Republicans against 9/11 Health Bill

Thursday Republicans blocked a bill that would provide medical care for first responders to the 9/11 attacks who developed health issues.  The vote ended at 57-42 which feel shy three vote (60 needed to advance 9/11 Health Bill).  The House of Representatives passed the bill in September and the Senate votes were needed to allow the bill to move foward for presidental approval.  Supporters of the bill were very dissappointed at this outcome because some believe this was the last chance to have this bill passed.  The bill calls for providing $3.2 billion over the next eight years to treat injuries from exposure to toxic dust and debris at ground zero and $4.2 billion to reopen the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, to help those responders economically . New York City would pay 10 percent of those health costs.  This bill would have helped around 60,000 people who are in treatment programs related to health issue sustained from the attacks on 9/11.  Although there were sponsors for the bill most funding money did come from the government. 

The reasoning Rebpublicans say for the blockage of such an important bill was there vow to block any legislation that does not fund the U.S. government, until a desicion is made over extending expiring tax cuts for virtually all taxpayers including the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans.  Rebuplicans argue that allowing the tax cuts to expire would hurt small bussiness owners and only add to the harsh economy.  Senator Mitch Mcconnell states, “The vows mean sticking ever more closely to the conservative principles that got us here.”  Along with that arguement Republicans are saying the bill would be overly expensive.

 On the other side of the arguement majority of people can not believe the desicion the Rebuplicans have made in not passing this bill.  Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid states, “Republicans denied adequate health care to the heroes who developed illnesses from rushing into burning buildings on 9/11, yet they will stop at nothing to give tax breaks to millionaires and CEOs, even though they will explode our deficit and fail to create jobs.” “That tells you everything you need to know about their priorities.”  Jon Stewart, of the daily show, even had a full segment on the blocked health bill.  He was astonished that Republicans were placing 9/11 first responders in the same boat with immigrants and homosexuals, as they also turned down the Dont Ask Dont Tell policy and the Dream Act.  Jokingly he even calls the 9/11 health bill the “Least We Can Do/No Brainer Act 2010.”  He goes on to explain that while Rebuplicans took the floor to explain their reasoning on Dont Ask Dont Tell and The Dream Act no senators showed up to discuss their oppostion of the 9/11 health bill. 

In my opinion I think it is in very poor taste that the Republicans did not vote to pass the act.  The attacks of 9/11 were made on America and the first responders risks their lives in helping both citizens and the government in return.  The senate should be more focused on the heros of our country then trying to benefit the rich.  If they are truely concerned with Americas economic crisis then they would not vote to extent the tax cuts. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/nyregion/10health.html

http://gothamist.com/2010/12/14/jon_stewart_wants_gop_to_end_death.php

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B903120101210

Proposition 19: A Missed Opportunity

California recently had a chance to pass Proposition 19, which would legalize recreational marijuana use in California for people over age 21, and allow local government to regulate its sale. Unfortunately, this proposition failed to pass, and many potential benefits were lost.

 

For one thing, proposition 19 would be good for the police force. Marijuana is one of the leading causes of arrests in the United States. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Prisoners sentenced for drug offenses constituted the largest group of Federal inmates (55%) in 2001,” and 758,593 marijuana possession arrests (in 2009) help account for this high percentage. Incarcerating prisoners costs the U.S. a significant amount of money, and this money along with the police for could be put to better use in helping to apprehend more dangerous criminals. According to a California NORML report, the “cost of marijuana enforcement in California is over $200 million per year.” Considering marijuana has been found to be at least as safe as alcohol and tobacco so far, if not safer, it seems as though this money could be put to better use in apprehending criminals who actually have victims.

 

According to blogger Jonathan Simon, “legalizing marijuana will deliver the largest possible blow to heinous drug cartels in Mexico for whom marijuana constitutes the second largest source of profits (and possibly the largest).” Mexico’s government is working to stop such drug cartels through military enforcement, but this war “is leading to hundreds of collateral casualties.” By legalizing marijuana, California will help transfer the profits of selling marijuana from the hands of the cartels to the hands of those involved in lawfully regulated business. Though California is just one state and therefore might not make a drastic difference in cartel revenues, California’s legalization would have been a step in the right direction, possibly encouraging other states to follow suit.

 

To be fair, some people argue marijuana legalization has its drawbacks as well. Marijuana is often considered to be a gateway drug that leads users to begin using more dangerous drugs such as heroin, cocaine, etc. However, a 12-year old University of Pittsburgh study finds that “Marijuana is not a ‘gateway’ drug that predicts or eventually leads to substance abuse.” However, the study determined that “most importantly, a general inclination for deviance from sanctioned behaviors, was strongly associated with all illicit drug use, whether it came in the gateway sequence or the reverse.”

 

Another argument claims medical damage will result from the increased use of marijuana if legalized. These claims may be based largely in superstition and “common knowledge” assumptions, however, because researchers at Harvard University found that “the active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread.” According to Anju Preet, Ph.D. and researcher in the Division of Experimental Medicine, “The beauty of this study is that we are showing that a substance of abuse, if used prudently, may offer a new road to therapy against lung cancer.” Despite these benefits, there is evidence that marijuana may cause psychological dependence. However, psychological dependence is a tolerable downside for many legal drugs, including tobacco, alcohol, and even prescription drugs. Because such drugs are legal, the argument of psychological dependency is hypocritical and not a convincing enough reason to outweigh the positive aspects of legalization.

 

It seems many potential benefits were lost due to California failing to pass Proposition 19. Legalized marijuana would have had a positive effect on the economy by saving the police force and jail money and time, and would have also had the benefit of helping to reduce the power of Mexican drug cartels. The negative aspects of marijuana legalization, don’t seem to be that negative at all, or at least pale in comparison to the possible benefits.

 

 

 

http://scienceblog.com/18538/thc-cuts-lung-cancer-growth-spread/

http://scienceblog.com/12116/study-says-marijuana-no-gateway-drug/

http://www.skeptically.org/recdrugs/id8.html

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/53

http://governingthroughcrime.blogspot.com/2010/09/yes-on-prop-19-legalize-marijuana.html

http://www.canorml.org/background/CA_legalization2.html#Costs

 

oh SNAP…a tax on junk food?

SNAP, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is better known as food stamps, has been in existence since the late 1930’s. The program used to have a large base in agricultural surpluses; certain items were on the list based on the growing seasons, and credits were given for other necessary products. Fresh produce and pure juices used to be the name of the game, but President Johnson allowed for individuals relying on food stamp to purchase soft drinks in 1964, and the policy remains today. With skyrocketed rates of obesity, the question of whether or not this policy should be allowed to remain is a large one.
Obesity has reached epidemic proportions globally, meaning that it has “chewed” its way into American politics. Should Americans be allowed to purchase soft drinks and other unhealthy items with taxpayer-funded stamps? Should there be a tax on such items? There is an obvious relationship between price and consumption, so if such items cost more due to higher excise taxes similar to those levied on alcohol and tobacco, people may buy less of them and hopefully lower obesity rates. The government would be helping individuals save themselves from themselves, but the other side of the argument is that government would be invading privacy in telling you what to eat.
According to the Civitas Review blog, the notion that the state, through taxes, should attempt to control your eating habits is a social engineering project that is unacceptable. Another argument is that poor people rely on cheap food to sustain themselves and fast food taxes are regressive (meaning that they would disproportionately affect the poor); I believe there are enough other affordable options available for people to eat healthily. The government could subsidize companies producing healthful items with the money made on the excise taxes from unhealthy items. The money could also be used to help fund the new health care plan since so many people already have medical issues due to obesity. The Civitas blog is thereby unfair and incorrect in its argument that the government would be too controlling if it were to implement such regulations; government is there to protect the people, and helping to prevent obesity is certainly taking a step to keep us out of harm’s way.
According to N. Gregory Mankiw, a Harvard economics professor and author of the New York Times article referenced here, obesity has negative externalities (it affects people other than just the obese individual), meaning that there can be taxes against it. Consumption induces obesity-related illness, which raises health care costs that we all pay for through higher taxes or insurance premiums. Obesity also causes individuals to impose a negative externality on the future versions of themselves; the person today enjoys the consumption, but the person tomorrow pays the price of increased risk of illness. Taxes on items with short-run benefits (instant gratification and enjoyment) and long-run costs would make us realize that we need to be cautious of our future welfare.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-bowman-simon/post_1347_b_789547.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/business/06view.html
http://www.civitasreview.com/politicians/kinnaird-wants-to-control-what-you-eat/

Why we are staying in Afghanistan

President Obama announced in December 2009 that starting in July 2011 there would be a draw down of troops, but a senior administration official strayed away from that idea saying “no judgment on the scale or pace of those reductions,” which CNN translated as “don’t expect a significant drawdown of American forces in the summer of 2011.” The Obama administration has changed their outlook on the war to end so soon, and now there are stories of troops staying until December 2014. It is also called that even after troops leave NATO will remain to help training and miscellaneous tasks. There has been major protests in Washington about the war, and even one recently where 100 people were arrested (Video http://cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/12/16/vo.dc.wh.protests.wikileaks.cnn).

Despite protesters having their right to disagree, it is also important to understand why it is a good idea to stay. At the most basic level, peopuit on a job when they have not completed the task. Opponents can argue that in Afghanistan it is too dangerous and there are no benefits to completing the job. According to a CNN post, if we added more time in this war then Taliban forces will be discouraged because the more time we occupy, we are building the Afghan Army and we will have more time to train. If we walked in, we can’t back down with no real progress when we can extend the time a little longer. Also, the protesters that ask “what about the troops, and their families?” know the answer is that the troops signed up for the military and they knew what they were getting into. Americans are proud to fight for their country and its protection. Americans are also proud to help other countries, and there are few important operations the Afghan Army has made without American support. According to an article on the Washington Post website, ABC, BBC, and the International Republican Institute, about two-thirds of Afghans recognize their need for foreign (more specifically American) assistance. The U.S. goal, and Afghan army’s, is to stabilize the country and provide security. The protesters of the war can look at that sob story and think about helping the citizens of Afghanistan control their country instead of thinking of our troops that volunteered to make the world better. The fight is not about war, but it is about country-stabilization and helping the people living with dangerous terrorist organizations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031103394.html

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/17/us.afpak.review.analysis/index.html

Prosecution of Wikileaks – Too extreme?

The wikileaks scandal brings up two crucial areas of interest. The first is how the United States government plans to punish the website’s founder, Julian Assange. The second is how the United States will bring Assange to court. This contentious situation alludes to social issues of personal rights and issues of national security.

There are many contrasting opinions about the potential severity of Assange’s punishment and if he should have a punishment at all. This controversial issue simmers down to a question of media censorship and journalistic expression. The United States government reports that Mr. Assange may be punished under the 1917 Espionage Act which “punishes leaks involving, and injuring, America’s ‘national defense’”.  On the other hand, Wikileaks is portraying their organization as one with journalistic and creative intentions. Assange is fighting the accusations with the Wikileaks’ first amendment rights to protection of the press and free speech. If the United States government resolves to punish Mr. Assange then a question of first amendment rights arises.  Allen West is a politician that supports a United States that condemns Mr. Assange under the 1917 Espionage Act as evidenced by this video.

While Julina Assange did, in fact, publish classified information about the United States, his punishment should be dually shared with the traitor that gave him the information. This traitor of the United States Government acts against all codes of honor, pride, and national security in an act of treason.  Mike Huckabee, a passionate Republican, claims “Wikileaks source should be executed.” In my opinion, this statement is rash and extreme but Mr. Huckabee is prudent in accusing the source of the leaked information, the ultimate cause of this whole scandal.

There is another obstacle that impedes the United States’ charges against Julian Assange.  The founder of Wikileaks is currently battling with “an extradition request from Swedish prosecutors who want to question him on sexual-assault charges.” Of course, Assange’s lawyers are protesting that this extradition is based on ulterior motives that involve the Wikileaks scandal and the United States. My prediction is that Mr. Assange will be charged by the United States, as international powers will concede to the wishes of the United States. As the United States is such a global powerhouse economically and politically, their influence is insurmountable in Europe. On that note, I think it would be a different situation if the case were in China, a competitive and rising power in the global market.

http://www.economist.com/node/17730546?story_id=17730546&CFID=156987049&CFTOKEN=19208694

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/30/mike-huckabee-wikileaks-execution_n_789964.html

Politicians need to put up or shut up

A new bill proposed by the Obama Administration is calling for cuts in medicare and social security but with large tax increases. It is said this bill will never see the light of day but John Cowan is urging politicians to hold strong to their bill. Cowan also said that both Parties have failed to ensure what they had promised while in power. Is this just a good thought or is this bill an actual possibilty if politicians show courage.

Another article I read was reading also questoned the power of politicians. It was an article regarding the Arizona Immigration Law and how the owner of the Pheonix Suns basketball team felt about the new law. The owner was against the bill, and started critizing the politicians about how they were crooked. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer had this to say in response ” What if Suns owners discoverd hords of people sneaking into games without paying? what if they had a good idea who the gate crashers are, but the ushers and security personel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldnt be rejected. Futhermore, what if the Suns ownership was expected to provide those who sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink? And what if, on those days when the gate crashers became ill or injured the Sun had to provide free medical care and shelter?”

After hearing statements about what politicians think and the outreach of their power can we trust them to do what they say they will rearding tax increases or is the politicians speaking back to the Owner of the Suns smart when Government never interferes with the realm of sports. I believe this is all aplot to show that the government thinks it can do what ever it wants. To a certain degree it can but let non- governmental issues be reslved with out the government.

 

President Barack Obama’s Debacle

It seems that President Obama has been quite combative towards both his liberal and conservative critics over issues he feels should be more relevant within Congress. However, those issues that seem to be resonating with the conservatives are more geared towards the tax reforms that would continue bush-era cuts to all income levels. According to Simon John of New York Times’ Economix, “President Obama and Congressional Republicans have reached a deal that would cut taxes ‘for all Americans.’ Their argument is that this package will stimulate the economy, create jobs, and help lead to economic recovery and sustained growth.” I do not believe this. Tax cuts coupled with more government spending cannot serve as a viable option during these trying economic times. With fiscal austerity looming and budget cuts across all states, the money to fund the government’s spending in order to get it out of recession is only adding to the nation’s debt. With this new tax bill, the grave only seems to be graver. It may certainly lighten an ever-growing burden on family households temporarily; however, the way towards economic stability lies on a firm balanced budget that promotes long-term prosperity.

How is it even possible to have articulated the compromise that the President and Congress have almost agreed upon? Cut taxes AND more government spending? I believe this to be as taboo as it can get. Certainly, during these times, one would think it would be more important to own up to the dyer economic situation at hand and make hard, yet beneficial sacrifices for the long haul of things. Instead, it seems as if in order to get anything done within our political environment, everyone needs to be happy and coerced. I agree with Huffington Post’s Mark Engler’s statement “I’m glad that Obama feels it necessary to scold the Left. I think the White House is feeling a backlash to its new compromise that is far harsher than anything it expected.” The state of our policy-making institutions as of late resembles that of a baby needing to be coddled and pacified at the ever-so-slightest glimpse of change. Perhaps this is why President Obama is starting to show a little frustration through his defensiveness to those who put him in the White House in the first place. Those so willing for change are no longer voicing concerns for the issues that our President is clearly more passionate about. Rather, they are taking the side of the his opposition, abandoning the band wagon as soon as the potential sound of loose change from tax cuts resonates from the distance.

Although the Democrats have seen huge loses within Congress due to the change in relevant issues, President Obama need not worry about his own election primaries that seem more likely to approach sooner than any deal made on legislation. Why the lack of fear? Well, those liberals who are actually interested in the bleeding heart issues- those that’ll actually induce change in a nation- haven’t quite made their way out of the woodwork for these boring tax reform deals. And even though Obama’s approval rating is still plummeting, an air of confidence assumes the position from which he stands. For, come election time, these liberals would not dare jump ship to the red. Nate Silver from New York Times’ FiveThirtyEight Blog states “Still, just because liberals are disappointed with Mr. Obama does not necessarily mean they will fail to turn out and vote for him when the only other choice is a Republican. In some ways, it probably helps Mr. Obama that the country has become so polarized and that liberals view Republicans as such an unacceptable alternative, and vice versa.” This statement makes me question the true state of American Politics.  Is this really what politics have boiled down to? Deciding which politician is the lesser of two evils? In some respect, I do believe that is what has become of American Politics. The citizens of this country are engulfed in the notion of partisanship and party affiliation, degrading the genuine importance of certain political, social, and economic issues. The value of politics have deteriorated into a game of tug o’ war in which team captains fight for the majority of members for their individual teams.

Despite the frustration and criticisms coming from his own party, President Obama knows that they have little else where to look. Maybe this is an opportunity for President Barack Obama’s reelection. Or maybe this is an opportunity for those who have lost faith in President Obama to elect  a presidential candidate that proves to be the lesser of two evils.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/12/why-extending-bush-tax-cuts-is-far-from.html

 

 

 

Step Your Game Up, Military.

The issue of homophobia and homosexuality is undoubtedly a controversial issue globally. Within the United States of America where politics permeates all aspects of the lives of citizens, advocates of homosexuality are campaigning for legislation that will ameliorate the inequality. While homosexuality is accepted by many citizens of the United States, components of the legislation that guides American life is biased and inequality, discriminating against homosexuals. The most prominent issue in Congress is the repealing of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, a policy that allows a serviceperson expresses him or her sexual orientation to be honorably discharged from the military.

Growing up in the liberal college town of Chapel Hill, I was curious to explore how and why conservatives were against the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. According to the Marine Commandment General James Amos, the repealing of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy will cause “marines to be so distracted that they would die in the line of duty.” While this statement is both offensive and extreme, I understand the concern that he expresses. As homophobia is a major problem of personal opinion in the United States, many service people from all divisions of the military do not feel secure or comfortable around homosexuals. Consequently, this insecurity and weariness can have a negative effect on the performance of a serviceperson as it may undermine the safety of that service person and the nation he or she is protecting. In addition, the Chief of the U.S. Marine Corps stated repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy could “jeopardize the lives of Marines in combat by undermining closely knit units.”

If those closely knit units are undermined, I wonder if individual homosexual service persons are in danger of violence or isolation by expressing their sexual orientation. This in fact does undermine the closely-knit units that are necessary in combat and other areas of the military. On the other hand, the controversial policy denies homosexual service people to confide in their heterosexual companions and colleagues that further cause internal issues.  While my views may be a bit optimistic, I think the repealing of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy could be a historic piece of the social and political movements in the United States as it could encourage the rest of the country and the citizens to rethink the oppression and harassment of homosexuals.

From a statistical standpoint that the United States government has conducted on various military personnel, the overall attitude of individual service people support the repealing of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. According to the surveys, 92% of service people did not voice a problem with working with their homosexual co-workers. Isn’t that the most important opinion? The opinions of the service people whose jobs are to protect the nation while working along side gay colleagues. It seems the leaders of the United States Military need to listen to the views of their employees who are encouraging the protection of homosexual workers. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, no citizen can be denied equal protection under the law – including homosexuals.

 

Global warming- a bipartisan affair

As I walked from my final exam, feet slushing in the snow, I called my mother. When she made a comment on the crazy weather, I attributed it to global warming and she murmured her ascent. I did this so quickly, and with so little hesitation, because I know without any doubt in my mind that global warming exists and that it is responsible for the freezing temperatures as of late.

While scientists still have some difficulty agreeing on the specifics of global warming, over the last decade meteorologists across the world have all begun to come to an agreement; it is happening. More than that, they have recently theorized that global warming is responsible for the ultra cold winters we’ve had recently. This commentary on the phenomenon was written by experts, by scientists who are trained to evaluate the weather.

Leave it to Fox News to be unsatisfied with expert opinion. News anchors, people who make their livelihoods by focusing on political issues, have now decided to take up amateur meteorology,  apparently. According to prominent Fox News personalities, these snow storms invalidate the mountains of empirical evidence supporting global warming.

This opinion is laughable, and it does absolutely nothing to aid Fox News’s effort to appear bipartisan. The pundits on the right wing channel are actually calling the climate change “Weather-gate.” Likening a natural phenomenon to a conspiracy executed by a Republican president?  Call me crazy but I don’t really see the comparison.

At the beginning of the media coverage about global warming, some years ago, there was some room for scholarly debate. Perhaps in this moment the term “Weather-gate” might have been appropriate; there was still a chance climate change  was some kind of liberal conspiracy. Now, however, in a moment of such resounding support of the climate change, it would bequeath the anchors of Fox News to stop broadcasting their ignorance. Global warming is affecting them too.

controversial DREAM act

In Texas, on Nov.30, more than a dozen protesters were arrested at the local office of Sen. Hutchinson following a six-hour sit-in protest (news clip). Sen. Hutchinson later sent out a letter urging protesters to take more peaceful approaches to express themselves. Many say as the year end approaches, DREAM act advocates and its Democratic supporters are getting worried. One theory is that DREAM act will be turned down when the Republicans take over the house at the start of next year. Therefore, now seems to be their last moment of hope.

 

However, their work didn’t pay off well. In Michael Cutler’s article “The DREAM act v. the American Dream“, he used “Chutzpah”(meaning gall or nerve) to describe the protestors’ attempts to seize the last opportunity in ‘lame-duck’ session of congress. He pointed out that most of senators who would favor the DREAM act are those who have already been elected out of office . In his article, he listed the reasons for his opposition to the bill: 1, It takes advantage of citizens’ compassion to “Youth”, while immigrants up to 34 years old are eligible. Mr. Cutler believes people in their 30’s should not be considered “minor”. 2, Once they are legalized, they would seek their spouse and children to become legal immigrants as well, which will create additional burden to health and education system. 3, Employers once hired illegal immigrants would fired newly-legalized people and hired new-round of illegal immigrants to avoid extra payment and employee welfare, which is vicious circle.

The GOP people have a long history of dissatisfaction with the bill. Early in September, Senator Harry Reid (Dem) launched a sneak attack by adding the “DREAM Act” to the Defense Authorization Bill without a hearing. That behavior angered many republican members. After mid-term election, when President Obama proposed to vote on DREAM act, Republicans became skeptical whether this bill is his strategy of winning votes from Hispanic population.

While on the supporters’ side, besides massive sit-ins, gatherings, and campaigning, they use emotional and moral approaches. In a typical supporting article “a rallying cry in support of an immigration bill“, Kirk Semple stressed on points that American is illegal youths’ only home, and they are innocent when they were brought into States. Or saying illegal immigrants are behaving better than average American kids and therefore deserve chance for higher education. They call out people’s “humane” side to respond this issue. Recall “legalizing dreaming” by rachelkokenes and “Sharing the American Dream” by bmw33, both authors support the bill, and part of reason is from sympathy from morality and emotion. A more rational-analyzed article persuades audience that America needs educated workers and give them opportunity will eventually boost the economy.

As Senate Sessions once said (and I agree), the DREAM Act is “controversial”. It is controversial because no one is certain about the bill’s economist feedback, especially when government is facing huge spending deficit. in articles, there are two strategies of arguments: emotional and rational. In my opinion, both are convincing and accurate in making their points. They both rely on and predict nation’s economy to address main thesis. However, I find myself uncomforting reading parts of passage with strong emotional negative words. For example, the accusation of being “cruel” and inhumane” from protesters and the calling of “lame duck” session from conservative authors. I think they are inappropriate and disrespectful. And such strong disputes will only make previous arguments less credible and less welcomed by readers.

 

Reference:

http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/17/obama-pass-dream-act-in-lame-duck-session/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/09/21/sen_sessions_blasts_controversial_dream_act.html