«

»

Apr 04

11th Issue New Voice For Politics

11th Issue – New Voice For Politics

 

In this Issue

When the Children Cry, the Government Must Answer Only the government can solve this crisis and save the day

Government Gun Control Why it is necessary to take weapons away from those who cannot handle the responsibility

Why are Young People Not Involved in Politics? A case study of failure

 

When the Children Cry, the Government Must Answer

 

Lesley Stiegle
Every year as summer heats up, the same human rights issue comes to the forefront. During the sweltering summers, countless children have to do without. They are forced to endure the heat without the most crucial of necessities. Only the most cruel and callous would dare to question their need, yet some do. The time has come to take a stand and end the suffering of millions upon millions of children. The time has come to listen to their cries. We must provide the children with what they so desperately crave during those roasting hot summer days; the time has come to supply them with ice cream. Action has to be taken now, for this is not just an issue for the youth of America; this is an issue that effects all ages, ethnic groups, genders, and sexual orientations. For it is not just I who screams to have this need met, it is all of us. I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream.

There is of course only one way that this yearning for ice cream can be satisfied, the United States Federal Government will have to nationalize all ice cream production and distribution to provide affordable ice cream for all Americans. A single parlor system, where the government owns every ice cream store, is the obvious solution to ensure that every American remains satisfied on a hot summer day. A new federal department, the department of Ice Cream Equality (ICE), will of course need to be created. Some might wonder how hiring tens of thousands of people to create this new agency will decrease the cost of ice cream production, but one simply needs to trust the government; after all, government never causes problems, it solves them.

After the Federal Government’s ICE department takes over the ice cream industry, the entire ice cream experience will be transformed for the consumer. This will occur because millions of new people, who were not purchasing ice cream before, will show up for their subsidized government ice cream. The first change will be noticed by people when they go to pick up their ice cream. Such an increase in demand will result in people spending a great deal of time waiting in line, because there are not enough ice cream stores to accommodate the new increase in demand.

After people have waited for hours in line, they will experience some of the other changes. ICE will have to change the recipe for ice cream. The main reason for this change is supply and demand. An increase in demand for ice cream production will decrease the supply of ice cream ingredients. As the supply decreases, the demand, and hence cost, for ice cream will go up. In order to keep up with the increase in demand, while at the same time keeping down the cost of ice cream, ingredients will have to be replaced with cheaper, artificial ingredients with funny sounding names like magnesium stearate. The ingredients will also be changed to reflect the federal government’s fetish for healthier food options. Chocolate will become a banned flavor, but do not worry; it will be replaced by government approved flavors like broccoli.

Some might not like the idea of having to wait longer for a lower quality product than what they currently enjoy, but take heart; it is not like the Federal Government is drastically changing a truly crucial industry like health care. That would be absurd.

 

Government Gun Control

 

Mark Mattingly

 

Most people do not intentionally try to harm themselves; however, there are times when our actions do not take us down the road to our intended destination. This can occur, for example, when a person purchases a gun. There are many reasons for owning a gun; one of the best is personal safety. If a person lives out in the country or in a high crime neighborhood, waiting for the police to arrive when someone is breaking in and hoping for the best is probably not a good strategy if one prefers to stay alive. Therefore, in such situations, owning a gun is a good idea.

Despite their positive uses, there are times when owning a gun can actually backfire. If a person does not know how to use a gun, they should not have one, because they are dangerous. When people do not know how to use a gun, they turn a useful tool into an accident waiting to happen. This occasionally happens on gun ranges when a novice comes to shoot his pistol for the first time. At first glance, the casual observer can see that the novice has no idea what he is doing, but the novice thinks that he is a combination of Dirty Harry, Rambo, and the Terminator. The novice lets a few shots fire, and bullets go everywhere but the target. After the smoke clears, it is apparent that the only thing that the novice was able to hit was himself. The novice had good intentions, but ended up shooting himself in the foot.

The United States government is much like the novice on the gun range; their goal is to use the military to defend the country, but in the end, they end up shooting the country in the foot. The military is a really big gun and should only be used as a weapon of last resort. Unfortunately, many presidents come into power and they want to go to the proverbial shooting range and take a few shots with their new toy. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue; both parties have fired off more than a few rounds. The problem is that both parties do not have a healthy respect or understanding of the consequences of using the military. Both parties at least have a slight understanding that military action leads to a loss in lives, but they seem oblivious to the economic impact.

This year on April 15th American citizens are going to have to pay their income taxes or be in some serious trouble with Uncle Sam, but this was not always the case. The first income taxes in the United States did not occur until 1862. The government did not need any income taxes until the outbreak of the civil war. If there was no war, there would have been no need for taxes. After the war ended, the need for taxation ceased and so did the taxes in 1872.

Eventually in 1916, progressives were able through the 16th amendment to bring about a new income tax. At first, it was very small; the top tier was only taxed 7% of their income, and very few people paid any taxes at all. This all changed after the outbreak of World War I.  In order to fund the war, the top rate for income tax was raised a little bit to 77% of their income. Seventy seven percent might seem a bit steep, but it is a steal compared to the 94% rate for the top margin of tax payers during World War II. It should be noted that this 94% rate was not simply a onetime lapse in judgment. During the Korean War, the top marginal rate was set to 92% in 1953 and remained in the 90s until 1964. Now one must ask, if you are only able to keep less than 10% of what you earn, what is the point of working?

There are of course times when a country must go war, but politicians should realize the economic impact of wars. If they do not, then they are likely to do more economic harm than good. Until they learn this lesson, it might be wiser to take the gun out of the hands of a novice and prevent them from doing any additional harm.

Why are Young People Not Involved in Politics?

 

J. A. Gedra

 

As editor of a newsletter with the moniker of New Voice For Politics, I am frequently asked why so few young people are interested in politics. Many elder statesman and political consultants are flabbergasted by the apparent apathy of “kids these days.” Both political parties desperately call out to the next generation, but few seem to be in a hurry to return the phone call.

A perfect example of their lack of political engagement can be observed through two particular political organizations, the Young Republicans and Young Democrats. These two groups that most people have never heard of are supposed to be the place where 18 – 40 year-olds go to dip their toes into the political pool and develop into the leaders of tomorrow. To be fair, some of these organizations are more active than others: in particular, Manhattan, Indianapolis, Atlanta, and a number of cities in California and Florida have very active Young Republican chapters. But in most cities, these organizations are so miniscule that one needs an electron microscope to find them.

A good case study is the Louisville Young Republicans. Louisville/Jefferson County Kentucky had a population of 741,096 people according to 2010 Federal Census. Between the ages of 20 to 34, there are 153,743 individuals. If only 1% of this age group were to be active in the Louisville Young Republicans, 1,537 people would attend meetings. While 1% of their target age group seems like a reasonable goal, the reality is something else completely. The actual number of members at their February 2014 meeting was 7. There were actually more guest speakers than members, which was a little awkward for all involved.

There are a number of factors to explain why this organization has dwindled. Poor leadership, under the chairmanship of Andrew Schachtner, lack of regular meetings, and not working with any political campaigns probably have contributed to the withering away of this organization, but these are not the main reason for this group’s demise. The main reason why this group has shrunk is the main reason why most political groups remain small and insignificant, a lack of fun. People have work and school obligations, family demands, and a number of other requirements that they must attend to throughout the week. At the end of the day, they do not wish to do more work. No one has ever said after a long day, “if only I could knock on doors of complete strangers in order to pass out political pamphlets; then my day would be complete.” What they want is to do something that is enjoyable.

At this time, the Louisville Young Republicans are anything but fun. Chair Andrew Schachtner might as well be renamed Captain Buzzkill. Attend a Louisville Young Republicans meeting, and a person can directly observe the boredom. If a reader is unable to attend, one can achieve the same experience by painting a wall and watching it until it is no longer wet. But for those who can attend, be prepared and bring a pillow. The meeting starts with Andrew blabbering about something that most people could care less about, because it has little impact on anything that they care about. Most people cope by tuning him out and trying to come up with a suitable excuse to miss out on the next meeting. This is followed by a speech from some politician about some topic that is equally irrelevant to most of their lives. When the politician is finished, the gathering is over, people wake up those who have fallen asleep, and the group does nothing until the next fun filled meeting. It is simply shocking that more people do not come out for these lively extravaganzas.

Now, can every political activity be a fun filled party? Probably not; but some of them should be. When every group activity is boring, dull, and filled with drudgery, it should be no surprise that the only member left is the boring Chair, Andrew Schachtner.

If both political parties want to have people participate in their organizations, they need to make their events enjoyable. The current political meeting does not appeal to most people, let alone individuals in their 20s and 30s. Both political parties need to focus a little less on the political half of their name and more on the party aspect. If political leaders can bring fun into their organizations, they will start to bring in the next generation of voters.

Share

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>