Commentary on "Campaign Reform: Blog Stage 7"

"Campaign Reform: Blog Stage 7" has some very wise messages. In his blog, Jmoser states his frustration with the limitations of our two-party politics, as well as the problems that come with private campaign funding and interest groups. He discusses his dissatisfaction with the way a candidate must side with one party or another to be elected, rather than just his political viewpoints. He feels that it is wrong that the candidate who spends the most money on their campaign almost always wins, and thinks that we should ban private funding, and completely rely on government funding, so that everyone has the same opportunities. He then goes on to discuss some possible ways to fix our political system.

I completely agree with Jmoser on the issues of our government, but I think they are much deeper rooted problems than he discusses, of which there are really no solutions. For instance, Jmoser thinks that our political system is strictly two-party because privately funded campaigns are difficult without a political party to help, and greatly favor the rich, but I feel like one of the major reasons for them is the fact of how politically uneducated and inactive our society is. In reality, voters don't really do that much research about candidate's viewpoints. They just know generally what the Democratic and Republican parties represent, then simply vote for the candidate who is representing the party that they tend to side with. For a majority of the population to be able to choose a candidate from an independent party, it would mean that a great deal of research and thought has gone into the political decision-making process, and unfortunately, I don't think that that will ever happen in our society. On the issue of banning all private funding, including interest group donations, I feel like it is pretty much impossible. I think that to some degree it is a violation of our First Amendment, but even if it did pass, politicians and interest groups would likely find some ways around it. It may be pessimistic, but I think that our government is just bound to have these flaws no matter how we may try to fix them.

Unemployment Bailout

On Tuesday, August 10, the House of Representatives pushed through a new bill, which was immediately signed by President Obama, giving $26 billion to states to fund jobs for teachers, police officers, and several other valuable occupations. The funding will give jobs back to many of the teachers and police officers who have recently been laid off because of budgetary issues, and will prevent any further layoffs. The House members were summoned for one day during their annual summer recess to pass this bill. It was given top priority, so that schools would have time to do rehiring before the school year begins.

There is a great deal of heated debate over this new bailout, especially over where to find the additional budget, but I think that despite U.S. financial concerns, this bill is a great thing for the United States as a whole. Children in the United States need to get the best education possible in order to succeed in our country. They should not have to be in huge classes, and therefore loose the individual attention that is necessary for a good education, just because of financial issues. Our nation depends on the upcoming generations to lead it, and if we do not educate them properly, the United States will never advance. The public’s general education has already declined in many areas within the past few decades, so if anything, we need to be hiring more, better trained teachers. In my opinion, if there needs to be a government bailout for anything, the education of our children and the safety of our community should be at the top of our list.

Commentary on "Prop 19 and Federalism"

I think that "Prop 19 and Federalism" poses some very interesting questions. I was always raised hearing about how horrible marijuana is, and that it is only a gateway drug for worse, but this commentary points out that maybe, if used responsibly, marijuana could be what helps to save California’s dying economy. Tim wisely includes that California’s legislators estimate that tax revenues from marijuana could reach $1.4 billion per year, as well as saving millions from those who are incarcerated and patrolled. This could be the one thing that could solve California's financial crisis, and if made a national law, could save the U.S. economy. I think Tim is correct in saying that if Proposition 19 is passed, other states will soon follow. He does a good job of explaining the uncertainties of federal-state relations with an issue this controversial.

I agree that legalizing marijuana has many important benefits, but I also think that the potential negative effects cannot be ignored. For example, it is very likely that people will not abide by the limitations on marijuana growth and possession. Also, it is a safety hazard, and there is a reason why people call it a gateway drug. Tim makes a vital argument for legalizing marijuana in “Prop 19 and Federalism,” but I think that the issue is much more complex than just the fact that it will help our economy.