Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think I just might hate H.R. 254…

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arguments abound – see what proponents of AB390 are saying!

For reader comments, click here.

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

Video: 95% of Americans Want Marijuana Legalized 

 

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

Welcome back.  Now that you’re all up to date on the Democratic Carnahan clan, let’s go over the other controlling force in Missouri; the Republican Blunts.

To be perfectly honest, it wasn’t easy to find information on the Blunts. Most of the information obviously surrounded Matt and Roy.  However, the family’s political history goes back much further than Roy. So here’s what information is available on the power-house family’s early days.

Despite the many websites viewed in order to gather information on Leroy Blunt, none of the information provided dates for Leroy Blunt’s political career. We do know however, that Roy Blunt’s father was a Missouri State Legislator. Prior to serving as a state legislator, Blunt’s father, Leroy, was a member of school and city councils. Roy learned about politics and getting involved in the community from his father and later when on to pass whatever message his father gave him onto his kids.

Roy Blunt’s political history, because it’s still going on, is easier to track than his father’s.  Roy Blunt’s political journey began in 1973 as the Greene County Clerk.  Then in 1984 Roy was elected as Missouri’s Secretary of State.  After serving as Missouri’s Secretary of State, Roy returned to his education background and served as president to his alma mater Southwest Baptist University. He returned to politics in 1996 when he was elected to the United States Congress.  Roy is still serving in Congress today and recently announced his plan to run to fill Kit Bond’s seat in the U.S. Senate. He will be running against Robin Carnahan is the ultimate Missouri power family showdown.

Like the Carnahan family, two generations of politicians just didn’t seem to be enough.  So Matt Blunt set out to continue his family’s political legacy.  Matt Blunt’s political career began as a state rep. for Greene County, and was later elected Secretary of the State of Missouri.  After his stint as Secretary of State he became Governor of the state of Missouri at the age of 33.  He was the second youngest governor ever elected in the United States.  Matt chose not to run for reelection in the 2008 election.

In addition to Matt, Roy Blunt’s other children also have their hands in politics.  Both Andy and Amy work as lobbyist in D.C., and there’s much speculation that they too will one day run for public office.

So, needless to say, the Blunt family isn’t going to disappear any time soon.  With Roy Blunt’s recent announcement that he will be running to fill Kit Bond’s (R-District 7) Senate Seat, their hold in Missouri is as strong as ever.  Though Missourians may be feeling a need for a change of pace, it’s not likely.

So who will fill the much desired seat?  Will it be Robin Carnahan, from the Democratic power family, or Roy Blunt, the Republican from an equally influential clan?  One thing’s for sure, this is going to be one hot race.  

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: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slaughter, who do you think you’re kidding? 

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: 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: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Preemptive Fairness Doctrine Initiative

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

Features include: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also See:

Slideshow: Lithuania in Pictures

Lithuania: Fast Facts and Hot Legislation

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Sarah Riordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: 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.