Re: Mr. President, you dress like a girl...and throw like one.

In the blog post, "Mr. President, you dress like a girl...and throw like one," my colleague denounces select news sources for focusing on President Obama's attire when he threw the first pitch in the MLB All-Star Game. My initial reaction was complete concurrence, as very few things make me sicker than major news coverage of petty matters, especially when there are more weighty issues at hand. However, there's a difference between major coverage and minor, 30-second clips noting a peculiar event of the day. The news coverage of the president's pitch is hardly major coverage in comparison to the seemingly infinite stream of Anna Nicole Smith reports or the recent, abounding coverage of Michael Jackson's death. When it reaches that kind of caliber, then start complaining about wasted media resources; otherwise, I don't mind taking a few seconds to watch the president throw like a "girl wearing his mommies jeans."

Not only does my colleague criticize the media for concentrating on President Obama's jeans, but he compounds his argument by reprimanding the media for not expounding the fact that our president could be better spending his time trying to help our economy and the ensuing unemployment rate. I'm sorry, but I honestly don't think that taking a day off to watch a baseball game with Michelle and the kids is going to detrimentally affect the state of our nation's economy. We didn't elect a robot into the Oval Office.

Health Care of the Future

All throughout this semester I've been discussing the nation's health care reform. A principal issue of the debate that is a key factor in garnering support for the reform is a financial proposition that sufficiently and responsibly maintains the federal budget as well as the monetary interests of the citizens. From my experiences in other nations with a universal health care system, I can say that, in comparison, the medical facilities and services were on par with the U.S., and the money saved is definitely a plus. I understand that my experience alone only serves to speak for those with a similar socioeconomic background as myself, as the experience would be different for those part of a different demographic. With this in mind, I still believe that the health care reform is still something that can only serve to benefit America, that is, if it is implemented correctly.

I've mentioned this in an earlier post of mine, and I'll reiterate it here. I believe it is possible to satisfy both sides of the health care reform debate, that is, extend health care to more Americans and still maintain a sound fiscal policy to fund its implementation. I think the key to this is in-depth, careful analyses of the proposed methods of funding the reform. As stated in a previous post, the proposal to reward regions utilizing a more efficient health care system has been challenged. On the surface, many proposals seem ideal; yet, under more careful observation, we see that not only may these proposals fail, but that there are solutions to them. Ideas need to be heard, ideas need to be challenged and solutions need to be implemented. I look forward to what the U.S. has to offer in the near future.

Re: The US national government's role in the economy

In the current economic recession, it is easy to judge and critique the actions and measures the federal government has taken to deal with the situation. It is also easy to blame the government for getting us stuck in this predicament in the first place. I am not saying that the federal government has been absolutely perfect in handling the economic situation, but for the most part, there is little more and little less that the government could have done to make things better than they are now.

In the blog post, "The US national government's role in the economy," the author discusses the government's part in dragging the nation deeper and deeper into debt. The author writes:

"It is understandable for our government to use billions of dollars to stimulate the economy in a crucial time of recession. However, our Framers did not intend for the government to establish such broad and powerful institutions involve in the economy. Therefore, there is nothing much in our constitution in restricting the actions that Legislature can involve in the free market."

My only argument here is that just because the Constitution does not explicitly detail extensive information on fiscal regulation does not mean that it is not beneficial for the government to take such actions. In fact, there are many benefits the government provides, such as financial aid for education, that are not stated in the Constitution. Yet, we will not refuse financial aid even if we refuse government bailouts. The author goes on to write:

"I am unsure of how much role the government should has in regulating the economy, however, I strongly believe that there should be a deficit limitation and our government should not easily bailout bankrupt companies just because they are two big to fell. Unless the government had the proper regulations in making sure such companies will not create another recession, it should leave the economy itself punish such irresponsible actions."

I agree that the deficit should be managed wisely; however, the bailouts played an integral part in preventing our economy from declining any further. The positive impact these large companies have on our economy fares far beyond face-value.

The author does, however, make an insightful final statement that I agree with:

"I think that even thought the government should not assume a broad role in the economy, it should regulate and promote the welfare and social insurance for the public in general. I believe with deliberations and proper cautions, we can prevent most recession and stimulate the economy without ineffectively involve deeply in the economy or having greater deficits."

Though, I do not completely oppose the federal government's involvement in our nation's fiscal matters, I do think there should be a limit in their spending. I think this limit should be derived from careful management of funds and more in-depth analyses of any course of action the government plans on taking. See my recent post, "Health costs --no quick fix."