A Plea for Party Loyalty

My Unrecognizable Democratic Party

The stakes are too high, please get serious about governing before it's too late.
By: Ted Van Dyke   http://online.wsj.com/article/

Topic: The article discusses how the democratic party has created a system in which bipartisanship is difficult and nearly impossible to achieve. The author, a life long democrat, alludes to the democratic party of the past and remembers when it was possible for parties to work against each other while moving forward. He believes that Obama was elected because of his persona and his willingness to move forward with a bipartisan agenda. However, the sequester and number of other recent examples suggest otherwise.Modern political history indicates that big midterm Democratic gains are unlikely, and presidential second terms are notably unproductive, most of all in their waning months. "He rejected proposals of his own bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission, which would have provided long-term deficit reduction and stabilized rapidly growing entitlement programs. He opted instead to demonize Republicans for their supposed hostility to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid."   the author is not necessarily argueing against the democratic parties ability to achieve goals and move forward with legislation, but their inability to coordinate with the republicans, this is an interesting example of party realignment. If republicans were to be involved in legislation, it is possible that they would share in the blame and rewards that their constituents feel when bills or laws affect them. However, as republicans have failed to be included in bipartisan efforts, they cannot be held accountable.  The author states that Obama's victory wasn't based on public affirmation of his agenda. Instead, it was based on a four-year mobilization of core Democratic constituencies, and on fear campaigns in which Mitt Romney and the Republicans "were painted as waging a 'war on women,' being servants of the wealthy, and of being hostile toward Latinos, African Americans, gays and the middle class. I couldn't have imagined any one of the Democratic presidents or presidential candidates I served from 1960-92 using such down-on-all-fours tactics."

Opinion: While I do not agree with Dyke's dennounciation of his own party, I did find this article refreshing in message the author was attempting to get across. What the author believes in, is while the democratic party holds substantial power, and continues to be successful in its application, seeking bipartisanship will add valuable perspective and insight into legislation. An interesting examples the author refered to was in 1965, Lyndon Johnson had Democratic congressional majorities sufficient to pass any legislation he wanted. But he sought and received GOP congressional support for Medicare, Medicaid, civil rights, education and other Great Society legislation. He knew that in order to last, these initiatives needed consensus support. "He did not want them re-debated later, as ObamaCare is being re-debated now." Looking forward to the future is important, and that is one of the few issues that I can see with the policies and agendas of the Obama administration, the bills he is pushing forward are successful but are totally lacking the majority support of republicans. Therefore, it is easy to assume that when the chief executive is a republican, he or she will push forward an agenda and policy set that counter-act what obama has done in his administration, seeing as those bills do not hold an party-based influence.

Conclusion: The topic proposed in rather complex. While the republican's control the house, one would think that they would be able to dictate legislation. Howevever, it is clear that the most valued legislation has strays from the republican ideology. It is easy to assume that the congressmen who are voting in favor of the legislation being passed and introduced by democrats, their districts are receiving some form of direct or indirect benefit. I digress, The president must start considering the future implications of his and his party's actions. Dyke makes a valid argument. When a republican president is inevitabley elected, or even a democrat, it will be up to him to reverse the effects of the Obama administration by moving the parties back towards a bipartisan regime. Considering that this article comes Van Dyke, who has served in democratic national administrations and campaigns for several decades, it is fair to assume that this is a pressing issue that neither party is ignorant to.

Sequester may not be so bad

Sequester two-step

A plan for moving forward  By Kevin D. Williamson

http://www.nationalreview.com/sequester-two-step-kevin-d-williamson

Topic: the article discusses how the recent sequester has not dratically or immediately affected any of the regular government workings, comparing it to the mess that was the clinton-gingrich government shutdown. However, this is not to say that both sides are satisfied with the results. The issue is that politicians were not able to effectively prioritize programs and institutions that should receive the most or the least funding.  The author notes that the executive will play a prominent role in the ultimate result of the sequester and the budget to come. "Obama's most important constituencies are those receiving direct payments from the government, in the form of either paychecks or welfare benefits. So he is courting Republicans, hoping they’ll sit down and hash out another broad, long-term deficit deal." Republicans should not be oppossed to it, because being flexible in one area may result in a reward in the other. The author really sticks the republican perspective as it is a NRO article, which is probably the most bias source in my library. What is needed now is a simple, two-step program for achieving a better sequester regime. So what it comes down to is this rather simple 2 step plan, hence the title...Step One: Pass a simple, straightforward bill that keeps the sequester spending controls in place but empowers federal-agency heads to decide for themselves how to divvy up the non-cut “cuts” among their programs. Step Two: Do Nothing. The spending controls imposed by the sequester will not be the end of the world, but adding an element of flexibility will require the administration to make some difficult choices. While the author's plan does make sense in a way, I disagree with his explanations of how they will affect our government funding, my interpretation will be explained below.

Opinion: The plan will force a bipartisan effort to prioritize spending as they never have before. When the legislation is present to force congressmen to recognize the legitimacy of both claims, each can come forward with the programs that they are unwilling to give up, limiting debate and controversy over the governments that both parties would hold with esteem. The fact of the matter is, there is too many smaller programs that the parties are unwilling to surrender simply because of the principle of surrendering any sort of leverage. Republicans have already made a move in this direction in the House’s continuing resolution, which would allow defense officials some flexibility in how they meet sequester targets."Conservatives realize that some programs are more worthy than others, and there is no reason to fund the USDA or spend nearly $300,000 a year for three official White House calligraphers while we’re taking funds away from meat inspectors." The sequester is the classic bipartisan compromise: an imperfect deal that nobody likes but both sides supported.

Conclusion:What we are forced to recognize as responsible citizen's is that there is never a PERFECT plan, but there are plans that hold our country together and uphold the values that it was established upon. Deeper reforms of the entitlements, federal spending, and the tax code will be necessary as well, but they all depend on something that will not be easy to achieve: reclaiming the Republican party’s reputation for fiscal prudence. "The best way to get a start on that is by allowing the sequester to become the new normal and by giving the administration the flexibility to help implement it more intelligently." Narrowing the specturm based on what our congressmen deem most valid and immediate will subsequently create an analysis of the budget on a case by case basis. So I guess the sequester is good in a way, it has brought to light the necessity of compromise and will provide the government with empirical data to create a new budget, based on the standardized sequester spending.

Interest groups play role in sequestration

Interest groups barrage Congress with sequester pleas

by Fredreka Schouten on Feb. 28, 2013,  USA TODAY News
http://usa-today-news/2013/02/28/interest-groups-barrage-congress-with-sequester-pleas/

Topic: Hematologists are sending tweets to members of Congress, warning that looming cuts to federal research funding threaten to slow medical advances for diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and lymphoma. Defense manufacturers have produced studies showing job losses will top 2 million. Lobbyists and interest groups have spent months and millions trying to forestall what now seems inevitable: automaticcuts totaling an estimated $85 billion that will kick in starting Friday without action by Congress and the White House. This sequester has been brought on by what most have identified as a byproduct of President Obama and Congressional Republican's unwillingness to compromise. Mthousand of elected officla and business owners are preapring themselves for the wost because the $85 billion might affect their industry or offic's ability to satisfy their district's interest.“With this degree of uncertainty, companies are already holding back on investments,” said Cord Sterling, vice president of legislative affairs for the Aerospace Industries Association, which has bombarded lawmakers with studies, outlining the economic toll if a planned 9% cut in this year’s Defense Department budget takes effect. Deficit hawks counter that the most aggressive lobbying and dire predictions are coming from special interests with a vested interest in government spending. "If you are a government employee or you have a government contract, the chances are that, at least in the short term, you will feel pain,” said Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute. “But as far as the country and the economy overall, we are talking about cutting government spending back to 2009 levels,” he said. “The country survived 2009.”

Opinion: I finished my topic analysis on a positive note because yes, the country will survive, but at what cost? It is unfortunate that certain programs, particularly medical research programs, will suffer from our politician's inability to compromise and prioritize the needs of our nation. We've discussed in class how party alliances often rule supreme of national interest and I believe that what the sequestration has come to, is this. Republican Congressman are not incapable of understanding that (sticking to the theme) medical research is crucial and represents one of the lighter sides of industry, but they cannot rule out their party ideology which is to remain loyal to big business.Druker, a leading scientist in the medical industry, said he has relied on NIH grants, ranging from $300,000 to $500,000 a year, since 1985. “Our capability of making advances has never been greater,” he said. “But it’s a travesty that at the same time we can make such rapid advances, our funding is decreasing.” It is amazing how deep the sequestration has run, from national park to Oil industry, bringing me to my next point. Lobbyist are a commodity that must be purchased, and coalitions for businesses to become involved in may be difficult, when we recognize this, it is easy to see what portion of the population will receive the most consideration and exemption from the spending cuts. When the final sequestration plan is laid out it can be interpreted as the interest groups that spent the most on lobbyist were the least affected by the spending reduction and may even benefit from spending realignment.

Conclusion:Many groups lobbying Congress already are turning their attention to the next fiscal deadline menacing Washington: late March when the government will shut down entirely unless Congress approves another bill to temporarily extend government funding. What we can take away from this event is that lobbyist play a major role in determining the future of our country and that their inevitable presence highlights an unfortunate flaw in our American system. Lobbyist represent the largest groups and coalitions in our Nation, but what about those who are too small to afford a lobbyist of their own or receive substantial consideration. Another interesting factor is lobbyist represent groups from both sides of the spectrum and often, one side has a more valid claim, the presence of lobbyist detract from one another and thus, result in some programs receiving more or less than they should in terms of national interest. Ultimately, Lobbyist have and continue to play a major role in the reorganization and reduction of federal funding.

Citizens rights v. Citizens protection. Where do we draw the line?

How Should We Treat American Jihadists?

he legal answer is not going to help
Andrew C. McCarthy The National Review
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/341371/how-should-we-treat-american-jihadists-andrew-c-mccarthy

Topic: The author contends that the solution to handling and preventing acts of terror cannot be dictated by the law and responses should be determined on a case-by-case basis.Under the Constitution, Americans who join the enemy may lawfully be treated like the enemy, which includes being attacked with lethal force. In light of the recent debate over  the targeted killings of American citizens, forces us to ask, where does the protection and defense of our country overlap with the level of aggression that is necessary to carry out such defenses. The government's war powers cannot have explicit limitations, this would prevent the actions that may be required by unforseen threats. We must be able to marshal all our might to repel any conceivable existential threat. Yet the Constitution, the sole legitimate source of the government’s power to levy war, is, quintessentially, the citizen’s protection against aggression by that same government. Thus, the tension between government’s war powers and the citizen’s fundamental rights is a conundrum. The author refers to a number of examples of American's who became affiliated with jihadists and consequently, betrayed their country. Noting that the number of Americans who have done this,, it is clear that the issue carries a much larger connotation. That is, How can we preserve citizen's rights and protect the national welfare at the same time?

Opinion: To answer my question above^, there are a number of approaches that already provide a solution to the issues that the author of this piece seems to have little faith in. First, Congress has the ability to carry out protective measures under the "necessary and proper" clause. However, I do recognize that congress is limited in action if the threat is not immediate and I believe that is what the author found fault with. When there is a domestic threat, lets say a Islamic radical, that individual is entitled to practice what is guaranteed to them in the bill of rights until they commit a crime or make an explicit threat, leaving ways for many legal loopholes. If the government would attempt to supress this individual, they would become what every history book since the British Occupation of India has deemed as an oppressive ruler. I believe that the U.S. government and policy makers should not take any further measures to monitor these individuals under the presumption that this will be a slipper slope and may lead to an oppressive rule that only worsens as more and more precedents are established.

Conclusion: When an American citizen leaves the U.S. they are no longer entitled to the  same liberties and freedoms as they would be in U.S. soil. Therefore, when an individual leaves the country and connects with a group that acts contradictory to american policy and defense, they can and should be treated as a traitor. The fact that they have committed treason should nullify their citizenship.  There is much more to war than the article contends and I would like to clarify here; The U.S. military should not be focused on killing as if participating in a war of attrition, but rather seeking intelligence that can lead to the capture and legal prosecution of someone who has committed a crime against the U.S.. Drone strikes are an effective tool but are not necessarily the best tool. Terrorism is a heinous crime, but when we prioritize the capturing and interrogations of terrorists, the U.S. would be much more effective and fighting the war on terror, and subsequently, preserving fundamental American values in the process, particulary due process and other citizen's rights.

Increased minimum wage may be the wrong solution...

The Minority Youth Unemployment Act

A higher minimum wage will hurt Obama's most loyal supporters.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323478004578302510280314712.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

Topic: The articles dicusses how the Obama administration has done an outstanding job at maintaining the support of young voters and minorities. In his recent state of the union, Obama proposed in increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9, the author contends that this is not the proper solution to eliminating poverty and may be an example of over-generalization.In the real world, setting a floor under the price of labor creates winners and losers. Some workers will get a $1.75 raise. Great. But others—typically the least educated and skilled—will be priced out of the job market and their pay won't rise to $9. It will be zero. The author is saying that when we increase the minimum wage, companies will be less inclined to hire people that they don't REALLY need. Many statistics reflect that minorities and the young fit into this category of being less educated and skilled.The minimum wage is also an ineffective way to reduce poverty. It is also important to note that large majority of those who live below the poverty line do no work, so when jobs become more difficult to attain for unskilled and uneducated laborers, their poverty will be exacerbated. William Dunkelberg, chief economist for the National Federation of Independent Business, says that after the July 2009 increase 600,000 teen jobs disappeared in the next six months even as GDP expanded. This begs the question; what is more important to the american economy and its people rights now, how many people are unemployed, or how much our low-income families are making?

Opinion: The article introduces an interesting topic that I believe is best reinforced through this White House memo "Studies show that modestly raising the minimum wage increases earnings and reduces poverty without measurably reducing employment." This shows that the White House is not ignorant to the reprecussions of their actions and is rather cleverly worded. "Modestly" implies that the increase is not a significant increase that many businesses can handle, which as I stated early, is a generalization. "Measurably" indicates that the studies they used failed to recognize variables that may cause a reduction in employment. I believe that the studies that was mentioned does not recognize one of the fundamentals of business and that is to keep expenses to a minimum, Companies will not pay $9 for an employee they may not need, that is a guarantee. It'd be nice to think that some Republicans, even one, would make the moral case that the minimum wage hurts the poorest workers. However, this may make republicans look indecisive, seeing as both the Bush's and the Gingrich congress advocated for an increase in the minimum wage, going against this may make the GOP seem indecisive. It is also interesting that a majority of the people living in poverty are unemployed, Obama makes it seem as though this will be the ultimate solution, but the increase would not only bypass the impoverished, but would actually hurt their chances of getting a job.

Conclusion: To answer my own question from the topic analysis, how much america's low-income families are making is currently more important than those who are unemployed. Those who are unemployed will continue to receive substantially more income in the form of welfare than those who are working to support themselves and their families at minimum wage. So on a moral standpoint, the people who are working will directly benefit from this increase, as well as give young people the opportunity to save money to further their education and things of that nature. Those who are supportive of this legislation must recognize that this is by no means the solution to poverty and will reinforce the the poverty cycle by preventing them from getting jobs that do not require any formal training. This legislation and its future truly rely on the response of american businesses, because this realm, independent of the american government, will make or break its support in correlation to the amount of employees they can afford.

New voting legislation revives old issues

The Coming Battle Over the Ballot Box
A voting-rights veteran talks about the liberal campaign to expand the electoral rolls—and why Obama is on board.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323452204578290613701758092.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

 

Topic: In President Obama's upcoming State of the Union he is expected to call on congress to enact on new voting legislation that has already been proposed by several liberal democrats that is entitled as the Voter Empowerment Act of 2013. according to election lawyer Hans von Spakovsky. In December, some "three dozen of the most powerful liberal advocacy groups, including union organizations," held a strategy session, he says, citing a report from the liberal magazine Mother Jones. They agreed to "oppose all voter integrity efforts, things like voter ID," to push for federal legislation requiring states to permit voter registration on Election Day, and to institute "automatic" voter registration. Because of the social context of this voting legislation, it is labeled as a partisan effort because it most directly makes the voting process for democrats and liberals much easier as was determined by the liberal advocacy groups mentioned earlier. The executive has mentioned a number of times that the problem lies in the amount of time that voters must wait at the polls and that when we remove things that the advocates for this bill have deemed unnecessary, particular voter ID and registration, the process will be much quicker and thus see a larger voter turnout. The issue reintroduces racial discrimrimination in the Americna election system. The legislation obviously benefits minority groups, and because republicans oppose it, they have been labeled as an opposition to equal rights, something that I discussed my last blog.

Opinion: Democrats suggest the Republicans are in contention of the legislation because it prevent some voters from practicing their voting rights. "They keep trying to scare African American voters into thinking that these voter ID laws are an attempt to take away the right to vote," Mr. von Spakovsky says. "We know that's not true. The experience of states that have had voter ID laws in place for [several] years, like Georgia and Indiana, shows that it does not suppress the vote of black voters; it doesn't in any way keep them out of the polls." This is an opinion in which I must agree. By requiring voters to provide voter ID, it is less likely that their votes will succumb to fraud.  The turnout would primarly consist of liberal democrats and those who benefit from government assistance. Democratic institutions are basically attempting to force the federal government to perform voter outreach for them, under the belief that this practice is enforcing voter equality. There are also many other large scale issues at hand. While the new voting legislation will change the entire election process, gerrymandering (particularly in virginia) will effect voter turnout, and subsequently, the outcome of the election. Yes, this voting legislation is important and is not something to be understated, but it should distract from larger injustices that are blatantly devaluing some votes, as is the case in the readjustment of electoral votes in Virginia.

 

 Conclusion: Voter ID is just a basic measure to protect the integrity of the voter-registration process. According the the author of the article, the victims of voter fraud are in fact black voters and people in poor communities. They are the ones who often are taken advantage of, particularly by some Democrats, because they are less likely to complain or find out that their vote has been stolen."All this to solve what he argues is a nonexistent problem. " It is also important to recognize that the proportion of people that this legislation will affect is an insignificant percentage that will not sway any major elections. However, it does provide these voters with much needed efficacy and reinforce the American perception of liberty.

 

 

Amnesty for Undocumented Immigrants

Possible compromise on immigration reform takes shape
By Dana Bash and Tom Cohen, CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/28/politics/immigration-reform/index.html
AP Gov. Current Event #1

Topic: The U.S. senate will be seriously considering a plan that will grant amnesty to nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants that are living in the U.S.. A bipartisan group of 8 senators believed that while this will provide a temporary solution for these immigrants to attain green cards, in order for the plan to be successful, border security must be strengthened and more closely monitored. The framework proposed by these senator's bill also includes the Overhauling the country's legal immigration system, including attaching green cards to advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, or math from U.S. universities; Establishing an employment verification system that holds employers accountable for hiring undocumented workers; and Creating a guest-worker program for positions that Americans are either unable or unwilling to fill. The argument highlights that the immigrants deserve temporary citizenship without second-class people being mistreated simply because they lack paper even though they are already contributing to our economy and our tax system. Because this is a bipartisan effort, it has been able to avoid many of the negative connotations that typically result from factional controversy. This is not to say that there has been some rebuttal. Conservatives immediately voiced their opposition to amnesty."When you legalize those who are in the country illegally, it costs taxpayers millions of dollars, costs American workers thousands of jobs and encourages more illegal immigration," said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who serves on the immigration subcommittee in the House. "By granting amnesty, the Senate proposal actually compounds the problem by encouraging more illegal immigration." The framework proposed by the bipartisan senators was further sustained by executive support.

Opinion: The context of this article is very interesting for a number of reasons. The first being that it is a bipartisan effort, following the election of a democratic president. On the surface, the republican's willingness to aid an effort that had been historically fronted by democrats and liberals may be seen as a rare glimpse of compromise between the two groups. However, there is much more to it. It is not secret that the republicans did not fair well with latino voters in the previous election. It is the hope of the republican party that through the support of immigration/amnesty legislation (a primary concern for many latino voters) they will be able to reverse the latino opinion and gain republican support from the ever growing minority population. Exit polls indicated Latino voters gave overwhelming support to Obama over Mitt Romney, who had advocated a policy that amounted to forcing undocumented immigrants to deport themselves. The republican party must recognize that, despite their recent efforts to gain minority support, they will not see a drastic change in the voting trends of the latino community. While immigration policy is important to latino voters, the republican party must be able to offer much more to these voters in terms of community improvement programs, policies, and welfare (things that democratic candidates offer and support).

Conclusion: Despite the expected political controversy, this is a major step-forward as a whole and should be viewed as a return the the fundamental beliefs of our country. By granting these citizens a temporary solution to their illegality and undocumentation, they will have the opportunity to participate in our labor force as they please, without the fear of being deported or labeled based on their legal standing, as well as take the opportunity to attain the proper documentation in a legal manner, undergoing to the full process of citizenship. These citizens are unfortunately stereotyped as taking advantage of the american system, while in reality, they directly contribute a great deal to the labor force and economy. When these citizens are granted their temporary visas, they will lose their undocumented status(reflected in a statistical decrease) and subsequently, deflate the massive issue that illicit immigration has become.