As the 2016 US presidential election is looming, both campaigners and politicians from each side are lumping up numbers from all sources twiddling their thumbs who will win the primaries and eventually the election. Much of the rumpus has been made while rising of a firebrand like Donald Trump on the Republican side; it needs to be seen what will be the first Democratic presidential debate is going to be in the offing. Last week, much of grandstanding of Hillary Clinton, who made a response to a reporter about the private email server that she had been using as Secretary of State did not help her to remove skepticism toward her and shattered trust within the Democrats in her party. On the other hand, the senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, who is supporting more comprehensive liberal stances, is becoming more popular with the young, is now threatening the shriveling approval rating of Mrs Clinton. Surprisingly as her recent appearance on SNL as, will the next debate be a game changer? This paper will specifically discuss their policies towards worker’s payslip, gun ownership and the criminal justice system – hitherto they had made comments on.
As start of this year, Mr Obama’s State of the Union gave many Americans hopes that the economic outlook this year will be rosier. If falling of record low unemployment and annualised 2.5% growth in the second quarter are any good signs of economic improvement, it is good news for Americans. Alas, wages of Americans did not seem to pick up as the economy has been improving and it became one of most debatable subjects coincided with election seasons coming. Compared to 1989, American household income is still lower in real terms, and just about 11% higher than in 1970. Productivity of overall American economies has improved substantially, 220% since 1960s, whereas real wages have risen 100%. It is a rule of thumb for economists that when unemployment drops to a certain limit point, firms are competing each other chasing to hire workers; thus raising wages and inflation prompting central banks to raise interest rates. Many economists surmise two explanations for this bizarre trend. The first one is Euberization of economies. Technological advancements has created many put-up jobs whence people eager to work within flexible hours often in sacrifice of higher salary. Probably this new trend of new sectors has created niche markets causing economists to wonder why today’s economies are systematically different to past history and there are still more slacks to pick up in the labour market. Another culprit might be the aftermath of the recession that the economy is still in the phase of recovery session. Argument focused on NAIRU, non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, the lowest level of unemployment obtainable without causing inflation due to the economy overheating, which usually decrease for a while even on recovery phase, could be a factor explaining slack in the labour market. (see article http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21650086-salaries-rich-countries-are-stagnating-even-growth-returns-and-politicians-are-paying). In a response to much of the recent debate about the low wage problem, Mr Sanders came up with $15 an hour federal minimum wage plan while Mrs Clinton supports $12 an hour federal minimum wage, which is 61% of median hourly wage, and her commitments for higher minimum wage through state and local levels. There are well grounded research cases in America and Europe that minimum wages set below 50% of median full-time income, does not seem to destroy the job demands because moderate minimum wage urges employer’s effort to keep the employee and work as a bargaining method. However, Mr Sanders promised policy to peg federal minimum wage to $15 an hour level, or 77% of median hourly income, could bring higher unemployment. Long-term effects of higher minimum wage have not been proved, so it is sine qua non for Mr Sanders to tread cautious. Still more, Mrs Clinton promised more than increasing minimum wage - giving tax credits to companies who gradually give company’s shares to workers. This measure surely expects to give workers more motivation and higher productivity. However, she needs to consider the case in Britain, where companies have been stagnating worker’s salary merely to get more tax credit. Domestic consumption which are related to household income accounts for 68% of GDP in the US although it’s not a simple question to solve.
Thanks to a mass shooting at a community college in Oregon on October 1st, which killed 10 students, background checking and curbing on gun ownership have become the fore of the controversy in the US. Gun-right ownership is deeply enshrined in the US constitution, which makes it hard to control. According to Gallup in a general social survey, the percentage of Americans who think “having a gun in the house makes it safer” has soared from 35% in 2000 to 63% in 2014 ; 40% of Democrats supporters and 80% of Republican supporters answered “yes” for the question in the 2014 survey. Also, Americans who are killed or commit suicide by a gun makes more than half of the number of homicide – nearly three per 100,000 people. The Economist says that “A large majority of Americans still say they support background checks for all gun purchases (in most states, private sales and sales at gun shows do not require such checks at present). But they do not trust the motives of the politicians—mostly Democrats—who want to tighten the rules.” However, it is quite right that Barrack Obama, president of the US, addressed in the oval office “I will politicize it, because our inaction is a political decision that we are making”. In a lockstep with Mr Obama, Mrs Clinton on the stump made a comment that she supports measures “including universal background checks and closing the loophole”. On the other hand, Bernie Sanders has been soft on the issue that gun control should be decided on the state level administration. Ben Carson, a Republican candidate, scare-mongered gun-owners after the massacre, just as after Charleston massacre, Ted Cruz, a Texan republican, said “to take away the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens”; it became epiphany of eulogy to gun right activists not victims. However, it is questionable how much Mrs Clinton can muster voters given that when Democrats were controlling both houses of congress, there had been little progress. To even supporters of her gun policy, there are wide-spread doubts that it will be muddled into a quagmire by political shenanigans – lobbyists and opponents.
America is a jailhouse nation – there is no country that eagerly wants to put people behind bars than America does. America accounts for roughly 25% of prisoners in the world where it has less than 5% of world population. Not only are African Americans six times more likely to get into jail than white Americans, but also every one out of 35 Americans are now on probation, in jail, or waiting for trial. There is recent research by Brennan Centre for Justice, saying falling of crime rates in 1970s could have been a result of harsh law enforcements but nowadays more prisons contribute to higher imprisonment rates and are counter-productive for dealing with the crime. What’s more, for every one prisoners in jail for one year, Americans foot the bill, $34,000 tax, draining public coffers tallying up $80 billion a year. However, what silver lining lies ahead is that more Americans are care less about crime, warming up mood for reform. In this backdrop, both candidates came up with ideas to change the criminal justice system. Mrs Clinton emphasizes on “ending the era of mass incarceration” with repealing “mandatory minimum sentences for low-level nonviolent offense”. For that matter, after Supreme Court ruled “realignment”, which says a state’s penitentiary systems had been inhumane and unethical, California had to put a lid on the number of prisoners to maintain their human rights. Gradually, California has trimmed the number of prisoners by 60,000 people since 2007 through letting out much less harmful convicts and turning them into supervision programmes. By the same token, New York has greatly reduced prisoners from gaol, repealing mandatory minimum sentences in a replacement with an attorney’s discretion while state maintained fairly good crime rates. Mrs Clinton’s idea to enforce police departments to wear “body camera” can be an effective way to deter abuse by police. In Germany, policing has substantially improved by adopting Mrs Clinton’s idea. There were no citizens killed by police in Korea, Germany, and Britain in 2014. On the other hand, Mr Sander’s plan goes far beyond Mrs Clinton, to the point of de-militarizing police. With a lot of Americans keep ammunitions in their homes, it is unlikely to come into laws in the US where rights to carry arms and self-defense are overly protected by constitution.
Overall, Mrs Clinton and Mr Sanders seem to share similar views on most domestic issues straddling increasing minimum wage to overhauling criminal justice system. One striking differences are student’s loans – Mrs Clinton’s plan is to help refinance student loans whilst Mr Sanders’ plan is to scrap tuition fee in public university. In a case of Scotland, when a gratuitous tuition fee led to a fiscal disaster for scholastic research and brought in more proportion of wealthy students than before it was implemented, such of those Bernie’s policies are still a far cry from moderate American’s views. Will Brobdingnagian swathes of primary votes which Hillary claims now, be challenged in the next phase of campaigns? Or will a Lilliputian like Martin O'Malley be a bear in the woods? Shortly, there will be primaries for Democrats to decide the future Democratic candidate of the US president.
Reference
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/plan-raise-american-incomes/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/criminal-justice-reform/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/creating-decent-paying-jobs/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/wall-street/
http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000003958543/hillary-clintons-gun-control-plans.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-gun-control.html
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2015/10/02/us/politics/02reuters-usa-election-democrats-shooting.html
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21672364-socialist-vermont-bedazzling-american-left-it-will-not-last-berning-up
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/09/bernie-sanders-and-donald-trump-0?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21656212-charleston-massacre-will-not-produce-new-controls-firearms-counsel-despair?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/06/hillary-clinton-and-2016?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21653647-new-challengers-hillary-clinton-underline-partys-weaknesses-two-minds?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e
http://www.on.aol.com/video/obama-on-gun-control---i-will-politicize-it--519126981
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21659741-global-movement-toward-much-higher-minimum-wages-dangerous-reckless-wager
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21659732-presidential-candidates-ideas-boosting-wages-reveal-different-diagnoses-how
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21656713-president-wants-businesses-pay-more-overtime-middle-class-mirage
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21650086-salaries-rich-countries-are-stagnating-even-growth-returns-and-politicians-are-paying
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/02/13/nobody-knows-nairu-and-thats-a-problem-for-the-fed/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2015/09/economics
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21664153-case-raising-interest-rates-worryingly-hazy-more-red-lights-green
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21654619-how-make-americas-penal-system-less-punitive-and-more-effective-jailhouse-nation
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21654578-americas-bloated-prison-system-has-stopped-growing-now-it-must-shrink-right-choices
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21657873-prison-states
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21650533-what-dead-white-man-can-teach-america-about-inner-city-decay-fire-and-fuel
댓글 달기