Changing the American Political Information System

I would like to take a moment a touch on a recent idea covered in class. What minor adjustments do you think we could make to change the American political information system? Lets discuss some of the ideas presented in class by some authors. West’s remedy is a different approach to ad coverage. West believes journalist who focus on deceptive or misleading commercials help the public hold candidates accountable for ads that cross the threshold of acceptability. Compared to other countries journalists have an unusually high credibility with the public. They are seen as being more fair and trustworthy than reports in other countries.

Both Kathleen Hall Jamieson and David Broder have suggested that journalists should exercise their historical function of safeguarding the integrity of the election process. They could use their high public credibility to improve the functioning of the political system. Candidates often exaggerate claims in an effort to win votes and journalists need to look into these claims and report to the voters their accuracy. 

Bennett goes into extensive detail about his proposals for citizens, journalists and politicians to make important differences. I am going to as briefly as I can summarize these proposals. Proposals for citizens are as follows: recognize stereotypes and plot formulas, look for information that doesn’t fit the plot, recognize spin and news control in action, see additional sources of information to check partisan claims, learn to become self-critical, and find sources of perspective such as political comedy. Proposals for journalists are as follows: use personalization and dramatization creatively, introduce more of the journalist’s own background knowledge into the story, resist the standard plot formulas, define political situations in terms that appeal to ordinary people, remember the explain why the story matters, and involve the audience in producing and sharing content. And last but not least proposals for politicians and government are as follows: limit the flow of money to politicians, develop better formats for candidate debates and for coverage of legislation, control media monopolies, provide more funding (and a more creative mandate) for public broadcasting, strengthen public service requirements for cable and broadcast license holders.

Bennett has proposed excellent ideas to change the election process. The basic idea is for citizens and journalists alike to go beyond just scratching the surface and dig a little deeper. What thoughts and suggestions do you have on the topic??

Did the advertisements and hype work?

Let me start out by saying I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving!! With the economy down retailers have really been pushing the hype for black friday sales. I know it has nothing to do with politics per say, but I am just curious. Did the hype work? How many of you went out for black friday shopping? And if you did what was the best deal you got? Did you wait all day in any crazy lines??

Poll: Nearly 25% will shop on Black Friday - Nov. 25, 2011

Alcohol Sales Start Today

In many cities across Georgia stores began selling alcohol. After years of debating whether to do away with a century-old law that banned selling alcohol on Sundays, a little over a week ago Georgia politicians decided to let the people vote, city by city and county by county, on what they preferred in their community. The results were: 105 of the 127 communities that voted chose to end the Sunday restriction, often by huge margins.

In Atlanta, Savannah and most other urban areas, alcohol will be sold on Sundays, beginning as soon as today. But in at least 21 other, mostly rural, towns and counties, the law will stay as it has since the late 19th century. In nearly 500 other jurisdictions will have there chance to weigh in n the issue next year. Many governments chose to delay a vote until 2012 because there were no other local sues on the ballot. They did not want to spend the money to hold an election on one issue.

How do you stand on the issue?

Sunday alcohol sales prove popular with most voters | ajc.com

Election Process Changing

When comparing elections from now to say 2000 and prior, you will notice quite a difference when it comes to the primary calendar. More and more primaries and caucuses are being held earlier, this has become known as frontloading. In 2008, Super Tuesday was held on February 5 which was about a month earlier then it was in 2000 (March 7) and 2004 (March 2).


This often gives candidates the psychological thought that the election is over after the Iowa and New Hampshire. They believe that early primaries matter more then late ones regardless of the math. It is clear that rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans nationwide pay attention to the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary results, and therefore, national preferences have often changed in response to the outcomes of these two contests. That has especially been the case when the Iowa or New Hampshire results deviated from expectations, with the winning candidate often surging in the national polls. Those surges have likely been fueled by the positive media attention that is showered on the winners, and may have been aided further by more critical coverage of the candidates who failed to meet expectations.

As you can see below, prior to the Jan. 19, 2004, Iowa caucuses, former Gov. Howard Dean had emerged as the Democratic front-runner, with 25% national support, and Gen. Wesley Clark appeared to be his strongest challenger at 19%. Sen. John Kerry was supported by just 9% of national Democrats, about the same level of support as Rep. Dick Gephardt (8%), Sen. Joe Lieberman (7%), and Sen. John Edwards (6%) received. Kerry won an upset victory in Iowa, and followed that up with a solid victory in New Hampshire on Jan. 27. After his win in those two contests, Kerry became the overwhelming choice of national Democrats, with 47% supporting him. Edwards and Dean tied for second at 13% in the first post-Iowa/post-New Hampshire national poll.




Many have proposed a primary reform to try and avoid the issue of frontloading. Some suggestions include: regional primary, national primary or small-to-large primary. Any thoughts?


For more information please refer to the following sites:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/103537/iowa-new-hampshire-results-often-shift-national-preferences.aspx#2


http://frontloading.blogspot.com/


http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/calendars/democraticprimaries/index.html

Warren Buffets Plan

I read this on Facebook today and I had to re-post!! 

Warren Buffett, "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You justpass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all
sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. The 26th
amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months
& 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in
1971...before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc. Of the 27 amendments to
the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the
land...all because of public pressure.

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of
twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do
likewise.
In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the
message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

*Congressional Reform Act of 2011*

1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office
and receives no pay when they are out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All
funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security
system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system,
and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for
any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans
do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay
will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the
same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American
people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.
The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen
made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor,
not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours
should serve their term's), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take
three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message. Maybe it is
time.

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!! If you agree with the above, pass it on.

By: Gene Vallee

Perry's Economic Plan

In an article in the Washington Post today, Perry releases an economic plan which includes personal accounts for Social Security, an optional flat tax, major spending cuts and a series of tax cuts. The plan would dramatically reduce taxes, particularly on wealthy Americans and corporations. Seems fair right?? No exactly! It would reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 to 20 percent, eliminate taxes on dividends and many capital gains and essentially cap individual tax rates at 20 percent.

I honestly do not see how eliminating taxes on dividends and capital gains is going to spur the economy. We are just going to make the wealthy more wealthy?? I know the claim probably is that they spend the most more, so it will boost economy but they also earn the most in capital gains. How can we eliminate taxes on this money?? If you look at where the wealthy get most of there money is it not mostly in capital gain. This money needs to be taxed! I feel like it should be taxed at the same amount as any other earnings. I am sure we have all heard Warren Buffet's secretary being taxed at almost twice as much as he is. Buffet was taxed at 11.7 percent on the $48 million he made last year, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 percent. How can this be fair??? Taking more money out of the pockets of the people who need it the most.



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

Front Page News

One of the top stories to grace the front page of many newspapers today was of Amanda Know. It was the talk of news stations and radio stations. Amanda Know returned to her hometown today. On day ago in Italy she was acquitted on murder charges after four years in prison. Italian Appeal Courts threw out her conviction in the sexual assault and fatal stabbing of her British roommate. Knox’s acquittal, fueled by doubts over DNA evidence, stunned the victim’s family and angered the prosecution, which insists that she was among three people who killed Kercher, 21. 


I recall this story over the years but kind of forgot about it until today quite honestly. The verdict basically came down to lack of evidence. This happens all too often in trials.... I was interested in getting others views who have followed the story more closely. 




http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/amanda-knox-returns-to-us-after-4-years-in-italian-prison-as-plane-lands-in-seattle-hometown/2011/10/04/gIQAT0Q1LL_story.html?hpid=z1

One Study on the Impacts of Health Care Reform...

I read an interesting article recently for my Research Methods class that I wanted to comment on. The title of the article was "Projecting the Impact of the Affordable Care Act on California," by Peter Long and Jonathan Gruber. It was published in Health Affairs in January 2011. I am assuming that everyone is familiar with this mandate. If not, the mandate requires all U.S. citizens and legal residents to have federal approved health insurance beginning in 2014 or face a tax penalty of $695 per year or 2.5% of their annual income, which ever is higher. The authors used a micro simulation model to collect and present their data. Their study was broken down in five models: overall distribution of coverage, effects on uninsured, effects on employer-sponsored coverage, effects on health insurance spending and effects on household budgets.

The first model the projected impact of the Affordable Care Act on insurance coverage in California in 2016. It basically shows that the number of uninsured people would fall 52 percent, from 6.5 million to 3.1 million. The second model projects that about 3.8 million formerly uninsured people in California would gain coverage as a result of the law. The third model then projects insurance status changes due to employers’ dropping insurance coverage or requiring higher employee contributions. This model projects that of the 3.1 million people without insurance in 2016, 332,000 (11 percent) would have been insured previously. The fourth model assumes that reduced employer spending on insurance would lead to higher employee wages, but those wages would be taxed. The results project that the typical household in California would gain $280 in 2016 as a result of the Affordable Care Act. The fifth model shows the projected distribution of health reform’s impacts on households in California based on peoples income in accordance to the federal poverty level. 

Just thought this article was interesting because if it is found to be constitutional the mandate will effect everyone under the age of 65 in some way. 


I found this article on ProQuest if you are interested in reading more about this study. Not sure the link below will direct you to the article or not.

http://search.proquest.com.proxy.kennesaw.edu/docview/847269449/131E9BBB0901067622A/11?accountid=11824 

New Job Bill??? Thoughts?

About a week ago Obama first announced his new job bill.  He also proposed one last year around this exact same time. Look how well that one worked out :/ His new $447 billion jobs bill is funded mainly by increasing taxes on wealthier families. According to Obama the package is asking more from those who can afford it (individuals earning more that $200,000 a year and families earning more than $250,000) in exchange for getting the unemployed back to work. He said his proposal would put construction workers, teachers and veterans back to work while providing tax relief for small business.

Does infrastructure and unemployment need to be address? YES!!! But will this plan pass in its entirety?? NO!!! I do not see Republicans approving of the infrastructure spending. They might go for the tax break for small business and advancing free-trade with South Korea, Columbia and Panama. I have to agree with Obama on this point we he says he wants to see Fords in these countries. Why not?! We see foreign cars everywhere we turn in America. I do not see his tax break of I think $1500 helping to improve the economy much. I know he feels that people will spend the money and boost the economy, but I really don't think they will use it for what he is hoping. They will probably pay bills or put it in saving.

Basically job creation needs to happen but I do not see Congress passing this bill as the single complex plan Obama is hoping for.

New Health Care Mandate: Constitutional or Unconstitutional?

Healthcare is always a hot topic among Americans. The Patient Protection & Affordability Care Act has been the center of a lot of news hype since it was enacted in April 2010. Amidst the debate, is the question of whether the “individual mandate” under the Affordable Care Act is constitutional or not. The mandate requires uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance if they do not fall within one of the individual mandate’s exceptions. The mandate requires U.S. citizens and legal residents to have federal government-approved “qualifying” health insurance coverage beginning in 2014. Those who refuse to purchase insurance will have to pay a tax penalty of $695 per year or 2.5% of their annual income, whichever is higher.

In analyzing the constitutionality of the Act, we must look at the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a “mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be unprecedented form of federal action; the government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

Some people believe that this mandate would exceed the Legislature’s power under the U.S. Constitution. How can congress punish you for not buying something? Can Congress really make you buy insurance or slap you with a fine? These are the questions many states are now asking. This question can be answered under the commerce clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power “to regulate commerce…among the several states.”

Republicans are hoping the reform law will be struck down while Democrats are in hopes it will prevail. For now the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has decided the mandate is unconstitutional. I am sure the decision will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a final decision.

Could Kaizen economics raise again?

I was talking to my grandfather recently about America's current economic situation and he brought up an economic philosophy/theory that was used by Roosevelt in the 1930s that might work today. Its referred to as the Kaizen economic philosophy. I am sure many of you have heard of it before. It is a pretty straight forward idea. Basically under the Kaizen philosophy of economics people believe it is the governments responsibility to get economy back making jobs, even is that means taking out loans to do so. Once the people are back to work they are then spending money and boosting the economy. The government needs to create jobs in order to boost the economy. Pretty easy concept right? One I am sure many have thought of on there own.

Obama is set to address the nation this week regarding a new job plan. According to ABC News, Obama will focus on 3 areas in hopes of bring down the current unemployment rate of 14 million Americans. 

1. Tax Relief: President Obama will propose tax relief incentives for companies that create jobs and hire new workers.
2. Infrastructure Investment: The president wants the government to invest in clean energy and new construction projects to build schools and transportation.
3. Assistance for Long Term Unemployed: Obama wants to help those who have been out of work for six months or more, which adds up to about 6 million Americans. Specifically the president is looking at a program such as Georgia Works – which gives unemployed Americans eight weeks of training at a local company while allowing them to still collect their unemployment benefits. And it’s no cost to the participating company.

This plan seems to be of a Kaizen philosophy. Obama seems to realize that the current economy is the number one problem that needs to be address. New jobs need to be created. Guess we will have to wait and see how this plan takes form since he did have a job plan in September of 2010 as well that does not seem to have done much :/ 

Related links:

http://www.france24.com/en/20100906-obama-50-billion-dollar-plan-revamp-transport-infrastructure-job-growth-usa

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/08/president-obamas-job-plan-new-details-unveiled/

http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-31/business/29949980_1_tax-credit-jobs-plan-major-jobs-package

Mother gets probation in son's jaywalking death

This is a case that sparked my interested and a discussion at work last month. About a month ago a Marietta mother was sentenced to one year probation and 40 hours of community service for the jaywalking death of her 4 year old son. I personally have never heard of a case like this before. Is it right for a mother to be charged with vehicular homicide for jaywalking? For those of you who are not familiar with the case here is a basic breakdown of the facts: The mother was attempting to cross a five-lane street to get to her apartment. The bus stop she was dropped at was three-tenths of a mile from a crosswalk. The mother and her children made it to the median when her daughter darted out and her son followed. From news reports thats when them mother yelled for them to stop and the truck struck. Her 4 year old son died.

Here are my questions/issues with the case:
1. The driver plead guilty to hit-and-run and was sentenced to six months. My issue is in the late 90s he was also sentenced to two years for two hit-and-run accidents!!! I believe they were also on the same street!  So the mother faced up to 3 years in prison and the driver was only sentenced to six months. I do not know all the evidence just what I have read in reports but this seems a little unjust.
2. Why is the Marta bus stop three-tenths of a mile form the nearest cross-walk anyway??? Seems there should be a case against Marta as well, right?

Now I do understand parents are responsible for the care of their children, but is it justified to sentence her to vehicular homicide for not crossing in a crosswalk? I was a little surprised that the state took action against her. Some people have questioned the use of taxpayers money in bringing this suit forward. Also, the possibility of another trial since the judge offered her a chance to have her recorded cleared with a new trial.

Would love to hear some opinions on this cases. The mother's name is Raquel Nelson if anyone is interested in further case details you can simply google her.

Blogs and tweets

I am totally new to this whole blogging and twittering thing. We will see how it goes :) You can follow me on twitter at http://twitter.com/#!/kwill148

Please stay turned for blog posts to come :)