Over on The Political Blogspot, J. Huston posted an editorial about a recent California Supreme Court case. This case ruled in favor of illegal immigrants being granted the right to pay in-state tuition for state colleges and universities, instead of more expensive out-of-state tuition. The author points out that this ruling was based on 2001 law that any legal or illegal student that attends a Californian high school for three years is entitled to in-state tuition. He expresses his dislike for this ruling, pointing out that these immigrants are in the state illegally, and should not be entitled to in-state tuition. He shows that he is pro education and equal rights, but the fact that immigrants are not citizens should separate them from the educational rights that citizens of the country are granted. The author also believes that these increased benefits will encourage more illegal immigrants to enroll, which means that some citizens "will be denied admitance(sp)." He obviously believes that citizens should not be in competition with illegal immigrants for one of the limited spots in state colleges and universities.
J. Huston writes that this type of law gives another incentive to entering our country illegally and will only further the amount of illegal immigrants in our country. He feels that we need to reverse this and "start removing these incentives from our society and instead provide these incentives to people who immigrate legally." Because of these factors, he disapproves with the state courts ruling and would like for this to be escalated to the U.S. Supreme Court for further review.
I tend to side with students to get a good education in this country, but on this specific issue I would have to agree with the author. Even though the students may not have a choice in coming to the country with their parents, they should not be allowed to compete with legal citizens for a spot in highly competitive schools. I would have liked to seen some statistics on how many illegal immigrants attend high school long enough to be eligible for this program. I would like to think it is a small minority of total college students. It would be nice to know what kind of impact can be expected from this ruling.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
All Hat, No Cattle
Recently, this country experienced one of the greatest shifts in control from one political party to another since 1948, picking up 66 seats and gaining control of the House of Representatives by a wide margin. This outcome was caused by multiple factors. I believe it was mostly the sagging economy and the widespread belief that members of congress do not have the same priorities as the American people. Many voters that chose a Republican candidate this fall did so because they want Washington to reign in their spending as they have had to do in these tough times. Although both parties have promised to reduce taxes and cut spending, but this cannot be done responsibly. It's pretty basic, but in order for this country to have a balanced budget, we will have to take in more than we spend. If this is not done, and we continue our current course of actions, we may end up paying over 1 trillion dollars just in interest in 2020 A YEAR. This cannot be sustained. In searching for what our government plans to do to remedy this problem, I was led to a recent proposal by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility to address this issue. This proposal outlines ways in which this country can resolve it's financial woes.
It seems to have four areas of federal spending they wish to reform. Discretionary spending, defense spending, medical reform and social security. They plan to cut discretionary spending by $100 billion in 2015. Some specific actions are freezing non-defense federal salaries and bonuses for 3 years, cut the federal workforce by 10%, and eliminating 250,000 non-defense contract jobs. The defense changes are made up of the following: applying changes that defense secretary Robert Gates has suggested, freeze non-combat military salaries for 3 years, and reduce military procurement (authorization to buy goods and services) by 15%. These are real changes, not the rhetoric commonly heard by today's politicians that lacks specifics.
The proposal also includes details on how to reform the health care industry. Due to a omnibus budget passed in 1992, medicare currently underpays physicians by 25 to 35 percent compared to what other insurance companies pay for the same service. Fixing this problem (the "Doc Fix") will cost around $300 billion. This will replace our government passing temporary fixes every year. To offset this cost, this plan advises to implement the following over the next 9 years: Pay providers less, pay lawyers less, reduce the cost of defensive medicine, and expand cost sharing in Medicare. For the longer term, the plan proposes to keep federal health care spending to no more than GDP + 1 percent annually. Reforms to repair social security include increasing the retirement age by 1 month every 2 years(69 by 2050), increase the percent of wages being taxed to 90%, and promoting smart retirement decisions.
This is a very large plan, with modest cuts to a variety of different areas of the U.S. budget. I agree with most of the discretionary and defense changes, although I believe our defense budget could use further curtailing in the areas of overseas bases. The health care section seems a little light on how we can only spend GDP + 1 percent with the rising costs of health care in this country, but otherwise it's at least a good start. The social security section seems very promising, and goes a long way to making sure I will actually see some money in 40 years or so. It's refreshing to see hard decisions put down on paper as a serious consideration, instead of usual cries of lowering taxes without a way to pay for them. Both parties need to work with this proposal, try not to water it down to the point of uselessness, put down their fancy hats, and buy some freaking cattle.
It seems to have four areas of federal spending they wish to reform. Discretionary spending, defense spending, medical reform and social security. They plan to cut discretionary spending by $100 billion in 2015. Some specific actions are freezing non-defense federal salaries and bonuses for 3 years, cut the federal workforce by 10%, and eliminating 250,000 non-defense contract jobs. The defense changes are made up of the following: applying changes that defense secretary Robert Gates has suggested, freeze non-combat military salaries for 3 years, and reduce military procurement (authorization to buy goods and services) by 15%. These are real changes, not the rhetoric commonly heard by today's politicians that lacks specifics.
The proposal also includes details on how to reform the health care industry. Due to a omnibus budget passed in 1992, medicare currently underpays physicians by 25 to 35 percent compared to what other insurance companies pay for the same service. Fixing this problem (the "Doc Fix") will cost around $300 billion. This will replace our government passing temporary fixes every year. To offset this cost, this plan advises to implement the following over the next 9 years: Pay providers less, pay lawyers less, reduce the cost of defensive medicine, and expand cost sharing in Medicare. For the longer term, the plan proposes to keep federal health care spending to no more than GDP + 1 percent annually. Reforms to repair social security include increasing the retirement age by 1 month every 2 years(69 by 2050), increase the percent of wages being taxed to 90%, and promoting smart retirement decisions.
This is a very large plan, with modest cuts to a variety of different areas of the U.S. budget. I agree with most of the discretionary and defense changes, although I believe our defense budget could use further curtailing in the areas of overseas bases. The health care section seems a little light on how we can only spend GDP + 1 percent with the rising costs of health care in this country, but otherwise it's at least a good start. The social security section seems very promising, and goes a long way to making sure I will actually see some money in 40 years or so. It's refreshing to see hard decisions put down on paper as a serious consideration, instead of usual cries of lowering taxes without a way to pay for them. Both parties need to work with this proposal, try not to water it down to the point of uselessness, put down their fancy hats, and buy some freaking cattle.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Labor Laws Beneift Neither The Rich or Poor?
In an editorial blog post on k1264610.blogspot.com titled "Labor Laws", author kjkacz proposes that laws affecting labor such as the minimum wage are hurting the citizens they are designed to help, lower income workers. He claims that the various benefits they receive due to these laws, such as overtime pay, sick leave, retirement pensions, increase labor costs for business. These labor costs may cause a company "to fire employees that no longer provide enough economic benefit to the company because of these added costs."
The author goes on to use a hypothetical example of increasing the minimum wage to $1000/ hour to help explain how he believes these laws are causing more harm than good. He proposes that if minimum wage is beneficial, an enormous increase in the hourly wage should be great for society. Because this would not be the case and companies would find it impossible to sustain these wages, that should show there are flaws with the minimum wage.
The owner of the blog also touches on different factors that contribute to unemployment, such as choice, current economic climate ,and government actions and legislation. He believes that because it is hard for most people to explain exactly why they are unable to gain employment, they look to the government to direct their blame toward.
He also looks at how some people justify the increased costs labor laws put on companies because they can afford the costs. The author believes these costs can not be overlooked, and they marginalize the least skilled workers. He states that a businesses primary objective is to earn a profit, not to employ workers. There are other ways he prefers citizens to address these business besides forcing labor laws on them, such as boycotting or Boycotting their products and services.
Even though I agree with his assertion that business are here to primarily earn a profit, I do not believe lowering government intervention in the ways they hire and keep employees is a viable strategy. As we have touched base on in this course, labor laws not only to help the unskilled and lower income workers, but they serve as some of the few protections that this segment of society has in an environment that is dominated by corporate interest and the elites of society. Without such laws in their favor, I believe many of these workers would not have a salary that they are able to provide for their family, be forced to work 60+ hours a week without paid vacations, and make it harder for the people that help companies succeed live an enjoyable life.
Labor laws also help somewhat to close the gap between the rich and the poor in this country. Even though the gap has been increased in recent years, we would see this effect accelerate if companies allocate less of their income for employees. I believe this is bad for our society, and stimulates ill will toward the upper echelon of our country. Above the belief that companies exist to earn a profit, our country exists in part to promote the general welfare of it's citizens. Without some guards against abuse for the less fortunate, general prosperity will be harder to achieve for all.
The author goes on to use a hypothetical example of increasing the minimum wage to $1000/ hour to help explain how he believes these laws are causing more harm than good. He proposes that if minimum wage is beneficial, an enormous increase in the hourly wage should be great for society. Because this would not be the case and companies would find it impossible to sustain these wages, that should show there are flaws with the minimum wage.
The owner of the blog also touches on different factors that contribute to unemployment, such as choice, current economic climate ,and government actions and legislation. He believes that because it is hard for most people to explain exactly why they are unable to gain employment, they look to the government to direct their blame toward.
He also looks at how some people justify the increased costs labor laws put on companies because they can afford the costs. The author believes these costs can not be overlooked, and they marginalize the least skilled workers. He states that a businesses primary objective is to earn a profit, not to employ workers. There are other ways he prefers citizens to address these business besides forcing labor laws on them, such as boycotting or Boycotting their products and services.
Even though I agree with his assertion that business are here to primarily earn a profit, I do not believe lowering government intervention in the ways they hire and keep employees is a viable strategy. As we have touched base on in this course, labor laws not only to help the unskilled and lower income workers, but they serve as some of the few protections that this segment of society has in an environment that is dominated by corporate interest and the elites of society. Without such laws in their favor, I believe many of these workers would not have a salary that they are able to provide for their family, be forced to work 60+ hours a week without paid vacations, and make it harder for the people that help companies succeed live an enjoyable life.
Labor laws also help somewhat to close the gap between the rich and the poor in this country. Even though the gap has been increased in recent years, we would see this effect accelerate if companies allocate less of their income for employees. I believe this is bad for our society, and stimulates ill will toward the upper echelon of our country. Above the belief that companies exist to earn a profit, our country exists in part to promote the general welfare of it's citizens. Without some guards against abuse for the less fortunate, general prosperity will be harder to achieve for all.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Will We Ever Learn?
Mid Term elections are less than a week away, and millions of citizens will be racing to the polls to get their vote in. A Pollster.com estimate believes total voter turnout will be around 50%, a new record for mid term elections. People seem to be extremely enthusiastic about this particular election, in large part because approval rating of the federal government could not get much worse. A recent CBS/New York Times poll indicates that 82% of the country disapproves of the way Congress is handling it's job. That's madness! If Congress was a stock, it would probably be in danger of becoming delisted from the NYSE by this point. The question these polls don't answer is WHY do people disapprove so much?
I believe the reason is that neither Democrats or Republicans have any confidence that Congress will do anything to help their quality of life. Even though major healthcare and financial reform legislation was passed this year, only 29% of Americans believe anything was passed this year to significantly improve their life. A survey on RasumssenReports.com show 81% believe the current Congress primary goal is not to serve them, but working toward furthering their careers. This could be due to the lack of meaningful legislation being passed, the increased amount of attack ads presented in all forms of media, or due to the way most Americans focus their attention on the negative aspects of public figures.
This dissatisfaction with Congress is not a recent trend. A poll done by Gallop shows that approval ratings for both parties started trending downward since the start of 2002, and other than a brief rise after the presidential election in 08, have continued their decent. This seems to indicate voter's are dissatisfied when Republicans run Congress, and when Democrats are running it. No matter which party takes control of the House and Senate this election, I have little faith that they will do anything to significantly change the opinion of Congress in this country.
My solution? Take a look at the resume of some of the candidates you will vote for this election. Don't just look at their position on the issues, find out if they are someone that gets things done. Compare this candidate to the incumbent they are running against, and vote for who you think will be a more effective politician, not just one that agrees with you. Also compare the major party candidates with any third party candidates running, and see how their record stacks up. If voters continue to vote down the party line and expect different results from our men and women in Congress, shame on us.
I believe the reason is that neither Democrats or Republicans have any confidence that Congress will do anything to help their quality of life. Even though major healthcare and financial reform legislation was passed this year, only 29% of Americans believe anything was passed this year to significantly improve their life. A survey on RasumssenReports.com show 81% believe the current Congress primary goal is not to serve them, but working toward furthering their careers. This could be due to the lack of meaningful legislation being passed, the increased amount of attack ads presented in all forms of media, or due to the way most Americans focus their attention on the negative aspects of public figures.
This dissatisfaction with Congress is not a recent trend. A poll done by Gallop shows that approval ratings for both parties started trending downward since the start of 2002, and other than a brief rise after the presidential election in 08, have continued their decent. This seems to indicate voter's are dissatisfied when Republicans run Congress, and when Democrats are running it. No matter which party takes control of the House and Senate this election, I have little faith that they will do anything to significantly change the opinion of Congress in this country.
My solution? Take a look at the resume of some of the candidates you will vote for this election. Don't just look at their position on the issues, find out if they are someone that gets things done. Compare this candidate to the incumbent they are running against, and vote for who you think will be a more effective politician, not just one that agrees with you. Also compare the major party candidates with any third party candidates running, and see how their record stacks up. If voters continue to vote down the party line and expect different results from our men and women in Congress, shame on us.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Is the President the Democrats worst enemy?
According to a blog post titled "14 Days to Go and the President Is Killing Democrats", Dave Lombardo proposes that Democrats will lose seats in the House and Senate this election cycle not because voters do not agree with the incumbents, but because they disapprove of the way the President is handling the pressing issues of our country. He uses past elections and many of the approval ratings of important decisions made by the President as proof.
Mr. Lombardo claims that Democrats in the upcoming November 2nd elections will lose some of their seats primarily because of the President's actions. He states that the President's policies "are an albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party and, as a result, congressional Democrats will probably suffer a historic defeat." This statement helps to convey the theory he is trying to prove, that President Obama's decisions and actions will be the reason Republicans are successful on election day. He also advised that even though the White House has been saying the country is angry because of the economy and failure to market the administrations agenda, he believes the country is displeased due to the President's legislative record.
The author uses some approval ratings of the President to further prove the point that the President is to blame if Democrats lose in November. One approval rating he examines is his approval rating in "toss-up" congressional districts. He references a NPR.org poll stating his approval in these districts to be 41%. He disagrees with polls that show his approval is closer to 45% across the nation, partly because this includes left leaning states in the North and North-West. Dave also says the voter's view of how the President is handling key issues is "abysmal". Health-Care is one of the biggest issues the President has been faced with, and recent polls say that the disapproval rate of his handling of this issue is around 57-65% in toss-up states. He concludes his article by examining trends in recent elections where Republicans such as Scott Brown have won in states that are traditionally "blue" states, and that it seems Republicans are set to continue picking up seats in November.
I think Mr. Lombardo pins too much blame on the President for the Democrats woes this election season. Even though the President may not be popular with the majority of voters in swing states, I believe congressional approval in these states is even worse. Since Democrats currently hold a majority in both the House and the Senate, they have to look at themselves, and not the President, to find reasons for their difficulty in gathering enough votes to win. Although the author does bring up some good points on why the President is not popular, I do not agree with his position that this is the primary reason Democrats may not be re-elected this year.
Mr. Lombardo claims that Democrats in the upcoming November 2nd elections will lose some of their seats primarily because of the President's actions. He states that the President's policies "are an albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party and, as a result, congressional Democrats will probably suffer a historic defeat." This statement helps to convey the theory he is trying to prove, that President Obama's decisions and actions will be the reason Republicans are successful on election day. He also advised that even though the White House has been saying the country is angry because of the economy and failure to market the administrations agenda, he believes the country is displeased due to the President's legislative record.
The author uses some approval ratings of the President to further prove the point that the President is to blame if Democrats lose in November. One approval rating he examines is his approval rating in "toss-up" congressional districts. He references a NPR.org poll stating his approval in these districts to be 41%. He disagrees with polls that show his approval is closer to 45% across the nation, partly because this includes left leaning states in the North and North-West. Dave also says the voter's view of how the President is handling key issues is "abysmal". Health-Care is one of the biggest issues the President has been faced with, and recent polls say that the disapproval rate of his handling of this issue is around 57-65% in toss-up states. He concludes his article by examining trends in recent elections where Republicans such as Scott Brown have won in states that are traditionally "blue" states, and that it seems Republicans are set to continue picking up seats in November.
I think Mr. Lombardo pins too much blame on the President for the Democrats woes this election season. Even though the President may not be popular with the majority of voters in swing states, I believe congressional approval in these states is even worse. Since Democrats currently hold a majority in both the House and the Senate, they have to look at themselves, and not the President, to find reasons for their difficulty in gathering enough votes to win. Although the author does bring up some good points on why the President is not popular, I do not agree with his position that this is the primary reason Democrats may not be re-elected this year.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
We can't afford murder
In Charles M. Blow's New York Times column "High Cost of Crime", he writes an opinion based piece taking a closer look at how much criminals are costing our society. By detailing the cost of different crimes based on a recent study from Iowa State University, he is able to compare these costs with other federal government expenditures to bring to light just how big of a financial problem criminal activity is.
He claims we are spending too much per crime in America. He states that a recent Iowa State University study claims each murder costs the U.S. "a whopping $17.25 million." Drawing attention to this figure is a way for him to entice the reader to find out why it costs this amount. He goes on to explain that although he doubts that the University could calculate some of these costs with "any real degree of accuracy", he understands what they are trying to do. The author figures that factoring this cost per murder with the total murder rate per year, it will costs America around $300 billion. According to him, "That's about as much as we've spent over nine years fighting the war in Afghanistan." Comparing the yearly costs of murder with the costs over nine years helps drive his point that we are spending too much per crime in America.
The author also draws attention to the murder rate in our country. Even though the overall murder rate in the U.S. is down according to him, it's still "twice as high as that of any of the other rich countries..." This comparison helps reinforce his point that there must be a better way than our current course of action when it comes to murder and other crimes.
He finishes up the article by suggesting a different course of action to remedy this problem. He argues that we should spend more money up front in education costs and in social programs to hopefully prevent the crime from happening in the future. Although he doesn't think all criminals can be stopped, some of them "are people who took a wrong turn, got lost and ended up on the wrong path."
I believe Mr. Blow does a great job with highlighting just how much it costs this country when a murder occurs, and why we need to look to cut this cost. He could have expanded on his suggested path of spending up front in education and social program costs, but his suggestion did leave me thinking more can be done in this area. I will most certainly pay attention to candidates that bring this issue up, and what they intend to do to help put our country on the right track when it comes to crime. I believe that anyone that has an interest in the federal budget, or how crime is handled in this country, should read this column.
He claims we are spending too much per crime in America. He states that a recent Iowa State University study claims each murder costs the U.S. "a whopping $17.25 million." Drawing attention to this figure is a way for him to entice the reader to find out why it costs this amount. He goes on to explain that although he doubts that the University could calculate some of these costs with "any real degree of accuracy", he understands what they are trying to do. The author figures that factoring this cost per murder with the total murder rate per year, it will costs America around $300 billion. According to him, "That's about as much as we've spent over nine years fighting the war in Afghanistan." Comparing the yearly costs of murder with the costs over nine years helps drive his point that we are spending too much per crime in America.
The author also draws attention to the murder rate in our country. Even though the overall murder rate in the U.S. is down according to him, it's still "twice as high as that of any of the other rich countries..." This comparison helps reinforce his point that there must be a better way than our current course of action when it comes to murder and other crimes.
He finishes up the article by suggesting a different course of action to remedy this problem. He argues that we should spend more money up front in education costs and in social programs to hopefully prevent the crime from happening in the future. Although he doesn't think all criminals can be stopped, some of them "are people who took a wrong turn, got lost and ended up on the wrong path."
I believe Mr. Blow does a great job with highlighting just how much it costs this country when a murder occurs, and why we need to look to cut this cost. He could have expanded on his suggested path of spending up front in education and social program costs, but his suggestion did leave me thinking more can be done in this area. I will most certainly pay attention to candidates that bring this issue up, and what they intend to do to help put our country on the right track when it comes to crime. I believe that anyone that has an interest in the federal budget, or how crime is handled in this country, should read this column.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Should Americans Appreciate The Bailout?
Remember that $700 billion TARP program that was signed in 2008 to bail out the bank and save the country from another Great Depression? According to this article on NPR, the Treasury Department estimates that it will end up costing tax payers $50 billion. It also goes on to state that many independent economists believe that even though it forced us to spend billions on the largest banks and financial institutions, the program saved us from "economic collapse".
While both democrats and republicans voted for the program, it seems like everyone and their mother is trying to distance themselves from TARP in this election season. To me, as far as large government programs go, this actually worked pretty well! I'm sure the primary reason politicians are distancing themselves from TARP is that many Americans are still unemployed, and others have had to take a lower paying position among fiercer competition. It's true that the program did not completely fix our economy, but for $50 billion or less, it has had a massive impact on softening the economic blow our country had to take. To me this goes back to why our founding fathers formed our government as a representative democracy, and not a direct democracy. Sometimes the unpopular choice is not one that we want, but it's what we need.
While both democrats and republicans voted for the program, it seems like everyone and their mother is trying to distance themselves from TARP in this election season. To me, as far as large government programs go, this actually worked pretty well! I'm sure the primary reason politicians are distancing themselves from TARP is that many Americans are still unemployed, and others have had to take a lower paying position among fiercer competition. It's true that the program did not completely fix our economy, but for $50 billion or less, it has had a massive impact on softening the economic blow our country had to take. To me this goes back to why our founding fathers formed our government as a representative democracy, and not a direct democracy. Sometimes the unpopular choice is not one that we want, but it's what we need.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)