Government – Anna's Alcove

Tag: Government

Campus Pinpoints Details in Occupy

Students from Edinboro University and Mercyhurst College discussed the humane conservative viewpoint of the Occupy Wall Street Movement with Dr. Michael Federici, from the political science department at Mercyhurst, during a panel discussion in the R. Benjamin Wiley Arts & Sciences Center on April 5.

“The problem when we’re general (in our discussions) is we miss the subtleties that allow us to see similarities between things that are seemingly different,” said Federici in his opening comments.

Federici said that humane conservatives tend to take the word “conservative” seriously, in that they believe there is something worth preserving and conserving.

For example, the integrity of the community is important to conservatives and in relation to the Occupy Wall Street Movement, there are several areas of common ground that Federici pointed out.

Concentrated economic power is seen as destructive to local communities, Federici said.

“I’ve seen over the course of decades, small family-run businesses be replaced and forced out by big, giant corporations,” said Federici. “We would call that the ‘Wal-Mart Problem.’”

The Occupy Wall Street Movement claims that they are fighting against the combined power of major banks and multi-national corporations and their influence over politics, Federici said.

Yet, Federici said he doesn’t agree with the way that the Occupy Wall Street Movement demonizes the tens of thousands of people that work there.

“That is precisely the kind of language that I think polarizes politics and discourse,” Federici said.

The idea that it’s possible to transform the entire world is another example of language use that Federici doesn’t agree with. “The very talk of massive, wide-sweeping change is unrealistic and likely to do more harm than good,” he said.

“I think it makes more sense to focus on smaller, local goals that are attainable and to stay within your own community, first and foremost, when it comes to political reform,” Federici stated.

Federici also didn’t agree with the idea that more democracy is better. When we talk about rights and democracy, Federici said, I think you’ve lost touch with how the real world operates

“Political action requires a certain degree of intelligence. Not only intellectual intelligence, but practical intelligence that comes with time and maturity,” said Federici.

In response to Federici’s comments, Sean Fedorko, a recent graduate from Mercyhurst who holds B.A.’s in both Political Science and Philosophy, said that he agrees with what Federici said.

The Occupy Wall Street Movement wants localization and empowerment, Fedorko said.

So, thinking about empowerment in relation to self-interest, Fedorko said, “this is the kernel that really rests in the similarities between humane-conservatism and OWS and maybe (can show) how… these two groups are advocating a very similar goal from very different means.”

The people involved with the movement are advocating a way to regain power because they see an imbalance of power, said Fedorko.

“They seem to be failing, however, due to their knee-jerk reaction to political, economic and social institutions that are failing to foster the good life for the majority: the 99 percent,” Fedorko pointed out.

I think that if the activists were to articulate that what they’re advocating isn’t to seize control of Wall Street and punish them, said Fedorko, but trying to reintegrate Wall Street “as individuals who have sort of lost the way to a community that we all need to foster.”

Brian Barton, a senior majoring in Political Science at Edinboro University, responded next by saying that one of the unifying characteristics of humane conservatism and the movement is the skepticism toward the government.

The problem that conservatives had with the bailouts in 2009 was the government interference in the market, Barton said. They felt that the government was deciding who would be the winner and the losers rather than just allowing the marketplace to decide.

The government intrusion in the marketplace has extended our current economic drought, said Barton, and that’s why I find myself supporting some of what the movement is advocating.

Suzanne Boone, an undergraduate majoring in sociology at Edinboro University, has had a personal experience with the Occupy Wall Street Movement and, in her response to Federici; she said that it’s important to have these conversations in order to get different perspectives on the issue.

“We all have a common thread that holds us together as human beings,” Boone said. It’s all about having respect for the other person and holding that conversation with them about their views and what they’re going to do about them.

“Every single person has to be responsible for the decisions that they make,” said Boone, “and to change the things that they can change within their little area.”

–Anna Tielmann (Taken from The Spectator Vol. III, Issue 23)

Financial Crisis Studied

March 20, 2012 / Anna / 0 Comments

Students and faculty who attended a presentation on February 29 on the U.S. financial crisis, discovered the reasons behind the recession and why the situation hasn’t been improving faster than it has been.

“It didn’t come out of the blue,” said Dr. Samuel Claster, assistant professor of sociology at Edinboro University. “It’s been a 30 year period of corporate deregulation of the banking industry and the financial system as a whole.”

Our economic system has a series of economic and political subsystems and in order for them to each function properly, they have to mix with people’s values, beliefs, attitudes and everyday lifestyles in a process called “socialization,” said Claster.

“Investment banking is the largest industrial sector in America and has been since the late 70s,” Claster said, “but a society cannot sustain when wealth is concentrated in that one economic sector.”

Yet, one of the problems with this is that the system pushes its problems on the citizens and hinders our ability to critically examine and question those in power and domination, Claster pointed out.

This then turns into “irrational functioning,” Claster explained.

America has one of the most advanced health care systems in the world, for example, but is 25th compared to other nations with the number of citizens because of our insurance industry, he said. This is the result of us “living in a society where the many are ruled by a few,” Claster said.

This can be seen in the way the mortgage system works.

In the video “Crisis of Credit Visualized” that Claster showed, Jonathan Jarvis, an interaction and media designer, says investment banks link families with a mortgage lender.

Investment bankers then borrow money and call up the various lenders to buy mortgages, which they then divide up into portions and sell to their different investors.

So, says Jarvis, when the homeowners default on their mortgage, it creates a problem. No one wants to buy a house that isn’t bringing in a profit and then “the whole financial system is frozen.”

“What caused the major collapse illustrates the interconnectedness of the banks in our entire financial system,” said Claster.

On September 7, 2008, the government took over and bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two of the major mortgage lenders, and on October 3, 2008, the Senate passed a revised version of Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

“It’s a capital injection,” said Claster, “and what that means is that some of it is loans to come later, but for now they had to get money to the banks immediately.”

According to MotherJones.com, a news website, the banks were considered too big to fail, so one of the solutions was to make them bigger, such as have Wells Fargo buy Wachovia.

Other problems added to the crisis. Fraud, which is also known as “robosigning,” and Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS), said Claster.

“Robosigning sounds fancy, but it’s actually criminal,” said Claster. It’s when a person gets paid to sign the names of six or so bank presidents to hundreds of different loans without their consent. These are actual legal documents and this happens all over the country.

MERS may be an efficient way to keep track of the thousands of housing mortgages, “but it values efficiency over customer service,” Claster said. “People don’t know who owns their mortgages, they have no contact with them and they don’t know where the actual titles to their mortgages are.”

In 2010, the Frank Dodd Act was put into play. It created a lot of government regulatory councils and commissions so that they could redesign our regulatory system. “Yet, the things that have happened can happen again because new bubbles will burst,” said Claster. “Critics are pushing to break up the banks and stop making them bigger because what we’re actually doing is socializing our problems and privatizing our profits.”

The government also struck a $24 billion deal with Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and other major banks,” said Claster. Seventeen billion dollars would be set aside for credit forgiveness, while $5 billion would be put into cash payouts to those who have been foreclosed upon.

Claster asked, “Is the administration saving the system and making real good economic policy and reform or is it all part of a political strategy that keeps the two party system rolling on?”

Claster stressed that Americans must not always trust governmental decision-making. “We have experience and we have the expertise,” Claster said. “We can’t leave it to the people who rule this country.”

–Anna Tielmann (Taken from The Spectator, Vol. III, Issue 19)

What Happens Next?

December 9, 2010 / Anna / 0 Comments

One election can easily change the future of an entire country. With the Republicans capturing the majority in the House of Representatives and with a Democratic president who hasn’t shown a willingness to modify his current plans for America, it leaves us wondering what will happen next.

With hot topics like the economy, reducing our country’s deficit, and Obama’s healthcare plan being discussed, and both parties not willing to budge from their position, could the federal government be headed toward a repeat of the shutdown that happened in 1995?

On November 2, an estimated 90 million voters came out to vote nationwide. That marked a 42 percent increase from the 2006 midterms. The Republicans 60-seat gain in Congress revealed the frustration of Americans at the government’s sluggish decision-making as they try to revive our dismal economy.

The Democrats had their plans all laid out to get a stimulus and healthcare bill passed, but now the Republican opposition looks to bring them to a grinding halt. If both parties remain unwilling to compromise or move from their positions, we will see a reenactment of the government shutdown of 1995.

When the financial year had ended on September 30, 1995, Democratic President Bill Clinton and the Republican-run government hadn’t come to an agreement on a budget for the next year. Since Clinton was unwilling to negotiate the budget cuts that the Republicans desired, Newt Gingrich, then Speaker of the House, expected the president to give in to his treat to not raise the debt limit. It didn’t happen that way.

By November 14, after politicians from both sides met the previous day to try to resolve the issue, Dick Armey, the House Majority Leader, told Clinton that since he was not willing to accept their budget for the next fiscal year, then they would instigate a government shutdown. The effects of the shutdown were seen immediately seen when different areas of the government were unable to continue working the next day.

The situation was resolved by a temporary spending bill that handled the $800 million needed to pay the laid off government employees, but a second shutdown took place shortly thereafter because of repeated clashes between President Clinton and Congressional Republicans.

Everyone was blaming everyone else. The Republicans blamed Clinton for not agreeing to their budget plan and Clinton blamesd the Republicans for not listening to his suggestions. However, one small, but very untimely, slip of the tongue by Gingrich finally ended the stalemate. He said that he caused the shutdown because Clinton forced him and one of his colleagues to sit at the back Air Force One. The public sided with Clinton and this event helped him to win the 1996 election for the Democrats.

The entire government shutdown of 1995 could have been avoided through both sides being willing to work out a compromise instead of refusing to move from their positions. A government shutdown could be avoided in 2011 if the Republicans and the Democrats work together and combine their best ideas in order to fix the country’s economy.

Set at 14.3 trillion in February we will soon be reaching the debt limit by spring of 2011. Obama and the Democrats argue that if the limit of debt is raised it will open up more opportunities to improve the country’s economy.

They contend it will allow us to borrow more money in order to create more job opportunities through federal aid, to make the necessary changes and reforms to the current tax code and will increase the probability of restoring our economy sooner rather than later.

However, soon to be Speaker of the House John A. Boehner has already told the New York Times that the Republicans have not agreed to support increasing the debt limit in the past and they do not intend to start now.

If the recent elections serve as an accurate gauge of the country’s opinions, then Boehner and the House Republicans have the full support of Americans. Raising the limit on the amount of money we can borrow from other countries will dig us even deeper into the hole that’s been getting worse and worse with each passing year.

The other issue on the table for discussion is Obama’s new healthcare plan. President Obama stated that Congress has to make a decision as soon as possible on the new healthcare plan before taxes go any higher.

Indiana Congressman Mike Pence told CNN that American citizens don’t want a healthcare that forces them to buy insurance and raises their taxes. He says that the Republicans won’t completely throw the idea of a new healthcare plan away, they’ll just vote through a lower-cost option.

The bottom line is that both Republicans and Democrats need to willingly move toward each other as they try to fix the fiscal mess that the country is in. Not everyone will be happy or satisfied, but the end result would be a much better option than a government shutdown.

Unfortunately, today’s political environment is far more divisive and partisan than it was in 1995, and with both extremes in firm control of each respective party, compromise will be immensely difficult. With the stare down about to begin, it’s impossible to tell who will be the first to blink.

For an inside look…. Reactions to the 2010 Midterm Elections

These are two videos from abcnews.com that elaborate a little more on where Obama thinks the government is and what is happening during the meeting of the Democrats and Republicans.

Anna's Alcove

Let's do life together!

Tag: Government

Campus Pinpoints Details in Occupy

Financial Crisis Studied

What Happens Next?

Recent Posts

Meta

Subscribe

Archives

Categories