January 08, 2010

Political polls have often found that many Americans are in favor of the budget being balanced and cutting government spending. Moreover, Americans are quick to judge politicians on their handling of the budget (A Pew Research poll in November found that 58% disapprove of the job President Obama has done in handling the budget.) So the Pew Research Center wondered, if the public was in charge of the budget, what would they cut? The survey asked "If you were making up the budget for the federal government this year..." would you increase, decrease, or keep the spending the same for the following programs. And they were given a list of 14 programs. Only two programs had more than 20% of Americans say they would decrease spending: economic assistance to needy people around the world (34% say decrease, 33% say keep it the same, 26% say increase) and funding for the State Department and American embassies (28% decrease, 50% same, 9% increase).

For nine of the programs, a plurality wanted to increase government spending. For the other three programs, a plurality wanted to keep the spending level the same. Two of the programs that most people preferred an increase in spending are the programs that, combined, account for nearly half of the American budget: Medicare (53% want an increase) and defense (40% want an increase). The other programs that a plurality said they would increase spending include education (67%), veterans' benefits (63%), health care (61%), energy (41%), assistance for the unemployed (44%), combating crime (45%), and environmental protection (43%). So, Americans want government spending to be cut, but they don't want any government programs cut -- they actually want funding to increase to many of these programs. (Full Story)

I don't think it's a coincidence that the two programs that had at least 20% say they would cut funding are ones that deal with "foreign" issues. Most of the increases were with domestic programs. I think a lot of people feel like we don't need to be spending our money on foreign interests (unless it's defense) -- even though it's not simply "foreign interests"; these global issues affect everyone. And where's the sense of moral obligation to help people out?

But I can't say I was surprised that the program that most people wanted to cut spending on was foreign aid (economic assistance to needy people around the world). It's been a long-held belief in this country that the US spends way more on foreign aid than they actually do. When people are asked how much of the US budget goes to foreign aid, people greatly overestimate. A 2005 Washington Post survey asked Americans what were the two largest areas of spending by the federal government and 49% said foreign aid was one of those programs. A 2002 survey by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations asked Americans what percentage of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid. The median answer was 25% and the average was 31%. In actuality, less than 1% of the federal budget goes to foreign aid. In fact, in 2007 "international affairs" made up 1.2% of the federal budget. International affairs includes both foreign aid as well as money for the operation and administration of embassies and consulates and various State Department programs. So, the two programs that would be cut by the American people (according to the Pew survey) only account for about 1.2% of the federal budget. And of that 1.2% for international affairs, only about 38% of that goes to foreign aid (for development, humanitarian aid, emergency food aid). That means only 0.44% of the budget goes to foreign aid. Furthermore, in 2007 only 0.16% of our Gross National Income went to foreign aid. Interestingly, that Chicago Council of Foreign Relations survey found that Americans thought the "appropriate amount" of the federal budget that should go to foreign aid is 10% (the median). If that amount was followed, we'd be giving more than twenty times the amount we currently give in foreign aid.

January 07, 2010

A report from the Southern Education Foundation has found that the South has become the first region in the US where more than half of public students are poor and more than half are members of ethnic or racial minorities. The report said that the shift was not a result of white flight from public schools to private schools -- a trend that they say spiked during desegregation and has not had much effect on school demographic since the early 1980s. Instead, what has contributed to the change is an influx of Latinos and other ethnic groups, the return of African-Americans to the South, and higher birth rates among African-American and Latino families. Four of the fifteen states in the report -- Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas -- now have a majority of both low-income and minority students. Only one Southern state, Virginia, has neither.

The article also mentioned research from the Pew Hispanic Center. They found that more minority students in a district does not mean that classrooms are more integrated. Instead, research shows that most white children in the South attend predominantly white schools and an even higher percentage of African-American and Hispanic students attend predominantly minority schools. Furthermore, minority schools tend to be larger, have higher student-teacher ratios, and have higher poverty rates. The co-director of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA said that Southern schools are more segregated now than they were at the height of integration in the '70s and '80s. (Full Story)

---

A study by a Columbia Law School professor found that while law schools added about 3,000 seats for first-year students from 1993 to 2008, both the percentage of African-American and Mexican-American law students declined in that period. In 1993, among the 43,520 new law students, 7.9% were African-American and 1.6% were Mexican-American. In 2008, among the 46,500 new law students, 7.3% were African-American and 1.4% were Mexican-American. While some might say that is not a huge drop, it is still a decline -- when it should be an increase; and the low percentages are indicative of a problem as well.

From 2003 to 2008, 61% of African-American applicants and 46% of Mexican-American applicants were denied acceptance to all of the law schools that they applied for; this is compared to 34% for white applicants. In that same time period (1993-2008), both African-American and Mexican-American applicants improved their college GPAs and their scores on the LSAT. The researcher said, "Even though their scores and grades are improving, and are very close to those of white applicants, African-Americans and Mexican-Americans are increasingly being shut out of law school."

Interestingly, the study found that Hispanics other than Mexicans and Puerto Ricans made gains in enrollment -- from 3.1% of new law students in 1993 to 5.1% in 2008. The researcher said he did not have an explanation for the disparity, particularly because the 2008 LSAT scores among Mexican-Americans were, on average, one point higher than those of Hispanics, and one point lower in 1993.

The problem of low admissions among these groups is not because of a drop in applicants. The number of African-American and Mexican-American students applying to law school has been relatively constant, or growing slightly, in the past two decades. An associate dean of Thomas M. Cooley Law School's campus in Auburn Hills, Michigan (which enrolls a high percentage of African-American students) said, "A big part of it is that many schools base their admissions criteria not on whether students have a reasonable chance of success, but how those LSAT numbers are going to affect their rankings in the U.S. News & World Report. Deans get fired if the rankings drop, so they set their LSAT requirements very high. We're living proof that it doesn't have to be that way, that those students with the slightly lower LSAT scores can graduate, pass the bar, and be terrific lawyers." The co-president of the Society of American Law Teachers said that while she understands the importance of rankings, law schools must address this issue of diversity -- "if you're so concerned with rankings, you're going to lose a generation." The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2003, in Grutter vs. Bollinger, that race can be taken into account in law school admissions because the diversity of the student body is a compelling state matter. The associate dean from Thomas M. Cooley Law school added, "What's happening, as the American population becomes more diverse, is that the lawyer corps and judges are remaining predominantly white." (Full Story)

January 06, 2010

Huge surprise: The Religious Right and anti-gay groups are unhappy about Obama appointing a transgender individual to be senior technical adviser for the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry. Amanda Simpson (who is a male-to-female) has worked in the field for over 30 years. Despite that she's qualified, these groups say she was appointed because of a "transgender quota" (the Obama administration is going crazy overboard with that transgender quota. It was zero and now it's one. They are out of control!). And the associate dean of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University just does not get it: "This isn't like appointing an African-American in order to try to provide diversity and right some kind of discriminatory wrong. This is about political correctness." So, in his mind, it's ok for African-Americans to be appointed to provide diversity and to help with discrimination...but gay and transgender individuals are completely different? And it sounds like he assumes African-Americans are only appointed because of affirmative action... On the other side, transgender rights supporters applaud Obama for not letting fear of bigotry affect his decision. (Full Story)

---

An annual survey from The Conference Board research group found that only 45% of workers are happy with their jobs, dropping from 49% in 2008. The group said this was the lowest level of job satisfaction they have recorded in twenty-two years. The group says that the recession was only party to blame. Instead, workers were dissatisfied because incomes were not keeping up with inflation and because fewer workers were finding their jobs interesting. (Full Story)

---

The situation in southern Somalia is getting so bad that the UN food agency (the World Food Program) has suspended aid there. The UN decision to leave and the lack of aid affects up to one million people. The UN agency left because of their safety. Between January 2008 and Fall 2009, 43 aid workers were killed. Four humanitarian workers are still being held captive. The agency said that armed groups had demanded they remove women from their teams. Other agencies, including CARE International and Doctors Without Borders, have already pulled out of southern Somalia because of the attacks and kidnappings. The UN agency is moving their staff and supplies to northern and central Somalia.

Southern Somalia is mostly controlled by the al-Shabab Islamist group, which is believed to have ties to al-Qaeda. In southern Somalia, the people face hunger, drought, and daily violence and fear caused by the Islamic militants. There has not been a stable, effective central government in Somalia for 20 years. Aid agencies estimate that 3.6 million Somalians (out of the country's population of 8 million) now need food and other aid. (Full Story)

---

Senate Republicans are very much against the idea of creating an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Legislation to create a consumer protection agency was proposed in response to the financial crisis. This agency would look out for consumers -- for example, making sure financial products like mortgages and credit cards are fair, more transparent, and easily understood. Currently, the Federal Reserve is technically responsible for consumer protection, but their primary purpose is to protect the safety of the financial industry. Consumer protection has often been ignored.

Initially, Republicans pushed for total elimination of the CFPA, but they say they are now willing to agree to it if the CFPA is made subservient to a larger financial regulatory agency. This larger agency could modify or eliminate any protections deemed hurtful to business -- or, in other words, they can override the CFPA. Bob Bennett (R-Utah, who moonlights as Skeletor) said, "That doesn't mean we're opposed to consumer protection, but a single agency whose sole purpose is consumer protection would be really bad news." In other words, 'Oh, we're fine with consumer protection...we just don't want someone that will focus on it or make it a priority. We don't want it to have any teeth.' Yeah, it sounds like you're really in favor of consumer protection... The only time Republicans are in favor of regulation, it's when they want regulation to be regulated.

Consumer advocates say that the CFPA must have strong, independent authority to create and enforce rules. A policy counsel with Public Citizen's Congress Watch explained, "For reform groups, this effort will not be successful without a stand-alone consumer agency. Putting consumer protection into a new, larger banking agency takes the failed structure of the Fed and the other existing banking agencies and consolidates it. These regulators repeatedly prioritized banks' business practices over consumers' financial security, and this proposal is a recipe for more of the same." (Full Story)

When did consumer protections become such a horrible thing? How long can consumer protections be ignored or overrode because it's "hurtful to business"? What about the people? Republicans argue that tight consumer protection regulations can result in businesses closing and jobs being lost. That is just a sensational scare tactic. The same things were said when worker protections groups fought for 40 hour work weeks, fought against child labor, and fought against harmful work conditions. Companies didn't all collapse once these things were instituted (unless it was a company relying on child labor, which should have collapsed) -- it was a minor setback. And now these working conditions are "normal". If companies actually go out of business because they're required to put out a fair, transparent product that gives the person what they paid for...then that company deserved to fail and shouldn't be selling things to consumers in the first place. The companies that would go out of business because of consumer protection regulations are those that have a business model built on being unscrupulous. Consumer protections should already be a given; it's sad these things have to even be instituted (or even be debated on being instituted).

January 04, 2010

Apparently the Canadian territory Nunavut has an H1N1 vaccine surplus. There is a surplus of about 5,000 doses. (Full Story)

Heather: A surplus of 5,000?! Does Nunavut even have 5,000 people?! [To those not aware of the Canadian territory, they do in fact have a population larger than 5,000 (I think it's closer to 30,000) but it's in Northern Canada and has a lot of inhabitable places.]

Eagan: I guess it's better than them having "none-of-it" OH!

---

Interesting article on how Aboriginal Canadians (First Nations people) feel about the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. This is the first time that aboriginals have been official partners in the Olympics and have been involved in every aspect of the Games starting from the bidding process. The peoples involved include the Lil'wat, Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations (they have joined forces and call their group the Four Host First Nations). Many of the sporting events will take place on ancestral land.

For some First Nations people, they feel this Olympic partnership is a unique opportunity to show their culture to the world. First Nations people have suffered a long history of poverty, unemployment, drug and alcohol addiction, and high rates of suicide -- and some see the Olympics as a great time time to rebrand themselves in a positive way. The head of the Four Host First Nations group explained, "What people will learn is that we're business people, we're entrepreneurs, we're visual artists, and we're performing artists. You know our culture is really living and thriving today and it's been through challenges... We no longer want to be seen as just Dime Store Indians, just beads and feathers. I think for us those stereotypes are very important for us to break." Many see this as an opportunity to educate the world about their culture. A new Squamish Lil'wat Cultural Center was built in Whistler with provincial and federal government funding, and the history of the tribes will be taught to visitors. In central Vancouver there will be $3.5 million Aboriginal Pavilion which is a multi-media center that will display aboriginal art, business, culture, and sport to visitors. Every Olympic venue will have aboriginal art in it, as well as an aboriginal figure that will welcome visitors. A First Nations artist designed the Olympic medals. Moreover, Olympic organizers have given $54 million (Canadian) worth of contracts to more than 100 aboriginal businesses. A Chief from the Squamish Nation says that the recent recognition of native culture is important after years of suppression by the Canadian establishment. He said, "In the history of this country there was legislation created by the governments wherein we couldn't practice our culture, our traditions. They thought it was not right."

However, there are some First Nations people that are hesitant about the Olympics. Some feel that the Olympics are a waste of money and resources that could be better spent on serious issues that First Nations people face -- like homelessness and addiction (especially in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside). Some aboriginals in British Columbia don't like the Olympics being held in Vancouver because they feel the land was stolen, and that the construction of the Olympic facilities has desecrated or disrespected their lands. Many First Nations people say the real test will be whether their culture will continue to be included and celebrated once the Olympics are over. (Full Story)

I think it's good to give more attention and provide more of a platform to First Nations culture and history. However, I agree with the sentiment that hopefully this lasts beyond the Olympics. I also hope the Olympic committee's intent on including First Nations people is sincere. That they genuinely want to be inclusive of First Nations people and have the world be exposed to their culture -- and not that they have other motives. I hope this isn't an effort to give the Games an "exotic" theme. Like "oh wouldn't this be so quaint to have native imagery and celebration, and it will all be so exciting." I also hope this inclusion isn't just a means to use native land for Olympic development. Regardless of the intentions, I do like that there is more positive exposure to First Nations history and culture.

---

President Obama has lifted a 22-year immigration ban that wouldn't allow individuals with HIV/AIDS to immigrate to the US. The US was one of just 12 countries that had such a ban. Obama said the ban was not compatible with US plans to be a leader in the fight against HIV/AIDS. The US is also planning on hosting the global HIV/AIDS summit for the first time in 2012. (Full Story)

January 03, 2010

About 6 million Americans receiving foods stamps report that they have no other income. They describe themselves as unemployed and receiving no cash aid -- no welfare, unemployment insurance, pensions, child support, or disability pay. Their numbers were increasing before the recession due to tougher welfare laws which made it more difficult for poor people to get cash aid. But the numbers have increased even more after the recession -- there has been a 50% increase over the past two years. Now about 1 in 50 Americans live in a household with a reported income that consists of nothing but a food stamp card (this includes 1.2 million children).

"Members of this straitened group range from displaced strivers like Ms. Bermudez [who had a job selling Gulf Coast homes and made a six-figure salary, but lost it all because of the housing bust. She is looking for work, but facing a lot of rejection] to weathered men who sleep in shelters and barter cigarettes. Some draw on savings or sporadic under-the-table jobs. Some move in with relatives. Some get noncash help, like subsidized apartments. While some go without cash incomes only briefly before securing jobs or aid, others rely on food stamps alone for many months."

Some experts say the lack of cash support shows the safety net is torn. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (the main cash welfare program) has scarcely expanded during the recession. Unemployment insurance has grown but still doesn't cover half of the unemployed. For many people, food stamps are the most reliable. Food stamps have taken on a greater role in the safety net because there is more support for food stamps. Food stamps have more political support because the benefits buy only food so there is less suspicion of abuse. Furthermore, the federal government pays for the whole benefit, which results in states being more likely to maximize enrollment -- compared to programs where states have to share the costs. The president of the Food Research and Action Center said, "The food-stamp program is being asked to do too much. People need income support."

John Linder, a Republican Representative from Georgia, who serves on the House panel on welfare policy, said, "We're at risk of creating an entire class of people, subset of people, just comfortable getting by living off the government. " How "comfortable" does he thinks these people's lives are? Living off of food stamps certainly does not sounds like a comfortable existence to me. In June 2009 the average monthly food stamp benefit was $133 per person. And that only covers your food; you can't purchase other things with that money. That does not sound like a cushy existence to me. Furthermore, as the article points out, this population isn't made up of people that fit this image Linder envisions -- lazy people living off food stamps and purposely not working. In reality, this population includes people looking for work but are unsuccessful, people that are only temporarily in a position of no income, or people that are living off of their savings. It's not that this entire group consists of people that have come up with this plan to resign themselves to doing absolutely nothing and living off government funding (which, even still, isn't a very comfortable existence). I can't imagine those people make up a large percentage of the group. (Full Story)

January 02, 2010

The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times. There was zero net job creation this decade. Going back to the 1940s, no previous decade had a job growth rate less than 20%. This decade's economic output rose at its slowest rate since the 1930s. Middle-income households made less in 2008 than they did in 1999 (adjusted for inflation). This was the first decade of falling median incomes since figures were first collected in the 1960s. The net worth of American households (the value of their houses, retirement funds, and other assets minus debts) has also declined when adjusted for inflation. In comparison, in every previous decade since the 1950s (when data was first collected), there were sharp gains in the net worth of American households. The president of the Economic Policy Institute said, "This was the first business cycle where a working-age household ended up worse at the end of it than the beginning, and this in spite of substantial growth in productivity, which should have been able to improve everyone's well-being."

This decade was indicative of what happens when an economy relies heavily on borrowed money. The housing bubble that occurred this decade both caused, and was enabled by, a boom in indebtness. Americans borrowed to buy expensive homes and to support consumption more generally; commercial real estate and financial firms borrowed as well. The co-director of economic studies at the Brookings Institute explains, "A big part of what happened this decade was that people engaged in excessively risky behavior without realizing the risks associated. It's true not just among consumers but among regulators, financial institutions, lenders, everyone."

Many are trying to learn the lessons of the Bubble Decade. "At the Federal Reserve, the major lesson that top officials have taken is that bank regulation shouldn't occur in a vacuum; rather than monitor how individual institutions are doing, bank supervisors should try to understand the risks and frailties that the banking system creates for the economy as a whole -- and manage those risks... And the question of how Washington can prevent a recurrence is an overarching theme in the Obama administration's efforts to overhaul the financial system and support growth through investments in clean energy and other areas." (Full Story)

January 01, 2010

Every ten years the US Department of Health and Human Services sets health goals for the nation. They report on progress made in the previous decade and then reassess the goals. Data is still being collected on the 2010 goals and the final report is not due until 2011. However, it's believed that about 20% of the goals were achieved. About 41% of the 1990 measurable goals were achieved; 24% for the 2000 goals.

Some negative findings:

*There are more obese people than a decade ago. The goal for 2010 was to reduce the percentage of adults who are obese to 15%. At the time the goal was set, nearly 25% of all adults were obese. Today, about 34% of adults are obese.

*We eat more salt and fat, not less.

*There is a higher percentage of people with high blood pressure. In 2000, an estimated 28% of adults had high blood pressure. The goal was to reduce that to 16%. Now an estimated 29% of adults have high blood pressure.

*More children have untreated tooth decay. In 2000, about 16% of young children had untreated tooth decay. The goal was to reduce that to 9%. Now about 20% of children have untreated tooth decay.

*The proportion of births by cesarean section increased, not decreased. And the percentage of infants born very small or fragile has increased.

However, there has been some progress: vaccination rates increased; workplace injuries have decreased; and death rates from stroke, cancer, and heart disease are all declining. "To many health officials, simply making progress is a victory. An analysis of 635 of the nearly 1,000 targets for the past decade shows only 117 goals have been met. But progress has been made toward another 332. In other words, there was improvement in 70% of the measures."

Some say that the government set some lofty goals for this previous decade and it's expected that the new goals set for 2020 will be less ambitious and more realistic. They also hope to make the goals more inviting to the public. The federal health official that oversees the Healthy People project said, "We need to strike a balance of setting targets that are achievable and also ask the country to reach. That's a balance that's sometimes a challenge to strike." There is also a push to have the 2020 goals documented online along with links to websites and sources for nutrition and exercise advice, and other information to improve one's health. (Full Story)

I think it's good to have goals, but more help needs to be provided to actually reach those goals. The program lays out the goals, but looks to others to find ways to achieve those goals. The program doesn't provide any funding to meet the targets. If they are serious about achieving better health as a nation, more action needs to be taken to encourage and reach these goals. I think the push for putting the goals online and providing resources to people on nutrition and exercise information is good, but that's only a start. A greater effort needs to be done to improve our nutrition and eating habits, get our country more active, improve our health care system (we need a system that is more accessible and encourages preventative care. It should not be the case that 20% of children have untreated tooth decay), and incorporate the growing knowledge we have about the social determinants of health into public policy (instead of treating health simply as an individual responsibility).

---

The BBC has an article entitled, "Mousavi 'ready to die' for reform in Iran." In a defiant and public response to recent threats from Iran's clerical leaders, Mousavi has said he is not afraid to die for the cause of reform. (Full Story)

To which the Iranian government replied, "We are happy to oblige."