http://www.rickwhisonant.com/201tr3.htm
Final test dates:
May 4 (Monday) MW
May 5 (Tuesday) TTH
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Ten Trillion and Counting
Please view the PBS Frontline special:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/view/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/view/
Thursday, April 2, 2009
PSC 201 American Government Review test #2
PSC 201 American Government Review test #2
http://www.rickwhisonant.com/psc201rev2.htm
http://www.rickwhisonant.com/psc201rev2.htm
Friday, March 27, 2009
Update
I will be back in class April 6th (Monday) and 7th (Tuesday). We will have Test #2 as scheduled (6th and 7th).
All assignments have been completed.
I will see you then!
All assignments have been completed.
I will see you then!
Sunday, March 15, 2009
PSC 201 Schedule
03-16/17 #7 Political Parties
03-18/19 #7 Political Parties
03-23/24
Chapter#8 Public Opinion, Participation, and Voting
03-25/26
03-30/31
Chapter#9 Campaigns and Elections
04-01/02
The Media
Assignments (#8 and #9) are postponed till further notice.
PSC 201 Course Web PagePlease click on the link below for your PSC 201 course web page. You will find the syllabus, lecture outline, lecture notes and audio files (podcasting/mp3) of the lectures.
Course Web Page
03-18/19 #7 Political Parties
03-23/24
Chapter#8 Public Opinion, Participation, and Voting
03-25/26
03-30/31
Chapter#9 Campaigns and Elections
04-01/02
The Media
Assignments (#8 and #9) are postponed till further notice.
PSC 201 Course Web PagePlease click on the link below for your PSC 201 course web page. You will find the syllabus, lecture outline, lecture notes and audio files (podcasting/mp3) of the lectures.
Course Web Page
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Assignment #8
It's not about socialism, it's about rescuing capitalism
By Harold Meyerson The Washington Post
“We are all socialists now,” proclaims Newsweek. We are creating “socialist republics” in the United States, says Mike Huckabee, adding, on reflection, that “Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff.” We are witnessing the Obama-era phenomenon of “European socialism transplanted to Washington,” says Newt Gingrich.
Well! Even as we all turn red, I've still encountered just two avowed democratic socialists in my daily rounds through the nation's capital: Vermont's Sen. Bernie Sanders … and the guy I see in the mirror when I shave. Bernie is quite capable of speaking for himself, so what follows is a report on the state of actual existing socialism from the other half of the D.C. Senators and Columnists Soviet.
First, as we survey the political landscape, what's striking is the absence of advocates of socialism, at least as the term was understood by those who carried that banner during the capitalist crisis of the 1930s. Then, socialists and communists both spoke of nationalizing all major industries and abolishing private markets and the wage system. Today, it's impossible to find a left-leaning party anywhere that has such demands or entertains such fantasies. (Not even Hugo Chavez – more an authoritarian populist than any kind of socialist – says such things.)
Within the confines of socialist history, this means that the perspective of Eduard Bernstein – the fin de siecle German socialist who argued that the immediate struggle to humanize capitalism through the instruments of democratic government was everything, and that the goal of supplanting capitalism altogether was meaningless – has definitively prevailed. Within the confines of American history, this means that when New York's garment unions left the Socialist Party to endorse Franklin Roosevelt in 1936, they were charting the paradigmatic course for American socialists: into the Democratic Party to support not the abolition of capitalism but its regulation and democratization, and the creation of some areas of public life where the market does not rule.
Fostering sustainable capitalism
But in the United States, conservatives have never bashed socialism because its specter was actually stalking America. Rather, they've wielded the cudgel against such progressive reforms as free universal education, the minimum wage or tighter financial regulations.
Their signal success is to have kept the United States free from the taint of universal health care. The result: We have the world's highest health-care costs, borne by businesses and employees that cannot afford them; nearly 50 million Americans have no coverage; infant mortality rates are higher than those in 41 nations – but at least (phew!) we don't have socialized medicine.
Give conservatives credit for their consistency: They attacked Roosevelt as a socialist as they are now attacking Obama, when in fact Obama, like Roosevelt before him, is engaged not in creating socialism but in rebooting a crashed capitalist system. The spending in Obama's stimulus plan isn't a socialist takeover. It's the only way to inject money into a system in which private-sector investment, consumption and exports – the other three possible engines of growth – are locked down. Investing more tax dollars in education and research and development is a way to use public funds to create a more competitive private sector. Keeping our banks from speculating madly with our money is a way to keep banking alive.
If Obama realizes his agenda, what emerges will be a more social, sustainable, competitive capitalism.
His more intellectually honest and sentient conservative critics don't accuse him of Leninism but of making our form of capitalism more like Europe's. In fact, over the past quarter-century, Europe's capitalism became less regulated and more like ours, one reason Europe is tanking along with everyone else.
Capitalism bred its own overhaul
Take it from a democratic socialist: Laissez-faire American capitalism is about to be supplanted not by socialism but by a more regulated, viable capitalism. And the reason isn't that the woods are full of secret socialists who are only now outing themselves.
Judging by the failures of the great Wall Street investment houses and the worldwide crisis of commercial banks; the collapse of East Asian, German and American exports; the death rattle of the U.S. auto industry; the plunge of stock markets everywhere; the sickening rise in global joblessness; and the growing shakiness of governments in fledgling democracies that opened themselves to the world market – judging by all these, a more social capitalism is on the horizon because the deregulated capitalism of the past 30 years has blown itself up, taking much of the known world with it.
So, for conservatives searching for the culprits behind this transformation of capitalism: Despite our best efforts, it wasn't Bernie and it wasn't me. It was your own damn system.
Hopefully within two-three paragraphs please answer these questions:
Please use your critical thinking skills
Consider the source and the audience
Who is writing the news item?Where did the item appear?Why was it written?
What audience is it directed toward?What is the basic argument the author wants to make?
Please post the heading: Assignment#8 name (first initial last name)
Please post your comments on your class blog.Please ID yourself (not your nickname)
Due date:03-22-09 11:00pm
By Harold Meyerson The Washington Post
“We are all socialists now,” proclaims Newsweek. We are creating “socialist republics” in the United States, says Mike Huckabee, adding, on reflection, that “Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff.” We are witnessing the Obama-era phenomenon of “European socialism transplanted to Washington,” says Newt Gingrich.
Well! Even as we all turn red, I've still encountered just two avowed democratic socialists in my daily rounds through the nation's capital: Vermont's Sen. Bernie Sanders … and the guy I see in the mirror when I shave. Bernie is quite capable of speaking for himself, so what follows is a report on the state of actual existing socialism from the other half of the D.C. Senators and Columnists Soviet.
First, as we survey the political landscape, what's striking is the absence of advocates of socialism, at least as the term was understood by those who carried that banner during the capitalist crisis of the 1930s. Then, socialists and communists both spoke of nationalizing all major industries and abolishing private markets and the wage system. Today, it's impossible to find a left-leaning party anywhere that has such demands or entertains such fantasies. (Not even Hugo Chavez – more an authoritarian populist than any kind of socialist – says such things.)
Within the confines of socialist history, this means that the perspective of Eduard Bernstein – the fin de siecle German socialist who argued that the immediate struggle to humanize capitalism through the instruments of democratic government was everything, and that the goal of supplanting capitalism altogether was meaningless – has definitively prevailed. Within the confines of American history, this means that when New York's garment unions left the Socialist Party to endorse Franklin Roosevelt in 1936, they were charting the paradigmatic course for American socialists: into the Democratic Party to support not the abolition of capitalism but its regulation and democratization, and the creation of some areas of public life where the market does not rule.
Fostering sustainable capitalism
But in the United States, conservatives have never bashed socialism because its specter was actually stalking America. Rather, they've wielded the cudgel against such progressive reforms as free universal education, the minimum wage or tighter financial regulations.
Their signal success is to have kept the United States free from the taint of universal health care. The result: We have the world's highest health-care costs, borne by businesses and employees that cannot afford them; nearly 50 million Americans have no coverage; infant mortality rates are higher than those in 41 nations – but at least (phew!) we don't have socialized medicine.
Give conservatives credit for their consistency: They attacked Roosevelt as a socialist as they are now attacking Obama, when in fact Obama, like Roosevelt before him, is engaged not in creating socialism but in rebooting a crashed capitalist system. The spending in Obama's stimulus plan isn't a socialist takeover. It's the only way to inject money into a system in which private-sector investment, consumption and exports – the other three possible engines of growth – are locked down. Investing more tax dollars in education and research and development is a way to use public funds to create a more competitive private sector. Keeping our banks from speculating madly with our money is a way to keep banking alive.
If Obama realizes his agenda, what emerges will be a more social, sustainable, competitive capitalism.
His more intellectually honest and sentient conservative critics don't accuse him of Leninism but of making our form of capitalism more like Europe's. In fact, over the past quarter-century, Europe's capitalism became less regulated and more like ours, one reason Europe is tanking along with everyone else.
Capitalism bred its own overhaul
Take it from a democratic socialist: Laissez-faire American capitalism is about to be supplanted not by socialism but by a more regulated, viable capitalism. And the reason isn't that the woods are full of secret socialists who are only now outing themselves.
Judging by the failures of the great Wall Street investment houses and the worldwide crisis of commercial banks; the collapse of East Asian, German and American exports; the death rattle of the U.S. auto industry; the plunge of stock markets everywhere; the sickening rise in global joblessness; and the growing shakiness of governments in fledgling democracies that opened themselves to the world market – judging by all these, a more social capitalism is on the horizon because the deregulated capitalism of the past 30 years has blown itself up, taking much of the known world with it.
So, for conservatives searching for the culprits behind this transformation of capitalism: Despite our best efforts, it wasn't Bernie and it wasn't me. It was your own damn system.
Hopefully within two-three paragraphs please answer these questions:
Please use your critical thinking skills
Consider the source and the audience
Who is writing the news item?Where did the item appear?Why was it written?
What audience is it directed toward?What is the basic argument the author wants to make?
Please post the heading: Assignment#8 name (first initial last name)
Please post your comments on your class blog.Please ID yourself (not your nickname)
Due date:03-22-09 11:00pm
Monday, March 2, 2009
Assignment #6
Please read and respond to the following article:
Revenge of the Glut
By Paul Krugman The New York Times
Remember the good old days, when we used to talk about the “subprime crisis” — and some even thought that this crisis could be “contained”? Oh, the nostalgia!
Today we know that subprime lending was only a small fraction of the problem. Even bad home loans in general were only part of what went wrong. We’re living in a world of troubled borrowers, ranging from shopping mall developers to European “miracle” economies. And new kinds of debt trouble just keep emerging.
How did this global debt crisis happen? Why is it so widespread? The answer, I’d suggest, can be found in a speech Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, gave four years ago. At the time, Mr. Bernanke was trying to be reassuring. But what he said then nonetheless foreshadowed the bust to come.
The speech, titled “The Global Saving Glut and the U.S. Current Account Deficit,” offered a novel explanation for the rapid rise of the U.S. trade deficit in the early 21st century. The causes, argued Mr. Bernanke, lay not in America but in Asia.
In the mid-1990s, he pointed out, the emerging economies of Asia had been major importers of capital, borrowing abroad to finance their development. But after the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98 (which seemed like a big deal at the time but looks trivial compared with what’s happening now), these countries began protecting themselves by amassing huge war chests of foreign assets, in effect exporting capital to the rest of the world.
The result was a world awash in cheap money, looking for somewhere to go.
Most of that money went to the United States — hence our giant trade deficit, because a trade deficit is the flip side of capital inflows. But as Mr. Bernanke correctly pointed out, money surged into other nations as well. In particular, a number of smaller European economies experienced capital inflows that, while much smaller in dollar terms than the flows into the United States, were much larger compared with the size of their economies.
Still, much of the global saving glut did end up in America. Why?
Mr. Bernanke cited “the depth and sophistication of the country’s financial markets (which, among other things, have allowed households easy access to housing wealth).” Depth, yes. But sophistication? Well, you could say that American bankers, empowered by a quarter-century of deregulatory zeal, led the world in finding sophisticated ways to enrich themselves by hiding risk and fooling investors.
And wide-open, loosely regulated financial systems characterized many of the other recipients of large capital inflows. This may explain the almost eerie correlation between conservative praise two or three years ago and economic disaster today. “Reforms have made Iceland a Nordic tiger,” declared a paper from the Cato Institute. “How Ireland Became the Celtic Tiger” was the title of one Heritage Foundation article; “The Estonian Economic Miracle” was the title of another. All three nations are in deep crisis now.
For a while, the inrush of capital created the illusion of wealth in these countries, just as it did for American homeowners: asset prices were rising, currencies were strong, and everything looked fine. But bubbles always burst sooner or later, and yesterday’s miracle economies have become today’s basket cases, nations whose assets have evaporated but whose debts remain all too real. And these debts are an especially heavy burden because most of the loans were denominated in other countries’ currencies.
Nor is the damage confined to the original borrowers. In America, the housing bubble mainly took place along the coasts, but when the bubble burst, demand for manufactured goods, especially cars, collapsed — and that has taken a terrible toll on the industrial heartland. Similarly, Europe’s bubbles were mainly around the continent’s periphery, yet industrial production in Germany — which never had a financial bubble but is Europe’s manufacturing core — is falling rapidly, thanks to a plunge in exports.
If you want to know where the global crisis came from, then, think of it this way: we’re looking at the revenge of the glut.
And the saving glut is still out there. In fact, it’s bigger than ever, now that suddenly impoverished consumers have rediscovered the virtues of thrift and the worldwide property boom, which provided an outlet for all those excess savings, has turned into a worldwide bust.
One way to look at the international situation right now is that we’re suffering from a global paradox of thrift: around the world, desired saving exceeds the amount businesses are willing to invest. And the result is a global slump that leaves everyone worse off.
So that’s how we got into this mess. And we’re still looking for the way out.
Hopefully within two-three paragraphs please answer these questions:
Please use your critical thinking skills
Consider the source and the audience
Who is writing the news item?Where did the item appear?Why was it written?
What audience is it directed toward?What is the basic argument the author wants to make?
Please post the heading: Assignment#6 name (first initial last name)Please post your comments on your class blog.Please ID yourself (not your nickname).Due date:03-08-09 11:00pm
Revenge of the Glut
By Paul Krugman The New York Times
Remember the good old days, when we used to talk about the “subprime crisis” — and some even thought that this crisis could be “contained”? Oh, the nostalgia!
Today we know that subprime lending was only a small fraction of the problem. Even bad home loans in general were only part of what went wrong. We’re living in a world of troubled borrowers, ranging from shopping mall developers to European “miracle” economies. And new kinds of debt trouble just keep emerging.
How did this global debt crisis happen? Why is it so widespread? The answer, I’d suggest, can be found in a speech Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, gave four years ago. At the time, Mr. Bernanke was trying to be reassuring. But what he said then nonetheless foreshadowed the bust to come.
The speech, titled “The Global Saving Glut and the U.S. Current Account Deficit,” offered a novel explanation for the rapid rise of the U.S. trade deficit in the early 21st century. The causes, argued Mr. Bernanke, lay not in America but in Asia.
In the mid-1990s, he pointed out, the emerging economies of Asia had been major importers of capital, borrowing abroad to finance their development. But after the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98 (which seemed like a big deal at the time but looks trivial compared with what’s happening now), these countries began protecting themselves by amassing huge war chests of foreign assets, in effect exporting capital to the rest of the world.
The result was a world awash in cheap money, looking for somewhere to go.
Most of that money went to the United States — hence our giant trade deficit, because a trade deficit is the flip side of capital inflows. But as Mr. Bernanke correctly pointed out, money surged into other nations as well. In particular, a number of smaller European economies experienced capital inflows that, while much smaller in dollar terms than the flows into the United States, were much larger compared with the size of their economies.
Still, much of the global saving glut did end up in America. Why?
Mr. Bernanke cited “the depth and sophistication of the country’s financial markets (which, among other things, have allowed households easy access to housing wealth).” Depth, yes. But sophistication? Well, you could say that American bankers, empowered by a quarter-century of deregulatory zeal, led the world in finding sophisticated ways to enrich themselves by hiding risk and fooling investors.
And wide-open, loosely regulated financial systems characterized many of the other recipients of large capital inflows. This may explain the almost eerie correlation between conservative praise two or three years ago and economic disaster today. “Reforms have made Iceland a Nordic tiger,” declared a paper from the Cato Institute. “How Ireland Became the Celtic Tiger” was the title of one Heritage Foundation article; “The Estonian Economic Miracle” was the title of another. All three nations are in deep crisis now.
For a while, the inrush of capital created the illusion of wealth in these countries, just as it did for American homeowners: asset prices were rising, currencies were strong, and everything looked fine. But bubbles always burst sooner or later, and yesterday’s miracle economies have become today’s basket cases, nations whose assets have evaporated but whose debts remain all too real. And these debts are an especially heavy burden because most of the loans were denominated in other countries’ currencies.
Nor is the damage confined to the original borrowers. In America, the housing bubble mainly took place along the coasts, but when the bubble burst, demand for manufactured goods, especially cars, collapsed — and that has taken a terrible toll on the industrial heartland. Similarly, Europe’s bubbles were mainly around the continent’s periphery, yet industrial production in Germany — which never had a financial bubble but is Europe’s manufacturing core — is falling rapidly, thanks to a plunge in exports.
If you want to know where the global crisis came from, then, think of it this way: we’re looking at the revenge of the glut.
And the saving glut is still out there. In fact, it’s bigger than ever, now that suddenly impoverished consumers have rediscovered the virtues of thrift and the worldwide property boom, which provided an outlet for all those excess savings, has turned into a worldwide bust.
One way to look at the international situation right now is that we’re suffering from a global paradox of thrift: around the world, desired saving exceeds the amount businesses are willing to invest. And the result is a global slump that leaves everyone worse off.
So that’s how we got into this mess. And we’re still looking for the way out.
Hopefully within two-three paragraphs please answer these questions:
Please use your critical thinking skills
Consider the source and the audience
Who is writing the news item?Where did the item appear?Why was it written?
What audience is it directed toward?What is the basic argument the author wants to make?
Please post the heading: Assignment#6 name (first initial last name)Please post your comments on your class blog.Please ID yourself (not your nickname).Due date:03-08-09 11:00pm
Monday, February 23, 2009
Part Two Schedule
MW classes:
02-25 Chapter#5 Political Landscape
03-02 #5
03-04 Chapter#7 Political Parties
Spring Break 03/09-13
03-16 #7
03-18 Chapter#8 Public Opinion, Participation, and Voting
03-23 Chapter#9 Campaigns and Elections
03-25 #9
03-30 Chapter 10 The Media
04-01 Test #2
TTH classes:
02-26 Chapter#5 Political Landscape
03-03 #5
03-05 Chapter#7 Political Parties
Spring Break 03/09-13
03-17 #7
03-19 Chapter#8 Public Opinion, Participation, and Voting
03-24 Chapter#9 Campaign and Elections
03-26 #9
03-31 Chapter 10 The Media
04-02 Test #2
02-25 Chapter#5 Political Landscape
03-02 #5
03-04 Chapter#7 Political Parties
Spring Break 03/09-13
03-16 #7
03-18 Chapter#8 Public Opinion, Participation, and Voting
03-23 Chapter#9 Campaigns and Elections
03-25 #9
03-30 Chapter 10 The Media
04-01 Test #2
TTH classes:
02-26 Chapter#5 Political Landscape
03-03 #5
03-05 Chapter#7 Political Parties
Spring Break 03/09-13
03-17 #7
03-19 Chapter#8 Public Opinion, Participation, and Voting
03-24 Chapter#9 Campaign and Elections
03-26 #9
03-31 Chapter 10 The Media
04-02 Test #2
Assignment #5
Please read and respond to the following article:
The continuing fall of federalism
By GEORGE F. WILL Washington Post
http://www.thestate.com/editorial-columns/v-print/story/692551.html
Hopefully within two-three paragraphs please answer these questions:
Please use your critical thinking skills
Consider the source and the audience
Who is writing the news item?Where did the item appear?Why was it written?
What audience is it directed toward?What is the basic argument the author wants to make?
Please post the heading: Assignment#5 name (first initial last name)Please post your comments on your class blog.Please ID yourself (not your nickname).Due date:03-01-09 11:00pm
The continuing fall of federalism
By GEORGE F. WILL Washington Post
http://www.thestate.com/editorial-columns/v-print/story/692551.html
Hopefully within two-three paragraphs please answer these questions:
Please use your critical thinking skills
Consider the source and the audience
Who is writing the news item?Where did the item appear?Why was it written?
What audience is it directed toward?What is the basic argument the author wants to make?
Please post the heading: Assignment#5 name (first initial last name)Please post your comments on your class blog.Please ID yourself (not your nickname).Due date:03-01-09 11:00pm
Monday, February 16, 2009
Assignment #4
Please read and respond to the following article:
February 16, 2009
States and Cities in Scramble for Stimulus Cash
By MONICA DAVEY NYTimes
Well before President Obama’s stimulus package completed its tortuous path through Congress last week, state and local officials facing multimillion-dollar budget deficits, crumbling infrastructure and the prospect of massive reductions in services were already jockeying for the upper hand in deciding how the money should be spent.
In Missouri, the Department of Transportation says that within 180 days of Mr. Obama’s signing the legislation it is prepared to begin 34 transportation projects, costing $510 million and with the promise of 14,000 jobs.
Echoing the thoughts of many political leaders across the country, Mayor Frank C. Ortis of Pembroke Pines, Fla., says simply, “We have a wish list.” And high on that list is money to repair aging sewer pipes in his city of 150,000.
When Mr. Obama signs the stimulus bill in Denver on Tuesday, it will release the biggest influx of federal dollars since the days of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society program. But it also is expected to set off a multitude of political battles across the map: between governors and legislatures, state capitols and city halls, and even between neighboring municipalities.
Because the effectiveness of any stimulus plan depends on the money being quickly spent, whether state and local governments can work through the rules and resolve any disputes will have a large impact on the success Mr. Obama’s plan has in lifting the economy.
Along with the money, there are complex rules to the sprawling, $787 billion federal plan that local politicians from governors to small-town mayors say they are only now beginning to grasp. And while states will have direct say on the use of much of the money — especially on infrastructure projects like roads and bridges — many spending decisions will still rest with officials hundreds of miles away in Washington.
“Still, within the parameters given, there are a lot of policy choices and decisions states and localities have to make,” said Scott D. Pattison, executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers.
Mr. Pattison said he has faced a barrage of questions in recent days from state budget officials on matters like how much discretion states will have, how the money will be transferred and how it must be tracked.
“This is all rather daunting,” he said. “It’s a lot of money, and this is happening fast.”
While it offers a patchwork of spending, the plan also provides battlegrounds for untold intrastate political fights.
“There is a tension that’s happening between mayors and governors across the country now about who is going to receive what dollar amounts and for what purposes,” said Mayor Michael D. Bissonnette of Chicopee, Mass., population 54,000.
Mr. Bissonnette said that even before the legislation made its way for an official vote in Congress last week, the political pressure was mounting in his region of Western Massachusetts. A council of mayors and other leaders there was outraged, he said, to learn that one state proposal would send millions to the Massachusetts Turnpike rather than what he considers a backlog of local road and bridge projects.
Experts said the authorities in the states will probably have great discretion when it comes to billions of dollars for a broad range of state needs, including roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects. And states also will have considerable say in how billions are spent on Medicaid and for education.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials says the states have already identified 5,000 so-called “ready to go” transportation projects that could begin within a couple of months.
“We have far more in the way of projects that are ready to go than we have money to fund them,” Kevin A. Elsenheimer, a Republican state representative and the house minority leader in Michigan, said. “And it’s naïve to expect that politics will not be part of the process.”
Officials expect that politics will not be limited to the lawmakers. Spending decisions on education could pit urban school districts against suburban or rural ones; how billions are dispensed for energy could come down to how advanced, or not, one state might be when it comes to wind energy development; and in many cases, it will come down to whether extra money will be spent to save the job of a firefighter or a teacher.
Some state legislators said they feared that governors might try to dictate where the money goes, although in most states lawmakers would ultimately need to approve any spending. And clashes are already brewing over broad philosophical differences, particularly in state capitals with leadership divided along party lines.
For example, some governors said they opposed the notion that stimulus money be used to plug budget deficits while others said that might be needed.
Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, is among the most ardent opponents of the stimulus package, describing it as pork-barrel spending and bad policy and vowing — to the anger and chagrin of the Democratic members of the state’s Congressional delegation — not to take any of the money from Washington.
“For every job the bill creates, American taxpayers will spend $223,000,” Mr. Sanford wrote in an opinion article in The State newspaper on Sunday. “If we add the cost of this bill to the previous efforts of the federal government to deal with the financial crisis, the American taxpayer is on the hook for $9.7 trillion.”
He went on to write, “If the stimulus bill were a country, it would be the 15th-largest country in the world.”
Governors and states hungering for the money will find themselves competing against other states. For example, states without enough eligible “shovel-ready” construction projects might have to pass up some money, which could then be granted to other states, said Michael Bird, a policy analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures.
There is also a flush of new money for Medicaid spending — $87 billion — but that, too, comes with strings attached.
In Minnesota, for instance, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, is expected to revise his budget proposal, which had suggested reducing the number of residents eligible for state health care programs as a way to close a deficit. But such cuts now could jeopardize any extra financing for Medicaid under the stimulus plan, because the bill penalizes states that change their Medicaid eligibility to save money.
Everywhere, state leaders are busily checking, searching through more than 1,000 pages in the federal bill, to see how their unique circumstances might be helped or harmed.
In some cases, the package has put some proposed state budgets for next year on hold until lawmakers can see how things play out, and several states plan to rewrite parts of their budgets to secure more federal dollars.
In Arkansas and North Carolina, state authorities said they were concerned, though uncertain, whether they would receive less education money than other states. Neither state has a shortfall in its education budget, the officials said, and thus might not be eligible for as much education financing under the federal plan.
“We don’t want to be penalized for not having a deficit,” said Chrissy Pearson, a spokeswoman for Gov. Bev Perdue of North Carolina.
In Rhode Island, Steven M. Costantino, a state representative, said he worried that the state might lose out when it came to alternative energy because it had fewer resources already dedicated to areas like wind power.
“I hope that states that are just starting to get involved in renewable energy would still receive money to expand their programs,” Mr. Costantino said.
Reporting was contributed by Robbie Brown, Michael Cooper, David M. Herszenhorn and Robert Pear.
Hopefully within two-three paragraphs please answer these questions:
Please use your critical thinking skills
Consider the source and the audienceWho is writing the news item?Where did the item appear?Why was it written?What audience is it directed toward?
What is the basic argument the author wants to make?
Please post the heading: Assignment#4 name (first initial last name)Please post your comments on your class blog.Please ID yourself (not your nickname).Due date:02-22-09 11:00pm
February 16, 2009
States and Cities in Scramble for Stimulus Cash
By MONICA DAVEY NYTimes
Well before President Obama’s stimulus package completed its tortuous path through Congress last week, state and local officials facing multimillion-dollar budget deficits, crumbling infrastructure and the prospect of massive reductions in services were already jockeying for the upper hand in deciding how the money should be spent.
In Missouri, the Department of Transportation says that within 180 days of Mr. Obama’s signing the legislation it is prepared to begin 34 transportation projects, costing $510 million and with the promise of 14,000 jobs.
Echoing the thoughts of many political leaders across the country, Mayor Frank C. Ortis of Pembroke Pines, Fla., says simply, “We have a wish list.” And high on that list is money to repair aging sewer pipes in his city of 150,000.
When Mr. Obama signs the stimulus bill in Denver on Tuesday, it will release the biggest influx of federal dollars since the days of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society program. But it also is expected to set off a multitude of political battles across the map: between governors and legislatures, state capitols and city halls, and even between neighboring municipalities.
Because the effectiveness of any stimulus plan depends on the money being quickly spent, whether state and local governments can work through the rules and resolve any disputes will have a large impact on the success Mr. Obama’s plan has in lifting the economy.
Along with the money, there are complex rules to the sprawling, $787 billion federal plan that local politicians from governors to small-town mayors say they are only now beginning to grasp. And while states will have direct say on the use of much of the money — especially on infrastructure projects like roads and bridges — many spending decisions will still rest with officials hundreds of miles away in Washington.
“Still, within the parameters given, there are a lot of policy choices and decisions states and localities have to make,” said Scott D. Pattison, executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers.
Mr. Pattison said he has faced a barrage of questions in recent days from state budget officials on matters like how much discretion states will have, how the money will be transferred and how it must be tracked.
“This is all rather daunting,” he said. “It’s a lot of money, and this is happening fast.”
While it offers a patchwork of spending, the plan also provides battlegrounds for untold intrastate political fights.
“There is a tension that’s happening between mayors and governors across the country now about who is going to receive what dollar amounts and for what purposes,” said Mayor Michael D. Bissonnette of Chicopee, Mass., population 54,000.
Mr. Bissonnette said that even before the legislation made its way for an official vote in Congress last week, the political pressure was mounting in his region of Western Massachusetts. A council of mayors and other leaders there was outraged, he said, to learn that one state proposal would send millions to the Massachusetts Turnpike rather than what he considers a backlog of local road and bridge projects.
Experts said the authorities in the states will probably have great discretion when it comes to billions of dollars for a broad range of state needs, including roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects. And states also will have considerable say in how billions are spent on Medicaid and for education.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials says the states have already identified 5,000 so-called “ready to go” transportation projects that could begin within a couple of months.
“We have far more in the way of projects that are ready to go than we have money to fund them,” Kevin A. Elsenheimer, a Republican state representative and the house minority leader in Michigan, said. “And it’s naïve to expect that politics will not be part of the process.”
Officials expect that politics will not be limited to the lawmakers. Spending decisions on education could pit urban school districts against suburban or rural ones; how billions are dispensed for energy could come down to how advanced, or not, one state might be when it comes to wind energy development; and in many cases, it will come down to whether extra money will be spent to save the job of a firefighter or a teacher.
Some state legislators said they feared that governors might try to dictate where the money goes, although in most states lawmakers would ultimately need to approve any spending. And clashes are already brewing over broad philosophical differences, particularly in state capitals with leadership divided along party lines.
For example, some governors said they opposed the notion that stimulus money be used to plug budget deficits while others said that might be needed.
Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, is among the most ardent opponents of the stimulus package, describing it as pork-barrel spending and bad policy and vowing — to the anger and chagrin of the Democratic members of the state’s Congressional delegation — not to take any of the money from Washington.
“For every job the bill creates, American taxpayers will spend $223,000,” Mr. Sanford wrote in an opinion article in The State newspaper on Sunday. “If we add the cost of this bill to the previous efforts of the federal government to deal with the financial crisis, the American taxpayer is on the hook for $9.7 trillion.”
He went on to write, “If the stimulus bill were a country, it would be the 15th-largest country in the world.”
Governors and states hungering for the money will find themselves competing against other states. For example, states without enough eligible “shovel-ready” construction projects might have to pass up some money, which could then be granted to other states, said Michael Bird, a policy analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures.
There is also a flush of new money for Medicaid spending — $87 billion — but that, too, comes with strings attached.
In Minnesota, for instance, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, is expected to revise his budget proposal, which had suggested reducing the number of residents eligible for state health care programs as a way to close a deficit. But such cuts now could jeopardize any extra financing for Medicaid under the stimulus plan, because the bill penalizes states that change their Medicaid eligibility to save money.
Everywhere, state leaders are busily checking, searching through more than 1,000 pages in the federal bill, to see how their unique circumstances might be helped or harmed.
In some cases, the package has put some proposed state budgets for next year on hold until lawmakers can see how things play out, and several states plan to rewrite parts of their budgets to secure more federal dollars.
In Arkansas and North Carolina, state authorities said they were concerned, though uncertain, whether they would receive less education money than other states. Neither state has a shortfall in its education budget, the officials said, and thus might not be eligible for as much education financing under the federal plan.
“We don’t want to be penalized for not having a deficit,” said Chrissy Pearson, a spokeswoman for Gov. Bev Perdue of North Carolina.
In Rhode Island, Steven M. Costantino, a state representative, said he worried that the state might lose out when it came to alternative energy because it had fewer resources already dedicated to areas like wind power.
“I hope that states that are just starting to get involved in renewable energy would still receive money to expand their programs,” Mr. Costantino said.
Reporting was contributed by Robbie Brown, Michael Cooper, David M. Herszenhorn and Robert Pear.
Hopefully within two-three paragraphs please answer these questions:
Please use your critical thinking skills
Consider the source and the audienceWho is writing the news item?Where did the item appear?Why was it written?What audience is it directed toward?
What is the basic argument the author wants to make?
Please post the heading: Assignment#4 name (first initial last name)Please post your comments on your class blog.Please ID yourself (not your nickname).Due date:02-22-09 11:00pm
Monday, February 9, 2009
Assignment #3
Please read and respond to the following article:
Trade-Offs in the Stimulus Package
By Madison Powers, CQ Guest Columnist
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000003023588
Hopefully within two-three paragraphs please answer these questions:
Please use your critical thinking skills
Consider the source and the audience
Who is writing the news item?Where did the item appear?
Why was it written?What audience is it directed toward?
What is the basic argument the author wants to make?
Please post the heading: Assignment#3 name (first initial last name)
Please post your comments on your class blog.Please ID yourself (not your nickname).
Due date:02-15-09 11:00pm
Trade-Offs in the Stimulus Package
By Madison Powers, CQ Guest Columnist
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000003023588
Hopefully within two-three paragraphs please answer these questions:
Please use your critical thinking skills
Consider the source and the audience
Who is writing the news item?Where did the item appear?
Why was it written?What audience is it directed toward?
What is the basic argument the author wants to make?
Please post the heading: Assignment#3 name (first initial last name)
Please post your comments on your class blog.Please ID yourself (not your nickname).
Due date:02-15-09 11:00pm
Monday, February 2, 2009
Assignment #2
Please read and respond to the following article:
Government has to make choices families, businesses don’t
By CINDI ROSS SCOPPE Associate Editor
http://www.thestate.com/scoppe/v-print/story/659528.html
Hopefully within two-three paragraphs please answer these questions:
Consider the source and the audience
Who is writing the news item?Where did the item appear?Why was it written?
What audience is it directed toward?What is the basic argument the author wants to make?
Please post the heading: Assignment#2 name (first initial last name)
Please post your comments on your class blog.Please ID yourself (not your nickname).
Due date:02-08-09 11:00pm
Government has to make choices families, businesses don’t
By CINDI ROSS SCOPPE Associate Editor
http://www.thestate.com/scoppe/v-print/story/659528.html
Hopefully within two-three paragraphs please answer these questions:
Consider the source and the audience
Who is writing the news item?Where did the item appear?Why was it written?
What audience is it directed toward?What is the basic argument the author wants to make?
Please post the heading: Assignment#2 name (first initial last name)
Please post your comments on your class blog.Please ID yourself (not your nickname).
Due date:02-08-09 11:00pm
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Assignment #1
Please read and respond to the following article:
Radical in the White House
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN New York Times January 21, 2009
For one day, for one hour, let us take a bow as a country. Nearly 233 years after our founding, 144 years after the close of our Civil War and 46 years after Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, this crazy quilt of immigrants called Americans finally elected a black man, Barack Hussein Obama, as president. Walking back from the inauguration, I saw an African-American street vendor wearing a home-stenciled T-shirt that pretty well captured the moment — and then some. It said: “Mission Accomplished.”
But we cannot let this be the last mold we break, let alone the last big mission we accomplish. Now that we have overcome biography, we need to write some new history — one that will reboot, revive and reinvigorate America. That, for me, was the essence of Obama’s inaugural speech and I hope we — and he — are really up to it.
Indeed, dare I say, I hope Obama really has been palling around all these years with that old Chicago radical Bill Ayers. I hope Obama really is a closet radical.
Not radical left or right, just a radical, because this is a radical moment. It is a moment for radical departures from business as usual in so many areas. We can’t thrive as a country any longer by coasting on our reputation, by postponing solutions to every big problem that might involve some pain and by telling ourselves that dramatic new initiatives — like a gasoline tax, national health care or banking reform — are too hard or “off the table.” So my most fervent hope about President Obama is that he will be as radical as this moment — that he will put everything on the table.
Opportunities for bold initiatives and truly new beginnings are rare in our system — in part because of the sheer inertia and stalemate designed into our Constitution, with its deliberate separation of powers, and in part because of the way lobbying money, a 24-hour news cycle and a permanent presidential campaign all conspire to paralyze big changes.
“The system is built for stalemate,” said Michael J. Sandel, the Harvard University political theorist. “In ordinary times, the energy and dynamism of American life reside in the economy and society, and people view government with suspicion or indifference. But in times of national crisis, Americans look to government to solve fundamental problems that affect them directly. These are the times when presidents can do big things. These moments are rare. But they offer the occasion for the kind of leadership that can recast the political landscape, and redefine the terms of political argument for a generation.”
In the 1930s, the Great Depression enabled Franklin Roosevelt to launch the New Deal and redefine the role of the federal government, he added, while in the 1960s, the assassination of John F. Kennedy and “the moral ferment of the civil rights movement” enabled Lyndon Johnson to enact his Great Society agenda, including Medicare, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
“These presidencies did more than enact new laws and programs,” concluded Sandel. “They rewrote the social contract, and redefined what it means to be a citizen. Obama’s moment, and his presidency, could be that consequential.”
George W. Bush completely squandered his post-9/11 moment to summon the country to a dramatic new rebuilding at home. This has left us in some very deep holes. These holes — and the broad awareness that we are at the bottom of them — is what makes this a radical moment, calling for radical departures from business as usual, led by Washington.
That is why this voter is hoping Obama will swing for the fences. But he also has to remember to run the bases. George Bush swung for some fences, but he often failed at the most basic element of leadership — competent management and follow-through.
President Obama will have to decide just how many fences he can swing for at one time: grand bargains on entitlement and immigration reform? A national health care system? A new clean-energy infrastructure? The nationalization and repair of our banking system? Will it be all or one? Some now and some later? It is too soon to say.
But I do know this: while a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, so too is a great politician, with a natural gift for oratory, a rare knack for bringing people together, and a nation, particularly its youth, ready to be summoned and to serve.
So, in sum, while it is impossible to exaggerate what a radical departure it is from our past that we have inaugurated a black man as president, it is equally impossible to exaggerate how much our future depends on a radical departure from our present. As Obama himself declared from the Capitol steps: “Our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed.”
We need to get back to work on our country and our planet in wholly new ways. The hour is late, the project couldn’t be harder, the stakes couldn’t be higher, the payoff couldn’t be greater.
Hopefully within two-three paragraphs please answer these questions:
Consider the source and the audience
Who is writing the news item?
Where did the item appear?Why was it written?
What audience is it directed toward?
What is the basic argument the author wants to make?
Please post the heading: Assignment#1 name (first initial last name)Please post your comments on your class blog.Please ID yourself (not your nickname).
Due date:02-01-09 11:00pm
Radical in the White House
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN New York Times January 21, 2009
For one day, for one hour, let us take a bow as a country. Nearly 233 years after our founding, 144 years after the close of our Civil War and 46 years after Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, this crazy quilt of immigrants called Americans finally elected a black man, Barack Hussein Obama, as president. Walking back from the inauguration, I saw an African-American street vendor wearing a home-stenciled T-shirt that pretty well captured the moment — and then some. It said: “Mission Accomplished.”
But we cannot let this be the last mold we break, let alone the last big mission we accomplish. Now that we have overcome biography, we need to write some new history — one that will reboot, revive and reinvigorate America. That, for me, was the essence of Obama’s inaugural speech and I hope we — and he — are really up to it.
Indeed, dare I say, I hope Obama really has been palling around all these years with that old Chicago radical Bill Ayers. I hope Obama really is a closet radical.
Not radical left or right, just a radical, because this is a radical moment. It is a moment for radical departures from business as usual in so many areas. We can’t thrive as a country any longer by coasting on our reputation, by postponing solutions to every big problem that might involve some pain and by telling ourselves that dramatic new initiatives — like a gasoline tax, national health care or banking reform — are too hard or “off the table.” So my most fervent hope about President Obama is that he will be as radical as this moment — that he will put everything on the table.
Opportunities for bold initiatives and truly new beginnings are rare in our system — in part because of the sheer inertia and stalemate designed into our Constitution, with its deliberate separation of powers, and in part because of the way lobbying money, a 24-hour news cycle and a permanent presidential campaign all conspire to paralyze big changes.
“The system is built for stalemate,” said Michael J. Sandel, the Harvard University political theorist. “In ordinary times, the energy and dynamism of American life reside in the economy and society, and people view government with suspicion or indifference. But in times of national crisis, Americans look to government to solve fundamental problems that affect them directly. These are the times when presidents can do big things. These moments are rare. But they offer the occasion for the kind of leadership that can recast the political landscape, and redefine the terms of political argument for a generation.”
In the 1930s, the Great Depression enabled Franklin Roosevelt to launch the New Deal and redefine the role of the federal government, he added, while in the 1960s, the assassination of John F. Kennedy and “the moral ferment of the civil rights movement” enabled Lyndon Johnson to enact his Great Society agenda, including Medicare, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
“These presidencies did more than enact new laws and programs,” concluded Sandel. “They rewrote the social contract, and redefined what it means to be a citizen. Obama’s moment, and his presidency, could be that consequential.”
George W. Bush completely squandered his post-9/11 moment to summon the country to a dramatic new rebuilding at home. This has left us in some very deep holes. These holes — and the broad awareness that we are at the bottom of them — is what makes this a radical moment, calling for radical departures from business as usual, led by Washington.
That is why this voter is hoping Obama will swing for the fences. But he also has to remember to run the bases. George Bush swung for some fences, but he often failed at the most basic element of leadership — competent management and follow-through.
President Obama will have to decide just how many fences he can swing for at one time: grand bargains on entitlement and immigration reform? A national health care system? A new clean-energy infrastructure? The nationalization and repair of our banking system? Will it be all or one? Some now and some later? It is too soon to say.
But I do know this: while a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, so too is a great politician, with a natural gift for oratory, a rare knack for bringing people together, and a nation, particularly its youth, ready to be summoned and to serve.
So, in sum, while it is impossible to exaggerate what a radical departure it is from our past that we have inaugurated a black man as president, it is equally impossible to exaggerate how much our future depends on a radical departure from our present. As Obama himself declared from the Capitol steps: “Our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed.”
We need to get back to work on our country and our planet in wholly new ways. The hour is late, the project couldn’t be harder, the stakes couldn’t be higher, the payoff couldn’t be greater.
Hopefully within two-three paragraphs please answer these questions:
Consider the source and the audience
Who is writing the news item?
Where did the item appear?Why was it written?
What audience is it directed toward?
What is the basic argument the author wants to make?
Please post the heading: Assignment#1 name (first initial last name)Please post your comments on your class blog.Please ID yourself (not your nickname).
Due date:02-01-09 11:00pm
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Lottery-Funded Tuition Assistance
Lottery-Funded Tuition Assistance (LTA)
may be drastically reduced or eliminated!
Please read:
http://www.rickwhisonant.com/LTAStateSenators_Rep.htm
may be drastically reduced or eliminated!
Please read:
http://www.rickwhisonant.com/LTAStateSenators_Rep.htm
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Earth's looming environmental disaster
PBS Frontline:
Melting glaciers, rising sea levels, fires, floods and droughts. On the eve of a historic election, award-winning producer and correspondent Martin Smith investigates how the world's largest corporations and governments are responding to Earth's looming environmental disaster.
"I have reported on the Cold War, the breakup of the Soviet Union, the rise of Al Qaeda, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," says Smith. "But nothing matches climate change in scope and severity."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/view/
Melting glaciers, rising sea levels, fires, floods and droughts. On the eve of a historic election, award-winning producer and correspondent Martin Smith investigates how the world's largest corporations and governments are responding to Earth's looming environmental disaster.
"I have reported on the Cold War, the breakup of the Soviet Union, the rise of Al Qaeda, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," says Smith. "But nothing matches climate change in scope and severity."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/view/
Monday, January 5, 2009
PSC 201 Course Web Page
PSC 201 Course Web Page
Please click on the link below for your PSC 201 course web page. You will find the syllabus, lecture outline, lecture notes and audio files (podcasting/mp3) of the lectures.
Course Web Page
Participation Blog Assignment
I will post a news worthy link every Monday beginning January 26, 2009.Each student will be required to post their response to the article by every Sunday 11pm beginning February 01, 2009.
There will be a total of 10 blogs for each student. Each one counting 10 points and the total of the 10 blogs will equal to 20% of your grade.Minimum length: 2 paragraphs for each blog
Format: Using "CLUES" found in the Critical Thinking Handout link
Critical Thinking Handout
You will post your blog to your class blog page.Late posting of your blog: minus 3 points each day late
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
