The Godfather of Earmarks RIP

Earmarks or the more infamous political jargon “pork barrel” spending has made for grandiose news stories about the failure of government and ardent speeches from lackluster candidates. Last month the godfather of earmarks passed away and “with him may have passed the Golden Age of the Earmark.” (Elving, March 16,2010) Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) slated Congressman John Murtha as one of the most corrupt politicians in Washington. Here’s a link to that listhttp://www.citizensforethics.org/files/Beyond%20Delay%20Full%20Report_0.pdf Murtha a democrat from Pennsylvania who has been accused of various sketchy earmarking such as various connections too defense contracting groups and promotions of self interests. Some giveMurtha credit for getting money to places that needed it like a failing airport but in reality if one looks at the long list of lets say interesting funding it causes one to think how is this good governance.

Murtha was called out on the floor by Rep. Jeff Flake for some of his intersting earmarks.

His death has posed a question how did earmarks come to be? Despite Harry Reid's claim that “"The FoundingFathers would be cringing to hear people talking about eliminating earmarks”. (Elving, March 16,2010) Earmarks while having some historically revelance have never been prominent like they are modernly. In 1817 President Madison rejected Bonus Bill by wisely saying "The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section ofthe first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised

by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the

power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers

vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States," (Pye, on March 28, 2008)

Earmarks have seen a significant rise over the years in 1970 the Defense Apporations Bill had a dozen earmarks by 2005 it had 2,671. Is it a clever means of legislation or just another benefit of the job of politician. Earmarks are about the only bipartisian thing in congress because members from both sides actively engage in the practice. Earmarks currently cost the tax payer $29 billion dollars. While things like Bridge to No Where are considred politically humourosus this is a significant amount of money that is being spent.

There are of course the absurd earmarks like

$50,000 for the National Mule and Packers Museum in California

$107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail.

$2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe.

While there is cultural and historical relevance to these kind of projects perhaps why am I going into so much debt to get an education and working 4 days a week, while someone get 2 million dollars to build a canoe. It doesn’t seem fair.

Even Obama is not blameless in this he earmarked money for University of Chicago Medical Center

where his wife is employed.

The Seattle Times released an interesting list of $ 3.5 billion in mystery earmarks. Like $147.2 Million for ArmyJunior Reserve Officers' Training Corps these mystery earmarks have no viable programs that they are realted too. They are truly a mystery as to where the money is going.

Earmarks need reform and as it stands there doesn’t seem to be any real change that’s occurring.

The 2010 Midterm Elections

On November 2, 2010 at least 36 of the 100 seats in the Senate and all House seats are up for election. Though the Democrats have been dominant in the recent elections, maybe things are about to change. Since the vote on U.S. health care, CNN.com reports that more than 10 Democrats have reported trouble. Many will argue that these violent acts against Democratic Congress members are a political statement. It definitely seems that the population is expressing anger towards the health care plan, mainly a Democratic sponsored bill.

The House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and South Carolina Democratic Representative James Clyburn spoke out against the attacks, quoting that democracy "is not about violence." It is not proven that it is only Republican citizens and not just a generally angered population. House Minority Leader John Boehner has made it public that he urges opponents to demonstrate legally. He makes a strong point that "If people are angry, they ought to register to vote and get involved in a campaign."

From shouting racial slurs to African-American House Democrats, to spitting on Massachusetts' Democratic Congressman Barney Frank and shouting anti-gay slangs when he is openly gay, the American population has gone too far. Be smart and voice your opinion legally at the voting booth.

Republican radio shows are voicing their opinions early that they may see some gained support for their party in the upcoming election. However, this may just be a false hope when in reality, Republicans have not held up well in recent elections. With the new revolutionary Tea Party, Republicans may also lose some of their votes to candidates of the Tea Party. The current party structure in Congress may not change much, but there is an evident change in the views of our population.

Here's a wild idea to help get us out of some debt: focus on business which is arguably the main driver of our economy. Get rid of some of the regulations and taxes on businesses in the United States, and try and get back the companies that left to produce cheaper in other countries. Bring more production to our homeland and maybe a stronger dollar would persuade banks to start lending. Any small change could lead to bigger progress in fixing our hurting economy.

Impractical Politics

America, you are living beyond your means. You spend more than you earn. You take on loans without establishing a way to pay them off. You aid others where you have not yet helped yourself. It is time you act responsibly. It doesn't matter whether you're politically liberal or conservative, what you need is to be politically practical.

To the Democrats of America: we need to cut spending. These cuts cannot come solely from the defense budget. The money that we save from these cuts or that we make from raised taxes cannot be funneled into welfare programs. Redirecting funds is not the same thing as removing them. We cannot afford the many programs you propose. Government has a responsibility to protect the welfare of its citizens, yes, but that is exactly what it is doing by being fiscally responsible.

To the Republicans of America: we need to raise taxes. We will never return to a smaller, decentralized government; we have gone too far. We cannot get by cutting programs alone. You need to allow taxes to be raised. By working together we can do more than by working individually. While some individuals are successful on their own, society can accomplish more if it cooperates.

To the disenfranchised of America: we need you involved. It is unlikely that your candidates will win; America is not structured to accommodate three parties. We need you to martyr yourselves. While your candidates may not win seats, your voices are heard and do influence American politics. It is better to see some gains rather than none at all.

To the apathetic of America: we need you to inform yourselves about the issues and then to participate in politics. Democracy cannot work without an informed and active citizenry. The government is not representing you unless you make yourself heard. It is in your own best interest to participate.

To the politicians of America: we need you to take responsibility. You need to convince Americans to vote for whom they think the best candidate is rather than who they think will win. You have to convince them of your issues, not of your popularity. Stop trying to please us. This may sound insane, like political suicide; it might be. It is necessary, the unpopular decisions are the ones most needed. We need to cut programs and raise taxes in order for democracy in America to remain viable.

Obama will be a one term president

Barring a complete reversal of the way President Obama is currently running his administration, Obama will be a one term president. Even if we ignore all of the recent polls showing significant drops in both his approval and the Democratic parties, the writing is still on the wall. We will ignore these poll results since we are just under 3 years away from the next presidential election and everyone knows that public opinion can change within a few weeks time. What we can't ignore however are President Obama's legislative priorities and lack of fiscal conservativeness.

Whats that? You say President Bush wasn't any better when it came to spending? I'll give you that President Bush was bad...but Obama is worse, and he's only had one year in office so far compared to Bush's eight. According to CNSNews and the last CBO report Bush averaged 20.4% spending of the GDP. Obama? Try 24.1% of GDP. That's a 3.7% increase in just one year! On top of that the the government under Obama had a deficit of 1.412 TRILLION dollars, compared to the previous high in 2008 of 458.5 billion dollars. While I'll give you that some of the spending during his 2009 term was carry over from President Bush's administration, Obama was still responsible for signing the $787 billion stimulus package, and with unemployment continuing to grow, that money was obviously not well spent. So lets go ahead and throw out the 2009 numbers for a minute since some of that was from President Bush's administration. Instead lets look at the projected numbers for the 2010 budget. 1.5 TRILLION dollars...not only is it not going down, he's actually managed to increase it over the previous year.

Now I'm like most people who think we spend too much money on health care, and I'd love to see some kind of reform in the system. However, I don't believe the time for that reform is now. President Obama's current health care reform, in his own words, is only projected to reduce the deficit over the next decade. That reduction in deficit is only in the billions over that time period. So here he is spending 1.5 trillion a year while at the same time touting that his health care reform bill will save us 200+ billion over the next 10 years. WOW, that's some kind of savings there! Sarcasm aside, President Obama needs to change his priorities over the next 3 years if he wants to even think of having a bid for reelection. Health care reform needs to happen, but not until after the economy is back on the mend and the unemployment rate goes down. I agree people are having a tough time paying for health insurance, but that's probably because over 10% of the population is jobless right now. Hard to pay for something when your out of work.

President Obama, you need to focus on the economy and unemployment rate, THEN you can move on to your social reforms.

Refocusing on Education

President Obama is pushing for a 3.5 billion dollar revamp of the Bush administrations No Child Left Behind Act. CNN.com reports that the goal of this overhaul is to change the focus entirely. The Bush administration created the bill back in 2001 and did so in order to track school progress and success with standardized tests in grades 1 through 8. The law was ultimately a failure. The plan was to have every student in the country on their grade reading level by 2014; but it wasn't funded nearly as much as it should have been. Now the Obama administration wants to, instead of having every student at their grade reading level by 2014, make sure that by 2020 everyone graduating high school is college or career ready. They want to make sure that teachers and principals are effective; and if they aren't, that theyre being fired. Instead of dummying down our expectations so that every student, teacher, and school can easily reach them without putting forth any real effort, the Obama campaign wants to strain the system. They want to reestablish the US among the smartest countries in the world, a list that we have fallen too far down on.
Its about damn time that the government did something about our education system. Teachers are way under paid, our work force is getting dumber, and we as a country are too busy focusing on our military and GDP. The youth represent the future, and education is only going to brighten that. Enough with kids dropping out of school or not going to college because their teachers made them hate learning; enough with teachers under achieving or being under paid; and enough with the belief that teachers are all the same because they are not. Great teachers are extremely rare, but have the potential to inspire children and young adults to do incredible things. The future lies in the minds of this country's youth, their future lies within their education, their education lies in the hands of their teachers; so in the end the teachers have the ability to influence the future, lets start paying them like their job has some significance.
I mean how many times do you drop a class because of a teacher? Or even pick a class because of a teacher? Imagine if you could have done that in elementary school? College has options, whereas middle school and high school really do not. Now Im not saying that teachers are always the reason why kids drop out of school or dont do well in classes, because that simply is not the truth. Some kids just do not try, they bluntly do not care; and there isnt much to be done about that. But lets say we removed every single ineffective teacher and replaced them with inspirational ones. Would we see improvements in grades, graduation rates, college attendence, etc.? You bet.

Political Parties, Elections and Interest Groups: The unequal distribution of wealth among single women of color

Political Parties, Elections and Interest Groups: The unequal distribution of wealth among single women of color

The unequal distribution of wealth among single women of color

In a new report by the Insight Center of Economic and Community Development we find out some staggering statistics. Black and Latino women in the United States are earning far less than their single white female peers. The annual median wealth of a Black women was $100 dollars and female Latino women had a median wealth of 120$. In contrast the annual median wealth of a single white woman was 41,500 dollars. This is not a slight difference, but one showing substantial inequality in income and assets. The report concluded that about half of Black and Latino women had negative wealth, indicating that their debts were more than their assets. The growing problem of debt among Americans is growing, especially among minorities, and this study highlights that problem even more. This study indicates what could be serious setback to the future generations of minorities in this country. There seems to be a serious problem in the disruption of wealth among races and gender, which is inhibiting the prospect of racial equality in the United States. This study comes as and argument for more social programs that directly help benefit minority groups who are not getting the same opportunities to increase wealth as their white counterparts. Affirmative Action and other similar programs are always being argued, but I personally can’t see how these programs could not be addressed. It is apparent that this inequality among races is only going to further damage the status of minorities in the United States and slow the economy as a whole. It is imperative to do something about this and do something now!!!