|
|
 |
||||||
 |
Opinion Across The Fence Clinton, Obama have already won a victory It doesn't really matter who is ultimately named the Democratic candidate for president, because both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have earned their places in history.
Younger readers may not have an adequate frame of reference. But those of us who grew up in the 1950s and came of age in the 1960s certainly do. We can testify firsthand to the distance this nation has come. I remember watching a young black girl walk through a melange of angry voices and shaking fists as she made her way to the schoolhouse doors. I remember Alabama Gov. George Wallace's rhetoric against the inclusion of blacks in the public education system. I remember the march on Washington and the stirring words of a man who had a dream. There used to be a cigarette commercial whose tag line was, "We've come a long way, Baby." I'm no proponent of tobacco, but I sure loved those commercials. They featured smart-looking women moving forward and breaking ground in areas they'd previously only dreamed of tilling. Come November, when all of the votes are finally counted, this country is likely to have either a black man or a woman as its next president. Hooray for both of them. And hooray for all of those who went before them and helped put the American dream within the reach of almost any hardworking and dedicated young person regardless of gender or ethnicity. One thing that could put a curb bit on the ambition of most aspiring young politicians might be their bank accounts. Even based on the somewhat modest expenditures of Republican Mike Huckabee, former Baptist preacher and governor of Arkansas, the price tag for a presidential candidacy is pretty stiff. Huckabee has recently bragged that he spent only about $7 million while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has paid out close to $87 million. On inspection, it doesn't appear as though that extra $80 million has provided Romney with much of an edge. Actually, as of this writing, he's been urging Huckabee to bow out, and give him a better chance at gaining the support of the party's conservative base. Maybe the point here is that the amount of dollars spent doesn't actually guarantee a win. At least I hope that is true. But what about those bright young people who've pulled themselves up by their bootstraps? Should the fact that they don't come from wealthy families, or they haven't made their mark with major corporations, hinder their ability to enter a race for the nation's highest office? I, for one, don't think it should. Furthermore, I believe that we should push Congress to get real about election reform. That doesn't just mean tightening up on the money donated by special interest groups, but taking it a step further and putting spending caps on the presidential campaigns. It might take some dollars away from the media giants, but wouldn't it be a lot more fun to watch the politicians make their case for election in a more realistic way without the benefits of slick, punch-and-run TV spots? Speaking of money, how many of you have a real handle on the amount of money President George W. Bush is asking for in the new budget? In the last budget request of his tenure, he's asking for expenditures of $3.1 trillion, calling it a "good, solid budget." Wow. It's solid, all right. It's the biggest budget ever submitted to Congress. Increased spending for the military and homeland security are key items. The base budget for the Pentagon, excluding the wars, is up by 8 percent. Homeland security gets a $4 billion boost. Part of the increased costs would be offset by $196 billion in reductions to Medicare and Medicaid over the next five years. The president says $18 billion could also be saved by reducing or eliminating 151 other programs. Those programs include heating assistance for low-income families, clean water grants from the Environmental Protection Agency and others that are aimed at low- and middle-income families. When I hear talk about Robin Hood tax plans, the guys yelling are always opposed to any plan that involves a redistribution of wealth. But what do you call this? It looks to me like the big boys in Washington, at least the one currently in the White House, are pulling money away from the American families who need it and putting it straight into the pockets of big contractors and major corporations currently logging record profits. One final question keeps bugging me as I reflect on the recent debates. Why haven't the Republicans talked about health care? It's an issue that affects every one of us. The cost of care keeps rising, insurance premiums are out of reach for small-business owners, thousands of children are left with no or only marginal care, so it should be a big issue for everyone. But so far, I haven't heard one Republican address it. Why not? It doesn't make much sense to me to spend billions of dollars protecting our borders if we can't keep the Americans inside them healthy. Kathie Greer: Columnist and consultant for the Amarillo Independent. She can be reached at kathie@amarilloindy.com. E-mail
comments about this story Posted: February 7, 2008
|
|
