To Tax or Not to Tax

I agree with my colleague's statements in her post Obama Debates on Tax Reduction . The tax cuts are a complicated issue, as one small change to any program or policy dealing with the economy can either have unforseen or dramatic consequences, or do nothing at all. The economy is one of the parts of our government that is ina state of constant flux, not only because of the free market system it employs, but because taxes are the income of our national government, and after each presidential election, the new guy along with Congress have the chance to make any changes. They can update the tax policies to reflect an economic downturn (such as a recession) or a particularily good economic state. However, the government can also alter the taxes to increase their own income and therefore the money they have available to spend, or just to reflect the wishes of the elected's party. I definitely agree with Noree, nobody really loves taxes, but they are essential to the running of our country and they ensure we get the protection, education, and other freedoms we enjoy in this country. However, I agree with Obama's and the Republican's opinion that the current administration should extend the Bush Era Tax Cuts. My reasoning is thus: Taxes are fine, but raising them is not the best or the only solution to our country's poor economic status. I say the government should not force citizens at all levels of income (the cuts do not only benefit the wealthy, but apply to the middle class as well) to pay more in taxes to provide the government with more spending money. Instead, I think a better solution would be for the national government to look at itself, and find ways to reduce its current spending to provide money to help pay off the dept and for other government programs. Alas, though, Noree was correct in that this is a difficult decision with no crystal clear answer. Their choice will determine or at least affect which way our economy turns for the next few years, and both sides of the debate will have to work together to come up with a solution that is best for the country.

Executive, Legislative, Judicial, Oh My!

So I've decided that it's hard to judge the government; I may disagree with some of a politician's decisions, but could I really do any better? Would I know how to work the system and make deals or sacrifices to get things accomplished? No way! It takes patience and experience to work in politics, as well as a number of others skills and range of knowledge, some not so noble. Then again, should those qualities be a requirement to hold an office? After all, the original Founding Fathers and Framers were businessmen, lawyers, or military leaders, not well-groomed politicians. Overall, I do recognize the importance and uniqueness of our nation's system of government, it was founded on principles that were not only new at the time, but that still serve as an example to the world and continue to attract many immigrants every year. I think this government class has taught me, though, that the government has grown considerably since its beginning, in both good and bad ways. I think the system has claimed control beyond its original intended jurisdiction, and that there is too much unnecessary corruption. It is with this more 'traditional' view, I guess, that I read the next few articles.

In this article in the New York Times, the author describes the recent failure of the Senate to pass either of two proposals to repeal an unpopular and more-harmful-than-helpful portion of the health care overhaul. Both parties, BOTH parties, agree that the the peice of legislation needs to go, and yet they cannot figure out a way to do it. To me, this seems silly. You created the complex legislation in the bill, you actually agree that it was a mistake, did not work, and needs to go, and yet cannot come to a consensus on how to fix it. In fact, I think the health care bill was too big of a task for the government to take on in the first place, and that it really should not have messed with the old system at all. The two plans differed on how they would make up for the revenue losses from the repeal of the portion, and I realize that it may be a bit more complex than I make it seem, but still, in agreeing with one republican senator, if the Senate cannot solve a small and obviously problematic part of the health care bill, how can it move on to help the nation overcome bigger problems, such as the enomous national debt?

In another article, and on the other hand, Obama has actually done something about the deficit. In trying to curtail extra unnecessary increases to the deficit, he chose to freeze the pay of all federal employees for the next two years. I completely agree with this, but in the defense of my conservative nature, republicans have been suggesting a pay freeze months. Nonetheless, it is a good move, and although the $5 billion it will save is relatively nothing compared to the $1 trillion total deficit, it is a definitely a start. It also shows that that president is more willing to do things, as opposed to the sometimes slower workings of the Senate, and that he has at least focused some of his attention on a cause I think especially threating to our country: the massive national debt.

Overall, it is hard to run a country, and not all the blame for the mistakes should be put on the politicians. As citizens, I believe we should do all we can, even if that means just being as informed as possible. In fact, thats where I'm going to start. Until I turn eighteen and enter the crazy world of politics officially, I plan to continue to learn and shape my opinions so that I will be better able to participate in the political world. And right now, my thoughts are built around the fact that although some progress has been made, the government is still involving itself in matters that it shouldn't (such as with the whole health care situation), and not focusing on the more critical matters. So maybe like Dorothy amongst the wild animals I'm simply overwhelmed by the complexity and largeness of the thing, but I truly think the government should return to a more traditional way of operating, and as quickly as possible.

Fraud in Fox News

In a very well-written passage in a classmates blog, Fox News Saves the Day, Cristina discusses a seemingly controversial contribution from News Corp. to the Republican Governors Association. Her arguement is very well developed and she is quite informed about the details and owners of the different organizations. Her arguement raises many good points; some of which were also discussed in the textbook. I lean republican, but even I agree that there are definitly problems with the rules regarding donating to political campaigns.
We all know that Fox (and it's parent company, News Corp.) leans right and CNN leans left, but such an obvious and large donation does stand out. When I first thought about it, I thought it made sense, Fox is conservative, so whats the problem with them donating to a conservative cause? But as Cristina continued to make her point I agreed that sure, you can donate, but don't make it blantantly obvious! The whole point of news companies, oringinally at least, was indeed to provide the public with reliable and objective news,facts, and stories. However, I think it was inevitable that as more and more sources of news appeared, some would decide to lean one way or the other in order to compete and be different. She argues that this deters regular citizens from trusting in their source of news, but I disagree. Whether biased or not, Fox will still provide the news, and the most important thing is that as viewers we understand that that source will have a slant. Unless they are a commited conservative, an average citizen can be just as knowledgeable if they regularily turn to multiple different sources to verify a statistic or story, and find different perspectives on political ideas.
 Cristina's second major point deals with the concept of allowing large corporations to donate huge ammounts of money to a campaign organization. I had to read the section in the book twice before I even began to understand the rules concerning how much and when different groups and individuals could make contributions, it was so complicated. I agree that even candidates seem to contradict themselves, accepting the money and then, if elected, trying to write laws to lessen the influence of those same corporate donations! Candidates seem to be worried that by accepting contributions they then owe the group some benefit in return, which I think really is the unspoken, traditional assumption. All in all, I think to much money is spent on getting our officials elected, and the entire donation process could use reform, but it does work, so I'm not about to complain that terribly. There are so many problems with so many aspects of the governing process that its impossible to fix every one. The important thing is that we continue to learn all we can so that we can make informed decisions on the things we can change.

Planning Ahead... Way Ahead

Especially after reading the sections in the textbook about our nation's two-party system, and how difficult it is to create a truly influential third party, this whole deal with the Tea Party is actually really interesting to me, so I'm sorry that I keep posting on it and if I'm starting to seem repetitive or boring! :)

I decided to comment and write my opinion on another article in the Wall Street Journal; it was written by Peter Wallsten, published on Monday, Oct. 25, and is titled "Tea Party Already Shapes '12 Race." The article discusses and describes various Republican leaders' plans for how to deal with the Tea Party as well as their plans for the presidential race of 2012. What I really got out of it though, was insight into how real the Tea Party is; before, I had assumed it was a side track off the main road of today's politics, but now I realize that it is really in the heat of politics, and what it does can actually influence policy, and through that, me. I was also surprised to realized how carefully potencial candidates plan their campaigns and target audiences; I mean, the actual 2012 presidential election is still two years away!!

The four main leaders (or potencial candidates) for the GOP are: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckbee, and Sarah Palin. Each of these people, especially Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich, have different methods of dealing with and using the Tea Party to the benefit of both. After reading them, I've also formed my own opinion of which method I think will work best. The article also describes a three-way division in the GOP, which could potencially affect the stability of the party in years to come. This division was a result of the influence of the Tea Party movement. The first group within the GOP consists of republicans who don't support the Tea Party, and, from a poll, a bit more than half of these site Mr. Romney as the GOP's "most important leader." The second group are republicans who are so supportive of the movement that they call themselves members of the Tea Party more than Republicans. Within this group, Mr. Gingrich is considered the GOP's "most important leader." The last group consists of republicans who do support the movement, and Ms. Palin and Mike Huckabee are sited as the leaders by this group. These groups correspond to the leaders' different ways of dealing with the Tea Party. Mr. Romney prefers a more traditional approach, although he has provided funds to help the Tea Party, and its candidates, he is spending the most effort forming ties with long-tme important republican leaders within the GOP. This has been the traditional way to gain the candidacy. Mr. Gingrich, on the other hand, is spending less time with the republicans and more time building up and supporting the Tea Party, which he believes is just the begining of an even greater change in politics.

Considering what I know of the history of third parties, I think Mr. Romney's way of dealing with the new party is the more effective method. He recognizes that it does have influence, and that it can be a great help to the GOP, and he does this without giving it too much power. This way, he is not completely alienating the voters who do support the Tea Party, as well as the party itself; and because they can see how he respects their interests, it might give him more votes in the election. Mr. Gingrich, though, is putting a little too much trust in the movement and is a bit over-optimistic about its potential success. By tying himself really close with the Tea Party, he is risking the fact that it might not be a successful or long-lasting party; after all, the main purpose of third parties is to get their idea into the public sphere, where it is usually later adopted into one of the two already dominant parties, either the GOP or the Democratic party. Yes, these past few years have been full of changes, from the first black president to the democratic control of Congress, and maybe the American people do want to make some major adjustments in their government, but I don't think giving more power to a third party is the best way to do it. There is something to be said for stability and tradition as well, and I think Mr. Romney will still be able to address the needed changes without resorting to any dramatic measures. This is just my opinion, but who knows? maybe I'll end up changing it later...

More on the Tea Party

So for my next post I decided to critique a post on the blog Power Line, one of the conservative blogs on the list of suggestes sources. However, I'm still not as knowledgeable on current politics as I ought to be, and the authors are so much more knowledgeable in contrast, so I went with a topic about which I have at least some background information.

It is actually two separate posts, both found here, (sorry, it requires some scrolling down), and posted on Tuesday, October 12.

The author is one of three for the blog, and he, along with the others, seems to be a credible source. I can tell from the ammount, frequency, and content of their posts that they are all quite knowledgeable and up to date on current events and policy. His intended audience is probably the many, many followers of his blog, but anyone who wants an opinion on a particular event or issue could also benefit from reading his comments.

Okay, his claim: The Tea Party is transitioning from being viewed as a nuiance to being regarded with much more respect and recognition, and the vehicle for this transition is money. I agree with his opinion, and I believe it doesn't just apply to the emerging Tea Party. At all levels of politics, the ammount of money you have is critical to how successful you are as a candidate or a party. Without sufficient finacial support, the policies a party or candidate wishes to advertise and eventually pass won't be as easily made public and it would be much harder to gain support for them, much less implement them if they do manage to get passed. The Tea Party, especially a few of its candidates for senator, are now raising enough money to become competetive and actually make a difference. I also realized how far the group has come when I read and article from the National Journal in the textbook on pgs 172-173, which refers to the now actual "Party" as a populist movement characterized by a series of unorganized and nonassociated "tea parties" (rallies) all over the nation. Now, candidates from the Party including Sharron Angle, Kristi Noem, and Michele Bachmann from Minnesota, have raised millions of dollars for their campaigns, sometimes surpassing their Democratic and even Republican opponents, as well as shocking many. I think the ability of new candidates with new ideas to raise so much money shows that there are still many Americans willing to not only form, but support their own opinions when they are represented by a political group. I think the addition of a new competitive group to the political atmosphere of our country is a healthy reminder of the rights of free speech that our country was founded on, and that the Tea Party especially will offer an alternative to the constant Democrat vs. Republican system of politics. It will also bring new conservative ideas into the relm of politics, as well as cause more citizens to take an interest in what is happening in their government. I'm curious as to how many more candidates the Tea Party will support, and how it will progress from here!

First Rate Learning for First Grade Kids

So I just had to post about something that the high school government class at my school did today. I'm not in the class (because I'm taking this class!), but I was able to see what they did because I was there to take pictures.

So: The teacher gave the high school class the assignment (it was a group project) to create a 10-minute presentation to teach first-graders something about U.S. government. Then, she arranged a day with the first-grade teacher when they could actually teach the kids. (I go to a charter school, so all the grades meet on the same campus.) It was so cool!!! And the first-graders were sooo cute!!!! Anyway, the high-schoolers had to figure out how to simplify what they were learning in such a way that the younger kids would be able to understand and learn from it, but make sure they were still teaching correct and unbiased information. The three groups' topics were: the duties of the president, the Bill of Rights, and the Preamble to the Constitution. They even made up games and songs as well as colorful posters to teach the younger kids!

Anyway, it was really fun to watch and to see the first-graders learning things about government beyond just who the current president is (which is pretty much all they knew!). It made me think back to when I was first introduced to the concepts of government, but the thing is, I can't remember! I'm sure it wasn't as early as first-grade, though, which is one reason it made me happy to see such young kids already being exposed to ideas about the government and country that protects and guides their lives and in which they will someday participate. Just thought I'd mention it! :)

Political Tornados

As my last post was about the difficulties the Republican party is dealing with, I found it fitting that this opinion pointed out the problems within the Democratic party.

 The critique was one of the top articles in the Opinion section of the Wall Street Journal, and was published today. The author is Peggy Nooman, who writes a regular column for the newspaper. She is a credible source, and seems to know what she is talking about enough to form opinions with a base in fact. Her intended audience is anyone who regularly reads the newspaper, and is up to date enough in politics to have a basic knowledge of the background information surrounding her argument. (I am neither of these, but I was nonetheless able to understand her clear and well-written arguments.)

In her opinion, entitled The Twister of 2010, Nooman argues that the Democratic party is dealing with just as much, if not more, issues as the Republicans. I was previously unaware of the internal trouble the Democrats were facing, but I did know that Obama's presidency had not gone as well as some of those who had originally supported him had hoped, and with this backround idea I was not surprised to learn that there are some internal conflicts within the majority party. She uses a variety of facts and quotes as well as other techniques to convince her audience (including succeccfully convincing me) that the Democratic party is headed for a breakdown and the Republicans are on the rise. For example, I love the title of her article; she compares the tensions that might potencially break up the now-unstable world of politics to the rapid, destructive force of tornados. Now that she has my attention, she proceeds to provide evidence and logic to lead me to her major claim: that the Democratic party is ready to fall apart. Her evidence includes quotes from President Obama in which he is accusing his former supporters of abandoning him. This only further encourages dislike toward him. She also refers to the Democratic party's recent use of "wedge-issues" (social issues meant to appeal to a wider voter audience, such as abortion) and negative advertising (in which one party talks bad about the other instead of promoting its own ideals). Both of these techniques, she states, suggest a certain desperateness on the part of the Democratic party to keep itself together and try to increase its voter popularity. Nooman then asserts that not only will these attempts not be effective, but that the party will continue to not just split, but splinter, as opinions continue to differ and Democratic politicians continue to dissagree with even Obama himself. overall, her opinion convinced me that the Democratic party definitly has problems of its own, and that they are not getting any closer to resolving them, which is good news for Republicans! By the way, I was having issues myself with adding an embedded link, (urg...computers...sorry) so here's the addess of the article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704483004575524340160716872.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond

GOP vs Tea Party

I'll admit, before I began actually paying attention to the political news and really reading articles online, I had no idea that GOP was the nickname for the Republican party, or that it stood for "Grand Old Party." I also did not even know that the Tea Party existed! These discoveries made me feel a bit behind politically, and inspired me to pay closer attention to the news!

The article I chose to summarize comes from the New York Times, and if, like me, you had no idea what those terms were, it would definitely be worth reading. There are other reasons, as well, though. For one, it details what is going on right now with the Republican party and the primaries (another political item to which I could only assign a vague definition). I'm ashamed to admit that I had previously not taken thought as to how the many other leaders of our government besides the president are elected; I had completely disregarded the entire House and Senate and the time and process by which their members are nominated, campaign, and are elected. How silly of me!

Anyway: In her news analysis, Kate Zernike discusses the current and possible future relationship between the Republican party and the Tea Party, as well as the Democratic view of the situation. The Tea Party is relatively new, and is generally considered to represent more strictly conservative ideas than the Republican party. Despite its newness and apparent radical nature, the party has pushed more than one candidate through the primaries, including Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. These victories have ultimately forced the Republican party to recognize the Tea Party as its partner if it is to win control of the Senate from the Democrats, which is the goal. The question, though, is how much the larger and established party should let this new but essential 'upstart' influence their current ideals; and whether they can control it, or falter and let it control them. Some, such as Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, believe the two can neatly coexist and adopt each others sentiments. Others, such as Senator John Cornyn of Texas, worry that the Tea Party will push the Republican party too far right, limiting the range of voter support for the GOP. This is exactly what the Democrats are hoping for, though, as the division will ensure that they keep their majority in the Senate. Most agree, however, that not everything is settled yet and there is still much debate to come.

Testing...123

Just making sure I understand how this whole thing works! I hope it's as easy as it seems...!