The FINAL Week! (Gov) What to Spend Our Money On?

Most experts will tell you that Congress' primary responsibility is to determine what the U.S. government should spend our money on..... or in this case, what to stop spending our money on. While a portion on "our money" comes from tax revenue, it is not the only source. Nonetheless, Americans have opinions, and of course- not everyone agrees.

Right now there is a battle brewing between fiscal conservative Tea Party Republicans and Progressive Liberals. These two groups could not be more opposite in their beliefs on spending.

Part of our debt ceiling increase bill from last week was that a 12-member Congressional "super committee" will convene to determine what to CUT out of our annual federal budgets to decrease overall government spending.

Each political party is pledging to appoint committee members that are going to "stand firm" on not cutting their individual strongholds. Some key strongholds are defense, social security, medicare, etc.

Please read these to articles:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/us/politics/08panel.html?ref=politics

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/07/big-mandate-low-expectations-greet-super-committee-on-debt-reduction/

Now, I realize you are new to evaluating decisions Congress makes and having opinions on what they "should do". But Economic Policy Development is a major part of the AP Gov exam and helps with AP MicroEcon topics too. So.......

How do you think this committee is going to go? Will they compromise? Why or why not? What are your expectations and what do you think the possible consequences or successes might be....?

Week Nine (Gov)-

This week we are going to do something a little different. Many of you are now actually going to start your "project" on the different forms and types of governance. This is political theory.

To help get your mind in that direction, we are going to partake in one of the most popular courses ever taught at Harvard University. Michael Sandel was so popular they decided to film his courses. And luckily for us- they are now online.

You need to watch this link : http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/02/episode-three/#watch

And if you don't like this link feed- you can always YouTube Michael Sandel Episode Three.

This episode is on Utilitarianism v. Libertarianism (somewhat different than libertarian/Tea Party of 2011). And, ironically, he uses taxation as the discussion.

While watching the clip he will ask several questions to his 'class'. Please write down notes on how you would respond. Then, when you are done watching- summarize your reaction to the dialogue and come to some conclusions about what is "right".......

Have fun with this one.
I will miss you guys!
Ms D

Week 8: (Econ)- Is there a place for ethics in a capitalistic economy?

Week 8 Summer Blog (Econ)
Here are few reminders as we find ourselves with 3 weeks left in the summer:

Students should have responded to at least 5 blogs by the end of the summer (2 Econ, 2 Gov and 1 choice)
All summer work is due on the first day of class!!! NO EXCEPTIONS
AP Econ and Gov moves at a faster pace and you should expect homework nightly. If you would like to see the first weeks lesson plans for econ please see Mrs. Pondy’s class website at https://sites.google.com/site/mrspondy/
Feel to get ahead on the first week’s reading (since I am sure you are done with your summer work).

WEEK 8 BLOG POST (ECON) Is there a place for ethics in a capitalistic economy?
This week’s topic is by no means a new issue but rather one that can often be forgotten as we get caught up in our consumerism: Conflict Resources. Many of you may remember the film “Blood Diamonds” from sophomore year World History. The resource in question this week is not diamonds but it is mined in much the same situation as the subject of “Blood Diamonds”, but minerals mined in these geographic areas and used in electronics such as cell phones. Within the past year the US Congress has passed legislation to require companies that use gold, tin, tungsten, tantalum in electronic products to disclose the source of the minerals. The law further requires companies to make this information available on the websites.

Start with the Huffington Post link to make yourself familiar with the conflict mineral resources and the situation in Congo. Then check out the link explaining the regulation passed by Congress (pay attention to the timing and legislative package that this law was included in). Finally spend some time analyzing the last two links that discuss possible solutions and the impact of those solutions.

Your Task:
Decide if you think a ban or strict regulation is a solution that can eventually put an end to the Conflict in Congo. If it is not a solution is it an important step in that direction? You may believe that this is an issue that has no answer or that it is simply an unfortunate, unintended consequence of a free market economy. If so state your case and challenge your classmates to see your point of view.

This can often be a touchy subject so remember that there are no wrong answers and everyone deserves to be respected and given a voice!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-gosling/congos-conflict-minerals-_b_854023.html - Conflict in Congo

http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2010/07/27/conflict-free-electronics-bundled-financial-reform-law - explanation of Congressional regulation

https://www.greenbiz.com/news/2011/07/12/motorola-seeks-conflict-free-electronics-supply-chain-drc - Motorola’s alternative solutions

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/Africa-Monitor/2011/0718/Congo-conflict-minerals-bill-hurts-the-miners-it-hopes-to-help - Does a ban hurt or help

Week Seven (Gov): Rights of Privacy v. Freedom of the Press

Greetings from Stanford! I've spent the morning in lectures on popular constitutionalism and how power was intended to be in the people's hands by our founding fathers. Luckily for you, this is also unit one so I will be extra smart this year :)

One thing we will frequently see this year is that parts of the Constitution conflict with each other. And when this happens- which part wins??

I thought we would head a different direction this week and talk about your rights to privacy (implied 9th amendment right) v. the rights of press (1st amendment right). But, we are heading across the pond for this week’s example.

As I hope you know, our Bill of Rights is based on England’s Bill of Rights. So why we are using a British current event, my principle theory to you will hold in our country as well.

So, as I hope you’ve heard- New Corp’s New of the World (a sensational rag-mag news company that practices “Yellow Journalism” has been found that they were hacking into private citizens phones and planting wire taps. Now, this is NOT a search and seizure topic since it is a private company doing this to private citizens.

But my question to you is Where should journalistic ethics draw the link on their quest to get the story and expose an issue? How far is too far? And if you were the citizen who had been tapped- where is your right to privacy theory?....

Explore these links before you post:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14183281

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/world/europe/19hacking.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/08/world/europe/20110708-key-players-in-the-phone-hacking-scandal.html

Week Six: (Econ)- US ECONOMY AT A CROSSROADS

DEBT… A situation in which spending is more than revenue. Most American families have debt, most businesses have debt and we all know that the United States has debt. Debt itself is not always bad. After all you have to spend money to make money, right? Out of control debt, debt that has no limit in sight and debt for which there is no plan of action to pay off can be detrimental eventually to all three of the entities mentioned above.

As you most likely have seen within the past month the US has met the debt ceiling allowed by current legislation. This means that no further spending can take place and investors and people owed money by the US run the risk of simply not getting paid. Most sources agree that this would be a serious situation with serious implications. After all, who wants to invest in a credit risk, right?

Seems simple enough but as you will see in the links below Congressional leaders and the President do not all agree on the best solution. The GOP wants cuts to spending in order to eliminate debt, the Democrats feel that continued entitlements are critical to stimulate a sick economy. Clearly compromise needs to happen.
What is your take on this issue?

Should the debt ceiling be raised? What are the implications reaching the debt ceiling and not raising it? Is it responsible to raise the debt limit with no additional changes, such a cut in spending or increase in taxes (revenue)? Should these other measures be seriously considered? To what extent should they be altered?

Consider the positions and role of the key Players in the issue: Speaker of the House Boehner, President Obama, and Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner.

Provided below are several links to help understand the debt ceiling issues, explanations of possible solutions as well

FAQ on the debt ceiling: http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/03/news/economy/debt_ceiling_faqs/index.htm?iid=EL
Debt Talks: What they mean
http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/05/news/economy/debt_ceiling_deal/index.htm?iid=EAL
Mega Debt Deal stalls
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/11/dead-mega-debt-deal-lowers-expectations/#ixzz1RntZ4aLY?test=latestnews

Week Five (Econ): Government and the Economy

What is the impact of Government intervention in a market economy and when is enough, enough?


Free markets are those in which consumers and producers make choices of their own without government intervention. Well functioning markets are those in which consumers and producers are receiving the maximum value for their trade, both parties equally benefit.


Adam Smith wrote in A Wealth of Nations: The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it. It is in this quote that Smith endorsed markets free of excessive government regulation and requirements.


Recently the American economy has seen changes in what has been traditionally a private market, health care, show signs of a transition to deep government regulation and entanglement. By 2014 Americans will be required to carry medical insurance. Insurance companies can no longer exclude children with pre-existing conditions, a protection that will soon be carried over to adults. Premium credits will be given to families to help pay for increase cost of medical coverage as well as many additional regulations and requirements.


Is this a necessary change in your opinion? What are the opportunity cost of such changes? Who benefits and who is harmed? Using the provided links analyze the importance of the planned health care reform and discuss the economic impact of the changes. Remember that economist think on the margin, are the marginal benefits greater that the marginal cost? IS THIS A CASE IN WHICH GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION CAN IMPROVE MARKET OUTCOMES?


Video link – Harvard economist proposal for fixing healthcare

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2011/04/jeff-miron-on-healthcare.html


Summary of Health Reform Law

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf


Pros and Cons of Health Reform Law

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm

Week Four(Gov): What to do on Free Speech?

Welcome to Week Four.

We are taught at a young age in the U.S. that we have "free speech". This statement is both true and false.

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise there of; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

This has subsequently been interpreted to mean freedom of spoken word, your own printed word, your expressed words (symbols, styles, fashions, etc). We will learn the particulars this year. But for our purposes this week, this basic overview will suffice.

So, then what are we talking about this week?

We also know that while we have freedom of speech, there are all sorts of limitations. You cannot incite violence, you cannot commit defamation/libel, you cannot commit sedition (remember that guy Schenck in the 1920s who spoke out against the U.S.?)..... and you can not be obscene.

Obscenity is tough. One Supreme Court justice wrote that "he cannot define it, but he knows it when he sees it!". OK, that may be true- but how does that help us define legal guidelines and punish offenders?

We established the Federal Communications Commission to help regulate obscenity on public radio/tv/newspapers, etc and in music, movies, and video games.

Today, please go to the FCC website and take a quick look around. This is the federal site. States can always place more restrictions on top of the FCC, just not less.
http://www.fcc.gov/what-we-do

Then, look at what happened today.
Your United States Supreme Court announced their ruling that states cannot explicitly ban the sale of violent video games to children.
Read this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/us/28scotus.html?hp

So, what do you think? What should we limit? At what age? Is it the government's job to restrict? Or is this a private family manner? Are we saying anyone of any age can listen to, play, or watch whatever they want? Does this mean an 8-year-old can go watch Rated R or NC-17 films now?

..... where's the line? How do we know? What should it look like? Essentially, agree or disagree with the Supreme Court and explain why!