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

For Donald Trump, the Honeymoon was Over Before It Even Began

In the 72 years since Harry Truman became President and Gallup began asking about presidential approval, Donald Trump is the only President to start his term with a majority of Americans disapproving of his job performance. Trump’s numbers at his inauguration—usually one of the high points of a president’s popularity—are closer to those of a failing president than a newly minted one. In fact, Trump’s inaugural job disapproval numbers are nearly off the charts.   read more

Acting Director of the Indian Health Service: Who Is Mary L. Smith?

In 2007, Smith joined Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. After Obama won the presidency, Smith was named to the Dept of Justice transition team, then nominated as Assistant Attorney General in charge of tax issues. However, Senate Republicans blocked her appointment. She worked as a counselor in the Justice Department’s civil division until 2011, when her nomination was turned down. Smith returned to the Obama administration in 2015, this time to the Indian Health Service.   read more

Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Who Is Andrew Bindman?

Bindman has done several studies on healthcare involving those in poverty. He has also investigated the link between access to care and preventable hospitalizations. Bindman was named San Francisco General’s chief of general internal medicine in 1996. In 1999 and 2000, he served as visiting professor at University College London, then from 2009 to 2010 he worked on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, helping draft language for the Affordable Care Act.   read more

Director, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: Who Is Ileana Arias?

Arias’ field of expertise is violence among intimate partners and family. She moved to CDC in 2000 and was chief of the Etiology and Surveillance Branch in National Center for Injury Prevention and Control’s Division of Violence Prevention. By 2004 she was acting director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and was named director the following year.   read more

Secretary of Treasury: Who Is Steven Mnuchin?

Steven Mnuchin foreclosed on at least 50,000 homes during the Great Recession. In fact, in 2011, a federal investigation forced Mnuchin's bank to agree to the issuance of a Consent Order to remedy numerous abusive practices it was using to make money. Recently, a complaint filed with the Dept of Housing accused his bank of violating the Fair Housing Act by “redlining,” an illegal practice of not doing business in minority neighborhoods in order to avoid making home loans to minorities.   read more
see more...