Eight Years Wasted, the Economic Failures of the Bush Administration Essay Example for Free

Eight Years Wasted, the Economic Failures of the Bush Administration Essay Eight years wasted. That is the description that befits the George W. Bush administration of the United States between 2001 and 2008. Nevertheless, this is not a case of unfair criticism of the Bush administration, as noted by Republican Senator John McCain who served in Bush’s era (Curl). According to McCain as he campaigned for the presidency in 2008, Bush spent a lot of the United States’ resources on the war in Iraq, which consequently led to a massive economic downturn (Curl). The most obvious impacts of Bush’s actions are reflected in the changes in rate of unemployment, inflation, money supply in the United States, and shifts in foreign exchange rates as well as interest rates (National Organization for Women). Unemployment The rate of unemployment has particularly been worrying since the period between 2000 and 2001 when Bush took the leadership of the United States (OECD). According to Shi and Stevens, the rate of unemployment has been fluctuating rapidly since 2000 when it was about 4. 0 percent (59). Within over a year of Bush’s leadership, the unemployment rate shot up to 5. 8 per cent in 2002 (59). Women and their families were particularly affected by the high rate of unemployment, as they would rarely make ends meet at the start of the Bush administration. In fact, according to the National Organization for Women, the year 2001 marked the period of massive job loss among women in over 40 years (National Organization for Women). Along this line, the Institute for Womens Policy Research reported that in the period between 2001 and 2004, women workers lost over 300,000 jobs (National Organization for Women). In the same breadth, unemployment rates among single mothers rose of an already bad situation of 9. 5 per cent to a worse level of 10. 2 per cent (National Organization for Women). Statistics from GPO Access show a grim picture of the increasing levels of unemployment since the year 2000 when the United States presidential election that ushered in President George Bush was held. In the figures provided, overall civilian unemployment rate fluctuated from 4. 0 per cent in 2000 to 6. 7 percent in November 2008, which marked the end of the Bush administration (Table 1). Along the same line, the same trend in unemployment rate was noticed among different age groups, fa Another aspect of the Bush administration’s failure is an uncontrolled increase in inflation. At the beginning of the Bush administration in 2001, there was a notable decline in the prices of all items and services as compared to the preceding year. Perhaps this was because of the effort by Bush to fulfill campaign promises. The truth of the matter is that after 2001, the prices of all items went up, declining only slightly in 2003. Since then, there was a notable fluctuation in the prices but overall, the prices remained at an all time high. In fact, the 4. 1 per cent change in price of items (Table 2) was the highest margin to have been recorded since the 6. 1 per cent rate recorded in 1990 at the height of the Gulf War (Irwin and Dan. ). The high prices of commodities and services noticed during the Bush Administration not only affected the financial positions of many families but also influenced the people’s access to essential services such as healthcare (Atkinson and Hutto). According to Hanke, the 2003 United States census showed that any family of three lived on a mean of $51 a day. This figure was arrived at using an assumption that childcare and healthcare services were fully financed by the government (United States Department of Labor). Nevertheless, this was not the case for most families, as they had to rely on their own means to support themselves. In the context of high cost of commodities and services and with particular reference to childcare and healthcare services, many families had to spend as much as over 20 per cent of their incomes in pursuit of these services (Robinson). According the New York Times, the Bush administration cut funding programs for many essential programs such as childcare, which were particularly appropriate for single parent households (The High Cost of Health Care). This move was done as the administration aimed at improving and expanding other unpopular programs such as promotion of marriage (United States Bureau of Statistics). However, the downside of this point is that as focus was shifted to newer programs, the already existing programs suffered an even heavier blow in terms of the exorbitant costs that had to be incurred (The High Cost of Health Care). According to Shi and Gregory, the highest number of individual without healthcare services was recorded in 2003 (60). This is because most attention was diverted to acquisition of other essential commodities and services such as food and housing (The High Cost of Health Care). Yet president Bush still insisted on funding the war to oust President Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. This action can be considered as a case of misplaced priority because whereas President Bush was busy pursuing the United States foreign policy, local affairs (which perhaps needed more attention) were thrown into disarray. Money Supply During the Bush Administration, the supply of money increased, but with some fluctuations. For instance, the total value of the United States currency, traveler’s checks, demand deposits and other checkable deposits rose from $1087. 4 billion to a high of $1473. 1 billion in October 2008 (GPO Access). The high supply of money does not imply that the United States economy improved in the period of eight years. Rather, it is an indication the value of the United States dollar could have depreciated (Crutsinger and Aversa). Thus, the large sums of money released to fund the war in Iraq in 2003 did not add any impetus to the United States economy (Crutsinger and Aversa). Instead, the economy became vulnerable with reference to a weak dollar against other world currencies. In spite of the increase in the sum of currency, there was an increase in debt of domestic nonfinancial sectors from $18,183. 6 billion in 2000 to $32,436. 5 billion in 2006 . This means that nonfinancial institutions increasingly had to borrow during the era of George W. Bush. It therefore no wonder that the United States was crippled by a great financial crisis only comparable to the Great Depression towards the end of Bush’s reign, the overriding factor being that the United States government had spent so much money on defense and war in Iraq and Afghanistan at the expense of internal development. Foreign Exchange As mentioned above, there was a significantly high supply of money in the United States, which characteristically led to depreciation of the United States dollar. In addition, the period was characterized by a high rate of inflation, implying that considerably larger sums of money would be used in buying commodities that would have been bought inexpensively in the earlier period (Atkinson and Hutto). On the international scale, the high cost of United States commodities meant that importers had to pay lots of money to acquire the goods, which ultimately lowered the level of international trade between the United States and other countries (Table 3). Consequently, the United States dollar fluctuated against other world currencies such as the Japanese yen, the Sterling Pound, Chinese yuan and the Australian dollar (Atkinson and Hutto). For instance, the Sterling Pound exchanged at between $1. 9548 and $2. 0442 in 2007 (Table 3), which was a very large variation. The strong dollar against the yen between 2001 and 2002, which was the beginning of the Bush administration, discouraged importation by Japan from the United States (Atkinson and Hutto). At the same time, citizens of the United States opted to import valuable items such as automobiles at the expense of the locally manufactured ones, thus putting the United States automobile industry in the quagmire in which it is today (OECD). The consequence of this is that major competitors such as the Japanese automakers have adversely affected local automakers such as Ford, and the whole industry has been earmarked for revival in the Economic Stimulus Package (OECD). Interest rates Government bond yields and interest rates generally declined between 2000 and 2008. For instance, the value of bills at auction declined steadily from $ 5. 85 to $1. 01 in 2003, but steadily rose from $1. 38 to $4. 73 in 2006 (GPO Access). The low price of bonds meant that banks were in a position to purchase more government bonds, thus diverting their attention from other financial service users such as borrowers (Crutsinger and Aversa). Ultimately, banks were forced to impose high interest rates on the loans they offered to the public, implying that most small business holders and individuals were crippled by a massive credit crunch (Crutsinger and Aversa). The ensuing credit crunch adversely affected the United States economy particularly towards the ends of the end of the Bush administration (Crutsinger and Aversa). Banks were most affected by the financial woes and this necessitated the Bush administration to consider taking ownership of various banks in a bid to protect them from collapsing (Crutsinger and Aversa). This move was however also ill planned, as it would result in unnecessary government expenditure, resulting into higher inflation in the United States (Hanke). In addition, there was no assurance that with the government’s acquisition of the banks, their performance would improve (Hanke). Conclusion Even though the world witnessed a massive economic recession, the woes in the United States stemmed from the fact that the Bush administration spent excessively on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which generally weakened the performance of most local institutions. The underperformance in various sectors was shown in high rates of unemployment, high inflation, fluctuating levels of money supply and foreign exchange rates as well as high bank interest rates. The combined effect of the various phenomena led to a crisis in the entire United States economy, thus making the Bush administration one of the worst leaderships of the United States. References Atkinson Robert D and Julie Hutto 18October 2004. Bush vs. Clinton: An Economic Performance Index. 10 March 2009. http://www. ppionline. org/ppi_ci. cfm? knlgAreaID=107subsecID=295contentID=252964 Crutsinger, Martin and Aversa, Jeannine 8 October 2008. Bush administration mulls bank stakes. 10 March 2009. http://www. freep. com/article/20081008/BUSINESS07/81008120/1015/BUSINESS02/Bush+administration+mulls+bank+stakes Curl, Joseph. 23 Oct. 2008 McCain lambastes Bush years. 10 March 2009. http://www. washingtontimes. com/news/2008/oct/23/mccain-lambastes-bush-years/ GPO Access . Civilian unemployment rate. 10 March 2009. http://www. gpoaccess. gov/eop/2009/B42. xls GPO Access . Money stock and debt measures, 1965–2008. 10 March 2009 http://www. gpoaccess. gov/eop/2009/B69. xls GPO Access. Bond yields and interest rates, 1929–2008. 10 March 2009. http://www. gpoaccess. gov/eop/2009/B73. xls GPO Access. Changes in consumer price indexes for commodities and services, 1929–2007. 10 March 2009. http://www. gpoaccess. gov/eop/2009/B64. xls GPO Access. Foreign exchange rates, 1985–2008. 10 March 2009. http://www. gpoaccess. gov/eop/2009/B110. xls. Hanke, Steve H. September 24, 2008 The Bush Legacy: Deflation or Inflation? 10 March 2009. http://www. cato. org/pub_display. php? pub_id=9663 Irwin, Neil and Eggen, Dan. 12 Jan. 2009. The Washington Post. Economy Made Few Gains in Bush Years: Eight-Year Period Is Weakest in Decades. http://www. washingtonpost. com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/01/12/ST2009011200359. html National Organization for Women. 27 August 2004. Bushs Economic Failure Weakens Middle Class, Deepens Poverty and Harms Women and Families. 10 March 2009. http://www. now. org/press/08-04/08-27. html OECD. Macroeconomic indicators. 10 March 2009. http://stats. oecd. org/mei/default. asp? lang=esubject=15country=USA Robinson, Woodward, Gellman. Timeline: Bushs Eight Years in Office. 10 March 2009. http://www. washingtonpost. com/wp-srv/politics/bush/legacy/timeline Shi, Leiyu and Stevens Gregory D. Vulnerable Populations in the United States. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2004 The High Cost of Health Care. 25 November 2007. The New York Times. 10 March 2009. http://www. nytimes. com/2007/11/25/opinion/25sun1. html? _r=1 United states Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. 10 March 2009 http://www. bls. gov/

Does Free Speech Go Too Far? -- Essays Papers

Does Free Speech Go Too Far? Freedom of speech is perhaps the most important right that we have in the United States of America. The first amendment of the Constitution gives everyone in the country the right to express their opinions as they see fit. Without this right, African-Americans might not have been afforded the opportunity to gain racial equality. While this is one of the ideas that this country is founded on, at times it seems to go to far. When a group spreading hatred and prejudice wants to exercise their own right to free speech, many people have a problem with it. Free speech cannot just be for those who you agree with, it has to be for everyone. As I have seen firsthand, when the voice speaking out preaches intolerance, the true voice of the people will overcome. The First Amendment to the Constitution states: â€Å"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances (Rights).† Without these words, the civil rights movement of the 1960’s might not have proved successful. Using non-violent resistance such as marches, boycotts, and sit-ins, the discrimination was fought. In many places, people tried to block the African-American’s freedoms. One example of this was on May 3, 1963 in Birmingham, Alabama. The police used dogs and high-pressure water hoses on the demonstrators, as well as arresting 4,000 people during a few days of demonstrations (Mayer). As they fought on, African-Americans were able to fight the good fight, and were successful in gaining their civil rights. Yet... ...-filled voices, the very march that I took place in proved that there are natural checks for those voices. The first amendment is there for those people whose voices might not otherwise be heard. Hopefully when the voice of the minority is that of prejudice, the greater, and righteous voice will overcome. Works Cited â€Å"Bill of Rights† Thomas Historical Documents. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/bor.html (30 November 2000). Herchel, Rabbi Jaffe. Personal Interview. 30 Nov. 2000. Mayer, Kurt Albert. â€Å"From Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation to Martin LutherKing’s Dream of Being ‘Free at Last’: African Americans and their Drawn-Out Struggle for Civil Rights,† http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~mayerk3/Civilrights.htm (30 November 2000). Strum, Phillip. â€Å"Human Rights Organization in Civil Society,† http://www.civiced.org/schwerin_strum.html (30 November 2000).

Estate Planning

FIN 4385-01 Case II: Executive Summary For the past several weeks, BJSMC conducted a comprehensive estate plan providing a structural outline of our client’s, Scott, estate opportunities and limitations subject to specific request. Our client provided us with the following scenarios: 1). If Scott dies this year, predeceasing Sue, and his executor elected his date of death as the valuation date, indicate those assets (and their values) that would be includible in Scott’s gross estate for estate tax purposes.Also, please explain your reason for the inclusion or exclusion of each asset. 2). Based on Scott’s current estate plan, indicate those assets and their values that would qualify for marital deduction. Explain your reasons for the qualification or non-qualification of each asset for the marital deduction. Based on factual information, hard-copy documentation, and professional experience, BJSMC established the following resolutions to scenario I: The â€Å"Catc hall Provision† of Internal Revenue Coded states the general rule that the gross estate includes the value of all property interests, real or personal, tangible or intangible. Under Section 2033, the decedent’s estate includes any interest in real estate, cash or money equivalents, whether kept in a bank, savings or checking account, certificates of deposit, money market funds, or a safe-deposit box. The gross estate also includes any stocks, bonds (including tax-exempt bonds), notes and mortgages owned by the decedent.Therefore, the full values of the following assets are included in Scott’s gross estate under IRC Sec. 2033 since he is the sole owner: o Stock in XYZ Corporation (500 shares) o Other listed common stock o Tax-free municipal bonds o Savings accounts o Household and other tangible personal property †¢ Section 2033 may also apply to inclusion of life insurance. If a decedent owns a life insurance policy on his or her own life at the date of deat h, the face amount of that policy must be included in the gross estate pursuant to Section 2042(2).This section establishes a standard regarding incident of ownership whereby the owner of a life policy is required to include the proceeds in the gross estate in the event that he or she possessed any incidents of ownership. In this case, it is specifically mentioned that Scott owns four life insurance policies on his own life. Therefore, the following items are included in Scott’s gross estate under IRC Section 2040: o Ordinary life policy purchased at age 23 o 20 – payment life policy purchased at 34 Ordinary life policy purchased at age 37 o Term to 65 policy purchased at age 44 †¢ Under IRC Section 2039, the total value of the profit-sharing plan and death benefit plan would be included in Scott’s gross estate. o XYZ Corporation – pension (noncontributory) death benefits o XYZ Corporation – profit sharing (noncontributory) death benefits â₠¬ ¢ A special rule was enacted to control the estate taxation of joint property with right of survivorship held solely by husband and wife as well as property held as tenants by the entirety.Section 2040(b) (1) pertains to the one-half inclusion rule for spouses. The rule is that one-half the value of such property, regardless of which spouse furnished all or part of the consideration, is included in the gross estate of the first spouse to die. Therefore, half the values of the following assets are included in Scott’s gross estate: o Residence purchased in 1987 o Vacation home o Checking account †¢ All property held in joint tenancy with right of survivorship by joint tenants other than a husband and wife alone is treated under a different rule.The property is included in a deceased joint tenant’s estate according to a percentage-of-contribution rule. Scott and Dan own the following property equally as tenants in common; therefore, half the value of the listed pro perty will be included in Scott’s gross estate: o Undeveloped real estate †¢ The property that Sue solely owns in her name (Saving account & other personal property) will not be included in Scott’s gross estate. Property and property interests that are includible under Section 2033 are those that are â€Å"owned† by the decedent.Scott doesn’t have any rights of ownership to Sue’s property in her name. Based on factual information, hard-copy documentation, and professional experience, BJSMC established the following resolutions to scenario II: Qualifying Marital Deductions †¢ $246,000 death benefit o Included in Scott’s gross estate †¢ $30,000 and $200,000 ordinary o Payable to Sue in a lump sum †¢ $377,000 of joint property o Right of survivorship †¢ $700,000 property passing o Passed to Sue outright Non Qualifying Marital Deductions & Reason †¢ $70,000/20-payment life insurance policy o Not payable to Sue

Why Burning Money Is Illegal in the United States

If you have money to burn, congratulations—but youd better not actually set fire to a pile of cash. Burning money is illegal in the United States and is  punishable by up to 10 years in prison, not to mention fines. Its also illegal to tear a dollar bill and even flatten a penny  under the weight of a locomotive on the railroad tracks. The laws making defacing and debasing currency a crime have their roots in the federal governments use of precious metals to mint coins. Criminals were known to file down or cut off portions of those coins and keep the slivers for themselves while spending the altered currency. The odds of being prosecuted under the federal laws that making burning money or defacing coins, however, are fairly slim. First, coins now contain very little precious metals. Second, defacing printed currency in an act of protest is often compared to burning the American flag. That is to say, burning money may be considered protected speech under the U.S. Constitutions First Amendment. What the Law Says About Burning Money The section of federal law that makes tearing up or burning money a crime is  Title 18, Section 333, which was passed in 1948 and reads: Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. What the Law Says About Mutilating Coins The section of federal law that makes mutilating coins a crime is Title 18, Section 331, which reads: Whoever fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates, impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales, or lightens any of the coins coined at the mints of the United States, or any foreign coins which are by law made current or are in actual use or circulation as money within the United States; or whoever fraudulently possesses, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or brings into the United States, any such coin, knowing the same to be altered, defaced, mutilated, impaired, diminished, falsified, scaled, or lightened shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. A separate section of Title 18 makes it illegal to debase coins minted by the U.S. government, meaning to shave some of the metal off and make the money less valuable. That crime is punishable by fines and up to 10 years in prison. Prosecutions Are Rare Its pretty rare for someone to be arrested and charged with defiling or debasing U.S. currency. Even those penny press machines found at arcades and some seashore attractions are in compliance with the law because theyre used to create souvenirs and not to debase or shave metal off the coin for profit or fraud. Perhaps the highest profile case of currency mutilation dates to 1963: An 18-year-old U.S. Marine named Ronald Lee Foster was convicted of whittling away the edges of pennies and spending the 1 cent coins as dimes in vending machines. Foster was sentenced to a year of probation and $20. But, more seriously, the conviction prevented him from being able to get a gun license. Foster made national news in 2010 when President Barack Obama pardoned him.   Why Illegal? So why does the government care if you destroy money if its technically your property anyway? Because the Federal Reserve has to replace any money taken out of circulation, and it costs anywhere from about 5.5 cents to make a $1 bill to about 14 cents for a $100 bill. That may not be much per bill, but it adds up if everyone starts burning their money.