Keene Opines: 2010

As the internet has played an important role in how the country communicates, it has made it easier to connect to people and businesses across the nation. But is this good? Is it good that we are stepping outside of our proverbial bubble and into the national landscape, personally? There are many arguments that can be made on both sides of the idea, however I find that there is one that simply makes more sense than the other.

Our nationalization has been a growing trend since the 1930s and the Great Depression. My adversaries would say that it is because the government is growing. I argue, however, that it is a redistribution of power, where power that had been in the cities, counties, and states and is now in the federal government. The internet has helped perpetuate this, as had the automobile and airplanes, because it has caused the federal government to handle the overlap in business practices across state lines. When we shop online, especially in an area like Keene, we are actually shopping outside of state lines. When you log onto Walmart.com, you are shopping from warehouses across the country. On Ebay, you are shopping from individual people or businesses that dot the country and even the world. It makes sense that the federal government would need to step in to make sure that one state isn't being hurt more than another because of the internet.

However, this causes the need for the federal government to do everything. It causes people to pin all of their hopes and dreams on one person [President Obama]. But why are people putting all of this hope and desire in the president when they could do the same for their governors, mayors, and legislators? Why do I not see people who are supporting someone like a Rick Lazio in New York saying that if he is elected that they don't need to pay their mortgage or that everything will be resolved in one year? We have become so centralized that we expect the top to have a trickle down effect through the rest of the nation, a lot like the idea of Reaganomics where the immense of wealth at the top will trickle down to the bottom. It doesn't work effectively. There are people at the top who have their own ambitions about where resources go and there are people on the bottom who demand something from the top because they have relied too heavily on the top to support themselves. This is not how a country should be when it is the national government's job to bail out companies. If Indiana banks are failing, then the state of Indiana should try to help its people. If Connecticut's insurance companies are failing, then the state of Connecticut should be working to help them.

When projects need to be funded, like highways, the federal government tantalizes the state governments by only offering funding if the state maintains certain legislation. Isn't that the definition of a "puppet government?" The federal government controls what happens in the lower level governments to the point that they are practically running them. What happened to the principles that the original colonies were founded upon, the idea that each state (at the time, colony) had it's own way of governing and its own belief system? If there were no differences in opinion, would there be both a Connecticut and a Massachusetts or one large Massachusetts? Since the 1910s when the Senate began to be popularly elected, the states have lost a direct impact on the federal government. Rather it is the people of these states that have a direct impact on the government. Although it sounds good, we look at some of the intellect of the voting population, it is worrisome. People complain that they don't like what Congress is doing (the Congress has maintained an approval rating in the 30% range for a while) but there is little turnover in the House of Representatives, the house that is to be a representation of the people. Despite the low approval rating, the low turnover must mean that Americans really love their representatives and the polls are wrong. The people have been electing and supporting people who are generally just pretty people (i.e. Scott Brown, etc.), although in some cases it is clearing understandable when the other option is not a great one, or are supporting a word: Change. As I mentioned in a previous post, change is a great motivator. But, when there is too much change, or change isn't happening fast enough, it makes government difficult to conduct when the voting population is consistently switching parties because they say "change." With the election of President Obama, people put their hopes and dreams at the top and expected it to trickle down.

Because voters only focus on the President and their Senators, they don't bother to research who Rick Lazio is or who David Paterson is. They may only know Andrew Cuomo from his father, former New York Governor Mario Cuomo. They don't pin their hopes and dreams on every elected position and that is how bad politicians get into office. They follow the word of change, Glenn Beck, or whoever is influencing the population. But by following these influences, is America getting everything it can? I say no. This centralization has caused our local governments to become helpless and useless. They see that something is wrong in their community, go to the polls, and expect a new president and senator to fix everything when it is the state senator and the city council that is screwing up. Centralization has also brought forward progression that may be in the best interest for the nation in general, but may not be for many parts of the country. Let's use healthcare reform as an example. Currently, the Democrats in Washington want to pass a law that requires citizens to have health insurance, but possibly not offer a public option. My opinion on this bill is that if you require people to have insurance, the government must offer a cheap, basic option so every can make this requirement. However, this legislation does not favor those in states like Massachusetts that already have a policy in place. So, passing the healthcare bill in Congress would hurt Massachusetts residents more than help them. Congress is trying to create a blanket legislation rather than having states handle the problem from within the states. My suggestion would be to rather than have the bill be about requiring citizens to have insurance (I have not heard many people who have said that they did not want insurance) it should be more about making it more accessible. The federal government should allow people to purchase insurance from outside of the state, hence creating more competition. I also suggest that the federal government encourage states that want to initiate their own public option program to do so and allow residents from other states to buy into it. This creates a much smaller program that is much easier to handle and would be less expensive to operate than the current legislation. And not only that, but it would be a good revenue boost for states that may need it, as they may charge a higher rate to out of state customers due to the fact that they are not contributing tax money to the enterprise. That way, you maintain both accessibility and excellence through competition and government assistance.

In short, blanket policies are not as effective as localized ones. The people of our nation need to direct their attention to where it should really be: at the local level, because if the federal government is not doing the jobs it should, then the states should be picking up the gaps and exceeding the expectations of its citizenry.

Until Next Time,

Dennis J. Foley

Keene Opines

Media Update

Is Centralization Good For The Country?

The Future is Bright...

Followers

Labels

Blog Archive