It's entirely clear to both political parties that America's immigration system is broken. Republicans tend to complain about the influx of illegal immigrants while Democrats tend to complain about the difficulty in receiving a citizenship. Whatever bipartisan immigration reform the senate drafts will need to deal with both of these concerns.
Yes, there are many people coming to America illegally, but to say President Obama allows this is insane. On a per monthly basis, the President has deported more illegal aliens than any other. President Obama is not weak on border security and these false allegations that he is need to stop,
That makes step one of immigration reform securing our borders because illegal immigration is a problem and a security issue. Step two is recognizing that we can't deport the millions of illegal aliens already here. Not only because it is challenging from a practical standpoint but also because a lot of these people came to America when they were young, went to high school, served in the army, or have established themselves in American life in another way. This path to citizenship must be rigorous and include background checks, payment of all back taxes, and all of the immigrants applying must go to the back of the line behind people wishing to immigrate legally. Step three is making legal immigration easier especially to those qualified to work in STEM jobs in which the US is clearly lacking.
There are many other steps that a comprehensive immigration reform package must include such as an employment verification system, but the three steps outlined above are the most essential and the most agreed upon (at least when put together).
Monday, February 18, 2013
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Minimum Wage
After the President's state of the union proposal to raise the minimum wage to 9$ an hour and tie future increases to the cost of living, some Republicans (including Speaker Boehner) balked at this proposal. Tying the increase of minimum wage to the consumer price index would take away a key bargaining chip for those opposed to increasing wages. Ironically, it was Governor Romney who originally proposed this, but the Republicans still disapprove.
Fiscal conservatives should be for raising the minimum wage because at its current levels the government is forced to subsidize workers living below the poverty level. At a purely philosophical level as well a working person should not be subjected to living in poverty. Raising the minimum wage would increase revenue in taxes and decrease welfare spending, so this should be a no-brainer deal for Republicans.
However, a somewhat legitimate argument against raising the minimum wage is that it would reduce employment. This is a contested point as there is evidence on both sides of the debate. I am not an economist so I will not get into this point but in short the evidence seems to imply that greatly increasing the minimum wage would have an effect on employment but not a substantial one. Additionally from an ideological standpoint the question is simple. What is the point of having a job if it does not even pay you the cost of living? Wasn't this the point of the minimum wage in the first place?
Raising the minimum wage to 9$ an hour is extremely reasonable considering that, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the minimum wage would be $21.72 an hour if it had raised at the same rate as worker productivity and $10.52 an hour if it had kept up with inflation since it peaked in the 1960's. Finally, tying the minimum wage to CPI is a simple solution that President Obama and Governor Romney agreed on that would allow workers to not have suffer for congress's hostage taking and lack of action.
Fiscal conservatives should be for raising the minimum wage because at its current levels the government is forced to subsidize workers living below the poverty level. At a purely philosophical level as well a working person should not be subjected to living in poverty. Raising the minimum wage would increase revenue in taxes and decrease welfare spending, so this should be a no-brainer deal for Republicans.
However, a somewhat legitimate argument against raising the minimum wage is that it would reduce employment. This is a contested point as there is evidence on both sides of the debate. I am not an economist so I will not get into this point but in short the evidence seems to imply that greatly increasing the minimum wage would have an effect on employment but not a substantial one. Additionally from an ideological standpoint the question is simple. What is the point of having a job if it does not even pay you the cost of living? Wasn't this the point of the minimum wage in the first place?
Raising the minimum wage to 9$ an hour is extremely reasonable considering that, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the minimum wage would be $21.72 an hour if it had raised at the same rate as worker productivity and $10.52 an hour if it had kept up with inflation since it peaked in the 1960's. Finally, tying the minimum wage to CPI is a simple solution that President Obama and Governor Romney agreed on that would allow workers to not have suffer for congress's hostage taking and lack of action.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
The Fiscal Cliff
President Obama now has the perfect opportunity with the so-called "fiscal cliff" to get a good deficit reduction deal that will not crash the economy, but to understand this we need to first define the fiscal cliff for what it truly is.
At the end of the year the Bush tax cuts, Obama's payroll tax cuts, and a host of spending cuts on defense and medicare providers all take effect. The fact that the entitlements cut is only on providers is key because only doctors and hospitals would feel the pain not beneficiaries who will receive the same service regardless.
Going over the cliff would greatly decrease the deficit; however, it would come at the cost of the economy and plunge the country into another recession. Many economists, notably Paul Krugman, believe that President Obama's best option is to allow the fiscal cliff to happen.
In January, or possibly later but at some time in the near future, the President would propose a plan that would cut taxes back to the pre-fiscal cliff levels on everybody except those earning more than $250,000 a year, cut the military budget by the amount that the pentagon has said we should cut it by (this would be a net increase to the military budget after the fiscal cliff), and reform entitlement spending in a way that does not affect benefits, similar to the $716 million "cut" the Obamacare made to medicare which was actually just a reduction in wasteful spending that allowed medicare to last longer and close the "donut hole" for prescription drugs created by medicare part D.
Many of the less optimistic Democrats would say that Republicans would still vote against this, but here's the problem: President Obama's plan would be cutting taxes, increasing military spending, and cutting entitlement spending. A Republican voting against this plan would be like a Democrat voting for a constitutional amendment to ban abortions: it's just not going to happen. Additionally, the country would face a recession in those months and constituencies on both sides would push congress into passing the deal.
President Obama, whether intentionally or unintentionally, has created the perfect situation to pass through his budget plan. Hopefully, he will be able to start his second term off right by doing it.
P.S. Hopefully I can elaborate on this more in a future blog post, but the one thing that I, along with many others including Warren Buffett, disagree with the President on are the tax increases. $250,000 is too low of a rate to increase taxes on and hopefully President Obama would consider increasing the "cutoff".
At the end of the year the Bush tax cuts, Obama's payroll tax cuts, and a host of spending cuts on defense and medicare providers all take effect. The fact that the entitlements cut is only on providers is key because only doctors and hospitals would feel the pain not beneficiaries who will receive the same service regardless.
Going over the cliff would greatly decrease the deficit; however, it would come at the cost of the economy and plunge the country into another recession. Many economists, notably Paul Krugman, believe that President Obama's best option is to allow the fiscal cliff to happen.
In January, or possibly later but at some time in the near future, the President would propose a plan that would cut taxes back to the pre-fiscal cliff levels on everybody except those earning more than $250,000 a year, cut the military budget by the amount that the pentagon has said we should cut it by (this would be a net increase to the military budget after the fiscal cliff), and reform entitlement spending in a way that does not affect benefits, similar to the $716 million "cut" the Obamacare made to medicare which was actually just a reduction in wasteful spending that allowed medicare to last longer and close the "donut hole" for prescription drugs created by medicare part D.
Many of the less optimistic Democrats would say that Republicans would still vote against this, but here's the problem: President Obama's plan would be cutting taxes, increasing military spending, and cutting entitlement spending. A Republican voting against this plan would be like a Democrat voting for a constitutional amendment to ban abortions: it's just not going to happen. Additionally, the country would face a recession in those months and constituencies on both sides would push congress into passing the deal.
President Obama, whether intentionally or unintentionally, has created the perfect situation to pass through his budget plan. Hopefully, he will be able to start his second term off right by doing it.
P.S. Hopefully I can elaborate on this more in a future blog post, but the one thing that I, along with many others including Warren Buffett, disagree with the President on are the tax increases. $250,000 is too low of a rate to increase taxes on and hopefully President Obama would consider increasing the "cutoff".
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Mitt Romney's Big Debate Lie
I think it is a general consensus that not all of what Mitt Romney says in the debates is entirely accurate, so I can't write articles debunking all of his ridiculous claims. However there is one important, commonly-held misconception that he has mentioned in both debates that President Obama failed to correct him on.
It's the deficit. Romney has repeatedly said that the President has doubled the deficit even though he previously had promised to cut it in half, but that simply is not true. Both Politifact and factcheck.org have debunked that claim stating that the President has actually cut the deficit by 8%.
Of course 8% is hardly half and Romney might have a point to say he did keep with his promise, but he should not be allowed to go around giving out completely false statistics like he has throughout the entire race.
Additionally Obama's budget plan actually has concrete deficit reduction measures through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts unlike Romney's which does not touch tax revenue (his tax plan also does not work, but that's a post for another day) and promises to cut spending even though he has barely outlined enough to reduce the deficit in any noticeable fashion.
Link to the Politifact article referred to: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/05/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-has-doubled-deficit/
It's the deficit. Romney has repeatedly said that the President has doubled the deficit even though he previously had promised to cut it in half, but that simply is not true. Both Politifact and factcheck.org have debunked that claim stating that the President has actually cut the deficit by 8%.
Of course 8% is hardly half and Romney might have a point to say he did keep with his promise, but he should not be allowed to go around giving out completely false statistics like he has throughout the entire race.
Additionally Obama's budget plan actually has concrete deficit reduction measures through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts unlike Romney's which does not touch tax revenue (his tax plan also does not work, but that's a post for another day) and promises to cut spending even though he has barely outlined enough to reduce the deficit in any noticeable fashion.
Link to the Politifact article referred to: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/05/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-has-doubled-deficit/
Monday, October 15, 2012
Why Obama Now
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Better Off Now Part One: The Economy
It's a tough idea to believe, but America is better off now than it was four years ago.
We don't want to believe it because we have always believed that we could do better and the recovery is somewhat slow, but there has been a recovery and we need to acknowledge it as well as the President's role in it.
When President Obama took office, the unemployment rate was 7.9%, today it is 7.8%. A critic would argue this is barely a recovery, but remember that the economy was STILL in free-fall and the unemployment rate continued to increase until President Obama enacted the economic stimulus.
So more Americans are working now, but what about wall street? Surely the President's crippling regulations have hurt us there. Actually no, the S&P 500 has gone up more than 74% and the nasdaq has been doubled. In other words, the stock market has done better during Obama's presidency than in any of the past five presidencies.
When President Obama came in to office, many Americans had houses that were underwater and were facing foreclosure. However, President Obama reduced costs to refinance for FHA mortgages and brought the overall mortgage rate down.
Of course corporations are doing much worse under President Obama, right? Republicans are the party for the rich and Democrats hate corporations, right? WRONG, corporate profit rates are much higher than they were when President Obama took office and he plans to lower the corporate tax rate in order to help with growth.
Republicans can say whatever they want about the current state of the economy, but the situation now is as clear as it was 80 years ago: republicans got the country into an economic mess and democrats cleaned it up. The question for voters is not about whether they wanted a faster recovery or not; it's about whether they want continued economic growth, with balanced deficit reduction or insanely unbalanced deficit reduction plans and rolling back of regulations which will plunge the country in to another depression.
We don't want to believe it because we have always believed that we could do better and the recovery is somewhat slow, but there has been a recovery and we need to acknowledge it as well as the President's role in it.
When President Obama took office, the unemployment rate was 7.9%, today it is 7.8%. A critic would argue this is barely a recovery, but remember that the economy was STILL in free-fall and the unemployment rate continued to increase until President Obama enacted the economic stimulus.
So more Americans are working now, but what about wall street? Surely the President's crippling regulations have hurt us there. Actually no, the S&P 500 has gone up more than 74% and the nasdaq has been doubled. In other words, the stock market has done better during Obama's presidency than in any of the past five presidencies.
When President Obama came in to office, many Americans had houses that were underwater and were facing foreclosure. However, President Obama reduced costs to refinance for FHA mortgages and brought the overall mortgage rate down.
Of course corporations are doing much worse under President Obama, right? Republicans are the party for the rich and Democrats hate corporations, right? WRONG, corporate profit rates are much higher than they were when President Obama took office and he plans to lower the corporate tax rate in order to help with growth.
Republicans can say whatever they want about the current state of the economy, but the situation now is as clear as it was 80 years ago: republicans got the country into an economic mess and democrats cleaned it up. The question for voters is not about whether they wanted a faster recovery or not; it's about whether they want continued economic growth, with balanced deficit reduction or insanely unbalanced deficit reduction plans and rolling back of regulations which will plunge the country in to another depression.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Gun Control
It is time for this country to re-evalaute gun laws and create real, effective control laws. The recent shooting in Colorado showed all of us the dangers that come from the "right" to own a gun.
When the constitution was originally written, guns did not have the ability to mass murder people like automatic weapons do today. The framers of the constitution clearly did not intend for citizens to be able to massacre other citizens because they created laws against murder and said that we were all guaranteed the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
Proponents of gun rights say that they are mostly used for hunting and self defense. The hunting argument can be true for some guns, but nobody hunts with an assault rifle or a handgun. As for the self defense argument, you would not need guns if other people did not have them.
If there could be two worlds, one with guns and the other without them, most sane, nonviolent Americans would choose the world without them. Tighter gun control is desperately needed in this country and the Democrats need to get over their re-election fears and address this issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)