4 Political Concepts Ruined by Their Boring Names

Date: Saturday, December 25, 2010 1:23 AM
Category: Allgov Blogs
Sometimes a policy or concept becomes popular because it acquires a catchy name. The Car Allowance Rebate System, for example, would not have captured the public’s imagination had it not become better known as “Cash for Clunkers.” Here are four concepts in serious need of new names if they are to be taken seriously.
 
1. Net Neutrality
My eyes automatically glaze over when I hear this term. For those who are not passionate about the issue, net neutrality means that Internet carriers like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner must allow access to all web sites at an equal speed. Opponents of net neutrality want a two-tiered system that would allow the carriers to charge a fee if you want your site to be accessed faster. Two-tier is a pay-for-play scheme that would increase telecom profits. Two-tier would also allow Internet providers to block access to sites that compete with sites with which they have signed a contract.
 
On December 21, the FCC passed new rules relating to net neutrality. But only a tiny number of people can explain what those new rules will really do, particularly since the FCC has not yet released the full text of the new guidelines. Proponents of net neutrality would probably gain more attention if they rebranded their cause “Internet First Amendment,” “Internet Equality” or something else that evokes interest and sympathy.
 
2. Single-Payer
I’m a supporter of the concept of single-payer health care, but usually when I mention it to people, they have no idea what I’m talking about. Yet when I explain it, they are almost always interested.
 
In the single-payer system, the government pays for everyone’s health care, but you choose your own doctors and you make most of the decisions. In the United States, we already have single-payer systems. They’re called Medicare and Medicaid. If you are at least 65 years old or you are disabled, the government pays for your health care, but, generally speaking, you are free to choose your own doctors and hospitals. A full single-payer system would extend such coverage to Americans who are younger than 65 and not disabled.
 
Polls show that a majority of Americans find the single-payer system appealing, yet it was not even considered in the Congressional health care reform debate. A full single-payer system would significantly increase government spending, but it would also dramatically decrease the nation’s overall health care spending because the insurance industry charges almost 30% in profits and overhead, whereas the figure for Medicare, as an example, is only 4%.
 
If this system is ever to gain traction in the national debate, it needs to be renamed “Medicare for All” or “Government Pays, You Choose.”
 
3. Fracking
Fracking is an unusually disturbing method of extracting natural gas from deep sources in the ground. Its real name is “hydraulic fracturing” and it entails injecting millions of gallons of chemicals, sand or fluids into a well to crack open the rocks and allow easier access to the natural gas. Unfortunately, as presently performed, fracking is associated with environmental degradation, in particular water pollution. Considering that there appears to be no way to stop energy companies from rushing forward with fracking, the American people need to step in and, at the very least, dramatically improve regulation of the process.
 
Once again, however, it is impossible to attract attention to the issue because the term “fracking” is not an attention-grabber. It is somewhat obscene- or evil-sounding, which is probably a good thing and the reason the natural gas industry doesn’t use it. However, for the average citizen, it is too nebulous. A new term is needed that includes the fact that the earth is being blasted apart and dangerous substances are being added to drinking water.
 
4. Cap and Trade
This is another eye glazer. Cap and trade, otherwise known as “emissions trading,” gets a lot of coverage in the media, but only environmental activists and businesses that pollute seem to know what it means. Cap and trade is a pollution control system whereby companies are given a limit (a “cap”) to how much pollution they can dump into the environment. If they want to exceed their limit, they can buy a permit to do so from another company that is below its own limit. Currently, the main cap and trade programs in the United States deal with sulfur dioxide (acid rain) and nitrogen oxides. The primary sources of these pollutants are cars and coal power plants.
 
In theory, cap and trade rewards companies that control their emissions and punishes those that pollute. In practice, large corporations, rather than reducing their emissions, just factor the added expenses for polluting into their annual budgets.
 
Cap and trade strikes me as a wishy-washy method of dealing with air pollution…better than nothing, but not a real solution. If the general public is to become engaged in this issue, cap and trade will need a new name that is more clear and to the point. How about “Pay to pollute”? Proponents will not like this phrase, but at least it’s accurate.

 

-David Wallechinsky

Latest News

United States Ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago: Who Is Joseph Mondello?

Donald Trump chose a longtime Republican politico to be the next United States ambassador to the Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago. Joseph N. Mondello has served as chairman of the Nassau County, New York, Republican Committee since May 1983. He also served as the Republican National Committeeman for New York from 1992 to 2004, as chairman of the New York Republican State Committee from 2006 to 2009, and as a Trump delegate to the 2016 Republican Convention, as did his wife, Linda.   read more

Director of the Defense Information Systems Agency: Who Is Nancy A. Norton?

After serving as chief of Naval operations strategic studies group fellow in Newport, Rhode Island, Norton was promoted in 2013 to rear admiral and named director for command, control, communications and cyber for the U.S. Pacific Command in Hawaii. She was transferred to the Pentagon in 2015 as director of the Warfare Integration Directorate in the office of the Chief of Naval Operations. Norton was named vice director of DISA in 2017 in preparation for taking over as the agency’s director.   read more

Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs: Who Is Kimberly Breier?

In 2007, Breier became the senior political analyst for a “key Middle Eastern country” until 2009, when she was promoted to manager and worked on creating and running what she describes as “the first-ever analytic tradecraft team covering a high-profile country in the Middle East.” Breier left government service in 2012 to work for the consulting firm Peschard-Sverdrup International, where she performed country risk assessments on Latin American countries for three mining companies.   read more

Commissioner of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services: Who Is Mark Schultz?

Schultz spent 20 years as director of the Assistive Technology Partnership, a Nebraska agency that helps the disabled use technology to improve their lives. He also was a barrier-free design specialist for the League of Human Dignity. Schultz was with Nebraska Vocational Rehabilitation beginning in 2008, first as associate director and since October 2009 as director. More recently, he was named deputy commissioner in the Nebraska Department of Education.   read more

U.S. Ambassador to Colombia: Who Is Joseph Macmanus?

In 2012, Macmanus was named permanent representative to the UN mission in Vienna and to the International Atomic Energy Agency. There, he participated in negotiations for the Iran nuclear deal. During a 2013 negotiating session, Iran accused Israel of genocide. Macmanus, along with representatives of Canada and Australia, stormed out of the session in protest. But after the agreement was finalized, Secretary of State John Kerry named Macmanus to coordinate implementation of the deal with Iran.   read more
see more...