Too Much "Job Security" for Congress

ECONOMIC ISSUES

By Tyler Scott

I wish I had this kind of job security.

A recent CBS News New York Times poll found that only eight percent of Americans want the current members of Congress to be reelected. Congress’ job approval rating was an astounding 15 percent. Yet when November rolls around, history shows that we can expect close to 90 percent of Congress members to be reelected for another term. Americans complain about the broken democratic system, blaming bipartisan politics for the failures of Congress. But Americans’ refusal to bring wholesale change to the Congressional makeup places the onus upon voters. Voters must take responsibility for the decisions of their representatives. Why do we continue to reelect people to represent us when we overwhelmingly disapprove of the job they are doing?

During the summer of 2008, a Gallup poll found that Congress’ approval rating was a mere 14 percent. When the votes were tallied several months later, 94 percent of House incumbents still held office, as did 83 percent of senators. Percentages are useful to inform the nation about what its citizens think, but the only percentages that really matter are the ones next to the names in November. I propose that in the upcoming election, voters follow through on their convictions. Stop voting for incumbents just because their names are familiar.

Education is the key to change. Members of Congress have little reason to respect the desires of their constituents because they know reelection is likely. As long as voters fail to follow through on their complaints about Congress, we will never see positive change in Washington, D.C.

If only 15 percent of Americans are happy with Congress, we should see that disapproval carried out in the actual elections. Congressional terms are intentionally short so that the public has the opportunity to ensure that the right people are in place to lead the country.

We have failed as an electorate, and it is time that we step up and accept our part in the struggles of Congress. For too many years, we have stood by and reelected incumbents who clearly are not carrying out the agendas of their constituents. Voting is a right, and with that right is a responsibility to actively participate in the process. We cannot continually complain about Congress as a whole and then repeatedly retain its membership and expect things to change.

If you are part of the 15 percent that approves of Congress and the decisions it is making for our country, then absolutely vote for the incumbents in the upcoming election.

When you fill out your ballot in November, consider for yourself whether or not Congress is accomplishing all that it should. Consider whether you would still have your job if three-quarters of the people you work for disapproved of your job performance.

Then vote accordingly. Demanding change while voting the same will fail every time.

Think of the election process as your congressperson’s job performance review. If the worker is not fulfilling the job expectations, hand the reigns to someone else.

No one should have that kind of job security.

Edited by Anne Walters-Cooke

Microfinancing Education Abroad

ECONOMIC ISSUES

By Nic Tkachuk

Non-profit Organizations have become big business in the United States.  The number of U.S. NPOs has doubled in the past five years to well over one million charitable organizations collecting $307 billion in 2008, roughly two percent of the country’s GDP.

But for the first time in over a decade, donation numbers are dwindling.  An extended economic recession can be partially to blame.  Tough times have attracted scam artists who prey on well-intentioned donors to make a profit, which has resulted in increased skepticism towards charitable organizations.  People are simply having a hard time trusting that their donation is actually reaching the people who need it.

The new buzzword for philanthropists is microfinance, a form of peer-to-peer lending aimed at ending global poverty by issuing affordable loans to entrepreneurs in developing countries, but little attention has been paid to the potential benefits of adapting this system to finance education in the developing worlds.

Vittana is a fledgling microfinancing institution cutting out the middleman to promote the most effective weapon for fighting poverty: higher education.

College loans might cost a pretty penny stateside, but in most developing countries they are nonexistent.  No matter their intelligence or performance in school, people are forever prevented from achieving their potential and improving the standard of living in their countries; until now.

Vittana connects lenders with student borrowers from five different countries in Latin America and Asia.  Student profiles are uploaded to Vittana’s website, where lenders can choose specific students to support.

Higher education costs are significantly lower in these countries, and as little as $1,000 can completely fund a student’s educational needs.  Repayment of the loan begins upon graduation and is repaid directly to the original lender.  With a 97 percent success rate, lenders are typically repaid in full within 24 months.

Although microfinancing for entrepreneurs has been widely successful in stimulating economic growth (reaching more than 100 million people through more than 3,500 organizations like KIVA),  it is merely a band-aid for countries without affordable education.

Vittana’s business model is much more suitable for stimulating sustainable growth and improving standards of living, earning them the top spot on the Huffington Post’s, “Top 10 game-changers in philanthropy.”

According to the National Philanthropic Trust, 80 percent of wealthy donors surveyed said they are most likely to make contributions to educational organizations, and for good reason.  The World Bank estimates that a one-year increase in average tertiary education levels raises annual GDP growth by 0.39 percent, and at the individual level, yield 10 to 15 percent higher wages.  According to the company’s website, Vittana graduates earn 200-300 percent more over their lifetime than they would have otherwise.

“If you’re trying to raise standards of living, making an education loan is probably a better way of doing that than lending another $100 to an illiterate and unskilled woman to open another roadside stand,” says Timothy Ogden, publisher of Philanthropy Action, an online magazine for donors.

Next time you’re feeling charitable, instead of covering fundraising and administrative costs for NPOs with your donations, become a lender.  With as little as $25, you can directly finance the development of infrastructure in developing countries by giving the gift of education.

As the proverb says: “Teach a man to fish, and he’ll eat for a lifetime.”

Edited by Anne Walters-Cooke

Fired Because Of Facebook

By Hilary Hilpert

Social networking sites do not provide users with privacy // Agency Spy

Two Police Officers from Kennewick, Wash. lost their jobs last week after a concerned father reported inappropriate material found on their Facebook profiles.

These Officers represent a mere fraction of professionals who are jobless for the same reason.

With the rave over social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace and Twitter, the line between personal and professional lives is becoming increasingly thin.

Once we are exposed to the world of social media, we cannot expect to have privacy. Through pictures, blogs, videos and comments, professionals around the world are losing jobs—and there is no one to blame but ourselves.

Matthew Winckler, former Officer for the city of Kennewick, was fired after a father found his daughter looking at Winckler’s inappropriate Facebook profile.

“Everybody’s got their right to privacy, but when there’s an intermixing of images of the state patrol and state patrol cars…with less than professional-type comments, it doesn’t present a good image for the state patrol,” said state patrol Capt. Jeff DeVere.

According to Viadeo, a British survey conducted in 2009, 62 percent of employers check online profiles of most applicants and nearly a quarter of them are rejected because of it.

Some believe that if our personal life does not affect our work performance, then firing someone based on their less-than-professional social networking is unjustifiable.

In 2007, Denise Petrella, the former General Manager of an Olive Garden restaurant in Orange City, Fla. was fired for posting pictures of her 18-year-old daughter drinking beer at the Petrella home.

Petrella was fired because her employers were concerned that if she allowed her under-aged daughter to drink alcohol, then Petrella would serve alcohol to under-aged customers at the restaurant.

While situations like Petrella’s raise a great deal of controversy, it represents a serious reminder that our personal lives are not necessarily private.

While personal profiles keep us connected to the world, professionals must reevaluate how connected they wish to be. In an increasingly connected world, one wrong MySpace post could cost you your job.

Edited by Melody Yeung

Arizona Immigration Law: Congress Ignoring A Cry For Help

Arizona currently houses over 460,000 illegal immigrants. google.com

SOCIAL ISSUES

By Stephen Odell

Arizona legislature recently passed a measure allowing state law enforcement to question individuals’ immigration status and imprison those who are illegally in the country.

The law will take effect in August. The bill’s passage has generated criticism from around the country.

Congress needs to officially address the issue of immigration.

Many people are concerned with this law as they are afraid it will lead to racial profiling. State officers will undergo training to learn what qualifies as “reasonable suspicion”for questioning.

Immigrants unable to produce documentation authorizing their stay in the U.S. could be imprisoned for up to six months and fined $2,500. Those arrested could be handed over to federal immigration officers and deported.

This immigration law is the harshest of any state.

U.S. police departments will not question a person’s immigration status unlesssomeone has already committed a crime.

Arizona’s Gov. Jan Brewer said Arizona was forced to act because federal attempts to halt immigration and drugs from Mexico have failed.

Arizona is currently home for more than 460,000 illegal immigrants. Arizona’s border is the country’s most active point of entry.

Considering the statistics and the state’s constant cry for help, one can not blame Arizona for taking drastic measures.

This law has certainly commanded the attention of the country.

The Obama administration and the American Civil Liberties Union are considering legal action, while Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn and many others are advocating a boycott of the state.

Arizona state capital employees arrived to work Monday to find refried bean-smeared swastikas on the building’s windows.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the former Arizona governor, believes the law will distract state law enforcement from focusing on more important causes.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has called the law discriminatory and warns relations between the state and its southern neighbor will suffer.

Arizona sheriff Clarence Dupnik has vowed not to enforce this law, calling it “racist.”

Protestors against the Arizona Immigration Law. Monica Almeida/New York Times

Arizona residents largely support the bill, and argue citizens must be protected from crimes committed by illegal immigrants.

Regardless of your stance on illegal immigration, it is obvious that something needs to done.

Unfortunately, Obama and Congress seem to be avoiding the issue, saying it’s unlikely Washington will address immigration in the near future.

Complaining about this new law won’t accomplish anything. Contact your representative and tell them to deal with the issue through bill of their own.

Legal action won’t solve the problem either, Washington. Congress, take action! The debate is spiraling out of control.

Senate Bill 1070: Arizona Immigration LawEdited by Ali Shaffer

Airline Without Hidden Fee

ECONOMIC ISSUES

By Stephen Odell

At this point, I can’t stop the sweat dripping from my brow. Zippers and I have never seen eye to eye, but this particular piece of luggage is refusing my every attempt to zip it shut.

I’m attempting to jam all of my necessary belongings for my upcoming trip into my carry-on bag so I can escape those pesky checked baggage fees; thus far, it isn’t going well.

Of course, if I were flying with Spirit Airlines, my efforts would be pointless.

That’s right, not even your carry-ons are safe from extra fees.

Spirit Airlines, an American budget carrier, has recently announced it will charge travelers $20 to $45 for items placed in overhead bins, though the exact price will vary.

For example, Spirit’s frequent fliers will be charged $20 and customers who pay in advance will pay $30. All other passengers must pay $45 at the gate upon boarding.

Oh, and double those prices for round-trip excursions.

Personal items that fit beneath the seat will not be charged. Other articles that escape fines include “umbrellas, coats, cameras, car seats, strollers, medicine, reading material and food for immediate consumption.”

Spirit warns passengers to not try cheating the system. Passengers will be loaded in zones, and it will be assumed that any traveler boarding after zone one has not yet paid for carry-ons. Since all pre-registered carry-on passengers will be zone one customers.

If you are loaded in after zone one, you’ll be asked to present your credit card for any bags that do not qualify as personal items.

The change in policy takes effect for flights on and after August 1.

The company will be the first domestic airline to levy fees for carry-on luggage.

Checked bags already cost extra, too. In fact, a majority of domestic airlines now charge for checked luggage.

Spirit Airlines claims the additional charge should not affect overall prices, as it plans on decreasing ticket fares.

Spirt Airlines advises people to simply travel with less.

“Bring less; pay less. It’s simple,” Spirit’s Chief Operating Officer Ken McKenzie said in a statement.

However, it is unrealistic to expect any passenger to fly without checked or carry-on baggage, nullifying decreased ticket prices.

Many travelers are already displeased with Spirit’s change in protocol.

“I personally think that would spark a major customer backlash,” said S&P analyst Jim Corridore. “The general public is sick and tired of fees. They pay them because they have to.”

But if you’re a passenger who is sick of extra fees, you can send Spirit Airlines a message: you won’t fly with the company.

Other U.S. airline companies will be monitoring passengers’ reactions to the bold move, giving you an opportunity to discourage similar charges from other airlines.

But you must purchase airline tickets carefully.

Many companies promote cheap airfare prices, and passengers are fooled into thinking they saved money— only to realize that they’re bombarded with additional fees upon checkout.

Therefore, shop cautiously, refuse to pay for carry-on luggage and continue stuffing those carry-ons for companies that charge for checked bags.

Sure, you may break out in sweat, but it will be worth it.

Spirit Airlines Baggage Policy

Edited By Christine Mahar

We Need The Estate Tax

ECONOMIC ISSUES

By Brock Bennett

The House voting to extend the estate tax rates on Dec. 3 // Christian Science Monitor

For the first time since 1916, taxes will not be collected from large inheritances this year, despite the worst recession in recent memory.

Because of a bill passed by Congress in 2001, the estate tax has been progressively weakened over the past decade.  The previous tax rate was 55 percent on assets exceeding $1 million after a person’s death.

Because of legislative gridlock, no new bill was passed to resume the estate tax for 2010.  However, estate tax laws will return to pre-2001 levels by default next year, so debates over the future of the policy are forthcoming.

Since the economy continues to increase wealth inequity, a strong estate tax must be reinstated to help support lower income citizens.  Allowing heirs to pass down their wealth within their family is contrary to capitalism and denies funding to charities and social services.

Letting the estate tax stay dead would result in a loss of $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years compared to what would be gained under the old rate.  These funds are necessary to reduce borrowing by the U.S. government from foreign countries, which worsen our future economic position.  Lacking taxation of inheritances has been shown to discourage charitable giving.

Opponents of the estate tax have argued extensively to change public opinion about the policy, though many of their points do not hold up when the statistics are examined.  One idea was to change the popular term to “death tax” to make it universal. Even though in 2006, less than 3 out of 1000 people who left inheritances paid taxes on them.

It also destroys small businesses and family-run farms by removing vital assets.  However, facts from the Congressional Budget Office show that few business owners would be affected by the tax. And, since taxes apply only to assets over $1 million, the occurrence of farms or businesses that need to be liquidated as a result of the estate tax is nearly non-existent.

Some characterize the estate tax as a class warfare that unjustly punishes success.  These criticisms overestimate the impact the policy has on the wealthy.  In 2006, even with a tax rate of 45 percent, most of the substantial people paid less than 20 percent of their assets to the government.  Not only are inheritances taxed beyond a certain level, but many of these assets are protected using legal loopholes.

First, many supporters of the estate tax claim the wealthy owe a debt to the society that enabled them to succeed. Second, there is a benefit gained through the estate tax, such as the support it provides for government programs.

“The reason the estate tax makes so much sense is that there is a direct relationship between the net worth people have when they pass on and where they live,” William Gates Sr. has stated. “The government that protects their business activities, the traditions that enable them to rely on certain things happening, that’s what creates capital and enables net worth to increase.”

With midterm elections approaching, legislators are listening to their constituents.  Voters must encourage their candidates to support a strong estate tax for the next fiscal year.

Edited by Melody Yeung

Recent Grads Explore Alternative Strategies

ECONOMIC ISSUES

By Hilary Hilpert

Recent college graduates are forced to make changes in their job hunting strategies in light of a bleak economy.

A new survey by Global Outplacement Consultancy Challenger Inc., reveals that the job forecast for this year’s graduates is only a small step above last year’s dismal outlook. Although students are left to question their career path, the job market presents obstacles in addition to unforeseen opportunities.

Many students around the country are seeking ‘a gap-year experience.’ Rather than accepting jobs they are over-qualified for, recent grads are volunteering, traveling or joining programs like AmeriCorps, Teach for America or the Peace Corps to gain experience before entering a more promising job market.

Erika Skalski, 22, a Michigan State University (MSU) student, is excited to graduate this May. After spending her final semester unsuccessfully searching for a position in event planning, Skalski decided to apply for a program where she will teach English to children in Spain for a year. Skalski leaves in June and will continue her job search when she returns to America 12 months later.

Stories like Skalski’s are not uncommon. Although the effects of the job market have caused a great deal of frustration for recent college graduates, it also has encouraged them to do something out of the ordinary such as teaching English in a foreign country—not a bad gig if you ask me.

If you aren’t the traveling type, or it is simply not within your budget, don’t fret. There are many ways to make the most of your post-college, pre-career life without ever leaving the state.

For instance, today most employers won’t look twice at a resume unless they see the word ‘intern’ printed. Rather than snagging a position as a Starbucks barista or working in the Macy’s shoe department, graduates can spruce up their resumes, and possibly land a temporary or full-time position by applying for an internship.

“University officials and employers almost universally maintain that partaking in an internship—or several, which sets a student apart from his or her peers even more—before graduation is integral to finding meaningful employment in today’s seemingly impenetrable job market,” said US News reporter Brian Burnsed in his article Degrees Are Great, but Internships Make a Difference.

Another piece of advice for those nervous about finding a job is don’t be too picky. I am not implying that you should accept the first job you read on Craigslist, but don’t be scared to stray from your initial career path.

“[College grads] may have to look outside of the industry or career path they envisioned pursuing immediately out of college. They may need to look in parts of the country they might not have considered previously,” said John A. Challenger, chief executive officer of Challenger Inc.

Many professionals today will tell you the job they have now is very different from their college degree. Sometimes a sudden change in plans can lead to a positive outcome, so don’t be terrified if the job you land doesn’t match your college courses.

While today’s job market may not be ideal, it has inspired students to get creative in their job hunts. Whether it takes us across the world where the market is brighter, leads us down an unbeaten career path or forces us to uncover another employable interest of ours, we can only gain from the varied work experience, hopefully making us all-the-more employable for round two.

Edited By  Lorna Rodriguez

Is the Face of Professional Sports Changing?

SOCIAL ISSUES

By Tyler Scott

Hunter/Google Images

People have been suggesting conspiracy theories about dwindling African American participation in baseball for years. Take the recent shocking comments made by Los Angeles Angels outfielder Torii Hunter.

“As African-American players, we have a theory that baseball can go get an imitator and pass them off as us,” Hunter told USA Today last month. “It’s like they had to get some kind of dark faces, so they can go to the Dominican or Venezuela because you can get them cheaper.”

Hunter received harsh criticism for his comments, but they were merely the most recent in a long line of complaints on the topic.

The declining rate of African American ballplayers is a concern. After all, baseball history would not be the same without Jackie or Frank Robinson, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey, Jr.

But why is baseball the only professional sport receiving disproportionate criticism about racial participation?

Ponder for a moment how this hypothetical comment would come across if one of the rare Caucasian American National Basketball Association players said it.

“As white American players, we have a theory that the NBA can go get an imitator and pass them off as us. It’s like they had to get some kind of white faces, so they can go to Europe or Russia because you can get them cheaper.”

Same argument, different race. At least Major League Baseball has great African American players in the league. Steve Nash, the NBA’s best non-European Caucasian player, is Canadian.

This is not a new phenomenon. NBA star Larry Bird earned the moniker “Great White Hope,” a reference to his unique ethnic background, when he came into the league 30 years ago.

Yet for all of the articles written annually about the plight of the declining African American baseball player, we never hear about the virtually extinct Caucasian American basketball player.

Football offers another example. Cries of racism ring out whenever someone highlights the greater percentage of successful white quarterbacks than their black counterparts. No one complains about the lack of elite, white running backs or wide receivers.

The problem stems from our societal desire to assign blame, especially in regard to issues of race that reflect negatively on African Americans.

We need to change our perception and realize that sports are not inherently racist, even though they favor certain ethnicities and economic statuses.

Baseball requires expensive equipment and large fields. Basketball requires a ball and a hoop. Football only needs a ball. This, above all other explanations, explains why baseball has become less popular among inner city youth.

Football and basketball also offer the possibility of fame in college and fortune in the professional ranks within a few short years of graduating high school. Except in the rarest of situations, baseball players toil for years in the relative obscurity of less popular college programs and the minor leagues.

Football and basketball are more exciting for today’s American youths. They are more up-tempo stylistically than baseball. They are easier to play than baseball. They require less, and appear to offer more financially than baseball.

Torii Hunter’s concerns are legitimate, but so is the concern about the lack of Caucasian American NBA players. Professional leagues should try to appeal to all cultures, but we cannot expect that all ethnic groups will be represented equally in each sport.

Edited By Lorna Rodriguez

Social Networks Create New Opportunities for Libel

TECHNOLOGY ISSUES

By Tyler Scott

The old mantra states whenever angry, you should write a letter and leave it in a desk drawer overnight before sending it in the mail. The reasoning is, by the next day you will typically find your anger has subsided and you wisely choose not to say something you likely would have regretted.

Unfortunately, in today’s up-to-the-second world, social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook have opened the door for people to post defamatory remarks before ever giving thought to potential consequences.

Regardless of the benefits of these new forums, people need to take responsibility and think about the possible legal ramifications before they choose to post insulting comments online.

A simple definition of libel is “published defamation.” Anything untruthful that damages someone’s reputation can constitute defamation.

A recent libel case against famous rocker Courtney Love reveals the dangers of tweeting before you think. Love posted slanderous comments about a clothing designer to her Twitter account, and the designer countered by suing for defamation.

Reality television star Kim Kardashian also faced a lawsuit in recent months after tweeting damaging claims about a Miami doctor’s weight loss diet.

These cases are among the first of what could be many cases involving online defamation. A Twitter libel lawsuit filed by a Chicago realty group against a tenant for tweeting about apartment mold was thrown out by a judge for being too vague.

The message here: you do not have to be a celebrity to be sued for defamation on social networking sites.

While the celebrity cases have not been resolved, it is important that people educate themselves on libel and how to avoid it online.

Although the burden of proof lies on the individual claiming to be defamed, a quick glance at tweets and Facebook status updates can reveal harsh words that could be considered slanderous and unfounded.

Social networking sites create a broad array of new opportunities for people to connect and communicate. Such convenience comes with great responsibility.

People need to pay attention to the things they post and the ramifications of defamatory comments.

“Facebook Code of Conduct”

“Twitter Terms of Service”

Edited By Christine Mahar

Belgium Boots the Burqa

SOCIAL ISSUES

By Erica Fox

Belgium is currently working to ban the traditional Muslim garb, the burqa, in conjunction with separation of church and state, stating that the strong Islamic symbol is best left to privacy. The burqa is a symbol of Islam and part of a religious culture, and Belgium’s justification for the ban are inadequate.

The parliamentary committee agreed to outlaw the public wearing of burqas beginning May 30. It is now on its way to Belgium’s full parliament for a vote later this month. If passed, Belgium will be the first European country to do so. The bill would mean a ban imposed on wearing burqas that prevent women from being identified in streets, public gardens, sports grounds and buildings.

Women breaking the law would face small fines or imprisonment of one to seven days. Exceptions would be possible for some festivities if the government decides to grant them. In Belgium, the sight of women wearing burqas is rare, the measure would have a limited impact, but it would prove politically symbolic.

Banning the burqa in order to combat female repression would be a better justification for the new law; if this was included in why it would be banned I might be more open to banning the burqa. However, the burqa is a religious symbol and representation of culture: it should not be banned.

Check out Nicholas Kristof‘s opinion.

Edited by Loren Liden