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.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
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.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
The Quest to End the Sequester
The 112th Congress set a record. It is not a record worthy of the Guinness Book, but it is a record that some members of Congress bragged about to their constituents. From 2010 to 2012, the "House and Senate enacted the fewest laws, considered the
fewest bills and held the lowest number of formal negotiations between them."
What can one expect when the Senate minority leader declared that his number one priority was to make President Obama a one-term president. Instead of attempting to pass legislation, by compromising on on a number of crucial issues, the Republican senator made it clear that he favored ideological purity more than efficiency.
Despite making history as the least productive Congress ever in United States history, it did have the gusto to pass the Budget Control Act of 2011. The bill, also called the "Sequestration," would frame the topic of conversation months after its creation. It also gave the public a new term to refer to a manufactured political crisis, because we all know that we needed another one.
The Sequestration was an idea passed by Congress and signed by the President to enable a fiscal deal between the Democrats and Republicans. The whole point of the deal was to force mandatory spending cuts across the board, including defense, unless $1.5 trillion of agreed upon savings was realized. Economists agree that the arbitrary cuts would severely damage the economy and possibly cause another recession.
No one in Congress or the White House was supposed to want the sequester to occur. That was the plan. The effects of the sequester would damage both parties to such an extent that it would be irrational not to make a fiscal deal. It was a bad assumption that Congress would act rationally.
Like clockwork, the Republicans started their rhetoric and attacks on President Obama - the go-to liberal boogeyman, in an attempt to gain an advantage in the politics of sequestration talks. Congressman Paul Ryan stated that the sequester was "designed" by the President and that Obama showed an unwillingness to work with the Republican House to find a solution. He said this after having voted for and praising the Budget Control Act.
Speaker John Boehner also contributed to the web rhetoric by coining the Twitter hash-tag, "#Obamaquester." He must have thought the term "Obamacare" went well during the healthcare discussions.
Every single preventable political crisis that occurs has an effect on the entire economy, on ordinary Americans. Individuals from finance, business, and journalism agree that it will reduce the GDP; impede the stock markets; and cause uncertainty. If the sequester were to become a reality - money would be cut for the FBI, border patrol, hurricane relief, public parks, meat and poultry inspectors, and Head Start students. CBS's Bob Schieffer correctly pointed out that the only obstacle for a resolution is "Washington's ineptitude."
Now is the time for the public and average Americans to expect more out of their elected officials. The 113th Congress must do more than their "do-nothing" predecessors. We used to value records that meant something, records that set out individuals on a quest for greatness, not a quest for political upmanship.
What can one expect when the Senate minority leader declared that his number one priority was to make President Obama a one-term president. Instead of attempting to pass legislation, by compromising on on a number of crucial issues, the Republican senator made it clear that he favored ideological purity more than efficiency.
Despite making history as the least productive Congress ever in United States history, it did have the gusto to pass the Budget Control Act of 2011. The bill, also called the "Sequestration," would frame the topic of conversation months after its creation. It also gave the public a new term to refer to a manufactured political crisis, because we all know that we needed another one.
The Sequestration was an idea passed by Congress and signed by the President to enable a fiscal deal between the Democrats and Republicans. The whole point of the deal was to force mandatory spending cuts across the board, including defense, unless $1.5 trillion of agreed upon savings was realized. Economists agree that the arbitrary cuts would severely damage the economy and possibly cause another recession.
No one in Congress or the White House was supposed to want the sequester to occur. That was the plan. The effects of the sequester would damage both parties to such an extent that it would be irrational not to make a fiscal deal. It was a bad assumption that Congress would act rationally.
Like clockwork, the Republicans started their rhetoric and attacks on President Obama - the go-to liberal boogeyman, in an attempt to gain an advantage in the politics of sequestration talks. Congressman Paul Ryan stated that the sequester was "designed" by the President and that Obama showed an unwillingness to work with the Republican House to find a solution. He said this after having voted for and praising the Budget Control Act.
Speaker John Boehner also contributed to the web rhetoric by coining the Twitter hash-tag, "#Obamaquester." He must have thought the term "Obamacare" went well during the healthcare discussions.
Every single preventable political crisis that occurs has an effect on the entire economy, on ordinary Americans. Individuals from finance, business, and journalism agree that it will reduce the GDP; impede the stock markets; and cause uncertainty. If the sequester were to become a reality - money would be cut for the FBI, border patrol, hurricane relief, public parks, meat and poultry inspectors, and Head Start students. CBS's Bob Schieffer correctly pointed out that the only obstacle for a resolution is "Washington's ineptitude."
Now is the time for the public and average Americans to expect more out of their elected officials. The 113th Congress must do more than their "do-nothing" predecessors. We used to value records that meant something, records that set out individuals on a quest for greatness, not a quest for political upmanship.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
President Romney
Earlier this week, the United States witnessed the second inauguration of President Barack Obama. The event was full of celebrities, progressive idealism, and well rehearsed speeches. And yes, it was the presidential inauguration, not the Academy Awards.
In all seriousness, I am surprised that we have not descended into a state of desolation and hopelessness. Wasn't inflation supposed to make our dollar worthless? Why did jobless claims drop to its lowest level in five years? I was under the belief that Obama was going to tear apart the Constitution and in the process destroy our economy.
Of course that did not happen and probably will not happen. The United States is the most resilient country in the world. We always have overcome adversity while preserving our constitutional rights. Moreover, President Obama has done a great job implementing policies that have helped our economic recovery.
Yet, the GOP still has a problem. A problem that some have analogized to alcoholism. Included in the 12-Step Program for GOP resurgence is the first two steps - admit that there is a problem and go outside of the GOP comfort zone. In other words, stop opposing Obama for the sake of opposing Obama and reach out to minorities.
Even with these two steps laid out, the party decided to take a different approach. On the day of the inauguration and on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech, Virginia Republicans voted for a redistricting bill that will maximize GOP seats and reduce Democratic seats. The purpose of the bill is to ensure GOP-dominant districts.
There was also a bit of irony. The vote was was brought when a civil rights leader was absent from the Virginia senate to witness the President's inauguration in person. Henry Marsh, the first black mayor of Richmond and civil rights attorney, was unable to cast a no vote. The bill was passed with a one vote majority, all Republicans. So much for reaching out to minorities.
Gerrymandering is not a new political tactic. It has been a favorite of both parties and it does not serve the interest of the American people. When elected officials redraw congressional districts to favor their own political party, it creates more polarization and facilitates electoral injustice. Furthermore, it gives legislators no incentive to compromise because there is a less of a chance that the incumbent could lose his or her seat.
Swing states throughout the country are considering measures like Virginia. Pennsylvania wants to distribute presidential electoral votes based upon the outcome of each district in the state. Pennsylvania has 18 districts, with 6 of those being comprised of urban voters. If Pennsylvania were to adopt the proposal, Mitt Romney would have won Pennsylvania 12 to 6 despite having lost the popular vote by 5 percent.
So if you live in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh, you can count on the fact that your vote does not count. At least in relation to the voters in more rural districts.
The Presidential election would have been different if all of the republican-controlled swing state legislatures changed their electoral system to the one Pennsylvania is debating. Mitt Romney would have won the electoral college 280-258. President Romney would have been carrying his binders full of women to the White House.
This is not an absurd possibility. It is actually more probable than you would think. In the 2012 election, the American people voted 49 percent to 48.2 percent for Democratic representatives in the House. What was the outcome of the House of Representatives? The Republicans maintained a strong majority. This has only happened three times in one hundred years, wherein the party with more votes ended up in the minority position.
In North Carolina, Democrats received over half of the votes in the state yet the Republicans have 70% of the seats. Democracy at its best.
There is an adage, "If you can't beat them, cheat them." The GOP may have to change its motto to reflect its priorities. Again, there is a road map for the conservative party to re-image and re-brand. But, I can promise you that this is not the right step forward. You cannot simply gerrymander a Romney into the presidency.
In all seriousness, I am surprised that we have not descended into a state of desolation and hopelessness. Wasn't inflation supposed to make our dollar worthless? Why did jobless claims drop to its lowest level in five years? I was under the belief that Obama was going to tear apart the Constitution and in the process destroy our economy.
Of course that did not happen and probably will not happen. The United States is the most resilient country in the world. We always have overcome adversity while preserving our constitutional rights. Moreover, President Obama has done a great job implementing policies that have helped our economic recovery.
Yet, the GOP still has a problem. A problem that some have analogized to alcoholism. Included in the 12-Step Program for GOP resurgence is the first two steps - admit that there is a problem and go outside of the GOP comfort zone. In other words, stop opposing Obama for the sake of opposing Obama and reach out to minorities.
Even with these two steps laid out, the party decided to take a different approach. On the day of the inauguration and on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech, Virginia Republicans voted for a redistricting bill that will maximize GOP seats and reduce Democratic seats. The purpose of the bill is to ensure GOP-dominant districts.
There was also a bit of irony. The vote was was brought when a civil rights leader was absent from the Virginia senate to witness the President's inauguration in person. Henry Marsh, the first black mayor of Richmond and civil rights attorney, was unable to cast a no vote. The bill was passed with a one vote majority, all Republicans. So much for reaching out to minorities.
Gerrymandering is not a new political tactic. It has been a favorite of both parties and it does not serve the interest of the American people. When elected officials redraw congressional districts to favor their own political party, it creates more polarization and facilitates electoral injustice. Furthermore, it gives legislators no incentive to compromise because there is a less of a chance that the incumbent could lose his or her seat.
Swing states throughout the country are considering measures like Virginia. Pennsylvania wants to distribute presidential electoral votes based upon the outcome of each district in the state. Pennsylvania has 18 districts, with 6 of those being comprised of urban voters. If Pennsylvania were to adopt the proposal, Mitt Romney would have won Pennsylvania 12 to 6 despite having lost the popular vote by 5 percent.
So if you live in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh, you can count on the fact that your vote does not count. At least in relation to the voters in more rural districts.
The Presidential election would have been different if all of the republican-controlled swing state legislatures changed their electoral system to the one Pennsylvania is debating. Mitt Romney would have won the electoral college 280-258. President Romney would have been carrying his binders full of women to the White House.
This is not an absurd possibility. It is actually more probable than you would think. In the 2012 election, the American people voted 49 percent to 48.2 percent for Democratic representatives in the House. What was the outcome of the House of Representatives? The Republicans maintained a strong majority. This has only happened three times in one hundred years, wherein the party with more votes ended up in the minority position.
In North Carolina, Democrats received over half of the votes in the state yet the Republicans have 70% of the seats. Democracy at its best.
There is an adage, "If you can't beat them, cheat them." The GOP may have to change its motto to reflect its priorities. Again, there is a road map for the conservative party to re-image and re-brand. But, I can promise you that this is not the right step forward. You cannot simply gerrymander a Romney into the presidency.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Necesitamos una reforma migratoria ahora!
Me llamo Cristopher, and I believe in immigration reform. I also believe that I need to work on my Spanish so I can complete a whole introductory sentence en Espanol. Eso es chido. Okay, sorry... I will stop with the Spanglish.
The reality is that we are a county of immigrants and have always been a melting pot of different cultures, beliefs, and traditions. Diversity has been a good thing. For one, it has helped our economy. Mayor Villaraigosa correctly pointed out that 40% of the Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants.
Second, it has led to innovation. The New York Times found that immigrants and foreign born students have helped increase the number of patents in the United States. Some of those patents have already saved lives. Ashlesh Murthy, from India, developed a vaccine. And Wenyuan Shi, from China, developed a lollipop ingredient that works as dental treatment for children. I should have checked that out before I got my wisdom teeth removed.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, it has led to a wide variety of restaurants in the greater Los Angeles area. I admit that this third benefit was intended to be funny but it speaks to the truth about the need for novelty. With so many different types of people living amongst one another, a person can find any type of exotic cuisine. It also means that a person can learn new things and make new friends.
Despite these proven benefits, immigration reform has been a polarized issue. Well...until President Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney by 5 million total votes and 120 electoral votes. Included in the victorious Obama coalition were Hispanic voters, who either were immigrants themselves or family members of immigrants. The Hispanic vote went 75-23% for Obama, the widest margin in presidential politics.
One day after the election, on November 7 2012, Sean Hannity announced, on his conservative television program, that he would support comprehensive immigration reform. That was a dramatic change from when he supported self-deportation, a large border fence, and a rogue state immigration law like SB 1070 in Arizona.
He may have had an overnight revelation. But it is more likely that he read the exit polls during the night and could not go back to sleep.
It doesn't matter if the GOP changed its stance on immigration for the purposes of self-preservation. A political party should adapt to the conditions of the country. But more importantly, we now have the opportunity to pass a bipartisan immigration bill.
With this GOP cooperation, a path for citizenship can be laid out for millions of immigrants. And it does not have to be amnesty. President Obama wants to include penalties for those who have came here in violations of our current immigration laws. There could be a fine and a mandate to pay back taxes.
These criteria combined with strict border enforcement, employment verification, and a tough stance on felonious immigrants leads to comprehensive reform, which works for everyone.
Back in the 19th Century, an argument was made for equality in labor. Hinton Helper eloquently stated that, "the causes which have impeded the progress and prosperity of The South, which have dwindled our commerce, and other similar pursuits, into the most contemptible insignificance; sunk a large majority of our people in galling poverty and ignorance, entailed upon us a humiliating dependence on the Free States; may all be traced to one common source, Slavery."
In a way, undocumented labor has become similar to slavery. And like slavery, undocumented labor only hurts the economy. Undocumented workers depress wages, make products less safe, and encourage an atmosphere of shadow and noncompliance. Could you imagine what would happen if these individuals paid taxes and became citizens?
Economists already have. The United States GDP would increase $1.5 trillion over 10 years and federal revenues would increase $4.5 billion in the first three years. It sounds like the tea party should talk with Hannity if they are serious about deficit reduction.
Comprehensive immigration reform is good for everyone, economically and morally. This is not the time to fight about a fence or the possibility that the US will become a "magnet" for illegals. Necesitamos una reforma ahora!
The reality is that we are a county of immigrants and have always been a melting pot of different cultures, beliefs, and traditions. Diversity has been a good thing. For one, it has helped our economy. Mayor Villaraigosa correctly pointed out that 40% of the Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants.
Second, it has led to innovation. The New York Times found that immigrants and foreign born students have helped increase the number of patents in the United States. Some of those patents have already saved lives. Ashlesh Murthy, from India, developed a vaccine. And Wenyuan Shi, from China, developed a lollipop ingredient that works as dental treatment for children. I should have checked that out before I got my wisdom teeth removed.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, it has led to a wide variety of restaurants in the greater Los Angeles area. I admit that this third benefit was intended to be funny but it speaks to the truth about the need for novelty. With so many different types of people living amongst one another, a person can find any type of exotic cuisine. It also means that a person can learn new things and make new friends.
Despite these proven benefits, immigration reform has been a polarized issue. Well...until President Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney by 5 million total votes and 120 electoral votes. Included in the victorious Obama coalition were Hispanic voters, who either were immigrants themselves or family members of immigrants. The Hispanic vote went 75-23% for Obama, the widest margin in presidential politics.
One day after the election, on November 7 2012, Sean Hannity announced, on his conservative television program, that he would support comprehensive immigration reform. That was a dramatic change from when he supported self-deportation, a large border fence, and a rogue state immigration law like SB 1070 in Arizona.
He may have had an overnight revelation. But it is more likely that he read the exit polls during the night and could not go back to sleep.
It doesn't matter if the GOP changed its stance on immigration for the purposes of self-preservation. A political party should adapt to the conditions of the country. But more importantly, we now have the opportunity to pass a bipartisan immigration bill.
With this GOP cooperation, a path for citizenship can be laid out for millions of immigrants. And it does not have to be amnesty. President Obama wants to include penalties for those who have came here in violations of our current immigration laws. There could be a fine and a mandate to pay back taxes.
These criteria combined with strict border enforcement, employment verification, and a tough stance on felonious immigrants leads to comprehensive reform, which works for everyone.
Back in the 19th Century, an argument was made for equality in labor. Hinton Helper eloquently stated that, "the causes which have impeded the progress and prosperity of The South, which have dwindled our commerce, and other similar pursuits, into the most contemptible insignificance; sunk a large majority of our people in galling poverty and ignorance, entailed upon us a humiliating dependence on the Free States; may all be traced to one common source, Slavery."
In a way, undocumented labor has become similar to slavery. And like slavery, undocumented labor only hurts the economy. Undocumented workers depress wages, make products less safe, and encourage an atmosphere of shadow and noncompliance. Could you imagine what would happen if these individuals paid taxes and became citizens?
Economists already have. The United States GDP would increase $1.5 trillion over 10 years and federal revenues would increase $4.5 billion in the first three years. It sounds like the tea party should talk with Hannity if they are serious about deficit reduction.
Comprehensive immigration reform is good for everyone, economically and morally. This is not the time to fight about a fence or the possibility that the US will become a "magnet" for illegals. Necesitamos una reforma ahora!
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Fiscal Cliff Notes
I can remember my freshman and sophmore years in high school. Back when I had acne and could still run. I used cliff notes to gain a better understanding of the book we were assigned in English class. I am sure that some of my readers can relate to cliff notes or similar commercial summaries. Instead of reading the whole book, cliff notes allowed students to read at the last minute and still pass.
In a way, the fiscal cliff reminds me of cliff notes. Congress does not want to do the work they were sent to do and are trying to pass legislation at the last minute. Yes, the stakes are more serious than a bad grade on an English test, but it seems like Congress is looking for a shortcut. If only there were cliff notes on achieving economic stability and fairness.
The reality is that there are no shortcuts to fixing our economy in the global environment that we live in today. Luckily, we can look at other economies and history to help us make fiscal policy decisions. Below are my cliff notes for the fiscal cliff. It is not enough to solve all of the complex problems we face, but it can provide a framework for how we should approach it.
(1) Effective January 1, 2013, tax rates will go up for every level of income. The payroll tax holiday will also expire and spending cuts to schools, public health, and defense will take place. It is estimated that almost 90% of Americans, mostly low and middle income, will face on average, a $3,500 increase in tax liability.
(2) Federal tax revenues have been at there lowest levels in sixty years. This is due to the fact that tax rates have never been lower and the Great Recession has put many people out of work, which has decreased the amount of people who pay taxes.
(3) The national debt is currently over $16 trillion. The first president to go over $1 trillion was Ronald Reagan and it has been estimated that the Bush tax cuts reduced revenue by $1.8 trillion from 2002 and 2009. The debt to GDP ratio is not at the highest level. In 1946, debt was 108% of GDP compared to 104% today.
(4) Since the 1980's, and with the late 90's as an exception when Clinton was president, the United States has run a consistent budget deficit. During the Bush presidency, two wars and the Prescription Drug Bill were expenditures that increased the national deficit. With President Obama as president, the main expenditure was the Stimulus Bill. Both of their tax cuts on incomes over $250,000 have had a significant impact on increasing the deficit.
(5) Entitlement spending on programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is rising quickly. Because of the millions of baby boomers who are retiring and the fact that health care costs are rising at a much higher rate than other goods or services, this poses a fiscal challenge. The Affordable Care Act will help, but it will not be enough.
(6) Countries that enacted austerity have suffered more than any country should have to suffer. Deficit hawks in the United Kingdom have drastically cut spending and there has been little to show for it. Unemployment remained stagnant for five years and UK's GDP is smaller than before austerity.
(7) Despite the United States national debt, the US is still able to borrow at historically low costs. Furthermore, those who have warned of hyper-inflation have been proven wrong for years. Inflation has averaged 1.4% during Obama's presidency and it is projected to be 1.2% for the next 10 years.
(8) Income inequality has grown to unsustainable levels. The top 1% of incomes take home over 20% of total GDP wealth. CEO pay has increased 300% since 1990 compared to the 4% increase for the typical worker. Out of every developed country in the world, the United States has the highest level of income inequality. It may be appropriate that the "Great Gatsby" is going to be in theaters soon, because there has not been this much inequality since the Roaring 20's.
These eight fiscal cliff note summaries give some perspective. While it is important that we confront entitlement spending and lower the national debt to GDP ratio in the long run, the main focus should be on achieving growth.
The average middle class American should not have to shoulder the responsibility of paying down the deficit so that the wealthy can keep their tax rates at historically low levels. Moreover, we have seen the effects of austerity, or cutting discretionary spending that benefits low and middle income citizens. It is a prescription for economic malaise.
To achieve growth, we will need to spend on infrastructure, education, and research. These are the ways in which our businesses can remain competitive in a global economy. Spending in and by itself is not the problem. And while the debt has increased to its highest numerical value, US bonds still have incredibly marginal yields.
When Speaker John Boehner failed to rally his own GOP members to pass his "Plan-B," it was another sign of GOP infighting. They were unable to pass legislation that would have increased taxes on incomes of over $1 million. The extreme tea party wing have gained so much clout that it may mean the end for the Republican party. But more importantly, it may mean the end for a fiscal compromise.
A part of me wants to go back those high school years when I had little responsibility. No bills, no worries, and no care for how Congress made its decisions. It is different now. As a small practitioner, I need Congress to do the right thing. Too bad they're not doing their homework.
In a way, the fiscal cliff reminds me of cliff notes. Congress does not want to do the work they were sent to do and are trying to pass legislation at the last minute. Yes, the stakes are more serious than a bad grade on an English test, but it seems like Congress is looking for a shortcut. If only there were cliff notes on achieving economic stability and fairness.
The reality is that there are no shortcuts to fixing our economy in the global environment that we live in today. Luckily, we can look at other economies and history to help us make fiscal policy decisions. Below are my cliff notes for the fiscal cliff. It is not enough to solve all of the complex problems we face, but it can provide a framework for how we should approach it.
(1) Effective January 1, 2013, tax rates will go up for every level of income. The payroll tax holiday will also expire and spending cuts to schools, public health, and defense will take place. It is estimated that almost 90% of Americans, mostly low and middle income, will face on average, a $3,500 increase in tax liability.
(2) Federal tax revenues have been at there lowest levels in sixty years. This is due to the fact that tax rates have never been lower and the Great Recession has put many people out of work, which has decreased the amount of people who pay taxes.
(3) The national debt is currently over $16 trillion. The first president to go over $1 trillion was Ronald Reagan and it has been estimated that the Bush tax cuts reduced revenue by $1.8 trillion from 2002 and 2009. The debt to GDP ratio is not at the highest level. In 1946, debt was 108% of GDP compared to 104% today.
(4) Since the 1980's, and with the late 90's as an exception when Clinton was president, the United States has run a consistent budget deficit. During the Bush presidency, two wars and the Prescription Drug Bill were expenditures that increased the national deficit. With President Obama as president, the main expenditure was the Stimulus Bill. Both of their tax cuts on incomes over $250,000 have had a significant impact on increasing the deficit.
(5) Entitlement spending on programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is rising quickly. Because of the millions of baby boomers who are retiring and the fact that health care costs are rising at a much higher rate than other goods or services, this poses a fiscal challenge. The Affordable Care Act will help, but it will not be enough.
(6) Countries that enacted austerity have suffered more than any country should have to suffer. Deficit hawks in the United Kingdom have drastically cut spending and there has been little to show for it. Unemployment remained stagnant for five years and UK's GDP is smaller than before austerity.
(7) Despite the United States national debt, the US is still able to borrow at historically low costs. Furthermore, those who have warned of hyper-inflation have been proven wrong for years. Inflation has averaged 1.4% during Obama's presidency and it is projected to be 1.2% for the next 10 years.
(8) Income inequality has grown to unsustainable levels. The top 1% of incomes take home over 20% of total GDP wealth. CEO pay has increased 300% since 1990 compared to the 4% increase for the typical worker. Out of every developed country in the world, the United States has the highest level of income inequality. It may be appropriate that the "Great Gatsby" is going to be in theaters soon, because there has not been this much inequality since the Roaring 20's.
These eight fiscal cliff note summaries give some perspective. While it is important that we confront entitlement spending and lower the national debt to GDP ratio in the long run, the main focus should be on achieving growth.
The average middle class American should not have to shoulder the responsibility of paying down the deficit so that the wealthy can keep their tax rates at historically low levels. Moreover, we have seen the effects of austerity, or cutting discretionary spending that benefits low and middle income citizens. It is a prescription for economic malaise.
To achieve growth, we will need to spend on infrastructure, education, and research. These are the ways in which our businesses can remain competitive in a global economy. Spending in and by itself is not the problem. And while the debt has increased to its highest numerical value, US bonds still have incredibly marginal yields.
When Speaker John Boehner failed to rally his own GOP members to pass his "Plan-B," it was another sign of GOP infighting. They were unable to pass legislation that would have increased taxes on incomes of over $1 million. The extreme tea party wing have gained so much clout that it may mean the end for the Republican party. But more importantly, it may mean the end for a fiscal compromise.
A part of me wants to go back those high school years when I had little responsibility. No bills, no worries, and no care for how Congress made its decisions. It is different now. As a small practitioner, I need Congress to do the right thing. Too bad they're not doing their homework.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)