Spitzer has got a plan...

Governor Spitzer has this plan; I read about it in an editorial. Spitzer wanted to try to make New York’s highways safer by issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. However, there has been great opposition to this plan from New York legislators and presidential candidates. But the bottom line is that the nation has to deal with immigration, but the reform is going to have to come from Washington and its not going to happen overnight. In the meantime, governors can make the best of the current system. In this case, Mr. Spitzer is trying to make certain there are safe drivers behind the wheel of every car. More than 40,000 people die in car crashes in the United States every year and more than 3,000 of them from New York State. Mr. Spitzer had recently announced that New York would join eight other states that do not require licensed drivers to prove that they are in the country legally. Instead, these people will need to prove exactly who they are, that they can drive safely, that they have car insurance, and that they live in New York State. Critics think that the plan is a threat to national security. But as the governor outlined in a speech on Friday, the plan would give faces and addresses to many of the one million people who are not here legally. It would also make it way more difficult to get more than one license.

In my opinion, the critics of this plan cannot be frustrated with this plan in particular as much as they are simply frustrated with Washington and their failure to deal with the issue of immigration in general. This is understandable. However, I do not think that there great concern over immigration in general should keep this plan from being implemented. This plan would bring so much needed safety to the streets. I say that we look at this plan on its own, recognize its potential and say yay to Spitzer!

Nepotism: Getting Hilary Clinton into the White House?

I read an editorial a few weeks back in the New York Times that introduced to me the idea of the Clinton “dynasty”. It maintained that America is currently divided into two groups: those who think that after 16 years of Hilary pushing herself onto America, its time to reject her, and those who think that after those 16 years, the public will finally just give in to her. In his new book, “The Evangelical President,” Bill Sammon interviewed President Bush about the 2008 election. Mr. Bush said that Hillary Clinton would beat Barack Obama, because she is more well-known and therefore can raise more money, implying that it is her connections from her husband that will get her the presidency in the end. This is how our current president thinks that our future president will be chosen, by their connections, by the amount of money their name warrants? This is not promising. This would be the second time that the "Clinton dynasty" succeeds the Bush one. The author compared the current Clinton dynasty to an earlier generation, which had the Roosevelt and Kennedy dynasties. Now, 116 million Americans, nearly 40 percent of the nation, have never lived when there wasn’t a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. That is weird. The Clintons have tried to combat this idea of the “dynasty”. Hilary is constantly making the statement that she is running on her own, that she is going to the people on her own.

Personally, I think that to attempt to fight nepotism would be to fight a battle that cannot ever be won. Maybe it is true that without the connections that she has made, Hilary would not be running for president. But then, nepotism exists in every area of America. Think about the entertainment industry and school acceptance, just to name two. Ultimately, I was not convinced by this editorial's argument against Hilary Clinton. Discussing nepotism is not what will help us to determine her competency, in fact I think it is a disservice to Hilary and shows a total disregard for a lot of the hard work that she has done to get herself where she is and so the goal has to be to look to other areas to judge her competency.

Odyssey: The Prolonged Adolescence

I read this editorial this week that I thought was quite interesting for us especially as seniors. In all actuality, when next year rolls around, this will be the first time in our lives that we really have some options about how to spend our time and what direction we will take. We are legally adults and yah the chaminade kids will all go to college because we are preconditioned for this fate. But we don't have to. If we wanted to, we could just sort of float...in limbo.

In this editorial, the author claims that there is an emerging "limbo", a new life phase that has emerged in the United States. There used to be four common life phases: childhood, adolescence, adulthood and old age. This emerging life phase is in this article referred to as the "Odyssey", a decade of wandering between adolescence and adulthood. People in their twenties are taking breaks from school, living with friends, going from relationship to relationship. They are in a sense trying different lifestyles on for size. But parents get anxious, they see this transitioning phase getting longer. Where is these kids’ direction? They are marrying later, having kids later, finding permanent employment later. This editorial in the New York Times reported that "In 1960, roughly 70 percent of 30 year olds had moved away from home, were financially independent, were married and had started a family. By 2000, fewer than 40 percent have done these things"...

It is no coincidence that this new phase is emerging now, it has everything do with modern conditions. The best social scientists have been trying to understand this new life phase. Their work concluded that this period revolves around the “spirit of fluidity”. Kids are trying to get away from the tightly structured childhoods that they have forever known up to this point.

How is this at all political? Well, this "spirit of fluidity" has reached the job market as well as social life. These people are not just slacking off. There is such intense competitive pressure currently in our nation and not enough opportunities; these people are discouraged.

Let's look into the future. What will this phase mean in 20 years? People are living progressively longe thanks to technology, which means that they will be staying in the job market longer. The population will continue to grow. This means that job opportunities will continue to be scarce and if there is a job available, it will not be paying well. There is no way that the government's priorities and policies will not be affected by this trend which is why I felt that it was so important to share this theory with you. When it is presented in this way, it really does seem that teenagers are the future.

What Happened to America's Piggybanks.

Let's just say I wouldn't want to be that kid who was supposed to inherit his family's piggybank manufacturing company. Yep folks, piggybank-making has become a dying art in this country today, where the idea of saving money has become foreign. And just like that kid, you know that same one who will be shutting down his family's piggybank business any day now, Hilary Clinton is not pleased about the whole piggy-bank thing.

On September 28, 2007, Hilary Clinton, who is increasingly being referred to as the leading democratic presidential candidate for the 2008 election, spoke at a forum sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus. At this forum, Hilary Clinton made a particularly intriguing suggestion that every child born in the United States should receive a $5,000 “baby bond” from the government. She liked the idea of being able to give every baby of America a little something that can grow over time. Hold on now...she is suggesting we...save money...you mean...let that cash spend enough time in the bank that it will...gasp...increase!!! This kind of a bond could then be used to help a young person who has finished high school at eighteen to help pay for their college education. They could even use this money to put a down payment on their first home... the way things are going they will be able to put a down payment on a lovely doorknob.

To be honest, the program did sound extremely appealing, but then again I have a soft spot for cute little babies. However, I could not help but notice that Mrs. Clinton did not estimate the cost of this program or give any information on how the program would be financed. There are four million babies born in the United States each year; we are talking a lot of money. Not to mention that this would be a long-term deal. Even if that money was given to the next batch of babies, the turn-around time is going to be no less than 18 years. How is that kind of money gonna get to the millions of cute little babies and what issue is going to suffer because of such a long-term endeavor?

Through this proposition, Hilary Clinton was also making a statement about the clear distinction that exists in our country between those wealthy people, who are given all kind of tax incentives to save and the average person, who can’t afford to do that. I believe that in past decades, there has been a tradition in America of savings. But today, this becomes harder and harder to maintain as college tuition skyrockets and houses become more expensive. Forget about having more than enough, people just hope to have enough in the moment. This to me is sad and for this reason I welcome Hilary Clinton's proposal and simply ask: How are we gonna make it happen Hil?