Census Awareness

Last class we talked a little about different ways the Census could be administrated. This Saturday, an article was posted in the New York Times stating 1 in 3 Americans Failed to Return Census Forms. The states that had the highest participation were Wisconsin with 78% participation and Minnesota with 76%. States that had the lowest participation were New Mexico with 59% and Louisiana with 60%. In bigger cities, areas that were predominantly black and Hispanic had lower participation rates.

According to the article, as of Friday March 16, there was only 68% mail participation. This is a 4% drop as compared to the 2000 census where there was 72% mail participation. With more Americans not filling out the Census, we need to find cost efficient ways to raise awareness and involvement. For those who live in poorer communities and do not send in their forms, the government has issued workers to go door to door. This process, though effective, is very time consuming and costly. We must find different ways to make all residing Americans fill out this form. One idea could be linking the form to jobs. All those individuals who do not fill out the census cannot receive their next pay check. Although this method may be harsh, and hard to execute, it will help Americans realize the importance of filling out the Census. Another idea would be for the government to introduce a penalty. On the cover of the census it clearly states, “By law you are required to fill this form”. If all individuals were made to pay a fine for not filling out the Census, it would increase incentive especially for the low income community.

Sometimes I feel that our prime concern is low income households that fail to return the census. However, we do not to realize that there are many white collared individuals who do not fill out the Census due to a lack of time. If the Census were available online, it would allow easier access to fill out and email back. Something must be done to raise participation whether it is by making the form available online, or fining the public, it will later serve the greater good of the community.

The National Debt

I.O.U.S.A. – the 30-Minute Version from IOUSA the Movie on Vimeo.

Mitt Romney Comes to CMC

I went to Ath last night to hear Mitt Romney speak and I wanted to share my thoughts / provide a little summary in case you didn’t go. The Governor's talk was especially relevant to our class and interesting regardless of your political views. Also I think his speech builds perfectly on Brian’s blog post reagarding the problem the deficit is and will continue to become. While his cure for the problem, much smaller government, many of you diagree with he highlighted and continuely stressed that the deficit is the largest problem we currently face. Romney talked about how lately government has been heading the wrong direction to paraphrase him, spending like we have a credit card from China. I believe he is rightfully worried about what happens when these interest payments begin to come due and how taxes will have to rise exponentially in order to support government spending and service the interest payments. This problem is not as simple of a fix as raising taxes. Higher taxes will drive business aborad further decreasing the total taxable income of corporations and individuals in this country. It is important that our generation realizes the problem WE will be faced with and Romney made that point clear numerous times throughout the talk.

Romney went on to talk about how every great nation has fallen in history so far. From the Ottomans to the British, empires have come and gone. The Governor went on to talk about how America in his opinion could easily go down this same road and be surpassed. However he believes America is different and can avoid this fate if its citizens stand up and vote for action and change (Or in my words, fight off the evil government.)

Romney drew on parralles between the USA and some of the most successful corporations (i.e.
Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Walt Disney and Apple) He talked about how these companies all embody the personality of their founders. He used this point to talk about how much influence the founding of an organization can have on its operations and culture forever. He went on to say this needs to be the case with the country as well. It is important for us to return to the founding of America and how the founders did something brand new when they established the government of the United States. They reversed the trend of the government being the royalty and the people being the servants. Instead they founded a nation built on the idea that citizens would have the power (through voting) and that the government would serve them. Romney believes Americans stand up and make the government work for them again.

Romney ended by calling on everyone to get involved and to speak their voice / vote. He joked, "I don't care if you vote Republican or Democrat... wait actually I do care, Vote Republican!"

The question session also proved to be quite insightful as the croud asked Romney to address three big questions.
1) How he would have handled the financial crisis differently than Bush and Obama?
Romney made a ridiculous claim that he hopes he would have seen the housing crisis coming and been able to act proactively. While some people did predict the bubble bursting, I cannot imagine what Romney would have done as a politician to prevent the crisis from materializing. However, I was impressed that in response to the stimulus he gave a specific plan that he would have pursued. He pointed out that in a recession / depression like we were facing in March 2008, consumers lose confidence and begin saving and acting very cautionary. Therefore giving money to extra cautious citizens like Obama’s stimulus plan did, is not an efficient use of money because so many Americans spent on only the bare neccessities in this time quite possibly saving the extra stimulus check not knowing how bad the coming times would be. Instead Romney proposed that businesses should have been given incentives to make capital expenditures. He claimed that business are better at looking at the long-term and that giving business incentives to grow would pick up the entire economy. While "incentivizing business" is often simply a typical Republican answer, I was impressed that he went one step further and expressed that he would have accomplished this by allowing companies to expense any capital expenditure (computers, software, vehicles, buildings etc) at the time of purchase therefore giving businesses the tax benefit right away instead over 5-20 year depreciable life of the asset. I think this would have been a great stimulus for our country and would have fueled growth much faster than giving every American a $1,000 check to put under their pillow.

2) How can he champion his Massachusetts' healthcare bill but be against the recent reform?
Here he argued that recent reform in its 2,000 pages gave the power to the government to either make insurance industry very rich or broke. He argued against parts of the legislation that will allow the gov't to say what insurance companies must offer and how much they can charge for it. He argued his plan just erased the free rider problem of some citizens not paying for health care insurance but instead relying on tax payers to foot their bill. (He stated this country already had "universal health care" in that everyone gets medical coverage when needed. He said if someone without health care insurance has a heart attack or other medical emergency they go to the hospital and the state / the tax payers pay for their care.
He argued that his seventy page bill made sure everyone paid for the care they received by forcing citizens who choose to not have health insurance to pay a penalty for the extra cost they are imposing on the tax payers. He also made sure to make the popular Republican argument that health care should be up to the states and that the government needs to stay out of American business. Overall, I was interested to see how he would address the heatlh care reform topic and I think his answer / explanation to the differences between his plan and Obama's will play a big role if he (when) he chooses to run in 2012.
3) How does he think he can capture the Evangelical vote given his Mormon religion?
He stated that theologians have been battling out religion for centuries so he doesn't think he can add anything to that debate or that he should get involved. His whole speech / platform is about appealing to the thinking, fiscal Republicans. While this may win him my support, will it suffice for Moral Majority Christians? I think he needs to continue to follow in Kennedy's footstep with more speeches like this.

The Power of the Veto Threat

In a timely article relevant to our class discussion, CBS reports that if the financial reform bill doesn't regulate derivative markets, the President will veto it. Obama is also pushing Senate Democrats to eliminate a proposed $50 billion bank liquidation fund from the bill:

"In remarks at the start of his meeting with his Economic Recovery team, the president said he wants financial regulatory reform legislation because "we can't allow history to repeat itself." He said Americans should not have to step in and pay the price for the irresponsibility of speculators on Wall Street."

The event exemplifies a salient theme of the The Federalist: ambition being made to counteract ambition. Checks and balances such as the veto - and Congress's power to override them - pit the different branches of government against each other. This encourages confrontation. The system requires leveraging, bargaining, and ultimately, cutting a deal. Obama knows this, and he has positioned himself to take advantage.

.

"Who do I call if I want to call Europe?"

There may now be an answer to Kissinger’s famous question. As of 1 December 2009, the European Union has an official president - Herman Van Rompuy. Although president of the supranational institutions of 27 Member States and 500 million European citizens, you probably have never heard of or seen this man. Conservative Member of the European Parliament, Nigel Farage, offers a brief introduction to Van Rompuy in a striking personal attack.

This man is paid more than Obama, yet nobody knows who he is. How do Van Rompuy’s powers compare to those of the American presidency? First off, there are important distinctions to make. The European Union does have branches of government, like the United States, but there are differences in order to maintain the sovereign federal structure of the EU. The European Parliament serves as the legislative branch, the European Commission serves as the executive branch, and the the Court of Justice of the European Union serves as the judicial branch. There is a fourth branch of power called the European Council, and its members are the 27 heads of state of the Member States of the EU and, now, the permanent President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy. Unlike President Obama who has the power to drive our nation’s policies and serve as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, President Van Rompuy’s role is largely symbolic.

Under Article 9b of the Treaty of Lisbon (the "Constitution of Europe), the President's role and powers are defined as follows:

5. The European Council shall elect its President, by a qualified majority, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once. In the event of an impediment or serious misconduct, the European Council can end the President's term of office in accordance with the same procedure.

6. The President of the European Council:

(a) shall chair it and drive forward its work;

(b) shall ensure the preparation and continuity of the work of the European Council in cooperation with the President of the Commission, and on the basis of the work of the General Affairs Council;

(c) shall endeavour to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the European Council;

(d) shall present a report to the European Parliament after each of the meetings of the European Council.

The President of the European Council shall, at his level and in that capacity, ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

The President of the European Council shall not hold a national office.

In this way, we see that the executive powers are spread out in the European Union, and that the President himself does not have a large degree of power. This raises a valid question. Because Van Rompuy is the symbolic leader of 500 million citizens, is the method by which he was chosen democratic?

A Fight over Federalism

A recent article in the NY Times reports an interesting battle between the states and the federal government that has implications for a slew of issues from gays to guns. The controversy is over states' declarations of their right, in some cases, to assert supremacy over federal authority. Gov. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, for example, signed a bill declaring federal regulation of firearms invalid if a weapon is made and used in South Dakota. Utah's governor did the same. Their brazenness has sparked debate over how far states' rights go in American federalism - and where those rights end.

So what actually happens when state sovereignty and federal authority collide? The constitution is clear: the Feds win. But recent events - like DOJ's willingness to respect state medical marijuana laws - have shown that nullification can work. Article 6 would settle state vs. federal government scuffles in court. But that's only if the issue gets to court. If it doesn't, some states can do things their way, contradict federal law, and get away with it.

Utah state Representative Carl Wimmer argues Utah should have

to sign off on any federal health reform.

Presidency II

Federalist 70

Tocqueville, p. 126: "If the Union’s existence were constantly menaced, and if its great interests were continually interwoven with those of other powerful nations, one would see the prestige of the executive growing, because of what was expected from it and of what it did."