Dear President Obama, please sacrifice first.

The Grant Park crowd was electric, and probably not in a mood to think. Jesse Jackson forgot all about his arts & crafts endeavors and Oprah cried on people she didn't know. People traveled from all over the country to hear President-Elect Barack Obama's historic victory speech on the evening of Tuesday, Nov. 4. Amid all the excitement and emotion, the President-Elect snuck in these five sentences:

"This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were.

It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other."

I let this simmer for a week in its rosy and patriotic goodness. Now, I want to know what this sacrifice means for me and everyone else living in this country. Can't I argue that things are bad enough as is? As a journalism major, my job market absolutely sucks and is probably never going to get better. My mom has been teaching in D.C. and Maryland schools for over 20 years. You know what the deal is with her profession. My dad worked for 40 years, retired, and now has to pull teeth to stay on top of his pensions... Now I don't expect Obama to play God when he's in the White House, therefore I don't expect government to fix every problem out there, but anytime a presidential candidate tells me to "put away the video games," "turn off the television," and "read to my kids," I think he's fair game to criticize on anything.

As college students, we pay through the nose for tuition and other expenses, and nationally, tuition rates increased by over 6% between 2007 and 2008. This may be heresy to say here, but GMU President Alan Merten has been vocal in his support for tuition increases here, which hover between 8 and 10 percent a year. There's all this, and then we work, leaving us striving for money (much of which we blow on taxes), and devoid of time. What can we sacrifice?

My answer is time. We can find the time to volunteer for good causes, go to a help the homeless walk-a-thon, organize a neighborhood cleanup once in awhile. We can certainly do that. I'm not a cold, heartless devil. Sacrificing is a good thing.

Then why does Obama's request seem so hypocritical to me?

• Because after the government put together an $85 billion bailout package for AIG, executives from that company went on a week-long $440,000 vacation.
• Because in September, the three major automakers received a $25 billion government subsidy to stay alive, and now they want $50 billion more.
• Because on March 21, 2007, Boston Globe columnist Derrick Jackson wrote: "It is a classic sign of the times that The Washington Post tells us how many of our 23,400 wounded troops recuperate at Walter Reed Army Medical Center with cockroaches at their feet as Americans plunk down $2.5 billion for office pools for college basketball's March Madness."
• Because the city of Washington can afford a $650 million baseball stadium and still has one of the worst public school systems in the country.

I'm selfish. I also feel rotten. Why do I have to sacrifice first? Do I owe my country more than it owes me, or is it vice versa? And what good is anything I do if the powerful higher-ups are just squandering it away?

Do you need an incentive to begin sacrificing more? How skeptical or optimistic are you about the idea of sacrifice, and what concerns you about it? Does the idea of sacrifice go beyond the relatively small amount one person can do?

Give me some examples of sacrifices you can make.

And lastly, to everyone, nice job on all the great blog posts throughout the semester!

It’s over. The longest and most expensive presidential campaign in U. S. history ended last night with Barack Obama’s clear victory, both in the electoral and popular vote. His victory did not come easy; he had to outfight formidable opponents in Hillary Clinton and John McCain and persuade Americans that he had the ability to lead them in tough times. But the precision and professionalism with which he and his advisors ran his campaign made him the decisive winner and gave America its first African American president. It was a stunning moment, especially for people like me who vividly remember that less than fifty years ago, segregation was legal in the South and de facto segregation was pervasive in the North. Barack Obama’s victory does not mark the end of racism in the United States, but I think that it marks the beginning of the end.

This election galvanized voters of all parties. Everywhere I went yesterday, people sported “I Voted” stickers and were eager to discuss the election. My husband and I went to West Springfield High School at 7:15 AM to vote and found that the line was already snaking its way out of the building. But despite the early hour and the long line, people were upbeat and talkative, energized (in part) by the coffee and baked goods volunteers were selling outside, but mostly by a keen awareness that we were taking part in a historic election. Our long line moved swiftly, and in less than an hour, my husband and I were inside the school and voting. The use of scannable paper ballots made it possible for more people to vote at once, and this new voting method kept the line moving and frustration low. What about you? What happened when you went to vote?

On Mason’s campus, the weather was dreary and damp, but spirits were high.

Student Government ran vans to the Woodson High School polling place, and volunteers promoted this service by becoming “human advertisements.”

Rain apparently, does not damper revolutions!


This guy stole my heart!

Our university was not without its own drama. Yesterday morning, a hacker broke into the Provost’s email account and sent out a fake message announcing that the election had been moved to November 5th. Rumors circulated that Mason students who voted could lose their financial aid.

But such lame attempts proved ineffective against the smart and savvy youthful voters who went to the polls in record numbers. Your demographic – voters between the ages of 18 and 25 – voted overwhelmingly for Obama and helped power him to victory. Now it’s your turn to act upon that mandate and consider how you will help him guide our nation toward economic recovery, energy reform, and improved security both at home and abroad.

How will you meet the challenge Obama made to all Americans in his victory speech last night that change can’t happen without “a new spirit of patriotism, a new spirit of sacrifice?” How has this election influenced your outlook on the future and the role you will play in it as a working professional?

No Teacher Left Behind

Of the three presidential debates, the final was my favorite, thanks in large part to the moderator, Bob Schieffer, whom I felt asked insightful questions about issues that have not received the attention that they merit, among them education, which to me is one of the most important issues. After all, who hasn’t heard the cliché “children are our future?”
McCain wants to reauthorize No Child Left Behind--a program that has provoked protest from parents and educators alike, even from the Department of Education. The National Education Assocation (NEA) has criticized this program of failing to meets its goals, and as of last Tuesday, has asked the Department of Education to delay enacting changes until the next president is inaugurated, as they hope for a more thorough reform.

While McCain’s support of No Child Left Behind is no suprise, I was alarmed by his proposal to eliminate teacher qualification exams—the profession is already crowded with people who do not consider it a serious vocation, which in part explains why the drop-out rate is one of the highest to be found in any profession (1/3 teachers quits after the first three years). Yes, we should increase the incentives for people to enter such programs as Teach for America and to brave the rougher school systems, but by no means should we decrease the requirements for certification. In a report published on the Department of Education’s website, Carolyn Dikson cites “improving the teacher corps” as a priority in reforming our education system.
McCain’s proposal may have been a response to complaints about the requirements that NCLB places for “highly qualified teachers,” which even the NEA identifies as discouraging some educators and paraprofessionals. However, the NEA proposes solutions that assist teachers in meeting “reasonable” standards set by members of the profession. It suggests offering incentives to encourage teachers to work in high-poverty schools; these incentives would include not only salary raises contingent on participation in the rigorous National Board Certification program, but also federal grants to promote continuing education and the mentoring of new teachers by more experienced teachers. The assocation’s proposals may sound expensive, but I think that in the long run it is more efficient to invest in higher quality educators versus throwing money into school systems that employ unqualified teachers.

Obama’s response combined policy with common-sense; besides discussing the monetary aspect of reforming the education system, he also mentioned teacher evaluations and incentives, the importance of which, in my opinion, cannot be underestimated. When we discuss education, we aren’t talking about marketplace laws and numbers; we are talking about people, and so ultimately, the successful reform of American education will rely on the human element—how motivated are the teachers and how committed are they to their profession? McCain likes well enough to talk about the benefits of competition between school systems and, in his energy policies, between companies, but he seems to ignore its benefits among teachers as a way to ensure that only the most committed are given the responsability of shaping the next generation of thinkers.

Paying Health Insurance

I loved going to the optometrist when I was younger, and my favorite part of the trip was when I got to choose a pair of new frames. The doctor’s office I visited has a store attached where people can purchase brand name frames or contacts. There was one year though, where I was gently directed away from the shiny, sleek, brand name frames and asked to choose from a much smaller, boring selection. That was the year I had Medicare.

At the time, I was sulky about having what I thought was an uncool health plan. But, now that I’m uninsured and waiting to sign onto a plan that will cut away half of my paycheck each month, I wouldn’t mind any plan that is more affordable. Boring frames or not.

It was mentioned in last night’s presidential debate that 45 million Americans don’t have health insurance. (The figure was around 47 million in 2007, according to NCHC). I think that this is a serious problem. Hospital bills are horrendous even when one has insurance, so what about those who don’t? What do you do if you’re on a budget and the thirty pills you need each month to control high blood pressure costs more than a hundred dollars?

Senators Obama and McCain both suggest health care reform. They discussed their plans in last night’s debate. I understood one of the basic differences in their plans to be that McCain wants to give families a $5000 tax credit for them to spend on the insurance plan of their choice, and Obama wants to offer a new type of health insurance for those without, which he hopes will be more affordable.

But how are they going to allocate the money needed for reform? This article asks this question. And in the debate, Obama admitted that the new system will cost money at the outset but should pay off in the long run.

Can the government afford to reform health insurance policies at the moment? Should it have more control over the health insurance system?

[On a lighter note, check out these views on health care that The Onion attaches to the candidates who are or were running in this election. Despite the fictional nature of the views, I think this article highlights how candidates can propose vastly different, opposing solutions for just one issue.]

$700,000,000,000 bail out money "Potentially alot of money" said Obama

We all know the Robin Hood story right. If you don't, you better read this before continuing.

He is known as the great hero of all poor and middle class and enemy of the rich in the Victorian age. He was admired by the public because he rubbed the rich and gave it too the poor. Seams like good idea, not many people will be against it. That is of course except the rich which are the minority. It is believed that 5% of the American's earn 95% of the country's wealth. if you think it is bad how about this?

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reported in 1998 that the world's 225 richest people now have a combined wealth of $1 trillion. That's equal to the combined annual income of the world's 2.5 billion poorest people. Interesting ratio!

You might be thinking where i am going with this. Well recently we all have heard about this $700billion bail out. Unfortunately it is being raised from our taxes. Now doesn't it look similar to the reversed version of Robin Hood story.

Ladys and gentlemen, truth of the matter is Robin Hoodism (if there is such a word) has backfired and it switched to the poor and middle class feeding the rich. This $700,000,000,000 bail is the exact illustration of Hoodism, government robbing it's 95% of its citizens and handing it to the big boys club. Biggest gainers from this bail out, if it gets approved likely to be the rich.

Unfortunately both Obama and Mccain, our dear candidates seem to be for this idea in order to win the election. Congressman Ron Paul in my opinion gave clear explanation what is going on.

Luckily bill wasn't passed on the first vote and lets hope it doesn't pass at all!

Now what is your opinion on this? How do you think you will personally benefit from this bail out? Do you see it as sand clock where the poor feeding the rich or vise versa or do you see it as mutually benefiting all?

Revised Post with Links

I read about McCain's stance on taxes in the link that you included-- what is so dreadful about asking the rich to pull their weight in taxes? You're absolutely right, Rachael, when you say that of the two things certain in life, taxes are one of them; so why do the Republicans persist in the myth that taxes can be abolished?

I don't understand McCain's rational in thinking that when the country is 9 trillion dollars in debt http://www.ontheissues.org/Background_Budget_+_Economy.htm he should give tax cuts to the rich. Tax cuts are detrimental to the economy, not beneficial, as John E. Schwarz points out in his article "Tax, spend, and create more jobs" http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080901/news_mz1e1schwarz.html. You can't expect a government that is steadily losing money and bringing nothing in to compensate to boost the economy.

Obama's plan to raise taxes is not radical or, as McCain claims, detrimental at a time when people can ill afford a tax raise. The wealthier households can certainly afford to pay for the greater share of energy and material products that they consume. I know that we are not-- yet-- talking about raising taxes on electricity and heating, but in principle the rich consume more, so they should pay more.

According to Obama's statement on tax cuts supported by the bush administration http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/issues/candidates/barack-obama/ he only intends only to cut taxes for the middle and lower classes. If at the very least he cuts taxes for the middle and lower classes and maintains the tax rate on the wealthy, wouldn't that have a positive effect on the economy by redistributing resources fairly?

Taxes: One of the Certain Things in Life

"No country, however rich, can afford the waste of its human resources.  Demoralization caused by vast unemployment is our greatest extravagance.  Morally, it is the greatest menace to our social order." ~ Franklin Delano Roosevelt

In light of the recent economic struggle that has been plaguing America, it is not hard to imagine that we may be heading towards a second Great Depression.  Unemployment rates are at a reported four year high and to make matters worse, the United States government has had to step in and bail out several billion dollar companies such as Bear Sterns and AIG.  With the 2008 Presidential election just months away, one thing that is on every body's mind is: what are they going to do about it? With they being Presidential nominees John McCain and Barack Obama.

Both McCain and Obama have addressed the current economic crisis in myriad ways that focus on different ways to balance the budget and keep the country afloat.  One of the issues they address in their discussions is taxes.

John McCain's main stance is against raising taxes and, in his most recent T.V. ad, McCain attacks Obama saying that Obama wants us to pay "painful taxes" on income, electricity and heating oil.  Seems a bit extreme, right?  Actually, it is.  In regards to income, Obama says that he would only increase the tax for those households who make over $250,000 annually.  As for taxing electricity and heating oil, Obama has not proposed anything of the sort.  So why the false ads?

It could be that McCain is relying on the usual political stereotype where, based on history, Republicans are usually in favor of tax cuts whereas Democrats are usually in favor of tax increases.  But, here's what it boils down to.  Who's tax plan is better for the future of America? Do we go with McCain's do nothing plan where in order for it to work federal spending would be reduced by %25?  Or do we go with Obama's plan which, despite its merits, is so complex that Fox News has dubbed that it will "make a complex system worse"?

The choice is yours.  Just remember that out of the two certain things in life, taxes is one of them.

Have the culture wars returned?

If your email exercise responses are any indication, the overwhelming majority of you believe more Americans identify with Barack Obama's story of multiculturalism, compromise, and change than with John McCain's story of duty, heroism, and tradition. But I wonder how people who live in small towns across the United States, towns with populations that share the same race and religion, might have responded. Do you think they would agree with your opinion?

Reconsider your response. How much of it was influenced by your personal history and by living in a multicultural, largely urban region? Sarah Palin's acceptance speech last night offered a lively and determined defense of small-town conservative values, and the buzz in the media hints that she may have ignited a culture war between liberal, urban cosmopolitanism and conservative, rural conservatism. Given the positive reaction to her speech, can we continue to argue that her embrace of tradition, duty, and heroism represents only a minority of Americans?