Home › Blogs › DonL's blog

President Obama’S “New Era of Personal Responsibility” Does it Go Far Enough?

Thu, 02/12/2009 - 8:47pm — DonL

Much attention was given to the inauguration of president Barack Obama and his call for a ”New Era of Personal Responsibility”. To many people I’m sure this sounded reasonable and welcome and to some even inspiring. But, does the President’s theme go far enough? Under the current economic environment we certainly need individuals to take more personal (and more specifically financial) responsibility from Wall Street and the boardroom to main street and the living room. But, when you think about it, how is President Obama’s “New Era of Personal Responsibility” going to have an impact on the nation’s economy over the long haul? Those individuals who have been responsible for the most part will continue to limit their debt and pay their bills. They will defer some purchases and perhaps purchase less expensive items than they might under better economic conditions. But, what about those who have not been as fiscally responsible. Recent examples of how some Obama supporters are thinking is not encouraging. At a recent post-election rally, one Obama supporter indicated that she never thought this day would come, a day when she would no longer need to worry about working and paying her mortgage. Another supporter noted that her house had become rundown and that she thought at one point that she wouldn’t be able to live there anymore. But, now she felt assured that her mortgage would be paid with Barack Obama as President. A third young woman, who was having her car repossessed, indicated that if the bank wanted the car they could pay to get it out of the repair shop. She also indicated that she wasn’t rich like the people she was dealing with at the bank, but that that would change this coming year now that Barack Obama was president. The gist of these comments is that there are people who probably have not been as fiscally responsible as they should be and who seem to think that they won’t have to worry about working if they don’t want to because the government will take care of their mortgages, car payments and who knows what else. It will be the “RICH” people who the government will get the money from. Now, does that sound like personal responsibility or a solution to the country’s financial problems? So, perhaps President Obama could have gone a step further with his theme of a New Era of Personal Responsibility and called it a “New Era Of Personal Responsibility, Not Entitlement”. That clarification would be a more effective signal that the need for personal responsibility applies to everyone across the economic spectrum and that we all have to work hard and contribute to the economic recovery. Sending people checks disguised as a tax rebate, giving them mortgages with no money down and with no proof of income, counting unemployment receipts as income in a loan application, and perhaps paying their mortgages for them only enables people like those noted in the examples above. Certainly, there are many lower income people that work hard, live within their means and who are personally responsible and there are some people who legitimately warrant government assistance, but unless entitlements from welfare to healthcare are controlled for everyone in our society, there will likely be a decreasing number of personally responsible people with the disposable income to support programs for those who truly need them. DonL

Comments

Fri, 01/08/2010 - 8:23pm — mainwebguy

Voter Bipartisanship and Common Sense

Regardless of your political leaning, the current condition of the nation’s economy requires us to take a deep breath and act in a bipartisan way as we so often say we expect our elected officials to do. 

 

The biggest internal threat we face today is government spending and the deficit.  Our dollar continues to decline in value and we continue to add to the national debt which will burden generations of Americans for years to come.  

 

In Massachusetts we have long had a history of electing Democrat politicians to state and federal office.  Many have served us well along side Republican colleagues, but despite what these politicians have done in the past, we have an obligation to elect candidates today that will help preserve our way of life by controlling spending.

 

Scott Brown is a candidate for US Senate running in the special election on January 19th against Martha Coakley.  Putting aside party affiliation and focusing on what we need as a nation right now, we can all cast a more informed vote and perhaps bring an increased level of bipartisanship and common sense to the process and our governance.

 

While there are many issues to consider and too little space in this editorial to cover them, two major examples why Scott Brown is the right candidate for Senate at this point in time are his position on Healthcare and Cap and Trade legislation.

 

Scott believes that all Americans deserve health care coverage, but that we don't need to create a new government program to provide it.  He supports strengthening our existing healthcare system and making it available to all Americans as he did by supporting the Massachusetts healthcare legislation in 2006.

 

Scott opposes the current healthcare legislation because, for most Americans, it won’t improve health care, it will increase insurance premiums and it will significantly increase the need for higher taxes and/or increased government borrowing.  While proponents of this legislation, including Martha Coakley, say it will do the opposite, you need only consider that this conclusion was reached by comparing 10 years of the increased tax revenues and Medicare spending cuts included in this legislation against the estimated costs of only 5 or 6 years of new medical benefits for the uninsured.

 

With respect to energy policy, Scott supports common-sense environmental policy that will help reduce pollution and preserve our precious open spaces. He realizes that reasonable and appropriate development of alternative energy sources is necessary to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  Nonetheless, Scott opposes national Cap and Trade legislation because it would increase government spending and add to the deficit without commensurate benefit. 

 

What all voters should ask themselves before casting their vote is why Martha Coakley supports Cap and Trade legislation and the proposed healthcare legislation and whether a fiscally responsible candidate like Scott Brown is the better choice at this time. 

 

Lets apply our common sense and vote in a bipartisan way for Scott Brown on January 19.