Politics v. Policy

The Student National Loan Debt is predicted to hit the $1 trillion mark by early May.  Yes, that's one with 12 zeros after it: $1,000,000,000,000. 

In Washington today, a bill was approved to prevent student loan rates from doubling on July 1, 2012.  In a 215-195 vote, the Senate voted to keep interest rates at 3.4% for another year, and not raising it up to 6.8%.

The vote on the bill was supposed to be fairly simply and bipartisan (which is rare nowadays).  It seemed to be a clear agreement -- both Republicans and Democrats wanted to pass the bill.

They understand that students are working hard in school, and working hard after school to find a job -- but in the economy in the way that it is today -- that is not as easy as it was 10 years ago.  Why is it so important that the Senate recognizes this?  So that they do not raise interest rates on the population of the country that is: (1) already in massive debt, and (2) having the most difficulties finding jobs.  This is not the most desirable combination.

Controversy came right before the vote, when the White House staff said that President Obama was threatening to veto the measure because he did not like the way that the Republicans wanted to pay for it.  The House Republicans plan was to cut spending in order to make up for the money lost to student loan debt.  The Senate Democrats, however, would rather pay for it by creating more loopholes in the oil.

The Bipartisan Harmony that is so rare in this day and age was, again, disturbed.

If Congress did not take action today, student loan interest would have doubled starting July 1st.

Speaker of the House, John Boehner got extremely passionate, and even emotional at some points, regarding this issue. 

The video below shows Speaker Boehner giving a speech before the vote in Senate:

The main point of his speech is pointing out the absolute absurdity of the "fight" over this bill.  Since there was no long-term plan put into place, everyone knows that this short-tern policy is the best way to give the committee time to focus on a long-term solution to this problem.  The question is, then: Why can't we all finally just agree on this one thing?

His conclusion was simple:  What's driving the fight over this student loan bill is politics, not policy.

Luckily, student loan debt rates will be kept at 3.4% percent because the Senate voted in favor of the measure to keep student loan interest rates lows.

I am confident that all college students and graduates taking out loans for their education are happy that the Senate made the decision not to double interest rates July 1st.

I am also personally happy to see the Senate finally pass a bill without worrying about it's affect on politics, for once (although it was a close call when Obama threatened to Veto the bill).

We can only hope that the Senate will continue to fight for students, finding a long-term solution to the $1 trillion national student loan debt our country is currently facing.

Amendment One: North Carolina's Marriage Proposal

Since my last post was about the election that will be held on May 8th in North Carolina, I decided to make this one about another issue that will appear on the ballot on May 8th, as well...

This issue is much more delicate, and many people are passionate about both sides of the matter: Amendment One.

A legislatively-referred Constitutional Amendment, the proposed measure would change Article 14 of the North Carolina Constitution to include an additional (all new) section:

Section 6.  Marriage. 

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

Same-Sex marriages are already illegal in North Carolina.  However, this Amendment would essentially be adding the law to the state Constitution.

The question about whether or not to put it on the ballot was debated in the North Carolina state legislature in September 2011, and in a 75-42 vote, the state legislature voted in favor of referring the proposed Amendment statewide.

Now, I will briefly provide three points from both sides of the debate in order to present the information completely, accurately, and unbiased.

Supporters:

1.) Why even propose adding this to the state constitution?

Supporters say that without an Amendment banning same-sex marriages, same-sex partners could travel to a state where same-sex marriage is legal, New York for example, get married there, and then come back to North Carolina seeking legal rights in a state where same-sex marriage is illegal.

2.) Why are people of North Carolina voting on Amendment One?

Supporters of Amendment One say that the measure is being brought to the people of North Carolina to vote on so that they can decide how they want marriage to be defined in their own state.  It is much too complicated of an issue to be resolved within the state legislature alone.  A vote will more likely legitimize whichever way the decision goes.

3.) Why this Amendment?

Supporters believe that the institution of Marriage is being threatened in our country, and that North Carolina needs to be one of the states to protect the union between a man and a woman, that has existed in virtually every society.  It reinforces concern and well-being for all people, including those who are not yet born.

Opposition:

1.) Why even propose adding this to the state constitution?

Many people opposed to Amendment one say that the proposed constitutional amendment is completely unnecessary and an overreaching assault on families in North Carolina.


2.) Why are the people of North Carolina voting on Amendment One?

Those opposed to the Amendment say that it is unfair to put up a vote that is putting the rights of a minority group in danger of being lost. 

3.) Why this Amendment?

President Obama does not often weigh in on ballots in every state, but has always opposed divisive and discriminatory laws that deny same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.  He also believes that this is a Republican campaign strategy to gain more supporters for the upcoming 2012 elections.


Whichever side you are on, one thing is clear:  it is entirely up to the people of North Carolina to decide how marriage will be defined in our state.


So please, take advantage of your constitutional right and Vote on May 8th.

NC 7th District Republican Congressional Debate

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of attending the North Carolina 7th Republican Congressional District Debate in downtown Wilmington, at the County Commissioners' Assembly Room.  The event was put on by the Lower Cape Fear Republican Women's Club.

I had only seen "real" debates on television in the past, so it was very interesting and exciting to have the opportunity to witness the debate for myself.

The County Commissioners' Assembly Room in downtown Wilmington, North Carolina.

The 7th District of North Carolina has the unique opportunity to gain GOP representation in Congress this year.  The primary to elect the Republican nominee will be held on May 8, 2012.

The debate last night was between three Republican candidates who are all running for the opportunity to be the nominee to go up against the unopposed democratic incumbent, Mike McIntyre.  McIntyre is the democratic incumbent for this position, who has been the representative in Congress for the 7th District of North Carolina since 1997.

The Republican candidates are: Randy Crow, Ilario Pantano, and David Rouzer.  All three candidates did a great job of presenting themselves and their platforms.

Candidates (From Left to Right -- Pantano, Crow, & Rouzer) During the Debate

 Here are a few observations I made about this debate that I found particularly impressive:

1.) Surprisingly, the candidates actually addressed the questions that were being asked.  Most politicians (I have noticed), whether in debates, press conferences, or any other public settings, tend to get questions, and then fail to address what is being asked.   They tend to just say what they want to say, regardless of the question.

2.) At the end of the debate, each candidate had the opportunity to ask any of the other candidates one question.  This was very intriguing to me.  I was much more interested in the questions that each candidate had for the others, more so than their answers.  It was nice to see candidates actually lay out reasonable questions, instead of simply attacking the opposing candidates with harsh and exaggerated statements.

3.) Meet & Greet after the debate.  After the 1 hour and 30 minute-long debate, there was about a 1-hour "meet and greet" in which the candidates talked to their constituents.  The candidates were all very nice, and none of them seemed like they were too busy to talk to their supporters (and non-supporters).  All of them were gracious of the constituents who took time to be there.

4.) Each candidate had strong beliefs, which they stuck to throughout the debate.  I liked the different perspectives that each of the candidates had on the issues.  I admired the values that each of them held, though they were not so similar that I got bored listening to what they had to say individually.

5.) Not too much back-and-forth conflict between candidates.  While watching some of the Republican Presidential Debates, there were many times when the candidates just went back and forth, attacking one another.  Although there was a bit of this between Pantano and Rouzer in this debate, there was not nearly as much as I had originally expected.  It was nice to see candidates focus more on the important issues rather than the negative attributes of their opponents.


Here is a quick summary of where the candidates' stand on a few of the issues:

Ilario Pantano (Combat Veteran)
- Advocates to have Congressional term limits & citizen politicians; against "career politicians."
- Believes we need to buckle down on illegal immigration.  It is not okay that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens.  Veterans should not have the highest unemployment rate in the country.
- For the Paul Ryan Budget, which will balance the budget by 2040
- Supports a Fair Tax to get the National Debt under control
- Believes in keeping marriage a sacred sacrament between a man & a woman.

David Rouzer (Currently State Senator)
- Believes Washington needs extreme budget cutting & Flax Tax Rate (10%)
- Thinks we should drill domestic as much domestic oil as possible, since we have the technology to do so
- Has previously worked under Jesse Helms
- Wants good morals and values to be brought back to Washington.

David Crow (Former Oil Businessman)
- Funding his own campaign, does not believe citizens should fund political campaigns
- Advocates for more clean water in the the region of Southeastern North Carolina
- Anti-spending; says he will save whenever he can in Washington, and "would not spend a dime if he didn't have to"
- Wants to drill for more oil and natural gas
- Against big corporations and monopolies; we need to increase support for small businesses
- Believes that if we stop our dependence on foreign oil, gasoline should currently be as low as $1.00 per gallon.

The summary above were just a few of the many issues that were mentioned in the debate last night.

If you are registered to vote in Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus, Cumberland, Duplin, New Hanover, Pender, Robeson, or Sampson County, Please Go out & Vote in this important election on Tuesday, May 8th.

Secret Service "Secret" Is Out

In what may be the biggest scandal in the history of the Secret Service, during a visit to Cartagena, Colombia in South America, eleven Secret Service agents allegedly brought women who were "presumed prostitutes" back to their hotel rooms on Wednesday evening.
 
The employees consisted of both special agents and uniformed division officers, none assigned to directly protect Obama.  The incident happened before the President had even arrived in Colombia.


The Secret Service agents were put on administrative leave on Saturday as congressmen briefed the situation to President Obama.

A thorough investigation will be conducted for the allegations.  Fortunately, the actions of the 11 Secret Service agents had no impact on their ability to execute a security plan for Obama's visit to South America.

Cartagena, Colombia in South America

Prostitution is legal in certain "tolerance zones" in Columbia.  However, the police filed an incident report with the United States Embassy for the alleged misconduct.

The head of the House Homeland Security Committee, Peter King, stated the obvious when he said that conduct such of this nature should absolutely not be tolerated -- especially when it compromised the agents themselves, America's national security, and potentially the president.

Obama said on Sunday, in his first public remarks of the scandal, that he would be angry if the allegations reported against the agents are true.

The main concern here is that things like this must have happened before, because otherwise it would not have happened in this fashion.  If this is the case, many agents need to reevaluate their behavior, if not, be terminated from the Secret Service.

The president pointed out that this incident was isolated, and gave his praise to the Secret Service as a whole saying, "these men and women perform extraordinary service on a day-to-day basis protecting me, my family, U.S. officials.  They do very hard work under very stressful circumstances and almost invariably do an outstanding job."

President Obama & a few Secret Service Agents

God Bless Texas

Texas is attempting to pass a law that in order to vote, you must have a photo ID.   With the suggestion for the law, uproar and disagreement from certain members of Congress have led to controversy surrounding the voter photo ID law.

Just to use one of many examples -- You have to have a photo ID to see Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States.  Yet, there is constant controversy over law that requires a photo ID to vote.  Is the Attorney General really that much more important than a fair election?

Some obvious cases that you need to present your photo ID for are: To buy alcohol, to visit some prisons, to receive treatment at some medical offices, taking any admissions exam (LSAT, SAT, ACT, GRE, MCAT, etc.), and the list continues on...

Before 2011, only TWO states had laws that require voters to show a photo ID before voting: Georgia and Indiana.  Since 2011, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin (and now, Texas) have attempted to create similar laws requiring presentation of photo ID to vote, especially with the crucial Presidential Election coming up in November.

This law would be extremely beneficial, not only in Texas, but in all fifty states.  Voter fraud is a serious issue, which I believe goes too frequently unnoticed and unpunished.  There has been a lot of voter fraud within the past few decades.

One more well-known cases was the 1960 Presidential Election voting in Chicago.  Fannin County had 4,895 registered voters, yet an alarming increase of 6,138 votes were cast in that county – one-quarter for Nixon & three-quarters for Kennedy.  A reporter from the New York Herald Tribune investigated voting in Chicago in this election year, and discovered sufficient evidence of voter fraud, proving that the state was actually stolen for Kennedy.

Nixon and Kennedy during their second Presidential Debate in the 1960 Election.

There are many more serious cases of voter fraud, which should absolutely not be tolerated in our country.  Yes, we live in a democratic society, but the idea of a fair & just democracy is completely destroyed once cheating and fraud occurs.

Those opposed to passing the law in Texas argue that the law is unfair to some minority groups, who do not have the means (i.e. money, transportation) to obtain a government-issued photo ID.

In response to the financial issue -- Congress members from Texas who support the law advise that if a person shows financial need, a photo ID can be issued to them at no cost, and transportation can be offered, if they have absolutely no other choice.

As far as the concern about minority groups voting -- Georgia is a state that has some of the strictest laws when it comes to voter photo ID laws.  When the photo ID requirement was passed in 2008, more minority groups voted that year than in Mississippi, who did not have the voter photo ID requirement law.  Therefore, this concern did not prove much of a problem or an “injustice” with the photo ID requirement.

Having a photo ID should not be seen as such a problem unless someone is attempting to commit voter fraud. There is nothing unconstitutional about this law.  In fact, it adds a step of integrity to the voting process, and will ensure a substantial decrease in voter fraud.

Texas was annexed on December 29, 1845, becoming the 28th state to join the union.  It is the second most-populus and biggest state in the United States of America.

Media Coverage & Justice in the Courtroom

Originally, I wasn't sure if I wanted to write about the Trayvon Martin case, since I am pretty positive that people are sick of hearing about it from every single news source known to man.  But I really feel that something needs to be said about the way the media is presenting this information versus how the information should be approached in a courtroom, and how the people of the jury will make their decision.

As of yesterday, George Zimmerman faces charges of second-degree murder of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012.  It took the Florida Prosecutors 45 days to formally charge Zimmerman.  I'm sure some people are wondering why it took this long for him to get arrested.  There are a number of contributing factors:

1.) Simply a bad law.  There's no other way to put it.  The so-called "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida basically says that a person is allowed to use deadly force, rather than retreat, against another person as long as they are acting in self-defense.  In most other states, take North Carolina for example, you are only allowed to use deadly force in self-defense if you are in your own home. I don't understand why the Florida lawmakers did not anticipate a highly controversial case like this coming to court with creation of this complicated law.

Florida's Controversial "Stand Your Ground" Law

2.) Media controversy.  If you haven't noticed, this case has been talked about in the media non-stop since late March.  There has been hatred, threats of violence, threats of death, and many communities in just a complete uproar over what happened.  I admit that I was obviously angry when I first heard about what happened, and I sympathize with the Martin Family.  But the only problem with my initial "anger" was this -- I don't actually know the full facts and details of everything that happened.



3.) Uncertainty of the facts.  Following up on the tail end of my last point, there were so many "eyewitnesses" with conflicting stories, that we may never know what really happened that day.  Even some of the news reporting on the story was distorted, and in some cases, completely false, and retracted.  The Florida Prosecutors wanted to hear as many perspectives as they could before determining the possible fate of Zimmerman.  With all the facts that they presently had, the conclusion they came to was to charge him with second-degree murder.

   Florida Prosecutor, Angela Corey, on a News Show Discussing the Trayvon Martin Case.

 
I do not have any predictions on what the outcome of the trial will be.  All I know is that it is going to be hard-fought trial for both sides of the case.  My only hope for the trial is that justice is served, and that things in the courtroom are more fair than they have appeared in the media realm.

The [Insert Anyone's Name Here] Tax Cuts.

Today, Former President George W. Bush gave a rare post-presidential address, responding to the recent (and constant) criticism of the tax cuts that he put into place during his first Presidential term between 2001 & 2003.

Former President Bush said during his speech that he wishes the cuts weren't called the "Bush Tax Cuts" because he said, "if they were called some other body's tax cuts, they'd be less likely to be raised."

Obama has vowed to rid of these tax cuts, and raise taxes for Americans that make more than $1 million in income by January, if re-elected.  This seems like it would be great news for everyone who makes under $1 million a year, but it is actually not as good news as one might initially suspect.

Bush added, “If you raise taxes, you’re taking money out of the pockets of consumers.” By this, he is saying that raising taxes for Americans with the highest income is also taking away money from small business owners, and because of that, employees and, inevitably -- consumers (Everyone else).

President Bush Signing the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Thereafter Affectionately Referred to as the "Bush Tax Cuts")

President Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, who already contribute over 40% of all taxes paid in the country.  What we really need is a comprehensive plan to get for long-term economic growth, and to shift away from the absurd deficit we, as a country, are facing -- and waging some sort of "class warfare" is not the proper solution to this problem.

As Ronald Reagan faced the economic and unemployment crises during the first term of his Presidency, he put into place his concept of trickle-down economics, also known as "Reaganomics."  The result of Reaganomics was that it created 22 new million jobs.  We are far from creating that many new jobs today, as the unemployment rate is currently around 8.2% as of March 31, 2012.

Personal entrepreneurship by American citizens has proven to create more jobs, and therefore generate continuous growth in the economy.  Government control of enterprise has yet to prove its success (at least not in America, maybe in China...that's good for them).

Ultimately, if some sort of compromise between the President and the House Budget Committee is not reached in the near future, we could face a national debt crisis.  In such a scenario, the first to suffer will be the critics of the "Bush Tax Cuts", the same people who are most economically dependent on the government.

Chart Comparing Unemployment Rates & Annual Deficits Under The Bush Administration (2000-2008) Versus The Obama Administration (2008-Present)

Protecting American Society v. Protecting the Earth

Candidate for Republican Presidential Nominee and former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, came to speak at UNC Wilmington last Wednesday, April 4th.  Although he is not my number one choice for the Republican Nominee for President, I was excited to learn that he was coming to visit.  To be completely honest, I had no idea UNCW was on the so-called "map" for Presidential campaign trail for any of the nominees.  It was an interesting experience to see him and to hear what he had to say.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich giving a speech to UNCW students on campus at Lumina Theatre.

Since the media has such an influence on the way that American society thinks and view politicians, and any public figure for that matter, I expected to hear Newt talk about some of his most infamous ideas such as colonizing the moon, or talking about Christian moral ideals that Americans should preserve -- even though he has been divorced three times, and married four times.

To the contrary, Mr. Gingrich had some very interesting things to say regarding how he believes the American government system needs to be more innovative, yet still maintain American conservative values.

In one of his most logical points, he said that in order to avoid conflict with the Middle East (specifically Saudi Arabia), it is important that we "Drill Here, Drill Now," which coincidentally happens to be part of the title of his 2008 book, Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less.

He mentioned that even though scientists say we only have approximately 125 years worth of oil left in America, by that time, we will have so much new technology that we will have discovered even more and better ways to discover and drill more oil.  Valid point.

If we are able to be independent in our energy, then we will not have to worry about the Saudis or any type of conflict arising from the Middle East, because we will be more self-dependent, and therefore more powerful.  This gives us the ability to make our own decisions.

Newt also predicted that if we are able to drill our own oil, if elected President, he would lower gas prices to $2.50 per gallon.  I am not sure how realistic this is, but with the amount of money Americans are currently spending on one gallon of gas, he sure has a good platform to run on.

Even though protecting the Earth is a priority, it is more important that the American people are protected, from: 1) potential war & conflict with the Middle East; and, 2) ridiculously high gas prices.

It seems as though this year's Presidential campaign will be targeting the votes of the "Average Middle-Class American" -- no matter which side you are on, and whether you are a republican or a democrat, this is an issue that effects every American.  Some may see Newt's position as harming the environment, when in fact, we should be looking out primarily for the well-being of our country, our citizens, and those who put their lives in danger for us every day.

 Newt Gingrich preparing to speak at Lumina Theatre on the UNCW campus.