Pork-barrel Waste

Radu Buican’s recent blog post entitled “Why I agree/disagree with the practice of Earmarking Federal Dollars for State Projects / Pork Spending?” brings attention to the poor reasoning behind earmarking and pork-barrel projects. I certainly agree with the points that he makes in his argument. He clearly states why what the government is doing is wrong, as well as backing up his statements with a number of specific examples.
It is indeed true that a lot of the pork-barrel projects instated by Congress are solely to keep constituents satisfied and subsequently ensure their votes for the next election. Now, it’s not to say that implementing beneficial projects for the American people is wrong by any means. After all that is one of the main points of government. The problem here is that a lot of these projects are rather frivolous and unnecessary. The American taxpayer’s money is unfortunately being wasted on ridiculous projects in order for incumbents to keep the citizens within their district happy with their representation. The money used for these projects collectively comes from all U.S. taxpayers; therefore the projects should benefit the United States as a whole at least partially. Also, the federal government should implement stricter stipulations upon how Congress can spend federal revenue. A perfect example that Buican used is the building of a $223 million bridge that connects a town of 8,900 people to a town of population 50, in which a ferry already runs between the two cities. Projects like these need to stop. Incumbents are buying votes at the expense of American’s hard earned money. We are essentially donating millions of dollars to a campaign fund, and a lot of citizens are none the wiser. It is definitely necessary to implement a number of different projects within the country, but they need to be well thought out, ensuring a well reasoned and proper use of taxpayer’s money.
Buican presented this debacle nicely, constructing a well written and though out argument against the improper actions of certain government officials. Hopefully, in the near future there will be stipulations on how the government can spend taxpayer’s dollars. We are already trillions of dollars in debt, the last thing our country needs is to be wasting money.

Power to the People

Liberty. It’s a core value that America was founded on, and an ideal held by Americans from the creation of the United States to our current age. We cherish the thought of absolute freedom; it’s something tens of thousands of our citizens have been willing to die for throughout the existence of this nation. Liberty is what makes this country so great, therefore it’s imperative that we hold onto its true meaning, ensuring that it will last for ourselves and future generations to come. In order for the United States to possess complete freedom, the power needs to be invested in the people. The Founding Fathers envisioned this wonderful structure, setting the precedent for our great nation in this respect, with Lincoln putting it into words: a government of the people, by the people, for the people. It’s a statement that proves what this country and its government was always intended to be and what it should continue to be, no matter what the circumstances. Unfortunately, as time goes on the power of the people is supplanted more and more by the power of the government. The federal government, especially the executive branch, has been continually seizing more power every year this country ages. For example, more recent events such as the president’s self-proclaimed right to order torturing of prisoners despite treaties and statutes forbidding it, as well as domestic surveillance without the necessary warrants. These are prime examples of power that the president was never intended to have, and a “time of crisis” and a “War on Terror” do not justify such actions. It’s also another way in which our liberty is being threatened due to the loss of privacy for our citizens. Either way, the causes are of no excuse for the government’s extrication of power to the people. The reasons behind what is happening may not be intentional, but they are definitely occurring.
The government is simply too involved in the daily interactions of our society and it’s not necessary. I firmly believe that government and life in general does not have to be this complicated. They are bombarding us with obligations and interfering where it’s inappropriate. Almost every conceivable thing has a bundle of rules and regulations that goes along with it. Most certainly the government has to exert a certain amount of power to maintain order, but does there have to be so many regulations? Furthermore, they are taxing income, sales, and property; they even tax you when you win the lottery. I understand the government needs some form of revenue, and I have no problem with paying taxes in order to establish the different institutions necessary for the development and maintenance of the country. The point of contention is that it’s not necessary to be taxing every single entity. They should choose to tax just one thing, either income or sales, it doesn’t matter; just simplify the process, it would be easier on both the bureaucracy and the citizens of this nation.
This unfortunate consequence isn’t the demise of our country, for there is still hope for improvement. It’s a situation that can be dealt with in order to improve our country to an even higher standard. I am more than grateful for the amount of freedom that I already have, but if we can potentially maximize our liberties, then why not do so? There are a number of different ways we can make substantial progress towards a zenith of freedom. First of all, we need to put the power back into the hands of the people. One way to effectively carry out this crucial process is to turn the legislative voting over to the citizens. Congress should still be responsible for creating legislation, but when it comes time to vote for passage of a bill, the people should be voting on the particular law to be passed. Granted, our congress members are elected by us, but that does not mean that they effectively represent our decisions. Including the president and congress, there are a total of 536 people representing and making the decisions for over 300 million. Statistically speaking, it’s not even feasible for them to accurately represent what the American people truly want for their country, especially when you consider the socio-demographics of the incumbents.
Now, let’s consider the exact definition of liberty. It is freedom from control, interference, obligation, and restriction; the power or right to act according to choice. It should be obvious by now that the government is in fact controlling, interfering, obligating, and restricting a number of things on our daily lives. It needs to stop in order for our country to maintain the level of excellence that we all want to live amongst. We have to control the government and make the decisions for them, not the other way around, ensuring a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Economy In Peril

It’s quite apparent by now that our nation is in a recession. Although, what are the causes of this slump in our country’s economy? In Whitney’s blog **Stars and Stripes** she addresses this issue fairly well, concisely commenting on the nation’s troubled economy while forming a solid argument for the possible causes of the nation’s ill-fated debacle.
In reference to the points she makes about the reasons for why our economy is in a recession I certainly agree. But when it comes to her solutions for solving these problems I definitely have different ideas. She argues that one of the major factors contributing to the nation’s slow moving economy is the ever-increasing price of oil. Furthermore, she points out the fact that the extremely high oil prices have a negative “trickle-effect” on the economy. These are very well chosen statements that I certainly agree with. The United States is without a doubt much too dependent upon oil. Also, the consequences of the high cost of oil are endless, considering every single thing you purchase is affected by transportation costs, which is obviously affected by the price of oil. In addition, as Whitney has stated the housing market crisis and increasing unemployment rate are definitely contributing factors to the nation’s stagnant economy.
The part of her blog I disagree with is her commentary upon the situation. She says that she wonders why the government doesn’t have a backup plan, and thinks by now there would be file after file of fool proof plans. That’s not a very pragmatic outlook, and unfortunately the solution isn’t that simple. There is an accumulation of different reasons why the economy blunders from time to time; and each reason is complicated and difficult to resolve. In essence, there really are no “lessons” to be learned because the situation is so different in each case. For example, the causes of the Great Depression in the ‘30s were dramatically different than the reasons behind our current economic crisis.
Even though I don’t particularly agree with some of Whitney’s statements, I still believe she has written a well constructed weblog. She developed a well thought commentary on a leading issue in politics and structured it nicely. It’s an important issue that does need to be dealt with to the best of this country’s ability in order for our nation to re-attain an economically prosperous society.

The "official" religion

Our country was founded on the idea of absolute freedom, attracting many of the first settlers to come over to America escaping religious persecution. The founding fathers brilliantly constructed the Constitution including the Bill of Rights; the first amendment which gives every American citizen the natural-born right to exercise any religion they desire. It’s one of the founding ideals that made this country so great, especially at that time. Although, in Amendment I, in the very first line of the Bill of Rights it specifically says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Well, it should be obvious that the government has in fact established a religion. Although the American people still have the right to practice any religious beliefs, it’s definitely true that the American government endorses the Christian religion and its values. Now, this is not an argument against Christianity at all; I am a Christian myself, and quite religious as well. But with that said my religion is very sacred to me, and I believe the government should have absolutely no correlation or influence upon it. The point of contention here is that the government is in violation of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land being broken by the institution which created it. Any person should be able to clearly see the endorsement of Christianity by the government. For example, “Our nation under God” in the pledge of allegiance, the presence of the Ten Commandments on government grounds, “In God we trust” printed on the back of money, and the placement of one’s hand over the Bible while taking an oath in the court of law. Christianity being endorsed by the government isn’t necessarily a horrible thing, but we do need consistency between the laws that govern this land and the actions that are actually carried out. Either the government needs to stop promoting Christianity as the “official” religion, or we need to change the Constitution accordingly.

Climbing the fence

In a recent article posted on Free Republic entitled “Despite fences, immigrants still broach U.S. border,” political analyst Tim Gaynor gives a pragmatic outlook on the nation’s illegal immigration issue, and the significance of the border fence. Gaynor does well in presenting both the contributions as well as the inadequacies the new border control policy has encountered. After reading numerous articles that only took a “success” or “failure” stance on the issue, it’s pleasing to see someone make a statement about the achievements of the border fence, while making sure not to ignore the fact that the fence alone has not solved our illegal immigration problem.
The need to secure our borders is an important issue, and how to ensure that it is done properly and effectively is as controversial of a question as it is important. Gaynor first examines how the fence has at least had the ability to “slow the flow” of illegal immigrants across the border. With the culmination of newly placed barriers, surveillance technologies, and added manpower, the immigrant’s attempts to cross the border have definitely been halted as they have faced increased resistance throughout the southwest region. "It has been a massive success. It has allowed our agents to gain control over the area and acted as a deterrent for people thinking of crossing," said Jeremy Schappell, a spokesman for the Border Patrol's Yuma sector, which includes San Luis. Although, Gaynor nor I are oblivious to the inefficiencies of the newly instated system. Stretches of the border seem to be unable to stop illegal immigrants numerous attempts at crossing the border as the fence alone won’t stop anyone; people will find a way over, under, or through it. Commenting on less effective areas along the border Gaynor states: “The barrier has no barbed wire and includes several formal breaks, one where a freight train crosses from Ciudad Juarez, in Mexico, another to give access to the river bed… without 24-hour monitoring, as well as the stadium flood lights, and the directional cameras linked to a central control room manned by National Guard troops, the El Paso fence would be little deterrent.” Gaynor realizes the need for some type of legitimate surveillance in addition to a barrier for the border control system to be an effective means of curbing illegal immigration. The nation is making steady progress towards the current immigration issue, but some substantial improvements need to be made. John Ladd, a local rancher says: "It's so easy to climb that I've seen two women that were pregnant, I've seen several women in their sixties and all kinds of kids between five and ten years old climb over it," Ladd said, as he leaned on a section of the steel mesh fence that stretches like a rusted veil westward toward the rugged Huachuca Mountains.
Gaynor’s article is a solid presentation of the border controls advocates as well the citizens with a rather weary attitude towards its effectiveness. His writing is concise and fair, making a point about this crucial issue I hope the government is seriously considering. As with anything in life, do it right, or don’t do it at all.

The Great Presidents?

What makes a great president? This is a question that has been on the minds of people for centuries. Scholars, politicians, or anyone generally interested enough in the political spectrum has tried to develop their own personal criteria for what makes a president great. In the article entitled “No More Great Presidents,” republican blogger Robert Higgs attempts to make a solid argument about the standards that define an outstanding president, as well as the weaknesses that expose them as rather dubious individuals.
Higgs begins his article by stating that he thinks a great president is “one who acts in accordance with his oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” I agree with this statement and others that Higgs makes throughout his blog supporting his ideals for an honorable executive leader. Although, I believe where he went astray from a solid argument is in his attempts to state what makes a bad president as well as his deliberate attacks towards the Democratic Party. Higgs continues his article writing about a New York Times ranking of the presidents conducted in 1996 by all left-liberals. He says “I have a theory: left-liberal historians worship political power, and idolize those who wield it most lavishly in the service of left-liberal causes.” I personally am not a democrat, but it seems he has an overly disdainful attitude towards liberals that causes me to believe he is writing with a bitter mindset rather than thinking critically. He is also quick to make assumptions and accusations concerning the decisions and policies rendered by the American presidents. In reference to the presidential ranking conducted by the New York Times Higgs states “all but one of the presidents ranked as Great or Near Great had an intimate association with war, either in office or by reputation before taking office. The lesson seems obvious. Any president who craves a high place in the annals of history should hasten to thrust the American people into an orgy of death and destruction.” I think it is an audaciously arrogant correlation to make. In short he is trying to say that the general public, especially liberals, define a great president by their barbarous war efforts. Furthermore, it’s simply ridiculous to place the blame of wars perils upon a single individual. Considering the way our government was constructed the president never has, nor ever will, possess enough power to be the sole individual responsible for a war of nations.
My concern about this article is whether or not Higgs is really interesting about presenting the values and conduct of what he thinks makes a good president. Unfortunately, unless Higgs intends so, his overbearingly cynical attitude is quite evident. As previously stated, I do agree with Higgs overall statement of what makes an outstanding president and what the proper role of the government ought to be. I just don’t think he made a sound argument do to his inability to prove his stance without repeated accusations backed by false or missing evidence.

National Guard to receive military makeover

A congressional commission determined last Thursday that the U.S. National Guard and Reserves necesitates a military makeover. After an extensive review of the current National Guard's standing, as an important defensive force, the commission saw fit the need for better training and equipment in order to achieve the Nation's standards for military excellence. The Commission on National Guard and Reserves issued a 448-page report that lists their findings, as well as recommendations and a suggested solution to revive the currently sluggish Reserves. Commission officials see the need to move the National Guard and Reserves from the old "strategic" backup force to a fully "operational" force that is integrated in the active duty military. "The old model of the Guard as a strategic force was no longer sustainable. Something had to change," Gen. Rodriguez said. "Creation of the Guard as a reserve force, trained and equipped to serve missions overseas and home, is the new reality. But it comes at a price. We think it's a good investment." The major problem here is that the National Guard and Reserves are short on troops, as well as undertrained and underequipped. The commission urges Congress and the Defense Department to enact long-term changes to laws and regulations in order to benefit military personnel and gain the proper funding for the desired troops, as well as an equipment increase. Whether good or bad, the act of changing the status of the National Guard and Reserves is an important issue because it will change the entire military operation and the country as a whole. We can only hope that Congress will take the proper and necessary measures in order to ensure the welfare of the people of the Unites States.