In the past few weeks, China has become a major issue for U.S. politics. China has been accused by many people, most notably the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, of being a "currency manipulator," which means that they have been keeping their currency, the yuan, artificially low by "hoarding" foreign reserves. By doing this, it gives Chinese exporters an advantage over competitors. Basically, China is trying to control the exchange rate by selling its own currency while making large purchases of foreign currencies, including the U.S. dollar.
China's manipulation of the exchange rate has many negative effects on U.S. economy. First off, it distorts capital flows, which has the ability to impact labor markets and trade throughout our country and other countries around the world. In addition, it provides advantages to China. By manipulating the yuan's true value by keeping it low compared to the dollar, China's goods look much more attractive to American consumers. In addition, this makes products made in the United States much more expensive for consumers in China. All of this has allowed China's economy, which is led by its exports, to expand at quick rates.
In the past, China's currency was pegged to the U.S. dollar, which meant that the two currencies moved together. However, in 2010, Beijing loosened the link between the currencies, which has allowed the yuan to appreciate by about 10%. What is confusing about this situation is that many analysts feel that the currency should be much stronger based on how China is currently doing. In response to all of this, the United States hasn't really done much. The government had promised to not purposely weaken the dollar, but the way that they are flooding the economy with printed money is basically doing what they didn't want to do. If elected president, Mitt Romney plans to label China as a currency manipulator, which would mainly be seen as a "symbolic" gesture. This move could help create talks between the United States and China, but nothing immediate has been planned. However, various economists are worried that Romney's second part of the plan, which is to enforce tariffs and duties on China if they don't begin to float their currency, could create a trade war between the two countries, which will be devastating for the global economy.
In my opinion, I think that the U.S. government needs to take a firm stand and fight back in this critical situation. We need to show that our country does not take currency manipulators lightly and that we will do anything it takes to bring back an even playing field for both countries. Yes, it may be a huge risk if the feared trade war actually results from these actions, but I think it would be worth it if we could gain some diplomatic negotiations with China. In a time where the global economy isn't too strong, we need to be working together with other countries in order to restore prosperity throughout the world. This can't be achieved though if one country is trying to find ways to gain economic advantages, which is why it is imperative that the United States takes action and gets this whole situation settled out.
Articles Referenced
http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/21/news/economy/china-currency-manipulation/index.html?iid=HP_LN
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Chapter 10 Post - How YOU Can Be Nominated to the Supreme Court!
Being selected and confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, let alone nominated, is probably one of the biggest honors a citizen working in the judiciary branch can receive. Since it is the highest position within the judicial branch, nominees must be held to the highest of standards in order to stand a chance against the U.S. Senate's review process. There are at least six major criteria that is factored into the President's decision of whether or not a particular person is fit for the job. These criteria are:
- Competence
- Ideology or Policy Preferences
- Rewards
- Pursuit of Political Support
- Religion
- Race & Gender
Over time, these factors have shifted in importance as the Presidents who have come into office brought along with them different points of emphasis to look for when nominating someone for the Supreme Court. Over the years, these factors have evolved as our society changed to accomodate our changing values and opinions.
The first factor that is used in deciding a nominee for the Supreme Court is the person's competence. The majority of citizens that have been nominated for the Supreme Court have had some sort of experience, whether judicial, legal, or governmental. This is a factor that I find extremely important since anyone that is going to be chosen for such a prestigious position has to have some form of experience associated with them that makes them qualified for the position. I am glad that this factor has stood firm over the course of U.S. history and hasn't been changed to make it easier to be considered for this huge position. Next, a President's ideology plays a big role in determining who they will nominate for the Supreme Court. When looking for potential replacements on the Supreme Court, a president will prefer people that would want to help reach their political goals, not someone that will become an obstacle. This factor has changed over the years as the presidents that have come into power try to ensure that their agendas are being enforced. I don't really like this certain criteria since it places a lot of potential bias in a president's choice. Of course this is something that is pretty much inevitable as a person's personal choice will always have some sort of bias associated with it. The next major factor, "rewards," is another factor that I consider to be a bit unfair as presidents sometimes place personal friendships ahead of actual experience that a person may possess.
In pursuit of political support, a president may utilize a vacant Supreme Court spot in order to gain support from voters around the country. In my opinion, this shouldn't be a major factor in determining a potential Supreme Court nominee as once again, personal bias comes in to enhance a president's political agenda. The last two major factors in nomination criteria, religion, and race and gender, have been the two factors that have changed the most over the course of U.S. history. In terms of religion, the majority of Supreme Court justices have been traditional Protestant followers. However, in recent years, there have been an increase in Roman Catholic justices, a shift that not many people envisioned. This evolution is major as it signifies how our society has changed to accept a wider variety of faiths that hadn't been observed in the past. Race and gender has also been a factor that evolved over the years. In the past, there have only been a handful of women and African Americans that had served on the Court. The last few years have been a significant shift however as presidents have been appointing more diverse people for the job, such as President Obama appointing Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
Overall, as we move into the future and society continues to evolve, the major factors that influence a president's nomination will also change in order to fit with society's changing values. As of right now, I feel that quite a bit of progress has been made in order to allow a wider variety of qualified citizens to become justices, however, I think that more progress can be made to make an even greater impact. If you ever want to have a shot at becoming a Supreme Court justice, make sure you meet all of these factors and have a lot of luck!
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Foreclosures Fall to 5-Year Low
The number of foreclosures affecting the nation's housing market has been less severe than anticipated, a huge positive in our recovering economy. Foreclosure filings, which include default notices, scheduled auctions, and bank repossessions, were reported on 180,427 properties last month, which is the lowest level it has been in five years. According to a report released by RealtyTrac, this number is approximately a 7% decline from August. Daren Blomquist, the vice president of RealtyTrac, states that foreclosures are "making little noise in the housing market - at least on a national level."
Many industry experts like Blomquist believed that the market was going to be overwhelmed with repossessions ever since a $25 billion mortgage settlement was reached in April. In this case, the government stopped lenders around the country from making any loans to customers in order to place their procedures under great scrutiny after the "robo-signing scandal" came to light in September 2010. By settling this situation out, lenders are now able to proceed to do their jobs again as they now lay out clear and specific guidelines on how they could go after borrowers who had missed payments. This result created a fear for an increase in repossessions as mentioned earlier, but in reality, the process has had a much more "managed" flow which is helping to control the number of foreclosures.
Part of the reason why the number of foreclosures is steadily falling is due to the government's and banks' efforts to prevent homeowners from falling into foreclosure have taken hold. For example, the Home Affordable Modification Program, which is sponsored by the government, has helped more than a million borrowers obtain more affordable mortgages. In addition, banks have been refinancing people's loans in an added effort to keep delinquent borrowers from falling into foreclosure. Lastly, the record low mortgage rates have helped struggling borrowers stay in their homes for longer periods of time. By refinancing their mortgages to lower rates, borrowers can greatly reduce their payments and help them avoid defaulting on their loan.
Overall, the number of foreclosures are finally beginning to steadily decrease to the point where analysts can believe that the housing market has finally turned the corner and is on its way back up. I believe that the government is doing their best at handling the situation as it shows from the decrease in foreclosures and improved guidelines being created and implemented by lenders in order to avoid another major fiasco like in September 2010. By stepping in when they had to, they were able to take control of the situation and get things back in the right direction. It may have been a slow process at times, but the results are beginning to show, which can only mean brighter days are coming soon for all of us as we continue to push through the current economic state.
Overall, the number of foreclosures are finally beginning to steadily decrease to the point where analysts can believe that the housing market has finally turned the corner and is on its way back up. I believe that the government is doing their best at handling the situation as it shows from the decrease in foreclosures and improved guidelines being created and implemented by lenders in order to avoid another major fiasco like in September 2010. By stepping in when they had to, they were able to take control of the situation and get things back in the right direction. It may have been a slow process at times, but the results are beginning to show, which can only mean brighter days are coming soon for all of us as we continue to push through the current economic state.
Third Chapter 5 Post - The Establishment Clause
The first amendment is part of the Bill of Rights that imposes a number of restrictions on the federal government with respect to civil liberties, including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. The aspect of the first amendment I want to focus on in this post is the freedom of religion, and more specifically the establishment clause. Dating back to the 1700's, the Framers of the Constitution disliked a national church or religion, which was reflected in the Constitution. For example, Article IV states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or Public Trust under the United States."
The First Amendment to the Constitution begins, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." From here, the First Amendment talks about two major clauses, the establishment clause, and the free exercise clause. The establishment clause directs the national government not to sanction an official religion, while the free exercise clause guarantees citizens that the national government will not interfere with their practice of religion. These two clauses have been part of numerous controversial cases through the course of U.S. history.
The separation of church and state has always been a touchy issue for American politics. Over the years, the Supreme Court has has been split over how to interpret the establishment clause. Some people feel that the clause creates a wall between church and state while others feel that there should be some government intervention allowed for religion. For the most part, the Court has held strong to a strict separation between church and state when it comes to issues of mandatory prayer in school. For example, in Abington School Dsitrict v. Schempp, the Court ruled that state-mandated Bible reading or recitation of the Lord's Prayer in public schools was unconstitutional.
Another issue involving the freedom of religion and the establishment clause involves coming up with a method to deal with church and state questions. The lemon test, which was created due to the Lemon v. Kurtzman case, is a three-part test for laws dealing with religious establishment issues. The test states that a policy was constitutional if it had the following three aspects:
The First Amendment to the Constitution begins, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." From here, the First Amendment talks about two major clauses, the establishment clause, and the free exercise clause. The establishment clause directs the national government not to sanction an official religion, while the free exercise clause guarantees citizens that the national government will not interfere with their practice of religion. These two clauses have been part of numerous controversial cases through the course of U.S. history.
The separation of church and state has always been a touchy issue for American politics. Over the years, the Supreme Court has has been split over how to interpret the establishment clause. Some people feel that the clause creates a wall between church and state while others feel that there should be some government intervention allowed for religion. For the most part, the Court has held strong to a strict separation between church and state when it comes to issues of mandatory prayer in school. For example, in Abington School Dsitrict v. Schempp, the Court ruled that state-mandated Bible reading or recitation of the Lord's Prayer in public schools was unconstitutional.
Another issue involving the freedom of religion and the establishment clause involves coming up with a method to deal with church and state questions. The lemon test, which was created due to the Lemon v. Kurtzman case, is a three-part test for laws dealing with religious establishment issues. The test states that a policy was constitutional if it had the following three aspects:
- It had a legitimate secular purpose.
- It neither advanced nor inhibited religion.
- It did not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.
However, the Supreme Court has often avoided the Lemon test altogether as long as school prayer wasn't involved. Overall, as time went on, the Supreme Court has gotten a bit more lenient when it comes to lowering the wall separating church and state. In my opinion, I feel that the establishment clause and all the resulting court cases and rulings that have come from this issue have been pretty good for this country. Sure, there have been conflicts and disagreements that have risen throughout, but without these conflicts, the United States as a whole wouldn't have been able to push through them and grow as a nation in order to provide as much freedom as possible for the citizens guaranteed in the Constitution.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Entrepreneurship is "Weak," Who's to Blame?
Over the past six years, we have seen the number of startup businesses decline considerably due to a variety of reasons. Even though there have been some improving job numbers in recent months, the disturbing trend is that are fewer new businesses appearing, and the businesses that currently do exist aren't hiring as many workers as they used to hire. Researchers consider this situation a huge threat to the workforce since a variety of studies have indicated that America's true job creators are these startup businesses.
In the past, new companies have generated approximately 3 million new jobs for the citizens of the United States. This number has dropped to 2.5 million during the past recession and new government figures forecast that it's only getting worse. Using statistics from the Labor Department, Tim Kane, an economist at the Hudson Institute, researched how many jobs were created per 1,000 people by these startup businesses. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the number held solid at 11 (per 1,000 people), but that number has steadily declined to below 8 in 2010 and 2011 as evidenced in the chart.
There are a variety of reasons for this decline. One major reason is that the local governments have been growing into a major obstacle for entrepreneurs. Local boards, various city officials, and even state governments, have increased the amount regulations for entrepreneurs and demanded that they get licenses in order to operate. According to Brink Lindsey, a scholar from the Kauffman Foundation, the burdens of the government on these entrepreneurs are destroying their opportunities. In addition, new companies that do not need employees in the office find it cheaper to hire freelancers in developing countries around the world than hire workers in America. This process requires less paperwork and less taxes overall for business owners.
In my opinion, the government needs to reduce the amount of regulations they have on rising entrepreneurs. By doing this, entrepreneurs can start to create businesses again with ease and begin to hire more American workers. In addition, the government should do something to either discourage hiring freelance workers or encourage hiring domestic workers. If local governments can provide some sort of incentive to entrepreneurs to influence them to hire American workers, the number of jobs created can also rise a bit over time. Doing all of this may be somewhat of a risk as it could take a while for the ease in regulations and implementation of incentives to make their mark, but I feel that if governments do this, it can help the economy grow and allow more people to get back to work. The way things are going now though, something needs to be done in order to shift these discouraging numbers into the right direction. If nothing is done, all I can see happening is more entrepreneurs struggling to start up businesses, which will overall lead to an even greater decrease in jobs created, something our economy can not afford.
Second Chapter 5 Post
Two of the guarantees outlined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution are the freedom of speech and the freedom of press. Over the course of U.S. history, the Supreme Court has provided constitutional protection to a variety of aspects of speech and the press. Today's post will talk about certain aspects protected by the Supreme Court as well as aspects not protected.
One aspect protected by the Supreme Court is the extent of prior restraint. Prior restraint is a constitutional doctrine that prevents the government from prohibiting speech or publication before the fact. In the past, Congress would try and limit speech, such as with the Alien and Sedition Acts, but the Supreme Court didn't take a solid position on the overall issue until the 1970s. The major case that established this protection was the New York Times Co. v. U.S. case in 1971. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. government was not allowed to block the publication of secret Department of Defense documents illegally furnished to the Times by anti-war activists. By ruling this way, the Supreme Court is showing that they want to minimize government intervention when it comes to citizens' choices to publish various materials.
The U.S. Supreme Court also provides protection against symbolic speech, even if the material they are protecting is very controversial. Symbolic speech refers to any symbols, signs, or other methods of expression used to get a person's point across to their audience. Protection against symbolic speech began in 1931 with the Supreme Court case of Stromberg v. California. In this case, the Court overturned a communist youth camp director's conviction under a state statute prohibiting the display of a red flag, which is a symbol of opposition to the U.S. government. Symbolic speech can be an extremely effective method of expression, but at the same time, it can be a very offensive form of expression. For example, a person can burn the American flag to protest against the government, but that action can cause a huge uproar. I think there needs to be a line drawn to separate symbolic speech that is effective and not too offensive from speech that causes anger and hostility among the citizens.
In terms of unprotected speech and press, the most common form of speech that is unprotected is libel and slander. Libel is a written statement that defames a person's character, while slander is the spoken form of the statement. These statements are unprotected since these types of expressions have no essential part of any exposition of ideals. While protected forms of speech are protected since they don't necessarily target a single person's or group's character or ideals, unprotected forms of speech such as libel and slander are not protected because they are intended to disrupt the peace of the community. Another form of unprotected speech that falls into this category are fighting words. These are words that inflict injury or create an immediate breach of peace at the moment they are spoken. I obviously won't go into listing examples of fighting words since they are inappropriate, but these words definitely tend to incite some conflict within a community. I honestly think it is the right choice for the Supreme Court to not protect these specific forms of expression because the only outcome from these forms of expression is negative.
Overall, we as Americans have a variety of ways to express our opinions freely without government intervention. It is when we cross the line and begin to disrupt the peace that the U.S. government has to intervene and keep control. This whole situation is a touchy subject since there are so many varying opinions on how much freedom should be allowed, but overall, I feel that right now is sufficient enough to keep the majority of citizens content.
One aspect protected by the Supreme Court is the extent of prior restraint. Prior restraint is a constitutional doctrine that prevents the government from prohibiting speech or publication before the fact. In the past, Congress would try and limit speech, such as with the Alien and Sedition Acts, but the Supreme Court didn't take a solid position on the overall issue until the 1970s. The major case that established this protection was the New York Times Co. v. U.S. case in 1971. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. government was not allowed to block the publication of secret Department of Defense documents illegally furnished to the Times by anti-war activists. By ruling this way, the Supreme Court is showing that they want to minimize government intervention when it comes to citizens' choices to publish various materials.
The U.S. Supreme Court also provides protection against symbolic speech, even if the material they are protecting is very controversial. Symbolic speech refers to any symbols, signs, or other methods of expression used to get a person's point across to their audience. Protection against symbolic speech began in 1931 with the Supreme Court case of Stromberg v. California. In this case, the Court overturned a communist youth camp director's conviction under a state statute prohibiting the display of a red flag, which is a symbol of opposition to the U.S. government. Symbolic speech can be an extremely effective method of expression, but at the same time, it can be a very offensive form of expression. For example, a person can burn the American flag to protest against the government, but that action can cause a huge uproar. I think there needs to be a line drawn to separate symbolic speech that is effective and not too offensive from speech that causes anger and hostility among the citizens.
In terms of unprotected speech and press, the most common form of speech that is unprotected is libel and slander. Libel is a written statement that defames a person's character, while slander is the spoken form of the statement. These statements are unprotected since these types of expressions have no essential part of any exposition of ideals. While protected forms of speech are protected since they don't necessarily target a single person's or group's character or ideals, unprotected forms of speech such as libel and slander are not protected because they are intended to disrupt the peace of the community. Another form of unprotected speech that falls into this category are fighting words. These are words that inflict injury or create an immediate breach of peace at the moment they are spoken. I obviously won't go into listing examples of fighting words since they are inappropriate, but these words definitely tend to incite some conflict within a community. I honestly think it is the right choice for the Supreme Court to not protect these specific forms of expression because the only outcome from these forms of expression is negative.
Overall, we as Americans have a variety of ways to express our opinions freely without government intervention. It is when we cross the line and begin to disrupt the peace that the U.S. government has to intervene and keep control. This whole situation is a touchy subject since there are so many varying opinions on how much freedom should be allowed, but overall, I feel that right now is sufficient enough to keep the majority of citizens content.