Jeremy Keeshin

The issue of labeling in itself is very controversial. The problem can arise from

choosing the wrong label, labeling at the wrong time, or attempting to label a situation

that is unable to be labeled. Economics, as a study of human choice and interaction, tries

to label the world. However, when it comes into contact with morality it becomes fuzzy,

and the label that is chosen may not be correct, but it may be the least wrong. In this

instance I choose to label myself with not the perfect, but the most appropriate label. My

ideas are an amalgamation of market prosperity and government intervention in harmony

to protect progress and society's best interests. For the purposes of labeling I would call

myself an economic Republican who believes in the functioning of markets, but who

leans heavily toward the side of a social Democrat who tries to view costs in a social lens.

Morally I have a problem with identifying a price on human life, about

$2,000,000, but economically I see its use in comparing costs and benefits. Morally the

costs of always choosing economically are sometimes too high, and therefore

economically those costs may be too high, but then you enter into a viscous circle of

moral and economic reasoning. I feel I have learned throughout my experiences at school

and in life to accept a golden mean as the best way of accomplishing things, and too far

left or too far right would be just a little too far. Morality and economics are two

important disciplines, but I believe that they must work in conjunction to supplement the

other and not overpower it. I believe that taxes, trade, and business must be dealt with

economically, while health and poverty must be dealt with socially. When push comes to

shove and a decision must be made, I respect the functioning of markets as an

allocatively efficient solution to problems, but I must add the addendum that markets
 Jeremy Keeshin

cannot be the sole means to accomplish social good and that at times, extensive

government action must be taken.

My complex views arise from viewing "good" as the golden mean, and too much

or too little of a thing is not good. From my English class, I take certain literature to

support my claims. It is in the story of Icarus where he flies too close to the sun and

therefore fails. It is in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein where the doctor tries too hard to

create a human and in this way shows hubris and breaking the golden mean. I believe that

in my studies and in my life I try to achieve a well-rounded balance. It is for this reason

that I have chosen to take a course in each concentration every year and choose to

participate in activities ranging from varsity sports to academic competition. I feel that

good is achieved through the balance, which allies closely with the Republican view of

achieving equilibrium. I feel that any condemnation of views is too much, and this is

where I disagree with the overbearing Republican conservative social view. I see myself

as a small step to the left on the social, economic, and political spectrums. This would

label me as an economic Republican, but since social and economic interests are

intrinsically connected, I must be very careful of that label.

My most Republican economic belief regards business interest, and I think in

business, which seems to be the idea most far away from morality, the Republican view

of markets is correct. I remember as a kid that my friend and I had a lemonade stand, and

it was in this way that we attempted to collect money. I believe that there are two types of

goods and services. There are those which are distantly removed from morality, such as

lemonade, or pizza, or a computer. But then there are those which are still goods and

services, but they tinge at a moral aspect of us. These are the drugs, environmental
 Jeremy Keeshin

concerns of pollution, and medical aid type issues. It is these that I feel that markets,

although they are a good solution, are not most rapidly considered the best solution. I

think that with goods separated from morality, such as the lemonade stand, markets are

the best and most efficient way. I feel that goods that I can set a price on and be

comfortable with my morals are goods that should be left to markets. I walk into school

and I know that a pizza sale will sell for $1, $1.50, or $2; and I feel that it is fine to set a

price on this sort of good. It does not get as touchy setting a price on something this

distant from our moral code. I believe in market allocation of these types of goods

because that is most economically and allocatively efficient, and any other way will cause

a deadweight and welfare loss. It does not bother me to set prices on clothes and haircuts

and meals and art and buildings and rent, so markets are a viable and the best option to

solve the allocation of these goods and services.

However, I believe that with these moral goods, the welfare loss, and the lack of

efficiency is acceptable, because the goal of these goods is not efficiency. The goal of

medical care is health, and when you are the person who doesn’t receive health, you do

not worry that it will all be fine in the long run. John Maynard Keynes tells us that, “In

the long run, we’re all dead.” I agree with the Classical short run allocation of resources,

but I cannot accept their long run solution to societal problems. Classical economists

point out that in the long run the market may correct this societal problem, or that societal

problem, however, the flaw is that those problems must be dealt with in the short run. If

you are that poor person and you do not get on welfare, you may starve, and you do not

care that markets will correct your problem in the long run, because you need help now.

The Classical view to long run problems is negligent, because they look out for people in
 Jeremy Keeshin

the long run in a way that will not help them. As a much more minor example, I can

relate a want of mine to this Classical flaw. Oftentimes during 5th period or right before

lunch I get rather hungry. At that time, the thoughts going through my mind are that ‘I am

hungry now, and I need to eat now, because I am very hungry now.’ If I do not have

money for food that day and cannot eat, I must rely on the assistance and generosity of

my friends to lend me a few dollars or let me use their card. I do not think to myself, ‘It

does not matter now that I am hungry, because in the long run the problem will correct

itself in the market.’ This is not the issue. Saying that a problem will be solved in the long

run misses the point if the need is in the short run. Saying that poverty will be cured by

long run economic growth is short-sighted because those poor need help and money now,

and an economist telling them it will all be okay later does not help a single thing.

This is part of my belief when it comes to poverty, social welfare, and medical

care. However with taxes I have a different opinion. I once read a joke that I feel

influenced me and made a very strong point about taxes and distribution of wealth:

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her
age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of
the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she
openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional
chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire
to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and
the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity
proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He
responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know
that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and
was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she
knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college
friends because she spent all her time studying

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"
 Jeremy Keeshin

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never
studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a
blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up
for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to
deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you
will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of
GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That
wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and
a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while
I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican party."

This joke, among other things, sheds light into my opinion regarding taxes,

especially progressive taxes that attempt to redistribute wealth. I agree that that may be a

noble goal in society, but since income equality is such an unrealistic and idealistic goal, I

do not think it should be strived for. I come to this opinion by looking at Communism as

an ideal and realizing that this can never be achieved. Any idea of complete equality ends

in corruption and a small faction taking power. You can look at the current Gini

coefficients of countries around the world and notice that not one is close to income

equality of 0. The lowest are Sweden and Belgium with 25 (Factbook), and that is still a

ways away from perfect income equality of 0. I feel that in regards to my grades, I want

to keep what I earned, and I feel that when I enter the labor force, I will want to keep the

money that I earn. I do not see the logic in a progressive tax that provides a disincentive

to hard work, because I think people should be motivated to earn money so that they can

keep money. If it was possible, I would like to have no taxes, so everyone can keep

everything that they have earned, but I realize that is not realistic. I think competition and

motivation are good, and I think lower taxes allow this. It does not seem logical to me to

punish people for making money, so therefore it does not seem logical to me to have a
 Jeremy Keeshin

progressive tax. Likewise it would not seem logical to me for everyone to all get the same

average grade, it would be better to allow competition and incentive and let people work

to earn the best grades.

I want to make sure to clarify that this does not contradict my point before. I

believe in complete medical care and welfare programs, but this does not mean I

advocate a complete redistribution of wealth. I think this is where it is the government’s

duty to dig into its endless pockets and promote welfare programs. I do not think that it

needs to tax the wealthy more. Also, in class this year I learned about the budget deficit

and it seems to be an arbitrary thing to me, because of the vague nature in which it is

calculated and what types of debt it keeps track of. For this reason I do not think it

matters much in terms of the deficit if the government receives less tax dollars and

increases spending and then increases the deficit. Of course there are other implications

in the realms of fiscal and monetary policy, but I think this is an overall solid policy.

Besides what I consider to be sound economic policy, the few major political

parties have very explicit and sometimes vague opinions of their own. The Republican

Party is in favor of tax cuts and letting people keep the money they earn. According to the

party platform, “In 2001, President Bush and the Republican Congress worked together

to pass the most sweeping tax relief in a generation. By letting families, workers, and

small business owners keep more of the money they earn, they helped bring America

from recession to a steadily expanding economy” (Republican Party Platform). They

argue that tax cuts have the immediate benefits of higher income, but in addition to that,

they also have positive consequences. Republicans show the facts that GPD grew at the

fastest rate in two decades, and consumer confidence is up, which are two positive things
 Jeremy Keeshin

for the economy. They argue that their plans work because, “Real after-tax incomes are

up by 9.6 percent since December 2000” (Republican Party Platform). They argue

against a complex tax code that can get easily muddled and taken advantage of and are in

favor of a fairer, more straightforward code (Republican Party Platform). Most simply,

the current Republican platform is in favor of letting American families keep the money

they earn. The party is in favor of a decrease in government spending with simultaneous

and permanent tax cuts to increase overall economic prosperity for individuals as well as

small businesses . The Democratic Party argues against the Republicans, saying that they

only cater to the rich. They also believe in cutting taxes, mostly for the middle class.

They argue in their 2004 platform, “We should set taxes for families making

more than $200,000 a year at the same level as in the late 1990s, a period of great

prosperity when the wealthiest Americans thrived without special treatment” (Strong at

Home). They are for a more middle class, working America, and do not want the wealth

to be given extra privileges.

My thinking on the topic of tax reform closely parallels the Republican view, but I

also agree with some of the views expressed in the Democratic platform. I agree in letting

Americans keep their money all across the board, as the Republicans argue. However, I

also think that tax cuts for middle America are a positive idea as well. I think I lean closer

to the Republican view because I think that although Democrats want to cut taxes for the

middle class they do not want to cut them as much for the upper class. I think that the

Republican more global view is better for the economy, and as taxes are not a truly moral

subject, as they are more nominal, I think the more economically and allocatively

efficient solution is the best. Additionally, tax cuts have the obvious benefits of lower
 Jeremy Keeshin

taxes to individuals and businesses, but they have the second benefit of increasing the

quality of the labor force and promoting skilled labor with incentives (Becker). I agree

with the Republican argument for a simple tax code that is not convoluted with complex

clauses. I think that a tax code that is as simple as it gets will help avoid tax evasion and

tax manipulation like is done, and if the tax is more straightforward and fair people will

not go out of their way as much to avoid them. In this instance, the Republicans choose

the more economically liberal perspective, which is usually the more pure economic

choice. Lower taxes for the rich, middle, and poor, I think are the best ways to provide

consumer incentive and promote consumer spending. I think this can be best

accomplished by the Republican incentive, but I also can see the merits and goals of the

Democrats; so on this issue I have the Republican view leaning slightly Democratic.

On the issue of international trade, I find myself leaning more Republican towards

allowing global markets to function. The Republican beliefs consist of free and fair trade

to promote globalization and the interaction of international markets. The Republicans

want to, “work with other countries to reduce barriers to our products and services”

(Republican Party Platform). Both the Democrats and Republicans acknowledge the

benefits of international trade, but the Republicans are arguably more for it. Both parties

acknowledge domestic gains from exports: The Republicans tell that: Exports accounted

for about 25 percent of the economic growth in the 1990s and supported about 12 million

jobs (Republican Party Platform), and the Democrats tell that: Exports sustain about 1 in

5 American factory jobs. Open markets spur innovation, speed the growth of new

industries, and make our businesses more competitive. We will make it a priority to

knock down barriers to free, fair and balanced trade soother nation's markets are as open
 Jeremy Keeshin

as our own (Strong at Home). From this it appears that generally, both opposing parties

favor free trade and accessible markets. This is a more economically liberal policy and is

generally more Republican. It is only the nuances which reveal each parties sway. Both

try to promote maintaining domestic jobs, but it is only the Democrats who truly crack

down on outsourcing. The Democrats say they will “Fight for American jobs and we will

fight for American workers….We will revive America's manufacturing sector, create new

jobs and protect existing ones by ending tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas

and cutting taxes for companies that create jobs here at home” (Strong at Home). This is

more clearly a protectionist perspective and against the openness of markets. The

Republicans want to do more for fair trade and specifically they have goals to get China

to stop manipulating its currency (Republican Party Platform).

My views on international trade side more towards the Republicans, but once

again I sympathize and lean towards the Democrats. I think that trade should be as free as

it can be and as fair as it can be and I do not think there should be any disclaimers. I think

when you talk about keeping domestic jobs and preventing outsourcing and off-shoring, I

stand even more towards a free global market view. I feel like a typical nationalist and

protectionist complaint is that we are losing jobs to countries where they can be done for

cheaper, like India and China. However I think this is a much different issue. In his

article, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich argues that jobs are not being lost, it is

just that the nature of jobs is changing. He argues that we are moving from an economy

filled with routine factory jobs to an economy based on jobs that he classifies as

“personal service” and “symbolic analysts” (Reich). I think that we are in a short term

time period experiencing domestic structural unemployment as routine jobs are becoming
 Jeremy Keeshin

moot and unnecessary in the United States. The quality of the job is increasing in the

United States, while in countries like Mexico, India, and China, this type of job is still

heavily demanded because of the poor nature of their economy. I do not see outsourcing

and maintaining domestic jobs as a problem in our economy as the Democrats do. Both

parties obviously want people in the United States to have jobs. However I do not think it

is bad if many of the menial jobs get exported while demand for a different type of job

increases here. The problem here, as Reich mentions, is that domestic unemployment can

exist because young people are not educated enough or ready for the change in the type

of work. Many of these new jobs require a college education, and that is something that

should be more pursued that preventing outsourcing. Reich says, “The long-term solution

is to help spur upward mobility by getting more Americans a good education, including

access to college” (Reich). As Reich argues and as the Republicans argue, I think free

trade, no matter how it is, is better than protectionism and tariffs.

The issue of health care, poverty, and government aid are very touchy and

important in our economy. The Democratic view is one that promotes a more universal

access to health care and really driving down costs. Additionally Democrats promote

welfare, as opposed to Republicans who are more for fostering independence in the poor

and not babying them with help. The Democrats argue, “Nearly 82 million Americans

went without health care coverage at some point in the last two years. And the President

has done nothing to bring costs down or lift these burdens. The few small proposals he

has offered would further divide our health system between one that is affordable for the

healthy and wealthy, and one that is unaffordable for the elderly, the sick, and

increasingly, for America's broad middle class (Strong at Home). They fault the
 Jeremy Keeshin

Republicans for carrying an administration that does not offer health care to all, and

health care that costs too much to be accessible. Democrats “oppose privatizing

Medicare. We will not allow Republicans to destroy a commitment that has done so much

good for so many seniors and people with disabilities over the past 39 years. Instead, we

want to strengthen Medicare and make it more efficient” (Strong at Home). The

Republican view is more worried about the dependence and inefficiencies in a

governmental Medicaid and Social Security system rather than getting care to all.

Democrats to not want the citizens to sacrifice one need for another: “We will end the

disgrace of seniors being forced to choose between meals and medication….In the

wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth, no one should have to choose between taking

their child to a doctor and paying the rent” (Strong at Home). They want complete

availability and affordable prices.

On the issue of medical care and welfare I side closely with the Democrats. I feel

in this crucial issue, morality and care cannot be sacrificed for the goal of efficiency. I

think the most important value of medical care and government aid is that anyone who

needs it can get it. I recognize the concern of overuse of health care with subsidized

governmental payments, and this is acknowledged by both parties. I think health care that

is public, affordable, and accessible to all should complement a private medical sector.

This issue should not be one that is completely private or completely public, but the

bottom line is, whichever way it is done, everyone must have access to it. Lou O’Malley

argues that it is great that the United States has this fantastic quality health care, but it is

terrible that not everyone has access. He argues that the care is great, if you happen to be

making an income over $125,000 (O’Malley). This is the flaw in American health care: It
 Jeremy Keeshin

would be great, if everyone could get it. This is why I side with the Democratic argument

to try and get health care accessible to everyone at a cost that is affordable to them,

because there should never be a point where someone cannot be helped because they

don’t have the money, as is the case in the move “John Q.” I also believe that with

governmental aid and welfare programs must be provided, but that the new TANF

program will make strides to relieve dependence. I think that welfare is necessary in the

short run, because when people need help they must get it then, but that it is not a long

run solution. I think that dependence on welfare must be eased off like a nicotine patch,

decreasing payments and promoting independence. Overall this causes me to side with

the Democrats on the issue of health care and welfare, but I acknowledge Republican

concerns of dependency but feel that they can be corrected.

On many of the issues in our country I find myself siding with the Republicans on

an issue I find purely economic, such as business interest, trade, and taxes; but I find

myself siding with the Democrats on moral societal and economic issues like health care,

welfare, and Social Security. I think that something that is distant from morality can be

dealt with economically, but I do not think this is the case for all goods and services. In

the realm of medical care and poverty, where when you need something you need it now,

a Classical long run market solution is not satisfactory. It is in this instance where I feel

government intervention and its inefficiencies are necessary. I think that as a society we

must look out for both our social and economic good, but when pressing problems arise,

inefficiencies must be forgotten so that people can be handed as people, not numbers,

costs, and labels.

 Jeremy Keeshin

Works Cited

“2004 Republican Party Platform: A Safer World and a More Hopeful America.” The

Republican Party. 2004. Republican National Committee. 26 May 2007. <http://

www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf>.

Becker, Gary S., et al. “The Double Benefit of Tax Cuts.” Wall Street Journal 7 Oct.

2003.

O’Malley, Lou. “A fix for health care is coming; let’s make sure we’re all included.”

Green Bay Press Gazette 27 Nov. 2003: A-7.

Reich, Robert B. “Nice Work if You Can Get It.” Wall Street Journal 26 Dec. 2003.

"Strong at Home, Respected in the World: The 2004 Democratic National Platform for

America". The Democratic Party. 2004. Democratic National Convention

Committee, Inc. 26 May 2007 <http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.p

df>.

The World Factbook. 15 May 2007. Central Intelligence Agency. 26 May 2007 <

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html>.