I am not a health care analyst. Although I dabbled in macro health-related policy in graduate school, I could tell you very little about the intricacies of our health care system. But this post really doesn't have much to do with health care policy, rather it's my take as to how we got to where we are today.
Less than half of Millennials, Americans age 18 to 29, believe when they are their parents' age, they will be better off, according to the "Survey of Young Americans' Attitudes Toward Politics and Public Service" (pdf) from Harvard University's Institute of Politics.
Are death threats and regularly broadcasted rage throwbacks to similar times in American history, or is it a new phenomenon that a quarter of the Republican party thinks our president is, without exaggeration, the Antichrist? I recently took a turn through Gallup's Presidential Approval Center to get some answers about how today's political and cultural climate truly differs from the past.
The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report (pdf) has been anything but a strategic watershed for U.S. nuclear policy. A congressionally-mandated review that establishes the nuclear policy, strategy, force posture, and capabilities of the United States for the next five to ten years, this NPR aggressively promotes the Obama administration's vision for realizing a nuclear free world. But rather than proscriptive policy for definitive action on real issues, the review is more about political posturing and ideological blustering leaving U.S. policymakers without the necessary suite of options for hedging against nuclear risks and addressing the multi-faceted set of challenges this nation faces.
Last Wednesday marked the one-year anniversary of the Recovery Act, also known as the "stimulus." In the midst of the political gridlock that has stalled health care reform, it is easy to forget that President Obama started off his term with what undeniably was a major legislative accomplishment. In fact, the Recovery Act was one of the largest progressive achievements of our time, and one wonders whether Obama would still be considered ineffectual if it had been broken down into smaller pieces and passed individually throughout last year, rather than all at once. The media, after all, has a very short attention span, and tends to forget success quite easily.
For more than thirty years, there hasn't been a new nuclear plant built in the United States. This is due to a number of reasons, including cost overruns, environmental lawsuits, political palatability and an unjustified fear of nuclear technology. That may all change with President Obama recently announcing support for nuclear power by giving his blessing and taxpayer dollars for two new nuclear plants in Georgia.
Much has been made about the similar circumstances surrounding Obama and Clinton's White House entrance, including a failed Bush presidency, eight-plus years of Republican reign, and a country hungry for change. As it turns out, both also had similar challenges their first year in office--strong opposition to a stimulus plan (though Obama was able to pass his, while Clinton wasn't), foreign policy critiques (on Somalia for Clinton and Afghanistan for Obama), and a country disgruntled over a "politics as usual" approach.
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled (pdf) that corporations should be allowed to spend freely in political elections. The decision will have a profound impact on how candidates are elected, starting with the Congressional campaigns in the fall. And the reactions have been heated.
The deficit is a funny political issue. On the one hand, it often riles up politicians, who use it as evidence that the government (and the party in power) is dysfunctional and isn't responsible with taxpayers' money. On the other hand, few of these same politicians actually propose doing anything specific to solve the problem. They usually just fall back on the old cliché of "cutting waste," whatever that means. The problem is apparently important enough to complain about in a very serious voice on the Sunday talk shows, but not important enough to offer specific solutions.
Our national security professionals continue to have their work cut out for them. Since the failed attempt to bring down a Northwest airliner on Christmas day, we've been told by the heads of our intelligence agencies that al Qaeda will execute another attack against the U.S. homeland within a three to six month timeframe. What kind of attack they are planning remains unknown at this point. But given al Qaeda's obsessive focus on certain types of targets, it's probably not a bad idea to keep a close eye on our airline industry.
Group items tagged 
