Question of the Week #4: Virginia's Issue with Transportation

The biggest current political issue facing the state of Virginia is probably transportation. In the last decade, there has been a constant battle between Northern Virginia and southern Virginia in the state legislature.

Evidently, Northern Virginia has grown exponentially in the past twenty years, especially within the last ten. After 9/11, defense contractors (Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman) quickly relocated to Northern Virginia to take advantage of the proximity to the national government and the highly affluent, highly educated cohort of young, working-age Americans. With this relocation, more people moved to Northern Virginia to take advantage of the job opportunities. It's cyclical. With more people, communities grew larger and larger, and branched out farther and farther.

As a result, Northern Virginia provides a huge tax base for the Virginia state government. Not only are there hundreds of thousands of habitants who pay taxes to the state of Virginia, but there also thousands of profitable companies that contribute to this tax base as well. However, the tax allocation for transportation and infrastructure has hardly been proportional. Transportation hasn't kept up with the rapid growth and expansion of Northern Virginia. Gridlock and general traffic are huge problems. Roads are in need of repair. With all the contributing taxpayers, one would think that these problems could be taken care of with taxpayer money. Unfortunately, this isn't the case, and the rest of the state has little sympathy for Northern Virginia. Despite the inordinate amount of taxes coming from NoVa, the money is being unequally distributed to the whole state; it's not exactly fair when rural Virginia is receiving the same amount of transportation funding when there are so few people.

Although there has been success with the funding of the incoming Silver Line of the Metro system in the Dulles Corridor, for the most past, there is still huge controversy over how taxpayer money should be allocated. As of now, it is still fairly unresolved.

"Cut, Balance and Grow"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/perry-calls-for-major-spending-and-tax-cuts/2011/10/25/gIQAu7OUEM_story.html

On Tuesday, major GOP candidate Rick Perry released his economic plan, filled with (unsurprisingly) conservative fiscal goals. The plan calls for a dramatic reduction of taxes (lowering the current 35 percent to 20 percent). He argues that the tax cuts will encourage economic prosperity by allowing wealthy individuals and companies to expand business in a more favorable economic climate. However, with the tax cuts, the federal deficit will drastically increase if other methods of spending reduction are not found.

In addition to tax cuts, Perry has also formally proposed the idea of privatizing Social Security, allowing younger generations to put aside retirement money in separate, private savings accounts. Although the plan seems like it would work, it's a little too idealistic- it's already difficult enough to get young people to start 401Ks if they're younger than 40. Social Security will probably need more reform than simply allowing the option of privatization.

The proposed economic plan also happens to put Perry more right than his opponent, Mitt Romney; a clever tactic especially after criticism of being "too liberal" with immigration policies and the granting of in-state college tuition to children of illegal immigrants. It appears as if Perry is trying to win over ultra-conservative Tea Party members who were reluctant to back Romney. Perry seems to be taking the "anything you can do, I can do better" approach with his opponent. While Romney calls for 25% corporate tax cuts, Perry calls for 20. With the capping of federal spending: Romney plans for 20% of GDP, while Perry calls for 18%.

As the Republican primaries and caucuses move closer and closer, the GOP candidates are campaigning in earnest.

Current Event #3: Obama plans to turn anti-Wall Street anger on Mitt Romney and Republicans

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-plans-to-turn-anti-wall-street-anger-on-mitt-romney-republicans/2011/10/14/gIQAZfiwkL_story.html


As the Occupy Wall Street protests gain momentum, President Obama is taking the opportunity to attack his leading GOP opponent, Mitt Romney. Although Romney is praised by supporters for his experience as a high-ranking investment executive, political scientists are thinking that this sets Romney under Obama's potential line of fire for his reelection campaign ("portraying him as a wealthy Wall Street sympathizer").


Obama seems to be becoming more desperate as the election year draws close. With poor approval ratings, he's upped the snarky political commentary in an attempt to target the opposition's flaws and gain support. Recently, the Wall Street Protests are being used as leverage. 


Perhaps Obama might think that this tactic is effective, but I think that the majority of people can tell that it's nothing more than a tactic. Both parties are at fault here, and partisan political squabbles aren't going to gain votes, they'll just cause frustration (for party lines and for voters). 

Obama's Report Card:

Health Care- B

Although I am a huge advocate of free or reduced universal healthcare and I support the Affordable Care Act, I just don't feel too confident in how Obama dealt with the whole healthcare situation. I have no idea how one would respond if one were in his place, but I just don't think that the Care Act will be entirely successful. Most likely the plan will be found unconstitutional, and I don't think that there's enough support for the Act to pass. I feel like he had good intentions, though. 

Dealing with the Economic Downturn- C

His plans haven't made much progress, but we haven't lost too much either. C. Big, fat average. The state of the  economy isn't a result of his presidency, but his efforts to improve it have been mediocre at best. The bureaucracy is partly to blame for this- if it were more efficient and less indecisive, we might be in a better state right now. 

War on Terror- A-

I applaud Obama's efforts to remove troops and end the war in Iraq. It's getting to the point where we've overstayed our welcome. Obama inherited the war, and he's done a pretty good job in cleaning the mess up. And he killed Osama Bin Laden. Pretty freaking awesome. 

Reelection Bid- B-

Even though I'll probably end up supporting Obama in the next election, I'm not too convinced that he's going to win; other democrats feel this way too, and it's not a good thing. Obviously if he was running against someone like Bachmann, I wouldn't be worried at all, but with all the publicity GOP candidates have been getting, he definitely should be worried. It's going to be a close race. He's raise tons of money for his reelection campaign, but his approval ratings are terrible. 

Question of the Week #2:

So. A political issue I'm interested in.

As evidenced from my previous post, I am a huge, huge, HUGE proponent of education reform. I know that this isn't exactly an issue that's incredibly controversial and is making headlining news at the moment, but the education system in this country is something that should be making news.

It's not as if the education system in the United States is terrible. Compared to a lot of countries, it's pretty darn good. I personally think it's average, occasionally bordering on mediocre. But I feel like it has so much potential to be better.

Great way to commence the de-sucking process? Early childhood education. It is SO vital that children start the education process at a young age- especially for children in poverty. Academic success is proven to come more readily when children start schooling at a younger age. Unfortunately, opposition comes from the fact that establishing early childhood education programs will cost billions of dollars in taxpayer money. However, if you educate these kids earlier, they'll consequently be smarter, graduate from high school, graduate from college, and then go get a successful, well-paying, tertiary job in which they can pay all those tax dollars right back. You get a highly-trained working class, and you have an educated population. Win-win, right?

Second way to de-suck the education system: pay teachers more and get rid of labor unions. We're already lacking qualified teachers, and a huge reason as to why this is happening is because people are hesitant about taking on a job that's going to pay crap. If we focus tax-payer money on education instead of questionable projects (such as funding those dinky rural airports), we can pay teachers more so they actually feel appreciated and consequently do a better job. And while we're at it, we can get rid of teacher labor unions. Ever wonder why that terrible teacher was never fired despite millions of parent and student complaints? Yeah, he/she is in a labor union. Honestly, if you're good at what you do, why do need a labor union to protect you?

Third way to de-suck our schools: stop coddling all the stupid kids. Not just the No Child Left Behind program, just stop coddling in general. It is the most annoying thing ever when I read in the paper how another county has had parents complaining that their son received a D- and now the school board is changing the grading scale so that it is now impossible to fail. I honestly think that the majority of crappy grades come from laziness- not that the kid is stupid. And sometimes, the only way to carry across the message that a kid is lazy is to let them fail. Really no way around it. If we keep on devising ways to "leave no child behind", we're subsequently holding back the children who are capable of excelling. Standards of Learning are stupid. If we accept mediocrity, that's what we're going to receive. Set the standards higher, and people will aim higher. It's not an impossible task.

There are honestly so many other ways to improve our education system, but there's really just one flaw: there's no money. So I recognize that. People would rather have money spent on other things, whatever.

And I apologize on how informal the writing in this post was. Kind of going against my own beliefs.

Current Event #2: Rick Perry Fumbles... Again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-iowa-perry-dogged-by-immigration-questions/2011/10/08/gIQALclCWL_story.html

The Republican GOP contender, Rick Perry, ran into several campaign troubles while making appearances in Iowa this past weekend. Many Republican Iowans were concerned over Perry's acknowledgement that while governor, he granted in-state tuition rates to the children of illegal immigrants. Perry responded to this  by calling those who opposed his legislation as "heartless", but then later admitted his mistake.

Despite his apology, many voters are still concerned that Perry might not be as adamantly right-wing as he claims to be. However, Perry seems to be paying absolutely no heed to this, and is still standing firmly by his policy. Perry claims that granting in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants is creating “taxpayers, not tax-wasters.” Republican voters are not convinced. 

I, however, am thrilled not only because Perry is fumbling, but also because I actually agree with Perry on this one. Granting in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants is doing exactly what Perry claims it's doing- creating a group of educated, taxpaying, young Americans. It sounds totally cheesy, but so-called "dream students" will actually have the opportunity to receive a college education. And it's not as if Perry is waiving college tuition fees altogether, he's just creating equal opportunities for Americans. Education should be an inherent right for citizens and should be the number one priority for the nation. Already, the United States has fallen behind in the number of educated, intelligent college graduates compared to other nations. We're not regressing to a less-developed country, but educating the population would solve a lot of the nation's problems.

Current Event #1: Constitutionality of the Extent of Federal Power?

(Hopefully) Pretty much everyone in America is aware of the ongoing national debate on the extent of the federal government's power. Obamacare, or nationalized healthcare, is really the biggest issue in this debate, especially among Tea Party Republicans, and of course, Obama.

Monday, the Supreme Court will be reconvening to address this specific issue- should the federal government take control of issues that have historically been delegated to the states? A lot of the subjects up for debate do seem to be approaching unconstitutionality (10th amendment rights) if given to the federal government. In addition to the healthcare debate, immigration, affirmative action, and gay rights are all issues that the Supreme Court will be tackling.

Although the Supreme Court is supposed to be completely impartial to politics, many are skeptical of whether the justices can leave their personal beliefs out of their decisions. Conservatives are questioning Justice Kagan's previous affiliation with legal defense of Obamacare. Likewise, liberal groups are questioning Justice Thomas' failure to report his wife's work with conservative organizations in opposition to the healthcare law.

It'll be interesting to hear the Court's decisions, especially since it's so right-leaning. It's great that the court is finally getting to these issues, although the political ramifications of the Court's decisions make me a little nervous, especially if the 2003 affirmative action case comes back up. It's also good that the Court is deciding on the constitutionality of Obamacare now, therefore the Obama administration will have to recover if it's so needed (which I feel it probably will).

Read more! http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-term-will-include-cases-highlighting-extent-of-federal-power/2011/09/29/gIQA3lbXDL_story.html

Question of the Week: What political party am I aligned with?

I've already gone into this a little bit in a previous post, but just to reiterate...

After taking four political typology quizzes, I've found that I'm liberal. I've always associated myself with the Democratic party, so this wasn't too much of a surprise. However, based on the typology quizzes, I was quite surprised when I found out that I'm more moderate-leaning than I thought I was.

On the other hand, if I do think about it closely, it's not too surprising after all. My dad is quite liberal (also surprising, he comes from an ultra-conservative, mid-west, Irish Catholic family), but my mom, who claims to be moderate, has historically been pretty right-leaning. (She voted for Bush. Twice.) So I suppose that somewhere along the line, some of her right-wing propaganda somehow rubbed off on me. At home, we don't really discuss politics very often, and if we do, it's mainly my dad complaining about the bureaucracy. However, my parents are both entrenched in Washington politics daily; my dad used to work for The Washington Post and now works for Pew Research Center, my mom used to work for U.S. News and World Report (ha, no one even knows what this is anymore) and now freelances for The Washington Post. So even though politics is rarely discussed in the household, we're all incredibly politically-conscious.

Like the majority of my 18-24 cohort, I believe that social agenda should be priority. (Realistically, no, it shouldn't, the country has other problems. However, like many others, it's the basis of my political beliefs.) Socially, I'm quite liberal. Gay rights? Definitely. Abortion? Pro-choice. Legalizing marijuana? Yes, but with strict government enforcement. Economically, I'm pretty liberal too. National healthcare is good. Politically? I'm a pacifist, disputes should be settled with diplomacy.

What makes me more moderate is that I actually don't have too many qualms with the government. For the most part, it does a pretty good job.  The only liberal social belief that I vehemently oppose is affirmative action. America is a melting pot of cultures, and therefore everyone should be treated equally.  I have nothing against civil rights, yet I think we hurdled that issue . We've come to the point where equality should actually mean true equality, no reverse discrimination. I'm all for immigration.

My general outlook in life is that people can believe whatever they wish to believe, just please, don't force those beliefs on others. To each his own. I'm pretty accepting if you can provide legitimate evidence as to why you believe a certain way.