(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: 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

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: 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

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: 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: 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. 

“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.

“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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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

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

We all know that George W. Bush will go down in history as one of the most profoundest presidential “quoters” in US history. His long list of power-packed comments will be missed by all as the smooth-talking Illinois Senator rises to be the next leader of the “free world.” As Bush passes the torch to Obama there will undoubtedly be a long, long trail of people waiting for the “change” that Obama promised for so long. And yet, ironically, the 6^th longest-running Democratic Senator in US history is never very far behind…

Regardless, President Bush’s wise words to Obama were consistent with many of his world- famous speeches. According to Bush spokesperson Dana Perino, Bush advised “You are about to go on one of the great journeys of life. Congratulations and go enjoy yourself.” Time can only tell whether or not Obama can provide the change he promised, but one thing is certain: the American public is tired of leaders considering the US presidency as nothing more than “one of the great journeys”. If Obama does enjoy himself, let’s just hope that he doesn’t choose to do it Texas-cowboy style…

Author: Sara Hilbert

The time is now. Early voting is steadily streaming in and by mid-week America will know the end of this long presidential race. Until then we wait in high anticipation for this highly historical election. According to Real Clear Politics, the average polling data shows Obama leading by 6.3 points, while others show Obama leading by even more.  Despite the fact that the general public thinks Obama will win, Senator McCain predicts a late-night win on Election Day, believing that the American public will choose him in the wee hours of the day.

Dr. Frank Newport editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll explains in the video below that 1980 proved to be the biggest example of the polling change, where Jimmy Carter was ahead with registered voter by eight points before Ronald Reagan won the popular vote by 10 points. With the lead that Obama has on McCain, it can narrow, but it would be highly unusual occurrence. 

There are so many behind Senator McCain who feel that these numbers unjustly show the reality and strength the candidate has for victory on Tuesday. Jeffrey Lord is one of them, a former Reagan White House political director and author, who claims the answer was clear back in August: McCain. Billy Kristol also gave his predictions of the election in favor of McCain this past Friday on The Daily Show. Lastly, Andy Martin, legendary author and Internet columnist, spoke against Obama’s intense advertising to then praise McCain for taking command saying, “John McCain is going to win the presidency, (but only) by a whisker.”

Republicans need not to cross their fingers, The Mack is back!

Author: Crystal Fontaine

With about one week to go in the Presidential Races, Barack Obama is still the preferred candidate. According to the Gallup Polls on October 21, 2008, Senator Obama was in a seven to ten point lead against Senator McCain.  The poll is based on likely voters, voters voting intentions, and past voting behavior. Although international opinions from countries around the world seem to play a significant role in this presidential race, there is little evidence as to how much impact their opinions truly make. However, the Gallup Poll reveals that in about seventy different nations, there is a near four to one preference for Senator Obama over McCain.

One has to remember that statistics are just statistics. Until the fateful day of the election, no one really knows who will be elected to office and no one really knows how well that particular candidate will do in office until he gets there. This past Sunday, Colin Powell interviewed on Meet the Press, announcing his endorsement towards Barack Obama. He admits to being close friends with John McCain and that both candidates are qualified; however, McCain would be just more of the same ole’ same ole. He described Obama as more of a “transformational figure”. Powell stated that “[b]ecause of Obama’s ability to inspire…the inclusive nature of this campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities…he has both style and substance—he has meet the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president”.

Powell even referred to his own party as being discriminatory. Apparently, some Americans still believe that Obama is Muslim, and has possible affiliations with terrorists. According to Powell, Obama is Christian. I don’t know if Powell’s endorsement really means much, especially so close to the election. However, Powell does raise a good point. Even if Obama was a Muslim, what is wrong with that? What is so wrong with being different? If we were all the same, the world would be a dreary place to live (and politics would be a lot more boring). I wonder how many voters will go and vote just because Obama is black or because McCain is white. I wonder how many of those voters will deny the reason for their vote is based on color. We have come a long way in America, but the taint of discriminatory thoughts and actions still linger. Perhaps its human nature this judgment of character before we even get to know a person.

The idea in electing a President should be based on what each candidate stands for, their past records, etc. For instance, Obama co-sponsored the Senate Bill 1492, which sets out to develop the quality of federal and state data on ease of use and eminence of broadband services while giving the Nation more affordable services at the same time. McCain co-sponsored the Senate Bill 1810, amending the Public Health Services Act. This allows for better information and services to patients who are diagnosed with Down Syndrome. Obama wants to raise taxes. McCain believes in expanding alternative energy technology. These are just some of the issues we should be taking into account. The amount of challenges facing the presidential candidates this election truly are daunting, and will prove to become even more so as the current financial crisis is experienced more and more in all other parts of the economy, and in our personal lives. 

Author: Crystal Fontaine

As I was channel surfing (desperately trying to find a decent show to watch), something caught my eye for the first time: Dr. Phil’s show. Normally, I am not one for talk shows. However, the particular topic of the day drew me in like a fish: Human Trafficking, the modern day slave trade. The thought of it alone sends a cold shiver down my spine. Unfortunately, it is a huge problem that needs to be addressed.

Dr. Phil focused on women who had survived trafficking in the United States (yes, we are not immune). These women were either forced or tricked into prostitution. Human trafficking includes labor and sexual exploitation, involving women, children, and even men. According to the U.S Department of State, about 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked annually with the majority being women and children. There are many cases where people are sold by their families who are desperate for money and believe that no harm will come to that person. Usually, they are tricked into thinking they will have better lives. Many who are trafficked into the U.S are given hopes of the ever-famous American Dream.

The economy is struggling. The U.S presidential election is only one week away. We all have our concerns. Why worry about others that we may or may not be able to help when we are struggling ourselves? The United States has made some efforts in combating human trafficking but thus far none of them are even close to what is needed. These small efforts include Congress passing legislation so Americans who prey on children abroad could face up to 30 years in prison. Also, the Department of Health and Human Services is declaring that these victims may be eligible for the same support as refugees. Other government agencies have implemented plans to combat human trafficking as well.

Currently, Senate Bill 3061, sponsored by Obama’s Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden, calls for appropriations for the years 2008 through 2011 for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 in order to enhance measures to combat trafficking in persons. The bill outlines a plan for an anti-trafficking program monitoring system as well as authorization to establish the Paul D. Wellstone Presidential Award for Extraordinary Efforts in Combating Trafficking in Persons. S. 3061 would establish protection for aliens or work-based immigrants who may be victims and are willing to testify. Policies and procedures would be specifically made for unaccompanied alien children, guaranteeing them a safe return to their countries. The bill also includes the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008, which prohibits finances for particular military and connected areas from being made accessible to the government of nations who are or have supported the use of child soldiers. Congress also has another bill pending, H.R. 3887, which gives additional policies and provisions in regards to human trafficking.

George Shaw once said, “I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community and as long as I live, it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can.  I want to be thoroughly used up when I die, for the harder I work the more I live”.  Our economy may be undergoing a financial crisis, but we cannot forget that there are people out there who also need our help – even in our own backyard. 

Author: Jared Fallon

Solar energy developments have been extremely rampant as of late across both the private and the public sector. Over the past few months the state of Hawaii has made solar water heaters mandatory beginning in 2010, The Department of Energy’s contracted company Boeing-Spectrolab achieved a world-breaking 40.7% sunlight-to-electricity conversion efficiency, and IKEA has announced plans to dedicated $77 million to its GreenTech energy fund. Developments have taken off and a plethora of proposed legislation have hit the ground running. Older concerns for lack of interest in solar energy seem to no longer be given even a passing thought as investment has increased from both foreign and overseas entrepreneurs and companies alike. The next groundbreaking development may be about to unfold.

The US Army announced its intentions to build the most powerful solar energy power plant in the world. The push for development has come about as a part of the United State’s increasing worries over its addiction to foreign oil and all around fossil fuel dependence. Despite the fact that this push is long overdue, it is refreshing none-the-less to see such an increase of interest from the DOD. On October 6, 2008 the US Army announced it would “partner with the private sector to construct a 500-megawatt solar thermal plant at Fort Irwin, California, in the Mojave Desert, that will provide renewable power on the grid and provide the sprawling Army post with added energy security against disruption of power supply.” Seeing that the Department of Defense is the world’s largest energy consuming entity, any relief from up to $400 per gallon fuel costs would help give it an edge in deployment and operational capacities.

The policy is paired with other plans on the part of the US government to boost its solar energy development and production. Other legislative topics of interest on the solar energy front include a host of renewable energy research and development plans, a bill to “authorize the National Science Foundation to award a monetary prize for achievement in electricity storage” (H.R.6882), and a proposal to establish a joint cooperation program with the Department of Energy to fund joint ventures with the Israeli government and various businesses and academic institutions (H.R.2229). Policies that are passed should aim to work in conjunction with the Department of Defenses’ sense of urgency to spur solar energy use and encourage the transfer of government developments into the private sector, enabling venture capitalists to do what they do best and help spur innovation. As pending legislation on solar energy development is getting increasingly intense make, sure to have a reliable source to track all updates that occur for this developing energy source.

Author: Jared Fallon

Despite your personal opinions about the Clinton administration and the Clintons in general, based on statements from times past I for one have a hard time believing what comes out of the New York Senator’s mouth. After the last presidential debate on October 15 at Hofstra University Hilary was interviewed by CNN and announced that she would not accept a cabinet position invitation from Obama if offered. She feels that Democrats still will need sway in the Senate and it is her prerogative to ensure the backup troops will still be available when needed. When was the last time that you can recall Hilary accepting a backseat position under any circumstance?

Hilary’s influential background in brief

Hilary Clinton graduated from Wellesley College with honors in political science, originally being highly active in college Republican initiatives. During her college experience she quickly decided that she could not fulfill her lifelong dream of becoming an athlete and decided to turn towards the ever-honest path of US Litigation. Hilary found herself attending Yale Law School in 1969 while maintaining her active track record of high-level involvement. Two years later she met Bill and after four years of his developing and relentless hug-infused diplomacy she was finally won over. In 1975 the Clintons wed in Fayetteville, Arkansas, near the headquarters of the retail monolith she would later find herself representing and serving on the board of directors for.

Hilary’s long list of accomplishments range from being named the first female partner of Rose Law Firm to being ranked 1 of the most 100 most influential lawyers in the US by the National Law Journal in 1988. Hilary surprisingly made more taxable income than Mr. Clinton until he became Mr. President. Her long list of focuses most notably include working for children’s advocacy (namely through the Children’s Defense Fund), literacy and education efforts in Arkansas, and largely socialist-based healthcare proposals.* Hilary certainly is not a dumb person by any stretch of the imagination and she knows it, clearly not taking Socrates’ line of thought into account, “I know that I am intelligent, because I know nothing.”

*“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”

Hilary’s track record: Foreign policy spotlight

While Hilary’s skills are highly attractive in the courtroom, she is not necessarily the freedom-fighting, life-risking US citizen she likes to make herself out to be. After CBS discovered that she and Chelsea were greeted by indigenous flower girls and not sniper fire upon their 1996 arrival in Bosnia, she had nowhere to turn but to begin focusing on more domestic issues that rings true to her Rambo-tainted patriotic passion for the truth and nothing but the truth. Aside from the evidence captured by the CBS camera crew, fellow American comedian Sinbad added to the exciting experience by stating “the most dangerous part of the trip was remembering where we were going to eat next”. Hilary’s convincing response? “Sinbad is a comedian…” I personally am comforted that the former First Lady can recognize when people tell jokes for a living instead of pretending to be the next Mother Teresa that makes jokes to our delight pro bono. The more you revisit this series of occurrences the more generous you realize Hilary truly is.

Clinton adviser Lissa Muscatine attempted to clear up all of the questions we were all asking but somehow just wasn’t convincing enough: “She met that there was fire in the hillside around the area when we landed which was the case.”Clearly CBS should increase the quality of their audio equipment. Even the pilot of the trip pointed to the absurdity of Clinton’s claims making it very clear that they never would have attempted to land if they were indeed under attack and that under his watch no passengers would be told to sit on their bullet-proof jackets; a strategy that US Army tests have found unsuccessful in trying to prevent injury when under fire or in the battlefield (this claim not yet confirmed).

The true implications of what Hilary’s track record shows us are best seen through her own words: “There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport but instead we just ran with our heads down (her laughing and smiles multiply at this point) to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” In an entirely different speech Hilary stated “The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” I agree with you Hilary, perhaps you should think about what you claim more carefully from here on out (especially if you have a CBS media team documenting your entire trip).

Hilary’s exciting life: Back in the US

Despite the disappointing announcement that Hilary was not named after Mt. Everest climber Sir Edmund Hilary (she was born in 1947; Edmund’s successful hike was five years later), we do know that she tends to have psychic abilities when it comes to the press. Despite the fact that the Wall Street Journal’s financial section did not cover the futures market when she claimed to make her fortune she had an uncanny sense for the paranormal. But more realistically, perhaps what we’re observing within Hilary’s patterns is a disconnect somewhere in her memory in terms of timelines. Orders of occurrences do not seem to be her strong suit, a skill that most public officials would value above erroneous claims of just how much danger her daughter Chelsea has been through (controversy abound as to whether or not Chelsea had to duck into a café as the Two Towers were hit or if it was all just another misunderstanding).

Even today there is a long list of claims that Hilary still needs to “clarify” for us. Does Hilary like NAFTA or not? Does she understand the difference between clerical errors and White House gifts? Did she ever oppose the pre-emptive war with Iraq? More importantly, was she always a Yankees fan? The more one reads about Hilary Clinton the more one recognizes just how ambitious she claims (and takes back, and rewords, then restructures) she is. But one thing is clear among this growing list comprised with a tone of severe lack of accountability, Hilary is not done yet. She had her sights set on getting back to the White House since the day she and Bill moved out.

Why Hilary will not stay out of the White House

“In the Bible it says they asked Jesus how many times you should forgive, and he said 70 times 7. Well, I want you all to know that I’m keeping a chart.”

For a politician with such an extensive background with such intense experiences* it should be clear that Hilary is not going to slow down. For those who spend any amount of time learning about her background it is hard to believe that Hilary could stay in the Senate offering back-up support for a historical “rising star” candidate that defeated her so boldly. Based on Hilary’s track record of sticking so closely to her claims I for one do not find myself in a position to be able to trust her seemingly humble intentions of supporting the Democrats from behind the scenes… and so far away from the Oval Office. Hilary’s story is not done yet, and she will not allow the defeat of the 2008 Presidential Election quiet her intentions down.

Lukasz Tomicki

The proposed solution (HR1424) to the current financial crisis is inadequate and ill-conceived. It does not address the problem at the correct point in the financial system and is likely to be very costs to the US taxpayer.

A better solution, based on an approach that has precedent and has proven to work is available. This document presents an analytical framework for understanding the current financial crisis and an outline for a plan to stabilize the US financial system.

Asset prices, such as the prices of homes and mortgage securities depend on the supply and demand in the marketplace. A rapid decline (+16% year-over-year as measured by the Case-Shiller index) in home prices is at the heart of today’s financial crisis. Therefore in order to end the crisis it is critical to stabilize the housing market.

A sharp contraction in mortgage financing and available liquidity has precipitated the decline in the housing market. In order to stabilize real estate prices we must restore liquidity in the mortgage market by making sure that all qualified buyers can receive mortgage loans and do this at low interest rates. Restoring liquidity in the mortgage market will allow for more existing homeowners to refinance and for new buyers to purchase their first homes.

The dramatic decline in available liquidity has been caused by the real and perceived increase in counterparty risk in the financial system. The rapid decline in the US housing market has lead to a fall in value of mortgage securities held by many financial institutions. As the bank losses mount, the probability of insolvency rises. These increased risks are expressed by rising financing costs for banks. The perceived risks are further magnified by the lack of transparency in the bank’s assets and liabilities. In particular the huge and loosely regulated credit-default-swap (CDS) market creates the fear. Should significant defaults occur, triggering the CDS contracts, some institutions are likely to be unable to meet their liabilities leading to a wave of bankruptcies amongst financial institutions. Lowering the real and perceived counterparty risk is needed to restore liquidity to the mortgage markets and stabilize the housing market.

Counterparty risk can be reduced by improving the assets-to-equity ratios of financial institutions. Banks use leverage, which means they own assets worth many times their equity. Therefore, by providing additional equity capital to banks, Congress can MAXIMIZE the impact on the bank’s capital position and minimize the amount of taxpayer money that is put at risk.

For example, a bank with $10 billion in equity can control $250 billion in assets giving it a leverage ratio of 25:1 (250/10). By providing $5 billion of new equity capital, Congress can reduce the leverage ratio to 16:1 (250/(10+5)) and dramatically reduce the bank’s risk of failure thus helping reduce counterparty risk, restore liquidity and stabilize the housing market.

It is important not to provide bailouts to speculators or executives with golden parachutes. Therefore this proposal should be considered in terms of a strategic investment of the US Government in a vital part of the US economy. The US Treasury and taxpayer stand to make money on this investment. Congress can help recapitalize the financial system by purchasing preferred shares in US financial companies. Currently the US Government can issue 10-year debt obligations at an interest rate below 4%. By purchasing preferred shares that pay a 7% dividend, the US Treasury stands to make a 3% annual return on this investment.

Purchasing preferred shares that pay a 7% dividend would help recapitalize stabilize the financial system, because a 7% cost of capital is very attractive for the banking industry under current conditions. If $500 billion were to be committed, a 3% annual return would mean a $15 billion profit for the US Treasury each year, on top of the social benefits of stabilizing the housing market and ending the financial crisis.

The Plan: Key Points

• Provide capital to US financial industry via preferred stock purchases that would pay a 7% continuous dividend.
• The Government’s equity investment in the banking system would help create an “implied” guarantee for the financial institutions. As a result the following is likely:
• Funding costs would fall, allowing the banks to lend money to borrowers at lower rates.
• The Government’s investment helps establish a “bottom”, enticing private investors (private equity funds, sovereign wealth funds, etc.) to step in and make investments, thus helping to provide capital.

Comparison to the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008”

This Proposal

• The purchase of equity aligns the incentives of the Government and the financial institutions. Win-win scenario.
• US Taxpayers have upside potential because they are equity holders and can realize a profit on their investment.
• There is precedent to this approach. Warren Buffett has invested in companies using this approach. Similarly, Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia has invested in Citigroup in the early 1990’s. As a result, he made a fortune and Citigroup prospered.

Current Congressional Proposal

• Adversarial relationship likely. Banks want to sell their assets for as much as possible; the Government wants to purchase them for the least amount possible. Win-Lose scenario.
• US Taxpayers have limited upside, it arises only from purchasing the assets at rock-bottom prices. If the assets are purchased at rock-bottom prices, no new capital is provided to the banking system. Therefore the only way to help the banks is to overpay for the assets.
• There is no precedent and no reliable objective way to value the assets. The assets may be hard to value, but we can be certain that the banks that currently hold the assets are in a better position to know their true worth. The Taxpayer is therefore unlikely to receive a good deal.

I am neither Democrat nor Republican and personally have attempted to avoid all of the hub-bub in regards to the 08 presidential candidates because the press tends to be redundant, occasionally biased (who’s ever seen equal coverage??), and, at times, just plain exasperating. However, the media has continued to taunt me with snippets of Palin’s speech since the day I missed it and has tweaked my interest. Due to intrigue, I have managed to find the official text and see what all the excitement was about. During the Republican Convention, Sarah Palin proved herself to be an eloquent speaker. She stated all the right things we all want to hear. She’s a smooth one alright, spewing words to inspire, uplift, and make your toes tingle.

Palin’s acceptance began with praise of McCain, quickly leading into a humbling portrait of herself and her family. She spoke to our hearts as she told of her three month old son who has Down syndrome -the portrayal of a motherly, down-to-earth kind of woman that many of us can relate to. She goes on to discuss her experience as a small-town mayor, stating that she always sticks to her story, revealing that she never supported the Bridge to Nowhere and against lobbyists. This point raised red flags in my mind. According to various sources, Palin did support the Bridge to Nowhere at one time as well as hired a lobbyist that secured $27 million for Wasilla, Alaska while she was Mayor.

Governor Palin believes it is necessary to break “our dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart” by increasing our domestic oil supply specifically through drilling in Alaska. As much as I am for breaking our addiction to foreign oil, I disagree with drilling in Alaska. I believe that preserving the natural beauty and environment of the state is very important. It is virtually impossible to increase drilling and not harm the environment in some way. I do agree, however, on the importance of moving forward with alternative sources of energy. We are in a time of great energy demand changes and as more people are using more energy the concerns over global warming are skyrocketing.

As with any political campaign, one cannot leave out a little bashing of their opponent. According to Palin,Obama’s plan is to “make government bigger…take more of your money…give you more orders from Washington…and to reduce the strength of America”. “How will we be better off if these types of policies are made?” she asks. This is a valid question. The same could be asked of a McCain-Palin administration. Palin answers this by stating that McCain will use his career to promote change, mentioning his honorable journey from prisoner of war to Oval Office. McCain’s story is powerful and moving – a sound strategy for the Republicans. “For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words. For a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds”. Leave it to the ever eloquent Palin to portray McCain as America’s hero.

Despite some twists of truth (what Politician doesn’t?), Palin made a valid argument for a McCain administration. Her words weigh heavy on our hearts, gaining my attention and millions of others. Perhaps I’ll become a Republican?

]]> http://www.statesurge.com/news/palins-powerful-speech/feed 0 http://www.statesurge.com/news/election-relief-holiday http://www.statesurge.com/news/election-relief-holiday#comments Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:29:08 +0000 jared http://www.statesurge.com/news/?p=94 Does anyone remember when presidential candidate John McCain called for a Gas Tax "Holiday" in April of 08 as Americans were priming themselves for the most expensive fuel prices experienced yet? We can't help but imagine what our current policies would look like now, how McCain's campaign would be affected, and whether or not such a shallow, short-term policy would have truly garnered any extra respect for this Arizona Senator.]]>

Author: Jared Fallon

Does anyone remember when presidential candidate John McCain called for a Gas Tax “Holiday” in April of 08 as Americans were priming themselves for the most expensive fuel prices experienced yet? We can’t help but imagine what our current policies would look like now, how McCain’s campaign would be affected, and whether or not such a shallow, short-term policy would have truly garnered any extra respect for this Arizona Senator. What I am proposing over this Presidential season is an “Election Holiday” – a break from the constant bombardment of details on the 08 Presidential Campaign and its affairs. A break that will allow us to recharge in the same manner that gas tax alleviation would have been appreciated, if only for a short amount of time. The logic between the two is actually quite similar.

McCain was simply looking for a near sighted relief to a growing present problem – one that affects a widespread population and tends to distract from greater economic and political goals. Why wouldn’t a break from the Presidential Election mumbo jumbo not equally be appreciated? This is not to undermine our political system or our adapted form of democracy, but to instead propose a new break along the same line of thought that many politicians seek short-term relief policies for – a time to reset, reflect, and recharge. In the haste and intensity of such a historical election it is important to not get lost in partisan politics nor details that are less consequential (i.e. Palin’s granddaughter scandal or Obama’s contagious smile). At such a crucial crossroads in American politics, we need not stray from our grander goals for reform – ranging from our current burdensome military policies to our aging infrastructure system, to our increasing tensions with our not-so-friends overseas. Let’s work for reform. Let’s work to not lose sight of our more intrinsic need for meaningful policies and get America where she needs to be.

]]> http://www.statesurge.com/news/election-relief-holiday/feed 0 http://www.statesurge.com/news/where-have-all-the-republicans-gone http://www.statesurge.com/news/where-have-all-the-republicans-gone#comments Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:05:54 +0000 admin http://www.statesurge.com/news/?p=40 So in an age that seems to have a name from every political, social, and academic group from "post 9-11 era," to "information age," to "age of terrorism," to the incredibly ironic "new world," I wonder every time I turn on the news to see one more bumbling politician, one more lying through his/her teeth, one more petty argument where words that used to be a serious charge like "un-patriotic" and "un-American" are thrown around like common banter, I wonder: where have all the Republicans gone, and how did they disappear so suddenly?]]> So in an age that seems to have a name from every political, social, and academic group from “post 9-11 era,” to “information age,” to “age of terrorism,” to the incredibly ironic “new world,” I wonder every time I turn on the news to see one more bumbling politician, one more lying through his/her teeth, one more petty argument where words that used to be a serious charge like “un-patriotic” and “un-American” are thrown around like common banter, I wonder: where have all the Republicans gone, and how did they disappear so suddenly?

I keep hearing that this country is being run by Republicans, but where are they?  The PATRIOT act demands more and more civil rights given up to the shadiest secret agencies of the U.S. government in the name of security, a bill that would have been called Communist in the 1980’s and Fascist in the 1940’s is now being forced upon us by the party who is supposed to defend personal freedoms.

What happened to being against big government?  How many of my friends have argued against FDR because he doubled the size of government, yet no single individual since FDR has done more to create a large wasteful mess of expanding government than President George W. Bush, creating entirely new departments and then creating departments with the sole purpose of making sure two other departments communicate.

Huh?

And things seem to keep getting stranger and stranger.  While Republicans are supposed to be adamant about balancing the budget and not spending money that belongs to the American people: Halliburton is to get paid all of its disputed charges, the deficit continues to grow (and the bills designed to “cut the deficit” only cut the rate at which it grows), and yet they are giving write-offs to oil companies who are doubling their all time record profits every single quarter.

As for the whole moral aspect: Tom DeLay, Karl Rove . . . there’s a whole list and two plus two just isn’t equaling what it should.

And our defenders of the Constitution now what to re-define “cruel and unusual punishment,” and severely limit freedom of the press, especially political speech, the very kind the founding fathers demanded for our nation.  What is going on here?

What happened to the Republicans who wanted a balanced budget, thought the ends did not justify any means (after all, they ran on a platform of honesty and morality), and would never allow the government unlimited power over its own people?  What happened to these people, and who has taken their place?  Sadly, if both the Republicans and Democrats were what they used to be, maybe we wouldn’t have such a mess now.