Why Palin is Not a Fiscal Conservative

In case you missed it, Sarah Palin left the city of Wasilla with over $20 million dollars in debt. I think we can safely say we don't need a vice president with that hanging over her head.

Joe the Plumber and Why Rich People SHOULD Pay Taxes

At last night's debate, Joe the Plumber came up quite a bit. In case you don't know, Joe Wurzelbacher is a plumber that wants to buy a business that makes over $250,000 a year, or something along those lines. He spoke to Obama at a rally and said that he was worried that Obama's tax plans would affect him. Joe also made an appearance on Fox (Faux) News and called Obama's plan a threat to the American Dream and said he was a socialist since he wanted to "distribute" wealth. Here's the video:



According to Joe, he's just an average, middle-class American, and this tax increase on people making over $250,000 a year infuriates him. Considering that the average middle-class family's annual income is around $42,000, I think it's safe to say that this "average Joe" is quite a bit more well off than most of us. (Another topic of interest may be Joe's connections with the Keating Family)

This may be a view that becomes controversial to many, but I'll share it nonetheless. Generally, people are selfish, especially when it comes to money. They hoard and spend, and purchase outrageously expensive cars and houses to prove to their peers that they're rich and successful. On the other side, you've got families who are being kicked out of their homes, can't afford to eat, and are working multiple jobs and still not making it. I want heavy taxes on the rich, so it can be used to aid those people who don't have the education or time to get better jobs. The money that would be collected through Obama's tax plan would result in better healthcare, better education, and better opportunities for people at the bottom. Success doesn't come from how much wealth you acquire, it comes from leaving a lasting benefit to society as a whole. I make less than $20,000 a year and am putting myself through college, but I don't complain about taxes taken out of my paycheck. I know the money can be used to help better the lives of people who haven't had the same opportunity as I (although the issue of where tax money goes, such as funding unnecessary and deadly wars, is a topic for another post).

The only people complaining about Obama's tax plans are people who fall into that specific bracket. Everyone else sees it as fair. Bush's tax cuts to the rich is one of the reasons he's so lacking in respect. You can't tax poor people and let all the rich folks reap the benefits and get off clean. It's time our government evens it out a bit, for the benefit of all.

John McCain & the Economy

One of my favorite political blogs, Crooks and Liars, has published a fantastic post written by Jon Perr called "McCain's 5 Stages of Grief Over the Economy." Be sure to check it out. Perr makes an especially good point about McCain's distress over the economy being probably the most important issue in this year's election. Watching McCain try to talk about the economy is like watching a dying fish struggling for air. He just can't do it. Repeating over and over that the "fundamentals of our economy are strong" isn't going to go over well with the thousands of Americans who are losing their futures. Then again though, Republicans do have a tendency to try to make things true. Sort of like with the Bush Administration's attempt to convince Americans Iraq and 9/11 are somehow connected. If they say it enough times, it must become true.

As a political science student, almost all of my classes has one point in common: Americans vote with their pockets. Money is the most imporant deciding factor in many American's lives, and if they don't think John McCain understands money (unless you count the houses and cars he and his wife have bought with her fortune), they won't vote for him. Granted, Obama isn't an economist, but he acknowledges that America's economy is in trouble, and something needs to happen to make it right again. He's much less likely than John McCain to just sit on his hand and let another depression settle over the land.

440,000 Jobs Could Be Created by Solar Energy

A new report released by the Solar Energy Industries Association finds that as many as 440,000 permanent jobs, and 1.2 million jobs altogether, could be created if the solar investment tax credit is extended by Congress.

"By extending the solar investment tax credits, Congress can provide an immediate boost to the floundering U.S. economy by creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and injecting billions of dollars of new investment capital into the economy, while at the same time driving down energy costs for consumers," said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), based in Washington, D.C. "The solar energy industry creates jobs that are the foundation of our economy - jobs for manufacturers, construction workers, engineers, roofers, electricians, and plumbers. These jobs are needed now and Congress is in a position to extend the ITC and ensure that these jobs are created here in the U.S."

The coal industry loves to put forth the idea that by creating clean energy, thousands of people will lose their jobs. Thus, one of the more striking finds from SEIA is this:

This figure [440,000 jobs created] reveals the strength of the solar job creation engine when compared to the current 79,000 direct employees of the coal mining industry and the 136,000 direct employees in oil and gas extraction.

Using job losses as an excuse to continue to use coal and other dirty energy sources is mostly a tactic used by the coal industry reps to convince people that coal is still the best thing we have to power our houses. If America and other nations were to quickly switch to clean, renewable energy such as solar and wind, the only people to suffer would be the coal czars.

Full Report: Solar Energy Industries Association

Recession: The Movie

A New Way to Visualize All That Money

The U.S. is in debt. Everyone knows that. But how much?

$9,001,542,833,585.02

A number that large is hard to fathom, so here's a new way:

$87,000,000,000.00

Debt

I'm not going to explain this entire article, mainly because it's so good that I want everyone to read it, but I do want to make one comment.

People in general buy things they can't afford. They're influenced by the glittering consumerism they see everywhere; on TV, in the fancy neighborhood, around their peers. Most people want that huge house on the hill whether they can actually pay for it or not. They might assume that they'll get that huge raise that's rumored, or that it'll all work out. But, in actuality, it doesn't. A lot of people end up having to sell the house and their new car, declare bankruptcy, or find a new way to pay for their things.

The simplest solution is the hardest for most people: voluntary minimalism. You don't need all that junk to make you happy. And you don't have to keep up with your neighbors. If you want a house, buy one that you can afford. You'll probably be happier in a house you can actually continue to live in rather than in one you have to leave because you can no longer afford it.

Anyway, here's the article: The Empire of Dept

Microeconomics: Learn it

I'm currently a freshman in college, majoring in political science. When signing up for classes, I decided to enroll in Microeconomics. It was a topic I knew very little about, and I felt that, as a political science student, I should have at least a basic knowledge of it. In case anyone's wondering about the different between micro- and macro- economics, microeconomics studies individual markets, while macroeconomics looks at the economy as a whole.

Microeconomics presents us with some basic knowledge of supply and demand based on scarcity. Scarcity is the main idea of economics; we can only produce as much as our resources allow us to. As my professor told us the very first day, there is no free lunch. It might be free to you, but resources have gone into the production of that lunch. Opportunity cost is defined as "the amount of other products that must be forgone or sacrificed to produce a unit of a product" (Microeconomics, McConnel, Bree). Thus, those resources used to make that soy burger could have been used to make something else.

One aspect of the topic that we only recently covered in class is absolute and comparable advantage. This had an impact on me, as this is something that we can use in many aspects of our lives. Absolute advantage is when you are the best at something; you have an absolute advantage over everyone else. A comparable advantage is when one person is "less bad" at something than someone else.

No matter how hard I try, I can't think of a way to explain this than how my professor, Dr. Miller, explained it. He used the example of two people stranded on a deserted island; one's a jock and the other is a fisherman. There are two tasks that need to be done on the island to ensure their survival: collecting fresh water from the stream on the middle of the island, and collecting enough fish to survive. If each person were to try to survive on their own, they would ultimately get just enough to live. However, if they opened trade between them, they could each live more comfortably. The fisherman could spend his time catching fish, while the jock ran back and forth from the stream.

But what about a different scenario? Imagine that the fisherman is replaced by nerd that has no absolute advantage over the jock? Should the jock still trade with him. The answer is yes. Even though the jock is better at both fishing and fetching water, the nerd might be less bad at fishing than collecting fresh water. They would both increase what little resources they have by the jock continuing to get the water, and the jock fishing. Sure, they'd eat less, but they'd still have more than if they were on their own.

Dr. Miller's example clearly illuminates how important this topic is. Although the above situation is hypothetical, we can use absolute and comparable advantages, along with other factors of microeconomics, in our everyday lives to make ourselves more successful.