Change, Change, Change......

The New York Times article "Climate of Change" by Paul Krugman addresses some of the changes we have seen with the new administration, and some we hope to see in the future. Everyone is focused on the massive stimulus bill that was just passed, but there are other concerns that President Obama has addressed in his early days in office. If he can do things similar to getting this bill passed, we may indeed be in store for some fundamental changes in the way things are done in this country. President Obama's plan to reduce the deficit in his first term is commendable, and according to Krugman, plausible. How this will work while reforming health care and taming big banks remains to be seen. While there have been a few disappointments, overall the direction seems to be a positive one. From generating new revenue while focusing on the environment, there is the possibility that the new President's plan just might work. To quote Krugman, "these new priorities are laid out in a document whose clarity and plausibility seem almost incredible to those of us who grew accustomed to reading Bush-era budgets". This is promising for all of us who have learned to be wary of promises made my the commander-in-chief over the last eight years. When the current financial crisis passes and we get out of Iraq, the budget should improve dramatically. We are spending about 100 billion a year fighting the war in Iraq, so there's a sizable chunk right there. According to Krogan, the one we must get under control is the ever-increasing cost of health care.

This is a promising time for the country. Most people have aligned themselves behind the new president, in hopes that he can rescue us from this dire economic slump. In order for us to remain on top of the food chain politically, we have to right the ship and continue to be the standard bearer for the rest of the world. While not everyone agrees with that assessment, I feel that we should be the shining light that other countries in the world aspire to. We have been champions against oppression and aggression for nearly a century, and I feel that we must keep that mantle and fix things within our own borders.

I personally feel that President Obama can do the things he says he can do, provided he gets the support he needs from Congress. If there's one thing his predecessor did for him, it was remove some of the barriers and give him more power and less oversight than any president before him has ever had. I don't necessarily agree with everything that the new President plans on, but I agree with his assessment of the seriousness of the situation, and the fact that it must be fixed, now. I just hope that he doesn't stumble or falter along the way, and my hopes are that he will be remembered as the President who saved the most powerful nation in the world from itself.

Will Stocks Ever Recover?

In the article "Worries Over Banks Keep Pulling Stock Markets Back", author Jack Healy touches on the scary possibility of the nationalization of banks, or government controlled banking. This is very disturbing to many, but Wall Street relaxed somewhat with the Obama administration's reassurance that they still strongly believe in a privately held banking system. That is, with proper regulation from the government. All three major markets took major hits and finished low. The misery isn't just confined to the US. Markets from eastern Europe and Asia suffered as well, due to investors fears that government controlled banks would essentially wipe out shareholders. Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, had this to say about the current situation: “I don’t welcome that at all, but I could see how it’s possible it may happen,” Mr. Dodd said. “I’m concerned that we may end up having to do that, at least for a short time.” Banks are short on cash and don't have the cash to lend. There is no solution, and time is just making it worse.

The nationalization of banks is indeed a scary prospect. While it may seem necessary right now, even a good idea, it's a little too close to socialism to suit many. Government control of banks to socialism is probably stretching it a little bit, but it is still a slippery slope. This country was founded on the belief of capitalism and free trade, and one would wonder what the founding fathers would think if they saw the mess that we are in now.

Personally, I feel that limited government regulation of banks is a necessary evil in today's volatile market. We have to stop the bleeding at some point. I think that bad lending practices and bad management coupled with immeasurable greed have sent the economy into this spiral. More government regulation could have possibly prevented this situation, or at least lessened the blow the economy took. Let's just hope the bailout works and things take a turn for the better, SOON.

Using Constitutional Amendments to Take Away Rights?

In the editorial article from The New York Times titled Deportation and Due Process, the issue of Attorney General Michael Mukasey's ruling that immigrants have no constitutional right to effective legal representation in deportation hearings is questioned. In his final days of office, he ruled that immigrants that lose their deportation case due to inept or ineffective representation have no right to have their cases reopened. Mukasey's ruling scrapped a 20 year old precedent in which deportation cases are held in special courts overseen by the Justice Department. Those facing possible expulsion include long time residents and those with family here, many of which have valid reasons to stay. Mukasey defends his decision based on the idea that the Sixth Amendment only applies in criminal cases, which is correct. Deportation is a civil action. However, in a removal proceeding whose outcome is influenced by an incompetent, privately-retained lawyer "the due process clause, part of the 5th and 14th Amendments, is plainly violated". Therein lies the debate and controversy.

The fact that a situation can occur that seems to cause the Constitution to contradict itself is disturbing. The very document that almost all Americans hold as dearest to them is supposed to clear up and protect from these situations, not add to the confusion. In this case, the judgement of an Attorney General has created this predicament, not the Constitution.

I personally have mixed opinions related to this article. While I believe that it is every one's right to fair representation in a court of law, I am not sure how I feel that this relates to those who may be in the country illegally. The fact that they are here in violation of the law make one wonder if they are truly entitled to the rights of citizens of this country. Their removal is probably the correct action in most cases, however there are always circumstances in which the immigrant has legitimate reasons for staying in the country. I feel that taxpayer money is wasted, however, by hearing each of these lost cases in order to overturn the incorrect rulings. I know that this may incur the wrath of many who feel that I am incorrect in my assessment of this situation. After all, immigration is what made this country what it is today. There is probably no good answer to this situation, unless each case is heard on a case-by-case basis.

Let's Get This Show on the Road

In the article "Obama Calls on Congress to Put Stimulus Plan in Motion", author Jeff Zeleny reports on the progress of President Obama's huge stimulus package and how close it is to getting passed by Congress. His request of Congress to "put this plan in motion" goes to show how important bipartisan cooperation is in getting major bills passed. President Obama defends his huge spending package by stating that it is vital to keeping the American dream "alive in our time". He agrees that a bill of that size and magnitude deserves the scrutiny it has received, and probably more in the coming days. However, he stresses that "we can’t afford to make perfect the enemy of the absolutely necessary". In essence, I think he's saying that we can't afford to let this bill languish as we fight about the details. According to President Obama, his plan will save or create millions of jobs in the U.S., jobs that are critical to the health of the nation's economy. He states that the American people trust the government to fix the financial crisis, and that they proved that in November in the presidential election. A direct quote from the article sums up everything he is trying to say: “The American people know that our challenges are great,” Mr. Obama said Saturday. “They don’t expect Democratic solutions or Republican solutions – they expect American solutions.”

I agree with President Obama's views on the seriousness of the problem at hand. However, I don't necessarily agree with some of the bailouts so far. The bailout of the mega-banks and their subsequent misuse of the funds to give themselves fat raises and bonuses are a sign that maybe that money could have been better spent. I agree that banking and finance are necessary to the country, but I heard on some news report that "it doesn't necessarily have to be those banks". Some attrition is natural during tough economic times, and I think it's a travesty that the people that are having to foot the bill on this are having such hard times, but the boneheads that created this mess are giving themselves millions of dollars in bonus money, like they did something great. It's ridiculous.

This balance of power between executive and legislative branches of government is important to preserving our democratic way of life. Even though sometimes it seems like the process is just there to get in the way of progress, it is an important form of checks and balances that protects the American people from inept leadership and bad legislation. It is very important that bills get the scrutiny that they deserve, as opposed to being passed into law hastily due to adverse conditions. That being said, I don't think there is room currently for bickering between parties over details that do not affect the bill overall. You have to draw the line somewhere between due diligence and being difficult.