MPSL VLog:Veep, Veep! Here Comes Ryan

Romney has chosen his running mate, and he’s causing a stir. Professor Gaffaney explains.

Government is the Problem, Not the Solution?

Federal Emergency Management Agency (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security, works together with state and local emergency management officials to coordinate governmental responses to disasters that overwhelm the resources of local and state authorities  in the United States.  In the immediate aftermath of a disaster, FEMA can provide food, water, shelter and medical assistance for disaster victims as well as longer-term recovery assistance through low-interest loans to businesses and homeowners. FEMA has been involved in recovery efforts following natural disasters, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires, and following man-made disasters, such as the explosion of the Space Shuttle Columbia in 2003 and the September 11th terrorist attacks.

However, half the country believes the government, specifically the federal government, is never the solution and always the problem. Yet, they were silent during the explosion of the Space Shuttle Columbia in 2003, the September 11th terrorist attacks, the destruction caused by hurricane Irene, and now the inevitable devistation of hurrican Issac. Moreover, the governor of any state impacted by a disaster will only receive assistance if they declare a state of emergency and formally request from the president that FEMA and the federal government respond to the disaster. Not surprisingly, all the governors representing states impacted by hurricane Issac have accepted the serviced of the federal government despite the fact that some have openly questioned the purpose and function of such services in the past.  Clay Bennett posted a cartoon on his blog with timesfreepress.com which raises a serious question concerning the function of government and federal assistance.  Is government the solution or the problem? Is there a state in the union that is truly self-sufficient?

–TERRANCE MULLINS

Related articles

• With Hurricane Isaac Coming, Everyone Asks the Wrong Question (papundits.wordpress.com)
• Obama ’causes more misery than natural disasters’ (wnd.com)

Weekly Quiz: Test Yourself on this Week’s Events

The weekly quiz is now live in Mypoliscilab. Good luck!

Weekly Poll: Your Opinion on Romney’s Favorability

The conventions are built as campaign boosters for presidential candidates but some wonder if voters’ opinion of Mitt Romney will substantially change after the Republican National Convention. What do you think?

The majority in Majority Rule

Change in voter turnout over time for five selected countries (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Proficiency in basic math may not be universal among adults living in the United States, but it should be relatively close.  Despite this fact, it continues to amaze me how few people question or challenge elected officials who claim to have a mandate from the people despite never actually winning a majority of the votes.  I know what you may be thinking: that elected officials, by definition, have won a majority of the votes cast, otherwise they would not be in office.  Okay, hold that thought while I explain why I believe most elected officials should not claim such a mandate.

Start with voter turnout in ANY election.  In local elections around the country voter turnout can be as low as ten to fifteen percent.  Even in presidential elections we are lucky to get anywhere near sixty percent—great.  Let us focus on the big ticket race, the presidency.  If sixty percent of eligible voters vote in the election that means forty percent did not vote for any candidate.  Now, if the winner of the election wins with fifty-five percent of all votes cast (to be generous) he or she gets the job with a majority of the vote, right?  I get that, but that’s not my point.  I’m saying they can’t claim to represent a majority of the people.  In my estimation the winner of the election only had around thirty-three out of every one-hundred votes possible if you base your analysis on all eligible voters.  In defense of my point of view you can’t discount the significance of non-voters with the argument that they didn’t vote so they don’t count.  Not voting is a choice in most cases, similar to voting “none of the above.”  I also don’t accept the argument that those who do vote somehow represent those who do not (usually based on surveys of non-voters), therefore the results of the election are representative of the people.  If that argument had any validity we should just replace elections with some representative sample from a survey and save everybody a lot of time and money.  In my estimation, everybody that wins an election should be wary of hubris, and assume their seats with a measure of humility.  I would like to know what you think about my argument as it is played out here.  Does it hold water?

–DENNIS FALCON

Related articles

• Should Voting Be Mandatory? (ideas.time.com)
• Light voter turnout expected as Fla. polls open (miamiherald.com)

The Colbert Report – 17th Amendment Under Attack

States need their own Chamber of Congress where they won’t be bullied by the people who live in them.

Weekly Poll: Your Opinion on Ryan as Romney’s VP

Mitt Romney has picked Tea Party darling Paul Ryan as his running mate. However, some political observers wonder if Ryan candidacy is strong enough to help Romney win the White House. What do you think?

Weekly Quiz: Test Yourself on this Week’s Events

The weekly quiz is now live in Mypoliscilab. Good luck!

Spare Tire of the United States of America

Flat Tire (Photo credit: Ryan Stanton)

According to the U.S. Constitution, the primary responsibility of the Vice President is to serve as President of the United States if the President dies, resigns, or is impeached. However, in reality, the U.S. Vice President has no constitutional duties except to serve as President of the United States Senate, a merely ceremonial position as the President of the U.S. Senate is simply a tie breaker for a tie that will most likely never occur.

As a result, a vice presidential candidate is not selected to help a president govern, but are purely selected to help the presidential candidates get elected. For example, George W. Bush selected Dick Cheney to help win over conservative voters as the Bush family name was, at that time, synonymous with the moderate policies of George H.W. Bush. John McCain selected Sarah Palin in a failed attempt to win over the coveted female voter. Barrack Obama selected the political veteran Joe Bidden in order to compensate for Obama’s seemingly lack of political experience.

In other words, the Vice President is merely a spare tire. Like all spare tires, the Vice President is stored away never to be seen until it is election season or in case of political or governmental emergency. This brings up the question of Mitt Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan. What exactly does Mr. Ryan bring to the table for Mitt Romney, the presumptive republican nominee for president? Obviously, like the Bush-Cheney ticket, the extremely conservative Paul Ryan was strategically selected to help Romney appeal to the republican base. What is not so obvious is whether or not Romney inadvertently selected a spare tire that is flat.

–TERRANCE MULLINS

Related articles

• Vice President Buzz Around Paul Ryan Swells To Crescendo (mediaite.com)
• Cheney: Picking Palin in 2008 was a ‘mistake’ (wtvr.com)
• Paul Ryan: From “It boy” to “calamity” (cnn.com)

The Colbert Report: Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Are the Dynamish Duo

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan share their deepest, innermost policies with one another — and if people elect them, they may even share those policies with constituents.