Why We Need a Compromise on the Debt Ceiling

The clock is ticking for the Congress to reach an agreement on the Debt Ceiling. The Debt Ceiling was created in 1917 and is used to cap the amount that Congress can borrow. The original Debt Ceiling was set at 11.5 billion dollars, and now the ceiling is at 14.26 trillion. Debt ceiling is usually raised at the time of a spending  hikes or tax cuts is the reason for the raising of the ceiling.

Now today's impasse is that Republicans with the help of their Tea Party base are finding the raising of the Debt Ceiling unacceptable, unless drastic cuts are made to lower the deficit. The cuts that the Republican propose are for 2.5 trillion dollars of cuts for the next ten years in exchange for the Debt Ceiling to be raised.

The Democrats on the other hand want to make it an 80/20 split between cuts and tax increases. Some of the options that the Democrats have mention was to get rid of tax breaks for items like yachts and private jets, and have even gone as far to rescind the Bush Tax Cuts from people that make more than 500,000 dollars. Meager hikes that only affect the wealthy individuals on luxury items.

The problem that arises is the the Republican Party does not want to increase taxes on anything. The idea of raising taxes on yachts or private jets is a non-starter. Pretty much it means do not tax anything or anyone, but only accept budget cuts to social programs. This is disturbing in American society. What is being set up is Un-American.

Here is why. One America is about setting up equal opportunity for all of its citizens. Hence in the Declaration of Independence our founding fathers wrote all men are created equal.( Now we know their understanding and what is accepted now are different, but the idea stays the same.) If all men/women are created equal should be allowed to have the same opportunity. This is where social programs helped equalize the opportunities  for people that were at a disadvantage.

 People who argue with this rationale say that once a person made it to the top that they are a self made man and owe no one for their success or should pay higher taxes. This is laughable. Anyone who was successful has had help. Lets take a store for an example. Minimum wage is 7.25 nationally. Living wage is considered about 11 dollars an hour. The person who starts a business usually pays minimum wage not living wage. Once some one has more money the wages do not change. These people that work 40hrs a week on minimum wage are more likely to rely on government assistance than people who make more. The sad thing is that its their labor that makes huge companies successful.

I do agree we need to lower our debt. If we do not we will be on a course to ruin, but we have to be reasonable human beings and not allow our greed to hamper this process. We are only as strong as our weakest link, and if we follow with only cuts we will become a weaker nation.

Protests in Wisconsin Shows Peoples' Anger to Governor Walker's Budget Measures

In the past week since the fall of the Mubarak Regime in Egypt protests have been springing up against governments in the Middle East and in Wisconsin. The uprisings in Middle East come from anger of autocratic rule, but the protests in Wisconsin about state governments taking away unions to produce collective bargaining agreements.

Collective bargaining defined by the Legal Information Institute from Cornell Law School states, " Collective bargaining consists of negotiations between an employer and a group of employees so as to determine the conditions of employment. The result of collective bargaining procedures is a collective agreement. Employees are often represented in bargaining by a union or other labor organization." The benefits of this are that individual workers join together to gain a better deal, and management is able to work more efficiency by listening to one voice instead of many. Overall, a win win situation for both sides.

In times of economic prosperity, collective bargaining groups do not reap the financial compensation that is awarded to the private sector counterparts, but receive a better benefits package instead. The problem that occurs in times of hardship,the recession, groups that collectively bargain seem to have a better situation than private individuals due to the agreements made previously. A real world  example would be if someone would buy a hundred gallons of gas at 2 dollars a gallon, and could reap the 2 dollar price even if the price rose to 3 dollars a gallon. People who did not lock in the price would be upset  of the benefits received by the person who locked in the price. Now if the price went down to a dollar the person paying two dollars a gallon is still stuck with the price unless he renegotiates, and would only get it dropped to 1.50 instead of the dollar. The person with the gas contact would not have to worry about the market fluctuations, but might might not get the best deal all of the time.   In a time of economic distress and high unemployment people see Unions as a target.

Now to the issues in Wisconsin and their budget fight. The problem lies with a 137 million dollar shortfall that needs to be paid by July 1st. Governor Scott Walker's plan to cover this shortfall is to not allow collective bargaining by public unions except for pay, and that could not rise higher than the Consumer Price Index. If this arrangement would be passed by the Wisconsin State Legislature, public unions would not be able to collectively bargain for their benefit packages. Walker is quoted in an ABC News article by saying,"If we don't do this, there will be layoffs. By July 1, when the next budget starts, we'll have to have layoffs of 5,500 state workers plus a similar number of county and city workers."

The issue that arose from this is how did this 137 million dollar deficit form? Some sources argue, such as Ezra Klein from the Washington Post, that a majority of this deficit came from actions done by Walker in a Special Session of the Legislature in December.  The Wisconsin Fiscal Bureau stated that earlier estimates put the state budget at a 120 million dollars in black, until the December session with the passage of  health savings account, tax cuts for new and relocated businesses, and tax exclusion for new employees. This helped cause the 137 million dollar shortfall. According to Brian Beutler from Talking Points Memo, states it best, " public workers are being asked to pick up the tab for this agenda."

So what is being done to prevent this bill from passing? First is that the Wisconsin Democrats in the Senate have fled Wisconsin to Illinois. By doing this, the Wisconsin State Senate only has 19 members. This makes the Senate one member short from making a quorum. Without a quorum, the Wisconsin State Senate cannot take up any legislative business. Therefore the Wisconsin State Senate is suspended indefinitely, until the Democrats come back. This is a major win for opponents of the bill because when the bill passes the Wisconsin State House it cannot be taken up by the Senate.

In addition to the flight of the Senate Democrats, Union members and students from the University of Wisconsin Madison have also started protests, teach ins, and walk outs.  These protests have been very successful in the amount of people that have came to them.  The average protest numbers at the capital have ranged from 15,000 to 30,000 people and the estimate today was at 40,000 people. At first it was more Union members, but then increased with students and citizens as the week progressed. Even with all of the protesters in Madison the Police report that it has been very peaceful assembly. Teachers throughout the state have been doing their part at all academic levels. Other than protesting teachers have been informing the public of the plan and calling in sick. In Madison school had been cancelled since Tuesday due to the protests and now in Milwaukee school was cancelled today due to the absence of teachers.

The protesters have made their case clear and they are supported by various groups. The most obvious group have been key Democrats such as former Senator Russ Fiengold, Senator Dick Durbin, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and President Barack Obama. The Superbowl Champions the Green Bay Packers have also weighed in and are supporting the protests. Other support has also came protesters in Egypt.  Overall, many different groups of people are supporting protesters.

Supporters of Walker are coming to his aid. Many political commentators such as Glenn Beck, Mike Huckabee, and Joe Scarborough are supporting Walker's proposal. In addition to these political commentators Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Speaker of the House John Boehner have also supported Walker's bill. Not to be outdone by protests,  Red State announced that  Andrew Breitbart  is staging a counter protest on Saturday in support of Governor Walker, and against those"union thugs and clue less college students." Unlike the current protests, which are a large majority of Wisconsinites, the proposed Brietbart/ Tea Party Patriot counter protest will look more like an astroturf protest because of the busing in of out of state protesters.

Granted now both sides by Saturday will have outside influence, and the nation has now taken notice. It will really depend on how both sides handle themselves. The pro-Union side has made overtures to Governor Walker to reach a settlement, but Walker has not responded except for staying the course. Wisconsin Union leaders have done the right thing by fighting for their rights. Governor Walker could have prevented this crisis by not allowing the tax breaks in December or meeting with leaders in January to find common ground in working on a compromise, but his brash ideology brought upon these protests and disruptions. 

Overall, the Unions are doing what they are suppose to do, protecting their workers rights. No one should complain that the protests are unnecessary. Protests are part of democracy. When the Tea Party shows up with their heroes to support Governor Walker lets hope that the peaceful protests will continue, and hope that they will not act in the way of Mubarak protesters in Egypt and cause a violent confrontation. For democracy to work the best it needs to be done in a peaceful and respectful manner, and we hope these issues are resolved peacefully and that both sides are content with the outcome.

In Defense of Public Broadcasting Part 1

Funding for Public Broadcasting is up on the chopping block. Many Republican Representatives in favor of removal of funding argue that cutting all funding will save the U.S. tax payer money for an unneeded item. We would disagree that Public Broadcasting is an unneeded item with its 170 million monthly users. Compared to the U.S. Census numbers of 310 million Americans, Public Broadcasting is used by fifty-five percent of the population. We think that it would be hard to find another item that fifty-five percent of the population uses.

Over thirty Representatives want to eliminate funding and the Corporation of Public Broadcasting. They believe that Public Broadcasting should not be in existence or federally funded. To put this in prospective, Public Broadcasting reaches 99% of public households compared to cable or satellite services, which only cover about 33% of all households. People that do not have the means to pay for television programming of the Discovery Channel can turn to the quality programming of their local PBS station.

Public Broadcasting is a great source for information, educational entertainment, documentaries and local events. Shows like Nova, Nature, Bill Moyers Journal, News Hour with Jim Lehrer, and Frontline. These shows provide new information to a vast public audience. Educational entertainment come from Sesame Street, Word Girl, Barney, and Clifford the Big Red Dog. These shows teach children at a young age skills that they will need the rest of their life. One story in particular comes from Andy Dehnart in an audio essay for All Things Considered in November of 2009. Dehnart could apply the lessons that he had learned from Sesame Street into real life. There are very few shows where life lessons taught to children at the age of 4 that can be applied at 40. Another item is the documentaries that Public Broadcasting helps produce and distribute. In addition to Frontline, Nature, and American Experience; there are the documentaries done by Ken Burns which include Baseball, The War, The Civil War, and Lewis and Clark Expedition. Finally the local programming, is a very important aspect of Public Broadcasting. Local news, entertainment, state issues, and even athletic events were covered by their local Public Broadcasting stations. In all reality your PBS station can cover all your needs, especially now with the splitting of the signal into three channels. We have only covered the tip of the iceberg in the great programming of PBS and the importance that it plays in society.

Overall, society has benefited from Public Broadcasting. The withdrawal of funding from it will hurt future generations of Americans. This funding is needed and should be protected. There are other areas of spending that could handle a cut, but Public Broadcasting is not one of them.


Tomorrow I will cover the importance of National Public Radio and the reason for the assault on Public Broadcasting.

South Dakota GOP Mandates Gun Ownership as a Joke, But leaves Door Open for the Individual Mandate

Earlier this week, the South Dakota State Legislature introduced House Bill 1237. HB 1237 would mandate all South Dakotans to purchase a firearm of their liking for  self defense at the beginning of 2012. The only exclusions to gun ownership would be criminals that are not allowed to have them by law. This story broke in the South Dakota's Argus Leader and in local liberal blog The Madville Times on Monday. The national websites at Talking Points Memo and Politico picked up the story on Tuesday. All of the comments from the local sites and national sites show people upset with this law. When asked by the Argus Leader, State Representative Hal Wicks sponsor of the bill stated, "we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance." Later on Wicks said that this bill was a joke, which did not sit well with many South Dakotans who are worrying about a 107 million dollar deficit shortfall. This joke by these state legislators brings and interesting discussion about the Individual Mandate.

The point of their failed exercise was to prove that the Individual Mandate is Unconstitutional, but they forgot that state governments are different than the Federal Government. The first item that they are not aware of is that state governments are allowed to have Individual Mandates. An example of this is automobile insurance, which every state requires of automobile owners to have the insurance or these owners have to pay a fine. It is mandated by the state that automobile owners are required to have the insurance. This gun law like the automobile insurance law is created by the state regulated by the state.  Therefore there is no correlation between South Dakota's Gun law and the National Healthcare Law. This attempt by these Legislators failed miserably.

Since these legislators were looking to make an example of how in their view that the Individual Mandate was Unconstitutional, lets give them another example how the Individual Mandate is Constitutional and employed by our Founding Fathers. One example is the Militia Act of 1792 signed into law by George Washington on May 8, 1792.  In the organization of the Militia by the Militia Act of 1792 required white males between 18 and 45 to join a militia and be able to supply themselves with the necessary equipment. As seen here in section one:

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack...

As section one reads,"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia."  The only people that were considered citizens at this time were white landed males over the age of eighteen, which this law mandated their military service. This is one example, but playing devils advocate we can argue that this does not require people to buy things. Now if you read further into the act, you can find where the government mandates its citizens to purchase items. As it mandates their militiamen to supply their own supplies for training. This can be seen again in section one:

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder.

This is an mandate by the United States Government for its citizens at the time were required to purchase items for military service. Clearly the United States Government created an Individual Mandate to its citizens and required them to purchase the necessary means for militia service.

The Militia Act of 1792 was repealed with the Militia Act of 1903, because of the need to update standards and to add Federal funding to state militias. Not to argue that the requirement of militiamen to supply their own equipment was Unconstitutional. No one had challenged the Militia Act of 1792 in the 111 years of existence. It had been amended, but no one challenged the Constitutionality of the requirement for militiamen to obtain their own supplies for military service. Overall, this Individual Mandate was unchallenged and accepted. 

The Individual Mandate will be argued until the Supreme Court makes their ruling. Both sides will try to make their own points in the matter.  As the South Dakota Legislators tried to make a point, and my blog post is an attempt to counter their argument. I have tried to provide accurate evidence that back up my points with respectable links. Hopefully, this will be resolved soon.

Representative Paul Ryan Contradicts himself

Watching Paul Ryan's response to the State of the Union response was kinda weird and seemed to be contradicted himself. Some items I would like to point out Government help innovation, Free Enterprise, and Limited Government helps people. We will take time to look at these statements.

Lets start with Ryan's argument that government does not help innovation. Without government help or need to fund the space program we would not have made the leaps and bounds to be behind the Soviets in 1957 to beat them to the moon in 1969.  Without Government funding the innovations for this to happen, we would not have beaten the Soviets to the Moon. That is just one example to prove Ryan's statement wrong. Another one, the U.S. Government created the Internet. It was our need for a communication system if phone lines were down during a nuclear attack that birthed this great innovation.  The second point I would like is Ryan's statement of Free Enterprise is better than Wall Street and the Government intervention. The problem with this Wall Street is our Free Enterprise system. Wall Street is our example of Capitalism  working, if your for Free Enterprise you are for the reckless handling of our economy two years ago. If Rep. Ryan was against Wall Street, he should have argued that Wall Street reform benefited Americans, but he did not and rallied for Limited Government. Going to his final argument that Limited Government did not help the American people. Granted even the President made this point in his speech, but Rep. Ryan did not accept the idea of some expansion of government was necessary in protecting the American people. If we had the Limited Government we would not have Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Labor Laws, and Food Safety Laws. The near crash of the Financial system shows a need that government in regulation, and the programs mentioned in the last sentence show that Government involvement is supported by most people. Rep. Ryan wants a small Limited Government, which will contradict his ideas toward stopping special interests like Wall Street.

The problem with the policies that the Republican House will promote is that they are based on shaky truths. Yes, sometimes government bureaucracies hinders  innovation, but if an overall tally was done it would probably favor that the U.S. Government helps innovation more than hurts it. Free Enterprise does help people prosper from humble beginnings, but it also helps Corporations have a tighter hold on the market and makes competition more difficult. Limited Government is a nice idea to have a government that can flexible and nimble, but are we ready to remove safety nets and cut our ties to a safe Social Security?

Their is a pro and a con to all three items. We look forward discussion all these items on the blog. It was a joy for me to watch the State of the Union Address and the Rebuttal by Rep. Ryan. I hope we move to a more meaningful conversation and improve this country for the better.

Do People Really Want Healthcare Repeal?

*Author's Note: Due to the shooting in Arizona this post was postponed like the upcoming repeal vote. We think this information is important and this issue needs to be addressed. Our hopes and prayers are with people are recovering from the shooting and the families that lost love ones on Saturday.

It has been the goal of the Republican Party to repeal the Health care bill as soon as they arrived into power. The second bill that the Republican House brought up H.R.2 ,Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act, to repeal the current Health care law. Today is the day that the House will vote on this bill.  It will be interesting to see how many Republicans will defect from their parties vote.

According to Mother Jones looking at the January 16, 2011 Washington Post/ABC Poll show at a glance 45% in favor of the bill and 50% not in favor of the bill. The kicker with this is that 13% of the 50% did not think the bill went far enough. In reality that means 58% were in favor while only 37% were not in favor of the bill. Granted the 13% are not happy with the bill, but they are glad that it is there. To show the support of the bill  only 1 in 4 people favor repeal of the bill according to AP-GFK Poll. Overall, the Health care law should not be repealed.The benefits of the law are favorable enough that even polls show people favor this law after they know what is in it.

From a budget perspective repeal is horrible. If repeal passes it will cost us 320 billion dollars over ten years, unlike if the bill still stays in effect which would save us 149 billion dollars over 10 years. That is roughly a half of a trillion dollars in difference between repeal and keeping the law. That is a huge difference. We are talking about 1/26th of all U.S. debt difference.  Money alone shows that this law should be kept.

Overall, we believe that the Health care law should be kept instead of repealed. The benefits law are far better than its imperfections or the process of creating the law. It is in our best interest to improve this law and move forward instead of backwards.

*Updated  The House of Representatives have passed H.R. 2 by the vote of  245 to 189. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has made a statement that H.R. 2 will not be considered in the Senate. Without the Senate voting on the bill it is practically dead.  The only way the House Republicans can stop the Health care bill is by defunding it. That battle will come later on. For more information go to CSPAN website

Is the work of the Civil Rights Movement Deteriorating?

Today is Martin Luther King Day a day of remembrance of the struggles that people endured to provide civil rights to a majority of Americans. Martin Luther King Day was created in 1983 by an act of  Congress and signed by Ronald Regan on November 2, 1983. It officially became a Federal Holiday on January 20, 1986. After it became a federal holiday, it took 14 years before every state in the Union officially made it a holiday.  Most states in the transition had a holiday of remembrance on this day, but did not officially call it Martin Luther King Day.

The Civil Rights Movement was a successful in eliminating discrimination starting in schools and then moving to human rights and then voting rights promised in the 14th and 15th amendment. These were great strides in American civic culture. Now it is under attack. Many Tea Parties have tried to turn back time. Granted they have not repealed the 14th and 15th amendment, but they are taking small steps to change these rights given to all by the Civil Rights Movement.

One  example of this is happening in Wake School District in Raleigh, North Carolina. According to an article in the Washington Post , Wake School District is doing some dramatic engineering to its school selection process. The new Tea Party backed Republican School Board has decided to throw out the diversity standards to the district. What is surprising about this, is that Wake School District is a district that is known their success in integration. Wake School District had the policy of integration to  make sure that all students had an equal opportunity. This policy was enacted in 1970 for racial integration and then in 2000 they changed it from racial integration to economic integration.

Now with the change in the school board and some parents concerns, the school board is decided to remove the diversity policy.  School Board Chairman Ron Margiotta stated about the changes, "if the result is a handful of high-poverty schools, he said, perhaps that will better serve the most challenged students." The new boards idea is that students should be able to go to the schools closest to their place of residence. What happens is that students will not be integrated. Pockets of public schools in the district will be better off than others. This plan will set up separations of economic status.

Separation of economic status is violates Brown v. Education 1954. A quote from Chief Justice Warren's Majority Opinion  that  can apply to this situation:

Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.

Now white is replaced with rich and colored is replaced with poor this statement would still be true. Many studies have have shown that when students in poverty are consolidated in a school the outcome is not benefitical for the students that attend the school. It is important for intergration for the success of all students.

The importnace of  Martin Luther King Day is to remember where we came from and not to repeat it. Moves like this done by the new Wake School Board move us backwards instead of forward. The new civil right movement is not of race, but of economic status. For all of us to be the most productive in society we need to intergrate our schools for the common civic good.  On Martin Luther King Day please look at yourself and society work together to make a better country.




P.S.: So everyone remembers what King said on the Mall on Washington here is the I Have a Dream Speech.

Martin Luther King - I Have A Dream @ Yahoo! Video

Representative Gohmert Wants to Take Congress Back to the 1850s

Yesterday, Representative Louie Gohmert from Texas is introducing a bill that would allow Congressmen to carry firearms on the Senate and House floor. Gohmert argument for this bill is that members of Congress do not feel safe. Gohmert told Politico that,"[He knew] friends that walk home from the Capitol. There’s no security for us.” His solution to this problem is to allow members to be armed.  This does not seem like a good idea, because of the history of firearms on the floors of Congress.

Firearms and Congress historically do not mix well. The best period of history to look at this mixture is between 1830 and 1850s. According to Joanne Freeman in her New York Times article When Congress Was Armed And Dangerous that violence was normal on the floors of Congress at this time. It was found that if Representatives wanted to gain the upper hand in a debate a weapon was a valuable tool.  For example Freeman gives is stories about Representatives threatening each other if angered by a fellow Representatives statement. This attitude slowly came to a stop when telegraph was invented and when Civil War started. Violence was toned down and their were a few fist fights during the Civil Rights Era. After that Congress was more behaved.

Now according to Think Progress the reasoning for Gomhert's bill is that he fears that Congress' civility will deteriorate and duels will come back. This seems like flawed logic. Looking at Freeman's article we see that weapons did not deter violence, but increased it. Congressmen  used weapons to intimidate fellow Congressmen. Weapons should not be on the floor of Congress. If we allow this to happen we are reverting back to the 1850s. With the violent rhetoric used by some members of Congress, giving them the ability to have a weapon of any kind on the floor is dangerous and not needed.

We as a nation need to be civil towards each other. When we form a society, we trust each other to act in accordance to the ideas of law created by that society. When these laws are broken, we break the trust of society. As a society we make these laws to protect society against acts of violence. We should not as a society revert back to violence or threatening themes to get what we want. By allowing Representatives of Congress to have firearms, we will revert back to a Congress of the 1850s. We suggest opposition to any law or rule that will decrease the civility of any society.

Updated: Media Matters has an interview of Representative Gohmert with Fox and Friends. Gohmert argued that, "guns are the great equalizer." Here is the interview below.

Six Dead and Eighteen Shot at Arizona Democratic Congresswomen's Cracker Barrel

Today at about 10 a.m. Mountain Time in a North Tucson Safeway during Representative Gifford's Cracker barrel a gunman, Jared Loughner of Tucson, open fire on the Giffords and the crowd. In Loughner's shooting spree he killed 6 people including Federal Judge John Roll, and 18 people were wounded including Representative Giffords.  Most of the wounded are in critical condition, but hopefully they will all recover.

Now many areas of the web both sides are trying to pin the shooting on different political identities. The more Liberal blogs like Talking Points Memo have pointed out to the web and rhetoric of the shooter matches some of the rhetoric of the Tea Party. While some Conservative blogs like Red State argue that their rhetoric had nothing to do with this and that we will find out that the shooter was a leftist radical.  Both sides are trying to use this as a smear on the other side, but also giving their condolences. It is sad in America today that each side uses a tragic incident like this as political leverage against the other side.

Outlets like Fox News and Tea Party pundits like Sara Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Glenn Beck are the easiest to blame in this situation because their rhetoric is often includes violent language that excites people. They are not to blame for this shooting. All current signs show that they did not influence the young man that committed this crime. The problem though it has been the aim of Conservative pundits to use violent language in exciting their base. If you go to a Tea Party or watch Fox News you will see throughout the day a reference of revolutionary violence either against the 111th Congress or the Presidential administration. Television leaders like Sara Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Glenn Beck help stoke the conspiracy theories by playing them out or creating new ones.  When people believe in conspiracy theories, they start to morph fiction into reality.

Now Liberals are not out of the woods on this one yet. The shooters was not a Tea Party member and had a broad reading list. The overall theme of the list was anti-government not anti-Democrat or anti-President Obama. Talking Points Memo interviewed the Tucson Tea Party and their spokesperson Allyson Miller, said,"she knows the members of her tea party, who she called "reasonable individuals" closer to her age of 55 than the suspected shooter's 22." Yes the Tea Party's average age according to a February 2010 CNN Poll is closer to 55 than 22, but that does not mean the rhetoric only stays with people around the age of 55.  That is the problem today.

The rhetoric used by Politicians, Pundits, and Everyday people is to the extreme. We as Americans now do not hash our differences out now at a coffee table or at a cafe, but with loud speakers and weird signs. Both sides have started an arms race in who can go to the furthest extreme and have the most followers. This is madness. John Stewart was correct in having his Rally to Restore Sanity. By doing that he showed that their are sane people, and they want a voice in government. For us to survive as a country we need to stop the insane rhetoric and to talk to each other as human beings. We need not to call names, but buy each other coffee. If we do that we can bring back civil discourse back to the United States and accomplish something.  If we do not, we could see more of these tragic events. My suggestion to all of you is to by your political opposite a cup of coffee and find some common ground.

House Republican Promises can be Tracked

Now that the Republicans have control of the House of Representative, it should be our job to know their agenda and how they are going to implement it. Now instead of reading the Pledge to America, we have found all fifty promises on on PolitiFact.com from the St. Petersburg Times. I hope you all look at this link and then call your congressional representative if you agree or disagree with the Republicans plan. It should be an interesting two years. Enjoy!

Congress in Defiance: Congressional Democrats and Republicans Saying No to the Obama Tax Plan

Two days ago, the Obama Administration presented a bipartisan plan to stop the gridlock on the Bush-era Tax Cuts and created a tax compromise with Congressional Republicans. This compromise; would extend all of the Bush-era Tax Cuts for all income levels for two years, index the alternative minimum tax for inflation, drop the estate tax down from 45 percent to 35 percent on all income above five million dollars, an extension of Unemployment Benefits for all that apply, a payroll tax holiday of 2 percent, an extension of all tax credits, would allow businesses to write off their capital improvements, and also allow business to keep a research and development tax credit. Overall, with this plan, everyone wins, but this does not help the country to become more fiscally responsible, help the people in the greatest need.


The cost of this plan would be 990 billion dollars. That is 171 billion more than the Stimulus spending in back in 2009. Republicans back then and during the 2010 general election argued that the Stimulus spending was a waste of taxpayer money. In article published in August of this year at the Brookings Institute Senior Fellow Gary Burtless argued, "there are many indications that these policies have been successful in achieving
their intended goals." The tax compromise though, does not look like a policy that will help all Americans.

Today in the Huffington Post Jason Linkins reports that wage earners that make between 20,000 and 40,000 dollars will see an increase in their taxes due to the reduction of available tax credits for that income bracket. While the richest people get the greatest benefit. For example, the richest Americans will benefit from the tax cut, the estate tax, and benefit from the payroll tax holiday. Granted the poorer Americans will receive the payroll tax holiday, but their benefit from the tax holiday is smaller than the lost tax credits.

Overall, the Obama Tax Compromise should not be passed. Obama administration made the best compromise possible with Congressional Republicans, but the problem is that the rich get richer while the poor become the pawns for the powerful. Obama promised during the 2008 election that he would not extend the Bush-era Tax Cuts for the wealthiest. This compromise breaks that promise and should not be supported by Congressional Democrats.

It would be for the best for Congress to reject this plan, because what the nation will give up will hurt us in the end. Example this plan increases the deficit by 990 billion dollars over two years. This plan is supported by Republican leadership, which argued that by electing them they would help cut the deficit. This plan does not do that. If Republicans are serious about deficit reduction, they need to vote against the plan.

Compromise is a great item and should have been used more often during the 111th Congress. Unfortunately, though, this is not one of those times. A new plan needs to put on the drawing board that limits the impact on the deficit, but does the greatest Common Civic Good.

House Democrats Finally Showing Some Backbone

Today the leadership of the House Democrats announced that they will proceed with a vote on extending the Bush-era tax cuts for wage earners that make less than 250,000 dollars. This is a major step forward made by the Democrats. Instead  allowing the cuts to expire or having the Republicans bully them into extending the cuts for all wage earners, they finally showed some backbone. They are following through with the President's promise to only extend the cuts to people making 250,000 dollars of less.

The problem that arises from this move by the House Democrats is that Republican Minority Mitch McConnell (Ky)  stated that that Republicans in the Senate will not take up any legislation unless all of the Bush-era tax cuts are extended for all wage earners. This means that the tax cut extension to the middle class will be delayed or will possibly not get passed. With the Senate bogged down with the possible incoming battle on who will have their tax rate extended, the outlook of other possible legislation passing  through the Senate during lame duck session is minimal. The problem with this is that many things that the American people want are stuck in the Senate.

For success in the lame duck session both houses of Congress need to go to work and stop playing political games. Political games will not lead to success in passing any legislation that will help the American people. Overall, Senate Republicans need to learn that they need to compromise instead of playing hard ball.

Republicans Stall Unemployment Vote in the Senate and 2.5 MILLION people wait for 30 Hours

Yesterday the Senate voted 60-40 for cloture to move forward on passing an extension. This finally passed on the fourth time. Two Republicans from Maine Senator Snowe and Collins voted with the Democrat majority. Now it will go up to a vote in the full Senate. The only procedural method that the Republicans have to slow the vote is to use all 30 hours for debate.
Republicans biggest reason for opposition is the cost of 34 billion dollars. They argued that this bill would increase the deficit. Their solution to help employment is to keep the Bush Tax Cuts. They think that this would help spur job growth.
Unfortunately for the Republicans, it is statistically shown for every dollar given out in unemployment benefits the economy gets $1.62 back. For a tax cut, a dollar given out 30 cents is spent. If you look at this, 34 billion dollars turns into 55 billion dollars. That is a 20 billion dollars injected into the economy, which is almost 2/3 the amount Congress has allocated.
These benefits are needed for Americans to hold on until the economy comes back up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/21/unemployment-extension-re_n_654083.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/20/unemployment-extension-bi_n_652805.html

Texas Board of Education New Amendments to the Social Science Curriculum Give it a Conservative Spin

Friday according to Talking Points Memo the Texas Board of Education voted 10-5 to change their social science curriculum to include a variety of Conservative points. The vote was along party lines some outlets like Fox News have made the argument that this is a war to save our children from evil liberal policies. Other outlets are arguing that what Texas decides shapes the school curriculum for the entire nation.

Major alternations according to the New York Times include works Thomas Jefferson will be limited in talking about the Constitution because he was a strong supporter for the separation between church and state and considered to be a major person in the Enlightenment. He will be replaced with by religious thinker John Calvin the founder of Calvinism.   This only pertains to World History.  Another amendment that is out there is the inclusion of Conservative ideals like Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America," Moral Majority, and the National Rifle Association. Other items lessen with these amendments are the great tragedy of Japanese Internment Camps, the Civil Rights movement will also show the downfalls that it brought to society, and the importance of McCarthyism in the fight against Communism.

The view of history projected by the Texas Board of Education is biased and does not serve a purpose of educating students, but promoted an agenda through the second largest buyer of textbooks. Interesting facts none of the board members are Historians. They do not have any formal training in the subject matter that they are changing. A quote from Mary Helena Berlanga a board member commenting on the amendments, “They are going overboard, they are not experts, they are not historians,” she said. “They are rewriting history, not only of Texas but of the United States and the world.” 

This is an outrage 10 people are holding the history curriculum hostage for their personal beliefs instead of the common good. They are angry that beliefs that they hold have not been criticized by historians and want revenge by altering the textbook for a more favorable view of history.  What they are doing is wrong. History is the way society looks at the past and critiques what went right and what went wrong. By top loading history to benefit one side does not help that side’s argument. History is free flowing and the truth will come out. Unless Texas changes their college, history curriculum the true idea of history will be told.  It is impossible to change history to your liking what the Texas Education Board fails to realize that will history teachers actually teach the lessons that they propose?  What happens when history educators rebel? This attempt by the Republican 10 to alter history textbooks to alter history will not work and will fail.

Representative Boehner is Upset with Obama's Healthcare Proposals

Hopefully everyone knows by now that President Barrack Obama is having a healthcare summit with both political parties to come with a compromise on some healthcare measures. This will allow bipartisan support to healthcare legislation.  Prior to the meeting he has released an 11 page document stating the proposals that he wants to see in the final legislation. Today, House Minority Leader John Boehner complained that Obama's proposal was too small at 11 pages. To put this in perspective, the Republican plan that posted by Minority Whip Eric Cantor is only one page. In the past Boehner complained that the House bill was too long. Now in a reverse fashion he says Obama's proposal is too small. The newscycles only pick up on Boehner's detesting of Obama's proposals instead of what is in the proposal.

Now the problem that might occur is political positioning instead of bipartisan discussion. Granted, differing of views is important to the political process, but compromise is also important. Understanding the othersides view on the manner is very important. In this process of healthcare debate we have seen the Democrats bend over backward to appease the Republicans. Now it is time for the Republicans to bend for the Democrats. Both parties are walking into a meeting and should lookout for their constituents not their political party. This summit will be a great way to show that Congress is not broken.

Why Government is Broken

All the rage on today's Sundays Talk Shows dealt with the public's perception of why Washington is broken. Republican representatives argue that it is the Democrats tactics via the administration and Congressional leadership as the main reason why Washington's is failing, while the Democrats argue it is the inflexibility of the Republicans that do not allow the movement of governmental policy. To their credit, they are both right and because they are both right we as a nation lose.


With the Republican blaming the Democrats for the failings and the sluggishness of Washington politics argue that the Democrats have full control of both branches of Congress and do not care about Republican ideas or amendments. Granted, this is true that Democrats do not need the Republicans blessing to pass many forms of legislation. The problem that the Republicans have is not that they disagree with the Obama administration's view on items, but actually put out legislation that is successful make a good counter argument. Example in November, the House Republicans put out a health care bill on their ideas of healthcare reform. When the Congressional Budget Office scored the bill, it said that it would only cover 3 million Americans instead of 36 million that the Democrats proposed.

That leaves Republicans with their favorite tactic deny that the Democrats have done anything and call them names. If this is not true an examples of Republicans failings of actually debating policy is when they tell the public about "death panels" and "killing grandma". Both of these items are not true, but they can stir emotions of people that do not have favorable views of Democrats and cause them to protest. Another example is claiming the stimulus package did not work, but request funds for their home state. Granted, the argument that if the money is being spent that all states should have a piece is valid. In reality though, they get to position themselves in a politically favorable view and get to receive funding at the same time.

Now the Democrats blame the Republicans as the Party of "No". This is evident by their non willingness to go along with any of the Democrat's major bills such as Healthcare and the Stimulus. The Democrats had an interesting position by having filibuster proof houses of Congress. By having this it allowed them the option to pass anything, but infighting and a strong Republican resistance caused the biggest problems. To help the Democrats out would be a branch of bipartisanship to the Republicans, but the problem with that is that the Republicans do not want to do anything that might help a Democratic agenda.

The problem going with bipartisanship is that people are not going to like the change. Liberal Democrats do not like the catering to the Republicans and Republicans do not like the catering to the Liberal Democrats. This leaves a problem with the Democrats in control of the Congress. If they lean too far toward the Republicans, their base is angry, and if they stay with their base the Republicans argue that they are too partisan. The best measure for the Democrats would be to go with what they can get for the American public.

The gridlock will continue if the political policies are still enacted. We have lost our political middle. The need to have moderates that are willing to work across the aisle is the only solution. For both parties if moderates are willing to broker a deal between both sides comprehensive legislation can be accomplished. Unfortunately, we as a nation have become polarized in our views of political policy and by our actions have helped caused this gridlock. The answer though does not come from the Tea Party or T.V. Pundits, but from the Youth of the United States. We as youth are able to move with our ideas and bring unity to this country for the common civic good. Instead of yelling at your opponent, have a good conversation and agree to disagree at least.

Top Military Official for the "Removal of Don't Ask Don't Tell" and Republicans are Upset with the Answer

Today Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen came before the Senate Arm Services Committee and passionately stated the need to remove "Don't Ask Don't Tell" from American law. In Adm. Mullen's testimony according to the New York Times he said, “No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens." This statement caught everyone off guard, but a bigger bombshell dropped by Mullen really angered some Republican Senators. Mullen continued, "allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do.”


Many Republicans led by Committee Chairman John McCain do not want to repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell" They believe that the system is effective. According to the USA Today, Senator McCain argued, "At this moment of immense hardship for our armed services, we should not be seeking to overturn the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy." Other fears by Republican lawmakers are the possible expansion of these terms including transgender and hermaphrodites.

The view that everyone should be treated equally should go for everything. "Don't Ask Don't Tell" should be repealed. This law is doing two things that hurt America. First, it does not allow every able body person to serve his or her country. In a time of war, our armed services need as many people as we can get. By limiting, this number because some people do want gays and lesbians in the military hurts our armed forces. Second, it discriminates against a person's sexual orientation. We are a country that has fought against discrimination on all levels and for all ideas, but when it comes to equal rights for all sexual orientations, we have fallen behind other industrialized countries.

From AOL News in an article titled, "In Israeli Army, Gays Are 'No Big Deal'" the author Linda Gradstein shows in her article that being Gay in the Israeli Army is not a big deal and it is accepted. She also says that, "The right to be openly gay has been acknowledged in the Israeli military since 1993, and there is little evidence that policy has caused any problems." AOL also ran a story on the British system. In Theunis Bates story, "British Army Actively Recruits Gay Soldiers," that the British Government is recruiting openly gay men for military service. Theunis writes about how fears were not realized,

In fact, the biggest news about the change was that it resulted in no news. Academic studies published in peer-reviewed journals found that allowing openly gay troops to serve in the U.K. had no negative impact on cohesion, readiness, recruiting, morale, retention or any other measure of effectiveness.

Here are two well trained armies with independent studies that show that openly gay members of the armed forces do not pose a threat to the cohesion, readiness, recruiting, moral, retention or effectiveness. Britain and Israel are known for their tough militaries and take pride in their accomplishments. Anything to lessen their effectiveness would be changed.