In for the Penny, In for the $14.3 Trillion

Today in Washington, there is great debate about the growing debt, the need for a release of the debt ceiling, and the consequences of not cutting down deficit spending.  As the White House pushes to increase the debt ceiling to solve economic shortages and prevent another economic slump, several Congress leaders are pushing back that it is first necessary to limit the amount of deficit spending the United States produces before a new limit is set.  It is of general consensus that it is necessary to raise the debt ceiling to continue to keep prices and social services at the standard they currently reside.  Without this raise in the national debt ceiling, interest rates would sky rocket, social service checks would halt, and troop salaries would be cut.  However, some fear that “as catastrophic as it would be to fail to raise our debt ceiling, it’s even more irresponsible to not take this opportunity to own up to our unsustainable spending path” as said by Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado.  With the United States racing towards its $14.3 trillion dollar debt cap by mid-May, Democrats are jumping on board with Republicans that something must be done to stop deficit spending.  A collection of 6 congressmen (known as the Gang of 6) is meant to release possible deficit reduction bills as early as next week.

It is crazy to me that in the course of just 5 months, the United States has already nearly met its nearly $15 trillion dollar debt cap.  While we have been through some tough times this year with corporate bailouts of the major car companies and some banks, natural disasters (including the recent tornado tragedies in the South that are not even on the books yet), and general economic slump, it is not acceptable that the government that is in charge of our safe keeping can hardly take care of itself.  As a college student, money worry is never far from mind as I consider the debt college will leave me in.  However, in my case, the money spend has such a positive return that there is a light in the end of the tunnel.  Debt will not always be a force factor in my life, at least not for college.  The American government on the other hand, is quickly digging themselves into a deeper and deeper grave, and eventually the walls are going to cave in.  At some point you have to step back and realize that you can’t continue at your current rate and start to fix before its too late. 

In thinking about what the government is spending this $14.3 trillion dollars, it’s not a wonder we are in debt.  Of that money, at least $50 billion is sanctioned off to oil companies and oil research.  In the current oil projections, we can only continue using oil for another 25-50 years before reserves will run out.  That means we have maybe 15-20 years to find a sustainable alternative before prices for oil will skyrocket so high that it won’t be affordable anymore.  And it isn’t just gas we have to worry about loosing; it’s plastics too, both of which make our lives possible.  Instead of sinking money into alternatives for these dwindling resources though, the government is giving tax breaks and incentives to the oil companies.  And when the going is getting tough, instead of relying on these companies we have sunk so much money into to help the government recover, if there is a shortage of money, it will again be taken up by the people in the form of interest rate increase, ceasing welfare and social security, and limiting the income of our troops.  It just seems so wrong.  The federal government needs to take a good hard look at how much they are spending, and an even harder look at what they are spending that money on.  It might not be such a pretty face looking back in the mirror.

Nature of State: Education Budgets

After reading a recent blog by my colleague Raymond W regarding education cuts, I began to give the matter great thought.  I found my colleague's introduction quite interesting.  He began by polling a group of middle schoolers about their opinion of school budget cuts.  Even at this young age, the children already had a distinct understanding of the importance of adequate budgets and the damage lack of funds can have on a school.  Too many children today feel the ravages of under budgeted schools as classes lack in technology and advanced teachers.

As a school student myself (in a more advanced stage of course), I too have a very strong opinion of the need for school funding.  At UT, many of the budget cuts have affected the ability to continue classes in the order that most benefit us.  It was always difficult to get into language courses, and now as those classes have diminished in numbers, it is almost impossible.  These effects are minimal compared to the effects I see in our public schools.  I am a mentor at several elementary schools in East Austin, working with different age groups.  We often go to play in the library that can hardly be called such or playgrounds with only swing sets.  Teachers restrict my 30 minutes with them because I take them away from the ever-present TAKS test and the holy grail it is.  It is a shame that schools exist in such dismal shape, but it makes me ever more sad to see the education system continually focused on a test that does little to teach our children what we truly need.

My colleague also touches on this.  He was disappointed that the government "stiffed us and hid behind an unnecessary war, for which there seemed to be no shortage of extra cash."  While I agree that the government did stiff us, I don't blame the war.  As mentioned in a previous post, the war following 9/11 was necessary at the time, but should not have been at the sake of our children either.  Raymond mentioned several areas that "fat" needs to be trimmed, and all of those are true especially his fact that education is already bare boned enough.  However, I don't believe the blame lies solely in the path of the war.  The battle of budget is not between two enemies but many contenders, and it is a matter of who can scream the loudest, and sadly, school children just can't pull that weight.

Islamophobia

As the war in the Middle East continues, the fear that started it all is hardly being laid to rest as we are living in a constant state of reminders. Reminders such as intensified airport security, terror alerts, and constant news sources from the troubled Middle East do little to lessen the negative feelings towards this area of the world.  Even if you can look past the fear of associated with the war, the economic burden this situation has caused the United States is enough to create ill feelings towards the Middle East and its inhabitants, let alone our government.  These feelings however are often not directed at the appropriate sources and the burden of our blame falls on innocent victims:  the Islamic community.

Since September 11, much doubt and suspicion from the American public has been leveled at not only the virtue of the Islamic faith, but at the people that practice it and their motivations.   Such stigmas and hype are often associated with times of fear.  In World War II, German citizens were shunned and Japanese citizens were sent to internment camps.  This was nearly 70 years ago.  But in today’s era of civilization, enlightenment, open-mindedness, it is startling to find we can so easily blame and condemn entire traditions of thought because of fear.  It was understandable though not justified when we were first attacked, but now, ten years later, it is past time to stop.  We live in country of freedom:  freedom of speech, thought, press, and RELIGION.  It is time that we begin acting like it.

Today, this message is slowly working to be heard.  Recently there have been symposiums on the University of Texas’s campus regarding this issue. In Washington DC, many lobbyists are working to get the hearings involving a witch-hunt for radical Muslims called to a halt.  These controversial congressional hearings only work to play up the fear that American Muslims are apt to become terrorists, and do little to foster a relationship that is already on a path of alienation.  We are a country of mixed backgrounds and varied beliefs.  That is the great beauty of our country.  It is time for the American public to have faith in the American public, because ultimately, Muslim Americans are Americans too, who fight for, defend, and love our country.  

The Age of Efficient Enlightenment

In a recent New York Times post, Roger A Pilke Jr. discusses the controversy over Congressional efficiency standards on lighting such as the mandate to use compact fluorescents instead of the historic A-type incandescent.  There have been bills introduced lately that work to remove some of these standards on the basis of the government having too much power and controlling trade.  Pilke responds to this by outlying the history of governments around the world standardizing technology and inventions and how it has helped their economy by allowing the consumers to know what they are buying and keeping ahead of foreign markets.  This breeds innovation as people choose to partake of the technological revolution standards allow.  He goes on to say that we should follow Japan’s example to keep up with world markets of recognizing technological leaders and following their standards of efficiency.  However, he concludes that markets should be kept open with the smaller industries that may not be able to follow these standardizations because of job loss increases and only require standardization of the large market holders.

While I agree with Mr. Pilke that Congress does have the right to standardize and restrict American incandescent use, I feel his argument is slightly arbitrary though an interesting history lesson.  America has defined measurement descriptions such as ohms and volts that in turn were used to standardize different industries such as electricity.  There are many examples of other standards that have improved the lives of Americans such as fire exit standards for buildings or factory working conditions standards. These standardizations increased the economic conditions of the United States as we could be better innovators, but there are also a lot of things the United States has done in the past to increase economic conditions that are not good and shouldn’t be continued simply because we did it in the past.  Slavery for sure created a stronger economic base for farmers, but in no way should we ever employ slavery on the sole reason of we did it in the past.  A sound argument needs to have more base than this.  Pilke left out the main and most crucial arguments for these Congressional regulations: the environment, mass energy use incandescent bulbs take, landfill use for shorter lasting bulbs, etc. It is an extremely easy switch as they use the same technology, doesn’t cost more than a dollar more per bulb but lasts at least twice as long, and compact fluorescents even are created in colors that mimic incandescent shades of soft yellow light.  All of these are perfectly valid arguments for reasons why the government should instill regulations on people.  Pilke, while having a good opinion, went about his argument in a way that avoided the true issue and reason Congress is conducting itself in this way, and almost discredited the basis of his argument simply because he didn’t have a strong enough reason to support it.  His conclusion that small markets shouldn’t be held accountable and should continue to be able to function without the restrictions only furthers the doubt that he is aware of the true reasons there is such a push to remove incandescent bulbs from the American household.

We Have a New Printing Press: Its Called the Internet

Newspapers are a dying art for a reason.  They used to serve the average man with a standard outlet to the rest of the world.  Mortgage rates, stock prices, real estate, job opportunities, world news, local news, obituaries.  Today however, the world is at your fingertips.  Who needs to search wanted ads when there are thousands of websites that play host to this.  Who needs stock prices when most people either pay someone else to do it or use etrade.  We have already discovered that news is in no way dependent on newspapers today.  There are thousands of blogs, news sites, and television shows devoted to keeping the public informed.  House hunting is reserved for Craigslist or real-estate sites, and honestly, as most people live in suburban neighborhoods, real estate shopping is even easier with planned open house events for entire sections of cities.  Printed newspapers are obsolete other than the joy of getting to solve the crossword puzzle with a pen.  If for no other reason, newspapers should be stopped because of the environmental waste the pose.  If there is a non-invasive paperless option like the Internet to work in the same capacity that the newspaper once did, why not use it? 

As for democracies dependence on newspapers, I don’t necessarily agree with that either.  I understand and fully support that the people must be kept informed about the political and social arena in which our government is functioning in order to maintain such government; however, as mentioned previously, there are thousands of sources that play host to this very task.  I myself am a participating citizen and rarely do I have contact with a physical newspaper.  I understand that many aforementioned computer sources get their information from journalists, so I fully support the major news sources staying intact.  I just feel that instead of focusing their attention on published sources, they should focus on cyber publications and simply find a better method of financially securing those sources.

 The article “With No Newspapers, as Thomas Jefferson Knew, Democracy Suffers” quoted Thomas Jefferson as saying "If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter."  Maybe Jefferson would choose that option when newspapers were the only source of political knowledge, but in today’s vibrant age of technology, newspapers are only an outdated bystander to the powerhouse of information that is the web.  He wanted something out there that got information to the people in the most rapid and available way, and we have that, the Internet.  The fact that people still want the paper is more of a moment of nostalgia for times of the past when sitting with a cup of coffee and a newspaper was a daily thing than a necessary and vital part of our government.  

Human Security: The New National Security

In an opinion article in the Washington Post, Conor Williams discusses the need for a different approach towards national security than the traditional flex your muscles, military approach that the United States has been famous especially since the Cold War.  He points to US participation in Afghanistan in the 1980s when instead of helping the country rebuild and revive while it was not under a tyrant, the United States left the country in ruins after the Soviet Union left.  Now, as we are again in an international struggle in Afghanistan we are left “trying to win Afghan hearts and minds while simultaneously winning and securing territory” which instead of costing the United States a few million dollars in the 80’s, it is now costing us billions.  Williams’ claim is that instead of approaching national security with military strength, the United States should strive for global humanitarianism and human security.  His reasoning for this lies in the fact that when the United States is threatened by a foreign body it is rarely by a country of great economic prosperity.  The threats usually lie where there are few economic opportunities and even fewer political opportunities.  This is proven through Afghanistan, Yemen, and other desperate and desolate countries around the world.  He claims that as Egypt is striving to break away from their current political and economic situation, the United States should step forward and help because it is “it's both the right thing to do and to prevent them from lapsing into instability and insecurity.”

I agree with Williams completely.  The world we live in is not one of individualized countries and superpowers.  We are very much in a global environment where the fate and livelihood of each country is hooked arm in arm with other countries.  I understand the petition that it is not the United State’s job to clean up other countries’ messes and that we can’t even take care of our own problems right now let alone someone else’s, but as Williams points out, part of the United States’ economic mess lies in that we didn’t do the humanitarian thing 30 years ago.  Now hindsight is 20/20; there is always the possibility that even if we had helped Afghanistan rebuild and regroup 30 years ago we could still be in this mess now if Al Qaeda had still come to power.  However, obviously, what we tried 30 years ago didn’t work and didn’t save us any money or hardship later, so maybe its time to try something a little different.  We need to not only cheer on Egypt’s fight for a more democratic government and more political rights, we need to actively bolster them up and help them create the country they deserve and want to be.  Everyone deserves to be as economically, politically, and socially wealthy as the United States, and by helping them, we may in fact be helping ourselves.  If every country had the same rights and human security as the United States, that would go a long way to help solve our immigration issue, our increasing carbon footprint, and many more of the battles the United States is facing internally.  I think of it this way, in 1776, France stepped up and had the generosity and understood personal interest in helping the United States get out from under a tyrant, and now it is our turn to be the ‘bigger’ country and help someone else for the good of them and for the good of ourselves.

How is the Holocaust Still Affecting Us?

Though the Holocaust was several decades ago, the war torn memories are still very much a part of our lives today even in the United States.  One example of this is being battled out in the Congressional courts today.  Holocaust survivors are trying to receive restitution from the railway company that transported so many of their family members to concentration camps.  This same rail system, SNCF, is at the same time trying to place a bid for a high-speed rail system that is currently planned for California which would increase their economic worth by millions.  As they are making plans for their financial gains, they continue to evade legal responsibility to the victims in federal court.  The law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld are currently launching a petition against SNCF in congressional courts to make the rail system pay their societal dues.  There is currently an article in the Washington Post and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld just launched a web campaign for the victims of the Holocaust.  It has several moving testimonies from Holocaust survivors, and is definitely worth looking at.