Good News from the Frontlines
Though the presidential election is still more than a year away, political engagement around the country is exploding. As many people have already noted, potential voters are already turning out en mass to support their candidates. It's comforting to see so many domestic policy issues taking center stage (see here and here for instance).
And Hillary Clinton's latest proposal (although her staffers are quick to say it is just an idea being floated around) is both daring and out of left field. She contemplates a $5,000 grant for every child born, which is redeemable upon their completion of high school. Its viability is, at best, questionable, but it does show two things which I feared might not be present in the upcoming election…
First of all, it was daring. Though Senator Clinton was with a friendly audience (the Congressional Black Caucus), she knows as well as we do that in this age of media she is always talking to every voter. Bravo Senator Clinton for showing some gumption. Senator Clinton is not alone in her willingness to address hard issues. Last week, Senator Edwards took on the mounting incarceration rates and Senator Obama endorsed changing drug sentencing laws.
Secondly, it reflects a willingness to engage honestly about problems facing the middle class. As most readers of this blog know, mounting debts and failing social safety nets are leaving many Americans vulnerable and, even worse, bankrupt. We can debate the merits of Clinton's proposal and its actual efficacy but it definitely brings to the foreground the epidemic problem of chronic debt -- and it particularly addresses the need to curb the cost of education -- two issues I hope voters will consider when they cast their ballots next November.
My more cynical side says that this is an election and candidates make promises they can't keep all the time. My optimistic side feels like this most recent expression at least represents a shift in how we talk about the problems facing Americans. Could this represent a re-birth of the dreaded "entitlement programs"? All I can say is – I hope so!
Comments (6)
The problem I have with Billary's idea is that
she'll be spending OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY to buy
that bond, kind of like proxy child support. She
likes that part, spending other people's money...
and, she's not the only one standing at the
ready, pitchfork in hand, ready to 'man' the
federal feed trough...9 trillion and rising...
it's like a Johnny Cash song, but with money...
September 29, 2007 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
As with so many of these plans, they are incredibly discriminatory towards single people! Those of us who either cannot marry, have failed at marriage, or simply refuse to participate in such a corrupt institution, are treated as tax slaves to the "married with children" mentality - those receiving the maximum benefit of our tax system. Many singles work 60 plus hours a week, lose more than half of each additional dollar earned to payroll and income taxes, and cannot even designate a beneficiary for our social security survivor benefit! Additional benefits for the entitled class at the expense of me and my friends is hardly a way to earn our support.
October 1, 2007 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ms. Montagnes,
I share your well-expressed feeling of long-needed tectonic shifts in our politics, or at least the promise of them.
Here's hoping for some great eventualities...
October 4, 2007 5:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have got to be kidding. First, how would one pay for all this, and how would this dovetail with social security, if at all? The logical progression seems to me to be (1) incredible growth in financial services to manage all of this government money (wall street must be drooling) and (2) the gradual dependence on this vehicle to the exclusion of a guaranteed SS benefit (read, privatization).
The financial services industry is so influential now that it managed to get a bankruptcy bill passed that requires people who can't make their mortgage payments to pay for unaccredited "counseling." It's a very short trip from this to "control your retirement," "responsibility", and the like. The problem with the debate over financial services in this country is that policy makers have bought off on this line of argument that assumes that every human being is a nobel-laureate level economist, or has access to one. It's an idea floating around in a field allright, but not a "left" one.
I sincerely hope this is nothing more than election-year pandering (to wall street).
October 10, 2007 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
[2xpost deleted]
October 10, 2007 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Several more interesting opinions why this is "stupid...crackpot... ridiculous" on September 29 on Yglesias' blog. Stupid is used several times, one commenter also speechless at the stupidity. Seems to be only one real supporter, at the end, and he's not got much to say--I was surprised at the immediately vehement response on a self-identified liberal's blog--that in itself may make it stupid?
October 10, 2007 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink