Class Blog Review: Teachers Today Challenge Tomorrow

In Deserah Alvarez’s post “Teachers Today Challenge Tomorrow” she explains how cutting teachers salaries because of budget cuts will likely effect the current and future generations.  The issue of how budget cuts effect teacher’s pay and benefits is an issue that needs to be resolved, but it seems as if no one can come up with a good alternative and so teacher’s pay continues to be cut whenever states need to make large budget cuts.  Are the salaries of the administrative workers in education also being cut, or are the salary cuts only regarding teachers?  There are many administration jobs in education that pay high salaries that could also be reduced.  If teacher’s salaries need to be cut, there should be an attempt to cut salaries in other areas of education besides just the teachers.  Program cuts should be divided equally instead of cutting out single specific programs. 

Budget cuts have to come from somewhere, but I agree that education is very important for our country’s youth, and teachers are a large part of the success of future generations.  Children will suffer in this situation, with the loss of teachers and educational programs, they will not get the equivalent education that they should be getting.  I think that teachers should at least retain the rights to negotiate their benefits.  I agree that if many teachers are fired because of budget cuts, it is going to lead to more issues.  For one thing, there will be fewer teachers in the future because many people who want to teach will get tired of this situation and will not want to work as teachers anymore.  Also, students may be discouraged from studying to become a teacher because of all the teachers being fired and the low salary that they are being paid. 

National Retail Sales Tax Reform

There has been a debate going on for years about a way to get rid of the Federal Income Tax and the IRS and still have the money available that normally comes from federal tax returns that individuals do every year.  A proposal has been made for a National Retail Sales Tax, also called a Fair Tax, to replace the Federal Income Tax paid every year.  With a National Retail Sales Tax, each time you purchased a product or service you would pay your federal taxes as a federal sales tax, this would be on top of any state tax that might already be in place. The Fair Tax means that the federal government would no longer withhold federal taxes from individual’s paychecks and no one would need to file federal income tax returns because the federal income tax system would be eliminated and the IRS would likely become non-existent. Dissatisfaction with the current income tax continues to generate interest in this alternate Tax method.

This was one the proposals made during President Bush’s second term as a federal tax reform.  This, in my opinion means it’s purpose is not likely to help the poor by having them pay less taxes, but instead it makes the tax burden equal even for low-income individuals.  Those who are in the highest income and lowest income groups will all pay the same National Retail Sales Tax on things that they buy and it will not matter how much money they make.  With the current tax system, the level a person is taxed depends on how much money they make each year.  While the poor cannot avoid the tax, I believe it is fairer to everyone than the supposed Fair Tax. 

Also, there is the question of exactly how much this new sales tax would be, and it is likely that to keep the government programs that are currently funded by income tax running as they should, that the rate for the National Retail Sales Tax would be very high, and then I believe that less people will be likely to support it.  While it is unlikely to gain more approval under President Obama, it continues to be an issue that many people support simply to get rid of the federal income tax system currently in place.  It will only end up benefiting the wealthy and definitely hurting the lower and middle classes.  I don’t believe that any change to the current tax system will be progressive at all.  In fact, the results suggest that exchanging our current system for a national retail sales tax would actually be a regressive shift when it is measured against annual income.

Class Blog Review: Funding Cut Crisis?

Recently our country’s budget crisis has become an increasing concern for many people.  The question of where to cut funding from is an important issue that needs to be solved.  In Sarah Clifton’s post, "Funding Cut Crisis?” she explains how many conservatives are trying to cut funding from Planned Parenthood in support of anti-abortion.  Clifton explains that cutting funding for Planned Parenthood will not only affect abortions, but also essential programs for women, children and even men.  This would include services such as women’s and men’s wellness exams, STD testing, birth control, and family planning.  I believe Clifton makes a good point in saying that cutting services to Planned Parenthood would affect abortion rates, but could also end up hurting people who cannot afford family planning heath care on their own and may turn to illegal methods to obtain services.

I agree that funding should not be cut from essential health services like Planned Parenthood especially not just because of anti-abortion conservatives and I don’t agree with the conservatives that they should get a say in how their tax money is spent.  Individual citizens don’t get a say on who gets federal funding or how their tax money is spent either.  I believe that funding for Planned Parenthood is very important and the services that they provide are essential.  Clifton’s blog post makes the main point of how important all the services are to our citizens’ health and safety and the arguments are clear and reasoned.  I also agree that although budget cuts will obviously be necessary, cutting this type of health care funding should not be an option.

The Costs of Outsourcing

Outsourcing jobs seems to be something that is here to stay in the U.S. today, the question is: is this a good thing or not?  Outsourcing is basically sub-contracting a process, especially part of a business or company, to a third party outside supplier.  It is about obtaining goods or services from outside or foreign sources instead of from internal sources, especially to contract work out or abroad. 

There are significant effects, some positive and some negative on our economy when work is outsourced.  Outsourcing jobs outside of a particular business can actually be good because it would allow a business that is not expert at something to contract out that part of their business to a company that specializes in what they need done.  For example, a small business might outsource their bookkeeping to an accounting firm that can keep track of their finances.  This can still be done internally, that is within the United States.  However, the other side of outsourcing is when large companies and businesses outsource outside of our country to foreign suppliers of services.  In this case, jobs that could be done internally in the U.S. are being done in foreign countries.  For instance, some of the biggest outsourcing locations are India, China, and Brazil.  Some people say that this will help the third-world countries to develop and increase their employment opportunities, but with the problems our economy is having, the focus should be on our own problems with jobs and how to alleviate our high unemployment rate.  Limiting the amount of jobs that are outsourced to foreign countries could help our job situation in the U.S.

President Obama, during his 2008 campaign, promised to stop giving tax breaks to companies outsourcing jobs overseas and to start giving them to companies creating jobs in the U.S.  Those who oppose outsourcing worry that the President will not uphold these promises and is not going to do anything at all.  These critics believe this is mostly because many of the President’s economic advisors outsource jobs themselves or are unconcerned about the effects of outsourcing.

As companies continue outsourcing to foreign countries, there continues to be a large-scale job loss in the U.S. as jobs are transferred to these off shore services.  There could also be confidentiality or security dangers with having people’s private information and sharing this information with a third-party.  This is especially true in regards to IT outsourcing.  There are also potential negatives for the businesses engaging in the outsourcing, particularly if they do not do proper research on a foreign third-party company before allowing them access to their clients.  This could include the confidentiality issues, problems with the quality of service, or even negative publicity, which could occur because outsourcing is becoming an increasing concern to average citizens.

Overall, outsourcing seems to only benefit the wealthy that gain profits from transferring jobs. What good has come from foreign outsourcing except corporate profits?  It has lead to American citizens losing jobs due to this outsourcing of their work and therefore higher unemployment in the U.S. and has also contributed to our weakening economy.

The Draft Bill

The author of “Why We Need Universal Service” is trying to persuade people that compulsory service in our country should be re-instated.  The author includes different arguments from his point of view but does not explain any of the other side’s opinions.  However, the author is credible because the arguments seem capable of convincing others that his idea has a solid foundation.  The author’s intended audience is people who are active in politics and will advocate their representatives in government to support the author’s reintroduction of the Universal National Service Act, commonly called the draft bill.

One of the author’s arguments is that only a small percentage of the U.S. population, about one percent, currently serves and this low number means that many enlisted soldiers must be deployed multiple times which can lead to additional problems.  This is evidenced in that twenty-five percent of active duty personnel in our military have Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD.  Also, the current suicide rate in the Army’s personnel is significantly higher than civilian rate and for the Marine Corps it is even higher. 

Another point the author makes is that universal service doesn’t necessarily mean that people will have to serve in the armed forces, but claims that they could serve in civilian service.  This would include places such as schools, hospitals, or airports.  This might prompt more people to support the idea of a universal service.  The author also claims that reintroducing the draft will end our wars more quickly and that young people will gain discipline for honorably serving our country.

I agree with the author that wars need to be ended as quickly as possible and that too many American soldiers have died in this “war that should not have been in the first place”, but I don’t think that compulsory service is the way to go about it.  I think that if they are worried about low numbers in the military then our country needs to just stop getting involved in other country’s problems if it doesn’t directly involve us.  I also believe that instituting the draft bill would undermine our country’s known society of volunteerism.  However, I also agree that no soldiers should have to do six tours of duty and that civilian service is a good option but I believe joining our military or even civilian service should remain voluntary.

Paying Bone Marrow Donors

The author of the editorial “Battling Over Bone Marrow” is trying to persuade people that although there is a valid argument in paying people for bone marrow donations, at this point the risks outweigh the benefits.  The author includes arguments from both sides of the issue and doesn’t discount the possible benefits of the other side’s ideas.  This makes the author very credible and believable, even though the article is an opinion piece.  The author’s intended audience is anyone who has considered donating but hasn’t because they are unaware the procedure has changed or people who might be motivated to get the word out about registering donors for bone marrow transplants.

The article begins by explaining that the current federal law prohibits payment for donating organs, but that it is legal to pay people to donate blood or plasma.  The federal law considers bone marrow in the same category as other organs, currently making it illegal to pay people to donate it.  The argument is that bone marrow was wrongly included with organs because it can regenerate like blood and plasma and therefore it should not be illegal to provide financial compensation for donating.  The author admits that a suit filed by the Institute for Justice, which argues this fact, has some valid ideas about the good that could come from paying people to donate.  For example, it is more likely that people will register to donate if they get paid for it.

The argument against it points out that the lack of donors is not the reason why many people don’t get a bone marrow transplant.  There are other factors that prevent them getting the transplant, such as lack of heath coverage or access to advanced medical facilities or their condition worsens too quickly to receive the transplant.  The author says that financial compensation has a lot of risks that come with it and only a small chance of it benefiting people who need it.  It could backfire because money sometimes motivates donors to hide medical conditions, which could negatively impact patients receiving donor bone marrow.  The author suggests community outreach programs to encourage people to register to be a donor.

I agree with the author, and I think that at this point there are still other issues preventing people who need it from getting bone marrow transplants, such as the lack of health care and lack of access to facilities that can provide the service.  In this case these issues should be addressed first.  Also, I think that if more people knew that the new procedure for donating bone marrow is not as painful as the old method of puncturing the hipbone with a large needle and is now “not much tougher than giving blood” more people would register.  Donors should not have to pay a hundred dollars just to register.  Eliminating the fee would encourage more people to become a bone marrow donor.  I believe that these changes, rather than paying donors, could save many more lives. 

Nation Debates: Guns on Campus?

The article describes the growing debate about whether guns should be allowed on college campuses.  This relates to the current debate going on in the state of Texas especially with the University of Texas at Austin nearby, which has recently been deliberating this same issue.  It was mentioned in the article that if any state passes the proposal it would likely be Texas, with Arizona also a possibility.  It shows that the debate about guns on school campuses and gun control laws in general is becoming a growing issue.

It relates to national government and directly to the 2^nd amendment of the constitution, which guarantees the people the right to bear arms.  Some believe that this amendment should mean that people have the right to carry guns anywhere.  The issue is whether people should be allowed to carry guns on a college campus.  Legislatures nationwide have been debating this issue because of growing concern about campus shootings.

The argument is that if someone were to go on a shooting spree there would be a way for people to defend themselves.  However, with many people having a gun, there could be even more danger if everyone were to be firing guns at the same time anybody could get hit with the bullets flying everywhere.

Read the article here.