War on Soft Drinks Bubbles out of Schools

I hope everyone is ready for a new pointless tax!!!! Do you enjoy drinking soda? Well get ready for a new tax on all those sugary beverages. "New York has revived a proposal to impose a penny per ounce tax on sweetened beverages" Colorado and Illinois already have these taxes and California is currently considering it. Former President Bill Clinton had brought this issue to the forefront when he tackled the issue of child obesity and soda vending machines in schools. Now the need to deter adults from buying these beverages is being addressed. A 2 liter bottle of coke would cost 62 cents more then whatever it costs now. But does this slight price increase really have any chance of reducing the demand for soda? Most New Yorkers actually support this tax, but that doesn't mean it will do what its proposed to. The issue has been floating around the federal level but is left to individual states to decide what to do. I personally don't drink soda but if I did, then I don't really think it would make a difference. I don't think that would make a difference to anyone to be quite honest. How much would that mean for extremely sugary drinks like energy drinks? Many will be surprised to find out that Vitamin Water will be taxed just as much as coke considering the hidden amount of calories and grams of sugar it has. According to Wall Street Journal, these taxes will help to pay for President Obama's health care reform. is this a valid response to American obesity or is legislation completely off base here?


Link used: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/08/eveningnews/main6279674.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
http://www.livescience.com/health/090512-soda-tax.html

Extending unemployment insurance

The job market within our economy has not been doing well lately. The unemployment rate has been increasing in the past few years. The amount of unemployed persons within the United States is still growing to this day. When there are so many people who continue to lose their jobs something needs to be done. Our own people are on their own to fend for themselves and come up with a way to pay for the cost of living.

This week the senate brought up a bill that would extend the unemployment insurance for persons unemployed in our country. This help from the government is for long term unemployed American citizens. It will consist of tax breaks and extend health insurance subsidies for the unemployed. It will give unemployment checks out to the long term unemployed past the original twenty six week unemployment packages. According to yahoonews.com and foxnews.com the estimated cost of this extension will be about $66 billion. This will add to the already $1.6 trillion budget.

It seems to me that there are not many people supporting this bill outside of the democrats. They say that this bill is going to renew many tax cuts. They also say that this bill will help to preserve jobs in this emergency state. Another point was that it is heartless to stop helping out the unemployed and to cut these people off. The comment from the White House Press secretary about the bill was “This is one more step forward as we fight to get American people back to work and support families that have been hit the hardest in these economic times”.

With all of this said I cannot agree. I know that unemployment is a big problem; however, there is no need to just keep handing out money to the unemployed. People need to get jobs to get out of the situation that they are in. If they are just being supplied money than many people will not work towards making money. They will just continue to get money handed to them. This bill does not talk about helping create jobs or finding more jobs for the unemployed it only gives out money to them. How does this help in the long run? This bill is only acting in the here and now, not for the future. The billions that would go into this would not be worth it if it only puts us more in debt in the long run and doesn’t create jobs for these unemployed people. This bill shows many of the stimulious bill qualities from last year, which did not help our economy very much. Do we really want to put ourselves more in debt with a bill that only helps within the moment??????

Roberts Slams 'Pep Rally' Scene At State Of Union

I am sure that everyone has heard about the supreme courts ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case. That will definitely have a large impact on elections. The real thing that caught me off guard about all of this was how the Supreme Court Justice's and Chief Justice John Roberts were angered by President Obama's comments and felt the entire state of the union event was a "pep rally". It also seemed odd how Chief Justice Robert's felt the need for Supreme Court Justice's to be present at these state of the union events was outdated and unneccessary.

It is understandable that Chief Justice Robert's feels disrespected because anyone in his situation would likely feel the same way. However, for him to criticize the President's choice of where he was to address this important case ruling does not make sense. Either way President Obama would have voiced his thoughts on the matter. It would be somewhat cowardly to do it through media outlets. It also would not come across and get the same public reaction if he had spoken to the supreme court justices in private either. It was a state of the union address. The ruling in this case was very important and definitely should have been mentioned.

As far as the Supereme Court Justice's not wanting to be present at the state of the union event's anymore, I think that is a childish move. They work in one of the most cut-throat societies in the world and their job entails making decisions on cases that will affect hundreds of millions of people. They have a right to be upset, but for them to think that they should not have to be subjected to public criticism in public is immature. The more importance a job carries usually translates into more criticism and public scrutiny.

This court ruling will have a large impact on elections, interest groups and political parties. I know that all of the Supreme Court Justice's are intelligent people with years of experience in the field of law. However, I feel that they got this decision wrong. They may have opened up a door to another set of problems. It seems like all this talk and movement towards government regulation may have caused some counter moves, like the ruling in this case, to balance things out. Corporate greed and frugal management are some of the reasons our country is in this mess. Allowing them to spend large amounts on their interest's in the political arena has never seemed like a good idea.

When a ruling is in place for over a hundred years it might be a good thing. It did not damage, disgrace or unfairly treat anyone or anything. It kept big business out of politics. Political campaigns are already at all-time high costs, so why would a ruling be made to allow even more spending and financial aspects to be involved?

Here's the link to the article I read:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124537470

Senators: Lift Ban on Gays Donating Blood

As the times are changing and gay marriage is being more socially acceptable in cultures, 18 Democratic Senators around the United States are ready to address another discrimination due to sexual-orientation. Unfortunately, men who have had sex with other men between 1977 and the present are unable to donate blood despite their impeccable health due to the 1983 ban. Blood that is donated goes through a very lengthy scientific testing process and has never proven blood from men who have had sex with other men to be harmful. Gay rights is a very prominent political issue and the abolition of this ban will be another step forward for gay right activists. I understand that during the high risk period of HIV/AIDS this policy was set because of the community belief that gay men were having unprotected sex and continuously spreading the virus. But times have changed and protection as well as awareness is every where. Heterosexuals are just as sexually risky as homosexual males yet they can donate as much blood as they wish. Without any scientific proof, how can a high-tech society like ours, back up this clearly discriminatory ban? Blood banks need donors, and turning away healthy individuals because of their sexual orientation is unconstitutional. My question is will the Republicans jump on the banwagon, haha no pun intended ;), and recognize the constititutional violation or will conservatism once again take over? Where is the FDA on this issue and how has this policy not been addressed until now? Personally, I believe everyone should be able to donate blood and using a silly defense like "I don't want to recieve a transfusion of gay blood" is ignorant. People never know who the donor is, just that they need it to save their lives. When it comes down to saving a life a silly matter like this shouldn't be a factor. Yay for the democrats in moving forward and trying overcome sexual orientation discrimination! What do you think about the issue? Should men who have had sex with another man be allowed to donate blood or is the ban in place for a reason?

Left rallies against Blanche Lincoln

Could it be that a politically disappointed left wing of the Democratic Party is finally getting angry enough to funnel money into "change"? According to Politico.com the left wing of the Democratic party has decided that President Obama's mandate for change is being blocked not just by members of the Republican party but by Democratic Congressmen (in this case Congresswomen) such as Blanche Lincoln the incumbent Senator running in Arkansas.

Senator Lincoln has certainly been on the wrong side of the issues according to those on the left, including refusal to support card check legislation, efforts to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases and a variety of other hot button issues. Senator Lincoln is also being criticized for her opposition to the public option as well as cap and trade emissions policies. Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas wrote of Lincoln's opponent "Bill Halter will rescue the Democratic establishment from itself and help us hold a seat Lincoln is guaranteed to lose". This view is one that is currently being shared by many on the left with Lincoln's primary opponent Bill Halter being able to raise over $5 million from the likes of Sierra Club, AFL-CIO, Communications Workers of America, United Steel Workers, Progressive Change Committee, as well as a host of other interest groups.

This is shaping up to be a huge battle between a first term lieutenant governor and someone many on the left view as a protector of corporate interests and obstructor to change. I would like to take this minute to remind Senator Lincoln that the American people overwhelmingly voted in the mandate of change in the 2008 election and if she chooses to continue with her conservative policies she might want to consider running as an Independent or switch to the other sides of the aisle. This effort by organized labor/PAC's etc. is commendable and wouldn't it be great if more people who said they represented a party and who consistently chose viewpoints that differed greatly from the party were then purged through competitive primaries such as this one?

I will certainly be watching anxiously election returns on this one.

Cory Flack

Abortion being a key factor in health overhaul.

I know that it's not everyone's favorite topic to discuss, but abortion has somehow got itself back into the political limelight after a little hiatus. More important issues like a recession and military efforts have been receiving more discussion over the past couple of years, but abortion is back and playing a large role in one of the biggest bills this country may ever come across.
Some members of the house and senate have big decisions looming for them. They can vote for the healthcare bill (that now will only require 51 votes in the senate) and go against their pro-life belief or not vote for it and play a large role in the possible demise of a bill that would drastically change our country.
A lot of the pro-life supporters view this healthcare bill as a proponent for abortions. They point to a $7 billion investment to community health centers that may or may not offer abortions. Abortions are not even discussed in the healthcare bill and many politicians have stated that this healthcare bill will not include abortions because of the same stance they have had for the last 30 years. That stance being that the federal government will not pay for abortions.
This scenario is very interesting on both ends because you have two groups of people that can look somewhat hypocritical. Some politicians can look hypocritical by voting for something that seemingly goes against one of their core beliefs (pro-life). You also have the pro-life supporters who are against a bill that would provide health insurance to millions. Considering how many people die every year from lack of health insurance it would seem that anyone voting this bill down would be the opposite of pro-life. I know pro-life pertains to abortions, but it is hard to not look hypocritical when you claim to be pro-life; yet you vote a bill down that would undoubtedly save lives.
Abortion is not an easy topic to debate at all. However, I feel it is not big enough to get in the way of passing this monumental healthcare bill. There have been way too many obstacles already and one more is not needed. The pro-life supporters need to put their pride and religous beliefs on hold for a couple more months. This bill needs to be passed. Millions of people may miss out on the opportunity of a lifetime because of old values that some people will never let go off.

Here's the link to the NPR article:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124265069

It is time again for the annoying polling calls, endless ads, and verbal sparring that is the American electoral process. The November 2010 Mid-Term elections are fast approaching, with many politicians already at work campaigning. Up for grabs in the Senate are 36 vacant seats. If the special election of Republican Scott Brown was any indicator of the way mid-term elections might go, the Democratic Majority in the Senate could be challenged. These elections will be intriguing to watch, in a political era were one misstep can ruin a candidates chances. Already months before November there have been mistakes made by candidates that could prove to be detrimental in many races. Advances in technology, economic instability and general discontent with government have made this 2010 mid-term election candidate especially vulnerable to criticism, exposure, and the possible detrimental down fall of their candidacy. Gaffs while increasing a candidate’s exposure also put them under extreme scrutiny in the public eye. Will Gaffs cost election for some or only give them increased publicity.

2010 Senate Race Gaffs

Arkansas: State Senate Minority leader Kim Hendren (R) ,who is set to run against the incumbent Blanche Lincoln, has gotten into so some trouble for referring to Senator Chuck Schumer (D) from New York as “the Jew”. Hendren was the guest speaker at a 2009 Pulaski County Republican Committee meeting, during which he was answering questions from his constituents mainly questions about tax increases Hendren supported in the Arkansas Senate. Especially a cigarette tax increase and Hendren’s refusal to sign the “no tax pledge” were in question. In today’s world of Twitter, Texting and Blogging, everything a politician says is accounted for, one tweet from the meeting said that “Hendren is getting eaten alive. It’s getting ugly” during the question and answer session. (Tolbert The Tolbert Report)

At one point during the meeting a question about an appearance of Senator Chuck Schumer on MSNBC during which he stated “The hard right, which still believes that when the Federal Government moves, we chop off its hands, still believes in the traditional values kind of arguments, in strong foreign policy, all that is over.” Well addressing these statements Kim Hendren referred to Chuck Schumer as “the Jew” or “that Jew”. This Gaff while seemingly significant in its own accord was made worse when Hendren apologized about his statements to the Arkansas Blog The Tolbert Report by stating ““At the meeting I was attempting to explain that unlike Sen. Schumer, I believe in traditional values, like we used to see on ‘The Andy Griffith Show.’ I made the mistake of referring to Sen. Schumer as ‘that Jew’ and I should not have put it that way as this took away from what I was trying to say.” Hendren offered up another excuse to an Arkansas paper by saying that “he referred to Sen. Schumer as a Jew because he had trouble remembering his name” (Tolbert The Tolbert Report)

Arkansas incumbent Blanche Lincoln in all reality does not face the likelihood of defeat. However, candidate Hendren has been given free publicity from his Gaffe; he’s made it all the way to national news.

Nevada- It is impossible not to bring up Harry Reid (D) when talking about the political blunders that have been made by 2010 senatorial candidates. While Reid is the senior Senator from Nevada, serving in the Senate since 1987 he made a significant blunder. In the novel Game Change by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin they refer to some racial comments Reid made about Barack Obama. According to the book Reid described Obama as “light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one, whom many voters would embrace. (Powers January 11, 2010) While these statements were made privately and Reid has apologized for them the damage was still done. Republicans have used Reids off hand remarks to their fullest advantage, claiming double standards within parties. There was no shortage of coverage over Reid’s comments, his incumbicency could be hurt. “In Nevada, where 77% of eligible African Americans voted in 2008” what are those people thinking of Harry Reid now. The idea that he is an out of touch older white male is deferentially an issue. He apologized for his remarks and has the support of the Democratic party

.

The issue of his comment isn’t going to go away the Tea Party group has announced “that it would launch $100,000 in anti-Reid TV ads this week in Nevada.” Reid’s comments have the potential to cost him the election.

These are just two examples of how incredibly difficult the 2010 elections have the potential to be. It is already estimated that this campaign season will be the most expensive in history and that is without a presidential candidacy. All candidates are under the microscope which could have potential to take away from the real issues. While both these men made truly distasteful remarks does that fact nesicarily negate their competency to do the job? On the same token the press exposure from these missteps is immense which could benefit some of the lesser known candidates. The distaste Americans feel for the political system is being surmounted by the availability of technology. This will certainly be an interesting election season, who knows what someone will say or mess up next.

Powers, Ashley. "Reid's remarks threaten to change his game." The LA Times, January 11, 2010: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/11/nation/la-na-reid11-2010jan11.

Tolbert, Jason. Sen. Kim Hendren: Without a Teleprompter! (UPDATE II – Hendren’s New Explanation. May 2009 The Tolbert Report. http://tolbertreport.com/2009/05/14/sen-kim-hendren-without-a-teleprompter/ (accessed March 2, 2010).