In The Texas Tribune they have a fantastic article discussing the death penalty. I found it very interesting that in America we did not have the death penalty in use for many years and what started us using it again was an execution in Utah thirty years ago by firing squad. I would have thought that type of execution would not have occurred as recently as thirty years ago.I am also astonished that the current use of the death penalty has only been around since I was born.
In Texas, the death penalty is a hot item of conversation. I would love to see if use of the death penalty is decreasing due to the death penalty "doing it's job" and persuading people not to commit crimes or is it due to the fact that, as a culture, we are less likely to hand out that punishment. If I were pressed to choose which is the reason, I would certainly lean more towards our culture being less likely to use the death penalty then anything else.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
A Response to "Has Government Sold Out?"
I believe Christa Vargo hit the nail on the head when she wrote her blog post "Has Government Sold Out?". She feels that there should be a cap on political contributions to limit the need for politicians to sell their votes for donations and to enable them to start focusing on what the people really want.
I agree completely. I also agree that if we place a limit on total contributions it will allow more people into the field that previously would have no chance at winning because they could not raise the same level of funds. Our politicians are so focused on money and so many of the top "1%" of money makers are running the government that it is hard for them to objectively makes laws and run our country in a way that really benefits the majority instead of running it in a way that benefits mostly the rich (themselves).
In the link she shared that shows that money really does win elections, I was appalled to find out that Obama declined the use the public financing that is offered to top ticket candidates and still significantly beat out McCain on money for his election. It is virtually like buying a seat in congress or buying a presidency. This has got to stop. There is no reason why they need to spend a million or more to be elected and with each candidate that raises more, it raises the price it takes to win. This link she shared was perfect for her points. It spells out everything that she was saying. Overall, this was a great opinion piece and I really enjoyed reading it.
I agree completely. I also agree that if we place a limit on total contributions it will allow more people into the field that previously would have no chance at winning because they could not raise the same level of funds. Our politicians are so focused on money and so many of the top "1%" of money makers are running the government that it is hard for them to objectively makes laws and run our country in a way that really benefits the majority instead of running it in a way that benefits mostly the rich (themselves).
In the link she shared that shows that money really does win elections, I was appalled to find out that Obama declined the use the public financing that is offered to top ticket candidates and still significantly beat out McCain on money for his election. It is virtually like buying a seat in congress or buying a presidency. This has got to stop. There is no reason why they need to spend a million or more to be elected and with each candidate that raises more, it raises the price it takes to win. This link she shared was perfect for her points. It spells out everything that she was saying. Overall, this was a great opinion piece and I really enjoyed reading it.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Red and Blue
I have been mulling over the differences between Republican and Democrats. I find both of them valid and at the same time flawed.
If Republicans truly want more state oversight and regulation and less government interaction, then where are all the state laws that we need to protect the citizens from money hungry corporations? Why do we not see more Republicans swarming state capitals and influencing more state government issues? If they truly believe in less national government and more state government, they can't expect to walk up to Washington D.C., strip away all of the big government and say "We've fixed all our problems." If the first thing they do is strip away big government then they have effectively left the public at a huge disadvantage. I find it compelling that Texas, being such a Red state, has effectively dismantled our state level government instead of making it bigger. The true idea would be to build up strong state governments and then seek to dismantle the national laws that are redundant. Then as a nation we could ease off expecting the national government to take care of our needs and trust in the states to take care of us.
As for Democrats, I personally am leaving my Republican roots and leaning left more regularly because I feel businesses will not regulate themselves. It has been proven repeatedly that businesses will cheat, lie, steal and abuse their consumers and workers. The states have not protected us well enough and an incident with an insurance company proves the point. In 2008 Conesco had to pay around $32 million because their subsidiaries wrongfully denied claims, delayed claims and misled their elderly costumers. We feel like the states are not protecting us, so the government should step up to the plate. The flaw here is that this is exactly opposite of what the founders of the constitution wanted for us. The Bill of Rights wasn't even supposed to be applied to the states. It was truly only to be applied at a federal level and was almost left out entirely because many of the founders believed the states would be responsible for regulation. We were truly supposed to be independent states where each state could have completely different laws, united only for minimal purposes. I guess I lean more to the left because our 200+ year track record of states regulating things doesn't bode well for the future.
I don't know if there is a better way than what we have going for us now. Sometimes I wonder if we had more options, multiple parties, if that would help address these issues, but right now it seems that any third party (on a presidential level) only serves to detract votes from the only two parties that obtain anywhere close to enough votes to win. However protests and taking test cases before the Supreme Court does seem to have an impact on how laws are seen and used. I guess time will only tell what can make a definite change.
If Republicans truly want more state oversight and regulation and less government interaction, then where are all the state laws that we need to protect the citizens from money hungry corporations? Why do we not see more Republicans swarming state capitals and influencing more state government issues? If they truly believe in less national government and more state government, they can't expect to walk up to Washington D.C., strip away all of the big government and say "We've fixed all our problems." If the first thing they do is strip away big government then they have effectively left the public at a huge disadvantage. I find it compelling that Texas, being such a Red state, has effectively dismantled our state level government instead of making it bigger. The true idea would be to build up strong state governments and then seek to dismantle the national laws that are redundant. Then as a nation we could ease off expecting the national government to take care of our needs and trust in the states to take care of us.
As for Democrats, I personally am leaving my Republican roots and leaning left more regularly because I feel businesses will not regulate themselves. It has been proven repeatedly that businesses will cheat, lie, steal and abuse their consumers and workers. The states have not protected us well enough and an incident with an insurance company proves the point. In 2008 Conesco had to pay around $32 million because their subsidiaries wrongfully denied claims, delayed claims and misled their elderly costumers. We feel like the states are not protecting us, so the government should step up to the plate. The flaw here is that this is exactly opposite of what the founders of the constitution wanted for us. The Bill of Rights wasn't even supposed to be applied to the states. It was truly only to be applied at a federal level and was almost left out entirely because many of the founders believed the states would be responsible for regulation. We were truly supposed to be independent states where each state could have completely different laws, united only for minimal purposes. I guess I lean more to the left because our 200+ year track record of states regulating things doesn't bode well for the future.
I don't know if there is a better way than what we have going for us now. Sometimes I wonder if we had more options, multiple parties, if that would help address these issues, but right now it seems that any third party (on a presidential level) only serves to detract votes from the only two parties that obtain anywhere close to enough votes to win. However protests and taking test cases before the Supreme Court does seem to have an impact on how laws are seen and used. I guess time will only tell what can make a definite change.
Monday, November 7, 2011
The War on Drugs
My fellow classmate, Caroline Bassett's, wrote an article titled, "The War On Drugs - Where Tax Dollars Go to Die." I would have to say I agree with her for the most part. She notes that we began the "war on drugs" in '71 and we have little to nothing to show for the 40 years worth of fighting. It got me thinking and if you compare that to the 9 year war we have waged in Iraq, Americans are fed up with the battle and crying out to have our troops returned, yet no one is tired of the 40 years of battle against drugs where we have gained little to nothing.
If we range farther back in history, we can even ask the question, when has prohibiting a specific drug ever ended well? We had the opium wars, alcohol prohibition and now the war on drugs. The sad thing is that the ban on drugs only gives jobs to cartels and mob bosses and propagates killing sprees, terror and fear. If we legalize drugs, then it becomes common place and the drug cartels and mob bosses have actually lost their foothold on the market. At least, so the theory goes.
Personally I am against drug use, but it is evident that to stop the increase in crime over drugs we actually have to allow it. The same holds true with Alcohol. We legalized it because the ban on it caused more problems than the actual substance ever did on it's own. As a citizen, spending $1700 on tuition for one semester of classes gives me pause. It is hard to write that check, and our government should have pause when writing that check basically every second of every day, especially when they have to realize that money goes towards making a bad problem worse.
If we range farther back in history, we can even ask the question, when has prohibiting a specific drug ever ended well? We had the opium wars, alcohol prohibition and now the war on drugs. The sad thing is that the ban on drugs only gives jobs to cartels and mob bosses and propagates killing sprees, terror and fear. If we legalize drugs, then it becomes common place and the drug cartels and mob bosses have actually lost their foothold on the market. At least, so the theory goes.
Personally I am against drug use, but it is evident that to stop the increase in crime over drugs we actually have to allow it. The same holds true with Alcohol. We legalized it because the ban on it caused more problems than the actual substance ever did on it's own. As a citizen, spending $1700 on tuition for one semester of classes gives me pause. It is hard to write that check, and our government should have pause when writing that check basically every second of every day, especially when they have to realize that money goes towards making a bad problem worse.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Politics Failing
I find it interesting that President Obama can challenge Republicans to offer a jobs plan that can be assessed by outside analysts and win similarly good marks as his own jobs plan, and the Republicans still complain. For the first time in Obama's presidency I feel like he is fighting for what he believes in. I don’t discredit him for seeking common ground during most of his term though, because compromise could be reached and he still accomplished things. However, since the beginning of the summer the public, and the White House, has seen that compromise is slow in coming and nothing is getting achieved that way. So Obama has taken on more of a firm stance and has decided to demand that something be done about the jobs situation immediately. This is not contradictory to his prior stance, it shows that he can adapt to each situation and apply the necessary pressure required in each situation based on it’s own merits.
On the other hand, Republicans have not come up with a single alternative to the jobs bill that Obama put forth and all they are doing is sitting around complaining that he is wrong and his plan won't work. Stopping Obama’s plan and not doing anything else is only going to make our situation worse. If we have to do something and the only thing on the table is Obamas plan, then the Republicans either need to come up with a competing plan that gets equally as good marks or they need to make the necessary compromises and let Obama’s plan go through. On the plus side for them, if Obama’s plan fails then the Republicans can basically walk into the white house on election day. It's a win-win for them. Either the economy gets better and we praise our Congress for helping or the plan fails and Republicans get the Presidency.
Overall, I can see why less Americans are participating in politics. It is out of control with too much division and not enough compromise. I would be surprised if the political system can even keep going at this rate. The lack of any appearance of bipartisanship is eating away at American’s trust in the system and too much distrust in the system always leads to a change of some nature.
On the other hand, Republicans have not come up with a single alternative to the jobs bill that Obama put forth and all they are doing is sitting around complaining that he is wrong and his plan won't work. Stopping Obama’s plan and not doing anything else is only going to make our situation worse. If we have to do something and the only thing on the table is Obamas plan, then the Republicans either need to come up with a competing plan that gets equally as good marks or they need to make the necessary compromises and let Obama’s plan go through. On the plus side for them, if Obama’s plan fails then the Republicans can basically walk into the white house on election day. It's a win-win for them. Either the economy gets better and we praise our Congress for helping or the plan fails and Republicans get the Presidency.
Overall, I can see why less Americans are participating in politics. It is out of control with too much division and not enough compromise. I would be surprised if the political system can even keep going at this rate. The lack of any appearance of bipartisanship is eating away at American’s trust in the system and too much distrust in the system always leads to a change of some nature.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Cain and his 9-9-9
I have been waiting to see someone talk about Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan. It immediately struck me as way too simplistic to be feasible but since he was not considered a top candidate no one paid him much attention. However with the straw poll in Florida saying he is a contender, people are starting to constructively pick apart his campaign.
It seems there is no consensus about how Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan will affect our nation. However, in the blog, Talking Points Memo, it is obvious Author Brian Beutler is not for it. He discusses how Cain's plan will not bring in enough revenues and it will force the government to downsize in some very important areas. Beutler also points out that Cain would like to tack on an extra rule that if a future Congress were to make adjustments to his tax plan, that it would require a 2/3 vote in the Senate. I personally do not see any government organization willingly writing in a strict limit on itself for the future, especially not on a tax rate. However, even if Cain does get elected, this tax plan would likely hit a roadblock in legislation just as Obama is hitting right now with his jobs bill.
I see possible promise with the 9% corporate tax. However, I find it interesting that everywhere I read, people seem to be saying that the big companies pay 26% in taxes, but when it comes down to what they actually pay after deductions, that figure is just not true. So since a lot of big businesses use loopholes and massive deductions and pay little to no taxes, it seems like forcing them to at least pay 9% might actually bring in some money for the government. So that part of Cain's plan really has me interested to see if it could work. The 9% tax for families might be a tough one though. I know families also get a lot of deductions and if you start taking money out of their pockets right now then it could further dampen our sluggish economy, which is a move we can not afford right now.
To be quite honest, in the end, if we do not elect someone that congress will work with then we will be stuck right where we are with Obama, going no where fast. I have a feeling Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan would only serve to polarized Congress further and leave our nation in a rut for at least another 4 years. I do not know all the answers, and the media's coverage on this plan has left me asking more questions than before, but I do know I will be keeping my eye on Cain for sure and I am interested to see how much the media will jump in.
It seems there is no consensus about how Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan will affect our nation. However, in the blog, Talking Points Memo, it is obvious Author Brian Beutler is not for it. He discusses how Cain's plan will not bring in enough revenues and it will force the government to downsize in some very important areas. Beutler also points out that Cain would like to tack on an extra rule that if a future Congress were to make adjustments to his tax plan, that it would require a 2/3 vote in the Senate. I personally do not see any government organization willingly writing in a strict limit on itself for the future, especially not on a tax rate. However, even if Cain does get elected, this tax plan would likely hit a roadblock in legislation just as Obama is hitting right now with his jobs bill.
I see possible promise with the 9% corporate tax. However, I find it interesting that everywhere I read, people seem to be saying that the big companies pay 26% in taxes, but when it comes down to what they actually pay after deductions, that figure is just not true. So since a lot of big businesses use loopholes and massive deductions and pay little to no taxes, it seems like forcing them to at least pay 9% might actually bring in some money for the government. So that part of Cain's plan really has me interested to see if it could work. The 9% tax for families might be a tough one though. I know families also get a lot of deductions and if you start taking money out of their pockets right now then it could further dampen our sluggish economy, which is a move we can not afford right now.
To be quite honest, in the end, if we do not elect someone that congress will work with then we will be stuck right where we are with Obama, going no where fast. I have a feeling Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan would only serve to polarized Congress further and leave our nation in a rut for at least another 4 years. I do not know all the answers, and the media's coverage on this plan has left me asking more questions than before, but I do know I will be keeping my eye on Cain for sure and I am interested to see how much the media will jump in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)