A Bold Move

On Wednesday April 20^th 2016 Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew announced a makeover that plans on making a bold historically symbolic statement. In a letter to the American people which can be found on the U.S. Department of Treasury website, Jacob J. Lew announces his plans for the new $20, $10 and $5 notes. He proposes that the portrait of Harriet Tubman will be featured on the front of the new $20. In his letter he states that “The decision to put Harriet Tubman on the new $20 was driven by thousands of responses we receieved from Americans young and old.” Such a big step is being taken a century later in our government and I couldn’t help but wonder does having Harriet Tumban on a bill make a big difference?

After putting a good amount of thought and reminding myself all the good Tubman has done I realized it makes a big difference. Historically, countries have used their currency to make sure everyone is aware of who’s important and who’s in charge. We till this day have seven white men on seven notes representing our diverse and welcoming nation. It seems only fair to make a change and honor women, especially in this time period where we have a woman running for presidency. This only shows that women in general have come a long way fighting for their rights. If the United Kingdom can put its queen on every single bill, incorporating women into our notes only seems like a necessary realignment of our symbols and our professed values. Though, I personally do prefer a modern figure on the note, its makes sense why Harriet Tubman is the chosen one. She is someone who is known by people of all age. Since elementary you are taught about the honorable Harriet Tubman and it’s a name and a person you can never forget after.

Blog Response

I found Alyssa Villalobos post “College Education for Inmates" on her blog "The United States Government 2016" quite interesting because I myself had took on a subject quite similar. I could not agree more when it comes to reshaping an inmate before releasing them into the real world. She did a really well job in laying out the issue the side she chose and the proper statistics and facts to back up her position as to why College education is important for inmates. I personally am a firm believer that the people re entering our world from the prison world should be prepared to re establish their life, they should at least have the option to even if they are bound to get locked up again, the few that want a new start should be able to stand up on their feet again and be intellectually capable to do that. With how fast our technology is expanding and changing imagine being isolated for five years and being introduced to it all at once. It is simply terrifying. What I admired most about this post is how Alyssa backed up her position and constructed a convincing argument.

Government Daily: "Land of the Free" ?

Government Daily: "Land of the Free" ?

"Land of the Free" ?

        With the number of incarcerated increasing again, it’s really hard to call United States the “land of the free”. It has had the reputation of having the highest prisoner population rate in the world. And then you begin to wonder, what’s the purpose of keeping so many people in prison, and whether out national government values retribution or rehabilitation.

       On the United States Department of Justice website it says “More than 650,000 ex-offenders are released from prison every year, and studies show that approximately two-thirds will likely be rearrested within three years of release.” So if the U.S has this information, how come there isn’t a visible change? It seems as if our prison system focuses more on pushing problems under a rock instead of acknowledging it and solving it. I understand that a murderer deserves punishment but someone who is in there for drug abuse due to being raised in an unfortunate environment, deserves help and rehabilitation. The people that are released should be able to come back as better civilians rather than people that are simply expected to go back to jail. The government should make it a priority to invest money into programs within prison systems that help inmates for the better. If people find this to be an unnecessary funding then think of how it affects the society. If these inmates are released and not treated they will only hurt people and cause more complications.

    However, as many years worth of stats have shown, the U.S government only seems to find wasting money on wars and military reasonable. I mean, not like America has any other major problems that could use the time and money, right?

Government Daily: Presidential Primary

Government Daily: Presidential Primary

Presidential Primary

On the America blog I found an article by Jon Green titled “How much does primary turnout tell us about general election turnout? Not much.” The argument Jon Green is presenting in his blog is that “Republicans want to believe that having higher turnout in primaries means that they will have higher turnout in the general election.” However Jon Green goes on to prove that is not true and he supports his argument by showing that there is very little evidence to support this conclusion. His evidence is strictly statistics from previous primaries and general elections, which show no correlation between the two. “In 2000, Republican primary turnout exceeded Democratic primary turnout for the first time ever, and yet Democrats won the popular vote.” This shows that even if one parties turnout is higher it doesn’t necessarily predict the general elections results. Jon Green also has a background in politics and comes with a B.A. in Political Science, which makes him credible. Jon Green also explains why turnout is what it is in the parties. Green claims that Hilary is portraying the same scenario that took place in 2012 with Mitt Romney. He states that Hilary just like Romney may not be the most inspiring candidate but she is the “Prohibitive favorite” for the democratic nomination. He also explains why Trump is dominating the republicans. According to Jon Green the “ Trumps dominance in the nominating contests is being under cut by the fact the Republican Party is desperately trying to deny him a majority of pledged delegates heading into the convention.” But once again these results do not predict the General Election.

            Jon Green's intended audience was not any specific party supporter but overall any voters. His purpose isn’t to bash on either or party but instead explain a misguided theory. Also, to remind all voters that primaries don’t mean much and that the general election can change everything so voter turnout should only increase. After reading this you don’t really have a choice but to agree with Jon because he supported his argument with enough evidence and logic.

            

Government Daily: Campus Decisions

Government Daily: Campus Decisions