Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Obama signs fixes to health care bill, includes student loan measure


President Obama finalized the health care bill earlier today by signing into law several "fixes" of the original legislation approved by the House and the Senate. One of the provisions that was included in the revised bill makes the government the primary issuer of federal college loans. Under this new law, individual banks will no longer be able to issue federal student loans, and instead this money will now be lent directly from the government. The measure should save banks money because they will no longer have to pay fees for acting as middlemen in the college loan process, which in turn should lower interest rates and raise approval rates for students seeking loans. Obama touted this aspect as a major advantage of the measure, stating in his weekly radio address, "This reform of the federal student loan programs will save taxpayers $68 billion over the next decade." This law constitutes the largest revision of federal college aid programs in 40 years, and will take effect in 2014. This was a great measure to include in the health care bill (even though it really has nothing to do with health care). It makes good sense to eliminate banks from being the middlemen in allocating student loans, as now that the government does it the system will be more fair and standardized. It's also good that this measure could decrease interest rates, as doing so will make college more affordable to many Americans. This bill is overall a major victory for Obama, as he accomplished two of his goals in reforming health care and education. Read more at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125347342.

Poll: public divided on health care


According to a CNN poll conducted last Thursday through Sunday, 56 percent of Americans disapprove of the new health care legislation and 42 percent support it. However, only 47 percent of those polled favor Republicans' call to "repeal and replace" the bill. The discrepancy between those who disapprove of the bill and those who actually want to repeal the bill can be attributed to the fact that some are against the bill because they don't think it went far enough. This sector of the population is thus unlikely to side with Republicans in fighting against any and all government-provided health care. Said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland, "Some Americans continue to say that they disapprove of the bill because they want even more government involvement in health care than the bill created. Only a quarter are against the entire bill." The poll was conducted by telephone to 1009 adult Americans and contains a sampling error of plus or minus three percent. The results of this poll are to be expected, as the health care debate has seemed to be evenly divided amongst Americans since its onset. That a majority are against the bill proves that the bill is not perfect by any means, especially since there are people on both sides who do not want the bill - those who think the bill went too far and those who think the bill did not go far enough. It will be interesting to see how these numbers change once the public starts to see the bill in action. Read more at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/29/cnn-poll-americans-divided-on-repealing-health-care-law/?fbid=PRi3EP0uE8f&hpt=Sbin.

Monday, March 29, 2010

Environmental Policy

Here's the link to our group's article:

Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Obama makes secret trip to Afghanistan, calls for increased efforts to halt corruption


President Obama made a surprise trip to Afghanistan today in an effort to encourage the Afghan government to take greater accountability for its actions and to make a greater effort to cut down on corruption. The trip was kept secret and conducted at night for security reasons. Obama met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the Afghan Cabinet in the capital city of Kabul and gave a speech at the Bagram Air Field to about 2500 civilians and troops. In his speech, Obama stressed the U.S.'s commitment to preventing a Taliban takeover in Afghanistan as well as his desire for the country to become self-sufficient in its security. "The United States is a partner, but our intent is to make sure that the Afghans have the capacity to provide for their own security — that is core to our mission," Obama said in his speech. Another theme in his speech was that the U.S. is growing impatient with Afghanistan's lax efforts to combat corruption in the government. I think that this visit was a good decision by the White House, as it not only encourages the Afghan government to devote more time and resources to battling corruption, but it also shows U.S. citizens that Obama means business and that we aren't just sending troops to Afghanistan for the heck of it. I had gotten a little fed up with the escalation of this conflict, as nothing seemed to be happening, but this shows me that at least we have a plan and that we expect something from Afghanistan too. This has sure been a busy week for Obama, with health care and everything - good to know we have a hard working president. Read more at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125276586.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Palin endorses McCain's bid for Senate re-election


Yesterday in Tuscon, Sarah Palin made her first public appearance with John McCain since the two former running mates conceded the 2008 presidential election. Palin spoke at a rally supporting McCain's bid for re-election for one of Arizona's Senate seats. McCain will be challenged by J.D. Hayworth in the Republican primary, as McCain has recently faced criticism for being too moderate. One of the groups that has declined to support McCain for his moderate stand includes the Tea Party, a group with which Palin has recently been associated. But Palin seemed to be connecting the Tea Party movement with McCain, saying "Everybody here, supporting John McCain, we are all part of that Tea Party movement. I think he's gonna win this one." Hmm, interesting. Does McCain want to be part of the Tea Party movement? I don't think so, as it seems too extreme for him, the politician who has always claimed to be moderate and to reach across the isle. I doubt Palin's endorsement will help McCain win re-election, as anything that Palin is connected with is seen with amusement and scrutiny by much of the public. Palin seems to appeal to only a very narrow demographic, and everyone else dislikes her. Thus, I think it was a mistake for McCain to bring in Palin for the rally and I thought he would have learned his lesson after the past presidential election. Want more Sarah? Go to http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/26/palin.mccain/index.html?hpt=Sbin.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Gates eases "don't ask, don't tell"


Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced today that the Pentagon will begin to faze-out the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which currently prohibits homosexuals from serving openly in the military. One of the ways the Pentagon will do this is by raising the threshold for the level of information necessary to launch a "credible inquiry" into alleged homosexual behavior. This change, which will take effect in 30 days, is supported by President Obama, who has in the past expressed his disapproval of the 17 year old "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Other senior members of the military, however, feel that the alleviation of this policy may negatively affect morale and cohesiveness in the armed forces. Said Gates, "These changes reflect some of the insights we have gained over 17 years of implementing the current law, including the need for consistency, oversight, and clear standards." It's about time that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was eased, as I feel that anyone should be able to join the military, regardless of sexual orientation. While I could see it becoming a distraction at first, as some of the senior officials claim, our soldiers will get used to it soon enough. This goes along well with the civil rights chapter that we just finished, as the fazing-out of this policy marks a key step in the fight for homosexuals' rights, just as Truman's executive order to desegregate the military was a milestone in African Americans' rights. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/military.gays/index.html?hpt=Sbin.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Obama signs health care bill


Well kids, it's finally happened: the health care bill has been signed into law by President Obama. After the House passed the compromise bill late Sunday evening, Obama signed the bill this morning in a ceremony in the East Room of the White House. The bill must now only clear the Senate (the Senate must approve the changes that the House made to the bill after the Senate originally passed it in December) with a simple majority of 51 in a reconciliation vote, with the Democrats expected to easily garner the necessary votes. Important aspects of the bill include the fact that small business owners will receive tax breaks to help cover the cost of providing health insurance to their employees, insurance companies won't be able to drop or deny coverage to children because of pre-existing medical conditions, and insurance companies won't be able to drop people from coverage when they get sick or place yearly limits on the amount of health care people receive. Republicans have vowed to do their best to hinder the bill's approval in the Senate and the attorney generals of 13 states have already filed lawsuits against the bill. After signing the bill, Obama said "We are not a nation that scales back its aspirations. We are not a nation that falls prey to doubt or mistrust. We don't fall prey to fear. We are a nation that does what is hard, what is necessary, what is right." This is an amazing development, as it pretty much validates the first year of Obama's presidency after it seemed to be a waste. It's hard to believe that after all this time health care finally passed, and I'm not surprised that there are many opposed to it. I don't really know what to think of comprehensive health care, as I don't know the ins and outs of it, but it seems like a great idea in theory. We'll just have to see if it actually lives up to the hype when put into practice. Another good thing: barring a strange turn of events in the Senate, I probably won't have to write any more blogs about the health care debate - yes!!!!!!!!!! If you're hungry for yet more information on this issue, visit the friendly folks at your local website http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/23/health.care.main/index.html?hpt=Sbin.

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Anti-war protestors rally near White House


Hundreds of anti-war protesters rallied in front of the White House today, in what has been a very big day in Washington (health care vote, immigration rally). That the protesters chose today has more to do with today being the seventh anniversary of the beginning of the War in Iraq, not that today was when the House voted on health care. The rally featured more than twelve speakers, including Ralph Nader, and marched to the White House and the headquarters of Halliburton, the energy company once headed by Dick Cheney. Five people were arrested after they brought coffins in front of the White House and were laying by them. Another speaker was Cindy Sheehan, who asked the crowd "Is the honeymoon over with that war criminal in the Oval Office? Why are we giving him a free pass when he didn't deserve it?" Is Sheeham talking about President Obama or George W. Bush? The first question sounds directed at Obama, as he is in the Oval Office now, but the second question seems to refer to Bush (reference: past tense). If the protesters are against the War in Iraq they are a little late, as Bush is no longer in office. But with Obama escalating the conflict in Afghanistan, these protesters are most likely against that too. Regardless, they sounded a little extreme, but I guess the only way to get the media attention they are looking for is to perform crazy acts (like laying beside coffins in front of the White House). Read more at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/20/anti-war-protesters-rally-near-white-house-5-arrested/?hpt=Sbin&fbid=zYte_J2XDeq.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Rally planned in Washington on immigration reform


Thousands are expected to convene on Washington's National Mall this Sunday in a rally demanding reform on immigration policy. Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have recently laid out plans for a new immigration policy, which include giving illegal immigrants Social Security cards that don't allow them to obtain jobs, strengthening border security, creating a system for admitting temporary workers, and outlining a process by which illegal immigrants may become legal. The rally, which will be held on the same day that the House votes on a health care bill, involves an issue that has resurfaced since President Obama has voiced his support for Schumer and Graham's plan. In a statement, the two senators wrote, "Ending illegal immigration, however, cannot be the sole objective of reform. Developing a rational legal immigration system is essential to ensuring America's future economic prosperity." The plan by Schumer and Graham is interesting, as it seems to be more anti-immigration than pro-immigration. Preventing illegal immigrants from getting hired by giving them special cards could hurt the economy, as there will be less workers in essential but not-desirable occupations, such as agricultural workers. I'm a little surprised that Obama supported this plan, but I guess the overwhelming sentiment these days is that we need to strengthen our borders. I would expect there to be demonstrators on both sides of the immigration debate in Washington on Sunday. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/19/immigration.rally/index.html.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

House to vote on health care bill Sunday


Democratic congressmen revealed the 10-year, $940 Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 today, three months after the Senate first passed the compromise bill in December. Democratic leaders have pledged to vote on the bill within 72 hours, which means that a vote in the House will most likely come Sunday. Republicans have reaffirmed their stance against the bill, and no Republican has said he/she will vote for the bill. Said House Minority Leader John Boehner, "We're going to continue to work closely together and to do everything that we can to make sure that this bill never, ever, ever passes." Additionally, according to a survey by CNN, 27 Democrats have said they will vote against the bill, including nine who supported the bill last November. This vote is so important to President Obama that he has postponed a trip to Indonesia and Australia until June in order to be in Washington this weekend. This vote will definitely be a defining moment for Obama's presidency, and it seems logical for him to postpone the trip. The majority of issues surrounding his time in office thus far have dealt with health care, and he has made health care reform the largest issue in domestic policy. If this vote fails, I don't think it would be possible to call the first year of his term a success. Unfortunately, I think the Republican opposition is too strong for this bill to be passed, as there is such a uniform consensus against it. Additionally, it's not a good sign that some House Democrats are against the bill. We'll see Sunday (or some other time in the near future), but I sense failure on the horizon. If you have a lot of extra time you could read all 153 pages of the proposed health care bill, as it can be accessed at http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/18/health.care.pdf.

Saturday, February 27, 2010

White House social secretary resigns


Yesterday White House social secretary Desiree Rogers resigned from her position, 3 months after Tareq and Michaele Salahi crashed the White House state dinner. Julianna Smoot will be the new social secretary, a position that organizes the White House's social events. Rogers came under scrutiny for the breach in security that allowed the Salahis (who were uninvited) into the White House's first state dinner, although Rogers claimed that the mistake was the Secret Service's fault and not hers. In an interview after she announced her resignation, Rogers said "It has nothing to do with that, it's Secret Service's job to handle security. Not the Social Secretary's office" in response to a question about the party crashers. A statement from the President and the First Lady also neglected to mention the November event. "When she took this position, we asked Desiree to help make sure that the White House truly is the People's House," they said, "and she did that by welcoming scores of everyday Americans through its doors, from wounded warriors to local schoolchildren to NASCAR drivers." Read more at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/27/white-house-announces-new-social-secretary/?fbid=PRi3EP0uE8f Despite the fact that Rogers' resignation is occurring 3 months after the state dinner, I can't help but think that her resigning has something to do with the negative publicity she received from the breach in security. While it very well might not have been Rogers' fault that the Salahis made it in, she was certainly criticized by the media, which can definitely wear a person down. I didn't even know that there was such an office as the social secretary, and it's just another example of how large the government is. Question to any potential readers: does the job of White House social secretary sound fun to you?

Friday, February 26, 2010

Democrats to shortcut healthcare bill process


President Obama is expected to make an announcement next week detailing the Democrats' plans of how to move the health care bill forward. It's likely that the House and Senate will try to shortcut the process through reconciliation, in which the Senate only needs a simple majority instead of the usual 60 votes for a cloture (which can end a filibuster). The plan, which was hinted at by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi earlier today, would consist of the House passing the Senate's version of the bill, sending the bill to President Obama, who would revise the bill to implement his package and send the bill back to Congress for approval. Using the reconciliation process, the Senate would only need 51 votes to pass the bill in this final stage. Pelosi called for a simple majority in the Senate, saying "a simple majority, that's what we're asking the Senate to act upon." Reconciliation was established by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 so that only a majority vote in the Senate would be needed to advance bills dealing with the national budget. The idea behind the process is so that it is easier to pass deficit-reducing legislation. This seems like kind of an unfair way to pass the health care bill. I don't see how health care can be applied to reconciliation, as health care does not directly deal with the budget and will certainly not reduce the federal deficit. This is a sneaky way to sidestep a Senate filibuster, but I just don't see this working out for the Democrats. Using reconciliation will probably get a lot of negative media attention and, like always, there is probably some way in which the Republicans can counter to prevent this legislation from being approved. We shall soon find out. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/26/health.care/index.html.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Brown praised and criticized for his independence


After the Senate passed the jobs bill yesterday with a 70-28 vote, Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts has been both praised and criticized by his fellow Republicans for his independence in joining Democrats and voting in favor of the bill. In total, 13 Republicans voted for the bill and one Democrat did not (Ben Nelson of Nebraska). Brown, who won the late Ted Kennedy's seat last month in an upset over Democrat Martha Coakley, campaigned with the promise to bring an independent voice to the Senate and to value his constituents over partisanship. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell accepted Brown's vote, saying "We don't expect our members to be in lockstep on every single issue, and we're happy to have him here. I think it's made a huge, positive difference for us and for the whole legislative agenda." Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh had other thoughts though, saying "You will not find me being a giant, big-time, pedal-to-the-metal supporter of Scott Brown. We're talking about a Massachusetts Republican." I think that it's a good thing that Brown is more committed to doing what he feels is right for Massachusetts than to following his party lines. It's nice to see some Senators being more independent and reaching across the aisle for the good of the nation. But I don't really see why Brown is getting all of the attention, as there were 12 other Republicans who voted for this bill. All these other Senators should also be commended for putting their party differences beside and voting for what they believe in. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/24/scott.brown.jobs.vote/index.html?hpt=Sbin.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Senate passes jobs bill


The U.S. Senate passed the $15 billion jobs bill today with a bipartisan vote of 70-28. The bill, which was approved for a vote on Monday, provides tax breaks for hiring the jobless, funding for new highway and transit programs, and extends a tax break for businesses that spend on long-term investments (such as equipment purchases). A major difference between this bill and the $154 billion bill that the House passed last year is that this scaled-down version does not contain an extension for unemployment benefits or the COBRA health insurance subsidy. Several Republicans, including Scott Brown of Massachusetts, joined with the Democrats in voting for this bill. Said Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California, “Today, jobs triumphed over politics.” I'm glad that these Senators finally put aside their differences and actually passed something. This is like a breath of fresh air on a crisp spring day beside a babbling brook exposed to dappled light from the gentle encroachment of just-budding willows and wild columbines. In other words, it's the first time in a long while that we have seen the Senate work together. It is significant, however, that COBRA was not extended, as this deals with the ongoing health care debate. If these Senators were unwilling to extend COBRA, I find it unlikely that they will support a giant, comprehensive health care plan. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/24/senate.jobs.bill/index.html?hpt=Sbin. Think spring.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Government lifts gun restrictions in National Parks


On Monday the government lifted it's long-standing regulation on carrying firearms in National Parks. The new law, which comes from a bill President Obama signed last May, will allow people to carry loaded and concealed weapons, as long as they are in accordance with state law. The policy for each National Park will be subject to specific state laws, although for all Parks it will be illegal to carry firearms into visitor centers or any other federal facilities. Some groups, including the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees and the Association of National Park Rangers, claim that the new law will undermine the purpose of national parks and potentially lead to more poaching and other crimes involving firearms. Said Bill Wade, president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, "People go to national parks to get away from things that they face in their everyday living, where they live and work. Now I think that social dynamic is really going to change." Read more at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/18/AR2010021805124.html. While I see the constitutional reasoning behind this decision and this bill (specifically the 2nd Amendment), allowing guns in National Parks just rubs me the wrong way. I agree with Wade that allowing guns will severely change the feel of the Parks, as there will no longer be a sense of getting away from everything and simply enjoying nature. There is now going to be a slight sense of uneasiness whenever I go to a National Park, which is too bad. Oh well, the Constitution is the Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment is not going away.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Senate advances jobs bill


Today the Senate voted 62-30 in favor of advancing a 15 billion dollar bill that would give businesses a tax break for hiring the unemployed. The bill, known as the jobs bill, includes provisions that would exempt employers from Social Security taxes who hire previously unemployed workers, fund highway and transit programs through 2010, give tax breaks to businesses that spend money on capital investments (i.e. equipment purchases), and expand the Build America Bonds program, which helps fund capital construction projects. Five Republicans, including the recently elected Scott Brown (R-Mass.), voted for the provision while one Democrat did not. Liberals and labor organizations do not think that this bill will be enough and are calling for the Senate to do more to create jobs. As Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute put it, "We need to create 11 million jobs to get back to the level of unemployment we had before the recession began, yet the Senate jobs bill would create no more than a couple hundred thousand jobs." A final vote on the bill should take place in a few days. I'm glad to see that the Senate might be reaching a consensus on an issue dealing with the economy, as there has been so much partisan bickering over the past few months. Even though some don't think this bill will do enough, it is better than nothing and the only way to get anything passed in Congress is to do some compromising, which is just what occurred when Senators agreed to cut down the House's proposed $154 billion bill. We'll see what happens over the next few days and hope that the Senate can get this bill passed. Read more at http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/22/news/economy/jobs_bill_senate/index.htm?hpt=T1.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Utah legislators want to spark Supreme Court case over returning federal land to private ownership


Conservative Utah officials are trying to spark a Supreme Court case that could potentially allow them to develop resource-rich parcels of land that are currently owned by the federal government and off-limits to energy development. 60% of Utah's land is federally owned, which officials from the state claim hurts their ability to generate tax revenues and fund public schools. These legislators wish that if the Supreme Court hears such a case, it will establish a precedent against eminent domain, which currently allows the government to take private property for public use. This type of ruling would be a big breakthrough for states' rights, but it's unlikely that the Supreme Court would even decide to review the case. One of the areas legislators like Christopher Herrod, a Provo Republican, are looking at to develop is the pristine Kaiparowits Plateau, which is currently part of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The Kaiparowits is thought to hold large coal reserves. Said Herrod, "In the Kaiparowits Plateau alone there is a trillion dollars worth of natural resources. Had that been privatized ... we'd have $50 billion in our school trust land." Read more at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100211/ap_on_re_us/us_federal_land.

Great, Utah, let's destroy all of your amazing natural scenery to fund public schools. This is a worthless idea. I know that energy development brings in a lot of dollars, but how about tourist dollars from the millions of visitors who flock to Utah's National Parks and other scenic areas? The outstanding scenery of the Colorado Plateau is Utah's greatest resource, not the minerals underground. The minute Utah shifts its focus to energy development is the minute tourism goes down the drain. Besides, these natural areas can continue to help Utah's economy for years if they are preserved correctly, while mining for coal and other minerals will eventually stop being profitable when we develop alternative forms of energy or when these resources run out. The Kaiparowits is one of Utah's least known but most valuable treasures, and I can't imagine it run over with power plants, trains, and energy yahoos driving diesel-spewing trucks who have not respect for the land. Lets hope this bill doesn't make it to the Supreme Court, although if it did, I'm confident that the justices would have enough common sense not to rule in favor of these Utah officials. HAYDUKE LIVES!

Roslyn Brock selected as new NAACP chairwoman


The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People selected its youngest leader to date, with 44 year old Roslyn Brock recently being named chairwoman of the 101 year old organization. At a news conference, Brock stressed her desire to make the NAACP "relevant to a new generation of human and civil rights activists, and to get young people involved." Brock also said that she wants "to get the word out that the NAACP is alive and well, and that we are a multi-cultural, multi-racial organization." One of Brock's biggest priorities with the interest group will be to bring affordable health care to the nation's 47 million people who are currently uninsured, and she plans to work with the Obama administration to accomplish this. Additionally, Brock said that she will "advocate for specific policy legislation that move forward a progressive agenda" in the areas of health care, education, and jobs. The NAACP is one of the nation's oldest interest groups and is known for its past success in court litigation. I think Brock's appointment will be good for the NAACP, as it should bring some more energy to the organization and, like Brock said, make it more mainstream with the younger generation. It's interesting how the NAACP has grown from promoting simple civil right to now calling for comprehensive health care and getting involved in some other domestic affairs. I guess it just shows how much the U.S. has progressed in the 101 years since W.E.B. DuBois and others founded the group. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/21/us.naacp.leadership/index.html?hpt=Sbin.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Indiana Democrat won't seek re-election for Senate seat


Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh won't seek re-election for a third term in the Senate next fall at the end of the 111th Congress. Bayh cited his frusteration with the "broken system" of partisanship that failed to pass a jobs bill or enact legislation to create a deficit reduction commission as the main reasons for his resignation. Said Bayh at a news conference on Monday in Indianappolis "Congress is not operating as it should, the people's business is not getting done." Bayh had a record or reaching across the aisle and being a more moderate Democrat, which frusterated some congressional liberals. After hearing of Bayh's resignation, President Obama praised Bayh for "his career and his life to serving his fellow Hoosiers." The fact that this seat in the Senate will be up for election is a blow to the Democrats, who will have to defend five midterm races because of retirements. However, the Republicans will have to defend more seats, with six members set to retire in the fall. I have a feeling that the elections this fall are going to be very important to the balance of power in Congress, but I don't see the Democrats giving up thier majority. If I were in Bayh's position I would probably do the exact same thing, as I'm fed up with all the bickering between the parties. Perhaps this resignation will serve as a wakeup call to Congress and provoke them to actually pass something. Or maybe not - a lot of people probably don't care why Bayh is resigning. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/15/bayh.retirement/index.html.

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Tea Party holds convention in Nashville


The first official Tea Party Convention is underway in Nashville, TN. The three day convention will include speaches, pannels, sessions, and workshops in an attempt to mobilize and gain supporters of the conservative Tea Party. Some of the platforms of the Tea Party include fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, less government, states' rights and national security. Mark Skoda, a businessman and founder of the Memphis Tea Party, said that he does not consider the Tea Party a traditional third party, but rather that the movement is more based on individuals coming together for the purpose of a radically smaller government. The speech that caused the biggest stir was Thursday, when former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo called President Obama a socialist. Said Tancredo, "people who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House. His name is Barack Hussein Obama." Tancredo also took a shot at Obama's opponent in the 2008 election, Republican John McCain by saying "thank God John McCain lost the election." When I first started reading this article, I was amused at the radically different approach to government that the Tea Party advocates. But once I got to the part on Tancredo's speech, I realized that this is really crazy. Obama a socialist? If this accusation was true there would be no way that Obama would have won the 2008 election. This statement definitely takes some legitimacy away from the Tea Party, especially since the convention's organizer, Judson Phillips, said that Tancredo gave a "fantastic speech." And to think this guy is from Colorado, my home state - what a shame. I guess this is a good lesson on the diversity of opinions that make our country great. Lets just hope that there aren't too many Tom Tancredo's floating around. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/05/tea.party.convention/index.html?hpt=Sbin.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Race set for Illinois Senate seat


The race for the Illinois Senate seat that once belonged to President Obama is set, with Democrat Alexi Giannoulias facing off against Republican Mark Kirk. Giannoulias, who is the state Treasurer, barely beat out fellow Democrat David Hoffman in the primary while Kirk won by a sizable margin in the Republican primary. Both candidates stressed the importance of reigning in special interest groups and both seek to appeal to moderate and independent voters. Giannoulias is considered the front runner, although some experts think that Kirk has a good chance of winning the election (which is next November) because of his moderate stance on social issues. Said Kirk regarding the Democrat's control of the Senate: "One political party should never hold all of the power. We reject corruption. We embrace reformers." I think the race for this Senate seat will be very important in the scope of American politics, as Illinois seems like one of those states that is an accurate gage of the public sentiment of the entire country (much like Missouri and Ohio are). If Kirk pulls off the upset, it could mean that Obama is in for a tough re-election campaign, even though the election is a little ways down the road. If Illinois falls to the Republicans, it could be a sign that the GOP is once again gaining momentum in the perpetual tug of war between the two major political parties. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/03/illinois.politics/index.html.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Justice Department considers probe into BCS


In a letter to Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Welch said that the Justice Department will consider looking into whether the controversial Bowl Championship Series for college football violates U.S. antitrust laws. The BCS, which hosts five bowl games at the end of each college football season to determine the national champion, has come under considerable scrutiny recently for the way it selects teams for its bowl games. The champion of each of the six major conferences gets an automatic berth regardless of national ranking, which puts the schools that aren't in these conferences at a disadvantage. Hatch first proposed such an investigation a year ago after the University of Utah's football team went undefeated but still did not have a chance to play for the national championship. The BCS could be considered a trust because it has a "monopoly" over the five major bowl games and because it gives an unfair advantage to teams from the six major conferences. Says Hatch, "The current system runs counter to basic fairness that every family tries to instill in their children from the day they are born." Hmm ... family values...sounds like a Utah Senator to me. On a more serious note, I agree that the BCS is its acronym without the C, but this should not be a national issue now. Our country has much more important issues to deal with (i.e. health care, the economy, etc) than to waste the time of the Justice Department in looking into the legality of an institution associated with a game. The last thing the government needs is to get involved in some trivial aspect of entertainment. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/30/obama.college.football/index.html?hpt=Sbin.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Obama receives praise for call to end "don't ask, don't tell"


Gay rights activists are praising President Obama for his call to end the military's 15 year "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding the service of gays and lesbians. In Wednesday's State of the Union address, Obama said "[We must] repeal the law that denies gay and lesbian Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do." This statement was met with approval by Alexander Nicholson, founder and executive director of Servicemembers United, who said "Tonight, President Obama stepped up to the plate and made a firm commitment to work to finally end 'don't ask, don't tell' in 2010. Although brief, his language was plain, his message was clear, and the outline of his strategy was smart." If Obama follows through with this statement, he is likely to come into better regard from the gay and lesbian community, which has so far been critical of the president's negligence on some of the policies he advocated during his 2008 campaign. Obama received mixed reactions about this issue from those who attended the address, with Republicans such as Sen. John McCain claiming that now is not the time to change the policy while former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili agreed with Obama's stance. I agree with the idea to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy because at present, it prohibits some Americans from serving in the armed forces. Any American citizen should be allowed to serve his/her country if he/she desires, as their service is only helping protect freedom at home and oversees. We have gone through this debate in the past regarding the service of minorities and women - now is the time to finally extend the same right to serve one's country to the gay and lesbian community. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/28/obama.dadt.react/index.html?hpt=Sbin.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Clinton in London for State of the Union Address


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton missed tonight's State of the Union address given by President Barack Obama because of a busy schedule of international conferences. Clinton is currently in London, discussing options on policies toward Afghanistan and Yemen with other world leaders. As State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said this afternoon "He (President Obama) made it clear given the importance of these issues that her place tonight was in London, rather than here in Washington. " Clinton was scheduled to attend a conference on Yemen today and meet with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai tomorrow. This is obviously the right decision, as it's more important for Clinton to attend to her duty of foreign relations than it is for her to see Obama's speech. This might also be sending a message to the other countries Clinton is negotiating with that the U.S. means business when it comes to Afghanistan. As Crowley said, it's been a while since a Secretary of State missed the State of the Union, but Clinton has more pressing concerns right now than listening to our president speak for and hour. Read more at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/27/secretary-clinton-misses-state-of-the-union-speech/.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

2010 Census Begins in Remote Alaskan Village


The 2010 United States Census officially began yesterday when Census Bureau Director Robert Groves traveled to Noorvik, Alaska for the ceremonial first polling. The first person polled was World War II veteran and village elder Clifton Jackson, who invited Groves into his house for the 10 question inquiry. Said Groves after he exited Jackson's house "It's all downhill from now," referring to the fact that there was one person down and over 309 million to go. Noorvik is an Inuit community with around 650 residents and can only be reached by plane or dogsled. After arriving at the airport, Groves was brought into the village in a convoy of dogsleds and was treated to a feast of whale, caribou, and moose meat. The U.S. Census has began its survey in remote Alaskan villages not accessible by roads since 1990. The paperwork for the census will be sent out to all U.S. residents in March, with the Census wrapping up on April 1. I think tallying these remote Inuit communities first is a good idea for two reasons. First, it gets the difficult places to reach done earlier in the process so that census officials don't have to scramble and be hindered by the complicated logistics of reaching these people when time is running short in March. Also, events like this provide good publicity for a sector of the American population that is often forgotten - the Alaska natives, otherwise known as the Inuits. As we learned in government class, the census is required by the Constitution to be conducted every 10 years to help determine how to allocate federal funding and to help in the reapportionment process for seats in the House of Representatives. Read more at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122938726.

Monday, January 25, 2010

S.C. Republican Apologizes for Animal Remark


South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer apologized on an interview with CNN for his comment Friday that needy people are like "stray animals" because "they breed" and "don't know any better." Said Bauer "I wish I had used a different metaphor...I never intended to tie people to animals." The important part of this story is not necessarily what Bauer said, but rather his opinions on welfare and other programs that assist the needy. Bauer wants to end what he terms the "culture of dependency" by requiring people on welfare to undergo drug testing or be mandated to attend parent-teacher conferences. Bauer claims that many voters in his state agree with him that government assistance needs to be modified. If you are a particularly overachieving student or teacher, you will read more at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/25/south-carolina-republican-regrets-stray-animal-metaphor/?hpt=Sbin. This is a typical Republican view regarding social issues. While I agree that the government shouldn't be fostering a "culture of dependency," the fact of the matter is that there are millions of people throughout the country who legitimately need some help, especially in these times when the economy is down. I sense that Bauer wants to cut some of the programs that help the needy and the elderly, but I think that just isn't appropriate for the situation our country is in now. Maybe once the recession ends we can discuss making governmental aid programs more efficient, but cutting them should not be an option. Hey, stray animals need your help.

Obama Proposes Freeze in Discretionary Spending for Three Years


President Obama will announce in Wednesday's State of the Union address his plan to attack the federal budget deficit by freezing all discretionary spending at current levels for three years. The departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Veteran Affairs, and some international programs will be exempt from these budgetary stipulations. While discretionary spending constitutes only 1/6 of the federal budget and while entitlement programs such as Medicare keep growing, discretionary spending still accounts for $474 billion per year - the level at which the spending will be frozen for the next three years. This effort is predicted to alienate Obama from some of the more liberal congressional Democrats, but on the whole analysts believe that this move will give Obama more credibility on economic policy and foster relations with the Republican side. Said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio: "Given Washington Democrats' unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you're going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest." After the State of the Union address, Obama must publicly release his budget plan for the fiscal year 2011 by February 1. I think that a bigger problem with the federal budget is entitlement programs, not discretionary spending. However, this is a step in the right direction and I don't know if we're ever going to be able to cut funding for programs like Medicare without facing dire consequences. This is a first part of a long process, and we'll see where it takes the country financially. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/25/obama.spending.freeze/index.html?hpt=Sbin.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

CNN Poll: 56% of Americans Oppose Stimulus Program


According to a poll released today by CNN, 56 percent of Americans oppose President Obama's stimulus bill, which was signed into law last March. The bill, officially known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, increases government spending while simultaneously cutting taxes in an attempt to stimulate the staggering economy. So far, the bill has cost the government $787 billion. These results clearly show that Americans have grown dissatisfied with the program since its initial implementation, as polls in March had 54 percent in favor and only 44 percent against the bill. The poll questioned 1021 American adults over the telephone and has a plus or minus 3 percent sampling error. This is just another indication of the popular sentiment regarding our president. It seems that many people are growing impatient with the lack of results of all this spending. I, for one, trust that the president's efforts will pay off in the long run and that the U.S. will climb out of the recession. Read more at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/24/cnn-poll-56-percent-oppose-stimulus-program/.

Saturday, January 23, 2010

White House Supports Bernanke Despite Widespread Opposition


President Obama reaffirmed his confidence in Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke today, despite the growing opposition to Bernanke's policies by several Senators. The Senate must approve of Bernanke receiving another four year term by January 31 or else Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn would fill in as the head of the central bank on a temporary basis. Bernanke has been criticized for the way he handled the bailouts of several major corporations in the past year, keeping secret the identities of many of the corporations that received this aid. Additionally, the $182 billion bailout of American International Group Inc. has made many main street proponents mad. Included in this group is Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California, who said "It is time for a change — it is time for Main Street to have a champion at the Fed." Despite all of this negative sentiment, Obama is sticking by Bernanke, and believes he is "the best person for the job." I wouldn't be surprised to see Bernanke go, seeing how he presided over the Federal Reserve during one of the worst economic recessions since the Great Depression. Not that I'm saying that Bernanke was responsible for the recession, but he's kind of guilty by association and we've already seen that there are a number of Senators who want him out. Read more at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122856135.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Democrats Criticize Coakley for Lackluster Campaign


Republican Scott Brown's upset win in the Massachusetts senatorial election to replace the late Ted Kennedy has Democrats pointing fingers at their candidate, Martha Coakley. Widely considered a shoo-in before the election, Coakley ran a less-than-impressive campaign and many Democrats are criticizing her for that. One of President Obama's top advisers refuted the claim that Brown's election serves as a statement that the United States public are not happy with the proposed health care bill by saying "Campaigns and candidates matter," hinting at the fact that Coakely lost the election because she was not a strong candidate and did not campaign well. Brown's win means that it is most likely back to the drawing boards for Democrats regarding the health care plan, as Republicans now have the 41 members in the Senate required to filibuster. I tend to agree with the claims that Coakley's loss is more her fault than a statement by Massachusetts citizens. I have a hard time believing that the Democrats still would have lost this seat if they had fielded a stronger candidate. Massachusetts is, after all, one of the most liberal states in the nation. At the same time, however, the Democratic party and Democratic voters could have chosen a different candidate to run, so the blame is kind of split between Coakley and the Democratic party (as an organization). Read more of this scintillating story at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/20/coakley.brown/index.html?hpt=Sbin.

Monday, January 18, 2010

A Republican winning Massachusetts??? Did I just see a pig fly?


The election to replace deceased Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy is getting a lot more attention than expected, mostly because Republican candidate Scott Brown is now leading in the polls. This turn of events comes as a shock to Massachusetts, widely considered the most Democratic of states, where Democratic candidate Martha Coakley now trails Brown in the polls. Massachusetts has not had a Republican senator since 1972. President Obama has been forced to campaign for Coakley because loosing a Democratic seat in the Senate would mean that the Democrats would lose the 60 percent filibuster-proof majority, which would greatly threaten the health care bill's passing. Through Sunday, Brown was leading Coakely 52 to 45 percent in the polls, with a 4 percent sampling error. In these same polls, voters responded that their top two concerns for the election were the economy and the health care plan. Said Brown "Massachusetts wants real reform and not this trillion-dollar Obama health care that is being forced on the American people." Election day is tomorrow and we will soon find out if the unthinkable has indeed occurred. That the most Democratic state in the nation is in danger of losing a Democratic seat should be a sign of the times. It seems that the people of Massachusetts are sending a message to Obama that they do not approve of his heath care plan or the way he is handling the economy. I have a feeling that this election, regardless of which way it falls, will make the Democrats seriously reconsider the health care bill. Once again, another unexpected turn in the health care debate. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/18/massachusetts.senate/index.html.

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Gingrich Could Run in 2012




Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said Thursday at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference that he is considering running for president in 2012 as a GOP candidate. In Gingrich's time in the House from 1995 to 1999, he led Republican opposition to President Clinton. Gingrich also said that he expects Republicans Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee to be among those competing for the 2012 party nomination. Said the Newt about the need for a change in direction in Washington, "We have a lot of people around the country who would like to have somebody who represents a commitment to replace the current failed programs and to develop a set of solutions that are practical and workable." Sounds good at first, but a closer inspection reveals that this quote really says nothing about what Gingrich plans to do if he were to win the election. Vague quotes like these are all too typical of politicians these days. Yes, they can point out problems, but do they have specific, workable solutions to these problems? Maybe I'd have more faith in this guy if he had a more solid platform. But the 2012 election is more that 2 years away; the old wily Newt has some time to come up with a strategy. Read more at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/14/gingrich-says-hes-a-potential-2012-contender/?hpt=Sbin.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Ritter Withdraws from Colorado's Governor Race




Last week, Colorado governor Bill Ritter announced he will not seek reelection in next year's race, a prospect that has the Democrats searching for a candidate to run against Republican Scott McInnis. Ritter cited the increasing toll on his family as the primary reason for withdrawing from the race and he says that he could not be a good father and husband while running for governor. One of the aspects of this decision (albeit a small one) was that his family was not happy in the governor's mansion, as Ritter pointed out last year "We moved into the Governor's Residence. It's a lovely place, but it's not a community." Read more at http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14130197. At the moment, it appears that Denver mayor John Hickenlooper will be the Democratic candidate for the governor position. The race between Hickenlooper and McInnis should be quite interesting, seeing how Hickenlooper is popular in Denver and McInnis has past experience to draw on (he has served as a Colorado Senator). While it's a shame Ritter isn't running for another term (nothing bad happened while he was governor), I think he has his priorities straight, as family should come first no matter how high-profile the job. No we'll just hope McInnis doesn't win so we don't have to name another one of our wonderful conservation areas after him.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Palin Signs TV Deal with Fox News


Sarah Palin is once again in the news, this time for joining it. Today a source with knowledge of the agreement confirmed to CNN that Palin will appear as a guest on some Fox News shows but that she will not host her own show. By doing so, Palin joins a long line of former politicians (both Democrat and Republican) who have transitioned careers to the news media. This move most likely means that Palin will not run for president in 2012, putting a damper on the spirits of Democrats nationwide who were confident that Obama could defeat Palin for reelection. As CNN contributor Paul Begala put it "I do think maybe it suggests, sadly for Democrats, that she might not be running." In my opinion, this is just another method of self-promotion for Palin. As all smart politicians seek to do, she is becoming a household name, and being on national TV will either hurt or help her popularity. This seems to be some strategic move to help her future political career, so I'm not convinced that she's done with politics yet. If you would like more information, the good folks at CNN are all knowing, test their knowledge by going to http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/11/palin.fox/index.html. Over and out.