My Definition of a Well-Informed 21st Century Citizen - 18 Weeks Later

My definition of a well-informed 21^st century citizen is a person who knows both sides of any argument, and can use critical thinking to decide what side they agree with. This includes many aspects of what we dealt with in class and how to gain the knowledge needed to have an educated stance on any topic or issue.

One must also be able to tell truth from the exaggerated truth or biased truth to better determine their position on that matter. An example from class that can support this point is with Newstainment. Although this source can be credible with its facts, they follow this fact by giving their own opinion or taking it out of context. This can lead to skewed information which could impact an uninformed 21^st century citizen. Another thing this citizen would need to be aware of is the power of each branch. More times than not, people blame the president of this country for many situations even though there are certain things he does not have an influence on. The president must go through Congress before putting most things in effect as well. If you blame the president for something he has no control of, this could influence your decision negatively. And finally, an additional thing for a well-informed 21^st century citizen to know is that everything in this world is not cut and dry. This too includes politics. It is much harder to agree on any issue when you know the facts. If an issue only had positive aspects to it, it wouldn’t be considered an issue. That’s why one must look at both pros and cons of any topic and make their decision on whether the pros outweigh the cons.

If a citizen is able to do the previous things, they will be considered a well-informed 21^st century citizen with my definition and will make knowledgeable and thought-out choices.

"An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will." Thomas Jefferson

What are the solutions to the US debt and its' consequences?

            A topic that American politicians and citizens are completely sick of or confused about is the U.S. debt. Not many people seem to be in a hurry to resolve this problem even though it will have a huge impact for our future. This topic is of interest to me because although it is one of the biggest problems facing the U.S., most proposed solutions have a negative effect on many people and someone will have to take a hit if our country wants to find the resolutions to our debt.

            The first topic that must be discussed to better understand what the U.S. is heading towards, in relations to the U.S. debt, are the consequences if we cannot stabilize and lower the debt. If the 15 trillion plus debt continues to rise, this could be a disastrous event and destroy the already fragile economy of the U.S. If it kept rising, the U.S. Treasury would continue to sell bonds and notes in an attempt to offset the current year’s deficit. If our debt is so large that buyers do not feel safe buying U.S. bonds, which are the safest in the world and therefore have low interest rates, the Treasury Department would have to increase interest rates to stay competitive. According to an article by Gail Chaddock from The Christian Science Monitor, this would, in effect, cause the U.S. to pay creditors more to borrow from them. This could happen at any time because we do this every year; therefore, we have to find a way to avoid deficits.

            When the U.S. has a certain amount of money coming in, which mainly consists of taxes, this is the revenue. When the U.S. is spending money on government programs, like Social Security and National Defense, this can be considered our budget; what the president has planned to spend the revenue on. But when our revenue is less than the amount spent towards our budget, we are left with a deficit. According to an article from CNN on the matter of a balanced budget, the U.S has had a budget deficit every year since 1970 except during President Clinton’s second term, where there was a surplus every year. Although you can’t simply copy Clinton’s actions because they came during a different time with different circumstances, you can see how a surplus is created.

            From 1998-2001, when the U.S. had a budget surplus, the most noticeable action taken was a tax increase. It isn’t something any American is for, but there’s really no way around it; it has to be done if we want to have a balanced budget and a chance at stabilizing the debt. Now I’m not going to throw a number out there because that is not my job. It is however, the job of the men and women we elect to a government position. I believe, even before an increase in taxes arises, our elected officials have to start realizing that they are chosen to make the hard decisions, whether people will like you for it or not. Like I said, no American wants to pay more to a government that is sometimes questionable with their spending, we don’t want to see some valuable programs take cuts, but it must be done because someone needs to make the hard decisions.

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people under the pretence of taking care of them.” — Thomas Jefferson

            If they can start making these decisions, America could be on a better track. This new stance will lead to spending in a more useful way. The programs that are usually called into question are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Although these programs definitely need a great deal of reform and cuts could be put in place to succeed at this, there are already plenty of options that were put out there to fix these programs and all of them have a huge negative impact that come along with them. I think one of the first gradual cuts needs to belong to National Defense. A very important part of this country nonetheless, but it does cost a lot of money to fund a program that shows the U.S. spends more on its’ military than any other country. In fact, the U.S. spends more than 40% of the entire world’s expenses on military. This, according to an article from Real Clear World, also shows that China is next with about 8%. Our National Defense program has many unnecessary expenses as well. Government money goes towards weapons that military officials don’t even agree with. This is because the Pentagon sets forth military programs for the military even if they don’t have much use or are flawed. A congressional newspaper, The Hill, noted that a recent 30 year budget plan was flawed and Congress did not have enough time to look over it to point these flaws out. If the military is unsatisfied on how they have to spend their money, maybe there shouldn't be money for those programs. By making gradual cuts to programs like National Defense and making several reforms to Social Security and Medicare, a significant amount of money can then be erased from government spending.

If you would like to be overwhelmed and terrified by some updated numbers, check out this website: National Debt Clock

Super PAC's

The role that super PAC’s and PAC’s have is funding a candidate without actually declaring it. Super PAC’s can receive an unlimited amount of money from individuals and corporations and use that money in any media related position to mostly bash other candidates. They currently spend nearly double what a candidate committee would and have a pretty significant impact on the outcome of election. There isn’t much, if any, regulation and if information is incorrect, no candidate can be blamed for it because they are not supposed to be affiliated with Super PAC’s at all.

            I believe super PAC’s cause more harm than good and should be regulated more closely by the government for the following reasons:

1.      They make the presidential election something you can buy and spend your way to the top

2.      Gives the wealthy and big corporations a bigger impact on elections

3.      Overly negative campaign ads won’t hurt anyone’s reputation, even if wrong information is aired

Looking at the following chart, you can see a lot of money is going into these campaigns.

Group	Supports/Opposes	Independent Expenditures	Viewpoint	Total Raised
Restore Our Future	supports Romney	$46,540,707	Conservative	$56,512,634
Winning Our Future	supports Gingrich	$17,002,762	Conservative	$23,907,955
Red, White & Blue	supports Santorum	$7,529,554	Conservative	$8,466,221
Priorities USA Action	supports Obama	$5,783,785	Liberal	$10,578,305
Club for Growth Action		$5,035,994	Conservative	$6,632,024
Endorse Liberty	supports Paul	$4,135,182	Conservative	$3,675,479
Make Us Great Again	supports Perry	$3,959,824	Conservative	$5,585,945
Our Destiny PAC	supports Huntsman	$2,804,234	Conservative	$3,189,064
House Majority PAC		$2,609,010	Liberal	$5,665,348
Texas Conservatives Fund	supports Dewhurst	$2,263,934	Conservative	$1,430,100
Freedomworks for America		$1,954,764	Conservative	$4,053,927
Majority PAC		$1,893,964	Liberal	$4,210,671
Campaign for Primary Accountability		$1,820,779		$2,882,134
American Crossroads		$1,133,584	Conservative	$29,927,515

Millions and millions of dollars are flooding in that back certain candidates and what does this lead to, whoever has the richest supporters is elected president? You just have to wonder, does nothing else matter besides bank accounts for the most important role in this country. This is something far lefts and far rights can agree upon. They don’t want this race to be based on how much money a super PAC can raise.

            Because large donations are made by corporations, unions and wealthy individuals, they make a bigger impact than the rest of us. They give money to a super PAC that spends it on negative advertisement that promotes something they agree with. The super PAC keeps getting more donations and keeps running advertisements all across the country that people can’t help to believe. Eventually, it takes out candidates one by one because those candidates don’t have the same financial support of a super PAC. These donations could never have been made directly to the candidate they support but with the unlimited amount of money they can give to a super PAC, they just influenced a presidential election. It is not fair to the people or the candidates who don’t have a wealthy support.

            Another negative thing dealing with super PAC’s is their negative ads. Although most American’s get sick of these attack ads fairly quick, most can see how they’d be effective. They bring other candidates’ mistakes to light. But when a candidate runs an overly negative campaign, they usually pay for it by being attacked for not showing any positive aspects about him/herself. Not with the help of super PAC’s that throw negative information all over the internet, TV and radio with no loss to anyone’s reputation. No candidate is responsible for the facts and their campaign doesn’t take any hit for it, they only reap the benefits.

Newstainment

After watching the Newstainment videos and discussing this form of media, I believe Newstainment is a negative trend because it shows one side of every issue, doesn’t allow people to think for themselves, and skews information to fit their ideas.

            Although many people would agree that this form of media is fairly entertaining and can occasionally give you correct and useful information, these positives do not outweigh the negatives. The bias approach of both conservative and liberal sides only allows viewers to see that point of view. It is not like many other news sources that expose proven facts and give little opinion on the matter. This problem also fits my third idea, that the information Newstainment sources give viewers is not always accurate and can be manipulated to make you think their side of the argument is right. I’m sure many people who watch either FOX News (conservative) or MSNBC (liberal) have already made their minds up about which side of the political spectrum they are on, but if an undecided or moderate individual comes across a Newstainment channel and hears this bias information, their ability to think for themselves could be corrupted. Maybe it should be up to each viewer to know whether you can believe information or not but shouldn’t any news channel give accurate facts about any issue and let the public choose what’s best for them? I believe for the previous reasons that Newstainment is a negative trend.

Running With Romney

With a few months left until the time comes when Mitt Romney will most likely pick his Vice President, his priorities must be weighed. He could go the safe route, picking a man with plenty of experience, or a game changer, someone who brings a little more flare. He could choose someone who has a similar Moderate-Republican view or well-liked by the Tea Party. This is when he must decide what traits will help him beat Obama. My priorities you ask?

·         Game changer: Romney needs someone to balance his characteristics. He is considered by most to be closer to the dull side so he needs a VP candidate to excite the voters on what is to come if they are elected.

·         From a battleground state: It is always good to have a VP that you can expect will get you some more electoral votes. Winning swing states is crucial in the final outcome and with a fairly close race expected; it would not be a bad idea to get a little head start.

·         Tea Party: Since Romney is a Moderate- Republican, a VP who appeals to the Tea Party would surely get him some extra votes. This combination could then appeal to the right of the center but also the center; where the candidate is usually selected from.

·         Appeals to a different ethnic group: Republicans are not known for their appeal to minorities. That is usually given to the Democrats. But a VP with a different ethnicity could pull a lot of decisive votes the Republicans way.

Therefore, with my previous list of traits I believe could help Mitt Romney win the election, I would choose Marco Rubio. Not only does he fit all those qualities but he is a rising political star who has enough supporters to make a big indent in this presidential campaign. He also may appeal to younger voters who generally vote Democrat.

On the other hand, a potential running mate that I don’t believe would improve Romney’s chances of beating Obama is the former governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty. Not only did he leave his position with a weak approval rating, but he is also not from a state that would get Romney votes anyway. He does not qualify as someone who could boost Romney’s campaign either because he has a similar persona, dull and boring.

          Marco Rubio's Senate Website

Instant-Runoff Voting

            With the Electoral College under fire from critics who believe it is not the most democratic way of electing a candidate because it does not reflect the interests of the majority of the population and is not fair in the weight of each vote, we must find a way to reform this process. I personally believe a system like the IRV, Instant-Runoff Voting, could improve our election process. With IRV, a voter would be able to rank their preferred candidates. You could rank as many or as little as you please. Then, when the first preferences are counted whoever has majority wins. If there is no majority, the candidate with the fewest first preferences is eliminated and the voters who voted for the eliminated candidate will then have their second preferences moved to their first. This process would continue until a majority is chosen. Therefore, IRV would be an upgrade from the Electoral College because it is truly a majority win, third party and independent candidates do not need to be considered “spoilers”, and it won’t just have to be Republican vs. Democrat.

            With each ballot counted as one vote and a process that eliminates the least favored candidate after each round, a majority is ensured every time. There wouldn’t be another situation similar to 2000 when Bush was elected as president even though it came down to Florida, which Bush was not voted for by the majority but won anyway. Even if IRV didn’t get to the national level but became some state’s preference for elections, it would at least give an accurate representation for that state.

            Relating back to the election in 2000 between Bush and Gore ultimately came down to the vote in Florida. It also came down to the third party candidate, Nader. Receiving nearly 100,000 votes, this was enough to get Bush elected as president. That’s because of those 100,000 votes it is said that the majority would have gone to Gore if Nader wasn’t a factor. With an extremely thin margin of victory for Bush, 537 more votes than Gore in the state of Florida, he would’ve most likely lost the election if some of Nader’s votes were given to Gore. This is considered the third party spoiler that does not allow an accurate winner based on majority. Gore had the overall majority in the country but because of the unfair electoral votes, lost the election. With IRV, this wouldn’t happen. If enough people marked Gore as their second preference, which would not have to be many people, Nader would have been eliminated and those votes would have gone to Gore making him the president.

            The final reason I believe an IRV process would be much better than the Electoral College is third party candidates could have a chance. This is because people who prefer a third party candidate could vote for them without considering the outcome like my previous example. They could rank their candidates in the order they’d like to see win and their vote would not take away from another because it will still be the majority that wins. So, in the previous case I just explained, Gore would have won because he had majority overall but if it was Nader that a voter preferred over Gore he could vote the way he pleased without worrying that his vote would give another candidate, who they may not support, the win.

U.S. Election Process

Attempting to change the U.S. election process seems like it would be a standstill. To get most people in politics to dramatically change a process that has been around for decades, with only minor changes over time, doesn’t seem probable. But with all the controversy surrounding the Electoral College and whether or not it’s a fair system, maybe there is a few things that can be changed to improve the credibility and support of our election process.

            As I mentioned, there’s quite a bit of negative comments focusing on the fact that the Electoral College is disproportionate and some question its’ fairness. I agree with these complaints and believe it needs some reform. I say reform because I know the likelihood of completely revamping the current system by changing the Constitution will not happen. The first thing that is a common grievance is that the electoral votes are not evenly spread in respect to a state’s population. For instance, California should be given 65 based on the population but instead have 55. And a small state like Rhode Island should have two but instead get four electoral votes. This makes people in either large or small states account for more or less compared to the people whose state is well represented. If this was more even, it would be closer to representing the popular vote which appeals to many Americans.
            The next thing to change that would improve our election process is a cap on how much a candidate can receive and spend. In the fundraising section of the teachable moment website, it states that Bush and Kerry, “raised a collective total of nearly $500 million. After nomination by their parties, Bush and Kerry each received an additional $74.6 million in government financing for the general election.” I understand that the expense to get their message out and to be in the public’s eye is high but I don’t think we can afford to give money to candidates that are supposed to be finding a way to save this country money. If we set a limit of corporate funding and government funding, the benefits will allow a more equal campaign between all candidates. No one candidate could dominate the race because one very large corporation gave them money. And government money could go to a better cause.
            I also believe that our election process only allows Democrats or Republicans to have a chance at being President. Out of the many reasons it is so difficult for an Independent to have a fighting chance I think the most important is that not only will they need to have massive amount of money in their own pocket, but they also need to go to every state to get their name on the ballot and receive thousands of signatures. The money problem is obvious. Without a known party to fund a candidate they themselves will not a lot of money to just get their name out there. The fact that they will need to, “do 50 races simultaneously,” is a hard task and by allowing more than two parties to compete in our election would benefit this country by giving the people more options.