The Outlook of Small Towns like West Lafayette, Indiana, US

For 15 years, I lived in West Lafayette, Indiana and saw many changes happen. When I moved to West Lafayette, there were many empty fields and even the neighborhood that I lived in was pretty empty. Most of the neighborhood had not been developed yet and there were only around a dozen houses on my street with several just starting to be built. In the year 2000, the population of West Lafayette was 28,788 people.

            Education was and still is a large part of the West Lafayette community. Residents had a choice of going to West Lafayette School Corporation, Tippecanoe School Corporation, and Lafayette School Corporation. After grade school, students had the choice of going to Ivy Tech Community College and Purdue University in the community. According to a U.S. Census Bureau report (2005-2007) over 77% of West Lafayette’s population over the age of 25 earned at least a bachelor’s degree.

            In terms of business, West Lafayette has made many efforts to bring retailers and employment opportunity to the area. The Purdue Research Park grows every year and employs more than 3,000 people. Over the years, much have been developed around the Purdue Research Park such as hiking trails, a scenic lake, and a roundabout to control the growing amount of traffic that comes through. West Lafayette also added a Payless, Wal-Mart Supercenter, Menards, and multiple businesses around the levee.

            The levee is West Lafayette’s attempt to create a spot for people to walk around and see the shops, but the main store that was built there was a Border’s, which closed a couple years ago when the company went bankrupt. Over the levee’s development, many stores have come and gone with the exception of Scott’s Brewhouse and Goodrich Quality Theaters Wabash Landing 9. Some more recent businesses that have opened and remained within the last 5-10 years are 9 Irish Brothers, Puccini’s, and Echo Karaoke. One of the reasons why businesses have struggled at the levee and why it hasn’t flourished as much as it should have is the terrible smell from the over polluted Wabash River. Millions of dollars is spent each year to figure out a way to reduce the smell since it is hurting so much business. Another factor that plays into the struggles of so many businesses in West Lafayette is the fact that Purdue students make up an important part of the population and students will leave in the summer causing business to be slow. This has caused Purdue to consider going on a trimester schedule within the last two years.

             Not only has West Lafayette created numerous businesses over the years, but it has also built a new elementary school due to the ever-growing population of West Lafayette. According to a 2010 census report, the population of West Lafayette (city limits) increased by 2,000 people. From the year 2000 to 2010, the race of the population has also had pretty big changes. In 2000, the population of White: 83%, African-American: 2.4%, Asian: 11.3%, and Latino: 3.2%. For the 2010 census report, the White population was: 76.8%, African-American: 2.7%, Asian: 17.3%, and Latino: 3.6%. A large factor that has a significant influence on racial diversity in West Lafayette is Purdue University. Many professors/researchers come from India, China, and South Korea, which give West Lafayette its vast diversity.

             The median household income in the year 2009 as reported by the city of West Lafayette was around $23,000. This could be a result of the multiple factories located throughout Tippecanoe County that employ a large amount of Tippecanoe County’s population. The median non-family income reported by the city in 2009 was around $16,000. Fortunately, West Lafayette has reported slow, but steady increases in income each year showing positive growth for the city.

            One of the largest projects in the city of West Lafayette is the development of highway 231. This highway has gone through many changes and now expands throughout Lafayette’s south side and goes up through West Lafayette. This connects U.S. 52 and adds an opportunity for West Lafayette to bring more business to the area and will be the future site of multiple developments. On completion of this highway, a bike trail was also added, which will allow the 5 neighborhoods within a block of this new road to exercise and travel throughout West Lafayette. This project has been on hold for at least 15 years because I remember many people talking about this road being built when I first moved to the area and the city just now managed to build it. If it were not for President Obama giving the state additional funds for such projects, there is no telling if the road ever would have been built.

            As the road was being built, the city of West Lafayette was attempting to annex the area that I lived in. Many of the people were opposed to idea of being annexed into the city because they believed taxes would have greatly increased and after filing a petition, the area remained out of the city. I think this is a terrible mistake because not only will the city not expand, but neither will the economy or services provided for that area. After living in West Lafayette for so many years, it shows great potential and growth, but is usually stalled by a lack of leadership at the state level.

Reverse Discrimination

Reverse discrimination has become a popular topic of discussion within the United States. Many people argue that it is being used in order to meet quotas based on whether they are a minority or not. This has especially been brought up in academic settings and has proven controversial.

            When it comes to an academic setting, many people are concerned about allowing a minority in over a white person due to the fact that they are a minority. It is legal for a school to accept a minority over a white person so long as their academics are the same. Many schools have been accused of doing this, but schools believe they are justified because they want to encourage minorities to seek higher education and promote diversity within their school.

            For example, if a black student and a white student both applied to the Kelly School of Business for a management degree and they both had the same GPA and SAT scores, the black student would be admitted over the white one because the school wants to show it is diverse and does not discriminate based on race. At the same time, they are choosing one race over another so it could blatantly be seen as discrimination because that is the definition to give one privileges over another based on race.

            Another example is if there is a male student and female student with the same GPA and test scores that apply to Purdue’s school of engineering. The school is of course going to take the woman over the man because our society is pushing very hard to have more women involved in technological careers. Purdue would also accept the woman over the man because the demographic of Purdue is around 80% male so they will do just about anything in order to have more women attend the school.

            There are plenty of examples in the workplace as well. This can more easily be done in a work environment because if you are judging based on resumes, there isn’t really a proper measurement that would clearly state that one candidate is better than the other. This will also allow the employer to choose based on race and claim it was “qualifications” when it could simply be giving the presence of diversity within the work office. I have seen this first hand within the School of Public and Environmental Affairs where one of the advisors was just replaced in order to higher a younger black advisor.

            A majority of the faculty are also women or a minority or both excluding the Dean of SPEA. This topic has stirred a lot of controversy within the office as it does with many places of work. SPEA also hired a diversity enrichment staff in order to show SPEA supports diversity. This job has currently been aimless and ineffective and is more of a title than an actual position that encourages/promotes diversity.

            Don’t mistaken me it is wonderful that we support so many different people within SPEA, but it should not be at the risk of others employment or based on whether the person in the job or seeking the job is a minority. As a white, straight, christian, male this still concerns me as I begin seeking employment and know there will be those who will hold a stereotype against me. I don’t want to necessarily say that it is reverse discrimination in all circumstances so much as its simply the fact that there are more white people that attend college than others and many minorities in this country still struggle to make the proper moves or have the financial means or even have the right to do what they want. Many homosexuals in this country still do not have many rights within the workplace and are just now able to be open about their sexual orientation without being judged. It was only within the last couple of years that homosexuals could serve in the military and that note has to be taken in the workplace as well. It is a very debatable topic and could harbor in multiple views and debates, but I believe so long as employers and academic institutions remain fair and unbiased as society has tried so hard to push for, there should be no conflict.

Government Intervention in the United States and Why People Need It

Throughout American history there has always been a tremendous debate about the influences of government and how large it should be. It is one of the major differences between political parties and stirs controversy with every election. This is an important subject because it is not only an important topic of debate within society, but it also has tremendous influence over the function and structure of the country.

            Since the Great Depression, much big government spending/programs has revolved around New Deal Policy set by former President Roosevelt. This was a pinnacle move in the United States’ history and has made a large impact of the direction of political parties. Economists still debate to this day whether the New Deal or World War 2 was the reason for the economy to bounce back after it had such a disastrous collapse. Several people even say it was both, but the distinction of whether or not people are for or against the New Deal and bigger government has established modern day Democrats and Republicans.

            The notion of increasing government to help resolve issues within the United States continues throughout American history. The administrations that have continued such notions include former President Truman (the Fair Society), President Johnson (the Great Society), and President Obama. These four presidents all believed that increasing government would fix the problems at hand and by using government effectively create equality, structure, and prosperity.

            This subject is excruciatingly important to those who research public administration. This is a subject brought up for every election and asks, “How much do people approve of bigger government spending?” It also asks things as simple as “do you approve of public education?” These issues are important for every election and may even sway how people vote in an election depending on wording and approach. During former President Roosevelt’s campaigning, he stated what many presidential candidates stated during the time and believed that there should be little to no government. This of course ended up being the exact opposite and the government gained a role bigger than it ever had before.

            During former President Roosevelt’s administration, the role of government took on a whole new responsibility. The New Deal began in 1933 and was driven by desperation to fix the Great Depression. The banks had collapsed due to a lack of investing and rapid withdrawals of account holders forcing banks to declare bankruptcy.

            Just within a year of Franklin Roosevelt’s inauguration, a powerful conservative opposition had launched an assault on the new administration’s programs (Holt 27). The conservatives consistently pushed for the New Deal to be revoked because of their strong opposition of such policy. Conservatives believed that government could never be a substitute for the hard work and initiative of free men (Holt 27). Even Republican politicians of the time that had endorsed many of the Roosevelt administration’s programs commonly stated that the New Deal was going to destroy individualism and freedom. (Holt 28). There was plenty of open opposition to the New Deal and Roosevelt along with his administration would continuously describe these policies as “experimental” since old ideologies had continuously failed the United States and something new was needed if the United States was going to dig itself out of the Great Depression (Holt 29).

            The Great Depression had created desperate times which resulted in desperate measures creating policy that would temporarily be used to help the economy bounce back. One of his legislative proposals was an economy bill that he accompanied with a message deploring the tendency toward greater deficits and blaming it for a variety of economic ills (Rosenman). As late as July 1933, President Roosevelt referred to the Economy Act as “the base of the whole recovery plan,” and the administration continued to praise itself for its economizing activities throughout the year (Ibid). Many people showed concern and the credibility was shaken after the president’s budget message in January of 1934 because people saw a massive deficit approaching for the coming fiscal year.

            Debates were a continuous thing throughout this time, but Roosevelt could not stress enough the cooperation was absolutely essential for the country to press on and if both political parties could not agree on these new policies to help resurge the economy then everything would be undone and the policy would not work (Holt 33). At the heart of this initiative, according to New Dealers, lay the National Recovery Administration, established in June 1933 (Holt 33). The NRA did not represent a single economic strategy but rather provided a framework within which a number of persuasions and interest groups competed for supremacy (Hawley). It was the intention of New Dealers to create an economy that promoted balance and somehow the various divisions of society had lost connection with one another, which is problematic for any society and certainly one of the contributing factors to the Great Depression.

             The New Deal had tremendous influence over the private sector that had just collapsed. As depicted by most American historians in the 1950s, the “mixed economy” of the United States was a superlative blend of two worlds, a system that combined rational direction, organizational security, and stable growth with a large measure of democratic decision making, individual liberty, and local and private initiative (Hawley 50). The private sector was highly warped and as a result of the New Deal was interjected and redefined in order to make the system fair while also creating a different structure of the private sector. Of course much of the earlier policy and political interference was viewed as tyrannical because people still had a since of individualism and freedom which meant not having the government intervene on your business and making decisions for you and your business.

                        During the New Deal lots of policies were enacted to alleviate the substantial amount of poverty in the United States. This was the framework for modern day welfare programs. One of the large programs that Roosevelt considered necessary was the Social Security Act. This program was federally driven and was to be a way for people to set aside money for retirement. This would also create an unemployment insurance to help those who were jobless as well as welfare benefits for the handicapped and needy children. Instead of the money being gathered from simply taxing the public, it was taken from payroll taxes, which would give a better sense of savings when Social Security taxes were taken out of your paycheck knowing that it would be given back upon retirement.

            When analyzing President Johnson’s administration, he took a step further in the idea of Democrats creating a larger government in order to ensure a well functioning country. President Johnson’s administration was nicknamed “The Great Society” because he was able to establish several new government programs as well as expand government programs from the Roosevelt administration that resulted in a large reduction of people in poverty and has established and standard of how many people should be living in poverty since it has not reached that level since his administration in 1964.

The difference between President Obama and the other Presidential administrations was his approval ratings. Many people believed that the way he went about things and his actions were either wrong or unnecessary. The Affordable Care Act is still a hot topic and many Republicans still campaign that they will have it repealed if they are elected. Even when

analyzing food stamps, many people believed that it was unnecessary/too easy to acquire food stamps/people were simply taking advantage of the system to get benefits.

            It is understandable why people were upset about the Affordable Care Act because that was simply legislation that was forced through by President Obama, not to mention the fact that it is now mandatory to have health insurance, but why were all of the other initiatives so poorly rated by public opinion?

            When other presidents, such as President Roosevelt and President Johnson, were faced with high levels of poverty and increased government spending and programs, their approval ratings were good. When President Obama increased food stamps and related programs, many people thought it was bad, unnecessary, and a waste of taxpayer dollars even though poverty levels/unemployment had skyrocketed by the time President Obama was put into office.

Perhaps the general outlook of the American people has become more partisan and believes these programs are no good and will simply hurt the country. Maybe the general public simply believes that these programs are not needed and capitalism should just run its course.

            It is the great debate that continues to this day and is one of the reasons why the parties are established the way they are. I chose this topic in particular because it is essential to understand the dynamic of the United States of America and its government. If the general American people are not informed or simply misinformed on how these government initiatives have done tremendous strides for the country during some of the most desperate times it is important they are informed and understand that these have been the most effective ways on record that The United States of America was able to combat poverty, recession, and the Great Depression.

Bibliography

Public Papers of FDR. Rosenman.p 2:49-54. Acquired April 22, 2014

Ibid., 2:296. William Woodin. James A. Farley. Franklin D Roosevelt. New York Times. 11 December 1933.

The New Deal and the Problem of Monopoly. Ellis Hawley. Princeton, New Jersey 1968 p 19-146. Acquired April 20, 2014

The Triumph & Tragedy of Lyndon Johnson. Hawley. Texas A&M University Press. Acquired April 20, 2014

Car Allowance Rebate System: What is the Car Allowance Rebate System? U.S. Department of Transportation

Cash for Clunkers Wraps up with Nearly 700,000 car sales and increased fuel efficiency, U.S. Transportation Secretary LaHood declares program "wildly successful"" (Press release). U.S. Department of Transportation. 2009-08-26. Retrieved 2014-04-29

National Security in the US

On 9/11/2001 a group of terrorists organized an attack that resulted in the destruction of the twin towers shaping the modern world. As a response, the United States took military action as well as created policy to increase surveillance. These policies were put into place over a decade ago and still continue to influence policy today.

            The main legislation that was passed as a response to the terrorist attack on 9/11 was the Patriot Act. This was a policy that increased surveillance reach in the United States and increased the reach of the CIA as a way to legalize surveillance the CIA was already doing. The obvious answer is legislation such as this indeed violates the Constitutional Rights of Americans by looking into information that should be private without probable cause or a warrant to allow such actions. It is also unknown what is being done with the information that is being collected that creates an entirely new range of ethical problems.

            With organizations such as the CIA and the NSA, many rights are violated by collecting phone records, text messages, GPS tracking, and other substantial concerns that raises many questions as to why it is being collected and what is being done with the information that was acquired illegally. One problem with the massive amounts of data collection is the fact that a lot of the information is not deleted from the servers. This leaves information on the American people open to the risk of being acquired by cyber terrorists.

            By accessing information without proper process this leaves a range of doors open to how certain people are treated that may be a suspect under false pretenses. Those who are considered suspected terrorists or potential affiliates have the risk of being “taken in” or put on “no fly” lists without any type of trial or due process. This leaves everyone to simply trust the government to make the proper decision when put into these situations, which is also a violation of the Constitution by not allowing any type of trial as guaranteed by the Constitution.

            The counter to this argument is the fact that many terrorists are getting away with violent acts, sabotage, and mass murder. By giving up some freedoms, such as privacy, the U.S. government will have substantially higher chances of tracking those who are suspected terrorists and even preventing terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. In a post 9/11 world, this will become a norm that many will not even consider as it already fades away from most discussions because people would rather simply stay ignorant to the matter and have the potential of remaining safe instead of eliminating government surveillance and being open to a world of terrorism.