Where I Stand - Lucas Grower: Many teens’ opinions at Youth Forum same as adults

Friday, Jan. 2, 1998 | 11:18 a.m.

IT WAS A CHILLY, late November morning as the best and brightest high school juniors and seniors made their way to the Las Vegas Convention Center, prepared to spend a day discussing issues from law and crime to Nevada.

As I entered my room to discuss the many issues that had to deal with America as a whole, from politics to Paula Jones, it didn't take long to realize that I was in the company of 52 intelligent and well-informed teenagers, who were not attending the day's discussions for the day off school and the free fried chicken, but rather because they were concerned about many issues that affect their daily lives. As each issue was picked apart by the members of the session, it became quite obvious that a lot of the views being expressed were many of the same opinions held by adults and that, for every question posed before the panel, each person had his own original and insightful answer.

The first question discussed was whether the IRS should be reformed, left alone or abolished all together. Everybody agreed that the bureaucracy of the IRS has caused it to lose the trust of many U.S. citizens and that it should be reformed. However, out of necessity for a tax collector, it was also decided that the Internal Revenue Service was needed in our country.

The discussion then turned to the next question of whether congressional hearings are effective or just lessons in futility. Debate went back and forth over this issue, mainly sticking to those who were for congressional hearings as a means of convenience and those who were against the hearings, feeling that they were improperly represented.

The people who were against the hearings suggested that America should rather be a direct democracy where, instead than voting for political representatives, people should flock to the polls and vote every time a new stoplight is to be put up.

Although this was a good idea, it was decided that, due to the unfortunate circumstances that involve low voter turnout for something as important as a presidential election, people would just not vote, thus giving the power of the vote to only a few and defeating the whole purpose.

Afterward, the issue of campaign financing was discussed. Those who were for limits on financing included the reasons that candidates should all have a level playing field to compete fairly, and that a limit would allow people to judge the candidates on where they stand on the issues, rather than on who gets more air time. The main opposition to limiting campaign financing stemmed from the fact that these candidates were only using their freedom of speech and could spend however much money they wanted in order to convey that issue.

Since it was decided that campaigning did involve freedom of speech and that it would be difficult to change the First Amendment, it was decided that limiting campaign financing could not be done and, if it was, it would be unconstitutional.

Finally, before a well-deserved lunch break, the problem of term limits for members of Congress. Normally, when people think of no term limits, they think of congressional dinosaurs who are so senile that they can't even vote properly. However, a different side was brought up in this issue, that of seniority. In Congress, seniority is everything. It can get a congressman on important committees and respect among his or her peers.

Seniority is also very important for a small state like Nevada, which has only two representatives. If our state had to elect new congressmen every few terms because their limit came up, we would never get the seniority that we need to gain some sway in the House of Representatives. Those who believe in the myth that their congressman will become a silly old bag of wind should remind themselves that they, the people, are the ones who put that bag of wind in the House.

After returning from lunch, the debates got very interesting. Right off the bat, the issue of welfare was discussed. As a way of defining what had already become an excellent debate, moderator Danny Greenspun divided the room into people who were for welfare and people who were against it. Many people wanted to be in the middle, but as Mr. Greenspun pointed out, this has to be a very black-and-white issue with no middle stance.

Some people either knew people on welfare or food stamps and expressed the needs of those people to be helped out by the system. These people tried to point out that we need to look for the good in people and not the bad and not assume that these people will milk the system.

Those who opposed these people from the other side of the room stated that many of the people on welfare take the system for all it is worth, due to their inherent laziness and a lack of motivation to get a job that wouldn't pay as well as welfare. The circle of poverty was brought up. The circle of poverty is the theory that a mother on welfare will teach her children that welfare is all right so the children will be on welfare and so on down the line as the circle continues.

Those for welfare stated that a lack of opportunity is what creates the cycle of poverty and that, by offering job training and a dependable check, the cycle can be broken. Others argued that welfare itself started the cycle through the dependency it created. This issue was never truly wrapped up, but the heated debate that raged on from each side of the room proved that the high school students in attendance knew what they were talking about and cared about their everyday lives outside school, friends and games.

Two other issues that were discussed during the session were racism and gun control. On the topic of racism, it was decided almost unanimously that, unfortunately, racism and prejudice are still active parts in our society, but that major steps have been taken since the 1960s and the Civil Rights Movement.

On the topic of gun control, it was agreed that a law is necessary to assure the protection of law-abiding citizens, and then the group discussed how far a punishment should go for those who did not have firearms registered. Although a punishment wasn't agreed upon, it was decided that some form of deterrent is necessary.

As the 1997 SUN Youth Forum wound down, I reflected upon the day's debates that had taken place. It was very surprising to see so many students express their ideas in a calm and organized fashion, which provided for an enjoyable experience. I'd like to thank Bryan-Paul, the recorder from my room who did such a wonderful job. With such wonderful students to debate with and so many dedicated adults who sacrificed their time, it's no wonder that, when students went home that evening, they probably told their parents, "Guess what I learned today!"