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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.