Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" is the go-to program for political satire, high-brow comedy, and potty jokes. In one moment during the show, a viewer can see an insightful interview on voter suppression, and in the next minute, a shtick on Chicago Pizza. The comedy central team certainly has range -- and it is no wonder that a larger majority of Americans are relying on the New Jersey native for quality news (as opposed to Cable News).
One segment, however, summarized the 2013 political year for me: Team Incompetence v. Team Nihilism. Can you guess which political party stands for nihilism and vice versa? Let me give you a hint; one was "responsible" for the Government shut-down, and the other, a botched health care roll-out.
Neither team names carry positive connotations. At this point, both political parties are facing huge electoral challenges in the future. Both have to fight their historically low favorability ratings in the upcoming 2014 elections.
In fact, the lack of faith in institutions, both Government and private, are at an all-time high. Even the reputable "60 Minutes" faced backlash when it ran with a bogus Benghazi story. It had to retract and apologize. No wonder people are pessimistic.
My posts this year have constantly focused on the GOP's absurd policies for obstruction, corporate welfare, and fiscal callousness. But, it would be a disservice to my handful of readers (I jest, it's at least a dozen) to ignore the failings of the current Administration. President Obama needs to do a better job with overseeing executive programs.
Let me be clear: I am happy with the President overall. No president in the history of our nation has had to face the amount of hatred and nonsense that he has had to deal with. He is the President in times of incomparable polarization and special-interest influence. Moreover, the GOP are not really opposing Obama, it's more like, they are opposing the imaginary Obama that they have created in their minds. Hell, if half of the things e-mailed to me about Obama were true, I would have purchased my tea party hat a long time ago.
That being said, President Obama should have appointed a head of the Health Care Exchanges at the beginning of 2011. The program, at the start, should have had a top-down hierarchical system to ensure efficiency and functionality. I was greatly disappointed that the first couple of months were plagued with glitches and bugs. Had there been better oversight, coupled with a more efficient procurement system, the problems could have been avoided.
Of course it doesn't help either that we have a minority party in Government that are nihilists, which brings me back to my central point -- I support candidates that want to improve the way things are done, not simply advocate a position of opposition. The GOP still, after three years of repeal obsession, has no alternative to the pre-ACA healthcare system. It's okay to the GOP that 40 million people remain uninsured, and that people with preexisting conditions, like cancer, diabetes, and the like, are out of luck.
It's much easier to fight for nothing, than to try to implement change -- messy, difficult, and demanding change. That's how I would summarize the 2013 political year though. We have one party willing to risk political capital to help the uninsured, and the other, willing to cash in on petty political points for every reported setback. For some reason, I had a crazy thought that after the 2012 election, we would have moved towards reconciliation and compromise. Boy, was I wrong.
Next year, 2014, we will have a choice as voters. Do we want a majority party that may mess up at times for trying to enact difficult reform? Or do we want to support the party that are naysayers, can't-doers, and perpetual alarmists? I have to admit, I don't really like either option. But, I'm willing to bat for the team that are willing to make mistakes, rather than the team willing to strive off of them. Bring on 2014.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Saturday, November 30, 2013
The Pope Ain't Down with "Trickle-Down"
"What
good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their
soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?" - Matthew 16:26
Francis of Assisi was listening to a sermon in the year 1209 when his life changed forever. The preacher had been discussing the verse Matthew 10:9. In that passage, Jesus instructs his followers to go out into the world and proclaim that the Kingdom of Heaven was upon them. But Jesus also told his followers to not take any money, shoes, or even a walking stick while they spread the Gospel. Shortly thereafter, Francis started the Franciscan Order, a group of "lesser brothers," who lived by a simple creed: follow the teachings of Christ and walk in his footsteps.
It was said that Pope Innocent III had his initial doubts about an endorsement for the Order. The doubts were put to rest when during a dream Pope Innocent III had seen Francis holding up the Basilica of St. John Lateran, the cathedral of Rome.
Over 800 years later, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected Pope and took the name Francis. A sense of renewal, awakening, and hope has followed the white smoke that emanated from the Sistine Chapel. For over a billion Catholics, Pope Francis has rejuvenated the church. His embrace of the disfigured man showed compassion; and his humility was on display when he washed the feet of prison detainees.
Personally, it could not be more exciting to see Pope Francis living out the name he has chosen. He has called for Catholics to serve and help the poor. And his actions show a desire to ensure that the call is met. Pope Francis also connects with me on a deeper level because he will be the Pope during my confirmation in the spring. Almost two years of confirmation classes will culminate in me choosing a new name as well.
Pope Francis was also in the headlines recently because he attacked "trickle-down" economics -- the economic policies made famous by President Reagan and a number of "fiscal conservatives." In his statement, he condemned the policy by saying, "[trickle-down economics] has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system." He went on to decry the "idolatry of money" and encouraged implementation of economic policies that can actually help the less fortunate.
The remarks possibly gained more attention than it would have otherwise had it not been for Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP Vice-Presidential candidate. During a CNN interview, Palin said that the Pope's statements of late "sound kind of liberal." There was a social media backlash and Palin eventually issued an apology on her Facebook page.
The Pope is not the only person challenging the belief that low taxes on the rich will spur economic opportunity for all. Economists have been championing ideas that will curb the growth of severe income inequality. Furthermore, some journalists have made the issue of low wages a major topic of public discourse. Both McDonald's and Wal-Mart have had to face heat for being "welfare queens." The two companies have a host of employees who receive government assistance because the large companies do not pay them enough. McDonalds' McResource line, which helps employees sign up for welfare and food stamps, was rightly mocked and ridiculed.
There is no doubt that the public mood has changed on economic fairness because of individuals who have advocated for reform. In the year 2012, over half of the country made less than $30,000 a year. Over the past two decades, the top 1% of incomes have received over 2/3 of the overall economic growth in the country. The inequality is not just unfair, it is morally wrong. That is why Pope Francis has made it a central issue in his push to re-shape the Catholic Church.
There is another Pope who reminds me of the importance of good economic policy. The biggest statue in the world of Pope John Paul II is in the former soviet state of Poland -- the country where Pope John Paul II was born. Poland's economy has become the most dynamic in Europe. During years of economic decline all over Europe, Poland has stood out for its consistent growth and success. One of the main reasons for its success: Poland's refusal to accept austerity and its commitment to invest and spend on infrastructure. Over $137 billion was spent by Poland while other European countries were cutting back.
The point is that our Government can do more to change the current imbalance. Right now, the economy does not work for everybody -- it only works for a few. I sincerely believe that we have a moral responsibility to support ideas that will enable people to earn enough for their families without having to ask for a handout. If we can strengthen someone's ability to earn, we can also strengthen the moral foundation of our country. Pope Francis is right: money must serve, not rule. Let's just make sure that our elected officials hear the good news.
Francis of Assisi was listening to a sermon in the year 1209 when his life changed forever. The preacher had been discussing the verse Matthew 10:9. In that passage, Jesus instructs his followers to go out into the world and proclaim that the Kingdom of Heaven was upon them. But Jesus also told his followers to not take any money, shoes, or even a walking stick while they spread the Gospel. Shortly thereafter, Francis started the Franciscan Order, a group of "lesser brothers," who lived by a simple creed: follow the teachings of Christ and walk in his footsteps.
It was said that Pope Innocent III had his initial doubts about an endorsement for the Order. The doubts were put to rest when during a dream Pope Innocent III had seen Francis holding up the Basilica of St. John Lateran, the cathedral of Rome.
Over 800 years later, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected Pope and took the name Francis. A sense of renewal, awakening, and hope has followed the white smoke that emanated from the Sistine Chapel. For over a billion Catholics, Pope Francis has rejuvenated the church. His embrace of the disfigured man showed compassion; and his humility was on display when he washed the feet of prison detainees.
Personally, it could not be more exciting to see Pope Francis living out the name he has chosen. He has called for Catholics to serve and help the poor. And his actions show a desire to ensure that the call is met. Pope Francis also connects with me on a deeper level because he will be the Pope during my confirmation in the spring. Almost two years of confirmation classes will culminate in me choosing a new name as well.
Pope Francis was also in the headlines recently because he attacked "trickle-down" economics -- the economic policies made famous by President Reagan and a number of "fiscal conservatives." In his statement, he condemned the policy by saying, "[trickle-down economics] has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system." He went on to decry the "idolatry of money" and encouraged implementation of economic policies that can actually help the less fortunate.
The remarks possibly gained more attention than it would have otherwise had it not been for Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP Vice-Presidential candidate. During a CNN interview, Palin said that the Pope's statements of late "sound kind of liberal." There was a social media backlash and Palin eventually issued an apology on her Facebook page.
The Pope is not the only person challenging the belief that low taxes on the rich will spur economic opportunity for all. Economists have been championing ideas that will curb the growth of severe income inequality. Furthermore, some journalists have made the issue of low wages a major topic of public discourse. Both McDonald's and Wal-Mart have had to face heat for being "welfare queens." The two companies have a host of employees who receive government assistance because the large companies do not pay them enough. McDonalds' McResource line, which helps employees sign up for welfare and food stamps, was rightly mocked and ridiculed.
There is no doubt that the public mood has changed on economic fairness because of individuals who have advocated for reform. In the year 2012, over half of the country made less than $30,000 a year. Over the past two decades, the top 1% of incomes have received over 2/3 of the overall economic growth in the country. The inequality is not just unfair, it is morally wrong. That is why Pope Francis has made it a central issue in his push to re-shape the Catholic Church.
There is another Pope who reminds me of the importance of good economic policy. The biggest statue in the world of Pope John Paul II is in the former soviet state of Poland -- the country where Pope John Paul II was born. Poland's economy has become the most dynamic in Europe. During years of economic decline all over Europe, Poland has stood out for its consistent growth and success. One of the main reasons for its success: Poland's refusal to accept austerity and its commitment to invest and spend on infrastructure. Over $137 billion was spent by Poland while other European countries were cutting back.
The point is that our Government can do more to change the current imbalance. Right now, the economy does not work for everybody -- it only works for a few. I sincerely believe that we have a moral responsibility to support ideas that will enable people to earn enough for their families without having to ask for a handout. If we can strengthen someone's ability to earn, we can also strengthen the moral foundation of our country. Pope Francis is right: money must serve, not rule. Let's just make sure that our elected officials hear the good news.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Can the Real Will McAvoy Please Stand Up?
It is probably fair to say that Americans have lost faith in their elected leaders. The Government shutdown was emblematic of our current partisan divide: we cannot move forward because we cannot agree on where we should go. Without a compass, the United States is stuck in a mire of malaise.
There are certain facts that are indisputable. Our economic recovery is slow. Inequalities are rising. Politics are making things a lot worse. The constant bickering causes unease and the public is unsure if politics can be put to the side for the benefit of the country.
But there are a few individuals who profit from this 24/7 drama: the media - or perhaps the more aptly titled, "professional pundits," who never cease to be predictable, and never grow tired of hurling falsities.
As the Government shutdown continued into its void of senselessness, the cable news networks increased viewership and revenues. The partisan media took financial advantage of the shutdown and debt-ceiling crisis, while at the same time, exacerbating the problems that we face. We should not put the spotlight on those who favor conflict over compromise, i.e. Ted Cruz, et al. We absolutely cannot treat the tea-party as legitimate policy-makers.
Journalists who covered the shutdown attempted to describe a narrative of equal blame. The Democrats are unwilling to bend to the fiscally responsible minority party and the Republicans are unrealistically demanding the reversal of a major policy achievement by the President. False equivalency does not help the public stay informed. Let me explain.
False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. For those HBO fans that also happen to read my blog, Aaron Sorkin makes it a constant theme in his show: "Newsroom." At one point during the first season, the main character, Will McAvoy, gives an example:
"The news isn't biased toward the left or toward the right, it's biased toward fairness. If the Republican congressional caucus were to walk onto the floor of the House and offer a resolution saying the world is flat, the next day's headlines would likely read: 'Democrats and Republicans can't agree on shape of Earth...'"
Sorkin, through his character, was attempting to criticize the media's bias towards trying to appear fair and balanced at the expense of failing to fulfill their journalistic duties of keeping the public informed about the truth.
The shutdown was planned months in advance. The tea party did not hide their intentions at all. They have never lied about their desire to dismiss compromise and attack pragmatic legislators who are willing to vote with Democrats. As we speak, the tea party are running candidates against the "traitors," who voted to end the shutdown. Senators Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell all will have to survive a primary before facing a Democrat. Sarah Palin was not whispering about attacking squishy Republicans who would even think to deal with President Obama.
Gone are the days of a reliable media. The shutdown story was simple and the news should have covered it simply. We now have a faction in the Republican party who will do anything in their power to disrupt Government. They do not advocate for a limited government with more personal freedom; they want to pugnaciously fight the Democrats on every single issue for the sake of fighting with Democrats on every single issue.
Our country should not only place the blame on our leaders. We also need to admit that our media institutions are failing to perform their journalistic duties.
It is not going to be easy to move ahead. The partisan gap is still wider than ever. But, as Americans, we should expect more. And as Americans, we should do more. Let us hope that in 2014, we can elect candidates who are practical - Republican and Democrat. Let us pray that the media will help us discern which candidates those are. There has to be a Will McAvoy out there somewhere.
There are certain facts that are indisputable. Our economic recovery is slow. Inequalities are rising. Politics are making things a lot worse. The constant bickering causes unease and the public is unsure if politics can be put to the side for the benefit of the country.
But there are a few individuals who profit from this 24/7 drama: the media - or perhaps the more aptly titled, "professional pundits," who never cease to be predictable, and never grow tired of hurling falsities.
As the Government shutdown continued into its void of senselessness, the cable news networks increased viewership and revenues. The partisan media took financial advantage of the shutdown and debt-ceiling crisis, while at the same time, exacerbating the problems that we face. We should not put the spotlight on those who favor conflict over compromise, i.e. Ted Cruz, et al. We absolutely cannot treat the tea-party as legitimate policy-makers.
Journalists who covered the shutdown attempted to describe a narrative of equal blame. The Democrats are unwilling to bend to the fiscally responsible minority party and the Republicans are unrealistically demanding the reversal of a major policy achievement by the President. False equivalency does not help the public stay informed. Let me explain.
False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. For those HBO fans that also happen to read my blog, Aaron Sorkin makes it a constant theme in his show: "Newsroom." At one point during the first season, the main character, Will McAvoy, gives an example:
"The news isn't biased toward the left or toward the right, it's biased toward fairness. If the Republican congressional caucus were to walk onto the floor of the House and offer a resolution saying the world is flat, the next day's headlines would likely read: 'Democrats and Republicans can't agree on shape of Earth...'"
Sorkin, through his character, was attempting to criticize the media's bias towards trying to appear fair and balanced at the expense of failing to fulfill their journalistic duties of keeping the public informed about the truth.
The shutdown was planned months in advance. The tea party did not hide their intentions at all. They have never lied about their desire to dismiss compromise and attack pragmatic legislators who are willing to vote with Democrats. As we speak, the tea party are running candidates against the "traitors," who voted to end the shutdown. Senators Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell all will have to survive a primary before facing a Democrat. Sarah Palin was not whispering about attacking squishy Republicans who would even think to deal with President Obama.
Gone are the days of a reliable media. The shutdown story was simple and the news should have covered it simply. We now have a faction in the Republican party who will do anything in their power to disrupt Government. They do not advocate for a limited government with more personal freedom; they want to pugnaciously fight the Democrats on every single issue for the sake of fighting with Democrats on every single issue.
Our country should not only place the blame on our leaders. We also need to admit that our media institutions are failing to perform their journalistic duties.
It is not going to be easy to move ahead. The partisan gap is still wider than ever. But, as Americans, we should expect more. And as Americans, we should do more. Let us hope that in 2014, we can elect candidates who are practical - Republican and Democrat. Let us pray that the media will help us discern which candidates those are. There has to be a Will McAvoy out there somewhere.
Saturday, September 21, 2013
What About Our (Fiscal) Civil War?
"Bang bang bang," I shouted when I jumped into the Tennessee grass and tried to avoid the imaginary fire from my older brother. We were both under ten at the time but that did not stop us from developing an interest in United States history - particularly the Civil War. I wore gray, the color of the Confederates, and my brother wore blue for the North.
With a battle site not ten minutes away, in the city of Franklin, it was easy for two young boys to get enthralled with the fights of the past. There was one problem for me, however: I never got to win. The South suffered heavy losses in the Battle of Franklin.
During this month of September the public had an opportunity to discuss and debate another civil war - the one in Syria. It was interesting to see the different viewpoints and coalitions for and against a military strike. The whole global crisis and argument developed because President Assad used Sarin gas against his own people. The lungs of 400 children were paralyzed because of the banned chemicals.
Not surprisingly, the conservative-controlled House of Representatives were opposed to the strike. Some of the members may have opposed the strike on rational grounds, but it is almost certain that some wanted to simply oppose the President. Congressman Israel thought so and stated that:
"Does anyone truly believe that if Mitt Romney had been elected president and had asked House Republicans for exactly what President Obama is asking, that House Republicans would oppose it to the extent that they’re opposed to what President Obama wants? The level of hypocrisy is what amazes me."
Luckily, we did not have to find out if there were enough votes from the House of Representatives. A diplomatic deal was struck and for the meantime postponed a potential global conflict. Unfortunately for the American people, we can still expect a domestic conflict that will have an impact on our everyday well-being - the budget battle and likely government shut-down.
The truth of the matter is that we are embroiled in another American civil war. This war is not being fought with horses and bayonets. The weapons of choice for this ideological civil war is special interest money, political brinkmanship, and a wide army of pundits. The casualties: our economy and the American people.
If you have not been following, the Federal government is facing a possible shut-down because extremists in the House conditioned the funding of the Government on the defunding of ObamaCare. It is a symbolic move, which has a zero change of passage, but has the ability to cause havoc to our markets and economy.
The GOP obsession with ObamaCare has curtailed any laws from being passed, i.e. comprehensive immigration reform, tax reform, campaign finance reform, and a host of laws that could only help the United States. Now, the GOP's irrational fixation will slow our already slow recovery.
ObamaCare was passed and signed in 2010, upheld by the Supreme Court in 2012, and has helped millions of young Americans stay insured through their parents' health care. 78% of the young beneficiaries of ObamaCare are Republicans.
Yet, we are still fighting. Why? Because there is a political opposition that cannot govern and perhaps do not want to govern. A government shut-down is precisely what some of the Tea Party zealots advocate. They do not want a limited government, they do not want a government at all.
Every civil war eventually comes to an end. I am certain that this fiscal one will end too. But only because the American people are fed up. Reasonable conservatives and liberal Americans will come together to express their dissatisfaction with the gamesmanship. We do not have to accept a government that is incapable of compromise and disrespectful of the opposition.
In the end, we are all in this together - brothers and sisters of the Constitution. I can guarantee that despite these budget fiascoes, there will still be young children replaying the great history of our country in their front yards, perhaps the Battle of Franklin too. I even bet that, just like my brother and I, they will eventually get tired, smile, and put down their imaginary arms. Sometimes its more fun to be on the same team.
With a battle site not ten minutes away, in the city of Franklin, it was easy for two young boys to get enthralled with the fights of the past. There was one problem for me, however: I never got to win. The South suffered heavy losses in the Battle of Franklin.
During this month of September the public had an opportunity to discuss and debate another civil war - the one in Syria. It was interesting to see the different viewpoints and coalitions for and against a military strike. The whole global crisis and argument developed because President Assad used Sarin gas against his own people. The lungs of 400 children were paralyzed because of the banned chemicals.
Not surprisingly, the conservative-controlled House of Representatives were opposed to the strike. Some of the members may have opposed the strike on rational grounds, but it is almost certain that some wanted to simply oppose the President. Congressman Israel thought so and stated that:
"Does anyone truly believe that if Mitt Romney had been elected president and had asked House Republicans for exactly what President Obama is asking, that House Republicans would oppose it to the extent that they’re opposed to what President Obama wants? The level of hypocrisy is what amazes me."
Luckily, we did not have to find out if there were enough votes from the House of Representatives. A diplomatic deal was struck and for the meantime postponed a potential global conflict. Unfortunately for the American people, we can still expect a domestic conflict that will have an impact on our everyday well-being - the budget battle and likely government shut-down.
The truth of the matter is that we are embroiled in another American civil war. This war is not being fought with horses and bayonets. The weapons of choice for this ideological civil war is special interest money, political brinkmanship, and a wide army of pundits. The casualties: our economy and the American people.
If you have not been following, the Federal government is facing a possible shut-down because extremists in the House conditioned the funding of the Government on the defunding of ObamaCare. It is a symbolic move, which has a zero change of passage, but has the ability to cause havoc to our markets and economy.
The GOP obsession with ObamaCare has curtailed any laws from being passed, i.e. comprehensive immigration reform, tax reform, campaign finance reform, and a host of laws that could only help the United States. Now, the GOP's irrational fixation will slow our already slow recovery.
ObamaCare was passed and signed in 2010, upheld by the Supreme Court in 2012, and has helped millions of young Americans stay insured through their parents' health care. 78% of the young beneficiaries of ObamaCare are Republicans.
Yet, we are still fighting. Why? Because there is a political opposition that cannot govern and perhaps do not want to govern. A government shut-down is precisely what some of the Tea Party zealots advocate. They do not want a limited government, they do not want a government at all.
Every civil war eventually comes to an end. I am certain that this fiscal one will end too. But only because the American people are fed up. Reasonable conservatives and liberal Americans will come together to express their dissatisfaction with the gamesmanship. We do not have to accept a government that is incapable of compromise and disrespectful of the opposition.
In the end, we are all in this together - brothers and sisters of the Constitution. I can guarantee that despite these budget fiascoes, there will still be young children replaying the great history of our country in their front yards, perhaps the Battle of Franklin too. I even bet that, just like my brother and I, they will eventually get tired, smile, and put down their imaginary arms. Sometimes its more fun to be on the same team.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
We Don't Need No Education
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." - Albert Einstein
Every so often I can expect the same article from an online news website: don't bother earning these college degrees. With a cringe on my face, I read it every time, already anticipating what I will read. I am never disappointed after I read it- the author loves to knock philosophy majors.
The whole idea of a college degree is to receive a return on your investment. Or so says the author whose name appears below the advertisement for the online for-profit school.
There is a problem with treating a college degree like a mutual fund. Learning should be for the sake of learning. Studying American history or calculating probabilities should not be a security deposit for the chance to work on Wall Street. Not everything in this world has to be about increasing your assets and lowering your liabilities.
I always want to point out to the author, being the antagonist that I am, that two of the wealthiest men on Wall Street also happen to be philosophy majors, i.e. Carl Icahn and George Soros. Their combined net worth could pay for 1,000,000 "worthless" college degrees.
Putting aside my education soliloquy, we all know that a college degree is important. It gives individuals the ability to pursue their dreams, whatever those dreams may be. A person with a college degree has a better opportunity to secure a career and earn a higher wage. Thus, a college education can help a person realize his or her goals.
Financing a college education is another story, however. Unfortunately for millions of Americans, the cost of a college education is rising astronomically. It does not help that median incomes have been stagnant. Since 2009, the median income in our country has decreased 4.4%, while productivity has continued to rise.
Inequality, both in income and access to education, will widen as college becomes more unaffordable. We are starting to see the effects: low-income students are not being represented at selective universities. Only 34% of high-achieving students in low-income brackets went on to an elite school, while 78% of students in the high-income bracket did.
For low-income families, an obvious conundrum falls into their lunch pails. How does one pay for a college education, does it mean that one has to forgo purchasing a home or saving for retirement? The answer: student loans.
Because of the difficulty in paying out-of-pocket for a college education, it has become necessary to borrow to attend. Student loans now account for $1.2 trillion of our national debt. That is 6% of the overall outstanding debt. It is becoming a problem for everyone.
When a student finally graduates from college, they now have the burden of having to start their life deep in debt. The outcomes of this tragic phenomena is less entrepreneurship and less of a willingness to take risks. Of course, that will decrease the chances of having another Steve Jobs or Elon Musk. How does one move on an innovative idea when they cannot even afford to make the May installment payment? Again, the costs of higher education will become a problem for our future generations.
I become enthused when I see prospective students taking initiative to find ways to pay for college. One program allows individuals to invest into a student with the student later paying the investor a portion of his earnings. Not a typical financial arrangement, but it allows the student to not have to pay a "faceless institution."Yet the ingenuity is not enough to confront the complex situation our country faces. We need systemic reform.
President Obama is attempting to push the conversation forward but it is difficult. The politics of today is poisonous. Any common sense discussion of reform is pushed to the side for partisan attacks.
My approach would be three-fold, if I had the ability to effectuate policy change. First, there needs to be a different metric in tying federal aid to secondary education. I agree with President Obama that costs and graduation rates need to be factors in assessing the school's eligibility. Second, I would initiate broad economic reforms to spur middle-income growth, i.e. a real progressive tax, corporate tax holiday to bring back cash to the United States, increase the minimum wage, and implement means-testing to entitlements, among other things.
Finally, I would make every college student take a philosophy course, which will probably mean that there will be a new "worthless" college degrees list for the author...Perhaps students will find personal value in their degrees, not just monetary value. A man can dream right?
Every so often I can expect the same article from an online news website: don't bother earning these college degrees. With a cringe on my face, I read it every time, already anticipating what I will read. I am never disappointed after I read it- the author loves to knock philosophy majors.
The whole idea of a college degree is to receive a return on your investment. Or so says the author whose name appears below the advertisement for the online for-profit school.
There is a problem with treating a college degree like a mutual fund. Learning should be for the sake of learning. Studying American history or calculating probabilities should not be a security deposit for the chance to work on Wall Street. Not everything in this world has to be about increasing your assets and lowering your liabilities.
I always want to point out to the author, being the antagonist that I am, that two of the wealthiest men on Wall Street also happen to be philosophy majors, i.e. Carl Icahn and George Soros. Their combined net worth could pay for 1,000,000 "worthless" college degrees.
Putting aside my education soliloquy, we all know that a college degree is important. It gives individuals the ability to pursue their dreams, whatever those dreams may be. A person with a college degree has a better opportunity to secure a career and earn a higher wage. Thus, a college education can help a person realize his or her goals.
Financing a college education is another story, however. Unfortunately for millions of Americans, the cost of a college education is rising astronomically. It does not help that median incomes have been stagnant. Since 2009, the median income in our country has decreased 4.4%, while productivity has continued to rise.
Inequality, both in income and access to education, will widen as college becomes more unaffordable. We are starting to see the effects: low-income students are not being represented at selective universities. Only 34% of high-achieving students in low-income brackets went on to an elite school, while 78% of students in the high-income bracket did.
For low-income families, an obvious conundrum falls into their lunch pails. How does one pay for a college education, does it mean that one has to forgo purchasing a home or saving for retirement? The answer: student loans.
Because of the difficulty in paying out-of-pocket for a college education, it has become necessary to borrow to attend. Student loans now account for $1.2 trillion of our national debt. That is 6% of the overall outstanding debt. It is becoming a problem for everyone.
When a student finally graduates from college, they now have the burden of having to start their life deep in debt. The outcomes of this tragic phenomena is less entrepreneurship and less of a willingness to take risks. Of course, that will decrease the chances of having another Steve Jobs or Elon Musk. How does one move on an innovative idea when they cannot even afford to make the May installment payment? Again, the costs of higher education will become a problem for our future generations.
I become enthused when I see prospective students taking initiative to find ways to pay for college. One program allows individuals to invest into a student with the student later paying the investor a portion of his earnings. Not a typical financial arrangement, but it allows the student to not have to pay a "faceless institution."Yet the ingenuity is not enough to confront the complex situation our country faces. We need systemic reform.
President Obama is attempting to push the conversation forward but it is difficult. The politics of today is poisonous. Any common sense discussion of reform is pushed to the side for partisan attacks.
My approach would be three-fold, if I had the ability to effectuate policy change. First, there needs to be a different metric in tying federal aid to secondary education. I agree with President Obama that costs and graduation rates need to be factors in assessing the school's eligibility. Second, I would initiate broad economic reforms to spur middle-income growth, i.e. a real progressive tax, corporate tax holiday to bring back cash to the United States, increase the minimum wage, and implement means-testing to entitlements, among other things.
Finally, I would make every college student take a philosophy course, which will probably mean that there will be a new "worthless" college degrees list for the author...Perhaps students will find personal value in their degrees, not just monetary value. A man can dream right?
Sunday, July 14, 2013
obamaSCARE
"Repeal this failure before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens..." - Michele Bachmann, Chair of the Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives.
For every dollar spent on explaining the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. "ObamaCare," there are five dollars going into destroying it with mostly false information intended to misinform and raise the passions of partisans. I wanted to write this post so the naysayers can spend more - let's get them up to 7:1.
The recent delay of the employer mandate has been used as fodder for the House to cause more confusion. It is estimated that the employer mandate, which obligates large employers to provide health insurance, affects only one percent of the American workforce. Further, the delay does not prevent those same workers from benefiting from other aspects of ObamaCare. Perhaps more clear is the irony that has unfolded: Republicans who once requested a repeal are now objecting to its delay.
It is easier to discuss the recent developments by providing context to where we were, where we are, and hopefully, where we will be. Let's begin.
Insurance
The idea of insurance is to spread risk among a number of parties. You purchase a contract with a premium, to cover you in the event of a occurrence. That occurrence could be as simple as a cold or as complex as a surgery to combat cancer. The pooled risk, held by the big insurer, pays for the treatment in either case unless the contract did not provide for it. Thus, the insurance contract transfers risk. You will always pay the premium, but you may not face the illness.
For example, you may have seen movies, like "The Rainmaker," in which the insurer was sued for denying an insurance claim because it said it was not provided for under the insurance contract. Great Benefit, the insurance company in The Rainmaker, denied a child's claim for leukemia treatment because it said that "it was an experimental procedure," excluded from the insurance. Great Benefit lost, because they denied every claim regardless of the coverage, and Rudy Baylor, the child's attorney, became a hero. Also, I do not think the jurors liked John Voight too much.
Health Care Costs Increased Much Faster than Other Goods & Services
American health insurance also involves medical providers, i.e. doctors, hospitals, and clinics. When an occurrence happens, like a routine prostate exam, someone needs to provide the professional services. The insurer has to pay the doctors for helping the patients.
Therefore, the insurer and the providers have to enter into agreements because they have to determine the costs for their medical services. In the United States, the costs for the medical services, prior to Obamacare being passed, was increasing at an alarming rate. Compared to every other industrialized nation, we were by far spending the most. Health care spending increased to 17% of GDP, 50% higher than France, the country that spent the second most.
And despite all of our spending, we ranked 38th in overall health assessments, behind Singapore, Monaco, and Cyprus.
The uncontrollable rise in costs was caused by a number of factors, but one of the main reasons was that the providers were charging an unusually high amount for their services. A hospital visit in the United States averages at $4,267 per day compared to $1,472 in Australia, the second most expensive.
Each and every insurer negotiates their prices with providers. With each insurer and provider seeking the best return for their respective stakeholders, the patients end up paying more. Moreover, most hospitals are rewarded when they increase growth and profit, not when they improve the quality of the health care. These incentives are not conducive to affordable care.
More Uninsured
With the increase of health costs, more people could not afford to pay for insurance, because premiums had to keep up with the price of services. This exacerbated the problem because with less people contributing to the risk pool or buying health insurance, the premiums had to increase.
Despite not having insurance, individuals still get sick and they need to get help. The uninsured resorted to Emergency Rooms for typical medical services that they needed. The state and federal governments also had to pay, which means that every taxpayer bore the negative economic consequences. But even more sad was the fact that many people went bankrupt for the simple reason that they did not have health insurance and had to undergo expensive and necessary treatment.
Enter ObamaCare
President Obama entered into office with the rational belief that the status quo was simply unacceptable. Health care costs were rising incredibly fast and it was a drain on the entire economy. ObamaCare was based on a model that worked in Massachusetts, ironically when Mitt Romney was governor.
The main component of the Affordable Care Act is the individual mandate. On January 1, 2014, every citizen must purchase health insurance or face a small penalty. This provides an incentive to enter into the pool of risk shared among other insureds.
ObamaCare also gives help to those in need. I have blogged about income inequality ad nauseum and for good reason, but ObamaCare addresses this problem by giving tax credits to those with low income so that they can purchase health insurance. This is paid for by taxing the very wealthy.
In addition to the credits, ObamaCare has also given individuals more choice. The Health Care Exchanges will be an online marketplace for consumers, which will help them consider their options. These exchanges will act like an Expedia or Travelocity. It is likely that it will significantly help get more young people get insured.
Perhaps more important, and widely unknown, is the fact that insurance companies will now have to give money back to the insureds. Over $1.1 billion was given back in the summer of 2012. Thanks to the new 80/20 rule, insurance companies must spend 80% of premiums on medical care to the insureds. This 20% cap on administrative costs will help put quality of medical care in front of profits.
Placing Politics Before The Common Good
The opponents of ObamaCare will do anything in their power to mislead and attack. The House has attempted to repeal ObamaCare approximately 40 times, without success. Well, I should be more clear... without legislative success. Speaker John Boehner was able to raise over 30 million this year for his GOP. He intends to spend billions of dollars to retain control of his position in 2014.
The bottom line: ObamaCare will help the entire country and millions of Americans because it will help slow the growth of medical costs and increase coverage. In fact, it has already slowed down costs.
The next time you hear criticism about ObamaCare, remember that someone is paying the big bucks to have you hear it.
The main component of the Affordable Care Act is the individual mandate. On January 1, 2014, every citizen must purchase health insurance or face a small penalty. This provides an incentive to enter into the pool of risk shared among other insureds.
ObamaCare also gives help to those in need. I have blogged about income inequality ad nauseum and for good reason, but ObamaCare addresses this problem by giving tax credits to those with low income so that they can purchase health insurance. This is paid for by taxing the very wealthy.
In addition to the credits, ObamaCare has also given individuals more choice. The Health Care Exchanges will be an online marketplace for consumers, which will help them consider their options. These exchanges will act like an Expedia or Travelocity. It is likely that it will significantly help get more young people get insured.
Perhaps more important, and widely unknown, is the fact that insurance companies will now have to give money back to the insureds. Over $1.1 billion was given back in the summer of 2012. Thanks to the new 80/20 rule, insurance companies must spend 80% of premiums on medical care to the insureds. This 20% cap on administrative costs will help put quality of medical care in front of profits.
Placing Politics Before The Common Good
The opponents of ObamaCare will do anything in their power to mislead and attack. The House has attempted to repeal ObamaCare approximately 40 times, without success. Well, I should be more clear... without legislative success. Speaker John Boehner was able to raise over 30 million this year for his GOP. He intends to spend billions of dollars to retain control of his position in 2014.
The bottom line: ObamaCare will help the entire country and millions of Americans because it will help slow the growth of medical costs and increase coverage. In fact, it has already slowed down costs.
The next time you hear criticism about ObamaCare, remember that someone is paying the big bucks to have you hear it.
We've
made it pretty clear and I'll make it clear one more time: If the court
does not strike down the entire law, the House will move to repeal
what's left of it. - See more at:
http://www.politicalruminations.com/john-boehner-quotes/#sthash.97XSqWbi.dpuf
We've
made it pretty clear and I'll make it clear one more time: If the court
does not strike down the entire law, the House will move to repeal
what's left of it. - See more at:
http://www.politicalruminations.com/john-boehner-quotes/#sthash.97XSqWbi.dpuf
We've
made it pretty clear and I'll make it clear one more time: If the court
does not strike down the entire law, the House will move to repeal
what's left of it. - See more at:
http://www.politicalruminations.com/john-boehner-quotes/#sthash.97XSqWbi.dpuf
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Blame the "Republicans"
It was an unusually cold morning for Irvine and the grass was dewy. I woke up and walked outside to my patio and I looked at my college, UCI, in the distance. I wondered how many of my fellow students would actually vote that day. I was even more curious as to how many would vote for a Republican. When I walked back into the living room, my roommate, half-dazed, asked curiously, "Did you vote, Chris?" I replied, "Yeah. But, I do not think McCain has a chance..."
I use to be a registered Republican. I grew up in a conservative family, went to a conservative high school, and associated with conservative friends. The funny thing is I never really believed in the values. My mother would always tell me with a smile, "Chrissie, if you want to be the Republican president, you are going to have to stop watching Hardball. And you better throw away those liberal books. I don't think your Republican friends will love those Michael Moore DVDs either." I would always grin and respond that I was just trying to study the other side.
The fact of the matter is that a lot of individuals use to be Republicans. There use to be a time when Republicans could advocate for a limited government without insulting 47% of the country. However, like with all things, time brings change.
The Republican party has changed dramatically. It use to be a party that could govern. It use to be a party that acknowledged that the government could do great things - a catalyst for a healthy, robust, and strong country. President Eisenhower, a Republican, implemented one of the largest government programs that created the interstate highways of today. President Nixon created the government agency that helped pave the way for cleaner air and water. Nixon happened to have also dirtied the image of the presidency, but that was after the fact.
The party has now moved so far to the right that it is unrecognizable from the time of Eisenhower or Nixon. RINOs are aware of this phenomenon.
By the way, "RINO," means "Republican In Name Only," a smear tactic that is used by the purest of Republicans to hold the party line.
Bob Dole, the 1996 Republican presidential candidate and Senate majority leader in the 1990's, lamented this much when he appeared on Fox News. He stated that the Republicans should put a sign on the door that says "closed for repairs." He wants Republicans to come up with a few positive ideas because neither Reagan or himself would feel comfortable in its membership today.
It is not only the Republicans of the past that are self-aware of its path to destruction. The College Republican National Committee came up with its own report, which found that people associate Republicans with "close-mindedness and racism." The report also undermined the core principles of the Republican leadership. The majority of young Republicans want higher taxes on the wealthy and more government spending on education. The report even summed up its economic findings with the sentence, "economic growth and opportunity cannot just be about tax cuts and spending cuts."
Everyone must be writing a report after the Republican party was handily defeated in the 2012 elections. The Republican National Committee came up with an "autopsy report" to help the party move forward onto the 2014 cycle. The subject matter of the self-funded study was that the RNC has to do a better job of reaching out to minorities and eliminating the poor messengers of its ideals. No one should have to hear about a Republican mocking the less fortunate or a Senator calling Hispanics "wetbacks."
Yet, with all of the studies, and with all of the introspection, we can expect more of the same from Republicans. They are the ones responsible for the stasis and dysfunction in Congress; and its okay, we should admit it.
Two widely-recognized independent political scientists have admitted it and they think its pertinent to a rational discussion on how we can get out of the rut. Ornstein and Mann wrote a book, which argued that: "The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."
They also included a football analogy. "While the Democrats may have moved from their 40-yard line to their 25, the Republicans have gone from their 40 to somewhere behind their goal post."
The week of June 3, 2013 represented the extreme attitudes of the Republican House of Representatives. The dysfunctional body failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act for the 37th time and it voted to end the DREAM executive order, which allows young immigrants to apply for a deportation deferral. Neither of the House bills had a chance to become law, yet, they voted for it anyway.
One has to wonder whether our country can recover from this partisan divide, which has stopped all reform at every level. I remain cautiously optimistic that our generation can do something about it, but something needs be done now. As other Americans walk onto their patios and look into the horizon, they all ask the same question: what does our future hold and do we have a chance? I think that we do.
I use to be a registered Republican. I grew up in a conservative family, went to a conservative high school, and associated with conservative friends. The funny thing is I never really believed in the values. My mother would always tell me with a smile, "Chrissie, if you want to be the Republican president, you are going to have to stop watching Hardball. And you better throw away those liberal books. I don't think your Republican friends will love those Michael Moore DVDs either." I would always grin and respond that I was just trying to study the other side.
The fact of the matter is that a lot of individuals use to be Republicans. There use to be a time when Republicans could advocate for a limited government without insulting 47% of the country. However, like with all things, time brings change.
The Republican party has changed dramatically. It use to be a party that could govern. It use to be a party that acknowledged that the government could do great things - a catalyst for a healthy, robust, and strong country. President Eisenhower, a Republican, implemented one of the largest government programs that created the interstate highways of today. President Nixon created the government agency that helped pave the way for cleaner air and water. Nixon happened to have also dirtied the image of the presidency, but that was after the fact.
The party has now moved so far to the right that it is unrecognizable from the time of Eisenhower or Nixon. RINOs are aware of this phenomenon.
By the way, "RINO," means "Republican In Name Only," a smear tactic that is used by the purest of Republicans to hold the party line.
Bob Dole, the 1996 Republican presidential candidate and Senate majority leader in the 1990's, lamented this much when he appeared on Fox News. He stated that the Republicans should put a sign on the door that says "closed for repairs." He wants Republicans to come up with a few positive ideas because neither Reagan or himself would feel comfortable in its membership today.
It is not only the Republicans of the past that are self-aware of its path to destruction. The College Republican National Committee came up with its own report, which found that people associate Republicans with "close-mindedness and racism." The report also undermined the core principles of the Republican leadership. The majority of young Republicans want higher taxes on the wealthy and more government spending on education. The report even summed up its economic findings with the sentence, "economic growth and opportunity cannot just be about tax cuts and spending cuts."
Everyone must be writing a report after the Republican party was handily defeated in the 2012 elections. The Republican National Committee came up with an "autopsy report" to help the party move forward onto the 2014 cycle. The subject matter of the self-funded study was that the RNC has to do a better job of reaching out to minorities and eliminating the poor messengers of its ideals. No one should have to hear about a Republican mocking the less fortunate or a Senator calling Hispanics "wetbacks."
Yet, with all of the studies, and with all of the introspection, we can expect more of the same from Republicans. They are the ones responsible for the stasis and dysfunction in Congress; and its okay, we should admit it.
Two widely-recognized independent political scientists have admitted it and they think its pertinent to a rational discussion on how we can get out of the rut. Ornstein and Mann wrote a book, which argued that: "The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."
They also included a football analogy. "While the Democrats may have moved from their 40-yard line to their 25, the Republicans have gone from their 40 to somewhere behind their goal post."
The week of June 3, 2013 represented the extreme attitudes of the Republican House of Representatives. The dysfunctional body failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act for the 37th time and it voted to end the DREAM executive order, which allows young immigrants to apply for a deportation deferral. Neither of the House bills had a chance to become law, yet, they voted for it anyway.
One has to wonder whether our country can recover from this partisan divide, which has stopped all reform at every level. I remain cautiously optimistic that our generation can do something about it, but something needs be done now. As other Americans walk onto their patios and look into the horizon, they all ask the same question: what does our future hold and do we have a chance? I think that we do.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
The Real Scandal
Last week was not the best week for President Obama. In fact, some have called it "the worst week of his presidency."
With the President mired in three different political stories at once, conservative politicians and pundits saw the opportunity to frame the debate ahead. There was finally a chance to seize public opinion and force Obama out of the White House, or at least keep Democrats from obtaining it in 2016.
Former Governor Mike Huckabee declared that, "the president will not fill out his full term," because of the Benghazi terrorist attack and imaginary "cover-up". The former GOP presidential candidate, Michelle Bachmann also used hyperbolic language when she discussed the possibility of impeachment.
Good ol' politics; it never disappoints. Instead of using the "scandals" to learn how to improve governance, or even how to save lives in the future, our elected officials have decided to put on a circus. One cannot read a story without comparisons to Watergate or Iran-Contra.
All of the partisan politics arising out of the "scandals" did make it a bad week. A bad week for you and I - normal Americans.
Every single day that Congress and the White House fight over Benghazi, AP subpoenas, and IRS policy, we lose. Because there in fact is, a lot that needs to be done.
Did you forget that we have a broken immigration system that needs desperate attention? There are good, church-going, law-abiding individuals who are immigrants, that are ready to pay taxes and contribute to the American story.
Are we too enamored with the talks of controversy that we ignore the fact that our infrastructure is falling apart? The non-partisan American Society of Civil Engineers are ready to build and repair our D+ graded roads, bridges, pipes, and levees.
Is it really important that Benghazi talking points were misstated, or should we focus on making education more affordable? Right now, families are forced to make the decision between retirement and funding a college education.
We should be demanding votes on these important issues, but instead seem to be satisfied with political theater.
I am sure that some will argue that these novel stories are important. The Benghazi attack puts into question how we can better secure our embassies abroad. But as I have stated above, this is not about defense. It is about attacking the President. If you are one of my conservative readers, I am sure that you may have missed the fact that the GOP House cut embassy security prior to the attacks.
Or take the AP subpoenas. I would be willing to bet that the loudest critics do not even know why the Justice Department served the subpoenas in the first place. For the past few years, the Attorney General has been investigating security leaks, which have put our spies in danger overseas. Although I support the question into whether the subpoenas were properly drafted, it is perfectly legal to take such investigatory steps.
And finally the IRS scrutiny of conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt status worries me. I am politically left-of-center but it does not take a genius to know that it could set wrong precedent for the future - liberals could be next. No political group should be targeted because of its beliefs.
The discussion for campaign finance and tax reform would be helpful in the IRS story but it will not happen. The GOP has to find out whether the President knew on May 9th or May 10th that the IRS was acting imprudently, because it will show how Nixonian Obama is.
This was a bad week. But more importantly, if Americans do not pressure our elected officials to do something productive for this great nation, we will have worse weeks ahead. That is the real scandal.
With the President mired in three different political stories at once, conservative politicians and pundits saw the opportunity to frame the debate ahead. There was finally a chance to seize public opinion and force Obama out of the White House, or at least keep Democrats from obtaining it in 2016.
Former Governor Mike Huckabee declared that, "the president will not fill out his full term," because of the Benghazi terrorist attack and imaginary "cover-up". The former GOP presidential candidate, Michelle Bachmann also used hyperbolic language when she discussed the possibility of impeachment.
Good ol' politics; it never disappoints. Instead of using the "scandals" to learn how to improve governance, or even how to save lives in the future, our elected officials have decided to put on a circus. One cannot read a story without comparisons to Watergate or Iran-Contra.
All of the partisan politics arising out of the "scandals" did make it a bad week. A bad week for you and I - normal Americans.
Every single day that Congress and the White House fight over Benghazi, AP subpoenas, and IRS policy, we lose. Because there in fact is, a lot that needs to be done.
Did you forget that we have a broken immigration system that needs desperate attention? There are good, church-going, law-abiding individuals who are immigrants, that are ready to pay taxes and contribute to the American story.
Are we too enamored with the talks of controversy that we ignore the fact that our infrastructure is falling apart? The non-partisan American Society of Civil Engineers are ready to build and repair our D+ graded roads, bridges, pipes, and levees.
Is it really important that Benghazi talking points were misstated, or should we focus on making education more affordable? Right now, families are forced to make the decision between retirement and funding a college education.
We should be demanding votes on these important issues, but instead seem to be satisfied with political theater.
I am sure that some will argue that these novel stories are important. The Benghazi attack puts into question how we can better secure our embassies abroad. But as I have stated above, this is not about defense. It is about attacking the President. If you are one of my conservative readers, I am sure that you may have missed the fact that the GOP House cut embassy security prior to the attacks.
Or take the AP subpoenas. I would be willing to bet that the loudest critics do not even know why the Justice Department served the subpoenas in the first place. For the past few years, the Attorney General has been investigating security leaks, which have put our spies in danger overseas. Although I support the question into whether the subpoenas were properly drafted, it is perfectly legal to take such investigatory steps.
And finally the IRS scrutiny of conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt status worries me. I am politically left-of-center but it does not take a genius to know that it could set wrong precedent for the future - liberals could be next. No political group should be targeted because of its beliefs.
The discussion for campaign finance and tax reform would be helpful in the IRS story but it will not happen. The GOP has to find out whether the President knew on May 9th or May 10th that the IRS was acting imprudently, because it will show how Nixonian Obama is.
This was a bad week. But more importantly, if Americans do not pressure our elected officials to do something productive for this great nation, we will have worse weeks ahead. That is the real scandal.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
The Big Fight: Austerity v. Stimulus
Americans love a good fight. We are always looking for the next confrontation, the next battle, the next argument.
Just look at our television shows: flip through MTV and you can get reruns of Jersey Shore, where roommates yell at one another and meat-heads punch walls; switch to CNN and you can watch pundits spar with words and spit with indignation. Most of our fictional shows involve lawyers arguing, or doctors fighting over surgeries.
Our political and economical arguments are based on a cultural need to take a stand against something, anything. All of our ideological differences fought over in public, via the different media outlets, now resemble a boxing ring. "In this corner, from the great state of I Think That The Government Is Evil, weighing in on almost every news story, Mr. Stereotypical Conservativvvvvvvvvve. And in the other corner, from the great state of I Am An Elitist Hippy, Mr. Stereotypical Liberaaaaaaaaal."
It is not fun to give an opinion unless everyone knows what "side" you are on, or what "party line" you will take.
And guess what? Economics is no different. For years, the entire globe has been taking positions on whether austerity or stimulus is the better economic prescription to fight cyclical recessions.
Austerity, a favorite among conservatives, is the belief that governments have a moral and fiscal responsibility to reign in public debt lest confidence in the market is destroyed; it is far more important to balance the fiscal budget than focus on growth. It is also the belief that price stability should be given precedent over unemployment.
Stimulus, or Keynesian demand theory, is the belief that recessions are elongated by a lack of aggregate demand. When consumers, households, and businesses hold back on purchasing at the same time, it causes the economy to contract. A stimulus supporter believes that the government should increase short-term spending to boost aggregate demand.
So, what color shorts are you wearing in the ring? Whose side are you on? If you picked Austerity, you may want to reconsider.
Not only has Austerity not worked in practice, it was just discovered that the Harvard professors who touted austerity made a simple excel error, which completely changed their data and conclusions to support that an increase in public debt correlates with slower growth. Oops.
A graduate student from the University of Massachusetts found that the two professors not only forgot to include a number of developed countries but that they forgot to weigh the average of some important data. The underpinning of their whole austerity argument has now been debunked.
Now, countries have started to ease back on their draconian and arbitrary cuts. José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission President, stated that, "...socially and politically, one policy that is only seen as austerity is, of course, not sustainable." It is about time.
The UK enacted austerity five years ago and growth has slowed down to embarrassing levels. The current projected .07% GDP growth has some policymakers worried. In Spain, there is a depression, due in part to failed austerity policies. The unemployment rate has reached a new high at 27.2%. Spaniards are suffering because officials think that Spain's interest rates could skyrocket if it fails to cut back. The government fiscal decision makers also cite possible inflation problems.
All of this sounds too familiar as deficit hawks in the United States, mostly Republicans, have screamed about government spending. Instead of reaching a compromise by increasing federal revenue, by taxing the very wealthy, deficit hawks have facilitated the implementation of the Sequester cuts. We have already started to see the negative effects. And for what, price stability, lower inflation, and good interest rates?
Unemployment is more devastating and causes more misery than an increase in inflation. Researchers have found that people prefer inflation over unemployment because joblessness is more personal and depresses well-being. Furthermore, small levels of inflation have been a good monetary policy for a myriad of reasons.
Moreover, interest rates have and will continue to be low. There is no immediate danger of investors losing faith in America meeting its debt obligations. Put simply, Austerians and deficit hawks are pushing forward a plan that does not work practically or theoretically.
I like a good fight. I like winning too. That is why I encourage you to get more involved when it comes to pressuring our elected officials to reach a budget compromise. The arbitrary Sequester cuts need to stop before more damage is done. So turn off MTV, CNN, or Grey's Anatomy and let's fight the good fight. It is what Americans do best.
Just look at our television shows: flip through MTV and you can get reruns of Jersey Shore, where roommates yell at one another and meat-heads punch walls; switch to CNN and you can watch pundits spar with words and spit with indignation. Most of our fictional shows involve lawyers arguing, or doctors fighting over surgeries.
Our political and economical arguments are based on a cultural need to take a stand against something, anything. All of our ideological differences fought over in public, via the different media outlets, now resemble a boxing ring. "In this corner, from the great state of I Think That The Government Is Evil, weighing in on almost every news story, Mr. Stereotypical Conservativvvvvvvvvve. And in the other corner, from the great state of I Am An Elitist Hippy, Mr. Stereotypical Liberaaaaaaaaal."
It is not fun to give an opinion unless everyone knows what "side" you are on, or what "party line" you will take.
And guess what? Economics is no different. For years, the entire globe has been taking positions on whether austerity or stimulus is the better economic prescription to fight cyclical recessions.
Austerity, a favorite among conservatives, is the belief that governments have a moral and fiscal responsibility to reign in public debt lest confidence in the market is destroyed; it is far more important to balance the fiscal budget than focus on growth. It is also the belief that price stability should be given precedent over unemployment.
Stimulus, or Keynesian demand theory, is the belief that recessions are elongated by a lack of aggregate demand. When consumers, households, and businesses hold back on purchasing at the same time, it causes the economy to contract. A stimulus supporter believes that the government should increase short-term spending to boost aggregate demand.
So, what color shorts are you wearing in the ring? Whose side are you on? If you picked Austerity, you may want to reconsider.
Not only has Austerity not worked in practice, it was just discovered that the Harvard professors who touted austerity made a simple excel error, which completely changed their data and conclusions to support that an increase in public debt correlates with slower growth. Oops.
A graduate student from the University of Massachusetts found that the two professors not only forgot to include a number of developed countries but that they forgot to weigh the average of some important data. The underpinning of their whole austerity argument has now been debunked.
Now, countries have started to ease back on their draconian and arbitrary cuts. José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission President, stated that, "...socially and politically, one policy that is only seen as austerity is, of course, not sustainable." It is about time.
The UK enacted austerity five years ago and growth has slowed down to embarrassing levels. The current projected .07% GDP growth has some policymakers worried. In Spain, there is a depression, due in part to failed austerity policies. The unemployment rate has reached a new high at 27.2%. Spaniards are suffering because officials think that Spain's interest rates could skyrocket if it fails to cut back. The government fiscal decision makers also cite possible inflation problems.
All of this sounds too familiar as deficit hawks in the United States, mostly Republicans, have screamed about government spending. Instead of reaching a compromise by increasing federal revenue, by taxing the very wealthy, deficit hawks have facilitated the implementation of the Sequester cuts. We have already started to see the negative effects. And for what, price stability, lower inflation, and good interest rates?
Unemployment is more devastating and causes more misery than an increase in inflation. Researchers have found that people prefer inflation over unemployment because joblessness is more personal and depresses well-being. Furthermore, small levels of inflation have been a good monetary policy for a myriad of reasons.
Moreover, interest rates have and will continue to be low. There is no immediate danger of investors losing faith in America meeting its debt obligations. Put simply, Austerians and deficit hawks are pushing forward a plan that does not work practically or theoretically.
I like a good fight. I like winning too. That is why I encourage you to get more involved when it comes to pressuring our elected officials to reach a budget compromise. The arbitrary Sequester cuts need to stop before more damage is done. So turn off MTV, CNN, or Grey's Anatomy and let's fight the good fight. It is what Americans do best.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
My Law Practice
It was not even a week after I took the bar examination that I wrote my first blog post about attending law school. My first paragraph in that August post ended with a quip - I would be lucky if anyone would read it.
Now look at my blog. It has been viewed by over 1,300 people. Yet, I still must admit that I believe some of my close family and friends are the one's responsible for that number - a rabid mouse click on the website over and over.
Nevertheless, this political and legal blog has given me an outlet to write something other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Do not get me wrong; I thoroughly enjoy what I do. I just find that it is therapeutic to write on a topic that does not have a court mandated deadline.
Yes, I write legal documents for a living. And argue; I can't forget that I argue for a living. But when I was thinking of a topic for my 20th blog post, I thought that I would touch upon a more personal subject. Over the course of a few months, I have been practicing law as a solo practitioner in the Los Angeles Valley. I thought that I should share some of my experiences.
Having a small law firm is not just writing and arguing. When you run your own practice, you have to become more than just an attorney. You have to think like a businessman, market like a Mad Man, and socialize like a crazy man. There are a myriad of things that a solo practitioner must do to pay the bills. Let me explain.
It was probably only a couple of days after the bar passage mania that I realized that I would have to come up with a plan. Fortunately for me, and by the blessing of God, I was working with two other attorneys as a law clerk. They believed in me and gave me work to do. With a steady stream of income coming in, I knew that I could open my own practice without having to worry about meeting my obligations. Having an office to work in also helped.
The lure of working for myself was an opportunity that I could not pass up. There is something special about being your own boss. It is also fantastic that I wear my gym shorts and Dodger t-shirt while I work from my home office. The main problem was making sure that I had clients and cases to work on. I began to work on that immediately.
With my associates providing me cases; an office; and advice, I began the process of marketing my practice. I paid for a website, wrote content, and had my beautiful fiance help me with the design. It truly was a remarkable feat when it was finally done, after having worked on it for days. That was just the website...
After creating my social media pages, I began to work on advertising and marketing. Frantic calls were made to the major legal directories that would give me an opportunity to gain more exposure. I forget how many search engine optimizers I talked to in the month of January.
With some of the basics done, I had to focus on the business of running a solo practice. I opened my business account; developed ideas for payment methods; and began the process of documenting my revenue, costs, and profit. Start-up costs were paid with the cases that I had already been working on; and luckily, from cases that I picked up from my own advertising.
Of course a solo practitioner has to "network." The 21st Century word bears new meaning. I began to attend Saturday conferences in downtown Los Angeles; marijuana defense seminars in Tarzana; and medical malpractice luncheons in Beverly Hills. I handed my card to anyone and everyone. I may have accidentally given my card to a mannequin at Versace of Beverly Hills.
It has already been a good ride. I owe a lot to Elizabeth, who has given me constant support and love. I cannot wait to marry her! And just like my blog post in August, I know it is just the beginning. I have already made mistakes and know that I may make more. I just hope that I am lucky enough to stay on the path. If not, I'll always have this blog.
Now look at my blog. It has been viewed by over 1,300 people. Yet, I still must admit that I believe some of my close family and friends are the one's responsible for that number - a rabid mouse click on the website over and over.
Nevertheless, this political and legal blog has given me an outlet to write something other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Do not get me wrong; I thoroughly enjoy what I do. I just find that it is therapeutic to write on a topic that does not have a court mandated deadline.
Yes, I write legal documents for a living. And argue; I can't forget that I argue for a living. But when I was thinking of a topic for my 20th blog post, I thought that I would touch upon a more personal subject. Over the course of a few months, I have been practicing law as a solo practitioner in the Los Angeles Valley. I thought that I should share some of my experiences.
Having a small law firm is not just writing and arguing. When you run your own practice, you have to become more than just an attorney. You have to think like a businessman, market like a Mad Man, and socialize like a crazy man. There are a myriad of things that a solo practitioner must do to pay the bills. Let me explain.
It was probably only a couple of days after the bar passage mania that I realized that I would have to come up with a plan. Fortunately for me, and by the blessing of God, I was working with two other attorneys as a law clerk. They believed in me and gave me work to do. With a steady stream of income coming in, I knew that I could open my own practice without having to worry about meeting my obligations. Having an office to work in also helped.
The lure of working for myself was an opportunity that I could not pass up. There is something special about being your own boss. It is also fantastic that I wear my gym shorts and Dodger t-shirt while I work from my home office. The main problem was making sure that I had clients and cases to work on. I began to work on that immediately.
With my associates providing me cases; an office; and advice, I began the process of marketing my practice. I paid for a website, wrote content, and had my beautiful fiance help me with the design. It truly was a remarkable feat when it was finally done, after having worked on it for days. That was just the website...
After creating my social media pages, I began to work on advertising and marketing. Frantic calls were made to the major legal directories that would give me an opportunity to gain more exposure. I forget how many search engine optimizers I talked to in the month of January.
With some of the basics done, I had to focus on the business of running a solo practice. I opened my business account; developed ideas for payment methods; and began the process of documenting my revenue, costs, and profit. Start-up costs were paid with the cases that I had already been working on; and luckily, from cases that I picked up from my own advertising.
Of course a solo practitioner has to "network." The 21st Century word bears new meaning. I began to attend Saturday conferences in downtown Los Angeles; marijuana defense seminars in Tarzana; and medical malpractice luncheons in Beverly Hills. I handed my card to anyone and everyone. I may have accidentally given my card to a mannequin at Versace of Beverly Hills.
It has already been a good ride. I owe a lot to Elizabeth, who has given me constant support and love. I cannot wait to marry her! And just like my blog post in August, I know it is just the beginning. I have already made mistakes and know that I may make more. I just hope that I am lucky enough to stay on the path. If not, I'll always have this blog.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Why Can't We Be Friends?
I do not have too many breaks during the day. But when I do, I try to keep myself informed of current events. Maybe it's not the best way to relax my mind while I draft a post-conviction brief, since, more often than not, I just want to get back to work. It seems the news has been the same for awhile now. Congress is dysfunctional and compromise is a thing of the past.
Social media is not much better. My conservative friends express disdain over how the President is handling things, and my liberal friends express their frustration with the majority opposition in the House of Representatives. We are deeply divided. That much has been represented by our elected officials when they accomplish little in our capital.
All of this partisanship rancor has got me thinking: how did we get here and how do we get out of it.
Believe it or not, there is strong evidence that income inequality has a direct correlation with political polarization. When there is a growing gap between the rich and poor, you can bet that there will be more ideological purists on capital hill. This bitter partisanship also undermines our national security; we have to try to do something about it.
Even with confronted with this evidence, I know that people of different political beliefs will interpret the facts differently and propose clashing policies in confronting our fiscal challenges.
Take for example, the financial news of the past week. One of our stock market indices, the Dow, reached its highest nominal amount ever in its history.
The employment numbers have also been improving. 236,000 jobs were added in February, which helped lower the unemployment rate to its lowest level since December 2008. The United States is creating wealth, but not everyone is sharing in the bliss. All of the positive gains in the economy are going to the wealthiest individuals.
Conservatives will still argue that the Government is too bloated and there needs to be "market-friendly" adjustments in the budget battles ahead. They will take the viewpoint that government dependency, via the national debt, is the main problem in decreasing the opportunities for low and middle-income people. It would be foolish to raise taxes again so that we can spend more, they will say.
I also know that liberals, and myself, will diametrically oppose these propositions. There can still be more government intervention in a responsible way to curb income inequality. For one, we could raise taxes on the wealthiest individuals and businesses because they can afford it. There are a number of fiscal policies that can be implemented to help everyone, rich and poor.
And now we are back at square one, two political viewpoints, which cannot be bridged.
The political scientists and sociologists may be right. Perhaps we are too different in how we perceive the world and how we think society should be structured. Some psychologists think that our political differences are ingrained in our brains, while others think that the beliefs are formed when our parents raise us in a particular way. It probably is a combination of the two.
No matter the foundation for how we form our beliefs, it does not help that we seek validation from people who share our beliefs, while drowning out opposing viewpoints. A University of Kentucky study showed that people will (1) tend to make a political judgment first, and then attempt to rationalize it. (2) Next, they will search for facts that will support that judgment; and (3) attack anyone's rationale if it challenges their assumptions.
The study stated that both conservatives and liberals engage in these unconscious biases.
Our country faces unprecedented political deadlock that will hurt our economy and our national defense. Income inequality is a real problem and it could be fueling the partisan divide.
Let's do something different when it comes to political dialogue. Let's reach out with less preconceived notions. Maybe our elected officials will do the same and solve our fiscal challenges ahead.
It's time to get back to work; I hope that the next time I read the news something will be different. Maybe compromise will be the way of the future.
Social media is not much better. My conservative friends express disdain over how the President is handling things, and my liberal friends express their frustration with the majority opposition in the House of Representatives. We are deeply divided. That much has been represented by our elected officials when they accomplish little in our capital.
All of this partisanship rancor has got me thinking: how did we get here and how do we get out of it.
Believe it or not, there is strong evidence that income inequality has a direct correlation with political polarization. When there is a growing gap between the rich and poor, you can bet that there will be more ideological purists on capital hill. This bitter partisanship also undermines our national security; we have to try to do something about it.
Even with confronted with this evidence, I know that people of different political beliefs will interpret the facts differently and propose clashing policies in confronting our fiscal challenges.
Take for example, the financial news of the past week. One of our stock market indices, the Dow, reached its highest nominal amount ever in its history.
The employment numbers have also been improving. 236,000 jobs were added in February, which helped lower the unemployment rate to its lowest level since December 2008. The United States is creating wealth, but not everyone is sharing in the bliss. All of the positive gains in the economy are going to the wealthiest individuals.
Conservatives will still argue that the Government is too bloated and there needs to be "market-friendly" adjustments in the budget battles ahead. They will take the viewpoint that government dependency, via the national debt, is the main problem in decreasing the opportunities for low and middle-income people. It would be foolish to raise taxes again so that we can spend more, they will say.
I also know that liberals, and myself, will diametrically oppose these propositions. There can still be more government intervention in a responsible way to curb income inequality. For one, we could raise taxes on the wealthiest individuals and businesses because they can afford it. There are a number of fiscal policies that can be implemented to help everyone, rich and poor.
And now we are back at square one, two political viewpoints, which cannot be bridged.
The political scientists and sociologists may be right. Perhaps we are too different in how we perceive the world and how we think society should be structured. Some psychologists think that our political differences are ingrained in our brains, while others think that the beliefs are formed when our parents raise us in a particular way. It probably is a combination of the two.
No matter the foundation for how we form our beliefs, it does not help that we seek validation from people who share our beliefs, while drowning out opposing viewpoints. A University of Kentucky study showed that people will (1) tend to make a political judgment first, and then attempt to rationalize it. (2) Next, they will search for facts that will support that judgment; and (3) attack anyone's rationale if it challenges their assumptions.
The study stated that both conservatives and liberals engage in these unconscious biases.
Our country faces unprecedented political deadlock that will hurt our economy and our national defense. Income inequality is a real problem and it could be fueling the partisan divide.
Let's do something different when it comes to political dialogue. Let's reach out with less preconceived notions. Maybe our elected officials will do the same and solve our fiscal challenges ahead.
It's time to get back to work; I hope that the next time I read the news something will be different. Maybe compromise will be the way of the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)