Since the first television was invented, the media has played a significant role in shaping public opinion. We live in a society that depends on information and communication to keep moving in the right direction and do our daily activities. And with the advent of technology and social media, the media now plays a more integral role in shaping the public’s thoughts than ever before. One of the reasons that we so willingly accept the media is because it has become such a part of our daily lives. News outlets have access to billions of people, making it easy to access billions of people and get their messages out to the masses.
According to our textbook, Americans spend an average of thirteen hours a week on the Internet. TV also plays an important role in how people view politics and government. MTV started covering presidential campaigns as early as 1992 with campaigns to get young people out to vote including “Choose or Lose” and “Rock The Vote.”
In the most recent election, the media played a tremendous role in influencing voters. Many people even referred to the election as a “Social Media Election,” with the endless amount of campaigning done on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. According to an article written by Katy Bachman in AdWeek, nearly a third of registered voters (30 percent) had been encouraged on social networks by their friends or family members to vote one way or another. Among registered voters, 22 percent let others know for whom they planned to vote on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter; and 20 percent of people have encouraged others to vote for their candidate using social media platforms. Some even think that social media helped President Obama get reelected. A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that 79% of liberals use social sites, compared to only 63% of conservatives.
Though I do think that the media helps get important information out to the public, the media can also do harm. In the past news reports were highly limited to presenting the different facts and information surrounding a specific event. It was considered to be irresponsible for reports and news anchors to incorporate their own thoughts and ideas regarding a certain situation.
However, nowadays there are more and more anchors and news presenters already give in their own opinions and interjections, which can also strongly influence how one perceives a specific news item. Many news sources also lean either left or right, so someone’s perception of an event or candidate can be biased or skewed a certain way, depending on what news station they are watching. For example, someone watching FOX News could get a more Republican slant on their news while those watching MSBNC will get a more Democratic opinion.
However, mass media can also have a positive effect on people. It can bring feelings of pride and patriotism, especially during national catastrophes such as the recent Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy. Regardless, the media ultimately has a very large impact on how people get the message about a specific news item.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
The NRA Lays Out Groundwork Against New Gun Laws
A barrage of calls to change gun laws has emerged after last week's horrific tragedy in Connecticut, and the National Rifle Association has kept quiet. However, no one expects the NRA to keep its silence once President Obama or members of Congress take any action to change the laws. For years, the well-known gun rights advocate and lobbying group has laid the ground work to fend off any move to change the national gun policy, spending millions of dollars to destroy laws that would make it tougher to purchase or wield guns.
Calling on celebrities such as Chuck Norris and the late Charlton Heston as spokesmen, the National Rifle Association is considered to be "royalty" in Washington, and is known to easily be able to bring together its 4 million members. "The whole fire arms community is very powerful, because gun owners see their relationship to this democracy through the eyes of the gun issue," said Richard Feldman, a former NRA lobbyist and president of a gun rights group called the Independent Firearm Owners Association.
This year, the NRA spent approximately $17 million on federal elections. According to statistics, it's a pretty large amount when compared to the overall size of the industry. Based on estimates from Wedbush Securities analyst Rommel Dionisio, annual gun sales in the U.S. total about $3.5 billion.
Compared to that, Goldman Sachs corporate political action committee and employees spent a total of $7.5 million on candidates running in the recent November election. The investment bank raked in about $29 billion last year. "But Goldman Sachs doesn't have 4 million members who are very passionate, vocal and well-distributed from coast to coast," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director for the Center for Responsive Politics, a group that tracks political spending of various groups and organizations. "Certainly money is part of that, but the NRA is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, because they can draw on such a huge base."
The NRA didn't do so well in the latest election as only a handful of the candidates it supported won, according to the Center. However, experts say the NRA is in strong shape to defend against any move to limit assault rifles like the one used in last week's school shooting. The NRA has showed off its powers well in the past. It successfully managed to push through new laws lightening gun bans in national parks and Amtrak trains in 2009, a year when Democrats pledging stronger gun control laws controlled both Congress and the White House. Overall, so far this year, the NRA and other groups that lobby Congress and the White House on gun rights have spent almost to $4 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Personally, I think there should be stricter gun laws so incidents can hopefully be reduced in the long run. While I don't support their views, I do admire the effort and teamwork the NRA puts together to defend their views. It is this persistence that more companies and organizations should have when it comes to doing anything they can in order to support and defend their opinions and views. Overall, based on last week's tragic events, I feel that something needs to be done in order to curb violence and the potential for future incidents like the one in Connecticut.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Second Chapter 9 Post
A unique feature of the executive bureaucracy is its division into areas of specialization. Agencies usually fall into one of the four general types:
- Government Corporations
- Independent Executive Agencies
- Cabinet Departments
- Independent Regulatory Commissions
Government Corporations are businesses created by Congress to perform functions that could be provided by a private business. Developed in the early 1930’s, government corporations are the newest aspect of the bureaucracy. They are often created when the financial incentives for a private industry to provide services are not high. For Example, The Tennessee Valley Authority provides electricity to millions of Americans in the Appalachian region at reduced rates.
Independent Executive Agencies are governmental groups that resemble a cabinet department, but have narrower areas of responsibility. These agencies usually perform services rather than regulatory functions. The heads of these agencies for the most part are appointed by the President. Independent executive agencies exist apart from executive departments for a variety of reasons. Some examples of independent executive agencies include NASA and the EPA. The EPA could have been created within the Department of the Interior, but instead was created as an independent agency apart from the departments in order to administer programs aimed solely at controlling pollution and protecting the nation’s environment.
The fifteen major Cabinet departments are basically administrative units that have the responsibility of conducting wide reaching areas of government operations. About 60% of the federal workforce works within the Cabinet departments. Departments within the executive branch are headed by Cabinet members called secretaries. They are tasked with establishing their department’s general policy and overseeing the operations of department.
Each secretary has a deputy who helps by taking part of the administrative responsibility off the secretary’s hands. Several assistant secretaries lead major programs within the department as well. In addition, each secretary has a number of assistants who help with a variety of jobs within the department, such as budgeting, planning, and public relations. Most departments are subdivided into divisions, bureaus, or sections. It is at this level that the meat of the work of each agency is accomplished. Most of the time, departments are subdivided along functional lines, but the basis for division is usually by geography, work needed to be done, or clientele.
Independent Regulatory Commissions are agencies created by Congress to exist outside the major departments in order to regulate a specific economic activity or interest. Congress sought to create commissions that could develop expertise and provide continuity of policy with regards to economic issues because neither Congress nor the courts have the time or specific qualifications necessary to do so.
Overall, the executive bureaucracy is able to function pretty well thanks to being divided into areas of specialization. Without these different types of specialization, things within the bureaucracy would be very unorganized and nothing would ever get accomplished.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Made in the U.S.A?
This past week, Apple announced that it will move some of its production back to the United States. Apple is hoping that their move will encourage other companies to follow suit, the manufacturing industry said, even if their move is mostly a symbolic step. "Anything that Apple does, from design to manufacturing, is hugely influential," said Chris Anderson, a former editor of Wired magazine and now CEO of San Diego-based 3D Robotics. "Other companies could look at this and say, "If Apple can do it, so can I.' "
Apple CEO Tim Cook said in recent interviews confirmed by a variety of sources that his company, which currently does most of its production in China, would invest approximately $100 million to bring some of its Mac manufacturing back to the U.S. starting next year. What I realized though is that Apple's move isn't surprising. According to recent studies, Apple's move follows a continuing pattern of American companies bringing manufacturing back to the country due to rising labor, supply and production costs in China. "China isn't cheap anymore. And you also worry about the political risks and the environmental cost of doing business there," said Anderson, whose firm creates consumer drone technology. Anderson actually moved his company's production out of China two years ago, setting up manufacturing facilities in San Diego and Tijuana. In the same interview, Anderson said that making his products closer to his customers has actually turned out to be cheaper. Instead of manufacturing in bulk as he did in China, he ramps up production as orders come in. He also saves on shipping and other distribution costs.
Mitch Free, founder and CEO of an Atlanta-based website MFG.com, which is an online directory that helps companies find American manufacturers, agreed that making goods in the U.S. offers some distinct advantages. "Your production time is shorter and you carry less inventory," said Free. "By being closer to headquarters, you can speed up design and innovation and protect your intellectual property," he said. In addition, Free considers that it can also breed goodwill and positive PR. "Supporting Made in America makes you a good corporate citizen," Free said. "Apple is such an innovator and you hope that other companies will follow its lead."
However, Apple's move may not generate many more new factory jobs, though, since technology manufacturing today is so automated. "It's not like you need workers sitting on workbenches to assemble computers," Free said. In addition, according to Free, since so much of the country's manufacturing base has eroded over the years, finding American workers with the skills to immediately start on the factory floor can be a challenge. According to research conducted, the easiest way for Apple to jumpstart production in the United States would be to make a contract with its existing Chinese manufacturer Foxconn Technology Group and build another facility to assemble Macs. This approach would be similar to what Japanese automakers have done in the past when they've come to the U.S., bringing in Japanese management and high-skilled Japanese workers to train American workers.
Personally, I think this move by Apple is a fantastic one. Sure, it may not make a major difference overall, but the symbolic meaning behind it speaks volumes. In order to help our country get back on track, more companies need to follow in Apple's footsteps and bring jobs back to the country. If more companies take this action, we would be able to provide a few more jobs here and there to the millions of unemployed people throughout our country. Every little thing helps, and by doing this, companies can be making a huge difference.
Article
Chapter 9 Post
Bureaucracies have helped shape our government since the days of the Constitution. The federal bureaucracy is the thousands of federal government agencies and institutions that implement and administer federal laws and programs. Bureaucracies were originally created in order to have rule among agencies. The term “bureaucracy” is one that we use almost every day, because we are faced with it so often. The aim of the bureaucrat is to apply uniform rules to uniform cases, to work by a recognized code.
There are many types of bureaucracies. Bureaucracies exist for virtually anything, including the US Postal Service, The Environmental Protection Agency and the DMV. Though there have been and still are plenty of ineffective bureaucracies, there have also been some very effective ones. Among the most successful bureaucracies include The Manhattan Project and the urban planners of postwar Germany and the Victorian public health commissions as well as the public works.
The benefits of bureaucracy make it attractive to many. Increased efficiency can lead to better medical care, better traffic control, a better economy, and all sorts of benefits which make life run smoothly. Bureaucrats can stand out against the partisan influence of connections and kinship and the corruptions of threat and bribery. Bureaucracy is a powerful bulwark against revolution, subversion and over-enthusiasm. It can protect scarce resources, allocate wealth more fairly and protect the weak from the strong. Bureaucratic regulations and rules help ensure that things are running smoothly. For example, it ensures that the FDA takes appropriate precautions to safeguard the health of Americans while it is approving a new medication.
The bureaucracy disapproves of all rule breaking, and tries to prevent all forms of corruption. It thrives on rule making and attempts to make provision for every kind of situation, tries to prevent individuals in the group from exercising too much personal power. However, there are also drawbacks to the bureaucracy which make it unfavorable to many. As the rules multiply, it becomes so difficult to do anything that one has to cheat or break the rules in order to survive. Indeed, since the rules often conflict with each other and whatever one does breaks some rule so it is a question of choosing between illegalities. Bureaucracies ultimately present a breeding ground for dysfunction. Loss of focus on goals can lead to competitiveness and distrust among departments, refusal to respond to changes and crises, wastefulness and lack of effective coordination. Another one of the major complaints of bureaucracies is the amount of paperwork associated with it. Just think about all the paperwork you have to fill out when you go to the DMV or filling out an application for a government student loan. Though there are some efficient bureaucracy examples, many governments and organizations still have a lot of work to do in order to achieve better results.
There are many types of bureaucracies. Bureaucracies exist for virtually anything, including the US Postal Service, The Environmental Protection Agency and the DMV. Though there have been and still are plenty of ineffective bureaucracies, there have also been some very effective ones. Among the most successful bureaucracies include The Manhattan Project and the urban planners of postwar Germany and the Victorian public health commissions as well as the public works.
The benefits of bureaucracy make it attractive to many. Increased efficiency can lead to better medical care, better traffic control, a better economy, and all sorts of benefits which make life run smoothly. Bureaucrats can stand out against the partisan influence of connections and kinship and the corruptions of threat and bribery. Bureaucracy is a powerful bulwark against revolution, subversion and over-enthusiasm. It can protect scarce resources, allocate wealth more fairly and protect the weak from the strong. Bureaucratic regulations and rules help ensure that things are running smoothly. For example, it ensures that the FDA takes appropriate precautions to safeguard the health of Americans while it is approving a new medication.
The bureaucracy disapproves of all rule breaking, and tries to prevent all forms of corruption. It thrives on rule making and attempts to make provision for every kind of situation, tries to prevent individuals in the group from exercising too much personal power. However, there are also drawbacks to the bureaucracy which make it unfavorable to many. As the rules multiply, it becomes so difficult to do anything that one has to cheat or break the rules in order to survive. Indeed, since the rules often conflict with each other and whatever one does breaks some rule so it is a question of choosing between illegalities. Bureaucracies ultimately present a breeding ground for dysfunction. Loss of focus on goals can lead to competitiveness and distrust among departments, refusal to respond to changes and crises, wastefulness and lack of effective coordination. Another one of the major complaints of bureaucracies is the amount of paperwork associated with it. Just think about all the paperwork you have to fill out when you go to the DMV or filling out an application for a government student loan. Though there are some efficient bureaucracy examples, many governments and organizations still have a lot of work to do in order to achieve better results.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Do Not Track?
The encouraging promise of a single button that prevents ads from tracking your online behavior is fading away quickly. More than nine months after the Obama administration, digital advertisers, browser makers and privacy advocates agreed in principle to create a "Do Not Track" mechanism for Web browsers, the tool is no closer to becoming a reality than it was back in February. In actuality, the entire plan is on life support as support slowly disappears.
According to various sources, the groups have been sitting around a table every Wednesday trying to reach a consensus on how a Do Not Track button would be implemented. After months of negotiating, the groups still can't even come to an agreement on what "tracking" means and includes. The advertising industry wants to hang on to the current business model of targeted advertising, which is where ads are generated to users based on their browsing activity. Lawmakers and policy advocates believe that people should easily be able to opt out of that. Sadly though, the one thing all sides agree on is that they are hopelessly deadlocked. Privacy advocates accuse the advertising industry of unfairly stalling the process over the last few months. "The advertisers have been extraordinarily obstructionist, raising the same issues over and over again, forcing new issues that were not on the agenda, adding new issues that have been closed, and launching personal attacks," said Jonathan Mayer, a privacy researcher from Stanford and Do Not Track technology developer who is heavily involved in the negotiations.
"We have made, maybe, inches of progress," he said. "This continues to be a stalemate." From the other point of view, the industry claims that privacy supporters are trying to impose overly restrictive changes that could seriously hinder the digital advertising business. "We have a real concern about using a sledgehammer for a flyswatter problem," said Marc Groman, executive director of the National Advertising Initiative, a group of online advertisers. "Do Not Track will have a disproportionate effect on our stakeholders."
The World Wide Web Consortium, more commonly known as the W3C, is moderating this seemingly endless debate. In an effort to blast through the impasse, the W3C hired Peter Swire this week, an Ohio State University law professor and a former privacy official for the Obama and Clinton administrations, as the working group's new chair. W3C's hope is that Swire can quickly build consensus. As of right now, most major browsers include a Do Not Track button, but without any agreement on how Do Not Track should work, the button is pointless.
An initial plan to have Do Not Track up and running by end of the year is looking to be very unlikely at this point. Part of the problem is the large number of stakeholders with competing interests in the situation. For instance, smaller advertisers argue that Do Not Track favors large players like Google and Yahoo, both of which has a vast content network of its own. Even with Do Not Track turned on, those giants will still be able to track users' behavior on their own sites, just not across the rest of the Web. Another problem that came up was when Microsoft opted to turn Do Not Track on by default in its latest version of Internet Explorer. That threw negotiations into more of a whirlwind.
Thankfully, the W3C is determined to break the deadlock, and they believe that they have a solution, even though it may somewhat be a negative idea. In the agenda for its latest face-to-face meeting, the group admitted that "many issues cannot be resolved in a way that does not raise any objections." So, the W3C plans to start pushing all parties forward on the path of least resistance.
"We always seek consensus, but when we can't, we get votes and make decisions," Jacobs said. "Saying 'I don't like this' is not going to be considered a strong objection. We're not going to be held hostage when a group can't make progress."
This situation is definitely one that shows the lack of compromise in today's society. The ordeal over the Do Not Track button can easily be related to Congress today in their inability to toss party lines aside and come together to come to a bipartisan agreement when it comes to some major bills and laws that need to be dealt with. I hope this situation can be ironed out soon because a lot of people are quickly losing hope, and if it isn't figured out soon, it really will run the risk of just disappearing out of people's minds.
Articles
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/technology/mediator-appointed-in-do-not-track-efforts.html?_r=0
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/30/technology/do-not-track/index.html
According to various sources, the groups have been sitting around a table every Wednesday trying to reach a consensus on how a Do Not Track button would be implemented. After months of negotiating, the groups still can't even come to an agreement on what "tracking" means and includes. The advertising industry wants to hang on to the current business model of targeted advertising, which is where ads are generated to users based on their browsing activity. Lawmakers and policy advocates believe that people should easily be able to opt out of that. Sadly though, the one thing all sides agree on is that they are hopelessly deadlocked. Privacy advocates accuse the advertising industry of unfairly stalling the process over the last few months. "The advertisers have been extraordinarily obstructionist, raising the same issues over and over again, forcing new issues that were not on the agenda, adding new issues that have been closed, and launching personal attacks," said Jonathan Mayer, a privacy researcher from Stanford and Do Not Track technology developer who is heavily involved in the negotiations.
"We have made, maybe, inches of progress," he said. "This continues to be a stalemate." From the other point of view, the industry claims that privacy supporters are trying to impose overly restrictive changes that could seriously hinder the digital advertising business. "We have a real concern about using a sledgehammer for a flyswatter problem," said Marc Groman, executive director of the National Advertising Initiative, a group of online advertisers. "Do Not Track will have a disproportionate effect on our stakeholders."
The World Wide Web Consortium, more commonly known as the W3C, is moderating this seemingly endless debate. In an effort to blast through the impasse, the W3C hired Peter Swire this week, an Ohio State University law professor and a former privacy official for the Obama and Clinton administrations, as the working group's new chair. W3C's hope is that Swire can quickly build consensus. As of right now, most major browsers include a Do Not Track button, but without any agreement on how Do Not Track should work, the button is pointless.
An initial plan to have Do Not Track up and running by end of the year is looking to be very unlikely at this point. Part of the problem is the large number of stakeholders with competing interests in the situation. For instance, smaller advertisers argue that Do Not Track favors large players like Google and Yahoo, both of which has a vast content network of its own. Even with Do Not Track turned on, those giants will still be able to track users' behavior on their own sites, just not across the rest of the Web. Another problem that came up was when Microsoft opted to turn Do Not Track on by default in its latest version of Internet Explorer. That threw negotiations into more of a whirlwind.
Thankfully, the W3C is determined to break the deadlock, and they believe that they have a solution, even though it may somewhat be a negative idea. In the agenda for its latest face-to-face meeting, the group admitted that "many issues cannot be resolved in a way that does not raise any objections." So, the W3C plans to start pushing all parties forward on the path of least resistance.
"We always seek consensus, but when we can't, we get votes and make decisions," Jacobs said. "Saying 'I don't like this' is not going to be considered a strong objection. We're not going to be held hostage when a group can't make progress."
This situation is definitely one that shows the lack of compromise in today's society. The ordeal over the Do Not Track button can easily be related to Congress today in their inability to toss party lines aside and come together to come to a bipartisan agreement when it comes to some major bills and laws that need to be dealt with. I hope this situation can be ironed out soon because a lot of people are quickly losing hope, and if it isn't figured out soon, it really will run the risk of just disappearing out of people's minds.
Articles
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/technology/mediator-appointed-in-do-not-track-efforts.html?_r=0
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/30/technology/do-not-track/index.html
3rd Chapter 7 Post
Many critics believe that Congress has become broken and has been taken over by partisanship and extremists. The increase in partisanship has ultimately led to greater inefficiency and lower approval ratings in Congress. Though the current divide is between Democrats and Republicans, there is also a divide that exists between those states (and even cities) with very large populations and the rest of the country. This results in a disproportionate amount of power that exists when a handful of states hold more power over the rest. Though this divide is not discussed often, it is one that certainly exists in our Congress.
When our country was founded, there were only small differences between the states, in terms of their overall population. In 1790, when the first census of Americans was taken, the top five most populous states were, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York and North Carolina. During the Constitutional Convention, the partisan divide that existed was between the federalists and the anti-federalists. The Federalists wanted greater power at the federal level, while the anti-Federalists championed a system of government where more power was shared with the states. The results of the compromise between these two opposing views resulted in the 10th amendment to the US constitution,the final amendment listed in the original Bill of Rights. While this system worked well when the differences in population were small, at the time of the drafting of the U.S. Constitution over time, migrations of the U.S. population have significantly changed where power resides in Congress. Currently, the five most populous states are California, Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois. Not surprisingly, these states hold big, metropolitan cities in them.
This disparity in population has led to a great disparity in the way that Congress distributes money to the states, and to which states have the biggest impact during presidential elections. Today, the representatives of the five most populous states control the legislative agenda, and because these five states vote primarily for the Democratic party. This has led to the creation of what some people believe to be an unfair advantage in the distribution of taxes and votes in the Electoral College.
Many argue that this system is unfair and unjust. Citizens of small states want their states to have an equal say in the legislative process and want their voices to be heard in Washington. Perhaps a solution may be to have equal representation in the House, however, to get this passed would take a lot of time and energy and would probably not please those living in the “bigger” states.
Living in Florida, which is included as one of the most populous states, it is difficult for me to really visualize what the other states are feeling about this. However, I can imagine that smaller states feel that they are at an unfair disadvantage when it comes to various topics. In theory, our government should be a government that serves all people of the United States, not just the people who live in the most populous states.
When our country was founded, there were only small differences between the states, in terms of their overall population. In 1790, when the first census of Americans was taken, the top five most populous states were, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York and North Carolina. During the Constitutional Convention, the partisan divide that existed was between the federalists and the anti-federalists. The Federalists wanted greater power at the federal level, while the anti-Federalists championed a system of government where more power was shared with the states. The results of the compromise between these two opposing views resulted in the 10th amendment to the US constitution,the final amendment listed in the original Bill of Rights. While this system worked well when the differences in population were small, at the time of the drafting of the U.S. Constitution over time, migrations of the U.S. population have significantly changed where power resides in Congress. Currently, the five most populous states are California, Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois. Not surprisingly, these states hold big, metropolitan cities in them.
This disparity in population has led to a great disparity in the way that Congress distributes money to the states, and to which states have the biggest impact during presidential elections. Today, the representatives of the five most populous states control the legislative agenda, and because these five states vote primarily for the Democratic party. This has led to the creation of what some people believe to be an unfair advantage in the distribution of taxes and votes in the Electoral College.
Many argue that this system is unfair and unjust. Citizens of small states want their states to have an equal say in the legislative process and want their voices to be heard in Washington. Perhaps a solution may be to have equal representation in the House, however, to get this passed would take a lot of time and energy and would probably not please those living in the “bigger” states.
Living in Florida, which is included as one of the most populous states, it is difficult for me to really visualize what the other states are feeling about this. However, I can imagine that smaller states feel that they are at an unfair disadvantage when it comes to various topics. In theory, our government should be a government that serves all people of the United States, not just the people who live in the most populous states.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Significance of Black Friday Records
This past weekend, customers all throughout the country spent their time rushing to the mall and getting their hands on whatever sales were in place for the biggest shopping weekend of the year. Beginning with early store openings on Thanksgiving day, shoppers scooped up "doorbuster" deals left and right. According to a survey conducted by the National Retail Federation, approximately 139.4 million adults visited stores websites over the 4-day weekend.
According to the NRF, individual shoppers tossed out more money; spending about $423 each this weekend, significantly up from $398 last year. Total spending over the four-day weekend reached a record $59.1 billion, a 13% increase from $52.4 billion last year, according to the National Retail Federation. The same survey found that customers really liked how retailers pushed to open stores earlier. Stores like Wal-Mart, Toys R Us, Sears, and Target, that allowed customers into their stores just as Thanksgiving meals wrapped up, saw a substantial boost. About 10% of this weekend's shoppers were out at stores by 8 p.m. on Thursday and an estimated 28% of weekend shoppers were at the stores by midnight, compared to only 24.4% last year.
"The only way to describe the Thanksgiving openings is to call them a huge win," said National Retail Federation President and CEO Matthew Shay. "Thanksgiving shopping has really becoming an extension of the day's activities. Whole families are going." In a separate survey, ShopperTrak determined that the number of people shopping in stores climbed about 3.5% from last year to more than 307.67 million. ShopperTrak's founder, Bill Martin, said that traffic has not been this high since 2006. He also said that the return to pre-recession levels indicates a real recovery in consumer behavior. "We've seen that consumers are willing to shop a few extra stores," Martin said. "This could translate into more impulse buying and stronger sales."
However, not everyone wanted to wait in line during the Thanksgiving weekend. According to statistics, online sales soared more than 17% on the Thursday of Thanksgiving, followed by a nearly 21% increase on Friday over last year, according to IBM Benchmark. Sales made from mobile devices climbed by 16%, with more than 24% of consumers using mobile devices to visit a retailer's website.
The National Retail Federation had predicted that looming fears over the nearby "fiscal cliff" and the struggling jobs market could weigh on holiday spending. That's why they estimated that holiday sales will rise by 4.1%, which is slower than the 5.6% increase last year.
Matthew Shay says that between 65% and 80% of shoppers factor the overall economic condition of the country into holiday spending decisions. Its survey found that about two thirds of shoppers will pay with cash or debit, highlighting people's aversion to taking on too much debt in a still slow-recovering economy. However, retailers are hopeful that these strong Black Friday figures set a tone for a solid season of spending ahead. The Thanksgiving shopping tradition kicks off the holiday season sales blitz, wherein stores can make up to 40% of their annual sales in the November-December period.
"A single day doesn't make up a holiday season, but if you don't start off well on that day, you have trouble catching up," Martin said.
Overall, what is significant about all of these statistics is that they are additional signs that consumers all throughout the United States are slowly gathering confidence in the economy once again. If this trend continues through the rest of the holiday season and even into the months following it, our country could be well on its way towards regaining the economic strength we all really miss before 2008 took place.
Source
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/25/pf/black-friday-sales/index.html
2nd Chapter 7 Post
According to a recent Gallup survey, Congress’s approval rating is currently at an all time low of 18%. Every year this poll is conducting, asking citizens whether or not they approve of the way Congress is handling its job. And every year, the results are the same: for some reason people simply just don’t like Congress. In 2005, Congressional approval regularly hovered around 40 percent however since then it has plummeted. This year, stockbrokers, funeral directors and lawyers all scored higher in their approval ratings. Even journalists and telemarketers, which are known to be criticized by the public time and time again, have higher approval ratings than Congress. So ultimately the question that must be raised is: why is Congress’s approval rating so extremely low?
“Part of it is just the character of the news about Congress,” said John Pitney a political scientist and professor at Claremont College in Claremont, California. “If a member of Congress is totally upstanding and a good family person and is scrupulous about finances, that doesn’t make news.”The thing that I find most striking is that everyone seems to love their own congressmen. District representatives continually get high ratings, while Congress as a whole seems to ultimately plunge.Some argue that Congress has shown little ability to get things done and when they have done something, it has proven to be very unpopular. Former Representative Tom Davis stated “Congress has produced nothing but bad outcomes. Two failed wars, stagnant wages [and] economic meltdown.”
This does actually have some validity to it. If you take a long over the last several years of Congressional action, there have been many failed attempts at things such as overhauling Social Security, the Mark Foley page scandal, the healthcare slog and the budget showdown just to name a few. What also makes things even worse is the prevelance of our media that did not exist decades ago. The existence of 24-hour cable news, Facebook and Twitter means that minor problems get major league attention. A few years ago, such issues may have held a small newspaper article, but nowadays you can hear about it right when you turn on your television or the computer.
Furthermore, the period of heightened economic anxiety has facilitated this low approval rating. Many have resorted to pessimism, as they are frustrated with America’s position on the world stage. Jobless rates also peaked in the last several years, which would inevitably cause the American people to be skeptical. According to former Texas Representative Chet Edwards, people are more forgiving of Congress when they have a job and those that have jobs feel secure in them.
Overall, it is a combination of Congress’s lack of meaningful accomplishments, combined with the country’s negative bent that has driven down the approval number of the House and the Senate.
“Part of it is just the character of the news about Congress,” said John Pitney a political scientist and professor at Claremont College in Claremont, California. “If a member of Congress is totally upstanding and a good family person and is scrupulous about finances, that doesn’t make news.”The thing that I find most striking is that everyone seems to love their own congressmen. District representatives continually get high ratings, while Congress as a whole seems to ultimately plunge.Some argue that Congress has shown little ability to get things done and when they have done something, it has proven to be very unpopular. Former Representative Tom Davis stated “Congress has produced nothing but bad outcomes. Two failed wars, stagnant wages [and] economic meltdown.”
This does actually have some validity to it. If you take a long over the last several years of Congressional action, there have been many failed attempts at things such as overhauling Social Security, the Mark Foley page scandal, the healthcare slog and the budget showdown just to name a few. What also makes things even worse is the prevelance of our media that did not exist decades ago. The existence of 24-hour cable news, Facebook and Twitter means that minor problems get major league attention. A few years ago, such issues may have held a small newspaper article, but nowadays you can hear about it right when you turn on your television or the computer.
Furthermore, the period of heightened economic anxiety has facilitated this low approval rating. Many have resorted to pessimism, as they are frustrated with America’s position on the world stage. Jobless rates also peaked in the last several years, which would inevitably cause the American people to be skeptical. According to former Texas Representative Chet Edwards, people are more forgiving of Congress when they have a job and those that have jobs feel secure in them.
Overall, it is a combination of Congress’s lack of meaningful accomplishments, combined with the country’s negative bent that has driven down the approval number of the House and the Senate.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Hostess Brands Closing!
Hostess Brands, the maker of such iconic baked goods like Twinkies and Wonder Bread, announced on Friday that it is asking a federal bankruptcy court for permission to close its operations, blaming a strike by bakers protesting a new contract imposed on them. Because of this decision, Hostess' nearly 18,500 workers will lose their jobs as the company shuts thirty-three bakeries and 565 distribution centers nationwide, as well as 570 outlet stores.
"We deeply regret the necessity of today's decision, but we do not have the financial resources to weather an extended nationwide strike," said Hostess CEO Gregory Rayburn in a statement.
Hostess will now move to sell its assets to the highest bidder. That could mean new life for some of its most popular products, which could be scooped up at auction and attached to products from other companies. According to a letter that Hostess sent to its network of stores that carry its product, Hostess expects that "there will be great interest in our brands." However, it said it could not give a time frame for when the sales would take place and when its products would be available again.
The horrible part of all of this though is that even if those brands are bought and restarted, the Hostess workers will not get their jobs back. Hostess filed for bankruptcy in January, its second trip to bankruptcy court since 2004. They previously emerged from restructuring in 2009 after a four-and-a-half year process. The company is now controlled by a group of investment firms, including hedge funds Silver Point Capital and Monarch Alternative Capital. Frank Hurt, president of the bakers' union, called the liquidation "a deep disappointment" but said his members weren't the ones responsible, blaming the various management teams in place at Hostess over the past eight years for failing to turn the firm around.
While approval of the bankruptcy court is needed before Hostess can start selling its assets in liquidation, the company said production at all of its bakeries stopped effective Friday, and that stores will no longer receive products from Hostess Brands after the final round of deliveries of products that were made Thursday night. However, products that are already in stores can be sold, and the outlet stores will remain open for about a week to sell the products they already have.
Back in September, membership of one of its major unions, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, voted narrowly to accept a new contract with reduced wages and benefits. The Bakers' union rejected the deal, however, prompting Hostess management to secure permission from a bankruptcy court to force a new concession contract on workers. The Teamsters union, which represents approximately 6,700 Hostess workers, issued a statement blaming mismanagement by Hostess executives for the company's problems.
Overall, this is a sad moment for Twinkie lovers all throughout the United States. Personally, I've never been a fan of their products; I'm pretty sure I actually got sick from one of their products. Regardless of my opinion however, I find it horrible that the 18,500 workers at Hostess are going to lose their jobs. I wish them the best and I hope that they can find work in a reasonably short amount of time.
Article Links
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/companies/hostess-workers/index.html?iid=HP_LN
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/companies/hostess-closing/index.html?iid=Popular
Chapter 7 Post
Chapter 7 in our American Government textbook deals with one of the major aspects of our government, the United States Congress. For today's blog post, I want to talk about the various powers of Congress that they can utilize to help govern the country. In addition to forming laws and determining the nation's budget, Congress possesses numerous other roles. Congress is able to check the power of both the judicial and executive branches, conduct congressional review, approve nominations, and impeach high ranking officials. For the post, I want to describe Congress' power of making laws and determining the nation's budget.
Congress is known as the primary law-making group in the United States. It plays a crucial role in the development of new laws since only the Senate and House can formally submit a bill for consideration. When a bill is presented to the House and Senate, it is assigned a number and delivered to the appropriate committees and sub-committee to be reviewed. When it is given to the sub-committees, they end up being thoroughly researched and the sub-committee then decides when to hold hearings on them. After conducting the hearings, the bill is revised and goes into a vote by the subcommittee where it is either approved or rejected. If the bill is approved, it is then sent to the fully committee where it can be revised further, or even just get rejected before making it onto the floor. During this part of the process, the House Committee on Rules will determine the limits on the floor debate, consider the bill, and then places a date on the calendar. The Senate on the other hand can truly debate the bill since it isn't as large as the House. If two different versions of the bill in question are approved, the two sides try to compromise on the bill or it faces a slow death if nothing can be accomplished. Finally, if the bill is passed, it is sent off to the President where it is passed, vetoed, or pocket vetoed.
In addition to making new laws, Congress plays a significant role in the national budget. In 1921, Warren G. Harding signed the Budget and Accounting Act. This act forced the president to submit a budget to Congress for approval. Due to conflicts with Nixon, the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was passed. This act established the congressional budget process by outlining a plan to allow congressional action on the annual budget resolution, reconciliation, and appropriations. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office was created to help estimate the budget. The act also included a guideline and timetable to make sure the budget situation was always figured out in a timely manner.
Overall, Congress has numerous powers that help keep the United States functioning as well as it can. In my opinion, Congress has been a giant influence in how the United States is today. However, I feel that some changes need to be made in order to keep the progress moving at a reasonable pace. If Congress continues its recent non bipartisan ways, then our country will unfortunately move in the wrong direction; something that would definitely hurt the US.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Due to Obama's Win, Coal Company Announces Layoffs
Murray cited pending regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency and the possibility of a carbon tax as factors that could lead to the "total destruction of the coal industry by as early as 2030." One hundred and two layoffs are planned for Murray operations in Utah, with 54 from Illinois and seven from West Virginia. In August, Murray shuttered an operation in Ohio, again blaming the Obama Administration and its alleged "war on coal."
On his campaign trail, Mitt Romney repeatedly mentioned this line, accusing Obama of undermining the country's energy security during a rally at a Murray-owned mine in Ohio. Footage from this rally was actually used in a Romney ad. Oddly though, workers in the spot later complained to a local radio host that they were forced to attend the rally and weren't paid for the time, claims that were eventually denied by Murray Energy.
Administration officials responded to Romney's attacks by affirming that Obama supports "clean coal." They also pointed out that more coal miners were on the job in the U.S. this year than at any time since 1997, and that U.S. coal exports have risen 31%. However, coal production within the United States has dropped sharply, falling roughly 15% in 2011 versus years prior, according to the National Mining Association.The industry's woes go way beyond Obama's policies however. According to statistics, utility companies are increasingly ditching coal in favor of cheaper, cleaner natural gas. In addition, the recession and improved energy efficiency have decreased the demand for power.
Looking ahead into the future, the coal industry faces a law going into effect in 2015 that tightens the amount of mercury coal plants can emit, as well as regulations on mountain-top mining. Both issues will make coal production and coal-fired power plants more expensive. The rules themselves are not from Obama's origins, although he has implemented them fairly quickly. Most stem from the Clean Air Act, which was signed by Richard Nixon and strengthened during the first Bush presidency.
Overall, what I didn't like about this situation was the fact that a company would lay off so many workers just because of the presidential election. Yes, I know it is the company's decision and right to do whatever they want and cite whatever reason for their actions, but I just find it silly that they would do this. Sure, there may be some laws coming into effect that will hurt the industry down the road, but until there are actually some negative results from those laws, I feel that the company should keep working hard and at full force until they can't anymore. It's like they're just giving up and hurting their employees before actually giving a fight. It sucks that the government can't really do anything about this, but I hope for the best for the employees that were laid off.
Second Chapter 8 Post
Chapter 8 focuses mainly on the President of the United States and pretty much everything the position is involved with. For this blog post, I wanted to talk about one of major powers of the president, which is their power of the veto. The veto power is one of the most crucial actions the president can utilize to keep the judicial and legislative branches in check.
The textbook defines the President's Veto Power as the "formal, constitutional authority of the president to reject bills passed by both houses of Congress, thus preventing them from becoming a law without further congressional action." Basically, once a bill is passed through both the House of Representatives and the Senate by majority votes, it lands on the President's desk. When a bill arrives to the President, there are three things he can do. First, he can sign the bill which would then make the bill a law. Another thing the President can do is veto the bill, which means that the bill won't be signed and it is stopped in its track. Lastly, the President can utilize the "pocket veto," which means that he does nothing at all. If Congress is in session, it will become a law after ten days. However, if Congress is not in session, it doesn't become a law.
If the President decides to veto the bill, the bill is then sent back to the House of Representatives. If at least two-thirds of the members of the House support the bill, the President's veto is negated and the bill ends up becoming a law. This process is outlined in the Constitution and has actually not been used that much in the course of U.S. history. Over the course of the history of the United States, only about 100 or so bills were successfully overridden of about the 2,500 bills that have been vetoed or pocket vetoed.
Article II, which describes the veto powers, is something I completely agree with. The Framers, who developed the Constitution, did not want too much power to be given to any single person or group of people, which goes back to the whole idea of checks and balances. With the veto power, both the President and the legislative branch can make sure that neither party does something completely biased and against what's good for the overall country. If it weren't for the veto power, there would be so many unfair laws and bills passed that would negatively harm the United States.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Hyundai & Kia to Pay Owners Due to Overstated MPG
This past week, it has been revealed that Korean automakers Hyundai and Kia had overstated the fuel economy of many of their models, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Friday. In response, Hyundai and Kia said that they will pay owners for additional fuel costs associated with the mileage difference. Meanwhile, the EPA will post new lower fuel economy figures for many Hyundai and Kia models on its website, fueleconomy.gov, and new window stickers will be printed for cars still on dealer lots.
According to the EPA, mileage figures on most car labels will be lowered by one or two miles per gallon. The discrepancies involve about 900,000 Hyundai and Kia vehicles already sold and on the road. The largest drop will be for the Kia Soul. Its highway fuel economy estimate will be lowered by six miles per gallon, taking it down from 35 mpg to 29 mpg. In addition, fuel economy for the Hyundai Elantra, a compact model that was named Car of the Year at last year's Detroit Auto Show, will be reduced by one mile per gallon. However, two of the automakers' most popular models, the Hyundai Sonata and Kia Optima mid-size sedans, are not involved.
The fuel economy figures shown on automobile window stickers are usually based on testing done by the automakers themselves according to a strict laboratory testing procedure dictated by the EPA. In this case, Hyundai and Kia would be the ones conducting the testing. Then, the EPA tests about 15% of all models itself to ensure automakers are performing the tests properly and reporting accurate results.
While those audits occasionally result in fuel economy adjustments for a vehicle, this is the first time any automaker has shown such a consistent overstatement in its mileage results, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. According to Hyundai and Kia, this whole situation stems from a problem creating an error that involved a particularly complex part of the testing procedure.
In order to make up the problem, the automakers have agreed to issue debit cards to owners of models that were sold with overstated mileage figures. Vehicle owners will be able to take their car or SUV to their local dealership to have the odometer checked and the number of miles driven recorded.
Owners will then receive a debit card based on the miles driven and the average local price of gasoline, plus an additional 15%. Owners can then have their odometers checked and get a debit as often as they like as long as they own the car. For owners who have already sold their Hyundai or Kia vehicle, they will be able to receive a single debit card based on the mileage recorded on the car's bill of sale.
Personally, I applaud the initiative that the Environmental Protection Agency took to get the correct, accurate information out to consumers throughout the United States. By doing this, consumers will be able to make better decisions on what car they should purchase. In addition, I like the response that Hyundai and Kia both took in order to try and remediate the situation. Even though this problem shouldn't have taken place to begin with, it is great to see companies stepping up, admitting their mistakes, and offering a solution to those affected in order to set things right and move on. It is truly refreshing to see these actions being taken instead of doing nothing and hoping that the situation will disappear on its own.
Sources
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/02/autos/hyundai-kia-mpg-overstated/index.html
According to the EPA, mileage figures on most car labels will be lowered by one or two miles per gallon. The discrepancies involve about 900,000 Hyundai and Kia vehicles already sold and on the road. The largest drop will be for the Kia Soul. Its highway fuel economy estimate will be lowered by six miles per gallon, taking it down from 35 mpg to 29 mpg. In addition, fuel economy for the Hyundai Elantra, a compact model that was named Car of the Year at last year's Detroit Auto Show, will be reduced by one mile per gallon. However, two of the automakers' most popular models, the Hyundai Sonata and Kia Optima mid-size sedans, are not involved.
The fuel economy figures shown on automobile window stickers are usually based on testing done by the automakers themselves according to a strict laboratory testing procedure dictated by the EPA. In this case, Hyundai and Kia would be the ones conducting the testing. Then, the EPA tests about 15% of all models itself to ensure automakers are performing the tests properly and reporting accurate results.
While those audits occasionally result in fuel economy adjustments for a vehicle, this is the first time any automaker has shown such a consistent overstatement in its mileage results, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. According to Hyundai and Kia, this whole situation stems from a problem creating an error that involved a particularly complex part of the testing procedure.
In order to make up the problem, the automakers have agreed to issue debit cards to owners of models that were sold with overstated mileage figures. Vehicle owners will be able to take their car or SUV to their local dealership to have the odometer checked and the number of miles driven recorded.
Owners will then receive a debit card based on the miles driven and the average local price of gasoline, plus an additional 15%. Owners can then have their odometers checked and get a debit as often as they like as long as they own the car. For owners who have already sold their Hyundai or Kia vehicle, they will be able to receive a single debit card based on the mileage recorded on the car's bill of sale.
Personally, I applaud the initiative that the Environmental Protection Agency took to get the correct, accurate information out to consumers throughout the United States. By doing this, consumers will be able to make better decisions on what car they should purchase. In addition, I like the response that Hyundai and Kia both took in order to try and remediate the situation. Even though this problem shouldn't have taken place to begin with, it is great to see companies stepping up, admitting their mistakes, and offering a solution to those affected in order to set things right and move on. It is truly refreshing to see these actions being taken instead of doing nothing and hoping that the situation will disappear on its own.
Sources
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/02/autos/hyundai-kia-mpg-overstated/index.html
Chapter 8 Post
With Election Day only two days away, I think it would be appropriate to talk about the Presidency itself and all of the regulations, qualifications, and rules that could affect the President. Since Chapter 8 deals with the President and their role in the Oval Office, it is definitely the perfect time to cover the topic. There are a few rules that written in the Constitution that must be followed as well as a few qualifications not specified within the Constitution that are considered crucial towards becoming a President.
As of today, there are millions of Americans throughout the country that do not even know some of the basic qualifications that a person must possess in order to be able to run for President. To be considered for the presidency, a candidate must be a natural-born American citizen, be at least 35 years old, and be a resident of the United States for at least 14 consecutive years. These specific rules are written in the Constitution. In addition to these rules, there are a few unwritten qualifications that have applied to most of the elected presidents. Examples of these qualifications are: being a male and having a college education. While it is not absolutely necessary to have these qualifications, over time, it has been proven to be a common, consistent characteristic amongst presidents.
Once a candidate is elected, they must follow additional rules and guidelines that have been put in place. In the 18th century when the Constitution was being written, the Framers wanted to avoid the policies from country they just left (England). Because of this, the Framers decided to create "terms," which defined how long the president was to stay in office. The questionable part of this situation was the number of times a president could be reelected. Eventually, it was decided that the president would be elected to 4 year terms with the possibility to be reelected to an indefinite number of terms. However, this changed in 1951 with the passing of the 22nd Amendment after an uproar occurred due to Roosevelt being elected to four terms from 1933 to 1945. The Twenty-Second Amendment specifies that no president can serve more than two terms. In addition, a president can not serve more than 10 years, a specification that only applies to presidents who come into power during the middle of a term because of an impeachment or assassination.
While some people may have their objections to these qualifications and regulations, I feel that, for the most part, are perfect. I think it is necessary that the person in charge of this country is someone who was born here and has lived his or her life in the United States. By fulfilling this specification, the candidates will overall be more exposed to the issues that are hurting this country so they will be able to fully develop ideas and policies to try and help the country. This can't be done if the candidate hasn't lived the majority of their life in the United States. In addition, I agree with the two term limit because if a president is in charge for too long, it may eventually feel like the country is ruled by a monarch. This wouldn't be too good considering that it would then feel like the US is transforming into the government that the Framers wanted to get away from back in the 18th century. I think if we keep going with the same rules and qualifications, the United States will continue on the right direction as long as the right candidates come along who will actually make the effort to make a difference.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
China's Currency Hurting the U.S. Economy?
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
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
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.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Postal Service About to Default Again
As you know, the United States Postal Service (USPS) is a national business that delivers mail throughout the country for millions of citizens. It is also well documented that the USPS has been losing a lot of money in recent years due to the recent economic downturn and resulting slowdown in the amount of mail actually being sent throughout the country. If the Postal Service can not pay their $5.6 billion fee in order to pay for health care benefits for retirees, it will be the second time that the business has defaulted on a payment (the first taking place on August 1st of this year).
As of right now, the defaulting on a payment doesn't mean much as there will be no effect on the delivery of mail, but if Congress doesn't step in by next spring, the Postal Service will actually begin to start running out of cash. No cash means that they can't pay subcontractors and mail carriers, which in turn could lead to major cuts to the mail delivery system. The article references the potential situation as the postal service "Armageddon," a highly accurate reference in my opinion. The standard mail delivery has always been six days a week, and in my opinion, maybe reducing deliveries by one or two days won't make a dramatic difference, but anything worse than that will definitely have a negative impact on our economy.
This whole situation was created due to a law passed by Congress in 2006 that ordered the prefunding of retiree benefits as a way of easing federal deficits a bit. Various unions are blaming Congress for this entire situation since it was their mandate that has led to the multiple defaults. During this time, Congress has made it clear that it won't help the Postal Service until after this year's elections at the earliest, and even then, it will be unlikely that they will do anything until the new members of Congress enter in January. In my opinion, Congress really needs to get their act together and settle this situation out. It feels like the longer they end up waiting for events to unfold, the worse the outcome will be for everyone.
Currently, the Postal Service will be hoping to pull through until November for the holiday delivery rush. Until then, they may end up running out of money by mid-October, which could be disastrous for the business. In my opinion, either Congress needs to step their game up and get something done to help them out, or they better act quickly come the new year in order to settle this mess out. Until then, all we can really do is hope for the best that the Postal Service can get through all of this without too many consequences resulting.
Articles Referenced
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/25/news/economy/postal-service/index.html
Currently, the Postal Service will be hoping to pull through until November for the holiday delivery rush. Until then, they may end up running out of money by mid-October, which could be disastrous for the business. In my opinion, either Congress needs to step their game up and get something done to help them out, or they better act quickly come the new year in order to settle this mess out. Until then, all we can really do is hope for the best that the Postal Service can get through all of this without too many consequences resulting.
Articles Referenced
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/25/news/economy/postal-service/index.html
Chapter 5 Post
One of the more controversial and opinionated sections of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the right to privacy. According to the textbook, the right to privacy is a "judicially created principle" that encompasses a variety of individual actions protected by the penumbras created by a number of constitutional amendments. These amendments include the first, third, fourth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments. The right to privacy wasn't exactly enumerated specifically in the Constitution, but the Bill of Rights contained numerous indications that the Framers expected that some aspects of human life were to be kept off limits from any regulations from the government.
There are three topics that have been very controversial over the years that deal with the right to privacy; birth control, abortion, and homosexuality. Through the course of U.S. History, the amount of people that had access to contraceptives has greatly increased. At first, many states barred the sale of contraceptives to minors, prohibited the display of contraceptives, or even banned the sale altogether. Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the access to contraceptives through a variety of court cases, such as Griswold v. Connecticut. This court case allowed for zones of privacy to be created for married couples who wanted to plan a family. The years following this decision allowed for the Court to expand the privacy rights to include all unmarried individuals to have full access to contraceptives. In my opinion, I think it was the right decision for the government to expand access to allow anyone to have access to contraceptives. It is up to the individual whether or not they want to use contraceptives, and the government really shouldn't have any say in influencing that individual.
Abortion has been an extremely controversial issue since the 1960s. This issue has been fueled by a number of Supreme Court decisions that has allowed abortion to be legalized. The major Supreme Court decision in favor of allowing citizens to go through an abortion was Roe v. Wade. In this court case, the Supreme Court decided that a woman's right to an abortion was protected by the right to privacy that could be implied from various guarantees found in the Bill of Rights. In my opinion, I completely disagree with the ruling. I honestly believe that abortion should be illegal for all cases except for rape. Taking an innocent person's life just because the individual carrying the child doesn't "want" the child anymore is a completely irresponsible and cruel action to take. I know there is so much controversy surrounding the whole situation, but that is just how I feel about it. Hopefully the government can do something to reverse the decisions of the Court, or at least make it much harder for citizens to get an abortion (which has been happening in recent years).
The last major issue discussed in the textbook involving the right to privacy involves homosexuality. The right to privacy of personal/private sexual behavior was not enforced until recently (2003). In my opinion, everyone's sexual preferences is their own business, and that preference shouldn't be used to discriminate against an individual. I think the government is doing a decent job of enacting various acts and laws in order to protect citizens' rights to privacy on this sensitive issue.
The right to privacy among these three major issues has definitely been a point of contention in recent years. I honestly don't see an end to the controversy as there are so many differing opinions on each of the issues. Hopefully, something can be done though to at least maintain the current stances on each issue and make sure that we as a government/society don't move backwards.
There are three topics that have been very controversial over the years that deal with the right to privacy; birth control, abortion, and homosexuality. Through the course of U.S. History, the amount of people that had access to contraceptives has greatly increased. At first, many states barred the sale of contraceptives to minors, prohibited the display of contraceptives, or even banned the sale altogether. Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the access to contraceptives through a variety of court cases, such as Griswold v. Connecticut. This court case allowed for zones of privacy to be created for married couples who wanted to plan a family. The years following this decision allowed for the Court to expand the privacy rights to include all unmarried individuals to have full access to contraceptives. In my opinion, I think it was the right decision for the government to expand access to allow anyone to have access to contraceptives. It is up to the individual whether or not they want to use contraceptives, and the government really shouldn't have any say in influencing that individual.
Abortion has been an extremely controversial issue since the 1960s. This issue has been fueled by a number of Supreme Court decisions that has allowed abortion to be legalized. The major Supreme Court decision in favor of allowing citizens to go through an abortion was Roe v. Wade. In this court case, the Supreme Court decided that a woman's right to an abortion was protected by the right to privacy that could be implied from various guarantees found in the Bill of Rights. In my opinion, I completely disagree with the ruling. I honestly believe that abortion should be illegal for all cases except for rape. Taking an innocent person's life just because the individual carrying the child doesn't "want" the child anymore is a completely irresponsible and cruel action to take. I know there is so much controversy surrounding the whole situation, but that is just how I feel about it. Hopefully the government can do something to reverse the decisions of the Court, or at least make it much harder for citizens to get an abortion (which has been happening in recent years).
The last major issue discussed in the textbook involving the right to privacy involves homosexuality. The right to privacy of personal/private sexual behavior was not enforced until recently (2003). In my opinion, everyone's sexual preferences is their own business, and that preference shouldn't be used to discriminate against an individual. I think the government is doing a decent job of enacting various acts and laws in order to protect citizens' rights to privacy on this sensitive issue.
The right to privacy among these three major issues has definitely been a point of contention in recent years. I honestly don't see an end to the controversy as there are so many differing opinions on each of the issues. Hopefully, something can be done though to at least maintain the current stances on each issue and make sure that we as a government/society don't move backwards.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
America's Workplace A Lot Less Deadly
Over the last ten to twenty years, the government has been trying to figure out more ways to get involved in helping to reduce the number of work-related deaths in the workplace. In the Bureau of Labor Statistics' annual report, it seems that the government's efforts have been successful as the number of work-related deaths have steadily fallen each year since 1994.
In 1994, the total number of workplace fatalities totaled 6,632. As of the 2011 report, the number of fatalities has dropped to 4,609 people. The decline in numbers is a testament to business' increased efforts to enhance safety regulations in order to create the highest quality, safest workplace possible for their employees. Employees have become increasingly valuable to their employers over the years so it is crucial that they are protected as much as they can be protected. According to Brian O'Donel, an industrial safety expert, he believes that it's a very important thing making sure that the safety regulations are always up to date and that replacing employees is "extremely expensive."
Workplaces throughout the country are working with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in order to uphold the rules and regulations that have been developed to make workplaces safer for everyone. In fact, the OSHA has been working in recent years to make the rules clearer and more concise to make sure there are no misunderstandings. In addition, the government has been working to reduce the number of deaths in some of America's most dangerous jobs. For example, according to a report from the Department of Labor, the most common dangerous workplace activity is driving. So, in order to try and reduce accidents on the road, the Department of Transportation issued a few new rules within the last year to improve trucker safety. One of the new rules is that drivers must rest thirty minutes after driving for a maximum of eight hours at one time. In addition, drivers can't drive for more than seventy hours in one week. It may seem like little things here and there, but these rules have been extremely effective in helping to reduce workplace fatalities.
There are a couple of silver linings when it comes to this news. First off, it is estimated that the overall death toll will rise as the Labor Department's numbers are only preliminary, and as more investigations are completed, the number will eventually rise a bit. In addition, as the economy recovers and more people are entered back into the workforce, it is predicted that the number will rise as the new employees will lack experience and in turn, be more vulnerable to injuries. However, through all of this, I believe that the government has done a great job trying to make the workplace as a whole, safer. Overall, it can't be denied that the workplace is much safer than it was twenty years ago, and I hope that the workplace continues to get safer as we move into the future where the technology that continues to evolve can be utilized to further protect the American workers.
Articles Referenced
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/real_estate/work-deaths/index.html?iid=H_PF_News
Workplaces throughout the country are working with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in order to uphold the rules and regulations that have been developed to make workplaces safer for everyone. In fact, the OSHA has been working in recent years to make the rules clearer and more concise to make sure there are no misunderstandings. In addition, the government has been working to reduce the number of deaths in some of America's most dangerous jobs. For example, according to a report from the Department of Labor, the most common dangerous workplace activity is driving. So, in order to try and reduce accidents on the road, the Department of Transportation issued a few new rules within the last year to improve trucker safety. One of the new rules is that drivers must rest thirty minutes after driving for a maximum of eight hours at one time. In addition, drivers can't drive for more than seventy hours in one week. It may seem like little things here and there, but these rules have been extremely effective in helping to reduce workplace fatalities.
There are a couple of silver linings when it comes to this news. First off, it is estimated that the overall death toll will rise as the Labor Department's numbers are only preliminary, and as more investigations are completed, the number will eventually rise a bit. In addition, as the economy recovers and more people are entered back into the workforce, it is predicted that the number will rise as the new employees will lack experience and in turn, be more vulnerable to injuries. However, through all of this, I believe that the government has done a great job trying to make the workplace as a whole, safer. Overall, it can't be denied that the workplace is much safer than it was twenty years ago, and I hope that the workplace continues to get safer as we move into the future where the technology that continues to evolve can be utilized to further protect the American workers.
Articles Referenced
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/real_estate/work-deaths/index.html?iid=H_PF_News
Chapter 3 Post
Through the course of the history of the United States, finding an equilibrium between the powers and responsibilities of national and state governments has been one of the greatest challenges of a federal system. Over time, the roles of the state and national government have changed as society evolves to adapt to new issues and problems. This post will be centered around how the balance is as of today and how this balance is affecting policy making throughout the country.
The textbook talks about Paul E. Peterson and his written work, The Price of Federalism. Throughout the book, Peterson talks about how the government should divide policy-making responsibility into two broad areas: developmental and redistributive policies. In redistributive policies, the government collects money from one group of citizens in order to finance a service, such as health care, for another group of citizens. On the other hand, developmental policies are designed to strengthen a government's economic standing, such as building roads and other infrastructure. Peterson argued that the national government's financial resources and ability to assure a uniform standard made it overall better suited to handle redistributive programs. However, he felt that state governments should be given the task of handling developmental programs. In my opinion, I completely agree with Peterson's theories. Issues such as welfare and health care should be left in the hands of the national government so that the policies created for those issues can be effectively enforced throughout the country. In addition, I think redistributive programs should be delegated to state governments so that each unique region of our country can address the needs of its citizens in an efficient manner.
What's a bit disappointing about this set up is that it hasn't been this simple over the years since the division of labor has not followed this pattern. Within the national government, there have been reelection incentives that are used in order to develop and fund developmental programs that have a direct impact on the citizens. Because of this process. the enforcement of redistributive policies has been left in the hands of the states, which goes against Peterson's beliefs.
In recent years, the balance between national and state government has gotten a bit more shaky. First off, the national government has begun to try and take a bigger role in redistributive policies. A prime example would be the enforcement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This action has shown consistency with Peterson's theories since the national government is trying to take control of redistributive programs. However, the state governments aren't too happy about the recent actions of the national government. Under the 10th amendment, issues such as health care and education have usually been reserved for the states, but the federal intervention has gotten some policymakers upset. In an effort to "counter-attack" the national government, states have been trying to find ways to repel the national government's actions. For example, in the case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there have been quite a few states who have filed lawsuits against the government in order to try and block the implementation of the controversial health care bill.
As of today, the balance between national and state government is still a constant battle for equality. Currently, it is considered that Obama's administration is functioning under the progressive federalism movement. Under this type of federalism, state officials are given more leeway when it comes to acting on issues that are normally a national concern. I think that if our government can move more towards this type of federalism, it could really benefit everyone since the national government can enforce the redistributive programs that need to be worked on while giving the state governments the power to handle these programs the way that they want to as long as it's effective. Of course, only everything is perfect in my idealized world and in reality, it will probably continue to be a constant struggle to find the exact balance between governments. Overall, it will be interesting to see how the states interact with future national government actions because I'm sure that no matter what, some controversy is bound to ensue.
The textbook talks about Paul E. Peterson and his written work, The Price of Federalism. Throughout the book, Peterson talks about how the government should divide policy-making responsibility into two broad areas: developmental and redistributive policies. In redistributive policies, the government collects money from one group of citizens in order to finance a service, such as health care, for another group of citizens. On the other hand, developmental policies are designed to strengthen a government's economic standing, such as building roads and other infrastructure. Peterson argued that the national government's financial resources and ability to assure a uniform standard made it overall better suited to handle redistributive programs. However, he felt that state governments should be given the task of handling developmental programs. In my opinion, I completely agree with Peterson's theories. Issues such as welfare and health care should be left in the hands of the national government so that the policies created for those issues can be effectively enforced throughout the country. In addition, I think redistributive programs should be delegated to state governments so that each unique region of our country can address the needs of its citizens in an efficient manner.
What's a bit disappointing about this set up is that it hasn't been this simple over the years since the division of labor has not followed this pattern. Within the national government, there have been reelection incentives that are used in order to develop and fund developmental programs that have a direct impact on the citizens. Because of this process. the enforcement of redistributive policies has been left in the hands of the states, which goes against Peterson's beliefs.
In recent years, the balance between national and state government has gotten a bit more shaky. First off, the national government has begun to try and take a bigger role in redistributive policies. A prime example would be the enforcement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This action has shown consistency with Peterson's theories since the national government is trying to take control of redistributive programs. However, the state governments aren't too happy about the recent actions of the national government. Under the 10th amendment, issues such as health care and education have usually been reserved for the states, but the federal intervention has gotten some policymakers upset. In an effort to "counter-attack" the national government, states have been trying to find ways to repel the national government's actions. For example, in the case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there have been quite a few states who have filed lawsuits against the government in order to try and block the implementation of the controversial health care bill.
As of today, the balance between national and state government is still a constant battle for equality. Currently, it is considered that Obama's administration is functioning under the progressive federalism movement. Under this type of federalism, state officials are given more leeway when it comes to acting on issues that are normally a national concern. I think that if our government can move more towards this type of federalism, it could really benefit everyone since the national government can enforce the redistributive programs that need to be worked on while giving the state governments the power to handle these programs the way that they want to as long as it's effective. Of course, only everything is perfect in my idealized world and in reality, it will probably continue to be a constant struggle to find the exact balance between governments. Overall, it will be interesting to see how the states interact with future national government actions because I'm sure that no matter what, some controversy is bound to ensue.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
What's The Deal With The Fiscal Cliff?
Hey everyone! I just wanted to give a quick update regarding the Federal Reserve before I jump into my actual post. Last week, I discussed Ben Bernanke and his Federal Reserve speech. Following his speech, it was mentioned that the Federal Reserve Board will be meeting up this week to decide whether or not to take any action in order to stimulate the economy. Well, on Thursday, the Fed decided that they will buy $40 billion in mortgage-backed bonds each month for as many months needed in order to try and stimulate the economy. This move, in my opinion, is a great one and I applaud the Federal Reserve Board for coming to this decision. Stocks have also responded very well to the news, with the Dow Jones and S&P 500 ending at their highest points since 2007.
This week's topic that I want to discuss involves the "fiscal cliff" that are slated to take place in January of next year if Congress is unable to come to a decision on how to address the situation. This whole situation started last year when Congress failed to reach a bipartisan debt-reduction deal. Because of that, about $7 trillion worth of tax increases and spending cuts will go into effect on January 1st. There are quite a few pros and cons (mostly cons) that this will have on the U.S. economy. The major pro this will have is that deficits will be reduced by nearly $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
There are numerous cons to this fiscal cliff however. First off, there will be billions of dollars in cuts from a variety of activities. For example, approximately $55 billion in defense spending and an additional $55 billion in non-defense spending (such as education and air travel safety) will be automatically cut from the federal budget. These cuts could potentially have a huge negative effect on all the programs affected. In addition, income tax rates will rise substantially for citizens once next year rolls around. Another huge con from this situation is that if all this money is taken out of the economy, the risk of falling into another recession greatly increases, which in turn will lead to more job layoffs and a rising unemployment rate (estimated to be at 9% in the second half of 2013).
If Congress can find a way to come to a solution and avoid this whole situation, the economy in the short term will continue to grow as more jobs will be maintained and created for citizens. However, this will cause the U.S. deficit outlook to worsen over the next few years as money continues to be spent. In a perfect world, I wish both sides could just come together and compromise some of the cuts so it wouldn't be as negative as it will be if nothing is done. It's too bad that politics today can't be that easy since neither side will budge one bit. I guess the most we can do for now is hope that a miracle happens and something gets accomplished from this situation. I honestly don't want our economy to have to deal with another potential recession, especially when things aren't even completely back to normal as of today. As we get closer towards the new year, I'm sure more news regarding this fiscal cliff will come up, and I'll be extremely interested to see what happens.
This week's topic that I want to discuss involves the "fiscal cliff" that are slated to take place in January of next year if Congress is unable to come to a decision on how to address the situation. This whole situation started last year when Congress failed to reach a bipartisan debt-reduction deal. Because of that, about $7 trillion worth of tax increases and spending cuts will go into effect on January 1st. There are quite a few pros and cons (mostly cons) that this will have on the U.S. economy. The major pro this will have is that deficits will be reduced by nearly $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
There are numerous cons to this fiscal cliff however. First off, there will be billions of dollars in cuts from a variety of activities. For example, approximately $55 billion in defense spending and an additional $55 billion in non-defense spending (such as education and air travel safety) will be automatically cut from the federal budget. These cuts could potentially have a huge negative effect on all the programs affected. In addition, income tax rates will rise substantially for citizens once next year rolls around. Another huge con from this situation is that if all this money is taken out of the economy, the risk of falling into another recession greatly increases, which in turn will lead to more job layoffs and a rising unemployment rate (estimated to be at 9% in the second half of 2013).
If Congress can find a way to come to a solution and avoid this whole situation, the economy in the short term will continue to grow as more jobs will be maintained and created for citizens. However, this will cause the U.S. deficit outlook to worsen over the next few years as money continues to be spent. In a perfect world, I wish both sides could just come together and compromise some of the cuts so it wouldn't be as negative as it will be if nothing is done. It's too bad that politics today can't be that easy since neither side will budge one bit. I guess the most we can do for now is hope that a miracle happens and something gets accomplished from this situation. I honestly don't want our economy to have to deal with another potential recession, especially when things aren't even completely back to normal as of today. As we get closer towards the new year, I'm sure more news regarding this fiscal cliff will come up, and I'll be extremely interested to see what happens.