The Growing "American" Hatred of Higher Education

 DISCLAIMER: I am writing this article fully knowing I am working in the Higher Education Field. I fully recognize my bias of supporting higher education. I also fully recognize that we must look at the criticisms of higher education to validate the importance of our economic labor producers.

As early as the 19th Century, higher education played a pivotal role in maintaining and creating economic markets by providing skilled labor. Even today, many desired positions with desired income levels require or prefer some sort of advanced degree above a high school diploma. Not only is this an economic necessity, it has also become part of the American middle class social status. That is, you may be looked down upon in many middle class circles if you do not have a degree. 

With the obvious benefits being stated, the United States must look at why there is a growing hatred for higher education institutions to calm down social tension as well as finding more effective and efficient ways of creating the skilled labor force. This, now more noticeable, hatred can be described by economic, political, and social reasoning. 

Economic

The economic reasoning for this hatred is quite simple noticing the economic hardship we are seeing today. Since higher education institutions have played a pivotal role in the labor markets, people are wondering why job vacancies are left unfilled due to lack of skilled laborers in those particular fields.

Political

The primary reason for any anger politically are taxes. Since tax dollars are used to support higher education and unemployment at a record high, Americans are upset that institutions are not living up to their pivotal role to appease the economic labor markets. A typical tax-hating citizen would wonder why they have to pay into a system that doesn't work.

Digging more historically in the political hatred, Americans, in general, have had an individualistic ethic. From the British Government to the New Deal of President Roosevelt, there has always been American anxiety of public expansion. When noticing the history of higher education, one can see a consistent growth of access to higher education, number of institutions, and federal/state programs that help increase access to all who want it. For example, the GI Bill (allowing funding for soldiers to go to college) was a significant policy that some regard the gate opening allowing many who, before then, could not go. One could tie the American anxiety of large public entities to the modern growth of higher education.

Social

Last but not least, there has been a modern social trend in which high school students are socialized by numerous social institutions to get a college degree, regardless of what students want to do. Adding that to the graduated college student struggling to find work in a sluggish economy, one can see the social uproar towards any higher education institution. 

With this being a general overview of criticisms, one can point out many specifics that could demonize higher education institutions. At the the end of the day, we have to realize the importance of higher education, as well as how we can accommodate the criticisms that have been highlighted in the bad economic times in the 21st Century. Higher education has become a beacon of opportunity for many students. Unfortunately, the more students have access to such opportunity, the more students have to separate themselves from the growing pack.

The Situationalist

Written by Mike Lampe

Obama and the "Buffett" Rule

As stated in a previous article, President Obama's Administration has provided details on the Jobs Plan he promised to release after Labor Day. This plan is set to cost around 300 Billion Dollars and seems to be round 2 of where Speaker Boehner and the President ended last time while discussing the debt ceiling. 

Besides the tax cuts that are set to give incentives for businesses to hire within the United States, media outlets are hooked on has been coined the "Buffett" Rule. Obama discussed the situation in which Warren Buffett, A successful investor on Wall Street, pays less taxes that his receptionist does.

Therefore, the Obama Administration proposed that when "Buffett"-like tax situations millionaires get into,  their taxes would default to the middle class tax rate. Thus eliminating the complicated minimum alternative tax as well as changing the concept of a "flat tax," only the flat tax would be for the wealthy income earners. 

In the article, Lampe: Its the Economy Stupid, Mike Lampe had recommended to get rid of the Bush Tax Cuts to the rich and implement a tax break that is more job specific. Although not getting rid of the Bush Tax Cut for the wealthy entirely, this approach sends a message of compromise and the perception that fresh ideas are going through the Oval Office at the White House. 

Although it is quite clear that Obama will not get everything he asks for, it will be interesting to see how the Republicans will respond to this bill. There is already the anti-tax movement of the Republican Party that suggest the government should not tax "job creators."

BREAKING NEWS: Huntsman joins Perry-Romney battle in Tonights Republican Debate

In the Reagan Presidential Library, the 2012 Republican Presidential Debate was held on MSNBC to determine who might be the next Republican Candidate to run against Barack Obama. There are three groupings of candidates that showed up at the debate; 1. the Governors, 2. The Opportunists 3. The Left Behind.

1. The Governors
A secondary title to this article was the battle of the Governors. Everyone knew and expected a back and forth between Gov. Perry from Texas and Gov. Romney from Massachusetts. There was a great interaction between the two on the most important issue, job creation. The exchange argued the rankings of each state while they were in office. However, another Gov. Huntsman from Utah gave Perry and Romney a run for their money. After the small exchange, Huntsman pulled a fast one and shared that his state was #1 in job creation during his administration.

2. The Opportunists
Of course, I would have to say that the three governors took the main stage. Now for those who I would consider to be on the side "free stage," I put Michele Bachmann and Herman Kane. Michele Bachmann was putting an aweful amount of time talking about Obamacare, especially during the job creation discussion. Did she not remember how the Democrats lost the congressional elections is 2010? (Focusing more on health care than on job creation/economy)

3. The Left Behind
Although I called Ron Paul the winner of the first Republican Debate, I'm surprised to see him somewhat off his game tonight. Since the whole field was somewhat hostile, Ron Paul's normal strategy was overshadowed. Santorum was not strong and Gingrich is known not to have a good foundational campaign for Republicans to throw support at him.

SUMMARY:
- Perry will remain the front runner, but Romney also took impressive swings
- Huntsman may get a bump in the polls for being on par with the other front runners
- Bachmann and Paul will diminish more in polls
- Herman Cane 9-9-9 Tax Plan was catchy and may stick.

Lampe: Its the Labor Markets Stupid... (Obama announces Jobs Plan after Labor Day)

Prior to the new Jobs Plan President Obama is set to announce after Labor Day, the un- and underemployed people in the United States are asking, 'what have you done for us lately?' With unemployment at over 9%, both Democratic and Republican officials are trying to pitch the failure of the other party.

Let's face it, the Republicans are being hypocritical by slashing social programs and fundraising machines from Democrats (unions) without touching revenues; and Democrats are asking to keep key governmental programs without putting much of a fight to keep revenues (taxes) on the table.

But all this bickering does not solve the issue at hand. Yes, the federal budget will help ease political uncertainty in the markets, but it will not do much to increase employment as dramatically as the public wants. Although the Republicans' minds are in the right place, they are not thorough in their tax cut approach for the high income earners.

Would it not be a fair compromise to replace the high income tax break for a tax break specifically for companies employing people in the United States?

MAKING IT SIMPLE: Remember in school where we learned the basic process of our economy. You had the banks, industries, and the laborers. The bank would loan money to the industries to invest in their businesses. After the business is set up, they would pay employees to run the business. When the employees get paid, they go back to the banks and industries to start the process over again and expand the economy.

The question for our time is this, 'Are we becoming too efficient?' If we are not giving people the opportunity to earn money then spend it in the US Economy, does that mean the economy slows down because goods and services are not being purchased by the consumer powerhouse of Americans?

My three points of what I would ask President Obama to do:
1. Expire the tax cuts to the higher income brakets
2. Reform former tax cuts into a job-creating tax cut
3. Initiate these steps in your new jobs plan


Blog/Article by the Situationalist - Mike Lampe

The American Dream

I was able to experience the Fire Over the Fox in Green Bay to honor our independence day (July 4th). It was an excellent site to show how far we have come as a country. As many of you may know, we consider ourselves the land of the free and home of the brave. We have also become a culture where we scream "AMERICA!" everytime something cool occurs that just happens to be patriotic as well.

After seeing the fireworks, I also started thinking about numerous articles and commentaries about how the United States is on the decline from its world hegemony. Could it be possible? Of course it could, but I think we are far from it. People think that China will take us over in the near future, not realizing that our free trade agreement with them is the only reason why they have as much manufacturing labor market share. Along with the economic downturn, people forget how we became a super power in the first place.

This is the point where I talk about "our founding fathers," the three words passionate conservatives love using. Our ancestors were somewhat social rejects of their respective homeland. They saw going to the New Americas as a chance to live they want to live and become successful. Although the great migration to the United States happened a long time ago, we are continously seeing a reenactment.

As each generation goes by, a group of people from distant lands are getting austricized for living the way they want to live. Think about it! It started with the Europeans (British, Germans, Dutch, Irish, etc.) who immigrated to the States. Currently, you are seeing Latinos,Eastern Europeans, and South East Asians trying to find the same American Dream that Western Europeans saught for in the found years of this country. Due to our involvment with current wars, you will probably see an influx of Middle Eastern immigration.

This refreshment of new cultures and new market opportunities are what makes the United States strive. Along with the new cultures, this country brings in people who knows what it's like not to have the opportunity to succeed. If we limit this constant refreshment, we lose our niche of being the greatest country in the world. I'm not saying we need to have an immigration policy that makes sure our borders are safe, but we cannot have such a strict policy that it denies the American Dream to so many people.

BREAKING NEWS: Recall Elections Over in Wisconsin

It is official! Tonight marks the last of the recall elections in which two out of the six Republicans lost their seats to Democratic Recall candidates. The two Democrats up for a recall election have won both their seats back.

Both sides are declaring victory, with the Republicans stating that the four/six recall wins shows Wisconsin is not as upset about the collective bargaining as the Unions are portraying. The Democrats are declaring victory considering they did win two seats which means there is momentum for Democrats in the 2012 Election Cycle. History was made with State Senator Holperin (D) being the first state senator to have won two recall elections while serving office.

My Analysis: Considering Recall Elections are rarely won by the opposite party challenger, I believe this shows the Democrats (in Wisconsin) have a slight advantage going into the 2012 Election Cycle. However, I believe it will be a very close race. If I had to place my bets on the future elections tonight, I would see more Democrats winning in slight margins.

Of course that would determine on what happens between now or then. There could be a Howard Dean moment or the economy could sink in a double dip recession. However, a recent USA Today/Gall Up Poll suggested that there was a bigger drop in Republican Support vs. their Democratic counterparts. On top of that, Warren Buffett went on Charlie Rose recently discussing how Corporate America is starting to pick up the pace to recover. He describes the economy being hindered by the slowness in the housing market.

Also, New numbers show that Americans in general have been paying off their own debts as well as saving more than previously expected. In 2001, it was reported that Americans in general saved a mere 1% of their income. Last month, the general savings rate for Americans are at 5% of their income. This could suggest a better than expected turnout heading into the holiday season.

Lastly, although I am sure Unions will push forward for a Recall Election for Gov. Scott Walker, I do not believe the Recall Elections the past two weeks show a minimal return on investment for an expensive unusal election cycle.

Until next time,
The Situationalist.

Lampe: Expect a Debt Ceiling Vote Late Sunday Evening

Heres the scoop since yesterday:
- Boehner's plan cuts $838 Billion in Spending
- Reid's plan cuts a little over $2 Trillion in Spending
- Both plans have little chance passing both houses

However, as Chris Matthews put it, "the pre-game" strategies are now over and the real negotiations begin. As reported yesterday morning, the tea-party freshmen Republicans reluncantly got their "asses" in line (Boehner said it, not me). In this time of constant political positioning for candidate campaigning, it only makes sense that a grand deal will happen in the final hours of Sunday Evening, hours before the opening bell of the markets begin to panic, or sigh in relief. I believe a repeat congressional performance of the health care bill will happen with the debt ceiling vote.

According to a recent poll, it seems like Obama is winning the rhetoric on this issue of compromise (56% of Americans Agree) with the Democrats holding their guns with the "shared sacrifce" anti-tax for the rich strategy and the Republicans trying to blame the President for lack of leadership. Hopefully the political theatre will die down considering the tea party policy shift on the debt ceiling issue.

Considering some bill will pass that has the debt ceiling saving us from credit rating catastrophe, I start to wonder if the debt ceiling debate should be part of the political arena. Just like the interest rates and printing money, shouldn't the debt ceiling be considered on the same circumstances. After all, if we do not raise the debt ceiling, global economic calapse is highly likely. Therefore, I believe that the debt ceiling should be under the Federal Reserve, the entity that allows our economic power to flow freely without any governmental disruption.

Although, for the markets' sake, we can get this debt ceiling crisis done earlier, these modern political times trends to the likeliness of last minute politics. Where the last bill will likely be the foundation of the grand compromise. If you listen to the news today, you are hearing that a 'new bill' is in the works. Let's see what that bill is... Didn't someone mention 'grand compromise'?