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

Chair of the Federal Labor Relations Authority: Who Is Colleen Duffy Kiko?

In 2002, Kiko became a member of the Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board. In 2005, President George W. Bush appointed her to be FLRA general counsel, where she served until 2008. Her stint as general counsel coincided with a marked decline in employee morale at FLRA, which earned the title of the worst small agency to work for three years in a row. In 2016, she co-founded Future with Hope Women, a group for Catholic women older than forty.   read more

Director of the Office of Legacy Management: Who Is Carmelo Melendez?

Melendez has served as a civilian in the departments of Defense and State in civil engineering and property management roles. In the late 2000s, he worked in the Dept of Energy’s Office of Engineering and Construction Management. He left to become an assistant chief of staff in the Marine Corps Combat Development Command and director of Installations and Environment in the National Capital Region. Melendez was in charge of the facilities at Quantico Marine Base during a period of rapid growth.   read more

U.S. Ambassador to India: Who Is Kenneth Juster?

Juster served as U.S. chair of the U.S.-India High Technology Cooperation Group, and was instrumental in an initiative between the U.S. and India that led to a civil nuclear agreement between the nations. This helped make Juster perhaps more qualified for his post than most non-State Department ambassadorial appointees. He joined Trump's economic team early in the administration but fell out of favor in the spring of 2017 in the internecine battles in the executive branch.   read more

U.S. Ambassador to Germany: Who Is Richard Grenell?

Grenell was named in 2001 to be spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the UN, becoming the longest-serving person at the job. He next joined industry, first as a VP for DaVita Healthcare, then forming his own firm, Capitol Media Partners. In 2012, Grenell served as Mitt Romney’s foreign affairs spokesman, but was chased off the campaign by anti-gay attacks from the right. Since then, he has contributed to Fox News and other conservative outlets, where he often sniped at the Obama administration.   read more

U.S. Ambassador to Timor-Leste: Who Is Kathleen Fitzpatrick?

Fitzpatrick served as political counselor at the embassy in Madrid in 2003 and returned to the U.S. in 2007 as director of the Office of Southern European Affairs. She was named deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor in 2010 and in 2012 became chief of staff in the Office of the Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy and Human Rights. In 2014, she was appointed principal deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research.   read more
see more...