Post 4 - Due Friday, November 2nd
So there have been 4 presidential debates and there has been lots of discussion of what the moderators did and didn't do. If you could have asked the presidential candidates any one question (make it about public policy and relevant please) what would it have been? What would you want a presidential candidate's answer to be (ie. what you think is the right answer regardless of whether any one candidate running this year would say that)? What is your prediction for how Obama and Romney would have answered your question? Base your answer on reading their positions and previous answers to this question or similar questions. You will need evidence to support how you think they'd answer your question. I'm looking forward to seeing what you'll say. ;) PS. This is the 2nd to last blog post of the tri.
posted by maby-keirstead @ 12:56 PM
40 Comments:
Don’t you think that it is surprising that countries such as Brazil, Chile, and Latvia are making academic gains three times faster than students studying in America (1)? Countries like Hong Kong, Portugal, and Colombia are striving at rates twice of that of America (1). “Just 6 percent of U.S. students performed at the advanced level on an international exam administered in 56 countries in 2006. That proportion is lower than those achieved by students in 30 other countries (1).” America, though thought of as one of the world’s strongest superpowers, is falling quickly behind in education. The reason behind it? Perhaps the teachers are the principal cause. Simply put, “America does a horrendous job recruiting teachers (2).” High performing countries such as Singapore select their teachers carefully, and only select one in eight applicants in antithesis to the selection of teachers in America where programs have financial incentives to hire anyone that is qualified (2). Therefore, there will be a mix of good and bad teachers (2). America is falling behind countries such as China, India, and Korea when it comes to education. The question is to both candidates, how do you plan to bring America back to the top of the education rankings? As a follow up question regarding teacher recruitment, what do you propose, to increase the standards and quality of teachers in our classrooms?
To solve the educational system, I believe that America needs to align its education policy. It needs to figure out what other countries are doing successfully, try to implement them, and try to do them better. First, students need to take gateway exams for higher education access. These are the transition points from each sector of education to the next and these sectors include, “basic education to upper secondary education, from upper secondary education to university, from basic education to job training and from job training into the workforce. At each of these major gateways, there is some form of external national assessment (3)." This will motivate students to take hard courses and strive to meet the standards. The only way to master these exams and move on is to master the material (3). Funding should be moved from the local level to the state level. “Local financing results in inequity, whereby wealthy communities have low tax rates and benefit from high tax yields, and poorer communities have very high tax rates to produce a low yield. By creating a state-level of funding, a system will be created which distributes resources in ways that would allow all students to achieve high standards (3).” Regarding teachers, we must raise the standards for people to enter teacher-training programs. “In Singapore, young people for a long time have taken 'A Level' exams to get into teachers college.These are very difficult end-of-course examinations built on the English model. Low scores on these exams used to be sufficient for aspiring teachers, but, in recent years, that is no longer true and scores in the middle of the range are now required (3).” Pursuing teaching education is expensive and America needs to incentivise the best by providing scholarships and incentives for students to pursue a teaching degree which will make teaching a more attractive career (3). “Teachers would also be treated more like professionals if the U.S. implements the report's suggestion to change the overall management structure in school districts. For example, school systems would move away from a system where workers were held accountable at each level by their supervisors and, instead, would establish a workplace where workers would feel accountability to their colleagues (3).”
Obama, has a commitment to education as his stance claims that a, “vision for a 21st century education begins with demanding more reform and accountability, coupled with the resources needed to carry out that reform; asking parents to take responsibility for their children’s success; and recruiting, retaining, and rewarding an army of new teachers to fill new successful schools that prepare our children for success in college and the workforce (4).” Obama splits his potential actions and policies into several different sections in which he addresses improvements in education and in teacher recruitment. In Early Childhood Education, Obama proposes a Zero to Five Plan in which there will be early care and education for infants preparing them for a strong year in kindergarten (4). In the K-12 category, Obama proposes to reform the No-Child Left Behind Act, support high-quality schools and close low-performing charter schools, make math and science a national priority, “address the dropout crisis by passing legislation to provide funding to school districts to invest in intervention strategies in middle school,” expand high quality afterschool activity, and support college credit initiatives (4). Within k-12, Obama proposes a four step teaching plan. The first step is to recruit teachers in that the Obama administration will create new Teacher Service Scholarships that will cover undergraduate education or two years of graduate credits (4). Next, preparing teachers will include a requirement for all schools to be accredited and will create a Teacher Residency Program that, “will supply 30,000 exceptionally well-prepared recruits to high-need schools (4).” Next retaining teachers will include expanding mentoring programs that pair teachers with recruits and providing incentives to teachers so they can collaborate (4). Lastly, rewarding teachers will be to promote increasing teacher pay that serves to the skill and accomplishments of teachers (4). Since these are the policies Obama stands for, he will most likely respond to my question using the information above.
Romney, has a clear argument against Obama’s education plan. He states that, “President Obama often emphasizes what he calls the investments he has made in the future. He touts the billions of dollars he has spent and details a list of supposed accomplishments. He is right about one thing: he has spent billions of dollars. However, the vast majority of these dollars have not been invested in implementing the types of reforms required to produce real results. Instead, these taxpayer dollars have aided the very teachers unions that worked to get him elected and that have held back for decades the reforms our system so desperately needs (5).” Romney however puts forth a plan that he hopes will reform the school system (5). Romney wants students to have choice. He states that low income families should be able to choose what school they want to attend, he wants to provide states with incentives to provide education alternatives, and wants to build on the success of charter and digital schooling (5). No Child Left Behind will have to be reformed by stressing responsibility for results. Romney also wishes to strengthen and simplify the financial aid system and welcome private sector involvement in education (5). Regarding teacher recruitment, Mitt wants to attract quality teachers by increasing education flexibility and by increasing block grants. He also wants to get rid of unnecessary certification that will in the long run discourage new teachers (5). These are Romney’s views and these are the views he most likely will use to answer my question.
1.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/education-olympics-how-do_n_1707968.html
2.http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/01/teachers
3.http://www.districtadministration.com/article/how-america-can-improve—and-compete—-high-achieving-countries
4. http://change.gov/agenda/education_agenda/
5. http://www.mittromney.com/issues/education
Upon reading this question, I knew immediately what I would ask. I would ask about the issue of Gay marriage. I would do this for two reasons. First, it would hopefully affirm Obama's commitment to the LGBT community. My question would be: "Polls have shown that the younger generations are more accepting towards gay marriage. How do you plan on addressing the issues of LGBT persons, who are faced with obstacles such as hate crimes and suicide?"
Both candidates would have to be reserved. In my mind it ufolds like a play, with Obama holding (hopefully) to his earlier declaration. Some of us idolize the man, after all, he was the first sitting president to pronounce his support for Gay marriage when he did so May 9th of this year(1). Obama owes a lot to the gay community. It is estimated that between six to twenty percent of his top fundraisers are openly gay, which compares to gays being only 4% of the population (1). Furthermore, Obama has inched away from groups opposing gay rights (2). His nonpresence at the Boy Scouts of America's 100th anniversary Jamboree, was keenly felt by some to be an example of this(2).
Romney, on the other hand, must stick to the Republican platform. Governor Romney signed a National Organization for Marriage pledge a year ago in favor of a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage solely as between one man and one woman(1). He also has refrained from endorsing civil unions of gays(1). I can honestly picture him parroting back the old phrase of Conservatives everywhere: "Every child deserves a mother and a father"(3). Hopefully he will read the journal of the American College of Pediatricians, our foremost authority on children, which has found no significant difference in the mental health of children raised by homosexual parents than that of their peers (4).
1)http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0902/Obama-vs.-Romney-101-4-ways-they-differ-on-gay-issues/Same-sex-marriage
2)http://www.dallasnews.com/incoming/20120808-boy-scouts-and-obama-group-s-honorary-president-agree-to-disagree-on-gays.ece
3)http://mittromneycentral.com/on-the-issues/same-sex-marriage/
4)http://www.acpeds.org/homosexual-parenting-is-it-time-for-change.html
Do politicians ever actually answer the question posed to them? Uh… not really. However, I have a question for President Obama and Governor Romney (and Gary Johnson and Jill Stein and… well, I guess we’ll just leave it to the big guns). My question to the candidates would be this: What should the United States look like in 2050 concerning its government, people, and qualities? First, my ideal answer would include a smaller debt, one that wouldn’t provide the so-called crushing burden on future generations, but a modest one at best. It would also include a completely clean energy grid. Call me naïve, but such change is technologically plausible in 38 years (1). It would be naïve to say poverty is eliminated, but I’d like to hear that current programs are still in place and are supplemented by new (and specific) ones in combating poverty, unemployment, and the ills of life. I’d want an answer where government has proven to be a source of some sort of progress in the issues no matter its size since size does not correlate with success. I want an answer stressing equality amongst races, sexes, religions, and sexual orientations as well as a planet where peace is abundant. Ultimately, I want what every voter wants: Everything. A City Upon a Hill. The Utopian States of America. And I’m thinking the candidates might actually give me that, just not with my (or any) specifics. However, I also believe they’d focus more on bashing the other’s vision because answers are never all flowers, unicorns, rainbows, and butterflies (unless you watched the foreign policy debate when they were ACTUALLY “debating” on foreign policy because their visions were just that).
President Obama, renowned and applauded for his high rhetoric, would answer first with a hearty compliment to my dedication to the future of America. He would then mention what he’s already done to achieve a better America. He’d tout the Lilly Ledbetter Act, his support of gay marriage, and his overall crusade-in-the-making for equality (2). Building on that, he’d say we’re not done and that he needs another term to continue on the right path, a path he’d say Romney will not go on with his binders of women. He’d say that by 2020 we’ll be leading in education (2). He’d tout his saving of the auto industry, bash Romney for opposing that bailout, and speak of the manufacturing and high-income jobs we’ll have for “the long run” (2). He’d talk of vague government programs that will eliminate student debt, education gaps, and excess poverty (2). He’d ultimately bring flowing tears to the eyes of all liberals in the building.
Governor Romney would counter with a brief digression (yes, already) into how great of a nation America is (with the exception of these past 4 years, of course) and will be in the future. He’d talk of the “free enterprise, hard work, and innovation” of the gritty average American that will get us there and not a high-deficit government (3). This 2050 will have smaller (and thus automatically) smarter government that doesn’t interfere in the everyday lives of people (3). He’d criticize the rampant spending of the Obama campaign and tout his 5-point plan of innovative education, energy independence, and a “21st Century workforce” (3). Romney would say Americans will be content with lower taxes, government out of their lives, and jobs fueled by the private sector, of which he’ll also extol the importance of small business and how his 5-point plan helps them too. He’d quickly add on that equality measures will have been taken AND that traditional American/family values will continue to be the norm. He’d ultimately bring flowing tears to the eyes of all conservatives in the building.
Now I know this wasn’t actually a good question. My demands are outrageous. Why shouldn’t they be? I know that they’d most likely use the opportunity to enunciate the long-term benefits of their proposals. In truth, neither of their administrations would have that much of an effect on all of these issues come 2050. I also know that they’d both politicize the question to pieces. Most importantly, though, I want to know their basic vision for the ideal (and completely unachievable) America given time for its creation. This would give voters a glimpse of the big-picture goals of their presidencies.
1. http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/energy_solutions/renewable_energy/sustainable_energy_report/
2. http://www.barackobama.com/issues?source=primary-nav#close
3. http://www.mittromney.com/issues/human-capital
I would ask the question how would you make healthcare the best for all of us(if you know what I mean)? I think the best response would be to make it free for all, not denying anyone, based on preexisting condition or age, and to have a low amount that everyone can agree on. I think that Obama, would say that he would take away the discrimination based on preexisting conditions(1). I think Romney would answer to the extent that he would lower costs using reforms and make it better in general that all Americans deserve(2).
1) http://www.democrats.org/issues/health_care
2)http://www.gop.com/our-party/
The debates are always interesting to watch and listen to. Some questions are asked but many important questions are not able to be voiced to the two presidential candidates. Having not watched all of the debates, I am unsure if my question was ever asked. However, I would ask how both Romney and Obama plan to create an either energy-clean or energy-efficient economy or attempt to do so. Now, in response to this question I would hope that at least one of them wants to start to transition to the use of other natural resources in order to reduce harmful emissions that hurt the environment. I would also hope that one of them would respond with making businesses more energy-efficient and for cars more fuel-efficient. However, I believe Obama would have a more straight and great idea as opposed to Romney for I have seen Obama at least mention this idea in his platform.
On the Democrat’s website, Obama and the Democrats talk about “Energy Independence.” It says that Obama, “is focused on developing all of America’s natural resources—domestic, oil, gas, wind, solar, and biofuels” (1). Obama has already helped create more fuel-efficient cars by increasing standards for cars and he has helped double the use of other sources such as wind and solar energy (1). By increasing car standards, Obama has helped people save $8,000 giving the people more money in their pockets (1). Therefore, in answer to my question, I would expect President Obama to give me the same answer that I expect or want. I would expect that he would say we need to transition into using different energy sources and that other items in America needs to also become more energy-efficient. President Obama, also, proposed a Clean Energy Standard that would double the share of electricity generated from clean energy sources over a course of 25 years (2).
For Republican Romney, I would think I would expect the same sort of answer from him, even though I have not seen his view on what we should do to make an energy-clean economy. However, after looking over Mitt Romney’s stand on energy, there is nothing about trying to find new sources for energy to create a cleaner economy. Romney wants to make America an “energy superpower” (3). He wants to use energy to create lower energy prices, more jobs, and to become independent from other countries for energy (3). While Obama does mention becoming energy independent, he also mentions using other resources to help clean up the environment. Romney does not mention this at all. Therefore, I would expect Romney to answer this question in more of an economic sense and not an efficiency sense. I bet he would come back at Obama for saying we need to use newer sources of energy by saying that we actually need to focus on becoming independent, create jobs for our people, and lower the cost of energy.
I feel that Obama would probably fit the response that I am looking for more so than Romney. While I think Romney has another good idea for the economy, I think cleaning up our energy sources is most important for our environment right now. Obama probably sees that becoming energy-efficient is more important than becoming independent, at this point in time. Our environment is hurting and I believe we need to clean it up and to lessen the load by using new natural resources. I would think Obama would agree with me and state something similar.
1) http://www.democrats.org/issues/energy_independence
2) http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/gasprices
3) http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy
The question I would ask is: “Do you believe that the issue of global warming is an issue that needs to be confronted? What measures would you, as President, implement to reduce carbon emissions in the future, if any? Why would you choose those specific policies or non policies?”
The response I would look for would go along these lines. “Global warming is the preeminent threat facing our generation and generations to follow. Unchecked rising of temperatures will wreak havoc on American agriculture, take massive bites out of GDP, and contribute to further global instability. Carbon emissions must be slashed immediately and by meaningful amounts. I, as president, would solve this problem by implementing a phased plan to slash carbon emissions down to minute qualities. This plan would involve carbon taxes, cap-and-trade systems for all emissions, and a plan for a government funded transition to a self-sufficient sustainable energy system which involves overhauling the power grid of the United States.” I would also look for a denunciation of the view that global warming does not exist, or is not significant, as dangerous and archaic.
However, the responses from the most candidates would most likely be different. Mitt Romney would announce that global warming is an issue, but would question how fast the earth was really warming, and if it really needed to be addressed right now (1). Then, he would say that the United States could do nothing by itself, because a large portion of emissions come from other countries (1). He would treat the entire issue as unimportant, not because he is an unintelligent man, but because he is a political coward, and a large portion of his base refuses even to acknowledge the existence of climate change. This was demonstrated by his comment “President Obama promised to slow the rise of the oceans — [pauses for audience laughter(!)] — and to heal the planet. MY promise is to help you and your family.) (2)” Mitt Romney would then sidestep the question by saying that the real issue was the economy, and the debate about global warming can be held later, when American’s aren’t out of work because to the failed policies of Barack Obama.
President Obama, on the other hand, would say much of the same thing. He would declare that global warming is a major issue, and that he, as President would do much about it. He would implement international treaties to cut carbon emissions, and tighten regulations on polluters. He, of course, would sidestep specifics, because he doesn’t actually have a plan to solve it, and has no plans to create such a plan, because he and his party would bear the blame for the temporary economic contraction caused by measures that would actually control carbon emissions. After all, a cap-and-trade plan was passed by the House, but Obama allowed it to die in the Senate (3). Obama’s reluctance to bring up climate change was showcased during the third debate, where he, despite having several exchanges with Romney over energy policy, never brought up climate change (3). He has acknowledged climate change exists, and has launched forays into government sponsored green energy, but that has been the extent to which climate change has been an issue in his campaign. In the end, he offers no real alternative to Romney on the issue, due perhaps to lack of political capital, an unwillingness to offend voters who, for the most part, already despise him, or simply political cowardice. Whatever their motivations, neither Romney nor Obama offer any real solutions on climate change.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/is-romney-warming-up-to-global-warming/2012/09/05/1cd0c408-f775-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_blog.html
2. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/30/780911/romney-mocks-obamas-pledge-to-address-global-warming/?mobile=nc
3. http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/264409-obama-surprised-climate-change-didnt-surface-at-debates
If I were able to ask the candidates one question, I would ask them what they intend to do to lessen financial strain on college students, while increasing the rigor for all students across the country. In a perfect world the candidates, would offer greater financial assistance for students, or an increase in forgiveness of student debt. I would also hope that the candidates would give a short ( I realize that they have a limited time to answer) summary of how they intend increasing money for good teachers, and standards nationwide, allowing for a personalization in education.
Realistically I realize that that is never, ever ever going to happen. However I have a pretty good idea what each candidate would say. Romney, would tell me that college age students should look to other alternatives besides college, because that system just isn’t working. He would also encourage parents and families to send their children to charter schools, or other alternatives that would encourage personalization of education. (1) Obamas plan would intend to decrease college debts, by erasing the banks as middlemen. He would also want to forgive much of the student debt. On the all around education front, he would advocate for more money for good teachers but he would prefer to do so in a controlled public education setting. (2)
1.http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_Renewing/
2.http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform#rebuild-middle-class
One of the issues that I (and probably the Green Party) noticed was lacking in discussion over the course of the Presidential debates was that of climate change and global warming. A poll of scientists at the University of Illinois concluded that human-caused global warming is now taking place (1). I think that this problem will only become worse as time goes on. My question to the candidates would be this: "What have you done/plan to do to help eliminate the threat of global warming? Please be as specific as possible". The average educated American, including myself, would have enjoyed hearing a candidate admit that climate change is an actual issue that it is changing our world as we sit here. That would be the first hurdle. Next, any particular policies or laws passed or planned on being passed by that candidate would have been helpful, as my question includes being as specific as possible. As for our particular candidates this election year, I would have liked to see President Obama cite the particular things his administration has done to combat the threat, including working with the EPA, along with the Department of Transportation on vehicle standards (2). I wouldn't try to direct this question at Obama, because I am more interested in what Romney's answer would be. I couldn't find the issue of the environment under the GOP's equivalent of the "issues" tab on their website, and I ended up having to go to the Republican party's platform to see their stance. I would have been interested to hear anything specific from Mitt, seeing as their platform's stance on the economy amounted to praising how good our environment is currently and giving the power to regulate emissions and the like to the states (3). In short, I don't know what I would have liked to hear from Romney since I have no idea what he would have said based off the party platform statement. He definitely would have struggled with this question and it would have been interesting to see him tackle it.
(1) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111121115102.htm
(2) http://www.democrats.org/issues/environment#more
(3) http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_America/
After watching 4 presidential debates, I noticed that a certain issue was not touched on as much as I would liked to see. That is the environment and alternate fuel sources. Everyone knows that fossil fuels, specificaly oil, will not last forever. It is a finite resource that can only be produced so long as we can pump it out of the ground. Oil does not run our cars, or allow us to travel, but the clear liquid substance obtained from refining oil does. This liquid is gasoline. Gasoline is the most widely used fossil fuel to power our cars on the road today. Once oil begins to run low, and prices start to sky rocket, with the current fuel efficiency of cars today, what will the American people do?
My real question to the candidates would be, will the United States Government mandate car manufacturers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles like they did in the 70s, in order to better transition the country off of fossil fuels? My ideal answer would be yes, the Government will mandate that the minimum fuel efficiency of cars should be at least 30 miles per gallon, by 2023. It took 12 years for auto makers to increase the fuel efficiency of cars by 10 mpg in only 12 years (1) from 13.1 mpg in 1973 to 22.0 mpg in 1985, this was almost a 100% increase in fuel efficiency. With today's technology, and the rate at which technology is advancing, one may think that increasing the fuel economy from 20.2 mpg (1) to at least 30 mpg in 10 years would not be as difficult of a feat.
What I think the candidates would say is something a little different. I think that President Obama would not answer the question directly, but state that he is already investing in green technology such as Tesla Motors, an all electric car dealer, and Fisker Automotive, another electric car manufacturer (2). He would most likely also say that he has already seen breakthroughs in the companies he has subsized such as Envia who have come out with a new battery technology that will double the lifespan, while reducing the costs (3), of new lithium ion batteries, which are a major component electric cars today (4)(5).
Mitt Romney on the other hand would most likely state that no he would not push for a mandate on improving fuel economy. He would most likely cite how Obama attempted to do that by investing $90 billion dollars into companies that have yet to prove themselves, or have gone bankrupt (6)(7). He would most likely support trying to increase oil production or capture foreign oil markets for the US instead of working towards lowering consumption and improving mileage.
1. (28:57 min:sec) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/car-of-the-future.html
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-obamas-green-car-revolution-fits-and-starts/2011/11/29/gIQA0FdRdO_story.html
3. http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/04/if-obama-wont-defend-the-last-four-years-why-would-america-give-him-another-four-years/
4. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/tesla-roadster.htm
5. (43:03 min:sec) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/car-of-the-future.html
6. http://www.inautonews.com/romney-to-stop-gov-funding-for-ev-companies-if-he-wins-election#.UJLxesXA_ng
7. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-15/obama-s-5-billion-slow-to-charge-electric-car-purchases
If I were able to ask the candidates any one question I would have asked them “presume that the economy returns to pre-recession levels in the middle of your term, what would then become your policy prerogative?” This answer would be very interesting because it would bring the focus off of each candidate’s position on the economy and would instead reveal what the next-most important issue would be. I think that there are multiple correct answers to this question, with a few being the best of all. I think the best answers here would be: “comprehensive immigration reform,” “education reform,” “foreign aid,” or “tax reform”; while acceptable but not-quite-right answers (for me) would be: “entitlements reform” (Social Security & Medicare), “the environment,” “foreign policy,” “energy,” or “infrastructure” (believe me, it’s an issue, just not the 2nd most important one). I don’t think (based on previous debate questions) either would answer the question correctly (that is with less than 2 words). Rather, each would say “oh, the economy is clearly my most important issue, after that I have a _ point plan, or I believe we need to fix _____, ____, and ____ next.” If I were to guess what they actually internally considered their next most important issue, I would guess that Obama would say either “immigration” or “taxes” while Romney would say “the size of government” or (relatedly) “taxes” or “health-care”. I think that Obama would answer the question that way for several reasons. First, both of those are top categories & issues on his campaign website (1), meaning he already considers them among the most important issues. Second of all, they were important issues that he ran on in the last election, showing that he has considered these issues important for at least the middle-long run. Furthermore, in an off-recorn turned on-record interview with the President by editors of the Des Moines Register he hinted that his top priorities seem to be the size of government and immigration. (2) Mr Romney would probably answer about the size of the government and taxes or health-care because those have been two of the primary issues he has campaigned on, demonstrated by the fact that the size of government is one of his main issues on his website (4) and the “repeal of Obamacare” is often his rallying cry. (5) He has promised over and over to repeal “Obamacare” as one of his first acts of Presidency (in order to placate conservatives) and his other main campaign promise (besides the economy() is to bring down the size of government, reducing taxing and spending, priorities represented in a recent (very) Washington Post article. (3)
1. http://www.barackobama.com/issues?source=primary-nav
2. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-campaign-idUSBRE89M11220121024
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-ceo-romney-would-enter-white-house-with-broad-agenda-focus-on-data-over-ideology/2012/11/01/cc6e9d76-2467-11e2-92f8-7f9c4daf276a_story.html
4. http://www.mittromney.com/issues’
5. http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/09/20/romney-vows-repeal-obamacare-accepts-grandfather-title-laugh
There is always a debate about what questions the moderators should have asked the candidates. One of the questions I wished was asked is what is their stance on gay marriage. this is an important question here in Minnesota with the amendment up for vote and in the country for equal rights. I feel the right answer is that marriage is a right for all citizens regardless of sexual preference. However, this is not how one of the candidates would answer. “I have the same view on marriage that I had when I was governor. I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.” (1). His answer is to be expected, the Republican platform is not very open to gay rights. He also “signed a National Organization for Marriage pledge a year ago in favor of a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage solely as between one man and one woman. Further, the former Massachusetts governor does not support civil unions.”(2). Based on Romney’s history this is how I would expect him to answer.
On the other hand, I would hope that Obama would uphold his stance. “President Obama was the first sitting president to publicly announce his support for marriage for same-sex couples, and has always believed LGBT Americans should be treated fairly and equally.” (3). It is important for Obama to keep this stance because though disputed, a fair percentage of his biggest donors are openly gay. When he first announced his stance “Obama’s campaign raised $1.5 million within 90 minutes of the broadcast announcement” (2). It was a major step for a sitting president to support gay marriage. This country was founded on equal rights and right now that is not true for everyone.
1.http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/mitt-romney-reaffirms-opposition-gay-marriage/story?id=16314461#.UJG7b8XAeSo
2.http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0902/Obama-vs.-Romney-101-4-ways-they-differ-on-gay-issues/Same-sex-marriage
3.http://www.barackobama.com/equal-rights
If I could ask the candidates any one question, I'd ask "If you are elected/reelected, what would you do to keep the United States from going further into debt?" I would ask this question because I am concerned and frightened of what will happen to this country if we continue to spend money that we don't have. The total US National Debt as I write this is $16,040,143,000,000. Those 0s at the end are there because the number is going up too fast for me to get a fix, and by the time I've finished this sentence, we'll be at least another half million dollars in debt. According to the CBO Federal spending last year exceeded 24% of GDP, which means that the country was spending way more money than it was taking in.
The ideal answer from either of the candidates would be something along the lines of "If (re)elected President of the United States, I would work to cut federal spending and create a balanced budget, working for a surplus, to keep the country out of debt." Unfortunately, we all know that neither of the candidates would answer like that, and if they did, they would have an extremely hard time keeping that promise. From watching his interview on the Late Show (please ignore the clearly biased title of the video)I'd postulate that President Obama would probably begin with an explanation of how he inherited one of the worst economies of any Presidential candidate, before talking about a balanced approach to balance the budget. I presume he would then talk about cutting programs, but along with that asking the wealthy to "pay their fair share". Now, I'm all for having people pay their fair share of taxes, but when I look at the current tax brackets, I see that the rich are already paying a pretty fair share. And then there's the argument that taxing more money from those most likely to invest in new companies and jobs actually might hurt the economy. But I digress.
I'm slightly more optimistic about what I think Mr. Romney's answer would be. Of course, Romney's answer would probably begin with some indication of how we've gone so much further into debt over the past four years. And then I think he would go to one of his major talking points, this "5-point plan" we've heard so much about. Surprisingly, the 5-Point Plan would actually answer my question fairly well. The first point in the plan is energy independence, which seems like a good way to stop paying foreign countries for oil. The 4th point, "cut the deficit" is what I'm really optimistic about, though. Unfortunately, it really doesn't go into specifics, but just lists out vague strategies such as "Give states responsibility for programs that they can implement more efficiently". I'd really like to know what specific programs are being referenced, and how state control makes them any more effective.
I know that if I asked this question, the answers I got from both candidates (or any politician, really) would be vague at best. But dodging the question is an important skill in American politics today. Perhaps at some point in the future, politicians will be more open and trustworthy. But that's a story for another post.
I was unable to watch more than the last presidential debate. I did, however overhear some students commenting that the issue of the environment and limited resources was absent from this years debate. I would ask how the presidential candidates plan for the future regarding the environment, specifically the use of natural resources and combating global warming.
I would like to hear an answer that plans to implement alternative and natural energy sources including solar, wind, geo-thermal, marine and other cleaner, environmentally friendly sources. I believe that the politicians should begin adding more renewable energy sources while phasing out the nuclear and fossil-fuel energy sources. The candidates should provide an answer that not only is beneficial in the moment but plans to accommodate future generations as well.
The Republican Party Platform says that they are committed to domestic energy independence. They support coal as a “low-cost and abundant energy source” (1). The Republican plan is to develop new coal fired plants that are more environmentally responsible and efficient (1). I think that Romney would reply with these goals and, based on the platform, would have nothing to say about renewable resources. In my opinion Romney’s plan is for the present but does not plan for the future when coal, a non-renewable source, does not exist.
I am not entirely sure of what Obama’s response would be to my question. In the Democratic Political Platform there was little information on renewable energy (2). I did find that on the Democrat’s website there is a section about the environment. President Obama has issued new fuel-economy standards and worked with the EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, to regulate carbon dioxide emissions (2). I think that Obama would respond to this question by highlighting the steps he has already taken as President to combat environmental issues.
1.http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_America/#Item1
2. http://www.democrats.org/issues/environment
This comment has been removed by the author.
The issue most absent in the debates was overwhelmingly the environment and the effects of global warming. If I were to ask any question at the debate to the candidates, it would be what they are planning to do about getting America less independent on oil and more educated in the possibilities of alternative fuel sources. Gas prices are high, the BP oil spill still lingers in all of our memories, foreign oil is dangerous and we have shaky relationships with its holders, and the climate is undeniably changing. With all of these current events in the energy world, I was surprised it was hardly mentioned.
I would want the candidate’s answer to be that in order to help the economy and create jobs, they will increase the research and funding for alternative energy sources. Investing in green energy would create many jobs, stimulate the economy, make the US totally independent of foreign oil and overall help the environment and climate. As a person with allergies and asthma, breathing fresh air is essential to staying healthy, as with many Americans who suffer from allergies and asthma. Keeping the air clean and reducing our carbon footprint is essential to being inhabitants on this earth.
I believe Obama could have gained some traction with an answer to this question and mentioned how he has increased fuel standards, raised US production of oil, decreased American consumption of foreign oil to below 50 percent and has supported research for solar and wind energy (1). According to an article from Renewable Energy World, the Obama administration has increased non-hydro renewable sources almost 11 percent from 2011. Solar has increased 97 percent and wind is up 16 percent (2). All of this data is showing that Obama is moving energy independence in the right direction. One thing not seen in these statistics is how this has improved the job situation. One thing for the President to consider would be increasing the job market for these energy jobs.
If I were Mitt Romney, I would definitely address how Obama has not created more jobs even though he has spent money in these areas. I would then go on to tell my policy on energy. Romney promises to increase domestic energy production to competitively increase industry in the country, therefore creating jobs (3). Also, it will increase American trade and reduce the deficit (3). He could also argue a safer America due to less dependence on foreign oil and the unstable Middle East. Romney would increase domestic drilling, help build a pipeline in Canada around Hudson Bay, and have less regulation in the private sector (3). He focuses less on wind, solar and geothermal power and more on increasing oil energy (4).
1) http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/securing-american-energy
2)http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/08/renewable-energy-sees-explosive-growth-during-obama-administration
3) http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy
4) http://aboutmittromney.com/energy.htm
This comment has been removed by the author.
The political debates are always a very interesting topic of discussion as the election season comes to a close. “What should have been asked?” is always on everyone’s mind. In my opinion, the topic of higher education was not addressed enough. I would have asked the candidates what their plans are for lessening the financial strain on current college students so that a higher education is more readily available and future students are not deterred from their ideal college because of its price tag. I wish the candidates would have discussed how they plan to halt the drastic increase in tuition, as the average cost of four-year universities has increased 15% from 2008-2010 and is expected to continually increase (1). Numerous students, with the exception of those gifted with very generous parents, cannot even imagine paying the current prices. This results in more and more students having to take out student-loans in order to pay for their education. The problem with this is that students come out of their respected colleges or universities with looming debt. As soon as they take off that cap and gown, they already owe someone loads of money that they do not have yet, and with the current recession, it is considerably hard for many to get sufficient jobs in order to work toward paying these loans off quickly. This alone is a problem that needs rectifying, but the additional crisis is that the interest rates on these loans have also risen over the recent years. Although the interest rates were halted at 3.4% this previous summer, it needs to be noted that this act was only a one year deal. It was a 12 month suspension, and actually increased total college costs (2). These statistics clearly note that something needs to be done. The proper answer that I would like to see is someone explicitly stating that they will work to decrease interest rates to below 2% and work with colleges and universities to decrease tuition prices over the next four years. Then, I would like them to state that furthermore, they will work to increase the amount of federal aid that can be offered. However, this is an extremely unlikely outcome because politicians NEVER explicitly state what they plan to do so as to avoid alienating voters.
I expect Mitt Romney’s answer to be along the lines of, “I completely agree. We need to work toward a future where post-secondary education is available to everyone who wants it. A future that is much brighter than the last four years have been. Young Americans are too burdened with substantial amounts of debt and too few opportunities in the job market that we have today. We need to strengthen and simplify the financial aid system and allow the private sector to participate in this process. Young Americans need to be able to afford a higher education and get out in the job market to stimulate the economy, and if you look at my five point plan, you’ll see I address just how I will stimulate that economy and get young Americans out into the workforce” (3). Meanwhile, I believe that Barack Obama will answer in a manner similar to, “If you re-elect me as President, my administration will take the necessary steps to help the African American Community, the Latino Community, and the larger American Community. We’ll focus on this national dilemma and make the necessary changes to aid our fellow Americans that are not gifted with the financial advantage of securing a higher education at an acceptable cost. I promise to work to give everyone a shot at succeeding and being able to afford this necessary college degree. We need to prevent the irrational process of increasing interest rates and tuition costs that have been seen over the recent years. We need to reward responsible students and help their families so that they can make a decision of which college to attend solely based on career goals rather than tuition costs. It isn’t fair that some people can avoid this crisis and get ahead in life because they had an opportunity to attend an expensive college that was fully paid for by their capitalist parents. We need to secure a sold pathway to good jobs, so that those who actually work hard can get ahead in life. And, if you examine my past four years, you can see that I have worked toward just that. I pushed Congress to cap interest rates at 3.4% and will continue to help young Americans in their plight over these excessive burdens” (4). This will of course lead to more finger-pointing and would prove to be an exciting debate as these responses would really jumpstart the candidates into an attack mode similar to what was seen in their second debate.
1. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-06-13/college-costs-surge/55568278/1
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barton-kunstler-phd/college-student-loan-bill_b_1850224.html
3. http://www.mittromney.com/issues/education
4. http://www.barackobama.com/education
Had I been a moderator at one of the Presidential debates, I would have asked a question about clean energy initiatives. I would like to know what each administration would do to increase the production of clean energy, or if they would at all. Romney has said that he would “support investment in government research” (1). Romney does advocates investment in green energy, but not, as he says, “At the expense of traditional” energy sources like fossil fuels. He supports the investment in domestic fuel sources such as oil and natural gas, and the expansion of the Keystone Pipeline (1). Romney also supports the increased production of ethanol. Obama has called for growth in clean energy and suggested in 2011 that 80% be our goal for electricity created from clean sources. He has also opened up federal and offshore land for drilling, a move that was popular with Republicans (1). Obama has called for tax relief for businesses investing in clean energy, a move the Romney has criticized. It is also worth noting that under the Obama administration, stricter standards have been put on the car industry and the power industry to control emissions (1).
Clean energy is an important issue for me because I believe that if we continue to use the types of energy we are currently using we will be up the creek without a paddle in the coming decades. I disagree with Romney’s statement that we should support further research. Governor, we have done the research. The technology already exists. The question is are you willing to abandon your friends in the oil and natural gas industry and think about the future of this country and this planet? Some companies have been investing in green energy for the past 15 years (2). They should be given tax relief to further stimulate growth. Romney claims giving tax relief to these companies would hurt the free market (1). Governor, these tax breaks would not destroy the free market they would simply stimulate another part of it. I do however agree with Romney’s stance on ethanol production. Minnesota is the 4th largest ethanol producer in the country, and investment in that field would lower gas prices and create jobs (3). Basically, both candidates are focused too much on what needs to be done to fix out current problems. I want to see a solution that prevents future problems.
1. http://www.cfr.org/united-states/candidates-energy-policy/p26796
2. http://www.greenmountain.com/
3. http://www.eia.gov/beta/state/?sid=MN#tabs-3
I have always held a strong interest in foreign policy. The way that America acts in the world is very important. The Middle East is the currently the area with the most problems for the US. However, with US troops out of Iraq and both candidates advocating a withdrawal from Afghanistan, these countries, while still important, are overshadowed by a new issue. Iran has emerged as one of the next problems for the US and the West. They currently have a nuclear program in full swing, and it is nearly certain that they are working as hard as possible to create a working nuclear weapon (1). While they continue to claim that they are working to build a “peaceful” nuclear reactor for power and medical research, this lie is so stale that only the most gullible could possibly swallow it. With unemployment topping 12.5% and 1 million addicted to drugs (2), it is obvious that they have far more pressing needs than clean electricity. By the way, gas in Iran costs about 10 cents per gallon (3), and they’ve never had a problem with environmentalists protesting about the evils of carbon emissions. The point of the above facts is to prove that, based on the best available information, that Iran is in the process of building a nuclear weapon. (There is more evidence, but this should be enough to convince most people).
My question is “Under your administration, how will the US respond to Iran’s efforts to produce a nuclear weapon? Do you believe that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the US and Israel?”
I would look for a response similar to this: A nuclear Iran presents a clear and present danger to the US and our greatest ally in the region, Israel. "If the Zionist regime wants to repeat its past mistakes, this will constitute its demise and annihilation…With Allah's help the new Middle East will be a Middle East without Zionists and Imperialists." This was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a news conference on February 25th, 2010, in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (5). Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The willingness of Iran to both build and use weapons of mass destruction poses a great threat to the US and its allies. Sanctions against Iran must be immediately and severely tightened, but the US will leave EVERY option on the table, including all measures of a military response and/or a first strike. The US will also support Israel to the full extent possible, as a single nuclear weapon hitting Israel could kill 6 million Jews in in minutes. Only one candidate will likely give a response similar to this. President Obama would probably say that current sanctions will deter Iran. He would say that he has a red line and that he won’t let Iran get a nuke (6). However, based on what (little) he has done to date, I doubt that any actual changes would occur. Mitt Romney seems to have a much greater grasp of the danger that Iran presents. He would tighten sanctions and have a viable military option, he is also in favor of a close relationship with Israel (4). This leaves Mitt Romney as the only viable choice for this topic.
1 http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/nuclear_program/index.html
2 http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/15/us-iran-drugs-idUSTRE5AE0Z020091115
3 http://www.tradingeconomics.com/iran/pump-price-for-gasoline-us-dollar-per-liter-wb-data.html
4 http://www.mittromney.com/issues/iran
5 http://www.adl.org/main_International_Affairs/ahmadinejad_words.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_4
6http://www.barackobama.com/national-security?source=primary-nav
If I could ask President Obama and Governor Romney one question it would have to be about my future. In the next four years, what will you do to help reduce college debt? I would ask this question because as I look at colleges it’s hard to over look the price tag. I would want to know what each candidate would do to help me come out of college with the least about of debt.
To begin I think Obama would talk about what he has done in the last four years to help tuition. In 2010 Obama signed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation 2010 which saved $68 billion by removing banks from the student loan processing business (2). According to Political USA, this bill is part of a bigger bill, that will cap student loan repayments at 10 percent of their discretionary income and, if they keep up with their payments over time, will have the balance forgiven after 20 years (2). In 2011 Obama helped reduce interest by half a percent by allowing borrowers to consolidate their payments, and at the same time Republicans are trying to double interest rates (2). After talking about what he has done, Obama would talk about his plan for the next four years. Obama has said before, that in the next decade he wants to cut tuition in half (1). Obama has talked about rewarding colleges that make it more affordable and easier to transfer community-college credits. Obama has also talked about a controversial idea by stopping students from using their low-interest Stafford loans and Pell Grants in hopes colleges would lower their tuition (1). CNN says that a proposal from Obama would push up the start date for more favorable terms on special loan repayment programs based on income (3). Obama’s main goal on college debt is to go at the main source, college tuition.
Besides Mitt Romney talking about how students should “borrow money from your parents,” he does have a few ideas (4). Romney said that he will not promises pell grants or low interest rates because he isn’t going to give out money from one pocket to go into another. Instead of helping college students with debt, his focus is students getting a job outside of college (5). Mitt Romney always finds away to relate the question back to jobs. Romney believes that the best way to reduce college debt is to graduate and then get a high paying job to pay it off.
Personally I highly agree on Obama’s plan because he seems to be actually concerned with college debt and wants to help reduce it. I can’t just borrow my parents money to pay for all of my college I will have to find other ways in addition, so Romney’s idea to borrow money doesn’t help me.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/17/pf/college/college-costs-obama/index.html
http://www.politicususa.com/a-lesson-for-sean-hannity-on-what-obama-has-done-for-students-with-loans.html
http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/25/obamas-plan-to-help-college-students/
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/mitt-romney-tells-ohio-students-borrow-mon
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/mitt-romney-obama-student-loan-debt_n_1820062.html
In the presidential debates that I have watched I have noticed that the environment has taken a back seat. It seems that all both candidates want to do is argue about the economy, failed policies and attacking each others records during their terms. So if I were given an opportunity I would ask the following question, “How would you tackle the issue of getting America back on to a sustainable balance of protecting the environment and promoting green energy while also promoting other economic interest.” I would expect the candidate to answer that they are going to implement a system in which green energy methods such as, wind turbines and solar panels, are helping the environment as well as creating jobs. These jobs that are created would help the environment and also get people to work which would drive our economy forward. Something along the lines of promoting green energy while also providing other positive effects would be a positive answer. Mitt Romney I would expect to answer along the lines of policies that would allow the private sector to produce new technology. I would also expect states to be given more power to control their energy policies. Also the possibility of alliances with other North American countries which would help us become energy independent. I would expect Obama to say that he would protect many endangered places in our American landscape. He would say that he has or will spend more money on ways to cut pollution and make sure that there are federal regulations which companies must follow in order to keep the environment safe. I checked an what Romney has said about the economy fits pretty much what I thought he would say. He supports alliances with other countries, he would promote offshore activity, and give more control to states and allow the private sector to become involved in technology development(1). Obama answer like I thought he would on his party platform. He has claimed about the many things that he has done during his presidency In the platform it says that Obama will continue to stand up to polluters and protect the health of citizens and the environment. He would also help protect and restore precious landscapes as well (2). Even though both make different promises they both seem to agree that these steps will help create many jobs which is great but at what cost to the environment.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform
The United Nations sponsored the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT), which entered into effect in 1970 (1). Over 190 countries have joined the treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon states. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the treaty's significance. Currently, only five of the 190 signatory countries are known to have nuclear weapons. These countries include: the United States, Russia, Great Britain, China and France (2). Several countries have not yet signed the NPT. These countries include: India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel (2). India and Pakistan are currently rivals and their unwillingness to sign the NPT is frightening, yet understandable. Both countries wish to maintain all options in case of all out war. The leaders in North Korea have never been known for their stability, so the lack of a North Korean signature is not surprising. Many of Israel's neighboring Muslim countries have repeatedly attempted to throw it into the sea, so again, it is not surprising that they have not signed. In 1981, Israeli planes destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor in Osirak (3). They feared that the Iraqis were building or preparing to build an atomic weapons. Israel now has that same fear of Iran. If international pressure fails to stop Iran from pursuing “the bomb” Israel will feel it has no choice but to use force to destroy the reactors.
My question to you, Mr. President and Governor Romney, is this: If Iran will not give up its attempt to acquire nuclear weapons despite diplomatic pressure, would you support Israel even if they launch a preemptive strike against Iran’s reactors?
Currently, the only neighboring Muslim countries that have peace treaties with Israel are Egypt and Jordan (4). Iran, meanwhile, has refused to recognize Israel as a state. Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, said, “From now onward, we will support and help any nations, any groups fighting against the Zionist regime across the world, and we are not afraid of declaring this,” during a Friday prayer lecture at Tehran University on February 3rd, 2012 (5). Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, denies the holocaust ever happened. He has called for Israel's demise and annihilation (6). How long would Israel last if the leaders in Iran had an atomic bomb. Israel has every right as a sovereign nation to defend itself from a threat to existence. We in the west have raised museums for the holocaust and have given many convincing speeches that echo the words “never again.” But the current economic sanctions are not working. Israel is a key ally in that troubled region. They provide bases for our armed forces, safe havens for refugees and key intelligence about terrorist attacks in America. the United States must stand with Israel.
President Obama has affirmed that he would come to the defense of Israel if they were attacked. He fails to realize that if a nuclear bomb were employed against Israel, there would be nothing left to defend. Israel would be wiped off the map. He would say that he has signed off on some of the toughest economic sanctions against Iran yet. He would say that he has always stood by Israel (7). But would the President have the courage to stand with Israel even if they attacked Iran preemptively? This I don’t know, but I hope the answer would be yes.
Governor Romney, I feel, would be more likely to support a military option against Iran. He would claim that Iran's military nuclear program has gone underground and that we are running out of time. I believe that he would require that Israel have convincing proof of Iran's nuclear weapon capability and the timetable in which these weapons could be unleashed. Again, would the Governor have the courage to stand with Israel even though he may be condemned in the E.U. and the U.N. I feel more confident that the answer would be yes. It is also interesting to note that Israelis favor Governor Romney over President Obama by almost 3 to 1 (8).
1- http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml
2-http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/npt
3-http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Osirak.html
4-http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Politics/Arabs.html
5-http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iran-says-it-launched-satellite/2012/02/03/gIQARNuDmQ_story.html
6-http://www.adl.org/main_International_Affairs/ahmadinejad_words.htm?
7-http://www.jacpac.org/index.php/component/content/article/44-issues/224-president-obama-and-israel-february-2012
8-http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-romney-obama-israel-see-steady-u-course-115501181.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Over the course of these four debates, the audience has had the opportunity to unearth the positions of the candidates on a variety of issues. One issue that I believe to be very important is the issue of foreign policy. In an age where Americans are war weary and have become more concerned about domestic policy than foreign policy, it is hard to hear that we need to continue to play a role on the global scale. With a decline on the global scale, American interests will become increasingly subject to the will of foreign countries. This fact is evinced in the struggles of America to encourage China to stop undervaluing their currency during the G-20 Summit (2). Another example of U.S. being subject to foreign countries is when in 2009 when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton begged China to “keep investing its foreign exchange reserves in US treasury securities (1).” Another reason a decline in global influence is bad is because it will also decrease foreign immigration to the United States (2 pg 3).This is detrimental to a country used to innovation because immigration has been the key to U.S. advancement in technology. By saying that America needs to, “reform its immigration visa program so that the productivity of its scientific research can be maximized,” the Center for American Progress effectively shows the relation between innovation and immigration (3). And this view was supported by a study conducted by professors from Duke University and University of California-Berkeley who found that in 2007, 25% of all engineering companies had at least one foreign born founder (4). With evidence of the decline in U.S. soft power on the global scale and the negative consequences that will follow if this decline worsens, today’s politicians need to answer the question of if the decline of America on the global stage is a problem, why, and what are they going to do to fix it.
In my opinion, the decline America on the global stage is a problem and America should increase its economic power to solve this problem. When other nations see that America is economically prosperous, then they will begin to invest money back into the U.S. economy which will then increase U.S. influence on the global scale. Bettering the U.S. economy will not only help to retain foreign investments but it will also encourage immigration which, as I said earlier, will lead to better innovation.
President Obama believes that we should build our influence through creating strategic alliances (5). He has done this by engaging Russia in a Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. However, this treaty has been a failure as Russia has only increased its nuclear arsenal since then (7)
Governor Romney would have said that we need to establish, “peace through strength” (6) He has proved this stance by supporting increased spending on the military and better relations with American allies such as Israel, which he believes Obama to have left in the dust. Though both of these candidates do not directly discuss the decline of U.S. influence. Basically, both of these candidates do not view America’s image as a national scale as a problem. The answers that they have supplied are focused on bettering America’s national security than their influence. However, this is only to be expected since the people do not value increasing global influence as a result of the Iraq and Afghanistan war. Nevertheless, this issue is still real and will pose a major problem if the U.S. does not take action soon.
1. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/feb2009/clin-f24.shtml
2.http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/think_again_american_decline?page=0,4
3. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/technology/news/2008/06/11/4574/innovation-and-immigration/
4. http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~anno/Papers/Americas_new_immigrant_entrepreneurs_I.pdf
5. http://www.democrats.org/issues/national_security#more
6. http://www.gop.com/our-party/
7. http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/10/despite-arms-reduction-treaty-russia-is-increasing-its-nuclear-capability/
If I remember correctly, the moderator at the final debate asked about the national budget in regards to foreign policy (1). I recall that the moderator asked Mr. Romney about his plans, specifically where he would get the money to pay for his increased national defense. Romney replied somewhat by talking about killing Obamacare, but I feel as if we switched topics all too quickly (1). Since he dodged a true, specific answer I would have repeated the question. Something about this question that the moderator piqued my interest, so I would like to know more. Romney proposes spending 4% on defense (2). This is achievable apparently by cutting debatable programs (Obamacare) and trimming the bureaucratic hedges, making the department more efficent (2). However, he plans to only spend 20% of the GDP on federal spending (3), so how can he achieve more spending in defense? Assuming he doesn't cut Social Security, Romney would have to slash spending on non-defense programs by 22% by 2016 and 34% by 2022, approximately $6.1 trillion (4). Of course Romney would never state such numbers (assuming they are accurate) on a national debate. To be fair, I would have to grill Obama on how he would raise money to continue what he's doing, but he doesn't plan on spending a lot on international defense, so the question wouldn't be relevant at that specific debate, would it?
I had planned to write about another question I would ask both candidates, but I think I've bored both you guys and myself enough. Here's a teaser though: "What are current plans to support or ignore the economic situation in Europe? We live in an international world, so the economy in Europe most definitely affects us in the U.S." Interestingly, I couldn't find anything about this topic on Obama's site just by clicking around. On Romney's website I found a few paragraphs about opening new markets. Anyway, anyone reading this can feel free to further research this issue for extra credit.
(1)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx1mjT73xYE
(2)http://www.mittromney.com/issues/national-defense
(3)http://www.mittromney.com/issues/spending
(4)http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3658 <-Really helpful site. Nice!
This comment has been removed by the author.
If I could pose any question to the presidential candidates, it would probably be this: “The US has the highest poverty rate among our industrialized peer nations. What should the government do to lower the number of Americans living in a state of poverty?” I would like to see the candidates present a comprehensive solution to the problem, coupling governmental welfare programs with an overhaul of the system that leads to the poverty in the first place. Candidates should consider the methods employed by similar countries that are more successful in keeping their poverty rates low. Specifically, I would like to see more spending on children born into poverty to provide them a means to escape the poverty cycle in the future and I would like to see long term solutions integrated into our economic and social policy. Capitalist societies demand cheap labor, and in doing so create a permanent class of the very poor. Candidates should acknowledge this failing of capitalism and tout long term programs of education and job training to facilitate the move of unskilled jobs overseas and replace them with high-paying skilled jobs in the US for which our workers would be trained.
Both candidates have addressed the issue of poverty (the term “addressed,” here meaning “produced a three minute YouTube video full of politicking and clearly lacking in actual policy”). Both candidates essentially spew their party’s standard flack. Romney speaks a lot about his “five-point-plan” and working with faith-based organizations (1). He fails to put forth a short term plan to cover people living in poverty who cannot wait until the economy recovers to get what they need. He forgets about healthcare and his only method of food aid is his oft-repeated quote about the “46.7 million people on Food Stamps.” He continues to treat his Five Point Plan as the magical cure for all of society’s evils. Deficit’s too high? Five Point Plan. Job market’s bad? Five Point Plan. Too many Americans live in poverty? Just slap a Five Point bandage on it and it’ll be good as new. No need to consider this complex and extremely pressing issue separately from economic issues. They’re practically the same.
Surprisingly, the Obama camp also failed to address the issue of poverty. (I say “surprisingly” because liberal candidates tend to consider poverty a more pressing issue than conservatives.) Obama argues that the government has an obligation to prevent and end poverty but doesn’t lay out anything more specific than “secure retirements, even if you’re not rich” and “an education that gives young people every chance at life.” (2) Like Romney, Obama has not made poverty a big campaign issue or given it the time or consideration it demands. Also like Romney, Obama simply argues that his existing and potential policies should fix poverty, regardless of the fact that there is no major policy in place or being considered that is focused completely on reducing or removing poverty. Neither candidate has acknowledged the fact that a reduction in poverty must be a national priority and that, if such a reduction is to occur, broad and significant changes must be made in public policy. Both candidates have allowed the poverty issue to be swept under the rug and in doing so have failed to promise the poverty-stricken what they need. So much for presidential support on the issue, I guess. Oh well. Maybe some kind hearted Congressmen will set aside their political differences and work together to create a new public policy to eradicate poverty entirely by 2050. Or maybe it’ll just rain cash one day. My money’s on the latter.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LIs2uygfocU
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=g5CP7EDC3W0#!
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The economy—a hotly contested topic since the 2008 housing-collapse, followed by the economic slump that we are still recovering from. However, most of the questions posed to the two presidential candidates during the debates concerned the domestic economy—not the US as a competitor in the world economy. One question which I would like to present Mitt Romney and Barack Obama might be: “If you were (re)elected as US President, what would you do to improve the standing of the United States in the global economy as a competitor?” This must be of at least some concern to people—in the last four years, the US fell from first to fifth on the Global Competitiveness Index, which measures the competitiveness of a nation’s economy, and is then used to judge the potential prosperity of that economy (1). Even through the initial 2008-2009 recession, the US remained in first because it was believed that we possessed the infrastructure to recover quickly (1). Clearly, this hasn’t been quite the case, as the numbers changed fairly recently. We’re currently behind: Switzerland, Singapore, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Germany, at 5.47 on a scale of 1-7 (2).
In a comprehensive answer, several elements must be taken into account: our competitiveness in other nation’s as an exporter, our education standards and academic performance, and indeed, our troubled domestic economy. Idealistically, regarding our strength as an export- and not import-oriented economy, we would disseminate our knowledge, technology and products across the globe, making a hefty profit by selling from nations eager to buy from a robust and highly-developed nation. We wouldn’t be outsourcing jobs, and therefore wouldn’t have to deal with the potential for international lawsuits regarding labor contracts and conditions.
As for education, it needs to improve if the US wishes to remain competitive in the global aspect. At 32nd of 65 nations included in recent tests from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and Massachusetts the only US state with above half proficiency rate (not by much, at 51%), something needs to be done to improve our education system and standards. Otherwise, schools will lack the rigor being supported worldwide, and because of this our students won’t being equipped with the tools they need to compete in the future global economy.
But let’s not move too fast: before we wade into the full pool of the competitive global economy, we should first dip our toes into fixing the kiddie pool in our own backyard: the US domestic economy. We need to work out the kinks in the system preventing a speedy recovery like the World Economic Forum thought we would have. With such mercurial conditions as come with being involved in a shifting world economy, the proper response changes by the second.
President Obama would most likely highlight his track record with reform, especially his 12-point economic plan which has been one of the main points of his campaign. He might make the point he did during the debates, that his administration has brought us on track to double our exports (5). He could also mention his successful education reform, if he were to see that as relevant; as the incumbent, he has the natural edge on Romney in the respect that he has a record.
Romney would probably have to go to his future plans for if he gets elected; he’d likely trumpet the famous Republican banners of the “small government” and “free-market.” He’d have to go against the attacks of claims of him outsourcing jobs, though, which could prove difficult. With such a many-faceted question, either candidate could really give any number of correct-enough answers involving varying topics.
1. http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/09/04/world-economists-confirm-americas-decline-under-obama/
2. http://www.weforum.org/issues/competitiveness-0/gci2012-data-platform/
3. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/08/28/why-can-t-u-s-students-compete-with-the-rest-of-the-world.html
4. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-16/romney-s-auto-bankruptcy-advice-wasn-t-followed-reality-check
Without a doubt, the most important issue ignored in the presidential debates was climate change and global warming. The leader of one of the largest countries in the world cannot afford to ignore something with effects that are as widespread and possibly devastating as those of climate change, and this round of presidential debates marked the first since 1984 that the issue went without mention (1). Thus, the question that the candidates must be asked is this: what action, or lack of action, would you take on the issue of climate change if elected (or re-elected) as President, in respect to both domestic policy and international relations? The question, by nature, needs to be broadly worded because of the sheer number of possible approaches to the problem; any situation as complicated as the one the U.S. currently has in regards to green policy is this way.
The answer that I am looking for in response to such a question is a firm, but cautious, promise of change. Not cautious in the sense of equivocation or timidity, but cautious in that it is obvious the answerer has weighed all options and chosen a gradual path to a greener future. In essence, this leaves the question open to many correct answers; whether he thinks the first step is energy independence so we can wean off oil on our own terms, or investing in green technology and fuel efficient cars, or a carbon tax on manufacturers is unimportant to me. What’s important is that due consideration is given the topic and the candidate doesn’t under estimate the importance of the topic, or over estimate our ability to deal with the problem quickly, because if action is taken it will not be easy, and the American people need to be made aware of the difficulties they might experience on the path to reducing the U.S.’s carbon footprint. An equally important aspect of my answer, if not more important, would be the acknowledgement that climate change is a global issue, and so must be faced globally, The U.S. cannot go it alone, but must involve other countries in the effort to stop climate change.
President Obama’s current approach to the problem includes many of the things I listed above – increasing domestic natural gas and oil production, as well as more closely regulating the industries for safety, establishing fuel economy standards, and investing in clean energy have been three key parts of his environmental policy (2, 3) – and so his answer would be close to my desired one, while weaker than preferred. Although Obama has been semi-active in talking about climate change as a global problem, at conferences like the G8 summit, America needs to take a stronger stand and lead by example for the rest of the world when it comes to reducing green house gas outputs and environmental awareness. Mitt Romney’s answer would most likely be much less aggressive than Obama’s already tepid response; his website does not list the environment as an issue at all, like the Obama campaign does, and even in the page speaking about his energy policy there is no mention of climate change or the environment, instead focusing solely on independence from foreign oil (4). People have noticed the Romney campaign’s lack of action on the issue of climate change and his offhand manner of dismissing those who advocate green policy (5), and so I can only assume he’d continue this pattern in his answer to my question and nearly dismiss the matter entirely.
1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/climate-change-presidential-debate_n_2004067.html
2) http://www.barackobama.com/environment
3)http://www.barackobama.com/energy
4)http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy
5)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/mitt-romney-heckled-climate-silence_n_2059174.html
If I could moderate a presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, I would ask a question regarding the future of America’s energy production. What will you do to improve the condition of purchasing and manufacturing energy in the United States during your term as president? Clearly, both candidates would quickly advocate the establishment of complete energy independence from foreign producers. The meat of the question, however, lies in how to achieve this. In my opinion, the correct answer to his question lies in a moderate response. I think that a switch to green energy is inevitable and necessary in order to preserve the earth’s precious environment and keep costs low in the long run. However, I feel that immediate and radical change will be extremely detrimental to the current prices of various fuels because they will be unable to be produced at efficient rates. To offset this probable increase, we should utilize proven methods such as drilling and natural gas while slowly beginning to institute and develop alternative and green forms of energy.
In response to this question, Mitt Romney would strongly encourage the harvesting of domestic non-renewable resources to attack this dilemma (1). He would likely argue that the use of our resources would increase the value of the dollar and create a state of energy independence in the very near future (1). Additionally, Romney would likely throw in a comment about how he would create a fund for the researching of new and alternative energy sources and how to make them efficient (1). While I like this idea, I feel that some of these ideas need to be implemented now, not just researched, so that they can begin paying off as soon as possible. It will take some time, so we might as well let the clock start ticking before it’s too late.
Obama, from a different perspective, would advocate the implementation of natural gas as a primary means of producing energy (2). Also, he would greatly increase spending for green energy sources now (2). He would additionally invest in “clean coal” (2). Furthermore, Obama would oversee an increase in drilling in the U.S. in a cautious and safe manner (2). I feel that this plan aligns closely with what I would like to see done; although, it seems like there is a lot of spending in the amount of varying clean energy sources he plans on using, including sun, wind, and “clean coal” amongst others. What do you guys think? How much should be immediately invested in green energy?
1. http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy
2. http://www.barackobama.com/energy
Don’t you think it would be nice to ask the president or president to be a question? I do, and I would have a good one for him/her. I would ask what they plan to do about our education system. Not hiring more teachers or just giving them money, actually reforming them. The way they are taught and split up. Germany has one of the best education systems in the world and they divide children up when they are young according to intelligence score. I think that republican governor Mitt Romney would really avoid the question. Republicans generally cut education funding and would not want these costly reforms put into action. He cannot say that he prefers to cut their budget and will avoid the question at all costs. He went to a private school and may not realize the value that public education has. I think that President Obama would like this question as it presents something that he supports. He would talk about increasing spending in schools and improving technology. I think he would avoid specific changes though. It is hard to say we should be more like other countries when most people think that america is best and thats the end of it. They don’t realize that there is a very small correlation between a large military and good education system. In fact it reduces money and attention from the fact that we have a poor education system for the richest country on the planet. I think at this point in the race neither of them would talk about increasing taxes for education even if it does make sense to try and renovate the run down schools. There are also deeper problems behind failing schools that I won’t get into but need to be addressed as well. It’s hard to answer this question without a deeper discussion and a few college professors in economics and history. I think that their basic answers would be to avoid and make a good spin out of it. Romney would talk about how he could cut and reduce the budget deficit and Obama would talk about the future and how he wants to secure it for us. Neither would really address the question or answer in any depth.
www.democrats.org/about/out_party
http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
There were a wide variety of questions that were never asked during the 2012 presidential debates, such questions included poverty, income inequality, the labor unions, agriculture and the Federal Reserve. If a question about poverty was asked i would like it to be asked like “In one statement what does the poverty in this nation mean to you?” I would want the person answering that i would want to vote for to say something along the lines of him being very concerned with the elevation of the poverty rate. That he or she has a very effective plan on dealing with the poverty rate without making people who cant afford to help out pay for it. For Obama and Romney i would expect both of them to answer in relativley the same way. The only difference in what they would say is the way the would say and it and the approach they would take in answering it. As Obama would answer in the most democratic way possible so would Romney but not in the most Republican way possible because he knows that he must pertain to some democrats out there that would want to vote for him. As Obama would answer in the most democratic way possible so would Romney but no in the most Republican way possible because he knows that he must pertain to some democrats out there that would want to vote for him. Sadly Romney would try to run around the question while at the same time look like he may be appealing to the middle class and a little bit of the lower class. Obama would revert the question to the middle class and at the same time making a statement on how he plans on helping the middle class.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home