Rose On Politics

www.roseonpolitics.com

2011-08-19T10:41:00.000-04:00

Hey everyone,
I recently purchased the URL www.roseonpolitics.com and switched everything from here to a Wordpress account. This will make it easier for people to find my posts and my goal is to do more original reporting as well.

So again, all new writing will be on www.roseonpolitics.com. Please check it out and don't be afraid to comment!

Policy and Debt Collide

2011-06-08T18:49:00.000-04:00

After failing to pass a "clean" debt vote, Republican's in Congress are looking for a compromise. The Hill reported today that Senator Jon Kyl said "the GOP would look to a shorter-term increase in the debt ceiling if the talks fail to produce more than $2.5 trillion in cuts." The Treasury has been dipping into reserve funds to forestall the worst case scenario, but those funds will run out in July, and it looks like the GOP is still willing to play politics until the very last moment.

It left me with two questions. 1) What is Kyl thinking? $2.5 trillion worth in cuts?! In a time where most states are strapped for cash Republican's have decided that cutting social programs that millions of American's rely on is OK by them.

Plus, what is a "short term" increase? Congress has voted to raise the debt ceiling every year for the past decade. If the time period is any shorter than that, it means the Republican's aren't kicking the can down the road, they're crushing it.

If you're a politician, the rule of thumb you follow in any crisis is to do no harm. Well, many families are in a crisis right now, and by not raising the debt ceiling Congress will be doing them harm. All the positive "estimates" that economists made for 2011 will be wiped out because, as the U.S. is already broke, there won't be any room to make the investments it needs to execute programs that will help create jobs or make sure families are taken care of. As the majority of the debt is for paying programs such as Medicare and Social Security, asking for $2.5 trillion in cuts means these vital programs will be a part of it.

2) Can the Republican's do math? Even though the Congressional Budget Office has stated numerous times The Affordable Care Act will reduce future deficits, all the GOP talks about is how it will ruin America. But as it will help our fiscal situation, it also saves lives. The law forbids insurance companies from saying no to certain medical treatments, and giving parents the ability to keep their children insured under their plan until they are 26. It also includes tax credits for small businesses, and makes sure seniors can pay for their prescription drugs. I'm not making this up.

But politics has succumbed over policy once again. The Affordable Care Act is better known as Obamacare, and recent polls show 47 percent of American's do not want the debt ceiling raised. A Pew study also found the majority of people are not in favor of raising taxes or cutting benefits. But this is not because they are irrational people, it's because they don't have enough information. Our "leaders" in Congress are supposed to tell us what we need to know so we understand the actions they are taking. Instead, it has become a battle of words and trying to figure out which ones will position their party or candidate to win the next election. Instead of calling them out on it, the media focuses on it and polls the candidates that don't even try to have credibility.

If the emergency funds run out and the debt ceiling isn't raised, it means America will have to default on its loans, leading to an even worse economic down turn than the one we're still recovering from. President Obama has said his decision to vote against raising the debt ceiling while still in the Senate was a mistake; it's the Republican's turn to stop playing politics and deal with the matters at hand.

Building Better Schools, Means Better Buildings

2011-06-06T18:46:00.000-04:00

There was big buzz in the education world when the NAACP sued the Department of Education in New York City. On their website they list the reasons for the suit:

The "regular school's children" had library access for a little over four hours so that the "new charter school's kids" could have access for almost seven.

Traditional school students were moved to a basement, where they were next to the boiler room, to make room for their charter school peers, and teachers of the regular students were forced to teach in the halls due to lack of space.

Students in the traditional public school must now eat lunch at 10 a.m. so that charter school students can enjoy lunch at noon

New York state law requires the city to involve parents before announcing its intention to shut down a school or make way for a charter to share a school's space.

But in the Daily News, Stanley Crouch said "The suit is proof of how low a great civil rights organization has fallen since its days of advocating for racial equality in the face of tremendous hatred." He further criticizes the organization, claiming the only reason why they are doing this is because charter schools are non-union. "Poor teaching performance is dismissed or explained away with the position that everything will be just fine if teachers are paid more money and given more benefits. The UFT (United Federation of Teachers) does not admit to its members' inferiority, even if test scores and graduation rates stay stagnant."

We don't know if student's are having class next the boiler room, but do you really think a librarian is telling students in a school that they can't enter the library? That would have to be the meanest librarian ever and the NAACP should focus on getting that librarian out of the school. But there's not much link to this and the teacher's union. Yes, the NAACP and UFT have been on the same side on many battles, but (my uneducated legal analysis) I can't see how a win for the NAACP would also be a win for the UFT. Even politically, does either group really want to be responsible for closing a school?

Now at the risk of sounding old, when I went to high school we had lunch at 10:30am. Yes it was a public school, and no it wasn't a charter. The building was transformed into a school after being a factory for over a decade. In fact, the trucks for American Express still move in and out of a garage right next to it.

It's a small building, and during my sophomore year the principles were forced to accept (because it was considered one of the best schools) around 200 more students then had graduated the previous year. The hallways were always crowded and if your class wasn't on the same floor it usually took over five minutes to get there. In my senior year, rooms in the basement were opened because there wasn't enough space on the other three levels. There was no boiler. Administrators had no choice but to schedule lunch at odd times because the cafeteria was too small to hold everyone. The question then became whether it was better for the students to have lunch early or late. Speaking from experience, eating that early wasn't fun, and by the time my last class came I was so hungry it was hard to concentrate.

There are other parts in the city where classes are being held in trailers. This isn't right, but the problem is not the Board of Education kicking out traditional schools, it's structural. There simply aren't enough schools for the growing young population in New York. So we not only need better schools, we also need better buildings.

It’s Families Stupid

2011-06-05T01:02:00.003-04:00

In Nate Silver's recent post "What Do Economic Models Really Tell Us About Elections?" he argues that it's not much. All in all I agree with his conclusions, but for different reasons. He takes a look at GDP growth and the margin of victory/loss in a presidential election, and shows when you take away inflation, 43 percent of incumbents win reelection. He admits these numbers don't go into why, but that's where I come in.

The fact is GDP doesn't measure what voters really care about and can miss a lot of important aspects to a families quality of life. Pollster's never ask how many people know how much the economy grew in the last quarter. Instead they ask how they feel it is going, and since the majority of voters aren't economists, the only reference they can refer to is themselves. So they think about if they are able to pay the bills, put food on the table, and have healthcare for the members of their family. The reason why Nate's formulas are so off is because GDP, like most macro data, doesn't cover these things. Even basic data like average incomes still don't tell you the whole story. Take a look at the average income for individuals:

Whether incomes have gone up or down, it hasn't lead to a President, or his party, keeping the White House. This was the case in 1976, 1992, and 2000. While there wasn't much change between 2004 and 2008, there was a drop in 2009 because of the Great Recession, and we all know who won that year.

While pollsters try and figure out what's on people's minds, economists need to try and start doing the same thing. A Washington think tank called the Economic Policy Institute came out with a report titled The Rising Instability of American Family Incomes, 1969-2004. The authors point out that "Part of the reason why family economic instability—sometimes called "income volatility"—has not been extensively examined is that aggregate economic statistics have been relatively stable and favorable. Neither the 1991 nor the 2001 recessions were particularly deep, and inflation and unemployment have remained historically low. Yet.. these broadly stable and favorable aggregate indicators mask many signs of declining economic security among American families."

The report came out in May of 2008, before the Great Recession, but some of the findings might surprise you. It turns out 15 percent of American's saw their salaries decrease between 1969 and 2004, causing serious strain within the family. Right at the turn of the century, levels of family income were extremely violent, where over half of American families saw their earnings drop.

Just because incomes were rising and unemployment was low, didn't mean all families were living the high life. Health care costs soared way over inflation, so even if there were two breadwinners per household, there was still a good chance they couldn't afford health insurance. Not to mention most people received coverage through their job. And future problems are becoming apparent. As the price of food has gone up, it will eventually start affecting a large amount of families.

The unemployment numbers that came out last week weren't good. And yes those and other macro indicators can show politicians where the state of the overall economy is right now. But if politicians want to actually do something about it, they need to look at the root causes of high unemployment, why food prices are rising, and figure out why the cost of health care has been rising. But they can't do this without getting the right information. If a politicians job is to get reelected, they will start demanding the information that will show them how to help their constituents, and economists will start figuring out ways to calculate it.

Taxes: Political vs. Reality

2011-06-03T13:31:00.000-04:00

It's not every day the Working Families Party and the Manhattan Institute agree on a issue. But in the case of capping property taxes here in New York, they found a common cause.

Last week Governor Cuomo and Republican's in the Senate agreed to cap property taxes by 2 percent for parts of Long Island, Westchester, and most of upstate New York (you're welcome Westchester, I won't bundle you in with the suburbs of Albany, Syracuse, or Buffalo). There was no choice but to lower property taxes. Being that they were already one of the highest in the nation and many families were already tightening their belts as much as they could. But the problem was that the revenue was not made up from anywhere else.

Instead of raising taxes on the wealthy or corporations, New York's legislature cut programs for education, the homeless, and safety. These cuts have had a disproportionate affect on the bigger counties and cities. While 93 percent of counties were able to pass education budgets, New York City's Council is now debating the ways it can stop experienced teachers from being fired. Neither Syracuse, Buffalo, or Albany, figured out how to pass their budgets either.

One of the reasons for the bad employment data that came out today was because state governments cut their budgets. But raising taxes is never a popular move, especially in bad economic times. One of the problems with tax policy is that it's so complicated. The federal code is longer than War and Peace, and it makes it hard in this thirty seconds or less media to explain the effects this compromise will have on the state.

But the fact remains people are willing to pay for the programs that benefit their families like public education and safety. Cuomo got the political victory for getting his agenda passed, but the reality is most New Yorker's are facing the reality of those cuts.

Weiner Isn’t The Most Important Penis Story

2011-06-02T11:18:00.000-04:00

With all the penis talk taking place in Washington, it’s a shame that some of the actual horrific or sex trafficking stories don’t get as much attention. The Nation’s Ari Melber wrote about a thirteen year old boy from Syria who was taken from his parents, mutilated, and the entire event was recorded and put on YouTube. The video went viral and because the image is so graphic (the boys penis is shown being cut off) that YouTube took the video down until large amounts of people complained and was put back up.

According to Ari “The boy was separated from his parents at a protest against the Assad government, which allegedly mutilated, castrated and killed him, then returned the corpse to his family, who risked their lives to produce the video. The boy’s father is now reportedly missing as well.”

Then in yesterday’s New York Times, Nicholas Kristof wrote a story about a ten year girl from India whose family might sell her to a brothel. Now don’t forget, you are reading this online and are living in the 21^st century, but in India, 90 percent of girls end up in the global sex trade. Kristof conceals the girls identity so she will not be put down by her classmates, but describes how far she has already come in her studies: “Both her parents are illiterate, but she learned English and earned excellent grades in an English-language school for middle-class children outside the red-light district.” The pimps in India go into low income communities looking for attractive young girls. They convince the families to give them the girls by describing the job as a farm hand out in the western part of the country. But once in the brothel, these girls have no defense against any sexual transmitted diseases.

Unfortunately, these stories are not rare. According to UNICEF, 1.2 million children are trafficked every year. Sexual exploitation is the vast majority of the trafficking, with the next being forced labor. It is one of the fastest growing “industries” in the world generating $9.5 billion a year.

The case of Congressman Weiner is a legitimate political issue, but do you really believe he is the only one out there sending pictures of his penis to college girls? I get spammed by fake Twitter accounts almost every day. But this story is getting more attention because Weiner is a member of Congress, and unfortunately the children that Nicholas and Ari described do not get the attention they deserve.

Boehner’s Pork

2011-05-31T15:49:00.001-04:00

If you are arguing with your friends about how John Boehner doesn't wield much power, here's some ammunition. When the Republican's took control of the House of Representatives last year, Speaker Boehner said he would put an end to all earmarks. Well, guess what? Lawmakers found a loophole for their own rule.

Instead of directly asking money from a committee, the committee members have set aside money for lawmakers where they can request money to be allocated for their district. Walter Pincus reported that the House Armed Services Committee reserved one billion dollars (that's twenty zeros) for what has been dubbed the Mission Force Enhancement Fund (MFEF). In this Fund, members of Congress could request money for projects in their districts through the appropriate federal agency within the Defense Department. Ironically, or maybe not, even before the bill could be passed half of the money within MFEF was already allocated for members who sit on the House Armed Services Committee.

This proves two things. First, Speaker Boehner can't handle his job. You don't run on reducing the deficit and the size of government, then allow your members to spite you on those very issues. In the 90's Tom Delay threatened to remove members of his own caucus of their chairmanship if he didn't like what they were doing. If Boehner had the same control like The Hammer once did, the Committee chairs would be afraid of applying this run around.

Second, the Tea Party doesn't have as much influence as they like to believe. If members really cared about reducing the deficit and America's debt, they wouldn't take place in this practice. Instead, Freshman members like Congressman Joe Heck walk a tight line between getting the funds their district needs, and making sure they don't get a primary challenge for doing so. Congressman Heck, who is a member of the Armed Services Committee, realizes if a terrorist attack does occur in the high tourist area of Las Vegas, it could be detrimental to the local economy. As someone who recently went there for the first time (I broke even), and wouldn't mind going back one day, I would like to know that I'm safe doing so. Also, as a tourist attraction for people and businesses around the world, you could give a good argument for why terrorists would want to attack the city.

If the Tea Party really had a major influence over what the Republicans were doing, these funds never would have been created. They only represent a tiny proportion of conservative Americans, and the GOP knows they can't retain their majority by exclusively pandering to them. The current speaker hasn't figured out how to handle either of these issues, and instead has let his caucus take votes that he knew would hurt them at the polls leading to its recent defeat in NY26.

Personally, I don't mind members of Congress asking for money. It is part of their job, and if they weren't their constituents would be asking them why they haven't been doing anything. Which happens to be the case for this Congress anyway.

The Politics Of Being Pro

2011-05-23T22:45:00.000-04:00

If I were to ask you whether Albert Pujols was the best player in baseball, yes or no, I would only get a simple answer to what is a complicated question. Pujols was the leader in home runs, not to mention the top of virtually every baseball statistic there is within the last ten years. But he hasn’t hit a home run in over one hundred games and his batting average .269, way below his lifetime average of .329. You also have other players such as Jose Bautista who are now dominating the areas Pujols once did. And yes, this does have something to do with politics.

The same situation above also happens when you ask people if they consider themselves to be pro-life or pro-choice. Gallup recently came out with a poll that read “American’s Still Split Along Pro-Choice, Pro-Life Lines” with 49 percent saying they were pro-choice and 45 percent saying they were pro-life. While the poll asks people whether it is acceptable for a women to have an abortion under certain circumstances, it never asks which circumstances or why. It doesn’t help any policy maker decide how to vote on this issue, how his/her constituency feels about it, and what policies would they accept if enacted.

That is why Third Way, a Washington think tank, asked more questions to figure out what the American people really think about this contentious issue. In 2008 they came out with a study called A Consensus on the Abortion Debate—Reducing the need for abortion while preserving the right to have one. One of the questions they asked people was if they agreed with the statement “I support abortion rights, but I believe we can find common ground to reduce the need for abortions in America while still protecting a woman’s right to have one.” This was supported by 83 percent of Democrats, along with 50 percent of Republicans, including 43 percent of those who considered themselves pro-life.

The point here is that while there are plenty of Americans who feel strongly about this issue, the majority of them believe there is wiggle room. By asking people whether they are pro-choice or pro-life pushes them into a box to define themselves when neither definition fits. Both terms are nicely phrased slogans made up by the two sides to fit on advertisements and enable people to understand and explain where they are coming from. Every election cycle candidates are asked where they stand on abortion, but doing so doesn’t fully define their position as it wouldn’t for anyone else. The debate then lacks the serious conversation that is needed to move forward and only scratches the surface of the policy questions that need to be discussed.

Since it’s always important to start with the points where everyone agrees, the Third Way poll showed 72 percent of American’s favor enacting policies that will reduce “the number of abortions in America by preventing unintended pregnancies and supporting women who wish to carry their pregnancies to term.” That means abstinence only education is not a solution, but safe sex education and funding programs that will help women during and after their pregnancy is.

This particular Gallup poll was so close, if new, randomly chosen people were asked the same question the numbers could easily be flipped around. But even so, both sides tout when they see more American’s state they are on their side.

I remember watching Mike Huckabee do an interview (must have been The Daily Show) and he said something along the lines of “I believe a fetus is a living being, but I also believe we have to take care of it when it is born.” Now that he’s not running for President, I hope he and other major players won’t allow the health care debate to get overwhelmed with hyperbole, so that way the President and members of Congress can really say they represent the American people.

Boehner Wields A Little Gavel

2011-05-21T18:19:00.001-04:00

Ever since Barack Obama became President the Republican Party’s argument to everything was simply no. No to raising taxes on the wealthy, no to the Affordable Care Act, and now it is no to raising the debt ceiling. While it is important for all politicians to make sure their base is happy, they still need to pass legislation. Of course that is easier said than done with a divided Congress, but what doesn’t help is when their isn’t strong leadership that is capable of herding the cats.

In a recent article from The Hill, it describes how some members of the GOP have missed the old days of Tom Delay where they were able to get things done without much bickering. While at times upset with the leadership style of late 1990’s and early 2000’s, these members are eager to get things done and don’t see Speaker John Boehner being able to. Tom “the hammer” Delay and Dennis Hastert were never shy of wielding their power to get what they wanted. “In 2004, then-Transportation and Treasury Appropriations subcommittee Chairman Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) tried to rescind Amtrak earmarks, sparking a heated fight with then-Rep. John McHugh (R-N.Y.) and other GOP legislators. Istook’s subcommittee was reorganized in the next Congress, stripping him of his gavel and ‘cardinal’ status.”

Coming back to today, we still don’t have a full budget, not many appropriations have been passed, and can I ask you to name one thing Republicans have done since taking over the House that has helped you? Of course Paul Ryan’s budget was passed, which would have ended Medicare, cut taxes for the wealthy and businesses, plus increase defense spending when all the major players within the Pentagon are calling for cuts. But this isn’t a sign of strength for Boehner.

Ryan’s budget proposal is being used right now by Democrat Kathy Hochul running in a special election in New York’s 26^th district, far far away from the liberal city. In fact, no one thought this race would even be close, but since Hochul started running against this budget she has picked up a large amount of momentum. It has gotten so bad for the GOP that Boehner had to head to Buffalo to try and help the Republican candidate Jane Corwin. But the election is Tuesday and recent polls show Hochul with the lead.

Boehner is struggling with members that are afraid they will be facing Tea Party candidates, and they know their “leader” won’t be able to help them. Since coming out in favor of the bailout in 2008, and accomplishing nothing to decrease the debt, he won’t be able to speak for the candidates who came into office saying they will make the government smaller. While many Democrats believe the GOP tends to agree on everything, they clearly haven’t, otherwise more legislation would have passed the House. The major accomplishments of the GOP since Boehner was minority leader had been getting his entire party to vote against the Affordable Care Act and the stimulus when Democrats took over. But most of the credit for was given to GOP Whip Eric Cantor.

When Truman was running for reelection in 1948, he branded the “Do Nothing Congress” as the reason he was not able to enact policies that will help the American people. So far in this first session of Congress, the House has passed twenty-nine pieces of legislation, compared to 2001 under Speaker Hastert, where seventy-five pieces of legislation were passed in its first session. While some of these bills are to change the name of a court room or post office, the majority of them were appropriations for member’s districts. Appropriations, (or pork, whatever you prefer) that could create jobs and stimulate the economy.

Even as the Republicans took over the House, Boehner was pushed to the sidelines by the RNC because he wasn’t good at using the talking points they gave him. Obama needs to do the same as Truman. The election isn’t going to be won over Iraq, Israel, or Osama Bin Laden, it’s going to be about the economy and the state of the nation. The reason why Tom Delay was able to keep his majority was because he got things done. But while the president has tried to get Congress to pass legislation that will help millions of Americans, all John Boehner has said is no, without offering an alternative, and unable to form a consensus for his party.

Thoughts On Obama’s Middle East Speech

2011-05-19T17:03:00.000-04:00

You can always tell when President Obama means what he is saying. Obama wrote the speech he gave at the memorial service for Congressman Giffords, was always fired up during the campaign because he believed he could bring change to Washington, and obviously wanted to bridge the gap between the two America's he described at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. But today's speech on the Middle East was clearly written for him, probably by some policy wonk in the State Department, whose job was to make sure the President didn't say anything that would end the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians before they got started.

Today's speech came at a time when tensions are high in the region because of the recent killing of Osama Bin Laden and what has been dubbed the Arab Spring. With Israeli President Netanyahu coming to Washington, the State Department's envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, quit because of the lack of progress. For the last two years all talks have stopped because Israel realized with the world economy going belly up everyone was focused on other things and could leave them alone. Since then Israel has decided to build more settlements on the borders and has used its military to do so.

So all eyes are on Obama and what he will do next. Since the election, Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, have restored some relations with the Arab countries. But Israel has always been a problem because many of the countries in the nation see America as favoring Israel over the other people living in the region. On the flip side Israel is sometimes afraid of losing America's support and the billions in military aid we have given it over the years. But having visited the country I feel confident in saying the majority of Israeli's not only want peace but would be willing to compromise with the Palestinians and come up with a solution where both can live there.

Obama believes this as well otherwise he wouldn't have said today "At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever. That's certainly true for the two parties involved." And went on to call for both sides to agree to the same terms in 1967 when America and the United Nations agreed to recognize Israel as a state. But the problem is we've seen this play before, and Obama knows this policy isn't going to work.

The more I thought about it, I couldn't think of a good reason for Obama even making the speech today. Some people were saying it would put pressure on Netanyahu, but without the U.S. willing to put something strong on the table like taking away military aid or walk away from its trade agreements, there is no reason for him or other future President of Israel to change their position. American President's have tried to get the two sides to mend ties based on these original borders. But even when they have agreed to do so, like during the Clinton administration, both sides wound up breaking the agreement.

On Tuesday, when Obama gave his speech at Booker T. Washington high school in Tennessee, it was awesome. He wanted to show the graduates and future graduates there that in this country anything was possible. He was charismatic, optimistic, did his best to relate to the audience, and he meant every word. Obama is too smart to not realize he's not doing anything that hasn't already been done or tried before when it comes to Israel. While this speech was to set up next week when Netanyahu gets here, it's only going to be Netanyahu and no one else. So after the Israeli President gives his speech to Congress to tell them how great they are, I'm willing to bet both sides will say the discussions went well and hope to continue them in the future.

The World’s City is Becoming the Widest Net

2011-05-19T17:00:00.000-04:00

Have you ever been stuck in the rain, in a rush, wet, miserable, and not sure what the quickest way to get to your destination is? Well, there's an app for that! For the past few years Mayor Michael Bloomberg has joined Twitter, hired the city's first Chief Digital Officer, and has made a push for New York City to become a major player in the online development community.

A conglomerate of businesses in the city called NYC Seed, has worked with the New York's Economic Development Corporation to attract developers to the city. In a competition called SeedStart 2011, entrepreneurs competed to live in New York for a summer, plus a prize of $20,000 to work on their proposed project. Owen Davis, Managing Director of NYC Seed, told me they received hundreds of applications. When I asked him if New York could compete with the major companies in Silicon Valley, he said that it is a "silly" comparison and "New York has many substantial industries in it already "giving it an edge to attract start ups to work within the fashion, media, and advertizing industries. According to Davis, many developers are already doing so: "There's a lot of startups coming to New York and it's increasing so you have a good supporting system that is being built and will continue to be built."

Many popular online features have already been created in the city such as Tweetdeck which was recently bought by Twitter for $50 billion. A lot of these start ups are located in the flatiron district where you can find large, open, spaces for $26 dollars per square foot. Tech companies are attracted to these types of offices because much of the work they do is collaborative and these areas make everyone in the office more accessible.

Under the title Government 2.0, a number of corporations and other entities have been trying to figure out ways office holders and public agencies can release information so it can be used to benefit the people they represent. Mayor Bloomberg has worked within this realm and initiated the BigApps competition. Over 350 data sets were released by city agencies for programmers to create smartphone applications. The prize was a dinner with the Mayor and $40 thousand dollars. The best part of the competition is that is has already solved the rainy day problem. In its second year, the top prize went to a iphone app called Roadify, which tells people the latest subway, bus, and driving conditions in real time.

There are other applications the city has put out, one of which is called Don't Eat At. Using information from the city's Department of Health's grading system, you can check into a restaurant via Foursquare (also created in New York) and get an instant text message telling you whether the chef washes his hands before cooking. The MTA has also created an application where people can see where there are delays on the subway and bus routes, and in the future will tell people the exact time when a subway or bus will arrive.

As social media is slowly becoming a part of our everyday lives, it is important for office holders to enter this realm as a way to interact with their constituents and govern in a way where they are accessible. New York is already home to the largest amount of Twitter accounts with over 26 million people, making it only natural for the City's mayor to get in on the game. "I think social media overall, especially Twitter, gives politicians a new and exciting way to connect to constituents in ways they weren't able to do even a few years ago. And it has really changed the dynamic of how politicians are able to respond to the citizens." Richard Robbins, the Marketing Director for Media Innovation at AT&T explained. But there is no filter for the internet, and being caught in a gaff online can be much worse than being committing one caught on TV. To conquer this problem, Robbins said politicians should think about social media as "a campaign event or a cocktail party where it's an opportunity to go and meet with people. And the idea whether they're running for office or in office, interacting with constituents, helping constituents bring their concerns, responding to them is all politics."

Since creating his account, Bloomberg has held online town halls using the #askmike hashtag. While there were some serious questions about housing, crime, and other city matters, the Mayor was also asked to explain how magnets work. As an engineer he knew the answer, but probably did not know the question was actually referring to a song by the hip hop group Insane Clown Posse. Making yourself more accessible to constituents is of course important, but obviously some can pull it off better than others. As Microsoft's Director of Innovative Social Engagement, Dr. Mark Drapeau emailed me "if the goal is to make government and its billionaire mayor seem more human and down-to-earth through Twitter, than Insane Clown Posse could be an appropriate discussion topic, even if the mayor doesn't completely appreciate who they are. Some of his citizens do, and he's doing his best to relate."

When I told him about the BigApp competition Drapeau said "App contest are not strictly necessary, and many of them end up on the proverbial shelf not getting much use. But they also motivate the developer community into public service, show citizens and govies the art of the possible, and occasionally deliver a hit." It can also be a good way to promote the start ups and build the community that will further drive New York's economic engine into the future.

Robbins explained to me that all these efforts help grow the industry "there's more capitol at the early stage, the city is behind supporting entrepreneurs, there's very good investors who are experienced who are trying to deploy capitol. And all those things matter in terms of building a ecosystem, it's not one beast that does it."

But flip phones are going the way of the dinosaur and young people are some of the most computer literate people in the country. Having grown up with this technology, using new devices is more natural to them than their parents. But looking further, Facebook is not going to be all fun anymore. Not only do politicians need to go where their constituents are, but governments will have to upgrade their services to keep up with the increasing demand as this new technology becomes more prominent.

No Place Like Home

2011-05-16T14:39:00.001-04:00

As the housing market continues to slog along, many American's are facing foreclosure, unable to sell their homes, and recent reports have shown banks are not willing to help people lower their monthly payments. On top of that, the Washington Post completed a yearlong investigation into the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) showing many of the funds allocated have not been used.

According to the Post, $400 million dollars has been allocated for 700 projects across the country, but many of those projects have not been constructed because managers could not get funding from banks, land codes had been violated, or just plain old politics (Not In My Back Yard). Many of these grants were to be used to build developments for people living below the poverty line. This makes it a two edge problem; not having the money spent hurts the area it was supposed to be spent in, and it leaves people who need those homes looking for places to live.

The article described how HUD was having trouble enforcing their own rules because they did not have enough lawyers, and even while the majority of states tell HUD that the projects are not able to take off, the process is very slow because it goes through a lot of red tape. This left millions of dollars in accounts that have been sitting there for years. In the meantime, these funds could have been transferred for projects that are ready to be built, which would have created jobs and helped to keep the economy moving.

Some of this shouldn't be that big of a surprise considering the state of the overall housing market. And enforcement has always been a problem when it comes to government programs, usually because agencies are understaffed. One way to raise revenue and lower the debt would be to hire more IRS agents. But if there is a lack of communication between local, state, and federal officials, there is an easy fix: the internet.

With all the work being done to make the federal government more transparent, and releasing data from within the agencies with data.gov, why not create a program that shows all the players involved within a project what step they are at? Agencies at HUD can look for the last time someone updated the project within the program, and if it has been a while they can get in touch with local authorities and ask for an update. There are plenty of programmers and companies that figure out how best to create these collaborations which, if done right, can make sure everyone is on the same page and build the projects that will benefit the families that need a roof over their heads.

The recent recent floods in the south have destroyed a number of houses, and even though the Post points out that some non-profits do not have the expertise to properly build them, there are plenty of organizations that do. In fact, many of them can be found working in New Orleans as I'm writing and you're reading this post. Many of the houses being built are green houses where so family that lives in the house will save money on their heating and electric bills.

A major hurdle in this effort will be to get the banks to loan money to landlords and managers of these projects. But in a recent interview with housingfinance.com, Bob Simpson, Head of Fannie Mae's Affordable Housing Unit said "As we look at our production on a month-to-month basis, we're definitely very busy, and that's probably the best sign that it's working. We now have a dedicated affordable credit team, a dedicated production team, and a pricing team that just prices affordable transactions." Translation: Since we were bailed out by the Federal Government, it gave us the ability to get rid of the loans we never should have made, and now we can start to create more loans that won't bust."

Last week, the major banks reported the amount of people who owed money on their mortgage was the lowest in 15 years, which could give them the confidence to start lending more money. Dorothy was right, there is no place like home, and building them can help America's economy and families.

The World’s City is Becoming the Widest Net

2011-05-15T16:05:00.000-04:00

Have you ever been stuck in the rain, in a rush, wet, miserable, and not sure what the quickest way to get to your destination is? Well, there’s an app for that! For the past few years Mayor Michael Bloomberg has joined Twitter, hired the city’s first Chief Digital Officer, and has made a push for New York City to become a major player in the online development community.

A conglomerate of businesses in the city called NYC Seed, has worked with the New York’s Economic Development Corporation to attract developers to the city. In a competition called SeedStart 2011, entrepreneurs competed to live in New York for a summer, plus a prize of $20,000 to work on their proposed project. Owen Davis, Managing Director of NYC Seed, told me they received hundreds of applications. When I asked him if New York could compete with the major companies in Silicon Valley, he said that it is a “silly” comparison and “New York has many substantial industries in it already ”giving it an edge to attract start ups to work within the fashion, media, and advertizing industries. According to Davis, many developers are already doing so: “There’s a lot of startups coming to New York and it’s increasing so you have a good supporting system that is being built and will continue to be built.”

Many popular online features have already been created in the city such as Tweetdeck which was recently bought by Twitter for $50 million. A lot of these start ups are located in the flatiron district where you can find large, open, spaces for $26 dollars per square foot. Tech companies are attracted to these types of offices because much of the work they do is collaborative and these areas make everyone in the office more accessible.

Under the title Government 2.0, a number of corporations and other entities have been trying to figure out ways office holders and public agencies can release information so it can be used to benefit the people they represent. Mayor Bloomberg has worked within this realm and initiated the BigApps competition. Over 350 data sets were released by city agencies for programmers to create smartphone applications. The prize was a dinner with the Mayor and $40 thousand dollars. The best part of the competition is that is has already solved the rainy day problem. In its second year, the top prize went to a iphone app called Roadify, which tells people the latest subway, bus, and driving conditions in real time.

There are other applications the city has put out, one of which is called Don’t Eat At. Using information from the city’s Department of Health’s grading system, you can check into a restaurant via Foursquare (also created in New York) and get an instant text message telling you whether the chef washes his hands before cooking. The MTA has also created an application where people can see where there are delays on the subway and bus routes, and in the future will tell people the exact time when a subway or bus will arrive.

As social media is slowly becoming a part of our everyday lives, it is important for office holders to enter this realm as a way to interact with their constituents and govern in a way where they are accessible. New York is already home to the largest amount of Twitter accounts with million of people, making it only natural for the City’s mayor to get in on the game. “I think social media overall, especially Twitter, gives politicians a new and exciting way to connect to constituents in ways they weren’t able to do even a few years ago. And it has really changed the dynamic of how politicians are able to respond to the citizens.” Richard Robbins, the Marketing Director for Media Innovation at AT&T explained. But there is no filter for the internet, and being caught in a gaff online can be much worse than being committing one caught on TV. To conquer this problem, Robbins said politicians should think about social media as “a campaign event or a cocktail party where it’s an opportunity to go and meet with people. And the idea whether they’re running for office or in office, interacting with constituents, helping constituents bring their concerns, responding to them is all politics.”

Since creating his account, Bloomberg has held online town halls using the #askmike hashtag. While there were some serious questions about housing, crime, and other city matters, the Mayor was also asked to explain how magnets work. As an engineer he knew the answer, but probably did not know the question was actually referring to a song by the hip hop group Insane Clown Posse. Making yourself more accessible to constituents is of course important, but obviously some can pull it off better than others. As Microsoft’s Director of Innovative Social Engagement, Dr. Mark Drapeau emailed me “if the goal is to make government and its billionaire mayor seem more human and down-to-earth through Twitter, than Insane Clown Posse could be an appropriate discussion topic, even if the mayor doesn’t completely appreciate who they are. Some of his citizens do, and he’s doing his best to relate.”

When I told him about the BigApp competition Drapeau said “App contest are not strictly necessary, and many of them end up on the proverbial shelf not getting much use. But they also motivate the developer community into public service, show citizens and govies the art of the possible, and occasionally deliver a hit.” It can also be a good way to promote the start ups and build the community that will further drive New York’s economic engine into the future.

Robbins explained to me that all these efforts help grow the industry “there’s more capitol at the early stage, the city is behind supporting entrepreneurs, there’s very good investors who are experienced who are trying to deploy capitol. And all those things matter in terms of building a ecosystem, it’s not one beast that does it.”

But flip phones are going the way of the dinosaur and young people are some of the most computer literate people in the country. Having grown up with this technology, using new devices is more natural to them than their parents. But looking further, Facebook is not going to be all fun anymore. Not only do politicians need to go where their constituents are, but governments will have to upgrade their services to keep up with the increasing demand as this new technology becomes more prominent.

What Bin Laden’s Death Means

2011-05-03T11:36:00.000-04:00

On the ninth anniversary of September 11^th 2001, the one comment I kept hearing from my friends and family was how this one seemed more stressful than in past years, and next year (the big one zero) was probably going to be worse. Maybe it was because it was the first time in eight years I was back in New York City, but I think the real reason was because the event still weighed on everyone like it was just yesterday. But on Sunday night we were able to breathe a sigh of relief. Finding and killing Osama Bin Laden was the first visible victory American's have seen since the War on Terror began ten years ago.

Yes there was the elections that that took place in Afghanistan and Iraq. While it was a step in the right direction, those were more victories for the people of those countries to choose their future. But those governments still have not made much progress. Al Qaeda still has a major presence in Afghanistan where they are threatening those who work with the government, or what is left of the allied forces that invaded the country. Iraq has been lucky to have strong leadership by President Maliki, but they still have not figured out a way to fairly distribute the oil revenues between the rival Sunni and Shia sects. There is still a lot of work to do there and neither parliaments have been able to come together and initiate policies to help people get their people jobs or keep their children healthy.

Having spent billions of dollars on the two wars and not seeing much progress, American's were understandably ambivalent. Gallup came out with a poll this past February showing 69 percent of American's had an unfavorable view of Iraq, and a 64 percent had an unfavorable view of Afghanistan. At the same time, there were large majorities who believed what happens in these countries will have a large affect on America's future. When asked "how important do you think what happens in each of the following countries is to the United States today" 52 percent said Iraq was vitally important and 51 percent said the same for Afghanistan. Only 5 percent of American's said these countries were not important at all. America was stuck in a situation it never should have gotten into in the first place (Iraq), there were no signs it was getting better, and there weren't any new ideas on how to get out of it.

A lot of the pundits were making fun of the college students who went outside the White House cheering "U.S.A!!" because most of them were not even old enough to remember the attacks. But the fact those students felt that relieved Osama was killed shows just how stressful these past ten years have been.

The Arab Spring taking place in the Middle East has showed the world that Al Qaeda's ideology is not what people living in the region want. The young people in Egypt took to the streets for democracy and better economic opportunities for them and their children's future. Then in Libya, Yemen, and Tunisia, protests broke out on main streets and main squares demanding freedom and the ability to improve their lives. Al Qaeda had nothing to do with this. It was a mass organization by the true majority in these countries that had not been listened to before. In the west, it showed us we are more alike to our eastern counterparts than we may have realized ten years ago. It was a foreign land that most American's have never visited while only seeing the attacks in Israel, or sometimes the oppression of women on the news. But those incidences were far away, Oklahoma City was done by someone who was described as a lunatic, and the WTC bombing in 1993 was so rare no one thought it would happen again.

The death of Osama Bin Laden has lifted a tremendous amount of stress off America's backs. With the economy is still struggling to recover, politicians arguing over pointless and minute details only so they can disagree with each other, or pundits bringing up issues that no one cares about, it is no wonder why a large number of American's thought we were on the wrong track. No one was sure anyone in their government knew what they were doing. While Bin Laden's death is not going to make the economy better, or end the War on Terrorism, it is the first real sign, in a long time, American's can see that something is going right.

Unfortunately, there are so many issues that need to be dealt with right now this victory won't last long. President Obama's approval rating will go up (my guess: 65%), and then fall as bad economic news comes in, or as the debate to raise the debt ceiling heats up. But it is a sign we are headed in the right direction. Obama has a time table in place to remove American troops from Iraq, and this past week we saw some of the first images of the new World Trade Center being built. Dealing with so many issues at once is never a good thing, and needless to say Osama was a big issue. No one who lived that day will be able to fully move on from it, but now that the main figurehead of past decade is gone, it will be easier to enact policies that we could not before. On the tenth anniversary of 9/11 we will be able to not just remember those we have lost, but be able to take a step forward. It doesn't mean we're out of the woods, but we can finally start seeing through the trees.

Information Is Power

2011-04-28T10:51:00.000-04:00

As a policy wonk, I was excited to see Ben Bernanke's press conference, the first ever at the Federal Reserve. I know there aren't a lot of us out there, but in a time where people are uncertain it is important to hear from the leaders who are supposed to be looking out for our best interests. I wrote a column for Government In The Lab about how these conferences came to form. Now, it wasn't as entertaining as Donald Trump, but more importantly it wasn't stupid.

While many people on Wall Street are very good at math, I kinda doubt many of them were history majors. After the Civil War, recessions were a pretty common occurrence and it hurt a lot of businesses around the country. The turn of the century was a time where the dollar was just starting to go into circulation, which meant when there was a slowdown in the north it affected the south and vice versa. But there was no Standard and Poors or Moody's coming out with information where people can get a picture of what was happening. To stop these blips in the economy, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act in 1912. The central bank had two mandates which still drive its policy decisions today: 1) control America's monetary policy and 2) create jobs.

Whatever Ben Bernanke said at the conference is on the record and can be held accountable too. For instance, one of the bigger items mentioned was the Quantitative Easing (QE) policy being implemented, and there is controversy over how effective it has been. Basically, the Fed is buying back the mortgages the banks sold before the recession thinking the housing bubble wouldn't burst. The Fed claims this has allowed banks to clean their books giving them the ability to loan each other, small businesses, and individual's money to keep the economy moving. The Fed claims this has worked because there has been growth since it has started. But critics point to the fact banks have not been lending a lot of money, the economy hasn't grown all that much (GDP grew only 1.8% the first quarter of 2011), and job numbers are still at an all time low.

Bernanke is just like any other person in charge of a big institution, at certain times they need to cover their own behind. If it doesn't seem like he knows what he's talking about, or the facts don't back up what he's saying, he will lose legitimacy and trust. While addressing reporters' questions yesterday, Bernanke said this about the steps the Fed, under his tenure, have done to help the economy recover:

I do believe that the second round of securities purchases was effective. We saw that first in the financial markets. The way monetary policy always works is by easing financial conditions, and we saw increases in stock prices. We saw reduced spreads in credit markets. We saw reduced volatility.

On certain parts there isn't a lot of debate. The market is less volatile; we see this as the stock market has gone up, banks are no longer in need of extra money, and most companies are reporting strong profits this quarter. All good signs. So sure, it seems unlikely there will be another recession, but what about the jobs?

When one reporter asked about why there hasn't been strong job growth all Bernanke could say is:

the pace of improvement is still quite slow and we are digging ourselves out of a very, very deep hole. We are still something like 7 million plus jobs below where we were before the crisis. So clearly, the fact that we are moving in the right direction even though that's encouraging doesn't mean that the labor market is in good shape. Obviously it's not, we are going to have to continue to watch and hope that we will get stronger, increasingly strong job creation going forward.

Now if the reporter had the chance to follow up, he could have pointed out the unemployment number is actually around 11 or 12 million people. But this was Bernanke's weakest point during the press conference. The person in charge of creating jobs in this country is "hoping" that the economy will pick up enough so more jobs can be created. Well, I feel more confidant, don't you?

The money the Federal Reserve decides to spend, or not spend, has an effect on all of us. It controls our purchasing power affecting small businesses and their ability to sell their products abroad, and individuals who are having to choose between buying food and health insurance. But now that Bernanke has made these statements, at the next press conference reporters can ask him (after he has spent $600 billion helping the banks recover) why the economy still hasn't picked up as much as he thought it would?

Bernanke did not just become Chairman on a whim. He was an economist at Princeton and his academic writings were very impressive. But even the best economists screw up. Bernanke was on the Board of Federal Reserve while there were signs the economy was declining. And even though the Fed was fully implemented in 1913, look up what happened on October 29^th 1929. You can always find economists disagreeing with each other, like they did before and during the Great Depression. But now we can ask the person in charge what he/she thinks, which goes a long way to making sure the Fed is implementing the right policies, and will help businesses and families plan for their future.

Protecting the Social Fabric

2011-04-18T12:12:00.000-04:00

The International Labor Organization (ILO) has released a report titled Sharing Innovative Experiences. The eighteenth edition of the book gives examples of social protection programs, similar to what Social Security is for the US, that have helped to improve a developing nation's economy. The focus is on eighteen countries that have implemented policies that created retirement plans, allowed children to go to school, and families to receive adequate health care. With these programs in place, thousands of people in developing countries were able to improve their living situation and lift themselves out of poverty.

As people who read this blog know, I am a fan of Amartya Sen's Capabilities Theory. In fact, I wrote an entire thesis on it. It has been proven time and time again that raising a country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) does not mean the people living in that country will be able to live a better life. But the Capabilities Theory puts the emphasis back on the people and what they need to live. The ILO uses this theory in their research and promotes policies that will increase people's quality of life, rather than increase a companies profit. The emphasis on Social Protection Programs is a direct result of this theory, and as I will show here, not only helps people live a better life but grows the countries economy as well.

Those living in the developing world (and are lucky enough to have a job) often do not earn enough to pay for themselves and their family's medical needs. Not to mention the ability to save for retirement or pay for their children to go to school. The ILO looks at social protection programs as a way for governments to invest in their people (sound familiar?). But in the developing world, just 1 in 10 people have some sort of retirement pension, and even less (1 in 20) are enrolled in a health care plan. Social protection programs are needed so families can focus on their current situation, and in some countries have proven to reduce poverty in half. These policies make it easier for families to obtain food, an education, and health care, which not only make it easier for families to live their lives, but builds a stronger labor force for the future.

According to the ILO, over a billion people have been helped from Social Protection programs. It has been "one of the most impacting tools to change quality of life of the poor and vulnerable," according to Francisco Simplisio head of the Division for Program and Knowledge Management at the United Nations Development Program. In an interview I conducted upon publication of the new update, Simplicio explained, "that's the key portions of experience in collecting developing countries perspectives implementing it and making it possible for implementation. That's one of the innovations of this book. And then of course it makes the case it's possible, which is the second major step."

The first example in the book comes from Argentina where there is the Universal Child Allowance (AUH). In 2002, 60 percent of Argentina's children were living in households that were recognized as below the poverty line. This program covers children 0-18 years old where families are given allowances of $46.20 per month and must prove they are in school and registered for health care services. The program is divided by two subsystems called the contributory where all formal sector workers are registered in the system; and the non-contributory subsystem comprised of retirees.

Today, 85 percent of Argentina's children are covered by AUH. To make sure the money was not being wasted, parents must sign affidavits, and letters must be signed by teachers and doctors affirming the child has been attending school and receiving treatment. Books, which are considered legal documents, are also kept by the government. Since the allowance is distributed through bank accounts, if a large amount of money is taken out at once it would be suspicious and violators risk not receiving allowances in the future and the possible facing prosecution. Nine million children and over two million retirees receive these benefits. With families receiving these allowances, they no longer have to worry about arbitrary policies that can force them to lose their home or job, and now have more certainty going into the future.

But in order to pay for these programs a combination of private and public sector investment is needed. The Director of the ILO's Economic and Labor Market Analysis Moazam Mahmood told me, "the beginning of the report says demand issues are critical as well. So you need to generate the level of aggregate demand to generate employment." Greater employment leads to more revenue and enables governments to expand their programs and cover more people. But the state still needs to lay a foundation for companies to invest in their country. "But it also has to come to from the public sector" Mahmood said "and we note the depressing statistics in terms of the production of the role of the public sector and much needed infrastructure because the report also notes the shortage of infrastructure has the potential to reduce GDP growth 2 percent a quarter."

It is not expensive to implement these policies. Less than 2 percent of global GDP is needed to provide a basic set of social security benefits to the world's poor. With over a billion people living on $1.25 a day, there is, of course, starvation. But several countries have implemented social programs that that allow families to buy food. The ILO has calculated an investment of 4 percent of the worlds GDP can reduce the food poverty rate in low income countries by 40 percent.

By investing in their people countries have been able to invest in their future. With their basic necessities in place, individuals can focus on obtaining better skills to get a better job. They are also able to work harder because they are well educated, plus physically and emotionally fit. When this is the case, multinational corporations are more willing to invest in a country because it will be easier to make a profit. And they're right. The more education a population receives the more versatile they become for companies who are willing to pay them more.

I know, all this sounds simplistic, but there is vast amounts of evidence to show these policies work. Social Protection Programs are needed in all societies, and Sharing Innovative Experiences is meant to show developing countries a way to improve their economy while at the same time improving their citizens' quality of life. There are a lot of lessons we can learn from the recession; one is that the fabric of society is delicate and it is important to protect the people in it. These programs help do that, and need to be promoted throughout the developing world.

Did The Republicans Really Win?

2011-04-10T16:47:00.001-04:00

Like all political junkies, I wake up early on Sunday's to watch the political talk shows to see what news, if any, is going to be made. This week consisted of the budget battle and the last minute deal that was reached on Friday. So I'm watching Meet The Press and This Week, and the consensus among the reporters was that because the Republicans pushed the Democrats around, and got the cuts they were asking for, they were the winners. But then I wondered: what else is new? While getting an agenda through Congress can sometimes equal a political victory, this policy victory won't equal a political victory for the GOP.

Collectively, Congress has always had low approval ratings. It doesn't matter what they do, people watch the debates on C-SPAN and see the overblown rhetoric used by politicians on the news, and guess what..they don't like it. It gets to a point where both parties are looking like they are trying to save face (which they are) and really aren't doing what they were elected to do, represent the people. The way the negotiations took place this week didn't give American's any more confidence in their government, and instead, showed both sides to be spoiled brats.

We still don't know what the particulars are of the $38 billion that was cut, but who cares?! All the Republicans cared about was appeasing the Tea Party and cried for more cuts after getting what they originally asked for. I'm sure when John Boehner met with Harry Reid and President Obama at the White House, it was pointed out to him that polls consistently showed the majority of Republicans wanted a compromise. But all we got was more rhetoric and statements that argued for more cuts because it will help the economy or because abortions are bad. Both arguments are the crutch Republicans turn to when they know they reached too far, and people are sick of it.

The Republican's also liked to say elections have consequences, which is true. If the Democrats kept the House last year none of this would have happened. A Continuing Resolution would have been passed to keep spending levels where they were and no one could have complained. It's been done many times before. Even though they got their sound bites out there, the GOP never came up with one policy solution to help end the situation. If the government shut down it would have been their fault because they are the ones complaining.

In the meantime, Democrats looked like they didn't even know what they stood for. Even though they still control the Senate and White House they weren't able to get a strong message out. The way Boehner was acting was a gift for them. When he says that Government is the problem, Democrats should have reminded him of TARP (which he was in favor of) and how the program has actually earned America money. It was probably just easier for him to support it while George W. Bush was going to have to sign it into law. While Democrats can't totally claim it was their idea, there is no reason they can't use it to argue against Boehner's assertion that government programs were hurting the economy.

I'm not going to go as far to say the Democrats won, but it's hard for me to believe the Republicans took the trophy. American's want to see their government work for them, and when they see both sides bickering over an issue that really isn't going to help anyone, it makes them feel they don't have the right people representing them. As both parties tried in the aftermath to position themselves as "winning" they need to realize at some point they are going to get booed off the stage.

Libya's Humanitarian Effort

2011-03-31T17:29:00.000-04:00

On March 17th 2011, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1973, which called for a no fly zone over the northern Africa country of Libya. But as the fighting continues, thousands of people will lack food and other necessities they need to live.

In a closed meeting to the General Assembly, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said “there is an urgent need for humanitarian access” in Libya. But as soon as the rebels started the fighting, Qadhafi’s forces have been on the eastern and western borders stopping humanitarian agencies from entering the country.

As the no fly zone has been enforced, fighting continued between the Libyan government and the rebels, an entire week passed until three UNHCR trucks were able to enter the country delivering 18.5 tons of pulses (seeds that contain a variety of nutrients), plus sleeping mats and blankets.

With 23 people on the ground, the World Food Program (WFP) has distributed almost 11 thousand metric tons of food within the country and the surrounding camps, but they have only been able to enter the eastern part of the country. Abeer Etefa, Senior Regional Public Information Officer for WFP, told me food has been brought to “7,000 internally displaced persons in Eastern Libya.” But with the ongoing conflict “we face challenges in access to some cities especially in the contested areas. We hope to be able to deploy more teams on the ground as soon as the security situation allows and a safe humanitarian corridor is established.”

As the fighting increased, replenishing the food in the country has been difficult. Abeer told me 95 percent of the shops have been closed, making it more difficult for people to meet their basic needs. As the conflict continues, more people will need to receive aid.

While the total operation is costing $39 million dollars, an additional $4 million is being used to build better communications systems for non-profits working in the country. For the next three months, WFP plans to feed 600,000 people in Libya, and an additional 280,000 and 180,000 to the people living in the camps.

No Traffic Light Ahead

2011-03-22T16:05:00.001-04:00

President's have always justified using force in different ways, whether for humanitarian, economic, or to protect the country. But when the decision is made to use the military, there needs to be clear goals. If you are positive military action is necessary, it should be obvious what you want to get out of it. In Libya though, no one seems to know when the strikes will stop or what will be accomplished by them.

As a communist country, Libya has been a thorn in America's side for decades. The jabs have been over its nuclear weapons, and the times Qadhafi tried to take over other countries in Africa. But recently things were going well. Just a few years ago Qadhafi decided to let inspectors to look at his nuclear facilities and accepted responsibility for the
Lockerbie bombing. But then he started killing innocent protestors.

I can't help but remember what President Obama said during his speech when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. "To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason." With all the protests going on in the Middle East and North Africa, it was only a matter of time before it became violent, and in Libya's this case the military was needed.

While agreeing to use the military, what bothers me is that there does not seem to be an end in sight. General Ham, who is in charge of this operation, has said there are no plans to go after Qadhafi and its mission is to protect the civilians. But how do you protect civilians without attacking the person who is trying to kill them? At one of the daily briefings, the UN spokesman said they have not decided whether the rebels were going to be considered citizens or casualties of war, because, technically, this isn't a war.

One of the country's leading military experts, (and one of my former professors) Michael O' Hanlon, told me in an email that "I don't know where it ends but I don't favor a military operation to overthrow Qaddafi". He also pointed out that the mission has already gone beyond a no fly zone because Libya's tanks have been taken out. But even without tanks, the government forces are much better armed than the rebels fighting them.

It is also unclear how many people are actually fighting against the government. While next door in Egypt the military held a non-violent coup, there have only been a handful of military officers who sacrificed themselves and chose not to fight. But if Qaddafi is going to be forced from office, the majority of the Libyan people are going to have to sacrifice the most.

Qadhaffi has shown no signs of slowing down and has placed his troops on the country's borders where thousands of civilians are trying to escape. To make matters worse, UN workers are not able to get into the country where there are even more displaced people who need help.

There doesn't seem to be much middle ground anymore. At this moment, both sides seem to be waiting for the other to stop, and no one is putting on the breaks. That's why the coalition supporting this operation is going to have to decide whether or not to try and find Qadhaffi or pull out.

Add Value To Your Buck

2011-03-15T21:14:00.000-04:00

It's almost that time of year again, tax season! OK, maybe I'm exaggerating on how exciting this is. The US tax code is longer than War and Peace, but just like the classic book, almost no one can understand it, and almost no one today has read it. But someone has to read the code in order to figure out how much money people owe their government. If only there was a simpler way…

Debating tax policy is almost as bad as actually paying them, but here I go. The last time any serious tax reform occurred was during the Reagan administration. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced individual and corporate taxes almost by half, and indexed those standards for inflation. The number of tax brackets were also reduced. But the Act also included the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) which only complicated the code more. The more complicated the code became, the more loopholes were there for people to take advantage of. While less money was coming in, the government was spending more, which increased the national debt. The code has become so complicated, and hard to enforce, only 47% of American's who file for federal taxes actually pay them.

President Obama has said he wants to reform the tax code to make it easier for Americans. But what's the best way to do this? There are a lot of ideas out there. Some say there should be a flat tax where everyone pays the same amount. But that's not progressive. It can also hurt those who do not have a lot of money, while people who earn more won't be paying their fair share. Another idea is to eliminate loopholes and certain credits. This could work, but doesn't go at the heart of the problem, which seems to be the way we calculate how much American's need to pay.

One idea that works for forty other countries (mostly in Europe) is the Value Added Tax (VAT). Instead of pushing a sales tax onto the consumer, items are taxed at a percentage as the product is put together. So if the VAT was 10% it would work like this:

- The manufacturer pays $1.00 for the raw materials, certifying it is not a final consumer.

- The manufacturer charges the retailer $1.20, checking that the retailer is not a consumer, leaving the same gross margin of $0.20.

- The retailer charges the consumer $1.50 + ($1.50 x 10%) = $1.65 and pays the government $0.15, leaving the gross margin of $0.30.

The government gets paid each step of the way, and it is clear how much everyone owes so it is easy to enforce. Overall this reduces the costs to the consumer because they don't have to pay so much at the end. The French implemented a VAT in 1954 and today it counts for half of the government's income.

But there are opponents. People argue implementing a VAT can cause large amounts of fraud such as false claims. There have been instances where the individual or business argues that they did not know they had to pay a tax on a certain item. Then of course there is the old fashion "hidden sale" where the consumer is charged something that is completely made up.

Despite those concerns, studies show that if a 5% VAT was implemented, and covered 80% of goods people consume, it could generate roughly $260 billion. The Virginia Tax Review estimates that a VAT of 25% could pay for health care reform, exempt millions of American families from income taxes and still raise the revenues necessary to cut into the budget deficit.

One of the reasons American's are less inclined to pay taxes now is because we became a individualistic society. When FDR was President, there was a "we are in this together" philosophy. But that has gone away. The book Bowling Alone explains it pretty well. But when you are paying taxes, you are paying for the freedoms that people in the Middle East and North Africa are fighting for. Whether you are rich or poor, everyone benefits one way or another, and those who don't pay their taxes are cheating their fellow citizens.

Just because something is European doesn't make it scary. Paying taxes is important. It goes to Veteran Hospitals, public parks, schools, and keeps our food and water clean. But paying for these services doesn't have to be a burden. Instituting a VAT could bring in more money for areas that all Americans use, and everyone could get a bigger bang for their buck.

Union Politics

2011-03-10T12:43:00.000-05:00

Should it be surprising that 62% of American's oppose the elimination of collective bargaining for unions? Without this tool, young children would still be working in factories, people in factories would not be paid as well, and today's health care costs would be much much higher on families. While most American's don't seem to be lost in the madness, I haven't seen one article or report trying to explain what the problem is.

Two weeks ago, Governor Scott Walker said on Meet The Press: "For us to balance the $3.6 billion deficit we have -- but not only now, but to ensure we can continue to do that in the future so our kids don't inherit these same dire consequences -- we've got to have assurances. And over the past two weeks, even after they made those promises, we've seen local union after local union rush to their school boards, their city councils, their technical school boards and rush through contracts in the past two weeks that had no contributions to the pension and no contribution to health care."

Besides the fact Wisconsin's budget office said the state would be fine, Walker is playing politics (and losing), while he tries to make it sound like unions have been the problem. But really, no one has been responsible. Unions will always ask for more money because it's their job. And it's the Governors job to negotiate those costs down. But I don't believe the system is the problem. As Walker points out: "Under Barack Obama, he presides over a federal government where most federal employees do not have collective bargaining for, for benefits, nor for pay." But federal workers have some of the best benefits and get paid more than private employees. Plus, if public unions are the only problem, why have private sector health costs almost doubled in the past ten years?

States are facing fiscal problems mainly because of pensions and benefits which can't be paid for. It is a problem that was seen coming (whether the financial crisis occurred or not) and no one did anything about it. The stimulus package allocated money for companies like IBM to develop programs that would allow doctors to share information on patients. This would allow them to compare and figure out which treatments work best, thus reducing costs. Plus, it saves money on paper work, trees, and you won't have to worry about not being able to read your doctors handwriting anymore. Obviously, this hasn't been implemented yet, but experts agree it would be a step in the right direction.

The vote taken by Wisconsin's legislature last night was a bad political and policy move. It won't solve the problem of rising costs, and it pins one person, one party, against another, which voters never like to see. Walker may think he's winning, but instead he's acting like a putz.

So now that you have my opinion, what's yours? How would you lower health care costs? Or do you think collective bargaining is a problem?

Junior Year

2011-02-22T09:36:00.001-05:00

There are too many stories out there that talk about all the kids who get into Ivy League colleges. We hear about the private tutors, college counselor, and of course the great over achievers. But for the rest of us, we would rather live our lives.

Junior year of high school is the biggest pressure cooker out of all four years. Parents start making you think about college, the experts say the grades you receive are the most important, you're preparing to take the SAT's (plus whatever other standardized test there is that year) while trying to keep your grades up, and of course, you need to do extracurricular activities otherwise you won't stick out on any of the applications you submit. Reading about these issues can only make it worse for students, and their families, who worry about whether they are making the right moves.

But what most newspapers and magazines focus on doesn't actually coincide with reality. According to Research Fellow for education studies at American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Andrew Kelly, these are not the typical stories most students go through. Kelly said most perspective students look at public colleges and universities that are close to home and competitive. According to Kelly
"a lot of times the story about college choice and rankings and stuff, is they just focus so heavily on really high achieving students or helicopter parents who are really on their case about getting into college. And frankly, because of all that attention, sometimes it makes us pay not enough attention to the vast majority of students."

It's always if you don't get into the right pre-school, you won't get into the right kindergarten, then you won't get into the right elementary school which means you have no chance to get into the right middle school. So forget about the top high school that Harvard saves spots for, and before you know it, your life is over. But not really. The dramatized stories distort reality, and worse, means "reporters" aren't actually reporting.

These stories are only highlighted by college rankings such as Barron's and the US News and World Report. But before you take them seriously, consider this. These rankings only take into consideration how selective a school is, not the knowledge students are supposed to get when they graduate. That means they need to get as many people to apply to them as possible so they can also reject as many people as possible. Colleges and universities spend tens of thousands of dollars on private firms to tell them how to get more applicants. By knowing what type of college students are applying they can also expand to other states where students aren't all that far, and also students they would like at the college to expand diversity between states and races.

To make sure these perspective students apply, they make it as simple as possible. It is usually only one or two page application with a fancy title to make it seem more exclusive then it really is. Schools send these type of applications out to thousands of students a year. And of course, the application fee is waived. The student has nothing to lose, so why wouldn't they apply?

A study conducted by Kelly and his colleagues, called What Parents Don't Know about College Graduation Rates Can Hurt, found that when parents know the graduation rates of colleges their son or daughter is looking at, they are more likely to choose the one with the better rate. And if you were wondering, no, US News and World Report does not count graduation rates when assessing their schools. "Do I think the US News count for something, sure, but I think they mainly capture prestige and selectivity. So the problem is that it's not all that helpful necessarily for people who are not the most sort of academically gifted or people who are looking for a moderately selective institution." Kelly also said "And that's partly why we did this in sort of to say most people aren't splitting hairs in deciding where to go to school they are going where it is closest by and they can afford. So the question is if they had better information about those schools would that change their mind?" And it did.

So not only are all the stories written and all the assessments bogus, but they don't even tell people the information they need or want to know.

Junior year of high school is a stressful time for families. The fact is a lot does ride on the university or college you go to. But what it doesn't mean is you can't or won't learn anything less than what other students who go to "more exclusive" places. The system is so screwed up there is no reason to take any of it seriously or personally. Just visit the colleges, and pick the one the feels best for you. In the end, chances are, you're not going to be in the field your degree prepared you for, or it was too broad for you to do anything with it. What does matter is that you take the opportunity to discover what you like and what area you want to be in. Knowing what you want to do when you graduate will make you more prepared than most other graduates out there.

Egypt’s Capability

2011-02-14T07:46:00.000-05:00

Friday morning I was completely off the grid. I had a appointment downtown, went on the subway to get back to my place so I wasn't checking my cell phone, Twitter, or Facebook. It was just the like the 90's but better because Destiny's Child wasn't playing in the background. When I got back to my apartment I checked to see what was going on in the world and saw a peaceful revolution coming to a peaceful end, and a new beginning for the people of Egypt. There are no words that can describe what was being shown on television, but the word that can't be used enough is incredible.

When the first round of protests started on January 25^th, it seemed to catch many people by surprise. Either people at the CIA don't have Facebook or Twitter accounts, or their efforts were focused on something else. But with all the countries in the middle east, why even worry about Egypt? With Mubarak in charge the country had been stable for 30 years, a peace treaty with Israel that it wasn't breaking, and it's GDP was growing at a higher rate than any other nations in Africa, and 25^th in the world. So, what do Egyptians have anything to worry about?

The reasons for Egypt's revolt are complex, there are so many directions a writer can take in describing the events that lead up to January 25^th. But what they all have in common is the Egyptians wanted to be free and have a democratic government working for them. I have written in the past about standard economic models and how they are inadequate assessments. The reason: they don't assess what people need or care about. Economists should look at what happened in Egypt and realize if the measurements they use do not change, the whole practice is in danger of becoming obsolete.

Before the recession in 2008 Egypt's GDP grew 7.2%, in 2009 it still grew another 4.6% (when most economies shrunk), and in 2010 it contued upward at 5.3%. Part of the growth was drilled from the oil in the country's vast dessert in the west, but its leading industry is in textiles, which grew at 5.5% just last year. But despite this improvement in production, it did not lead to people's lives being improved. Unemployment was still at 9.7% and over 14 million people were living below the poverty line.

Nobel laureate Amartya Sen developed the Capabilities Theory, an alternative to standard economic models. Instead of focusing on GDP as the primary factor in development, he argues economists should focus on social programs such as education and health care, which enable people to live their lives to the fullest extent possible. An important part of this theory is strong democratic governance where people can make their grievances known and work to expand their freedom. The theory calls for redistributive policies to be enacted through social programs, similar to Social Security and Medicaid, which give people the resources and skills they need.

If economists are going to solve this problem, they have to understand what's important to Egyptians, and people living around the world. There have been tons of stories written about the importance of bread, and all the people who have gone hungry (and I make no apologies for saying mine is the best) because they are not able to afford it. What's also important to the Egyptians is their health. When Mubarak first came into power in the 1980's he expanded health care by building hospitals and providing beds across the country. But despite the fact all Egyptians are eligible for health insurance, the government was refusing to pay for it (sound familiar?). The Ministry of Health owes $270 million dollars to health care providers across the country. But because they don't have the money, hospitals have had to delay or refuse people treatment because they can't afford to take them in.

Much of the talk has been about the smart, young people, who organized the protests through Facebook and Twitter. While this is true, the facts don't speak well for Egypt's education system. In the past, Egypt did have a good education system. But in recent years, as the population grew, more students were attending schools but were not receiving a good education. These children became disenfranchised only to drop out. Most of them tried to get the few jobs that were available, or went to a life in crime. This can lead to future economic stagnation because young Egyptians won't know how, or have the will, to start or run a business. More schools needed to be built and more teachers needed to be hired, both of which would have reduced the unemployment rate and brought brighter prospects for Egypt's future and the people who started the revolution.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace released a study on how hard it was to start a business in Egypt. This only empowered the rich and leaving behind the rest. While money was being given to the growing industries like textiles, this only enabled the rich and the businesses they own. Money wasn't being spent on other areas where the majority of the people needed it. Overall investment by the government was only 18% of GDP. This is despite the fact Egypt's purchasing power grew by $25 billion each year between 2008-2010.

The Capabilities Theory allows economists to focus on the areas of an economy that is most important to people, and their welling being. Providing for areas such as education, health care, housing, and food, provides security and stability allowing people to live their lives and pursue the areas they choose. Egyptians wanted access to better education and health care, among other things, and because they were being ruled instead of governed, they had to take to the streets in order to attain these freedoms.

February 11^th 2011 is a day that my generation will ask itself "where were you?" when Egyptians took their country back? Now that it is in their hands, Egyptians will be able to elect officials that can enact policies which will help those desperately in need, and build a better stronger country for future generations.

Teachers Take Tests Too

2011-02-07T20:28:00.001-05:00

Last night, Superbowl Sunday, I went to my friends place to watch the game and hang out. I'm thinking we'll order pizza, have a few beers, place a few dollar bets here and there, and hopefully watch Ben Roethlisberger lose. Both of the guys I watched it with are teachers, and as I found out, Sunday nights are work nights. This is the third year my friends are teaching, they started out through the Teach for America program and both of them had family members who were teachers. As it turned out, in your third year of teaching in New York City, teachers have to go through an assessment process to determine if they should be granted tenure or not. So instead of being able to watch football, one of them spent virtually all day yesterday, the weekend, and about three quarters of the game, building a portfolio based on the last two and half years of his teaching.

In all honesty I don't think I've ever seen my friends work so hard. Both of them were the type of students who didn't have to work hard to get an A in class. Yes, I hate those people too, but obviously I've digressed. The portfolio he put together was huge. It had graphs of their student's performance, tests they administered, assessments by their principal, and their own take on the results. It was in a twelve inch three ring binder with barely any room left. What also took me by surprise was that out of the twelve teachers that were up for tenure at my friends school, only two of them were going to get it.

There has been a lot of pressure to change tenure systems in public schools. In New York City, a key administrator from the Department of Education warned that if the New York does not change how tenure is granted, it can be in serious jeopardy of not receiving money from the Race to the Top program, or the No Child Left Behind. States across the country are competing for these grants and any additional funds school districts can get would be a big help. While many states are considering to simply remove tenure for teachers, New York City has taken a different approach.

Before he left, School Chancellor Joel Klein wrote a open letter to the teachers and described the problem as "a loose tenure system isn't good for anyone—it hurts students, it disrespects successful teachers, and it leaves those who are not up to the difficult job to struggle." It makes sense. There is no possible way that all teachers will be as good as we would like for our students, and in most cases, some will be better at one aspect of it then the other. In 2010, New York rated teachers on their effectiveness, and only if they were deemed effective or highly effective would they even be considered for tenure.

I liked the assessment my friend put together for three reasons. First, it didn't just focus on standardized tests. Instead, it looked at the overall picture and took into consideration other important aspects of teaching that standardized tests don't. Those aspects include experience (the amount of years a teacher has been in the classroom), where the teacher was teaching (looked into demographics, what kind of school the teacher is in), and tests delivered in the class room.

Quick Tangent: Standardized tests and tests delivered by teachers are very different. Standardized state tests only gauge what students should know, and only tells us which classes/teachers did better than others. The tests administered by teachers tell us the same information, but also allows for something to be done about it. Standardized tests are given at the end of the year where by that time the students have either learned the information or not. But teachers who give their own tests can give them early on or in the middle of the year to determine which of their students needs help. The teacher tests are also created in conjunction with the principal to make sure they are acceptable.

Second, it keeps teachers on edge. My friend wants tenure, who wouldn't? You don't have to worry about losing your job (unless you do something really bad), in New York you get all the Jewish holidays off(which most school districts in the country don't), your salary usually increases as the years go by, and most importantly, you get out around 2:30pm leaving you the rest of the day to get errands done. Tenure is a great carrot to hold over teachers heads to make sure they don't lose focus and give them something to achieve. Critics always worry about the teachers who are slacking off, but if they know they can get canned when they don't have tenure and are forced to prove they are doing work (work that most teachers want to do), it makes everyone happy.

Third, and I think the most important one, it makes teachers evaluate themselves. Believe it or not, teachers work weekends. My friends get up at five in the morning to get to school on time, and trust me, as a twenty-four year old that's no easy task! They are usually exhausted and don't have the energy to think about the classroom (that is unless you go out to drinks with a bunch of teachers. You will, without question, hear some great stories.). As much as I hate to give my friends more work to do, they should be looking to see what their strengths and weaknesses are, and how they can improve.

Even if you have tenure, assessments are always a good thing. There's no reason why anyone shouldn't be looking to improve their work. In the classroom, assessments are the teacher's responsibility. They can't argue someone else is telling them how to do their job, or that the tests are bad. If their own assessments show they're not doing a good job, proper steps can be taken to help them, or it will show they are just not cut out to be a teacher.

These teacher assessments can be combined with programs that are already being designed to help teachers. There are plenty of growing websites and blogs that are working to devise ways that help teachers teach. Combining them with assessments will give all teachers a fair shot for them and their students to succeed.

The debate to determine how to hold teachers accountable won't stop, and it shouldn't. Teaching is one of the most important jobs in this country, and those who do it shouldn't be demeaned. But it is important to know which ones are doing well so we can acknowledge them for it. Standardized testing became popular because it's the easiest way to assess teachers, and the easiest way for states to qualify for federal grants. Students deserve better, and figuring out ways (like self assessments) to make schools better is the least we can do.

Place Your Bets (carefully)!

2011-02-01T20:08:00.001-05:00

What probably should have been bigger news than has been reported is the Consumer Price Index (CPI). It’s fascinating! Really! Just hear me out. The CPI comes out every month from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It is a short term indicator on how strong or weak the economy is. The Federal Government puts out household surveys around America asking them what they bought in the past month, compares it to last month, and sees which prices rose and which ones fell. Economists need this information to determine the inflation rate, and people on Wall Street need it so they know what areas of the economy to bet on.

When the Obama administration enacted a new stimulus package in the form of tax breaks, I wrote a post explaining why stimulative was too strong of a word. The reality was that Americans were going to use the tax breaks on the basic items that they have to pay for like rent/mortgage, health care, and food. Spending is a major part of America’s economy, especially since we are not building as much as we used to. While the tax cuts will help the overall economy because people will be spending money, the important thing is people won’t feel they have to choose between the items they need to live. Last month the CPI rose 0.5 percent, and the three main areas where people put their money was on energy (to heat their homes), food (to put in their stomachs), and health care (so they won’t get the flu).

When stock brokers look to make money, they look to invest in areas of the economy they think people will be spending their money. Some of these areas are obvious. As the weather gets colder people are going to heat their homes. Since the employment rate fell more people could afford to buy health insurance, and while people always bought food, the reason why the amount of money people spent on it went up is because the price of food went up. But sometimes it’s not so obvious, and looking at a short history of the CPI you can see why.

The chart above shows the average change that the CPI occurred every year from 2000-2010. What sticks out to me here is how volatile it is. From 2002 to 2003 there was a full percent increase, and in real monetary terms we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. The highest point, probably not coincidentally, was in 2008, before the financial crisis in 2009, where the CPI turned negative. While the CPI isn’t the only analysis Wall Street looks at, it is an important one. The figures they see here are what give them the confidence to bet with people’s money. But as you can see, because the consumer market is so volatile, it is hard to guess which areas of the economy will be earning money.

Now people may argue the turn of the century is an unfair time to use because the economy wasn’t strong. So let’s take a look back when America turned to Nirvana, the 90’s.

Today, the stock market ended on the highest note in the past two years. That tells me people who look at this data feel confident that the economy is going in the right direction. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be so willing to invest so much money, in any area. Markets went up because they saw overall manufacturing go up, which means there is a high demand for products and more people will be spending money. Now, it’s just matter of figuring out where.

What gets me is how some conservatives argue that the better the Wall Street is doing, the better America does. That simply isn’t true. If you are lucky enough to have the money to buy stocks right now, yes, you are doing well. But millions of American’s don’t and are choosing to keep a roof over their families, get their family food, or give them health insurance. Fortunately last month, according to this CPI, most families were able to do all three.

The truth is some people are better than others determining which stocks are worth your money. Anyone who tells you they know exactly what will happen in the future is lying. There were people who knew the financial crisis was coming, but even those people couldn’t say when. As the market has been fluctuating since Washington bailed it out, it is important to remember to learn the game before you play, to do your homework and then place your bets carefully.

Stop Fracking Around

2011-01-27T08:38:00.005-05:00

When local news stations are only a half hour, and their's maybe a five minute segment on government issues, it's sometimes hard to remember that all politics are local. In New York, a big ruckus is taking place over whether a type of drilling called hydraulic fracturing (or better known as fracking) should be allowed to take place near the Catskill Mountains. The goal here is to use get the natural gas beneath the surface. Local residents, including actor Mark Ruffalo, visited areas of Pennsylvania where fracturing is occurring and became afraid that the same environmental damage will occur where they live.

At an event organized by Democratic Leadership for the 21st Century (DL21C), Ruffalo, Kate Sinding Senior Attorney at Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); and Susan Zimet, a Representative from Ulster County; expressed their fears about what might happen if fracturing is allowed in New York. Ruffalo visited Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania where the environmental damage has been enormous. Ruffalo said people living in the commonwealth had to arrange for over 200 gallons of water be delivered to people's homes every day, because the water coming out of their sinks was black.

Experts consider fracking as a bumper option while the nation moves to other technologies, such as solar and wind, to curb our use of greenhouse gases. To reach the natural gas, drills are used to dig deep underground to where the natural gas is located. Once the gas is reached, a mixture of chemicals and water are used to push the gas up where it can be collected. The problem is that the chemicals used are carcinogens such as naphthalene and benzene. Those chemicals also get into the water supply making it unsafe to use. Only adding to the danger, the drills dig deep enough to areas where there are high concentrations of radiation that people living in the surrounding area can be exposed to.

While researching for this post, it took me less than two minutes to find this video of a Pennsylvania native lighting her water on fire because of all the chemicals that entered her water supply because of fracking.

Fracking technology is new, and it turns out (surprise, surprise) Halliburton is the company that invented the equipment. The powerful energy company has been lobbying state and federal officials to allow them to drill. And for two years, the EPA has been trying to get Halliburton to come out with the formula they use to push the gas up from the pipes. So far, Halliburton has only released the chemicals they use, but not the amount that has been pumped into the ground, or the exact concentration of each chemical being used in the overall solution. Two important facts needed to understand the safety concerns that are plaguing local residents.

Before he left office, Governor Patterson signed a moratorium on fracking, which Governor Cuomo extended until June. But it is unlikely that the report will be ready by then. The Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for writing the report, and Cuomo tapped Joe Martens to lead the agency. Kate Sinding told me that NRDC likes the new Commissioner "and believe the new analysis will be completed fairly." But between the budget cuts and the senior staff that needs to be appointed, it will be a while before the report is released.

The facts are clear. But with the lack of current media attention, keeping the pressure on Albany is a must. When the report is released, there is a time period required by law which allows public comments on the report to take place. If there is an overwhelming amount of people against the fracking, Governor Cuomo won't have a choice but to stop any plans to drill in the future. There are so many other ways to get cheaper and cleaner energy that can be applied now. There is no point of using a bumper inbetween. The technology is there, wind turbines and solar panels are already being built. Not to forget Indian Point Nuclear Facility in Buchanan. So whenever the report finally does come out, tell Albany to stop fracking around.

No Grit

2011-01-25T22:14:00.003-05:00

I want True Grit to win best picture. That movie showed that when you have someone on your side who is a determined, anything is possible. Tonight, Obama didn't show any grit. Instead, it was more of a blunt professor telling the class what needs to be done.

Obama spoke about a lot of policy areas both Democrats and Republicans can agree on. The one that stood out was the spending freeze. You can't say it won't reduce the deficit (because it does), and elected officials can't complain about a project being cut that their district or state needs. Other than that, there wasn't much.

The speech was close to 7,000 words and there were hardly any specifics. He spoke broadly about cutting federal spending, energy policy, and the nations infrastructure. But he didn't say what he wanted to do about it, only what that he wanted something done.

When talking about creating jobs, he spoke about working with businesses and reducing red tape. Clear reversals in tone with a new economic team and Chief of Staff coming in. But nothing to get excited about.

When it came to health care, he opened the door to make changes to the law. That is despite the fact when American's find out what is actually in the law, they like it.

A part of me is disappointed that the administration took this route. I like the big speeches that fired me up to go campaign and work for change. I liked the feeling Obama was a guy who wanted to do big things, but none of that was shown tonight.

Instead, Obama was kept expectations low. If Congress passes anything that he can sign into law it is an automatic victory for him. There is an upside to any policy and he can use the bully pulpit to say what he is signing (a bipartisan piece of legislation) louder then anyone else in Washington.

Was it the right way to go. Probably. It's safe and he is worried about winning re-election in 2012. What worries me is that he seems to have forgotton why people got off their couches to vote for him. They were excited about what they thought he could accomplish.

I did not see a person who I would hire to help me seek revenge for the death of a person I loved. In 2008 the left took revenge on the Republicans, but tonight, Obama showed No Grit.

Teaching to Teach

2011-01-19T08:07:00.007-05:00

Out of the several issues President Obama will have to tackle these next few years, renewing the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Law will be one of the toughest. One would think that a piece of legislation that Senator Kennedy pushed through Congress, and was signed by President George W. Bush, that in this new bipartisan era it wouldn't have much problem getting through. But then again, the first vote to be taken in this new Congress is the "job-killing" repeal of the health care law.

The biggest problem President Obama will have trying to re-authorize NCLB will be that both Democrats and Republicans have issues with it, and some are legitimate. When the law was first enacted funding for NCLB was non-existent. States that were trying to implement its policies were unable because there was not enough money in the federal budget. This lead to the second problem: in order to qualify for what little funding there was, states had to device a way which would assess schools. The law never said that standardized tests had to be implemented, but it was the cheapest way to qualify for the federal money.

Since Arne Duncan took over the Department of Education, he devised a new way for states to compete called Race to the Top. The difference here was States had more standards to meet. Yes students still had to take tests, but more charter schools had to be created, and assessments had to be submitted. But in every race there's always a loser. While most states changed their education system in order compete for the millions of dollars being dangled in front of them, most states did not receive any money, or not as much money as they thought they would or should get. When the second round came up, the states that got shunned threatened not to participate and derail Obama and Duncan's image of how schools should be run.

I have no problem with using money to get what you want. It's done all the time. Whether it is to stop people from drinking and driving, regulate pollution in streams and rivers, or building new wind turbines for energy, this is how our current government works and has for a long time. The problem I do have with this policy is that it won't help children learn.

Making students take tests won't get students to understand what they are being tested on. Where Secretary Duncan and school Superintendents around the country should focus its efforts, is figuring out the best methods to teach teachers how to teach, and the best practices that enable students to learn. Then, incentives can be given to states based on what we know works, instead of assuming a one shoe fits all approach. Which brings me to my second point.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have been studying which teaching practices work best. One of the key findings is that smaller classrooms produce better outcomes for students. Reason being; the teacher is able to give those students the attention they need. But if you're going to give more money to states to hire more teachers and build more schools, you have to make sure the teachers being hired actually know how to teach. The Gates Foundation is looking at what the best teachers are doing now, so teachers of the future can learn from them.

One of the recommendations by the Gates Foundation is to take the students that are seriously struggling and put them into other areas where they can get the help they need. They are not specific on which students they are, only that the students who will be moved should be based on the criteria they develop. But let's assume the students that are moved have learning disabilities.

In the past, I have written about learning disabilities, and while the research being done will indirectly help teachers teach these students, it is still not an issue that is being dealt with. Even the best teachers will have to adjust their methods so the student with a disability can properly learn the material. But shifting them to another room is not the answer. As long as they are willing to work hard, students with disabilities can be in the same classroom as his or her peers, but putting them in another room will only make them feel as if they are below everyone else.

There is no reason why Congress needs to politicize this issue. When NCLB was first enacted in 2001, there were obviously aspects of the bill both liberals and conservatives liked, otherwise, it would not have passed. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama should talk about the success this bill has had since it was first enacted and how it is a way to enact changes to a system that desperately needs it.

Many more studies need to be conducted, and this post does not even begin to scratch the surface of what is wrong with our education system. But once there is a compilation of methods that are proven to effectively teach students, incentives should be given to states to teach, and teach those policies to its teachers.

The Politics of Budgets

2011-01-03T19:59:00.003-05:00

Did you know that America doesn't actually have a budget? It's true. Congress does not pass one big bill where all the spending is voted on. Instead, all the appropriations are voted on separately and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) adds them all up. There are so many convoluted ways in which Congress creates America's spending it is no wonder how it has a debt of thirteen trillion dollars.

Every year, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reports to the President on spending levels, the debt, and what economists are predicting for the coming year. After this analysis is complete, the President makes his priorities known. Decisions are made on what the tax levels should be, where spending should be cut, and where spending should be increased. Then the president starts pushing these ideas at the State of the Union address.

The CBO and OMB can sometimes come up with different numbers for how much a program can cost, how much the debt will be, or how much the economy will grow, but there usually isn't that big of a difference. The CBO is a non-partisan office, and because of that, their recommendations carry a lot of weight. During the healthcare debate, the CBO estimated that if the healthcare bill passed Congress it would reduce the deficit. The Democrats jumped on this and the Republicans had no reason or will to fight this fact. Of course, they still managed to find other things to complain about.

In Congress, the appropriations committees are filled with members who have a direct interest in seeing money going to their districts. For instance, the House committee on Science and Technology (which oversees NASA), had to deal with one of President Obama's priorities this past year. The president wanted to cut NASA's budget in order to reduce the deficit. But the members of that committee refused to let it happen, and it didn't. NASA was still fully funded for years to come, and for the members whose constituents didn't have a direct effect on the vote, they got a big IOU from those that it did. Needless to say, it is very hard to reduce the deficit this way.

One of the most effective ways the deficit was reduced occurred was when President Nixon was in office. When Nixon was living in the White House, he had the ability to cut spending that he did not think was necessary. Similar to a line-item veto but after the budget was passed. However, while he was in office Democrats controlled Congress, and eventually took this ability away from him, and claiming he wasn't cutting funding in Republican districts.

Before Obama introduces his budget and sets his priorities at the State of the Union, Congress is going to have to vote on its debt ceiling. A lot of pundits are making a big deal out of this because the debt was a big issue in the last election. But this same vote has happened every year for as long as there has been a deficit. And every year the minority party blames the majority party for increasing the deficit. But really, the ceiling is based on the coming years interest on what the government owns. So if a member voted for an appropriation last year that the CBO said would increase the deficit, they only have themselves to blame.

But that does not make it any less important for the debt ceiling to be raised. If it is not, the Treasury will be forced to default on the loans from China and other countries around the world. If you thought the financial crisis was bad, this will be one-hundred times worse. If the United States defaults (which amounts to claiming bankruptcy) the entire world economy will go into an unprecedented tail spin. It won't be just where people invested that will be hurt, this time it will be all the businesses that borrowed money from banks (which is all of them) from all around the world.

If John Boehner wants to give a fight about this, he will be playing a very dangerous game. I know he will be all high and mighty after Pelosi hands him the gavel, but unless he wants to be responsible for what I just described, he will raise the roof.

Election In Sudan

2011-01-01T23:06:00.010-05:00

The new year is meant to be a fresh start and a chance to look to the future. It is a time where it is possible to leave all the bad things that happened last year behind, and decide where you want to take your life.

The people living in southern Sudan will have an opportunity to do this on January 8^th. For decades, the conflict in Darfur has been documented by reporters such as Nick Kristoff, and stories have been told through the organization Lost Boys of Sudan. But a new chapter will be written once the coming elections takes place.

After years of civil war, and treaties that promised peace that never came, the President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, said that he would accept whatever the results of next Saturday's elections. But this is the same person who is wanted by the international criminal court for the genocide that took place in 2003. It is expected that the south will vote to secede, but there have already been problems with the international organizations which are trying to help. While the United Nations has managed to raise billions of dollars to help those who have been displaced, a lot of that money has not been properly accounted for. A large portion of the money was meant to be used to re-integrate members of the military into society, but it was recently reported that most of the money was spent on staff equipment, salaries, and vehicles instead.

However, the State Department has reported that all the ballot and voter registration drives were completed without hindrance, and at this point the vote is expected to be credible.

The Civil War in the country has displaced millions of families. Leaving people hungry and homeless. This also burdens border nations, and the rest of the continent, where these people migrate to because they have nowhere else to go. If this strife continues to happen, it can create instability for the entire continent. With the world becoming more and more integrated every day, it is important for the international community to help Sudan stabilize and grow its economy, no matter what the results of the election may be.

If the election is deemed to be a fair process, and the south votes to secede, the international community will have to put pressure on President Bashir to make sure they are allowed to do so peacefully. But Bashir has every reason to keep the north and south together. The southern regions of Sudan are where most of the oil in the country is located. Without that, the north will not nearly have as strong of an economy. And if the people in the south vote not to secede, steps need to be taken to make sure what happened in 2003 never happens again.

According to The Brookings Institution, strengthening the rule of law is a key element to helping the Sudanese who have been displaced. Economic opportunities are not the only reason The Lost Boys and millions of others without a home will want to go back. They left because Sudan was not a safe place to live. The Sudanese in the south have lost their trust in the north, and with good reason. But with a strong new and independent government, policies can be implemented to make sure that the people living in southern Sudan are safe.

If the people vote to secede, and Bashir goes back on his word, corporations can divest from the country, and sanctions can be imposed by the United Nations. This will tighten Sudan's belt and put pressure on the north and force Bashir to implement policies that will stop the atrocities that continue to plague the country.

While the Obama administration has had a lot on its plate the last couple of years, it has only talked, and not implemented policies which can help bring about peace in a region where the children have known nothing but war. This is an opportunity for the international community to come together and create a place that is not only able to help those living today, but for the future as well.

Obama Should Go Nuclear

2010-12-28T15:58:00.001-05:00

This whole talk of compromise is bogus. President Obama was able to pass the tax cuts, don't ask don't tell, and START, because the public was on his side. Polling consistently showed the American people were in favor of these two issues, and Republicans didn't want to look like they were not representing the people before they official gained power. But it will be a lot tougher the next two years and it will be important for Obama to pick specific issues that he can claim victory on.

Controlling the White House gives Democrats the ability to set the agenda and control the conversation. That means it is even more important to pick issues that they know they can win political points with since there will be so few of them coming up. By Obama saying he received a shellacking in this election cycle, he down played any new victories that may occur in the future, that way when he does get his initiatives passed through Congress, it is a bigger victory.

If the Republicans goal is to make Obama a one term president, there is no reason to give them an inch of breathing space. The energy legislation that passed the House this past term isn't going anywhere. While the bill received bipartisan support, it was still a close vote and very contentious. But there are a lot of elements in it that both sides can vote for. One of them is the expansion of nuclear energy.

Obama has consistently said he is in favor of creating more nuclear sites in the United States, and many Republicans have had this on their agenda. The list includes John McCain, Mitch McConnell, and soon to be the Chairwomen of the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Lisa Murkowski. There will be plenty of quotes that can be used to contradict what these Senators will be saying if Obama decides to push this issue. But it is one that he needs to use the bully pulpit in order to get what he wants.

The microphone is going to be set on high for this one too. There are a lot of Not In My Back Yard issues when it comes to nuclear power. People either think of Chernobyl or Three Mile Island and do not want an instance such as that to effect their communities. Both of these accidents were caused by human error, unlike the BP oil spill which was caused by human error. That's why the Department of Justice is suing BP believing the disaster could have been avoided. More regulation will be needed for the new nuclear plants, but it is hard to make an argument that current plants and refineries don't need it either.

One of the factors involved with using nuclear technology is where to store the waste that comes from using the material. But while there are currently 104 nuclear power plants operating in the United States, the amount of material that would have to be stored would cover seven yards on a football field. The technology for storing this material has been improved insurmountable since the last two nuclear accidents.

While building new nuclear plants are expensive, there is still plenty of money to be made from building them, particularly with the right incentives that the federal government can provide. In the meantime, the money that is being spent will create jobs. That's why other countries like England are planning to build more of them. And I haven't gotten into the environmental benefits of using more nuclear power.

One of the reasons Obama had such a hard time with the media is because he was not specific enough in what he wanted. The public option was the prime example. The official position was "I'm in favor of a public option, but it does not have to be in the final bill for the bill to be effective." While policy junkies or people who work in the health sector may have understood what he was saying, it was confusing. And it didn't allow him to own the issue and take credit for the pieces of legislation that will benefit people.

The White House needs to keep it short and understandable. Not everyone is a physicist and kept up on the news coming out of the nuclear sector. Next year Obama is going to have to stop trying to teach, and needs to preach instead.

No More Filibuster?

2010-12-21T11:28:00.001-05:00

There are some very legitimate questions being asking right now, but the one that has me stunned is, how has the Senate managed to get so much done after an election cycle where the party in power received a shellacking? I guess we forgot that mache eventually dries.

First, there was the infamous tax cuts. When President Obama made a deal with the Republicans three things were said 1) Obama gave up again 2) Obama won the political battle and 3) the tax cuts amounted to another stimulus. The first argument was made by the left who were upset that the people who earned the most will have their taxes further reduced. That money could have been used to subsidize the cost from the Social Security cut that was also made in the deal.

Pundits believe Obama won the political battle because he appeased the middle. The tax cuts were not a left, or right issue. Opinion polls repeatedly showed that the vast majority of people wanted to see the cuts go through, and because it was an issue the White House pushed, Obama won.

Now, everyone knows what I think about the stimulus argument. The short answer is that they will help, for the short term (but barely), but a lot more could have been done.

What made the extensions even more surprising was that it didn't look like they would pass. The White House did not want to extend those cuts for the rich. But the Republicans insisted on it, and would not have voted for the bill otherwise. The area that put the victory in Obama's corner though was the deficit. After all the talk about reigning in government spending and the wind at their backs, the GOP did not insist on one policy that would reduce the deficit, in fact, they only insisted on increasing it.

More importantly, Obama owned the issue. Maybe it was because he gave Bill Clinton the mic. But in the past Obama has always been trying to explain and level with people on why he made his decision. This time, he blamed the Republicans of holding the middle class hostage in favor of the rich. All the democrats were saying this, every time, they went on television. And it worked.

I wasn't going to say anything, and you have to promise not to tell anyone, but another victory also came when the Don't Ask Don't Tell law was repealed. Those who have been pushing for the repeal were wondering what happened to the guy who said he would repeal the law. After all the challenges in the courts, those hard core Obama supporters were wondering why they had to do so much more work after the 2008 election. For the people on the left that were upset about the tax deal, this may have made up for it. Two years from now Obama can go straight to his base and say he got this done. Unlike the tax cuts, which may or may not help the economy, the repeal of don't ask don't tell is a substantial change that a lot of people wanted out of him.

Also now thanks to the Senate, we can eat meat without fear of mad cow disease. In a late night sessions the Food Safety and Modernization Act was passed. You would think after we had so many close calls with food imports the last couple of years this is something that would have been done. But this is the first time food safety regulations has been improved in almost one-hundred years.

One of the bigger items which looks like it will be passed this week is the START Treaty. A post Cold War agreement between the U.S. and Russia that every Secretary of State (Republican and Democrat), says needs to be passed, and Senator Kyle is holding it up. This was the wrong issue to try and score political points with. This treaty has always had bipartisan support and has reduced the number of nuclear weapons around the world. The situation has become so bad that Russia is weighing in on the Senate. This did not have to be a political victory for Obama, it will only become one because some members of the GOP were so outspoken against it.

One piece of legislation that did fail was the Dream Act. It is a shame because it made the process for immigrants to come into this country easier and they would have had less of an excuse to try and sneak in. It's also a way to reduce the deficit. The new immigrants coming in could have been taxed, and there were provisions making it easier for current illegal immigrants to get green cards. Now billions of dollars will be sent back to countries of immigrant families. Just more proof no one really cares about the deficit.

And it looks like the federal government will shut down this year! After the House passed a short extension for the start of the new year, Senator Reid announced the Senate will do the same. I'm OK with this, I loved the 90's.

What has helped get these pieces of legislation passed is the election being over. There is a full two years before the next election, and most public officials figure what they do now won't hurt them down the road. Especially if you are a Senator who only runs every six years. The rest of the time you are looking out for your state and helping your colleagues when you can.

Most of the legislation being passed this week was held up because the Republicans were filibustering it. When you hold up one piece of legislation it takes a longer time for others to come up and dealt with, especially in the Senate. But with a divided Congress next year it is hard to tell if compromises will be made.

It is a good sign that legislation is finally moving through. We just learned today that one of every seven Americans is now on food stamps. Needless to say, people need government to work. But as soon as the new year starts, the next election cycle will begin, making it important to pick battles carefully.

Tax Cuts Don’t Stimulate The Economy

2010-12-09T02:56:00.001-05:00

I hate leaving things for the last minute. Having something hanging over my head just bothers me to no end it always get to the point where I can't sleep until it's done. The political problem for the tax cuts was that the White House waited until the last minute to deal with it, but probably for the right reasons. President Obama has had major legislative victories which will help a lot of people. Making sure women are paid equally, allowing students to stay on their parents insurance after college, and expanding scholarship opportunities to pay for college, just to name a few. As we've all seen those victories didn't just come over night, and unfortunately for Mr. Obama, there was still one last thing he had to get done.

The latest round of tax cuts which will soon be passed by the Senate is being sold so that it will help everybody, the middle class, working class, and of course the rich. The Center for American Progress is defending the tax cuts and claim it will create 2.2 million jobs. What their analysis assumes though is that businesses will spend money and there will be a demand for their products. But if you look at recent experiences, you should know there is no guarantee that businesses will spend more money just because they have it. In these uncertain times, they are more likely to keep it in case the economy goes even more down hill, just like the banks are doing since they received the bailout money. The business cuts aren't even targeted anywhere which proves there is no strong demand for anything right now. Otherwise, policies could be enacted to create more of a demand to help a strong area grow even more, which could help overall growth. That absence is just more proof the economy is really up in the air.

The Center got these numbers from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and used their numbers to create their analysis. The CBO however, assumes that the tax cuts will be offset by increasing taxes later so we won't have to worry about deflation. And it does not even take into account that Social Security taxes are being lowered.

But then there are some analyses I just don't get at all. The Heritage Foundation argues that only tax cuts can stimulate the economy. They try and differentiate between "Disposable Personal Income" and "Personal Spending." Now if you're a middle income family earning $150,000 a year, you have enough to go out to dinner, a movie, and keep up with your mortgage payments. But this family is not going to spend money on anything extravagant. They will not be buying a new house, car, or plan a expensive vacation in this time of uncertainty. So when they receive a tax cut, they will not be spending in the areas where it MIGHT help the businesses feel a demand for their products. And if you are working class family, you are more worried about feeding your children and keeping a roof over your head, and that's where they will spend the money. Again, not creating a huge demand for anything, and not beneficial to helping the economy. Families don't think of their money as "disposable" or "personal," and neither should economists.

Instead, programs should have been created to help families cope with the new economic realities. The best part of the package was getting unemployment benefits extended for a year. For middle class families though, there should have been money spent to pay for their children's college, or help lower their payments if the banks unexpectedly raised the interest rates. But if you don't believe me, you can listen to President Reagan's former budget director David Stockman, who helped invent trickle down economics.

The problem with both of these analyses is that they argue broadly about policies that need to be looked at in a more specific design. As I've argued in the past, current economic models do not allow economists to take into account what really matters to families. The tax cuts families receive will be spent on areas that will ensure the families stability. President Obama could have made a strong argument to raise taxes on the wealthy to ensure programs like Social Security and Medicare stay intact. Many people rely on these programs, especially the baby boomers. Who, by the way, will be retiring soon and who will vote in 2012. But by waiting this long to deal with the Bush tax cuts he had no time. The consequences, politically and economically, would have been worse if he allowed everyone's taxes to be raised. He had to let high income earners taxes stay low. It was a classic no win scenario.

All in all, no harm was done, but unfortunately not a lot of good was done either. So lesson learned, don't wait for the last minute to get your ducks in a row.

We Need Energy

2010-12-06T12:51:00.001-05:00

If you want evidence that only funny characters and what they say dominate the news media, try figuring out the latest debate on taxes. The Senate "worked" this weekend on the nations taxes. But since the United States Senate requires hours of debate before a vote can actually take place, it makes it easy to waste a lot of time. So unless you are a C-SPAN2 junky (like me) you missed hours upon hours of our elected officials talking about how they were going to vote.

[Quick side note: Notice how I didn't say debate to describe what the Senate was doing this weekend. The Senate doesn't debate anymore. If you want to read a great debate, look up Second Reply to Hayne, given by Daniel Webster.]

But don't worry, Senator's don't get paid overtime. After all that talk the only agenda that was accomplished was playing politics. Only two votes were taken and both sides knew they were going to fail. Democrats said they wanted to show Republicans only support the rich, and Republican's refused to raise taxes even though they claim to want to tackle the deficit. Now it looks like all the Bush taxes will be extended. The good news is that unemployment benefits will also. The bad news is that even if Democrats somehow manage to raise some taxes, Wall Street is already trying to figure out how to not pay them.

What both sides forget though is that Americans aren't looking for a show, they're looking for things to get done. While building Noah's Arc in Kentucky may seem funny, it is a policy that will create jobs and help the economy. It shows leadership and strength, which is exactly what people are looking for.

One of President Obama's problems the past two years is that he let Republican's control the debate on all the issues. Whether it was health care or Wall Street Reform, the Obama never used the bully pulpit to the extent other Presidents like FDR or Reagan did. Even though both President's lost seats during their midterm elections, their base was ready to fight for them when they were up for reelection, and they won big.

The State of the Union speech is coming up soon. It will be a moment where the president can set the agenda and tone for the next two years he is in office. The first issue he should talk about is energy. This is an area where Republican's and Democrats can make themselves happy. Obama already came out in favor of nuclear energy, which Republican's have been pushing for years. Wind and solar energy have are already a growing industry. With the right incentives, creating new energy industries can create thousands of jobs that can't be shipped off. The best part is that the technology for these new industries is being developed in America, and that means more exports which (according to standard models) will help America's economy grow.

President Obama not only needs to create more energy, he also needs to show more energy. Letting the other side control the modern hyperbole of a debate, only takes away the victories he has already accomplished. We all know what a great communicator he can be, next year, it's time to step up and speak loud.

Building A House

2010-11-29T16:44:00.001-05:00

Remember when Republicans were saying: government should act like American households when it comes to its budget? It was a great line. Short, easy to understand, and appealed to the GOP base (aka Tea Baggers) which allowed them to get excited. It then culminated with the recent shellacking this past election. The household analogy was used time and time again even though it was false. While it would be great to be able to print our own money (or if money grew on trees), we gave that right to the federal government when we ratified the Constitution.

But because elections have consequences, the two parties will be fighting to show who is most fiscally conservative. Obama announced today that he will be issuing a two year pay freeze that will save the federal government two billion during current fiscal year, twenty-eight billion over next five years, and sixty billion over ten years. While it sounds good on paper, it's really a political move. It's worth pointing out that it won't really be known how much is being saved until President Obama is out of office. And it's no accident. That way the White House can keep citing those numbers as a way to say the deficit is being reduced. Also, the pay of federal employees isn't the problem, it's the benefits they get that is driving costs up. That's why Defense Secretary Robert Gates is looking at ways to raise funds for the militaries Tricare. Of course, the new health care law will help maintain some of those costs, but apparently most of the new GOP governors won't enact the policy in their states.

This pay freeze announcement comes on the same day that several liberal think tanks are unveiling plans that are trying to tackle the federal deficit, all of which cut programs by federal agencies. In the meantime, government bureaucrats are always lobbying to keep their programs running. Think of it as an annual review where you have to tell your boss what you did this past year. You have to go through everything to show what you did while having to worry about keeping your job. Government agencies worry about the same thing, except it's all the time. They will give grand presentations, trips, gifts, and anything else that is legal to make sure they get the funding they think they need. While Obama doesn't have a J. Edgar Hoover problem, he still needs to make sure his employees are happy.

And do I even need to go into the special interest lobbyists like Jack Abramoff? There are plenty of those guys too. But whether you know it or not, you too have someone lobbying for you. For instance, do you want to save the environment? There are plenty of environmental groups out there who talk to members of Congress and their staff every day. Just look up The Environmental Defense Fund and read about how the Environmental Protection Agency was created.

One of the most contentious issues when it comes to the budget is taxes. No one likes them, and if a politician ever talks about them, he/she better say they will be lowered. But if you want a balanced budget someone's gotta pay for it.

The White House is right on this one, extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and let them expire for the rich. When people earning over a million dollars get a tax cut, they don't spend the money, and it does nothing for the economy. What makes raising taxes even more volatile this year is that state governments have had to raise their taxes over the last four years. So if Congress does nothing, the people who need help the most will be giving more than they can. Middle and working class Americans need the break and will spend it on the items they need to live, which will also help the economy. They deserve the extension.

It is baffling me how many Republican candidates are considering running for President in 2012. Just today John Bolton (who has never run for public office before) is thinking about running for President. Political Action Committees are already in the first couple of primary states for Mitt Romney, and Sarah Palin will probably run as an average Joe just to make a few more million. In the meantime, decisions need to be made, and the people who actually have to balance their budget are hurting the most.

Pre-Election Mortem

2010-10-29T12:46:00.001-04:00

Watching this election cycle has been like watching a movie that's really bad but you can't manage to walk out of the theatre. The Tea Party is the stupid friend who is funny (think Zach Galifianakis), the Republicans are the guys who seem alright but keep getting everyone else into the dumb situations (Mike Myers in Wayne's World), and the Democrats are supposed to be one of the main characters but you really have no idea what they're doing there (Gene Hackman in Heartbreakers).

The Tea Party has managed to nominate people with no political experience, or for that matter any experience, and single handedly made what should have been strong races for Republicans and turned them into toss ups. Harry Reid was behind more then ten points in generic ballots (at which point a politicians tombstone is usually being built), but has been able to make Nevada a close race. But he can only thank his opponent Sharron Angle who made demoralizing comments toward Latinos. Alaska shouldn't even have been a contest with the conservative Republican Lisa (spell my name) Murkowski, but I guess she wasn't obnoxious enough for the Tea Party. So instead, the nomination goes to Joe Miller whose claim to fame is being a lumberjack. And then there's Christine O' Donnell. Running for Vice President Joseph Biden's former seat, she lied about finishing college, her personal finances, and being a witch.

Since the Tea Party has become the main character the Republicans can't get rid of them. They need them for the movie to go on and to win on Tuesday. Even with this apparent hijacking, the Republicans can't say anything because they need the Tea Party. Unfortunately, most people don't vote in the midterm election, and less in the primary where the people listed above became famous, which give these small groups more influence.

After passing two historic pieces of legislation, the Democrats aren't able to come up with a strong message to tell voters. President Obama should be proud of what he's accomplished in the past two years. But part of being President is also being Communicator In Chief. While the debates for health care and financial reform were taking place, he should have been out there talking to the people and saying what he wanted passed in this legislation. He knows he will be compared to other Presidents like FDR, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. While on paper they've accomplished similar feats, Obama didn't use the bully pulpit like the others did to win the political points he needs right now.

My prediction for Tuesday: Democrats lose 23 seats in the House and the Republicans are one short of taking the Senate. The script for this disaster will be spun in two ways. Republicans will say it is a referendum on President Obama and his agenda. Democrats will say there were seats we knew we were going to lose, while historically, new Presidents always lose seats in the midterm elections. Democrats will look like they're giving excuses, and they are. I know I've said this before, but for a campaign that was so good at delivering a message and being clear as to what they wanted to accomplish, you almost wonder how they won just two years ago.

Not having a strong message explains the big difference between voter enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans. Liberals feel they worked so hard to elect a candidate they believed in and they still got the short end of the stick. But change has always been slow. With these types of movies there is usually a sequel or a spinoff, but it doesn't necessarily means it is as bad. Maybe next time the Democrats can figure out what to do.

Capability vs. GDP

2010-10-02T16:56:00.001-04:00

Goals are important. They give us something to strive for, get us to make the tough decisions that life requires to accomplish them, and in an ever complicated world, can help keep us focused on what is really important. For public policy purposes though, determining how to assess goals can be controversial. How can you count for hundreds of millions of people, and still implement public policies without interfering on what those same people want to accomplish for themselves?

Coincidently, in a time where many people are saying how economists are failing us, I completed my thesis on how new economic methods need to be used to assess a countries development. What economists are currently accounting for are inputs and outputs, how much it costs to produce the product, and how much money can be made by selling it. I don't want to say this is a bad thing. There are legitimate arguments out there on why these numbers are important. For businesses to hire people, they need an estimate how much they are going to make, and how much of a loan they need from a bank.

But while the Great Recession has been over for a year, the poverty rate in the United States has dramatically increased. The organization that punched these numbers is highly respected, and all they did was their job. They saw Gross Domestic Product (GDP) went up three quarters in a row and declared everything was fine. Unfortunately, there are millions of people out there who would tell these economists differently.

GDP only accounts for the health of businesses, not the population that keeps them thriving. Instead of assuming that if businesses are prosperous the people are too, economists need to develop new goals that take into account for what people need in order for them to achieve what they are working towards. My thesis focused heavily on the work of Amartya Sen and his Capabilities Theory. This theory focuses on human development, bringing it back to the basics of education, health care, housing, freedom, democracy, and other factors, in order to ensure people are given a chance to accomplish the goals they set for themselves.

In his recent struggles to get the democratic base out to the polls, President Obama stated that during the Bush administration personal family incomes had fallen. But still, most economists thought the economy was good because GDP was going up. The fact is recessions happen, whether in a time of strong regulations or weak ones. You just have to hope they're not as bad as the one we are in now and they don't turn into a depression. What is great about the Capabilities Theory is that when recessions do happen, policies are already in place to make sure people are protected. By having economists measure basic goals that all people need, individuals will still have the opportunity to decide what they want to accomplish for themselves because they were given the capability to do so.

Of course, while democracy is a important for the Capabilities Theory, there are numerous examples that can be used to show how politics can be really stupid. Gail Collins had a good piece today on how some of the major races in the coming election have been outright dirty, where the candidates have resorted to political mudslinging. While the politicians and their advisors may see attack ads necessary to get their base out, it turns just as many people off, and doesn't get any more people to vote for the person who put out the commercial. Even the numbers that economists come out with are at times manipulated to further a public officials agenda. But if new assessments of goals based on the Capabilities Theory were implemented, it would be harder to spin how many people are receiving a strong education, living in a safe neighborhood, and have what they need to support their families.

Elected politicians don't get reelected on what they say about their opponent, it's on their own record. By focusing on the people, instead of the corporations, elected officials will know what areas to focus on and try to do something about it. Then, it would be a lot harder for their opponent to come up with legitimate attacks.

This post may seem like a utopia to some people, but I am well aware there will always be socio-economic differences. But when I first learned about the Capabilities Theory, it was one of those things that just made sense, and hopefully after going through this tough time, more people will think it makes sense as well.

I Haven’t Heard The Fat Lady

2010-08-17T20:59:00.001-04:00

As the 2010 election gets closer and closer, it seems like everyone is trying to figure what the results will be and who's going to win where. The story lines are great too. The Tea Party is two steps away from taking over the Republican Party (they're already old and have party in their name), Robert Gibbs' media flaps, Momma Bear Sarah Palin, and President Obama's approval ratings. And with all that, the election is still up in the air.

It shouldn't come as a surprise to Democrats that the party without an agenda seems to have better winning odds. Finding holes or problems with policy ideas are easy. No policy is perfect and in today's twenty-four hour media, blogs (except for this one), and Twitter, it's easy to get as much bad information as much as there is good. But then you have to ask yourself, how many people realize the amount of money that will be saved by the new health care law ($143 billion), that the government actually made money from the TARP program ($201 billion), and we don't even know how many more jobs would have been lost if not for the auto bailout which all recently reported strong earnings. Governing is hard, and even though the Democrats did a good job communicating during the campaign, it's hard to juggle the two acts at once.

There are economists who fear deflation, and the unemployment rate is still staggeringly high (9.5%), but there are no actual facts that can be used to blame President Obama or the Democrats to say they have made it worse.

The Democrats should be touting their victories while they campaign, and Obama is finally doing so. The latest Third Way poll shows that the American people don't want to go back to the policies of the past. Even with all the craziness out there, I still believe that (especially since we are in such troubled times) people pay attention. The American people want answers, and the Democrats have legitimate evidence to show their policies have been working. So let the Republicans have no agenda, let them try and say things are worse from when they were in charge, and while doing so, ask what they would have done differently.

The only way the Republicans can actually claim victory is if they take over one of the Houses in Congress. But according to Real Clear Politics, both are still very much in play. I haven't heard the fat lady sing yet, and neither should you.

The Three Rules

2010-07-19T16:19:00.000-04:00

What was Robert Gibbs thinking? It's almost been two years since President Obama has taken office and his administration still hasn't learned you never state the reality, the obvious, or the truth.

The basic rules of Washington is to make yourself look better then everyone else, distort the other guys message, and never take responsibility unless people like what you're taking responsibility for. By admitting defeat in the coming election, Gibbs broke all those rules and managed to piss off the entire Democratic Party at the same time.

Give him some slack though, he's lasted a lot longer then some of his predecessors and when you're talking to the media every day you're bound to screw up at one point or another. Of course the reality (and what any political consultant in the district will tell you) is that the Democrats are going to lose seats in Congress this coming election, it is only a question of how many.

However, I don't believe it is as obvious or gloomy as Gibbs had stated it on Meet The Press. The problem with the Democrats messaging is that they have been on the defensive, always trying to explain what they are doing. This is especially dangerous when people are anxious and need help. But the fact is this Congress has done a lot of good. Between health care reform and the new Wall Street regulations they have accomplished a lot, and when people look back on it, they will be grateful this reforms were passed.

But now it's time to get back on the offensive. Get a clear message and don't be afraid to defend your vote.

A recent poll conducted by the moderate think tank Third Way showed how bringing former President Bush back into the picture, voters are much more willing to vote for the Democrat.

David Broder wasn't so convinced. He thought the Republicans could just bring back Reagan since the same poll showed most people also wanted more tax cuts. But don't forget, this Congress gave 95% of Americas a tax cut and Reagan raised taxes in his first term.

When the two parties debated these issues this past Sunday on Meet The Press, the Democrats were clearly back on the offensive and had the upper hand. So while Gibbs may have been telling what he thought to be the obvious truth, there's still a lot of time before the next election becomes the reality.

A Breath From Politics

2010-07-12T20:14:00.000-04:00

Since it seems so rare now a days, it is important to take note of when politicians do something that's not political. We learned today that the Obama administration will be implementing new policies to curb the H.I.V./AIDS epidemic.

These policies will be based on a year long report where a study was conducted with experts across the country. This comes at a time when over one million people in America are infected with H.I.V, with a new infection found every nine in a half minutes. Thousands of people are also unable to receive care. The new health care law that passed this year will help some of those people, but there is still a lot more work to do.

Even after all these years, and all the information about H.I.V./AIDS, there is still a stigma associated with having the disease. The report released today stated how people who are infected have a harder time getting a job, getting a loan for a house, and it becomes harder to receive certain health care services.

While the administration is clearly gearing up for the mid term elections, and Congress begins its last few weeks before summer recess, it's good to see some actual governing.

Focus On What's Important

2010-07-08T10:44:00.000-04:00

Between all the frenzy about Lebron James and Lindsey Lohan, its hard to remember that there is actual news stories out there. The fact that a basketball player has been able to completely attract the medias focus from the oil spill, Congress not extending the unemployment benefits, and even the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Between the two wars, 6,637 young men and women have lost their lives. The Iraq War is already the longest military operation in America's history, and as it turns out, there may not be any end in sight. General Ray Odierno said that while American troops will still be leaving Iraq by 2011, the United Nations will still need to have a presence there because of the fighting between the countries ethnic groups.

Vice President Biden recently visited the country in order to try and get the elected leaders there to work together and establish programs that will help Iraqi's live their lives. Mr. Biden's trip was marred by an attack where he and his wife were staying, and a successful attack by a suicide bomber who killed four people. Then, two days later, the military charged one of its soldiers with downloading secret information onto the Internet. The most famous of which is a video of Iraqi citizens and press being shot and killed by a U.S. helicopter.

One or two misses I can understand, the people who run the media are human. But the sheer ridiculousness of the media being fascinated by a poor girl who we should be feeling sorry for, and a basketball player who you would think has a big enough ego to solve the golf oil crises and capture Osama Bin Laden, is just irresponsible.

Maybe I'm wrong, and it's not the press' fault they need the ratings to keep themselves in business, and its our fault that the type of stories we want to hear aren't what is actually important.

This argument can go back and forth, and anyone who tells you they know they answer is lying. But to remedy this situation individuals need to keep perspective, and focus on what's important.

Staying Positive

2010-07-01T12:33:00.000-04:00

My intuition was partly confirmed when I was searching information for this post. After you type in "learning" into Google, "learning disabilities" is the third term on the drop down list.

I found some very good sites on what learning disabilities are, and some ways which parents can help their children, and adults can help themselves, when one is learning disabled. Kids Health and the Learning Disabilities Association of America has great information, and can help answer a lot of questions for people whos lives they effect, or for those who have never heard of the term learning disability.

There was a recent New York Times article which showed the problems teachers have when they have to teach students who are extremely disabled. What makes learning disabilities unique, is that you would never know that someone has a learning disability unless he or she tells you. Learning disabilities not only effect the development that one learns, but social development as well.

Students have only recently begun being diagnosed with learning disabilities, and they usually are in their early teens. Now, I don't know anyone who liked middle school. Whenever I talk to anyone about it they always have bad memories, mostly from being picked on because, as you know, everyone is cool when they are twelve years old.

While school is a place to learn the skills that prepare you for the world, it is also a place where you are supposed to learn how to interact with other people without your parents telling you how to behave. But having a disability can make it difficult. Since you are struggling, school becomes a place where you are not comfortable. You are forced to work harder then your peers but still not getting as good of grades, your teachers keep telling you you're doing something wrong, and then your friends are calling you an idiot. It's not fun, and needless to say, you don't feel too good about yourself.

Having a learning disability is not something that goes away. While there are methods which can help those who are learning disabled, there is no way to fix whatever it is that causes someone to have these troubles.

There still needs to be research done to determine how to help students who are having these struggles. But what we know is that these students need extra help not just with their homework, but figuring out the best ways for them to learn. Time needs to be set aside with a teacher who can show students how to take notes, organize their work, and also give them the confidence necessary in order to succeed.

Believe it or not though, there are some positives to have a learning disability. For one, you know what you're good at. I'm 24, most of my friends have graduated, have jobs, and I still hear that they don't know what they want to do with themselves. Even in undergrad, no one knew what they wanted to major in and had to figure out their niche. When deciding what type of job or career path someone with a disability wants to go in, they're going to choose something that works toward their strengths. In the end they will be doing a job that they enjoy, and after all the struggles through school, will also be able to take more satisfaction in whatever they decide to do.

Being learning disabled also makes you a hard worker. All the days with tutors, or studying late at night, students with disabilities will be used to working those long hours that employers might need their employees to do.

Since learning disabilities are still relatively new to the world of education, those with disabilities may feel alone. But it is always important to remember that there are a lot of people with learning disabilities out there. Which is why I suspect so many people are googling the term. And even though it may be difficult at times, it's important to think positively. Take a break from school/work and do something you enjoy, which people should do whether they have a disability or not!

Another Day in Washington

2010-06-18T10:26:00.000-04:00

There are days where I can understand why people hate politics. Then, you realize it's just another day in Washington. Tony Hayward's, dare I say, "testimony" yesterday reminded me of a cat with a tail between its legs. Not only was he playing dumb, but he also didn't take any responsibility. I watched the entire hearing, and around the 1,000 "I don't know" I was ready to throw my TV out the window.

It's amazing how many times you can say I don't know in different ways. "I was not aware," "I was not involved in that decision," "I am not qualified to comment on that issue," or my favorite, "it's not you it's me."

At least BP can stop trying to play the good boy. The television advertisements of Tony trying to look compassionate almost worked. Pundits on TV were describing the CEO as a compassionate figure, even after he said all he wanted was his life back, not even thinking about the eleven people who lost theirs on his company's rig.

Then of course there was the Republicans, who felt bad President Obama made BP pay $20 billion for the businesses and families affected by this disaster. But Congressman Joe Barton wasn't thinking about those who are losing their livelihood, he only wanted to score political points. Winning the next election has become so important to some members of Congress that they forget they are actually responsible for running the country.

You would also think a disaster of this magnitude would force Congress to get their act together and pass a climate/energy bill. But no, members of the Senate don't seem it is fair that businesses like BP pay some sort of carbon tax while America transitions to renewable energy.

The whole situation is politics at its worst and for some reason there isn't more outrage. According to polls Americans are divided on whether to continue off shore drilling. Of course, I'm sure if BP was planning to build a rig in their back yard, those Americans in favor of more drilling would change their mind.

Jon Stewart had a great bit the other night where he showed speeches of past presidents trying to change American's energy policy. President Obama's speech from the oval office wasn't bad because it was poorly written, it was bad because he didn't call for anything. He didn't grab the bull by the horns and take control. He missed an opportunity, and no ones taking responsibility.

Screw BP

2010-05-29T13:50:00.000-04:00

Need I say more? There is not a more hated company right now and I don't feel bad for them one bit. Especially after seeing today that BP knew the Atlantis rig had safety issues from the start. According to internal docments releaed today, BP decided to save money on a "well control" mechanism which may have caused this disaster.

This rig had problems from the beginning. In 2006 it was two years behind schedule because of hurricane Dennis, then of course there was Katrina. At this time BP admitted that the rig failed four tests in the platforms subsea system. BP also had every reason to get the rig running since it would have put them in position to be the leading player in America's deep water production.

Atlantis was considered the most sophisticated and technologically advanced oil platform today. According to offshore-technology.com, this platform was the "deepest moored floating dual oil and gas production facility in the world." Now all we're hearing is executives blaming each other in preparation for the all the law suits they are going to have to fend off.

How Americans are even divided on continuing off-shore drilling is beyond me. Why take this risk again? Develop new energy resources here, starting in New Orleans, and screw BP.

Filling In The Bubble

2010-04-14T20:52:00.000-04:00

As summer is just around the corner, it's getting warmer outside, flowers are blooming, and productivity goes down the drain. This is also the time when school's are about to be let out, and standardized test scores across the country will soon be released.

There has been a lot of news coming out of the world of education. Recently, a panel of superintendents from around the country came together to create national standards for America's schools. Even though the panel neglected science and history, the subjects that they did take on will help schools know where there students need to be and implement reforms that will get their students up to par. Also, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan gave out the first round of the Race to the Top money, but with mixed results. Only two states received any money, while many others who had changed their policies in order to compete, received nothing. Now those states are saying they will not participate in the second round because they don't see the point.

The fundamental problem I see here is how we are determining which schools need to improve, and which ones should be looked at as good examples. The No Child Left Behind law required states to report their schools progress in order to keep receiving federal money. The law let states determine how they would assess their schools, and most of them decided to use standardized tests. Why not? It helped the state get money, and if the students were passing the test it was obvious they were learning, right?

If only it were that simple. We now know that states would purposely make the tests easier so students would do well, thus qualifying the state to get more money. That is why Secretary Duncan recently came out to change this system. These new changes will require states to not just submit test scores, but other factors as well, which hold individual teachers and students accountable. President Obama took a lot of heat for saying he supported the closing failing schools, but what other choice is there? With only being able to look at test data, there is no way to determine why a school is failing.

Standardized tests are a good way to get data on students, but this is only a macro snapshot of a problem that needs a micro solution. Usually, the main factor of students doing well on standardized tests are their families socio-economic situation. While more affluent families can afford tutors, or their parents have a college degree and can spend extra time with their children, students of lower income do not have these advantages. Plus, there is no correlation between a teacher and how well his or her students did on a standardized test.

New policies need to be implemented to make sure this problem ceases to exist. One solution is to have new teachers go through a training program before they actually start teaching. States have hired many new teachers in the last year, but many of these individuals (while they may know the material they will be teaching) have never lead a classroom before. Instead of having teachers learn on the job, they should go through a paid program to develop the necessary skills to teach. This will ensure that there is a steady stream of teachers going into the classroom who from day one can effectively teach students what they need to learn. There is an organization called Urban Residency Teachers United where they pay individuals to do a residency program so they can gain experience in the classroom. This model is based on what doctors are required to do before they are allowed to practice medicine.

Also, because we are in the 21st Century, there are now many websites where teachers can write about problems or questions they have, and get feedback from others who are teaching. This should be encouraged. Like everything else, teaching is a skill, and some are better at it then others. Secretary Duncan should help promote programs that allow teachers to use these sites, and go to forums where they can learn new skills and methods to teach their students.

Standardized tests are only good for students who want to practice memorizing facts and fill in a bubble. Secretary Duncan is right when he says we only have one chance to teach the next generation, which is why we need to make sure we are doing it the right way.

Certain About Green

2010-03-16T11:42:00.000-04:00

As of today, Real Clear Politics shows that 41% of the American people are supportive of the Democrats health care bill, while 48% are opposed. This isn't enough for either side to claim the American people are on their side or against the others. When I look at this, it tells me they are undecided even after the issue has been debated for over a year. Seeing how the debate has taken place, it makes sense. Health care is one of the most complicated issues any policy maker can deal with, and frankly, the Democrats or the press has done a good job explaining it, and the Republicans are saying anything to make sure it dosen't get passed.

Now, once the Democrats bill pass their health care bill this week, they will undoubtedly claim a huge victory. Earlier this week Nancy Pelosi said it would be a fundamental change if the bill is passed. But the truth is the effects of the bill won't be seen for most Americans until a few years down the road, and will be a non-factor in the coming elections because the law won't have any immediate effect. What people will be voting on is how Democrats have been running the country.

Democrats will have to answer questions on the stimulus, bailout, and if they have any ideas on how to get the economy moving faster.

What can have a faster effect on the economy, and people's well being, is a comprehensive energy bill that focuses on green technology and becoming less reliant on importing oil. There won't be a lot of time before politicians are fully focusing on their elections, but the great thing about energy bills is that their easy.

While Arizona can put money into developing solar technology, New York can do the same for nuclear. Different types of power are better for different parts of the country, and the states can use their own natural resources to determine which type of energy source is best for them.

Any real energy plan will require a variety of new technologies to be developed. As long as the bill creates grants to incentivize states to develop those technologies, even Republicans would be hard pressed not to vote for it.

While an effective way to speed the development of green technology would be helped by cap and trade, it won't be necessary if the demand for these technologies is already high. Even Al Gore admitted recently that we have more time to combat global warming then we first thought. People in Greenpeace shouldn't complain if cap and trade isn't in the energy bill signed into law if new power sources that don't emit any CO2 are being used and developed.

People like green technology because they know it will create jobs. When President Obama visited OPOWER, people were more excited to learn about the company then why the president went their in the first place.

By passing a comprehensive energy bill, Democrats can claim (with the combination of the stimulus and bailout) that they have a handle on things, and the country is being steered in the right direction with them at the helm.

Snowpacolyps!

2010-02-09T12:24:00.000-05:00

Thank God I'm not claustrophobic. Snowpacolyps has been absolutely ridiculous, Washington, DC hasn't seen this much snow in over seventy years and the entire federal government is shut down. Except for the Armed Services, so don't get any ideas Canada!

One note on the Super Bowl. Great game and I'm happy for New Orleans. They went for it the entire game. But if they lost that onside kick at the start of the second half Sean Payton would have been ripped in the headlines like no other coach.

And can we all agree that CBS leaned conservative in their choice for super bowl ads? First they didn't allow a commercial for a gay dating site to be aired, but did allow Tim Tebow and his mom to promote their pro-life views. I was also at a party with a lot of people who work on the Hill or politics one way or another, and none of them knew about the defeat the debt ad. This concerned me so I just wanted to post a link for when I wrote about it here.

Now to more important issues, did anyone watch House last night? If you didn't you need to. I swear its the only show on television that is actually trying to push the barrier, and this season has been great. Last night they followed the day in life of the head of the hospital, Dr. Cuddy. She was in the middle of negotiations with an insurance agency, and because her hospital had better numbers then others who are under the same insurance, she wanted to get more reimbursements from the insurer. While other hospitals were getting more money, Dr. Cuddy's hospital was not because they were smaller then the others.

Then I happen to be reading the New York Times this morning and I see an article on this very subject! One of the experts said they would like to see payments from insurance companies based on how well a hospital takes care of its patients, not just on how many patients they admit. One of the key wins for the Democrats this year was in the stimulus package where they put in incentives for hospitals to invest in technology to share records on their patience. This will allow doctors to see what works for certain illnesses. Economists estimate this will save millions for hospitals just on overhead alone. Plus when we know what to do, doctors can better treat their patience which will also save them money.

As I'm writing this, the President was taking questions from reporters, and he said there are now more people who get health insurance from the government then private insurers. This should be a rallying call for a public option. Private companies cannot support getting all Americans health care. Even before this, we already knew that while private insurers spend 8% on overhead, it only costs the government 1%.

One of my favorite quotes by FDR is: "A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward." There has been a lot of talk lately on bipartisanship and how Social Security had many members of Congress on both sides of the aisle vote for it. At this time there were 322 Democratic members in the House, and 69 Democrats in the Senate. 81 Republicans in the House and 16 Republicans in the Senate voted for the Social Security Act, so yeah it was bipartisan. But FDR still had a lot of work to do to get it passed. Speeches, town hall meetings, meetings with leaders on the Hill, plus the Supreme Court. With Obama wavering on all the specificson health care its hard for the people to understand what he's trying to do, and it doesn't make him sound confident in his policies. That's why he's having a hard time getting health care reform passed.

FDR's New Deal was clear to everyone, he made it so popular that voting against it would have been political suicide. That's how FDR got bipartisanship. President Obama hasn't made it clear to people how health insurance reform will help them, particularly those who have insurance. But talking to Republicans isn't going to help, no matter how ridiculous it makes them look. While Congress' approval ratings are low, Americans still want Democrats in charge.

In the short amount of time he has left to get something done, the President needs to tell the people exactly what he wants. He has said many times that he would prefer a public option, but what he should say is that he wants a public option. The tell them he wants it because it is the best way to lower costs for families. That is whether they are paying for their own insurance or their parents if they go into a retirement home.

During House, Dr. Cutty was having a conversation with the CEO of the company she was negotiating with. The CEO said "You can make me look like a rich bastard in the press all you want, but I'll still be a rich bastard." But Dr. Cutty stook to her guns. She told the insurance company exactly what she wanted and got it. Obama should do the same.

We're expected to get another foot of snow here in Washington. The federal government will probably be closed again, and none of the politicians are going to go on TV. This will give the administration time to think of a game plan, and hopefully get something substantial passed. Obama should take advice from Teddy Roosevelt and stop using the carrot, and go with the stick.

Haiti

2010-01-18T11:32:00.001-05:00

At Muhlenberg (my alma mater), there is a Sociology professor named Christopher Kovatz-Bernat who has studied the country of Haiti throughout his professional career. His class on the country is extremely popular with students, and most of my peers came away thinking that Dr. Bernat was a little crazy to keep going to such a volatile state.

I did not take Dr. Bernat's class on Haiti, but when I did a presentation on the country, he was more than willing to sit down with me to go over details. By now, you have all heard Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemesphere, and when you learn about the recent political history of the country, it's not hard to understand why.

In December of 1990, Jean Bertrand Aristide won 67% of the vote in a Presidential election for the country of Haiti. President Aristide was looked at as a symbolic figure who would be able to bring economic stability and development to the country. However, in September of 1991, a coup was staged to overthrow Aristide. The act was led by the economic elite of the country, a long with elements of Haiti’s army.

From 1991-1994 an interim government was formed. It was not until the United Nations passed Resolution 940 where members were supposed to use all necessary force to oust the interim government. The United States took the lead in this initiative, and in mid-September of 1994 U.S. troops prepared to enter Haiti. In June of 1995 local and parliamentary elections took place with a pro-Aristide contingent winning. President Aristide then took the Presidential office back in September of 1995. After that though, there were many problems with the legitimacy of future elections. In 1996 Rene Preval won the Presidential election with 51.15% of the vote that was looked at by many of the international community to be illegitimate.

Without full legitimacy, it has been hard for the international community to come together to work with the country, and harder for the President Preval to bring the country together in order to help it. And remember, this was all before the earthquake.

People were already living in unsanitary conditions. There was barely any running water, and the only way to get any was through a public filtration system. There was also no sanitation department to pick up the trash so people left it on the streets and walked around it.

There had also been law enforcement issues making the country a dangerous place to live. After the international community went into Haiti, the military was disbanded, but its members still kept their weapons. This left thousands of guns on the streets with no counter force to help keep the peace. This is a picture of Haiti's former military personel on the streets of Port au-Prince:

In 2008, the Caribbean was hit by three storms, Haiti getting the worst of it. This is how the country looked after that:

This country needed help way before the major earthquake that destroyed the little people had in the country. If any good can come out of this, its that there might be a sustained effort to build stability and economic growth to a place that has needed it for a long time.

The American Red Cross has had members going to Haiti for a long time now. They and other organizations will be conducting much of the heavy lifting that is now necessary more then ever. That link will lead you straight to a place where you can donate what you can. Large amount of funds will be necessary to carry the effort out now, and into the future.

Show Me The Money!!

2010-01-09T15:27:00.000-05:00

I'm usually really excited to wake up Sunday, read the paper, watch Meet The Press, and absorb all the new information that's going to come out. There are times though when my political Sunday is kinda a let down. Kinda like the last week of the NFL season. Unfortunately, I have a feeling this is going to be one of those weeks.

I know exactly what's going to be said tomorrow. Jobs. Everything and anything about jobs, or rather, lack there of. In December 85,000 jobs were lost and the unemployment rate stayed at 10%. There's no way around it, it's very bad out there. Businesses are forced to cut back, and families are being forced to make extremely tough decisions such as between buying health insurance or food. Now the President and Congress are talking about passing a jobs bill which they hope (hope!), will create more opportunities for companies to hire.

Most economists are saying things are going to get worse before they get better. But of course a recent piece pulitzer prize winning economist (Paul Krugman) said: "The next employment report could show the economy adding jobs for the first time in two years." So what do they know? And as for Republicans, all they can do is say the Democrats $275 billion stimulus package isn't working. But when I looked to find out what that money was doing, it turns out its just sitting there.

According to Recovery.gov, as of October 30th 2009, only $19 billion of the stimulus packaged has been spent, but over $158 billion has been rewarded. Only 13% of the money has been given to the states. Wyoming has been awarded over $476 million, but has only received a little over $60 million. California (the state with the most fiscal trouble right now) was awarded over $18 billion, but has only received a little over $8 billion.

So for all you fiscal hawks out there, stop complaining. While the money has been allocated it hasn't gone anywhere yet. Why? Who knows. I'm sure if you ask any member of Congress (well, maybe not McCain) they will be more then happy to get some of that money for their constituents.

My advice: spend the money! Banks aren't lending, and as we learned from the Great Depression, the government needs to be the one that creates the demand to spur economic growth. There are arguments out there that another stimulus needs to be passed. But let's wait and see what this one is actually able to accomplish. Considering our infrastructure needs a lot of work, I'm willing to bet there are plenty of roads, bridges, and highways that can use some sprucing up.

Since health care took up so much of Congress' time this year, people are frustrated they cannot see any tangible results from the stimulus or anything else. Democrats had a mandate to do something and while they can legitimately claim they got things done, none of it has taken effect yet. There have been tours here and there touting where the stimulus money has been spent (including minority leader John Boehner's district), but more needs to be done. With all the families struggling out there they need to hear it's going to get better.

From the money that had been spent, Democrats can legitimately claim it created jobs. So show me the money!

9/12/2001

2009-12-28T17:47:00.001-05:00

I'm so glad this decade is over. When you look back at it, there's nothing great to remember. First, there was the "election" of George W. Bush which absolutely polarized the country. Everyone hated each other, during the 2000 election, it seemed like there was just some nerd who claimed he invented the internet, and then another guy you may have wanted to have a beer with. It wasn't really a question of who you liked more, it was really about who you hated less. The majority of the people weren't all that passionate about one candidate or the other, and no matter who won, Gore or W, neither would have had any true mandate to get any of their policy objectives accomplished. Then came September 11th 2001.

As in past crises, American's ran straight to the flag, and W's popularity soared. The election was left behind, it didn't matter anymore. Recently, and to my great enjoyment, there have been many people who have been making fun of Glenn Beck. One skit that has had many people laughing was his coalition for 9/10, where Beck wants everyone to feel the way they did before that awful day in September. But what I remember most about that time is actually the day after. Having grown up in New York City, I have always had to explain to people who are not accustomed to a big city that I knew everyone on my block. NYC is made up of small communities, and on 9/12, they were extremely important to getting things back on track. Schools were canceled and people were outside. My family and I went to Central Park where we saw a ton of people out with their dogs talking, exercising, reading, and yes the park is always crowded on nice days (which this was) but this time there was a bigger reason for it.

You had to be with someone. You couldn't be alone because the only way to get through what happened the day before was to be together. Karl Rove's strategy of there being two ideologues in American politics might be true, but where he and the Bush administration fell short wasn't the two wars, or the spending, it was leadership. We'll never know if Al Gore would have been a better President, but President Bush lost a great opportunity to bring people together. No one likes politics (trust me, I know) but the reason President Obama won this year wasn't because the majority of the people were absolutely in love with him. It was because of what he represented. While George W. Bush let September 11th define his Presidency, he should have defined September 11th. I'm 23 now, and when Barak Obama ran for President, he wanted to bring America together. That's why he won. Change was not just a slogan. It was a word that represented the ideals of why people came together on 9/12. Even during this financial crisis and what has been dubbed the great recession, everyone (Republicans and Democrats) looked to their government to do something.

I'm glad this decade is over because it means there is a chance Americans can feel exuberant again. And maybe this time even humble. Personally, I'm confident the economy will turn around next year, and hopefully there will be many people (including me) who can find a job. But as we go forward, it's important we do not forget how we felt on 9/12/2001, because that is the true America. Hopefully even Glenn Beck can remember that.

I Thought This Was The Time For Giving

2009-12-14T20:56:00.000-05:00

At 8:46pm tonight I received a news alert from the New York Times that read "Senate Democrats Likely to Drop Medicare Expansion." I thought I read it wrong, or the Times was mistaken, or maybe the headline was just misleading/catchy so people would read the article which would result in more revenue in advertisements. Unfortunately, it was none of these scenarios.

The article quotes Senator Baucus saying he thinks that the headline is what is going to happen, and Senator Reid didn't even want to answer any questions when the Democrats came out of a meeting. I was willing to live with the proposal of people being able to buy into Medicare at 55. At least it was something. When Social Security was first created the average for people to live was 58 for a male and 61 if you were a female, but individuals couldn't receive benefits until they were 65. Maybe I was fooling myself, but the Social Security program has grown a lot since then. So I thought it was like that, baby steps.

But there's not steps being taken here. Insurance companies dominate the states they are in. There is no market, you either can afford insurance or you can't and that's that. President Obama has stated many times that we need to lower prices or no one in the country will be insured. Without any sort of public option, expansion of Medicare, buy in clause people to buy into the insurance plans federally employees (including members of Congress) get, insurance coverage will either stay the same or more likely be raised. Which means that by 2019 health care costs will raise more then all other domestic programs, including defense.

In my very first blog entry I tried to explain how health insurance works. The supply demand equation does not work. Especially if providers are more worried about making a profit and not spending money on the people who pay into their fees.

Even if there was a clause in the bill that allowed insurance companies to compete across state borders (a Republican idea) it would lower costs because it gives people more options. If insurance companies want people to pay them anything, they'll give them the best deal possible based on what other companies are offering. But if there are no other companies (and in most states there are little to sometimes none) companies can charge as much as they want and make huge profits. There is now nothing being offered in the Senate version of health care that will fix this prolem.

During the holiday season I always hear the phrase that this is the time for giving. Democrats wanted to pass health care legislation before Christmas, but now even if something does pass, it won't give anything to the 50 million American's who are uninsured.

Weekend Votes

2009-12-05T15:30:00.000-05:00

As far as I'm concerned weekends are for doing nothing. Saturday and Sunday my job is to be as lazy as possible and no one can tell me otherwise. But as we all know the Senate is in session this weekend voting on their health care bill. As I'm watching C-SPAN 2 I saw Senator McConnell begrudgingly asked Reid when the votes were going to be held on Saturday and Sunday. He clearly, by the way he asked the question and the sound of his voice, did not want to be there this weekend.

Speaker Pelosi did the same thing. I went around the Capitol the weekend the House was voting on their health care bill and no one was there. Even watching the news cable broadcasts, I remember thinking there were only a few people actually on top of the situation. Speaking of which, Wolf Blitzer wasn't even on the air!

I know there is a lot of talk out there about whether or not the Democrats have the votes to pass their final legislation. But if I was a betting man I would I'd put my money on yes.

Senators are people too and they, just like everyone else, hate working on the weekends. On top of that, it's snowing here in DC. It's disgusting out, everyone wants to just stay inside in their sweats and watch football. But Senator Reid has all the Senators in their suits working. Their going to vote yes (even Senator Lieberman) just to get out of there.

Not to mention the fact President Obama is once again going to make one final push tomorrow and they wouldn't have him do that if they weren't confident it wouldn't have a positive effect.

I'm not saying the votes aren't going to be close, in fact when the House voted for health care the only thing that was truly bipartisan was the vote to adjourn. All sides agree this needs to get done and if any of them want a chance at reelection they'll vote for something that the majority of Americans are in favor of.

Put Up or Shut Up

2009-11-19T11:34:00.000-05:00

This health care debate gets more and more exciting every day. Now it's the Senate's turn. Who needs Pacquiao vs. Cotto when you get to see Harry Reid whipping the rest of the Democrats to vote for his bill? The best part is that the vote is going to be on another Saturday night. Prime time! There's nothing else on Saturday anyway, and I guarantee you the networks are pissed they won't be able to charge for advertisements on C-SPAN when the vote is taking place.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the legislation would reduce the federal deficit by $127 billion over ten years. That's also probably a conservative estimate based on how CBO actually calculates the figures. Taxes are also going to be raised by the insurance companies who charge more then $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families, which will help key costs low.

I have to admit that I'm a little disappointed in the name. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That's boring. The bill should be called Put Up or Shut Up.

In 2006 Republicans lost control of Congress mainly because they didn't get anything done, they didn't get their act together. Some Democratic Senators (Lieberman, Landrieu, Lincoln, and Nelson) are threatening to not even let the bill come to a vote. If that happens it won't just look bad for Reid and the rest of the Democratic leadership, it sends the message to the American people Democrats don't have confidence in their own policies. And if they don't, why should the the American people?

The bill to be voted on Saturday has a public option which states can opt-out of. And a public option is the best way to control costs, the majority of the American people know this. The foundations are in both the Senate and House version for the Democrats to be confident in the bill.

When Vice President Biden was on The Daily Show the other night, he was asked, and I'm paraphrasing, "Why is it that the Republicans are able to stop legislation when they are in the minority, and the Democrats can't get anything passed when they have the majority?" Biden's reply: "That's a good point."

So Democrats, it's time to put up or shut up, because that's what this bill represents. You can either show the American people you are capable of running the country or you're not. The outcome of this bill will be the answer.

Learning from Sesame Street

2009-11-05T11:14:00.000-05:00

I love Sesame Street. Before going to pre-school I would watch it and while being fully entertained, I would also be learning from Big Bird and all his friends. It's the shows 40th anniversary this week, which should remind us how teaching is one of the most important parts of our society but unfortunately can sometimes be taken for granted.

When trying to hold teachers and schools accountable within their districts, politicians and policy makers always go for the simple answer, standardized tests. Their argument is that these tests can give them data for them to see which schools are doing well and which ones are not.

Now don't get me wrong, I love data. I would never think of any policy or even try to without looking at some statistics because that would be irresponsible. But what sometimes is forgotten is how one size does not always fit all, and there could be multiple reasons why students may or may not do well on standardized tests.

When students take these tests, they become anxious, nervous, and frustrated over what may happen if they don't do well. Even worse is that by teaching to the tests, it takes away from actual learning from the classroom.

These tests narrow the curriculum to what will be tested. Teachers have to do this because they feel the pressure to make sure their students do well because in the end it will be a reflection on them.

I went to The Beacon School in New York City. It is considered one of the best public schools in the city and it started as a place where students were exempt from taking the New York state regents exams. Now however, they have to take them. So while President George W. Bush was touting immigration reform in his last term in office, there used to be (1999-2000) only two questions on immigration on those regents exams.

The most well known of these standardized tests is the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT). After World War 2, soldiers coming back were given tests to see where they should be placed in the job market.

The problem was that the Army Tests were ridiculously slanted, rewarding anyone with a knowledge of brand names, baseball trivia and cuts of beef.

But Carl Brigham (the man who invented the SAT and founded the College Board) convinced Princeton University that these tests should be mandatory for students entering college. The test have changed over the years, but the fact of the matter is there is no correlation on how a first year student does in college and the SAT.

Engaging students is hard, Sesame Street has found a great way to do so and should be celebrated for it. Holding teachers feet to the fire is not the best way for students to learn, or for that matter teachers to teach. My prediction is that next year Nancy Pelosi is going to want to reauthorize No Child Left Behind, but eight years after its signing 8.7% of students are still not graduating high school.

In sum, while having all students take a test may seem fair, in reality someone is still getting less. Another lesson that can be learned from Bert and Ernie.

Who Wouldn't Want To Show Off The White House?

2009-11-02T10:51:00.000-05:00

If I were President, I know all my friends would be asking: "So when's the party?" You could just imagine a kegger on the Rose Garden right?

The White House released a list of some of the visitors that have come since President Obama has taken office? It didn't get a lot of attention with Afghanistan, the economy, and healthcare taking up most of the news time, but some of the people who visited kinda worry me.

The first one was Michael Jordan. Now I know the president likes basketball, played for the Chicago Bulls, and is the greatest that ever played. But did you see his speech when he was inducted into the hall of fame? It's hard to say that I actually ever liked Michael Jordan considering all the times he came into MSG and trounced the Knicks. But I was a fan and to see how much of a douchebag he really is, is really shocking.

Who the hell tells their kids he would hate to be them?

My concern is that his douchbaginess will infect the White House, and all of a sudden Obama will quit being President and try a career as a day time talk show host. I know he's capable of doing it because he's a great speaker, and when people ask him questions he always knows exactly what to say. Plus I'm sure his ratings will be high if no one has a job.

Another name that stood out to me was former Presidential candidate John Edwards. It's safe to say this guy is on everyone's a-hole list right now. But according to the list, he's been to the White House four times.

Is this the guy Obama really wants to listen to? Forget all the stuff about the affair. Edwards was saying there were two different America's when then candidate Obama was telling people there's one and brought everyone together. There was an article about how the strategy Obama used to get this far in the health care debate has worked. Why, all of a sudden, would he want to be taking advice from someone who had no leadership position and didn't pass a single piece of legislation when he was in the Senate?

I guess having a blowout with all my friends wouldn't really be a good idea. But if Stevie Wonder wants to perform at my house he's more then welcome. And in the end these people are just visitors, and who wouldn't want to show off the White House?

Doing Business With The Enemy

2009-10-17T11:57:00.000-04:00

I am a Giants fan. I have been really happy the way the teams been playing this year, and as I'm sure anyone who follows football knows there is a big game against the Saints tomorrow. Well here's my confession, my friends got me into fantasy football this season. I've never played in any fantasy league before and in all honestly didn't completely understand how it worked. But now, for better or worse, I am addicted.

I need to win every week. I know every Tuesday I am the first one looking to see which player I can get off waivers, who did well the past week, and figuring out if there are any trades I should propose. So this week a few of the players on my team have the week off, most notably Ronnie Brown so I needed a running back. So I'm looking to see who I can get, and guess who is projected to do well, Mike Bell on the New Orleans Saints.

Mind you, Brandon Jacobs and Steve Smith are both on my team. I do not want Mike Bell to have a good game against the Giants, not one bit. So now when he scores a touchdown I will not boo, but will not cheer either. I will sit on my couch stoic.

Now the point of the story is this: Sometimes, you have to do business with people we don't like. The New York Times had an article in today's paper about why the stock market reached 10,000 this week. It talked about all the bailouts (excuse me, TARP) and how using tax payer money to replenish the system, banks were given room to give out and invest in areas where they could possibly recoup their losses. The program also had to be initiated because if they did not, credit cards would have been useless and the entire economy would have crashed.

Then of course came the fallback. While some banks paid back the money the government gave them, most still have not, but did decide to pay their CEO's their multi-million dollar bonuses. Oh, and yeah, unemployment is probably going to reach 10% this year.

So there was another headline that read "Obama Drops Plan to Isolate Sudan Leaders." When campaigning, the President said he would try and use economic tools such as sanctions and divestment against Sudan's government to stop the violence in the region. Now, he has changed his mind and will instead:

make use of a mix of “incentives and pressure” to seek an end to the human rights abuses that have left millions of people dead or displaced while burning Darfur into the American conscience.

General Gration said the administration would set strict time lines for President Omar al Bashir of Sudan to fulfill the conditions of a 2005 peace agreement that his government signed with rebels in southern Sudan.

The fact of the matter though is that the situation in the Darfur region has changed. In May of 2006, the Sudanese government signed a peace accord with one of the rebel groups in the region. But there are two other groups still causing violence and millions of people are still displaced from their homes. Not to mention that President Omar al Bashir has been indicted on crimes against humanity.

So why do I think President Obama should engage talks with Mr. Bashir? Well Sudan's unemployment rate is 18.7% with 40% of the population under the poverty line. The country does have oil though, and has gained billions from it. Still, 80% of the countries economy relies on agriculture and the Darfur region in particular is known for droughts.

Imposing sanctions would not do any good to help the people in that country. President Bashir is in a weak position, and if that can be taken advantage of to get him to actually do something good for his country, I think it's worth a shot.

And for the moment I'm still able to use my credit card, and most economists are predicting a recovery starting next year. So yeah, we bailed out people who we didn't like, but it was necessary.

In the mean time I'm still projected to lose fantasy football this week by more then 40 points. But those projections have been wrong before. If Mike Bell has a good game and I win this week that would be good. If he has a good game and the Giants win that would be great. The only thing I know right now is that either way Bell helps me win. And if it means working with him, so be it.

Debt, Schmebt

2009-10-06T11:38:00.000-04:00

So I'm watching CNN the other day, and all of a sudden I see this ad by an organization called Defeat the Debt. Pure shock value. I'm sure it hasn't gotten the attention as much as they would have liked though (except of course for this), since when I searched for it on YouTube I had to type in the full name of the video to find it. Plus it has less then 50,000 viewings.

After I saw this ad, I was surprised more people weren't talking about it. After the whole uproar about a school in New Jersey singing songs about President Obama, isn't just as ludicrous to have children discredit the pledge of allegiance? And get paid for it.

Not to mention the fact that the policies they are promoting are wrong. But before I get into that, let me premise it by saying Defeat the Debt is a front group for Employment Policies Institute (EPI) which is lead by Rick Berman. He is a lobbyist who has been hired by the resturaunt and tobbaco industries to promote libertarian (keep government out of my pocket) views. Now if you've ever had a conversation with a libertarian, you know there's never any winning because they will just tell you you're wrong and leave it as a fact.

Here's an example:

Liberal: Man, I really hope Congress passes a public option for health care.

Libertarian: No, let the market do it's thing. It always works itself out.

Liberal: No it dosen't, look what just happened to the stock market and what the federal government had to do. Plus prices are rising so fast no one will be able to afford health insurance in a open market soon.

Libertarian: You're wrong.

See, you just can't win with these guys!

So anyway, on the "Understanding The Danger" page, Defeat the Debt says:

Other countries buy our debt because it is a good investment — they trust us to pay them back, with interest. The most recent figures show we owe about $3.3 trillion to the governments of other countries, including nearly $800 billion to China alone.

All true. But this will only happen if China asks for their money back, which they won't. Why? Because it would freeze up the credit markets and no one would have any money to buy the exports China is sending into the country. There was just a huge shock to the system, if China does ask for their loans back it would only start another one.

At the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh, emerging markets and developed countries decided that the only way the world economy would be fixed is if they worked together.

So yeah, it really dosen't feel good to owe so much money to other countries. But one of the reasons why China decided to take on our debt was because (as Defeat the Debt mentioned) they saw it as a good investment. America isn't going anywhere. If China really does want that money back, they'll enact policies to help America's economy so they can get thier money back in the future.

The worst thing about places like EPI is that they use scare/shock tactics only to get people excited over something they may or may not have a full understanding of (See: Death Panels).

Part of the reason we have debt now is because of the stimulous package (to create jobs) and the TARP program (or better known as bailouts) which most economists now agree helped calm the crisis. But anyone who's trying to look for a job right now can tell you the economy is still struggling. And the last thing those people need is something else to worry about.

Reform The System, Not The Principles

2009-10-02T10:55:00.000-04:00

Immigrants have a soft spot in American politics. Our country was founded on people who were escaping religious persecution and wanted to start a new life for them and their families. Growing up in New York City I went to the Tenement Museum and saw the conditions people were willing to live in so they could achieve their dreams. You cannot teach American history without learning about these people and their courageous stories.

It was announced today that there are plans being made to make obtaining a legal status in the United States easier. Actual legislation is being put off though because health care reform is taking up so much time. This is a good first step in achieving real reform, and it is expected that a lot of illegal immigrants will be taking advantage of the new rules when they come into effect. I have worked in a few congressional offices and helping people get visas, green cards, etc., is always one of the top issues that is being dealt with. The current system we have now just is not efficient. Those who come to the country illegally are sending billions of dollars back to their home countries, and running up costs at hospitals by going to the emergency room.

But lest we forget, they are helping to keep wages low. Since they are doing the jobs most Americans do not want to do such as food manufacturing, farming, and construction. Some economists predicted a 1% decrease in GDP if there were no people to do these jobs.

By cutting the red tape for immigrants, it will be easier to keep track of how many there are in the country and where they are. And when you consider the current deficit, people coming into the country can be taxed on all levels of government so services won't have to be cut.

There's a tricky balance when it comes to immigration reform. No one wants to say people are not allowed to come to America, that's a total contradiction to what this country was founded on. But you also want to keep Americans safe. The best way to do that though would be to make it so people coming into this country are easier to track. It's how we caught Najibullah Zazi.

So reform the system, not the principles. We're lucky to be living in a place where people want to come to start a new life, and are a symbol and a place to do just that. History teaches us important lessons when it comes to immigration. So when President Obama does introduce legislation for immigration reform, I hope he focuses on the system itself and not make it crisis. Unfortunately people in the media try to make everything into a crisis, but after health care I think we can all use a break from one.

Show, Not Tell

2009-09-25T14:34:00.000-04:00

The title is something we've all heard. Probably in third grade when we start learning how to write stories. It's kinda funny though how such a simple phraze can also help in creating foreign policy.

We already have big news coming out of the UN Summit in Pittsburgh: Iran has a secret (or tried to have) nuclear plant where it can develop the material it needs to build a nuclear weapon. Should we really be surprised though?

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been trying to build up the countries nuclear proficiency since he's taken office. While he claims it is for the development of nuclear fuel for his own country, most people are a little skeptic. I mean, he is a denier of the holocaust, has been called one of the leading sponsors of terrorism around the world, and (as we have seen with his recent "re-election" Iran's human rights record isn't too great either.

This is all known, but what concerns me most is what could lead if Iran does become capable of creating a nuclear weapon. Carlos Pascual and Steven Pifer of the Brookings Institution wrote in a column that:

Over 30 countries have declared an intent to develop new nuclear programs – 14 in the Middle East and North Africa. Should Iran acquire a nuclear weapon, there is little doubt that others in the region will follow suit. Now is the time for the United States and Russia to revitalize the framework for nuclear security, not after countries acquire a nuclear weapon.

President Obama has made very clear, and did so again at his speech at the U.N., that this is a time for action and America is willing to lead. When Obama first met with Russian President Demitri Medvedev the two men set the ground work for re-establishing talks and signing a new Non-Proliferation Treaty. This was a important step on two fronts. The first (and yes, obvious point) is that it will cease the creation of new nuclear weapons which have the potential to destroy the Earth. The second is that by taking these steps, Iran and other countries that are trying to build a nuclear weapon will have less of an incentive to do so. If the two leading countries start to take apart their weapons, other countries won't have a reason to build there's because they will not see themselves vulnerable by not having one.

Former Russian President Mihhail Gorbachev wrote an op-ed in today's New York Times. He promotes nuclear non-proliferation for similar reasons and writes:

Unless they show the world they are serious, the two major nuclear powers will be accused, again and again, of not keeping their word and told that if it is acceptable for 5 or 10 countries to have nuclear weapons as their “ultimate security guarantee,” why should it not be the case for 20 or 30 others?

It is vital that the two presidents themselves monitor the negotiations closely, sometimes plunging into minute details. I know from experience how difficult it is to deal with such technical details on top of constant political pressures, but it is necessary to avoid misunderstandings that could undermine trust.

No one wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. It's in no one's interest except Iran.

There has been talk of puting more sanctions on Iran, but what good would that do? This is a country whose unemployment rate was 12.5% in 2008. It's important to note that officials don't believe Iran has the materials to actually make a nuclear bomb. That's exactly why it's important to show Iran, not tell, that it dosen't need one.

Think Of The Future

2009-09-14T14:34:00.000-04:00

Between the start of the football season, Serena Williams, healthcare, and the economy, there are so many things to write about I really didn't know where to start.

So thank you Senator Levin for giving a speech about sending more U.S. troops to the middle east. If you remember though, the United States already has been using UAV's to attack the terrorists hiding on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Also, if President Obama does choose to send more troops to the region I highly dought (if history has anything to say about it) Congress will not give him the money.

While most members of Congress have come out against another troop surge, Senators Lieberman, Graham, and McCain wrote an Op-Ed in today's WSJ about why they think President Obama should send more troops. They say:

We went to war there because the 9/11 attacks were a direct consequence of the safe haven given to al Qaeda in that country under the Taliban. We remain at war because a resurgent Taliban, still allied with al Qaeda, is trying to restore its brutal regime and re-establish that country as a terrorist safe haven.

It remains a clear, vital national interest of the United States to prevent this from happening. Yet an increasing number of commentators, including some of the very same individuals who opposed the surge in Iraq and called for withdrawal there, now declare Afghanistan essentially unwinnable. Had their view prevailed with respect to Iraq in 2006 and 2007, the consequences of our failure there would have been catastrophic.

There's an important difference though between Iraq and Afghanistan. The Taliban relies on Afghanistan for funding its operation through the poppy fields growing in the country and are willing to defend it at any cost. We have already seen the intensity of the fighting increase over the months since President Obama originally sent additional troops to Afghanistan. The Taliban are also in areas where they have an advantage because of those tall poppy plants and mud walls in the area which can be used for defense and surprise attacks.

The New York Times reported today that Zbigniew Brezinki said American and allied forces are being preceived as invaders (not liberators) which give more political capitol to the Taliban and enable the organization to recruit more members.

Some people are arguing that there is no reason for American forces to be their anymore. But the fact remains America went in their with a declaration that we would help the Afghan people recover from the regime America and its allies took out. Leaving them now would be irresponsible and only create more terrorists in the future. Since the Taliban is so reliant on Afghanistan there's a realy good chance to do important damage to its infrastructure.

The fact still remains though if the terrorists are going to be defeated, it will not only be won on the military front but also the political. It's starting to look like the elections were tampered with in favor of President Karzai.

The best thing the allied forces can do right now is put pressure on the Afghan government to take care of its people, or the troops will be pulled out. Also, to show (not tell) the Afghans we are on their side, the State Department should help them build schools and other facilities that are needed for their society to thrive.

So as healthcare is something that needs to be reformed for America's future, so does the war in Afghanistan. People remember how you treat them, and if we leave the Afghans stranded, there will be consequences in the future.

Stay In School

2009-09-06T11:01:00.000-04:00

With the recent town hall meetings that were broadcast on TV, some people might think that people had always listened to politicians. Let me tell you, I’ve been to enough political debates, forums and what have you, to know that’s not the case. Usually people are talking, eating, basically doing anything except listen to their elected official. It’s sad but true.

What’s worse right now is the uproar over President Obama talking to schoolchildren.
Let’s be clear, it’s a back to school speech. He’s going to tell these children to stay in school because education is important to succeed. I like this message, and who knows, the children may actually pay attention.

Apparently, some parent’s are afraid that the President will try to influence their children into believing in his political ideology. But this is not a policy speech, and as I’m sure most people know (and will hopefully be watching) he will be giving one Wednesday night. If staying in school is a controversial issue in this country, we have some serious issues.

My friend (a Republican) sent me a link to the Heritage Foundation explaining why having the President talk to school children is a bad idea. Apparently it’s not just because parent’s don’t like the President, it’s also because there are lesson plans being released by the Department of Education which asks questions about the speech the President will give. Heritage believes this goes over the mandate by the Education Department and the federal government is getting too involved in local schools. But while the release makes it seem like the lesson is mandatory, it’s not.

As I recall though, there was a little bill called No Child Left Behind which required all States to make sure their schools were being held accountable. And I know it was a long time ago, but I believe it was signed by Republican President George W. Bush.

No Child Left Behind was passed on bipartisan consensus. We don’t get a whole lot of that today and unfortunately it makes it harder for politicians to get good things done for the American people. The debate on health care is so heated that it has become hard for even the non-controversial parts of the plan to come to a vote.

I guess what I am trying to say is: get a grip. Relax. It’s Labor Day weekend. Go to the beach, spend time with family and friends. The last thing anyone has to worry about is the President giving a speech talking about the importance in education.

Finding Justice After Torture

2009-08-29T12:38:00.000-04:00

There was always something that bothered me on the show 24, Jack Bauer never eats. He is running all around the world killing, torturing, defending America all in one day. It’s incredible really, and because the show is so dramatic it has a huge following. No one who watches the show though cares when Bauer tortures people because it’s just part of the show. When it’s real though, the people have a different response.

Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to investigate the torture methods that have recently been documented in reports released by the Justice Department. Some of which included holding electric drills to detainee’s head, and threatening to kill their children.

In what seems like a response to the Justice Department, the CIA released reports written in 2004 and 2005 detailing information they received from Khalid Shaik Mohammed (planner of the attacks on 9/11), which says the information “dramatically expanded our universe of knowledge on Al Qaeda plots.”

All American’s (whether you watch 24 or not) were shocked at the methods being used on detainees. This was especially seen when photos of the methods came out in 2004 from Abu Ghraib prison. The balance between keeping American’s safe and not violating the laws and morals, which are trying to be defended, can sometimes be difficult. In this case though, torture was being used not to find out information on attacks on the country, but finding out where other members of Al Qaeda were and how they could be found.
The reason why there has not been another terrorist attack since 9/11 in America is because of the great police work put in place after that horrific day.

In polls, the people show they do not want our government to torture (58%), and they also want the Obama administration to investigate if the treatment of prisoners (50%) by the Bush administration.

In his statement on issuing a special prosecutor the Attorney General said “my duty is to examine the facts and to follow the law. In this case, given all the information currently available, it is clear to me that this review is the only responsible course of action…” The law is what we are trying to defend against the terrorists, and when the founding fathers decided that all men should be created free and equal, they too wanted to defend what they were fighting for. People are shocked at what has happened at Abu Gharib and other secret prisons across the world, not because it is a new concept, but because it is un-American.

Stop Being Afraid

2009-08-16T12:16:00.000-04:00

President Obama’s campaign ran on one word: Change. It was quick, easy to remember, and resonated with a lot of people. Obama was a great candidate who also kept his cool and always knew exactly what to say. But the big question in the media was whether or not people would vote for a black man. While he tried not to make race an issue, the press kept asking him about it even before the controversy with Reverend Wright. But it didn’t matter. He had a strong message, and the people voted for him because they felt he was the stronger candidate to lead the country.

This time though, he’s losing the media game which he played so well during the campaign.

It recently came out that Conservatives for Patients Rights put out a misleading advertisement about England’s health care system. Republican members of Congress are telling people to be afraid of a government run health care system. Democrats have started a “war room” so they can fend off attacks on the proposals they’re putting out there. All in all, both sides have spent over $57 million dollars on advertisements.

Whether you are for or against what President Obama is proposing on health care, I think most American’s would agree that the rhetoric which has been put out there has disenfranchised our country. Personal freedom relies on being able to collect information in order to make a decision which they feel can improve their quality of life. That is a fundamental truth in democracy and it is not being practiced.

This has been seen in the town hall meetings. So far my favorite has been where a women asked Senator Specter a loud but pointed question, and later admitted on FOX News she didn’t even listen to the answer. Not to mention all the screaming which has drowned out any debate which is of course the point of town hall style meetings. These circuses and the media rhetoric which has taken place around the healthcare debate has boiled up so many emotions it has been hard for people to sit down and think about the issue.

In the fast paced media, and the thirty-second sound bites that fill up their time, it’s always hard to cut through the ridiculousness that is out there. The news channels that are supposed to give people their information have only been talking about the disinformation that is being put out to the public.

There has been nothing on the actual problem. Hardly any talk that while the reforms being proposed will cost one trillion dollars, doing nothing would cost three times that. Or that if insurance rates keep rising, hardly anyone will be able to afford any sort of health care.

When I was at Muhlenberg College I worked at the school’s polling center and every year we did a quality of life survey. One year we asked the question about how Route 22 (a major state highway) should be taken care of. The overwhelming majority said they wanted the state government to deal directly with the problem instead of handing it off to a private company. American’s aren’t afraid of government, but unfortunately the media is focusing on the people who are. That focus has infused the debate with false information that has scared more people about the reforms which need to take place.

So now, politicians are trying to save political capitol. It’s looking like anything that passes in Congress which is called “health care reform” will be considered a victory for Obama; Whether it is actually real reform or not.

So to the press: Get your act together. Politicians: Do your job. People: Stop being afraid.

It's the people stupid!

2009-08-06T12:40:00.000-04:00

So, officially, the Obama administration is saying that getting the two journalists (Laura Ling and Euna Lee) was strictly a humanitarian mission by President Clinton and they had nothing to do with it. They only, you know, talked to North Korea for several weeks through back channels, made sure Kim Jong il would like to meet Mr. Clinton, and then asked the former President to go to North Korea. And yes, the administration knew the reporters would be coming back with Clinton because that’s what they agreed to even before President Clinton left.

This is not to take away anything that has happened. I’m happy for the journalists and their families, as I’m sure all American’s were when we saw them come off the plane. But while people have suggested that separating this humanitarian issue with North Korea’s nuclear ambitions was a good idea, I think they forgot what country we’re talking about.

The reason why Lara Ling and Euna Lee were on the border (or not) of Korea was to report the human trafficking that takes place there. North Korea spends a lot of money on its military, when in fact they should be spending it on helping their people. Since 2007 there have been extreme floods that have lead to a food shortage because there’s not enough land to farm on. On top of that, in October of 2005 Kim Jong il prohibited private sales of grain and re-instituted a centralized food rationing system. By December of the same year, he also stopped all international assistance operations.

Living conditions are so bad in the North that thousands of the countries residents try and cross into China. Women and children are lured by the promise of freedom. But if they get into China they are either forced to become prostitutes, get married, or work hard labor.

Now you may ask: How did the country get in such bad shape? Let me tell you. North Korea is ruled by a dictatorship, and when Kim il Song (Kim Jon il’s father) was President he was influenced by the Soviet Union to attack South Korea in order to expand communism which lead to the Korean War. The United States took the South’s side, helped them fight back, and in 1945 (as part of the surrender of Japan) the United States agreed with the Soviet Union to to divide the Korean peninsula into two occupation zones. After this, Kim il Song adopted a policy of self-reliance in order to make sure there won’t be outside influence involving the countries future endeavors.

In 1994 President Clinton signed an accord with North Korea where the U.S. would give them oil to stop developing nuclear technology. This worked until President George W. Bush invaded Iraq and kicked the remaining weapons inspectors from the accord out of the country. Kim Jong il moved enough plutonium that could produce five or six nuclear weapons. In 2006 Kim Jong il tested a nuclear weapon and it has been reported that he is giving this technology to Myanmar.

President Obama cannot only deal with the nuclear issue though. By doing so he still leaves a situation of instability that will lead to a deterioration in a area of the world whose economy is becoming increasingly important. Their economy (and ours) can only grow and prosper if trade is open and the two countries work together to create a reciprocal relationship. Multinational corporations don’t mind investing in a country that has poor labor laws, but they can’t do it if the country does not invest in its infrastructure. The jobs that will come when the corporations move into the country will help the people, in time, reach a better quality of life.

By dealing with the human rights abuses in North Korea, President Obama can gain a new ally in the east, help the American economy, and Kim Jong il or future leaders of the country will think twice before launching or testing a nuclear weapon. They will not want to upset the international community, and risk sanctions that can hurt their economy or deter companies from investing within their country.
Sending President Clinton to North Korea was throwing Kim Jong il a bone. More importantly though, it shows that he is willing to negotiate. President Obama should take this opportunity to keep the dialogue going and work toward a positive and prosperous new beginning between the two countries.

Keep The Trains Rolling

2009-07-20T17:28:00.000-04:00

These last couple of weeks I’ve been pretty annoyed with the DC Metro system. When I moved here, I liked the fact you could see how much time you had before the next train came. That was until I saw there were times you had to wait twenty minutes. I’m on the Red Line and there was a major accident going up toward Maryland, so DC Metro has been very cautious (and rightly so) in running the train. This past weekend another accident occurred in San Francisco on their light-rail system. This is all after a report was issued by The American Society of Civil Engineers that graded America’s infrastructure a D. The report said the main problem was that the current infrastructure is getting old, and there hadn’t been the leadership necessary to push for changes in the system.

We all know the deficit and economic climate that America is facing has put certain constraints on what states can spend money on. This is particularly true for the nations transportation system. Even though ridership is at a fifty year high, ninety-percent of America’s transit agencies have had to cut services or raise fares. The stimulus package set money aside to make improvements for transit infrastructure, but if you talk to the people who run the agencies, they will tell you they also need more money for their operating costs. Past spending measures did not allow funds to be used for operating subways or buses, and the stimulus package originally did not allow for this either. But when Congress had passed the war-funding bill this year, a provision was put in to allow some money from the stimulus to be used to pay for operating costs. While the economy has shrunk, tax collections that agencies rely on have been lower, and current fares that metro agencies charge still only cover a fifth the cost of a ride.

So despite my frustrations, I digress. Public transportation is extremely important to the way people function in their every day lives. Elderly and disabled people rely on these systems to get to the doctor, go food shopping, and allow them to be social and active in their communities. People also rely on this system to go to work. Major cities are already congested with traffic (no one likes rush hour) and not only does public transportation get cars off the road, it has a double impact of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

While Congress has allowed for recent funding to be used for operating costs, this should be done for future transportation spending bills as well. Operating costs are just as important as it is to maintain the system. One cannot be done without the other. Some members of Congress are afraid that transportation agencies will become reliant on the money that will be used for operations. But given the importance of public transportation (not to mention the fact it would save jobs) it is crucial for the federal government to step in order to make sure the nation can operate efficiently.

Something that the transportation agencies themselves can do, is to start to charge their riders fee at the pace of inflation. Now, before you say don’t raise my rates, remember what inflation is. It is the rise of general prices of goods and services. As I mentioned before, one of the problems agencies have is not raising enough revenues to operate. New York just had to raise their rates from $2.00 to $2.50. Having grown up there, I know it has been a few years since they had done so and because of that they lost more money since the amount they were charging was not equal to what the current purchasing power of the dollar is. This means consumers are still paying the same rate it only feels like they are paying more.

So I won’t tweet anymore about how annoyed I was taking the Metro these past couple of weeks. Clearly, important steps need to be taken to make our transportation networks better. Some of these steps can be taken now which will also help the economy. By making infrastructure improvements, people will need to be hired to make the improvements, and then build them on the aging tracks. While the momentum to fight global warming and rely less on foreign oil is high, making the nations transportation system should be a high priority. If it is done correctly, it can be something that America can proudly announce they gave to future generations that will help them run the country.

American's Can Handle The Truth!

2009-07-15T15:47:00.000-04:00

It’s not easy being the CIA now a days. Between the torture at Abu Gharib, Guantimo Bay, and at other secret prisons around the world, America’s intelligence community has been taking a beating in the media which has led to a collapse in public confidence.

In the movie A Few Good Men, Jack Nicholson argues we need him (a four star general) on that line defending America and argues the people turn a blind eye because (as he yells at Tom Cruise) “You can’t handle the truth!” Recently though, a lot of truths have come out.

While Jack was arrested for giving an order to kill a American soldier, the latest real controversy is over former Vice President Richard Cheney and what he told the CIA not to do. The CIA was planning assassination attempts on top Al Qaeda officials. Currently, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV’s) are conducting the same type of missions on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan where these officials are thought to be hiding. What the CIA was trying to plan was to place spy’s in foreign countries in order to be able to find and kill the Al Qaeda leaders. During the planning, Vice President Cheney told the CIA not to tell Congress about these plans.

Congress is having a frenzy with this. Key members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees are threatening the White House that they will pass legislation granting them more oversight authority. President Obama has said if they do he will veto the legislation. Of course no public statements by President Obama of other White House officials have been made because they want to keep the focus on health care. Why pour gasoline on a small fire?

Now, the Vice President should not have told the CIA to withhold information from Congress. Congress has every right to oversee what the executive branch is doing. When Leon Panetta came out and said the CIA was not truthful when informing Congress about the use of torture, a commission should have been convened to investigate why this information was withheld, and make recommendations to make sure it does not happen again.

In the case of torture, the past administration was clearly trying to cover it up. The only way the public and Congress found out about what was going on at Gitmo was because a memo by the Red Cross was leaked to the press. American’s were shocked by this news and President Bush even claimed the tactics being used were not torture. If you’re going to fight a war to protect your way of living, you should also make sure the laws that bind your society are being followed.

It is important to note that the plans for the assassination attempts never came to be implemented, and Panetta stopped the Agency from developing them. But let’s assume for a second that Congress did know about what the CIA was planning. Is it really plausible to believe that those members who knew about the plans would come out and say those people (who planned the attacks on September 11th 2001) should not be gone after? I don’t think so. Even now there has been no talk about whether the CIA should or should not have been doing these plans, Congress was only mad because they weren’t told that these plans were being developed. If they were, what controversy would we be talking about?

How people perceive things in the media greatly affects the way Congress goes about making laws. People hated the fact that TARP was a bailout. Congressional Democrats should know that they are not going to win their next election based on what authority the Intelligence Committees have. It is easy to get caught up in the frenzy of what is almost a secret world. Movies and television shows are made about it. So while I’m no fan of the former Vice President, my advice to Democrats is not to take your eye off the ball and work on something (like healthcare) which scores big points with the public.

Between the news of torture, having not found any WMD’s in Iraq, and 9/11, people still seem to be trying to get on with their lives. So there you have it, American’s can handle the truth, and so should Congress.

Healthcare, Here We Come

2009-07-11T10:25:00.000-04:00

So insurance companies like to say that the federal government won't be able to keep health care costs down, you won't be able to choose your doctor, and you'll have some bureaucrat telling the doctors what treatments they can and cannot perform on their patients. I will now explain why these arguments are wrong.

Case in point: Health Maintenance Organization's (HMO). These companies were started in the 1990's and was thought to have solved the problem of rising health costs. Groups of people would join a HMO and the organization would negotiate on behalf of the people in thier gr0up. This drove health care costs down. Why? Because doctors wanted to treat the patients. It's their job, it's how they make a living. When doctors saw the potential amount of patients they would be able to get they would take the HMO's insurance because they then had the chance to get more patients and earn more money.

So, a big group of people joined a health care plan which was able to drive costs down, sound familiar? President Obama and Democrats in Congress want to create a federal program in order to do the same thing. With close to 50 million people without health insurance in this country, the government would be able to charge less to join the federal program and negotiate for a large amount of people, driving down health care costs. Doctors will want to be involved in the government's program because once again (you guessed it!) it's how they make a living.

And for the last two arguments; as I said before doctors will want/need to be in this program because they provide a service and therefore need people to serve. There will be plenty of people who will join the government program also even if they already have insurance (unless of course they like paying all those high costs to private companies). I also do not feel threatened by a bureaucrat telling a doctor what to do. The fact of the matter is that's not their job. Their job would be to make sure people are getting the coverage they need so doctors can provide their services. Last time I checked, older people wanted to be covered by Medicare and Medicaid and I haven't heard anyone say those programs don't work.

Not to mention the new computer system passed in the last stimulous package. This will help estimate medical costs and also allow doctors to know what treatments work better then others which will also help drive costs down.

Even Wal-Mart is on board. The retail giant loves to say that now 90% of their employees have health coverage. And yes, they admit most of them are covered through government programs.

Congressman Charles Rangel yesterday announced how the Democrats plan to pay for a new federal health care plan. They will be raising taxes on individuals who earn $280,000 and up a long with couples earning $350,000 or more. The plan will raise an estimated $540 billion over ten years while the program itself is supposed to cost $1 trillion in the same amount of time.

When polled, the vast majority of American's say they are willing to pay higher taxes so everyone can receive health insurance. This plan just makes too much sense to pass up. Those who are against this program are the insurance companies who are afraid of the competition. I'm confident that health insurance will be afforded to everyone in this country. Congress wants to get something done though before the August recess, so for everyone's sake, let's hope none of them get sick.