Is there a rules-based explanation for the low interest rates and quantitative easing undertaken by the Federal Reserve following the Global Financial Crisis? The question is important as it pertains to the ongoing debate between rules-based and discretionary monetary policy. It is also important in the search for a Taylor Rule modification that can fill in the gap left by the breakdown of the original rule following the GFC. This paper examines a recent Taylor Rule modification proposed from James Bullard, President of the St. Louis Federal Reserve, to see if this modification can explain Fed actions following the GFC. The modification is analyzed in the same two ways that the original Taylor Rule was evaluated. Namely, this paper tests the economic logic of the modification as well as examines how well the rule's policy rate prescription has fit the actual federal funds rate over time. The economic logic of the modification is examined during recessions. The fit between the rule's policy rate prescription and the actual federal funds rate is examined using r-squared. I conclude that by changing the neutral rate in a Taylor-type rule, Bullard provides a credible policy rule that helps explain Fed behavior following the GFC.

The first section of this thesis covers the welfare state and a brief history of private charity in the United States over the past century, both explaining and describing their growth and decline. The second section outlines the historical evolution of the Food Stamp Program since the John F. Kennedy presidency to SNAP under the Obama administration. The third and final section specifically discusses the current food assistance program called SNAP and the potential reforms that can be made to the governmental program as well as reforms made to encourage private charity.

For the average person, the criminal justice system can be a bureaucratic and confusing process. It is for exactly these reasons, many defendants will choose to spend exorbitant amounts of money to prove their innocence or hide their guilt. Therefore, when thinking from an economic perspective, one begins to wonder whether or not the vast amounts of money allocated to building a legal defense, actually have statistical impact on the outcome of the sentence. Or, if perhaps it is the characteristics of the defendant, the case, or the judge that truly account for the determination of the final verdict.