Who Takes the Sting?

The editorial I want to comment on is William Gee’s “SHOW ME THE MONEY!! or not”.  For a full view of this blog click here.  In the blog William Gee brings to the point the possible corrupted integrity of the Republican representatives in being unwilling to take a paycheck cut.  William Gee talks of how the Democrats are trying to pass the bill, so why won’t Republicans.  Gee quotes a representative who he is just like all citizens, hardly getting by, but Gee goes on to argue that a salary of $200,000 isn’t exactly barely getting by.  Gee was unemployed for 6 months so he himself has felt the sting of the economy.  All Americans have felt the sting of the economy and shouldn’t the Representatives be representing the citizens.  So why should the citizens feel all the sting, why shouldn’t the representatives take some of the load?

Gee has a point.  Both Republicans and Democrats need to stand up, all representatives need to be aware of what their constituents are going through, and then react to that.  Especially with the economic crisis as it is, the fiscal budget needs to be cut.  Gee has had a first hand experience in dealing with hardships and has proved to be a concerned citizen.

Even though representatives deal with everything on a much higher level than the average citizen, Republicans and Democrats alike are all just human beings too.  It is hard to know exactly the affect legislation, decisions, and cuts will have on the nation, so who inevitably pulls the plug?  It is the job of the representatives to decide what is best.  The economy is in trouble. Constituents and representatives, no matter party affiliation, need to step up and make decisions that are best for everyone.

Libya: Should We Be There?

As of March 22, 2011 the United States, along with the United Nations Security Council, made the decision to stop Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and his supporters from their attacks against rebels in Libya by establishing a no-fly zone.  Although the Obama Administration was skeptical to enter into a potentially long and complex war, the United States informed Qaddafi to begin a cease-fire or Qaddafi and his supporters would face military action from the United States and its allies.  All initiate objectives, in regards to the no-fly zone, have almost been accomplished but Qaddafi and his supporters have shown no signs of stopping their attacks on the cities controlled by the rebels.  The United States has also experienced mechanical problems which led to a crash of an American warplane.

Other than the United Nations influence, the United States had no direct reason for entering into the problems concerning Libya.  Although the situation is problematic, it is not the responsibility of the United States to enter into yet another [potential] war.  With troops already in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the problems already within the United States, should we really be heading out to get involved in yet another issue involving a country other than our own?  Although being a part of the United Nations, and one of the leading world powers, gives some responsibility to the United States to help solve some of issues of the world and protect other humans (other than American citizens) from these strong fighting forces, it is not the United States’ job to be the world police.

With already facing a national deficit, hurting economy and the war in Iraq, on top of the temporary aid being given to Japan, the United States cannot afford to pile something else onto the list.  The United States needs to focus attention on patching up Japan, getting the economy back to prospering, getting troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and eliminating the national deficit.  Before trying to fly, you need to first learn to walk.  Although the national leaders are doing the best they can and probably as best as anyone else might do, it is time the United States and government officials learn the balance of life.  The protection of the Untied States, its citizens, and everything it represents is on the line.

Obama’s Social Security Hoax: Charles Krauthammer

In “Obama’s Social Security Hoax”, Charles Krauthammer brings into argument the Obama Administration's fraud in saying that the trust fund for Social Security is solvent until 2037.  Krauthammer states that the Big Three entitlements that devour the U.S. budget are Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.  Krauthammer claims that Social Security problems can easily be fixed by raising the retirement age, tweaking the indexing formula (from wage inflation to price inflation) and performing a means test (so that Warren Buffett’s check gets redirected to a senior in need).

Krauthammer explains that the Social Security money comes from the current workers and is never saved into a big trust fund.  Krauthammer goes on to say that the Baby Boomers are beginning to retire and there is no longer sufficient funds to pay the social security, therefore causing an even bigger deficit to the national budget.  In 2010 alone, Social Security shortfalls raised the national deficit by $37 Billion.

Krauthammer uses logical thinking in approaching the problem, and uses numbers as his facts.  Krauthammer is writing to any concerned citizen in an attempt to open the eyes to the fraud Krauthammer sees.  However, as thought out as Krauthammer’s approach to fixing Social Security is, it is almost completely unrealistic.  Social Security has been around for so long, and covers so much spending, that getting enough support for change would be almost impossible.  Everyone has the programs they think are important, and with Social Security being such a big part of the U.S. budget, there are many supporters of Social Security.

Krauthammer not only insults the Obama Administration by claiming what they state is fraud, but Krauthammer goes so far as to say that the Obama is using Social Security as a demagogue for the 2012 elections.  Republicans are trying to get real entitlement reform into the April Budget, but an ad claims they are just throwing granny out into the snow for no real reason.  

Throughout the blog Krauthammer speaks of the need for a better Social Security system, and Administrators to think more logical and have more integrity with the American people.  Obviously Social Security isn’t going anywhere, but it does need some kind of change that will satisfy all sides, if even possible.  Click here for a link to the full blog.

Hateful Funeral Protests

     The author in “Our View: Yes Hateful Protests are Free Speech” is trying to persuade all citizens that yes, picketing at a soldiers funeral is horrible, but it is a protected right.  The author is from a national newspaper and includes both sides of the discussion, making the editorial a fairly credible source.   The author begins with the common knowledge that people often try to deny free speech to those who have loathsome ideals and comments.  Although the author does not necessarily agree with the various groups, the author does believe that the First amendment protects free speech, even to those who most people don’t want to hear.  In fact, the first amendment is almost a protection of minority opinion, versus majority opinion.  

     A majority opinion needs no protection because it is under agreement, but a minority is given the right of protection even if what the group has to say is considered horrendous by societies’ standards.  The author uses the First Amendment and the claim of the 8 justices that voted in favor of the church as their evidence.  Considering these are both directly related to the national government, the evidence should be considerably reliable.  From an emotionally swayed opinion, the outcome of the courts decision would be considered a chilling message, as stated by the VMI.  However, the author has looked at the case from a legal standpoint.  

     The United States government has set out to protect all individuals, no matter the opinion.  The author has written from the side of the justices, in protecting minorities and their opinions.  If the justices had gone in favor of the father, what other minorities would they have to vote against.  By voting in favor of the church, the justices are protecting not just the church, but any other minority that has something vulgar to say.  The author sees that the picketers followed all rules and laws in their protest.  To finalize the editorial the author states that the best thing to do in the case of a controversial minority is to give them their rights, and then simply ignore them.  From a legal and emotional standpoint, this is the best thing to do.  We all have rights.  Click here to see the full article.