To better understand this “debate” over a universal health care plan let’s look at why the government has gotten involved in our lives with various new programs in the past.
You can go clear back to the founding of the U.S. Constitution and the issue of slavery. This great document, the U.S. Constitution with the Bill of Rights (which by the way came after ratification through amendments) among other things, guarantees us our freedoms. But, great as it is, it originally sanctified slavery. It was 70+ years later before slavery was ended. Then, we had a period of almost 100 years before minorities actually got civil rights because of Democratic Conservative opposition like “Jim Crow” laws, unequal employment opportunities, unequal educational opportunities, and segregation of all kinds. Status quo defenders don’t give up easily. Things have gotten better as witnessed by a biracial President, but even today, when one views issues like education and job opportunities, things are still not equal. There is a clear propensity for conservatives in all stages of our history to do all in their power to resist change even when it is just and clearly appropriate for our times.
You can study the history of American labor where abuse, including long hours, poor pay, no fringe benefits, unsafe working conditions, etc., were the norm in many jobs. It wasn’t until the 1930’s that the government stepped in with the right to collective bargaining of labor unions. Finally, the fate of American labor improved as we emerged from WW II which led in part to the 1950’s which was one of the classic periods of relative prosperity embodied by a solid middle class. This battle isn’t over and may need to be addressed again as one sees the American labor union’s position weakening with a simultaneous flattening and decreasing of wages and buying power. What has saved many American working families in the last 60+ years is two family incomes resulting in a significant impact on our culture.
Social Security came about because of the change in our society where the extended family, private, and “faith based” charities were overwhelmed in the Great Depression resulting in the disgraceful status of our elderly. Even though Social Security is well established, this battle is not over. The last Republican Administration took a run at it’s elimination by recommending privatization which, in view of what’s happened economically, should serve as an example of what a disaster that would be. Social Security will need to be re-worked with our aging population and younger people better stay involved because there are many conservatives who would love to see it eliminated.
In the middle of the last century, it became obvious that the elderly’s ability to provide enough savings for retirement failed to insure enough money for reasonable and adequate medical care in their old age. One serious illness with rising medical costs wiped them out. This led to a huge battle over what eventually became Medicare. To their credit, there were Moderate Republicans who worked with Democrats to craft a working Medicare Law. But, like Social Security, it needs re-working and the young in our society better stay involved or we are likely to see Medicare “put-to-rest” as a failed liberal experiment.
We could go on and on with historical examples where it was essential for the government to involve themselves in correcting unfair and unjust practices. Some of these would be anti-trust legislation, elimination of child labor, graduated income tax, women’s right to vote, regulation of financial and investment markets, farm programs, Medicaid, environmental programs, OSHA, etc. Rest assured that every one of these new government involvements was fought “tooth-and-nail” against by conservatives of their era and took years to be established as law.
Now along comes the “debate” over universal health care. Hopefully, you watched or read the President’s speech on this issue. One of the more interesting sections occurred early on where he clearly listed the undisputed facts of why our present system is at the “breaking point.” I have not heard these facts disputed in all the criticism I’ve heard of the President’s speech. They include refusal by insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, non-portability, excessive cost, etc. I won’t repeat them all, but by my count there were eight, clear, serious, glaring, problems that could potentially affect us all at some point in our lifetime. They have been around for 60+ years and are getting rapidly worse and more devastating for a growing part of our population. Something needs to be done and the President offered some solutions plus assured us that they can be deficit neutral. And, to his credit, even in the face of all the nasty criticism, he continues to hold out the olive branch of bipartisanship and an “open door policy” of a willingness to listen to alternative suggestions.
The discouraging thing is that at this point-in-time, the Conservative Republicans in Congress and the Right Wing media have nothing to offer except the policy of “NO” to everything. Not only no, but they have chosen to use the tactics of fear, demagoguery, name calling, out right lies, and personal attacks on the President’s character and motives.
As discussed earlier, down through history, anytime someone has suggested a change with more government involvement we know that the conservative element in our society will oppose it regardless of its need. This is O.K. if it is done responsibly. It serves a role of “devils advocacy” and insures us that negative ramifications of any new legislation are considered. Historically, Republicans have been good at this and Democrats not so good. If the Democrats had been better at it we wouldn’t have had tax cuts in 2001; we wouldn’t be involved in a war in Iraq and would have limited our involvement in Afghanistan to justifiable punishment and destruction of al Queda; we wouldn’t have had devastating deregulation of financial markets in the early 2000’s; or unfunded prescription drug program and no child left behind programs.
Personally, I think we need a universal health care program. I’d like to see some responsible Republican input; but, since there doesn't appear to be any forthcoming, I’m rapidly getting to the point where I’d accept a Democratic power play to force it through Congress. I find it hard to believe that the Republican opposition is so unanimous. It reminds me of a quote from the longest serving Speaker of the House, the late Sam Rayburn, when he said, “when two people agree about everything, only one of ‘ems thinking.” I wonder which Republican is doing all the thinking. While we are quoting Sam Rayburn, I think another of his comments is appropriate, “Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one.” Where are the Sam Rayburn’s when you need them?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Planning for the City of McPhrson - Demographic Considerations
It is critical that McPherson encourage growth, which typically involves a growing population with additional business and industry offering good paying jobs, affordable housing, appropriate medical facilities and services, excellent schools, broad based retail trade options, cultural offerings, and superior recreational opportunities.
The list could be much longer. And, when one judges McPherson against this list, we fair pretty well with a few exceptions.
Assuming that growing a community involves attracting new people to town, let’s look at what that entails. Just getting everyone who works here to live here would be a good start. Encouraging those who grew up here to stay or return here with their families would be a real plus. We certainly want to create an environment where young people get “homesick” for McPherson when away and strive to find a way to live here. And of course, getting the word out to people over a broad area, who are looking for “one of the best places to live in the country,” could lead to people choosing McPherson.
One group that I think is too often overlooked in this mix of new people being sought are the older/retired ones (55 to 80+). By not going out of the way to encourage the growth of this group we may be “swimming upstream” against an inevitable trend. I agree we need a good demographic mix of age, race, and culture for a vibrant community; but, the aging of our country’s population is a given and could offer a good opportunity for growth.
There are geographic areas and communities in this country that have targeted this aging population with astoundingly positive results. But, some of these communities have grown to the point where they have lost their appeal – they are too big, too crowded, too noisy, have too much traffic, have too much crime, are too expensive, are too hot, and are just too different culturally to be comfortable. A community like McPherson might be able to fill a need.
Let’s look at McPherson’s advantages:
1. We are smack dab in the middle of a region and state with a slow growing population where many small towns are struggling to stay viable socially and economically. Many of these people what to retire in a “small” vibrant community where their investments, for example in housing, are more secure and the culture is one they are familiar with.
2. We are solid economically with potential for a continued strong mix of industry, business, education, etc. Unless we rest on our laurels or really make some stupid decisions, we should remain economically viable a long way into the future.
3. We have deep Midwestern roots that many demographers use as a model of honesty, integrity, good work ethic, strong religious beliefs, family values, etc. We don’t have to create little enclaves of like minded people in a larger, possibly “foreign” culture – our community’s present lifestyle promotes and perpetuates this culture.
3. We have seasons. Some people flee extremes, but there are many others that are invigorated by the seasons. Winters can be cold, but not terribly so and not too long, Summer can be hot and windy, but only for a few months, and there are those long beautiful Springs and Falls.
4. For those seeking “cultural” activities, our community with our two colleges, rebuilt Opera House, theater, library, secondary schools, churches, and community ventures do a good job of giving people these exposures. And, it isn’t prohibitively far to go to large towns and cities in the area to supplement these experiences.
5. We don’t have what some would describe as spectacular scenery like is offered by mountains, deserts, and coastal areas. But, the prairie has its own beauty and spectacular habitat. This is one of the truly underdeveloped resources this State fails to cash in on. That is largely the result of so much private land where access is limited. Our natural wonders end up being small pockets of nature where state and federal agencies and organizations, like the National Conservancy, have saved out some land for public access. More funding and better marketing programs need to be conducted by these agencies and organizations to encourage their use, and opportunities to expand these offerings need to be sought where appropriate.
Maybe McPherson needs to look at what I would call the “tweener” group of people who don’t see themselves as old and don’t act old. This group has a little money, they have time, have broad interests, and often are interested in learning new things. Some might still want to work a little or a lot, some are entrepreneurs and might start businesses, many possess important knowledge and skills gained from years of lifetime experiences, and some are to the point in time in life where they want to “pay back” for their good fortune. All of the above are attractive traits that could be useful in a community. McPherson might want to consider doing more in a community wide, coordinated, planned fashion to welcome this group “making our community a special place to live.”
I think our present efforts to “grow” our community may be a bit too exclusively concentrated on the younger group. Our focus should possibly be broader based, by developing an attractive environment for a demographic group that already has a propensity to choose a community like ours. There are hundreds of other communities out there that could serve as examples and/or provide us with models of “best practices” to pick and choose from. I think it is worth considering.
The list could be much longer. And, when one judges McPherson against this list, we fair pretty well with a few exceptions.
Assuming that growing a community involves attracting new people to town, let’s look at what that entails. Just getting everyone who works here to live here would be a good start. Encouraging those who grew up here to stay or return here with their families would be a real plus. We certainly want to create an environment where young people get “homesick” for McPherson when away and strive to find a way to live here. And of course, getting the word out to people over a broad area, who are looking for “one of the best places to live in the country,” could lead to people choosing McPherson.
One group that I think is too often overlooked in this mix of new people being sought are the older/retired ones (55 to 80+). By not going out of the way to encourage the growth of this group we may be “swimming upstream” against an inevitable trend. I agree we need a good demographic mix of age, race, and culture for a vibrant community; but, the aging of our country’s population is a given and could offer a good opportunity for growth.
There are geographic areas and communities in this country that have targeted this aging population with astoundingly positive results. But, some of these communities have grown to the point where they have lost their appeal – they are too big, too crowded, too noisy, have too much traffic, have too much crime, are too expensive, are too hot, and are just too different culturally to be comfortable. A community like McPherson might be able to fill a need.
Let’s look at McPherson’s advantages:
1. We are smack dab in the middle of a region and state with a slow growing population where many small towns are struggling to stay viable socially and economically. Many of these people what to retire in a “small” vibrant community where their investments, for example in housing, are more secure and the culture is one they are familiar with.
2. We are solid economically with potential for a continued strong mix of industry, business, education, etc. Unless we rest on our laurels or really make some stupid decisions, we should remain economically viable a long way into the future.
3. We have deep Midwestern roots that many demographers use as a model of honesty, integrity, good work ethic, strong religious beliefs, family values, etc. We don’t have to create little enclaves of like minded people in a larger, possibly “foreign” culture – our community’s present lifestyle promotes and perpetuates this culture.
3. We have seasons. Some people flee extremes, but there are many others that are invigorated by the seasons. Winters can be cold, but not terribly so and not too long, Summer can be hot and windy, but only for a few months, and there are those long beautiful Springs and Falls.
4. For those seeking “cultural” activities, our community with our two colleges, rebuilt Opera House, theater, library, secondary schools, churches, and community ventures do a good job of giving people these exposures. And, it isn’t prohibitively far to go to large towns and cities in the area to supplement these experiences.
5. We don’t have what some would describe as spectacular scenery like is offered by mountains, deserts, and coastal areas. But, the prairie has its own beauty and spectacular habitat. This is one of the truly underdeveloped resources this State fails to cash in on. That is largely the result of so much private land where access is limited. Our natural wonders end up being small pockets of nature where state and federal agencies and organizations, like the National Conservancy, have saved out some land for public access. More funding and better marketing programs need to be conducted by these agencies and organizations to encourage their use, and opportunities to expand these offerings need to be sought where appropriate.
Maybe McPherson needs to look at what I would call the “tweener” group of people who don’t see themselves as old and don’t act old. This group has a little money, they have time, have broad interests, and often are interested in learning new things. Some might still want to work a little or a lot, some are entrepreneurs and might start businesses, many possess important knowledge and skills gained from years of lifetime experiences, and some are to the point in time in life where they want to “pay back” for their good fortune. All of the above are attractive traits that could be useful in a community. McPherson might want to consider doing more in a community wide, coordinated, planned fashion to welcome this group “making our community a special place to live.”
I think our present efforts to “grow” our community may be a bit too exclusively concentrated on the younger group. Our focus should possibly be broader based, by developing an attractive environment for a demographic group that already has a propensity to choose a community like ours. There are hundreds of other communities out there that could serve as examples and/or provide us with models of “best practices” to pick and choose from. I think it is worth considering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
