$3.5 billion dollars

I know that a lot of money circulates through odd places in this country. But I never would have guessed that so much money is spent for people to talk (supposedly) to lawmakers to make certain laws. $3.5 billion was spent on lobbying efforts last year. That's a lot of money.



See? That went to $1 Trillion, but even then billion visual was pretty astounding. Now imagine 3.5 times that. It's a lot of money, and all spent just to talk. I don't even know what they would be doing with that money, unless they just have a lot of lobbyists who all make a lot of money. Maybe it's evidence of inefficiency in business and government.

Personally, I think it's a shame that so much money is spent by businesses to get laws passed in their behalf, but for almost all Americans, there is no way to do such a thing for our own interests. Even if I did have the money, I hope I wouldn't use it in such a selfish way. Instead of wasting money on selfish law slanting, I would donate it to public works projects that actually benefit the American public.

It's tough to know that we, the masses, have only our votes and voices to sway our government, while businesses spend billions of dollars to sway the people we elect.

Is terrorism the biggest problem?

For a few dreadful moments, I thought I didn't have an opinion on anything tonight. But then I realized that I have a reputation to uphold; I had to find something. So I looked harder and found this little gem of an article. It's really short, so you should read it, but if you are lazy enough not to: it says that the NRA is saying that the government shouldn't take away gun rights from suspected terrorists, comparing it to Cold War McCarthyism.

I am a total supporter of the Constitution. It bothers me whenever the government or individuals take away or harm others' rights, because the Constitution provides for freedom, and that shouldn't be taken. There's always the debate over a strict interpretation or a loose one, and both have their benefits. However, when deciding whats legal and not, we must always keep in mind the question of whether our decisions will prevent someone else from their freedom. That's why it makes a lot of sense to argue for gun rights for people who haven't been convicted of terrorism.

However, if we were to take a look back in American history, we would find that civil liberties such as the right to bear arms have been taken away before in times of military necessity. So why would this situation be any different? We are in a war-like state, even if it's against an unclear enemy. If we were to look back in history, though, we would also find that terms like 'terrorism' have been used quite loosely to convict individuals. Will terrorists always be suicide bombers, or will they end up being school-ground bullies? After all, they are terrorists to the kids they beat up.

It's kind of like the people who say that the new immigration law will cause racial profiling. Opponents of this law will probably say that it will prevent many Muslim Americans from owning guns. Maybe that is true, maybe not, but I want to say this: more people die every year from car accidents than from terrorism. More people die from cigarettes each year than from terrorism. More people die from choking on food each year than from terrorism. So should we just ban car ownership from people who have caused accidents, cigarettes from prospective smokers, and food from those that have choked? And should we leave all those things free for everyone else, just totally single out those groups? It's kind of ridiculous, and so can the hype be about terrorism.

Yes, it's a terrible thing to do, but killing a family by hitting their car after a night of drinking is horrible too, and that happens much more often. We must protect the rights of individuals until they prove that they are not responsible enough to have them. If, as a country, we don't do this, we will end up living in an oppressive, dictatorial nation.

We aren't what we say we are

America is usually considered the most capitalist nation in the world. While we clearly aren't totally capitalist, we have a system that allows businesses to compete quite a bit. But it is hard to maintain capitalism when you want to break up big businesses and maintain competition. By breaking up the corporations, the government removes their incentive for competing, and it's interfering in the market.

At the moment, the Senate is trying to pass some sort of financial regulations that would prevent businesses from becoming too big. I can totally agree that monopolies and oligopolies can be bad; they have the power to raise prices. If they're the only company selling pencils, no one else is around to compete, so there's no way to keep the prices low.

But doesn't capitalism and competition kind of lend itself to having big businesses. As they expand and take over other companies, they get big. It's why they compete in the first place. That's why it's hard to decide how far to go when trying to regulate business. On the one hand, you want to have the free market system many people dream about, but you don't want huge companies to become oppressive.

So how much should the government regulate?

Sometimes the best party is no party

I could sit here and apologize for discussing the same things over and over again, but I won't. I care about the things I write about. If I didn't, I wouldn't have much to say, and since I have a lot to say, I care.

That said, here's some evidence that either my non-partisan effort is working, or that more and more people are like me: sick of current politics. I didn't realize that the numbers were so high. Unaffiliated voters now outnumber party voters in some very important states: Iowa, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. Too bad that in Iowa, you have to be a registered Republican or Democrat to caucus in those presidential primaries. Then you're pretty much left with the major party candidates. I guess you could vote for other people, but without a large enough independent population, it would be tough to actually elect anyone.

What would be great is if the two major parties get scared. Once they do, they'll realize that they can't always just fight each other; they have to have real agendas that actually benefit the American people. So many times, the politicians act only in the interest of being elected. And to get elected in this country, you almost have to be affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican party. That two-sided thinking creates situations where the politicians only give the American people two choices: ours or theirs. In truth, there are many other solutions to the problems, but independents aren't a big enough group to actually gain any respect for their side(s). Hopefully now that the numbers are growing for independents, they will be able to make a valuable impact on government.

If we would have just listened to our forefathers, we might not be in this mess, and others. George Washington, the very first president of this country, said,

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."

He already knew, or had a feeling, that party politics were bad, that it would lead to a scary situation. Maybe that's where we're going?

Immigration Revisited

See. I'm not the only one who thinks Arizona has done something right. And if some of the people just think that reform is needed, but not what Arizona did, that's fine. Like I said, hopefully the actions that have been taken will send a message to the federal government.

Spring Break 2011?

Here's something I'm guessing people don't think about: Puerto Rico. I know I don't. I might even say that most people don't know what Puerto Rico is. Well, it's not a country and it's not a state. It's something in the middle of the two. For those of you readers who don't know, Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the United States. Think we didn't have colonies? Anyway, what that means is that they are 'owned' by the US, but they pretty much get to do what they want. They have their own government, much like a state. They have a representative in the House, but he doesn't get to vote on anything. Because of that, they don't pay federal income taxes. (You know, they whole no taxation without representation thing) Let's just say they've got a pretty sweet deal. No tax, citizenship, easy access to the US, and they live in they freaking Caribbean!



For many years, ever since we acquired Puerto Rico after the Spanish-American War, the people of the US and the people of Puerto Rico have debated what to do with the island. Should they become a state? Should they become independent? Should they just stay a commonwealth? In 1998, Puerto Ricans actually voted against statehood. But the issue is back. I read this article about it. On Thursday, the House voted to allow the people of Puerto Rico to vote on what they want. Nothing will happen, though, unless the Senate and Obama pass the bill, as well.


I think it's great that they get to decide. After all, we fought for our independence; maybe they want theirs. It's not right to hold a territory if they don't want it. But why would the regular people vote to become a state? Like I said, they have a sweet deal at the moment. They're basically a state, but without having to comply with everything the United States government does. They can enter the country just like a person from Hawaii can. I just don't think they would want to become a state and be bound to the US forever. Plus that whole income tax... icky.

Do we even want or need Puerto Rico? After all, we have fifty states. If we were to acquire a fifty-first state, that would just screw up everything! All flags would have to be remade with an extra star. The song Fifty Nifty United States would just have to be done away with. There are just so many little things that we would have to do to make it legitimate.

The article brought up a good point: will they have to speak English? To me, I don't care. Just make the island a bilingual state. That way, we English-speakers can visit without a problem, and they can keep their culture. I think it'd be cool to have a state that speaks an entirely different language.

If Puerto Rico were to become a state, though, would it be treated differently than the others? Would they be bound forever like the states are? Could they just decide to secede if they decide they don't like the arrangement? I hope they wouldn't be able to deny laws that the US government makes or that the US government would make exceptions for Puerto Rico. These are things that the people of Puerto Rico need to decide before they vote. I'm all for statehood if it is fully done, but if they're not willing, I think it might be time to say goodbye.

A Grand Cheer for the Grand Canyon State

Everyone's probably heard about it; Arizona has enacted one of the strictest immigration laws ever. So many people are quick to criticize it, but I see nothing wrong with it. I've been hearing and reading a lot about how it will incite racism and violence and it will destroy families and that America is the country of immigrants and it's the right thing to do to let them in the country. Yeah, no.

A law alone can not and will not cause racism. It is up to the individual officers in the state of Arizona to decide if they will be racist or not. It just happens to be that the state of Arizona shares a border with Mexico. Who else would be illegally entering the country through that state? Seriously, we racially profile terrorists, yet it's a crime to racially profile illegal immigrants in a state that is adjacent to the country that is the home of the largest number of illegal immigrants to this country?

I absolutely support the Arizona government for passing this. For years the federal government has had border patrols(they wouldn't racially profile, would they??) and built useless fences, yet has not solved the problem of illegal immigration. Who knows if they ever will pass legislation that will actually do something? Thank you Arizona, if not for solving illegal immigration, for at least putting it in people's minds that something actually needs to be done about it. I would probably support a federal-level bill dealing with immigration, but only if it made a difference. If it ended up nullifying the Arizona law, but left the whole issue unsolved, I would consider it a failure.

However, I am just against illegal immigration. If the system were to be tweaked so that more people could become citizens without loosening the requirements, that would be great. As many people say, America is the country of immigrants, and we shouldn't stop that. We just need to become the country of legitimate immigrants. My advice for anyone considering entering illegally is this: if you break our laws to come here, why should we take you seriously as a candidate for citizenship? You have obviously shown that you don't support our system.

So for now, go Arizona! I think that this law will help in your state, even if it pushes the illegals to other states. Hopefully you have sent a message loud enough to travel the 2000 miles to Washington, where they will respond with a national law closing opportunities for illegal immigrants, but opening up many more for individuals wishing to become citizens.

The Washington Tea Party

Well, I think it's finally time that we talk about the next big thing in politics: the Tea Party. Most people will refer to it as the "Tea Party Movement," but I refuse. By calling it a movement, you add connotations that seem to make the Tea Party something to not take seriously. Oh, it's just a temporary movement other than a serious political party. Well, I'm not buying into it, so I'm going to refer to it as simply, the Tea Party, just like I would say Democratic Party or Republican Party. (If you read, you already know my feud with the two party system)

Basically, the Tea Party simply wants less spending, less taxes, and the smaller, less intrusive government that would accompany these changes. This website gives a good description of the Tea Party and some of its history. On there, they say that the Tea Party isn't an organized party, just a movement, but that won't stop me. I want it to be a party, so I will call it one. Right now, it seems that Sarah Palin, our old friend from the '08 election, is the leader, or at least the figurehead. Her "Joe the Plumber" is a good description of the movement. (ok, I guess there's no other way) It's just a populist appeal to people who want lower taxes. In fact, some people consider it a revival f the Populist movement of the late 1800s.

Now, what will this do to our government and nation? Well, hopefully enough people take it seriously that it will force Democrats and Republicans to rethink some of their conventional approaches to government. If the word gets out there, that government spends way more money than they have yet still want to tax more, the people might start thinking, "Hey, maybe it's possible for me to have lower taxes. I'm going to go vote for an independent." Oh what a great idea, voting for someone with no ties to a party. Wouldn't that just be grand?

Well that's the idea, voting for leaders based on policy, not party. I hope that the Tea Party grows, and even if it doesn't take power and become a major party. I want it to get just big enough to where people take it seriously and it starts to inflict some real change.

Drill Baby, Drill

Environmental regulation is something that I haven't touched on at all. Which is fairly sad, because the environment could be the most dire situation facing the nation and the world. Everything else that we do in life is provided for by nature and the environment. She gave us intelligence to be able to adapt, but that has now brought us to a point where we might be doing too much. We have the knowledge and capability to save our planet, but we must first muster the will of the people.

It's so easy to just go along with the way things are now, but that's not always the right thing to do. For government, it would be extremely easy for them to just side with industry, and allow pollution to continue, but once again, that's not the right thing to do. Business wields a lot of power in this country. They are constantly influencing government to create laws that favor business. Many politicians get elected because of the interests of businesses.

I think the people of the country, and thus, government, should ignore what business wants. People should support whatever solution they think is appropriate. Businesses should have to defend themselves in public, just like any individual would. After all, business creates most of the pollution. Government should be stricter.

As for oil, we do need to figure out a way not only to stop using it, but to stop having to ship it in. Importing oil not only costs huge amounts, but you have to use a lot of oil to ship a lot of oil! It just doesn't make as much sense as producing domestically. That's why I think this is a good idea... open up American waters for drilling, allow companies to drill in Alaska. The oil will only last for so long, anyway.

Immigration isn't free

Now that huge fiasco of healthcare reform is over, it seems that senators are searching for new imaginary issues in order to gain votes this fall. Yesterday, Sen. Harry Reid of Las Vegas gave a speech saying that Congress is now going to pass an immigration overhaul. Think someone is needing some Latino votes? Immigration is great, it's what this country is made of, but is it necessary to just admit everyone who has already broken our laws by coming here illegally? Reform supporters criticize deportation, but if individuals are breaking the law by coming here illegally, they should be deported. And if they can't respect our immigration laws, why should they respect any of our laws as citizens? Lastly, why should they have the right to protest laws in this country? They shouldn't have any say over what Congress does.

I don't want to sound like a total dick, but seriously, come here legally. I support any person from any country who comes to the United States of America legally. That's why the only reform I would support and the only reform I can see taking place is allowing more individuals to become legal citizens, but without loosening the rules. It just doesn't seem right to allow anybody to come here, become citizens, and take advantage of our system without appropriate measures taken to insure that they would be productive citizens. Simply being present in the country doesn't constitute a right to citizenship.

As for deportation, go ahead. People need to realize that we're serious; they need to come here legally. If they enter without appropriate documentation and then work without paying taxes, they should be punished. And they better not be staying in the jails that I pay for. I'd much rather pay for them to be deported. If they don't want to be deported, they should enter legally. Once they learn English and take a US History class, they're pretty much good to go. Find a job, become productive to society, and you're good to go. The test really isn't that hard if you've learned US History. (As an insider, it's easy for me, but it's the very basic stuff. The Constitution stuff is the hardest, but with some time, anyone could learn it. Take this quiz to see if you would pass.)

As non-citizens, illegal immigrants screw the system. Many people come to America with perfectly good documentation that allows them to live here without citizenship, but the ones that don't mess everything up. They come here and take jobs from American citizens. They go to our hospitals. Their kids go to our schools. They just don't have a respect for our laws, and why should we allow them as citizens? By coming illegally, they damage their own prospects for a life here.

Then there are the illegal immigrants who think they can protest in this country. Uhh, no. They don't vote for officials and as citizens, they aren't protected by the 1st amendment right to assembly. Congress shouldn't have to listen to their demands.

Any jobs are good jobs

We hear a lot about jobs. Here's a recent CNN article on the topic. I have some things of my own to say about the government and its constant endeavor to create jobs.

First of all, quit crying about our 9.7% unemployment rate. I've been to South Africa and seen their 25% unemployment rate. It sucks. We live in luxury in this country. Plus, in this country, the unemployed are able to receive assistance. Let's keep things in perspective.

With such a relatively low unemployment rate, lets not complain that only 162,000 jobs were created in one month! Call me crazy, but that seems like a lot for one month. To me, any growth in jobs should be considered a great achievement when businesses have been struggling. Add to that the increasingly high pay rates that American unions demand, it's surprising that we have such a low unemployment rate.

I applaud the Census, as it is putting people to work to do something beneficial for the nation. I would much rather have tax money go toward employing 48,000 people for the census than toward a gigantic bureaucracy that only gets lost in its own paperwork. Just like the census, construction projects get things done, and I fully support them. I would be much happier paying my taxes if more of it went to improving the nation's highways, electrical systems, and other infrastructure.

For Republican leaders to be criticizing job growth is outrageous. I would rather see the unemployment rate stay constant than see it increase any day. When 162,000 people find themselves out of work in one month, 162,000 lives are crushed. Their finances get ruined, their marriages may suffer, their children may suffer. However, when 162,000 people find themselves with new jobs, 162,000 lives are turned around. They may find themselves able to buy new clothes, cars, and a house. More jobs, no matter how many, mean more spending. More spending means more jobs...

Lastly, one of the biggest objectives of the Republican party in recent years is to eradicate terrorism. Around 3,000 people were killed on 9-11. Yet they complain that only 162,000 jobs were created? They spend trillions of dollars fighting something that has only affected a few thousand people, and complain when 162,000 jobs are created? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

Rollin' in the Nixons

This just makes me laugh. Seriously? You really want to take President Ulysses S. Grant off the $50 bill to make way for President Reagan? Civil War hero vs. California movie star. Hmmm. Not that Reagan did anything bad, I think he was a fine president, but really? And you're seriously going to put this bill up for debate? Doesn't Congress have better things to do, like investigate steroid use in pro baseball? Thanks Rep. McHenry, but I don't think it's that necessary.



But whatever, that doesn't matter. We're going to keep cash and coin around. But that doesn't mean we need to change them to honor presidents who were alive just a few years ago. The faces on our bills are tradition at this point. the one has Washington; the five, Lincoln; the ten, Hamilton; and the most famous of all, the $100 has Benjamin Franklin! How does it sound to be rollin' in the Nixons? It just doesn't work for me.

Why don't we just cut Teddy Roosevelt off of Mount Rushmore to make room for LBJ? Shouldn't every President get a turn at glory? No, because Mount Rushmore would be defaced if we did that. In much the same way, I believe changing the face on any of our currencies would deface the money.

Find other ways to honor presidents, and quit bringing dumb bills to Congress.

I want to meet Ezra Klein

In the previous post, (and likely others) I touched on the fact that Congress is very partisan. Well it seems I'm not alone in this opinion. By the way, the picture at the top of the page is awesome. Obama is saying, "I kick ass. You know it, I know it." Uncle Joe in the background is thinking, "Wow, Barack is the man. And I have the sniffles." Lastly, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is next to Uncle Joe thinking, "My mouth hurts from smiling. But don't stop! Bright lights!" Anyway, their faces are cool, and it's just a cool shot. In fact, it's so cool, I'm going to provide it for your optical entertainment.


You like?

That was pathetic. Anyway... Ezra Klein makes four main points.

Point one: Some senators hate their jobs to the point that they envy university presidents.

That's sad. Isn't something wrong when elected officials hate their jobs? I would think that elected positions would be the best and most rewarding, because you put so much time and effort into reaching that spot. And you're serving your people. What could be better than that? Serving your party, duh.

Point two: Congress needs to do its job rather than bicker so much that they leave it to someone else.

In theory, Congress really should be more powerful than the president. That's the way the whole system was designed. However, with the rise of party politics, Congress really has become less effective. That's why Klein says that many things Congress used to do are now run by government agencies or the President because Congress couldn't work well enough together to get it all done. Some items then required executive order to be finished. I do have to say though, that it kind of should be harder for a group of 535 people to come to agreements than it is for the President to agree with himself. Even so, Congress should be representing the people of the United States of America when making decisions, and if they did that instead of working along party lines, they might get more done.

Point three: Congress doesn't work anymore due to old rules and party politics that cause gridlock.

Not much to say there that I haven't already said. Party politics are ridiculous. They reduce issues to two sides, when there are actually many, many different solutions. Then they force people to pick, because after all, who else are they going to vote for? America is taught to be either Republican or Democratic, and that other groups are just too far out there to be taken seriously. In Iowa, you pretty much have to be either a Republican or Democrat to caucus.

Point four: The way we think about our government in terms of individuals has led to majority vs. minority which, along with the filibuster, lets no one govern.

Once again, Congress being ineffective has passed some of their former responsibilities to other agencies and the President. I don't know who has noticed, but the power of Mr. President seems to have grown quite a bit. Jefferson didn't even dare engage in war without a declaration by Congress. He even balked at making the Louisiana Purchase. Today, presidents can virtually fight wars without a Congressional declaration. All they need is funding from Congress, which is remarkably easy to get when the Congressional majority is aligned with the president's party. Plus, who is going to vote against funding for troops? If a senator did that, they would be criticized as uncaring or unpatriotic.

We need to be careful. Without some changes to the system, (and soon) control in this country is going to get messy. Without strong control, not much gets done, and spending goes through the roof. (Not like it isn't already) This is why I will vote for who I think is right no matter what party they're from, what religion they practice, what the color of their skin is, what gender they are, if they wear boxers or briefs... You get the point. I'm going to do what's right for me, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.

I'm still alive, you?

Well, the whole health care thing has passed. Ask me in five or ten years what I think of it, because it's so hard to say without reading the whole thing. Republicans say one thing and Dems say another. So, let's just discuss some of the general principles and ask some questions.



First of all, I'm totally supportive of helping people get health care. I don't think anyone should have to go through unnecessary pain or death, because we have good enough medical knowledge in this country to help nearly everyone. However, some people don't get it because they can't pay for it. I would like to say that emergency rooms accept and treat everyone. You can get health care if you don't have insurance, it's just costly for you or other people who do have insurance.

Even though I think it's good morally that everyone gets treated, the economics don't make total sense to me. Yet. They might eventually, but I don't understand how requiring insurance will help, as people will still be unable to afford it. Also, forcing insurance companies to insure every person who asks for coverage seems like it would raise prices for everyone. I don't want to sound harsh, but if someone without insurance is requiring million dollar treatments, and they go ask for insurance, is that really insurance at that point? The company is going to pay out a hell of a lot more than the person will ever pay in.

So I'm not going to pass too much judgment on this bill until we have to live with it. I think anyone who was worried that the world was going to end was crazy. I'm sorry to disappoint them, but the fact that the Democrats were finally able to pass something doesn't mean armageddon, and it doesn't make them bad people.

In fact, the consistently partisan efforts are what make Congressmen and women bad. Instead of trying to come up with something good for the American people, especially their own constituents, they work to come up with something that is good for their party. I wish we could get past that and become a country governed by the people, not by political parties and their motives.

Congress has a lower approval rating than the Pres?

A shorty, but a goody. Or at least a thought provoker, so I have to say something...

First of all, this really improves my approval of the American people. I thought people didn't care, but I must have been wrong, and boy am I glad. I can actually say that this is one of thew few approval polls that I care about, and am actually happy about.

It's nice to see that people now care about what their leaders do. We elect congressmen and congresswomen so that they can voice our opinions in the national government. The ideal representative puts aside their personal values (unless they are aligned with their constituents) in order to happily serve the people they serve. However, in today's highly partisan politics, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Should we totally clean out Congress, though? Probably not. If we did do that, no one there would have any idea of what to do, or what things are going on at the moment. It wouldn't be good. However, I do think it would be good to get rid of some of the politicians that have been there for thirty, fourty years. That's a little ridiculous. Their district can't find anyone else? I just find it hard to believe that someone who has spent so much time on Capitol Hill would still have the drive to be a good leader.

Congress should be more responsible than the President. To me, the President, a single person, is the one who should be proposing crazy measures, not a group of 535 individuals acting collectively. Normally, you would expect them to wring out the radicalism.

Continuing relations with Mid-East is healthy, needed

Finally, an inspiration from something other than the New York Times. I haven't heard much about Pakistan since their election craziness, but it was nice to read this article on Newsweek by Fareed Zakaria. Apparently, the Obama administration is doing some good work in the country, which is a great achievement for international relations in any Middle-Eastern country.


It's tough for America to be popular in the Middle East. We are almost single-handedly running a war in two countries. We continue sending soldiers to their countries to fight people who are more like them than like us. Our presence alone increases the number of civilian deaths, so I think it is reasonable for Middle- Easterners to feel some degree of contempt. It has to be tough to be overrun by a foreign country that believes its values are better than yours. In the U.S., we don't have to worry about fighting in our lands, but they do.

We also pump billions of dollars into the oil rich countries. While this may seem like a nice perk of American greediness, much of the money stays in the hands of a few incredibly wealthy individuals. The rest of the people don't benefit much from the profits. If I were one of the disadvantaged, I would hate American greediness as well.

Even though most of the people in the Middle East don't hate the United States, it's still a good thing when we create healthy relations with foreign countries. We are always so involved in their affairs, that it may seem to everyone that we try to control everyone else. It's especially important to create strong ties with growing nations such as India, that already outnumber the United States' population, and will soon have power to match.

I commend the Obama administration, and the Bush administration that started this work, on their work in Pakistan and Israel. Peace with any nation is wonderful, but it's tougher to obtain in some.

Iowans are good drivers!

It's funny that I should choose to write about texting laws, because at the moment, America's Worst Driver (America's Worst TV Show) is on TV. I'm not sure how much these people text or call whilst driving, but I know that I do sometimes. I know, it's not safe, but I have to respond!

Normally I talk about Congress and the federal government. Now, however, I am going to talk about the Iowa legislature and their attempts at curbing cell phone use in vehicles. They're trying to pass a ban on texting while driving, but what I didn't know until a few days ago is that they are also trying to ban handheld electronic use entirely. That includes talking on your cell phone. Yes, I do both sometimes without a law against it. Would I support a ban? Yes. I think that using a cell phone, especially texting, can add incredible danger to an already dangerous activity. Talking on the phone takes a hand out of use and distracts you. Texting while driving takes (for some) two hands, your concentration, and your eyes.

However, some of the proposed rules make me think twice about a ban. The first one is that the current house bill bans only the sending of text messages, not the reading. Does that make sense? Well, the fact that you are forced to keep your hands on the wheel is good. But you shouldn't be able to read text messages! That takes your eyes off the road for far too long.

Plus, how will cops be able to tell which you are doing? Any texting law seems hard to enforce unless it is for every driver holding a phone. However, it would still be hard to prove. Cops can prove that you were speeding with radar, but how will they prove that you were texting?

The second stipulation was the one that made me scream. The Iowa house changed their bill to ban only teenage drivers (16-17). What good is that going to do? Teenagers make up a small portion of drivers on the road, and adults text just as much. Adults might even talk on the phone more than teenagers. How many soccer moms do you know that are always on the phone when they're chauffering their children? I know a few.

And another problem for cops: are they supposed to guess who's a teenager? Should we be forced to put stickers on our car that announce, "TEEN DRIVER?" It seems outrageous.

Targeting teenagers for texting seems like a cheap way to ticket them to get them off the road. More than that, though, it allows the adult legislators to continue using their phones when they drive.

I will regulate you, but don't regulate me!

I hate always using the NY Times, but until I find another website that allows one to access articles without having to sign-in, I will keep using it. With that said, this NY Times blog post gave me a few questions.

The post was mostly about Obama and the Democrats using regulation of Wall Street as a 'crowd pleaser' that would help at midterms. That may be true, but that's not what I want to talk about. The whole time I was reading this, I was just thinking, "Oh great, another invasion of the government into our lives and our work." On top of that, they want to regulate Wall Street when they seem to be just as reckless with money.

Let's just say that I'm a parent with a child. I constantly give my child an allowance, because I love him so, and I set him up with sweet jobs so he could easily make more. Basically, I help him out a lot. As for me, I make decent money, but I always seem to be in debt. I owe tons of money on the house and the three cars. Oh, and the vacation home. I like to spend money, I just can't help it. One day, my beloved son wants to spend $200 on a bike, and I say no, because I consider that reckless. Is that fair, that I am allowed to spend as much as I want, but because I am in a position of power, I try to regulate the spending of others? I think that is something that the American government and the American people need to think about.

Speaking of these American people, who the government is supposed to be of, by, and for, the post says that the Pew Research Center found that three-fifths of Americans support tougher regulation of Wall Street. I don't want to bash on my people, but I find it hard to believe that 3/5 of the country invests, or even knows what Wall Street does. Americans, myself included, need to become more aware of what our politicians tell us. It is wrong to vote them into office, and then allow them to control us like they do. We should be controlling them, holding them accountable for everything that they do.

I wish three-fifths of Americans supported tougher regulation of Congress, but the politicians probably wouldn't tell us that.

State of the Union

First of all, good job Saints, but come on Colts! Get it done! I'm disappointed. Let's get a snow day! And this is my first post on the newly downloaded Google Chrome. I'm trying it out... I've heard Internet Explorer isn't very good. So far I like Chrome. I might try Firefox eventually, but who knows?

More importantly, I read a transcript of Obama's State of the Union '10, and I definitely have some comments. I know it took me longer than expected, but I'm doing my best. It's really long, so I've only read about half of it, but hopefully I can finish. It's similar to when I read books... it's hard to just read half. Once you get that far you might as well finish. But I need to write something, so I'll discuss what I know so far.

The worst of the storm has passed, but the devastation remains

One of Obama's greatest messages that I've heard. It's a great line, very profound. This line came about not very far into the speech, when the President was talking about the economy and jobs-- one of the most pressing issues of his administration. However, a lot of what he said was that they're doing their best, because after all, he was left with the responsibility of fixing the situation when he took office. In the very same paragraph as the storm metaphor, he said, "One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt."

This seemed to be a big theme in the speech, that the current administration was given many problems, and have done their best to help. Which I think is partly true, partly false. They might have saved the banking system, but by doing that, the government added historical amounts of debt to the national deficit. They might have helped the automotive industry stay afloat, but once again, they added huge amounts of debt. That seems like something that would be bad for the economy...

One of my questions, though, is if this administration talks big, but contradicts themselves in many ways? It sure seems like it to me. In the midst of all these economic stimuli and bailouts, the government is saying they want to cut spending. They also say that the deficit is bad, but they've set record numbers of spending in one year. I think Obama had an excuse for this, too, though. It was that they were fixing a previous administration's errors.

There were a few things that I liked to hear from Obama. I can't say if it's all talk, but I think it's good that he at least acts like he realizes that people are against these two things:

Party politics. I think I've talked before about how divided the government is, and even today, I saw it in the congressional votes. The Democrats seem to vote for Democrat-sponsored bills, and the Republicans seem to do the same for their party's bills. Like I said, it is so sad that the Congress members from one state mostly don't agree on issues. In the Senate, it seems impossible to pass anything without 60 votes. Because of that, not much is getting done, simply because of the party divisions.

"I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform," Obama said. The second thing that he talked about that Americans are pissed about is earmarks. If the government wants to cut spending, they absolutely need to do something about earmarks. Senators and Representatives should not be able to tag spending for a rainforest in Iowa onto a defense spending bill. It is such a huge waste of money that could be prevented. Defense spending bills should only have items in them that have to do with defense.

For now, that's enough. I'll be back, though.

State of the Union

As I was busy last night, I unfortunately missed President Obama's State of the Union address. My goal is to watch it this weekend and have a post by Tuesday. For now, you can just read this. It's not a comprehensive summary of the speech, but it takes a good look at one of the aspects of the speech.

Money Talk

I won't repeat everything this NY Times post says, but basically it says that the Senate will vote this week on the possibility of creating a commission focused on finding ways to reduce the deficit. In some ways, I totally agree with this, but I do have reservations about it.

Spending is definitely a problem in our government, and not just now, it has been for a while. In recent years, the federal deficit has grown immensely, especially in with the 'bailouts' that have been given. This graph shows the federal deficit as a percentage of GDP starting with the Hoover presidency. "Hoover got us in, and WWII got us out. Bush got us in, and to his credit, started trying to get us out," Stephen Stoft wrote under the graph. 

To end the Great Depression, the federal government started huge spending projects to stimulate the economy and give people jobs, much like they have attempted during the current recession. However, the difference between those projects and those of today is the fact that Roosevelt's New Deal helped revive the country from a horrible economy, where unemployment was much higher than the dreaded 10% that we hear about today. 

Today, the NY Times also reported that Obama, in his State of the Union Address, will call for a freeze in many federal spending programs. Once again, I am so happy that the government at least seems to be acknowledging the fact that they spend way too much money! However, the deal that Obama is proposing will only cut a tiny fraction of the spending that is expected in the years that it will be in effect. And somehow, at the same time as this freeze occurs, the government wants to be able to provide more services...

Healthcare? How can health care reform be achieved if the government is truly dedicated to cutting spending and reducing the deficit? That makes absolutely no sense, unless someone in the government is named Alexander Hamilton. 

Game Changer

The healthcare debate has just been thrown a curveball. On Tuesday, Massachusetts voters chose republican Scott Brown to replace the late Ted Kennedy in the U.S. senate. Brown will be the only republican in Congress from the largely democratic state. For Massachusetts, his election means that their state healthcare program will have a better chance of being left alone. A new federal plan would likely disrupt the program that Brown helped to install in Massachusetts.

Brown, a former model, will be the 41st republican in the senate, disrupting the democratic control over a filibuster by the republicans. There have been rumors that the democrats would possibly rush a vote on healthcare reform before Brown gets sworn-in, but nothing has happened yet, and nothing should. If the Senate were to pass a health care bill in the next few days, just before the Massachusetts senator-elect were to be seated, the bill would be tainted. Who wants a health care bill that only 99 senators were able to vote on. The state of Massachusetts probably doesn't even want a federal healthcare bill, as they already have a state-wide system.

Congress has been debating healthcare for months now, and it seems as if President Obama may finally be expressing some anger that nothing has happened. In the days leading up to the election, Obama pleaded with the voters and with the democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, to preserve the democratic control in Congress. The New York Times said yesterday,

As voters went to the polls, Robert Gibbs, White House press secretary, made it clear that the president was "not pleased" with the situation Ms. Coakley found herself in. "He was both surprised and frustrated," Mr. Gibbs said.

Of course Obama would be frustrated! The center of his campaign was healthcare, and nothing has been done! I would be mad too, but apparently the people of Massachusetts were mad enough to vote in a republican who would staunchly oppose democratic healthcare plans.

Sides of the Healthcare Debate

There were a few things in today's paper that caught my eye today. I try to read the political articles, but more often than not, I skip them. Because they're boring. I'll be honest; they can be really boring. That is, unless they're not. Like the opinion piece on healthcare with comments from both Iowa senators: democrat Tom Harkin and republican Chuck Grassley.


For the most part, the Harkin side of the page was about all the ways that a health care bill would be good for everybody. Mostly that meant that people who don't have healthcare would get it and everything would be all perfect! However, there was absolutely no mention of the costs of the bill, what it would cost people who already have healthcare. Mr. Harkin, I would like to know these figures so that I can weigh the pros and cons of the bill. Please don't try to make me seem stupid by only giving me the positives. (That don't really affect me anyway)

On the other side of the page, our Iowa senator Chuck Grassley made hardly any mention of the benefits of a health care bill, and instead took the financial approach. He made it clear that the bill would cost billions of dollars, adding huge amounts to our already huge deficit!

So there are two issues that I see with this article

First: do we really need a healthcare bill if it's going to cost so much, and mostly benefit only the people without healthcare?

Second: the party divisions around this bill (and every other) is astounding. Just look at the two Iowa senators- they rarely vote with each other on a big bill. Every time I look in the paper at the Congress votes, it's always all the democrats on one side and all the republicans on the other. That is such a shame that two senators, who are supposed to be representing the state of Iowa either can't agree on what the people of this state need, or they simply vote with their party.

I wish our leaders would make decisions that mattered to their constituents, not their parties.