Fences: how many and where?

In the op-ed column, Phony Fear Factor, Paul Krugman expresses his views on the conservative party's opinions regarding the cause of our national economic dilemma. Conservative politicians and economists widely believe the Obama Administration is culpable for the torpid economic recovery, mainly job growth, we've experienced since The Great Recession occurred in 2007. He further explains the conservatives' main claim for this drag as "costly regulations and higher taxes." Krugman states in his editorial that this is not the case. Evidence from prior recessions shows that economic recovery is a slow process, and that, compared to the 2001 economic recovery, we are mending much faster. Also, large businesses are making good profits, but not investing in growth. The reason is poor sales. There is no need to expand the work force if there is little product demand. That would be bad business. The perpetuance of these pugnacious "delusions" conservatives hold on to, Krugman theorizes, is firstly their proclivity to believe what they will despite empirical evidence (their rejection of "climate science and even the theory of evolution") and secondly their need to incriminate the Obama Administration for "everything bad in America." His final claim is that our economic troubles grew from little regulation, and that the conservatives' goal is to deregulate even further.

There are points I agree with Krugman on,  and points I have too little economic knowledge on to make an informed opinion. I agree with his claim about conservatives strongly holding on to their opinions despite scientific evidence. Despite a study showing evidence against gay service members causing any disruption in the armed forces, some conservatives still fought to keep Don't Ask Don't Tell alive. It is hard for a government to improve if representatives continue to cast their votes based on opinionated grounds. I also agree with his statements regarding the slow job growth America has seen. If there are no increased demands for a product, it would be illogical and disadvantageous for a company to expand the production of such a product via a larger work force. They would invest in a market that doesn't exist and lose money, probably causing large layoffs in an attempt to balance their check books. The catch is, with a weak work force and little civilian monetary funds, how are consumers supposed to demand more and stimulate the need for a larger work force? Regarding Krugman's last claim about the need for more government regulation in the business world as a means of fortifying the economy, I'm not sure what kind is needed to stimulate growth. Most government regulations I've studied in macroeconomics, such as subsidies, price ceilings and floors, and heavy taxations, have all been explained to have negative economic repercussions and usually favor big business and wealthy civilians, creating a larger gap between the rich and the poor. On the other hand, further deregulation would allow for greed to run rampant. Despite all this, one thing I do believe is politicians need to stop searching for a place to put blame and look to the future, using scientific evidence to guide them towards a solution. However, as Krugman said, this is difficult since even conservative economists have the tendency to support conservative "delusions," making the discrimination between fact and fiction difficult, especially to the untrained eye.

Casinos, revenues, addiction, and choice.

In a plan to raise revenue and stimulate job growth, American states are legalizing casinos, a business that accumulated $25 billion in profit for state governments (a large percentage of this amount coming from state lotteries). Massachusetts is the latest state to have a proposal for legal gambling approved by the House with a 123-32 vote. This plan is expected to create 15,000 jobs in the state. However, there is strong objection against legal gambling in the state of Massachusetts. Rep. Ruth Balser equated legalizing gambling to "setting up crack cocaine shops."Les Bernal, executive director of the Stop Predatory Gambling Foundation, states "...it represents a phony prosperity...a business that's based on people losing money." Gambling addiction can become so detrimental to some individuals that a "self-exclusion" list has been established in Illinois. Approximately 8,300 people with gambling addiction problems have voluntarily added their names to this list, prohibiting their entrance to gambling establishments.

This article is worth reading because it touches an important issue in America today - how far should our government go to protect the health and safety of its citizens? We have various governmental agencies established for the sole purpose of creating and regulating quality standards. The Food and Drug Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission are two examples (other agencies: http://www.iem-inc.com/linkreg.html). History has shown that without a national standard of quality and enforcement, the quality of produce sold by private enterprises can be quite dismal, as was the case with the early processed foods industry. Regulation seems to be a necessary and protective action. The difference between these agencies and the arguments against legal gambling, however, is who is being regulated. Industries are regulated by these agencies, protecting individual safety, whereas individuals are being regulated by the presented arguments that oppose legal gambling, which also protect individual safety. The latter, however, infringes upon personal choice. If an individual wishes to spend his days on his couch, watching television and nurturing his obesity, that is his choice. If an individual chooses to copiously smoke cigarettes, that is his choice. If an individual wishes to work daily on his tan without wearing any protection against UV rays, that is his choice. The same goes for which religion you choose to adopt or which football team you cheer for. These are our choices. Most importantly, these are all choices that may or may not harm solely the individual who makes them. In other words, it's our personal business. It is only logical that if state governments have warrant to prohibit gambling on moral grounds, that they also have warrant to prohibit certain kinds of foods, pass-times (excessive shopping, smoking, drinking, etc.), beliefs, and products. Individuals legally become adults at the age of eighteen, and yet, some government bodies and their representatives feel the need to continue holding our hands in matters that should only be decided by the individual. Succinctly, I support traffic laws against drunk driving because the actions taken by these individuals have the possibility of infringing upon another individual's liberties, mainly life. I do not support traffic laws enforcing the use of adult seat-belts because, since it is only my own life at stake, it infringes upon my individual liberty of choice.

I believe the government is morally obligated to protect citizens from one another and foreign invaders. That is the basic purpose for which it exists. I do not believe the government has moral justification to protect citizens from themselves. At least not the kind of government in which I want to live in. 

So, in government, what is moral to you? 

Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0915/Casinos-multiply-as-states-such-as-Massachusetts-hunt-for-jobs-revenue/(page)/2