According to AAA, the national average price of gas is $3.86/gallon, steadily increasing almost a penny a day. Last year, the average price around this time of year was $2.85/gallon. While the gas prices seemed to have gotten out of control, the Obama administration had decided to step in to make sure Americans are not being cheated.
Obama has approved an assembly of a new task force to investigate the high-rising gas prices this past week. On CBS’ “Face the Nation” with Bob Schieffer, Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal formulated a jury investigation of possible wrongdoings in relation to the rising gasoline prices and spoke with confidence that this investigation could be a cure to the pain of the nation’s empty wallet syndrome. He stresses that the government will not tolerate any type of action that may be cheating Americans or any illegal trade speculation.
While the gas prices remain a problem in American, there is not much citizens can do. People still need to drive to work, school, amongst other activities or obligations they have. Whether they like it or not, they will be forced to pay the price of freedom in America.
Obama disagrees with Republicans proposal to cut and that “the 70% of clean energy investment cut will harm the efforts of reducing gas prices.” The gas prices have negatively affected Obama’s approval rating and believe that he is to blame for the current status of the economy. While Obama’s ideas for clean, alternative energy seem plausible, it is merely idealistic and not realistic at this time. In fact, it will cost taxpayers more and just continue the steady hike in gas prices.
In an address he gave on April 23, Obama stated that there is “no silver bullet” for gas prices. He believes that we need a long-term solution and that we should cut wasteful spending but invest in our future instead of sacrificing it. However, I do not think we should worry about something such as alternative energy until the nation can walk on its own two feet again. With the value of the American dollar decreasing and consumer products and education costs increasing, these matters should come first. Once we are balanced economically as a nation should we then progress towards “alternative” solutions.
Amanda Leonard, Communication Studies, Wilkes 2013
“Cluster of words are dances of
attitudes” is just one of the many thoughts of Kenneth Burke relating to
dramatism. This idea of dramatism clearly stands true throughout Corbett’s
speech. He is all over with his words and the way he arranges them. In the very
beginning of his speech he is doing a great job of relating to the people of
Pennsylvania. According to Burke it would be a great use of agent, but then he
begins speaking about cut backs “I’m not asking you to read my lips, I’m asking
you to read my budget”. This is a perfect example of purpose within the pentad.
He is directly saying what he wants the people of Pennsylvania to do, but maybe
not be saying it in the best way. Does he even have the authority or
credibility to speak this way to Pennsylvania? This could be taken many ways
and if one is like Burke, using language as symbols, that statement sends the
symbol of arrogance and rudeness. He is just making a statement that he wants
the people of Pennsylvania to read his budget and understand he is doing it to
repair the deficit but he could have different work usage.
Agency
was not carried out well with his previous quote. He did not create or
accomplish anything positive with that comment, if anything he could have
offended people right at the beginning of his speech. Therefore they already
were annoyed and this could have reflected how they heard the rest of the speech
he had yet to give.
There
has been some reaction to his speech especially concerning the budget cuts to
education. There were rallies on St. Patrick’s Day, and Corbett has not
responded to them well. He completely avoided the protestors, and he is not
facing his actions head on. He is acting like he has something to hide, and
that is the true symbol of a coward. The scene for this was clearly defined by
his words and his plans to cut education funding which directly caused the
protestors. He has clearly upset a wide range of people within Pennsylvania and
is not making a huge effort to improve his image.
The main substance of Corbett’s budget was focused on
four core principles; Fiscal Discipline, Limited Government, Free Enterprise
and Reform. He then broke his speech down into these four principles to further
discuss each of them.
For Fiscal Discipline he made it clear that Pennsylvania
would have no new spending. With new spending creates more debt and
Pennsylvania already has enough of that. Plus this will support the road to
limited government. He did make a positive point when talking about fiscal
spending: “We need to find ways to make things work, to make jobs grow. It’s
easy to find a reason to spend. Now we have a reason to stop” said Corbett.
Most Pennsylvanians can most likely agree with this. His agency was a little
lacking. He made a valid point that new spending needs to stop, however he was
vague on how that spending is going to stop for the most part. His use of
language was well chosen though. He used great metaphors and made it easy for
the common person to understand, however he again was not very concise. He
addresses specific problems and areas that are going to have funding cut, but
does not explain it thoroughly like he should when such major cuts are going to
be implemented.
Corbett then diverges into limited government. He says
limited government is not mistaking someone else’s property for your own. Then
begins to address the Marcellus Shale Commission; he made it clear that
Pennsylvania needs to look at the Marcellus Shale Commission as a resource, not
just something new to tax. His use of language while talking about the
Marcellus Shale was more positive and not as harsh. This showed that he wants
to create something positive for Pennsylvania, but with anything the results
will be only be seen within time.
Corbett began talking about free enterprise with saying
that it should not be regulated by lawyers and the potential for lawsuits. With
that fear who would want to start a business, let alone be financially sound to
cover those expensive insurance costs. Legally liability is scaring jobs away.
He wants to change this tort law and reform it. This again was a good point
made by Corbett. He clearly defined what he felt the problem was and wants to
fix it. Plus he laid out a possible way to accomplish it. His agency and agent
were well presented it’s just a matter if he can really put it into effect.
To wrap up his speech he began talking about a wide
variety of topics from integrating prisoners back into society to the expense
of government as a whole. He has plans to reform Pennsylvania, just they were
very broad. His agency here was spread out and not concise. He needed to focus
on one or maybe two aspects he could really focus on and improve. His agency
here was not well executed. He failed the whole pentad towards the end of his
speech, especially when addressing reform in Pennsylvania.
Corbett concluded his speech by saying “Let’s build a new
Pennsylvania”. He gained some of his agency back here by having better language
usage, but again only time will tell. Throughout his whole speech his language
was harsh. He was not comforting; he was strict and made it clear what he
wanted. Also it was noted that he was not having room for suggestions or
discussion on the matters. When giving a speech with the importance of this
one, he should have been a little kinder to the people of Pennsylvania because
people are losing their jobs because of budget cuts, or funding for their
education. His actions are having life changing consequences and he was not
compassionate about at all. He did not identify with his audience at all, and
that truly hurt his speech. In the future he should realize that even though
these actions may have to happen he could present them in a better manner to
make his audience understand and hopefully cope with consequences better and
not have protests along with in general other angry Pennsylvania citizens.
