Through watching the more recent political debates, I have recently begun to come into contact with some ideas of reform that I approve of.

One of these is a higher tax rate for the wealthy. Something like this has already begun in France, where they just raised the tax rate for the wealthy to an astounding 75%. (click here for article) If we had a higher tax on the wealthy, that could bring in much more money to the government, thus allowing them to create and maintain social welfare programs as well as create new ones. Hasn't it been proven as of late that the trickle-down-effect doesn't work? The sad thing is that people who are extremely rich aren't always philanthropic, but are also greedy and mainly concerned with sustaining their wealth, even if it means firing a few good employees to keep their pockets overflowing. Couldn't more good come from giving the money from the rich to the government so that they can act like a surrogate Robin Hood than allowing the rich to keep it all for themselves?

Another of these is the German government's way of campaigning. They allow only a certain amount of money to each candidate, and they only allow them to campaign for a few months. If this was allowed and applied to the American government, the "average Joe" could effectively run for President and actually change the country for the better. Couldn't that help our country too, by eliminating political machines? Wouldn't it also allow candidates to say what they truly believed instead of forcing themselves to believe a political party's beliefs? That would allow each person to be judged through their own merits and ideas instead of a political party agenda. Wouldn't that make for a better country?

All one hears about with political elections is Democrat-this or Republican-that. Why does one never hear about Independent-this or Green Party-that? The other parties (otherwise known as third parties) never get major media attention, which is really unfortunate because they never get elected without it. I believe that the other parties' candidates could make a difference, too. What's to say that someone who doesn't come from a wealthy family or hasn't made their millions in big-business can't make a positive difference for their country?

             Maybe this is just me, but I thought the whole idea of this American government was so that the every-man could run for government positions. The last time I checked, it cost millions to billions of dollars to run a campaign in America. Maybe it doesn't apply to more local elections, but even then it still costs enough money to put middle-class and lower-class Americans into debt for good. Why can't people just run as individuals with their own set of beliefs? Why can't we, as Americans, just judge them on their own?

             On the politics note, too, what is up with everyone criticizing President Obama? Don't people realize that the reason "nothing is being done about the economy and our other problems" is mostly Congress' fault, too? They're the major law-making entity. They revise the bills and THEN send them to the President, who can then sign them into law, or veto them. The President can suggest as many bills as he sees fit and can emphasize all he wants that certain bills need to be passed, but it's Congress that ultimately decides. So, when it seems that nothing is being done about anything, blame Congress, not the President.

I also believe that there are some majorly crazy people out there when it comes to politics. These people are ones who would, as my mom would say, “vote for their party even if the party symbol was running.” I don’t really understand their logic for doing so. I think it’s great to be really supportive of something, but sometimes the people running in a particular party don’t seem to have the best interests of everyone in the country at heart. If this were true about a particular party’s candidate, why would said “crazy people” continue to vote for them? Can’t they think somewhat rationally about their vote?

Are students given the full benefit of their rights?

K-9 sponsored drug searches, pat downs, and bag checks are just some of the ways that students are interrogated about, and  searched for illegal substances. If found with illegal substances in their possession  they are charged, and disciplined. This part of the process usually conjures up images of students fleeing down the hallways (in order to escape capture and punishment), and administrative adults sprinting after them. However, according to an article on the Chicago Tribune's website, more students confess to their wrongs and show the administrators where the substances are. They believe that they will get a less harsh punishment by confessing, so they do so, but without parents or attorneys present. Most students would also believe that they are allowed their full rights in these situations, but they actually are lacking those very things.

Students in these cases are not read Miranda, and often have no search and seizure rights. Most also don't even think to ask for a parent or lawyer to be present, as they would in any other type of interrogation situation.  Granted, most of these searches and interrogations are caused by suspicion, but that does not make any student who is subjected to this kind of situation have any more rights. They are deprived of bits of their freedom, which is a disgrace! 

 Is it really acceptable for school administrators to have the same power as a police officer? Or is it a necessary evil that is only there to keep questionable students in line? If a student confesses, should this grant them a more lenient punishment, or should it be the same so that they would never do it again? What do you think?