The Fiscal Cliff: To Jump Or Not?

As 2012 draws to a close, the unpleasant issue of the fiscal cliff rears its head at the newly reelected President Obama. The basic premise of the fiscal cliff is that on the end of this year the Bush administration’s, and other, tax cuts will end while spending decreases will go into effect if the Obama administration does not reinstate the programs or stop the planned decreases. This results in the government going over the fiscal cliff and higher taxes in the coming years, however it also reduces spending and public debt growth. The alternative choice is to avoid the fiscal cliff and instead renew the tax cuts and cancel planned spending decreases, which results in lower taxes and stress on the economy, but larger debt growth and more spending.
In short I think the United States Government should avoid the fiscal cliff. First and foremost we are just beginning the road to recovery from a large recession and according to The Bureau of Labor Statistics the current unemployment rates are among the lowest since the beginning of the recession. Stress placed onto our weakened economy could result in it failing to climb out of its pit and a recurrence of the recession that we have worked to get out of for the past few years. Additionally,  the Congressional Budget Office states that if the status quo is kept we will see a greater long term increase in income compared to if the government goes off the fiscal cliff. However, this increase comes at the cost of our debt, which will rocket upwards over the course of time.
A better solution to the problem would lie in not going over the fiscal cliff yet, but instead remaining with the current programs long enough to see the economy strengthen and stabilize, yet not long enough to rack up a massive amount of debt. Once the economy stabilizes solutions can be sought to the problem of public debt, be it committing to another fiscal cliff style plan or something altogether different.

Muzzling the Internet

In my opinion the editorial “Internet Censorship: How heavy a hand should the government play?” posted on Money Talks is an effective and convincing argument on the topic of internet censorship. The author states that rather than infringing on the right to free speech of the American people and attempting to censor the entire internet, they government should instead work towards apprehending those who have committed illegal acts online. The author makes valid and logical suggestions for how the government can go about regulating the internet. For example, localized censorship programs exist for personal computers, and it would be impractical and unconstitutional for the government to completely censor all internet usage. Therefore, the government should work to prevent large and illegal activity while letting users filter out the everyday things that they wish to avoid. The presented arguments allow for our constitution and rights while taking into account practicability. The post presents itself in an easy to comprehend paragraph format, rather than being a gargantuan wall of text, allowing for better reader comprehension. Overall, the post is well written and reasoned, with reasonable arguments being supported by logic.

Increasing NASA's Budget

    The National Aeronautic and Space Administration, more commonly known as NASA, has been at the forefront of extraterrestrial studies and exploration since its inception in July of 1958. However, we run the risk of falling behind other countries as the United States’ space program suffers from budget cuts, cancellation of programs and the pressure to do more with less. Yet the government continues to squander its funds while decreasing NASA’s budget even as inflation makes each dollar buy less and less knowledge. The trend needs to be reversed, and the federal government is the only one who can do it.
    NASA cannot explore the cosmos if they do not have access to the funding needed, and space worthy equipment is not cheap. The 2013 budget has reached one of the lowest points since the creation of the Administration at $17.7 billion. To put this in perspective former Brigadier General Steve Anderson tells The World that the military spent $20 billion for the air conditioning of tents in the Middle East during 2010. Much of the manned portions of the space program have also been cut, with the cancellation of the space shuttle program and the planned return to the moon over the past few years.
    NASA has made outstanding contributions to both the daily lives of citizens and to scientific pursuits. Technology developed under the space program has gone into over 1,800 consumer products and services since Spinoff began its annual publication in 1976. In addition to the technological breakthroughs more money for NASA provides a massive economic benefit for the United States, generating many jobs for scientists, engineers and mathematicians but also requiring the production of specific and unique machinery, both of which aid the US economy and give a greater return than the original funding. Quite possibly the largest reason for increasing funds to the space program is to prevent the extinction of the human race should Earth experience a world ending catastrophe. We must get off of our rock if we are to survive in the long run, and that needs to start with a strong space program.
    In short, the government has reduced NASA’s budget to a shadow of its former self. The United States has nothing to lose by increasing the budget once again, as NASA produces spinoff technologies from its research along with creating many US based jobs for scientists and manufacturing. Not to mention that it works towards ensuring the survival of humanity and pays back more than what is put into the Administration.