America's welfare system was created to help poor Americans in need of financial assistance. Over the years, people's intentions, advantages of receiving welfare, and the redefining of "poor" have assisted in corrupting this system. The Heritage Foundation provided statistics to illustrate the lifestyle of present day "poor" Americans. From this report, I learned that "if [the amount of] work in each family increased...nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty" and "if poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty." By increasing weekly work hours and becoming a two-parent family this would result in the ineligibility to receive welfare & a family having to make ends meet on their own (thus acting to "reward idleness and penalize marriage").
In order to improve the distribution of aid, a welfare-specific work program should be created; that is, states should designate certain jobs to those receiving welfare and allocate welfare based on the amount of hours a person works while taking into consideration his or her personal circumstances. This idea is very similar to FDR's work relief program for the unemployed. There also remains the possibility of a socialist Welfare State: the government "provides for the total well-being of its citizens" like housing, clothing, food, health care etc. In addition to helping those in need, I believe it is imperative to encourage poverty stricken children to seek a life of higher living standards by pursuing better careers and lifestyles. Tax dollars would be better spent in programs that teach specific vocational skills and that educate America's future generations on how to make positive financial decisions.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Sunday, January 11, 2009
The Israel-Hamas Conflict
Upon entering the third week of "hot" conflict between Israeli and Hamas forces, CNN news reported that "Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told his Cabinet that his country was close to reaching the goals of its military offensive in Gaza but 'further patience is needed'." Although I am a strong advocate of peace, an immediate end to fighting is not only unrealistic, but could result in a massive launching of Hamas rockets causing immense destruction and devastation in Israel's southern cities & towns. I believe that the world should respect Prime Minister Olmert's request and allow attacks in Gaza to continue until Israeli safety is established and fear of Hamas militant aggressions subside.
As far as US involvement, the government reportedly provides $3 billion of annual aid to Israel which, in turn, is mostly spent on the Israeli military. With this tid-bit of information, one may accurately conclude that the US and Israel share a close relationship: Israel gaining economic and military strength while the US is able to sustain a bold presence in the Middle East. Due to its "partnership", if fighting continues and Israel needs physical support, the US may be asked to join in and help a friend. If this event was to occur, I fear the US would be in a lose, lose situation: get involved in a war that is not their business or face the possible loss of a necessary ally.
Who is right: Israel of the Hamas militant group?
As I rummaged through the enormous amounts of Israel-Hamas Conflict related links, videos, & newspaper clippings, I came across an interesting opinion-based article written by Arsalan Iftikhar. He states that "both...have completely and utterly lost their minds", taking the welfare of innocent civilians into account and preaching that "two wrongs do not make a right". I strongly encourage those who have time, to take a minute and read Commentary: Both sides wrong in Gaza.
As far as US involvement, the government reportedly provides $3 billion of annual aid to Israel which, in turn, is mostly spent on the Israeli military. With this tid-bit of information, one may accurately conclude that the US and Israel share a close relationship: Israel gaining economic and military strength while the US is able to sustain a bold presence in the Middle East. Due to its "partnership", if fighting continues and Israel needs physical support, the US may be asked to join in and help a friend. If this event was to occur, I fear the US would be in a lose, lose situation: get involved in a war that is not their business or face the possible loss of a necessary ally.
Who is right: Israel of the Hamas militant group?
As I rummaged through the enormous amounts of Israel-Hamas Conflict related links, videos, & newspaper clippings, I came across an interesting opinion-based article written by Arsalan Iftikhar. He states that "both...have completely and utterly lost their minds", taking the welfare of innocent civilians into account and preaching that "two wrongs do not make a right". I strongly encourage those who have time, to take a minute and read Commentary: Both sides wrong in Gaza.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Public Criticism of Government
In a truly free society citizens should be able to publicly criticize their government without fear of repercussion. Without this freedom, the success of government control and citizen's contentment is jeopardized. Thomas Jefferson, one of America's Founding Father's, was a firm believer of the freedom of press. During his time he was quoted in several instances supporting the cause; in one quotation, he stated, "[When the press] is completely silenced... all means of a general effort [are] taken away." Along with the first amendment to the US Bill of Rights, Jefferson set precedents on freedom of speech/freedom of press, making it possibly the most popular American right. In some non-Democratic governments, such as China, such rights are unheard of. For example: public criticism of government is allowed to a certain extent, but once one crosses the government, he could face severe persecution leading to imprisonment, torture, or even death. The only thing we, as Americans, might have to endure is a scornful remark, which, in all fairness, is just our government exercising the first amendment.
Food for Thought:
Within this school year, due to the assortment of guests, self-conducted research, and a better understanding of government, I have come to a greater appreciation for my rights as an American citizen. Previously I had taken for granted the freedom to criticize,oblivious to the number of countries where this freed0m is banned. Through research for this specific blog, I wandered upon an organization called Freedom House, "a US-based international non-governmental organization that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights." The organization's website (http://www.freedomhouse.org/) offers a different perspective on the global fight for freedom and provides an interesting graphic of the current "map of freedom in the world".
One should not take his freedom to criticize for granted, but he should be aware of the intensity of his criticism as well as how his audience might interpret his criticism. In the US, it is not uncommon to see last week’s government issues as next Saturday evening’s satire. Although this serves as great entertainment, I believe the broadcasting of government mockery should have a few limits. Other countries that might not be our closest of friends could see this mockery as national weakness and maybe act upon that instinct. I agree that our government can be more flawed than not, but I think it would be in our best interest to appear strong and united rather than weak and divided.
Food for Thought:
Within this school year, due to the assortment of guests, self-conducted research, and a better understanding of government, I have come to a greater appreciation for my rights as an American citizen. Previously I had taken for granted the freedom to criticize,oblivious to the number of countries where this freed0m is banned. Through research for this specific blog, I wandered upon an organization called Freedom House, "a US-based international non-governmental organization that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights." The organization's website (http://www.freedomhouse.org/) offers a different perspective on the global fight for freedom and provides an interesting graphic of the current "map of freedom in the world".
Monday, November 24, 2008
The Future: Centrist America
With much consideration of the current government and my personal political views, I believe that America would prosper under a centrist run government. Advocates for Self-Government describe centrism as the "middle ground" in regards to government control; sometimes government intervention is favored and sometimes individual freedom of choice is supported. A centrist keeps an open mind and hopes to make decisions that will result in practical solutions for national and regional issues. The flexibility of the government would be beneficial in advocating change seeing that there is not one set belief and each realm of possibility would be taken into consideration. The US Centrist states that one should "change his mind to adapt to the needs of the people to represent the needs of the people", demonstrating that government is all about the welfare of its citizens. With the current political situation I believe that it is important for people to feel that the government is working in their favor rather than in favor of the set beliefs of its political party.
Of course, each political party has its flaws. Without set beliefs, centrist candidates will have no promises for citizens other than trying to make decisions that will maintain "value, equity, balance, and fairness". Present day politics illustrate a scene of corrupt and dishonest officials, so why should one trust the candidate to do what's best for the citizens? Also, as stated by The Indepublicrat, "no identifiable 'centrist position' may exist on a given issue because different centrists will apply their own experiences and priorities to end up in different places." The possibility of disagreement within a party causes debate, slowing down the process of passing new laws and making final decisions. The deceleration in government would ultimately lead to accomplishing a minute amount of change.
In the end, it is evident that the goal of government should be to do what is in the best interest of its people. Unfortunately, without motivation of radical ideas, it may be difficult to come to a joint agreement. I believe that with enough advertisement, education, and campaigning for centrism, people will begin to support these ideologies and a centrist movement may gain momentum.
Of course, each political party has its flaws. Without set beliefs, centrist candidates will have no promises for citizens other than trying to make decisions that will maintain "value, equity, balance, and fairness". Present day politics illustrate a scene of corrupt and dishonest officials, so why should one trust the candidate to do what's best for the citizens? Also, as stated by The Indepublicrat, "no identifiable 'centrist position' may exist on a given issue because different centrists will apply their own experiences and priorities to end up in different places." The possibility of disagreement within a party causes debate, slowing down the process of passing new laws and making final decisions. The deceleration in government would ultimately lead to accomplishing a minute amount of change.
In the end, it is evident that the goal of government should be to do what is in the best interest of its people. Unfortunately, without motivation of radical ideas, it may be difficult to come to a joint agreement. I believe that with enough advertisement, education, and campaigning for centrism, people will begin to support these ideologies and a centrist movement may gain momentum.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Human Rights
Walking down a street, one hears a foreigner gush about how wonderful America is and how grateful he is for his new found freedoms. The average, under-zealous American would chuckle to himself, maybe even criticize his so-called rights. Whether one agrees, American citizens are very fortunate compared to other parts of the world where the thought of freedom is just a mere dream versus the American reality. Recently, Ms. Taylor & Ms. Chen, two former Chinese citizens, visited the class to educate us on the horrors of the Chinese Communist Party & how the party uses its power to mistreat certain groups and strip citizens of natural rights. Our main discussion was centered around a spiritual practice, Falun Gong, which was banned in China on July 20, 1999.
Falun Gong is Chinese for "the great law wheel way of cultivation practice". This practice is based upon three principles: truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance. Along with these principles, followers read a book written by Li Hongzhi and follow five different sets of relaxing & energizing exercises. Falun Gong was not made public until the year 1992, and, by word-of-mouth, rapidly gained popularity throughout China reaching a number of nearly 100 million followers. China's central government, which banned the free practice of religion in the 1950s, felt threatened by the the spiritual group and began a national crackdown. Followers are forbidden to practice, those who fail to stop practicing are often times arrested and beaten despite their peaceful appeals. There have even been horror stories about Falun Gong followers being tortured, sent to labor camps, and even being used for organ harvesting. Since the Chinese Communist Party controls China's media, citizens have been misinformed & even unaware of what is occurring within their borders. Stories have been fabricated in which Falun Gong is accused of being some sort of political cult out to destroy the Chinese government.
In the United States Bill of Rights, under the first amendment, it states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". These very words explain why many Falun Gong members being persecuted by the Chinese government have fled China & started a new life in America. It is here that no matter race, gender, physical characteristics, one is guaranteed thousands of freedoms and rights that allow a human to live peacefully and without fear. Too often, Americans take these simple, yet so powerful freedoms for granted. If we were to live in China for a week, Ms. Chen told us that we would see great, futuristic technology, but realize that the mindset of the government is still in the "dark ages" when it comes to the treatment of humans. Although it is not in our power to tell China how to treat its citizens, we can and we should welcome all foreigners with open arms along with the promise of equal and fair treatment.
http://falundafa.org/ - Learn more about Falun Gong
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/ppflg/ - Chinese Communist Party view on Falun Gong
Falun Gong is Chinese for "the great law wheel way of cultivation practice". This practice is based upon three principles: truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance. Along with these principles, followers read a book written by Li Hongzhi and follow five different sets of relaxing & energizing exercises. Falun Gong was not made public until the year 1992, and, by word-of-mouth, rapidly gained popularity throughout China reaching a number of nearly 100 million followers. China's central government, which banned the free practice of religion in the 1950s, felt threatened by the the spiritual group and began a national crackdown. Followers are forbidden to practice, those who fail to stop practicing are often times arrested and beaten despite their peaceful appeals. There have even been horror stories about Falun Gong followers being tortured, sent to labor camps, and even being used for organ harvesting. Since the Chinese Communist Party controls China's media, citizens have been misinformed & even unaware of what is occurring within their borders. Stories have been fabricated in which Falun Gong is accused of being some sort of political cult out to destroy the Chinese government.
In the United States Bill of Rights, under the first amendment, it states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". These very words explain why many Falun Gong members being persecuted by the Chinese government have fled China & started a new life in America. It is here that no matter race, gender, physical characteristics, one is guaranteed thousands of freedoms and rights that allow a human to live peacefully and without fear. Too often, Americans take these simple, yet so powerful freedoms for granted. If we were to live in China for a week, Ms. Chen told us that we would see great, futuristic technology, but realize that the mindset of the government is still in the "dark ages" when it comes to the treatment of humans. Although it is not in our power to tell China how to treat its citizens, we can and we should welcome all foreigners with open arms along with the promise of equal and fair treatment.
http://falundafa.org/ - Learn more about Falun Gong
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/ppflg/ - Chinese Communist Party view on Falun Gong
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Migrant Workers
A large part of our society's economic success is achieved by the number of exported and domestically produced goods. An essential contribution is made by the nation's agricultural department through the sale of food crops, plants, and animals. One might expect an industry that provides necessary nourishment as well as a source of economic cushioning to consist of a large working force, but, as stated by the USDA,"hired farm workers make up less than one-percent of all US wage and salary workers". At the start of the 20th century the US had about 3.4 million hired farm workers and since, has decreased to around 1 million. Why? More developed technology, lack of interest in the field, and higher education standards. To cope with the issue at hand, farms (as well as other industries) have taken a step towards the employment of migrant workers.
Migrant workers are often times seen as a threat to US citizens because these workers are more "affordable" for businesses, thus, they "steal" jobs from citizens. The truth is, with each new generation the agricultural interest seems to lessen due to hazards, labor-intensiveness, and low-wages. Without migrant workers (they constitute 42% of the farm labor force) farms and food crops would be unable to function and, most likely, would slack in the production of economically necessary goods. If there was a lack in locally produced goods, food in markets would be more costly & less fresh, local economies wouldn't be supported & would suffer, and businesses would be forced to close. We, as citizens, should be grateful for, and, respectful of the foreign-born people who seek better income and that hope for a better living situation for themselves and their families. Unfortunately, many migrant workers see job offers as an opportunity and are blind or afraid to speak up against the mistreatment and inequalities they experience.
Most migrant workers in the US come from Latin America where education standards are much lower resulting in 30% of workers having less than a 9th grade education. Also, many are fluent in their native tongue and have not yet learned English creating a tremendous language barrier. Employers often times see these two characteristics as a reason to lower the earnings of authorized migrant workers to minimum-wage while unauthorized (illegal) workers are paid even less. The issue of low wages, as well as seasonal unemployment, leave workers living below the poverty line which is not justified by their working environment. Recent statistics state that "agricultural work has a high fatality rate, with 21.3 deaths per 100,000 workers per year, compared with the overall worker rate of 3.9." With this work, there is also a higher rate of nonfatal injuries, chronic pain, heart disease, respiratory problems, and cancers. It is inhumane and unjust to take advantage of a worker's inability to comprehend.
The hard work and dedication of migrant workers should be recognized with better working conditions as well as increased wages. These people are doing our country a favor by helping farms maintain momentum which, in turn, help keep local economies booming!
Migrant workers are often times seen as a threat to US citizens because these workers are more "affordable" for businesses, thus, they "steal" jobs from citizens. The truth is, with each new generation the agricultural interest seems to lessen due to hazards, labor-intensiveness, and low-wages. Without migrant workers (they constitute 42% of the farm labor force) farms and food crops would be unable to function and, most likely, would slack in the production of economically necessary goods. If there was a lack in locally produced goods, food in markets would be more costly & less fresh, local economies wouldn't be supported & would suffer, and businesses would be forced to close. We, as citizens, should be grateful for, and, respectful of the foreign-born people who seek better income and that hope for a better living situation for themselves and their families. Unfortunately, many migrant workers see job offers as an opportunity and are blind or afraid to speak up against the mistreatment and inequalities they experience.
Most migrant workers in the US come from Latin America where education standards are much lower resulting in 30% of workers having less than a 9th grade education. Also, many are fluent in their native tongue and have not yet learned English creating a tremendous language barrier. Employers often times see these two characteristics as a reason to lower the earnings of authorized migrant workers to minimum-wage while unauthorized (illegal) workers are paid even less. The issue of low wages, as well as seasonal unemployment, leave workers living below the poverty line which is not justified by their working environment. Recent statistics state that "agricultural work has a high fatality rate, with 21.3 deaths per 100,000 workers per year, compared with the overall worker rate of 3.9." With this work, there is also a higher rate of nonfatal injuries, chronic pain, heart disease, respiratory problems, and cancers. It is inhumane and unjust to take advantage of a worker's inability to comprehend.
The hard work and dedication of migrant workers should be recognized with better working conditions as well as increased wages. These people are doing our country a favor by helping farms maintain momentum which, in turn, help keep local economies booming!
Monday, September 29, 2008
Revisions to the Prior Post:"The American Nation in a Nutshell"
Since the founding of the American nation, its citizens have prospered, as well as suffered, under a system of democracy. Some may call this system a success while others believe a system of anarchy would be equally efficient. The truth is most Americans have not experienced the adversities found in other forms of government, such as communism or totalitarianism, and take for granted the hard earned freedoms and liberties they are allowed. In my opinion, the system itself is fantastic; I am able to speak my mind, write what I want, own property, elect officials, freely practice religion, etc. All of these things are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights - just one of the many written documents that help moderate American government. Despite all of the features that allow for a thriving nation, there are also flaws and setbacks that cause other nations to frown upon us. I believe the root of flaws in American government is the election process as well as government officials.
In terms of the actual election process, citizens have asked, "why vote when my vote doesn't actually count?" It would be nice to answer the proposed question with a simple “of course your vote counts”, but unfortunately the system of voting is not that straight forward, just ask Al Gore. In the 2000 Presidential Election, Al Gore won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes versus George W. Bush's 50,456,002, but, lost the electoral vote with 266 votes versus Bush's 271 due to the intricate Electoral College system. The system allows all citizens, 18 years of age and older, to vote for his or her candidate of choice. Each state views who received the most votes and then representatives (number based on population) from that candidate's political party vote for their candidate of choice. Those are the deciding votes which may fail to agree with the national majority, causing widespread tension and distrust in the system. When citizens are uncertain about the legitimacy of their government it often can lead to questioning the intentions and genuineness of government officials.
Government officials are human beings, human beings have flaws. Therefore, a flawless government is next to impossible. If one conducted a background check on each candidate running for a government position he would find that the majority are from wealthy, prestigious families and most likely majored in some branch of law. Lawyers are known for being able to state cases in a way that will persuade the listener to take their side. In an election they could use this ability to twist their view on a topic to appeal to the majority and, once elected, follow the true meaning of their words. Another point to ponder is, with the election of the official comes his or her bias; when a wealthy person takes charge one might see particular wealthy groups finding special treatment/attention or, as seen in our nation’s Congress, unnecessary, expensive projects may be taken up in a senator’s state. This brings up the question of term lengths (should certain positions have shortened stays?) as well as the diversity of officials’ backgrounds (should government consist of different sectors that focus on specific topics i.e. Environmental, Laws, Economy or should candidates have a more diverse/experienced background?). The truth is, no matter what steps are taken, people have opinions and incentives.
Freakonomics, by Steven Levitt & Stephen Dubner, addresses the topic of incentives, or "any factor that provides a motive for a particular course of action". This explains the special attention received by groups with extremes such as the wealthy or those suffering extreme poverty. The incentive with assisting the wealthy is a nice reward written on a piece of paper to be stuck in one's pocket for later use; the incentive for helping the poor is positive publicity to be witnessed by the world. With the American economy on the descent, the focus of the government has shifted to digging the nation out of debt, forcing many decisions to be made based on how they will financially affect the country. Some of these decisions leave Americans questioning the efficiency of our government along with its democratic system. If Americans want change, they have the right to protest, they have the right to run for office, and they have the right to leave the country.
My advice to fix governmental flaws is to fix the system that elects officials and to rewrite the typical background of candidates.
That is:
-Base the election on the popular vote; encourage people to vote by ensuring that their vote actually counts. People may find it taboo to rewrite the election process, but, as the elastic clause states, we can adapt laws to fit present-time and its people.
-It isn't wrong or bad to have people of wealth or of law in government, but with too many wealthy lawyers one may find himself living in an aristocracy rather than a democracy. If government officials were more diversified, that is: educated and knowledgeable in the sciences, mathematics, law, economics, business, arts, etc., people would be more respectful of officials leading to greater trust in government.
Links:
*Government quotes to ponder
*Information on elected officials and current candidates
In terms of the actual election process, citizens have asked, "why vote when my vote doesn't actually count?" It would be nice to answer the proposed question with a simple “of course your vote counts”, but unfortunately the system of voting is not that straight forward, just ask Al Gore. In the 2000 Presidential Election, Al Gore won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes versus George W. Bush's 50,456,002, but, lost the electoral vote with 266 votes versus Bush's 271 due to the intricate Electoral College system. The system allows all citizens, 18 years of age and older, to vote for his or her candidate of choice. Each state views who received the most votes and then representatives (number based on population) from that candidate's political party vote for their candidate of choice. Those are the deciding votes which may fail to agree with the national majority, causing widespread tension and distrust in the system. When citizens are uncertain about the legitimacy of their government it often can lead to questioning the intentions and genuineness of government officials.
Government officials are human beings, human beings have flaws. Therefore, a flawless government is next to impossible. If one conducted a background check on each candidate running for a government position he would find that the majority are from wealthy, prestigious families and most likely majored in some branch of law. Lawyers are known for being able to state cases in a way that will persuade the listener to take their side. In an election they could use this ability to twist their view on a topic to appeal to the majority and, once elected, follow the true meaning of their words. Another point to ponder is, with the election of the official comes his or her bias; when a wealthy person takes charge one might see particular wealthy groups finding special treatment/attention or, as seen in our nation’s Congress, unnecessary, expensive projects may be taken up in a senator’s state. This brings up the question of term lengths (should certain positions have shortened stays?) as well as the diversity of officials’ backgrounds (should government consist of different sectors that focus on specific topics i.e. Environmental, Laws, Economy or should candidates have a more diverse/experienced background?). The truth is, no matter what steps are taken, people have opinions and incentives.
Freakonomics, by Steven Levitt & Stephen Dubner, addresses the topic of incentives, or "any factor that provides a motive for a particular course of action". This explains the special attention received by groups with extremes such as the wealthy or those suffering extreme poverty. The incentive with assisting the wealthy is a nice reward written on a piece of paper to be stuck in one's pocket for later use; the incentive for helping the poor is positive publicity to be witnessed by the world. With the American economy on the descent, the focus of the government has shifted to digging the nation out of debt, forcing many decisions to be made based on how they will financially affect the country. Some of these decisions leave Americans questioning the efficiency of our government along with its democratic system. If Americans want change, they have the right to protest, they have the right to run for office, and they have the right to leave the country.
My advice to fix governmental flaws is to fix the system that elects officials and to rewrite the typical background of candidates.
That is:
-Base the election on the popular vote; encourage people to vote by ensuring that their vote actually counts. People may find it taboo to rewrite the election process, but, as the elastic clause states, we can adapt laws to fit present-time and its people.
-It isn't wrong or bad to have people of wealth or of law in government, but with too many wealthy lawyers one may find himself living in an aristocracy rather than a democracy. If government officials were more diversified, that is: educated and knowledgeable in the sciences, mathematics, law, economics, business, arts, etc., people would be more respectful of officials leading to greater trust in government.
Links:
*Government quotes to ponder
*Information on elected officials and current candidates
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
