The last major legislation passed regarding immigration on a national scale was in 1996. With the economy, health care reform (which mind you affects everyone, not just immigrants), possible withdrawal from Iraq, and many other hot topics; one can only imagine the pressure our President faces. The last law passed limiting the number of immigrants was in 1990. On that note, my colleague’s article But Is It Right? suggests that Obama’s announcement to push back immigration legislation was a bad move.
However, I disagree. If Obama chooses to address general topics such as the economy and health care reform first, I believe it is in the best interest of the nation. Not only this, but the President has encouraged Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano to meet with lawmakers to hammer out the issues with immigration reform. Therefore in truth, immigration reform isn’t on hold, or pushed back. Instead the President is taking a logical approach, attempting to avoid a partisan standstill in the House and Senate. If the legislature is able to form a reform bill by the end of this year, and the bill is presented in 2010 with a viable chance of success, then the President has done better than those in the past thirteen years. If Obama encouraged a bill now without taking precautions, it has been said that “another failed effort could doom chances for a generation.”
This being said, immigration reform has not come to a halt. It is moving forward at the proper pace, making success plausible. The President has proven he is able to multitask, encouraging others to take the lead when he cannot. In this way, immigration reform will not continue to move backwards, but push through the legislature without the struggle of partisanship and full-on resistance.
While the Cash for Clunkers, or CARS program officially started on July 1st, it was not until July 24th that claims were processed due to changes in rules. In less than a week most of the $1 billion dollars allocated to the program was almost gone. On August 6th, Congress agreed to fund the program another $2 billion dollars to keep the program running until its official end date of November 1st. And while right now the program is stimulating car sales and encouraging “would-be buyers out of the woodwork,” is the program really doing anything long-term for the economy, the auto industry, or for the people?
With an average rebate of $4,000, Cash for Clunkers provides the incentive some people need to get out there and buy a more fuel-efficient environmentally friendly car. But what does happen to those old cars that get less than 18 miles to the gallon? One of the conditions of the programis that the car is in working condition. Well the government first “requires the engine, transmission and other drive train components to be destroyed so they can’t be reused and continue to pollute the air and burn excessive amounts of fuel.” Then other parts are salvaged and the rest of the car is turned into scrap metal. So we have taken a working vehicle and recycled a small part of it. However, what the Cash for Clunkers program doesn’t consider is those who cannot afford to buy a working vehicle in the first place.
If the government is paying an individual at most $4,500 for a vehicle, you would think that someone else from a low income family could in turn pay $3,500-4,500 for the same working vehicle. While for the middle class citizen this car may be considered a “clunker,” for a low-income family it could mean reliable transportation—it’s even possible that the proposed clunked could get better miles to the gallon than most cars the family could afford. And this dependable form of transportation could lead to a better job, and in turn the family could move up into the middle class, in which case they could turn in their “clunker” for an even better car. I understand the idea was to “clean up the air,” but I do not believe all working vehicles under 25 years old should just be trashed. A range could be placed on the mile per gallon for the cars resold, for example 12 to 18 miles per gallon. Even if an individual switches from a 10 mile per gallon vehicle to a 12 mile per gallon vehicle (with an average driving distance of 15,000 miles per year), the individual could save approximately 250 gallons of gas. In this way, the program could stop penalizing the lower class, lighten the load on tax payers, and continue to stimulate the economy.
I agree that the legalization or at least decriminalization of marijuana is a sound proposition. In my colleague’s post, Enlighten Me., this issue is discussed. It is estimated that the national U.S. government spends approximately $7.6 billion a year on the enforcement of marijuana laws. In a time of economic hardship, this money could easily be redistributed to a more noble cause. On a state level, Jeffrey A. Miron of MIT estimated that the state of Massachusetts would save approximately $120.6 million a year on police enforcement, court costs, and correction. Once again, our country has better things to do with this money, like perhaps providing proper health care to its citizens. The author of Enlighten Me. also addresses the fact that although most claim marijuana has adverse health effects, no unbiased research has been done to prove these claims. However, most “say no to drugs” sites list the harmful effects of marijuana similar to those as cigarettes or alcohol, both of which are legal. But as the author continues his discussion, the topic changes from the legalization of marijuana to the legalization of a wide array of drugs. It is with these opinions that I must disagree.
Yes, it is true, the decriminalization of a handful drugs in Portugal has decreased the number of street overdose deaths and the number of cases of HIV associated with drug use dropped drastically. However, no information has been provided about the amount of actual use of drugs, and whether or not the drug trade has improved due to the decriminalization. In fact, the drop in HIV cases simply suggests that clean needles should be provided, not that the drugs themselves need to be decriminalized. Therefore, I believe the decriminalization of drugs such as cocaine, LSD, and heroin would not only shock America into terror, but cause more problems than it solved. I think the decriminalization of drugs such as cocaine would encourage individuals to try the drug, just that once, because the stakes were no longer so high. The truth of the matter is, in 2004, cocaine was involved in over 380,000 emergency room visits. Heroin accounted for another 160,000 emergency room visits in the same year. And these were only the reported ones.
In conclusion, the decriminalization of marijuana would save the government billions of dollars a year. In turn, the legalization and taxation of marijuana would bring in billions of revenue dollars a year. In a study Jon Gettman, marijuana is the number one cash crop in the United States, with an average worth of $35.8 billion from 2003-2005. It tops not only soy beans, wheat, cotton, and other staple crops—but corn as well. However, I believe the decriminalization of other drugs such as cocaine would encourage casual drug use and new problems.
Since the beginning of 2009, two states have passed bills or upheld court rulings legalizing gay marriage. In the United States, there are currently six states that have passed legislation allowing some form of same-sex marriage. Twenty-eight states have passed laws specifically prohibiting gay marriage. On the other hand, in the European Union there are fourteen countries that allow some type of civil union or same-sex marriage out of the twenty-seven total. While equal rights activists support the growing trend of legalization, there are still many conservative or religious groups that adamantly oppose the idea of same-sex marriage. Their arguments stem from the idea that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. However, does the government really have the right to decide what marriage is defined as (in regards to human race, at least)?
Gay equal rights took center stage in 2004 when President Bush announced his support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man in a woman. Gay rights was not a major issue in the 2008 presidential election, taking the back seat to more pressing issues such as the economy and the handling of the Iraq war. However, moving into 2009, gay rights once again rose to the surface in April when Iowa upheld citizens’ right to same-sex marriage. A state court rejected the state law that banned gay marriage to begin with. New Hampshire recently followed suit by passing a same-sex marriage bill in June. Most recently, the state of Massachusetts sued the U.S. government stating that DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), passed in 1996, violated equal rights. The state of Massachusetts claims that the act prevents the state from “[defining] and [regulating] marriage as it sees fit.” The state also declares that this act requires the state to violate citizen’s rights by treating homosexual couples differently than heterosexual couples in matters such as Medicaid.
Overall, the allocations against gay marriage are numbered. However, the truth of the matter is that by preventing gay marriage, the government is infringing on the rights of citizens. Just as stated in the law suit against the U.S. government by Massachusetts, Congress “overstepped its authority” creating an “overreaching and discriminatory federal law.” Although the act was passed thirteen years ago, there is a reason that now it is being challenged. As the rest of the world changes to give rights to homosexuals, the U.S. will eventually have to change with it. Whether conservatives and religious groups like it or not, it is the right of an individual to be able to share their legal rights with whomever they choose. Same-sex couples need to be able to have joint taxes, property, and the like. Without these rights, heterosexual couples are treated better than homosexual couples from a government standpoint. As in the past, the government must change its laws to allow for equality amongst all its citizens, straight or gay.
David Sirota is a two-time New York Times bestselling author. He is also a weekly syndicated columnist whose column circulates to over 1.6 million readers daily. Sirota is currently writing his third book (his other two books are titled The Uprising and Hostile Takeover) which describes the interaction of politics and popular media such as movies and television. Not only is Sirota full-time journalist and bestselling author, but he is also a blogger. His blog posts can be found on The Huffington Post, The Smirking Chimp, and OpenLeft.com. Sirota has also appeared regularly on both television and radio for programs such as CNN Newsroom, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show, and various shows on NPR. If this isn’t credit enough, he is also been named “best columnist” in 2008 and 2009 by 5280 magazine, and ranks 38th on Mediaite.com’s annual list of most influential columnists in the United States. Though by some he is considered critical and slightly populist, Sirota has a strong following of both his column and blog.
In David Sirota’s most recent blog post (posted on July 25, 2009), he elaborates on his own column, titled "1-percenters launch attack on health care" and published on July 24th. His column describes the three main factions of change-resistant politicians in Washington D.C. As one of the only political reporters not residing in Washington D.C., Sirota brings a new perspective to the inner workings of politics there. Sirota addresses the three “armies” as the “Land Rover Liberals”, “Corrupt Cowboys”, and “Millionaire Media.” While in his column Sirota only addresses these groups briefly, in his post he addresses them in more depth. Whether the group is extremely wealthy Democrats, Blue-Collar Democrats and Main Street Republicans, or the media supporting them, Sirota expresses the downfall of each, with sources to support each statement. And although sometimes critical of our new president, Sirota supports President Obama’s attempts to overcome the three armies and achieve health care reform. Through his blog, Sirota is able to build upon his widely-read article to address a more specific (and more left) audience.
Because of the location of David Sirota’s blog posts on left sites such as OpenLeft.com, Sirota addresses his more personal opinions towards an audience of left politics. And although some may find him biased, Sirota manages to find support for each and every one of his statements, perhaps making them more fact than fiction.
Charles Blow, the current visual Opinion-Editorial columnist of the New York Times, addresses the issue of the growing force of minorities in elections over the last few years in his article Losing the Races. He particularly targets the Republican Party’s flippant and devil-may-care attitude towards the minority vote. In his career, Charles Blow began as a graphics editor at the Times who quickly rose to the top to become the graphics director. From there he continued to rise, eventually becoming the newspaper’s Design Director for News. In 2006, he left the New York Times to become the Art Director of National Geographic magazine. Charles Blow won several awards during his time at the Times, mainly pertaining to coverage of 9/11 and the Iraq war. Charles Blow also writes his own blog, By the Numbers, which further demonstrates his love to combine the graphic arts with facts and figures. In his columns and blog, Blow uses charts and other figures to further support his opinions. This unique integration of art and fact creates a powerful image of his carefully calculated opinions. With a resume like Charles Blow, one would expect him to be a well qualified and well prepared journalist. In his editorial about the new power of race in elections, he demonstrates his persuasive skills as both a designer and journalist.
Blow begins his article by describing several events of the Young Republicans meeting which occurred last week. He describes racially slanted jokes told by party members, as well as the reckless appointment of woman who has a history of politically incorrect language with regard to race. Blow continues with several other incidents of racial insensitivity including the Republican attacks against Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Blow goes on to bravely state that, “If Republicans buy this ‘who cares’ reasoning, they’re doomed to defeat.” He supports this heavy statement with statistics of not only the growing numbers of Hispanic among other minority voters, but the swing of these voters. Comparing statistics from the 2004 and 2008 presidential election in Florida, Blow concludes that both George W. Bush and John McCain received about the same amount of votes from white voters, but John McCain lost by almost three percent in the state because of the realignment of Hispanic voters. He also uses a chart comparing percentages of non-white voters to demonstrate the growing rate of minority voters, particularly Hispanics. Charles Blow finally concludes that it will “take more than fried chicken and potato salad, or arroz con pollo” for the Republicans to win and keep the minority vote.
Blow’s conclusions are not only meant to heed warning to the Republican Party, but also to inform voters of the Republican Party’s behavior. The G. O. P. continues to contradict itself in the matter of race, often having fickle and sometimes selfish interests in minorities. With the growing number of the Hispanic voting population, the G. O. P. will have to address their conflicting interests and take action to win over the minority votes. Blow’s article is not only informative, but passionate in a personal way since Blow himself is a minority. Over all, this article proves to be knowledgeable and well-supported, displaying his skill for design and expectations of fair politics.
The main argument against health care reform is that it will cause an increase in taxes and an increase in the national debt. However, thousands of uninsured Americans leave the hospital each day without paying, leaving the bill to be paid by the state and national government. This article addresses the bills being currently being pushed forward in Congress in regards to health care reform and regulation. Laura Meckler not only describes the view of the Democrats in Congress who are progressing the bills forward, but also includes important view points from fiscally conservative Democrats who fear the cost of the bills, and the insurance companies who fear the outcome of the bills. Throughout his presidential campaign, President Obama encouraged the idea of increased health care coverage from the national government, but also providing a government health insurance option that increased competitive rates between private providers. Although this still appears to be the ultimate goal, private health care providers argue that new fees imposed on the companies will simply continue to increase the cost of premiums, rather than make the prices more competitive. The fees themselves are meant to fund the new health care program, which is estimated to cost over $1 trillion. This article properly addresses the problem of cost, but also describes the current problems with our health care system. Ultimately Laura Meckler gives a balanced view of the current progression of health care reform in Congress.
Laura Meckler’s article, Democrats Turn Up the Heat on Insurance Industry, can be found in the online version of the Wall Street Journal.
