"The Elephant in the Room"

The Republican National Committee have recently proposed a sort of “Purity Test” demanding candidates embrace at least 8 of 10 conservative principles in order to receive financial backing and endorsement from the RNC. The proposed resolution is based on President Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates – which basically says that one should ally with people who agree on 80% of the issues rather than bickering over the 20% difference. The test is designed for candidates to prove that they support "conservative principles" while opposing President Obama's super-scary “socialist and Marxist and communist OH MY!” agenda. The proposal underscores the relentless struggle for the ideological soul of the Republican Party between the conservative crazies and the moderate conservatives. The Conservative Purity Test has been met with skepticism from Republicans and party outsiders alike. The test alienates moderate conservatives – which is about 40-60% of America depending on the poll you look at.

This proposition came on the heels of the highly publicized GOP loss in New York's 23rd district, which has been a Republican-held office since the 1800’s. Dede Scozzafava, an RNC-endorsed moderate Republican, was forced out of the race in favor of Doug Hoffman, a more conservative candidate backed by super-conservative figureheads like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. After Scozzafava (Don’t you love that name? I do.) dropped out of the race, the RNC shifted its endorsement to Hoffman, who lost to the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens. Fail.

James Bopp Jr., an Indiana attorney, initiated the resolution with the reasoning that "conservatives have lost trust in the Republican party." Bopp also spawned a failed proposal earlier this year that demanded that the Democratic Party rename their party the "Democrat Socialist Party". Bopp and 10 RNC co-sponsors cited Reagan in naming the resolution because the former president said that "someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent."

The 10 guidelines:
(and some commentary)

1. We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits, and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill. (I agree. But what about President Bush’s Economic Stimulus Act of 2008? You guys supported that “stimulus” bill.)

2. We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare. (More of the same? ... full text of House Majority Leader John Boehner’s alternative bill: http://rulesrepublicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdf )

3. We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation. (Cap and trade isn’t the way to go, but there should be SOME government effort in energy reform ... tax break incentives maybe? Reward energy companies that work on development of “green” technology...)

4. We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check. (I’m with them on this one.)

5. We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants. (Should we deport them all? Raid some houses? Separate families? Let’s throw in some internment camps for good measure.)

6. We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges. (We’ll just keep printing money to pay for those wars, no big.)

7. We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat. (Team America, World Police)

8. We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act. (Yes, that’s really on the list. For those of you who don’t know, that’s the Act that denies same-sex married couples the same federal rights that heterosexual marriages have.)

9. We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care, and government funding of abortion. (None of those things are even in the current health care reform bill.)

10. We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership. (I agree!)

This is why I can’t be in the Republican Party. They won’t let me in! That lists shuns a lot of people. You would think that a political party would want to be inclusive of different ideological factions in order to attain major goals. I have conservative opinions on most issues, I do, really! I would consider myself a Republican if it weren’t for two things: gay rights and religion. Even before the list, the "core" of the Republican Party had framed itself as a party exclusive to heterosexual, Christian, “patriotic” white people. There’s no place in the Republican Party for pro-gay rights Jews – even if they are conservative. It’s a sad truth, people.

Isn’t free market capitalism more important than homophobia, ethnocentrism, and talking about Ronald Reagan?

If the Republican Party wants to win back a majority – I’m talking Reagan-esque sweeping Red victories – they have to abandon the tired theocratic notions of government enforced morality, and focus on the true conservative ideology that the US has thrived on.

Shrinking government, encouraging economic competition, keeping taxes low, constitutionalism, ensuring civil rights and liberties...

Shouldn’t that be what is important to the Republican Party?

I guess not.

I’m begrudgingly sticking with the Donkey for now.

A good “Cap and Trade” definition:

http://www.generationgreen.org/cap-trade.htm

The RNC website:

http://www.rnc.org/

"You Betcha"

Really, people? Really?

“The Department of Education: Budgetary Wastes and Administrative Woes”

Long time no post, I know. The end of the semester has been jam packed with fun things I've had to get done. Expect weekly posts again. Next week should be a good one on what the Republican party needs to do to come back into power...

Until then, get comfortable - this is a long one...

The Department of Education (ED) is a Cabinet-level department under the executive branch of federal government. The Department itself has undergone many major changes since its conception in 1867, but its main duties have remained relatively constant throughout history. Among these are administering financial aid for education, overseeing and publicizing research on America’s schools, calling attention to major educational issues, and prohibiting discrimination in the education system (Drexel). The history of the department began under Andrew Jackson’s Presidency in 1867; Jackson signed legislation creating the first Department of Education as a non-Cabinet level agency that was dissolved in less than a year. During its brief lifespan, the Department’s main accomplishment was the collection of many statistics about the nation’s schools – student achievement, course curriculum, etc. Due to the fear that the Department would exercise too much control over local schools, it was downsized to the Office of Education.

In 1890 the passage of the “Second Morrill Act” authorized the then-named Office of Education for administering support for land-grant colleges and universities. The 1917 “Smith-Hughes Act” and the 1946 “George-Barden Act” focused on aid for agricultural, industrial, and home economics training for high school students.

World War II resulted in a considerable expansion of Federal funding for education. The “Lanham Act” of 1941 and the “Impact Aid Laws” of 1950 eased the financial strain of military and other Federal institutions on communities by supplementing the funds of school districts. And in 1944, the "GI Bill" authorized higher education financial assistance that would provide nearly 8 million World War II veterans the opportunity to attend college (Drexel).

By the 1950’s, political and social changes converged to sway political opinions on the federal role in the education system. The Cold War spawned the first comprehensive Federal education legislation with the 1958 passing of the “National Defense Education Act” (NDEA) in response to the Soviet launch of Sputnik. The NDEA provided several supplementary programs to the US education system including: support for loans to college students; the improvement of science, mathematics, and foreign language instruction in elementary and secondary schools; graduate fellowships; foreign language and area studies; and vocational-technical training. More federal aid began to be dedicated to education in order to elevate the education quality in the United States to that of other Westernized nations. The United States’ and the Soviet Union’s competition of scientific discovery and space exploration led to vastly improved education in the sciences (Drexel).

Under President Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960’s, the “War on Poverty” led to improvements in education quality and access for the poor. In the 1970's many educational improvements were targeted towards racial minorities, the disabled, women, and people of non-Anglican backgrounds. It was during this decade of continued reform, in October 1979, that Congress passed “The Department of Education Organization Act” which recreated the present Department of Education. This Act split the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services. The Department of Education was elevated to a cabinet-level agency under President Jimmy Carter in 1981. After President Reagan’s victory with a political platform including the removal of the Department of Education, the Department of Education waffled with two secretaries of Education, but no substantial lasting changes were made (Drexel).

The US Department of Education is headed by the Secretary of Education – currently Arne Duncan under the Obama administration. The ED is comprised of several offices that carry out the components of the Department's mission. The structure of the administration of the ED is one of classical hierarchy. The secretary operates as the head of the Department and acts as a leader in setting the national dialogue on how to improve our education system. This involves activities such as raising awareness of education challenges, providing data on the latest research on what works in teaching and learning, and helping to work out solutions for difficult issues. Beneath the secretary, power is divided between the Deputy Secretary and the Under Secretary who deals with internal management of the department and provides policy advice to the Secretary, respectively. Beneath these offices, power is distributed to several administrative offices; dealing with finances, investigations, legal work, postsecondary schooling, multiple offices dealing with special needs education, vocational legislation, civil rights protection, research and improvement, Congressional affairs, interagency affairs, and human resources. All of these agency divisions are headquartered in Washington, DC and are made up of 4,225 employees occupying several buildings (ED.gov).

Education is Constitutionally a State and local responsibility. States, communities, and private organizations establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine enrollment and graduation requirements. Examining the structure of education finance in America illuminates the predominant State and local role. Of a nationwide estimated $1 trillion budget across all levels for school year 2008-2009, a large majority came from non-Federal sources. The majority is even more substantial at the elementary and secondary level, where over 92 percent of the funds came from non-Federal sources. That means the Federal contribution to elementary and secondary education is a little less than 8 percent, including funds from the Department of Education and also from interagency programs like “Head Start”. The ED describes the Federal role in education as an "emergency response system" – a means to patch holes in State and local support for education when critical needs come about.

Considering the ever-expanding budget of the Department of Education, it appears that the Federal government is taking on more and more responsibility and authority over the education system. With the implementation of the “No Child Left Behind” Act of 2001, the Federal government took a further step onto the toes of State sovereignty by forcing regulations onto States’ and community schools. The growing Federal role in education is Constitutionally questionable. Education is not mentioned as a Federal power in the Constitution, and consequently falls under the authority of the States and the people as reserved powers as penned in the 10^th Amendment. Conservative politicians such as Ronald Reagan – and more recently – Ron Paul, have had legitimate standing in their campaign promises to abolish the US Department of Education. However, their arguments can be countered by the fact that the Department of Education has little or nothing to do with the actual teaching of students, or the administration of schools – rather it maintains itself as an entity meant to simply “fill in the gaps”.

The Constitutional argument against Federal involvement in education is not easily won, but examining the budget breakdown of the Department reveals the growing amount of Federal funding that goes towards education. Although the 2009 ED budget of almost $63 billion only makes up around 2 percent of the total US budget of $3.1 trillion, one wonders how this discretionary spending is used, and what the education system has to show for it. In addition to this budget, over $96 billion has been allotted to the ED through the 2009 Recovery Act. About $7.5 billion will be carried over to the 2010 budget, leaving the ED a discretionary budget of $151.5 billion for the 2009 fiscal year (ED.gov). The numbers are staggering, especially considering that the Federal government is not entitled for a large role in education.

It is unclear if there is a positive correlation between the amount of money spent on the education system and improvements in education quality. Judging by the rankings of the United States against other countries, our billions are doing little to improve the quality of curriculum. The US comes in at number 29 in science, number 35 in math, and number 14 in reading. Finnish students ranked No. 1 in science scores, and No. 2 in both math and reading. In Finland, children begin studying algebra, geometry and statistics in the first grade. By high school, they speak multiple languages. A team of US educators traveled to Helsinki to observe the Finnish system of education and remarked on the liberties that individual teachers had in the classroom. Teachers had total freedom to educate as they saw fit (CNN.com).

The US system is blatantly over-bureaucratized. Despite such a large education budget coming from both Federal and State sources, funds are not funneled into effective channels. Lack of funding for supplies, teacher pay, and school improvements are clear indications that money for education is misplaced. In many instances, teachers are forced to pay for necessary school supplies out-of-pocket. The system would be much more effective if more autonomy and discretion was allotted to teachers and school administrators. “No Child Left Behind” is perhaps the most horrific example of failed bureaucratic efforts in controlling the education system – excessive paperwork, overemphasis on standardized testing, generic evaluations, etc. The forced “top-down” administration that plagues the United States education system prevents instructors from being able to tailor lesson plans for the needs of their students. Over-standardization is the cause of a widening rift between student achievement scores. In addition to the deficits in American achievement scores, there is a lack of emphasis in the importance of fine arts and physical education in public schools; these are always the first programs to be cut when budgets shrink. Creative and physical outlets are often a means for children to develop and expand psychologically beyond the classroom. This loss of important educational functions often cues private education institutions, who also struggle with budgeting in a weak economy, to curtail spending in these areas. This administrative “trickle-over” results in private schools mirroring the same problems present in public institutions – problems that private schools were designed to avoid.

In order to make better use of the monetary resources put towards education, the United States’ system should function much more like Finland’s. The key to a successful education system is ensuring that quality teachers have the resources and autonomy to effectively teach students. Most of the bureaucracy of the Department of Education could be done away with. In fact, with more discretionary power at the ground level of education, the ED could limit its function to prescribing subject matter for effective education, and setting universal policy for State administrations to follow in the insurance of fair and effective education.

Disregarding the Constitutional nuances that we so often fail to observe – if the Department of Education kept the same burgeoning budget, it could be much more effectively allocated if it was injected into the lowest levels of bureaucratic administration with fairly loose guidelines on spending. Perhaps if the education infrastructure was reorganized to allow individual school administrations near complete autonomy in most educational and administrative matters, we would find that our system would be a much more effective one. This system of quasi-bottom-up authority would only prove effective if parents had a choice on where to send their children – districting laws should be done away with in the public school system. If a particular school administration was doing an inadequate job of enabling effective teachers with adequate resources, parents could make the decision to send their children to another, better school. In such a scenario, bussing would also have to be administered by individual schools in order to ensure students have access to their desired place of education. Furthermore, schools that attract more students could possibly be allotted a bigger division of State and/or Federal funds as a sort of incentive to improve education quality. The most effective way for school administrations to be able to ensure quality education is to do away with some of the constraints brought on by teachers’ unions – particularly the concept of tenure. Ineffective educators should readily be replaced by more capable people whenever necessary. The whole operation should be modeled after typical private schools – administered like businesses, with the purpose of pleasing the “consumer” citizen.

The discussion of budgeting and administrative organization in the Kettl and Fesler text tends to focus on exclusive theories in the administrative functions rather than comprehensive methods of application to the real-world budgetary process. In actual budget scenarios, it is difficult to maintain a specific theory as a plan of action. Rather than trying to determine a standard budgetary theory, a Charles Lindblom approach of Darwinian-like successive approximations in budgetary policy would be much more applicable to actual cases. This cyclical process is not nearly as fast as the “all at once” nature of a Rational-Comprehensive approach, but is much more effective at molding appropriate policy via incremental changes. This form of policy natural selection ultimately results in the “survival of the fittest” public policy (Shafritz & Hyde 165-171).

The "one-size-fits-all" blanket approach to the administration and budgeting of the education system is increasingly ineffective and – quite frankly – failing. Theory alone can be extremely unhelpful with policy-making because of its utter incongruence with the irregularity that occurs in public administration. It is clear that the Department of Education must devolve more administrative power to the ground level of State administration in order to better serve the students. There is still an imperative need for Federal guidelines and State oversight in order to ensure fairness, equal opportunity, and uniformity in the national education system, but autonomy must be given to individual school administrations. Bureaucratic overcomplications must be slashed in order to allow educators to have freedom in the classroom to teach in a way that they determine to be most effective.

"Darwinian Genesis: Variation Under Nature"

Not politics at all, but I had to write this lecture on integrating scientific knowledge with faith...and I really like how it turned out...

.

.

.

For all of us to be here, a nearly infinite number of atoms had to come together to form intricate and cooperative systems in order to create the enigma of Existence. Hopefully for us, these curiously assembled particles will continue on their mission to sustain our life for many years to come. Why our existence and all of its complexity came to be is undoubtedly the greatest mystery that our society has been perplexed over. We as humans don’t like to be perplexed. We like to think we know everything – whether we actually do or not. Don’t deny it, you know it’s true. And in an attempt for us to comprehend Life’s perplexities, we create theories, form religious beliefs, and scrounge for scientific evidence as to how and why we are here at this moment. It is no surprise that people fervently disagree when it comes to questions of the nature of existence – How did the universe begin? Who, if anyone, created the universe? Why are we here? Is there more to existence than we can perceive at this point?

.

No one knows. People may think they know, but these questions are not answerable by anything except for abstract theories that are not grounded in proof, but rather in – as some might say – blind faith. Science admits that there are gaps in our understanding of the universe and its history. Religion either tries to discredit science because of its incongruence with ancient doctrine, or proactively seeks to fill in the factual gaps left in scientific understanding. The fact of the matter is that religion is an entirely subjective school of thought. Beliefs are in no way provable. No one can prove that the Judeo-Christian God exists. No one can prove that Jesus was the son of God. No one can prove that Shiva or Vishnu exist. No one can prove that Zeus, Thor, or forest spirits exist either. We can, however, prove that natural processes such as evolution have contributed at least to the development of the complexity of Life over more than 3 billion years.

.

The existence of evolution is an inescapable fact. More and more scientific evidence is being discovered that further validates what many people still believe to be “only a theory”. In the United States, around 40% of the population does not believe in evolution, but instead believes that the earth was created within the past 10,000 years. “That’s an educational disgrace. A majority of people simply could not believe that if they were exposed to the evidence” (RichardDawkins.net). So what’s the evidence? Radioactive dating of fossils reveals older fossils found in older, deeper layers of rock and sediment. For instance, no mammalian fossil will ever be found in fossil beds older than 300 million years (Madhav Gadgil – The Times of India). Comparisons of fossils over time also show obvious structural similarities in the skeletal structure of related creatures. Considered even more convincing than the fossil record, genetic molecular comparisons between life forms thought to share common ancestry reveal strikingly similar structure of genes. Furthermore, geographic distributions of various fossils correspond to the locations of modern animals with similar structures – providing very reasonable belief for evolutionary ancestry (Dawkins).

.

The source of all of this revolutionary science? The famous or infamous (depending which side of the culture war you are on) Charles Darwin. In his groundbreaking book The Origin of Species, Darwin coins his theory of natural selection. Darwin's evolutionary theory has four main parts:

.

- First, organisms have changed over time, and those living today are different from those that are now extinct. Furthermore, a great many organisms that once lived are indeed now extinct. He asserts that the world is not constant, but continuously changing. The fossil record provided ample evidence for this view.

.

- Second, every organism ever in existence descended from common ancestors by a process of evolutionary specialization and branching. Over time, populations of a common ancestor species split into various new species. If we look far enough back in time, any given two species have a common ancestor. This explains the similarities of organisms that were classified together - they are similar because of shared traits inherited from a common ancestor. This again explains why similar species tend to exist in the same geographic region.

.

- Third, change is incremental and slow, taking place over a very long period of time. This is supported by the fossil record, and is consistent with the fact that no one has observed the spontaneous appearance new species. This gradual, almost constant theory of change is now contested by the fossil record showing episodes of rapid change and long periods without evidence of evolution. This phenomenon that Darwin did not discuss is called Punctuated Equilibrium.

.

- Fourth, and most importantly, the driving force of evolution is Natural Selection – a process that occurs over several generations and results in the preservation of genetic traits which aid an organism in survival.

.

We need look no further than during human history to be able to observe a microcosm of natural selection. Mankind has become quite adept at speeding along the process of natural selection. Selective breeding could be described as “natural selection on steroids”. Dog breeding, farming, and livestock breeding all exemplify the capacity for major genetic changes over relatively short time periods (hundreds or thousands of years). Consider the fact that a massive Great Dane, a tiny Chihuahua, and the peculiarly distorted English bulldog all share the common ancestor of the domesticated wolf. If these extreme changes in biological form and function have taken place just during the time that humans have been selectively breeding dogs, think about the possible changes in organisms that can take place over millions or billions of years.

.

To many people, myself included, scientific discoveries that validate these astonishing theories are nothing less than awe inspiring. I find that all of the reasons as to why the world is what it is strengthen my faith in God rather than detract from it. It is striking that religion as a whole has not stopped to consider scientific discoveries and say, “Wow, God’s Universe is even better than what we thought! There’s much more than what (insert prophet here) told us about!” Instead they say, “NO! You’re wrong. My god is small and limited. I only believe what this book that was written thousands of years ago says.” A religion that touted the magnificence of the Universe as illuminated by modern science might be able to draw forth an awe that is far beyond that of the conventional faiths. We should celebrate the astonishing miracle of evolution – all of its complexity, mystery, and beauty. “Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of eons past. Given that, in most cases, we don’t live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes.” (RichardDawkins.net)

.

The Nobel Prize-winning physicist (and may I point out – atheist) Steven Weinberg in Dreams of a Final Theory:

.

"Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal."

.

And why shouldn’t God be found all around us – even in a lump of pitch black coal? There is no evidence proving that God does not exist. The sheer chance that gravity, light, matter, and energy come together in such an exact way as to create and sustain Life is almost enough to prove that there IS a divine overseer to the workings of the Universe. Perhaps the Bible is not accurate when examined literally. Perhaps the Tanakh and Jewish teachings are inaccurate as well. Perhaps Hindu or Buddhist traditions don’t have it right either. But it is evident that all mainstream religions share a common message of peace and love. The Archbishop Desmond Tutu once said, "I sometimes wonder how people could ever think that God is a Christian. The spirit of God is wider than any one particular faith." This all-encompassing version of God is much more comforting and easy to accept than the vengeful, demanding god of certain religions. The purpose of religion is to provide a peace of mind for people – not to divide, shun, and condemn them. My personal faith of Judaism stresses the importance of relationships with fellow humans – justice, peace, and respect for all people regardless of their background and beliefs. I remind myself of that lesson with every human interaction that I have.

.

When it comes right down to it, no one knows where Life came from, how it started, or who started it. As of right now, science can only take us so far. One of Einstein's most frequently quoted remarks is “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Beyond the facts of science, there is still ample room for personal faith in God as the creator of the universe and somewhat of a “holy puppet master” – pulling the strings of evolution. Can we prove it? No. Do I believe God exists? Yes. However, to dismiss evolution – or any scientific fact for that matter – is naïve and quite narrow-minded. We should not be afraid of changing our views on faith. We should not live in fear of being sent to “hell” one day. We should not be afraid of differing opinions. We should not be afraid of scientific discovery. And we most certainly should not be afraid of truly acknowledging the complexities of the remarkable Universe that we live in. The world is a beautiful place – driven by natural laws, mind boggling chemistry, and the occasional unexplainable miracle. Ironically, I think the person who best expressed this sentiment is the man himself, Charles Darwin. The conclusion of The Origin of Species reads:

.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."






Works Cited

Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1859.

Dawkins, Richard. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. London: Bantam Press, 2009.

RichardDawkins.net. Richard Dawkins Foundation. Web. 25 October 2009.

Weinberg, Steven. Dreams of a Final Theory. New York City: Vintage Books, 1994.

"Healthcare: Singapore Gets It"

An interesting Wall Street Journal article on Singpore's excellent healthcare system...



"What Singapore Can Teach the White House"
William McGurn of the Wall Street Journal


Its health care is first class, cheap and market-driven.

Critics of this island-nation often have fun referring to it as the "nanny state" for its laws against spitting, littering, or leaving behind an unflushed loo.

When it comes to health care, however, Uncle Sam has better claim to the nanny title. From our federal price "negotiations" and state regulations to discrimination in the tax code, government distortions prop up a system that puts key health-care decisions in the hands of everyone but the patient. Each new government intrusion, moreover, begets only higher costs—and a call for more intervention to fix the problem.

In Singapore, by contrast, they already have universal coverage. They also have world-class quality care at world-competitive prices. And in a week when White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is meeting behind closed doors with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Singapore's example might have something to teach them about the kind of reform Americans really need.
"When I'm asked to describe the differences between the U.S. and Singapore systems, my one-word answer is 'complexity,'" says Dr. Jason Yap, director of marketing for Raffles Hospital, a leading private care facility in downtown Singapore. "There are so many parties in the American system that do not really contribute to care."

Dr. Yap is referring to the higher costs that come from an American system that depends on regulation and oversight to accomplish what Singapore tries to do with competition and choice. At the Raffles lounge for international patients, he shows me an example of the latter. It's a one-page, easy-to-read list of fees.

At the high end of accommodation, a patient can choose the Raffles/Victory suite for about $1,438 per night. That price includes a 24-hour private nurse, a refrigerator stocked with drinks, and an adjoining living room to entertain. At the other end of the scale, a bed in a six-person room goes for just $99.

As Dr. Yap points out, the actual care is the same whether a patient decides to stay in a deluxe suite or a dormitory-style room. But the choice is the patient's; the financial incentives encourage the patient to think about those choices; and the low-priced options help keep the overall costs down.

This is no accident. Like ours, Singapore's system is a mix of public and private care and financing. Unlike ours, Singapore's system is anchored, as the Ministry of Health puts it, "on the twin philosophies of individual responsibility and affordable health care for all."

"Individual responsibility" is not just a buzzword. All but the abjectly poor have to pay for some of their care, another downward pressure on prices. Perhaps most important, almost all working Singaporeans are required to put money in a medical savings account that they use for out of pocket expenses. It's their money, and they control it. As a result, they are careful about spending it.

"In Singapore almost everyone has to pay something for their care," says Dr. Yap. "When it's your money, you really ask yourself: Do I really need this?"

It seems to be working. According to a Raffles Hospital official, a knee replacement surgery runs between U.S. $12,000 and $14,000. Spinal fusion runs between $10,500 and $14,000, and a heart bypass (coronary artery bypass graft) from $23,000 to $26,500. Conservatively speaking, these prices are less than a third of what the same procedure would cost in the U.S.—that is, when you can even get the price.

As any American who has ever tried to make sense of a hospital bill or haggled with his insurance company over a payment can tell you, even for those who have decent coverage our system can be a bureaucratic nightmare. Singapore's system isn't perfect. It does suggest, however, that the Average Joe stands more to gain from a system where hospitals and doctors compete for patients, where patients have different price options for their hospital stays and appointments, and where they pay for some of it out of pocket.

Yes, a city-state with three million citizens has some advantages over a nation of more than 300 million people in 50 states. Yes, health care in Singapore is hardly the laissez-faire ideal. Still, there's intervention and there's intervention: What makes Singapore's health care work is that it is designed to swim with the market and not against it.

In macro terms, that means Singaporeans spend only about 4% of GDP on health care—against 17% for the United States. At the same time, Singapore scores better than the U.S. on life expectancy, infant mortality, and other key international measures.

In his address to Congress last month, President Obama complained that "we spend one and a half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it." That's a good point. And the lessons Singapore has to offer suggests that what Americans need most in Washington today are fewer closed-door meetings and more open minds.





Wall Street Journal Website:
http://online.wsj.com/

"Hassling the Huff / War: What is it Good For?"

I have an idea for how Joe Biden can capitalize on all the attention, and do what generations to come will always be grateful for: resign.

... Biden has become the chief White House skeptic on escalating the war in Afghanistan, specifically arguing against Gen. McChrystal's request for 40,000 more troops to pursue a counterinsurgency strategy there.

... Biden speaks up at an international security meeting at the white house:

"Can I just clarify a factual point? How much will we spend this year on Afghanistan?" Someone provided the figure: $65 billion. "And how much will we spend on Pakistan?" Another figure was supplied: $2.25 billion. "Well, by my calculations that's a 30-to-1 ratio in favor of Afghanistan. So I have a question. Al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we're spending in Pakistan, we're spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?" The White House Situation Room fell silent.

It's been known for a while that Biden has been on the other side of McChrystal's desire for a big escalation of our forces there ... So if the president does decide to escalate, Biden, for the good of the country, should escalate his willingness to act on those reservations.

What he must not do is follow the same weak and worn-out pattern of "opposition" we've become all-too-accustomed to, first with Vietnam and then with Iraq. You know the drill: after the dust settles, and the country begins to look back and not-so-charitably wonder, "what were they thinking?" the mea-culpa-laden books start to come out. On page after regret-filled page, we suddenly hear how forceful this or that official was behind closed doors, arguing against the war, taking a principled stand, expressing "strong concern" and, yes, "deep reservations" to the president, and then going home each night distraught at the unnecessary loss of life.

Well, how about making the mea culpa unnecessary? Instead of saving it for the book, how about future author Biden unfetter his conscience in real time -- when it can actually do some good? If Biden truly believes that what we're doing in Afghanistan is not in the best interests of our national security -- and what issue is more important than that? -- it's simply not enough to claim retroactive righteousness in his memoirs.

Though it would be a crowning moment in a distinguished career, such an act of courage would likely be only the beginning. Biden would then become the natural leader of the movement to wind down this disastrous war and focus on the real dangers in Pakistan.

- Arianna Huffington of The Huffington Post



Oh, Arianna Huffington. Can I call her Huffie? Great. I love Huffie, and read her blogs / watch her on CNN all the time. But, this is probably the dumbest idea she’s ever had. Biden resigning? Noble? Sure. Striking? Sure. Smart? No.

The Vice President only really has two jobs – to break tie votes in the Senate, and take over after the president kicks it…he’s not exactly a pivotal figure in policy making.

After Dick Cheney running the country with his hand up President Bush’s backside for 8 years, we may all have forgotten that the Vice Presidency is traditionally a do-nothing job.

It’s not like Barack has to turn to Joe Biden and ask for permission before he makes decisions.

The Vice President disagreeing with the decisions of the White House shouldn’t make much difference at all in the courses of action the President takes.

I’ve become bored with this blog topic… I’m tired of war anyway. If I had things my way, we’d bring all of our troops from around the world back home – no military bases abroad or anything. Policing the world has gotten to be a bit much for the country to deal with. Chasing the Taliban around the Middle East isn’t exactly working out for us. And in case anyone hasn’t noticed, the national debt as of October 19, 2009 at 11:20:36 PM EST is:

$11,959,366,151,888.69

That’s over 11 trillion dollars folks. War is expensive. We don’t have that kind of cash lying around. (which is why we just keep printing more…)

So I say we “pull a Ron Paul” and just leave the rest of the world to its own devices and sort out our own problems here in the USA. Oh how I like that Ron Paul. Paul for Pres 2012!

.

.

.

.

.

Huffie's Entire Article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/why-joe-biden-should-resi_b_320929.html

"To Arms"

A 22-year old student at Citadel got lost while looking for a doctor’s office. He drove slowly in an attempt to get his bearings, and his sluggish speed angered the motorist behind him. The police reported that when the student pulled into a parking lot to refer to a map, the enraged follower pulled in as well and got out of his car wielding a baseball bat and loudly berating the man about his driving. The student swiftly pulled a Glock 23 pistol from his glove box and showed it to the assailant. The baseball enthusiast, apparently no longer angry, put his hands in the air, returned to his car and drove off. (The Island Packet, Bluffton, SC, 08/09/08)

An 85 year old Pennsylvanian great-grandmother would seem easy prey to a home invader. But Leda Smith had one tool that allows the weak to defend themselves – a firearm. According to the police, Smith bravely went straight for her .22-caliber revolver and foiled the would-be robber by holding him at gunpoint while forcing him to dial 9-1-1 and report himself to the police. (Associated Press, 08/19/08)

A Connecticut resident, James Galvin was awakened by the terrified cries of his sheepdog. Galvin peered out the window, and saw his dog being chased around the yard by a 150-pound bear. Grabbing a firearm, Galvin ran outside. When the bear saw him, it stood up, and then bolted straight for him. Galvin was forced to shoot the bear, saving the lives of himself and his dog. (The Hartford Courant, Hartford, CT, 08/14/08)

A homeowner of Bradley County, Tennessee, arrived at his house to witness an intruder slipping out from under his garage door with his power tools and rifle. The man quickly trained a pistol on the thief, holding him until police arrived. Sheriff Tim Gobble praised the homeowner’s decisive action: “I love it when a homeowner catches a criminal while protecting his property. That’s the best example I can think of why an armed citizenry is the best defense against crime. Part of our job is to back up citizens protecting their property, and I am proud of this homeowner.” (Chattanoogan.com, Chattanooga, TN, 08/08/08)



Like in these anecdotes, firearms are used over 2 million times a year across the United States for protection. The mere presence of a firearm, without a single shot being fired, is often enough to deter a criminal from taking further action. An armed citizenry allows people to defend their lives and property without having to waste critical minutes waiting for police assistance. It is surprising to me that many people in the United States seek to abolish citizens’ right to bear arms.

It is understandable, however, when we take into consideration the two very different gun cultures in the United States.

We have the large cities where gang violence is present, and guns are used for the senseless killing of other human beings every day. In this culture, the symbolism of a gun connotes only suffering and death.

Contrarily there are typically more rural areas where guns are used for sport hunting, target shooting, and personal defense. In this culture, guns are meant to be handled with due caution, but are effective tools for both enjoyment and defense when necessary.

Looking at the gun rights issue from a Constitutional standpoint, it is difficult to validate a case for banning citizens from responsibly toting firearms.

The Second Amendment:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

By definition, a militia is an army of citizens. According to the Second Amendment, as citizens we have the right “to keep and bear arms” in order to secure our freedom. It does not limit the right to the military; it is the “right of the people”.

It is unconstitutional to ban Americans from bearing firearms, but regulation is perfectly acceptable and required by the Second Amendment. Appropriate licensing and background check programs should be enforced rather than revoking people’s right to defend themselves. Banning guns will only prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining weapons; criminals will still have access to guns, and will certainly obtain them. (Kind of like alcohol Prohibition of the 1920’s and the now repealed 18th Amendment? I think so.) If anything this will cause a greater crime problem than before.

In closing, I would like to echo the words of Sheriff Gobble and assert that an armed citizenry IS the best defense against crime. We cannot allow our Second Amendment right to be infringed upon by narrow-minded interest groups. The US citizen should educate himself or herself on gun safety and be proud to exercise the option of responsible gun ownership.


Introductory anecdotes credited to the “Armed Citizen” journal published by the National Rifle Association.



The United States Constitution:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

National Rifle Association (it’s not just for rednecks, you know):
http://home.nra.org/

"A Follow-Up / Kudos to the President"

After the topic of last week's post I'd just like to say that President Obama gave a wonderful speech to the Human Rights Campaign gala tonight. Hopefully he'll follow up on those promises and push Congress for equal rights legislation.

Great job Mr. President.




(working on a new post for tomorrow or Monday...)

"Equality, The Constitution, and Penguins"

Yeah, you read it right...



Lately there has been much discussion over the hot button issue of gay marriage. 6 states currently allow same-sex marriage: Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Due to a ballot referendum in Maine, the right to marry may be revoked; in New Hampshire, gay marriage will come into law on January 1st, 2010.

Progressive? Promising? Do we have a long way to go? Have we barely scratched the surface? Are those darn gays eroding the moral fiber of our nation? Is the nation going straight to hell, without passing go, or collecting our $200?

Depending on who you ask in this country, you’ll get all kinds of answers to those questions.

An April 2009 poll by ABC News found public support - 49% - for allowing same sex marriage in the United States ahead of its opposition - 46% - for the first time. Those with no opinion on the matter were at 5%. In addition, 53% believe that gay marriages performed in one state should be legally recognized in other states.

Among Democrats, 62% are in favor of gay marriage.

Among Republicans, 74% are opposed to gay marriage.

Among Independents, 52% are in favor of gay marriage.



Just for the record, I support the right of gay marriage and equality 100%. So here are my top ten reasons that gay marriage SHOULD be legalized nationally…

1. Denying homosexuals the right to marry is a violation of 1st Amendment religious freedom.(Traditional Judeo-Christian religious values of heterosexual marriage are imposed upon the gay community.)

2. Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity, spousal inheritance laws, etc.) should be available to all couples.

3. Homosexuality is a popularly accepted lifestyle with evidence proving biological causation. (Homosexuality is even observed in nature – I know you’ve seen those gay penguins…yeah)

4. Denying these marriages is an example of the tyranny of the political majority over the minority. Thomas Jefferson explains this essential principle of American democracy: “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

5. This is the first time in the history of the United States that civil rights have EVER been legally taken away from a group of people as is the case of California and potentially Maine.

6. It has no effect on the rights of those who are against gay marriage. (The great Wanda Sykes says it best: “It’s very simple. If you don’t believe in same-sex marriage, then don’t marry somebody of the same sex”)

7. The only thing that should matter in a marriage is love and commitment.

8. Adoptions should increase since gay couples cannot procreate.

9. It reinforces family values for the homosexual community.

10. Denying people the right to live equally violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, as well as infringes upon their endowed right to pursue happiness.



Religious and conservative groups counter all of these arguments with nothing but huffing and puffing with their fire and brimstone about “family values” and Biblical rules on sexuality and marriage.

I know plenty of gay families, who have wonderful home lives and well adjusted, emotionally healthy children. Studies show that supportive, loving parents are necessary for their children’s healthy psychological development, and that gender and sexual orientation have no adverse effect.

And for the religious argument … “Freedom of Religion” does not give you the right to impose your beliefs on other people. Period. Separation of church and state is a core principle of our nation and should not be trampled upon.

In closing, I urge everyone to vote for equality if given the opportunity by referendum or initiative. Take into consideration your elected officials’ stances on gay rights. And remember that gay rights are unalienable HUMAN rights that our government cannot deny.

Homosexual people are not second class citizens.



Wanda Sykes on Gay Marriage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IHdaJOZe7E

Gay penguins!:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/06/gay-penguin-dads-in-german-zoo-hatch-chick.html



Organizations I Support

National Equality March:
http://equalityacrossamerica.org/blog/?page_id=19

No H8 Campaign:
http://www.bouska.net/noh8/

Human Rights Campaign:
http://www.hrc.org/

"A Shout-Out to the Fan"

Thank you, Josh Jones, for being my first and only follower thus far.

That is all.

"Really, Joe Wilson? Really?"

Calling a politician a liar is NOT a capital offense. Saying that a politician is a liar is like saying that the sky is blue. It is however highly inappropriate for a Congressman to yell “You lie!” at the President of the United States while he is formally addressing a joint session of Congress as well as the American public. The incident was just plain disrespectful; Joe Wilson is from South Carolina – a southerner should have better manners than that.

Despite what a majority of Americans believe, politics is not 100% disrespectful. It’s not all about negative campaigning, name calling, and pouting like toddlers. There are actually legislators who are friendly towards their colleagues from the other side of the aisle – YES, it is allowed! It’s too bad the late Ted Kennedy is no longer with us; he could teach some of these ideologues how to work closely with and be friendly towards others of differing viewpoints.

Before people accuse me of being ideologically biased, I have to say Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans when it comes to unwillingness to compromise. Nancy Pelosi deserves her own blog of criticism, but I don’t even want to open that can of Botox.

Back to the Wilson debacle: nothing like that has ever happened to any other President, at least not in such a grand and formal setting.

In the immortal words of Bon Qui Qui: “…rude.”

It is the job of Congress to hold the President accountable, but it is not the job of one embittered Congressman to disrupt a Presidential address in such a way.

On the topic of political compromise and the reduction of bitterness among congressional colleagues, I would like to share an essay that I have written on the book First Person Political. The author, Grant Reeher, is Associate Professor of Political Science at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. Reeher also co-authored Click on Democracy: The Internet’s Power to Change Political Apathy into Civil Action.




“Up Close and Personal”

In First Person Political, Grant Reeher strives to provide the reader with deep insight into the more private aspects of state and local legislators. As citizens, we tend to have a negative, untrustworthy view of elected officials. Reeher refutes this common opinion through a series of interviews with legislators of Connecticut, New York, and Vermont; which expose politicians as complex human beings who have a true love for public service and the betterment of society.

Reeher’s main question that he seeks to answer through his research is that of motivation. Several factors create difficulty for politicians to run for, win, and continue to hold legislative office. Through his series of in-depth interviews with several state legislators, Reeher uncovers the reasons why they subject themselves to the hardships that accompany life in the public sphere.

Reeher wants us to understand that the vast majority of people who run for elected office do so to serve the will of the people and to improve the well-being of society. The legislators that he interviewed often spoke of the improvements they wanted to make for the people of their communities and states. In order to set their positive ideas in motion, there are many difficulties that legislators must overcome. Simply winning a position in a legislature is often extremely costly and time-consuming. Also, the legislative salary can sometimes – as in the case of Connecticut and Vermont – be insufficient. This typically requires elected officials to have a second job that provides them with adequate funds to live and campaign. It seems irrational for politicians to seek office solely for the sake of fame and power, when there are much easier and more cost-effective venues in the private sector to do so. While the desire for notoriety may be a common factor in the quest for political office, clearly one must also have a very intense desire to serve society in order to push through the barriers facing public servants.

Reeher concludes through his interviews that legislators must gain a great deal of satisfaction from their jobs, otherwise the struggle to attain and hold these jobs would prove fruitless. Sources of job satisfaction for legislators often come from a sense of personal efficacy, legislative accomplishments, and camaraderie with other legislators. However, he also claims that negative experiences of political office can be quite profound. Overextension of time and resources result in emotional stress and strain on several aspects of life: family, secondary career, and public image. Life in the public eye can result in a psychological toll, especially when elected officials are repeatedly criticized by media and constituents.

In my opinion, the most striking segment of Reeher’s collection of interviews is the section discussing Ralph Wright – a House Speaker of Vermont. This section gives the reader insight to the inner workings of a skilled politician who has made a career of public service. Wright wielded a great deal of political power, and used that power (along with a Democratic majority) to stack important committees and push through legislation. Such a forceful use of command caused several Vermont legislators to feel alienated from the political process. At the same time, however, Wright was able to enact a great deal of policy that benefitted the state. Opinions on Wright varied depending on the legislator being interviewed, but his mastery of the political process was evident throughout.

It was surprising to see the nature of the relationships among members of the legislature. The conversations that are recounted by Wright and others indicate that the Vermont legislature is – foremost – a workplace like any other. Rather than two sides of enemy ideology, it seemed more like a cooperative group of people with differing opinions. Indeed there were heated disagreements and political dealings, but primarily the Vermont legislature was remarkably connected to the needs of the state and its citizens.






President Obama's 9/9/09 address to Congress in its entirety:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1YNF9I25yU

Joe Wilson's big moment:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/09/09/obama.heckled.cnn?iref=videosearch

Bon Qui Qui:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZkdcYlOn5M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1wpEAlneHA

"What now, Goodnow?"

The concept of a policy-administration dichotomy has long existed in the political history of the United States. Basically, this means that – for many people – there has been a desire to separate policy-making from administrative policy application (Kettl, Fesler 6). Many political scientists and theorists suggest that this separation of power will protect the political minority, since the bureaucratic implementation of policy would be less controlled by the political party in power. During the era of “Political Machines” in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there was no policy-administration dichotomy, considering that the vastly powerful political parties had control over the implementation of policy, as well as publication of news. The establishment of a more independent bureaucracy has taken a considerable amount of power away from policy makers. Administrators that carry out public policy have greater autonomy to enact policy as they see fit. This can prove to be effective and efficient while still more gradual and regulated than if the policy was forcefully enacted by a majority political party. On the downside to a policy-administration dichotomy, bureaucrats tend to hold a large amount of governmental power, and are often quite autonomous and difficult to control. If a bureaucratic agency in charge of enacting a particular policy does not approve of the policy, the agency could potentially enact the policy slowly, in favorable fractions, or not at all.

Political scientist Frank J. Goodnow asserts that, in a popular government, the administrative segment of government must be subordinate to the control of the policy-making segment in order to prevent political paralysis. Goodnow explains the policy-administration dichotomy as “two distinct functions of government”. Politics are the expressions of popular will through policy-making, while administration deals with the execution of the policies (Shafritz 28). In a well-functioning government, powers cannot be totally separated. Policy must be carried out efficiently by administrative agencies to effectively execute state will.

While Goodnow hesitates to entitle the administrative segment of government with very much autonomy, past president Woodrow Wilson suggests that a more independent administrative body is necessary for effective government. While the elected officials of government enact broad policy, it is the job of the administrative bureaucrats to enact the policy by what means is appropriate. Wilson describes public administration as “detailed and systematic execution of public law” (Shafritz 23). The specific applications of laws are the jobs of administration. Making of the laws that direct policy is the job of legislators. Wilson focuses on the academic study of how administration can be made more efficient, fair, and Constitutional. Wilson does acknowledge that such an autonomous bureaucracy can only exist if it is truly businesslike, unbiased, and professional when it comes to implementing policy. He states that this can be achieved by holding heads of administrative agencies accountable for actions taken by their agencies.

While Wilson’s opinion on the policy-administration dichotomy relies heavily on the ethics and self-control of administrators, Goodnow seems to have a more realistic approach to the issue. Without adequate oversight and control over administration, it is possible – if not probable – that administrators will manipulate public policy through its implementation as they see fit. It is not an inherently bad thing for the political party in power to be able to have significant control over the implementation of policy. Constitutional civil rights are in place to prevent the political majority from tyrannizing the minority. To appease the will of the minority by hindering the implementation of policy may block effective policies from benefitting society.




Works Cited

Kettl, Donald F. and James W. Fesler. 2009. The Politics of the Administrative Process, 4th edition. Washington DC: CQ Press.

Shafritz, Jay M., Albert C. Hyde, and Sandra J. Parkes. 2008. Classics of Public Administration. 6th edition. Wadsworth Publishing.

"Universal Health-Scare"

A new week, a new day, a new school, a new blog being sent out into the internet void. I have been wondering what would be the best way to start a political blog. Then I realized there are about two people who will read this – so who gives a damn. So what better way to begin sharpening my political prowess by diving headfirst into the quagmire that is the healthcare system? Cable news is inundated with health care reporting – interviews and debates between congressmen and congresswomen, ardent anti-government protesting, those painful town hall meeting question/answer sessions, and the occasional corn-fed redneck calling President Obama an illegal alien communist dictator. It’s enough to make you want to punch your television, until you realize that Wolf Blitzer is on, and he’s awesome (really, I mean, his name is Wolf … that’s BA). So who should we troubled masses believe? The proponents, the opponents, the vacillating crowd who isn’t quite satisfied but appreciates the main objective?

For me, it’s a big question of “Ifs”. I would support the health care reform if it turns out how it has been advertized by the President and Left-leaning members of Congress. Government sponsored healthcare as an option seems perfectly acceptable. As long as private insurance coverage can still exist, the government should make an effort to fill in the gaps left by capitalistic insurance companies. Many people believe that a government agency in charge of healthcare will run all private companies out of business. This fear is understandable, since the government healthcare administrators will not have to worry about making a profit the way that private companies do. Theoretically, the government health care “company” would be able to spend massive amounts of taxpayer money without having to balance its checkbook. However, today I heard President Obama refer to the Post Office – which as most of you know, is knee deep in the red right now. UPS and FedEx do quite well in the face of the government agency that is the postal service – maybe private insurance companies will do the same. Introducing a new competitor for insurance customers to subscribe to, may force private companies to be more competitive in the marketplace, i.e. cheaper and more user-friendly. Seems legit to me.

On the other hand, if private health care is done away with, competition (which is ONLY the backbone of our economy) flies out the window. With it goes our right to choose our coverage and ultimately the quality of coverage. It’s really as simple as that.

It seems to me that people who believe that there should only be private coverage do not realize that there will inevitably be uninsured and underinsured people out there. I wonder what they expect people who cannot afford an insurance plan to do. If a single parent who can only afford one insurance plan pays for insurance coverage for his child instead of paying for his own, and is then diagnosed with cancer, what does he do? Roll up into a ball and die? If he cannot afford the treatment bills and has no insurance of his own, what else is he supposed to do? He has his child insured while sacrificing his own security, and then he could potentially die, leaving his medical debts to his family.

In short - like most things in life, moderation seems to apply well to healthcare.