American Democracy and a Monumental Election

Again, Tuesday night, we were reminded of one of the enduring aspects of the American democratic process. The current president will transfer power to the president elect that is of a different political party. Since the election of 1800, in which the first peaceful transfer of power from one party to the next occurred, the American presidency has changed from party to party based on the vote of the people. This is a testament to the democratic process in America. Even in a campaign that was marked by polarized views and an election where 46% of voters voted against the president elect, a nonviolent transfer of power should occur.

Perhaps a new and monumental aspect of the American democracy occurred with the 2008 elections as well. For the first time in United States history, an African American male was elected to the office of the presidency. The American democratic process achieved another accomplishment as a minority will hold the highest elected office for the next four years.

As part of this American democracy, there are two deciding factors to determine the president elect: popular vote and the electoral vote. The United States prides itself on being a democracy that is "for the people, by the people." When the system was first instituted in 1787, the founding fathers planned to give most of the electoral power to a group of individuals whom they "trusted" to make the right decisions for the country. In theory, this was a good idea because they were able to help balance out the uninformed voters from the ones who truly deserved to vote. In this day and age, the amount of information available is overwhelming and citizens are able to find out anything they want about a candidate, good or bad. So then, does that mean that our democratic republic needs a wake up call?

In this recent election the popular votes were extremely close. The two candidates had been, just barely, either above or below the 50% mark. This close race was not as close as it seems. Obama took a landslide victory in the electoral votes. Even though the popular race was close, McCain really had no chance when the votes that mattered were counted. There have been past elections when the wishes of the people are ignored through this process. In the George W. Bush vs. Al Gore election in 2000, Gore won the popular vote, but Bush became the president through the Electoral College. This shows that maybe the people really know what they are talking about and are able to choose a good president without the help of a "higher educated" group of individuals.

America has chosen who it wants to be the president, but will the Electoral College honor these wishes? America is ready for a change and here is the election to do it.

As the election finished up late last night many were joyful for the newly elected President. The Unites States of America shaped history. The first African American man was elected to lead our country. A transfer of power from one political party to the next will now take place, just as it has many times before. Although some voters and politicians have become polarized on many issues surrounding the election, but now the election is over. Now, as citizens, we are called to join together, no matter which end of the political spectrum and support our president, and continue to shape our history.

Rising college costs…and the economy

In the United States, today an increasing number of jobs require educated people. As the majority of the work force is now required to have a college education, an affordable college education is essential. This demand for educated people plays an important role in the economy and has implications on the nation's well being. Therefore, it is the government's concern to provide a means to educate its citizens at an affordable cost, so that they can enter the workforce and become productive members of the economy.

What, if any, is the causal relationship between the rising cost of college and the United States economic wellbeing?

The cost of education continually rises at a higher rate than the income of an average family and ahead of inflation. For example, in private schools the cost of education has risen 40%. In comparison, the average family income has rise by 4%. In public universities, the rise in cost cannot be pinpointed to one thing, there are many causes. The rise is due partly to the rise in all the resources that are used to run a university. Further affecting the rise in are budget cuts by the government. With less funding provided by the government, the universities have to raise tuition cost to replace this loss of money. Another cause, as it is noted above, people in the United States today have a need to go to college and receive a higher education, as that affects our economy. With this growing need colleges have a "sellers' market", in which they can raise tuition and without fear of decreased enrollment. Students compete simply to receive a spot at the college of their choice, thus colleges can raise tuition and still expect students to pay. With these factors and many others, the rise in cost of education is sharpening.

Barack Obama has many ideas on how to improve the current education system. He plans to reform the No Child Left Behind act by making the standard for improvement not based on test scores. This will help because the large majority of students experience some sort of test anxiety. It places more emphasis on the retention of actual knowledge compared to just memorizing facts to get a good grade. His approach to this situation places more stress on the quality of knowledge than the amount that students receive. Along those same lines, Obama is looking to make college more affordable to college students. The people who go to college are there to gain more human capital and they want to give back to the community. The more college they have, the more money they make, thus the more money they give back to the economy. His plan is to give students a $4,000 tax break for contributing with community service. It is a great idea to help the economy in the long run.

John McCain is looking toward a more pro-choice response to this issue. He thinks that parents should be able to choose what school they want their children to go to and get rid of the confines of geography. He wants the teachers to step up and take responsibility for their students and the amount of knowledge they are getting. He also wants to "devote five percent of Title II funding to states to recruit teachers who graduate in the top 25 percent of their class or who participate in an alternative teacher recruitment programs."
As far as higher education is concerned he wants to make it easier for parents of students to get the tax benefits that are already in action right now. He wants to make the whole process easier and less time consuming for people because there is plenty of money every year that goes unclaimed.

So, what are the implications of the rising cost of college for the economy?

One of the major implications of the rising college tuition costs is an increase in borrowing. As college costs increase, students have to rely on other forms of payment, other than methods previous students used such as grants and family contributions. Students are now taking out loans and increasingly graduating in larger debt than previous students. With more young adults entering the work force and the economy, there are major repercussions. These young people treat these student loans as monthly payments, much as people look at a mortgage or a car payment. Consequently, these loan payments become just one more monthly bill to pay. This doesn't seem like such a bad economic idea, as long as the economy continues to grow. As history suggests, the economy goes through periods of expansion and recession. What if the economy enters a recession and theses "monthly bill" payments become a larger percentage of income? These people would be forced to make sacrifices on other things, or default on these loans. But, what does this have to do with the rest of the economy? These new graduates are waiting longer to buy houses, thus affecting the housing market, which in turn affects the markets which supply materials for house building. Additionally, these young adults are less likely to invest in business ventures, such as small business, which would, in most cases force them to borrow more money. This could have a negative effect on our economy. Furthermore, these young adults are waiting longer to have families, not wanting to take on the financial burden of a family. This undoubtedly will affect other markets in the economy. Moreover, the increasing rise in tuition, which forces students to turn to loans to pay for their education, deters students from entering fields of public service. These jobs traditionally pay less, and make it harder to pay off student loans after graduation.

The United States economy increasingly relies on industries that require college education. Since the economy operates on basic principles of supply and demand, it makes sense that the demand for a college education would increase, which would cause the price for a college education to increase as well. However, as the system of higher education becomes increasingly expensive, people are faced with the challenge of paying for the education that is vital for their success in the economy. As people turn to loans to combat the rising costs, this affects the economy as a whole. Since, the United States competes in a world economy that is driven by innovation and competition, it is imperative that it continues to produce educated adults who can enter the workforce, which today seems to mean earning a college degree. So then, the issue of rising college cost becomes an issue for the economy. But, it doesn't stop there; it is also an issue for the success of the nation in the global economy. How then, should the United States government address this issue of increasing cost for higher education? Should they play a role in this issue at all?

Education

We live in a country that is that operates under a competitive society, which is driven by new ideas. These new ideas create innovation, which works to make the society more competitive in a modernizing world. In response, to this need for innovation, an education system has been deemed necessary to produce intelligent thinkers capable of synthesizing new ideas. Therefore, in our country, the people elect the government which in return regulates the society. Thus, this government has legitimized certain rights for its citizens through the laws it has passed. To form intelligent thinkers, these laws created and implemented an education system. As a result, the government regulates and funds the system, giving it the responsibility to manage the system's performance.

In this type of education system, in which the government is responsible for its implementation and continuing success, how do you measure success? And how does measure of success relate to the student? How can we determine if we are creating intelligent thinkers who are capable of innovation? So what, if any, is the causal relationship between the United States education system and student performance?

The education system of is not completely flawed; but indicators show that there is room for improvement. President Bush instituted No Child Left Behind (NCLB) during his presidency and it was a start to education reform in the United States. It was supposed to "increase accountability for student performance in public schools." The act instituted penalties for schools who were not keeping up with the nation's standard on test scores. In looking at these ideas, it presents a couple of problems. One, standardized tests are not always the most accurate indication on knowledge. Some students are horrible test takers but are amazing students where others are the opposite. Second, in most public schools there are groups of students who are not willing to learn. This happens because they personally feel no need to try; thus, it makes affects the performance of the whole school. In theory, NCLB should increase competition in schools and therefore produce more innovative students, but in real life it needs reforms, additions, and incentives.

So, if the system seems flawed, how do we reform it? Both candidates agree that No Child Left Behind is in need of reform. But, what are the candidates proposing to solve the problem?

Obama proposes that increased funding for the law, to help support schools that need improvement, instead of punishing them. Additionally, he advocates changing the way in which performance is measured, not simply teaching kids how to perform on standardized tests. Furthermore, Obama intends to address charter schools by expanding funding, but only to states that have accountability for charter schools and a plan for their success.

McCain advocates increasing competition and choice in the public school system. He hopes to address the problems of accountability in the system and work to increase the responsibility for producing well-educated children. He hopes to give the parent choice as to which school their child should attend and by doing so increasing competition among the schools.

Healthcare and the health of the economy...

We live in a country, in which the economy generally speaking, operates under free market principles, thus consumers control the allocation of resources. In such an economy, where spenders dictate how much money flows through the economy and what resources are purchased, the different markets of the economy are intertwined. If one market experiences an increase in demand, some other market generally experiences a decrease in demand, and accordingly a decrease in the money flowing in that market. Consequently, the different markets of the economy as a whole affect each other and are controlled by consumers.


The United States in general operates under a free market such as the one described. With the growing health care market, and its growing cost, I ask what, if any, is the causal relationship between the rising cost of health care and the economic recession we are facing?


Health care costs in the United States have been increasing and continue to increase. As a result, Americans are spending a larger percentage of their disposable income on healthcare. Although this is good for the health care market, as it continues to expand, it increasingly affects other markets. As consumers spend more money on health care costs, they have less “spending money” to use elsewhere in the economy. Thus, spending slows which hurts the economy and causes slowed or less growth in other markets.


With health care costs being a rising concern, that impacts the economy, there have been different solutions offered. One school of thought advocates increasing the competition in the healthcare market to help control costs. This thought argues that like other markets the healthcare market should be subject to competition. Competition would give the consumer power to choose among services and products. By increasing competition and giving the consumer more power, individual companies are no longer able to control prices. Thus some argue that this could alleviate the increasing cost of health care in America. On the other hand, some argue that rising health care costs should be addressed by creating a national health care plan, or universal health care. Under this type of system, every citizen is mandated to have health care coverage, or coverage is provided by the government through taxation. Thus, this type of system involves more government regulation of the market and patient care.


With health care costs on the rise, and arguably affecting the economy, it has become a top issue raised during the election campaigns. So, what do the candidates propose? And what, if any, is the causal relationship between the candidate’s plans for controlling health care costs and future changes in our economy?


Senator John McCain proposes a plan to control health care costs that is similar to the argument to create a competitive health care market. McCain proposes to alleviate rising health care costs by providing more competition in health care insurance market and increase the variety so that consumers can pay for what they need. He also advocates portability of health insurance across state lines and from job to job. Further, to combat the rising health care cost, he proposes a tax credit to help pay for health care costs.



Senator Barack Obama proposes a plan that uses more government intervention in the health care market, specifically in health insurance. Obama proposes that Americans who like their health insurance policies can keep those policies, however other, who are uninsured or dissatisfied with their insurance would be able to purchase affordable insurance through a National Health Insurance Exchange. Obama also advocates making the insurance market more competitive to control prices.



So I toss the question to everyone, does either plan offer a solution to the rising health care costs? Will either one save our economy?

One more video, one more perspective!

Welcome!

Hey, my name is Bri and I created this blog to explore the issues of the 2008 election. As an undecided voter, my goal is to explore the issues and present an unbiased and less emotional view. I hope to raise questions that we can all work to answer. So, I'm asking for your help, please comment on my blog and offer your thoughts, to help us all better investigate the issues, especially the complex issue of the economy. Let's start by considering, what, if any, is the causal relationship between the presidential candidates' plans for the economy and what some would call, the current economic crisis?