Assessing the Issues: The Cost of Tuition

I don't know about you, but I'm sick of discussing health care (no awful pun intended). Therefore, I gladly change the subject today by looking at the cost of college education.

This topic emerged as the second-most important issue according to the survey. While I tried to capture as random of a sample as possible, many of my associates are close to my own age, and therefore, have particular personal interest in the cost of education.

I identify two major factors which define this issue. First of all, a traditional, four-year college degree is increasingly seen as the bare-minimum educational necessity. The college degree has taken over the role which the high school diploma once played. Second of all, college isn't free, and in many cases, is horrendously expensive. That's not even considering graduate school...

Education is an investment one makes in their future. Therefore, it makes sense that one pays something in exchange for credentials that will help him or her become more qualified for gainful employment. However, given the current economic situation in the world, receiving a college education has become more costly. This can result in greater barriers to many who want to make such an investment in their lives.

Colleges are affected by the economic downturn as well, and often choose to charge more for tuition to maintain previous budget levels. Well-paying jobs are not as abundant, especially for recent graduates with little work experience. A whole variety of problems spawn from this situation, including eternal students who rack-up far more student loan debt as they stall for time, as well as college graduates working in low-paying jobs.

So, how can we deal with the cost of tuition? As always, there are many things that can be done on the part of the individual to make college more affordable. There are creative alternatives and solutions, such as taking as many credits as possible at more affordable community colleges, then transferring the credits to a larger university for the last year or two to complete one's degree.

Another oft-overlooked yet simple option is to get the college degree with as few credits as possible in as little time as possible. Instead of playing around with multiple majors, get the degree and stop paying for extra credits. The vast majority of employers couldn't care less what your major or minor in college was.

Is there anything government can do that will still promote universal education yet also be financially and/or socially beneficial to all citizens? Probably so, but they might not be the kinds of things that you would get too excited about. Such issues and ideas are often overlooked, probably because the actual solutions are more just adjustments than systemic overhauls. I'll share a few possibilities here, and then I would love to hear from you.

One idea is a college system that rewards performance. For instance, the first year of college could be free for everyone at state schools. Students could be allocated up to a certain amount of credits for free, and then, following their first year, a graduated tuition rate could be provided based on how diligent they were in obtaining good grades. This could not only improve our curriculum and education system in general, it would reward good habits that could transfer into society-at-large.

Another idea I like is providing education in exchange for service to one's country or community. This is already available to members of the military, and to a lesser extent, to participants in volunteer programs such as the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps. It would be great to see volunteerism increase, with free college education being provided to those who give part of their lives to service. This could be both socially and financially beneficial to our nation.

Ultimately, like many things, smart educational choices are as much in our own hands as those of anybody else. The system may not need a complete overhaul, but there are certainly good ideas worth putting forward.

Moderates in the News: New York's 23rd District Special Congressional Election

Well, the 2009 election season is over. There are always two characteristics which are bound to define the elections taking place in the year following a presidential election. First, people don't care near as much about these elections. Media attention is much lower, and most people are still three years away from being ready to get excited about politics again. Second, people are bound to view these elections as sort of opinion poll of the president's first year in office. I always thought this was somewhat unfair to the actual credentials of the candidates themselves, but this seems to be the standard drill. What can you do?

While this year was no exception, there was one interesting race which caught particular media attention and which, according to the news reports, had the word “Moderate” all over it. I am referring to the special off-year congressional election took place in New York's 23rd district. The majority of this particular district, I was surprised to learn, had been represented by only Republicans since before the Civil War. Considering how much parties have changed back and forth since that time, this consistency is remarkable. Their previous congressman, a moderate Republican named John McHugh, had been appointed by President Obama to serve as Secretary of the Army. Per the terms of the New York state constitution, a special election was held to fill the vacant seat.

While this district had indeed been considered a Republican stronghold, New York Republicans are typically not your run-of-the mill super-conservative type of Republican that many like to use for stereotyping purposes. Like most places in America, New York is full of Moderates. Therefore the county party chairmen, recognizing the spectrum of voters in their district, put forth a trusted moderate candidate, Dede Scozzafava, in order to continue holding the longtime Republican seat.

Shortly after her nomination as the Republican candidate, Scozzafava began to experience significant backlash from Extremists who identify with the Republican party. A third party candidate, Doug Hoffman, emerged in the race, representing the “Conservative Party of New York.” This party is often seen as conservative counter-weight to the more moderate Republicans in New York. The race gained significantly more media attention as a well-known Republican celebrity, former Governor of Alaska and former Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, showed up in New York to make a surprise endorsement of Hoffman, rather than Scozzafava. Several other prominent Republicans followed suit, though others continued to support their own party's candidate or remained aloof.

Now, unlike some, I don't view breaking ranks with one's party as a political crime. Indeed, putting policy priorities ahead of party loyalties is one of the characteristics of a Moderate. However, in this case, I am disheartened by the actions of Republicans who made a move to push Scozzafava aside. Bascially, their decision was made in an attempt to “get the Moderates out of the party,” rather than representing moderate values themselves. The entire ordeal again highlighted the continuing philosophical debate among Republicans of whether Moderates would be welcomed into their ranks, or whether the Republican Party should be an “Extremists Only” establishment.

In the end, after polling third in pre-election surveys, Ms. Scozzafava withdrew from the race a week before election day, and threw her support behind Bill Owens, the Democratic candidate. Owens would go on to win the race, and the Republicans lost the congressional district that they had represented for over 150 years.

The moral of the story is this. Don't throw the Moderates under the bus. While I am not affiliated with the Republican Party, I would like to see both major parties be more open to Moderates, as such individuals represent a majority of Americans. I thought it was best expressed by Former Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, who said the following, when questioned why he had not supported Hoffman as many other Republicans were doing. “...you don't build something by subtraction. So we welcome people who agree with us on most issues. Some will be very conservative on some issues. Some will be less so on others. We welcome you into the party.”

I wish the Republicans the best of luck as they continue to define their party. I truly hope they will take the more inclusive approach, embracing moderate Republicans, rather than excluding them. Only time will tell how this saga will play out.

Defining a Moderate Part VIII: Democracy!

Throughout all of history, every society has had some type of government. Wherever there has been a group of people, laws and leadership have emerged. Certainly, not all of these governments are equal. Some have been quite elaborate and/or bureaucratic systems, while others have been less official. Some have been enthusiastically supported by their constituents, while others have at best been grudgingly tolerated. Some have been based on culture, divine right, or tradition, while others have been based on merit, need, or a myriad of other determining factors. The forms and philosophies behind all of these displays of governance indeed have varied greatly, but the fact that they have always existed have led most sociologists to conclude that “government” is an inevitable component of human society. There are always those that lead, and those that are led.

If you accept this idea that government was, is, and always will be, then you probably have interest in your own government being one that you can support as much as possible. There have been many attempts to create “a more perfect union” over the years. Of course, the efforts of the early leaders of the United States, who designed and introduced a new and revolutionary approach to government, being one of the most famous examples. Inspired in part by ancient manifestations of type of government called “democracy” found in Athens and Rome, the American Founding Fathers helped to usher in a new era of democratic evolution that continues to affect the entire world even until this very day.

A Moderate seeks for constant improvement of their government. While one might argue that democracy is not the absolute ideal form of government, it is widely believed to be the most realistic and applicable form of government most able to provide personal freedoms and equality. Therefore, Moderates are supporters of democracy.

There is, however, a common fallacy of mindset concerning democracy. Many label governments as being either democratic or non-democratic. Like most things in life, democracy is not an all-or-nothing deal. Any government can become more or less democratic at any given time. A government can even become more democratic in some areas, while at the same time becoming less democratic in others. A government need not even be an official “democracy” to shift along this continuum. It is important to remember that all governments, like the societies they lead, are constantly changing. Therefore, the level of democracy in government is also constantly changing.

Knowing and accepting this concept, it is easier to both support one's current government, while at the same time, recognizing that positive changes can still be made in the way the government works. But knowing this is only half of the battle. In addition to understanding how government change, a Moderate seeks to assist their government, so that these changes are truly helping the government become more democratic.

Naturally, there are debates about what “more democratic” actually means. And this is good – there are many ways to skin a cat when it comes to a better government. However, one of the founding principles that helps define democratic improvement is this: a government which provides an environment in which all voices are heard and considered equally. As this principle becomes more of a reality than just a theory, the levels of democracy in a government go up.

The next few installments of “Defining a Moderate” will get at the root, and help define some of the essential characteristics of a democracy. Our last installment, which spoke of citizen participation and engagement, goes hand-in-hand with democracy. Citizen participation is essential to functioning democracy, as government is always a reflection of the action of its constituents.

Democracy is worth our support. As Moderates, we recognize that our democratic values can be applicable to everyone, and seek to facilitate democratic freedoms in becoming more universally available.

A truly democratic system is supported by the Moderate, and only those who embrace moderate values can truly give full support to a working democracy. These two concepts are one-in-the-same.

Assessing the Issues: Health Care Part II

We last discussed health insurance reform, which according to the Most Important Political Issues survey was number one for readers. This week's issue was scheduled to deal with the cost of prescriptions, which was 20th according to the survey. However, since the health care debate continues to be a prominent feature of the current American political landscape, I wish to continue with a broader discussion of health care reform.

A few years ago I picked up a taxi in Los Angeles, and was thrilled to find that the driver was a Russian immigrant. For the next half-hour or so, we shared an intriguing conversation. Something he said has stuck with me ever since. He had lived in the USA for nearly 15 years, and said he enjoyed every aspect of American life and culture, save one. To paraphrase his words: “I don't understand how American society can make a business out of people's health.”

At the time, I hadn't considered the differences in health care models throughout the world. Unlike most countries, the United States' health care system is heavily concentrated in the private sector, despite large public-sector programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and TriCare.

While many feel that the private sector's grip on our health care system is too tight, the recent debate has shown that many others feel completely the opposite. Conversely, opponents to health care reform protest government-supported health care in any manifestation. They feel that health care should be completely out of the hands of the public sector.

This touches a much larger, more philosophical debate concerning the appropriate role of government in general. This question, when specifically applied to whether the private or public sector is better equipped to provide health care, quite possibly is key in determining the actual costs of health care. As stated before, Americans pay a startling high price for health care, an average of over $7,000 a year per citizen. The heart of the question comes down to this: “Is the government justified in regulating health care to make prices lower?” Another question: “Is health care more than just an optional service? Can the government ensure that our population is more healthy, and if so, would it promote our general welfare?” These questions are yours to consider.

I do have some questions of my own. If the government ultimately takes on a more significant role in our health care system, what will be done to ensure effectiveness? We have already spoken some concerning the pros and cons to regulation of the insurance industry. Pondering the issue, it seems evident to me that focusing on insurance alone won't solve the entire problem. In order to get at the root of the problem, reforms must deal both with the cost and availability of insurance, as well as the cost and availability of health care itself. Both are so heavily interconnected, that regulating one will require regulation of the other.

Many have suggested that, like the utilities industry, the health care regulation could ensure affordable access to everyone. In theory, this argument sounds great. However, unlike household utilities, “health care” in general represents very complex variety of services. How, and by whom, is it decided which medical services are necessary, and which are elective? I invite those more familiar with the health industry to chime in with suggestions.

However you look at it, regulating the health care system will not be easy. It will consist of thousands of mini-debates, extracted from throughout the entire issue. There will likely be hundreds of loop-holes, glitches, and other issues to be smoothed out as any new system is rolled forth. Make no mistake, regulating health care would likely entail a very complex system of rules and policies.

But take heart. Not everything that is worth it is easy. If we ultimately are able to provide more affordable access to health care to more Americans, and if we become a healthier people as a result, then consider that all this work might ultimately be for the better. After all, one of the fundamental principles of a nation's development is this: a healthier nation is a wealthier nation.

Moderates in the News: Max Baucus and Olympia Snowe

Today I would like to recognize two senators who have been in the news a lot lately due to their role in the ongoing attempt to create a mutually-satisfying bill for health care reform. The first is a Democrat from a swing-state, Montana's Max Baucus. The second is a Republican from a blue-leaning state, Maine's Olympia Snow.

Both of these Senators have been associated time and again with the Moderate label. This has led to a number of things, among them, the ability to work effectively across the aisle, and heavy criticism from Extremists at both poles as well. While I am not endorsing either of these two individuals, nor am I necessarily agreeing with any of their political positions, I would like to highlight how their actions have demonstrated that they indeed have earned the complimentary label of the Moderate.



Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, has worked to create a bill that is specifically acceptable to both Republicans and Democrats. One of the more controversial steps he has taken is the omission of a “public option” to health care, which, if included in a passed bill, would allow the government to create and sell their own medical insurance packages, thus helping to regulate prices in the private insurance industry through competition. Many Democrats, including Baucus himself, see a public option as a credible way in which insurance premiums might be reduced for all, thus making health insurance more widely available.

The plan, however, has drawn sharp opposition from Republicans and moderate and conservative Democrats as well, who feel that the federal government becoming a competitor in a traditionally private market would go against the principles of a free economy. Both sides make valid points, but the truth is, there is likely not enough support within congress to pass an overhaul bill including this public option.

Baucus has recognized this reality, and sought to make a compromise. Rather than insisting on a public option in his bill, he has eliminated this aspect of legislation, choosing to focus instead on other types of reforms which, hopefully, would eliminate barriers to health care.



His bill has been convincing enough to at least one Republican, Olympia Snowe. Snowe, though opposed to a public option, still recognizes the need for a health care system accessible by all Americans. As a result, she has been a key figure in negotiation over this bill, largely due to her willingness to negotiate with the Democrats. When the Baucus bill was being crafted, she was the lone Republican voter on the Senate Finance Committee who voted in favor of pushing the bill forward, after playing an active role in the crafting of the bill.

Despite whether you agree with the positions of these two senators or not, they have demonstrated some of the key characteristics that define a Moderate. 1) They were willing to put progress above party loyalties, working across the aisle. 2) They negotiated on interests, rather than fixing themselves on an immovable position.

Despite their work, they have drawn heavy criticism from Extremists on both sides of the spectrum, as is expected. There have been threats from Democrats to vote no on any bill that doesn't include a public option, and allegations from Democrats that Snowe has undue influence in the bill-crafting process (it's amazing what a willingness to compromise will do). Republicans have threatened, on the other hand, to vote no on any bill coming from the Democrats, no matter what it might contain, and have similarly complained of Baucus' role in the process. And of course, party loyalists on both sides have proclaimed that Baucus/Snowe are “not a true Democrats/Republicans” and thus should be booted from the party.

Again, despite one's view on health care, I wish to recognize these two politicians for their demonstration of moderate methods. I hope that others will recognize the value of moderate actions, and will work together to complete a reform package which will truly be of benefit to our nation.

Defining a Moderate Part VII: Civic Participation

Earlier, it was discussed how the moderate approach towards politics and policy is one which is focused on solutions, rather than promoting ideological loyalties, slinging mud, or incessantly yelping about perceived problems. The idea of civic engagement goes hand-in-hand with this idea.

During his inaugural address in 1961, President John F. Kennedy made a statement which would live on as one of the most famous presidential quotes of all time: “…ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” Though the concept is, on the surface, rather simple and perhaps has even become a bit cliché, it represents one of the most fundamental principles of democracy – citizen participation.

We are aware that the United States of America uses a system of representative government, or “representative democracy,” where we periodically elect leaders who best represent the values of their respective constituents. Then, these representatives theoretically seek to either make laws which best reflect these values (in the case of legislators) or they execute the laws as they stand (in the case of executives). Of course, this over-simplified description of representative democracy is in its ideal form. While it may be the only feasible way of democracy at this point, it does have limitations.

There is another element of democracy called “participatory democracy,” which, contrary to popular belief is not mutually-exclusive from representative democracy. This refers to a democracy in which the citizen has some influence in the political process. Often, we erroneously focus solely on voting when we speak of citizen participation. Some even encourage the “radical” concept of actually making educated decisions when voting. However, a participatory democracy concerns more than just elections. There are several important elements to a working democracy which, if strengthened, will result in an overall better working system.

When it comes down to it, effective democratic government institutions are wholly dependent on the support of their constituencies. The manner in which the government functions is a direct reflection of how the citizens participate in the policy-making process. If we consistently ask what our country can do for us, before looking seriously at what we can do for our country, we ignore the fundamental purpose that democracy serves in the first place – giving us an opportunity to have influence in how we are governed.

When it comes to citizen participation, there are a few important things to consider. First of all, individual participation is what it is. Many people are discouraged by individual participation, because they feel helpless or meaningless in how their participation will affect the outcome. In voting, for instance, one might feel that their vote means nothing, especially if they vote for the underdog in a state or district with heavy party loyalties. Nevertheless, we can never do more than our own individual effort. The current state of our government is in fact the collection of all of our individual efforts.

Second, the electoral process is only one small piece of the puzzle of civic influence. There are literally thousands of ways we can be involved in civic affairs, much more beyond mere voting or stumping for our preferred representatives. Some of these ways will be discussed later. They concern becoming an active participant in civil society organizations.

Anybody can become more involved in the development of our own democracy. In fact we all already are. Our action, or inaction, is making up a part of our government. As Moderates, however, active citizen engagement is an essential characteristic of how we view government. A Moderate always seeks to be aware of and to act upon opportunities to be part of the policy processes. When one is active in civic affairs in this manner, they truly do more for their country than those who would simply complain about the state of politics.

Assessing the Issues: Health Care Reform

Dear Readers,

As you may well have noticed, I have been somewhat absent during the past several weeks. Admittedly, adjusting to the new job and lifestyle has taken away much of my attention, and I've been looking for a way to readjust my habits for writing and posting. I hope that I can regain consistency with these articles over the next few weeks. In the meantime, thank you for your patience.

It may be a good thing, however, that I didn't write about this topic too quickly. As many of you are aware, the subject of health care reform has been a point of sharp contention among many Americans during these past few months as the government has sought to pass legislation that would in many ways overhaul much of the administrative capacity of health care in the United States.

During the “Most Important Political Issues” survey, it became evident to me that health care is an issue of high importance for many Americans. It was the number-one issue to survey-takers as a whole, which didn't surprise me, even before it became the most discussed issue in the news. Health care is clearly one of the top concerns we hold as Americans.

What I have been somewhat surprised by, however, is the response towards efforts at health care reform, both from the political parties and from the general public. I guess it never occurred to me how intensely attached Americans felt to both the issue and their own health. We have all witnessed how this issue has proven to be as divisive as any other.

Perhaps that is what I find most surprising of all. While people have all shared strong opinions about the issue, I have heard very few voices who are all-together against health care reform. For instance, I know of nobody who would be against the cost of health care being cheaper (well, maybe the CEOs of insurance companies or pharmaceutical corporations). I know of nobody who is against the idea of insurance being more accessible and affordable to those without it. I know of nobody who is against tort reform to curb excessive or frivolous malpractice claims (except maybe malpractice lawyers). If I am mistaken in this, feel free to enlighten me.

Ultimately, most people seem to agree on the fact that there is room for something to be done. We have seen time and again the startling facts about our medical system. For instance, the fact that each American spends an average of $7,000+ a year on health care, or the fact that over 40 million Americans are uninsured, and thus, effectively disenfranchised from most aspects of the health care system.

The disagreement comes in how these reforms might or should be addressed. I can understand where there would be some debate over how to effectively solve some of these problems. Especially in times of economic uncertainty, I can understand how many Americans might feel a bit leery about massive overhauls at a time of massive deficit and other economic and social needs of the country. At the same time, I understand why others would advocate the holistic approach to reform, seeing that the economic downturn would likely lead to an even more exclusive and expensive health care system. Those who see it as a potential crisis are not just basing their theories on speculation.

Nevertheless, it is important that all points are understood and considered. There have been too many, politician and citizen alike, who have unfortunately demonstrated a severe lack of moderation in their approach to this issue. There have been others, again politician and citizen alike, who have worked tirelessly to provide a moderate solution to the problem.

It is important that we remember to separate the ultimate goals from specific plans or possibilities. Many have become upset because their proposed solution has not been accepted. For instance, the debate over whether a “public insurance option” should be included has angered many on both sides of the issue. This is just one possible option. Remember that sustainable change often comes incrementally.

So, the health insurance debate continues. How do you feel it will pan out in the end? What would you identify as the ultimate goals, and what are some suggestions you feel are important in reaching those goals?