Is the Future as Good as the Present?

Maybe New Models Are Needed

As students, we didn't think all that far ahead; of course we were concerned about the future but we firmly believed in the American dream--the world was there for us to take. It's been quite some time since I graduated college, and many things have changed, but also many haven't. The middle class hasn't advanced all that much, if at all. I went to a public university so I managed to get my degrees while accumulating little debt. However, most students today graduate with a huge amount of debt--a figure that's rising about 6% a year. Project Student Debt has the numbers for graduating seniors. [pdf] The most debt-laden students are in the Northeast!

The employment prospects for graduates reflect the overall state of the US economy. Yet, US workers' productivity has increased while wages haven't followed the trend. Since 1973, real wages have remained stagnant! Read Elizabeth Warren's America Without a Middle Class to find out more. The presence of a strong middle class is very important in a stable, progressive, and fair commonwealth. Unfortunately, most of the wealth is amassed and held by the very small elite that has been using the political system to its advantage. The corporate media hardly talks about the distribution of wealth and usually distracts the audience with cheap, mindless entertainment.

I don't know whether the American people have begun to re-evaluate the conditions in our country, but there's a sense at present that the "fix is in." They believe that Wall Street is more important that Main Street, and that the government primarily serves the wealthy and powerful. On the other hand, there are too many of us who prefer myths and distractions to reality. For the life of me, I don't understand how voters elect most of the Republicans in Congress today--such a conservative bunch that has no intention to do anything good for the common folk, from consumer protection to equality of opportunity conditions. Or, that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and so many others, have tens of millions of listeners! This does have a tremendous effect on our national dialogue and on public policy.

Now, on to education. Did you read Bob Herbert's editorial in the NY Times? He argues that the greatest national security issue in the US is the crisis in education. This isn't too far fetched, you know. Within the span of one or two generations, the effects of a largely uneducated public, the lack of real opportunities, and the lack of economic growth that matters to most people can be explosive. An empire that's losing power can also be a very dangerous thing. I could see how demagogues can convince the American public that our woes are not our fault by the fault of others, and that we must act unilaterally against our enemies! Always confusing the issues and transfer blame.

In the end, we'll collectively get what we deserve. What do you think we deserve in the near future?


Here's a popular American explaining American history and providing a solution for a better country:

Why do horses run?

The worlds' most dangerous man according to the NYT is Pete Singer the philosophyer at Princeton. He is the author of "Animal Liberation" the book that has had a tremendous impact on the way humans view animals. The easiest way to gauge the impact of this book is to remember that it was instrumental in the creation of PETA.

Pete Singer is essentially a utilitarian philosopher who argues that we have a moral obligation to reduce pain and increase happiness. This fundamental principle led him to oppose , in the strongest way, the idea that animals are to be raised in order to be slaughtered for human consumption. It is also important to make it very clear that , to the est of my knowledge, his argument for animal liberation does not rest on any intrinsic rights of the animals but instead is based on the fact that we do not have the right to make any living creature suffer if it is within our power to avoid that suffering. As a result Mr. Singer would sanction slaughtering animals if that can be accomplished without causing pain to the animal.

All of the above rushed through my mind during the Kentucky Derby last Saturday. I will be the first to admit that I know nothing about horses and why they run but it seems to me that horses are trained to run and endure pain for the sake of our entertainment? My very simple question then is the following: Do we have the right to subject any animal to pain and possibly death as long as we enjoy the spectacle? Maybe it is time to reevaluate the cruel use of animals in any capacity that is designed to entertain humans by forcing the animals to endure pain. Maybe it is time to declare horse racing an illegal activity just like cock fighting. Should animals perform for our pleasure? It is time to enlarge the circle of animal liberation as to encompass all human activities that impact animal welfare whether that be laboratories, slaughter houses, circus cages or horse races just to name a few.

editor's note: more information about horses:PBS/Nature

What the US Government Should Do: Take Care of its Own People First

By Amanda Tejada [POL 301D-Spring 2008]

The Business of a Superpower

I remember that day; the chaos, the suffering, and the fear that gave birth to admirable responses. They hit us where it hurt, in the capital of the world and killed thousands of people. Nevertheless, it was not all bad, I mean, not all the consequences. The terrible attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon established the beginning of new power relations between the government and the people.

The efforts to protect the ideals on which the nation was founded upon were disintegrated as the plans of government officials began to deviate from those American rights--life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Moreover, citizens' calls for defending those rights were often met with disdain by White House officials, including the Supreme Court-appointed president. These officials who resisted to deliver reasonable answers on people's concerns regarding civil liberties. The war on terror became the war of terror, as Americans feared that their problems were overlooked by the Bush administration.

However, now that the country's next step lie in the outcome of the upcoming presidential elections, Americans are looking for political leaders to stop solving problems for other people outside the country and deliver policies that are more focused on domestic issues, such as hunger and poverty.

The US government has tried to reach out to dozens of countries, helping them alleviate poverty and hunger. However, the same government is neglecting to feed it own citizens. With the status as the world’s superpower, the United States holds the highest rank in childhood poverty amongst all members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)--with an estimated amount of twelve million American children [Scherrer, 2001].

In addition, there are roughly “35.5 million people [living] in households considered to be food-insecure” within our borders. Given this, it does not take a genius to realize that there is something wrong. American officials need to take action in their country before trying to feed everyone else.

However, the problem of hunger and poverty in the country is commonly dismissed in the midst of superpower business. In fact, there are some that argue against the importance of such issues, claiming that there are plans already addressing these matters and that there is no need to constantly create new policies. Yet, the problem with this view is that it fails to identify those policies supposedly dealing with this domestic crisis.

On the other hand, in order to raise awareness, the United Nations’ Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, calls for all civil societies to provide comprehensive policy to deal with poverty and hunger. But, how can we develop a better understanding of the problem and form appropriate policies? Further, good policy to solve a problem often requires funds, but if there are no funds to make practical solutions possible,then what do we do?

For this, I think, it is important begin to at least implement the plans that already exist. The government needs to take the system of “Food Stamps, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and the National School Lunch and School Breakfast programs” and expand them. There are many Americans who have fallen through the safety net. Our government needs to find those people, or to make essential services available to them.

The federal government has set the poverty level at $19,350 for a family of four--which is not much. The average wealth has gone up but the median income has stagnated. There is a need for the better distribution of our resources.

Recognizing the importance of education for the improvement of the problem of poverty and hunger, one can not forget to ask political leaders to take a look at the plan set forth by the Millennium Development Goal (MDG). The eradication of “extreme Hunger and Poverty” is not about handing out money to the poor, rather it is about creating opportunities for improvement.

Today, 33.3 percent of the youth in the US are facing dramatic situations resulting from unemployment. Therefore, there needs to be a way create opportunities out of this unfortunate reality. The Presidential elections may bring great changes to the country; hopefully new policies to meet the needs of the American people. We need leaders that will address the issues of our concerns. The issues of poverty and hunger are very important and we should start solving this problem starting with out own poor first.

Tell me again: why don't we pay teachers well?

I read this article in the Times. I think it was also on Digg. I have heard no less than 3 co-workers discussing the same New York Times article about a charter school in New York. The basic premise of the newly approved charter school is that the best teachers turn out the most well educated students, and the way to attract the best teachers is to pay them well. “Well” meaning, well paid--in absolute terms--not relatively “well paid for teachers.” The starting salary is $125,000. The implications of this are far more significant than what is covered in the short article.

I say it is brilliant. Schools with the highest needs, which are usually in areas with the smallest tax base, are bleeding young, quality teachers. Teachers fresh out of school, inexperienced, head to these schools for a couple years and then look for a position in a higher paying district. Once they are equipped to best teach, they leave.

The profession of teaching struggles to attract smart, edgy career seekers because it is seen as a life of self-punishing service, in constant financial struggle. There is no way, regardless of talent and performance, for a teacher to make a salary that allows for a comfortable life in a major city. There is just no way to make a life in New York (or San Francisco or L.A. or Chicago, etc.) on $40,000. How could I ever buy a house on that? Granted, experienced teachers in my district make $70-80,000--which makes home-ownership more realistic. But going into teaching, while requiring a master’s degree, will never produce the salary that pursuing a career in i-banking, or engineering, or law will.

Teachers rely on a union to protect them from the district (government) and the administration. So by diminishing the administration, there is one less force attacking them. Then, in theory, if they are doing a good job (which is significantly easier with adequate compensation, for a variety of reasons, need I list them?) good teachers shouldn’t need the protection of a union. After all shouldn’t the students and parents protect them? And the bad teachers… well they will be fired. They will not be worth $125,000 a year to tax payers. But the good teachers can let their art in a classroom speak for itself.

There are more problems in the education system in this country than passengers on the Titanic. But paying teachers well is perhaps one step towards fixing at least one or two of the existing problems.

A Man Makes $4 Billion, as Much as All NYC Teachers. Should he be taxed less than them?

Yes, this is a capitalist country whereas people can risk, apply their efforts, and reap huge rewards. Unless, of course, you don't have access to opportunity. Unless, you are already at the top...

But, besides this, if we are all patriots and want to support this country called the United States of America, then the question is: how much everyone should chip into to pot? According to earnings and ability to pay? Is that fair? Whatever you think, this is not how it's done here.

This investor who gambled made $4 billion a year, just as much as all teachers in the NY City public schools made collectively! But, the super-rich have their capital gains taxed at 15% whereas teachers (and other workers) are taxed at twice or more this rate!

Here's an article by Alternet that makes the case. You may disagree with the author's conclusion and suggestions, but the facts remain the facts.

"The United States has the highest inequality rate in the developed world. 28 million Americans -- almost 1 in 10 -- are using food stamps. The average worker has seen virtually no real increase in wages since 1970.

Some hedge fund managers made over a billion dollars last year. Hedge fund manager John Paulson, who made a clever bet against subprime mortgages, made close to $4 billion.
How much is 4 billion dollars? If you work as a sales clerk in a retail store, you'd have to work 200,000 YEARS to make 4 billion dollars.

If you have a steady $50,000 a year job as a laborer and work for 50 years, in all that time you'd make as much as the hedge fund manager gets in one hour at the office."

Bears, Bulls, and other Animals in our Forest

It's Spring break, but I'm already planning my next week's classes! See what some free time does to me... (looking for trouble). It's fun, coming up with stories and exam questions..

Class exam: Analyze the concept: socializing the risk and privatizing the profit. Include examples. You should also reference the ideological framework as to the role of the state (gov) in a modern capitalist system. Does the marketplace need the government to operate, or does the latter function as an impediment to the former?

Now, the following is a story I just made up but will use in class to ease the students back into rigorous learning, and, of course, to ..indoctrinate them.

Once upon a time, there was a small club of friends who dined and played (golf, bridge, etc) together no matter what happened in the world. They were considered wise men by their peers, and had advised other people to be aggressive in their investments--normally with other people's money!

They all made millions in salaries & bonuses, because they deserved it--and because a small group of their peers agreed that those who move lots of money around have lots of stress. Money always shows how much a person is appreciated was the dictum.

There are certain story tellers who convinced the majority of the village people that welfare--often called, the social safety net--for the working & indigent classes is a very bad thing. They also said that the government is a necessary evil and that, for our sake, it should be so small as to be drowned in a bathtub... Private companies, usually after huge over runs of the original estimate, would provide the bathtub and the taxpayers would gladly buy it.

On the other hand, assisting the hard-working and money-making businesses (ie, corporate welfare) was is a good thing they told us. The preferred to be mum, retreating in the quiet of the backrooms as they made their deals. After all, who needs all those statistics, numbers (oh, the horrors of ..math), and the legaleze--all very boring. Who could argue against this: American companies are patriotic and would never deliver inferior products, waste taxpayers money, put any American in danger, and charge us higher prices through no-bid contracts. The free market would never allow that, would it?

Those who have more money, wealth and power got even more money & legal benefits since apparently they deserve it. They owed their success to their own efforts alone, something like pulling their own bootstraps. Of course, they needed bigger tax breaks too! They had more expenses you know!... End of this little story.

So to better understand all this, I brushed up on Adam Smith recently. I had to discuss his ideas in class too--Moral Sentiment, and Wealth of Nations. I understand that profit is the engine of capitalism. Smith said something about competition and how it's good for the marketplace, but measures had to be taken to prevent predatory markets and companies. Ah, well. I'm sure the modern capitalists and those in power know that.

I also read, Free Lunch by David Cay Johnston, and watched him on Bill Moyers Journal. [here's a clip on YouTube]. I suggest you check those short videos. Very informative. Anyway, I'm wondering why those who demonize the (our) governmnet often turn to it for help & salvation when they screw up?

Do you have an answer?

Bush Vetoes Health Care Coverage to Protect the Poor (he claims)

By Rebecca DePaoli [POL 301D-Spring 2008]

This is an editorial intended for people reading a daily newspaper. It has a leftist bias; however, it is informative about a health care issue.

On October 18, 2007, the House of Representatives failed to override the President’s veto that denied health care to under-privileged children. Thirteen votes shy of the two-thirds majority vote needed to override a Presidential veto, the House proved to be ineffective in the fight for children’s health care. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was created under the Clinton Administration for children whose parents earned too much to be eligible for Medicaid, yet who made too little to able to afford private insurance. Since its creation in 1997, SCHIP has been responsible for providing means to health care to approximately six million children in the United States.

In September of 2007, the United States Congress passed a bill that would expand SCHIP in order to cover four million more children by 2012. In order to finance this broadening, $35 billion would be needed in addition to SCHIP’s current cost projections of $25 billion, totaling $60 billion over the next five years. This extra funding would stem from a national cigarette tax increase of 61 cents per pack.

Even though this plan seems like a no brainer, President Bush vetoed the expansion in the name of “poor kids”. He argued that the new legislation will focus on middle class children, leaving poorer children behind. This is simply not true. First, poor children are not and never were covered by SCHIP, but by Medicaid and secondly, the expansion of SCHIP would only cover more children, not less. If the family qualifies for the coverage granted by SCHIP, they will receive it; it is not a zero sum game.

It is extremely unethical for the President to be playing politics with the lives of American children. Children need annual visits to physicians and dentists and the government should be pushing for preventative medicine rather than reactive. If children are able to have check ups, it will be less likely uninsured children will have to visit emergency rooms for illnesses, this will ultimately decrease private insurance premiums for other Americans.

President Bush also stated that the bill would cost too much. Yes, a President who is willing to spend $2 billion a week or around $520 billion over the next five years on an unsubstantiated war, is unwilling to protect his country’s own youth for a mere $60 billion in the same time period. This is a great way to show fiscal constraint.

Perhaps the boldest reason President Bush gave to rationalize his heartless veto was that he was protecting the country against socialized medicine. He believes that the private sector should control the health care system in America and why not, they have been doing a great job up until now. What is really driving our American health care system is greed, by the pharmaceutical and insurance companies. They care more about profits than they do about children whose parents simply cannot afford proper medical treatment. It’s capitalism at its worst.

Why then, do you ask did the House of Representatives not override the veto? The House Republicans stuck with their party line of fiscal conservatism and a free market economy. They were not able to see past their political agendas toward the helpless children begging for an answer.

Philanthopist Helps Future College Students in Maine

Assuming it's good for the country to have as many educated people, then what are we doing to provide equality of opportunity? OK, money and social status provide more access, and opportunities. But, should it come down to these qualities? Or, should we give chances to those who cannot afford to go to college to do so? Shouldn't commitment and skills take precedent over money?

I don't think every high school student is ready or willing to pursue their studies further, but there are many who just can't because the cost is so high. Not only tuition has risen greatly but--let's not forget--during the years attending college a student cannot earn as much as someone who doesn't have the burden of a full academic load.

A couple presidential candidates have floated the idea that every American upon birth should get a bond in their name, say, $1,000, which will accrue interest for 18 years, or until the person goes to school, usually with a cut-off limit by age 30. This can only be used to help defray the costs of attending higher ed schools. Obviously this is not a solution to the problem, but it helps. It's an investment that the country should make, something like the GI Bill for WW2 veterans.

It makes economic sense too, because educated people tend to earn more money, pay less taxes, and are less likely to be a public charge. It's estimated that for every dollar our government spent for the GI Bill, it got three in return. But, as it is the case for many things, it's hard to spend up front in order to save later. Our health care system is a prime example of this. We don't have universal health care coverage, people don't get preventive care, no early detection, and the result is more expensive (and often futile) treatments later.

Anyway, in the spirit of endowment for the future, a benefactor in Maine is giving $500 towards a college education to every child born in Maine! Harold Alfond, who died recently, founded the Dexter Shoe Company in Maine, and later his foundation that will manage the grants. This tax-free savings account will be available to Maine newborns--about 14,000 in 2006--starting in 2009. It's estimated that, with current numbers, the foundation will spend some $7 million per year. There are plans for raising the contributions and grants levels to cover increased college costs in the future.

Philanthropist Alfond never went to college.

President Bush: No More Money for Education. But Money's No Object for Pentagon

While the president was busy shooting down a Congressional bill that would provide more money for education and healthcare, he signed on to Pentagon's huge increase in "non-war" spending.

The message is clear: spend more--as much as it takes--on the military, but let's keep as many Americans as possible in poverty, near poverty, and largely uneducated so they can see enlisting in the armed forces as a good option for them. It's a win-win situation. No?

Rep. David Obey, the Democratic chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, pounced immediately on Bush's veto.

"This is a bipartisan bill supported by over 50 Republicans," Obey said. "There has been virtually no criticism of its contents. It is clear the only reason the president vetoed this bill is pure politics."

Of course, it's a matter of priorities--something that we haven't really discussed as a country--when it comes to spending & borrowing. There is also a transfer of wealth during this administration, no less as a result of the decision to invade & occupy Iraq. This ill-advised war of choice will cost several trillion dollars [calculated for the direct outlays, the interest on the debt, wear & tear of equipment, and future healthcare benefits to injured veterans].

Education is perhaps the most important tool a person has to advance themselves. Call it a step into the equality of opportunity. Oh, and yes, more educated people are better equiped to understand and evaluate the arguments politicians like Bush make. Heck, we might even make better politics in the future. But, smarter politics depends on smarter people!