Assignment #8 K. Tough

Did I hear a Nanny, Nanny, Boo, Boo at the end of Harold Meyerson’s article in The Washington Post? I think I did. His final note in the article “It’s Not about Socialism, its About Rescuing Capitalism” was a little accusatory; like a parent saying, you got yourself into this mess, now get yourself out. I did not take his tone personally though; I understand that as one of two democratic socialists among so many republican capitalists on the hill Meyerson is just expelling a little frustration. Our government is what we have made it since we elect those that make up our governmental leaders and we do so knowing what they believe in and stand for. Meyerson is wagging his finger at all of us, not just his counterparts on capital hill. In the past we have not seen capitalism as an economic trickle down effect with an unequal distribution of wealth. I believe we have all seen capitalism as our ticket to the American Dream with free enterprise and supply and demand regulating itself. This does not seem to be the case in my life time and I see the author trying to make the point that the capitalist system of our country in present time is not laissez-faire (pure); it has been tainted by the conservatives. The trickle down has stopped at the executive level and the government has had to consistently force this form of capitalism by providing ‘guidelines’ for minimum wage, bonuses, work related expenses, and other areas where the economy stalls before it distributes capital among workers.
If capitalism is in support of a free market with no governmental intervention; than, it has and is failing. If the conservatives fighting for capitalism are just holding back reforms that may resemble socialism in the name of capitalism; then, they are just holding back reforms that may be beneficial to the citizens of the United States. I see President Obama’s reforms as Mr. Meyerson does; he is not socializing our economy, but attempting to invigorate it through stimulating the private market. This is a capitalist move in my view; maybe not the right move. But it is still capitalism, to an extent, since a true capitalist would just leave the economy to itself. I am not sure there is a true socialist government any more than there is a true capitalist government. I had the pleasure of living in Germany for some time in elementary school and even their form of socialism was scattered; for example, they provided higher education for all citizens, but the government determined if you went to University or Gymnasium (technical school). There appeared to be a capitalist government in the days we are studying in the Western world, but I don’t think that was laissez-faire either.
I do not believe Mr. Meyerson is attempting to convert his readers to socialism, yet give them a true understanding of its meaning. If the media and citizens of our country are going to accuse the President and other citizens of being socialists; Meyerson would like them to have the correct definition. Socialists believe that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. I think their point has been made in the past few years. Socialists advocate the creation of a society where wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in production. This is not to say that a brick layer works harder than a doctor so he should make more money, but rather the brick layers trade is a necessary commodity as is the doctors and her wages should reflect that.
I know Meyerson is speaking out of frustration, as we all are, but he is one of the lucky ones who write for a fairly liberal newspaper that will allow him to state his beliefs for the entire world to consider. That is one of the perks of capitalism; we have numerous newspapers to choose from. If we were a completely socialist society would socialists like Ted Turner be so wealthy or would Mr. Meyerson have written this article, or would their talents be provided by the state instead of free enterprise?

Assignment #8 - C Strickland

In the article, "It's not about socialism, it's about rescuing capitalism", Harold Meyerson points out that saving the capitalist system that is currently in place in America, may take actions that appear to be socialist. The government has to step in if Americans do not want large companies to fail. In a true capitalist economy the banking and automotive industries would have already failed due to the economic breakdown that occurred. People screamed for the government to step in and help and some of those same people are accusing the President of being a socialist. I wish they would make up their mind of what they want before they start asking for governmental influence.
I do agree with this author’s point of view, in that our past capitalist actions have lead to somewhat of a socialist input from our government. This should be a lesson that a capitalistic economy needs governmental regulations due to the fact that the motivation of the large companies is greed, which will lead to problems in the future, as we are now witnessing.

Assignment #8 C.Robertson

The article, "It's not about socialism, it's about rescuing capitalism" appeared in the Washington Post and was written by Harold Meyerson. This article explores the actions and opinions of socialists and capitalists in reference to the country's economic past and present. The fact presented in this article, that the Unites States has the highest healthcare costs in the world was startling, seeing as we have spent so much money rescuing banks and other businesses to keep them from plummeting. I think that we need to spend less time criticizing the socialist/capitalist aspects of how we are carrying out economic decisions and spend more time doing what is in the best interest of our country and stick with it, and that is the reason Obama is our president, because our country put faith in him to make the best p0ssible decisions for America. This article was directed towards citizens to present facts and project the author's opinions concerning capitalism and socialism.

Assignment #8 S Alt

The article "It's not about socialism, it's about rescuing capitalism" was written for the Washington Post by Harold Meyerson. Whenever you turn on the TV and a Republican is speaking, all they do is shout socialism. It sounds like the title of a book: "The Republican who cried 'Socialist!' " Considering how the Republicans were in control of the country for the majority of when the beginning of this crisis was starting and did absolutely nothing, I really don't see how their alternative solution can be anything positive. And like the article said, actual socialists have not been voicing their support of Obama. Plus, given how absolutely terrible this nation's healthcare system is, why does the idiotic idea of a $5000 tax credit sound preferrable to universal healthcare? This isn't Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, we don't have to try and keep the little kids out of the big kids' pool. Starving and suffering people looking to the government for help are hardly what anyone would call "moochers." If wanting a sensible, sustainable and equal America is what deems the article's author and I a raging, flaming Leninist, then count me in. I'd rather see an America where the poor and downtrodden are treated as human beings and people are willing to sacrifice for the good of the team than an authoritarian, Darwinian society where only the strongest survive. Are we not able as people to overcome Darwinian law and a corrupt form of capitalism?

jplyler Assignment#8

The article is entitled "Who You Calling Socialist?", and is written by Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post. This was a good article about socialist. They speak about our economy and our health care situation. Which is very true, health care should be our main prority not bailing out car dealerships but putting that money into healthcare. Obama and Roosevelt were both attack for being socialist they were not trying to creat socialism they were trying to reboot it. Really no one will ever fix this economy; obama is trying and i give him credit for that but our nation is in some much debt we will never regain what we lost. Maybe when roosvelt was in office he could have done something then. It has gone to far, so who do we really need to call socalists.

Assignment #6 - C Strickland

This was a very interesting article, and I have to agree with pretty much all of it. This article points out one of the very obvious reasons for this economical decline, greed. Greed is what motivated bankers and investment consultants to hide risk and fool investors. This in turn caused an ill affect on the manufacturing industry, by which I am currently employed.

I also have wondered how we, as a group, will overcome this situation, given the fact that everyone that I know is currently doing everything that they can to cut there cost. This seems to be driving us further into decline. What will it take to create change?

Any audience would, or should, appreciate this article published in the NY Times.

Assignment #6 K.Tough

This article, “Revenge of the Glut” is very similar in content to the President’s recent address to Congress. President Obama pointed out, as did Mr. Krugman, that American’s are gluts. Mr. Krugman is targeting our past and present saving mode, yet President Obama pointed out our glutens behavior in living above our means. The subprime crisis Mr. Krugman mentioned from the ‘good old days’ was a direct result of Americans choosing to live above their means. In the late ‘80’s and 1990’s we purchased homes that were out of our financial grasp, but acquired mortgages that were below the subprime allowing us to live above our means. There is no real blame mentioned in this article, nor in the President’s speech. There is no blame cast on the mortgage companies, banks, realtors, or home buyers; yet there is an explanation for all of this downward economic spiraling. There is the influx of foreign monies mentioned in Mr. Bernanke’s speech, and the American dollars that went to other countries also; but none of this was enough to offset the gluten of American homebuyers.
The author is definitely addressing the average citizen, and his terminology and language exemplify that. He has not actually shown a specific side as I can determine from his wording, yet he does appear to have a view. Krugman sounds as disappointed in the slump as everyone else in the country. He sees the mess we have created clearly, but like the rest of us he does not have a solution. We continue to save due to our fears of the economy, we continue to live above our means, and we may have taken on an attitude of thrift, but it is still one of living above our means and saving for fear of not having a future.
Krugman wants us to see what is going on in the world and how we have repeated the same mistakes as our parent’s generation. He has laid it out, but not given us a solution. Is there a solution? Have we learned from history?

Assignment# 6 A.Lowry

The article "Revenge of the Glut" was written by Paul Krugman for The New York Times. I believe this article was written to inform all Americans how the economic crisis began. It explains how not just us people in the United States are suffering from economics, but its also effecting the whole world. The article also points at the forclosing homes and where the turning point occured that made millions and counting lose their homes. And sources tell that Clinton's Aminstration put the housing crisis to arise, while Obama is trying his hardest efforts to keep millions of american in their homes. But basically, i really dont see us getting out of this mess no time soon. And the authors gives good thought and opinion, giving a little hope to the crisis.

Assignment # 6 S Alt

The article "Revenge of the Glut" was written by Paul Krugman of the New York Times. The purpose of the article was to provide information on how the economic meltdown began. Personally, I think it's funny that Republicans like to use the same tired ideas that got us into this mess (as indicated by the "conservative praise" in the article) to try and get us out of it. You don't throw gasoline on a fire to put it out. But honestly, we really have absolutely no clue how to solve this problem.

Assignment #6 T Gombar

Paul Krugman wrote “Revenge of the Glut” for The New York Times. I believe this article was written to inform the American people how this economic crisis began, and that it’s something that has been inevitable and in the making for a while. Also to let people know that it’s not just America struggling right now. Several countries are experiencing the same issues.

I think the basic argument that he is trying to make is that what is causing the crises is still an issue, and maybe we should look at not just trying to fix the problem in America, but if it is stemmed from other countries just fixing our problem may not be enough. At the end of the article it says “around the world, desired savings exceeds the amount businesses are willing to invest. And the result is a global slump that leaves everyone worse off. So that’s how we got into this mess. And we’re still looking for the way out.” I believe that statement basically sums up the article.

Tara Gombar

Assignment #6 M E Mockridge

"Revenge of The Glut" is an Op-Ed piece in the N.Y. Times written by Paul Krugman. Krugman is a renowned Economics and International Affairs professor at Princeton University who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2008. I believe he is trying to reach out to the general public regarding our financial woes, since so many of us are dazed and confused by it all.
Krugman ponders the current state of our economy and offers some valid reasons as to how this mess started. I agree with his (and Fed Chief Ben Bernakes') assertion that the cracks in the world financial stage began in Asia in the late 90's. His points about the rise and fall of small European economies are valid also. The world markets are more connected than ever. While we are still the strongest market in the world, we certainly are not insulated from the effect of global fluctuations.
Mr. Krugman touches on our housing crisis and the sub prime mortgage fiasco, but fails to mention that it was the Clinton administration that forced banks to make bad loans via the Community Reinvestmment Act. The housing bubble was destined to burst, but politicians have kept in on life support for an inordinate amount of time.
In order for capitalism to work, bubbles must be allowed to burst and companies allowed to fail. Through the ashes, like the Phoneix, stronger and greater markets will emerge.
I was disappointed that Mr. Krugman did not offer any solutions to the worlds' financial woes. His opinions are highly respected and could shed some light into the darkness that is our economy.

Assignment #6 C Archie

The article "Revenge of the Glut" actually leaves me clueless as to what to say. I mean, whenever there is a high in the economy then we are forgetting to look at some kind of factor or formula that eventually brings the times to a halt; when the economy is bad people finally get the idea into their, excuse me, our heads to save and be thrifty. So there is always something wrong that is going to lead to the next big crisis or upturn. The problem is that it's hard to know what unless it happens or you are one of the richest, smartest people in the world, Ben Bernanke, fits into that last category.
We as American's need to at least listen to these people from time to time. It's a shock for me to say that but you don't hire a circus clown to be the head of the Federal Reserve. Not only that, Bernanke as well as Alan Greenspan, for years now have had the world on the tip of their tongue with every word they say. If either one of them were to say the wrong thing one it would show the next day in the stock market. We as American's need to learn this fairly new concept called...moderation. We either excessively spend or save everything to the point where we have no actual money to back it up. Somehow with this faulted system in place things still find a way to recover, it may take years but something always works out. So look on the bright side people, in about ten years when you have kids in elementary school things will be fine. Until then, have fun trying to find a place to raise them.

Assignment # 6 Roxanne Ayers

"Revenge of the Glut" was an article written by Paul Krugman for The New York Times, whose audience is usually pretty politically liberal. It was surprising that this article seemed to support the idea that Asia is mostly to blame for the economic crisis we are facing today instead of the policies that deregulated businesses and banking. Let's not forget those who made these regulations obsolete created the path for this to happen, let's also not forget that greed was a factor and you can find that on both sides of the political fence.

Mr. Krugman explains how even though a small portion of the country experienced a great deal of growth, now that it has busted, the whole country gets to share in the experience of feeling the effects.

He quotes and uses the logic of Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, who lays the blame on Asia who invested heavily in our country after their own economic crisis in the late 1990's. Asia made growing beyond our means too easy with their influx of money.

His theory is acceptable to me to a point, but I wish more authors were interviewing economic experts and succesful business men to find an answer and writing about how to fix this mess - I mean really, who at this point cares how it happened? It's time to do something about it.

Assignment #8 - K McWhirter

The article is entitled "Who You Calling Socialist?", and is written by Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post.

This was the most entertaining article I have read in this class. First of all, the writer makes a very sarcastic reference to the health care situation:"Their signal success is to have kept the United States free from the taint of universal health care. The result: We have the world's highest health-care costs, borne by businesses and employees that cannot afford them; nearly 50 million Americans have no coverage; infant mortality rates are higher than those in 41 nations -- but at least (phew!) we don't have socialized medicine."

I thought that statement was very true and epitomizes what has been on the minds of certain individuals.

The writer goes on to make the point that not only did conservatives attack Obabma, but they also attacked Roosevelt. However, as the writer puts it, both men were simply "engaged not in creating socialism but in rebooting a crashed capitalist system." This makes sense as the investment of money into education and research can only lead to a more competitive private sector and the results thereof. The banking system needs to stay in check as well.

The part that really gets me is that all these different people take shots at Obama and his methods and so forth, however these same idiots don't have an answer for the economy themselves. They simply argue with those available; it would be different if they had some idea of how to successfully combat the economic crisis, but guess what? THEY DON'T! THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA.

The writer goes on to detail just how miserable the economy is - this is due in part to the policies of those who are actually spear-heading the criticism:
1) failures of the great Wall Street investment houses and the worldwide crisis of commercial banks
2) the collapse of East Asian, German and American exports
3) the death rattle of the U.S. auto industry
4) the plunge of stock markets everywhere
5) the sickening rise in global joblessness
6) the growing shakiness of governments in fledgling democracies that opened themselves to the world market

That is quite a list and given these parameters, the writer argues that a more social capitalism is necessary - and you know what? He is probably right.

Assignment #6 - K McWhirter

The name of the article is "Revenge of the Glut" written by the Op-Ed Columnist Paul Krugman.

The writer makes the case that the current woes of the country (and the world for that matter) is a case of "the revenge of the glut".

Basically, after the Asian financial crisis of (1997-98), those countries began to export capiatl to the rest of the world. The writer goes on to relate how most of that moneyt whent to the United States, thereby leading to our trade deficit.

Relating as to why tghe global savings ended up in the Unites States, the writer says this:
"Mr. Bernanke cited “the depth and sophistication of the country’s financial markets (which, among other things, have allowed households easy access to housing wealth).” Depth, yes. But sophistication? Well, you could say that American bankers, empowered by a quarter-century of deregulatory zeal, led the world in finding sophisticated ways to enrich themselves by hiding risk and fooling investors."

The writer relates how nothing lasts forever and that "yesterday’s miracle economies have become today’s basket cases". He also includes Europe in the equation and relates how their economy is also declining due to a lack of exports.

The writer makes a solid argument as to the cause of the economic crisis, and even reminisces on the old days a bit.

Assignment #5 - K McWhirter

The article is entitled "Will: The continuing fall of federalism" and written by George F. Will of the Washington Post.

The article delas primarily with Feingold's amendment to the 17th Amendment. The writer was clear to alert the readers that John McCain is a "co-sponder" to this amendment - I wonder if the writer is a democrat? In my opinion, it seems likely that he is.

The writer was clear in his assertion that the power should be given to the people:
"Giving the states an important role in determining the composition of the federal government gave the states power to resist what has happened since 1913 — the progressive (in two senses) reduction of the states to administrative extensions of the federal government."

Feingold is "proud that Wisconsin is one of only four states that clearly require special elections of replacement senators in all circumstances, wants to impose Wisconsin’s preference on the other 46". The writer argues that if this happens, the power will more and more gradually be taken away from the people. I suppose I would have to agree.

Assignment #5 A.Ogle

The article Will "The continuing fall of Federalism" was written by George F. Will. This article's main purpose is to explain what Russ Feingold is doing. He is planning on working on the 17th Ammendment.
He is planning on working on how the senators are voted in. He wants the people to be able to have what they want. I believe that it is good to know that we could get what we want.

Assignment#5 A.Lowry

The article Will: "The continuing fall of Federalism" was written by George F. Will for the Washington Post. This article was written to help the understanding for readers of what Senator Russ Feingold is trying to do with the 17th Amendment.He is disbuting how congress mishandled the situation, and to the 17th amendment in how a senate member is voted in. This article is pretty much saying that give to the people for what they want.

In my opinion, yes everyone should have a say so of who they want to be voted in. But this was a very good informative argument and article for readers

Assignment # 5 - R. Ayers

George Will is a conservative, syndicated writer in Washington DC. He has a vast collection of awards including a Pulitzer. He is writing to an audience of conservative and mostly Republican readers. This article was written for the Washington Post and reprinted in The State, both newspapers having conservative views.

He is attempting to show the abuse to the 17th amendment in how a senate member is voted in under special circumstances. The 17th amendment is losing its checks and balances. He complains that the current way is far from what the writers of the constitution actually meant, but that was okay, because congress often rewrites as it wishes.

I personally love the quote, by George Will, “Being elected to Congress is regarded as being sent on a looting raid for one's friends”. This article is written in the same attitude as this quote, congress is busy doing whatever it really wants to and as much as it wants.

Assignment #5 - L. Bodie

*Please excuse the tardiness. We lost power around 6pm and just got it back about 30 minutes ago. I woke up as soon as it came back on and came out to finish my post. Thank you!*

The article, "The Continuing Fall of Federalism" was written by George F Will for the Washington Post. It is a pretty clear account of what is happening in states where mid-election Senate seats must be filled. It is interesting to me how, as he points out in the article, all "tampering" with the Constitution is always prefaced with a disclaimer that the person doesn't "really" want to tamper with it. It brings to mind the question, "Than why do it?"

It's obvious that the mid-election appointing of elected officials doesn't fall within the notion that the people elect their leaders. However, as stated in the article, the people are not the only ones considered "electors" for the sake of appointing officials. The people, the state legislators, and the Electoral College are all given the title and right to help choose our country's elected officials. It stands to reason, then, that in a case where a Senate seat is vacated prior to an election, that the state's legislators could then be given the chance to fill that seat (temporarily) until election time rolls around again.

Assignment #5- A.Perkins

"The Continuing Fall of Federalism" was written by George F. Will for The Washington Post. I believe this artice is directed to congress, but because they don't usually care about public opinion, the main audience is the public. This article was written to persuade the public that we still need a stake in our governmment.

The basic argument in this article was about how senators are appointed or elected. I would have to agree with Senator Russ Feingold in that a senator should be elected by the people. Our government was established "by the people, for the people". Everyone should have an opportunity to cast their vote on senate elections because those people are their to be everyone's voice.

Assignment # 5 C.Robertson

Will: The continuing fall of federalism was written by George F. Will and appeared in the Washington Post. This article was aimed towards the public in regards to the recent controversy involving the choice to fill the new senate seat and the 17th Amendment. I agree with Feingold in that no person shall be a Senator from a State unless such person has been elected by the people. I think that replacement or not, we the people should be able to have an impact on who is elected. I think this article was informative about this article and helped readers to better understand this situation and develop their own opinions based on facts.

Assignment #5 W. Bradner

The article "Will: The continuing fall of Federalism" was written by George F. Will for the Washington Post. This article was written to give readers more of an understanding of what Senator Russ Feingold is trying to do with the 17th Amendment. George F. Will is clearly biased against federalism and Senator Russ Feingold, which makes this article seem as if it is pursuading people against federalism rather ruthlessly. George F. Will is arguing that amending the 17th Amendment will push us as a country further away from our original goal.

Although this article is well informing, it is biased and a little harsh. But hey, you have to be harsh to get your point across these days. George F. Will does have a few strong points in there, and for the most part, I have to agree with Mr. Will.

Assignment #5 M E Mockridge

George F. Will is a Pulitzer Prize winning political philosophy writer whose work is highly regarded. He writes for Newsweek Magazine and contributes to and is syndicated in many newspapers throughout the country. This piece, The Continuing Fall of Federalism, was published in The State by way of The Washington Post.
Will is well known for his conservative championing of our constitution. He makes a powerful argument against Senator Russ Feingolds' proposal to interfere with states' senator selection processes. His ideas would further empower the Federal government while taking away state's rights. Forcing states to elect "replacement Senators" according to Washington D.C.s game plan is a recipe for disaster, as Will clearly explains. Will may be swimming against the tide here, since the Washington Post is read by a vastly liberal audience. Thank goodness his work is syndicated, so all people can benefit from his insight.
Mr. Feingold should be careful not to try and force Wisconsin's rules on the rest of the country. States rights and the checks and balances of our constitution have served us well for over 200 years. Uniformity is not our strong suit. Individuality IS.

Article #5 C Archie

I would first like to say thanks for the article choice. I know that in my last post I probably sounded like an ass. I am very happy to be speaking about something other than our national budget for once. Having said that, it may be that I am anti-government, but I don't believe that I am. I try to follow politics and watch the speeches to keep up with what is going on in our nation. The only problem is that it is an iceberg effect; what you see is probably only around fifteen percent of what is actually going on and the rest happens behind closed doors. In essence I love the spirit of our nation, but not the vast majority of those that run it.
I feel that this article embodies the idea that most politicians seek the power and money. However, being in league with major corporations and interest groups only creates power for an individual and not a nation. I believe that true power is freedom to do what you want to do, without money or any other strings attached. When these politicians accept these gifts from others they fall into someone else's pocket. How is this freedom or power? You are not at the mercy of someone else.
The government of our nation has too much power, as well as too much of the impression of power. There are too many government organizations and programs, and when people get elected some tend to forget the people that got them there. I believe Washington was right when he said that political parties would lead to the fall of our nation. There is too much bickering in Washington for any such bipartison group to come to any concensus. As I said before, I love our nation, but oh so hate our politicians.

Assignment #5-ACampbell

The informative but strongly opinionated article, "The Continuing Fall of Federalism" was posted on Sunday, Feb. 22,2009 to thestate.com. It was written by George F. Will and was directed to the people. This article discusses Senator Russ Feingold's solution to some governors recent bad behavior in appointing people to fill the senate vacancies. Feingold's solution for this is to change the 17th Amendment.

The author strongly disagrees with this solution by making an ironic remark that stated, "Feingold's amendment requiring elections to fill Senate vacanies will owe any traction in gains to Senate. Democrats' opposition to an elction to choose a replacement for Barack Obama. That opposition led to the ongoing Blagojevich-Burris fiasco. Although the author is indeed against this. The McCain Feingold and many others we successful in changing the Constitution.

Assignment #5 K. Tough

Wow, the articles are increasing in difficulty or my vocabulary is in need of an update. Reading George F. Will’s article “The continuing fall of federalism” required a little research; therefore, it is my contention that he is not realistically speaking to the general public. Although we may possess a vocabulary of thousands of words; in general, we do not employ them on a daily bases. This article was intended, as I understand it, to preach to the general public Mr. Will’s conservative thinking in reference to the election of Senators to fill vacant seats. Mr. Will’s article originally appeared in the Washington Post and was then picked up by The State here in SC. The State is read by almost all of our legislators and Senators, so maybe Mr. Will is actually speaking to them indirectly.
The majority of Americans are well aware of the issues that arose when Illinois attempted to fill the Senatorial vacancy left when President Obama became President. This issue is not foreign to us, but the idea of federalism is so antiquated that it is foreign to us. The comparison of a democracy to a direct democracy is also not one the majority of us are familiar with; unless of course you are enrolled in HIS 101. Most Americans would not take the time to read this article in its entirety if they were lost on the terminology, so Mr. Will’s point may be falling on deaf ears.
I am a little fearful to say this since our Professor chose this article, but why not amend the 17th Amendment? The Amendment was originally written to transfer the power to elect the Senate from the state legislatures to we the people; then, why not give it to us in total? This little side step in the Amendment appears to be another legal loophole in the wording of a bill that slid by on a vote of those who may not have read, or understood, the total content. If the idea of federalism, where a political system (we the people) defers power to someone else (our governor) is anachronistic than this policy of our governor appointing a Senator is also anachronistic. We can hold special elections for Sunday alcohol sales changing Blue Laws; why not a special election to fill an open Senate seat? In middle school I went on a field trip to the state house, I met my Senator and Legislators, and those who represented the people here in Clover where I was about to move. I will never forget what Herb Kirsh said to me when I suggested that he visit a classroom of today; “No one, not even the public I represent have the right to force me to visit a school.” Wow, he is still in office, he has out done Strom Thurmond and is still there. It is this type of thinking; the idea that representatives are there to serve their agenda that pushes people to believe in a more direct democracy. I understand that Mr. Will sees us in much the same manner as Plato did, but we are capable of determining who is best prepared to serve our needs in Washington.
I understand the example Blagojevich-Burris drawing so much attention, but that was not a fiasco due to the American people; that was a fiasco due to politicians. Four of the Senate selections after President Obama took office have been made not for the people, but for the politicians. The Roland Burris issue is well known, but what about the one in Colorado where everyone was so upset because a school superintendent who knew nothing of the political process was appointed. Senator Clinton’s seat in NY caused a big stir when Caroline Kennedy was considered and then the Governor chose Representative Gillibrand and that has been a controversy too. What about the deal that Kauffman will keep the Senate seat warm until Biden’s son can take over, is that for the people or the politicians? I am not an advocate for stripping politicians of all of their power, but I do believe they often forget who put them where they are and why. Although I may be a liberal where this issue is concerned I also am realistic and know the amendment will not pass. In order for constitutional amendment to pass it requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, and ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

Assignment #5 S Alt

"The continuing fall of federalism" was written by George F. Will for the Washington Post. It was written to describe Senators McCain and Feingold's proposed 17th Amendment change. This was clearly brought into focus by the recent fiasco over President Obama's replacement in the senate. Personally, I agree with the change in the 17th amendment. Why is it that the people elect a senator, and if he needs a replacement, the governor is the one to provide a substitute? Shouldn't it simply be one or the other? If the people elected both the senator and the one who provides a substitute, why can't the people elect a replacement? However, I believe the governor should choose a replacement senator, and after one year, people should be able to vote on whether they like the job he's doing or not.

Assignment #5 A Liaghat

The article "The Continuing Fall of Federalism" written by George F Will is an interesting piece that appeared in the opinions editorial section of The State as well as in the Washington Post. Mr Will describes how the new proposal by Senators McCain and Feingold is not only bad idea but also may be eroding away some of the principles upon which our country and constitution are founded. I especially found it intriguing that McCain-Feingold are proposing a restriction of time, quantity and content of political speeches. Personally any form of regulation on speech is not only repugnant but truly terrifying. Once speech is regulated by the government it is only a short step to controlling many other aspects of our lives and Big Brother watching.

The article, which is an opinion, is well written, thorough, and informative. Mr Will is a regular contributor to the Washington Post dealing primarily in foreign and domestic politics. This article is primarily written to the mass public and those people of voting age, because it is so essential that those of us who do participate in the political process are well informed.