The web is taking another step toward politics, and this time it is the bloggers.
Liberal bloggers are creating a political action committee (PAC) to recruit more liberal candidates for elections. This is being done in conjunction with MoveOn.org, a extremely leftist organization that funnels money from rich supporters to the Democratic cause. This could serve as an indicator that some on the left are not too pleased with some of President Obama’s concessions to the right. The committee has already raised $500,000 and will target districts “out of touch.”
Sunstein’s case would be that those who read the liberal blogs will then be more convinced in liberal ideologies. If the bloggers say it’s the right thing to do, then they will believe it is because of no other points of view. The other more positive reaction to this new creation is that blogging and the internet has succeeded in leveling the playing field. While most popular bloggers were already well respected, this illustrates the level of power that anyone can attain through the internet. These people saw what they thought was wrong within their own political party and sought a way to remedy it. It can be assumed that they were not friends before their common ground in blogging united them around a cause. The internet was the medium of connection. They have also raised a considerable amount of money through soliciting donations on their blogs. The internet gave them means that may have not been otherwise available.
In the end, this is a case of the internet positively affecting the American political scene. Through proper utilization, users (who could have been anybody) addressed a particular concern of theirs. They harnessed the web’s connecting and empowering attributes, allowing the small to act large. This leveling of the playing field is a key positive characteristic of the internet that will change the way politics is conducted and the level of equality in this country.
Source:
Friday, February 27, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Obama pledges to slash deficit — after increase
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economy;_ylt=AmEZtF5.xF22tssrS.UpOJqyFz4D
This article concerns Barack Obama, and how he recently stated that he really wants to decrease the national budget deficit. However, first he wants to increase the debt by $787 Billion dollars. I find it ironic that he would come out and start talking about how he wants to decrease the national debt simply because now is not the time. If he really believes that the huge bailout plan will work, he should be simply supporting its necessity and worrying about the national debt later. His stance should be more along the lines of, "this bailout is absolutely necessary, because without an economy we will never be able to repay the debt." Instead, he went with a weaker stance saying that although the government is spending a lot now, there will be huge deficit cuts made by the end of the year.
Obama does make a good point though when he states that the national debt will end up leading to another economic crisis in the future if we do not do something to reduce it now. This would mean that all the money spent on the economy would be a complete waste, simply because future generations are going to sink back down to an even worse economy when they try to come up with some of the money necessary to pay off the national debt.
Ironically, just as Obama was making these statements, the democrats in the House of Representatives were proposing a $410 billion spending bill, to keep the government running through the rest of the year. This was also done at the wrong time. Both Obama’s statements about the debt, and introducing a huge spending bill should not be made less than a week after $787 billion dollars were spent. Maybe they could have waited at least a week before talking about spending more money. I can guarantee that a very large portion of the $410 billion is filled by earmarks. Something needs to be done about earmarks because the government cannot afford to spend another $400 million building a bridge to nowhere.
In the same press conference, Obama made remarks to how important social security and health care are. Representative Waxman stated that he thought these issues were far more important than the national debt, and more money should be used to combat these problems. If Obama does this, the national debt will continue to increase. Instead, spending limits need to be put in place, and the debt needs to be watched cautiously, as it will definitely one day become a major problem for this country unless the government realizes that it does not have an unlimited supply of money to spend.
This article concerns Barack Obama, and how he recently stated that he really wants to decrease the national budget deficit. However, first he wants to increase the debt by $787 Billion dollars. I find it ironic that he would come out and start talking about how he wants to decrease the national debt simply because now is not the time. If he really believes that the huge bailout plan will work, he should be simply supporting its necessity and worrying about the national debt later. His stance should be more along the lines of, "this bailout is absolutely necessary, because without an economy we will never be able to repay the debt." Instead, he went with a weaker stance saying that although the government is spending a lot now, there will be huge deficit cuts made by the end of the year.
Obama does make a good point though when he states that the national debt will end up leading to another economic crisis in the future if we do not do something to reduce it now. This would mean that all the money spent on the economy would be a complete waste, simply because future generations are going to sink back down to an even worse economy when they try to come up with some of the money necessary to pay off the national debt.
Ironically, just as Obama was making these statements, the democrats in the House of Representatives were proposing a $410 billion spending bill, to keep the government running through the rest of the year. This was also done at the wrong time. Both Obama’s statements about the debt, and introducing a huge spending bill should not be made less than a week after $787 billion dollars were spent. Maybe they could have waited at least a week before talking about spending more money. I can guarantee that a very large portion of the $410 billion is filled by earmarks. Something needs to be done about earmarks because the government cannot afford to spend another $400 million building a bridge to nowhere.
In the same press conference, Obama made remarks to how important social security and health care are. Representative Waxman stated that he thought these issues were far more important than the national debt, and more money should be used to combat these problems. If Obama does this, the national debt will continue to increase. Instead, spending limits need to be put in place, and the debt needs to be watched cautiously, as it will definitely one day become a major problem for this country unless the government realizes that it does not have an unlimited supply of money to spend.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Finessing 'Moral Hazard' Is Tough in Housing Plan
Even though the Obama administration has not yet released the guidelines for loan modifications that constitute part of his $275 billion housing-relief program, the program is already being faced with plenty of opposition. Obama’s housing-relief program will attempt to help struggling homeowners and curb the foreclosing of more homes. The plan calls for mortgage companies and investors receiving incentive payments to help borrowers who are at risk of defaulting. Many efforts that have previously tried to curb foreclosures have required that borrowers default to get help, but Obama’s plan calls for helping borrowers who haven’t yet defaulted, but are in danger of doing so. The guidelines that have not yet been released are likely to require that mortgage companies verify incomes or financial hardship claims by borrowers to ensure that they cannot afford to make their current mortgage payments. Another aspect of the president’s plan is that borrowers will receive $1000 a year for paying their mortgage payments on time after they are modified.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123517426207837283.html#video%3DF6CDA065-94E6-4B94-8BA6-95C86AD55CD3%26articleTabs%3Darticle
Obama’s plan has the potential to stop the downward spiral of home prices, and help 7-9 million people avoid foreclosure, but is it practical? Is it possible to only provide aid to those who genuinely need and deserve it? No matter how well this plan is executed, individuals who do not need or deserve aid will receive it, and this is the “moral hazard.” Obama states that no aid will be given to those who purchased homes that they knew they couldn’t afford, or to those who claim to not be able to pay their mortgage payments, but who really can pay them. Homeowners who have borrowed more money than they can afford in the past will also not be eligible to receive assistance, however there are ways that individuals may get around these restrictions. One possibility is that borrowers will stop making their payments so that it appears as though they cannot afford them. Also, instead of trying to make their income appear as high as possible on paper to receive loans, borrowers will now want to make their incomes appear as low as possible in order to get help. Obama’s guidelines for loan modifications will weed out some of the borrowers who do not fit the criteria of the plan; however there is no way to weed out every one.
On paper, this plan has the potential to prevent millions of people’s homes to be seized by foreclosure, but in practice it is not going to be as easy or foolproof. Obama can take as many methods as he can think of to ensure that only those fitting the criteria receive aid, but there will always be people who learn how to cheat the system. The president’s administration will have to create and adhere to strict screening guidelines if this plan is going to be successful. We will have to remain optimistic and hope that Obama’s housing-relief program will provide aid to millions of homeowners who actually need it, that it will stop the downward spiral of the housing market, and that it will prevent more foreclosure signs from being posted in the yards of homes in neighborhoods across the country.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123517426207837283.html#video%3DF6CDA065-94E6-4B94-8BA6-95C86AD55CD3%26articleTabs%3Darticle
Obama’s plan has the potential to stop the downward spiral of home prices, and help 7-9 million people avoid foreclosure, but is it practical? Is it possible to only provide aid to those who genuinely need and deserve it? No matter how well this plan is executed, individuals who do not need or deserve aid will receive it, and this is the “moral hazard.” Obama states that no aid will be given to those who purchased homes that they knew they couldn’t afford, or to those who claim to not be able to pay their mortgage payments, but who really can pay them. Homeowners who have borrowed more money than they can afford in the past will also not be eligible to receive assistance, however there are ways that individuals may get around these restrictions. One possibility is that borrowers will stop making their payments so that it appears as though they cannot afford them. Also, instead of trying to make their income appear as high as possible on paper to receive loans, borrowers will now want to make their incomes appear as low as possible in order to get help. Obama’s guidelines for loan modifications will weed out some of the borrowers who do not fit the criteria of the plan; however there is no way to weed out every one.
On paper, this plan has the potential to prevent millions of people’s homes to be seized by foreclosure, but in practice it is not going to be as easy or foolproof. Obama can take as many methods as he can think of to ensure that only those fitting the criteria receive aid, but there will always be people who learn how to cheat the system. The president’s administration will have to create and adhere to strict screening guidelines if this plan is going to be successful. We will have to remain optimistic and hope that Obama’s housing-relief program will provide aid to millions of homeowners who actually need it, that it will stop the downward spiral of the housing market, and that it will prevent more foreclosure signs from being posted in the yards of homes in neighborhoods across the country.
Bipartisanship Didn't Last Long in Obama Era
The First weeks of the Obama administration have been nothing short of eventful. We've had the closing of Gitmo, The Census control issue, and the 800 billion dollar stimulus package. What we have not seen is any form of a bipartisan effort from Washington. Remember months ago during his campaigning, there were promises of "Change". Part of that "change" was to change the way politics worked in Washington. As a matter of fact, Obama charged most of his opponents (McCain & Clinton) with being Washington insiders. By his he meant that they would usher in no new political practices and would be bound by the abundant cynicism in Washington. To these charges, Clinton appropriately replied, "The sky will open. The lights will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect!" She was of course referring to Obama's "Change".
Well we are now weeks into the new administrations rule and we have seen much of the same. Congressmen voting along party lines, bills being passed with no support from the opposing party, and a ruling party enforcing their agenda through the fine print of a multi-billion dollar package. While no one can dispute the amount of action President Obama has taken through his first few weeks, one can address its cost. Washington is still as divided as ever, President Obama has not floated to the middle as predicted, and we still are seeing a majority in congress dismissing the minority.
To recap the latest partisan effort we'll start with the most recent stimulus bill. This bill was bloated with democratic spending and pork projects including hundreds of millions of dollars for sex education and contraceptives for low income families. We are in a recession, and instead of investing more into infrastructure, our Congress is adding party staples to our recovery bill.
It cannot be disputed that Obama can certainly talk the talk, he swooned millions of voter's with his rhetoric. It is now important that he follow through on his campaign promises and work to achieve cooperation within our government. The President now has to make an effort please the minority in Congress instead of blowing bills by them. Central to this bipartisan effort will be his first address to Congress in which he will set the tone for his term in office. He must make it clear that things will be done differently, even though they haven't been thus far.
As our current financial crisis is nowhere near over, future legislation will allow government many oppurtunities to embrace this new spirit. Should they fail to bury party lines, then this administration will be no more about "change" than the last one and President Obama's promises will simply be the promises of a politician - only words.
Well we are now weeks into the new administrations rule and we have seen much of the same. Congressmen voting along party lines, bills being passed with no support from the opposing party, and a ruling party enforcing their agenda through the fine print of a multi-billion dollar package. While no one can dispute the amount of action President Obama has taken through his first few weeks, one can address its cost. Washington is still as divided as ever, President Obama has not floated to the middle as predicted, and we still are seeing a majority in congress dismissing the minority.
To recap the latest partisan effort we'll start with the most recent stimulus bill. This bill was bloated with democratic spending and pork projects including hundreds of millions of dollars for sex education and contraceptives for low income families. We are in a recession, and instead of investing more into infrastructure, our Congress is adding party staples to our recovery bill.
It cannot be disputed that Obama can certainly talk the talk, he swooned millions of voter's with his rhetoric. It is now important that he follow through on his campaign promises and work to achieve cooperation within our government. The President now has to make an effort please the minority in Congress instead of blowing bills by them. Central to this bipartisan effort will be his first address to Congress in which he will set the tone for his term in office. He must make it clear that things will be done differently, even though they haven't been thus far.
As our current financial crisis is nowhere near over, future legislation will allow government many oppurtunities to embrace this new spirit. Should they fail to bury party lines, then this administration will be no more about "change" than the last one and President Obama's promises will simply be the promises of a politician - only words.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Guantánamo Meets Geneva Rules, Pentagon Study Finds
In his second day of office, Barack Obama requested a report on the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay. Obama set a date to shut down the prison, showing his desire lead the nation in a moral and upstanding manner. While much is unknown of the prison, a bit more is to be discovered. The report,set to be delivered to the White House in a few days, supposedly says the facility passes the standards set by the Geneva Conventions. In other words, the study says that the prison is considered to be "humane" enough.
When the news came out that the end of Guantanamo Bay would be arriving soon, there were so many questions that needed to be answered. Nobody knew what kind of impact this would have on America. The answer to this question is still very much unknown, but we now know a bit more about the nature of what went on in the prison. Perhaps it is not the evil institution that so many speculated. So many believed this was a place of torture and completely inhumane treatment. Not to say that some cruel/disturbing/upsetting things have not happened there, but this should prove some of the critics wrong. But now, we have a camp that has passed inspection (if that is how you choose to look at it), holds potentially dangerous detainees, and is doomed to closure.
I really do appreciate Obama's focus on a moral America, but this premature closure was the incorrect thing to do. Why not request the report before the closure? The Obama administration would certainly benefit from a report showing that the prison does not meet the Geneva requirements, but it does not look like this is the case. It is almost impossible to know how valuable or worthless the detention facility is, as there is so much unknown regarding the issue. It seems that the President of the United States did not even know much, as he requested a report to tell him more.
With so much that was not known, it would have made more sense to wait until all the facts were gained to make such a (potentially) drastic move. Obama and his administration should have taken the feedback from this report and used the information to improve the facility, not erase it completely. Obama could have come out and set restrictions and guidelines for the officials and Guantanamo Bay that would enhance the liberties of the detainees, providing them with social and recreational interaction. America would have been able to keep the facility that houses so many that could be dangerous to American citizens while showing it is serious about turning a new leaf.
Now, the government has made things more difficult on itself. These detainees all have to be dealt with in some manner, within one year. Some of the focus will be taken off the economy and the war on terror in an effort to find the right place for all of these people. I realize I'm playing the role of "Monday morning quarterback," but instead of proving to the world that this is a new America, the Obama administration should have waited to close the facility. Now they must deal with the problem they have created: hundreds of detainees and an upcoming deadline.
When the news came out that the end of Guantanamo Bay would be arriving soon, there were so many questions that needed to be answered. Nobody knew what kind of impact this would have on America. The answer to this question is still very much unknown, but we now know a bit more about the nature of what went on in the prison. Perhaps it is not the evil institution that so many speculated. So many believed this was a place of torture and completely inhumane treatment. Not to say that some cruel/disturbing/upsetting things have not happened there, but this should prove some of the critics wrong. But now, we have a camp that has passed inspection (if that is how you choose to look at it), holds potentially dangerous detainees, and is doomed to closure.
I really do appreciate Obama's focus on a moral America, but this premature closure was the incorrect thing to do. Why not request the report before the closure? The Obama administration would certainly benefit from a report showing that the prison does not meet the Geneva requirements, but it does not look like this is the case. It is almost impossible to know how valuable or worthless the detention facility is, as there is so much unknown regarding the issue. It seems that the President of the United States did not even know much, as he requested a report to tell him more.
With so much that was not known, it would have made more sense to wait until all the facts were gained to make such a (potentially) drastic move. Obama and his administration should have taken the feedback from this report and used the information to improve the facility, not erase it completely. Obama could have come out and set restrictions and guidelines for the officials and Guantanamo Bay that would enhance the liberties of the detainees, providing them with social and recreational interaction. America would have been able to keep the facility that houses so many that could be dangerous to American citizens while showing it is serious about turning a new leaf.
Now, the government has made things more difficult on itself. These detainees all have to be dealt with in some manner, within one year. Some of the focus will be taken off the economy and the war on terror in an effort to find the right place for all of these people. I realize I'm playing the role of "Monday morning quarterback," but instead of proving to the world that this is a new America, the Obama administration should have waited to close the facility. Now they must deal with the problem they have created: hundreds of detainees and an upcoming deadline.
Friday, February 20, 2009
"You've Just Entered the No-Spin Zone"- Looking at American Politics through the Eyes of a Different "News"
After watching 19 installments of The Colbert Report's 434 part series- Better Know a District, I couldn't help but wonder where Colbert gets his inspiration. Shortly thereafter, I learned that his highly successful satire is actually aimed at Fox News correspondent and top-rated personality, Bill O'Reilly. When Colbert asks, "George Bush- great president? or the greatest president?" he is making an attack on O'Reilly's obivious preference of the Republican party. Colbert's not the only one- people all over criticize O'Reilly's hit show, The O'Reilly Factor, and Fox News in particular for its conservative perspective. Ideally, we want our media to be unbiased, but part of the Daily Me that Sunstein describes in Web 2.0, suggests we actually seek out news programs that cater to our beliefs. The reality is that no news program, or any media outlet, is really unbiased. Fox News happens to get a lot of heat because it opposes the established liberal bias in the media. We live in a world where bipartisan politics dominate the conversation- it's much easier to choose one side than to get caught in the middle. Bill O'Reilly and Steve Colbert each present the issues, but it's hard to overlook their subliminal agendas. O'Reilly uses intimidation, Colbert uses humor, but both get their point across to the people that want to hear it. The fire that Fox has come under for its support of O'Reilly is explored in an article posted on politico.com in late November, entitled "Murdoch 'absolutely despises' O'Reilly" http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/1108/Wolff_Murdoch_absolutely_despises_OReilly_.html. Murdoch, the global media mogul and Chairman of News Corp. (in charge of Fox News), "despises the bullying, mean-spirited, hugely successful evening commentator". Even the CEO of Fox News disproves of O'Reilly- so the obvious question is: Why is he still on the air? One word- money. O'Reilly's show is the #1 cable news show and is responsible for bringing in a remarkable 4 million viewers on an average weeknight. That translates to a lot of advertising and a lot of exposure for all of News Corp's subsidiaries. Born a businessman, Murdoch knows this, and his belief in a reasonable rate of return trumps any tastelessness that might come from Fox News through Bill O'Reilly. Fiorina looked at the big picture- only 3% of Bush voters in the 2004 election actually watched O'Reilly. This suggests that his influence isn't that far reaching. Still, his biased reporting turns heads in the public sector since Americans still hold onto the fallacy that the news is objective. Murdoch alluded to something that has changed in the past few decades. News has become a business. When there's money to be made, antiquated values are easily compromised. Would you rather make millions of dollars or promote fair journalism? O'Reilly is virtually untouchable because of the revenue he generates and the personality that even those people at Fox seem to hate, is responsible for all that. His willingness to endlessly defend his conservative beliefs about immigration, religion, left-wing politicians, etc. in "The No-Spin Zone" puts him in a love/hate relationship with America public. In addition to becoming a business, the news has also become a form of entertainment. O'Reilly's fiery temper is undeniably entertaining- much like Colbert's ability to convey satire through humor. People look at the news differently, and it is impossible to overlook the effect that this shift is having on American politics.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Obama to Send More Troops to Afghanistan
One of President Barack Obama's main "talking points" throughout his campaign was in regards to reducing the number of American troops in Iraq, and eventually, pulling out of Iraq altogether. This point, as well as his overall stance on the United States' military and troops abroad allowed Obama to gain a strong hold over the American population in terms of votes and popularity. However, now, about one month after President Obama took office, he has decided to send about 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan throughout the spring and summer. After addressing requests from commanders, requesting reinforcements to Afghanistan, Obama has decided that the "deteriorating security in Afghanistan demands urgent attention and swift action to address a problem that has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires," and the way to combat this problem is by sending more troops to Afghanistan. While Obama may believe that sending more troops to Afghanistan will be most beneficial to the United States as a whole, the American public has to wonder why Obama would send more troops abroad before drawing troops out of Iraq.
The only plausible answer is in regards to time. President Obama must feel that he does not have enough time to reduce the number of troops in Iraq before he needs to send more troops to Afghanistan. However, this also brings up the issue of importance. Is it extremely important for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan immediately? If this was considered extremely important, wouldn't former President Bush significantly increase the number of troops in Afghanistan during his Presidency? Many Americans would think yes. While government officials say that these additional troops are needed in order "to help counter growing violence and chaos in the country, particularly in advance of the upcoming presidential elections, which are expected to take place in August," the American public needs to think about the big picture. If Obama can send more troops into Afghanistan almost immediately, doesn't he have the power to draw back the amount of troops in Iraq in a short amount of time too. Many would think the answer is yes. While it may be extremely important to send these troops into Afghanistan throughout the spring and summer, the American public should be able to see a timeline for when these troops, as well as those in Iraq will be able to return home. It is widely known that Barack Obama was elected President in order to bring change to the United States, especially in terms of the military abroad, and now that it seems Obama has become comfortable in Washington, the next step for Obama is to take action in terms of the troops in Iraq.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/02/obama_reportedl_3.html
The Economy Isn't as Bad as We Think
Whenever Obama talks about how bad our economy is, he always compares it to the Great Depression. According to him, the economic turmoil we’re going through now is the worst since that of the Depression. He is exaggerating just how bad our economy is. According to the Schiller article, our current economy is most similar to the economic recession of the ‘80s, not the Depression of the ‘30s.
By exaggerating, Obama is scaring consumers, lowering their confidence, and potentially stalling economic recovery. People are afraid to spend their money because of the economic woes. This is stalling a “spending pickup,” which would possibly help stimulate the economy (Schiller). Without consumers helping the economy, Obama is taking things into his own hands. He recently signed a stimulus package totaling just under $800 billion. Was this the right move? It will take time to truly know, but there may have been some better alternatives for him to take.
With the economy the way it is, maybe it’s not the best idea to be handing out hundreds of billions of dollars to failing businesses. We’re already in trillions of dollars of debt, yet Obama thinks that handing out another $800 billion is a good idea. If he’s wrong, we’ll just be left with an even larger debt. By giving money to these failing businesses, he is not investing in things that will benefit the country in the future. We are focusing on what will benefit us now, which may not necessarily be good for the future. Economics continually change, so things that work now might not be good ten years down the road.
What we should do is give some of this stimulus money to programs that have been in place for years. There are currently unemployment public aid schemes, bankruptcy courts, and the FDIC, which “has been dealing with bank failures for more than 70 years” (Bhide). If we invest in these things, we won’t have to spend such huge sums of money like we are with stimulus packages.Changes may not come about as quickly as they do from stimulus packages, but in the long run, it may be better. We need to proceed cautiously amid such economic turmoil. Throwing money at the problem won’t solve anything.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123457303244386495.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123482908053095381.html
By exaggerating, Obama is scaring consumers, lowering their confidence, and potentially stalling economic recovery. People are afraid to spend their money because of the economic woes. This is stalling a “spending pickup,” which would possibly help stimulate the economy (Schiller). Without consumers helping the economy, Obama is taking things into his own hands. He recently signed a stimulus package totaling just under $800 billion. Was this the right move? It will take time to truly know, but there may have been some better alternatives for him to take.
With the economy the way it is, maybe it’s not the best idea to be handing out hundreds of billions of dollars to failing businesses. We’re already in trillions of dollars of debt, yet Obama thinks that handing out another $800 billion is a good idea. If he’s wrong, we’ll just be left with an even larger debt. By giving money to these failing businesses, he is not investing in things that will benefit the country in the future. We are focusing on what will benefit us now, which may not necessarily be good for the future. Economics continually change, so things that work now might not be good ten years down the road.
What we should do is give some of this stimulus money to programs that have been in place for years. There are currently unemployment public aid schemes, bankruptcy courts, and the FDIC, which “has been dealing with bank failures for more than 70 years” (Bhide). If we invest in these things, we won’t have to spend such huge sums of money like we are with stimulus packages.Changes may not come about as quickly as they do from stimulus packages, but in the long run, it may be better. We need to proceed cautiously amid such economic turmoil. Throwing money at the problem won’t solve anything.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123457303244386495.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123482908053095381.html
Monday, February 16, 2009
Equipping the Air or Un-equipping Our Wallets?
Amongst our nation’s stagnant economy, President Obama is faced with yet another high-costing predicament. President Obama, after slamming high-flying executives traveling in cushy jets at a time of economic turmoil, will have to decide whether to proceed with creating some of the priciest aircrafts in the world. These state of the art aircrafts are said to be “equipped to deflect missile attacks and capable of waging war from the air…being able to fly farther, faster and more safely than the current decades-old craft.” However, with these top-of-the-line aircrafts comes a considerable price tag, $ 400 million per aircraft – creating a contract that has ballooned to about $ 11.2 billion. Isn’t this hypocritical for Obama to pay for these expensive aircrafts after he bashed CEOs of bailed-out companies for their private jets? Or is this a matter of national security? This also ushers in an indicator of what is more important to President Obama – our nation’s defense or our nation’s economy. Are these aircrafts completely necessary or are they merely a waste of time?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/us/politics/16chopper.html?scp=1&sq=&st=nyt
There can be valid arguments from both sides of the spectrum regarding this issue. Opponents to these new aircrafts can say that they are a waste of time, money and resources, which are all essential in our current economic situation. Proponents of creating these aircrafts stress that even though our economy is a major concern, we cannot simply put ALL of our resources into the economy. There are other things that need to be worried about as well, such as the everlasting possibility of terrorist attacks, especially on the president. Both sides of this argument can make valid points; however, these aircrafts should be made and can actually provide a slight boost to the economy through creating jobs to have these helicopters manufactured. Providing necessary jobs, thus decreasing the unemployment rate, can be accomplished through the defense industry if creating these new planes for the president is approved.
This project, called with VH-71 project, includes a quick first batch of five new helicopters with better equipment than the current fleet. Then this would be followed by 23 much more sophisticated aircrafts that would ultimately take over flying the president, the vice president and the defense secretary, among others. 23 aircrafts seems like an unnecessary amount of aircrafts, in which most of them may not even be used. It would be a lot more cost-efficient, especially during these times, to “trim down” the amount of helicopters needed to what is completely necessary among the current financial situation we are in. However, the need for these aircrafts amongst these turbulent times remains apparent. By not approving this contract, it would become apparent that president Obama’s main and sole focus is on our economy. Obama should not let other aspects of our nation, such as our defense, falter as a result of “tunnel vision” focused on our economy. These aircrafts are necessary to remain a respected nation, and can actually help out the economy by providing jobs to some of the bidding aircraft suppliers such as Sikorsky Aircraft and Lockheed Martin.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/us/politics/16chopper.html?scp=1&sq=&st=nyt
There can be valid arguments from both sides of the spectrum regarding this issue. Opponents to these new aircrafts can say that they are a waste of time, money and resources, which are all essential in our current economic situation. Proponents of creating these aircrafts stress that even though our economy is a major concern, we cannot simply put ALL of our resources into the economy. There are other things that need to be worried about as well, such as the everlasting possibility of terrorist attacks, especially on the president. Both sides of this argument can make valid points; however, these aircrafts should be made and can actually provide a slight boost to the economy through creating jobs to have these helicopters manufactured. Providing necessary jobs, thus decreasing the unemployment rate, can be accomplished through the defense industry if creating these new planes for the president is approved.
This project, called with VH-71 project, includes a quick first batch of five new helicopters with better equipment than the current fleet. Then this would be followed by 23 much more sophisticated aircrafts that would ultimately take over flying the president, the vice president and the defense secretary, among others. 23 aircrafts seems like an unnecessary amount of aircrafts, in which most of them may not even be used. It would be a lot more cost-efficient, especially during these times, to “trim down” the amount of helicopters needed to what is completely necessary among the current financial situation we are in. However, the need for these aircrafts amongst these turbulent times remains apparent. By not approving this contract, it would become apparent that president Obama’s main and sole focus is on our economy. Obama should not let other aspects of our nation, such as our defense, falter as a result of “tunnel vision” focused on our economy. These aircrafts are necessary to remain a respected nation, and can actually help out the economy by providing jobs to some of the bidding aircraft suppliers such as Sikorsky Aircraft and Lockheed Martin.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Stimulus Decisions
The miracle stimulus package promised by President Barack Obama’s campaign is now working its way through congress. With the support of a democratic majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives the bill is likely to pass quickly but that does not mean that it will go uncontested. Republicans are concentrating upon a few key parts of the controversial bill to dispute such as state and local aid, tax cuts, and extravagant social spending. While the democrats have the power in both the House and the Senate to practically disregard the republicans, it would be smart to continue to work towards bipartisanship and listen to some of the republican arguments.
One of the most controversial parts of the bill is the proposed $40 Billion of aid to be given to states. Many people think that the federal government is seriously over stepping its bounds by interfering with state spending and are worried about the equality of the distribution of the funds. This money would go to help support state and local services as well as keeping public employees employed. Although this would distribute itself rather quickly it has been seriously questioned that it would actually improve the economy. It is seen as a superfluous addition to the bill which will quickly act to help the loss of jobs but will not create jobs or improve the economy in any way.
Another issue that has been heavily debated is the form of tax relief that should be given. President Obama was largely elected on a tax platform of relief for middle-class Americans yet some of the latest reforms to the bill are making these tax breaks harder to get. By lowering the maximum income to claim the tax credit the bill is able to support provisions that are put in place to boost spending in the auto and real estate markets. New home buyers would be able to receive 10 percent of their home cost or up to $15,000 of tax credit. The other idea is to increase car sales by providing $11 billion in tax breaks to deduct any sales tax and the first year of loan interest. These tax breaks seem like great ideas to boost the consumer markets but one must wonder if this money is being spent wisely. The last time that it was easy to buy a car or a house the credit markets collapsed once people became overspent and the country ended up in the economic dumpster that it is in now.
The last fear that is connected with this bill is that the democrats will disguise social spending as stimulus options simply adding to the national debt. Some of the things like local construction have many parts to it. Many Republicans believe that the federal government should not be contributing to local spending. At the same time the idea has been put forward to make sure to buy American when doing this process. This would have a huge impact upon the American economy as it not only creates jobs in public works but could help the American steel industry and many other struggling American manufacturing industries. Some of the other proposed reductions are things like aid given to NASA and the National Science Foundation. The idea is to provide support to a wide range of industries in the hope of retaining and creating jobs but the line between wasting money and a successful stimulus package is very blurry. It is important that congress remembers that the best way to create and effective stimulus package is going to be by a bipartisan effort to make sure that every dollar is accounted for and spent wisely.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/us/politics/08stimulus.html?pagewanted=1&bl&ei=5087&en=800722cbd5904cc4&ex=1234328400
One of the most controversial parts of the bill is the proposed $40 Billion of aid to be given to states. Many people think that the federal government is seriously over stepping its bounds by interfering with state spending and are worried about the equality of the distribution of the funds. This money would go to help support state and local services as well as keeping public employees employed. Although this would distribute itself rather quickly it has been seriously questioned that it would actually improve the economy. It is seen as a superfluous addition to the bill which will quickly act to help the loss of jobs but will not create jobs or improve the economy in any way.
Another issue that has been heavily debated is the form of tax relief that should be given. President Obama was largely elected on a tax platform of relief for middle-class Americans yet some of the latest reforms to the bill are making these tax breaks harder to get. By lowering the maximum income to claim the tax credit the bill is able to support provisions that are put in place to boost spending in the auto and real estate markets. New home buyers would be able to receive 10 percent of their home cost or up to $15,000 of tax credit. The other idea is to increase car sales by providing $11 billion in tax breaks to deduct any sales tax and the first year of loan interest. These tax breaks seem like great ideas to boost the consumer markets but one must wonder if this money is being spent wisely. The last time that it was easy to buy a car or a house the credit markets collapsed once people became overspent and the country ended up in the economic dumpster that it is in now.
The last fear that is connected with this bill is that the democrats will disguise social spending as stimulus options simply adding to the national debt. Some of the things like local construction have many parts to it. Many Republicans believe that the federal government should not be contributing to local spending. At the same time the idea has been put forward to make sure to buy American when doing this process. This would have a huge impact upon the American economy as it not only creates jobs in public works but could help the American steel industry and many other struggling American manufacturing industries. Some of the other proposed reductions are things like aid given to NASA and the National Science Foundation. The idea is to provide support to a wide range of industries in the hope of retaining and creating jobs but the line between wasting money and a successful stimulus package is very blurry. It is important that congress remembers that the best way to create and effective stimulus package is going to be by a bipartisan effort to make sure that every dollar is accounted for and spent wisely.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/us/politics/08stimulus.html?pagewanted=1&bl&ei=5087&en=800722cbd5904cc4&ex=1234328400
Obama Moves Census Control
Last week, President Obama has moved the census out of the control of the Secretary of Commerce into the control of the White House, in a move that can only be described as purely political. Typically, the census is headed by the Secretary of Commerce. However, after a withdrawal from Democrat Bill Richardson, Obama’s new Commerce Secretary is Republican Judd Gregg. This has caused many minority leaders, mainly Barbara Lee, to question Gregg’s ability to conduct an inclusive census. These allegations have led Obama to make the change.
The traditional way of counting US citizens is by going door to door and getting a hard count. Democrats wish to change the way the census is taken and implement a sampling strategy. This means that general statistics about a certain area will essentially be estimated. The Democrats feel that sampling helps count the minorities and homeless in urban areas that are often miscounted. This sampling method is not the best option. Even if it can compensate for the miscounted (which studies proved it does not do better than the hard count), it cannot place them into a precise enough area for it to be effective. Obama will exploit this flaw in the next census to redistrict political boundaries to favor himself. This was shown when Utah, a conservative state, was denied a fourth seat in the House after the last census was taken under Bill Clinton. This gerrymandering will help him gain votes in the Electoral College, and will completely skew the way federal funds will be appropriated to their respective districts.
Secondly, this change is not only political, I believe it is illegal. The Federal Statute “Title 13” states that the census can only be performed “as an agency within, and under the jurisdiction of, the Department of Commerce” (13 U.S.C. 2.). It also states that the census can only be viewed by “sworn officers of the Department.” If the White House has direct control over the census, it is very well possible that this confidentiality will be breached, thus breaking the law even further.
As you can see, President Obama’s decision to move control of the census is nothing but political. The census should remain in the control of Secretary of Commerce Judd Gregg, and the sampling method of counting should not be considered.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/09/gop-sounds-alarm-obama-decision-census-white-house/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423384887066377.html
Tests from Abroad
Three developments outside the borders of the United States in the past week that have received less publicity than the economic crisis and other national problems are listed below:
- Iran launched its first satellite into orbit, demonstrating that its missile technology, with all its inescapable military implications, is inching forward.
- Pakistan freed A.Q. Khan, the creator of the Pakistani nuclear bomb and the seller of nuclear secrets to unsavory characters around the world.
- The government of Kyrgyzstan, likely acting in concert with its Russian benefactors, ordered the closure of a crucial American air base in its country, robbing the U.S. of a key facility in the struggle to contain the Taliban in nearby Afghanistan.
These developments abroad seem to be quite unwelcome. The launch of the satellite by Iran can be attributed to coincidence. The other two occurrences may be a result of something more intentional and possibly sinister.
The freedom of A.Q. Khan could be considered troubling. The concurrent launch of the satellite by Iran, which proves the advance of the military technology of Iran, and the release of a seller of nuclear secrets could cause unrest from Americans. There is no evidence that Khan has any intention of even contacting anyone in Iran; however the process of his release is questionable. The Pakistani government has decided not to appeal the decision of his release, which was classified by the article as “perplexing.” Also, it is not the case that Iran is likely to take offensive action against the United States so there is little need for any immediate worry.
The circumstances surrounding the closure of the American air base in Kyrgyzstan is definitely poses the most severe problem. It is far more likely that this was an act against America than the other two; it is unlikely coincidence that as soon as President Obama wished to send more troops there, the based was closed. It is also unlikely a coincidence that the $2 billion that Russia handed the Krygyz government is unrelated.
The release of Khan and the closure of the American air base in Kyrgyzstan could be a reflection on the Obama administration. It could be perceived that Obama is less likely to take immediate military action than the Bush administration, which is why Pakistan and Kyrgyzstan waited to take action. Vice President Biden has declared that the new administration will take the time to talk, and to consult (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/02/07/8375/). Whether these occurrences are coincidence or a reflection on the Obama administration is up to interpretation and remains to be seen.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123421528140065101.html
You Try to Live on 500K in this Town
Obama wants to set $500,000 as the top pay for banking executives whose firms accept government bailout money. Why 500K? Was it an arbitrary amount? Is it the magic number? Does it just sound good? And the most important question; is it enough? One must remember that the values of things are different depending on where you are. Some things to consider about a banker living in New York City: Mortgage 96,000 a year, Co-op Maintenance fee 96,000 a year, school tuition 32,000 a year per student, and the list goes on and on. To a lot of people $500,000 is a lot, and don’t get me wrong, I think it is too. But when things are laid out and broken down, maybe it’s not as much as we initially thought.
But there’s a detail I’ve skipped over, many would argue, a very important detail indeed. The limit is for the banking executives whose firms accepted government bailout money. Why should a select number of people get to take our money and then pay themselves with it? That’s not fair. Well, that’s the way it works sometimes. Remember all the controversy when CEOs of the auto industry flew on their private jets to D.C. to ask for money? Who do they think they are? Let’s be honest, if you had a private jet you wouldn’t be so eager to trade it in for a coach seat either. American society is driven by self-interest; to take that away would alter who we are as a society.
Let’s think big…if we start setting limits on a couple banking executives’ salaries today, when are we going to set limits on the people in the next tier down? Or what’s the next industry to have salary caps? Please someone tell me so I know not to get a degree in an industry where my salary is already predetermined. We live in the United States; the idea of the American Dream motivates the citizens. To take away the idea that the sky is the limit is wrong.
The economy is bad, that’s no secret, but this is not the answer. So what do we do? We should focus less on the people making money and more on the ones that aren’t. Simply put, we need jobs. What if a tax incentive is given to businesses that don’t lay people off, or even better, hire a certain amount of people? Instead of limiting earning potential in America, let’s try to create it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashion/08halfmill.html?em
But there’s a detail I’ve skipped over, many would argue, a very important detail indeed. The limit is for the banking executives whose firms accepted government bailout money. Why should a select number of people get to take our money and then pay themselves with it? That’s not fair. Well, that’s the way it works sometimes. Remember all the controversy when CEOs of the auto industry flew on their private jets to D.C. to ask for money? Who do they think they are? Let’s be honest, if you had a private jet you wouldn’t be so eager to trade it in for a coach seat either. American society is driven by self-interest; to take that away would alter who we are as a society.
Let’s think big…if we start setting limits on a couple banking executives’ salaries today, when are we going to set limits on the people in the next tier down? Or what’s the next industry to have salary caps? Please someone tell me so I know not to get a degree in an industry where my salary is already predetermined. We live in the United States; the idea of the American Dream motivates the citizens. To take away the idea that the sky is the limit is wrong.
The economy is bad, that’s no secret, but this is not the answer. So what do we do? We should focus less on the people making money and more on the ones that aren’t. Simply put, we need jobs. What if a tax incentive is given to businesses that don’t lay people off, or even better, hire a certain amount of people? Instead of limiting earning potential in America, let’s try to create it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashion/08halfmill.html?em
The Virginia Tech Betrayal
A gun control proposal in memory of the Virginia Tech shooting was rejected in Richmond, Virginia this past week. The proposal pushed for an end to "sportsmen's shows" in which people can go and purchase guns with no background checks required. These shows serve as loopholes where felons and deranged people are able to purchase weapons where as they would be rejected at a local gun shop. Are these shows really the reason behind illegal gun procession? I'm sure that there are tons of ways to get illegal weapons in this country. Gun shows may be a small part of the problem but nothing more. I believe that there are many dealers that either buy guns legally and then sell them illegally or import weapons from other countries illegally.
Banning gun shows would be a start to getting guns under control in this country however to truly deal with the problem more must be done. The United States has the highest gun related deaths out of any country in the world. (MedicineNet.com) This problem needs to be addressed in an appropriate manner. I am not in support of a total ban on firearms. A complete ban would be a violation of the second amendment and I believe that guns are a part of this country's history. What I would propose is a ban on all handheld and assault weapons. I think this solution would take care of the problems that guns cause while still pleasing hunters and stark Republicans that want to hold on to their rifles. Handheld guns such as pistols are the real threat to safety as they are the easiest weapon to conceal. Most gun related deaths in the United States are caused by pistols. Think about it. People aren't going to be carrying around rifles with the intention of using them against others because there’s no way of easily concealing them. As for assault rifles, these are absolutely unnecessary and serve no purpose what so ever. I believe that these should be used strictly for military purpose and to be honest I have no idea how they are still legal for personal use today. Banning these types of weapons would not eliminate gun deaths obviously but I do believe that it would lower these deaths dramatically.
As I noted above the only guns that would be legal in my plan would be rifles and shotguns (not including sawed-off shot guns). This allows for people to still use their guns for hunting, which I see as the only reason for keeping guns around. I believe that by just simply eliminating these gun shows would not solve the problem. People that plan to obtain guns illegally from the shows will just find another way to acquire them. Gun control is a very touchy subject because even though the logical reasoning would be to eliminate them, not everyone agrees. I think that the plan I suggested does a decent job of accommodating both sides. Of course eliminating handheld and assault guns will not be easy but it’s a solution that just might work.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/opinion/08sun3.html
Banning gun shows would be a start to getting guns under control in this country however to truly deal with the problem more must be done. The United States has the highest gun related deaths out of any country in the world. (MedicineNet.com) This problem needs to be addressed in an appropriate manner. I am not in support of a total ban on firearms. A complete ban would be a violation of the second amendment and I believe that guns are a part of this country's history. What I would propose is a ban on all handheld and assault weapons. I think this solution would take care of the problems that guns cause while still pleasing hunters and stark Republicans that want to hold on to their rifles. Handheld guns such as pistols are the real threat to safety as they are the easiest weapon to conceal. Most gun related deaths in the United States are caused by pistols. Think about it. People aren't going to be carrying around rifles with the intention of using them against others because there’s no way of easily concealing them. As for assault rifles, these are absolutely unnecessary and serve no purpose what so ever. I believe that these should be used strictly for military purpose and to be honest I have no idea how they are still legal for personal use today. Banning these types of weapons would not eliminate gun deaths obviously but I do believe that it would lower these deaths dramatically.
As I noted above the only guns that would be legal in my plan would be rifles and shotguns (not including sawed-off shot guns). This allows for people to still use their guns for hunting, which I see as the only reason for keeping guns around. I believe that by just simply eliminating these gun shows would not solve the problem. People that plan to obtain guns illegally from the shows will just find another way to acquire them. Gun control is a very touchy subject because even though the logical reasoning would be to eliminate them, not everyone agrees. I think that the plan I suggested does a decent job of accommodating both sides. Of course eliminating handheld and assault guns will not be easy but it’s a solution that just might work.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/opinion/08sun3.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)