Abstract:
On Thursday, June 14, Egypt’s Supreme Constitutional Court ruled that the nation’s recent parliamentary elections were unconstitutional. The court's decision might end up benefiting Egyptians in the long run.
On June 14, Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court ruled that the nation's recent parliamentary elections were unconstitutional. According to the Los Angeles Times, the judges also decided that Ahmed Shafik, an "ally of deposed leader Hosni Mubarak," could run for president. Many Egyptians have condemned the court's actions. Per the New York Times, they claim that the judges' decisions threaten the nascent democratic processes which are just beginning to blossom in Egypt after decades of autocratic rule. As important, the court's actions threaten to throw the nation back into turmoil. However, in the long run, the judges' rulings could spur the growth of democracy in Egypt.
In the short run, Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court, whatever its actual motives, likely hindered the growth of some democratic processes when it nullified the existing parliament. The decision sends a signal to Egyptians that their votes do not count for much when their wishes can be countermanded by non-elected judges. As the New York Times notes, the court's two rulings also imply that allies of ousted dictator, Hosni Mubarak, still have a significant amount of control over government decisions.
The judges' decisions will almost certainly bring about a new wave of street protests in major Egyptian cities. More worrisome, per The New York Times, Islamists (including the Muslim Brotherhood), who control the vast majority of seats in the current parliament, have said they will not dissolve the legislative body. The Islamists' actions set the stage for a potentially bloody confrontation with the allies of Mubarak. The tensions between the two groups may reach a boiling point if Shafik defeats the Islamasist candidate in this weekend's presidential elections.
While the high court's decisions will negatively impact many Egyptians over the next few weeks (and perhaps longer), it might end up benefiting them over the long run. Per the Los Angeles Times, Islamists currently control 70 percent of parliament. It is unclear how these people will govern if given the chance; however, when Islamists gained power in Afghanistan and in Iran, they severely limited the rights of women and other groups. Per CTV Canada, at least some of the Islamist groups who control Egypt's parliament want to curtail individual freedoms.
If that is the case, the Supreme Constitutional Court might have unknowingly aided the cause of democracy in Egypt by nullifying the current parliament. Assuming the situation in Egypt remains relatively stable and new parliamentary elections are held, it is quite possible that the Islamasists will not secure as many seats, especially since, per the Los Angeles Times, the court stated that one third of the parliamentary spots be "reserved for independents." As a result, it can be hoped that the new Egyptian parliament will be more moderate than the previous one, and thus more likely to protect individual freedoms.
-- Anthony Hopper
#Egypt #Muslims #Sunni #court #legal #opinion #politics
Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts
Friday
2012 Commentary: U.S. Needs to Do More to Help End Drug-Related Violence in Mexico
Abstract:
The recent murder of 49 people in Mexico is just the latest in a string of drug related violence which has claimed the lives of approximately 50,000 people in that country since 2006. Americans have an obligation to help Mexico curtail this violence.
Mexican authorities recently announced that they located a mass grave containing the mutilated corpses of 49 people. The government stated that a local drug gang, the Zetas, claimed responsibility for the killings. These deaths are likely related to a conflict between the Zetas and "rival groups for control of smuggling routes." Amazingly, per a Reuters article, this type of drug related violence is a routine event in Mexico, as "more than 50,000 people have fallen victim to the conflict [since 2006]." These deaths serve as a reminder that America's drug war has consequences for other countries.
Americans who use drugs should take a moment to consider how their actions are impacting other nations. Per an NPR article, U.S. consumption of cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines helps to buttress a violent drug trafficking network that stretches throughout Mexico and into adjacent countries. Americans' demand for these drugs might provide employment to some people in these areas but at a high cost, as the 50,000 drug-related deaths (in Mexico alone) testify. These murdered men and women are not the only casualties of this war. Their families are left without brothers, sisters, and parents. Additionally, it is likely that many times this number of individuals live in fear of the local drug cartels. Per MSNBC, as a result of the drug trade, "the country is one of the most dangerous to be a journalist, [sic] kidnapping and extortion are rife."
At the same time, U.S. state and federal politicians should remember that the decisions they make with regards to the nation's drug war have consequences for other countries. They should periodically assess whether or not the U.S. is winning this conflict. If, as the MSNBC article implies, the U.S. is not making any headway in curtailing drug use among its citizens, politicians should either dedicate more money to enforcement efforts or discuss potentially legalizing (and strictly controlling the use of) some drugs. Either way, Americans should not settle for the status quo if it is not producing results; they owe that much to their brothers and sisters who are dying as a result of the drug cartel wars in Mexico and in other Latin American countries.
Americans are partly to blame for the violence in Mexico that has claimed the lives of approximately 50,000 people since 2006. They owe it to the people in Mexico as well as to themselves to work harder to curtail drug use in the U.S. by whatever means is most feasible.
1. Creator: U.S. Congress, Committee on Foreign Relations
Date: 2007
Title/Description: The Merida Initiative, a U.S. Counter-Narcotics Assistance to Mexico.
Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - U.S. government document (click on the title to see the
artwork, credits, and permissions).
-- Anthony Hopper
#crime #drugs #Mexico #US #United States #politics #opinion
 |
| Mexican Drug Cartels and Their Areas of Influence (1) |
Americans who use drugs should take a moment to consider how their actions are impacting other nations. Per an NPR article, U.S. consumption of cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines helps to buttress a violent drug trafficking network that stretches throughout Mexico and into adjacent countries. Americans' demand for these drugs might provide employment to some people in these areas but at a high cost, as the 50,000 drug-related deaths (in Mexico alone) testify. These murdered men and women are not the only casualties of this war. Their families are left without brothers, sisters, and parents. Additionally, it is likely that many times this number of individuals live in fear of the local drug cartels. Per MSNBC, as a result of the drug trade, "the country is one of the most dangerous to be a journalist, [sic] kidnapping and extortion are rife."
At the same time, U.S. state and federal politicians should remember that the decisions they make with regards to the nation's drug war have consequences for other countries. They should periodically assess whether or not the U.S. is winning this conflict. If, as the MSNBC article implies, the U.S. is not making any headway in curtailing drug use among its citizens, politicians should either dedicate more money to enforcement efforts or discuss potentially legalizing (and strictly controlling the use of) some drugs. Either way, Americans should not settle for the status quo if it is not producing results; they owe that much to their brothers and sisters who are dying as a result of the drug cartel wars in Mexico and in other Latin American countries.
Americans are partly to blame for the violence in Mexico that has claimed the lives of approximately 50,000 people since 2006. They owe it to the people in Mexico as well as to themselves to work harder to curtail drug use in the U.S. by whatever means is most feasible.
1. Creator: U.S. Congress, Committee on Foreign Relations
Date: 2007
Title/Description: The Merida Initiative, a U.S. Counter-Narcotics Assistance to Mexico.
Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - U.S. government document (click on the title to see the
artwork, credits, and permissions).
-- Anthony Hopper
#crime #drugs #Mexico #US #United States #politics #opinion
2012 Commentary: Goodell's Suspensions of Four NFL Players Hurts Several Teams
Abstract:
Roger Goodell made the right decision when he decided to suspend four players for their roles in the New Orleans Saints' bounty scandal. However, he should also think about remunerating "innocent" teams who have been hurt by these penalties.
Earlier today, the NFL suspended four players for their roles in the New Orleans Saints' bounty scandal. The Los Angeles Times notes that Jonathan Vilma, a linebacker who still plays for New Orleans, was banned for the entire 2012 season. Vilma's teammate, defensive end Will Smith, will have to sit for four games. Two other ex-Saints players, Anthony Hargrove, a defensive lineman with the Green Bay Packers, and Scott Fujita, a linebacker for the Cleveland Browns, will also have to serve lengthy suspensions. While the league made the right decision in punishing these players; its actions penalize teams (and their fans) who were not involved in the bounty scandal. Perhaps commissioner Roger Goodell and the NFL owners should think about compensating these teams for their collateral losses.
Goodell was justified in suspending these four players. Per NBC Sports, Goodell only punished the athletes who were directly involved in helping foster the bounty program while they were in New Orleans. As a Bleacher Report article notes the NFL needed to punish the ringleaders involved in this scandal in order to demonstrate its commitment to player safety, as well as to protect its brand. The harsh sanctions will force coaches and players to think twice before they engage in unethical conduct which puts athletes in harm's way. As important, the commissioner's actions signal to fans that the league is committed not only to player safety but also to ensuring that the games are fair. Some experts might even criticize Goodell for being too lenient on the players involved in the bounty scandal.
While Goodell's actions may have been necessary, they will impact several "innocent" teams. The league's actions had already forced the St. Louis Rams find a way to overcome the loss of their newly hired defensive coordinator, Gregg Williams, for at least one season. Now the Green Bay Packers and Cleveland Browns will each have to take the field without a key defensive player. All three franchises, along with their respective fan bases, will be negatively impacted to some extent by Goodell's actions. The money these teams save in salaries will likely not be enough to compensate them for this damage.
Perhaps Goodell should have taken this fact into account when he announced the penalties. He could, for instance, have offered to remunerate the clubs (excepting New Orleans) who were impacted by his suspensions. The commissioner did not have to go out of his way to recompense these franchises. Even a token gesture by Goodell might have been enough for players and fans in St. Louis, Green Bay, and Cleveland.
-- Anthony Hopper
#sports #NFL #football #legal #Goodell #players #Saints #NFC
Earlier today, the NFL suspended four players for their roles in the New Orleans Saints' bounty scandal. The Los Angeles Times notes that Jonathan Vilma, a linebacker who still plays for New Orleans, was banned for the entire 2012 season. Vilma's teammate, defensive end Will Smith, will have to sit for four games. Two other ex-Saints players, Anthony Hargrove, a defensive lineman with the Green Bay Packers, and Scott Fujita, a linebacker for the Cleveland Browns, will also have to serve lengthy suspensions. While the league made the right decision in punishing these players; its actions penalize teams (and their fans) who were not involved in the bounty scandal. Perhaps commissioner Roger Goodell and the NFL owners should think about compensating these teams for their collateral losses.
Goodell was justified in suspending these four players. Per NBC Sports, Goodell only punished the athletes who were directly involved in helping foster the bounty program while they were in New Orleans. As a Bleacher Report article notes the NFL needed to punish the ringleaders involved in this scandal in order to demonstrate its commitment to player safety, as well as to protect its brand. The harsh sanctions will force coaches and players to think twice before they engage in unethical conduct which puts athletes in harm's way. As important, the commissioner's actions signal to fans that the league is committed not only to player safety but also to ensuring that the games are fair. Some experts might even criticize Goodell for being too lenient on the players involved in the bounty scandal.
While Goodell's actions may have been necessary, they will impact several "innocent" teams. The league's actions had already forced the St. Louis Rams find a way to overcome the loss of their newly hired defensive coordinator, Gregg Williams, for at least one season. Now the Green Bay Packers and Cleveland Browns will each have to take the field without a key defensive player. All three franchises, along with their respective fan bases, will be negatively impacted to some extent by Goodell's actions. The money these teams save in salaries will likely not be enough to compensate them for this damage.
Perhaps Goodell should have taken this fact into account when he announced the penalties. He could, for instance, have offered to remunerate the clubs (excepting New Orleans) who were impacted by his suspensions. The commissioner did not have to go out of his way to recompense these franchises. Even a token gesture by Goodell might have been enough for players and fans in St. Louis, Green Bay, and Cleveland.
-- Anthony Hopper
#sports #NFL #football #legal #Goodell #players #Saints #NFC
2012 Commentary: The Trayvon Martin Tragedy Points to Some of the Drawbacks of Homeowners Associations
Abstract:
Trayvon Martin's family will likely sue the homeowners association in Zimmerman's neighborhood because it authorized Zimmerman to represent it as the captain of its neighborhood watch. This issue hints at some of the drawbacks of these associations.
The Trayvon Martin tragedy is still in the news. An Associated Press article published on Yahoo! earlier today notes that the deceased teen's parents might be able to sue the "homeowners association of the neighborhood where the shooting happened and [George] Zimmerman lived." Per Florida legal precedent, the association could be liable because it authorized Zimmerman to serve as "the neighborhood watch captain." This issue highlights some of the potential drawbacks to living in an area that has a homeowners association.
Many people prefer to reside in neighborhoods, which are part of homeowners associations, due to the benefits these organizations provide. For one thing, the associations are responsible for enforcing any restrictive covenants in their respective domains, which help to keep property values high (at the expense of individual owners' rights). These organizations, depending on their charters, may also take care of things like house painting, roof replacements, road repair, and other neighborhood projects, thereby relieving individual owners of having to deal with these issues. However, while homeowners associations are helpful in many ways, they do have their drawbacks.
For one thing, a homeowners association has the responsibility to enforce any restrictive covenants that are tied to the neighborhood, and many of these organizations aggressively enforce these codes. This is important because covenants can significantly limit the rights of individuals to manage their own properties. Depending on the state, covenants can dictate everything from the paint color on a house to the type of pets allowed in a residence. An article on WBTV.com notes that one association's restrictive covenants list is 55 pages long.
Perhaps more worrisome to some residents (depending on the state in which they live), homeowners associations can levy special assessments on owners to do everything from repairing or maintaining vacant houses or condominiums to paying off any legal bills related to lawsuits. A USA Today article notes that an association in one neighborhood in Fort Pierce, Fla., "levied $6,000 assessments on everyone" in order to repair plumbing issues in vacant houses. The individual homeowners in this neighborhood found themselves on the hook for thousands of dollars in expenses for upkeep to distressed and mismanaged properties that they did not own. According to Cyber Citizens for Justice, Florida law might allow the homeowners association in Zimmerman's neighborhood to bill residents, including those members who were not actively involved in their association, for any legal costs related to the Trayvon Martin tragedy.
Finally, as the residents mentioned in the USA Today article found out, homeowners associations in many states have the right to foreclose on a property if an individual does not (or cannot) pay his or her association fees and dues. In Fort Pierce, the association foreclosed on owners who could not pay the $6,000 special assessment. The same thing could happen to the people living in Zimmerman's neighborhood at some point in the future.
-- Anthony Hopper
#justice #HOA #homeownersassociation #opinion
The Trayvon Martin tragedy is still in the news. An Associated Press article published on Yahoo! earlier today notes that the deceased teen's parents might be able to sue the "homeowners association of the neighborhood where the shooting happened and [George] Zimmerman lived." Per Florida legal precedent, the association could be liable because it authorized Zimmerman to serve as "the neighborhood watch captain." This issue highlights some of the potential drawbacks to living in an area that has a homeowners association.
Many people prefer to reside in neighborhoods, which are part of homeowners associations, due to the benefits these organizations provide. For one thing, the associations are responsible for enforcing any restrictive covenants in their respective domains, which help to keep property values high (at the expense of individual owners' rights). These organizations, depending on their charters, may also take care of things like house painting, roof replacements, road repair, and other neighborhood projects, thereby relieving individual owners of having to deal with these issues. However, while homeowners associations are helpful in many ways, they do have their drawbacks.
For one thing, a homeowners association has the responsibility to enforce any restrictive covenants that are tied to the neighborhood, and many of these organizations aggressively enforce these codes. This is important because covenants can significantly limit the rights of individuals to manage their own properties. Depending on the state, covenants can dictate everything from the paint color on a house to the type of pets allowed in a residence. An article on WBTV.com notes that one association's restrictive covenants list is 55 pages long.
Perhaps more worrisome to some residents (depending on the state in which they live), homeowners associations can levy special assessments on owners to do everything from repairing or maintaining vacant houses or condominiums to paying off any legal bills related to lawsuits. A USA Today article notes that an association in one neighborhood in Fort Pierce, Fla., "levied $6,000 assessments on everyone" in order to repair plumbing issues in vacant houses. The individual homeowners in this neighborhood found themselves on the hook for thousands of dollars in expenses for upkeep to distressed and mismanaged properties that they did not own. According to Cyber Citizens for Justice, Florida law might allow the homeowners association in Zimmerman's neighborhood to bill residents, including those members who were not actively involved in their association, for any legal costs related to the Trayvon Martin tragedy.
Finally, as the residents mentioned in the USA Today article found out, homeowners associations in many states have the right to foreclose on a property if an individual does not (or cannot) pay his or her association fees and dues. In Fort Pierce, the association foreclosed on owners who could not pay the $6,000 special assessment. The same thing could happen to the people living in Zimmerman's neighborhood at some point in the future.
-- Anthony Hopper
#justice #HOA #homeownersassociation #opinion
2012 Commentary: All Stakeholders in the Trayvon Martin Shooting Should Be Thankful the FBI is Involved
Abstract:
The FBI has decided to investigate the February 26 death of Trayvon Martin. The deceased teenager's family and supporters are ecstatic by this decision. However, I argue that everyone else who is involved in this tragedy should be thankful as well.
A little over a month ago, George Zimmerman, a resident of Sanford, Fla., shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin as he was walking back to his father's house. The teenager was not carrying any weapons on him at the time he was shot. Zimmerman, who is Hispanic, says that he shot Martin, an African American, in self-defense after the teenager attacked him. Martin's family on the other hand asserts that Zimmerman committed murder; they further contend that the gunman's actions were racially motivated. As the Standard Examiner notes, people across the country have organized protests to condemn the killing and to rail against what they consider to be the inept handling of the case by local and state authorities. MSNBC reports that the FBI has begun its own investigation into Martin's death. All sides should be thankful that the agency has decided to become involved in this case.
Martin's family has criticized the way in which local and state authorities have handled the case and have been requesting an FBI investigation into the murder for weeks. Today, they obtained their wish, as the case will now be examined by federal authorities. Protesters around the country who have been calling for justice for the deceased teen should also be happy that the FBI has decided to step into the fray. They can be fairly assured that the federal agency is a neutral party who will review the evidence in as unbiased a manner as possible.
Ironically, George Zimmerman might also be thankful that the FBI has decided to investigate the Martin case. As The Christian Science Monitor notes, the information on the shooting that has emerged so far has not provided any clear picture as to whether Zimmerman is innocent or guilty of murder. However, millions of Americans across the country have already determined that he is guilty, and the media are constantly analyzing his actions on television, on the radio, and in the newspapers. Zimmerman must be under a lot of pressure from the intense public focus on the Martin killing. If he did act in self-defense and is acquitted by the FBI of any wrongdoing; he might be able to begin to return to normal life.
Finally, the local and state agents who were responsible for handling the Martin case can breathe a sigh of relief now that the FBI has entered the investigation. The federal agency's presence should take some of the pressure off of the Florida authorities. These individuals will probably rest even easier once the FBI finalizes its investigation, regardless of its findings.
While some stakeholders in the Trayvon Martin shooting might not realize it yet, the FBI's entry into this case might be to everyone's benefit. The federal agency may finally determine once and for all what actually happened on that fateful February day and bring some closure to this event.
-- Anthony Hopper
#opinion #United States #legal #US #government
A little over a month ago, George Zimmerman, a resident of Sanford, Fla., shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin as he was walking back to his father's house. The teenager was not carrying any weapons on him at the time he was shot. Zimmerman, who is Hispanic, says that he shot Martin, an African American, in self-defense after the teenager attacked him. Martin's family on the other hand asserts that Zimmerman committed murder; they further contend that the gunman's actions were racially motivated. As the Standard Examiner notes, people across the country have organized protests to condemn the killing and to rail against what they consider to be the inept handling of the case by local and state authorities. MSNBC reports that the FBI has begun its own investigation into Martin's death. All sides should be thankful that the agency has decided to become involved in this case.
Martin's family has criticized the way in which local and state authorities have handled the case and have been requesting an FBI investigation into the murder for weeks. Today, they obtained their wish, as the case will now be examined by federal authorities. Protesters around the country who have been calling for justice for the deceased teen should also be happy that the FBI has decided to step into the fray. They can be fairly assured that the federal agency is a neutral party who will review the evidence in as unbiased a manner as possible.
Ironically, George Zimmerman might also be thankful that the FBI has decided to investigate the Martin case. As The Christian Science Monitor notes, the information on the shooting that has emerged so far has not provided any clear picture as to whether Zimmerman is innocent or guilty of murder. However, millions of Americans across the country have already determined that he is guilty, and the media are constantly analyzing his actions on television, on the radio, and in the newspapers. Zimmerman must be under a lot of pressure from the intense public focus on the Martin killing. If he did act in self-defense and is acquitted by the FBI of any wrongdoing; he might be able to begin to return to normal life.
Finally, the local and state agents who were responsible for handling the Martin case can breathe a sigh of relief now that the FBI has entered the investigation. The federal agency's presence should take some of the pressure off of the Florida authorities. These individuals will probably rest even easier once the FBI finalizes its investigation, regardless of its findings.
While some stakeholders in the Trayvon Martin shooting might not realize it yet, the FBI's entry into this case might be to everyone's benefit. The federal agency may finally determine once and for all what actually happened on that fateful February day and bring some closure to this event.
-- Anthony Hopper
#opinion #United States #legal #US #government
Is It Time to Amend the U.N.'s Charter to Give it More Power to Intervene in Conflicts like the One in Syria? - 2012
Abstract:
The United Nations' website states that one of its key functions is to "keep peace throughout the world." However, as the conflict in Syria demonstrates, the U.N.'s current structure often prevents it from achieving this goal. Can we fix this problem?
The crisis in Syria, which began about a year ago, made the news again today when the head of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, demanded that the country's authoritarian regime, led by dictator Bashar al-Assad, adhere to the terms of the cease-fire agreement. Unfortunately, per a BBC article, Annan and the U.N. have little power to end the conflict, as fighting continues to rage in the Middle Eastern country. Should the U.N.'s charter be changed to provide it with more power to intervene in conflicts like the one in Syria?
Per its website, the United Nations was created in 1945 to provide a voice for the world's countries and to serve as a focus for collaborative action on a number of issues. One of its key mandates is to "keep peace throughout the world." However, its ability to ameliorate bloody conflicts like the one currently going on in Syria is limited. The U.N. Security Council oversees the international body's peacekeeping functions. It is unable to intervene in a conflict if just one of its five permanent members, which include Russia, the U.S., China, France, and Britain, veto the proposal. For instance, even though most of countries of the world are appalled by what is going on in Syria, the U.N. is powerless to send troops to stop the fighting in that country because Russia and China would veto any such proposal.
According to a presentation at the 2011 Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, the current Security Council setup, allowing for the permanent members to veto any legislation, may be a necessary evil. It is certainly possible that Russia, China, or the U.S. (and to a lesser extent Great Britain and France) might opt out of the U.N. if they were denied veto power. In that case, it may be better to give these nations an outsized voice in the U.N.'s affairs in exchange for their tacit agreement to abide by the rules and protocols set by the international body.
However, it is also true that the U.N. Security Council's current structure demonstrates a lack of respect for the views of other countries. Nigeria, Brazil, and Germany are all larger (population-wise) than Great Britain, yet they do not have any real control over the U.N. Security Council's actions. Worse, the current U.N. structure often prohibits it from following through on one of its chief aims-to act as world peacekeeper.
Given these flaws, perhaps it is time that the United Nations' 193 member countries seriously discuss eliminating the veto power of the big five, or, as DebatePedia suggests, they could implement procedures which would allow a supermajority of nations to override the veto of one of the permanent members. Either way, something needs to be done; the conflict in Syria has proven that much.
1. Photographer: Stefano Corso (Pensiero)
Date: February 23, 2005
Title/Description: The United Nations headquarters in New York.
Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - Photographer's notes (click on the title/link to see
the photo, credits, and permissions).
-- Anthony Hopper
#UN #Syria #MiddleEast #US #war #legal #international #UnitedNations
 |
| The United Nations headquarters (1). |
Per its website, the United Nations was created in 1945 to provide a voice for the world's countries and to serve as a focus for collaborative action on a number of issues. One of its key mandates is to "keep peace throughout the world." However, its ability to ameliorate bloody conflicts like the one currently going on in Syria is limited. The U.N. Security Council oversees the international body's peacekeeping functions. It is unable to intervene in a conflict if just one of its five permanent members, which include Russia, the U.S., China, France, and Britain, veto the proposal. For instance, even though most of countries of the world are appalled by what is going on in Syria, the U.N. is powerless to send troops to stop the fighting in that country because Russia and China would veto any such proposal.
According to a presentation at the 2011 Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, the current Security Council setup, allowing for the permanent members to veto any legislation, may be a necessary evil. It is certainly possible that Russia, China, or the U.S. (and to a lesser extent Great Britain and France) might opt out of the U.N. if they were denied veto power. In that case, it may be better to give these nations an outsized voice in the U.N.'s affairs in exchange for their tacit agreement to abide by the rules and protocols set by the international body.
However, it is also true that the U.N. Security Council's current structure demonstrates a lack of respect for the views of other countries. Nigeria, Brazil, and Germany are all larger (population-wise) than Great Britain, yet they do not have any real control over the U.N. Security Council's actions. Worse, the current U.N. structure often prohibits it from following through on one of its chief aims-to act as world peacekeeper.
Given these flaws, perhaps it is time that the United Nations' 193 member countries seriously discuss eliminating the veto power of the big five, or, as DebatePedia suggests, they could implement procedures which would allow a supermajority of nations to override the veto of one of the permanent members. Either way, something needs to be done; the conflict in Syria has proven that much.
1. Photographer: Stefano Corso (Pensiero)
Date: February 23, 2005
Title/Description: The United Nations headquarters in New York.
Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - Photographer's notes (click on the title/link to see
the photo, credits, and permissions).
-- Anthony Hopper
#UN #Syria #MiddleEast #US #war #legal #international #UnitedNations
2012 Commentary: What Happens if the Supreme Court Only Invalidates the Individual Mandate?
Abstract:
This week, the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments with regards to the Obama administration's healthcare legislation. I examine the consequences for Americans if the Court chooses only to invalidate the individual mandate portion of the bill.
In 2010, the Democratic-controlled Congress and Senate passed two bills, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which made sweeping changes to America's healthcare system. The legislation has engendered passionate feelings on both sides. Proponents claim that the bill is a constitutionally sound measure that will improve the healthcare system, while critics deride it as undemocratic.
This week, the Supreme Court is listening to oral arguments from both proponents and critics of the healthcare legislation in an effort to determine, once and for all, which side is correct. It is possible that the Court will choose either to throw out the entire piece of legislation or to rule that every element in the current bill is constitutional. However, it is just as likely that the Court will decide to eliminate the individual mandate (requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance) from the legislation while leaving the remainder of the bill virtually untouched. If the latter scenario plays out, what impact will it have on Americans?
If the Court throws out the individual mandate, the federal government, per a CBO report, will lose the billions of dollars in revenue it would likely have gained from tax penalties imposed on Americans who refuse to purchase healthcare. If this happens, the U.S. may have to borrow money to fund the healthcare program, thereby adding to the national debt. Alternatively, it could choose to cut corners when it comes to implementing portions of the legislation, which would be detrimental to all Americans. Finally, government agencies and hospitals would likely have to expend significantly more than expected on charity care for the uninsured.
Perhaps more dire, if the Court only invalidates the individual mandate portion of the healthcare legislation, it might create a governmental nightmare of epic proportions. As Merrill Goozner notes in a MedCity article, insurance companies participating in the government sponsored health exchanges can only offer their products at a reasonable cost if their pools include a certain percentage of young, healthy subscribers. If young people do not purchase health insurance in sufficient numbers, the insurance companies might have to exit the health exchanges or risk going under. In that scenario, federal and state governments would be in an untenable situation. They would be required by law to maintain a vibrant health exchange; however they would not be able to convince any insurance companies to offer plans through the system. That is the worst-case scenario. At the very least, according to Goozner, healthcare costs for people using the exchanges will rise by at least 10 percent if the individual mandate is invalidated by the Court.
The Supreme Court will soon decide the fate of the Obama administration's healthcare legislation. If the Court chooses to invalidate only the individual mandate section in the bill, it might create some significant problems that will be difficult for either the federal or state governments to fix.
1. Photographer: Morriswa
Date: September 2, 2011
Title/Description: The front of the United States Supreme Court building.
Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
license (click on the title/link or caption/link for photo, credits, permissions).
-- Anthony Hopper
#ACA #AffordableCareAct #ObamaCare #politics #Obama #legal #health #healthcare
 |
| The front of the United States Supreme Court building (1). |
This week, the Supreme Court is listening to oral arguments from both proponents and critics of the healthcare legislation in an effort to determine, once and for all, which side is correct. It is possible that the Court will choose either to throw out the entire piece of legislation or to rule that every element in the current bill is constitutional. However, it is just as likely that the Court will decide to eliminate the individual mandate (requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance) from the legislation while leaving the remainder of the bill virtually untouched. If the latter scenario plays out, what impact will it have on Americans?
If the Court throws out the individual mandate, the federal government, per a CBO report, will lose the billions of dollars in revenue it would likely have gained from tax penalties imposed on Americans who refuse to purchase healthcare. If this happens, the U.S. may have to borrow money to fund the healthcare program, thereby adding to the national debt. Alternatively, it could choose to cut corners when it comes to implementing portions of the legislation, which would be detrimental to all Americans. Finally, government agencies and hospitals would likely have to expend significantly more than expected on charity care for the uninsured.
Perhaps more dire, if the Court only invalidates the individual mandate portion of the healthcare legislation, it might create a governmental nightmare of epic proportions. As Merrill Goozner notes in a MedCity article, insurance companies participating in the government sponsored health exchanges can only offer their products at a reasonable cost if their pools include a certain percentage of young, healthy subscribers. If young people do not purchase health insurance in sufficient numbers, the insurance companies might have to exit the health exchanges or risk going under. In that scenario, federal and state governments would be in an untenable situation. They would be required by law to maintain a vibrant health exchange; however they would not be able to convince any insurance companies to offer plans through the system. That is the worst-case scenario. At the very least, according to Goozner, healthcare costs for people using the exchanges will rise by at least 10 percent if the individual mandate is invalidated by the Court.
The Supreme Court will soon decide the fate of the Obama administration's healthcare legislation. If the Court chooses to invalidate only the individual mandate section in the bill, it might create some significant problems that will be difficult for either the federal or state governments to fix.
1. Photographer: Morriswa
Date: September 2, 2011
Title/Description: The front of the United States Supreme Court building.
Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
license (click on the title/link or caption/link for photo, credits, permissions).
-- Anthony Hopper
#ACA #AffordableCareAct #ObamaCare #politics #Obama #legal #health #healthcare
2012 Commentary: Whistle Blower in the New Orleans Saints Scandal Made the Right Decision
Abstract:
NFL teams have the right to ensure that players and coaches keep some things secret. However, this article asserts that this right does not extend to prohibiting players from speaking out if they see something illegal occur.
Yesterday, Roger Goodell, the NFL's commissioner, handed out fines and suspensions to several individuals who were involved with the New Orleans Saints' bounty program, which was in place from at least 2009-2011. In this scheme, members of the Saints' coaching staff paid their defensive players for injuring opposing teams' athletes. As CNN notes, Goodell's punishment was harsh; among other things, he levied a one year suspension on Sean Peyton, the Saints' current head coach, and indefinitely suspended New Orleans' ex-defensive coordinator, Gregg Williams. The NFL is not necessarily finished meting out punishment yet; it may also try to penalize the players who were involved in the bounty program.
Most people likely concur in the belief that the New Orleans Saints' coaches and players were wrong to condone a bounty system. However, they disagree on whether or not a player has the right to tell the authorities or the public if his teammates commit patently unethical or illegal acts like the one perpetuated by the Saints. A Yahoo! Sports article suggests that players have an obligation to keep anything done by their clubs, even illegal acts, in-house. It implies that a team is like a family, and a brother should not rat out a fellow sibling. By contrast, a piece in the Huffington Post condemns this "inner culture of secrecy" and blames it for perpetuating a philosophy that will tolerate everything from the Saints' bounty program to the sexual harassment of children.
Both sides make valid points. Professional football is a team sport and to be successful, teammates must be willing to cooperate fully with each other and with their coaches. Organizations like the New England Patriots and the Pittsburgh Steelers would have never have won the Super Bowl multiple times if their football players did not buy into the team concept. At the same time, a football squad has a right to ask that its players and coaches do not divulge proprietary information found in its playbooks and discussed in personnel meetings.
The easiest way for a football program to achieve these goals is to foster a familial culture that discourages (and sometimes even punishes) players who fail to follow orders or who publicly disclose a fellow teammate's personal foibles. However, these types of societies can become too oppressive. As such, every NFL player has the right, and even the responsibility, to speak out when a fellow team member or a coach commits a patently unethical act. The person who informed the league about the Saints' bounty system did the right thing. He helped to rid the NFL of an illegal process that undermined the league's commitment to player safety.
Every NFL program needs to ensure that players keep some things secret. However, no team should foster a culture that is so oppressive; it prohibits athletes from speaking out when a teammate (or even the whole squad) commits a patently unethical or illegal act.
1. Photographer: Shashi Bellamkonda
Date: September 30, 2012
Title/Description: View from my window - Superdome in Green in the Rain. New colored lights illuminate
the Superdome at night.
Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license
(click on the title/link to view the photo, credits, and permissions).
-- Anthony Hopper
#sports #football #legal #ethics #opinion #NFL #Saints
 |
| Superdome in Green in the Rain (1) |
Most people likely concur in the belief that the New Orleans Saints' coaches and players were wrong to condone a bounty system. However, they disagree on whether or not a player has the right to tell the authorities or the public if his teammates commit patently unethical or illegal acts like the one perpetuated by the Saints. A Yahoo! Sports article suggests that players have an obligation to keep anything done by their clubs, even illegal acts, in-house. It implies that a team is like a family, and a brother should not rat out a fellow sibling. By contrast, a piece in the Huffington Post condemns this "inner culture of secrecy" and blames it for perpetuating a philosophy that will tolerate everything from the Saints' bounty program to the sexual harassment of children.
Both sides make valid points. Professional football is a team sport and to be successful, teammates must be willing to cooperate fully with each other and with their coaches. Organizations like the New England Patriots and the Pittsburgh Steelers would have never have won the Super Bowl multiple times if their football players did not buy into the team concept. At the same time, a football squad has a right to ask that its players and coaches do not divulge proprietary information found in its playbooks and discussed in personnel meetings.
The easiest way for a football program to achieve these goals is to foster a familial culture that discourages (and sometimes even punishes) players who fail to follow orders or who publicly disclose a fellow teammate's personal foibles. However, these types of societies can become too oppressive. As such, every NFL player has the right, and even the responsibility, to speak out when a fellow team member or a coach commits a patently unethical act. The person who informed the league about the Saints' bounty system did the right thing. He helped to rid the NFL of an illegal process that undermined the league's commitment to player safety.
Every NFL program needs to ensure that players keep some things secret. However, no team should foster a culture that is so oppressive; it prohibits athletes from speaking out when a teammate (or even the whole squad) commits a patently unethical or illegal act.
1. Photographer: Shashi Bellamkonda
Date: September 30, 2012
Title/Description: View from my window - Superdome in Green in the Rain. New colored lights illuminate
the Superdome at night.
Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license
(click on the title/link to view the photo, credits, and permissions).
-- Anthony Hopper
#sports #football #legal #ethics #opinion #NFL #Saints
Wednesday
NFL and Safety (Concussions): My Thoughts
It seems that almost every article and radio comment about the NFL nowadays deals with some type of safety issue, ie. concussions, bounties, the intentional injuring of opposing players, etc. However, it appears to me that most of these discussions, while interesting, only focus on a narrow topic, ie. are bounty systems ethical, should Kurt Warner have criticized the game that made him a star (courtesy of several discussions on ESPN radio), etc. None of the ones that I have looked at focus on the larger topic of "The concussion issue aside, do football players have better/worse long-term health outlooks than the general population?"
I would break the topic down into 3 groups: 1) People who play football through high school
2) People who play football through college
3) People who play football professionally
I would measure the health outcomes of these three groups against the health outcomes for the population in general. I think this information is much more valuable to football players in particular and the general populace (eg. parents who are thinking about signing their kids up for little league football) than the hearsay, single person point of views that pervade the airwaves and newspapers.
For instance, if I had children (I do not), and was thinking about signing them up for little league football, I would be much more worried if Group #1 lives 5 years less than average or has 2X the chance of developing such and such conditions than I would be about one particular incident, which might not be reflective of the norm. Ditto for the young men (and sometimes women) who are thinking about participating in high school, college, or professional football leagues.
As for the NFL, I think that it has an obligation to undertake these studies (at the professional level) if they have not been performed already. If the NFL is reticent, then the NFLPA has an obligation to its player members to undertake these studies. These organizations have a further obligation of giving the results to NFL prospects (and current players). In other words, the NFLPA could say, "Okay, if you play football, you are 2X as likely to suffer from this disease, and 3X as likely to get this one, etc. Oh, and by the way, some people might try to injure you on purpose."
Once the NFL and/or the NFLPA have given the information to the player, they have done their duty. Players can decide for themselves whether the benefits are worth the risks. Let's face it. Everything we do in life carries some type of risk. Most jobs in fact entail at least a minimal amount of risk. Even a desk job comes with risks; if I sit in a chair and stare at a computer screen all day, I might be more prone to developing heart disease or other illnesses (as a result of a sedentary lifestyle). As long as people are fully informed of the risks of a particular job, they should have the final say in whether they will perform that task.
Now of course, the company (or in this case the NFL), does have some obligation to look out for its employees. Soldiers don't go into battle without helmets; workers don't go into hazardous areas without HAZMAT suits, and players should not get on the field unless they possess the latest in personal safety equipment. Nonetheless, at some point, it is up to the player (or his/her parent) to make the final decision; it is up to them to decide if the risk is worth the reward.
As an aside, I apologize if this post meanders a bit. I wanted to posit my true feelings on the issue. So, what i have written comes off the top of my head; it is a reaction to what I've been hearing and reading.
Update: Thanks to Jax's blog, Raviolis & Waterworks, for pointing to this Fox Sports article by Alex Marvez discussing a NIOSH study of NFL players which shows that, on average, they live longer...The study might not cover all the bases, ie. compare players to other groups regarding non-life threatening diseases like arthritis; however, those studies are likely out there as well.
2nd photo courtesy of Marianne O'Leary (photographer/owner)
via Wikimedia Commons. The image shows Roger Goodell at the 2009 NFL
Draft. Ms. O'Leary has authorized re-use of the photo via a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
I would break the topic down into 3 groups: 1) People who play football through high school
2) People who play football through college
3) People who play football professionally
I would measure the health outcomes of these three groups against the health outcomes for the population in general. I think this information is much more valuable to football players in particular and the general populace (eg. parents who are thinking about signing their kids up for little league football) than the hearsay, single person point of views that pervade the airwaves and newspapers.For instance, if I had children (I do not), and was thinking about signing them up for little league football, I would be much more worried if Group #1 lives 5 years less than average or has 2X the chance of developing such and such conditions than I would be about one particular incident, which might not be reflective of the norm. Ditto for the young men (and sometimes women) who are thinking about participating in high school, college, or professional football leagues.
As for the NFL, I think that it has an obligation to undertake these studies (at the professional level) if they have not been performed already. If the NFL is reticent, then the NFLPA has an obligation to its player members to undertake these studies. These organizations have a further obligation of giving the results to NFL prospects (and current players). In other words, the NFLPA could say, "Okay, if you play football, you are 2X as likely to suffer from this disease, and 3X as likely to get this one, etc. Oh, and by the way, some people might try to injure you on purpose."
Now of course, the company (or in this case the NFL), does have some obligation to look out for its employees. Soldiers don't go into battle without helmets; workers don't go into hazardous areas without HAZMAT suits, and players should not get on the field unless they possess the latest in personal safety equipment. Nonetheless, at some point, it is up to the player (or his/her parent) to make the final decision; it is up to them to decide if the risk is worth the reward.
As an aside, I apologize if this post meanders a bit. I wanted to posit my true feelings on the issue. So, what i have written comes off the top of my head; it is a reaction to what I've been hearing and reading.
Update: Thanks to Jax's blog, Raviolis & Waterworks, for pointing to this Fox Sports article by Alex Marvez discussing a NIOSH study of NFL players which shows that, on average, they live longer...The study might not cover all the bases, ie. compare players to other groups regarding non-life threatening diseases like arthritis; however, those studies are likely out there as well.
1st photo courtesy of Stephen Horncastle (photographer/owner) via Wikimedia Commons. It is from geograph.org.uk and part of the public domain via a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 license.
(photographer/owner) via Wikimedia Commons. The image shows Roger Goodell at the 2009 NFL Draft. Ms. O'Leary has authorized re-use of the photo via a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
Thursday
When Technological Advances Hit Cultural Roadblocks
I have just finished reading an article self-driving cars written by John Markoff for the on-line version of The New York Times. The article is titled, "Collision in the Making Between Self-Driving Cars and How the World Works" and is available here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/technology/googles-autonomous-vehicles-draw-skepticism-at-legal-symposium.html?_r=2 .
Reading the article reminds me that the growth and development of an innovative tech system or medicine is often more dependent on cultural, legal, and economic issues than it is on advances in technology or know how. Societal inertia has often stalled or thwarted new innovations. As an example, healthcare facilities would be much better off if they all adopted and properly utilized the latest EHR systems (complete with clinical practice guidelines, decision analysis tools, data collection features, POE systems, etc.). However, the implementation rate has been painfully slow and this is due more than anything else to cultural and economic factors which are specific to the healthcare industry. At the same time, some technologies which look really cool on the drawing board or in a research lab prove to be uneconomical (or a huge liability issue) when the attempt is made to utilize them in real world settings. Hence, the self-propelled walkways that figured prominently in science fiction stories of the 50s and 60s are by and large restricted to airports. Sometimes a society adopts a culture too quickly; its citizens (and leaders) don't take the time to assess the technology's impact on cherished ideals or time worn work patterns. This situation routinely impacts corporations; they buy a new software package or automated system, or some other technology believing it will save them money. In reality, these companies becomes more inefficient once they implement the change because their employees do not alter their workflow patterns to successfully handle the changes (or sometimes because the employees rebel at the changes forced on them as a result of the new tech). These issues certainly provide food for thought.
Clip art courtesy of Microsoft Office
Reading the article reminds me that the growth and development of an innovative tech system or medicine is often more dependent on cultural, legal, and economic issues than it is on advances in technology or know how. Societal inertia has often stalled or thwarted new innovations. As an example, healthcare facilities would be much better off if they all adopted and properly utilized the latest EHR systems (complete with clinical practice guidelines, decision analysis tools, data collection features, POE systems, etc.). However, the implementation rate has been painfully slow and this is due more than anything else to cultural and economic factors which are specific to the healthcare industry. At the same time, some technologies which look really cool on the drawing board or in a research lab prove to be uneconomical (or a huge liability issue) when the attempt is made to utilize them in real world settings. Hence, the self-propelled walkways that figured prominently in science fiction stories of the 50s and 60s are by and large restricted to airports. Sometimes a society adopts a culture too quickly; its citizens (and leaders) don't take the time to assess the technology's impact on cherished ideals or time worn work patterns. This situation routinely impacts corporations; they buy a new software package or automated system, or some other technology believing it will save them money. In reality, these companies becomes more inefficient once they implement the change because their employees do not alter their workflow patterns to successfully handle the changes (or sometimes because the employees rebel at the changes forced on them as a result of the new tech). These issues certainly provide food for thought.Clip art courtesy of Microsoft Office
Wednesday
The ACA Is Likely to Exacerbate the Trend towards Delayed Adulthood among 25 to 34 Year Olds
In looking back through some of my old papers, I noticed a faux press release that I created for one of my graduate classes. Two caveats here: 1) this is not a real press release and 2) the statements in the release do not represent ad hoc thoughts but instead refer to carefully crafted/edited views. Nonetheless, I think the document will provide readers with some valuable information or talking points. If anyone is interested, I can post the full paper on here.
Contact: Anthony Hopper For Release on 12/6/2010
Telephone: 434-249-2994
E-mail: amh42@georgetown.edu
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Is Likely to Exacerbate
the Trend towards Delayed Adulthood among 25 to 34 Year Olds
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will likely encourage the continuation of a trend, developing for several decades, in which the transition period between youth and adulthood is delayed until one’s late twenties or early thirties. The issue brief explores this topic as it relates specifically to Americans between the ages of 25 and 34. This research provides important information for policymakers as well as for the general public because it describes changes that will impact cherished cultural, economic, and social norms.
The Affordable Care Act contains two, key sections which are likely to encourage Americans, between the ages of 25 and 34, to delay transitioning from the protected, transient lifestyles that defined their teenage years and their early twenties. One of these segments, “Title I,” contains language which reinforces the perception that many people in their late twenties are not ready for all of the cares and responsibilities that come with adulthood. At the same time, its creation of state sponsored healthcare exchanges and its subsidization of the insurance coverage provided by these entities may attenuate the need for people, aged 25-34, to secure full-time, long-term employment or to marry.
“Title V” of the Affordable Care Act will also likely have a significant influence on young Americans. This section of the bill allocates money towards loan forgiveness programs, funds training for nurses, and sponsors other initiatives, which are designed both to increase the number of healthcare professionals and to improve the quality of this workforce. These actions will likely encourage many people in their late twenties or early thirties either to stay in school longer or to return to college, thus further encouraging a trend towards older students which has been developing for the past few decades.
One task of this issue brief is to describe the ways in which these segments of the Affordable Care Act will help exacerbate a trend in which Americans, between the ages of 25 and 34, delay getting married, having children, seeking long-term employment, and taking on other responsibilities which are considered part of being an adult. However, the paper will also briefly touch on some of the cultural, social, and economic changes that may result from the continuance of this trend, including adjustments in parents’ relationships with their adult children, changes in childrearing behaviors, and the redefinition of what it means to be an adult. As such, it contains pertinent information for both legislators and the general public. They can refer to the data in this document to help them understand policy related issues involving 25-34 year olds.
This press release has been created by Anthony Hopper to promote his upcoming issue brief. Copies of this document will be available to the public on Friday, December 10. Please contact Anthony Hopper on or after this date if you are interested in obtaining a facsimile of this paper.
Sunday
If I Were President: Some Ideas to Reduce the Deficit (in the U.S.)
I think it is important to come right out and say that I don't have a background in tax law, in politics, or in economics. Nonetheless, like all Americans (or most of them anyway), I do have ideas and opinions concerning the U.S. deficit. I also sometimes wonder what it would be like to be the President of the U.S. Conflating the two memes...
If I were President of the U.S. and wanted to find ways to work with Congress to reduce the budget deficit as a percentage of GDP, I would:
a) Move to sell any unused or under-utilized public buildings within two years. This action would generate capital in two ways. First, the government would obtain money up front from the buyers of these properties. Second, it would no longer have to pay monthly fees to maintain these properties. Of course, some issues would arise during this process and would need to be resolved, including the fact that some buildings will be hard to sell, will not secure a fair bid, have historical value, etc.; however, this is the case with regards to any federal scheme to raise additional revenue or to cut expenses.
Perhaps the President (or some of his advisers) has already undertaken this project, or maybe he has considered it and decided not to pursue it. I'm sure that he has authorized the sell of some of the buildings; however, I doubt he has considered letting the public bid on all unused properties (and tried to complete the task in such a short time frame). Either way, it is worth discussing in my opinion. I think the notion will score points with the public (at least the ones not directly impacted by any selling) and would also garner support from Republicans.
One drawback: I don't know how much money it will raise.
b) Increase fees at National Parks and at other federally sponsored tourist attractions. That move might not win the public's acclaim, but it would be a feasible one. I am not sure if fee increases need to be approved by Congress. If so, Republicans (and Democrats) might be able to agree to hike rates at some/all of the nation's federally run parks, museums, etc.
As with the prior suggestion, I do not know how much money the federal government would bring in via these fee hikes; it might not add much to the coffers, especially if it decreases the census rates (admission numbers) at the federal facilities.
c) Perhaps it would be feasible to review federal agencies to see if they can run more efficiently, can create money-saving synergies (ie. reduce redundant services between agencies), or in other ways reduce their expenses. Additionally, as President, I would at least broach the subject of privatizing some government services if feasible and appropriate. If one does not already exist, I would also think about either creating a federal agency to routinely audit the performance of its fellow government organizations or hiring private firms to perform these audits.
The potential downsides to this type of move are legion and include public dissatisfaction, unintended, deleterious impacts on federal employee morale and performance, push back from groups who will be disadvantaged by the new rules, etc. At the same time, I would not be able to complete this project quickly. Rather, it would take months or years to finish this task. If nothing else, I would ensure that I obtained input from all relevant stakeholders before making any decisions; that process would take a long time to complete.
One benefit of this money saving project--I would probably be able to secure bi-partisan support for at least some of the changes (assuming that I need Congress' approval at all).
d) I would also suggest that the government reform the tax code as it concerns businesses in order to encourage large, multinational firms to repatriate money in the U.S. and to hire additional workers. I realize that the President and many members of Congress, as well as a host of pundits, have discussed this issue; however, they have not yet presented any proposals for achieving this task. With that in mind, I would quietly consult experts in the relevant fields to help me and my staff construct a framework for tax reform. I would then submit this blueprint to Congress.
The tax laws are extremely complex and the issues related to reforming them even more Byzantine. We would have to identify the stakeholders involved, the impacts (both direct and indirect) of any changes, etc. At the same time, such a move on my part would not only provide me with leverage in any debate, it would also be publicly popular (or at least it might be publicly popular).
The one thing I would stress is that the proposed changes to tax law should be guided by empirical methods and not by ideology. Additionally, I and my staff would make it a point to become cognizant of the key, potential consequences of any proposed tax changes, as we would ultimately be responsible for any benefits/harms that arose from the tax reforms.
e) I would ask Congress to increase funding for the IRS by a significant amount in its next budget. I realize that this topic was brought up unsuccessfully during the last budget debate. However, I think I might be able to convince at least some Republicans to support this measure if I can demonstrate that the funding hike meets neo-conservative (or neo-liberal) objectives, ie. to ensure a free market for the exchange of goods or something like that.
These are my thoughts on the issue. They are neither innovative nor erudite; nonetheless, they might provide something of value to readers.
Anthony
If I were President of the U.S. and wanted to find ways to work with Congress to reduce the budget deficit as a percentage of GDP, I would:
a) Move to sell any unused or under-utilized public buildings within two years. This action would generate capital in two ways. First, the government would obtain money up front from the buyers of these properties. Second, it would no longer have to pay monthly fees to maintain these properties. Of course, some issues would arise during this process and would need to be resolved, including the fact that some buildings will be hard to sell, will not secure a fair bid, have historical value, etc.; however, this is the case with regards to any federal scheme to raise additional revenue or to cut expenses.
Perhaps the President (or some of his advisers) has already undertaken this project, or maybe he has considered it and decided not to pursue it. I'm sure that he has authorized the sell of some of the buildings; however, I doubt he has considered letting the public bid on all unused properties (and tried to complete the task in such a short time frame). Either way, it is worth discussing in my opinion. I think the notion will score points with the public (at least the ones not directly impacted by any selling) and would also garner support from Republicans.
One drawback: I don't know how much money it will raise.
b) Increase fees at National Parks and at other federally sponsored tourist attractions. That move might not win the public's acclaim, but it would be a feasible one. I am not sure if fee increases need to be approved by Congress. If so, Republicans (and Democrats) might be able to agree to hike rates at some/all of the nation's federally run parks, museums, etc.
As with the prior suggestion, I do not know how much money the federal government would bring in via these fee hikes; it might not add much to the coffers, especially if it decreases the census rates (admission numbers) at the federal facilities.
c) Perhaps it would be feasible to review federal agencies to see if they can run more efficiently, can create money-saving synergies (ie. reduce redundant services between agencies), or in other ways reduce their expenses. Additionally, as President, I would at least broach the subject of privatizing some government services if feasible and appropriate. If one does not already exist, I would also think about either creating a federal agency to routinely audit the performance of its fellow government organizations or hiring private firms to perform these audits.
The potential downsides to this type of move are legion and include public dissatisfaction, unintended, deleterious impacts on federal employee morale and performance, push back from groups who will be disadvantaged by the new rules, etc. At the same time, I would not be able to complete this project quickly. Rather, it would take months or years to finish this task. If nothing else, I would ensure that I obtained input from all relevant stakeholders before making any decisions; that process would take a long time to complete.
One benefit of this money saving project--I would probably be able to secure bi-partisan support for at least some of the changes (assuming that I need Congress' approval at all).
d) I would also suggest that the government reform the tax code as it concerns businesses in order to encourage large, multinational firms to repatriate money in the U.S. and to hire additional workers. I realize that the President and many members of Congress, as well as a host of pundits, have discussed this issue; however, they have not yet presented any proposals for achieving this task. With that in mind, I would quietly consult experts in the relevant fields to help me and my staff construct a framework for tax reform. I would then submit this blueprint to Congress.
The tax laws are extremely complex and the issues related to reforming them even more Byzantine. We would have to identify the stakeholders involved, the impacts (both direct and indirect) of any changes, etc. At the same time, such a move on my part would not only provide me with leverage in any debate, it would also be publicly popular (or at least it might be publicly popular).
The one thing I would stress is that the proposed changes to tax law should be guided by empirical methods and not by ideology. Additionally, I and my staff would make it a point to become cognizant of the key, potential consequences of any proposed tax changes, as we would ultimately be responsible for any benefits/harms that arose from the tax reforms.
e) I would ask Congress to increase funding for the IRS by a significant amount in its next budget. I realize that this topic was brought up unsuccessfully during the last budget debate. However, I think I might be able to convince at least some Republicans to support this measure if I can demonstrate that the funding hike meets neo-conservative (or neo-liberal) objectives, ie. to ensure a free market for the exchange of goods or something like that.
These are my thoughts on the issue. They are neither innovative nor erudite; nonetheless, they might provide something of value to readers.
Anthony
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)