SOCIAL POLICY:

MEDICARE AND MEDICAID: SOCIAL INSURANCE OR SOCIALIZED MEDICINE?

KAYJATTA

Is Medicare and Medicaid social insurance or socialized medicine?

Medicare and Medicaid are social insurance, according to Professor Reinhardt. Both are government-run health insurance systems that allow private and public healthcare providers to compete for patients in terms of the quality of services they provide.

Social insurance healthcare systems are large risk pools managed by government so that individuals can shift financial risk of illness with premiums based on their ability to pay. In this system, healthcare is bought from diversified sources including private for-profit and private not-for-profit providers. Medicare and Medicaid systems are similar to the Canadian government-run system rather than the European style socialized medicine often criticized for its rationing and long queues, albeit falsely.

In addition to Medicare and Medicaid, Professor Reinhardt observed the social insurance system in:

·         Employer-provided private insurance market where premiums are community-rated over all the participating employees in the company.

·         A large pool of self-employed private insurance buyers

 However, such private insurance does not protect the insured for the entire lifespan. Coverage is often lost with the job.

According to Professor Reinhardt, social insurance systems have several advantages, as follows:

·         Financial protection for individuals over their entire lifespan

·         Relatively inexpensive to administer

·         Forster the principle of national solidarity through equal access to healthcare

However, one major disadvantage of this system is that it may be underfunded by the government that runs it.

Professor Reinhardt identified the Veteran’s Affairs health system as socialized medicine rather than Medicare and Medicaid. In socialized medicine, the government owns and operates the healthcare delivery system, and additionally organizes and manages the risk pools for health insurance.

THE ECONOMIC FUNCTIONS ANY MODERN HEALTH SYSTEM MUST PERFORM:

Professor Reinhardt identified several economic functions any modern health system must perform. These include the following:

·         Financing health insurance and healthcare- by extracting money in the forms of taxes and or premiums from eligible citizens for that purpose. Medicare and Medicaid are classic examples in this case.

·         Protection of individual citizens from financial ruin in case of illness- by providing health insurance through the organization and management of large risk pools. An example of this is perhaps the Medicare and (to some extent) Medicaid health programs run by the Department of Health and Human Services.

·         Production of healthcare goods and services. This function is probably observable in the Veterans Affairs health system.

·         Purchase of healthcare goods and services on behalf of patients or healthcare consumers. This is probably what the United States government does in the health system of the U.S. Department of Veterans affairs.

·         Regulation of the health system- to ensure quality, safety, and fair play by all actors in the healthcare system. The FDA (Federal Drug Agency) and the Department of Health and Human Services perhaps performs this function in some respect.

In the cases of Medicare and Medicaid, the government performs a complex combination of several economic functions. Some of these economic functions are :

1.      Financing healthcare and health insurance- the government extracts taxes and premiums to pay for Medicare and Medicaid coverage. Currently a payroll tax of 1.45% of employee and employer earnings is assessed, but 2014 that will increased to 3.8% for those earning more than $200,000 per year. A monthly premium of $35 is assessed for Medicare Part D, for example.

In the case of Medicaid, the federal government provides, according to Sabato (pg. 546), 50 to 75% of funding. The national government,. Together with state governments spend $400 billion in 2009 (Sabato, et al, 2010).

2.      Protection from financial ruin-by organizing and managing large risk pools, the government enable individuals to shift their financial risks with premiums affordable to them. For example, in Medicare Part D those with annual prescription drug costs of more than $5,100, get 95% of their costs covered thereby protecting them from financial ruin.

3.      Regulation of the healthcare system to ensure quality, safety, relevance, and fair play. By footing the bill for Medicare and Medicaid, the government, national and state, may exercise control over costs, physician charges, number of hospital visits, and prescription drug charges (Sabato, pg. 547). Perhaps the fear of this governmental control on the part of the American Medical Association (AMA) is what more than anything derailed the Clinton Healthcare reform in the early 1990s.

REFERENCES:

1.      THE TRUE COST OF CARE: The complicated relationship between the market and government health programs ( Uwe E. Reinhardt, 2008).

2.      American Government (Sabato, O’connor, and Yanus, 2010)

T-Pain Feat. Young Joc - Buy U A Drink

CHICAGO REGIONAL PLANNING:

KAYJATTA

Introduction:

Chicago, no doubt, is one of the world’s leading economic engines.  It is the largest city in the Great Lakes region. Home to the massive 89 story, 2,600,000 sq ft ‘Trump Tower Chicago’ developed by the real estate mogul, Donald Trump; and the unfinished 150-story, 2000 foot ‘Chicago Spire’ by architect Santiago Calatrava, Chicago has 12 of the Fortune 500 companies. The economy of Chicago depends largely on finance, transportation, distribution, manufacturing, and food processing. Chicago has vast natural resources including Lake Michigan (part of the Great Lakes ecosystem) for drinking water and recreation. Its infrastructure and parks systems bear the legacies of highly acclaimed planners and landscape architects such as David Burnham and Frederick Law Olmsted.

Organization:

The Chicago Metropolitan Area Plan (CMAP) is the blueprint document that guides growth of the metropolitan Chicago area into the future, up to the year 2040. It is a merger of two main area plans: the North East Planning Commission (NEPC) and the Chicago Area Transportation Plan. The North East Planning Commission was a land use and environment plan while the Chicago Area Transportation Plan was, as the name implies, a transportation plan. So CMAP covers all of transportation, land use, and environmental planning. It is a comprehensive plan. Its Executive Director is none other than Randy Blankenhorn, a veteran of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). CMAP is responsible for the implementation of the Chicago Regional Plan.

The plan is structured in two documents: a full length one for experts and a shorter version for the public. It is divided into four main parts:

1.      Livable communities

2.      Human capital

3.      Efficient government

4.      Regional mobility

Livable communities:

Livable community is a subjective concept deeply rooted in a “place concept” -what a place is and what it should be. Nonetheless, there is considerable agreement that a livable place is one that is: safe, healthy, walkable (pedestrian-friendly), bikable (bike-friendly), has options for transportation (buses, rail, transit, automobile …), accessible to jobs and schools, and cost-effective.

Currently, Chicago has limited transportation options. Many residents are compelled to drive cars which are costly and increase pollution and urban congestion. Housing and jobs are far apart thereby constraining minorities, seniors, and other low-income residents access to employment and educational facilities. Access to parks and recreation is also limited. Land use and resource use are under pressure thereby worsening environmental problems of water pollution, water depletion, and climate change.

The comprehensive plan seeks to address these issues by adopting the concept of “Green Infrastructure”: water and energy conservation, sustainable local foods, and maintaining and improving on the David Burnham park system.

Human capital:

This aspect of the Chicago Comprehensive Regional Plan puts emphasis on quality labor force. A well educated skilled work force is important to achieve economic prosperity by attracting and keeping businesses. This is important for Chicago’s future both regionally and globally. This is to be achieved by:

·         providing good education and skills training

·          combating inequality in education and healthcare based on income, race and ethnic disparities

·         Linking researchers and entrepreneurs to fuel the generation, recycling, and exchange of knowledge to promote necessary innovation and economic growth.

·         Collaboration with cluster companies to achieve competitive advantage over other regions.

Efficient government:

Another major goal of the Chicago regional Plan is to make government, at all levels, responsive to the needs of the people. Transparency, accountability, openness and accessibility must not only remain catch words, but also the rules of the game. Additionally, access to information and government data, fair and simplified tax policy as well as coordination of investment and service delivery among local, regional and federal levels will go a long way in reducing government waste.

This, it is expected, will improve local control, better decision making, and trust in government.

Regional mobility:

Modern transportation for easy and rapid movement of people and goods is a prerequisite for economic growth and good quality of life. Fortunately, transportation is one of the advantages of the Chicago area. However, that is no cause for complacency. Years of disinvestment and inadequate maintenance has left Chicago with an aging infrastructure whose competitive edge in transportation could become seriously challenged in the near future.

The Chicago Regional Plan commits to the maintenance and modernization of the transportation infrastructure into a “world class” status through increased investment. High speed rail and rapid transit at the regional scale; as well as pedestrian side-walks and bike routes at the neighborhood scale, will improve mobility significantly.

Comparison to Kansas City:

The goals of the Chicago regional Plan are in many ways similar to the goals set out in the Comprehensive plan for Kansas City, the FOCUS Plan. Although the Chicago regional seems to be more detail, aggressive and better organized and coordinated than that of Kansas City, both plans address common issues: transportation, land use, regional connectivity, investment, environment, and so on…

One of the key differences between Kansas City and Chicago is that while Chicago is heavily congested, Kansas City has the problem of decongestion or low density. The lack of density or congestion in much of Kansas City is a huge hindrance to mass transit or effective public transportation development. Also unlike Chicago, perhaps the political will to tackle the tough questions- disparities in race, ethnicity, income, education, etc may be lacking.

One of the comprehensive plans in Kansas City is the FOCUS PLAN (the Forging Our Comprehensive Urban Strategy) a 25 year plan beginning in 1992 in order to prepare and well position Kansas City as a model of a “new kind of American city”.  Kansas City (FOCUS PLAN) appears to have a regional outlook similar to the Chicago Regional Plan. The FOCUS PLAN was created with intense consultation with diverse groups of citizens and neighborhoods.  However, the media blitz and the vigorous online campaign characteristic of Chicago was unheard of in Kansas City.

The Kansas City FOCUS PLAN aims to achieve similar goals as the Chicago regional Plan. Among these goals are:

·         To revitalize and energize the urban core as a place for residence, work, business, entertainment, and learning..

·         To promote quality suburban development in terms of connectivity.

·         Ensure environmental sustainability by managing and responsibly using natural resources..

·         Create jobs for the future by increasing opportunities in technology, education, culture, and the arts for everyone and especially for the underprivileged population.

·         To attract financial investments.

·         To build a bottom-up government responsive to the needs of citizens.

PLANNING THEORY:

The Chicago Regional Plan is a comprehensive plan, and partly a derivative of the 1909 Plan developed by the Commercial Club of Chicago. A comprehensive plan is a broad-based planning model often utilized by local governments to plan executes many development goals such as transportation, land use, housing, education, healthcare, and so on over a long period of time. It often has a regional approach, and seeks an integrated harmonious urban system. This model is often criticized for its over-reach and inefficiency. It is often difficult to implement and inadequately represented by citizens. The Chicago Regional Plan, in accordance with comprehensive planning, is quite an ambitious plan encompassing transportation, land use, housing, environment, education, and freight; over a 30 year period (2040). The Plan’s vision also has a regional context including 7 counties and 284 communities with emphasis on regional mobility. The plan intends also to position Chicago strategically within the competitive global economy. The plan has a regional vision essential to the overall health of the region in terms of ecological and political units. The plan espouses regional concepts such as “regional learning, shared destiny, and collective action”.  The goals of the plan, therefore, transportation, housing, education, healthcare, environment, freight, and land use; are all planned in this regional framework.

However, Chicago has many challenges. With a population of 8 million, Chicago is the third most congested metropolitan city in the region, and is projected to add between 2 and 8 million more people in the next 30 years. Therefore, some of the biggest concerns that need urgent attention and the Chicago regional Plan hopes to address (purpose) are:

·         Transportation- how to move people and goods around.

·         Housing- how to provide affordable working class housing that preserve the architectural integrity for the city’s teeming population.

·         Interconnectedness- how to integrate the different counties and communities of Chicago with one another and with the region as a whole.

·         Environment- how to provide and sustain quality water supply, sustainable land use (green spaces and parks), alternative energy.

·         Sprawl-to properly manage the rapid suburbanization.

·         Population increase- to stabilize and mange the rapid population increase.

·         Globalization- to advantageously position the city strategically within the regional and global economy.

In addition to comprehensive planning, there are elements of critical, ethical, and advocacy planning approaches. In terms of critical theory, the Chicago regional Plan emphasizes knowledge and action and views political power as dependent on communication-effective communication. The plan hopes to improve government efficiency by improving on transparency, accountability, collaboration, and sharing of information and data; similar to the four components of communication, namely: comprehensive, sincerity, legitimacy, and truthfulness. Sharing of information and data by both experts and citizens could enhance participation as argued in Dr. Wagner’s paper, “Digital Media and the Politics of Disaster Recovery in New Orleans”. The plan aspires to give Chicago a new beginning-a “clean slate”- a concept enshrined in critical planning thought.

The Chicago Regional Plan is also cognizant of racial, ethnic, and income disparities, and seeks to address them in its educational, housing, healthcare and transportation policy. The plan showcases individual stories of members of the minority communities to argue for the need for reform in housing, transportation, education, and healthcare. This approach is consistent with advocacy planning.

References:

1.    Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning; Davidoff, P. (1965)

2.    Critical Theory in Planning; Forrester, J. (1980)

3.      Digital Media and the Politics of Disaster Recovery in New Orleans (Dr. Wagner, J  2010)

4.    Critical Theory in Planning (Forrester, J  1980)

 

AMERICA’S EVOLUTION FROM A LAISSEZ-FAIRE STATE TO AN INTERVENTIONIST STATE:

KAYJATTA

The United States economy, like many Western economies today, is mixed. That means it is largely capitalist, but has some elements of socialism or government intervention. To be more precise, the United States has a mixed free enterprise economic system characterized by private ownership, private enterprise, and market-place competition (Sabato, et al 2010).

The extent of government involvement or intervention in the economy has fluctuated widely throughout the history of the United States. During the 19^th century, the Federal government played a limited role in economic activity. The basic functions of the federal government were to collect tariffs, fund public works (improvements), and encourage private development (Sabato, pg. 570).

During the Progressive and New Deal eras of the first half of the 20^th century, the federal government became more involved in the economy by way of regulation.

Recently, the federal government has expanded its role beyond economic regulation to social regulation.

The democratic regime of President Obama that came to power in the middle of the greatest financial (economic) crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s, embarked on historic government intervention programs in terms of spending and regulation of industries. Because of these, many critics, largely conservatives have labeled President Obama and his ambitious agenda “socialist”.

But perhaps, the collapse of Enron and the subsequent prosecution and incarceration of Ken Lay and Jeffery Skilling during the Bush administration tilted public opinion toward more government regulation.

This paper is in two parts. In the first part, I will attempt to discuss United States’ economic transformation from a laissez-faire state to an interventionist state in six parts:

1.       The 19^th century period

2.       The progressive and the New Deal era

3.       Social regulation

4.       Deregulation

5.       Fiscal policy

6.       Monetary policy

In the second part, I will examine the major political ideologies and their positions on the economic policy of the United States.

The 19^th century period:

During this period, until the Civil War, the United States practiced a laissez-faire economic philosophy, effectively leaving economic decision-making about production and distribution of goods and services in the invisible hands of the market forces. The government’s role was limited largely to:

1.       The maintenance of law and order

2.       The conduct of foreign affairs

3.       The provision of necessary public works

4.       Setting of tariffs

5.       Creating a conducive environment for economic growth

The American Civil War of 1861 and the rapid industrialization of the post-war economy exerted enormous pressure on the American political and economic structures. Problems of labor-management conflicts, industrial accidents, disease, unemployment, merciless exploitation of workers and consumers, resulted in the government intervening to regulate economic activity.

According to Sabato, the first major government intervention was a result of the growing power of the railroads (2010). Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887 requiring railroad rates to be “just and reasonable”. The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 also prohibited pooling, rate discrimination, and charging more for shorter hauls of goods than longer hauls.

Then followed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, aimed at large monopolies such as oil, sugar, whiskey, salt, and meatpacking. Which prohibited (attempts at) monopolization through price-fixing, market allocation, and bid-rigging?

The progressive and the New Deal era:

The Progressive movement in many respects was a middle class movement. It was motivated by the desire to curb the unbecoming corporate power so that it is responsive to the needs of the citizens.

The progressive regimes of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson both reined in on “Big Business”-railroads, banking and meatpacking.

In a move toward consumer protection, the federal government enacted the Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act in 1906. This two acts outlawed adulteration (tampering with the content) and mislabeling of food and drugs, and established sanitary standards in food handling.

In 1913, the federal government enacted the Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Reserve System to regulate the banking industry. The Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC) and the Clayton Act passed a year later bolstered the anti-trust law.

However, the growing role of the federal government in the economy came with enormous financial pressure requiring new ways to generate revenue. After the Supreme Court’s initial ruling as unconstitutional in 1895, the 16^th Amendment was adopted usurping Supreme Court’s power and authorizing the federal government to levy and collect income and corporate taxes.

Throughout the 1920s, the U.S. economy boomed bringing prosperity to many citizens. But in 1929 during the Hoover administration, the stock market collapsed setting off a world-wide chain reaction of economic crash called the Great Depression. The Great Depression was characterized by low production, banking failure, and high unemployment of up to 25% by 1933.

The New Deal of the 1930s by the Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) administration would be a major shift in the economic history of the United States. FDR started by closing out troubled banks, and then the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was enacted separating commercial and investment banking, and establishing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) which insures depositor’s money.

The Securities Act also of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Commission the following year (1934) intended to check abuses and fraud in the stock market.

The expanding role of the United States government during this period extended to farmers as well. The Second Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1938 provided subsidies to farmers growing certain crops and acreage. Farmers also received relief in terms of direct payments and commodity loans.

The labor unions that have been early proponents of the New Deal were boosted by the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act, also called the Wagner Act and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This act guaranteed workers’ right to organization (join unions) and collective bargaining without any fear of reprisal or discrimination by employers. Recently the Wisconsin legislature under the administration of Governor Scott Walker repealed the collective bargaining rights of union workers and several Republican governments across the nation threatened to do the same claiming budgetary reasons. This attempt by the newly elected Republican majority lawmakers to crackdown on labor in favor of businesses might be the beginning of a new shift toward less government regulation.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), also a legacy of the New Deal era set the minimum wage and prohibited child labor. Congress also passed several other laws that targeted specific industries such as:

·         The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 1934 to oversee radio, telephone, and telegraph industries.

·         The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), 1938 regulates the commercial aviation industry.

·         The Motor Carrier Act, 1935 regulates the trucking industry.

The Social Security Act (1932), Disability Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Supplemental Security Income, earned Income Tax Credit, family and Child Support programs were all implemented in the New Deal approach.

The outbreak of World War II in 1939 marked the end of the New Deal era. However, many of the programs that were initiated in the New Deal (and the progressive era before that) remain permanent features of the United States economic and social policy to now.

SOCIAL REGULATION:

The 1960s and ‘70s were the era of social regulations. This is the period were the federal government moved away from a purely economic reform (regulation) to a more focused social reform (regulation). Several laws were passed throughout the ‘60s and ‘70s to protect consumers and the environment, and to safeguard health and safety of Americans:

·         The Clean Air ACT (1970)- protects the environment from pollution and hazardous dump.

·         The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (1974)-protects workers’ pensions from private employers.

·          The Lead-Based Paint Poison Prevention Act

The Egg Products Inspection Act

Some of the important agencies that created to enforce these new regulatory laws during this period are:

·         Consumer Product Safety Commission

·         The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

·         The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

·         The Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration

·         The National Transportation safety Administration (TSA)

The roots of the social regulations of the ‘60s and ‘70s are perhaps many. However, Sabato, et al (2010) has identified three main causes, namely:

·         Social activism- the ‘60s and ‘70s were a turbulent time characterized by advocacies of various kinds; social and civil rights. The Consumer Union, Common Cause, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Sierra Club, for example instrumental creating the agenda for social regulation.

·         Public awareness- the rapid industrialization has led to a heightened awareness of consumer, environmental, and occupational hazards among the general public.

·         Good politics- politicians {Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson (D) and Richard Nixon (R), as well as members of Congress} took advantage of the new trend in public expectation and rallied behind the cause for environmental and consumer protection. After all, it was good politics and could increase one’s prospects of re-election.

DEREGULATION:

The regimes of President Gerald Ford (R) and his successor Jimmy Carter, in a response to the high inflation of the mid 1970’s and early ‘80s, took several measures to cut back on social regulation. Competition in the market place was highly favored by these administrations. Commercial airlines, railroads, motor carriers, and financial institutions were all liberalized. For example:

·         The Airline Deregulation Act (1978) removed economic regulation of airlines.

·         The Agricultural price support programs of the ‘80s and ‘90s (subsidies) was repealed in 1996. However, the 2002 farm Bill (under the Bush administration) did not only restore farm subsidies but actually increased it substantially (up to 70%).

FISCAL POLICY:

This is the deliberate use of taxing and spending policies to stabilize or keep the economy stable. The fiscal policy is created by the President in partnership with Congress, and executes it through the budget process. Through revenue and expenditures manipulation, fiscal policy can be used to create budget surpluses and deficits

In the 1960s, John F. Kennedy applied Keynesian economic theory to increase government spending at the risk of budget deficit aimed at restoring full employment. This led to the Revenue Act of 1964 signed into law by Lyndon B. Johnson to cut taxes on individuals and corporations. This move contributed to economic expansion and lower unemployment rate (less than 4%) in the late ‘60s.

Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan (1981) and George W. Bush (2001, 2003) pursued a similar economic philosophy.

MONETARY POLICY:

Manipulating the interest rate and money supply constitute the hallmark of the government’s monetary policy. The Federal Reserve System (the FED) is responsible for managing the monetary policy. The FED utilizes several devices to achieve this:

·         Setting reserve requirements for banks-decides the amount of money as a portion of deposits the banks must retain as collateral for their loans.

·         Setting the discount rate-decides the interest rate on monies lend to banks.

·         Maintain open market operations-decides the purchase and sale of government securities to banks.

WHICH POLITICAL PARTY FAVOR A LAISSEX-FAIRE ECONOMIC POLICY AND WHICH A MORE INTERVENTIONIST, WHY?

There are two main political parties with distinct political ideologies in the United States. The two major parties are:

·         Democrats

·         Republicans

However, several minor parties exist and they include:

·         Libertarians

·         The Green party

Of these four political parties, conservatives favor laissez-faire economic policy more than all others. Conservatives (republicans), according to Sabato et al (2010; pg 21), believe that “government is best when it governs less”. Liberals (democrats), on the other hand value equity and believe that government intervention is necessary to remedy the defects of capitalism (market failure). Conservatives prefer less government intervention in the economy. The famous quote of republican president Ronald Reagan that “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem” echoes the same conservative believe. They often subscribe to the idea of market-place competition,  free enterprise, self-reliance, lower taxes, state and local control rather than federal intervention, and physical responsibility (balanced budgets) although in practice republican administrations do not have a track record of balancing the budget. The republican regime of George W. Bush perhaps ran the largest budget deficit in history despite inheriting historic surplus from the earlier Clinton administration. The Reagan administration and the two Bush administrations that followed made tax cuts a priority economic policy arguing that tax cuts for the rich will generate a “trickle down” effect in terms of job creation, increased consumer spending and investment.

Conservatives, not surprisingly, opposed the New Deal programs of the 1930s, poverty eradication programs of the 1960s, and almost all civil rights and affirmative action programs, Burns, et al (2004). They also resisted the healthcare overhaul bill by the Obama administration (also called the “Obama care” in conservative circles), and vowed to repeal it in the mid-term elections.

Recently the Wisconsin legislature under the republican administration of Governor Scott Walker repealed the collective bargaining rights of unions, thereby setting off a chain reaction across the nation by the newly elected Republican majority lawmakers to crackdown on labor in favor of businesses might be the beginning of a new shift toward less government regulation since the inauguration of democratic president Barack Obama. The taking away of union’s right to collective bargain will perhaps be, as in the words Professor David Harvey (The Crisis), the last major blow to labor since the Great Depression.

Libertarians, who appear to be ultra-conservatives, have been recently identified with the Tea Party movement. They, like the regular conservatives, believe in a limited government and personal liberties. Only that the Libertarians take it to extreme heights.

The Green party, sometimes referred to as the Environmentalist party is extremely concerned with the environment and social justice much like the democrats. However, it has to be said that, very little is documented about these minor parties.

One has to exercise caution when making these political ideological labels. They are broad generalizations that very few Americans fit into. Most voters tend to be moderates. Also the fact that George W. Bush passed a massive government intervention bill in the economy in 2008 (the economic bail out) and Clinton’s tax cuts in the 1990s are evidence of significant departures from ideological core believes…

REFRENCES:

1.      American Government ( Sabato, O’Connor, and Yanus; 2010)

2.      Government by the People (Burns, Peltason, Cronin, Megleby, O’Brien, and Light; 2004)

MAGISTRATE EDWARD SINGHATEH: A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE?

Edward Singhateh is reportedly appointed First Class Magistrate in the provincial town of Brikama in the Gambia following his graduation with a law degree at the University of the Gambia.
Edward Singhateh was the Vice Chair of the military council (AFPRC) that toppled the civilian government of Sir Dawda kairaba Jawara in 1994. He was then a junior officer (leutenant) in the army.
Lt. Singhateh hailed from a military family and  has been described as a man of few words, a brutal soldier nonetheless who is implicated in various human rights abuses (assault, torture, and murder) of opponents during his time in the military government. He has been named in the murder of Leutenant Barrow, Leutenant Almamo Manneh, and Ousman Koro Ceesay (a former finance minister in the military government); the beatings of Ousman Sabally; as well as the torture of political and security detainees at Mile II central prison.
Therefore, Edward's appointment as a magistrate-a custodian of justice- could be seen as a mockery to the Gambia's legal system. The fair thing to do is to investigate Mr. Singhateh and prosecute him for the crimes he may have committed against the Gambian people.
In 1996, after his ouster in a palace coup, the babyfaced 29 year old military president of Sierra Leone, Valentine Strasser left for the United Kingdom to study law at Warwich college. He was met with protests and boycott by the faculty for his alleged human rights atrocities and violations of the constitutional law of Sierra Leone. Partly because of this, Strasser's law study was short lived. Strasser was later denied entry into the Gambia after abandoning his studies in U.K.
No credible organizathation will induct Edward Singhateh into their "Hall of Fame" with clouds of human rights atrocities over his head. No credible and ethical legal system will embrace heinous human rights violators into their fold. Civil organizations and the general Gambian populaion need to resist Edward's appointment.
Above all, as the last defender of the integrity and the ethical practice of law in the Gambia, the Gambia Bar Association must deny Edward's admission into the Bar, whenever that issue arises.