Voter Turnout

by Rachel Gross

The United States is a representative democracy, in which government officials are selected by the people they represent. Elections are the bases of democracy, and without expressing our opinions by voting we relatively have no say in what may happen after the election. However, voter turnout has been on the decline in recent years. America has one of the lowest rates of voter participation of any democracy in the world. Even in a presidential general election, only about half the eligible voters turn out. In the presidential primary process and in state and local elections, the participation rate is even lower.

I believe that low voter turnout is a problem mainly because if there aren’t enough people showing up to vote then the results will not accurately reflect public opinion.   Democracy was created to represent the people and their beliefs, which unfortunately cannot be possible if citizens are not voicing their opinions through voting. I think that voter turnout will continue to decline if we don’t do something about it.

One way we can improve the participation of Americans in elections is by adopting one single set of laws to become a registered voter.  Currently, there are 50 different sets of laws for voting registration, each state having its own.  When registration becomes complicated, many citizens tend to not even become registered voters simply because the process is such a hassle. Having only one set of registration laws for the entire nation makes things but simpler and I believe that participation will significantly increase

Low Voter Turnout: A Recipe for an Unhealthy Democracy

by Allie Pizzuto

Low voter turnout in the United States is a pervasive problem that requires our prompt attention.  Citizens of the Unites States have the privilege to elect the President and members of Congress.  This privilege serves as the backbone of our nation’s representative form of democratic government.   If we do not participate in national elections, then it is more likely than not that our elected officials will not truly represent a broad cross section of our citizenry.  This will adversely impact federal laws passed in America, and also serve to weaken our national and international interests.  Actively participating in national elections serves to strengthen the legitimacy of our government, which is significantly weakened due to low voter turnout. 

           

Historically, voter turnout has swung like a pendulum over the years, rising and falling from one national election to another but never rising to levels of turnout experienced by other Western democracies.  Interestingly, voter turnout in U.S. national elections rose dramatically over a twelve year period from 1948 to 1960, but systematically dropped in almost every election afterwards until 1988 when voter turnout represented not more than fifty percent of the eligible voter pool.   Voter turnout has yet again swung like a pendulum since 1988.  For example, in 1996 voter turnout represented 52.6% of the eligible voter pool and by 2004 surpassed the 1968 level and grew to a healthier 61%.

           

Voter turnout is adversely affected by socio-economic factors such as the income levels of eligible voters.  Apparently, one study found significant inconsistencies among voter participation across wage earners, noting that approximately 86% of the eligible voter pool earning more than $75,000 indicated that they cast their votes to elect the nation’s president while only 52% of eligible voters earning less than $15,000 participated in a presidential election.   This necessarily demonstrates that America’s political process is highly influenced by the opinions of our citizens who command a higher income.  Similarly, perceived differences among eligible voters regarding their ability to effect change in national policy gives rise to low voter participation and an overall disengagement from political participation.    

In addition to socio-economic factors, other barriers such as registration issues and inconvenient election voting schedules (e.g., voting during the workday) gives rise to low voter turnout.  These barriers inflate the current levels of inequality that already exist in voter turnout participation among eligible voters in the low to high income brackets.  One solution to increase voter turnout would be to remove these barriers and significantly lessen the gap that exists in discrepancies among eligible voters.  For example, additional eligible voters who usually forego voting would probably participate in national elections if they were able to vote on a weekend (rather than during the workday).  Permitting weekend voting would also increase voter participation by eligible voters attending college on a full or part time basis. 

Although changes can be made to increase voter participation, motivating voters to actively participate in national elections and cast their votes is a stumbling block that is not easily overcome.  One way to instill motivation in eligible voters is to change misguided perceptions about voting.  Voting is not a passive activity, meaning that we do not simply cast a vote.  On the contrary, voting involves our active participation in understanding the issues and how the issues impact us, as human beings.  Active participation in the voting process is crucial to maintaining a strong democracy in America, which we will be unable to maintain over the long term if we continue to perceive voting as just casting a vote.  America’s citizens need to know that their identity and opinions matter, and that not only is it a privilege to vote and actively engage in America’s political process and future but it is also our civic duty. 

Make Us Vote

by Keerti Hariharan

Voter turnout is the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in an election. Low voter turnout, which is becoming increasingly popular in established democracies, is considered undesirable because the nation fails to get an accurate sense of what the majority wants. Low voter turnout in America could be due to indifference, laziness, or even ignorance. In the 2008 presidential election, voter turnout was 63%, and political scientists and economists are emphasizing the need to encourage more eligible citizens to vote and therefore demonstrate an accurate picture of the majority.

One reason, I believe, that citizens do not vote is that they feel their vote is insignificant. Eligible voters need to grasp the truth in the cliché: every vote counts. They need to understand the meaning of one's civic duties and understand that the privilege of citizenship comes with it a responsibility to vote.

To improve American participation, I think we need to emphasize the importance of voting in a democracy, which in its very definition requires the collective vote of the nation. If we as a nation began raising awareness to students in high school, I think we would see an improvement in participation, for many who don’t vote are simply uninformed. Taking a government class really helped raise my understanding of the importance of voting as a citizen and how this decrease in voting poses a problem for the U.S., which claims, in its democratic ways, to accurately represent the nation.

For the older generation, which wouldn't benefit from schools, perhaps trying what a few experiments tried in their attempts to increase voter participation. Several experiments were conducted during the primaries in various districts and often including reminders through mail. The concept of social pressures often arose and successfully increased voter turnout around 7 -15 % every time. One set of mail told voters that they were being studied. Another claimed that their neighbors would know whether or not the voted. A political scientist from Yale suggested that the mailings "might prick the civic conscience of a voter,” which I think is exactly what we should be doing one way or another.

Another experiment done was in Connecticut, when an "Election Day Poll Party" was organized and offered free sandwiches, a cotton-candy machine and a DJ. Turnout went up.

There are endless ways to improve American participation in elections and that the U.S. should really put in some time to raising awareness and improving voter turnout in the democratic nation.

The problem of low American voter turnout

by Anna Schlauch

Elections and voting are the most important aspects of democracy. Elections underlie the goals of democracy as they allow citizens to have influence over who is in office and how the government is run. Without the ability to vote, citizens would not have choices or a say in what is important and accountability of officials would not be ensured. A successful democracy requires elections and therefore could not exist without them.

Unfortunately, even though citizens know how important voting is to a successful democracy, voter turn out in America is very low compared to other democracies. In the United States, there are 222.5 million eligible voters, or citizens who are at least 18 years old. Among the population of eligible voters, about 65% are registered to vote, which narrows the population down to 146.5 million citizens. To even further narrow the number of voters, about 65% of register voters actually show up on election day to cast a ballot. Over the 20^th century, voter participation averaged only to about 50% in American presidential elections. It is no surprise that several other countries, such as Spain, France and Italy, have a much higher voter participation than this low percentage. These numbers clearly show that American voter turn out is without a doubt very low.

 In my opinion, the low voter turn out in our country is a problem. The main reason I believe so is if there aren’t enough people showing up to vote, the outcome of an election will not actually reflect the general population’s interests and needs. The main goal of American government is to represent and serve the people, but this cannot be accomplished if the people do not have a fair influence over who is in office. The only way to ensure that the most accountable candidate is chosen for office is if well educated and well informed citizens take the time to vote. If such citizens choose not to show up on election day, there is no way to ensure that the voice of the most informed voters will be heard. I also believe that a current low voter turn out will only lead to an even lower turn out in the future, so I think something needs to be done now to fix this problem before it gets even worse.

Although there are many possible ways to fix the low voter turn out in America, not all are reasonable. I think one reasonable way to improve American participation in elections is to make registration easier. As I noted earlier, about 65% of eligible voters are actually registered to vote. The only way to increase this number is to make registration easier. In America, states set registration laws, so there are 50 different sets of laws for voter registration. I believe that if there was one set of laws, registration would be perceived by citizens as much easier and more reasonable. This reform would make voter registration more uniform and would ensure that a citizen does not need to re-register if he/she chooses to move to a new state. A reform to make voter registration easier by making one uniform set of registration laws for the whole country would definitely help fix voter turn out in America. If registration is less of a hassle and more permanent, more citizens will register to vote, therefore increasing voter turn out in America. The only way to ensure a successful democracy is to increase the number of Americans who vote, something that will be achieved if voter registration is reformed.

April 2013 Prompt: Voting

For the last few weeks, we've been studying elections and voting behavior.  By now, you know that free elections are the backbone of successful democracy.  It seems fitting, therefore, to consider a couple of questions about voting.  Consider, is low American voter turnout a problem?  If you don't think so, please explain why not.  If you are concerned about low American voter turnout, then please identify and explain one way we can improve American participation in elections.

Budget Politics

by Jason Smith

I was willing to cut defense spending, non-defense spending, home mortgage interest     deduction and I didn't want to expand health insurance coverage. In total I saved $675 billion. I definitely chose to cut military spending because we need to stop focusing on international issues and use that money to focus on domestic issues. This perpetual war needs to stop. I was willing to cut non-defense spending because in my opinion private institutions can and should step up and give back with all of the money big business has. I understand education is a part of non-defense spending, but our education system is horrible and spending money on a horrible system makes things worse. The whole system needs to be changed if money is going to be spent there. I cut the home mortgage interest deduction because I think that could potentially help the housing market. Health insurance is also a system that needs reform even with this new reform because health insurance companies are beyond corrupt so the system needs to change before money is spent.

I wouldn't impose any more taxes because consumers shouldn't have to pay for problems that weren't caused by them. Carbon taxes are probably the dumbest idea for taxes ever because all it is doing is putting more money in the wrong people's wallets. I wouldn't reduce social security benefits because I don't know much about it.

Lower class people, government workers, and the military are affected by my cuts the most. Let's be honest though, this spending wasn't truly helping lower class people anyway. Poverty has to be dealt with in other ways and not simply by spending on things that don't help people in the long-run. I don't know how this makes me politically because my opinions aren't one sided. 

Fiscal Crisis

by Rina Dhawlikar

The fiscal crisis has been an ongoing issue in the United States Congress for the last several months because the United States is spending a lot more money than it’s revenue allows. While both Democrats and Republicans agree that the budget deficit needs to be reduced, they have had serious disagreements to come to a conclusion. While Republicans, especially the conservative right wing members do not want to touch defense spending but drastically cut Medicare and social security, democrats have taken the opposite view.  President Obama set up a By-Partisan Simpson-Bowls Commission to address this issue. However, the president did not follow through and accept their balanced approach. This led to the sequestration cut at the end of 2012, which ordered significant cuts in defense and government spending while allowing the bush era tax cuts to expire.

 In my opinion, the U.S congress should take a balanced approach to bridge the deficit gap. While cutting spending by two dollars for every one dollar in increasing taxes, this will lead to rapidly solving the fiscal crisis. Currently, the defense budget remains very big from the cold war era and defense requirements have not been cut down even though it ended in the last century.  Although new security threats and terrorism have emerged, these threats in my opinion are better fought by an international coalition of countries, which could substantially decrease the US financial burden. With the baby boomers aging, there is a significant increase in Medicare spending. I would make Medicare a need based program following means testing, making the rich pay more to get the benefits since they can afford this. But I would not cut Medicare for the poor and needy. Also, I would subject social security, so that the needy will get more than the super rich. This will cut the entitlement budget substantially in my opinion.

The budget can only be balanced if there is an increase in revenue as well. I agree with the Bush-era tax cuts being allowed to expire, which would generate income for the government.  Also, I would cut tax loopholes used by the rich such as Carried Interest. The cuts I make will be balanced and affecting the rich more than the needy, poor and the elderly. This will lead us to fiscal responsibility and prosperity through free market capitalism.  I think my views are more consistent with that of a left leaning moderate/ independent looking at both sides of the argument but making a decision somewhere in the middle, being fair.

The Difficult Deficit

by Val Renda

I have to say, I’m glad I’m not the one having to come up with solutions to minimize our national debt. This survey just proves how difficult it is to cut certain things out of the national budget while keeping others. The first time I took the survey, I realized I only made one cut of $115 billion by eliminating the deduction for state and local taxes. I made this cut because to me, this was an alternative to ending the expiring tax cuts, but on a lesser scale. I know this means that taxpayers would essentially pay more in taxes because they wouldn’t be able to itemize and deduct state and local taxes on income, etc., but it seemed like one of the more plausible options.

I took the survey again, after realizing that I didn’t do a good job of cutting anywhere near the $900 billion, and made cuts up to $533 billion that time. I was unwilling to cut Medicare benefits and Social Security benefits because I felt that the cuts would have too big of an impact, considering the size of the cuts. I also chose to keep the expansion of health insurance coverage. I decided to reduce defense spending because a huge part of our budget is for defense spending, and the proposed cuts over increments of time are reasonable and effective. I also chose cuts to non-defense spending, although this was a difficult choice because I think the amount was more than I would want to cut. I think small cuts over increments of time to certain departments wouldn’t cause too much of a problem. I chose not to create a carbon tax because although it might be effective with reducing carbon emissions, I think it would cause a lot of controversy and I also think that individuals shouldn’t be taxed based on their carbon footprint. Overall, I’m not sure that my cuts would make sense, and I think that it shows that my political values are somewhat neutral, but that I feel certain programs are essential to the nation.

Unfortunately, I don’t fully understand what all of these cuts would mean to different people in the nation, so I’m glad I’m not the one making the final decision. 

Budget Politics

by Ryann Tucker

When I took the You Gov survey for cutting the national deficit, I made a lot of choices that I feel reflected my political values. I think I made a lot of great choices in what I think should be cut. Altogether I'm pretty sure I cut more than 900 billion dollars even though Ms. McMillen advised that it wasn't the best idea. I just wanted to see if I could cut things that made sense and to me, my choices made a lot of sense. I was willing to impose a 6% national sales tax. I felt that this was a great idea because we already have a 6-7% sales tax on items in most states and then in a few states like Delaware there is no sales tax. I feel like a nation wide sales tax is completely fair. It only seems fair. I also reduced non-government spending. I was not 100% sure what this would mean but my goal was to make it to 900 billion and the amount of money that was going into non-defense government spending was a really large number. Third, I decided to reduce military spending, the president has already decided to cut this so I figured that this was a freebie. I think that historically, we have spent way too much money on on the military in the past. So I think its really wise to cut our military spending. Lastly, I was most confident in my decision to raise taxes for people with incomes over 250,000. I think that taxing someone that makes a 50,000 salary and someone that makes a 500,000 salary is not fair at all. The general idea of taking money away from people who can barely feed their families is wrong in my opinion. If it was up to me I would eliminate unnecessary taxes for people that make less than 40,000 a year but that is way controversial for Americans to handle and is ethically wrong for some people to have to pay and others not to. So its only fair to just raise takes for those that can handle it. If you take away 10% of someones money that makes 500,000 a year they still have over 400,000 left for themselves. If you take away 10% from someone who makes 50,000 they have 45,000 but it is difficult to live off of 50,000 a year so I can't comprehend making someone live off of even less than that. 

I decided not raise taxes for everyone, reduce medicare expenses, and take from social security.  My choice not to raise takes was because of what I said before. The idea that those who make more should be required to give more. I didn't want to reduce medicare expenses because personally I think that medicare is extremely important. Old people and everyone else that needs health insurance should be able to receive it. The idea that someone could be turned away from receiving medical attention just because they don't have the money breaks my heart. I think greed is the main factor behind why out medicare/ medicaid system in the US is just starting to become better. I think that big companies are greedy and selfish and want to make money so they make medical insurance expensive. I am a firm believer in the idea that if you are sick you should receive help. There is no reason why someone who is hurt or sick should not receive care. 

I was raised in a democratic household so I already know that my choices were more democratic and would mostly affect the upper/ upper middle class. The only choice that I made that would directly effect them is the raising of taxes for people with incomes of over 250,000 a year. 

March 2013 prompt

As the federal government slips into the mandatory sequester it set for itself, consider how you can solve this problem for Congress.  Read this Slate article.

  

Then, take the You Gov survey Slate designed and outline your plan for cutting the debt.

You don't have to reach the 900 billion target (I could only cut 626 billion, but that's more than I think is wise anyway), but you should think it through and once you complete the assignment, write a response that explains:

1.  What you were willing to cut and why you made those cuts.

2.  What you wouldn't cut and why you wouldn't make those cuts.

3.  Who bears the brunt of the cuts you made?  What does that tell you about your political values?

Rights and Liberties

by Malcolm Kelsey

The notion of selective incorporation is the process in which the American courts have applied portions of the Bill of Rights to the states.  Prior to the 1890’s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government, but under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution.

Prior to ratification of the fourteenth amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal but not any of the state governments.  Even years after the ratification of the 14^th amendment, the Supreme Court in the United States v. Cruikshank still held that the first and second amendment did not apply to state governments.  However, beginning in the 1920’s, a series of United state court decisions interpreted the fourteenth amendment to incorporate most portions of the Bill of Rights, making them, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.

As talked about in Gov class, we have mentioned that our government time and time again acts slow and stagnant.  When it came to the incorporation of the Bill of Right it takes our government, mainly the Supreme Court, a very long time to apply these portions of the constitution to the states.  It could be said that the delay of adding the Bill of rights to the constitution was a way to keep power in the federal governments hands and also keep it so there was a noticeable balance of power between both state and federal government.  It seems pretty sad that it took our government all these court cases and years to realize that it was time to apply the Bill of Rights to the states.

            

February 2013 prompt

One of the more surprising elements of the study of civil liberties and civil rights is the discovery of dual citizenship and the notion of selective incorporation, the process by which the Supreme Court takes more than a century to actually apply the Bill of Rights to the states.  What do you make of this delay?  What does it say about our nation?  Share your thoughts, please.

Issue 2013: The Political Super Bowl – A Game All Sides Win By Working Together

by Allie Pizzuto

The major political challenges facing our re-elected President, Barack Obama, are: reducing the out-of-control and rising national debt (and related fiscal cliff issues), tax reform, and gun control.  As an advisor to President Obama or to our Congressional leaders, I would strongly advocate and advise that the White House and Congress work together (well before impending deadlines ensue) and pass legislation that will benefit our whole country without regard to party affiliation or special interest groups (e.g., the wealthy, lobbyists representing corporate America, etc.).  America has been in a state of gradual decline for awhile now, and it is crucial that we get back on track as soon as possible.  All parties (Republican, Democrat, Independent) should join together in a collaborative manner (for a change) to put the American people first and reduce the national debt (not raise the debt ceiling) and cut every spending program across the board, where warranted.  Every American has a vested interest in seeing that the national debt is reduced, and each of us has a responsibility to shoulder the burden.   For example, our federal tax system should be reformed or at the very minimum federal tax legislation should be passed which taxes income in a progressive manner (a wealthier person should pay more taxes).  People who earn higher levels of income and corporations should pay more in taxes in the future to reduce the national debt.  In exchange, spending cut measures will be put in place to reduce benefits under entitlement programs.  This is a fair exchange, especially since the federal tax system will truly be progressive in nature (meaning that the higher the income, the higher the tax burden).  Regarding gun control, how many more times do we need to read about massacres occurring in our educational institutions?  Opening fire on small young children in Newtown, CT – what a disaster!  We should be ashamed of ourselves as a nation to allow this behavior to continue to persist.  Although we may have the freedom and the right to buy guns, that right and freedom is not unrestrained and should never be a protected freedom at all costs.  Although the problem is multi-faceted, the answer is not as simple as staffing our educational institutions with armed guards, as the National Rifle Association recently suggested.  On the contrary, our great nation needs reasonable gun control measures to be put in place.   President Obama recently suggested several measures to diminish the threat of continued gun violence, which includes banning certain assault weapons and subjecting everyone to background checks.  These are reasonable infringements on our right to buy guns.  

Issue 2013: Gun Control & Marijuana Legalization

by Ashok Gogineni

In the New Year, one issue that should be of grand importance in Congress will be the issue of gun control. After the tragedy that occurred in Newtown, Connecticut the issue is on the front burner of everyone’s minds, and action in order to keep citizens safe should be taken extremely seriously by Congress. First off, I think Congress should take initiative and start off by banning the use of automatic weapons. The main reason that Conservatives believe that we have the right to bear arms is to protect ourselves. Although weapons such as handguns may protect, and I am in favor of the use of handguns, no one has a need for the carrying of an assault rifle, and those who are in favor of the use of assault rifles usually only support it as a hobby and have no NEED for them for protection. I think the ban of automatic weapons will significantly reduce the harm caused by guns and will be a good first step in the goal for better gun control. I also believe that Congress should pass legislature calling for background checks on all carriers of weapons. This should be done on the family of a carrier as well, which will insure that the weapon does not fall into the hands of someone it should not.

Another issue that should be taken seriously by Congress in the New Year is the issue of the legalization of marijuana. This issue seems to be pretty important to the American people, and an issue that is seen all over the media. I think the legalization of marijuana will significantly decrease the illegal drug trade and take away much power from the power hungry drug cartels, who cash in on the illegal crop. I also think that marijuana can potentially be a huge source for tax revenues for both state and federal governments. Legalizing marijuana can also potentially create thousands of jobs as the process of growth to sale requires much man power. 

Issue 2013: Reality Check

by Nigel Scott

We have a black president!... But wait, we already knew that didn’t we? So why am I writing this now? Because the times, they are a changing. Now that Obama has won his second term of office, I think we’re going to finally see the badass in him (that we expected four years ago!) emerge.  I mean, he has already started to adopt a take no shit attitude with Congress, pressuring them to actually do their jobs. Maybe we’ll see him actually propose helpful reform policies for the minorities of this country too. This might be the year of the POC.

To all of you that don't know what that means, POC is an acronym for People of Color. You all remember the election right? Three out of every ten voters were minorities, and they came out primarily for Obama. Blacks were 93% Obama, Latinos 71%, and Asians 73%. Now, I know it isn’t wise to assume, but I think we can all agree something must be going on when getting the majority of the white vote doesn’t win you an election. And Congress had better pay attention.

For years, the problems of minority voters have been swept under the rug, especially for blacks and Latinos. Now I’m going to throw some crazy statistics out there and wonder how in the hell we’ve let this happen (or maybe not, who knows?). Blacks and Latinos make up about one quarter of the US population; they also happen to make up 58% of the US prison population. About 14 million whites have admitted to using illegal drugs compared to 2.6 million black, but blacks are still sent to jail on drug charges at ten times the rate of whites. And this one I just love. If the current trends continue, one in every three black men born today can expect to serve some amount of jail time.

On top of that you have things like the “Stop and Frisk” tactics in NYC and the “Show Me Your Papers” provision in Arizona that, dare I say, promote racial profiling. Police are using these devices and many others to single out and attack minority groups across the country. Even proposed voter ID laws, while not existing to aid in incarceration tactics, are aiming to take out a huge chunk of potential minority (i.e. Democrat) voters.

But, I think this year, things might start to pick up. Like I said before, the face of the nation is changing; minorities are on the way to becoming the majority, and as we make our way to the top of the political food chain, government reform will be on the mind. Recent developments like the legalization of marijuana in Colorado could lead to at least decriminalization of the drug nationwide, which could get many young black men out of trouble. Another interesting thing is that in Texas District 23, the two candidates opted to have their debate in Spanish, which goes to show that Latinos are being given more and more attention in politics.

Okay, so maybe saying it will be the “Year of the POC” is stretching it a bit, but that doesn’t mean that change isn’t starting to rear its ugly head. The problems of minorities are making their way to becoming the big issues, and hopefully their champion, Mr. President Obama will step up to the plate and give “the people” what they want.

Issue 2013: Immigration Reform

by Jasmine Smith

When President Obama ran for office in 2008, one of the main priorities on his agenda was to reform the immigration policy. But with the fiscal cliff, high unemployment rates, and debates about gun control, the topic of immigration has been put on the back burner during his first term. Last year, over 400,000 illegal immigrants have been deported, and with an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States, the problem of immigration can no longer be ignored.

Immigrants that were brought to this country illegally as young children should not be subject to arrest or deportation. These children were brought here by their parents, not through their own will, and brought up through the American school system, so therefore they consider themselves to be American. All the parents wanted is a better opportunity for their children, an opportunity that may not be available to them in their own country. Why should the children have to suffer because of the crimes that their parents committed? Under the Dream Act, undocumented young immigrants can achieve legal status in this country through a six year long plan. As long as they plan to work, go to school, or serve in our military and have a clean criminal record, immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally as children should be allowed to fulfill the American dream.

Critics of the Dream Act argue that allowing illegal immigrants to have the same opportunities as American born citizens disadvantages those who were actually born here. They believe that since they especially have an advantage because of affirmative action, the illegals are taking job opportunities and college slots that were rightfully ours. But they fail to realize that we all, at one point in our ancestry, were immigrants to this country. In 1492, Christopher Columbus and his crew “discovered” an already inhabited land, kicked the natives out of their own homes, settled on a land that wasn’t theirs, and renamed it “America”. This nation was founded on the basis of being a land of opportunity, and hopefully in the future the Dream Act will be edited in a way such that every opportunity can be equally attained by all. 

Issue 2013: Going Green

by Asia Williams

I believe that it is obvious that our abuse of the environment and its natural resources is a definite priority on the list of problems we face in 2013. From little things like forgetting to unplug your hair dryer after use (it doesn’t matter if it is turned off; if it’s still plugged in you are in fact still wasting electricity) to discarding and littering a bottle of water, 3 feet on the ground from a convenient recycling bin, we have become oblivious and unaware the of how important the environment is to us and therefore how many precautions we need to take in order to keep the privilege of using it.

One of the ways we naturally maltreat the environment is our unhealthy dependency on oil. We are literally the “oil economy” and go through critical lengths to secure our status as our economy doesn’t know how to properly function in its absence. Oil is literally one of the most important factors that ensures our economic health but because we are so used to having it around (and tons of it) we tend to go through supplies carelessly thinking that we can never run out. In reality we are low in oil and are so desperate for it that we put ourselves in position where we’re not only going to run out sooner or later but we feel that it is ok to start randomly drilling where we are not permitted or where it’s not safe.

New oil is harder to find, takes longer to develop and requires a lot more capital. Companies like Shell Oil on the other hand continue to push their limits and drill for oil in places like the Artic which has already lost 75% of its ice by volume since the National Snow and Ice Data Center started recording this info back in 1979. Reduced Arctic sea connects to a warmer planet and thus a change in climate patterns and people tend to push aside such thoughts, ignoring them because we evidently we don’t see how much this effects not only us but our entire world. We are at risks because people don’t see the long term effects of the over use of oil because in many ways it will be a while till it has an impact on us individually and because of that gap of time we think it’s ok and just not that serious enough that we can’t just wait till another time to deal with it. But we can’t keep pushing this issue back.

When is enough going to be enough? I know I can’t just simply ask people to throw their beliefs, routines and ways of daily living out the window but we need to start somewhere and make some kind of commitment to actually acknowledging that we things are getting worse. We may become the largest oil producer in 2013, the Arctic sea ice reached its lowest level in recorded history and Shell plans to give drilling another go this year. 

Issues: Tax Reform

by Ian Yusem

For weeks leading up to the New Year, we heard nothing but partisan posturing regarding the fiscal cliff.  While a deal was eventually reached, what seems clear is that Republicans and Democrats are no closer to realizing that the uncertainly caused by ceaseless argument creates anxiety for the average citizen and reduces confidence of our citizens in the two party political system. What is the process by which we can have any confidence that our elected officials have the capacity to address our economic problems for the good of the majority of Americans? What measure can cause the Congress to come together to achieve wide reaching economic change?

I think the answer is tax reform that avoids unfair burden on any one group yet raises revenue available to the budget by eliminating loopholes and tax advantages of special interest groups.

As it stands now, politicians are lobbied to support tax subsidies for particular groups or activities. This process creates complication, causes unfairness in the system and makes those who cannot take advantage of the loopholes believe the system is corrupt.  Making taxes simpler by removing loopholes will avoid partisan politicking and reduce the influence of lobbyists.  Simplifying tax laws will make it easier for people to comply with tax laws, and the average taxpayer will stop questioning the fairness of the tax system.

Essentially, there would be no exceptions – all income would be treated the same.  Only the rate paid by taxpayers would differ, with rates rising with income.

Congress needs to come together in a bold and new direction by creating economic stability that can be blended with public confidence in our government. It is no secret that the youngest generation of voting age Americans is politically apathetic. Non-stop political brinksmanship is to blame for the generational lack of confidence. Radical tax reform would be an extraordinary measure that would be disruptive, but in a positive way, by bringing predictability to the budget process and confidence in government to average Americans.

Issue 2013: Gun Control, Immigration Reform, Debt, & Gridlock

by Rina Dhawlikar

As we move into 2013 and the second term of President Barack Obama, the nation stands at a crossroads. The people need to choose between the constitutional rights to carry arms versus gun control. The recent tragedy in Newton, Connecticut has brought the gun control debate front and center again. It was truly heartbreaking when children under 10 were shot at random by a possibly mentally ill adult. In my personal opinion, while legally everyone has the right to carry arms to defend themselves, nobody needs assault weapons like the ones used in the killings in Connecticut, and Colorado.  A ban on assault weapons and background checks on people buying guns would go a long way in making America safer. Mental Illness also needs to be aggressively recognized and treated. Recently, New York State has taken the lead in enforcing these background checks and mental illness reporting by doctors. This should be followed by the other states in the union as well.

The other challenge that our nation needs to confront is the issue of immigration. While the US has a lot of illegal immigrants who tend to use up the resources and possibly be a burden on our health care system, there are also a lot of talented students coming to the US legally but are turned away to go back to their homeland. These students should be given a path to citizenship so as to retain the talent in the US. Recent studies have shown that our education system is falling behind other developing nations such as Korea, India, and China. While our universities train several such PhD’s, they should be incorporated into the American society legally so as to be an asset to the nation. The illegal immigrants should also have a path to citizenship so that they can pay taxes and contribute to the economy.

 A third extremely important challenge facing the nation is the rapidly escalating debt and deficit. The deficit has climbed to more than sixteen trillion dollars. This is a significant and ever increasing burden on the young generation such as mine. Our generation will eventually be left with paying for the debt of the older generations if this is not fixed quickly and permanently. There has to be a balanced approach to solving this problem. While some taxes need to be raised to get more money, it is extremely important to restrain spending so that the debt doesn’t grow.

 A lot of the current problems are attributable to the partisan gridlock in Washington, DC. Both Democrats and Republicans need to compromise in the nation’s interest and not take extreme positions. The president needs to take a lead in this process, as have previous successful presidents. I hope these problems are sincerely approached and solved in a bipartisan way so that America can once again be the shining city on the hill as Ronald Regan referred to.