Health Care Hang-Up

Going into the State of the Union address, President Obama's approval rating was less than 50 percent, and Congress's overall approval rating was much lower. One of the reasons for this was that fact that policymakers have not been able to pass a health care policy that most of the public agrees with. The bill that is currently in the Senate is quite different from the one that passed in the House a couple months ago, and Speaker of the House Pelosi says that the Senate version of the bill is unlikely to pass without change in the House again. Pelosi stated recently that a preferred option among many members of Congress may be to scale back legislation from the $1 trillion plan over 10 years that it is at the moment. The American people of tired of spending that does not result in a noticeable change, and the plan as it is could just be another piece of legislation along the lines of unwanted and/or unnoticeable change. It seems that it is truly a time, if not the time for legislators to step back and look at what they have done and what they need to do. Right now, it's not time to worry about reelection and the race for a majority (which seems to be the continual theme of Congress), rather, it is a time for reevaluation of what the American people actually want. Before spending $1 trillion of money that we don't actually have, and will have to borrow, Congress should make compromises between both sides and not just try to push one-sided legislation through the floor. The last thing we want to do is rely on China for more money than we already have to, and have that money pay for legislation that doesn't even do what it was supposed to do. Create promises, meet those promises, and borrow intelligently. The link to the article is here.

Obama's Helpful Attitude Towards Banks

During the attempt at health care reform, President Obama and the Democrats found themselves on the wrong side of the public's attitude; the people were disappointed. As the administration's agenda is shifting from health care reform to financial reform, they are hoping to not make the same mistake again. What is the key to not making this mistake again? Some say that the key is having a confrontational attitude about politics from the President, just as he did when addressing the wrongdoings of Wall Street and the banks. President Obama really let the banks have the full attack of people, as translated through himself. With financial reform, he needs to do this same thing. Obama needs to shift from a passive leader of a party that is somewhat divided on many issues, to a agitated aggressor of change in policy. If he adopts an attitude like that of Lyndon B. Johnson, it is quite possible that he could agitate the policymakers into actually making policy. This in-your-face style could make Congress choose sides quickly, creating change in a more effective manner. However, this effort could also ruin the President's hope of creating a bipartisan relationship between members of the government. If Obama pushes for decisive policymaking, it is likely that many congressman will just take the side of their entire party. This will allows for little discussion between members of the separate parties, leading to many disagreements and likely many filibusters now that the Democrats do not have a filibuster-proof majority. In my opinion, if President Obama treats issues with assertiveness and decisiveness, asking for a decision quickly, his popularity will rise because of the fact that something is happening. However, an effort such as this will for sure create even more tension between political parties than there already is. Honestly, however, he can't try to take a between route of moderation. Moderation is what he has tried, and it has really gotten him nowhere. Taking one, decisive action at a time is probably the only thing that will make the American people support him. The public does not like indecision. The link to the article is here.

Arms Deal With Taiwan

With many government programs being cut do to the effort to cut costs and reduce the deficit, its not hard to see why the United States made a deal with Taiwan regarding an arms deal. The United States is always in search of news ways to increase its revenue, and this is just what it is doing with a $6.4 billion arms deal with Taiwan. The United States is selling 30 Black Hawk helicopters, 112 advanced Patriot air defense missiles, a pair of mine hunting ships, and dozens of advanced communications systems to Taiwan. And which country is most against this sale? China. Actually, China's protest seems to have a reasonable root, which regards the legitimacy of Taiwan as a sovereign entity which should be able to buy arms. Interestingly enough, neither China nor the United States has recognized Taiwan as a sovereign nation. China complains that because Taiwan does have some sense of hostility towards the large, mainland nation, the arms deal actually interferes with their national security. The only thing that is good regarding the arms deal for China is the fact that it does not include F-16 fighter planes. These were the items that Taiwan wanted, and China fervently did not want Taiwan to have. In this sense, the United States compromised in its deal, to make both Taiwan and China have a positive image of the deal. It seems to me that this is a strange deal to push forward when we are already asking China to sign on to a more harsh policy regarding Iran and their nuclear weapons program. Why not wait until China signed on to the new policy regarding Iran before selling arms to Taiwan? If this ruins any kind of relations between China and the United States, much blame will be put upon the State Department. After all, when it comes to international relations, trust is often more important than making a quick buck for one's country. The link to the article is here.

Citizen Tube

Wednesday night during his State of the Union address, President Obama made it clear that he would focus much effort on openly communicating with both parties about future legislation, in an attempt to create a successful bipartisanship. However, he has even taken this one step further, but pledging to openly communicate with the public. Just another speech? No. He will be answering various questions posted on YouTube by interested citizens, part of a new project called Citizen Tube. He will gives his answers to various public questions on Monday. Some of the questions are about the normal stuff, regarding health care and the economy. However, the most popular questions among the videos are those addressing the legalization of marijuana, interestingly enough. There also also some random questions covering everything from UFOs to Scientology. Recently, regarding the most popular topic, President Obama said that legalization would probably not be the best idea, and also said that he was a little confused about the type of audience fore his YouTube questioning. So will Citizen Tube actually come across as a success? It really depends on the types of questions Obama chooses to answer. It seems that the main thing Obama can accomplish through this action is popular support. If the president shows that he is willing to support the common man and woman, the common man and woman will be more willing to support the President. Other than a slight gain in trust within the American People, it doesn't seem like many new, revealing truths will come out of this Citizen Tube effort. The link to the article is here.

U.S. Money Stuggles

One of the biggest issues that governments across the world face daily is the issue of monetary security. With an ever growing debt, the United States is in this very boat, struggling to say above the surface. President Obama made it clear in his State of the Union address Wednesday night that a major goal of the years to come will be decreasing the federal deficit. In this effort, Obama already put a spending freeze on all government programs for three years. This freeze is estimated to save $10 to $15 billion by the end of 2011. But his was not enough for what Obama had in mind. He has proposed to cut approximately 120 government programs and agencies, saving roughly $20 billion a year. One such project that is likely to get cut is the Save America's Treasures programs, which works to restore historical buildings such as small town courthouses. However, even with these cuts, President Obama has still called for $200 million for security regarding the trials of suspected terrorist, such as the mastermind behind the September 11th attacks. This just shows that for each government program that is cut, something else that is equally important or more important comes up that must be paid for. So in reality, one must wonder about whether these cuts will really lower the deficit of the United States, or if they will just go towards new initiatives regarding the flailing country. Even if the debt is slowly lowered for the U.S., one must wonder what will happen once the agencies are reinstated - will be costs outweigh the revenue as it has throughout history, or will history change for the better? The link to the article is here.

Governmental Bipartisanship

In his State of the Union address Wednesday night, President Obama made a direct attack at the members of the GOP sitting on the right side of the auditorium. He gave them a promise that he would start having more frequent meetings with the GOP leaders to talk about issues, and relationships between political parties. Today, President Obama was in Baltimore talking to some leaders of the House Republicans while they were at there retreat. The subject of the talks was just this - bipartisanship in politics. While at the retreat, Obama attacked the Republicans for a "politics of no" that had developed within their ranks; this meant that Obama was pointing out his opinion that many Republicans were just saying "no" to some decisions just because they could, just because of party politics. The Republican countered by telling Obama that even though he spoke of bipartisanship and cooperation, he himself often pushed liberal ideas without really listening to what the GOP had to say. It was in this way that the President and House Republicans jabbed each other in a respectful, civil way. After all, being respectful and civil is what bipartisanship is all about right? If anything is going to get accomplished in this time of need for America, one party cannot either completely dominate or completely hinder the political agenda. The parties are not about to merge completely - far from it. However, all that it takes is a few members from each party listening to and caring about the other side's opinion. If interest is shown, then civility will be shown. This idea applies to the president himself as well. The link to the article is here.

Obama to Focus on Jobs?

As the State of the Union approaches, many people are wondering what President Obama is going to say regarding the country spiraling sharply out of control. The chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, says that Obama should focus his address on one major thing: jobs. He believes that when jobs are increased and bettered, the people of American will actually feel that something is getting done, and that government is not just in some kind of stalemate. Jobs are the first thing Alexander believes the president should work on, followed by the debt and terrorism. The middle of these focuses actually makes quite a bit of sense: if the United States is about to spend a great sum of money on some kind of health care plan in the near future, it seems that the president should first work on the national debt, so that people don't think the government is losing control of itself (which many people already think). If Obama creates jobs and lowers the debt in some way before the health care bill passes, many more people will be on the bandwagon of success, and will therefore support the health care plan. This seems to be one of the only plans for the success of Obama's speech tomorrow night. The link to the article is here.

Country Skeptical Before the State of the Union Address

With his polls dropping below the 50 percent margin, President Obama must think about ways to create hope within the American people during his State of the Union Speech. A recent pole from the National Public Radio reveals that more than 50 percent of Americans would vote Republicans if the mid-term elections were to happen today. This correlates to the similar statistic of over 50 percent of the American people being against the proposed health care plan. Obama truly does have much to address: The state of the economy, jobs within the economy, relations with other nations regarding climate change, and the state of the health care debate. President Obama can't trash a plan that has been worked on for over a year, but he also can't put through something that the people don't actually want; he has an issue on his hands. With this in mind, Obama can't just think about reelection strategy when he makes his speech - he needs to think about what will actually please the people. This will truly be the telling factor of how he is doing as Chief of State, actually representing the people. This speech will be crucial in deciding what direction the United States will go regarding many issues.

Losing Obama's Senate Seat

The Democrats recently lost Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat in Massachussetts to a Republican politician, and what could add even more injury to this fact? Well, it looks as if the Democrats are under the threat of losing President Obama's old Senate seat in Illinois. In the eyes of the people, the moderate republican running for the seat could meet the demands of the people more than the liberal Democrats who are currently fighting over who should run for the seat; the Democrats don't know whether to run a conservative liberal (moderate) candidate, or a more left-side liberal. The Republicans, on the other hand, seem to have the perfect moderate candidate: five time representative Mark Kirk. A recent poll puts the support for Kirk at 47 percent - an amazing amount for somebody who hasn't even been nominated yet. For Obama, this could be another blow to his Senate majority is the republicans win in November. Growing discontent shows that Obama could very well be facing a republican majority in the Senate by the middle of his first term in office. The article link is here.

Obama to Propose Budget Freeze

As the State of the Union address quickly approaches on Wednesday night, many are wondering what President Obama is going to do about the growing concern regarding the federal deficit. It appears that Obama will propose a new spending freeze on the Congress budget for approximately three years. The freeze will affect a $477 billion plot of money put aside mainly for the annual appropriation of funds for domestic agencies. Interestingly enough, some agencies will gain more money than normal, while others will lose greatly because of the budget cuts. It is likely that the freeze will not affect all of the $477 billion, but rather around $250 billion over the course of a decade. The newly filibuster-proof republican numbers are pushing for this budget reform. This presidential action shows the role of the president as the chief of state, and the virtual image for the head of our nation's economy. The president's approval rating strongly relies on the state of the economy, which is why Obama is listening to the people when it comes to economic care. The article link is here.

President Obama's Influential Image

It could be said that President Obama came into office at a rough time for the United States. A large part of this fact has to deal with the deplorable condition of the economy during the past months. Even though the economy is struggling, studies show that one groups optimism has grown beyond that of all others - the blacks. African Americans are more optimistic about the Obama administration than they've been about nearly any presidency in history. Even with the tanking economy, this group shows their belief in the powers of the president. In a sense, this fact shows the idealistic image of the president at the Chief of State. The fact that an African American is representing the United States in all public appearances and statements has sparked support in this influential group, uniting them in a truly common manner. It is good and interesting to see the President of the United States fulfill his role as Chief of State in a different manner than any other president in history, creating an image for all to attempt and follow. The article link is here.

Obama the "Arm-Twister"

It was outlined in a recent Congressional Quarterly report that President Obama has acquired more votes regarding issues where he took a stance than any other president in the five decade history of the Congressional Quarterly. With regard to winning congressional votes, in his first year in office, Obama appears to be garnering more votes for issues than even the great negotiator Lyndon Johnson. When he took a clear position on an issue, Obama won approximately 96.7 percent of all votes in the House and Senate. Interestingly enough, this number was almost 10 percent higher than the George W. Bush administration after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. One question to ask from these facts is whether all of this success is coming solely from Obama's work as the Chief Legislator. More than skills as a legislator it seems to be the extreme state of turmoil in which the country sits. President Obama must keep his image in high status, which means using his power to influence the politics of the country. In this way, Obama is mixing his roles as Chief Legislator and Chief of State, trying to create a balanced workhorse. The article link is here.