In the article "Companies Pretty Up Prices to Win Stimulus Projects", author Micheal Cooper touches on the subject of construction companies' strategy of slashing their prices on the upcoming first round of stimulus projects that are being funded by the federal stimulus plan. Most businesses are doing the same thing, trying to drum up business in tough economic times. The construction business has been hit particularly hard, with the collapse of the U.S. housing market. These companies are desperate to win the bids on these projects, and are bidding lower than most expect in order to accomplish these goals. In some states bids are coming in 15% to 25% lower than expected by state officials. This is a good thing for taxpayers, seeing as how they are funding these projects. The lower the bids, the more work can be done and the higher the value for the taxpayer's dollar. This also means that if the bids keep coming in lower, the stimulus money can go much further than initially expected. This means that more roads can be built, more bridges repaired, more tasks can be completed with the same amount of money. The basic rules of supply and demand dictate the lower prices. Many construction workers are out of work, so the work comes cheaper when it is available. This also brings up concerns that these low bids may not be totally accurate and may not reflect the true cost of the project. Contractors can sometimes underbid their competition, then try to squeeze out a profit by changing things that drive up the price and delay the project. This is nothing new, it's been going on in the industry for years.
This stimulus project is very important to the turn around of the slumping economy. Much like FDR's New Deal, this will put people back to work. Working people can buy goods and services, and feel more comfortable making major purchases. Such purchases can be cars or houses, both which are suffering in such harsh economic times. In order for things to turn around, this stimulus plan must work much like it did during the Great Depression years. Much of the current infrastructure in the U.S. was built during these years, along with the founding of many institutions that we take for granted today. Social Security and FDIC are two of the major programs started during the New Deal era.
Personally, I feel that the administration is doing a good job trying to stimulate the economy. The worst thing that they could have done is nothing. I feel that the worst may be behind us. It may be premature to say that, but I feel optimistic for the first time in a long time. With stocks seeming to stabilize and the possibility of the government relieving financial institutions of their toxic assets, we may actually be able to turn things around.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Saturday, March 7, 2009
New Frontiers for Research
In the article "Obama Reversing Stem Cell Limits Bush Imposed", authors David Stout and Gardiner Harris discuss President Obama's decision to reverse the Bush administration's limits on federal financing embryonic stem cell research as part of his plan to separate science and politics. As a candidate for the Presidency, Obama was a supporter of stem cell research, so this announcement is not really that big of a surprise. The topic itself, however, is one surrounded by controversy and strong opinions from both sides of the issue. This move is part of Obama's plan to return to "sound science" and the separation of science and politics.
The proponents of stem cell research are expected to try to push the process through so that they can apply for the grant money before September 2010, the date in which the health institutes must commit the last of the $10.4 billion given to the N.I.H. as part of the economic stimulus program. They claim that "embryonic stem cells are capable of developing into any type of cell in the body, many scientists believe that they may one day be able to provide tissues to replace worn-out organs or non functioning cells and, thus, offer powerful new treatments for diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson’s disease and other ailments". Treatments for severe injury, like spinal cord damage, could also result from this research.
Opponents argue that since the cells come from human embryos, they are essentially human beings and the harvest and experimentation on them is tantamount to murder. This is often a deeply personal issue for most who oppose the experimentation. They also argue that other cells, such as those found in amniotic fluid or placental tissue could also work for this research. No matter what is decided, the passion and debate about this issue will not stop any time soon.
The separation of science and politics is the big issue here. There is a moral argument here, and while the government should always consider the moral implications of their actions, I feel it is important to also realize that the correct moral decision is not always going to make the most people happy. This is similar to the separation of church and state. The argument that embryonic cells are human beings is more a religious argument than a scientific one. The debate of the existence of a "soul" in a cell is not, in my opinion, a valid scientific argument. I feel that this decision to separate politics will set a tone for this presidency that will have a positive effect on this administration.
As a person who suffers from a currently incurable neurological disease, stem cell research holds particular interest for me. I was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis in September of last year, and the possibility that stem cell research could possibly mean that doctors could someday repair damaged organs or tissue is of particular interest to me. I feel that the petty argument that some have about harvesting stem cells from embryos that are going to be discarded is insignificant in light of the possibilities that this research holds for people who stand to gain so much. I personally feel that this is a defining moment of President Obama's legacy, and it makes me eager to see what else lies in store for the country under his guidance.
The proponents of stem cell research are expected to try to push the process through so that they can apply for the grant money before September 2010, the date in which the health institutes must commit the last of the $10.4 billion given to the N.I.H. as part of the economic stimulus program. They claim that "embryonic stem cells are capable of developing into any type of cell in the body, many scientists believe that they may one day be able to provide tissues to replace worn-out organs or non functioning cells and, thus, offer powerful new treatments for diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson’s disease and other ailments". Treatments for severe injury, like spinal cord damage, could also result from this research.
Opponents argue that since the cells come from human embryos, they are essentially human beings and the harvest and experimentation on them is tantamount to murder. This is often a deeply personal issue for most who oppose the experimentation. They also argue that other cells, such as those found in amniotic fluid or placental tissue could also work for this research. No matter what is decided, the passion and debate about this issue will not stop any time soon.
The separation of science and politics is the big issue here. There is a moral argument here, and while the government should always consider the moral implications of their actions, I feel it is important to also realize that the correct moral decision is not always going to make the most people happy. This is similar to the separation of church and state. The argument that embryonic cells are human beings is more a religious argument than a scientific one. The debate of the existence of a "soul" in a cell is not, in my opinion, a valid scientific argument. I feel that this decision to separate politics will set a tone for this presidency that will have a positive effect on this administration.
As a person who suffers from a currently incurable neurological disease, stem cell research holds particular interest for me. I was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis in September of last year, and the possibility that stem cell research could possibly mean that doctors could someday repair damaged organs or tissue is of particular interest to me. I feel that the petty argument that some have about harvesting stem cells from embryos that are going to be discarded is insignificant in light of the possibilities that this research holds for people who stand to gain so much. I personally feel that this is a defining moment of President Obama's legacy, and it makes me eager to see what else lies in store for the country under his guidance.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
