The G20 has a theme song ... it's the end of the world as we know it

If you are wondering about my title, my reference is not related to CNN.com's apocalyptic insinuation that the U.S. is somehow falling behind other nations economically ... which they then promptly demonstrate is not happening at all, ipso facto, this neat graph: http://money.cnn.com/news/economy/g20/interactive/

What I am referring to is the creation of a G20 pop theme song. Do we really need to dumb everything down so much now so as to invent interest for important events?

This website gives a pretty good explanation:

http://www.allkpop.com/2010/09/20-idol-singers-unite-to-sing-the-g20-seoul-summit-theme-song

This website gives the music video (or 'making of' video...):

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5388128/2010_g20_seoul_summit_theme_song_lets_go/

I vaguely feel like that old woman who hit Adlai Stevenson after a speech with a sign, and when he asked her why, she said something along the lines of "If you don't know already, then I can't help you."

Fin Reg, fin

Financial Regulatory Reform is now law. President Barack Obama signed the bill into law Wednesday, and what a reception. You would think that reforming the big financial institutions would be really popular with the average American. I mean most Americans think the bailouts were a bad idea according to a recent rassmussen poll.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/federal_bailout/july_2010/voters_still_think_bailouts_were_a_bad_idea

But only 46% of americans serveyed wanted stricter controls of large banks and financial institutions. While the mention of Wall Street incread the number to 50% that favor stronger controls.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/93433-a-majority-of-americans-support-financial-regulatory-reform-poll-says

But with that being said I am surprised that the number is not higher. I mean every american knows how bad the economy is. Many are out of work and even more know someone who is looking. Yet only half of the country wants these problems to be fixed.

Maybe it is the distrust of government that has pushed the numbers down. Maybe its the fact that the bill is just about 2400 pages and god only knows whats in it. After reading the 17 pages of detailed summary I made it to the last couple of paragraphs and I may have found a reason why people are correct to be concerned about this reform. Now, I do not expect that many people have read the detailed summary. Even among the media I would be shocked if many have read this summary because if I were in the media I would have reported on the last piece of the bill. So what is in the last section of the bill? It is about the Democratic Republic of the Congo's mineral rights. I was an economics major in college and I took a couple of finance classes but we never covered the impact of Congo's minerals on our financial system. Just put the congo section into another bill and pass that. I am on board with almost this entire bill but adress the causes of the financial collapse like the housing market. Congo should have no part in this law. Unless, If only I hadent built my house of Blood Diamonds we never would have had that financial Crisis.

Congo Conflict Minerials:

Manufacturers Disclosure: Requires those who file with the SEC and use minerals originating in the Democratic Republic of Congo in manufacturing to disclose measures taken to exercise due diligence on the source and chain of custody of the materials and the products manufactured.

Illicit Minerals Trade Strategy: Requires the State Department to submit a strategy to address the illicit minerals trade in the region and a map to address links between conflict minerals and armed groups and establish a baseline against which to judge effectiveness.

I found this section in a 17 page summary. Imagine whats in 2400.

Why the US Credit Rating is Safe

With the ever increasing debt of the United States, people have begun questioning the ability of the government to pay it back. Some even suggesting that ratings agency's like Moody's and S&P will down grade our credit rating. The credit rating is important for a couple of different reasons. First, a downgrade will shape the rest of the worlds outlook on our economy and our debt. Second, It will make it more difficult for banks to hold as much of our debt on their balance sheets due to the net capital requirements provisions in the securities and exchange act of 1934. This provision says that banks do not need to hold as much collateral on their books if the ratings agency's rate the debt as AAA. The overall outcome of our credit rating being decreased would be that it will cost us more to borrow. In essence we will be on our way to becoming like Greece. Greece's main problem is their debt is so large that their is no way of paying it back without either defaulting or restructuring their debt. The other alternative in Greece would be to inflate away their debt but since they are part of the Euro the Germans will never allow that to happen since it would mean inflation there as well.

Here is why Moody's and S&P will not down grade the US before after it is too late. Moody's and S&P are Nationally recognized Statistical Ratings Agencies. The United States currently recognizes 7 of them along with Fitch and 4 others. The US also has the power to delist ratings agencies from this list. And Since all new debt issues need to be rated by a Nationally recognized ratings agency any threat to that would be a huge threat to a ratings agencies profitability. This is a risk that the ratings agencies should not take lightly. Now if it were up to me I would get rid of these perverse incentives but since we have the leverage if I were president I would make sure that the ratings agencies knew my position. We have the power, we might as well use it.

If I Were Rich...

Wouldn't it be great to be rich? You wouldn't need to worry about paying the bills or worry where your next meal was going to come from. You could afford your prescription drugs and any other medical treatment. I'm not talking millionaire rich, I am talking hundred millionaire rich. And in many ways money frees people from worry. It also frees them from the need of insurance, since whatever happens they will have enough money just to pay for it out of pocket. Now, it normally makes sense to buy insurance to protect what you have whether it be your home or your health, your life or long term care costs. But none of these are required to be purchased through third parties. Well Except for health insurance in 2014.

Now there has been a lot of discussion about the freedoms we are loosing as part of the health care bill but to me the best illustration of the treachery is the example that follows. There is a rich man who has well over 100 Million Dollars. He is 62 and the year is 2013, he has just learned that he has cancer. The man does not have insurance but since he is rich he can afford to pay for all the services and procedures he needs out of pocket. After a year of treatments he beats the cancer at a cost of 3 Million dollars. He saw the best doctors in the best hospitals. The year is now 2014 and he is required to buy health insurance even though his fortune has grown to 125 million. If he fails to buy something which in this case he doesn't need, since he can afford any medical cost, he can be fined by the IRS up to three percent. So three percent of the 25 million that he made in the past year is 750k. He refuses to pay it since he does not need the insurance so he is thrown in jail for not complying with the IRS law. This most certainly could happen if you had a ballsy rich guy. I wish I had the money because this is something I would personally like to do. Except for the cancer part. This example exposes the tyranny of this legislation for what it really is. Tyranny.

Cut Healthcare Costs

Soooo, Healthcare. It is finally law. And whatever you think about the outcome I keep coming back to the fact that the primary effect of this legislation does not focus on cutting costs. Obama has said that the primary purpose of this legislation is to bend the cost curve. If this was the true focus they could have bent the curve far more effectivly. I never really heard anyone break down what the costs of healthcare actually are. The main costs that are nessassary to deliver any health care are salarys, offices, equipment and administration. You need Dr.s and nurses. You need a hospital or an office. You need bandages and scales. Stethascopes and more. And finally insurance administration which helps reduce fraud in the system and ensures people can afford very expensive procedures. This can be through private insurance companies or through the government. Obama thinks that the problems lie in the administrative side of the equation. The insurance companies are the only part of the process that try to control costs.

Maybe a better way to adress the problem of costs is to look at the actuall delivery of health care. I believe that the single largest problem with the healthcare system today is that the shortage of doctors is driving up salarys. The average hospitalist MD makes 256k per year. Average. Some make more. And they only work one week on one week off. So for 6 months of work they get this type of salary. This is a salaryed job. I understand that the education required is intense but I refuse to believe that this is the natural market price. The real problem is that we dont have enough medical schools to meet the needs of the baby boomer generation. And guess who controls to Medical School accredidation process. Doctors. Through the 17 member Liason Committee on Medical education made up of doctors and medical educators who have a vested interest in keeping supply of doctors low. Since they will make more in the future. Increase the number of medical schools. If the AMA does not want to comply the government has the obligation to ensure that manipulation of the system is not possible. The AMA along with the AAMA are robing the american people. Making huge houses for themselves. Buying boats. Its just way to much money. Their is a market failure which comes out of the fact the federal government allows the AMA to do basically whatever it wants. It is like letting FINRA run the financial industry rather then the SEC. Lets fix this problem which in part is related to the monopoly the AMA holds. I am not advocating breaking up the AMA but it does not more effective oversite. I will try to find more ways to save money in the future but if you dont think more doctors would reduce the cost of health care let me know.

China's Dangerous Equation

In terms of foreign relations there are few basic assumptions that assume the mantle of an article of faith in the goings on of the world. One of these is the notion that China (the PRC not the ROC) is a growing force in the world. Its export-driven economy has weathered the economic downturn probably the most undamaged of any major nation, its productivity and currency holdings are growing, it buys quite a bit of our debt, and its centrally controlled economy has chugged along at roughly a 10 percent growth rate annually since 1978, when some semblance of sanity came to its style of government. It also has over a billion citizens, who are ruled over by a dictatorial government that has long displayed little concern for their well-being or fundamental rights (ignoring even the basic elements of the social compact that justifies a Communist government, which their party claims to be)--this in recent years has been managed by offering a greater standard of living and opportunities at a consumer society- ironic of course in a government that recently celebrated the 60th anniversary of its founding under a Gigantic Poster of Mao. Now whether Mao's Poster would react to the utter abandonment of its principles of creating a nightmarish landscape of deprivation, terror, state-supported mass murder, and misguided attempts at smelting iron/steel in backyard forges... in favor of a nearly corporatist state is not the point of this touching upon-- nor is it meant to be a several pages long hell-stomping of the Chinese people's good name while I extoll American virtue and values (though I yield to no man under 30 in my distrust of and distain for the Chinese government)

What I'm going to mention is that with China's rise, there seems to be a mixture of over-confidence and outright insecurity in their actions towards other countries--this is a nation that after all is presently leading the world in producing wind-turbines (often selling them to western companies and nations)---while also continuing to basically destroy its own environment as the world's largest polluter-- This week two occurences highlighted this-- the Obama Administration's going through with a six-billion dollar arm sale to Taiwan (which Bejing considers to be a break-away province, and has made part of official policy...seriously, their legislature passed a bill stating it legally... that if Taiwan -- known as the Republic of China-- were to actually proclaim de jure independence, as opposed to the de facto of the last 60 years, it would attempt to invade and conquer the island nation) in line with the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act-- in response to which, though they were informed well in advance-- the Chinese government threatened to sanction American companies such as Boeing, involved in the sale, and to increase its oppostion to sanctions against Iran. Chinese prickliness about interference in its own affairs aside--the Chinese government has no scruples about selling weapons to Somali militias, or to African dictators and rebels to ensure access to oil resources-- to say nothing of Kim Jong Il and his gangster nation-state/lunatic asylum in North Korea. Moreover, China continues to receive international development funds (such as in cleaner energy) and excemptions from a number of accords as a developing nation, while it engages in nationalistic economic policies of a distinctly unfriendly nature towards many Western and other Asian nations. The other major powers, both military and economic in East Asia- Japan and South Korea have a level of contempt for the Chinese government's actions. If the Chinese wish to engage in a trade confrontation, their position economically is not as strong as it appears when considering its habit of poking every other major economic power in the eye on political issues-- its view of the Dali Lama as an agitator and its willingness to punish those that meet with him doesn't help their case either.

China's reliance on foreign investment and markets I believe off-sets its advantage in holding debt and currency (ours for example). The fact that they seem to be eager to engage in a tit-for-tat trade conflict over Taiwan and the Dali Lama that can only harm their own interests and reputation (to say nothing of trying to hack Google to get the accounts of dissidents) indicates an insecurity their government has over recent internal instability and the flaws in their system-- when economic growth is their justification for denying basic rights to their citizens, while also tolerating an increasingly sharp divide in the country itself-- what happens when the growth doesn't reach every area or begins to slow? That those in rural regions in China make 3 and a half times less than their urban dwelling countrymen, and that any workers in an industrial setting work in often dangerous--even lethal conditions-- that is a system that, if the country continues to grow more wealthy, will need to be addressed. The over-half of the population that resides in these rural areas will demand some form of benefit or compensation for their conditions, even perhaps an entitlement program-- that provides some form of basic safety-net for seven hundred MILLION people in these areas of poverty, which would also require some form of the same for the more prosperous urban areas. The environmental disaster that is much of that country (the Bejing Olympics showed us some elements of this for certain) will also have to be addressed. Otherwise, the Chinese government (ever willing to crack down on ethnic instabilities and riots in the countryside, and protests in the cities) ignores their own population at their peril, god help them if the economic/job growth slows below 7 or 8 percent and unemployment becomes a problem.

In short: the Chinese need to be more willing to play fair ball in international politics and trade, otherwise they may find their economic and political arrangement is not nearly as robust as it appears. As they rise to become a major force in world politics, their rate of growth and increase in prestige cannot continue as it has---their citizens will demand their compensation as well. After all isn't that what getting rid of the Imperial regimes was all about--the citizens?

What is Money?

There are lots of things that come to mind when I ask what is money. Some may answer its the piece of paper or coin. The greenback or the euro are examples. Money is a medium of exchange. It makes commerce easier. Money is essentially the value of what you produce or have. It eliminates the barter system which would be necessary without the advent of money as idea of people. some may answer that money is property. You own money like you own your house or your food. So maybe its property. Ohh no.

Not according to the Supreme Court. Money is speech. didnt you know that? I have heard that money talks but this is completely insane. And the best part is they don't even try to rationalize it anymore, they simply point to starie decisis when its convenient. They list precedent and thats it. This courts decision assumes you will read the THOUSANDS OF PAGES in 30 court decision from the past 230 years. And if Clarence Thomas is writing the decision its more like back to 1215. Why are company's granted rights? People make company's so it cant be about their creators. Its a perverse reading of history.

And for my last rant. The supreme court drew this insane decision from a point that wasn't even brought before it. That isn't even judicial review. They just do what they want and get away with it because of their robes. The decision said, "Our practice ‘permit[s] review of an issue not pressed [below] so long as it has been passed upon . . . .’" In this decision they do what they want and the American people have to deal with it. This activist conservative court should be stopped.

Really what should happen is that the congress and the president agree to simply disregard this decision. That's right, Jefferson and Jackson did it. I would say that's starie decisis enough. Just ignore this blatantly unconstitutional interpretation.

And Justice Alito, we will see if this court opinion will open the flood gates. You simply mouthing something at the state of the union devoid of facts of the effects of policy really makes a lot of sense.

RIP Our Rights

Companies are NOT People

The supreme court decision today that reverses half a centery of campaign finance reform for corporations is completely crazy. The arguments made in favor of changing restrictions that have been in place since 1947 are based on some of the most peverse readings of the constitution I have ever encountered. The argument that boils down to corporate personhood should strike every american as crazy. This is not a country by, of and for the corporations.

Current laws put limits on the ability of companies to contribute to financial campaigns and effectively limit companies right to free speech. Thats all well and good but can the strict constructionists on the court tell me where in the constitution it says that companies have the same rights as people? Companies should not be protected by the equal protection clause of the constitution. Here it is Section 1 of the fourteenth ammendments. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So the whole first portion of this section basically defines person and then says that people shall have equal protection under the law. WHERE ARE COMPANIES PEOPLE? Where? This interpretation of the constitution cheapens what it means to be human. If companies have a right to free speech why cant they vote. It is nearly the same language. Maybe what bothers me most is that it seems ideologically inconsistant for republicans to advocate individual freedoms when they are less concerned about people then they are about a piece of paper which represents a companies articals of incorporations. Companies are just paper. Sure people work for companies but companies themselves are not people. Its not right.

PBS has a great explanation of the history pertaining to corporate personhood. This is something that will anger the american people once/ if they realize what has happened. The people will be in favor of the Dems position on this. Maybe they will even be able to do something about it. Congress does have the power to further interperate this section through section 5 of the act. Individual rights are dead in America. Long Live Money.

RIP my Rights.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/corprights.html

China's Changing Bank Policies

I'm just going to get it out of the way and say that, yes, I'm disappointed about Massachusetts. Keeping the Democratic majority was a vital aspect of getting things accomplished in the Senate this term, and for Scott Brown to assume Ted Kennedy's seat...it's a bit awkward. Am I stunned? No. Do most Democratic voters even realize an election took place? Maybe this morning, but who knows, there could have been a clam bake on the Cape that got in the way of heading to the polls last night. COME ON! Ugh.

But something that is coming to light on the periphery is that China has instructed it's banks to stop lending for the rest of the month, and to increase bank reserves to protect against failed loans. While this may be an effective method at curbing potential inflation, there are other ripples being created by the cutbacks. Not only have shares in major Chinese banks dropped, but the implication that China's government anticipates economic trouble stands. Namely, preventing asset bubbles in the stock and property markets is a pretty good indicator that such bubbles were expected on the horizon.

The Washington Post has reported that the chairman of the China Banking Regulatory Commission Liu Mingkang expects this year's total loans to drop by 22% this year, down from the record 9.6 trillion renminbi of 2009. And although some sources say the government has ordered a halt to all lending for the remainder of January, others insist that lending is being stopped only at banks that fail to meet government standards. Either way, the worry is there; too much money in the market leads to an overheated economy, and China does not want to go the way of the United States and Europe (as stated without subtlety here).

Although Chinese officials insist that the restrictions are minor, and that the 7.5 trillion renminbi lending target is still robust, I have my reservations. Naturally, only time will tell what the future is for international economics; how China's lending practices will impact the United States will have to wait until next week when some more answers surface.

The Great Dictators and the State of New Jersey

Now that the countless “year in review” articles about 2009 politics have concluded, two stories from one state still seem awfully puzzling. They both concern controversial world leaders with a growing amount of domestic support … and they both happened in the great state of New Jersey.

One is about an island between Camden, New Jersey and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. That one involved none other than Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The other – taking place in much-different northern New Jersey – features the equally (if not more) eccentric Libyan dictator Muammar al-Gaddafi.

The latter story – being a bit bizarre, maybe even ugly, and all the while insightful into the high-strung world of small-town New Jersey (seen Anytown, U.S.A anyone?) – certainly does not make the Garden State look normal. To make a long story short, Engelwood, New Jersey’s mayor did not want Gaddafi there when the foreign leader was to appear at the U.N. (see http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE57N53J20090824, and also - for somewhat of an international perspective - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/25/muammar-gaddafi-englewood-new-jersey).

Eventually, the Libyan leader backed out of his plans, and decided not to pitch his tent (literally) in the Garden State (see the New York Times for article and photos http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/29/nyregion/29libya.html. Additionally, for a hilarious article about what Gaddafi said before the U.N. - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/23/gaddafi-un-speech).

The other story from New Jersey, however, has some more explaining to do.

You do not need to know much about Chavez to know that he can be impulsive, neigh downright careless in what has traditionally been an arena filled with tact and quiet reservation: international affairs. If you think that I am just making this up, I recommend taking the time to see for yourself how he megalomaniacalyl brought his country to the brink of war with neighboring Columbia while hosting his hours-long Sunday variety show on Venezulian television (available with excellent commentary – which helped me to formulate my opinion of Chavez – in the first part of a Frontline documentary through this link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hugochavez/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid).

Nevertheless, it seems odd that not more has been said in popular media about his announcement that CITGO would be giving an island (specifically Petty’s Island) to the state of New Jersey (see CNN’s coverage of this announcement http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/23/venezuela.island/index.html).

What I cannot figure out clearly are Chavez/CITGO’s motivations. On one hand, for Chavez the decision seems to have implied a certain degree of moralizing – according to CNN his decision was part of last year’s Earth Day, and to me the message is clear without being overt: Chavez is criticizing the United States and its environmental policies, and simultaneously allowing now-departing Governor John Corzine to take credit for improving the environment of New Jersey by opening up a new park. But this could only be proven had their been a more visible message from Chavez – just about anything that attempted to lecture the United States government in a public way but without making the bargain too difficult for Corzine to swallow. That has not happened yet.

Then, of course, on the other hand, there is the almost bizarre possibility that Chavez actually cares about the environment in and of itself enough to have made this decision. Some evidence does, in fact, point towards this direction – a press release from Corzine noted that “CITGO [i.e., Chavez] has agreed to create a $2 million stewardship fund to allow the Natural Lands Trust to manage the island. The company is setting up another $1 million fund to assist in establishing a cultural and education center. The eventual recreational development of the island will be limited to passive activities, such as trails for hiking and bicycle riding.” (http://www.state.nj.us/governor/news/news/2009/approved/20090422a.html) $3 million dollars and property is pretty impressive for a company to shell out over ideals alone.

CNN (who, it should be noted, cut the CITGO lead and made it seem as though Chavez personally controlled the whole decision) also emphasized these details. Nevertheless, in two press releases from Governor Corzine’s office (which were characteristically propagandized like all public relations releases) the decision was not only made through the ‘brilliant’ leadership of Corzine – but represented a major contribution to the environment of New Jersey that … err … would not be completed until at least 2020! (http://www.state.nj.us/governor/news/news/2009/approved/20090422a.html and http://www.state.nj.us/dep/newsrel/2009/09_0002.htm).

In a larger way, the story has some interesting things to say about the nature of environmentalism, international corporations, and land use in the United States. English common law as well as the American Constitution both could not have foreseen the complexity of such an interaction: a major industrial corporation, lead by a socialist foreign leader, which owns a large amount of land in the United States, decides to donate that land to the government of a state while citing environmental concerns. If James Madison were a lawyer working on the case, he might have wished that he could have included some more things into the Constitution itself – i.e. a paragraph here concerning foreign influence over property in the United States, a sentence there implying where in our federalist system does the prerogative to environmental reserves lies, and also a footnote stating whether or not governors have any right to brag about receiving large land donations from ideologically dubious foreign leaders.

Adding to the confusion, although CITGO is in fact donating the land as well as millions of dollars, a number of seemingly hard-line demands were emphasized at their expense: “The state will assume no liability for cleanup of past pollution on the island. CITGO will turn the island over to the Natural Lands Trust to manage after the company removes petroleum facilities that include a tank farm and asphalt-blending operation. The DEP must certify that contamination has been cleaned up according to state standards. The cleanup terms will be covered under a separate agreement with the DEP,” (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/newsrel/2009/09_0002.htm) and “The DEP must certify that the cleanup has met state standards before the title can be transferred. The earliest the transfer can occur is 2020, which is three years following the expiration of a lease an active shipping terminal has with CITGO. This gives CITGO time to address any potential contamination at the shipping terminal property.” (http://www.state.nj.us/governor/news/news/2009/approved/20090422a.html).

Well, it looks like we might need to wait ten years to see how this unfolds, but in the meanwhile I recommend asking everyone you know to try to explain the motivations behind this decision. Why would a money-bent industrial superpower like CITGO be so willing to give up the things it loves the most – money and resources – so easily and without a clear motivation?

My best guess is that CITGO simply expects that their Petty’s Island location will no longer be profitable by 2020. It would rather layoff workers, leave the area and still maintain face (perhaps majorly so) by spending money in order to make the transaction look like an altruistic one. The previously highlighted stipulations by the state of New Jersey are probably not much more than a reiteration of what is already the legal process for the removal of an industrial plant – i.e. return the land without oil tanks and pollution covering it.

Further reading: http://en.mercopress.com/2009/04/21/chavez-not-only-gave-obama-a-book...but-also-an-island-in-new-jersey , http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/venezuela_president_looms_over.html , http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/24/chavez_gives_island_to_new_jersey_freaks_out_governor , http://blog.buzzflash.com/contributors/1958

On The Success of Welfare Programs

Republicans will tell you that welfare doesn’t work, that it's government waste, and that the recipients of welfare are undeserving mooches which leach off the hard working in our society. However, the fact of the matter is, that when you sit down and look at data, it in fact does work. The purpose of a welfare program is to lift individuals in need out of poverty, or to provide them with government services so that they can live a more comfortable lifestyle. An example of this type of welfare is social security and medicare. Most people when thinking about welfare don’t consider social security and medicare. However, social security helps over 53,000,000 elderly and disabled people be able to live a more comfortable lifestyle and continue to contribute to our eceonmy. These people are either old and unable to work anymore, or are disabled and unable to work for the rest of their lives. This type of welfare consists of 95% of all government welfare programs.
I would also like to address a number of myths about welfare. The first myth concerns what welfare actually is. Welfare, according to Webster’s dictionary is any government assistance given to a person in need. This is often boiled down to stereotypes of individuals. Some might have you believe that welfare is government waste. That the typical welfare recipient is a person who is able to work but simply doesn’t want to because welfare provides them with such a luxurious lifestyle. However, this stereotype could not be more wrong. The purpose of welfare for individuals in need is to lift them out of the needy state. This is working especially well since President Clinton signed a republican welfare reform act in 1996. According to the department of health and human services, the number of welfare recipients has fallen from 5% to 2%. Furthermore, this type of welfare spending only consists of 1% of federal, state, and local budgets. Therefore, it is preposterous to argue that “welfare” spending is government waste. Furthermore, the stereotype that welfare recipients are simply lazy people who live off of welfare and breed like rabbits is also completely off base. Only the most dysfunctional welfare recipients do this. Firstly, the welfare reform act of 1996 places a 5 year limit on receiving government assistance checks and food stamps, anyone who receives welfare for over 5 years either has job that simply does not pay enough for them to live, or is unable to work for the rest of their lives due to a debilitating illness. Secondly, no logical person would EVER want to live on welfare checks and food stamps. Government housing is not luxurious, and welfare checks are unable to pay even the most basic bills.
However, an attack on welfare is not just an attack on the poor or elderly, it is an attack on us students. Anyone here who receives financial aid from the federal or state government through grants of student loans is a welfare beneficiary. According to the white house web site the federal government loans out $81 billion a year so that students can receive a college education. Imagine how different any campus would be if all of the students that receive aid were no longer able to come here because their form of welfare was taken away.

Of Southern Democrats and Yankee Republicans

Well this will dovetail nicely with Stephen's post on the recent gburg alum running for Congress. And yes, as to that I agree-- Connecticut CD-4 is winnable as a Republican district in its makeup....
As for the nation...Exploding underpants and healthcare aside this post, I figured I'd discuss a bit of my perspective on the interesting trends of American politics-- particularly regional party strength. As the post suggests I'm discussing the often discussed reversal of party fortunes from their respective areas of origin-- and explaining that much of the shift is more recent than merely the Conservative- Liberal alignments of the major parties since the 1960s, particularly at the Congressional level.



My thoughts were prompted by two news feeds I read the past few weeks, Blue Dog Dem Congressman Parker Griffith of Alabama switched from the Democrats to become a Republican. That district (though in Alabama, a red state since Goldwater won it in 64) has not been represented by a Republican since the post-Reconstruction era. This is augmented by the bleeding out of GOP seats in upstate New York, and the other story I read -- that with GOP governors finishing up their terms in Vermont, RI, and Connecticut- it is possible that all of New England may have Democratic Governors for the first time in the modern party system next year. The almost total allignment of the Deep South and midland-South into a Republican bastion and Yankee New England into the Democratic party is not merely the extension of the drift since the early 1930s-- FDR never won either Vermont or Maine-- in fact no modern Democrat other than LBJ had won Vermont until Bill Clinton in 1992...the last time the GOP won Vermont in a Presidential election- 1988 was also the year Bernie Sanders was elected to Congress-- so how have the regions polarized in recent years---

The origins of the "Party of the Common Man" basics of the Democratic party stem from the midland South region of Andrew Jackson-. For many generations, Arkansas, most of Tennessee (Eastern TN interestingly enough has been a defiantly Republican stronghold since the Civil War-- when it was a Unionist region, the rest of the South basically caught up with it) , West Virginia (it voted for Dukakis in 1988), and Kentucky were Democrat dominated either nationally or locally. Since the 1970s, along with the Deep South regions-- these midland and Appalachian states have become more populist Republican in representation--- though a hearty number of Democrat senators and Congressman have remained. Tennessee maintains 5 Democratic Districts, Arkansas 3 Districts, WV 2. and Kentucky 2 Dem Districts. Retirements and a bad 2010 climate have caused several of the Tennessee districts to appear ripe for Republican pickups, along with at least one Arkansas and West Virginia. Also, Senator Blanche Lincoln is endangered to lose her seat. It would appear that the traditionally strong moderate Democrats that make up these states' Dem Reps (only Memphis's Congressional district is a majority minority seat, like most secure Dem. seats in the South) are going to start going the route of New England GOP Congressmen. The Democratic control of state legislatures in these states has also in recent years been on the wane--- This region, I largely believe, was more disposed to Democrats (the racial political divide of the South is less apparent in this region, outside of the Tennessee areas along the Mississippi, there isn't a large black population) because of Bill Clinton's origins in Arkansas and his appeal to the working/middle class whites of Appalachia-- they were fond of him but appear to be seriously drifting at the Congressional level to where they've been at the Presidential level for the past decade. McCain won all of these states in such a bad year by a sizable margin--If current trends keep up-- I'm predicting that the most proportionate Democratic losses will occur here in 2010-- I wouldn't be suprised if Blanche Lincoln is unseated along with as many as 6 of the Democratic House seats from these four states (two Tennessee retirements look to be likely pick-ups for the GOP), along with the governorship of Tennessee.

Meanwhile, in New England the recent trends of the GOP's decimation are well known. Beyond the governorships of Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut (all retiring)--the GOP's Federal Representation in New England consists of Sens. Sue Colllins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Judd Gregg (retiring) of New Hampshire. The traditional New England Republican of recent decades-- rock-ribbed fiscal conservative, social moderate, and somewhat hawkish in foreign policy have been the chief GOP whipping-boy for recent Democratic gains--- in 2006 there were 2 GOP reps in New Hampshire, at least 3 in Connecticut, another Senator in New Hampshire, and 10 Republicans in New York State...there are now 2 in New York and the rest of the above are gone. As late as 1996 there were 2 GOP reps in Massachusetts (though the shrinkage of Mass's delegation and gerrymandering have rendered the remaining seats lock-step)

For 2010, the New England states, particularly the smaller ones, may offer a glimpse of whether or not the region is a Republican wasteland for a generation or so--- If Kelly Ayote--the Senate candidate running for Judd Gregg's seat holds onto it, that certainly the top objective--along with any of the open gubernatorial seats. There are opportunities (judging from polling) in the 2 New Hampshire districts and perhaps one or two in Connecticut. Rural New England moderates and conservatives are a fiscally conservative bunch, hence New Hampshire being narrowly won by George W. Bush in 2000, and being picked up by John Kerry by only a few thousand votes in 2004. Vermont, despite it's bloody-minded liberalism on most matters beyond deficits and guns, has somewhat of a demand for good fiscal management-- Screaming Howard was almost notorious among his fellow Democrats during his tenure as governor for being a budgetary hard-ass, which contributed to his general popularity. The Obama adminstration's fiscal policies may aid Republicans in getting back into the game.

There are also 2 Democratic seat Senate races up this term in New England. The first, Chris Dodd's seat in Connecticut I planned to engage in a long digression on his unpopularity and the very good chance that if former Rep. Rob Simmons (about as likeable a Republican as exists for deep blue Connecticut, and an excellent Congressmen who went to the mat for his constitutents to save the New Haven Naval Base, and was unseated by 86 votes in '06.) wins the GOP nomination, he'd unseat Dodd. However, five-term senators are usually unseated by either their own choice or the grave, if it looks like they are in for a very tough fight-- there's a high chance they'll retire rather than risk the humiliation of being thrown out. It seems that within a few hours of Byron Dorgan's retirement (and the extremely high likelihood of that Senate seat flipping Republican) Dodd either chose to call it quits, or was prodded to acknowledge his political prognosis by Dem insiders. With the entry of the very popular Connecticut Attorney General, the deep-blue seat looks relatively likely for a Democratic hold barring an utter unraveling of the party's standing.

The other senate race is in a couple weeks--a Massachusetts special election for the Kennedy Seat. The polls have Republican State Sen. Scott Brown closer than Mass. Senate race should be, this seat's last Republican was Henry Cabot Lodge. Jr in 1952 when he was defeated by yep...you got it...JFK. Martha Coakley, the Democrat, has run a very poor campaign judging from reports, and some members of the Conservative blogosphere are salivating over the faint possibility of an upset...I'm not optimistic for a win of course, but if Scott Brown keeps it within 10 points, that's a very good sign.

Will Gregory for Congress

I was recently looking through a Gettysburg College alumni email and as I was scanning through the recent alumni news one piece of news caught my eye. All it said was Will Gregory class of 2007 is running for congress, followed by a hyperlink to his website. At first I figured he was running for a state congressional position. I have heard of young people getting elected to local governments so I figured that must be it. So I clicked on the hyperlink and as it turns out he is running in the primary for the United States House rep from Connecticut's 4th district. I thought wow, he is definatly ahead of where I am going to be two years from now. The site looked really good. Easy to navigate but what really got me was the message. As it turns out he is a North Eastern fiscally conservative socially moderate republican. Just like me. Next I figured that he must not have a chance due to the political orientation of the district. This certainly had to be a bastion of north eastern liberalism. But as it turns out it surprisingly moderate. Prior to the 2008 Election the seat was held by Chris Shays, a moderate, who was well liked and well respected. So there is certainly a chance that district will elect a republican. He has been campaigning for a couple of months now and is starting to get noticed even though he is only 24 years old. Check out his website, I think it will impress everyone as it impressed me. I for one support Will Gregory. Now if I only lived in Connecticut.



http://www.gregoryforcongress.com/

Gitmo

Why is Guantanamo Bay not closed yet??? You guess is as good as mine, and its far past time that we close what has become a symbol of American aarogance and torture. There are two ways in which closing Guantanamo Bay could have negative national security implications for the American Public. The first threat is to our troops abroad, if after closing Guantanamo Bay we release and repatriate offenders then there is a significant threat to U.S. National Security. I will not be advocating that course of action this evening. The second threat is to American Citizens if we transfer prisoners from Guantanamo bay to other detention facilities within the United States and they escape. I will prove that there is no rational reason for concern about detainees escaping from a maximum security prison; this argument is a fear tactic which has become characteristic of the Republican party and my hope is that you in the audience will not fall for the irrational arguments brought about by fear and worry but rather will listen to sound logical arguments that make sense for the foreign and domestic policy for the United States. . Finally, I will also prove that leaving Guantanamo Bay open for use would have dramatic national security implications for both our troops abroad and the security of our homeland. I will draw from Democratic and Republican sources throughout my argument citing Republicans Colin Powell and former President George W. Bush as well as current President Barack Obama. The fact of the matter is that this debate is a simple one; it revolves around the closure of a detention facility which most Americans believe should be closed, a detention facility that both Democratic President Barack Obama and his challenger John McCain both supported closing as well as a slew of military hierarchy and former administration officials.
Let me begin by refuting the contention that there are no safe alternatives to Guantanamo Bay. If we were to place the detainees at Guantanamo Bay into a maximum security federal prison or a maximum security military prison within the United States it would be unreasonable to suggest that a prison break would take place at all. First, to posit that there are no reliable venues for these prisoners is absurd. The United States has 110 federal prisons and 13 military prisons around the world which house some of the most dangerous criminals in the United States and since 1999 there has only been one prison escape from a maximum security prison. Furthermore, Federal Prison Camps are mostly stand-alone facilities which are typically attached to a military or government complex. To suggest that not one of our 110 federal prisons is suitable for the transfer of 250 inmates is simply ludicrous. In To allude to the absurdity of this argument I propose this. Charles Manson, the famed serial killer is housed in a California State prison. Why is it that we don’t transfer Manson to an off-site facility since he is dangerous and might escape? However, if we do decide that the 110 federal prisons are not suitable for transfer then why don’t we pick another one of our off-site facilities. The United States currently maintains military detention facilities in Peurto-Rico, Iceland, Guam, Diego Garcia, and Naples. Surely if the 110 federal prisons are not suitable one of those off-sit facilities would provide a safe distance away from the American people.
Furthermore, the converse of the resolution is true, and leaving Guantanamo bay open creates national security implications for the United States. Guantanamo Bay and the torture practices which took place there have created a symbol for terrorist recruiting groups throughout the world to rally around and use as a recruiting tool. In 2008 officials discovered a video which was being used as a recruiting tool for Al-Quaeda and other terrorist organizations. The two-hour video included sections on Muslim humiliation at Guantanamo Bay. The closure of Guantanamo Bay will make the United States safer from terrorism by symbolically displaying to the world that we are committed to human rights and will provide one less tool for the terrorists to used to radicalize. Furthermore, the treatment many of the detainees were exposed to at Guantanamo bay has radicalized them. According to the foreign policy institute, a majority of the detainees at Guantanamo bay were innocent of any crime and were eventually released back to their home countries where many of them then went to fight with Al-Quaeda and other terrorist groups because they had been radicalized by the treatment they received or witnessed others receiving at Guantanamo Bay. Closing Guantanamo bay does make America safer. I am not the only one who believes this, in the final stages of the Bush Administration former President George W. Bush discussed the need to close Guantanamo bay because of the stain it had left on America’s image, furthermore, Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson, Robert Gates, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Mel Martinez are some of the many Republican lawmakers who agree that closing the facility is safer for the American people.