Presidential Follies

Presidential Follies
Various incongruities become obvious when viewing the reactions of the administration to the natural storm calamities which decimated the Gulf Coast regions of the United States during late summer of 2005. Singularly unreactive despite ample warning the President further exacerbated the already untenable situation with his unconscionable all but ignoring of the situation. Producing worldwide derision not to mention a maelstrom of negative reaction emanating from his constituents he attempted to regain some of his popularity by making promises of economic support to be made available not only to the inhabitants of New Orleans but to those victims living in Mississippi and Alabama as well. As he should. The next issue brought to the public’s attention became the ‘how on earth are we going to pay for this’ issue. Pulling out of a war that never should have been broached was apparently not an option while extracting funds from vital social services here in this country was. Cuts in funding to health and educational programs featured prominently on of the list of those issues deemed expendable. The curtailing of more roads that would accommodate and encompass more gas consuming vehicles seems a more logical candidate for belt tightening. Gas prices not withstanding it should have been glaringly obvious to even the most mentally challenged that continued reliance on fossil fuels to move the country’s goods and people about needed to be rethought and redirected. Perhaps instead of, as the esteemed Senator from Arizona suggested, revamping the Medicare system that would start providing more to those in need as of December by staying those funds and not providing until a complete revamping of an admittedly faulty system could be facilitated-and how long will that take at the current rate that it takes to get anything through committee and voted upon? But perhaps looking into something such as the money appropriated for the restructuring and enlarging of the roads in this country and going about That in a different more equitable fashion. Survival wasn’t crucial entwined to paved infrastructure as it was to being able to access food and medicine. By holding of building further roadways and examining the situation further utilizing those capable of critical forethought perhaps the promotion of alternative means of energy production and the avocation of using an expanded public transport system would have been advocated. While there were certainly many milking the social services system more legitimately depended on it for survival. Not so with such luxuries as more roads.But again the administration talks of performing an unconscionable act. There are many other ways of cutting costs without cutting it to those who truly need it. So how does it make sense to cut necessary programs to implement other albeit also necessary programs? One helps keep people alive and the other provides the means by which the cycle of dependency can be broken. What about this suggestion; keep what’s necessary for the general populace, the constituents and do some cutting in the administration, pork bellying and self-serving bill passages. Or would that fall under the NIMBY mentality?
Another quick thought, when an employee makes a catastrophic error on the job, one that would have comparably far reaching and detrimental effects such as the President’s lapse in judgment did, he or she at the very least receive a demotion, if not a pink slip. There are times when jail is the result. Just food for thought.