The Future of Flight <-- Link to Editorial
This editorial, from the Washington Post, is about the federal government equipping airports around the nation with a new satellite-based radar system, known as NextGen. This is much more technologically advanced than the current radar system which makes it difficult for controllers and pilots to know the exact location of aircraft in the air and on the tarmac. The use of the NextGen system would result in more takeoffs and landings and the ability to fly more direct routes. In the long run, it will reduce congestion, fuel use, and pollution. The problem is the cost. Many airlines do not want to pay their share for the upgrade, which will cost about $25 - $30 billion, according to the FAA.
According to the editorial, Southwest Airlines has already paid its share of the funds to retrofit its fleet with the NextGen system, and I think other airlines should follow suit. Although it costs them money now, it will benefit them in the long run with reduced fuel costs, etc. The ability to pinpoint the exact location of aircraft could also reduce the number of collisions in the air and on the ground.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
Editorial #4
Better Student Loans
In this editorial, from the Washington Post, it was advocated that Congress should pass a bill that would reform the student higher education loan program. Under this reform, the US government would start providing loans directly to students, rather than subsidizing private banks in doing so. In a link to this editorial, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this reform would save the government $80 billion over ten years.
I agree with what the author of this editorial is saying. The only reason why the banks are making these loans is because the federal government is paying them to do so by subsidizing much of the interest that is payed on them. The government might as well keep this money and use it to provide more financial aid to students. The government has already showed that it can manage these programs efficiently because it does so for other educational grants. This also is not a take-over of private industry because the banks wouldn't make these loans in the first place without government help.
In this editorial, from the Washington Post, it was advocated that Congress should pass a bill that would reform the student higher education loan program. Under this reform, the US government would start providing loans directly to students, rather than subsidizing private banks in doing so. In a link to this editorial, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this reform would save the government $80 billion over ten years.
I agree with what the author of this editorial is saying. The only reason why the banks are making these loans is because the federal government is paying them to do so by subsidizing much of the interest that is payed on them. The government might as well keep this money and use it to provide more financial aid to students. The government has already showed that it can manage these programs efficiently because it does so for other educational grants. This also is not a take-over of private industry because the banks wouldn't make these loans in the first place without government help.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Editorial #3
Link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/white-house-land-grab/?page=2
This article is about Senator DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, protesting a "secret" memo in the interior department, which is studying whether fourteen tracks of land should be set aside as national monuments. DeMint tried but failed to pass an amendment that sought to prohibit the Obama administration from declaring these lands as national monuments.
From the editorial, it sounds like Sen. DeMint is protesting normal procedures by the Interior department to review how federal land under its jurisdiction is utilized and trying to make it sound bad by saying it is secret. He also appears to be distorting facts by saying the Obama administration is grabbing land away from the states. Really, this is federal land owned by all Americans. It is funny that Sen. DeMint (from South Carolina) thinks he knows what the people in these western states (where the land is located) want. People in these communities enjoy the other uses of the land, including tourism and recreation, which have more lasting values than the temporary jobs that come from tearing out resources to profit distant corporations. Mining and logging are important, but they have to be balanced against other long-term uses for the land.
This article is about Senator DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, protesting a "secret" memo in the interior department, which is studying whether fourteen tracks of land should be set aside as national monuments. DeMint tried but failed to pass an amendment that sought to prohibit the Obama administration from declaring these lands as national monuments.
From the editorial, it sounds like Sen. DeMint is protesting normal procedures by the Interior department to review how federal land under its jurisdiction is utilized and trying to make it sound bad by saying it is secret. He also appears to be distorting facts by saying the Obama administration is grabbing land away from the states. Really, this is federal land owned by all Americans. It is funny that Sen. DeMint (from South Carolina) thinks he knows what the people in these western states (where the land is located) want. People in these communities enjoy the other uses of the land, including tourism and recreation, which have more lasting values than the temporary jobs that come from tearing out resources to profit distant corporations. Mining and logging are important, but they have to be balanced against other long-term uses for the land.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)