"Taxation with Representation"

I agree with parts of your argument, but what about the families who barely make the cut? There are people out there who make just barely over the $250,000 cut and are also struggling to pay the bills each month. If we want to cut back the deficit, then the country needs to cut back on spending instead of passing a health care plan that will cost our country over $2 trillion. The reason why we are in so much debt is because of excessive spending anyways, so the best plan of action is to cut back instead of just taxing the citizens even more money.

Abortion: The Choice to Choose

Abortion has been one of the more controversial topics in United States history. The legality of the procedure has been in question for years and even after a decision was made, it is still not a closed case.

There are two main opposing groups on this issue, those who are Pro-Life and those who are Pro-Choice. Pro-Life advocates believe that aborting a fetus is essentially the murdering of a child. Pro-Choice advocates believe that the woman has the choice to do with her body whatever she feels. The latter group has received the most support on the legal end of the issue. The most ground breaking case concerning the legality of abortion was that of Roe v Wade in 1972. Roe was a resident of Texas and in Texas, abortion was illegal unless it is imperative to the woman's life. The case decided that abortion fell under the right to privacy and was protected by the 14th amendment. Roe v Wade was a ground breaking case in the issue of abortion because it offered Constitutional evidence in support of the legality of abortion.

We can not simply outlaw abortion based on a group's moral values because that one group only represents a fraction of the total population and imposing their views upon everyone else would only cause more issues. It also would be unconstitutional. Abortion is a decision that should be made by the woman herself, not by the general population. Today, with the internet, it is possible for women to become more well-informed on the dangers and risks so that she may make the decision that is morally right to herself.

If abortion was to be made illegal, what is to stop government from making birth control illegal also? Although it is not a form of abortion, but it does stop an already fertilized egg from implanting itself. In the Human Life Amendment, is states that once an egg is fertilized, it is a person. So technically, if abortion was to be made illegal, then birth control could also be made illegal.

If abortion was to be made illegal again, it would not stop women from getting abortions, they simply would seek out the seedy doctors who would perform the procedure in unfit conditions like they did before abortion was made legal. Many woman in the past have died from hemorrhaging and loss of blood or acquired some sort of life threatening infection that could cause sterility from these unsanitary conditions. A big part of the legalization of abortion was to stop these back alley butcher shops. So, in the end, wouldn't it be best for society as a whole to keep abortion legal so that those who do undergo the procedure, are guaranteed safe and sanitary conditions?

Personally, I believe it is up to the woman whether or not to get an abortion or not, yet, I probably would most likely not have an abortion because of the guilt I would feel. But that does not change the fact that I am Pro-Choice. The second I let a group, the majority of which are male, decide what I can or cannot do with my own body, is the day I give up my civil liberties.

"The Fight for Obesity"

In Jonathan Ninh's post, "The Fight for Obesity", he does a short, yet solid analysis of obesity today in America. Americans have tried to address the problem, but it is too late for this generation. Eating habits are formed as people grow up. In all honesty, it should not be up to our government, it is up to the families that make up our society to teach their children healthy eating habits. The only way our government can try and help the issue is by either requiring elementary schools to offer health courses or to include it in the physical education courses they already offer. Otherwise, the American public is in charge of its own eating habits.

Obamacare, will it hurt us more than it will help us?

When first looking at Obama's Affordable Care Act, it seems like it would be a good idea. It will get rid of the limits on your coverage, it will cover young adults on their parents plan until their 26th birthday and it will stop insurance companies from discriminationing against children who have existing conditions. The Act also has implemented a new Patient's Bill of Rights to prevent insurance companies from continuing on with bad practices. Sounds good, right? Let's take a closer look at it.

There are some flaws in his "universal" health care plan. First off, it's not really a universal plan. Obama is allowing people to either choose a private insurance company or to choose the national health care plan. That defeats the purpose of having the national health care plan because if the private insurance companies lower their rates, then the national health isurance loses its purpose.

Another issue with the health care plan is the funding. Obama plans on taxing the wealthy Americans and using the emergency funds from the states that would have otherwise been used to cover the cost of the uninsured's medical coverage. Now without these funds, people without insurance will be forced to purchase insurance whether they can afford it or not. Back to the taxes, it's not just the wealthy individuals who will be taxed, but also big businesses. Honestly, with the way our economy is right now, relying of these taxes to fund the program is not the best idea.

Continuing on with funding, even families that are considered to be of the wealthier class can not always afford these taxes. It's expensive to provide for a family and when one is heavily taxed upon that, it can be almost impossible to make ends meet. Same goes for smaller businesses, once the rest of the bill goes into effect in 2014, it is going to cause some workers to lose their jobs because the business owners who will be included in the taxes are going to be hit hard with the new taxes. Most small businesses do not provide health insurance for their workers so they will be hit with an extra tax penalty for not providing a health care plan.

A universal health care plan can work and be very successful, but Obama's plan is not the one. It is inadequate, much work needs to be done.

"His Name is 'Dick'"

Before I start my analysis of this blog, I would like to begin with talking about the author, Ann Coulter. Coulter is definitely Conservative, but regardless of her political ideology, I find her witty and extremely entertaining to listen to. Coulter is extremely well-informed and in 2001 was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals. She has been extremely involved in governent, especially the judicial side of it. She has written seven books that have all been New York Times bestsellers. Coulter is an accomplished woman and a very credible source.

The blog entry I read was "His Name is 'Dick'" where she argues against the electing of Richard Blumenthal to the U.S. Senate in Connecticut. Coulter's intended audience is obviously her fellow Conservatives but also other groups of people from many different points of view. Currently, Blumenthal is Connecticut's Attorney General and he's showed himself to be a devious, social climber. Since he was a child, Blumenthal has dreamed of one day becoming the president and until he reaches his goal, he will take down anyone he has to to get there, so he must be stopped. This accusation Coulter makes is harsh, but even people who are a part of his ideological group believe he must also be stopped. The New York Times printed a front page article about Blumenthal when he lied about being in Vietnam.

As Attourney General of Connecticut, Blumenthal has spent millions of dollars of the taxpayers money to prosecute many innocent citizens. An example given is when he sued Gina Kold, the owner of Computer Plus Center, for allegedly overcharging the state of Connecticut for computers by $500,000. This accusation was absurd and he lost the case, but it ended up destroying Kold's business. Kold came back and sued the state for violating her constitutional rights and the jury decided in her favor rewarding her $18 million. Coulter's evidence is strong and supports her argument superbly. Even after the court decided in her favor, Blumenthal STILL could not back off, he kept trying to reverse the outcome and after much trying, he was able to reduce the damages paid to Kold by a small fraction. Do we really want a man like Blumenthal who will spend our money without any regard to the taxpayers best interests to be in any position on power? Honestly from what Coulter has said so far, I sure as hell don't want him!

Blumenthal is well-known in Connecticut because of his daily press releases announcing the new lawsuit of the day, not for his successes. He makes lawsuits over the most trivial and unimportant things and it is just a waste of the state's money. Competitive Enterprise Institute named him the "Worst Attorney General in the Country". How can you disagree with Coulter when that kind of evidence is given. Blumenthal has started various, absurd lawsuits, and here are a few of them. One, he sued power companies because they contributed to global warming, not even Obama or the Senate would pass it. And two, he sued gun companies for assisting in violent crimes involving guns by a third party. The first of these was ridiculous, but the second one is absolutely insane.

Coulter's argument to stop Blumenthal's rise to the Senate is valid and well-supported. She definitely won me over; this is definitely a topic that I want to do some more reading over and I recommend you to do the same by reading Coulter's blog,

"Departing Congress leaves piles of unfinished business"

This editorial appears on USA Today's website and approaches the issue of Congress finishing its term without resolving the majority of the issues facing the United States. It was written by a group of people apart of the Editorial Board at USA Today. There are two different audiences that are being addressed in this editorial, first, Congress, secondly, the citizens.

The authors claim that the 111th Congress only accomplished three things; stimulating the economy to help avoid a depression, the health care reform and the financial reform. The reason given why this had happened is because each party in Congress has chosen one extreme and it is impossible to make any kind of compromise. These arguments are completely reasonable and I must agree.

Examples from the past couple of years are given to prove the disharmony within Congress. Some of the main issues have had to do with issues of public health and safety. People continuously have been getting sick from contaminated food. In July of 2009, the House voted to give the Food and Drug Administration more funding but it was stalled because of one Senator. This is a solid example and supports the argument made. This issue is extremely important because people died from the diseases that contaminated several different foods, yet Congress is stalling. Another issue that has been neglected is that of safety in the mines. Last April, there was an explosion at the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia that left 29 of the miners dead. One Senator tried to pass legislation to increase safety measures in the mines, but yet again, Congress is stalling any progress. Yet another solid piece of evidence. Since Congress has yet to make any advance in the issue of miner's safety, more could possibly die before the new Congress meets at the beginning on this next year.

Public health and safety sadly are not the only issues that have been left idle, but also immigration and global warming have been pushed aside. The issue of immigration is so controversial that reform may quite possibly be out of reach. In my last post, we saw just how controversial and complicated the immigration issues really are. In the issue of global warming, there has been scientific proof and Senate has yet to pass legislation to slow the effect. This issue has been stalled, but it honestly is not as serious as the other unfinished legislation, yet still more proof of Congress' inability to get their job done.

Taxing has also raised much indecision among Congress. Hard-headed Congressmen allowed the estate tax to expire this year causing the deficit to rise to $15 billion. Also, the remaining 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of this year, and Congress will leave without even addressing the bills. The main tax issue is whether or not to renew the tax cuts for everyone or just the 96% who make less than $200,000 a year. No compromise has been made over any of these taxes and they will have to wait until the new Congress meets in a couple of months. Yet again, a valid and strong support to the argument.

The editorial claims that neither party is very likely of gaining a decent majority anytime soon, so these patterns of stalling and indecision are most likely to continue. In past eras, Republicans and Democrats worked together to pass the legislation necessary to keep the nation afloat. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to achieve these results now. The editorial provided many examples of a Democratic President getting a Republican Congress to pass pieces of legislation and vice versa.

This editorial did a great job of presenting the issue of Congress leaving much unfinished business and providing solid and valid support. Next Congress has their plate full, so they better start making trade-offs or else the already large stack of unfinished legislation and unaddressed issues will continue to grow until our government is in over its head. Then what will happen?

“Border Convictions: High Stakes, Unknown Price”

In Ted Robbin's article featured on National Public Radio's website called "Border Convictions: High Stakes, Unknown Price", he talks about the "Border Control Program called Operation Streamline"  and how no one really knows how much it is costing our nation, but it is a large number. Operation Streamline works to pick up people crossing the border illegally and puts them through the court system at incredible speed. Because this program involves the judicial system, it is bound to cost more.

Even the supporters of this program do not know how much it costs. Arizona's Senator John Kyl asked Congress to get the administration to find out the total cost, and a year and a half later, no one knows. In Tuscon, around a quarter of a million immigrants enter illegally each year and they only have enough time to prosecute 70 immigrants a day, when this number needs to in fact be much higher. In order for Arizona to be able to handle this issue and run Operation Streamline to its full potential, it would have to double the resources of the entire country and put it all towards the Tuscon area. Since the amount of spending is unknown, there is no way that this extra funding can really be done.

After reading this, it's crazy to think that one of the programs that our country is running has a cost that no one knows about, not even the leaders in our country. Our money is paying for this program so why can't the price of it be known? I think it is important to know about this, because this issue affects us all. Especially since we live in a state that borders Mexico, where the majority of the country's immigration issues are occurring. I encourage everyone to read this article.