Brett Stanley's recent article discusses the national debt. Our government fails to demonstrate any true effective means with which to solve the issue.
The deficit that the United States is working under is getting ridiculous. The media always report on signs that pointed to the economy collapse in hindsight; is this going to be something we point to later as the cause of an even greater collapse? Our delegates in Congress refuse to compromise, taking over 7 months to create a spending plan for the fiscal year of 2011, which dictates spending for a mere 5 months.
Where's the sense of punctuality the citizens were demanding in 2008? The government encourages its constituents to live within their means, but does not do the same itself. Congressmen and women need to make serious compromises to get the government out of the deep deficit that has been dug. Lower taxes and government programs will mean nothing when the United States no longer has the power to keep itself running effectively.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Spending Plan Implemented Early Enough to Provide Spending for an Astounding 5 Months of the Year
Congress finally passed a financial spending plan for the fiscal year of 2011 on Thursday. This comes after seven months of deliberation and several near shutdowns of the government. A compromise between the Democrats, against spending cuts, and Republicans, insisting on cuts of over $60 billion, resulted in a plan that cuts $38 billion from spending.
However, there are only about 5 months left to implement this plan: The bill only covers spending until September 30th, this year.
The conservative House and liberal Senate are the cause for the long appropriations process. Unable to come to a decision, the two sides refused to compromise and instead suggested ideas that they had to have known couldn't be agreed on, such as the Republican proposal to cut $61 billion, mostly targeting social programs that Democrats would never agree to lower funding, while ignoring things such as subsidies to oil companies. It was irresponsible of both parties to not suggest reasonable proposals, and as a consequence the American public suffered as we continued on previous spending plans when we could make small spending cuts to steamline costs over a longer period of time. Now, we can only benefit from 5 months of these cuts.
I think the American public is becomes disillusioned with both parties - the slow progress of the economy has crippled the support behind the Obama administration at its beginning. If things continue as they are now, this will make for a very close race in 2012 for the presidency. There have not been huge strides under Obama, but the collapse happened under Republican rule and many may not feel confident placing power back with the GOP.
I think if Democrats want to win support, they need to implement plans that will make definite changes for the current crisis. If Republicans want to prove they know what is best for the government, they should stick with the less extreme proposals. If their cuts are successful for economical regeneration, they could probably gain more support and momentum. As it is, many citizens are beginning to think neither party has an answer to the current dilemma.
However, there are only about 5 months left to implement this plan: The bill only covers spending until September 30th, this year.
The conservative House and liberal Senate are the cause for the long appropriations process. Unable to come to a decision, the two sides refused to compromise and instead suggested ideas that they had to have known couldn't be agreed on, such as the Republican proposal to cut $61 billion, mostly targeting social programs that Democrats would never agree to lower funding, while ignoring things such as subsidies to oil companies. It was irresponsible of both parties to not suggest reasonable proposals, and as a consequence the American public suffered as we continued on previous spending plans when we could make small spending cuts to steamline costs over a longer period of time. Now, we can only benefit from 5 months of these cuts.
I think the American public is becomes disillusioned with both parties - the slow progress of the economy has crippled the support behind the Obama administration at its beginning. If things continue as they are now, this will make for a very close race in 2012 for the presidency. There have not been huge strides under Obama, but the collapse happened under Republican rule and many may not feel confident placing power back with the GOP.
I think if Democrats want to win support, they need to implement plans that will make definite changes for the current crisis. If Republicans want to prove they know what is best for the government, they should stick with the less extreme proposals. If their cuts are successful for economical regeneration, they could probably gain more support and momentum. As it is, many citizens are beginning to think neither party has an answer to the current dilemma.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Consequences of Weight in America
We do not need to see figures and statistics proving the great success of fast-food chains to know that obesity in America is increasing in prevalence and spread. USA Today recently published a story reporting that city buses may be forced to carry less passengers because "the average weight is 194.7 pounds for men 20 and older and 164.7 pounds for women that age range." Weight has become such a problem worldwide, that the number of people who are overweight is now greater than the number of people who are underweight.
These numbers have drastic consequences, especially in the US with one of the heaviest populations: it is now estimated that about two-thirds of our population is overweight or obese. These wide-reaching conditions result in poor health and higher death rates for these people, and account for a significant portion of health costs. Operations such as liposuction are now commonplace, but do not address the root causes of these problems. The government needs to make strong moves to address a problem that now affects a majority of its citizens.
Austin actually does not suffer from such high obesity ratings as other large cities, and is ranked in America's 10 Fittest Cities by Forbes. However, more than one-fifth of our city's population is still obese. The rise of overweightness and obesity is responsible for an increased risk of type-2 diabetes, many form of cardiovascular disease, and even certain types of cancer. Communities have a responsibility to provide sufficient health programs in grade schools to educate students about the risks and the increased rate of death brought on by these conditions.
Unfortunately, obesity correlates strongly with poverty and many of the overweight and obese individuals may come from communities that are unable to fund proper health education programs. Healthier foods come with higher prices, and fast food is much more convenient and affordable. It may be that schools with less available funding could be given grants requiring certain health programs to encourage proper food and nutrition education to children, as this is the most effective way of preventing such problems in adulthood. Ultimately, communities and legislators must support programs if we intend to lessen overweightness and obesity in the United States, and put a halt to the monetary costs of supporting an overweight population.
These numbers have drastic consequences, especially in the US with one of the heaviest populations: it is now estimated that about two-thirds of our population is overweight or obese. These wide-reaching conditions result in poor health and higher death rates for these people, and account for a significant portion of health costs. Operations such as liposuction are now commonplace, but do not address the root causes of these problems. The government needs to make strong moves to address a problem that now affects a majority of its citizens.
Austin actually does not suffer from such high obesity ratings as other large cities, and is ranked in America's 10 Fittest Cities by Forbes. However, more than one-fifth of our city's population is still obese. The rise of overweightness and obesity is responsible for an increased risk of type-2 diabetes, many form of cardiovascular disease, and even certain types of cancer. Communities have a responsibility to provide sufficient health programs in grade schools to educate students about the risks and the increased rate of death brought on by these conditions.
Unfortunately, obesity correlates strongly with poverty and many of the overweight and obese individuals may come from communities that are unable to fund proper health education programs. Healthier foods come with higher prices, and fast food is much more convenient and affordable. It may be that schools with less available funding could be given grants requiring certain health programs to encourage proper food and nutrition education to children, as this is the most effective way of preventing such problems in adulthood. Ultimately, communities and legislators must support programs if we intend to lessen overweightness and obesity in the United States, and put a halt to the monetary costs of supporting an overweight population.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Do citizens support fighting in Libya?
A recent post on the blog "firedoglake" reports that citizens of both the US and the UK do not support the involvement of their respective countries in Libya. While Obama authorized the attacks without consent of the congress, the post claims that those accusing the President of exceeding his limits "would be vastly outnumbered should the question actually be brought to a vote." The article seeks to persuade its readers that the President has ignored Constitutional requirements, while Congress ignores the wishes of the public to remain peaceful. The author also questions the motives of the involvement of the US, describing the conflict in Libya as one that "does not directly affect US security," instead citing incentives related to lowering oil prices.
After my first glance, I was convinced that the country had in fact over-steppped its jurisdiction, and that the politicians were acting out of complete disregard for the wishes of the American public. However, a second glance at the statistics provided to support the notion that American citizens, "do not want war," revealed glaring breaks in the train of logic of the author.
To begin, the poll was specifically about the allocation of money to the National Defense budget. While this budget can be simply linked to the material required to carry out operations in Libya, it is definitely not a direct poll of the public with clear regard to the situation there. It certainly is possible for a citizen to wish for the government to cut the yearly defense budget gradually while also believing that currently involvement in this particular conflict is for the better. Also, from the authors direct quote of the poll, "51 percent of Americans support reducing the defense spending," which means 49% don't. To me, this is not a convincing majority of the American public, especially seeing as how the data was collected from a poll. The author is making great leaps and bounds in logic and makes completely unsupported accusations when he claims that this is a case in which "even when the citizens do not want war, US elected representatives vote overwhelmingly in its favor." If this is really the case, he should support this with applicable data, not with a poll that was taken about two weeks ago, when the conflict itself was just developing into an issue! In my mind this makes the author unreliable, twisting facts that seem to support him.
Secondly the authors briefly skims over the intent of the country in its involvement, and dismisses these motives as something involving keeping low oil prices. After my first read of the article I looked for other news of the situation in Libya, as I have not kept up with it myself and knew only that there WAS a conflict of some sort. After what I read here, I was appalled that the author of the blog completely ignored any moral implications of American involvement. Describing motives as related to oil is a great disservice to the blogger's readers. The Libyan dictator is in fact moving to crush a rebellion against his oppressive government, and without outside forces' involvement rebel forces would likely have been massacred.
I personally disagree with the author, and instead agree with the involvement overseas. While it may smack of similar conflicts of Afghanistan and Iraq, I would not agree with simply being audience to a massacre of unsatisfied rebels and citizens. I do not know if the President has over-stepped his authority as commander-in-chief by authorizing American involvement, but if the author is correct about the disposition of our Congress members then it is only a problem of the technicality.
After my first glance, I was convinced that the country had in fact over-steppped its jurisdiction, and that the politicians were acting out of complete disregard for the wishes of the American public. However, a second glance at the statistics provided to support the notion that American citizens, "do not want war," revealed glaring breaks in the train of logic of the author.
To begin, the poll was specifically about the allocation of money to the National Defense budget. While this budget can be simply linked to the material required to carry out operations in Libya, it is definitely not a direct poll of the public with clear regard to the situation there. It certainly is possible for a citizen to wish for the government to cut the yearly defense budget gradually while also believing that currently involvement in this particular conflict is for the better. Also, from the authors direct quote of the poll, "51 percent of Americans support reducing the defense spending," which means 49% don't. To me, this is not a convincing majority of the American public, especially seeing as how the data was collected from a poll. The author is making great leaps and bounds in logic and makes completely unsupported accusations when he claims that this is a case in which "even when the citizens do not want war, US elected representatives vote overwhelmingly in its favor." If this is really the case, he should support this with applicable data, not with a poll that was taken about two weeks ago, when the conflict itself was just developing into an issue! In my mind this makes the author unreliable, twisting facts that seem to support him.
Secondly the authors briefly skims over the intent of the country in its involvement, and dismisses these motives as something involving keeping low oil prices. After my first read of the article I looked for other news of the situation in Libya, as I have not kept up with it myself and knew only that there WAS a conflict of some sort. After what I read here, I was appalled that the author of the blog completely ignored any moral implications of American involvement. Describing motives as related to oil is a great disservice to the blogger's readers. The Libyan dictator is in fact moving to crush a rebellion against his oppressive government, and without outside forces' involvement rebel forces would likely have been massacred.
I personally disagree with the author, and instead agree with the involvement overseas. While it may smack of similar conflicts of Afghanistan and Iraq, I would not agree with simply being audience to a massacre of unsatisfied rebels and citizens. I do not know if the President has over-stepped his authority as commander-in-chief by authorizing American involvement, but if the author is correct about the disposition of our Congress members then it is only a problem of the technicality.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Peter King's Hearings: Fact-finding or Witch-hunting?
In the linked article, the USA Today editorial board presents and discusses their thoughts on the hearings that will be carried out by Rep. Peter King. The article targets an audience that maybe be fearful or judging of Muslim-Americans. It contends that while these hearings stem from legitimate fears, the way in which they are carried out is likely to alieniate Muslim-Americans rather than unite them with the general public. There is not significant evidence, the article claims, that conversion of Muslim-Americans to radical tendencies is greater now than it was before 9-11. In fact, the number of Muslim suspects or perpetrators deviates wildly from year to year from "47 in 2009" to "two in 2008." The article admits that Muslims are more prone than other groups to acts of terrorism by proportion, but it would be ridiculous to write off "more than 20 terrorist plots last year in the USA by non-Muslims." But instead, Peter King argues that the radicalization of American Muslims is our greatest terrorist threat and that the Muslim community has been uncooperative with investigators. However, there are only specific examples to support this, no general statistics. The USA Today editorial article instead proves Muslim Americans are, in fact, cooperative with American authorities regarding suspicious or radical individuals. Of 120 interrupted terrorist plots, 48 of them "came from Muslims," more than "any other source." If we are contending American-Muslims are a great terrorist threat because more of them are suspects or perpetrators by proportion than other groups, then we cannot ignore that by proportion they also provide the most tips that lead to the prevention of acts of terrorism. It is unfair to the American Muslim population, many of whom are loyal to the United States and demonstrate this loyalty, to make sweeping generalizations about the whole based off so few individuals.
I personally agree with the USA Today editiorial board on this issue. I believe Peter King does have good intentions and I applaud his frankness with his beliefs; he does not beat around the bush with manipulated language or political correctness. However, I think his actions are the wrong way to go about finding solutions to a terrorist threat. Hearings that are so obviously focused on Muslim individuals will only alieniate the Islamic population further. Blantantly accusing Muslim leaders of not discouraging radicalism and being intentionally uncooperative with authorities will only send a message to Muslims that the government as a whole is judging them as a whole, and suggests that we are blaming them for not successfully policing every individual. This would be a grandly hypocritical statement, and I hope these hearings do not precede a witch-hunt reminiscent of the Red Scare or trials of Salem.
I personally agree with the USA Today editiorial board on this issue. I believe Peter King does have good intentions and I applaud his frankness with his beliefs; he does not beat around the bush with manipulated language or political correctness. However, I think his actions are the wrong way to go about finding solutions to a terrorist threat. Hearings that are so obviously focused on Muslim individuals will only alieniate the Islamic population further. Blantantly accusing Muslim leaders of not discouraging radicalism and being intentionally uncooperative with authorities will only send a message to Muslims that the government as a whole is judging them as a whole, and suggests that we are blaming them for not successfully policing every individual. This would be a grandly hypocritical statement, and I hope these hearings do not precede a witch-hunt reminiscent of the Red Scare or trials of Salem.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
A Financial Scramble
I recently read an article from USA Today describing our national government’s fiscal situation: beyond March 18, there is no authorization for money spending to keep it running. The House of Representatives and Senate just this week passed the bill that will even allow spending until then. Also passed this week was a bill that prevents Congress or the President from being paid during a shutdown that will result if a plan is not passed in time.
Talks that would extend the authorization to the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30th, have been stalled because Republican-controlled House passed a spending plan that is unacceptable to the Democrat-controlled Senate. This plan would cut $61 billion from spending “for Planned Parenthood, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the AmeriCorps service program.”It would be prudent for a citizen to stay updated on a situation that could result in cuts from government-funded programs or even a government shutdown. Congress must act quickly in the next two weeks to avoid such consequences, and must in the process make a plan to reduce government spending.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)