Our generation is used to getting what we want quickly. We have our iPods and the Internet. We want what we have coming to us, and we want it now. And for the most part, we get it. That is why most of the votes in the under-30 age bracket are going to the Democrats.

No matter the issue, both parties are now talking about change. Change in what? Well, that depends on the party.

As far as I can tell, the Democrats are, much like our generation, about immediate gratification. You want same-sex marriages? You got ?em. You want more federal funding for your education? Got that too. Abortions? Get out of Iraq? ?Free? health care? You can have all of that, and more, with the Democrats in 2008.

The Republican candidates, for the most part, are less concerned with instant results and are more focused on lasting ones. We want stability in Iraq and are willing to ignore timeframes in order to do it right. To get criminals permanently off the streets. The No Child Left Behind Act. Clean air, but with a national plan that works and with no detriment to our economy. If you?re up for a long-term relationship with a political party, the GOP is the party for you.

Given that 20-somethings focus on the here-and-now like the Democrats do, it?s no surprise that, according to CNN, Iowa Democrats had 22 percent of their caucus voters in the 17-29 age bracket. Republicans only had 11 percent in the same category.

Clearly, the Democrats are winning over the youth vote because of the promise of instant gratification. So, when all their policies and directives are focused more into the future, what issues can Republican candidates use to inspire young, want-it-now voters the way the Democrats do? Well, maybe it?s not so much the issues themselves that need reform, but rather the issues on which we concentrate.

Ignore what you want right now, just for a moment, because chances are you?re not going to want the same thing in 15, 10 or even five years. If there is one reason why our generation, as ?poor college kids,? should take the Republican candidates into serious consideration, it is because of tax reform and our economy.

Think of it like this: Nobody honestly likes segregated fees here at the University of Wisconsin. The Badger Herald?s ?gravy train,? right? We pay hundreds of dollars each semester going who-knows-where for the university to use however it sees fit. It?s not a choice; it?s just the way it is. So while we have to take out student loans to pay for books, UW is using our money to fund programs we don?t know about or are vehemently opposed to. Something about that doesn?t seem quite fair.
Taxes are the same thing on a national level.

Now, I?m not saying (and, for the most part, the candidates aren?t saying) that the government should do away with all taxes. There are many public services we do need and that we should pay for ? emergency services like the fire department and police force, for example. However, big government goes overboard. When the government taxes us as much as it does, we have less money for personal use. Whether that extra ?personal? money goes to your pleasure or back to the community you support should be your decision. It is, after all, your money.

The main argument for keeping these taxes is that without them, social programs that benefit the less fortunate will fall apart. If you have no faith in humanity, go ahead and believe that. I?ve seen, however, that charity through the private sector works. Look at Donald Trump if you don?t believe me. Denzel Washington. Oprah. And I only use these examples because they?re easily noticeable and readily available; it happens all the time with the average American, albeit often on a smaller level.