Recently, in class, we did an economics section of "random economic lives," from a single person making $70,000 a year, to the US median, down to welfare. The results were quite interesting.
As suggested by the title of this post in mind my the most interesting aspects of the activity involved the redistribution of wealth, through welfare, unemployment, and other such programs programs. The key question being, how much money should these "safety net" programs dispense. Now the answers from the two extremes, Communism and Laissez-Faire Capitalism, are respectively, everyone should get enough so that everyone is equal, and that there should be no government assistance, the market will take care of everything.
Now I believe, and I think it is a widely shared belief, that the right amount lies somewhere in between these two extremes. How much however, is one of the biggest political questions today. The Democratic Party generally favors more, while the Republics generally favor less.
I find myself, as I usually do, on the Democratic side of this debate. For a Family of four, the current month payout is $900, with $500 worth of Food Stamps. (http://www.welfareinfo.org/payments/) Now, According to the United States Department of Agriculture, in December of 2008, even with the thriftiest of plans a family of four could expect to pay between $500-$600 for food every month. Leaving $800-$900 Dollars for every other need: shelter, clothing, heat, electricity, water. This seems too low, and I believe that these benefits should be made higher.
However, especially in these tough economic times, when more people than ever may be needing this aid, it may not be possible to increase these benefits. Raising taxes now seems like a bad idea, perhaps, money saved from others sources, (winding down the war in Iraq?) could be used to raise these benefits.
Finally, one other interesting result, when I was using checking the data for the United States Median income, I noticed something interesting. My hypothetical US median family was renting an apartment, and not saving any money, yet when I check the Home ownership statistics for 2005 (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/annual05/ann05t12.html), nearly 70% own a home, meaning not only would people at that income level be buying homes, but people making significantly less would also. I could see that it is possible, but only with very careful budgeting. This may have contributed to the housing crisis.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Sunday, January 11, 2009
An unsolvable problem?
Israel and Palestine have been fighting for more than half a century now, since Israel was created. The problem seems unsolvable, as violence breaks out regularly despite any peace proposals. Furthermore there is no clear solution in sight. In the past several years, a new element has been added, complicating this already complicated region, as now Hamas, a more radical group controls the Gaza strip, and Fatah, the more moderate group, the West Bank. Now Israel has attacked the Gaza strip.
This humanitarian disaster must be controlled. According to the BBC, "Palestinian medics say 879 people have been killed during the 16-day conflict. Thirteen Israelis have died." Just today, "Palestinian sources said 29 people were killed across Gaza on Sunday - 17 in Gaza City.
Israeli officials said at least 12 rockets were fired by Palestinian militants into southern Israel." Furthermore it is only going to get worse as the day goes on.
The United Nations has called for an immediate end to the conflict, a ceasefire. And if either side would agree to it, it would be a good thing, however it would not address the fundamental causes of the conflict and would only be a short term solution.
The most likely hope for a reasonable solution to this conflict will come from some of the moderate Arab nations in the area. They have an interest in maintaining stability and have credibility with both sides. There are multiple plans out there, one of which, the Syria-Qatar-Turkey plan has already been accepted by Hamas, according to the Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper.
This plan calls for cease-fire from both sides, the Israeli army and Hamas, the withdrawal of Israeli army from the Gaza immediately, return to the truce agreement signed back in June between Hamas and Israel, the formation of a special committee to open the crossings into the Gaza Strip, an international conference of donors to rebuild Gaza.
Obviously this plan favors Hamas, but perhaps this plan, or some elements of it can be used as a starting point for negotiation that may ultimately lead to a settlement.
Ending this conflict itself is a worthy enough goal, however, a more long lasting solution in needed. Many previous peace agreements have broken down, I hope all of the parties to this conflict, as well as involved third parties can work towards a treaty, that if it is not completely satisfactory to both sides, they can both live with it.
This humanitarian disaster must be controlled. According to the BBC, "Palestinian medics say 879 people have been killed during the 16-day conflict. Thirteen Israelis have died." Just today, "Palestinian sources said 29 people were killed across Gaza on Sunday - 17 in Gaza City.
Israeli officials said at least 12 rockets were fired by Palestinian militants into southern Israel." Furthermore it is only going to get worse as the day goes on.
The United Nations has called for an immediate end to the conflict, a ceasefire. And if either side would agree to it, it would be a good thing, however it would not address the fundamental causes of the conflict and would only be a short term solution.
The most likely hope for a reasonable solution to this conflict will come from some of the moderate Arab nations in the area. They have an interest in maintaining stability and have credibility with both sides. There are multiple plans out there, one of which, the Syria-Qatar-Turkey plan has already been accepted by Hamas, according to the Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper.
This plan calls for cease-fire from both sides, the Israeli army and Hamas, the withdrawal of Israeli army from the Gaza immediately, return to the truce agreement signed back in June between Hamas and Israel, the formation of a special committee to open the crossings into the Gaza Strip, an international conference of donors to rebuild Gaza.
Obviously this plan favors Hamas, but perhaps this plan, or some elements of it can be used as a starting point for negotiation that may ultimately lead to a settlement.
Ending this conflict itself is a worthy enough goal, however, a more long lasting solution in needed. Many previous peace agreements have broken down, I hope all of the parties to this conflict, as well as involved third parties can work towards a treaty, that if it is not completely satisfactory to both sides, they can both live with it.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Revolution and Changing Governments.
History holds many examples of governments changing from Democratic to Autocratic governments and vice versa. Most are violent and happen through revolution, though not all are. Perhaps the slowest example is in England, where over a centuries long period the monarchs and Aristocrats gave up power beginning with the Magna Carta in 1215. Others have been more sudden but also free from violence, including many of the revolutions in Eastern Europe at the end of the cold war. But not all changes of government are toward the democratic side. The ancient Roman government, first a republic became a dictatorship in a rebellion. However, after the Romans overthrew the dictatorship of Julius Caesar the change to an empire, under Augustus Caesar was much more subltely done. History has many examples of governments changing in both directions, and at various speeds, from a lightning fast revolution to a centuries long process.
Today, governments can still change, something we see fairly often, though usually in smaller, developing nations.
One question now is, could China, the largest of the few remaining communist nations transition to a more open and democratic society. The answer is yes, several decades ago, China was much more of a closed society, and much more under state control. If these trends continue, which they seem likely to, China will become a democratic society. The leadership of the China, which normally would have the greatest reasons to oppose such a change, seem to see that progress in these areas are for their own and the national good. If however these leaders change their positions, the change will most likely take much longer and will possibly be bloodier.
A second questions, is can a modern developed democracy like the United States, go in the other direction, towards autocracy. The answer, unfortunately seems to be yes. It is easy when an emergency takes place to allow the government more power, only to deal with the crisis of course. Unfortunately, there are people who would use the government to gain personal power. And it is these emergency powers that are dangerous. One example in the recent history of the United States is the Patriot Act, it grants the government broad powers to spy on its own citizens. Americans must be vigilant, that their leaders are truely looking out for them, and the United States.
Today, governments can still change, something we see fairly often, though usually in smaller, developing nations.
One question now is, could China, the largest of the few remaining communist nations transition to a more open and democratic society. The answer is yes, several decades ago, China was much more of a closed society, and much more under state control. If these trends continue, which they seem likely to, China will become a democratic society. The leadership of the China, which normally would have the greatest reasons to oppose such a change, seem to see that progress in these areas are for their own and the national good. If however these leaders change their positions, the change will most likely take much longer and will possibly be bloodier.
A second questions, is can a modern developed democracy like the United States, go in the other direction, towards autocracy. The answer, unfortunately seems to be yes. It is easy when an emergency takes place to allow the government more power, only to deal with the crisis of course. Unfortunately, there are people who would use the government to gain personal power. And it is these emergency powers that are dangerous. One example in the recent history of the United States is the Patriot Act, it grants the government broad powers to spy on its own citizens. Americans must be vigilant, that their leaders are truely looking out for them, and the United States.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Polical Parties
I am on the liberal side of the political spectrum, and I believe that in general, the Democrats have the best plan to run the nation. If the Democrats were given an overwhelming mandate at all levels of government, I believe some very effective policies and legislation would result. I believe a government with a Democratic super-majority would be able to allow the government to intervene much more quickly and effectively when action in needed. Furthermore, I believe a Democratic government would restore and keep our standing in the international community high, unlike the previous republican administration. Finally, I believe that a Democratic administration would be able to solve the serious problems presented by climate change and other environmental problems, unlike the Republican Party with its many ties to industry.
However, while I believe an overwhelming Democratic mandate would be a good thing, prolonged single party rule is a terrible thing. It is said “power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” And anyone with that much prolonged power would become corrupts, just look at any single party state, like the old USSR. Furthermore, multiple parties are needed to force the party in power to discuss issues, in my opinion, given the two parties' politics the most important one the Republicans could bring up might be fiscal conservatism. In conclusion, I hope that the Democrats receive large mandates in the future, though I believe that Debate must continue.
However, while I believe an overwhelming Democratic mandate would be a good thing, prolonged single party rule is a terrible thing. It is said “power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” And anyone with that much prolonged power would become corrupts, just look at any single party state, like the old USSR. Furthermore, multiple parties are needed to force the party in power to discuss issues, in my opinion, given the two parties' politics the most important one the Republicans could bring up might be fiscal conservatism. In conclusion, I hope that the Democrats receive large mandates in the future, though I believe that Debate must continue.
Monday, November 24, 2008
New York Budget Deficit
The budget of New York is facing a major budget shortfall for the 2008-2009 fiscal year, approximately $12 Billion Dollars. That is by almost any standard a huge ammount of money. That is more than 14% of the 2007-2008 budget, which does not account for inflation. So unlike every other year in the recent past it seems the New York Budget will have to shrink instead of growing.
Unfortunatly, there seems to be little agreement on what to do in Albany, even when only dealing with this years much smaller deficit. Govenor Patterson has proposed a number of cuts, but each special intrest rallied to protect its share of the money. If we are to deal with next years problems much action must be taken.
Politically the easy way out is to call for cutting things like member items, however this is a poorly thought out plan, these member items, while they may be misspent make up relatively little of the state budget, not nearly enough to even make a dent in this huge shortfall. This process certainly needs to be reformed, but it will not solve this crisis.
As much as we may hate it, the true answer lies in cutting medicaid and schools. These two areas each make up more than one quarter of the state budget, and therefore, much of the burden must fall on them. Perhaps the formula by which school aid is allocated so that schools that are more well off and doing better can get a greater reduction so that the schools who need the money more can get a lesser cut. Legislators in Albany who have long defended there districts share of the pie need to look beyond to the state's problems as a whole. Perhaps medicaid can save money on both sides of the equations, first, by slightly increasing the co-pay they ask the participants to pay, second, by decreasing the pay out to the doctors, hospitals and surgeons.
Another solution we must consider, however much we would like to avoid it is raising taxes. New York has some of the highest taxes in the nation, and during tough economic times raising taxes seems like one of the worst things we could do. Some propose taxing the wealth, however, the rich, unlike some other groups can easily relocate to another state. Perhaps another solution would be to increase taxes slightly across the board, and close some tax loopholes. Despite the possibilty of increased tax revenues, I feel that cutting spending is the better solution
These are not the only areas that can be cut, but as they make up the largest share of our budget, it is nearly impossible to balance the budget without decreasing them. We cannot decive ourselves, these cuts will be painful, however, they must be made.
Unfortunatly, there seems to be little agreement on what to do in Albany, even when only dealing with this years much smaller deficit. Govenor Patterson has proposed a number of cuts, but each special intrest rallied to protect its share of the money. If we are to deal with next years problems much action must be taken.
Politically the easy way out is to call for cutting things like member items, however this is a poorly thought out plan, these member items, while they may be misspent make up relatively little of the state budget, not nearly enough to even make a dent in this huge shortfall. This process certainly needs to be reformed, but it will not solve this crisis.
As much as we may hate it, the true answer lies in cutting medicaid and schools. These two areas each make up more than one quarter of the state budget, and therefore, much of the burden must fall on them. Perhaps the formula by which school aid is allocated so that schools that are more well off and doing better can get a greater reduction so that the schools who need the money more can get a lesser cut. Legislators in Albany who have long defended there districts share of the pie need to look beyond to the state's problems as a whole. Perhaps medicaid can save money on both sides of the equations, first, by slightly increasing the co-pay they ask the participants to pay, second, by decreasing the pay out to the doctors, hospitals and surgeons.
Another solution we must consider, however much we would like to avoid it is raising taxes. New York has some of the highest taxes in the nation, and during tough economic times raising taxes seems like one of the worst things we could do. Some propose taxing the wealth, however, the rich, unlike some other groups can easily relocate to another state. Perhaps another solution would be to increase taxes slightly across the board, and close some tax loopholes. Despite the possibilty of increased tax revenues, I feel that cutting spending is the better solution
These are not the only areas that can be cut, but as they make up the largest share of our budget, it is nearly impossible to balance the budget without decreasing them. We cannot decive ourselves, these cuts will be painful, however, they must be made.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
China and Human Rights
This blog post will significantly depart from the topic of the previous ones, as yesterday, I attended a presentation my several practitioners of Falun Gong. Falun Gong is notable as it is a major religious group in China, and one that has been severely persecuted. Even if one allows for the reports to be grossly exaggerated, these persecutions would still be a terrible human rights issue.
Unfortunately, as much as I wish we could, there seems to be little we can do about this issue. While the United States could impose sanctions, or attempt to use other economic methods, we need China as much or more as they need us. Furthermore, they hold huge amount of US treasury Debt, and you have to assume, that they would use these as an economic weapon against us. The United Nations would seem to be another non-starter as far as dealing with China is concerned as, China holds a security counsel veto, meaning it would be able to prevent any resolutions against itself. And even if the situation were bad enough to warrant military action, something I believe is not true, the US, even with NATO support, would most likely be unable to defeat China in a conventional war, especially with all of our other military commitments. Therefore, I must conclude that there is very little that the world can do to influence China, on this or other internal policies.
With that in mind, the only real solution seems to be an internal one. In my opinion, the solution seems to lie in the resource often followed by the oppressed, civil disobedience. Saint Augustine said that "An unjust law is no law at all," and this has been the guiding tenet of civil disobedience since. In the 1920s and 1930s, Gandhi used civil disobedience to push for Indian independence, a goal that he ultimately achieved. Other examples include Martin Luthor King Jr. and the American civil rights movement and Nelson Mandela and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. It is my hope that these techniques may also be applied in this case, though they may prove less effective in communist controlled China than in the democratic nations that these movements have previously been used in.
In conclusion, China's human rights practices are terrible, Falun Gong's treatment is only one element of a wide problem. However, the international community, including the United States, seems to have little leverage to affect this situation, though that should not stop us from using what we have. Thus the majority of the solution mus come from inside China, and the best hope for that is civil disobedience.
Unfortunately, as much as I wish we could, there seems to be little we can do about this issue. While the United States could impose sanctions, or attempt to use other economic methods, we need China as much or more as they need us. Furthermore, they hold huge amount of US treasury Debt, and you have to assume, that they would use these as an economic weapon against us. The United Nations would seem to be another non-starter as far as dealing with China is concerned as, China holds a security counsel veto, meaning it would be able to prevent any resolutions against itself. And even if the situation were bad enough to warrant military action, something I believe is not true, the US, even with NATO support, would most likely be unable to defeat China in a conventional war, especially with all of our other military commitments. Therefore, I must conclude that there is very little that the world can do to influence China, on this or other internal policies.
With that in mind, the only real solution seems to be an internal one. In my opinion, the solution seems to lie in the resource often followed by the oppressed, civil disobedience. Saint Augustine said that "An unjust law is no law at all," and this has been the guiding tenet of civil disobedience since. In the 1920s and 1930s, Gandhi used civil disobedience to push for Indian independence, a goal that he ultimately achieved. Other examples include Martin Luthor King Jr. and the American civil rights movement and Nelson Mandela and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. It is my hope that these techniques may also be applied in this case, though they may prove less effective in communist controlled China than in the democratic nations that these movements have previously been used in.
In conclusion, China's human rights practices are terrible, Falun Gong's treatment is only one element of a wide problem. However, the international community, including the United States, seems to have little leverage to affect this situation, though that should not stop us from using what we have. Thus the majority of the solution mus come from inside China, and the best hope for that is civil disobedience.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
The Oct 7th Debate
I am writing this during and after the presidential debate on October the Seventh.
While this debate did not revolutionize the election it certainly helped to define the positions of both candidates. The next president, be it John McCain or Barrack Obama, will face some of the toughest challenges any incoming president has ever faced certainly the toughest since FDR.
Tonight's debate has helped us to see how each candidate will handle many of the issues, from the economic crisis to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the energy crisis and a looming social security shortfall. The most short term issue, the economic crisis was the most among the most contentious as both candidates attempted to be the one who predicted the crisis. However, it seems Obama has the advantage here as he unlike McCain has been pro-regulation for a long time. Tax policy is one issue where Obama and McCain differed significantly, McCain wants to give tax cuts to the wealthy and to business, subscribing to the so called "trickle-down" effect, while Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich and big business. Health Care was another issue on which the candidates differed sharply, Obama wants the government to get much more involved with the problem, different people would benefit under each plan. Consumer reports discusses which demographics fare best under each plan in detail. Foreign policy and National defense were much more evenly balanced, with McCain's advantages being his long experience in the area as well as his support for the seemingly effective surge in Iraq, while Barrack Obama had the advantage of opposing the Iraq war from the beginning. On Energy there seemed to be little to tell the candidates apart aside form a slightly increase emphasis on green energy on Obama's side. One more interesting this debate gives us clues to are the candidates personalities. Barrack Obama remained calm and cool throughout the debate in contrast, McCain seemed annoyed almost angry when Obama was speaking. Though it is my personal view I feel a calm chief executive is best for America.
At this point with less than one month to the election to go, one must remember that it is not only the next president that will be decided this November but the next congress as well. At this point polls suggest the Democrats will pick up a few more seats in both the House and Senate, however it appears they may not have enough to prevent filibusters, a legislative delaying tactic. This means that even if McCain is elected he will have a much harder time enacting his agenda. But it also presents a problem for the Democrats, the next four years are likely to be hard ones in many ways, possible tainting the Democrats with unpopular measures including tax increases and cutting important programs.
On a related note, one Democrat running for reelection in the senate is Max Baucus, the senate Finance committee chairman, he won with a 32% margin in the last election so it seems unlikely that he will lose. The unusual thing about this election is the two candidates positions, Senator Baucus favored the Bush tax cuts, while his Republican opponent Bob Kelleher, favors socialized medicine, nationalizing the oil industry and raising taxes to lift the poor out of poverty. Does this seem backwards to anyone else?
The next election will be for high stakes, perhaps even more than usual. Many people seem to agree that the nation has reached a critical decision point about its future course. Unfortunately no one can look into the future to tell us the right choice so we must hope America makes the right choice.
While this debate did not revolutionize the election it certainly helped to define the positions of both candidates. The next president, be it John McCain or Barrack Obama, will face some of the toughest challenges any incoming president has ever faced certainly the toughest since FDR.
Tonight's debate has helped us to see how each candidate will handle many of the issues, from the economic crisis to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the energy crisis and a looming social security shortfall. The most short term issue, the economic crisis was the most among the most contentious as both candidates attempted to be the one who predicted the crisis. However, it seems Obama has the advantage here as he unlike McCain has been pro-regulation for a long time. Tax policy is one issue where Obama and McCain differed significantly, McCain wants to give tax cuts to the wealthy and to business, subscribing to the so called "trickle-down" effect, while Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich and big business. Health Care was another issue on which the candidates differed sharply, Obama wants the government to get much more involved with the problem, different people would benefit under each plan. Consumer reports discusses which demographics fare best under each plan in detail. Foreign policy and National defense were much more evenly balanced, with McCain's advantages being his long experience in the area as well as his support for the seemingly effective surge in Iraq, while Barrack Obama had the advantage of opposing the Iraq war from the beginning. On Energy there seemed to be little to tell the candidates apart aside form a slightly increase emphasis on green energy on Obama's side. One more interesting this debate gives us clues to are the candidates personalities. Barrack Obama remained calm and cool throughout the debate in contrast, McCain seemed annoyed almost angry when Obama was speaking. Though it is my personal view I feel a calm chief executive is best for America.
At this point with less than one month to the election to go, one must remember that it is not only the next president that will be decided this November but the next congress as well. At this point polls suggest the Democrats will pick up a few more seats in both the House and Senate, however it appears they may not have enough to prevent filibusters, a legislative delaying tactic. This means that even if McCain is elected he will have a much harder time enacting his agenda. But it also presents a problem for the Democrats, the next four years are likely to be hard ones in many ways, possible tainting the Democrats with unpopular measures including tax increases and cutting important programs.
On a related note, one Democrat running for reelection in the senate is Max Baucus, the senate Finance committee chairman, he won with a 32% margin in the last election so it seems unlikely that he will lose. The unusual thing about this election is the two candidates positions, Senator Baucus favored the Bush tax cuts, while his Republican opponent Bob Kelleher, favors socialized medicine, nationalizing the oil industry and raising taxes to lift the poor out of poverty. Does this seem backwards to anyone else?
The next election will be for high stakes, perhaps even more than usual. Many people seem to agree that the nation has reached a critical decision point about its future course. Unfortunately no one can look into the future to tell us the right choice so we must hope America makes the right choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)