Posts Tagged With: Politics

Election 2008

Are any of the presidential candidates committed to reducing the size of government? We have Democrats, who enjoy increasing the size of government, and we have Republicans, who enjoy talking about limited government and "starve-the-beast," but who have presided over bigger budget increases than Bill Clinton. All we need are more promises to make government bigger.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Income Inequality

A lot of debate recently has been focused on the growing income gap in the United States. I am not that peeved by income inequality. Incomes at the top will rise as economies grow and companies become truly global. I am far more concerned if the equality pie is not helping the bottom 10% at all. In my opinion, better to earn 10,000 if the top is earning 1,000,000 than to earn 4,000 if the top is earning 15,000. There's more for everyone to go around, even if the slice is smaller. I would measure economic progress by how much the income of the bottom 10% is rising. However, recent research suggests people might not be happier in the more-for-everyone scenario. Steven Pinker had a great quote in the book How the Mind Works: A society can be fair, free or equal, but not all three. Income inequality strikes at the balance between being fair and being equal. I would propose taxing death more heavily so that funds cannot be easily transferred from one generation to the next. This could help make the country a better meritocracy.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Global Warming

There are two issues here that come in separate yes or no votes: 1) The Earth is getting warmer. 2) Humans are causing the earth to get warmer. I don't know if anyone denies anymore that the Earth is getting warmer. Whether or not this is because of humans is still subject to (some) debate. The most credible refutation of 2) I've heard so far is that the earth is getting warmer because of a warm period that comes roughly every 3000 years. So be it. In 100 years, as I understand it, half of Bangladesh and most of Manhattan will be underwater, human causes or not. This requires action. Send scientists to the Netherlands, do whatever you have to. The Earth is warming, human cause or not. We need to start building dams or enacting cooling measures fast. My own opinion is that it might be too large a coincidence the Earth started warming around the time of the Industrial Revolution. It's better to prepare for global warming and be wrong than assume it's all a big hoax and watch millions drown in low-elevation areas.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Iraq

"So I visit a rundown zoo and see hyenas in miserable cages, lions in miserable cages, and antelopes in miserable cages. I'm disgusted by their conditions, so I attack the zookeepers and set the animals free. The lions eat the antelopes, the hyenas eat the antelopes (and sometimes the lions, too), and the antelopes run for shelter. Should I feel bad for not having minded my own business? No way, says Charles Krauthammer. Hey, who knew that lions liked to eat antelopes?"

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Class Debate – Drug Legalization

"Ladies and gentlemen, legalization of hard drugs like cocaine and heroin may at first glance feel uncomfortable. It may seem like a dangerous and unsafe policy. The affirmation today will show that the opposite is the case: banning these drugs is the unsafe policy. Because the drug market is illegal, we cannot control or regulate who plays and by what rules. Legalization of hard drugs will eliminate the obscene profits organized crime rackets make from importing and selling cocaine and heroin. It will rid our streets of much of the drug-related crime that plagues our impoverished neighborhoods. Furthermore, it will help reduce budget deficits and prison overcrowding. The affirmation would like to legalize possession of recreational amounts of Schedule Two drugs like cocaine, heroin, and LSD. To keep corporations and their greed for profits away from these addictive substances, government will Purchase, Regulate, Tax, and Distribute these drugs, similar to the way medical marijuana is distributed now. No drugs will be sold to pregnant women or to persons under 21 years of age. Our current policy is to ban these drugs and imprison anyone who sells or uses them. This War on Drugs, despite costing the taxpayer nearly $40 billion a year, has had a negligible effect on consumption and sale of hard drugs. Our inner cities are full of people selling and using these substances. It is time for government to wake up. Thank you.” Ladies and gentlemen, the Prohibition era of American history was expected to reduce crime and corruption, reduce the number of alcoholics, reduce the number of prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and safety. When Congress banned the sale of alcohol, evangelist Billy Sunday gathered ten thousand people together and proclaimed, "The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be only a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and comcribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile, and the children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent." Unfortunately, Prohibition increased consumption of alcohol, marked the beginning of organized crime, pushed prison systems past their capacities, and deprived the government of a source of revenue. These problems did not go away with the end of Prohibition; they are still here, because of our bans on various other drugs. Addicts commit half of all street crimes today. The Mafia and other organized crime rackets make huge sums from importing and selling cocaine and heroin to addicts. Turf wars erupt over profitable street corners. We ignore, imprison, and impoverish addicts, the people that need our help the most. Legalization would eliminate turf wars and the incentive for crime bosses to import drugs. Government regulation and taxation would make consumption safer for users - remember 35% of new AIDS cases come from illegal drugs. What's more, we could spend the $40 billion we're now spending in a drug war on antipoverty and rehabilitation measures. Yes, legalization might increase the number of addicts, but this is not a clear cut conclusion. And if adults want to become addicts, we don't have the right to stop them. As Milton Friedman said, "Reason with the potential addict, yes. Tell him the consequences, yes. Pray for and with him, yes. But we have no right to use force, directly or indirectly, to prevent a fellow man from committing suicide, let alone from drinking alcohol or taking drugs." Our attempts to plan society in the 1920's had miserable consequences, and our attempts now have been about as successful as the Soviet Union. While legalization may be uncomfortable to some, it creates a better situation for the addict, and makes society better off. It is by far the best policy option. Thank you for your time.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Exploratory Committee

Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, today launched an exploratory committee to advise him on the feasibility of a 2008 presidential run. This adds him to a field of candidates including Tom Vilsack, Sam Brownback, Hillary Clinton, and (presumably) Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain. I'd like to see the exploratory committee convene, look at the race, and then say, "You know, Mr. (insert name here), no one really likes you and you'd be lucky to even score a debate with the other candidates. We really don't feel you should run for office." I don't care, I'm voting for Al Gore.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

It’s Still 2006, And the Midterms Were A Month Ago

Do we really need to start wondering now about who's going to run for president in 2008? The election is a full two years away and yet we are already casting the unforgiving glare of public attention on our potential candidates. That's a long two years of not screwing up any Senate votes, staying consistent with your opinions (avoiding categorization as a flopper), and not pulling any George Allens. I want a rest from political speculation. Let's focus our attention on the current officials.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Is Bush the Worst President of All Time?

Washington Post has 5 historians opining on how Bush will stack up against other US presidents, and they're not saying very good things about Bush. The problem here, to me, is that we voted to affirm Bush as president - twice. Were the signs not there in 2000 and 2004? C-student from Yale? Failed as an oilman? Alcoholic? I mean, there are 10 million plus eligible Presidents (and by eligible, I mean rich white American men above the age of 35) and we can't find a better candidate? Worst president of all time or worst job voting, two times in a row?

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

An Open Letter – what do you think?

To whoever's willing to listen: In my humble, college-freshman opinion, the failure of Congress boils down to a matter of incentives. Congressmen want to get themselves re-elected and make sure their party's in power at all times. However, the purpose (I assume?) of Congress is to increase the welfare of the American people and protect the Constitution. This failure has two consequences - extreme short-sightedness, and the political gambit-izing of legislation. I don't know if it matters so much anymore what a piece of legislation says, as long as Democrats will say 'it's all a political ploy' and each side will claim victory. The loser is the public interest. Take for example the recent decision by GOP leaders to shelve the Vietnam free trade vote, which was supposed to be a rebuke to the White House from the Republicans in Congress. The American people just lost, because this vote is now going to fail. What concerns me the most is the apparent lack of consideration for whether or not American people would be better off with a free trade agreement from Vietnam. I propose two solutions. The first is to make every Congressional vote anonymous. This would free people to vote rationally (or as rationally as they can, given all the noise from the Cato Institute about how we vote), rather than to vote in fear or with some external motive. This would also decrease the effect of lobbying and of voting as a bloc. As I see it now, with econ 1 analysis, there are two cartels in Congress preventing vote equilibrium. If we made votes anonymous we would see more of how people actually feel and less of two talking points. Moreover, politicians would no longer be able to blame "the other side" for failures. Furthermore, I feel that 20 years down the road we won't be able to elect anyone, because of Facebook and weblogs. The public will very quickly learn that no one's perfect, and attack ads will have loads of material to work with (Drunk pictures, questionable opinions, etc). Our candidates, I believe, won't have personalities or opinions (besides "I'm against crime, for democracy, and for education"). Making votes anonymous would stop attack ads based on decade-long voting records. My second idea is for mandatory 30-year prediction and long-term goal statements, updated every 4 years (this has no way of passing, because it sounds similar to the old Soviet central planning idea). My goal here is to get Congress to realize that problems like "our budget is unsustainable," "global warming is something we need to deal with," and "many Americans and Iraqis are dying every day" are statements that can't be passed from session to session without action. Let me know what you think. Thanks for reading this. Kevin

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.