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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)