Ben Harakel

Intro to Economics

Gun Control and Its Effects

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/6/gun-control-kills-jobs/

Gun Control Kills Jobs

I think it would be very safe to say that if a business has succeeded in the recession that America has endured, it was doing something right. If I invested $100 dollars in Strum and Ruger Company in 2007, I would currently have over $530 dollars in my pocket. If that isn't successful I don't know what is. Ruger had, and has, orders for twice as many guns as it can manufacture but yet in those six years in only added 10 employees. Why? Well with all the tightening down on guns and their purchase Ruger couldn't add jobs without fearing another law which would drop sales and force layoffs (It is nice to hear that a company cares about their employees anymore). Colt Manufacturing has came up with another plan to keep the sales up, moving out of Connecticut and other liberal states. They are moving part of their manufacturing processes down to Florida in the coming years so that they can sell their products from the base as well.

Personally I think it makes a great deal of sense especially for the states themselves to entice gun manufacturers to set up shop. It helps reduce the unemployment in the area and also helps provide more revenue from taxes. It seems that states with more republican governors and congressmen are much more open about wanting gun manufacturing plants than those with more democratic governors and congressman. This does seem to hold up in the few examples that I have read but yet the logic behind the wanting tougher gun laws baffles me. It goes back to the classic saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." and in my mind banning guns doesn't stop the violence and as proven it certainly doesn't help the economy.

Ben Harakel

Intro to Economics

Gun Control and It's Effects

New Gun Laws Could Mean Economic Woes For Booming Gun Industry

http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/29/new-gun-laws-could-mean-economic-woes-for-booming-gun-industry/

We all have heard something about the multiple mass shootings that have been unfortunately happening around the U.S. I doubt that anyone reading this has also heard something about the wave of gun laws that has flooded Congress but has, relatively speaking, produced nothing much to show. It is, however, about to put a hurting on one of the industries that has remained afloat during the recession, the gun industry.

The gun industry employs around 220,000 Americans and while the unemployment rate was skyrocketing, it added 37,000 new jobs each with a average salary of about $50,000. Adding onto that the gun industry paid more than $5 billion in federal taxes and contributed $33.6 billion to the United States GDP in just 2012's fiscal year. Now our ever so wise legislators are trying to derail that success by doubling the background checks done and banning high capacity magazines and firearms alike. New York, Colorado and Connecticut have passed the strictest gun laws of the states and in the process are driving away huge economic profits that come from the manufacturing and sale of guns. Colt, Strum & Ruger Company and Mossberg & Sons all call Connecticut home but the state feels that it would be better if the companies only manufactured the guns in the state. This whole idea is absolutely absurd, to me anyway, and makes absolutely no sense financially. The gun manufacturers are basically getting told that they are welcome to stay and employ the states residents but can't make any profit from those same residents. Why would you piss off the one industry that has basically kept your state going? I really like the idea that Texas Gov. Rick Perry had though. He basically said that all 26 gun manufacturers in Connecticut that he would be more than happy to accommodate them in his state and that it would be in their best interests to move their plants. It makes perfect sense if you actually think about it, not only will the gun companies be able to sell their products in state but because of the increased profits may not need to lay off the amount of workers they would have to in Connecticut.

The moves would not only affect the sales but also the health of the economy at the previous location and the market flow. Manufacturing parts have for the most part been supplied in state for the guns but with the move the suppliers may not have anyone to sell to. This would most certainly put the businesses out of operation and end up hurting the local economy. I feel like the current gun laws are pushing the limit as is and that the smart thing to do is leave them alone. I know for a fact that the recent events have not been in any way the fault of the gun manufacturers, but actually caused by ignorant gun owners. Punishing the manufacturers therefore seems an altogether stupid proposal even if the consequences are not intended.

Ben Harakel

Intro to Economics

Obamacare

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-19/marco-rubios-devious-new-plan-to-kill-obamacare

Marco Rubio's Devious New Plan to Kill Obamacare

Obamacare is not a perfect system, if you have read any of my prior blogs on the subject you can easily understand why. The plan behind the bill was based on a very high stakes risk game more or less and that game is now starting to be attacked by republicans. The risk game involves both individuals and firms themselves and basically boils down to this: healthier people need less health care but will be charged the same so the excess money can help cover the costs of the unhealthy people. This principle is called a risk corridor and is exactly what Rubio is trying to erase from the bill. His bill is in response to a study done by the American Academy of Actuaries said that if the higher class citizens do not buy the insurance from the exchanges that are a part of Obamacare, the bill could be in some big trouble. Rubio's bill would create a chain reaction that would take out each critical part of the bill which would most likely lead to its destruction.

While most of you know just how much I despise the ACA this proposal brings me back to the point where I can't believe how petty both party's are. I believe that the democrats were wrong to pass this bill but I also think that republicans are part of the problem because of the for lack of a better word "bitching" they are doing about the bill. In my mind most of our legislators have lost their morals and their sense to differentiate right from wrong. Obamacare is merely a medium to help show the true colors of the politicians. I know the bill doesn't make logical sense and I know that it was passed because it was the president's baby but I don't think this is the best way to set things straight. I am one of the people who believe that it would be truly better for our state and federal government if all congressmen and women were fired and replaced with new people. Some politicians have been serving for the last 35-45 years uninterrupted and I feel have become stubborn and pretty complacent. Plus when you fight the same people with the same opinions for anywhere upwards of 20 years I can see it getting a little pointless. Either way I definitely think it is time for our congress to stop the undermining that is going on from both sides of the aisle.

Ben Harakel

Intro To Economics

Obamacare

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/11/12/bill-clinton-identifies-3-big-problems-with-the-obamacare-rollout/

Bill Clinton Identifies 3 Big Problems With the Obamacare Rollout

Maybe its just me but I thought that in the partisan world in which we live that people never criticize their own party. I guess that based on what Bill Clinton said the other day, I was wrong. Although Clinton didn't quite bash the bill completely, he did point out a couple of huge problems that are starting to make their way around our society. The former president said basically that Obama should go back and change his law so that people can keep their policies if they like them. What I think is really absurd is that everyone thinks that this is a really great idea. To start off that was what the bill was designed to do and so the fact that it failed could be the product of only two roots. The first being that (listen to this shocker) OBAMA WAS LYING, and he knew all along that you wouldn't be able to keep your benefits or the second which is that the law forced businesses to cancel the previous plans for financial reasons. Either way the White House is to blame for the "disaster" of a bill that we know as Obamacare and as much as I like the bipartisanship shown by Clinton I just don't think the change can be made.

It seems to me that the administration should either do one of two things: 

1. Let the people lose their plans and apologize for the problems

2. Try to fix the problems as they arise

While it seems like the best option is the second one, I feel like the first is the best option. Obama's approval rating is already in the toilet and if he tries to fix all of the problems, more will definitely arise. The risk is that the wonderful health care law that he proposed will turn into a nonfunctional bill but with good intentions. I can't see a way that the government can "force" the companies to reinstate the policies that have already been discontinued. It seems totally unfair in my mind to the businesses that chose to discard the policies and make money that the government would basically tell them to put all of the individual policies back in action. Considering how long it took to get this bill up and running I can hardly imagine how long it would take to make all the changes to it. 

Ben Harakel

Intro to Economics

Obamacare

Rand Paul Proposes Constitutional Amendment Barring Government Officials From Being Above the Law

http://rt.com/usa/rand-paul-amendment-obamacare-565/

This article was a little bit funny to me because I really didn't think that our government would ever get to this point. Our legislators and judiciaries are currently "on Obamacare" while really not being on Obamacare. They were originally included in the law but another bill was passed that allowed them to receive their government allowance to spend on healthcare. With this said all of the congressmen voted for Obamacare and then the judiciaries upheld the law which truly doesn't affect them. Thankfully someone is fighting back against the exemption after the blackmail of the Vitter bill (see my second post). That bill was more or less lost in the whole debacle of the government shutdown but now Rand Paul is taking up the charge against the democrats who are adamant about not being included in the law but yet have no problem enforcing it on the people. 

Paul's approach is different to that of Vitter's in that he is proposing an actual amendment to the constitution. His amendment reads: Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress. I thought that the point of having the representatives and senators was that they Represented Us!!! Not that they became like monarchs, putting themselves above us in all aspects and making rules that only apply to us. I am really starting to think that some of these people have forgotten how our system works and that a clean sweep of every branch is a necessity. All this time I was under the impression that a amendment such as the one Paul is proposing was unnecessary because it was like an unwritten rule. Apparently I was either misinformed or times have changed.

 It troubles me how much opposition the amendment is getting especially when you take it at face value. Congressmen, especially democrats, are arguing in essence that they are better than everyone else and shouldn't be held to the same standards, but are emphatic about preaching equality in all other aspects of society. The bill itself is not worded perfectly, because the Supreme Court could view it as saying that Congress isn't allowed to pass bill on things like welfare because it is not applicable to them. However I feel like the objection itself is not based on the wording as much as it is the implications of the law and its effect on Obamacare. 

Ben Harakel

Intro to Economics

Obamacare

It Gets Better

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/10/obamacare_and_republican_criticism_the_health_care_law_s_early_missteps.html

Let us assume for a moment that everything that Obama promised about the new Affordable Care Act was completely true. When the "highly anticipated" website used to purchase the healthcare launched the bashing began. Everything about the policy that was supposed to be Obama's legacy maker has been wrong from the beginning. I personally feel a little bit more justified now that all of the "cracks and inconsistencies" in the law that Republicans argued against are now resurfacing in the awful promises that Obama made to us. The major problem of the whole Affordable Care Act was that Obama made promises without considering basic economic principles. The one promise (see the other three on an earlier post) that is under the most fire right not is "You can keep current your healthcare if you like it". When the new website came online companies like Independence Blue Cross sent out messages to their current policy holders informing them that their current policies would expire. People went ballistic that they were about to lose their current policy and immediately the ludicrous messages came flowing from the Obama Administration trying to CTA (cover their a#$). Republicans on the other hand started throwing their old criticism back at the law. In the law Obamacare it clearly says that in 5 years all insurance policies had to meet government standards and if not they would be disallowed (thus disproving Obama's claim).

The economic principles behind the wonderful blunder that Obama are very clear. To start off, people respond to incentives. Why would an insurance company continue to offer more plans that necessary, especially when they might be making more money on one type of plan. The government cannot control most of what businesses do and in this case the business did what was best for it's future. I really think that Obama had some kind of delusion that the insurance companies would back him and continue to lose money instead of leaving him high and dry. It also makes me really angry that Americans supported the policy without even reading the bill. Democrats in the White House and Congress forcibly passed the bill without looking at the now evident flaws that the Republicans were voicing just because Obama wanted them to. Thousands of people will now lose their current preferred health insurance and be forced to buy insurance that may be inferior in quality all due to a blind partisan command from a liar at the helm. Still Obama keeps uttering "It will get better, trust me". I'm sure that the website will get better but I cannot see how the bill can. While I never trusted the Affordable Care Act or Obama (for that matter)  I can say now both have even less of my trust.

Ben Harakel

Intro to Economics
Obamacare

What Does The Public Think About Obamacare?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/16/usa-today-pew-poll-health-care-law-opposition/2817169/

The public obviously has an opinion on the new Obamacare law but most with all of the different political spins its hard to get the absolute truth. However, USA Today has the data from a new study that has provided the first hard evidence on what the American people are feeling. Starting off the articles shows that the american people are for the most part against Obamacare by a margin of 53%  to 42% . However very few actually know exactly what the law contains, only 25% of those polled said they knew the law completely. The study also showed that many people expect that the law will negatively affect them in the next year or so as well as the country as a whole. The numbers along with the study show a majority decision that indicates a dislike of Obamacare as a whole which brings us to the most important point, why is it still a law? Obviously both the democrats and republicans are to blame for the political standoff on the law and the government shutdown that has ensued but I think it is all of our faults if we sit by and do nothing about the law. If the predictions are correct  not only will it cost the government money but it will also personally cost us money.

The other thing that the data shows us is that Obamacare is starting to turn the public opinion about who would do a better job with healthcare reform. Previously the democrats had the edge but the republicans have not only made up the ground but have pulled ahead. I can't understand how not only does a major democratic bill regarding major healthcare reform stay a law even though all the data points against it. We need to first of all come to terms with what we want as a people and then we need to act accordingly.

Ben Harakel

Intro to Economics

Obamacare

Has Our Country Forgotten the 4 Promises Of Obamacare?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/03/24/obamas-promises-unravel-on-obama-care/

When Barack Obama began his campaign to pass the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) he promised us four things

1.If you like your insurance you can keep it.

2. If you like your doctor you can keep him/her.

3. Obamacare will cost less than 1 trillion in its first ten years.

4. Obamacare will not add to the deficit.

After all the support that Obamacare has gotten, how has it held up to the four basic promises that it made to Americans.Lets begin with the first of the four promises: You can keep your healthcare if you like it. If you are an employee of a company with more than 50 employees that work more than 30 hours and you are one of those 50+ employees, your employer must provide you with healthcare. However if the healthcare that you have been using is not one of the plans that your employer chooses to provide then you cannot continue using it. Many of the plans that you will be forced to use will not have all the benefits of your old plan. Why is it that hardworking Americans are being punished for having a good job and good healthcare? Once again Obamacare is attacking the wrong members of society and by putting the costs of healthcare on businesses those businesses are in turn pushing that off onto the working class.

The next of the promises, You can keep your doctor if you want to, is also false advertising by Obamacare. The Obama administration estimates that 15% of all Part A medical providers will become "unprofitable" and will in turn stop participating in Obamacare. If you have one of these providers, as they start to lose money they will drop the amount of  reimbursement they give to doctors and in turn those doctors might not accept your insurance. Thus you will not be able to keep your doctor. Another survey by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions found that due to Obamacare 62% of physicians will retire early than they planned due to a lack of funds. Again Obamacare is hurting the wrong people, in this case doctors, who have worked their whole lives to become prosperous and now will cut their time short. I happen to have a very good relationship with my personal physician and I can see him being one of the people that will probably fall victim to this law. For older doctors it can't be logical to stay in business when you are not earning what you used to especially when you could retire right now if you wanted to.

The final two promises can be rolled up into one big problem because the one disproves the other. Obamacare is estimated to cost the United States a total of $1.9 trillion with only $624 billion coming in from penalties and taxes. Any math student can figure out that $1.9 trillion minus $624 billion is not less than $1 trillion. The fact that this is over budget means that  the plan to reduce payments to Medicare and Medicaid will only bring the excess $1.3 trillion down to about  $633 billion which will be added to the deficit, thus cancelling the 4th promise.

Now, my question to everyone is how can people continue to praise a law that has failed to stand by its basic promises to the people? That's like the government saying that it will pave roads if we pay taxes on gas and then when we do they decide not to pave the roads. How much longer will it take for people to realize that even if you have insurance, Obamacare will affect you? Maybe its just me but I don't really want to have to give up the good healthcare my family has because people decided to buy into the hoopla that was promised to us at the beginning. It's time to wake up. 

 

Should Congress Be Exempt From Obamacare?

Ben Harakel

Intro to Economics 

Obamacare

Should Congress Be Exempt From Obamacare?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/358550/congresss-exemption-obamacare-john-fund

The partisan fight within the Senate has been getting more and more tense because of the new bill David Vitter has demanded a vote on. His bill would make sure that Congressmen would not be able to exempt out of the Obamacare bill. To me this is where the whole problem begins. Why is it that Congress was even allowed to exempt themselves from the laws they make in the first place? Laws apply to everyone not just us that are considered common people. This also brings into question how much confidence Congress has in Obamacare. If the ones who make the laws don't want to stand by them, why should I have to? The congressmen want so badly to keep their exempt status that Democrats have started their own bill that would deny the subsidies that Congressmen get for their healthcare to anyone who votes for Vitter's bill. Another bill would try to "bar any lawmaker or aide found by a congressional ethics committee to have engaged in the solicitation of prostitution". This is obviously pointed towards Vitter who was involved with a high end prostitution ring back in 2007.  Is this really how our nation is being run? The fact that lawmakers, especially some Senate democrats, would turn to blackmail to try to stop their efforts from being thwarted. Are these people really who we want guiding our country? Now I understand what Vitter did was wrong but still, this sounds like something petty teenagers would do, not Congressmen that run our country.

The exemption isn't the only flawed piece of Obamacare. The biggest economic problem with it right now is the creation of the 29 hour work week. Employers are becoming creative and dodging the part of the act that says that they must provide healthcare for any employee who works more than 30 hours (deemed full time). The act states that any business with more than 50 employees who work at least 30 hours must provide healthcare for those employees. I can't imagine that this is helping any recent college graduate or any younger member of society trying to work to pay for college. Not that most high schooler’s, or college grads need healthcare right away, because they can stay on their parent's until they are 26, but it hurts the amount of money they can make. The members of Congress in my opinion should make the effort to help businesses so that they in turn can help their employees. Take away the part mentioned above and I can almost guarantee that companies would increase employee's hours.

I find the lack of cooperation in Congress to be very disturbing. I'm not saying that Republicans are always right but in this case Vitter's bill makes sense. What’s good for us is good for you. If I have to follow the laws you make, you should have to follow them too.

Ben Harakel

 

Intro to Economics

 

Obamacare

Women Should Pay More for Health Care

http://ideas.time.com/2013/08/23/women-should-pay-more-for-health-care/

This article discussed the fairness of Obamacare's targeting of younger men and the fact that younger men have to pay the same premiums as young women. While it is common knowledge that younger women require more health care because of birthing costs and the stress on their generally smaller bodies, I have to say that it is a better idea to charge women more. To start it would discourage having a baby with a man that you aren't married to because if he leaves, you will get stuck with a high amount of cost. I can see some of you asking why it is that women should be stuck with all the costs of childbearing so her is my solution. If you happen to have Obamacare, are having a child, and are married to the father of the child then the costs should be split between the two. That way if you are married the costs will split evenly but if aren't it will serve as a deterrent.

The other big thing that I think is key about this article is the fact that females tend to spend a lot more money on preventative coverage, whether or not they have healthcare. It brings to mind the fact that the cost of something is what you give up to get it. In this case if males really don't use that much preventative care normally, why would they pay money for it. For me this is why I believe that Obamacare is not a good idea for our country. Why would a government health care system target certain age and gender groups if its goal is just to provide health care for all people. Why charge males the same as females when females will spend more money on healthcare.