A response to this article:


College is viewed as a necessity, yet priced as a luxury.

The unaffordable price of college has become a national issue. The federal government has started countless programs to try to alleviate the burden of cost. The Washington Post lists just a few, "The Pell Grant program, but there’s also the American Opportunity Tax Credit, Stafford, PLUS, and Perkins loans, and the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit. Then there’s the tax-exempt status of scholarships and interest from state and local government bonds used to finance public higher education, as well as the deduction for charitable contributions to colleges and universities." Obviously, none of these programs have been largely helpful since the vast majority of college students end up in 5 figure debt.

Cooper Frank begins brainstorming some general ideas on how to reduce college tuition in his article "Free Education in America." He gives two general ideas. First, he suggests that instead of giving individual grants, the government should invest their funding directly into the school and set regulations on tuitions. Second, the actual system of learning in the classroom should be streamlined to be more effective and economical (e.g. online or hybrid courses). I strongly agree with both of his points but would like to expound on them a little.

On the first point, I would be quick to point out that there must also be individual grants alongside giving money straight to the college. Even with affordable tuition, there will still be hard-working students who cannot afford college without financial aid. However, I would suggest that college can choose whether to accept the government financial aid. If they do accept the aid, they must follow government restrictions. That way, if a college strongly disagrees with government regulations, they can chose to run independantly and accept students who don't want to go to a government regulated college. What these regulations are must be carefully watched and well contained. After all, we have seen what kind of job the government currently does in running the public school k-12 system.

Frank's second point is applicable now with little to no government involvement. The more studies that are done, the more we find that current educational system is largely ineffective both in lower and higher education. Our culture and world has changed in the past hundred years, yet we still use many of the same methods to teach. Often, these methods are overly expensive and used for a college or professor's personal gain. Frank gives an excellent example of the Rosetta Stone language learning program. It has been shown to efficiently teach a language to a large range of people, yet it is not accepted as a creditable course for most colleges. Granted, the Rosetta Stone program needs a few tweaks so that professors can test and check student's progress and ability before it could become creditable. Regardless, colleges are not investing funds into this or similar ideas. Progress is extremely slow moving in improving higher education with little to no contribution from the majority of colleges. Colleges must make a commitment to put aside any selfish gain and work towards cheaper tuition. We can't reduce any prices without the cooperation of the institutions themselves, textbook companies, and professors.

Cooper Frank's two ideas provide a good springboard for reforming higher education.

America The Broke

If I want to retire when I reach 65, I'm on my own financially. As I should be.
America is currently almost $18 trillion in debt, well over the debt ceiling set at $17.2 trillion just earlier this year. Not so far off is the day when the ceiling cannot just be raised and real cuts will be made. Eventually, social security retirement checks will not be sent out. Since I'm 49 years away from average retirement age, there is no doubt in my mind that day will come before I reach 65. But I view this as a good thing.
The social security fund provides some more essential programs, like financial aid for the disabled, but, on the whole, social security provides an average sum of $1,224 per month to retired individuals. Overall, the social security fund used $1.2 trillion in 2012.
Set up by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935, the social security organization generally takes a percentage of what you make and puts it into the social security fund. The money in the fund is then distributed largely to retirees. Basically, the government forces you to make a retirement fund for yourself and gives some of your money to those less able to make a retirement fund.
While I support many welfare projects, social security's main output is a ridiculous governmental involvement in a private affair - a retirement fund. As someone of the younger generation who will not benefit for social security checks, I am responsible to set up my own retirement fund if I want to retire. The government does not force me to set up a college fund or living arrangement fund. Why should it be in charge of my retirement fund?
While social security does some good things, it is largely a waste of taxpayer money

A response to this article:

 

I agree that government spending is largely excessive and often for selfish gain. With the national debt so high we cannot afford the current spending rate. Also, as you pointed out, many Americans are in need and could benefit from those federal dollars. However, your more specified critique on military spending seems extreme. I agree that military spending is often unnecessary and for selfish gain. Yet I would not go so far to say that the government spends so much on national defense purely, “to gain power and violate the citizens’ rights.” Historically, a country without military power quickly falls. In our safe bubble of relative American peace, we often don’t see the necessity of national defense. As a prosperous and large country, as well as a global political leader, it is vital that the United States maintains a sufficient military. Of course, at what point does the military reach “sufficient,” is the real question. Regardless, when addressing the topic of military spending we much keep in mind and speak of its essentiality.

America The Inefficient

With America's national debt at almost 17 trillion dollars currently, many are looking for ways to reduce that number by any measure, as they rightly should. After all, the restless American people continually insist on new and often expensive government projects. I would like to suggest one source of money possibly going down the drain -- the national, federal-run postal service, USPS. While numbers vary, the U.S. Postal Service announced in May of this year that they lost 1.9 billion dollars over the latest quarter, as reported in The Hill. Currently, the postal service is mandated to remain revenue-neutral, in other words, cover the costs of running and not make a profit. However, this system is obviously not working. Something must change.
Title 39 of the U.S. Code -- where most of the U.S. Postal service's regulations are set -- says, "The costs of establishing and maintaining the Postal Service shall not be apportioned to impair the overall value of such service to the people." Let us ask ourselves then, is the overall value of USPS 1.9 billion dollars?
In 2009, Gallup asked the question, "How important is it to you, personally, that the U.S. Postal Service continues to stay in business?" 76% of those polled said they found it very important. Since this was 5 years ago, numbers could've changed, but perhaps I am still part of the minority who would say that no, it is very unimportant and, in fact, harmful that USPS stays in business. If you are one of the majority opposing me, if you would, allow me to try and convince you.
USPS first began moving the mail on July 26, 1775 -- 239 years ago. It was created because a national form of communication was so large a project, only the national government could take it on. Obviously, since I am not mailing this to you, we seem to have reached a different way to provide written communication. Between the internet, SMS text, and telephone, national communication is not quite so large a project anymore. What about written communication? Since 1907 when UPS was founded, and then 1971 with FedEx, it has been shown that not only national but international written communication can be effectively delivered by a privatized company. While it does cost a little more to mail a letter or package by a private company, both UPS and FedEx runs much more cost-effectively because it is required to compete in the market and produce a profit.
The U.S. Postal Service delivers 212 billion packages, letters, etc. annually. In contrast, UPS delivers only 5 billion packages a year and FedEx 1.2 billion a year. That's quite a difference. However, since UPS also delivers to over 220 countries as opposed to USPS's one, I suggest that with proper transition, private corporations might be up to the challenge. With that much of a difference in current delivery, a transition from governmental to private shipping and mailing would be hard and carefully orchestrated but not impossible.
I only addressed a few of the many roadblocks in a transition to privatizing the US mail, and I would be unreasonable to suggest that government involvement will not be needed at least at first. Many also project that with the constant flailing of USPS, in a matter of years, it will shut down on it's own. Perhaps we might consider possible solutions, including privatization, now, before we are forced by its inefficient squandering of federal money.

America the Biased

 Allysia Finley recently wrote an opinion piece on California's new "parent trigger" system which allows half of the parents at a low-preforming school to institute changes. While she makes a good arguments and presents factual evidence, she is obviously writing to conservatives, considering her put down of liberals several times in the article. The obvious party preference casts shadow on the otherwise factual article on an under-addressed topic.
Finley presents some encouraging evidence. Three schools in California -- 24th Street Elementary, Weigand Avenue Elementary in Los Angeles, and Desert Trails Elementary in Adelanto -- have made changes using the parent trigger system since it's institution in 2010. The 24th Street Elementary and Desert Trails Elementary both converted to charter schools under the parent trigger. "Test scores have soared at the 24th Street school and Desert Trails in the year since they became charters, but scores at Weigand have flat-lined. The percentage of 5th graders rating proficient or advanced in science on the California Standardized Test (CST) at 24th Street rose to 65% from 21% in 2013 and to 47% from 12% at Desert Trails." Anytime a better education is given to the future generation, it is a cause for celebration.
After this, Finley begins her attack on teacher's unions and liberals. "Only this limited data is available because union allies in the legislature canceled the CST in English and math this year... Democrats say they didn’t want students to take two separate sets of exams. Their real goal was to make it harder for researchers to compare student performance on the old state tests with the new Common Core exams." Who knows what Democrats' (quite an encompassing term here) "real goal" was.
However, looking at Allysia Finley's argument separate from her bias, the parent trigger system has caused excellent changes to the schools affected by it. It is also true that the teacher's unions have tried to prevent the parent trigger from having any real power. While I understand the need to defend teachers, especially since they have one of the most important jobs possible, shouldn't the parents and the teacher's unions have the same goal: bettering the public education for American children? Teachers are human. Grace must be given to their mistakes. Teachers can be corrupt. There must be a way to make changes. The perfect balance is hard to find but political biases help no one.
Let's join together, both "evil democrats" and "insensitive republicans," consider what does and doesn't work in the public school system on different levels, and go from there.

America the Cynical

"46% of Americans trust the 'men and women … who either hold or are running for public office,'" [source]
As Gallup has reported, less than half of Americans trust the people who run our country. A distain and distrust for politicians permeates our American culture. Peggy Noonan writes in her editorial, The New Bureaucratic Brazenness, in the Wall Street Journal, that the cause of this cynicism lies with the politicians it is directed towards. Largely, Noonan points out bureaucrat's recent general apathy towards the public opinion -- except, of course, when running for office.While the American cynicism has multiple factors, Noonan is right that it is largely caused by the obviously untrustworthy politicians. She ends with the menacing comment, "A nation can't continue to be vibrant and healthy when the government controls more and more, and yet no one trusts a thing the government says. It's hard to keep going that way." Something must change.
Because since the cycle of lies and distrust and distrust and lies is engrained in both the social and political systems, there is no one quick solution. However, theorizing optimistically does bring to mind a needed social change. If Americans get completely fed up with the lies, we may come to highly value truth-telling. The reason this is important is that now, should a politician say anything slightly negative towards their association or an uncomfortable aspect, he is then attacked by the media. More hungry for a juicy story than for praising a bureaucrat's honesty, the American society is willing to tear apart a politician who is truthful about the extent of their flaws. If we begin to praise this sort of honesty, ask for it, and respond respectfully when it is done, perhaps politicians could tell more truth without committing political suicide. This is far from a practical solution in and of itself, but must be encouraged if Americans expect anything to change.
While Peggy Noonan is right that the bureaucrats are largely at fault for American's distrust, American citizens and society are a key ingredient in causing the social cynicism to decrease.

America the Hackable

The national government is, rightly so, the most information-rich organization in America. As a whole, it contains and tracks every American's personal information. Being in the digital age, the majority of this information is stored on electronic databases.
However, the national government is also one of the least cyber secure organizations even close to its scale. Dozens of branches have been hacked, easily giving advanced hackers access to hundreds of American's personal information and allowing them to corrupt and use government sites. As The Statesman reported in its recent article, Healthcare.gov -- which currently serves more than 5 million Americans -- has 20 specific security issues as found by the Government Accountability Office, has been taken down in Vermont because of bugs and security issues, was not properly tested for security before its release, and was hacked this past summer. The site holds users personal information including names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, and income.
Several branches and organizations, such as the Government Accountability Office and US National Institute of Standards and Technology, have been alerted to these obvious security cracks. They've responded with security tests and releasing statement suggestions of standard internet security. This response is completely appropriate but the general awareness and lack of concern for cyber security in government is a frightening prospect. The Wall Street Journal reported than many government officials use insecure passwords such as "1234" or "password." A certain level of common sense security should be adopted by all branches of government.