Your Money is Your Money

The Republicans in the Senate are pushing for a tax reform to lower federal income taxes, and most of them ran their election on this promise to lower taxes. Both Democrats and Republicans have their argument for why they should stay the same, be higher, or be lower. I am for lowering of the federal income taxes. Democrats complain about how the rich do not pay enough in taxes even though they 45% in taxes, but they pay less through tax write offs and loopholes. More people in the United States would pay taxes if we lowered taxes andchanged the tax bracket since right now 45 percent of Americans don’t pay their taxes.

Lowering taxes to get more people to pay them could allow the US to receive more tax money to help public education, the poor, and many other things that we rely on the government to provide for us. The way we could lower taxes without actually getting rid of the percentages we have now would be to add more brackets into the existing tax bracket. This would allow someone to only have to pay 15% instead of 25% in taxes when they barely make more than the 15% bracket maximum. The max for the 15% bracket is 37,950 for a single person. By doing this, more of the lower income people would be more inclined to pay taxes which means more money for the government. Also, by taking less of the people’s money, they could spend that money on other things like tutoring, private school, and other things to boost our economy, but if everybody in America paid taxes, then we wouldn’t need the crazy amount of private schools we have. We could fix multiple problems by doing something pretty simple.

The lower and middle class would really benefit from lower taxes since less of their income would go to taxes and more towards basic necessities. The lower income class would be able to improve their living conditions and health if they could keep more of their money. Also, the tax forms are so complicated and confusing that most people have to pay someone to do their taxes which means less money for those people. People from these two classes also refuse to pay taxes which is around 45% of Americans because they are displeased and that the government needs to provide more for them. That is ironic since the government needs money to provide for us. The people chose have control of their own money since they earned not the government, and they should not tell me how I should spend my money.

Changes to the tax bracket need to be made. Right now there are 7 brackets with 10% being the lowest and 39.60% being the highest. The other ones are 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent.They need to add more brackets between 15 and 25 to make the gap between the two not as big and one between 10 and 15 at many around 12%. Adding more brackets could be mean the difference between living pay check to pay check for some families and more money for other things that they might need. Making the tax system more simplified could get more people to pay taxes since 59% of Americans think Congress needs to fix the tax system. Theses changes could help get America to the next level in countries that pay the majority of their taxes. This could also take away people relying the wealthy to make for everyone else lack of participation and that the wealthy don’t pay enough in taxes.

The lowering of taxes and adding more brackets to the tax could help America and Americans in general. There are many benefits to doing this, but it is only going to help America if everybody pays their taxes. More tax brackets are needed in order more Americans to pay taxes and allow the government to have more money to spend on education and everywhere they feel its necessary. Lower taxes and more brackets could help this country move to closer to a more well rounded country that takes care of the basic things that we rely on a government to provide for us.

http://www.ri.gop/lowering_taxes

 

U.S. Income Taxes Are Too High: Is That True?

     Many Americans complain that they are being over-taxed, even the President Donald Trump indicates that “With lower taxes on America’s middle class and businesses, we will see a new surge of economic growth and development.” However, author Ben Steverman in his article Sorry America, Your Taxes Aren’t High provides the analysis done by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The analysis makes it possible for people to compare the tax of different countries. Steverman conveys that “the OECD measures what it calls the “tax wedge,” the gap between what a worker gets paid and what they actually spend or save” annually; he attaches some tables underneath, presents the ranking of the tax rates of workers. U.S. ranks the 25th place on the tax rate table for average single worker with no children as well as the table for average family with two children and one earner. To be more persuasive, the author puts a graph that compares only the U.S. tax burdens to the OECDaverage, which obviously points out that tax rate in U.S. is about 5% lower than the OECD average.

    Instead of comparing to other countries, author Matthew Frankel argues the federal income taxes are not high by making a table with the highest federal income tax since year 1952 in the passage If You Think Taxes Are Too High, You Need To Read This. Even though the current top tax rate is higher than pervious years, looking at the table overall we can see “before 1987, the top income tax rates in the U.S. were significantly higher.” In addition, Frankel emphasizes that “the top income tax rate was only applied to the richest Americans” in those days; which in other words, the majority of Americans did not pay such a high rate even back in the time when the top federal income tax rate overall was pretty high.

    Besides the math evidences behind the tax rate which convey the federal income tax is not high at all, the usages of the taxes are logical too. In the article A Closer Look: Where Does Your Tax Money Go?, the editor lists several areas where the citizens are paying money for. It includes health care expenses, social security, defense and international security assistance, etc. Some of them on the list may not seem applicable to every citizen, but the taxes the citizens pay definitely benefit them as well from my perspective. Government may use the tax to build better infrastructures to make it easier for citizens to get through multiple places; additionally, the taxes may assist local government to improve facilitates for various communities so to benefit the tax payers’ lives. Towards the end of this article, the editor mentions that some research yields the conclusion that Americans do “believe it’s worth the expense to support government involvement in so many areas of our lives,” therefore, there should not exist more complaint on the tax rate.

     In all, instead of keep complaining, tax payers need to think more of the benefits they enjoy as a result of paying. Government would not take up money for no reason, for the payers may not feel satisfied if the government does nothing besides collecting money.

 

Image Source:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjKnJr25MPXAhWr34MKHaIND_oQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fview%2Farticles%2F2016-12-05%2Fthe-u-s-is-a-low-tax-nation&psig=AOvVaw0S_MGOv8ZQCjlGbeidwOgs&ust=1510945508900959

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-11/sorry-america-your-taxes-aren-t-high

 

 

 

New Times New Election

The presidential election is the United States biggest and most important elections. Every four years we put a new leader into office by everyone going to their local voting booth and checking off a box for their preferred candidate, but what most Americans don’t realise is that they are not actually voting for one of the candidates, for example in The U.S’s previous election Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump they are voting for a side in the Electoral College a group of electors who have pledged to a certain side and then they vote for a candidate and the side with the most electoral votes from each state wins all the votes from that state and if a candidate gets 270 votes they win the election. This middle man in the election has caused a lot of trouble in the 2000 election and in the 2016 election and now the public is asking the question has the Electoral College outlasted its stay or is it relevant in our changing times.In the 2016 election the candidate that won the election did not win the popular vote, something that has only happened one other time in The United States’s history. So people are finally noticing the middle man in the election process. Newsmax has listed pros and cons of this process and they mention that the process “dissuades people from voting” and makes the public feel as if “their vote does not matter” but this is not true, the election process is just so complicated that people don’t understand it and feel like their say is worthless. 

On the other hand a positive of the Electoral College is that it gives more power to the states. And allows the smaller states to have a greater say in the election. But really the public wants the election to be on their level, from people to president, not people to state to president. And maybe the Electoral College was made in an attempt to protect the American people from mob mentality, but would that not take away from our freedom of speech? The whole issue is complicated and I believe that it would be best if we abolished the Electoral College to simplify the election process.

The reason I say this is because would it not be rationally better to make sure that all American citizens have the chance to really know how much their vote is worth rather than the government attempting to protect them from a mob mentality. Our society should teardown what we know about voting and start again with something that will work well in our modern age.

Should people remove the “old fashion” electoral college?

Electoral College is a voting system for nowadays’s election. However, there are a lot of argument about whether the system should be abolished or preserved.

Should Electoral College be preserved or removed? This question is not easy to solve. There are lots of problems caused by the Electoral College system. For example, candidates will only go to New York because bigger states have more electors. And also, it is possible that the reflect of the popular votes of the citizens is not accurate enough, and also the minority candidate can be selected in this condition. Actually, the nearest president election, which trump wins, represents the small possibility of the not accurate reflection. In this election, we can clearly see that Trump has less votes than Hillary Clinton in citizens votes. However, Trump got more electors’ votes than Hillary Clinton, which in this case the electoral college system does not represent popular votes at all.

The other negative effect of the Electoral College is that those electors do not vote for their candidate will be called “faithless electors”. Sometimes electors will not vote because they already know the result and they do not think their decision matters a lot. Therefore they might want to give others information by not voting. From my perspective, it is not fair to call someone “faithless elector” although they did not vote for their candidates. People cannot give them extra press through their whole lives.

There’s also positive effect about the electoral college. Thinking about collecting all the votes from every citizen and count the result, I would say that electoral college is easier because they only have 538 votes in total. My personal thinking is that electoral college should be taken out so that the candidates will no longer focus on the bigger states, instead citizens can get more information about the election and each candidates. I also know that candidates can choose states that have bigger population to go to, in this way they can get more votes and win the election. “The Electoral College was necessary when communications were poor, literacy was low, and voters lacked information about out-of-state figures, which is clearly no longer the case,” a quote said by Gene Green. I totally agree with him because technology is developed in USA, people can see and hear what candidates are doing on the television. Therefore everyone should have the right to vote, by voting I mean everyone should have the vote to decide with president they are voting for, not which president they want their elector to vote for. Citizens might get upset if the elector is not voting for their candidate. At least people should be responsible for their own vote.

 

Knowledge for the future

Over these past two trimesters in my government class, I really got to learn in detail how our government made from the ground up. I have been filled with new information, had class discussions, and participated in debates amongst my other classmates. What I want to reflect on is how every piece of information that I have learned in class, leads me to become a stronger citizen for our country.

Two years ago in American History, we began with information on how our government got its foundation. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights guarantee that all American citizens have natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These three guarantees are the core of our government.

I’ve learned how to be a responsible citizen because of the individualism that we have been granted certain rights, duties, and responsibilities. At the beginning of the year we took the citizenship test given to immigrants who want to become a legal US citizen. I learned about the process of becoming a US citizen-one of the biggest responsibilities and a right to a US citizen has, is the right to vote.

I have learned that with the right to vote, we take on a huge responsibility. We are responsible to make the right choice for the future of our country. With that, we have learned that elections have consequences. As I watched the Presidential and Vice presidential debates, I got to analyze the candidate’s comments and discus the tone of the electorate, which was very similar to our classmate’s beliefs in opinions. Some of us believed that the world would end if Barak Obama won reelection, while others thought he was the answer to all of our problems. So far the world has not ended and everyone’s problems are still the same or worse. Just like the US economy. Nothing has changed since the election except more of the same, which is why voters must inform themselves about the candidates. That leads me to the actions and responsibilities of Congress.

Congress is made up of two chambers: the US Senate and the US House of Representatives. I have learned how Congressmen are elected and how long they may serve. The US Senate is made up of 100 members; the US House of Representatives is made up of 435 members. Senators may serve up to 6 years and House members 2 years. Each chamber has a speaker and a different committees, much like our student government at Parish. As a representative of my grade in student government, I get to put in ideas and work on projects to better our community, just like what congress does today. We learned that bills originate in the US house and an identical bill must be approved in the Senate. Eventually after debates and rewrites it either ends up on the Presidents desk or dies in committee. We also have seen how the members in each chamber do not get along and how they put their own constituents ahead of the country as a whole and gridlock develops. The president’s job is to be a leader and bring the two groups together, however, this semester in the US government, we have seen plenty of examples of how no ones is working together. They all look like kindergarteners not wanting to work together and fighting over crayons.

I could go on for hours about what all I have learned over these past two trimesters. The main thing I have learned is what little I knew previous about our country. Being in government class, I get a better understanding of how government is supposed to work. I feel like when I am 18 and legal to vote, I will be able to use my knowledge and understanding of Presidential races, and what to look for in debates to place my vote on what I think is best for our country in the future.

The Flaws of the Filibuster: The House is Doing it Right.

One of the things we touched on during this course, while ever so briefly, that greatly intrigued me was the use of the filibuster and its accepted use in the Senate. The filibuster is the total stoppage of forward movement on a bill by a single person stalling and talking about whatever they really want till a majority of 60 out of 100 Senators vote for it to end. This is used mainly by the majority to control the conversation. However, the part that I later discovered and what boggled my mind was the fact that the filibuster has been totally expelled from the House of Representatives. The idea that one side of the legislative branch of the government can completely and totally abolish the use of one of the most important  tools in the obstruction of a bill or topic of conversation is in my mind remarkable.

The first thing I find exceptional about the House’s complete deletion of the filibuster is the fact that the House got rid of the filibuster so early in their history.The House took steps as early as 1842 to get rid of the filibuster and to install a “Rules Committee”, this committee places limits and restrictions regarding debates that are headed to the floor. This prevents occasions like the one that took place in the Senate on August 28th-29th when Strom Thurmond spoke for 24 hours 18 minutes while stalling the Civil Rights Act of 1957. The House realized at an early age that the limiting of time spent on bills would get more done, leading to a more efficient use of power and time.

The second thing I find incredible about the House’s band of the filibuster, is the fact that the Senate has not followed suite. With as many as 139 filibusters happening in very recent years the use of filibusters is changing from what used to be a rarity to an almost normal event in the Senate. The Senate majority can basically control the floor by sing well placed filibusters, blocking the conversation on laws and topics they disapprove of. Yet that is getting our country no where, the majority could easily just use their power to vote through the items they favor and turn down the ones they dislike. The power in the Senate needs to be controlled and maintained in a civilized fashion that gets things done in the speediest way possible.

The Senate needs to keep their stalling in check and take the focus from avoiding bills and problems to actually doing something about it. Even if a bill is not passed that is still better than sitting there having a Senator give long filibusters that can often backfire on them as it did to Sen. William Proxmire when his opposition pointed out in the next years re-election that his filibuster of just under 24 hours had cost tens of thousands of tax dollars to keep the chambers open all night and light. The Senate needs to jump on the bandwagon with the House and either form a committee that sets pre appointed limits for discussing and debating a bill or topic, or they need to find another way of completely eradicating the filibuster and the incredible amount of time wasted dealing with them.

Improving Voter Participation

Voter participation is very low. While America defines itself as a democracy, it is hard to back this assertion up when such little of its population participates in electing the leaders of our country. According the CNN, only approximately 51% of our population votes, a staggering low number. Citizens feel that their vote really doesn’t matter in the large scheme of things, however the democracy of the United States is hurt by not having a majority of the population voting. I believe that this lack of participation is embarrassing, and I am relieved that people are addressing this issue and examine way to fix it. 

As an eighteen-year old high school student, the most humiliating statistic is the number of eligible youth voters. Jessica Babtsite reports that only 42% of eligible voters between ages eighteen to twenty-four vote. Personally, it does not surprise me that this number is so low. It seems as if politicians have neglected to reach out and connect the young people of America, and they have left us hanging. Most kids are indifferent about how our country is run, mostly because people have never cared to inform them. However, the problem is on both sides. Young people need to understand that it is pertinent to participate in the democracy that America has provided, and politicians need to understand that the young people of American have opinions and they do matter.
In 1990, an organization called Rock the Vote was created to improve the statistic of youth voting. The program informed kids, and encouraged them to vote. This program also awoken the politicians, and made them understand how necessary it is to address the youth of America. In 1992, just two years after the program started, there was nearly a 20% increase in youth voting. In 2004, 1.2 million young people voted in the presidential election. In 2008, 2.25 million young people voted. However in 2012, the level of youth voting stayed the same. As numbers have increased though, there is no doubt in my mind that despite the recent turnout in 2012, numbers in youth participation will continue to rise.

Social media has as well begun to influence voter turn out. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, blogs, vlogs, and Youtube, and email have all greatly manipulated not only the Presidential elections, but also any government election across the world. In an article on Voice of America, an online news site, James Fowler proclaims just how social media can influence an election. He says that he once received an email that said, “There was also a link that you could click on that allowed you to look up your polling place. And in some of the messages we also showed people the pictures of their friends who

Social Media

had clicked on the ‘I Voted’ button earlier in the day.” Social media affects both sides of elections, the voters and the candidates. Voters can become very informed on any candidate within seconds, as well as develop opinions on candidates within seconds. Social media has allowed voters to connect to their candidates like never before. On the other hand, candidates can also connect with their people like never before as well. They can get a feel for what the people are feeling and what people’s opinions are. Through social media, it is much easier for candidates to conform to the idea of everyone, rather than just the people they meet face to face. All of the connections created by social media have definitely influenced voter turnout, and it has definitely increased the numbers.

There is no doubt in my mind that by addressing the issue of voter participation and creating ways to improve numbers such as Rock the Vote or social media tactics, voter participation will continue to rise. I predict that both youth participation and total voter turnout will be at its greatest percentage by the 2016 elections. I know I will definitely be voting for the first time!

The Roles of Our President: Too Little or Too Much Authority?

The course that our country takes, whether it is good or bad, is based off of the role that our President takes on. The United States is made up of many branches and parts such as the Judiciary, Legislative, and Executive branches. The politicians that work in these government branches, and the common citizens that work and run businesses, are the backbone of our country, but the President is what are country is judged by. The decisions, remarks, and actions by the President are constantly being judged by those inside and out of the United States, and it is these judgments that can allow or prevent our country from making strides to peace.

President Obama addressing the media

President Obama has the responsibility to maintain the status as the United States’ leader, and is forced to make important decisions at any time.  No one knows when our Commander-in-Chief will be called into action to make an address to the country or another country, but what we do know is that our President must be able to do it successfully. This has not always been this way though. The Founders of the Constitution wanted to make sure that an executive would not have too much power, so they put in checks to keep the power under control. Over the past century, however, the power of the executive power has expanded. With society and government evolving in the United States and the world, the President had no choice but to expand his role as a leader to continue to display his positive authority. To expand on this issue of the roles of the President, Cornell political scientist Clinton Rossiter, offers his views that a President must be willing to embrace the roles and power that comes with being President in order for the authority to be embraced correctly. In his work, The American Presidency, Rossiter explains the roles that he believes the roles of the President include Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, Chief Executive, World Leader, Chief Legislator, Protector of the Peace, Chief of State, Manager of Prosperity, Chief Diplomat, Voice of the People, and Chief of Party. While all are important roles of the President, my opinion is that the most important role is Commander-in-Chief because it deals with the safety and well being of the nation. The United States was founded on principles that guarantee the protection of citizens and their rights. Since these fundamentals are the backbone of the country, protecting them is essential. There is no better person to be in charge of these priorities than the person the country elects and trusts as their leader: the President. The role of Commander-in-Chief is most important to the people, and is the most important role of the President (Modern Presidential Roles).

President Obama congratulating military officers at banquet as Commander-in-Chief

This role is mainly associated with the category of military, and while the President has advisors and other politicians to help with running the nitty-gritty parts of government, this is a role that gives the President to make decisions, and no one else. Rossiter explains that, “ In peace and war he is the supreme commander of the armed forces, the living guarantee of the American belief in the supremacy of the civil over military authority” (Rossiter 201/1). In any time of war, the President has the call of where, when, and how many soldiers will be sent into battle, no matter the size, to defend the Constitution and our freedom. On the other side of this coin, the least important role of the President, in my opinion, is that of Chief of Party. This role seems to be less important because, it is just an obvious fact that requires minimal attention by the President himself. If the candidate that wins the election is a Democrat, it would only be logical that he his also the leader of the Democratic Party. While the President still controls the selection of other party leaders, serves as a motivator, the President also has many others people that help him in the running of the party, so the President may address other more important issues. Though the party of the President partakes in a major role in the government of the United States, it is not always fully on the shoulders of the President to make sure the party runs smoothly, but also along others who are appointed in the party to continue those duties. The role of the Chief of Party is just a small block in the foundation of the President’s duties that serves its own importance, but is the least important of all of his roles as President” (Modern Presidential Roles).

President Obama has the responsibility to keep the country under control

While this is still a necessary role to the President, it seems to slip in importance because is can be handled by other people besides the President, but nonetheless, the President must still make the, “selection of top party officials” (Rossiter 207/3).  While the President may not have the power to address all issues that may arise, the roles he does have suggests that most situations should fall under the place of at least one of them.President Obama has endured a traumatic presidency starting with the beginning of the recession, and most recently the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The roles that he has obtained by being the leader of our country has allowed him to make decisions and actions, with the help of others, to continue to persevere through it all. Only the continued usage of all of his roles can ensure that the United States is in proper form to face any obstacles that may arise in the country, and only a strong leader can be capable of managing/assessing the situation, and making the decisions that will continue to lead our country onward to liberty and freedom.

Problems with Solutions

The Fiscal Cliff was a problem that Americans faced at the end of 2012. We expected to see solutions, but when the time came to discuss solutions, there was a lot of pushed back dates and putting off discussions for other days instead of actual solutions. March is the month that most of the deadlines were pushed to and March is almost here, creating speculation about events to come regarding the economy. The article I read is titled Calendar of Fiscal Crazy: Congress and the Budget, from CNNMoney by Jeanne Sahadi on February 8^th.  The Article discusses the different things that were set for March and the possible solutions to the Fiscal Cliff that were never made final such as budget cuts and the economic plans from the President, House, and Senate.

The automatic spending cuts, or “sequester”, will cut how much the federal agencies are allowed to spend by $85 million over seven months. This could cause the economic growth to slow and could also cause over 1 million workers to lose their jobs. The spending cuts would most likely come from defense programs with entitlement programs being protected, which was all in Obama’s original plan as President.

The article discusses the different proposals from the President, House, and the Senate. Sahadi says in her article, “If history is any guide, lawmakers won’t take up most of his ideas. But his proposal is supposed to tee-up the budget debate.” From what I have learned about the government in class and the process in which bills are passed, it is not shocking that most of the President’s ideas will not be passed.  The process for creating solutions and passing new laws is long and has many different steps. This article shows how difficult it is for the President to play a large role and perform the presidential duty as Chief of State and also Chief Legislator. The amount of work that goes into making something a policy or law makes it hard for the President and members of Congress and the Senate to have a real impact on Americans. There are high expectations for the President and the things he needs to do. He is expected to have a large impact on the rest of government and be able to fix problems, but he can’t do that effectively and with the ferocity that most people expect because all he can really do is suggest ideas with his plan, not actually make them valid until a majority of Congress and Senate also approves.

These regulations make it hard for Congress to act immediately. The article states that Congress has a deadline of March 27^th to do something before federal funding “shuts down”.  It is so difficult for Congress to make final decisions with a majority that they are giving them a deadline to make something happen. This forces people to choose a solution even if they think there could be a better one, such as the “sequester”. It is the best of a bad situation.

People of America expect the President to be the leader of the country and create different ways to pull America out of our economic problems. The problem is that we cannot expect the President to be able to pull us out of the Fiscal Cliff if we also expect to keep our American system of checks and balances. The article seems exasperated about the lack of progress that has been made by different politicians, but the author needs to remember all of the difficult steps that are necessary to make a suggestion or plan a reality.

Gun Control— A War Without a War

When you search the phrase “gun control” on any search engine, responses leaning way to the left are going to pop up. Funny thing is, responses leaning way to the right are going to pop up right with them. Even worse, each response, despite which party it belongs to, is going to be attacking the other parties’ response!

Now as “one nation under God, indivisible,” that doesn’t sound too good. We have this piercing issue causing social media “wars” and dividing our nation into two very opinionated halves. The problem is, we have two halves that won’t budge their hold to meet in the middle. It’s one huge game of tug-o-war.

The flag in the middle of this game is the good ol’ second Amendment. Some say restrict, some say let it be. The problem is that we have citizens fighting selfishly to get what their side wants rather than opening their ears to a compromise. We as a nation aren’t working together to meet somewhere sensible that puts an end to the tragedies without hindering the purpose of our Bill of Rights.

President Obama proposed “criminal background checks for all gun sales; reinstating the assault weapons ban; restoring a 10-round limit on ammunition magazines; eliminating armor-piercing bullets; providing mental health services in schools; allocating funds to hire more police officers; and instituting a federal gun trafficking statute” (Huffington Post). The details of statistics and magazine capacities could be analyzed and broken down and a never ending argument could be started with myself, but if we break a little here, we can funnel this back to the Modern Presidential Roles. If his proposal is analyzed, the role in which he played is leaning towards the Chief of Party. Here, we have a big, bold, and BLUE statement. The president is acknowledging his duty to be the leader of his party here, as his proposal is unarguably liberal.

Naturally, the republicans were against his decision. That’s how this system works. Wanting the second Amendment to remain unchanged, banning assault rifle-type weapons would violate their main wish. The RED side, of course, wants the violence to end, but are highly against their rights being infringed upon. Assembly Republican leader Jon Bramnick commented on New Jersey gun control legislation saying, “that Democrats in New Jersey have decided to rush through legislation that is drafted poorly and doesn’t begin to solve the problems that we’ve seen across the nation with respect to violent shootings” (Philadelphia Inquirer) .

Although the common situation is present; each party fighting for what they want, there is more behind a simple wish. The republicans are wanting the POTUS to play a different role as the leader of a nation. In reality, they wished President Obama had sided with Rossiter’s role of Voice of the People proposing a two fold bi partisan plan. If the President acts as the political leader of both parties, he “serves as the moral spokesman for all.”  There is a huge gap in terms of agreement between both parties in-between the two roles. Initially, any person looking at this just sees it as a liberal plan. But, through examination of the Presidential powers, it is clear that there is more than just a different point of view behind the decision. The study of government allows us to see more than what the press says or what social media posts. It allows for insight, so to speak, or a further understanding behind modern politics. The bias nature of our nation can be put aside for a minute and we are able to see the true intentions and meaning behind certain legislations, proposals, comments, etc.

As a gun owner and an avid hunter myself, naturally I would be in favor of the second Amendment—as this is what the public says I should be saying. As a citizen, it’s my duty to have an opinion. But, my aim is to be a young scholar-citizen. Not a “Texan,” or a “hunter,” or a “gun owner”. The constituents in a nation have to be educated and aware of their surrounding events in order to developed an opinion beneficial. Education is what is going to allow our nation to thrive.

In the end, gun control, a hot topic in our nation and media, is an important aspect regarding our safety in our nation. But, lets get mathematical here, I was able to “derive” something much more important. There’s more to current events than getting what your party wants. As a young scholar-citizen, understanding government allows you to develop opinions beneficial to the nation as a whole. I will have my opinions and I may lean left or right, but in the end, in 10 months I’ll be able to vote and as an educated government student I’ll be voting for what is best for our nation as a whole.

Ford N