"Where's Hillary?! - The State of The Union 2010"

A brief recap: I actually thought this was an excellent speech - as usual. President Obama managed to provide a good amount of detail in his plans for the future ... a bit of flip-flopping with his decision for a 3 year freeze on discretionary spending (a flop that I fully support) ... a couple of ballsy jabs at the Republican opposition ... an attempt to rally the wimpy Democrats in Congress ... a few laughs and a lame joke or two ... and not a peep out of Joe Wilson.

And where the heck was Hillary Clinton? She's the Secretary of State, shouldn't she be present? The other cabinet members were there. I was convinced that she had planted a bomb in the capitol building set to go off during the speech - killing the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate - leaving her as the next in line to the presidency. Sadly, thats not how it went down. These are kinds of things I think about.

.

.

- his primary focus was on the economy, specifically job-creation.

- pledged to impose fees on large financial firms that received Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds to repay taxpayer money

- legislation calling for $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks repay to be reallocated towards helping community banks lend to small businesses, it would create a new small business tax credit, it would eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment and provide tax incentives for businesses to invest in new plants and equipment

- urged the Senate to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives for businesses to make clean energy achievable

- calls for America to concentrate on creating innovative advanced bio-fuels and clean coal technologies

- “We need to export more of our goods.”

- goal to double American exports over the next 5 years

- “To help meet this goal, we’re launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security."

- called on colleges and universities to do their part to make education more affordable

- proposed giving families with kids enrolled in four-year universities a $10,000 tax credit, and called for an increase in Pell grants

- monthly student loan payments shouldn’t exceed 10 percent of a graduate’s income and that all student loan debt will be forgiven after 20 years of payment or after 10 years if the graduate goes into public service

- “No one in America should go broke because they chose to go to college.”

- called upon Congress to approve a comprehensive health care reform bill that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, and reign in insurance companies

- cites the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that the bill he supports will save $1 trillion over the next two decades

- admitted his stimulus package added $1 trillion to the national debt but did so to prevent a second great depression

- to pay for that $1 trillion, in 2011, when the economy is stronger, a three-year freeze on the federal government’s discretionary spending that’s not related to national security or entitlement programs

- create a bipartisan Fiscal Proposal Commission to offer a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline to tackle the budget deficit

- impose strict restrictions on lobbyist activity

- approve legislation in response to the recent Supreme Court decision on campaign finance laws

- publish all earmark requests on a single web site before voting

- overturn "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for glbt military service

.

.

Sounds nice, but we'll see if the President manages to rally Congress and follow through with his agenda.

Also, just a thought - thats a LOT of government action going on. I'm fine with big government, but this has some clusterf*ck potential. But then again, maybe this kind of intervention is necessary to get us out of the hole we've gotten ourselves into. Food for thought...

Tell 'em Hillary.

"Apples to Appleby - The Game of Obvious Comparisons"

Many people consider private sector business leaders to be some of the best candidates for public office. 20th century political philosopher, Paul Appleby, addressed this thesis in his study Big Democracy.

In many ways, the government of the United States is designed to be businesslike. In the implementation of public policy, the government strives to use business principles of efficiency and effectiveness to promote swift administrative action. The government is not, however, like any other corporation in existence – as Paul Appleby explains in Big Democracy - “Government is Different”. There is no other institution whose every action is held fully accountable to the public. Furthermore, no institution other than the government simultaneously deals with such a wide scope of issues and people. Appleby explains the difference quite well in his statement that politics exists within most institutions, but “government is politics”.

Appleby’s overall argument is indeed valid, but his explanations seem to be convoluted and frequently backtracking upon themselves – at least for the first half of his discussion. He suggests that individuals with excellent records in the private sector will not always make effective government officials, but then admits that the organizational and executive experiences of business help to groom effective public officials. According to Appleby, large business provides the executive with more experience than that of small business. While this is almost undoubtedly true, it is a bit of a moot point. Logically, a larger, more encompassing business would provide the leader with more executive experience in dealing with public interest. The necessity for a “sense of action” in high positions of government is mirrored by the same necessity in a business executive – another similarity rather than a difference. One could infer that effectiveness of a government official depends more on the skills of that particular person, rather than whether or not he or she has a business background. In discussing the differences between government officials and business officials, Appleby does a much better job of highlighting their similarities.

Appleby much more adequately draws up the differences between the actual entities of government and private businesses. Industry exists solely for profit, without a great deal of energy and resources spent on public interest. Government, on the other hand, exists specifically to promote and protect public interest. No private institution encompasses anywhere near the breadth of government’s activities or is held so publically accountable; every action that the government undertakes is open to public scrutiny, debate, and investigation. A private institution is not as dependent on the will of the public beyond that of market demand, and certainly does not have an equal “appeal and concern” for all individuals. Government is fundamentally different from private business because it is far broader than any other entity – it must consider the heterogeneous will of the public. In the recurring words of Paul Appleby, “Government is different because government is politics.”

Appleby’s distinction is not at all inaccurate, but it merely seems like common knowledge that most people likely already comprehend. It is blatantly obvious to say that government has businesslike qualities, but is fundamentally different from a private business. The fact that government is interwoven with the political culture of the United States is the essential reason that it is distinct from business. While politics may exist within businesses – especially large corporations – politics permeate and blend seamlessly with the “business” of government. Looking past Appleby’s long-winded language, perhaps the best public administration-oriented point to take away from this study is that a business executive can be effective with managerial skill and sense to take action, but these traits in addition to a sense of public interest and responsibility are all required of effective government officials.

Paul Henson Appleby (second from right), born Sept 13 1891-1963, served as the Dean of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs of Syracuse University where he became a noted author of studies on public administration

"The End of Liberalism? : The Defense"

Theodore Lowi’s "The End of Liberalism: The Indictment" carries a great deal of weighty criticism and discontentment in title as well as content. Lowi insists that modern democracy has been corrupted by the political philosophy of “interest group liberalism”. He cites the concept of pluralism in government as the philosophical component of this policy of interest group liberalism. He summarizes the four components of his indictment:

First, he states that the public philosophy of interest group liberalism inherently corrupts the democratic system because it distorts expectations of democratic institutions. According to Lowi, by allowing interest groups to influence politics, legitimacy of the authority of leaders is uncertain. “Liberal practices reveal a basic disrespect for democracy” in that they cause integrity of the institution and justice to be questionable.

Second, Lowi accuses interest group liberalism of rendering government ‘impotent”. Essentially, he argues that many plans are presented as possibilities, but resolute plans are never agreed upon and put into action. The more government expands to include more input from various interests, the more public order suffers.

Lowi goes on to assert that interest group liberalism demoralizes government because liberal government is unable to achieve justice. The definition of justice under liberalism is unclear, and difficult to put to use. In fact, “The whole idea of justice is absurd.” He determines that liberal government lacks effective rules for government actions to be regulated by – basically, government runs rampant without constraint as does the bull in his clichéd china shop analogy.

In his final point, Lowi observes that interest group liberalism cripples the formalisms found within democracy. Informal bargaining is a necessity in a political climate dominated by interest groups, which overshadows the often unpopular observance of formality constraints. This separation between rules and reality often causes a degree of healthy political cynicism, but can also evolve into distrust.

Lowi concludes that while interest group liberalism is meant to combat the absolutist nature of majority/minority rule in democracy, it only succeeds in stripping democracy of its authoritativeness. This liberal effort negates democratic power rather than enhances it.

While Lowi’s argument is based in valid concern, it is debatable whether or not the pluralistic nature of United States political culture is a negative. Interest group activity is a common way for citizens to influence policy by supporting an interest group they identify with. It is difficult for citizens who are distant from the Washington epicenter of politics to have any considerable influence on policy without the collective force of an organized interest group. Interest groups often encourage more citizens to become involved in elections by spotlighting important political issues, resulting in greater span of democratic participation. Admittedly, interest groups do cause problems in democracy, especially in the case of national interest groups intruding into state and local politics. But overall, interest groups reflect the variety of opinions and concerns of the US public that would otherwise go unnoticed by most government officials.

It is important to keep Theodore Lowi’s claims in consideration in order to prevent interest groups from damaging the legitimacy of the US representative democracy. As long as well-moneyed interests do not grow to exercise an unjustly disproportionate amount of political capitol, interest groups should be welcomed in American politics as a means by which the average citizen can enjoy a greater amount of political efficacy.

Works Cited

"The End of Liberalism: The Indictment" by Theordore Lowi from Classics of Public Administration

Theodore J. Lowi (born July 9, 1931) is the John L. Senior Professor of American Institutions in the government department at Cornell University. His area of research is American government and public policy.