This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Respond to the post of your choice from post 3. Find your own research to argue for or against the issue your peer wrote about for their persuasive letter. Be sure to cite your information in your post and to use at least 4 sources. You can either respond as yourself or if it'll make you happy - you can role play as the senator in your response. I look forward to reading your response.
posted by M Aby @ 12:53 PM
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
32 Comments:
I am writing to support Katie Jacobson on her quest to persuade Mr. Franken to support the Education Opportunity Act. Although I am usually not in favor of big government and government spending, I recognize the importance of education. I think it is an area in which our government should do all it can to give all Americans the best education possible. Education is so vital to our country and it is necessary for the United States to remain a world power.
One of the reason’s I support this bill is because it stresses the need for an “increasing increasing access to high-quality early childhood education” which I view is one of the most important levels of education.(1) If every child was given the same opportunities early and then was continually given the same chances throughout middle school and high school – which this bill calls for as well – then there would be no need for affirmative action. In my mind, affirmative action is a cop out. To me, it is simply ignoring the problem of unequal education at the lower levels and/or even in high school by saying, “Oh, here you go Mrs. Well-Educated-Minority! By giving you help, we can say we’re doing something!” If the government wanted to do something, they would put all people on the same footing (in public education) from the start therefore there would be no need to give some advantages come college/work. I believe this bill is a positive step towards this.
Another part of the bill I love is the fourth part. It calls for “enhancing the rigor and relevance of State academic standards and encouraging innovative reform at the middle and high school levels.” The part about “innovative reform” is what really catches my eye. I would argue that in most classes at Jefferson, I didn’t learn very much. The curriculum, in my eyes, could use some reform but “innovative” is the key. JagCorps can be taken as an example. This was a class I learned a whole hell of a lot in, but we didn’t have a textbook or conventional curriculum. I’d like to see more of this in school.
I do realize, though, that it’s necessary to learn science and math which is hard to get really innovative with. There are some ways, but I admit it’s tough. However, to appeal students to these subjects, change needs to be made. As Katie pointed out, “the United States ‘…trails behind [Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Hong Kong, Sweden, the Netherlands, Hungary and Slovenia] in average mathematics scores’ according to a 2007 study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education.”(2) This bill calls for a strengthening of math and science, which is crucial to our economy and power status.
A final piece of the bill I like is the request for more Federal grant aids to students so they can pursue a higher education. The reason I like this spending is because it is smart; the more educated America is the better the economy is due to job creation from business and consumers buying stuff with their newfound money provided by their job which was earned with the help of the college degree.(3) Oofda. Then, these people that have jobs and are boosting the economy will be paying taxes which can be used for, guess what?! Federal grants to students. It’s a circle of love.
Overall, I think this bill is a positive step towards a more equally educated America. I support Katie and I urge all of Congress to pass this bill.
1-http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s7/text
2-Katie’s post
3-http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/03/27/no-jobs-without-college-as-employers-treat-degree-as-a-minimum.html
I am responding to Claire's post. I liked her letter to Senator Al Frankan and thought she had some very valid arguments. I liked how it was motivational while still getting her point across that she wanted the health care bill to pass and for him to not give up on it. It seems as though the health care reform bill could be passed soon. Now that “Washington interest groups have burst back into action in hopes of bolstering or defeating a new Democratic push on health-care reform legislation, sparking another wave of rallies, lobbying efforts and costly advertising campaigns” (1).
I although don't agree with the health care bill being top priority. Jobs and getting the economy moving should be first priority with the shape the economy is currently in. More bills promoting jobs need to be passed in order to get the economy working again. The health care reform needs to be decided on rather than all of this bickering. Either there needs to be a conclusion soon or be put on the back burner for a little bit while the economy is focused on. If there isn't a decision made soon the economy just keeps being pushed aside which is ultimately what needs to be focused on currently. “The Obama Administration raised the stakes in the health care debate Monday, releasing a new blueprint that seeks to bridge the gap between measures passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives last year” (4). There is just new ideas for how health care should be redone everywhere and I just don't see enough things that are coming out of Congress and the President that are dealing with the current state of the economy.
All of this fighting about health-care is the latest example of “government dysfunction; it's been de-railed by hyper-partisanship, over-spending and the disproportionate influence of special interests” (2). It's just to the point where a decision needs to be made or be pushed aside for a little while. “Independents' anger today is focused on familiar targets: hypocritical politicians, over-spending and a lack of agreement on solutions from Washington. Independents feel they are paying more and getting less” (2). The Democratic party is going to need these independent votes come mid-term elections next November and by not coming to a conclusion and still beating around the bush with health care it is only making people more frustrated. Also with the “Democrats making tentative plans to use a controversial parliamentary shortcut to send the president a health care bill, with or without GOP votes” (3). This is a horrible idea. It will only make the Republican and Democratic parties more bitter towards each other and create a more hostile environment in Washington. All of this focus on the drama that health care is facing isn't where the focus should be.
She talked about the lack of informing the public about what this health care reform bill will really do and how citizens need to be informed. I think many citizens are informed on what the health care bill is going to do and most citizens are solely worried about the economy. The economy should have been taken care of first priority last year, it should have never been put on the back burner behind health care.
Al Frankan shouldn't forget his arguments for health care and should still advocate for it but should really make the economy his top priority with developing new job bills. Creating new jobs will ultimately boost the economy at this point and that is what needs to happen with so many Americans out of work the moral is low and something needs to be done. A conclusion needs to be made and that is where the focus needs to be at the current point in time.
Once the economy is more back on track, health care reform should once again become the main focus. But now is not the time and by focusing on health care when in such need for the economy to be turned around will only result in the health care bill not being passed and citizens resenting it.
1- The Washington Post “Expecting final push on health-care reform, interest groups rally for big finish”
2- CNN.com “Why Centrist Voters are Fed Up”
3- CNN.com “With Compromise unlikely, Dems eye shortuct for health care”
4- CNN.com “White House unveils compromise health care bill”
In response to Sarah Marti-
After reading your blog post letter to Senator Klobuchar, I have to say I agree with your opinion on repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the military. I think that the policy is outdated, and the I agree with the reasons you presented in your post to back it up. After doing some research on the topic, I could not believe some of the comments that were made on the subject. “Our service members wear the uniform to fight and win wars, not serve as liberal-social-policy guinea pigs. The sexual environment the President is seeking to impose upon the young men and women who serve this country is the antithesis of the successful war-fighting culture, and as such should be rejected,” said Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council (1). I find it disturbing that 1,000 valuable members of the army are discharged every year for being homosexual (1). “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is an embarrassment to a nation that prides itself on equality and freedom.
First of all, I think that the time has come to change this provision. When it was enacted, although it was still not ethically right to discriminate against gays and lesbians in this way, times were different, and the policy was somewhat of a compromise. Today, I think it is no longer acceptable and should be changed as soon as possible. Obama has pledged to get this done within the next year, and I hope that if it does make it to the Senate as promised, Senator Klobuchar will vote for a repeal (1).
Another reason to repeal this act would be because it is simply the right thing to do. Just because it has been “effective” as John McCain said, doesn’t mean that it is right or constitutional (2). Ultimately “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” gives the citizens of America that it is okay to treat gays and lesbians as second class members of society. Just because someone is gay and wants to be in the army is no reason for them to have to lie about who they are (3). Your sexuality is part of your life, and just admitting how you feel inside shouldn’t be means for disposal from the army. I realize that if this were repealed, there may be some confusion on how to handle housing in the army, however I would consider this fact to be trivial in avoiding the topic (3).
Overall, it seems to me that, like you said Sarah, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is on the same playing field as extreme African American discrimination of the past. The fact that someone purely being homosexual, not even attempting to act on these feelings, cannot be in the army is a travesty (4). I think the fact that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was ever passed says a lot about a nation that claims to accept everyone as they are. I believe that homosexual people do not chose to be the way they are, and so there is absolutely no grounds to discriminate against them in any way, shape or form.
1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100202/us_time/08599195825300
2. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/02/02/2010-02-02_dont_ask_dont_tell_defense_sect_gates_says_military_to_be_lenient_while_studying.html
3. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/02/gates-backs-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell/
4. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/61815
I want to respond to Leah, Peter and Carissa. All three of you discuss bills that seem to support educational advancement for more students. I think that the facts in Leah’s article that point out that two- thirds of American students borrow money for college illustrates that we cannot let college aid be something that falls by the wayside, it needs to be something that is critically important to how the country does business (1). I think that the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act is especially good because it gives direct lending from the federal government instead of first going to private lenders. While the private lending system has had occasional benefits, the fact that so much of the country relies on these loans means that it is irresponsible to leave it up to the volatility of the credit market. Many of the arguments leveraged against this legislation seem to reverberate from the health care debate that we are still suffering through: a government take over. John Kline says “This job-killing legislation is rife with hidden costs that will be passed on to future generations.” However, these hidden costs are never shown and no evidence is shown that this will somehow destroy the liberty of any Americans. I like how the author of the bill George Miller describes it as “a clear choice to stop funneling vital taxpayer dollars through boardrooms and start sending them directly to dorm rooms.” (1) I think the bill Peter looks at, the educational opportunity act of 2009, also does a lot to accomplish these goals. It helps students during the entire pipeline from early childhood education all the way up until they graduate and need aid to go to college (3).
I think that Carissa, your bill is also a good idea. While not as sweeping as other bills, I think it illustrates some important things that congress is doing for the people of this country. It patches some holes in a bill that already exists, meaning that congress is being responsive to the needs and wants of the people in the country. Furthermore, I like the provision to give money to the children of victims of the wars we are in. While I believe that we should just get out of the wars, I think that it is a good way to support the families of those who give their lives to fight for this country. Furthermore, my favorite part of this bill is the “experimental site” provision. It basically allows aid offices to experiment with new techniques to administer aid and then will use the new techniques as a new national standard. I think this kind of policy innovation is a great way to discover new ways to make the government more efficient. (2)
I think another bill that affects students going to college, one that doesn’t directly affect any of us (I believe, but I’m sorry if I’m wrong) is the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (Dream) Act. It would help undocumented students who came to the United States before the age of 16, basically undocumented people that went to high school here, become legalized by going into either a college career or a military career. A similar act, proposed in Minnesota, would ensure “in state” tuition to those without official citizenship documents. This would be a way for those who are functioning members of society to more easily navigate the often tedious job of getting citizenship and “papers.” At the same time, the Dream Act is a way to ensure that people are doing something to contribute to society. I think that this is inherent in the foundations of our country, which is an immigrant country, granting rights to all citizens. (4)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/education/18educ.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=Student%20Aid%20and%20Fiscal%20Resp
http://chronicle.com/article/Congress-Approves-Technical/47800
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-7&tab=summary
http://jackcentral.com/news/2010/03/students-advocate-for-dream-act/
I want to respond to Courtney’s letter to Senator Klobuchar about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009. I wholeheartedly concur with the bill’s goal to prevent discrimination on the basis of “actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity by covered entities” (1). To quote the Declaration of Independence, which articulates the original goals and values of the United States, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (2). Additionally, as Courtney pointed out, the 14th Amendment reiterates this idea, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (3). I believe that failing to hire a qualified individual or firing someone solely on the basis of their sexual preference is fundamentally opposed to the idea that all are equal; furthermore, it is an infringement upon people’s natural rights. Legally, if precedents from famous civil rights cases, such as Brown v. Board of Education, are applied to gays, lesbians, and all others directly affected by this bill, legally, it is wrong to selectively discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.
Hence, the problem that I have with this bill arises not from its subject matter, but, rather, the method that Congress is attempting to take to enforce this idea. I consider the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009 to be an extension of affirmative action to those who are gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders. A bill such as this one will likely lead to reverse discrimination, which the Supreme Court has also taken multiple stands against. According to popular definition, reverse discrimination occurs when less qualified individuals are hired or admitted to educational institutions on the basis of their minority status; this means that more qualified individuals are turned away simply because they are not a member of a minority (4). Personally, I view this action as tantamount to the original discriminating act.
Since there is no national regulation that blocks discrimination on the basis of sexual preference, there is no data to prove that reverse discrimination can and will exist in such a case. However, if compared to previous forms of affirmative action, the Supreme Court has identified a myriad of examples of reverse discrimination. As recently as June 2009, the High Court struck down a New Haven, Connecticut decision to invalidate scores from an exam that was to determine firefighter promotions because the highest scoring applicants were white (5). In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that in concordance with passing affirmative action polices, institutions must evaluate them to ensure that they do not produce a “disparate impact” against a different protected trait (6). Thus, demonstrating that reverse discrimination frequently does exist and must be accounted for in affirmative action.
Instead of requiring the government to pass legislation outlawing discrimination, in this case on the basis of sexual preference, I wish that the people of the United States were more open minded and willing to accept people for who they were. While I will admit that this is a highly idealistic solution and one that is unlikely to work in current society, this simple idea would improve innumerable aspects of daily life in the United States. Besides, is it not in the best interests of institutions to select the person most qualified for a job, promotion, educational opportunity, or any other instance where affirmative action has been applied? As Ben Vargas, one of the New Haven firefighters, articulated, “The fire isn't going to discriminate against a person whether he's black, white or Hispanic; it's going to treat that person the same way” (5). Americans should follow the lead of nature and choose to treat everyone in the exact same manner.
1: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2981&tab=summary
2: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html
3: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
4: Edwards, George C. Government in America, People, Politics, and Policy. New York: Pearson Education, Inc., 2006. Print.
5: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/29/supreme.court.discrimination/index.html
6: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_07_1428
This comment has been removed by the author.
I am writing in response to Ms. Kelsey Derby –
I’m also glad that Senator Klobuchar supports the Families for Orphans Act. Being orphaned is a traumatic experience that plagues over 5,760 children a day in the world [1]. Only 250,000 children are adopted annually [1]. This is a very small percentage of orphans in the world. In addition, 14,050,000 children age out of the system each year [1]. That translates into a new orphan aging out of the system every 2.2 seconds [1]. It is time that something be done to help these kids during this distressing time in their lives.
The goal of the Families for Orphans Act is to overcome adoption barriers [2]. These barriers include disconnected programs, a lack of authority and resources necessary in adoptions from foreign governments, as well as restricted policies that bar the United States from heading adoption strategies worldwide [2]. The Families for Orphans Act would establish an Office of Orphan Policy, Development and Diplomacy [2]. This agency would “…promote and support the preservation and reunification of families; and the provision of permanent parental care for orphans” [3]. In addition, this agency would “…initiate a study to identify global best practice for preserving and reunifying families and providing permanent parental care for orphans…” [3].
This issue came into a more immediate light after the devastating earthquake in Haiti on January 12th [4]. Even before the earthquake, Haiti had 380,000 children classified as orphans [4]. As of January 26, the State Department reported more than 1,200 pending Haitian adoptions [4]. “The old regular process, the old regular bureaucracy, is not going to work [anymore]” said Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana [4]. Senator Klobuchar agreed, telling CNN: “We have to have a better process here. These are extraordinary circumstances” [4].
I agree with Kelsey and Senator Klobuchar in supporting the Families for Orphans Act. Orphans have gone through an experience no one ever wants to go through. It is only fair that the system designed to take care of these distressed kids is one that keeps them in mind and is equipped to make the transition as easy as possible for them.
Sources:
1)http://www.hfgf.org/statistics.pdf
2)http://www.jcics.org/families%20for%20orphans.htm
3)http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3070/show
4)http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/26/haiti.orphans/index.html
Courtney-
I want to start by saying that I really enjoyed reading your post to Senator Klobuchar about passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009 and was also very entertained by your choice of wording and the amount of persuasion you included in it. I would most definitely take your letter seriously if I were the Senator. I agree with the point you made about the Fourteenth Amendment and how it applies to sexual orientations just as any other diversification in Americans. The bill would mandate all federal agencies, public and private employers, and unions to make no employment decisions based on sexual orientation (2). In addition, the bill would apply to the federal government, such as Congress, the Courts, and the Executive, as well as state and local government positions (1). These aspects of the bill are completely necessary, in my opinion, to giving all Americans, no matter what sexual orientation they are, the rights of the Fourteenth Amendment.
You mentioned that twenty-nine states currently have laws prohibiting such discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (3). I see no reason as to why that number should not be fifty. The gender or orientation of a person can in NO way be legally justified as an acceptable means of employment discrimination, and I completely agree with you when you say that any case regarding this issue would “no doubt be found unconstitutional” if it reached the Supreme Court. The reason that it would be ruled unconstitutional is simply that there are no legal grounds for depriving a person of work because of what gender they are interested in; it just makes no sense. A majority of Americans are in favor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009 (4). As you made clear in your post, Courtney, there is absolutely no reason that this bill should not fly through Congress with overwhelming support.
1. http://www.hrc.org/laws_and_elections/enda.asp
2. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s1584/show
3. http://edlabor.house.gov/hearings/2009/09/hr-3017-employment-non-discrim.shtml
4. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_empl9.htm
Sarah Marti-
I completely agree with you that the policy of don’t ask don’t tell should be repealed. It is utterly ridiculous that people in the military, or under whatever circumstances for that matter, should have to conceal who they are. Obviously, I don’t think that people should go around flaunting their beliefs and preferences, but no one should have to subject themselves to a life of secrecy like this policy does. I believe that this policy, much like argued in Brown v. Board of Education is an infringement on the equality rights of gays, lesbians and bisexuals in the military (1). I believe that it creates a sense of inferiority among those who have to remain “silent” because of the obvious negative light shed onto homosexuals through the implication of this policy.
I agree with Sarah that this change would be a drastic one, but it needs to be done. Like a band-aid, it just needs to be ripped off so to speak. Changing policy like this is always difficult and will not get easier by giving it more time. The change needs to be made, and people need to deal with it. Even Defense secretary Gates said that “The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we ... best prepare for it. We have received our orders from the commander in chief and we are moving out accordingly."(2). I liked Sarahs qoute from Petraeus about the fact that skill should matter more than sexual orientation, a statement I find 100% valid.
In the last ten years more than 10,000 service members have been discharged on condition of the don’t ask don’t tell policy (3). This is not only ridiculous because the policy is unjust, but also on the grounds that 10,000 military personel are not able to be fighting for their country. These are people who are volunteering their time and their life for the US. It is beond me why the US would turn down such volunteers for such a stupid, and in my opinion unconsitutional policy such as don’t ask don’t tell.
Sarah also talks about foreign militias who allow gay service members. I personally find it interesting that of all nations, the US does not allow homosexuals to be open about their sexual orientation while others do. 24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems (4). That being said, I can think of no legitimate reason for the US to implicate this policy any longer. It is a simply un-American and unjust policy that Sarah and I both agree needs to end right now.
(1) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=347&invol=483
(2) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/02/gates-backs-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell/
(3) http://online.logcabin.org/issues/logcabin/gays_in_the_military_overview.html
(4) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/opinion/02shalikashvili.html
In response to Kayla’s post in which she expressed her disapproval of the public option reconciliation.
I have to agree with you that the Democrats have definitely been a disappointment when it comes to getting this legislation passed. I also agree that it is disgraceful that when they had a 60 vote filibuster proof majority the Democrats were unable to get anything passed. However, I disagree that Congress shouldn’t use reconciliation to pass the public option. Your first point addressed how the Senate is in extreme disagreement and may only pass healthcare with 51 votes. However, even if the Senate is in disagreement the American public does favor the public option. 59.9% of Americans wanted the public option with 86% of Democrats supporting it (1). In Minnesota the percentages are a little bit higher with 62% supporting the public option (2). I believe the 51 Senators are doing a better job in representing the opinion of the country with there votes than the other 49, if that is what it comes down to.
I also believe that the public option is in America’s best interest. Not only do we get the best out of the private insurance system, if that is what works best for you, but also gives millions of uninsured Americans a way to pay for medical bills (3). The public option is also cheaper for the government (3). It helps cut through a lot of the costly red tape that the insurance companies have to go through and the government pays for. Also, public healthcare is generally a better quality of healthcare, and if private companies have the government to compete against they will probably step up to the new level of competition in order to retain their clients (3). Forming a new race to the top.
I believe finding the plan that will make everyone happy is good if you want to get reelected but creates poor political decisions. With too much compromise nothing substantial will ever come out of the capitol. FDR, who is considered one of the greatest presidents in history, ramrod-ed many of his New Deal programs through Congress because he didn’t want to compromise the directive of his legislation. If Congress doesn’t pass the public option much of this hard work will be in vain. The broken health insurance system won’t be fixed. We will have put a band aid on a broken arm. Even if Obama, Reid and Polosi can’t get all the Democrats to vote for this, just passing it is sufficient.
(1) http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B20OL20091203
(2) http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/news/2010/02/24/minnesota-public-option-polls-better-senate-health-bill
(3) http://institute.ourfuture.org/files/Jacob_Hacker_Public_Plan_Choice.pdf
I would like to dedicate this post as support for Jacob Sandry in his letter to urge Klobochuar in order to help Obama pass health care legislation. As writing my original post to support Franken and his support for health care reform. I would like to incorporate Jacob's first point about how the new plan is fiscally sound. His sources say that more money is being spent into the system and is being used more effectively, and I believe that even though we need some sort of health reform in the status quo, a single payer health care system would be more efficient overall. The amount of money that countries such as Canada, Denmark, and Sweden spend on health care would still be significantly less post passage of the plan, so I believe that Klobochaur and Franken should collaborate upon Franken's ideological belief supporting a single payer health care system. Additionally, I also agree with Jacob's point specifically on the lack of cohesiveness between the House's interpretation of the bill versus the Senate. I believe that the Senate has more ability to create the health care reform right now because the Democrats on the House haven't so lenient as to letting health care legislation pass. The Senate Democrats will need to pull together and pass a bill to send a message to the House that they will be taking the lead in creating the new health care proposal so legislation can be passed. I agree with Jacob's main perspective on having our own Senators work together to push for health care due to the influence coming from one state that sends a message to the constituents that Minnesota wants health care fixed fast.
Dear Senator Klobuchar,
I am writing in support of Kelsey Derby’s letter urging the passage of the Families with Orphans Act. Ms. Derby brings up the point that more than 143 million children live as orphans, and I believe that the United States should do as much as possible to help these children (1). The United States government has always had programs intended to help orphans, although many have little support in physically helping these children (2). It is imperative that people understand what is the real problem.
If the current federal budget and existing programs are analyzed, one can see at least three barriers that keep the US from being a global leader in helping orphaned children. I believe that with the Families with Orphans Act, a greater percentage of these needy children will be assisted, and therefore will also have new opportunities presented in their lives. One barrier standing in the way of the US is that many of the existing programs are “disorganized and disconnected” (2). Another reason is that officers working to address the needs of children lack the “authority, visibility, and resources needed to make a real difference in this area” (2). My understanding of the Families with Orphans Act will allow more children to be taken in as orphans into homes that can support and provide for them. This is especially imperative, as many adoption policies in the United States are outdated and cumbersome (3).
Also, the Act will establish the Office of Orphan Policy, Development and Diplomacy. This organization will hopefully be able to significantly help orphans in various ways, including reporting directly to the Secretary of State and the President (3). This communication is essential, since in Washington it is easy to shy away from real and present problems such as orphans.
Despite these other great reasons for adopting this policy, the area of the act that impresses me the most is the area about foreign policy. In Kelsey’s post, she mentions the Haiti crisis, something that has resulted in thousands upon thousands of orphans (1). However, it is very difficult for anyone to adopt these children, since the United States has a disorganized and extremely hard-nosed approach to adoption. Therefore, being able to coordinate further with the government and its policies, the Office of Orphan Policy can therefore streamline its efforts with citizens easier.
The Families with Orphans Act is intended to bridge the current issues and barriers on adoption of orphans, and to create a check on the problems facing the orphans of the world (4). I hope that you will credit what Ms. Derby and myself have stated, and best of luck!
1) Kelsey’s Post
2) http://www.kidsave.org/orpahnact.shtml
3) http://www.jcics.org/families%20for%20orphans.htm
4) http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/families-for-orphans.html
In response to Chris Shirriff,
There is no dispute that health care coverage is a large problem in this country. I agree with you on the importance of health care reform and on the benefits of a public option plan. However, I think this sort of legislation is too complicated and controversial for it to be solved in a month, let alone a year. Obama started heath care talk back of May last year. Over the summer it was all the rage. We were promised a bill by the beginning of fall. Then by Christmas. Here we are in March, and still no bill. Obama has called for one last push, hoping for a vote of some kind before the Easter break (1). According to the Huffington Post, health care is a challenge that lacks an overall moral vision (2). Everybody wants something different out of it. Out of the many debates, Congress has found that there is no one strong solution that people can agree on. Even when people seem rallied behind a public option, others are swayed by its costs. There are Democrats in the house who still refuse to vote on any form of a bill unless costs are cut drastically (3). Politicians listen to voters, and voters put the economy in front of health care in terms of important issues.
Obama is making this his last push on health care. Personally I think this is a bad strategy. He has invested a large sum of his political capital on this issue. I don’t think Congress will be able to pass a large health care bill. Democrats are still split on the issue. Republicans are still strongly against it, if not more than before. Said Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, “They’re making a vigorous effort to try to jam this down the throats of the American people, who don’t want it” (4). The Republicans want to turn this into a defeat for the Democrats that can translate into the midterm elections.
I believe that an issue as big as health care cannot be solved in one piece of legislation. A public option may be what’s best for the country’s health care system, but if it divides the country, maybe now is not the time for it. There is nothing wrong with taking this slow, one reform process at a time. Little actions over a period of time is better than putting all the cards on the table and losing.
1) http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9E815780
2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-hanna-walling/why-is-health-care-reform_b_486100.html
3) http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/for-many-house-democrats-cost-is-the-concern/
4) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/health/policy/04health.html
In response to Leah Gustafson,
I agree with your latest blog. I also support the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act. I do not think it is fair how students that have worked hard and received adequate credentials are not be able to go to a nationally "recognized" college because they cannot afford it. This obviously favors wealthy students or students with "connections." Why should someone's income play a factor in college decisions? This is not fair. It is as if college has become a business rather than an education.
According to the Committee on Education and Labor, " President Obama has identified an opportunity to make historic investments in our economic future by improving early education opportunities and making college dramatically more affordable – and all at no cost to taxpayers. (1) In fact, as Leah stated, this legislation reform would save tax payers nearly $87 billion and would ALSO put $77 million of that savings back into education. (2) President Obama hopes to make The United States the most educated country in the world under this bill. Currently, Norway is the most educated nation while the US is 14th.(3) I believe it is important to have as many people educated in our country as possible. As you may or may not know, education is the key to a non poverty country. Children age eighteen and under represent 26 percent of the United States population, they comprise nearly 40 percent of the poverty population.(4) We need to do our best educating everyone. People living in poverty will be discouraged to earn a college education when they know that it just favors the wealthy. This bill could hopefully make people realize that college can work even though they may not be able to afford it. It also may decrease the amount of people living in poverty. In addition to the bill, it would decrease the amount of unnecessary questions and allow families to use information from their tax returns to fill out parts of the application. (5) From reading Leah's blog, I also learned the role of Pell Grants in the legislation. I am in accordance with Leah on passing this legislation.
Citations:
1. http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/07/student-aid-and-fiscal-respons.shtml
2. http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/legislation?id=0335
3. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_sch_lif_exp_tot-education-school-life-expectancy-total
4. http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2330/Poverty-Education.html
5. http://www.campusprogress.org/cribsheets/4329/visual-guide-to-the-student-aid-and-fiscal-responsibility-act
I am responding to Carissa’s letter to Al Franken about the Higher Education Act of 1965. I think she did a very good job of explaining the bill and her view on what should be done. I agree with Carissa’s argument partly because I am a senior and I feel college students need all the financial aid they can get and also because as Carissa said, “Our generation of young adults is the future of our country and without education we will be unable to contribute and our society will fall apart in a number of years” (1). According to one poll, 66% of all undergraduates received some kind of financial aid in 2007 (2). This poll shows just how many students need financial aid to get through college, but leaves me to wonder how many did not get to go to college because they didn’t have enough money. This is similar to what Carissa said in her post about how much of an impact tuition plays on a person’s choice of college.
Recently Obama was talking about how necessary it is to better prepare high school students for college and careers (4). I agree that bettering the nations education is needed, but how can we make students more prepared for college if so many are not going to be able to pay for college since they do not get enough aid? The Higher Education Act of 1965 can help make college more affordable, and maybe even allow some people to go to college that thought they would not be able to.
I think this bill should be passed because as Carissa also mentioned in her post, why should more economically advantageous families be able to send their children to college when lower to middle class families can’t? (1). The Higher Education Act of 1965 was created to give lower and middle class families more opportunities to go to college, as well as the financial aid to do so (3). To me this is a way of making things more even and allows for someone to go to college and have a higher education without needing to worry as much on finding a way to pay for higher education. I think it is imperative to pass this bill not only to help less economically privileged students but also the future of our country.
1. Carissa’s Post
2. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=31
3. http://www.cnm.edu/depts/trio/downloads/History_Higher_Education_Act_06-05-06.pdf
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/21/AR2010022104093.html
In response to Dan L’s Letter to Senator Klobuchar:
I would also like to urge Senator Klobuchar to vote for the new jobs bill that was just passed in the House. Although it’s been somewhat controversial to how many jobs the bill will create, I think at this point, creating some jobs is better than creating none [1]. Previously the House had passed a $50 billion jobs bill that left out proposals to award tax credits for hiring new workers [4]. This bill is different than previous measures passed because it specifically gives awards businesses with tax cuts when they hire jobless workers [1]. This bill is much smaller than the stimulus bill passed last year because it is “blending $15 billion in tax cuts and subsidies for infrastructure bonds issued by local governments with the $20 billion in transportation money” [1] Not only is it important to stimulate the economy by creating new jobs, but it is also important to accomplish some of the goals Obama set out, such as repairing our nation’s infrastructure [1]. Rep. Bill Pascrell, put it this way, "We've got to get something moving. We've got to get something done." [1]. In order for the Democrats to get something done they have to win in the 2010 elections, which means they need to prove to the Americans people now that they’re working hard.
Although some have criticized that this bill would do little to create jobs I think some measures need to be taken to combat the hovering employment rate. Bob Etheridge, Democrat of North Carolina, said the legislation is “really all about our three most important priorities in this Congress — jobs, jobs, jobs” [2]. He commented that the bill was a “good step toward rebuilding our job market, but we still have a ways to go” [2]. I agree with Bob that if the Democrats regain focus on creating more jobs and turning the economy around it will be good for everyone. The longer we wait to pass this bill the more chance there is that jobless Americans will lose benefits [3]. As many as one million people could lose benefits if the conflict isn’t resolved by the end of the month [3]. Despite the conflicts between the House and the Senate I believe that the bill should be passed. By some Democrats standards it’s too small and won’t create jobs, but I think that if you go much bigger then there is a bigger chance it won’t be supported. The most important thing to do is to do what is best for the American people, and one of those things is to create more jobs. I believe that with this bill we will be able to.
[1]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/04/AR2010030400350.html
[2]. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/us/politics/05jobs.html?hp
[3]. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/congress-takes-up-jobs-measures/?scp=1&sq=House%20jobs%20bill&st=cse
[4]. http://www.latimes.com/business/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-us-congress-jobs-bill,0,5268703.story
In response to Sarah Marti's letter on the "don't ask don't tell" policy:
I agree with you that discrimination is a horrible evil and we must take steps to abolish it. However, I don't believe the same standards for equality apply in them military as they do in everyday life. I think its great that all types of people are joining our nation's armed forces and fighting for our country. I don't think that completely lifting the "don't ask don't tell" policy is a very smart move for us to make right now. I propose that we instead focus on being more lenient in our handling of openly gay Americans in the armed forces. Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, agrees with this plan (2). He argues that the rule should be changed so that third parties cannot just turn in someone who they believe to be gay and then having that person removed from the military (2). Robert Gates is also currently doing a study on the effects of removing the ban on homosexuals serving in our armed forces, in the hopes that they can assess the outcome of such an action and enact legislation accordingly (2). Other military leaders believe a repeal of this policy could hurt the morale of our armed forces and have an overall negative impact on their effectiveness in battle (1). I personally tend to agree with this. Obama has strongly stated his support for such a ban. I think Obama needs to focus on other, more pressing issues at hand that will have an effect on the entire nation, as opposed to just a small number of Americans. Some say that Obama's support of this cause could re-open an otherwise dormant gay rights battle in the military which could distract from his agenda (3). I also agree with some military officials in that we really don't need to be dealing with the issue of homosexuality in the military while we are in the middle of two wars (2). I feel like were stretched thin enough as it is and should focus on accomplishing our goals in foreign policy before we open up a heated debate. If discrimination is really the issue here, then I ask myself why other minority groups aren't fighting for rights within the armed forces. Why aren't people with asthma, who are often turned away from combat fighting for the right to fight? Or how about people with scoliosis? They are being restricted from service too (4). Then there is the issue of sexual promiscuity. Men and women aren't housed in the same barracks are serve in the same troops in war for a reason. I feel like having homosexuals serve next to heterosexuals could be an added distraction that shouldn't be present during war as it could jeopardize "unit cohesion, team identity, and interdependence" (4). My final point is that the "don't ask don't tell" policy has kept the gay rights out of military matters where I believe it belongs.
1. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-us-military-gays,0,2525429.story
2. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/gates-announce-review-military-gay-ban/
3. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/15/obama-end-militarys-dont-ask-dont-tell-policy/
4. http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_14434064
For my response post, I would like to put my support behind Kelsey’s plea to pass the Families for Orphans Act. The problem of orphaned children is a growing problem as the earth’s population continues to expand at an increasing rate (3). The United States government has focused on trying to get these children off the streets, but what is instrumental to their safety is finding a permanent family in the place of simple parental care (1). Based on evidence conducted by the U.S, care is needed to help prevent incarceration, mental health deficiencies, suicide, and the deterioration of physical health (2). With such research, it has become shockingly apparent that this is a group of people that are in desperate need of aid (4). The current system that is attempting to give these children the help they need is failing. They lack the leadership, funding, focus, and programs necessary to help alleviate this growing issue (2).
In America, it’s very difficult to give attention to a bill that will have its biggest impact in areas outside of the U.S. But this is a pressing issue that needs to be fixed. There are many different problems that people deem to be important and deserve change. This issue in particular is something that must be addressed, due to the very principles involved. I personally cannot imagine living my life on the streets, and not having a rough over my head to sleep under. Te statistics show that 143 million children live as orphans (2), a truly appalling number. With all of the wealth and resources that this country has, we must step up as our of world superpower and do something, anything, to help alleviate this issue.
Other aspects of the bill include a biennial census of orphaned children to help better understand their numbers, as well as coordinating foreign policy to help better facilitate permanent family care (2). This cause is a noble one, and I wholeheartedly agree with Kelsey’s support of this bill. Make it happen, Congress.
(1) http://www.kidsave.org/advocacy_orphanact.shtml
(2) http://www.jcics.org/families%20for%20orphans.htm
(3) http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3070/show
(4) http://pandulce.typepad.com/pan_dulce/2009/07/families-for-orphans-act.html
Katie:
I agree with your proposition, Harry Reid’s Education Opportunity is an efficient and powerful replacement for the No Child Left Behind Act. I also think that the bill itself will challenge our students, our next generation, to become more of actual world leaders; instead of being considered the X generation. It is good that Senator Reid proposed this because I have been waiting for someone to propose a new education bill that had some chance of being passed in Congress; this is that bill I was hoping for.
Your first point is interesting and I especially like the “extended learning opportunities” segment. Education is more than just learning core curriculum such as English, math, or even social studies. I am a firm believer in developing 21st century skills, extended learning, like good communication skills or learning the uses of new technologies. 21st century skills are a way of the future and are necessary in the classroom. (1) Also, to address another point in your first paragraph, I find your statement and facts on the importance of good education in kindergarten true and also scary. It is pertinent that all kindergarteners receive good educations because that is where basic social skills are taught. This also contains 21st century skills like team building, cultural awareness, and effective use of resources around you. (1)
The dropout rate is another important issue that must be combated. In 2007, 6.2 million students dropped out of high school. (2) This number is far too high. With the Education Opportunity Act, like you mention, there will be better access to education and “increasing secondary graduation rates.” (3) Education is the key to leaders of the future, which is what this bill calls for.
Supplying teachers with adequate education tools and rooms is also necessary for providing learners with the appropriate opportunity to learn. I agree with you that teachers need more pay to keep up with their day-to-day life. It is unfair that teachers are paid so little while other jobs are so much more lucrative. Teaching the future career holders of America is no easy task and teachers should receive more credit for the tedious work they put in for months at a time.
The Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, also is an advocate of this bill. He pledges to “work closely with the higher education community and the Internal Revenue Service to advance this effort.” (4) Along with the Education Opportunity Act, there have been other Congressional actions and Executive decisions that will aid in the progress of bettering education. For the 2011 budget President Obama has allotted 3.5 billion more dollars than this year’s fiscal budget and Secretary Duncan is very pleased with this action.
In summary, the Education Opportunity Act will be beneficial for America’s education process. There needs to be changes made within the education infrastructure to support 21st century skills, support teachers and education supplies, and prepare students for the future ahead of them.
(1) http://www.metiri.com/21st%20Century%20Skills/PDFtwentyfirst%20century%20skills.pdf
(2) http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/05/dropout.rate.study/
(3) Katie’s blog
(4)http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:LEbPt7Z4iFgJ:help.senate.gov/Hearings/2009_01_13/Duncan.pdf+arne+duncan+Education+opportunity+act&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShnmxJGi91mLhsFqW6iCIL41GnqpMXyghZnM4vqj9wW0XArzkj7PM7aKNGeyQjFffJO5ujIYB23r9oXmauwizwow_ygMKDg_gijUz54urKIaAnsUqeb_LQXnaj8XX4zncTGpANJ&sig=AHIEtbRkkBzwLxqtZQnnL_pMwsrPHP6xUQ
5) http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2010/02/02012010.html
I am responding to Chris Shirriff’s post,
I agree with Chris that America needs a public option. A public option would be able to compete with other insurance companies, and be able to bring down the cost of health care [1]. The point is that the public option is just an option, and America could do with a more affordable one [1].
As of recently, both senators from Minnesota have agreed that they would vote for a public option if it came to a vote in the reconciliation [4]. I am very glad that they made this decision. More than 62% of Minnesotans would support a public option [5], I think those numbers speak for themselves. It is clear that Minnesotans want this type of reform, as do numerous numbers of Americans, so I agree with Chris that the Democratic senators need to work together to get not only the public option passed into the bill but pass the healthcare bill as well. Sadly, the 58 Democratic senators are not quite enough to pass the bill because of the Republican filibuster [4].
The point is that more and more senators are pledging their support for the public option. Currently there are 35 Democratic senators pledging support for the public option [2]. Originally the Obama White House didn’t think that there was anyone on the side of the public option, so they dropped the subject, hoping that losing the battle on the public option might result in winning the war on public healthcare reform [2].
I agree with Chris that we should work on getting healthcare passed. Much like spokesman Larry Smar, I think, “all options should be considered for moving forward legislation to insure more Americans, crack down on insurance company abuses, and get a handle on health care spending that is raising the deficit and threatening our economy” [3].
I agree with Chris that our country needs to work to both pass and accept healthcare reform. It is a disgrace that a country as advanced as ours has not already reformed healthcare. It is my hope that these Senators will be successful in gathering all the necessary votes to incorporate the public option into the bill, and eventually pass the healthcare bill.
[1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/09/robert-reich-explains-the_n_280639.html
[2]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/public-option-picks-up-35_n_485369.html
[3]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/02/three-more-senators-join_n_482114.html
[4]http://whipcongress.com/
[5]http://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/poll_national_20100220/?source=huff-ag-announce1
In response to Katie J’s post-
I am in complete agreement with basically the entirety of your blog. Education should be one of the first priorities of our government, because if we do not educate the younger generations there will be no one to support or run the country in the future. Part of being a responsible leader is not only taking into account the issues of the present, but the assurance of the future. According to the online government legislation tracking site, the bill has not had any actions taken on it since January of 2009 (1). This is an issue, as the college tuition last year alone increased by significant percentages. A study conducted found that in 2006 students each received $7,078 from public funds, $1,270 less than was sent in 2002 (2). In order for college to be a possibility for all students, negotiations must be made to bring down the cost of tuition without detracting the student’s learning experience or capacities. If this is accomplished, a far greater number of students will be able to attend college and therefore make a larger contribution to society and additionally be able to experience significant personal growth.
Institutions of higher education are of the utmost importance, but in order to make it that far students must first graduate from high school. In some parts of the country graduation rates are alarmingly low, dropping from a high 70% of students graduating in 1998 to less than 70%, and in some cases less than 60% graduating (3). The proposed bill has legislation within it that would help in combating these declining graduation rates.
A third important facet of the bill was improving conditions for our educators, the teachers who make everything possible. As Katie mentions, many studies and surveys have shown increased teacher dissatisfaction with salaries and treatment in the school system, an issue that must be solved. The teachers of our country help provide stability for the country by educating each generation, and many times they are underappreciated and even mistreated. This bill would assist in re-establishing the highest respect of this career and emphasizing the sense of accomplishment that comes with the job. By fixing some of the issues in the current schools this would attract new college graduates or young students to aspire to be teachers, another profession that is necessary in our country. For these reasons and more, I agree with Katie that the Education Opportunity Act is a necessary bill to pass and enact in this country.
1.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-7
2.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/2009/01/15/the-surprising-causes-of-those-college-tuition-hikes.html
3.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_baeo.htm
4.
http://educationalissues.suite101.com/article.cfm/nea__todays_teacher_issues
In response to Leah’s post:
I agree that the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act should be passed. I believe that Americans should not have to suffer because they decide to get a better education than that of a high school graduate. Two-thirds of the population graduates from college with student’s loans, and it is harder to find a job now than it has been in recent decades with an unemployment rate of 10% (1). When people are not able to get jobs to pay off their student loans because the government cannot provide jobs, then I think it is also the government’s job to help pay off these loans or reduce the costs of education. I believe this bill could be very beneficial to suffering students.
There are many other parts of the bill that would benefit the communities as a whole. The $8 billion that would be devoted to early childhood programs would help the future of the community (2). Like you said, it is important for our country to be educated, and I believe this bill could get us back on top. Education is vital part to a successful society, and allowing more people to attend college because it is affordable as well as pumping money into educating our future leaders can only benefit us.
Sources:
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/education/18educ.html?_r=1&scp= 1&sq=Student%20Aid%20and%20Fiscal%20Responsibility%20Act&st=cse
2. http://themiddleclass.org/bill/student-aid-and-fiscal-responsibility-act-2009
In response to Julia’s letter to Senator Klobuchar –
Julia, I fully agree with you that creating jobs has a direct correlation to the economy today. As of January 2010, the national unemployment rate 9.7%. The last time that the unemployment rate was this high was in 1982: in March, the unemployment rate was at 9.0% and by November, the unemployment rate was the highest it had been in over 30 years at 10.8% (1). However this new bill has the intentions and goals to reduce the unemployment rate. As you quoted in your letter, this bill, a “$15 billion measure that includes a one-year Social Security tax break for companies hiring new employees who have been out of work for at least 60 days. And would also reauthorize the Highway Trust Fund, allow companies to write off equipment purchases, and expand Build America Bonds, which help state and local governments fund infrastructure projects” has qualities that could help boost the economy (2). When employment is on the rise, the economy as a whole is better off then when unemployment rates are high. Also, this bill plans to expand companies that also will lead to a boost in the economy. I found it interesting, and applaud that you directly quoted Senator Klobuchar on her statements on supporting jobs and the economy. “I see that you made this statement on your website "I'm committed to working for economic policies that benefit all Americans. This means having a strong economy and a laser focus on job creation, affordable health care, homegrown energy and a federal budget that pays our way rather than piling up debt for future generations" (2). I hope you stand by this statement and vote yes for the job bill that will be voted on the 22nd” (3 and 4). I think that if you actually had sent this to Senator Klobuchar, that if she was not already planning on voting for the bill, that when she read your final statement, she would feel compelled to uphold her mission statement about jobs and the economy.
Work Cited:
1. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/21/AR2010022103272.html
3. http://klobuchar.senate.gov/middleclass.cfm
4. https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1594687385816014274&postID=7197092068523231383
I am responding to Devin's post about the use of reconciliation to pass health care reform. Devin, I thought your post was well-written and insightful. I have to initiate this post by saying that I'd really like to see something done to reform health care. I don't think Republicans are helping one bit to come to some sort of permissible plan, but I also don't think that reconciliation is the correct way to pass reform. That said, I don't think reconciliation has much of a chance in any case. For instance, some Democrats like Bart Stupack of Michigan say that the process has been "tainted" and he and his colleagues would be wary to attach their names to it (1). He seems to insinuate that Democrats don't even have enough votes to pass reconciliation. This could be true, as Republicans are bearing down hard on middle-of-the-road Democrats who could go either way. Herseth Sandlin, a South Dakota Democrat recently clarified that she would not vote for reconciliation (3). She says the process, which has never been used for something of this scope and importance, is inappropriate for health care reform (3). The same sense of disapproval may cost the Democrats some vital votes. Having won a marginal majority in the previous elections, Frank Kratovil, another Democrat, is receiving hundreds of calls daily urging him to vote 'no' to reconciliation (4). Why? Because the Republicans have sent out automatic phone messages to his constituents, as well as other target areas, which detail a "code red" message about the "dangerous, and out-of-control" health care bill (4). Kratovil's district, which is already highly Republican, would probably loath him if he decided to vote along with other Democrats. Considering this new pressure and Obama's falling approval ratings, it's likely that Kratovil's seat will be one of the many turned over in the coming elections. If he wants to save some of his political credibility with his constituents, he should definitely vote 'no.' I have to say that I disapprove of the Republicans methods. The wording in their message was inflamatory and misleading. The ultra-conservative Fox News critisizes Obama, who campaigned under promised partinship, for breaking that now (1). However, I truly do think that the Republicans forced his hand this time. Their efforts to forestall health care reform have absolutely zero positive effects while at least Obama is trying to get something accomplished. All the same, I don't think that Reconciliation will be passed. It is too radical, too desperate, and too controversial to garner the necessary votes, meaning we may need to wait that much longer to see some results in reform.
1. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,588067,00.html
2. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/04/phil-kerpen-obama-health-care-reconciliation-house-senate-fight-vote/
3. http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_8a77cfd0-27be-11df-a123-001cc4c03286.html
4. http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/2010/03/gop_robo_calls_target_kratovil.html
In response to Sarah,
While discrimination against gays is completely wrong, I don't think repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would be the best idea for our current situation. For starters in the middle of a war we would be decreasing our supply of troops. Two out of five recruits come from the South, and allowing for gays to serve openly would hurt the number of troops that enlist (1). Also homosexuals are a limited recruiting pool, representing only 2% of the population, meanwhile straight recruitment would fall (1).
While there is a large percentage of those who would be fine with homosexuals serving openly, there are still those who would be strongly against it. They could be subject to harassment by those who do oppose it. This would create even more stress for the homosexual soldiers as they would have to deal with both the front line as well as harassment from the soldiers who are suppose to have their back. The military would have to make separate barracks for the homosexual soldiers. It also creates a privacy issue for those who feel uncomfortable rooming or showering with homosexuals. This would add on to the already sky-rocketing costs of national defense. Also I do not think it would be a good idea to let gays serve openly when women already face harassment. The Pentagon reported 2.6 soldiers per 1,000 had reported a sexual assault (2). I think putting homosexual men and especially women would create a far more negative environment. I would rather have a homosexual woman serve secretly than have her harassed and possible assaulted.
Also with more homosexuals in the military the cases of HIV/AIDS would likely climb (1). As reported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, gay men remain the top risk group for AIDS (1). This is not only cost the government more but it also puts other soldiers at risk. The Navy currently has 560 sailors in HIV care. This costs the government over $20 million a year (1). Also it creates a hazard on the battle field. If an HIV infected soldier were to get shot, he puts all of his fellow soldiers at risk (1). Any contact with the injured solider could infect the others. It could reach a point were medics may be too cautious on the battle field and it will cost us even more lives.
The middle of a war is not a time to reform the system. We have neither the time or the money to make the overhauls that may be needed. I think that by allowing homosexuals to serve openly you open them up to even worse treatment overseas. Not even some of the women in our military go without being harassed. This is not a time to be PC, it is a time for focus so we can get our men and women home safely. War time is not the time to change your strategy. The causalities have been on the rise. Our country needs to think about the military as a wholes needs. Finish what we have started. There will be plenty of time to be politically correct when they are all home.
(1) http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=520061
(2) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122298757937200069.html?KEYWORDS=military+women
This comment has been removed by the author.
In Response to Solveig:
I completely agree with letter to Senator Franken to enact the Education Opportunity Act of 2009. I really liked how you explained how important education is and that you said “Education is invaluable to the productivity of society.” (1) That is the compete truth; with the direction society is heading in terms of reliance on resources not directly from the Earth, we need education to function as we do today, in years to come.
As well, I liked how you encouraged Senator Franken that Minnesota is a well-educated state, reassuring him of how great the people are that he is representing and making him want to cater to their needs. The rate of education levels in Minnesota overall is better than the United States. On National Assessment of Educational Progress tests, the higher score is better and in math, Minnesota had a 290 average while the US had a 278. In reading the US scored and average of 260 and Minnesota scored an average of 268 (2).
I agree with your statement that education is beneficial to all Americans. Overall people that have higher educations have lower sickness and mortality rates. This is continually increasing America’s superiority in the health field by proving that Americans live longer lives. As well, there are lower rates of crime in people that are educated than those who received less education. Higher education rates also decrease the amount of money that is needed in the welfare system (3).
Finally, I believe that your point about the cost of further education is completely correct. College costs are continually growing by more alarming rates and to allow others to succeed is a great act to be made by a group of politicians. These people will also be able to contribute more to society because of their greater rates of wealth. Generally, people that have a Bachelor’s degree earn almost twice as much as someone who has a high school degree. The weekly average for a high school degree is $618 while someone with a Bachelor’s degree earns a mean of $1012 per week (4). I think that your arguments were well presented and very strong. I would be surprised if Senator Franken did not find your letter convincing.
(1) Solveig’s Post
(2) http://nces.ed.gov/programs/stateprofiles/sresult.asp?mode=short&s1=27
(3) http://www.cbcse.org/media/download_gallery/Leeds_Report_Final_Jan2007.pdf
(4) http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
This is a response to Ali’s post!
I agree with Ali’s position that Senator Klobuchar should use her position in Congress to push the United States to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. As the United States tries to makeover its global image after the prior administrations, it would set an example that we believe in change and will follow through on our words with concise action. The United States has an overabundance of power and influence, and we should being using this to construct a safer and more secure world. If we want a world where we can devote our budget to education, healthcare, and improving our standard of living instead of one where we focus on defense and national security, we must be willing to de-arm to some extent. Like Ali, I believe that the world would be much better off without nuclear weapons, and she is correct in saying that ratifying “CTBT is a very effective first step.” I am not trying to say that we don’t need or shouldn’t have weapons and the capability to defend ourselves, but rather that the sheer destruction and disaster that would be caused by using nuclear weapons (or a test gone wrong) outweighs their minimal benefits. The United States is extremely advanced in weapons development, and with top scientists working on such projects, there is not a sufficient demand to test weapons as frequently as we do. We have sent mixed signals about our position on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and nuclear weapons, so the best way to rectify the situation is by ratifying this treaty.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home