Editorial #5 Comments due by 12/19 MIDNIGHT!

December 14, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist - NY Times
A Finger in the Dike
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

For the first time in human history, I agree with Dick Cheney. According to The Los Angeles Times, he warned Republican senators that if they refused to bail out the auto companies, “we will be known as the party of Herbert Hoover forever.”
The senators from the Herbert Hoover Party promptly fumbled, but President Bush seems poised to rescue the car companies anyway. Thank heaven!
Look, there are plenty of sound arguments against a bailout. But there’s a practical argument that trumps everything: when conditions are so fragile, we can’t risk a staggering blow to the national economy. When you see a hole in the dike, don’t discuss the virtues of laissez-faire policies — plug it!
There were also sound arguments for not rescuing Lehman Brothers. So the government allowed Lehman to collapse — and almost everybody now recognizes that it was a mistake that cost taxpayers more than a bailout would have.
Lehman Brothers was small potatoes — a tiny French fry — compared with America’s automakers. Lehman Brothers had 25,000 employees worldwide; General Motors alone has 250,000.
The Big Three have almost 400,000 employees worldwide, including about 230,000 in the United States. In addition, several hundred thousand people make car parts for the Big Three, and a half-million more sell or distribute cars from them. All told, considerably more than one million jobs in the United States depend directly on the American automakers, and many more indirectly.
Let’s look at the reasons cited for washing our hands of the auto companies:
A rescue mucks up the dynamic of capitalism; governments shouldn’t spend taxpayer dollars to reward failure. Thomas Murphy, the chairman of General Motors at the time of the 1979 Chrysler bailout, perhaps put it best: a bailout of Chrysler, he said then, would constitute “a basic challenge to the philosophy of America.”
In fact, the Chrysler bailout went ahead and worked pretty well. Jobs were saved, Chrysler retooled and came up with successful cars that included the first minivan, and the Treasury was repaid and made a profit on the bailout.
We’ve already rewarded failure by bailing out the banking sector, because the alternative was worse. If the same is true again, and it’s cheaper to rescue the car companies than clean up the mess afterward, wouldn’t a rescue reflect a pragmatism that is precisely “the philosophy of America”?
The solution isn’t a bailout, it’s bankruptcy. If the car companies enter Chapter 11, they’ll be able to rework burdensome contracts and actually make themselves competitive again. That’s how the airlines recovered, and auto companies shouldn’t be favored.
Bankruptcy would be a gamble because we just don’t know whether cars from bankrupt companies will still sell. I’ll buy a $400 air ticket to fly on a bankrupt airline, because it’ll still be honored in a month’s time, but that doesn’t mean I’ll spend $30,000 on a car from a bankrupt company when I’m counting on its resale value in 10 years’ time.
While bankruptcy would help automakers extricate themselves from onerous contracts, the gap with foreign automakers isn’t as wide as some believe. As my Times colleague David Leonhardt has noted, the reported $73-an-hour wage in Detroit is a fiction. Union workers at the Big Three get about $55 per hour in wages and benefits, compared with $45 per hour for nonunion workers at the American plants of Honda or Toyota. One reason for the gap is that the Detroit labor force is older, and health and other benefits are always more expensive for a 50-year-old worker than for one half that age.
A bailout is hopeless: This is a bridge loan to nowhere.
Yes, the Obama administration will have to come back in January with a full rescue package. The package should focus on saving jobs, not stockholders or bondholders. Shareholders should lose most of their investments, bondholders should get a haircut, managers and board members should be ousted, autoworkers should have their pay and benefits trimmed to market levels, and taxpayers should get an equity stake that they could profit from.
But saving the auto sector isn’t hopeless. Car companies have made progress in recent years, as underscored by the Chevy Volt, a plug-in hybrid that can go 40 miles without using a drop of gas. (The catch is that if gas prices stay as low as they are now, consumers may instead be demanding gas-guzzling S.U.V.’s.)
Think of a bailout as part of the huge planned stimulus package. It’s much cheaper to keep people in their existing jobs than to create new jobs elsewhere.
I lived in Tokyo in the 1990s, as perfectly reasonable arguments for government restraint led to acquiescence in the face of escalating economic disasters. Anyone who lived through Japan’s “lost decade” understands that the risks of inaction are greater than the risks of action.

Editorial Response due by midnight FRIDAY 10/17

Think Your Vote Matters? Think Again

Editor’s Note: The non-partisan Web site “Opposing Views” offers readers a look at all sides of the debate on a variety of issues. This is the part of ongoing series of posts from the Web site that will appear in the FOX Forum.

By Dr. John R. Koza
Chairman, National Popular Vote

You’ve become enthralled with John McCain and Barack Obama’s struggle to win the presidency. Along with record numbers of Americans, you tuned into the debates, attended rallies and registered to vote, many of you for the first time. Yet in all likelihood your vote won’t matter because this historic election will be decided by voters in only six or so closely divided “battleground states.”
The reason the vast majority of states don’t matter in presidential elections stems from a winner-take-all rule (Nebraska and Maine being the notable exceptions). This rule awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes. Consequently, presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, or even pay attention to the concerns of states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. This harsh effect of the winner-take-all rule became clear in the first week of October when McCain’s Michigan state director Al Ribeiro explained McCain’s abrupt cessation of campaigning in Michigan: “The campaign must decide where it can best utilize its limited resources with the goal of winning nationally.”

Of course, voters in 36 of the 50 states never mattered, even before the 2008 presidential election began. Michigan just discovered the harsh political reality a little later. As early as spring 2008, The New York Times reported that both major political parties were in agreement that there would be at most 14 battleground states in 2008. In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in just five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

The best and most direct way to fix our broken system is to elect the president by a national popular vote. Under a national popular vote, every person’s vote, in every state, would be equally important, regardless of political party.

Every vote would be equal, and politicians would be forced to address the concerns of every voter. There would be no red states, no blue states, and no battleground states.

It’s crucial to remember that the winner-take-all rule is not in the U.S. Constitution, but simply state law. That’s why we support the National Popular Vote bill, which would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). It is currently being debated in all 50 states and has been enacted by four states- Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland.

It’s time to reform the current system and do what more than 70 percent of the public has long supported – elect the president by a national popular vote.

Editorial #4 Comments due by 9/19 (FRIDAY MIDNIGHT)

Act on gay rights bill
Kennedy's illness and the Obama campaign are not excuses to stall on long-overdue job protection.

September 13, 2008
In light of the illness of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Democratic leaders in the Senate have indicated that they will not bring up a civil rights bill he has championed this year. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, approved last year by the House on a 235-184 vote, is long overdue. It would prohibit employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, just as they are currently barred from firing or refusing to promote workers because of their race, religion or gender.Touching as the concern for Kennedy may be, it is hardly the only motive for sidelining the act. Although public opinion polls suggest that a huge majority of Americans believe that gays and lesbians shouldn't be subjected to discrimination at work, homosexuality remains a hot-button issue for some voters. Too hot, apparently, for Democrats during an election year when Republican presidential candidate John McCain is seeking to shore up support among Christian conservatives while Democratic opponent Barack Obama is emphasizing the economy over divisive social issues.
Obama supports the nondiscrimination act. McCain voted against an earlier version in 1996. Despite their differences, however, they have remained silent on the controversial legislation, perhaps in a bid to avoid angering swing voters on either side of the issue. That's a shame, because equality for gays and lesbians is a basic individual right that is protected by 20 states, including California. Desirable as state laws may be, however, only Congress can establish a national policy of nondiscrimination.The Employee Non-Discrimination Act is actually a much more modest measure than its opponents suggest. Although it would forbid private employers, unions and state governments from discriminating on the basis of real or perceived sexual orientation, the U.S. military would not be affected. It would not repeal the armed services' unjust "don't ask, don't tell" policy.Before it passed the House, the bill also was stripped of a provision protecting transgender people from discrimination. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has proposed separate legislation to protected transgender workers.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) may believe that sidelining the act will serve the tactical interests of the Obama campaign. But it's possible that Obama would benefit politically from passage of a measure he has enthusiastically endorsed. Such a stand could counter accusations that he has placed expediency above principle in this campaign. On the other hand, muting his support will not spare him from right-wing accusations that he supports a sinister "homosexual agenda." Obama should give Reid a nudge to add the act to the Senate's end-of-the-session schedule. That would be the ultimate tribute to Kennedy's activism on this issue.
(LA Times)

Editorial #3 Comments due by 9/12 (FRIDAY MIDNIGHT)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/05/speeches.facts/index.html

Go on to this website and see the incorrect information given by both Obama and McCain during their convention speeches.

Do you think most of the American public realizes that both provided incorrect facts about the other? How do you think this might impact the election? Will most Americans take the time to determine the facts for themselves or will they assume that everything that politicians say is corret??

Editorial #2 Comments due by 9/05 (FRIDAY MIDNIGHT)

Thursday night, after Barack Obama’s well-orchestrated, well-conceived and well-delivered acceptance speech in Denver, Republicans were demoralized. Twenty-four hours later, they were energized — even exuberant. It’s amazing what a bold vice-presidential pick who gives a sterling performance when she’s introduced will do for a party’s spirits.
There are Republicans who are unhappy about John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin. Many are insiders who highly value — who overly value — “experience.” There are also sensible strategists who nervously note just how big a gamble McCain has taken.
But what was McCain’s alternative? To go quietly down to defeat, accepting a role as a bit player in The Barack Obama Story? McCain had to shake up the race, and once he was persuaded not to pick Joe Lieberman, which would have been one kind of gamble, he went all in with Sarah Palin.
Some media mandarins were upset. One reporter noted that — horrors! — Palin had never even appeared on “Meet the Press.” Time’s Joe Klein remarked disapprovingly that McCain didn’t know Palin well and had never worked with her. He noted by contrast “that when Walter Mondale picked Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, House Speaker Tip O’Neill, who had worked with Ferraro, was not only vouching for her, but raving about her.”
Of course, Ferraro was widely regarded as an unsuccessful V.P. choice. Maybe rave reviews from D.C. insiders aren’t the best guarantee of future success.
And Obama supporters can’t get too indignant about Palin’s inexperience. She’s only running for the No. 2 job, after all, while their inexperienced standard-bearer is the nominee for the top position. And McCain doesn’t need a foreign policy expert as vice president to help him out.
Meanwhile, a Republican operative here mentioned to me that Barack Obama has cited this 1992 comment by Bill Clinton:
“The same old experience is irrelevant. You can have the right kind of experience or the wrong kind of experience. And mine is rooted in the real lives of real people, and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change.”
But the crucial political fact is that the Obama campaign no longer has a monopoly on “the courage to change.” Facing an electorate that wants change, McCain has given himself a fighting chance to win the election.
And he has staked a lot on Sarah Palin.
Voters are unlikely to learn much that is new or surprising about Obama, McCain or Joe Biden over the next two months. Palin’s performance as the vice-presidential nominee, on the other hand, is the open and unresolved question of this campaign. She is, in a way, now the central figure in this fall’s electoral drama.
If Palin turns out not be up to the challenge for which McCain has selected her, McCain will pay a heavy price. His judgment about the most important choice he’s had to make this year will have been proved wanting. He won’t be able to plead that being right about the surge in Iraq should be judged as more important than being right about his vice-presidential pick.
McCain has gambled boldly on Palin. If she flops, McCain could lose by a landslide.
On the other hand, if Palin exceeds expectations, and her selection ends up looking both bold and wise, McCain could win.
The Palin pick already, as Noemie Emery wrote, “Wipes out the image of McCain as the crotchety elder and brings back that of the fly-boy and gambler, which is much more appealing, and the genuine person.” But of course McCain needs Palin to do well to prove he’s a shrewd and prescient gambler.
I spent an afternoon with Palin a little over a year ago in Juneau, and have followed her career pretty closely ever since. I think she can pull it off. I’m not the only one. The day after the V.P. announcement, I spoke with an old friend, James Muller, chairman of the political science department at the University of Alaska, Anchorage. He said that Palin “has been underestimated over and over again. She took on the party and state establishments here in Alaska, and left them reeling. She’s a very good campaigner, a quick study and a fighter.”
Muller called particular attention to her successes in passing an increase to the oil production tax and facilitating the future construction of a huge natural gas pipeline. “At first the oil companies thought she was naïve, and they’d have their way. Instead she faced them down and forced them to compromise on her terms.”
Can she face down the Democrats, Joe Biden and the national media over the next couple of months?
John McCain is betting she can. Perhaps, as he pondered his vice-presidential selection, he recalled the advice of Margaret Thatcher: “In politics if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman.”
(NY Times)

Editorial #1 Comments due by 8/29 (FRIDAY MIDNIGHT)

In choosing a running mate, every presidential candidate insists that he is seeking above all someone who could serve as president at a moment's notice. Often that assertion is patently preposterous. With his choice of Joe Biden, Barack Obama can make that assurance with a straight face. The six-term senator from Delaware is serious, substantive and sophisticated in his understanding of the world.Political junkies already have generated reams -- and gigabytes -- of commentary about how Biden will or will not complement Obama in his contest with Republican candidate John McCain. We're not so naive as to believe that electoral calculations played no part in this choice. But Biden passes the "ready on day one" test better than most vice presidential candidates. Think of Dan Quayle, the telegenic but callow Indiana senator plucked from obscurity by George H.W. Bush to shore up the support of conservatives. Or Geraldine A. Ferraro, the obscure New York congresswoman selected by Walter F. Mondale because he believed a female running mate would energize a listless campaign.
Biden, who sought the 2008 presidential nomination himself, is often caricatured as a self-important blabbermouth. Like most caricatures, that image has some basis in reality. But it is the same Biden who, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 1987, effectively -- and economically -- questioned Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork. His questioning elucidated Bork's extreme views in opposition to a constitutional right to privacy, the cornerstone of Supreme Court decisions upholding the right to contraception and abortion. Bork's nomination was defeated on the Senate floor. Biden, currently the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also is well versed in a range of foreign policy issues. Most recently he has demonstrated a grasp of the intricacies of the political situation in Iraq, although his preferred solution -- a "soft partition" of the country into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish regions -- never gained traction.In turning to a familiar Washington figure, Obama has opened himself to two criticisms: that he is compensating for his thin resume, much as George W. Bush did with his choice of Dick Cheney, and that the addition of Biden to the ticket undermines Obama's argument that wisdom trumps experience. Obama deserves credit for not allowing these tactical objections to keep him from choosing an impressive partner and president-in-waiting. Instead of attacking Obama's approach to choosing a running mate, McCain should emulate it.
(LA TIMES)

Welcome to AP Govt 2008-2009

Welcome to the official blog of Mr.Yang's AP Government class for the 2008-2009 school year. Here is an interactive forum for you to read articles and provide valuable input for me and your classmates to read and analyze. You will be required to provide at LEAST 1 post per week (part of your homework grade) after reading the given article. Your post should be about one full paragraph that responds to the article and possibly, the comments of your peers. At the end of your comment, you must put your short ID number so that I can ensure you receiving full credit for the assignment. Remember that this forum will not tolerate any sort of inappropriate language or comments and any misconduct will result in severe consequences.

How to post a comment:
Click on comment
Type in your comment in the comment box
Click on Name/URL
Type in your ID number