McCain outlines market-based health care plan, which could bode badly for millions of employees.

Recently, candidate John McCain announced a development in his health care plan. He hopes to shift the focus away from employment-provided health care to one bought by the individual. To aid the plan he proposes the elimination of tax breaks that encourage employers to provide health care, and instead give $5,000 tax credits to families. The creation of a system that caters to individual families and not large masses of employees will hopefully, as per McCain, foster competition in the health insurance market.
An issue McCain faces is how to reconcile his vision with the real life needs of individuals with health care problems.
Employment-based health care would guarantee an insurance plan for every employee. The elimination of this would provide the possibility for an applicant to be denied insurance because of an existing health condition. Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Senator John Edwards, suggested that under McCain’s new plan even she and her husband could be denied health care.
Candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama recognize this problem and both vow to make discrimination based on health conditions illegal. Clinton believes that with McCain’s plan many Americans would lose job-based coverage, and Obama believes that even with tax credits many working class American families will lose the possibility of having affordable coverage.
Comparisons have been drawn between McCain’s individual-based plan and that of President Bush, which proved somewhat ineffective.

Now facing a food crisis in a struggling economy, how far should the U.S. go to aid others?

The U.S. faces the rising prices of every day goods due to the oil shock and the fact that the sales of many goods rely on the use of oil and gasoline. But the latest scare is not the $4.00 per gallon it costs to fill our gas tanks, but the $4.00 it costs to buy a medium box of Cheerios (I kid you not). Due to the volatility of crop markets and the overwhelming increasing demand for crops for biofuel, more families around the world are finding it more and more difficult to get access to food intended for consumption. Consumers in the U.S. are beginning to feel the weight of rising food prices on their wallets. Some predictions outline the possibility of drafting farmers and even a decimating worldwide famine.
An article in the New York Times today (5/2/08) discusses how President Bush is seeking more food aid for poor countries. Bush proposed spending "$770 million in emergency food assistance for poor countries" (NYT) yesterday. The proposal emphasized how the food crisis has risen to the top of the agenda, outweighing the conflict in Iraq and the struggling U.S. economy.
President Bush also asked other countries to lift trade barriers on agricultural trades and bans on genetically modified food.
This all sounds well and good, but the proposed increase is a very small percentage of the $62 billion that the government was already expected to spend on domestic food programs. Given that the proposed emergency food assistance amount is relatively small compared to domestic food programs and would only be a temporary fix for poor foreign countries, one must wonder whether the program is worth the government spending an extra $770 million on foreign aid on top of the $9.4 trillion deficit.
If this is a development effort instead of a purely humanitarian act, then the U.S. can benefit from long-term economic growth from these regions. But is this a genuine effort to help poorer countries, or is the President allocating this large (yet relatively tiny) amount of money to foreign aid in order to appease the compassionate masses of American citizens? Shouldn't the President focus solely on domestic food programs at this time? With so many poverty-stricken and starving families in the U.S., why does our President choose to extend the already thin-stretched arm of the U.S. to help starving families elsewhere?

Media- The All Powerful

Does Obama still have a considerable lead for the Indiana and North Carolina Democratic primaries this coming Tuesday? After the media drew so much emphasis on Senator Barrack Obama’s ex-pastor, Jeremiah Wright Jr., Obama’s lead in both North Carolina and Indiana has been cut. According to the national survey by the Pew Research center, Obama has a “47-45 lead over Clinton, a statistical tie when you take in the poll’s margin for error.” And how about the twenty point lead Obama had in North Carolina? Well consider it gone with the polls indicating Obama with only a 49-42 lead.

The media’s intense scrutiny on Reverend Wright’s remarks has taken a turn on Obama’s campaign. The race is tight, with Clinton leading with Superdelegate 259-241 and Obama leading with overall delegates 1,734 to 1,592. The scandal of Reverend Wright’s remarks has weakened Obama’s campaign. This is a crucial time in the primaries for Obama and Clinton. Each endorsement and delegate counts. Although Obama’s home state is Indiana, Clinton is winning endorsements from the Indianapolis Star and mayors in northwest Indiana. The Reverend controversy hasn’t affected the support of delegates though, considering that Obama is gaining superdelegate votes. Yet, with the voters, this has had considerable affect on their perception on Obama’s campaign. Obama recently commented on the last few weeks and the media mayhem of the scandel. “Obviously, we’ve had to fight through over the last week an awful lot of noise – that’s just a fact,” Mr. Obama told reporters. He added, “I think the American voters don’t want a whole bunch of drama. What they’re looking for is can you solve my problems?” But with all the media attention focusing of Obama’s surrounded scandal, he is losing his significant lead. As the New York Times writes, "Fifty-one percent of Democratic primary voters say they expect Mr. Obama to win their party’s nomination, down from 69 percent a month ago. " The last few weeks have been an example of how the media can alter the public’s perception. With stories and headlines like the Reverend conflict, the media has significant power controlling the outcome of this race. Does the media have the most influence on the effect of an election?

Senator McCain Takes a Look Through the Microscope

On the stump in Cleveland, Ohio, Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain appealed to health care voters on his "Call to Action" tour. Emphasizing the need to mitigate costs and increase access to health care, the presidential candidate laid out his comprehensive health care plan behind the pulpit of the Cleveland Clinic, the world-renown medical research center in the heart of economically-depressed America. In an attempt to better understand the presidential candidates' health care plans, the Cleveland Clinic extended an invitation to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. However, since the Democratic Party has yet to determine its presidential nominee, Clinton and Obama will speak at the Cleveland Clinic later this year.

With a cut-away shot of a multicultural palette of white-vested doctors and "scrubbed-in" nurses, Senator McCain's campaign did a very good job of making McCain's health care plan look like it was backed by the medical community. Offering health care reform that returns the choices to the people, McCain outlined a proposal to grant a "$5,000 tax credit each year for families who pay for health care insurance out of their own pockets ($2,500 for individuals)." Unfortunately, as nonpartisan FactCheck.org points out, this tax-incentive-based policy could deter employers from offering comprehensive health care plans. The fear is that shifting the tax rebate from the employer to the employee would cause employers to reduce or eliminate their existing health care plans, which would greatly affect the estimated 61% of Americans who receive health care benefits through their employers.

Despite McCain's detrimental health care proposal, there is hope! Thanks to separation of powers and checks and balances Senator McCain's health care proposal may not get anywhere in Congress, or it may take him forever to get anything passed! However, with the example of President Bush's abusive eight year relationship with executive power, Senator McCain could issue an executive order mandating his health care plan. If the Democrats can maintain control of the Congress and achieve the vital 60 votes in the Senate, though, McCain (and health care) won't be going anywhere. Of course, this is all on the assumption that Senator McCain survives through November. Who knows, maybe the invisible hand of the electoral college will prevail once again.

Why Obama Reaps Contributions from Donors of Former Rivals

Ever since John Edwards dropped out of the Democratic presidential primary at the end of January 2008, the media has focused public attention towards the tallying of how many superdelegates and primary votes Obama and Clinton are each getting in their head-to-head race. The LA Times printed an article today addressing why there has been little public competition between Obama and Clinton for the campaign donors of their former rivals.

Although Obama receives endorsement from Richardson and Sen. Chris Dodd while Edwards and Biden remain neutral, there must be a greater underlying factor as to why these ‘dropped-candidate’ Democrats are notably favoring Obama. LA Times writer Dan Morain interprets that Obama's $2 million over Clinton’s $900,000, collected in only two months of February and March, suggests that “Many Democrats take an ‘Anybody but Clinton’ view. Morain quotes San Jose State University political scientist Larry N. Gerston, who said, “[Clinton] is the establishment candidate...[these donors are] saying 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend.' By going with Obama, they are perpetuating the possibility that it is ABC -- anybody but Clinton."

The Times’ data was collected and evaluated before Obama stumbled by making remarks that political critics have labeled elitist, and also before Obama’s embarrassment with his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. Nevertheless, the finger pointing, by both Obama and Clinton campaigns, by the media, and by the American people following the Presidential primary election, of which candidate is the establishment candidate, started in the beginning of the election and continues. If the media keeps focusing their attention on who has the best chance of winning in the democratic primary, then the average American is bound to get caught up in the media-produced hype.

How was this "Anybody But Clinton" sentiment created? Past Presidential elections and the current election demonstrates that the media promotes establishment candidates who represent big businesses. In the beginning of the primaries, when Clinton was portrayed by the media as a well-funded candidate with various resources, various factors led Americans to close the gap between support for Obama and Clinton. Perhaps American voters just don’t like to be told by the media, or any political institution, of how they are going to vote. Also, it is quite possible that the media incentive to promote the establishment candidate causes ‘dropped-candidate’ Democrats to donate large sums of money to Obama. The result that is created sends a big message from American Presidential campaign donors not only to the FEC, but also to election followers all over the United States.

Don Cazayoux: not in the House yet, but he's sure got home style

The New York Times and the Washington Post have a posting each today about a closely contested race for a Louisiana House seat. In the special election this Saturday (prompted by the resignation of the district's 34-year Republican incumbent), 6th District voters will have a tough choice to make between hard-line social conservative Woody Jenkins and, well, hard-line social conservative Don Cazayoux. Cazayoux, a Democrat, has so far worked extremely hard to distance himself from the national party establishment in order to gain a foothold in a very red district. According to the Times, the candidate has publicly expressed support for John McCain while avoiding mention of either Clinton or Obama, highlighted his endorsement from the House's conservative Blue Dog Democrats coalition, and maintained an image as a bipartisan. He's also emphasized his "nonnegotiable" pro-family, pro-life values and his support for 2nd amendment rights.

Of course, for every step Cazayoux takes to distance himself from the Democrats, his opponent, Jenkins, has tried to bring the party closer. Jenkins has dismissed Cazayoux's conservative "talk" as a standard "tactic of the Democratic Party," and pointed out that Republicans need as many seats as they can get in the Democrat-controlled Congress. The Times article quotes a (third party-funded) campaign commercial: "'A vote for Don Cazayoux is a vote to increase Nancy Pelosi’s and Hillary Clinton’s liberal majority in Congress.'"

Cazayoux's struggle is a great example of how important it is for locally-elected members of Congress to tailor their images and messages to their constituencies. Personally it's surprising that Jenkins hasn't exploited one of the biggest flaws in Cazayoux's anti-party establishment stance: even if Cazayoux doesn't support his DC colleagues, they are absolutely supporting him. The Washington Post blog Capitol Briefing reports that in recent weeks a large chunk of Cazayoux's campaign financing has come from Democrats in Congress, "demonstrating how important this race is to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."

ID Required!!

On Monday, the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter identification law. In a 6-3 vote, the court ruled that the law, which requires citizens to present a valid government-issued ID when they vote, does not violate their First or Fourteenth Amendment. The court believes that the state has a “valid interest” in trying to prevent voter fraud from affecting elections. However, challengers of this law argued that it unfairly places a burden on voters who are old, a minority or poor because they are less likely to have a driver’s licenses or other acceptable forms of identification. Democrats, who have vigorously opposed the law since people in these groups tend to belong to their party, feel that the real motivation behind the law is not to prevent voter fraud, which is practically non-existent, but rather to give the republican voter and party an advantage. The court, however, felt that the people opposed to the law failed to produce a single individual who had been deeply affected by the requirements.

The court also believes, as Justice Scalia said, that “The law should be upheld because its overall burden is minimal and justified.” The voter identification law allows those who do not have proper identification to place a provisional ballot, and then appear at their county courthouse within 10 days to show identification. Not only that, the law also makes provisions for people in nursing homes. Although there is a federal law imposing some ID requirements, this case reaffirmed the idea of federalism as the Supreme Court left it up to the States to decide whether they want to impose a more rigorous identification law.

"Thrown Under a Bus"

What was he supposed to do? Just keep on one of his most fervent supporters who continually bashes the US in all ways possible? No. Sen. Obama did the right thing in "disowning" Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his spiritual guide for the last twenty years. But did he do it in time or with enough effect?

Earlier this year, some videos started circling on YouTube of the Reverend's sermons, in which he accuses past governments for giving HIV/AIDs to black men and the Bush administration of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks. These remarks, along with many others, soon found their way to major news networks and have bestowed Rev. Wright the description of the most outrageous supporter of any Presidential candidate ever.

So, this last Tuesday, Sen. Obama officially denounced the Reverend, saying that "I want to...make people absolutely clear that obviously whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed as a consequence of [his comments]." He made it clear that from now on, when Rev. Wright speaks, he is not doing it for the campaign.

With all the media attention, Rev. Wright gets his fifteen minutes of fame; however, in the end it severely hurts his reputation and his relationships with other African American leaders in the US. Not only does it hurt Wright, but it also hurts Obama. Throughout the campaign season, Obama has been trying to avoid the "race" questions, for fear of the label of the "Black candidate", which could cause him to loose the support of white voters in November (granted he gets the nomination). I personally fear that Jeremiah Wright's comments have tarnished Barak Obama's appeal. If he were to get the nomination in August, he would have to continually battle the right over this issue; with the influence the media has on elections these days, it is pretty well guaranteed that the Reverend will never disappear.

Clinton Threatens Against Iranian Threat

Iran has sent the UN a formal protest condemning Senator Hillary Clinton's remarks about Iran that she made on "Good Morning America." on April 22nd. She stated, "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacked Israel)," and goes on to explain that "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
She does explain that while this is a terrible thing to say she is aiming this at the "people who run Iran" and hopes to deter any nuclear action by taking such a bold stance. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday night that Iran is "hell-bent" on acquiring nuclear weapons, which explains Clinton's fear of a potential attack, but that such a threat shouldn't push the US into another war right now.
Mehdi Danesh-Yazdi, Iran’s deputy ambassador to the United Nations, was the one to submit the letter of protest to the United Nations secretary general and the United Nations Security Council. He labeled the comments as “provocative, unwarranted and irresponsible” and “a flagrant violation” of the United Nations charter. He went on to say that Iran has no intention of attacking any other country right now but would not hesitate to do so to protect itself.
Clinton has been known to take a much harsher stance on an Iranian attack on Israel than her opponent Senator Barack Obama because, according to Republican nominee John McCain, "Obama's willingness to have diplomatic talks with nations like Iran." McCain, in the same article, goes on to claim that Hamas wants Obama to win the election. He said, "I think it is very clear... why they would not want me to be president of the United States, so if Sen. Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly."

Left Behind?

One billion dollars a year is spent on the Reading First program, a part of the Bush Administration’s notorious No Child Left Behind Act. This initiative is meant to help children reach grade reading level by grade 3.

Just one problem. It may not be.

A study released Thursday (May 1st) by the Institute of Education Sciences shows that there is no difference in reading comprehension scores between students at schools who participated in Reading First and those who didn’t. Previously cited studies showed numbers up, but that was relative to the same school before the program was in place, rather than comparing it to schools that haven’t used the program.

Granted, this is one study – and a problematic one, at that. Eduwonk points out that we have no idea how well the program was implemented in these schools. Perhaps, if used differently, its effects would be more evident. But it’s difficult to dispute the fact that Reading First is teaching some, if not many, children how to read for the first time. And as much as we may want NCLB to be yet another mishap to add to the Bush tenure, we’d like children to read – even if that means the guy in the White House gets a little credit.

Are journalists the new trustees of American democracy?

For the first time in a competitive race for the White House, the media is urging a candidate to drop out of the election. Although Clinton trails Obama only by 140 delegates and voters’ anticipation of Obama’s primary win is quickly dropping, many journalists are turning anti-Clinton.

The media is urging Clinton to put aside her ego and drop out of the race. Although many bloggers and Democrats are arguing that this competition is hurting the Democrats in the upcoming general election, most journalists are attacking Clinton for very different reasons.

According to Eric Boehlert, a blogger for MediaMatters.com, the attacking media is acting elitist and has taken on too much of a driving force in the election. Beyond this overstepping of boundaries, journalists are making personal attacks against Clinton rather than the usual policy or strategy attacks.

Attacks are not only being made by lesser known papers, but nationally published publications such as New York Magazine. In John Heilemann’s “Who’ll stop the pain,” he asks “How can Clinton be stopped from putting the party through three more months of hell?” Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter wrote that “The conventional view is that the Clintons approach power the way hard-core gun owners approach a weapon—they'll give it up only when it's wrenched from their cold, dead fingers.” These are not quite the appealing visuals for the possible next president of the United States.

This may not be as shocking if there were cases like this in the past. However, Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson all campaigned through the Democratic Convention with little chance of taking the nomination. Yet none of them were pressured by the media to exit the election at any time, especially in March. It is difficult to say whether this is simply a personal attack against Hillary or if this will be the new style of journalism for elections to come. One thing is for sure though- journalists are taking on the role of trustees of our democracy whether we like it or not.

Latin America: The Last Frontier

The upcoming presidential election is a battle fought on not only US turf but also overseas. Hence, Latin America is no exception. In June of 2007 presidential nominee John McCain gave a speech on Latin America, addressing not only the rising economic and political credentials of many countries but also a US responsibility that needs to be revitalized.

In his speech, McCain specifically addressed the Central American Free Trade Agreement and other trade agreements the US has made with its neighbors. McCain did a great job peppering his speech on Latin America with examples of persuasive words, such as North and South American brotherhood, broad promises, scapegoats and plenty of statements "from the heart." Specifically, McCain suggests opening up more trade with long time partners Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Columbia. By expanding trade the US would benefit enormously in not only the skyrocketing price of energy but also increasing food prices.

However, McCain couldn't help but comment on the other aspect of "American brotherhood," moving from economic issues to security- mainly Hugo Chávez, the popular antagonist of the current Bush administration. McCain's solution? Americans need to decrease their dependence on foreign oil. This is not just for an economic or environmentalist purpose, but also as a "matter of US national security." Various other risks still exist in addition to Chávez, such as massive networks of drug lords and the rise of terrorist groups, some even related to Hamas and Hezbollah.

The combination of evil dictators, energy crisis, drug smugglers and the spread of terrorist organizations not only gives McCain a sense of urgency but perhaps even legitimacy for reacting to international fears. He has covered just about every concern an American could have.

The US needs a new international image, and fast. So, what happens if McCain actually pulls through and advances with his plans? Instead of Bush's Middle East, McCain will have his own claim to fame. Up and coming policy includes, “…Measures designed to accelerate broad economic growth, build the rule of law, and extent the scope of government authority to lawless areas."

Forget that partnership.

Darfur: Apparently, too much for Bush to handle...

Or even try to handle. But what about the future?

The war in Darfur -- referred to some, including the United States, as a genocide -- began in February of 2003. Since then, more than 2 million people have been forced from their homes (one third of the people); as many as 400, 000 people have been killed; and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, has called the Darfur Conflict "the largest and most complex humanitarian problem on the globe." Yet no matter how bad the conflict/war/genocide seems to get, President Bush is still reluctant to actually do anything.

Yet what can Bush really do? Attempting to remain in control of the situation in Iraq is hard enough to, not to mention our endless domestic problems that could use some attention, such as education, stem cell research (he cut medical research spending), and health care. It appears that Bush is too preoccupied to really give Darfur that much attention; although he says that he has a firm, heartfelt commitment to the continent of Africa," there is only a slow deployment of UNAMID (the peacekeeping force scheduled to reach full deployment over three months ago), and for President Bush, the "only alternative to this was not sending any U.S troops at all."

Meanwhile, many organizations, such as Save Darfur, are calling for a stronger leadership from Bush. Save Darfur applauds Bush for at least doing something, which is more than what many other world leaders and countries are doing (including China, who has major oil ties with the Sudanese government and is therefore doing nothing to stop the genocide). The good news is, there is hope (at least for the U.S's involvement). Both presidential candidates Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama have both gotten "A+" ratings from "Darfur Action Ratings for Presidential Candidates in Congress," while John McCain got a B (not horrible, considering there was also a C, D, and F). All I can say is, thank goodness for 2009!

The Dumbest Thing

In an effort to boost her popularity amongst middle-class primary voters in North Carolina and Indiana, Sen. Hillary Clinton is supporting a so-called “gas-tax holiday” for the summer. Basically, the consumer burden of the tax on gas will be temporary lifted, leading to cheaper gas prices for the next three months. This measure is also supported by Sen. John McCain but vehemently opposed by Sen. Barack Obama, making the gas issue one of the few points of disagreement between Clinton and Obama. While Sen. Clinton’s ability to distinguish herself in the Democratic race will prove crucial in these coming months, supporting bad policy is not the way to go. A temporary lift of the gas-tax during the summer would only prove more costly in the fall.

First of all, government intervention alters incentives. A tax-lift would just make Americans consume more gas during the summer. Gas is currently so expensive because there is a SHORTAGE; the high prices are there to discourage consumption. Suspending the gas-tax would also be unfavorable to the environment as pollution levels would rise proportional to the price drop. Third, a tax-suspension is projected to cause a loss of nine billion dollars over the summer, money that would normally go towards a fund for the maintenance of highways.

Warning bells should be sounding at the Clinton and McCain camps if such prominent economists as N.Gregory Mankiw (who writes textbooks) are speaking out against the tax lift. Sadly, Clinton and McCain’s grand ideas are more likely to appeal to the voters than Obama’s truth-telling. However, if he can explain himself, the Illinois senator just might come out on top. Obama, in his protest against the tax-lift, seems to be the only economically sane candidate on this issue.

Now, if only he would stop supporting ethanol…

Stagflation Ahead?

America is facing an economic downturn now with slow economic growth and rising unemployment. Recent economic indicators point to the possibility of stagflation -- a slowdown in economic activity combined with rising prices not seen since the 1970s.

Many predicted that a recession is forthcoming. Yet, economists for UBS Bank said in a recent research report that "it is not coming, it is here". The bank estimates that the U.S. economy is in a mild recession already.

Spending is deemed as the primary engine of the economy, accounting for more than two-thirds of GDP of the U.S. Yet, earlier report on the economy' s performance in the first quarter released recently by the Commerce Department showed that consumption is at its weakest point since the recession of 2001. It is expected that spending will go up slightly after the government mails out tax rebates in an effort to stimulate the economy later this month. However, many economists believed that the coming rebates can only help to alleviate the crisis temporarily, but are not likely to prop up sales for long, as Nigel Gault, chief United States economist at Global Insight has pointed out: "Any burst of spending based on the stimulus payments is likely to short-lived"

The crisis poses a dilemma for the Fed as well. On one hand, it tries to use an expansionary monetary policy to fight for recession, while on the other hand, it has to keep price pressures in check as there are signs of inflation in the air brought by the high food and energy prices.

Construction and manufacturing sectors also show the sign of recession, "as residential construction fell sharply in March, shrinking 4.6 percent as builders cut back on groundbreakings or stopped work on projects". Mean while, "manufacturing activity stayed flat in April as companies laid of workers"

Economists therefore believe that unemployment rate will also rise consequently. In fact, unemployment rate has slipped to 4.9% in January, and there was a net loss of 17,000 jobs in the same month, according to the Labor Department reading. Financial forecast center even forecasted that the number would jump to 5.2% in May.

Theoretically speaking, stagflation will pose a serious dilemma for the central bank, as policies that are usually used to increase economic growth will further increase runaway inflation while policies used to fight inflation will further the decline of an already-declining economy. Therefore, some say that it is an impossible task for the Fed to find a perfect interest rate in a stagflation scenario to solve the problem effectively.

In history, stagflation hit most of the developed world and the United States in the 1970s. President Richard Nixon was so concerned about 4 percent inflation in 1971 that he imposed wage and price controls to reign in it. So what were the presidential candidates' reactions to this potential stagflation? Senator Barack Obama addressed the issue in a speech in February. He said:"I won't just raise the minimum wage every 10 years. I want to raise it every year to keep pace with inflation, because if you work in America, you should not be poor". Senator, John McCain, however, blamed overspending by the federal government in part for the nation’s economic troubles. He said in January:“As a Republican, I stand before you embarrassed. Embarrassed that we let that spending get out of control...The economy is not good. The stock market continues down. And the indicators are not good. I’m not too astonished…. We let spending get totally out of control, and it continues today, and I’m sorry to tell you this,” However, government spending seems to have nothing to do with economic growth. Government spending, instead, historically promoted economic growth.

Source: NYTimes, PBS, ABCNews