#judgememorial

Both men have a history in the halls of Judge Memorial - Mr. Johnson graduated from here in 1995 and Mr. Olive sent his two children here. Mr. Johnson - perhaps an undercover rebel - admitted to “not being perfect” in high school, saying “I see kids trying to get away with stuff I did in high school”. His experience with being on both sides of the Dean’s office helps him create a less authoritarian and more helpful approach to discipline. In fact, his favorite part of the job is when students can treat incidents as “water under the bridge” and still say “Hi” to him in the halls. He believes the trouble students might get into doesn’t have to define them; instead he offers, and encourages, the opportunity for any student to learn from their mistakes.

Mr. Olive’s job title is Community Resource Specialist and entails slightly different responsibilities than Mr. Johnson’s Dean position. Mr. Olive, with 25 years of experience as a police officer is much more focused on providing security to both Judge Memorial and Lourdes as Judge saw a need for this following national tragedies which resulted in the loss of lives in schools. Providing security does not just mean protection against outside threats; it also means dealing with problems within the school. 

With certain incidents, Mr. Olive’s and Mr. Johnson's responsibilities overlap. Mr. Johnson mainly has to deal with issues like tardies, sluffs, academic dishonesty, etc. - things that violate our school policy but don’t break any laws. But on rare occasions, the Dean will come across issues that fall into both categories. In the instance that federal or state law has been broken, Mr. Olive gets involved and is obliged to file a report with the police. For example, in the recent investigation of the sale of illegal drugs at Judge, both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Olive were involved.       

It is a common misconception that presidents dictate to what extent the American economy is regulated and to what extent it is allowed freedom to grow or shrink.  In reality, that power lies in the hands of the Federal Reserve - a governmental entity which acts independent of the executive and legislative branches. The Federal Reserve has a mandate to keep the economy growing at a healthy level - not too fast nor too slow, and it does so via interest rates. Today’s average interest rate, 3.53%, is the lowest it has ever been, meaning money is quite cheap to borrow - which in theory should improve the housing market, fund new business opportunities, etc. (nytimes.com)

The executive’s hand in the economy is essentially limited to three factors: tax policy, spending policy (under which we would see the bank bailout, stimulus plan, etc.), and regulative policy - but still he needs Congress in order to make these proposals reality.  This is where the presidential candidates come into play.  

President Obama and Candidate Romney foremost differ on a fundamental economic level.  It is Republican philosophy that the government should tax and regulate the economy as little as possible, while Democratic philosophy believes the government should play a bigger role in regulating money and redistributing wealth.  Obama wants to continue Bush era tax cuts for those who make under $250,000 a year, while Romney wants to make the Bush era tax cuts permanent for all.  Both men believe that the Corporate Tax Rate is too high, and while Obama proposes to lower it to 28%, Romney hopes to lower it to 25%.  The candidates’ biggest economic divide lies in environmental policy: while 93% of democrats want stricter environmental regulations, only 47% of Republicans hope for the same (nytimes.com). Long term, both candidates want to cut spending and reduce the deficit, but it remains unseen just how they might do this, though Obama has made it clear that he intends to raise taxes for the wealthy, and Romney that he will not be cutting military spending. (npr.org)

America has reached an economic turning point.  No longer can the American government continue to spend without repercussion.  Our president simply cannot have it all. We need to increase revenue and decrease spending, which means whomever is elected come November will be forced to make unpopular decisions.  It is likely that President Obama will raise taxes for the upper echelon of the American population, and that President Romney will simplify the tax structure - which, in reality, means the loss of a myriad of tax deductibles.  Neither of these policies will result in immediate economic change nor turn the economy around, though.  It must be remembered that a president’s economic success is in part dependent on the luck of the draw, and largely dependent on the global economy.  While one president might pump millions of tax-payer dollars into the American infrastructure, a lackluster President ten years down the line might reap the benefits.

In the words of Stephen Dubner, the president’s role in the American economy is more like that of a “cheerleader” than a “CEO”, but never will the American people hear a presidential candidate say, “My fellow Americans, I can't control the U.S. economy. I've got a little bit of influence but mostly it does what it does. So if it gets worse on my watch, you shouldn't blame me -- and if it happens to get better, you probably shouldn't give me too much credit either.” (marketplace.org)