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.
