Unemployment and a Family of Four: Revised

As part of a recent class project, I was randomly assigned a family situation that is common in the United States. Using a loan calculator, paycheck calculator, and price estimates made by my peers, I was able to create a monthly budget to support my family. My family situation was that both my spouse and I were laid off from GE, we have an income of $400 per week for a maximum of twenty-six weeks, we have two kids, and we each owe $60,000 in student loans individually. Our monthly income, after taxes, came out to be $1,595.54.

Budget:
Rent - $450.00
Utilities - $250.00
Renter's Insurance - $25.00
College Loan Pay-Off - $320.00
Groceries - $472.40
Garbage Service - $5.00
Bus Pass - $15.73
Medical Care - $30.00
Pharmacy/Household Items - $27.41

Because of the large college loan debts and lack of steady income, most household basics had to be cut. The phone service was cut in favor of pharmacy and household items. Life insurance for both my spouse and myself was cut in favor of money for immediate medical care. The bus pass will cover all transportation costs, making car payments, car insurance, and gas money extraneous. My spouse and I will care for the children, as we are currently unemployed and will search for jobs at home. While doing this project, I realized just how expensive it is to have a family. Fellow students making money similar to mine but without a family were much better off. Also, I was surprised to find out how quickly a person can go from making $4,000 to $1,500, without any chance to prepare for the huge effect on his or her budget. I now know that saving the amount of money I thought I would need to save would only support me for one month after losing my job. The effect of the college loans on my budget also increased my awareness of just how important it is to seek out financial aid for college. I could save so much money later in life simply by making sure I do not take out too many loans for college this coming fall. I hope that the other students in my class have learned as much from this activity as I have.

I believe that unemployment dollars should be increased. I believe that the amount of money given to each family for unemployment should be proportional to the amount of income that the unemployed person(s) was last receiving. This would make it easier for higher previous-income families to adjust their budgets over a couple of months. However, there should also be a higher minimum rate, so that those without high incomes to start with would not suffer more because of the proportion. It is crucial for unemployment benefits to increase because New York State unemployment has risen to 7.6%, and is increasing by the month. Every dollar spent on unemployment benefits results in a $1.73 increase in economic activity, because those receiving the benefits use the money right away to purchase groceries and pay rent. From that statistic, it is clear that increasing the amount of money paid to the unemployed would also benefit the employed citizens of the United States by boosting the economy. The idea of extending unemployment benefits has also been raised. Last year, Congress was considering an increase of 13 weeks of benefits to all states, and an additional 13 weeks to states with an unemployment rate above 6%. An extension would give citizens a longer period of time to search for a new job before dropping off to no income, and would give some people the opportunity to keep their homes or other assets. When their is no income for unemployed families, it is very difficult for them to get back on their feet.

Sources:
Loan calculator: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/popcalc2.asap
Paycheck calculator: http://www.paycheckcity.com/netpaycalc/netpaycalculator.asp
New York State AFL-CIO: http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/iubenefits
Extending Unemployment Benefits Would Help Economy: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/mi12_levin/morenews/IN06102008.shtml

Unemployment and a Family of Four

As part of a recent class project, I was randomly assigned a family situation that is common in the United States. Using a loan calculator, paycheck calculator, and price estimates made by my peers, I was able to create a monthly budget to support my family. My family situation was that both my spouse and I were laid off from GE, we have an income of $400 for a maximum of twenty-six weeks, we have two kids, and we each owe $60,000 in student loans individually. Our monthly income, after taxes, came out to be $1,595.54.

Budget:
Rent - $450.00
Utilities - $250.00
Renter's Insurance - $25.00
College Loan Pay-Off - $320.00
Groceries - $472.40
Garbage Service - $5.00
Bus Pass - $15.73
Medical Care - $30.00
Pharmacy/Household Items - $27.41

Because of the large college loan debts and lack of steady income, most household basics had to be cut. The phone service was cut in favor of pharmacy and household items. Life insurance for both my spouse and myself was cut in favor of money for immediate medical care. The bus pass will cover all transportation costs, making car payments, car insurance, and gas money extraneous. My spouse and I will care for the children, as we are currently unemployed and will search for jobs at home. While doing this project, I realised just how expensive it is to have a family. Fellow students making money similar to mine but without a family were much better off. Also, I was surprised to find out how quickly a person can go from making $4,000 to $1,500, without any chance to prepare for the huge effect on his or her budget. I now know that saving the amount of money I thought I would need to save would only support me for one month after losing my job. The effect of the college loans on my budget also increased my awareness of just how important it is to seek out financial aid for college. I could save so much money later in life simply by making sure I do not take out too many loans for college this coming fall. I hope that the other students in my class have learned as much from this activity as I have.

Calculator Sources:
Loan calculator: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/popcalc2.asap
Paycheck calculator: http://www.paycheckcity.com/netpaycalc/netpaycalculator.asp

Hamas vs. The Israelis

As many people now know, a war has broken out between Israel and the Hamas governing Gaza. While Hamas is shooting missiles and rockets out into the cities of Israel, the Israeli militia has forced its way into Gaza to render the Hamas rocket launchers useless. Up until a week ago, Gaza and Israel were held by a six-month, Egyptian-brokered truce, under which Hamas ended attacks on Israel and Israel halted its raids in Gaza and eased its blockade on goods. Prior to the truce's end, Gaza resumed its rocket bombardment and Israel retaliated with an invasion. It has been made clear that a mere agreement between the two powers will not suffice. The U.N. proposed a cease-fire deal between the countries, but both refused. Israel stated that it would not back down until rockets stop falling on its people. The Hamas would not comply because they were angered that they were not consulted earlier, and also stated they wanted all border crossings opened before they would consider a cease-fire. Many countries, especially those in the United Nations, are now urging Israel to remove its forces from Gaza in the hopes of bringing peace to the region. I agree with those countries for many reasons. First, although Israel may be more in the "right" to fight because of Hamas' preliminary onslaught, Gaza is the area losing the most from the fighting. Rockets are landing on Israeli soil, but only thirteen Israelis have died from the rockets and combat. Seven hundred eighty Palestinians have died, with at least half of them being civilians. If Israel removes its troops, very few of their people will be lost and the relief groups that will then be safe to transport supplies to civilians in Gaza will save many Palestinian lives. If Hamas does not cease-fire after Israel removes its militia, I believe that other countries should then be able to go into Gaza and remove any threatening weapons.

As for the United States, I think that my decision will mostly impact the way other countries view us. By not immediately forcing ourselves into a country, we will show thoughtfulness in our actions and respect for the rest of the world. The United States has a foreign policy that clearly accepts the role to provide military and non-military aid to other countries in need, making it available to Gaza as a relief resource. If needed by the U.N. and other countries involved, we would be able to support a popular relief mission. The money spent removing various rocket launchers after Israel ceases-fire would be much less than it would be now, because it would now also be spent getting between the Israelis and Hamas in their battles. I believe that supporting the beliefs of other influential countries during a slightly smaller war than say, a World War, would strengthen the ties between the United States and the U.N. In the future, the U.N. might be more willing to support the United States if we support them now. In no way am I implying that the United States simply accept what the United Nations believe and do as they say to gain power and influence, but that we take the opportunity to work with them in a time that we can agree.


Sources:
Israel Ignores Europe’s Calls for a Cease-Fire in Gaza – WSJ.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123115402029453553.html

Israel and Hamas Ignore UN Call for Cease-Fire – Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090109/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

Rocket Kills 2 Children After Gaza Border Reopens – CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/26/israel.gaza.border/

Hamas Militants Attack Gaza Border Crossing with Bomb-Filled Cars – GlobalSecurity.org
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2008/04/mil-080419-voa03.htm

Left (Liberal) Party, Revised

I believe that the Left (Liberal) Party would be the best party to serve our country. I find that a liberal party truly reflects the wants and needs of the voter, not just because the voters who choose the party want the party but also because the party itself is based on the idea that people have freedom of choice.

Liberal control of the United States would be positive by giving citizens the right to make choices for themselves, making the majority of the population happier. Those citizens who believe in one thing could act in that fashion and those who believe in another thing could act in their own way. The majority of people that would not want freedom of expression would be those intolerant of others, which is not something I think our country should promote. After all, wasn’t our country originally created to establish tolerance and promote equality? The government regulation of business would help keep our economy steady and could prevent monopolies from forming. People in need could be sure that the government is always there to support them if needed. Our country being mostly Liberal would also promote environmental action, which would improve how other nations view the United States. Being “green” is beneficial in the long term for everyone on the planet, not just U.S. citizens.

However, Left ideals also have their drawbacks. For some people, choices that would be available in a Liberal government would be considered unethical or disturbing. For those citizens, the United States may no longer be somewhere they feel comfortable living. If the government controlled all business, the government could also control prices and availability of all products and services to the public. This much control by the government could cut our economy short and potentially lead to a reduction of other freedoms, such as freedom of speech. A company that could use surplus money to create innovative new products might not have the excess money if the government is too strict. Government support for the disadvantaged might encourage some individuals to work less hard or rely solely on the government for income. In these ways, a Liberal government is not very dissimilar from a Communist government, which many people in the United States fear. The preserving the environment, while a good cause, could be seen by some as a fruitless effort and a waste of space. Preserving areas in nature could prevent further development, and money spent on aiding the environment would have virtually no payback.


Sources:
-The Conservative Party of New York State
http://www.cpnys.org/
-Liberal Party of New York
http://www.liberalparty.org/
-World’s Smallest Political Quiz
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
-Encyclopaedia Britannica
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/339129/Liberal-Party

Freedom of Speech May Be Biased

When our speakers came to tell us about China, they made a comment about how our country, like China, does not have freedom of speech. Of course, in our constitution, freedom of speech is a right. Freedom of speech is allowing every citizen to speak or print the truth or their opinion, as long as their information is not untrue slander. News agencies make use of that right to inform the public of current events going on in the United States and the rest of the world. However, some people believe that the intermixing of large corporations and politicians has tainted what would otherwise be “un-biased news.” The main purpose of news services, which are run by corporations, is to provide news and information to the public. On the other hand, the main goal of the corporations is to make money, and money cannot be made if political sponsors and supporters do not approve of the program they are sponsoring. For example, the war in Iraq is almost never questioned by news anchors, but instead justified. This is because it is much easier to keep the majority of people happy by mitigating controversial issues than flat-out condemning them. Shows like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with John Stewart tell the not “politically popular” opinion of the public and are being called “comedy news” shows. This label is accurate in that it describes the way in which the news is presented, but it is also meant to give the impression that news coming from shows like The Colbert Report is not as accurate as from news stations like NBC and CNN. In truth, every news agency is biased in some way and does not tell the entire
story. The only way to make sure media is “free” is to take the time to hear news from different points of view and opinion, so a story can be considered from all perspectives. Either that, or the average citizen needs to take charge and witness important current events first hand, then provide all possible sides of an issue to the public. Although our speakers were incorrect in saying that we do not have freedom of speech, they were correct in the essence that the public is not told all there is to hear.

Sources:
-Take Back the Media
http://www.takebackthemedia.com
-American Civil Liberties Union
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/index.html
-Introduction to the Free Speech Clause
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/freespeech.htm

Left (Liberal) Party

I believe that the Left (Liberal) Party would be the best party to serve our country. I find that a liberal party truly reflects the wants and needs of the voter, not just because the voters who choose the party want the party but also because the party itself is based on the idea that people have freedom of choice.

Liberal control of the United States would be positive by giving citizens the right to make choices for themselves, making the majority of the population happier. Those citizens who believe in one thing could act in that fashion and those who believe in another thing could act in their own way. The majority of people that would not want freedom of expression would be those intolerant of others, which is not something I think our country should promote. After all, wasn’t our country originally created to establish tolerance and promote equality? The government regulation of business would help keep our economy steady and could prevent monopolies from forming. People in need could be sure that the government is always there to support them if needed. Our country being mostly Liberal would also promote environmental action, which would improve how other nations view the United States. Being “green” is beneficial in the long term for everyone on the planet, not just U.S. citizens.

However, Left ideals also have their drawbacks. For some people, choices that would be available in a Liberal government would be considered unethical or disturbing. For those citizens, the United States may no longer be somewhere they feel comfortable living. If the government controlled all business, the government could also control prices and availability of all products and services to the public. A company that could use surplus money to create innovative new products might not have the excess money if the government is too strict. Government support for the disadvantaged might encourage some individuals to work less hard or rely solely on the government for income. The preserving the environment, while a good cause, could be seen by some as a fruitless effort and a waste of space. Preserving areas in nature could prevent further development, and money spent on aiding the environment would have virtually no payback.

New York State's High Taxes and Low Outcomes

New York State is notorious for incredibly high taxes, with local taxes being 79% higher than the national average. This astonishing figure makes New York's local taxes the highest in the nation, while New York has had the smallest population increase since 2000. What this means is that the price of living in New York is increasing and the number of people available to carry the budget's burden is too small to decrease costs. This year there is a $2 billion deficit in New York, and next year there is an estimated $12.5 billion deficit for 2009. Clearly, increasing taxes is the not the way to make up for the deficit. Cuts need to be made and priorities need to change in the budget in order to revive New York's economy.

Local government is not the problem. County taxes go toward community programs, including criminal justice services, aiding the elderly, social services, veteran services, fixing roads and bridges, and patrolling highways. Some of the county's money also goes towards welfare and providing food stamps to people in need. However, even those opposing community services would not bother to confront the local government's budget. Out of every dollar in taxes, 90 cents is controlled by the state government. That's right: the county only has control over 10% of your taxes!

If I were to decide how to make up for the state deficit next year, I would make certain cuts in the state budget. First, I would reduce spending on Medicaid from $39.0 billion to $33.0 billion, saving New York $6.0 billion. Medicaid makes up 31% of our state's budget, when the average spending of states on Medicaid is only 16.8%. Medicaid is also a federal-state program, so whatever New York decides to spend on it will be matched by at least 50% with a grant by the federal government, as long as the program meets federal standards. Medicaid is also flawed, because the requirements to be part of the program can shut-out many people who are extremely poor and need the help. Also, $5.3 billion of the state budget (4%) goes to "Health," which is very vague and slightly redundant of programs like Medicaid which help people who need health insurance. Our state's spending in other areas in the budget is so low that I hesitate to make more cuts anywhere other than "Other." "Other" covers all projects that do not fall under the regular budget expenses. "Other" contains start-up programs and ideas that may be very innovative and a good thought for New York's future, but are not necessary at this time. I think that all programs that are not completely essential to New York in 2009 should be put on hold until New York has money to spare. Therefore, the remaining $6.5 billion should be easily found in the $13.9 billion of "Other."

I wanted to take a little time to explain why I did not make certain cuts now that I have explained which cuts I would like to make. I would not like to make cuts for School Aid, Higher Education, or Other Educational Aid because New York needs more educated students to bring business and prosperity to New York. Young adults with a good educational background will be able to take or create jobs in our state that will bring in more people and money to New York. I did not want to make cuts on Transportation or Judiciary, because most of the state budget comes from residents and these programs are beneficial to residents on a community level. Debt Service and Welfare are also beneficial to residents, but are also beneficial to New York's economy. Debt Services could bring certain families back to a point where they could spend money and aid New York's economy. Welfare helps pay for the necessities of residents, which re-circulates money when the money would not have otherwise been spent by the people in need. The other programs supported by the state are very unfamiliar to me and account for only a total of 12% of the budget, so I decided to leave them as they are.

Hopefully changes will be made in our state budget that make up for the oncoming deficit, but still keeps the needs of the citizens top priority.


Sources:

2008-09 All Funds Budget, New York State Executive Budget
http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBudget0809/fy0809littlebook/BriefingBook.pdf

New York State Division of the Budget
http://www.budget.state.ny.us/index.html

Open Book New York
http://www.openbooknewyork.com/index.htm

Kathy Jimino, Rensselaer County Executive