Thoughts on President Obama's proposed offshore drilling plan...

Today, the President announced a controversial plan to raise offshore drilling bans on previously untouchable areas off the eastern US coast, from Virginia south to just north of Florida, northern Alaska, and the southeastern Gulf of Mexico; thus opening the door to bidders from the American oil and natural gas industry. This action should come as no surprise to those who followed Obama on the campaign trail in 2008. He stated, as a candidate, that he would take a hard look at reasonable ways to increase our domestic oil and natural gas supply while also taking into account the need to protect environmentally vulnerable areas, such as Alaska’s Bristol Bay and the numerous protected areas lining America’s west coast.

This decision is by no means apolitical, and the usual suspects have already begun to take their shots at the President’s drilling proposal. Critics from both sides of the aisle, such as House Minority Leader John Boehner, who stated “keeping the Pacific Coast and Alaska, as well as the most promising resources off the Gulf of Mexico, under lock and key makes no sense at a time when gasoline prices are rising and Americans are asking 'Where are the jobs?,” and environmentalists, opposed to any new drilling whatsoever, were quick to jump on the President’s decision. These left and right reactions act as further proof that Obama is governing primarily down the center of the political spectrum. The White House has called this kind of decision making “principled post partisanship”, largely basing their decisions on pragmatism, as opposed to party politics and short term gain.

Though the decision to increase drilling at home may be pragmatic, given that we unquestionably need to transition from foreign energy sources to domestic and alternative ones, this move was ultimately a strategic political concession made to appease conservatives in Congress in the name of the bigger picture. In order for Obama to gain broader bi-partisan support for the administrations larger agenda on energy reform, the Administration decided to go ahead with portions of the offshore drilling ban initially proposed by the George W. Bush Administration in 2008.

The difference in approach by the two Presidents’ is something that many environmentalists need to take note of. Obama, as opposed to Bush’s plan to use Bristol Bay as a drilling area, put the bay and other sensitive areas onto the list of forbidden places to drill. In addition, the plan also requires drilling to be at least 125 miles offshore from Florida, out of the view of those enjoying the coastline. In the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the plan is to drill near areas where platforms already exist, and to expand towards the southeast, not towards the western Florida coast. Governors in eastern states, such as Virginia and North Carolina, obviously aren’t excited by the prospect of oil rigs off their shores, but they do, for the most part, recognize the need to bring energy reform and independence to the forefront.

The Presidents broader point is this; as we now produce only 2% of the world’s oil supply, while we use approximately 25% of the global supply for our energy needs, it is in our best interest to harness domestic oil and natural gas as we develop new ways to power our grid and our cars. The imminent transition to clean energy will require a period of change where we wane off foreign suppliers in favor of domestic sources. Though in the short term there is the unfortunate chance of spills and harm to wildlife, there is no other way forward in the long term. The alternative is continued importation from nations in tense, war torn regions abroad. Given the entrenched views on the subject of environmental responsibility, inevitably, this is set to spur another fierce debate with a plethora of faces and arguments for and against it.

Liberal coastal populations will most likely be against this plan, but this opposition is to be expected. Republicans will have to decide whether they are going to behave in a bi-partisan manner, and join in on a policy change they have traditionally supported, or to continue the strategy of opposing every policy proposed by the Obama Administration. Democrats and Independents will need to look to the long term plan for comfort, as the prospect of offshore drilling and environmental impact is a hard pill for any environmentally conscious individual to swallow. None of these strategic decisions will be clean or without drama, and we should expect nothing less.

But, if we are to ultimately become an energy independent nation, this decision may be the crucial second step, along with increased focus on nuclear energy announced earlier this year, in a series of policy changes leading towards the larger goal of self-reliance. More steps will obviously be necessary, and the debate will probably get personal and heated, but as the national conversation pivots towards the future of the climate and energy, we will likely look back to these first two Obama decisions as crucial turning points in the long term pursuit of an energy independent America.

Thoughts on education and our future progress...

There is an educational paradigm facing the United States of America. Every time a student drops out of high school or college, the collective intelligence and prosperity of the entire nation suffers, and the future of that individual becomes statistically bleak. According to the UN Education Index, the United States ranks at a dismal 19th in educational attainment. This is unacceptable by our lofty standards, and hints at a cynical standpoint by some who claim that we have the best educational system in the world. The bottom line is that unless we address the standards by which we judge a good education, from teachers and parents, to the student loan system, we will continue to see rising underemployment and unemployment in this country. Given this fact, it is useful for us to address the learning deficit problem head on.

This criticism of our educational system acknowledges that there are also exceptions to the status quo. There are many great schools in America, primarily in well off districts, which have high graduation rates and send a majority of their students to college. But, this is not the case in many less fortunate school districts across America. The truth is that many middle and lower income communities have an educational crisis on their hands. Minority populations, in particular African Americans and Hispanics, are falling too far behind, collectively graduating approximately 53% (according to the Alliance for Excellent Education) of high school students in 2009; A rate that is 19% lower than that of their White and Asian counterparts. Not only are thousands of public school budgets in the red, Federal programs, such as No Child Left Behind, are in need of increased funding and improved direction.

As America slowly climbs out of this recession, the heart of the recovery lies in our unified ingenuity and ambitions. We have a collective responsibility and a vested interest in creating an environment where learning and continuing education are the norm. In order to compete globally today and in the future, our educational standards must rise, and our tolerance for ignorance must shrink. The facts of the matter are staggering. As states make tough financial decisions regarding education budgets, the numbers tell us that the future success of a majority of Americans lies greatly on the education level attained by that individual.

According to recent polling data, there is a direct link between underemployment, unemployment and a citizen’s education level. Though there are always exceptions to the norm, the collected data tells this highly predictable story. A recent article by Gallup states that amongst the underemployed, “the underemployment picture for those without a high school diploma is even bleaker. They currently face a 36.2% underemployment rate, and are 50% more likely than high school graduates to be underemployed, three times more likely than those having a college degree, and four times more likely than those who have done postgraduate work. High school graduates are twice as likely as college graduates to be underemployed.” These numbers are identical in proportion to overall unemployment. These staggering figures also show why it is imperative that we tackle the problem of preparing our citizenry for global competition. If graduation levels do not improve, with an emphasis on all subjects, we will continue to see falling tax revenues and an increased need for hiring foreign talent to work in jobs that will not go to an unprepared American job force. Our interests in all sectors of the economy are at risk if the government does not act. Take healthcare, the majority of the increasing number of the uninsured are those who are unemployed or working part time shifts. To buck the costly trend towards increased underemployment, we need our schools to produce a better educated workforce capable of creating opportunities for the next generation who should aspire to do great things in America.

Going forward, it will be important for our schools to put students in a better position to succeed. Along with encouraging responsible parenting, we need to examine nationwide curriculum standards with an emphasis on building up the weakest links on the educational chain. As mentioned in my previous article, the return of nearly 8 to 10 Billion dollars per month of taxpayer money to the treasury, following the end of the Iraq War, will provide much needed funds for an educational system in dire economic straits. Along with updating the standards set in No Child Left Behind, actions taken to address state budgetary issues will provide a much needed boost to schools underperforming and/or on the brink of closure.

Today, President Obama signed legislation which will take big steps to remove bank greed from the student loan process. This law, coupled with changes to the health care reform bill, sets limits on the interest rates and minimum payments for those who are taking part in this expanded federal student loan program. In addition, the fact that many middle and lower income families will now have an added incentive to push their children to the college level, because of an even financial playing field for all Americans seeking student loans for continued education ,will encourage a culture of learning and innovation in minority communities nationwide.

America’s ambitious students deserve an honest bi-partisan effort to reform the educational system. As the Iraq War winds down, and resources become available to solve the problems facing our schools, let’s hope that our leaders will realize the urgency of renewing America’s intellectual status worldwide. We must use these incoming funds wisely. The education of our citizenry is a matter of national interest that must be addressed both immediately and responsibly. In the upcoming months, we should keep a close eye on the education debate. The time has come to bring the American educational system into the 21st century for all citizens, not just the elite and/or fortunate few. The future viability of American progress is at stake, and our ability to lead globally lies in addressing the paradigm facing our educational system.

Thoughts on war and the domestic agenda of the United States…

Upon analysis of the proposed budget for fiscal year 2011, it has become obvious that the priorities of the United States are in great jeopardy due to massive debt incurred from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only have over 4,000 servicemen (including my first cousin) and women died in the war on terror, but over 30,000 will return home with life altering battle wounds. In addition, billions in taxpayer dollars have disappeared due to mismanagement by hired contractors, overpayment to companies like Halliburton, and corruption by those who are responsible with using these funds appropriately as directed.

Unfortunately for taxpayers, the war debt created by the Bush Administration has now come due, and with heavy interest. This year alone, it is estimated that US taxpayers will foot a bill of nearly 200 billion dollars for debt incurred over the past decade. Our military budget is 1.2 Trillion dollars this year, and the fact that war spending was billed as a separate budget entity under President Bush, only recently to be included in the full budget, demonstrates the degree to which fiscal irresponsibility was ignored in the name of fighting the “axis of evil” abroad.

The Obama Administration, despite escalating troop levels to finish the fight in Afghanistan, has already begun to reign in wasteful defense spending. Not because they intend to back down to outside threats, but because the cost of waging war for nine years has taken a critical toll on the domestic agenda here at home. Programs such as Social Security and Medicare are at risk because we are spending nearly $10 billion a month fighting overseas. To date, the Iraq War has cost over $740 billion. In comparison, Afghanistan, the true stomping grounds of the 9/11 planners, has cost a mere $260 billion or one-third of Iraq. In all, over one trillion dollars have been spent on anti-terror based operations, and only now are we truly focused on finishing the job of dusting off the Taliban and capturing Al Qaeda leadership.

In stark contrast, W. Bush’s father was able to wage the first Gulf War at a total cost of $62 billion, including returning our troops home to safety upon completion of the mission. W, as opposed to his father, declared victory, but then chose to extend the conflict into an ambitious nation building operation. This decision was made with budgeting practices which ignored the long term viability of such an action. As the price of the War in Iraq skyrocketed, it became apparent that defense spending was spiraling out of control. Thus, the Bush Administration told the Pentagon to scrap unnecessary projects, such as a new fleet of Presidential helicopters, in a shallow attempt to appear frugal.

With defense spending dominating budgetary matters, the mainland American public was suffering dire economic consequences. From unregulated banks, Wall Street greed, and an exploding housing bubble, there is no denying that fighting two wars, while largely ignoring the home front, ultimately led us to near chaos in late 2008. While it cost taxpayers over $390,000 to deploy a solider abroad, middle class and lower income families saw their wages remain stagnant amidst inflation in healthcare costs and gas prices that peaked near $6 dollars a gallon at the height of the Iraq War.

In a sense, our country has not only lent its heart, soul, and children to fight these wars, we’ve sacrificed a decade worth of monetary progress to avenge a savage act on our soil. To debate the necessity of the Iraq War is futile; as it is coming to an end as you read this, but there is no doubt that the American people are less well off because of the irresponsible manner in which it was conducted. Our reputation abroad was damaged because of holes in the game plan, and the proximity of the conflict to Iran and Israel has allowed tensions to reach a boil. This brewing conflict took center stage, while our education, healthcare, and immigration systems required attention that was not being given to them.

Now is the time for us to focus on the problems that are right under our noses. President Obama has begun to draw down the troop levels in Iraq, diverting additional resources to the fight in Afghanistan, and setting his sights on 9/11 and Al Qaeda. The eventual return of a majority of our armed forces to the mainland will have a dramatic effect on the morale of the country, and aid in our ability to handle tough domestic issues. Going forward, it will be vital to refocus on building an America that is ready to lead both militarily and intellectually in the 21st century.

We need to become a healthier nation from a mental standpoint, and we need to reevaluate what kind of country we want to be going forward. Are we to be defined by our wars or by our ideas? Are we going to be a nation that fears the future, or relishes it? These questions are important to think about as we witness new foreign and domestic policies begin to take form. It will be in the vested interest of all Americans to take note of the impact of a less confrontational world view on our perception abroad, as well as the effects of having an extra $10 billion per month to use for domestic purposes.

Though in the end these wars we have waged are but a blip in the violent history of the world, we must realize that this is our time to regroup as a nation. The decisions that are made by our leaders going forward will ultimately define all of our futures. For this reason, we must all agree that no matter what our petty differences may be, our common needs do not change because we are at war. It is because of this fact that future wars must be fought within the realm of financial reason. Ultimately, we cannot afford to fight preemptively if it means bankrupting our nation again. The time has come to take note of what has happened to us, and to avoid repeating history in the future.

Addendum I: Effects of ending the War in Iraq: The successful return home of the brave soldiers stationed in Iraq should have short term positive boost on the morale of the entire nation. It will be our responsibility to help our biggest patriots mesh into the non-war world. We have to remember that this has been the longest War we have fought in several lifetimes, so it will be difficult even for the strongest minded of our troops to adapt to the calmness of daily life in America. In addition, a decline in tension between the US and Iran may be possible some time down the road given that much of the current day paranoia expressed by the President of Iran is due to our proximity to their border and their fear of American imperialism. Finally, world markets should welcome the renewed flow of billions more in domestic spending to renew the American economy, leaving the potential for a late 90's type boom.

Thoughts on Congress moving forward post health care reform

The United States Senate has notoriously been called the institution where great ideas go to die. Currently, there are hundreds of good bills passed by the House of Representatives which have yet to be debated by, or even considered by the Senate. Many of these bills are bi-partisan, and many of the critical issues, such as financial reform and fixes to No Child Left Behind, are being shunned by the minority party in the name of politics. This is unacceptable in our current economic condition.

By refusing to let committees meet, and pulling out every possible parliamentary inquiry known to man, Republicans in the Senate have decided not to be part of the practical solutions to the problems facing the nation. Senator John McCain, a man formerly known for reaching across the aisle despite politics, declared today that any proposed legislation was “dead” because of his party’s bitter feelings over the process of the health care reform debate. This kind of behavior is childish, especially when we are recovering from a nationwide recession.

If this cynical activity is allowed to continue, bills that both sides agree are beneficial will sit and grow dust. Good bills, shunned by a stubborn minority, only to be reintroduced and fall prey to the same viscous cycle. There is serious business before The Senate that must be handled by serious people. We assume that our Senators are those people, that they are reasonable professionals who are elected to work, and not to stall progress.

There is nothing to stop any one Senator from debating their point for or against a bill. Most Americans can respect eloquent argument in the face of tough problems. But, when stall tactics and petty partisan games are used to impede the progress of the nation, it makes an already frustrated American public tune out the political process. In order for the United States to emerge stronger from the past decade, it will be necessary for our leaders to take on the business of the people, not duck from it. Not because of politics, but because the future of our country depends on it.

Thoughts on political incivility in 2010

It’s time for us all to take a deep breath. Our history has shown us that the current path of incivility some have chosen to take will only lead us to repeat our darkest days as a nation. Whether you supported health care reform or not, we can all agree that we collectively want to be defined by the best we have to offer, not the worst. Right, left, or middle politically, no reasonable person can excuse the recent threats of violence made against multiple members of Congress and The President of the United States. This should not be the case in 2010, a time where the perception abroad of the strength of our democracy must not be in question. With two wars still in progress, we must remain strong and united in our purpose to represent what makes America great: our civility and our common ideals.

No matter how deeply rooted your opposition to any one particular policy; there is nothing in our character as a nation that allows for such hateful actions. No elected official who voted for the Health care Reform Bill deserves to have their families targeted, nor should people take to arms and fire at a Republican representative’s campaign office. Have we not learned these lessons from tragic events such as the Oklahoma City Bombings in 1993, the Civil War, and the assassinations of JFK and Abraham Lincoln? Now is the time for us to unite despite our differences, take a moment to realize we are all Americans despite our political opinions, and put an end to this violent nonsense.

When we allow our own selfish reasoning to outweigh common sense civility, we endanger the very core of our values as Americans. Violence against our neighbors, agree with them or not, is not something we can afford to tolerate. It’s our duty to let those who are distraught know that they need only vote to express their disdain for public policy. Our leaders need to come together on a bi-partisan basis and show Americans that they are united under one flag, one constitution, and a lasting creed to remain civil in the midst of tough argument and debate.

As we deploy our troops to foreign nations, it is imperative that we set a good example for those whom we are trying to help achieve a free democracy. We need to respect one another’s opinions, and if we should disagree, act like we’ve been there before, and put hatred to the side. Our country cannot afford to become more divided. Unless we can return to an era of respect towards our political leaders, and most importantly, one another, the ideal of America as a civil democracy will quickly fall into jeopardy. Today is the best time to end the hate, the animosity, the incitement, the cynicism, and to allow the best of us to come forward. I hope we can all agree that coming together in condoning the past weeks actions of a radical few is in the best interest of all Americans.

Thoughts on the future of the Tea Party Movement

The Boston Tea Party of 1773 was a landmark occurrence in the sequence of events leading to the American Revolution. That day, fed up colonists revolted violently against the imposing taxes placed on tea by King George. Their cause, defending the rights of the colonies to engage in commerce without such a huge tax burden imposed by the British, ultimately led to the tar and feathering of British soldiers in front of an angry mob. The actions taken that day eventually helped to allow revolutionary aspirations to reach a fever pitch.

Flash forward to 2008, following the selection of Sarah Palin as the Vice-Presidential nominee of the Republican Party, it seemed there was a dramatic split between the social conservatives in the party and John McCain’s moderate Republican base. McCain, considered barely a Republican by many conservatives (dating back to his battles with George W. Bush during the 2000 Republican Primary process), never had control of his own party’s message. Social conservatives felt alienated by the mainstream Republican’s lack of enthusiasm for their core issues, including abortion, gun control, and a united disdain for Barack Obama and the Democrats. Their discontent would seal his fate.

Though McCain would attempt to entice the far right with gimmicks such as “Joe the Plumber”, most social conservatives felt a lack of enthusiasm by the mainstream Republican Party towards their social agenda, and they stayed home on election night in 2008. The next morning, it was obvious that there was a considerable gap in the conservative movement. Born out of discontent towards Washington, a perception of taxation without representation, and a general dislike for the agenda of President Obama, The Tea Party Movement, as they called themselves, took on increased traction by filling the gap amongst social conservatives looking for a platform to organize upon.

The Tea Party quickly grew into a group of loosely affiliated sub-groups, rallying behind politicians who fulfilled their agenda of a more socially conservative union. Though on the face, the movement had legitimate grass-roots ideals, such as opposition to the bank bailouts and the Recovery Act, the lack of leadership amongst the group allowed a radical element to hijack their cause. During the heated debates over health care last summer, The Tea Party jumped upon every rumor, true or false, and marketed health care as a government takeover. Followers took to the streets and town halls, and the opportunists in the crowd began to use the publicity of the moment to promote anti-minority, anti-government, and generally divisive sentiments among the movement.

Though it is true that many Tea Party members are good people, the above-stated hijacking took center stage this past weekend with the actions of health care protesters in Washington DC. Representing the Tea Party “Patriots”, some in the crowd channeled their inner 1960’s by raining down verbal abuse on minority members of Congress as they made their way to debate and vote on the bill before them. 50 years after the civil rights era, a radical few have tainted the image of the social conservative movement in this country. Tea Party members, lacking a leader, have no unified message with which to combat the hijacking of their cause by the fringes of the right. Some seem to condone the actions, and some seem to hold these people in contempt. What is sure, is the demise of the Tea Party Movement should they continue to allow uncivil behavior to define them going forward.

Republicans who have embraced the Tea Party, such as House Minority Leader John Boehner and Sarah Palin, stand guilty of inciting these crowds by playing to their most cynical and egregious claims for short term political gain. The result of this kind of irresponsible guidance has been mob like action by radical Tea Party members who have taken the support of these politicians to heart. The reality is that the Republican Part cannot allow the Tea Party to grow too large without incorporating them, or they run the risk of having the conservative vote split in November.

In the upcoming weeks, we will see attempts by many previously moderate Republicans to embrace the Tea Party. Even though they fly to the right of their true political identity. Already, in an attempt to reign in the Tea Partiers, former Bush Chief of Staff Karl Rove has begun talking down to them, blaming their lack of civility on the politically unsophisticated nature of the movement. Leading to the bigger questions going forward: First, will a cause, which has taken on its own identity, begin to run its own candidates in opposition to Democrats and Republicans? Second, will the Tea Party fold to pressure from the GOP and join the Republican cause going forward? And finally, can the Republican Party survive without gaining their support? The answers will arise in the months ahead, but the impact on the political landscape, much like the Tea Party of 1773, will be felt for years to come.

Thoughts on whether the GOP should exhaust their resources fighting the new health care law

In the coming days, weeks, months, and years, the conversation about what direction to take the health care reform debate in our country will undoubtedly continue. There is no question that because the bill which passed today is imperfect, there will be hundreds of amendments passed and proposed by both sides in order to improve upon its long term effectiveness. This has ultimately been the case with every major piece of legislation passed into law since the inception of our country. And when the dust settles, most progressives would argue that it’s better to have a starting point on which to build on than to remain committed to the unsustainable status quo.

Knowing this, Republican Attorney Generals still insist on fighting the new law in the courts, deeming the bill unconstitutional due to the upcoming federal mandate requiring everyone purchase health care insurance by 2014. Similar fights have been launched in the past, but as you will see, the Federal Commerce Clause gives the United States Congress the power to enact laws which transcend state lines. Ultimately, the leaders of these uphill fights have ended up on the wrong side of history.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Though at first glance the text may leave one to believe that the states can basically do anything they please at the expense of Federal Law, the Supreme Court has consistently maintained a different viewpoint on what the text should be interpreted to mean.

According to the Supreme Court in US v Darby, “The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.” This text will surely be quoted from in upcoming debates over the constitutionality of the new law.

When combined with the Commerce Clause, which states “The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes,” the influence of the Tenth Amendment on the issue of repeal of a law passed by the Congress and the President becomes minute. States already adhere to many federal mandates, such as wearing seat belts, car insurance, speed limits, and the age limits for alcohol and cigarette use. Thus, it seems unlikely that a move to repeal by the minority party, in the courts or in the Congress, will be a successful endeavor.

Given these facts, and the common knowledge that as the minority party the GOP must carefully pick its battles, does it seem wise for the RNC to dedicate so much of its political capital to a cause which is destined to fail in the courts? Would Republicans not be wiser to concentrate on coming together on the basis of constructing a new agenda of ideas as opposed to trying to repeal new laws? And finally, having themselves used the Federal Commerce Clause in the past to enact interstate legislation; does the GOP ultimately run the risk of looking hypocritical by challenging this bill?

Thoughts on Congress moving forward post health care reform

There is no denying that the historic piece of health care reform legislation passed by the House of Representatives Sunday evening will leave lasting memories in the minds of most Americans. Deep rooted ideological differences, legal maneuvering, political posturing, and the messy nature of the bill passing process were brought to the forefront. At the same time, it’s quite possible that our system worked exactly as it was intended. When faced with a complex paradigm like the health of our citizens, both chambers of Congress exhausted the plentiful arguments of both sides, triggering a tidal wave of opinion across the entire country.

In the third way tradition of FDR and Clinton, President Obama let the arguments of both sides reach a collective boil, taking into account the best ideas of both sides, incorporating over 200 amendments from the minority party, and directing the bill towards the center of the political spectrum. The fringes of each side, tending to be the loudest of the American citizenry, put pressure on Congress and the President to appease both more radical forms of change by the left and putting a halt to the process altogether by the right. The winners in the end would be those with pre-existing conditions, the uninsured, the middle class, and the millions who overpay for insurance that doesn’t always serve its purpose of delivering a quality deal for the sickest Americans.

It was common knowledge that no one bill could appease all sides of such a personal debate, with the costs so high for both parties, there was no question that this would be an ugly process. The protests took a negative turn, but civil minds prevailed, therefore the question now shifts to moving forward to solve the other pressing issues facing us. Largely overlooked throughout the health care debate were bi-partisan bills which passed to get people back to work, such as the HIRE Act. Immigration reform, environmental and energy policies, and a host of other potentially divisive issues will soon take hold of the conversation, but we can rest assured that despite our differences there can still be meaningful policy made by our government.

It may be true that in politics nothing is simple, there are always going to be opposing viewpoints, but when civility, common sense, and healthy debate are allowed to take the stage, the result is often a legislative product that will benefit the whole of our society, not just the loudest, richest, or the most powerful amongst us. The promising result of a century long debate gives us good reason to be optimistic for the future of our country, and a chance to realize and appreciate the power of uniting our ideas beyond simplistic, and often divisive political theatre.

Thougts on whether arguments against health care reform based on abortion language are warranted

Having just listened to Rep. Cao of Louisiana acknowledge that he is voting against health care reform based on his religious beliefs, rather than fulfilling the will of his constituents, I think now is the perfect time to analyze the validity of the anti-abortion argument as it relates to the current health care bill before the House of Representatives.

In the previous article, I spoke about the need for Senators and members of Congress to represent the collective views of their districts and states as opposed to voting for, or on ideological, party line, or personal religious reasons. Obviously, not everyone will share the same religious beliefs as Rep. Cao, so the debates on policy in this country really should hinge on the content and merits of the bill, rather than on one single minded congressman’s thoughts on an idealistic, anti-abortion, America.

After reading the text of the legislation closely, I’m struggling to see how any honest legislator, on either side of the aisle, catholic or pro-choice, can argue that the bill before them will ultimately lead to federally funded abortion in the future. If these congressmen and women are so inclined to fight abortions, they should focus more closely on the fact that private insurers, not the government, are already covering thousands of abortions at this time.

To deny 32 million Americans health care coverage in the name of something that doesn’t exist in the bill at hand seems to make absolutely no sense. In the name of compromise, it has been stated from the very beginning, that the intention of this bill is not to increase access to abortions, nor to involve the government in the practice. Republicans and Democrats who have read the full text should know this, which is why many people might be dumbfounded by the voting decision of Rep. Cao on that basis.

Not to lay this all on Cao, but he represents a population in desperate need of care and has chosen his own selfish religious ideals over solving one of the biggest problems facing the population which he was elected to represent. There is still a group of congressmen, including Cao, and led by Rep. Stupak, who insist on staying firm based on their belief in a huge abortion rush in the future.

Is it time for these representatives to take a hard look at themselves, the people they represent, and decide whether saving the lives of thousands of Americans is less important than a fear of fulfilling a selfish virtue? Should a bill, which can be amended and fine-tuned in the future to clean up small disparagements, fail on the basis of a matter which has been settled in principle already? Are representatives who vote for themselves, or their parties, over the needs of their constituents the right people to lead our country?

As we have learned from the messy process before us now, who we send to Washington to represent our collective interests is a vital decision which we must take seriously. The responsibility ultimately lies with each of us to stay relative in the political process by exercising our right to vote in every election, even the less popular mid-term elections. Collectively, we need to do a better job picking our leaders this November. If we do this, we may be able to avoid elected officials like Cao who will stop progress based on fact less claims.

Thoughts on Speaking for All Americans

Over the past year, it has become increasingly apparent that our major political parties have become infected with members who insist they speak on behalf of all Americans. Yesterday, I heard Rep. John Boehner continue to insist to CNN that “Americans don’t want this health care bill,” which no matter how you feel about its passage, is clearly both untrue, and arrogant. No matter which party you may support, we can all agree that there is only one elected official who has been sent to speak on behalf of all Americans, The President of the United States.

Whether you support the right, left or the middle, it is simply not true that a Senator or Congressman/woman is sent to Congress to represent anything other than the needs of their particular state or district. If you represent Virginia, don’t tell someone in Texas what they think, they didn’t elect you. If you support a bill, or are adamantly opposed to something, speak on behalf of your constituents, not the entire nation. It reeks of arrogance, and turns off many people who don’t appreciate being told what they believe.

The recent Health Care Summit was a prime example of this, with both sides collectively claiming things that are not unanimous by any means, and even though there may be polling that shows favor towards on side, it still does not mean that all Americans feel a certain way about it. This infection has spread like a wildfire through the minority party as of late, which is very ironic since Republicans are not in a position to truthfully claim they represent the prevailing interest in this country. If that were true, Barack Obama would not be in the White House, which leads to a closing thought.

In my opinion, it is a sign of disrespect to most Americans when officials who represent states with tiny populations claim to represent the entire country. There is a reason why the representatives of the 50 states are sent to a chamber where they are to collectively determine the best interests of the country. The purpose of the Senate and US Congress is not minority rule. When the collective of the Congress is in favor of a measure, even still they cannot claim to speak for all Americans, just a majority of Americans. The minority party, to be truthful, would have to pre-phrase their statements with “a minority of Americans feel” or “the people of my state feel.” These recommendations, though they will most likely be victim to deaf ears, may be the recipe for more realistic political statements. Let the current President speak for the Americans who voted for him, and let the Senate and Congress collectively speak for their respective States. Anything more is simply outside of the scope of reality.

Thoughts on Deaths Related to Lack of Health Insurance in the US

Today, while doing my research for this article, I stumbled upon an old USA Today article from May of 2002. In the article, it had been determined by researchers that 18,000 people in the United States had died from a lack of health insurance in 2001. The article also mentioned that approximately 30 million people lacked health insurance at the time, a number relatively equal to the amount of people who will be covered under the Senate’s health care bill. These numbers, while staggering, pale in comparison to the numbers researchers found in 2009.

In a CNN article from September of 2009, It was determined that over 45,000 Americans died in 2008 because they did not have health care insurance, a number we can only sadly predict as having risen since. This, with approximately 45 million Americans off of the Health Insurance rolls. At the same time, health insurance CEO’s raked in massive salaries, while denying coverage to many of these people who are no longer with us. 15 Million People joined the ranks of the uninsured, and a staggering increase of deaths amongst this group makes this the biggest homeland threat we have ever faced.

We have spent nearly 750 billion dollars on the War in Iraq, but nothing has been done to respond to the thousands of deaths occurring right under our noses. Using basic math, passing the current bill would save approximately 30,000 lives over the course of a year, just by providing basic health care services to the sick and needy. The short term costs of a trillion dollars over 10 years, while tough to swallow, are nothing compared to the costs to families across the country. If the current system remains in place, we are effectively allowing people to die on our watch. It’s really that simple. No matter what the partisan debate of the moment may be, we must all agree that the status quo is not acceptable.

In the end, the bill will not make anybody 100% happy. But, if we can save that many lives per year, and potentially pay down the costs over the next decade, then why not use the Senate Bill as a starting point, a base from which adjustments can be made over time? If we can save the lives of our fellow Americans by passing this historic reform package, then it would seem passing the bill now would be in the best interest of everyone but the insurance companies.

This week should see resolution of a yearlong debate over the current process and the product created by both houses. Will everyone be happy? No, but if we all do some soul searching, and think about those less fortunate, maybe we can all agree that saving the lives of our fellow citizens, and making health care a right, not a privilege, will be in the long term best interest of our economy, our communities, and our country.

Thoughts on Hypocrisy in the US Congress

It may be difficult to take an objective look at the state of affairs in the US Congress, especially in the midst of the chaos surrounding the health care reform bill before them at this time; But, maybe now is the best possible time for us to closely analyze the stances taken, primarily by conservatives, against majority legislative procedures such as reconciliation and deem.

These procedures, though used numerous times to pass bills with narrow majorities, and utilized by both parties when they have been in the majority, are being called unconstitutional by some who claim that these methods have never been used to pass social reform. These elected officials know very well that these procedures have been used numerous times for social change. Most recently, the 2001 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy passed by reconciliation and the raising of the debt ceiling by previous Republican and Democratic Administrations passed through use of the deem procedure.

Often, as a member of the minority party, it is easy to complain about the process when you know you can’t win the argument based on ideas. This has happened to both sides over the course of history, and now the health care bill is in the same boat. The minority didn’t support the bill last March, still, they had many ideas of theirs incorporated into the bill, knowing it will be passed no matter what due to the process. But now they are using misinformation about the bill to win elections in November while claiming opposition to many of their own ideas. This is what tends to happen when a political argument is allowed to fester for too long, people begin to suffer short term memory loss. Cynically opposing ideas you are truly in favor of has to be the worst form of hypocrisy present in our politics today.

If we as citizens can’t see this, and are unwilling to call out those who are purposely cynical, the future of our government is in dire straits. We need leaders who will not only stand by their ideals, but also listen to reasonable ideas from their opponents, finally formulating their opinions and voting decisions based on facts, not on how bad it will make the other side look. The US Congress is causing headaches for all Americans, liberal and conservative. Until we can rid our system of this kind of cynicism, meaningful bi-partisan reform of any kind will not be possible in our legislative branch.

Thoughts on Whether the United States Military Should Intervene in Mexico’s Cartel War

For the past nine years, we have been knee deep in Middle East conflict. Following 9/11, our forces were deployed to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, and then stretched further with the invasion and rebuilding of Iraq in 2003. These ongoing conflicts have been both costly and burdensome on our Military and our pocketbooks. With brewing conflicts in other regions such as Yemen and Nigeria, and natural disasters becoming an increasing matter of global security, it may be time for us to consider what our military priorities should be going forward.

This will mean making difficult decisions about our long term motives in the Middle East, and those involved have to realize that we must always be ready and willing to use our military power to protect our neighbors, even if it is outside of the scope of our current terror based war. This may be the case with our closest neighbor to the south, Mexico. As our eye has been on the ball with our two current wars overseas, drug cartels have slowly taken over Mexico.

Violence has spread from the border towns into tourist resorts like Acapulco on the Pacific Coast, causing serious security concerns for Americans traveling on vacation, family visits, and business. Maintaining control of our borders has become increasingly difficult as cartels continue to acquire more lethal assault weapons, effectively leaving police in Mexican towns and our Border Patrol defenseless in head to head fights. The situation is steadily declining, and before too long this problem will be more than a travel issue, it will be a matter of life and death for those living on our borders, and for our business partners in Mexico.

Until the cartels see that there is a force more powerful looking to root them out, there will be no end to the current trend towards cartel rule. Though we currently assist with intelligence, is it time to send in the FBI and Special Forces to assist the doomed Mexican security forces? If we wait, do we risk letting the situation get so out of control that it would become necessary to bring the UN and UK into the mix, thus risking turning this into a true international war instead of a mission between the US and Mexico?

These questions surround the larger issue of our military priorities. When does the plight of the citizens of Mexico become as important as that of Iraq or Afghanistan? The cartels have shown that they will not back down to, and are in many cases more powerful than the Mexican Military. Given this fact, are we the only ones that can counter the cartels because of our intelligence community and weaponry systems? There are many questions that need answers. But, as cities in the US become infiltrated by cartel cells, it has become apparent that if we don’t act quickly, we will have a brand new type of war on our hands.

Thoughts on the Process and Pace of Obama’s Health Reform Agenda

Last March, President Obama made the critical decision to pursue one of the toughest domestic agendas that a modern President has ever undertaken. In the midst of recession, war, and a toxic political environment, a bitter fight to overhaul the health care system in our country has done nothing but add another degree of difficulty to the already steep uphill climb facing The President and both houses of Congress. Nonetheless, we stand within ten days of a final up or down vote on the matter, despite billions spent to stop legislation, and summits that highlighted the deep ideological divide which exists between the two prominent political parties, resolution is actually near. After an ugly year of infighting, tea parties, and rabid punditry, we are finally seeing one of the biggest issues of our time approach resolution. In the end, there is no way everyone will be happy with the final result. In fact, no matter what form of the bill is passed; there is a good chance that some in Congress will lose their respective elections over their vote on the matter.

This long process should come as no surprise to those who understand how President Obama leads and legislates. In his latest book, The Audacity of Hope, he outlines how he approached passing his proposed bill allowing cameras to videotape interrogations and confessions in capital murder cases , despite fierce opposition from some in the law enforcement community. He knew there were deep rooted differences when it came to whether capital punishment did anything to deter crime, but knowing that, he got all sides together to see where they all agreed. The original bill, much like the current health care bill, would undergo changes incorporating the best ideas of all parties, and would ultimately pass despite deep rooted ideological differences on the broader issues.

Obama has always taken his time, listened to all sides, and then encouraged all parties to be happy with the combination of ideas that follows. Of course, the political realities he faced in Illinois were tame in comparison to the lion’s den he is in now, but it seems that in his second year in the White House he is starting to understand how the game is played from the President’s perspective. The pace of things will irritate those who have no patience for process. A bill so large had no chance of passing quickly, and it is only a year later that we see a final vote approaching. Obama knew this, laying out deadlines, not because he thought the Congress would actually meet them, but to put some pressure and a sense of urgency in the air.

Despite our differences as Americans, no one denies that health care costs are out of control, and though we may disagree on the process, we should rest well knowing that the issue was fully vetted and torn apart. Reform is always messy, but every now and then it may be necessary to have some faith in our collective government’s ability to work its way through difficult issues. In the end, the proof will be in the long term effects of the legislation, not the process. Then, as voters, we can render our final verdict on all parties involved.

Thoughts on Rebuilding in Haiti, Chile, Turkey, and other Earthquake Ravaged Locations

There are certain aspects of life which we cannot control, and earthquakes are undoubtedly among the deadliest of these naturally born, impending disasters. Though quakes have been an unfortunate part of our Earth’s history, never have so many people lived in the numerous shake zones which exist throughout the globe. Given this fact, we know that earthquakes, like the ones we’ve seen over the past month in Chile, Turkey, and Haiti, are without question inevitable.

As I write this article, the City of Los Angeles sits no safer than Santiago de Chile, in the middle of the San Andreas quake zone which is long overdue to rupture. We have known for years that there will be a big quake in southern California, yet there is a constant gravitation of our population towards the beautiful beaches of So-Cal. In Haiti, as the rainy season begins, and disease begins to spread, the ramifications of bad location couldn’t be more apparent. Yet, as was mentioned by the President of Haiti yesterday at the White House, the Haitian people are inclined to rebuild and reconvene in Port-au-Prince, while the government wants to disperse the population to safer locations and rebuild smarter. Obviously, in the case of cities like LA, and Santiago, there is nowhere for their gigantic populations to go at this point in time, it’s too late.

Going forward though, we should aim as an informed public to do our best to develop new metropolitan areas in locales where we know that future devastation is not a given. We have the science, and obviously our west coast is under close scrutiny following the recent global shaking trends. We also need to continue to prepare the existing infrastructure in vulnerable areas so they can handle the strongest earthquakes. This way, when the shaking does happen, we can say we did our best to prevent the worst case scenario. We saw highway bridges collapse during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake near San Francisco and Oakland because they were not capable of withstanding the magnitude 6.9 impact of the quake. The same foreseeable mistakes can’t be made going forwards, and LA’s highway system must be on alert, and ready for the next big one.

The question going forward is what can be done to ensure that we don’t have a repeat of earthquake history in the United States, Chile, Haiti, Turkey, and elsewhere? Do we have the time, money, and man power to retrofit buildings and bridges before it’s too late? Does the solution in the future involve the mass herding of vulnerable populations out of quake and tsunami zones? The questions are difficult, but we would be foolish to sit on our hands and wait for the answers to be defined for us.

Thoughts on the State of the Union Address, the Supreme Court, and The President

Today, Justice John Roberts criticized the usefulness of the presence of the Supreme Court at the State of the Union Address, stating “"To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we're there." He joined with Justices Scalia and John Paul Stevens in his dislike of the political theatre and partisan aspects of the event. His point revolves around the fact that the Justices are not allowed to show favor towards any party, or applause line, even though they clearly do have deep rooted opinions on just about everything said in the speech. This tradition, though it may seem trivial, has kept the Supreme Court above partisan pettiness, and many believe this makes the Justices look good in light of the silly season of politics we are in.

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant corporations the same rights as individual citizens with regards to campaign finance has troubled many in this country mainly because of the floodgates that could open if foreign companies are allowed to contribute to elections in the United States. Though I agree that the President should not pick on the Supreme Court for political points, maybe it was important that the American people, who are mostly not aware of every decision of the Court, to hear about something of this magnitude. The response of the partisans in the room was predictable, and Justice Roberts should have known that such a decision by the Court was likely to be mentioned in the speech. As an equal of the President and Congress, the Supreme Court knows it has enormous power, and that power may be questioned from time to time in our system of checks and balances.

It is good that Justice Roberts was welcoming to the incoming President, and personally I imagine that President Obama has a great deal of respect for the Justice, but in the end, the President has a duty to call out decisions he believes are not in the best interest of the country as a whole. Every now and then it will be necessary to use the national stage of the State of the Union to prove a point.

As I write this article, the House has already begun to numb down the impact the Supreme Court ruling in question, and I’m confident that our system will make sure our elections are not put into the hands of foreign interests. But what is to be made of the modern day politics of the highest courts in our country? Can we keep special interests and lobbyists from taking over the court in the future?

In the interest of the preservation of tradition, the Justices should either skip the event, or remain neutral while there, reassuring Americans that the Supreme Court is above the partisan political noise. To me, that is a comforting feeling.

Follow KTI on Twitter and Facebook

Twitter: follow us @knowtheissues

and

Facebook: become a fan!

Thoughts on former NY Congressman Massa and his troubles

Perhaps the most intriguing Democratic political scandal since the late 90’s has to be that of now former Congressman Eric Massa of New York. From his initial claim that he was stepping down due to cancer, to allegations of an uncomfortable confrontation in a health club shower over his health care vote with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and finally, his admission to inappropriate comments to a staffer at a wedding, there is utter confusion as to what happened in the weeks leading up to his resignation.

This story has also taken on yet another puzzling dimension with the odd embrace of Massa by conservative talk radio show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Despite Massa’s adamant support for the Public Health Care Option, a position most conservatives oppose, they are calling him a conservative hero in the fight against a government takeover of health care.

Add to this, Massa is now claiming that his resignation was the result of pressure from the White House and his fellow congressmen, proclaiming himself as the decisive vote on healthcare. The House Ethics Committee then stated that Rep. Massa was being forced out due to the wedding incident, and were contacted by a friend of the staffer, contradicting Massa’s claim that he was never contacted by Ethics Chairman Steny Hoyer or his staff. Nonetheless, he is insistent upon blaming his resignation on his own party’s pressure over a yes vote on the senate bill.

It is my opinion, that while he may have been under enormous pressure from all sides with regards to his vote on health care reform, his acknowledgement to the inappropriate actions he took should end the conversation. In a political environment where restoring public trust is of the utmost importance, there is no room for people like Massa who take their elected responsibilities for granted. Even if it was a joke, you have to know that as an elected official, your every action will be scrutinized, and the opposing party will always use your mistakes against you. In the end Mr. Massa, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Thoughts on Creationism and Science

There is a way for both creationism and science to co-exist. First, creationists need to accept the fact that the earth is over 5 billion years old. This is a fact that the writers of the bible would not have been capable of knowing at their time. Second, knowing this, maybe isn't it possible that "God' as creator would have been just as effective creating the entire universe, as opposed to just humans on earth? Third, scientists should reach out to the religious leaders of all denominations, so they can update their sermons based on the realities of the current day. Finally, if we can all accept that religion is a guide for our lives written by unscientific means, not definitive fact, and that science can co-exist with those concepts, then I believe there is no reason why we as religious or non-religious adults should question scientific facts based on documents written before the science was even available.