posted
"This is a stunning reversal of course from the president's campaign statements that he hoped to reduce the number of abortions. Just a day after thousands of Americans came to Washington to celebrate the principle of life, President Obama has made it clear that reducing abortions is not one of his priorities."
What an amazing misunderstanding of Obama's position.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm sure many of you have heard me talk about this before. California asked for a waiver some time ago to raise emissions standards for the state, as they have done several times before, but Bush ordered the EPA to block the waiver. Obama has directed them to give the waiver, which will allow California, (and a consortium of another dozen states who have declared their intention to join with California) to set their own tailpipe emissions and fuel efficiency standards. Given California's driving population and the mechanics involved, and the states that would join in, they'd likely be setting a de facto national standard (as has often been the story in the past).
Car companies argue against the difficulty in doing such a thing. Republicans (by and large, but also many Democrats from car producing states, except Republicans from the south of course) are saying this is the worst time to do such a thing, as it would further cripple an already ailing domestic industry. But domestic auto companies are already ramping up their production of more fuel efficient cars, and it's the biggest tag line on their infrequent ads these days. They're already pushing to increase their standards, not because of state or federal regulation, but because of market conditions and consumer demand.
I'm a little surprised that he got to this so quickly, but it's welcome news to the environmental community.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm a little surprised that he got to this so quickly, but it's welcome news to the environmental community.
This is welcome news to my ears. I don't claim any special economic or environmental knowledge to support my stance on the issue (I just read a lot), but I think pushing environmental change policies will be a better stimulus to the economy than any of the plans I've seen on the table thus far. I could be wrong... But I think a new approach to our energy and infrastructure will create an employment and educational boom that could ultimately lift us out of this current economic crises.
Without being pushed into that direction, however, I don't think most private industry will make changes on their own accord. Restructuring is just too costly (whether in real dollars or perceived loss) to even be considered. Sure, there's plenty of talk, but I think that's mostly all there is at this point.
I think it's hard for mid - large companies to adapt easily, but as technology, regulation and infrastructure changes we could see the next "sector" boom that will lead the way for the half-century.
In other words, instead of another band-aid, what our economy needs is a transplant. I think this is a good sign.
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the same article Obama also directed car companies to raise their fuel efficiency standards as well. I suspect if gas prices can stay under $2 a gallon demand for SUVs will rise again.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm a little surprised that he got to this so quickly, but it's welcome news to the environmental community. "
It seems that a lot of what Obama has been doing in his first week is undoing a lot of the really stupid crap that Bush did. This fits into that category.
I'm waiting anxiously for the directive to the IRS to go back to their old audit pattern rather then the bush directed audit pattern which has cost us about 200 billion in tax revenue per year.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: But I think a new approach to our energy and infrastructure will create an employment and educational boom that could ultimately lift us out of this current economic crises.
I think once we start to heavily invest in green energy that will be the newest boom as well...like the BOOM in hi-tech a few years ago, and the recent BOOM in the housing market.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I understand it correctly, one thing I really think is a bad idea for emission standards is that they set a average that a fleet needs to match. That is, all the vehicles that a company sells have to average out to XX mph.
That seems like such a strange way of doing things. I can see setting standards for each level of vehicle, but an average across the entire fleet just seems very stupid to me.
The car companies shouldn't be responsible for what the market wants. If people love brand X trucks, they shouldn't have to really push the super-efficient tiny cars. I'd much rather have them focus on increasing the fuel efficiency of the trucks that people are buying.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: But I think a new approach to our energy and infrastructure will create an employment and educational boom that could ultimately lift us out of this current economic crises.
I think once we start to heavily invest in green energy that will be the newest boom as well...like the BOOM in hi-tech a few years ago, and the recent BOOM in the housing market.
Heh... I thought someone would have fun with that.
As I said, I could be wrong. But I think with some regulations put in place and a plan that addresses our society and economy as a whole, a change in perspective akin to the industrial revolution would be possible. "Green" energy and products would be a major player in this.
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Juxtapose, how was Obama's position not accurately represented? He did say (during the campaign) that he would like to see fewer abortions. Is it not reasonable then to ask how he expects to encourage that if he reverses a previous policy that did not allow government funds for family planning clinics that included abortion counselling?
Another interesting point is that this extra money that will now be sent to abortion clinics comes from what he calls his "economic stimulus package." How is this going to stimulate the economy? I heard one liberal spokesman try to answer this by saying that it would be beneficial to the economy if fewer people were born. Hearing that, a conservative fired back, "Where are we going next--euthanasia for the elderly?"
Face it folks--when you vote a person with an extreme liberal position and voting record into office, this is part of the package. Whether a candidate is liberal or conservative or moderate, does matter. If you voted for Obama because you liked him and you thought it would be great for an African American to become president, so much so that you ignored all the seriously troubling reports offered by those who did try to vet him in terms of his past associations and voting record, then don't complain if you are opposed to government funding for abortion. This is part of what you voted for.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not accurately presented because the following has never been true from Obama's policies: "Would like to see fewer abortions and therefore would illegalize abortions." That would be the most obvious way to suddenly decrease the number of abortions performed in the US.
Reversing the government funds policy, in my opinion, values the overall good that those programs provide. He's implied that the way to reduce abortions is to reduce the perceived need to have abortions, not to make it harder to get.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:He did say (during the campaign) that he would like to see fewer abortions. Is it not reasonable then to ask how he expects to encourage that if he reverses a previous policy that did not allow government funds for family planning clinics that included abortion counselling?
I would like to see fewer racists. Nevertheless, I would oppose any law which prohibited the free expression of racist ideology.
Put another way - one can pursue a given goal while being unwilling to support every method which might assist in obtaining that goal.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Juxtapose, how was Obama's position not accurately represented? He did say (during the campaign) that he would like to see fewer abortions. Is it not reasonable then to ask how he expects to encourage that if he reverses a previous policy that did not allow government funds for family planning clinics that included abortion counselling?
It's very reasonable to ask. Rep. Price, however, did not ask that question. He called it a "stunning reversal", which it is not. EDIT - It seems to me that you don't seem very interested in asking that question either. If I'm mistaken about that, I think it's a worthwhile conversation to have.
quote:Another interesting point is that this extra money that will now be sent to abortion clinics comes from what he calls his "economic stimulus package." How is this going to stimulate the economy? I heard one liberal spokesman try to answer this by saying that it would be beneficial to the economy if fewer people were born. Hearing that, a conservative fired back, "Where are we going next--euthanasia for the elderly?"
I have no idea what you're talking about. Could you cite this please?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Not even waiting a week, the new administration has acted to funnel U.S. tax dollars to abortion providers overseas," Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia, said in a written statement.
He did wait longer than either of the last two presidents to address it. Clinton killed it on Jan. 22, 1993, and Bush put it back on Jan. 22, 2001. I kind of liked how he avoided the symbolism of doing it on the Roe v Wade anniversary.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Theoretically, the move on funding agencies that may promote abortion isn't necessarily contradictory with a goal of reducing abortions anyways.
After all, these agencies usually don't exclusively promote abortion, many also provide advice on regular birth control or emergency contraception. Better education on or better access to these alternatives may very well decrease the number of abortions long-term anyways.
Of course, if you're opposed to both or one of these, then that won't be much consolation. But I'm just noting that its not necessarily contradictory depending on what assumptions you're bringing to the table.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What the gag rule says is that people are being prohibited from advising women and families about procedures that are legal both here and in the countries in question. And organizations that refused to make that change lost funding, which means they also lost resources -- employees, medicine, contraceptives -- that helped them continue. And without those resources, they were less effective in all of their other services.
The Senate has, in fact, passed amendments to the gag rule several times to relax various restrictions, to no avail (and the votes were not entirely Democrats, either). The last time the House and the Senate both approved dropping it, but let it drop after Bush threatened a veto.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps opponents of Obama's decision could inform me as to how US tax dollars get into the hands of abortion providers? From what I can tell, this just allows family counseling centers to include abortion as an option when trying to help people. It's not writing checks to abortion clinics.
DK -
First of all, you mean bust, not boom. Second, I don't see the connection. When was the last time the fossil fuel industry went boom? Infrastructure and the like don't go bust in the same way that other industries can be prone to. A lot of this will be consumer goods that people consider essential, like lightbulbs, and a lot of it will be one time retrofits that make buildings more efficient. And as far as wind turbines and solar panels go, what do you think will happen, people will just turn them off and stop selling the power they produce?
What's your alternative?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Juxtapose, how was Obama's position not accurately represented? He did say (during the campaign) that he would like to see fewer abortions. Is it not reasonable then to ask how he expects to encourage that if he reverses a previous policy that did not allow government funds for family planning clinics that included abortion counselling?
Because part of what cuts the numbers of abortions is preventing pregnancy in the first place, so by restoring funds to family planning facilities, there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies, and hence, fewer abortions.
This isn't the first time you've heard this argument, I'm sure.
quote:Face it folks--when you vote a person with an extreme liberal position and voting record into office, this is part of the package.
Ron, support for family planning is not an "extreme liberal postion" in this country. It's a moderate one supported by the majority.
You are the one espousing the extreme position.
I'm sure I'm not the first person to point that out to you either.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron. As stated here by many--funding health clinics that offer legal services that include Abortion, or at least the mention of Abortion, will lower the numbers of Abortions by providing several other services, from contraceptives to vasectomies, from teaching and education to the ability to offer other advice as well, such as adoption.
Further, it will reduce the overall loss of life as many women were helped in those clinics who were not planning on terminating their pregnancies, but who were not helped when the funds were cut.
That is one of misconceptions of the Pro-Life movement which must be removed if they ever plan on succeeding--that "We must save every unborn child, no matter how many women or other children we kill to get there."
Would you suggest that we make it illegal for any woman to see a doctor--ever. That way women could never get an abortion. Of course not. Yet cutting these funds did stop some of the only doctors some women could afford to see.
Mr. Squicky, they tried the idea of saying "Each type of car will meet a specific MPG." The car companies then invented new types of vehicles that were outside the specs so weren't covered. This is how SUV's came into being.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
The car companies shouldn't be responsible for what the market wants. If people love brand X trucks, they shouldn't have to really push the super-efficient tiny cars. I'd much rather have them focus on increasing the fuel efficiency of the trucks that people are buying. [/QB]
I don't know. If car companies aren't at least part of how the public decides what kind of car it wants, they are wasting an awful amount of money on advertising.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Until the gas prices exploded, when was the last time you saw a car company put money into advertising for a subcompact?
The point is that companies shouldn't HAVE to make tiny fuel efficient cars that nobody wants. Car companies might make such a car, but no amount of advertising in the world that's even close to honest is going to convince them they want it when they really, really don't. They advertise similar products to other companies to extol the virtues of THEIR particularly type of product, generally (in the case of car companies) not to push something that rarely sells and that no other company is really pushing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well if they wanted them the whole time, why didn't they buy them? Subcompacts were a money loser all through the 90's.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: I'm waiting anxiously for the directive to the IRS to go back to their old audit pattern rather then the bush directed audit pattern which has cost us about 200 billion in tax revenue per year.
The IRS has been asleep for about 14 years now. It's not just Bush's fault -- but I would also like to see Obama work on fixing it.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, the IRS has been a mess. But bush specifically directed them to address audits toward middle class folk. These aren't the people screwing around significantly with tax returns.
Lyrhawn, people buy fuel efficient cars as long as they meet other needs. Prius has been a big seller recently. Honda civic going back further. And outside of this country, the really small cars sell... europeans are not entirely different people then americans. Advertising plays a big role, as does whats available, and what you can get a good deal on.These things are in the realm of the auto industry.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Woah there, you just went off in like three different directions. Recent conditions with $4+ a gallon gas don't match anything we've ever seen, even adjusted for inflation, by which I mean, people weren't buying cars with the same criteria and circumstances that they do no, or did a year ago. Europe does not equal America. The Prius and the Honda Civic do not equal subcompacts.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not talking about subcompacts. I'm talking about fuel efficient cars.
Europe has had the same fuel costs we had last year for, well, at least a generation, maybe longer. Given the fact we're probably going to be seeing 3-4 dollar gas real soon, and maybe even more expensive in a couple years, while europe does not now equal america, in terms of car purchasing trends, they are probably going to head in the same direction.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a lot more going on with car design in Europe aside from fuel costs. Besides, it was our government that had a byzantine tax incentive system in place to reward gas guzzling hulks, all the while allowing our fuel efficiency standards to actually *drop* in the last 25 years. All the while California has been expected to prop up the rest of the country by buying the crap being made while having our hands tied when it comes to our own efficiency standards. The whole situation has been one long embarrassing cluster F. It's been interference from the federal government that has kept us limping along for so long, while other nations got on with business and started producing the products we forgot how to make, or buying the only good ones we did make. I have little sympathy for the auto industry, but they were enticed into this stupid arrangement, and stuck there with the assistance of the federal government, the unions, and everyone else with no mind toward the future.
As someone here pointed out recently, our problem as Americans is that we believe in "solutions," wherein things go on exactly as they have, only for longer. How do we solve our transportation problems? Well let's not put the auto industry out of work while we give them money to lobby our government to delay public transportation projects for decades, that would be SILLY! Let's not allow individual states to raise their standards because other states don't feel like following their example, no. In fact, let's just keep not spending money on public transport, and make symbolic gestures about replacing our vast fleets of consumer cars with some technology guaranteed never to be delivered to the American consumer, like hydrogen fuel!
The American transportation system is like a society of people who ride around on donkeys trying to find a way to develop hover cars so that they can use the same donkey trails that they already use now. Never mind that leaping ahead 5 generations in technology is impossible, or that it isn't really leaping ahead at all, but more like putting hover boots on your donkey to make it go farther. It makes me sick. Watching George Bush talk about hydrogen fuel, standing next to a Shell Corporation hydrogen fuel pump is pathetic. PATHETIC.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Europe has had the same fuel costs we had last year for, well, at least a generation, maybe longer.
I know that in at least some European countries there are huge financial disincentives for purchasing inefficient vehicles far beyond the cost of gasoline. KoM can correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that in Norway, a significant portion of the cost of a new car is government fees and those fees are based on engine displacement.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lovely... and his first call to a foreign leader was to Mahmoud Abbas, the terrorist who runs the Palestinian Authority.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Can we compare EPA's highway cycle to the EU's "highway" cycle? No. EU's highway cycle supposes the car at constant speed. As many Europeans can tell you, that's tough to get and real-world mileage figures actually are closer (and slightly higher) than the "Combined cycle", which is more comparable to EPA's highway cycle. Add the fact that EU's measurings are based on models and the EPA actually tests the cars. To make things even more complicated, the Japanese cycle is even different and focus on lower speeds.
Therefore, and as a rule of thumb, comparing EU and U. S. specifications is something that we can only do at approximate levels. However, we have the right to ask U. S. manufacturers to get us more fuel-efficient cars and their European operations show that they have those models. GM heard this when bringing the Astra and Ford did the same with the Focus and will bring the newer Focus and Fiesta stateside.
quote: Here's some information about U. S. manufacturers we obtained (all conversions obtained here)
Saturn Astra 2009, 1.8-liter, 140hp, 5-spd manual - EPA's figures: 32mpg U. S. (hwy) = 38mpg IMP = 7.35 l/100km // Opel/Vauxhall Astra,1.8-liter, 140hp, 5-spd manual - Official figures: 33mpg U. S. (EU combined) = 39.8mpg IMP = 7.1 l/100 km. This model doesn't offer significative difference.
Dodge Caliber, 1.8-liter, 150hp, 5-spd manual - EPA's figures: 29 mpg U. S. (hwy) = 34.8mpg IMP = 8.1 l/100 km // Dodge Caliber in Europe: 1.8-liter, 150hp ,5-spd manual - Official figures: 32 mpg U. S. (EU combined) = 38.7mpg IMP = 7.3 l/100km. This model has slight differences.
In the case of Ford, we can't compare current models because they're different cars altogether, but the figures were very similar for the 2.0-liter versions of the 5-door model back in 2005. In the case of European cars, the figures are, again quite similar: European VW Passat makes 29.78mpg (7.9 l/100 km) and the EPA assigns 31mpg for higway (7.6 l/100km). Again, not a significative difference.
quote: The base model Ford Focus gets 37 MPG in the US, which is pretty decent mileage. But it gets 59 MPG in Europe which is 60% better gas mileage!
quote: European cars are powered by turbocharged "common-rail" diesel engines. This type of engine has been widely used in Europe for the last 10 years. They don't need spark plugs, run on diesel fuel including bio-diesel and have a high compression ratio of 17 to 25:1 versus 9:1 found on a typical gasoline engine, making them that much more efficient. And by the way, did I mention that they run on bio-diesel as well? US car manufacturers attempted to produce diesel engines in the 80's but failed. They used standard engine blocks designed for gasoline, not for these high compressions and as a result the blocks cracked. Ever since diesels have had bad reputation in the US while they equip most cars in Europe and are highly reliable.
posted
It is lovely that his very first interview was a reaching out to all the Muslims in the world that do not necessarily hate us and offer a different view. And note that he doesn't set up al Qaida as an equal force: he lessens them. He undercuts their bluster.
quote:"Their ideas are bankrupt," he told host Hisham Melhem, when asked to respond to recent audio clips from al Qaida leadership calling him various epithets. "There's no actions that they've taken that say a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education because of them, or has better health care because of them."
Obama has already talked to the American people, over and over again. Now that he's president, he can talk to everyone else, and it's about damn time that a president did.
And Lisa, yes, he talked to a Palestinian leader. Do you think that the anti-Israel forces are ever going to just stand down and back off? Seriously, ever? A treaty may be impossible after all, but it will most definitely never happen without communication, and a strong indication that America is willing to communicate is that our new president called that man first. If communication doesn't work, tougher methods can be used, but it has to go in that order.
quote:"Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what's best for them. They're going to have to make some decisions," Obama said. "But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that instead it's time to return to the negotiating table."
(edited to add: this is in response to what I read as a sarcastic post. If it wasn't, I apologize )
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone have information on what Obama said to Palestine? Expanded Obama quote
quote: The president reiterated the U.S. commitment to Israel as an ally, and to its right to defend itself. But he suggested that Israel has hard choices to make and that his administration would press harder for it to do so.
"We cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what's best for them. They're going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people," he said.
Obama added: "There are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side."
The only interesting thing about this, I guess, is the symbolism of it being his first interview. I think the more substantive point is that Obama's enlisted George Mitchell as a special envoy to the area. Hopefully he'll be able to work his N. Ireland magic in the Middle East.
In their book America and the World Zbignew Brzesinski and Brent Scocroft agree that successful mediation of the Israel/Palestine conflict should be the number one foreign policy concern of the new President. I tend to disagree, seeing India/Pakistan and China/Korea/Japan as being more urgent issues, but they're obviously experts and I'm not.
quote: "It's chock-full of it," says Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, perhaps the most pork-conscious member of the Republican Party. "There aren't congressional earmarks, and that's a good thing. But when you get down to the city level, it's chock-full of pork."
quote: "It's gone through the congressional Democrats," he says. "It's basically a grab bag for every program that they've wanted to see funded for years."
The bill pushes tens of billions of dollars into education, and not just for building and renovation projects, but for everything from Head Start to college loans and Pell Grants. Some Republicans ask: How does that stimulate the economy?
"For example, $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts," Flake says. "There's no better example than that. How that stimulates the economy, I don't know."
And then there is the grass. The bill includes $200 million to reseed the National Mall in Washington.
quote: So, according to Republicans, the bill is full of pork. Not so, says Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
"There's not pork in this bill," he says. "There's not a single earmark in this bill."
Every cent of government spending goes through Obey's office.
quote: "We are trying to find every possible constructive way to put people back to work," he says. "And if one of those ways is to repair the Mall, I see no harm in doing that, if it accomplishes a good public purpose."
Obey and other Democrats also say this bill will have some of the toughest oversight of any government spending in years — and not just by Congress. After it passes, the public will be able to track every penny of it on a Web site, recovery.gov.
Still, there are some odd bits in the legislation. For example, it specifically bars local governments from using the infrastructure money to build zoos, casinos, swimming pools and golf courses.
Arizona's Flake asks: If there's no pork in the bill, why ban these things?
Obey's answer: "We don't want to be cheap-shotted to death by people who will pick out something that sounds like a funny title and [use] it to ridicule the entire package."
I give NPR credit for picking a Republican named 'Flake' and a Democrat named 'Obey' for quotes in their story.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For example, $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts," Flake says. "There's no better example than that. How that stimulates the economy, I don't know."
Um....Seriously? What exactly does he think the NEA does? It gives grants to artists to produce projects. These projects often require multiple craftsmen. The grants go towards materials and salaries (which, in turn, go back into the economy). The odds are good that $50m to the NEA is actually one of the more efficient investments the government could make.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a potentially stupid question. Is the point of the tax-cut/stimulus-check section of a recovery package to tell people "Please spend this money"? If so, why isn't there a direct push to tell people to spend more money?
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What exactly does he think the NEA does? It gives grants to artists to produce projects. These projects often require multiple craftsmen. The grants go towards materials and salaries (which, in turn, go back into the economy).
or you could just give me 50 million and I will spend it on all kinds of things to benefit me, several new houses, cars, and all kinds of crazy stuff. By using your logic it would be the same end result.
quote: The odds are good that $50m to the NEA is actually one of the more efficient investments the government could make.
I would take those odds. I don't think we need more Serranos or Mapplethorpes work on display during a time when people have less disposable income.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeah, those hippie artists should cut their hair and get a real job, working for a nice corporation.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, since the corporation and the people employed at the corporation are paying for the artist's work I don't really have a problem with having the artist work at the corporation. Might be a nice change of pace for everyone involved to see what an artist does when they are on their lunch break. Good idea! The hair cut is optional.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The odds are good that $50m to the NEA is actually one of the more efficient investments the government could make.
I would take those odds. I don't think we need more Serranos or Mapplethorpes work on display during a time when people have less disposable income.
Respectfully, I think you're quite wrong. And it's not the same thing as the government personally enriching an individual. Arts grants, if they go to the right people, can be a very good thing- even for the economy. Arts programs can have a way of making every dollar count, so that the use of the money involved is very carefully considered, and very widely dispursed. As Tom said, you don't just pay some guy to have an idea, you pay him to pay other people to help him, to do research, to creatively find ways of working with what he has, and to eventually contribute something to his community that benefits that community in a hopefully long lasting way. Government supported art projects can have real effects on the economy, whether through innovation of design, application to marketing, enrichment of the property value of a community, etc etc etc.
And what about research institutions like my Alma Mater, UC Davis? They pay a faculty of arts professors to do all manner of "useless" things. I had professors who were paid by our state government to spend their time composing music. But after 3 decades of support, they built the Mondavi Center, because Robert Mondavi was so keen on what he'd seen from Davis, that he gave about 60M dollars to the University to create a world class music hall. Now the best performance artists in the world stop in Davis California to practice their arts. We get authors and presidents to speak there. People want to live in the community because of this rich cultural life, and the economy of California is enriched by the rising property values, and the increased tax revenue. The local schools have very strong programs and local support because people move to that community in order to have access to those things. That is what changed Davis from a railway stop with some stores and a bunch of orchards, into a thriving small town with strong potential for the future. That all started with a university and a government that was willing to throw money into a seemingly bottomless pit starting 50 years ago.
So it's not nothing. And when you actually sit down and realize how little money the state has invested in order to generate such a huge return on so many fronts, you realize that this kind of arrangement is really something that ONLY a government can do. There'd be no company in the world that would invest so much for such a long term (and only speculative) return, and even if one would, there would be no possible way for a single company to capitalize on the success of a real community, but a government can.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The bill pushes tens of billions of dollars into education, and not just for building and renovation projects, but for everything from Head Start to college loans and Pell Grants. Some Republicans ask: How does that stimulate the economy?
posted
Which kind of makes that $50m for nationwide arts unaffiliated with a college seem rather small, no?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
They're not kidding because they are looking at two different things. One is an immediate bill that would stimulate the economy now (tax cuts and incentives) and another bill with desireable spending that may stimulate the economy or provide other stimulative long term benefits. Throwing 825 billion dollars we don't have at a problem is not the best way to solve an issue.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not at all. $50m is still $50m that we do not need to spend at this moment. I thought we had to reduce spending?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm surprised by the GOP apprehension to the stimulus bill. I grant there are some things that don't sit well with Republicans, but at the same time, there are measures that Republicans would traditionally love. Like the ~250B dollars in tax cuts. So it surprises me that there wasn't a single GOP representative in the house that voted for the bill. Every single republican voted against the tax cuts. That's a pretty major gamble, especially if this stimulus bill helps.
The arguments they're making against the measure, I believe, are flawed. The $50 million to the NEA does help stimulate the economy. Now, I grant to DK that giving him the money would also result in a boost to the economy, but the bill is also aimed at trying to alleviate the hardships of people in this troubled economy. People don't want to spend their income on things like 'arts and crafts' when they're more focused on holding onto things that they need in life. Artists suffer in this kind of economy, so the 50M is an attempt to help them. (Edit: Not to say I don't think DK is a valued member of society, just that we should help as many people who are hurting as possible. )
The argument against the re-seeding of the lawn is better, but not without its downfalls. By granting that money, you are giving money for workers to have a job during this troubled economy. Is it only one project? Yes, but at the same time, you don't need to make it a permanent fix. When the economy rebounds, I'm sure there will be more privately funded projects for lawn-care. Until then, let's help people get money for work.
The bill is supposed to work twofold, it's supposed to help give some money quickly through the tax-cuts/stimulus check. But it's also supposed to hold people who have been hit hard by the economy during the recession. If they really wanted to attack the bill for its flaws, attack it for things that won't help with the economy in any measurable sense. For example, the money set aside for contraceptive and STD education for low income families. While I support the concept and would hope it would get passed, I'd more easily grant that the sex-ed doesn't belong in an economic stimulus package than the money to the NEA.
I'm fine with a degree of partisanship that functions as a check against bad ideas. But the GOP should pick their fights better, and when they pick them, know how to state their position more efficiently. The theatrics of a complete disavowal of this bill is silly, considering there seems to be far more good than bad.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) 
