Archive - Apr 1, 2008 - topic

Date
Type
A stack o' pennies
The Associated Press

Poor, pitiful penny.

Featured Topic | Posted 33 weeks 12 hours ago

Is it time for the penny to go?

Who doesn't care about money? A piece in The New Yorker calling for the end of the penny in America stirred bloggers and presidential candidates alike. The New Yorker article received hundreds of votes and comments on Digg, the social news site, based almost solely on a headline emphasizing one of its more convincing pieces of trivia: “A Penny Costs 1.7 Cents to Produce.”

Read More

Ben likes: Affirmative action for the penny

James Poulos/The American Scene

The penny is obsolete and inefficient, or so they say. What is to be done? Junking the penny has its merits. The clear solution derived from these key points is not to eliminate the penny but to kill of the nickel and make pennies worth five cents. The nickel is a misshapen fraud with a beastly portrait of a godless slaveowner. The penny is a pure classic that bears around the world billions of images of the Great Emancipator in all his Christian mercy, from the filthiest whorehouse to the bedsides of tykes.

After all the work it’s done for us, now it’s our turn to give the penny a leg up. Ditch the nickel. Promote the penny to five-cent status. 

Read More

Joel likes: Penny dreadful

David Owen/The New Yorker

A modern penny simply isn’t worth enough to worry about. In 1940, an average one-pound loaf of bread sold for eight cents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That means that a penny in those days bought enough bread to make a good-sized sandwich. These days, a penny doesn’t buy much more than a bit of crust.

Accurately comparing monetary values (and bread loaves) across decades is impossible, but by almost any economic measure a 1940 penny had more purchasing power than a modern quarter does; in 1940, then, consumers got by, quite contentedly, without the equivalent of our penny, nickel, or dime. And many people continue to get by without these coins today, since in the actual marketplace consumers tend to treat the quarter as the smallest meaningful denomination.

Read More

How readers are voting

average
vote
The Associated Press

The Supreme Court says sometimes a Ten Commandments display is constitutional, sometimes it isn't.

Featured Topic | Posted 33 weeks 18 hours ago

Are religious displays on public land constitutional?

A lawsuit over a public religious display and the First Amendment is in the news again. The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether a religious group must be allowed to put its monument in a city park near a similar Ten Commandments display.

Read More

Ben likes: Policing pluralism

Joseph M. Knippenberg/Ashbrook Center

Of course, in the view of the Founders, the best defense against religious establishment is not words on a piece of paper, not a mere "parchment barrier," but rather religious pluralism itself. In a genuinely pluralistic society, the give-and-take of politics conducted by worried minorities, all eager to have half a loaf rather than none, will militate against the seizure of power by an oppressive religious majority. When and if a group overreaches, the others will unite to fight back.

Here is how the Supreme Court’s apparently conflicting Ten Commandments decisions can be reconciled: don’t wait to litigate; never try to accommodate. While purporting to promote a peaceful public arena, the effective majority would rather short-circuit the political process in favor of the kind of intransigent claims we advance in courts. Such leadership and statesmanship as can be brought to bear in these cases will come only from the judges themselves. Rather than permitting pluralism to work in its untidy but ultimately benign way, the courts will protect us from ourselves.

What the Court proffers us, in the final analysis, is a kind of judicial guardianship virtually guaranteeing a perpetual political adolescence. 

Read More

Joel likes: The public square

American Civil Liberties Union

The Constitution properly protects the right of religious figures to preach their messages over the public airwaves. Religious books, magazines, and newspapers are freely published and delivered through the U.S. Postal System. No other industrialized democracy has as much religion in the public square as does the United States.

Some people, however, mistakenly use the word "public" when they really mean "governmental." This can be seen, for example, with Ten Commandments monuments. The right of churches and families to erect such monuments on their own property is constitutionally protected, regardless of whether it is public or private and regardless of whether someone is offended or not. A Christian cross that is fully visible from a public sidewalk is constitutionally protected when placed in front of a church. But if that same cross were moved across the street and placed in front of city hall, it would violate the Constitution.

The issue is not "religion in the public square" -- as the rhetoric misleadingly suggests -- but whether the government should be making decisions about whose sacred texts and symbols should be placed on government property and whose should be rejected.

Read More

How readers are voting

your vote
average
vote
The Associated Press

Time for a change?

Featured Topic | Posted 33 weeks 23 hours ago

Is it time for universal health in America?

More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.  Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. Is it time for universal health insurance in the United States?

 

Read More

Ben likes: Five Myths of Health Care

Sally Pipes/Washington Times

Forty-seven million Americans do not have health insurance. This figure comes from the U.S. Census Bureau. What most people don't know, however, is that the Bureau counts anyone who went without health insurance during any part of the previous year as "uninsured." So if you weren't covered for just one day in 2007, you're one of the 47 million.

That also includes 10.2 million illegal immigrants, and about 14 million people who are eligible for public health-care programs like Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program but have yet to enroll. And nearly 10 million of the "uninsured" have household incomes of more than $75,000 — so they can probably afford to buy health insurance but choose not to.

Read More

Joel likes: Why 2009 is the year for universal health care

Ezra Klein/The American Prospect

In 1994, 37 million Americans were uninsured. In 2007, 47 million are. Between 1996 and 2005, an employee's spending on health premiums for his or her family has shot up 85 percent -- and incomes, of course, have not followed.

In economics, there's a famous dictum known as Stein's Law, which states that when something cannot go on forever, it will stop. Our health-care system, as currently composed, cannot go on forever. It will wreck our economy, collapse our businesses, render both private and public insurance unaffordable. And so, it will stop. Reform is not a question of if, but when and how.

Read More

How readers are voting

your vote
average
vote