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
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
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)