Who Makes Policy Campaign 2016 Edition

An analysis of the 1.4 percentage point GDP growth in the second quarter of this year by the Bureau of Economic Analysis tells us that a steady increase in private consumption along with exports and nonresidential fixed investment were responsible for the economic growth in the first half of 2016.

The largest increase in consumer spending since gas prices have dropped, according to Aneta Markowska, economist at Societe Generale has been on healthcare.

“Since the Affordable Care Act’s main coverage provisions took effect at the beginning of 2014, expanded coverage is accelerating our recovery from the Great Recession by increasing families’ demand for health care goods and services and reducing their out-of-pocket medical costs, which frees up money to meet other pressing needs.” says Jason Furman, Chairman of Council of Economic Advisers.

“In nominal terms, household spending on healthcare averaged 3.9% between 2010 and 2013. It began to accelerate in the first half of 2014 and has averaged at 5.2% since then. Importantly, this pickup in healthcare spending was not driven by higher costs; real spending in this category accelerated from 1.9% in 2010-2013 to 3.9% thereafter. This would indicate that Americans have not only been spending more because of increased costs, but also intentionally allocating more of their wallet to the sector ” says Aneta Markowska.

“To match the increased spending, the healthcare sector’s labor market has also been booming” notes Aneta. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics: the healthcare sector produced about 240,000 jobs per year between 2010 and mid-2014, since then, it has averaged at 354,000/year and the sector is currently producing about 500,000 jobs annualized. Over the past 12 months, health care has added 445,000 jobs.

Tonight was the third and final debate of the 2016 presidential race and it was arguably the best one in terms of substance. The debate had a few shining moments, however, none were better than when Hillary defended a woman’s right to choose on the question of abortion. Her response was imbued with a moral clarity and conviction usually espoused by the religious right in its opposition to a woman’s right to control her own body. It was by far the best response on the issue I have ever witnessed during a debate by any politician. Her response struck such a chord of sincerity and personal connection to the topic that it can only be characterized as her most “human” moment of the campaign.

This, however, was soon followed by, in my own opinion, one of her worst responses of the night. That moment came when the moderator, Mr. Wallace, said “…we’ve learned from the WikiLeaks, that you said this, and I want to quote. ‘My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.’ So that’s the question… Is that your dream, open borders?” Rather than taking  advantage of the opportunity by promoting the idea of fair and free trade between us and our neighbors, she fall back to a bland and uninspiring reply having to do with energy. She had the opportunity to have a brief but substantive conversation with the American people on how free moving commerce between nations can a be a tool used to improve both the strategic and economic interests of our nation. Regardless, this was not what she did. As a result she missed the opportunity to make her case for current and future free trade agreements. For me, that was the low point of the debate.

For many former employees of the manufacturing sector who now toil away at minimum wage service jobs, there is not bigger issue than jobs. They’re told by the news media that the economy is rebounding, but to them it’s all a tale told by those not living in the real world. They don’t pine for the days when America was “great”, but for the days they felt like they were a part of it. To this group of citizens, our next president should have no greater priority than to address the issue of jobs. Unfortunately, it will not be the only issue faced by the next president. The reality is that a presidents first priority is always to secure the nation. A newer recognized reality is that the best way to secure foreign cooperation and friendships is through commerce. That is why our next president may view the strategic value or free trade agreements and the resulting relationships with a much higher regard than the hard issue of jobs. The new U.S. president will not be alone in feeling a sense of urgency and concern when it comes to free trade agreements. China’s surging military aspirations along with its hostile actions in the China Sea have other neighboring countries concerned and looking to move ahead with ratification of the TPP. They feel that a closer friendship and economic ties with the U.S. will help deter Chinese expansion in the area. Vietnam and Japan have made it clear that China is a concern that makes them want to move forward with the signing of the TPP>

A recent NYTimes Op-Ed entitled “Anne Frank is Today’s Syrian Refugee” draws a comparison between American treatment of Jews seeking asylum during the Holocaust, and today’s Syrian refugees seeking resettlement in the U.S. At first glance, the average person would argue with this claim, but during the 1930’s and 40’s “although 94% disapproved of Nazi treatment of Jews, 72% objected to admitting large number of Jews.” Today, we see this play out with the U.S. embarrassingly low goal to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees which accounts for one-fifth of 1% of the total number of refugees. We reached this goal earlier in September, and the 10,000th refugee was publicly celebrated! What is there really to celebrate? In comparison to the U.S., “Canada, with a population barely a tenth the size of the United States’, has resettled three times more Syrian refugees since last fall” The United States needs a more proactive refugee policy and efforts of current democrats deserve little praise.

It’s an all too similar scenario of Americans fearing this repeated story of the immigrants who are dangerous and different and will take our jobs – The U.S. cannot afford these extra people and we should look after ourselves…etc. Decades have passed and this xenophobic narrative still holds powerful weight, and unfortunately consequences for refugees.

How can we treat America’s long history of Xenophobia? How is it that a country composed of generations of immigrants refuses to offer the same sanctuary to today’s immigrants?

It has been a rough year in the newspaper headlines for the U.S. and President Obama in terms foreign policy. Cooperation between the U.S. and Russian to reach peace in Syria has fallen apart to the point that Russia has now installed anti-aircraft missile defense systems in order to threaten U.S. aircraft. There are also allegations by the U.S. government that Russia is meddling in the U.S. Presidential election. In the Middle East, Turkey has increased its criticism of the U.S. as a result of a coup attempt and has proceeded to bomb U.S. Kurdish allies engaged in fighting with ISIS. Iran has increased its support of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria in clear defiance of American and Western wishes. In East Asia, China has escalated the level of militarization of the disputed artificial islands in the South China Sea. North Korea has resumed nuclear weapons testing and repeatedly threatened the use of force in response to U.S. and South Korean actions. President Duarte of the Philippines has openly criticized and insulted both the U.S., and President Obama and his officials publicly while simultaneously announcing his intent to break the long standing friendship between the two nations.

All of that is happening as China, Russia, North Korea, Turkey and the Philippines have begun to talk about stronger military ties. Whomever ends up as president of the U.S. will face a much more hostile world than his predecessor. Despite its military and technological advantage, America should consider wielding its economic muscle in a much more aggressive manor. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown the limits of military power and have probably emboldened foreign nations to challenge a battle weary America openly. This is why economic ties to entire regions are important. Having the ability to affect a nations ability wage war and finance proxy wars is an essential tool in avoiding first hand conflict. Free trade agreements are of concern to aspiring world powers. When news that the TPP agreement had been concluded, many in China grew concerned. Many Chinese saw it as a move aimed to push China to play nicer with the international community. It felt the pressure. Russia is currently hurting economically due to oil prices and economic sanctions from the West. The Philippines receive both military and economic aid from the U.S.; America could use that along with it’s economic influence in the region to help cool the rhetoric coming from their president.

Many have grown heavily critical of President Obama’s “passive” nature and foreign policy. They believe that he should have used military intervention in Libya sooner and other areas. Perhaps Obama saw no endgame to such actions, but instead saw ways to influence foreign powers through a stronger economic presence throughout the world. That by leveraging economic ties and influence with large regional powers, it can wield foreign policy by proxy. Putting economic pressure on regional powers to wield their own influence create stability in the world. It’s time the U.S. take a more aggressive economic stand against Russia.

….but to fill the position of U.S. President, no experience required?!

Voters should not need reaffirmation of just how unqualified Trump is to occupy the seat of President without having previously occupied any other sort of political office in his life, as compared to Hillary’s decades worth of government work. But judging by the fact that Trump still has supporters, the American people seem to need maybe just one more reminder. The Clinton Campaign came up with a genius tool that takes us back to a random point in recent history and compares what Hillary was doing in that year as compared to Trump. The results are all at once amusing and upsetting. This interactive webpage is smart in its simple and blunt juxtaposition of the two candidates lives leading up to their campaign for U.S. Presidency, and hopefully will be effective in swaying some undecided voters.

It’s tough not to just fall down a rabbit hole and keep clicking, but the nausea induced by some of Trump’s past helped me to stop. Here’s just one example:

2006: Hillary is re-elected to the U.S. Senate with 67 percent of the vote, and doing bipartisan work to improve health care for military servicemembers.

2006: Trump says he “sort of hope[s]” for the housing market to collapse—saying he could “make a lot of money” from it.

Pennsylvania has been talked about largely in the Presidential election because a split is seen. In Philadelphia millennials are supporting Hillary Clinton in a big way and  another large city, Pittsburgh is seeing similar sentiment. However less than an hour away, in southwestern Pennsylvania, is Greene County aka coal country -where Donald Trump rules. The Senate race is not seeing much of a split in Pennsylvania. In the swing state Sen. Pat Toomey (R) is in a virtual tie with opponent Katie McGinty (D). The topic that these two have decided to be their divider is Climate change. While Katie McGinty has served as the head of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and is in line to support reducing climate change efforts her opponent is against it all. The interesting factor here is that According to a poll by the Natural Resources Defense Council, 82 percent of Pennsylvania voters want the state to develop a plan to curb carbon pollution. With such an overwhelming majority of the state in support of decreasing climate change producing emissions, one would think that the candidates could align on this issue. However the trick here is to follow the money… Toomey’s campaign is leaning heavily on fossil fuel donations. Overall, Toomey’s campaign has received $1 million dollars from energy and natural resources companies, both directly and through his PAC, according to Open Secrets.  Typical.

…in some regions. The effects and those expected of increasing climate change have largely been seen as bad. With much discussion surrounding the loss of natural animal habitats, decreasing water supply, agricultural depression, and an increase in unpleasant weather there has seemed to be no good side of increasing temperatures, until now. A study out of Virginia Tech that was recently published in the Journal for Climatic Change makes claims that rising temperatures would lead to positive changes in Ethiopia. The research states that  water availability in the Blue Nile Basin of Ethiopia may increase in coming decades due to global climate change. A correlation that I have never seen made before, typically rising temperatures decrease water availability. As a result of the increase of water availability crop production would increase, hydroelectric power projects would develop and irrigation systems could be established in the region. Not too shabby. Read More Here.

The New York Times recently published an explosive report regarding two women, Jessica Leeds and Rachel Crooks, who accuse Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump of making inappropriate advances on them within minutes of meeting them.  The allegations, spanning from the late 1970’s to 2005, paint a portrait of a highly entitled serial sexual abuser.  It’s a damaging picture, indeed.  And, from his response, the Donald knows that all too well:

“Lawyers for Donald Trump have called on The New York Times to retract a bombshell report in which two women claimed that Trump had touched them inappropriately.”

In the open letter sent to the newspaper, demands were made to cease further publication of the report, have it removed from the website, and issue a full retraction and apology.  Threats have been made that lawsuits were being drafted against the Times and The Palm Beach Post, which had published another story about sexual assault allegations against Trump.

It’s easy to see a portrait here of a complete crybaby, someone so thin-skinned that can’t have any criticism at all put out there.  He must have his praises sung at all times as if he’s God Almighty.

With this incident (and many others in the past), a more sinister picture emerges.  It is one showing a man, running for the highest office in the land, who doesn’t understand the point of the First Amendment and a free press.  He simply doesn’t understand that the press is there to hold public figures running for and holding office accountable, and criticize them when they merit critcism.

You do not have democracy when you don’t allow the press to do its job, and you should not be anywhere near the White House if you can’t understand that simple fact.

In class, we spoke about how trump is a media magnet with him getting a lot of free media coverage, well it’s good to know Hillary is finally catching up.

According to Carl Bialik of FiveThirtyEight who tracks media coverage for the two presidential candidates through mediaQuant, a Portland, Oregon, firm that analyzes television, print and online media and social for the quantity and quality of mentions of candidates.

“While Trump hogged free media coverage earlier in the 2016 campaign, Clinton started matching his pace soon after both nominations were clinched. That trend continued in September: Clinton got coverage worth $423 million on television, in print and online, to Trump’s $465 million in September.”

Also noteworthy is the quality of media coverage, according to Bialik “Since mid-September, Clinton’s net favorability rating is 10 percentage points better than Trump’s”