Obama Attacks Execs Involved in Oil Spill

President Obama has been attacking the executives of the companies--British Petroleum, Transocean, and Halliburton--involved in the massive oil spill just off of the coast of Louisiana Reuters reported today.

The open question is whether or not the protracted effects of the oil spill will damper public support for Obama's plan to open up much of the Eastern Seaboard and parts of Alaska to oil exploration and drilling for the first time.

The Department of the Interior has suspended giving out new drilling permits until May 28, when a safety review is due to be completed.

All the companies have tried to shift the blame, which may be worse press than just trying to accept responsibility. It seems to me that after hearing other big businesses mess up recently--notably financial services businesses--the oil firms and subcontractors would want to be careful to strike a more conciliatory and repentant tone. Alas, they have not. If their reaction to the crisis hurts public opinion of increased offshore drilling to the point that lawmakers postpone opening the new waters, they will have themselves to blame. In this environment where the American public trusts big corporations only a little more than they trust their unpopular government, honesty is probably the best policy. Too bad big oil hasn't learned its lesson.

Protests, Baseball, and the Arizona Immigration Law

I'm surprised to hear that the Arizona boycott is actually gaining force – as my understanding, which is the same as the textbook's – is that most boycotts and other large-scale protests end up swept under the rug or directed to the "sit-in room" because much of the protest machine is, much of the time, fabricated and insincere.

According to a May 14 blog post on the NY Times website, the "Arizona Republic is reporting today that Gov. Jan Brewer and tourism-industry leaders are so worried about the loss in convention and tourism business that they are setting up a task force, funded by $250,000 from the state’s commerce department, to counter what they say is “misinformation’’ about the new law."

And just to illustrate how far the issue has gone, my dad mentioned tonight that he read the MLB players union strongly opposes SB1070, and that many players, particularly those of Latin origin, have promised to boycott the 2011 All-Star Game if it's held in Arizona.

This is what finally got my attention. This is proving to be a very costly 'misunderstanding' that's forever branded the state's image in the eyes of most people, and isn't as much a policy issue as it is a P.R. issue.

Tightening Up the Legal System by Matt Hollander

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100504/ap_on_go_co/us_too_many_crimes

There is a peculiar media exchange occurring between Congress and criminal defense lawyers. The charge is that congress is enacting laws that are not clearly defined. The controversy has focused on provisions, or rather the lack there of, for crimes relating to “criminal intent.” This qualification is important in defining defendants who intentionally broke the law from those who make unfortunate mistakes. In a practical scenario, these are the provisions that separate manslaughter from homicide. The difference is not just legal terminology, but significant punishments. The interpretation of intent can mean the difference in decades of jail time.

The criminal defense lawyers say that these laws are unfair to the defendants. The vagueness of these provisions creates situations where people can be prosecuted for crimes that they were unaware of. The lawyers have collectively requested a review of many recently enacted laws, and every practical, as well as constitutional, argument support proper adjustments.

On a fundamental level, the authors of the Bill of Rights had this scenario in mind when they crafted the sixth amendment. It was very important to distance the nation from tyrannical rule, and one such method was to ensure rights to the accused. It is established that the government can neither illegalize an act, nor increase due punishment, after the act has been committed. The ambiguity the referenced provisions essentially make this injustice possible.

Matt Hollander

To have your cake and eat it too: American polls on Illegal Immigration by Matt Hollander

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-05-03-immigration-poll_N.htm

In a recent USA Today poll on illegal immigration, two-thirds of Americans want the government to do a better job of securing boarders, but they are sympathetic to illegal immigrants who have been solid contributors to the economy. While, this seems like a reasonable position, the ideologies are conflicting and produce a classic case of “wanting your cake and eating it to.” A topic that is as politically and racially charged as illegal immigration elicits the full range of feelings, often ones that contradict each other. The issue of illegal immigration raises the logical dilemma of breaking laws, and the emotional dilemma of enforcing that law through deportation.

So if the people of this country are so inconsistent on the issue, how are legislators supposed to address this issue? The mixed signal has many lawmakers at a standstill. Illegal immigration is one of the most prevalent issues and seemingly no one knows how to proceed. Legislators would be remiss to not confront this problem with a logical solution. The fact of the matter is that no matter what, the plan will cost an exorbitant amount of money to enact. Americans need to make a stand and be prepared to pay the price for their wishes.

Matt Hollander

Obama's Drug Policy

After repeated delay, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy released its first National Drug Control Strategy earlier this week. In a May 14 article in The New Republic, UChicago professor and substance-abuse expert Harold Pollack (who also happens to be Stephen Hawking's dopplegänger) dissects Obama's drug strategy, weighing in on its pros and cons.

What did the Obama administration overlook? Pollack states that the strategy is too focused on fighting drug suppliers, which really won't go anywhere. Pollack argues that money would be better spent in prevention programs, which could actually yield results. Pollack also says that the Obama administration should have focused on other addictive substances, such as alcohol and tobacco, as these "continue to undermine public health" (is he suggesting prohibition-type legislation?)

So what's the Obama administration doing differently? What is it doing right? Pollack argues that both the evolved attitude towards drugs and the focus of the strategy are huge improvements. Obama's strategy, while still focusing on the prevention of simple drug use, will focus more on the prevention of "more explicitly harmful consequences: deaths, illness, and injuries associated with drug use." Obama's strategy also focuses on "[integrating] addiction services with general medical care," and will provide financing for addiction treatment. Additionally, Obama's policy will deal "more diplomatically and effectively" with drugs abroad (including Central and South American countries).

Financial Reform

Very few are happy with large banks and the Federal reserve at the moment. With bailout after bailout for banks, and literally trillions of unaccounted dollars within the fed, it is no wonder why the people want change. It started with Congressman Ron Paul of Texas proposing a bill to audit the Fed and making it accountable for its missing funds. However, he lacked enough support to make progress and the bill died.However, the idea has rekindled; Senator Bernie Sanders has proposed a bill that would audit the fed, and the bill is receiving much greater support from both sides than before. In addition, a second bill to break up large banks into smaller more efficient ones made its way to the floor with great support as well. With these bills, the proposers hope to limit the secret deals and lending that the Fed more than likely has been making and also stop banks from becoming welfare moochers.

Economic and Foreign Policy

Impact of health bill

Foreign holdings of US debt

National Defense Spending

...............Nominal $...%Outlays....%GDP

1960 $48b............52%.............9.3%

2010 $719b..........19%.............4.9%

Obama's Deal

This course focused on the political process and its endgame: public policy. A few weeks ago, I found a program that illustrates this process - start to finish - better than almost anything else. It's a FRONTLINE documentary called "Obama's Deal" about the administration's healthcare overhaul.

The video is very interesting. It reveals details of the process that would usually not be available to DC outsiders. In just an hour-long show, it covers a year-long process - and does a pretty good job.

Benefits to New Media

The Washington Post has announced that it is planning on selling Newsweek due to continuous declines in sales since 2007. This article cites falling newstand and circulation. However, we know that newstand and circulation is falling for all forms of print media. This brings up the "problem" of the new media, but spokesmen from the publication said in a Newsweek article that they want to grow and adapt to their market. The industry is evolving, and Newsweek, as well as other forms of honest journalism that are being replaced with blogs and such, can only survive if they adapt. According to the Newsweek article, the challenges presented by the decline in sales have forced them to improve their quality. So, while we can expect the quantity of "old-fashioned" honest journalism to decline with the growth of blogs and fast-info news sources, the ones that stick around will have to be even higher quality than before.

Question of Impartiality of the Courts

Charles Dean Hood is waiting on death row after being convicted of killing two people in Plano, Texas. The verdict and condemning punishment makes the nature of his trial more questionable. The prosecutor (who also served as Collin County's District Attorney), Tom O'Connell, and Judge, Verla Sue Holland, of the trial had a past sexual relationship and are still close friends, making the trial lose its credibility and impartiality. Hood and his legal team have not been able to get a new trial in the Texas court system, and the Supreme Court recently declined to reconsider the case.

This story brings the Constitutional right to a fair trial into question. Our court system is supposed to allow a fair trial, but the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution only calls for the impartiality of the jury. The Judge Verla Sue Holland got her position through an election, and her values and judgement were scrutinized by the populace. With her position, the people decided that she had the values that would uphold the Constitutional right for those involved in her court. But her relationship with the District Attorney clearly made the courtroom impartial. As the director of The Texas Defender Service, Andrea Keilen, said of the case, "'No one should be prosecuted for a parking ticket, let alone for capital murder by the district attorney who has had a sexual affair with the judge handling the case."

This story shows that while our Constitution and our court systems are made to give the accused a fair trial, there are still shortcomings in the system that are not protected by the Constitution or popular elections.

US, China, and Taiwan

A lot of us have probably heard that China may surpass the United States in becoming the next superpower of the world due to its rapid economic growth etc. My question is whether these two countries will ever clash in some way? Some suspect that if they do, it would be about Taiwan. The United States has always maintained a very ambiguous policy towards Taiwan: it does not officially recognize Taiwan but sells arms to it to guard itself against enemies, which would obviously be China. The United States had a weapons deal worth 6.4 billion dollars with Taiwan earlier this year, which infuriated China. With its "One China" policy, China considers Taiwan as a part of China and will supposedly resort to military measures if Taiwan formally declares independence. At the same time, the United States seems to support Taiwan in that it will help Taiwan if China invades the country in the future. So, the United States doesn't seem to want China to take over Taiwan, but at the same time, it officially supports China's policy. So, what happens if Taiwan does declare independence? Will the United States come to Taiwan's defense? Will it be willing to engage in a war with China?

The Death Penalty

Lately, capital punishment has caught my attention because it is now a heated debate in Taiwan. After nearly five years of not executing anyone, the Ministry of Justice suddenly carried out the execution of four inmates that were sentenced to death, which shocked the entire country. Taiwan never officially abolished the death penalty, and although people have been sentenced to death before, it hasn't been carried out, so people generally think that it is just a kind of formality.

The interesting thing is that the general public in Taiwan supports capital punishment. Unlike the United States where people are split regarding this issue, the majority of people in Taiwan see capital punishment as something rather ordinary and compulsory. A specific example occurred when the former Minister of Justice resigned because of public pressure when she publicly announced her support for the abolition of the death penalty. In a way, instead of generating support of the abolition, she actually facilitated the renewal of the executions.

Unlike the United States where the death penalty lies within the state jurisdiction, it is in the hands of the federal government in Taiwan. Speaking of this, I was surprised when I first learned that the United States was one of the top countries that carry out executions, and even more puzzled when I learned that only certain states do so. I guess that is a perfect example of how federalism works in the United States.

Since its conception, the Internet has been tax free and open to everybody. If you buy access to the Internet through an Internet Service Provider, you may visit any site you wish at any time. All data that is sent or received is mandated by the FCC to be delivered on a first come, first serve basis to its intended recipient in order to promote an open and interconnected flow of information, unregulated by the cable companies that provide it. Corporations such as Verison, AT&T, and Comcast are fighting to gain control of the information that they distribute. By abolishing the mandates of net neutrality, corporations could control what content is seen first and which pages load fastest. Larger sites could pay for preferential treatment of their data, defeating the equal treatment of information that allows any user to visit any site he desires. Without net neutrality, phone companies could create virtual profiling checkpoints on the internet, controlling traffic in a way that prevents the free and easy exchange of ideas.

So much of the internet’s success developed through the ability to freely share information across sites and country borders. The internet’s speed and ease of access give it the power to spread aid in a time of crisis. It can sometimes reveal social injustice in countries that lack other pervasive communication networks. If phone and cable corporations continue to score legal victories against the FCC, the internet as we know it will disappear. Companies like Verison, AT&T, and Comcast will have the right to slow down or block certain information, potentially hindering humanitarian causes that rely on the efficient and all-encompassing network the internet provides. While we cannot be sure how these companies will proceed, some companies have already limited peer-to-peer connectivity, with plans to institute cell-phone like charges to access popular sites. The Obama administration’s stance on net neutrality will influence the struggle between the FCC and phone and cable companies and decide whether the internet will continue to exist as an open and interconnected network.

Federalism and Education

Yesterday, the New York Times came out with an article profiling Arne Duncan, the U.S. Secretary of Education. Previous secretaries have tended to stay out of the public focus, as state and local governments are largely responsible for the programs and funding given to schools. Arne Duncan is seeking to expand the role of the federal government in local schools. His "assertive" measures include a $4 billion school improvement competition and $3.5 billion to help failing schools. Congress doubled the Department of Education's budget last year in emergency education funding, giving Duncan far more resources than his predecessors had. Although there is a proposal to change the No Child Left Behind Act to give schools more flexibility, most of Duncan's efforts promote federal involvement in schooling.

Even though the budget for the Department of Education has doubled, it still accounts for very little of the overall budget on local education. The New York Times notes that "in recent decades, states and districts have paid more than 90 cents of every dollar spent on public schools." Some critics of the Department of Education's increased role have pointed out that the federal government is attempting to get more leverage in an area where they provide little of the funding. Such tensions in who should control and ultimately be responsible for social programs reflect the occasional challenges presented by our federal system. Education has traditionally been a state and local issue - while it is admirable that Duncan desires to improve our current education system, it is also understandable that local and state officials might resent increased regulations when they are the ones ultimately footing most of the bill.

One Jerk Might Ruin Our Fun

The recent car bombing scare in New York City has proven devastating for the nation. It is alleged that the act was done by one man and that there is no conspiracy. Representative Peter King has suggested that the bombing was caused by South Park and its recent episode in which it originally slandered the prophet Mohamed. After several threats, any reference to him in the episode was censored. Scenes where he was supposed to be on screen had a large black rectangle labeled 'censored'. The South Park creators still virtually got the image across, censorship or not.

If this in truth why the bombing occurred, then everyone needs to understand that South Park attacks everything. Every major religion had some under their ridicule at some point, among other things. One of their most notable almost-lawsuits was their episode criticizing the Whale Wars cast, specifically the leader of the project Paul Watson.


This picture was shown on TV as he was being personally slandered. South Park does not discriminate with what to attack; they go after anything, and this is why everyone loves the show.

Besides this, if the bombing is concluded to have been caused of South Park's depiction of Mohamed, we can only expect one thing, more censorship. South Park is free to poke fun at whomever they desire because no one can get insulted by their humor. If they did, they would find their careers being troubled. This is true among politicians and any public figures, the only way to avoid injury of words is to not react to them. FDR understood this in his early years campaigning for the presidency. His opponents would create absurd lies to slander him, and he would ignore them completely. Nothing much came of it. Now, because there may have been a violent recoil, the situation is different.

Censorship is counter-productive in a free society, which should encourage different opinions not the same. Censorship will only dull the message artists attempt to present. For South Park and like shows, this means they will have to be more careful about what they slander. We love these shows because of the over-the-top absurdity and their brave attacks on almost anyone. Their quality will only decrease if they are subject to greater censorship. Finally, the concept of American liberty becomes restrained as well. America is supposed to be the one country where one can speak their mind without fear of repercussions.

South Park had already faced some degree of censorship in the show. If the investigators of the bombing conclude that it was in fact the depiction of Mohamed that instigated the bomber, there will no doubt be tighter restrictions on what comedians can show to the public. For the South Park creators this means either more lawsuits or much worse content, ruining the fun for all of us. However, Representative King closed claiming the South Park theory is "one in a hundred". Hopefully, for the sake of artists, comedy, and liberty it is false.

Times Square Car Bomb linked to South Park

Last Saturday night, a car bomb was found in Times Square. Fortunately, although the device had apparently begun to detonate, it failed to explode. Representative Peter T. King, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Homeland Security suggested that the car bomb could be linked to the controversial 'South Park' episode. The episode in question included a caricature of the prophet Muhammad dressed in a bear suit and spurred Islamic radical group Revolution Muslim to threaten the 'South Park' creators. A post on RevolutionMuslim.com declared, "We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably end up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will happen to them" (foxnews.com). The car bomb itself was found nearby Viacom headquarters , the conglomerate that owns Comedy Central, on which South Park is aired.

A Double Standard

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faced off at the UN Conference on Monday over the subject of nuclear proliferation. Clinton began, as you would expect, by accusing Iran of evading nuclear safeguard obligations and by calling on Iran to "fulfill our international obligations and work toward the goal of a safer world" (CNN.com). Ahmadinejad countered by denying allegations that Iran's nuclear program is focused on creating nuclear weapons and accusing the United States of promoting an "international system that... favored the West and nuclear weapon states while denying states like his the benefits of nuclear energy" (CNN.com). Ahmadinejad went on to argue that the U.S. held a double standard by denying states like Iran the right to hold nuclear weapons, while at the same time Israel continues to receive U.S. support despite their own undeclared nuclear stockpile. While the thought of Ahmadinejad getting his hands on a nuclear bomb does keeps me up at night, I can't help but feel that in some respect he is right. It is incredibly hypocritical of the U.S. to try and regulate how other countries develop their own nuclear power, while we are not only the world's largest distributor of commercial nuclear energy, but we are also currently sitting on a stockpile of over 5,000 nuclear missiles. This seems to be just another example of America policing the world and trying to push forward our own agenda. On that note, as a U.S. citizen, I am much more comfortable knowing that the U.S. will do whatever it can to stop countries like Iran and North Korea from attaining nuclear weapons. At the same time I can take advantage of the 19.6% of our total electricity consumption that is provided by nuclear energy.

Practice Final Exam

I. Identifications. Explain the meaning and significance of 12 of the 15 following items (4 points each). Each answer should be a brief paragraph. What is fair game for an identification?

• Items that we have discussed in class or on the blog;
• Items that appear in bold or italics in the readings;
• Items that cover several pages in the readings.

1. National Security Act of 1947
2. Progressive taxes
3. Stare decisis
4. Federal Register
5. Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
6. Cloture
7. Embedded journalist
8. Superdelegates
9. Exclusionary rule
10. AmeriCorps
11. Unfunded mandate
12. Bill of attainder
13. Medicaid
14. Party identification
15. Thirteenth Amendment

II. Short answers. Answer 3 of 4 (6 points each). Each answer should be a brief paragraph.

1. Explain the difference between unilateralism and multilateralism in foreign policy.

2. Briefly explain: “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.”

3. Briefly explain: “Our written laws are often hard to understand, but everyone can read them, whereas nothing could be more obscure and out of research of the common man than a law founded on precedent.”

4. What has happened to the newspaper industry in recent years? How might the trend affect deliberative democracy?

III. General Essays. Answer 2 of 3 (17 points each). Each answer should take 3-4 small bluebook pages.

1. How can federalism foster deliberation and active citizenship?

2. The unemployment rate is 9.7 percent. Is the president responsible? In your answer, consider the structure of federal economic policymaking.

3. See the article at http://www.wilsoncountynews.com/article.php?id=27305&n=tead-off-americans-national-day-of-pray-gets-wrong-court-decision. Explain how it illustrates basic features of the nation’s civic culture and constitutional structure. Does it get anything wrong?

IV. Bonus questions (one point each) Very briefly identify the following:

• Annette Polly Williams
• Christine Todd Whitman
• Henry Waxman
• Byron White
• Sienna Wooten

California Budget Cuts

Acalanes Blueprint

I went to a public California high school in the East Bay in northern California. During my senior year, state budget cuts hit the public education system. Every teacher and every program was in the line of fire, and the situation is getting worse every year. Therefore, parcel tax measures have recently been a huge part of local politics.

One might blame the government for mishandling tax revenue, but as the most recent article in the student newspaper, the Blueprint, points out, others claim the problem is that “the teachers’ union…owns the state legislature” (see article). The California teachers’ union is a political powerhouse, and it has fought long and hard for decreased classroom size. This brings up the debate over which is more important: keeping teachers in their jobs and keeping class sizes down or continuing to fund more student programs. Personally, if I had the option of sitting on the floor all day in classes with 40 people or having my student newspaper cut, I’d choose sitting on the floor. I think every student at my school would do the same for their student organization, or to keep the opportunity to take AP courses.

How people feel about the parcel tax measures has a lot to do with the “feel-good” aspect of wanting everyone to contribute to the education of the "future of America". Therefore, those who oppose the parcel tax get a bad reputation for being greedy and selfish when really, they have the same interests at heart. As more free-market oriented, anti-regulatory voters, their stance stems from less faith in the ability of local level (and probably all levels of) government bureaucracy to handle something as important and serious as a crisis in the education system. They also have a different basic concept of how the economy functions in the long run. They call for temporary difficulty in favor of long-term gain, saying that, instead of tax increases that may erode the tax base and reduce tax revenue, we should encourage private fundraising by those whose interests are most invested in the education system.

Economic Policy

Power Point slides

Medicare actuary report on the health bill

Sources of information

Our future:

Obama at WHCD

While President Obama reminds us of his speaking skill during every speech and official speaking appearance, I had forgotten about his ability to remain well liked in almost any social situation. Whereas President Bush seemed decidedly uncomfortable at this White House Correspondents' Association dinner, Obama was in control throughout the entirety of his speech and, as reported by Politico, even topped Jay Leno's performance in terms of comedy. In his short speech preceding Jay Leno's spot, Obama demonstrated a welcome ability to laugh at himself, Biden, and the rest of his staff.

Some of the best lines included:

"I work a lot so I wasn't sure that I should actually come tonight. Biden talked me into it. He leaned over and he said, 'Mr. President, this is no ordinary dinner. This is a big "f**king meal!"

"Unfortunately John McCain couldn't make it. Recently he claimed that he had never identified himself as a maverick, and we all know what happens in Arizona when you don't have I.D."

By the end of the night, Obama had completely outdone Jay Leno (not that difficult an achievement), who had decided to play it safe with his routine. Although I can appreciate a President with a sense of humor, Politico aptly points out that Obama might not have attended the event and chosen to focus on the recent BP oil spill instead. Such action might have been more appropriate, but, for better or worse, Obama is a president who enjoys and excels in the limelight. I doubt he could have passed an opportunity like this up.

Are we Safe?

This Saturday around 6:28pm, a Nissan Pathfinder S.U.V. was found in the center of Times Square containing simple alarm clocks attached to gasoline pipes, propane, firecrackers and fertilizer. Less than a few minutes of having parked on West 45^th Street, a nearby vendor observed smoke coming out of the SUV and notified a police officer. The bomb squad appeared a few minutes later and successfully detonated it, leaving investigators to pour through hours of surveillance footage to find suspects. The bomb was reported to be a very simple one that would have set off a “fireball”, killing several civilians and tear the car to pieces but would not be able to demolish buildings. The New York Times reported that there are many theories floating as to why this bomb was planted. A video of the Al-Qaeda was found on YouTube claiming that they were responsible for the attack. However, terrorist analysts are skeptical and believe that this may be a propaganda stunt rather than the real deal. There has also been speculation about it being an attempt to bomb the Viacom building. Viacom owns the sitcom South Park which recently depicted the prophet Mohammad in a negative light. Since then the company has received many threats from Islamist groups. With these events occurring in broad day light we need to ask are we safe? What more can the government do to make events like this not occur? This time we got lucky that the car was parked in a central location and that the vendors were able to spot the smoke coming out. The Obama administration is now working hard trying to find the criminals behind this event and how to prevent it from occurring again.

Cost-control measures in the health care law

In class on Wednesday, we talked about the recently enacted health care law and touched on its immediate impact on health care spending in the United States. Per that discussion, I wanted to break down a few of the features of the bill that we didn’t touch on but have the potential to fundamentally reshape our health insurance system and “bend the curve” of growing health costs.

The exchanges

The law requires each state to set up a health insurance “exchange”—a health insurance marketplace, accessed online, in which insurance companies have to list their plans in clear detail for consumers to compare on the merits of quality and price. All plans sold in the exchange will have to meet minimum standards of coverage. In today’s insurance market, most consumers don’t know which coverage is best and how much it should cost, except for really sick people who spend time researching this kind of stuff. In the exchange, the relative quality of plans will be clearly indicated through both government and consumer ratings; in this transparent market, the economics of competition will work naturally to improve quality and reduce prices. At first, the exchanges will be open only to individuals and small businesses; in 2018, states will have the option of banding their exchanges together with those of other states, and allowing larger businesses to buy insurance on the exchanges. If this happens, we may see the kind of system-wide cost reduction we need.

The excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans

Though highly unpopular, this is the law’s most direct incentive for cost control. Basically, in 2018, a 40% tax will be applied on every dollar over $27,500 spent on a health insurance plan. This threshold will increase with inflation, which is slower than health care cost growth; unless costs start growing more slowly, more plans will fall under the tax. The ultimate goal is not to have employers pay the tax; the goal is for them to avoid paying the tax by choosing plans for their employees that cost less money. This, consequently, gives insurers who charge less a competitive advantage against those charging more.

The Medicare Commission

Right now, Congress has authority over Medicare payment rates and spending targets. The recently enacted law creates the Independent Medicare Advisory Commission, a 15-member board of experts appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The commission is empowered to bring Medicare in line with certain spending targets and institute reforms in Medicare to make meeting those targets easier. The key is that their recommendations are not subject to amendment by Congress; after they are made, the recommendations must be explicitly rejected, as a package, by both houses of Congress within a certain amount of time before they take effect. Congress hates to implement changes to Medicare that might hurt those who benefit from the current system; the commission solves this political problem. Most importantly, the commission can use Medicare to experiment with reforms in payment and delivery systems that, if they work, could be emulated system-wide.

The bundling of Medicare payments

With a few pockets of exception, our health care system currently operates under a “fee-for-service” model, in which doctors get paid more for every consultation, test, procedure, or prescription they order. And consumers do not want to second-guess the recommendations of medical professionals, no matter how skewed their incentives. A good explanation of the perils of this system is found in Atul Gawande’s article in The New Yorker from last June. You should be able to find it on Google.

Under the new law, instead of getting paid for each treatment and test, hospitals serving Medicare patients will receive a single fee for treating all of a patient’s ailments over a given period of time. This will give incentive for doctors to communicate with patients and other doctors, and provide a disincentive to order tests and procedures that might not be necessary. It could be the beginning of Americans paying for the quality of their health care rather than the quantity of their health care.

Arizona's Bad Timing

The U.S. state of Arizona recently passed a bill with the intent to crack down in a big way on illegal immigration. This bill makes it illegal to be in the state if you are not a U.S. citizen, allows for law enforcement officials to go up to anyone on the street and ask for U.S. identification, and lets Arizona citizens sue the police department of the state if they do not feel they are doing their job in catching and sending back illegal immigrants. This can and will most likely lead to racial profiling by law enforcement officials in checking ids, due to Arizona's shared border with Mexico. The Roman Catholic cardinal in Los Angeles has criticized this bill as nearing Nazism. Many Americans think that Mexico is the problem neighbor of America, whose people are crashing their party. In some ways this is true. Mexico is in the middle of a large conflict against their many drug cartels. Over 20,000 people have died in Mexico due to this conflict. The War on Drugs in Mexico has proven to be very different than the one in the U.S. Barack Obama and Felipe Calderon have been working closely because this crackdown on Mexico's drug cartels is of great interest to the U.S. Mexican cartels are responsible for an estimated 70% of the drugs that enter this country. The recently named most dangerous city in the world, Juarez, sits just across our border of Texas and New Mexico. This time, more than ever, calls for the U.S. and Mexico to work as closely as ever to help prevent the violence from continuing in Mexico, as well as spreading across our borders which is a strong possibility. Our government has pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to Mexico to help with military supplies as well as intelligence and troop training. The Merida Initiative is a joint security cooperation between Mexico, the U.S., and other Central American countries to help combat cartels and drugs. Arizona has chosen a poor time to pass the bill. President Calderon has openly stated his outrage over the bill, saying, "(the bill) opens the door to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement. Nobody can sit around with their arms crossed in the face of decisions that so clearly affect our countrymen" He is right. Mexico's state of Sonora which borders Arizona has pulled out of its annual Sonora-Arizona Commission, a cooperation meeting that has been held between the two states for over four decades. Mexico accounts for close to two-thirds of Arizona's exports. This will be no longer. Many expect the U.S. - Mexico relationship to deteriorate at a time where it must be especially strong for the safety of North America.

This bill by Arizona, constitutional or unconstitutional, has come at the worst time. It will cause the economy of Arizona to deteriorate in the middle of the recession which is starting to get better. It will hurt the relationship between our two countries when we need to be strong and focus our efforts on helping Mexico break up their drug cartels, decrease their violence, and keep drugs off our streets.