Economics 101 - For the High School Graduate

Published in the Allentown Morning Call and the Lehighton Times News, June 2008

One of the most peculiar things about teaching is when students ask, “What is something good I can do with my life?”

 For those students in need of a compass, I advise you to use simple economic principles as your guide:

 ·        Supply & Demand: The most basic principle of economics revolves around this term. Job markets that are in huge demand – health services, mathematics, accounting, engineering, scientific research, etc. – all pay well because there aren’t enough people to supply the markets.

 ·        Trades make every one better off: Too many high school students enroll in college because it seems like a good idea. However, some people should not be sitting in more classes – and accruing an average debt of $22,000 – when they could be learning a trade or pursuing a quick, hands-on degree such as dental hygienist.

 ·        Elasticity: People who are flexible tend to roll with the market well. If you decide to pursue a college degree, make yourself well-rounded. A friend of mine recently graduated with degrees in both special and elementary education. That doesn’t just double his chances of getting a job, it quadruples them.

 ·        Maximize resources: Prior to the 1990s, as butchers spilt up parts of the chicken they tossed the chicken wings. But with a little entrepreneurialism, that same chicken wing that was once garbage quickly became valuable. The world around us is in desperate need of people who can turn ordinary resources into extraordinary investments.

 ·        There is no such thing as a free lunch: If you think you’re in for an easy way to make money – many often point to law on this one – you couldn’t be more wrong. The LSAT is the most difficult standardized test in the world, and the three years you might spend in law school will be the most intense you will ever experience.

 ·        Risk & rewards: If you’re planning on making millions, you’re going to put yourself out there in the face of failure. Under Armour founder Kevin Plank maxed out every credit card he had to make his water-wicking material, but was rewarded big because he risked big. More young Americans need to make big – and intelligent – risks. Imagine if you’re the entrepreneur to replace oil.

 ·        All choices involve opportunity costs: If you invest $2,000 annually into a mutual loan with 10% returns for 20 years, you’ll be a millionaire by the time you retire. Think about that the next time you ask for the sticker price on a Mustang.

 ·        Pay attention to the bottom line: Sure, you need to find a career that will make you happy, but you don’t want to be living paycheck-to-paycheck. Look for jobs that pay well, and pursue at least one of them.

 Class of 2008, I wish you much success. May the torch of simple economics be your guide to unearthing it.

Dollars & Democracy: The 2008 Election Highlights American Excess

Like a credit card bill from hell, first quarter fundraising reports showed an excessive amount of dollars collected for the 2008 presidential candidates. Senator Hillary Clinton leads the soon-to-be spending spree, having raised $36 million through the first three months of her campaign, quadrupling the record amount collected by Al Gore in 1999. Even John Edwards – the third place finisher in the Democratic primary – has eclipsed Gore’s numbers, raising a cool $13 million for his campaign; America still awaits for Barack Obama’s and Republican figures to be disclosed.

It has become safe to assume the 2008 presidential election will be costlier than any election in the history of our world. Spending will, undoubtedly, eclipse the $1 billion mark in this decisive race. Seems like an excessive amount of zeroes for a job that pays $400,000 per year, but it becomes even more extreme when one realizes $1 billion is a higher dollar amount than the entire GDP of 28 nations.

But people like Jonah Goldberg would have you think that this price tag is by no means intolerable. According to his March 28^th article in the Washington Post, “More money means more communication, more debate, more education. In other words, more democracy.”

More money does not mean more communication. More money means more bought votes, more you scratch my back while I throw dollars at yours. Money is to political campaigns what PowerBait is to the first day of fishing – you just have to continuously apply until you get every fish to bite, because they are all hungry. Plus more money usually means more painful, slanderous and repetitive advertisements; not what the Framers would consider a two-way communicative conduit.

Neither does more money mean more debate; it eliminates it. Today we hardly elect the candidate with the best ideas. We elect the candidate who gets our attention, and that usually comes at a price and with many purse strings. According to OpenSecrets.org, we elect the candidate with the biggest checkbook 97% of the time. This causes many deserving candidates to drop out of the race early simply because they cannot keep up with the fundraising. More money means less candidates and less debate.

And to believe that more money equals more education? Considering that 5% of voters elected Bill Clinton in 1992 because he played the saxophone or that 6.25% of voters placed George Bush in office in 2000 because he was a guy they could “sit down and have a beer with,” if we really wanted to educate the voters, we could do it in a much more effective and efficient manner than making signs and barraging them with tasteless, purchased propaganda.

Instead, political races should have a level political playing field. This nation was founded upon equal opportunity, and the current price tag of elections virtually eliminates any hopes of average citizens with great ideas to play in the same arena as the millionaires and billionaires that run the system and the corporations that sponsor them. Watch Bullworth or Man of the Year if you want to laugh at that biting but honest audacity.

Money has not enhanced our democracy, it has squandered it. The only way to solve this is to slowly take it back from campaign donors and pork-barrel spending projects and for every voter to look at their politician like they would their teenager with our national credit card. Call it "American Excess," because that is what money has done to our political system. If we neglect to watch it, recover it, and reinvent it, the great democratic system that was fine-tuned in this country and replicated around the world will not be every where we want it to be.

Dollars Over Democratic Justice

www.commoncause.org/PA
September 30, 2007

While most of America remembers Teddy Roosevelt for reining in the corrupt corporations, most are unaware that in 1907 the Republican worked across party lines to pass the Tillman Act. The Tillman Act was the first time where free speech – the type the common American owns – was promoted over the words of the wealthy.

Yet as America watched the Model-T Ford evolve into today’s modern automobile and the Wright Brothers’ plane transform into the jetliner, the American political system has changed from a democracy fed by 20th century dollars into a democracy fed by 21st century dollars.

Pennsylvania’s court system also sports an old fashioned fundraising system. The connection between fundraising and bad politicians has been obvious, but not much light has been shed on how money affects our “independent” Judiciary. Until now.

According to The Pennsylvania Legal Intelligencer, the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association raised $632,000 for three State Supreme Court candidates, nearly half the money these Juatices needed to win office. While this is legal, the venerable G. Terry Madonna of Franklin & Marshall College said this “is a poster child case for why there ought to be limits.”

One state in the nation already solved this problem. North Carolina adopted The Judicial Campaign Reform Act, creating a voluntary system of public financing for judicial candidates. Why? The driving factor behind the change was the people. A poll conducted by the N.C. Center for Voter Education revealed that:

- 78% believed campaign contributions influence judges’ decisions “a great deal” or “some.”
- 58% believed there is a system of justice for the rich/powerful and everyone else.
- 81% support electing judges while only 15% support appointment of judges.[i]

After the pay-raise scandal, budget delay, and an array of other issues the voters of this state have presented similar concerns in regards the Commonwealth’s direction. What PA voters need is a viable solution to all the corruption. They need a system where the judges’ loyalty is to the public, not special interests, before they are running, while they are running, and when they are elected. They need Voter-Owned Elections.

Those who believe it is impossible to introduce this measure should note Sen. Jeff Piccola (Chair, State Government Committee) and Rep. Bill DeWeese (Majority Leader) already co-sponsored a similar Voter-Owned Elections bill in 1985 (HB-1379). It is our hope they introduce an updated version of this bill.

While much has changed in Pennsylvania since 1985, the ownership of elections (by special interests) has not. Changing this is not only intelligent, it is imperative; otherwise a vital part of our government will be further wedged into the same 100 year-old regressive political state it had been.

While at the stump in 1907, Roosevelt decried that “No people is wholly civilized where a distinction is drawn between stealing an office and stealing a purse.” The time has come to remove that distinction from our courts, and Pennsylvanians must seize the opportunity to take the money out of elections and place qualified judges back in.


Jake Miller is the Chair of the CC/PA Voter-Owned Elections Project Team and John Latini Jr. is a Staff Member of The Pennsylvania Delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives.