Comment on Classmates Blog- Ashley West

Ashley West’s two cents on voting requiring an ID is practical. She discusses the hardships that many will have to face in order to acquire an ID (including waiting at DMV’s and going through numerous sources for documents such as birth certificates). She also describes the abuse this will cause to the U.S political system by stating that this gives yet another reason for minority citizens (primarily democrats) not to vote- maybe the reason G.O.P candidates are encouraging this legislation.

However, I disagree with her stance on this piece of legislation as a whole. Yes requiring citizens to have an ID to vote is inconvenient for a few, but when looking at the wider spectrum it seems almost idiotic not to have this law. For one, requiring an ID for voters will reduce voting fraud (like such that happened during Obama’s election with ACORN).  Sure Pennsylvania has not had voting fraud as a major issue in years prior, but other states such as Texas have received over 50 voting fraud convictions. “Vote fraud is real and vote fraud swings elections,” said Quinn Hillyer of the Center for Individual Freedom. “This isn’t a racial thing. This is an anyway-we-can-win thing.” In order to protect voting fraud, requiring an ID before voting seems a quick and simple fix.

As for that 11% of the eligible voters that do not own a government issued ID, there are a number of substantial ways they can obtain their ID (which they will need not only for voting but also for everyday life! You need a photo ID to get on an airplane or an Amtrak train; to open a bank account, withdraw money from it, or cash a check; to pick up movie and concert tickets; to go into a federal building; to buy alcohol and to apply for food stamps. Living in the U.S today without an ID is suicidal. It is impossible to do anything without an ID in today’s society).

Republicans agree with this piece of legislation because states must prevent voting fraud not because they want to restrict minorities such as African-American from voting. In actuality, I’m surprised our nation has gotten away with not requiring some from of government approved ID in previous years. This law is a law of prevention, not racism or against minorities.

http://marylandreporter.com/2012/06/11/voter-fraud-or-voter-suppression-right-and-left-clash-over-election-laws/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2012-03-19/voter-ID-Texas-fraud/53658158/1

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/section/category/voter_id/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/27/why_americans_support_voter_id_laws_112546.html

Jackson-Vanik Repeal

With Russia about to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) in mid-august this year, President Putin (of Russia) has been pushing to have PNTR (Permanent Normal Trade Regulations) with the U.S. This means repealing the Jackson-Vanik Act established during the Cold War (1980’s).

Originally, the Jackson-Vanik Act was put into place to punish the Soviet Union for violating human rights. The USSR was allowing not only children to work at young ages, but disgusting conditions for workers. Poor food quality, no breaks, sweat shops, and extremely low wages: The United States did not agree with this in the least, so the U.S established the Jackson-Vanik Act that taxed all imports from the USSR. This meant decreased demand for the USSR’s products and the result was devastating for the Soviet Union. Eventually, the USSR fell and the newly formed Russia established new laws to fix the way its people worked and lived; however, even with Russia’s new policies, the U.S never repealed the Jackson-Vanik. Rather, every year since, the U.S has simply waved the Act and allowed for normal trading with Russia. Sadly, waving the Act is not enough to allow Russia to join the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Logically, the U.S has no reason not to repeal the Jackson-Vanik (considering its original purpose was to punish the USSR which has not only fallen, but Russia has established human rights conditions to the liking of U.S senators). So why hasn’t the U.S not repealed this act? Having Russia join the WTO would be beneficial for both countries, right? The issue lies with the G.O.P. Many republican senators do not agree with allowing PNTR with Russia. Instead, many republican senators are willing to repeal the Jackson-Vanik Act if it is replaced with the Magnitsky Act (which is symbolically the same thing- it is an Act that punishes Russia for human rights issues by taxing their imports). Establishing this Act will be counter-productive considering Russia is going to be joining the World Trade Organization before the end of this summer; this Magnitsky Act will just be another barrier Russia will have to overcome (besides it’s pointless considering the U.S will most likely wave it annually like they do to the Jackson-Vanik Act). The United States should repeal the Jackson- Vanik Act, not replace it with the Magnitsky Act, and allow Russia to join the WTO this summer- opening doors for normal trade regulations and allowing the U.S and Russian economy to flourish.

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_07_14/81484044/

http://www.kalemjournal.com/the-repeal-of-the-jackson-vanik-amendment-would-raise-hopes-for-a-deal-in-chicago1.html

Commentary on “Affording College Education”

In response to Kyle Grier’s blog post on college education affordance, I agree with his claim that “Cheaper loans and more opportunities for students is the route the U.S. needs to take to maintain its position as a world power”; also, I agree completely with his stance on Mitt Romney’s decision to cut spending on Higher education.

It is a well known fact that college is expensive and not many students are able to afford continuing their education, if you do not believe me go check out U.S News. With this being understood, it only seems logical to agree with Grier and his Romney argument (that Romney is doing nothing to help the poor by cutting higher education spending-something that would cost over 1 million students their future in education).

I further agree that while the deficit, especially in today’s failing economy, is of paramount importance, college education is of even more significance for multiple reasons. One, no matter what happens in our economy a deficit is inevitable. The government spending too much money and not taking in enough taxes to compensate has been the status quo for many years, therefore, our nation’s debt is not going to be improving any time soon. Of course minor changes (like cutting spending from the higher education program) will help in this deficit, but is the risk worth it? This is not an issue of allowing minorities to obtain education, but rather allowing students in general the opportunity to continue their education, receive degrees, enter the economy with new ideas, and stimulate the market. Second, the higher education program was enacted for the purpose of education and has prospered and over exceeded the bills expectations. Because of this statistic, there is no valid argument Mitt Romney has to cut the program other than deficit crisis (which can be easily looked passed considering it’s inevitable). Romney argues that students can receive loans or join the military, but this would just further increase the problem of never ending college debt.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/1213-cutting-the-deficit-should-be-next-sessions-main-concern/

http://blogmaverick.com/2012/05/13/the-coming-meltdown-in-college-education-why-the-economy-wont-get-better-any-time-soon/

http://www.americanbridgepac.org/2012/05/wire/research/bridge-briefing-mitt-romney-higher-education/

Social Security

Social security is a major U.S government issue for the following reason: How can the government continue to provide entitled social security for all senior citizens without damaging future generation’s benefits? This has been a heated concern in recent years because according to USA Today, there is more money coming out of social security than there is being put into the system. Another concern has been whether or not the current structure of the system will be able to support the massive Baby Boom generation. The economy’s sudden increase in disability claims is definitely not helping the matter either according to the U.S social security administration. The potential harm to future generations is clear after looking at all of these outstanding issues.

President Barack Obama did provide a one-time payment of $250 to all retirees, other Social Security beneficiaries, disabled veterans, and SSI recipients in his Recovery Act of 2009. Although Max Richtman argues there is no social security crisis and that social security will be able to provide benefits until 2033 without an issue, I believe President Obama made a smart move in increasing funding to entitlement programs (such as social security) by $787 billion in 2009 and to $840 billion later on in 2011. Last year the reports of social security averaged to year 2036; however, with the disability program aiding more than 11 million Americans, year 2033 seems more realistic. Without the Recovery Act’s added help, social security benefits could of gone down the drain a lot sooner than politicians estimate (current estimates at year 2033 with providing only ¾ of full benefits- Serena Marshall), and these estimates are not including the fear of the Baby Boom generation collecting: rights they are entitled to.

My opinion on social security is rather contradicting: on one hand I believe strongly that the system is destined to fail because of the abundance of disabilities citizens can claim to get added benefits, and yet on the other hand, I also strongly believe workers are entitled to those rights of claiming their disabilities. Senior citizens need social security benefits in order to pay for things such as medical bills and as an added bonus, their contributions to the economy are healthy; however, with 38 million retires receiving these benefits, there is simply not enough money to go around. There are a few possible solutions to this situation: Raising the age of retirement (as Mitt Romney suggests) and continuing Obama’s plan of workers creating retirement funds. Whatever the solution may be, lets hope our economy finds it quickly and begins to change this trend of declining social security. Every citizen that contributes to social security is entitled to benefits after they retire, which might have to be a tad later than hoped for, but at least with this method they will receive their long awaited benefits.

CitedSources: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/seniors-and-social-security

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-04-26/Social-Security-trustees-report/54562718/1

 http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/disability_trends/sect01.html

http://.recovery.gov/about/pages/the_act.aspx

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/social-security-and-medicare-could-run-out-sooner-than-expected

Military Drones

John Amato wrote an editorial in crooksandliars arguing that the military should not have the authority to use drones to spy on citizens within the U.S, stating “using drones on U.S soil is repulsive and should terrify people because we know where it will lead”. At first glance, I completely disagreed with this stance because I imagined a world with air-operated-drones flying about and everybody being just dandy; after all, isn’t that what our military did in Afghanistan? In addition, Mr. Amato failed to mention where this so-called place was that everybody knew we were headed… a stable society with more military and less criminals? Seemed pretty ideal to me. But after watching the clip that Mr. Amato posted along with his blog, a short document about drones catching a few cow thieves in Dakota, I realized that military in the U.S should not be used to spy on U.S citizens. For one, using drones in public areas would cause too much distraction and chaos. Our society isn’t ready for giant aircrafts to follow them around while they walk their dogs… not yet at least. I did however enjoy hearing about what these drones have accomplished so far in the United States, catching a few cow thieves. Surly that is not all they have done, but for the time being that is all these drones have been recognized for- catching a few farm looters. Besides, it seems a tad excessive to employ hundreds of people and spend millions of dollars just to replace the average sheriff (and possibly catch a few criminals). Our police force already has helicopters and fancy equipment, is it really necessary to involve the military? Using drones in every day civilian life would be the equivalent of having an FBI agent stationed at every public venue. Another argument made by Mr. Amato was that the U.S military swore to never become involved within the States in civil matters such as common police work, and by using these 30,000 drones within the next 8 years the military would be in direct violation of their previous statement. I’m not one to argue privacy much when it comes to things such as TFA security, but if the military decides to approach congress with this “spectacular” idea of using military drones in accordance with the police, then the first thing I plan to argue will be my civil liberties concerning privacy.

The Dream Act

The Dream Act is currently a popular topic concerning national politics due to its potential to legalize half of the U.S’ illegal immigrants. According to this piece of legislature, any illegal who has been in the U.S for 5 consecutive years, under 30, brought to the U.S before the age of 16, has no criminal record, and has obtained a high school education can become a legal citizen. On the Opinion page of the New York Times, an author discusses the various pros of this Act; however, what this author failed to realize is the message this Act will be sending to all countries- that it is okay to break the law and cross boarders without proper documentation. Although the author supports his argument of the Dream Act by stating that all children brought here illegally are “blameless for their illegal status and helpless to make it right”, there is still the chance for these children to become legal citizens and make a prospering life for themselves (just look at Elian Gonzalez). Of course it is not the child's fault that they were brought here illegally, but passing this Act and allowing these immigrants to become legal citizens will crush our economy and availability of jobs- not to mention our anchor baby levels will rise dramatically. The author of this article also argues that Congress is obligated to pass this Act and legalize as many illegal immigrants as possible. While I agree that our nation’s hegemony is strong and that “with great power comes great responsibility”, I simply do not agree with the inevitable White Man’s Burden that is being shoved down our country’s throat. It is not “our” job to legalize children of illegal immigrants who made the choice to have their children across borders, and it should definitely not be congress’ top concern. This author is anonymous, so there is no way of citing him/her or verifying his/her credibility; however, it is obvious that his/her intended audience was those of the less conservative side and more wiling to open the gates to America without proper criminal enforcement or documentation. Allowing this Dream Act into Congress will only breed economic hardships and degradation of the "American Dream" (it is not a "Dream" if anyone can have it).

Political Bio

I believe in government regulations to a certain extent. Of course the government is needed in order to mandate laws and keep order within society, but taking six to nine months in the legislative to reword a bill to suit every representative’s approval is a tad excessive in my mind. Needless to say, I believe in limited government. Also, I stand for free markets, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. So yes, I’m a conservative. My political influences aren’t so much ‘political leaders’, rather, they are my high school debate coach, Mrs. Lozano, and my old Macroeconomics teacher, Coach Ardis. Both of these adults are active in their political worlds (one being a liberal and the other a conservative) and have helped push me towards being politically aware. Because I’m 16 years old, I do not have the opportunity to vote; however, being Captain of my debate team, I’m constantly surrounded by current events and congressional debate. Primarily I am taking this course because I need a government credit in order to graduate early next May, but I also take interest in our government’s ability to operate. I hope to not only learn about our country’s foundation, but also to better understand ‘political-talk’ when competing in debate rounds upon completion of this course. (Being able to add my two-cents in when my mother and brother bicker about politics would be an added bonus as well). That current events quiz seemed so two-dimensional. The correct answer was always either ‘republican’ or ‘democratic’. The questions were easy enough as they were, but as the quiz becomes updated with even more recent questions, having only two options is going to become frustrating and just plain wrong. In today’s society there is more than just the average republican or democratic. There are multiple branches to each side and even branches with their own branches. Who’s to say you’re not a libertarian who supports the left? Or a conservative democrat? Our society is so diverse in its political view that choosing either ‘republican’ or ‘democratic’ is simply not going to cut it.