By Tony Messenger

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Thomas Schweich
JEFFERSON CITY — State auditor candidate Thomas Schweich threw himself into Missouri politics by announcing he was an outsider.
Well, he’s no Brock Olivo, but his voting record seems to back him up.

Schweich, a Republican from Clayton, didn’t vote the last time a Missouri auditor (Democrat Susan Montee) was elected, in 2006. That was the same election that pitted Claire McCaskill against Jim Talent in the race for U.S. Senate. McCaskill beat Talent, the Republican incumbent.

Schweich had been criticized by some Republicans earlier this year for donating to McCaskill’s campaign when she was running for state auditor.
A check of St. Louis County voting records show that Schweich has voted seven times since 2000, skipping 2006 entirely and not voting in any municipal elections. He voted in general elections in 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2008. Also, he voted in the presidential primary in 2000, and primaries in August 2000 and August 2008.

Schweich’s opponent in the Republican primary, state Rep. Allen Icet of Wildwood, has voted 25 times in the same time period, voting in all general elections and primaries and April municipal elections, according to county records.

“One of the reasons I’ve said I’m an outsider is that I’ve never been a really politically active person,” said Schweich in response to questions about his voting record. “I think you’ll see that I voted in all other general elections.”

Schweich was living in Virginia in 2006, when he worked for the U.S. State Department. He didn’t vote in that state that year, either.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Jared Fallon

For more information, see www.mofairtax.com 

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

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

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

But what exactly is the MO Fair Tax?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer is the MO Fair Tax.

Author: Kellie Bartoli

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where, may I ask, are these kids shopping?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Anonymous

We’ve seen lawmakers try to mislead the public by giving deceiving names to legislation. Look out for anything called “Tax Reform.” But the Fair Tax Act of 2009 is an apt title for Missouri House Bill 814, sponsored by Rep. Ed Emery. Rep. Chris Kelly has a similar piece of legislation (simply called “Elimination of Income Tax”), House Bill 318. Both bills legislation call for getting rid of the state’s individual and corporate income tax, along with the estate tax, and replacing them with a tax on retail and service transactions.

Both bills require a change in the constitution, which voters would have to approve.

The bill also would do away with the dozens of exemptions on the existing state sales tax, and tax credits would be phased out. Families would get a rebate, based on number of members and their poverty level.

For a lot of reasons, the fair tax make sense. An income tax acts as a drag on the economy because employers don’t like moving to states with income taxes and workers resent paying them. The result is lower productivity and fewer jobs. Eliminating the corporate income tax will spur business expansion. And the way the rebates are structured means poor families won’t pay a disproportionate share of the sales tax. That should hearten potential opponents like Jeannette Oxford, D-St. Louis, and Roman Lee LeBlanc, D-Kansas City.

Both are concerned that the bills would heap more taxes on the poor. But that’s not the case.

The bills, which are in the House Tax Reform Committee, also shouldn’t be viewed as partisan. While Emery is a Republican from Lamar, Kelly is a Democrat from Columbia. Oxford and LeBlanc should join their party colleague and get behind a truly fair tax. 

Author: Emily Iles

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arguments abound – see what proponents of AB390 are saying!

For reader comments, click here.

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

Video: 95% of Americans Want Marijuana Legalized 

 

Author: Kellie Bartoli

Hippies (and Michael Phelps) – rejoice! On Feb. 23, the California legislature introduced AB390, a bill to legalize marijuana. And, if I do say so myself, it’s about time.

The measure is said to “remove all penalties in California law on cultivation, transportation, sale, purchase, possession or use of marijuana…or paraphernalia for persons over the age 21.”

Oh yeah, and bring in roughly $1 billion annually. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, the bill’s sponsor, mandates “establishing a fee on the sale of marijuana at a rate of $50 per ounce.” That’s certainly one way to chip away at the state’s $42 billion deficit.

There couldn’t be a better time for such a proposal, especially when you consider the World Health Organization’s estimate that 42 percent of American adults have tried marijuana (not just the hippies anymore…my apologies). A recent study says 40 percent of Americans believe the drug should be legalized.

While that percentage wasn’t broken down by state, I can imagine that many California residents might be even more likely to support legalization. Since 2006, California has accounted for almost one-third of pot production, and marijuana has been more valuable to its growers than wheat and corn – combined. 

California is often viewed as the leader in creating policy changes that will eventually take over the country. The indoor smoking ban? California’s was enacted in 1994 and strengthened in 1998, years before the rest of the country caught on. Perhaps if the bill passes in California, other states may soon follow suit. The economy couldn’t ask for more.

According to a 2005 report by Professor Jeffrey A. Miron, “marijuana legalization – replacing prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation – would save $7.7 billion per year in state and federal expenditures on prohibition enforcement and produce tax revenues of at least $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like most consumer goods.”

The report goes on to explain that if marijuana were taxed like alcohol or tobacco (and it’s safe to assume it would), up to $6.2 billion could be generate each year.

And the economic windfall doesn’t stop there. With the decriminalization of marijuana, the government would be able to save the money it spends fighting against the drug and put it to better use. How much difference can that really make? It’s estimated that every state annually spends around $19.2 billion to fight the war on drugs, and at least 20 percent of that amount goes toward marijuana. That’s an extra $3.8 million that could be saved.

The “War on Drugs” sounds so very Nancy Reagan, though, right? When I hear the term, I imagine undercover FBI agents taking down an underworld drug cartel. But alas, my vivid imagination has gone too far.  Instead, the government focuses its efforts on arresting people for smoking marijuana – in the last decade alone, 6.5 million citizens have been arrested with marijuana violations.  Just in case you were wondering, that’s a higher number than the populations of Alaska, Delaware, Washington D.C., Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming put together.

• Yearly marijuana arrests have almost tripled since the early 1990s, accounting for the highest number recorded by the FBI.
• In 2006, 89 percent of the Americans arrested (738,915) were charged with simple possession.
• The amount of marijuana-related arrests in 2006 greatly exceeded the combined arrests for murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

That’s right – more Americans were locked up for smoking pot than committing violent crimes.

While some states may not be as forward thinking as California, they are willing to give marijuana a second chance, at least medically speaking.

In 2007, Massachusetts introduced HB2247 to legalize medical marijuana. While the bill didn’t make is past the Committee, voters took the issue into their own hands this November. After securing 65 percent of the vote, Massachusetts decriminalized pot possession of one ounce or less, making it a $100-fine offense.

On Feb. 23, the New Jersey Senate passed S119  22-16, making the state one step closer to providing some aid to the suffering.

For many, traditional medicines are simply not strong enough. However a significant number of patients could get some much-needed relief thanks to medical marijuana.

Some of the most common medical uses for marijuana:

• Relieve mild to moderate nausea brought on by chemotherapy.
• Help reduce nausea and weight loss in people with AIDS and suffering from anorexia.
• Reduce tremors, muscle spasms and the pain brought on by multiple sclerosis.
• Relieves pressure from the eye and pain from glaucoma.
• Lessen the extreme pain caused by cancer, AIDS, arthritis and others.

After all, “Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.” Or so said DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young. 

While marijuana isn’t harmless, there are much more dangerous drugs readily available – and legal. Alcohol? Tobacco? Countless studies have proven fatal consequences from the two. Yet there are no documented deaths from marijuana.  A UCLA study found no link between smoking pot and lung cancer. So who made marijuana the bad guy?

Author: Kellie Bartoli

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

One of the most common sayings heard throughout the 2008 presidential race was “No more Clintons or Bushs in the Whitehouse.”  On a smaller scale, by swapping out the names, the same can be said for the state of Missouri.  “No more Blunts and no more Carnahans.”

So in light of the above sentiment, here is a little history on how long these two families have been heavily influencing the great state of Missouri.

The Carnahan family has held prominent state positions since…ready for this…1945 (Picture Nazis and you’ll be in the right era, and the right political arena.) when A.S.J. Carnahan was elected to Congress as a Democratic representative for Missouri’s 8^th Congressional District. A.S.J Carnahan passed away in 1968, but the Carnahan legacy didn’t end there. 

Next in line is A.S.J.’s son Melvin Eugene Carnahan.  His career in began in 1951 as a judge in Missouri’s Municipal Court. In 1963 he was a member in the Missouri State House of Representatives. He was elected to the Missouri State Senate in 1966 and 1968.  In 1981 Melvin (known as Mel) Carnahan became the Missouri State Treasurer, and then in 1989 became the Lieutenant Governor of Missouri.  His career hit its peak in when was elected Governor of Missouri in 1993. Mel Carnahan, in an event that most Missourians (including this former Missourian) remember clearly, died while in office in a plane crash in the year 2000 during his run to become a United States Senator.

Now, one would assume that because Governor Carnahan passed away in 2000, his political career would have ended.  However, surprisingly enough, one would be wrong.  Carnahan’s names was left on the election ballet, and he ended winning the Senate Seat.  In a move that is controversial to this day, Missouri literally elected a deceased man to office. The solution to this problem is where the next portion of the Carnahan family history begins. 

Jean Carnahan married into the political family in 1954. Though she had no political experience herself, as the wife of the former governor, she was appointed to fill her husband’s seat in the U.S. Senate in 2001.  Though she was appointed to the U.S. Senate her political career was short lived.  She spent a year in the U.S. Senate before disappearing from the political scene.

But yet again, the Carnahan family history didn’t end there. John Russell Carnahan,(Russ) the son of Jean and Mel, was elected as a Congressman in 2004. Russ Carnahan is still serving in Congress today.

Oh, did you think we were done with the Carnahans?  Me too.  I guess we were both wrong.  To bring us to the present political race, we now visit Robin Carnahan’s political career.

Robin Carnahan, granddaughter of A.S.J., daughter of Mel and Jean, and sister to Russ is running against Congressmen Roy Blunt in the 2010 Senate race for Kit Bond’s (R) District 7 seat.  Robin Carnahan is a lawyer and served as Secretary of State for Missouri.

The Carnahan/Blunt showdown is destined to be one of the hottest Senatorial races in the nation. To view background info on Roy Blunt, click here.

Author: Kellie Bartoli

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, where to begin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Crystal Fontaine

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Crystal Fontaine

 In 2008 President Bush signed a significant piece of legislation that made considerable changes and improvements in adoption. House Bill 6893, known as the “Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act”, revises part B and E of Title VI of the Social Security Act to support relative caregivers and develop more encouragement for adoption, among other things.

Two of the most significant reforms include:

• Updating the adoption incentive program
• Slowly de-linking Title IV-E adoption aid from income conditions

 Both reforms, in time, would assist families by granting them access to federal funds for foster youth.

According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway, despite the fact that one third of Americans have considered adopting a child at some point only 2% have actually completed the process. In 2000 and 2001, around 127,000 children were adopted annually. Over the years the amount of adoptions has remained at a consistent level. Whereas Kinship and Private Agency adoption have tradtionally been the main sources of adoptions, public agency and intercountry adoption have taken over, accounting for more than half of adoptions today. Currently publicly funded child welfare agencies account for two fifths, while intercountry account for more than 15%. Intercountry adoption has risen between the years 1992 and 2001, increasing from a mere 5% to 15%.

The issue of adoption can be a sensitive subject, especially concerning who has the right to adopt. On December 30, 2008, over a dozen families field a lawsuit, challenging a new Arkansas Law that bans unmarried couples living together from becoming foster or adoptive parents. Under Section 1 of the Act, it is stated that a person cannot adopt if they live with a sexual partner outside of marriage. This applies equally to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Section 5 of the Act states that it is in the best interest of adopted children to be raised in an environment where both adoptive parents are married. The Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed the claim on the families’ behalf against the State of Arkansas, the Attorney General, the Department of Human Services, and the Child Welfare Agency Review Board, seeking to throw out Act 1. According to their case, the act’s language was very misleading to voters and it violates constitutional rights.

One wonders about equality and what rights do states have in basically banning gay couples from adoption. The act may not specifically target gay couples through language, but it had to be known that these couples would be affected the most by the legislation. We preach equality in this country, but it seems to that there are stipulations to that equality. Apparently, homosexuality is an exception to the rule. Shouldn’t adoption be based upon whether the child will be cared for in a loving and caring environment? How can one determine that a couple that is married provides better care to a child? There are so many children out there that need to be adopted.

In a response to this very issue, Dave Thomas, founder of Wendy’s and an adopted child himself said it best: “…as long as it works for the child and the family is responsible.” My big stand is this: Every child deserves a home and love. Period”.

Author: Crystal Fontaine

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Jared Fallon

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congresswoman Lee’s Support of H.R.1

Author: Sarah Riordan

Features include: 

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

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

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

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

By Greg Pollock

Florida HB451 is already inciting controversy, even before the bill has found a committee. The piece of legislation makes mandatory the sterilization of all pets over the age of four months, with an included 30-day grace period. The bill also provides some dubious exemptions, including racing animals, such a greyhounds, other competition animals, service animals, and those for whom “sterilization would endanger the animal’s health because of its age, infirmity, disability, illness, or other medical consideration[s].”

Opponents of the bill claim that forcing pet owners to sterilize their pets is not only a violation of owner rights, but of the pets themselves. The American Kennel Club (AKC), the most notable registry of purebred dog pedigrees in the United States, is in opposition of HB451, issuing the public statement via their website: “It is vital that all breeders and concerned dog owners in Florida contact their elected state legislators and voice their strong opposition to this unreasonable and unenforceable measure.” The AKC’s view isn’t surprising, considering the legislation’s exemption on sterilization for licensed breeding dogs comes as no consolation to an organization that specifies dogs should be no younger than 8 months before breeding. Under the proposed legislation, no newborn dogs would live long enough to even reach the AKC’s determined breeding age before being sterilized. Other opponents to the bill argue a similar case against its listed exemptions: that any racing greyhound or competition animal will also not be performing until after the specified 4 months. In essence, very few of the listed exemptions are even possible in modern pet practice.

The issue is particularly complex because advocates both for and against the bill feel they are protecting pet rights. Those opposed opine that their pets are being mutilated, while those in favor of the bill espouse the protection of the potential offspring of unsterilized pets. Animal shelters and animal rescuers have been vocal in their support of HB451. The text of the bill argues “many euthanized dogs and cats are the offspring of family pets” and that “one unneutered male dog or cat can impregnate dozens of females, leading to hundreds of unwanted animals.” Opponents to the bill argue that the language of the bill itself uses poor data and misrepresented information to push its agenda.

Californians may remember when the same law passed in the city of Los Angeles last February by a 10 to 1 vote of the city council. This victory hardly set a precedent for pet sterilization across the nation, as many opponents of HB 451 worry might happen. It did, however, attract some news attention, as INXS member Garry Beers and noted pet sterilization advocate Bob Barker were present to commemorate the legislation’s passing.

If the allegedly shaky language and incorrect facts of Florida’s HB 451 cause trouble when it finds a committee, Floridians may not be out of dog house yet: Florida HB 189 seeks to remove local regulations on breeding for “dangerous dogs,” giving some opponents to the bill fears that the legislature may backdoor the issue county by county if a more sweeping legislation fails.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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: Crystal Fontaine

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sara Hilbert

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

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

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

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

Author: Sara Hilbert

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also See:

Slideshow: Lithuania in Pictures

Lithuania: Fast Facts and Hot Legislation

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

Author: Jared Fallon

Also see:

Congressman Ferguson Makes Bones about Bones

Lithuania: Fast-Facts and Hot Legislation

(Make sure to turn up your volume)

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Jared Fallon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Crystal Fontaine

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Jared Fallon

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

Blagojevich Quotes to Remember:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Jared Fallon

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Jared Fallon

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

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

The 5 Worst State Capitol Buildings

#5: Bismarck, North Dakota

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

#4: Santé Fe, New Mexico

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

#3: Salem, Oregon

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

#2: Honolulu, Hawaii

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

#1: Juneau, Alaska

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

Author: Crystal Fontaine

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Jared Fallon

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Jared Fallon

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

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

Accountability for Contractors

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

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

Competition and Transparency

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

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

Building a Better Federal Government Workforce

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

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

Author: Jared Fallon

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Jared Fallon

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

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

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

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

Author: Sara Hilbert

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

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

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

Author: Sara Hilbert

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

Fast Facts:

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

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

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

o   66% of adults are obese/overweight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need a place to start? Try these:

http://www.50millionpounds.com/

http://www.shapeup.org/ 

Find out your BMI:

http://www.obesityinamerica.org/

Author: Sara Hilbert

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

The Health of the Nation

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

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

Details of the bill:

Children and schools

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

Communities and the workplace

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

Other:

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

Conclusion:

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

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

Author: Sara Hilbert

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

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

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

NRA Headquarters located in Fairfax, VA

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

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

Author: 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: Sara Hilbert

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

The Looming Crisis

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

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

Hilary’s Proposal

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

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

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

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

Why Hilary Would Find Failure 

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

Author: Jared Fallon

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

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

Author: Jared Fallon

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

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

Author: Jared Fallon

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

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

Author: 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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Jared Fallon

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Jared Fallon

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

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

2007 would continue to be a busy year for major developments that should have made US headlines much easier than they did. Months later Chavez established standard civilian airline flights with Venezuela and “designated sponsors”, which include Syria and not surprisingly, Iran. In Illena Ros-Lehtinen’s bill to “enhance the security of the Western Hemisphere”, offering a comprehensive plan to “bolster regional capacity”, Iran is referenced a surprisingly 24 times within the 45 page bill that only references 2 middle eastern countries (the only other country was Syria, mentioned only once). The move was largely seen by US Defense officials as a more convenient, much more blatant way for Iran to utilize the potential use its close relationship with Venezuela to “…facilitate the smuggling of people, drugs, and weapons into the Western Hemisphere through terrorist proxy groups.”

The more you look into the affairs the easier it is to find American-based justification for bills such as Ros-Lehtinen’s when considering how much control the US has positioned itself to have in many parts of the world after World War II. These include many agreements shielded largely under military agreements such as NATO and the economic agreements the US found itself in eastern Asia with countries that eventually became some of the countries’ largest trade partners, including South Korea and Japan. In a more current foreign policy spotlight, as President Bush continues to preach democracy and capitalism as vehicles for freedom and unrestricted markets around the world (even to the point of imposing force), the US has not been successful in decreasing the narcotics and illicit drug trade that is often paired with terrorist lingo on the news.

“A 2007 Drug Enforcement Administration report linked nearly half of foreign terrorist organizations around the world today to narcotics trade, underscoring the fact that the fight against terrorism must also include a corresponding fight against illicit drugs.” Similar reports point towards coordination in the arms trade between the 3 nations, sighting that in May 2008, the Department of State, for the third year in a row, that Venezuela has violated the Arms Export Control Act and thereby criticized for not cooperating with the United State’s antiterrorism efforts.

When reviewing the other most significant developments that have taken place as of 2008 it is clear that the true concern with the agreements between the three nations lie in the topic of coordinated terrorism advancements. Most have had seemingly unusual coincidences(?) with trade, such as the 07 establishment of civilian airline flights, but will be covered in detail in part 3 of the Veiled Trio series. Regardless of your own opinions, there is one thing cannot be ignored: the sheer amount of developments and agreements that have been taking place between the three nations over the past three years. 

Author: Jared Fallon

Three of the most troubling not-so allies the United States continually does not significantly manage to increase positive relations with are banning together – and are gaining momentum (coincidentally?) as Russia is reemerging as a major player within the various regions. Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba have been stepping up negotiations both bilaterally and multilaterally a great deal over the past few years, and according to US government officials they are not anticipated to slow down any time soon. There are 3 primary issues of concern between the trio that are of utmost concern: nuclear proliferation, trade, and military agreements/terrorist group activity.

This 3 part series will review the situation at hand following closely a pending piece of US legislation proposed by Illena Ros-Lehtinen. Her bill, H.R.7068 seeks to “enhance the security of the Western Hemisphere”, offering a comprehensive plan to “bolster regional capacity” in regards to a host of troubling developments that the American public is all too naive about. The facts found below were outlined in Ros-Lehtinen’s bill, which can be found in pdf format here.

Nuclear proliferation

The United States recently has aggravated the world with the passage of H.R.7081, the United States-India Agreement for Cooperation on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.” Or, in a more realistic light, “The US agreement that allowing US companies to get $80 billion + in contracts from India’s new nuclear plant construction plans”. This has dulled the US’ arsenal of criticism directed at Russia for its new generous gifts and joint military exercises with Venezuela accompanied with nuclear-bearing Russian ships relocating to Chavez’s coasts. American citizens are so tired of hearing the word “nuclear” that’s all too often paired with terms such as “chemical and biological weapons” that we often miss the gravity of the situation at hand. Here are the facts:

The Chavez brothers and their minions have publicly supported Iran’s uranium enrichment program, often while smiling directly at United States’ diplomats and leaving the room when US diplomats begin to speak for years.  

In May 2005, Chavez expressed interest in establishing a nuclear program and made public his request to the Iranian government for assistance. Three years is a long time, and unfortunately the American public has not been privy to a lot of the developments that have occurred since. What we do know is that on February 4, 2006, Venezuela joined only 2 countries in voting against the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) resolution to report Iran for Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty violations. Eleven days later Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel, the Speaker of the Iranian parliament, stated his and the Iranian government’s readiness to provide technical assistance to a Venezuelan nuclear program.

More recently, on a visit to Iran in February 2008, a member of Venezuela’s parliament said that Iran would be willing to “practically give away” its civilian nuclear technology and that “if relations with Iran lead to sharing nuclear technology with us, we would then give it away to our brothers (Cuba) in Latin America once we are successful.” This is extremely concerning considering that the US government has suspected Hugo to have large deposits of uranium ore in the Guiana Shield Region of Venezuela. Perhaps even more startling was Chavez’s announcement on September 29, 2008 stating he would like Russia to help his country develop a nuclear program, quoting Putin as saying Russia “is ready to help Venezuela develop nuclear energy.” Of course according to both governments all nuclear developments would only be used for “peaceful purposes” as the countries’ mutual “profound friendship” would ensure for Americans.

These developments are only the beginning as nuclear advancements between the countries have escaladed quicker than many analysts feared. I would go as far as to argue that Russia has not only emerged with a strong presence within the region and the covert trio, but has found itself at a near supremacy-level when comparing the US’ developments with Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba over the past few years. The situations that are developing will only become more of a priority over the next coming years, regardless if McCain or Obama is directing our policies. The US will need to take a hard examination as to whether or not we have any sway remaining after violating the major international formal agreement for nuclear-proliferation, while criticizing countries for taking actions that mirror the United States.

Author: Sara Hilbert

Election Day is here California, and you have been hit with the second most expensive campaign. Next to the presidential race, the combined efforts of committed individuals in favor and against Proposition 8, have raised over $65 million. This has resulted in the most expensive social issue campaign in the history of the nation. Californians are not the only ones concerned. Millions of campaign funding has come from groups and individuals out of state. Those donors know the reality; California is the front lines of the war for equal rights regardless of sexual orientation.

Here are some quick facts before you head to the polls:
The official title description of Proposition 8 is “eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry.” This constitutional amendment changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Prop 8 defines marriage to be recognized in the state of California between one man and one woman. In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 to specify in state law that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution. As a result of the ruling, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state. If proposition 8 is enacted, it would revoke the 16,000 same sex couples their marriage agreement that have already taken place since June.

If you check this box that would mean it would over ride the California Supreme Court decision for legalizing same sex marriages. This bill is strongly supported by many groups including: Focus on the Family, the Church of Latter Day Saints, and the Knights of Columbus. These groups feel family and marriage values are threaten by a few opinionated judges. Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family wrote, “Quite literally, the institution of the family is hanging in the balance. If homosexuals are permitted to marry, then the entire legal basis for the family will be undermined.”

John McCain has spoken for marriage to be between a man and a woman. Throughout his campaign, McCain has stated that if something were to change, public opinion would have to dramatically change equal civil rights within state and local governments first. Only then should allow congress be allowed to legally consider amending the constitution. He feels like everyone should be included, but it is unclear about his plans to directly reserve rights for same-sex couples.

By reinforcing the rights of these 16,000 couples this monumental moment would set the stage for many other states to follow, which some hope would then pave the roads to be recognized under federal law. Many famous celebrities actively speak against this proposal such as Brad Pitt, Ellen DeGeneres and Steven Spielberg.The newlywed, Ellen DeGeneres and her same sex partner, Portia De Rossi, begs people stop the discrimination. On her show, she compares this unfair treatment to withholding voting rights from blacks and women. She says, “There is this old way of thinking that we are not all the same. We are all the same people. All of us. You are no different than I am. Our love is the same…. My hope is someday it won’t be called contract it will be called marriage.”

Barack Obama, personally, feels stronger for traditional marriages but fully supports the same sex lifestyle and their civil rights; from emergency visitation rights, health coverage, employee benefits, property and adoption rights. He also wants to expand federal hate crimes and the Employment Non-Discriminatory Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Author: Sara Hilbert

It is an undisputed change from the day and age where smokers used to light up in hospital rooms, in the office, and in your favorite restaurant. It used to be a choice – a trend, smoking or non, now turns have increasingly shunned them to very limited sections outside. (What’s next, make them stand in the back of the bus?) Nevertheless, there are those who feel that the battle against smoking isn’tover yet.

Henry Waxman (D-CA) is the Chief Sponsor of HR 1108, known as the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Waxman, along with a massive team of 287 co-sponsors, support this bill to protect public health by providing the Food and Drug administration with certain authority to regulate tobacco products.

Supposedly, by stretching article I, section 8 of the Constitution, which states “the Congress is vested with the responsibility for regulating interstate commerce” congress claims the right to overpower individual freedom. This bill claims, “The only way to effectively protect the public health from the dangers of unsubstantiated modified risk tobacco products is to empower the Food and Drug Administration.” In addition, “to require that products that tobacco manufacturers sold or distributed for risk reduction be approved in advance of marketing, and to require that the evidence relied on to support approval of these products is rigorous.” If they have already made you forget, let me remind you, tobacco is still a legal product. This bill will also “impose appropriate regulatory controls on the tobacco industry” when it comes to advertising and stricter rules to keep from selling to minors. Flavored tobacco products are prohibited with this proposal, from the wide range of artificial and natural flavorings like menthol to clove. Tobacco companies might remain in business if they compromise and sell a reduced risk tobacco product.

Smoking, as we are well aware, gives the user a quick fix, gives tobacco companies enormous injections of cash and in the end becomes a burden to the rest of society. We can all agree that we must protect the younger generations and increase the overall health of America. However, smoking is, ultimately, a choice and our freedom as Americans ensures that.

In comparison, and I will not mention names, but some supporters of this bill could be a bit bulky on the scales. Our obese and overweight country is just as much, if not more, of a liability to society than smoking. Where is the bill aiming to monitor supersized food portions, chase down those who do not exercise and create cessation programs for those who overeat at work? Smoking and obesity are both linked to increased health risks at a high cost to the general public. We need something to better America and the answer does not lie in heavy regulation or putting corporate interests in place of our health needs. Find the balance that gives us more incentives, protects our rights and works towards prevention, not punishment, to reduce these negative behaviors.

Author: Jared Fallon

Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens has been convicted of corruption as of October 27, offering the most difficult challenges the longest continually serving Republican Senator has faced in a race to date. Maintaining his innocence, Stevens continues to deny the 7 corruption charges found in reference to his lying about free home renovations and other favors received by a wealthy oil contractor, to the tune of over $250,000. The gifts were found to be given from friend and VECO Corp chairman Bill Allen who, in turn, reportedly expected political favors over the next coming years.

Since 1968 Theodore has maintained an extensive track record, earning him respect for the wide breadth of topics that he has covered over his political career. These topics range from lobbying huge sums of funds from Washington to telecommunication and global warming bills, to heavy state-level topics such as logging, oil industry affairs, and pretty much everything else the Alaskan government has had to address since officially becoming a state in 1949. The real question to ask as a result of these politically damaging developments is what will be the hole left if Stevens doesn’t win on November 4 AND does not get expelled by the Senate on a possible two-thirds vote that may take place. Despite the fact that Stevens is now a convicted felon, there are no laws that bar such people from serving in Congress.

Steven’s Girdwood, Alaska home (pictured left) was modernized and given updates such as a wine cellar, wrap around porches, and a hot tub in 2000.

Pending legislation highlights

Currently Senator Stevens has 29 sponsored bills that are in the committee phase. The bill topics have a wide spectrum, ranging from fuel economy and ocean exploration teams to prevention of child pornography. There are 3 major topics of interest that appear to be the most likely devastated the fastest if Stevens does indeed get booted out (whether by voters, the judicial system, or the Senate). In terms of pending legislation, they include telecommunications, oil/energy efficiency/fuel economy standards, and child pornography prevention.

Telecommunications

Stevens has made considerable progress in the area of internet, network neutrality, and the internet in such a way that should shock most readers simply because of his age. Among his greatest achievement was the Communications, Consumer’s Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 – an effort assisted by North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan. The act reorganized and cleaned up various provisions by law, including the Federal Radio Act of 1927. Similarly, Dorgan is currently supporting Steven’s S.2919, which seeks to amend the same act to increase compliance with industry standards and ensure that modernization is transitioned within the bill due to the increasing use of telecommunications services. The bill’s official goal is “To promote the accurate transmission of network traffic identification information.” Stevens has been serving long enough that it is safe to say that he is, all factors considered, the most experienced senator working towards telecommunications compliance and provider standards.

Oil/Energy efficiency/fuel economy standards

Currently Ted has 5 pending sponsored bills that fall under this category. Being so close to some of the richest oil fields (and ANWR) black gold is something he is very used to addressing on a daily basis. Ted has one of the most seasoned records in Congress in terms of oil, experiencing the challenges the US has faced with OPEC, the introduction of the foreign-policy shaping Carter Doctrine, and all of the developments up until the highest prices experienced yet by Americans. The 5 pending bills include a resolution directing the Secretary of Energy to develop standards for efficient lighting, a 23 page to tighten Federal agency energy use, a bill to provide tax credits for new buildings that utilize incandescent lamps, increased CAFÉ standards, and a bill that prohibits price gouging by gasoline merchants during market disruptions.

Child pornography prevention

The first of the 2 bills Stevens is sponsoring runs along the same vein as S.2919, amending the Communications Act of 1934, but aims to “prevent the carriage of child pornography by video service providers…and to restrict the sale or purchase of children’s personal information in interstate commerce. So far his effort in this particular proposal is not being co-sponsored by anyone else, however S.1965, Bill’s second proposal, has gained momentum garnering 20 supporters thus far.

S.1965 was received in the House last June and outlines a comprehensive plan to promote a “safe internet for children”. The bill’s highlights include directing the FTC to carry a nationwide program to increase awareness and education against child pornography, direction the government to evaluate industry standards and efforts, and to yet again amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require elementary schools with internet access to educate their students about safe online behavior.

Other bills of interest

Senator Stevens’ efforts affect many other areas of public policy, ranging from a proposal to assure compliance with basic standards for ATV vehicles to directing the Secretary of Agriculture to establish an avalanche protection program that increases education and forecasting capabilities. One surprising bill displays his eco-friendly(?) side, establishing a coordinated national ocean exploration program that serves as an addition to a bill aiming to limit whaling in US waters (S.3333).

Theodore Fulton Stevens truly has a lot to bring to the table for the future if his recent conviction does not stop in him dead in his tracks. According to what he demonstrated in the court room and the amount of intensity he claims his innocence, it appears that he is dedicated to let nothing stop him in his efforts for public policy reforms. To see a complete list of his pending legislation, click here.

Author: Jared Fallon

With less than a week until the election we thought it would be apropos to delve into the one hobby both presidential candidates will have in common no matter who ends up taking the title: drinking. Most people think that without alcohol politics simply would not be the same, and after review of some of the most powerful political leaders of our time I would have a hard time agreeing. Below you can some of the best videos of intoxicated presidents doing what they do best, making decisions for the rest of us that impact the world. Take a few minutes out of your day and revisit some of the possible causes for some of the world’s greatest problems, and make sure to stay up-to-date on the upcoming election.

President George W. Bush

Back in 1992 when President Bush didn’t need to worry about the future of the United States he  seemed like he was used to having a little bit too much fun, “Only in America, only in America.”

Select quotes:

“Only in America, only in America would a couple like that be allowed to unite, beautiful people yes…”

“Very boring person. Hates to drink, doesn’t like to smoke.”

“Only in America can a guy like him even find work”

“Only in America would anybody call her mom.”

Despite the fact that President Bush is often blamed for being drunk in the White House during most of his two-term administration, apparently there are times where even the best cowboys need to relax a little bit. Perhaps this shouldn’t have happened before a press conference on war in Iraq.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy

It appears that lunch with Mr. Putin might include one of Russia’s historically favored pastimes – vodka. This clip is from the latest G8 summit, showcasing French President Sarkozy’s press conference introduction.

Former Russian President Boris Yeltsin

Boris Yeltsin has got to go down in history as one of the most memorable politicians the world has ever seen. As the Cold War came to an end and the former Soviet Union found itself in need of serious recovery Mr. Yeltsin found himself in charge, with an excess of vodka cases for his enjoyment. The reality is a little scary, however, when one realizes old Boris was in charge of a stockpile of nuclear weapons – and Russia was still a major global player none-the-less. 

Apparently he also had a special talent for press conferences (starting to see a pattern here?)…

The videos honoring Mr. Yeltsin never end; here is a 2 minute recap of his legendary presidency. Perhaps we will never see another Boris Yeltsin again, but one thing is certain: no president will ever be able to cut a rug as well as him.

State Surge: How do you keep up?

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: Sara Hilbert

For many years, both parties have focused their energies to work towards building free-market capitalism. More recently, larger companies and taxpayers alike seem to be more receptive to government regulation. With the scare of the current market situation, opinions dramatically swing, my advice, think carefully. Some bills are engaging those fears to gain re-regulation rights. I will say it again: think carefully.

The aviation de-regulation era began when Carter signed the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 with one goal in mind: less regulation, more growth. This one act rippled through many other sectors including energy, trucking, telecommunications, and financial services. Now we are entering the era of re-regulation. There are several pending proposals on the table that demonstrate this but, again, aviation started it all.

The Aviation Investment and Moderation Act of 2008, S.2972 is under chief sponsored by Senator Kay Hutchison (R-TX). The senator feels that pulling back the reigns of these companies will force airlines to focus on the customer service and economic impact of its surroundings, instead of consolidation of companies. Introduced to congress 2007, the committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has it under review.

S.2972 would reinstate the supervision of the Federal Aviation Administration, who will then add use their research and development plans to increase airport planning, decrease noise, and negative environmental output. This plan would put a spotlight on developing plans to provide passengers with necessities when undergoing a substantially delayed flight departure by giving clearer timeframes for delays. In addition, it would give consumers the option to deplane for a three-hour period delay and would require air carriers to publish and update monthly on its website a list of chronically delayed and canceled flights prior to the customer purchasing an airline ticket. It also would attempt to make Afghanistan-Iraq war veterans eligible for the veteran’s hiring improvement project, like construction parking pads for mobile re-fuelers.

This bill requires a minimum discretionary funding level of $520 million for airport improvement programs per fiscal year. The government will also share in almost the entire cost for an airport improvement projects at a medium hub airports. Other funding will come from Passenger facility charge. Others bills that are very similar are S.1300 The Aviation Investment and Moderation Act of 2007 and H.R.2881 FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007. Both of which reinstate the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration.

A better solution would be a little innovation and an adjustment of internal management. Let us remember Southwest Airlines in the early 2000’s. A powerful example of employee relations and out of the box thinking that took the company off the ground when competitors were folding; they were one of the only airlines that made a profit. Perhaps instead of giving regulation a second chance with the airlines the companies at hand should try to embrace the “Southwest Spirit.” When de-regulation began, the airlines lowered airfare and improved their services. As with any industry, it experiences highs and lows, but in general, de-regulation has shown real progress.

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.

Author: Jared Fallon

Concerns originally unique only during the Cold War are being renewed among rising Russian activity with its prime South American ally. Russia has again stepped up its presence as a significant player in the region by announcing a new $1 billion military loan package, improved oil trade agreements, and a November commitment for joint military exercises, paired with an expected 1,000 troops and 4 warships with Venezuela. These statements were released only days after Moscow declared its plans to upgrade its nuclear tactics, military efficiency, new concepts for artillery and a new space defense system by 2020. Russia continues to make its presence as a major player known and clearly is telling the world it is ready to once again balance the United State’s global presence.

The degree of reaction from the US is still being determined. With current financial crisis distractions looming this is not the only affair the US has showed a slow response time with. There thus far has not been very much activity on Chavez’s developing relationships with Cuba, Iran and China – the latter reporting a plan to assist Venezuela put a communications satellite in action by the end of the year. Thus far the only major concern publicized outside of Condoleezza Rice’s predictable press releases is Thaddeus G. McCotter’s (R-MI) H.R.1510 “Considering the Russian military deployments in the Western Hemisphere as reckless, provocative, and in violation of the Monroe Doctrine.” McCotter’s hegemonic proposal should be of no surprise when considering his faithful support for US intentions in the War in Iraq.

The interesting point of his plan is whether or not such an antiqued foreign security policy will provide strong enough grounds for the US to take action. The 1823 Monroe Doctrine was initially proposed in order to prevent European countries from taking newly established independent countries as new colonies, thereby aiding in stability within the American region. More recently it has been applied to Russian affairs in Latin America during the Cold War (sound familiar?), the Iran-Contra affair, and various other challenges with El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.

Will Russia’s recent announcements spark US interest of creating a new doctrine – one that seeks to address multilateral agreements within Latin and South American countries (its failing backyard region) and Europe? Will Russia continue to pursue military efforts on the border of America at any cost? If a new policy were to be proposed the US would have a very hard time defending its stance on its lack of appreciation for Russian/Venezuelan involvement. Yet, the US needs to adapt its Latin and South American strategies and get more of a grip on reality. Somehow it is extremely unlikely that a doctrine from 185 years ago is going to make any significant strides for America’s policy towards Russia and our southern neighbors. 

Author: Jared Fallon

For a presidential candidate running on the one-word campaign of “change”, Senator Obama has made some very disappointing choices, among which was choosing the 6^th longest running Senator in US history as his running mate. His disappointments most certainly extend to his clearly inexperienced and depth-lacking approach to foreign policy, as if the Democratic Party is immune to international conflict due to the past Republican President’s publicly unpopular war efforts. The serious of flip-flopping stances on Iran that Obama has taken certainly warrant a closer look into his stance on Iran and the questions that are raised in comparing his shifting opinions.

Seeing how Barack has only served in the Senate since 2004 the 5^th black US Senator has not had to truly take interest in US-Iran affairs until recently. His first stance paints a very different picture contrary to the “all diplomacy and no fight” approach he pairs with his charismatic smiles with on a daily basis. In an interview on October 1, 2004, as the highly anticipated 13^th District Illinois Senatorial race was coming to a close, the Chicago Tribune came across startling findings. The soon to be Senator was quoted declaring he would support the use of “surgical” missile strikes against Iran if it didn’t follow Washington’s demands for the abandonment of its nuclear program. “The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?”

The interview’s overall discoveries point to a less aggressive tone that Obama sticks so closely today, beginning with his personal investment pressure bill he introduced in May 17, 2007. S.1430, the bill he references in most interviews and debates covering Iran, aims to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to publish a roster of people that have made an investment totaling over $20 million in the energy sector within the country. The bill is 1of 71 that Obama has sponsored throughout the duration of his Senatorial career. The second most popular stance for Obama to take on Iran is that of economic sanctions – an option that hoards of UN failures and soured Cuban/Russian/US relations can be traced back to. But the real flip-flop that Senator Obama made was over a series of comments at a speech in Pendleton, Oregon on March 19, 2008.

“They (Iran) don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. (Naive are those people who believed that nuclear weapons have the potential to level the playing field in conflicts) If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance.” After comparing this to Obama’s previous support of missile use towards Iran, one should question whether or not the missile tactic approach was just for fun or if for some reason Iran poses a far less serious threat than it did four years later, despite the President’s determination to have Israel “wiped off the map” and its proud leveraging influence it has used on the international stage with its nuclear capabilities.

Lastly, if one were to follow Obama’s most recent rhetoric on Bush/Cheney’s lack of “principled democracy” and diplomatic negotiations, why would economic sanctions truly help? This sort of hard-line policy does a great job in providing a president’s people with renewed fire against an external force, leaving the population only with more reasons for wanting less talk (that Obama is overwhelmingly in favor of) and more action on the part for change that translates into economic policies that the people decide, not the external force that exerted the rough economic times in the first place. Whether or not one believes Iran’s nuclear program is far less threatening than the former Soviet’s, one cannot support the notion of enraging the people of a nation with a nuclear arsenal, expecting engagement to purely provide a solution. Iran has teeth, and whether or not Obama believes it would be good to fight back with tongue or not, he needs to choose a more definitive policy on Iran, especially considering its increasing nuclear might.

The bill S.3297 should go down in history books as one of the most comprehensively vague bills ever proposed. The bill’s official description alone should raise red flags around the nation: “A bill to advance America’s priorities”. The bill was first proposed by Harry Reid and currently has 7 co-sponsors, including the heavy hitters Edward Kennedy, Joseph Lieberman, and Joe Biden. The sheer amount of topics covered by this bill should be enough for months of debate on end and yet the bills progress is moving quite rapidly despite the fact that it was introduced only two months ago.

Topics covered in the staggering 400 page proposal include increased Lou Gehrig’s Disease research and funding, the establishment of national paralysis programs, increased Secretary of Health and Human Service controls for vision care for children, Homeless Youth Act reforms, increased jurisdiction for the DOJ’s authority for child pornography investigation and prosecution, the establishment of the Star-Spangled Banner and War of 1812 commemoration, amendments to the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 (waterway regulation), increased funding for various Appalachian regional development programs, amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the authorization of funding over a 10-year period for “capital and prevent maintenance projects for the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area Transit Authority”…..the list goes ON and ON, and no bill to “Advance America’s priorities” should ever go without the establishment of a national ocean exploration and underseas research program with the NOAA. In order to truly appreciate the depth and breadth of this proposal you’ve got to see it for yourself.

Proposals like this are so power-packed with so many big supporters that one must question how many favors and friends are being satisfied in only 400 pages – these legislators truly are good friends to have. There is no implication here that any of these legislators are necessarily trying to propose all of these reforms unnoticed, but why does more transparency not exist? Chances are you’ve never heard of this proposal before reading this posting, but if you have ever heard of the Smithsonian, the Holocaust, the Great Lakes, the Department of Justice, the Star-Spangled Banner or debates on child pornography, this bill might be for you. Also, one of the upsides about this bill is if you have any other interests or hobbies not affected by the text above chances are you can find it here. Don’t take this posting’s word for it, please do check the proposal out for yourself and truly grasp the close relationship of vagueness and politics.

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.

Author: Crystal Fontaine

In less than a century, people advanced from horses and carriages to automobiles and airplanes. The turn of the century brought about a technological explosion with advancements emerging in every direction as demand for more efficient and swifter ways of doing things increased exponentially. Computers arrived with the internet not far behind, providing more fruitful ways to communicate across the boarder and file documents.

Unfortunately, Governor Palin does not show much of an opinion concerning the issue of technology and the internet. Perhaps it is not exactly high up on her priority list. As Governor, Sarah Palin record comes up short of incorporating any kind of technological policies. Nevertheless, Governor Palin has taken advantage of the internet some by creating an online training program for the workforce. The program, Alaska Career Ready, gives users the capacity to take a set of surveys to discover what abilities they have or may need for an assortment of preferred jobs. In addition, these users may select online courses for developing weak or under-skilled areas. This program allows for a faster and more efficient way for workers to evaluate their own skills and it provides a way to help them improve weaker areas. Despite these details, however, Governor Palin has not really taken any initiative on broadband policy. Unfortunately, Alaskans connect at a slow rate. She has also helped Alaskan residents’ access affordable healthcare through the Alaska Health Care Transparency Act. The act provides tele-medicine and tele-health initiatives that provide care to Alaska’s most remote residents. According to Palin, it is vital to the economy to improve and expand more efficient transportation.

Senator Joe Biden looks to have taken a bit more interest on the subject. Biden is a supporter of clean technology, co-sponsoring the Senate Bill 1177. The legislation would amend the Clean Air Act to establish a nationwide uniform air pollutant rigid program for the electric generating zone. In a 2006 hearing, Biden proved to be a skeptic of net neutrality as he questioned the need for preventative measures when no evidence presented itself. He believes that if everyone who felt those rights were being violated and were given a hearing, it would be impossible to handle every case. Senator Biden is also a strong supporter of copyright. In 2002, he asked the Justice Department to take a harsher position on copyright violation. A noteworthy effort on Biden’s part is the PROTECT Act of 2003, which made it a felony to forge keys to use for counterfeit software or to operate unauthorized computer programs. He also co-founded and co-chaired the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus. Other noteworthy legislation on Biden’s repertoire includes S.1738 and S.223. Biden sponsored Senate Bill S.1738 to increase resources for regional computer forensic labs, among other things. S. 223, which he co-sponsored, requires senate candidates to file designations, reports, and statements in electronic form. Senator Biden was also a challenger of the FISA reform bill, strongly opposing warentless wiretapping.

On one hand, we have the fresh face of Sarah Palin, who seems more concerned about oil than technological and internet issues. On the other hand, there is the well-known face of Senator Biden, who seems to have realized the importance of these issues. Who will have your vote?

Session after session politicians continually craft new ways to get more control on the last free media frontier we have – the internet. The latest bill to pass is the worst one to come along this congressional session. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) S.3325 states its reason for existence is to “enhance remedies for violations of intellectual property laws and for other purposes”. It’s the “other purposes” that should have people concerned.

Among the bills’ 63 pages includes the creation of “Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator” – an Internet Czar empowered to help the government sue for copyright infringement. The actual bill text states that the main goals of the act are to “enhance the efficiency and consistency” with Federal Funds in order to “enforce, investigate, or prosecute intellectual property crimes”. Consistent efficiency should never be valued above free, unrestricted journalism but as we all know, money talks. The supporters of the bill from the private sector include a handful of Hollywood personnel, the recording industry, various labor unions and the US Chamber of Commerce. On the con side we find hosts of freelance journalists and groups such as Public Knowledge, a Washington DC public interest group working to defend the future of the media frontier.

Other related pending legislation that also should be tracked includes H.R.4279 and S.522. The first seeks to create an IP Dictator at the Department of Justice while the latter aims to further increase intellectual property rights enforcement. For the most up-to-date information available on the web for this and other pending policies click here.

It will be interesting to see how this policy not only affects the future of current copyright infringement laws but future proposed legislation as well. To those spreading the word and maintaining dialogue out there don’t give up, this is an uphill war that just lost a battle.

Can the US keep up with China’s recent progress? No doubt America’s interest and funding in space programs are not as strong as the days of the Apollo Project, but where does America currently stand? For the most part, it appears that the overall US strategy is in trying to expand its support of science and math programs through education while improving general interest among the public for aerospace R&D. This direction appears to stems from the culturally different approaches the youth of the US and China are growing through. Around the time of America’s first space-walk NASA was in their prime in both funding initiatives and public support for the race to the moon – a unifying momentum that has no rival in present times. In terms of youth and education, the US is severely falling behind that of its rivals while China seems to be improving by leaps and bounds, driven by a popular urge on behalf of Chinese students to become the next Bill Gates. In contrast, the average US youth now seems more consumed with becoming the next pop icon than trying to pursue a career in nuclear engineering or physics.

Legislators around the nation are trying to remedy this situation from a ground-up approach by pursuing greater education opportunities in math and the sciences. Proposals include the massive 134 page H.R. 2272, a bill “To invest in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United States.” This bill, much like several other pending proposals, outlines a comprehensive plan that includes coordinated efforts by NASA, The National Institute of Standards and Technology, The Department of Energy, and other agencies in order to build momentum and public support for greater space initiatives. In addition, H.R.6063 – the authorization of “the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration” – lists a very detailed approach for NASA’s future. Both bills are currently being debated and will greatly impact the future of American aeronautics if either is passed. For other aerospace-related bills, click here.

Author: Jared Fallon

Thou shall not run very far if Tim Mahoney’s (D-FL) newest legislation to attempt to “strengthen procedures regarding detention and removal of aliens” is passed. The Federal Representative’s H.R. 6843 was just referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on September 9, 2008 and contains several clear, but bold provisions regarding America’s legally confused illegal situation. One of the most pointed sections of the proposed legislation allows the Secretary of Homeland Security the ability to “detain an alien beyond the 90-day period authorized…if the Secretary determines that there is a significant likelihood that the alien will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future;” Does this text ring a bell concerning past legislation in any way?

It could very well remind people of the equally government power substantiating Patriot Act that allows for the same sort of unchecked government action in regards to detainment. These sorts of policies allow for an increasingly greater amount of unquestioned control to be given to the government if enough reason is “determined” by government officials. H.R.6843 mirrors the Patriot Act in more ways than one. When reading through the proposed bill terms such as if “there is reason to believe that the release of the alien would threaten the national security of the United States;” and “that the release of the alien would likely have serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States;” can be found in abundance. Is this the sort of hard-line policies that America wants to help tackle our growing illegal alien situation? To see the official text or to find updates about this bill follow this link.

Author: Kristin Cox

Everyone knows about the crazy never-ending controversy between evolutionists and creationists. Obviously, creationists believe in a creator, a being bigger than themselves that they cannot understand who made the world and everything in it. Evolutionists stand on the objective side, claiming science as their defense, arguing that we have evolved from primitive living organisms. Perhaps after enduring the debate you may question, is that absolutely all there is? Is there no middle ground – no alternative thinking? The answer is a resounding “no”. There are many who make their stand upon the base of something else called intelligent design. Intelligent design refers to a different kind of scientific research program consisting of philosophers, researchers, and all kinds various scientists who are out to prove design in nature. It does not emphasize natural selection, rather it puts the spotlight on an intelligent cause. So how does all of this connect with the profound world of politics? Where do our future leaders of the US stand on this pressing issue? Astoundingly when the question arose in the first Republican presidential debate about whether or not anyone present believed in evolution, only three raised their hands against the theory. Perhaps this is not true evidence of the opinions of our politicians, but rather a confirmation that many are playing it safe when asked about something so highly controversial. All three of the ones who raised their hands at the debate dropped out of the election.

When asked by the York Daily Record about evolutionism vs. creationism Barack Obama answered that he is an evolutionist and expressed his opinion that science and faith are two very different things, and should be treated as such. John McCain is also an evolution supporter. When asked about his views, he stated his belief in evolution, but also his respect for those who can say boldly that the earth was created in 7 days. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is a creationist. She is also firm in her beliefs.

It is important to know our leaders’ value systems and crucial for them to be leaders who are not afraid to state what they believe in. This topic of evolution is widely discussed in our society, and therefore plays a significant role in who we are as a public. As an active democracy, US politicians obviously concerned with public interest. And one thing the public are wildly interested in as of recent is a new game called “Spore.” This trendy online game has exploded into the hands of the public, allowing the player to control the evolution of species from its unicellular state, allowing the player to serve as an intelligent designer. This game officially came out in the United States on September 7^th and has been extremely popular, occupying the computers of people all over the world. It is exceedingly advertised, strongly recommended, and in high demand. Obviously the debate on evolution is a popular one; it is something that triggers interest in the human mind! For this reason this disputed topic cannot be ignored in politics.

For information about legislative bills concerning scientific and technological education capabilities, click here.

The House Committee on Financial Services is currently reviewing H.R.6864, a proposal to “prohibit golden parachute payments for former executives and directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” The bill is being sponsored by Steve King (R-IA) and already has 27 cosponsors – a significant number due to the fact that the bill was first introduced in the House on September 10. It will be interesting to see how this plays out and what tactics the politically-charged former directors and executives will utilize. The power packed political influence the members have is alarming, ranging from the former Secretary of the Senate to the former director of the FBI under President Clinton’s administration.

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/internet-patriot-act http://www.statesurge.com/news/internet-patriot-act#comments Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:30:03 +0000 admin http://www.statesurge.com/news/?p=81 The words we have all feared for so long are increasingly becoming a reality day after day. As forewarned at the 08 Fortune's Brainstorm Tech conference by Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, "There's going to be an i-9/11 event which will act as a catalyst for a radical reworking of the law pertaining to the internet". Change is in the wind, and several key legislators are busier than ever thinking of new ways on how to use legislation as a tool to regulate the only true free frontier for media we have left.]]>

Author: Jared Fallon

The words we have all feared for so long are increasingly becoming a reality day after day. As forewarned at the 08 Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference by Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, “There’s going to be an i-9/11 event which will act as a catalyst for a radical reworking of the law pertaining to the internet”. Change is in the wind, and several key legislators are busier than ever thinking of new ways on how to use legislation as a tool to regulate the only true free frontier for media we have left.

At the time being, the two main federal bills to keep an eye on are: H.R.4279 and S.522. The first, sponsored by John Conyers Jr., (D-MI), would create an IP Dictator at the Department of Justice while attempting to “enhance remedies for violations of intellectual property laws, and for other purposes.”  S.522, on the other hand, is one of Evan Bayh’s (D-IN) bills and clearly only keeps the best of all of our mutual interests in mind by improving “…the effectiveness of domestic and international intellectual property rights enforcement…”.  It is no coincidence that both of these congressmen have sponsored several bills together and have many friends of reciprocity. More dialogue must be created about these bills for the future of the internet and free media as we know it.