Mantu Nguyen recently wrote a post in his blog titled Don't Double the Rate and argues how doubling the interest rate on students who have federal loans is not in the best interest of this country that we live in and I do not think I could agree with him more.
As we look deeper into this topic lets take this article written by Arne S Duncan and titled Keep Student Loan Interest Rates Low. The author provides us with several reasonable arguments against raising the interest rates on student loans. He first points out how 50 years ago college was a luxury and a high school graduate could earn a nice paying job in the middle class without needing to attend college, but in today's day and age you would most likely need some sort of educational certificate to be economically viable. That point is well taken, and it is the tip of the iceberg on this controversial topic.
He then goes on to point out that since 1995 college cost have risen five times faster than the median household income. That little statistic right there takes us right to the core of this subject. Borrowing money to go to school used to be more of an exception, not it as the most accepted way for how students attend school. With tuition continuing to rise semester after semester across our country, more and more students are taking advantage of the student loans that are being offered by the government. Two thirds of our students are borrowing money to get their degree and are graduating averaging more than twenty-six thousand dollars in debt. So now the government has this bright idea to let the interest rates bill, that went into place in 2007and cut interest rates in half, expire. Based on the average loan amount, this will add more than $1000 in total cost to those of us with student loans.
My question is why are they choosing hard working students who have little to no money as it is to try and help rebuild our economy? Putting people already in debt in more debt seems counter productive to me. Why not raise interest rate on credit cards or home mortgages? Or how about making sure these huge companies such as Exxon, who report quarterly profits in billions on a consistent basis, pay their share of taxes, which as of right now they don't pay any. (see previous post in my blog) But no, lets raise the interest rate on the group of people who can least afford it. "Perfect Logic."
Our president is working to do many things to improve our higher education systems, such as pell grants, income based repayment of student loans, loan forgiveness for people with public service jobs. Also he is attempting to double the work study program within the next 5 years, but he can not and should not be asked to do this alone. It is now up to congress to analyze all the information and hopefully make a decision that is with in the best interest of country.
Student loans are the reason so many of us are able to attend college, and raising the interest rates of these student loans would actually seem to discourage future high school graduates who can not afford to pay for school on their own from even attending. Do we really want to take a step backward from further educating our students beyond high school? I would expect our answer to be a resounding NO! Doubling the interest rates would indeed make me Irate!
Friday, May 11, 2012
Friday, April 27, 2012
Is a lifetime appointment for Federal judges logical?
When considering changes to the United States government I think it is important to evaluate the roles of federal judges and why the should NOT be appointed for life. This article titled Life Tenure for Federal Judges: Should it be Abolished? makes some interesting points.
How easy is to become complacent and settled into a job that you know you will have for life? The only reason you lose your job is being impeached for violating certain rules and laws. Well if you are a federal judge, that is the exact position you would find yourself in. This is just ridiculous, when you consider how many qualified candidates are possibly overlooked simply because their timing was wrong. Being a federal judge comes with quite a bit of power, and not to mention they have the ability to interpret the laws of our country in basically whatever way they see fit. When you also consider that federal judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate then its hard to believe that their is not a biased point of view in the process of appointing judges, as the president surely appoints these judges who represent their party. In other words judges who are appointed, are done so with the idea that they can help further the agenda of the party in power.
So how should it be done? Lets look at our options. We could elect them through a vote, but it that in our best interest? I say no, absolutely not. If we were to have elections for judges, then the judges have to put a campaign together, and with campaigns come campaign contributions, which as we know, comes with a lot of lobbying. We don't want our judges being influenced by whomever contributed the most money to the campaign, we want judges who are neutral and will uphold the integrity of our constitution. So I believe the best way to do it would be to allow the senate, house of representatives, and the president, all come together to make a decision of who should be federal judges. Now I know that if all three sections are controlled by one party or another, then you will see many of the same processes we have today, but at least you have more heads who contribute to that decision. Furthermore, judges should be appointed to a one time fixed amount of time. I still believe it should be a lengthy amount of time, say ten or twenty years, to allow for consistency in our courtrooms, but also preventing complacency. This is a very complex subject and has many things factoring in but it is absolutely absurd to appoint some to a position of such power for a lifetime, and needs to be seriously reevaluated.
How easy is to become complacent and settled into a job that you know you will have for life? The only reason you lose your job is being impeached for violating certain rules and laws. Well if you are a federal judge, that is the exact position you would find yourself in. This is just ridiculous, when you consider how many qualified candidates are possibly overlooked simply because their timing was wrong. Being a federal judge comes with quite a bit of power, and not to mention they have the ability to interpret the laws of our country in basically whatever way they see fit. When you also consider that federal judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate then its hard to believe that their is not a biased point of view in the process of appointing judges, as the president surely appoints these judges who represent their party. In other words judges who are appointed, are done so with the idea that they can help further the agenda of the party in power.
So how should it be done? Lets look at our options. We could elect them through a vote, but it that in our best interest? I say no, absolutely not. If we were to have elections for judges, then the judges have to put a campaign together, and with campaigns come campaign contributions, which as we know, comes with a lot of lobbying. We don't want our judges being influenced by whomever contributed the most money to the campaign, we want judges who are neutral and will uphold the integrity of our constitution. So I believe the best way to do it would be to allow the senate, house of representatives, and the president, all come together to make a decision of who should be federal judges. Now I know that if all three sections are controlled by one party or another, then you will see many of the same processes we have today, but at least you have more heads who contribute to that decision. Furthermore, judges should be appointed to a one time fixed amount of time. I still believe it should be a lengthy amount of time, say ten or twenty years, to allow for consistency in our courtrooms, but also preventing complacency. This is a very complex subject and has many things factoring in but it is absolutely absurd to appoint some to a position of such power for a lifetime, and needs to be seriously reevaluated.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Frivolous Lawsuits
My fellow classmate Kyle wrote an editorial last week about frivolous lawsuits. I must say that I have to completely agree with him. The idea that someone can drink coffee from McDonald's, burn their mouth because the coffee is so hot, and then in turn sue McDonald's because the coffee was too hot, it not only embarrassing, but it is also an absolute joke. Lawsuits such as these make a complete mockery of the system, people looking for a free handout turn to our courtrooms in efforts to make a quick buck. Hello?? Coffee is supposed to be hot last time I checked, and furthermore I'll tell you each and every time I purchase coffee, or make it at myself, my first instinct is not to take a giant gulp of it when it fresh out of the pot, unless maybe I get it from Starbucks, who have somehow managed to serve coffee at the perfect drinking temperature. These types of lawsuits may appear to cost the company being sued but in reality in cost you. What happens when McDonald's loses a ridiculous lawsuit like this one , they raise the prices of their product, and in the end, its the public, the customers, who end up paying the bill.
This article supplies a list of ten of the most ridiculous lawsuits of all time. Look many lawsuits are legitimate and necessary, but as you can see on this list, some of them are just flat out atrocious and have no business even being entered into a court room. These lawsuits cost the taxpayers money and it costs the courts time, that they could be using to handle other more serious claims and offenses. A reform of some sort should be taken into consideration, the problem is, like Kyle points out, who decides what is and is not a legitimate lawsuit?
This article supplies a list of ten of the most ridiculous lawsuits of all time. Look many lawsuits are legitimate and necessary, but as you can see on this list, some of them are just flat out atrocious and have no business even being entered into a court room. These lawsuits cost the taxpayers money and it costs the courts time, that they could be using to handle other more serious claims and offenses. A reform of some sort should be taken into consideration, the problem is, like Kyle points out, who decides what is and is not a legitimate lawsuit?
Friday, March 30, 2012
Reevaluating Tax Breaks
If you could implement any change in the United States government what would it be? This is more powerful question than most people take time to realize. Chances are if you asked one hundred different people you would get one hundred different answers. One thing that could use some serious reevaluation would be the tax breaks we have in our current tax system, primarily for the big corporations. Why you may ask, well the answer is simple, its because although some tax breaks are necessary and adequate, others are lenient and can be perceived as making a mockery of the system.
This article titled 10 Facts About Corporate Taxes That Will Make Your Blood Boil gives us a look into the confusing world of the corporate tax system. With the national deficit currently at an all time high, giving companies that are bringing in record revenues big tax breaks seem counter productive to our problem. In the 1950's corporate taxes accounted for about 30% of all federal revenue, in 2006 it was just 6.6%. In other words that is down about five times less than what it was in the 1950's. The United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world at about 35%, so the question is why does it only generate less than 7% of federal revenue? Well the corporation have become experts at finding breaks in the system, primarily by means overseas. Corporations will keep the revenues in off shore accounts therefore avoiding being taxed by the United States.
Looking deeper into the subject we can examine some individual companies and see what they paid in taxes. General Electric made a total of 14.2 billion dollars in profits last year. So how much did they pay in taxes to the U.S. Treasury? According to the New York Times, not one penny was paid. However, General Electric disputes this. How About Exxon Mobile? They paid 15 billion in taxes in 2009, but not one penny went to the United States government. Boeing which receives billions in government subsidies every year, and has a contract with the United States government, not one penny was paid in taxes. Did you pay taxes to federal government last year? If you were employed at anytime then yes you did, why should multi-billion dollar corporations posting record profits quarter after quarter not be asked to pay anything? Doing this would help to reduce the national deficit.
Now I am not saying that we need to completely do away with tax breaks, I just think the entire system needs to be broken down and reassembled to a more productive system that is fair for all of us, from the big corporation to the sixteen year olds working their first job at minimum wage.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Fukushima, The Aftermath
Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman of CounterPunch: "America's Best Political Newsletter" wrote an article titled
Exposing the "No Harm" Mantra The Dangerous Myths of Fukushima . This article is about the aftermath of last years earthquake and tsunamis that sent nuclear plants into meltdown.
A brief background on the authors:
Dr. Joseph Mangano serves as the Program Manager of the Advanced Lithography program and oversees efforts designed to revolutionize semiconductor lithography technology through accelerated research of highly innovative technical approaches that enable pattern transfer to wafers of features of 100 nm and below. The program emphasizes reducing technical barriers in the major lithography technologies, including exposure sources and areas relevant to more than one technology option.
From 1984 to2004, Dr. Mangano served as a Vice President and Senior Research Scientist at Science Research Laboratory From 1978 to 1984, Dr. Mangano served as the Program Manager, Division Director, and Deputy Office Director for DARPA where he led programs in excimer lasers, free electron lasers, particle beam technology, and blue-green submarine laser communications.Dr. Mangano earned S.B., S.M., E.E., and Ph.D. degrees in Electrical Engineering and Plasma Physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Janette Sherman, M.D. specializes in internal medicine and toxicology with an emphasis on chemicals and nuclear radiation that cause illness, including cancer and birth defects. She graduated from Western Michigan University with majors in biology and chemistry and from the Wayne State University College of Medicine. Prior to medical school, she worked for the Atomic Energy Commission (forerunner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) at the University of California in Berkeley, and for the U.S. Navy Radiation Defense Laboratory in San Francisco. From 1976–1982 Dr. Sherman served on the advisory board for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxic Substances Control Act.
The authors of this article were attempting to reach out the general public in order to bring some awareness to the issue, basically because it effects all of us, even here in the United States. They provided some alarming statistics in the article about the fallout since the disaster. It is something that we should all take seriously.
As we dig a little deeper into the article, lets take some time to break it down. There appears to be a clear distinction here between the scientific arguments made in this article and the political arguments the authors claim are being made against it. They claim that political arguments state that the radiation levels are low and not harmful to humans in such small doses. The authors states that one year after Fukushima the evidence is mounting against that very argument, and it seems to be pretty convincing.
At first the Japanese government said the emissions from Fukushima were just 10% of the one from Chernobyl (a nuclear disaster that occurred in 1986), which they later doubled to 20%, but by October of 2011, they said is was double that of Chernobyl. Taking those number alone into consideration would suggest that it is being naive and unrealistic to think that humans aren't at risk from the toxins released into the air from the meltdown.
Meteorologists from all around the world tracked the radioactive particles and gases days after the meltdown, just six days after the incident those gases had already reached the United States, and eighteen days later had circled the Northern Hemisphere. It is becoming evident that there is a real problem here. A gas known as Xenon 133 was reported as being 40,000 times higher that normal levels in the United States, and though this gas does not enter the body, it signifies that other gases are on the way, as the article states.
The article goes on to give other statistics about how other gases in out US environment have gone up as a result from the meltdown, radioactive rain that can poison the human body,573 people near the site who died were cited by coroner as a result of the disaster. One survey showed a decrease in the birth rate and increase in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Some deaths in the United States were said to be related to the meltdown. It is a scary thing to think about when analyzing the effect of the Fukushima meltdown, but to simply accept the notions the Japanese government was putting out there that radiation levels were not a threat to us, the general public, after the meltdown would be a foolish thing to do, as the authors of the article have pointed out, there are two sides to every story. Perhaps some of the statistics provided in this article have other elements factoring into them, but overall this is a topic that should be taken very seriously so that things may be done to prevent it from ever happening again and, also, procedures can be put into place for effective reaction should it ever occur again.
A brief background on the authors:
Dr. Joseph Mangano serves as the Program Manager of the Advanced Lithography program and oversees efforts designed to revolutionize semiconductor lithography technology through accelerated research of highly innovative technical approaches that enable pattern transfer to wafers of features of 100 nm and below. The program emphasizes reducing technical barriers in the major lithography technologies, including exposure sources and areas relevant to more than one technology option.
From 1984 to2004, Dr. Mangano served as a Vice President and Senior Research Scientist at Science Research Laboratory From 1978 to 1984, Dr. Mangano served as the Program Manager, Division Director, and Deputy Office Director for DARPA where he led programs in excimer lasers, free electron lasers, particle beam technology, and blue-green submarine laser communications.Dr. Mangano earned S.B., S.M., E.E., and Ph.D. degrees in Electrical Engineering and Plasma Physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Janette Sherman, M.D. specializes in internal medicine and toxicology with an emphasis on chemicals and nuclear radiation that cause illness, including cancer and birth defects. She graduated from Western Michigan University with majors in biology and chemistry and from the Wayne State University College of Medicine. Prior to medical school, she worked for the Atomic Energy Commission (forerunner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) at the University of California in Berkeley, and for the U.S. Navy Radiation Defense Laboratory in San Francisco. From 1976–1982 Dr. Sherman served on the advisory board for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxic Substances Control Act.
The authors of this article were attempting to reach out the general public in order to bring some awareness to the issue, basically because it effects all of us, even here in the United States. They provided some alarming statistics in the article about the fallout since the disaster. It is something that we should all take seriously.
As we dig a little deeper into the article, lets take some time to break it down. There appears to be a clear distinction here between the scientific arguments made in this article and the political arguments the authors claim are being made against it. They claim that political arguments state that the radiation levels are low and not harmful to humans in such small doses. The authors states that one year after Fukushima the evidence is mounting against that very argument, and it seems to be pretty convincing.
At first the Japanese government said the emissions from Fukushima were just 10% of the one from Chernobyl (a nuclear disaster that occurred in 1986), which they later doubled to 20%, but by October of 2011, they said is was double that of Chernobyl. Taking those number alone into consideration would suggest that it is being naive and unrealistic to think that humans aren't at risk from the toxins released into the air from the meltdown.
Meteorologists from all around the world tracked the radioactive particles and gases days after the meltdown, just six days after the incident those gases had already reached the United States, and eighteen days later had circled the Northern Hemisphere. It is becoming evident that there is a real problem here. A gas known as Xenon 133 was reported as being 40,000 times higher that normal levels in the United States, and though this gas does not enter the body, it signifies that other gases are on the way, as the article states.
The article goes on to give other statistics about how other gases in out US environment have gone up as a result from the meltdown, radioactive rain that can poison the human body,573 people near the site who died were cited by coroner as a result of the disaster. One survey showed a decrease in the birth rate and increase in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Some deaths in the United States were said to be related to the meltdown. It is a scary thing to think about when analyzing the effect of the Fukushima meltdown, but to simply accept the notions the Japanese government was putting out there that radiation levels were not a threat to us, the general public, after the meltdown would be a foolish thing to do, as the authors of the article have pointed out, there are two sides to every story. Perhaps some of the statistics provided in this article have other elements factoring into them, but overall this is a topic that should be taken very seriously so that things may be done to prevent it from ever happening again and, also, procedures can be put into place for effective reaction should it ever occur again.
Friday, February 24, 2012
is Politics a bad word?
Alec MacGillis wrote an article in the Washington Post titled
No one is ‘playing politics’ on Solyndra or birth control. This is politics.
First, Let me introduce you to a brief bio of the Author
37-year-old Alec A Macgillis lives in Washington, DC, but has also spent time in Manchester, CT; Baltimore, MD and Kensington, MD.
He has worked for The Washington Post, Political Reporter, Political Blogger and The Trail.
Stefan A Macgillis is in Alec’s family. Online, Alec goes by the alias AlecMacGillis. MacGillis has a peek score of 7.04 out of 10. A peek score is a score from 1-10, 10 being the highest, which is based on your internet relevancy. It takes into consideration things such as friends on social network site, followers, readers, etc.
Macgillis, in writing this article, is attempting to reach out to the American public. He is shedding some light on a topic that America needs to take notice of, politics. What is politics? Politics can be defined as a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. Today when someone is being labeled a politician, or the phrase he/she's just playing politcs, it is viewed negatively. MacGillis provides us with several examples in the article, referring to the Susan G. Kolmen foundation when they cut grants to Planned Parenthood. Critics were saying they were "playing politics with women's healthcare."
MacGillis then goes on to say that it is somewhat troubling, perhaps, misleading about associating the word politics with negative connotations. He points out that politics is involved in nearly, if not all, major issues we face as a country, and furthermore, it should be that way. I completely agree with the points he is making. When you observe the meaning of the word politics, it is important not to interpret it out of context. Politics is something we use as citizens to make decisions, we evaluate the pros and the cons, we must look at the picture as a whole, taking into consideration things like values and where we want to invest our resources. We all should set aside more time to invest in politics, but not "politics of cynicism, but politics of hope" as Obama once said. We need to raise awareness on the issues surrounding this country, and come together through politics to make decisions on these issues. That is why politics exist in the first place, it is important to not allow ourselves to be turned off when politics is brought up as the topic of conversation, to not think of things negatively, but more neutral minded, better yet, open minded, allow ourselves to truly discuss our issues and then make responsible decisions through politics.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Compromising Contraceptives
There has been a decision made on contraceptives in the Catholic Church. This article here tells the story.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-to-announce-adjustment-to-birth-control-rule/2012/02/10/gIQArbFy3Q_story.html?hpid=z1
The idea behind this issue stems from the Catholic Church not believing in birth control as part of their religion while the government is arguing that every employed person should have access to contraceptives. So the idea behind this policy was to give employees in the Catholic Church an option through the insurance that covers contraceptives, thus giving the employee and not the employer the power to decide whether to use them or not. A compromise was made essentially, while many oppose this idea, personally I agree with the bill. It gives employees access to contraceptives and gives them the right to make personal decisions without forcing the Catholic Church to require it. I strongly believe in compromise as it is the very idea that our country was founded on.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-to-announce-adjustment-to-birth-control-rule/2012/02/10/gIQArbFy3Q_story.html?hpid=z1
The idea behind this issue stems from the Catholic Church not believing in birth control as part of their religion while the government is arguing that every employed person should have access to contraceptives. So the idea behind this policy was to give employees in the Catholic Church an option through the insurance that covers contraceptives, thus giving the employee and not the employer the power to decide whether to use them or not. A compromise was made essentially, while many oppose this idea, personally I agree with the bill. It gives employees access to contraceptives and gives them the right to make personal decisions without forcing the Catholic Church to require it. I strongly believe in compromise as it is the very idea that our country was founded on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)