By now everyone knows that Bush has promised to veto legislation by Congress expanding health insurance for poor children. Over 5 years, the new legislation would increase the program by $35 billion, or $7 billion a year. Seems to be a very large chunk of change, right? Well, by now everyone should also know that he is demanding from Congress a budget of over $200 billion for the war in Iraq for 2008. Yes, in ONE year he is demanding for $200 billion in tax payers money. So I pose the question, when is enough enough? In my eyes, providing American children with health insurance if their parents cannot afford it is a much better cause than fighting a battle many believe can never be won. The fact of the matter is there is only so much money out there, only so many programs can be funded. How much longer are we going to allow hundreds of billions of dollars to be burnt in the Middle East fighting a war over ideology and oil?
It is time that we start focusing on social issues to better America. Why should any American, in the so called "most powerful nation in the world" suffer and die from simple ailments such as the flu? The answer is simple, they shouldn't. Why should millions of people a year go hungry or freeze to death in America? Again, they shouldn't. But we are so consumed with defense spending that we cannot open our eyes to see the social problems right in our back yards. Yes, defense spending is necessary, but $200 billion is more than a stretch...
With little more than 35% of the country supporting him, are we really willing to continue down this path of destruction? I applaud Congress for holding out and not folding like those in the past when writing the budget... I just hope they can hold out long enough for some sort of compromise to be struck that is more reasonable than $200 billion for the 2008s loss in Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/26/cong.budget.deadline.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/25/children.sinsurance.ap/index.html
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Primaries
For this weeks blog we are supposed to answer three questions... 1. Are primaries good or bad for democracy? 2. Are primaries good or bad for parties? 3. Are primaries good or bad for candidates?
1. I think that primaries are good for democracies. One thing is certain, they are definately more democratic than the caucus or the party conventions. Primaries take the power away from elites and party bosses and allow the public, who are interested, vote. They also are run by the states, so states can focus on issues and canidates that are more friendly to their needs.
2. I think that primaries aren't necessarily BAD for the parties, but I think that parties would definately prefer not to have them and use the caucus or convention instead. Parties would rather have the control, and primaries take some control away from them. With that in mind, I would say that primaries are generally frowned upon by party bosses who want to control the candidates, platforms, and votes.
3. I would say that primaries are generally good for the candidates, other than the expenses. It gives candidates a chance to get their face out in the media, get their policies heard, and meet the public. Primaries give candidates who would be otherwise relatively unheard of a chance to gain some publicity that they would not otherwise get.
With all of that in mind, the primary type that I believe best serves in the interest of the people and the parties would be the closed primary. This allows people who are interested to vote, while still allowing parties to have some control over the primary. People who are informed on the issues, and are relatively loyal to their parties, can choose to register with a party and vote. It is more democratic than a caucus, but at the same time the party maintains some control because only registered people may vote, and vote for their party-no cross overs. Open primaries, non partisan primaries, and blanket primaries are very bad for parties because there can be a lot of cross over voting, independents running, and the results are not necessarily clear to the parties, for example John McCain in the 2004 election.
1. I think that primaries are good for democracies. One thing is certain, they are definately more democratic than the caucus or the party conventions. Primaries take the power away from elites and party bosses and allow the public, who are interested, vote. They also are run by the states, so states can focus on issues and canidates that are more friendly to their needs.
2. I think that primaries aren't necessarily BAD for the parties, but I think that parties would definately prefer not to have them and use the caucus or convention instead. Parties would rather have the control, and primaries take some control away from them. With that in mind, I would say that primaries are generally frowned upon by party bosses who want to control the candidates, platforms, and votes.
3. I would say that primaries are generally good for the candidates, other than the expenses. It gives candidates a chance to get their face out in the media, get their policies heard, and meet the public. Primaries give candidates who would be otherwise relatively unheard of a chance to gain some publicity that they would not otherwise get.
With all of that in mind, the primary type that I believe best serves in the interest of the people and the parties would be the closed primary. This allows people who are interested to vote, while still allowing parties to have some control over the primary. People who are informed on the issues, and are relatively loyal to their parties, can choose to register with a party and vote. It is more democratic than a caucus, but at the same time the party maintains some control because only registered people may vote, and vote for their party-no cross overs. Open primaries, non partisan primaries, and blanket primaries are very bad for parties because there can be a lot of cross over voting, independents running, and the results are not necessarily clear to the parties, for example John McCain in the 2004 election.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Money, Money, Money
I've been sort of sour about this topic for some time now. I find it embarassing that so much of our electorate system is based on the money a candidate has/is capable of raising. Shouldn't we focus more on the important things, for instance, WHAT THEY CAN DO FOR OUR COUNTRY? Can you imagine what we could do if people were willing to donate that kind of money to charities to feed the poor, cure cancer, find a vaccine for AIDs, etc. It sort of makes me sick to think about it. In the 2004 election Bush raised nearly $370 million, Kerry raised nearly $330 million, and the other candidates together raised nearly $7 million. Doesn't anyone else find this ABSURD? We can't feed the poor, we can't give proper healthcare to Americans, we can't make sure the elderly can have their medication at a decent price, but we can raise nearly $707 million for presidential campaigns! For what... them to stay in hotels, travel the country, and put ads on TV that cause us all to change the channel out of annoyance anyway? A bit ridiculous.
What's even worse is how the parties are playing into this. Parties consider candidates able to raise the most money the most 'worthy' of their vote. COME ON! That has NOTHING to do with ability to lead this country. Look at Bush, the guy raised more money than any president in history, and currently has less than a 50% approval rate among Americans. I find our society to be so driven by money that it hardly sits back and looks at what is more important, like intelligence for example.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/15/magic-johnson-raises-money-for-democrat/#more-1973
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index_2004.asp
What's even worse is how the parties are playing into this. Parties consider candidates able to raise the most money the most 'worthy' of their vote. COME ON! That has NOTHING to do with ability to lead this country. Look at Bush, the guy raised more money than any president in history, and currently has less than a 50% approval rate among Americans. I find our society to be so driven by money that it hardly sits back and looks at what is more important, like intelligence for example.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/15/magic-johnson-raises-money-for-democrat/#more-1973
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index_2004.asp
Monday, September 10, 2007
First Blog Continued
Since I thought we were only supposed to answer one of the questions.. I will add the second half of the first blog.
I would say a group of people that is NOT a party would be a group that is not politically and actively involved in the community. For instance... I can form a group, let's say with my roommates, in which we share a love for sports and country music, and we think that there should be a law passed that makes country music the official music of the United States. If we never actively participate in implementing the law, we are nothing more than a group of people that get together to talk about our love for country music. A party should be politically involved in the community, and act to implement laws and such that make the community a better place.
I would say a group of people that is NOT a party would be a group that is not politically and actively involved in the community. For instance... I can form a group, let's say with my roommates, in which we share a love for sports and country music, and we think that there should be a law passed that makes country music the official music of the United States. If we never actively participate in implementing the law, we are nothing more than a group of people that get together to talk about our love for country music. A party should be politically involved in the community, and act to implement laws and such that make the community a better place.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
First Blog
Kind of a boring name... I will try to be more creative in the future.
What's a party?
In America, we have two main parties; the democratic party and the conservative party. A party is a group of people who share common ideals and follow the same political platform. My definitions/distinctions between the two are as follows:
Conservative: Follow old traditions, more government control of individuals and individual's rights, lower taxes, less support for social programs, privatization of industries such as healthcare, and heavy defense spending.
Democratic: More freedom/protect freedoms at almost all costs, more government control of industries, public healthcare and public social programs, higher taxes to support welfare systems and such.
Of course my definitions are not perfect. For instance, there are many liberals who do not support welfare programs, and many conservatives that do. This is just what I believe is the general mold of platforms. I think it would be impossible to come up with a perfect definition of exactly what a party is since people are not perfect creatures. We do not necessarily act as we are supposed to and do not necessarily follow the 'mold' of our parties. Some people feel a lot stronger about certain issues on their party's platform than others do. Some people are more committed and dedicated to their parties than others, etc.
If it were up to me, I would like to see less indentification with parties. I think that a lot of our problems in Washington stem from the idea that an idea is bad because it came from the 'enemies' party. We are hesistant to accept the ideas of the other party members because many feel a strong committment to their own. I believe that an idea is a good idea based on what it will do for our country, not on which party came up with it.
What's a party?
In America, we have two main parties; the democratic party and the conservative party. A party is a group of people who share common ideals and follow the same political platform. My definitions/distinctions between the two are as follows:
Conservative: Follow old traditions, more government control of individuals and individual's rights, lower taxes, less support for social programs, privatization of industries such as healthcare, and heavy defense spending.
Democratic: More freedom/protect freedoms at almost all costs, more government control of industries, public healthcare and public social programs, higher taxes to support welfare systems and such.
Of course my definitions are not perfect. For instance, there are many liberals who do not support welfare programs, and many conservatives that do. This is just what I believe is the general mold of platforms. I think it would be impossible to come up with a perfect definition of exactly what a party is since people are not perfect creatures. We do not necessarily act as we are supposed to and do not necessarily follow the 'mold' of our parties. Some people feel a lot stronger about certain issues on their party's platform than others do. Some people are more committed and dedicated to their parties than others, etc.
If it were up to me, I would like to see less indentification with parties. I think that a lot of our problems in Washington stem from the idea that an idea is bad because it came from the 'enemies' party. We are hesistant to accept the ideas of the other party members because many feel a strong committment to their own. I believe that an idea is a good idea based on what it will do for our country, not on which party came up with it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)