So, Obama has been in place for a few weeks now. Personally I think the whole first 100 days idea is pretty dumb, because I don't think any presidency can or should be judged on their first 100 days, but that is a different rant.
Anyway, I wanted to comment on three things I have seen so far, and how I judge the administration on those.
First, I was ecstatic to see that the Obama administration is taking the BLM by the scruff of the neck and shaking some sense into them. Now, I may not agree with the reasons, I think Obama's administration will be more against domestic drilling as a blanket stance, and that isn't my opinion on it, however, I do love the fact that they are going to hold the BLM to the rules and regulations that are already in place to protect natural resources. Utah's BLM in particular has been running roughshod over regulations playing fast and loose with rules that I frankly agree with that require certain levels of research and discretion with our natural resources. No more energy corporation rubber stamps from Utah's BLM. I give the Obama administration an A+ on this one. Good job.
Second, Obama has been talking a lot about the new stimulus package, and how it must be passed now. My opinion is similar, I do think a stimulus package is necessary, and I do think the quicker the better. However, I think it does require a big level of scrutiny to make sure this doesn't become (or isn't already) a big Christmas tree for everyone to hang their own pet projects on. I do not think rhetoric like mentioning how many people will lose their jobs every day this package is debated is helpful, or productive. I think it is a bullying tactic to get Republican Senators to pass the bill and shut up about those parts they think are excessive, or unhelpful because they aren't actually stimulus. So, I agree there needs to be a stimulus, but I am very disappointed by the tone of the rhetoric that seems to be trying to stifle debate in a hurry up don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain, because this is important, way. Because of the importance of the issue, and how much I hate that kind of rhetoric: D+
Third, I am conservative, I do like the idea of smaller government in areas that I don't think the government is necessary. Case in point. Obama is talking about trying to take broadband internet access to everyone in America. Now, in theory I think it would be great if everyone had access to broadband internet. In fact, I thought it was a great investment for all of the Utah communities to decide to get on the wagon for the Utopia project. But, that is my point, I thought it was a great idea for the communities. I in no way think it is a good idea for the federal government to get involved in providing access to the internet for all citizens. This is not a vital bit of anything. Are there benefits to having the internet, sure, but I don't think they are a federal government interest. I remember that I was the first person in my family to have a private email address, and it was only a few months before I left on my mission, so, I do know that one can get along without the internet all together, let alone high speed broadband access. For going off on a completely uneccessary tangent that is stupid, and is nothing the federal government should be getting involved in: F.
So, not a lot of surprises so far. Because of our differences on what government should be involved in, there are sure to be lots of disagreements between me and this administration, but I like to give credit where it is due, and hope that good decisions keep coming.
6 comments:
That's great. I am not so conservative, but I am pretty much in line with your grades for Obama so far.
I feel like the D+ on the politics of the stimulus package was a little harsh because any politician would use this PR tactic. I would still give him at least a C- though, because we were promised that he would not be "politics as usual" and clearly this is more of the same.
However, I am still loving this administration. I was listnening to NPR this morning as they talked about the international relationships mending so much quicker than I expected.
Anyway, everyone knows that I Barak'd the vote!
I totally disagree about the grade and position on broad band. While you can live without it it will soon be time where in order to be competative and relivant in the future's economy broad band will be necessary. The time to plan for the future isn't tommorow but today. Next the communication resources that broad band will require makes it an issue that the Federal government should be involved in on some level. That is just a light cover of all the reasons why the Federal Government should get involved.
That is great rhetoric Jimmy, all about competitive, and relevant. However, i would love a great example. The cable companies, and phone companies take high speed internet to new locations constantly, as the market demands. They put out the money, and they recoup the profits. Now, I am not a pure market capitalist, I don't think the market can or should regulate everything, but in this case it is working as it should.
Demand has pushed expansion of broadband internet access further and further out. Are there areas in the country that don't have access? Sure, but I don't think that is a federal government issue. If States want broadband in their schools, they should put it there, same with libraries, that should be a local expense (because that expense isn't prohibitive on the small scale).
Lets get a real world example of yours, so we can talk about that, I can't argue against broad rhetoric like "plan for tomorrow today", and 'being competative and relevant in the future economy'. Give me an example, and we'll talk about that.
There are still parts of the South without energy. Parts of Arkansas(sp) until recently barely had serviceable roads. Also broad band access for some people like my dad isn't available at a competitive price. Yes my dad is still on dial up, and many people in his neiborghhood. So there are some examples where the market isn't spreading broad band.
Secondly with certain types of broad band the private sector can only go where there is an infertructure already set up.
Third you have only argued that the private sector can do it better. You have yet to refute that this is an area of legitimate power to exercised by the federal government.
Fourth broad band in schools isn't so much an issue as broad band at home and other locations.
Fifth when national governments take an initiative and set up a broad band system it has been very sucessful in both quality and price for the citizens of that country. Just look at Japan and Korea. Oh waith those happen to be the leaders in new electronics and internet development ideas as well.
Sixth you have yet to refute how a national initiative to make broad band more avalable on a national level is a bad thing.
Seventh I can talk about this issue all day. I is the only issue that I acutally study up on more than Iraq and Afghanistan. Its in my genetics I can't help it.
The stimulus package is interesting. They are putting a bunch of extras on the side of it. Like social healthcare and also if it does pass then schools that allow prayer, who receive government funding, would lose that funding. I think it is just another shot at socialism under the skirt of our republic. That is just what I have studied thus far on the bill.
First, is comcast not available in your dad's neighborhood? That would really surprise me. What do you mean competitive price? Does it have to be affordable for everyone? Because I would definitely disagree with that.
Second, yes, and they are building those parts of the infrastructure as the grid expands. For areas where they are not, the local, or state government could definitely step in and subsidize should those people choose.
Third, I don't think the federal government should pay for something just because it is good. I also don't think the federal government is responsible to make luxuries available to all people, and high speed internet is that a luxury, plain and simple, it cannot be argued to be anything else.
Fourth, I would think broadband in schools would be a stronger argument, albeit still one I would disagree with. I don't think the feds have any stake in making sure the average citizen can sit at his computer and surf the web quickly.
I don't dispute that it would be high quality and competitively priced (though we still haven't really established what that means). All sorts of things become cheaper when the feds pay for it, though that cost is recouped in other ways, i.e. taxes, or lack of spending in other areas. I don't think it matters on a federal level whether or not you can get good quality low priced high speed internet in your home.
Sixth, because I don't think the feds should be spending tax payer money to do it. Some things are luxuries: Cable, Internet, cell phones, multiple cars (usually), new homes, new cars, etc. etc. etc.. I do not believe that the federal government should be paying for any of those things. I went without cable til it fit in my budget, same with cell phone, and high speed internet. I have wanted a mini van so that Alisa could comfortably drive around with three child seats, but we couldn't afford it, so we have been driving around the ole Taurus with all three seats jammed in the back. People want not only their needs, but their wants fulfilled now, and if they can't afford them, some feel tha the government owes it to them, I don't.
Seventh, and you very well may know more about it than I do. What you have to understand is this, I am all for public private ventures. I was big in favor of the Utopia project here in Utah that would have put fiber optic access up and down the state so all sorts of rural areas would have access to it for incredibly high speed internet, better phone systems etc., and I was glad that Layton was one of the communities that signed on. But that is the local level, I wouldn't expect, or want citizens of another state to pay for it.
Post a Comment