Why The Two-Party System Works

May 20, 2013 By 2 Comments

By Scott Austin:

 

What would happen if there were no main political parties? Our first President, George Washington, even warned against them. In the last ten years, there has been a clear divide in our Two- Party System and some opponents could point out that this divide will not change. I understand their concern, but I am more of a realist. The Two- Party system is not ideal, but it is effective. Although it is sometimes hard to imagine, there have been times in history where the system has united. For example, national tragedies like September 11th, the Newtown school shooting, and the Boston Marathon bombing bring both parties together. We may not always agree on how to solve an issue but at least we can all agree that there is an issue. Believe it or not, people living in countries like North Korea and Iran don’t have opportunities to debate the issues nor do they believe they should be solved. We should feel grateful for what we have because other countries do not.

The Two- Party System began because of certain institutional structures and workings put in place by our Constitution. Leaders in the first few Congresses started to slowly separate into two major parts. In other countries there are more than two parties. Many find it hard to believe that with so many differences in race, religion, ethnicity, social beliefs, and economic beliefs could fit into two major parties. This why I like the current “big tent” approach: we can have differences in certain wings of the party but at the end of the day we all unite in our party to elect our leader.  It is not necessarily a perfect idea. Although it may not be perfect, it is essential to the structure and foundation of our government. In our political system our elections are determined by a winner- take- all scenario. For example, if a person is a member of the Constitution Party they will most likely vote for the Republican candidate because they have a higher chance of winning. Experts have named this tendency Duverger’s Law, which is why you see politicians early in their careers joining either the Republican or Democratic Party. A Two- Party System makes sense when it is winner take all election. Another reason is that the Democratic and Republican Party is very active in recruiting volunteers in an election year.   As somebody who worked for the Republican Party and the Romney campaign over the summer, I saw first- hand how the grassroots recruitment is critical. Third Party Organizations don’t have the same grassroots setup to recruit from. People tend to confuse the Tea Party as a Third Party, but that is not the truth. Although some of its members are independents, most lean Republican and vote Republican. You cannot register to be a member of the Tea Party, you become a member of their club or county charter. The Two- Party System has a long history and works because of the way our Constitution and electoral process is set up. Duverger’s Law is a perfect example of why there are only two viable political parties.

Many experts will argue that now is the right time for an independent candidate, but that is easier said than done. There is a lot that goes into becoming a viable independent presidential candidate. Democrats and Republicans have a huge advantage over a third party candidate. One of the biggest parts of becoming an important third party candidate is name recognition. In the last hundred years, it took personalities with huge mass appeal like Teddy Roosevelt, George Wallace,  Ross Perot, and Ralph Nader to ignite any type of fire in a third party candidate. We haven’t had a big name third party candidate since Ross Perot twenty- one years ago. In the last decade any big name third party candidate has come to the conclusion that establishment hurdles are too problematic and ballot laws are extremely restrictive. As 1980 Independent Presidential Candidate John Anderson puts it: “The biggest problem that I faced back in 1980, was simply the question of ballot access.” According to Ryan Lizza, “in 2008, a third- party candidate would need some 700,000 valid signatures to qualify for the ballots in all 50 states. To be safe, he would want to collect well over a million. And that’s before spending any money on ads, polling, and the rest of the campaigns costs.” Russell Verney, Ross Perot’s campaign manager in 1996, said that, “you need between 70 million to 100 million.” After overcoming all those hurdles, one hurdle still remains and that’s getting into the presidential debates. The bottom line is that it is almost impossible for a third party candidate to gain any traction because of the way the game is set up. A third party candidate right now plays more of a spoiler role. For example, some argue that Ross Perot took away the presidency from George H. W. Bush because he (Perot) won 18.8% of the popular vote. Until there is a candidate like Colin Powell or Michael Bloomberg that could actually make a play in a general election, it will be very difficult for a third party candidate.

We have a Two- Party System because of certain institutional structures and workings put in place by our Constitution. Leaders in the first few Congresses started to slowly separate into two major parts, thus creating our Two- Party System. I believe people tend to argue against our Two- Party System because of the division between both parties. In this situation it’s the players to blame because of the divide, not the game. In my opinion there will not be a prominent Third Party candidate until the problematic hurdles are reduced and a big name politician decides to take the challenge, but until then we have what we have so let’s make the best of it.

 

Views expressed are not endorsed or put forward by Turning Point USA

Filed Under: Columnists

Education in America

May 20, 2013 By Leave a Comment

By Brad Hofmann:

All civilizations and people of all world views, whether raising the ancient Spartan warriors or the Hitler Youth or the peace-loving American Boy/Girl Scouts, hold in common the importance of education to the furtherance of their culture.  Founder Daniel Webster stated, “It is an object of vast magnitude that systems of education should be adopted and pursued which may not only diffuse a knowledge of the sciences but may implant in the minds of the American youth the principles of virtue and of liberty and inspire them with just and liberal ideas of government and with an inviolable attachment to their own country” ["On the Education of Youth in America" 1788].  From the opposing side of the political spectrum, Communist Party USA declared as a party goal: “Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.“  Who is winning?

The state of American education features two defects,

1) intellectual/moral and 2) fiscal.  Regarding the former, Thomas Sowell’s insights capture the problem; and the latter, the brute facts presented by organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, are undeniable.

 

1) Intellectual/Moral Defect:

In his recent article “Is Thinking Obsolete?”, Thomas Sowell describes the fall of America’s educational system:

“Education is not merely neglected in many of our schools today, but is replaced to a great extent by ideological indoctrination.”

“… a student can go all the way from elementary school to a Ph.D. without encountering any fundamentally different vision of the world from that of the prevailing political correctness.”

“A moral monopoly is the antithesis of a marketplace of ideas. One sign of this sense of moral monopoly among the left intelligentsia is that the institutions most under their control – the schools, colleges and universities – have far less freedom of speech than the rest of American society.”

“The failure of our educational system goes beyond what they fail to teach. It includes what they do teach, or rather indoctrinate, and the graduates they send out into the world, incapable of seriously weighing alternatives for themselves or for American society.”

2) Fiscal Defect:

Spending money is not the solution.  Education outlays and student debt skyrocket while test scores remain at a deficient level.  The Cato Institute analyzed Washington State education spending:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here in Washington, the pushback against the Common Core philosophy hit the spotlight with Seattle’s “Discovering Math”, a known failed system: “… it was well known to the [Seattle Public Schools] board that the Discovering Math series was found to be unsound [by the WA State Board of Education], and that the San Diego School District had decided to remove these books at considerable cost.”  Yet, it was imposed on a 4-3 vote.

 

ANSWERS:

So, what is the answer to these problems?  YOU.  Engage politically; engage with your kids; engage in the culture.  Be an influence for the cause of freedom and restoring the greatness of our nation’s heritage.

 

Views expressed are not endorsed or put forward by Turning Point USA

Filed Under: Columnists, Hofmann

Held to a Higher Standard

May 19, 2013 By Leave a Comment

By Ashley Thorel:

The night that CPAC wrapped up, Josh Groban sent out a tweet criticizing the jokes made at CPAC. People fired back, and Groban ran away from responsibility – saying that he disagreed with both sides of the aisle.

We hadn’t heard from Groban in months, so the day the Benghazi hearings started, I sent out a tweet asking Groban if he planned on ridiculing the way the Obama administration seemed to be deflecting on many of the issues they were facing. Groban did not understand my comment, saying that he was not watching the news. After I noted that I was a conservative (former) fan that he lost because of his CPAC jokes, Groban sent out the following tweet:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did tell Mr. Groban that he made a cute joke there. In my defense, however, I don’t know the first thing about sports. He spent a little bit of time attempting to twist my words around and telling me I was doing some “deflecting” of my own. He also accused me of sexism after I asked him if he could just appreciate the fact that his female fans have minds of their own.

The more important aspect of all this, however, was the amount of people telling me I needed to stop “attacking” Mr. Groban because he had the right to free speech. This is true. Josh Groban has as much of a right to free speech as any other person. However, we also have the right to question him. We have the right to call him out when he is being blatantly hypocritical in his actions.

Mr. Groban has stated on more than one occasion that he favors both sides of the aisle, yet he feels the need to only call out conservatives – and for what? Jokes that he does not find funny? I asked his fans for proof of his dislike for anything on the left, and none of them – including Josh Groban – could provide it to me.

I will say it once more: we are allowed to call out these celebrities for their lack of consistency. We are allowed to do that. We are allowed to hold them to a higher standard and ask them for proof of their consistency.

Many of Mr. Groban’s fans took issue with my calling him out. The truth is, however, that this is a voice that reaches our youth. This is a voice that young people look up to; why would we not want him to answer for his blatant hypocrisy? Why would we not want him to provide us with proof of his dislike for both sides of the aisle?

Plain and simple: celebrities are not exempt from ridicule. They have a first amendment right to say what they want (see: Cher and Bette Midler) and we have a first amendment right to question them on this bias they show for the left. It is about time conservatives start calling them out on this double standard and holding them accountable for their actions.

These celebrities want fame – and they want to be noticed. They need to be ready to accept the consequences of being famous, and stop hiding behind their fame.

 

Views expressed are not endorsed or put forward by Turning Point USA

Filed Under: Columnists, Thorel

Economics Is Too Focused on Math

May 18, 2013 By Leave a Comment

By Danny Huizinga:

Does economics rely too much on math?

A fellow blogging friend recently pointed me to a scholarly article discussing the increasing reliance of economics on mathematical models.

Dr. Gibson, an engineering and economics expert, takes a strong stance against the “allure” of mathematical models, arguing that they offer no significant contribution if the importance of common sense and human interaction is ignored. He argues,

“But while the mathematicians, some of them at least, are explicit about doing math for its own sake, engineers are hired to produce results and economists should be, too.”

According to Gibson, engineers realize that data and real-life experiments are the most important. A study reveals a different focus in economic papers.

“Perusing the contents of the American Economic Review, [Wassily Leontief (1982)] found that a slight majority of the [economic] articles presented mathematical models without any data, just 12% presented analysis without any math, while the rest were mainly empirical studies.”

I just completed an undergraduate economics course, Intermediate Macroeconomics. The course was almost entirely mathematical, relying on calculus and algebra techniques to find solutions for theoretical problems related to consumption, investment, and taxation. With almost every model we considered, however, there were notable flaws once applied to real-life situations. There’s a famous quote by mathematician George E.P. Box,

“All models are wrong, but some are useful.”

To be sure, we shouldn’t try to dissociate mathematics from economics. Economic theory and so-called “common sense” are no good if the facts tell a different story. However, there is a difference between data and mathematical models. The data, or numbers, of economics will always be undeniably vital to any conclusion. The problem arises when the underlying economic problem is lost amid the cacophony of additional formulas and derivatives.

As economists realize, mathematical models can explain trends with some degree of confidence, but there will always be outlying observations. Furthermore, almost every model relies on core assumptions in order to be useful. There are simply too many variables in the real world to completely explain any economic trend.

Essentially, applying mathematical formulas to economics can tell us if one event should happen, given a set of conditions. Sometimes these conditions, such as assuming consumers always optimize their money, do not translate well into the real world. This may lead to contradictory conclusions.

The human aspect of economic decisions must be first considered. If we primarily understand how economic problems affect real people, the math takes on a purely supporting role.

Gibson urges clarity for economists, hoping to make the conclusions more applicable to the everyday American.

“What if real answers to urgent problems could be delivered in plain English? Do economists have the courage to shun the romance of mathematics and produce such answers? Let us hope so.”

“This column originally published at Communities at WashingtonTimes.com”

Views expressed are not endorsed or put forward by Turning Point USA

 

–

Danny Huizinga
Syndicated Political Columnist,
Communities at WashingtonTimes.com
huizinga.danny@gmail.com
@HuizingaDanny (Twitter)

 

Filed Under: Columnists, Huizinga

Applying Gatsby’s “Green Light” to Our Life

May 14, 2013 By Leave a Comment

By Danny Huizinga:

The story of Jay Gatsby can impart wisdom to our life goals in a particularly powerful manner.

Though I was not disappointed by the new adaptation of The Great Gatsby, neither was I enthralled. Instead, the movie seemed to begin with a forced storytelling of rough scene cuts that eventually found itself understanding the deeper meaning.

It must be admitted that, by many accounts, the movie does a good job at accurately portraying the story and meaning of the book (with a few minor faults).

Jay Gatsby is continually striving to be close to Daisy, his past love, and his desire is symbolized by the flashing green light at the end of her dock. He spends many nights staring across the lake at that flashing light, the object that reflects his true “American dream.”

Instead, as the plot resolves, we begin to realize the futility of achieving a goal that always seems to be just out of reach. As many older, wiser people will remind us, striving for success, money, or fame does not bring happiness. Yet, we are still captivated by the allure of these objects, the expected solutions to our emptiness.

So what then should we strive for to make ourselves happy? According to an article in The Freeman magazine, a major key to happiness is called “flow.” Quoting Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, a renowned psychology professor and author,

“A good life consists of more than simply the totality of enjoyable experiences. It must also have a meaningful pattern, a trajectory of growth that results in the development of increasing emotional, cognitive, and social complexity.”

Rather than chasing “external rewards,” the article argues, we should first understand ourselves. Perhaps this is something Gatsby could have learned. While chasing Daisy, Gatsby’s identity becomes irrelevant. His past accomplishments and memories turn out to be illusions, attempts to redefine himself as a different person. In a way, he tries to ignore his true past in order to reach his future goal.

On the other side of the spectrum, we should not seek to ignore our future either. If we dread what is to come, we despise the inevitable – that we are always flowing toward something new. We should attempt to learn from our past mistakes, not run away from them, and apply that knowledge to our future.

That’s not easy. Life is hard, painful, messy, and unexpected. Just when we think everything is going our way, something slips away. A friend passes away, a relationship comes crashing down, or we lose our job, fail a test, or don’t get into the school we wanted. We keep trying to escape these events of our past and look toward the future promise instead.

There is truly no better way to frame the struggle without referring to the final quote of the book. In the new movie, it is displayed on the screen in a cloud of fog, reaching one last dramatic climax before the conclusion.

“Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that’s no matter—tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther. . . . And then one fine morning — So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

“This column originally published at Communities at WashingtonTimes.com”

 

Views expressed are not endorsed or put forward by Turning Point USA

–

Danny Huizinga
Syndicated Political Columnist,
Communities at WashingtonTimes.com
huizinga.danny@gmail.com
@HuizingaDanny (Twitter)

Filed Under: Columnists, Huizinga

Did Keynes miss the Consequences?

May 14, 2013 By Leave a Comment

By Zak Daniel:

John Maynard Keynes was an English Economist famous for his general theory on money and spending relative to the growth of the economy. Keynes believed that government expenditures and central bank manipulations could boost an economy that was recessed or even depressed. Keynes’s theory was widely accepted in Europe since they already had central banks. Keynes determined that interest rate manipulation could boost the economy by decreasing the will of individuals to save money. Keynes general theories, like most theories of economics, make sense initially but upon reflection are found to ignore the law of unintended consequences.

He also proposed that infrastructure spending would boost the economy. Taxing and borrowing would enable this infrastructure spending. However, he never made an attempt to quantify the returns expected as a result of these actions. Interest rates only work if several factors, which Keynes held constant, are in perfect alignment. For example, infrastructure spending, one of two critical component’s of Keynes’s theory, can indeed boost the economy but only if the infrastructure is actually needed.

The other key element of Keynes’ theory is the manipulation of interest rates. Keynes believed that the suppression of interest rates by the central bank would help deter individuals from saving and allow them to borrow more money with less risk. This again is only partially true since only if the individuals that are spending have enough in savings to make them feel secure will they execute these expenditures with confidence. Without confidence in their financial security or confidence in the return from the expenditure,  they will not spend. Further more those that will spend, even if they do not have savings, will be contributing to the next recession through their mal-investments! In reality when we deal with interest rate suppression we destroy the investments of the individuals that are retirement age and give no more capital to lend from to the banks. Ultimately we have defeated our own purpose since there is less money to loan yet more demand for loan s.

Infrastructure spending is to be used to boost employment and demand. Therefore, in theory, infrastructure spending would boost employment and demand leading to massive job hiring. In reality, taking from the general population or borrowing is what is actually boosting employment, and the increased demand leads to inflation of prices. First off this borrowing and taxing actually may cause prolonged unemployment in the private sector, slow growth, and possibly another recession. The reason for this is because we are taking the money that could be spent for tomorrow’s innovation on todays problem.  Secondly ,the increase for demand makes expenditures by the private sector tougher to come by due to the increase in prices. While the government may pay some companies to do more work they will inherently shut other companies out of the market. Finally, infrastructure spending may be ok if we spend it on infrastructure needed, but if we are building bridges to nowhere then what have you truly stimulated?

In 1929 the stock market finally crashed after several months of sporadic activity. This crash is generally attributed to the credit bubble of the roaring 20’s. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the President of the US, during much of 1930’s and 1940’s took Keynes’s theory and put it into action to try and stimulate the American economy. He used Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau JR. to implement the Keynesian economic policies. In 1933, the first of the New Deal policies were put in place to stimulate the economy. The depression of 1929 was seemingly not getting any better until the New Deal was put in place.  In 1933, the same year the New Deal was signed into law, the unemployment topped out at 38%. In 1935, much of the New Deal was declared unconstitutional by the supreme court and the unemployment rate dropped to 30%. Following the ruling by the Supreme Court on the New Deal the unemployment rate dropped to 22% in 1937, the same year the second new deal was announced and put into place. Henry Morgenthau Jr. gave a congressional testimony saying, “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work”.  This is pretty damning testimony from the Secretary of the Treasury to FDR on FDR’s policy. The unemployment number in 1939 was somewhere around 14%. Now hold on to this thought while we investigate the Bush and Obama stimulus policies of 2008 and 2009.  In 2007 the housing bubble burst and in 2008 the stock market responded by falling from 14,000 to 6,443. In late 2008 President George W. Bush introduced a stimulus package in an attempt to bolster the waning economy. Then in 2009 newly elected President Barack H. Obama enacted the stimulus package of over $800 billion, which subsequently led to a rise in the unemployment rate in September of 2009. Today we are 4 years removed from the stimulus and have a U-6 of 14%. This is also accompanied with the lowest job market participation rate since 1979. So I said earlier to hold on to the though of 14% unemployment in 1939 because that was approximately 5 years removed from the New Deal and now we are almost 5 years removed and we have 14% unemployment. This fact is one that even the staunchest of Keynesian supporters cannot explain. I believe that Keynesian principles not only fail to yield a stronger economy but also hinder growth.

Hayek was correct when he said, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”  Free markets bolster growth by allowing supply and demand to autocorrect. How can we as humans fix a system in which we have no way of knowing where the equilibrium is located? We must turn from our narcissistic tendencies and allow ourselves to be comfortable with not being in control. Each new group of Keynesians believes they are smarter than those before and can fix the problems of the economy. We need free markets that allow for fast growth and full employment.

 

Views expressed are not endorsed or put forward by Turning Point USA

Filed Under: Columnists, Daniel

The IRS—A Double Standard Exposed

May 14, 2013 By Leave a Comment

By: Eddie Kamber

In today’s America, conservatives are held to a higher standard than others and often called to answer for their beliefs.  The Internal Revenue Service scandal reveals another ugly truth; our own government holds conservative groups to this same double standard. For any government agency, let alone the IRS, to single out and scrutinize a group based on their political beliefs is wrong, and quite frankly a danger to the Republic. It is one thing for a private citizen to scrutinize someone for his or her political beliefs, but when a government agency does this it should strike fear in every American. In a time when the mainstream media should be scrutinizing the growing power of our government, they are fueling the flames by painting the portrait of an “evil right”. While it is easy to forget when one’s ally holds the reigns of power, an abuse of power will eventually threaten everyone.

According to Fox News in addition several other well reputed news organizations the IRS has not only been targeting Tea Party organizations but has systematically been targeting organizations that go against the ideology of the Obama Administration.  It is my hope that it is not only conservatives that find this systematic targeting of the conservative movement as troubling as I do. For organizations that go against the government to be targeted by our over grown government simply for their political ideology is wrong and an existential threat to the republic. While our founding fathers put in checks and balances to limit the extent of abuse of power within our government, agencies such as the IRS are outside of the realm of the traditional system of checks and balances. The opportunities for abuse within the overgrown and unchecked executive branch of  government would make our founding father role over in their graves. It is time big government agencies such as the IRS remember they work not only for those who share their ideology, but for those of different ideologies as well. The recent IRS scandal is the best evidence to date that we need a smaller government with significantly less power.

It is time to demand that the commissioner of the IRS Steven Miller resign. Any officer of our government who allows, knowingly or otherwise, his or her employees to cause hardships on any group or individual due to their political persuasions is in the wrong.  Not only is Mr. Miller in the wrong, he violated the rights of the very citizens he serves in a gross and negligent manner. This kind of abuse of power is not only wrong but poses the very question “If our government can target groups or individuals due to their political persuasions, what else can they do?”.  This frightening question is not only a fair question, it is particularly relevant in today’s era of  large, high powered government. Marco Rubio understands the grave nature of this crisis and stated in a letter to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew on May 13,

It is clear the IRS cannot operate with even a shred of the American people’s confidence under the current leadership. Therefore, I strongly urge that you and President Obama demand the IRS Commissioner’s resignation, effectively immediately. No government agency that has behaved in such a manner can possibly instill any faith and respect from the American public.

 

When a government or agency of government loses the faith of the people that agency must be eliminated or radically changed, it is time the IRS changes its leadership and begin a radical makeover or face the wrath of the people. The most dangerous form of government is one that does not respect the will of the people.  As John Marshall once said; “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”

 

Follow me on Twitter: @2theRightofLeft

 

 

Views expressed are not endorsed or put forward by Turning Point USA

Filed Under: Columnists, Kamber, Opinion

Losing our Literary Legacy in the Twitter Era

May 13, 2013 By Leave a Comment

By Crissy Brown & Matt Patterson:

Homer didn’t tweet.

A facile observation, to be sure — Twitter did not exist in Homer’s time and place, wherever and whenever that might have been. (Most scholars put him in late eighth century B.C. in Ionia, but no one knows for sure.)

If Twitter had existed in Homer’s day, though, would he have tweeted? If his time had been so occupied, would he still have been able to compose his twin masterpieces, the Iliad and the Odyssey — the foundation texts of Western civilization? More important, if a person existed today with the cognitive and linguistic capacities of a Homer, would Twitter (and the like) be liable to stoke or squelch his potential?

To ask such questions is to brush up against the eternal entwinement of thought and language. No one debates whether or not digital tools such as Twitter debase the language; in a way, that is their very purpose. The question is: Does it matter?

It does. In fact, future archaeologists looking back on our early-21st-century imperial decay surely will note that the erosion of the ability to write — and therefore, think — went hand in hand with a degradation of our politics and culture. As George Orwell put it seven decades ago, “It is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic cause but an effect can become a cause.”

The latest evidence of our literary decline is a new school study program called the Common Core (adopted by 46 states and the District of Columbia), which will make it mandatory that 70 percent of books taught in the classroom through grade 12 be nonfiction by 2014. Partially funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the new standard is backed by both the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers.

Requiring public schools to trade timeless fiction for “informational texts” in their curricula may mean setting aside the wicked wit of Oscar Wilde for the starched structure of imaginatively void writings like “Executive Order 13423: Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management,” by the General Services Administration (GSA). The motivation behind the new emphasis: Education administrators increasingly feel that imaginative prose and verse do not adequately prepare students for the workforce. David Coleman, who led the effort to write the new standard, explained, “Forgive me for saying this so bluntly. The only problem with a [personal narrative] writing is, as you grow up in this world, you realize people really don’t give [expletive] about what you feel or what you think.”

How fortunate that Sappho and Mark Twain did not share Mr. Coleman’s views on these matters.

Many teachers, of course, dispute the notion that literature doesn’t prepare students for the world. “There is no research base for the claim that informational reading will lead to college preparedness better than complex literary study,” said University of Arkansas professor Sandra Stotsky, the author of Massachusetts’ standards for pre-kindergarten through grade 12, widely considered among the best in the nation.

To be sure, nonfiction and informational texts are important components of a well-rounded education. If we fail to expose children to our great imaginative writing, however, lost to them will be training in intuitive thought, reflection and creativity, invaluable skills whose usefulness transcends any workplace. Great literary works — from Ovid to Dante to Joyce — do more than entertain. They wire the brain for big ideas and prepare the heart for the large and luxurious loves of which it is capable. As Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote in “A Defense of Poetry”: “Words are instinct with spirit; each is as a spark, a burning atom of inextinguishable thought; and many yet lie covered in the ashes of their birth and pregnant with a lightning which has yet found no conductor.”

One day, perhaps, thanks to digital tools like Twitter and a loss of nerve among our educational elite, we will no longer be capable of conducting the great music still sounding somewhere in our collective soul.

We lost our literary heritage once — when Rome fell and the world descended into the barbarity of the Dark Ages. The great works of antiquity really were lost in this period, physically lost. How sad that after our medieval ancestors took such pains to recover and preserve that heritage, we are starting again to lose it. Yet the books are no longer lost.

We are.

Originally Posted on Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/26/losing-our-literary-legacy-in-the-twitter-era/
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/26/losing-our-literary-legacy-in-the-twitter-era/#ixzz2T7MBzpmI
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

 

Views expressed are not endorsed or put forward by Turning Point USA

Filed Under: Columnists, Opinion

Keynesian Economics, The Fed, and the Debt Ceiling: Wait…What?

May 13, 2013 By 3 Comments

By Paul Bousquet:

Let us travel back to 1st grade for a moment, that magical time where girls had cooties and everything was simple. It is time for math. There is a problem on the board that reads, “You have $5. You gave $4 away to Suzie. How much money do you have now?” Using that new thing the teacher talked about yesterday called subtraction; you solve the problem and determine that the correct answer is 1 dollar. The teacher calls on you to answer, which you do. Immediately following that, a classmate, Barrack, stands up and says, “But teacher, I think the answer is nine.” Another student, Ben B., chimed in and said, “Actually I think the answer is fifteen.” Pretty soon Joe, Nancy, Harry, Piers, and others are shouting out answers which are quite different from yours. Now you are confused because it is unfathomable how you could spend money but end up with more than you had originally.

Back to the present. Congratulations. You have just learned the basic principles of Keynesian Economics. I hope you are happy to hear that our president and many members of congress believe in economic solutions to problems like the one that was just presented.

We currently have a big problem in our government, well in reality a lot more than one, but one of the main issues is definitely spending. Our government spends way more than it should, and as a result our economy suffers and we find ourselves approaching 17 Trillion Dollars in debt. One of the main problems is that so many people in our government believe in economic theories like Keynesian Economics. People believe that spending money will somehow spur economic growth or “jump start the economy”. Based on what I like to call common sense, this theory miserably fails. If you want proof, look at the Credit Industry. The credit industry takes advantage of unaware consumers by giving them the fake guarantee that they can spend as much as they like with no consequences. Little do they know that sometime they will have to pay off all that money they spent on that new Cadillac, and as a result many members of the middle and lowers class find themselves knee-deep in debt. And like people who tend to live outside their means, America also finds itself knee deep in debt.

One of the main components of our spending problem is bailouts. A bailout is money that the government gives to a bank in a time of need. The majority of banks who receive bailouts either pay the money back, but then require a second bailout or they don’t pay it back at all. In Obama’s first term, the federal government spent a total of 11 Trillion dollars on bailouts. Obama’s economic plan obviously has not worked. What we need to do is significantly reduce the amount of money we spend on bailouts.

One part of Obama’s economic plan is major support for the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve or ‘The Fed’ is a government institution which basically acts as a giant government bank. The sad thing is not many people know what The Fed is. The Federal Reserve spent over half of the total money on bailouts at 6 Trillion dollars. The bad part is The Fed does not even need congressional or executive consent to spent money. The Federal Reserve can just spend and print whatever amount it wants. Printing and spending money simply does not work. The Wiemar Republic (what Germany had before the Nazi Regime) attempted to print an excessive amount of money to pay of its World War I debt and as a result their inflation rate was the highest the world has ever seen. Also Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, two of our nation’s most esteemed presidents, opposed similar institutions to The Fed (the 1st and 2nd National Banks respectively). They also did not trust these institutions at all. Andrew Jackson even stooped as low as calling the members of the 2nd National Bank “A den of Vipers and Thieves”.

Another aspect of his budget Obama is really pushing for is to raise the debt ceiling. The Debt Ceiling is basically the amount of money the government can spend in a year, and raising the debt ceiling increases the amount of money the government can spend. Again, economic tactics such as these do not work. The founding fathers did not want the government to pick winners and losers. When you spend money frivolously, you do not get money back. What we need to do is balance our budget, not make it imbalanced. Even more unreasonable, many people including Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi are advising the president to use an executive order to raise the debt ceiling. Nice Nancy, ruin or economy and shred our Constitution in one simple action.

It appears some of the people in our government need to retake 1st grade math. We do not need to take risks investing in greedy corporations in banks. We do not need the Federal Reserve printing 85 Billion dollars a month and buying 40 Billion a month in mortgage securities. We need to cut spending, balance the budget, and end almost all of the bailouts. If we do this, we will transfer into a period of economic recovery. If not, I am not sure I want to see the effects.

 

 

Views expressed are not endorsed or put forward by Turning Point USA

Filed Under: Columnists, Opinion

Winning Back the Presidency by Building The GOP America Deserves

May 12, 2013 By Leave a Comment

By Eddie Kamber:

The key to the next election for the Republican Party is pushing fiscal issues and putting a significantly lower emphasis on the social issues. The GOP must remind the average voter what should be obvious – that the Republican Party is far more serious about solving our fiscal crisis than the Democrats.  The consequences for the country are too great for the Republican’s to be perceived as putting social issues ahead of building a “Reagan” consensus to make our federal government leaner and more efficient. America is in desperate need of GOP influence to lower our rate of spending and take fiscal responsibility. In order for this to happen in today’s era of modern politics where “winning” and “losing” is key in getting the voice of the party heard, it is crucial that the GOP tone it down on the social issues and push for fiscal responsibility.  There is the opportunity to again build a consensus that our government should be one of limited powers and what it has the power to do, it must do well.

Everyone in the GOP, from the Romney-style moderates who push for fiscal responsibility to the Santorum-style social conservatives, understands the importance the 2016 election will have.  At this point the question has probably come up in your head “Which side is best for the future of the GOP?” As previously stated in the article the key to the next election will be trumping fiscal issues over social issues.

According to an article published by Kenneth Walsh of US News in February of this year Amy Kremer of the Tea Party Express believes: “If the establishment’s large donors want to see a complete electoral catastrophe, then all they need to do is push Tea Party conservatives into supporting alternative third candidates. … The secret ingredient to a winning      formula is conservative principles. [Ronald] Reagan’s victories in the 1980s, [Rep.] Newt Gingrich and the Republican revolution of 1994, and the Tea Party’s historic wins in 2010 were all made possible because the Republican Party and its candidates stood strongly and proudly for pro-growth fiscal conservative policies.”

Based on this analysis, which I happen to agree with, it is clear the future of the GOP relies heavily on pushing for fiscally conservative policies rather than pushing heavily on socially conservative policies. The problem with pushing for a socially conservative politician is a majority of Americans have become progressively more socially liberal or libertarian over recent years. Evidence that supports this was the heavy of public support for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. Although to some in the conservative movement this may not seem like the “moral” thing to do, you have to ask yourself  “Is pushing the social issues worth jeopardizing the fiscal future of the next generation by pushing social issues.” The GOP has a choice, it can win a rollback of Obamacare and other constitutionally questionable exercises of federal power or it can continue waging losing efforts like DOMA and be seen as trying to have government imposed morality.  America needs the GOP to choose to fight for fiscally responsible limited government and not dilute its message. In the modern day Republic of the United States of America pushing the fiscal issues is key to winning the next election.

 

Views expressed are not endorsed or put forward by Turning Point USA

Filed Under: Columnists, Opinion
« Older Posts