There's a lot of ferment right now about what the President will say in his State of the Union address tonight, and at least some indications are available, but I would rather comment after it's given.
Meantime, it seems the country has come to a near-halt, though not near enough to force us to deal seriously with some of the problems we face. Steven Pearlstein today has taken a look ahead to describe what the President should (but will not) say. He captures the feeling I've had also, that our government is deadlocked in extreme partisanship that prevents it from accomplishing even its most basic tasks. He also offers an idea for fixing that -- he professes to think that real change could be achieved by Obama's being rigid about requirements (i.e., any initiatives have to be paid for, no legislative special deals and earmarks, etc.). Pearlstein, I think, has analyzed the problem correctly but his solution could not be effective even if Obama were to adopt it.
One reason nothing is working right now to restore momentum is the nihilism discovered in a recent survey. People are confused, disillusioned, and most important, feeling the pinch - so they're basically critical of everything. As writer Achenbach says, they don't like the status quo, and they don't like efforts to change it. Go figure. As I've noticed myself, people have resisted beneficial changes in their health care because they prefer to believe untruths than truths; they complain that the government is more interested in rescuing banks than rescuing them without realizing that they were rescued -- from a far worse fate -- by the taxpayers' support of key financial institutions.
Effective government isn't the only thing falling off a cliff. We now have houses and other buildings on both coasts falling off cliffs too. In California, recent storms threaten apartment buildings; in Maryland, cliffside homes are under threat for several reasons: damage done by storms earlier this year, plus the cumulative effects of natural coastal erosion; oh, and some insects, too -- the cliffs are home to the endangered Puritan tiger beetle, and local politicians are blaming the Endangered Species Act for preventing action to shore up the cliffs. In both cases, there seems to be an expectation on the part of residents and local governments that it is (federal) government's job to try to rebuild the cliffs.
Wrong on both counts, I think. People who build or buy homes need to realize that no cliff is forever; a cliff by definition implies ground falling away, collapsing, eroding. If you buy such a place, you should buy a damned good - and expensive - insurance policy right along with it. Governments might provide some disaster assistance but if they do, the principle should be that aid is conditioned on relocating, and abandoning the endangered property. (This works for flood areas too.)
So we have a pretty typical picture, I think, of what people expect from government: Do nothing for the common good like rescuing banks or extending health care (that might cost me money) but help me out of a jam of my own making by saving my house (when somebody else pays me).
Comments