Preventing Dictator Trump: Judicial Review and Separation of Powers

An important principle of our constitution that set ups our government is that of separation of powers. It is a part of checks and balances. Separation of powers has always been a hot topic especially in the Supreme Court. It keeps our government running smoothly. It helps determine the jurisdiction of each branch of government. In order to understand the separation of powers, you have to understand Judicial Review. In middle and high school history the concept of separation of powers and judicial review is taught. Mainly because it’s on the regents. Many students sort of zone out on it because it’s not all that interesting. Once again I want to take two Supreme Court cases and review them. After briefly reviewing each, I want to put some modern context on the separation of powers and judicial review. Let’s just say when an election rolls around with a controversial president being elected, my mind goes to thinking about how the constitution allows for checks and balances that keeps our democratic president from becoming a dictator. It’s really petty to blame the election results on Russia or voter fraud. A choice was made and we should deal with it by invoking the constitution. Without further or do, I want to present Marbury vs. Madison.

Marbury vs. Madison was decided by the court in 1803 by the Marshall Court. It was unanimous decision. Now you might remember some of the facts of case from high-school. If you don’t then I suggest you read up on it here. Like usual, I want to skip directly to the questions of the case and the majority opinion. The court had to decide whether or not the officers had the right to go court over the commissions and  whether or not Section 13 of the Judiciary Act was valid? The court held that because Adams had signed the commissions they were legal and should have been given out despite Jefferson’s order to not give them out. They also voided Section 13 of the Judiciary Act because it interfered with Article 3 section 2 of the constitution. The Court had an obligation to uphold the constitution over the congressional law. Here was what the Judiciary Act, section 13 says :

That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction. And shall have exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings against ambassadors, or other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic servants, as a court of law can have or exercise consistently with the law of nations; and original, but not exclusive jurisdiction of all suits brought by ambassadors, or other public ministers, or in which a consul, or vice consul, shall be a party. And the trial of issues in fact in the Supreme Court, in all actions at law against citizens of the United States, shall be by jury. The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after specially provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States. [NOTE:  Text in bold of particular relevance to Marbury v. Madison. (Source, here)

The Court invalidated the last part of this law in favor of the constitution.  The constitution goes against the Judiciary Act, more specifically Article 3, Section 2:

The judicial branch has jurisdiction over any case involving: 

  • The US constitution, the laws of the United States laws, treaties, or any cases involving ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls.

This particular quote is what the Supreme Court cited as their jurisdiction to hear Marbury’s case. Marbury essentially tried to argue for a broader Supreme Court jurisdiction. The Judiciary Act would have allowed that if not for the constitution’s strict view what the Supreme Court is allowed to do. Marbury vs. Madison was the first case to strike out part of a congressional law. Its become known as judicial review. This is only the first case of it, comes up again years later in the Dred Scott decision. (another blog post)

I want to go over just one more case before I bring it into a modern context. I think that one of the most interesting Supreme Court cases is McCulloch vs. Maryland. If you want to read the facts, then click here. The McCulloch vs. Maryland is not so much about judicial review but it does establish an important pecking order within our government. You may have heard of federalism. This is a case that shows what federalism. In this case, a uanimous decision was made that the state of Maryland could not tax the federal government. The question the court had to answer was simply one of federalism. Congress legally created a bank and Maryland tried to pass a bill to tax it. The court found on the basis of the 9th amendment (see my last post) or the enumerated powers amendment. The court set the precedent that federal government has constitutional power over the states. The federal government is allowed to establish banks because of the 9th amendment and the states can’t tax it because its a constitutional function. This is monumentally important case especially with the civil war later in the century. (case was decided 1819)

Marbury vs. Madison gave the Supreme Court the power to strike out congressional laws that are unconstitutional. McCulloch vs. Maryland gave the federal government the priority over constitutional functions within the states. So why are these cases so important today?  I alluded to the controversial election in the beginning of the post. I believe these two cases give the people some hope that President Trump won’t become Dictator Trump. Obviously, he has a favorable Congress and he might even get a favorable Supreme Court pending a successful nomination. But Trump and Congress still have to follow the constitution. In the end, the Supreme Court has a duty to uphold it. So no matter what happens with Trump, I think the separation of powers and judicial review will keep him in check.

Let’s quickly for example, take President Obama and his presidency. Obama’s biggest accomplishment (depends on how you look at it, failure is more accurate) is Obamacare or the Affordable Health Care Act. It was a very controversial becuase it mandated that everyone get healthcare or pay a fine. Parts of it went to the Supreme Court to be decided if they were constitutional. Some parts of it were unconstitutional and others remained. In my opinion there wasn’t enough struck down. However, I think that knowing that obviously unconstituional laws will be struck down is comforting. Nobody saw Trump getting elected. I think we all gotta have a little faith

This definitely won’t be the end of this topic, it went a little longer than I wanted but I hope to revisit it soon.  Thanks for reading!

 

Citations:

Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech. “McCulloch v. Maryland.” Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/17us316 (accessed December 12, 2016).

Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech. “Marbury v. Madison.” Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137 (accessed December 12, 2016).

 

Advertisements

Government Intervention: The problematic solve all solution.

I had a thought the other day about how both political parties tend to call in more government to help solve complex societal problems. It occurred to me that government intervention has become a popular solution to many problems. Bernie Sanders campaign is probably  most guilty of trying solve problems with government intervention. However, every other candidate proposes at least some government intervention. What do I mean by government intervention? Well, its a fairly broad meaning phrase because government could mean any branch or department. Intervention is the operative word because essentially the government gets involved in or takes over an program or problem and tries to fix it. There is a relatively short history to government intervention as we know it today.

You can go back to ancient times to find a government intervening when its not really supposed to. However, for the sake time and word count, I want to start with the New Deal put forward by Franklin D. Roosevelt. The New Deal was constructed via Congress to help the country through the Great Depression in 1929 through the mid 1930s. I believe that it was necessary at the time. However, hindsight being 20/20, it was actually World War 2 that got us out of that depression. (Just remember that once World War 2 officially started, the US switched its economy to war production. For example, Car companies made Jeeps and Tanks) The New Deal is still important even today because it gave us things like Social Security and National Parks.

The Great Society was pushed through Congress by Lyndon B. Johnson in the mid 1960s. This landmark bundle of legislation was the start of things like public housing, voting rights act, federal education funding and the war on poverty. The Great Society was hailed by some as the second New Deal. Most of the Great Society still is in existence today. However, now its has taken quite a bit further. For example, when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was first passed it just helped grade schools and gave funding for schools. Now this act has turned into a loan program for college.  Funding for grade schools now is most by taxpayers and education subsidizes based on things like common core.  Some of Great Society has also been repeal or stripped down. Unfortunately, one of the best pieces of legislation was the Voting Rights Act. It give colored minorities the right to vote. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court reversed some of the provisions in the act. This has allowed states to discriminate voters.

The New Deal and Great Society are both examples of government intervention. Another modern example is the Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare). Once again, this law mandates everyone get insurance otherwise they will be penalized. My point in explaining all this legislation is that government intervention can take many different forms. It can touch a variety of topics and issues. If history teaches us anything about broad sweeping government intervention its that its not very successful. You can find examples like Social Security going broke and the repeal of provisions in the Voting Act. Even in the war on poverty has struggled to truly help those impoverished. So what is the problem you ask?

I’m glad you asked. The problem is not that the government tries to help. The problem is that government is bad at helping. Especially now with our web of bureaucrats who pass most of the laws and create most of the policy. The decision makers in government are not usually experts on the problem or issue they are trying to fix. This is a problem because for example take education. (I was nearly a teacher at one time) When the Department of Education decide to push Common Core on schools there was some major problems. The first problem is that it tied teachers performance to test scores. The tests were way too hard for the students. The system was implemented too fast and both teachers and students suffered. Of course, the creators of common core were not teachers but textbook executives and other government officials. As a result, now the Common Core has faced vast criticism and will soon be repealed.

As you can see in education, the government just is not good at fixing things. A better solution to higher performing schools would been through the local districts. Each local school district knows its students and their needs. The teachers of that local school district should have decided the curriculum best fit for their school. In addition to that, the legality of Common core is questionable because the constitution leaves education to states under the 10th amendment. Government intervention can also be questionable from a legal standpoint. The same type of legal questions come up with Obamacare. The Supreme Court did rule in favor of the healthcare law. However, my point is that government intervention isn’t necessary the best answer for every problem.

Now I want to explain quickly why I think today’s politicians especially ones running for president are using too much government intervention. The simple answer is that we already have too much government in our business. The long answer is that government intervention has already tried to solve many of the problems and failed. You have to admit its insane to keep trying the same thing and expecting a different result. Let’s use our vast intellectual resources to solve problems. For example, many democratic candidates want to raise minimum wage to help the poor. But what these candidates ignore is the fact that minimum wage actually hurts the poor more than it helps. Why not ask an economist if its actually a good idea?

Another example: Republicans want to stop illegals from coming here. I don’t really think a wall is going to work, Donald. I think a better solution that is also bipartisan would be to grant amnesty to upstanding immigrants. Then once those immigrants are citizens give them some higher taxes. Our tax code already discriminates so there is really no difference. Extra taxes means more money for our government to waste plus it might deter some people from even wanting to come here. Many European countries have much tougher immigration policies based on ethnicity. So why not make ours economically tough?

Like I titled this post, I feel that government intervention is a problematic solution. Government may have the resources and power to solve problems but it has none of the knowledge and experience. I guess its a bit of an irony. Just remember before you consider voting for a candidate who wants a lot of government based programs that government isn’t very good at running things. Usually a government program is more expensive and time consuming. Government’s job is just enforce laws and regulate. I think our government has overstretch its bounds.

Thanks for reading!

Retired Doctors running for President and Planned Parenthood controversy: Punny?

It is fitting that I paired these two topics in this same post. Planned Parenthood and Republican candidate Dr. Ben Carson. Before I start my rant about Dr. Carson, let me just clarify my bias by saying that I hate him probably more than Donald Trump. If you have read any of my other posts at least Trump has some respectable ideas with the exception of immigration. I swear to you that Dr. Carson is a cancer not a candidate! (Pun intended!) He might be a neurosurgeon but he is certainly NOT smart. He might be doctor but I think he has been prescribing himself drugs! I just cannot get over some of the comments he has made. For starters lets take this one: “Hitler Could Happen here“. He nearly compared President Obama with Hitler. Even I don’t love Obama but he certainly hasn’t purposely perpetrated a mass genocide of an ethnicity. Obama may have started a few wars but he hasn’t triggered World War 3 yet.  Jeez. If you read toward the bottom it gets worse! When asked about an emergency response to a natural disaster such as Hurricane Joaquin hitting the east coast. (Fortunately Its been forecasted to go northeast, thankfully.) His response? I. DON’T. KNOW. Let that sink in.

Am I overreacting to these statements made by Dr. Carson? Maybe. But still even Trump has not gone THAT far. Regardless of what he meant, he just doesn’t sound too smart. A presidential candidate should be polished and able to think critically about situations that could potentially threaten millions of lives. The answer to the hurricane hypothetical scares me the most. I think that he needs to think of an answer to how he might respond to a natural disaster because they do happen.  As for the Hitler comment, I just think that he is going a little too far. I get that people need to wake up before America turns into a dictatorship of hell. It’s not that I don’t agree either. It’s just he could have put it a little less bluntly.  However, I can also see how a dictatorship might be beneficial to America. We need a strong leader. We don’t need genocide or mass killings. That story is played out way too much.

Moving out to a different topic, Dr. Carson made some comments on the Syrian refugee crisis. As you can imagine once again, Dr. Carson totally missed the point of taking refugees. His islamophobia has clearly gotten the best of him. He fears that some of the refugees might be “extremists” and try to hurt America. Unfortunately, not all muslims are extremists and certainly not ones who are refugees in country where the extremists are ones forcing there to be refugees. If anything these poor Syrian people who are fleeing are more mad at Russia and President Putin. Putin has been intervening in the civil war in Syria. This intervention has been very controversial especially since President Obama has been strongly against it.  It’s not clear what Putin’s goals are but the point remains that Dr. Carson clearly is not understanding the situation in Syria. Dr. Carson should learn not to stereotype people because it’s not very nice and plus it tends to make them hate you even more.

I will end my rant about retired doctors running for president. My last two cents is that Dr. Carson is missing a few marbles. I guess its been working since his fundraising and polls have gone up.  Personally if you consider Dr. Carson a good candidate; I would take another look. For sake of us not putting another idiot in office.

****

Onto a more serious topic that affects one gender and sex almost 100 percent more than the other. Thanks to evolution or god or biology (whatever you believe) the female body is able to give birth. It’s both a miracle and a curse. Too often couples or females find themselves cursed. They get knocked up for various reasons ranging to accidents to rape. Regardless of the situation there is a government-funded program to help out. I won’t even touch abortion with a ten foot pole. (pun intended) The reason is arguing about abortions is like apples to oranges. In reality, the arguments you used for against are totally different things. It makes absolutely no sense.  That said I am pro-choice and I mean that by I believe that a woman should be able choose based on her circumstances.

That being said there was a big time argument over planned parenthood among the republican candidates. They only thing they agreed on was that it should be shutdown. (I disagree)  The center of controversy started with Carly Fiorina. She stated there was videos of fetal body parts being sold. Afterwards there was clamor about the videos not being real. Turns out they are real but they don’t really support her argument. Either way I really don’t care. The bigger issue is that republicans wanted to cut off funding for planned parenthood. Even going so far to shut down the government to do it. I think that planned parenthood should be the least of their worries. It really boggles my mind.

One result of their crazy attempt to shut down planned parenthood was the resignation of John Boehner. Boehner was the speaker of the house and will be out on October 31st. His resignation is a clear that the republican party is in a deep divide. Fortunately for women everywhere, he wasn’t going to allow a government shutdown in process of de-funding of planned parenthood. Boehner may not have been the best speaker, known for his orange glow and crying. However, you have to consider the lack of bipartisan work in congress over the past few years.

It’s hard to put into words the condition that troubles our government. Especially Congress, the inaction is just incredibly debilitating. In addition to the government dysfunction, we have these attempts to cut off important programs that actually do good for people. I understand cutting out Obamacare but why not cut things like the contracts with Halliburton, Lockheed Martin and Boeing just to name a few. Why not hold the Department of Defense accountable?  Why not retool the SNAP and food stamps program? Why not make welfare a little more true and transparent with things like drug testing. All I want to say in conclusion to a post that has been a LONG time coming, is that we need to further examine the issues that truly trouble our country. No matter who gets elected to president, they will almost certainly face the hardest times ahead of America. The future is so uncertain. The world dynamics are different now, it’s no longer the 20th century.  Globalization has taken full effect on our economy. The world is changing quickly. We need to respond and respond with changes that improve lives.

Thanks for reading!!!

Rand Paul 2016: The Application of Politics.

Rand Paul is a senator from Kentucky and another one of 20 something GOP candidates for the presidency. Rand Paul’s campaign was supposed to be one of the front-running candidates. He was trumped by the Donald Trump steam roller. Rand Paul is best known as the son of Ron Paul who made a few runs for the presidency in the past 30 years. None of them were that successful. I have this feeling it’s because Ron’s platform was extremely constitutionalist and for some reason voters are scared of people who want to follow the constitution strictly. Besides his famous father, Rand Paul on his own merits is known as conservative libertarian. The goal is primarily about shrinking government and allowing more freedom for businesses while at the same time restricting some personal rights for security. Rand Paul is also well-known for his charitable work as a doctor. Rand Paul is one those candidates that strikes my interest because of his political leaning and his platform.

Recently, Rand Paul created a new application for iPhone and android.  Its called “Rand Paul 2016”. The application seems to be well put together. When you first open it, a black screen with styled white and red letters reads “Rand”. With a little red flame above the “a”. Then you see a picture of him in the background with the date and time in a little blue circle. Then you can scroll down to see all different functions. The functions range from donations to news articles to his platform. His platform is what caught my attention. It seems smart of him to put this on the app. Many American voters are not caught up with each candidates platform. How could one possibly made a decision without reading a platform? FYI: A platform in the politic meaning is just a candidate’s agenda for if they become president.

My last post reviewed the economic part of democratic candidate Bernie Sanders platform. What I want to do in this post is just review some of the more interesting topics on Rand’s platform. The platform information comes near bottom of the app just before the “fun stuff” section which includes a photo booth and meme creator. (I love this!) When you arrive at “Rand on the Issues” you can scroll to the right to see all of them. One of Rand’s big points brought up in last debate is ending the NSA spying. The fourth amendment is what Rand cites as public protection from government spying. If you’re not familiar with fourth amendment, the basic protection is from unreasonable search and seizure. Over the years, many supreme court cases have expanded and expounded parts of it. The fourth amendment was actually made because before the American revolution, the British took the liberty of searching ships and cargo without warning. Especially when the British crown taxed many goods such as stamps and tea. The amendment has evolved to making it illegal to search a person without a warrant or reasonable cause. The controversy remains about what constitutes reasonable cause. However, Rand wants to apply this rule to the NSA.  I think that he has the right idea. We shouldn’t have to worry about our government spying on us. Although I have personally have nothing to hide, i still think its overkill to have be watching citizens phone records, emails and everything. There are 330 million people or so living in the USA, not everyone is a terrorist. Also when is the last time they caught a terrorist in the US because of the NSA spying? Let me know.

The NSA spying is just one of the many topics that Rand covers. Each topic has a few paragraphs about the issue and what Rand will do as president. The next topic, I want to look at is taxes. The old saying goes “There few certain things in life, like taxes and death”.  Everyone has to pay taxes so this should naturally be huge issue. Referring back to my last post which is linked above, Bernie Sanders wants to tax the rich more. Rand Paul takes a different approach. First, he wants to scrap the entire tax code. This he claims will institute a 2 trillion-dollar cut. Replacing the old tax code will be a 14.5 percent flat tax on individuals and businesses alike. In addition, the plan will eliminate many federal taxes like estate, telephone taxes and payroll taxes.  He calls the plan “The Fair and Flat tax”.  A few paragraphs after bashing Obama and politic ramble, he gets to job creation and savings. Rand claims from research done by the heritage foundation–a think tank, that it will create 1.4 million new jobs in 10 years. He also claims that the first 50,000 dollars of income won’t be taxed. These are some bold claims.

To Rand’s credit, he is decreasing the world’s highest corporate taxes. I strongly believe that a flax tax is a good thing at least to start. The critics will say that the flat tax isn’t fair because the rich don’t pay enough or the poor pay too much. It’s all nonsense. A flat tax would work especially if set at the correct percentage. Rand wants to establish a 14.5 percent tax. I’m no math genius but percentages can work like ratios. The basic idea is that even though everyone is paying the same percentage, the amount of money being paid depends on how much money you make.  Lets say there’s two families of four. Family A makes 100,000 dollars a year. Family B makes $200,000. Family A paying 14.5 percent tax would have 7,250 in taxes. Family B paying 14.5 percent would have 21,750  in taxes. Remember in his plan each family would have the first 50,000 dollars tax-free. My point here is that yes if you make more money you pay more. However, it’s still fair because the percentage is exactly the same. Compare his plan to the rich paying less than the middle class. I really have to commend Rand Paul because I think starting out in a fair tax rate is smart. If he is elected and he institutes this plan successfully, then he could always lower or raise it as needed.

The last two issues I want to briefly discuss is healthcare and national security. Rand covers these two topics in much less than taxes. It’s actually kind of disappointing.  In the national security section, he mostly discusses how he would as president always consult congress. Of course, it’s mostly political but war is supposed to be approved by congress. Rand believes that this is only way that we should go to war. He does not state his intentions abroad other than standing with Israel. What I would really like to see is his take on the situation in Iran. I can infer from the fact that Israel is actually topic on his platform that his take is against the Iran nuclear deal. In no situation does one give Iran anything positive when supporting Israel. This is due to the nature of the mutual hatred. I just hope that Rand takes a more isolationist view for our sake because the America just cannot afford to be the world’s police officer.

On healthcare, Rand doesn’t dive into much details. He is against Obamacare. Not surprisingly. At this point almost anything is preferable to Obamacare. However, Obamacare has shown us what does not work. Rand writes that he believes in a free market system. The idea being that competitive health insurance companies would have to compete for customers with benefits and premiums. In theory this would bring excellent healthcare to millions. I heard mixed reactions to a free market system. Democrats don’t think that it will work. Meanwhile Republicans are all for it. I believe that free market is a good to a certain extent. There are still things that should be regulated. I do believe the government should regulate the insurance companies preventing monopolies and mergers. They also need to regulate scams and fraud because that can really hurt a system making it more costly. I hope that Rand can fine tune his “free market system” to truly help people.

Overall I really like the application. I think it’s a good creative to connect with millions of cellphone users. Especially those younger voters. It shows that Rand isn’t out of touch and even though his campaign isn’t like the grassroots social media force of Bernie Sanders or the News Media Party of Trump. Rand Paul takes a more conservative take on candidacy, pun definitely intended. I would personally say that I like Rand Paul. However, like with any candidate its good to read about their ideas on the issues. Sometimes, news coverage and popularity is not what makes a good president. At least thats not how its supposed to work.  (Download his Rand Paul 2016 in the Apple store or Play store on Android)

My next post coming soon. Thanks for reading!

Bernie Sanders– The New Socialism sweeping America

Bernie Sanders is the most popular Democratic party candidate next to the controversial Hillary Clinton. He has taken approach not much different than current president Obama.  When I started hearing about Sanders some months ago, I thought he was just another run of the mill democrat going against the usual conservative GOP narrative.  However, it turns out, he is nothing like any democratic contender I have ever seen in my life or looking back throughout American election history.

Sanders’ hails from Vermont, a state known for its communist leaning and loose gun control. Its also known for its maple syrup and delicious Ben and Jerry’s Ice cream.  Sanders’ has been a figure in Vermont politics for many many years. He identifies as a independent. I recently came across an article that was posted by a friend on facebook. Of course, in looking at the source it was a legit scholarly written article. Here is the link. This article is from a institute that promotes and educates on different topics including politics and economics. More specifically focusing on Austrian economics, freedom and peace. You can read more into it on the about page on their website.

This article which is called the Economics of Bernie Sanders. It is quite a read too. William L. Anderson takes on this journey exploring what Bernie’s campaign platform offers and then comparing it to other historical political figures. In a nutshell, Anderson focuses on the economic tools that Bernie intends to implement if elected. If you follow any Bernie coverage then you probably know that he is for things like: 15 dollar national minimum wage, higher corporate taxes, free college tuition for all and a healthcare system similar to Canada’s. (Full list in Article)   Anderson compares Bernie’s economic vision with that of the economies of countries like Denmark, Sweden and Norway.

The most interesting part of the article comes were he compares Sanders to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. However, he does not suggest that Sanders wants to conquer the world and make a genocide. He puts it best:

“A number of people have pointed out that the Sanders “program” is not socialism per se, but rather is something based upon socializing the results of private enterprise, or what one might call secondary socialism. The Bernie Sanders regime would take control of some of the produce of private enterprise, as opposed to taking outright control of factors of production, which would remain in private hands. If this reminds one of the fascism of the 1930s, that is because Sanders is promoting a version of the governing models of Germany under Adolph Hitler and Italy under Benito Mussolini.

Of the two, Sanders certainly is closer to Mussolini. Like Sanders, Mussolini called himself a socialist and was a leader in the Italian Socialist Party. Like Sanders, Mussolini decried “profiteers” and the wealthy, and spoke out against political corruption. Like Sanders, Mussolini spoke of a larger “national purpose” and sought to harness nationalism as a political force. Like Sanders, Mussolini sought to impose more and more controls on Italian businesses in order to direct production in a way to satisfy political purposes. Like Sanders, Mussolini built political power by appealing to Italian voters by saying that other Italians were well-off because they had gained their wealth on the backs of the poor.” (Anderson, Mises Daily)

What Anderson really suggests is that Sanders is seeking the same sort crusade against the rich or the one percent to gain control over the economy. He wants a more state controlled economic system.  Of course, Anderson cites the many failed attempts at state-run economies. The most interesting point to me is that Anderson points out that Sanders economic agenda will actually do nothing to help the economy. in other words, Sanders wants to make cosmetic changes. Anderson also outlines that Sanders brand of socialism is not results driven but more  political in nature. This means that success is based implementing the measures rather than achieving a specific result.

My own opinion is that Anderson does excellent job and I would recommend reading the article in full. In my opinion, I think thats where Sanders falls short for me. His economic plan scares me. The consequences for some of things he wants to do could lead us down a path we really do not want to go. My perspective is that of a person who has 60,000 dollars of college loan debt and has only worked minimum wage jobs. Hear me out though, the college tuition plan sounds great but in the end someone has to pay for it. If its not me, then its taxpayers. Although if Sanders were to say cut some unnecessary spending in certain areas. Its very viable to make college free. The problem becomes what to cut. The bipartisan politics will kill his plans before they even get started.

Another hot topic is the minimum wage. Sanders has been a huge voice for it. New York Sate will have 15 dollar minimum by 2020. I believe that its just really bad idea. Most people argue that it would help the single parent families and poor families out. This is not the case. Increasing base pay for every single means increased cost for everyone. It also decreases the need for an college education because wages are high in any job whether its Mcdonalds or EMTs. The economy needs people who work at Mcdonald’s for 8 dollars a hour. They have a critical role and those people should be teenagers. Raising minimum wage would not only increase the cost of all products in all retail and food businesses. These business depend on low wage workers to turn a profit. I think that people forget that business must make a profit or they go out of business. I understand also that business may not need billions of dollars but some of the larger companies do need that. Otherwise, how will they invest and create new products?

From my own personal experience working at a two Mcdonald’s over a 5 year period has taught me first hand about this topic. Let me tell you that working at Mcdonald’s is easy. The skill required in a mental capacity is almost nothing. Its all physical.  I didn’t deserve 15 an hour for what I did and neither did anyone else at the same position. Managers and store managers always made more and earned it. My store manager at Mcdonald’s told me he feels that it threatening because he does so much more than any crew or shift manager.  He has to run the business side of the restaurant and also the food service itself. Not an easy job. My restaurant was very small only making half a million year. Even still, raising minimum wage means either not hiring more employees meaning slower service or even laying off workers because it costs too much.

I just hope that when people consider Bernie Sanders that they consider that his cosmetic fixes only look good on paper. Much like socialism in the past, it always look better on paper. I admire Bernie Sanders’ ability rally so many people and his successful attempt at being unique. His campaign is not quite like any other. I believe despite his early success, the opposing democratic candidate also has a strong base.  Hillary Clinton will not go away due to her name recognition. One thing that is going for Sanders’ is Clinton’s email saga which only seems to be crazier each day.

Thank you for reading. More election candidates coming.