Re: Money Does Grow If it's Marijuana

Marijuana is a drug and for that reason I would hate to condone the support of legalization. However, the benefits would be endless. Billions of dollars are spent every year on the transportation and purchase of marijuana. Drug cartels have posed an enormous danger, and many lives have been taken and many imprisoned from the operations. We have all learned from drug education it is bad for the brain, however, there has never been a reported death or record of overdose from the substance. Can't say the same for alcohol. If marijuana was to be legalized, the government could put a tax on it and have a greater source of revenue from a consumer product than ever before. Also, it would eliminate the trade of drug dealing and terminate the need for smuggling. The legalization of the substance could be a remedy to both debt and crime. Logistically, it would be extremely beneficial to the economy and could ultimately clean up the streets.

Re: The Growth of the Federal Government

It's easy to point at our government and call it tyrannical. One can also sit around and construe conspiracy theories. For all we know the government could be monitoring us at this very second. Really all we can do is trust the virtue of the federal system. But to think the United States has become "a huge monopoly trying to worm its way into every system, business and household to gain more power," is a little over the top.

Yes, the Constitution was established fundamentally to protect our rights, but times evolve and so must the frame. Government officials do not look down on us as petty incapable people and they definitely don't see their job as babysitters. Of course we are capable of taking care of ourselves, but what about those impoverished, homeless, bankrupt, sick. The government is obligated to take care of them and if you think things such as Medicare and bailouts are a device to gain control, let's take away federal aid and see what happens.

Governments are not just meant to protect us, that is what military and police forces do. They are established to regulate the system and ensure the highest possible functioning of the nation. Look how much times have changed- a person can video chat with somebody live all the way in Japan through a phone in the palm of their hand. When the framers wrote the Constitution, they knew society would evolve. That's why we have the judicial branch, to interpret the Constitution. I seriously doubt gay marriage was a topic of conversation in the 1800s, and I'm sure you think Proposition 8 is unnecessary and the people should work it out without government interference. But if the government didn't address the issue, gay marriage wouldn't be illegal or legal, but it could be scrutinized and denied. How about the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights. Without laws instituted to protect the rights of African Americans, we may still not have equality because there would be no power to enforce it.

It almost seems you would prefer a borderline anarchy. Our presidents know they are not gods, and they certainly don't expect to be treated like kings. This nation is obviously far from perfect and clearly has numerous issues at hand, but if they are not federally addressed, how else do you expect them to be solved? We have the right to select our government officials. They're job is to ensure the best interest of the people and the nation. As one of the freest countries in the world, I would say the balance of power we have going on is pretty good.

Save Teachers, Save the Future

With elections just three months away, political partisans are pulling out all the stunts. Democrats press Congress, summoned from their enjoyed August recession, to pass the latest jobs bill- a $26 billion plan said to save up to 300,000 teachers from layoffs. This afternoon, President Obama announced, "we can't stand by and do nothing while pink slips are given to the men and women who educate our children and keep our communities safe."

Both parties were reportedly pleased with the signing of the bill. Democrats now have bragging rights to an emergency legislation and Republicans now have more support that Democrats are driving the nation to financial devastation. In the one-day Washington session, Democrats expressed their concern for children returning back to the classrooms leaving behind a few teachers. Republicans on the other hand saw this as an example of government's wasteful spending. The viewpoint they do share is how this will be beneficial for the upcoming campaigns, just in opposite ways.

The funding for teachers is supposed to be taken care of mostly by closing a tax loophole used by multinational corporations and by reducing food stamp benefits for the poor. School districts are to be provided $10 billion to rehire laid-off teachers or to ensure that more teachers security in their jobs.

With the upcoming November elections, Democrats are grasping on to control of the House. The Food Stamps Slashed to Pay for Teacher Jobs Bill is a desperate attempt to revive voters. Education should always be one of the top priorities of a nation. It is what ensures success of the future and protects the virtue of adolescents. Federal budgeting should never have been allowed to harm this country's school districts. However, the financial situation of the United States is brutally strapping. It is a sticky situation and lay-offs are a harsh reality of our economic times. But it shouldn't be the teachers. We need those teachers more than ever to educate children to help guarantee their financial stability for their future, especially considering how valuable a solid education could be in today's economy.

Give Peace a Chance

Okay, we're in this terrible war losing thousands of our loved ones and spending billions of dollars we don't have- it's obvious we need to get out. But we're there and we need to finish what we started. As an American we have to support our troops and finish what we started and that unfortunately makes it difficult to abrubtly end.

Nevertheless, Obama was not elected because of an African American revolution or because he swayed the people with his speech. He was a fabublous campaigner but he won the election because after the state the Bush adminstration left our country in we needed a radical change. Of course a large number of African Americans voted for Obama but more so Democrats and even Republicans turned to Obama for a solution to the recession and the war.

The blog article Obama Really?, the writer is telling us Obama makes himself smarter than he is- whether you support our president or not, to be able to run for president you must be extremely intelligent as it is to get to the level of politics which that takes. I understand many of Obama's ideas are hard to agree with, but let's face it, our country needs a huge change, and Obama was the candidate that was going to make it happen.

Attention to Arizona

Tension over the Arizona law has not eased up and isn't going to. Arizona's SB 1070 allows police officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws and required immigrants to prove they were authorized to be in the country, giving police officers a larger role in enforcing immigration violations.  Democrats obviously see this as "un-American and unconstitutional." U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled in a suit brought by the Obama administration, provisions are to be halted until there could be a trial on whether they would interfere with federal authority on immigration and subject legal residents to unwarranted scrutiny.

The parts of the law that were suspended called for police officers to arrest people based on their appearance and detain them until their immigration status was determine. For now, at least, police won't be required to check the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants whom they stop or arrest for other offenses. Nor will immigrants without proper papers face state misdemeanor charges. Also, police officers were given new powers to impound illegal immigrants. 

The ruling has only marked the beginning of lengthy and costly courtroom battles in a case that is destined for the Supreme Court. "There are no winners here. No matter what the courts ultimately decide, we will still have wasted millions of dollars, and our borders will still not be secure," said Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick. The administration needs to redirect their focus on getting the border under control and developing a national strategy.

Bolton has received death threats from both sides of the controversy. Tension over SB 1070 will most likely remain unresolved for some time. The Obama administration needs to bring immigration reform and border security to the top of their list because whether the Arizona rulings are viewed as protecting or discriminating against their people, this problem needs to be solved. 

Democrat v. Democrat: To Tax or Not to Tax?

Taxes and spending have become the source of an internal feud between the Democrats of Congress. David Sirota lists the sides of the issue in the left-leaning blog's recent article You Make the Call. It seems, in this case, the debating is within the party.

The Obama administration and fellow progressive Democrats still promise to let the Bush tax cuts expire but then reinvest some or all recovered tax money into domestic spending that would rebuild crumbling infrastructure and economically support those hit hardest by the recession. Other more conservative Democrats believe America's middle-class should have to pay higher taxes or suffer through slashed services and benefits in order to prevent today's wealthy from paying any more. Then there are the "Blue Dog" Democrats who are against unemployment benefits but still defend the Bush tax cuts and the so-called "Trickle-Down" Democrats whose priority is "to prevent millionaires from having to go back to paying Clinton-era tax rates." Then finally, the Military-Industrial Democrats, who are declaring that instead of reducing the Pentagon budget, middle-income families should be paying higher taxes or benefit slashes- this last group is hard to reckon with considering the Pentagon is at its highest funding level since World War II allowing for almost wasteful expenses.

The ultimate question is, which argument should prevail as economically accommodating? What progressive and conservative economists can agree on is that spending on programs like unemployment and food stamps are far better boost to the economy than extending tax cuts. Sirota expresses the discerning conclusions that raising taxes on the welathy and devoting those new resources to such programs would be a much better boost to the economy than simply extending tax cuts for the wealthy. Essentially it is clear, in my assesments of the provided government data, that taxes should not be raised for the middle-class, but for the upper.

Homosexuality...Half-fair

This editorial from the Los Angeles Times, Same Sex Sanity, is explaining the arguments against same-sex marriage. Arguments so far, among the most recent debates in California, are claiming that same-sex marriage is bad for child-rearing, however, i agree with the editorial that there are copious unsuitable parents raising children with ignorance and abuse in appalling habitats and they are not denied a marriage license. 

District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, expected to rule in the Proposition 8 case this summer, has been requested to acknowledge the more complicated issue of whether homosexuals constitute a "suspect class", or a minority who have withstood unreasonable discrimination. If he does so, the laws that could adversely affect this group would have to meet at a stricter level of judicial scrutiny. However, even if Walker does not get as far to consider such, Proposition 8 could still be struck down.

The author of the editorial essentially equivocally acknowledges both sides of this highly controversial debate yet if more informative than affirmative. However, ultimately ascertains that denying marriage to homosexual couples is clearly a failure to provide equal protection that if qualified as unconstitutional discrimination even without considering the question of suspect class, because it was based on nothing more substantive than a belief in the immorality of homosexuality. The lack of a solid justification for laws against same-sex marriage suggests that, like the sodomy law, they are based on a traditional moral  belief. That is why the Supreme Court should reject them.