I Don't Like Politics
Seems I've been bombarded by a good deal of politics lately. Ugh. I hate politics. Partly, that's because the issues are usually far more complex than anyone makes them out to be. Partly, it's because it reminds me I'm nowhere near the idealist I used to be. These thoughts are probably more for my own benefit, so pardon their scattered and rambling nature if you choose to read on...
The big ol' healthcare bill? I've mixed feelings, and to be honest I don't know enough of all the details to actually say what I think should have come of it. I like the idea of trying to make medical support available, and more affordable, to all Americans. That's great. It's also expensive. And the federal government is too removed from the individuals to do it perfectly, there will have to be blanket guidelines that, in certain cases, will be abusable or not as helpful as they should be. That's just sort of the way it goes. I'll just cross my fingers and hope it works out for the best most of the time without growing too unwieldy.
I'm so very tired of seeing religion prominent in politics. Commandments in courthouses, "God" on money, creation in classrooms. Ugh.
We're supposed to have freedom of religion, we're supposed to have separation of church and state. That doesn't mean I want to excise all traces of religious influence, but I do wish it weren't such a big deal. While certain religious beliefs may well have shaped our moral and legal codes, those codes can operate independently, thanks. And I certainly don't want to turn to the Bible as "the way to do things." It's got historic anecdotal value, but it's too inconsistent to be absolute word of a divine power, and I really think we can deal with things better these days than publically stoning people for infractions.
I don't mind, in theory, talk of creationism in school, but if we go that route, we should be giving equal face time to religions other than Christianity. School is a place to learn and expand knowledge, and religions aren't without value in that regard. They are not, however, science. They are belief, they are faith. And unless you're going to teach kids about the variety of them, it'd be best to leave pasing of those believes to their parents. Evolution as currently understood may not be absolute fact, but it's backed up by enough proof to deserve being shown as our "best scientific guess available."
A government can do some great things with collected tax revenues - far more than individuals would ever muster on their own. But there's a temptation to legislate too much, to try to force people to do things "for their own good." And, frankly, I don't think that's what government is or should be for. At some point, people really need to be responsible for themselves.
That reminds me of how I've watched anti-smoking laws come into place. That's been at the state level rather than federal, but I watched smoking vanish from restaurants due to a passed law. As much as I abhor smoking, and have literally felt ill from the smell, I find I'm seriously offended by a law telling business owners they can't let people smoke inside. If it bothered me, I could simply go somewhere else - I don't think I've eaten at Denny's that much more since the law went into effect. We need laws to frame a society that works, not laws that force people to avoid anything unpleasant or unhealthy.
Should we outlaw sports because people get hurt playing? Outlaw walking on ice because you might slip? Seriously, at some point people need to take responsibility for themselves rather than having the government step in. ... But I wouldn't argue the government should stay out of everything. It's a matter of balance.
I find the fulcrum in that equation has shifted within my own beliefs. As I've grown and moved to support myself, I've felt less and less that the government needs to do everything for everyone. Some people still need support, and I'll gladly pay my taxes to that end, but I've also gained an appreciation for fiscal responsibility. For a government, that means picking its fights rather than trying to "fix" everything. I might once had argued the federal government should simply pay everyone's medical bills, but now I see things differently. Saying "the government needs to pay for" is actually saying "people paying taxes into the government need to pay for." And when you have some people who pay little or nothing, that puts an increased financial burden on everyone else. How much should those who pay have to support those who don't? Some, I'd say, but not entirely.
My condo HOA is a microcosm of this. There are only 23 units. We pay (currently) $160 a month in dues. That's $3680 a month in income that should cover our normal expenses with just a little left over. If two people don't pay, that's a $320 shortfall, about 9%. If that doesn't leave us with enough to pay all the bills, what the heck are we supposed to do about it? Do we increase dues more, burdening those who pay more greatly to cover those who don't - and those who don't pay fall farther behind? What happens when we're faced with an additional $1000 in costs because ice fell off the roof and damaged someone's door?
A federal government has a lot more margin for error, plus, they can operate at a deficit, but there are clear parallels there and rarely any easy answers. And while I don't agree with totally writing off the "poor," I don't have a lot of tolerance these days for people who don't contribute.
That's probably more than enough wandering thought for now...
The big ol' healthcare bill? I've mixed feelings, and to be honest I don't know enough of all the details to actually say what I think should have come of it. I like the idea of trying to make medical support available, and more affordable, to all Americans. That's great. It's also expensive. And the federal government is too removed from the individuals to do it perfectly, there will have to be blanket guidelines that, in certain cases, will be abusable or not as helpful as they should be. That's just sort of the way it goes. I'll just cross my fingers and hope it works out for the best most of the time without growing too unwieldy.
I'm so very tired of seeing religion prominent in politics. Commandments in courthouses, "God" on money, creation in classrooms. Ugh.
We're supposed to have freedom of religion, we're supposed to have separation of church and state. That doesn't mean I want to excise all traces of religious influence, but I do wish it weren't such a big deal. While certain religious beliefs may well have shaped our moral and legal codes, those codes can operate independently, thanks. And I certainly don't want to turn to the Bible as "the way to do things." It's got historic anecdotal value, but it's too inconsistent to be absolute word of a divine power, and I really think we can deal with things better these days than publically stoning people for infractions.
I don't mind, in theory, talk of creationism in school, but if we go that route, we should be giving equal face time to religions other than Christianity. School is a place to learn and expand knowledge, and religions aren't without value in that regard. They are not, however, science. They are belief, they are faith. And unless you're going to teach kids about the variety of them, it'd be best to leave pasing of those believes to their parents. Evolution as currently understood may not be absolute fact, but it's backed up by enough proof to deserve being shown as our "best scientific guess available."
A government can do some great things with collected tax revenues - far more than individuals would ever muster on their own. But there's a temptation to legislate too much, to try to force people to do things "for their own good." And, frankly, I don't think that's what government is or should be for. At some point, people really need to be responsible for themselves.
That reminds me of how I've watched anti-smoking laws come into place. That's been at the state level rather than federal, but I watched smoking vanish from restaurants due to a passed law. As much as I abhor smoking, and have literally felt ill from the smell, I find I'm seriously offended by a law telling business owners they can't let people smoke inside. If it bothered me, I could simply go somewhere else - I don't think I've eaten at Denny's that much more since the law went into effect. We need laws to frame a society that works, not laws that force people to avoid anything unpleasant or unhealthy.
Should we outlaw sports because people get hurt playing? Outlaw walking on ice because you might slip? Seriously, at some point people need to take responsibility for themselves rather than having the government step in. ... But I wouldn't argue the government should stay out of everything. It's a matter of balance.
I find the fulcrum in that equation has shifted within my own beliefs. As I've grown and moved to support myself, I've felt less and less that the government needs to do everything for everyone. Some people still need support, and I'll gladly pay my taxes to that end, but I've also gained an appreciation for fiscal responsibility. For a government, that means picking its fights rather than trying to "fix" everything. I might once had argued the federal government should simply pay everyone's medical bills, but now I see things differently. Saying "the government needs to pay for" is actually saying "people paying taxes into the government need to pay for." And when you have some people who pay little or nothing, that puts an increased financial burden on everyone else. How much should those who pay have to support those who don't? Some, I'd say, but not entirely.
My condo HOA is a microcosm of this. There are only 23 units. We pay (currently) $160 a month in dues. That's $3680 a month in income that should cover our normal expenses with just a little left over. If two people don't pay, that's a $320 shortfall, about 9%. If that doesn't leave us with enough to pay all the bills, what the heck are we supposed to do about it? Do we increase dues more, burdening those who pay more greatly to cover those who don't - and those who don't pay fall farther behind? What happens when we're faced with an additional $1000 in costs because ice fell off the roof and damaged someone's door?
A federal government has a lot more margin for error, plus, they can operate at a deficit, but there are clear parallels there and rarely any easy answers. And while I don't agree with totally writing off the "poor," I don't have a lot of tolerance these days for people who don't contribute.
That's probably more than enough wandering thought for now...
I love the smoking ban in Ohio. I love being able to go anywhere and not smell like an ashtray in the morning. Cleveland, for all its troubles, is undergoing a significant explosion in its restaurant and bar culture now, and I think a lot of that success is due to our smoking ban. I've gotten so used to it that when I travel to somewhere that it's still permitted (as I discovered when I was recently in Atlanta), I am annoyed to the point that it causes me to go out less, stay for shorter periods, spend less--generally speaking, it minimizes my willingness to stimulate the local economy. The difference between smoking and walking on ice is that you can choose to walk on ice and it won't impact my health, whereas there are pretty serious health and economic consequences that follow from widespread smoking.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I love the results. I may not frequent formerly-smoky places much more these days, but when I do the experience isn't made worse by second-hand smoke. But I still find that particular law to be right around, and probably slightly beyond, the line of what I feel the government should be legislating. My opinion might be different were I, before the ban, in some position that made smoking in restaurants less avoidable. As it stands, the law didn't protect me much. I'm subjected to about the same level of second hand smoke I was before (which would be due to proximity of smoker friends). But look a step beyond that, perhaps, at something like New York City's ban on trans fats. Citizen's can't be trusted to moderate their own diet? Y'know, if I eat something that makes me violently ill, that might be a problem that needs tending to. If I eat something that might eventually contribute to my being overweight and unhealthy, I rather think that's my own fault and problem.
ReplyDeleteThere's some drastic differences between trans fats and second-hand smoke. Neither are good for you, but second-hand smoke can be argued to be hazardous to other people, increasing in air pollution and all in all bad for folk involved. Cities have a right to pass legislation about air quality. (as they can about park and highway cleanliness) Had I my druthers, the tobacco industry wouldn't. As for sucking down second-hand smoke from friends? Tell 'em they're dicks for killing you and get 'em to either smoke when you're not around, smoke a distance away from you, or consult other measures to get their addiction.
ReplyDelete