A Comment on Obamacare

The post “Obamacare” from the blog Shades of Gray spells out why the Obamacare program is beneficial and won’t lead to price hikes and other detrimental effects. The structure of the editorial allows for ease of reading, along with being logical. The first paragraph introduces the issue and tells an anecdote about the high costs associated with medical care, while the second goes on to describe and argue why Obamacare ends up benefiting the citizens of the United States. As for arguments provided, the author gives an anecdote for why Obamacare will not raise the costs of medical care, as the current costs at hospitals are on a roughly 400% markup. Additional reasons in support of Obamacare, from the fact that our current financial situation is not sustainable in the long term to stating that we already pay for the uninsured insurance. Overall, I think that the post makes a very convincing and logical argument for Obamacare through the usage of anecdotes and evidence.

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.

The Gender Gap

    The editors of the National Review posted an editorial to National Review Online suggesting that the Republican Party and the general public should “Ignore the Gender Gap.” The National Review has existed since 1955 as one of the, if not the, top news sources for conservative politics. Though the article is mostly aimed at members of the conservative public, it also seems to be pointed at the Obama campaign and its treatment of the gender issue.
    In their article the editors suggest that the whole gender issue with the current election has no bearing on the popularity or chances of being elected of either candidate. The argument itself is never explicitly stated in the editorial, and the reader must make a small inference. However, the argument relies on the assumption that voters will remain where they currently stand on the gender issue in the election.
    Evidence provided does not clearly state the argument. However, it does support the argument through the usage of quotes from speeches and public statements along with statistics from recent public polls to describing the candidates’ actions and comments to each other. The evidence has been segmented into paragraphs in the article, with each paragraph being about a different aspect of the argument. This results in a mishmash of points being made through the article, when a clear, coherent structure would be better at getting the argument across.
    I have to say that I agree with the argument being made to a point. They state that the gender issue doesn’t matter and that the gender gap between Democrats and Republicans has actually grow since 2008, but it does not matter as the gender arguments that have been thrown back and forth do not affect the likelihood of either gender voting on each candidate. In addition the editors made the point that Romney has been ignoring the gender related comments in favor of proving that he would be a better president works in his favor. While I agree with setting the gender issues aside in favor of proving that he would make a better president helps Romney, I think completely ignoring the gender issues will only harm Romney in the long run as every voter counts in this election.

Defense Budget Cuts

Dr. John C. Hulsman, the president of an international political-risk consulting firm, wrote to the Christian Science Monitor about “A sure-fire place to cut the US defense budget.” In addition to his consulting firm, Dr. Hulsman has written or co-written ten books about either politics or political history. While he submitted his work to the Monitor in order to get it out to the general public, it also seems to aim itself at congress as he proposes action that congress could take in order to improve the US budget.

            Hulsman argues that the United States should abort its MEADS missile and drone defense project that has consistently fallen behind schedule and over budget and replace it with modified Patriot missile systems. He makes the point of the argument clear and backs the point up with relevant evidence. However, he assumes that the United States’ partners in the project, Germany and Italy, will not anger at the US for backing out.

            The provided evidence supports the argument through clear and logical links. A significant portion of Hulsman's evidence relies on logical and objective argumentation in order to get the point across to the reader. From listing reasons why the US’ relations with the project partners would not be harmed if the project got the axe to providing evidence for the cancellation of MEADS in the form of quotes and political analysis.

            I agree with the argument and with his conclusion that the US should cancel MEADS and replace it with modified Patriots. He makes a case that is beneficial for all parties involved economically and militarily. The modified missiles take over one of the main selling points of MEADS, increased radar coverage. All that would need to be done is installing new types of radar and detection systems onto existing missiles installations instead of needing new ones. In addition to the savings on time and effort cancellation of the project would save the US $400 million and save Germany and Italy the money that would otherwise be thrown into the funding black hole that MEADS has become. In the end, all parties involved save money and gain the main advantages of the MEADS system by canning it and swapping to modified Patriot missile installations.

Cyber-security

             Thanks to the prevalence of the internet, society now exists just as much online as it does in the physical world. As more and more people move online, increasingly important chunks of the economy and infrastructure follow, from Amazon, to Wal-Mart, to paying taxes. The massive amount of daily life that relies on the smooth functioning of the World Wide Web also draws attention from people who wish to do harm, from terrorists to identity thieves. Cyber-security is used to protect information and infrastructure from those who wish to harm it.

            This article from the Christian Science Monitor describes the actions of Senator Jay Rockefeller, and his attempt to get a cyber-security bill passed. Rockefeller wrote the CEOs of the United States’ top 500 businesses in order to get their opinion on cyber-security and the bill. The attempt at getting the bill passed last month fell short of the needed votes. A rumored plan that the president may take to enforce cyber-security in the event that the bill fails has been circling the web the past few days, however, the bill would be more effective.

            This article shows just how badly America needs to wake up and see just how unprotected its internet structure is. Cyber-security is going to become a necessity in the coming years, yet the US Senate refuses to pass a bill in order to implement it.