Breakdown: Everything about the Senate Gun Control Legislation.

Here is everything that you wanted to know - and ought to know - about the Senate gun control legislation, but probably didn’t. Bipartisan gun control legislation put forward by President Barack Obama and largely supported by the Democratic party failed in the Senate this past week, sparking a firestorm of public criticism, public support, presidential fury, and general shitstorminess. But what is going on? What did the bill say, and why and how did it fail in the midst of the seemingly unending spree of gun violence rocking the nation? That’s what I aim to answer.

What did the bill say?

On February 5th the first of the bipartisan gun control bills was unveiled in Congress, by Republican Congressmen Patrick Meehan and Scott Rigell (PA, VA, respectively) and Democratic Congressmen/women Carolyn Maloney and Elijah Cummings (NY, MD, respectively). The legislation would make firearm trafficking a federal crime, and give a hefty jail time to those who bought guns for those prohibited from buying them. Soon after, a full package of gun control measures was unveiled. In total, it included:

  1. Requiring background checks for online sales and sales at gun shows
  2. Substitute for background check bill that increases enforcement and reporting on mentally ill people.
  3. Renew and strengthen a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
  4. Limit magazine sizes to ten rounds.
  5. Make “straw purchasing” (buying a gun for someone prohibited from doing so) and trafficking a federal crime.
  6. Reauthorize and improve mental health programs.
  7. Impose penalties on states for releasing gun ownership data.
  8. State reciprocity for the carrying of concealed firearms.
  9. Allow only a judge to deem veterans mentally incompetent to own a gun.

This was the gun control legislation on the table. To me, it seemed logical and downright obvious. In fact, I was shocked some things like background checks for those attempting to buy a weapon designed to take human life did not exist in the first place.

Many of these measures were introduced jointly by Republicans and Democrats, as number five was. Out of all of these measures, of which background checks were arguably the most important, only six and seven were passed by the senate. Something as seemingly obvious as background checks was rejected, as was banning high capacity magazines and assault weapons. We are left only with improving mental health programs and the penalizing of states for releasing information on those who own guns. Nothing immediate or concrete is happening; the most vital measures all failed. On top of everything, six and seven will not be going into effect. They were attached to the bill at large, and since the bill at large did not pass, no new gun control legislation is going into effect. After Newton, after Aurora, after MIT - nothing.

Just WHY did these measures fail?

That is the million dollar question. In short, the bill did not receive enough votes. It needed more than 60 Senators’ support to avoid a filibuster; of the 55 Democrats and 45 Republican Senators, 52 Democrats supported the bill and only 4 Republicans. As is obvious, the gun control legislation received virtually no Republican support. President Obama, in a statement yesterday, accused Republican senators of falling prey to political pressure by the NRA instead of doing what was right. He went as far as accusing the NRA and Senators of willfully misleading the American public as to what the effects of the gun contra legislation would be. The NRA - National RIfle Association - put powerful pressure on the government to not increase gun control. According to the New York Times, they spent half a million dollars on Wednesday alone on advertisements criticizing the gun control legislation.

The senators who voted against the bill, of course dispute the President’s claims. Ohio Senator Rob Portman, like others, claims he followed his principles and his support of the Second Amendment - the right to bear arms. Republican Senator Jon Coryn of Texas claims he voted as his constituents would and not because of any NRA pressure. Polls do show, however, that 90% of Americans are in favor of the more stringent background checks. And the reasons given are confusing at best. Senator Flake of Arizona said it would require checks when a gun sale is posted on an office message board (false), while Senator Coburn of Oklahoma said it would raise taxes (what?). Senator Grassley of Iowa said that criminals would not submit to background checks, which apparently invalidates the idea of background checks entirely (?). As Jon Stewart so aptly pointed out, according to this logic it makes sense to not pass a law because hey, criminals are just going to break it anyway.

So what happens now?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used his power as majority leader to effectively “pause” the bill. The filibuster will not happen, which would take the bill off the table. Effectively, a “time out” was called, which gives those in support of the bill additional time to convert the critical number of senators necessary to approve the legislation. At any time a vote can be called again.

Now you now a bit about the gun control legislation that failed in the Senate. You know it’s main provisions, you know a bit about the excuses as to why it did not pass in the Senate. Do you think it should have, or should not? Now that you’re informed, the decisions is yours to make. I only encourage you to act on it once you make it.

Personal Opinion Alert: I support the gun control legislation. Why? Because gun violence is out of control. It is no longer the “other” in my life; it is a part of my life. Someone was murdered several days ago only a handful of blocks from my apartment. I have good friends at MIT, where a policeman was murdered only a few hours ago. Thank goodness my friends are okay, and I can only imagine the state that policeman’s family is in right now. This is real, and this is now. Gun violence will only skirt around us for so long. It is only a matter of time before someone we love gets hurt, and it becomes more real than we could ever imagine. Before that happens, I believe we need to take immediate, powerful action to curb it.

Sources:

New York Times, “Drive for Gun Control Blocked in Senate”

New York Times, “New Gun Measures Considered by the Senate”

Reuters, “Senate Democratic leader Reid hits pause on Gun-Control Bill”

Christian Science Monitor, “Four Reasons the Gun Control Bill May be Kaput”


Breakdown: The Truth about Drone Strikes.

I did say I was on pseudo-hiatus, didn’t I? Be warned that unlike most, this breakdown contains personal opinions.

What is the Drone War?

The Obama administration, and the Bush administration, use drones - unmanned, semi-autonomous aircraft - to carry out air strikes on suspected militants outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. Originally used in Yemen in 2002, they are now most commonly used in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan, to attack elements of Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda elements of al-Shabaab, and like-minded terrorist organizations.  Drone strikes are carried out by both the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the military, particularly the clandestine Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). 

Much of what we know is pieces from conjecture, comments, anonymous sources, and a good deal of guessing thrown in. With this in mind, both the CIA and the military have “kill lists”, and if the intelligence is adequate a drone strike may be authorized. The White House apparently approves proposed targets. According to ProPublica, some CIA strikes can be approved directly the CIA director.

The reasoning behind drone strikes is obvious: militants are killed and Americans aren’t. However, even mores than war itself, it presents a massive moral and legal quandary. 

How is this legal?

It isn’t. Well, it is? In reality, that is a good question. Days after the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed a nearly unlimited act called the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), giving the president the ability to take “all necessary and appropriate force” against anyone involved in the attack or harboring those who were (propublica.org), including American citizens. You have to understand that rules don’t always govern the rulemakers; and if they do, they can be amended into a neutered form. When it comes to war, presidents have been dramatically extending their authority since George Washington himself. Though this is a topic for another day (or breakdown), the point is that though the legality is questionable, it isn’t stopping the United States. What’s more, there is no congressional oversight to the drone strikes.

What about Civilian deaths?

Civilian deaths happen. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism says that between 475 to 891 civilian deaths have occurred since the drone strike program began. The government assures the public that they do all they can to keep civilian deaths limited. Due to the extreme secretive nature of the drone strikes and the lack of public oversight, we have no idea how much that is, and just have to take the government at its word. This is a dubitable prospect at best for even the most ardent supporter. Furthermore, it has come to light that the government counts all adult males killed in drone strikes as militants, regardless of evidence to the contrary. This means that the government’s estimates - always lower than outside sources - are almost doubtlessly too low. 

Is this good or bad?

That is an impossible question.

The Bad: There is massive backlash against the drone strikes. Like in all forms of war, civilian casualties occur. Sites like livingunderdrones.org document a life where innocent Pakistanis live in constant fear of the buzz of drones. The stories of innocent men, women, and children blown up by a drone strike while going about their daily lives are countless. To many, this makes the program completely atrocious and the Obama administration a demonic institution. Ravings about the terror of the drone strikes are one f the most commonly leveled reasons on the blogosphere for loathing the Obama administration.

The Good:

  1. They work.
  2. Americans don’t die in the process. 

According to the New York Times, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and affiliated groups have been weakened by drone strikes. The government frequently releases news that key figures Al Qaeda have been killed by drone strikes. According to Avery Plaw, a political science professor at the University of Massachussets, Dartmouth, evidence exists that other means of reaching Al Qaeda and affiliates in regions that are largely lawless could cause more civilian harm than the drone strikes do.

Conclusion

This moral quandary is nothing new. Nearly seventy years after the fact people are still debating the legitimacy of the atomic bomb strikes on Japan that ultimately ended World War II (seriously, read Paul Fussel’s “Thank God for the Atom Bomb”. One of the best political science articles I’ve ever read). The drone strike debate - and the questions it evokes - are shockingly similar. Do/should we have bombed?  Would the alternatives be/have been any better for civilians? How many of our soldiers will/would have died, and are we/should we have been willing to risk make that sacrifice?

War is hell, and war has no easy answers. I usually try to keep my breakdowns neutral, but allow me to break character and offer my own opinion. I won’t tell you whether I believe the drone strikes are justifiable or not, because I don’t know. I will say that I find the constant stream of infographics and blog posts demonizing President Obama for the drone strikes annoying and ultimately, useless. Not because they hold the opinion that the drone strikes are wrong - that is your prerogative, and I haven’t made up my mind on this question myself - but because they are embarrassingly not thought out. If you are to criticize drone strikes, be prepared to accept the sacrifices of the alternative. Have you chosen the deaths of the American soldiers sent in to regions largely outside of government influence? Do you even know if such operations would be less detrimental on civilian lives than the drone strikes? Or do you not believe we should cary out any operation at all. If so, do not be so naive as to believe the drones are bombing nothing at all; it is known that Al Qaeda and equally nasty groups are operating in those areas. Will you be prepared to accept what may happen if they are allowed to grow unchecked? Answer me. Because until you put some substance behind your condemnation of the Obama administration, I really don’t want to hear it.


Sources:

Currier, Cora. “Everything We Know So Far About Drone Strikes”. ProPublica.

Zenko, Micah. “Targeted Killings and Congressional Oversight”. The Council on Foreign Relations.

Plaw, Avery. “Drones Save Lives, American and Others”. The New York Times.

“Executive Summary and Recommendations”. Living Under Drones.

“Counting Drone Strike Deaths.” The Human Rights Clinic, Columbia University.

Update: The Fiscal Cliff

About a month ago, I broke down just what the Fiscal Cliff entailed. The short version:

The fiscal cliff is the combination of Bush Era tax cuts expiring (taxes increasing) and the sequester going into effect. The sequester is a package of across-the-board spending cuts set to go into effect by the Budget Control Act (BCA) passed in 2011.

The sequester takes an axe to a problem that truly needs a chisel. That is why there is so much pressure to come up with a compromise before the sequester goes into effect. Funding for a lot of things would be slashed under the sequester cuts. Defense spending would but cut dramatically. Social programs would suffer the same. Industries that rely on federal spending would probably have to lay off many workers if the dramatic cuts go into effect. And that’s just the problems of the sequester spending cuts. Last year’s temporary payroll tax cut would expire, and the Alternative Minimum Tax “patch” that keeps it from hurting middle class families too much expires as well. 

Now the question is, will it happen? Are we going over the Fiscal Cliff?

Last week, Speaker of the House John Boehner endured a firestorm of criticism when he failed to get an alternative tax plan through the House of Representatives. The plan, known as “Plan B”, would have only raised taxes on people making over one million per year, in stark contrast to Obama’s taxes to raise taxes on those who make over a quarter of a million. Some, such as John Avlon over at the Daily Beast, blame this on ideologues within the Republican congress incapable of compromise. Regardless of why Plan B, failed, Congress now has four days to avert disaster.

According to BBC News, Barack Obama is “optimistic” that a deal to avoid the cliff is possible. Senate leaders are currently making a bill that will hopefully pass through both the House of Representatives and the Senate. These senate leaders are majority leader Harry Reid (Democrat) and minority leader Mitch McConell, made famous by demanding that the most important goal of the Republican party was to make Obama a “one term president”. 

In the event that no deal is reached, President Obama will call for a vote on measures to keep taxes from rising on people make less than $250,000 per year, and make sure that unemployment insurance continues uninterrupted. If even this fails, Americans are in for a rough ride.

But my personal opinion is that no matter how down to the wire we get, a compromise will be reached. America isn’t that for gone. And even if we do go over the cliff, a patch will be put in place within days to protect those making less than a quarter million a year. After all, no tax hikes on the lower and middle class is the one of the very few things both the Republican and Democratic parties can agree on. Let’s not forgot what we learned from the past breakdown, though:

According to “What is the Fiscal Cliff” by Thomas Kenny, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the combination of higher taxes and extreme spending cuts could reduce gross domestic product (GDP) by four percent, sending us back into recession. The same CBO report estimates unemployment would rise by nearly a percentage point, approximately 200 million jobs.

Even if they come up with a quick fix to lessen the bleeding, Congress needs to come up with a compromise or America will be seriously hurt in the longer run. Let’s hope that they do.

Sources:

BBC News. Fiscal Cliff: Obama “optimistic” on Senate-led deal.

BBC News. Fiscal Cliff: Obama “makes no new offer”.

Avlon, John. “GOP Imperils Fiscal Cliff Deal”. The Daily Beast. 

Breakdown: Will Gun Control Decrease Violence or Not?

The blogosphere and the nation have been thrown into tumult in the wake of yesterday’s tragic shooting in a Kindergarten class, and the gun control debate has been thrown once again into the forefront of political debate. Proponents argue this shooting - and a spree of the worst shooting deaths in American history this year alone - shows that gun control must be dramatically restricted. Those against gun control argue that this would restrict freedom and that gun control would not lower violence. So which is right? What is the answer, and how do we move forward after this tragedy?

Let’s find out.

I’ll preface this breakdown with the fact that most gun control studies are old - probably because it takes time to gather the data necessary for a convincing one. Most of the studies I cite are 10-20 years old. The data isn’t perfect, so feel free to take these conclusions with a grain of salt. However, this bloody year in American history makes it obvious that there hasn’t been a magical turnaround in gun violence in the last 15 years. I believe the conclusions they drew in ‘95 still hold value.

So, is Gun Control the Answer?

Unfortunately, that simply depends on who you ask.

Killias, in a convincing 1993 article, confirmed that “..the proportions and the rates of homicide and suicide committed with a gun as well as the overall rates committed by any means were related to the rate of household gun owernship”. He found substantial correlation between ownership and gun-related suicide and homicide rates. He also found that widespread gun ownership had not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. 

Meanwhile, Kleck and Patteron, in their 1993 study “The Impact of Gun Control and Gun Ownership on Violence Rates”, gathered data from 170 US cities. After running numerous statistical tests, they found that gun prevalence levels had no net positive effect on total violence rates, and that gun control restrictions had no effect on gun prevalence levels and generally, no net effect on violence rates.

Kellerman made waves in a 1993 study that concluded that those who lived in households with guns were 2.7 times more likely to be a victim of a homicide than those who lived without guns. However, Kleck and Hogan, in their 1999 article “National Case Control Study of Homicide Offending and Gun Ownership” found Kellerman’s methodology lacking, and his ultimate conclusion quite weak. Even they concluded that gun ownership may have an effect on homicidal behavior, but believed it was an extremely weak effect at best.

Great. No Easy Answers. So what do we do?

It’s true, here is no singular definitive study that either proves or disproves that gun control is either the cause of violence. Rather, for every study that definitively says it is or is not, there is another study that plausibly argues the other side. The first thing you learn as a political scientist is that correlation does not imply causation. So here’s what we do, because hard, perfectly convincing data is rarely available: we take what we do know and draw the best conclusions we can from it. And then we act.

Here is What We Do Know.

One, the United States is incredibly violent compared to other countries of comparable income in Europe, the Oceanic Region, and Asia. Let’s start with some stats pulled from Krug, Powell, and Dahlberg’s powerful 1998 article “Firearm Related Deaths in the United States and 35 other High and Upper Middle Income Countries.”

  • Among the wealthiest nations in the world, the US has the highest overall firearm mortality rate, a high proportion of homicides resulting from firearm use, and the highest number of firearm related suicides. 
  • Firearm mortality rate is five to six times higher in the Americans than in Oceania or Europe and it is 95 times higher than in Asia. For a developed nation, we are incredibly violent.
  • The rate of firearm death in the United States is eight times the pooled rate for other high income nations, and 1.5 times the rate for Upper-Middle income countries. No other high income country is nearly as violent as we are.

Two, US citizens possess far more guns than these other countries - in 1998 less than 1% of Japanese households possessed a firearm, while 48% of US households did. Coincidentally enough, Japan has virtually eliminated gun deaths. In 2008, we had twelve thousand. They had eleven. Not eleven thousand, just eleven. Read this fascinating Atlantic article for more info on that.

Three, many studies have concluded there is a positive association between firearm ownership and firearm homicide and suicide; an association is indisputable, even if causation results are mixed.

At a certain point, do the numbers not speak for themselves? When will this be enough? I do not posit that guns should be made illegal (personal beliefs aside, I do not believe that is a politically viable options). But gun control ought to be made more difficult, and more stringent. It may not be a magical cure-all for gun violence. It most certainly needs to be paired with a larger focus on mental health and an availability of mental health resources. But I fail to see how anyone could argue that restricting gun control - requiring things like repeated screenings of those with gun licenses, requirements it be kept locked away with ammo locked separately, stringent proof that no one but the licensed holder be able to access the gun - could possibly be a bad idea, in the wake of this year of tragedy.

Sources:

Krug, Powell, Dahlberg. “Firearm Related Deaths in the United States and 35 Other High and Upper Middle Income Countries”. International Epidemiological Assocation, 1998.

Killias, Martin. “Gun Ownership, Suicide, and Homicide: An International Perspective.” Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1993.

Kleck, Hogan. “National Case-Control Study of Homicide Offending and Gun Ownership”. Social Problems, 1999.

Kleck, Patterson. “The Impact of Gun Control and Gun Ownership Levels on Violence Rates”. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1993.

Kellerman, Arthur. “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home.” New England Journal of Medicine, 1993.

Breakdown: The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)


“DOMA” gets thrown around a lot these days. As do the random names of various court cases, Supreme Court rulings, state challenges, legality in a number of states..what’s going on here? Read below for a brief breakdown of one of the biggest and most controversial social issues of our day.

What is DOMA?

DOMA stands for the Defense of Marriage Act. It was passed in 1996 by Bill Clinton. It defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, for federal purposes. Since, marriage equality groups have been attempting to get it repealed. 

The main tenants of DOMA are in Section 2, which concerns state powers, and section three, which determines federal definitions. Section 2 of DOMA states that though states may legalize gay marriage, if a couple is married and them enter another state that does not legalize gay marriage, that state has no obligation to recognize that marriage.

Section 3 defines marriage, at the federal level, as the legal union between a man and a woman. Furthermore, the term spouse is recognized as a married member of the opposite sex as the person in question. 

Why is this such a big deal?

First of all, Section 3 makes it quite clear that at the federal level, marriage is between a man and a woman. Why do I keep repeating “federal level” over and over again? One word: benefits.  Insurance benefits for government employees and their spouses, social security benefits for spouses in the event one dies, immigration, tax filings - all of these are handled by the federal government, and the extension of these benefit is determined by who is legally a spouse. If your state recognizes you as the spouse of an individual but the federal government doesn’t, all of those sweet federal benefits go out the window. 

So.. 

  • Social Security Survivors benefits
  • Immigration benefits
  • Joint Tax filing benefits
  • Government employee benefits
  • Military spouse benefits

..All hang in the balance in the contest over the definition of marriage.

Challenges to DOMA

There have been a lot of challenges to DOMA, focusing on and challenging different parts of the law. Some have made it up to the Supreme Court before However, the Supreme Court can decide whether or not it will hear a case (called granting certiorariI). In the past, it has chosen not to hear cases challenging DOMA.

Two recent cases have been United States v. Windsor, which challenges the constitutionality of Section 3 (the definition of marriage) of the Defense of Marriage Act. Another has been Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges Californian’s Proposition 8. “Prop 8” as it is commonly known, was a voter-decided California proposition in 2008, in which the majority of Californians citizens voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. In the last week, the Supreme Court has decided to hear both of these cases. Needless to say, tensions are high, as the Supreme Court finally tackles one of the biggest, most controversial social issues of our day.

What Will the Supreme Court Decision mean?

Keep in mind the Supreme Court is not directly laying down laws. It could rule Prop 8 unconstitutional, setting a heavy precedent and likely repealing the proposition within the state, but this does not mean that gay marriage is magically legal everywhere. The Supreme Court only decides exactly what its case puts in front of it, though in doing so, it can set powerful precedents. Now, things get much more interesting if the court strikes down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional. To the best of my knowledge, this would mean that all of the federal government services listed above would need to be extended to married couples, regardless of gender, immediately.

What will the Supreme Court decide and what will the repercussions be? Only time will tell. But with a bit of information on what it means, you can now decide what your decision is on whether DOMA should stay or go.

Sources:

The Defense of Marriage Act. H.R. 3396, 104th Congress of the United States of America.

The Defense of Marriage Act. Wikipedia.com.

Supreme Court to Hear DOMA, Prop 8 Challenges. GLAD.org

Breakdown: The Fiscal Cliff

So you’ve been hearing about the fiscal cliff on the radio and television for weeks now, right? Apocalypse at the end of the year? But what does it mean, and what’s it about? Read below to find out.

What is it?

The fiscal cliff is the combination of Bush Era tax cuts expiring (taxes increasing) and the sequester going into effect. The sequester is a package of across-the-board spending cuts set to go into effect by the Budget Control Act (BCA) passed in 2011.

How Did it Happen?

In Summer 2011, Congress became embroiled in a debate about raising the debt ceiling. Republicans found the continuous raising of the debt ceiling indicative of a government that was spend-crazy. Democrats argued this was a necessary measure to continue to heal the economy. President Obama eventually agreed to the Budget Control Act, which raised the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion, but also established a supercommittee that would figure out how to lower the deficit by $1.2 trillion. If the special committee could not come up with a compromise, a wide range of very painful spending cuts would go into affect at the end of 2012. These cuts would go into effect over a nine year period, from 2013 through 2021. The committee ended up failing to be able to compromise and the sequester countdown began.

Back Up. What is the Debt Ceiling?

Ever year, Congress passes a budget. This budget covers discretionary spending, which includes defense, environmental services, veteran services, social services for the poor, etc. We borrow money in order to spend it the things covered in our yearly budget (and then some). Now, the debt ceiling is the legal limit on borrowing by the federal government. If Congress doesn’t increase that limit, the government would not be able to use borrowed funds to pay its bills and the US would have to default on its debt, much like a family that can’t pay the mortgage on their house.

How will it affect me?

The sequester takes an axe to a problem that truly needs a chisel. That is why there is so much pressure to come up with a compromise before the sequester goes into effect. Funding for a lot of things would be slashed under the sequester cuts. Defense spending would but cut dramatically. Social programs would suffer the same. Industries that rely on federal spending would probably have to lay off many workers if the dramatic cuts go into effect. And that’s just the problems of the sequester spending cuts. Last year’s temporary payroll tax cut would expire, and the Alternative Minimum Tax “patch” that keeps it from hurting middle class families too much expires as well. 

According to “What is the Fiscal Cliff” by Thomas Kenny, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the combination of higher taxes and extreme spending cuts could reduce gross domestic product (GDP) by four percent, sending us back into recession. The same CBO report estimates unemployment would rise by nearly a percentage point, approximately 200 million jobs.

Ultimately, lowering the debt is not a bad thing. However, too much too soon could throw our economy back into the chaos it is only just starting to climb out of.  As you can see, going over the Fiscal Cliff is not ideal. 

Will it Happen?

Things have been looking up in recent weeks. Republicans have changed their tone from absolutely refusing to raise taxes to considering the measure if democrats will compromise in other areas. For the moment, we’ll have to wait and see.

Sources:

Klein, Ezra. “Sequester Explained.” Washington Post.

Kenny, Thomas. “What is the Fiscal Cliff?” About.com.

Cha, Ariana. “What is the Debt Ceiling?” Washington Post.

Bipartisan Policy Center. “The Sequester Explained.”

Breakdown: The Fed

With “the Fed” recently in the news quite often because of the alleged attempted bombing, just what is it? In this quick breakdown, I’ll explain the role of the Fed, a shadowy yet immensely powerful player in American politics.

What Is It?

Though commonly referred to as “The Fed”, The Federal Reserve System, is an independent regularity commission. An independent regulatory commission is an organization designed to carry out a task independent from the president and executive departments and Congress. As is made extremely evident by Congress’s nasty infighting and policy gridlock (see Breakdown: A House Divided), political pressures can make it difficult to get things done. Some issues are too important to be regulated by gropes subject to such pressures, and for these independent regulatory commissions are created.

The Federal Reserve System, as one of these such systems, is the most independent and powerful regulatory commission, and its main responsibility is to make monetary policy.

What Kind of Policy, you say?

The Fed influences the country’s supply of credit and interest rates. These affect the rates of inflation, unemployment, and economic growth. The Fed’s predominant goal is to keep the inflation rate low, which makes an economic environment conducive to growth and job creation. It does this by buying securities from banks, which gives those banks money to make loans. Interests rates fall, stimulating investment that leads to economic growth and job formation. On the flip side, when a prosperous economy and low unemployment make inflation rise, the Fed sells securities, reducing money and raising interest rates. For instance, in the aftermath of the financial housing meltdown of 2008, Ben Bernanke (head of the Fed) pumped $540 billion in loans into the money market in an attempt to unfreeze the credit market and get banks lending again. 

Like an unappetizing medicine, the measures the Fed takes are often painful yet necessary. One of the primary reasons it remains so insulated from political pressure is because no president wants the responsibility the Fed has. It alone can take the heat for painful steps while the president sympathetically pats the American people on the back. 

So how does this affect me?

Frankly, not much. Unlike the other issues I’ve broken down, the Fed is specifically insulated from government influences, your vote on election day has little influence on it. However, the Republican Platform does maintain that it wishes to “advance substantive legislation that brings transparency and accountability to the Federal Reserve..the first step to increasing transparency and accountability is through an annual audit of the Federal Reserve’s activities.” As for Obama, he has said little about the Fed, and what he has said has been positive. However, the economy is the keystone of this election and the Fed plays a critical part in it. Though this may not be a hot-button issue for the 2012 election, the more you know, the better.

Sources:

Kernell, Samuel. Jacobson, Gary. Kousser, Thad. The Logic of American Politics. Fourth Edition.

Jeffrey Cohen, Politics and Economic Policy in the United States.

Sheyna Steiner. “Obama, Romney and the Federal Reserve.” Bankrate.com.

Applebaum, Binyamin. “Fed Responds to a Grim Reality.” New York Times.

election: Breakdown: The Social Issues, Part 2

election:

Alright, we had our break. There are things you need to know before the second presidential debate, and I mean to educate you on them. I focused on very specific issues in Part 1, but those issues were only a part of a greater whole. Let’s look at how the candidates align on both gay and women’s…

election: Breakdown: The Social Issues, Part 1

election:

I’ve focused extensively on breaking down more economic issues - health care, campaign finance, taxes, etc. With the debates straying into the domestic arena and topics such as Romney/Ryan’s stance on abortion straying more heavily into the media, let’s see what our candidates think about some of…