What I would like explained is how some people feel that it is not the job of government to take care of its citizens. All defense spending debate aside, you honestly don't think it is the government's responsibility to make sure that its people have food, health care, and basic necessary services? This is not to say everyone should be on welfare, just to say that everyone is entitled to lead a good and happy life.
Privatization has failed as miserably (or deregulation I guess I should say) as your Oregon initiative. Look at California, as soon as they deregulated the major power companies sold off all their power plants and stashed the money in their global parent corporations. Then they cried poverty and the state bailed them out while Enron and others jacked the price of electricity up hundreds of percentage points. But hey people have a right to make a profit, right?
I feel that no basic service, meaning health care, electricity, food, water, or shelter should be denied ANY citizen. If you did the math you'd see that one stealth bomber could support thousands of families on a reasonable yearly level, so they would be right at the poverty line or a bit above it. But as Americans we don't think on these terms. Due to human nature we cannot leave these essential services in the private sector, since in this country our charities are just as corrupt as our corporations. Deregulation of power companies has been a massive failure in many states, not just California. With our defense budget growing, taxes decreasing (the one buffer we have against poverty, let's be honest) and companies downsizing, I see a very bleak immediate future unless some real social voices emerge in this country.
Oh, and tree-hugging? I hate to bring it up but trees provide us with oxygen. It has never been a corporate right to irreparably pollute this planet. Bush put off funding for alternate energy cars in favor of waiting for fuel cells (a nod, albeit a smart one, to the oil and auto lobbies who are heavily invested now in fuel cells) which are currently being realized and should be widely available in a decade. Yet he wants to drill Alaska. Do we not have enough oil for the next ten years? Would we rather drive another 200 species to exctinction so we can reduce the price at the pump?
Sorry for the rant, but it never ceases to amaze me that people can say these things with a straight face.
C.
|