American Politics

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I hope Felipe Calderon and Barak Obama find a solution to the problem in the land of my (fore)father(s). Mexico is part of America and the problem effects the USA as well.

[Duke87 1,070]

Do the Universitys still make students pass entrance exams?

I have honestly never heard of anyone having to take a college entrance exam, at least not in the US. They admit based on your grades, your SAT scores, your essay, what activities you were involved in, and so on and so forth.

The college I went to used the SAT as a sort of placement exam. Depending on whether you were in the upper or lower half of the math SAT scores, you would take physics or chemistry first (respectively), because having taken some calculus helps with physics. And depending on whether you were in the upper or lower half of the verbal scores, you would take intro to religion or college writing first (respectively), because having taken the writing class could help with the religion class.

Although, the chemistry versus physics thing was only an issue for engineering majors. And I dunno what they're doing on the religion/writing side now that there's separate reading and writing on the SAT.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

If you had to sit an S.A.T. just what did you think it was? My friend, it was a university qualification test. Some people fail that, you know. They become tradespeople.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Hmm... see, I tend to think of an "entrance exam" to be a special exam given by a specific institution to its applicants - you pass, you get in; you fail, you're out. This exists for primary private schools and for other circumstances (e.g., if you want to become a police officer), but I don't know of any college in the US that does it.

Things like the SAT and ACT don't really fit this description because:

1) they are blanket tests that almost every school uses results from, not designed by one school specifically for the purpose of admissions

2) they are not tests you can pass or fail, you just get a numerical score which can be anything in a range from very poor to outstanding

3) they are only a small piece of the admissions puzzle, not the beginning and end of it

I dunno, maybe I'm using too narrow a defintion.

  Edited March 5, 2011 by Duke87  

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Meg 368]

I don't understand #3 at all. What puzzle? It was pretty straightforward. Fill out application, provide proof of graduation, provide or take ACT/SAT, then take placement exams for specific courses (usually math and language). But then, it must vary from state to state, so maybe it is tricky in your area.

The puzzle as in the variety of things that fit together to form a picture.

Yes, there are the various things you mention. Other universities can, and do, add in additional elements to form a more complete picture: letters of recommendation, an entry essay on a specific topic, the whole stupid "legacy" thing.

(I'm cranky enough to believe that students who wouldn't otherwise make the cut shouldn't be given a leg up because one of their parents attended the school. Not the way to build a meritocracy.)

[Duke87 1,070]

When I say "admissions puzzle", I refer not to things the applicant must do, but to what the admissions board looks at. SAT/ACT scores are but one factor in whether or not you get in. If it were an "entrance exam" by my definition, it would be as simple as the top X number of scores would be admitted and everyone else would not be. It's not like that. Boards sit down and evaluate applications based on many varying merits. They look at your grades. They read your essay. They look at your resume. They look at letters of recommendation. They look at what and how many AP classes you took. They favor you if you are in some way a minority or otherwise "special" (I have no doubt that telling schools that I'm autistic helped me get in).

[Easy Bakes 253]

The puzzle as in the variety of things that fit together to form a picture.

Yes, there are the various things you mention. Other universities can, and do, add in additional elements to form a more complete picture: letters of recommendation, an entry essay on a specific topic, the whole stupid "legacy" thing.

(I'm cranky enough to believe that students who wouldn't otherwise make the cut shouldn't be given a leg up because one of their parents attended the school. Not the way to build a meritocracy.)

That Legacy thing has been going on for centuries.

Texas finally has gotten rid of the TAKS tests [ Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills]

but have replaced it with State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness, or STAAR, you can call a 85 GEO a Ferrari

that don't mean it will take you any were. Blah

Why can't an end-of-the-year test be given to the students by the teachers be sufficient? It worked just fine for the rest of us. and use the ACT and SATs for standardized testing to evaluate what you have learned.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

The Washington Assessment of Student Learning is rather easy (I barely worked a sweat when I took it in 10th grade yet I easily aced it) yet is being removed because some "students" could not pass it. All the students that cannot pass the WASL should take the Regants (special needs test, which I got one question wrong when I took it because of confusing wording that meant something different from how an autistic would interpret it).

[Duke87 1,070]

Yeah, every state has their own battery of standardized tests. Here in Connecticut, we have three.

1) the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT), a math test which is taken in 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th grades (each test is more advanced than the last, obviously). I always aced this one...

2) the Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) test, taken annually from 2nd through 8th grade (again, each test is more advanced than the last). I did well but not outstanding on this. My reading skills were always above my grade level, which absolutely helped, but it isn't just a reading skills test, it's a reading comprehension test - and being autistic is a handicap to that.

3) the Connecticut Aptitude Performance Tests (CAPT), tests in science, math, reading, and writing, taken in 10th grade. All four must be passed in order to graduate from high school. I actually failed the reading and writing sections because my handwriting is abysmal and the scorers couldn't read my essays. Fortunately, as a special ed student, I had a waiver and didn't have to retake the test.

New York, I dunno about in younger grades, but in high school they have their Regents exams, which basically function as high school exit exams. You take them senior year, and whether or not you pass them determines whether or not you graduate on time.

  Edited March 5, 2011 by Duke87  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Yeah, every state has their own battery of standardized tests. Here in Connecticut, we have three.

1) the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT), a math test which is taken in 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th grades (each test is more advanced than the last, obviously). I always aced this one...

2) the Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) test, taken annually from 2nd through 8th grade (again, each test is more advanced than the last). I did well but not outstanding on this. My reading skills were always above my grade level, which absolutely helped, but it isn't just a reading skills test, it's a reading comprehension test - and being autistic is a handicap to that.

3) the Connecticut Aptitude Performance Tests (CAPT), tests in science, math, reading, and writing, taken in 10th grade. All four must be passed in order to graduate from high school. I actually failed the reading and writing sections because my handwriting is abysmal and the scorers couldn't read my essays. Fortunately, as a special ed student, I had a waiver and didn't have to retake the test.

New York, I dunno about in younger grades, but in high school they have their Regents exams, which basically function as high school exit exams. You take them senior year, and whether or not you pass them determines whether or not you graduate on time.

The biggest hurdle in most asmissions situations is budget. Tuition doesn't cover the costs per studen, and if it did, the colleges and universities would be empty. Most young people starting out in life don't have the wherewithall to pay for their post-secondary fees, and it comes down to other funding. In Ontario, there is an elementary funding unit called the Basic Income Unit or BIU. For each first-year undergraduate you admit, you get one BIU, except that if the student enrolls in an honors program you get two BIUs. When I was on staff in the math faculty at the University of Waterloo, all pass programs were eliminated and only honors admissions were considered. Everyman wanting a degree in mathematics either had to take an honors course or go elsewhere. The place was full to capacity, and just jumping with orientals. Foreign students' fees at the time were abour triple the Ontario resident fees.

I know of one chap who wanted to be a physician. In spite of a BSc, and MSc, he could not get admitted anywhere in a Canadian university. There was something wrong with his resumé. Because he was of Irish descent, he finally got admitted to Dublin, Ireland. This complicated his life, because in addition to sitting all qualifying examinations all the way through school, he then also had to sit both U.S. and Canadian examinations if he wanted an internship here. He graduated with good standing, but still could not get an internship in Canada in emergency medicine, which was his desired field. He got one in the U.S. He also did an EM residency in the states, then finally using his MD brother's drag, got one in Canada. He is currently practicing EM at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie, Ontario which was his goal all along. Married to the daughter of a friend, he has three kids, a successful practice (hospital only) and has opened an ER clinic in the middle of Barrie in partnership with some others of the same stripe. Ian is getting rich, and expects to retire at age 55. It was an awful fight just getting accepted despite the fact that his father and brother are physicians. So far as I know, he never did find out why he wasn't admitted to an on-shore school. Fortunately, family wealth got him there in the end, along with the fact that his wife works as a designer for a large greeting card outfit.

The moral of these anecdotes is that admissions also depend on the temperature of the coffee in the committee room when admissions are on the table.

Ontario no longer has any qualifying examinations for post-secondary admission. This is now handled in the secondary schools. Students wanting admission to universities (as opposed to colleges of applied arts and technical studies) must take and pass with acceptable marks six or more courses designated as providing an Ontario Academic Credit (OAC). You have up to five years of post-secondary attendance in which to qualify in these. My son got his first one in grade XI, and finished the entire program in four years. He was admitted to the University of Western Ontario in Honors Philosophy and graduated in 2000. He applied to three universities in Ontario and was accepted by all three. I had to twist his arm to go to Western, not because I am a grad there (I'm not), but because the other two were known for going on strike. Sure enough, both of the other two went out, and he would have lost his first year, which probably would have put paid to his post-secondary education. It was a near run thing.

This episode is one the big reasons I am against strikes in the public sector, including private universities. Too many people, and sometimes careers are held hostage by this nonsense. A strike is the result of "bargaining in bad faith", which is usually just a euphemism for the union executive didn't get its perks. This is why the right to strike should be replaced by binding arbitration when bargaining breaks down.

Yes, I can go on and on about this. I have enough life experience in this area to write a book. However, it is time for me to shut up. Those idiots in Wisconsin have pressed one of my hot buttons.

[Duke87 1,070]

Couple tidbits:

1) a college student is suing the TSA for violating his 4th amendment rights

2) a protester gets beat up at a speech supporting protests in the Arab world

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Couple tidbits:

1) a college student is suing the TSA for violating his 4th amendment rights

2) a protester gets beat up at a speech supporting protests in the Arab world

Well, well. The U.S. is becoming a "private" police state? Let's trample the First and Fourth amendments, eh? That holy piece of paper can't protect you in this situation.

[iuri99 48]

"Nothing is more liberal than a conservative. Nothing is more conservative than a liberal."

Just remembering story class.

And about the universities:

Here in Brazil, the Federal Universities its ALL FREE !!!!

If you don't trust in public elementary and high school education, and study by yourself, you does well.

But, we need just a test ( hard, very hard) to enter in the university.

And it's all free, and good.

I know, its not so equipped like an american university, but if you study English and take high scores,you can graduate with international baccalaureate in other country (maybe USA) paid by government and other educational foundations.

Some Brazilians have more chance to study in good american universities than most part of Americans.

Globalization...

  Edited March 20, 2011 by iuri99  

[FreewayofFlight 41]

Couple tidbits:

1) a college student is suing the TSA for violating his 4th amendment rights

2) a protester gets beat up at a speech supporting protests in the Arab world

Well, well. The U.S. is becoming a "private" police state? Let's trample the First and Fourth amendments, eh? That holy piece of paper can't protect you in this situation.

Getting a pat-down at the airport is not a violation of the 4th Amendment, because law enforcement is conducting a reasonable search for devices that can be used to hijack or bring down an aircraft. I may not like getting a pat down or a body scan when I go to get on a plane, but I know those steps are put into place to ensure that the flight I am on is not going to be used in an attack.

People who are making a big fuss about security by screaming or resisting are only making the wait longer for the rest of us. Either grit and bear it, drive or take a train!

[Duke87 1,070]

Getting a pat-down at the airport is not a violation of the 4th Amendment, because law enforcement is conducting a reasonable search for devices that can be used to hijack or bring down an aircraft.

Ever heard of the term "probable cause"? It's one thing to search someone if you have reason to suspect someone might be up to no good. But doing it to everyone is absolutely an unreasonable search because there is no probable cause. It's treating everyone like a suspect and it's an invasion of privacy.

Think about it: airport security is the only place where we tolerate having checkpoints set up where everyone has to get searched in order to be permitted passage. Do we tolerate police stopping and patting down everyone that passes on a random city sidewalk? Do we tolerate police setting up checkpoints on roads where they search everyone's car before they let them drive through? Do we tolerate police stopping everyone at the entrance to a train station and patting them down before they're allowed to get on the train? No? Then why do we tolerate it at airports!?

(although, actually, scratch that last one - NYPD does random bag checks on the subway. Another 4th amendment violation!)

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Getting a pat-down at the airport is not a violation of the 4th Amendment, because law enforcement is conducting a reasonable search for devices that can be used to hijack or bring down an aircraft.

Ever heard of the term "probable cause"? It's one thing to search someone if you have reason to suspect someone might be up to no good. But doing it to everyone is absolutely an unreasonable search because there is no probable cause. It's treating everyone like a suspect and it's an invasion of privacy.

Think about it: airport security is the only place where we tolerate having checkpoints set up where everyone has to get searched in order to be permitted passage. Do we tolerate police stopping and patting down everyone that passes on a random city sidewalk? Do we tolerate police setting up checkpoints on roads where they search everyone's car before they let them drive through? Do we tolerate police stopping everyone at the entrance to a train station and patting them down before they're allowed to get on the train? No? Then why do we tolerate it at airports!?

(although, actually, scratch that last one - NYPD does random bag checks on the subway. Another 4th amendment violation!)

Maybe you thought police states appear out of nowhere? It is done by a gradual erosion of freedoms. It took Hitler nearly 10 years and Germany is smaller than America. A little chip here, a little chip there, chip, chip everywhere. Oh, hello, Nehemia Scudder!

If I were you guys, I would disband all these government police agencies as quickly as you can. You only need two: the CIA, and the FBI. The rest are just an expression of poor confidence in your national police agencies.

  Edited March 22, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[FreewayofFlight 41]

I agree that American Bureauacracy is out of control, Washington could save billions from the budget by consolitating all these fringe agencies.

With that said, the problem with airplanes is that terrorists seem to like to either blow them up midair or use them as missles. It may be less a violation of the 4th Amendment, but paranoia. If an airplane was blown up because lack of security, there would be massive public outrage.

With regards to the NYPD, New York City has been the location of choice for attacks. I think the NYPD is under more pressure to keep another attack from happening.

[Duke87 1,070]

What it is is security theater. None of this nonsense actually makes us any more safe, all it does is make people feel more safe. No matter what you do, there's a way around it, and there's always some other trouble to cause. Keep terrorists off of airplanes and they will blow something else up instead. Prevent them from using airplanes as missles (which is never going to happen again regardless - after 9/11, the crew and the passengers won't let it) and they will find some other way of making big explosions. Timothy McVeigh didn't need an airplane to take his target down...

You can't fight terrorism with extra security. The only effective way to fight it is through intelligence and police work. Stop them before they get to the point of actually attempting something.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

What it is is security theater. None of this nonsense actually makes us any more safe, all it does is make people feel more safe. No matter what you do, there's a way around it, and there's always some other trouble to cause. Keep terrorists off of airplanes and they will blow something else up instead. Prevent them from using airplanes as missles (which is never going to happen again regardless - after 9/11, the crew and the passengers won't let it) and they will find some other way of making big explosions. Timothy McVeigh didn't need an airplane to take his target down...

You can't fight terrorism with extra security. The only effective way to fight it is through intelligence and police work. Stop them before they get to the point of actually attempting something.

It is well known (Gavril Princep is a good example) that you can't stop a determined person from doing what he wants if you don't catch him first. Instead of all the theatrics, you need to increase the intelligence budget and do away with the useless bureaucracies. These varied security outfits are well known for parochially hanging on to their information and not sharing it with others. They jealously guard their patch to the detriment of all. The best way to eliminate this is to eliminate the multiple outfits.

For the benefit of those whose historical education doesn't take in the early 1900s, Mr. Princep was the anarchist who assassinated the Arch Duke Ferdinand of Austria, precipitating the War to End All Wars.

[FreewayofFlight 41]

After 9/11, President Bush apparently tried to bring together all these security agencies under the Department of Homeland Security. But even before then, why on Earth would the NSA, TSA, FBI or CIA risk a terrorist attack rather than to share information? And instead of generating a whole new department, why not fold some of these groups? The NSA could be absorbed by the CIA while the Department of Transportation and the FBI can jointly operate the TSA.

Also, here's a list of U.S. Departments and Agencies if anyone is interested:

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I took a glance at only the first page of that list. A plethora of bureaucrabs. You wonder why the budget of the U.S. is in deficit?

The security mangle is only one of the tips of the ice burg when it comes to bureaucracy run wild. Too many agendas, too many tails wagging the dog. I am sure that each of these was needed at some time or other, but apparently no one believes in sunset legislation. Not long ago, the Brits abolished the guy at Dover with a horse who was to ride to London ringing a bell if he saw Napoleon coming. Sinecures and rotten departments need to be removed if any budget is to survive.

As an example of sunset legislation, the Bank Act of Canada must be reviewed every decade in order to remain valid. If the Bank Act were voided we would shortly have U.S.-style rampant banks.

  Edited March 25, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[iuri99 48]

I'm not American....

What Barack Obama, excluding promise the obamacare and the freedom, what he have done?

[Duke87 1,070]

Well, he got Don't ask Don't Tell repealed.

But yeah, that's about the only productive thing his administration has accomplished so far.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well, he got Don't ask Don't Tell repealed.

But yeah, that's about the only productive thing his administration has accomplished so far.

Pretty good reason to increase the length of the term of the President. Now he will be so preoccupied with the election he won't get anything else done, eh? How about amending the term from four years to six and limiting to one term?

[Tropic Storm 15]

Well, he got Don't ask Don't Tell repealed.

But yeah, that's about the only productive thing his administration has accomplished so far.

He would have done a lot more if he hadn't been talking to a brick wall. The opposition is that brick. No compromise = no productivity.

Pretty good reason to increase the length of the term of the President. Now he will be so preoccupied with the election he won't get anything else done, eh? How about amending the term from four years to six and limiting to one term?

Why just one term, make it unlimited terms! If you like the guy who's in power, why not have them forever. If they slip, cast your vote and kick 'em out.

Oh yeah, and ban lobbyists.

[Duke87 1,070]

Well, he got Don't ask Don't Tell repealed.

But yeah, that's about the only productive thing his administration has accomplished so far.

He would have done a lot more if he hadn't been talking to a brick wall. The opposition is that brick. No compromise = no productivity.

Let's be realistic here. The Democrats were just as unwilling to compromise with the Republicans as vice versa. They had a large majority in both houses and a president backing them, they figured they could just strongarm through whatever they wanted. That didn't work out for them nearly as well as they'd hoped - instead, they created a lot of resentment and a huge backlash among the voters. The timing of the rise of the Tea Party is not coincidence.

Why just one term, make it unlimited terms! If you like the guy who's in power, why not have them forever. If they slip, cast your vote and kick 'em out.

The problem is that it isn't "if you like the guy who's in power", it's "if at least 51% of America likes the guy who's in power". The other 49% of America, then, just gets ignored. Besides, the longer a person spends in power, the more it will corrupt them, and the more stale their leadership becomes. It is necessary to ensure a change in power every so often to preserve diversity and freshness of ideas. After eight years of the same, it is time for something new. George Washington was smart when he voluntarily stepped down after two terms. This became readily apparent after FDR broke that precedent. Hence, the constitution was amended to enforce it.

Oh yeah, and ban lobbyists.

I understand your sentiment, but there's this thing called the right to petition the government which we have to respect.

[Tropic Storm 15]

Let's be realistic here. The Democrats were just as unwilling to compromise with the Republicans as vice versa. They had a large majority in both houses and a president backing them, they figured they could just strongarm through whatever they wanted. That didn't work out for them nearly as well as they'd hoped - instead, they created a lot of resentment and a huge backlash among the voters. The timing of the rise of the Tea Party is not coincidence.

I'm as reasonable as it gets. Compared to the net outside of ST, I always wondered where's the sanity in life.

Anyways, Political parties will always be corrupt and guilty one way or another. But I've never seen the Republicans acts so foolishly as the party of "no". In the healthcare debacle, the Democrats had to strip various sections of the bill, including the public option. Even after those compromises, the Republicans still say "no", along with the words "socialism" and "liberal" twisted even more out of definition. As far as that, the president is just trying anything to get something done rather than nothing. Other provision like the stimulus were outright reckless. Could have thought of better ways to cut that bailout loophole, or was it like that for a reason?

The problem is that it isn't "if you like the guy who's in power", it's "if at least 51% of America likes the guy who's in power". The other 49% of America, then, just gets ignored. Besides, the longer a person spends in power, the more it will corrupt them, and the more stale their leadership becomes. It is necessary to ensure a change in power every so often to preserve diversity and freshness of ideas. After eight years of the same, it is time for something new. George Washington was smart when he voluntarily stepped down after two terms. This became readily apparent after FDR broke that precedent. Hence, the constitution was amended to enforce it.

Terms limits can lead to unaccountability. The president just have to work for one term in office until (hopefully) they gets reelected. If they do get voted twice, the president just gets a free ride. They don't have to care about popularity or voter opinion, because they can’t campaign another try. That was what happened with Bush and his last years in office. Give the president a little incentive to do a good job. Besides, most govts. including Canada, the UK, and most other developed European countries have unlimited terms, and not all free countries have term limits, even communist China has set limits on their president.

About FDR, he did remain incredibly popular with the public in time, in fact he's still considered the most popular president ever. He got a country out of the Great Depression and the the deadliest war in history. Even though his "New Deal" policies ballooned the size of government, they did help revitalize the economy and national morale. Then again for a time like that, Facism spreading like a disease across the west to the east, like our situation today, extreme times with extremist ideologies call for extreme action.

I understand your sentiment, but there's this thing called the right to petition the government which we have to respect.

What I meant about term limits is why I brought lobbying up. Who should influence the legislation are the people who voted them in. Instead, its either business or stronghold advocacy groups that can call an even louder cry to congress than a vote. In fact, the highest lobbying payers are financial companies and the health industry. Lobbying corrupts politicians too (lobbyists, like people and companies, can provide lucrative campaign money). I remember one conversation I struck up with a friend of mine. They said "They don't need any. If they're a politician, they're rich in the first place!"

  Edited March 27, 2011 by Tropic Storm  

[Duke87 1,070]

I've never seen the Republicans acts so foolishly as the party of "no". In the healthcare debacle, the Democrats had to strip various sections of the bill, including the public option. Even after those compromises, the Republicans still say "no", along with the words "socialism" and "liberal" twisted even more out of definition.

That's not entirely true. The Republicans did propose a few of their own ideas (most notably, tort reform and selling insurance across state lines), which the Democrats likewise refused to consider. What eventually got passed contained only the Dems' ideas. The whole "party of no" business is just political spin. Reality is, there was a hell of a lot of "no" coming from all over the place. And the reason the bill was stripped down was not because of the GOP (after all, they were a minority in both houses and the law passed without a single vote from them), it was because the "Blue Dog" Democrats weren't willing to sign onto some of the more Progressive items, and it required things like the Stupak Amendment to buy them off.

Terms limits can lead to unaccountability. The president just have to work for one term in office until (hopefully) they gets reelected. If they do get voted twice, the president just gets a free ride. They don't have to care about popularity or voter opinion, because they can’t campaign another try.

Well, even if the president himself can't get reelected, he does still have his party to worry about.

Besides, most govts. including Canada, the UK, and most other developed European countries have unlimited terms,

Yes, but those countries all also have a very different system of government from the US. It's decidedly different when you're talking about a prime minister chosen by the leading party or coalition of parties in parliament than when you're talking about a president semi-directly elected by the people. In such a position, things are more volatile and one cannot realistically hold the office for an inordinate amount of time, even without term limits, since holding it requires approval from three places: the people of your district need to reelect you, your party needs to maintain the majority, and your party needs to decide it still wants you leading them. By comparison, look at the office of speaker of the house in the US (which is filled in basically the same fashion as the office of prime minister elsewhere) - no one has consecutively held it for more than ten years (Tip O'Neil), and only five other people have held it for more than six.

It's also different when parliament or the queen has the authority to kick the prime minister out at any time if they so choose, compared to in the US where other than losing an election (which is regular only, can't be called) the only way to get the president out of office short of convicting him of a serious crime is to kill him. And even in those cases, all you get is succession, no election until it's time.

About FDR, he did remain incredibly popular with the public in time, in fact he's still considered the most popular president ever.

Popular at the time, yes (over 60% of voting Americans voted for him in 1936), but not so much in legacy. There's quite a bit of controversy surrounding his presidency and his policies, especially these days when we're once again in a major economic downturn, and the issue of size of government and scope of government spending is again at the forefront.