Fact Checkin'

In response to Ms. Goin’s blog post, I think it’s necessary to clarify a few facts that I believe may have been misrepresented. The ACA(Affordable Care Act) is; to quote Speaker of the House John Boehner, currently the “law of the land”. While not all of the A.C.A. provisions are yet in effect, they have all passed into law. The Supreme Court did modify some of the provisions, but they upheld the law as a whole. The only “controversial” provision was the individual mandate, which was upheld by the Court as a function of Congresses right to tax. The most relevant provision that was modified by the Court, was the requirement for States to participate in the expansion of medicare.

Concerning the “facts” regarding the ACA’s effect on the national debt. I must confess that although I’ve not crunched the numbers myself, the Congressional Budget Office has been kind enough to do the math for me. So it appears the ACA will actually lower the deficit by 124,000,000,000 dollars.

Now while the Pappa John’s incident may lead us to think that mass layoffs may be a product of the ACA, I assertion dubious. First the cost of providing health care is marginal to a large employer such as Wal-Mart or Pappa John’s. In the case of the aforementioned pizza chain, it was found that the company could provide healthcare to all of their employees by raising the cost of pizza by a mere 15 cents. Second there are provisions that would provide tax credits to small business who already provide health insurance to their employees, thus making it profitable to do the right thing

Finally, before we fret too much over the fate of doctors in a dystopic post-Obamacare America, let’s take in the implications of a single fact: the ACA will create 30 million new customers for the American health care system. As outlined in the already-cited NYT article, the combination of newly-covered citizens, and the provision that requires %80 of insurance revenues to be spent on actual care will sharply increase the demand for medical services. Basic economics will tell us that as the demand of a thing goes up, given a fixed supply, the value of that thing will go up. Simply put, I can’t imagine any way that a vast increase in people able to purchase the services of doctors will be bad for doctors.

What you may have missed election night.

While U.S. citizens at home and abroad held their collective breaths as Presidential election results came in Tuesday night, the media paid little attention to another potentially important election decision that was being made in the Caribbean. The U.S. territory of Puerto Rico voted by a margin of 61% to become the 51st state in the union.

How Puerto Rico moves from here is still unknown, the Governor elect Alejandro Garcia Padilla is a member of the Popular Democratic Party, which favors the status quo. So he may not push the process.

Ultimately the final decision concerning statehood is in the hands of Congress. Historically speaking,they have never denied an application for joining the union, nor with the exception of Texas have they delayed entry.

Although there is no major precedent for denying statehood, I think it is entirely possible during our current national financial situation, that Congress may delay or deny statehood to Puerto Rico. Take into account the fact that the territory has an upwards of 13.6% unemployment rate, almost 2% higher than Nevada the highest in the nation. And add to that a new state would also require congressional redistricting, potentially shifting the balance of power, it may not be a bet that either side of the aisle is willing to place. Puerto Rico would also acquire federal funding. It may very well be a hit to the budget that Congress can’t handle until they have stabilized the national economy, if and when they do.

There are also other cultural and political potentials to consider. Puerto Rico is a spanish speaking territory; and in a time of increased anti-latino sentiment when states like Alabama are drafting tougher latino targeting anti-immigration laws, it’s foreseeable that anti-latino sentiment may rear it’s head and have a negative impact on the territory’s attempt at statehood.
Then there is the fact that Puerto Rico’s party structure is not the same as the mainland, while the current belief that it would become a blue state is a reasonable assumption. It should be noted that the current parties in the territory tend to focus on smaller issues such as working conditions and environmentalism, and neither could be described as solely left or right leaning.

While I personally would like to see Puerto Rico join the Union, and become the 51st state. I don’t think the road ahead will be an easy one, for the Congress or Puerto Rico, but it should prove to be an interesting component to an interesting year.

Error attacks.

In the following blog I will be critiquing the Washington Times editorial titled "Obama’s Benghazi lie". Before I begin my critique I would like define the word terrorism;  as I find the word is often misused, or needlessly used in an inflammatory manner.

Terrorism as defined by Merriam Webster’s online dictionary: The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

The unnamed author of “Obama’s Benghazi lie” primarily seems to be criticizing President Obama’s recent conduct; concerning the Benghazi attacks. The presumably conservative writer mostly expresses displeasure that the President, and his cabinet members, are not using the word terrorism. And when they have use terrorism, it has been inconsistent, which is true, but not the real meat of the issue.

In the beginning of the article the author implies that Candy Crowley is biased because she fact checked the Presidents statements about the attacks in retort to Mr. Romney. Why is it biased to make sure you are correctly informed? This new antifact-checking(willful ignorance?) tactic that the Republican party has publicly encouraged, is to say the least disconcerting. The facts matter, and if we can’t agree as something as simple as a verifiable public statement by the most visible figure in the country, we have no shared basis of reality from which to make discussion.

The writer goes on to reiterate that the President did not refer to the incident as a terrorist attack, nor did he label the assailants as terrorists. It seems rather short sighted to me to push the terror issue, and ignore that the President has clearly and repeatedly stated that intelligence is still coming in, and we don’t fully understand what happened. He has also stated, that he and his administration are going to do everything in their power to fix the problem and prosecute any involved parties, which the Times also conveniently omitted. We now know from State dept reports that information on the nature of the attack was gathered very quickly,(within days), but expecting on the ground intelligence the same day, in a country without central ruler-ship clearly established is just unreasonable. It took the concerted power of the Bush administration years to come to the realization that there were no WMD in Iraq, and they most certainly didn't discover the identities of the perpetrators the same day and unveil the information on national television.

‘
The Author further criticizes Mr. Obama for attempting to soothe foreign relations over the inflammatory youtube video. Even if it’s in no way related to the Benghazi attack, that video did ruffle some feathers. And it behooves all of us to not offend a major global religion, or it’s worshipers. The Times go on to elude; that the White House is trying whitewash the story to benefit the Obama campaign, which in my opinion is preposterous. If the past indicates anything, throwing around the word terrorism is beneficial to an election

In summation, I believe the Author has clearly ignored the the real issues such as; embassy security, lack of congressional funding to the state department, and foreign relations. All in the name of being displeased with Obama for not being bombastic enough for their taste.

As A Poor Man Sees It

Hi I'm Buddy.  I'm not a heavily politically minded individual.  I'm an Anthropology major and will focus on Anthropological terms concerning the socio-political divisions in human societies, because a "state" in Anthropology is not the same as a "state" in political terms.  Just fair warning.



To my limited knowledge and based on my limited experience, the following is my world view.

I vote Democratic, partly because I was raised in a Democratic family and partly because I believe the Democratic Party is the most representative of the of individuals in my strata of society.  Though, to be honest, both parties tend to neglect the political interests and the greater welfare of those below the poverty line.  Currently it seems that they worry most about the taxes concerning the wealthiest Americans or the continued survival of the middle class (which I do understand is important), however, I am perturbed that the subject matter rarely concerns helping those below the poverty line improve their lives in general.  They often talk about how they will help improve their status, but in reality, from what I understand, those of us below the poverty line do not make up the bulk of the voting population. Since we don't make up the bulk of the voting population, why would the political machine on either side of the aisle bother with us?  When they talk about helping the poor, they talk about maintaining systems such as welfare and unemployment (I understand unemployment is not just for those in the lower class) rather than developing institutions and better programs to actually help those who are willing and able to better ourselves. For example in Philippe Bourgois' ethnography “In Search of Respect”, many of the subjects were highly uneducated and poor individuals who found it difficult to maneuver systems such as welfare, unemployment and tuition aide. Because of this (and other factors which aren't necessarily political), they are kept in a cycle of poverty. In my opinion, this leads to their feeling of disenfranchisement, which leads to lack of political cultivation of their vote. It is one big, ugly cycle. It makes perfect sense that politicians would not work to appeal to that audience as they don't make up a large enough percentage of the vote.



I am simply stating my view on this. It may not be rational and it may not be as concise as I like, but these are my current basic political beliefs. Admittedly, I am speaking from a poorly educated standpoint and I'm a mere novice concerning political ideologies. This is the precise reason I am taking Government, to further understand our political system in the United States..and it is part of my degree plan.