Obama's Katrina?

President Obama will make his second visit to the Gulf of Mexico tomorrow, stressing the urgency of the situation and addressing his administration’s concern for the massive oil spill. Many Republicans, however, are trying to link President Obama's handling of the BP oil spill to President Bush's flawed response in 2005 to Hurricane Katrina. This is a flawed view for many reasons.

First and foremost, Katrina was a storm that you track for several weeks. After swiftly coming ashore, more than 1,800 people were killed, and thousands more left without food or shelter. It is impossible to challenge President Bush’s slow response, as so many of us witnessed the catastrophe firsthand: the entire city was left to fend for itself, abandoned by the government, as people were left at the New Orleans convention center for days with no water or food. Many can remember watching television to see people stuck on their rooftops crying out for help. That is called a slow response and any comparisons to President Obama’s reaction to the BP oil spill are not only immature, but uneducated.

In the case of what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama responded hastily from day one. As the news of the crisis poured through the media, the Coast Guard and the Navy were on site immediately after the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig from which the oil spill began. Obama also took it upon his duties to order a moratorium on new offshore drilling leases and dispatched cabinet secretaries and cargo planes to the region.

Even Fox News Anchor Bill O’Reilly said, on the May 5th edition of Good Morning America, that even if Obama acted quicker, “they can’t even cap it now. What else could he have done, be put in a dive suit?” Strangely enough, I agree.

Second, to say Obama’s response to the oil spill is intentionally slow due to BP’s previous donations to his presidential campaign in 2008 is irresponsible. Not only has he responded quickly, but he has made it his administration’s top priority. The government is not sitting idly while leaving BP to clean up the mess it created in the first place, but instead, has ensured that any and all actions taken by the oil company must be first approved by the federal government. So although BP is at fault and may be taking steps to clean up the mess, their efforts are all coordinated and managed by Obama and his administration.

Third, I'm almost sure that the oil companies don't consider the Obama administration a huge ally. Through his repeated calls for cleaner energy, cap-and-trade policies, and decreased reliance on oil, the president has made clear that he has not become cozy with his campaign donors. Remember when he proposed a windfall profits tax for oil companies who jack up their oil prices to charge more for gasoline? There is also proof when examining his calls for greater financial regulation, despite the fact that his campaign received large donations from Wall Street firms.

Republicans have been criticizing the president for not dealing with the spill efficiently. Yet, it has long been the GOP mantra to “drill baby drill”. Seems very hypocritical if you ask me.

To the critics, please stop trying to criticize every action taken by our president to help fix this nation from the misery and pain caused from the last eight years. Instead, try offering real solutions and put the American people first, not politics.

Partisanship At Its Best

Today, President Obama joined Senate Republicans in a closed door meeting on Capitol Hill, the latest attempt by the President to reach across the table in hopes of bipartisanship.

Although there was, and will continue to be a many differences in opinions on various issues, the fact of the matter is that a productive piece of legislation does not pass until it is well understood by both parties and significant effort has been made to make it a cooperative effort. Obama understands this, and therefore, has made attempts to seek his opponents’ advice.

However, there are many GOP leaders who continue to “stick to their guns” and focus on petty politics. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, for example, accused the president during the meeting of taking an excessively partisan approach to critical issues such as financial reform, and then having the "audacity" to come to the Senate GOP conference and use the Republicans as election year "props."

This serves as a problem for several reasons. First, Obama is a Democrat and therefore will hold liberal views on many issues, same as President Bush held many conservative views on many issues, and almost every other political leader to date. What makes the difference, however, is how that person tries to overcome that disparity in opinions to try and reach a conclusive decision. With Obama setting up such meetings, it serves as proof that he is, at the least, trying to understand the others’ point of view, instead of blindly holding his ground.

Second, what exactly does it mean to be “excessively partisan”? Would the “You lie” outburst from Rep. Joe Wilson, R-South Carolina, at President Obama during his speech to Congress be considered “excessively partisan”? Would the incident when Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, shouted “baby killer” at Democrat Bart Stupak in his debate on the House floor be considered “excessively partisan”? Or how about when Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, and other GOP leaders compare the President to Adolf Hitler? Or when numerous Republican Senators, including Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told people that they were correct to fear that the government would "pull the plug on grandma with the death panels”? By the way, how’s that working out since the passage of Obama’s healthcare bill?

Wouldn’t all those statements be considered “excessively partisan”? I guess not. I guess having a valid difference in opinion in the Republican Party either makes you a liar, a baby killer, or Hitler.

If that’s the case, I prefer to stay excessively partisan.

One Step Closer

Discrimination. What is the first thing that pops into your head when you hear that word? For most of you, it is probably the injustices faced by African Americans and other minorities in the United States during the pre-civil rights era.

But we are forgetting one major group of individuals that still suffer those injustices: the gay community.

Just as minorities were not allowed to attend the same schools, drink from the same water fountain, ride the same bus, or walk on the same side of the street as their white counterparts, gays have been denied access to life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness.

In today’s “modern” era, there are still numerous laws and bans restricting the freedoms of the gay community: whether it be serving in the military, adopting children, getting married, providing for their families, or providing the love and support to each other that many of us take for granted, gays are constantly being discriminated against.

Specifically, hospitals often bar visitors who are not related to an incapacitated patient by blood or marriage. The problem is, however, that society has barred gays from getting married. Therefore, when a gay person is stuck in the hospital, instead of helping them recover from their sickness, society denies them the kindness and caring of a loved one at their sides.

This is where true leadership is needed. Yesterday, President Obama signed an executive order forcing most hospitals in the country to grant the same visitation rights to gay and lesbian partners that they do to married heterosexual couples. “Hospitals should not be able to deny visitation privileges on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity,” Obama said.

In a country that values its individual freedoms so highly, why not respect the patients’ choices about who may make critical health-care decisions for them? Why not allow them to spend time with their partners, just like a married couple gets to enjoy at their stay in a hospital?

Many conservatives criticize this sentiment, claiming it “undermines the definition of marriage.” But in reality, continuing a policy of discrimination undermines the definition of freedom and equality. It undermines the definition of being an American.

After all, it's not a gay right to hold someone's hand when they die. It’s a human right.

After Obama's executive order, America is one step closer at understanding this.

Nuclear Security Summit: A Fresh Start

On Monday and Tuesday, President Obama will be leading one of the largest gatherings of world leaders in Washington history in the first summit to focus exclusively on the threat posed by the world's nuclear weapons.

The goal of the meeting will be to persuade the 46 foreign leaders to care as much as he does about nuclear disarmament, a promise Obama made during his presidential campaign.

This meeting goes beyond liberal and conservative, and instead, focuses on the ability of our president to set aside important national interests to achieve shared international ones. This is the only way to truly uphold the American values of peace and prosperity for all.

Obama has already made significant strides in making sure this Nuclear Security Summit is productive and efficient through his recent strategic arms-reduction treaty with Russia last week. The treaty not only strengthens the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but also shows the United State’s ability and desire to compromise for a long term stability and security.

The president has also introduced a new policy of seeking a unified international response to Iran's nuclear ambitions, including stronger United Nations sanctions. Some Republicans criticize the policy as too weak, but they fail to recognize the importance of negotiation. It is because the U.S. has been too strict with countries such as Iran that now, we have not only deteriorated our relations with their leaders, but also have placed ourselves in a tougher position to reach any goal. You have to compromise in order to get anything positive accomplished. Obama, unlike his predecessors, understands this.

While there is still much work needed to be done to secure nuclear weapons across the globe, President Obama has done a great job of improving our relations with foreign countries, thus making it easier to find common solutions .

This is just one of several concrete steps the president is taking to make good on his pledge to truly make America and the world safer by reducing the threat of nuclear weapons, proliferation and terrorism.

Signs of Recovery

After suffering from the worst economic recession in history, the economy is showing greater signs of recovery. Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its March jobs report, showing that last month, over 160,000 new jobs were created--the biggest one-month jobs gain in the past three years.

Although the unemployment rate is still at a high of 10 percent, this is a great step forward. During the first three months of 2009, on average we were losing 753,000 jobs per month. Today, we learned that in the first quarter of 2010, our economy grew by an average of 54,000 jobs per month.

No one said that fixing the economy was going to be an easy task. After all, it took the last president 8 years to ruin it in the first place.

What this slight improvement in our economy shows us is that America is finally able to dig itself out of a deep hole and is beginning to see the light at the end of the dark tunnel.

This is in large part due to the Recovery Act passed by Obama during the first month of his presidency. It is because of this effort that we can say that today, the economy actually created thousands of new jobs instead of loosing thousands of jobs.

Yes it is still a work in progress. But it IS progress.

What did the recovery act do? I think it’s obvious.

Improving Student Loans

Last week, President Obama signed the most comprehensive healthcare reform bill in recent history. Yesterday, he finished the job by signing the reconciliation bill into law, along with sweeping higher education funding overhaul.

The bill overhauls higher education financing, doubling funding for Pell grants, allowing students to borrow directly from the government and easing payment structures once they graduate. Most importantly, the Direct Loan program will be expanded.

Prior to the passage of this bill, financial institutions like Sallie Mae would give out loans. If students defaulted, the government would guarantee the loan and pay the company for the default. But wasteful spending by the banks has drained valuable funds away from education programs. Now, however, the loans will be coming directly from the government, so they don't have to pay companies for defaults.

By avoiding paying these “middle men”, it saves taxpayers $61 billion over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Thirty-six billion of that would go to the popular Pell Grant program. More than $4 billion in savings would go to institutions that serve minorities and the rest, close to $20 billion, would be used for non-education purposes, offsetting health care reform expenses. In addition to investing in college aid, these provisions will also reduce the deficit by at least $10 billion over 10 years.

Also, loan repayments will be capped at 10 percent of a graduate's salary, down from the current 15 percent, starting in 2014. Additionally, borrowers who responsibly make their monthly payments will see their remaining balance forgiven after 20 years of repayment, reduced from 25 years in current law.

Now more than ever, Americans need affordable, quality education opportunities to help make our economy strong and competitive again. By eliminating wasteful subsidies to private bankers and switching to a system of direct lending of federal student loans, that has become reality.

As the President said in his 2010 State of the Union address: “To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants."

For those keeping track, that's 2 huge vitories in only 1 week. And they say the President hasn't accomplished anything.

What Healthcare Reform Means

Last Sunday night, we made history with the passage of real Health Care Reform.

For me, it was especially significant because I will no longer be denied health coverage due to my pre-existing condition. I will no longer be forced to pay a 100 percent increase in my health premiums due to my pre-existing condition. I will no longer be told by others that my experience with cancer at the age of 13 was my fault. They won’t be able to tell me that it’s simply okay that I suffered injustice and negative consequences from an insurance company.

Not only is this law a win for me, but it is a win for the American people. After this law goes into effect, over 95% of Americans will have health insurance coverage. That’s 32 million more people who, up to today, did not have insurance. Medicaid will be expanded to offer health insurance coverage to an additional 16 million lower-income Americans.

Now it’s a law, people will not be cheated by the insurance companies into paying premiums every year, only to be told that they are too sick to be covered for the insurance policy they paid for. Instead, insurance companies will not be able to drop your coverage.

Now that the bill is signed into law, no longer will students coming out of college with up to $100,000 of debt be forced suffer another added cost. Under the bill, young adults will be able to remain on their family insurance plans until age 26.

Now that the bill is signed into law, no longer will individuals and small businesses unable to afford insurance be treated like second class citizens. They will now have the ability to choose from a variety of competing plans with lower premiums, in the same way our members of Congress choose their plans. By reducing health care costs for employers, reform will create or save more than 2.5 million jobs over the next decade.

No longer will the American people be told that the economic condition of the country cannot be fixed. This reform bill will cut the federal budget deficit by $138 billion over the next ten years, and another $1.2 trillion in the following ten years.

No longer will healthcare be a privilege, but instead, a given right.

However, some Republicans are now trying all they can to repeal these major reforms. They want to allow insurance companies to continue dropping coverage for people when they need it the most. They want to continue forcing people to pay increased premium rates. They want insurance companies to continue to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. They want to continue the status quo.

If the last 14 months of vigorous debate have taught the American people anything, it’s that we cannot afford the status quo anymore.

It is not my fault that I had cancer. And finally, with this law, that’s finally been acknowledged.