Yo Dawg...

It's time for a change we can believe in. And by that I'm not talking about re-electing Obama.

In fact, in light of our current economic circumstances, I would venture that America should do the exact opposite.

When the President took office in the wee hours of 2009, the American economy was already on a downslide. Employment rates were down, and poverty rates were up. But that's nothing new in the grand scheme of economic history - this data tends to fluctuate over the decades, sometimes in the course of just a year or two. And harder times had befallen our nation before - ever heard of the Great Depression? But of course, when that happens, we find new solutions, change things up, and begin a bright new chapter riding the crest of an effective new leader or policy. In 1932, it was Franklin D. Roosevelt whom the country commissioned to set things right, and he did so with a level-headed prudence that has since become a model of perfection for future politicians. By creating a "New Deal" of public policies and a plethora of federal job openings for the unemployed, FDR managed to thwart a potential national crisis in a matter of years.

In 2009, facing a similarly trying economic situation, Americans were eager for anyone who showed the necessary spark to pull the country up from a nosedive. For this reason, they flocked to the candidate who offered change, change, and more change, and in a landslide, that candidate ended up becoming our current President.

But now another election year is upon us, and the only change we've seen so far has been change for the worse.

Looking at the graphs, the numbers reflect an even more adverse situation than before. Unemployment has continued to climb steadily in the past three years, now sitting pretty at around 8.3 percent. At the halfway point of Obama's first term, it had peaked at an even 10 percent. Those with high blood pressure may want to skip the following sentence. Only one other time in the past SEVENTY YEARS has the unemployment rate been anywhere near that high. In other words, this is the worst it's been since, well, since FDR left us.
And as if that weren't bad enough, the poverty rate hit the high-water mark too, topping out at 15.3% in 2010. No "past seventy years" attached to this statistic - this is the highest poverty rate figure of all time. And look at the average household income, down 6.2 percent since the recession "officially" began back in 2007. Needless to say, this is not exactly the change we were expecting.

Still, it took FDR a couple shaky years of political overhaul before his New Deal really started to take off. Maybe Obama just has a few tricks up his sleeve that have yet to make their big splash, right?

Right?

I sure hope it's right, because from here all the evidence is saying otherwise.

Exactly what policies has Obama implemented, or at least tried to, over the past three years that have actually affected our economic standing? Ask any random passerby on the street, and they'll likely mumble something about how there's, like, this thing, like, called, like, Obamacare or something, and like, it helps people and stuff, and yeah. Ask them for a second answer, and you'll probably be met with a blank stare.

That's really it. The only big issue our President has attacked during his administration has been healthcare. And the bill he's managed to power past both the Senate and the House boils down to this: either you get your sorry self some healthcare, or you pay the price. Unless, of course, you happen to be religious. Or an illegal immigrant. Or just poor. And these days, everyone's poor.

So pardon the sweeping generalization here, but basically, Obama's "change" currently consists of giving free Band-Aids to poor Mexican Catholics.

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't cut it.

It's not that Obama is a BAD president. Trust me, we've seen worse. (We're looking at you, Warren Harding.) It's just that he's not the RIGHT president. The healthcare issue he's focused on is too roundabout a solution to the problem of the looming national debt. There are easier ways to cut federal funding, and it remains to be seen if the Affordable Care Act will actually be worth all the time and trouble it's taken to have it passed. He could be using his resources more efficiently. If he really wanted to, Obama could pull an FDR and create a new corporation dedicated to, I don't know, straightening crooked highway signs. Or something. Anything to pull the country out of this economic hole. But he doesn't.

If anything, he has changed things up on those who elected him, failing to follow through on his grandiose promises of change, change, and more change. What has changed is his attitude towards government, abandoning daring political innovations in favor of playing it safe to get himself re-elected.

Give him points for trying to at least inspire his country in the face of dark times, and for corralling the unemployment and poverty rates at a steady flatline for the past few months. He gets an E for effort. He does not, however, get an E for "elect this guy to another four years in office." Under his administration, the economy has gone from bad to worse, and after being given the reins and the opportunity to enact a change like Roosevelt did decades ago, he has not lived up to expectations.

Bottom line: if America really wants change, they should do themselves a favor in the upcoming election and vote for a change of command.

But please, choose wisely.

Critique of "How Republicans Are Trying to Force You to Pay for Others' Religious Beliefs"

On Tuesday, March 8, 2012, left-leaning blog The Smirking Chimp published a commentary by Joshua Holland entitled, "How Republicans Are Trying to Force You to Pay for Others' Religious Beliefs". In this commentary, Holland, a 5-year veteran contributor to the blog, argues that Republicans are trying to abuse government power to force Americans to pay for birth control through insurance premiums. The issue centers around a recent amendment, the Blunt-Rubio Amendment, that, if passed, would allow employers to refuse coverage of medical services they found "morally objectionable". Holland admits that "religious liberty is bedrock principle, and people whose faith leads them to oppose the use of birth control have that right." However, he adds, the issue rests not on the fact that religious liberty is being stamped out, but the complete opposite, in a source of reverse discrimination policy. No one is forced to use contraception contrary to their beliefs, so why should those who use it be forced to pay extra for it because of someone else's beliefs?

Holland notes that "religious liberty" did not even enter the equation until it became a hot-button issue among Republicans. The core issue, he explains, is health insurance: the fact that it costs insurers MORE to cover a contraceptive-free population than to foot the bill on birth control. In order to avoid losing money, insurance companies have to raise premiums, not just for those who oppose contraceptives, but for those who support them and are already adequately covered by the current scenario. "This is fundamentally unfair," Holland argues. "The vast majority of Americans don't have a moral objection to using birth-control... and as long as the devout's right to practice their religion as they choose... is not in danger, then we shouldn't have to pay for their superstitions through higher premiums."

He points out that religious conservatives often try to turn the argument inside-out by claiming they are the ones who would be paying more as is to cover others' birth control. But the truth is that it's actually more expensive to insure a contraceptive-free population BECAUSE of the cost of the resulting unwanted pregnancies. This is higher than the cost of planned pregnancies, because they invite fewer health complications, and therefore fewer medical bills. "For the cost of the average childbirth in the United States," Holland writes, "you could cover a woman's birth control pills for approximately 293 years."

"That turns reality on its head," he argues. "What Republicans want to do is allow employers to opt out of preventive care that saves money, and the rest of us will bear those costs when insurers pass them on in the form of higher premiums." He closes by saying that no one's beliefs are being threatened by allowing insurers to offer birth control as a service to those who use it. "If your religion compels you to either abstain from sex or have unprotected sex, you're more than welcome to do so," he offers. "But when it comes to using the power of 'big government' to coerce the rest of us into paying higher insurance premiums for those beliefs, well, that's what the separation of church and state is all about. We're just demanding the freedom not to have to pay for your antiquated religious views."

I thought that this commentary seemed to be a little bit biased against those who hold religious conservative beliefs. Holland may be confusing the deseparation of church and state with one group of concerned individuals who doesn't want to have to pay for contraceptives they neither support nor use under the current insurance plan. Holland himself says that "religious liberty" was not even a part of the issue until recently. Honestly, it may not be part of the issue now - perhaps it's just the skewed way that people view the beliefs of religious conservatives from the other side of the fence. Even the title shows that his commentary is directed at an audience of non-religious left-wingers - he is trying to convince them that "Republicans are trying to force YOU to pay for OTHERS' religious beliefs." This is more or less a one-sided argument on his part. Perhaps he needs to look deeper into the ideology of the religious conservatives he is criticizing.

However, Holland does offer one very valid point - that the amendment in question would indeed raise insurance costs, and not just for those who got what they wanted out of the amendment. So while I do not fully agree with his argument that this is a ploy by religious conservatives to force their beliefs on others, I do side with him that the bill should not be passed because in the end, it's affecting the majority of people financially, and not in a good way.