Reply National Debt Crisis

In response to the article “National Debt Crisis” written by author Zachary Waggoner it has key points on the United States national debt problem. In the article it discusses key points on ways to improve the debt. One point is to increase the age of the retirement age for Social Security to 69. I would say that I would have to disagree with this tactic because it would have a huge impact on me and future Americans requiring them to work longer. I would like to agree with the author on the point that officials are being scarred to make drastic decisions because they want to stay in office. In this world today if an official makes a drastic change it could have a huge impact on his future in office. I also agree that the Government is spending millions of dollars on certain projects that are piling up debt. These projects are wasting millions of U.S. dollars and taxpayer money. I do have to disagree with the author on the point that we need stronger leaders to improve our debt. I believe right now we have some of the strongest leaders in office right now trying to cut our debt down. Right now President Obama is trying to get a tax cut deal passed. I also disagree with inflation being a problem right now. If raising prices right now is able to help reduce the debt and then in a few reduce prices I believe it worth the price. In the end I believe the author had key issues that supported the problem of the National debt and listed many good ideas to help the nation reduce the problem.

Illegal Immigration

A big problem I see that needs to be fixed is the U.S. national security and working on ways to make the U.S. safer. I believe that there should be more things done to keep the U.S. safer and more secure. I believe that the U.S. needs to be doing more things to keep illegal immigrants out of the country. I believe that all immigrants should get in the country the right way, and do all the correct paper work to be allowed to come here. I know older people that had to wait years to get into the U.S. that get so mad when they talk about the illegal immigration problem. They feel they had to wait and do all the paper work the right way, why should others come in illegally. I believe that this is a big problem that the government needs to fix to save lives and money. I believe that businesses should be fined if they are caught having illegal immigrants working for them. In 2005 Wal-Mart paid $11 million dollars to settle a federal investigation that had hundreds of illegal immigrants were working as the cleaning staff. Another problem is the penalty for illegal immigrants if they do get caught the first time they will only go to prison for two months, and the second time a two year offense. There should be a bigger consequence to scare the illegal immigrants from trying to come over illegally.  Another problem that occurs is drug trafficking and how illegal immigrants are used to bring drugs into the U.S. This is a problem for U.S. cities because they are the ones being affected by it and I believe that the government needs to do something to solve this problem.

Response "Dont Ask"

The blog known as Wake Up America had an interesting article titled “Don’t Ask”. The author Zachary Waggoner features an interesting topic dealing with the Don’t ask Don’t tell policy. The author focuses on the gay rights in the military and how they are mistreated. It states that gay military officers are being discharged. There are gay soldiers right now in the military who are too frightened to come out because they know the consequences if they do. What gives us the right to keep people scared for being open? I have to agree with the author that U.S. citizens who are willing to fight and put their lives on the line should not have to worry about their sexual preferences.  Zachary Waggoner points out that the Obama administration may disagree with the policy but they are lacking action. I would have to argue and disagree that the Obama party is not taking enough affirmative action to repeal this horrendous act and they shouldn’t be given sympathy just because of the seriousness and controversy involved. In a Nation where we promote absolute freedom, the President of the United States needs to step up and show the people that the military does not put limits on sexual orientation. After reading Zachary Waggoner’s article I can totally agree with his argument that the U.S. military should not have limits and he points out very key issues on the controversy building around it.

Health Care Yes?

     An important issue that has been causing much stir and controversy throughout the U.S. Government is Obama’s Health-Care Reform Bill. This bill has had a very positive and negative feedback from society. I would have to say that I would be on the positive side of the bill. I would have to agree with Obama’s decision making, that he is allowing millions of Americans who don’t have health care and makes coverage more affordable for many more. Another great contributing factor is that it is saving a deficit of 100 million dollars over a period of ten years, which saves the U.S. people a great deal of money for tax purposes. Another key controversial issue would be the Insurance companies can no longer put a lifetime limit on the amount of coverage enrollees receive. This is huge for patients who had cancer or any other diseases; they were forced to sometimes go without coverage due to the insurance companies being able to put a limit on peoples account. I would say that is an amazing part of the bill that helps serious patients. Another great part of the health-care bill is that they now have allowed young adults up to 26 to stay under there parents insurance plan. I would have to say that I am a big fan since my brother has a rare disease and his monthly medication can be quite expensive without full coverage. This allows my brother and other adults a chance to obtain a nice job with a nice insurance plan. I would have to say that some of these key points are key issues that have persuaded me to support this new bill.

Daily Dish on Defense Spending

Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan a known English author, and editor has focused on Political aspect for much of his career.  Andrew Sullivan wrote a blog on The Daily Dish on October 14, 2010 called, "Obama's Big Big Spending On Defense". In the blog Sullivan discusses that President Obama has had an opportunity to cut defense prices. Sullivan claims that the President is overspending when he could cut defense prices. Sullivan states that Obama could the trim the defense by trillion-or-so dollars. That is a lot of money that could be used for other purposes. Sullivan also goes into detail that Obama has not even included the military spending budget, and who knows how much money that is going to cost. Sullivan uses this as evidence to show that Obama is being misleading about his proposed spending freeze. Sullivan also argues that it is irresponsible to our taxpayers who are the major contributors to the defense funding. The American people are the ones who have to pay for the high defense costs. Sullivan is trying to speak out to everyone and inform them about the high expenses that are being spent on defense. If Sullivan was to target a very specific group he would connect with other conservative believers who feel the same way about the actions of President Obama. Sullivan goes on to say that President Obama is holding military spending at its current levels, so the price is still at highs. This statement allows people to think logically that Obama could find a way to cut prices and save people money on taxes. I would agree with Sullivan, Obama has a chance to cut the defense cost. If that is going to save trillions of dollars then Obama should consider doing it and investing the money saved in other programs for the people.

Power Play on Health

       I have to agree with James C. Capretta on his article called, “The Anatomy of a Hostile Government Takeover.” In the article Capretta discusses the Obama administration after six months. Capretta begins to claim that the Obamacare is a government takeover on American Health. Capretta begins discussing the letter from secretary Kathleen Sebelius of the Department of Health and Human Services also known as HHS sent to insurers.  Capretta uses the letter sent by Sebelius as a form of evidence to justify his claims over the takeover. In the letter Sebelius makes a clear threat that if the insurers do not accept to the agenda set by the administration then they will be shut out entirely from the government-managed insurance marketplace. I have to agree that the threat by Kathleen Sebelius shows exactly what Capretta is talking about in the hostile takeover.

      Also Capretta discusses the involvement of Dr. Donald Berwick being head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Capretta states that Dr. Berwick is an “ardent government-takeover enthusiast, and is prepared to use all of the levers at his disposal to advance that objective.” So for the next eighteen months Berwick can use his new powers demanding that doctors and hospitals agree with the views on health care, and is only accountable to the president. You can start to agree to Capretta’s view on a democratic hostile takeover. Obviously the two points Capretta makes can only lead people to think logically that a hostile takeover is happening.  I have to agree, when I read about the power plays made by the government. The government is using force with these new healthcare reforms and giving ultimatums, and this shows a form of hostility. You can get a since of trust with Capretta because he is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He was an associate director of the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004.

Health Care Bill to Move Forward

In recent developments, the Obama administration is in a very tough situation regarding the president’s health care bill that will be effective in 2015. According to Fox News several states including Texas, have filed a lawsuit stating that the bill is unconstitutional. The main argument has dealt with the section that states, “Individuals have the health insurance or face tax penalties and require states to pay additional costs”. The first cause of concern is that the bill deals with Americans who do not have the health insurance, are they required to pay for insurance they cannot afford? If not, does congress have the power to hold states accountable to pay for people who are not covered? This is important because how much power can the federal government have over state government.