After 30 years and 135 flights, NASA is officially closing down its space shuttle program.
In its place, NASA recently signed a deal with Russia for $753 million to provide it with 12 round trips to the International Space Station aboard the Soyuz spacecraft. So from now on, the U.S. will essentially be paying for rides from the Russians.
As a backup plan, NASA has also hired private commercial spacecraft companies like SpaceX to build a space shuttle replacement, so NASA can "focus on more ambitious missions".
We've discussed in class the budgetary crisis facing the nation; and, yes, the cost of the space shuttle program is the main reason for its cancellation.
Last night during the Republican presidential debate, the consensus among the candidates was that NASA should continue to exist and design missions, but that the process would be much more efficient and cost-effective if many space-related tasks were outsourced to the private sector. Their argument is that free market competition will lead to more innovation and cost-efficiency, as compared to government bureaucracies. Indeed, there are literally dozens of other private space companies that are already trying to develop launch vehicles for both unmanned and manned flight.
All of the candidates, to some degree, positioned themselves in these terms: "The era of manned spaceflight is not ending; instead it's taking a new course".
What are your thoughts on the closing of the space shuttle program in the context of our budgetary crisis? To what extent is privatization desirable?
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
Reforming Public Education With Charter Schools...
With all of the talk about the struggles of America's public school system, one solution being debated is the use of charter schools.
Charter schools are essentially privately run schools that receive public funding. They are not subject to some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to regular public schools, however, to continue receiving funding they must be held accountable and produce certain results - namely, their students must improve their proficiency in reading, math, and other subjects.
In a 2008 survey of charter schools, 59% of the schools reported that they had a waiting list, averaging almost 200 students. So the demand is clearly present.
The idea is that families who live in a district where their children would normally be sent to a below-par or failing school would instead have the option of sending their children to a charter school that, in theory, could provide them a better education.
Here is the central question in the political debate... Should charter schools be an integral part of the solution in improving America's public school system, or should those resources that would go towards funding charter schools be better utilized by investing them directly into improving public schools themselves? On one side of the debate, many people argue that healthy public schools are vital to a democratic society. On the other side, many parents argue that, in practical terms, their children need a quality education today, and they are less concerned with who provides it.
How can we best allocate our resources?
Charter schools are essentially privately run schools that receive public funding. They are not subject to some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to regular public schools, however, to continue receiving funding they must be held accountable and produce certain results - namely, their students must improve their proficiency in reading, math, and other subjects.
In a 2008 survey of charter schools, 59% of the schools reported that they had a waiting list, averaging almost 200 students. So the demand is clearly present.
The idea is that families who live in a district where their children would normally be sent to a below-par or failing school would instead have the option of sending their children to a charter school that, in theory, could provide them a better education.
Here is the central question in the political debate... Should charter schools be an integral part of the solution in improving America's public school system, or should those resources that would go towards funding charter schools be better utilized by investing them directly into improving public schools themselves? On one side of the debate, many people argue that healthy public schools are vital to a democratic society. On the other side, many parents argue that, in practical terms, their children need a quality education today, and they are less concerned with who provides it.
How can we best allocate our resources?
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Ballot-Box Budgeting in California...
We've talked in class about the difference between direct democracy (where The People directly make policy decisions) versus representative democracy (where elected representatives make decisions). There are pros and cons of both, and California may provide an instructive example.
California has had severe problems with its budget for years. Like most states, it spends far more money each year than it brings in. Unlike many states, however, a lot of California's budget is determined, not by representatives, but by initiatives that the public votes on directly.
This experiment in direct democracy began in 1978 when the public voted to pass Proposition 13 which reduced property taxes by 57%. But since then, Proposition 13 has proved to be a double-edged sword. "One side was to protect the people from the government suddenly and wildly raising property taxes," says Bob Hertzberg, a former Assembly Speaker. "That was done. But we didn't resolve how to pay for the services that people want. So we have created this crazy government structure in Sacramento held together by duct tape and bailing wire. It's not coherent and needs to be changed."
In 2009, California's tax revenues declined dramatically and this led to a multi-billion budget gap. Some politicians and pundits blamed the problem on California's initiatives and denounced "ballot-box budgeting". Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said, "All of those propositions tell us how we must spend our money... This is no way, of course, to run a state."
So here we have a case where, when the decisions are left to the public, voters vote to lower taxes but also, simultaneously, to expand social services. When there is a budget crisis, elected representatives are limited in what they can do to fix the problem because they cannot override the results of public initiatives.
Direct democracy is the embodiment of popular sovereignty - the idea that The People should govern. However, elected representatives often have expertise that the majority of the public lacks. Both of these are important principles to consider in generating meaningful policies.
Under what circumstances does direct democracy best serve the public interest? Conversely, when is representative democracy more preferable?
California has had severe problems with its budget for years. Like most states, it spends far more money each year than it brings in. Unlike many states, however, a lot of California's budget is determined, not by representatives, but by initiatives that the public votes on directly.
This experiment in direct democracy began in 1978 when the public voted to pass Proposition 13 which reduced property taxes by 57%. But since then, Proposition 13 has proved to be a double-edged sword. "One side was to protect the people from the government suddenly and wildly raising property taxes," says Bob Hertzberg, a former Assembly Speaker. "That was done. But we didn't resolve how to pay for the services that people want. So we have created this crazy government structure in Sacramento held together by duct tape and bailing wire. It's not coherent and needs to be changed."
In 2009, California's tax revenues declined dramatically and this led to a multi-billion budget gap. Some politicians and pundits blamed the problem on California's initiatives and denounced "ballot-box budgeting". Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said, "All of those propositions tell us how we must spend our money... This is no way, of course, to run a state."
So here we have a case where, when the decisions are left to the public, voters vote to lower taxes but also, simultaneously, to expand social services. When there is a budget crisis, elected representatives are limited in what they can do to fix the problem because they cannot override the results of public initiatives.
Direct democracy is the embodiment of popular sovereignty - the idea that The People should govern. However, elected representatives often have expertise that the majority of the public lacks. Both of these are important principles to consider in generating meaningful policies.
Under what circumstances does direct democracy best serve the public interest? Conversely, when is representative democracy more preferable?
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Smoking Ban Approved in New York...
In our course we began with the overarching question, "What should be the role of government?". Some believe the government should play a minimal, passive role in the lives of citizens, adhering to the principle that "the government that governs least, governs best". Others believe that it should play a more active role, delivering more services and social programs, and engaging more actively in the economy.
As we've discussed, New York recently implemented an outdoor cigarette-smoking ban in all public parks, beaches, and pedestrian plazas, including Times Square - enforced by a $50 fine.
Supporters of the ban view this as a public safety issue and say the law will help minimize second-hand smoke exposure and will allow New Yorkers to relax on the beach this summer without having to inhale others' fumes. On the other side of the debate, however, critics frame this issue in terms of individual liberty and believe the outdoor smoking ban goes too far.
New York City-based bloggers, like The Gothamist, are sharing a wide array of opinions on the matter - some supporting the ban, some opposing, others simply mocking and ridiculing.
Perhaps this bit of irony sums it up... "Cigarettes are no good," agreed long-time smoker and Midtown worker Tony Romeu, 53, as he exhaled a mouthful of smoke.
Political disagreements like this occur when two core American political values like individual liberty and public safety come into conflict with one another. So... Is the government being too active in citizens' lives or is protecting non-smokers from inhaling secondhand smoke an activity that the government is right to be actively involved in?
How active a role do you think the government should play, both in this case and in general?
As we've discussed, New York recently implemented an outdoor cigarette-smoking ban in all public parks, beaches, and pedestrian plazas, including Times Square - enforced by a $50 fine.
Supporters of the ban view this as a public safety issue and say the law will help minimize second-hand smoke exposure and will allow New Yorkers to relax on the beach this summer without having to inhale others' fumes. On the other side of the debate, however, critics frame this issue in terms of individual liberty and believe the outdoor smoking ban goes too far.
New York City-based bloggers, like The Gothamist, are sharing a wide array of opinions on the matter - some supporting the ban, some opposing, others simply mocking and ridiculing.
Perhaps this bit of irony sums it up... "Cigarettes are no good," agreed long-time smoker and Midtown worker Tony Romeu, 53, as he exhaled a mouthful of smoke.
Political disagreements like this occur when two core American political values like individual liberty and public safety come into conflict with one another. So... Is the government being too active in citizens' lives or is protecting non-smokers from inhaling secondhand smoke an activity that the government is right to be actively involved in?
How active a role do you think the government should play, both in this case and in general?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)