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

EPA Waited 7 Months Too Long to Declare Emergency in Flint Water Crisis, Claims Report

The EPA had sufficient authority and information to issue an emergency order to protect residents of Flint, Michigan, from lead-contaminated water as early as June 2015 — seven months before it declared an emergency, the EPA's inspector general said Thursday. The Flint crisis should have generated "a greater sense of urgency" at the agency to "intervene when the safety of drinking water is compromised," said the report.   read more

Debate over Conspiracy as War Crime Casts Shadow across Guantánamo Detainee Conviction

The question is whether the military commissions can prosecute additional terrorism defendants for conspiracy. That charge is useful for trying people suspected of participating in a terrorist group. But while conspiracy is considered a crime under U.S. law, it is not a war crime by international law. “There is still no resolution of this basic constitutional question...” said professor Vladeck. “The court let this one conviction stand, but in the process, it didn’t actually settle the fight.”   read more

Most of Syrian Refugees Arriving in U.S. are Children

The rising number of Syrian refugee students comes amid a heated presidential campaign. Trump called Clinton's plan to expand the refugee program and accept 65,000 Syrian refugees the "great Trojan horse of all time." Nearly 30 states have vowed to deny entry to Syrian refugees. Resettlement agencies worry inflamed rhetoric about refugees will trickle into the classroom. One report found 50% of Muslim students surveyed were subjected to mean comments because of their religion.   read more

Mexican Peso Taken on Wild Ride during U.S. Presidential Campaign

Election day in the U.S. cannot come soon enough for the Mexican peso, especially if Hillary Clinton is the winner. The peso reached its low point for the year shortly after Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia. But it has recovered ground from that low amid the feeling that Clinton outperformed Trump in three presidential debates. Trump has hammered Mexico not only for illegal immigration, but also for U.S. jobs lost. Not to mention Trump's threats to make Mexico pay for the border wall.   read more

Kansas Voter ID Requirement Violates Law, Rules Court

ACLU's Ho argued that Kansas was forcing voters to adhere to stricter registration guidelines than those of surrounding states. Judge Holmes' three-judge panel agreed. "Over 18,000 Kansans stood to lose the right to vote in the coming general elections—elections that are less than one month away. Exceedingly few non-citizens have been shown to have voted compared to the number of Kansans who stand to lose the right to vote in the coming elections," wrote Holmes.   read more
see more...