As the debate about healthcare is underway, we hear from the far left that a single-payer, government mandated program is the way to go. We hear from the far right that less government intervention and hands-off-my healthcare is the better approach. As both of the ideological arguments persist, the larger concern that is being heavily ignored is the lack of healthcare staff.

Even though Canada and England have fair criticism regarding their systems, the good and the bad, the fact of the matter is that the long waiting lines are not because of it being inefficient, it’s because they have a shortage of doctors and nurses. A friend of mine, a Canadian citizen, wanted to be a nurse there but she decided against it because the classes were in the same realm as that of a doctor. She said that half of the classes were irrelevant for nurses. “I might as well become a doctor,” she said out of frustration. Canada is not making it attractive enough for people to become nurses and the waiting lists for the nursing program are extremely long. In addition, in the United States, almost every school only has 20 seats every year for both dental hygiene and the nursing program. Another friend of mine waited two cycles before she was accepted into the nursing program and her GPA was 3.97.

Its economics 101: If the government, or any company for that matter, supplies something that is going to be in demand, then they also better staff up, too. It’s a mistake when any industry or company supplies a popular product, in this case, healthcare, but not provide the incentives or staff, e.g., healthcare staff to supply the demand. When supply doesn’t meet demand, then that’s how these long lines will persist and people will have a difficult time gaining access to healthcare, regardless if there was a public option, single-payer or non-government involvement.

There are long lines at the hospital ‘til this day. When I used to live in southeastern Massachusetts, the area in which I lived had one hospital for about four to five surrounding towns. One time I went in for a traditional doctor’s visit, and I waited three hours because I didn’t want to go to the clinic, which misdiagnosed what I had at the time. Why was the hospital having long waiting lines? Lack of staff, and that’s without having a single payer or a public option. The problem right now is lack of people to fill the multitude of healthcare positions. Every time I go online to review the job industry, medical positions are always constantly being posted. So, even without a government healthcare plan, we still have a problem of staffing up, and that isn’t being addressed by either party, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. I can’t say anything about England, but many of my friends from Canada have stated that their government hasn’t even begun to address the problem of understaffing in the healthcare industry. I hope that whatever the outcome is with this healthcare debate that the economists will need to address those concerns to our elected officials.

Originally published in The Cambridge Chronicle, February 18, 2010.

Originally published in HuffingtonPost. Click here for the article

Born and raised in MA, I’ve typically voted Democrat in every election except for city council because Cambridge has proportional representation and the municipal elections are not based on party. The Massachusetts Special Election was the first time I voted Republican for a state-wide campaign. I did it for two reasons: protest and to send a message to President Obama and his White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.

We want a change, but we want the change that we voted for in 2008. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal on December 18, 2009, Emanuel told Jonathan Weisman that he was not worried about appeasing the base. My message to Mr. Emanuel is: don’t ignore your base or they will not turn out to vote — or, quite frankly, they will vote the other way out of protest.

Obama abandoned his efforts to go after Wall Street and, once elected, he moved from the left to the middle. Come to think of it, once he officially got the Democratic nomination, he moved from the left to the middle, and then once he was elected, he skewed more to the right. I realize that many progressives keep saying “Give him more time,” and many are writing articles that he’s doing too much at once — but that’s not the problem. It’s not about giving him more time; it’s that almost all of his decisions are in the opposite direction of his campaign promises. Obama has…

• Given a blank check of TARP funds to the Wall Street bankers and Big Banks, which started off with Henry Paulson under Bush. Maybe there’s nothing he could do about that from the past, but going forward he can set an executive order to reverse some of those decisions or urge his Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, to progressively bring back the regulations that were deregulated under Bill Clinton and weakened under George Bush
• Conceded to Big Pharma, and stopped his efforts behind closed doors to get into a real deal regarding affordable prescription drugs
• Told the Banks/Wall Street that they could have as much financial support that they needed, but when the auto industry came seeking help, fired the CEO of GM and told the Big Three car dealerships (Ford/Chrysler/GM) that they need to come with a concrete plan on how they will build efficient cars and then they would consider giving them money – that’s actually great! However, he should have also given the same instructions to the financial industry when they came crawling to Congress for money
• Abandoned the Public Option, and only gave minimal support for it – when he called for “healthcare reform as a necessity,” he didn’t push hard enough for the Public Option, which ended up dying once it reached the Senate. A president has the power of the veto – what he should have done was tell Congress that he will veto any bill that did not have a Public Option, and he should use reconciliation to pass it, whereas all he needs is 51 votes, and not 60
• Fired his White House Counsel for actually taking Obama’s written plan from the campaign to close Gitmo and executed what Obama campaigned on, but Obama decides to concede to Dick Cheney, and Gitmo wasn’t closed, instead Obama fires the person that he hired to execute his campaign promise – go figure, huh?
• Tim Geithner and Larry Summers have been bought out by Golden-Sachs, and what they’re doing right now is writing regulation that will favor Wall Street, not Main Street – now I ask you, how is that “change”? The populist message that Obama campaigned on was essentially supposed to be executed through Larry Summers, and he hasn’t done that at all. Instead, Summers has embraced former Secretary of State Henry Paulson’s idea that the economy is rough shape, and there’s only so little the Administration can do.
• People are still suffering from bad mortgages and that has yet to be addressed because both of Obama’s plans have failed on separate occasions. Early into his administration, Obama touted a mortgage plan that economists John D. Geanakoplos and Susan P. Koniak predicted would fail, explaining why it would fail in a March 4, 2009 article published in the New York Times, and in mid November, their predictions rang true.

When we vote our elected officials into office, we need to challenge them on the good and bad. When they move away, we pressure them to hold to their campaign promises and when they do the right thing, we say thank you.

My vote for Brown was not in support of Scott Brown, and although Coakley ran a weak campaign, I didn’t vote against her, but it was a vote against Emanuel and Obama for abandoning the progressive agenda that he campaigned on during the 2008 election. Do I think that Coakley would have served my state better if elected to the Senate? One has to wonder, however, she didn’t come across as if she wanted the job, and acted as if she had it in the bag. In addition, she flip flopped in the debates, lacked a lot of detail in her speeches, and she had 15 lobbyists from the healthcare industry heavily influencing her campaign. Currently, the Democrat’s are already conceding left and right on key issues, therefore another Democrat in the Senate would not suffice. Senator-elect Brown seemed to want the job more; he was out there campaigning every day, and within his platform I agreed with about 4 or 5 of his agenda (I’m center left, politically).

What frustrates me the post regarding elected officials is when they get into office, they ignore their base. One thing I will give credit to Republican’s, they don’t ignore their supporters, and Obama needs to stop appeasing Republican’s who want to block his key initiatives and pass healthcare through reconciliation, where all he needs is 51 votes and not 60. That’s how Bush got all of his stuff through – you didn’t hear Bush talking about needing 60 Republicans to pass his agenda while stalling everything. Obama got elected on anti-Bush, but once he got into office, he’s embraced many of Bush’s policies – if we wanted another Bush in office, we would have elected McCain.

The last straw for me was when Obama came down to my campus on Sunday, touting his support for Coakley, but forgetting that he still hasn’t shown tough leadership against the party that wants to see him fail. Leadership is not unilateral disarmament where you put down your weapons and walk toward the enemy stating that you just want to negotiate while they spout vile lies about you, i.e. fake birth certificate and other fake lies that have been saying since he got elected. Also, mentioning that Coakley is someone that goes against the status quo and would be tough against special interests. Really? As Arianna Huffington stated in Countdown, the night of the election, Mr. President, you are the status quo. Also, your administration is bursting with special interests. How can we take your word that Coakley isn’t going to get into office and fall within the same gamesmanship that you have?

Thank you, Celinda Lake, for your interview with Brave New Films, and your research that you released regarding what would happen if Brown won. Everything in your research reflects exactly what I’ve felt as a former Obama supporter, and that is the feeling that his administration has ignored and abandoned the middle class. I’ve unregistered as a Democrat, and although I’m center left politically, I re-registered as an Independent, and don’t align myself with any party except the mad-as-hell party. Obama talks about all the things that he’s going to do, and his entourage of aides can echo it, but if it’s not followed up with action, they are just words. And if you continue to shelter bankers and Insurance Corporations, your base will know and you won’t get reelected in 2012.

Transparency and the Brown Victory

By Will Brownsberger, January 23, 2010, 1:04 pm

This from a lifelong Democrat and continuing true believer in government spending: The heart of our problem is a sense of entitlement to spend the taxpayers’ money.

I recently endorsed a letter by several of my House colleagues that called for greater transparency in the House, including, most critically from my perspective, transparency in financial operations.

According to records that I obtained from the state controller in November, over the past five years, the House spent five million per year on non-personnel items — phones, computers, etc. (This includes spending through an account jointly managed with the Senate, but excludes spending managed exclusively by the Senate.)

Here is the problem, half of that $25 million went to five corporate entities and three of those five were, according to corporate records, run by the same individual. And, according to campaign finance records, that individual is a major donor to legislative leaders.

I have urged since early December that the speaker voluntarily and systematically disclose the records of how this vendor (and other house vendors) were selected and what the taxpayers got for their money. However, the legislature has exempted itself from the public records law and from the laws that govern purchasing of goods and services by state government, and the speaker has so far refused to make voluntary disclosures.

The December flap about the House legal bills is a related example. Even though the United States Attorney has said he has no objection to disclosure of the bills, the speaker continues to refuse to disclose them.

Similarly, house leadership has refused to allow a disclosure of staffing patterns. The majority of reps have a single hard-working aide. But there are many obvious pockets of overstaffing in the House and the speaker’s staff duplicates the expertise of committee staff.

Although a staff roster with assignments is unavailable even to the House membership, the total level of staffing is available from the controller’s office. Strikingly, although there have been some well publicized layoffs, the total head count in the House as of Saturday, January 16, 2010 was 665, only 4 below the level in mid-2008 before the recession began in earnest.

In the larger picture, these are small money items. Why make an issue out of them? To be fair, it is much harder for the speaker to do the right thing on intimate management issues like this than to do the right thing on larger issues that have more remote consequences. Perhaps, the problem is near-sighted affection more than arrogant entitlement.

Either way, people on the street have — based on story after unpleasant newspaper story — a sense that the Massachusetts Democratic establishment is unable or unwilling to discipline itself. These smaller indiscretions obscure real recent accomplishments like pension reform, ethics reform, transportation reform, and education reform, not to mention producing a timely budget in a deep recession.

That’s part of why Scott Brown, someone who holds many views that are not popular in Massachusetts, was able to take advantage of Martha Coakley’s anemic campaign and become our United States Senator. His victory here was not a reversal of Barack Obama’s election, but in many respects a repeat. Obama also ran as the people’s candidate (against an arrogant national Republican leadership).

I am privileged to represent a “safe” Democratic district, leadership has been good to me in my three years in the House and I plan seek reelection to the House next year. I don’t have a survival need or a vengeful or ambitious motive to speak up on these issues.

But I do believe that if we can’t do some public soul searching and admit some error, we Democrats are in for more blood-letting. I recently resigned from my House committee vice-chairmanship so that I could speak freely about these issues as a rank and file member.

Representative Brownsberger’s original piece was published on his website. Click here for access

This is in response to the Cambridge Chronicle’s piece, “Capuano reverses course, would vote against health bill with abortion ban,” Nov. 11.

First of all, to my liberal friends, I don’t think the government should be responsible for paying for the decision, or lack thereof, regarding a woman’s choice to abort her child. As long as there are abortion clinics, she is exercising that right. However, it takes two to tango and the responsibility should financially lie upon the mother and the father.

Secondly, the national debate coming from the Democrats is only being half-told. Abortion will be covered under the public option for a woman who is impregnated by incest, rape, or if the life of the mother is in danger. There are already private health insurers who don’t cover abortion, so why such the outrage?

I think I can live with a healthcare bill that doesn’t cover abortion. Let’s face it, some women use abortion as a birth control mechanism, emphasis on the word, “some.” Should the government be responsible for the woman not going on birth control or her partner not using protection? Let’s focus on more sex education in middle school or high school, protection from sexually transmitted diseases, and not so much focus on abortion.

Not that it really matters, but politically I’m center left. I think the government has a role regarding many of the things that private industry can’t make up, but it’s not the only entity. When there’s a political party that is middle-of-the-road with a platform to end poverty and homelessness, with ideas to combine both government and private industry, I will be signing up in a heartbeat.

On that note, I urge the Cambridge Chronicle to cover the other candidates, too — Democrats Steve Pagliuca and Alan Kharzei; Republican Scott Brown; and the independent candidates, although so far Joseph L. Kennedy, Libertarian candidate, is the only independent running who has set up a website: http://joekennedyforsenate.com. We can’t say that someonecoming from the left or the right represents the views of the entire state, therefore, it’s vital that we also hear from the candidates who are coming from the venter. Yes, this is a blue state, but it’s not that blue. After all, a Democratic governor hasn’t won office for 16 years until Gov. Deval Patrick came along in 2006. In short, it’s vital to hear all sides of the debate and listen to the ideas from all of the candidates before making an informed decision.

Originally published in the Cambridge Chronicle, Wicked Local Cambridge, November 19, 2009 @ 7:13 AM. To view it, click here

I like to either start with a question or end with a question. Do you think its right that white collar crimes and failed financial institutions are rewarded while homeowners are branded as irresponsible? Let’s take embattled Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis as an example. He will receive $125 million dollars for failing the shareholders. Merryl-Lynch was bailed out. Bank of America, CitiGroup, and a host of other financial institutions, as well as AIG, the insurance giant. On that note, when it comes to people losing their homes, there are a variety of misperceptions, as I will note in this blog post.

Although much has been written about the current mortgage lending/foreclosure crisis, I’m going to add to the consensus.

The year of 2008 has been one of the most interesting, for good and bad. For students such as myself, this financial crisis has been a learning and teachable experience, i.e. Economics 101. Business, government and the economy often get muddled with too many partisan arguments. Don’t get me wrong, healthy debate is important, as long as we are getting to the root of the problem. Watching the markets go up and down, reading about the origins of the Federal Reserve Bank, and chairman Ben Bernanke, along with former and current Treasury Secretaries, the Senate’s Banking Committee Chair Sen. Chris Dodd and the House’s Financial Services Committee Chair Rep. Barney Frank, all becoming household names all gave me knowledge of some of the most in-depth complexities of economics. Yet, I still have more to learn, so out of the analysis is essentially me attempting to learn more.

The New Yorker article¹ touched briefly about the moral hazard way of approaching the economy, in particular healthcare, and it was then explained that a strategy of that way of thinking is flawed. The argument that the moral hazard strategy essentially argues that bailing out lenders or borrowers who have bad assets is committing economic suicide. The moral hazard strategy stifles businesses that are achieving an honest business enterprise through legitimate efforts and reaping rewards in an open way. Within this new era of a global economy, with mostly regulated markets and prices, this argument is neither sound nor strong. 

Nobel Peace Prize winner for economics, Economist Paul Krugman, wrote an op-ed on August 17, 2008 in the New York Times², where he talked about the distinction between speculative lenders and hard-working borrowers. In the article, he compares third-world debtors with strapped mortgage holders in the U.S. In addition, he also argues that the market is not a moral calendar, no matter how well regulated.

In an op-ed published February 15, Krugman argued that there hasn’t been any wealth creation since 2000.³ Let us take a brief rewind and figure out how that happened before we get into discussing the housing crisis. During Keith Olbermann’s Countdown segment on MSNBC, a segment aired on January 15, 2009 titled Bush Presidency, 8 years in 8 minutes, Olbermann argues (and urges those to conduct research if they feel inclined to) that the Bush presidency left the U.S. with a “ten trillion in debt to pay for 31% more in discretionary spending, the Iraq War. A 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut, for the average American the median income went down by $2,000 [and]three-quarters of all income gains under Bush going to the richest one percent. Unemployment up from 4.2 to 7.2 percent; the Dow, down from 10,500 to 87 to 82 to 177; six million now more in poverty; seven million more now without health care.”⁴

Bloomberg reported in late January 2008 that 400 of the richest Americans prospered under Bush. “New IRS data shows the average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a third to 17.2 per cent, and their average income doubled to $263.3 million under the Bush administration.”⁵

We may argue that tax cuts were one part of the financial crisis, but so was the buying up assets that weren’t there (selling invisible money), falsifying the mortgage applications so that the loan underwriter would approve the loan, and then on the other side of this, mortgage lenders purposely targeted low income, uneducated people to swindle them into adjustable rate mortgages while telling them that they were purchasing a fixed mortgage, as well as deregulation.  What happened?

Asset Buying

From my general understanding, the big banks purchased a lot of sub-prime mortgage rates, bundled them into portfolios that could be sold in a hidden way to showcase legitimate looking income producing assets, and this was because of the absence of regulation/oversight, leading these banks to unconscionably produce these risks. Nonetheless, mortgage debt was securitized, made into hedge funds and private equity firms, and then mutual funds could buy into it as an investment. Then all of the sudden, the housing market grinded to a halt; prices fell as well as construction, and over the last two years the foreclosure rates rose, and therefore the mortgage payments slowed – foreclosures began to rise. A question to ask ourselves, then, is how come within these investments in subprime mortgage take place? Why is it that when foreclosure goes up, it affects the financial industry like a domino effect? The short answer to the first question is George Bush’s tax cuts, as mentioned previously.

Tax Cuts

Tax cuts were born out of the 1980s from then president Ronald Reagan (supply-side economics) and championed by former Vice President Dick Cheney. The argument goes as followed, although I do believe that Mitt Romney, 2008 Republican presidential candidate and business entrepreneur (former governor of Massachusetts) argued the tax cut cause a lot more succinctly than his Republican colleagues. With investing, business productivity rises, and in turn so does employment. By protecting and producing more money into the incomes of those who do the saving and investing, cutting taxes, these businesses will be able to invest in their businesses that will in turn produce more workers. In turn, the tax cut investment will produce larger payrolls and more taxable incomes. Romney has argued that in his view, he feels as if it’s a punishment to tax businesses who are the sole proprietor of creating jobs. In his view, businesses hire workers, therefore they are the purpose of creating jobs. Trickle down wealth/economics is based on the employers hiring workers, and workers are making an income because the businesses supplied the jobs.

Like the labels on many of the drug products, supply-side economics has some side effects.  First, during a recession, when tax cuts are given to the wealthy, they don’t spend it. Businesses take the tax cuts, and save versus invest. Over the past 20^th century, productivity and output declined in net investment. In Keynes economics, as income shifts away from work and productivity, it shifts toward capital (which is why the 400 richest people prospered under Bush – they took their tax cuts and invested). A shift away from consumption (spending on goods and services) and toward tax breaks/investment is not growth of jobs – all it is is money going to invest in more money. An example of that is the stock market crisis of 1926-29, but I don’t want to get into the stock market.

Secondly, tax cuts have yet to cause an increase in jobs or productivity. It hasn’t happened since the1920s until now, and the purest of that example is the past 8 years. I interviewed my microeconomics Professor, Michael Deluz, about this question regarding tax cuts to jolt an economy with economic growth, and this is what he had to say: “The record of tax cuts is evident, and regardless of tax cuts, though, net investment will fall. The argument can be made for economic growth without tax cuts because an increase in investment is not needed. With macroeconomics, productivity can be improved by replacing the capital that is already there – you don’t need to add to it. So to cut taxes for higher income bracket, they will put their incomes into the hands of investors who will take this new money and build it into more money – that’s not productivity. Don’t get me wrong, investing is important, but on the basis of tax cuts to grow the economy and businesses, it advances their incomes, and there may be a small percentage in growth, but with microeconomics, money invested into the hands of people who will buy it, the growth is higher.”⁶

Mortgage Applications

Brave News, an independent news blog, did a short five minute investigative clip regarding mortgage brokers targeting low-income home buyers.⁷

MSNBC reports: “They posted fliers in Section 8 housing, low-income apartment housing, really targeting people who were on the lower end and getting them into the exotic mortgages where the payments were really low at first. But when it reset, there was no way they cold afford the home.”⁹

It is no secret that mortgage brokers had a huge part in this foreclosure crisis, as evidenced through this small report investigated, with facts attached, by independent news source ThinkProgress.¹⁰ Many licensed and unlicensed mortgage brokers were operating as high volume call centers that pumped out loans to whoever had a pulse. What was the reason they did this? More money, i.e. commissions, per loan was made giving people mortgages they could not afford, nor repay, as opposed to placing the borrower in a mortgage they could afford. Simple greed.⁸

MSNBC also reported: “That was the reaction to the North County Times story that reported that a small group of brokers in the North County are responsible for a glut of foreclosures. “It really raises some serious questions about their selling practices,” said Zach Fox of the North County Times. Fox looked at 973 real estate brokers and found that 21 of them had foreclosure rates between 40 and 60 percent. Typically, a broker will see 2 to 4 percent of their buyers homes go into foreclosure.” He added that “some of these brokers, some of these sales people, really set up first-time home buyer programs and brought in people who obviously couldn’t afford them.”⁹

Solutions

Solutions for government:

• If no one is prosecuted, ten or twenty years down the road, someone else will do this again
• When markets don’t achieve efficiently, government intervention improves society’s welfare.¹¹
• 4% fixed mortgage on all households¹²
• Go the route of CitiGroup (where Bank of America & J.P. Morgan follow their lead) and freeze all foreclosures¹³
• True investigation into what went wrong
• Better oversight & fines/punishment for those who break the law
• Repeal Bush tax cuts

Solutions for businesses:

• It’s interesting – if you have a gun and rob a bank, you go to jail, but when a bank robs an entire constituency of people, they are lauded by Congress
• Establish a strong ethical culture where outside business firms educate and teach about business ethics by (1), adopting a code of ethics; (2), provide ethics training; (3), hire and promote ethical people; (4), correct unethical behavior, and that means if the CEO’s are fired for misdeeds instead of given a financial bonus; (5), protect whistleblowers; (6), empower and reward those with integrity (pg. 9-10)¹³
• All banks should follow the lead of CEO of CitiGroup, halt the mortgage foreclosures and come up with a sound plan.¹⁴
• Businesses accepting social responsibility for failures. “The three elements of social responsibility are market actions, externally mandated actions, and voluntary actions” (pg. 127).¹⁵
• Responsible lending.¹⁶

In conclusion, I will highlight briefly three out of the top 25 people responsible for the financial meltdown, namely the mortgage crisis and deregulation.

Phil Gramm, former senator, lobbyist and Economic Adviser to John McCain 2008 Presidential campaign

As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee from 1995 through 2000, Gramm was Washington’s most prominent and outspoken champion of financial deregulation. He played a leading role in writing and pushing through Congress the 1999 repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial banks from Wall Street. He also inserted a key provision into the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act that exempted over-the-counter derivatives like credit-default swaps from regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Credit-default swaps took down AIG, which has cost the U.S. $150 billion thus far.¹⁷ Included here is also President Bill Clinton for signing the Glass-Steagall Act.

Angelo Mozilo, co-founder of Countrywide

“The son of a butcher, Mozilo co-founded Countrywide in 1969 and built it into the largest mortgage lender in the U.S. Countrywide wasn’t the first to offer exotic mortgages to borrowers with a questionable ability to repay them. In its all-out embrace of such sales, however, it did legitimize the notion that practically any adult could handle a big fat mortgage. In the wake of the housing bust, which toppled Countrywide and IndyMac Bank (another company Mozilo started), the executive’s lavish pay package was criticized by many, including Congress. Mozilo left Countrywide last summer after its rescue-sale to Bank of America. A few months later, BofA said it would spend up to $8.7 billion to settle predatory lending charges against Countrywide filed by 11 state attorneys general.”¹⁷

Alan Greenspan

The Federal Reserve chairman — an economist and a disciple of libertarian icon Ayn Rand — met his first major challenge in office by preventing the 1987 stock-market crash from spiraling into something much worse. Then, in the 1990s, he presided over a long economic and financial-market boom and attained the status of Washington’s resident wizard. But the super-low interest rates Greenspan brought in the early 2000s and his long-standing disdain for regulation are now held up as leading causes of the mortgage crisis. The maestro admitted in an October congressional hearing that he had “made a mistake in presuming” that financial firms could regulate themselves.¹⁷

            A law is not a law unless enforced. In essence, solutions to these problems for both government and business must rely in at least some oversight. Many in the business community often voice their concerns of having a “nanny state” run their lives. However, if a mandate and law was passed for drivers in New York not to drive while talking on the cell phone, decent regulatory measures both within government and business standards can be established.

During one of my professor’s for a former Political Science class, he mentioned that “it is only natural that the business might want to even suggest some laws or regulations on its own that it believed might be beneficial to itself or its industry.” (Will credit him by name until I get permission).

Lastly, I honestly don’t think that someone who is in need is asking for a handout. What’s odd, too, is that when it’s a corporation asking for a handout, the same outrage isn’t placed on the irresponsibility of the person who was running the company, instead, they are rewarded. Obviously I can understand that President Obama didn’t want to go down the same route that President Hoover did, and we know how that ended. His laissez faire, stay-out-of government, it will fix it itself transitioned into the Great Depression. Now, many of you may think I’m strange for saying this, but in the defense of President Hoover, at the time, he didn’t have the knowledge that we have know. With all intent and purpose, he probably thought that it was going to work out. But that’s what history is about though, looking back and learning from our mistakes so that we can change and get better. Am I happy about all this spending? No. But if it’s going to prevent a Depression, yes.

But let’s not contradict ourselves – if the argument is for no bailouts for homeowners, or even car dealerships, then there shouldn’t be bailouts for financial institutions either. And we have the evidence. The whole point for the bailout out was to get banks to lend money, and they didn’t – they paid their bills and as I mentioned above, the reinvested the money into… more money. I give credit to only one financial institution that actually did what they were supposed to, JP Morgan. They had the bailout money for a short time, and then they paid it off quickly. Of course, I’m sure you know how they did that, by raising credit card rates (ridiculous!), but at least they gave the money back to the government in a timely fashion.

Notes

1. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/29/050829fa_fact
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/opinion/18krugman.html?hp
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/opinion/16krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vTFesgMkzk
5. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/266278
6. Prof. Michael Deluz, Professor in Economics
7. Brave New Films: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJGTuqciTGo
8. Livingston, James. George Mason University: History News Network. August 20, 2007. http://hnn.us/articles/41985.html
9. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28755064/
10. Think Progress: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/10/start-the-recovery
11. Krugman, Paul; Wells, Robin. Microeconomics. 2^nd Ed. New York, Worth Publishers: 2009.
12. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moynihan/what-america-needs-is-a-f_b_163578.html
13. Richardson, John E., Editor. Annual Editions: Business Ethics: 08/09. Ed. 12. New York, McGraw-Hill: 2008.
14. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/13/AR2009021301692.html?hpid=topnews
15. Steiner, John F., Steiner, George A. Business, Government, and Society: A Managerial Perspective, Text and Cases. Ed. 12. New York, McGraw-Hill: 2009.
16. http://www.responsiblelending.org/issues/mortgage/solutions/solutions-to-the-foreclosure-crisis.html
17. 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis. Time Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,1877351,00.html

The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love heterosexuals. It’s just that they need more supervision.

Dear Religious Fundamentalist:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your self righteous speeches, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of menstrual cleanliness – Lev.15:19-24. The problem is,
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room
here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident
you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is
eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,

David

p.s. if over 70% of “straight” marriages are ending in divorce, how are you going to “protect” marriage by preventing more loving couples from getting married?

High gas prices have halted my spending toward many resources, and although I’ve found different ways to cut back, I’m optimistic about the high prices and find it to be a blessing in disguise.

As a result of the price hikes, Congress and the president will be forced to be more diligent and focus on energy efficiency as a core issue. Indeed, there will be gimmicks that many of those who favor continuing our addiction to oil will attempt in persuading people in a negative way.

For example, regarding offshore drilling, President Bush and Sen. John McCain will speak in support of these efforts and find a way to frame our thinking that this will benefit us immediately toward lowering gas prices, but it won’t because consumers won’t reap rewards until five years from now.

What have people done to cut back? They have taken an extra job, canceled an extra bill (cell or home phone or cable), gotten rid of one car in a two-car family, or dumped the SUV for a hybrid car. Ridership on public transportation has risen, many folks are purchasing mopeds, and people are biking and walking more.

Sadly, there have been negative effects from the price hikes: job loss, especially with the closing of SUV plants, airlines and gas stations; and many folks will become jobless because they won’t be able to afford going to and from work or even be able to search for a job.

Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama differ on their energy policies.

The lurking question for most folks is: “How is Sen. Obama going to pay for his programs?” Folks had the same concerns about Gov. Deval Patrick during his gubernatorial run in the fall of 2006, yet Gov. Patrick proved many people wrong by passing a balanced budget during his first fiscal year, and a lot of people were shocked because they assumed that Democrats were tax-and-spend.

Sen. Obama’s plan to pay for his proposed programs will be ending the war in Iraq, closing corporate tax loopholes, and reversing the disastrous tax cuts that President Bush instituted for the top 1 percent of wealthy folks.

Remember, when Bill Clinton was president, there was a balanced budget and rich folks were happy. Sen. Obama plans to roll back the tax cuts that were installed during the Clinton administration.

So, for folks who keep saying that he won’t be able to pay for the programs, Sen. Obama has assured a “pay as you go” method. Programs won’t be initiated unless he can fund it. Sen. Obama has talked about the importance of fiscal responsibility, and he doesn’t want to run a tax-and-spend presidency.

Originally posted in The Standard-Times newspaper,  SouthCoastToday.com – Posted June 21, 2008 1:05 AM

To view article, click here

The way that Congressman Michael Capuano has entered the Massachusetts senate race for Edward Kennedy’s seat is disconcerting. Attacking his opponent, Attorney General Martha Coakley, for being “timid” when she was the first person to enter the Senate race – really? He waited until Joe Kennedy declined before entering the race, as many other people were also deciding whether they would run if he didn’t. Attorney General Coakley is a lawyer and a professional, and I hardly think that she would have gotten as far as she has if she were timid.

Although negative campaigning is nothing new, politicians who think that is the route toward victory are in for a wake-up call. In attempting to win this campaign by attacking someone’s character rather than emphasizing their reason for running, their goals as US Senator and policy ideas will garner no support or may push more people toward the other opponent. If the negative campaigner does indeed win, they face the trouble of entering the office with an embarrassing start on the first day on the job, and this is only if Capuano chooses to continue down this route.

In the 2008 presidential race, people rejected that behavior, and I think that it’s time we move past it. Most voters are turned off by attack ads, vague platform ideas, and indecisiveness. In addition, what was obvious during the 2008 campaign was that negative campaigning led to candidates losing their current supporters, especially if they already held elected office. Most voters are hungry to learn about the ideas and why the candidate believes he/she is best fit for the job over the other candidates running, and if it becomes polarizing between two candidates from the same party, some voters will be turned off, and may not show up to the polls, or vote for someone else.

Choosing our legislators is the most frequent activity that the ordinary citizen will participate in. But as noted in the YouTube video entitled “Coakley video 1 edited down,” which was compiled by Coakley’s campaign from local news sources, we want someone who is going to represent us for the key issues, and not because “they have nothing else to lose.” Regardless of who wins, the next Senator of Massachusetts will also be a colleague that will have to be able to bring people together positively. If a campaign starts off negatively, how are voters supposed to feel positively about the candidate?

In short, various issues regarding the state of Massachusetts are at stake, from healthcare reform, budget cuts, and fee hikes to job creation. Congressman Capuano should be advised, too, that by running a dirty campaign, in the event he loses this seat, he may also lose his earlier supporters as a Congressman if he chooses to run for reelection as Congressman in November 2010. This is shaping up to be an interesting campaign since the person elected will fill the seat of Senator Edward Kennedy.

To view article at Northeastern’s The Huntington News, click here

To view article at The Standard-Times, Capuano entered race with an accusation, click here

Both articles essentially say the same thing, but they’re written differently. NEU’s is more from a basic academic approach, whereas with the local newspaper it’s a bit more expressive, so-to-speak.

This is in response to the guest commentary by Ariel Jacobson, “$7.25 is still not a living wage,” Thursday, Aug. 20. I will definitely be participating in the $10 in 2010 campaign and would like to add to the commentary that Ms. Jacobson shared.

Even though the minimum wage was raised to $7.25, the minimum wage’s real purchasing power is still below what it was in 1968. Based on the self-sufficiency standards for Middlesex County, using my current situation as an example, one adult and one kindergarten child, statistics show a household of this form should earn a living wage of $53,698 a year, which averages to about $25.43 an hour, in order for me to support myself and my one child in a market-rate two-bedroom apartment. Now, as a parent raising one child, if I’m earning minimum wage, I would have to work close to 140 hours a week in order to sustain a two-bedroom market-rate apartment. (Source: www.liveworkthrive.org; go to “self-sufficiency calculator” to calculate different household sizes.)

In addition, minimum wage shouldn’t just be raised; it should be indexed to inflation because whenever minimum wage is raised, all other prices seem to rise as well. One thing that I don’t understand is how many politicians, namely members of Congress, have salaries adjusted to the cost of living but the state-level minimum wage is not. When inflation rises, so do their salaries, which means that each time they increase their salaries according to inflation and write a bill to pass it, it goes through the House and Senate with ease. They are quick to give themselves a raise but slow to give the people who voted them into office the raise we need.

The inequality and the proper arguments are never addressed properly. The argument is often how will businesses afford to pay for these wages, but what’s missing is that when inflation rises, so do prices on many other products.

There’s something wrong in a society when the salaries and income don’t match rising costs in rent, mortgage, property taxes, food and basic living standards. The person living on minimum wage has a hard time catching up when it’s raised, regardless of the type of job that they have. Citizens cannot pass a bill through reconciliation for a raise in salary; they have to request it from their boss. 

In short, $10 is a step in the right direction, but hopefully it’s just the beginning. Minimum wage should be indexed with the cost of living the same way that politicians’ salaries are adjusted.

Cambridge Chronicle - Posted Aug 26, 2009 2:59 AM

To view article, click here

Michael Scwalbe has a great way of viewing life. In his book, The Sociologically Examined Life: Pieces of the Conversation, 4^th Edition, he points out that “being sociologically mindful means paying attention to the hardships and options other people face. If we understand how others’ circumstances differ from ours, we are more likely to show compassion for them and to grant them the respect they deserve as human beings. We are also less likely to condemn them unfairly for doing things we dislike¹.”

Many of us are a paycheck away from welfare or as I like to refer to as public or government assistance, because after all, that is what it is – assistance. Losing our income will put many of us at risk for homelessness, government assistance, food stamps, and even the government’s medical health insurance, MassHealth. Even though this may be true for some, not everyone views their life in this way. No one ever thinks to themselves, “If I lost my income, and had no support, where would I end up?” Come to think of it, it is a pretty depressing way to think, however. Thousands have gone through this, and many will face the same challenges that folks in the past had to face. Fire; job loss; lay offs; company moves; natural disasters such as Katrina; lack of employment; loss of a parent – these are all examples of ways that could put anyone into a homeless shelter.  It may be depressing to think, but the reality is far more people are closer to poverty than they imagined they would be.  There is a lot of data out there showing how financially ignorant most Americans are which I believe adds to a disconnect between the poor and the middle class, let alone the upper class.

Welfare myths: welfare is 1% of the budget (two cents for every dollar at $10 billion across the nation⁶) – that’s pretty cheap; the average family size is two people, one adult, one child; average length of stay on welfare is less than two years, typically most welfare families are not using it forever because of time limits; welfare is not generational; welfare is mostly made up of single-parent’s who are white women⁶.

Why is the image of a single mother of color with multiple children attributed with the use of the word welfare? Untrue and prejudice, it is all linked to the book Privilege, which discussed a host of reasons. First, this country was born on white privilege, and Chapter 8 pointed out that media shapes the perception of what they want others to believe². Who owns the media? The wealthy and elite – the very people that shape the consensus for others to follow and be fed to.

We can’t talk about welfare without pointing out corporate welfare. In Privilege, the author of the essay Media Magic: Making Class Invisible, Gregory Mantsios points out that often “we learn to resent welfare, which accounts for only two cents out of every dollar in the federal budget (approximately $10 billion) and provides financial relief to low income families, but learn little about the $11 billion the federal government spends on individuals with incomes in the excess of $1,000,000 (not low income), or the $17 billion in farm subsidies, or the $214 billion (twenty times the cost of welfare) in interest payments to financial institutions².”

Given this evidence, people have a misconception that society does everything for the poor and not for the middle class. Indeed, more needs to be done for the poor as well as the middle class; however, arguably, more needs to be done for the poor rather than the middle class (aside from the recession and housing crisis going on presently with the economy). Society does more for the middle class than for the poor, and for the rich rather than the middle class. There seems to be a sympathetic attitude toward middle class people, because the assumption is that they’re hard working and doing the right thing, because we all think that middle class people are good people. But when it comes to low income getting programs, there are all sorts of suspicion that they’re abusing the system. There are all sorts of different attitudes depending on who uses it. Programs are used by people across the board, but the programs that are geared for low income individuals are typically looked at with a squinted eye and not in a positive way.  It is interesting how our ideas about the people who comprise each of the various social classes shapes our policies towards that group.  As we are covering this week – there is so much diversity within each of the classes.  There are honest and dishonest people in each group but we treat some groups, usually the poor, like they are cheating or lazy.

There are other common examples of fraud other than welfare, and yet there are many who want to pick it apart for various reasons. People get down on welfare recipients when they rip off the system. Well, this person cheated, they didn’t tell them this, that or the other. There’s a preconceived notion that welfare recipients don’t need anything because they’re “lazy”; but when someone works under the table, and cheats the government in other ways, they’re looked down upon as if being stupid. How do other people get away with fraud? Tax avoidance is a form for fraud that is very widespread; we just have a different attitude toward it. And interestingly enough, most people are honest.  A rather small group are not.

If you go area by area, in most societies, you will find plenty of fraud going on all the time. Let’s not assume everyone’s an angel. The bottom line is that most people have gone over the edge in terms of immoral behavior, and those people are at all levels of the social ladder. Privilege pointed out many examples. The term welfare isn’t used regarding the wealthy and their incentives – in this situation the media tend to use the word welfare in terms of things that are give-away programs. Something for nothing; there are distinctions made in the public attitude of the worth vs. unworthy. The assumption is that middle class is deserving of the tax break. I don’t disagree with that, but it exists, and those are examples of programs for the middle class – only difference is that people look down on programs for the poor. 

So why do women, often single mothers, use welfare? There are various reasons why single mothers use welfare more often than mothers raising children in two-parent households. There are inadequate earnings potential, child care expenses are high and through the public assistance program, child care expenses and health insurance is provided. Other reasons are less educated women use welfare more, lack of family support, affordable healthcare, child support, and affordable housing.  And the way our society is structured most of the things you named go together.  When health insurance is linked to full time employment there will always be some people who realize if they earn less their family, or at least their children, will have health insurance through public assistance programs.  The uninsured are actually most likely to be employed but not full time.  We have insurance for the poor, the elderly, and those with employer based programs.

Let’s address positive solutions. Often conservatives complain about lazy welfare people, but no one offers realistic solutions. Often the attitude that conservatives have is to end the program. What would happen? Healthcare benefits would be jeopardized, childcare cost would go up, and eventually the family would find themselves in a homeless shelter. But one argument is often missed – education³. The cycle of poverty is repeatable without an education. Job creation is a major concern throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; however, education is rarely discussed or encouraged for welfare recipients. With education, no one can take that away from you, and wherever the person goes, the degree and education will follow. And not just education – but real career mentoring.  Unlike some of the programs out there that encourage teaching marriage and the like what I have seen is that many people, not just the poor but it is especially pressing for poor women, do not have a good idea of what careers are accessible to them that pay a living wage.  I’ve met women who didn’t realize nursing or dental hygenist or construction worker were within their reach.  And it isn’t just the poor – plenty of traditional college students embark on academic careers that are not as practical or take too much time to complete.

One idea is including job creation with education, but placing education in the center for those receiving public assistance. I understand that jobs are needed in this city, but businesses will not be attracted if the work force is not educated, and an uneducated mother will still find themselves in poverty if they are unable to properly know how to manage her finances and run a successful household.

In this day and age, it is near impossible to obtain a good-paying job without a bachelor’s degree. Additionally, a bachelor’s degree or higher is needed to earn a good income³. Based on the self-sufficiency standards for Cambridge, with one adult and one preschool child, statistics show this household should earn a living wage of a little over $55,000 a year, which averages to about $22 an hour, in order for them to support themselves in a market-rate two-bedroom apartment. If this parent raising one child is earning minimum wage, he or she would have to work close to 152 hours a week in order to sustain a two-bedroom market-rate apartment⁴ as well as other expenses, and this does not include extracurricular activities, transportation or unexpected expenses – it only includes rent, food, childcare, and general basic living.  

With education comes job creation; it’s the circle of life. In addition, we have to encourage those who probably grew up being told that they weren’t going to amount to anything, which is quite often in low income communities. Everybody can do their part. Local organizations that reach out to low income individuals can educate those who are uneducated, and even if that isn’t someplace you find yourself naturally, it could be someone that you strike up a random conversation with – plant the seed. College won’t be for everyone, but there are trade schools, certificate programs, and the like. The person doesn’t have to earn a four year degree, but with a certificate or a trade, it’s a start³. Education is one way on the path out of poverty, and without an education, it will be extremely difficult to be successful. Education for all aspects of life: financially, responsibly (time management) and being educated about life, which is “another set of skills needed by the general population!”

In summation, there have been two sides to the debate concerning why large numbers of single mothers use welfare. On one hand, for conservatives, the driving force behind welfare is seen as dependency rather than need. This is particularly thought to be the case for those who are on welfare for long periods of time, or who collect welfare from one generation to the next. Based on this analysis, the prescription for welfare reform is punitive, and welfare recipients need to be forced off. On the other hand, critics of conservative welfare reform see welfare use as primarily a function of need. According to this view, a large portion of single mothers need welfare because of inadequate earning potential and the additional expenses for child care, medical care, and financial assistance for food. Without this support, single mothers may be forced deeper into poverty, required to neglect the care of their children, or both, and end up in a homeless shelter. The positive solution? It’s my belief that one of the ways out of poverty is through education. We should think critically about policy issues that the government can put in place that will successfully move people off of welfare so that they can sustain their lives. I believe that one locally based organization is working toward not only helping to move low income people off of the system, but to end homelessness/poverty – One Family, Inc. – www.onefamilyinc.org.    

“One thing I want  to point out – it is not that most single mothers are on welfare… it is most women on welfare are single mothers.  I expect you know this already.  But it is important because the way it sounds is that single mothers are the issue when truthfully they are just the most vulnerable.  Caring for a child is expensive!  A comparable example – most serial killers have been adopted or in the foster care system.  But in no way are most adopted or fostered children likely to become serial killers J  I am mentioning it only because so much of the debate on welfare and public assistance programs focuses on single mothers, especially morality and marriage, instead of emphasizing the social welfare.”

Questions

1. If you’ve never experienced poverty, if you lost your income, and your way of life, while having no one to turn to, what would you do?
2. Why do you think those who are wealthy think that poverty doesn’t affect them?
3. Do you think minimum wage should be indexed to the cost of living, essentially should wages go up as inflation goes up?

Notes

1. The Sociologically Examined Life: Pieces of the Conversation by Michael Schwalbe
2. Privilege: A Reader by Michael S. Kimmel and Abby L. Ferber (Essay: Media Magic: Making Class Invisible by Gregory Mantsios , p. 107)
3. Article, Education Remains Path out of Poverty
4. www.liveworkthrive.org
5. “Sociology Lecture: Human Behavior.” New Bedford, MA. 9 March 2006.
6. “Sociology Lecture: Poverty, Power and Social Change.” Boston, MA. February 2008.

The comments in red are from my professor.

 Welfare Myths was written April 14, 2008