Obama to call for five year spending freeze
By:CNN White House Correspondent Dan Lothian
Washington (CNN)– In a move aimed at tackling the bulging federal deficit, a senior administration official said President Obama will call for a "five-year freeze on non-security discretionary spending," during his State of the Union address Tuesday night.
Sounds good, doesn't it. So Common Sense thought a bit of fact check might be in order. The discretionary spending federal budget for FY 2010 was $1.39 trillion, or 38% of total spending. So the first Common Sense observation is that a significant majority of the federal budget, some 62%, is off the table. In case you're wondering that includes principally social security, medicare, and medicaid. Note that I'm not suggesting that these programs should be cut, just pointing out the obvious.
Of the discretionary spending that is on the table, more than half ($844 billion) is security related including DOD and Homeland Security. What remains, $546 billion or roughly 15% of total federal budget, is what is to be frozen!
Think about that for a bit. Our elected representatives are going to have a fight over 15% of the total budget. While you're thinking about it bear in mind that budgeted spending is only a portion of real total spending.
So when the facts are available just how good is a freeze on "non-security discretionary spending?" Common Sense thinks this is more of the politics of the usual. It sounds good but doesn't really pass the smell test.
With a nod to Thomas Paine, Baron d'Holbach, and "Captain Obvious" perspectives on what should be, but remarkably often isn't, obvious common sense.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Who's Congress is it anyway?
Tonight will be President Obama's second State of the Union address to the 535 members of the United States Congress. As of now some 60 members of congress, 30 Democrats and 30 Republicans have agreed to sit together in an effort to show some sort of common cause concerning the nation's business. If you're math challenged that's roughly 6% of our elected congressmen!
Common Sense wonders does the other 93% of our elected congressional employees think that they work not for the citizens of the United States but rather for their respective political parties? If that is so is it any wonder that the nation's business doesn't get done?
Common Sense thinks it's time for our elected representatives to grow up and understand that they don't work for a political party or for the major corporate contributors that got them elected, they work for the citizens of their congressional districts and the country as a whole.
Just a common sense POV.
Common Sense wonders does the other 93% of our elected congressional employees think that they work not for the citizens of the United States but rather for their respective political parties? If that is so is it any wonder that the nation's business doesn't get done?
Common Sense thinks it's time for our elected representatives to grow up and understand that they don't work for a political party or for the major corporate contributors that got them elected, they work for the citizens of their congressional districts and the country as a whole.
Just a common sense POV.
American's don't read our newspaper
Atlanta (CNN) -- A Spanish-language newspaper in Georgia has drawn bipartisan criticism for publishing a doctored photograph depicting the state's new governor as a Nazi.
El Nuevo Georgia Editor Rafael Navarro said the picture was meant to call attention to Hispanic issues -- and grab the attention of residents and politicians who often ignore the Hispanic community.
"Americans don't read our paper because they can't read Spanish. They don't read our news, our editorials and the opinion of the community. But if they see a picture, they'll get it," he said.
The photo illustration, published in the paper's January 6 edition, shows Republican Gov. Nathan Deal wearing a Nazi uniform, a swastika armband and a Hitler-like mustache.
The accompanying story, entitled "Repression in the Age of Deal," recaps an ethics investigation against Deal and talks about the governor's past financial troubles. The full-page article also quotes local community leaders forecasting tough times ahead for illegal immigrants in the state.
Common Sense is troubled by this in several ways.
First, characterizing Deal as a Nazi in the context of an article about alleged financial improprieties is not only offensive, it's raciest in that it seeks to inflame Hispanics when in fact Mr Deal hasn't done anything.
Second, asserting as an excuse that "Americans don't read our paper because they can't read Spanish" begs several questions. Is this paper published in Georgia, a state in the United States of America, somehow exempt from being part of America? Does the paper exist in some sort of extraterritorial sovereign land where it exist apart from the rest of the country? What about the many Americans who are multilingual and do read Spanish? Are they not Americans?
This kind of inflammatory to trash is in fact protected speech even if the paper declares itself as non-American. But it is not helpful or civil. It does not in any way address Hispanic issues or interest. Rather it seeks to divide and inflame, one assumes for financial gain.
Just a bit of common sense.
El Nuevo Georgia Editor Rafael Navarro said the picture was meant to call attention to Hispanic issues -- and grab the attention of residents and politicians who often ignore the Hispanic community.
"Americans don't read our paper because they can't read Spanish. They don't read our news, our editorials and the opinion of the community. But if they see a picture, they'll get it," he said.
The photo illustration, published in the paper's January 6 edition, shows Republican Gov. Nathan Deal wearing a Nazi uniform, a swastika armband and a Hitler-like mustache.
The accompanying story, entitled "Repression in the Age of Deal," recaps an ethics investigation against Deal and talks about the governor's past financial troubles. The full-page article also quotes local community leaders forecasting tough times ahead for illegal immigrants in the state.
Common Sense is troubled by this in several ways.
First, characterizing Deal as a Nazi in the context of an article about alleged financial improprieties is not only offensive, it's raciest in that it seeks to inflame Hispanics when in fact Mr Deal hasn't done anything.
Second, asserting as an excuse that "Americans don't read our paper because they can't read Spanish" begs several questions. Is this paper published in Georgia, a state in the United States of America, somehow exempt from being part of America? Does the paper exist in some sort of extraterritorial sovereign land where it exist apart from the rest of the country? What about the many Americans who are multilingual and do read Spanish? Are they not Americans?
This kind of inflammatory to trash is in fact protected speech even if the paper declares itself as non-American. But it is not helpful or civil. It does not in any way address Hispanic issues or interest. Rather it seeks to divide and inflame, one assumes for financial gain.
Just a bit of common sense.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Political retoric and Ms Palin
(Reuters) - Prominent Republican Sarah Palin on Wednesday accused critics of "blood libel" by blaming her rhetoric for contributing to the shooting rampage in Tucson that killed six and wounded 14, including Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords.
"Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them," the conservative Tea Party favorite and former Alaska governor said in her first major response to critics.
"Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."
Yet another example of "people unclear on the concept." Ms Palin after briefly noting the "monstrous criminality" of the shooting goes to some length to defend her own and others rhetoric in, sadly, inflammatory terms such as "blood libel". What troubles Common Sense here is that Ms Palin, a purported future presidential candidate, doesn't simply condemn the shootings and disagree with others who cite the contribution of inflammatory and divisive speech. Rather she chooses to turn once again to vitriolic language. Shame on you Ms Palin. Shame on others on the left and right that also contribute to the confrontational politics.
Common Sense thinks that it's time we start electing grownups interested in addressing our country's real problems with realistic policies and reasoned civil discourse.
"Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them," the conservative Tea Party favorite and former Alaska governor said in her first major response to critics.
"Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."
Yet another example of "people unclear on the concept." Ms Palin after briefly noting the "monstrous criminality" of the shooting goes to some length to defend her own and others rhetoric in, sadly, inflammatory terms such as "blood libel". What troubles Common Sense here is that Ms Palin, a purported future presidential candidate, doesn't simply condemn the shootings and disagree with others who cite the contribution of inflammatory and divisive speech. Rather she chooses to turn once again to vitriolic language. Shame on you Ms Palin. Shame on others on the left and right that also contribute to the confrontational politics.
Common Sense thinks that it's time we start electing grownups interested in addressing our country's real problems with realistic policies and reasoned civil discourse.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Civility 101 for those that are having a hard time getting it.
From youtube Megyn Kelly Asks Pima Co. Sheriff Why Are You Politicizing This Tragedy
Common Sense thought the video interesting if a bit fluffy. More interesting still though are comments. Consider this pair:
How is civil discourse advanced by 1) accusing the reporter of saying "stupid shit, non stop" or 2) accusing 88texasman of sounding like "Whoopi's tampon?" The point here is that this kind of exchange is part of what's broken! Name calling doesn't advance civil discourse.
While Common Sense comments on the failings of our political leaders, it seems that at least to some degree they are just a reflection of us. For our society to prosper we all need to be better than this or at least require that our politicians, politicos, and news agencies conduct themselves civilly.
Oh, btw, I'm not as old as the sheriff but I to remember that we used to be better than this and think that we need to return to those values if we're to work together and address the real problems we as a nation face.
Just a bit of Common Sense.
Common Sense thought the video interesting if a bit fluffy. More interesting still though are comments. Consider this pair:
Why is she still on the air?! she constantly says stupid shit, non stop. shes so one sided. if she had a show like hannity or glen beck id understand, but shes a damn news reporter. what happend to a non partisan view?! 88texasman
How is civil discourse advanced by 1) accusing the reporter of saying "stupid shit, non stop" or 2) accusing 88texasman of sounding like "Whoopi's tampon?" The point here is that this kind of exchange is part of what's broken! Name calling doesn't advance civil discourse.
While Common Sense comments on the failings of our political leaders, it seems that at least to some degree they are just a reflection of us. For our society to prosper we all need to be better than this or at least require that our politicians, politicos, and news agencies conduct themselves civilly.
Oh, btw, I'm not as old as the sheriff but I to remember that we used to be better than this and think that we need to return to those values if we're to work together and address the real problems we as a nation face.
Just a bit of Common Sense.
Monday, January 10, 2011
CNN: Adviser: Linking Palin to shootings 'appalling'
CNN: Adviser: Linking Palin to shootings 'appalling'
BY: CNN Senior Political Editor Mark Preston
Sarah Palin's political aide removed a controversial web post Saturday after a gunman attempted to assassinate an Arizona congresswoman in a mass killing that left, among others, a 9-year-old girl dead.
But a Palin aide Saturday denied the web posting from the 2010 congressional campaign - featuring gun sights over the congressional districts of 20 Democratic candidates – was designed to incite violence. Rebecca Mansour told conservative host Tammy Bruce that it was a political tool and noted it should have been removed after the November election.
Common Sense says that the radical right/Tea Party/Palin just don't get it! Now I've never met Ms Palin, but it seems stunningly unlikely that she or her staff intended to incite violence with any of their rhetoric. If the complaint is "incitement to violence" she is clearly innocent. But does that make such posting OK? Are they reasonable civil conduct? Are they an acceptable way to campaign? Are they politically acceptable?
Common Sense says no! The lunatic fringe on both the left and right view vitriolic politics as an invitation to act. Is Ms Palin responsible for the act of a deranged man? No, she's not. But is she responsible for contributing to the environment that encouraged him? Yes, she is. So to are many many other politicians and commentators. However, the fact that others are involved does not excuse her contribution.
Common Sense says that it is long since past time that politicians and commentators grew up and began to conduct themselves in a civil manner. It's time to stop demonizing those that disagree with us. It's time to stop treating politics as a game between two teams. The issues that we face are much to important to continue to tolerate uncivil behavior from either politics or commentators.
Just a Common Sense POV.
BY: CNN Senior Political Editor Mark Preston
Sarah Palin's political aide removed a controversial web post Saturday after a gunman attempted to assassinate an Arizona congresswoman in a mass killing that left, among others, a 9-year-old girl dead.
But a Palin aide Saturday denied the web posting from the 2010 congressional campaign - featuring gun sights over the congressional districts of 20 Democratic candidates – was designed to incite violence. Rebecca Mansour told conservative host Tammy Bruce that it was a political tool and noted it should have been removed after the November election.
Common Sense says that the radical right/Tea Party/Palin just don't get it! Now I've never met Ms Palin, but it seems stunningly unlikely that she or her staff intended to incite violence with any of their rhetoric. If the complaint is "incitement to violence" she is clearly innocent. But does that make such posting OK? Are they reasonable civil conduct? Are they an acceptable way to campaign? Are they politically acceptable?
Common Sense says no! The lunatic fringe on both the left and right view vitriolic politics as an invitation to act. Is Ms Palin responsible for the act of a deranged man? No, she's not. But is she responsible for contributing to the environment that encouraged him? Yes, she is. So to are many many other politicians and commentators. However, the fact that others are involved does not excuse her contribution.
Common Sense says that it is long since past time that politicians and commentators grew up and began to conduct themselves in a civil manner. It's time to stop demonizing those that disagree with us. It's time to stop treating politics as a game between two teams. The issues that we face are much to important to continue to tolerate uncivil behavior from either politics or commentators.
Just a Common Sense POV.
RI turnto10.com: Controversial diploma plan moves forward
RI turnto10.com: Controversial diploma plan moves forward
The proposal would require students to score "partially proficient" on a standardized test in 11th grade. If they don’t, they would get extra help and take the test again during their senior year.
At that time, the student would need to show sufficient improvement to graduate. The plan would also create a three-tiered diploma system.
Critics argue that the testing is biased in favor of students in wealthier communities and that most students in poorer communities would not graduate under the proposed system.
Under the Constitution and most state law, government has a responsibility to "promote the general welfare." Many communities troubled by failing school systems have turned to standardized testing as a way of objectively measuring school performance. Such testing is oftentimes controversial with frequent complaints about teaching to the test or bias toward wealthy communities. Such criticisms strike Common Sense as both disingenuous and silly.
Consider first the complaint of "teaching to the test." What exactly is wrong with teaching to an objective measure of minimum knowledge? Is it wrong to require a certain proficiency in reading, math, understanding writing, or history? Common Sense argues no, it's not. When students leave school they will have to live in the real world where such skills determine their ability to succeed.
While it is doubtless true that testing results are better in wealthy communities is that a problem? Should we not test because wealthy schools do well? Should we not test because such communities have a culture that promotes education? Common Sense argues no.
Both these criticisms fail an objective notion of the purpose of public education in Common Sense's view. Consider that the purpose of school is to produce an educated citizen able to function in today's society. Failing that, school has little purpose or claim on the public purse. Testing tells us how schools are performing. It identifies schools and communities that need help. That many public schools fail such test clearly demonstrates that they need to improve or, in extreme cases, be replaced by schools that can educate. Failing that schools and the governments that run them fail both their citizens and the larger city, state, and nation in that they simply babysit young people and release them to largely fail. It is not enough to warehouse future citizens who are unable to succeed in today's society.
Just a bit of Common Sense.
The proposal would require students to score "partially proficient" on a standardized test in 11th grade. If they don’t, they would get extra help and take the test again during their senior year.
At that time, the student would need to show sufficient improvement to graduate. The plan would also create a three-tiered diploma system.
Critics argue that the testing is biased in favor of students in wealthier communities and that most students in poorer communities would not graduate under the proposed system.
Under the Constitution and most state law, government has a responsibility to "promote the general welfare." Many communities troubled by failing school systems have turned to standardized testing as a way of objectively measuring school performance. Such testing is oftentimes controversial with frequent complaints about teaching to the test or bias toward wealthy communities. Such criticisms strike Common Sense as both disingenuous and silly.
Consider first the complaint of "teaching to the test." What exactly is wrong with teaching to an objective measure of minimum knowledge? Is it wrong to require a certain proficiency in reading, math, understanding writing, or history? Common Sense argues no, it's not. When students leave school they will have to live in the real world where such skills determine their ability to succeed.
While it is doubtless true that testing results are better in wealthy communities is that a problem? Should we not test because wealthy schools do well? Should we not test because such communities have a culture that promotes education? Common Sense argues no.
Both these criticisms fail an objective notion of the purpose of public education in Common Sense's view. Consider that the purpose of school is to produce an educated citizen able to function in today's society. Failing that, school has little purpose or claim on the public purse. Testing tells us how schools are performing. It identifies schools and communities that need help. That many public schools fail such test clearly demonstrates that they need to improve or, in extreme cases, be replaced by schools that can educate. Failing that schools and the governments that run them fail both their citizens and the larger city, state, and nation in that they simply babysit young people and release them to largely fail. It is not enough to warehouse future citizens who are unable to succeed in today's society.
Just a bit of Common Sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)