As a frequent traveler to the US, employee of an American corporation and by being active in the furry fandom I think I understand at least a small bit about the US culture, who things work over there and why things are the way they are. I'm also increasingly annoyed by popular opinion about the US of A here in Germany, which is quite often based on incomplete coverage by German media. The media, especially Der Spiegel, usually fails to do what is part of responsible journalism: put things into perspective by providing all necessary information. For example: The President refused to sign legislation that would, in a nutshell, finance health care for poor children with federal money. How heartless, isn't it? From a German point of view and without further information, it looks like that George W. Bush is refusing to give poor children important protection. However, the actual point of the debate is: who is supposed to finance health care for poor people? The states themselves or the federal government? Currently, state or local programs at least partially cover the costs. Not signing the law doesn't change the status quo. It is a very complicated topic, as the Wikipedia article shows. But reducing the current debate to "Bush refuses health care to poor children" isn't right.
For Germans who are interested how things work in the USA or want to get a more realistic perspective on current events, I highly recommend Scot W. Stevenson's blog USA Erklärt. His essay Die Grobstruktur der USA (oder wo man vor Bush am sichersten ist) is an excellent introduction to the political structure of the USA for Germans in German language.
Comments
shockwave77598.livejournal.com 16 years, 6 months ago
actually, the issue is simple politics. The Congress took an existing program that gets fed money and made it cover more people than just the poor. Since laws don't account for inflation, people who were considered Middle Class are really poor and barely surviving. So the new expanded program would cover more kids of people who can't afford health insurance. The President didn't want the program expanded so he Vetoed it.
Our politicians can be very petty.
Link | Replywoelfisch.livejournal.com 16 years, 6 months ago
Oh, okay, it is about an existing federal program then, which makes the example even more complicated. My complaint in the debate would be that politicians sitting in an ivory tower are arguing about principles (federal vs. state competence) instead of fixing a pressing issue. I guess this isn't specific to US politics, though.
It annoys me that German media isn't providing any insight at all why the President vetoed the law. They just (wrongly) paraphrase him that it is too expensive. To be fair, they probably just translated their articles verbatim from the American press. But that's simply not sufficient to understand the underlying conflict. And it leads to wrong conclusions about how the political system of the USA works.
Another example: until recently, the current US government had quite a simple reason to not sign the Kyoto treaty. It wasn't clear whether CO₂ reduction is actually within federal competence, but foreign treaties certainly are. If I remember correctly the Supreme Court recently decided that it is federal responsibility after all, and indeed: while the Senate still won't ratify the treaty, there is some notable, though slow progress into the right direction. At last.
Link | Replystickmaker.livejournal.com 16 years, 6 months ago
While most of the child healthcare funding continues, some expires soon. Spending will actually be slightly reduced without this bill. :-(
(Hey, I voted Libertarian.)
Link | Replymrianti.livejournal.com 16 years, 6 months ago
always 2 sides to the story ,
media controlled by politics is bad .
any govt.
Link | Replyfirst duty is to make self bigger and control more.
brokkentwolf.livejournal.com 16 years, 6 months ago
I must admit to having a pre-bias when it comes to things Bush. I should also take the time to review all the facts here. :)
Link | ReplyNew Comment