In Response to: Government Cuts on Security

This blog post is in response to Brandon Nguyen's editorial: Government Cuts on Security

Brandon, I agree with you that a long-term solution means a careful evaluation of each budgetary item. We, as a country, have gotten used to the idea of surplus spending and expect someone else to solve our financial woes. The reality of the situation is that we are in debt and in desperate need to cut back our spending to help our economy recover. Our national security and defense expenditure is one of the largest elements of our budget. The United States recognizes that a powerful military is important in maintaining our safety. However, we spend more than many of the most industrious nations combined and accounted for 43% of global military expenditures in 2010. [1] I feel national defense is one area where there is a need scale back our spending. I do agree with you that the safety of the people needs to be upheld but at what cost?

Ron Paul, current Republican presidential candidate, has been vocal in his stance of scaling back America’s military footprint in foreign nations. I think this could be a reasonable option. We currently operate in over 100 countries and this is very costly. This also adds to the notion that as a country we need to “police the world” which can create a negative view on what America truly stands for, diplomacy and democracy. By bringing our troops back home we can hope to secure our borders at a lower cost and help balance our national budget. [2] Of course this idea seems simple and could have potential drawbacks. The best method to test this theory would either be a temporary scale back or a minor scale back of certain bases. Either way, Congress needs to find a way to successfully decrease military spending without losing the national security we have upheld as a nation.

[1] http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

[2] http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Ron-Paul-foreign-policy/2011/11/20/id/418626

Delaying the Inevitable?

On Thursday evening, the US House of Representatives yet again put into place a temporary spending bill to keep the federal government up and running. The bill is working its way through Congress right now and is awaiting Senate approval. The current spending appropriations were extended because the federal government was scheduled to run out of finances this coming Friday. A long-term solution would be preferable but at this point something just needed to be done. The temporary measure extends the current spending plan until December 16^th. [1]

This isn’t the first time the House of Representatives has had to scramble to keep the government running. A stopgap bill was used in early October for needed disaster relief and to keep the government afloat entering a new fiscal year. [1] In August, the debt ceiling was increased to avoid a default on our debt. This action enabled continual borrowing and spending for government programs. [2] There seems to be a trend in the current Congress for delaying the inevitable.  Often things can get worse before they get better, but this year there a repeatable trend of things getting worse – too many accounts of creating short-term solutions to long-term problems. This continual round about methodology of Congress has made them lose American confidence. [3] The constituents are taking notice and actually starting to take action as well.

The reason for all of the short-term solutions, rather than a restructuring or long term plan, is the inability of our Congress to collectively decide upon budget appropriations for the 2012 fiscal year. Amazingly, it has been more than 15 years since both chambers of Congress – the House and the Senate - have passed a bill laying out the spending measures for all government supported programs. Over that time, Congress has supported continuing past resolutions or bundling appropriation bills. [1] There is undoubtedly a problem with this “last-minute” legislation trend of inaction. Our dawdling Congress needs to get its act together and start working towards long-term solutions. Clearly, there needs to be a change in Congress’ culture; this begins with the constituents. This isn’t an issue of party politics; this is an issue of getting the American people what they deserve - a diligent legislative body working cooperatively to make our country stronger and more fiscally sound.

I realize that this may sound harsh. I’m not suggesting that present solutions are horrible or ill advised, but instead, that our government’s representatives need to grapple with the hard stuff, and that as citizens, we need to support them in doing so. Collectively, we need to make a better effort to work together and do what is best for ALL of the American people. Passing a federal budget and deciding how the money is allocated is the job of Congress; it is clearly laid out in the Constitution. As US citizens we have a responsibility to uphold this sacred document- to ensure that we the people form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. [4]

Sources:

[1] http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/17/house-passes-continuing-resolution-avoids-another-shutdown-threat/

[2] http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/national_debt_us/index.html

[3] http://www.gallup.com/poll/141512/congress-ranks-last-confidence-institutions.aspx

[4] http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

In Response to: Quality Over Showboating

The following commentary is in response to John Newhouse's editorial Quality Over Showboating.

First off, I would have to agree with you that campaign methods do not always promote supporting a candidate on the correct basis. I feel that campaigns should be based on the qualities of candidates and the reasonable actions that they can achieve while in office. The US government is not set up so that one person can go in and make a dramatic change. Instead, it is set up so that a person can lobby for certain outcomes and gain support for them. With that said, banter and name-calling grabs headlines and sensationalizes a situation or characterization of a candidate.  Those candidates who make the headlines under a popular stance have a better chance to win an election; those making headlines under an unpopular stance have a better chance to lose an election. This practice has occurred throughout our history.  It is important to note that just because it has become standard practice does not mean that it should be a primary focus of campaigns. The party system by its very nature creates a comparison between candidates and, I feel, splits the country on opposing sides that most people do not understand or follow. As long as we continue to employ single-member districts and not proportional representation the current tactics used in elections will continue and unfortunately, the focus and revenues raised won’t be on solving the problems of our time. We know that finances have and potentially always will be an issue with politics. Supporters want their candidate to win so they can get favorable legislation passed. The easiest way to ensure victory is through financial support. Fortunately, the Federal Elections Commission was established to monitor spending in federal campaigns. This helps to regulate money that is coming in from corporations, lobbyist groups, political action committees, individuals, and political parties. Although, each donor has a limit to what they can contribute to a candidate there is no limit on the number of donors who can contribute. This in turn, leaves the field wide open on the amount of money a candidate can raise for their campaign. So bottom line, find a candidate worthy of supporting and send in your check. This seems like a poor way to be represented but sadly, in the current system, it may be the best way to be heard.

Flat Tax Rate: Is it fair and will it help America?

     Over the past week there has been a lot said about current governor of Texas and Republican Presidential candidate Rick Perry’s plan for a federal flat tax. His plan calls for all individuals to pay a rate of twenty percent on their income. This would replace the current progressive tax system that starts at ten percent and moves up to thirty-five percent. It might appear as though individuals and families on the lower end of the economic scale would be hindered by an increase in their tax rate. Not so, says Perry.  He includes an option of up to $12,500 in tax deductions for the less privileged, tempering their tax rate.  He states that “taxes will be cut across all income groups in America,” putting more money in their pockets. [1]

     Herman Cain’s “9-9-9” plan also puts a flat rate on income tax. His plan calls for a nine percent income tax, with only charitable donation deductions. [2] Cain’s main focus is the idea of taxing all individuals at the same rate. But can a flat tax system work? Does this lead to equality? Can taxing at rates lower than the current system generate more revenue?

     The idea of creating a flat tax is not new, in fact, flat tax has been proposed in the past by both Democrat and Republican candidates. Currently, several countries (Russia being the most prominent) and states within our own country have flat tax systems. The current system in Russia, which was implemented in 2001, has boosted their economy and resulted in increased tax revenues. [3] Although, the economy has improved since the implementation of a flat tax there is no guarantee that it was solely attributed to the new system. Even if that were the case, the United States economy is much larger than Russia’s and our current financial crisis is much larger than theirs was at the time.

     Would implementing a flat tax rate be fair for all, or most, Americans? The easy answer is, yes, and no. Under the current tax system, individuals in lower economic brackets pay less of a percentage of their income and individuals in higher brackets pay more. But there’s a catch.  There are several loopholes and tax-exemptions that are only available to the wealthy to help them pay a lower percentage of taxes than individuals who make tens of thousands of dollars less per year. Obviously, there is a definite inequality. A flat tax system will eliminate loopholes and make filing taxes a simpler process. With certain deductions for lower income groups the system has potential to overall be more “fair”. However, both Perry’s and Cain’s plans still allow for certain deductions which could eliminate the “fairness” in the system and benefit the wealthy and their personal causes.

     Bottom line, we need a tax plan that will boost the US economy.  Regardless of differing opinions, a flat tax rate system, with provided benefits for the less fortunate, is something we need to critically consider for America. Fewer loopholes would lead to less tax fraud and tax evasion could be decreased. The system does have potential and I support the principle, but it also needs to be investigated and debated more. Any new tax system put into place will also need to implement a system that can help our government balance the budget and improve the economy.

Sources:

[1] http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/10/rick-perry-flat-tax-economic-plan-/1

[2] http://pacbiztimes.com/2011/10/28/guest-oped-flat-rate-would-treat-all-taxpayers-equally/ 

[3] http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/941

Solyndra and Keystone: Not All Environmental Scandals Are Created Equal

The following blog entry is in response to the editorial “Solyndra and Keystone: Not All Environmental Scandals Are Created Equal.” The article was from the October 31, 2011 edition of The Nation by The Editors. The editorial was found through the political blog, Real Clear Politics.

Ever since governments have existed there have been scandals; for many they seem to go hand in hand. Cronyism, the appointment of associates or friends to positions of authority without proper consideration of their qualifications, is often a part of government scandals.  The Obama administration is no exception - it is currently involved in two major environmental scandals where cronyism is a factor.

The Solyndra scandal involves a 535 million dollar Energy Department contract to a start-up solar panel company - Solyndra. The law firm representing Solyndra is the very same law firm that employs the US official’s wife who pushed for the contract. Clearly there is a conflict of interest.

The second, the Keystone scandal involves a pipeline project and an interweaving web of cronyism. The players Paul Elliott, Hillary Clinton’s former deputy campaign manager and currently a lobbyist for TransCanada and David Goldwyn, a former State Department official and tar sands lobbyist. There is also a major tie in to Cardno Entrix, the consulting company that led the Environmental Impact Study. The Obama administration is pushing the project forward.

The editorial “Solyndra and Keystone: Not All Environmental Scandals Are Created Equal,” is interesting and topical and address all American citizens.  It focuses on two scandals that have an impact on our environment, a topic that is getting a lot of attention and a lot of government funding.  Both show a blatant corruption of government funds. The author draws our attention to the scandals, and in particular cronyism, to force us to look more deeply.  Environmental issues are a hot topic.  We want to fund alternative energy sources, we want to improve our world, but we must, as the Editors implore us, understand to what cost and to what purpose we align our supports.  It is the job of the American people to keep the government in check and insist on responsible use of authority.

The authors have done the research and show a reporting of the facts by identifying these issues and naming specific people. They ask the reader to balance their opinion and future actions based on these facts.  Reporting facts attributes credibility.

They suggest that the Keystone scandal is more significant than the Solyndra scandal; I agree, although both set of actions grossly manipulated trust.  It is the Editor’s note of opportunity for President Obama to deliver on his campaign promise to change the culture of Washington and put a stop to the Keystone issue that the Editors focus their stand. The lesson as stated in the article is that cronyism can drive policy and used against good judgment. I feel their focus has transferred the responsibility to the reader - to act, to encourage, and to insist upon President Obama to uphold his promise and responsibilities as our leader and Commander in Chief. 

Editorial: Teacher tests separation of church and state

The following blog entry is in regards to Suzy Parker’s editorial “Teacher tests separation of church and state” for USA Today.

Throughout the history of the United States there have been many issues regarding church and state. The protections provided in the Bill of Rights give citizens the right to freedom of religion. One common misconception is that the Constitution lays out the separation of church and state.  This is not true, but instead an interpretation of the First Amendment.  What happens when the church denies Constitutional rights of citizens? Suzy Parker’s editorial for USA Today poses this question.

Parker’s editorial responds to the Supreme Court case Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran: Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The case focuses on the institutions right to fire a disabled employee who they claim could no longer perform her duties. Cheryl Perich, a teacher at Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran in Michigan, was diagnosed with narcolepsy, a sleep disorder that causes excessive sleepiness. She missed significant time from school while on approved medical leave. She was later warned that if she missed more than six months of duty that she would be terminated. Perich received clearance from her doctor to return to work but was denied by the church to teach. According to the article, the church cited her “insubordination and disruptive behavior” and that by threatening to take legal action she damaged her relationship with the school “beyond repair.” Prior to this formal reaction, Perich was considered a secular employee of the institution, with no religious ties. It was not until her termination that she was given a clerical title. The question, as described by Parker, is under what employee status the school is determining Constitutional rights.

Courts have extended “ministerial exceptions” to religious affiliates whom they chose to become clergymen. The same exceptions do not apply to employees who work in secular positions for those same institutions. This case is based upon the fine line between the powers governing church and state and the consequences of crossing that line. Parker has done well to research the case and reference information regarding the Constitution. Her credibility lies in reporting the facts.  The very idea that the Supreme Court has to grapple with the “fine line of church and state” makes it worthy of commentary.

Parker claims that private or non-religious institutions would be in violation of the law if they were in this same situation. She also claims that the church does have the right to choose who teaches religion, and points out that Perich could have continued her duties as a secular member or lay teacher without being in violation of her contract.

Parker’s resolutions are to remove the religious titles and restore Perich’s secular status.  She further supports that there should be a financial settlement between the parties, whereby Perich is restored lost income. Her stand is summarized; the secular argument does not breach religious walls and instead makes the issue civil and not Constitutional.

I agree with Parker; this decision does not need to include religion. The decision is a simple matter of rightful employment.  This decision would include all citizens who are part of the workforce. It is important for the court to disregard the title change and not include the religious institution label while making their judgment.

How Budget Battles Keep the Economy in Limbo

President Obama proposed a $3.7 trillion budget in February. But as the new fiscal year starts, there's still no final budget in place.

This post is in reference to the article “How Budget Battles Keep the Economy in Limbo” by Marilyn Geewax of National Public Radio. The article was written on October 2, 2011.

     Congress has already caused a stir with the approval of a stopgap-funding bill to keep the government operating. With the fiscal year beginning on October 1, Congress has delayed an official budget plan for the year. This has become a popular trend since the 1970s and last year the stopgap bill lasted over half of the fiscal year. A stopgap-funding bill is a temporary spending bill until the US budget is set. It’s hard to believe that the US government would ever stop operating, but if there was not an opportunity to employ stopgap funding it could, at least theoretically.

     Stopgap-funding delays every government funded venture – people working directly or indirectly for government-funded industries don’t know their budgets, and so they delay both their business and personal plans.

     I recommend reading the article. It may make you aware or increase your intolerance to the way government works and may press upon you to have a voice in what happens in government. The stopgap funding affects multiple parts of the government including Congress and federal agencies and could have an adverse affect on public opinion. Potentially, someone you know has been negatively affected by the budget delays.

Embedded link: http://www.npr.org/2011/10/02/140961812/federal-budget-uncertainty-weighs-on-economy