President

State of the Union Address

During President Obama’s State of the Union Address on January 25, 2011, he commented on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and nuclear weapons in North Korea, among other things. Obama talked about the changes he has made in homeland security to help protect against terrorist attacks, including improved airline security and quicker action with intelligence. There has been an increase in the number of al Qaeda senior members who have been captured and killed.

In Afghanistan, they are increasing the number of troops and training Afghan security forces so they can “take the lead” this July, and American troops can start to come home. Obama stated that the allies and partners of the United States are meeting in London to discuss their common views on the affairs in Afghanistan. As for Iraq, Obama stated that he was following through with ending the war and that all troops would be pulled by August 2011.

The next topic of Obama’s speech was nuclear weapons. He mentioned the fact that in Washington DC in April, 44 different countries will come together for the Nuclear Security Summit. Their purpose is to secure nuclear materials to ensure that terrorists will not get their hands on them. He said that the “international community” is more united because they can stand together to fight the nations that are going against the agreement set by the group of countries. This also means that North Korea faces “increased isolation and stronger sanctions.”

Finally, Obama mentioned a few ways that the United States is providing leadership all around the world for safety and success of the people. For example, we are encouraging the learning of math and science in Muslim communities, helping out countries that are still developing, and planning ways to ensure the safety and health of people from bioterrorism and infectious diseases. Overall, Obama sounded confident that the United States is working on improving itself and trying to help improve relations with the rest of the world.

In February 24 he heard shocking news. Some people were planning to kill the president and he understood that a senator is also involved in this. When they knew that he heard everything, they tried to kill him. But fortunately he escaped. After the meeting Mark Andrews talked Dry. Dexter and fixed a date with her. Barry called Nick and informed every thing. Nick States entrusted Mark to the hospital. On the way to the home Barry and Nick met In an accident and died _ March 3 Thursday Evening: Mark called Dry. Dexter and postponed the meeting. When he arrived in the hospital Angelo and Benjamin Reynolds who lied near Angelo had died.

Mark tried to inform the news to Nick but he didn’t get. So he informed all incidents to the FBI director H. A. L Tyson and through car radio he knew that Nick and Barry were died. 4 Friday 6. 27 am: Mark meets Tyson and informed to keep it secret; at the mean time Tyson had appointed two persons to look Mark. Mark starts his investigation about which senator involved in this case. At the Library of Congress he checked the congressional record to find out who were all in Washington on February 24. He got a list of 62 senators then he double checked and shortened it Into 38. Friday Afternoon 12. Pm: A meeting of conspirators takes place. One man Is Tony, he was an excellent driver another is Xanthium, a Vietnamese and an excellent rifle shooter, he hated Americans. The third man is Ralph Matson; he is an old FBI agent and the Peter Nicholson, a millionaire. The last man is called chairman. Ralph Matson was the killer of Angelo Ceasefires; he disguised like a Greek priest and killed him. Tony and Xanthium were the killers of Barry and Nick . They discussed about the planning to kill the president. Arc 4 1-relay Attorney 4 pm: Mark called Nils classmate Ana Knew auto ten mafias. When mark speaks with Dry.

Dexter he got the news that Angelo was a Greek then he contacted a Greek orthodox priest and understood the killer who he see in the hospital. 5 March Saturday Morning: Mark meets Tyson. In their Mathew Roger the Cast. Director of FBI gave information about the man who made the arrangements for the luncheon party. Marks visits Arians Ceasefires and learns that a priest came and gave fifty dollar bill to her. Mark traces the 50 dollar bill to know the finger prints. Mark contacted the secretaries of the 62 senators in his list not revealing the secret. He could cut down the number of senators’ who had private luncheon on February 24.

Sunday Morning 6 March 9 am: Mark calls a person in New York Times to know more about mafias and their attitude towards Gun Control Bill and also about senators who had close connections in organized crimes. Monday Morning 7 March 7 am: Tyson informed mark that a walk-talky of the FBI had missed and through that the information are going out side. For to know which senator where in the capitol on 3 March, mark looks the records and make a list of seven senators ‘Pearson, Noun, Brooks, Byrd, Dexter, Harrison, Thornton’. 8 March Tuesday Morning 1 am: Tyson scolded Mark when he got the report from the woo men who are appointed to observe mark.

They reported that Mark is in love with a senator daughter. Tyson scolded him because his lover’s father Dexter is under suspicion. Mark goes to the senate house to see the Gun control bill debate, in which there he reduced his list to 5, because he understood that Noun and Pearson were not in the senate on 3 March. 9 March Wednesday: Tyson tells mark that Dexter may be the conspirator because the porters had seen in him on February 24 in Georgetown with his daughter. Mark shocked, he meets Elizabeth. Tycoon’s men informed it and he scolded Mark.

How much influence does the President have over the legislative process? (15) Many powers that the President has, Congress will be able to check due to the checks and balances imposed by the Founding Fathers. The fact that the Government has separation of powers, it is hard to gain the agreement between the legislative branch and the executive branch which the President needs. One could argue that the president does have influence over the legislative process to an extent, but it is significantly restrained by the checks and balances put in place which the Founding Fathers imposed.

A key part of the legislative process is having a bill proposed. Whilst the President does have the power to do this, we must question how much influence he has over this. Congress has the power to amend, delay and even block the bills. The power to set the legislative agenda does not mean that the process will go according to plan. Even flagship legislation can fail, such as Congress defeating President Clinton’s flagship legislation which was intended to reform the health care system in 1994.

Congress can also delay a bill through filibustering, which is where any senator/senators can talk for as long as they can on a bill (essentially talk a bill to death) unless 60 of 100 Senators vote to bring the debate to a close. A President may choose to veto a bill, which would exercise the Presidents influence. However, Congress could choose to override it, which then questions how much influence the President then has over the legislative process The president has some choices as to what to do with the bill before it is passed.

The President could simply just sign it into law, which is what could happen if he wanted to take some credit for the bill and agree on it all. However, he could just leave the bill on his desk, which shows he would have very little influence on the process, and could indicate that he may know a veto would be overridden. Overall, the President does have some influence over the legislative process, however if he were to veto legislation, he could face criticism in the media and this could affect his popularity and therefore to an extent, the President has some influence over the legislative process.

You may already “like” a 2016 presidential candidate’s page on Facebook, but the social network is now letting you go a step further by outright endorsing them to your friends.

“Similar to how politicians, newspapers and organizations endorse candidates for elected office, this feature allows anyone on Facebook to do the same,” Facebook’s product manager for civic engagement Samidh Chakrabart told Business Insider in a statement on Tuesday. “People who want to voice their support can visit a candidate’s Page, click on the endorsements tab and explain their rationale for choosing that candidate.”

While Facebook users have long been able to show their support for a candidate by liking and sharing their official page, an endorsement encourages you to post a message to the News Feed explaining your support. A Facebook spokesperson said that you can choose to have your endorsement publicly visible from your profile or only to your friends. Candidates will be able to feature certain public endorsements on their page.

The spokesperson said that Facebook records endorsements only for showing friends who have endorsed a particular candidate.

This latest move is another example of what Facebook has recently described as “a broader effort designed to get more people engaged in the civic process.” When Facebook showed prompts in the News Feed reminding people to register to vote, .

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (indeterminate, 1881–10 November 1938) was a Turkish army officer, revolutionary statesman, and founder of the Republic of Turkey as well as its first President. Ataturk became known as an extremely capable military officer by being the only undefeated Ottoman commander during World War I. [1] Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, he led the Turkish national movement in the Turkish War of Independence. Having established a provisional government in Ankara, he defeated the forces sent by the Allies.

His successful military campaigns led to the liberation of the country and to the establishment of Turkey. During his presidency, Ataturk embarked upon a program of political, economic, and cultural reforms. An admirer of the Age of Enlightenment, he sought to transform the former Ottoman Empire into a modern, democratic, and secular nation-state. The principles of Ataturk’s reforms, upon which modern Turkey was established, are referred to as Kemalism. Early life Main article: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s personal life

Born as Mustafa, his second name Kemal (meaning Perfection or Maturity) was given to him by his mathematics teacher in recognition of his academic excellence. [2] He was born to a turkish family living in Thessaloniki. Mustafa’s mother was Zubeyde Hanim (1857-1923), a devout Muslim and “as fair as any Slav from beyond the Bulgarian frontier” with “fine white” skin and “eyes of a deep but clear light blue”. [3] In his early years, his mother encouraged Mustafa to attend a religious school, something he did reluctantly and only briefly.

Later, he attended Semsi Efendi school (a private school with a more secular curriculum) at the direction of his father. His parents wanted him to have education in a trade, but without consulting them, Ataturk took an entrance exam for a military junior high school in Thessaloniki (in Turkish, Selanik, which was an Ottoman city at that time) in 1893. In 1896, he enrolled into a military high school in the Ottoman city of Manast? r (modern Bitola, Macedonia). In 1899, he enrolled at the War College in Istanbul and graduated in 1902. He later graduated from the War Academy on 11 January 1905.

Introduction

            All over the world, the past two decades has led to changes in various nation’s economic powers, political systems and technological advancements.  Globalization has resulted from international connections’ deepening and the global terrorist threats have emerged.  All these changes have made the traditional concepts and assumptions in relation to politics to be challenged, with the social and economic developments in various nations all over the world making it necessary to adopt political systems that accelerate the developments (O’Neil, P. 2006).

            In this paper, the United States, which has the presidential democracy system of governance, will be compared to India’s parliamentary democracy.  The paper will further show how a presidential democracy is most likely to produce a strong and an effective government than a parliamentary democracy. The United States of America, which has a presidential democracy as its political system, can be said to display an effective government that has made it the world’s nation with   the most powerful economy.  The past developments and rapid industrialization in the United States has contributed to its success, with great support from a strong and an effective system of governance. A presidential democracy refers to a system of governance whereby both the executive and the legislature exist separately, with the president being elected by the majority.

            A parliamentary democracy system of governance on the other hand, has the executive branch of government dependent on the legislature usually through a vote of confidence. Though the presidential and parliamentary democracy systems exist in different countries all over the world, a presidential democracy is most likely to produce a strong and an effective government than a parliamentary democracy system of governance.  To compare the two systems, the United States, which has the presidential democracy system, and India, which has a parliamentary democracy, will be looked at.

Discussion

            In the United States, the creation of the Office of the President of the United States resulted from the copying of the separate spheres of the executive and legislature in the United States constitution.  In any given presidential democracy, certain features can be identified which apply to almost all systems of governance with this system.  One major feature of a presidential democracy is that the president is elected through the national elections, (Arend, L. 1992).  The winner is determined by acquiring the majority votes. For instance, in the United States, the president though not elected directly is considered to be popularly elected because he/she is elected by an electoral college (Campbell, J. 2000).  The president when elected is accorded by this system of governance a fixed term in the office, with elections being scheduled after the presidential term expires. The president’s power allows him/her to direct the cabinet members.  In addition, the military and executive branch employees can be influenced by the presidential powers.

            In a parliamentary democracy like in India, there is a differentiation between the head of state and the head of government  (Kapila, S. 2006).   While the head of government is the Prime minister, the head of the state is the President.  India’s system of government applies the West Minster Model where the parliament is elected through the “first past the post” electoral system where the system allows the voters to vote for a given candidate instead of a party list.  India’s central government was established by the Constitution of India and the government is the governing authority of 28 states Federal Union plus 7 union territories. This has made it acquire the name, Republic of India( Pylee, M.V. 2004).

                        In a presidential democracy system, the separation of powers into the executive and the legislature contributes greatly to the creation of a strong and effective government through the supervision of the two structures.  Since the presidency and the legislature are two parallel structures, the arrangements prevent abuses or misconducts in the governing system because both structures can supervise each other.  This acts as a great advantage to the government because misconduct or abuse of the government office by the leaders can be easily discovered and appropriate actions taken against them.  For a government to be strong and effective, good leadership or governance is very vital in providing the necessary environment for responsible leadership (Arend, L. 1992).  A nation that promotes good leadership and discourages actions that may undermine how effective a government functions has the responsibility to monitor government officials or agents to ensure duties are performed well and according to the expectations of the people.  For instance, in a presidential democracy like the one in the United States, government officials who show irresponsible leadership behavior usually face legal actions against them. This is further complimented by the fact that, the system offers a legislator from a president’s party a good position to criticize leaders even from his own party where necessary without risking losing his/her party nomination or expulsion from the party.

            Compared to the parliamentary system, the presidential system encourages checks on government officials without the fear of being victimized if one does so. However, in a parliamentary democracy system, members of a party observe strict party disciplines making it a bit difficult for one to criticize the executive or policies of his/her own party.  Such criticism may lead to the loss of nomination in the party or sometimes even outright expulsion from the party. The consequences of criticism even when the legislators deem it necessary may discourage them to raise their concerns even when it is important to do so.  This may in turn compromise the strength of a government because the corrections may fail to be made where and when necessary.

            Another factor that makes a presidential democracy better in creating a strong and an effective government is its ability to maintain the government upright even if legislation proposed by the cabinet is not voted for.  In the United States, the legislative powers of the Federal government to a Congress are divided into two, a Senate and a House of Representatives (Grodzins, M.1979).  The Senate has two members from each state with senators being directly elected to represent all the states equally.  The two separate groups are able to check each other, which reduces the danger of passing of laws hurriedly or carelessly by the Congress because the two groups have to approve every law that is proposed before it is made a law .It is also important to note that, the Federal states in the US have made it possible to distribute power or authority to the people through the states representation. This avoids complete domination of power by the some individuals in the top office, which makes it possible to make good decisions through   the integration of ideas and views from different leaders who represent the states     The presence of the two houses in the US (Senate and House of Representatives) allows each house to check each other, which in turn encourages a strong government resulting because  such measures  promote good leadership  through the  screening by both groups ( Sobel, S  et al. 1999).  The executive actions that may undermine an effective government can easily be nullified by a negative vote in the senate. In addition, a misconduct of federal officials leads to the opening of charges by the House (Case of Impeachment) while the Senate’s power allows trial of impeachment cases.  If an official is found guilty, he/she is removed from the public office.  Through such actions, a presidential democracy promotes a strong and effective government where only the honest and responsible leaders are given the mandate to conduct government functions or duties.

            However, such criticisms or checks may be difficult in a parliamentary system of governance (unicameral).  Like earlier stated, a parliamentary system enforces the party discipline more strictly and lack of separation of power makes it hard for a parliamentary back bencher to stop a decision that has already been made by a cabinet or the Prime minister if the parliamentarian is convinced its not a good decision.  In a parliamentary democracy, when an important legislation is voted down, it is seen as a vote of no confidence. This situation may cause the falling of a government, which then will demand new elections to be held.  The parliamentary backbenchers become less willing to endure such consequences where the may government fall, which then discourages them to vote down legislation that has been proposed by the cabinet though it may not work well for the creation of a strong and  an effective government.

            For instance, India’s parliamentary system has fused the executive powers with the legislative powers.  The parliament is Supreme because it is an elected body and has both the nominal executive (President of India) and the real executive (Prime Minister of India and Cabinet).  The real executive has the powerful hand when it comes to making decisions that relate to the policy issues.  Both the Prime minister and the Council of members have a responsibility towards the Lok Sabha (Kapila, S. 2006). A vote of no confidence that is passed against the government means that all the ministers who work under the Prime minister are required to resign because the Prime minister and the council of members are responsible for any failure in the government. Many parliamentarians are not ready to cause such situations by their criticism to the government officials, which may undermine the creation of a strong, and an effective government. The parliamentary members may fail to criticize the government’s officials misconduct if the consequences of such a criticism may pose a threat of the whole government dismissal.

            A presidential democracy is more likely to form a strong and effective government than a parliamentary system due to the fact that, a president elected by the people is more democratic and presents accurately the people’s policy preferences.  The president acquires direct mandate from the people/citizens whose decisions are crucial in creation of an effective governing system.  A prime minister who is the real executive in a parliamentary system is chosen by few individuals of the country’s legislature which may not necessarily present the majority of people preference.

            In the United States, a president is popularly elected by the people indirectly, but through an electoral college (Campbell, J. 2000).  Through the national elections, the people usually express confidence in the candidate of their choice.  The people elect a candidate who they believe will address their national issues to ensure a strong and effective government.  The free elections allow the citizens to confer powers upon the president, which in turn make the leaders/president to govern with the citizens’ consent.  The leaders become very responsible for any actions that they undertake during their term in the government, greatly contributed by the respect they give to the limits placed on them by the electorate.  The president and other government officials tend to be more accountable in a presidential system than in parliamentary system (Arend, L. 1992). Accountability is considered very vital in ensuring a strong and effective government through responsible leadership.  For instance, in the US, the president has the responsibility to ensure the government functions are well done because he/she has directed manmade to do so.

            On the other hand, a parliamentary system may reduce responsibility and accountability of its leaders in the government.  In India, the head of government (Prime minister) is not directly elected by the people but by the legislature under the influence of the party (www.hinduonnet.com/af/india60/stories/2007081550140400.htm).  This makes the prime minister look more like a party leader rather than a government head.  Lack of direct election by the citizens may further contribute to low accountability by the Prime minister to the government’s good performance, which may lead to lack of a highly effective government.

            The parliamentary democracy system of governance in many states is unstable which sometimes makes effective governance almost impossible, which occurs when the parliamentary systems are faced by challenges that make the government unstable.  For a government to be strong and effective, it is necessary for the country to be politically stable (Office of the Federal Register.2007).  Presence of unstable coalitions demands by the minority parties, threats of no-confidence votes and actual votes of no confidence create an atmosphere of tension and inequality in certain groups of people or citizens.  These factors in one way or another undermine the formation of an effective government in future.  Furthermore, parliamentary instability may arise from the type of political culture in a given state or highly polarized electorates. Where party-based voting has the majority of the electorate basing their preferences on ethnic background rather than genuine political platforms, the parliamentary system may fail to provide a strong and an effective government.

            Parliamentary systems mat therefore offer less stability than the presidential systems.  Stability in the government provides a favorable environment for government functions to take place within the given time and in an effective manner.  For instance, in India, some people especially the youth have expressed their dissatisfaction with the government functions.  The government discussions and debates have been surrounded by disruptions, confrontations and other alternatives that are non-democratic.  The confrontational politics in India have led to religious, linguistic and even caste divisions in the society, with the political power being polarized around the language, religion and the caste identities (Satu. L, July1998).  This has shown existing social inequalities in the Indian society, which is a reflection of the political system.  Instability that arises from such situations threatens the creation of an effective system of governance because the parliament’s failure to function effectively makes the public lose their trust with the parliament.  The parliament is considered to be the fountainhead of the citizens’ desires and the aspirations and failure of the government may as well cause its collapse.

            In a parliamentary system, a prime minister may call elections anytime he decides to, and may further orchestrate a vote of no confidence to trigger an election if he fails to get legislative items passed.  This kind of opportunism in a parliamentary system poses the threat of instability in nations that practice it and eventually undermine its strength.

            A presidential system on the other hand, can survive emergencies much better than the parliamentary systems.  A country that has a presidential democratic system can be able to handle enormous stress in its system, because the president has a fixed term of governing compared to the parliamentary rotating premierships.  A fixed presidential term acts as a ‘check’ to the executive powers because elections can only be held at a certain stipulated time (Mitchell, R.1995).  The executive in a presidential system is usually forced to work within the confines of a given term without altering the term limit to suit ones needs.  This enhances stability in the government, which encourages the government officials to work within the given time to provide good governance to the people.  In the United States, the presidential term is 5 years (minimum) which allows stability of the system until the elections are held again (Introduction to the US system. 2000.A publication of the US Department of State) . This has promoted good governance in the US even in the presence of many political confrontations.

            Finally, the presidential democratic system offers great opportunities for quick and decisive responses to situations that may emerge suddenly.  The president in a presidential democratic system of government is less constrained in making major decisions, compared to the parliamentary system.  A presidential system does not always require the approval of the legislature to take action against emerging situations.   A prime minister within a parliamentary system on the other hand will require the legislature support before taking any action, regardless of how urgent of it may be to address the situation.

            Conclusion

            Based on the above-mentioned reasons, a presidential democracy is most likely to form a strong and an effective government than a parliamentary democracy. Though a parliamentary democracy also has its merits over a presidential democracy, it does not present the best political environment for an effective government. All over the world, different nations adopt the two systems with the aim of promoting good governance, but the presidential system has proven to be better than the parliamentary democracy in forming a strong government.  The social and economic developments continue to put pressure on the various states to make the necessary changes in their system to adapt to these changes. In their endeavors to have a strong and an effective government, the different nations are attempting to make changes that solve problems that have risen due to their system of governance. However, it has proven to be a tough task which will need a lot of hard work and commitment to succeed in forming a very strong and an effective government that will serve their citizens much better.

References

Arend, L. 1992: Parliamentary versus Presidential Government. Oxford University Press

Campbell, J. 2000. The American Campaign: US presidential Campaigns and the            National vote

Grodzins, M.1972: American Federalism: A View from the States

Introduction to the US system. 2000.A publication  of the US Department of State

Kapila, S. 2006. Presidential system of Government for India

            www.boloji.com/plainspeak/052.htm.    Retrieved on June 17, 2008

Mitchell, R. 1995: CQS Guide to the US Constitution

Office of the Federal Register .2007. The United States Government Manual. Executive Office            of the President

O’Neil, P. 2006. Essentials of Comparative politics 2e, part 1 W.W. Norton and Company

Pylee, M.V. 2004 .Constitutional Government in India .New Delhi .S. Chand Publishers

Satu, L. July1998 .India’s Cold-Eyed Introspection Journal of Democracy – Volume 9, Number 3, July 1998 pp 166-170

Sobel, S and Tanzey, P. 1999: How the US Government Works .Published by Barron’s Educational series

Somnath, C. 2007. Independent India at 60 The Hindu, India’s National Newspaper Wed,        Aug 15,2007

            www.hinduonnet.com/af/india60/stories/2007081550140400.htm. Retrieved on June     17,2008

When examining the candidates for the 2000 Presidential election, it becomes very clear that the only logical choice for President is Al Gore. Gore has many plans for his presidency that will greatly improve the way our country works and runs. First of all, Gore wishes to reform the way in which elections are run, and attempt to sever the omnipresent link between money and political influence, thus providing more fair elections.

Another plan of Gore”s is to set aside 400 billion dollars especially for Medicare, and to make sure the money is not used for other purposes, thereby improving the lives of both the elderly and the less fortunate. In order to better the lives of all citizens and provide for more safety, Gore also wishes to close the so-called “gun show loophole” that allows consumers to bypass the Brady Bill. Lastly, to better equip the children of today for the world of tomorrow, Gore intends to reform education by providing preschool for all children, and making college tuition tax deductible.

The first of Al Gore”s many changes he has in store for our country could possibly be the most important one. Gore seeks to change the very way we decide on and elect our officials who run the country, and he intends to do so in a way that ensures a more fair and equal election. What is the key to this electoral equilibrium? Money. For a long time people and political analysts have noticed a certain trend coinciding with a candidate”s political influence and how much money he has at his disposal.

Traditionally, the candidates with more money get more exposure to the public, get more high influence individuals and agencies backing them up, and therefore end up with more votes than those candidates with less cash. Severing this link between politics and money would be a wonderful change for our country. One of the main ways in which Gore intends to increase equality among presidential candidates is to ban “soft money. ” Soft money is money contributed to a candidate by companies or individuals in order to boost their campaign.

In place of this money, Gore intends to establish a tax-free foundation to fund campaigns, thereby supplying each candidate with the same amount of money to campaign with as he/she pleases. This fund will accept tax-deductible donations from companies and individuals, and then give each candidate their equal share. It is estimated that this foundation, called the Democracy Endowment, will raise 7. 1 billion dollars within a seven year period, while only suffering a loss of 2. 1 billion in taxes. This equal-endowment plan will even the playing field for the candidates, and give each an equal opportunity to campaign.

In addition to equal campaign funding, Gore supports the idea of allowing each candidate an equal amount of free air time on television to campaign with. This, too, will give each candidate an equal chance to be heard, independent of how much money he/she has. These proposals, among his others, will help to sever the link between money and political influence, change the way elections are run, and provide for more fair elections. Another major problem that plagues millions of Americans today is the issue if Medicare.

Medicare is the government health insurance program for the elderly, and provides care for about 40 million seniors annually. In recent years, much attention has been called to this program regarding its coverage. The general sense is that Medicare is not adequately insuring its seniors. One cause of this decline in coverage is the money allotted to Medicare. Many times, when other projects start to run over their budget, the politicians “dip into the cookie jar,” and take small amounts here and there from the Medicare stash, leaving our seniors with less than adequate medical coverage.

Gore wants this to stop. His plan that he wishes to implement sets aside 400 billion dollars strictly for Medicare, and ensures that this money cannot be used for other purposes. This will mean guaranteed improvement of the medical treatments and attention those covered will receive. In addition to the 400 billion dollars, Gore has plans for a 253 billion dollar, 10 year program to add a prescription drug benefit to further aid Medicare users. These programs will definitely improve the living conditions of what is fast becoming the largest percent of the American population.

Gore does not stop at improving living conditions for the elderly. He recognizes many ways of raising the quality of life for all US citizens, one of them being in the area of safety. In an effort to make our country a safer place to live, Gore intends to close the so called “gun show loophole” that essentially allows consumers to buy assorted weapons and handguns without waiting periods or background checks, completely bypassing the Brady Bill.

A report released by the Justice Department found that felons illegally bought weapons at gun shows in 46 percent of the 314 cases it studied, and the weapons used in the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado were purchased at a gun show in Denver. Closing this loophole would mean fewer weapons in the hands of people who shouldn”t have them, and therefore safer places to live everywhere. It would be foolish not to enact this change, therefore making it foolish not to vote for Gore. The last key issue on which Gore has many great ideas has more impact on the future than any of his other plans.

This issue deals with education. Over the last 20 years, spending on education has risen 62 percent, yet we have experienced a 7 percent decline in enrollment. Studies have shown that giving children a good educational start in the beginning is an excellent way to aid their future in the education department. That is precisely why Gore wants to provide preschool to all children. Giving them a solid start in their earliest years instills the basic principles of behavior and learning skills necessary to be successful in the education system.

But, of course, learning skills can only get you so far once you reach the college level. All too often, bright young students do not get to attend college due to a lack of sufficient funds. This is a contributing factor to the difficulty of breaking the chain of poverty. Gore recognizes this, and plans to make college tuition tax deductible. This will soften the blow of tuition check on the lower class families, and allow a greater variety of students from all sorts of backgrounds to further enrich their minds.

By doing this, the future of our country will brighten tremendously, as we will have a multitude of new, brilliant minds at work everyday. Education truly is an investment in the future, and Gore knows how to ensure profitable returns. By examining these key points in Gore”s plans for the country, It is obvious that he has the welfare of all citizens on his mind, and that his plans would effectively improve the way our country runs. With that in mind, Gore seems to be the only logical choice for President of the United States.