It seems that the hits just keep coming for Democrats hoping to keep control of the House and Senate come November elections. I almost am wondering if I can hear Republicans rejoicing already. The latest drama to hit the Democratic camp is Charles B. Rangel and the 13 charges of ethical violations brought against them. Is there any way for Rangel and the Democrats to salvage what is left of their chances to come out on top in November?
The way I look at it, Democrats are already terrified of losing control of the House and the Senate in the upcoming elections, which I think is justifiable. Obama’s decisions to keep pushing through bills that are not directly addressing the issues that are keeping most Americans on the edge of the seats, has begun to allow Conservatives back in the game. The unemployment rate is still rising, and Obama’s apparent incompetence in dealing with the Oil Spill has definitely done him no favors. The issue with Rangel is the next blow, which the Democrats did not need. There have been reports that some Democratic Party officials have asked Rangel to not go to trial with these charges, while others have asked him to resign.
I believe that if the Democrats have any small chance of keeping control of the House then Rangel needs to resign. Regardless of whether or not, in trial, he is cleared of these charges, some people are going to believe that he is a crooked House member. They will begin to not trust any Democrats because of this one man. On top of that, if he is cleared, some people are going to believe that it was Democratic influence and the need to protect themselves that led to Rangel’s innocence. I believe if he doesn’t resign it will only make it infinitely worse for all democrats involved. Obama has already begun to lead the way for a democratic demise, which is evident in his declining approval rating. When he took office, his approval rating was up around 70%, the last number I looked his approval rating had dropped to around 50%. This gave Obama the fastest declining approval rating for a president to date.
If the Democrats want to save seats in both the House and the Senate, first Rangel must resign. This would be the easiest start. Next, Obama obviously needs to change his game plan a little. He needs to start really focusing on the issues that seem to plague and worry the people in our nation. The relations between the Democrats and the Republicans are at dismal point these days, mainly due to the fact that Republicans and Democrats hardly ever agree on anything. Obama needs to refashion his views. Our people need jobs, and the people on the Gulf need help in the aftermath of the great tragedy that took place. We do not, however, need our President looking for ways to pass new bills through that do not even begin to address our largest issues. If Obama and the Democrats do not start listening to the people, then come November they will once again see the majority in the House and Senate shifting towards the Republicans.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Bye Bye Tax Cuts, Bye Bye Democrats?
Democrats and Republicans rarely agree on anything. This is a fact. So really it should come as no surprise that the Democrats and the Obama administration are opposed to extending the Bush tax cuts. However, most journalists and bloggers are beginning to wonder, if by not extending the Bush tax cuts are the Democrats signing their death certificates in November? Are they ignoring the real concerns of the people in this nation? Erik Erickson a blogger on a politically right-leaning blog, decided to write an entry defending the Bush tax cuts and providing evidence as to why the Democrats should be on board to extend them.
According to Erickson, the Bush tax cuts were passed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in response to a recession when they first took office. These tax cuts were Bushs’ version of the Obama stimulus plan. They cut tax rates, increased the child tax credit, increased the standard deduction for married couples, and provided increasing contribution caps for a variety of savings programs. The Obama stimulus plan, Erickson argues, only proceeded to create temporary government jobs while subsidizing the expansion of the government.
After the September 11th terrorist attacks the economy grew at an anemic rate, prompting the passing of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. This act revved up the 2001 tax cuts, by cutting taxes on dividends and capital gains. This led to what was deemed ‘the tax cuts for the rich’, in which the richest 1% began paying almost 40% of all income taxes. But, most importantly, after the 2001 tax cuts the annual growth rate increased from .3% in 01’ to 2.5% in 02’, in 2004 America saw its highest GDP growth rate in 20 years.
Democrats, however, argue that after the 2003 tax cuts Americans saw the lowest unemployment rate since WWII. Erickson, of course, has a response for that. He argues that there are actually many reasons for the collapse. He says that you cannot always believe economists and take what they say as the gospel truth. The economy is not a precise science, there have been and will continue to be upturns and downturns. Also, during that time there were new massive regulations in Sarbanes-Oxley and the continuing infiltration f the government into private lending markets. This forced private lenders to launch risky ventures to stay profitable, which in turn lead to them collapsing in and taking the government with them. The Bush tax cuts actually had nothing to with it, Erickson argues. If the Democrats end the Bush tax cuts, then they are risking making the economy worse and possibly introducing greater uncertainty into the market.
Erickson is obviously appealing this entry to Bush lovers, and Republicans. However, I believe he actually wrote this piece in an effort to sway those individuals who may not have a specific party in which they vote, Independents and/or individuals who typically lean toward the conservative methods of economic policy. He is trying to sway the fence sitters, by providing the best facts about the Bush tax cuts and providing evidence to knock down any potential defect the Democrats may state is present in the Tax cuts themselves. Do I agree? I actually already believed that the Bush tax cuts were a positive reinforcement into our economy. After watching the Stimulus bill crash and burn, I believe that the Democrats should extend these tax cuts. Obama and his administration are hurting the chances for all Democrats in the polls in November, by ignoring the pleas of Americans all around the nation.
According to Erickson, the Bush tax cuts were passed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in response to a recession when they first took office. These tax cuts were Bushs’ version of the Obama stimulus plan. They cut tax rates, increased the child tax credit, increased the standard deduction for married couples, and provided increasing contribution caps for a variety of savings programs. The Obama stimulus plan, Erickson argues, only proceeded to create temporary government jobs while subsidizing the expansion of the government.
After the September 11th terrorist attacks the economy grew at an anemic rate, prompting the passing of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. This act revved up the 2001 tax cuts, by cutting taxes on dividends and capital gains. This led to what was deemed ‘the tax cuts for the rich’, in which the richest 1% began paying almost 40% of all income taxes. But, most importantly, after the 2001 tax cuts the annual growth rate increased from .3% in 01’ to 2.5% in 02’, in 2004 America saw its highest GDP growth rate in 20 years.
Democrats, however, argue that after the 2003 tax cuts Americans saw the lowest unemployment rate since WWII. Erickson, of course, has a response for that. He argues that there are actually many reasons for the collapse. He says that you cannot always believe economists and take what they say as the gospel truth. The economy is not a precise science, there have been and will continue to be upturns and downturns. Also, during that time there were new massive regulations in Sarbanes-Oxley and the continuing infiltration f the government into private lending markets. This forced private lenders to launch risky ventures to stay profitable, which in turn lead to them collapsing in and taking the government with them. The Bush tax cuts actually had nothing to with it, Erickson argues. If the Democrats end the Bush tax cuts, then they are risking making the economy worse and possibly introducing greater uncertainty into the market.
Erickson is obviously appealing this entry to Bush lovers, and Republicans. However, I believe he actually wrote this piece in an effort to sway those individuals who may not have a specific party in which they vote, Independents and/or individuals who typically lean toward the conservative methods of economic policy. He is trying to sway the fence sitters, by providing the best facts about the Bush tax cuts and providing evidence to knock down any potential defect the Democrats may state is present in the Tax cuts themselves. Do I agree? I actually already believed that the Bush tax cuts were a positive reinforcement into our economy. After watching the Stimulus bill crash and burn, I believe that the Democrats should extend these tax cuts. Obama and his administration are hurting the chances for all Democrats in the polls in November, by ignoring the pleas of Americans all around the nation.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Is our Government Humane to Illegal Immigrants?
There are two sides to every story. The story in the United States concerning employment and immigration; however, seems to have many sides. In an article posted on the Austin American Statesman website under the commentary section, Ruben Navarrette Jr. a writer on staff at The San Diego Union-Tribune displays the differing viewpoints of illegal immigrants inside the American work-force. There appears to be great debate amongst Americans social activist groups, as well as immigrant rights groups about whether or not the Obama administration has discovered a more humane approach to removing illegal immigrants from the workforce.
Many immigrant rights groups complained when Obama took office because he spent the first 18 months of his presidency copying the workplace raids which was a method conducted under former President George W. Bush. These raids are wholly detested because they round up illegal immigrants and deport them even at the cost of breaking up families, especially when they are forced to leave their U.S. born children behind. At the root of the problem, however, is the fact that they raids don’t actually deal with problem of illegal immigrants. The companies involved rarely get punished. In order to institute a kinder gentler way of removing the illegal immigrants, the Obama administration now relies on "silent raids." In a silent raid, federal agents conduct audits of company records looking for illegal immigrants. If they are caught then most of the time the business is fined and the employee is fired but not deported.
Navarrette states that many groups do not necessarily agree that the "silent raids" actually work. Conservatives say that it is pointless because the fired illegal workers will just go down the road and find the next job. Liberals are upset because they feel that the government is being too strict and the unemployed workers cannot provide for their families, and Civil Libertarians believe that as word spreads then companies will not hire anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant, thus leading to discrimination of Hispanics.
With that being said, Navarrette agrees that the "silent raids" are a good thing. He says that they lack the drama or detentions and deportations, and they are certainly more humane. The raids attack the problem at exactly the right spot by putting the pressure on the employers, not the illegal immigrants. He says that, yes, the workers will be upset they got fired; however, they broke the law and should not have even been here in the first place. They should not feel entitled to a job. We have enough of these complaints from our own native born workers, and it was those complaints that led to the amount of foreign workers we currently have.
Navarrette’s commentary should be read by all illegal immigrants who feel that they are somehow slighted in our rapidly declining economy. It should also be read by all unemployed Americans who feel they cannot find a job due to the amount or illegal workers. Illegal workers pick up the jobs that unemployed Americans refuse to do because they feel the pay is too small or the work is too great. Unemployed Americans need to realize they are contributing to the increase in foreign workers in our nation. Do I agree with this author? Yes, I do. He makes many valid points. Whether we are illegal immigrants or unemployed Americans, we cannot complain about the lack of jobs. Illegal immigrants should not be here, and Americans should be working any job they need in order to provide for their families.
Many immigrant rights groups complained when Obama took office because he spent the first 18 months of his presidency copying the workplace raids which was a method conducted under former President George W. Bush. These raids are wholly detested because they round up illegal immigrants and deport them even at the cost of breaking up families, especially when they are forced to leave their U.S. born children behind. At the root of the problem, however, is the fact that they raids don’t actually deal with problem of illegal immigrants. The companies involved rarely get punished. In order to institute a kinder gentler way of removing the illegal immigrants, the Obama administration now relies on "silent raids." In a silent raid, federal agents conduct audits of company records looking for illegal immigrants. If they are caught then most of the time the business is fined and the employee is fired but not deported.
Navarrette states that many groups do not necessarily agree that the "silent raids" actually work. Conservatives say that it is pointless because the fired illegal workers will just go down the road and find the next job. Liberals are upset because they feel that the government is being too strict and the unemployed workers cannot provide for their families, and Civil Libertarians believe that as word spreads then companies will not hire anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant, thus leading to discrimination of Hispanics.
With that being said, Navarrette agrees that the "silent raids" are a good thing. He says that they lack the drama or detentions and deportations, and they are certainly more humane. The raids attack the problem at exactly the right spot by putting the pressure on the employers, not the illegal immigrants. He says that, yes, the workers will be upset they got fired; however, they broke the law and should not have even been here in the first place. They should not feel entitled to a job. We have enough of these complaints from our own native born workers, and it was those complaints that led to the amount of foreign workers we currently have.
Navarrette’s commentary should be read by all illegal immigrants who feel that they are somehow slighted in our rapidly declining economy. It should also be read by all unemployed Americans who feel they cannot find a job due to the amount or illegal workers. Illegal workers pick up the jobs that unemployed Americans refuse to do because they feel the pay is too small or the work is too great. Unemployed Americans need to realize they are contributing to the increase in foreign workers in our nation. Do I agree with this author? Yes, I do. He makes many valid points. Whether we are illegal immigrants or unemployed Americans, we cannot complain about the lack of jobs. Illegal immigrants should not be here, and Americans should be working any job they need in order to provide for their families.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Can an Obama Change His Spots?
It should not come as a big surprise to anybody when I say that President Obama is continuing to decrease in popularity polls used to measure how Americans feel about his effectiveness as a president. With the economy in the state it was in before Obama took office, Americans expected immediate solutions. So as I said, really it’s no surprise that his popularity vote is so low. Our economy is still tanking despite the passage of the Stimulus Bill, unemployment is still in double digits, and the oil spill has only served to drop those numbers lower.
It seems, however, that despite the low poll numbers, Obama continues to push forward in his agenda. Could this mean that the Democrats will suffer the consequences from the Obama administration? Currently, the democrats have the majority in the House and the Senate, but this could be about to change come November.
The New York Times article, “Obama Pushes Agenda, Despite Political Risks,” by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, discusses why Obama must scale back in his efforts to continue passing bills that do not deal with the current important issues. The article states that Obama has done exactly what he promised to when he came into office, however, the political situations around him have changed the game. The rising unemployment rate coupled with his competence being questioned in regards to the BP oil spill, have put Conservative Americans back in the game. Obama already had to scale back on some aspects of the energy bill he is trying to pass because relations between the opposing parties are still terrible. It is believed that there is a strong possibility that the Democrats will lose control of the House, the Senate or both. If this does occur then Obama will have to refashion himself as a pragmatist who will have to compromise in exchange for smaller victories.
It seems, however, that despite the low poll numbers, Obama continues to push forward in his agenda. Could this mean that the Democrats will suffer the consequences from the Obama administration? Currently, the democrats have the majority in the House and the Senate, but this could be about to change come November.
The New York Times article, “Obama Pushes Agenda, Despite Political Risks,” by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, discusses why Obama must scale back in his efforts to continue passing bills that do not deal with the current important issues. The article states that Obama has done exactly what he promised to when he came into office, however, the political situations around him have changed the game. The rising unemployment rate coupled with his competence being questioned in regards to the BP oil spill, have put Conservative Americans back in the game. Obama already had to scale back on some aspects of the energy bill he is trying to pass because relations between the opposing parties are still terrible. It is believed that there is a strong possibility that the Democrats will lose control of the House, the Senate or both. If this does occur then Obama will have to refashion himself as a pragmatist who will have to compromise in exchange for smaller victories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)