|
| So I thought it would be a great idea to have a place where not I, but everyone could bring up issues. So I created a group on google. Here is the link:
http://groups.google.com/group/public_policy
| | |
| I just read an article today on CNN.com about Stem Cell Research. There has been a lot of controversy over whether it is ethical or not. Personally, I think that it is irresponsible not to pursue this. These stem cells may hold the cure to many diseases.
President Bush and other opponents of stem cell research claim that it is destroying human life. While there is no definitive definition given as to when human life begins, lets assume that this argument is true; that stem cell research is destroying potential human life. If this case of destroying human life is wrong, what makes it wrong? The sacrifice of one potential human life for the good of the many. It is hypocrytical of the President to not fund stem cell research with conditions. As Commander-in-Cheif of the US Armed Forces, he has made the decision to sacrifice human lives in Iraq and Afganistan for the good of the many.
While there are private sources for stem cell researchers to tap that do not have stringent stipulations attached to their funds, these funds are much more limited when compared to the funds of US government sources. In a political science class that I took in the winter 2006, Dr. Sung Ho Kim said that if this is not changed the US will loose a lot of scientific talent to places like Singapore and Korea. I completely agree with Dr. Kim's assessment. There is evidence to support this; in the CNN.com article it says, "States from Connecticut to California have tried to step in enough funding to keep the labs going and slow the exodus of US talent to Singapore, Britian, and Taiwan."
Here is a link to the article:
http://us.cnn.com/2006/US/07/30/time.stemcell.tm/index.html
| | |
| First, a minimum wage increase would not help the poor. If the minimum wage increases, then companies will have a higher cost, which gets passed on to the consumer in prices. So if the poor have a higher income, it will only artificially bring them out of poverty (by todays standards). By raising the minimum wage, the standards for poverty will have to change.
If the minimum wage is abloished, companies will undoubtedly decrease wages in an effort to cut costs and become more competitve internationally; and there will be a period of high unemployment. There will always be unemployment, but after a period of high unemployment and low wages, unemployment will start to decrase, and ever later down the road real wages (not nominal wages) will increase. Increasing the minimum wage is simpoly increasing the nominal wage.
Second, there will always be some individual who is willing to do those jobs. There will always be someone who is not educated enough to get a high paying job, and will be making just enough to get by. But even for them, there is a way to help. Instead of increasing the minimum wage, we need to find a way to decrease the cost of health care. I am not an expert in health care, but I know that health insurance is very expensive. And if you are living in poverty, trying to pay rent, the grocery bill, and other bills, it can be hard. There must be some way to decrease the cost of health care, but not let it enlarge the government bureuacracy and preserve freedom to choose. The best way from what I can see to do this is to deregulate health care.
Third, the current tax system is flawed. I think everyone in the US will admit that is true. The problem is its too complex. The rich have enough money to pay very good accountant and tax attorneys to find loopholes so that they don't have to pay as much in taxes; and the poor they are barely getting by. The best solution that I can think of is a flat tax. If there is a flat tax then the rich will have a harder time escaping it, and will pay much more still in taxes than the poor. This change in the tax law will allow for the IRS to cut its size down, and thus cut the cost of its oversized bureacracy. This will free up tax funds to pay for better schools where they are most desperately needed. Inheritance taxes should be raised as well. Bill Gates's kid will already have a great education that will make him/her a lot of money. There is no need to add to that by giving them even more. However, just raising inheritance taxes will hurt the poor who leave their children money; which those children are likely also to be in poverty. This money would probably not help them much, but it would help them none the less. So to fix that problem by creating some standard, like if you are inheriting x amount of money then you have to pay this much.
Foruth, education does cost money. So how can we increase the quality of education without increasing the cost. First we need to allow parents the freedom to choose where their children go. Parochial schools give children a better education that public schools and at a cheaper price. If the government would allow school vouchers this problem would be solved. The Courts have said that this is unconstitutional because it mixes church and state. I myself do not see the mix that needs to be protected against. It is the choice of the parents to use the voucher to send their child to a private school that is affiliated with some religion (catholicism, christianianty, islam); the government would simply be cutting the cost to these individuals.
Another way to fund education is to cut government spending in other areas and decrease the size of the bureuacracy. Decreasing the size of the bureuacracy will decrease government expeditures.
Fifth, everything is so intertwined. It is hard to solve one problem without making another problem worse. And it even harder to solve a problem when you are trying to make everyone happy; there is always someone that will be unhappy. Another thing is that we tend to look for short term solutions, instead of long term solutions. These short term solutions are only a bandage and will eventually need to be changed.
| | |
| For decades politicians have campaigned on increasing the minimum wage and fighting poverty through increased wages; well this has been tried and has failed, Granted there may be a few success stories, but on the whole it has been an utter failure, and probably has pulled some families into poverty. On the news lately I have bene hearing a lot about Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Both are campaigning for a higher minimum wage in the name of the poor. There is a problem with this. A higher minimum wage will only artificially raise incomes, it will not increase, but in fact decrease the purchasing power of not only the poor, but also every other class. Increasing income by means of regulation is not the answer. By raising the minimum wage, Congress will be increasing unemployment because the Marginal Cost of Labor will increase. In other words, it will cost a business more money to employ x number of workers. This cost will be passed onto the consumers, which will decrease their purchasing power (that is they will not be able to buy as much with the income that they make). Increasing the minimum wage is not the answer to the problem of poverty. Education is the answer. The only way for individuals to get out of poverty to get educated. There are many other problems that effect poverty that need to be addressed such as the rising costs of health care.
The major problem with this issue is that the public doesn't realize that this "solution" is not the right one to the problem of poverty. Everyone is self interested and only cares about the amount of income they make; but the true measure of income is purchasing power. While I do recognize that people do have a so to speak built in measure of purchasing power, they do not understand the economic consequences of a higher minimum wage. And unfortunately, there is no special interest group lobbying Congress to keep nthe minimum wage the same, or to even lower it.
I think that the best solution to poverty, is to reduce the size to the government and its bureaucracy. This will lower taxes-leaving more in the pockets of the poor; have flat tax rate say 15% accross the board, and fix the tax system so that corporate profits are not taxed twice (read the tax laws, corporate profits get taxed twice if they are a publicly traded company); abolish the minimum wage; and many much more. This all will allow for market forces to act without manipulation caused by government intervention.
| | |
| So I have been doing a lot of reading this summer and I have a lot of thoughts that I need to put some where so I am going to have an entire site devoted to this purpose. this will just a site devoted to my comments on things that happen in the news and stuff I read. Also as a warning, I am not going to politically correct. Comments are definitely welcome and encouraged!
| | |
|
