What is the process to develop an economic policy that provides services and sustainability?

Our American economy, while the richest in the world, is hardly the most stable model to base my construct to answer the question this week.  I would develop a economic policy that wouldn't over extend spending beyond that of my theoretical GDP.  I would make taxes a non tiered system and make everyone pay their own share of taxes. In addition I would make sure that foreign investors shared common beliefs and goals so that if I had to borrow money and run into a deficit I wouldn't owe money to the proverbial devil herself.(CHINA anyone???)  I would also make sure that all state and municipal level governments could not run deficits because it would create issues at the federal level resulting in bailouts to irresponsible local governments.

The value of running an economy based on my proposed policy would be that the funding for all social services would be completely sustainable for all citizens because expenditures would never overwhelm revenues.  My model also ensures the perpetuation of my foreign relation policies by only allowing my international friends to invest in my nation and not my enemies.  Which is the case currently in America where we have private corporations or countries which we deem to be misaligned with our values, who own half of our companies and controlling domestic services through shareholdings.  

In all I find that the scope and accountability my policy will covers can really make the difference we aren't seeing domestically in America right now.  The overspending on people who do not deserve it and the underspending on the issues that matter like Education and Healthcare is what is dragging this nation into the crapper.  America cannot police the world or save all the poor people by bringing them here.  What we can do is strengthen ourselves , our allies , and future allies so that we may face the future together with common goals of economic and environmental  sustainability and peaceful and moral prosperity.



  

How does a government facilitate comprehensive care for its constituents without sacrificing equity?

          The question this week is very general and broad but I will try to answer it the best way I can by using the U.S. government as non idealistic model

          Initially I was surprised to find through the assigned reading how American social services are less than mediocre in comparison to other industrialized and modern nations.  The reason being is that we utilize less then twenty percent of our GDP to fund programs aimed at supporting: welfare for citizens in poverty, funding public education and health care and support for Children and the elderly.  The reading goes further and describes specifically that “Comparatively,  the U.S. welfare state is small; it captures a more limited share of tax revenues and national wealth than does welfare spending in comparable advanced capitalists countries.”[1]

I was also surprised by the origin and evolution of social programs in America as well.   The first real movement to broadly support citizens was in 1935 when the Social Security Act was passed and aging Americans finally something to look forward to for security.  Previously only pensions and benefits for military staff and their families were prevalent as a social service but after the great depression President Franklin D Roosevelt found it a necessity for the government to step in and create programs and subsidies to protect people in need.   President Roosevelt was quoted saying that one third of the population was “ill –housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished”[2]  His stance on how the government should step in dynamically changed the perception of governmental involvement in social welfare programs. 

Lastly I found how the current movement for national healthcare was created, augmented and finally passed during the first term of President Barrack Obama.  While I do find the value in social welfare programs based on the fact that I was a recipient of said programs as a child, I find that the abuse of such programs and subsidies makes them almost more of a burden then a blessing.  Furthermore I find that the effectiveness of social programs abroad is based on their regulation of services distributed to citizens only and not for non citizen immigrants.  It almost balances out the high percentage of taxes on income they pay in Europe when they know their countrymen and themselves are reaping the benefits of working.

How would immigration reform change the funding for social services in America?

Would changing the tax liability of individuals based on income make a difference for the funding of social welfare programs?

Is applying a tiered tax liability system fair for those who make more then average?  Is it punishment for achievement and success?

---

[1]  Katznelson,Ira. The politics of power. 6th ed. New York , London: W.W Norton, 2011

[2]  Katznelson,Ira. The politics of power. 6th ed. New York , London: W.W Norton, 2011

How should a nation-state develop its foreign policy in accordance to its values and in connection to the development of its domestic policy?

In a perfect world a nation should develop its foreign policy to ensure peaceful and lucrative relations with other countries.  The domestic policies of this idealistic nation would protect the best interests of all people and never would exploit anyone.   Alas we do not live in a perfect world.  We live in a world where might is right and only on the backs of the less fortunate do the privileged gain and maintain their power.  In addition while I understand that fact I wish it wasn't that way.  If a country could stay true to positive core values and treat other countries with peace and respect they would unfortunately be exploited by the more militaristic and economically successful nations like America and the EU.

In contrast to the pipe dream above, America's foreign policies have almost always been driven by maintaining American Superiority financially and militarily.  That stance hasn't always been the case though.  Early in the inception of America our stance was to stay out of European and others affairs. The best advice was given by our first president, George Washington who urged Americans to "profit from the good fortune that geography provided in the form of an ocean separating it from Europe, to avoid "entangling alliances" with other countries"1

Later in American history our stance on foreign policy and chiefly our involvement in other country's political instability changed.  After WWII America changed it's approach to foreign policy by becoming more involved in promoting our democratic and economic ideology abroad. "the assertion of global political leadership and the expansion of American economic influence abroad."2   There were many newly independent countries in Africa and Asia who were open to our line of thinking because they wanted socio-economic change and didn't want anything to do with their former European oppressors. The opportunity WWII created was one our nation had to capitalize on.  We focused on three things to focus on which were: "opposing communism, integrating the non-Communist world, and creating international regulator institutions."3

Much more could be said about the history and process of American ascension to greatness and power.  I try to focus on where we are going.  I truly hope that we can continue to support democracy all over the world and protect people who cannot protect themselves.  Regardless of the means and tactics we used to achieve our current place in the world I feel that at the core of who we want to be is morally good.  I just hope we don't fall apart from the inside.  Our domestic issues scare me much more then our foreign.  In two generations we could have a predominantly Hispanic population.  What kind of political focus do you think a population like that will have?  Will the best interests of America really be that important or will it come second to biased aid given to Latin countries.

1,2,3 Katznelson,Ira. The politics of power. 6th ed. New York , London: W.W Norton, 2011