Shouldn’t Every Cabinet Member Care About Ending Poverty?
Wouldn’t it have been easier for Hillary Clinton to kiss John Edwards’ ass and beg for his endorsement in private?
From the Memphis church where King delivered his last sermon on the evening before he was gunned down by James Earl Ray, Mrs. Clinton gave her support to an idea long advocated by the King family, a cabinet position that she said would be “solely and fully devoted to ending poverty as we know it, that will focus the attention of our nation on this issue and never let it go.”Mrs. Clinton added: “No more excuses, no more whining, but instead a concerted effort.”
While the idea of having a poor people potentate is a laudable one, I’m a little curious about what this person is supposed to do. Like Dennis Kucinich’s idea for a “Department of Peace”, this seems like one of those ideas that sounds good in a stump speech but in practice would amount to little more than a cabinet member whose job it is to beg other cabinet members to care about poverty. Considering how much flack Obama has taken for not delving into specifics in his speeches, I hope Sen. Clinton provides a little more detail about what powers, if any, her poverty czar would have that isn’t already covered by the secretaries of labor, commerce, and HUD and the rest of the cabinet.
5 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
As near as I can tell, GOVERNMENTS cause poverty. A TOTALLY free market, with no government intervention, would tend to always find a balance in which people were only out of work very temporarily, unless they want to be out of work. As for Clinton, see:
http://miraclesdaily.blogspot.com/
Comment by Christian Prophet — April 5, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
So would the Gilded Age be the exception that “proves” the rule, or simply proof that free market zealots are idiots who just want their taxes lowered?
Comment by greg — April 7, 2008 @ 9:32 am
Our “leaders”,really love royale titles,such as czar,which is defined in wikipedia as,”a ruler who has the same rank as a Roman or Byzantine emperor (or, according to Byzantine ideology, the most elevated position adjacent to the one held by the Byzantine monarch) due to recognition by another emperor or a supreme ecclesiastical official ”
Senator Clinton’s new position should be called “The Emperor of the impoverished”,a simi-divine diety who rules America’s impoverished,a beauricratic Caesar out to “save” the poor.Senator Clinton should read the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE,The Constitution,and the Bill of Rights,and discover the founding fathers thoughts on monarchy,royalist,and emperors.America’s poor already have all the divine titled do-gooders,overseerers,and emperors,we can stand.
Comment by pogo — April 7, 2008 @ 10:52 am
It’s amazing how some still buy into the myth of free-market infallibility, especially in the wake of the recent lead-toy recalls and Bear Stearns collapse. It’s the economic equivalent of religious fundamentalism.
Comment by Doobie — April 10, 2008 @ 12:09 am
I personally am a fan of the free market theory…unfortunately it would only work if people were basically good, and pretty smart. Unfortunately people are greedy and dumb, so they will do what they can to lock their own power, rather than keep it free market. So it wont really work. What she needs instead of a “povery czar” is someone whose job is to decrease the rich poor/gap…and actually have them work with Congress and the Fed. Maybe…the VP?
Comment by Rod M — April 12, 2008 @ 7:17 pm