“Buffett Rule” can be the solution for Economic Fairness?

On January 24, President Obama had his final State of the Union Address in his term. In his address, Obama asserted that American government should balance the scale between the rich and the rest of American and demanded that the “Buffett Rule” should be passed by Congress. He pledged the tax reform to redistribute wealth. He seemed to aim voters and potential candidates before facing 2012 President election.

“Buffett Rule” is name after Warren Buffett who is one of billionaires in America. Warren Buffett has claimed that the rich should not be paying a lower tax rate than the rest of the public. If “Buffett Rule” is passed by Congress, it raises the tax rate to at least 30 percent on anyone earning more than $1 million a year. Appearing in ABC TV show with his secretary on January 25, Warren Buffett supported Obama’s tax reform plan asserted in State of the Union Address.

“Buffett Rule” has aroused a controversy in the United States. First of all, people who agree with the “Buffett Rule” say that rate of taxation is not fair under current law. Although the amount of billionaires’s taxes is much higher than the amount of the middle class, ratio of taxation against national income isn’t. The burden of taxation should be fair to everyone in democratic society.

On the contrary to this, people who disagree with the “Buffett Rule’ assert that high taxation toward the upper class can raise economic problems, for example, decreasing capital investment and slowing down economic vitality. According to their opinion, “Buffett Rule” will make economic growth slowed.

In democratic society, the people are liable to taxation. Also, the tax burden is shared by all of nation in just proportions. ‘Just proportion’ does not mean that everyone should pay tax under the same rate of taxation. It means everyone feel the same pressure under taxation made by applying differential tax rates. Therefore, government should consider tax fairness. Unfair tax system makes worker who form a large majority in American economy lose their will to work. Furthermore, It causes the complaint of the people against the government.

To sum up, “Buffett Rule” is a kind of policies that makes state economy fair. Even though “Buffett Rule” does not solve completely all of the economic crisis that the United States faces, it lets discussions of tax rate continued. For this reason, the “Buffett Rule” has a lot of meaning.

- Minyoung Lee

Religious Favoritism

Can democracies show favoritism towards some religions over others?


ABSOLUTELY NOT!
In a democracy all adult citizens have the right to have a say in decisions that effect their life and country. Although these decisions might be a few degrees away from the common man they still had the opportunity to elect the officials who will speak on their behalf. This makes each mans vote equal to any other.
If a democracy were to favor one religion over another this would almost certainly mean not all men are equal.
Hypothetically if a said country favored Islam over Judaism then how would a Jew ever receive the same opportunities of a Muslim? Equality of man is a huge part of democracy. Equality in that every man can be heard and play a role that is equal to all other men, despite religious views.
A separation of church and state is needed in every way. There are only two countries that have only one religion and those are the Vatican City and Saudi Arabia. With the Vatican being the head of the Catholic church as it is the home of the Pope, the College of Bishops, and the College of Cardinals. Saudi Arabia is an Islamic theocratic monarchy.
Although Saudi Arabia is a monarchy it can still give an insight to how political favoritism of a religion can result in persecution of people who have differing religious views.
1. The penalty for trying to convert a Muslim to any other religion is death. In recent years there has been no reports of executions for this reason. While a country may not be this extreme with their favoritism this is a prime example of what could happen when one religion is favored. There is no extent to what a country could do in support of or defense of their "favorite" religion
2. Public practice of any non-Muslim religion is prohibited. S.A. has claimed that they protect the rights of non-Muslims to worship in private. The non-Muslim groups say there is no clear guideline as to what suffices as a private location and what establishments are acceptable. The groups also claim its unclear how many people are permitted to attend. There are still reports of persecution on these groups despite the policy made to protect non-Muslims.

Not that this would be the case for any country favoring a certain religion but "history repeats itself" isn't just a catchy saying. I don't feel mixing religion with government is in the best interest of the countrymen. It would violate the core values of a democracy by making one mans role or standing unequal to that of another.

SOPA and PIPA

The United States is dependent on technology, if it was to be stripped away I believe everyone would go insane and light the whole world on fire. You could say the general population in the U.S. is running off little devices in their pockets and on computers. These things allow us to access information, education, entertainment, business, and countless other things on the internet. What if we couldn’t access all these things?

Within the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate are bills that go by SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (the Protect IP Act). These bills have intentions of stopping copyright infringements on websites, which in my opinion and many others, would make the internet boring and pointless in some ways. A big opposing force against these bills by the people is that it's going against free speech/expression. To put this in a better context, SOPA would shutdown millions of websites that one looks at everyday, such as Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter. Now imagine going a day without those things, to some people it would be chaotic. Some think, "Well hey, why don't they just take out the pirated material instead of shutting down the whole caboodle." Well SOPA just wants to rip into all these websites with a chainsaw, call it good, and not worry about that website breaking anymore piracy laws. So if these bills continue and pass one could not watch television shows and movies, download or even listen to some music. For those of you who have burned a CD, you’re breaking the law and are going to jail! Also it gives the government the ability to censor anything they don't want us to see, though a plus to that would be censoring Anthony Weiner's Weiner. 

Unemployment is still high in some places and continuing to steadily rise and the government does a good job at convincing us that it will go down. What better way to make more jobs? By first demolishing millions of job opportunities and revenue of companies; all these great websites we use are all ran by thousands, even millions of people. If the government found copyrighted material on the website, at the snap of a finger they could shut it down without even having to take it to court. Copyright owners have a right to be paid what they’ve been earned, according to Josiah M. Hesse of Denver Westword Blogs, using copyrighted material is, “No different from the owner of a bakery selling bread. Stealing bread is a crime. Stealing a car is a crime. Stealing music and movies is no different… But it’s a bit of an oversimplification.” Indeed a very good point, if I made some bread and someone stole it hindering my sales, I’d hunt that man down and make him eat the whole loaf and pay me for it right at that second. Though that is the real world, in the World Wide Web things work differently and if SOPA and PIPA did somehow pass the negative factors would enormously outweigh the positive. 

Reed Hanke

State of the Economy

Everyone knows that the American economy is not where it was when it was at its height, but few people know exactly where the economy is currently heading if we don’t change what were currently doing. There is a lot of talk about bringing in a one world currency that will help stabilize the world’s economy. People are seeing the price of common goods rising at high rates. The United States continually goes further and further into debt. What are we doing to get out of this crisis?

As of now, it seems the like printing of more money is one quick fix that the government has chosen. This may seem like a good idea to make money to pay off our debt, but where does that leave our dollar? Currently our dollar is in the decline as far as worth goes. So far, this inflation has not been seen completely in the value of the dollar, but if the government keeps printing out money and putting money into the economy without having a solid way of getting it back, major inflation is inevitable. Inflation happens when nations print money that is not backed by their growth in the output of goods and services. According to Gilbert Muponda of The New Zimbabwe, this is what happened to Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe. He was printing off money to help pay for the wars that he wanted to win. He was unable to back any of the money he printed for the wars and saw the consequences with hyper-inflation. The United States may never see anything that drastic but inflation could lead to a lot of other things.

According to the CPI-U, which figures out the inflation rate for the United States, we increased 2.68 percent from 2010 to 2011. This number, according to economist John Williams, should be around ten percent if it was still done the same way that it was in 1980. This inflation is seen in many different ways in the United States. The prices of consumer goods have been skyrocketing. Look at the prices of bread and milk and coffee based on what they used to be. An easy one to look at is gas prices. Everyone complains about the prices of gas. Did you realize that just ten years ago the average price of a gallon of gas was $1.45. In 2011, the average price was $3.42. Also, the prices of gold and silver are going up. The increase in the prices of these two metals shows that people are losing faith in their dollars.

The loss of faith in the US dollar is not just happening in the United States though. Secret meetings have been held by many Middle Eastern countries along Russia, China, and France to change the currency with which oil will be traded. You may think that this would not be a very big deal, but this will cause the price of oil to increase at an even higher rate than it already is. The oil prices in America are so cheap because oil is traded in our currency. In England, gas prices have reached almost ten dollars a gallon. In the near future, if trade of oil stops in the US dollar, our gas prices could also reach prices around that amount.

The United States dollar is under a lot of scrutiny right now by people who are both in our country and around the world. The United States needs to do something immediately. Our government needs to stop printing out money and start figuring out a budget that can help the United States become an economic power again. Right now, the government has tried to cut budget spending, but they just can’t figure anything out. Maybe a line item veto would be an idea to help cut our budget. Whatever it takes, we need to get it done, or our life will keep getting harder in the United States. We need to make sure that our government does not continue to print bills that we can not back up or we will soon cease to be a leading country in the world

Big Brother is...tracking?

Antoine Jones owed a nightclub in Washington DC, and was suspected of selling cocaine.   The New York Times reports, the police installed a Global Positioning System (GPS) on his vehicle (without a valid warrant), and then tracked his movements for almost a month.  After the police had enough evidence, they arrested Mr. Jones. He was convicted on conspiring to sell cocaine and sentenced to life in prison.

Jones’s case was appealed and was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  They thought that the information the police had collected using the GPS without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment, according to Legal Information Institute describes, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This case went to the Supreme Court on November 8, 2011 and was decided last Monday on January 23, 2012.  The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the police violated the Constitution when they installed a GPS in Mr. Jones’s car and tracked him for 28 days without a warrant.  Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, justifies his ruling by saying, “…the governments installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search’…The government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information.”

This ruling is going to have a huge impact on policing.  Anytime the police want to track a suspect using a Global Positioning Device, they will have to obtain a search warrant before they can track them.  The majority of justices on this issue also believe the way in which the government obtains video surveillance from public places, roadside assistance devices, and location data from cell phone towers is unsettling.

In my opinion, the Supreme Courts ruling on the United States v. Jones case is the correct ruling.  The Fourth Amendment is in place to ensure our privacy from the government, and not have them do unreasonable search and seizures of our private property without a warrant.  Mr. Jones’s car was his private property.  The police put a tracking device on his car (private property) and “searched” his whereabouts without a warrant.  Clearly violating the Fourth Amendment.

True, the police fulfilled their duties on catching, collecting evidence against Jones, and protecting the public from a drug dealer, but they did it unlawfully.  The police should have found probably cause and attained a search warrant before placing the GPS on Mr. Jones’s car and tracking him.

If you aren’t against the government tracking a suspect’s vehicle, here is another scenario for you.  If the police suspect you for illegally downloading movies, songs, information, etc., would you like it if the government looked through all of the Web sites you have visited in the last year?  Even if you hadn’t done anything wrong?  Supreme Justice Sotomayor says that people would not want the government to see that sort of information because it is an invasion of their privacy.  Just like it is to have the government track your car without a warrant.  

The Rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the Effects on the Election

            Almost everybody has heard about the Keystone XL Pipeline debate.  If not, the basic idea of the Keystone XL Pipeline is a way to carry crude oil from Canada throughout the United States.  This has been a major debate and the project has been put on hold to propose a new route, so it does not pass through the Sand hills and over the Ogallala Aquifer. 

Although the project has been put on hold, President Obama has recently rejected the whole project, according to the New York Times.  This decision has put the President in a difficult position, especially with the upcoming election.  President Obama rejected this project because he felt there was not adequate time to reach a decision.  Even though he may have had good intentions, Obama’s reelection has been placed on a new level. 

The Keystone XL pipeline would have added many working opportunities and would have helped with the unemployment problem in the United States.  According to NPR, thousands of jobs would be created.  Even if they did only last throughout the construction phase, these current working opportunities could help many Americans in their lives by providing these workers with an income at least for some length of time.  American citizens were looking forward to this project, mainly because of the opportunities and also the fact that the oil would be shipped from the same body of land. 

The decision to reject the proposal of the Keystone XL pipeline has changed the people’s views and opinions of President Obama.  Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of job opportunities may be lost and we will still be forfeiting more money on foreign oil because the pipeline is not going through the United States.

Yes, the New York Times states that this is not a “final” decision about the Keystone XL Pipeline, but it actually is final as of now.  In order for the pipeline to be brought back into the picture, TransCanada will have to reapply for a presidential permit.  Although TransCanada wants a quick process, there is no possibility for this to be done quickly.  It will need to be a fresh application and evaluated just as carefully as it was the first time.  There is no way this project will be able to get started in the next few years and our economy will be suffering from it. 

Americans all over the United States are upset about the rejection of this project and this will greatly affect the upcoming election.   There will be many debates between the Republican nominee and the Democratic side about this project.  President Obama may have lost much of his support because of this decision of the Keystone XL pipeline. 

Obama? Is there really change?

When Obama first decided to run for office way back in 2006 and to try to get bids to be the next United States president his slogan, "change". For me in his almost four years of office I have seen very little change the only thing that I have seen was obamancare and that is still in the process of getting revoked. In recent news President Obama has recently shot down the Keystone XL pipeline and has called the ending of the Iraq war one of his ideas. Not only he’s Obama spent more money in his tenure than all the past 43 presidents combined. 
If you look at the denial of the keystone XL pipeline it wasn't that the states couldn't figure out a compromise but it was President Obama who shut it down because of his green energy philosophy.Lets discuss the Trans Canada pipeline or otherwise know as the Keystone XL pipeline that was proposed to run directly through the state of Nebraska over the Ogallala aquifer. With the Obama admistration totally out of the blue denying the pipeline that would not only bring the price of oil down to a more reasonable price. With the pipeline being denied not only does it make the US look like they cant figure out there own oil problem so they would just rather use foreign oil from the middle east where I’m pretty sure there not to fond of us there right now.

Along with being in the middle east President Obama was the one who said that “HE” was bringing the troops home when not he but the Bush administration had the plans in progress back when George W Bush was in power he had in those plans that he was to bring the troops back in 2012 and Afghanistan in 2014 but it was President Obama who said that “HE” brought the troops back.

We can also see a lack of presidential power when the super awesome Obamacare. The problem with obamacare is that it will be entirely run of bureaucrat that think they can spend the money that should be used for healthcare but if lets say hypothetically that if an old veteran or just an elderly person needed a heart transplant or a major surgery the government could decide that if the likelihood that they would live for more than a couple years. Then the government would say that there really wasn’t much that they could do and make you live without the surgery. Thus is why I think that obamacare is a terrible idea and it is still trying to be revoked from a bill.

Its all coming up in the election, which hopefully his challenger either Mitt Romney Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum to bring the Obama Administration down so well see how, it all pans out!

1,2,3,...13 Republican Debates

We’ve probably all watched some sort of political debate on television at some point in our lives, and I’ll be the first to say I’ve never sat through an entire one. Debates can be somewhat interesting for a short amount of time. They’re also a good way to find out about a candidate and their policies, but it’s usually only a short amount of time before they start going in circles and begin personally attacking each other. The sad thing is that this even happens when the candidates are supposed to be on the same side, like in the Republican primaries for the 2012 Presidential election. Another thing politicians have become really good at is answering questions with a lot of words, but saying nothing.

There have already been thirteen televised debates for the Republican primary, and we have barley started actually voting. After watching bits of some of the debates it seems like they’re going absolutely nowhere. One would think that the candidates would try to be as best prepared as possible and make sure they had their facts straight so their points could be valid and give the American people insight into their polices and how they plan to run the office if they’re elected, but all too often we don’t even get valid or correct information. In an article by Calvin Woodward on Yahoo, he highlights the frequent mistakes and stretches of facts the candidates have been using in recent debates such as Mitt Romney not giving President Obama credit for a recent large trade agreement, or Gingrich not knowing the facts about a retirement system he wants to put into effect.

Probably the thing I hate the most about political debates is actually what give them their entertainment value. Without a doubt if you watch a debate for long enough you will see some sort of argument, whether friendly or heated. It seems like in every debate there are productive comments and actual points being made, but they always seem to run out, then it turns to who can they make look the worst. These men and women are supposed to be debating for the same side. Technically they’re not even very apart on their political ideas, but they still find ways to completely attack and destroy each other. This video is a perfect example of how each candidate has no respect for what the other is trying to say and only wants to make sure they come out of the question looking like their on the winning side of the argument. Even though I must admit that watching arguments in political debates is entertaining, it dramatically takes away from the unity they should have in the party and divides people who are on the same side of politics.

All in all I’d say that political debates offer very good incentives and have some rewards, but they are vastly over used. Thirteen debates are just way too many. The debates have only started to create heated arguments between same party candidates and voters, and forced us to go in circles around the same issues. I still think there should be debates and think they give a lot of good information about candidates, but please can we have a little more moderation. 

Trans-Canada XL Pipeline

Providing money, the effects on the environment and reducing the United States dependence on foreign oil are some key points when looking at whether or not the pipeline should proceed as planned. (http://www.concordy.com/article/obamas-decision-on-keystone-xl-pipeline-will-seal-the-fate-of-2012/). The precedents that provide the framework for the current keystone pipeline development don’t hold up when looking at the aspect of the current route. Not only will the impact on the environment become astronomical if any sort of failure or problem occurs in the pipeline infrastructure itself, but impact skyrockets when the contaminants can potentially pollute the Ogallala aquifer, which is the largest underground fresh water source Nebraska can tap into. Cleanup for the BP oil spill was hard enough when the oil was just in the water that we can actually see. Water underneath the ground will be virtually impossible to clean up and the repercussions will be felt for generations to come.

Some Scientific facts that are being provided that are against the XL pipeline is the fact on what it will do to our climate. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/23/tar-sands-keystone-xl-climate). Just because the Tar sand pits are an excellent source of carbon, the way that it must be extracted is ridiculous. The process requires far too much time and energy, which in turn churn out even more climate harming emissions. Natural gases are needed for the refinement of the oil, these practices produce far more greenhouse gasses per barrel than conventional oil.

Mining of the pits is also very destructive to the environment. The plan calls for the removal of the entire tree’s surrounding the area and also for the large amount of topsoil that is on top of the deposit itself. Included in the creation of oil from the tar sand pits is the need for large amounts of water. Although a great quantity of the used water will be recycled, the suspicion arises that the effects of the non-recycled water will have adverse effects on the wildlife downstream from the project. One of the worries is that harmful deformities will occur in the native fish from the pollutants.

Luckily President Obama has rejected the Trans Canadian Pipeline due to the various facts. One, that the XL pipeline was projected to create hundreds of thousands of jobs, which if true, would have been extremely helpful in the currently trouble economy, but unfortunately the pipeline will realistically only create 4 – 6 thousand jobs according to http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/01/18/why-obama-decided-against-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/. The pipeline would also not impact the economy as was recently believed. The United States is already refining most the crude oil that is possible.

In the end, President Obama made the right decision to deny the Trans-Canadian Pipeline. The risks to the environment vastly outweighed the potential short-term increase in the availability of jobs and minimal boost to the economy.

The Game of Life

 In all we do in life, there are winners and losers. From athletics to the workplace, people are in a constant competition with each other and themselves. There are many people who believe that the concept of winning and losing is bad for kids at a young age. These people argue children are learning terrible characteristic traits and are ruining things such as self-esteem. Alfie Kohn states in her blog that competition is terrible for self-esteem and tears children apart. They believe that winning only makes kids gloat and losing makes kids second-guess themselves and their abilities. The opposing side to competition claims that competition gives a rise to hostility because children only see their competitors as obstacles, which they must overcome to gain success. These people make a very strong point for why competition is bad for children, the benefits of competition, however, overshadow the negatives.

In the society we live in, life is a constant competition in everything we do. In many things, competition brings out the best work ethics and motivation in people. Whether it is at the work place or in the small tasks of life, knowing one can do a better job at a task fuels people to work hard and work to the best of their abilities. Competition in life is promoting people to want to better themselves. When there is no competition, it is human nature to settle for less than the best. With no one to push you, it is easy to get away with a lackadaisical performance and to be content with this poor performance. By competing or even working with another person, one is more likely to give their best effort.

Learning to lose is a very important lesson in life. As the Be Aggressive Sports Resource tells us, the earlier one learns to lose, the healthier their mental and emotional state will be later in life after a loss or rejection. Not getting a job after an interview or losing a sporting event is part of life. There are winners and losers in everything and at some point in everyone’s life they will be on both ends of the spectrum. It is much healthier and more beneficial to children if they learn to lose through things such as sporting events at a young age. Winning and losing as good sports is a lesson, which is carried out through one’s entire life.

The number one thing people miss when arguing about the downfalls of competition is that the real competition in life is against yourself, to be the best you can possibly be. Tee ball and soccer at a young age teach kids to work hard, and give everything you have in all aspects and endeavors of life. True success and victory in life is when one uses their natural abilities to their fullest extent. When people can accomplish this feat, they will be winning in the greatest game or competition, and this is the game of life.

A Decade of No Child Left Behind: Time for a Change

Ten years ago, in a shinning moment of bi-partisan harmony, Republicans and Democrats joined hands and passed a monumental overhaul of the American educational system: No Child Left Behind. President George W. Bush had campaigned in 2000 on the platform of being a compassionate conservative, and what better way to demonstrate just how compassionate he could be than making sure every child, regardless of race, income, or learning circumstance would receive an equal education? Democrats rejoiced! Only 20 years before another conservative, President Ronald Reagan, had made the dissolution of the federal Department of Education a (unsuccessful) tenant of his campaign. Finally, Democrats thought, education would receive meaningful support from the federal government.

By 2014 every student was supposed to be proficient in reading and math; achievement gaps were supposed to be closing; and teachers were supposed to be highly certified. Instead, we have students who are continuing to fail, teachers who enter and leave the field of education with record speed, and students, parents, teachers, administrators, bureaucrats, and elected officials who all collectively throw up their hands in exasperation. What happened?

For many observers, the problem lies in the failed project of assessing all students on the basis of standardized tests. How can multiple-choice test truly assess everything students should learn? And doesn’t it just encourage teachers to teach exclusively to the test? And doesn’t it provide an incentive to schools to lower standards, not raise them? As Sol Stern pithily argues, channeling James Madison’s pessimistic view of human nature, “Since men are not angels, it was inevitable that state and local education authorities would dumb down the tests to make themselves look good to the feds and to the voters.” Creating standards to measure student progress is a perfectly reasonable goal; setting unreachable goals – such as a 100% success rate – is not only untenable but also foolish.

One of the major drawbacks of NCLB is that it was a law that came with a lot of sticks and not a lot of carrots. Schools that made progress were rewarded by being recognized as achieving or exceeding expectations; failure to meet standards was met with sanctions on the mild end and government-led restructuring and takeover on the extreme end. That’s not to say that failing schools should just be ignored, or that the solution is to just throw more money at the problem. As Michael Sullivan, an economic conservative from Texas, recently argued: "We've assumed that, well, more money equals better education. Let's just spend more money.” That assumption has failed us.

Both the political right and the political left need to give up some ground on this issue if we are going to have any meaningful change in education policy. The bi-partisan spirit that originally forged this bill should not be abandoned just because the law itself has proven a largely failed experiment. Economic reform in this country must begin with educational reform: spending money on proven methods, not just spending money for the sake of it; training students for vocations, not just college; and returning control of the curriculum to the states. Ten years later, it’s time to leave behind the No Child Left Behind policy and begin re-conceptualizing our education system.

Welcome

This a blog written by students at UNK on issues of democracy, politics, and society. Please feel free to comment.