A Change in the U.S. Image

Steve Benen is the writer of “When the Leader of the Free World Leads,” published in his blog in the online magazine Washington Monthly. He states his favorable opinion on President Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit. Benen claims that the President’s posture regarding international issues has been improving the way other countries see the United States. In other words, this Nuclear Security Summit not only works in terms of national/world security but also works strengthening the United States politically – a belief that I share with Benen.
Before explaining how great are the changes that President Obama has been making, he gives us some of the reasons why the U.S. has been losing its power as a leading country. The author presents real examples of foreign matters with which America has not succeeded, like “getting the Israelis and Palestinians on a two-state pathway; or ending the anachronistically simmering Cold War conflict in U.S.-Cuba relations; or persuading Iran to forgo a nuclear weapons track.” By presenting first the evidence that things were not going well for the America’s image before the world, Benen gives even more strength to what is presented after.
Next, examples of Obama’s positive actions are presented. Some of the examples are: “the breakthrough on a new arms treaty with Russia, followed by the Nuclear Posture Review, followed by this week's successes during the Nuclear Security Summit.” These actions, according to Steve Benen, demonstrated that the President is able to fulfill promises and that he does not make shallow or bilateral proposes, but applicable and realistic ones.
The author clearly leans to the Democratic Party and writes to a Democratic audience. Even though his text follows a logic pattern (the statement of his claims followed by evidences of how things were and how things are becoming), I believe more evidence would have to be presented if it were written to Republican readers.

Congress: Lack of ability? Or diverse interests?

The article entitled “Don’t blame Congress for leaders’ faults,” written by the History and Public Affairs Professor at the University of Princeton Julian E. Zelizer, is a comment on Senator Evan Bayh’s words about the Congress. Senator Bayh said he would not run for another term because he thinks the Congress became a “dysfunctional institution.” After mentioning Bayh’s words, Zelizer affirms he is not the first one to make the complaint, but he does not mention other names, what makes it somewhat vague.

Despite agreeing with Senator Bayh’s view and even mentioning some of the difficulties in legislating, like “the use of filibusters, the power of interests groups and their lobbyists and the pressure to fundraise,” he points out to the fact that it is not fair to blame exclusively on the system, but the failures in the leadership should also be accounted. Zelizer explicitly criticizes the Democratic Party and clearly states the problems in leadership he is talking about. First, he addresses to the fact that the White House in the year of 2009 seemed to have let go of some power and let the Congress impose the “timing and substance of legislation.” Second, the Professor drew attention to the lack of ability of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in moving important bills, like health care and climate change. Those critiques are not only fair to be made, but also well supported by his direct approach.

The main point of Zelizer’s article is to show that the gaps and difficulties of the Legislation system should not be entirely blamed and that leaders are the main responsible for failures. In order to prove that it is possible - despite all the challenges - to make major changes when enough effort is made by congressmen, Zelizer cites several historical examples, like Teddy Roosevelt and the Speaker Joe Cannon, and even the case of Judge Howard Smith of Virginia, who blocked a bill by leaving town instead of showing for the meeting. By revealing historical evidence to the readers, Zelizer gives more power to his criticism of those who blame everything on Congress and do not use their power and leadership to solve great problems of our current society.

Julian Zelizer’s text is a fair critique of the work being - or not being - done in Congress. He is very direct and objective, giving support to all of his complaints. He exercises a fair critique by pointing out that, even though Congress failed in passing big bills, it is active with smaller issues. However, I beg to disagree that “laments about congressional process are old and will always be with us.” If laments are constant and numerous, the people, the voters, ought to recognize that and demand changes.

Unnecessary Medical Services on You

The news on a health care practice written by Jennifer Hyde and Drew Griffin for CNN is definitely worth reading. Entitled “’Perverse incentive’ in current health care system,” it draws the attention to how people who work in the health care are paid. According to the researcher cited in the news, Dr. Elliott Fisher, “they are rewarded for more services, not better services. They are rewarded for more care, not better care.” This may originate in some cases the malpractice of asking for more medical services than needed, like an excessive number of exams or very long stays at hospitals without the need for it. They explain the particular case of McAllen, here in South Texas, where beneficiaries of Medicare spend almost twice the national average, most probably due to malpractices mentioned before.
Hyde and Griffins words are good reminders of the duty of citizens to keep themselves alert to misuses of public resources, like Medicare. The facts presented certainly help the ordinary citizen analyze the urgency for a health care reform so that good health care can be evenly distributed and at a fair price.