Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP's War on Women

1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.
2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."
3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)
4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids. 
5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.
6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.
7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.
8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.
9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.
10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up). 

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Thursday, February 17, 2011

DOD included in spending cuts/freezes

It would seem that any real attempts at reducing the national debt would have to have cuts to the DOD.  I think it is a shame but military families would have to suffer from the cuts as well.  Is this even on the discussion? I doubt it and it is one of those programs that many will say that cannot be cut due to national defense.  I am not for lessening our defenses (especially with the Mexican drug war looming from across the river) nor am I for cutting benefits to the the men and women that serve our country, but any real budget cutting has to be across the board.  I want to remind the gentle reader that military service is not the only place where one can serve their country.  What about police and fire departments?  What about the lonely educator?  Service is in whatever form it takes and those people should be protected from cuts as much as possible.  We have hard times coming...

DoD Looks to Cut Spending in Budget Request

WASHINGTON -- Pentagon officials asked for $42 billion less to fund the wars next year and an increase of less than 1 percent in the military’s base budget for fiscal 2012, holding defense costs down as Congress stresses fiscal restraint.
 
But before they lobby for that money, military leaders are pleading with lawmakers to pass last year’s budget request, shelved by the last Congress in December after months of political in-fighting. For now, service officials are operating with roughly $22 billion less this fiscal year than they had hoped, under a temporary budget bill that expires next month.
 
“This department has been operating under a continuing resolution going on five months, resulting in difficulties that may soon turn into a crisis,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters at a news conference Monday.
 
At least $14 billion of that missing fiscal 2011 money is needed to ensure “the level of resources needed to protect this nation’s security and vital interests around the world,” Gates said.
 
The $553 billion budget plan, up $5 billion from last year’s budget request, is highlighted by billions in spending cuts and “efficiencies” outlined by Gates last month.
 
That includes ending development of the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and several Army missile programs, cutting contractors and flag officer billets, and consolidating a number of organizations, including Joint Forces Command. But most of those savings will be reinvested in other department priorities, such as a new long-range bomber program for the Air Force and purchase of new Navy ships.
 
The Pentagon’s base budget has increased by at least $15 billion each of the last five years, and is up more than $126 billion since fiscal 2005. The modest $5 billion increase in this year’s request covers little more than routine increases in personnel and maintenance costs. Some of the sharpest cuts are reserved for military construction and research.
 
“This budget represents a reasonable, responsible and sustainable level of funding, the minimum level of defense spending that is necessary given the security challenges we are facing around the globe,” Gates said.
 
The military budget proposal calls for a 1.6 percent pay raise for all servicemembers next January, a 4.2 percent bump in Basic Allowance for Housing and a 3.4 percent boost in Basic Allowance for Subsistence.
 
The pay raise is slightly above the 1.4 percent increase troops saw this year. President Obama announced a pay freeze on federal workers in December, so civilian defense employees and Department of Veterans Affairs workers will not see a cost of living increase in 2012.
 
Cuts in the funding for war operations are even more dramatic. The department has asked for $118 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan costs, down more than 26 percent from the nearly $160 billion request last year. Officials said that reflects Pentagon plans to finish the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and “modest declines” for funding of Afghanistan operations.
 
Gates said the reduction in Afghanistan spending does not correspond to a specific number of troops leaving the country in the next 18 months, since the size and scope of any drawdown will be based on conditions on the ground.
 
“But that’s not to say that we will have 98,000 troops at the end of FY12,” he said. “In fact, it’s a lead-pipe cinch that we won’t.”
 
But Pentagon officials portrayed the budget as reasonable and sustainable spending that continues Gates’ efforts to focus the military not just on Iraq and Afghanistan but also on future contingencies: beefing up cybersecurity, building counterterrorism-oriented special operations forces, and maintaining a check down to China’s and Iran’s militaries.
 
In addition, the department will also ask for 1,000 more small-sized unmanned aerial vehicles than officials purchased last year, and more Predator-class, medium-altitude spying platforms. The Pentagon also wants $500 million to build a new Joint Operations Center for U.S. Cyber Command at Fort Meade, Md., in addition to increased spending on cyber-related inventions from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
 
But it’s not all high-tech: Gates is requesting more than $300 million to buy more slow-flying MC-12 twin-engine propeller planes. The four-seat planes “have produced valuable battlefield intelligence in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
 
And nearly $13 billion of the overseas funding will go toward training and equipping Afghan Security Forces, whom lawmakers and defense officials have deemed the critical piece in American forces’ eventual withdrawal from that country.
 
Pentagon officials included a controversial premium hike for certain veterans using Tricare, a proposal that has met fierce opposition from veterans groups and Congress for the last decade.
 
Under the plan, retirees would see a monthly increase of $2.50 for individual plans and $5 for family plans starting next January, and link future increases to medical inflation costs in future years. Prescriptions bought through retail pharmacies will cost another $3, while generic drugs brought through mail order programs will have a $3 reduction in co-pays.
 
Pentagon officials should quickly get an idea how their modest spending increase will be received on Capitol Hill. Gates will testify about the budget plans on Wednesday before the Republican-led House Armed Services Committee, whose members include a number of new lawmakers elected last fall on platforms that called for deep cuts in government spending.
 
So far, Republican leadership in the House has been reluctant to propose deeper cuts in defense spending than Gates has publicly called for, but conservative lawmakers have said they intend in coming weeks to push for more than $100 billion in cuts already outlined by party leadership.
 
As details of the budget plans emerged, fiscally conservative think tanks blasted the military spending plans.
 
“This isn’t a budget cut. It’s just not a reduction in defense spending,” said Laura Peterson, senior policy analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense.
 
Peterson said while Gates’ request presents a slower rate of growth than planned, it does not match the belt-tightening occurring across the rest of the federal government, proportionally.
 
“I’m not convinced that even this is going to be sustainable over the long term,” she said.
 
Christopher Preble of the libertarian Cato Institute said the budget gives the appearance of reining in defense spending, but in reality only shifts around money cut from a handful of defense programs to other military buys.
 
“In the past 12 years, the budget has doubled in real, inflation-adjusted terms,” he said in a statement. “Deeper cuts should be made along with an effort to lessen worldwide defense commitments, reducing the strain on the force.”
 

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Class Warfare?

Truly I am hoping that the following article is incorrect in some it's findings.  There is a big difference between what is good for "Wall Street" and the top 1% of income earners and what is good for the middle class.  The middle class is the engine that powers the United States.  If that engine becomes stagnant then what happens to the country.  If  it comes to class warfare then that will be the end of this experiment. The end of the United States.  We need to constantly remind the politicians that what is good for the "rich" is not what is necessarily good for the country.

How the middle class became the underclass

, On Wednesday February 16, 2011, 9:28 am EST
Are you better off than your parents?
Probably not if you're in the middle class.
Incomes for 90% of Americans have been stuck in neutral, and it's not just because of the Great Recession. Middle-class incomes have been stagnant for at least a generation, while the wealthiest tier has surged ahead at lighting speed.
In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33,000 in 2008, according to IRS data.
Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans -- those making $380,000 or more -- have seen their incomes grow 33% over the last 20 years, leaving average Americans in the dust. Experts point to some of the usual suspects -- like technology and globalization -- to explain the widening gap between the haves and have-nots.
But there's more to the story.
A real drag on the middle class
One major pull on the working man was the decline of unions and other labor protections, said Bill Rodgers, a former chief economist for the Labor Department, now a professor at Rutgers University.
Because of deals struck through collective bargaining, union workers have traditionally earned 15% to 20% more than their non-union counterparts, Rodgers said.
But union membership has declined rapidly over the past 30 years. In 1983, union workers made up about 20% of the workforce. In 2010, they represented less than 12%.
"The erosion of collective bargaining is a key factor to explain why low-wage workers and middle income workers have seen their wages not stay up with inflation," Rodgers said.
Without collective bargaining pushing up wages, especially for blue-collar work -- average incomes have stagnated.
International competition is another factor. While globalization has lifted millions out of poverty in developing nations, it hasn't exactly been a win for middle class workers in the U.S.
Factory workers have seen many of their jobs shipped to other countries where labor is cheaper, putting more downward pressure on American wages.
"As we became more connected to China, that poses the question of whether our wages are being set in Beijing," Rodgers said.
Finding it harder to compete with cheaper manufacturing costs abroad, the U.S. has emerged as primarily a services-producing economy. That trend has created a cultural shift in the job skills American employers are looking for.
Whereas 50 years earlier, there were plenty of blue collar opportunities for workers who had only high school diploma, now employers seek "soft skills" that are typically honed in college, Rodgers said.
A boon for the rich
While average folks were losing ground in the economy, the wealthiest were capitalizing on some of those same factors, and driving an even bigger wedge between themselves and the rest of America.
For example, though globalization has been a drag on labor, it's been a major win for corporations who've used new global channels to reduce costs and boost profits. In addition, new markets around the world have created even greater demand for their products.
"With a global economy, people who have extraordinary skills... whether they be in financial services, technology, entertainment or media, have a bigger place to play and be rewarded from," said Alan Johnson, a Wall Street compensation consultant.
As a result, the disparity between the wages for college educated workers versus high school grads has widened significantly since the 1980s.
In 1980, workers with a high school diploma earned about 71% of what college-educated workers made. In 2010, that number fell to 55%.
Another driver of the rich: The stock market.
The S&P 500 has gained more than 1,300% since 1970. While that's helped the American economy grow, the benefits have been disproportionately reaped by the wealthy.
And public policy of the past few decades has only encouraged the trend.
The 1980s was a period of anti-regulation, presided over by President Reagan, who loosened rules governing banks and thrifts.
A major game changer came during the Clinton era, when barriers between commercial and investment banks, enacted during the post-Depression era, were removed.
In 2000, President Bush also weakened the government's oversight of complex securities, allowing financial innovations to take off, creating unprecedented amounts of wealth both for the overall economy, and for those directly involved in the financial sector.
Tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration and extended under Obama were also a major windfall for the nation's richest.
And as then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan brought interest rates down to new lows during the decade, the housing market experienced explosive growth.
"We were all drinking the Kool-aid, Greenspan was tending bar, Bernanke and the academic establishment were supplying the liquor," Deutsche Bank managing director Ajay Kapur wrote in a research report in 2009.
But the story didn't end well. Eventually, it all came crashing down, resulting in the worst economic slump since the Great Depression.
With the unemployment rate still excessively high and the real estate market showing few signs of rebounding, the American middle class is still reeling from the effects of the Great Recession.
Meanwhile, as corporate profits come roaring back and the stock market charges ahead, the wealthiest people continue to eclipse their middle-class counterparts.
"I think it's a terrible dilemma, because what we're obviously heading toward is some kind of class warfare," Johnson said.

ARTICLE LINK

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Republicans For Rape

REPUBLICANS FOR RAPE

The GOP Attempt To Redefine Rape

This article isn’t about legislation; I want to start off by saying that. This article is about freedom, the freedom that is given to us by our government and the freedom that can just as easily be taken away by this same government, if we allow them to do so.
The cause of this recent epiphany of mine, you may ask? The recent bill, titled the “No Taxpayer Money for Abortion Act,” proposed by the House of Representatives (with 173 co-sponsors coming from the Republican Party) attempted to re-write the definition of rape.
The bill has been re-worded to include a clause stating that funding for abortion will only be given in the event of an act of forcible rape, if a minor becomes pregnant as a result of incest, or if a physical disorder of the mother will cause death or harm in the case of a pregnancy.
This change would mean that anyone who is not a minor or a woman with a physical disorder would not be able to access any healthcare funds when it comes to having an abortion. Even those who are raped must now face the “legal consequences.”
The important thing about this bill is the phrase “forcible rape.” This new way of viewing rape has never been legally defined by previous legislation, but the GOP here wishes to draw a distinction between rape and forcible rape.
So the question arises: what makes a rape forced? When is a rape not forced? And what distinction is the GOP trying to create? The fact is that the literal, accepted definition of rape is when a woman or a man is forced into having sex with another person. This doesn’t seem to be enough for the Republican Party, however, whose religious morals once again get in the way of any civil rights progress being made.
My main concern with this bill is the fact that the government is given the power to dictate not only what constitutes as “rape” but where the taxpayer’s money should go. Because we live in a system where we elect representatives to cast votes in our name, this type of legislation can arise. How is it the government gets to decide what constitutes “forced rape”? A representative from moveon.org says it perfectly: “Bruises and broken bones do not define rape — a lack of consent does.” Is the act of rape not enough to warrant an abortion? If you are morally opposed to it, chances are you would not be having the abortion to begin with, so why must the government make this moral choice for us?
The same question can be asked of gay marriage. In California, an idea based on biblical scripture is currently keeping two people in love from enjoying the bonds of holy matrimony. In a country where our forefathers made a distinction that church and state should be kept separate, we still choose to let our laws be defined by the church.
The Enlightenment period showed us that the church should not rule our lives. Were we not given the right to live in a free, secular country where religion does not dictate our laws?
My emotional critique aside, I must profess my pride in the media as well as the citizens of this country. Under pressure from the media and other advocacy groups like moveon.org, the GOP has decided to amend the original literature of “forcible” in their bill.
One particularly humorous thing that can be noted, in response to last week’s article about Washington elected officials using Twitter to their advantage (and disadvantage), tweeters learned that they can use Twitter against these very same candidates. Thousands of people rallied together, virtually, to demand a change by posting their discontent and adding #DearJohn at the end to make it easy to find other supporters of this cause.
The Twitter topic is proof positive that we as citizens have the power to critique our government. The GOP relenting is one small step in taking down the bill, but the battle is not over just yet. This right to free speech should never be forgotten. We must understand, especially as students about to join the “real world,” that the power always remains in the hands of the public, no matter what decisions the elected few make.
Sara Naor is a first-year film and media studies major. She can be reached at snaor@uci.edu.

ARTICLE LINK

Stupid Republican Platform

Let us agree that the national debt is a major problem.  It has been for my entire lifetime and it is getting worse.  Does one think that it can be handle in the term of  a single president?  Not likely!  There is no way to attack the debt without raising taxes.  Any consideration of attacking the national debt with just budget cuts is ludicrous.  That basic principle is spend less money and perhaps not grow the debt but it does nothing about the actual debt (which continues to grow whether we add to it or not).  The Republicans want to cut all the Democratic pork but do not seem to want to cut their own and the opposite holds as well.  Perhaps we should end the Bush tax cuts and earmark that money to strictly pay down the debt?

South Carolina lawmaker wants separate currency for state

A South Carolina state politician wants the state to develop its own gold and silver-based currency in case the Federal Reserve collapses and hyper-inflation ensues. "If folks lose faith in the dollar, we need to have some kind of backup," State Sen. Lee Bright told the Spartanburg Herald Journal's Stephen Largen. His bill asks a... .

ARTICLE LINK

There is no way that this is good for either the citizens of South Carolina nor for the United States. Once we start issuing state currencies then  we devalue the dollar.  One of the things about the dollar is that it is the world's currency.  The United States has a certain power because the entire world uses the dollar so a devaluation of it's worth would be even more damaging.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

It's Economics Stupid

It is a proven fact that supporting education will improve the economic outlook of state/nation/etc., so why are the conservatives so intent on cutting education?  If they are truly basing everything on economics then they should want to support education rather then harm education.  Is it perhaps a control issue?  If you don't educate people then the populace will never see how far the conservative movement has strayed from classical conservative thought. We have seen how many people support the "new right" even though it is in no way a conservative movement. 
At a time when the United Way estimates that the price tag for dropouts to Texas taxpayers is $9.6 billion every year, can we really afford to cut state funding for our students?

ACADEMIC CONSPIRACIES

One of my problems with the current conservative movement is their insistence that there is some conspiracy within academia.  They believe that all of the hard sciences have created a "global warming conspiracy" so that they can control the world.  How totally bizarre is this?  Academics are perhaps some of the most dastardly people in that they try to discredit all scientific theories so the suggestion that they would "conspire" together is ludicrous.  Academics are not much different than businessmen in their outlook.  The second part of this conspiracy is that somehow scientists are going to control the economics of the world.  I have yet  to have an explanation on just how this is possible.

This is just one more way that the "right" is attacking education.  They seem to be succeeding when one looks at basic scientific understanding amongst  average Americans.

A new liberal bumper sticker should say "Republicans want you to be Stupid".

Arctic Oscillation brings record low January extent, unusual mid-latitude weather

Arctic sea ice extent for January 2011 was the lowest in the satellite record for that month. The Arctic oscillation persisted in its strong negative phase for most of the month, keeping ice extent low.
map from space showing sea ice extent, continentsFigure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for January 2011 was 13.55 million square kilometers (5.23 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

High-resolution image

Overview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent averaged over January 2011 was 13.55 million square kilometers (5.23 million square miles). This was the lowest January ice extent recorded since satellite records began in 1979. It was 50,000 square kilometers (19,300 square miles) below the record low of 13.60 million square kilometers (5.25 million square miles), set in 2006, and 1.27 million square kilometers (490,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.
Ice extent in January 2011 remained unusually low in Hudson Bay, Hudson Strait (between southern Baffin Island and Labrador), and Davis Strait (between Baffin Island and Greenland). Normally, these areas freeze over by late November, but this year Hudson Bay did not completely freeze over until mid-January. The Labrador Sea remains largely ice-free.
graph with months on x axis and extent on y axis Figure 2. The graph above shows daily Arctic sea ice extent as of January 31, 2011, along with daily ice extents for previous low-ice-extent years in the month of January. Light blue indicates 2010-2011, green shows 2005-2006 (the record low for the month was in 2006), and dark gray shows the 1979 to 2000 average. The gray area around the average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data. Sea Ice Index data.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

High-resolution image
Conditions in context
Air temperatures over much of the Arctic were 2 to 6 degrees Celsius (4 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal in January. Over the eastern Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Baffin Bay/Davis Strait and Labrador Sea, temperatures were at least 6 degrees Celsius (11 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. Temperatures were near average over the western Canadian Arctic Archipelago and Scandinavia.
As in December 2010, the warm temperatures in January came from two sources: unfrozen areas of the ocean continued to release heat to the atmosphere, and the wind patterns accompanying the negative phase of the Arctic oscillation brought warm air into the Arctic. Near the end of January the negative Arctic oscillation pattern broke down and turned positive, which usually favors ice growth. It is unclear how long it will remain in a positive mode.
monthly graph Figure 3. Monthly January ice extent for 1979 to 2011 shows a decline of 3.3% per decade.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

High-resolution image
January 2011 compared to past years January 2011 had the lowest ice extent for the month since the beginning of satellite records. The linear rate of decline for the month is –3.3% per decade.
Ice extent for the Arctic as a whole increased at an average of 42,800 square kilometers (16,500 square miles) per day through the month of January, which is about average.
figure 4: masie grraph Figure 4. This graph shows the ice extent in Hudson Bay from late November to the end of January, for the last five years. This year, Hudson Bay froze up substantially later than in previous years. MASIE data.
—Credit: NSIDC /NIC MASIE Product

High-resolution image
Slow regional ice growth
In contrast, regional ice growth has been particularly slow compared to past years. Hudson Bay did not completely freeze up until mid-January, about a month later than normal according to Canadian Ice Service analyses. The Labrador Sea region is still largely free of ice, except in protected bays along the coast. Normally at this time of year, ice extends a few hundred kilometers from the coast all the way from Hudson Strait to Newfoundland.

figure 5: pressure map Figure 5. These images show high and low atmospheric pressure patterns for January 2011 (left) and the January 1968-1996 average (right). Yellows and reds show higher pressures; blues and purples indicate lower pressures, as indicated by the height of the 850 millibar pressure level above the surface, called the pressure surface. Normally, the pressure surface is nearer to the surface around the pole, winds follow the pressure contours around the pole (the polar vortex), and cold air is trapped in the Arctic. This year, the pressure pattern is allowing cold air to spill out of the Arctic into the mid-latitudes.
—Credit: NSIDC courtesy NOAA/ESRL PSD High-resolution image

Potential links with mid-latitude weather
While the Arctic has been warm, cold and stormy weather has affected much of the Northeast U.S. and Europe. Last winter also paired an anomalously warm Arctic with cold and snowy weather for the eastern U.S. and northern Europe. Is there a connection?
Warm conditions in the Arctic and cold conditions in northern Europe and the U.S. are linked to the strong negative mode of the Arctic oscillation. Cold air is denser than warmer air, so it sits closer to the surface. Around the North Pole, this dense cold air causes a circular wind pattern called the polar vortex , which helps keep cold air trapped near the poles. When sea ice has not formed during autumn and winter, heat from the ocean escapes and warms the atmosphere. This may weaken the polar vortex and allow air to spill out of the Arctic and into mid-latitude regions in some years, bringing potentially cold winter weather to lower latitudes.
Some scientists have speculated that more frequent episodes of a negative Arctic Oscillation, and the stormy winters that result, are linked to the loss of sea ice in the Arctic. Dr. James Overland of NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) recently noted a link between low sea ice and a weak polar vortex in 2005, 2008, and the past two winters, all years with very low September sea ice extent. Earlier work by Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University and colleagues also suggested a relationship between autumn sea ice levels and mid-latitude winter conditions. Judah Cohen, at Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc., and his colleagues propose another idea—a potential relationship between early snowfall in northern Siberia, a negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation, and more extreme winters elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. More research on these ideas may shed light on the connections and have the potential to improve seasonal weather forecasting.
Further reading
Francis, J.A., Chan, W-H., Leathers, D.J., Miller, J.R., Veron, D.E., 2009. Winter Northern Hemisphere weather patterns remember summer. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07503, doi:10.1029/2009GL037274.
Overland, J.E., Wang, M-Y., 2010. Large-scale atmospheric circulation changes are associated with the recent loss of Arctic sea ice. Tellus 62A, 1-9.
Cohen, J., J. Foster, M. Barlow, K. Saito, and J. Jones, 2010. Winter 2009-2010: A case study of an extreme Arctic Oscillation event. Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L17707, doi:10.1029/2010GL044256.

For previous analyses, please see the drop-down menu under Archives in the right navigation at the top of this page.

ARTICLE  LINK

Government and strategic thinking

SINGAPORE — I am in the Gan Eng Seng Primary School in a middle-class neighborhood of Singapore, and the principal, A.W. Ai Ling, has me visiting a fifth-grade science class. All the 11-year-old boys and girls are wearing junior white lab coats with their names on them. Outside in the hall, yellow police tape has blocked off a “crime scene” and lying on a floor, bloodied, is a fake body that has been murdered. The class is learning about DNA through the use of fingerprints, and their science teacher has turned the students into little CSI detectives. They have to collect fingerprints from the scene and then break them down.
I missed that DNA lesson when I was in fifth grade. When I asked the principal whether this was part of the national curriculum, she said no. She just had a great science teacher, she said, and was aware that Singapore was making a big push to expand its biotech industries and thought it would be good to push her students in the same direction early. A couple of them checked my fingerprints. I was innocent — but impressed. This was just an average public school, but the principal had made her own connections between “What world am I living in,” “Where is my country trying to go in that world” and, therefore, “What should I teach in fifth-grade science.” I was struck because that kind of linkage is so often missing in U.S. politics today. Republicans favor deep cuts in government spending, while so far exempting Medicare, Social Security and the defense budget. Not only is that not realistic, but it basically says that our nation’s priorities should be to fund retirement homes for older people rather than better schools for younger people and that we should build new schools in Afghanistan before Alabama. President Barack Obama just laid out a smart and compelling vision of where our priorities should be. But he did not spell out how and where we will have to both cut and invest — really intelligently and at a large scale — to deliver on his vision. Singapore is tiny and by no means a U.S.-style democracy. Yet, like America, it has a multi-ethnic population — Chinese, Indian and Malay — with a big working class. It has no natural resources and even has to import sand for building. But today its per capita income is just below U.S. levels, built with high-end manufacturing, services and exports. The country’s economy grew last year at 14.7 percent, led by biomedical exports. How? If Singapore has one thing to teach America, it is about taking governing seriously, relentlessly asking: What world are we living in and how do we adapt to thrive. Singapore probably has the freest market in the world; it doesn’t believe in import tariffs, minimum wages or unemployment insurance. But it believes regulators need to make sure markets work properly — because they can’t on their own — and it subsidizes home ownership and education to give everyone a foundation to become self-reliant. Singapore copied the German model that strives to put everyone who graduates from high school on a track for higher education, but only about 40 percent go to universities. Others are tracked to polytechnics or vocational institutes, so the vast majority graduate with the skills to get a job, whether it be as a plumber or a scientist. Explained Ravi Menon, the permanent secretary of Singapore’s Ministry of Trade and Industry: “The two ‘isms’ that perhaps best describe Singapore’s approach are: pragmatism — an emphasis on what works in practice rather than abstract theory; and eclecticism — a willingness to adapt to the local context best practices from around the world.” It is a sophisticated mix of radical free-market and nanny state that requires sophisticated policymakers to implement, which is why politics here is not treated as sports or entertainment. Top bureaucrats and cabinet ministers have their pay linked to top private sector wages, so most make well over $1 million a year, and their bonuses are tied to the country’s annual GDP growth rate. It means the government can attract high-quality professionals and corruption is low. America never would or should copy Singapore’s less-than-free politics. But Singapore has something to teach us about “attitude” — about taking governing seriously and thinking strategically. “There is real puzzlement here about America today,” said Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, “because we learned all about what it takes to build a well-functioning society from you. “Many of our top officials are graduates of the Kennedy School at Harvard. They just came back home and applied its lessons vigorously.” Friedman is a columnist for The New York Times and a three-time Pulitzer Prize winner.

ARTICLE LINK

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

ECONOMICS

Economics is a long term goal and not a short term goal.  The current "political right" keeps talking about short term economic gains/growth without regards to the long term economic stability of the nation. STUPID