, and for nothing. We are broke, with no plan to remedy our deficit. From health care to education, from the war on drugs to war on terror, Bush's track record is a comedy of what would be errors were they not so mind-numbingly tragic for us as Americans.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The SOLUTION to illegal immigration that no one is talking about
When the cops want to put an end to drug use, they know it makes more sense to go after the dealers than the users. One drug dealer services many drug users, so if you arrest and convict 100 drug dealers, it's as good as 1000 users.
The next thing you do is make the sentences for dealing drugs a lot harsher than they are for just using. If you get arrested for possession, it's not as serious as possession with intent to sell. This is common knowledge, and while it doesn't prevent drug dealers, it does limit them. They know if they get caught dealing, they're looking at some serious jail time.
Ask yourself: why are people coming here illegally? Answer: to find work. Sure they work for slave wages (so they qualify for food stamps, which we pay for with our tax dollars), they get no health insurance (so they have to get treated in emergency rooms and not pay), and they do all the dirty jobs other people don't want to do.
But for every 100 illegal immigrants, there's one person doing the hiring. Wal-Mart and other big companies often have warehouses raided where hundreds of illegal immigrants are arrested and eventually deported. But what happens to Wal-Mart? What happens to the CEO's, to the Personnel Directors and Human Resources Directors who either knowingly hired illegals or just failed to properly verify the status of the applicants? Do they go to jail? No, of course they don't. In America, rich people can pay fines; they don't go to jail. But think about it: the money these companies pay in fines is peanuts compared to how much they are saving every day by hiring illegals at slave wages. The same job done by a citizen, paid a competitive wage, and given health insurance, that would be double or triple the cost to the companies.
So, just like the courts throw the book at the drug dealers, so also should they levy much heavier fines at the companies that hire illegal immigrants. It would be easy: stake out any Home Depot, and follow the people who pick up the day laborers. When they arrive at their locations, demand to see the papers allowing the laborers to work. If they can't provide them, arrest the person who hired them. Give him or her 30 days in county jail for every illegal they hired. I guarantee you two things would happen as a result. One, you'd see a lot fewer people willing to take the risk of hiring the Home Depot guys, and two, you'd eventually see these guys not hanging around outside Home Depot. If they're there looking for work, and the work isn't there anymore, they'll leave.
Next, when these big companies like Wal-Mart have their warehouses raided and a bunch of illegals arrested and deported, send the warehouse managers and anyone involved in the hiring process to jail - just like we would to the drug dealers. Second offense, go after the executives, and so on until the chain of accountability has members of Wal-Mart's Board of Directors looking at hard time in federal prisons. Put the hirers out of business, the eventual result is a reduction in people crossing the border illegally looking for work. It wouldn't happen overnight, but it would happen.
I know, it's a fantasy. It'll never happen. The law enforcement agencies will continue to go after the illegal immigrants and ignore the root cause. And on and on it will go, and there will be more and more illegals. Why? Because Big Business is in bed with Big Government. They watch out for each other. And the government, who get big tax dollars (and big campaign contributions) from these big businesses will ultimately fail to address the root cause of illegal immigration. They'll tell us it's the mexicans' fault, and just like a cheap Vegas magician they'll distract us from what's really going on.
And those people who rant and rave about illegal immigrants and all the damage they do were successfuly fooled into thinking that it's the immigrants' fault. It's not - they're looking to make an honest buck from an honest day's work. The businesses that hire them at slave wages just so they can remain competitive in the marketplace, they're the real villains here. But no one will point the finger at them, because they're americans. They speak english. They're white. And they're also the ones responsible for the damage created by illegal immigration.
If people in this country REALLY wanted to send a message, they would watch the news, and every time a company gets raided and a bunch of illegals are found working there, the people would BOYCOTT those businesses until they changed their hiring practices. Votes won't change the problem. Promises won't fix it. Maybe we could vote with our dollars, because ultimately that's the only way we're ever going to get through to those companies. When they lose business, and they're made aware of WHY they lost business, they'll get the message.
But it will never happen. Because all those people who go around flying their little american flags and pissing and moaning about the illegals will not be willing to give up Wal-Mart. They'll never make the connection between Wal-Mart's low prices and their policy of hiring illegals to work in their warehouses. Americans may be against illegal immigration, but not if it means they have to pay more for goods and services. And it's because we're bargain hunters that we will continue to tolerate illegals in this country - we know that's why we get such good deals.
The next thing you do is make the sentences for dealing drugs a lot harsher than they are for just using. If you get arrested for possession, it's not as serious as possession with intent to sell. This is common knowledge, and while it doesn't prevent drug dealers, it does limit them. They know if they get caught dealing, they're looking at some serious jail time.
Ask yourself: why are people coming here illegally? Answer: to find work. Sure they work for slave wages (so they qualify for food stamps, which we pay for with our tax dollars), they get no health insurance (so they have to get treated in emergency rooms and not pay), and they do all the dirty jobs other people don't want to do.
But for every 100 illegal immigrants, there's one person doing the hiring. Wal-Mart and other big companies often have warehouses raided where hundreds of illegal immigrants are arrested and eventually deported. But what happens to Wal-Mart? What happens to the CEO's, to the Personnel Directors and Human Resources Directors who either knowingly hired illegals or just failed to properly verify the status of the applicants? Do they go to jail? No, of course they don't. In America, rich people can pay fines; they don't go to jail. But think about it: the money these companies pay in fines is peanuts compared to how much they are saving every day by hiring illegals at slave wages. The same job done by a citizen, paid a competitive wage, and given health insurance, that would be double or triple the cost to the companies.
So, just like the courts throw the book at the drug dealers, so also should they levy much heavier fines at the companies that hire illegal immigrants. It would be easy: stake out any Home Depot, and follow the people who pick up the day laborers. When they arrive at their locations, demand to see the papers allowing the laborers to work. If they can't provide them, arrest the person who hired them. Give him or her 30 days in county jail for every illegal they hired. I guarantee you two things would happen as a result. One, you'd see a lot fewer people willing to take the risk of hiring the Home Depot guys, and two, you'd eventually see these guys not hanging around outside Home Depot. If they're there looking for work, and the work isn't there anymore, they'll leave.
Next, when these big companies like Wal-Mart have their warehouses raided and a bunch of illegals arrested and deported, send the warehouse managers and anyone involved in the hiring process to jail - just like we would to the drug dealers. Second offense, go after the executives, and so on until the chain of accountability has members of Wal-Mart's Board of Directors looking at hard time in federal prisons. Put the hirers out of business, the eventual result is a reduction in people crossing the border illegally looking for work. It wouldn't happen overnight, but it would happen.
I know, it's a fantasy. It'll never happen. The law enforcement agencies will continue to go after the illegal immigrants and ignore the root cause. And on and on it will go, and there will be more and more illegals. Why? Because Big Business is in bed with Big Government. They watch out for each other. And the government, who get big tax dollars (and big campaign contributions) from these big businesses will ultimately fail to address the root cause of illegal immigration. They'll tell us it's the mexicans' fault, and just like a cheap Vegas magician they'll distract us from what's really going on.
And those people who rant and rave about illegal immigrants and all the damage they do were successfuly fooled into thinking that it's the immigrants' fault. It's not - they're looking to make an honest buck from an honest day's work. The businesses that hire them at slave wages just so they can remain competitive in the marketplace, they're the real villains here. But no one will point the finger at them, because they're americans. They speak english. They're white. And they're also the ones responsible for the damage created by illegal immigration.
If people in this country REALLY wanted to send a message, they would watch the news, and every time a company gets raided and a bunch of illegals are found working there, the people would BOYCOTT those businesses until they changed their hiring practices. Votes won't change the problem. Promises won't fix it. Maybe we could vote with our dollars, because ultimately that's the only way we're ever going to get through to those companies. When they lose business, and they're made aware of WHY they lost business, they'll get the message.
But it will never happen. Because all those people who go around flying their little american flags and pissing and moaning about the illegals will not be willing to give up Wal-Mart. They'll never make the connection between Wal-Mart's low prices and their policy of hiring illegals to work in their warehouses. Americans may be against illegal immigration, but not if it means they have to pay more for goods and services. And it's because we're bargain hunters that we will continue to tolerate illegals in this country - we know that's why we get such good deals.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Gay Marriage
So today in California, they struck down a state ban limiting marriage between a man and a woman. They said it violates the state's constitution. Naturally, there were the photo-op weddings taking places on the steps of the capital, with solemn same-sex couples having their unions presided over by judges as they gazed proudly into each others' eyes. We've seen this before.
Naturally, we can expect howls of riteous indignation from the religious right in this country. To them I say: if you don't want your clergy presiding over a same-sex wedding, make it a rule within your little cult. Jesus loves everyone, as long as they're straight I guess.
I say it's about damn time we start recognizing that gay people have the right to marry. It's hard for me to believe that we're willing to spend trillions of dollars and thousands of Americans' lives to preserve the freedom of people in third world nations, but when it comes to the freedom of gay Americans, we get all twitchy. To paraphrase Shakespeare's Hamlet, something's rotten in America.
I have to confess, the biggest argument against gay marriage strikes me as completely idiotic. "Preserving the sanctity of marriage" is the battle cry. I wonder, did people use this same vague objection when protesting interracial marriage? It surprised me to learn recently that it was only as recently as 1967 that we had to announce that it was okay for blacks and whites to marry. What kills me is that we had to ask the Supreme court to make it official. Maybe it's because interracial marriage has been legal my entire life (I was born in 1968), that I find it so second-nature. Of course blacks and whites should be allowed to intermarry. Why on earth would anyone oppose this? Then it hits me: some people are just ignorant racist assholes. And some of them are in government. All it takes is a few idiots in key decision-making positions to undermine the fabric of what is supposed to be a free and equal society.
Which brings me to gay people. Again, we have ignorant assholes, only this time around they're creeped out by the thought of two men or two women getting married, instead of a man and a woman of different races. Still, they concern themselves with things that don't concern them, and because of this irrational loathing, and because enough people take Leviticus seriously, we stand by and watch as an entire section of American society systematically gets removed from the freedom equation.
What is the "sanctity" of marriage? Is my marriage sacred to anyone but my wife and I? Do I have any right to expect anyone besides my wife to honor our marriage? Sacred is a relative concept. What is sacred to one person, or one group of people, doesn't necessarily have to be sacred to anyone else.
Which makes me wonder - is marriage really so sacred to those right-wing homophobes? Statistically in America, the odds are better than 50-50 that a married couple will eventually divorce. Look further at the statistics that show how many marriages that continue will experience infidelity and domestic violence. And let's not forget those marriages that don't end, but where the people involved stay together in loveless marriages "for the sake of the kids". Divorce, common though it may be, is an expensive proposition in America, with many lawyers making handsome livings by specializing exclusively in divorces. How many marriages have stayed together simply to avoid an ugly and expensive divorce?
My point is that straight couples haven't exactly kept the institution of marriage sacred. It's supposed to be two people who love one another and want to spend the rest of their lives loving each other. Maybe they have kids, maybe they save a few bucks on taxes and insurance, but ultimately, they are willing to stand up before their friends and families and declare an oath of lifelong love, honor and fidelity. In a world chock full of hate, that's a bold thing, and something to be respected.
Perhaps if the religious right in America were serious about preserving the sanctity of this institution, they could focus on their own conduct. Those who could themselves as evangelical Christians (as opposed to Catholic, or some other flavor) are the most likely, statistically, to divorce. If they want to convince the rest of us that marriage is sacred, they could start by whittling their own stats down. If they want the law to show a respect for the sanctity of marriage, I have a few suggestions. First, make divorce a felony. Caught cheating on your spouse? Six months hard labor in a state prison. Domestic violence? One year sentence in prison. There's all sorts of legislation that the could offer up that would demonstrate their commitment to preserving marriage's sanctity. Denying it to people who really want to marry just because they're gay isn't doing anything to preserve it. Hiding behind the Bible as a means to justify a phobia is just plain cowardly.
I say, let the gay people marry. If they can keep their divorce rates under 50%, perhaps they can teach us a little something about the sanctity of marriage
Naturally, we can expect howls of riteous indignation from the religious right in this country. To them I say: if you don't want your clergy presiding over a same-sex wedding, make it a rule within your little cult. Jesus loves everyone, as long as they're straight I guess.
I say it's about damn time we start recognizing that gay people have the right to marry. It's hard for me to believe that we're willing to spend trillions of dollars and thousands of Americans' lives to preserve the freedom of people in third world nations, but when it comes to the freedom of gay Americans, we get all twitchy. To paraphrase Shakespeare's Hamlet, something's rotten in America.
I have to confess, the biggest argument against gay marriage strikes me as completely idiotic. "Preserving the sanctity of marriage" is the battle cry. I wonder, did people use this same vague objection when protesting interracial marriage? It surprised me to learn recently that it was only as recently as 1967 that we had to announce that it was okay for blacks and whites to marry. What kills me is that we had to ask the Supreme court to make it official. Maybe it's because interracial marriage has been legal my entire life (I was born in 1968), that I find it so second-nature. Of course blacks and whites should be allowed to intermarry. Why on earth would anyone oppose this? Then it hits me: some people are just ignorant racist assholes. And some of them are in government. All it takes is a few idiots in key decision-making positions to undermine the fabric of what is supposed to be a free and equal society.
Which brings me to gay people. Again, we have ignorant assholes, only this time around they're creeped out by the thought of two men or two women getting married, instead of a man and a woman of different races. Still, they concern themselves with things that don't concern them, and because of this irrational loathing, and because enough people take Leviticus seriously, we stand by and watch as an entire section of American society systematically gets removed from the freedom equation.
What is the "sanctity" of marriage? Is my marriage sacred to anyone but my wife and I? Do I have any right to expect anyone besides my wife to honor our marriage? Sacred is a relative concept. What is sacred to one person, or one group of people, doesn't necessarily have to be sacred to anyone else.
Which makes me wonder - is marriage really so sacred to those right-wing homophobes? Statistically in America, the odds are better than 50-50 that a married couple will eventually divorce. Look further at the statistics that show how many marriages that continue will experience infidelity and domestic violence. And let's not forget those marriages that don't end, but where the people involved stay together in loveless marriages "for the sake of the kids". Divorce, common though it may be, is an expensive proposition in America, with many lawyers making handsome livings by specializing exclusively in divorces. How many marriages have stayed together simply to avoid an ugly and expensive divorce?
My point is that straight couples haven't exactly kept the institution of marriage sacred. It's supposed to be two people who love one another and want to spend the rest of their lives loving each other. Maybe they have kids, maybe they save a few bucks on taxes and insurance, but ultimately, they are willing to stand up before their friends and families and declare an oath of lifelong love, honor and fidelity. In a world chock full of hate, that's a bold thing, and something to be respected.
Perhaps if the religious right in America were serious about preserving the sanctity of this institution, they could focus on their own conduct. Those who could themselves as evangelical Christians (as opposed to Catholic, or some other flavor) are the most likely, statistically, to divorce. If they want to convince the rest of us that marriage is sacred, they could start by whittling their own stats down. If they want the law to show a respect for the sanctity of marriage, I have a few suggestions. First, make divorce a felony. Caught cheating on your spouse? Six months hard labor in a state prison. Domestic violence? One year sentence in prison. There's all sorts of legislation that the could offer up that would demonstrate their commitment to preserving marriage's sanctity. Denying it to people who really want to marry just because they're gay isn't doing anything to preserve it. Hiding behind the Bible as a means to justify a phobia is just plain cowardly.
I say, let the gay people marry. If they can keep their divorce rates under 50%, perhaps they can teach us a little something about the sanctity of marriage
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
The Clinton Years
I rarely do this, but I came across a page on the National Archives' website listing the accomplishments of the Clinton years (1993-2000). I am pretty much going to copy and paste it, which is lazy blogging. I do it to make a point: those who would bemoan the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency as a rehash of Bill Clinton's would have us think this would be a bad thing.
While I'm not going to defend Bill's behavior on the subject of marital fidelity, I should point out that nowhere in any campaign speech, nowhere in the debates leading up to the 1992 election, indeed nowhere in the Oath of Office does it suggest that his performance as a husband should be considered when judging his performance as a President. To my mind, they are seperate issues. We did not elect him to be the Husband-in-Chief.
That said, people try to cast the Clinton years in a negative light, with accusations ranging from being soft on defense and national security to handing out government monies to every sad sack welfare recipient that came down the pike. In every case, these accusations prove not only to be wrong, but the exact opposite of what actually happened.
I choose to reprint this list because it is from the National Archives. People can point to any web site to back up virtually anything, if one is willing to ignore the fact that most private websites (including this blog) are written from an opinionated slant. We are, as a rule, incapable of nuetrality, and when we reference a source to give our argument credibility, it means more when that source is not tempered by such bias. Say what you will about the Federal Government, but one thing is true: the National Archives are not the keepsake for any one political party or ideology. That said, please enjoy the following list. And as you read, ask yourself: would four more years of Clinton leadership (especially following a Bush) be such a bad thing...?
Source: http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/summary.html
While I'm not going to defend Bill's behavior on the subject of marital fidelity, I should point out that nowhere in any campaign speech, nowhere in the debates leading up to the 1992 election, indeed nowhere in the Oath of Office does it suggest that his performance as a husband should be considered when judging his performance as a President. To my mind, they are seperate issues. We did not elect him to be the Husband-in-Chief.
That said, people try to cast the Clinton years in a negative light, with accusations ranging from being soft on defense and national security to handing out government monies to every sad sack welfare recipient that came down the pike. In every case, these accusations prove not only to be wrong, but the exact opposite of what actually happened.
I choose to reprint this list because it is from the National Archives. People can point to any web site to back up virtually anything, if one is willing to ignore the fact that most private websites (including this blog) are written from an opinionated slant. We are, as a rule, incapable of nuetrality, and when we reference a source to give our argument credibility, it means more when that source is not tempered by such bias. Say what you will about the Federal Government, but one thing is true: the National Archives are not the keepsake for any one political party or ideology. That said, please enjoy the following list. And as you read, ask yourself: would four more years of Clinton leadership (especially following a Bush) be such a bad thing...?
A Nation Transformed: Clinton-Gore Administration Accomplishments: 1993 - 2000
For the past seven years, President Clinton and Vice President Gore have been guided by three core values: building a community of all Americans; creating opportunity for all Americans; and demanding responsibility from all Americans. Pursuing policies based on these values has resulted in tremendous progress for our nation, and a strong America at the dawn of the 21st Century. The President and Vice President are committed to a "New Opportunity Agenda" to build on our progress and expand our prosperity until it reaches every corner of the nation.
Economy: the Strongest Economy in a Generation
Longest Economic Expansion in U.S. History. In February 2000, the United States entered the 107th consecutive month of economic expansion -- the longest economic expansion in history.
Moving From Record Deficits to Record Surplus. In 1992, the deficit was $290 billion, a record dollar high. In 2000, we have a projected budget surplus of $167 billion -- the largest dollar surplus on record (even after adjusting for inflation) and the largest as a share of our economy since 1951. This is the first time we have had three surpluses in a row in more than a half century.
Paying Off the National Debt. We are on track to pay down $297 billion of debt over three years. In 1998 and 1999, we paid down $140 billion in debt. This year, we are on track to pay down $157 billion of debt – bringing the three-year total to $297 billion. Public debt is $2.4 trillion lower in 2000 than was projected in 1993. Debt reduction brings real benefits for the American people -- a family with a home mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save roughly $2,000 per year in mortgage payments. Reduced debt also means lower interest rates and reduced payments on car loans and student loans. With the President's plan, we are now on track to eliminate the nation's publicly held debt by 2013.
Over 21 Million New Jobs. 21.2 million new jobs have been created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration -- and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. 92 percent (19.4 million) of the new jobs have been created in the private sector, the highest percentage in 50 years. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, the economy has added an average of 248,000 jobs per month, the highest under any President. This compares to 52,000 per month under President Bush and 167,000 per month under President Reagan.
Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Over Three Decades. In the last 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased 3.7 percent -- faster than the rate of inflation. The United States has had five consecutive years of real wage growth -- the longest consecutive increase since the 1960s. Since 1993, real wages are up 6.8 percent, after declining 4.3 percent during the Reagan and Bush years.
Unemployment Is Nearly the Lowest in Three Decades. Unemployment is down from 7.5 percent in 1992 to 4.1 percent in March 2000 -- nearly the lowest unemployment rate in thirty years. The unemployment rate has fallen for seven years in a row, and has remained below 5 percent for 33 months in a row. African-American unemployment has fallen from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in March 2000 -- the lowest rate on record. The unemployment rate for Hispanics has fallen from 11.6 percent in 1992 to 6.3 percent in March 2000 -- and in the last year has been at the lowest rate on record. For women the unemployment rate was 4.3 percent in March -- nearly the lowest since 1953. Highest Homeownership Rate in History. In 1999, the homeownership rate was 66.8 percent -- the highest ever recorded. Minority homeownership rates were also the highest ever recorded.
Lowest Poverty Rate in Two Decades. The poverty rate has fallen from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 1998. That's the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1965-1970). The African-American poverty rate has dropped from 33.1 percent in 1993 to 26.1 percent in 1998 -- the lowest level ever recorded and the largest five-year drop in African-American poverty in more than a quarter century (1967-1972). The poverty rate for Hispanics is at the lowest level since 1979, and dropped to 25.6 percent in 1998.
Largest Five-Year Drop in Child Poverty Rate Since the ‘60s. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, child poverty has declined from 22.7 percent in 1993 to 18.9 percent in 1998 -- the biggest five-year drop in nearly 30 years. The poverty rate for African-American children has fallen from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 36.7 percent in 1998 -- a level that is still too high, but is the lowest level in 20 years and the biggest five-year drop on record. The rate also fell for Hispanic children, from 36.8 percent to 34.4 percent – and is now 6.5 percentage points lower than it was in 1993.
Families and Communities: Strengthening America’s Working Families
Tax Cuts for Working Families. 15 million additional working families received additional tax relief because of the President’s expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. In 1998, the EITC lifted 4.3 million people out of poverty – double the number lifted out of poverty by the EITC in 1993. This year, the President proposed expanding the EITC to provide tax relief to an additional 6.8 million hard-pressed working families.
Helping Parents Balance Work and Family. The Family and Medical Leave Act allows workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for seriously ill family members, new born or adoptive children, or their own serious health problems without fear of losing their jobs. Nearly 91 million workers (71% of the labor force) are covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act and millions of workers have benefited from FMLA since its enactment. President Clinton has proposed expanding FMLA to allow workers to take up to 24 unpaid hours off each year for school and early childhood education activities, routine family medical care, and caring for an elderly relative.
Improved Access to Affordable, Quality Child Care and Early Childhood Programs. Under the Clinton-Gore Administration, federal funding for child care has more than doubled, helping parents pay for the care of about 1.5 million children in 1998, and the1996 welfare reform law increased child care funding by $4 billion over six years to provide child care assistance to families moving from welfare to work. Since 1993, the Clinton-Gore Administration has increased funding for the Head Start program by 90 percent, and in FY 2000, the program will serve approximately 880,000 children – over 160,000 more children than in 1993.
Increased the Minimum Wage. The minimum wage has risen from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour, increasing wages for 10 million workers. The President and Vice President have called for an additional increase to $6.15.
Enacted the Workforce Investment Act. The Workforce Investment Act reformed the nation’s employment and training system so that it works better for today's workers. The WIA empowered individuals by giving adults more control and choice over their training or retraining and providing universal access to core labor market services; streamlined job training services by consolidating a tangle of individual programs into a simple system and creating a nationwide network of One-Stop Career Centers; enhanced accountability through tough performance standards for states, localities, and training providers; and increased flexibility so that states can innovate and experiment with new ways to train America's workers better.
Signed the Landmark Work Incentives Improvement Act. Americans with disabilities often become ineligible for Medicaid or Medicare if they work, forcing a choice between health care and employment. The Work Incentives Improvement Act keeps people with disabilities from losing their Medicare or Medicaid health coverage when they go to work. It also includes a $250 million demonstration, which the President insisted on fully funding, that allows people with disabilities who are still working and are not yet sufficiently disabled to qualify for Medicaid to buy into the program.
Signed the Adoption and Safe Families Act. The Adoption and Safe Families Act, which was based in large part on the recommendations of the Clinton-Gore Administration's Adoption 2002 report, made sweeping changes in adoption law so that thousands of children in foster care move more quickly into safe and permanent homes. In 1998, 36,000 children in foster care were adopted, up from 28,000 in 1996. This is the first significant increase in adoption since the national foster care program was established nearly 20 years ago.
Enacted the Foster Care Independence Act. Nearly 20,000 young people leave foster care each year when they reach age 18 without an adoptive family or other guardian. The Foster Care Independence Act will ensure that those young people will get the tools they need to make the most of their lives by providing them better educational opportunities, access to health care, training, housing assistance, counseling, and other services.
Putting Families First. The President and Vice President developed and implemented first-ever plan to protect our children from tobacco and end tobacco marketing targeted to young people. They also required the installation of V-chips in all new televisions, and encouraged schools to adopt school uniform policies to deter school violence and promote discipline.
Supporting Community Service. In just five years, AmeriCorps has allowed 150,000 young people to serve in their communities while earning money for college or skills training.
President's One America Initiative. President Clinton has led the nation in an effort to become One America: a place where we respect others’ differences and embrace the common values that unite us. The President has been actively involved in public outreach efforts to engage Americans in this historic effort, and followed up on the work of the Initiative on Race by appointing Robert B. (Ben) Johnson as Assistant to the President and Director of the new White House Office on the President’s Initiative for One America. The office is working to ensure that we have a coordinated strategy to close the opportunity gaps that exist for minorities and the underserved in this country, and build the One America we want for all of our nation’s children. The President’s FY 2001 budget includes $5 million for One America dialogues to promote and facilitate discussions on racial diversity and understanding. President Clinton has appointed the most diverse Cabinet and White House staff in history, presiding over an Administration that looks like America.
Welcoming New Americans. Since 1993, the United States has welcomed 4.4 million new American citizens. Faced with this unprecedented number of applications, the Administration undertook an initiative that has significantly reduced the backlog of citizenship applications and is restoring timely processing. Furthermore, the Administration’s English as a Second Language/Civics Education Initiative will provide limited English speaking adults with instruction in both English literacy and critical life skills necessary for effective citizenship and civic participation.
Providing Fairness for Legal Immigrants. The President believes that legal immigrants should have the same economic opportunity and bear the same responsibility as other members of society. In 1997 and 1998, the President fought for and succeeded in restoring disability, health and nutritional benefits for certain legal immigrants, and he will continue to press for additional restorations.
Education: Largest Investment in Education in 30 Years
Opening the Doors of College to All Americans. In 1997, President Clinton proposed and passed the HOPE Scholarships and Lifetime Learning tax credits to provide tax relief to nearly 13 million Americans each year who are struggling to pay for college. The Hope Scholarship helps make the first two years of college universally available to about 5.6 million students annually by providing a tax credit of up to $1,500 for tuition and fees for the first two years of college. The Lifetime Learning tax credit provides a 20 percent tax credit on the first $5,000 of tuition and fees for students beyond the first two years of college, or those taking classes part-time (in 2003, this increases to $10,000 of tuition and fees). In his FY01 budget, the President has proposed to expand the Lifetime Learning tax credit with a 10-year, $30 billion College Opportunity tax cut, which will give families the option of taking a tax deduction or claiming a 28 percent credit for the first $5,000 of college tuition and fees until 2002, and $10,000 thereafter.
Expanding Work Study and Pell Grants. One million students will be able to work their way through college because of the President's expansion of the Work Study Program, and nearly four million students will receive a Pell Grant of up to $3,300, the largest maximum award ever. The maximum award has increased 43 percent under the Clinton-Gore Administration. This year President Clinton proposed a $77 million increase in Work Study to continue to support one million awards, and a $200 increase in the Pell Grant maximum award, to raise it to $3,500.
Making College More Affordable. The Clinton-Gore Administration has cut student fees and interest rates on all loans, expanded repayment options including income contingent repayment, and improved service through the Direct Loan Program. Students have saved $8.7 billion since 1993 through the reduction in loan fees and interest rates.
More High-Quality Teachers with Smaller Class Sizes. The Clinton-Gore Administration won a second installment of $1.3 billion for the President’s plan to hire an additional 100,000 well-prepared teachers to reduce class size in the early grades, when children learn to read and master the basic skills. Already, 29,000 teachers have been hired through this initiative. This year's budget provides $1.75 billion, a $450 million increase -- enough to fund nearly 49,000 teachers.
Turning Around Failing Schools. 11 million low-income students in 13,000 school districts now benefit from higher expectations and a challenging curriculum geared to higher standards through Title I-Aid to Disadvantaged Students. The FY 2000 budget provides a $134 million accountability fund to help turn around the worst performing schools and hold them accountable for results through such measures as overhauling curriculum, improving staffing, or even closing schools and reopening them as charter schools. This year, the President is proposing to double funding for this fund to turn around the nation's failing schools to ensure all children receive a quality education. Providing Safe After-School Opportunities for 850,000 Students Each Year. The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program will provide enriching after-school and summer school opportunities for 850,000 school-age children in rural and urban communities in FY 2000. Extended learning time has not only been shown to increase achievement in reading and math, but to decrease youth violence and drug use. Funding for this program more than doubled from FY 1999 to FY 2000. For FY 2001, the President's budget calls on Congress to invest $1 billion in the 21st Century Program and to ensure that all children in failing schools have access to quality after-school and summer school opportunities. This proposal will double funding and triple the number of students served to 2.5 million.
Expanding Choice and Accountability in Public Schools. The Clinton-Gore Administration has worked to expand public school choice and support the growth of public charter schools, which have increased from one public charter school in the nation when the President was first elected to more than 1,700. More than 250,000 students nationwide are now enrolled in charter schools in 30 states and the District of Columbia. The President won $145 million in FY 2000 -- and has proposed $175 million in his FY 2001 budget -- to continue working toward his goal of establishing 3,000 quality charter schools by 2002.
Teaching Every Child to Read by the 3rd Grade. The President challenged Americans to unite to be sure that every child can read well and independently by the third grade -- 1,400 colleges and universities took up his challenge, and 26,700 college work-study students now serve as reading tutors to help every child to read well and independently by the third grade.
Expanding Access to Technology. With the Vice President's leadership, the Clinton-Gore Administration has made increasing access to technology a top priority. The President and Vice President created the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund to help connect every school to the Internet, increase the number of multimedia computers in the classroom and provide technology training for teachers. They increased overall investments in educational technology from $23 million in 1993 to $769 million in FY 2000, and tripled funding for Community Technology Centers to reach at least 120 low-income communities. Through the E-rate program, they secured low-cost connections to the Internet for schools, libraries, rural health clinics and hospitals, benefiting more than 80 percent of America's public schools. They also increased investment in education research to ensure all children benefit from educational technology. In 1999, 95 percent of public schools were connected to the Internet -- up from just 35 percent in 1994.
Supporting Local Education Reform Efforts. The President signed the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 (Ed-Flex) into law in April 1999, giving all states greater flexibility in the use of federal education funds in exchange for greater accountability for helping all students reach high academic standards.
Establishing the GEAR-UP Mentoring Program for Middle School Children. President Clinton and Vice President Gore created and expanded GEAR-UP, a nationwide mentoring initiative, to help over 750,000 low-income middle school children finish school and prepare for college. The President's FY 2001 budget would expand services to 1.4 million students.
Providing Early Education to Nearly 900,000 Children with Head Start. The President and Vice President have expanded Head Start funding by 90 percent since 1993. Head Start will reach approximately 880,000 low-income children in FY 2000 and, with the President's proposed increase for the program, will be on the way to reaching the President's goal of serving 1 million children and their families by the year 2002. The Administration also created Early Head Start, bringing Head Start's successful comprehensive services to families with children ages zero to three, and set high quality standards for both programs.
Crime and Drugs: Lowest Crime Rates in 25 Years
Lowest Overall Crime Rate in 25 Years. Under the Clinton-Gore Administration, America has experienced the longest continuous drop in crime on record. Violent crime rate fell 7 percent in 1998 and 27 percent since 1993. The murder rate is down more than 25 percent since 1993, its lowest point since 1967. The overall crime rate is the lowest in 25 years.
Putting 100,000 More Police on the Streets. In 1999, ahead of schedule and under budget, the Clinton-Gore Administration met its commitment to fund an additional 100,000 police officers for our communities. As a part of the COPS Program, the President announced new grants to increase community policing in high-crime and underserved neighborhoods. To help keep crime at record lows, the President won funding for the first installment toward his goal to hire up to 50,000 more officers by 2005. This year, the Clinton-Gore budget includes over $1 billion to continue the successful COPS initiative to hire more officers, hire new community prosecutors, give police the tools they need to fight crime, and to fund community-wide crime fighting efforts.
More Than Half a Million Felons, Fugitives and Domestic Abusers Denied Guns. Since the President signed the Brady Bill into law, more than 500,000 felons, fugitives and domestic abusers have been prevented from purchasing guns. And the historic 1994 Crime Bill banned 19 of the deadliest assault weapons and their copies, keeping assault weapons off our streets. The homicide rate dropped 7 percent in 1998 – almost entirely due to a decrease in homicides committed with guns. Since 1993, there has been a more than 35 percent drop in gun-related crime and a 57 percent decrease in juvenile gun homicide offenders.
Giving Police the Tools They Need to Fight Crime. President Clinton won $230 million in FY 2000 to provide law enforcement with the latest crime-fighting and crime-solving technology. This funding will help make crime mapping technology -- which enables police agencies to track crime hot spots and target their resources to where they are most needed -- more widely available, to improve compatibility among law enforcement communications systems, and aid development and expansion of innovative tools to help law enforcement fight crime.
Developed Comprehensive Anti-Drug Strategy Including a $195 Million National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. The President appointed Barry McCaffrey, a four-star general, to lead the Clinton-Gore Administration's anti-drug strategy as the nation’s Drug Czar. Illicit drug use among young people age 12-17 declined from 1997 to 1998, and the average age of first-time use went up. Overall drug use is down since its peak in the 1970's, drug-related murders have fallen by 40 percent since 1992, and youth drug use is on the decline for the third straight year.
National Campaign Against Youth Violence. In August 1999, President Clinton announced the formation of an independent, national campaign to address the problem of youth violence. The Campaign plans to launch anti-violence activities including a major media campaign, concerts, town hall meetings, in- and after-school programs. The Campaign will also highlight effective youth violence initiatives in cities across the country.
Fighting Hate Crimes. The President enacted the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act in 1994. He held the historic White House Conference on Hate Crimes, where he called for passage of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act -- bipartisan legislation which would strengthen hate crimes laws and make it clear that America will not tolerate acts of violence based on race, color, gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
Protecting Children from Sex Offenders. President Clinton signed Megan’s Law and the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, requiring states to set up sex offender registration systems and require community notification when sex offenders are released from prison.
Welfare Reform and Community Empowerment: Moving Millions of Americans from Welfare to Work
Lowest Number of People on Welfare Since 1969 as More Recipients Go to Work. President Clinton has kept his promise to reform the welfare system and move more Americans from welfare to work. The number of Americans on welfare is at its lowest level since 1969 as record numbers of people move from welfare to work. Since January 1993, the welfare rolls have fallen by more than half, from 14.1 million to 6.9 million. More than 1.3 million welfare recipients went to work in 1998 alone, and the percentage of adults still on welfare who were working reached 27 percent in 1998, compared to just 7 percent in 1992 -- nearly a fourfold increase. Through the Welfare to Work Partnership launched by the President, 12,000 businesses have hired 650,000 former welfare recipients since 1997.
Creating New Tools to Help Families Move from Welfare to Work. The 1997 Balanced Budget Act signed by President Clinton included $3 billion to move long-term welfare recipients and low-income non-custodial fathers into jobs. The President’s Access to Jobs initiative helps communities design innovative transportation solutions, such as van services, to help former welfare recipients and other low-income workers get to work. President Clinton has secured 110,000 new housing vouchers in the last two years to help welfare recipients and hard-pressed working families move closer to job opportunities, and this year he is proposing $690 million for 120,000 new housing vouchers. And the Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit provides tax incentives to encourage businesses to hire long-term welfare recipients.
Nearly Doubled Child Support Collections. President Clinton signed into law the toughest child support crackdown in history. Federal and state child support programs broke new records in 1999, collecting $15.5 billion -- nearly double the amount collected in 1992. The number of paternities established rose to nearly 1.5 million in 1998 – more than triple the number from 516,000 in 1992. The number of child support cases with collections rose 59 percent, from 2.8 million 1992 to 4.5 million in 1998.
Breaking the Cycle of Dependency. The teen birth rate has fallen seven years in a row, by 18 percent from 1991 to 1998. The teen pregnancy rate is now the lowest rate on record.
Child Abuse Declines for Five Years in a Row. In a trend which began five years ago, the number of children abused and neglected has decreased approximately 11 percent from a record 1,018,692 in 1993. While this represents progress, President Clinton and Vice President Gore continue to work to protect the health and well-being of America's children, and ending child abuse.
Expanded Investment in Urban and Rural Areas. The Clinton-Gore Administration created 31 rural and urban Empowerment Zones and more than 100 Enterprise Communities that have created new jobs, new opportunities and stronger communities.
Encouraging Investment in Underserved Communities with the New Markets Initiative. President Clinton's New Markets Initiative is helping to bring economic development and renewal to communities that have not benefited from the soaring economy. The President's New Markets Tour of underserved communities generated nearly $1 billion in private sector investment commitments. On his second New Markets trip, the President highlighted the role that universities, professional sports franchises, and agricultural cooperatives can play in bringing jobs and economic development to underserved communities. During the trip the President announced partnerships worth a total of nearly $200 million of dollars to underserved communities.
Providing Incentives to Save. President Clinton signed legislation creating Individual Development Accounts, providing incentives for low-income families to save for a first home, higher education, or to start a new business, a key part of his 1992 community empowerment agenda. In FY 1999, $10 million was awarded to establish savings accounts for over 10,000 low-income workers in 40 communities, and an additional $10 million will be awarded in FY 2000. The President’s budget provides $25 million for IDAs in FY 2001 and proposes to allow low-income working families to use IDAs to save for a car that will allow them to get or keep a job.
Health Care: Increasing Access and Improving the Nation's Health
Enacted Most Comprehensive Medicare Reforms in History. In the 1997 Balanced Budget, the Clinton-Gore Administration protected, modernized and extended the life of the Medicare Trust Fund while offering new options for patient choice and preventive care. New preventive benefits passed include coverage of annual mammograms, coverage of screening tests for both colorectal and cervical cancer, and a diabetes self-management benefit. The President proposed a plan to reform and modernize Medicare’s benefits, including an optional prescription drug benefit that is affordable and available to all beneficiaries. The President has also proposed a reserve fund to help Medicare beneficiaries with extremely high prescription drug costs.
Extending the Life of the Medicare Trust Fund. When President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, Medicare was expected to run out of money in 1999. Now, the life of the Trust Fund has been extended until 2023. Medicare is now in the soundest shape it has been since 1975.
Enacted Single Largest Investment in Health Care for Children since 1965. The five year, $24 billion State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) will provide health care coverage for up to five million children. Two million children have already been enrolled, and in October 1999 President Clinton announced new outreach initiatives to enroll millions more uninsured, eligible children. Last year, the President launched a nationwide “Insure Kids Now” campaign that will bring together major TV and radio networks, healthcare organizations, religious groups and other community-based organizations to help enroll more children in the Children's Health Insurance Program, with the goal of enrolling 5 million of the estimated 10 million children eligible for health insurance under CHIP within 5 years. This year, the budget includes several of Vice President Gore's proposals to accelerate enrollment of children in CHIP. The President is also proposing a new FamilyCare program, which would give States the option to cover parents in the same plan as their children.
Passed Meaningful Health Insurance Reform. The President signed into law the Kennedy-Kassebaum Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which helps individuals keep health insurance when they change jobs, guarantees renewability of coverage, and ensures access to health insurance for small businesses. As many as 25 million people will benefit from this law. The bill also eliminated the discriminatory tax treatment the of the approximately 10 million Americans who are self-employed; strengthened efforts to combat health care fraud, waste and abuse by creating a stable source of funding; and provided consumer protections and tax incentives for private long-term care insurance.
Enacted Historic Comprehensive FDA Reform that Expedited the Review and Approval of New Drug Products. The President signed into law the 1997 FDA Modernization Act that includes important measures to modernize and streamline the regulation of biological products; increase patient access to experimental drugs and medical devices; and accelerate review of important new medications. This reform builds on the administrative initiatives implemented under the Vice President’s reinventing government effort which have led U.S. drug approvals to be as fast or faster than any other industrialized nation. Average drug approval times have dropped since the beginning of the Administration from almost three years to just over one year.
Signed Mental Health Parity Provisions into Law. To help eliminate discrimination against individuals with mental illnesses, the President signed into law mental health parity provisions to prohibit health plans from establishing separate lifetime and annual limits for mental health coverage. In 1999, the White House held the landmark, first-ever Conference on Mental Health and released the Surgeon General’s first Report on Mental Health. This year, the President's budget includes an investment of $100 million for mental health services, an increase of 16 percent over last year’s funding level and a 90 percent increase since 1993.
Signed Legislation to End Drive-Through Deliveries. President Clinton signed into law common sense legislation that requires health plans to allow new mothers to remain in the hospital for at least 48 hours following most normal deliveries and 96 hours after a Cesarean section.
Extended Strong, Enforceable Patient Protections for Millions of Americans. Leading by example, the President directed all federal agencies to ensure that their employees and beneficiaries have the benefits and rights guaranteed under the proposed Patients’ Bill of Rights. 85 million Americans covered by federal health plans have the security of knowing they will have fair access to health care thanks to the President's work. The President and Vice President have called for passage of the bipartisan Patients Bill of Rights Act, to ensure that all Americans have essential protections, such as guaranteed access to needed health care specialists; access to emergency room services when and where the need arises; continuity of care protections to assure patient care if a patient’s health care provider is dropped; access to a timely internal and independent external appeals process with a medical necessity standard; assurance that doctors and patients can openly discuss treatment options; and an enforcement mechanism that ensures recourse for patients who have been harmed as a result of health plan actions.
Fighting Medicare Fraud and Waste. Since 1993, the Clinton-Gore Administration has assigned more federal prosecutors and FBI agents to fight health care fraud than ever before. As a result, convictions have gone up a full 410 percent, saving more than $50 billion in health care claims. The Balanced Budget Act gave an array of new weapons in our fight to keep scam artists and fly-by-night health care out of Medicare and Medicaid.
Released Strong New Protections for the Privacy of Electronic Medical Records. The Clinton-Gore Administration released a new regulation to protect the privacy of electronic medical records held by health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers. This rule would limit the use and release of private health information without consent; restrict the disclosure of protected health information to the minimum amount of information necessary; establish new requirements for disclosure of information to researchers and others seeking access to health records; and establish new administrative and criminal sanctions for the improper use or disclosure of private information.
Implementing Comprehensive Nursing Home Quality Initiative. The Clinton-Gore Administration has issued the toughest nursing home regulations in the history of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, including increased monitoring of nursing homes to ensure that they are in compliance; requiring states to crack down on nursing homes that repeatedly violate health and safety requirements; and changing the inspection process to increase the focus on preventing bedsores, malnutrition and resident abuse. Won $43.5 million increase in FY 2000 to fund more rigorous inspections of nursing facilities and improved federal oversight and enforcement of nursing home quality.
Ensuring Safe Food for America’s Families. President Clinton created the President’s Council on Food Safety to develop a comprehensive food safety strategic plan for federal agencies. The Clinton-Gore Administration has implemented a new science-based inspection system -- Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points -- and reduced the prevalence of salmonella in raw meat and poultry by as much as 50 percent. The Administration formed national computer network of public health laboratories, called PulseNet, to help rapidly identify and stop outbreaks of foodborne illness by performing DNA "fingerprinting" on foodborne pathogens. The President signed the Food Quality Protection Act, which included special safeguards for kids and strengthened laws governing pesticides and food safety. The Administration also issued new rules to prevent foodborne illness caused by pathogens such as E. coli.
Raised Child Immunization Rates to All Time High. Childhood immunization coverage rates in 1998 were the highest ever recorded. 90 percent of toddlers in 1996, 1997 and 1998 received the most critical doses of each of the routinely recommended vaccines, surpassing the President’s 1993 goal. Because childhood vaccination levels in the United States are at an all-time high, disease and death from diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, mumps, rubella and Hib are at or near record lows. There was only one reported case of diphtheria, 100 reported cases of measles, and no reported cases of wild poliovirus for 1998.
Issued Regulation that Drug Companies Provide Adequate Testing for Children. President Clinton directed an important Food and Drug Administration regulation requiring manufacturers to do studies on pediatric populations for new prescription drugs -- and those currently on the market -- to ensure that prescription drugs have been adequately tested for the unique needs of children.
New Efforts to Help Consumers Understand Important Information on Over the Counter Drug Labels. The President unveiled a historic new FDA regulation that, for the first time, requires over-the-counter drug products to use a new product label with larger print and clearer language, making it easier for consumers to understand product warnings and comply with dosage guidance. The new regulation provides Americans with essential information about their medications in a user friendly way and takes a critical first step towards preventing the tens of thousands of unnecessary hospitalizations caused by misuse of over-the-counter medications each year.
Promoting Reproductive Health. The Clinton-Gore Administration has taken strong steps to protect a woman’s right to choose and to promote safe reproductive health services for women. The President has provided contraceptive coverage to more than a million women covered by federal health plans; provided family planning services to low income women through the Medicaid program; stood up against attempts to prohibit the FDA from approving RU-486; and continues to fight restrictions on international family planning.
Environment: Growing the Economy And Improving the Environment
Preserving Our National Treasures. The Clinton-Gore Administration has protected tens of millions of acres, from the red rock canyons of Utah to the Florida Everglades. The Administration reached agreements to protect Yellowstone from mining and save the ancient redwoods of California’s Headwaters Forest. In the FY 2000 budget, the President and Vice President won $651 million (a 42 percent increase) for Lands Legacy, a historic initiative to strengthen federal efforts to preserve national treasures and provides communities with new resources to protect local green spaces. This year, the President's budget includes a record $1.4 billion for Lands Legacy -- a 93 percent increase and the largest one-year investment ever requested for conserving America’s lands.
Created Four New National Monuments. The Clinton-Gore Administration has created four new national monuments: Grand Staircase-Escalante, protecting spectacular red rock canyonlands in Utah; Grand Canyon-Parashant, protecting deep canyons, mountains and buttes on the north rim of the Grand Canyon; Agua Fria, protecting extensive prehistoric ruins in Arizona; the California Coastal monument, protecting thousands of islands, rocks and reefs along the California coast. The Administration also expanded Pinnacles National Monument in California to better protect the area's unusual rock formations.
Preserving Our National Forests. The President directed the National Forest Service to develop and propose regulations to provide long-term protection for 40 million acres of “roadless” areas within national forests and ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy the pristine wilderness. The proposed regulations would ban road building in these areas and could also prohibit logging or other activities that harm their unique ecological value.
Accelerating Toxic Cleanups and Brownfields Redevelopment. The Clinton-Gore Administration has completed clean up at 525 Superfund sites, more than three times as many as completed in the previous twelve years. Clean up of more than 91 percent of all sites is either completed or in progress. The Administration has leveraged nearly $1 billion in private sector investment for brownfields redevelopment.
Keeping Our Drinking Water Safe. The President proposed and signed legislation to strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act to ensure that our families have healthy, clean tap water. The Clinton-Gore Administration has required America’s 55,000 water utilities to provide regular reports to their customers on the quality of their drinking water. The Administration also proposed new rule to reduce dirty runoff and strengthen protections for 20,000 rivers, lakes and other waterways too polluted for swimming and fishing. Ninety-one percent of America’s tap water from community drinking water systems now meets all federal standards.
Clearing the Air of Unhealthy Pollution. The President and Vice President have adopted the toughest standards ever on soot and smog. They proposed significant reductions in tailpipe emissions from cars, light trucks and SUVs, and launched long-term effort to restore pristine skies over our national parks and wilderness areas. Since 1993, the number of Americans living in communities that meet federal air quality standards has grown by 43 million.
Reducing the Threat of Global Warming. The Clinton-Gore Administration negotiated an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in an environmentally strong and economically sound way. The President and Vice President secured $1.1 billion in FY 2000 for research and development of energy efficiency and clean energy technologies, and set a goal of tripling U.S. use of bio-energy and bio-products by 2010. The President issued an Executive Order directing agencies to dramatically improve energy efficiency in federal buildings, saving taxpayers over $750 million a year when fully implemented.
Science and Technology: A Strong Research and Development Agenda
Unprecedented Investment in Biomedical Research. Two years ago, the President called for an increase of almost 50 percent over 5 years in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget as part of his Research for America Fund. Since that time, the NIH budget has increased by over $4.3 billion and with the funding proposed by the President this year, the Administration will be one year ahead of schedule in reaching the 50 percent goal. As a result, NIH now supports the highest levels of research ever on nearly all types of disease and health conditions, making new breakthroughs possible in vaccine development and use, the treatment of chronic disease, and prevention and treatment of diseases such as diabetes, osteoporosis, heart disease, cancer, and neurological diseases like Alzheimers and Parkinsons.
Supporting University Research, Training the Next Generation of Scientists and Engineers. The FY00 budget contained a 6.6 percent increase in the National Science Foundation research budget to support science and engineering research across all fields and disciplines. This includes $126 million for the Administration's "Information Technology for the 21st Century" initiative.
Ensuring U.S. Leadership in Space Science and Exploration. The Clinton-Gore Administration won increased investment of $13.65 billion for NASA in FY 2000. This investment offers the potential of new scientific breakthroughs through an aggressive robotic series of exploration missions into the solar system, as well as enhancing our ability to monitor important changes in the earth's climate systems, and strengthening aviation safety for the traveling public.
Strengthening the Economy and National Security with Information Technology. The Administration continued our investment to help ensure that America leads the world in information technologies that predict tornadoes, design life-saving drugs, and make air travel safer and more efficient, and maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing.
Changing the Way Government Does Business: Doing More for Less
Eliminating Red Tape. 16,000 pages of Federal regulations have been eliminated by President Clinton and Vice President Gore as part of the Vice President’s National Performance Review.
Smallest Government Workforce Since the 1960's. There are 375,000 fewer employees in the Federal government workforce than in 1993 -- giving us the smallest Federal workforce since the Kennedy Administration.
Lowest Government Spending Since 1974. At 18.7 percent, Federal Government spending as a share of the Gross Domestic Product is at its lowest level since 1974.
Increasing Participation in Our Democracy with the Motor Voter Law. President Clinton signed the National Voter Registration Act during his first year in office -- making voting easier for millions more Americans, and leading to the registration of more than 28 million new voters.
Foreign Policy: World’s Strongest Force for Peace, Freedom and Prosperity
Promoting Peace and Strengthening Democracy
- Ended a decade of repression and reversed ethnic cleansing in Kosovo by leading the NATO alliance to victory in a 79-day air war against Serb forces, forcing their withdrawal and ushering in international peacekeepers.
- Advancing the Middle East peace process by brokering peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors; negotiating the Wye River Accords; and supporting the launch of final settlement negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.
- Restarted Israel-Syria track of Middle East peace process by holding first high-level meeting between the two former adversaries in Washington after months of behind-the-scenes Presidential diplomacy, and following that meeting with formal talks in January.
- Brokered the Good Friday Peace Accord in Northern Ireland, ending decades of bloodshed.
Building a self-sustaining peace in Bosnia by leading diplomatic efforts to end civil war and foster multi-ethnic democracy. - Restored democracy in Haiti, ending military dictatorship and stopping refugee flows.
Supporting transition to democracy in Nigeria and mediating peace efforts in Sierra Leone and Ethiopia-Eritrea. - Ended violence and protected democracy in East Timor by leading diplomatic efforts and supporting international peacekeeping mission.
- Helped settle Peru-Ecuador border dispute and end civil war in Guatemala.
- Pressing for human rights and religious freedom worldwide, including in China, Burma, Sudan.
- Pressing for human rights, core labor standards, religious freedom, and the elimination of child labor worldwide.
Combating New Threats
- Protecting Americans from weapons of mass destruction by reducing Russian nuclear arsenals, easing nuclear tensions between India and Pakistan and ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention.
- Combating terrorism by developing a national counterterrorism strategy and striking terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan.
- Reducing North Korea threat through deterrence, diplomacy, and non-proliferation.
Containing Saddam Hussein through diplomacy, economic sanctions and military force.
Addressing new threats by protecting America’s critical infrastructure from cyber-terrorism and biological and chemical weapons. - Developing limited national missile defense to protect against attacks from rogue states while preserving nuclear stability with Russia.
- Improving military readiness through increased defense spending, with the first long-term sustained increase in defense funding in 15 years Strengthening Alliances and Building Partnerships
- Fulfilling vision of an undivided, democratic and peaceful Europe by enlarging NATO, integrating Southeast Europe, and reaching out to Russia.
- Building more constructive relationship with China through engagement and frank dialogue on human rights, security and trade.
- Deepening security alliances with Japan and South Korea.
- Secured landmark agreement to develop secure oil and gas pipelines from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, strengthening ties in the region and ensuring Americans have access to vital resources.
- Expanding trade and strengthening democracy in Asia and Latin America through APEC and the Summit of the Americas.
- Building partnerships with Africa and pushing for passage of the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
Expanding Prosperity
- Opening markets for U.S. exports abroad and creating American jobs through NAFTA, GATT and more than 270 other free and fair trade agreements.
- Integrating China into the world economy through landmark trade agreement that opens markets to U.S. exports, slashes Chinese tariffs, and protects American workers from dumping.
- Established World Trade Organization to reduce tariffs, settle trade disputes, and enforce rules.
- Prevented Asian financial crisis from undermining America’s prosperity by promoting sound monetary policies, urging banking reforms and fighting corruption.
- Stimulating worldwide growth through support for the IMF and G-8 global economic strategy.
- Saved Mexico from currency crisis by providing financial relief.
April 2000
Source: http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/summary.html
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
"None of your business."
Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Bill and Hillary, is currently campaigning for her mom. Much of her duties include visiting colleges around the country and getting the young voters excited. There's been some talk that this election, like the one in 1992, has galvanized the younger generation, and who better to send than young fresh Chelsea. She seems, from the footage I've seen, to be a well-spoken and intelligent young lady. Public speaking seems to run in the family.
In a recent stop, she was asked by an audience member if she thought her father's affair from when he was President would negatively impact her mother's candidacy. She replied "that's really none of your business". She didn't snap at the person, she didn't scream, cry, growl, or flip him off. She was polite, but firm: back off. In another campaign stop, another student posed the Lewinsky question, and was again met with a polite but firm “none of your business”.
It reminded me of an interview from 1992, when Phil Donahue asked Bill Clinton if he had ever cheated on his wife. Bill smiled and said "no, but if I had, it'd be none of your business." It's nice to see the family view hasn't changed much. But it raises an interesting point. Was Clinton's affair (or affairs, if you believe the gossip) any of the American public's business? Do we, as citizens, have a right to know what goes on in the personal lives of our elected leaders? Certainly in this Information Age, we crave our fix of data like junkies, and the once-a-day half hour with Walter Cronkite simply does not sate our bloodlust as it once did. In the age of 24-hour streaming news, it raises the question: where does the press draw the line?
There is the axiom in journalism that reads “if it bleeds, it leads”. Nobody goes to an air show except to see a fiery crash, and no one cares what’s happening with famous people (including politicians) unless it’s a scandal. Legislation to nationalize healthcare for all citizens? Yawn. A 60-year old Senator diddling 18-year old male pages via text message? Now we’ve got our lead story.
I take small comfort in knowing that it wasn’t always this way. Kennedy was one of the great philanderers of his day, but you’ll not find much about it in the newspapers of that time. It suggests to me that it was a classier time for journalists, albeit duller. These days, Edward R. Murrow would be lucky to handle the crop report on the local news in Des Moines.
Certainly human nature hasn’t changed. We’re the same sex-crazed gossip mongers we’ve always been. Only now it’s acceptable for legitimate journalists to focus more on Monica Lewinsky’s famous blue dress than on genocide in Africa. There’s an economic angle to be considered as well here: in checkout lines and waiting rooms across America, more people are reaching for People and Us magazines than U.S. News and World Report. We want to know about the train wrecks, the rehabs, the messy divorces of our cultural royalty. And in recent years, cultural royalty has come to include Presidents. Ever since Richard Nixon asked us to sock it to him on “Laugh In”, President have been willing to debase themselves on national TV for a little attention. Clinton blew the sax on Arsenio Hall’s show. Saturday Night Live has given Obama and Clinton more of a ratings boost than CNBC. The problem is that this sort of attention morphs our leaders from statesmen into celebrities. We were all titillated by who Marilyn Monroe was sleeping with, but when JFK was that man, suddenly we were all willing to take the high road. It simply wasn’t dignified to speak of our President in such pedestrian terms. This was the leader of the Free World, and respect must be paid.
But no longer, it seems. As celebrities, eager to show their sense of humor and humanity in general, our political pantheon has collectively stepped down off the pedestal that once granted them immunity from such gossip. In their eagerness to demonstrate that they were “one of us”, they exposed themselves to being treated like one of us – susceptible to gossip and slander.
All Presidents have been attacked by their opponents for a variety of reasons, but only in recent years has the general public gotten in on the act, demanding access to the most privy aspects of our leaders’ lives. No longer content to ogle the First Lady’s choice in dishware and window treatments, we consider ourselves entitled to the gory details of their sex lives, especially when adultery is the soup du jour.
Personally, I think it should be considered beneath a President’s dignity to address such issues. This goes for presidential candidates as well. As legitimate journalism encroaches incrementally into the private lives of these very public people, a line must be drawn eventually. A boundary must be established that tells the media “this far, and no further”. We cannot count on the media, or the public, to ultimately censor themselves and comport with discretion and dignity. In this age, the lowest common denominator in our society is given equal footing, and in some cases preferential treatment. I think Chelsea’s reply was a long-overdue cry in the desert, a wake-up call to not only the media but to our society at large: you’re not entitled to answers when the question is none of your business.
In a recent stop, she was asked by an audience member if she thought her father's affair from when he was President would negatively impact her mother's candidacy. She replied "that's really none of your business". She didn't snap at the person, she didn't scream, cry, growl, or flip him off. She was polite, but firm: back off. In another campaign stop, another student posed the Lewinsky question, and was again met with a polite but firm “none of your business”.
It reminded me of an interview from 1992, when Phil Donahue asked Bill Clinton if he had ever cheated on his wife. Bill smiled and said "no, but if I had, it'd be none of your business." It's nice to see the family view hasn't changed much. But it raises an interesting point. Was Clinton's affair (or affairs, if you believe the gossip) any of the American public's business? Do we, as citizens, have a right to know what goes on in the personal lives of our elected leaders? Certainly in this Information Age, we crave our fix of data like junkies, and the once-a-day half hour with Walter Cronkite simply does not sate our bloodlust as it once did. In the age of 24-hour streaming news, it raises the question: where does the press draw the line?
There is the axiom in journalism that reads “if it bleeds, it leads”. Nobody goes to an air show except to see a fiery crash, and no one cares what’s happening with famous people (including politicians) unless it’s a scandal. Legislation to nationalize healthcare for all citizens? Yawn. A 60-year old Senator diddling 18-year old male pages via text message? Now we’ve got our lead story.
I take small comfort in knowing that it wasn’t always this way. Kennedy was one of the great philanderers of his day, but you’ll not find much about it in the newspapers of that time. It suggests to me that it was a classier time for journalists, albeit duller. These days, Edward R. Murrow would be lucky to handle the crop report on the local news in Des Moines.
Certainly human nature hasn’t changed. We’re the same sex-crazed gossip mongers we’ve always been. Only now it’s acceptable for legitimate journalists to focus more on Monica Lewinsky’s famous blue dress than on genocide in Africa. There’s an economic angle to be considered as well here: in checkout lines and waiting rooms across America, more people are reaching for People and Us magazines than U.S. News and World Report. We want to know about the train wrecks, the rehabs, the messy divorces of our cultural royalty. And in recent years, cultural royalty has come to include Presidents. Ever since Richard Nixon asked us to sock it to him on “Laugh In”, President have been willing to debase themselves on national TV for a little attention. Clinton blew the sax on Arsenio Hall’s show. Saturday Night Live has given Obama and Clinton more of a ratings boost than CNBC. The problem is that this sort of attention morphs our leaders from statesmen into celebrities. We were all titillated by who Marilyn Monroe was sleeping with, but when JFK was that man, suddenly we were all willing to take the high road. It simply wasn’t dignified to speak of our President in such pedestrian terms. This was the leader of the Free World, and respect must be paid.
But no longer, it seems. As celebrities, eager to show their sense of humor and humanity in general, our political pantheon has collectively stepped down off the pedestal that once granted them immunity from such gossip. In their eagerness to demonstrate that they were “one of us”, they exposed themselves to being treated like one of us – susceptible to gossip and slander.
All Presidents have been attacked by their opponents for a variety of reasons, but only in recent years has the general public gotten in on the act, demanding access to the most privy aspects of our leaders’ lives. No longer content to ogle the First Lady’s choice in dishware and window treatments, we consider ourselves entitled to the gory details of their sex lives, especially when adultery is the soup du jour.
Personally, I think it should be considered beneath a President’s dignity to address such issues. This goes for presidential candidates as well. As legitimate journalism encroaches incrementally into the private lives of these very public people, a line must be drawn eventually. A boundary must be established that tells the media “this far, and no further”. We cannot count on the media, or the public, to ultimately censor themselves and comport with discretion and dignity. In this age, the lowest common denominator in our society is given equal footing, and in some cases preferential treatment. I think Chelsea’s reply was a long-overdue cry in the desert, a wake-up call to not only the media but to our society at large: you’re not entitled to answers when the question is none of your business.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright vs. Geraldine Ferraro
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another..." so begins the Declaration of Independence. Our first step towards greatness as a nation was to recognize that some relationships had become more of a hindrance than a help, and it was time to distance ourselves from those who would hold us back.
Such a time is now for the Democratic nominees for the Presidency. As bets are placed and candidates maneuver for votes, we can expect the inevitable parade of supporters. It is a symbiotic relationship, with the supporters getting to share the spotlight and the candidates getting to bask in the adulation of Important People.
The problem becomes when the media confuse the candidate with their supporters. The first blip on the radar came when Louis Farrakhan endorsed the candidacy of Barack Obama. You could almost hear the collective cringe from Obama's white and Jewish supporters, as the situation was defused with the delicacy of a time bomb. The candidate morphs and becomes one with the supporters in the eyes of the media, and we can almost imagine Farrakhan's hateful diatribes coming from Obama himself. Obama deftly sidestepped the issue, saying that while he was happy as a candidate to get an endorsement, he wanted everyone to know that he rejected the message of Farrakhan.
Then from the mist of time immemorial, Geraldine Ferraro emerges. Unless you were paying attention in the early 1980's, Geraldine Ferraro qualifies as little more than a Final Jeopardy answer. The question? Who was the first woman to run for Vice President of the United States for one of the two major political parties? Even today, the candidacy of Ferraro raised speculation: was it a stunt? A dare? Were Democrats, sure that they were unable to thwart Reagan's re-election in 1984, trying to simply make a statement that they were the party of Women's Liberation? After her and Walter Mondale's defeat, she had her brief foray on the lecture circuit, and from there retreated into the mist.
Then with Hillary running, and winning Texas and Ohio, it seemed entirely plausible that we would see a woman taking the Oath of Office next January. The time was right for Ferraro to emerge from obscurity and cast her lot for Hillary. The only problem is, Ferraro has a big mouth, and a bit of a chip on her shoulder. Politicking is a delicate dance, and all it takes is one botched do-si-do to get voted off the stage. So, Ferraro shoots her mouth off in ways that came off as pretty racist against Obama, saying he wouldn't be a candidate if not for the fact that he's black. Wow, not even "African-American"? So much for that famous liberal sensitivity. Hillary, who remained loudly silent in the aftermath, probably did her campaign more harm than good as a result. The fact that she insisted that Obama both "denounce and reject" Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments was spot on. It is important that the leader of the United States to show no bias towards or against any group. Obama did the right thing in distancing himself from Farrakhan's hate speech, and for the life of me I can't figure out why Hillary wasn't as prompt to do the same.
Finally, we have Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright. Born in Philadelphia, Rev. Wright spent 36 years as pastor to the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. This is the same church Obama attended. So what did the good Reverend say that is so horrible as to incur the wrath of mainstream media and cast aspersions on the candidacy of the Democratic Senator from Illinois? Simply this: "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." He also said that Americans are "selfish, self-centered egotists who are arrogant and ignorant,". America is also said to have, "put Nelson Mandela in prison", to "believe in white supremacy", and to have, "supported Zionism shamelessly."
Ouch.
Whether Obama believes this or not is not the issue at this point. The good things the Reverend has done for his community will not be considered here. It's a shame too, because on the merits of the aforementioned quotes, it's hard not to lump Reverend Wright in with Minister Farrakhan. But regardless of how this boils down one lesson is already emerging: be careful who you count as your friends, especially in politics when everyone wants to be your friend. Whatever asinine stunt they pull becomes your stunt. Whatever invective spewed in a moment of anger becomes your new campaign slogan.
Hillary and Barack have done themselves and one another a good deal of harm in this "I hate your supporters" tiff. I do believe that they would both love to get back to the issues of the election and let this other stuff slide. I mean really, just because Geraldine Ferraro is a closet racist doesn't mean Hillary Clinton has to be one too. Just because Louis Farrakhan is gong to vote for Barack Obama doesn't mean that Obama hates Jews too. But even the fact that we have to pause to remind ourselves of that is a bad thing.
Such a time is now for the Democratic nominees for the Presidency. As bets are placed and candidates maneuver for votes, we can expect the inevitable parade of supporters. It is a symbiotic relationship, with the supporters getting to share the spotlight and the candidates getting to bask in the adulation of Important People.
The problem becomes when the media confuse the candidate with their supporters. The first blip on the radar came when Louis Farrakhan endorsed the candidacy of Barack Obama. You could almost hear the collective cringe from Obama's white and Jewish supporters, as the situation was defused with the delicacy of a time bomb. The candidate morphs and becomes one with the supporters in the eyes of the media, and we can almost imagine Farrakhan's hateful diatribes coming from Obama himself. Obama deftly sidestepped the issue, saying that while he was happy as a candidate to get an endorsement, he wanted everyone to know that he rejected the message of Farrakhan.
Then from the mist of time immemorial, Geraldine Ferraro emerges. Unless you were paying attention in the early 1980's, Geraldine Ferraro qualifies as little more than a Final Jeopardy answer. The question? Who was the first woman to run for Vice President of the United States for one of the two major political parties? Even today, the candidacy of Ferraro raised speculation: was it a stunt? A dare? Were Democrats, sure that they were unable to thwart Reagan's re-election in 1984, trying to simply make a statement that they were the party of Women's Liberation? After her and Walter Mondale's defeat, she had her brief foray on the lecture circuit, and from there retreated into the mist.
Then with Hillary running, and winning Texas and Ohio, it seemed entirely plausible that we would see a woman taking the Oath of Office next January. The time was right for Ferraro to emerge from obscurity and cast her lot for Hillary. The only problem is, Ferraro has a big mouth, and a bit of a chip on her shoulder. Politicking is a delicate dance, and all it takes is one botched do-si-do to get voted off the stage. So, Ferraro shoots her mouth off in ways that came off as pretty racist against Obama, saying he wouldn't be a candidate if not for the fact that he's black. Wow, not even "African-American"? So much for that famous liberal sensitivity. Hillary, who remained loudly silent in the aftermath, probably did her campaign more harm than good as a result. The fact that she insisted that Obama both "denounce and reject" Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments was spot on. It is important that the leader of the United States to show no bias towards or against any group. Obama did the right thing in distancing himself from Farrakhan's hate speech, and for the life of me I can't figure out why Hillary wasn't as prompt to do the same.
Finally, we have Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright. Born in Philadelphia, Rev. Wright spent 36 years as pastor to the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. This is the same church Obama attended. So what did the good Reverend say that is so horrible as to incur the wrath of mainstream media and cast aspersions on the candidacy of the Democratic Senator from Illinois? Simply this: "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." He also said that Americans are "selfish, self-centered egotists who are arrogant and ignorant,". America is also said to have, "put Nelson Mandela in prison", to "believe in white supremacy", and to have, "supported Zionism shamelessly."
Ouch.
Whether Obama believes this or not is not the issue at this point. The good things the Reverend has done for his community will not be considered here. It's a shame too, because on the merits of the aforementioned quotes, it's hard not to lump Reverend Wright in with Minister Farrakhan. But regardless of how this boils down one lesson is already emerging: be careful who you count as your friends, especially in politics when everyone wants to be your friend. Whatever asinine stunt they pull becomes your stunt. Whatever invective spewed in a moment of anger becomes your new campaign slogan.
Hillary and Barack have done themselves and one another a good deal of harm in this "I hate your supporters" tiff. I do believe that they would both love to get back to the issues of the election and let this other stuff slide. I mean really, just because Geraldine Ferraro is a closet racist doesn't mean Hillary Clinton has to be one too. Just because Louis Farrakhan is gong to vote for Barack Obama doesn't mean that Obama hates Jews too. But even the fact that we have to pause to remind ourselves of that is a bad thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
