What if higher taxes, free healthcare, and longer vacations made you happier?

This next week we are going to talk about Norway and Sweden -- two examples of socialist democracies in world politics. We will compare these two countries with the United States.

An important way that socialist democracies provide benefits to their citizens is through higher taxation. Look at this article, it compares taxation rates in the US with those in Norway between three examples. The Norwegian citizen pays 43.9% of their income in taxes, the two Americans paid considerably less: one paying 33% and the other paying 28%.

What do you get for all those taxes?

This short CNN video briefly compares the US and Norwegian healthcare systems.  Here is what a transfer student who goes to Norway to study at a Norwegian university would receive -- full national medical care, which is the same for all citizens.

Similarly, as the final Sakai Discussion Forum's assignment indicates, work life in Sweden is of higher quality compared to the vast majority of countries around the world, including the US. Workers have several weeks of paid vacation yearly, a shorter work week, extended maternity leave, a better work-home life balance, and less stress because people have more time to enjoy their lives and less worry about their economic future.

In general, citizens of Norway seem to be happier (and here is a video too) than citizens in other countries -- and citizens in Europe and especially northern Europe with the more socialistic democracies are the happiest places on earth right now.  

What do you think?

Would you agree to pay higher taxes if you had the guaranteed benefits that citizens of Norway and Sweden receive? Why do you support such a system or why do you oppose such a social welfare system? Do you think such a healthcare and system is even possible or desirable in America?
 

Wealth, Poverty, and the US Government

Most of you agreed that there are economic classes in America. Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) has a total of 535 members who are directly elected by you to represent your interests in Washington, DC. While 47% of Congress are millionaires, only 1% of the American population are millionaires. The average Senator is worth $2.5 million and the average house member is worth $746 thousand. And while the economic recession has hurt many Americans over the past few years, the wealthiest members of Congress have continued to get wealthier.

Watch this video and note how the people on the street imagine America to be more equal than it actually is. It turns out that America has an extraordinarily high level of economic inequality -- much greater than any other advanced industrialized country in the world and far more unequal compared to countries like Sweden or Norway.

Here is my point: Wealthy and upper middle class elites are disproportionately represented in Congress. And, a very small number of very wealthy people own the vast majority of income and property in America. Wealthy American citizens exercise greater influence over Congress and own most of the stuff around the country -- poor and working class Americans exercise way less influence over Congress and own way less stuff in America.    

What do you think?

Can a millionaire properly represent your economic interests? Does a millionaire know what it is like to be poor or middle class? Why do you suppose that poor and middle class people continue to elect millionaires to Congress? Could electing millionaires actually hurt poor and middle class Americans? Would America be more economically equal if more poor and working class citizens were elected to political office?

Holding Democratically Elected Officials Accountable: The Classified Leak

We've been talking about democratic politics over the past couple of weeks. One important component of a properly functioning democracy is that the elected rulers should be held accountable to the ruled

Two ways that leaders are held accountable is by 1. voting = citizens select who they want as leaders or representatives 2. adversarial justification = representatives face the criticisms and questions of citizens and justify why they are making certain policy decisions.

I want to talk a bit more about adversarial justification. Adversarial justification occurs in a number of ways. One example of formally accepted type of adversarial justification is the press pool, which is where the US President speaks to and takes questions from news reporters. Another type of adversarial justification that is potentially illegal is the classified leak, which is where a person slips secret information out to the public. Leaking classified information to the public is one way of trying to make leaders talk about and justify secret policies that impact citizens' lives -- it is a form of adversarial justification.

Edward Snowden recently leaked a series of documents to the news media. These documents show how secret government security policies are potentially impacting your life. This leak is pushing political elites, like President Obama, to talk about and justify these policies to American citizens and the international public.

Leaking is controversial. Some political elites say that leaking harms US national interests. Other political organizations say that leaking has helped build their case against government overreach and infringement on individual civil liberties.

What do you think?

Do you agree or disagree that leaks of secret information are an important component of a democracy? Should there be more leaks of classified information? Is this better for democracy or can a leak hurt a democracy? Are there limits on what should be leaked? When is leaking more of a problem for democracy?