Should We Raise The Wage?

Today the U.S. Senate voted on a bill to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 but they ended up falling short of their goal. The Senate needed 60 votes to pass the bill and ended up getting a vote of 54 to 42. The bill has been championed by the Dems with the Republicans leading the counter.

The Democrats believe raising the wage will give a "fair shot" to all Americans and help out our middle class. While the Republicans believe that raising the wage will hurt some and harm others and that we need more job opportunities not a higher wage. (These are just the broad ideas)

I myself am in favor of raising the minimum wage. I think people have the idea that if we pass a bill to raise the wage than it will magically happen when the President finishes his signature. If the bill gets passed, it will gradually raise the wage to $10.10 over 30 months, allowing businesses to adjust. I think that not raising the wage is a bad move by the government because factors such as new technologies and education are making the cost of living much higher than it used to be. Times are changing. People won't be able to survive off of $7.25 forever.

But what are your thoughts? Who's Right? Raise the Wage?

CNN
Washington Post
Fox News

Global Issues

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-statshttp://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
Today number of poor people in less developing countries keep increasing almost everyday. At least 80% of humanity live on less than $10 a day. the poorest 40% of the world's population consume 5% of global income. however, richest 20% consume 3/4 of world income.
Is this fear though? all the wealthy countries depend on less developing countries nature resources. I don't see how wealthy countries go to less develop countries and steal their nature resources and left them with an empty hand. this needs to stop and let help those who's poor so they can live in happy life. believe or not, no one want to be poor so why can't we help them?

Smartphones and the 4th Amendment

On April 29, 2014 the Supreme Court will be considering whether or not officers during an arrest may search the contents of a person’s mobile phone without a warrant. The court should recognize that new technologies do not alter basic Fourth Amendment principles, and should require a judicial warrant in such circumstances.

If you consider how many American Adults own a smartphone and/or a personal computer, you'll see that a new law if implemented wouldn't only be effecting a small number of people. We all know what the 4th Amendment is and how police officers must obtain a warrant based on probable cause before searching “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” As all Amendments, there are a few narrow exceptions to the warrant requirement. For example, when police officers lawfully arrest someone, they may search his or her body and immediate surroundings and seize any belongings to ensure officer safety or the preservation of evidence. But mobile phones aren’t weapons and pose no physical threat, and any evidence on the phone can be preserved by using special devices to prevent remote deletion of the data.

The U.S. Government argues that mobile phones are no different from other personal items that may already be searched, like wallets, purses or address books. But the exception for searches incident to arrests was limited by the constraints on what a person could physically carry. 

I have to agree with the United State Government on this one. What does everyone else think? When do you think, if ever,  a law will go into effect?


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/opinion/smartphones-and-the-4th-amendment.html?_r=0

x

Party legitimacy and political stagnation

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-michael/these-parties-are-lame_b_3817973.html

Legitimacy is a powerful concept in politics. It does more than simply conferring authority: it confers support. When I look at the two main parties and the persistently dominant presence they maintain on our political stage, and wonder how they maintain their status despite their just as persistently disappointing performance, I am forced to reach a similar conclusion to Mister Michael.

People don’t care enough to challenge the status quo, and those who do care enough often get caught in the partisan furor and become champions of that same state of affairs. The few who do support a genuine change find themselves derided as political hipsters at best, and vote-splitting traitors at worst.

Supreme Court critical of Ohio law punishing campaign lies

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-critical-of-ohio-law-punishing-campaign-lies/

The Supreme Court is trying to put laws in place to stop false advertisement throughout political campaigns.  Specifically in Ohio this article focuses on stopping the recklessness of the false claim ruining others campaigns.  People are complaining that this violates the first amendment of free speech.  From 2001- 2010 more than 500 false reports have been looked at and reviewed.  Out of the 500 only 5 have been brought t curt.  False advertisement has been a part of campaigning since day the first election.

Do you think that this violates the first amendment?
Should they put in a law that stops false campaigning?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2014/04/sudan-bans-political-party-meetings-201441595653225806.html

While this article doesn't directly involve the United States, it is extremely important to the concept of political parties worldwide

            On April 6, the President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan decreed that it was forbidden for any political parties to meet, unless they first got permission from "relevent authorities." This is due to al-Bashir allowing a national dialogue about potentially ending his 25 year reign in the office. Unfortunately for him, the various parties were all in agreement that he held the office for too long, so he prevented meetings and jailed the leader of the Reform Now party's student wing.

           This kind of action, though clearly extreme, poses two questions to me-how much power should the government have over parties, and how much power should parties have over the government? For example, though they shouldn't be able to prevent meetings between members of political parties, there should probably be some way to limit the incredible amount of clout the Democrats and Republicans have in our country. People generally pay more attention to the words of partisan candidates than they do to those of judges who have already been appointed, for example. 

U.S. Effort On Climate Change

The never ending battle between the underlying science of global warming and lawmakers’ ties to the fossil fuel industry has to come to end as it is time for the United States to implement a major climate change law. Of course political reality in Washington has repeatedly prevented the administration from tackling climate change. As a result of this week's climate report, it is now evident that this window to forge and implement new policies to protect the globe from food and drinking water shortages, drastic sea level rise, increased poverty and disease, is narrowing quicker than expected. 


I think that a nationwide tax on carbon pollution should be the first step. I do not think that this should be held off until the end of the decade. I think this needs to be put on the top of the Administrations priority list. 


What do you think the first step should be in order to prevent a catastrophic impact resulting from global warming? Do you think that this should be number one priority in Washington? Why do you think Congress hasn't intervened and set up a nationwide policy? 


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/us/politics/political-rifts-slow-us-effort-on-climate-laws.html?src=me

Obama Lets N.S.A. Exploit Some Internet Flaws, Officials Say

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/us/politics/obama-lets-nsa-exploit-some-internet-flaws-officials-say.html?ref=politics

President Barack Obama has decided to let the National Security Agency announce when a major flaw has been found in Internet Security.  They think that it is better to make everyone aware of the problem so that they can fix it quicker and more efficient.  They want to make people aware if there is a Cyber attack so that they identify and fix the problem.

Is this just another way for the N.S.A. to get more information from the citizens?
Do you thin that they should let people know when there is a major security breach over the internet?
Would it be "ok" to use it for military use like they did to Iran?

I feel that they should let people know when there is a major breach for their personal information.

Palabras

    Recently I stumbled on a new NPR series called Borderland with Host Steve Inskeep. Inskeep has done reporting in Syria and Afghanistan, but his latest assignment brought him a little closer to home. The series attempts (and succeeds) to tell the complex and complicated story of life on the border. Inskeep and other journalists began their journey at Boca Chica, TX where the mouth of the Rio Grand meets the Gulf of Mexico and from there drove west while zigzagging across the border. The series gives a face to the many hot topics that are associated with this region such as immigration and the violence of the cartels.
    While the series gives a lot of facts about the border and shares many stories, two of the stories really jumped out at me. The first took place in a Catholic shelter that takes in recently arrived immigrants in a small town in Texas. The story was about the journey of one of the women who was staying at the shelter, which began in Ethiopia and travelled through 12 countries with a false passport. She was seeking asylum with her husband who was detained upon making it to the U.S. They travelled through jungles and rivers and across the desert in order to get a chance at a better life. This really struck me because I had never really thought about people from other parts of the world making the same journey that numerous others from Latin America make on a daily basis.
    The second was about the words we use and why people choose certain words over others. They explain that the decision to use English or Spanish in the region is a political statement and even the words one uses can reveal a political bias too.  They use the example of calling the physical barrier between the U.S. And Mexico either a fence, which is the term the Border Patrol use, and a wall which some claim to be a more accurate statement. Other words are more obvious as to what your stance on immigration is, such as the term illegal alien versus undocumented immigrant.
    Words do mean so much and it is amazing how so much meaning can be packed into just a word or two. Recently, students at Dartmouth College petitioned for the word 'illegal' to be banned from the classroom when talking about immigration. We've changed the words we use for so many groups of people and we realize how deeply hurtful and harmful a word can be. So I guess I would like to leave off by asking if it is really such a burden to not use the word illegal? And if so, why? Also, I encourage all of you to take a look at the series, because there are so many beautiful pictures and stories in this series. 

Paul Ryan Proposes New Budget Cuts for GOP

This Tuesday House Budget Committee Chairman Paul ryan released his plan that would potentially cut 5.1 trillion dollars from the National Defecit in 10 years, concentrating mostly on cuts to social benefits programs like food stams and parts of the Affordable Health Care Act.  In turn the plan would provide Pell grants for Low-income Students and pensions for many federal employees, also straying away from cuts in social benefit programs for senior citizens.  Many conservative who were against this are now embracing it as the GOP budget while Democrats will likely oppose the plan.  Ryan had to say this about the budget plan, "By cutting wasteful spending, strengthening key priorities, and laying the foundation for a stronger economy, we have shown the American people there's a better way forward"

What does everyone think? should we make cuts to social benefit programs to balance the budget or continue on the path towards universal healthcare coverage as well as the other programs Ryan and other conservatives wish to cut?


http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/01/paul-ryan-gop-budget-plan-major-medicare-cuts

The People's Pledge and Super PACs in NH

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/21/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-brown-shaheen-peoples-pledge-ruckus/

Sorry for the videos embedded in the article it makes it look kind of confusing but try to ignore them.

I would love to start discussion of outside money and how it affects political campaigns. Whether it is at the national or state level, third party money flows on both sides of the aisle. Is it a good thing? Or a bad thing? Should it be changed? Scott Brown created and signed the "People's Pledge" in Massachusetts to limit the amount of third party money being added into the campaign...and it worked. However, now that hes in New Hampshire he refuses to sign the pledge, committing a great injustice to the people of New Hampshire.

I applaud Scott Brown for the progress he made with the People's Pledge, but I want him to carry over that progress into New Hampshire. I strongly believe that campaigns should be about facts and ideas and winning over the hearts and minds of the people you will be representing. NOT using third party money to publicly slander your opponent.

What are your feelings on campaign finance?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/us/politics/paul-ryan-budget.html?ref=us

Republican, Paul Ryan designed a budget plan that cuts $5 trillion in U.S. spending over the next decade. He plans on creating a balance between government spending and taxes by 2024. What does the House Budget Committee chairman have in store with his plan? On one hand, he plans on increase spending on defense. However, does the country need to increase our defense system? On the other hand, he plans on making cuts to the following:

• Medicare and Food Stamps
• Affordable Care Act
• Domestic Programs

What do you think? If the Affordable Care Act is fixed and citizens become more pleased with the program, will the Republican Party still want to abandon it? What about Medicare and food stamps, should they be released to states as block grants?