After reading Misti's editorial at http://2305pov.blogspot.com/ it inspired me to research how our nation is dealing with tax cuts. Her very informative words clearly state that republicans are pushing for tax cuts for the wealthier (250,000$ per year in net profits) citizens of our country. I really liked how to she describes the demographics of each party.

After reviewing some news sources online, I found that her opinion is very one sided. At one news site I discovered that Obama plans to continue the current tax cuts that President Bush set into motion, but he won't include the wealthier citizens. Basically Obama says his revision of the tax breaks will help everyone that makes less than 250,000$ a year. Republicans are simply pushing to keep things the way they are.

The current income tax rates for someone making about 250,000$ dollars a year are 33%. For someone making 80,000$ a year they are only 25%. You can plainly see they are already paying a great deal more in taxes, and Obama wants them to fork over even more of their hard earned money.

Overall I thought this was a solid editorial, and it had me believing that the upper class should pay more taxes. After finding out how much they already pay in taxes, i believe they shouldn't be subject to "If you can pay more, you should."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334926/Republicans-push-Obama-extend-Bush-tax-breaks-blocking-lame-duck-laws.html

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Don't Ask, Don't Care

A big issue in the Senate right now is the debate of whether or not to revoke the bill, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Some say that the bill is homophobic and that it discriminates harshly toward gay soldiers. Others agree that homosexuals in the military can be a distraction for heterosexual troops.

The fact that once a gay soldier is found in the armed forces they are discharged from the military is completely absurd. Someone's sexual preference should not be the deciding factor to determine if they are capable of protecting, and dieing for our freedoms. Many great people of many different ethnicities and sexes have battled for equality for their kind. History has time and time again shown that humans will fight for what they truly believe is right.

Compared to the issues of women suffrage or desegregation of schools, this seems very minimal. Congress should never have let "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" be passed. I have never heard of an account where a gay soldier has committed a crime that a straight soldier wouldn't also commit. The Military should allow homosexuals to participate in warfare just as they let their straight squad mates do.

Some people (Soldiers and civilians) worry that gay troops will cause discomfort in situations of total exposure, such as showering in an open stalled shower. But I ask those people to please show me proof that a homosexual has taken a forceful advantage over a straight person in the shower of a military bunker. It's not like these gay people are there just to get to see other people naked.

A man is a man. A woman is a woman. A soldier is a soldier. Whether or not they are gay or straight, they still have the guts to do what most of us wouldn't even consider.

My response to Blake's Editorial

Your opinion is fascinating. You say that there are tons of problems that our congressmen should focus on other than buying more votes from their constituents. That they can spend millions of dollars on useless projects that lead to just a higher national debt. 

I'm kind of on the fence about this issue. On one side, someone could side with you and say that these projects are a total waste of taxpayer money. That a new park or bridge isn't the most prominent problem to fix. But others would say that these spendings are completely needed because they create jobs and make their communities a nicer and more enjoyable place to live. 

Over all your article is very persuasive. If we lived in a world of absolutes, I would take your side on this argument. But there are other options to resolve this dilemma. I think their should be limits on what government funds should be spent on. There should be a set amount of money our representatives are allowed to invest in these projects and that they should show substantial evidence that their spendings are relevant and needed. 

I liked how you used visual aids to enhance the power of your editorial.

Murder In America

Each day the United States government allows close to 4,000 innocent lives to be taken within our borders. The motive behind 93% of these deaths is simply so citizens won't be inconvenienced. There is no justice for these victims who have not even yet  been born. It is intolerable to accept this act of violence in society today. The law needs to withdraw its protection from this murderous exploit and make abortion illegal.
Above all else, abortion is murder. The definition of life according to Webster's dictionary is "an organism state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction". Life starts at conception. The United States allows abortion and gives it power with legalization. In Germany in the 1940's Hitler's mass genocide of the Jewish people was also legal. Human compassion and common sense told the allied forces that they needed to protect the sanctity of life and hold these Germans accountable for their treacherous deeds. They declared that the Nazis performed an illegal act accordance to a higher law. Using the same logic, the mass murder of babies every year in the United States is a crime against humanity and can also be held up to this higher law.
Abortion isn't an acceptable solution for a woman who doesn't want a child. There are numerous very simple and obvious options. The first most convenient and logical alternative is to use a contraceptive. There is an incredible amount of variety in contraceptives so there is no denying that one can be found to suit every lifestyle. The fact that woman unprepared to be mothers have unprotected sex is an outcome of pure laziness. Janet Smith of www.goodmorals.org says "One reason for their careless use of contraceptives is precisely their desire to engage in meaningful sexual activity rather than in meaningless sexual activity." An increase in funding under Title X, raising the taxpayers' tab to $700 MILLION in direct funding for abortion providers like Planned Parenthood in 2008 alone. A woman needs to pay for her contraceptives so Americans don't have to pay for her abortion.
Abortion is a horrible deed. It is murder. How can America, the supposedly most civilized nation in the world allow it to happen. Legislative action needs to occur to make abortion illegal and save the lives of America's innocent children.

Greed vs. California Law

Greed stricken oil companies want California to amend their laws so they won't have to purchase expensive clean energy equipment. Thomas Friedman of The New York Times strongly sides with California's stand against the oil tyrants.
Friedman quotes Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger saying "It is very clear that the oil companies from outside the state that are trying to take out our A.B. 32 (an act designed to revert California's air pollution back to the levels it was at in 1990), and trying to take out our environmental laws, have no interest in suspending it, but just to get rid of it.”
The author goes on to talk about how the oil companies are trying to create the public image that they will create more jobs with their new policies. They also go on to state that never before has California seen an unemployment rate below 5.5%. Friedman thinks that they intend to kill the environmental acts California set in place or they never would have mentioned that unemployment was so low.
The people who invested billions of dollars into this clean climate act are very outraged as well. It was only being tested in California to see how it would work for the whole country, but oil companies want it stopped before it reaches that. 
This article is well structured and aimed at the right target, and uses some very powerful quotes from some very important people. I agree totally with Mr. Friedman's arguement. Greed should never be allowed to come before the common good of a nation. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/opinion/06friedman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

A Plan For the Gulf

In the editorial I read, the author describes how president Obama plans to deal with the aftermath of the oil spill on the Gulf Coast. The author goes on to say that president Obama deligated the plans to save the coast to the Navy's Secretary, Ray Mabus.

In Mabus's solution to the oil spill, he expresses two main recommendations that he has. Congress needs to create a Gulf Coast Recovery Council comprised of federal, state and local leaders to coordinate the over all repairs needed to mend the damage to the environment and to public health. Also that Congress should amend the law to ensure that a large portion of the fines owed by BP and others are spent towards recovery of the coast.

The Author feels that Congress lacks the ability to commence and complete the ideas expressed in Mabus's report. He has good reason to believe the way he does. Congress still hasn't held up on their promises for post-Katrina. Many problems that Congress aimed to change such as industrial development and levee building that starves the wetlands have not been altered.

President Obama is expected to create a Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force led by Lisa Jackson (the head of the EPA). But in order for this to all happen, Congress needs to fully and finally commit to a long-term recovery program. According to the author, the best idea would be to create a council empowered by congress that is free of any financial and political favor.

Since this editorial is targeted at everyone who is effected by the oil spill, I strongly think that the author is putting the pressure on us to make sure that Congress does everything it can to restore our coast.

An Issue Covered in Weeds

I found an interesting article on http://www.npr.org/ that talks about a very real possibility that marijuana may become legalized. The reporter stated that our relaxed views toward illegal drugs have caused a rise to occur in usage. Eric Voth, a physician who chairs the Institute on Global Drug Policy, says that drug use comes and goes in patterns. That this all was expected to come back around full circle again. He also goes onto say that, "It's way beyond legalizing. The medical excuse opened the door."
Another good point the author brings up is that California has a proposition that will be voted on in November.
Proposition 19 will completely legalize marijuana for recreation use as well as medical. If it is passed, many Republicans will be pressuring president Obama for Federal response.
I had no idea 14 states had already legalized weed for medicinal use. The article as a whole is very informative.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129930970