I think one of the largest current political issues that Virginia is facing is that of education. It is not a struggle that Virginia alone faces, but years of "draconian cuts to Virginia's budget" (http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/virginia/2011/02/public-education-gets-boost-general-assembly-adjourns) has definitely taken a toll on public education systems throughout Virginia. This is especially true with No Child Left Behind legislature still in place as well as overall economic hardship in the United States as a whole.
The topic of education is one that is also difficult to address while living in Fairfax County and having access to one of the top school systems in the entire country - it is easy to forget that there is definitely disparity bewteen school systems of Northern Virginia and school systems of the state as a whole. So while many Northern Virginia schools and colleges were privy to the $80 million dollar boost that the General Assembly passed back in Febuary, less can be said for the state as a whole - in fact, one goal is simply to get more Virginia students to attend Virginia schools, or the plan of "100,00 new degrees".
This fight for funding, both in Northern Virginia and in the state as a whole, is one that will continue, especially as funding is still federally controlled, and remains an important part of Virginia legislature.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
"Yellow Light for Romney in Iowa"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67156.html
As we've been talking in class about noominations and campaigning, I thought I would highlight part of the 2012 presidential election - specifically, the Iowa caucus.
The article above illustrates the pattern of frontrunning - as the Iowa caucus will be the first state indicator of the Republican nominations, so it has been given an inordinate amount of attention in the nomination race. The Iowa caucus even has its own website (http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/) with breakdowns of poll data candidate by candidate, pages for all of the candidates, and a "candidate calendar and tracker" that shows the specific locations candidates have been in Iowa and where they are going to be. While this wealth of information certainly allows voters to get a wealth of information, who takes advantage of it? For those looking for a simple breakdown of data, the website itself can be incredibly overwhelming, and it reflects the fact that candidates place a disproportionate amount of time and effort getting votes for this one caucus.
The article also indicates that caucus members must choose both a first and second choice candidate, which reflects a key facet of the caucus itself, and is a reminder of the fact that the caucus is extremely open. However, all of the information together also shows how incomplete polling truly is - of those polled, only 38% "definitely intend to caucus" - and, of those, Romney is the first choice of only 10% while Herman Cain is the first choice of 27%. Yet when looking at the votes as a whole, Romney is the first choice of 22% while Cain is the first choice of 23% - a much closer race. The nominations (and the Iowa caucus especially) are really only shrouded in viewpoint right now, and it seems complicated and confusing to try and pick a "frontrunner" at the momet.
As we've been talking in class about noominations and campaigning, I thought I would highlight part of the 2012 presidential election - specifically, the Iowa caucus.
The article above illustrates the pattern of frontrunning - as the Iowa caucus will be the first state indicator of the Republican nominations, so it has been given an inordinate amount of attention in the nomination race. The Iowa caucus even has its own website (http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/) with breakdowns of poll data candidate by candidate, pages for all of the candidates, and a "candidate calendar and tracker" that shows the specific locations candidates have been in Iowa and where they are going to be. While this wealth of information certainly allows voters to get a wealth of information, who takes advantage of it? For those looking for a simple breakdown of data, the website itself can be incredibly overwhelming, and it reflects the fact that candidates place a disproportionate amount of time and effort getting votes for this one caucus.
The article also indicates that caucus members must choose both a first and second choice candidate, which reflects a key facet of the caucus itself, and is a reminder of the fact that the caucus is extremely open. However, all of the information together also shows how incomplete polling truly is - of those polled, only 38% "definitely intend to caucus" - and, of those, Romney is the first choice of only 10% while Herman Cain is the first choice of 27%. Yet when looking at the votes as a whole, Romney is the first choice of 22% while Cain is the first choice of 23% - a much closer race. The nominations (and the Iowa caucus especially) are really only shrouded in viewpoint right now, and it seems complicated and confusing to try and pick a "frontrunner" at the momet.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
the President Obama report card
Health Care - (C+)
-- President Obama has made health care reform concerning Medicare, which is especially important in light of the coming problems dealing with higher number of retirees from the baby boomer years
--many health care initiatives and reforms are still being debated between the House and the Senate, with few changes being made
--ideals over universal health care are hotly debated but no attempt has been made to compromise, due to strong conflict between conservative and liberal views
Economic Downturn - (D)
--The economy has not improved significantly since the downturn, and while President Obama is not solely at fault, it will be a serious tool for the Republican party to use against him in the upcoming elections
--President Obama has made attempts with the stimulus and jobs bills, but they have been lost in Congressional debate and politics or blocked by the Republican-dominated House
--Occupy Wall Street movement is a reflection of citizens' unhappiness with the current economic situation
War on Terror - (B+)
--Debate about the War on Terror has mostly subsided in the general news, and for many people, the War on Terror has taken a positive turn with the death of major figures like Osama Bin Laden during Obama's Presidency
--US support of the revolutionaries in Libya and Egypt enforces the American ideals of democracy and freedom in refusal to support repressive dictatorships, though there is still turmoil in those areas
Reelection Bid - (B+)
--Use of the Occupy Wall Street protests in his favor will be an effective way to take some of the moderate votes during the election (as well as asserting his Wall Street reform actions)
--Unified front in opposition to the confusion and debate between Republican candidates is effective, as well as making the Republicans seem like the problem behind political gridlock in Congress (e.g, attempt in his 'Jobs Bill' speech)
-- President Obama has made health care reform concerning Medicare, which is especially important in light of the coming problems dealing with higher number of retirees from the baby boomer years
--many health care initiatives and reforms are still being debated between the House and the Senate, with few changes being made
--ideals over universal health care are hotly debated but no attempt has been made to compromise, due to strong conflict between conservative and liberal views
Economic Downturn - (D)
--The economy has not improved significantly since the downturn, and while President Obama is not solely at fault, it will be a serious tool for the Republican party to use against him in the upcoming elections
--President Obama has made attempts with the stimulus and jobs bills, but they have been lost in Congressional debate and politics or blocked by the Republican-dominated House
--Occupy Wall Street movement is a reflection of citizens' unhappiness with the current economic situation
War on Terror - (B+)
--Debate about the War on Terror has mostly subsided in the general news, and for many people, the War on Terror has taken a positive turn with the death of major figures like Osama Bin Laden during Obama's Presidency
--US support of the revolutionaries in Libya and Egypt enforces the American ideals of democracy and freedom in refusal to support repressive dictatorships, though there is still turmoil in those areas
Reelection Bid - (B+)
--Use of the Occupy Wall Street protests in his favor will be an effective way to take some of the moderate votes during the election (as well as asserting his Wall Street reform actions)
--Unified front in opposition to the confusion and debate between Republican candidates is effective, as well as making the Republicans seem like the problem behind political gridlock in Congress (e.g, attempt in his 'Jobs Bill' speech)
Obama and Occupy Wall Street
source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-plans-to-turn-anti-wall-street-anger-on-mitt-romney-republicans/2011/10/14/gIQAZfiwkL_story.html
This article was in regard to President Obama's plans to use the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations across the country as a tool against the GOP in the upcoming 2012 presidential elections. I thought this was important topic to highlight becuase of the growing movement that is "Occupy Wall Street" - a conglomeration of people and ideas that has spread rapidly across the United States, and now has a faction located in DC - only a metro ride away. While many have protested that the movement lacks any actual focus or leader, the sheer amount and variety of people that are camped out to support the cause have begun to have an impact on the behavior of elected officials in Washington.
The fact that President Obama sees the movement as having big enough influence (in trying to convince voters that the President has passed Wall Street reform while his opposition will be against it) to impact the way voters turn out next November means that this is an example of a way that people are directly influencing the current politicy agenda. Because the people have demanded that it become an issue, it has. The movement then becomes a powerful illustration of the impact of the freedom of speech and petition within the American government system.
So while Obama proposes Wall Street reform and the GOP proposes new economic plans, they are both, in essence, trying to respond to the (loud) voice of the people, which is an encouraging display of government, despite what one believes about how effective the movement will be as a whole.
This article was in regard to President Obama's plans to use the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations across the country as a tool against the GOP in the upcoming 2012 presidential elections. I thought this was important topic to highlight becuase of the growing movement that is "Occupy Wall Street" - a conglomeration of people and ideas that has spread rapidly across the United States, and now has a faction located in DC - only a metro ride away. While many have protested that the movement lacks any actual focus or leader, the sheer amount and variety of people that are camped out to support the cause have begun to have an impact on the behavior of elected officials in Washington.
The fact that President Obama sees the movement as having big enough influence (in trying to convince voters that the President has passed Wall Street reform while his opposition will be against it) to impact the way voters turn out next November means that this is an example of a way that people are directly influencing the current politicy agenda. Because the people have demanded that it become an issue, it has. The movement then becomes a powerful illustration of the impact of the freedom of speech and petition within the American government system.
So while Obama proposes Wall Street reform and the GOP proposes new economic plans, they are both, in essence, trying to respond to the (loud) voice of the people, which is an encouraging display of government, despite what one believes about how effective the movement will be as a whole.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
affirmative action
Despite the fact that I didn't know this particular term until about two weeks ago, I think affirmative action is an interesting and essential part of American politics today.
While the term "affirmative action" was not coined until the 1960s, I do think that the idea of equality for all Americans - whether they are minorities or not - has been a central facet of American political ideology since the Declaration of Independence. Ideologically, then, I see affirmative action as an essential way of creating opportunities for those who are disadvantaged in education and in the workplace as well as allowing for social equality for all Americans, especially in light of the fact that the United States is set to reach a minority majority by the mid-21st century.
Yet at the same time, intellectually I do see the side of conservative standpoints on the issue - it cannot be denied that there are instances in which affirmative action legislation can undermine the achievements of minority citizens and encourage people to identify with that particular minority rather than their achievements or qualifications for a position.
Overall then, I see both sides as an interesting debate, though in practice I will most likely always support the use of affirmative action legislation.
While the term "affirmative action" was not coined until the 1960s, I do think that the idea of equality for all Americans - whether they are minorities or not - has been a central facet of American political ideology since the Declaration of Independence. Ideologically, then, I see affirmative action as an essential way of creating opportunities for those who are disadvantaged in education and in the workplace as well as allowing for social equality for all Americans, especially in light of the fact that the United States is set to reach a minority majority by the mid-21st century.
Yet at the same time, intellectually I do see the side of conservative standpoints on the issue - it cannot be denied that there are instances in which affirmative action legislation can undermine the achievements of minority citizens and encourage people to identify with that particular minority rather than their achievements or qualifications for a position.
Overall then, I see both sides as an interesting debate, though in practice I will most likely always support the use of affirmative action legislation.
"Poll sees a new low in Americans' approval of Congress"
source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-sees-a-new-low-in-americans-approval-of-congress/2011/10/04/gIQAc0yQML_story.html
I thought this would be an interesting article to discuss in light of recent class discussion about the impact of polling on public opionion and, ultimately, presidential elections.
We discussed in class the fact that polls are in no way exact, especially due to lack of voter turnout and Americans' lack of substantial political knowlegde - something that this graph reflects. While only 1% of those polled failed to state an opinion about how well the government was working (upper left pie chart), the number jumps up to 9% of people saying "no opinion" when the dissatisfied are asked who is to blame (upper right pie chart) - meaning that while Americans do believe something is wrong, many do not know enough about the government to say what exactly is wrong. This trend is also reflected in the question about military and domestic cuts (bottom right pie chart) - 7% stating that they had no opinion about a major government policy. While 7 and 9% are not particularly large percentages themselves, 9% of Americans as a whole is a much larger, as well as more influential, number.
In any case, the article itself discussed the fact that only 14% of Americans are satisfied with the actions of Congress at this point in time, which is the lowest that number has been in the past 20 years - and the majority of these numbers are "strongly dissatisfied". Most of this distaste is accredited to the problems over the debt ceiling this summer, as well as plummeting approval of President Obama, suggesting a downturn in trust in U.S. Government overall.
What I think is most important about these statistics are the implications on Americans both practically and ideologically - in a practical sense, it becomes a serious problem when the branch of government with the most enumerated powers in the Constitution is no longer able to represent the beliefs and wishes of the people - laws will not accurately reflect the needs of current American society. And in an ideological sense, a government that does not have the faith of the citizens it governs ceases to have enough power to protect those citizens. I think it has been easy for citizens to say that they are dissatisfied with government - which is something that needed to be acknowledged - but perhaps it is time to go about deciding what exactly is going wrong to better determine what issues should control this next presidential election.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
political ideology
In the political ideology quizzes we took in class this past week, my results came in somewhere between centrist and liberal - which is, in my opinion, a pretty accurate reading. Overall, my results illustrated that I tend to take a liberal standpoint on social issues, though I have a more moderate view of issues concerning the economy and size of government.
That therefore aligns me with the Democratic party, which is probably a result of influence from my (solidly) Democratic parents, and although they are not very openly political it has an effect nonetheless. The fact that I am not as strongly liberal as my parents is probably due to my age and the fact that my views about government and social policy are far from solidified, yet at the same time I also think that the tense economic state of government as well as policy gridlock between parties during the past few years (the time in which I have become more politically active and aware) makes me more hesitant to commit to one party (as compared to previous generations, perhaps).
That therefore aligns me with the Democratic party, which is probably a result of influence from my (solidly) Democratic parents, and although they are not very openly political it has an effect nonetheless. The fact that I am not as strongly liberal as my parents is probably due to my age and the fact that my views about government and social policy are far from solidified, yet at the same time I also think that the tense economic state of government as well as policy gridlock between parties during the past few years (the time in which I have become more politically active and aware) makes me more hesitant to commit to one party (as compared to previous generations, perhaps).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)