The SAFE-T Act

 Bail in the United States is a very controversial topic. While the idea behind it is logical to an extent, being that people will be less likely to just ditch court and other post-jail time proceedings if they’ve already invested something; it is not fair to those who may not be able to afford it, whether or not they desire to. With Illinois becoming the first state to remove bail, an interesting opportunity arises, to finally see how a bail-less environment will impact things like jail-time and crime rates. It will be interesting to see if it has any significant impact, positive or negative, on the effectiveness of the criminal justice system.

I personally believe that this can most likely only be beneficial or neutral in terms of the statistics mentioned prior. I had previously done a project on a possible bail removal in Illinois, and I was very intrigued and pleased by the idea. Bail inherently affects jail-time, especially for lower income families. A rich person may commit a crime worse than someone of lower socioeconomic class, but spend virtually no time in jail because they have a greater wealth to spend on bail. Now, obviously just because you are able to pay bail does not mean you are free or off the hook. However, this still matters because of the unfair level of freedom between socioeconomic classes that this causes.

In the past, I’ve seen documentaries on bail (specifically pertaining to low-income households and how they are affected by bail) and on other topics where bail would be brought up. In them, the true tragedy that bail can cause was well illustrated. For example, in the one focused on bail in particular, someone had committed a petty crime, and in another family someone got committed for a crime they possibly did not even commit. Despite this, the families could not see their respective beloved family members, since they could not afford the bail. Imagine not being able to see your mother or father, your daughter or son, or another close relative outside of a cell the government is keeping them in because you do not have enough money. That, to me, sounds absolutely gut-wrenchingly vile, that a government would keep a system in place where it is easily possible and not uncommon for this to happen.

What surprises me the most is that nothing like this has been truly attempted before in the US on this scale, at least not from my recollection. I was ecstatic hearing that this was finally being realized, but I still worry it may not last, and that Illinois may be the only state to try this to this extent. A decision like this is clearly a very big one to make, one with risks, but I firmly believe it is worth it to have a good chance at making the criminal justice system more fair. Considering all of the other terribly unjust aspects of it – the greater incarceration rate for people of color and the many innocent people who are convicted and imprisoned being prime examples – I think we truly need a law or policy like this as a great step towards a more free and fair nation.

The fact that our country’s incarceration rate is one of the highest in the world should be a wake-up call in and of itself; we need to focus on that much more than we already do. Especially since many of the issues surrounding it, much like this one, can repeat themselves and become perpetual if nothing is done. For example, if a very young child’s poor single mother has to go to jail for some minor crime, but their family cannot afford the bail, so they must simply wait out the time, the child may grow up for a substantial portion of time without a parental figure. This could lead to the child growing up without certain values or manners instilled in them. Combine this with the fact that the family is low-income to begin with, they may end up not learning or understanding how to be a stable, secure, and independent adult. They may end up committing crimes and/or staying unemployed because they do not know better. Stories akin to this one are all over America, and it’s one of this country’s greatest failures in my eyes. Hence, this bail removal in Illinois is a wonderful change that ought to have some significant impact, and I hope other states consider adopting it as well.

I like your open-mindedness and curiosity about ending cash bail. There are obvious problems with the bail system, and your characterization of some of those systemic problems being “gut-wrenchingly vile” seems appropriate. The problem of inevitable error (all social welfare policies have errors, and changes that reduce one sort of an error will usually increase some other type of error) applies, and there are risks of problems with ending cash bail.  At least Illinois is working as a laboratory, and talking about the desire to end a system that inflicts harms of injustice and unfair treatment based on income/wealth. If the problems resulting from ending cash bail in Illinois are not too egregious, perhaps other states will follow the Illinois example, and this will be a step toward a more perfect union, with more freedom and justice, and less unfair discrimination against persons lacking wealth or well-paying employment. I personally communicated with my representatives in the General Assembly endorsing the SAFE-T Act, but I studied criticisms of the act as well. I’m pretty confident the new practices will have more benefits than harmful consequences, but if significant problems emerge, I think and hope that the state government will be able to solve them without returning to systems of cash bail. 

Example of advocacy letter to promote Pretrial Fairness Act

 Dear Representative [Republican Representative to the General Assembly of Illinois],

    I am writing to you as a constituent and Social Work student regarding a provision of the SAFE-T Act, the Pretrial Fairness Act. I am urging you to vote in favor of the Pretrial Fairness Act. This legislation would eliminate the role of the money bond in Illinois, protecting the families of those who are waiting for trial, ensuring that wealth will not play a role in release and detention decisions. (Grace, 2021)

    On an average day in the United States, there are almost a half a million people who are in jail, waiting for their criminal cases to move forward. A study from this year showed that people in pretrial detention make up more than three quarters of the jail population. Of the Not Convicted population in jail, almost sixty-eight percent are being held on non-violent charges. (Sawyer, 2023) It is not because they are a risk to the public but because they cannot pay bail. For those who cannot afford their bail, this pretrial jail time can lead to the loss of jobs, connections and stability for themselves and their families, not to mention the danger one can be in while in jail. They often must wait for months and years for their cases to be resolved. (Bail, 2021) Bonds can be set around ten thousand. When they are paid in full, the people who pay the bonds can retrieve their money at the conclusion of a case. Most people cannot afford this amount so they have to rely on a bail-bonds company. To work with them, it required that 10 percent of the bail would be paid to the company. One thousand dollars is a lot of money to many. This situation could lead to poor decisions being made such as choosing between getting your friend or family member out of jail or pay rent. On top of the potential scramble for money, unlike paying the full bond to the court, they will not receive that ten percent back from the bond company.(White, 2021)

    In the New York Times a few years ago, there was a story done about a 53-year-old man named Tyrone Tomlin. He had just been at a convenience store when a police officer stopped him. Tyrone let the officer search him. All that he found was a fountain soda with a straw. He was handcuffed and placed under arrest for the possession of drug paraphernalia. The officer said that the straws are commonly used to hold heroin. When he was brought in front of a judge, he pleaded guilty so bond was set at one thousand five hundred. Tomlin could not afford the bond, so he was sent to Jail to be held until his arraignment the following week. When describing the jail, he said “This place is miserable, it’s dangerous. It’s every man for himself. You could get abused, you could get raped, you could get extorted. That stuff is all around”. His Aunt was worried about him and his employer had no idea where we was. When he came back to court, he refused to plead guilty and take the plea deal again, which led to another two week stretch in jail. While he was in the shower, he was jumped by a group of men. He was beaten and stomped and ended up with a misshapen face. Finally, three weeks after he was arrested, the straw was tested and was negative for drug residue. The judge said he was not guilty and was free to go. (Pinto, 2021)

    The Pretrial Act would prevent situations like Tomlin’s from happening here in Illinois. Under this legislation, Tomlin would get a ticket with a court date. He would be able to work while he waits for his trial date, saving taxpayers’ money. It would give people like him a chance to keep their family, work and potentially community from falling apart. It would also prevent them from experiencing potential abuse and violence at the hands of inmates. 

I urge you to vote in favor or the Pretrial Act. If you do so, it will show that you are in favor of protecting the family unit. It will also show that you are for keeping the responsibility of making court dates in the hands of citizens and not the government. 

Sincerely,
______________



References
Grace, S. (2021, October 7). Pretrial Fairness Act - Coalition to End Money Bond. Coalition to End Money Bond. https://endmoneybond.org/pretrialfairness/
Sawyer, W. Wagner, P.   (n.d.). Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2023. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html
Pinto, N. (2015, August 13). The Bail Trap. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/magazine/the-bail-trap.html
The Bail Project. (2021, March 4). After Cash Bail - The Bail Project. https://bailproject.org/after-cash-bail/#easy-footnote-bottom-5-39386
White, G. B. (2017, May 12). Who Really Makes Money Off of Bail Bonds? The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/bail-bonds/526542/

Firing teachers who refuse vaccinations and testing

Recently, it has been brought to my attention how many educators have been quitting or forced out of their jobs due to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. We just had a few teachers from the district I grew up in, in front of the Board to decide if they could keep their jobs. While I do know the importance and benefits of the vaccine, I think it is wrong to mandate it. Especially if it is only mandated for certain professionals. As a vaccinated educator myself, I can still understand how some people have beliefs against the vaccine, concerns for their health, doubts of the effectiveness and side effects, etc. Currently the teachers from District 186 are on an unpaid leave until the next board meeting which will decide if they are terminated. The district requires teachers to be fully vaccinated or abide by weekly COVID-19 testing, which I do think is a fair alternative option. 

What I think is absurd is that a district can let something like a vaccine mandate push out veteran teachers when there is already such a large shortage of quality teachers. At the board meeting, people spoke on behalf of the teachers in question and noted that terminating them would be an injustice to the students. I know one of these teachers personally and know they are an outstanding and passionate educator. It is disappointing that these teachers are facing losing their jobs. 

However, I do also understand the district’s standpoint. They are offering an alternative option of weekly testing for those who are unvaccinated. It is the most important to consider the health and safety of the students in this situation and unvaccinated people do put students at a higher risk of contracting COVD-19. It is also important to stand by your word and if they put this policy into place, it is hard to make exceptions for two teachers. The next board meetings are November 1^st and 15^th so I would like to discuss this with the class further once the official decision is made. Link: https://www.sj-r.com/story/news/2021/10/19/two-springfield-district-186-teachers-could-eventually-face-termination/8503742002/ 

There are three different questions related to this problem, and our answers to these questions will shape how we respond to this situation.

First, there is the question of the legality of pubic health mandates.  Can the state force people to either get vaccinated or receive weekly testing? The point of contention is whether the teachers are defying an illegal mandate—practicing civil disobedience against an illegal or unjust law, or whether they are defying a legal mandate that is both constitutional and legitimate. 

Second, there is the question of the practical intention.  The vaccination mandate is intended to the reduce the spread of a deadly virus. The alternative requirement, of regular testing, is also supposed to prevent the spread of the disease. There is also the practical consideration about whether it makes any sense, from a public health standpoint where we want policies that prevent the spread of the virus, to only test employees who are unvaccinated. After all, breakthrough cases are common enough, and we know the disease can still be spread by vaccinated persons, so if the policies are ineffective, do the teachers have a right to refuse to comply because the vaccines are ineffective or the testing regime will not actually prevent the spread of COVID in the schools?

Third, there is the question of morality.  A teacher can be dismissed for gross misconduct and immorality.  For example, if a teacher was endangering the lives of students, they might be terminated immediately.  If they were convicted of certain crimes outside of their workplace and working hours (crimes involving harming children, for example), they might also be dismissed. Is a refusal to get vaccinated a sign of a moral perversity in these teachers that makes them unqualified to teach?

A point to consider is the quality of the teachers.  If the teachers were low quality educators, this might influence our thinking.  As it is, these teachers are exceptionally good teachers, and this is a point that many people consider as they are weighing the issue of what should be done.

Another point to consider is whether the policy for disciplining teachers who refuse to comply could be handled in a creative way.  If the vaccine mandate is valid, legal, and constitutional; and if forcing teachers to be vaccinated or tested regularly would dramatically reduce the spread of the virus; and if the teachers are behaving unethically in a way that threatens the lives of their students, then it might be the case that the school district would be justified in terminating the teachers, but that would not mean it was necessarily the best thing to do.  Perhaps such teachers could be given a retainer and dismissed from all duties that required their presence in a school building, but given a guarantee of an opportunity to return to employment once certain public health indicators suggested it was safe again for unvaccinated staff to work with students.  Perhaps they could be assigned as online tutors to students during times that students could not come to school campuses.  

My understanding of the law is that the vaccine requirements are justified, legal, and constitutional.  The argument that the governor cannot act during a public health emergency to require vaccinations is wrong.  Vaccine mandates for persons in occupations that bring them into regular contact with the public are substantiated by good legal argument and precedent (look up "Mary Mallon”), and anyway, the school board has the power to decide whether to terminate teachers, and if the school board says they will terminate teachers who do not get vaccinated and refuse regular testing, then they can do that.  My understanding of the public health point is that the vaccines will reduce the spreading significantly, and that will protect the health and lives of students and student family members.  The testing regime is indeed not optimally set up.  As people who are vaccinated can contract the virus and briefly spread the disease (not as much as unvaccinated persons, but still, they can spread it), it should be practice to test everyone.  Also, as virus incubates in people so that they only become infectious 3-6 days after exposure, and only show signs of illness 5-10 days after exposure, and only get enough antibody concentrations to test positively 3-5 days after exposure, weekly testing is insufficient to catch asymptomatic persons who are shedding the virus (are infectious). So, while the teachers are wrong to refuse to be tested, they are correct to criticize a system that would only test them (and not vaccinated staff), and only test them once a week (rather than Monday-Wednesday-Friday or perhaps Tuesday-Thursday).  

As to the morality of the teachers, here we have an issue where probability comes into calculation.  A person who drives home from a party while intoxicated, and arrives home safely without harming anyone, is guilty of a rather trivial offense.  Everyone agrees that they ought to be fined, or forced to take classes, or suffer restrictions on their driving privileges, but few people think such persons should spend years in prison.  Yet persons making the same moral choices might get unlucky, and crash into a car or a group of people crossing a street, and cause the deaths of several people.  When that happens, people will be enraged, and demand that the drunk driver who killed people should be charged with reckless homicide or manslaughter, and the punishment should be severe, with several years spent incarcerated.  Yet, in either case, the person making the moral decision to drive home while intoxicated is making the same moral judgment. There was a risk that innocent persons would be killed.  

In another situation, an officer who gives approval for a bombing of a group of people or a home in Afghanistan or Iraq because of information suggesting that Taliban or ISIS leadership is in the group or home probably knows that there is some chance that innocent bystanders will be killed, or that the information was faulty and only innocent people are in the home or in the group.  The decision to allow the bombing might cause deaths of innocents, but the officer hopes it will not, and decides the risks of causing such deaths outweighs the benefits of possibly killing murderous enemy combatants.  

Getting home from a party or achieving a military objective seem to justify, to some people, the risk that they will inflict great harm or death to innocent people.  This is a similar moral situation to a person who refuses to get a vaccine and refuses to get tested.  There is some chance, perhaps poorly understood, that they will pass the disease on to children or colleagues, and those children and colleagues will continue the spread of the disease, and possibly someone down the line will die of COVID-19.  The risk seems remote, and may be it is one of those risks that is fairly trivial, like the risk we will have a traffic accident and harm someone while driving sober; but perhaps it is more like the risk of deciding to drive home from a party while intoxicated. The state certainly has a moral responsibility to outlaw or restrict some of the very risky behaviors, but the state cannot and should not eliminate all risk.  

There is nearly a consensus among well-informed experts about contagion of air-borne viruses, experts on the SARS-CoV-2, on COVID-19, and persons who study vaccinations, that the risk is high enough, and the effectiveness evidence is strong enough, to justify the the state’s actions. The governor and school board is acting within reason to demand state employees who have regular contact with the public, especially indoors, should be vaccinated. Those teachers are wrong.  I note also that they are not union members, yet a union represents them and bargains for their wages and working conditions.  Noting that they are comfortable being freeloaders diminishes my sympathy for them, and raises suspicions that they are unethical persons, no matter how good they in their profession.  I do think the authorities would be wise to not dismiss those excellent teachers, and find some other way to allow them to continue to educate students, but forbidding them from frequenting the schools while they remain unvaccinated and refuse to be regularly tested seems the ethical course of action, since failing to do that would expose children, other teachers, and families to a higher risk of a dangerous disease, and potentially death.  

This ought to be a calm and dispassionate discussion and decision.  The fact that people are feeling so passionately about the issue indicates to me that their identities are on the line.  People construct their sense-of-self, and if they construct this personality around ideals of fair-mindedness, they would not become so enraged at the teachers or at the school board.  Just as a toddler who throws a tantrum at a trivial slight is probably really crying about deeper issues of frustration and desperation, these people attacking the school board (or attacking the teachers) are likely to be manifesting deeper fears and trauma, perhaps hidden from their own self-awareness.  They are upset about some sort of injustice in the world or in their lives, and they fear some attack on their personhood or their dignity, and so they cannot think clearly about the issue, and overwhelming feelings of anger and hostility boil to the surface and they use hate-filled rhetoric to attack the board or the teachers. Social workers need to be better than that, and be aware of their feelings, biases, prejudices, and values, and those hidden aspects of their personalities may shape their opinions on controversial subjects such as this.

Jails ought not serve as our primary care facilities for persons with mental illnesses

This is a student’s editorial written as an open letter to our governor:

Governor Rauner,

Are you aware of how many residents in the state of Illinois are in jail or prison because they suffer from a mental illness? As of December of 2015, there are 11,000 mentally ill persons in our jails and prison systems that need care rather than a punishment (Tribune Wire Reports, 2015). This means we are paying not only to house these persons as inmates, but also for their mental health care. If we were to place those who are mentally ill in a treatment clinic center rather than jail or prison we would be paying a tenth of the current cost. That is, community mental health centers can treat persons with mental illness for a fraction (about 10%) of the costs to our state when we fail to treat those people, they commit crimes, and our justice system and corrections system then must take care of them. I attended the recent Advocacy Day in early April presented by the Illinois chapter of the NASW where we discussed the lack of a budget and the cost that are building up due to lack of a budget. Sheriff Thomas J. Dart of Cook County spoke to us about the crowding of persons with mental illnesses in his Cook County Jail. 

There are so many options to save the residents of our state money and to create money to actually pay and fund a budget that is either proposed by yourself or the other members of the Illinois government. You and others in the General Assembly ought to be creative in thinking about what policies can save taxpayers money in the long-run, and sometimes it will be wise to invest state spending in some areas, like education or mental health care, because in the long run those public expenditures save public money or raise revenue by avoiding costs associated with incarcerating so many people.  By changing the housing of those with an illness to treat the illness, we can create jobs, lower public spending, and open up more resources. Just in Cook County’s jail, on a daily basis there is a 25% housing rate for mentally ill persons (according to the Cook County Sheriff’s Office of Mental Health Policy and Advocacy). This is one jail, representing one county in our state. If this statistic is true for all jails in the state, we are looking at thousands of mentally ill persons who are not getting treatment in the best environment, eating money of the state, taking up time for people who should be dealing with criminals rather than dealing out medications, or getting medical care for an inmate. Think of it, a quarter of the inmates in Illinois jails and prisons (!) There are more people in jail and prison than in our hospitals with medical needs regarding mental health (‘New study finds more mentally ill people in jail and prison than in hospitals’, 2016).

In order for Cook County to deal with the large numbers of mentally ill inmates they have created a program to assist care for those individuals (Collins, 2015). This has become one of the top mental health facilities in the state and it’s in a jail. There is no need for this to exist, let alone lead in treatment for the state. This is backwards from how the system should work. 

We need to put more effort into bettering our mental health clinics, homes, and centers including the treatment in hospitals. Our department of corrections system should not be shouldering out mentally ill persons and treating them as convicts. They should instead be given help, guidance and medical treatment to better their lives. 

References:

New study finds more mentally ill people in jail and prison than in hospitals. (2016). Retrieved April 13, 2016, from http://www.thejha.org/node/54

Cook County Sheriff’s Office of Mental Health Policy & Advocacy. Office of mental health policy and advocacy. Retrieved April 13, 2016, from http://www.cookcountysheriff.com/MentalHealth/MentalHealth_main.html

Collins, S. P. K. (2015, September 18). What happened when an Illinois county rehabilitated mentally ill offenders through treatment. Retrieved April 13, 2016, from http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/09/18/3702804/cook-county-mental-health-treatment/

Tribune Wire Reports, (2015, December 24). Illinois settles class-action suit on mentally ill inmates. Retrieved April 13, 2016, from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-illinois-lawsuit-mentally-ill-inmates-20151223-story.html

The Curse of Womanhood

An example of a student reaction essay.

            Diversity presents individuals all around the world with various difficulties. Race, age, gender, socioeconomic class, and ability level can all affect the way an individual is treated. One group that has faced many challenges throughout history is women. The right to vote, fighting against stereotypes and societal prescribed gender roles, and abuse are just a few of the struggles women have endured over time. Decades have gone by and yet women still struggle everyday to obtain equal footing with men. Even in the modern world, even though women have made progress, there are still obstacles to be faced.

            As a female, I hold very strong beliefs toward women’s rights. Growing up in a patriarchal society has not shaped me into a woman who has dinner ready for her husband when he gets off work or a woman who keeps “her place” as I have heard many times. I have spent many years of my life trying to defend the notion that I am a strong capable female. Out of best intentions, I have had a very overprotective family. Since I began dating, I have heard comments such as “why don’t you let Jesse do that?” or “Jesse can do that for you!” when I have tried to do something that requires the slightest amount of muscle. When I drive home alone at night everyone worries about me and tells me a thousand times to be careful as though I have less driving ability simply because I’m a woman. However, I have been lucky in that I have not suffered emotional, sexual, or physical abuse at the hands of a man as many women have. 

            In addition to the gender role expectations and sexist attitudes I have faced, I will continue to struggle because of my sex on a daily basis. I will certainly make less than my male counterpart. This is mostly because I have chosen to be a social worker, but is it the case that social workers make less because it is a mostly female dominated field? In addition to my career choice, I will also make less because I will one day become a mother. The “reproduction of labor” will cause me to miss work, in turn losing more money. If I had chosen another field, I may have experienced even worse consequences, such as discrimination in a male dominated field.

            Along with the problem of lower wages for women comes the recent trend of the feminization of poverty. What this means is that more women are poor or in poverty than men. This has come with many changes including more single parent families. Since many single parents are women, many women are raising their families on one income. This obviously means they are making less and many are falling into poverty.

            The question is, how do we make life better for women. This is a very complex issue and many solutions have been proposed with various opponents and proponents of each. It seems that solving the feminization of poverty would include raising wages for women, but this may not have enough impact and will take a long time to accomplish. Some have suggested that the solution to all of the problems of the feminization of poverty would include another source of income in the home. It has been proposed that we should instate programs that teach women how to find men. There are a great number of things wrong with this proposal. Rather than teaching women how to be good mates, why are we not focusing on creating an equal society? Another action that should be taken to improve the lives of women includes teaching males and females both how to have healthy relationships.

            Another reason for the feminization of poverty is the fact that more people are having children out of wedlock. Rather than focusing on how to create the perfect wife, maybe it would be helpful to encourage men to take on more of a profound role in parenting. This may help since many women are the sole caregiver of their children and some men refuse to help. It seems that in society women who refuse to care for their children are much more stigmatized than men who choose not to be in their child’s life.

            In order to improve the lives of women everywhere, we must convert from a patriarchal society to an equal society where both men and women are appreciated. We must teach our children to value all others regardless of race, age, or gender. In class, we proposed that it may be helpful to have social workers in grade school to teach relationships. I feel it would be great to focus on healthy relationships in school more than what the focus currently is. This general focus on mutual respect and understanding in relationships may help society in many ways by helping individuals be better mates, better parents, and may even help reduce the incidence of bullying.      

A student's reaction to the Obama Gender Agenda

This entire post is submitted by one of my students. I have not written or contributed to it at all [- EHI]

Here is an article that I found interesting from the National Women's Day 2009 website, that was in the week 7 of our weekly guides for this course.


How will women fare under Obama?

Barack Obama has stacked competent women around him at all levels of the administration, not just at the top level but also at the second and third layers.

Three of the fifteen members in his Cabinet are women, or not quite 20%. Obama is used to having strong women around him. Most of these positions are in the national security and economic issues arenas so are key positions.
- Hillary Rodham-Clinton, Secretary of State
- Hilda Solis, Secretary-Designate, Department of Labor
- Janet Napolitani, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security

And there are further powerful women in critical roles:
- Christina Romer, Chair, Council of Economic Advisors
- Susan Rice, United States Ambassador to the United Nations
- Lisa Jackson, Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency

So exactly what can women expect from the Obama Administration. What will the US Gender Agenda really look like? Well the Obama Adminstration has set a clear agenda for women and it is as follows.

Healthcare:
- Fixing the Nation's Health Care System
- Empowering women to prevent HIV/AIDS
- Supporting research into women's health
- Fighting Cancer
- Reducing health risks due to mercury pollution
- Supporting stem cell research

Reproductive choice:
- Supporting a woman's right to choose
- Preventing unintended pregnancy

Preventing violence against women:
- Reducing domestic violence and strengthening domestic violence laws
- Fighting gender violence abroad

Economic issues:
- Fighting for pay equity and encouraging retirement saving
- Expanding paid sick days
- Investing in women-owned small businesses
- Protecting social security

National security:
- Caring for women veterans

Poverty:
- Renewing efforts to tackle underlying problems causing poverty
− Raising the minimum wage and helping low-income workers

Education:
- Protecting title tax
- Expanding early childhood education and improving schools
Making college more affordable


I found this website very empowering for women. I believe that Obama is going to be a wonderful, helpful, intelligent, empowering President. From this website, along with everything else that I have seen from him or heard of him, he seems to want to help the underprivileged and minorities. President Obama himself is a minority, so I think that is why he is so apt to want to help minorities, and even those in need. He does not seem to have ever been in poverty himself, but he can empathize with those who have been there. I think that his expectations and efforts are extremely commendable. If President Obama actually comes through with all of his plans, I believe that the US will definitely become a better place to live.

In regards to the issues mentioned on this particular website, I personally cannot wait for his plans for the US Gender Agenda to pass. Health care in the U.S. is a very touchy, long, difficult subject to get into, because there are so many different viewpoints on how to correct the health care system so that everyone can obtain it, even if not equally. I believe that the whole Obama administration has their hands full when it comes to fixing the Nation's Health Care System. I say good luck on that one. I currently do not have health care myself. My daughter has the Public Aid card, but I cannot afford health insurance myself. My job only offers health care for full time employees, but does not ever want to give anyone 40 hours a week to make anyone full time. It's a catch 22, and I know that it is like that at a lot of jobs. Also, I am not married, so I cannot go on my husband's insurance. I honestly hope that the Obama administration does come up with the perfect idea to make everyone happy, or at least content, with the nation's health care system.

Also in regards to women's issues, the Obama administration states that they will prevent unintended pregnancies and support a women's right to chose. Being a woman, I believe that these are two very important and overlooked issues in most presidential campaigns. Dealing with giving support to a women's right to chose is a very touchy subject, but needs to be addressed by presidential candidates. So does pregnancy. In today's society there are so many teenage pregnancies and other issues dealing with unintended pregnancies. I believe that there should be more affordable birth control, more education dealing with birth control, more sex education, and more education to explain all the options available for pregnant women. I really hope that the issues will be discussed and addressed by the Obama administration in the aspect of preventing unintended pregnancies and supporting a women's right to chose.

Another issue that I found in this website that the Obama administration is going to tackle and is of extreme importance in today's society is poverty. I believe that President Obama and his administration is serious when they state that they want to raise minimum wage to help low-income workers, and renew efforts to tackle underlying problems causing poverty. That issue should be the main focus, to renew efforts to tackle underlying problems that cause poverty. A lot of presidents and people before Obama have just taken the “band-aid” approach to tackling the issue of poverty. They always pushed it under the rug and let it be, or tried to help people after they have been in poverty for long periods of time. I believe that it is time we have someone in office that actually has the mentality to look at the root of the problem instead of trying to cover up or fix it after it is too late. If Obama is actually serious about looking at the underlying problems that cause poverty, then I believe he will definitely be able to educate people, and hopefully try different tactics to get people out of poverty and help them stay out. Hopefully, he will reform the Public Aid and Welfare systems to only help those in need, but to also help them obtain and maintain employment, while also helping with education about birth control and child care, as well as social security and retirement. There are many issues that poverty presents for our nation, and I am very glad that we finally elected such a powerful, intelligent, empathetic, and wonderful President as Barack Obama.

Fair Wages and College Educations

A week or so ago when I was watching President Obama talk about the recession on virtually every television network there was one thing he said that truly struck me and made me think of a conversation we’d had in class weeks prior. He spoke about how important it was to get people jobs as janitors, auto-mechanics, in factories – typically “blue collar” jobs. In class the question had been posed as to whether or not people in those jobs deserved the same pay scale as people with master’s degrees or beyond. I believe depending on the job, people with skilled trades deserve to be paid the same amount of money as someone who spent years in college. For the most part, these people have been to some sort of trade school or are comfortable doing a job that no one else wants to do. Janitors for instance – I wouldn’t want to have their job for anything in the world. And President Obama made a good point that without those people our country wouldn’t have grown to what it is today. America was founded on hard work and while some people with high educational status work incredibly hard day to day – for the most part those who work what would be considered medial jobs work harder than someone working in a fortune 500 company. Without someone working in a factory we wouldn’t have things like cars, computers, or even food. Sometimes the people at the bottom are the most important.

Let’s see, I think about two-thirds of Americans over 25 have some post-secondary education or training, maybe with a few courses at a community college, or a certification program at a beautician school, or training in a skilled trade apprenticeship program. About a third of Americans over 25 have a bachelor’s degree (it’s actually less, but the cohort that is growing up now will see the 1/3rd mark of college graduations). I think it’s about 6% or 7% of the population that has either a master’s degree, a post-college professional degree, or a doctorate, with the doctorates being about 2% of the population. In other words, two-thirds of our population works without a college or graduate school diploma. So, it does make sense for our president to talk about the jobs where people can earn a living without having a college degree. That is, after all, the condition for most of us.
Wages are set by a combination of factors, with supply and demand being pretty important. Collective bargaining and unions can drive up wages, as can policies that set minimum wages. Employers can also keep wages down, especially in times of high unemployment. Other factors that relate to how well a job pays include:
Responsibility needed. Greater responsibility requires higher pay.
Dirtiness and danger: the more awful a job is the fewer who will want to do it, and so the pay will increase, and there may also be a bit of sympathy as well, and those who set pay may think a person risking their life or putting up with terrible working conditions deserves a bit of hardship pay.
Training needs: Lots of training will generally command higher wages, while a job anyone right off the street can do will get lower wages.
Skills and strengths needed. If only the strongest or most dexterous 10% or the smartest or most clever 10% of the population will even be able to do the job because it requires extraordinary aptitude in some ability, then your labor supply is reduced and the wages generally will be higher.
Difficulty of the work. Easy work is easy to do, and wages are lower, while more demanding tasks generally require a higher pay incentive.
Tendency of the work to be dominated by men or women. Work that women generally do gets paid less, all else being equal, compared to work that men do. Men’s work is seen as more deserving of a living wage, since men are out to provide for their families, while women are just out to get a bit of extra income. Of course we’re not supposed to think this way, but I believe this is the explanation for why nurses, social workers, and elementary school teachers make so much less than engineers, mechanics, computer programmers, and so forth. We need to overcome this assumption that men are the providers and women aren’t, and that takes some conscious questioning of our gender roles and expectations.
A job that requires extraordinary personal attributes, advanced and lengthy training, and is generally difficult, dangerous, and unpleasant should command the highest salary, while work that is easy, pleasant, and requires no special aptitude, training, trustworthiness, or experience will generally command the lowest salaries. A college education is to some degree a proxy for intelligence and responsibility. People who are flighty and less committed are unlikely to graduate, as are people with sub-normal intelligence. But, college training also changes people in ways that make them generally better in their social skills and problem-solving abilities. There are actually some fairly good studies that compare equivalent groups of people who graduate college and those who don’t attend, and these studies suggest that college educations have an independent and significant influence on many aspects of life that are greater than the admissions standards and selectivity of college admission alone.
But yes, our economy is now structured in such a way that we need a vast army of service workers and laborers who need no vocational training in college. College educations may be useful to many of these people in terms of making them better citizens, happier marriage partners, wiser parents, and better-informed consumers. Probably just about anyone with both intelligence and commitment/ambition at average levels or higher could make it through some form of college education and benefit from it, even if there was no vocational or direct financial advantage.
A serious problem comes when we think of college education as merely a vocational training system. I think about one-fifth to one-quarter of college educations ought to be directly vocational, although perhaps as more than half of the courses one takes in the final two years ought to have a connection to one’s career if one wants to work in a specialized field such as engineering, natural sciences, computer programming, finance, medicine, law, social work, education, and so forth. College is also a system of producing an elite leadership segment of the general population in a democracy. Those with college educations ought to be leaders in consuming news about their communities and governments, and then getting involved in influencing policies and conditions in their communities and governments. So, college works as a system to help a democracy remain healthy. We need critical thinkers and people who know how to make themselves well-informed so we don’t lapse into a dictatorship or elect too many idiots into powerful offices.
College also helps people with personal growth and development, so that after completing their education they are better friends, marriage partners, parents, neighbors, and so forth. College generally enriches a society by improving the people within the society, so that you can have better experiences in your interactions with people you meet. College also plays a role in helping people become very good at a few basic skills related to writing and reading, understanding science, and generally communicating. Finally, college is supposed to help people become familiar with a core set of values and ideas that have contributed to the institutions of a society. In this way college indoctrinates people with certain values such as tolerance, openness, inquisitiveness, and civic engagement. At the same time, college graduates are taught to question and doubt, and this helps foster counter-cultures and experiments in alternatives.
So, university educations perform many roles, and it would be a mistake to think of college education as a way to help individuals increase their earning potential. College in our democratic society is mainly concerned with creating a better society, with advances in social organization as well as science and technology, and a flourishing mental and aesthetic life. I see no reason why college graduates should necessarily be expected to make much more than persons who prefer to stick to vocational education in a lucrative career.
In fact, powerful people often set wages for reasons that have very little to do with the actual jobs or the value of the work done. We can see this with the bonus pay packages given to people in certain financial companies. Their work may require significant responsibility and some training and intelligence above average, but their labors are certainly not worth the thousands of dollars per hour they earn when one averages out their salaries and bonuses out over their hours of actual work. They earn this money simply because they or their friends or associates in similar lines of work are responsible for setting their salaries. A similar thing happens in business or university administrations. Supervisors, vice-presidents, directors, deans, and chancellors clearly need to have more responsibility and experience than other faculty or workers, and their jobs are difficult and somewhat unpleasant. So, they should earn more than faculty or front-line workers. It seems fair that administrators could earn double what faculty or front-line workers earn. But in fact, when administrators set their own salaries, they inflate their estimations of how valuable administrative work is, and they tend to set their salaries at three or four times the wages of front-line workers and faculty, and in some sectors of the economy the administrators and directors have such a sense of entitlement that they set their own wages at ten times or a hundred times the salaries or wages of the people who work under them.