(Pictured left-to-right: Rep. Allen Icet, Susan Montee and Thomas Schweich)

Representative Allen Icet (R-Wildwood), better known on StateSurge.com for his sponsorship of House Appropriation bills, is on top of his game for the 2010 State Auditor race. As the Chairman of the House Budget Committee for five years running, Allen is looking to take his finance experience one step further. In this role he was responsible for allocating state funds—now he wants to help ensure state funds are getting spent and utilized in the way they were originally intended.

Thus far, the race has two other candidates vying for the state auditor position: Thomas Schweich (rhymes with bike), the former Special Ambassador to Afghanistan, and Susan Montee, the current State Auditor. Montee is the only Democrat in possibly contending so far.

If Icet is able to blow past the primary and defeat the incumbent, he will bring a very unique perspective to the state’s chief watchdog position in Jefferson City.

In the private sector, Icet began his career as an engineer, working his way up to eventually conducting audits and forecasts for Conoco Phillips. In the public sector, he worked on the House Budget Committee for all eight years of his legislative career, with the majority of that time spent serving as Chairman. This challenge has placed Icet as one of the most fiscally powerful people in the state, playing a central role in the allocation of Missouri’s $22-23 billion dollar budget.

This background outlines a sharp contrast to the other two candidates.

Schweich reportedly opted out of running for the open MO Senate Seat for an indicated exchange of support from Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, Rep. Roy Blunt, Sen. John Danforth and Sen. Kit Bond for his state auditor race. After widespread rumor of his bid being announced from a locker room in Washington University (Saint Louis), Schweich announced his candidacy in a statewide fly around with nominal support attending.

Montee is a formally trained CPA with much experience in administrative accounting. She received a law degree but otherwise doesn’t appear to have a very broad work experience outside of the field.

Thus far, Icet is the only candidate to release his first wave of endorsements.

Only July 7, (the same day Schweich announced his bid for state auditor), Icet released the 80 state representatives and 4 state senators that are endorsing his candidacy. To view the official press release, click here.

If Icet is able to secure the election he is expected by many to bring a fresh perspective to an otherwise officious office. With his unique experience in the legislature, he has built strong relationships in a bipartisan fashion with legislators from around the state. Furthermore, he has witnessed firsthand the all-too-common disconnect between the legislator’s original intent for, and the execution of, taxpayer dollars. After a review of his sponsored and cosponsored bills, it is not hard to see that he truly does have a great deal to bring to the people of Missouri.

To view Icet’s official campaign website, which includes an interview clip, click here.

Tom Schweich’s official website is: www.tomschweich.com

Susan Montee’s official website is:  www.susanmontee.com (despite the fact that she’s announced her intentions to run for election, she hasn’t posted any information as of this post date)

Author: Jared Fallon

For more information, see www.mofairtax.com 

 HJR 36, The MO Fair Tax plan, is a proposal to restore personal liberty, government transparency and fiscal accountability back into Missouri’s tax code.

It results in a real pay raise for residents, empowers the state’s economic engine and shifts the entire business system from taxation to customers and employees.

Ed Emery’s Fair Tax plan is a reform for the better, and truly seeks to restore Missouri’s competitiveness.

But what exactly is the MO Fair Tax?

HJR 36 seeks to ask the voters of Missouri to decide on a plan to replace the state income tax with a consumption (usage) tax. If put into law, the bill would raise the sales tax by 1.1% and broaden the scope of the tax to include personal and property and taxable services. The Missouri General Assembly would be allowed to make one adjustment to the rate to make it revenue/spending neutral.

Despite Emery’s plan to ensure Missouri’s economic growth, many people are questioning the timing of his proposal.

At a time when layoffs and fears of economic recession are commonplace, why would Missourians want to reform the state’s tax code?

The reason, sadly, is that Missouri is falling behind.

The tax system has become far too bulky and government transparency is wavering. Tax evasion is increasing while illegals avoid contributions. The complex tax code distracts from opportunity and discourages small businesses. Items are taxed every time they are sold, no matter how many times they are purchased and many services are not taxable. The solution? A usage tax that doesn’t fault individuals for working.

A single, revenue-neutral sales tax is the answer.

For proof, consider the Show-Me Institute’s report “Tennessee vs. Missouri: Taxes May Tip the Odds.” It states, “By any economic measure, Missouri dominated Tennessee at the end of World War II. Since then, Tennessee has reported faster economic growth and now has higher per-capita income than Missouri. With continued strong growth, the gap will just keep widening.”

The difference between the two states? Tennessee doesn’t have a state income tax.

“Consider two people with identical characteristics, one in Missouri, the other in Tennessee. Suppose those two people were given identical work opportunities, so that they had access to the same machines and plant surroundings. For one hour of work, each produced the same amount, and was paid $20. Excluding federal taxes, the person in Missouri would take home $18.80 while the person in Tennessee would take home $20. The person in Tennessee will supply more labor because he realizes a higher return for his effort.

The difference in returns applies also to those owning machines, plants, and other equipment. Other things being equal, the after-tax return to capital in Tennessee is higher than in Missouri. Consequently, when deciding where to locate plants and equipment, Tennessee has an advantage. Together, the incentives to locate machines and people in Tennessee can account for why the Tennessee economy is performing better than the Missouri.

This is not to ignore other factors that affect the two states’ economic performance. But the comparison does suggest that tax structure does matters. Perhaps it is time to ask: What tax structure is in Missouri’s best interest?”

The answer is the MO Fair Tax.

Author: Kellie Bartoli

Someone might want to tell Rep. Peter King (R–NY)  about the huge problems facing the nation and world today – maybe then we wouldn’t have to suffer through another worthless proposal.

Recently, King sponsored H.R.414, the Camera Phone Predator Alert Act. Essentially, the bill would ban a silent mode when taking a picture with a cell phone.

The act “requires[s] any mobile phone containing a digital camera to sound a tone whenever a photograph is taken.” Furthermore, such a tone should be “audible within a reasonable radius of the phone.”

According to the market research organization NPD Group, 83 percent of cell phones sold in 2008 were equipped with built-in cameras.

King has not commented publicly about the Camera Phone Predator Act since it was introduced on Jan. 9. His language in the bill, however, speaks volumes.

According to the bill, “Congress finds that children and adolescents have been exploited by photographs taken in dressing rooms and public places with the use of a camera phone.”

Where, may I ask, are these kids shopping?

Every once in a while, you do hear stories about customers being filmed while changing in a store’s fitting rooms. But in those cases, the victims are filmed with a hidden camera that records every movement not a grainy, still shot from a cell phone.

Perhaps King’s heart is in the right place, but his proposal doesn’t do enough. If it really wants to protect unsuspecting children (and adults, I might add), it shouldn’t limit itself to cell phone cameras.

Personally, I’m more suspicious of other recording devices. Almost everyone has a digital camera, and it seems that other digital video recorders, like the Flip Video for instance are getting smaller and more discreet by the minute.

Even King himself acknowledged that the plan isn’t infallible when he said to Congress: “An audible tone can at least help warn people that they’re being surreptitiously photographed. Is it foolproof? No. But it is an extra layer of protection, that warning signal.”

If passed, the United States would join Japan and Korea on the list of countries with such a law.

In an interview with ABC News, Sascha Segan, lead analyst for mobile devices at PCMag Digital Network, explained that in Japan and Korea, the cell phone camera law was passed in response to the growing number of occurrences of “underskirting.”

For those of you who don’t know, “underskirting” is when men, usually on a crowded train or bus, position their camera phone under women’s skirts and take pictures. Segan also says that a similar problem, cleverly called “downblosuing,” is also a problem. (Just a side note – I guess Tracy Jordan was right about “sharking” being popular in Japan. “30 Rock,” anyone?

The frequency of these incidents forced Japanese and Korean governments to act. Apple wasn’t even allowed to sell the iPhone in Japan until the camera’s silent mode was disabled. But, says Segan, in the United States, “this seems to be a solution in search of a problem. …I haven’t seen any reputable source saying that there’s a major problem with secretly taken dirty camera phone photos.”

Don’t look for this law to pass anytime soon, though. King has yet to pick up any co-sponsors in the month-plus since the bill was introduced. It looks as though this act will follow the path of King’s 2007 version of the act - and that’s nowhere fast. 

Author: Kellie Bartoli

Before he was even inaugurated, President Barack Obama drew steady comparisons to arguably one of the greatest presidents in history, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Both men used progressive tactics to communicate with Americans and each inherited the presidency at a less-than-ideal economic time. And if Rep. Jose Serrano’s (D-NY)  proposal passes – a lack of serving just two terms.

On Jan. 6 (the first day of the 111th Congress, in case you’re keeping score), Serrano introduced

H.J.Res.5 , a proposal to repeal the  22nd Amendment, removing presidential terms.

The 22nd Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution on Feb. 27, 1951, when three-fourths of the states’ legislatures ratified it.

The “two term tradition,” as it is often known, dates back to George Washington, who, despite being wildly successful across the nation, didn’t seek a third term of office. Whether he meant to set a precedent or not, the ensuing leaders followed suit.

In an 1805 letter, Thomas Jefferson, America’s third president, wrote: “General Washington set the example of voluntary retirement after eight years. …I shall follow it, and a few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit to anyone after a while who shall endeavor to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish it by an amendment of the Constitution.”

How prophetic, Mr. Jefferson! His constitutional vision wouldn’t be seen for a century or so, leaving a little wiggle room for a few presidents.

In 1860, Ulysses S. Grant sought a third term in office, after serving the country from 1869 – 1877. He narrowly lost out on the Republican Party’s nomination to James Garfield, who eventually won the presidency.

Just a few decades later, Theodore Roosevelt tried his hand at serving three terms. After assuming the presidency in 1901 after William McKinley was assassinated, Roosevelt was elected to his own term in 1904. But presiding over the United States from 1901 to 1909 wasn’t enough for Roosevelt. He attempted another election in 1912, but fell to Woodrow Wilson.

The most famous case concerns that other Roosevelt, though. FDR broke all precedent by being elected four times. The rising conflict in Europe helped lead Roosevelt to his third victory, and World War II ensured his fourth election.  One year after his fourth term began, Roosevelt suffered a stroke and died in office.

After FDR’s historic turn in the White House, Congress went to work on crafting an amendment to prevent such a presidency. While the 22nd Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1951, Congress actually passed it on March 21, 1947 – less than two years after FDR’s death.

But perhaps Rep. Serrano (and the others who have sponsored similar bills in the past) know something about American history that the rest of us don’t.

Many experts believe Washington’s iconic Farewell Address hints that it was Washington’s age that stopped him from seeking a third term.

“Washington didn’t want to die in office and have the succession appear ‘monarchical,’” wrote James MacGregor and Susan Dunn, college professors and authors of “George Washington.” “His primary reason for retiring was simply that after a lifetime of public service, he was bone-tired, desperate to return to the tranquility of Mount Vernon.”

The authors also note that Washington believed that term limits would “exclude from the presidency of a man whose leadership might be essential in a time of emergency.”

Alexander Hamilton, Washington’s close friend, fiercely opposed presidential term limits in his Federalist No. 72, saying among other things, that term limits would discourage new projects and threaten political stability.

While the current proposal to repeal term limitations doesn’t have any co-sponsors yet, many believe it has a chance to make an impact on Congress. It needs a two-thirds approval vote in both houses and ratification by three-quarters of states before becoming official.                                                        

Author: Sarah Riordan

Can you imagine what it would be like to be a member of the most powerful court in the nation?  Can you imagine having to make decisions that change an entire population’s lives forever?  Though everyone probably has a desire to hold such power, it can’t be easy.  In fact, it must be incomprehensibly difficult to interpret an intentionally vague constitution.

That’s why, on occasion, it’s not a bad idea to cut the Supreme Court a break.  Granted they have the power to make millions of people mad in one sweeping decision, but all things considered, their jobs can’t be easy. 

Now, without a doubt the Supreme Court has made some questionable decisions, and truthfully Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana has reason to question the decision they made in 2008 when they overturned the ruling of the Louisiana Supreme Court in the case Kennedy vs. Louisiana.  As a result of the case, Vitter is sponsoring S.RES.4, which asks the Supreme Court to allow the death penalty for similar cases in the future.

Kennedy vs. Louisiana is a tragic case to say the least.  Patrick Kennedy was a 43 year-old man, who one morning decided to rape his 8 year-old stepdaughter.  As a result of the unusually brutal rape, the girl bled internally and rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery.  The stepfather claimed that the girl had been raped by some teenage boys the neighborhood of their Louisiana home.  After an investigation into the crime however, the evidence was irrefutable; the stepfather had in fact raped the young girl. 

Without getting into too much detail, according to the court documents, the rape of the girl was so unusually brutal, that the damage done was permanent.  In addition to the already perverse nature of the rape, during the trial it came out that Kennedy had raped before.  The first time, it was his 8 year-old goddaughter.

The court sentenced Kennedy to death by lethal injection.  Kennedy appealed, and the Louisiana Supreme Court heard the case, but supported the original sentence.  Thus, Kennedy appealed federally, and the U.S. Supreme Court took over.  

In a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court overturned the case, stating that because only six states list childhood rape as a capital punishment because it does not include the taking of another person’s life. Thus they said it went against the 8^th Amendment which prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment.  The majority included Justice Kennedy, Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice Ginsberg, and Justice Breyer.

The dissent included Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Scalia, and Justice Alito. The dissent stated that prohibiting the death penalty in Kennedy’s case went against society’s standards of decency, and by no means went against the 8^th Amendment. 

The amendment in question is like most other amendments; it’s vague. The exact wording is as follows:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 

Naturally, Senator Vitter agreed with the dissent, and felt the U.S. Supreme Court should have respected the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision.  It’s a tough case, and forming a strong opinion couldn’t have been easy. 

Given the vague language of the 8^th Amendment, and the gruesome nature of the crime, Vitter’s jab at the Supreme Court is understandable.   Kennedy raped two eight-year old girls, causing them both permanent mental and physical damage.  Considering the cruel and unusual crime, in my opinion, the death penalty would have been cruel and unusual by no means.

So, what do you think?  Was the Supreme Court’s Decision Correct? Did Kennedy Deserve the Death Penalty? Post your comments and let us know.

Author: Emily Iles

On Monday, March 2nd, 2009, legislators and citizens gathered for a press conference held by Missouri Senator Jim Lembke to discuss his new bill to lift the deed restriction that restrict Charter schools from purchasing abandoned St. Louis public schools.
 
The press conference took place at vacant Scullin Elementary School, across the street from City Academy, a private school opened in 2005.  This corner illustrates the problem posed by deed restrictions that do not allow private, parochial or Charter schools to purchase and reuse these buildings as educational entities.  
 
Scullin Elementary school was built in 1908, and is still a beautiful building with a marble staircase and new playground equipment, though paint is chipping off the windows. As the press conference was being set up, a maintenance worker was fixing the boarded-up front door; according to him, they had had break-ins recently.
 
Senator Lembke, Senator Jeff Smith, Representative T.D. El-Amin, Senator Jane Cunningham and Representative Tishaura Jones spoke of concerns about crime, property values, about the dozens on public schools on the market, and the communities that were once anchored by them.
 
Lembke’s bill hopes to fix a number of problems.  First, these buildings were paid for by taxpayers for the purpose of educating children.  Prohibiting them from continued use as school buildings is contrary to the designation of those tax dollars.  St. Louis Public Schools will additionally face a $35 million budget shortfall this year, and many communities and taxpayers are wondering why the Special Administrative Board would cling obstinately to restrict sale to the most likely buyers of these vacant buildings—charter schools.  The number of closed school buildings in St. Louis is expected to add 17 more buildings this year to the 22 schools already closed and sitting empty.  
 
The second concern is for neighborhoods.  An empty school building does nothing to improve a neighborhood, but it can do a lot to tear it down.  For neighborhoods already struggling, an empty building brings more potential for crime and vandalism.  It brings dangerous conditions as the building falls into disrepair.  It can drastically devalue nearby homes. But most importantly, it leaves a hole in the community.

Author: Sarah Riordan

Apparently, there’s a problem in the drug world.  If you’re thinking gang banging, traffic carting, gun toting drug dealer, you’re thinking of the wrong kind of drugs. The drugs in question are the legal ones that often provide life-saving medications to Americans everywhere.

So what seedy activities are occurring in this immensely profitable financial market?  Well, I’ll give you a hint; it has to do with mass amounts of money, competitors and payoffs.

Because “name-brand” drug companies put all the legwork into providing medication, (legwork equals research, testing, and initial distribution) they automatically get a twenty-year exclusive patent on new products.  This permits the company to recoup some of it research and development cost and make some profit on the product.  It also seems perfectly fair and provides the necessary incentive for companies to continue bringing new products to market. 

After twenty years however, the patent runs out, and generic drug companies have a chance at making a profit by selling the same drug at a much cheaper rate.  So much cheaper in fact, that generic drugs cost consumers up to 80 percent less than their name-brand competitors. 

With the current system in place, every body gets a chance to play without unduly burdening the name-brand drugs original manufacturer.  So everyone should be happy right?

Well, judging by what we know of human nature, no one is ever completely satisfied.  As a result, brand-name companies have, according to the bill, decided that twenty years and billions of dollars isn’t quite enough time to make money.  To protect their profits, drug companies have come up with some “creative financing” to get around the problem of the limited patents.  And when you have millions of dollars at your disposal, it can become a very effective tool to protect your interests.  Consequently, according to the Federal Trade Commission, the owner of the name -brand drugs have been paying other companies not to enter the market. 

So, say you’ve been taking the allergy medicine Zyrtec for twenty years.  (Zyrtec is already provided over the counter in generic form, so this example is purely an illustration.  I am in no way implying that this is Pfizer’s practice.)  Soon that drug will become available in a much cheaper form.  Pfizer sees this, and decides to pay the generic company an amount equal to that of the profit they would make off of the generic form of Zyrtec.  Therefore, Pfizer protects its monopoly on Zyrtec and continues charging consumers 80 percent more than the drug is actually worth. 

That’s why Senator Herbert Kohl, a Democrat from Wisconsin, decided to sponsor S.369. The bill basically makes it illegal for the big companies to skirt around their twenty-year patent by buying off their competitors. 

No one is trying to limit a company’s abilities to make profit off of their products.  Exclusive rights for twenty years is a long time and most companies recoup their R&D cost and then some in that time.  The bill is simply trying to make sure the game is played fair and the consumer is given choices to help reduce drug cost. 

As a bill that doesn’t increase taxes, the simple response is simply, “Why not?”  With all of the Americans who need prescriptions, and the ridiculous price of prescription drugs, giving the “name-brandys” a monopoly would make the problem drastically worse. 

So by all means, keep those drug companies honest, and keep Americans healthy! 

Author: Sarah Riordan

Each bill put before Congress has a preferred title.  It’s part of the “marketing” that goes into passing legislation.  For example, if I were to write a bill about how to provide healthcare to the poor, I would suggest in the bill that it be referred to as the “Health Care for the Poor, 2009 Act.”  In theory, the title of the bill summarizes the bill’s content.  Typically, though, Congress is not that creative and most of the titles are unimaginative and boring. 

Then you have the bill Harry Reid is sponsoring, S.5. With a sophistication in the English language that  only our most influential law makers have, Reid requests that S.5 be known as the, “Cleaner, Greener, and Smarter Act of 2009.”  Perhaps this is being nitpicky, but in comparison to all the other titles out there that summarize a bill’s meaning, this one sounds a tad bit more like Sesame Street than a potential United State’s law.  I don’t know about you but it kind of makes me want to put a crown made of flowers on my head, hold hands with strangers, and dance around in circles to the Beatles “All You Need is Love.”

Okay, enough of that, let’s get to the bill.  There are a few problems with S.5. To begin with, the bill addresses a number of issues but presents them all under the umbrella of being environmentally friendly. 

Here are the three main issues that are presented in the bill.

1. Energy Dependency
2. Global Warming
3. Living Green

Unfortunately, the short list above is about as substantial as Reid’s bill gets. The hardly two-paged bill briefly touches on all the issues mentioned above, but leaves the bill so short and open that anyone can interpret it to mean anything they want it to. 

For example, section four of the bill states the following about what the bill legislates:

“…requires reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States and achieving reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases abroad,”

What does that mean?  If this bill is made law with such broad language, does it mean Congress could make it illegal for all U.S. citizens to drive and say this bills permits them to make such a law?  Who knows?

Yet another example of the vague language appears in the first section of the bill where Reid states what this piece of legislation hopes to accomplish. 

“To make and encourage significant investments in green job creation and clean energy across the economy,”

Again, what does that mean?  How much money does he want to invest?  What makes a green job a green job?  I don’t really know, because that’s all Reid says about green jobs in the bill.  It is almost that he assumes everyone knows what a so-called “green job” is.  In the end, each person can interpret it as they choose.

And in the above statement is where the main problem lays.  Legislation needs to be clear and defined. If something is going to become law, it needs to leave no room for false interpretation and loop holes.  It begs the question, why doesn’t Reid just tell us exactly what he wants?  The reason, I believe, is that voters would revolt against his agenda.

Judging purely by the bill’s text, no one could ever tell what Senator Reid is pushing for.  So in the end, it’s best to not have a bill so broad that you could fly a 747 through it.  Then again, a 747 isn’t very environmentally friendly, so if S.5 is passed, it will probably be outlawed in the near future. 

Author: Sarah Riordan

Congresswomen Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) is sponsoring a bill that essentially calls for law enforcement to be stricter in their prosecution of hate crimes.  H.R.254 states that any harm caused in the name of race, sex, sexual orientation, or religion should be called a hate crime and therefore the perpetrator should pay not only for the crime committed, but for the fact that it was motivated by hate.

Apparently, Congresswoman Jackson-Lee is a mind reader.  She can tell when a crime is racially motivated, and she can tell what a person is truly thinking when they pull the trigger.  Miss Jackson-Lee is so intuitive, that she knows when a murder is not just a murder…but a murder caused by hate.

Now, I’m sure that ignorant people commit crimes everyday in the name of race, religion, and gender, but as the law currently stands, those people are already prosecuted.  For example, if a white man shoots a black man and the black man dies, the white man will be charged with murder.  Naming the crime one of hate, does not change the ultimate outcome; murder is murder.  One man is dead, and one man is living.  No law will change that.

Even if a white man shoots a black man and the black man doesn’t die, it’s still a crime! It’s a crime known as attempted murder.  And like murder, we already have laws that will send the offender to jail.  Whether it’s a hate crime or not is irrelevant; the white man won’t walk free.

In addition to the fact that we already have laws against these crimes on the books, I can’t help but wonder how a judge or jury will decide a crime is in fact a hate crime. Will they attempt to guess what the offender was thinking?  How will they know that the crime was motivated by the “hate criteria?”  What if there was simply a love triangle of mixed races, and the black man killed the white man for having an affair with his wife.  Is that not just a regular crime of passion?  Because the people involved happened to be of different races, does that make it a hate crime? 

Furthermore, are not all crimes, crimes of hate?   Most of the time, you cause bodily harm to someone because you…ready for this…hate them!!  If you’re going to create something called a hate crime, then every crime under the sun should fall into that category.  It’s a pointless distinction. 

Ultimately, what this bill will do is close in on our rights as U.S. citizens.  In H.R. 254, Congress is attempting to read people’s thoughts.  If they can prosecute a person on supposed intent, then what will that lead to?  Could a person speaking out against homosexuality be accused of a hate crime and arrested because the intent behind his speech was hateful? 

The end result if American jumps on the hate crime band wagon, will be a government that attempts to read people’s minds, and prosecute on thoughts.  That is not the kind of country I want to live in, and it’s certainly not a country that was founded on freedom.

I think I just might hate H.R. 254…

Author: Sarah Riordan

I’d like to apologize in advance to all the potheads (and Michael Phelps) out there, but marijuana is in fact, contrary to popular belief, a dangerous drug.  So despite all the supposed economic benefits of legalizing and taxing marijuana, having a bunch of slow moving burnouts doesn’t exactly paint a picture of a booming economy. As a result, an attempt to legalize it is like, dude, such like, a bad idea man.

California legislators are proposing that marijuana be taxed and legalized in bill AB390. Despite its legalization for medical purposes in many states, as a recreational activity, marijuana has remained a controversial subject.   In a recent New York Times/CBS Poll, 41 percent of Americans now support legalizing the drug.  Yet, it remains illegal for a reason. 

Pastor Scott Erlich is the chaplain for Valley Hope a 30-day rehabilitation center in Boonville, Mo.  As someone who daily counsels people with drug addictions, Erlich is against the legalization of marijuana but also against standard treatment for the problem. 

“There are three main reasons why I’m against the legalization of marijuana. The first reason is that this is not your father’s drug.  Marijuana has grown stronger and more potent in form overtime.  It’s far more dangerous now than it was for the hippies. The second reason is that there is good scientific evidence that indicates the drug is addictive. The third reason is that I’ve seen time and again how it is a gateway drug.  People who use marijuana are far more likely to experiment with other drugs.  That’s supported by countless statistics. That having been said, it’s important to note that if marijuana stays illegal, prison time is not the answer.  Drug addicts need help.  Sending them to prison will make their addiction to even marijuana worse,” Erlich said.

According to a recent study conducted by a Harvard medical research team, the negative affects of marijuana still outweigh the positives. The research shows that even using the drug for medical purposes is dangerous.  Though it’s often used to treat AIDS victims and cancer patients, marijuana is actually harmful to the immune system.  Though the drug may give patients the illusion that they’re feeling better, it adds to the ailment by making a patient with an already weakened immune system more susceptible to disease.   The research also shows that, like cigarettes, marijuana is harmful to the respiratory system and is just as likely to lead to lung cancer. 

Though the Harvard study includes some research on the mental effects of marijuana usage, there’s plenty of additional research that reveals the truly frightening psychological consequences.  Online information for the Marijuana Detox Center says the drug greatly inhibits the use of short-term memory, and makes even simple tasks seemingly complex.  Marijuana also causes slow reaction time which can lead to life threatening situations if behind a vehicle or in charge of caring for another individual.   These effects also last up to 24 hours.  Research has also shown that people who smoke the drug suffer from learning disabilities while smoking.

Lastly, according to drug-rehab.com, marijuana can strengthen the severity of mental illnesses like schizophrenia, anxiety disorders, and social problems.  The drug can lead to increased levels of anxiety and at times hallucinations.  To all you young men out there who think smoking weed is dope, (pun intended) the drug causes a severe decrease in a person’s sex drive and ability to perform sexually overall.  So while you might feel like a stud you won’t be such a big hit with the ladies . . . if you catch my drift.

There you have it, a huge list of mental, physical, and emotional reasons why marijuana should not be legalized. But you know what, don’t take my word for it; take the word of Harvard, drug rehabilitation centers nation wide, and drug rehab chaplain Scott Erlich.  They may just have more insight than the rest of us.

Arguments abound – see what proponents of AB390 are saying!

For reader comments, click here.

For State Surge author Kellie Bartoli’s coverage, follow this link. 

Video: 95% of Americans Want Marijuana Legalized 

 

Author: Sarah Riordan

As the Unites States continues to step up the war for democracy in Afghanistan, Senator Barbara Boxer is making sure the women are included in the U.S.’s plans.

The questionable treatment of women throughout the Middle East has been well documented by women who managed to escape the oppressive atmosphere.  One example is found in Betty Mahmoody’s book “Not Without My Daughter.”  In her tragic story she is virtually held captive by her husband in Iran and beaten within an inch of her life. Though her story is disturbing, even more disturbing is that when Mahmoody turned to her Iranian friends for help, they told her that her husband’s behavior was not unique and was, according to law and custom, virtually acceptable. 

Likewise, in Dr. Qanta Ahmed’s book “In the Land of Invisible Women,” she writes about the everyday burden of being a female in Saudi Arabia. She even states that for a while, there was a law pending that made it illegal for Saudi women to wear seatbelts because it defined their chest too much.  In other words, a Saudi man would rather a woman be thrown through the windshield of a car, than have her chest stand out more than usual. 

And so the problem continues throughout most of the nations of the Middle East.  Not every man throughout the Middle East abuses his wife, nor is every woman unhappy.  However, according to Boxer’s S.229, there does seem to be some well-documented problems that should be addressed as long as the U.S. continues to have a presence in Afghanistan.

According to the bill, research has shown that Afghanistan has one of the highest mortality rates in the nation for women in labor.  There is an estimated one woman who dies in every 54 births.  In a world of modern medicine, the amount is unusually high.  In contrast, according to an MSNBC report in the United States 12 women die in childbirth for every 100,000 babies born. 

Aside from issues of healthcare, education for women is virtually nonexistent.  S.229 says that 79 percent of women in Afghanistan are illiterate. The bill also says that schools who teach girls are often subject to brutal attacks by extremists hoping to limit their rights. 

According to Boxer, educating women and providing them with proper healthcare and education is essential in building a democracy.  Clearly the U.S. has a vested interest in establishing a democracy in Afghanistan.  Such an interest in fact, that American soldiers are losing their lives every day for the cause.

To help the women of Afghanistan Boxer proposes forty-five million dollars go toward a number of potential projects.  These projects include providing shelters for abused women, health care, education for both young and old, and therapy for those suffering from anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorders caused by years of oppression under the Taliban rule. 

Though the opposition will most likely zero in on the costs proposed in the bill, Boxer does have a point: regardless of how much money the government chooses to spend, women in Afghanistan need proper resources in order to propel their country toward democracy. 

Author: Kellie Bartoli

As Americans, we enjoy our freedom to do anything we may choose. Anything, that is except travel to Cuba.

Since 1963, the United States has followed a strict travel ban with Cuba – the only country that Americans are forbidden from visiting. Earlier this month, however, Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) and eight co-sponsors introduced to Congress H.R.874, the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act.

By lifting the 46-year sanction, the bill aims to restore the travel rights of Cuban refugees living in the U.S. and enable unrestricted American travel to Cuba, except during times of war and “imminent danger to the public health or physical safety.”

Despite growing popularity, the bill faces a tough crowd. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Miami), a longtime advocate of the Cuban sanctions, says similar acts are often proposed, and “every year embargo supporters kill [them] before they get any traction. …While we recognize that these are fights take place, we have great confidence that we’ll defeat them.”

The strongest argument against the measure is the belief that American tourism will breathe money into the Castro regime.

According to Humberto Fontova, a Cuban exile who has since penned two books about the island, at least 2 million tourists have visited Cuba each year since 1994, creating a $2 billion cash flow, which “is only going to increase now with Americans going to Cuba.”  

If the measure passes the House, President Obama will almost certainly sign it into law; throughout his presidential campaign, Obama pledged to change the travel ban. At a Cuban Independence Day event in Miami, he said, “My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: ‘libertad.’ …We’ve been engaged in a failed policy with Cuba for the last 50 years. And we need to change it.” Obama later went on to vow unrestricted travel and financial rights for Cuban-Americans.

The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act will be a good test of Obama’s pledge. In addition to lifting travel sanctions, the new bill loosens the tight strings pulled by President George W. Bush, who placed even more stringent restrictions on American-Cuban relations.

Under the Clinton administration, for example, Cuban-Americans were allowed to visit the island once a year and send quarterly payments of up to $3,000 to their families. In 2004, Bush enacted stronger limitations: Cuban-Americans could only visit family once every three weeks for 14-day intervals, “family” was defined as parents, spouses, children and siblings – not friends or other family members, travel spending was capped at $50 per day, and cash remittances were maximized at $300 every three months and could only be sent to immediate family.

The new bill, however, calls for a $170-per day travel allowance, the ability for Cuban-Americans to visit relatives once a year and stay as long as they want, and eliminates a cap on remittance.

While the travel ban has been enforced for nearly 50 years, the proposal is moving much more rapidly. It was initially introduced to Congress on Feb. 4, and the House plans to vote as early as Wednesday. It is to be reviewed by the Senate at the beginning of next week. 

Author: Sarah Riordan

Abortion is a tragedy.  It doesn’t matter if a person is pro-life or pro-choice, any intellectually honest human being should be able to state-without a doubt-that abortion is tragic. 

Because abortion is clearly devastating, many women who have an abortion suffer from post-abortive conditions.  These conditions include, depression, anxiety, relationship problems, sexual problems, and in severe cases, thoughts of suicide.

In Congressman Pitts’ new bill, H.R. 1457, he addresses the issue of post-abortive conditions and asks Congress to recognize the problem, and give money to research and solutions for women suffering.  The problem is however, like all other life-motivated bills, this one will also most likely be shot down by our heavily democratic Congress.

That’s what’s so puzzling about the abortion issue.  Pro-choice people claim that keeping abortion legal is all about the women.  It’s about women having a say in what happens to their bodies.  It’s about women who are not yet ready for a child having an abortion to keep control of their lives. They say it’s about the well being of females across America. 

If that’s the case, then why is nearly every single Congressman and woman supporting H.R.1457, a pro-life politician? If it’s the pro-choicers who care so deeply for the female population, then why wouldn’t they jump at the chance to support a bill designed to help women deal with choosing abortion?  Are they really out to help women?

The truth is that many pro-choice advocates deny there is such a thing as a post-abortive condition.  In fact, I once interviewed a woman, from a Chicago suburb, who was in charge of hiring escorts  to walk girls into a local abortion clinic. In the interview, I asked her if she ever worried that the girls she helped escort into the clinic would someday feel pain and regret .  She replied by saying that the only reason women feel guilt or regret is because the pro-life community convinces them that that’s the way they should feel.  It’s not the abortion, but the community that makes girls feel guilty.

The research conducted for H.R. 1457 however, tells a different story.  The National Institute of Health has done no research on the issue.  So, sadly, Congressman Pitts was forced to look to a major study conducted in New Zealand for facts.  Pitts found that a woman who finds herself pregnant and carried the pregnancy to term has a 35.7 percent chance of suffering from severe depression.  A woman who finds herself pregnant and chooses to abort that baby however, has a staggering 78.6 percent chance of suffering from severe depression.  The numbers remain consistent across the board from depression, to anxiety, to thoughts of suicide; women who have abortions suffer from these conditions at a much higher rate. 

Pitts simply requests in his bill that 3 million dollars, a pittance by today’s standards, be given to medical research on post-abortive conditions over the course of three years.  This way, the National Institute of Health could try and find ways to help women who are suffering.

So why would anyone not support this bill?  Well, it once again calls the practice of abortion into question.  It suggests that, unlike pro-choice advocates would have us believe, that abortion is not a quick and painless procedure.  Recognizing that there are long term side affects to an abortion could actually help a woman to…God forbid…make a different, more informed, life affirming choice.   For some reason, the pro-choice community can just not have that. 

Good luck Pitts, and thanks for truly caring about women.  

Author: Kellie Bartoli

Open a newspaper or turn on the TV over the past year, and two things are sure to bombard you: “going green” and the recession. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) certainly seemed to notice the trend, as evidence by her latest proposal, S.224, the “Green Jobs and Infrastructure Act of 2009.” 

The bill aims to invest in national green technology and create green jobs. According to Stabenow, “…We can create good-paying, middle class American jobs. This legislation will invest in green technology, innovation and production, here at home, to ensure we don’t move from a dependence on foreign oil to a dependence on foreign technology.”

Well played, Senator. Bringing together hot topics and the hunger for jobs has garnered much attention for the bill, not to mention outspoken support from Green For All, the Corps Network, the Center for American Progress and many others.

The collaboration doesn’t stop there. Recently, Stabenow led 18 Senators in the drafting of letters to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Senate Appropriations Committee – and one Mr. Barack Obama.

In her letter  to the then president-elect, Stabenow writes: “This investment would create millions of new jobs in the immediate future, help end our dependence on foreign oil, rebuild our manufacturing sector, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions…”

S.224 certainly backs up Stabenow’s words. The bill has some mighty objectives for the next year alone, including $2.3 billion in residential and commercial energy savings, $56.55 billion in federal investments in energy efficiency and green-collar jobs, $120 billion in industry revenue, and 334,00 direct and 908,600 indirect jobs. Listen carefully and I think you can hear cheers from the unemployment line.

Now I know what you’re thinking: “Oh really? I’d like to see that happen.” Well, the bill’s creators anticipated your question, and extensively listed their goals and how to achieve them. 

The 13-page proposal features four key points, the first of which is “Clean Technology Manufacturing Incentives Program.” Under this provision, manufactures would receive loans to produce or improve clean technology and low carbon products and operate more efficiently. This alone would help rebuild American manufacturing and in turn, create at least 250,000 manufacturing jobs and up to 725,000 indirect jobs. And keeping with the times, loans will be given with “priority to those facilities that are located in regions with the highest unemployment.”

The second point in the plan is the research and development of advanced batteries. Nearly $1 billion is appropriated to the production of battery technologies like lithium ion and hybrid electric systems.

S.224 also calls for a “green jobs” training program, and sets aside $6.25 million to provide grants to non-profits and other organizations to train workers on energy efficiency and technology.

Finally, under the energy efficiency and conservation block provision, cities and states can earn grants to promote and develop alternative energy usage and efficiency. This has all the makings to kick start countless projects nationwide and the potential to create 60,000 construction, 24,000 manufacturing and 183,000 indirect jobs – and it comes with a $10 billion price tag.

 Whether the bill passes is anyone’s guess but with Stabenow’s legislative track record, my money’s on her. 

Author: Sarah Riordan

 To quote the oh so diplomatic Judge Judy…don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

 The above quote pretty much sums up Congresswoman Louise Slaughter’s new bill, H.R. 463.  In fact, the first paragraph is where the deceit begins. Here Slaughter states that the bill wants to provide contraceptives to girls with the intention of reducing the number of abortions. 

Okay, first things first, when reviewing the long list of Congressmen and woman who signed their names supporting the bill, something seemed odd.  The typical pro-life advocates were absent from the list.  For example, Fortenberry, Akin, and Lipinski were neither listed as sponsors or cosponsors.  So naturally, something about this bill just felt off.

When reading through the first pages of the bill, nothing obvious stands out.  It follows the format of a typical bill beginning by citing research about unplanned pregnancies, and the number of women in lower socio-economic circumstances that don’t have access to birth control.  Wait a minute…that does spark a thought, who was the famous woman that longed to provide minorities and poorer woman with birth control? Oh wait, that’s right, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, which is also the largest abortion provider in America.

Sanger’s goal was to eliminate people she saw as inferior through birth control.  Now for those of you, who view Sanger as a saint; let’s review some of her most infamous writings.

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” 
Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race 

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America.

“More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

Whenever a bill aims to provide birth control, it nearly always focuses on minorities within the US.  That is exactly what Sanger’s goal was.  Apparently Sanger and Slaughter both think they know what sort of women should be discouraged from having children.  According to Sanger, it’s not about providing a service to women, but about eliminating the poor and minority groups.

Now at about page four, the bill becomes incredibly transparent.  Suddenly, the bill goes from speaking about birth control, to speaking about emergency contraception. (The morning after pill.)  Even the most ignorant of college students can tell you that the morning after pill is used in case conception has occurred.  A true pro lifer would be against the use of this emergency contraceptive because its goal is to cause a very early abortion.   If the public does not view the morning after pill as an abortifacient, it should.  So either Slaughter is ignorant, or she thinks the public is stupid enough to be convinced that this pro-choice bill has a prolife message.  Come on Slaughter, stop being an elitist and give the public a little more credit.

Honestly, the problems mentioned above don’t even touch the surface of all the wrong stated in H.R.463.  The bill also mentions birth control providers helping with the elimination of STD’s.  Are they planning to do this by providing birth control?  If anything, providing girls with the pill is going to give them license to be more sexually active.  The pill does not protect against STD’s.  Neither does the morning after pill.  No birth control (other than abstinence) can truly keep a person safe from disease.

This bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  It’s trying to seem prolife friendly while forcing taxpayers to go against their convictions by providing emergency contraception funding for girls.  If Slaughter’s bill is passed that‘s what will happen.

Slaughter, who do you think you’re kidding? 

Oh, and does anyone else find it ironic that her last name is Slaughter? Anyone…anyone?  

Author: Kellie Bartoli

Video games may soon resemble a pack of cigarettes if Reps. Joe Baca, (D-CA), and Frank Wolf, (R-VA), get their way.

The pair recently co-sponsored H.R. 231, which aims to “require certain warning labels…be placed on video games that are given certain ratings due to violent content.”

Essentially, the congressmen want to slap a Surgeon’s General-style warning on any deemed-violent video game that is rated T (Teen) or higher. There are only two stronger ratings – M (Mature) and AO (Adults Only).

According to the Entertainment Software Rating Board, games rated for teens are meant for those 13 and older, and “may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.”

The bill calls for such video game covers to carry a clear and prominent label that reads: “WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.”

Oh, where to begin.

It seems to make sense at first, but the more I think about it, the more questions flood my mind. 

Number one: Where is this scientific research linking video game violence to aggression?

In November, the Washington Post reported on a new study that claims a link between the two. The article goes on, however, to quote Texas A&M psychology professor Christopher Ferguson, who noted “‘numerous flaws and called into question ‘the meaningfulness of the study.’” I’m personally inclined to agree with Ferguson. How can we accurately measure “aggressive behavior” and in turn, link it to video games? The only correlations I’ve seen are based on a questionable report and a few episodes of “Law and Order: Special Victims Unit.” Not exactly scientific.

Secondly, what is “aggressive behavior” after all? I grew up with two sisters, so babysitting two active boys came as quite a shock.  But, as others have told me, that’s only “roughhousing.”

So maybe my definition of aggression is a little narrower. But a case can be made that many normal activities promote aggressive behavior. Just look at football! So should “Monday Night Football” begins its programming with a warning, just in case children want to recreate what they saw?

Here’s what I really don’t understand. Parents and advocacy groups are quick to blame video games for violence. What then, was the scapegoat before video games were even invented?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy – they terrorized the nation long before the advent of video games, let alone violent ones.

Aggression is an innate sensibility, and it is up to an individual to lash out or not. If seeing violence on a screen will lead to hostile behavior, we better pull the plug on countless television shows and movies – not to mention the evening news.

It is the parents’ responsibility to monitor their children’s activities as they see fit. However, according to the Parents Television Council, “90 percent of teenagers say that their parents never check the video game ratings before allowing them to rent or buy computer or video games.”  So why doesn’t Congress redirect its efforts and work to solve the problems at hand?

Here’s my plan – let’s just stick to the classics like Tetris and Paperboy. Problem solved.

Author: Crystal Fontaine

The nation of Ethiopia is nestled between the countries of Sudan and Somalia. There are approximately 85 million people who live in the nation. Relations between the US and the 2^nd most densely populated African state have been relatively positive since the early 1900s.  Unfortunately, due to a number of reported human’s rights violations, strain between the two nations has emerged. Recently, Ethiopia’s Charities and Societies Proclamation Law, or CSO, went into effect, causing uproar from the human rights activist and international aid communities.

Amnesty International called the CSO a tyrannical law that is intended to dominate and scrutinize civil society in an atmosphere of increasing intolerance towards the efforts of human rights advocates and civil society organizations. Amnesty International considers the law’s provisions as violations of international and regional human rights treaties. The Ethiopian government asserts that the law is to address what seem to be inadequacies within the current legal regime, promoting financial transparency and accountability. The law will provide more “proper” administration and regulation to civil society, according to Ethiopian officials.

The CSO law will criminalize human rights actions carried out by Ethiopian organizations that obtain more than 10 percent of their funding from foreign entities. The law imposes a disproportionate amount of criminal penalties for even small administrative violations of the regulation. It also establishes a Charities and Societies Agency that will have widespread unrestricted authority over civil society associations, allowing for government observation and obstruction in day-to-day operation and management. If the law is violated, one could face up to fifteen years in prison.

The law passed after the arrests of two outspoken opponents of the government. One of the opponents, Birtukan Midekssa, had originally been convicted in her role of sponsoring protests after the much disputed 2005 elections and then pardoned; only to have the pardoned revoked on inadequate evidence. The other opponent was arrested in November on the charge of plotting acts of terrorism; however, there appears to be little evidence supporting the charge.

Ethiopia’s new CSO law is only the beginning. A flurry of proposed legislation from the US is expected to be released in a hot and heavy fashion. As other key global players in human rights circles (such as the UN and EU) begin to emerge, the situation between the US and Ethiopia will only become more intense.

One of the most probable US legislators to step to the plate is Representative Donald Payne (D-NJ). Payne introduced the Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007 (H.R. 2003) even before the situation escalated. At the time, H.R. 200 aimed to force the unconditional release of all political prisoners, support humanitarian assistance, and strengthen U.S-Ethiopia relations. The Secretary of State would have the authority to provide financial support to local and national human rights groups, establish a program to strengthen independent media and establish a program to provide for a judicial monitoring process.

For information on Representative Payne, follow this link.

For more information on researching and tracking pending US/Ethiopian legislation, make sure to check back with State Surge – How do you keep up?

Author: Crystal Fontaine

What would you do the government suddenly demanded you to leave your family and friends to join the US military? What would you do if, no matter your best efforts, you were forced to serve? The idea of a military draft is not a new concept. In 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Selective Training and Service Act, which created the nation’s first peacetime draft. Men were drafted to fill vacancies that were no longer being filled by volunteers.

The draft, or conscription, is not without controversy. During the ever unpopular Vietnam War, it became a central issue for the American public. In order to avoid the draft, many men fled the country and protests weren’t uncommon. When the government ended the draft, an all-volunteer military was established. Since then, young men from the ages of 18 to 26 have been required by law to register with the Selective Service so that during an emergency the government would have a number of men to call upon. As the nation is currently fighting two wars, the United States has stretched its military sources thin without the use of a draft. Some might say that now is the time to once again instill the military draft.

One of the major proponents for the draft is the Excelsior State’s Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY). Rumors (and precedence) have it that this year Rangel would like to reintroduce legislation to re-establish the universal military draft. Rangel has introduced similar bills in the past, declaring that everyone in America should be forced by law to work for the government for a minimum of two years for little-to-no- pay. According to the New York Representative, the draft would strengthen U.S troop levels that are inadequate now to cover possible future action in places such as North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Rangel has tried to introduce similar legislation in the year 2003 and again in the year 2007, but each time he has failed.

Rangel believes that a draft is the best thing for the nation due to citizens contributing to a shared sacrifice, giving the public a better understanding of military service. Former President Reagan once said, “Conscription rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state—not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers—to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea”. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said in the past that Rangel’s proposition for the draft was more about creating a point on social disparity. Many others have noted that the re-introduction would not get much attention from the public as the issue of the military strain in Iraq has been pushed to the side due to the economic crisis.

Author: Sarah Riordan

Eating disorders are more serious and prevalent than most people realize.  They can range from binge eating to near starvation to making yourself purge daily. Each and every version of an eating disorder can have serious consequences on a person’s health.   In many cases, they can lead to death.

That’s why it’s hard to form an opinion on Congresswoman Mary Bono’s bill, H.R. 2677. The bill addresses the issue of eating disorders and proposes giving money to facilities that treat them.  On the one hand that sounds perfectly reasonable, but there’s just something about the text of the bill that doesn’t feel right.

Perhaps it’s because most of the 26-page bill has to do with childhood obesity.  Someone please tell me why childhood obesity has become the new craze.  Everyone understands that it’s healthier to be in shape, and most people understand how to fix the problem of being a little less than fit.  Pretty much every Joe Blow on the street corner can tell you that diet and exercise fix obesity.  So why are doctors and teachers acting as if the world is ignorant to the problem?  NEWS FLASH: No one is ignorant to weight issues, and not a single obese person is unaware of their condition.  There are plenty of news stories, fliers, and doctors who are more than willing to tell a child that they should be fit and active.  So ultimately, that side of the bill is a waste of taxpayer dollars.  The bill wants to treat childhood obesity as an eating disorder, but it doesn’t quite fall in the category. Congress shouldn’t use our money to tell people what they already know. 

Now, there are some parts of the bill where Bono starts to actually make some decent points.  Anorexia is a serious disease, and the bill states that of all psychiatric disorders, (depression, anxiety etc.) anorexia has the highest death rate.   Treatment facilities for anorexia are also hard to come by.  They exist, but only if you can pay thousands of dollars a year for treatment.  On the other end, you can go to a hospital psychiatric ward, but the treatment is not specialized, and a young girl will most likely end up sharing a room with a person who suffers from schizophrenia.  So clinics that are somewhere between the two extremes are needed.

Bulimia is similar.  Most girls who suffer from anorexia also have bulimia.  Every once in a while, a girl with anorexia will binge eat, and then force herself to regurgitate.   Because the two go hand-in-hand, treatments for both are important.  So again, the idea of giving grants to treatment centers for bulimia is a good idea.

To summarize, while the bill does address some important issues it seeks to strong of a governmental role.  If it simply focused on providing much needed treatment facilities for eating disorders , then it’s a good way to use taxpayer dollars.  Childhood obesity however, should be left to doctors and families.  Until more research is conducted on the matter, and obesity is diagnosed as an official mental problem, then for the time being let’s stick with the main food-related issues of which we have a better understanding.

Author: Sarah Riordan

Despite the opening scene of Mean Girls  in which homeschoolers are viewed as gun-toting, spelling bee-winning, backwards members of society, many are pretty normal and dedicated to education. 

Perhaps Senator David Vitter has seen the positive side of homeschooling, and that’s why he is out to give homeschooling families a little financial break. 

The word “little” above does in fact, as it usually does, mean little.  Basically, Vitter’s S.100 gives homeschooling families 500 dollars per child tax deduction for eligible homeschooling expenses maxing out at 2,000 dollars.  So if you have over four children, you have to get rid of the rest.  Or perhaps just let them learn to read on their own.

On a more serious note, Vitter is actually trying to be fair to families who do not choose to send their children to taxpayer-funded public schools.  Vitter probably sees that plenty of families out there are paying for everyone else’s education, but no one is aiding them in paying for their children to learn. 

As far as expenses go, families who choose to home school or send their children to public schools, are forking out quite a bit in taxes to support public education.  Private schools charge thousands of dollars a year and homeschoolers are hit because they have to pay for their own textbooks.  If any of you out there are in, or have children in college, you know how expensive textbooks are.  Vitter is trying to give homeschoolers a rare break in the world of government tax policies.

So, Vitter’s reasoning is quite…reasonable.  However, the whole issue does raise the question, “Should people who choose a different path for their children’s education be eligible for tax breaks?” Personally, I am not opposed to homeschooling and would fully support any family who chooses to do so.  However, the point is that no where are American citizens guaranteed a tax break for making a choice.  As a society, we opted to use tax dollars for a publicly funded school system.  As a result, part of being an American citizen means that some of your money will go to providing the greater population with an education.  If you choose another way that’s your choice but people shouldn’t expect special concessions.

Author: Sarah Riordan

A few weeks ago, while searching through bills I came across one that I found odd on every level.  Because I wasn’t sure how to summarize the bill, or what to say about it at all, I passed it up and read a few more.

A couple weeks later, while I was attending a speech titled “Racism in America,” the lecturer mentioned how the penalties for “crack” cocaine were higher than those for regular powder cocaine.  In her opinion, this was a clear sign of racism in America. 

To be honest, I’m not sure why the lecturer considered this a sign of racism, but it got me thinking about the bill I neglected to write about weeks before.  Oddly enough, this bill deals with exactly what the instructor mentioned; the disparity in criminal charges between crack cocaine and powder cocaine.

H.R.265 has been introduced to The House by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee. The bill basically states that crack cocaine and powder cocaine are essentially the same thing, with equally devastating effects.  Both lead to severe addiction, both lead to physiological and psychological problems and both are made of the same substance but taken differently.  Yet, the main difference is not one that deals with the actual substance, but with the consequences for using or selling that substance.

The first time I read through the bill, I had a hard time wrapping my brain around why a member of Congress would worry about the difference between crack cocaine and powder cocaine.  I did a little research into Sheila Jackson-Lee, and found that she normally sponsors bills addressing racially motivated crimes. 

The reason that some feel there is a connection between crack and powder cocaine and racism is that crack cocaine is far cheaper than powder and is most prevalent in poorer African American communities.  Powder cocaine is seen as being used by upper-class drug addicts who can afford the drug in its purist form.  Therefore, the stricter sentencing for crack is motivated by race because it was used more often in poor neighborhoods. The sentencing varies depending on the amount of drugs a person possess, but in general, it takes a lot of powder and not as much crack to get prison time. 

There is another side to this battle however.  Though the lecturer did feel the stricter sentencing was racially motivated, she also said that crack, as a cheaper buy for drug addicts, spread like wild fire. Suddenly the problem of cocaine went from being an exclusive problem, to an all inclusive one.  Though the lecturer left it at that, I wondered if perhaps police and lawmakers were overwhelmed by the growing problem, and made stricter laws to combat the suddenly growing nature of the issue.

Either way, Sheila Jackson-Lee does have a point.  Racially motivated or not, it wouldn’t hurt to make laws regarding a dangerous drug the same.  However, I would hope that instead of moving crack cocaine down to the same penalties as powder cocaine, powder will be moved up to match the penalties of crack in order to help combat this life-devastating drug.  

Author: Crystal Fontaine

The signs of economic recession are everywhere. Recently, a small town in mid-Missouri with a population of approximately 5,000 people experienced the distressing effects of the economic slump as a local factory laid off 400 workers – a whopping eight percent of the town’s population. Economies of every size are all realizing the effects of the economic downturn.

According to the United States Small Business Administration, there were 27.2 million businesses in the United States in the year of 2007. Of those, small firms with fewer than 500 employees represent 99.9%. These small firms pay nearly 45% of the total U.S payroll and employee about half of all the private sector. Over the last decade, small businesses alone have generated 60-80% of net new jobs annually. Although big business, such as GM, shows the more “noticeable” effects of the recession, we cannot forget the little guys, who may be struggling just as much.

In November, Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), purposed the small business-focused Senate Bill 3699, which seeks to improve the HUBZone program. Snowe’s efforts may very well go a long way to providing one of the cornerstones of America’s future.

HUBZone Background

HUBZone is a program created under the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 97’that falls under the sponsorship of the U.S Small Business Administration, promoting economic development in historically underutilized business zones. The program attempts to do this by enhancing employment and capital investment by providing Federal contracting preferences to small business in economically distraught areas. The HUBZone areas are defined as a qualified census tract, a qualified “non-metropolitan” with a median income of less than 80% of the state median, or property within the margins of federally recognized Indian Reservations. In order to be eligible, a business must be positioned in a HUBZone, the business must be owned and controlled by one or more U.S citizens, and no less than 35% of the employees must reside in the HUBZone.

Under Snowe’s legislation, numerous concerns with the program are given light. For instance, there is no real assurance that only qualified firms are apart of the program. This is attributable to not acquiring certain documentation and conducting site visits more regularly during certification process. The legislation provides a list of improvement suggestions, including the development and implementation of direction for establishing if an application is qualified, establishing a time period for completing recertification, building measures to measure efficiency that take into account contracts being calculated under several socioeconomic subcategories, economic characteristics, et cetera. In addition, the Comptroller General must present a report to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small Business in the House no later than two years after the implementation of the bill.

As quoted by Warren Buffett, “In the business world, the rearview mirror is always clearer than the windshield”. Over a year ago, many of us did not anticipate that we would be facing an economic crisis with the scope we are working through. Today, we are facing an economic crisis of which the likes have never been seen. As we work through the urgent, macro reforms currently on the table, we, as Snowe suggests, must improve on what we currently have and find ways to help our small business communities. 

Author: Sarah Riordan

Unless you A. don’t have a TV, B. have one but only watch MTV, VH1, or E, C. don’t have a computer, or D. your electric was turned off, you really don’t have an excuse to be oblivious to the fact that California is facing a budget crisis.  Plus, in addition to facing severe financial problems, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is having some trouble getting his budget proposal passed.  So while the California State Senate continues to debate what’s best for the people of California, it is StateSurge’s job to provide you with information about the budget, and legislators in charge of passing or failing it.

In a statement that seems reminiscent of a recent federal bill that had a little something to do with economics, the Republicans seem to be the ones resisting the proposed budget plan. There is one Republican supporting it however, so here’s a brief little tidbit about the lone Republican, and what he has supported in the past.

Dave Cogdill is the lone Republican supporting the governor’s budget plan.  He’s a Senator from the 14th Senate District including the areas of Mariposa, Madera, San Joaquin, Fresno, Tuolumne and Stanislaus.  He has served as the 14^th district’s Senator since 2006, and has been the State Senate Minority Leader since he was voted unanimously to the position in 2008.  Despite his position as minority leader, according to Statesurge’s legislative tracking,  Cogdill is one of the five least effective legislators in California.

According to Cogdill’s own website, he’s not a fan of tax increases and is against increasing the tax burden on Californian’s in a time of economic hardships.  However, the proposed budget includes a number of tax increases for Californians.  This is supposedly the reason why few Republicans are backing the budget plan.

So naturally, the assumption is that Cogdill is well…a RINO. (Republican in name only) However, it seems that both fisically and socially Cogdill has maintained a conservative stance.  He has repeatedly voted against tax increases, and his anti-abortion and anti-homosexual marriage views have been unpopular in California since his 2006 election. 

So, with experience and seemingly strong conservative values, why is Cogdill going against his party and voting for a bill that not a single additional Republican is supporting?  Honestly, at this point, no one really knows.  Perhaps Cogdill believes the budget is reasonable, or perhaps he thinks it’s necessary for the state to pass the bill in order to rescue the California government.

As of today however, we have no clear answer and no idea why Cogdill has been unsuccessful in convincing his fellow Republicans to follow his lead.  Though no Republican Senator has yet agreed with Cogdill, there is talk that Republican State Senator Roy Ashburn who abstained from voting originally, will follow Cogdill’s lead and side with the Democrats. Until more information is released however, we spectators can sit back and wait to see who supports who, if the bill will ever pass, and how California will survive their current budget crunch.  

Author: Crystal Fontaine

As Herbert Hoover once said, “Children are our most valuable natural resource.” We look to oil, trees, land, and so forth as the natural resources that we need to protect in order to survive and thrive. However, in order for future generations to enjoy those lush resources, we must take care of ourselves and our families, especially the wellbeing of our children.

Unfortunately, too many people go without going to see the doctor because they do not have health insurance coverage. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 45.7 million Americans or 15 percent of the population, were uninsured for the year of 2007. Although these figures represent an improvement from the previous year, the statistics show a fall since the year 2001, which showed six million fewer people were without health insurance compared to the year 2007. The report continues to state the main reason for the lack of insurance is due to the decline of employer-sponsored health insurance programs over the past several years.

President Obama has emphasized the importance of health care, especially health care coverage for our children. Not even a month into his presidency, President Obama has already signed into law the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009. The legislation, sponsored by Frank Jr. Pallone, will become effective on April 1 of this year. The bill establishes the Child Enrollment Contingency Fund for payments to a state to abolish its shortfall and instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make performance bonus payments to states to counterbalance additional Medicaid and CHIP child enrollment costs.

Subtitle B of Title 1 of the bill focuses on low income children and pregnant women, giving states an option to cover targeted low-income pregnant women under CHIP through a state plan amendment. It also provides for a phase-out of CHIP coverage for non-pregnant childless adults; however, there will still be an option to apply for a Medicaid waiver in order to continue coverage. Under Title II, the SSA Title XXI is amended so that the Secretary may award grants during the fiscal years 2009-2013 for outreach and enrollment efforts to boost enrollment for eligible children. Subtitle C of Title VI continues this outreach effort by creating a task force to carry out a national campaign of education and outreach for small business concerns concerning the accessibility of coverage for children through Medicaid and CHIP.

In this bill, the Senate acknowledges that there is a necessity to improve the affordability and access to health insurance for all Americans, the value of building upon the existing private health insurance market, and verifies its intent to pass legislation  that expands access to significant and reasonable health insurance coverage for employees of small businesses and individuals. 

Author: Sarah Riordan

Reading through President Obama’s economic stimulus bill is no small task.  At 778 pages, it’s bigger than the final Harry Potter book and let’s face it, it’s far less interesting. That’s why others read it, and provide the world with summaries of the document.  So here it is ladies and gentlemen, a one sentence summary of President Obama’s bill: Where’s the change?

That was the only thought that came to mind while sifting through page after page after page of money being thrown at just about everything.  Where’s the change?

It’s true that under the Bush administration there was a lot of spending.  Even die hard Republicans were unhappy with President Bush and all the money being given out.  Republicans who criticized Bush were stating that he was spending like…well…a Democrat. 

So with massive national debt, a struggling economy, and China working as the U.S.’s giant bank, President Obama comes along and promises a change; new policies, new leaders, a better economy, and a change in the amount of spending in Washington.

Yet, after all of those promises were made, President Obama gets into office, and within a month, proposes a piece of legislation that will cost the U.S. an amount that has now reached over 830 billion dollars.  His claim and the claim of Democratic Senators and Congressmen and women everywhere, is that this bill is different because it’s an economic stimulus package.  But is it?

That’s the biggest problem with S.1.  It gives money to every organization that’s near and dear to Democrats, whether or not it will help create jobs and stimulate the economy.  For example, on page nine of the bill there is a section that designates 100 million dollars to go toward school lunch programs.

It’s not that providing school kids with lunch isn’t a worthwhile cause, but as part of an economic stimulus package, it seems out of place. Unfortunately, that theme holds true throughout the bill.  It really does seem more like a budget bill than a stimulus bill.

In the end, the bill that’s supposed to create jobs, really just seems to be a massive list of financial gifts to any organization that Democratic politicians have supported throughout the years. The organizations that receive money range from ACORN to WIC.  Neither of which seem to be particularly crucial in job development. 

It’s not that everything in the bill is terrible, it’s simply that a lot to most of the bill has nothing to do with creating jobs and stimulating the economy. It’s just another bill that will spend billions and billions of dollars and do absolutely nothing to help the current economic struggles we’re facing.  In the end, it’s no different than any spending bill proposed under the Bush administration. Bottom line, the only change that occurred was the name of the party holding office. 

Author: Crystal Fontaine

In 2004, lung cancer accounted for more deaths than breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancer combined. Approximately thirty five million Americans now live with chronic lung disease, making it one of the leading causes of death in the United States as it is responsible for one in six deaths. The financial costs of treating lung cancer are incredibly high, costing approximately $9.6 billion per year. One does not have to be a smoker to develop lung cancer as there are many factors that are added into the risk of getting lung cancer. However, smoking does increase one’s odds considerably.

According to a 2005 C-STATS data sheet for the state of California, there are 14.3% of Californian adults (ages 18-65) that are current smokers with 10% being daily smokers, leaving the remaining 4.3% claiming they are only occasional smokers. Unfortunately in 2008, there was an estimated total 18,060 Californians who were diagnosed for lung cancer with an expected number of 13,000 dieing from the disease. Due to these increasing numbers, California Assemblyman Tom Torlakson introduced Assembly bill 89, which increases the states cigarette tax. The legislation is similar to California Senate bill 24 that Torlakson introduced last year. AB 89 would provide “much needed funding for Lung Cancer Research while saving our State billions in tobacco-related health care costs”. The bill provides a good way to gain the money needed for research and to help protect the health of many Californians.

AB89 would impose an additional excise tax on the distribution of cigarettes at a rate of $0.105 for each cigarette sold. Cigarette dealers and wholesalers would be required to file a return with the State Board of Equalization, showing the number of tobacco products in their possession that is under their control. The revenues collected would be deposited in the Tobacco Excise Tax Account, which would be created under the legislation. The revenue would go towards certain education and health related purposes, such as child’s health care, tobacco cessation services, and lung cancer research. The law could raise approximately two billion dollars annually if it should go into effect.

Since 2000, there have been 42 out of the 50 U.S states that have increased their cigarette excise tax. According to Torlakson, this should be a win for California’s schools and public health. If the bill is to pass, approximately one billion of the estimated two billion that it is to generate would go towards California’s vast educational system. The other billion would go towards health care needs. As we face a struggling economy, it is just one way to look at different revenue options to help fund important things, such as lung cancer research and education. 

Author: Sarah Riordan

Dog fighting is in no way an acceptable practice.  Can you even imagine taking a furry creature…man’s best friend…and intentionally placing them in a situation that will cause them great harm?  The thought is repulsive.  Any human being with even an iota of a soul would find the idea nothing short of horrifying.

That’s most likely why…recognize this name…John Kerry decided to sponsor bill S.1880 .  The bill proposes to add dog fighting to a list of crimes mentioned in Animal Welfare Act.   The cosponsors on Kerry’s bill are equally as recognizable personalities with names like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Joe Lieberman appearing as supporters of Kerry’s efforts.  The problem isn’t the bill, as stated before.  With the exception Michael Vick, just about everyone can agree that dog fighting should be illegal.  The problem is that Kerry’s bill is in fact, highly unnecessary. 

Now this may be pretty general knowledge, but for the sake of making a point, let’s just go through how our great nation works. There is and always has been a centralized government, but the idea was to keep that central government somewhat small.  Instead of having one government that controls everything on every level, we have local governments.  We have a mayor, a governor, a state senate, elections…everything that makes up a government can be found on a local level.  This was actually a brilliant move.  A centralized government can’t necessarily tell what is good for an individual state from afar.  Each state has its own identity.   Illinois for example, has ample amounts of flat farmland.  Its neighbor Missouri however, has far too many rocks and hills in most areas to produce crops.  So, Missouri has a different set of needs than Illinois. And, because they both have their own government, they can make decisions based on their specific needs.

At this point, you’re probably wondering what this has to do with dog fighting.  Well, as it turns out, all 50 . . . count them . . .50 . . . U.S. states already have laws prohibiting dog fighting.  That’s why Kerry, despite his most likely noble intentions, is wasting Congress’s time.  If each state already says it’s illegal, then it is, in fact, illegal!  Anyone who violates state law is a criminal and will be prosecuted regardless of what Congress says. 

Though no one can read a person’s mind, Congress’s tendency to continually overlap state law makes a person wonder if Congress really has any respect for a state’s rights to begin with.  If they did follow the rules and allow states to govern themselves to a degree, they wouldn’t be so concerned with making laws that already exist.   Our centralized government has become so large and has their hand in so many things, that they can’t help but overlap state laws. 

The truth is, as taxpayers, we’re paying the salary of John Kerry and every other member of Congress.  Therefore, this bill is a waste of my money.  Kerry is wasting his, and everyone else’s time, trying to criminalize a problem that has already been criminalized.  Congress, stop wasting your time and our money attempting to pass laws that already exist.  

Author: Sarah Riordan

Tim Williams is the safety and security manager at a propane gas facility in Lynn Creek, MO.  Lynn Creek is a tiny town in the center of Missouri, however, Williams is anything but a small-town man.  With two degrees and a passion for the arts, Williams tries to stay current.  This is no easy quest, because Williams only has access to dial up internet.  

 To all the city folks out there, not having high-speed internet is about as foreign a concept as not having indoor plumbing.  Believe it or not, in the year 2009, there are people who, in order to get online service have to use their phone line.  Now you may be sarcastically thinking, “Oh, poor people, they don’t have fast internet.”  If those are your thoughts however, you have clearly never tried checking your e-mail using dial up…you’ll be there all day.

“My internet is so slow, that I can’t even get access to important work files.  There are a lot of safety forms I have to fill out, and at home, my computer is too slow to even look over them.  If I don’t fill them out, I’m fined.   I must travel to my sister’s law office to use her internet,” Williams said.

For those many Americans like Williams out there who suffer through dialup daily, former Congressman Thomas Allen (D-ME) has your back.  He was sponsoring a bill, H.R. 5682, which draws attention to the fact that not all Americans have access to broadband and DSL.  In fact, around 34 percent of Americans still use dial up according to a report conducted by Fox News. 

Usually bills that propose giving something to someone else means that the money given is taken from…the taxpayer.  When reviewing each and every bill, it’s always a good idea to ask yourself if providing this service to others is worth using tax dollars.  In the grand scheme of things…you know…war, roads, police officers, is Broadband really worth using that money? Well, the beauty of Allen’s proposal is that it actually won’t cost the general public a thing.

Allen states in the bill, that Broadband and DSL services should be given tax breaks for going into rural areas.  This way, DSL and Broadband have incentive to expand their horizons. As a result, companies who take high-speed internet to small towns will get a tax break, and more business. 

Granted, not all of America is desperate for high-speed.  MSNBC sites research that states 14 percent of dial up users say they have no desire to switch to something faster. However, the survey was taken in New York City.  Those people already have access, they just choose to torment themselves daily by not using it.  The survey didn’t reach small towns in America where people have no option other than using dialup.  It’s all about providing all citizens with options.

In the end, it’s not a bad idea.   No one is forcing people to use high-speed internet, but for goodness sake, let the people who need it, get it!  

Williams really wanted to read this article, but because he can’t visit websites that have photos or video, he unfortunately, will not be able to.  

Author: Sarah Riordan

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich makes a rarely noticed cameo in what is becoming the most anticipated bill in the nation. With the House officially passing H.R.1, news about the bill is of prime national interest.  Despite the public criticism of the original bank and auto bailouts, Congress is at it again making a massive bailout for anything and everything that Democrats deem important. 

Rumors are circulating about what H.R.1 is actually supporting, and the talk is that the bailout is for everything from birth control to ACORN.  One thing that is actually without a doubt in the text of the 647 paged bill is a shout out to Governor Blagojevich of Illinois himself.

The shout out however, is nothing for Blagojevich to write home about.  In fact, it’s pretty much down right embarrassing and on some levels virtually unconstitutional. 

To clarify, I am no fan, nor have I ever been a fan of Blagojevich.  As a resident of the beautiful city of Chicago, the rumors of corruption at the highest level of both city and state government is the stuff of legends.  Just pick up a copy of the Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Tribune or the Daily Herald on any given day, and you’ll find the lead story is one about Blagojevich and Mayor Daley and their many and various political antics. But alas, Chicago functions and remains a beautiful and efficiently run city.  Consequently, we continue to elect officials that we “suspect” are corrupt.

Now that the clarification segment of this piece is out of the way, let’s get to the insanity of the “Blago” shout out in H.R.1. The best way to describe what the bill says is to quote the bill itself.  It reads as follows: 

“None of the funds provided by this Act may be made available to the State of Illinois, or any agency of the State, unless (1) the use of such funds by the State is approved in legislation enacted by the State after the date of the enactment of this Act, or (2) Rod R. Blagojevich no longer holds the office of Governor of the State of Illinois. The preceding sentence shall not apply to any funds provided directly to a unit of local government (1) by a Federal department or agency, or (2) by an established formula from the State.” 

As I write this, my impeached Governor is less than 24 hours away from most likely being removed from office. Regardless, what is stated in H.R. 1 still goes against American principles. What the sponsors and cosponsors of H.R. 1 failed to review before creating the bill was a document of apparent little importance known as the United States Constitution.  Amendment 14 clearly states that a bill or law cannot target a specific individual. This Amendment is also known as the “Equal Protection Clause.” This act was designed to prevent exactly what is happening in H.R.1.  Blagojevich, as of tonight, is still governor of Illinois.  He has not been removed nor has he been convicted of any high crime or misdemeanor.  He is one of 50 U.S. governors and is being unequally targeted.  Where is the equal protection in that?  Blagojevich, guilty or not, is being unfairly targeted as a specific individual. 

Personal feelings about the governor aside, this clause in H.R.1 is simply unconstitutional. The clause in H.R. 1 is patently unfair and I find it disturbing that our legislators are blatantly or ignorantly ignoring our Constitution and so should you. 

Author: Jared Fallon

The 111th session of Congress has started kicked off 2009 with hot and heavy activity. With President Obama in office barely 1 week and over 337,000 American jobs lost since the financial crisis began, lawmakers are desperately scrambling to help prevent America’s recession from becoming a depression.

The main bill on the table that’s turning heads around the nation is H.R.1 – the American Recovery Reinvestment Act of 2009. The bill, sponsored by David Obey (D-WI), was passed by the House as expected on Tuesday January 27. H.R.1 is the economic stimulus bill as promised by President Obama and touted by House Democratic Leadership, leading the way for the “Change we Need”. The Senate’s version of the bill, S.1, is anticipated to be proposed as soon as possible, aimed to receive President Obama’s signature by the end of February. The official text for H.R.1 can be viewed here.

H.R.1 seeks to make “supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization…”.
The 647 page bill is so formidable at first glance that entire websites have been created simply to better understand the legislation. One such website is ReadTheStimulus.org, a seemingly hastily developed cite that is sponsored by Republican and Libertarian oriented organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, and Taxpayers for Common Sense.

This major economic stimulus bill is the bread and butter of President Obama’s promise for change – and to Democratic Leadership’s delight has moved with incredible speed, riding upon the momentum to give the economy the boost it needs in order to keep Americans afloat. Momentum for this change can be seen by testimonies such as Congresswoman Lee (D-CA) in the video at the bottom of this posting.

Opponents of the bill, such as Dick Armey’s Freedomworks, believe that such a plan is destined to set a permanent precedence, following the same pattern of some of the socialist-oriented programs from the New Deal. Furthermore, the current $850 billion being requested for the stimulus package will cause the Federal Government to borrow one-third of its current budget, to the tune of almost 10 percent of GDP. Such concerns are deepened by somewhat vague allocation terms as outlined in H.R.1, such as “infrastructure spending”, worrying fiscal conservatives for an expected surge in pork projects.

In order to keep track of developments, updates, and analysis, make sure to check back with State Surge frequently – How Do You Keep Up?

Congresswoman Lee’s Support of H.R.1

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

For the constitutionally challenged, the above paragraph is the 1st Amendment of The United States Constitution. Now, it’s pretty straight forward, but for some members of Congress like Harry Reid the 1st Amendment is apparently a little hazy.

It’s no secret that conservative radio personalities are far more successful than their liberal competitors. According to Rush Limbaugh.com, Limbaugh rakes in 20 million viewers weekly. Air America, one of the few liberal radio stations available failed due to financial difficulties and lack of listenership. Now, Air America is giving it a second shot, and conveniently enough, just in time for liberal members of Congress to push for a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. 

The Fairness Doctrine was enforced by the FCC when radio first came into existence. The Reagan administration found the doctrine to be a violation of the 1st Amendment, and abolished the act.

In a post Fairness Doctrine world, talk radio has become predominantly conservative. It’s not because the air waves have a strong bias, but because there is simply no audience for liberal radio. The world may never know why, but that’s just the case.

A Preemptive Fairness Doctrine Initiative

Republican Congressmen and women have joined together to present a bill that will prevent anything similar to the Fairness Doctrine from being instated. The bill, H.R. 2905, is short and to the point. It simply says in one extended paragraph that under no condition should the Fairness Doctrine or anything that sounds similar make it as law.

Reasons for opposing the bill go beyond freedom of speech (Though that alone should be enough). Reinstating the doctrine would also cause a virtual accounting nightmare. Imagine radio stations having to hire people simply to track how many hours, minutes and seconds are dedicated to a specific political party. The notion is ridiculous beyond comprehension. The fact that the government would be monitoring what a radio station is allowed to put on the air screams a word hated by all Americans, “Censorship!”

That’s why H.R. 2905 is an extremely important bill. It’s all about the slippery slope. If we give Congress the power to monitor what goes on radio and television stations, Congress should also be able to monitor and control the editorial sections of all newspapers. For that matter, why shouldn’t Congress be able to control everyone’s opinion? I better stop writing now before I’m cuffed and taken away. This is just another example of the government becoming entirely too large, and sticking its hand in places where it doesn’t belong.

So, the Conservatives are attempting to slap that hand away, and pass a bill that will protect our first amendment rights. This bill goes back to the founding fathers who hoped to prevent a future where citizens were unable to speak openly. The fact that anyone could even consider promoting such a direct violation of the most treasured Amendment to the United States Constitution is simply devastating.

Author: Sarah Riordan

Features include: 

• Panoramic view of the bay from courtyard
• High protective fences surrounding property
• Hurricane proof structure
• Courtyard equipped with basketball hoop perfect for families with boys
• Very near protective military base
• Large kitchen facility
• Security camera system already installed
• State of the art laundry facility large enough for you and your guests
• Each bedroom comes with own bathroom
• Beach within walking distance
• Plenty of outdoor living space
• Fashionable orange jumpsuits included in the rental package

If you hadn’t already guessed, the above property is none other than the infamous Guantanamo Bay prison.  Though the military base/prison has been in the news frequently since the war on terror began, its popularity has increased drastically since Barak Obama has been president.   By officially closing down the prison, Obama has once more placed Guantanamo in intense limelight.  So, to impress all of your friends during your next deep political discussion,

Here are some little tidbits about the prison that has become a household name:

• Guantanamo Bay is located on the south eastern tip of Cuba
• It takes two hours to fly from Florida to the base
• Guantanamo Bay was established in 1903
• In 1903 Cuba agreed that closing the base would have to be a mutual decision between the countries
• The U.S. pays Cuba for the property but Castro has never cashed a check
• Despite the agreement, Castro says the U.S. being there is illegal.
• The base was used primarily for military reasons until the last four decades
• Throughout the 1990’s the base held refugees from Cuba and Haiti
• In 2002 prisons were needed to hold terrorists and Guantanamo Bay became the best choice
• Though prisoners came in, three-fourths of the base’s population was still soldiers and their families
• The base made headlines in 2004 when photos of questionable behavior toward the prisoners were found
• In 2005 three high-ranking officers were relieved of duty for a sex scandal/love triangle
• In the years since 2004 rumors of torturing prisoners have circulated
• As a result, in 2009, the U.S. opted to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay
• The U.S. has yet to find a new location for the prisoners being held there
• The U.S. naval base continues to occupy the land and probably will as long as the Castros occupy Cuba

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” – Alexis de Tocqueville 

The above quote by de Tocqueville is so frighteningly insightful that it’s hard to believe it was written in 1805.  De Tocqueville’s warning to America is more relevant today than ever before.

Congressman Cazayoux’s new bill, H.R. 7196, is proof that de Tocqueville’s wisdom continues to fall on deaf ears. In this bill, Cazayoux asks Congress to provide financial relief to farmers who have suffered a financial loss due to a natural disaster.  In other words, any farmer who suffers a loss because of flooding, hurricane, a tornado or any combination thereof will be compensated with taxpayer dollars.

Now before we tie in the problems of this bill with de Tocqueville’s quote, I think a basic civics lesson is required.  There is a question all Americans should be able to answer hands down.  That question is simply “where does the government get its money?”  If you couldn’t enthusiastically answer, “From me, the taxpayer,” then quickly go apply for a job and track the amount of hours you put in just to pay the U.S. government.  If you answered the question correctly, then please, continue reading.

In this bill, Congressman Cazayoux wants you and me to underwrite what should be the private enterprise of farming.  Granted, farming is a tough business which, more than just about any other enterprise, is tied at the hip to the weather.  However, farmers know this (or at least they should).  Like any business venture there are risks and although I wish no farmer ill, I also don’t want to be his insurance company.  By the way, speaking of insurance any prudent farmer will purchase his own crop insurance to mitigate possible losses due to weather.  There are plenty of companies which provide this sort of coverage without government involvement.  Do the premiums come from the farmer’s profits?  Of course but it is a cost of doing business in a free market.

The bill also begs the question, “Why just help the farmers?”  Aren’t other people affected by natural disasters?  The Midwest floods every spring, and numerous businesses suffer the damages. Why doesn’t Congress bail them out too?  While we’re at it, why don’t we toss a little cash to everyone whose basement floods in a big storm?  Come to think about it why doesn’t Congress just start providing all the citizens of the US with a guaranteed paycheck so that no one has to worry about the weather or anything else?  Oh, wait a minute . . . that would be Socialism!   

But that’s the point.  As a nation, we’ve accepted that a large portion of the money we earn will go to the government.  Now, to be fair, there are some good reasons for taxes.  For example, we have roads to drive on and the most powerful military in the world.  Both of those are a result of tax dollars and a healthy reason to take a small percentage of each citizen’s paycheck.  However, Congress has grown to think that your hard earned dollars are theirs to redistribute as they see fit.

So why is Casayoux proposing this legislation?  Call me a cynic but bills like H.R.7196, are nothing more than attempts at gaining the support of farmers by dangling in front of them a sum of money to compensate them for their struggles.  This is what makes de Tocqueville’s quote all the more sobering.  Congress is gaining power by promising voter groups the public’s money.  To be perfectly crass, they are buying votes and you and I are paying the bill.

Author: Sarah Riordan

You’re in a clothing store in the middle of winter, and you walk into the dressing room to try on a pair of jeans.  As you’re walking into the dressing room, you notice the man taking a shirt he just tried on, and stuffing it under his coat.  You’re the only one who witnessed this, so you tell an employee, and let the robber face the consequences of his less than honorable actions.  You did the right thing, and as a law abiding citizen, you then pay for your jeans and head home.

When you get home, you sit down to check your e-mail.   As Long as you’re online, you head to Pirate Bay or Limewire, and download some of the songs you feel your iTunes library is missing.   You don’t even think twice about the act of downloading music and movies because it doesn’t feel wrong.  No one will report you, and you’re certainly not going to be arrested.  So you now have your music, and you go about your daily business.

There is a massive disconnect between stealing something from a store, and downloading music from your home.  In truth however, the two are not all that different.  So why is downloading so acceptable?

Though Congress cannot be blamed for law enforcement failing to prosecute downloading offenders, they can be blamed for making unenforceable laws.  Because the bills that have already been passed are so broad in definition, they are possible to enforce.  Therefore, stealing and downloading are not considered synonymous. 

Though Congressman Keller  (R-Fl) may have the best of intentions outlined in his bill, H.R. 1689, like nearly all other laws regarding downloading, it will most likely be a law issued, but never enforced.

Keller’s bill focuses more specifically on college campuses.  He suggests in the bill that colleges start programs that will prohibit the downloading of music and movies.  The bill states that there has recently been a drastic increase in downloading on college campuses.  Though this seems to be a likely assumption, it distracts from the real problem at hand; everyone is downloading and no one is doing a thing about it.

Aside from downloading, there is the massive problem of file sharing.  When bills prohibiting downloading music first came before the courts, file sharing was not included in the list of illegal activities.  This makes sense because file sharing can have many different definitions.  The courts most likely didn’t want to face cases where a daughter makes a mix CD for her parents and is then arrested for sharing her music files.  The fear of having to very specifically define file sharing however, has allowed websites like Limewire to get away with…well…downloading.  That’s another thing that Keller’s bill fails to define.  Though file sharing is included in what should be prohibited, Keller never defines what file sharing is. 

If Congress is truly serious about stopping the downloading problem, they need to stop making petty little laws that have a lot of bark, but no possibility of a bite.  Congress needs to sit down and carefully go over the problem.  Asking our legislators to actually think something through as a group seems unlikely, but that’s really what needs to be done.  Millions of people are stealing daily, and the government can’t quite figure out what to do about it. Until they do, people will continue downloading.    Sure, Congress can put out hundreds of bills saying that something is illegal, but until they make laws that can be acted on, Keller’s will just be a waste of paper. 

Author: Sarah Riordan

Would you buy a car from a salesman who wouldn’t tell you the price?  Given that everyone most likely answered “no” to the above question, the same principal should apply to Congress and taxpayers.   As taxpayers, we shouldn’t buy a bill from Congress that doesn’t list a definite price.

Congressman Ron Kind is the salesman here and he is presenting a potentially costly bill (maybe or maybe not; we don’t know) H.R. 7151, with no mention of a dollar amount.  Kind argues in his bill that wildlife is a valued part of society and should therefore be protected.  His solution to the problem is simply to establish a government funded group that observes wildlife in designated regions with the mission to note any decline or increase in their population.

That all sounds good. After all, who doesn’t hold affection for the fuzzy, little creatures of nature? But a key part of the proposal was left out of the bill; the cost!  Naturally, as taxpayers, we’ll be footing the bill for this observation committee (or whatever), and I think it’s important that we know what exactly we’re funding.

That’s the problem with a lot of the bills Congress puts forth.  They vote to pass their pet projects with little to no thought regarding from where the money is coming.  Apparently Congress believes that the wallets of taxpayers contain an endless supply of cash.   If a bill with obvious costs doesn’t give estimation for those costs, it should be scrapped from the get go. 

Wildlife is one of our earth’s greatest assets and we should respect and ensure that it remains preserved for future generations.  However, Kind needs to do a little homework here.  Spell it out so that we the taxpayers know exactly what we’re buying.   

Author: Sarah Riordan

Mr. Smith goes to Washington, and sponsors a bill that would give even the most avid pro-choicer pause. 

To say that reading through Congressman Christopher Smith’s bill, H.R.3442, is devastatingly graphic would be an understatement.  H.R. 3442, is a gruesome but sadly necessary piece of legislation that asks Congress to require abortionists to inform women of the pain their unborn child will experience during an abortion procedure. That’s right, the pain the child will experience. 

So often in the abortion argument one very important person gets left out; the baby.  In Smith’s bill, the baby, for a refreshing change, is the main concern. 

Though the bill simply asks that doctors inform women that their child will feel pain during an abortion, the detail and effort put into the simple request is shockingly complex.

Before Smith sponsored the bill, he and the 120 other congressman and women looked into the scientific details behind the nerve development of infants.  According to the research sited within the bill, at 20 weeks of gestation, a baby’s nerve endings are developed, and they can feel pain.

Given the scientific research, the most common abortion procedures, to say the least, are anything but humane.  Though the bill provides more detail, the basic procedure for a baby of 20 weeks is the Dilation and Evacuation procedure. Unfortunately, there is no gentle way of describing D&C abortions, but the basic version is that the baby is dismembered and vacuumed out of the womb.    Imagine how much a simple paper cut hurts, and then imagine being dismembered limb by limb without any pain medication. 

That’s what Smith’s bill wants to draw attention to.  The simple fact that a baby at 20 weeks old can feel its tiny body being literally cut to pieces, is a something ever mother should know before choosing to end a pregnancy. 

The pro-life, pro-choice argument often boils down to when life begins.  Smith’s bill doesn’t attempt to argue when a baby should be considered a baby, but simply states that the government has always taken strong positions on reducing the infliction of pain on sentient creatures.   To prove that babies are neglected by humanitarian standards, Smith’s bill spends ten pages describing all the laws that require the humane treatment of farm animals.  These laws include regulations on how to slaughter animals in order to spare them any pain.  Ironically, there are no similar laws currently in existence regarding how to terminate a pregnancy in order to spare an unborn child pain.   Apparently the care and comfort we give to cows is more of a concern for our culture than the care we give the unborn! The bill suggests that at the very least a baby scheduled for an abortion should be given an anesthetic prior the procedure. 

The legislation even notes that doctors who perform surgery while babies are still in the womb give the babies anesthetic before performing any procedure.  Now, if doctors insist on using anesthetic before operating on a baby older than 20 weeks, than why do abortionists feel it unnecessary?

Out of all the bills I’ve reviewed, this is by far the most important.  My fear is that because of the pro-life nature of the bill, it will never be passed.  I especially find it impossible that this will be passed under an Obama presidency.   I hope I’m wrong, and I hope that even the most pro-choice of politicians would want to spare unborn babies the severe pain they feel during an abortion. 

Author: Sarah Riordan

At a recent pro-life gathering in the Chicago area, I overheard an employee at a pregnancy help center describe a situation she faced with two women who came into her office that week.  Both women were pregnant, and both were unsure about whether or not to choose abortion. When asked what would make them keep the baby, both women replied, “Well, I’ll keep it if it’s a boy.”

Though the story above seems like an urban legend to the average American, it is, horrifically enough, true.  

Sex-selection abortion is a highly looked down on practice.  Yet, according to Frank Trent’s new bill, H.R. 7016, the United States has no law prohibiting neither sex nor race selection abortion.    

The reason laws regulating sex or race selective abortions do not exist is obvious.  How can an authority determine if a person is choosing to end the life of their child based on race or sex?  The answer is clear; no one will ever know a person’s reason for choosing abortion, and unless each woman going into a clinic submits to a lie detector test, the law will be virtually impossible to enact. 

It should be apparent that this is an impossible law to enforce.  However, the question becomes why does Congressman Trent think it’s important to put a law in the books that will essentially do nothing?

Though no one can read his mind, we can look into, and discuss a few reasons as to why a bill like H.R. 7016, is important to members of The House.

When reviewing the legislation, the wording seems to indicate that Trent and his cosponsors are simply trying to tell the world that the United States is highly against sex-selective abortion.   The bill goes on to say that many American organizations, including the American medical Association, openly condemn a practice that the U.S., from a legal viewpoint, has no problem with.  Making a law against the practice, seems to be the logical end to a country’s outspoken opposition to it. 

The other goal Congressman Trent could have is not as obvious.  Perhaps he is using this bill as a test case.  He may be hoping that the bill is passed by both The House and the Senate, then signed by the president, and made law.  If this were to happen, pro-choice organizations like NARAL would most likely file a law suit against the bill, and the case would then be taken to the Supreme Court.  If the Supreme Court supports the bill, then the issue of abortion is called into the consciousness of Americans.   Making sex and race selection abortions illegal forces the question, “If sex or race selection is too trivial a reason for having an abortion, isn’t having one for the sake of convenience equally as trivial?”  That is the logical extension of the argument.

Whatever the reasoning behind the bill, one thing is for sure; sex and race selective abortions should have been outlawed shortly after Roe v. Wade was passed.  If this bill causes Americans to question when an abortion is okay…good!  Everyone should carefully question the issue and if we err we should err on the side of life.  

Author: Sarah Riordan

Prayer in school: what a tender topic to address.  With all the legislation involving school prayer however, not addressing it would be ignoring the giant white elephant in the capitol. 

Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson’s new bill, H.J. RES. 11, designated  as “The Prayer Bill,”  is another attempt by the Republican Party to make prayer in schools protected by the U.S. Constitution. 

The resolution in its entirety is only one paragraph long. The gist of it is that no one can be forced to pray in a school, and no one can be stopped from praying by anyone person or organization in the United States. 

The debate about prayer in school seems never ending.  There are so many sides to the issue, and all sides have good points.

On the one hand, liberals say that permitting prayer in public schools is a tacit endorsement of religion and thus a violation of the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. According to the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s website, public prayer in school is unfair to students that aren’t religious.  The website states that public schools are for children from every background.  The page even mentions Emerson’s bill as an attempt to undermine the Supreme Court’s decision to not allow prayer in school.

Though the left is right in insisting that prayer not be brought into the classroom, they take things much too far when addressing individual prayer.  In some extreme instances kids have gotten in trouble for simply bowing their heads before a meal.  Obviously, prayer on a personal level should always be allowed.  Forbidding personal religious practices is nothing short of a violation of an explicit constitutional right.   That’s why bills like Emerson’s are necessary, to protect religious rights on an individual basis.   

Though the bill seems straight forward, it does seem to be lacking clarification concerning the role of teachers within the classroom.  It is perfectly reasonable that teachers in a public school should not insist that their class pray before the lesson begins.  Teachers should not lead the students in prayer.  Yet, it is also perfectly reasonable in our pluralistic society that if a student has a question about religion, a teacher should be able to answer honestly, and according to his or her conscience. Even if…God forbid…that means suggesting that God could possibly exist.

The left should insist on a “teacher clause,” and the right should be willing to honor such an action. As far as the rest of the bill is concerned, it seems to fit with the ideals on which our country was established.  We are free to worship as we choose, but we’re not free to insist that others worship as we do. 

There’s nothing wrong with four Christian students praying before lunch; just as there is nothing wrong with four Muslim students turning toward Mecca and praying while on break from class.  The way to solve this debate is to be reasonable, and not carry things to the extreme.  As it is so often with these issues, the truth lies somewhere in the middle of two extremes – a balance lawmakers should keep pursuing.

Author: Crystal Fontaine

“We need your service, right now, in this moment-our moment-in history”. President-elect Obama quoted these very words during a speech made in Colorado last year, claiming since he began running for the presidency that the central cause of his presidency would be molded around service. It is not the service through military arms that Obama speaks of, but the service provided by the “average Joe” – the service that incorporates volunteering and giving back to our communities. The President-elect and the former Delaware Senator plan to set an example the day before the Presidential inauguration by completing community service in order to commemorate Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday.

In a recent public service ad featured in the New York Times, President-elect Obama is shown encouraging the readers to “Be the Change: Mentor a Child”. The advertisement, from Service Nation and other groups, summons a course of action to correspond with January 2009 National Mentoring Month. National Mentoring Month is to help recognize the contributions of adults and students who are already volunteering and to encourage for more people to volunteer within mentoring programs. There is currently a serious mentoring gap in America, with nearly 15,000,000 youth in need of mentors. The month is designated to create awareness to the critical role of mentors participate in assisting youth recognize their full potential.

According to Mentoring.org, mentoring is to offer a structured and trusting relationship that brings youth together with compassionate individuals who provide guidance and encouragement, developing the aptitude and character of the mentee. Mentors help in so many ways by encouraging students to stay motivated and focused and presenting a constructive way for young people to spend their time among various other things. There are many programs across the nation that focus on mentoring. Across Ages, located in Philadelphia, focuses on 6^th graders in distressed areas, emphasizing in reducing substance abuse.  Another program that is widely known throughout the nation is the Big Brothers and Big Sisters program, which promotes positive youth development through one on one mentoring of adolescence who come mainly from single-parent homes.

In a 2002 research report by Child Trends, the report shows that mentoring presents a great approach for youth development. Within the statement, Child Trends found that children who go through the mentoring experience have positive academic returns under overall academic achievement. In a provided example, children within Big Brothers and Big Sisters showed significantly better attendance, skipping half as many days as the control group in the study. There was also a correlation of students having better attitudes in general towards school. According to the study, a longer mentoring relationship equals a better outcome.

In a time of economic distress, the New Year has once again come upon us. This New Year is bringing about monumental changes: a new president, a new vision, and a new start. With this new perspective, perhaps we should focus more on providing our children with better futures and better outlooks toward the future instead of focusing on short- term negative economic trends. Mentoring is just one of the many positive ways that we can help the children of this country succeed and become our future. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

Educational inequity is our nation’s greatest injustice. The National Assessment of educational Progress in 2005 found that fourth graders growing up in low-income communities are already three grade levels behind their peers in high-income communities. Even though we all have the same potential to achieve, there are extra challenges these children face, in addition to the growing polarization of social classes. Most of all the schools lack sufficient capacity to meet these extra needs; especially lacking in teachers and leaders who deeply believe their students can achieve at high levels.

Last month Hilary Clinton sponsored the “National Principal Recruitment Act”. This will recruit, train, and support principals for high-need schools who are effective in improving student academic achievement. Clinton’s act aims to create and maintain data-driven, professional learning communities within the new principal’s school. This program will engage the community, involve parents, and leverage addition resources to improve student academic achievement. These schools will have three focuses: teaching and learning, school culture, and management and operations. The real difference that sets this aside is the matching requirement. To receive a grant there has to be an eligible grantee shall contribute to the activities assisted under such grant matching funds in an amount equal to not less than 100 percent of the amount of the grant.

This strategic move will challenge principals to become solid leaders. It also sets them up to have the resources and support to create a successful school environment and focus on outstanding performance from their students. This plan recognizes there are factors greater than the teacher data and student test results that effect performance. This plan will research and analyze both internal and external factors in the particular school and then find solutions to offer the very best way to serve these children.

With nearly 40% of our nation’s principles nearing retirement, our cities are in need of well-prepared and highly motivated principals to lead our schools where every student can thrive and succeed. Education is, unarguably, the key to opportunity. This bill would fulfill our most fundamental obligation, we all have a role we can play to ensure every child has an equal chance.

Author: Sara Hilbert

Feminism has always been belief in women’s rights; actively standing up for the rights of all women to have political, social, and economic equality with men. Over the last few years, the perception has moved from the very limited, very negative viewpoint that included women’s rights to abortion rights only.

This year New Hampshire has become the first state Senate to have a female majority, with 13 female members out of 24. Other lead positions held by women in the state: Sylvia Larson, Senate president; Maggie Hassan, president pro-tem; and Martha Fuller Clark, majority leader.  New Hampshire holds to be the only state to have two female officers. Extraordinary. The state’s legislature totals 424 members, which makes it the largest legislature in the United States and forth-largest (English-speaking) governing body in the world. More importantly, these senators receive no compensation. These are innovative leaders breaking the boundaries and becoming examples to follow.

Both women in this past presidential election have worked to push the cultural limitation and have fought for feminism. Yes, that means I am including a Senator from New York and the Governor from Alaska in the same sentence. Though the definition of feminism remains the same, it is greater depth and dimension created by each of these women that constructs a strong view of the female. Hilary Clinton has pushed the norms to the extreme (finally giving our male-dominated presidency a challenge). Sarah Palin has received harsh criticism for being “under qualified” from both GOP women and along with her Democratic counterparts. Cleta Mitchell, conservative activist and lawyer, gave the best commentary in this matter. “Even if Sarah Palin is as ‘unqualified’ as the left would have us believe, …then former Congresswoman Bella Abzug’s lifelong goal has been achieved. She used to say that she was ‘working for the day when a mediocre woman could get as far as a mediocre man.’”

It is refreshing to see a break in culturally constructed barriers that provide strength and opportunity for women everywhere. These replace the objectivity of empty shadows that have been previous positions for women to fill. The time is almost over where gender will not matter at all when people vote for their leaders. 

Author: Sarah Riordan

“The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.  That’s the first thing that I’d do.“  – Senator Barack Obama, speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007. 

Despite what the Obama campaign would have had the American people believe prior to Nov. 4, the president-elect is not out to help the pro-life community. Though he claimed in his third debate with Senator John McCain that he would like to limit the number of abortions by supporting organizations that help women through crisis pregnancies, his voting record, and his willingness to support tax-payer funded abortions, tells a much different story.  Obama’s pro-choice stance is so extreme, that he voted against a bill that required doctors to provide life-saving treatment to infants who are born alive after a failed abortion.  At the federal level, when, H.R. 4292, Born-Alive Infant Protection Act  came before Congress in 2000, it was passed unanimously by Democrats and Republicans alike.

With an unabashedly pro-choice president coming into office and a liberal pro-choice Congress, bills like Congressman Jeff Fortenberry’s, H.R.7091, are all the more important for pro-lifers. Fortenberry leads the fight to protect the unborn by asking Congress to give more financial support to organizations that help women who are going through a crisis pregnancy. In the bill, Fortenberry suggests that grant money be given to pregnancy help centers. These grants would become available once an organization provides proof that their services are indeed helping those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy.

What criteria does Fortenberry suggest to gauge the effectiveness of these crisis pregnancy centers?  To receive a grant, a center would need to provide services including health care, clothing, food, a place to stay, and emotional support.

Fortenberry bolsters his position by citing an array of staggering statistics. According to research mentioned in the bill, 48 million babies have been aborted in the U.S. since 1973. The bill also says that in 1992 nearly 98 thousand domestic adoptions occurred in the United States.  This number is in stark contrast to 2001 when only approximately 59 thousand babies were adopted. 

Though not directly stated in the bill, the reader can easily infer the correlation between the decrease in domestic adoptions to the increase in abortions. Other numbers given imply that most of the women who choose abortion, choose it because they aren’t financially capable of supporting a child. Rather than providing taxpayer funded abortions, Fortenberry’s solution to the economic issue is to provide financial assistance to those who can either help a woman get on her feet, or help her find an adoptive home for her baby.

Unfortunately, under a Barack Obama presidency, in all likelihood, a bill like this will never see the light of day. The sad truth is, President-elect Obama is one of the most pro-choice presidents our nation has ever seen.  Despite what he and his spokespeople say, his voting record speaks for itself.   

Fortenberry’s attempt to aid pregnancy help centers that do not promote abortion will most likely fall on deaf ears. Though Fortenberry’s goal is to provide women with a real choice and should be supported by both Democrats and Republicans, for some reason, the majority of Congress members along with our incoming president, feel (or so their voting records indicate) that limiting abortions would somehow be detrimental to our society. Perhaps Obama will live up to what he said in the third debate and sign this bill; but don’t hold your breath.   

Author: Sarah Riordan

True or false: The U.S. has a vested interest in protecting historical properties throughout the world. If you guessed true, you win a meeting with Congressman Mike Ferguson where you can discuss his new bill over a warm cup of coffee.

During your meeting with Ferguson, perhaps you could ask him to clear up the many questions that arise after reading bill, H.COM.RES.255. In the bill, Ferguson asks Congress to put pressure on the Lithuanian government. The reason for said pressure is a burial ground “believed” to contain the remains of over 50,000 people of Jewish decent. Though Ferguson does not specify where this information originated, the reader can infer from the context that someone somewhere has dated this cemetery back to the 15th century. The bill was proposed because the Lithuanian government is allowing new construction to be built on what Ferguson and a couple of experts believe to be part of an ancient Jewish burial ground.

The main problem with this bill is the incredibly vague language. The proposal simply hits on possible truths. The language consists of words like “perceive,” and “believe.” In the bill’s context, these words basically mean that no one really knows if this is in fact an ancient Jewish burial site, or if it’s just a piece of extremely old dirt. If Congress is going to put pressure on another country to do anything at all, I would certainly hope that their reasons would be based on fact, and not simply perceptions.

If at this point you’re asking yourself, “Why the heck does Congress care about a cemetery in Lithuania anyway,” then you win a cup of coffee with me. Together we can discuss our original skepticism toward the bill, and then our eventual mixed feelings about the U.S. having a say in historical properties throughout other nations. The mixture of emotion is not a result of this bill, but a result of what it means to be an American vs. what it means to protect our heritage.

As far as the bill is concerned, it doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The United States expects other nations to honor our sovereignty, so the least we can do is show the same respect to the world at large. If another country were to try and tell us what to do with our land, we would send them away while attempting to hold in our laughter. Truthfully, we have no right to tell any country what they can or can’t do their property.

On the other hand, the statement by the U.S. Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad , says that the United States’ government recognizes that the ancestors of their people are mostly of European descent. In a way, as someone who has ancestors buried in Germany and Ireland, I find this touching. Emotions and government don’t often go together however, and if the U.S. wants to have a say in what Lithuania does with their property, than we better be open to hearing what Lithuania has to say about what we do with ours.The only time the U.S. should be forceful about historical sites in foreign lands is when it involves places where our citizens have lost their lives such as Normandy and Iwo Jima. In almost all circumstances however, we should respect the sovereignty of other countries.

Also See:

Slideshow: Lithuania in Pictures

Lithuania: Fast Facts and Hot Legislation

]]> http://www.statesurge.com/news/congressman-ferguson-bones-bones/feed 0 http://www.statesurge.com/news/slideshow-lithuania-pictures http://www.statesurge.com/news/slideshow-lithuania-pictures#comments Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:17:05 +0000 jared http://www.statesurge.com/news/?p=362 Too many Americans only know the amazing Northern Baltic nation of Lithuania as being somewhere in Europe. Sit back and relax as you are taken to some of the most interesting parts of this intriguing country. ]]>

Author: Jared Fallon

Also see:

Congressman Ferguson Makes Bones about Bones

Lithuania: Fast-Facts and Hot Legislation

(Make sure to turn up your volume)

Author: Jared Fallon

The fascinating country of Lithuania is not very well known by Americans despite the fact that it has endured many hardships in the pursuit of democracy. This resilient nation that once was the largest country on the European continent eventually became the first member of the Soviet Republic to declare renewed independence. As a deeply historical, excitingly cultural, and surprisingly interesting Northern Baltic state, it is certainly worth finding more about.

Also see:

Slideshow: Lithuania in Pictures

Congressman Ferguson Makes Bones about Bones

Country Profile: The Republic of Lithuania

• Population: 3,600,000 (less than half of New York City’s)
• Size: Roughly that of West Virginia (America’s 9^th smallest state)
• Major Religions: Roman Catholic by far, #2 Orthodox
• Languages: Lithuanian, Russian, and Polish
• Per capita GDP: $16,800
• One of the fastest growing countries in the world, with a GDP growth rate of 8.8% in 2007
• Joined both NATO and the EU in 2004
• Prior to EU membership, Russia was the key economic and political driver of this northern Baltic state

Top Lithuanian Legislation

H.CON.RES.371: Strongly supporting an immediate and just restitution of, or compensation for, property illegally confiscated during the last century by Nazi and Communist regimes.

- Sponsored by Robert Wexler

- 32 Cosponsors

H.CON.RES.255: Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the United States commitment to preservation of religious and cultural sites and condemning instances where sites are desecrated.

- Sponsored by Mike Ferguson

- 59 cosponsors

S.CON.RES.87: A concurrent resolution congratulating the Republic of Latvia on the 90th anniversary of its declaration of independence.

- Sponsored by Gordon H. Smith

- 6 cosponsors (including Obama – maybe he does know something about foreign policy?)

Fast Facts:

• In the 14th century, Lithuania was the largest country in Europe
• Lithuania was the first member of the Soviet Republic to declare renewed independence
• Home to the only museum of devils in Europe
• Largest collection of Amber (the Gold of the Baltics) in the world
• Nearly every midsized-large city within the country holds an annual jazz festival
• The largest jazz fast is the countries’ second largest city and culture capitol: Kaunas
• Lithuania has more UNESCO World Heritage points than Latvia, Luxembourg, Moldova, Slovenia, Albania, Bosnia, Cyprus, and Georgia

]]> http://www.statesurge.com/news/lithuania-fast-facts-hot-legislation/feed 0 http://www.statesurge.com/news/congress-aiming-hit-adult-entertainment http://www.statesurge.com/news/congress-aiming-hit-adult-entertainment#comments Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:17:25 +0000 jared http://www.statesurge.com/news/?p=348 They say that if you really want to hurt someone hit them in the wallet. Congressman Duncan Hunters bill, H.R. 3889, does just exactly that by throwing a mean right across at the monetary chin of pornographers and their distributors... ]]>

Author: Sarah Riordan

They say that if you really want to hurt someone hit them in the wallet. Congressman Duncan Hunter’s bill, H.R. 3889, does just exactly that by throwing a mean right-cross at the monetary chin of pornographers and their distributors.

A well known political and moral conservative, Hunter’s bill, known as the “Parents’ Empowerment Act,” moves beyond the current federal criminal laws which prohibit the sale and distribution of pornographic material to minors. H.R.3889 provides a civil action for a minor injured by exposure to an entertainment product containing material that is harmful to minors. To put that in layman’s terms, parents or guardians of a child injured by exposure to adult material can sue the pants off (no pun intended) distributor who either sells or otherwise distributes pornography to anyone under the age of eighteen.

What constitutes an “entertainment product containing material harmful to minors?” The language of the bill parallels the “Miller Test,” a three-pronged constitutional criteria for federal and state laws and court adjudication.

“Harmful to minors” means any written, visual, or audio matter of any kind that:

1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion, and

2) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; sadomasochistic sexual acts or abuse; or lewd exhibitions of the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or post-pubertal female breast, and

3) a reasonable person would find, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

While the bill attempts to thoroughly define just exactly what “pornography” is, it can’t possibly elucidate every potential permutation of adult material. Ultimately it follows the wisdom of the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Steward, “I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it.” If the average person thinks it is pornography, then it is pornography.

What punitive damages can be awarded to a minor harmed morally or psychologically by viewing prurient material? Compensatory damages begin at $10,000 for each instance of exposure plus attorney’s fees which quite often run as high as the settlement itself. Depending on the number of exposures, a real financial hurt could be put on a careless distributor of adult materials.

Now, some might view this bill as just another attempt for lawyers to get rich. In our sue-happy society, we find reasons to sue for everything from McDonald’s making me fat to Fear Factor grossing me out. However, Hunter’s bill is an attempt to add another layer of punishment on top of any criminal action which might be taken against a careless or outright predatory distributor of pornography to minors. It is a reasonable action by Congress and if passed it should make distributors of adult oriented “entertainment” think twice about to whom they sell their wares. As far as I am concerned, “Go Duncan!”

Author: Sarah Riordan

Ladies and gentlemen, Congress has a new bill proposing a bailout plan for their…well…bailout plan. According to a recent CBS poll, nearly 70 percent of Americans disapprove of the way the financial crisis was handled. Perhaps this is because unlike our trusted legislators, the American people foresaw a future where Congress would be suffering the consequences of a hasty decision.

Diane Feinstein’s new bill, S.3698, is one of many of these types of bills we can expect to see in the near future. In S.3698, Feinstein is clearly attempting to reform the bailout plan. To give the senator some credit, the bill she is proposing is unfortunately necessary. The 5-page proposal simply states that the money given as a result of the bailout should not be used for frivolous expenses. Examples of such expenses listed in the bill are lobbying, donating to political parties, renovating offices, and the purchasing of corporate jets.

The issue with this bill isn’t the content, but the reason that it’s necessary. Decisions regarding the law should never be made in haste. Though an economic crisis is cause for a hard decision, it’s certainly not cause for a rushed one. In the long run, Congress simply created for themselves a situation in which they’re continually backtracking. The sad truth is, the first bailout plan was made in haste, and not well thought out. Therefore, Feinstein has to go back and fill in what’s missing. To think that the original plan didn’t spell out how this money can be used is incredibly disturbing. To state the obvious, all Americans are taxpayers. As a result, 700 billion of your money was given away. As taxpayers, we should all question Congress’s decision, and the apparent lack of regulation placed on the money. Imagine a business buying a luxury jet for their employees with the money from thousands of college students working and paying taxes just to get an education. Why didn’t the original bailout plan include these spending restrictions? Why didn’t Congress think about these possible scenarios before giving out hundreds of billions of your dollars?

If a business fails to meet the restrictions listed in the bill, Feinstein proposes some possible consequences. The primary punishment is a hefty fine of up to $100,000. This is rather humorous, because it begs the question “can the bailout money be used to pay the fine?” If so, what’s the point of the fine? Nowhere in the bill did it state what money should be used to pay the $100,000. So essentially, the government is just getting a refund check. Perhaps they should refund the actual people this money belongs to; us!

Feinstein’s bill should be passed. Passing bills of this type is worthwhile and tragically necessary. I’m certain Senator Diane Feinstein won’t be the only member of Congress proposing restrictions on bailout funds. In the future, Congress should be more careful before spending our money. Every citizen can agree that Congress’ main duty is to protect the American people and their assets. This duty does not include making hasty and potentially harmful decisions.

Author: Jared Fallon

How absurd confused can a nation be? To allow a person who, when reflecting upon their very first major foreign policy experience, lied through their teeth in an attempt to have a worthwhile story to tell voters, become the Secretary of State.The very essence of the decision should be enough to make one nauseous, and yet whenever one brings up the occasional “misunderstandings” on the part of Hilary Clinton listeners tend to shrug their shoulders and cavalierly say, “It’s just politics” or, “she is a bright lady and did what needed to be done.” If Obama really wants the change he touted for 21 months – if the American public truly wants reform, why in the world would we put up with such a foolish decision?

In a biographical sense, there is no doubt that Hilary is known for having her chief energies focused on domestic issues. The amount of candidates with far less political strings attached that would have been much more qualified for the position are off the charts – and yet Obama (?) decides to put his former opponent in charge of international affairs at one of the most pivotal times in US history. We are at a time that demands widespread, foundational change. We haven’t even begun to see the ramifications from a heavily criticized war for which the current US president says he was “unprepared” for entering. We are about to deal with a new wave of financial problems with a breadth and depth never experienced before – as some of our largest trading partners are beginning to turn their policies towards a more regional, free trade agreement focus. More Americans should be asking, “Why Hilary?” Why someone who is the exact opposite of the “change” that was promised to so many Americans…and the world.

If you are disagreeing with this “rant”, with this commentary – I apologize. I am simply taking a stand that too few Americans do for fear of sounding too strong, or due to being concerned about politically correct speech. But what is obvious (and not to strong to state) is if the former First Lady’s most significant foreign policy experience was surrounded and infused by lies, and then after serving in the New York Senate has been put in charge of the nation’s international affairs, there are serious questions that are begging to be asked.

Where is accountability in our system? On a lesser note, how could someone with such a great capability to lie with no apparent remorse be continually allowed to represent our people? To represent our nation on the world stage?

Yes, Hilary is an amazingly bright lady. She was one of the 100 most influential lawyers in the US and earned more money than her husband ever did until his presidency – before she even stepped into the political spotlight. Yet, since when has intelligence and cunningness ever excused one from even the most primitive form of accountability? What happened to the days when Americans cared about the honesty and integrity of those that are chosen to represent us?

If you do not recall, Hilary initially stated she had no intentions of running for president. After her opponent won the position she had “surprisingly” so desperately desired, she said her talents were needed in the Senate to help back the democrats in Washington and that’s were intentions laid. The next thing you know she is offered one of the most intrinsic positions in one of the most significant areas of policy at one of the most direly important time periods in US history. Am I not the only one to point to these oddities?

America, it is time to start demanding honest leaders. It is time to stop rewarding those that use words and influence for no greater benefit other than themselves. The ideals of servitude seem to no longer create any echo of integrity down Congress’ hall. Apparently, the candidate most of the world has supported does not have strong reservations about the bullet-dodging, Bosnia-saving, and fearless Hilary Clinton – is this the change we voted for?

To the stark contrary, substantial evidence may exist proving that Hilary may have actually been under sniper fire during her 1996 trip:

Author: Crystal Fontaine

Recently, the United Health Foundation, in conjunction with the American Public Health Association, released a study rating the healthiest and least healthy states in America. The study ranked the fifty U.S states on per capita percentages of obesity, cardiovascular disease, child poverty, smoking, and so forth. Each state was ranked accordingly with the national average. The report focuses on four key areas that include personal behaviors, public and health policy, clinical care, and community and environment.

One must head north, apparently, to find some of the healthiest states in America, including Washington and Massachusetts. Leading the charts of the healthiest state in the nation is Vermont. The state has the fewest children living in poverty as well as growth in the specialty of prenatal care, climbing the rankings from twenty-nine to number two in the nation. Although Vermont’s obesity has doubled since the 1990’s, it still falls below the national average. On the other end of the spectrum, Mississippi is considered the unhealthiest states with the highest rate of children living in poverty with the overall highest levels of obesity, cardiovascular disease, and smoking rates.

Unfortunately for Americans, the United States as whole is failing when it comes to health. Compared to the international community, the United States average life expectancy is sixty-nine years, falling behind twenty-seven other developed nations. Leading at an average life expectancy of seventy-five years, Japan seems to be doing something right in the health department. Key factors contributing to the United States decline in health include the rising of obesity as well as a growing number of people who are uninsured.

Addressing this issue, Obama’s plan calls for an overhaul of the nation’s health care system with high hopes not to repeat the same line of costly mistakes of the Clinton Administration some 15 years ago, leading us into the negative health trends we are facing today. The Early Strategy Plan starts with giving the public a chance in voicing any concerns and experiences, which confronts a major criticism that former President Clinton’s plan had been too enigmatic. Other lessons include the need to move fast and to not let go until the job is done. According to Tom Daschle, Obama’s recently announced Secretary of Health and Human Services, “Details kill…if we get too far into the weeds…we’re going to get hung up on all the details and we’re never going to get to the principles”.

As wonderful as re-configuring the health care system sounds, the immense costs for restructuring the system are daunting. During his campaign, President-elect Obama planned to pay by increasing taxes on the wealthy and requiring larger businesses to either offer health coverage or supply some of their payroll to a new public insurance plan. However, this might prove to be difficult with the current economic situation and the United State’s seemingly insurmountable debt.

Author: Sarah Riordan

The latest political fad and tax-payer dollars are like thunder thighs and miniskirts; they should just not be allowed to mix.

Olympia Snowe’s recent bill is another attempt by Washington to follow the trends and “go green.” The bill, S.3682, proposes that grants ranging from $25 thousand to $1 million be dispersed to small businesses that show a desire to produce green products. The kinds of products being produced aren’t specified, but as long as it says green, Congress says go.

Snowe is no stranger to energy bills. She paired up with Senator John Kerry in early 2008 to promote another bill encouraging small businesses to be more energy efficient. According to senate.gov, Snowe even stated in an interview that she was ashamed and surprised by the Bush administration’s lack of interest in the energy crisis.

Though the bill sounds good on the surface, the fact that it simply sounds good is exactly the point. It’s pleasing to the ear, but essentially does nothing. Going green is a fad, and with little fool-proof research done on green products, Washington should not be throwing tax-payer money at something so new.

The main problem however, is the bill itself. There are two stages in the proposed bill. Stage one offers grants ranging from $25 thousand to $250 thousand. Phase two ups the grants to a range of $250 thousand to $1 million. In order to reach phase two however, you have to pass phase one. Bureaucrats, (which are in no short supply in Washington) will decide if the business has used the phase one funding effectively and deserves to move on to phase two and receive more money. The arbitrariness of how this will be decided is also problematic. What standards will be used to measure the effectiveness of stage one?

The problem with this plan is that the bill is striving to give incentive to already existing businesses to turn to selling more energy efficient products. Certainly, most honest businessmen would tell Snowe that even $250 thousand dollars isn’t nearly enough to retool an entire company into an eco-friendly utopia. The $1 million might be doable, but this doesn’t come until phase two. Now if you don’t have enough money to turn your business around using the phase one grant, then chances are, you won’t be approved for the larger grant that comes with phase two. As a result, the taxpayer’s money will be going out for phase one, but will end there.

Ultimately, this bill is yet another sad attempt to try and make it seem like Congress is doing something about the current energy crisis. If something is going to be done, it has to be carried out on a much larger scale. Giving a few select businesses insufficient funds is going to do nothing but waste the taxpayer’s hard-earned money. If Congress wants to make our country more energy independent, how about not following the latest green fad, and start putting the taxpayer’s money toward something more along the lines of serious research into alternative fuel? Then our money won’t be going toward a fad, but a long-term commitment to bettering our nation’s future.

Author: Jared Fallon

Illinois’ Governor Rod Blagojevich and chief of staff John Harris are now under investigation for allegedly trying to sell Obama’s vacant seat. In return, the 52 year old Blagojevich was reportedly looking for a cushy job (tips glady accepted) within the new administration. According to the Associated Press, Blagojevich’s game plan can clearly be seen when viewing some of the reported comments taken from various wiretaps.

When viewing the sheer amount of pending proposals in the Illinois legislature, the disappointing slap in the face for those who backed Blagojevich and worked on various bills with the Governor will create waves of change that will be felt throughout the Land of Lincoln, if not the entire country.

According to the AP, Blagojevich’s game plan was:

A HARD BARGAIN. On Nov. 3, Blagojevich told Advisor A: “I’m going to keep this Senate option for me a real possibility, you know, and therefore I can drive a hard bargain. You hear what I’m saying. And if I don’t get what I want and I’m not satisfied with it, then I’ll just take the Senate seat myself.”

LANDING WELL. On Nov. 5, while discussing his authority to name Obama’s replacement, Blagojevich said Obama could use his influence to name the governor to a lucrative spot with a private foundation. Blagojevich told Advisor A: “I’ve got this thing and it’s — golden, and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for — nothing. I’m not gonna do it. And, and I can always use it. I can parachute me there.”

A RESISTANT OBAMA. On Nov. 11, during a conversation with Harris, Blagojevich said he knew Obama wanted Senate Candidate 1 for the open seat but “they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. — them.”

SIGNS OF STRUGGLE. On Nov. 12, during a two-hour telephone conversation with various people, Blagojevich talked about securing high-paying jobs for him and his wife in exchange for the Senate seat. He said he is “struggling” financially and does “not want to be governor for the next two years.” Blagojevich said advisers are telling him he has to “suck it up” for two years and give this ” — Obama his senator. — him. For nothing? — him.”

THREE CRITERIA. On Nov. 12, Blagojevich told Harris his decision about the open Senate seat would be based on three criteria in the following order of importance: “Our legal situation, our personal situation, my political situation. This decision, like every other one, needs to be based upon that. Legal. Personal. Political.”

TALKING OF MONEY. On Thursday, Blagojevich told Fundraiser A that if Senate Candidate 5 wanted to be appointed to Obama’s seat, the candidate should follow through on promises to raise money for Blagojevich. “Some of this stuff’s gotta start happening now . . . right now . . . and we gotta see it. You understand?” But Blagojevich told Fundraiser A that “you gotta be careful how you express that and assume everybody’s listening, the whole world is listening. You hear me?” 

Author: Jared Fallon

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is man with many worldly words and experiences…but yet his personal world is one with a very different view than most (especially the Chicago Tribune). According to Blagojevich whatever he says is lawful and the things he’s interested in doing is always lawful….always. This godsend for the Land of Lincoln feels that only sunshine hangs over his governorly body, to help him conduct his rightful duties.

Blagojevich Quotes to Remember:

“I don’t believe there is any cloud that hangs over me. I think there’s nothing but sunshine hanging over me.” - When a Chicago Tribune reporter questioned “Do you think the cloud that hangs over you is going to taint your pick?”

It sounds like if Blagojevich does end up doing time at least he can write the latest top-40’s hits. I think his first piece should be a cross between John Denver’s “Sunshine on my shoulder’s makes me happy” and Johnny Cash’s rendition of “You Are My Sunshine”.

“…and by the way I should say if anybody wants to tape my conversations go right ahead –feel free to do it. I appreciate anybody who wants to tape me openly and notoriously and those who feel like they want to sneakily and wear taping devices I would remind them that it kinda smells like Nixon and Watergate. But I don’t care whether you tape me privately or publicly.”

For a person with such a broad vocabulary, (“Fire those fuckers… If they don’t perform, fuck ‘em”) Blagojevich sure is of the willing sort, expressing complex ideas with simplistic words.

“I can tell you that whatever I say is always lawful and the things I’m interested in doing are always lawful and if there any things like that out there what you’ll hear is a governor who tirelessly and endlessly figures out ways to help average ordinary working people.”

After such a moving statement I wonder why Blagojevich didn’t run for president. He’d have my vote. Even if convicted, given that he gets out in time, he’d still be a better pick than Palin for 2012.

Author: Jared Fallon

The Land of Lincoln not only is having a hard time replacing president-elect Obama’s heavily sought after district, but may very well need a new governor as well. Recently, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, along with chief of staff John Harris, has been allegedly trying to sell Obama’s vacant seat. In return, 52 year old Blagojevich was reportedly looking for either money or a cushy job within the new administration. US Attorney General Patrick Fitzgerald stated on December 10, 2008 “The Senate seat, as recently as days ago, seemed to be on the verge of being auctioned off”. Keeping in tune with the state’s motto, Fitzgerald said “The conduct would make Lincoln roll over in his grave.” The situation does not look good for the governor.

Blagojevich has already been under investigation for at least three years for alleged hiring fraud – again using his supposed auctioning skills for more supposed bribes.  Perhaps he should switch careers to auctioning; for most people the idea of being under investigation should have already have one concerned about the remote possibility of having wiretaps in place. If Blagojevich were to be convicted and imprisoned for the charge of “Conspiracy to commit fraud”,  carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years time, he would become the 4th Illinois Governor within the past four decades to go to prison.

As the Illinois government and prosecutors work through the entangled political web Blagojevich has woven, no matter what the results are political uproar has occurred within Obama’s state. Clearly, the mess is a sticky one – even to the point of Obama working is hardest to distance himself from Blagojevich amidst cabinet selections and the financial crisis. Legislators involved in the supposed scandal will also be facing serious measures of investigation, as various candidates were reportedly sighted by Blagojevich as needing to follow through on promises to raise money for him, as recorded by some of Blagojevich’s statements to advisers such as, “Some of this stuff’s gotta start happening now…right now…and we gotta see it. You understand?”

Effective legislators will have a hard time getting the incredibly wide amount of proposals currently pending in the state’s legislature. Such proposals include major ethics reforms – ironically the main platform Blagojevich ran on during his campaign for governorship – targeting campaign finance restrictions and deceptive business practices and consumer fraud proposals. Whether or not Blagojevich will resign or the Illinois Senate Leaders and House decide to strip him of his title only time will tell. But no matter what happens to Rod’s future career, his timeless quote, as reported from The Economist will remain with me:

“Fire those fuckers”, Blagojevich in reference to his critics at the Chicago Tribune. “If they don’t perform, fuck ‘em”

Barack Obama’s Senate seat…“is a fucking valuable thing, you don’t just give it away for nothing.”

Author: Sarah Riordan

While in the midst of the US recession paired with a historic global financial crisis, Senator Diane Feinstein’s legislative agenda is apparently not so full that she can’t be concerned with ticket scalping. Apparently Feinstein, noting the record clamor for Barack Obama inauguration tickets, sees the potential for some abuse – even to the point of the possible development of an inaugural ticket black market.

Without a doubt, the results of the 2008 Presidential Election were historic.  As the first African American president, Barack Obama broke through a racial barrier which many felt they would never see broken in their lifetime. Consequently, tickets to the inauguration are in huge demand as the crowd is expected to break records. According to aol.com, a projected 4 million people could attend the inauguration. Historically, the largest crowd ever witnessing a president sworn into office was 1.2 million for the inauguration of Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, according to an article by the Associated Press. In addition, CNN has reported that tickets are already being sold for five figures.

The problem is that tickets for a presidential inauguration are not meant to be sold by anyone. As a perk to being a member of Congress, you are given tickets to distribute to whomever you deem important enough to attend. Typically this means awarding tickets to the party elite, significant political financial donors or the “rich and famous.”  In other words, your every day run of the mill citizen doesn’t stand much of a chance in getting a ticket.               

The part of the bill that deals with counterfeit tickets has some validity.  In particular, fraudulent tickets present a security concern for the incoming President. As offensive is the thought, there have already been threats on the President-elects life simply because he is an African American. Controlling who is legitimately admitted to the inauguration should be a priority.  Safeguarding his life needs to be a primary concern. 

While that is true, the other part of the bill dealing with the “selling” of tickets does raise some questions.  Just who exactly is Feinstein foreseeing will scalp legitimate tickets? The party elite? Political donors? The rich and famous?  What is the caliber of the people to whom members of Congress give these tickets? While I am sure that Feinstein is not intending to insult political party supporters, who else would this bill be addressing? The Senators and Congressmen themselves?  At a minimum it calls into question the judgment of the members of Congress.

The political truth of the matter is that there will always be the party faithful who, once rewarded with tickets, will forgo witnessing history to make a fast buck. Feinstein, if she really has some worries, should limit the scope of this bill to security concerns. That is a more legitimate use of her legislative time.

Author: Jared Fallon

The designs of state capitol buildings are not discussed as much they ought to be but are interesting none-the-less. The halls that our elected officials work within can be as unique as the very state they propose and argue legislation for. After reviewing the 50 state’s capital buildings it is clear that the average American simply does not know enough about these arguably most influential buildings located in every state.

Over the next few weeks you will be able to get a quality review at the most charming, the worst of the worst, and the most unique capital buildings around. Additionally, we will be covering the most intimidating capitols and the buildings that are most similar (enough to convince one to believe that a team of architects coauthored Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People”.) 

The 5 Worst State Capitol Buildings

#5: Bismarck, North Dakota

Yes, I am positive this is not a branch of the IRS. Yes, it looks like thousands of other buildings. Yes North Dakota, at least stick a dome on top of the building.

#4: Santé Fe, New Mexico

The first thing that comes to mind when seeing this building is the headquarters for Taco Johns. Despite the fact that La Quinta Inn may be popular in some parts of the US, it is interesting to see the hotel chain designer’s talents be utilized for a state capitol building.

#3: Salem, Oregon

For such a forward thinking state Oregon’s government is confused. It appears that they definitely believe that the legislative branch of government should follow the Fed’s stone-cold appearance. I believe many people can imagine being greeted by heavily armed guards at the door.

#2: Honolulu, Hawaii

There are a minimum of 10 higher education buildings that looks more impressive than this tropical paradise for legislators. If tourists didn’t know any better they could easily mistake the building for a tourist center or entrance to a all inclusive resort.

#1: Juneau, Alaska

Many things come to mind when one first sees this building. An ancient Social Security office building, an elementary school, a once-famous dance school in East New York…but this is, in all honesty, Alaska’s capital building.

Author: Jared Fallon

Nevada Senator John Ensign has a true love/hate relationship with convicted felons. Within the same proposal, he wishes to improve federal felon’s job training and life skills preparation while requiring them to work a minimum of 20 percent more than the average American. Despite the fact that a 50 hour work week is generally not viewed favorably, the irony of Ensign’s Senate Bill 3695 is that if Congress decides to hold hearings for the proposal he is likely to see rapid pace due to lack of attendance. His 22 page proposal is currently in Committee on the Judiciary, and is certain to liven up the debates on felon’s work protocol.

When reading through the proposal, it is clear that Ensign sees the federal work system as becoming a well-oiled machine, including provisions “to provide products and services that are market quality and competitively priced”. John’s restructuring approach offers an intriguing approach: “We help you by improving work standards, making you work a hell of a lot, and then if you ever get out of here you should find your vocational and life skills greatly improved”. Personally, I like Ensign’s approach.  If it were to pass, let’s just hope for John’s benefit that he never ends up becoming a convicted felon – I wonder why Ted Stevens didn’t cosponsor the bill. 

Author: Crystal Fontaine

President-elect Barack Obama announced Monday his selections for top officials that will lead him throughout his presidency, revealing a group of very experienced hands. Rounding out his top officials will be Robert M. Gates, who will remain as Defense Secretary, General James L. Jones as the new National Security Advisor, and after weeks of deliberation and speculation, Senator Hillary Clinton was officially announced as Secretary of State. As pointed out by many critics, Obama’s team characterizes a more veteran circle rather than the change that Obama has pledged throughout his entire campaign trail. Obama’s response is simple. He is trying to unite a more experienced group with fresh thinking, maintaining that change will come from him.

As a New York Senator, Clinton was not an idle woman. Mrs. Clinton served on the several Senate Committees, including the Senate Committee for Environment and Public works, Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions Committee, and Senate Special Committee on Aging. She is a big advocate for socialist-styled children programs and education as well as more affordable, quality health care. As Senator Clinton has focused on domestic issues, she has not ignored the international sphere. She has sponsored such bills as the S.RES. 92, which had called for an immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldiers held captive by Hezbollah and Hamas. She also sponsored legislation to establish a commission on the conflict between Russia and Georgia, addressed the humanitarian crisis and potential security breakdown as a result of Iraqi refugees fleeing to neighboring nations, as well as many others. In addition, Mrs. Clinton has voted in favor of legislation such as H.R. 7081, which supports the United States-India Agreement for Cooperation on peaceful uses of Nuclear Energy.

According to Senator John W. Warner, “The triumvirate of Gates, Clinton, and Jones to lead Obama’s national security team instills great confidence at home and abroad and further strengthens the growing respect for the President-elect’s courage and ability to exercise sound judgment in selecting the best and the brightest to implement our nation’s security policies”. However, there are questions of how the Clintons will deal with potential conflicts of interests while Hillary serves her term as Secretary of State.

In the past few weeks, former President Bill Clinton has begun paving the way for smoother sailing for his wife. He has agreed to allow the State Department and White House counsel to vet his speaking schedule and to disclose the names of contributors to the Clinton Foundation. He is to step away from the day to day running of the foundation during his wife’s tenure as well as refuse any donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Global Initiative. He also has agreed to abstain from holding any meetings abroad.  Although he is paving the way for his wife’s new position, some believe former President Clinton should be given a more formal role in foreign policy, such as special U.S envoy on Kashmir. Perhaps the position would keep him busy and out of trouble?

Needless to say, Obama has chosen an interesting and experienced team, especially his choice of Secretary of State. Are his choices wise? Only time will tell.  

Author: Jared Fallon

America’s passenger rail system is failing. For such a vast nation that can be considered the Saudi Arabia of coal potential, it is surprising that the “largest and most technologically powerful economy” in the world has dreadfully fallen behind nearly all of the world’s most advanced economies. It is far too common to find questions similar to freelance writer Ben Jervey’s: “Europe and Asia have figured it out, so why is the American rail system still so unspeakably awful?” Despite the fact that gas prices are at an amazingly low point, most experts agree that this is most likely the last time Americans will see such prices.  Senator John Kerry (D-MA) believes he is about to start a revolution for change – a long-time-needed proposal known as S.3700.

According to Kerry, there are a host of problems that need to be addressed. The most immediate is lost efficiency due to widespread highway congestion. According to his findings, this “…congestion, which is increasing every year, annually costs our Nation’s economy $78,000,000,000, 2,900,000,000 gallons of wasted fuel, and 4,200,000,000 lost hours of productivity.” When considering that many EU nations spend nearly 20 times more than the US on intercity rail, one should question why policymakers wouldn’t wish to address such a massive structural imbalance. Kerry considers the environment to be the other most significant reason for change.

“Rail travel could potentially reduce the effect of greenhouse gas emissions generated by travel between cities that are between 100 and 500 miles apart… by 80 percent with airplanes…and by 21 percent compared with automobiles.” Additionally, railroad systems are statistically less dangerous in terms of fatalities than automobiles – estimates claim railway use to be as much as 96% percent safer. After reviewing said findings in S.3700, most Americans would be hard put to offer quality arguments against such a proposal.

Kerry seeks to establish the “Office of High Speed Passenger Rail”, which would reside under the Federal Railroad Administration. The office would be responsible for consulting with the Secretary of Transportation to determine the financing of such a large proposal. Despite the fact that Kerry’s proposal is extremely vague (i.e. lack of specified location, guarantee of technological standards) the Massachusetts Senator wishes to maintain two hefty spending limits: $10 billion for “super high-speed intercity rail facility bonds” and $5.4 billion for “rail infrastructure bonds” – leaning on a multi-faceted strategy of utilizing free market innovation and government panel findings. To review the specific provisions, follow this link.

Yes, these numbers are extremely high – especially as America is facing the worst unemployment numbers in nearly three decades, but drastic problems call for drastic solutions. America’s railway system will need to be addressed sooner rather than later, and would most beneficially be addressed before fuel prices spike once again and being to create financial panic among such an automobile-dependent nation.  Even though Americans have never been too fond of public transport, an updated, technologically advanced, and dedicated railway system would not only help provide a stronger American infrastructural backbone, but would also produce many short term benefits in terms of American productivity and air quality.

Author: Jared Fallon

At a time when many parents are concerned about the widespread and increasing amount of video game use, a major state-sponsored video game initiative is about to take place. Beginning in 2010, the US Army plans to pour $50 million dollars into developing battlefield simulation videogames in order to help prepare troops for combat. The idea behind such a program is certainly nothing new, but when considering the sheer amount of investment the Army is going to make, it is certain that many companies within the industry are doing back flips with the increased potential for private contracts for merely making shooting your cyber enemies as life-like as possible.

Currently, there is a lot of support in the House to conduct research initiatives into the health affects video games have on children. Such video game legislation is largely viewed as polar opposites to military policies like these. Such bills include Joe Baca’s H.R.2958, a bill that has support from many legislators who feel there is far too heavy an imbalance favoring first-person shooter and violence-based games. Furthermore, many parents advocate groups are pushing bills to tighten industry standards for video game ratings and their lure to teens – most notably including games that often are criticized for encouraging violence as a solution for domestic issues. For advocates in this realm, the $50 million dollar initiative is seen as an extreme set-back for these efforts, only strengthening the mind frame of American children to incorporate such violent games into their everyday lives. 

Author: Jared Fallon

Hilary Clinton, the heavily rumored Secretary of State-to-be, is often criticized for pursuing government contracts based on apparent self interests often shared with former President Clinton. The criticism often aimed at the Clinton family can commonly be mirrored in the Republican Party with major oil and defense contracts in Iraq for companies such as Cheney’s Halliburton. Despite the fact that in my opinion Hilary Clinton is one of the most self-serving and troubling legislators around, she seems to be making strides to reduce the overall amount of the lack of accountability the Federal contracting process typically brings around.

Senator Clinton’s S.3139 is a comprehensive plan currently being debated that aims reform the private contracting affairs of the Federal government. Despite the fact that many find Clinton one of the least likely candidates to pursue more government transparency in such a process, the former First Lady truly is a smart women and hit on many key points that lack accountability within the system. S.3139 is broken into three distinct sections: Accountability for Contractors, Competition and Transparency, and Building a Better Federal Government Workforce.

Accountability for Contractors

Clinton aims to lay provisions to prohibit allocating government contracts to any corporations “purposefully organized in an offshore secrecy jurisdiction” in order to avoid Federal taxes obligations. Despite the fact that the protocol outlined under this Sec. 101 proposal relies a little too heavy on IRS “decision”-making capabilities, it does make efforts towards preventing US companies from their current status of practically being awarded for relocating into cheaper, less-taxed developing countries in order to gain proximity to markets with more potential for government contracts.

Other provisions under this division include tightening financial reporting certifications and strengthening statues in order to reduce personal interests of those directly affected by the creation of defense contracts. These provisions certainly would make the likelihood of acts similar to Cheney’s involvement with Halliburton much more difficult than was experienced recently by the contract-happy vice president. The main difficulty Clinton will face under these provisions lies within the definitions of terms like “offshore secrecy jurisdiction” and “controlled group of entities”. In order to view these plans, please click here to access the PDF file containing Hilary’s plan.

Competition and Transparency

After careful review of Hilary’s plan for accountability, I believe the ideas outlined in this section of the bill prove to be the most useful to the American public. The main plan proposed here is to create a database containing all Federal records for federal contracts and grants. The database would emphasize information gathered on Federal personnel either aiming to advance proposed contracts and to offer insight into such official’s backgrounds, thereby allowing the Accountability Office to more easily investigate the personal influence or motivation that federal personnel may have in establishing contracts, no matter what type of contract is being reviewed.

Unfortunately, Clinton does not outline protocol to make such a database easily accessible by the public, but it does help offer more of an option in the accountability and tracking of often-cumbersome Federal contracts. Additionally, a database as significant as this would help judicial research initiatives to become much more efficient when reviewing the legality of Federal contracts along with court cases previous Supreme Court decisions.

Building a Better Federal Government Workforce

The last provision of the bill has a title that is slightly misleading. This part of Hilary’s plan seeks to have the Inspector General of the DOD to list the inherent government functions and objectives the government has in maintaining private contracts. The bill then seeks to provide “incremental staffing requirements” in the attempt to prevent future private contracts from being established without fulfilling improved requirements and lining up “conflicts of interest” by government personnel.  

After reviewing Clinton’s proposal, readers find themselves wondering why certain provisions don’t already exist in the status quo. Government contracts are an extremely attractive commodity and certainly lead some to believe that the age of the “Military-Industrial Complex” as forewarned in Eisenhower’s farewell address to the nation is upon us. After the current Bush administration’s foreign policy decisions and self-fulfilling contract goals, a bill aiming to reduce the questionable activity of private contracts is greatly appreciated. 

Author: Crystal Fontaine

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition for the term security states it is “the quality or state of being secure: as A: freedom from danger: Safety b: freedom from fear and anxiety”.  We all strive for a secure environment. A place safe from predators and anything else that may cause us harm. Generally, we are able to live our lives without too much fear of our safety being compromised.

Some of that security has been shaken, however, in recent years due to events such as 9/11 and the recent economic crisis, which has created a feeling of insecurity for those who may lose their homes.  Although a breach within our secure parameters has usually been of physical or mental form, today’s technology allows that breach of security to go one step further into the virtual plane. As most people today own a cell phone or subscribe to the internet, many of us are vulnerable to the curious and even dangerous minds within the virtual world. The President-elect remains no exception.

Recently, Verizon Wireless had to fire an undisclosed amount of employees, who were connected to a breach of records from a cell phone that was used by President-elect Barack Obama. According to Verizon, the employees are “hired to take care of customers” and Verizon’s standards for taking care of customers do not include employees snooping through phone records when they are not authorized to do so by the customer. The phone was a simple flip phone, which is no longer used by Obama. Although the employees could not read any text messages or listen to any voice mail that the phone may have received or sent out, they probably had access to the dates and times of calls, the lengths of the phone calls, and telephone numbers.

There is an investigation currently underway to determine whether the information acquired was shared only between the employees or if any of the information leaked outside the company. Employees will face the “appropriate disciplinary action…up to and including termination”, as indicated by Lowell McAdam.  Ars Technica stated that the employee’s actions fall outside the coverage policy of privacy laws because the laws generally only cover the content of communications, such as voicemail, and not the type of data they were able to access. The security breach follows speculations and concerns about security risks and compliance with federal laws, such as the Presidential Records Act, within the new administration. 

Author: Jared Fallon

One of the nation’s most prized groups of volunteers is increasingly being administratively challenged, despite the fact that they continue to risk their lives for the pure benefit of the American public. Volunteer firefighters and emergency medical services personnel truly are one of America’s most valuable assets, both in terms of bravery and economics. Unfortunately, with increasingly difficult financial times, their numbers are faltering.

“There are currently 800,000 volunteer firefighters and emergency medical services personal in the United States…” . as quoted by Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT). At first glance, this may seem like a questionably significant number, however the economic benefit these brave citizens provide are staggering. According to findings reported in S.3676, one of Sander’s currently pending bills, “the national financial savings resulting from volunteer firefighting and emergency medical services has been calculated at more than $37,000,000,000 each year.” Yes, those figures are in billions, not millions, of dollars annually.

These brave personnel put their lives on the line year after year, emergency after emergency, and are increasingly being challenged in to continue their services for the sheer benefit of the American public. Unfortunately, according to the CATO Institute, the number of volunteer firefighters is diminishing at an increasingly rapid date. One suspected reason for the reportedly diminishing numbers is the criticized recent OSHA regulations – a series of questionable attempts that many find more successful in deterring volunteers than increasing safety. Regardless of the reason, these vital volunteers are an intricate part of the US’ public safety network, and are leading some to believe that more incentives must be created in order to retain such volunteers. Senator Sanders is one of them.

Sander’s S.3676 outlines a comprehensive plan to “support the recruitment and retention of volunteer firefighters and emergency medical services personnel” in the Unites States. The proposal is not a new idea, following many local government’s actions to provide financial incentives, ranging from tuition breaks to retirement assistance packages. Senator’s strategy can be considered a multi-tier approach, allocating federal money to be distributed among local governments to then pass on the financial incentives in any form they see fit, within reason. Sander’s outlines 6 primary forms: retirement benefits, reimbursement for travel and training, health insurance assistance, life insurance, tuition or loan forgiveness, and/or tax reductions. To view Sander’s proposal, click here. Sander’s should be applauded for his efforts to ensure we keep these valuable, life-risking volunteers engaged. Despite the fact that our government continues to drive up taxes more and more, this proposal very well may be worth cutting back a pork project or two.  

Bernie Sanders, pictured below, is the longest serving independent member of the House. 

Author: Jared Fallon

US automakers have been falling behind foreign competitors at an increasingly rapid rate over the past few years. Once the Japanese engineering genius Toyota was able to conquer the SUV/Truck market in the states Detroit’s Big Three began to see drastic decreases in sales, customer loyalty, and ever-needed funding for a host of projects. These issues of concern include greatly needed energy-efficient technology research and development (such as hybrid or renewable fuels) and increasing numbers of US employee layoffs, early retirement packages, and decreased healthcare benefits. At a time when the looming financial crisis is threatening the prosperity of the world’s economic growth and a host of US industries, one US legislator is seeking to throw taxpayer money at encouraging people to buy automobiles made within the US.

Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) has a bill currently pending in its respective committee as of last Friday “To Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a one-time, $1,500 credit against income tax for an automobile manufactured in the United States.” H.R.7303’s official title is the “Consumer and Automotive Recovery Act of 2008”. The idea behind the proposal is along the same vein of the massive amounts of government bailouts requested since Mac and Mae, much like the $50 billion in loans Detroit is asking Congress to provide. Louie’s proposal is strong in good-natured intent, but only achieves three primary goals: helping US consumers in the short run, helping ALL automaker companies that manufacture within the US, and offering partial assistance in the preservation of a small percentage of auto manufacturer’s American employees. Furthermore, much like Bush’s stimulus pack, the bill would be funded merely by taking money away from Americans in order to reward the Americans that choose to spend their money on a new vehicle.  

As Ford, GM, and DaimlerChrystler continue to lead the initaive for the proposed bailout one should question the effect such a proposal would have that offers no safeguards for the $1,500 tax credit to be used for the purchase of foreign companies manufacturing in the US. The two plants that come to mind immediately is Toyota’s hyper-green 2,000 employee San Antonio plant or the Japanese company’s 7,000 employee plant located in Georgetown, Kentucky. While Louie’s efforts would help ensure the American workers’ jobs within such plants, it would be counter-intuitive as to the progress and assistance that US auto manufacturers truly are need of in today’s increasingly hostile climate.

At this point, greater economic benefit would be seen by redirecting our collective efforts on helping regain the once-famous Detroit company supremacy companies such as Ford and GM once had. While Gohmert’s idea may be well intended, such policies should be aimed more towards increasing US companies’ research, development, and overall competiveness before they begin supplying unneeded momentum for foreign automakers. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

Atrazine is a pesticide for control of broadleaf and grassy weeds. It has been recognized by the Environment Protection Agency as possibly being, “…found in some public or private drinking water.” In the very same fact sheet this widely used pesticide was further listed as a risk that, “May cause health problems.”

Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council said “Several European countries have banned Atrazine and that it should be prohibited in the United States. We know it accuses irreparable harm to exposed wildlife, it’s a potential threat to human life, and it’s in our water at unacceptable levels.” Surprisingly this statement was made during a long battle between the EPA and environmental groups in 2003. Unfortunately, after hearing the reports, the EPA concluded to keep the product on the market, merely promising to step up monitoring on surface water supplies.

This product is still as harmful as it was years ago and truly is an example of where the EPA is failing the American people once again. Representative Keith Ellison understands this and is fiercely fighting for the complete removal of Atrazine off the market. He is the chief sponsor of H.R.3399, a bill “To prohibit the use, production, sale, importation, or exportation of any pesticide containing Atrazine.”  The EPA has found Atrazine to potentially cause short-term effects when exposed to levels above Maximum Contaminant  Level (MCL is 3ppb): congestion of heart, lungs, and kidneys; low blood pressure;  muscle spasm; weight loss; damage to adrenal glands.  Long-term effects can be weight loss, cardiovascular damage, cancer, retinal and some muscle degeneration.

Atrazine is a dangerous chemical. However, the EPA only asked water suppliers to collect water supplies every three months for a year to find out if Atrazine is present above 1ppb. If it is higher, they will continue to monitor and treat the water. If low or no presence of Atrazine is found they discontinue monitoring for the pesticide. According to Stephen L. Johnson, the EPA’s assistant administrator for prevention, pesticides and toxic substance, 8 out of 200 US water systems have Atrazine levels significantly above the legal limit. Two water systems in Missouri, two in Kentucky, and various sites in Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana and Iowa are currently involved.

If you are in one of these areas, you should learn more about how your water is treated.  Contact your state’s Department of Health and Environment for more information. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

Most Americans would agree that the FDA has failed us in many ways, from overregulation of products to under-regulation of many more.  On one side, researchers claim bad reactions to FDA-approved prescription drugs kill or seriously injure many Americans every year. On the other side, pharmaceutical companies are quick to push the FDA to approve their new drugs. Without effective research and studies on the long-term effects of these products, the consumer becomes the lab rat under the FDA stamp of approval.

Senator Judd Gregg is sponsoring S.596, a bill “To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for the regulation of Internet Pharmacies.” Certainly, unlicensed people have web sites that are unregulated and could be contaminated or modified. Some online hoaxes could cause more harm to the patient, and is why this bill would increase enforcement on licensing laws and inspection requirements. However, many more internet pharmacies verify the prescription and prescribing doctor, are more convenient, more affordable, and follow up on the patient than walk-in pharmacies are commonly criticized for.

“The FDA serves as the pharmaceutical industry’s watchdog, which can be called upon to attack and destroy a potential competitor under the guise of protecting the public,” says James P. Carter, M.D. The FDA’s new focus on these internet pharmaceutical providers seems to become interference for competition of pharmaceutical pharmacies than if they were left to their own devices. The FDA’s new focus on these internet pharmaceutical providers not only would cause uproar among online pharmacies, but would also set precedence for a new level of government intervention across the web. This bill would leave the door wide open for other governmental agencies to step-in when deemed most convenient and regulate other areas of commerce, most likely including EPA-related affairs and online tax consulting companies by the ever-efficient IRS. If S.596 were to pass, be prepared for widespread adoption of increased government intervention across the net and yet another example of where the FDA becomes exactly what it claims it claiming to defeat.  

Author: Crystal Fontaine

Once again the debate over Stem Cell Research has been resurrected, causing an outcry from opponents. Although President-elect Barack Obama has just two months to go before he takes his inaugural oath and the oval office, there is the expectation that Obama, like many of his predecessors, will issue an abundance of executive orders that will reverse most of the Bush administration policies. One of those policies concerning many is the Bush Administration’s policy that banned Stem Cell Research.

Obama is an advocate for funding for stem cell research. He believes in the importance of stem cell research and how it might benefit thousands of patients with incurable or untreatable diseases. As a Senator for Illinois Senate, Obama supported legislation that allowed embryonic stem cell research in the state of Illinois. Obama, as a Senator in Congress, continued to support such legislation. He co-sponsored the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which amends the Public Health Service Act, expanding the number of human embryonic stem cells eligible for federally funding research. The bill did pass through Congress; however, the Bush Administration turned around and vetoed it. In addition, President-elect Obama supported other legislation such as the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act as well as the Fetal Farming Bill of 2006.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has raised a huge voice, warning that there are dangers of alienating millions if Obama lifts the ban on funding for stem cell research. According to the conference’s associate director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, the real question to the debate is should the “…Bush policy get replaced with the law of the jungle”. Should we open that door where scientists are given free rein to experiment by creating and cloning human embryos just in the name of scientific research and then discarding them after they have served their purpose?  For many, this is an emotional issue, leading all of us to dig deep down within. The moral implications hold strong.

Meanwhile, medical researchers are elated; holding their breath in suspense at the very probability of freedom from the governmental funding ban. According to scientists, the ban has obstructed hard work to develop life-saving treatments. For example, scientists declare that the cells taken from human embryos present the most potential in developing therapies or possibly even cures for diseases such as Parkinson’s, diabetes, and other diseases. The possible benefits to stem cell research are seemingly endless as so much could be learned. The existing policy has disheartened the field of stem cell research, causing many scientists from the United States to migrate to other nations where the research is flourishing to do their exploration.

There are strong arguments on both sides to the issue. Nevertheless, should we put a hold on possible treatments and cures in the name of morality? Is it right to do things that many view as playing God?  As indicated by an article in the Washington Post by Ronald Green, “There is no question that we must move ahead, but caution is the key”.

Author: Sara Hilbert

Obesity is a national public health concern, a serious problem that faces this coming generation with a furry. According to 2006 data by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United States has the highest prevalence of obesity among the world’s developed nations. We need to step up and become more than an advocate – we need a revolution. S.3584, sponsored by Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), is looking for something more than a national e-diet. He is looking for ways we need to “to comprehensively prevent, treat, and decrease overweight and obesity in our Nation’s populations.”

Fast Facts:

o   Obese individuals have a 50-100% increase of premature death

o   Being overweight/obese increases the risk of chronic disease like: diabetes, heart disease, stroke, certain cancers, and arthritis

o   32% from ages 2-19 are obese/overweight

o   66% of adults are obese/overweight

o   About $117,000,000,000 was spent in 2001 in overweight/obesity caused problems

o   70% of adults are getting less than 20 minutes of regular physical activity per day and many are completely sedentary

o   For children born in 2000, estimated lifetime risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes is 40% for females and 30% for males

In order “To comprehensively prevent, treat, and decrease overweight and obesity in our Nation’s populations”:

Bingaman‘s “Obesity Prevention, Treatment, and Research Act of 2008,” will create a council called “United States Council on Overweight-Obesity Prevention” (USCO-OP). Membership will consist of 20 secretaries or representatives from the following departments: Agriculture, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Federal Trade Commission and Transportation. Members may also be selected from other government groups, such as the Federal Communication Commission, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health and the Healthcare Research and Quality, Medicare/ Medicaid, and the FDA. This mega group will work together in an attempt to develop strategies, interagency cooperation, and gain community involvement with one goal in mind: to comprehensively prevent, treat, and reduce overweight and obesity.

If it were to pass, the bill’s specific consumer-choice provisions would help consumers make better choices, empowering the choice of the individual and thereby placing responsibility on one for one’s one health. About 30% of American’s total calorie intake is high-energy dense and low-nutrient dense food. These foods can be over-consumed easily because the brain’s pathways that regulate hunger and influence normal food intake are not triggered by these foods. Over the years, the packaging industry and product placement strategy use more manipulation and encourage consumption at the expense of our health.  Food and beverage labeling reform is necessary because it is a large contributor to the epidemic. In addition, due to such products being made in mass quantities they tend to be significantly cheaper than healthier alternatives.

This bill will also take into consideration eating disorders and related various chronic medical conditions to help better prevent. This committee will involve discussions through varied strategies with patients from at-risk and diverse populations to promote positive behavior change and healthy lifestyles. Discussions will include topics such as weight and the Body Mass Index (BMI) measurement and monitoring as well as appropriate treatment services, medical nutrition therapy services, physical therapy or exercise training and behavioral health counseling. This program will make amendments to the social security act to give Medicare coverage of medical nutrition therapy services for people with pre-diabetes within the system.

No one wishes for his or her child to have low self-esteem or to grow up very sick. No one wishes to spend their life savings on medical bills for themselves. Nevertheless, the actions we are making today are causing every one of these problems. This bill gives us that extra push and support to help us make better decisions. It will regulate marketing strategies to make consistent and accurate labeling. It is never too late begin a healthier lifestyle. Knock it off with the fad diets and quick weight loss strategies. It is time for a transformation. Take the challenge. 

Need a place to start? Try these:

http://www.50millionpounds.com/

http://www.shapeup.org/ 

Find out your BMI:

http://www.obesityinamerica.org/

Author: Sara Hilbert

Representative Cliff Stearns, like so many Americans, has had enough. September 11 of this year, he was quick to express strong dissatisfaction with the situation in Iraq, when he sponsored House Resolution 1431. “Expressing the sense of the House of Representative that the Department of Defense and the Department of State should withhold funds for any new reconstruction projects in Iraq until the Iraqi Government reimburses the United States for previous reconstruction projects, and for other purposes.”

As soon as I type, “withhold funds from Iraq” I feel military families tense up at the idea of leaving their men and women without gear. Then I hear the conservatives rant about American pride and support for our troops. Therefore, lets look at the facts:

Since 2003, the United States has approved huge budgets in Iraq. An estimated $21,000,000,000 spent in the first few years in Iraq, provided by the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund (IRRF). In May of 2005, another fund created by the Iraq Security Forces Fund (ISFF), estimated spending $18,000,000,000. Again the importance of these cost: they were not for our military, but for Iraqi security forces and its’ citizens.

This is the same country that generated $96,000,000,000 in revenues from 2005 to 2007 – 94% of that amount coming from crude oil exports. The Government Accountability Office reports Iraq had a budget surplus of $29,000,000,000 from 2005 to 2007. Most recently, Congress has approved over $4,000,000,000 for Iraq reconstruction in the fiscal year 2008-2009.

What are the reasons we continue to write out checks at this magnitude when Iraq can clearly fund this project without assistance? I know it might be easy to forget this little economic obstacle in front of us, but that alone should make Iraq reconstruction spending a lesser priority for our checkbook.

Cliff Stearns calls for immediate action to be made regarding the situation. The Department of Defense should withhold funds for any new “reconstruction project” in Iraq, unless Iraq reimburses the US for previous projects or Iraq matches future assistance on a dollar-by-dollar basis. The accountability office also said “evidence for higher spending was based mainly on so-called special reports prepared y the Iraqi Finance Ministry- reports that use vague budgetary terms and unclear source material and contain columns and rows that do not add up properly.”

If these were not reasons enough to stop funding, compare Iraq’s budget to its personal spending on reconstruction efforts. From 2005-2007, Iraq devoted only 1% of the operating expenses in its budget to maintaining reconstruction projects that had been built with either American or Iraqi money. That finding raised fresh questions with James Glanz and Campbell Robertson, over whether the huge investment in some of those projects would have any long-term impact.

Enough is enough. Without evidence, solid facts, and convincing reports that make a reliable claim to continue funds to Iraq, enough is enough. The Department of Defense, the Department of State, and all other governmental agencies involved should withhold funds for any new mysterious “reconstruction project” to Iraq. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

After reading through page one of the HeLP America Act, I could not be anything less than an advocate for health care reform.  I have heard the same empty promises for change and reform as you. To be honest, I began the project a little biased, thinking it was going to be another cheap proposal where we still end up short changed. As I read this detailed 173-page proposal I became more and more surprised – it is more than a campaign speech to get votes, it is more than a demonstration chanting about some cause, it is more than a committee to study the problem. Gather round everyone for the long awaited solution.

The Health of the Nation

H.R.2633, the “Healthy Lifestyles and Prevention America Act” seeks to improve the health of Americans and reduce health care costs by reorienting the nation’s health care system toward prevention, wellness, and self-care. It acknowledges the fact that the per capita health spending in the United States is 56 percent higher than the median country that is a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation. By 2014, America will be spending an estimated cost of $3,600,000,000,000 a year on health care. It is evident these representatives have done their homework. They bring the most recent data and cost compelling facts, explaining that an astonishing 75% of health care costs go directly to chronic diseases like cardio vascular disease, stroke, obesity, cancer, and diabetes. In addition, 65% adults are overweight or obese in America. Everyday there are 4,000 new users of tobacco products, all under the age of 18.  About 25% of adults and 40% college students smoke. For those whom need mental health treatment, only 1 in every 2 people receive it.

As I already said, there is no need to make tee shirts with these facts; the deficient, unsuccessful health care system affects us directly. So where is this new approach to health in America? 

Details of the bill:

Children and schools

This bill begins to tackle childhood problems. First, this bill would generate a task force to decrease childhood obesity with strategy, inter-agency coordination and evaluation. School programs will revise the definition of “food minimal nutritional value” that was set back in 1966 with the Child Nutrition Act. Then enforcing this new definition and a fresh fruits and vegetable program in all school meal programs, any food sold on school campus at anything during the school day, excluding infrequent fundraisers. There will an increase in funds of the Richard B Russell National School Lunch Act and grants for select schools. Initiatives made to push hospitals and programs to be baby friendly and support breastfeeding excellence. By awarding hospitals certified with increased “un-restricted breastfeeding” education with a onetime award of $20,000. This strategy will include a strong partnership with organization or group to focus on families to increase communication, wellness, play, support, and other assistance. Grants issued to support schools that work with families to implement school-wide prevention strategies, based on mental health research, which will support early and intensive interventions. Other grants include promotions of university community partnerships to reduce youth problem behaviors in our communities and early head start programs.

Communities and the workplace

In an attempt to support healthier communities and workplaces this bill will include tax credits to employers with wellness programs, and campaigns to help employees. These wellness programs motivate employers to implement awareness, education, screening, and employee engagement. The whole idea supports prevention and behavioral change assistance for a long list of issues: tobacco use, obesity, stress management, physical fitness, and more. A national worksite health policy, facilitated by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, would e created to improve existing employer-based health programs or implement new ones.

Other:

By working through administration, this bill shapes public policy and awareness. It also requires the Secretary to establish a National Advisory Committee on Community Sports Programs for Individuals with Disabilities. Another part provides incentives for states to ensure the safety and convenience of all users of a transportation system, including pedestrians and bicyclists. The most important use of this proposal lies within the details of the research and development to help prepare and improve the future.

Conclusion:

Health is far more important than the absence of disease. When you take this plan and look at ways to prevent and cure diseases, you are creating and maintaining optimal health. Our current system waits for illness, and then spends huge amounts of money to solve the problem, sometimes ignoring the underlying lifestyle related to the problem. This is like waiting for a leaky roof to destroy the infrastructure of the house, then going in to repair the damage without fixing the leak. There will not be a change unless we can convince all involved that this “rescue” medicine is killing us and strive to work from a true picture of the status quo.

This bill takes the initiative to convince doctors and professionals, government, organizations, research and other companies through education and structural reforms for a widespread adoption and smooth transition to a healthier America. Most of all, this new mindset empowers patients to take responsibility for their own health. When you move the power out of hands of those profiting from our illness and rescue medicine society, you are giving America a stronger future and a healthier life. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

College students are being pushed to new levels of creativity, not in their studies or community involvement, but merely for survival with the frustrating costs of textbooks. USPIRG has studied the rise of textbook costs, claiming that students spend as much as $900 a year on textbooks. In a technical field, this expense can increase by as much as double. Largely due to insufficient communication about the textbook market, publishers can get away with these rising costs. These lofty expenses result from new editions constantly produced every three and a half years, even with subjects that have not changed significantly. These same publishers also”bundle” study guides, CD-ROMs, and extra materials with a textbook that significantly increase a textbook without the option to purchase the textbook only.

To put it all in perspective, a Government Accountability Office study shows that textbook prices have been rising at double the rate of inflation over the past two decades.

The cost challenges force students to share textbooks, hunt for bargains online, set up book fairs, or, worse, do without. When given enough time, students can find the very same textbook and class material overseas for almost 90% less (Michelle Singletary Washington Post column “The Color of Money” interviewed on NPR). The only downfall with buying internationally is the longer shipping time. This option is less valuable because most colleges do not give out book lists in a reasonable time to purchase online. Worse, some college bookstores do not make the International Standard Book Number (ISBN) available, restricting students from purchasing low-cost textbooks.

You can imagine the support when Representative Julia Carson sponsored “College Textbook Affordability and Transparency Act of 2007″(HR 3512). The proposal was introduced only 3 months before Julia tragically passed away from cancer. Julia’s bill would ensure that college textbooks and supplemental materials are available and affordable. Carson hoped , and her long list of cosponsors are still pursuing, to inform students about the costs of textbooks before registering for classes in order to be aware of the full cost of higher education. This bill has three main points. First, to encourage students to purchase early and always look for used editions. Second, this bill would require universities and faculty to review materials and editions that are required, without compromising high quality course materials or purchase unnecessary editions. The third point H.R.3512 emphasizes is timeliness. Timing truly is everything; schools would be required to disclose textbook lists, costs and ISBN numbers soon enough to students to give them a fair chance at accessing textbook costs in time. Despite the fact that it may not be the most effective way of cutting down costs, the bill interestingly enough seeks to give out a full history of revisions for the college textbook and/or supplemental materials that helps explain the real difference and what will be missed between editions.

While entailing a comprehensive list of objectives, H.R.3512 marks the beginning of what should become one of the most important objectives in reforming our higher education system. It is unnecessary in its entirety to keep such a costly, unneeded structure for such necessary materials in place. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

An emotionally rousing debate has long swirled around the purchase and use of handguns and rifles. On one side, the National Rifle Association and its loyal members strongly claim their right through the constitutional rights to keep arms and secure one’s home. On the other, crime statistics and anti-violence organizations view the problem as unregulated gun use. Whichever side you stand on equal resistance is between both parties, leaving this issue no solutions for compromise as of yet. Frank R. Lautenberg, senator from New Jersey, is sponsoring a bill that could finally bring some reconciliation.

Lautenberg’s bill, S.3634, seeks to “to reduce gun trafficking by prohibiting bulk purchases of handguns”, officially cited as the “End Gun Trafficking Act 2008.” It is the prohibition against multiple handgun sales or purchases that has been shipped both from within the states and abroad. It would also make only one handgun purchase during any 30-day period legal, unless a person has a license as outlined by US Code Section 923. The Attorney General for gun and/or ammunition manufacturing, dealing, and/or importing, thereby prevents most people from buying “bulk purchases”, issues these licenses. With the exception of an exchange of one handgun for another, the transfer of a handgun by a state entity, this includes United States government agencies, all law enforcement officials, and rail officers. Additionally, the bill would increase imprisonment from one year to five if a person found making false statements in connections with firearms. Another interesting part, the retention of records (922(t) (2) (C) of title 18, United States Code) would be amended “by inserting not less than 180 days after the transfer is allowed, before destroy.”

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is a strong force in the political realm to protect these second amendment rights. This group has also gone to dramatic lengths to raise funds that heavily influence members of congress to ensure gun rights for Americans largely while lying relatively low under the public’s eye. One of their campaign slogans, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, puts the responsibility into the hands of the owner claiming if a ruling made to take guns off the street or heavily regulated licensing on gun trade it would only hurt the law-abiding citizens. These same supporters push that criminals are insane, and if they wanted to hurt someone these types of laws would only push them to use another weapon or steal a gun – not preventing any crime what-so-ever. Richard Feldman, author of “Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist” exposes the NRA “as a cynical, mercenary political cult obsessed with wielding power while exploiting member’s fear in order to maximize contributions.”‘

NRA Headquarters located in Fairfax, VA

People are beginning to realize the need for gun control, as of this past election, a surprising18 out of 26 US Senate candidates backed by the NRA lost their race. Our country is beginning to realize the glamour associated with hyper-violence and use of guns as a way to get revenge and take control. Whatever the cause school shootings, murder, or suicide the idea is clear. Guns intend to level the playing field and serve as a symbol to equalize the situation at hand. The United States is the only civilized country that does not have gun restriction laws. Therefore, the myth prevails, guns are power and power is justice.

This legislation does not kick down your door to seize your gun that you clutch in your arms like your first-born. This is sensible regulation for necessary licensing, awareness, and lawful-restriction. Since the recent election there is strong anxiety in the air; a myriad of people are running around stockpiling handguns and rifles. It makes one question the difference between the appreciation for gun ownership and irrational limits others take for gun ownership. If a situation pushes you to accumulate a surplus of guns out of fear or need for power, it reinforces and normalizes the lie that guns have become the idealized way for solutions.

Author: Jared Fallon

Recent announcement of Darfur rebels killing at least 3 Chinese oil workers on October 29 is increasing interest as to what will be China’s next move in regards to the tragic Darfur Conflict. The recent rebel activity is putting China in somewhat of a difficult position, balancing its personal increasing energy needs with criticism of suspected Sudanese government funding/sponsorship from nations around the world. China thus far has seen the act as a form of terrorism, again subtly undermining US accusations as to why the Chinese government got involved with the crisis in the first place.

There is a group of pending pieces of US legislation that may begin to start seeing increased activity, currently being stalled by Election Day results and overall lack of public interest in the tragedies that continue to occur within the region. One such bill is H.RES.422 (formerly S.RES203), calling on the Chinese government to use its “unique influence and economic leverage to stop genocide and violence in Darfur, Sudan.” Although in the past the resolutions calling nations to value US/UN human rights violations vs. energy and economic interests have rarely if ever worked, the resolution would be seen in positive light from a US policy perspective. The last wave of legislation with ambitions to improve the Darfur situation failed miserably, as President Bush attended the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.

After the close of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing many legislators were disappointed in Bush’s wide attendance of the games, virtually ignoring resolutions calling for presidential abstinence from either the opening ceremony or boycotting the games altogether in order to coax the China to cease various actions with the Sudanese government. Obviously none of the resolutions worked and legislatures became increasingly acknowledging of the fact that the US simply is too hesitant to take any strong actions against Chinese intervention abroad – even to the point of violating precedents concerning supporting fellow democracies from communist adversaries (such as the case with Taiwan).  

Author: Sara Hilbert

Last week, the Huffington Post’s David Reynolds rejoiced in the progress that America has come a very long way from its racist past. Barack Obama, the first African American, now holds the highest political position in the United States. As we celebrate this groundbreaking achievement, we must keep in mind just how far we still need to go.

As revealed on Election Day, 52% of America’s most trend-setting voters supported the most monumental ballot measure in history, proposition 8. Now, the state of California has eliminated the rights of same sex couples to marry (after awarding over 16,000 same-sex couples the right to wed).This article, unmistakably tagged with a photo showing a heterosexual couple, proves a bigger point.  It is no mistake; a marriage of a mixed race couple was once illegal. This same state once held an irrational view with anti-miscegenation law, stating, “All marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race or mulattoes are illegal.” Once our law denied legal recognition to mixed race couples simply because it made others feel uncomfortable. Since these times, we corrected our unfair behavior towards this issue. However, our mindset still remains the same. The implications of the success of proposition 8 rings loud and clear: justice is second to our own comfort levels.

Legalization of same sex marriages, as many claim, destroys traditional family values and emotionally cripples children. That sounds more like the dreadful effects of divorce, not an effect from same-sex marriages. Current statistics show that 50% of first marriages, 67% of all second marriages, and 74% of third marriages end in divorce. This shows we are not teaching our children to respect any type of commitment, nor traditional family values. What we are showing them is that the real way to deal with relational dilemma is serial divorce. Leaving marriage to one man and one woman is not an argument, but an excuse for a prejudice.

California, a modern place of innovation and forward thinking, has been defeated. The scare tactics that the conservative organizations used entangled themselves into the California constitution. Over the years, the fight for equality has been so successfully strong. However, this recent set back, draws a line that that separates us from them. This generation is supposed to be more open and hopeful to the solution to end discrimination. Many have internalized these conservative messages that play on irrational fears.  Instead of noble and just laws throughout our country, we have a social disease. Homophobia, it is a cancer eating away at every chance of freedom and equal rights. Get back up, California, and dust yourself off. It is time to get organized and pass laws that no longer desire to exclude any longer. 

Author: Jared Fallon

The field of lobbying is one of the most illustrious and controversial toics in the realm of public policy influence and reform-drivers. Coming from the president elect who left the nation’s most expensive campaign in history with an extra $85 million on hand, it is no surprise that he would choose to detach himself from any possible accusations of heavy lobby influence – at least at the beginning of his world-watched entrance. President Elect Obama announced on November 12 his strict ethics rules, barring federal lobbyists from making any sort of donation to his inaugural events – yet again another history-making move from the former Illinois Senator. Despite the fact that Obama is the one in the limelight in the area of lobbyist ethics reform proposals, there is currently a major proposal pending in the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to make a much more meaningful, widespread impact along the same lines. Not surprisingly, Obama is one of the bill’s cosponsors.

Russell D. Feingold (D-WI) outlines his proposal to “provide greater transparency in the legislation process” with S.230. The “Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act of 2007” revises a long list of protocol and standards for legislative branch or executive branch officials and lobbyists alike – being one of the only major outstanding proposals of its kind. In terms of lobbyist protocol reform, S.230 has 3 major provisions:

• The requirement of lobbyists to report the ticket prices they buy for elected officials to events at the highest possible prices
• The prevention of lobbyists to pay for any sort of conference, meeting, or retreat for an elected official
• The banning of any means to provide transportation, lodging, and/or any travel assistance – perhaps the most lobbyist-debilitating portion of the bill.

Other provisions of the bill include reforms in both the deadlines and requirements for reporting contributions, strengthening guidelines for information intended to be made public over the net, and increasing the penalties for breaking both proposed reforms and outstanding ethics rules. Partially considering that Obama now has bigger policies to tackle, it is unlikely that this senate bill will get very much media attention, but it is nice to see seemingly honest intentions for ethics reforms reflected in a new position that is consist with voting records past. The parties in opposition for any proposals of this type are destined to get K Street heavy-hitters and large financial backing from lobbyists around the nation, if not the world. The danger is such a proposal is that the goal is to lobby against lobbying – attacking the offense offensively and trying to “beat them” at their own game. It is a daring move for an elected official, and one that, at the very least, should some level of respect for Feingold.

Regardless of your personal opinions on lobbyist’s influence in the political realm, one thing that is undisputable is that the field has grown immeasurably over the past 10 years, and that clearly there are strong benefits for an entity from having a strong, power-packed lobbying team. It is estimated that the amount of lobbyists in Washington since 2000 has more than doubled – bringing the total number of registered lobbyists to far over 35,000 (compared to only 435 Federal Representatives and Senators;a 1-to-65 ratio minimum). The starting salaries for former White House and elected officials that sign on as lobbyists start at $300,000 – quite a sum for moving your workplace only a few blocks away. Personal feelings towards contract lobbyists aside, it is indisputable that the increase in both demand and salaries points to a shift in the framework of which corporation/Capitol Hill interaction operates.

According to lobby industry officials the field in the 1990’s was largely reactive – based on waiting for the most recent proposals to echo the halls of the Capitol. Recently, the situation has become far more pre-emptive (and profitable) as corporations have discovered just how much sway they can exercise by seeking to infuse influence ahead of time. The shift has caused some current lobbyists, such as former Clinton lobbyist and current contract lobbyist Patrick Griffin to make such bold claims such as “They (corporations) see that they can win things, that there’s something to be gained. Washington has become a profit center.” The shift has been so monumental that even officials on the Hill have been pressed to reform their tactics. Since 2000, in an average 4 year span Federal expenditures on lobbying have increased by 30%.

The situation is lending itself towards greatly diminishing trust between the general public and elected officials. The problems are bound to get worse, as repealing both heavy expenditure projects and recently created trends will prove to be much more difficult than they were to be initially introduced. Daring proposals such as S.230 are a bold risk for elected officials – introducing a two-pronged attack at both elected officials and those paid to provide great efforts towards the influence of such officials.

Whether or not Feingold will find success I cannot predict, but I do know one thing: when there are enough registered lobbyists in Washington to outnumber the official count of all Senators and Representatives by a factor of 65, there is a serious breakdown in the accountability of the system. If a Federal Senator (average salary: $165,000) was put in one room with 65 federal lobbyists (average salary: $300,000), it is a sure bet  that no human on earth would have an easy time staying true to what’s best  for the general public, much less the humble goal of being a public servant.

Am I saying that lobbyists are evil? No. Am I trying to make the point that we have a failed political structure with too few restrictions? Not necessarily. What I am saying is if I was locked in a door with 65 other people representing far over $19 million and a both a wide mix of companies and industries, I would find doing my job fairly, for the best outcome of the public, very, very, very challenging.

Author: Jared Fallon

The war on abortion seems to be never ending, having 2 stark opposition groups that work tirelessly to either fight as the Pro-Choice or the Pro-Life reformists. After so many years of rhetoric and seemingly unchanging lines of argumentation, a group of 120 Congress members are taking a more unique approach to battling, or as the bill states, “informing” mothers of the implications of abortion.  Christopher Smith’s (R-NJ) House Resolution 3442 takes a slightly different spin than the average anti-abortion bill (and the long track record of Smith’s abortion efforts), calling his proposal the “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2007”.

In the 22 page long bill Congress outlines a series of findings to help make the case for mothers being properly informed of the scientific (albeit somewhat one-sided) facts of unborn children. Select findings from the bill are as follows:

It has been found that after 20 weeks after fertilization,

• An unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain
• Unborn children draw away from certain stimuli in a manner which an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain
• An unborn child may experience substantial pain even if the woman herself has received local analgesic or general anesthesia
• Medical Science is capable of reducing such pain through the administration of anesthesia or other pain –reducing drugs directly to the unborn child

The bill’s foundation is that in review of current legislation, animals are treated better than unborn children, despite the fact that they are both capable of responding to harsh stimuli sensation. H.R.3442 makes the case rather compellingly by offering a look into the Human Slaughter Act of 1958 that requires “humane” treatment in reference to handling or slaughtering animals. This means that the animal must either be killed by a direct shot or blow or be given a method to lose consciousness before the animal is slaughtered. Furthermore, the bill provides a look into the Animal Wellness Act, outlining provisions for minimalistic pain and overall treatment conducted after the animal has been tranquilized.

The overall tone of the bill creates the notion that the most common methods of abortion after during or after the 20 week mark are inhumane and can torture the organism with substantial pain. Such methods include “…dismemberment, poisoning, penetrating or crushing the skull…(and/or sucking) the child’s brains  out before completing the delivery of the dead infant”. The bill is unique in that it does not necessarily make the claim that abortion is a method to kill children or that the organism is not a human until is completely born, but rather that we should have the same standards of treatment for unborn children as we do animals.

The proposed call to action for the bill begins on page 8, and would require the doctor administering the abortion to provide many pieces of information, with the most important factors including:

• The age of the unborn child
• A Department of Health and Services-approved “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure”, outlining the use of pain-relieving drugs, description of risks, and the administration of anesthesia, and a
• “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Decision Form”

The approach of the bill merely attempts to have the parents making the decision be informed of the “substantial pain” involved for the most prominent procedures, as well as the risk of administering techniques to ensure that the unborn child receive less pain. To see the exact provisions of the bill which include details as to what content is required in the brochures, timelines, and distribution of information, follow this link.

Whether or not you personally believe in such a proposal, Senator Smith does outline a strong case for reform requiring that unborn children be given, at least, the same treatment that animals are given in the event that parents do indeed choose to have an abortion. The bill certainly is worth review and, at the very least, offers a more middle-of-the-road call to action than the average pro/con abortion groups commonly support. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

Time has passed since her health reform campaign in the nineties, but Hillary Rodham Clinton is still fighting for change. Hillary is trying to claim that her newest plan is not a new bureaucracy, but would build on the good parts of system while improving parts that are failing. (I wonder who’s writing the checks that might have changed those opinions from her first plan.) Either way, the results would look the same as herfirst proposal ten years ago with S.3674, “The 21st Century Wellness Trust Act.”

The Looming Crisis

Predictions in the introduction of the bill say that by 2025 nearly half of the United States population will suffer from at least one chronic disease. Currently, 70 percent of deaths and health costs in the United States are attributable to chronic diseases. These are preventable diseases! The United States has the highest rate of preventable deaths among 19 industrialized nations and lags behind 28 other nations in life expectancy. Unarguably, our health care system is dysfunctional.

This bill claims that, “If effective risk reduction were implemented and sustained by 2015, the death rate due to cancer could drop by 29 percent. Improved blood sugar control for people with diabetes could reduce the risk for eye disease, kidney disease, and nerve disease by 40 percent. Similarly, blood pressure control could reduce the risk for heart disease and stroke by 33 to 50 percent.” It also deems the workforce to deliver prevention as insufficient. In addition, the supply of health care providers trained to emphasize prevention is shrinking. Between 1997 and 2005, the number of medical school graduates entering family practice residencies dropped by 50 percent. There is an acute shortage of community health workers. Between 25 and 50 percent of the existing Federal, State, and local public health work force is eligible for retirement in the next 5 years. As of 2008, more than 75 percent of the existing public health workforce has no formal public health or prevention training. There is no national, uniform credentialing system for public health or prevention workers that would ensure that these workers are trained in the basics of preventive care.

Hilary’s Proposal

This is a loud call for preventative services that reduce these unnecessary costs and improve the quality of life and health of Americans. In quick reaction to these harms, Ms Clinton would create a “trust fund board” composed of seven president appointed members to oversee improvement and change. First, this board would spend their first year examining and researching the system and then attempt to find the best plan to develop. After the first year, these select seven would report on broadening prevention in the workplace, “payment methodologies,” connecting incentives with goals to increase community organization involvement with prevention, and present funding spent on prevention.

After which they will then organize “delivery systems” to provide finances for prevention priorities and implement pilot programs. This group would become the central for prevention information. If by this time, there were no nationwide electronic medical record systems already in place, this bill would create an electronic prevention record. Most importantly, plans would oversee the additional training and credentialing prevention of health workers.

Funding would come no later than January 2011 from the “Wellness Trust Fund”, increasing by a percentage for each subsequent year, as seen fit by the board of trustees.

After assuring prevention priorities are in place this bill would approve “eligible individuals the prevention services to the uninsured.” It seeks coordination with Medicare and other private insurers, but again only to make sure that they receive funds for the health workers that are providing the prevention-oriented health care option.

Why Hilary Would Find Failure 

At reviewing the bill’s provisions, it is clear that Hilary’s elite group of seven would not have the capacity to make decisions that bring about the best outcome for all. Furthermore, with little support and authority, they do not have the ability to carry out all the necessary improvements. It just feels like an organized list of boxes to check for our overwhelmed health professionals. Reform will not take place when you tack on a longer working week for our nation’s overworked nursing staff. It will not happen if you ask our doctors to require more training and qualifications. We have yet to admit a larger problem: the intense control of insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry and the American Medical Association. We have certified health care employees. What we do not have is a system that allows patients complete access to these opportunities. True, moving the focus onto preventive care will be the best solution. However, the mindset associated with this plan has a very limited picture of the system as a whole and still allows these problematic groups to stand in the way of a greatly needed solution.

Author: Jared Fallon

Back in 2008, many journalists’ predicted that other states would start following New York/Amazon’s decision to start charging tax for all citizens within the state ordering from Amazon.com, which, in turn, would lead to possible Federal taxes for such purchases. New York’s policy began on June 1 of this year and marks the supposed end of tax-free e-commerce – a movement that began taking full momentum at the beginning of the year. The approach for states’ efforts for charging an e-tax has been proposed and debated over the two most recent National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), and has been reviewed with favor from influential people such as Neal Olsten, federal affairs counsel for NCSL. When asked about an pro e-commerce tax policies Olsten was quoted saying “We’ve heard encouraging words from the Democratic Leadership in the House.”

More recently, tax-advocacy groups and lobbyists have pursued such actions, largely claiming that states need the potential millions of dollars in profits that they are missing out by allowing such purchases to continue being tax free. Verenda Smith, associate of the Federation of Tax Administrators, takes a more absurd humorous patriotic route. “Do you want to be a good American, or do you want to be an American who wants to cheat your government deliberately? It’s a harsh way to look at it, but it’s true.” Considering the fact that being a “good” American has a direct correlation with a pay raise for Verenda,  she should read Carnegie’s “How To Win Friends and Influence People” next time she decides to make public comments that are more embarrassing to herself than condemning of the general public. One senator aims to limit such restrictions, and hopes to help keep the internet free, at least to some degree.

Kentucky’s Jim Bunning (R) is proposing S.3670, a plan to regulate certain State and local taxation of e-commerce. Despite the fact that Bunning’s proposal does not address taxation for citizens making purchases within their respective state, it is refreshing to see bills that do not encourage such legislation. More dialogue must be created about such proposals to help encourage online purchases to remain free of such impositions. In recent times, other proposals to limit e-commerce from being taxed are gaining as little momentum as Bunning’s, receiving few (if any) co-sponsors. Action must be taken to, at the very least, limit the amount of jurisdiction states have over such transactions.  

Bunning, a former Major League Baseball pitcher, seems to have been batting 100 in the realm of e-commerce for consumers…we need more with the same mindset in Congress if there are any hopes to keep taxation from reaching the invisible but intrinsic borders of e-commerce. 

Author: Jared Fallon

Despite the fact that it can be fun to find you’ve won $5,000,000 inheritance from your now deceased uncle in Nigeria or are offered to buy a 2008 oil tanker, there is currently a bill on the table that would make such emails a civil crime. According to Gartner, Inc., an IT industry research and advisory company, “between August 2006 and August 2007, roughly 3,500,000 United States computer users were victims of phishing scams, and suffered losses totaling $3,200,000,000.” Spam is something we all hate to love, but despite the fact that it can be…fun… several US senators are trying to make such acts worthy of a conviction and hefty crime.

Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), backed by Bill Nelson and the convicted felon/Congressmen Ted Stevens, are proposing S.2661, a bill that would allow the FCC to determine and enforce whether or not you’ve been “phishing”. Senator Snowe estimates that 59,000,000 phishing emails are sent per day with nearly 1/6 actually being opened by the recipients. Under section 3 of the bill, “Phishing; Related Deceptive Practices” the enforcement outlines up to $2,000,000 in penalties if a person is found knowingly identifying false or misleading information. The bill seems to weigh especially heavy if a person is found misrepresenting a government division, despite the fact that non profits, business, and other entities are covered. In addition, the jail time for such a conviction can last up to 5 years – a long enough time to make people think twice as to whether or not it’s truly worth the risk to offer Viagra at cost. Even though it’s always nice to see you can make free long distance calls to your aunt in China or that Mike Smith (a long time friend of everybody’s) has found a new job for you and only requires your birthdate and social security number in return, your inbox may not be quite as full a year or so from now.

Author: Jared Fallon

Belarus’ official title is the “Republic of Belarus”, however the CIA Worldfactbook displays a note unique only to this small Eastern European country: “republic in name, although in fact a dictatorship.” Belarus received its independence from the Soviet Union on August 25, 1991, but since then has retained…cozy, relations with Russia. This little country of nearly 10 million is currently being squeezed into a situation that will cause it to turn towards other powers in the attempt of keeping surprisingly high growth rates. How will the US react to an increasingly frustrated country that’s slowly drifting away from Moscow?

Background

Belarus’s first 4 years of independence can be characterized by swift, broad reforms looking to shape a new country based on a defeated population. Like so many in Eastern Europe, the average person was looking to have more “Western concerns”, rather than worrying over communism, state-oriented supply targets, and bread line-type difficulties. Yet in 1994 President (dictator) Alexander Lukashenko reverted back to the old days of Belarus with the time-tested promise of economic recovery. Since then, widespread government price setting, management and regulation has taken place, and in more recent years, private company acquirement has been seen across the board. The interesting factor is that despite economic reversions back to time’s past, Belarusians have seen GDP growth rates as high as 7%, although high inflation has never-the-less been prominent. How is this possible? One answer: Putin’s Russia.

Belarus has been fortunate enough to be on the receiving end of Russian generosity, marked with heavily discounted natural resources and the re-exportation of Russian petro at significantly higher market prices. For a small country still moving towards increased government control, Belarus has had it made. However, in recent times Russia has been seen attempting an…unique approach. While still maintaining the need for NATO-countering missile defense build-up partnerships with Belarus, Russia has decided to require that 85% of Belarusian profits on re-exported oil must be shared with the Kremlin. To make matters worse, by 2011 the Belarusians will need to get used to paying natural gas prices at the world market cost, an increase of over 50%. With the two largest drivers of the ill foreign investment-receiving Belarus economy, where does Belarus have left to turn?

Recent European developments

As overall Russian momentum has decreased within the country, the European Union has been moving in. A decision in August of 2008 declared the EU-imposed travel ban on Belarusian public officials (including the president himself) has officially been lifted – a significant development for which President Lukashenko expectedly expressed strong support of. “All impediments to dialogue have been lifted. The main thing is we can now talk without an iron curtain.” Many analysts predict the recent move with be more than conductive to the opening of the Republic of Belarus out of economic desperation, matched with the newfound government official encouragement. How will the US react?

Pending proposals: the United State’s approach

The US will take any position that will allow itself to gain more former Soviet Union members on its side- even at a time when financial markets have taken a downturn. Former Russian President and current Prime Minister (czar) Vladimir Putin was given the title of the “prime minister of the Russian-Belarus alliance” as of May 2008, matched with clear developments that Putin has no intention of decreasing influence within the region. In terms of foreign policy approach, paired with decreasing European sway (NATO vs. EU), any actions taken on the part of Putin are largely viewed as an East-West conflict, reflecting attitudes as old Cold War era. To view the 6 pending Federal legislation, follow this link.

Highlights of the proposals are largely shaped by the US’ stance on the treatment of ethnic minorities of Belarus. Mark Kirk’s H.R.5152 aims to authorize assistance for such groups in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus in the attempt to promote democracy and approach aspirations all too frequently ignored by the former Stalin state, quickly turning a cold shoulder or merely claiming ignorance for the atrocities that displaced millions of people. Overall, the bill is shallow and ill-conceived, allowing only 3 pages of explanation to throw $125 million dollars to a problem with very little restrictions or specific approach. The saving grace for H.R.5152 is found on page 2, allowing $25 million specifically for national broadcasting of the proposed foreign aid benefits to the countries’ citizens. Belarusians’ state-dictated broadcasting program remains one of the largest divisions for US-Belarus relations.

Lukashenko’s state-ran Belarusian broadcasting HQ, pictured left

The last proposal truly worth viewing is H.R.571 – a broad, sweeping plan to increase tariffs on products of any US-recognized non-market economy – ranging from Laos to North Korea to Belarus – a proposal that will most likely see more individual measures taken with the recent democrat’s sweep. As with Iran, Obama largely believes that the only two options that should be taken when dealing with seemingly difficult regimes is to greatly increase dialogue and to impose sanctions or tariffs on countries, in an old-fashioned attempt to squeeze desired action among the general public.

The situation with Belarus is quickly developing and should prove to have more desperate measures taken on behalf of the Belarusian government in the attempt of retaining any measure of economic growth. Europe will most likely see the widespread opening of markets with the “Republic”, and sooner or later Belarus will have to find a much more effective way to attractive foreign (not Russian) investment within the country. For Europe’s last dictatorship, decisions will have to be made between Prime Minister Putin’s sway and Western ideologies. As Russia continues to flex its muscles around the world, Belarus will prove to be a very significant example to the world as to the expected strength of Moscow vs. the US. The messages that will be sent to the world will most likely prove to be as impactful as the United State’s efforts in turning former Axis allies (Germany and Japan) into democracy experiments – strengthening America’s sway around the world. Belarus is quickly approaching a marked time of needed reform, it will prove to be most interesting to track what will happen to Europe’s last dictatorship.

Belarus’ geographic centralization allows the country of 10 million to retain particular strategic advantages – many times to Russia’s benefit

Author: Jared Fallon

At a time when the United States is looking to greatly increase social welfare programs and overall increased government involvement, a large group of legislators are looking to make beer cheaper for all of us (finally Congress is getting the right idea). H.R.1610, originally introduced by Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), has a staggering 240 co-sponsors, totaling over 50% of House members. Most people agree with the notion that it’s hard to find politicians that don’t drink, and bills such as this can begin to provide evidence to help make the case.

Earl’s 240 member army consists of a wide range of both republicans and democrats, all behind one of the shortest bills to ever be introduced in the House. The bill’s official text is barely over one page long, offering a genius solution based on pure simplicity: amending the IRS Code of 1986 in order to reduce the beer tax before the 1990 tax increase took place. The bill officially cuts the overall tax by 50%, making it a more viable option for the American public to get liquid bread at a discounted rate 7 days out of the week. Cheers to you Congress-hopefully we can sing 100 bottles of beer on the wall AND save money soon. 

Author: Jared Fallon

Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) has a proposal on the table aiming to “prohibit text message spam”. Smith gave his bill the name the “Do-Not-Text Act of 2008” – a rather strange title for a proposal that aims at cutting down the nuisance frequently mirrored in your inbox. The bill’s enforcement is accomplished by amending the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, which allows The Department of Justice to fine up to $11,000 per violation, as overseen by the FCC.  Smith also seeks to amend the Communications Act of 1934, using the Act as grounds for prior authorization for sending “service commercial messages”. The seven page bill currently has 3 cosponsors, including Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, and Olympia Snowe – the latter currently proposing similar legislation to make sending spam over email a civil crime punishable up to $2,000,000. Smith’s bill is currently in the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and certainly is worth reviewing.

For those following Senator Smith’s GOP track record, despite the fact that he received 70% of the primary vote when re-running for office in 2008, he was rumored supporting Senator Obama in the presidential race. Accusations were first made after Smith tied his campaign to several of Obama’s ads in the attempt to reach young voters in Oregon. Regardless, Smith’s track record shows an overall trend of being more issue-oriented, as evidenced by this proposal being endorsed by 1 republican and 2 democrats.

Author: Crystal Fontaine

I remember that day, the fateful day of September 11, 2001. It has become a day that no single American will ever forget. I was sitting, ironically, in a history class at the time, watching as history was being made right in front of my eyes on that television. There were feelings of outrage, disbelief, and even fear all across the nation. Suddenly, the security once felt had vanished within just a few hours.

History books will soon enough see the affects of such drastic acts.

Seven years have sped by since the attacks on the World Trade Center. Lives have changed. Times have changed. The United States is currently fighting two wars that seem to have no clear end in the near future. Security has tightened at the airports. Sometimes, it is almost worth driving now days to avoid the hassle of going through security. Although gas prices are lower than what the average American has become accustomed to, they still remain higher than what they were just a few years ago. Furthermore, the United States is currently navigating its way through a mortgage crisis paired with the financial crisis – both of which have made significant effects around the globe. Many people are altering the way they live (including myself) just to survive the high prices and live comfortably at the same time. The world certainly has become a different place.

Recently, General David Petraeus was promoted to the new Chief of the United State’s military’s Central Command, with the responsibility of overseeing the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. With this new title, General Petraeus made the important step of visiting Pakistan on Monday, November 3 – a nation extremely vital to coordinated efforts against terrorism. Shortly after his arrival, jihad militants carried out a rocket attack(s) on the airport in the city of Peshawar, which demonstrates a deterioration of security that needs to be addressed. General Petraeus met with several important officials during his visit, including Defense Minister Ahmad Mukhlar and army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. Pakistani officials warned him on Monday that the numerous missile strikes the American military have made on militant targets in Pakistan is creating anti-American sentiment. As of August 2008, Washington is suspected in at least seventeen missile strikes to counter insurgents.

The situation in the Middle East is an ugly one. Will there ever be peace? The United States has become entangled in a web that it cannot seem to release itself from. Where do we go from now? This web is now being handed down to a new Presidential administration. One that many believe will bring about the change we are seeking and desperately need. The United States has made it a mission to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world. However, we have also had our own faults.  Nevertheless, with this historical moment in time and as many across the world celebrate its significance, perhaps we can now truly exemplify the freedoms we have been trying to spread. Jimmy Carter said it best: “The best way to enhance freedom in other lands is to demonstrate here that our democratic system is worthy of emulation”.

Author: Jared Fallon

One of the topics everyone recognizes but prefers not to talk about is beginning to emerge as a part of the forefront of US social movements. Rumors of increased Nazi activity in the states are beginning to surface and need to be addressed head-on before the situation becomes difficult to reverse. Amidst recent historical presidential results, the group may find itself seeing higher levels of interest than experienced in recent times. The most recent rally administered by the National Socialist Movement was last Saturday, November 8, in mid-Missouri. The rally was initially supposed to take place in the city of Columbia, but after being denied a city permit the group of 63 moved 30 minutes south to Jefferson City, the state’s capital.

For being in the middle of the Bible Belt with a strong Catholic presence, the rally attracted a surprisingly large amount of bystanders. Area law enforcement officials were on full staff in a fashion rarely experienced before, preparing for the violence that is frequently encouraged within such rallies. According to eye witnesses, spectators were surrounded by the parties’ workers yelling vile sentences from the crowd too vulgar to repeat here, trying to instigate violence in the attempt to encourage bystanders to feel the supposed power of the Nazi movement. Events such as this should also draw attention to suspicions surroudning the United State’s recent military decision to bring home the 3rd infantry division from Iraq to be stationed for on-call federal response within the states. The yearlong post began last month with occurrences of natural or manmade emergencies or disasters, including terrorist attacks. Growing movement activity such as this now has the possibility of being met with Taser-tested, Iraqi War-prepared soldiers.

There are several proposals in the House and Senate that deserve to be encouraged more in the hope of preventing the developing Nazi movement from growing. S.963, a plan to “authorize the Secretary of Education to make grants to educational organizations to carry out educational programs about the Holocaust”, would help underscore such developments. The bill is sponsored by Robert Menendez (D-NJ). Such proposals would help provide a stronger foundation of historical understanding to our nation’s most vulnerable population. Despite the plan’s $10 million cost, such programs have been found successful in the past as a part of preventive measures.

Another proposal, H.R.6094, seeks to hold surviving Nazi war criminals accountable for previous activities and atrocities in World War II by encouraging foreign governments to coordinate and prosecute such people. Thus far the bill has not received any support outside its sponsor, Steve Israel (D-NY). Aside from the bill’s stated intentions of helping achieve justice for victims of the Holocaust, acknowledging active government coordination against remaining Nazis around the world would help the situation in the US as well. If broadcasted effectively, the action would provide a subtle, historically-based deterrent for the National Socialist Movement at little or no monetary cost to taxpayers.

It is truly amazing to consider how little we as humans learn from the past. The sheer lack of historical acknowledgment on the part of the US Nazi movements’ members is both an atrocity in of itself and a harsh reminder that there are still a number of people seemingly guarded from reason. Such group’s members show a profoundly immature lack of appreciation for sanctity of human life and civil rights amidst a time when America’s minorities have been given increasingly equal representation. Immigrants and cultural diversity have shaped America’s history to one of the largest extents. It is not as if we do not have sufficient historical occurrences and evidence from which to draw clear signals against such movements – action must be taken now before it grows into anything more than the unintelligent, unrespectable, and wretched group of small, thick skulled supporters it is today.

When words do not begin to suffice, a brief photo journey into the political realm of movements past can help shape the gravity of such situations:

Author: Jared Fallon

“We’re entering a brave new world of presidential fundraising.”– Michael Toner, chairman of the Federal Election Commission 

The 2008 Presidential Race proved to not only be demographically historical, but the most expensive in US history as well, blowing past all previous records. Since January 2007 the 2008 presidential candidates combined have spent roughly $1 billion dollars ($2.4billion if you count candidates other than McCain and Obama) – an increase of over $300 million from the previous record-breaking 04 presidential election. This increase truly is colossal when considering back in the Bush vs. Gore election $250 million sounded like a large sum. Due to the airwave-saturating spending habits of Senator Obama there is a now a precedence to spend up near $33,000 per second just to air a commercial on only one of the big networks (estmiates taken from NBC, CBS, and FOX) during primetime spots. When are the rising costs of US elections ever going to be enough? All-time-high records can be found in virtually all other areas of US political campaigns as well.

It is anticipated the new cost to elect a US president and members of Congress will cost a staggering $5.3 billion. The most expensive congressional race of 08 hails from Illinois’ 14 district, where candidates vying for Dennis Hastert’s previous seat have spent a combined $7.5 million as of October 11 – more recent filings will certainly prove to be higher. As spending goals continue to be significantly greater than the ones before, the psychological effects of such increases may prove to me more devastating than the financial costs. To a large extent the American public already feels that far too many politicians get to their point of servitude by far too many political favors and connections to begin with. Despite the fact that the 08 election year is proving to have very high turnout, I predict that eventually as spending reaches a peak voter turnout will begin to drop significantly. Regardless, it appears as if we truly have entered into a new era of political campaign spending and will most likely see fresh, new waves of proposed legislation in an attempt to impose political spending limits of the sort that can be found in Canada.

To date there are not many proposals on the table. Several of them merely reduce portions of campaign financing (such as individual campaign contributions) while increasing other categories, such as the presidential primary qualifying threshold – even to the tune of 5 times that of current standards. (Ironically) Among its supporters you will find Senator Obama’s vote. The only proposal that aims for an overall guaranteed reduction is Michael E. Capuano’s (D-MA) H.R.2269, which aims to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Capuano hopes to reduce the $2,000 maximum amount of individual contribution that any person can make with respect to federal offices down to $1,000, and adjusted for inflation after 2010. Thus far he is his only sponsor.

For the sake of debate, although Senator Obama has spent more raw dollars than ever before, a short delve into political campaigns from America past does help put these numbers into perspective, if only in a shallow sense. In terms of real dollars the most expensive campaign dates back to 1896 when $3.5 million was spent to ensure Williams Bryan did not get elected. Adjusted for inflation, that sum was equal to over $3 billion in today’s dollars.  However, this is the most extreme example that one can draw a comparison to. Back then Chinese goods were considered a valuable rarity and John McCain was only 2 years old…my how the times have changed. Most Americans would agree that the amount of spending on elections is getting astronomical, and overall does lend itself towards increased government transparency. Similar concerns have caused other Democratic nations, such as Canada, to place strict limitations on a variety of different campaigns. For presidential campaigns both the time limit and the overall expenditures are capped. Whether or not Canada’s specific approach would work as a model for the US, it’s nice to see that there are other realistic case studies for when the time for reform is demanded (or needed, whichever comes first).

It appears as if we truly have entered into a new era of political campaign spending, but sooner or later public support for political race spending limits (and perhaps campaign length restrictions) will tip the scale for proposed reforms. 

Author: Jared Fallon

Perhaps the most troubling series of advancements that have taken place between Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba are found within this last overview of policy developments. The area of military agreements and coordinated defense and suspected terrorist activity are off the charts when compared to the sheer lack of awareness that is found among the American public. Most of the quotes found throughout this last part of coverage are presented in a way to largely allow readers to draw their own conclusions and in the lieu of government transparency, and to being to understand the magnitude of developments that will begin to start shaping significant parts of US foreign policy over the next decade or so. If you have not been able to read the first parts of this series, the first on nuclear proliferation while the second on trade, please follow the previous links to help get a more complete picture.

The most drastic developments within the veiled trio began to take place in 2007, after years of policy-forming precedents had been sent by a more bilateral-oriented approach. In October of 2007, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff was quoted responding to questions about Iranian-Venezuelan relations that “I think [there is] an emerging threat and challenge to the West, which is the export of ideology that we see among Islamist extremists in the Middle East from Iran, and the marriage of that with others who, perhaps for their own reasons, have strong anti-American views or who simply exploit anti-Americanism as a way of promoting their own ideological or power agendas…”  Chertoff’s comments were made around the time he began expressing sharp criticism directed at Iran for increasing western hemisphere activity. The gravity of the exportation of Iranian terrorists to Venezuela is impactful when realizing that Iran and Venezuela truly are military partners with firm establishments in place.

To date, “Venezuela has concluded nearly 200 bilateral agreements with Iran on military cooperation, the sharing of intelligence, expanding financial cooperation, and initiating cultural exchanges, among others.” Furthermore, “ In February 2008, a United States Federal law-enforcement official shared, We’ve known for some time that Islamic extremists groups were gaining momentum and exploiting the region … Iran is no exception now with Cuba and Venezuela, the door is open.” Both Iran and Venezuela work incredibly hard to ensure that the door that Cuba provides, only 100 miles from Key West, making it the most dangerously close enemy the United States has. Cuba understands the leverage it holds, and the geographic importance it plays within the veiled trio.

The quotes found in this post largely can be found cited from research presented in Illena Ros-Lehtinen’s bill to “enhance the security of the Western Hemisphere”, offering a comprehensive plan to “bolster regional capacity”. The bill outlines the urgency that the average US citizen has not realized yet, and calls for increased deterrents and communication to have the US become more involved within the trio’s affairs. One of the most troubling quotes sited as justification for her bill date back “In April 2008, (when) for the fourth year in a row, the Department of State’s Annual Country Report on Terrorism stated that the Government of Cuba provided safe haven to members of (several Latin American terrorist groups) and maintained close relationships with other state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran.”

This 3 part series of brief coverage on Iranian/Venezuelan/Cuban coordination is the only beginning of the breadth and depth of developments that have taken place in recent years that should be of utmost importance to US foreign policy. To begin to jump into this troubling part of US concern, follow these links to review H.R.7068, Illena Ros-Lehtinen’s plan that while not necessarily outlining the optimal solution, does point to some of the concerning developments that should be garnering much more attention in the United States in terms of foreign policy focus priorities.

Author: Jared Fallon

To most people’s surprise, the most recent study conducted evaluating the overall increase of higher education costs shows satisfyingly minute changes. According to the nonprofit organization College Board, for the current academic year the average list price increase for four-year colleges is less than 1 percent over inflation – one of the smallest increases seen in the college world in a long time. Additionally, the average financial aid package increased, allowing colleges greater admission rates than will most likely be seen as the financial crisis begins to surface in other parts of the economy. According to the College Board however, the situation is not nearly as optimistic for the future, based on both past costs and expected future trends…reform is needed quickly.

The College Board assumes the average tuition cost to increase by 6% annually, a figure that is notably larger than both the general inflation rate and the average increase in expected incomes. According to the same data set, the anticipated cost of attending a public college/university for four years in 2026 will cost a staggering $81,900, with private institution costs totaling around $313,800 – and keep in mind these costs only reflect college tuition and standard fees. These estimates do not include other significant costs of attending a higher learning institution, such as room and board, books, and transportation. The increasing costs of the already colossal investment of acquiring a bachelor’s degree is intensified when considering that according to the USA Today 52% of college students take 5 years to earn their degrees.

Some of the pending legislation awaiting actions beyond their respective committee statuses aim to reduce the overall costs of higher education in anticipation for the shocking price increases. These increases will soon begin to hit some families beyond the current near-crisis point of nearly having to remortgage their homes. One such proposal has been introduced by Herb Kohl (D-WI) and is hoping to authorize the Education Department to match grants to high schools that establish dual enrollment programs, in the attempt to encourage students to start considering college at an earlier age and help reduce overall college costs by decreasing the amount of time it takes to earn a bachelor’s.

Another interesting proposal deals with a more systemic approach and requires less of an increase in government spending or grant/award programs. H.R.4149’s official goal is to “limit excessive fluctuations in tuition to help students and families plan for college costs.” The bill would require institutions to offer a binding, multi-year tuition and fee schedule for at least four years for the attainment of a degree. The proposal is rightly named the “Truth-in-Tuition Act of 2007” and would be enforced through amending the Higher Education Act of 1965. To discover what other reforms are on the table, follow this link and make sure your opinion is heard.

The future “war on the middle class” is going to get a lot worse if the increasing costs of education are not addressed. Reforms such as these need more dialogue if they are to have any hope of getting passed or, at the very least, inspiring other legislatures to step up to the plate and help combat the greatest outlet for opportunity that our future generations may very well be laregly excluded from. 

Author: Jared Fallon

The United States has officially moved into a new era of policy. Some of the most obvious developments will be made in the area of foreign affairs – a situation formerly known across the board for strong hegemonic undertones highlighted with post-WW2 attitudes. The United States simply cannot afford to sustain the political precedents formed by the Bush administration, and Barack Obama knows it. We are launching into a new period – a new beginning that will start by distancing US foreign policy from its previous reputation as being ruled by cowboy politics to a new chapter that will fulfill the title “suburban diplomacy”.

There is no doubt that Mr. Obama is a great communicator. His charisma and ability to connect with the general public has not been seen since the days of Reagan. Obama’s charisma and charming smile is so convincing that he was able to rise from a first term US senator to the President of the United States – the chief commander and the leader of the supposed free world. The amazing part of Obama’s rise to fame being carried by his “rising star” status is just how quickly his smiles worked. Obama took his position in 2004 and less than three years later began campaigning for what would become the most expensive presidential race in US history. For all of the dialogue on the historical implications the 08 race has on social/ethnic issues, this may prove to be the most historical point of all.

The term suburban diplomacy as it is being introduced in this op-ed refers to a movement towards more plane-Jane political ideas, focusing largely on re-channeling time and money from abroad back to the US. This approach clearly has worked so far in terms of increased citizen involvement (as partially shown by this year’s record voter turnout) and the large number of young voters.  The plain-Jane platform that Obama won on strikes a chord of simplicity within the American voter, instilling more trust than the current President’s administration (and Congress for that matter) was ever used to over the past 8 years. Government transparency is truly what voters see in Barack – a return (a notion I have a hard time agreeing with personally) to less corporation-influenced policies paired with less strings attached.

For introductory proof, recall the one-word campaign of “change” that Obama ran on for the past 22 months – any advanced level of political theory complexity simply do not exist. The simplicity of his historical victory reflect the lack of depth that American’s want to vote for in terms of political connections and favors (and perhaps links to companies such as Halliburton). What Obama posses is a real gift to connect with the everyday voter – a skill that will find Obama with strong citizen approval as a more socialistic approach to domestic policies will be introduced. But for the short term, amidst all of Obama’s criticism of the War in Iraq, the area of foreign affairs is where most the most drastic changes will be seen, and these changes will be easily drafted, voter approved. But no matter the specific reforms, Barack will return the US to the hug-friendly approach that Bill Clinton was internationally known for, and will provide a test for whether or not “change” can truly happen in a post-Bush dynasty period of time. Sa la vie Texan tactics…Obama: show us the change – the world is waiting in high anticipation. 

President Bush (pictured left) at his 1,583 acre Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, Texas. 

Author: Jared Fallon

Despite the fact that the term “trade” sounds extremely vague when compared to “nuclear proliferation” the impacts of trade to the extent that Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba have been conducting show significant developments on the part of the veiled trio. The amount of trade agreements and overall activity between the three nations has stepped up considerably over the past few years, with strange coincidences (?) of coordinated activity with Russia (such as Russia deploying ships to Hugo’s coast with nuclear technologies possibly for change right before the US signed a NPT-violating treaty with India).

The newest trade alliances and bilateral trade agreements include the increasing relations and activity with the Iran-Cuba joint Economic, Scientific, and Technical Cooperation Commission. The last major economic agreement was signed between the 2 countries in 2006 and helped pave the way for the surge in recent trade activity. According to the Islamic Republic News Agency in 2007 Iran and Cuba set up a joint shipping company known as the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL). IRISL had the original goal of allowing Venezuela to access Iranian commodities such as construction and agriculture machinery and Cuba to purchase Iranian transport wagons. The IRISL was matched with a reportedly $200 million loan from Iran to Cuba. Again, we see unity between the trio.  In August of 2007 Iranian Deputy Commerce Minister Mehdi Ghazanfari reportedly signed two protocols of trade with Cuba and Venezuela, decreasing overall tariffs aiming, among other things, to increase the already $60 million in Iranian exports to Venezuela. The