I would like you to think about the past. Think back in time to the Election of Barack Obama. What was the largest problem facing him at the time? I think most people would say the economy. James Carvells "its the economy stupid" were surely words to live by this election cycle. We have experienced such a large decrease in wealth and increase in unemployment that its amazing we have not done more by using the tools in the fiscal tool belt to fix the problem. So why haven't we done anything? And this is when you say, Hey Stephen, they have done a lot. The Dems led by Barack Obama passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. A huge 787 Billion dollar stimulus which has meant the difference between potential growth in the third quarter and a loss. So Problem solved right. Ummmmm, No. While I understand that as the economy contracts and more people loose work, people pull back on their spending thereby decreasing corporate profits which further decreases employment. While avoiding the beginning of the economic black hole was certaily a good move, it wasn't actually the problem. The stimulus was a band aide that some would argue should have been a full body cast. So what was the actual problem. It was regulation. Bad Regulation.
There are currently problems with under regulation and over regulation. As you can guess, most democrats think that the economy and more specifically the financial sector needs MORE regulation and they are right to a certain degree. In 2004, Bush and the republicans changed a very important part of the securities exchange act of 1940 that established a maximum leverage ratio for all financial institutions. The congress and Bush changed the leverage ratio on the five largest broker dealers from a maximum of 15 times their assets to an infinite leverage ration. Can you guess the five institutions that qualified for the exemption? Bear Sterns, Merryl Lynch, J P Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers, All of which ceased to function as broker dealers less then five years later. Guess what Bear Sterns leverage ration was, 40:1 and Lehman? 33:1. That's why the economy got so bad. These companies could make money no matter how bad the risks they were taking were. All this extra "money" flowed into assets " ie pieces of paper which have value." So although people felt richer there was just a lot more paper. The republicans on the other hand argue that over regulation is the problem. Get the government out of the way and people will be better off. Over regulation will hurt America if we continue to bail out companies and promote the idea of too big to fail and tell people what they should be paid. The government should not own businesses. The government just doesn't do a good enough job running them and even if they did a good job in one case its because it has the full faith and credit of us, the American tax payer, backing them up. We take the risk and they get the reward. That doesnt seem fair. There are so many bad regulations and we got rid of some good ones. Cant we just agree to put regulations in place that help America as a whole. Milton Friedman argues that the government should act as a umpire for the private sector and let them compete. In this case I think we have a blind, def, bo legged one armed ump that doesn't even like baseball. Making the calls that really matter.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
New Evidence of the superiority of Democracy
ha-ha When I read this article in the New York Times about local Chinese politicians requiring children in their province to salute cars as they passed I knew I had found new evidence proving that Republican Democracy is a f superior method of governing than single party communist rule in China.
The law in China requires that all children salute cars as they pass by. The reason for passing the law is to reduce traffic accidents. Are you kidding!? I would think that having hoards of children saluting my car while I drove past would distract me from the task of driving and perhaps...... oh I duno... Cause an accident!?
Apparently this is not an uncommon occurrence in China as the local party leaders are many times incompetent and unable to..... Think.... Though apparently sometimes they do things that one might think would help local province. For example,
"Often, the skewering gets results. In April, one county in Hubei Province in northern China drew nationwide ridicule after officials ordered civil servants and employees of state-owned companies to buy a total of 23,000 packs of the province’s brand of cigarettes every year. Departments whose employees failed to buy enough cigarettes or bought other Chinese brands would be fined, the media reported."
Of course once the people refused to purchase the cigarettes and the national media bloodied the idiots noses a bit they repealed the edict.
Of Course in the United States we have plenty of laws that don't make sense as well but many of these laws simply exist because they had historical relevance and haven't been repealed since their passage a long time ago. Either way, go Democracy!!!!
The law in China requires that all children salute cars as they pass by. The reason for passing the law is to reduce traffic accidents. Are you kidding!? I would think that having hoards of children saluting my car while I drove past would distract me from the task of driving and perhaps...... oh I duno... Cause an accident!?
Apparently this is not an uncommon occurrence in China as the local party leaders are many times incompetent and unable to..... Think.... Though apparently sometimes they do things that one might think would help local province. For example,
"Often, the skewering gets results. In April, one county in Hubei Province in northern China drew nationwide ridicule after officials ordered civil servants and employees of state-owned companies to buy a total of 23,000 packs of the province’s brand of cigarettes every year. Departments whose employees failed to buy enough cigarettes or bought other Chinese brands would be fined, the media reported."
Of course once the people refused to purchase the cigarettes and the national media bloodied the idiots noses a bit they repealed the edict.
Of Course in the United States we have plenty of laws that don't make sense as well but many of these laws simply exist because they had historical relevance and haven't been repealed since their passage a long time ago. Either way, go Democracy!!!!
Friday, October 23, 2009
Major Off Year Elections- 2009
With the off-year election day of this year about 11 days away, I figure it's time to look over some of the more media-covered races that may serve as tea-leaves to be read for next year's midterm elections. The biggest news-getters are the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, the Special Election in New York's 23rd Congressional District, and the Mayoral Election in New York City. Here is my quick overview of these races a little less than two weeks out.
Virginia-- A few posts ago I went over the status of Virginia, a traditionally Republican-leaning state that Democrats had made major gains in recent years in, culminating in 2008's sweep of an open Senate seat, two Congressional district pick-ups, and Obama's carrying the State by six points. This year, it appears that the traditional habit of Virginians electing a governor not of the sitting President's party is holding true. I'd said I thought the Democrats should consider themselves lucky to lose by less than 5 percentage points in this election. Judging by the most recent polls, it appears that Creigh Deeds should consider himself fortunate to avoid a true hell-stomping blowout. Republican Bob McDonnell's campaign, with its focus on quality of life issues and administrative competence has been referenced by some as a clear example for how conservative candidates should market themselves. Even the issues over his graduate school thesis were deftly handled in an open press conference, after a September narrowing of the polls McDonnell has again widened his lead to somewhere between 7 and 19 points (RealClearPolitics average is roughly a ten-percent margin). If the lead holds and the Republicans sweep the down ballot elections-- for Attorney General for example-- as they appear to be heading for, then this could give the GOP a shot in the arm to reclaim some major lost territory in swing state America come 2010. To have any realistic chance of unseating Obama in 2012, Virginia is a state the Republicans NEED to win back.
New Jersey-- What can be said? Democrat John Corzine (D) is not well liked in his position as Governor. His approval ratings are anemic, his policies generally frowned upon, and he consistently as been unable to do better than say 40-43% in the polls. So in theory this should be a slam-dunk for a Republican takeover. Were this Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, or for God's sake even New Mexico, this might be true. But New Jersey, is a deep blue state whose previous elected Governor, Democrat Jim McGreevy resigned in probably one of the more public "emergence from the closet" moments in American history. Corzine, then serving as a freshman US Senator then proceeded to spend forty-million of his immense personal fortune to achieve election. Normally this might be seen as a handicap to the voting public, but with New Jersey's history of "interesting" local government in terms of corruption and vice, that his immense fortune is not ill-gotten is probably enough to cancel out any general resentment. This campaign season, his strategy has been similar, airing about the 3 times the ads as his Republican opponent US Attorney Chris Christie. Earlier this summer, Christie's lead was as much as 15 points, when an unpredictable factor entered the race, an unsually competent (and as most third-party candidates go) unusually sane Independent Chris Daggett, who has tapped into much of the anti-incumbency, anti-status quo vote. Polling as high as 20% in one poll, Daggett has probably peeled away voters from both major parties, but particularly seems to be hurting Christie, whose campaign is based on anti-corruption, anti-incumbency, and as an outsider. Therefore, a number of voters that otherwise would prefer Christie to Corzine are going for the even bigger outsider, the Independent. With Corzine's growing momentum, or at least a fair possibility that he'll eke out a narrow victory, President Obama has entered the fray to campaign for him, hoping to spur turnout, wheras before Beltway Democrats seemed prepared to write Corzine off, as they now appear to be doing to Deeds in Virginia. Recent polls generally have the race as either a Corzine or Christie advantage of 43 to 41 or so, with Daggett picking up the remainder. How will this race go? God knows, it depends on turnout I suppose and how many Daggett-leaning voterspull the lever (or is it push the button?) for him, or will they be disaffected enough to just stay home, or will they vote for Christie in the hope of at least getting Corzine out of office?
New York CD-23- This is a Republican held open seat in upstate New York up in Hudson river and mountain territory. Vacated by Rep. John McHugh when he was nominated as Secretary of the Army, this seat is about even in party registration. It has long elected Republican representatives (the GOP has dominated this seat since there's been a Republican Party), yet also went for Obama by a couple percentage points in 2008. The present special election is interesting however in that it is a legitimate 3-way race. A Democrat, a Republican, and a Conservative Party candidate are all within 5-10 points of one and other, the Democrat Bill Owens with a slight advantage. This seems to have resulted from the NY GOP nominating a moderate Republican, a very moderate Republican, a moderate Republican that's more liberal than most Democrats in Pennsylvania West of Philadelphia, or Ohio outside Dennis Kucinich's district. The GOP nominee Dede Scozzafaza would fit the GOP voters of New York State (what's left of them anyhow) in probably any area of New York outside the traditionally Republican Hudson Valley. However, it appears that here, the Republicans that have been elected McHugh are largely disatisfied, and hence the Conservative Party (which normally endorses the same candidate as the official NY GOP) has nominated a businessman name Doug Hoffman, a more conventional Republican candidate. As a result, the GOP and Independent vote has split between Hoffman and Scozzafaza, leaving open a strong possibiliy of an Owen's victory. This can certainly be argued to the GOP losing a seat they should have no trouble holding over an inter-party squabble. However, I also note that in a district Barack Obama carried, his party's man is carrying only about a third of the vote in an open election against a GOP assembley -woman and a self-proclaimed Conservative. If the surging (particularly in fundraising) Hoffman or the fading Scozzafaza wins, this seat is probably safe for the GOP for 2010. If Owens wins, its one more likely vote in the Democrat majority, but is probably unlikely to be held a year from now in 2010-- incumbency may have its perks, but a 34% or so vote total and a year of targeting will probably end poorly for Owens, I can easily see Hoffman proclaiming his immediate candidacy as a Republican for the 2010 rematch.
New York City Mayor--- Mayor Michael Bloomberg is running for a third term as an Independent with GOP support-- he generally swings between a true Independent and a Republican to the left of Arnold Schwarzenegger-- but is leading by over 10 points against the Democrat opposition. Bloomberg also happens to possess money, a tremendous amount of money, more money than Corzine, in fact more money than pretty much anyone in politics, but appears to not really need to spend much of his own-- he raises funds as well as the best of them-- he appears safe for a third term as New York's Mayor.
Local Politics Race-- Pittsburgh, PA Mayor-- Luke Ravenstahl, young Mayor Luke, the under-30 chief executive of a major city, has achieved the usual electoral status of reasonably-well liked Pittsburgh Mayors. A Democrat whose general election prospects are so safe that he can have the position as long as isn't indicted, elected for enough terms that the city tires of him and he is unseated in a primary or is aware that he will lose the primary. Generally as long as he continues to respirate and doesn't commit any obvious major crimes (murder, rape, arson, beastiality) he's safe as can be.
Virginia-- A few posts ago I went over the status of Virginia, a traditionally Republican-leaning state that Democrats had made major gains in recent years in, culminating in 2008's sweep of an open Senate seat, two Congressional district pick-ups, and Obama's carrying the State by six points. This year, it appears that the traditional habit of Virginians electing a governor not of the sitting President's party is holding true. I'd said I thought the Democrats should consider themselves lucky to lose by less than 5 percentage points in this election. Judging by the most recent polls, it appears that Creigh Deeds should consider himself fortunate to avoid a true hell-stomping blowout. Republican Bob McDonnell's campaign, with its focus on quality of life issues and administrative competence has been referenced by some as a clear example for how conservative candidates should market themselves. Even the issues over his graduate school thesis were deftly handled in an open press conference, after a September narrowing of the polls McDonnell has again widened his lead to somewhere between 7 and 19 points (RealClearPolitics average is roughly a ten-percent margin). If the lead holds and the Republicans sweep the down ballot elections-- for Attorney General for example-- as they appear to be heading for, then this could give the GOP a shot in the arm to reclaim some major lost territory in swing state America come 2010. To have any realistic chance of unseating Obama in 2012, Virginia is a state the Republicans NEED to win back.
New Jersey-- What can be said? Democrat John Corzine (D) is not well liked in his position as Governor. His approval ratings are anemic, his policies generally frowned upon, and he consistently as been unable to do better than say 40-43% in the polls. So in theory this should be a slam-dunk for a Republican takeover. Were this Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, or for God's sake even New Mexico, this might be true. But New Jersey, is a deep blue state whose previous elected Governor, Democrat Jim McGreevy resigned in probably one of the more public "emergence from the closet" moments in American history. Corzine, then serving as a freshman US Senator then proceeded to spend forty-million of his immense personal fortune to achieve election. Normally this might be seen as a handicap to the voting public, but with New Jersey's history of "interesting" local government in terms of corruption and vice, that his immense fortune is not ill-gotten is probably enough to cancel out any general resentment. This campaign season, his strategy has been similar, airing about the 3 times the ads as his Republican opponent US Attorney Chris Christie. Earlier this summer, Christie's lead was as much as 15 points, when an unpredictable factor entered the race, an unsually competent (and as most third-party candidates go) unusually sane Independent Chris Daggett, who has tapped into much of the anti-incumbency, anti-status quo vote. Polling as high as 20% in one poll, Daggett has probably peeled away voters from both major parties, but particularly seems to be hurting Christie, whose campaign is based on anti-corruption, anti-incumbency, and as an outsider. Therefore, a number of voters that otherwise would prefer Christie to Corzine are going for the even bigger outsider, the Independent. With Corzine's growing momentum, or at least a fair possibility that he'll eke out a narrow victory, President Obama has entered the fray to campaign for him, hoping to spur turnout, wheras before Beltway Democrats seemed prepared to write Corzine off, as they now appear to be doing to Deeds in Virginia. Recent polls generally have the race as either a Corzine or Christie advantage of 43 to 41 or so, with Daggett picking up the remainder. How will this race go? God knows, it depends on turnout I suppose and how many Daggett-leaning voterspull the lever (or is it push the button?) for him, or will they be disaffected enough to just stay home, or will they vote for Christie in the hope of at least getting Corzine out of office?
New York CD-23- This is a Republican held open seat in upstate New York up in Hudson river and mountain territory. Vacated by Rep. John McHugh when he was nominated as Secretary of the Army, this seat is about even in party registration. It has long elected Republican representatives (the GOP has dominated this seat since there's been a Republican Party), yet also went for Obama by a couple percentage points in 2008. The present special election is interesting however in that it is a legitimate 3-way race. A Democrat, a Republican, and a Conservative Party candidate are all within 5-10 points of one and other, the Democrat Bill Owens with a slight advantage. This seems to have resulted from the NY GOP nominating a moderate Republican, a very moderate Republican, a moderate Republican that's more liberal than most Democrats in Pennsylvania West of Philadelphia, or Ohio outside Dennis Kucinich's district. The GOP nominee Dede Scozzafaza would fit the GOP voters of New York State (what's left of them anyhow) in probably any area of New York outside the traditionally Republican Hudson Valley. However, it appears that here, the Republicans that have been elected McHugh are largely disatisfied, and hence the Conservative Party (which normally endorses the same candidate as the official NY GOP) has nominated a businessman name Doug Hoffman, a more conventional Republican candidate. As a result, the GOP and Independent vote has split between Hoffman and Scozzafaza, leaving open a strong possibiliy of an Owen's victory. This can certainly be argued to the GOP losing a seat they should have no trouble holding over an inter-party squabble. However, I also note that in a district Barack Obama carried, his party's man is carrying only about a third of the vote in an open election against a GOP assembley -woman and a self-proclaimed Conservative. If the surging (particularly in fundraising) Hoffman or the fading Scozzafaza wins, this seat is probably safe for the GOP for 2010. If Owens wins, its one more likely vote in the Democrat majority, but is probably unlikely to be held a year from now in 2010-- incumbency may have its perks, but a 34% or so vote total and a year of targeting will probably end poorly for Owens, I can easily see Hoffman proclaiming his immediate candidacy as a Republican for the 2010 rematch.
New York City Mayor--- Mayor Michael Bloomberg is running for a third term as an Independent with GOP support-- he generally swings between a true Independent and a Republican to the left of Arnold Schwarzenegger-- but is leading by over 10 points against the Democrat opposition. Bloomberg also happens to possess money, a tremendous amount of money, more money than Corzine, in fact more money than pretty much anyone in politics, but appears to not really need to spend much of his own-- he raises funds as well as the best of them-- he appears safe for a third term as New York's Mayor.
Local Politics Race-- Pittsburgh, PA Mayor-- Luke Ravenstahl, young Mayor Luke, the under-30 chief executive of a major city, has achieved the usual electoral status of reasonably-well liked Pittsburgh Mayors. A Democrat whose general election prospects are so safe that he can have the position as long as isn't indicted, elected for enough terms that the city tires of him and he is unseated in a primary or is aware that he will lose the primary. Generally as long as he continues to respirate and doesn't commit any obvious major crimes (murder, rape, arson, beastiality) he's safe as can be.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Why A Democrat
Last night I had the distinct pleasure of joining the Allegheny County Democratic Party Leaders for an awards dinner. Joe Biden was the keynote speaker and delivered a powerful speech about what it means to be a democrat. His speech struck an awesome cord.
In Pittsburgh much of the democratic party's demographic is blue collar workers who go to work everyday simply looking to make an honest days living so that they can support their family and provide opportunities for their children that didn't exist when they were growing up.
There are a few reasons I am a Democrat and first and foremost it is because my father is a worker who has gone to work everyday only to provide me and my brother with opportunities that he never had. When the economy slumps someone needs to be there to stick up for the little guy and that is what the Democratic Party does. Increased regulation in the banking industry doesn't mean that the banks are going to be burdened with extra work it means that the small investor looking to grow their money so that they can provide a college education for their children is protected from the evils of excess greed. This did not happen during the Republican Administration. During the last ten years the productivity of the American worker has increased by 20% but yet the average worker actually saw a decrease in wages. Democrats are not socialists; we simply believe that if a worker is being 20% more productive then they should be able to share in the growth of the economy which their productivity created!
Last night Biden said that being a Democrat means that when things become difficult and a father has to make that long walk up to their child’s room to tell them they can't be on the baseball team or they have to change schools because they lost their job that when they tell that child everything is going to be ok they actually know that things are going to be ok. That is why I am a Democrat as well, because when things get difficult we don’t give up we fix it. We are there for the little guy, for the guy looking to make an honest days wage for an honest days work. Democrats believe in working hard and there being a reward for that hard work. And when the economy is booming again our hard workers of this country should share in the wealth that is created by THEIR work, because when they are able to share in that wealth even more wealth is created, fewer jobs are lost. Instead of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer the Rich get Richer, the middle class gets richer and the poor get richer. Everyone wins when we look out for the people who are the backbone and labor in our economy and that is the way it should be.
In Pittsburgh much of the democratic party's demographic is blue collar workers who go to work everyday simply looking to make an honest days living so that they can support their family and provide opportunities for their children that didn't exist when they were growing up.
There are a few reasons I am a Democrat and first and foremost it is because my father is a worker who has gone to work everyday only to provide me and my brother with opportunities that he never had. When the economy slumps someone needs to be there to stick up for the little guy and that is what the Democratic Party does. Increased regulation in the banking industry doesn't mean that the banks are going to be burdened with extra work it means that the small investor looking to grow their money so that they can provide a college education for their children is protected from the evils of excess greed. This did not happen during the Republican Administration. During the last ten years the productivity of the American worker has increased by 20% but yet the average worker actually saw a decrease in wages. Democrats are not socialists; we simply believe that if a worker is being 20% more productive then they should be able to share in the growth of the economy which their productivity created!
Last night Biden said that being a Democrat means that when things become difficult and a father has to make that long walk up to their child’s room to tell them they can't be on the baseball team or they have to change schools because they lost their job that when they tell that child everything is going to be ok they actually know that things are going to be ok. That is why I am a Democrat as well, because when things get difficult we don’t give up we fix it. We are there for the little guy, for the guy looking to make an honest days wage for an honest days work. Democrats believe in working hard and there being a reward for that hard work. And when the economy is booming again our hard workers of this country should share in the wealth that is created by THEIR work, because when they are able to share in that wealth even more wealth is created, fewer jobs are lost. Instead of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer the Rich get Richer, the middle class gets richer and the poor get richer. Everyone wins when we look out for the people who are the backbone and labor in our economy and that is the way it should be.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The Next Big Thing
The war on poverty was declared in 1964 by President Johnson; how much progress have we made in the 45 years since? In his Op-Ed, Nicholas Kristof suggests that the best road by which to achieve gains in eliminating poverty today is through education reform. Organizations such as Teach For America have supported this approach for decades, arguing that by improving education on a personal level, disadvantaged students are better prepared to strive further overall. However, Kristof highlights the ways in which teacher unions prevent the dismissal of teachers deemed ineffective. In his article, "The Rubber Room," for The New Yorker, Joel Klein describes "fifteen teachers, along with about six hundred others, in six larger Rubber Rooms in the city’s five boroughs, [who] have been accused of misconduct, such as hitting or molesting a student, or, in some cases, of incompetence, in a system that rarely calls anyone incompetent." Unions, by creating as many roadblocks to removal as possible, are draining money from state and federal budgets that could be used to reward good teachers and provide incentives for educators in low-income area school districts. Which is the priority: preserving jobs and income for bad teachers, or benefitting the next generation of Americans?
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Justice
One of the most popular classes at Harvard in the past 20 years has been Michael Sandels Justice Course. He started teaching the course with the intention of challenging students to figure out what they believe and why they believe it. The course mixes basic ethics, political theory and social conceptions into an inspiring class that questions what is just and what is fair. I think that this class should not just be taught at Harvard but in High Schools. This is what we all need to know. Before we can compromise on issues we should at least know what we want. Check it out.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
After a Brief Hiatus...
I've spent the past two weeks studying for the Literature subject GRE (which will be over on Saturday, thank goodness), so staying up-to-date on the news and posting hasn't exactly been my priority. Sorry, guys!
Regardless, a week ago the Obama Administration announced that it would be encouraging environmental advocacy not only through the passage of a bill being proposed by John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) but also by instituting new regulations for industry through the E.P.A. This tactic appeals to me; I feel the future of planetary health and prosperity (yes, prosperity being dependent on how well we use our limited resources in the present) should be more than a game of cap-and-trade, Hungry Hungry Hippos among big business. Congress, in a shark tank of oil, auto, and other industry lobbyists, would be forced to include loopholes and make concessions to the very companies that are hastening global warming.
That's not to suggest that it would be beneficial, or even possible, to abruptly put a stop to all excessive emissions. Lisa Jackson, EPA administrator, was clear in her interview with the New York Times that only the greatest producers of green house gases will fall under the proposed regulations, and only when building new facilities or renovating old ones. In these instances, the companies would have to employ the latest technology in reducing emissions, or face fines. Yes, this may be costly; but whose shoulders should the burden of progress fall on? This is necessary action, or companies would have no incentive to push for lower emissions.
The "green" movement is not a fad. We simply cannot afford to lose interest in environmental health. I, for one, look forward (to 2011) when the regulations may be ready to go into place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)