Response to “Looming Deadline and Consequences” by Ashley Huedepohl

Unfortunately, no compromises have been reached at this time. The supercommittee has failed in its mission, and the automatic $1.2trillion cuts are looming closer than ever. The chances of Congress agreeing on viable budget cuts seems slim at this point. The Republicans do not want to raise taxes on the rich, and the Democrats do not want to decrease spending to the point needed for a viable package. Politics is getting in the way of effective decision making, and it is embarrassing.
    As for the automatic budget cuts, I am sad that they are in place but I do not oppose them. They may be the only thing that with the ability to force a better compromise. Without some impetus, there would be no chance of a more appealing agreement. I think President Obama did the right thing in promising to enforce the automatic budget cuts. If they were an empty threat, they would lack the needed force to pressure our representatives in Washington D.C..
    At this point, it might be a good idea for both houses of Congress to vote on the proposals that have been made for budget cuts. Though the supercommittee failed, maybe Congress can agree collectively on which plan is the most appealing. From personal experience, I know the probability of a larger group coming to an intricate compromise when a smaller one has already failed to do so is slim. After all, that is why committees were created in the first place. But there is strength in a collective vote because it allows the general opinion to be heard and seen as opposed to speculated about. The certainty of a vote might just be what our democratic nation needs at this point.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-22/news/30431179_1_spending-cuts-president-obama-defense-budget

New Practices for Illegal Immigration

    The Department of Homeland Security is overhauling deportation practices. Illegal immigration cases will be reviewed by trained officials looking for any individuals that have criminal records or that have been deported from the United States multiple times. Those cases that do not meet either of these criterion are likely be closed in an attempt to deport the more serious offenders and free up the log jam of 300,000 cases that currently exists. The Obama administration states that the number of illegal immigrants deported will not decrease. Instead, the worst and most dangerous offenders will be deported more expediently.
    Those in favor of this alteration would say that, since the worst immigrants will supposedly be thrown out of the United States, the major problems of illegal immigrants will be taken care of. These measures should limit violence from easily slipping over the border to affect American lives. Those illegal immigrants that remain would only be the nice, upstanding illegal immigrants. Proponents would exalt the work ethic and low prices of these illegal immigrants, saying that we could not make do without this cost effective labor pool. Supporters would point out that most citizens of the United States would not choose a more expensive, legal contractor to do some construction they could have completed at a substantially reduced price and equally good quality by a illegal immigrants.
    However, these arguments of support neglect several important facts. For instance, illegal immigrant contractors displace legal contractors who can not compete with prices below minimum wage. Thus the legal workers go out of business, and less citizens are able to earn a living to contribute to the U.S. economy. On a related note, Since they are not documented, illegal immigrants don’t have to contribute taxes to the United States. Regardless of their lack of contribution, illegal immigrants still enjoy the public works and benefits of our tax money. Once they are overlooked by this new system of scanning files for the most dangerous illegal immigrants, they will be de facto citizens without any worry of being deported. Their case will be closed and not likely to ever open again, being lost in the miasma of bureaucratic paperwork.

Televised

In Yessica Martinez's article Perry Ignites Discussion Over Debates He May Skip, she expressed the both that it would be okay for Perry to miss a couple of debates. She stated that there are a lot of televised debates scheduled in the coming months and that presidential candidates concentrate on the communities that will be voting as opposed to engaging in and endless string of public debates that interrupts campaigning. Martinez went on to say that Perry should not miss too many debates lest he be deemed weak by voting Americans.

I agree with almost all of Martinez's statements. Perry and the other candidates need to work hard to communicate more directly to American voters. In a televised debate there is little opportunity to give an in depth explanation of one's opinion and statements can easily be misinterpreted, either on purpose or accidentally. However, these debates are free advertising and shouldn't be passed up without serious forethought. The more face time a candidate can get, the better they will be remembered at the polls. Televised debates also give a snapshot of the candidates' personalities, both strong points and failings.

As an extension to her post, I think that it would be a good idea for candidates to create a well publisized blog of sorts to express their in depth reasoning for opinions. This way, voters could see into the thought processes of the candidates, to see what candidates base their opinions on and how they think. The Internet doesn't have a time limit and the candidates can expand as much as they want without constant attack from opposition. Though active debate is still essential to the election process, I think a blog would be a good supplement.

Occupy Movement

    The Occupy movement that is sweeping across the nation has electrified the populace behind a common cause. The primary impetus for this movement is income inequality. The most prominent fact that is used in the protests is that the top 1% of the United States population controls over 20% of the wealth. In order to emphasize this fact, protesters use the gathering phrase “We are the 99%”. It makes sense that there has been an uprising in response to this inequality. However, instead of just a difference of income, I think that the main problem that gave rise to this nationwide response is the inequality of the governments dealings between big and small businesses. One of the greatest forces of capitalism is the competition it provides between businesses for customers and profit. Wealth is not bad in and of itself. However, The bailouts of the big banks after their unintelligent and unethical practices lead them to the brink of collapse served as a precedent for other big businesses. Though a smaller business wouldn’t get such preferential treatment and would have failed, the big banks did not and were likely to maintain that position of protection.
    This blatant difference in the way the United States government treats different levels of businesses is troubling and doesn’t bode well for the economy. It decreases the real competition that can exist in a capitalistic society. Even if the smaller business produces a better product, there is still a good chance that their advantage will be diminished by government provided financial support. This type of bailout system promotes unintelligent decision making in big business because it means that they can get more funding, at the expense of tax money that could be sent to other causes to better society.
    Though I agree that the government should not show preferential treatment, the occupy movement needs more leadership to be truly productive or meaningful. Currently, there are not any commonly accepted goals for the movement. There are organizers but no leaders. Without official direction, a large group of people is more likely to become uncontrollable. Even if the majority of the members have a commonly held purpose and support peaceful demonstration, a small number of angry, aggressive or opportunistic individuals can influence the group and, by mob mentality, cast an entire demonstration into violence and chaos. Also, there is no way to tell, conclusively, when the goals of the demonstrations have been achieved without a defined purpose behind the movement. If the participants in the Occupy Movement has the potential of bringing a large amount of beneficial change, but that is dependent on how they proceed from here.

In How Politics Hurts the EPA’s Important Mission, Lisa Jackson, a legitimate source of information as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, expresses her frustration at how politics has obfuscated the EPA’s goals for the public. She states that there has been misleading information put out that has had real impact on public opinion and policy. For instance, the assertion that the EPA is putting together a “train wreck of regulations” for business and the economy is drawn from a report on regulations the EPA decided not to propose. These proposals didn’t affect any citizen of the U.S. or even to congress. Jackson also argues that the EPA’s initiatives instead help create jobs for research and development, increase efficient use of natural resources, and decrease the cost for consumers due that acquired efficiency.
    This editorial caught my eye because I did a project on “Global Climate Change” in middle school, coming to the conclusion at that time that there was far to little data in support of Global Warming for the cultural uprising that had ensued. There were a lo of sad-looking polar bears, but not a consistent, world wide increase in temperature conclusive enough to say humans are causing the ice caps to melt. Jackson makes a few good points, but I find the majority of the editorial is an emotional plea with the public. I prefer facts so I can actually look at the tangible effects of actions and hopefully choose the best course of action due to an in depth knowledge of the subject matter.
    For me, Jackson’s most amusing line was when she said decision making should not be based on scare tactics. Though this is true, she uses her fair share of scare tactics in this editorial as well. The references to sludge covered rivers, airborne Mercury, and other such events are aimed at shocking the public opinion to the EPA’s side. Though I understand the usefulness of such a pathos driven strategy, (it is hard to get legislation passed when up against a group that makes a concerted, long-term effort to besmirch your reputation and misconstrue your motives) I believe that one’s rhetoric should send a consistent message and not contradict itself, or worse prove hypocritical.
    In general, I prefer a clean, natural world and support efforts to that end. As a matter of fact, my travels are often interrupted by picking up trash along the way. I enjoy the outdoors and want to keep it pristine. I support the endeavors of the EPA, but I also understand, to a certain extent, the financial burden that environmental regulation places on businesses, especially if a business is small and without the resources to fund research. A balanced forward moving progress is the goal that I think we should aim for. That’s why we have compromise, and compromise in large groups is what creates politics. It is an unfortunate eventuality when politics turns dirty instead of constructive and collaborative, but that is life.

In the BBC article "US Senate Backs Debate on Currency Law Amid Yuan Row" the economic struggle with China escalates. The Senate voted to entertain debate about enacting legislation to encourage China to let it's currency increase in value. I found the article interesting because it forced me to do some research into how economics works and how it effects international and national politics. Due to the undervaluation of the Chinese currency, Yuan, China is more attractive to large corporations than other nations. Basically, since corporations can get cheap production and greater profit, China receives more business and can get money from exports. Also, with an undervalued currency, citizens of China are more likely to by products produced in their own country, keeping wealth from leaving. These factor give China an edge on trading but have also perturbed the US government and reduced production and jobs in the US as they increase in China. The currently proposed bill would provide Congress with the ability to place tariffs on goods imported from countries determined to be undervaluing their currency. This would make production in the US more financially competitive and level the playing field.