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.