Description of the Proposal
Prepared by Heather H.
Our issue group believes that partial birth abortion is murder and should be banned. Majority of these abortions are done into the second trimester and all the way up to full term. Partial birth abortions are legal at any point in pregnancy. The fetus at this time is "viable", meaning it can survive outside the mother's body with medical assistance. Doctor Haskell, who performed many late term abortions gave a detailed description of the procedure:
"With a lower [fetal] extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities. The skull lodges at the internal cervical os [the opening to the uterus]. Usually there is not enough dilation for it to pass through. The fetus is oriented dorsum or spine up. At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left hand along the back of the fetus and 'hooks' the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down)...[T]he surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and nuder his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger...[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. ['Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion,' pages 30-31]"
Most partial birth abortions are not done on unhealthy mothers. Doctors claim that there is no medical reason for this to be performed. The physicians' Ad Hoc Coaltion for truth say, "Congress, the public--but most importantly women--need to know that partial birth abortion is never medically indicated to protect a mother's health or her future fertility." In fact, they claim that it "can pose a significant threat to both her immediate health and future fertility." Many states have varying laws about partial birth abortion. This allows women to travel to other states to have this procedure done. We think it should be outlawed federally with absolutely no exceptions. We feel that there is no need for exceptions because it is a threat to the mother's health and is not necessary medically. Both the left and right sides would support this issue. Even those who are pro-choice would agree that this form of abortion is wrong and should be stopped. This bill is one for both democrats and republicans because any sensible human being will see that this procedure is not a painless abortion but a cruel procedure resulting in the murder of an infant.
Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue
Prepared by Jenny T.
I think partial-birth abortion is considered to be more of a left side issue than a right side issue. The left side would be more likely to accept this form of abortion. However, people from both sides of the political spectrum tend to disagree with this procedure because it is cruel and practically murder. In 1996, there was a bill established, HR1122, to ban partial-birth abortions. It failed to pass mostly because the president thought HR1122 did not allow exceptions where the "health" of the mother was threatened. Partial-birth abortion supporters falsely claim that this procedure is rare and used only when the life of the mother is threatened. However, over 1,000 partial-birth abortions are performed and there is no medical reason why it must be performed to save the life of a mother. Many opposers also believe the fetus is given analgesia to prevent the pain. Dr. James T. McMahon stated,
"The fetus feels no pain through the entire series of procedures. This is because the mother is given narcotic analgesia at a dose based upon her weight. The narcotic is passed, via the placenta, directly into the fetal bloodstream. Due to the enormous weight difference, a medical coma is induced in the fetus. There is a neurological fetal demise."
In other words, the mother is given enough anesthetic so that the baby does not feel a thing. However, this information is false and this doctor is mistaken. In reality, several doctors testified that the analgesia given to the mother is not strong enough to provide pain relief for the baby. The baby can and does feel pain.
Another reason HR1122 failed to pass is because the bill was worded vaguely, and did not use medical terms. Doctors testified that the bans can apply to all procedures in the second trimester of the pregnancy and even to some third trimester pregnancies. The bill would subject doctors to the risk of criminal prosecution for helping women end their pregnancy safely.
It is easy to see that most partial-birth abortion opposers disagree with partial-birth abortions because of false facts. They are convinced partial-birth abortions must be performed for the health of the mother, or that the fetus doesn't feel any pain under analgesia, or that partial-birth abortions are rarely performed. After all these misconceptions are cleared up, it is difficult to see how anyone can support patial-birth abortion.
Identification of Information that Supports the Solution
Prepared by Joe S
The act of partial birth abortion is absurd and just a way of committing murder on an infant legally. This legal action taken by thousands of doctors was thought to be a painless quick "execution" for a newborn child. Research, however, reveals this to be not true. "Recent British medical research shows that premature infants feel pain far more acutely and longer than the rest of us." This intense sense of premature infants can make a simple paper cut feel like a severe stab wound. Therefore, partial birth abortion is not, and never was, a painless quick death for the child. Rather it is a extremely painful "execution." This act of killing a child when it is so close to being fully developed seems an immature way to "deal" with a child. A majority of partial birth abortions are often "performed for purely 'social' reasons," meaning the mother simply doesn't want the baby. When the partial birth abortion was performed for "medical" reasons, the reasons weren't really medical at all, as "in lawsuit in 1995, Dr. Haskell testified that women come to him for partial-birth abortions with 'a variety of conditions. Some medical, some not so medical.' Among the 'medical' examples he cited was 'agoraphobia' (fear of open places)." This "medical" reason for having a partial-birth abortion does not put the baby nor the mother at risk during the time of birth.
"In June, 1995, Dr. McMahon submitted to Congress a detailed breakdown of a 'series' of over 2,000 of these abortions that he had performed. He classified only 9% (175 cases) as involving 'maternal [health] indications', of which the most common was 'depression.'"
When a women takes on the responsibility of sex, then that women should be able to face the possible consequences of it, the birth of a child. Thousands of women each year are rejecting this consequence and killing their perfectly healthy child. In fact, one-fourth of the aborted babies had no "flaw"' whatsoever. For these reasons, and the overall reason that it is wrong, the "state Republican Party [of Wisconsin] says it will not fund any candidates who support partial birth abortion." Restricting any funding to people who support partial birth abortion is an excellent start to stop this inhumane procedure at all causes nation wide.
Trial Balloon
Prepared by Lisa A
It is clear our issue group finds partial birth abortion a very serious issue. However, how is partial birth abortion seen through the public eye? I tested the water of the public by briefly describing the procedure of a partial birth abortion to three adults and two students. The responses varied, but they all had the same underlying tone of absolute horror. Initial reactions ranged from "I think that what you described is horrible! It makes me sick to my stomach just thinking about it," (Tressa Link, 17 years) to "That's sick and twisted. That's murder. That's so wrong," (David Arnett, 15 years). When I asked Tressa Link how what she felt about this issue, she explained, "I just keep thinking about [my baby cousins] Carrie and Laura, and I just can't imagine what it would be like if they weren't given that chance to live."
One reason for such horrification is lack of knowledge. Many of the people I interviewed were not aware of this procedure. My grandmother, Elva Shaw, replied, "Before you described this procedure, I had no idea what was involved. I can't imagine a doctor performing it or a mother allowing it." A student admitted to me her lack of knowledge when she said, "I never knew that after the baby had been growing for so long, they could still end its life. That is so sad." (Tressa Link)
It was clear from the initial facial expressions and reactions that all five of my interviewees that they were disgusted and horrified by the partial birth abortion procedure. However, the real question is, if presented with this bill, would you support it? The response was a unanimous "yes." Elva Shaw states, ". . . If 1,000 babies [a year] are murdered in such an inhumane way, I certainly would support a bill to outlaw it. It seems to me that any feeling person would support this bill if he or she had this information." Mrs. Nancy Link of Winfield said simply, "Yes, I would definitely support a bill to outlaw partial birth abortions in all cases." Student Tressa Link exclaimed, "[I'd] definitely support it!" and my brother, David Arnett claimed his endless support by saying, "I would vote yes [for your bill]. If I could I would vote yes again and again and again."
One stipulation of our bill is partial birth abortion should be outlawed in all circumstances. All interviewees were in agreement about this, mostly because they were informed there is no medical circumstance in which a partial birth abortion must be performed to save the life or the fertility of a mother. Mrs. Nancy Link had some interesting thoughts about partial birth abortions in the cases of incest, rape, and fetal imperfection. "I don't know if you are aware of the recent case in the news where a 12 year-old girl became pregnant by her older brother," she told me. "I don't remember what state she lived in, but the judge finally gave in and the girl was able to go to a state that allowed partial birth abortions, where she [then] got the abortion. It was plain murder and it bothered me something terrible." Mrs. Link also told me, "I think just recently the Daily Herald had run an article on all the babies that had survived because of all different kinds of circumstances who were born at Central DuPage Hospital. They had all kinds of pictures of the children now. Healthy and thriving. Though none of these kids were due to have an appointment with death because of an abortion, many were born way premature, well before even most of the partial birth abortions are performed, proving that it is definitely murder . . ."
For many, it seemed a brief description of the procedure was enough to persuade them. However, I asked each person what our issue group could do when presenting this issue to be more persuasive to our audience. My grandfather, Thomas E. Shaw, explained, "I would urge that all the details of this procedure should be presented in the most sensory way to every legislator and ever legislator's constituent." When asked if a picture or video would persuade her more, Tressa Link replied, "I'm not sure. I think it might help people who didn't know if they were against it or not. I don't think I'd be able to handle a video." Elva Shaw told me simply, "I was horrified with your description of a partial birth abortion, no video or picture is necessary."
It seems from this trial balloon that the public is generally in support of a bill to outlaw partial birth abortions in all states in all cases. I believe the words of Mrs. Nancy Link sum up the public opinion best when she said, "You have my support. Good luck and I hope your bill passes."
Description of the Proposal
Prepared by Angela V.
It is the belief of my issue group that Censorship of any kind should be stopped. Censorship is a violation of the individual rights of freedom of speech and expression. What is most difficult about censorship is what is to be censored. Everyone has their own opinion on what is offensive. The statue of David can be seen as offensive to people because he is naked. Is it right for this classic work of art be censored from the world because of a little nudity? The only reasonable solution to this problem is to stop all censorship. There should be no blocks on television, music, and the Internet. The banning of art and literature should also be outlawed by the federal government. Both schools and libraries should be able to carry any literature available. It is up to parents to regulate, and check out what their children are seeing and learning about. For example,if a parent doesn't want their child to read Huckleberry Finn in school they can stop it. It is unnecessary to ban the book as a whole because it destroys the opportunity for others who want to read it. It is the hope of my group to receive support from both Democrats and Republicans, however Democrats will most likely support our bill. Censorship violates everyone's freedom and rights to the first amendment, and therefore should be stopped.
Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue
Prepared by Kerry H.
The right side will definitely oppose our bill on no censorship. The conservative Republicans believe in censorship, and they do not think it is harmful to Americans. On the contrary, they believe it is alright and healthy to censor certain items, such as articles on the Internet or T.V. programs. The right side feels T.V. and the Internet should have blocks because children should not be subjected to certain material that is on the Internet or T.V. The power of the media is leaving parents with very little control over what their children are watching, and parents do not like that. They want government control over the media.
Also Republicans believe pornography should not be able to be sent over the Internet for anyone to see because these things can be offensive to others. Pieces of art portraying sex and nudity were taken down because they were offensive. Pictures of gangs were also taken down because they glorified gangs.
Republicans also say parents want their children to read appropriate materials in school that have objectives worth learning about. They are willing to censor materials they feel will be harmful to children or should not be read. Parents want the school board to regulate books and other reading materials that children should be sheltered from at such a young age. The right side does not feel this is betraying the first amendment. In fact, Republicans believe censorship helps everyone by protecting the innocent from inappropriate material. They feel censorship is a must in this new world of technology.
Identification of Information that Supports the Solution
Prepared by Kevin B.
We have found that legally supported censorship exists everywhere in our country, a country which guarantees it's citizen's freedom of expression. Censorship has affected Americans ability to speak freely, and is therefore in violation of our constitution. We have found that the most heavily censored areas of our lives are the media and public facilities. The generally held public opinion of what is "bad" or "obscene" is what is censored the most. However, this general opinion does not and cannot take everyone into account.
What falls in the category of what is to be censored varies greatly. For instance, in Ohio public schools, the classic novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has been banned from many public schools, because the content was not deemed fit for school students to read. In California, the public schools have censored student newspapers, after a court ruling that stated that The First Amendment does not apply to students. Public schools censor almost all expression that takes place within there walls. School censorship ranges from the Internet to literature to school papers. School censorship of the Internet is often of pornography sites, however it also censor sites that present a media for free speech among students such as chat rooms and e-mail. Our school system attempts to impress upon its students the importance of our freedom of speech, when the students have that freedom taken away from them. The truth is that a student's parents are the only ones who should be censoring the student's life, not the school board or another government body. Most public libraries and other public facilities also censor their material much like schools do.
American's lives are censored throughout their entirety, not just in school. The media is censored by many rules and restrictions. Media representatives such as Mancow are constantly censored, and can be punished for speaking what they think. Other areas of the media such as television and the Internet are also censored. TV is not a media for free speech as it could be instead it is just a media for inoffensive speech. The Internet is one of the last mostly uncensored areas, yet many officials are trying to pass legislation to censor the Internet now. We need to pass our bill to prevent further censorship such as this. Otherwise ideas never get spoken of and our democracy is no longer true.
So Americans are growing up being taught to love their country for its freedom of speech, when they have none themselves. We feel that our government should not inhibit free speech, but instead teach its citizens to use their right to speak freely because it is a foundation of The United States society. In short there should be no censorship by any government body of any aspect of personal expression. Strong words and images present strong statements,the kind that our constitution allows us to make.
Trial Balloon
Prepared by Allison K.
Based my interviews with the two students who are not in government, Autumn Planek and Krista Varble, I found that they both were in strong support of our bill, "No Censorship." They both seemed to agree that censorship of literature and the internet, along with other forms of media would consequently affect one's education and beliefs negatively. Therefore, causing substantial information to go unaccounted for when in fact, it could have been extremely influential. They also felt that if certain forms of literature were censored they would be denied the opportunity to read many quality books with profound messages in them. Overall, both students thought that it was the parent's responsibility to determine the materials their children should and should not be exposed to, not the government's. Also, when I surveyed my mother she too felt the same way as the students and said that it was simply necessary that parents monitor what their children see, hear, and read. My older brother, too agreed that it would be best to have no censorship because it would produce more problems than it would solve, like in the case of banning certain books from schools and libraries. He felt that everyone deserves the freedom to read. All together, each person I interviewed seemed to be in strong support of our bill and approved of our solutions and goal where American society would exist without government regulation of any type of controversial material whether it be in books, music, the internet , or other forms of media.
1. Description of the Proposal Prepared by Jodi E.
The problem our issue group is addressing is marijuana being illegal. We would like to see the issues dealing with the possession of marijuana to no longer be such a problem, and we would also like to help along the legalization process. The main reason why people are scared of marijuana is because of the word "drug". You could say that peanuts were a drug and people would go crazy. People should look at marijuana as what it really is and not just as a drug. Many people who are against the legalization of marijuana have not looked at its benefits or actually studied its effects. The legalization of marijuana would benefit our country in many ways. It would improve our economy, there would be less crime related to drug use, and it would allow police and other law enforcement officials to devote more resources to hard drugs like crack and cocaine. Our biggest reasons as to why we would like this bill passed is for medical reasons. This would give victims of glaucoma, AIDS, cancer and other diseases better medicines and help ease their pain. It is also proven that marijuana it far less dangerous, medically, than tobacco or alcohol use. We believe the left side will most likely support our bill because the legalization of marijuana is a big left side, and very liberal issue.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue prepared by Liam D.
Although the left side will hopefully support us, the right side will definitely oppose us.The rational that will most likely be used to oppose our bill is the health issues. Marijuana is a supposed hallucinogen and to some people that proves a problem. But we're not trying to legalize it for smoking purposes, that's just an added bonus. Marijuana has been used for thousands of years by the Chinese and Indians for medical purposes, and there have been many tests that prove it's worth. Another opposition that most people use is putting marijuana in the hands of children, but if it is legalized there will be an age limit of twenty-one to posses it. That way children won't be able to go behind their parent's backs. They will wait until they are adults to own it. People will also say that smoking marijuana has the same effect on the lungs as smoking cigarettes. But in reality, marijuana has less tar and cancer causing agents then cigarettes. The left side is the side that will hopefully support us because legalizing marijuana is a huge left side issue and very liberal. In the paragraphs below we will give facts and reasons to support our bill.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution Prepared by Josh W.
Due to some myths, marijuana is not as bad as it is made to look. I found out 70 million Americans alone have tried marijuana. Some people think it's a gateway drug, but the fact is that only 1 out of every 100 people that started out with marijuana move to cocaine. Marijuana would also reduce crime because 642,000 people got arrested for some type of marijuana offenses last year. That's 642,000 less harmless people that wouldn't be in the jail system. In 1994 alone 8.4 billion dollars was used on marijuana enforcement, court, and prison expenses. Throwing people like that in jail just wastes a lot of tax dollars. Also one must look at other societies in the world and find out their policies of marijuana. For example, the city of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, is one place where marijuana is currently legal. Even though the drug is legal there, Amsterdam is a rich center of banking and the crime rate is incredibly low. Amsterdam is a prosperous city and still keeps marijuana legal. Another thing that was discovered is that marijuana does not effect you while you are driving. The University of Adelaide and also the Transport for South Australia did research on 2,500 South Australian drivers. It was determined that those under the influence of marijuana were no more likely to have an accident than those who were drug free. That's quite a strong fact in support of legalizing marijuana. The biggest issue we have over the opposition is that it is just a myth that marijuana kills brain cells. It has never been proven. In the 1970's the government did experiments on Rhesus monkeys. To see if their brain cells were being killed by marijuana. They implanted electrodes in their brains which in turn ended up killing all but one of the experimental monkeys. In a 1991 test with the same type of monkeys to see if marijuana did kill brain cells came up inconclusive. The experiment was concluded that marijuana smoke had nothing to do with brain abnormalities whatsoever. Another thing you may want to look at is other peoples opinions and what they think of legalizing marijuana.
4. Trial BalloonPrepared by Dale E.
We interviewed these following people on the topic of legalizing marijuana, these were their reactions.
Under 19 years. old
1. Erin Kraft
She feels that the legalization of marijuana is a good idea. It will bring people together and unite the world as one. She also felt that if people were introduced to it at a younger age as the child gets older they wouldn't go behind the parents back to do the drug and may get into harder drugs at the same time. So it would make the relationship better all around.
2. Page Powell
She feels that marijuana is a gateway drug. It can ruin relationships between kids and parents. Also it may lead to harder drugs that can kill you. But she also felt that it should be able to be used for medical use, and a age restriction should be put on it.
Over 19 years. old
3. Lucas English
He felt that marijuana should be legalized for many reasons. Such as medical use with glaucoma, cataracts, Aids, and cancer. Also it is very resourceful that it can be made into different thing such as rubber, clothes, plastic paper and many other things. He feels it will help in the saving of our planet. With the many helpful recourses it has to offer, it's amazing to me why it's not legal.
4. Mrs. Powell
She felt it is a good idea. That it should be taken out of the hands of dealers, put in stores and sold like alcohol. That way we can get a handle on the problem.
So after you have seen the reactions from people under 19 and over 19 you see that their reactions are very similar. That marijuana is helpful for medical use, a big economical boost, and benifical for our planet. Also it would remove a lot of insist people in jail. Another thing about marijuana is that the oils when you eat it will give you an excellent amount of nutrients, proteins, and vitamins your body may be missing. A huge group that would benefit from that are vegetarians. They would be able to get the proper nutrients that they don't receive from meat. As you can see the overwhelming amount of benifts from marijuana compared to the negitives that are very minimal as you have read. Our issue group would like to thank you for taking the time to read our paper.
Description of the Proposal
prepared by Samir P. The problem our issue group is addressing is about hate-crimes. Our definition on hate-crimes is, someone who is attacked for their race, religion, beliefs, sexual orientation, handicap, ethnicity or national origin. We want to pass a federal bill on hate-crimes that includes this definition. We believe that if you pass a federal law, there would be less attacks and a greater number of people protected. This law, if passed would protect all, so nobody (Republicans) could complain that it gives a certain "group" of people special rights because it doesn't (it protects all). This proposal is strongly on the left. The left would support it more, because they believe in the rights of individuals, all individuals. Democrats believe that this could help cut down on hate-crimes if it was passed as a federal law, because the penalty would be stiffer than it is now. The right side wouldn't support this because they don't want to protect certain types of people. For example, take gay rights. The right side is mainly opposed to this idea, because it is not a religious or a traditional way of doing things. To them its basically absurd. Our proposal also has to do with punishing hate-crimes. We believe that all violent hate- crimes should be penalized to the max. For example, if you kill somebody, and the nature of the crime is hate you can either receive the death penalty or life or life with out parole. Penalty for verbal assault, property damage, or assault in general would be between around 6 months - 15 years. Most of these sentences will be carried out with out the chance of parole.
Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue
Prepared by Kelly M.
The right side opposes our bill. They have a different view on federalism. They believe states should have more power. Our bill is a federal law, not a state law. We want to stop hate crimes all over, and address the problems in the whole U.S., not just our state. Our bill would require government intervention, to help stop hate crimes. Republicans also don't like to spend money on projects which interfere with society as a whole. We want to make hate crimes a federal offense. Too many people are getting away with these crimes, and no one can do anything about it. They are committing these crimes solely on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual preference, religion, beliefs, or handicaps. The Democrats support gay rights, but the Republicans do not. They have more old-fashioned values. The right side does not believe that it is 'hate' that motivates these people, but we believe it is. If it is not simply a hate crime, why can't the law do anything about it? These crimes must be stopped, before more innocent people get hurt.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution
If you commit a crime then you are punished for it. With hate crime you would be punished not just for the act but also for the idea that led to the act. In our group we want to stop hate crime and pass a federal law. We want a maximum prison sentences. We want to make one law for everyone so that every state has the same policy. We think it is wrong to hate or do things to others based on their race, color, or if they are handicapped. The people for hate crime says that the act of hate is not because the hated someone. We think hate is the nature of a hate crime that's why it led a person to do a crime. In 1996 the FBI reported 8,759 hate crimes. 5,396 were based on race. 1,401 on religion; 1,016 on sexual orientation; 940 on etnic background and 6 for multiple reasons. 1997 in Texas the hate crime reports were 167 anti-black; 64 anti-gay; 46 anti-white; 22 anti-hispanic; 21 anti-jew. African Americans are the most targeted people. The gays and white are in the the top five as well. Hate crime is one of the problems our country faces, we need to try and prevent it from becoming a bigger problem in the future.
Trial Balloon
Prepared by Cindy W.
For this section, I proposed a question to four different people, two were over nineteen and two were students that are not in government this semester. The question I asked was, "Should there be a federal law against hate crimes". My mother replied, " Of course there should be a hate crime law because there are way too many of them occurring." The rest of the people I interviewed said about the same thing as she did. I then told them my solution to the problem to hate crimes, which was make a federal law that was going to provide maximum sentences against the perpetrator. One person, who wishes to remain nameless, said," If you commit a hate crime you should be punished to the fullest extent because you can't handle being in society." The rest of the people also agreed with my solution and one person said it best, " Hate crimes seem to be more destructive than any common crime so there has to be a way to stop it."
Description of the Proposal
Prepared by Brian R.
In society today religion is a great issue but so is an education so lets keep them separated. Our issue group felt it would be a great distraction to involve prayer with school. We feel separation between church and state is important enough to be enforced as the first amendment so we feel it should be important enough to be enforced in schools. Many problems will arise because of the many different religions in the world today. Which one will be worshiped in school? If we allow people to form worship groups before school in a classroom we believe they will start to recruit students in the classroom. This will cause arguments between those who believe in different religions and those who do not believe in a religion and distract students from learning.
We feel there should be no prayer in schools because it will cause all of these problems. Besides People can form religious groups in their houses with constitutional support and those at schools shouldn't be affected because they aren't around to be disturbed.
We believe this is a left side issue because of the separation of church and state. We feel church and school should be separated and there should be no prayer groups on government property.
Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue
Prepared by Alberto P.
Separation of church and state is a major belief of the Democrats. The left side believes that there should be no type of prayer in public schools. Religion in schools can lead to many problems. We feel it is unconstitutional to allow religious gatherings on our schools. Our proposed bill is no prayer on public school property. This means that religious groups can not meet at any time on school property and practice their beliefs on school grounds. Most Republicans would oppose our proposed bill because they believe that prayer in school could be helpful for students. Conservatives believe in traditional values and allowing prayer and religious groups is something that they believe in. Many Christian Republicans believe that prayer can help because prayer can reflect values and opinions on to America's youth. They feel that America's youth doesn't have the values that they need, and some sort of prayer would help reestablish good morals and good values to young people who need it because of violence,drugs, and gangs. We propose this bill because any type of prayer or religious gatherings on school property would be taking away our rights given to us in the first amendment of Bill of Rights.
Identification of Information that Supports the Solution
Prepared by Joe D.
In the first amendment of the constitution in says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is saying that the government can not sponsor a certain religion or the government can not support a religion. Either can the people in the government. It does say that they have that common people have the right to practice their religion but in private. They cannot promote a certain religion in a government place.
Even Jesus was against prayer in school. In a quote from the bible shows this "But thou, when thou pryest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret."(Matt. 6:5-6) It is saying that prayer should be in private not in a public place like a school. There are also lots of quotes from famous people that support no prayer in school. "Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate." This was said by Ulysses S. Grant at his presidential speech in Des Moines. It is easy to understand what he was saying. He though it would be best to not have prayer in school because it is just not right.
There were many court case's that were about prayer in school. In the supreme court case of Weiss v. District Board in 1890 the court said "There is no such source of strife, quarrels, fights, malignant opposition, persecution and war, and all evil in the state, as religion. Let it once enter our civil affairs, our government would soon be destroyed. Let it once enter our common schools, they would be destroyed." This tells how they thought it would be a problem between students in the school and how it would ruin the way things work.
Trial Balloon
prepared by Daniel T
What I found in people is that they do mind having prayer meetings before and after school. What is wrong is that they are trying to set a time for school to admit some time for students to have there religious prayer groups. They have no problem with praying silently but that is all . That is what the education said about this issue it has always been this way keep it this way. I interviewed a female student 20 years old and I asked her what is the problem with prayer in school she replied by saying not much although it shouldn't affect you emotionally and physically because when you start to think with a dedicated mind in God then that defeats the purpose of school to learn then your grades are a loss. I also interviewed one of my friends he said that praying in school was just a waste of time for the teachers and the students he said if you want to pray do it but silently don't bother others. Someone that gave me there honest opinion is my mother she said that prayer groups in school should be aloud because of the problems in the world that it should be aloud to students that feel that they need there God in that time. I then asked her if it would affect your grades she said that you should not let it get in your way of your education.
So in conclusion people some problems with prayer groups in school but to do it out of school grounds. If it were like that then there would be no purpose to present this problem to you today. If people felt that they needed to pray out loud then they should go to a private school there you can pray out loud all they want but until you stop going to a public school then you need to respect the public school system. Just like you are expected to give the respect to a private school you should give it to a public school also just because it is public it does not mean that it can be overrun. That is why I ask all of you to join us support us do the right thing. Yes one last thing NO PRAYER IN SCHOOL.
1. Description of the Proposal
Prepared by Justin B.
The issue we will be addressing in our bill is the Electoral College. The Electoral College is an unfair system of dealing with presidential elections because it does not truly represent the popular vote of the people, and practically eliminates the importance of the civilian vote. The way the president is elected as of now is through the Electoral college. The process is as follows: The common people vote, and then the Electoral College is supposed to represent what common people voted with an electoral vote. Whichever presidential candidate wins the most electoral votes wins the election.
There have been several instances in which members of the Electoral College have voted against the popular vote, which is what their electoral vote is supposed to be representing. This is clearly not only a violation of their own job description, but also of our civil rights as citizens of the United States.
In light of these facts, we are proposing full abolishment of the Electoral College, along with the institution of election by popular vote. We feel that our solution would restore the importance of the common vote by creating a more democratic, and therefore more just system of elections.
We feel that this bill could should be considered bipartisan. Republicans will be likely to support it due to the fact that it is calling for the withdrawal of power from the government, and more power to the people. Democrats will be likely to support it because it is calling for changes to a corrupt system.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue
Prepared by Annalisa W.
A bill to eliminate the electoral college will receive opposition from the smaller states and conservatives who strongly resist change. As the system opperates today the smaller states have more relative power in their vote. Each state has the same number of electoral votes as federal legislatures in congress, two for each senator and a certain number for each representative which is based on population. Because of the two guaraunteed electoral votes, the smaller states have a stronger vote then larger states, relative to their poplulation. To eliminate the electoral college would be to lessen the smaller states influence on the election of the president.
The original opposition to electing the president of the United States by a purely democratic vote was based on the idea that the people were not capable of choosing well. And this idea was not a lack of confidence in the common people so much as a realization that the common people would not have access to information concerning presidential candidates. To ensure that the uninformed people did not foolishly elect an incompetent president, the Electoral College was devised. Its members were to be intelligent and knowledgeable of all the candidates and so able to elect a president worthy of the job. This issue may be raised in opposition to eliminating the Electoral College, though technology has eliminated most of its relevance.
Neither the left nor the right will blatantly oppose a bill proposing the elimination of the Electoral College. The right, though, will support the bill more strongly because it will move power towards a smaller federal government and will give more power directly to the people.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution
Prepared by Justin B. and Annalisa W.
It is important that the power to elect the president of the United States be in the hands of the people rather than in the hands of the Electoral College. Under our current system, if there are two candidates running, a president could be elected with only 22% of the national popular vote. If three candidates were running, a candidate would only need 15% of the national popular vote. This is possible partially because the thirty-nine smaller states have a proportionally larger vote (relative to their population) than the larger states. It is also possible because if a candidate won 49% of the popular votes in a state, the candidate would have nothing to show for it in terms of electoral votes.
Three times, because of the imbalance in the system a candidate won the popular vote of the nation, but lost the election due to lack of electoral votes. In 1824 Andrew Jackson won the popular vote, but lost the election due to a lack of electoral votes. In 1876, Tilden won the popular vote by nearly a quarter of a million people, but Hayes, winning the vote in the Electoral College by one vote, won the election. Finally, in 1888 Grover Cleveland won the popular vote, but Benjamin Harrison won in the Electoral College and therefore won the election.
4. Trial Balloon
Prepared by Araceli C.
I presented my issue groups problem to two adults and two high school students who are not in government classes this semester. First I interviewed my brother Sam, age, 21 about what he thought about the elimination of the electoral college, and he thought that it should be the people who vote for which president is the one who should be elected. He thought that because he thinks that the people would basically know what the president would be all about and know his ideas of the election, so he doesn't agree on having the government picking which president should be elected because he believes that the government would just pick the one that they themselves think would be qualified for it.
Next I interviewed my cousin Araceli, age, 25. And she told me the the opposite of what my brother told me. Araceli thought that the people should have no say in which president should be elected because they wouldn't really know what each president would really be about and thinks that the people might be fooled by how the presidents make them think and what kind of ideas they have, to get people to vote for them. So that's why she thinks that the people should have no part in the presidential election what so ever.
Finally the two students that I talked to basically had the same idea in what they thought about eliminating the electoral college. One of them was Nancy, age, 16 and the other one was Annabelle, age, 16 also. Both of them told me that it should be the people that elect the president because they have a right to vote on which presiedent they think will be a good person for the job, and since being president are a lot of years they feel that they do get to pick on what president would be elected in their country. And they think the government should stay out of it.
1. Description of the Proposal
Prepared by: Meaghan H.
Abuse. Intentional physical pain inflicted on another person. A spanking to a behind of a child for discipline is not a problem, but a repeated act of violence or unwanted sex is called ABUSE. These people who abuse need to be put away forever. Get them off of our streets and out of our homes. We would like to make it clear that those people who can not control their own rage, and take it out on others, should be punished. Every 30 minutes a child is the victim of abuse. 97%of the time they are abused by a family member. One out of every 6 women has been abused by her spouse. Where does it stop?
Imagine that your best friend has been beaten so badly that she has hundreds of bruises covering her body from head to toe. Imagine that she had been struck in the head so badly that when the mortician went to examine the wound, blood squirted in every direction. Then imagine that the person / people that did this to her did not even spend one day in jail. Now realize that these people were her own adoptive parents. This is exactly what happened to Vicky Dawn Rinkle. Her parents used the excuse that her mentally retarded biological brother had done this to her. Tests results show that her younger brother could have never stuck her that hard. It was medically impossible. The case was still dropped. This type of activity happens all the time in the world today, and must do something about it.
Statistics have proven that 90% of those who have abused, believe that there is nothing wrong with it. Even after imprisonment, 87% of abusers will go on to abuse again. These people believe that what they are doing is normal activity. More than 3/4 of the time, jails have proven not to rehabilitate these criminals . We need to put these people away for life. We need to keep the innocent safe.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue
Prepared by: Rosie P
Our issue group has decided that there should be severe punishment for those who abuse women or children. As the definition of abuse was mentioned earlier , I will repeat it for those who kind of missed it. We believe that domestic abuse is when either a spouse or a kid are being abused for the next few reasons: slapping, spanking, or forcing one to have unwanted sex. People will oppose this issue because they will say that people who abuse do this because they need help. They (left side) will say that instead of punishing abusers it would be better to put them in some kind of place where they could be helped. Democrats will say that people that do this do it for a reason such like they have been through this and they just want revenge. If someone is very much into religion they will say that its not our responsibility to punish people, its god who decides what to do. But these people don't see what our point is. We think that if we let these criminals run around and do this freely, this world would out of control. There wouldn't be freedom or rights of any kind. If we don't do anything to help victims that are being abused by these sick people, the rights and and freedom of the victims would be violated. So we need to stop this and it needs to be stopped now! We need to stop domestic violence!!!
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution
Prepared By: Karina G.
There should be a strict punishment for those who abuse women and children. There is not a real law that punishes those who abuse. There have been a lot of cases where the abuser gets put in jail for a certain amount of time and they end up getting out by just paying a fee. We would like to stop seeing this happen. I searched in some cases that happened in the passed and in some of them they say that the abusers were not punished the right way. They were geting out of jail by just paying a fee. The government does not see that that abuser is getting out of jail just to do it again. On October 28 in Canada the church apologizes for abuse. Canada's largest protestants church has apologized to the countries native people for physically and sexually abusing children.
4. Trial Balloon
Prepared By: Neli G.
In the United States of America the rights of abused woman and children are not really taken into consideration. Especially since there are not many laws that supply them with the help they need. Even if the law tried to put abusers away no rehabilitation help is offered to them. These abusers usually tend to abuse innocent people after they get out of jail.
I asked various people to give me there opinions on the rights of abused woman and children. This is what their opinion was. Two of the people said that the woman and children should be able to go get help. And go to the court system and fight.
What if the court said they didn't have substantial evidence to convict the abuser. What should they do? Even if they don't have valid evidence they should be able to leave the abuser. They should be able to get help from abuse hot lines, or maybe even go to a shelter until they have somewhere to go.
The other person said that they must have substantial evidence to incriminate people. For example, witnesses, pictures of the beatings, records from the hospital, or police reports. The last person I interviewed said, even though they might not have any evidence they should still try to find some records of past violence or abuse. These records would really be helpful to support their claim. If their record is clean then maybe they should try getting witnesses to convict the abuser.
I believe that all abusers should be put away. Help should also be given to all abused woman and children, no matter what kind of abuse it is, or circumstances they might be in.
Prepared by Aldo H.
1. Description of the Proposal
My group topic is to legalize gambling. Some people think that legalized gambling can be a bad thing, but people are helping other people because as we see it , it can go from the casino to the schools and people that need help. You all know that the casinos make money. The casinos need to make the most money because it's like the melting pot theory; the casinos make the money then the rest gets spread around. Some information that we found said that if the government taxed the gambling casinos the U.S. can pay the national debt. There would be some committee that will regulate the casinos and the federal government would regulate the casinos. The casinos will not be run by gangs but the govt.. The government will set the rules that the casinos have to follow to keep open.
Prepared by Nolan K.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue
As of right now gambling is allowed on water (casino boats) and on land owned by Native Americans, and our bill is to legalize land gambling anywhere. However it should be noted that the age limit on gambling of 18 is something we wish to preserve. The issue that so predominatly keeps coming up is that there are so many people that become addicted to gambling, however the arguement continuely grows to become invalid. It is not fair to the establishment to determine that gambling is addictive. The games played inside are not addictive drugs, they are simple card games and other casino related games. If casinos are outlawed on land than it is sending an extremely negative message out to the nation. What if a bunch of kids continually played arcade games as an obsession, should it be o.k. for the government to ban all land arcades? Of course not, the only reason gambling gets so much attention is because certain people grab the spotlight that lost all thier money at a casino, and it should be their right to lose their money at the casino. If they notice the trend of themselves losing than it should be a personal decision to stop, not the governments .
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution (Rep. Robert K)
For evidince to find out that gambling will pay off, we can look at Canada. Canada legalized land casinos 25 years ago and since has brought billions of dollars. Also thousands of jobs have been offered from casino building to schools and classes that teach card dealing.
Casinos are no different from the lottery, bingo, or those mail in sweepstakes, which are all forms of gambling. They are all chances to strike it big.
The government is just missing out on the money. People gamble in their own homes because they can't go to a casino, but they don't get taxed on the money they win in the poker games at home. The casinos can make money for the government and finance themselves so taxes won't be raised to support casinos.
The community makes money, which means the people come out ahead, the government makes money to finance the national debt, and people have fun winning money.
4. Trial Balloon (Prepared by Chris C.)
What I found out about people and legalize gambling was that they think it should happen. For example, they said " If it can balance the national debt then we should go ahead and legalize it." On the percent that should go back to the community alot of people said 10% to 25%. So it could do something good for the community. But one person said that the gambling people should keep all their profit. Three people said that the gambling age should stay at the age of 18. I had one person say "that there should not be an age to gamble. If you think that you can win, go for it". On the fourth question they all agreed that there should not be a limit on how much you can gamble in one day. One problem they said would come from this is that alot of people would get addicted to gambling. Another person said that the mob would take over the casinos. One other person said that "alot of people would be poor". The other person said that nothing would change. That is what the people said after I asked them these questions. 1.Do you think they should legalize gambling on land? why or why not? 2. What percent do you think should go back to the community? 3. What do you think that the legal age to gamble? 4. Do you think there should be a limit on how much you can gamble on one day? 5. What kind of problems do you think will come from this?
"IT IS BETTER TO WIN A DOLLAR THEN TO EARN A DOLLAR" by Chris Cruz
1. Description of the Proposal (Prepared by Alma A.)
What the members of my issue group are trying to solve, is the people are taking advantage of welfare, especially teenage moms. The teenage moms take advantage of this by first of all getting pregnant at a young age, when they know they can't support a family. Then they drop out of school and take care of the baby, don't work. The Dads don't even try to help the girls support the babies. What we want to do is set programs where we help the girls, we give them protection so they don't have any more kids.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue (Prepared by Naivi H.)
The reason why we want to limit welfare is because we want teenage moms to stop taking advantage of welfare. We want them to stop having more kids, and to start being independent. Teenage moms take advantage of the program and keep having more children, instead of working or at least continuing school to get a job and be able to support them selves and can have a kid latter on. Instead of trying to support they stay home and wait until they get the welfare check.
Why should some people be able to sit around all day and recieve a check from the government? A percentage of people do not spend any time looking for a job and to support their children that they have. People that work earn their money and are proud of it , and can support their children and give them anything they need, They are not wating for the government to send money and have walfare, they have to think about their future and the kid future.
People on the left side of the issue would support with this bill because with this decrease in welfare spending, the money left over has a beter chance of bening used towards social issues such as prisson rehabilitation, or people that need a transplant could use the money to save their lives.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution
This will help the people of our country not pay a lot of taxes. We want to help the young girls not to get pregnant and go on welfare. We will help them to a certainextent for example we will help them only if they are in school or have a job. Also another way to help a teen is by helping them make a smart choice. I f they decide to be sexually active they take some contraceptives. In some schools they are providing young girls with pills or condoms with a parent notification if there daughter decides to be active it's okay for them to provide them with it. It has been successful the birthrate has dropped from 62.1-56.9. Also the reason why a lot of teenage girls get pregnant is because they don't get attention from there parents so they get the love they need from there babies.
MORE FACTS
- 43% of long term recipients gave birth for the first time at 17 years and younger.
- Also another way to to make them think twice is by having boy and girls carry 35lb. dolls that cry uncontrollable to class.
-U.S. taxpayers spend $7 billion this year to pay for the social problem(most of the money is given to mom and child on welfare)
The govt. should help the children if there dad is absent by a certain extent. The mom should receive an amount every month but they have to be working because if they don't have a high school diploma I don't think they will be able to support themselves. Of all women who give birth land on welfare within five years of the first child.
There has been more enough sex education programs it seems to be getting weak. It has become painfully clear that conventional sex education accomplishes very little among the population of teenagers. These lessons start since they are in eight grade and go on through high school. Also some high schools are making them wear 35-pound "EMPATHY BELLIES" to give them an understanding of the burdens of childbearing.
In North Carolina is making one of the most serious effort at research and evaluation. In the state of adolescent pregnancy prevention program currently funds 23 local projects and then systematically monitors them to see how well they work. In N.C. after more than 10 years. of experimentation and study, perhaps the feeling is one of enhanced appreciation for just how complicated the entire situation is. The major thing we learned is we probably greatly underestimated what it would take to make major changes. To see dramatic changes it's going to take much more comprehensive approach. There is a growing awareness the teen pregnancy problems are the base of a lot of other problems.
4. Trial Balloon (Prepared by Jaime C.)
This is what the first student said.
1. What do you think about teenage moms.
She said That they don't know what they're doing there dumb for getting pregnant so early.
2. Its a good I idea to limited welfare.
She said yeah.
3. Do you think welfare should help teenage moms.
She said No they should get a job they're capable of getting one.
4. Do you think welfare should help moms on the number of kids or only one kid.
She said maybe on one kid cause if its more then one then thats too obvious they're doing it on purpose.
5. Do you think welfare should help teenage moms only if they have a job and that they continue school. She said They should,t help them at all if they thought they were old enough to get pregnant they should be old enough to support their baby.
This is what one of my teachers said.
1.He said for question number one He feels sorry for the girl that are in this situation he said that they are to young inexperienced to raise a family.
2. For question number two he said yes the girl must be able to support the child and welfare will help.
3. For this question he said yes but only for a limited a mount.
4. For this question he said only one child.
5. For the last question he said yes make them responsible for their choice and that he realize it will be difficult to work or go to school and raise a child but they must be held accountable to receive government assistance.
This is what my friend said about teenage moms.
1. He said that teenage are dumb because they get pregnant at early age.
2. He said it was a good idea to limited welfare.
3. He said that welfare should help moms on ascertain limit.
4. He said that welfare should only help moms only with one kid.
5. For this question he said that in or there for welfare to help teenage moms they should have a job and go to school.
This is what my brother said about teenage moms.
1. He thinks they should not call teenage moms they should be call kids having kids.
2. For this question he said yes to limited welfare because the rest of the teenagers that become pregnant fit it easier to survive there fore more teenager are going to do it.
3. He thinks welfare should not help teenage moms because they get free money and the up coming generations will continue to have kids they will not reduce the problem if gov't pays for stupet mistakes.
4. He said that welfare should help only the kid moms have to pay their consequences and for what they created.
5. He said that no help for moms because he said that he has a father and mother and the father of their kids so all there people should be able to support teenage moms expenses.
1. Description of the Proposal (Prepared by Kristy S.)
Adoption. This one word by itself brings about a dozen ideas to your head, I'm
sure. Our group, however would like to change this. We would like to narrow down the topic so there are not a million questions arising every time the word, adoption, is announced. We, as a group, will erase the horror stories and recreate the beautiful side of adoption that really does exist.
The problem our group would like to combat is familiar to many people in regards to the well known, "Baby Richard's" case. The heart breaking story about the small child who was adopted by a loving family and had lived their for six months, after which being taken out of the place he called home by his biological father. This case made society look at adoption in a different view. We realize what the extent of the loop holes regarding adoption are. It's time to change that. It is time to put kids first.
Our bill is simple but entirely necessary, Once the rights of a child is given up, the biological parents may not regain custody. We believe this should be law because it is more important for society to concern themselves with the children of our future then the parents.
The first month of a child's life is the time that the children adapt and attach themselves to the people around them. For this reason our group has decided that after the rights are given up from the mother the child is legally the adoptive parents responsibility. The father will be looked for before the child is born but if he is not found, the child can be given up by only the mother's signature. The child can not be taken back then, unless it is in danger under the adoptive parents care.
We, as a group, believe that this bill will project the ideas of adoption to society in a positive way. Kids are being put first. Their rights, their happiness, and their lives, through this bill, are being put before anything else. This idea will erase the problems of adoption and cease the heart aches it has caused in the past.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue (Prepared by Pam K.)
There are several reasons why there need to be stricter limits on when a parent can contest an adoption. We propose that, once the mother has signed away her rights the rights to the child her rights are completely forfeited. If the father has left the mother, a search for the father should be put into action, during the as soon as the mother decides that adoption is the right choice. If the father cannot be found then, his rights are relinquished when the mother signs away her rights. After the mother has given the child up for adoption the child cannot be taken away from the adoptive parents, unless the child's life is in danger.
One reason there needs to be stricter limits is because there is more to parenting then blood. Once a child is given up for adoption the legal rights of the child are turned over to the adoptive parents. The adoptive parents become the legal guardians. The biological parents have forfeited their rights.
Also, young children attach to their primary care givers very quickly. It's important that the child feels safe and comfortable in their environment. This cannot be accomplished if as soon as the child feels safe they are uprooted from the only home they have ever known. This can cause feelings of insecurity, that would otherwise be absent in the child's life.
There was a reason the child was put up for adoption. Usually the child is put up for adoption because the mother hopes to give the child a better life then they can provide. Things can't change over night. The children need to be in a placed that is best for them, not the adults.
REP. LAUREN M
When a mother gives her rights up to a child than that should not be the last time she is able to hold that baby in her arms. If the mother comes back in a few years after giving up the baby, she should be able to get her rights back to the baby that she once gave up. The same rules should also apply to the father, if he is to feel the same way. Maybe the only reason that the mother or father gave that baby up was because they were to young raise a child or could not afford too. But know they are older have saved some money and are wanting to take care of their child. Why should their rights to their own child be taken away for ever. What if the child wants to be with their birth parents and they are not able to they will be unhappy for the rest of their lives. Once a child is given up the birth parents should be able to come back and claim the rights to their child.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution (Prepared by Amamnda F.)
Here are some facts and information about adoption. For example, the cost of adopting a child is $10,000-30,000 per child. (These costs vary from agencies.) These prices are very high for a child, I know, but isn't it worth it if you can help raise that special baby. Now, if you are looking for a child to adopt you can call adopting agencies (1-800-822-5097). They can help guide you in which choice is best for you. They can also help make you time to come in and talk to them about any questions you have, and what type of child you are looking. Another adoption agency is American Adoption (1-800-875-2229), they can also help find you a child or they can put you on a waiting list to get a baby. Adoption agencies can help find you a baby, but you also have to go on a waiting list.
Now, when the parents sign the papers to give up the baby, they give up their rights to the child. That means, if the mother and father both sign the papers they are not allowed to change their minds, and take the baby back. Another thing is that the hospital can find out who is the real father by making the person take a DNA test. This occurs when the real mother is unsure of the father.
4. Trial Balloon (Prepared by A.J. P.)
I asked four people the following questions. only their first names are given due to the request of anonymity
Question 1
How would you feel if you adopted a child only to find out one of the parents did not sign away his rights and you had to give up the child?
Tommy: If I was with the child for a long time I would try not to give it up.
Sue: I would feel angry and confused. like some one died.
Patty: I would feel bad because I would miss the child and I would have to fight for him in court.
Jackie: Angry and upset - also that I had been treated unfairly.
Question 2
Do you feel that if the father can not be found during the ninth month of pregnancy and his parental rights were revoked, it would help make the adoption final and permanent?
Tommy: Yes, I believe it would help keep families together.
Sue: Yes. If every effort was made to find the father and he could not be found, his rights as a parent should be revoked.
Patty: Yes, because he wasn't responsible enough to be with the mother at the beginning, then he shouldn't be able to be claimed as the father. The adoption would be easier because the mother would be the only one filling out the papers.
Jackie: Yes, I feel that the father needs to be present at the beginning and middle of the pregnancy to have right, though. He cannot just decide he wants the child in the final, crucial moments of the pregnancy.
1. Description of the Proposal (Prepared by Missy N.)
We Americans are responsible for helping to deal with the nation wide problem of gun violence. Our bill is to put a ban on all handguns. Handguns are the number one weapons used in gun violence. Gang members use junk guns, these guns didn't pass the standard safety act. Junk guns are sold in the black market. By banning handguns this will help stop the circulation of junk guns. This would be a federal action taken nation wide, it 's time for the government to come in and take action. People seen carrying these guns will have them taken away. There will be a record of this so if a person is caught more than once they will be jailed and fined. Too many children are curious to play with guns and end up hurting someone or themselves. Too many people are wounded and die annually due to gun violence. Eliminating handguns can help solve accidents like this. Education on guns is also a method we will use to help our problem. Having education is schools about guns and also educational programs for those who purchase guns. This would be paid for by the government since the costs will go down on medical treatments and our economic costs that our government already pays for gun violence. I hope you will relate to this and help support our bill. If we ban all handguns it will help make our nation safer.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue (Prepared by Blanca R.)
The left side is going to be supporting the view for more gun control and more education for people about guns. People to the left side see our bill as a way to be more protected in the house,school and work. The number of kids being killed by a handgun in their own house has increased rapidly. Having an education on guns like how to put them in safe place and how to teach the danger of the gun to children. This will decrease the number of kids being killed with a handgun. Having more education about guns will decrease violence in streets, because we want schools to have a program to teach teens the danger of guns . The majority of Americans approve stronger gun control.
The right side will argue the point of the right to "bear arms" which is the second amendment. Some people think that this measure is too strong and if is not right because it takes away from their Constitutional right. Isn't your safety and security worth this proposal. Banning handguns will help cure this violent disease that American has. The right side may think they have the right to own a gun with no restrictions, and have it where ever they want. Is this going to be safe for kids? No, I don't think so. Our bill is not going against the second amendment. We still are allowing the purchasing of shotguns, riffles etc. There will still be background checks. By eliminating handguns will eliminate the access to junk guns. Junk guns are the primary use in gun violence. We all want to feel protected but today people are not protected with a gun, instead they are risking their lives and their loved ones lives too. Kids are killing kids with handguns. Is this what we want? No, we want to educate people about guns and we want teens to be educated too. Also having stricter laws will help decrease the money we use for gun violence and for the people that get wounded.
1. gunshots kill more than 35,000 Americans and wound approximately 250,000
2. approximately 75,000 Americans are hospitalized for the treatment of gunshot wound
3. gun violence costs the United States economy a total of $135 billion.
Americans can use this money for the education of guns.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution
Prepared by Xochilt C.
WHY BAN ALL HANDGUNS?
Some of the facts and information on why our bill is necessary:
1. Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintance than to kill an intruder.
2. In 1993, there were only 251 justifiable handgun homicides compared with a total of 14,204 handgun murders in the United States.
3. Compared to victims in other types of family murder, victims in spouse murders were the most likely to have died from a gunshot.
4. Every day, 15 American children are killed with guns.
5. Over 60% of the non-family murders and over 40% of family murders were committed with a gun.
6. 1 in 4 law enforcement officers killed with handguns in 1989, were killed with their own weapons.
7. More than 1,2 million elementary-aged, latch-key children have access to guns in their homes.
8. About 36,000 individuals died from gunshot wounds in 1995; of these, more than 5,000 were 19 years of age or younger.
9. Suicide is among the leading causes of death for children and young adults. In 1995, more than 2,200 people between 10 and 19 years of age committed suicide in the United States, and 65 percent of these used a gun.
10. The number of unintentional deaths caused by firearms has raged between 1,225 and 2,000 per year since 1979.
Consider the following:
81% of the public see the availability of guns and the increase guns as the root cause of increase gun violence.
52% of the pubic support a ban on the sale of handguns.
62% of the public support a special tax on handguns.
81% of the public favor the registration of all handguns.
70% of gun owners support more strict gun control.
73% of the public favor bans on cheap, poor-quality handguns.
73% of the public and 72% of gun owners support a ban on sell assault weapons.
The Wall Street Journal stated that 69% of the public support stronger control of hand weapons.
These are just a few reasons on why our bill is necessary. Children are killing children by gunfire. These deaths are occurring in homes, on the streets, and in schools. When possible solutions to this problem are discussed, conversation most often focuses on the troubled youth. Interventions involving conflict resolution programs, values teaching, reducing violence on television, and making available after-school activities and positive role models are proposed. Behavior modification programs cannot possibly reach and successfully treat every troubled youth capable of creating mayhem if he or she finds an operable firearm within arm's reach. Possession of a variety of small arms--predominantly pistols, rifles, and machine guns -- has become widespread in many societies. Firearms filter far beyond armies and police forces into the hands of organized crime, separatists and other armed opposition groups, drug traffickers, terrorists, private security forces, paramilitary groups, and vigilante squads. To the extent that ordinary citizens feel that the state fails to provide them with a sense of security, they too are increasingly arming themselves. Adding small arms into areas where instability and brewing can prove explosive. Check all of this out, make a wise decision and support our bill.
4. Trial Balloon
The opinion of the two adults about gun control were totally different. The first adult wants to have more gun control, because he agree that by having more guns in society violence will increase rapidly, he would go against the second amendment if is for the safety of his life, and the ones he loves. He also agreed that having education on guns will help teen understand the dangers of a gun and teach them how and when to use it. Juan who is a student in college and Deisy who is a student in the high school, they both agreed on banning all handguns. They basically agree with the first adult. They said, " today teens are have guns like they have pagers." They don't feel safe knowing student may have a handgun with them, and they are not educated on how to use it safely. They also would go against the second amendment because they think that "bear arms " are causing more death and more kids to kill kids so easy just because they have the freedom to protect them selves.
While in the order hand the second adult who was a teacher does not agree with banning all handguns, he thinks that laws are not going to make violence go down because it's all about people's way of thinking. Some people are using guns illegal and no one is going to stopped them. He thinks that guns are not the problem, but the people are using the guns are the big problem.
1. Description of the Proposal (Prepared by Ian V.)
The proposal of our bill is no drug testing, because it is
unconstitutional. We feel that are freedoms are barred if you're made to
take a drug test in attempt to obtain a job. The solution for this problem are
nation is facing is to make drug testing illegal in every state of are nation. So
I hope that are bill will be passed, on the simulation day.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue Prepared by Eric S.
Drug Testing in my opinion is unethical, and inapropriate. 18 Million people used Marijuana in 1997, and an estimated 10 million are regular users. Imagine if all of those 18 million people went to get a job. Now they have to take a drug test, to get the job. That leaves 18 million people without a job? Yes. I feel that drug tests are an invasion of privacy also, because if you go to a party on the weekend and smoke a couple of joints, and you take a drug test a week later you will come up positive for THC. As long as your not coming to work all stoned, then why should you take
On the other hand I can understand why some people would not want to support this bill. If you feel that the employer has the right to drug test then that is your opinion, but understand one day while you are puff'n on a fatty, that in a week you don't need to find a new job and have to take a drug test. With this bill you can take the drugs you like in your free time, and you won't have to worry about taking a drug test.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution Prepared by Mucas B.
Our bill is No Drug Testing For Employment. The solution to this problem is to get rid of all the drug tests that we have to take to get a job. If this problem was taken care of there would be no problems at all.
We would not have to have this bill if the government would just listen to the people's side of the story. People would say that taking a drug test when they are 40 or 50 years old is a little ridiculous. They couldn't believe that people would think that they would still do drugs when they are that old. If I were one of those people, I would be discouraged enough not to back to that job.
I think that Bill Clinton should take a drug test to be the president. Just like when he said "I didn't inhale", that doesn't mean that he won't do or try drugs again. Now that this scandal is going on, President Clinton is not trustworthy any longer. With that said, anything he says can be or is questionable of being true.
Now the people that have to take drug tests are people working in the public. Such as city workers, construction workers, architects, and engineers etc... I say that because if they take or use drugs on the job they could be or are endangering innocent people and themselves. The other people shouldn't have to because they really aren't endangering people's lives.
Now for the solution. The solution is to get rid of the drug tests, right? Correct. How are we going to do that a lot of people are going to ask us. This is how.
First, we would say that it is part of the Fourth amendment. That is our right to privacy. Everybody should have that right.
4. Trial Balloon Prepared by Jeremy A.
Our bill states that there should not be any kind of drug testing for employment.
I have interviewed four people and asked them questions relating to our bill. I interviewed two students and two other people over the age of 19 years old.
Both the students basically said the same thing. They said that it shouldn't matter if you do drugs or not, just as long as it doesn't interfer with their working ability.
They think that it should be the person's decision to take the drug test or not. They both said it shouldn't be the company's or the employer's decision to make the drug tests mandatory in order to get the job.
Now when I interviewed the two older people they were just the oppisite from the two students. They said that there should be drug tests for employment. But they don't think that if the employee decides to not take the drug test it will be counted against them in the employer's decision in getting the job. So you can see the different sides of views for the different age groups.
1. Description of the Proposal Prepared by Victor A.
Our bill is focusing in student rights and having more privacy in schools for all students. Our bill is focusing more in students to feel more safer to come to school knowing that they have rights that teachers, deans can't break or else the student has the right to take them to court for any specific reason. This bill will give you the right to stop some one from going through your looker, and your stuff. I think that if they give us that looker for this year it should be ours for only to open and close it when ever we want to, and put any thing we want on it as long as nothing bad is inside. This will make the students feel stronger about them self and probably won't react bad some times to a teacher or student. This bill will take place in state first and if it works out then it could become a federal law. As a student I think we should be able to defend our privacy so vote yes for Student Right bill, for your own protection.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution (Prepared by Quitizia C.)
1.) www.aclu.org Ask Sybil (privacy) This article talks about how students have fewer rights in school then outside of school. At some schools they want to do a random drug test on student athletes that's violating their rights. Some schools have medal detectors, but only use them on certain students.
2..) www.aclu.org Ask Sybil (fair treatment) Students have the right to fair treatment by people who are in position of authority for example teachers, deans, and the police.
3.) www.aclu.org Ask Sybil (equality in education) The Constitution requires that all kids be given an equal educational opportunity no matter what their race, ethnic background, religion,or sex ,even,whether they are in this country illegally. You also have the right even if you are not a citizen or non-citizen, poor or rich. The Constitution also protects students against discrimination in education based on sexual orientation or disability, including pregnancy and HIV status.
4.)www.aclu.org Ask Sybil (freedom of expression) The first Amendment guarantees our right to free expression and free association. You have the right to express your opinions as long as you do it in a way that doesn't materially and substantially disrupt classes.
4. Trial Balloon (Prepared by E. Chavez)
1) Do you feel that your student rights were ever violated? If yes how?
Yes by waring a shirt with a logan on them making me turn it inside out .
2) How do you feel about uniforms in public schools ?
I would want uniforms.
3) Do Teachers / Deans have the right to search your Locker / Backpack with out
your permission ?No they dont.
4) Should search dogs be allowed in Public Schools ? No there should not.
5) How do you feel about having to show your I.D every time you come to school?
I think that is avery stupid idea it is a waste of time . I think that instead of showing it Might as well wearit all the time.
1) Do you feel that your student rights were ever violated? If yes how?Yes because of some clothes students wear they make you change.
2) How do you feel about uniforms in public schools ?Yes we should get them.
3) Do Teachers / Deans have the right to search your Locker / Backpack with out
your permission ?They do but they should tell us before doing it.
4) Should search dogs be allowed in Public Schools ?No
5) How do you feel about having to show your I.D every time you come to school?Not have to show it but wear it on.
1. Description of the Proposal Prepared by Eric A.
The problem with our corrections system is that on average, there is in excess of $40,000 spent on each inmate a year. This statistic is outrageous, especially when you see what the money is going to. Things like computers, TVs, and pornography, which have no place in prisons. The first step in the solution to the prison spending problem is to make a standard of what should be allowed. First, we must understand that these people are being punished, and do not deserve any luxuries, anything we give them is up to us. What we propose is that no inmate shall have access to a computer, TV, or magazines. Inmates shall be able to read from a donated library, which no tax money shall be spent on. As far as gaining an education goes, inmates will have access to high school education, and, if they desire, an outside source can fund their college education. Again, no tax money shall be spent on their education.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue Prepared by Eric A.
The only true negative side to this issue is that if you treat inmates truly horrible, they become animals, which further worsens their situation when they leave jail. This idea is wrong when you look at prison as discipline, and rehabilitation. The purpose of incarcerating a person is to discipline, and to rehabilitate. First of all, the prison needs to be a punishment, not cruel and unusual punishment which would be unconstitutional, but at the same time, it should not be a place where they cable TV, and computers, and other luxuries that we enjoy in the real world. Prison also needs to be a place of rehabilitation, where inmates learn to rehabilitate themselves, and learn how to behave correctly in the real world. Of course, rehabilitation will not work for 100% of people, but studies show the for many inmates it does work. Through these two ideas, we hope that inmates will not become savage beasts when they leave prison.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution Prepared by Rob F.
The bill we are trying to pass has to do with prison reform. Did you know that we spend $48,000 each year to house criminal and up to $80,000 on serial killers who require more supervision. People that are sentenced to jail are paid to be there, an average of $1.60 a day for doing nothing but sitting on their butt. Inmates are not required to work but people who do work can earn$5.25 to $6.90 per day. $106,000,000 was is spent a year on all kinds of programs.
People in jail are given the chance earn degree and have free schooling all the way past college. They are given cable T.V., and have access to computers, stereos, fish tanks, etc.
They are also given a family time where their wife can come in and they are given a cottage or trailer home and the inmate will get free condoms. He is allowed 72 hours for sex in a 2 month time.
There is free medical and dental care for people in jail and old age security which entitles them to collect old age security benefits while they do their time.
This is why we feel that there should be a bill on this to stop the way we baby the people in jail today and cut down on the money we spend on them.
4. Trial Balloon Prepared by Sarah H.
1) Do you believe the government gives too much money to prisons? Explain.
-Two out of the four people that I interviewed said that the government is spending too much money on prisons.
-2/4 say that prisons look bad and we need to spend more money to help reform prisoners.
2) Do you think the money that is spent on prisons should be increased or decreased? Explain.
-2/4 said to decrease the money because we spend to much on prisons already.
-On the other hand 2/4 say we need to increase the money spent on prisons because they look bad.
3) Do you feel that criminals deserve cable television and other electronic devices? Explain.
-All of the people that I interviewed said that the prisoners should have television but only as a privileges.
4) Do you feel that if you make the prisons less inviting and more comfortable with less privileges, then less people would commit crimes? Explain.
-2/4 said no because if their criminals they won't care.
-2/4 said yes because if its better then out in the real world then who cares.
5) How does it make you feel, when your tax dollars are spent on prisons to make them feel comfortable? Why?
-All of the people that I interviewed said they feel really upset because it's a prison, the criminals shouldn't have all of those privileges we should spend our money on real things that matter like childrens education.
6) If you were a criminal would you be scared to commit a crime if you knew that when you would get into prisons you would have: A television, 3 meals a day, they get paid $1.60 per day without even working, clean clothes, a weight lifting room, computers, and even once and a while pizza gets delivered to your cell? Explain
-They all said no because they would have everything they need in jail and not have to worry about anything else.
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Prepared by Dave M.
Our proposal "mandatory signals at all railroad crossings" is a bill designed to help limit the amount of train versus car collisions. Every year there are far to many people killed or injured due to faulty signaling equipment or lack of equipment at railroad crossings. The laws now are far too lenient on restrictions. The only way to solve this problem is to make it mandatory for all railroad crossings to be equipped with signals and guards (that cover the entire sidewalk and block the road). Mandatory underpasses and overpasses must also be built where accidents are most frequent. There are also many new low cost warning devices that will be used as well. The cost for this will be covered by a usage tax placed on the companies that use the tracks for business as well as the train companies. After a line of rail has been out of use for ten years or more the tracks will be pulled up and turned into bike paths or walking paths. Price tags can not be placed on human lives, the need to improve on safety around railroads has reached an all time high. This is a bi-partisan bill, it is neither democratic nor republican.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue: Prepared by Brian F.
Some people can say that our bill about making all railroad crossings safe is dumb and they might think that they have reasons why they think it won't work. But until you have researched the bill you don't know why we have chosen it.
The first argument that I think most of you would think of would be that it is to expensive to make them safer. It would be expensive because it takes about 7-10 million dollars to make a underpass. True it would be expensive to do this, but I think that you can't put a price on a human life because nothing can bring it back. First you should know every time there is a train accident there are millions of dollars lost in the accident and all the trains and their cargo that is backed up. We also have many sources of how we would get the money for it. We would get money from the businesses that use the railroads and the railroad companies.
Another argument would be that there are already signals placed at most railroad intersections. This is false because only 20% of the railroad intersections have the proper warning devices. We need more at these intersections. Does anyone really pay attention to a railroad intersection that just has the little sign next to it that says railroad crossing? We need gates at the minimum at every crossing. If it is a very busy intersection or one where there have been a lot of accidents there should be a under or overpass. Another warning device that we can have is people at certain intersections that can tell people to stop.
There is that last little argument that people say and that is what about the people who still just try to beat the train and go threw the gates? To that, I guess there could be ways to improve on it. But for the most part we say those people are idiots and it is there fault. But what we ask of these people is to please think of the people that are in the car with you before you do something like that.
This is also a bill that both democrats and republicans should vote on. Since this is a bipartisan bill no one in the simulation has to worry about crossing party lines and anyone getting mad at you. This is a bipartisan bill because there is not a issue like traditional values, businesses, or taxes; it deals with lives which I hope both the democrats and the republicans can agree on.
3.Identification of Information that Supports the Solution:
Prepared by Kevin R.
Some information that we will use to present our bill can be found in the next paragraph. I will talk about statistics, graphs , and just common knowledge.
One of the biggest programs on railroad safety is the organization "Operation Lifesaver", it is a program created for community awareness and education on railroad safety. Another local group is the Dupage "Safety Council", we will use information about 280,000 highway railroad crossings in the U.S. Some topics will be about the cost of building underpasses and overpasses. An underpass will cost about 7-10 million dollars. We will also add the costs of the hundred of thousands of dollars it will cost to put up sufficient warning systems at railroad crossings, instead of just cross bucks. Some statistics we will use are how long it will take a train traveling at 30 mph to stop, which is an approximate 3500 feet or 2/3 of a mile at an emergency brake. At 50 mph it would take over a mile and a half to stop.
Did you know that more people die in a railroad crash than in airplane crashs in an average year? How about knowing that the major causes of railroad accidents are : crossing conditions, the wider the crossing, the longer it takes to clear the tracks. Obstruction of view: crossings and their approaches are frequently obstructed by bushes, trees, buildings, roads, and where the road and tracks are parallel the driver can only see briefly before they turn into the crossings.
About 80% of the 223,000 grade crossings throughout the country are not properly protected with appropriate warning devices. There are approximately 170,000 public highway railroad crossings at grade. About 65% of these are on low-volume roads and have no automated warning devices.
There are many warning devices already out there such as cross bucks, cantilevers, and lights and bells. There are also high-tech new warning devices being tested as well. Such as a new passive warning system where the trains head lamp will activate the "box" and send a red signal to all oncoming traffic. This signal will put up a certain sign or message that can be seen from several hundred meters.
These are just some of the informative items that we will use to present our bill on sufficient warning systems at railroad crossings.
4. Trial Balloon: Prepared by Dave M.
Railroad crossings are unsafe, and warning signals that are in place are insufficient. We propose to have more warnings installed at all railroad crossings plus have major crossing's safety greatly improved on. Ideas would be gates on both sides of the road with the opposing side delayed so motorist caught in the intersection can get threw. Plus have rail guards (people) to watch and direct motorists and pedestrians at high traffic crossings. That was the question that I asked to two of my peers about this topic. Bob Martin said that he agreed with the idea so did Nathin Kalish. though Nathin said that you need to make sure that the gates are properly timed.
1. Description of the Proposal Prepared by Ivan R.
There are many reasons why the minimum wage should be raised.
Many people cannot support a family of four earning the minimum wage.
The same people that earn the minimum are on welfare because they cannot
afford a doctor or any medical insurance, so they need welfare to survive. Inflation is
another problem too. The prices of many things are going up and poor people can't
be able to afford them anymore.
The solution to all of those problems is to raise the minimum wage from $
5.15 an hour to $6.15. This raise will help many people live a better life and get out of
poverty.
Many people will not need to be in welfare any more they will be able to afford a doctor
or medical insurance.
Raising the minimum will really help keep up with inflation. Those people that will
earn more will be taxed more too, and that's good because there will be more money
to spend on roads or programs to help other people. This bill is to the left.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue Prepared by Elvis A.
If the minimum wage increased then the big companies would have to pay more to people that have skills and that's what is going to affect a lot of people that doesn't have skills to work and is not going to help nobody. It's going to be less job opportunities.
That's not true because if the government puts all the effort or support to raise the minimum wage is not going to affect anyone.
Raising the minimum wage would help a lot of people getting out of welfare and that is going to help the economy of the United States to not waisting money on welfare.
3. INFORMATION THAT SUPPORTS THE SOLUTION TO RAISE MINIMUM WAGE. Prepared by Hang N.
"Online Forum" May 10, 1996
* President Clinton believes it's fair to increase the wage. The public also support this proposal because they think full time workers should earn a living wage.
* $ 6.15 an hour would support two people and keep them above the poverty line.
* A study by David Card and Alan Krueger of Princeton University showed that after N.J. raised it's minimum wage, more jobs were added. At the same time, Pennsylvania didn't raise its minimum wage and there was no increase in restaurant employment.
"Minimum wage of $6.15 by year 2000 'Not Unreasonable'" Omaha World Herald. Oct. 15, 1998
* Studies have shown that many people struggle to support their families with a minimum wage of $5.15/hr. The Kennedy bill proposed an increase of $1 over two years or $6.15 by 2000. We need to provide a fair pay to provide living needs. 74% adults will increase in benefit from this wage increase.
"Raise the minimum wage" Seattle Post- Intelligencer; Seattle, Wash.; Oct 11, 1998
*Initiative I-688 asked states to raise the minimum wage to $5.70/hr for people over 18 starting Jan. 1, 1999 and go to $6.50 Jan. 1, 2000. This will be a fair way of keeping up with the inflation.
*Furthermore, taxpayers are the ones often called upon to bridge income gap for minimum wage workers with various forms of welfare assistance. The problem can be solved if workers are entitled to a fair minimum wage and have enough money to provide for themselves.
"Clinton Wants Higher Minimum Wage" Alan Fram. Associated Press News Service. Washington, Feb. 12, 1998.
* Clinton said he wanted to increase the current $5.15 hourly minimum wage by $1 an hour in two 50-cent increments by the turn of the century.
* Clinton stressed the importance of paying workers a fair wage so that they can raise and support their children.
"Starving on Minimum Wage" Boston Globe-Boston, Mass. Oct. 6, 1998.
* It's been shown that a person living in Boston need an income of $15,888/year to live sufficiently. This means there is just enough money for food and rent. These working poor can't get better because their income is above poverty level but exceeds the level needed for housing. When there's a family to support, it'd be really hard.
* Senator Kennedy has worked in Congress to ask for raise from $5.15/hr to $5.65 over next two years.
* In order for a city to have healthy economy, families need to earn beyond subsistence.
National Tooling and Machining Association. Issue: Minimum Wage
* Increase minimum wage would raise the living standard of 12 million Americans.
* Economy is strong enough to support an increase without loss of jobs.
* On March 19, 1998, Senator Kennedy and Representative Bonior introduced the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1998. They wanted to increase by 50 cents the minimum wage to $5.65 in 1999 and increase 50 cents more to $6.15 in 2000
4. Trial Balloon (Prepared by Mayra H.)
What people think is that raising the minimum wage could help a lot of people with their families and the maybe they would not be poor anymore or maybe they could earn enough money to support their families. Also, they don't think that is going to affect the economy instead is going to help it.
Surveyors were asked what they thought about the minimum wage and if it was going to be a problem if the minimum wage is raised.
Person #1(Mrs. Allmart)
She said that raising the minimum wage would help a lot of people and can get off of welfare and work without being a parasite on welfare.
The government should use that money to help increase or build more companies that can give more jobs to more people that need jobs.
Person#2 (Mrs. Padilla)
According to human rights we all deserve a better life style, but not all people have access to quality services and increasing the minimum wage will help those who don't have the same benefits as people with better salaries. She thought that the minimum wage should be increased.
Person#3 (Adriana Romero)
Having skills to work I think is only for people that work in offices. I think that that it is perfect for them, but what this is talking about is for those people that work in companies and the companies don't pay us enough because they pay the minimum wage and even if we work overtime it's not enough money and sometimes the taxes are to high and it's not enough to support our families.
Person#4 (Edson Dominguez)
What the government should do is not only think about themselves because what are they doing is increasing the people going to welfare and that is what makes people parasites and they don't care of how much money the government spend in there and that is how the government is wasting money.
The minimum wage should increase so people can help themselves working harder and not just being on welfare but just working.
1. Description of Proposal
(Prepared by Corrine D.)
My group and I are addressing the issue of prostitution and it's legalization. We feel that prostitution is an activity that has been prominent in the past, in the present and will continue to be prominent in the future. Based on this thought, we looked at some of the conditions of prostitution and what could be done to better prostitution environments. Since it is obvious prostitution is going to occur, why not make it safer and more beneficial?
One of the main concerns about existing prostitution conditions is the occasional unhealthy use of contraceptives. Many prostitutes contract sexually transmitted diseases due to lack of protection or inadequate protection. We propose that a guideline of legalized prostitution be monthly testing for prostitutes to insure their good health, as well as required use of sterile contraceptives while engaging in sexual activity. Another guideline we propose is that only those ages eighteen and over may allow their bodies to be available for paid sexual activity.
A major benefit of legalizing prostitution would be an increase in tax intake, while decreasing the amount of money spent on incarceration. If the business of prostitution were legal, it would be necessary for the government to take a tax percentage out of the business' earnings. Prostitution is a multi-million dollar enterprise, therefore a large sum of money would be contributed to the economy through it's taxation. Not only would prostitution's legalization increase tax dollars, but it would greatly reduce the number of inmates the country would have to support while serving their sentences. For every inmate incarcerated for prostitution, the government would save approximately fifteen thousand dollars per year if prostitution were legalized.
The issue of prostitution and it's legalization is the representation of the Democratic side of the political spectrum, simply because it doesn't really coincide with the traditional conservative values. Prostitution maybe not be an obvious engagement, but it's quite a common one. From what has been discussed so far, should prostitution be legalized? WE THINK SO. Consider the alternatives.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue
Prepared by Olivia S.
Many people like to argue that prostitution is an immoral act and has been looked upon as a rather ugly profession. I would like to disagree with this conclusion for many reasons. First of all, prostitution is the oldest of all occupations. Throughout time, it has gotten more materialistic, unsafe, and underground. By legalizing it, we will be making it a safer and more public industry. And by doing this, prostitution and the sex industry as a whole will prosper. It would take it off the streets and into a controlled environment. Another valid point that we would like to make is that by legalizing prostitution, we are by no means saying to go out and use the service or to get engaged in the profession. It would simply make it safer for all people, along with the other numerous benefits.
Another argument against prostitution is the spreading of sexually transmitted diseases. This is a problem and we have addressed this. Although the transmitting of STD's among prostitutes consists of only 3 - 5% of all STD's, we still have regulations to even further prevent it. All sex workers will be required to obtain and encouraged to use condoms. Also, workers will be required to take sexually transmitted diseases and HIV testing every month. Records will be kept on the employees in the industry by requiring registration, licenses will be issued, and in a case of someone not going in for a monthly evaluation, their privileges will be revoked for a period of time, which is similar to a suspension, and their job will surely be in danger.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution
Prepared by Patricia W.
Most people think unclean when they think about prostitutes, but only 3 to 5 percent of all sexually transmitted disease in the United States are related to prostitution, compared to the 30 to 50 percent of teens in the United States with sexually transmitted disease. And it has been proven that prostitutes are more likely to use condoms than non prostitutes. Violence related to prostitution is about the same as domestic violence in our lives. In the United States we spend around 7.5 million dollars trying to control prostitution and that is not very effective. Especially when we compare this to the 27 billion dollars that the country of Thailand is making off of prostitution.
4. Trial Balloon
Prepared by Brenda B.
I have proposed my groups bill to legalize prostitution to three students who are not enrolled in Government now and three adults. I explained to them that we want to legalize prostitution because since it is already going on, it'd be better if it were safer. We state in our bill that you must be 18 years of age to begin with. The prostitutes would also have to be registered and get tested monthly for diseases. I told them how it is legal in some places and the number of prostitutes has actually decreased in number because it was legalized. All we basically want to do is make this a lot safer for the people who would like to participate in this type of activity.
Student A says that this is a really good idea. He says that we are going about it the right way and should continue to do so. As long as it is safe, people should be able to get paid legally for what they are good at. Student B also is really interested in this bill. He thinks and as long as it is going on, a business should be made of it. Student C did not like this idea at first because he is against having sex before marriage. After I explain to him that all we want to do is make what is already going on safer, he started having second thoughts. He understood where I was coming from, but said he still didn't believe in it.
Adult A was strongly for this bill. He said that he would really enjoy being able to go to a place where prostitutes were without having to worry too much about safety. He thinks that by doing this, there will be many more happy people. Adult B strongly disagreed with this. She was wondering why I would even try to legalize something like this. She believes that sex before marriage is wrong and we shouldn't be trying to promote it. Adult C was also for the bill. He believes that since it's going to happen anyway, we should at least make it a safe environment. He said the only thing he'd be afraid of would be spending too much money.
As you can see, after I proposed the bill to six different people, a majority of them agreed with it. People may not believe in it, but think that by legalizing it prostitution will surely be a lot safer than it currently is.
1. Description of the Proposal Prepared by Mike S.
Our bill is addressing the smoking age. Currently the smoking age is 18. Our proposal is to lower the smoking age to 16. This will ensure the right of people at a younger age who want to smoke can smoke. At this age there is a lot of responsibility because of driving.
The people who are responsible are the 16 year olds who smoke. We feel that they can make a grownup decision when dealing with something like smoking. If they make rash decisions then they must learn to deal with the consequences.
What will be done is that 16 year olds who feel they can smoke will need a legal guardian to purchase the cigarettes.
We are going to enact this as a Federal Law. This way it will take effect all over the United States. Since taxes on cigarettes are high now then some of that will go to research lung cancer.
It will be regulated the same as cigarette sales are now. Except this way 16 years olds will be able to possess and smoke cigarettes as long as someone buys them for them.
Our bill is bipartisan because you have more choice and there is less government involvement. There's more parental choice than government.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue Prepared by Nick A.
Our bill is addressing the age of smoking. Our proposal is to lower the age of smoking from 18 to 16. Of course there are two sides arguing that smoking is bad and then we have another side saying that smoking is not bad. Its a freedom of choice
On the one side people disagree with smoking. Smoking costs the United
States at least 65 billion dollars each year in health care costs according to the
American Lung Association. Smoking is responsible for 87 percent of
lung cancer cases, according to the U.S. Surgeon General office. Smoking during
pregnancy accounts for 20 % to 30% of low birth weight babies, 14% of premature
deliveries and 10% of infant deaths, according to the American Association. Second
hand smoke was classified in 1992 by the Environmental Protection Agency as a
human carcinogen, responsible for 3,000 lung cancer death each year among non
smokers. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health urged employers in
1991 to restrict workplace smoking Through September, 1993, 45 states included
Illinois, have laws restricted smoking in public places. About 74 percent of Americans
believe in some tobacco ads are designated to encourage children to smoke,
according to a 1992 Gallup poll. The Federal Trade commission decided not to restrict
Joe Camel ads. Even though all of these facts show smoking is bad, what is the
government going to do cut back on overeating because that is bad for you? Are they
going to take away peoples drivers license because driving is a risk? That is what life
is all about, taking risks. And if people choose to take those risks who are we to say
that they can't? Because the people will continue to do it no matter what anyone
says.
One the other side people agree with smoking. Smoking has been proven to
reduce the risk of Parkinson disease. Smoking relieves stress. Smokers have a 50%
reduced risk of developing Alzhiemer's and the more smoked, the greater the
protection. Just because you smoke that doesn't necassarily mean you are going to die
or that you are going to acquire lung cancer. 400,000 deaths per year are related to
smoking. The truth is 2,300,000 Americans die each year there for non smokers are
dying faster than smokers. Whole milk has a higher carcinogen level than tobacco
smoke. It is sager to sit in a room full of smoke than to drive through downtown
Washington. The American governments first health and nutrition examination survey
has found that osteoarhntis is five times less likely to occur among heavy smokers than
non-smokers.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution Prepared by Brandon W.
1. Greece is the country with the heaviest smokers but they have the lowest rate of cancer for women and the second lowest for men too.
2. The percentage of people in America that smoke has dropped from 52 percent in 1965 to 28 percent now.
3. 23 percent of teenagers from 16 to 24 smoke compared to the whopping 30 percent of 25-44 year olds that smoke.
4. Smoking cigarettes reduces the risk of Parkinson's disease.
5. America has the lowest percentage of smokers with 28 percent of Americans smoke compared to 35 percent of the rest of the world that smoke.
6. Most other countries in the world have no smoking age and better mortality rates then America (Greece, Amsterdam, Germany, etc.)
4. Trial Balloon Prepared by Emily S.
Mary Geraghty-adult
Personally, I do not agree with smoking so therefore would not want to lower the smoking age. However, it is a decision the individual makes either way. With information you told me I am informed with different facts then what I thought was correct, or did not know altogether. If the parents are aware and agree the child can make that decision at 16 then perhaps it's okay. The kids will find a way either way, it just eliminates the fine and informs the parent.
Judy Sowinski - Adult
I have been smoking since I was 20. It was a bad choice but we were not as informed as kids are today. However, according to your information I seem to believe only parts. If this info is correct I can see less disadvantages then I believe at the time. However, kids if their parents agree they are old enough and mature enough to make that decision on their own, perhaps that's okay. Let's also remember it can just be eliminating the fine if caught but not if sold to a 16 year old. Kids get them on their own now underage without their parents knowing so who's to guarantee the parents will know.
Gary Raad - student
1. Description of the Proposal Prepared by Bryan S.
Our bill is for having school vouchers available to any individual who attends schooling in grades kindergarden through 12th. These vouchers use the money that the government spends on each student on average in Illinois. This will work by dividing the money up evenly between each student and giving them the sum that they are entitled to. Then they can go to any school that will except them and they can give them the voucher that they receive to pay for the extra money they'd have to pay to go to that school. This would solve the problem of some schools having poor facilities. Our bill would solve this problem because having these vouchers would create competition between the schools because each school would want to have better facilities for the students. In making the facilities better for the students more people would want to spend their vouchers there. The school would want to have more students go to their school because then they wouldn't lose money by not having as many students go to their school. In conclusion our bill will encourage schools to improve their facilities because of the competition that will be presented between the schools.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue Prepared by Jamie P.
This school voucher bill plans to correct all the negatives that were found in previous bills on the same subject. This bill is directed to give students the freedom to choose their own education. The negatives that could be in this bill have all been taken care of; for example liberals might think that school vouchers may cause segregation among different ethnic groups in society. Regular affirmative action standards will be required by all schools. Also studies show that the more students that go to a school the more integrated it will be. There are many positives aspects to this bill. The choice of freedom for students will teach them responsibility because they will be making a choice that will effect their future. Schools will also be more enjoyable for them because student's will be going to a school that they like, rather than a school they are forced to go to because of district boundaries. In some cases, students might even be able to go to a school closer to their home. Students having school vouchers will force schools to strive to have the best of everything that they can offer. This will cause schools to be competitive, and heighten their standards. All students will receive the best education, because that will be the only thing available. School vouchers will provide students with many new opportunities to receive the best education possible.
3. Information that supports the Solution Prepared by Adam M.
Fact sheet
-freedom of choice in where you want to go to school
-competition between schools which will make schools strive to be the best or they won't get the students they need to stay open
-schools will be more enjoyable for students because they will be going to a school that they want to go to rather than a school they had to go to do to a district line drawn on a piece of paper
-lesson of responsibility because students choose their own future by deciding what school they want to go to
-most popular schools that students would like to go to usually are the most integrated(they won't cause segregation)
4. Trial Balloon Prepared by Alex W.
1. Description of the Proposal
We believe that our current tax system is time consuming and unfair. There is no reason why people who make more money should be penalized and forced to pay more money in taxes. We want everyone to be taxed the same, and that is why we would like to introduce the Flat Tax.
The Federal government would be responsible for the tax. There would be deductions of $11,600 per individual, $14,850 for a single parent household, and a $5,300 deduction for each dependent child, which comes out of your annual income. The amount of money you have after deductions is then simply taxed by a rate of 17%. This rate applies to everyone: the rich, the poor, and the middle class. This will help to eliminate the loopholes that were made when forming our current tax system.
The action will take place in the federal government. Our plan will be overseen by the IRS, as it currently is. They will be in charge of financing it and regulating it. With our Flat Tax, you can fill your taxes out on a piece of paper the size of a postcard instead of having to fill them out onto multiple tax forms. The IRS will spend less money on tax forms and less time reading through the millions of forms they receive each year.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue
There are many different arguments in support of a flax tax that cannot be ignored. The time saved alone is a major reason why this bill would be positive for Americans. Besides time, Americans would save money and paper and it would put into place a fair system of taxation that our country has a dire need for.
Our current tax system consumes way too much of Americans' time. If a flax tax were put into place, tax payers would spend a lot less time on their taxes and would have a lot less chance of making errors. This would reduce the likelihood of tax audits and penalties. Taxpayers could fill out a simple postcard and mail it in, saving them hours and hours of tedious work.
Besides time, the amount of paper that the United States uses currently could be cut down considerably by instituting a flat tax. Right now, hundreds of thousands of trees are cut down each year to produce the excessive amount of tax forms needed now for the current tax system. The flat tax would eliminate the wasted paper by making the form a simple postcard for individuals to fill out.
A flat tax would also be fair and eliminate all the abuse and injustice in the current system. Every dollar would be taxed once and at the same rate. There would be no more loopholes and exemptions and people could no longer abuse the system. The one rate is also fair because all income would be taxed the same. It doesn't punish hard work.
Some people to the left of the political spectrum feel that the flat tax is not the way to go. One opposing argument is that the middle class would suffer or pay more with a flat tax. However, this is not true. Analysts say the current tax code is the one that punishes hard work. Proposals say that a flat tax could save a middle class family of four around 3000 dollars. Statistics show that people of all incomes can save from the flat tax.
Also people say that the flat tax would hurt charitable giving, but experts say that people gave to charity even before the income tax so they wouldn't stop now. Also, some analysts say that people will give even more to charity because they'll have even more extra money because of the money saved from taxes.
A final argument against the flat tax is that it would increase the deficit. However, economic experts say that the only way to create an economic boom in our country is by cutting economic spending and cutting taxes, in other words, a flat tax. A flat tax would not hurt the economy, instead, it would increase economic growth.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution
-Americans spend 5.4 billion hours complying with the tax code
-IRS sends 8 billion pages of forms and instructions each year and it would circle the 28 Earth times if laid end to end
-Nearly 300,000 trees are cut down each year to provide the paper for its forms and instructions.
-The typical family spends more on taxes than they do on clothing, shelter and food combined.
-Statistics say the flat tax would translate into 522 billion dollars in higher output. Which comes out to over 3,000 dollars for every family.
-There would be less fear of IRS audits because of the less chance of error.
-91% of Americans feel the tax rate now is too high.
-93% want flat tax rate (of 17%)
-The average American must labor 2 hrs. and 49 min. of each working day to pay taxes.
-IRS tax rules and regulations have increased from 200 pages in 1913 to 7,000 pages in 1995.
-in 1993 taxpayers were overcharged 5 billion dollars in penalties.
4. Trial Balloon
After discussing the problem of our current tax code system and explaining what we think the best solution would be to two adults and two peers, we got some ideas of what people think of the flat tax.
All of the people we talked to thought that the flat tax was a good idea and a better approach to taxing Americans. They believe this system is much more fair across the board. Only one thought that 17% seemed to be too much for the poor and not enough for the rich. One individual thought it would be good because it would decrease the number of audits a year and less people would be scared of the IRS. Another thought it was a good idea because it takes into consideration the family size. So if you have four kids instead of two then you will still get a deduction per dependent child. Also reducing the 480 tax forms to 2 tax forms is much more appealing. This would help save the hundreds of thousands of trees they cut down a year. Another thought this system is equal to everyone because every dollar is taxed once and with the same percentage.
The only question they had to this proposal was what would happen to all the IRS auditors? Would they lose their job? Would they find another job for them?
1. Description of the Proposal Prepared by Maria P.
Free college is the opportunity for all the students who don't have the money to afford college, to still be able to attend college. This gives students the opportunity to continue school and make their dreams come true. This makes the economy stronger, because people more educated will be able to obtain better jobs.
As the cost to higher education continues to grow each year many high school students quit going to college. The reason for this is because their family doesn't have enough money to pay for it. They have to pay payments and debts. The sad thing is that those who quit college will not be the people who they really want to be.
College affordability has become a growing national concern in recent years, not only for Americans families but also for those who come form other countries. Over the past two decades the average tuition bill has climbed at double the rate of inflation so the cost of sending a child to college is eating up a larger and larger portion of a family's income.
If the government and all the colleges will gives us the opportunity to continue education, it will make those people who are willing to study more enthusiastic. It will make a difference in many people lives.
State tax dollars will be used to pay college tuition for students throughout the country. Financed by tax payers and regulated by a committee to monitor the performance of college students to make sure students are not taking advantage to the system.
This bill is to the left of the political spectrum. It is a Democratic bill because Democrats care more about people and their freedom of choice.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue Prepared by Leah S.
The issue of free college can be both supported and opposed in a few different ways. Free college is considered a democratic bill. There are many risks that come with tax-payer funded college tuition. One argument against free college is that students will just take advantage of this opportunity and use the free education to slack off and party. This will definitely not occur. Admission standards will remain the same for all colleges. Each individual college will require their own academic standards to be accepted. Students will still have to compete with other students grade-wise to gain acceptance to the college of their choice. The only difference is that the tuition is free, guaranteeing that students will have a wider range of college choices.
Because college tuition will be funded by the tax-payers, it is inevitable that taxes will rise. The truth is that in the long run, people who have the freedom to an education will obtain better jobs, and therefore maintain a higher standard of living, and could pay the tax if necessary.
Another concern with this bill is job availability. Because people can choose a career without having to worry about the cost of college, more will graduate and need to be placed in a job. The reality of this is that job availability will not be a problem. As mentioned above, admission standards will continue to be prevalent in college admission. Students must work just as hard as the next person to get an edge. Depending on what career the person chooses, the amount of time in college could vary. Job competitiveness will still exist in the job market.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution Prepared by Nelly H.
Why we believe that Free College is a useful solution to many people that would like to attend college but can't afford it. There are many reasons why we believe that the United States should allow free college. Well there are many statistics that have showed the increase in aid programs and grants have resulted in the increase of people with college degrees. There are many people that are wiling to go futher with their lifes but unfortunetly they can't afford college. Many of the ethnic minority are the ones that struggle to afford college, but statistics show that foriengners are more willing to learn than Americans. That is why more and more jobs are taken by foreigners because of lack of qualified Americans. For right now the tuition of colleges is growing at twice the rate of inflation. States like Louisiana qualify students for free college. What we need to communicate to people is that they can go to college. They have all the oppurtunities to go even though it may not be the one they choose to attend but it would be a start.
4. Trial Balloon Prepared by Rosemary M.
The following questions were asked to a parent of a senior student, a high
school counselor, and two senior high school students.
1) Do you think that the cost of college tuition is too high?
2) Do you think more people would attend college if tuition was cheaper or even free?
3) Do you think money limits people in their college selection?
4) Do you think our countries economy would be stronger if more people went to
college?
5) Do you think it would be ideal if tax money paid for college education throughout
our country? Why?
Their responses were for the following:
Parent:
1) yes
2) Oh yeah, what a dumb question
3) Oh yes. I know some people who's kids don't go to college because of it.
4) I don't know
5) Not for the tax payers, I think taxes are high enough.
Counselor:
1) Why yes of course.
2) yes
3) I think it effects some people.
4) yes
5) No, I don't think the money should be generated by tax payers, but maybe tax big
business more.
Student:
1) yes
2) yes
3) Definitely
4) yes
5) No because I don't think it's fair we should pay for college for people who aren't
serious about college.
Student:
1) yes
2) yes
3) YES!!
4) yes
5) Yes because the tax money we spend goes to high school and elementary schools.
If once you are out of those schools, your taxes should go to college.
1. Description of the Proposal MIKE L.
The problem our issue group is going to solve is that the drinking age is set to high. We think the legal drinking age should be 18. At the age of 18 you are considered a legal adult, you can be sent to prison with adults,we can be sent of by the government to die in war, but we can't drink a beer?
Our solution to this problem is to lower the drinking age to 18. We propose a plan witch consists of the following regulations: If you are 18 and want the privilege to drink you will have to have a high school diploma. Having a diploma shows that the individual is responsible. Second, If you choose to drink you will have to pay a fee to get a drinking card. That money will be used to fund programs to teach young kids the dangers of drinking. Last, there will be zero tolerance for those under the age of 21 who are caught drinking and driving.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue
JASON R.
Drinking is illegal until the age of twenty-one because that is the age when everyone is mateur enough to have a beer supposedly. But, why is it that at the age of eighteen we are mateur enough to die in war and still not mateur enough to have a beer. Why is it that you are considered as an adult at the age of eighteen and if you have trouble with the law you are tried as one? If you can go to jail as an adult, why can't you have a beer? The United States has the highest drinking age anywhere in the world-and yet, we are still up there with alcohol-related accidents and whatnot. I feel that in order to solve this problem we should have a lower drinking age. If it's legal, why abuse it? That's the type of attitude Americans have, especially teenagers. I also feel that if we educate the people at a young age about alcohol and what can happen if you abuse it people will respect alcohol a lot more. Even knowing this, there are quite a few beneficial things about alcohol. And that is what our issue group really is striving for. In order to become eligible for drinking at the age of eighteen the person has to have a high school diploma. That way we will have a less drop-out total from each year. More educated people would give people a better opportunity in the workplace and people with more jobs means less poverty, less poverty means less crime. Less crime is good. There will also be a program you have to get into after high school to be better educated of alcohol. The person will then have to pass on a number of tests to achieve their drinking license. This program will have a fee and the money collected will be distributed to clinics to treat people with alcohol related problems.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution JUSTIN V.
This is a collection of the references used by the drinkers to gain information on our topic .
1. Teen Addiction, The Book pgs 112-113
It's about american teens learning how to drink safely and in moderation
2. Statistical Abstract of The United States 1997 Edition
The percentage of people who drink at the age of 12-17 years old in 1975-1992
3.Internet at : www.atcumkc.org/underage2n.n.n/index.html.
Article about drinking in moderation.
4. Internet at : www. nzdf.org.nz/forum2/messages/16html
A 16 year olds personal opinions on lowering the drinking age or raising it to a higher age.
5. The CQ Researcher , book . Article on alcohols advertisement .
6. Taking sides , Drugs and Society Edition ,Book series.
7. Internet at : www.goto.com/d/search ( questions and answers - scotch , whiskey and health ) Good pure facts on alcohol , its effects and other issues dealing with alcohol .
8. Statistical Abstract of The United States , book , 1995 edition .
Stats concerning alcohol dependancy and impatient detox .
9. internet at . www.firstcut ( drunk driving laws) Laws on driving drunk .
10. The Facts About Drinking , Consumer Reports Book . Facts about drinking and the purchaseof alcohol .
11. Statistical Abstract of The United States , 1996 edition . drinking stats .
12. Internet at : www.arf-org:80/isd/pim/alcohol.com. Facts on drinking.
4. Trial Balloon JIM S.
I interviewed my family. My mom,dad, sister and sisters friend. They are both 13 years old. Everyone said it would be a good idea. It differed by what the reasons and the responsibilities drinking comes with.
My mom and dad both said the same thing we use to drink when we were 18. The age in Illinois was 19 but Wisconsin was 18. They said thats why kids died, they would drive up to the border and get totally hammerd then try to drive home. My parents said they think it would have been better if they knew the negatives about drinking and driving. Back then the federal government should have had all the states at 18 so they didn't have to drive back and forth but just go to a bar close to their house so they could walk.
My sister and her friend both said the same thing, " that would be so cool." The want to be able to get drunk without the cops giving them a problem. I asked them about driving and their response was " we don't get our licenses until we're 18 anyway so what's the difference. I asked if they liked the steps it took to get the privilege. They said that was stupid. They think it's a right to drink not a privilege.
1. Description of the Proposal KARRIE L.
The bill being addressed in this paper pertains to the government staying out of the parental aspect of each family. We feel that parents of children should be able to decide what is best for their kids. This issue of curfew is very general so we decided to narrow it down drastically and discuss curfew laws. We want to completely abolish curfew laws because we feel that if parents believe that their children are responsible enough to stay out all night then why should the government say otherwise; they aren't the ones who have raised the children. The republican party will probably agree with us seeing that they feel family values are important and the government should not be involved in the personal life of U.S. citizens.
The curfew laws of Dupage County, as of now, state children under seventeen years of age must be in their home between 10:30 p.m and 6:00 a.m. on Sunday through Thursday and 11:30 p.m. through 6:00 a.m. on weekends unless they are with a parent, guardian or proper person over twenty-one.
We feel curfews are absurd because first of all if a child is out late they are not necessarily doing anything wrong , anyone who wants to cause trouble will do it whenever is convenient for them it doesn't have to be at night. If a child wants to be respected they will stay out of trouble they will not say it's after curfew I better get home!
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue CHRISSY D.
Many people may disagree with having no curfew. They believe a curfew causes less crime, though there is no evidence of this. Some people feel it makes it easier for police to do their job because most of the teens are already in their houses, and they can concentrate on more serious offenses such as drunk drivers. Also they believe there will be less crime because teens will be in their houses and supervised by parents who care. Curfew is also good for teens who have parents who don't care about where they go and what they do, because it causes them to come home at night and not be wondering the streets. Curfews provide a psychological comfort for communities, because if they know teens are in there houses, there won't be any problems regarding them. The left side of the political spectrum wouldn't favor abolishing the curfew laws, because in doing so, the protection of the community and teenagers themselves would be at stake.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution
JENNIFER D.
1. http://www.aclu.org/news/w060996a.html
This site has some current statistics concerning curfews and explains why curfew laws are unconstitutional.
2. "Out of Sync;..." Washington Post, September 14, 1997.
This article has a lot of current statistics and tells why curfew laws violate teenagers constitutional rights.
3. "Are Youth Curfew Laws Constitutional?" CQ Researcher, March 15, 1996. page 233.
This article has information about the opposition of curfew laws and why they are not constitutional.
4. "The Case of the Girl Who Stayed Out Too Late." Scholastic Update, November 3, 1995, page 6.
This article is about a girl who is suing the city of San Diego for depriving her of her constitutional rights because she was arrested for curfew and she wasn't doing anything wrong.
5. "Why Aren't You Home?" Newsweek, July 17, 1995, page 55.
This article states that curfew laws provide psychological comfort for parents and neighbors in neighborhoods that have curfew laws in effect.
6. http://www.high-ground.com/news/curfew.html
This site has information about why teenagers don't agree with the curfew laws and how they are unconstitutional.
7. "What do you think about Curfews?" NEA Today, December 1994, page 35.
This article supports that parents should have more control over their children.
8. "Curfews (Parenting Teenagers)." Better Homes & Gardens, August 1995, page 27.
This article states and supports why curfews don't keep teenagers out of trouble.
9. Taking Sides (Childhood & Society), page 306.
This book says that children need to learn more responsibility and their parents aren't teaching it to them.
10. S.C. Law Enforcement Division, Crime in SC, 1994. page 126.
This article has some statistics about youths picked up for curfew in 1994.
11. "Debate: Should Communities Set Teen Curfews?" NEA Today, December 1994. page 35.
This article has a debate for the support and the opposition of teen curfew laws.
12. "Town Turns Teens Into Pumpkins." Insight on the News, February 3, 1997. pg. 98.
This article discusses some of the penalties for getting picked up for curfew.
13. http://www.Seattle times.com/extra/browse/html97/curfew/060697.html.
This site shows current evidence that curfew laws are not very effective in reducing juvenile crime rates.
4. Trial Balloon MARLA D.
Four different people were interviewed: Derek age 24, Cindy age 43 who has two children ages 14 and 10, Nancy age 48 who has three children ages 19, 18, and 13, and Anne age 19.
Everyone basically agreed that curfews were important for teenagers at night. they all agreed that teens who don't do anything wrong or make trouble shouldn't be penalized.
The disagreement is about what exactly curfew laws should do. Derek believes that "Children don't prove responsibility to the government, but to their parents, so parents should set their curfews". Cindy agreed with Derek stating, "Some kids probably shouldn't stay out as late as curfew allows anyway." On the other hand, Nancy believes that "Good kids could handle not having set curfews, however, what about children whose parents don't care where they go and what they do?
Anne had a whole different angle altogether. She said, "Teenagers who do bad things get in trouble for whatever they do no matter what time it is. Curfew is just an extra charge that cops throw in when teenagers are caught smoking, or whatever they are doing to attract the attention of the police to them in the first place. Teens who break curfew because they are at a movie or a friends house usually aren't bothered until they break the law."
1. Description of the Proposal KIM CHARBONNEAU
One of the many social and political problems today is welfare. We agree that welfare today takes so much money, millions in fact. This money could easily be used for more important things. Cutting government spending on welfare is an excellent idea. We're not saying cut welfare all the way, but provide other alternatives such as job training. Job training will hire people and train them for one duty. So they know they have a set job and set paychecks. This will be good for unemployment and the welfare situation. We also think the government has a right to limit the number or people and types of people on welfare. For example, we don't think teenage mothers should be given as great a chance as other low-income people. Also, a reason that most every working citizen would love to hear, is to cut the percent of taxes we take out of paychecks form welfare, awn put it back in. These are not all, but some major and probably controversial solutions to the welfare problem in this country.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue
ERICA BALLINES
There are many people (Democrats) who oppose to this issue. The reason is because it will effect families. For example in New jersey welfare reform is affecting them by their health coverage. People are upset about this change because it means that they will no longer be able to see their family doctor, who has taken care of them for many years. Welfare is causing higher birth rate in the United States. All the money that we make goes to welfare, and we don't want that. The working citizens want their hard earned money, not have it be spent on welfare. This issue is good because it will improve opportunities for the poor, protection against violence and drugs. It will also emphasize family and work.Well, in the political spectrum packet Conservative people will agree to this because they don't want a lot of taxes taken away from them. Also if we put welfare recipients into work they will be rewarded based upon their good work which it is good.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution ROCIO TOVAR
1. The World Book Encyclopedia, Chicago IL, Scott Fetzer Company 1998 Volume 21. P 190-192. This issue is important because is about how welfare affects the family.
2. The CQ Researcher, 1996, Congressional Quarterly Inc. Washington, D.C.
P 1059-1071. This issue is important because it talk about Washington plan.
3. Taking Sides Political Issues George McKenna 1997 Guilford, Connecticut.
P 224-239. It had statistics.
4. Taking Sides Social Issues George McKenna, 1997 Guilford, Connecticut.
ninth Edition, P220-240. It talks about welfare.
5. Preparing youth for the Work force Under Welfare Reform, 1996. Internet, infoseek. The advent of welfare in 1996 promised to significantly alter the social safety net.
6. Recent Studies Offer Clues: About Future Impact of Welfare Reform. The CQ Research, 1996. Congressional Quarterly Inc. Washington D.C. P 1068-1070.
It said that new welfare reform law it will end welfare dependency substitute work for passivity reduce the size of welfare families.
7. Welfare Reform, 1997. Infoseek, internet. It talks about the Sjobloms are work requirements and changes in health coverage.
8. WWW.Welfare to work. Infoseek. How to put welfare recipients to work.
4. Trial Balloon VICKI SANCHEZ
We feel that too much is being spent on welfare an d nothing is being accomplished. The government must cut back on welfare. They should limit it as much as possible. For example, teenage mothers should not be on welfare. It is their mistake and they should be responsible enough to accept the consequences. If they can't take care of the baby it should be given to parents who can. The percentage of taxes taken out for welfare should be cut or at least limited. Why should a person be forced to work for someone else? Lastly, the government should provide job training for those on welfare. Also, unemployment agencies should have more information for the people. For instance, they should be able to tell someone where all jobs are available in the United States.
I interviewed four people and asked their opinions on welfare and our solutions. The first person I interviewed was my mother. She agrees that the money she earns should go to her family. Not someone else's. She thinks that unemployment agencies do not really help and should have more information available. She feels that in some cases businesses like supermarkets, department stores, and fast food chains should hire the people seeking jobs through the unemployment agencies instead of some teenager who just needs a car. She feels that only those who truly need it should be on welfare, like the disabled or the elderly. She agrees that teenage mothers should have to take responsibility for themselves.
The second person I interviewed was my father. He feels that welfare doesn't really accomplish anything. He thinks job training is a good idea and the government should cut taxes taken out for welfare. He says if everyone gets a job the tax cuts won;t be a big loss. He feels that a teenage mother,only if she's single, should be allowed to be on welfare until she can get on her feet. Although he feels that most people on welfare are lazy.
The third person I interviewed was my little brother. He is 15 years old. He didn't really know what welfare was. I explained it to him and from what he knows now he thinks there shouldn't be welfare. He feels people should have to take care of themselves. Instead of job training, he says the unemployed should be going to school, though he feels it is their responsibility to pay for it.
The last person I interviewed was a senior. She thinks that welfare doesn't accomplish anything and it's not fair for those who work to have to give their money to others. She feels job training is a good idea. It would make people more responsible by showing them what they can do. On the topic of pregnant teens, she says they shouldn't be on welfare. Her exact response was, "why?"
I found that these people have similar beliefs. They feel the way our group does about welfare that it doesn't accomplish much and should be cut.
1. Description of the Proposal PAT G.
The problem we are trying to solve is the money being wasted on prisoners serving life sentences and the prisoners trying to delay their Death sentence by making multiple appeals. Not only is this a Major problem, but also that these criminals committing Heinous crimes are being allowed out of jail after only a Few years since our jails are so Overcrowded. As soon as they are Released from jail, they only go out and Commit these crimes again. We would like to make a quick and easy fix to this problem by making a State Law making it mandatory for prisoners Sentenced to life changed to the Death Sentence and the prisoners Sentenced to Death to have their Sentence to be Carried out with in Three years. This would not include those prisoners who have already been sentenced. Within the Three years of death row, the prisoner will be allowed Three appeals, each of which have to be taken care of within Six months.
We need to stop wasting money on prisoners that have been Sentenced to life or death we pay too much to support them. Why should we Spend an estimated $40,000 a year for each prisoner. We put them to death and we will save a lot of money that can go to help us (the people).
We also need to stop prisoners from making Appeals just to get out of their Punishment. We plan to only give them three Appeals that have to be resolved in Six months or the Appeal is denied. This way the prisoners will be less likely to make an Appeal unless they feel they can win, and they won't be able to delay their sentence by making Usless Appeals.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue NICK D.
Capital punishment has only two different views. People either agree or disagree on this issue. In the United States, there are only 11 of the 50 states who do not impose capital punishment. Capital punishment today is typically done by either lethal injection or electrocution. Texas, Florida, and Illinois are three states that impose this penalty most frequently.
I believe in capital punishment. If a person commits a very serious crime, they shouldn't be allowed a second chance to commit that same crime again. If it is determined through a fair trial by jury that someone has committed premeditated murder, then I believe capital punishment should be imposed. Our prisons are currently overcrowded and are therefore letting criminals out on the streets who should be serving time for their crimes. It costs the taxpayers a great deal of money to house, clothe, rehabilitate and feed a criminal in prison.
On the other hand, these violent criminals are people too. They have family members who care a great deal about them. If we choose to impose capital punishment on a murder, aren't we then murderers also? Shouldn't they have a chance at rehabilitation to become a productive citizen whether in prison or out?
The Liberals are in favor of the "second chance" view. They believe that taxpayer dollars should be used to house and rehabilitate criminals. One out of ten rehabiitized criminals go out and kill again. It is believed that most people are rehabilitated through this process. The Conservatives on the other hand doesn't believe that the risk of rehabilitation should exist. If someone commits such a terribly violent crime, that risk should be removed.
I believe if capital punishment is imposed, people will have to think very long and hard before taking a life that doesn't belong to them.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution AMY E.
1.) http://www.essential.org/dpic/
2.) wysiwyg://AnswerFrame.13/http://pip.dknet.dknet.dk/~pip1019/dp/index- uk.htm
3.) Taking Sides. 5th edition, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
4.) http://www.flash.net/~rwcarlso/
5.) http://www.academic.manst.edu/guiltr/cappun.html
6.) http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvvoatv.htm
7.) http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/just/death/issues.html
8.) http://www.encyclopedia.com
9.)http://www.helicon.co.uk
10.)The cq Researcher. 1995, Page 195.
11.)http://www.sun.soci.ni.edu/-Criterim/dp/cp96hr
4. Trial Balloon JANE E.
The issue of capital punishment invokes a variety of emotions from an assortment of people. After mentioning our bill to a number of people, I received a variety of reactions touching on different aspects of this issue. One of the adults I spoke to believed this bill to be a great solution to the presently insolvable problem of murderers being allowed out of prison after only serving a few years, just to go out and kill again. It shows criminals that America is very serious about enforcing laws; and violation of these laws result in serious consequences. Although he thought our bill to be a good idea, he also thought that it may be a little too aggressive and suggested that we should allow the courts six months to take care of an appeal as opposed to three months, so taking into consideration the validity of this suggestion, we have decided we will enforce it in our bill.
A student I talked to brought up the oppositions point of view. She believes that the government has no right to take the life of anyone, and that by murdering criminals we aren't being a good role model for society, we are only sinking to the same level as the criminals. Another adult I talked to opposed our bill as well. She said that even though we may spend substantial amounts of taxpayers money to take care of criminals in jail, it is worth it for we can't put a price on anyone's life.
The other student I talked to was supportive of the bill, agreeing with every aspect of it. He said we need to show criminals they will be punished for their crimes, and after committing a heinous crime, we should definitely never let them out of prison, for they will only go out and kill once again. If taking the life of a criminal is what we have to do in order to protect the innocent people throughout the nation, than that seems to be the only logical solution.
1. Description of the Proposal SHANNON S.Our bill is about the rights to privacy for citizens who are basically against search and seizure against police without a proper search warrant. The bill we are trying to pass also includes police not being able to tap people phones without a reason to invade peoples privacy.
The right to privacy is restricted to individuals who are in a place that a person would reasonably expect to be private like in your home. There is no protection for information that either is a matter of public record or the victim voluntarily disclosed in a public place. People should be protected by privacy when they " believe that the conversation is private and can not be heard by others who are acting in an unlawful manner.
The solution to our bill is Basically aimed to let citizens have a right to privacy beyond the right they already have. People should have a right to their privacy and not have to worry about people invading it.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue JASON A.
The privacy issue is one that deserves to be debated. Over the years police have searched houses, cars, backpacks; sometimes with good cause; other times without good cause. What is this nation to do?
First, we'll take a look at the ATF/Police side of the issue. With proper search warrants these combined forces have had many successful busts. Drugs, guns, and illeagal activities hve been stopped. In situations when police didn't have warrants, they have still found 'dirt' on people. Democrats take a loose interpretation of the constitution, so they don't recognize citizens privacy. At least not as much as a republican veiwpoint. Republicans argue the drug war is lost. So why keep illegally searching houses? Why hire more police for jobs that are unneccesary? Why should we pay taxes for the government to spend on invading our privacy?
Police and other federal agents feel they have the right to search places and enter onto private property. In other words, to serve and protect. If there is cause to search, the officer will definitley go through with the search. And what about very illegal phone taps. Although they are unconstitutional, phone taps are used every day to set up busts. It is that persons right to do what they feel with their time and resources.
What about the times when there is unlawful entry by police? Take Ruby Ridge for example. The special task force killed a 14 yr old boy and a mother in cold blood. That is just pure viscousness. The charges accussed charges were even later dropped after months of court. Ruby was eventually released after 14 months on unlawful weapons possesion. The government needs to take a less major role in our lives. All of us are equal. I'm pretty sure your congressmen would be upset if you tapped his phone. Why should he be able to pass legislation that would inhibit your rights.
Many others have been victims of unlawful entry by police throughout the years. It must come to an end. Citizens rights are being violated, and that is unnacceptable.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution JAY H.
Privacy is something most people can't enjoy. With all kinds of technology used to catch people otherwise innocent, many people could avoid steep fines and jail time for small crimes. Over the last couple of years more and more people are caught due to the increase of high-tech devices used to invade into citizens lives. The police say if they suspect wrong doing, that appropriate action should be taken.
Most of the sources for privacy issues where found on the internet, except for a couple of exceptions.
Reference sources
1. "Anatomy of Disaster",Time magazine,Aug 28,1995.
2. Ryan, George. "Illinois Handbook of Gov." Printed by authority of the state of Illinois, 1997-98.pg.
Internet sources
3. Costs of freedom of Information and privacy Act. Yahoo.
4. Privacy for safety act- 1996. Yahoo.
5. Privacy law and Policy Reporter. Web crawler.
6. News and Features, Anger as police track mobile phones. Yahoo.
7. Video surveillance and national ID cards. Yahoo.
8. What constitutes invasion of privacy. Yahoo.
4. Trail Balloon Robert Bridgeforth
The privacy bill has got most peoples attention because everyone wants privacy. I developed a survey with four questions and asked two adults and three students.
The survey went like this. Question one.
1. Do you feel everyone deserves privacy?
Majority of the people surveyed said yes. One person said no. Not people who are in jail, on parole, or court supervision.
2. Do you think the government has the right to tap anyone's phones who they suspect are breaking the law?
The reaction was split. One person it means if the government can do that than they might as well strip away all of their rights because they've already taken away one of them. Others said yes because it might be the only way to get evidence, if that person is breaking the law then they deserve it.
3. Do you think the police have the right to enter someone else's home or car based on a reasonable suspicion?
Again this was split also. One said they need more proof than just that. Another said with reasonable cause or proper warrants.The others said no way.
4. Do you feel privacy laws should be thoroughly enforced?
Everyone said yes. Some added comments such as the laws are good now, but everyone has the right to privacy except criminals.
We feel that everyone deserves privacy no matter what their past is, age, sex,or race.
1. Description of the Proposal - GINA AGUIRRE
One area that we strongly feel that the government should strongly support. Is increasing the amount of money spent on medical research. After looking at all the research we gathered. We have realized the need to focus on two main illnesses that face a high percentage of individuals in our country. These two illnesses are, cancer and birth defects. We think that spending more money on researching these two life terminating diseases can help maybe even cure many individuals who are suffering from these diseases or eliminating them all together.
We have come up with many solutions to solve this problem. We believe that the government should at least give medical research a billion dollars a year. To help find cures for these two illnesses as well as all of the other diseases facing the people of this country. We think that the money should come from some of these areas the budget surplus, the tobacco industry, the money from criminals, or just simply decrease other government spending.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue -CAROLINA GARCIA
There are many reasons why Republicans will oppose and argue this bill. Republicans will not agree on the government spending 1 billion dollars on medical research. The government shouldn't worry about scientific matters because this is not why they're here for. If not a lot of research is found a lot of money will go to waste. Were would the money come from? This is one of the many questions many people will have. This will cause taxes to increase especially if programs and funds are set up. A lot of republicans will not like this idea of increasing taxes. As it is shown on the political spectrum the conservative side will not at all agree with this bill. They don't like government getting involved and they don't want taxes to increase for any reason at all.
This doesn't mean that there isn't going to be any people who will not agree to this bill. The Democrats will agree with increasing medical spending because the money will be used for a good cause, and this way the government won't be spending a lot of money on space programs that cause a lot of money to go to waste, and military things that do no good but harm people. They should increase medical spending like they increase military spending. By having money scientist will be able to find cures for many diseases. Help prevent birth defects. The population of people that have cancer will decrease if cures and treatments are found. The death rates in the United States will also decrease. With the help of modern science and technology we have a better chance of surviving many different diseases. With the help of the government I know that many people with diseases can have a cure or a treatment to help them cope with it. Birth defects as we know is a very serious medical problem that should be helped. It is not the child's fault and sometimes its not the mother's fault either.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution JAKE K.
Rodger, Joann Ellison. Cancer. This book has a lot of information about cancer, history, statistics, and deaths. It also contains how much is being spent on cancer.
Herda, D.J. Cancer. Talks about research, treatment, detection, and what is being done for cancer.
The Cancer's Patient Book. Contains information about the types of cancer,
treatments, and procedures. Talks about dealing with cancer and how it changes your life.
Statistical Abstract of the United States 1992 Stats about how much is spent on medical research in 1992.
Science News, August 9, 1997 Talks about how heart defects can come from the mother.
birthdefects.org&EngineOrdinal=1&ItemOrdinal=6&MetaList=http%3A%2F%2F.www.b irthdefects.org Contains information about the types of heart defects and where you can find info on what to do about it.
Edelson, Edward. Encyclopedia of Health. "Birth Defects" In this book it talked about an overview of birth defects, chromosomes, and birth defects, and what is being done to help prevent birth defects.
Gravelle, Karen. Understanding Birth Defects Talks about what birth defects are, environmentally caused defects, parental care, treatment and what is being done.
4. Trial Balloon JAKE K.
I have interviewed four people of various ages and sexes. I picked two males and two females so that we have two different opinions. Three out of the four people I have interviewed thought there should be more government spending on medical research for cancer and birth defects. The fourth person disagreed because he believed that the government should put more money into research for AIDS. One of the people said that they want more research on birth defects rather than cancer because she believed that cancer is more popular and already has enough spending. While another wanted more money for cancer because more people die from cancer.
Three out of the four people wanted to get the money out of the budget surplus that the government is boosting about and to raise taxes. While the other person wanted more taxes rather than take money from the surplus. Other suggestions for where we should get the money for research are: tobacco industry, money confiscated from criminals and slush funds, and cut out appropriations stuff we don't need.($5,000 toilet seat)
1. Description of the Proposal COLLEEN KOCHICK.
Our issue in our group is adequate parking. We feel that there is not enough parking lots. It ia a long walk to and from Kermagee. People have to walk 5 blocks to attend school in the cold,rain,and/or snow. Now with the construction going onit is not safe. Also a lot of peoples cars are getting broken into. I know personally of a bunch of people that have gotten their cars broken into or damage done to them. There are construction workers being very rude and perverted to the students.
Our parents pay for us to go here and it is not fair to us that we have to put up with this kind of abuse and harrassment. Our parents also pay for the teachers salaries and therefore we should be able to park in the teacher parking lots. First come first serve sounds like a good solution to us. Some of us are in the work program and have to leave early and can't take the bus. What is going to happen when the sophomores get their licenses? There is going to be no room.
We have many regulations making it hard for us to park. We can't park on the street from 7-10 a.m. and we can't use Lincoln even though no teachers park there. It is not fair to us, our parents, or the tax payers that we have no parking. Just because we are teenagers doesn't mean we should be treated like this. It is mandatory that we get more adequate parking!
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue JAKE REINER
We would simply like more adequate, safe, close parking for ourselves when we drive to school. The parking lot assigned to us is five blocks away from the school, and not safe whatsoever. We believe that a first come first serve policy would be a good way to run things. Or special spaces set aside for seniors with jobs, closer to school. Most teachers would probably disagree with this because, they would not want to walk five blocks to school in a terential down pour, and then sit all day in wet cloths.
We're not concerned so much with the distance of the walk, it's the fact that peoples cars are being damaged, broken into, kids are getting soaked, run into mud by tracters, sprayed by huge water trucks, almost run over by huge trucks,harrassed by construction workers, and girl atheletes are being forced to walk to a dark, isolated, parking lot ,alone with no kind of protection.
The negative deffinately outweighs the positive in this situation. There's so much wrong with the student parking, why are we being punished for parking in open spaces in the teachers lots? What harm does that do?
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution DUSTIN K.
According to the survey and the information from the inter view with Mr. Answorth, I have gathered the following information . Almost every one drives to school or gets a ride with a freind . Right now there are 184 students that drive and need a spot to park. Also there are 238 teachers that also need a place to park.
I also found out that almost every one knows of a car that has been damaged or broken into. with no seqerity out there how could we be sure of the safty of our vehicles.
With a closer and safer parking area more students will have less problems with walking to and from school .
4. Trial Balloon AMY B.
The people that were interviewed on our bill (more adequate parking) all seamed to have similar responses. They all agreed that something needs to be done to better accomidate the students who drive to school, but they were not sure what the best solution would be.
Mike Schneider-- It is a good idea because it's hard to walk back and forth from Kerrmcgee, especially when it starts getting cold out. If there was a way to make more available parking at school, I would be in favor of it. Closer parking would also make it easier to get to school on time.
Lara Earhart-- It seams like it is nescessary because if you are going to drive to school, you are going to need somewhere to park your car. The parking spaces that are available now seam too far and there are definately not enough of them. In my opinion, the school should have provided adequate parking for the students a long time ago.
Mrs Stuer (librarian at the school) -- There doesn't seam to be any room for more parking spaces around the school, concidering that the school is surrounded by houses and privately owned property. The only logical solution that I could think of would be to build a parking garage. I agree that you need more parking at the school, but the question is, where? It seams like the only thing that we can do is to build up.
Ms. Elzey (librarian at the school) -- I think that trying to obtain
more parking spaces is a good thing to look into. I think that we should
use parking stickers again. This seamed to work pretty well before. Using
parking stickers again would help eliminate the confusion of trying to find
a space to park in. We should also look into the overflow of teacher parking.
1. Description of the propoisal TONY B.
The purpose of this bill is to limit punitive damages in court awards. There has been a proliferation of lawsuits. Defending against these lawsuits has become increasingly costly and more complex regardless of the merits. As a result, consumers everywhere have paid more for health care, other services and products; access to medical treatment is limited in many communities of this country, and businesses have found our liability laws and tort system to be a deterrent to expansion and job creation.
We believe that it is appropriate and reasonable to establish parameters on awards intended to punish after compensatory damages are paid. Protracted litigation over the excessiveness of jury awards delays compensation to those who the system is designed to protect and imposes enormous costs on the courts and taxpayers with no corresponding benefit to the civil justice system.
We plan on placing limits on non-death related civil court cases. We want to place a cap of 20% plus the cost of their injury. We would also make the offender pay for time lost due to injury. This bill would not place a cap on death related cases or cases of mental retardation.
This bill would fall on the right side of the political spectrum because republicans do not believe in money for free.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue MIKE S.
The negative side or opposition would think that these people that are filing for Punitive Damages are getting their fair share of the money and that it's justified that the company deserves to pay the cash. They believe millions of dollars will solve the conflict between the company and the suer.
Well, the opposition does not understand the details behind this. For example, do you think McDonalds should pay a woman 20 million dollars for spilling coffee on herself. Well obviously I think not, and the opposition doesn't realize that most lawsuits are coming from some very ridiculous cases. So first they need to know if the case is legitimate to be filed for Punitive damages. Second, if Punitive damages are awarded, it should be enough to repair the damages, because 20 million dollars is such a big overload to just heal a few burns from coffee. So McDonalds should only pay money to help the lady recover from her burns.
In conclusion to this, Punitive damages are OK, but they really need a very good reason to even be considered to be filed for Punitive damages. Since some people are finding Punitive damages a way to just get some easy money, and we need to limit or stop some of these very corny lawsuits.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution SUZANNE S.
1)OptionsrelatingtoAncillaryIssueshttp://Canada.Justice.gc.ca/Orientations/Reforms/da ine/hate_en_html
2) Reynolds Faces Punitive Damages--July 26, 1997
http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/972697/2blKARBl.html
3) Judge Slashes Punitives Awarded to Food Lion--September 2,1997
http://www.fac.org/news/970972a-p.a.s.p.
4) Plaintiffs Can Seek Punitive Damages in Tobacco Suit--January 7,1998
http://www.pioneer planet.com/archive/tobac/docs/lox/tobo107.htm
5) Civil Juries Award Punitive Damages in 6% of Successful Suits--July 16,1995
http://www.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/cjcavilc.pr
6) Press Release--February 14,1996
info@cala.com
7) Punitive Damages in Financial Injury Verdicts
http://www.rand org/publications/MR/MR889/MR889text.html
8) Court Rules Punitive Damages Are Taxable
http://www.venatcle.com/w/u/punitive.htm
9) Punitive Damage Awards on Financial Injury Jury Verdicts
http://www.randorg/publications/RB/RB90281
4. TRIAL BALLOON - BRAD W.
I presented our bill to four people, two adults and two students. The reactions were all fairly similar.
The first person I presented our bill to was my dad, Bill Wolter. He thinks instead of awarding the person who dies, 125% of the persons net worth, they should give the family what that person would have made until they are 60 or 62 etc.. This is if a person is killed by another persons accident. Then their family gets awarded the money.
The second person I presented our bill to was my mom, Dawn Wolter. She thinks that it would be very hard to limit cases. It is to hard to say what is a serious case and what isn't. She thinks things should be the same and cases should be judged individually.
The next person I presented our bill to was Brandon Lanners, and he agreed with what Dawn said. He thinks cases should be looked at individually. It is to hard to set general guidelines for all cases. The judges should be the ones who put the restrictions on the awards.
The last person I presented our bill to was Eric Anderson. He said he would support a bill to limit punitive damages. He said a lot of the awards are outrageously high. However, he felt it would be very hard to put guidelines on certain types of punitive damages cases. So, he also felt cases shouldn't be judged individually and the judge decides the amount of the award.
1. Description of the Proposal Kathy W. For the past eighteen years, China has held the position of the United States Most Favored Nation. However, more and more Americans, both politicians and the general public, are realizing the imbalance of this economic relationship. As our MFN, China receives special import tax breaks, beneficial trade deals, and we buy more from them than any other nation. The benefits of these trade deals are not mutual, China currently owes the United Stated over 60 billion dollars in trade debts. Also, China has broken many trade agreements with the United States which has brought on a distrusting attitude toward China within the U. S. government. But, not only is the United States losing billions of dollars earned by the American people, the Chinese Government does not agree with or enforce the protection of basic universal human rights, which are the foundation of the United States and everything America has come to represent. Even the United Nations acknowledges the fact that China has repeatedly violated the human rights of it's citizens and the U. S. businesses and U. S. citizens residing there. Despite U. N. threats and the disapprovement of the United States, the Chinese Government has not taken any actions to ensure that these violations and broken promises will end. For these reasons, we do not feel China deserves to be given any special trade deals or trade loans from the United States. Also, we feel that the United States must look out for the better interests of it's citizens, and find a more beneficial trade relationship with a more deserving country.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue Johanna W.- Most people believe that the United States has a beneficial trade relationship with China and there is no proof that this relationship should be ended. China has been our most favored nation for 18 years. Trade between China and the Us has increased from $4.8 billion in 1980 at the beginning of their MFN status, to $75.4 billion in 1997. Some people are under the impression that this bill is only here to punish China for their abuse of human rights and we would be foolish to set ourselves up for the economic damage the termination of this relationship would cause. In recent years, China has been trying to increase the human rights that its citizens hold and there should be no need to end a perfectly good trade relationship with them over a problem they are attempting to fix. But one thing people commonly overlook the economic relationship that our country currently has with China.
A major problem right now in China is piracy, the illegal reproduction of copyrighted materials such as CD's and movies. It is estimated that piracy costs United States businesses $2.8 billion annually in lost trade. Since 1991 China has been under investigation for the failure to enforce anti-piracy laws. Since then, China has been promising changes and improvements in this area, but few have been kept. The United States Trade Representative has reported that China still has a problem with piracy, especially in trademark counterfeiting and in technology piracy. By the end on 1998, it is predicted that the United States will have a trade deficit of almost $60 billion with China. That means that they will owe us about $60 billion by the end of the year. On the other hand, China has a $40.5 billion trade surplus. Between 1992 and 1997, the US exports to China have increased 73%, but the Chinese exports to the US have increased 143.6%. How can this one-sided trade create an economic relationship that benefits the United States?
China has not been living up to their responsibilities as our Most Favored Nation. The solution isn't that complicated. We don't want to impose an embargo or cut off trade completely, we just want to eliminate China as our Most Favored Nation.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution JASON S.- the following is a bibliography of resources that were researched on Human and Economical Rights.
Tomlinson, Richard. "The China That Clinton Won't See." Fortune Magazine, July 6, 1998, 130-134.
CRS Report on Trade With China. http://majoritywhip.house.gov/china/980717CRStrade relations asp, October 14.
Joint Statement of the 11th Session of China-U.S. Joint Economic Committee. http://www.Ustreas.gov/pres/releases/pr2480.htm, October 14.
"The China Syndrome." The Christian Century, July 15-22, 1998.
Amnesty International Home Page: Human Rights-A CVall for Action. http://www.2.amnesty.se/wom.nsf/f646.327cde2086ef852563d30008c616.
China Rights Reform. http://www.igc.2pc.org/hric/crf/english/96springle6.html.
World Book Encyclopedia. Chicago: World Book, Inc., 1998, Volume 9, pg. 429-430.
The Challange of Human Rights and Cultural Diversity. http://www.un.org/rights/dpi1627e.htm.
Non-Gonernment Organizations Claim Numerous Violations of Human Rights Around the World. http://www.un.org/plweb- cgi/idoc.pl?468+unix+_free_user_+www.un.org..80+un+un+pr1997+
United Nations and Human Rights (General Statement.) http://www.un.org/rights/dpi1774e.htm.
Commission (Human Rights) Hears More Charges of Discrimination Against Minirities and Religious Groups. http://www.un.org/plweb- cgi/idoc.pl?435+unix+_free_user_+www.un.org..80+un+un+pr1998+.
CRS Report on Trade With China. http://majoritywhip.house.gov/china/980717CRSTradeRelations.asp.
4. Trial Balloon BECKI W. I interviewed my mom and dad. I asked them if they knew that China had been our most favored nation since 1980. They replied that they knew it was our most favored nation but they weren't aware that they'd been so for so long. They also were not aware that our trade deficit was so large <49.7 billion> and that it was going up at an exponential rate. They knew we had a trade deficit with China, but didn't now it was so large. They were also aware that we were losing money by trading with China. I told them about the human rights conditions in China, they use child labor and force women to have abortions according to their one child law. Given these economic and human conditions, I asked them if they would support our bill to renounce China as our most favored nation. My dad thought that given the information I had, he would support it, but when considering it seriously, he would look at the economic disadvantages first.
I interviewed Kristina Dauber and Tim Harwood next. They were both unaware that China had been our most favored nation at all, and that they had been since 1980. They both didn't know that the trade deficit was so high and had been going up quickly since China had been our most favored nation. They also didn't know that our trade deficit was so high and we were losing money due to piracy. Tim would not support our bill however because he thinks that China is our biggest threat and we need to keep positive foreign relations with them. Kristina, on the other hand, would support our bill because she feels that keeping them our most favored nation would be like supporting them and their beliefs.
1. Description of the Proposal Brooke F. An animal rights bill that proposes no cruelty, testing, or inhumane treatment of any kind towards any animal. Our solution is to address a law to all person(s) that use animals in their business, whether it be trainers, scientists, fur-makers or zoo's. This law states that these businesses must pay for a supervisor to watch over the treatment of the animals they use. We feel this will help make the lives of the animals much safer and make people understand what kind of cruelty is done to innocent animals. We are also proposing that the supervisor that is in charge of watching out for the safety of the animals, also make sure that they encourage the animal(s) rights. One right is that all animals are born with an equal claim on life and the same rights to existence.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue Nicole G. Our group understands that sometimes animals are vital to our society. For example, everyday laboratories discover many things due to the testing on animals to better health, however many useless tests are used on animals that torture. For instance, a monkey was hooked up to a machine where electrical waves would shock the animal. The study was to see how much the monkey could take. This is irrelevant. I think today we can safely say that electronical shocks aren't pleasant, and we should try to avoid it as much as possible. As far as organizations that use animals to entertain, we are not asking them to close down, we are simply asking for more restrictions as to how they treat them. Endangered species used in circuses are the ones that are making the profit for that particular business, why should they be beaten and abused. In order to make sure that these animals are properly taken care of and not misused, the government would make the organizations pay extra for a supervisor, that would come in and check the animals and so forth. If these organizations choose not to pay or they do treat the animals unkindly, they will be terminated. There are ways to use animals in our society without being cruel.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution Erika V.
1.) Burton John. Title of book: Close to Extenction. Copyright date 1988. Pg. 46
2.) O'conner Karen. Title of book:Sharing the Kingdom Animals and their rights. Copyright date1984 Pgs. 10,12, 14
3.) Catalone Julie. title of book: Animal Walfare. Copyright date1990. Pg. 90.
4.) O'conner Karen. title of book: Sharing the Kingdom Animals and their rights. Copyright date 1984. Pgs. 21,49-51
5.) Burton Jonh. title of book: Close to Extenction. Copyright date1988. Pgs.24-26.
4. Trial Balloon Tiffany A. and Griselda A. Out of the four interviews we conducted there were two adults, and two non government students. Adults 1 thoughts on animal rights- they agree with our bill on animal rights. Animal cruelty should be stopped. We came up with the idea of having people hired at the circus to watch over the animal tamers. This would insure no cruelty on the animals. Adult 1 made the suggestion that this idea go public. The more the people are aware that this is happening to the animals then the better chance we have to stop the animal cruelty. He suggested that we have a hot line or go on the radio. He agrees animal cruelty should be stopped.Student 1 thoughts on animal cruelty- also agrees with hiring someone to watch over the animal tamers. Student 1 suggest that they should be paid serious money, then they would take there job a lot more serious. Also, that if caught doing any harmful things to the animals, you automatically get shut down, fired, and must pay a fine. Affirmative action should be taken.
Student 2 has suggested a few things for us to do on our bill. She suggested that what we have said on our bill is good and that once we get the supervisors that we should pay them very well. So that they do not change their minds. By letting the trainers hurt the animals because the trainers could pay the supervisors more so that they do not close down their circus. She also states that there should be a punishment for any supervisor if they decide to go against the rules and they should not get bribed into listening to the trainers instead of the organizations of supervisors.
The Adult 2 also agrees on our animal rights bill and she thinks that we should not just base our bill upon the circus animals. That we should also help out all of the innocent animals out of the labs. She is very concerned on the fact that no one really helps out the tested animals . She thinks that those are the animals that are hurt the most.
1. Description of the Proposal CATHAL W.
Illegal border activity has plagued our country for several years. These illegal activities have been milking our society in every way they can. From illegal drugs to illegal immigrants, there are millions of dollars per year that are lost from our economy. Illegal immigrants have jobs in our work force and do not pay property taxes, income taxes, marriage taxes, and many other taxes that every hard working American is obligated to pay. Illegal drug trafficking causes added crime and high costs to DEA and other government agencies. Which is money that comes out of every American's pockets.
"Operation Gatekeeper" is a promising bill that will prohibit any illegal activity on the United State's borders. The plan is to increase customs within all airports to decrease expired visas and to get rid of illegal aliens. Some of the experimental national guard facilities will be moved to the northern and southern boundaries of the U.S. This way, experimental equipment, such as trackers and national defense technology, can be used in a non-harmful way to protect the citizens of the United States of America.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue CHRIS H.
Opponents to our immigration bill will most likely argue that illegal immigration is not as big of a problem as we are making it out to be. The number of illegal immigrants is only twenty percent of the total number of immigrants. This is true, but the fact is in towns near border crossings illegal immigrants account for nine percent of the total population, twelve percent of the crime and a little over nine percent of the public health services. Even though the percent may be low there are still a large number of illegal immigrants. Despite arguments that they only come here for a better chance and it is easy to see that they also bring bad elements.
Others say that our country is built on immigration and most of our ancestors were even illegal immigrants. That is fine and I'm not going to deny my heritage but in these times with overcrowding and other problems we do not have room for people who are not even going to pay taxes and make a positive influence on our society.
Another argument would be against our plan to control borders would be too hard and too costly. They also say that our current border control is not failing, and is already too violent. There has been a streak of violence at the border lately but the facts are that the officers were merely protecting themselves. We would like border control so that it won't even come to that point. Also a majority of the illegal immigrants come through actual border crossing, so we would have to concentrate on them too.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution ADAM M.
Good night, Lynn. Changing the Immigration Policy of the United States. National Textbook Company, Chicago. 1994. pp. 20-24,88,129.
Illegal Immigration. arthurhu@halcyon.com
Foreign Born Prisoners. http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/10/07/fp3sl-csm.shtml
National ID Cards.http://www.disinfo.com/ci/dirty/ci dirty nationalihtml
Immigration Policy. Bender, David. Publisher. Greenhaven Press, Inc. San Diego;1995. pp 17,21.24-28,34-38.
Hauser, Pierre. Illegal Aliens. Chelsea House Publishers. Philadelphia;1997. pp 13-37,121-139.
Barbour, William. Illegal Immigration. Greenhaven Press, Inc. San Diego;1994. pp 25-31,46,59-67.
Deatherage,Scott. Illegal Immigration. Greenhaven Press,Inc. San Diego;1994. pp 25-31,46,59-67.
Rowland,Robert. United States Policy on Immigration. National Textbook Co. Lincolnwood; 1994 pp 31-54,104-120.
4. Trial Balloon RICK W.---In order to gather a consensus of the public's opinion about our bill, it was our duty to interview random individuals with questions relative to our proposal. I interviewed two students and two adults to gather a broader sense of the issue.
Toby Siefert, aged sixteen, gave his opinion on the matter saying he felt that illegal immigration was "pretty bad" and the punishment should be "deportation with a major penalty." However, he was sympathetic saying our ancestry makes "us all immigrants." I then asked why immigration helps and hurts the country. He said, on legal terms, immigration brings diversity and boosts the economy. On the other hand, talking about illegals, the group we want to come down upon, live off government funds, come in for goods, and then never assimilate into the American culture. That was his major concern. I then proposed some of our solutions imbedded in the bill like increasing the number of patrolmen on the border, follow-ups on the immigrants, and randomized English tests and Toby agreed that they would all help the situation.
My second individual was John Carter, 33. His personal feelings on illegals include a "preference" that they come in legally and that it presents an "insurmountable amount of hurdles for America, said immigration reminds us about the "foundations of our very existence" as a nation. He agrees they come here to rake in the benefits. Opponents to open borders, he stated, will argue that illegal immigrants "take jobs away" from residents. Basically, John Carter said illegals can't help the country at all
Tim Harwood was my third subject and he's seventeen and presented a supporting argument in our favor. He believes illegal immigration isn't good at all because it "allows people to come in without any knowledge of their background." He reminded us that immigration in general provides a wider labor force with willingness to do jobs most of us wouldn't. Harwood believed illegals "needed to be curbed" because it doesn't help anyone. The process should be streamlined to make it easier for immigrants to become citizens so illegals don't bypass the tedious process.
Finally, Al Williams was interviewed who is aged 58. He thought immigration, in general, is a good plan, but the government needs to keep an eye on quotas. Getting in legally is fine with him, however, "they need to learn to assimilate to our culture." Some immigrants come to us with skills which in turn help the economy. However, the "clusters of poverty in communities" overcrowd and burden the cities. He believes the government should limit the number of immigrants coming in, establish testing before entrance, and training programs for language, job skills, and culture. When he was exposed to our bill, he believed it would do the job.
1. Description of the Proposal MIKE S.
The National College Athletic Association should pay the athletes participating in scholastic sports. We propose that Division I athletes of major college receive salaries that would pay for their schooling, housing, transportation, and basic needs, plus a little more for their hard work. Athletes would still have to follow all NCAA standards for academics and they will not be allowed to receive gifts or money. They will not be allowed to work at all because their salaries will be enough to supply them with everything necessary to live a comfortable college life.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue MARK D.
There is two ways to look at every issue. For paying college athletes, you can look at the hard work put into the sport by the players, and the money made off of the sport by the school as well as the coaches. An average salary by a coach of a division 1 school is over 1 million dollars. The coaches put in the same amount of time and effort the layers do, yet the coaches get paid for the players' talent. CBS is paying Notre Dame fifty million dollars a year for broadcasting rights to their football games alone. Where does all the money go if the players are not seeing any of it? Surely, the players are not wearing fifty thousand dollar uniforms. A player puts in an average of eight hours of practice and training a day, at least six days a week, yet they are left broke during their remaining time for a social life. Some people suggest the athletes get a part time job. However, with the limited time a player has outside of his or her sport, a part time job would be hard to keep while trying to also maintain their academic standards. Even if the player could manage though, the NCAA rules and regulations only allow college athletes to earn 2,000 dollars annually above full tuition costs. This is practically nothing. They deserve more for their hard work and talent that has taken years of their youth to perfect.
On the other hand, a person could say the athletes' reward is a college education at a prestigious university. They could say 2,000 dollars a year is plenty to have a social life and if the players don't think it is then they should spend a little more time exploring other options in college besides athletics. A person could also say the athletes should go to the draft if they are so quick to get paid. This is absurd however. In the past year, over sixty players have applied to the draft whereas only 19 non graduates applied the previous year. This loss of talent in college is losing NCAA ratings on all sporting events. At the rate it is going, college athletics will be seen as no more important than high school athletes. Also, yes the athletes are getting a college education, however, why should the colleges be making all the money off of the players when the players are doing a majority of the work, and it is the players the people come to see, not the coaches. One of the largest worries is the need for a college draft then. If colleges are paying players, the players are going to go to the college that can offer them the most money. This would leave the opportunity for colleges with more money to get better players. We removed this threat because we put a set limit on the amount of money being paid to the athletes, thus ensuring that each college of that set division has an equal opportunity to gain players. What is all boils down to is quite simple. The players should be paid.
3. Identification of Info that Supports the Solution ADRIAN G.
4. Trial Balloon OSCAR C.
Some People disagree athletes should get paid playing sports. Only to the athletes who are need of money to pay off college, to buy their basics needs of living. And students are not able receiving scholarships. One adult said if a student have the ability to have a scholarship. The student should earn one. Athlete's salary should be less than 300,000 dollars over the four year term. Citizen's taxes will not pay the athletes. The university it self will pay for it all. All sports will get paid it won't be fair excluding others but only certain divisions will get paid.
1. Brandon C. You are dying, a slow painful death, six months to live, nothing is taking the pain away, you are of sound mind. I would want to end my life as painless as possible. Wouldn't you. Death with Dignity, and no pain. But this is not legal you will live your last months in agonizing pain. If our bill is approved you will not have to die through a painful death. Die with dignity, Die with Pride. Euthanasia.
2. Jessica I. Most people argue that euthanasia is wrong due to the fact that it is aiding in the destruction of life. This argument is hypocritical, and ignorant. If this is how society feels, how is it then that society defines abortion?-How is it then that society defines smoking?-and how is it that society defines abusive neglagence? Are these not examples of extreme destruction of life? The point is that people accept more destructive ideas than the idea of assisted suicide. Euthanasia is an idea that improves the quality of life in that the incomparable pain of death doesn't destroy any feelings of peace a terminally ill patient would experience.
3. Jon K. http://www netlink. co.uk/ users/ vess /fastaccs.htm/
-Graphs on why people reject assisted suicide.
-Different forms of assisted suicided.
-Laws on assisted suicide.
CQ researcher Feb 21, 1992 pg145 assisted suicide
-The movement in the 70's "death with dignity''
- Gallup poll 1991
Chicago Sun Times Monday Nov.14,1994 (suicide Folder)
-Death with Dignity act
- Discusses legal protection of doctors involved in cases
Chicago Tribune, Thursday Dec.8 1994 Oregonians vote on death act
-citizens poll for assisted suicide. 51/49
Oregon Legislative Policy and research office. State capitol room 453 October 1997.
-For assisted suicide
Readers Digest Sept. 97' 1995
-Hollands stnce on assisted suicide (only country that has had a law passed)
-1989 discussion on Kavorkians first assisted suicide
CQ researcher 97' Assisted Suicide
-June 4, 1990 story of an Oregon women and her fight for her right to die.
-Euthanasia society formed in 1938
4. Jeremy S. After interviewing four people of multiple (16, 15, 47, 35) ages they said that they would support Euthanasia (assisted suicide), as long as the person is terminally ill and is not just looking for an easy way out of life.
The people I interviewed declared terminally ill to be some disease that there is no cure for, or that they do not see any future cure for. An appropriate time to enact euthanasia, would be once the person can no longer perform regular human rituals, once they can no longer move on their own.
In order to administer euthanasia the person must sign a paper once they have found out that they have this disease. By doing this it prevents the person from signing the paper once their condition has worsened, and would not be able to make a rational decision. The interviewed said that a family member could not sign for the ill person, because the family member does not know the pain the ill person may be going through. Another reason would be to prevent a vengeful family member from trying to get rid of an enemy.
Although most of the interviewed stated the above information there were a few variations. One of the persons said that once a person is diagnosed with a terminally ill disease euthanasia can be enforced at that point if desired. This information was given even with knowledge that a person can live a multiple amount of years before death.
1. Description of the Proposal MIKE S.
The problem my group is addressing is Elimination of Fishing License's for Residents of Illinois. Our solution to this problem is to cut all fee's that need to be paid for such a license. Fishing is a sport. As is football, hockey, baseball, rollerblading, bike riding, and running. None of these sports need to pay for a license for any reason what so ever.
We believe that you don't need a license and you shouldn't need to pay for anything either. All this license does is show you have one. Its a waste of paper and and money. It would be another thing if you needed to pass a test but you don't.
So support the Elimination of Fishing License's and stop the government from taking money for no reason!!!!
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the IssueANDREW J.
The obvious opposing view to eliminating fishing licenses is that it would take money out of the state funds. Eliminating the revenue from fishing licenses would not hurt the state of Illinois that much at all. It could be compared to someone asking for a dollar out of one hundred. Our proposal is a just one, and it is something our parents and our grandparents used to take for granted. To have to pay your hard earned money (and get a licenses) to gain the legal right to fish, is a crime against the common man and all of humanity.
This proposal is mostly a conservative one. When it comes to the issue of fishing, our belief is that things should have been kept the way they were. The state of Illinois never ran into any problems with too many fishermen and not enough fish, a hundred years ago. Also, the state of Illinois can easily find more important things to tax or regulate. Our overall belief, is that we the people should have the freedom that we once had.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the SolutionKATIE W.
dnr.state.il.us/fish/fishfact.htm- facts, figures, and where people fish
dnr.state.il.us/fish/mission.htm- Illinois Division of Fisheries mission statement
dnr.state.il.us/fish/license.htm- currents fees for residents and nonresidents
dnr.state.il.us/fish/annual/98.htm- fisheries annual report, information on where the money collected from licenses is spent
x4.Dejanews.com/getDoc.xp??AN=397610962&context=909082552937824&hitnum=1- supporting opinions
x4.Dejanews.com/getDoc.xp??AN=909082557.93782400&hitnum=0- supporting opinions
x4.Dejanews.com/getDoc.xp??AN=395993164&context=909082557.93782400&hitnum=2- supporting opinions
leg.state.ut.us/docs/1998 /bills/intro/h.084.htm- Budgeted revenue for '95-96 and '96-97
state.me.us/legis/ofer/96gfrev.htm- total monies collected from fishing industry in '95 and 96'
4. Trial Balloon KYLE W.
I interviewed 4 people on my bill for the elimination of fishing licenses and fees for Illinois residents. I interviewed my grandma, grandpa, my mom, and my father. My grandma agrees with my bill, but she still thinks that we will still need rules and regulations. She also wants to see us keep the license, but just eliminate the fee for Illinois residents. She thinks we need to keep the license, so that when people come from out of state, they cant just walk onto a pond and start taking all of the fish out of the lake. My grandpa also believes that my bill is a very good bill. He thinks that we will still need the wardens, and the laws and regulations that we have now, or just any person could just walk onto a lake in Illinois, and keep every fish that he/she caught in that whole day, no matter what size the fish was that they caught. My mom also agrees with my bill. She think that we still need the laws, and that we should post them at every lake, that it is possible to put them. She wants the out of staters to still pay a fee for the license. My father also agrees with my bill, but thinks that we should be more specific on what we are going to eliminate with this bill. He also wants to know what laws we are going to keep, and how we will enforce them.
1. Description of the Proposal MELISSA H.
The problem our group is addressing is eliminating poverty. We are tired of seeing people on the streets, hungry and wearing barely any clothing. In the State of Illinois according to the U.S. Census Bureau the percentage of people living in poverty was 12.3% and as a whole across the country it was 14.0% in 1996.
What we would like to do is help the poor by not taking any more money out of taxes, but encourage the rich and wealthy to donate money and in return, they will be able to deduct one and a half the value of the money given to programs. Some people will actually want to promote some type of program or special items that provide the homeless with something that they can't afford. Because some people think homeless is getting out of hand. In doing this research we found that one poverty rate is higher in the U.S. than other nation such as Canada. Germany and Australia. Social Scientists call poverty a viscous cycle and they say that studies show that some children come into low income families remain poor for many years. Many homeless are living in doubled tripled illegal apartments or secret places, sleeping in abandoned buildings, alleys, train staions. There are many are in parked cars or Vans in hidden places. We feel that we should put together a task force of people that really care about the issue and know or have experience with the issue. We feel that the government will know whats going on, but will only be really responsible for the tax incentive and that is basically it.
2.Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue ARNOLD R.
We as a group believe that poverty should be elimanated by a tax incentive. If your were to give a poor person or any organization that gives more than 60% of what they make to the poor. You may claim it on your income tax. We say that you can only claim what you give, if you give to the poor and only the poor. There are fake organizations out there and when you give, they will only give 20% of what they make to the poor and keep the rest for their self. We as a group do not believe that these people should be on the streets. So by giving to the poor we are self will be benefiting from all that we give. But only to those who are going to give 60% of what they make to the poor.
On the other hand some got people will not give at all because the money has made them so greedy. Also the reason they will not give is they think that the government will keep all the money and would not give any to the people who gave to the poor. If this does pass, they want to see that a tax incentive will only be affective with those who give to the poor. The reason that they say this is because people say that they gave to help someone, but all they really did was give to the art institute. Giving to any organization like this should be a totally different tax incentive.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution ISRAEL P.
1.) The World Book Encyclopedia. Chicago: World Book, Inc. 1998, Vol.15, Pg. 723-724.
Poverty rate is higher in the U.S. than other nations such as Canada, Australia and Germany. The poor people usually get pay only low wages and have not much of advancement.
2.) Bender L. David. Poverty opposing viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, Inc: Library of Congress, 1994, Pg.46.
The majority of children become homeless. Many of the homeless chose to steal, take drugs and abandon their families. The majority of the homeless are drunks, and crackheads.
3.) Johnson J. Joan. Kids Without Homes. Chicago: Lucent Books, Inc, 1996, Pg.53.
People who don't have the money to buy the barest essentials like food, clothing and shelter even if they don't work are living in poverty. About 200,000 adults used shelter and soup kitchens in U.S. cities.
4.) Kraljic A. Mathew. The Homeless Problem. New York: Wilson Company, 1992, Pg.10
275,000 Bed across the Country 70% of them are accupied. About 40% of the homeless people have severe drug and alcohol problems.
5.) Worth Richard. Poverty. San Diego: Lucent Books, Inc., 1997, Pg.46.
Children have higher high School dropout rates and higher incidenced of juvenile delinquency and teenage pregancy. And most of them die of drug over doos.
6.) Woods W. Daniel. Poverty in the U.S. Daniel W. Woods: U.S, 1988, Pg.35-41.
Can Poverty be eliminated. Liberals would say yes, pointing out such things as the improved canditions of the elderly but many canservitives would say no arguing that dependency on government.
7.) Criswell Dicon Sara. Homelessness. San Diego: Lucent Books, Inc., 1998, Pg.6-9.
This talks about the year 1992 more than 2 million Americans were homeless. A homeless person has an average income of less than $150 per month, or less than $1,800 per year.
8.) Stewart B. Gail. The Homeless Problem. New York: Wilson Company, Inc., 1992, Pg.10.
The homeless population the Census Bureaus counted 3 million homeless 1.2% of the nations population. And the Urban Institute study found 56% had served time in jail, 25% had served time in state federal prisons.
9.) Bender L. David. .Poverty opposing viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, Inc., Library of Congress, 1994, Pg.46.
The percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. And American defined as poor has twice as much living space.
10.) Zwanenberg Van Fiona. Caring for the Aged. U.S: Aladdin Books, 1989, pg13-47
They say that it was from England that the immigrant poor came to the thirteen colonies and from England we inherited some ideas.
11.) Work, Richard. Povery Yesterday and Today. San Diego: Lucent Books, Inc., 1997.
4. Trial Balloon: LISA M.
1. What do you think of our bill?
I, Mrs. Deluttri, think the issue is a valid one and needs to be addressed. However, the difficult part would be to actually get peopoe to donate because many chareties already have tax break incentives yet poverty is still a problem.
I, Mrs. Brafford, believe that if it was carfully aministrated I would be totally for it.
I, Bertha, believe it's good helping other people and you're not wasting your money because you get it back in taxes.
I, Rosmary, believe it is necessary that someone takes charge since they don't have the power to do it themselves.
2. Do you agree or disagree with are bill? Why or Why not?
I, Mrs. Deluttri, agree that poverty is a problem that we, as a nation, should try to eliminate.
Yes I, Mrs. Brafford, agree with helping the homeless, but when the government is controling the funds I disagree because the poor doesn't give all the money to them.
I, Bertha,Agree because the poor need help with money because no one will give them a job.
I, Rosmary, Agree because they need help and somebody has to do it.
3. Do you have any suggestions on other programs ou fundings to help the homeless.
No, I,Mrs. Delutri, have no ideas.
I, Mrs. Brafford, think we should put together a task force of people that have experiance.
I, Rosmary, think that society should help and give them schooling, job training.
I, Bertha, think that society should give them job training, free schooling for children.
1. Description of the Proposal TIM A.
We address the problem with the transportation system (roads and highways). They are deteriorating from everyday use and on the most not being fixed. We want to take additional funds (5 to 15%) from other government programs that have nothing to do with the the public good, such as national defense and national endowments of the arts as examples. If we can find other programs that have that money to give this bill will fix allof the roads in Illinios This is better in two ways because every one billion dollars that goes in 40,200 American jobs are created. Secondly it will provide a safer and more efficient way to travel in Illinios
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue JIMMY I.
Traveling through our town and city causes us to look around and as we look we notice our streets and roads, now as our vehicle bobbles around we start to think that hey if these potholes, bumps.,and rocks were all repaired we would be thinking about something important. That issue got my issue group to think about proposing a bill that would have all our roads repaired.I'm sure that all of the voters would be thinking "oh no more taxes to pay",but hey here's an idea why wouldn't we just have state or federal money to fix them. If there is so much complaining about our roads from the people the government wouldn't mind deducting the money from some of their programs.Thinking of all this might cause you to think of all think of all the negative things that would come up. Such as higher taxes but we want to keep taxes at the lower or at the same rate. Maybe if this would be a ridiculous idea it would end up raising maybe a few billion dollars, but maybe if the people complain so much about it then the the government wouldn't mind giving the money.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution MONICA G.
1. Arta American Road and Transportation Builders Association http://www.artba-hg.org/public/docs/factsheet.htm.
Transportation construction is a $ 153 billion per year. More than 1.6 million private and public jobs.
2. Strategic Goal: Mobility http://www.dot gov/hot,dot plan.htm/
Shape America's future by ensuring a transportation system that is accessible, integrated, efficient, and offers flexibility of choice.
3. Title II-- transportation Funding Flexibility sec 201. Finding and Purposes. http://www.fhwa.dot gov/ legsregs/title2.htm/
Sec.201. is about findings and purposes. Like to suspend certain penalties thta would be bad for the state and to use.
4. TEA-21 moving Americans into the 21st centrywyslwyg: //81/http: //www. fhwa.dot. gov/tea21/index.htm
President Clinten signed the landmark transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century on June 9, 1998.
5. The Transportation Equility Act for the 21st Century wysiwgg://81/http: //www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/index.htm.
President Clinton's commitment to rebuilding America by providing a record, balanced investment in our highways, transit systems, and intermodal facilities.
6. Neikirk William "Business big winner as congress adjourns "Chicago Tribune Thursday October 22. Chicago Tribune front page. 1998 section 1 page 1 and page 28.
This artican was about that Bill Clinton was going to help out with the roads. To make them much better for us.
7. Worthington Rogers " Officials look to make states Roads worthy." Chicago Tribune thursday Ocober 22 Metro Dupage. 1998 section 2 page 1 and page 8.
Officials look to make states roads worthy. They will be working to get the chicago roads look worthy.
8. Lafuente de Della "Cermak Rd. Bridge back in business." Chicago Sun-Time Wednesday, October 28, 1998 metro page 6.
Over 250 workers worked to get this old bridge to work.
9. CQ weekly report July- Dec 1998 That a bill was passed on fixing the roads june 29. 1998
4. Trial Balloon Juan R.
I interviewed 4 people 2 of them over the age of 18. The other 2 under the age of 18.
First person: Nicole Y. She believes that roads should be fixed in all areas of the United States. The government should also spend more money on making safer roads for our citizens of the United States. She also believed that buy using state funds will help our state.
Second person: Alexandra P. She believes we should pass the bill because it is a good cause. She also believes that sometimes funds are used for unimportant things like paying for clinton's fee's so why not use it for our benefit.
Third person: Joseph C: He believes that welfare should be used to pay for roads instead of taxes or funds.
Fourth person: Rosmary A. she also believes with others to fix roads for our own safety. We should also spend on good things.
1. Description of the Proposal SARA B.
We can fix and some we just have to deal with. Some of the things that we can't fix, are the way students act, the way they behave, and whether or not they will do their homework. Some of the things that we can control are school curriculums, and school rules. In a larger sense there are things that the government can control about schools, and there are things that the government can't possibly control, simply because they can't meet the needs of all the students in every school across America. They can regulate schools to produce the best possible education for the students that is possible. An example of one thing the government could change to better our children's education, is the science curriculum. In Science Curriculums across America, only one theory is being taught to students to explain where humans came from, and how the earth began. Students are not getting the unbiased education that they need to build the rest of their education on.
Since we really haven't been able to prove how humans, animals, or the earth came about, everything giving an explanation of where we came from is called a theory. If none of the theories have been proved, why are the majority of America's schools only teaching Darwinism, and evolution? There are so many theories out there that students need to at least hear about, and learn, so that they can evalute the information, and decide which one makes the most sense. Since none have been proved, and we only have theories. One might say that a child in third grade does not need to start learning different theories of how everything began, they wouldn't understand what a theory is, let alone what each theory meant. If indeed a students grade school education is the foundation for the rest of their schooling career, they need to learn the bare bones of these theories, then in more detail as they progess, in their education. As of right now, millions of students are being deprived of the right to choose how they began. In America we have the rights to choose what we want, and we get to be our own individual. Right now America's children are being denied this right to choose. If you truly care about America's future, the children, and a higher standard of education; then you will want to support this bill. By doing so, you will be supporting, and investing in our future, our children.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue ARIC H.
Our bill about school curriculum has both its positive and negative sides. It's positive side is it enforces the law of freedom of speech and our right to an education. It also teaches a more wide ranged science class and it helps students understand that there is more than one or two theories for the creation of earth. The final point I would like to make is when taught in the earlier years of education it builds a strong science foundation for teachers to work off of in later years.
Our bill has its negative sides which are it combines church and state. Some might say that this takes away from our freedom of religious rights. But, not having the bill takes away the right and freedom of America's children's ability to chose how they came about. Who are we to tell them what to believe. It also may cause problems if parents do not want their children to learn all major theories of how everything began. In this case, the parents of these children might be more interested in enrolling their child in a private school, or home schooling them, so they can better control what their child is learning.Public Schools are funded by the government , and state. Therefore, they need to be responsible in meeting the diverse needs of all the unique students that attend public schools. Another drawback might possibly be that children don't want to learn all the different theories that are now available. Then again, most children don't want to do their homework or be in school, teachers still give students homework, and children are still reqired to be in school until the age of sixteen. Also most of the theories that they teach now have a small amount of evidence that support they existed. That doesn't mean that someone thinks it isn't true. Even if a theory has little evidence, it still needs to be presented, so that a student can make an educated hypothesis. This bill will protect the student's rights in school. This concludes the positive and negatives of our bill.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution JOSH P.
Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol.18. pg 803-883.
From this resource we found out that there are many different theories and three of them are; Darwin Survival of the fittest. page 805. Then there was Creationism. page 855. The Greeks had their own view too they though that animals can transform into people. That was also on page 855.
Tribune, Sunday, may 1, 1983. Article
Evolution the theory that we evolved from slime and single cell organism.
Religion and Politics by: Gary E. McCuen
Geocites.com/capital hill/lobby/7789/
Evolution didn't originate from Darwin, it has been in existence since ancient Greek and Roman. The theory entered schools during the famous Scopes monkey trial. He taught evolution instead of creation. The supreme court declared nothing wrong with teaching evolution rather than creation.
World Book Encyclopedia V6 page 432.
Darwin theory - we all came from a few species "The Origin of Species" (1859)
Early theory 1700's by count De Buffon and Baron Cuwries- life has gone under a series of changes animals body parts change over time.
Taking Sides- Educational issues page 147-175
They voted that the theory of creation should be included in history and language arts classes. The policy also requires discussion of scientific evidence that dispute the theory of evolution
www.ucmp.berheley.edu/history/evolution.html
Three main theories, Creation, Big Bang, and Darwinism.
Discover magazine 1997
The anti revolutionists want to teach evolution as a theory not a fact.
Darwin finches. 1969
He found an island that never touched the main land but yet he found 13 new species of finches. All the same but each a little different. They evolved to fit their surrounding.
4. Trial Baloon DONITA S.
The first person I interviewed was Louise, age 37. If we look at it from a science perspective, since we don't know the truth then they should all be presented. In science we should get presented all views of all issues. Thats what makes us individuals, to have the choice to decide for yourself what is right. All theories of evolution should definetly be taught in an unbiased way.
The second person I interviewed was Alberto, age 15. What they teach now is fine, it would take too much time to process all that and get it done. Teach what is taught now- it's the main theory and most people agree with it. Don't bring all the other stuff in to it, thats just more we have to learn.
The third person I interviewed was Chris, age 16. We live in a society where all things need to be looked at from every angle. Thats the only way to possibly find out the truth or at least decide on the truth yourself. The way they teach it now is not so confusing, but in high school they should teach it all because they are more mature and can handle learning the different theories.
The last person I interviewed was Ed, age 40. Other theories deserve an equal chance. I had to go to a private college before I learned about other theories besides Darwin's. My children should be allowed to make an informed decision. There are so many theories out there. They should be taught about evolution, creation, romans belief, egyptian belief, eastern religions belief, etc. American children are deprived of all of these by only hearing about Darwins. The U.S. supreme court should have an open mind like they expect everyone else to.
1. Description of the Proposal BRIAN K.
As we speak, California enforces a law against convicted felons titled proposition 184. This law is more commonly known as the three strikes and you're out attitude to repeat felony offenders. The law states that upon a third conviction of a felony pertaining to a violent or serious felony charge, the offender is sentenced to life in prison. When the law was officially passed in 1994, seventy four percent of the state was in favor of the law. This was even after it was explained to the residents of California they would either lose some government programs or have their taxes raised to enforce the law subjected to the repeat felons. I think this goes to show how much the citizens of this country want to protect their people. The only modifacation to this law we would like to make, would to drop the amount of felonies allowed from three to two.
The first question to be asked would have to be what types of offenses should be considered when a criminal would possibly be subjected to this sort of punishment. We want to get the members of soceity who are dangerous to others off of the street. Felonies such as violent rape, assualt with a deadly weapon( deadly is based on the sitiuation, if something not generally considered deadly is used the judge can make a ruling on whether or not the questioned object is deadly), armed robbery, and any situation in which manslaughter and any type of murder would be examples of felonies considered punishable by this law.
The reasoning behind this law is simple. Our proposed law is set up to protect the people of America. There is no reason the people of America should feel unsafe in their home towns. They should feel comfortable walking home from a friend's house at night. The logic of our law is simple. With less of the people prone to these sorts of actions locked up, there is less of a chance of these felonies continuing.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue MAGGIE M.
Our group's issue is the one referring to second-time offenders of felonies and violent crimes. We feel that rehabilitated criminals make the choice to repeatedly harm others and they get away with it! The three strikes idea and continual rehabilitation hurts more than it helps. The opposing view to our bill of life imprisonment for these repeated felons, is to keep letting them go from jail on lesser jail sentences than previously decided by the court system. How many mistakes can we allow guilty murderers and sex offenders? It is not morally right! Those opposing this bill would feel that there should be room left for the mistakes of criminals and their rehabilitation. Also, that life imprisonment is too harsh. Criminals who consciously make a decision to commit a crime twice do need help. Should we provide for them, or make sure that they will not continue to repeat their hurtful actions to our people? Another frequent argument is that we can help them. Do we as a society have the ultimate responsibility to help those who hurt others? Some of these offenders may not be able to be helped. That is a risky chance that would have to be taken.
Our bill does allow for one mistake by felons of violent crimes; however, we do not want to see more people getting hurt, killed, or abused. That is why we want repeated offenders behind bars, two strikes are enough because that person has chosen to deliberately offend again. Therefore, these troublemakers deserve life imprisonment with community service and lack of privilege or freedom in their lives. Jail is not all fun and games and a free lifestyle, it is punishment for wrongdoings, pain, and suffering that have been done to others by a hardly accidental choice!
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution HEIDI F.
"Defini tion of a Felony." [Online] Available http://www.carolynrader.com/felonies.html. October 13, 1998.
The legal definition of a felony.
"Bureau of Justics Statistics." [Online] Available http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs. October 23, 1998.
A clearly organized government site with graphs and charts, as well as many numerical facts.
"Serious Felonies within the meaning of the California Three Strikes Law." [Online] Available http://seamless.com/alawyer/star4.html. October 20, 1998.
A comprehensive listing of what constitutes a "serious felony" in California's recent "three strikes" legislation.
"National Archive of Criminal Justice Data." [Online] Available http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/home.html. October 23, 1998.
A very complete and well-organized set of data on a wide variety of crimonology topics.
"Stricter sentences for third time offenders." [Online] Available http://www2.nando.net/newsroom/htn/national/062496. October 15, 1998.
An article reviewing the government's recent action in mandatory criminal sentencing.
"Violent Felonies within the meaning of the California Three Strikes Law." [Online] Available http://seamless.com/alawyer/star5.html. OCtober 20, 1998.
A comprehensive listing of what constitutes a "violent felony" in California's recent "three strikes" legislation.
"Criminal Legislation." [Online] Available http://dpa.state.ky.us/advocate/July98/legislation.html.
"1994 California Voter Information" [Online] Available http://ca94.election.digital.com/e/prop/184/home.html. October 28, 1998.
A set of links regarding California's "three strikes" legislation.
"Three Strikes, You're History." [Online] Available http://www.umt.edu/kaimin/oldkaimins/01-27-95/o.3strikes.html. October 28, 1998.
An easy-to understand, intelligent summary of the "three strikes" legislation.
"1994 California Voter Information: Argument in Favor" [Online] Available http://ca94.election.digital.com/e/prop/for.html. October 28,1998.
Primarily a list of organizations supporting the "three strikes" legislation.
Criminal Sentencing. ed. by Robert Emmet Long. New York: H.W. Wilson Publishing, 1995, pg. 56.
Mandatory Life Sentencing information.
Taking Sides: Legal Issues. ed. by M. Fahann Katsch. New York: McGraw Hill, 1997.
Taking Sides: Political Issues. ed. by George McKenna, Stanley Feingold. U.S.A.: Dushkin Publishing Group/Brown & Benchmark Publishers, 1997.
Taking Sides: Crime and Criminology. ed. by Richard C. Monk. U.S.A.: Dushkin Publishing Group/Brown & Benchmark Publishers, 1996.
The Insanity Plea. ed. by Dalan, Jr. and F. Edward. New York: Franklin Watts Publishing, 1984.
4. Trial Balloon RENEE A.
To obtain public opinion on the issue of "Two Strikes and You're Out", I interviewed four people, two of whom are 19 years of age or older and two of whom are younger than 19 years of age.
Out of the four interviewed, only one disagreed with our proposal. However, it was a very weak disagreement because she believes in the principal of our proposal, but she thinks that we are being too lenient. She felt that if a felon does something really really bad or wrong, they should be put away for good the first time.
During interviewing, a couple of faults in our proposal were surfaced. The most concerning of these imperfections was the cost of our proposal. They were worried that the number of convicted offenders would pose a problem dealing with overpopulation in prisons. This would lead to construction of new prisons, which would increase taxes.
Three out of the four approved of our proposal for many reasons. They agree first and foremost that our judicial system is not strict enough. Society has to take drastic measures and deal with violent criminals such as murderers and rapists.
Despite the few faults, the overall perception of the bill was well accepted. It was unanimously agreed upon, that our proposal would keep (violent) criminals/wackos off the streets and they wouldn't be able to hurt society. One person interviewed believed that our proposal will separate those who act out on urge and those who don't. Another supports the fact that our proposal would create more government jobs.
All of those interviewed believed that in order for our proposal to succeed, we must first decide on which felonies would be included in our proposal. One felt that dealers of hard drugs such as coke, crack and heroin be included because drugs will be the downfall of our society. Another thought we should classify felonies (ex- class A, class B, etc.) or develop a point system which would define whether or not, for example, two rapes equal murder.
1. Description of the Proposal FRANCIS D.
Our bill is on the Sanitation of fast food restaurants. We want to put surveillance cameras in the restaurants to make sure everything is clean and cooked right. We have read stories and situations that concerning sanitation. Fast food restaurants have had problems such as bugs, and hair in the food that has been cooked. The food has also been under cooked or dropped on the floor. All this can cause people to get sick. The surveillance cameras will help from all these things happening. The cameras will catch whatever the inspectors won't find and these restaurants can be closed or the workers can be fired. The businesses should be the ones to cover the expenses that the video taping will have. The owners need to consider this expense when beginning this solution.
We found many situations in which people have become very ill and have even died from the food they have eaten. In one case a women found a roach in the salad bar at Wendy's. One of the workers just took the roach out of the salad and didn't even throw the salad away. The worker said that they could afford to throw the salad away. In another cases food has been dropped on the floor and cooks just dust it off and cook the meat anyway. We are hoping to catch this stuff and prevent anything from happening to the customers. Too many people have become sick and even died from the food they have eaten.
If these cameras are installed in the fast food restaurants people won't get sick anymore. Fast food restaurants won't be sued anymore, and workers will get fired for their actions. Many problems will be solved by using these cameras, and many things will be safer.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue JESSICA W.
It is true that there can be more than one side to any story or more than one opinion on an issue. What we have proposed would benefit the consumer greatly. By observing the preparation of food in fast food restaurants, the consumer will be more protected from preventable situations. For example, many people have suffered form a virus caused by E. Coli bacteria. This bacteria infects raw or undercooked food. Hopefully, with video surveillance, food would be prepared properly and reduce such problems.
There are some people who would disagree with this proposal. Republicans would say that government should not interfere with business. They would say that it's the consumers' choice if they want to eat at fast food restaurants.
In reality, everyone has the right to be protected. We shouldn't wonder, "What's in this?" Something as common as fast food should be safe. I think the government should step in when it involves the entire country's population.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution JOE L.
Resource: Internet
http://epo96.nii.nchc.gov.tw/thcg/English/health.htrm
This article explains that public health is very important these days because of changes in social lifestyles. (economic patterns) The Government also set up a "task force," to enforce sanitation.
http://public.service.vt.edu/food.html
Includes violations such as roach infestation and basic unclean food contact.
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/label.html
Talks about Workshop in Virginia putting emphasis on their food sanitation.
Webcrawler
eating defensively and people with HIV and AIDS need to be careful when eating at restaurants.
Resource: books
Safe Food, Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.d.
Explains specific foods to avoid and ones encouraged to eat. Also how the contain the E.Coli disease and other bacteria.
Food, Risks and Controversies, Charles A Salter.
Book talking about how local governments enforcing health and labeling requirements in supermarkets and restaurants.
Fast Food Guide
Tells us to stay away from raw foods
The World Book Encyclopedia Food and Drug Administration FDA
FDA has responsibilities of sanitary conditions in public places and the federal and state government to ensure safety of milk and shellfish.
CQ Researcher
Experts agree that the current food inspection program is ran very poorly. Most sources of illnesses come from unknown places.
Resource: Personal Interviews
These seven individuals have worked at or known people who have worked and fast food restarunts. The first, Mike Stillin, talks about incidents with dropped pizza on the floor and was put back in to the box anyways plus others did not wash their hands and otehr incidents. Sara Blanc also revealed incidents including dropped gloves and lids but are not required to wash hands. Renee Altman continued with the unclean hands problem and how some gloves have been contaminated. Katie Vogan who had worked and Oberweiss and watched co-workers give extra to their friends and give too little to others. (This is not about sanitation but would be pervented if there was cameras. Lisa Mari talked about Pizza Hut and Wendy`s and its problems. Benjamin Delgado also worked at McDonald`s and found a dead rat under the counter. Lisa Mendez worked at Mc Donalds but did not really see anything bad. But she had visited a Mexican restaraunt and everyone had gotten sick.
4. Trial Balloon ANN V.
The following are responses to interviews discussed with four different people; two under the 18 age group and two over the 18 age group. A few questions asked included how they felt about food safety, if more sanitation laws were needed, their view on our bill, its effectiveness, and further suggestions for better sanitation.
Kelli V., age 51, felt that if a restaurant looked clean, it probably was. If it looked dirty, she wouldn't go there. She felt that food sanitation was an issue and felt positive about our bill. She did question who would be viewing the tape, what the consequences for being caught on the tape would be, and the overall cost of the videotaping in the restaurant. She suggested that the main source of food sanitation came from how the food was actually stored and handled. So, the video tapes could definitely help this area. She also suggested that not all restaurants suffered from bad sanitation, possibly a select few. If it was just a chain of restaurants, she said to focus on them.
Mary B., age 53, tries not to think about how her food is handled and prepared when she goes to a fast food restaurant. She also liked the video tape idea and suggested the tapes were randomly checked by the store's manager. She said she "trusts people too much" and doesn't worry as much as she should. She felt that the storage of the food was the base of the problem, also the transportation of it. She agreed with Kelli that how the food is handled and prepared is also a huge part of the problem. Another of her ideas was that the local management should be responsible and the owner(s) of the restaurants should be the ones to improve this situation. If a restaurant is failing because of poor sanitation, the ones that own the store should hold the responsibility.
Marcus D., age 17, feels safer in some restaurants, more than others--depending on where he goes. He believes there should be stricter sanitation laws, such as requirement of gloves and hair tied up at all times. He thinks the video tapes would be a good idea and effective if the management agreed to faithfully review the tapes periodically. If caught in a non-sanitary situation, Marc thinks the employee should be immediately fired. He agrees with the others that food sanitation is an issue that needs to be improved. Another suggestion that he mentioned was possibly allowing customers to watch employees prepare their food--like an open kitchen.
Emily A.,age 17, depending on where she goes, feels safer in some restaurants over others. She would support stricter sanitation laws, also, and believes that the video tapes would definitely help resolve the problem of poor food sanitation. She thinks that when the food actually arrives at the restaurant, it should be checked for any defectiveness. She feels strongly that food sanitation is a problem because of the number of sicknesses occurring as a result of this problem. She also thinks that food needs to be reviewed before it is even sent to the restaurants.
All four people interviewed agreed with our idea of video surveillance, but did question the cost of this idea. Also, for the most part, the agreed that the management should be responsible for the viewing and results of the taping.
1. Description of the Proposal EVELYN G.
Our goal is to eliminate government funding for space exploration. We believe that instead of using the governments money, NASA should get businesses to sponsor their space exploration. The money that was used for space exploration should be used for services that will aid the less fortunate people. This money might also be used for programs such as welfare, Medicare or other beneficial programs for the people. NASA is spending billions of dollars on exploring things that only interest themselves. What good is it going to do for the average person to know about what is found in space.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue CATHY Z.
Removing the entire space exploration is not our goal, our goal is to convince you that it would be better for the people if we had privately owned space exploration businesses, to not waste our hard earned money. Removing the government funding for space exploration has many advantages and disadvantages.
Some advantages would be that the tax money normally spent on space exploration could be used for other government programs. A majority of the money that government spends on space exploration is wasted due to the repetitious findings. We use government money to update our space craft, which by the time it is ready to be used it is in need of an updated design. The space program uses money to update the space craft at least five times in nine years. All the money used in redesigning new space craft is wasted. Much of the research information that is current is already been discovered and well researched. Our future costs will only increase with our growing technology. What benefits come from space exploration? We are not finding any cures to cancer or anything, and so what if there is life on other planets, we cannot survive on the other planets so why waste our money on researching them.
If you are one who believes that space exploration is for a good cause than there are some disadvantages that are important to be aware of. By taking away the government funding for space exploration, you may run the risk of eliminating the whole space exploration program due to the high cost. Putting the space exploration in the hands of the private businesses may be too difficult a task, in that it may be hard to find sufficient sponsors to pay for the research and technology needed. Each year the amount of money needed for space exploration increases due to the complexity and intricacy of the space craft. In 1969, 2.5 billion dollars were spent just in paying for salaries and administration. How would these private businesses pay their employers for the work and research? Using the private businesses for space exploration may be very difficult to do.
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution ISMAEL G.
C Q Researcher. pg. 84-88. 8/15/83. c.1983.
The space station is always being redesigned and designing the latest model might be a waste of money.
Newsweek. pg. 34-37. 7/7/69. c.1969.
The whole country "shared" the costs of the research and development for space exploration.
New York Times. "Deciding Who Should Pay for Exploring the Heavens." pg. 5 8/26/83.
Need for private space program is dubious.
Space Race. pg. 19-22. September 1980.
Future costs will increase.
Chicago Tribune. "N.A.S.A. Gets Money to Save Their Broken Toy." pg. 5 7/18/82.
The nation paid $93 million to rescue N.A.S.A's ship.
Chicago Tribune. "Space Station: Costs and Allies' Role Raise Doubts." pg. 3. 2/8/87.
The proposed space station will cost as much as $13 billion.
The Daily Herald. "N.A.S.A.'s Next Stop in Space." pg. 3. 9/26/88.
James Fletcher revised plans for a space station, it will cost about $410 billion.
Chicago Tribune. "Mars Pathfinder Declared Dead." pg. 2. 11/5/97.
A dead battery ended a month long mission for the $196 million Pathfinder.
4. Trial Balloon EVELYN G.
I interviewed four people. Those people are my father, my brother, my cousin and my friend. When I presented our issue to each person they all said that it was a good idea.
My father said that the money could be used for poor people, youths in the ghettos, help build and bring more education to the underprivileged or other bentifitial organizations. He also said that this money was not being used for beneficial things.
My brother said that money was used for things that scientists have no idea what they are looking for. It seems that they are just looking for just anything to waist money on. He also says that the information that is found does not add up to all the money that is used. He used as an example; NASA uses billions of dollars to go to Mars to find some sort of bacteria or rocks. He states that the information that is found does not effect the average person. Money should be used for more important things that will help or effect people like welfare or Medicare.
My cousin said that the money being used for space could be used to decrease poverty . This money could also help programs or associations that are needing to find cures for diseases like cancer or aids. This money could also crate new jobs so that there are less people on welfare. I t could also be used to maybe increase the minimum wage. This money could be used to better the environment, clean up the earth that we are living on and not the space that nobody is living in.
My friend also agreed with this issue. He proposed that the money should be used for the after mass of natural disasters. Drug-Free programs can also be benefited from these billions of dollars. Ecology, saving all or at least some of the rain forests in the world. Telecommunications companies should be the ones that should sponsor NASA or any space related companies. He also suggested that the money should be used for more scholarships for students so more teenagers are able to share their minds and ideas with the rest of the world and so that their are more teenagers in schools and less on the streets.
1. Description of the Proposal
Perpared by Robyn L.
Homosexual lifestyles are still discrimated against today in our politically correct society. Many people disagree with gay relationships for a number of reasons, whether they be religious, lack of knowledge about homosexuals or even fear of disease. Even if one feels it is immoral, all people are equal in the eyes of the government; all people deserve to be treated the same regardless of their sexuality. One way our government can guarantee equality to homosexuals is to allow same sex marriages. This way life committed partners can receive the same benefits as heterosexual partners do. It is a sterotype homosexuals are permicious and uncommited in their relationships, however there are many homosexuals in relationships which last as long as marriges. The Constituton states in the Preamble, it is every Americans right to prusue happiness. By not letting Homosexual partners marry we are interfering with their right to happiness. Another way to make gays more equal in the eyes of our society is allowing committed homosexual partners to adopt. Many children go without parents. The nurturing they deserve is not received. These children will not become productive members of society with out a structured family. Most would believe some form of a family is better than nothing. Unmarried induviduals can adopt. If homosexuals could marry the next natural step would be to all them to adopt. In addition to marriges the work environment should not be allowed to discrimate against anyone based on their race, gender, physical appearance or sexuality. Our government overprotects racial and gender issues while they ignore sexual discrimation.
This bill would most likely be supported by Democrats. They usually support anti-discrimation issues. However this could be bipartisan too. Families of homosexuals may feel the deserve more rights.
2. Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue
prepared by Joe M.
The most likely argument against gay rights is that homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle. Homosexuals have the highest rate of sucide among teenagers and have a higher rate of substance abuse. This is to be expected because any life style or person that is deemed socially unacceptable will naturally be proned to substance abuse and sucide. This can easily be changed by first making homosexuality acceptable in the eyes of the law, then slowly it will be able to become more acceptable to the individual and society as a whole. There are belive it or not who do live strictly by law and deem any thing illegal to the law is terribly bad with out even giving any
3. Identification of Information that Supports the Solution
prepared by Shelly R.
By allowing gays to be outcasts, we are allowing people to discriminate. Marriage is a right that should be for all citizens of the U.S. Also, since gay couples can't biologically have children, they should be able to adopt. We also feel that there should not be any firing of homosexuals based on their sexuality. There has been a recent poll that shows that 85% of Americans believe it should be illegal to fire gay men or lesbians based soley on their sexuality, and yet there are still fourty states that are allowing this. If 85% of Americans believe that this should be illegal, then there has to be something done about it, and there has to be something done about all of the other rights that belong to homosexuals which are listed above. With your help we can bring equality to the gay society.
4. Trial Balloon
prepared by Joe M.
Tim agrees people should not be discrimated against because of their sexual preference.
Sara believes homosexuals should be treated equally in the eyes of the law.
Krystal (19+) agrees it is not the governments job to judge us based on our sexual preferences. It is also not their position to take the rights of gays away. Homosexuals are people who are no different than heterosexuals.
Joan (19+) thinks homosexuals should not be treated any differently than heterosexuals.
Description of the Proposal
Prepared by:Claudia G.
Adolescents have more and more responsibility that is handed to them as they grow and mature. Teens are exposed to a number of decisions that they have to make and they should have the right information and support to make the right choice for themselves. One of the decisions, facing teens today is deciding whether or not they are going to be involved in sexual activity. With all the diseases like AIDS and 54 different STD's that are out there waiting for those sexually active people to infect, they should be able to receive protection for themselves and their partners, so that the disease can be controlled and we don't lose so many young lives over a disease that can be prevented with a something as simple as a condom. Teenager's are having sex at a younger and younger age. 7 in 10 young women will have had sex by the time they reach the age of 14 (Siecus Report : Feb./Mar 1998. pg21-22). Adults are blaming the increasing number of sexually activity on ignorance. But if it were ignorance then why are the adults pointy finger s at us, laying the blame on teens when they could be doing something to help protect them, instead of letting 3 million teens a year (or out of every 4 teens).get infected with a STD, while they just stand by and critique those people. it is foolish to allow these young adults to engage in such behavior without being educated about what they are getting themselves into. If you say, that they are old enough to know what they are getting themselves into then why do 3 in 10 teens drop out of high school once they become pregnant? We need give them a shield to protect themselves with so that the fututure isn't filled with infected and contagious people. The only shield we have to protect them and ourselves are abstinence and using protection, and both methods should be taught since one is not going to be abstaining from sex the rest of their lives.
56% of young women and 73% of young men will have had intercourse by the time they reach the age of 18. And with 1.9 million of those sexually active teens contracting STD's yearly, wouldn't it be a good idea to provide a means to lower the number of people infected a year and the rate of unplanned teen pregnancies of 8 out of every 10 women under age of twenty becoming pregnant?(Siecus Report:Feb/Mar. 1998.PG21-22) The only way we can achieve a means to lower these astonishingly high rates is to provide of way for them to be able to protect themselves by providing condoms for there use in the place where most teen's spend there time, in schools. Teenagers should be able to acquire a simple and inexpensive means of birth control if they are going to be responsible. So the state's government should be required to provide condoms to high schools, so they can be accessible for teens, if they are needed. The high schools should keep the condoms in the nurses office to make sure that, only students who are serious and mature about there use are going to be able to get the condoms. Students should be able to get these condoms, without being hassled , but they can receive additional information if requested. The condoms should be in packaged discreetly, so not to advertise the students personal lives, and with instructions on how to use them properly and information on the diseases that one is exposing themselves to. In providing protection,and information, hopefully we can stop the alarmingly fast increase in the spread of the deadly virus AIDS and lower the unwanted pregnancy rate, helping the abortion rate and induced miscarriages from happening. We need support from the Democratic Society if we want to make our society more responsive to it's needs and educated in what is really going on with our society.
Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue
Prepared by: Shawn L.
I believe that in the study which was done on the distribution of condoms in high schools in urban L.A. It Has proven to be more positive as an then they thought it would have, also a lot of statistics show that i am correct! Many parents believe that their schools are only promoting premarital sex. Reality to that fact is that they aren't condoning it, children will have sex if condoms are given to them or not. In the case they should have sex they are more likely to use one if they do have sex. I n a few cases in l.a. with condom distribution, there had to be parental consent, then through some counseling their would be condoms available to students. in another case there was just baskets of condoms in front of four classrooms with brochures and a note on the condoms that read " Think before you act." the common belief of most parents is that their kids shouldn't have sex before they get married. yet Even when condoms are distributed to female adolescents they aren't used by high school males, most females engage in sex with older males that are not in school ! When the condom distribution was given in some L.A. schools not only did it get the attention of the students but also it also changed there attitude about sex , Schuster a school associate said that the condoms raised the awareness of STD's and the possibility of pregnancy. The common attitude changed where sex actually became negative, for the majority of students. though parent's believe that sex should be saved for marriage, the common trend in the '90's is that it is normal, mostly brought on by the films, common literature, media and peer pressure. young people that practice sexual purity are considered odd and indeed, are scorned, ridiculed, and ostracized by those who assert themselves arrogantly with having sex because they believe it is "love"! the truth about distributing condoms in school doesn't condone sex but it does promote good health. Republicans would most likely oppose this bill due to the fact of how they believe in pro abstinence, but unless they want to have a bunch of kids running around with aids, or just plain pregnant, they should be for the distribution of condoms in schools. For the health of all involved, please, understand that condoms help kids have safe sex, not more sex, and that is something I don't think that republicans or parents should oppose.
Identification of Information that Supports the Solution
Prepared by Jami S.
Our group came up to the idea that condoms should be allowed in schools to protect the youth of schools from teenage pregnancy and from the 54 STD's that are out in the world. There are already schools and communities that practice this theory but yet schools are still against this idea and ignorant as to what is going on in the world. There are also many people in higher authority that also believe that condoms should be allowed in schools. ANGLICAN Archdeacon Dr. Arnold Hollis agrees that condoms should be allowed in schools to help protect against AIDS. He also stated by not allowing condoms in school they are contributing to the "genocide of our people". There are also 12 communities in Massachusetts that are distributing condoms in schools to help protect the kids against STD's and pregnancy.
People also state that allowing condoms in schools is just showing a lack of morals. It has nothing to do with morals but yet trying to take responsibility as a teenager!! 56% of young women and 73% of young men have had intercourse by the age of 18. Adolescents between 15 and 17 years of age have had 2 or more sexual partners and 13% of these adolescents have had 6.5 partners.
Now lets look at the pregnancy aspect of this. 8 in 10 pregnancys are to young girls under 20 years of age and are unplanned. Each year 1.9 million unplanned pregnancys are due to not using contraceptives. How about the STD numbers? How many adolescents do you think acquire a STD each year? Here are the fact, 3 million adolescents each year acquire STD's. ( That's 1 in 4 teenagers. ) Think bout this for a moment; one time of unprotected sexual act you have a 1% chance to contract HIV, 30% chance to contact herpes, and 50% chance to contract gonorrhea. All those are just in 1 act of unprotected sex. If condoms were allowed in schools this chance could be greatly reduced by great numbers.
A survey was taken at Northampton High that shows condoms are favored in schools by students. 78% of Northampton teens are for condom distribution within schools. 40% of the students indicate that they always use a condom while 60% indicated they used them sometimes. 55% of the 60% say they would be more likely to use a condom. For the people who are concerned that having condoms in schools would promote the idea of having sex to the abstinent teens, the 58% of teens who said they are not sexually active also stated that it would not change their views at all.
This bill is not only for the teens but also for the community. If the teens were to use the condoms that were handed out it shows responsibility. There are many schools who already use this form of protection like, Northampton High, but others who are still ignorant to the idea, like West Chicago. To support this bill is to also help protect the community against early teen pregnancies and also the 54 STD's that are amongst us.
Trial Balloon
Prepared by: Kristin L.
I asked about my friends and neighbors to get their opinion on my bill-to-be, providing birth control in schools. I was not surprised at all by the response that I received. I know that proposing making condoms available in schools is a touchy subject, but if done correctly we can get a lot of condoms out there without offending many people. These are the responses that I received:
Ken age 18: Yes, Condoms should be available at schools, but I don't know about distributing them to the students.
Courtney age 17: I don't care either way because I'm not having sex.
Mrs. W. age 19+: Yes, because if they do there will be less teen pregnancy.
Mrs. L. age 19+: No way, if you give the kids condoms they will just have sex!
As you can see, I got responses from both points of view, but notice that more are for condoms in school than against. Courtney said herself that either way, she would not have sex. Ken was concerned about if they would be distributed discretely. Mrs. W. is concerned about the lives of the teens as well as the children. Mrs. L. is just concerned about the sex aspect of it. She doesn't want anybody having it unless their married.
To say that it's just condoning sex to give teenagers condoms is a very narrow-minded view. As Courtney said, she won't be having sex if the school gave out condoms. It is a sign of maturity to see kids protecting themselves. It proves that kids may be responsible enough to have sex.
Sure, it's ideal for kids to abstain from sex until their married. But in todays society, that is not the common trend. Most girls lose their virginity around age 17. Most males lose their virginity at age 16. Those ages are far from the age at which people in America get married. To provide condoms in the schools, we are trying to keep the pregnancy down.
Description of the Proposal
Prepared by Cheryl P.
"Our military budget is the size of the next 6 largest military budgets combined, and it's 17 times larger than our "regional adversaries"- Cuba, Syria, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Libya. It accounts for more than 37% of all military spending on the planet."
-Mark Zepezaur and Arthur Naiman
Keep the Rich Off Welfare
Our Dilemma: Every time someone pays taxes, a large part of it goes to the military. A lot of this money goes towards the creation of excess tanks, planes and other such artillery that our country does not need. This money could be going toward starving families, homeless families or both. It could also be helping to bridge the gap in between "rich" schools and "needy" schools.
The country is planning on cutting it's budget to a more reasonable number, unfortunately, the proposed cuts are to social welfare.(Naiman 13) While the number of dollars for social programs is "looking forward" to a decrease, the military has already decided on an increase. What for? A new plane is being made for the air force, the F-22, even though, the current F-15 "has no equal anywhere in the world"(Greider 136). This new unneccisary plane, is going to cost $161 million each. The Air Force wants to purchase 438 of them. (Greider 138) This type of wasteful spending can not be allowed when on our city streets there are families with no homes, no place to go, no food, ect. In order to protect our country, perhaps we should start by protecting it's individuals from the cold and hunger they suffer rather than the threat of WW III which isn't even guaranteed.
Our issue group proposes that the money that goes towards the production of unneeded battle equipment should be redirected to paying for new and better shelters, food for the hungry, perhaps better, more regulated welfare programs, and to help bridge the gap between schools that have "nothing", and schools that have "everything". We wonder what starving, homeless, under-educated families would say they want more, the government to have 438 brand new planes that are not needed since they have so many others, or a place to sleep tonight.
"The U.S. maintains the largest, most costly military in the world. We're still ready to fight WW III- if our armed forces don't collapse under their own weight."
-William Greider
" Fortress America"
Our group, however, does not intend to eliminate military funding. The focus is not to punish the military, but rather to take a small amount (in relation to it's budget of " about $327 billion a year"(Naiman 14) and put it towards the social welfare program. instead of cutting the social program, we should be enlarging it to better accommodate the number of poor people our nation holds. If the money comes from the over-abundant military fund, perhaps it can be a compromise that all sides can agree on. This proposal is also to allocate more money from the wealthy to the poor without the tax raises that most would oppose.
All we are asking is to cut the EXCESS, and use it for where there is not enough.
"There are too many tanks with no place to send them. Too many bombers and fighter planes, too many ships and rockets. Too many men and women in uniform."
-William Greider
We are hoping that the left side will find no problem with, and therefore, support our proposal. The left side wants less of a gap between the rich and poor. The left side also is against an unnecessary enlarged military. We hope that democrats will see this bill as a form of helping achieve one of it's greatest goals(equal distribution of wealth), while compromising by not raising taxes.
" We can not possibly build a wall to surroud and protect our entire country. We can, however, start by knocking down some of the walls within it. It is by doing this that we can see how other's lifestyles compare to our own, and thus become more unified."
- Author Unknown
Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue
By Chris T.
The military in our opinion has far too much money put into it. Billions of dollars are put into unreasonable things that the military says they need. We have hundreds upon thousands of tanks, planes, boats, jeeps, and jets sitting in holding yards across the nation. Many of them haven't been used in years, yet we continue to put our tax money into the mass production of more and more unused vehicles.
The people who are opposing our bill are saying we need the all of the defense to further the well being of our country. They also say the money is going to good things and new advancements in technology. They used an example of World War II. In the begining we were using Biplanes to infotrate the enemy and the country put all of its money into the military to bring us to a safe victory. Near the end of the war we were using jets that scientists were producing by the hundred. Taking that into account we figured that the money doesn't need to be taken from the developing and technology department in the military. We are saying take the money we are wasting on mass production and put it to more important things to better develop our society.
Identification of Information that Supports the Solution
By Rahul G.
The main problem we face today is excess funding for the military. The military doesn't need all the money. Our issue group proposes that this excess money should be taken from the military and used for civilian purposes. We need money to fund our orphanages, schools and homes for homeless. We have to enhance the standard of our orphanages so that the homeless children get the same comfort and opportunity as other children. We need better equipped schools so that all the children get good quality education and accessories such as computers, latest equipments for labs, improved sports facilities like larger gyms.
The following are some supporting portions from articles.
"Fortress America" from the national magazine states that the cold war is over, but the B-2 bomber plane is still being manufactured. Each plane costs over $2 billion. The pentagon has capped it's B-2 fleet at 20 and isn't asking for any more, but contractors' supporters have inserted an advanced funding of $331 million for nine more bombers in the defense authorization bill before the House. Mr.Dellums offers an amendment to delete the money but looses his amendment.
"Homeless plan for a bitter winter ahead" from the New York Times states that there are nearly 10000 homeless people in the city streets of New York. Something should be done for them.
"City rejects site for senior housing" from the Tribune states that the Lock City Council has turned down to convert a house into a community residence for senior citizens.
"Education Funding Issue Colors New England Fall; Changes in Tax code Redistribution of Revenue go against the grain of many Yankee Residents"
Policies in New England to level public education have pitted rich against poor.
"State tackles shelter crisis. May use YMCAs, YWCAs for rooms" from the Boston Globe states that the current shelter system has become overcrowded so the Massachusetts officials are planning to use YMCAs, YWCAs for rooms for the homeless people.
"Toiletries for the homeless" from the Essence says that Lovelene Looper collects unused miniature hotel toiletries toothpaste, mouthwash, soap, and so on-donated by the her co-workers, to give to the residents of a local homeless shelter. She wishes that all this excess material should go directly to the homes.
Trial Balloon
KRISTIN O
Trial Balloon
Problem: Americas military is so large it's having problems maintaining it. It has more artilery than it knows what to do with or can't afford to use. Yet congress and the Pentagon still plan on purchasing billions of dollars in machinery and equpiment.
Solution: We believe a small portion of the military funding should be redirected towards social issues and programs. Programs like education and housing for the poor.
Adult #1:
"I agree with that. I would like to see some of it go towards the poor and feeding the hungrey but if it went towards education it would ultimitly help solve the problem of poverty."
Adult #1:
"No. I don't agree. I don't think the military budgets should be used to fund new social or educational projects."
Student #1:
"I think that's a postive thing to do. Because there's not any conflicts right now. And education is more important right now. "
Student #2:
"Thats a good idea but I think you need to give it to the schools. Not the poor, but the schools."
Description of the Proposal
PREPARED BY MELISSA M.
We believe that affirmative action is a problem facing today's society. Affirmative action is a concept in which institutions of employment, education, etc. are forced into accepting or hiring a predesignated percent of employees/students that are minority regardless of their experience or skill level.
Our group plans to create a bill that would abolish affirmative action and make all selections blind. This means that when a company/school is considering an applicant for a position, the only information available would be the individuals' recommendations, prerequisites, experience, accomplishments, and work/schooling history. The selection of the individual will be based upon qualifications not age, sex, race, religion, or sexual orientations. Selections will be blind and interviews will also be conducted in such a manner. Also, on applications, there will be no boxes or blanks for date of birth, age, sex, race, or religion. When a company or school decides that an individual is acceptable for the position in which they are applying, and they want to have a meeting in order to decide, each candidate's name will be erased and they will be given a serial number by an individual within the company/school that is not involved in the selection process. After the selection has been made, the name will be released and the candidate's identity known, but that is only after they have been hired.
We believe that the right side would support our proposal more than the left because of the simple fact that Republicans don't believe in penalizing society because of their qualifications and/or accomplishments. By having affirmative action abolished, members and groups in society will have to work just as hard as everyone else in order to compete and succeed.
Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue
Prepared by: Sylviana C.
Our issue group is based on abolishing affirmative action. The republican party is more likely to be supportive of our issue. While the Democratic party will be against it.
The Democratic party will argue many reasons why they oppose this issue. Democrats are more supportive of minorities and abolishing affirmative action will affect minorities. It'll be more difficult for minorities to get a job or even get into a college because affirmative action focuses on admitting students by having a certain amount of minority races in their school or it could also be based on their religion or gender. Because of this, more minorities could be earning less money because if a lack of education, but it would only be fair that students or any other person get accepted to a college or for a job according to how good their grades are or how qualified they are and not because of their race, religion, or gender.
The Republican party believes that affirmative action is more of a reversed discrimination rather than something that will support the minority groups. We feel that affirmative action takes away many opportunities from very qualified people and gives them to others who aren't as well qualified , but get those opportunities because they are of a minority. We believe that a community would work better if the right people are chosen for positions rather than choosing them because of their race,religion, or gender.
Identification of Information that Supports the Solution
Prepared by Viki M.
The Declaration of Independance states that "all men are created equal".
Since we are all created equal we should not have to separate eachother by race and
gender.
Affirmative action was intended for economic and educational institutions to include qualified people who had been traditionally excluded from participating in them before. Instead under-qualified people were being accepted into these places, which was not what affirmative action was meant to do. Most policies on affirmative action were originally similar to the following policy: to prevent discrimination in education and employment based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, veteran status, and/or disability. Illinois House Bill 494 (HB494) would have agencies consider the adverse effects of affirmative action. In The Daily Iowan Clancy Champanois wrote the average starting salaries for journalists from September 1995 until August 1996. They were as follows: for men $19,667, for women $25,522, and for minorities $33,000. Some people tend to think of affirmative action as reverse discrimination, most likely due to things like being accepted into schools and hired, possibly even getting paid more based on their race, gender, etc.. Our group believes that affirmative action is not working; therefore it should be ended. We believe that competition should be strong and affirmative action is not capable of doing that. We believe that the term "affirmative action" should require the definition of "best qualified" in terms of the needs of a particular department, school, college, division, etc. not the best qualified in race, sex, religion, age, etc. The Anti-Discrimination in College Admissions Act of 1998 (which is carrying over to the 1999 session) would prevent and ban all affirmative action programs in all colleges and university admissions because it is considered to be "preferential treatment". There are many people who support affirmative action simply because they have underlying motives. For example, Clea Patrick Hollis, an affirmative action director at the University of Pittsburgh filed a lawsuit against the University and it's President, Dr. Albert L. Etheridge. The lawsuit charges Etheridge with sexual harassment and retaliation, sex discrimination in hiring, race discrimination in employment, retaliatory harassment, and the deprivation of civil rights. The rumor is that Hollis is angry because Etheridge does not agree with affirmative action and that is Hollis' department. Hollis is worried about his career so he is using affirmative action as a way of either keeping his job or making a lot of money in the lawsuit. Therefore, Hollis is suing to ensure his continuance in the University system.
We belive that affirmative action, though supported by some groups should be abolished.
Trial Balloon
PREPARED BY MELISSA M.
Roy Miller--46--Computer Specialist
Mr. Miller thinks that abolishing affirmative action would be a good thing because he feels that a lot of people are using their age, sex, and race to get ahead in the world and that is wrong. He believes that everyone should have an equal opportunity to get what they want out of life, but they shouldn't have to use what they are in order to get it. He thinks that our proposal is a good start in the fight against affirmative action.
Judith Mantel--42--Domestic Supervisor (Stay Home Mom)
Mrs. Mantel feels that affirmative action is good. She doesn't think that it should be ended. She feels that affirmative action is almost like compensation for all the years that the white men, but not the women because they were suppressed also, treated minorities badly. She feels that they have a right to use their heritage and history against us. She doesn't think that affirmative action is wrong and that it is perfectly acceptable.
Stephanie Busic--17--High School Drop-Out
Stephanie thinks that our plan is great. She doesn't believe in affirmative action and she thinks that all people should have to work equally hard and not depend on what they are to get ahead in the world. She thinks that our plan would be beneficial to society and it's companies/schools.
Laura Petges--14--Student at Streamwood High School
Laura thinks that the plan is good, but she doesn't believe that most companies will use it. She is worried that they would think that it is a hassle and would not abide by the rules. She wants to know how we would enforce this policy. "But it is a step in the right direction."
Description of the Proposal
Prepared by Elizabeth H.
Our issue group is addressing the problem of land preservation. We feel that preserving land will save our wildlife and the extinction of animals. We as Americans need to make an effort to preserve land not only to help the wildlife but for many other reasons also. In order to live in a fresh environment, we need trees, grass, and flowers to breath in fresh air. We also need to preserve land because we will not have a calm environment to live in, instead we will live in a place full of noise and pollution. The areas of which we live will then become overcrowded and busy. Overcrowdedness could then bring in drug dealing and criminals.
We propose that the government put restrictions on where and how much land contractors can use. By doing this the government would then have to buy land and restrict it to any type of developer. Another solution would be a restriction on how much land a person is able to own. Some restrictions are such as the amount of land given to builders, land kept aside for animals, trees, underwater springs, and the oxygen we breath. There also should be land preserved for historical purposes. Farmers will also be aloud to have land for farming. This is because they are using the land to feed people and they aren't destroying the plants which produce oxygen and food. We also think that contractors can save space by building up instead of building across. There are many things that can be done to save land that doesn't require a lot of money. For example, in Backpacker Magazine, from December 1998, start a nature club, sounds tough but a fourth grader from Tennessee started Kids F.A.C.E. (KIDS For A Clean Environment). The club now has 300,000 members world wide! So if a fourth grader can do it anyone else can. Lastly, we propose the government buy land and learn it into wildlife sanctuaries. This is where animals can live without worry of being hunted and worry about their homes being taken away.
The issue of preservation of land would most likely be supported by the Democratic Party. The reason for this is because the government would have to raise taxes in order to buy the land and preserve it. By doing the it will take a lot of time and effort to get the job done.
Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue
Prepared by Eddie S.
Everybody thinks that land preservation is a costly enterprise. This means that republicans will most likely oppose our bill. A lot of people think that paying taxes is the only way to preserve land. But according to Backpacker Magazine anybody can help without paying lots of taxes, even teenagers can help preserve land without spending lots of money.
I do not believe that land preservation will cost a lot of taxpayers money. I know that Republicans will oppose us for the fact that this bill, according to them, will cost the United States man power and taxes. But they need to think of it this way. By making more programs to preserve land more jobs would need to be created to take care of that land. That would solve some of the unemployment problems. You will probably say that will still cost more taxes to pay for the government workers. But I know that I would rather pay a little more taxes than live in a concrete jungle. The government could forget about land tax on certain parts of the land lowering land tax on other areas. This reduces the cost of land and the amount of taxes you need to pay.
I would like to think that if the republicans support the bill now then we won't have to worry as much later about running out of land later. And I know that if we don't start protecting the land now then in a few years their won't be much more land to save, the way developers and big businesses are buying it up.
According to an article I've read in Backpacker Magazine, over 40,000 acres of Louisiana wetland a year are bought by developers and destroyed to put up strip malls factories and subdivisions. I don't know about you but I would not like to lose any more beautiful areas to strip malls. I know the wetlands have a lot of bug but that is what OFF is made for!
On another point , we need the land for many of our survival needs. One we need the land for the underground water springs in which we use for drinking water. Another is we need the trees and plants for oxygen. Air is essential for living. If anything living goes with out air then we will all die. Lastly we need space to survive. If we are confined for a long time we may all go crazy and kill each other. Room and places to go to get away from all the craziness of the city is something everyone needs.
People may argue that we need all the space we can get for building. This would create new jobs but in the long run we may not live long enough to have these jobs. With all this open space there will be a need for jobs such as care takers and forest rangers. These are just a few examples of jobs needed. Land preservation is a must in todays society. People will sooner or later have a need to be away from all the troubles of the world and the open country side may just be the right prescription.
Identification of Information that Supports the Solution
Prepared by Nicole S
When looking on the internee , the land preservation issue group found that many people in this nation are for land preservation and are working very hard to get laws passed in their part of the nation. In an article titled " Don't Touch That Style" by James Bovard which appeared in The American Spectator volume 30 in April of 1997. It talked about how preservation groups were now targeting neighborhoods and even entire valleys and states for stricter government enforced laws. They are trying to prevent construction and new structures that could even be regarded as national landmarks in half a century from now. In other articles many preservation groups would like to see some tax money and state money go towards the preservations of parks and other local causes. Many groups that I have researched and also those that my fellow group members have found that democrats and republicans are for land preservations. In Backpacker Magazine, it was stated that about 40,000 acres of Louisiana land is taken by developers per year.
Trial Balloon
Prepared by Nicole S
When asking my parents what they thought about land preservation, they looked at me funny. Then I explained to them that this was for government and then they answered. They believe in the preservation of land. When they drive down the street they don't like to see new homes going up and they don't like seeing the bulldozers tearing down the trees and plowing through the earth. Where we live there is plenty of open land and recently my father and neighbor received a letter from the owners stating that they will be selling the land. My father and mother talked it over and decided to buy three acres and the neighbor said that he would buy the other three. This way we really won't have any more neighbors and we can live with the wildlife. There is a lot of things we can do with this land and to keep it that way. There are a lot of trees and there are a lot of animals living in the swamp and ground. My parents said that if there was a bill proposed about a federal law stating that developers were to limit the amount of land they could use or to save most of the land then they would stand by it and support it.
I also asked my younger sister, age 12, how she felt about all the land being used for buildings and other such uses and she doesn't like it. She is a nature person and it must be the way we were raised because I also feel the same way. She doesn't like to see animals run out of their home because the town wants to go and put up a Menards where they could have used land that was already torn up. I asked my cousin Amy , age 17 , how she felt and she said that it would be a good idea if there was a law about land preservation because she lives out in Oswego and when she moved there, there weren't very many homes out there. Now there are more homes being built and with these homes comes families with kids and these kids go to the high school. The halls are packed and there always seems to be more kids everyday. So I say, "Save the land."
Description of the Proposal
PREPARED BY: ROCK E.
Imagine this, it's 11:30 p.m., your are driving home with three of your best friends. You're sitting in the passenger seat and your friend is paying attention to the road. The radio is on and everyone is laughing and having a good time. From out of nowhere, a car swerves into your lane and results in a head on collision. The sober driver and one of your friends are crying out for your help. You don't know what to do, there are so many thoughts running through your head. The next thing you know, E.M.S. comes. That's all you remember about the accident. You wake up in a hospital bed upon hearing the news that two of your friends have died. You find out that the driver of the car that hit you was legally drunk. The driver is arrested and charged with a DUI. The driver spends time in jail and this makes you happy. Later you find out that forty-five days after this accident the driver is back on the road with a valid license. This may sound ridiculous to many people, but sadly it is a true story.
A problem we face today is innocent people getting killed from those who have had a few alcoholic drinks and choose to get behind the wheel. We believe that drinking and driving should not be tolerated. A bill supporting stricter punishment for drunk drivers will help prevent people from getting hurt from accidents drunk drivers cause. All drivers should be aware of the responsibility, with receiving a drivers license. Drunk driving policies need to be enforced. For example, zero tolerance for drivers under the age of twenty-one. Stricter consequences, suitable for drunk drivers are, a suspend license for six months, six months community service and mandatory AA meetings.
If a drunk driver causes an accident resulting in a death we believe suitable punishments are as followed: The individual would never receive a drivers license again. The individual must serve a minimum of twenty year in jail, with no option of parole. Also the individual would have to attend mandatory AA meetings while serving their sentence. With this punishment we feel that there will be less people who would risk drinking and driving. This will also make sure that repeat offenders of DUI's will not endangering our roads any longer.
Explanation of Both Sides of the Issue
prepared by Hilary J.
Our bill states that we believe that those driving under the influence and drunk drivers who kill should be punished more severely than they currently are. We also think that these drunk drivers don't feel remorse for ruining many families, and get away from paying the proper consequences entirely too easily.
For example here is a situation, it's 8:30 in morning and two young children are playing outside. They are innocently drawing and coloring on the sidewalk with chalk. Out of the blue, a black sports car comes racing and swirving around the corner. The car hits both of the children. The driver, had a few too many drinks and was rushing to work. The results of the driver's irresponsible behavior, left one of the kids paralyzed and having to deal with seeing and cooping with the death of his friend at such a young age. With a tragic accident people go through a lot of pain. Not to mention, the extended families, and many friends' heartache experienced upon hearing the news of death. In the real world, the driver of that car, if alive and well, will only have to serve a short time in jail and will inevitably be out on his own. This tragity, in many ways, a preventable accident.
The way we see it, Republicans will likely agree with our solution to this problem. Many Democrats will say that rehabilitation centers will help the driver best, regardless of whether or not the drunk driver has caused a death to occur. They also will state that long prison sentences won't benefit the offender in the least bit. Many Republicans may say that the death penalty is the best possible solution. The drunk driver took someone's life, therefore, they too deserve the same. Republicans would also say that prisons should punish them and not rehabilite them. Also, they may say that parole for convicted drunk drivers isn't a good idea. While out of jail and not in the process of getting help, DUI offenders may be able to be driving on the roads. Above all, the idea of stricter punishment on drunk drivers and drunk drivers who kill is a bipartisan belief. Democrats and Republicans may or may not agree with the right way for punishment, both would agreee that there needs to be the correct punishment to fit the crime.
Identification of Information that Supports the Solution
Prepared by Stacey H.
Drunk drivers, and drunk drivers who kill, do not get enough punishment. The bill to enforce stricter punishment for drunk drivers and drunk drivers who kill innocent people in traffic accidents should be passed. What is meant by stricter punishment is that these people should have longer sentencing, we want to prevent offenders from getting off easy. This, we feel, is a fair punishment for drunk drivers. With the education that we try to provide people with today, they are well aware of the risk that they are taking when getting behind the wheel while under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, everyone is responsible for preventing this from happening.
It is a fact that 44% of all traffic fatalities involve alcohol. This percentage is way too high, and some actions should be taken to reduce the number. Also out of all of the suspended drivers licenses for impaired driving in one year, 65% were issued for a second or subsequent offense. Throughout the past few years, the number of traffic fatalities involving alcohol has gone down. The number of drivers involved in collisions who had been drinking decreased by 6.2%. It went from 13,395 in 1993 to 12,565 in 1994. In the past decade the number of drivers involved in car accidents who had been drinking decreased by 40%. In general, the long term indicates that there have been significant reductions in the magnitude of drinking and driving problems. In the resent years, however, the rate of improvement in the drinking and driving problems has slowed greatly. The laws that we have now are not strong enough. We need to make a difference and do something about this problem.
It is also a fact that our solutions that we have now, have not been effective in solving the problem. For example, in one case there was a man who had received many DUIs. One of the punishments that he received was a device that was installed into his car. With this device he had to blow into it before he could start his car. If he had any alcohol he would be unable to start his car. It sounds like a good idea doesn't it? Think again! To get around this, the man taught his two little daughter how to blow into the machine for him. His sneaky plan backfired on him. One day he had one of his daughters blow into the machine so he could start his car. He had been drinking, and he got into the car with his two daughters. Later that day the man and his two children were found submerged in a pond near their house. Both the girls, ages eight and twelve, and their father were found dead. As a result of the fathers actions, both of his daughters and himself are dead. This incident could have been prevented if we had stronger punishment for drunk driving. If this bill was in effect before this accident took place, then maybe this man wouldn't have been able to get into a car at all. Also, maybe these two children would still be alive.
Trial Balloon
Prepared by: Beth N.
We took a survey of what people thought about drunk driving. We asked questions to see if people would support or oppose a bill that made stricter punishment and longer sentences for drunk drivers. What we found out was, drunk driving affects everyone.
Megan: 17 is a senior at West Chicago. She told me that her neighbor had two friends killed in a drunk driving accident. She didn't think that it was fair that the driver lived and the victims died. Her believes are drunk driving is manslaughter, and the driver, if they survive should never drive again. She would support our bill.
Jon: 17 is a senior at West Chicago and sadly has a very similar story. He knows of two people who have died in a drunk driving accident. He feels that it is pointless that someone had to die because of alcohol. It is a waist of a life. He believes that there should be stricter punishments for drunk driver that kills. He would not support our bill because of family related experiences.
Cynthia: 45 is the owner of a store. She has never known anyone personally who has died in a drunk driving accident, but has heard many stories on the news and from friends. She feels that driving is a privilege that could be taken away at any time. Drunk drivers should not be on the road and if they are, their privilege of driving should be taken away forever. Drunk drivers make people think twice before getting on the road. Cynthia would support the bill and hopes in the future something similar would be passed.
The last person interviewed Eric: 39 the sales manager of a large company says that whenever he has a glass of wine or any other alcoholic drinks, he makes sure that his wife or a friend is there to drive him home. He says " drinking and driving is something you just don't do". He knows of some people who have been injured in accidents involving alcohol and hope the number will not change. Eric would support the bill because he feels punishment is the only way that people will learn. He also feels that it is important to make examples to others.
It is not like drinking and driving is a new problem. It affects everyone and something has to be done to keep us safe.
.