There are five different ways to propose an amendment to the Florida constitution.
1. The first way to amend the Florida constitution is Proposal by legislature. To make use of the first method, the proposed changes must be agreed upon by 3/4ths of the membership of each house of the legislature in a joint session.
2. The second way to change the constitution in Florida is by a Revision commission. Every twenty years, starting at 2017, 37 members will join together to make any needed changes to the constitution. These members are: the attorney general of the state, fifteen people selected by the governor, nine people selected by the speaker of the house and nine more selected by the president of the senate, and three people selected by the chief justice (with the advice of the other justices). Then, the governor selects one of these people to be the chair of the Revision commission.
3. The third way is called Initiative. The people have the power to propose any changes to the constitution that don’t interfere with the government’s power to raise money. They may do it by Filing their proposed changes with the custodian of state records once they’ve received a number of signatures – the signatures must come from electors in one half of the congressional districts of the state and must be equal to 8% of the votes cast in each of such districts respectively and in the state of a whole in the previos electors election.
4. The fourth way is by use of a Constitutional Convention. This power is reserved to the people, and will cause a revision of the entire constitution. It’s started by a filing with the custodian of state records via petition—declaring that a convention is wanted. Again, it must be signed by electors in one half of the districts, but this time 15% of the votes cast in the previous elector election. Then, after the next general election, the electors must vote as to if a convention is required, and if more than 50% vote yes, a convention is held.
5. The fifth and final way to change the constitution is via a Taxation and budget reform commission. Starting in 2007, and then every twenty years, a taxation and budget reform commission will meet. The commission consists of eleven members selected by the governor (who may not be members of the legislature at the time of selection), and seven members selected by both the speaker of the house and seven selected by the president of the senate (again, none of those 14 members may be members of the legislature at the time of selection). The job of the commission is to review the sax structure, the budgetary process, the revenue needs and expenses of the state, the productivity and efficiency of the state and to review policies of the ability of the state and local government to tax and adequately fund government operations.
Battle for the Ballot
The initiative method of constitutional upheaval is a very complicated one, but also the most frequently used both in Florida and across the country. It makes it possible for the people of a state to get potential amendments on the ballot, and into the eyes of the public. It has become increasingly more popular in recent times, even turning into an industry. Since 1970, the average number of initiatives on a ballot has doubled, and firms are coming out of the woodwork who hire and pay (sometimes per signature) people to find support for the initiatives.
The recent boom in the initiative market has lead to quite a few problems. With the corporate machine working towards a goal, it makes it easy for those with money to get something on a ballot. Unfortunately, making it harder to get an initiative on the ballot would kill the purpose of the process in the first place – to allow grassroots organizations to get what they want on the ballot, on the ballot – and would hardly hinder the money machine. It hardly helps that to change the process required for an initiative to make it to the ballot requires voter approval, and that voters are very unlikely to vote to make it harder for their own voice to be heard. Another problem highlighted by the article is fraud. These people who get payed-by-the-signature have found several clever ways to trick people into signing multiple petitions from the use of copy paper to telling them to “sign here, here and here” when in reality, they only should have signed one, and some even go as far as opening the phone book and forging names.
Despite the problems with the process, it remains to be, and will remain to be, a growing and very popular way for people to have their voices heard. States are passing laws to punish those who practice fraud, and are manipulating the details of the process that don’t require voter approval. Some states have even outlawed the ‘pay-per-signature’ practice, forcing an hourly wage on the signature collectors. Even though the process has flaws, it’s impact has been seen and will continue to be seen in Floridian politics.
Before we can explore deeper into the topic, we must first define a few key terms.
Media: The News, the press, the way people obtain information on everything.
Bias: Favorable treatment to certain politicians, policy positions groups and political outcomes.
There’s no doubt that some people within the media are openly and even unapologetically biased—on both sides of the political spectrum. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are much harsher to Democrats than that are to Republicans. On the other side of the fence, the New York Times is the opposite; often criticizing Republicans.
Those are not; however, instances of Media Bias.
The media’s “stated commitment to avoid partisan or political bias” only applies to the hard news—not editorials or commentaries.
Now, that doesn’t mean that different stations/papers/websites don’t tell the news in a biased way.
This is; however, very difficult to measure as most of the evidence is very anecdotal.
For example: The Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has produced studies indicating that conservative think-tanks are cited more often than their liberal counterparts.
On the other side of the coin, the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that John Kerry had the most favorable coverage of any candidate in over 20 years.
There is a major problem in the country related to outsourcing. The problem isn’t the outsourcing itself, but how outsourcing has been villainized by the media and by many politicians. What began as a practice used to save the every-day consumer money on his shopping trips has somehow become viewed as an evil, wicked, practice that is going to cause every hard working, red-blooded, American to lose his or her job. The typical American citizen has been conditioned, by the media, politicians, school teachers, and just about everyone with a position of power, to hate the very thought of outsourcing; and that is a problem.
Outsourcing is not as bad as everyone makes it out to be, there are a lot of reasons to practice outsourcing. Exploiting comparative advantage, and cutting costs for the producer as well as the consumer are among the most important reasons. The company can produce a lot more of their product and lower their prices, which is good for them and us. Other positive things that are a product of outsourcing: less bad jobs and more good jobs, larger customer base to sell our products too, increased world influence and presence by having our companies supply jobs around the world, and a lot more.
A major part of the problem is how the word outsourcing is used - how it was framed in our mind by the media and by politicians. We only use the term “outsourcing” when jobs we like are being lost, and not just any old job. Take Trefler for example:
It is worth noting a problem with refining the definition of [outsourcing]. Most of us would be comfortable with the following statement: “Manulife is offshore outsourcing development of its new human resources software to India, while the plastic products industry is importing shopping bags from China.” Why is one “offshore outsourcing” and the other “importing”? In both cases, products currently made in Asia were previously made in-house in America, and in both cases there has been phenomenal growth over the past five years. There are no good answers to this question. (Trefler 39)
This is indeed a major part of the problem. They want us to think that outsourcing is bad. They want us to think that outsourcing is evil. So, in order to make us think how they want us to think, they only use the word when the practice is at it’s worst. When it takes the “good” jobs. And, they don’t use the word when a bad job that is lost to workers overseas. Oh, no. That isn’t outsourcing- it’s just importing.
Another large part of the problem is how uneducated the average American is on the topic, and how little they know of the reasons that company’s outsource. Sure, they know that the company wants more money, but that’s all they know. They know nothing of these other reasons: Cost reduction; A company is able to spend less money though outsourcing; thereby, reducing the total cost to the company and enabling said company to pass the savings onto the buyers of their product. (Engardio 2006) Cost Restructuring; A company is able to restructure their costs to allow for better market predictability. Improve Quality; A company is able to increase the quality of their product by outsourcing. Workers in other countries do a wonderful job manufacturing, and they simply do it better then we do. Increased Knowledge; A company has access to a larger pool of potential workers from countries all around the world, giving them access to more intellectual property and a wider range of experience. (Engardio 2006) Legal Reasons; A company can have their services provided in compliance with a legally binding contract with financial penalties to any employee who breaks said contract. (Rothman 2003) Operations Expertise; Outsourcing opens the door to channels of operations that already exist, ones that would be difficult, time consuming, and expensive to develop for one’s own company. Staffing Problems; Outsourcing gives access to a larger pool of talent and skilled workers. Catalyzing Change; A company can use outsourcing to help change the way it organizes in a way that their current employee base couldn’t do alone. Risk Management: Outsourcing can be used as a way to minimize the companies legal risk. (Roehirg 2006) Time Zone Exploitation; having employees all around the world has its advantages, being able to offer a service “all day, every day” is very simple when all of your employees live in different time zones. Avoiding Unions; In the United States, unions can make things very difficult for the employer, and unions do not exist over seas. These reasons are very valid, and when looked at through the eyes of the company, outsourcing doesn’t seem so bad.
Other unimportant, but positive effects of outsourcing include: developing the infrastructures of our host nations, increasing our world-wide presence, offering jobs to poorer countries, exploiting the workforce of countries more populated than America is, creating a population that is reliant on American companies for jobs or products. All of those things happen when we partake in outsourcing, and they’re all good for some group of people.
I decided to choose this topic, and slant the way I did, when I heard the lecture on comparative advantage in INR. Having a mental grasp on comparative advantage helps me see through to the positives of outsourcing as well. For example: Country A makes very good apple juice. It has the soil, the climate, and all of the perfect conditions to make apple juice. Country A could still make orange or grape juice, but it wouldn’t be as efficient as growing apples. Country A should just make its apple juice, and outsource the work required to make orange or grape juice, as apple juice is their best product. By using this concept of comparative advantage, we could focus on what we do best here at home, while using what other countries to best to our advantage. Fruit grows well in South America, so we should grow fruit there. Manufacturing is done best in places that have low-wages, so we should manufacture there. The examples could go on forever, but the fact remains: if we don’t have our companies in South America growing fruit, some other country would have their companies their growing fruit. One of those options earns us a lot of money. Which is better for the country?
Any worries that we’re outsourcing to any one country too much, and that we’re going to make them too rich goes against the “Ironclad Law of Comparative Advantage” which states simply: a low-wage country can’t continue to be a low-wage country for all of eternity. It is impossible because as their status rises, so does the value of the money in the country, which increases the cost of outsourcing there, which decreases the reason that people would want to outsource to there. Look at China, for example: China is starting to outsource its factories to other countries. This means that there are other countries that can produce stuff for cheaper than China can. How much longer will companies continue to stay in China? Not much longer. India is another interesting case study. Many of our technical service jobs and call centers have been sent to India. Since the start of this, the starting salary of a call center employee has more than doubled, and continues to rise. At this rate, it will be cheaper to bring the call centers back home in just a few years, or at least outsource them somewhere else.
Any worries that we’re outsourcing to any one country too much, and that we’re going to make them too rich goes against the “Ironclad Law of Comparative Advantage” which states simply: a low-wage country can’t continue to be a low-wage country for all of eternity. It is impossible because as their status rises, so does the value of the money in the country, which increases the cost of outsourcing there, which decreases the reason that people would want to outsource to there. Look at China, for example: China is starting to outsource its factories to other countries. This means that there are other countries that can produce stuff for cheaper than China can. How much longer will companies continue to stay in China? Not much longer. India is another interesting case study. Many of our technical service jobs and call centers have been sent to India. Since the start of this, the starting salary of a call center employee has more than doubled, and continues to rise. At this rate, it will be cheaper to bring the call centers back home in just a few years, or at least outsource them somewhere else.
Manufacturing Jobs are leaving the country, and other jobs are replacing them, as evident by the low unemployment rate. If these new jobs are better or worse, is yet to be seen, but expectations are high. If the low paying manufacturing jobs of the past are leaving the country, that leaves more room for people to get educated and to get a degree in a field of their choice, and to have a job worth having, something the third-world countries that we outsource too can’t possible attain at their level of development. Outsourcing, in a way, forces people into colleges, which is better for our society as a whole.
Outsourcing really isn’t as bad is it’s made out to be - sure, it has its negatives: job loss isn’t a good thing, having a lower job security isn’t a good thing either, but the positives outweigh the negatives tenfold. The reasons to practice outsourcing certainly justify having a few less jobs and a little less job security, after all who doesn’t want their money to go farther while in the grocery store, or shopping for holiday gifts?
Works Cited
Engardio, Pete. “Foreign Affairs - the Outsourcing Bogeyman.” Business Week. 29 Oct 2007 <http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501faessay83301/daniel-w-drezner/the-outsourcing-bogeyman.html>.
Roehirg, P. “Be on Governance to Manage Outsourcing Risk.” BT Quarterly. 2006. BT Quarterly. 02 Nov. 2007 <http://www.btquarterly.com/?mc=bet-governance&page=ss-viewresearch>.
Rothman, J. “11 Steps to Sucessful Outsourcing: a Contrarian’s View.” Computer World. 2003. Computer World. 05 Nov. 2007 <www.computerworld.com/developmenttopics/development/story/0,10801,84847,00.html>
Lets face it - our population is ageing. Advances in modern medicine continue to increase the life expectancy of Americans, which is now over seventy for both men and women alike. This increased life expectancy; unfortunately, is not all good news. Yes, we have longer lives, yes we get to spend more time with our loved ones before passing on, but, coupled with a declining birth rate, there are major political, social and economic downfalls that ensue when everyone is living longer lives.
On the political side, the elderly are the demographic that votes the most. They are already the most pandered-too age group, and their numbers are growing. While this is good for the elderly, this isn’t particularly good for the country, nor the rest of her citizens. Pandering of this magnitude can only lead to one possible conclusion: the only political opinions that really matter, are those of the elderly. The elderly don’t care about schools, they’ve already been educated. Cut school funding. The elderly don’t care about our roads, they’re not going to be using them for much longer anyway. Cut infrastructure spending. The elderly don’t care about things that don’t effect the elderly. They do; however, care about the increasing costs of prescription medication, and would like more money spent to reduce those costs. The elderly, the most active political demographic in this country, don’t care about things that are important to the countries future. Just thinking about how the pandering to this demographic is only going to increase over time is very frightening.
Socially, an older population means a lot of things. Unfortunately, not many of them are good.
Financially and economically, the issue of social security sets off a blaring alarm: What’s in store for the future of social security? Will I have to continue to pay into social security now, if I’m not going to receive its benefits in the future? How is it possible that a small, and getting smaller, group of working-age laborers can possibly support the large, and getting larger, group of social security receiving elderly? There simply can not be a long-lasting fix to social security that will benefit the youth of today who are just starting to pay into the system. That’s only one of many economic issues cased by the decreasing mortality rate. Another problem is: lower Gross Domestic Product, or GDP. Fewer workers, means fewer goods and services being produced, which means less money being earned, which means lower GDP. Lower GDP is bad for a country, this signifies a decline in the value of the countries currency, as well as a decline in world economic power. The negatives on our economy caused by a larger life expectancy are easy to see, and hard to fix.
There are many political, social, and economic drawbacks to living longer lives.
There are many controversial issues in modern politics, but abortion is definitely one of the most embattled topics across the nation. Merriam-Webster defines abortion as “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a: spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation” but on the political scale, it means much more. It is a battle fought between women who wish to control their own bodies and religious zealots who view religious text as law. The current abortion situation in the United States is evidence that this verbal battle has no clear end in sight.
The proverbial fist fight began in the 1800’s, when the first state (Massachusetts) decided to outlaw the practice of abortion. During colonial times, there really wasn’t much of a problem with abortions. The real fighting over the issue; however, began with one woman: Norma Leah McCorvey, better known as Jane Roe, from the famous Supreme Court case: Roe v. Wade. Up until this case, abortions were only legal in situations where continuing with the pregnancy would be hazardous to the health of the mother. Of course, Roe won the case. The opinion of the court (7-2) stated that
Right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113)
and ever since, the battles have been fought on the steps of state capitols across the nation.
Roe v. Wade prevents states from making abortion illegal—it doesn’t prevent them from making it extremely difficult to get one. Oh, and they can make it extremely difficult. A prime example of the potential difficulty of getting an abortion is South Dakota. There is only one abortion clinic in the entire state, the doctor isn’t a native of the state (he travels from neighboring Minnesota), and the clinic can be as far as four hundred miles! New York is probably the easiest state to get an abortion—there’s a clinic in nearly every community, and there are next-to-no restrictions. Most states are somewhere between these two extremes.
The opinion on abortion is vastly different in every state, and this is clearly visible when you look at the numbers from the Guttmacher Institute. This is easily measured by the number of clinics, and the percentage of women who have access to these clinics. Hawaii and Idaho have roughly the same population, but Hawaii has seven times more abortion clinics. In states like California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York, 90% of women have an abortion clinic in their county—this is only true for 25% of women in other states (Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming).
The most interesting part is that all of these contrasts can exist with Roe v. Wade in effect! What could happen if the decision in that case were overturned? The state-to-state differences would definitely expand greatly. There are some states that have laws called trigger laws, that once the “trigger” condition is met, the law goes into effect. Six states have trigger laws that’ll make abortion illegal if Roe v. Wade is overturned, the very second that it is. More states have other trigger laws that will ensure that abortion remains legal if Roe v. Wade becomes null. Also, legal experts are still out on if pre-Roe v. Wade abortion bans would become law again. Regardless of if states have trigger laws, the overturn of Roe v. Wade would cause a political upheaval across the country. Lobbyists will be out in full force, for both sides. Most experts agree that the decisions made in most states will be dependent on the party that controls congress and the governorship—and that the federal government would likely sit on the sidelines, and let the local governments do the dirty work.
Roe v. Wade hasn’t prevented states from passing restrictions on abortions. Since the decision in 1973, state lawmakers have passed hundreds of laws intended to prevent abortions. This is true in 49 of the fifty states—Vermont being the lone wolf. These laws have many different ways of trying to stop abortions in any way possible: everything from regulating costs and ability to receive Medicaid for the procedure, to requiring the abortionist to inform the parents of any minor getting an abortion, to regulating the size of the doors in a clinic, to requiring doctors to try to talk the woman out of it. Sometimes doctors are required to inform the mother that her fetus can feel pain, sometimes they must offer the mother painkillers for the fetus, and sometimes the doctors are required to show the mother a sonogram picture of the baby before she’s allowed to have the abortion.
One of the most effective laws that states use to prevent abortions is the parental consent and notification law. These laws prevent minors (one of the largest group of people who want to get abortions) from getting them without at least the notification, and sometimes without the consent of the parents. In some states, girls can bypass this by getting a judicial bypass. These laws have been brought before the Supreme Court, and in 2006, the court sided with the laws. A majority of the states that have these laws require the parents to be informed 48 hours before the procedure is done, but some require one or both parents to consent to the procedure. In 2004, Florida voters voted in a similar law. Some states, specifically Alaska, California, Idaho, Illinois, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey and New Mexico passed these laws as well, only to have them struck down in their state courts for violating privacy or equal-protection. Overall, there are twenty-two states that have these laws, and only North Dakota and Mississippi require the approval of both parents.
Another effective law that is designed to prevent abortions is categorized as “Consolation, including fetal pain and ultrasound.” There are 28 states that require doctors to council mothers on alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, and inform them of the potential dangers of abortion. Some require doctors to inform patients of potential mental effects of having an abortion, some require doctors to explain that the fetus can feel pain, some require doctors to tell the patient that having an abortion can cause in increased risk for breast cancer, and even more require doctors to give sonograms to patients before an abortion.
There are also 24 states that have forced waiting periods before you can get an abortion—most of the 24 states require a full day’s wait. Categorized along with the actual waiting period are other cost-increasing factors, and as cost goes up, so does availability. There are 39 states that require the abortion to be performed by a licensed doctor, 20 that require the procedure to be done in a hospital, and some more that require more than one doctor. Cha-Ching!
The anti-abortion lobby frequently uses costs as a way to keep abortions away from the people who want them. Not only do they raise the costs, but they also attempt to prevent public funding for abortions. Known as the Hyde Amendment, federal funding for abortions is limited to cases that involve rape and cases that put a woman’s health at risk. To further that, only 13 states pay for almost all abortions. That isn’t all on the finical front: five states actually outlaw the ability of private health care to pay for abortions, unless the health of the mother is at risk. It doesn’t end there, however. In a whopping forty-six states, doctors have the right to refuse to give a patient an abortion. Recently, there have been laws that prevent certain types of abortion: specifically partial birth abortions. These laws don’t even allow for health exception.
The termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a: spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation. If only it were actually that simple. No, no. This is much larger than a simple termination of pregnancy. This is where the sanctity of life meets the rights of women in an all out battle. There’s no clear end in sight, and who’s to say which side will come out victorious? With all of the differences around the country, and lacking a clear central authority on the topic, the battles will likely continue for a long, long time. One side will continue to do everything in its power to limit abortions, be it through costs, restrictions, waiting periods, parental approval, counseling, the limiting of federal funding, telling the mothers that the fetus can feel pain. It’s going to be a bumpy road for either side on its path to glory. Who will come out on top? Only time will tell.
Works Cited
"Abortion - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary." Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. Web. 02 Nov. 2009. .
"FindLaw | Cases and Codes." FindLaw: Cases and Codes. Web. 02 Nov. 2009. .
