Another Day in Washington

There are days where I can understand why people hate politics. Then, you realize it's just another day in Washington. Tony Hayward's, dare I say, "testimony" yesterday reminded me of a cat with a tail between its legs. Not only was he playing dumb, but he also didn't take any responsibility. I watched the entire hearing, and around the 1,000 "I don't know" I was ready to throw my TV out the window.

It's amazing how many times you can say I don't know in different ways. "I was not aware," "I was not involved in that decision," "I am not qualified to comment on that issue," or my favorite, "it's not you it's me."

At least BP can stop trying to play the good boy. The television advertisements of Tony trying to look compassionate almost worked. Pundits on TV were describing the CEO as a compassionate figure, even after he said all he wanted was his life back, not even thinking about the eleven people who lost theirs on his company's rig.

Then of course there was the Republicans, who felt bad President Obama made BP pay $20 billion for the businesses and families affected by this disaster. But Congressman Joe Barton wasn't thinking about those who are losing their livelihood, he only wanted to score political points. Winning the next election has become so important to some members of Congress that they forget they are actually responsible for running the country.

You would also think a disaster of this magnitude would force Congress to get their act together and pass a climate/energy bill. But no, members of the Senate don't seem it is fair that businesses like BP pay some sort of carbon tax while America transitions to renewable energy.

The whole situation is politics at its worst and for some reason there isn't more outrage. According to polls Americans are divided on whether to continue off shore drilling. Of course, I'm sure if BP was planning to build a rig in their back yard, those Americans in favor of more drilling would change their mind.

Jon Stewart had a great bit the other night where he showed speeches of past presidents trying to change American's energy policy. President Obama's speech from the oval office wasn't bad because it was poorly written, it was bad because he didn't call for anything. He didn't grab the bull by the horns and take control. He missed an opportunity, and no ones taking responsibility.

Screw BP

Need I say more? There is not a more hated company right now and I don't feel bad for them one bit. Especially after seeing today that BP knew the Atlantis rig had safety issues from the start. According to internal docments releaed today, BP decided to save money on a "well control" mechanism which may have caused this disaster.

This rig had problems from the beginning. In 2006 it was two years behind schedule because of hurricane Dennis, then of course there was Katrina. At this time BP admitted that the rig failed four tests in the platforms subsea system. BP also had every reason to get the rig running since it would have put them in position to be the leading player in America's deep water production.

Atlantis was considered the most sophisticated and technologically advanced oil platform today. According to offshore-technology.com, this platform was the "deepest moored floating dual oil and gas production facility in the world." Now all we're hearing is executives blaming each other in preparation for the all the law suits they are going to have to fend off.

How Americans are even divided on continuing off-shore drilling is beyond me. Why take this risk again? Develop new energy resources here, starting in New Orleans, and screw BP.

Filling In The Bubble

As summer is just around the corner, it's getting warmer outside, flowers are blooming, and productivity goes down the drain. This is also the time when school's are about to be let out, and standardized test scores across the country will soon be released.

There has been a lot of news coming out of the world of education. Recently, a panel of superintendents from around the country came together to create national standards for America's schools. Even though the panel neglected science and history, the subjects that they did take on will help schools know where there students need to be and implement reforms that will get their students up to par. Also, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan gave out the first round of the Race to the Top money, but with mixed results. Only two states received any money, while many others who had changed their policies in order to compete, received nothing. Now those states are saying they will not participate in the second round because they don't see the point.

The fundamental problem I see here is how we are determining which schools need to improve, and which ones should be looked at as good examples. The No Child Left Behind law required states to report their schools progress in order to keep receiving federal money. The law let states determine how they would assess their schools, and most of them decided to use standardized tests. Why not? It helped the state get money, and if the students were passing the test it was obvious they were learning, right?

If only it were that simple. We now know that states would purposely make the tests easier so students would do well, thus qualifying the state to get more money. That is why Secretary Duncan recently came out to change this system. These new changes will require states to not just submit test scores, but other factors as well, which hold individual teachers and students accountable. President Obama took a lot of heat for saying he supported the closing failing schools, but what other choice is there? With only being able to look at test data, there is no way to determine why a school is failing.

Standardized tests are a good way to get data on students, but this is only a macro snapshot of a problem that needs a micro solution. Usually, the main factor of students doing well on standardized tests are their families socio-economic situation. While more affluent families can afford tutors, or their parents have a college degree and can spend extra time with their children, students of lower income do not have these advantages. Plus, there is no correlation between a teacher and how well his or her students did on a standardized test.

New policies need to be implemented to make sure this problem ceases to exist. One solution is to have new teachers go through a training program before they actually start teaching. States have hired many new teachers in the last year, but many of these individuals (while they may know the material they will be teaching) have never lead a classroom before. Instead of having teachers learn on the job, they should go through a paid program to develop the necessary skills to teach. This will ensure that there is a steady stream of teachers going into the classroom who from day one can effectively teach students what they need to learn. There is an organization called Urban Residency Teachers United where they pay individuals to do a residency program so they can gain experience in the classroom. This model is based on what doctors are required to do before they are allowed to practice medicine.

Also, because we are in the 21st Century, there are now many websites where teachers can write about problems or questions they have, and get feedback from others who are teaching. This should be encouraged. Like everything else, teaching is a skill, and some are better at it then others. Secretary Duncan should help promote programs that allow teachers to use these sites, and go to forums where they can learn new skills and methods to teach their students.

Standardized tests are only good for students who want to practice memorizing facts and fill in a bubble. Secretary Duncan is right when he says we only have one chance to teach the next generation, which is why we need to make sure we are doing it the right way.

Certain About Green

As of today, Real Clear Politics shows that 41% of the American people are supportive of the Democrats health care bill, while 48% are opposed. This isn't enough for either side to claim the American people are on their side or against the others. When I look at this, it tells me they are undecided even after the issue has been debated for over a year. Seeing how the debate has taken place, it makes sense. Health care is one of the most complicated issues any policy maker can deal with, and frankly, the Democrats or the press has done a good job explaining it, and the Republicans are saying anything to make sure it dosen't get passed.

Now, once the Democrats bill pass their health care bill this week, they will undoubtedly claim a huge victory. Earlier this week Nancy Pelosi said it would be a fundamental change if the bill is passed. But the truth is the effects of the bill won't be seen for most Americans until a few years down the road, and will be a non-factor in the coming elections because the law won't have any immediate effect. What people will be voting on is how Democrats have been running the country.

Democrats will have to answer questions on the stimulus, bailout, and if they have any ideas on how to get the economy moving faster.

What can have a faster effect on the economy, and people's well being, is a comprehensive energy bill that focuses on green technology and becoming less reliant on importing oil. There won't be a lot of time before politicians are fully focusing on their elections, but the great thing about energy bills is that their easy.

While Arizona can put money into developing solar technology, New York can do the same for nuclear. Different types of power are better for different parts of the country, and the states can use their own natural resources to determine which type of energy source is best for them.

Any real energy plan will require a variety of new technologies to be developed. As long as the bill creates grants to incentivize states to develop those technologies, even Republicans would be hard pressed not to vote for it.

While an effective way to speed the development of green technology would be helped by cap and trade, it won't be necessary if the demand for these technologies is already high. Even Al Gore admitted recently that we have more time to combat global warming then we first thought. People in Greenpeace shouldn't complain if cap and trade isn't in the energy bill signed into law if new power sources that don't emit any CO2 are being used and developed.

People like green technology because they know it will create jobs. When President Obama visited OPOWER, people were more excited to learn about the company then why the president went their in the first place.

By passing a comprehensive energy bill, Democrats can claim (with the combination of the stimulus and bailout) that they have a handle on things, and the country is being steered in the right direction with them at the helm.

Snowpacolyps!

Thank God I'm not claustrophobic. Snowpacolyps has been absolutely ridiculous, Washington, DC hasn't seen this much snow in over seventy years and the entire federal government is shut down. Except for the Armed Services, so don't get any ideas Canada!

One note on the Super Bowl. Great game and I'm happy for New Orleans. They went for it the entire game. But if they lost that onside kick at the start of the second half Sean Payton would have been ripped in the headlines like no other coach.

And can we all agree that CBS leaned conservative in their choice for super bowl ads? First they didn't allow a commercial for a gay dating site to be aired, but did allow Tim Tebow and his mom to promote their pro-life views. I was also at a party with a lot of people who work on the Hill or politics one way or another, and none of them knew about the defeat the debt ad. This concerned me so I just wanted to post a link for when I wrote about it here.

Now to more important issues, did anyone watch House last night? If you didn't you need to. I swear its the only show on television that is actually trying to push the barrier, and this season has been great. Last night they followed the day in life of the head of the hospital, Dr. Cuddy. She was in the middle of negotiations with an insurance agency, and because her hospital had better numbers then others who are under the same insurance, she wanted to get more reimbursements from the insurer. While other hospitals were getting more money, Dr. Cuddy's hospital was not because they were smaller then the others.

Then I happen to be reading the New York Times this morning and I see an article on this very subject! One of the experts said they would like to see payments from insurance companies based on how well a hospital takes care of its patients, not just on how many patients they admit. One of the key wins for the Democrats this year was in the stimulus package where they put in incentives for hospitals to invest in technology to share records on their patience. This will allow doctors to see what works for certain illnesses. Economists estimate this will save millions for hospitals just on overhead alone. Plus when we know what to do, doctors can better treat their patience which will also save them money.

As I'm writing this, the President was taking questions from reporters, and he said there are now more people who get health insurance from the government then private insurers. This should be a rallying call for a public option. Private companies cannot support getting all Americans health care. Even before this, we already knew that while private insurers spend 8% on overhead, it only costs the government 1%.

One of my favorite quotes by FDR is: "A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward." There has been a lot of talk lately on bipartisanship and how Social Security had many members of Congress on both sides of the aisle vote for it. At this time there were 322 Democratic members in the House, and 69 Democrats in the Senate. 81 Republicans in the House and 16 Republicans in the Senate voted for the Social Security Act, so yeah it was bipartisan. But FDR still had a lot of work to do to get it passed. Speeches, town hall meetings, meetings with leaders on the Hill, plus the Supreme Court. With Obama wavering on all the specificson health care its hard for the people to understand what he's trying to do, and it doesn't make him sound confident in his policies. That's why he's having a hard time getting health care reform passed.

FDR's New Deal was clear to everyone, he made it so popular that voting against it would have been political suicide. That's how FDR got bipartisanship. President Obama hasn't made it clear to people how health insurance reform will help them, particularly those who have insurance. But talking to Republicans isn't going to help, no matter how ridiculous it makes them look. While Congress' approval ratings are low, Americans still want Democrats in charge.

In the short amount of time he has left to get something done, the President needs to tell the people exactly what he wants. He has said many times that he would prefer a public option, but what he should say is that he wants a public option. The tell them he wants it because it is the best way to lower costs for families. That is whether they are paying for their own insurance or their parents if they go into a retirement home.

During House, Dr. Cutty was having a conversation with the CEO of the company she was negotiating with. The CEO said "You can make me look like a rich bastard in the press all you want, but I'll still be a rich bastard." But Dr. Cutty stook to her guns. She told the insurance company exactly what she wanted and got it. Obama should do the same.

We're expected to get another foot of snow here in Washington. The federal government will probably be closed again, and none of the politicians are going to go on TV. This will give the administration time to think of a game plan, and hopefully get something substantial passed. Obama should take advice from Teddy Roosevelt and stop using the carrot, and go with the stick.

Haiti

At Muhlenberg (my alma mater), there is a Sociology professor named Christopher Kovatz-Bernat who has studied the country of Haiti throughout his professional career. His class on the country is extremely popular with students, and most of my peers came away thinking that Dr. Bernat was a little crazy to keep going to such a volatile state.

I did not take Dr. Bernat's class on Haiti, but when I did a presentation on the country, he was more than willing to sit down with me to go over details. By now, you have all heard Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemesphere, and when you learn about the recent political history of the country, it's not hard to understand why.

In December of 1990, Jean Bertrand Aristide won 67% of the vote in a Presidential election for the country of Haiti. President Aristide was looked at as a symbolic figure who would be able to bring economic stability and development to the country. However, in September of 1991, a coup was staged to overthrow Aristide. The act was led by the economic elite of the country, a long with elements of Haiti’s army.

From 1991-1994 an interim government was formed. It was not until the United Nations passed Resolution 940 where members were supposed to use all necessary force to oust the interim government. The United States took the lead in this initiative, and in mid-September of 1994 U.S. troops prepared to enter Haiti. In June of 1995 local and parliamentary elections took place with a pro-Aristide contingent winning. President Aristide then took the Presidential office back in September of 1995. After that though, there were many problems with the legitimacy of future elections. In 1996 Rene Preval won the Presidential election with 51.15% of the vote that was looked at by many of the international community to be illegitimate.

Without full legitimacy, it has been hard for the international community to come together to work with the country, and harder for the President Preval to bring the country together in order to help it. And remember, this was all before the earthquake.

People were already living in unsanitary conditions. There was barely any running water, and the only way to get any was through a public filtration system. There was also no sanitation department to pick up the trash so people left it on the streets and walked around it.

There had also been law enforcement issues making the country a dangerous place to live. After the international community went into Haiti, the military was disbanded, but its members still kept their weapons. This left thousands of guns on the streets with no counter force to help keep the peace. This is a picture of Haiti's former military personel on the streets of Port au-Prince:

In 2008, the Caribbean was hit by three storms, Haiti getting the worst of it. This is how the country looked after that:

This country needed help way before the major earthquake that destroyed the little people had in the country. If any good can come out of this, its that there might be a sustained effort to build stability and economic growth to a place that has needed it for a long time.

The American Red Cross has had members going to Haiti for a long time now. They and other organizations will be conducting much of the heavy lifting that is now necessary more then ever. That link will lead you straight to a place where you can donate what you can. Large amount of funds will be necessary to carry the effort out now, and into the future.

Show Me The Money!!

I'm usually really excited to wake up Sunday, read the paper, watch Meet The Press, and absorb all the new information that's going to come out. There are times though when my political Sunday is kinda a let down. Kinda like the last week of the NFL season. Unfortunately, I have a feeling this is going to be one of those weeks.

I know exactly what's going to be said tomorrow. Jobs. Everything and anything about jobs, or rather, lack there of. In December 85,000 jobs were lost and the unemployment rate stayed at 10%. There's no way around it, it's very bad out there. Businesses are forced to cut back, and families are being forced to make extremely tough decisions such as between buying health insurance or food. Now the President and Congress are talking about passing a jobs bill which they hope (hope!), will create more opportunities for companies to hire.

Most economists are saying things are going to get worse before they get better. But of course a recent piece pulitzer prize winning economist (Paul Krugman) said: "The next employment report could show the economy adding jobs for the first time in two years." So what do they know? And as for Republicans, all they can do is say the Democrats $275 billion stimulus package isn't working. But when I looked to find out what that money was doing, it turns out its just sitting there.

According to Recovery.gov, as of October 30th 2009, only $19 billion of the stimulus packaged has been spent, but over $158 billion has been rewarded. Only 13% of the money has been given to the states. Wyoming has been awarded over $476 million, but has only received a little over $60 million. California (the state with the most fiscal trouble right now) was awarded over $18 billion, but has only received a little over $8 billion.

So for all you fiscal hawks out there, stop complaining. While the money has been allocated it hasn't gone anywhere yet. Why? Who knows. I'm sure if you ask any member of Congress (well, maybe not McCain) they will be more then happy to get some of that money for their constituents.

My advice: spend the money! Banks aren't lending, and as we learned from the Great Depression, the government needs to be the one that creates the demand to spur economic growth. There are arguments out there that another stimulus needs to be passed. But let's wait and see what this one is actually able to accomplish. Considering our infrastructure needs a lot of work, I'm willing to bet there are plenty of roads, bridges, and highways that can use some sprucing up.

Since health care took up so much of Congress' time this year, people are frustrated they cannot see any tangible results from the stimulus or anything else. Democrats had a mandate to do something and while they can legitimately claim they got things done, none of it has taken effect yet. There have been tours here and there touting where the stimulus money has been spent (including minority leader John Boehner's district), but more needs to be done. With all the families struggling out there they need to hear it's going to get better.

From the money that had been spent, Democrats can legitimately claim it created jobs. So show me the money!