Can T.V comedy explain politics better than other mass media?

The world is filled with political experts and annalists that flash shinny degrees on the underscore of news headlines in an attempt to justify their remarks as truth. The lens of history never provides a clear picture of what was right and what was wrong. In fact, it could be argued that the important events in the past are picked by the persons trying the most to influence events in the future. This scenario would explain many of the dirty secrets that are suddenly unveiled before elections.

So if the voting population is going to rely on mass media to pick and chose important events, which source should we pick?A logical approach is to take a three question quiz.

1. Are you a Liberal?
2. Are you a Conservative?
3. Am I an Idiot?

If you answered yes or no to the above three questions, you are and idiot. To be completely honest with readers, I failed this questionnaire at least 3000 times.

Everyone in the world has a bias, we pick what we like and ignore what does not agree with our prideful selves. How then, can we let a media source bent on the more ratings and less balance dictate the political sphere? Hence, if we watch Fox or listen to NPR for political guidance, we are all equally stupid.

But their is still hope, a beacon of shinning light in a dark political world. Comedy effectively mocks humans bias. It does not matter if the conversation is conservative or liberal, comedy will equally mock the most outrages bias we as humans can provide. It is in mocking our own idiocracy, humans find humor. For reasons unknown to science, logical human thoughts can only stem from openly making fun of the work and decisions of our fellow man.

So, in closing and finishing the original titled thesis “can T.V comedy explain politics better than other mass media?” The answer has to be a resounding yes, but in supplemental fashion. Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, Jay Leno, and Coco (when he gets back) find the biases of every mass media belief and mock those pundits. The crowd laughs not only at the pundits, but at themselves for understanding the illogical behavior of the human race and it is in that contradiction between bias and logic, we find things funny; and humor finds the answer.

Against Democracy: How America Created a Radical Iran Part 1

This week United Nations started to squeeze the Iranian Republic just a little more and further increasing the control of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over the people of Iran. The reason for the newest wave of sanctions is centered on the disputed Iranian nuclear program and the inability for Iran or its western opponents to come to a consensus. Fiery rhetoric has been the weapon of choice for American politicians towards the defiant Middle Eastern country and most American probably agree that the Iran is a danger to peace. However, only President Obama has briefly hinted that the monster that has become Iran was created by the United States. At some point the U.S. public is going to have to reap what its leaders sowed so many years ago and hopefully it will be a lesson how our empire is almost never a defender of democracy.

The battle for Iranian democracy is one of the most heroic and tragic histories in the 20th century. In 1906 a rebellion outside of the British Embassy was able to persuade the middle and trading class of Tehran to form a Parliament. The aging Shah had tried to stop the constitution rebellion in 1905 but had become sick and was near death when the first Iranian parliament was formed. The parliament moved quickly and modeled their new constitutional monarchy after Belgium. The Shah signed the constitution into law and died five days later. However, the new democracy was short lived and in 1907 exiled royalty swayed the Russian and British Empires to invade and control Iran for its oil reserves. Russian and British control would remain in place until 1950.

Mohammad Mosaddegh was an aristocrat from Iran that passionately opposed the interventions by the Russian and British powers. In 1951 he was elected prime minister by a new Iranian parliament and quickly nationalized the oil industry in Iran. The main reason for British and Russian interventions had been oil and the puppet shah government gave extremely favorable terms to a British oil company that would later become British Petroleum. Mosaddegh wanted to use the oil to increase the Iranian budget to modernize the impoverished nation. When the British government refused to accept the terms of the new Iranian democracy it blockaded oil exports from Iran.

Mosaddegh cut the Shah’s powers drastically and assumed control of the military after a protest in Tehran. However, his democratic actions were being drastically undercut due to the British oil blockade and the country was suffering severe economic depression due to the lack of oil sales. Britain was extremely bitter over their loss of control of the Iran oil industry and the oil blockade was not bringing the crisis to a quick conclusion. The United States had been in favor of Iranian democracy because of Mosaddegh’s open hate of socialism and communism but as Britain became increasingly desperate to regain control of Iran Winston Churchill appealed to the new President of the United States, Dwight D Eisenhower.

Winston Churchill told his old war ally General Eisenhower that Mosaddegh was moving towards communism. Being the height of the cold war that was all the United States needed to reverse its support of Iran and denounced Iran’s policies. The CIA was given almost unlimited monetary backing to bribe the Shah and the Iranian military to create a coup d’etat. The CIA hired criminals and tribal strongmen to stage massive protests in Tehran and over 300 people died in these fake revolts. The bribed military leaders than deployed to ensure peace and arrested Mosaddegh and held him accountable for the revolt. Mosaddegh was found guilty buy the CIA agents and was held under house arrest for the rest of his life. The unpopular and oppressive Shah returned in 1953 and quickly made deals with American and British oil companies with the urging of CIA agents. In trade for almost all of Iran’s oil the CIA funded the Shah’s oppressive military and secret police force. The CIA had single handedly crushed the only democracy in Asia Minor, for oil.

As for the 1979 Iranian revolution we all know about the hostage of the American embassy workers. The new Iranian republic was democratically elected but much more aggressive and radical compared to Mosaddegh. The chance to support a real and peaceful democracy in Iran was supplanted for oil. We now have to face a radical Iranian Republic that hates America more than it hated the Shah and is trying to create nuclear weapons. Who knows how much more peaceful the Middle East could have been if we had supported Mosaddegh?

Americas should be ashamed of our governments dealings with Iran, because like it or not, we gave and continue to give President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an enemy that threatens the Iranian people which he uses to oppress the people of Iran. Instead of recognizing our mistakes Americans iclaim the reason Iran hates us is because we are a democracy, that Iran hates our freedom, that Iran hates Christians. No, Iran hates us because we killed their democracy single handedly. In part two, I will describe how America helped kill millions of Iranians in retaliation to the 1979 revolution.

Sometimes America makes me sick and I am ashamed to be part of this “great democratic nation.”



Sources:

A Concise history of Iran, Saeed Shirazi

The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower, Robert Baer.

Mohammad Mosaddegh and the 1953 coup in Iran, Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne

A Solution to the Federal Government Debt: End Income and Payroll Tax

American’s have become uneasy about the amount of Federal Debt that is stacking up in Washington and for good reason. This month the debt total topped $13 trillion and will reach $14 trillion within six months. Although these numbers are impressively large and hard to accept, the path to reverse them is not terribly hard.

To demonstrate that the debt problem could have been easily handled during the height of the crisis lets crunch some numbers. The cost of the government bailouts and guarantees the federal government granted was $7.7 trillion dollars. That’s what I said, $7.7 trillion and that does not include the $16.3 trillion of federal government guarantees that were made by many government agencies. After all that money was spent our economy is still weak and unemployment is still high.

Instead with that money the government could have protected the credit system with the $ 700 billion TARP fund and then canceled income and payroll taxes for two years. Sound crazy?

The world operates on incentives, especially the economy. If underlying economic indicators are weak than there is little incentive for investors to invest, for businesses to expand, and for creation of new jobs. However, if income taxes were canceled people would be able to spend and save much more rather than having to pick wither to save or to spend. If payroll taxes were cancelled corporations would be willing to risk expansion and hire more workers. Demand would grow due to increased savings rates and consumer spending. The country would experience an economic boom almost overnight.

To pay for the 50% decrease in federal government revenue a very small nationwide sales tax could be implemented and spending could be cut drastically. Ending the wars and cutting military spending, create a means test for social security and increase retirement age to 70, and deregulate healthcare which would make healthcare cost decrease. Those three tasks would cut the projected 2010 $3.7 trillion budget by 50 percent.

Alas that is not what happened, instead we received a stimulus package that has done little and spent a lot, bailouts of corrupt and greedy bankers, and no major decrease in unemployment. Since hindsight is 20/20 what could be done now? The answer is still the same one as above but just a little different.

Use the $700 billion TARP funds, use the remaining 45 percent of the stimulus package, end the wars and cut military spending, cancel the $800 billion dollar healthcare reform, and cut social security spending. Take all of that money and cancel the income tax and payroll taxes.

I am 100 percent confident that there would be unintended consequences but this plan would create positive incentives on the individual level rather than a trickledown effect. In a complex organization such as the economy solutions have to be regulated to the individuals in the free markets. With less federal government spending and nationwide sales tax there would be no real reason to bring back the income tax but if we did, it would be much lower and go directly to paying off the debt. America would once again become the greatest economic power in the world instead of coming in second to the social European Union.


Sources:

http://www.usfederalbailout.com/
http://usgovernmentspending.com/#usgs302a
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302a
Think Twice, Michael J Mauboussin

Apathy in America: Part One

Politics seems to have frozen the ability for America to react to any situation ranging from the bigwigs in Washington to the people sitting in front of their TV watching Glen Beck or Keith Olbermann. This general sense of apathy towards local and national issues has resulted in bad situations getting worse and although it is scary to see America slip into this indifferent state, it is not surprising. Be assured, there will be no ranting and repeating main stream political trash in this article, this will only be a thread of personal opinion regarding the negative system of incentives that exists in this nation.

The BP oil spill will serve as a starter and foundation to this thesis of apathy in America. The spill at the Deepwater Horizon drill site started about two months ago and it is projected that the relief wells being drilled will take another month to complete. Although this situation is a tragedy and future care must be taken to prevent such a large spill, the right thing for America as a nation right now is to clean up the oil as fast as possible. However, the very opposite has happened and now the entire country is thoroughly frustrated with; well, everyone. Republicans are blaming and bashing President Obama while Democrats and Obama are bashing BP. Meanwhile, the big media is breeding anger and hate at every possible level to insure people continue to watch the oil leaking on streaming video feeds. Every pundit has a solution in their own mind but none of the solutions are being implemented. Why?

The answer is not a one sentence solution as is the norm per the big media nor is it 100 percent accurate due to massive complexities of the oil spill. Instead, this answer does allow an explanation of why this spill has not been handled efficiently. It is all about the incentives.

In an Article by Paul H. Rubin (Wall Street Journal, 7/2/2010, opinion) he clearly lays out the many contributing factors of why the cleanup is progressing at such a slow pace but he fails to explain why these solutions are not being implemented. First, the EPA could temporarily relax restrictions on the amount of oil in discharge water which is currently at 15 parts per million. This law is used to clean up small spills in clean water, however, this is a very large spill and focusing so much on 15 parts per million is a colossal waste of time. What is stopping the EPA from temporarily easing regulations? Their incentives as an agency have been to increase the environmental responsibility of both the government and the privet sector. Easing restrictions on clean up laws would be seen as a loss of face in the political world and could inspire companies to challenge many of their hard earned laws. In addition, the agency would lose many of the environmental lobby groups that provide so much money to EPA. Easing restrictions would be political suicide for many of the EPA head leaders. The incentive to keep regulations outweighs the benefit of a faster clean up.

The second point made by Mr. Rubin is the failure of the President to issue an executive order to waive the Jones Act, which keeps foreign ships from operating in U.S coastal waters. Many nations have offered their ships and services to help clean up the oil and such experienced assistance would boost the cleanup dramatically. Incentives once again help explain why that on day 70 of the oil spill America has not accepted foreign help.

Obama has a very large support base from union labor which viciously defends the Jones Act regardless of the oil spill. Any temporary halt of the Jones Act would be considered a slap in the face to organized labor and Obama would lose money and support from union lobbyist. This would be a devastating blow to the Democratic Party right before important mid-term elections. Obama might commit political suicide if he waived the Jones Act. These incentives outweigh allowing the world’s largest oil skimmer from Taiwan to enter the Gulf of Mexico even though it can process nearly 500,000 barrels of oil a day out of the water.

The last point made by Mr. Rubin is why only 400 oil skimmers are operating in the Gulf out of the fleet of nearly 2000 in the United States. Bureaucracy and regulations are keeping these ships stationed at home ports in case of an oil spill. As a senator from Florida pointed out, “It is the equivalent of not sending fire trucks to the scene of a fire for fear that a fire could start.” If congress were to order ships to the oil spill from other areas of the country and a spill happened in those areas the ships had just left, the local anger at such an action would lose a voting congressman his next election. Although the chance of another major spill in another area of the country is astronomically high, the incentive to avoid losing an upcoming election is too high for a bill to find the floor of congress.

These were just three easy solutions pointed out by Mr. Rubin and there are thousands more ways to speed the oil clean up. The problem is that misplaced incentives in politics have kept actions from taking place. There is also a plethora of reasons that big media has not pointed out these easy solutions but incentives keep them from informing the public. An entire book could be written on misplaced incentives in the oil spill but that is a task for a smarter person with time on his hands.

The lesson to learn here is that incentives rule people’s actions and politics is no different. To find answers to issues, do some research and critical thinking on what could be preventing a solution to a situation. This can be done on every level of society, from individual day to day tasks all the way to geo-politics. Just remember, it’s all about the incentives.

The False Concept of Tax Cuts

There seems to be a rule of thumb among many Republicans lately that has caused me large amounts of confusion. Apparently, cutting taxes will increase government revenue when the economy improves due to the tax cuts. Republicans hold Ronald Regan up as a shining example of the success tax cuts have as economic stimulus. However, this simple explanation of success falls short of historical accuracy.

This belief of tax cuts to encourage economic growth is known as “supply side economics”. The economic theory postulates an increase of government revenue at a lower tax percentage due to a growing economy. This theory is dependent on economic expansion resulting from new tax cuts yet if an economic contraction occurs, government deficits increase drastically. This risky maneuver has backfired every time since 1980 but the belief tax cuts help the economy stems from false concepts of what has caused economic recoveries in the past thirty years.

Ronald Regan implemented supply side economics during his first year in office by cutting $39 billion from the federal budget; created a 25% tax cut over three years, and faster write-offs for capital investments. The gamble was that such a huge tax cut would shock the economy from its stagnant state and the result would be a growing economy which would cover the cost of the government tax cuts. Instead of economic expansion the country fell into a recession and a mounting federal deficit forced Regan to increase budget cuts and increase taxes.

During the recession in 1982 the Federal Reserve Chairmen Paul Volker had worked to decrease the double digit inflation and lower the double digit interest rates that were crippling the economy. When Volker’s many painful reforms started to lower inflation and interest rates the economy boomed while Regan was increasing taxes and cutting spending to handle the federal deficit. The economy flourished during Regan’s Presidency but the federal debt was growing at a frightening pace. The promised increased government revenue was not materializing.

Republicans claimed that supply side economics had created the economic boom of the 1980’s although lower inflation and lower interest rates were the real drivers of the economic expansion. This Republican propaganda spin allowed George H.W Bush to win the election in 1988, fortunately, Bush did not hold to the “Voodoo” economic policies of Regan.

President Bush felt that America could not grow and prosper with the growing federal debt. Bush pushed for more federal spending cuts but the Republican congress also wanted to cut taxes again which would have increased the deficit in 1989 to $500 billion. Instead of increasing the debt levels, Bush signed a Democratic bill that raised taxes to battle the deficit left by Regan. The Republican voters felt betrayed by Bush who had promised “no new taxes.” Bush’s political career was killed when he signed the bill. Although Bush’s broken promise cost the Republican Party the election in 1992, the tax increases halted the budget deficit and helped Bill Clinton and the conservative congress to create a large federal surplus in the 1990’s. The 1990’s saw a long economic expansion with no tax cuts, instead, low interest rates and low inflation once again spurred economic growth.

This decade of prosperity came to an end when George W. Bush won the election in 1999 and returned the political agenda to supply side economics. In his first year Bush passed a slew of new tax cuts and championed many new financial reforms focused on easing the accounting standards of large corporations. At the same time he increased welfare programs with no balancing tax increase to cover the spending. The country entered the Tec and Telecom recession which reversed the federal surplus in two years. By 2005 the country was engaged in two military conflicts while more tax cuts took place.

During this period of increasing debt levels the US economy recovered from the 2001 recession but this success was not due to the many Bush tax cuts. The new fed chairman Alan Greenspan kept interest rates artificially low to stimulate economic recovery and this was mixed with Bush’s increased mortgage spending through Fannie and Freddie Mac. The mixture led to an economic recovery which eventually caused the housing bubble burst in October of 2008. Faced with economic depression due to his tax cuts and increased mortgage borrowing, Bush passed the $700 billion TARP bill to rescue the nation’s credit markets further increasing the national debt.
By looking at the historical timeline since 1980 it seems that cutting taxes did little to stimulate the economy and increased the federal debt levels astronomically. In addition, entitlement programs such as social security, welfare, and Medicare were expanded with no tax increases to balance the new entitlement spending. Every major tax cut since 1980 happened before or during an economic contraction. Each recovery was due to a combination of lower inflation or low interest rates and not from large tax cuts.

For me to say that lower tax rates are bad for the economy would be a false statement. Lower tax rates over long time periods encourage less government spending and increases a strong and vibrant economy. That said, large tax cuts in short periods of time while increasing spending has led the large debt America has created.

America has to decide if we will pay off our debt and cut spending or cut taxes in political retaliation to a liberal president which will place a tombstone over our fiscal grave. When will America put aside our political differences and realize we have a responsibility right now to pay for our borrowing? I guarantee if we cut taxes more our nation will be forced to default before end of the decade. The discussion should not be about taxes but about entitlement spending that is bankrupting this nation. I personally choose responsible taxes and spending cuts rather than a second great depression.



Some Sources:

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/reference.html
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/pressketch.html
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/voodooeconomics.asp
http://yellowroad.wallstreetexaminer.com/blogs/files/2008/06/inflation.gif

Let’s Have a Rational Talk about Healthcare

The rage healthcare creates keeps me out of the debate most of the time. I research what companies will make money from this bill because that is my job. However, I am a member of this nation and feel it is time to place my 2 cents into the firestorm.

My attention to healthcare was sparked by how much the United States spends on healthcare. The United States spends more as a percentage of GDP than any other nation in the world. In 2007, the United States spent 16% of our GDP on healthcare; compare that to 11% by France and 9% by the United Kingdom. However, spending is not the problem, the problem is the low quality of our healthcare system. The US came in at 16 of healthcare quality in the world, this indicates a systematic problem.

If the problem is a system issue, then identifying the main cause of troubles is imperative. Government involvement in healthcare is not new. The government officials that started the involvement process were trying to help yet the system got worse. There is nothing wrong with trying to create a better system but if the government solution was to throw money at healthcare in the name of helping the poor, then they planned poorly. The result of government involvement is a nightmare of perverse incentives that has turned the system away from the patient. How much money a hospital can get out of a patient is the most important aspect of most doctors. Add in the fear of lawsuits, defensive medicine, and no competition between hospitals you get an extremely expensive healthcare system.

Monetary expense is only one type of cost this nation pays. The number of people that die from hospital born disease and mistakes is staggering. 40,000 people died last year from staph infections they acquired in the hospital; that is unacceptable. In addition, government involvement in colleges has lead to an exploding cost of college and this includes medical schools. There are not enough doctors graduating from medical school to replace retiring professionals. There is a 100% chance of a shortage of doctors in this country which will drive up costs in ways I cannot imagine.

All of these issues convince me reform is/was needed. The argument that liberals are trying to take over our country and ruin the best healthcare system in the world is a ludicrous statement. The system was already terrible and socialist.

Healthcare reform did address some much needed issues but failed to fix any of the messed up incentives, tort-reform, medical college reform, or quality issues. The bill focused on most of the wrong problems that would have addressed cost and quality. Instead, politicians argued over uninsured and government insurance plans. This nation already had universal coverage, if you walk in you get treated.

I would have hoped Republicans would have tried to get cost control issues into the reform bill rather than saying no to reform. Without line-item veto Obama would have had to sign a bill that included universal coverage and cost/quality control laws. What did we end up with? A bill that did nothing but add more people into a crappy system.


Reform is needed, and both parties have to address the real issues.


Souces: The Economist, March 20th 2010

The War With Iran

For the last eight months I have been waiting to see a red flash across the TV screen that reveals Israeli fighter jets have bombed several nuclear targets in Iran. Fortunately this has not happened and I am finally breathing a sigh of relief because the probability of war with Iran is dwindling. However, there is still a loose cannon on deck that could engulf the Middle East in war. Israel has not come to terms with the possibility of a nuclear Iran and it places the United States in an uncomfortable political position.

On the surface the Obama administration still wants to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons yet many deadlines have passed without a hint of effective sanctions on Iran. This is not a sign of political weakness but rather the admission of diplomatic defeat.

Sanctions have been in place against Iran for the better part of 35 years and failed to bring Iran to the table with meaningful negotiations. Placing new sanctions would require the full support of both Russia and China. However, Russia and China benefit by having United States forces tied up in the Middle East and allows them to expand their spheres of influence with little resistance. Helping the United States would go against their incentives. So short of a full military strike there is nothing the United States can do to stop nuclear proliferation by Iran. However, Israel is in a different political situation were a military strike is an acceptable solution.

Israel’s foreign policy has always been driven by a fight for survival and little has changed since the nation’s birth. Iran has been a constant thorn in the side of Israel since the end of the Iraq/Iran war in the 1980s. Iran now has considerable influence in the Middle East through its proxies of Hamas, Hezbollah and many other militant groups. The long-term goal of Iran is to be the regional political powerhouse and build an effective and wealthy commercial petro-empire. Iran has large oil fields that it has been unable to effectively pump due to the many sanctions on oil equipment. To survive Iran imports almost half of its refined oil needs. This situation has led the Iranian leadership to use military proxies to gain influence over many of its neighbors allowing the nation to import more equipment through China and Russia.

The development of nuclear energy accomplishes two goals for Iran. First, creating effective nuclear power will drastically cut the nations reliance of imported fuels. Second, having an atomic weapon is the best deterrent bar none in the world and would force the world to lift sanctions that have been in place for decades. Iran has very little to lose at this point in history by developing a nuclear weapon.

Israel on the other hand cannot even entertain the idea of Iran developing a nuclear weapon due to the small size of the country. Even a crude weapon would cripple Israel and open the flood gates of its many enemies. The chances of Iran using an atomic weapon as an offensive weapon are slim to say the least. Iran knows Israel possesses atomic weapons and it could not hope to win an atomic firefight with Israel. The problem is what if radicalism in the Iranian leadership allows such a suicidal bombing to happen? There lies the great danger for Israel.

So what is going to happen? I have a very hard time believing Israel is going to sit around and let Iran continue to refine radioactive materials and the notion that an air strike would not be effective is ridiculous. It would take less than half of Israel’s air force to completely destroy or damage all of Iran’s nuclear sites. It is Iranian retaliation that worries the United States and Israel. Iran would use its proxies in Syria, Palestine, Iraq and in other nations to completely interrupt oil coming out of the Middle East. This could severely hurt recovering economies across the world and possibly force the United States to respond with military force, engaging our nation in a third Middle East conflict.

The situation is incredibly complicated and is on the brink of collapsing on a daily basis. How Washington responds to an Israeli air strike will test the Obama administration to its limit. Let us all hope Israel keeps a cool head for everyone’s sake.