Jennifer, in her recent blog, states that the government should speed up its process of reforming health care due to the high costs of medication. She specifically talks about a new rare cancer fighting drug called Fotolyn, which costs thirty thousand per month of treatment. She declares that companies are charging way too much for these new drugs and that “Everyone deserves the right to benefit from new medicines discovered, because it shouldn't have to depend on how much money you have, just to live”. As Jennifer posits, “So why is it okay to charge so much for medicine?” she fails to realize that the company made a “significant investment to develop the first approved drug for this type of cancer”(Pollack,NewYorkTimes). In her own blog she states, “Although the drug is successful in decreasing the size of tumors among patients, the results are not permanent. Also, the drug has only been shown to increase the longevity of patients by a few months”. Is sixty thousand dollars worth a mere two months? I do agree with Jennifer that the government should speed up its process on the health care issue, but if we do achieve universal health care, I would hope that our taxpayer money isn’t going to be invested into something that will most likely fail.

Many Walls Failed in History, So Will This One

I believe the Mexican Border Wall is pointless, and that it is simply a money sink-hole for taxpayers: “Some $2.4 billion has been spent since 2005 on a still-unfinished project to erect more than 600 miles of new fence along the US-Mexico border... A report, released Thursday by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), also says $6.5 billion will be needed to maintain the new fencing over the next 20 years. So far, it has been breached 3,363 times, requiring $1,300 for the average repair.”(Wood, CSmonitor.com)

So not only have we already spent 2.4 billion on a wall that fails, as “Smugglers and illegal immigrants keep defeating the fence. They establish new routes around it, build ramps to drive over it, dig tunnels under it, blow-torch holes through it, cut down metal posts acting as vehicle barriers and replace them with dummy cardboard posts.”(Reed, Examiner.com), but we are also constantly having to repair this wall costing even more money. What is the point of investing so much into something that is not working? Not to mention that there is still a couple thousand miles of land that isn’t walled.

Logically this wall isn’t a great idea, "When our nation is in the midst of an economic crisis, we wonder how many teacher salaries, police officers, miles of road, or school books could be financed instead of throwing large amounts of money for bricks to fix a problem that requires serious, long-term solutions."(Salas, CSmonitor.com)

Not to mention the wall is cutting South Texan farmer’s land in half, and creating some environmental concerns as well, “Ecologists have long warned that the border wall - actually a series of walls - will have big impacts on wildlife and the region's fragile and unique ecology…’There is no question that jaguars in the U.S. and northern Mexico would be significantly affected by the wall,’ says Joe Cook, expert in mammal biology at the University of New Mexico.”(Leahy, IPS)

The US government should just stop wasting its money and devise a better plan to deal with illegal immigration; either with an immigration reform or an armed border patrol with shoot-to-kill orders (more of a scare tactic).

A Response to Ignorance

Sean Toohey recently blogged about equality and how it is ‘unfair’ that the rich will be taxed more than the poor. Toohey states in his article that “Recent developments in the United States involve taxing all to provide some people, who are less fortunate, access to important things like healthcare and education”, when he says ‘all’ we can only assume he means the wealthy few seeing as how most low- to middle-income families are unable to afford health insurance, unable to make mortgage payments, unable to spend on luxuries, and are unable to send their children to college.

Toohey declares that “We should all have an equal opportunity to achieve our own pursuits, but only through hard work and dedication, and not by exploiting the labors of others”; Toohey obviously believes that ‘anyone can succeed through hard work and dedication’, but clearly he has not conducted any kind of research seeing as how the facts say otherwise. Statistics show that ‘dumb rich kids’ have a higher chance of finishing college than the ‘smart poor kids’. Current surveys prove that social mobility (equal opportunity) is far lower than it once was thanks to the bush tax cuts increasing economic inequality. Untalented children with wealthy parents are able to receive better education than talented children with poor parents, so children of the poor stay poor while the children of the rich stay rich.

Toohey states “Obviously there are some who are created smarter than others, those with better athletic abilities, and even those with more of an artistic ability…However in a free society all people should have equal opportunity to pursue [their] own happiness and self actualization”. Toohey fails to realize that those more talented people, if they are poor, have little-to-no chance to compete according to recent statistics. That is not only an injustice, but also a huge waste of potential as we could have better people for the job.

Toohey speaks of ‘equality’, yet he fails to realize the severe lack of it. He fails to realize that due to the bush tax cuts (relieved tax on the rich); economic inequality has completely murdered equal opportunity. As of right now low- to middle-income families pay a larger share of their paychecks than the rich in taxes. If we make taxes more proportional by increasing it on the wealthy, it should reduce economic inequality; allowing better equal opportunity (‘equality’).

Inequality Leading to More Inequality

Economic inequality is hurting America, and I believe the government should do more to reduce it. Economic inequality has not only created unequal opportunity in our country, but has left the lower- and middle-income families to struggle, damaging our society. Economic inequality, the extent of disparity between high income and low income households, is rising in the United States; the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Some argue that economic inequality is beneficial as it motivates an individual to “innovate and specialize…create the goods that benefit the economy and society” (Coyne, Christopher J. “Income Inequality Benefits American Society.” Is the Gap Between the Rich and Poor Growing? MI: The Thomson Corporation), but I believe it is doing more harm than good.

“Confronting Inequality”, a chapter written by Paul Krugman in his book The Conscience of a Liberal, speaks about how economic inequality is negatively impacting our society, and suggests methods to reduce it. Krugman begins by positing a question of why should we even care about economic inequality, answering his own question he states, “One reason to care about inequality is the straightforward matter of living standards." Low- and middle income families are accumulating debt, while the rich are accumulating more wealth. Most of low- to middle income families is unable to afford health insurance, unable to make mortgage payments, unable to spend on luxuries, and are simply unable to provide healthy food.

America’s obesity issue (an overall harm to society) may very well be the cause of economic inequality, which should not be a living standard. “Obesity may also be the reason that the U.S., ostensibly the world’s wealthiest nation, ranks 29th in life expectancy, right behind Jordan and Bosnia. Those who think that these problems are primarily the result of voluntary lifestyle choices should reflect on the difficulty of providing a family of four with fresh fruits and vegetables on a minimum wage salary” (Dubner, How Big of A Deal is Income Inequality?, Freakonomics).

Krugman, in “Confronting Inequality”, also states that due to economic inequality there is a “vast inequality of opportunity…We may believe that anyone can succeed through hard work and determination, but the facts say otherwise.” Statistics, in Krugman’s article, show that ‘dumb rich kids’ had a higher chance of finishing college than more ‘smart poor kids’. Inequality of opportunity damages society because we could have better people suited for the job, instead of those who just gained the opportunity through wealth. Krugman in a different article, “Economic Inequality Has Accelerated,” fears that our country will end up with “a small group of wealthy but untalented children controls vast segments of the US economy and penniless, talented children simply can’t compete” and states that “we will end up suffering not only from injustice, but from a vast waste of human potential.”

Economic inequality is damaging our society; it is reducing equal opportunity, which is the image of our country. I’ve always believed that the United States is land of opportunity, but after doing research, sadly, I do not. I believe the government should step in to reduce economic inequality so that America can truly be the land of opportunity.

Ken Cuccinelli, republican candidate running for Attorney General, posted on the RedState blog(Cuccinelli, RedState, "Cap and Trade Will Hurt Virginia") about how the “cap and trade” legislation will hurt Virginia. “Cap and trade” is the legislative response to solve the issues of ‘global warming’, the increase of the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect.

Cuccinelli starts off by describing the purpose of the “Cap and trade” legislation: “to restrict greenhouse gas emissions from industry, mainly carbon dioxide from the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas.” This doesn’t sound bad to me, until he mentions the severe economical effects that it will cause in our already difficult economy (currently).

Cuccinelli rename’s “Cap and trade” to “Ration and Tax”, which obviously shows us how he views this legislation. Cuccinelli named it that way because “under this bill, the government would require anyone who uses electricity, who drives a car, or who runs a business to hold a ‘ration coupon’ for his or her emissions, with the number of coupons being reduced every year to force a reduction in emissions, thus producing higher energy taxes for the average citizen.” Cuccinelli declares that this legislation would cause many people to lose jobs and it would harm our economy overall. Cuccinelli states that this legislation will not have a “noticeable positive impact on the global climate”, and that is not worth sacrificing our economy. If what Cuccinelli says is true, that this legislation won’t have a noticeable impact, I totally agree with what he is saying. Why would I want to invest so much into something that won’t really payoff?

Cuccinelli then supports his statements, that the “Cap and Trade” will hurt our economy (Virginia specifically), with statistical evidence: “This year’s House bill was estimated by the Heritage Foundation to lose 2.5 million net jobs by 2035. The loss of economic output: $9.4 trillion. The jobs lost in Virginia: 52,700. The report also stated that by 2035, Virginian’s will see their electricity prices rise by $1,031.73 and their gasoline prices rise by $1.31 per gallon solely because of ‘Ration and Tax’. Peter Orszag, President Obama’s current budget director, forecast the scheme would cost $1 trillion over the next 10 years and $5-$7 trillion through 2050.”

Countering future opposing statements, Cuccinelli goes on to say that the new ‘green jobs’ that are supposed to emerge to counter the tremendous job losses are not enough, and that they will most likely pay too little: “A study for the Teamsters and Sierra Club – both allies of those advancing ‘Cap and Trade’ – found: ‘Wage rates at many wind and solar manufacturing facilities… fall short of income levels needed to support a single adult with one child.’ In Spain, the experience has been 2.2 real jobs destroyed for every ‘green job’ created.”

Cuccinelli then backs up his statements on the outcome of “Cap and trade”, that it will have little-to-no effect: “The Developed Only scenario cuts only about 0.5 °C of the warming”. The only way for it to have an effect is if other countries join in, but China and India (two large growing nations) have already declared that they refuse to. Why is “Cap and trade even being considered with statistics like these? Is trillions of dollars worth 0.5 °C?

Meredith Whitney, ranked #1 investment analyst in her category by Wallstreet Journal, wrote an article(The Credit Crunch Continues, The Wallstreet Journal, Oct. 1, 2009) about the current state of economy, and how the government support is heading into the wrong direction.

Whitney states that "credit is contracting. Access to credit is being denied at an accelerating pace", and that this leaves smaller businesses struggling to get loans while large companies are still able to do so. I agree with Whitney on this because I'd imagine that large companies would be more of a sound investment for bankers.

Whitney declares that small business credit is diminishing, at a rapid pace, with no credit, banks are reluctant to give them loans, which doesnt suprise me since 90% of small businesses fail within the first 5 years, why would a banker want to support a doomed cause?

Without bank loans, small businesses are largely depending on credit cards to fund their needs, and credit-lines have been cut by 25% so far. I think that if a small business is relying soley credit cards to begin with, its doomed from the start, so why bother?

After reading all Whitney's facts and statistics about smaller businesses im wondering why she states that government support is heading into the wrong direction,but it turns out according to Whitney,"small businesses employ 50% of the country's workforce and contribute to 38% of GDP." I agree with Whitney here because something that employs 50% of the country, deserves a little more attention.

Government support went to businesses that are "too big to fail" anyway, and not to the smaller businesses were more likely to fail. Whitney argues that this government support should not be going to the larger companies, but rather to the smaller banks, that would loan to smaller businesses, which in-turn would "bridge gaps created by the shut down in the securitization market but also gaps being created by a massive contraction in credit-card lines."

Whitney's train of logic, supported with facts and statistics for evidence, and her credibility (Considered one of the most influential/powerful women in several journals/magazines), definantly convinced me that government support should be heading towards smaller banks/businesses.

Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus is open to changing the health care reform. Baucus's is mainly working on addressing one of the chief issues on the bill, that the bill wont be able to make insurance affordable enough for the middle-class. This poses a problem because the legislation will soon require everyone to have insurance or pay a fine. So if the middle-class cannot afford health insurance, they are stuck getting fined. Baucus's solution to this is, by creating a 35% tax excise on the lavish plans, the tax excise would go to the insurer, but obviously fall onto the customer. This plan sounds good to me because, middle-class most likely would not get the lavish plans, and the upper-class that can afford the lavish plans aid the middle-class through taxes. It would also discourage people getting lavish plans and overusing the health-care system. You guys should definantly check out this article from TIME because its discussing big things that will effect us in the United States soon.