Last month, bills were introduced into both houses of Congress that would create an American Public Service Academy. According to USpublicserviceacademy.org, the purpose of such an institution would be to produce graduates committed to a life of public service and would be modeled after the US military academies, such as West Point.
Senator Hillary Clinton, the main proponent of the bill in the Senate had this to say:
"We are facing ... the impending retirement of so many of the senior ranks of our government. The people who do everything from help predict the weather, to run our nuclear power plants, to figure out how the Social Security system will keep functioning ... we're concerned that we're not going to have the workforce that we need in the next 10 years to keep this complicated government functioning."
Applicants for the Academy would have to acquire the recommendation of their congressperson and would be required to serve the government for five years after graduation. According to the same website, the Academy would cost at least $205,000,000 a year to run and operate for about 5,000 students.
While the idea of a national academy dedicated to public service is honorable and seems sensible at first hearing it, such an institution is both unnecessary and unwise.
According to the same website, which is the main proponent behind this idea, “The cost of pursuing public service careers (as opposed to just one or two years) after graduation can be prohibitive because college tuition has increased dramatically in the past decade – according to the Project on Student Debt, the average college graduate owes about $20,000, an increase of more than 50% in the past decade. With so much debt, students often must give up their dreams of public service careers in favor of more lucrative fields.”
While there is no doubt that more students are taking on more college debt, it would be foolish to create an entirely new university to alleviate this problem, mainly because it would have no real impact. While there were no statistics as to how much it would cost per student per year for taxpayers to support this new initiative, it is probably safe to assume it costs at least $20,000 a year/student. That would mean that a four year education would cost at least $80,000, or $60,000 more than an average college graduates debt.
If there is truly a public-servant deficit, it would make much more sense financially for the government to simply pay off the debt of college graduates in return for service. Better yet, the government could take the $205,000,000 it would cost to run the academy per year and subsidize more student loans, thusly lessening the debt burden on students and, according to the logic of USpublicserviceacademy.org, making more college graduates more likely to make a career of public service.
It seems a bit amusing that Senator Clinton is worried about running a “complicated government” in the future, but her answer to this is not to make government less complicated, but more so. Instead of lessening the size and scope of government, which would in turn make it less complicated, Clinton feels it necessary to create an entirely new university with graduates specifically trained in how to deal with this complexity. Senator Clinton’s answer to a bureaucratic mess: more bureaucracy.
While an American Public Service Academy would be financially unwise, it would also be rather un-American. If there is one thing we can gleam from our Founding Fathers, it is that public service is an honor and a privilege, and should not be a career. Let us consider a prime example: George Washington.
The former president was a farmer turned military leader who would deny the kingship of our new country and later limit himself to two terms as president. Instead of carrying on as president indefinitely, Washington decided to retire back to his Virginian farm. He put his time in, and then left. This would hold true until President Franklin Roosevelt, who would win four terms in the White House and had committed most of his life to public service as Governor of New York and in other elected positions.
The American public is not served well by elected officials who know nothing but government. Such people, like Senator Clinton, inevitably come up with the same answer for society’s and government’s problems: more government. Unfortunately, government is more often the cause of problems than the solution. If Social Security is too complicated for Senator Clinton and others to understand, we do not need to create a college to study it, but rather reduce its complexity.
If there is an actual shortage of government workers, we should lessen the size of government, not increase the amount of employees at a cost to the American tax payers. The answer to government problems should not be more government, but less.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
The State of Modern American Elections
Americans should consider themselves blessed to live in a country that has elections. Perhaps there are more nations in existence today that have elections than at any other time in history, but there are still many nations where people do not have this right, and those who advocate for it are either imprisoned or killed. It is with this perspective then that we must approach the following problem: the sad, unfortunate and wrong state of modern American elections.
I like to think that I am generally more aware of American politics than the average voter. I read the news everyday and even do some extra research on the Presidential candidates. It troubles me then when I am unable to speak to any meaningful differences that I can gather between the major contenders for the Democratic and Republican nominations. That is to say, I am generally incapable of explaining to a person what the political and philosophical differences are between say Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are on the one hand, and Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney are on the other.
If my life depended on it, I would not be able to tell you how the Democrats differ amongst each other and the Republicans differ amongst each other on issues like healthcare or how to prosecute the War on Terrorism.
I will assume that a good portion of my ignorance is my own fault. After all, because I am conscious of my ignorance it is my responsibility to enlighten myself. I do think it noteworthy to mention, however, that I can list in descending order who on both sides of the aisle have raised the most money. I can tell you that Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney are leading their expected fields in fundraising and that the 2008 election is expected to be the first billion-dollar race in the United States’ history.
Does this information matter? Absolutely not. If any voter in this country is at all truly considering who the next President or candidates should be based upon how much money they have raised, they should be promptly deported. The philosophy and proposed policies of the candidates are what matters, and not how much money they have raised, how many times they have been to Iowa or even how many wives they have had (or could have).
But why do so many Americans (or at least just me) seem to know more about these negligible aspects of candidates rather than what really matters? Not surprisingly, the mass media is the primary culprit.
Let me preface the following by saying that it is unfortunate a free society necessitates a free press for its continued survival. While a free press has the ability to hold government accountable and shed light on government scandal, it is also subject to the free market.
Newspapers and news channels are privately owned businesses, and in the game to make money for their owners. By being so, most media looses any intelligence and most of its virtue.
The Media focuses on what will hold its viewers’ attention and inevitably yield the highest economic profit. Unfortunately, it makes more sense from the perspective of media companies to harp on how much money Hillary Clinton has raised rather than her proposed health care plan.
But if the Media is only doing what makes the most economic sense, it must be following the demands of the public, and therefore our second culprit is the American public. In our modern age of instant communication and instant answers, it almost seems as if Americans want instant candidates. Very few people are willing to take the time (or maybe, don’t have the time) to really learn about the candidates’ ideas.
People want the news delivered in a quick and hard hitting twenty minute segment. Inevitably, the Media delivers this, and so candidates find themselves forced to create catch phrases in order to get air time. Instead of telling us their philosophy on human existence, a candidate is either pro-life or pro-choice. Instead of explaining their own interpretation of the judicial branch, candidates label judges they disagree with as activist. Instead of debating the nature of a just war, candidates are labeled as either hawks or doves. These terms mean nothing.
Unfortunately, Americans’ short attention span and disinterest in what really matters in politics has lead to the dumbing-down of American elections. No longer does the candidate with the best philosophy win, but the candidate who can raise fifty million dollars in two months, has the best one-liners and best appeals to the ignorance of the masses.
Modern American elections are in a sad, sad state.
I like to think that I am generally more aware of American politics than the average voter. I read the news everyday and even do some extra research on the Presidential candidates. It troubles me then when I am unable to speak to any meaningful differences that I can gather between the major contenders for the Democratic and Republican nominations. That is to say, I am generally incapable of explaining to a person what the political and philosophical differences are between say Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are on the one hand, and Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney are on the other.
If my life depended on it, I would not be able to tell you how the Democrats differ amongst each other and the Republicans differ amongst each other on issues like healthcare or how to prosecute the War on Terrorism.
I will assume that a good portion of my ignorance is my own fault. After all, because I am conscious of my ignorance it is my responsibility to enlighten myself. I do think it noteworthy to mention, however, that I can list in descending order who on both sides of the aisle have raised the most money. I can tell you that Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney are leading their expected fields in fundraising and that the 2008 election is expected to be the first billion-dollar race in the United States’ history.
Does this information matter? Absolutely not. If any voter in this country is at all truly considering who the next President or candidates should be based upon how much money they have raised, they should be promptly deported. The philosophy and proposed policies of the candidates are what matters, and not how much money they have raised, how many times they have been to Iowa or even how many wives they have had (or could have).
But why do so many Americans (or at least just me) seem to know more about these negligible aspects of candidates rather than what really matters? Not surprisingly, the mass media is the primary culprit.
Let me preface the following by saying that it is unfortunate a free society necessitates a free press for its continued survival. While a free press has the ability to hold government accountable and shed light on government scandal, it is also subject to the free market.
Newspapers and news channels are privately owned businesses, and in the game to make money for their owners. By being so, most media looses any intelligence and most of its virtue.
The Media focuses on what will hold its viewers’ attention and inevitably yield the highest economic profit. Unfortunately, it makes more sense from the perspective of media companies to harp on how much money Hillary Clinton has raised rather than her proposed health care plan.
But if the Media is only doing what makes the most economic sense, it must be following the demands of the public, and therefore our second culprit is the American public. In our modern age of instant communication and instant answers, it almost seems as if Americans want instant candidates. Very few people are willing to take the time (or maybe, don’t have the time) to really learn about the candidates’ ideas.
People want the news delivered in a quick and hard hitting twenty minute segment. Inevitably, the Media delivers this, and so candidates find themselves forced to create catch phrases in order to get air time. Instead of telling us their philosophy on human existence, a candidate is either pro-life or pro-choice. Instead of explaining their own interpretation of the judicial branch, candidates label judges they disagree with as activist. Instead of debating the nature of a just war, candidates are labeled as either hawks or doves. These terms mean nothing.
Unfortunately, Americans’ short attention span and disinterest in what really matters in politics has lead to the dumbing-down of American elections. No longer does the candidate with the best philosophy win, but the candidate who can raise fifty million dollars in two months, has the best one-liners and best appeals to the ignorance of the masses.
Modern American elections are in a sad, sad state.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Pelosi is Not President
There is a saying that goes, “Politics stops at the water’s edge.” Such a short and concise statement is actually quite powerful and wise. It recognizes that there will be disagreement on policy and other issues at home, but that for the sake of the country, these disagreements should not carry overseas.
One legislator, Arthur Vandenberg, understood this idea when he annunciated the above phrase. Prior to the speech in which he initially expressed this idea, Vandenberg had considered himself an isolationist. Times had changed, however, and in late 1945 the Cold War was already starting. Vandenberg found himself at odds with then President Truman, who was pushing for the creation of NATO and the Marshall Plan.
As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, he could easily have created a shadow foreign policy- undermining President Truman’s policies while at the same time pushing his own. Vandenberg did not of course, because he realized that as a member of the legislative branch of the Federal government, it was neither his responsibility nor that of any of his colleagues to dictate foreign policy. Foreign policy was undoubtedly the realm of the President.
Unfortunately, today’s legislators do not understand this. One in particular does not seem to be aware of the model that Senator Vandenberg created; she would rather create a shadow presidency at the expense of America than fulfill her proper role as Speaker of the House. Of course, Nancy Pelosi hasn’t understood her proper role since she became Speaker. It was clear to anyone watching her since last November that Pelosi felt (and clearly still feels) a large degree of empowerment. This was beyond evident when she requested her own Air Force Three to shuttle her back and forth between Washington DC and San Francisco. The President and Vice-president travel on Air Force planes, Ms. Pelosi, not congresswomen who represent a few hundred-thousand liberals in California.
As much as she may hate it, Speaker Pelosi must realize that the President of the United States, regardless of who it is, is the Commander in Chief, and thusly the head of foreign relations and diplomacy. It follows then that when the President sets a policy that the United States will not have relations with the leaders of radical, terrorist-supporting countries like Syria, that our other elected representatives fall in line and not have relations with the heads of these countries. Of course, Pelosi did just the opposite, and last week took a trip to Syria to meet President Bashar al-Assad- a man the US has been trying to isolate for several years now.
By meeting with Assad, Pelosi successfully undermined years-worth of American policy. In the one half-hour period that Pelosi met with Assad, the Syrian President (do not be fooled by the title, it is an inherited position) went from international outcast to legitimate ruling authority. This of course is the same man who organized the assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister (an actual legitimate ruling authority) last summer, allows countless terrorists and fighters to stream over his border in to Iraq and is the second largest financier of terrorism behind Iran. It is not difficult to wonder why the US hasn’t had relations with him in so many years.
Despite the fact that Pelosi never should have been in Syria in the first place, she did a terrible job as a diplomat while there. In a press conference after meeting with Assad, Pelosi proclaimed that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria. Of course, the Prime Minister of Israel said no such thing when he met with Pelosi earlier, and was forced to issue a press release saying nothing had in fact changed in Israel’s foreign policy.
This isn’t the end of it however. In the same press conference, Pelosi mischaracterized Syria’s position, and insisted that they too were ready for peace talks, seemingly heralding a new era in Israeli-Syrian relations. And just like the Prime Minister of Israel, the President of Syria was forced to issue a statement essentially saying that Syria was still committed to the elimination of the State of Israel and the killing of Jews. It really sounds like Israel and Syria are ready for peace talks, doesn’t it?
Now that the congresswoman from San Francisco is back where she should be, I hope she will absorb the many criticisms that have been thrown her way. Speaker Pelosi needs to realize that she is in fact Speaker Pelosi, and not President Pelosi. Undoubtedly though, it will not be too far in the future to see her sleeping with our other wonderful friend, President Ahmadinejad of Iran.
If Pelosi is so concerned about America’s foreign relations, perhaps she should throw her name in the ring for 2008. I’m sure Hillary Clinton would welcome her.
One legislator, Arthur Vandenberg, understood this idea when he annunciated the above phrase. Prior to the speech in which he initially expressed this idea, Vandenberg had considered himself an isolationist. Times had changed, however, and in late 1945 the Cold War was already starting. Vandenberg found himself at odds with then President Truman, who was pushing for the creation of NATO and the Marshall Plan.
As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, he could easily have created a shadow foreign policy- undermining President Truman’s policies while at the same time pushing his own. Vandenberg did not of course, because he realized that as a member of the legislative branch of the Federal government, it was neither his responsibility nor that of any of his colleagues to dictate foreign policy. Foreign policy was undoubtedly the realm of the President.
Unfortunately, today’s legislators do not understand this. One in particular does not seem to be aware of the model that Senator Vandenberg created; she would rather create a shadow presidency at the expense of America than fulfill her proper role as Speaker of the House. Of course, Nancy Pelosi hasn’t understood her proper role since she became Speaker. It was clear to anyone watching her since last November that Pelosi felt (and clearly still feels) a large degree of empowerment. This was beyond evident when she requested her own Air Force Three to shuttle her back and forth between Washington DC and San Francisco. The President and Vice-president travel on Air Force planes, Ms. Pelosi, not congresswomen who represent a few hundred-thousand liberals in California.
As much as she may hate it, Speaker Pelosi must realize that the President of the United States, regardless of who it is, is the Commander in Chief, and thusly the head of foreign relations and diplomacy. It follows then that when the President sets a policy that the United States will not have relations with the leaders of radical, terrorist-supporting countries like Syria, that our other elected representatives fall in line and not have relations with the heads of these countries. Of course, Pelosi did just the opposite, and last week took a trip to Syria to meet President Bashar al-Assad- a man the US has been trying to isolate for several years now.
By meeting with Assad, Pelosi successfully undermined years-worth of American policy. In the one half-hour period that Pelosi met with Assad, the Syrian President (do not be fooled by the title, it is an inherited position) went from international outcast to legitimate ruling authority. This of course is the same man who organized the assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister (an actual legitimate ruling authority) last summer, allows countless terrorists and fighters to stream over his border in to Iraq and is the second largest financier of terrorism behind Iran. It is not difficult to wonder why the US hasn’t had relations with him in so many years.
Despite the fact that Pelosi never should have been in Syria in the first place, she did a terrible job as a diplomat while there. In a press conference after meeting with Assad, Pelosi proclaimed that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria. Of course, the Prime Minister of Israel said no such thing when he met with Pelosi earlier, and was forced to issue a press release saying nothing had in fact changed in Israel’s foreign policy.
This isn’t the end of it however. In the same press conference, Pelosi mischaracterized Syria’s position, and insisted that they too were ready for peace talks, seemingly heralding a new era in Israeli-Syrian relations. And just like the Prime Minister of Israel, the President of Syria was forced to issue a statement essentially saying that Syria was still committed to the elimination of the State of Israel and the killing of Jews. It really sounds like Israel and Syria are ready for peace talks, doesn’t it?
Now that the congresswoman from San Francisco is back where she should be, I hope she will absorb the many criticisms that have been thrown her way. Speaker Pelosi needs to realize that she is in fact Speaker Pelosi, and not President Pelosi. Undoubtedly though, it will not be too far in the future to see her sleeping with our other wonderful friend, President Ahmadinejad of Iran.
If Pelosi is so concerned about America’s foreign relations, perhaps she should throw her name in the ring for 2008. I’m sure Hillary Clinton would welcome her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)