the Long Term tendency of Education

[politicomind]

A major problem with Education as a political issue is that it take so long to actually show itself as a consequence to the economic system or the workforce. Investment in education doesn't seem to show itself for at least nine years or as long as twenty five years, depending upon the age of those receiving the educational investment. In politics, voting is a short term issue. Considering other issues like healthcare, national pensions, homeland security and national defense, these are all extremely short term in benefit or consequences. Healthcare spending can show life saving in just a few months, national pensions can assist those retiring in less than a year, homeland security can defend us day to day, national defense can defend us just as well day to day, but a billion dollars in educational spending will not show real benefits to the US economy for at least ten years. Even if the educational money is invested in college students, it takes a year for the issue to be activated, four years of college, and then two years of on the job experience before the education kicks in and becomes profitable to the US economy, that's seven years... So just as a President is about to leave office he may see that his college investment plans produced a brighter more productive workforce, but is inconsquential to his re-eletability, and it is also inconsequential to even influencing the perspective that he is a good president because he only has a year left and too little time to use his "see what i did for education, so you should let me do other things" argument. The nature of election process and the duration of showing educational benefits is too mismatched. Any President that heavily invests in education would seem foolish because he would never be able to prove if his excess education spending would pay off.

Our forefathers envisioned short presidential terms to ensure that one man was not too influential ... yet negligence of long term issues seem to be the penalty. Education, environmental protection, and international trade concerns seem to be so long term that any president that emphasizes them would be at a disadvantage.

 

[1069]

Our forefathers envisioned short presidential terms to ensure that one man was not too influential ... yet negligence of long term issues seem to be the penalty. Education, environmental protection, and international trade concerns seem to be so long term that any president that emphasizes them would be at a disadvantage.

That seems like a credible assessment of the situation.
I'm not sure what else to say about it.
If it's true, I don't know the solution; I could not, in good conscience, support longer presidential terms. The only thing standing between a large percentage of the American people and abject despair right now is that there is an end in sight: Bush cannot possibly remain in office beyond 2008.
The answer, I guess, is to encourage voters to become less myopic when it comes to issues, and to encourage all people to consider the future and set long-term goals.