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.

Oil Gone or Gushing

In the recent CNN article, BP is saying that the oil leak has been fixed and it is no longer pouring out undersea in the Gulf of Mexico. However, the devastation isn't resolved just yet. The pressure in the oil well stack has not reached enough pounds per square inch which means not all the oil is flowing all the way through but where has not yet been detected.

Underwater computers and cameras are monitering the ocean floor to detect and leakage. A backup relief well is being built around the original one in August to prevent future disasters like this one. And while the issue is not yet put to rest, things are looking up from here.

Source: href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/16/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html?hpt=T1">http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/16/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html?hpt=T1