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.