31 December 2013
Article found here
Due to Congress' failure to renew long-term federal aid benefits for the long-term unemployed, approximately 1.3 million Americans will lose the benefits they have been receiving with the start of the new year. Though there was legislation put forward concerning the matter, the compromise did not include any kind of temporary fix.
For many, these benefits are what keeps them going through the difficulties of unemployment. One lady, in response to arguments that benefits for the long-term unemployed after 28 weeks are a disservice to the recipients, said that "[her] job search is [her] full time job," and that she is "sick and tired of people insinuating that folks in [her] position are not really trying to find jobs and are content to remain on unemployment."
The Democrats blame the Republicans for the problem. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "In the past, Democrats and Republicans have worked together to extend unemployment insurance for those still looking for work. Sadly, Republicans have now decided that they would rather let this program expire than cooperate with Democrats."
President Obama has asked Congress to pass temporary legislation after the holidays.
I think that this is an excellent example of why we need federal welfare programs. Yes, they are a mess, and yes, we have horrible things like this happen, but ultimately we see the side of our country that needs help. Though there were arguments in the article that said that these long-term unemployment benefits are too costly and are a disservice to those receiving them after a certain period of time, I wish to politely disagree. I understand that there are times when people do take advantage of the government, but I don't think that is usually the case; most people want more money than what they would receive from this unemployment program.
Also, there was a statement from a lady receiving the benefits of this program where she said that people sometimes look at the long-term unemployed and say that they should just get a job working fast food. The woman's response was that she has tried that and couldn't get a job. However, even if she could get a job working fast food or something similar, would she have been able to survive off of just that income? I would like to argue that no, she could not, especially if she has children. We have talked many times in class about the need to raise the minimum wage, and I strongly agree. If we wish to make those on welfare independent, we must provide them with higher-paying jobs.
Finally, though I don't think the blame should be placed on the Republicans for the issue, I do agree that the members of Congress from both parties need to learn to compromise a little more, especially on issues as serious as this one.
Here is an article about raising the minimum wage.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Monday, December 30, 2013
Court Blocks Hospital from Disconnecting Jahi McMath from Life Support
30 December 2013
Article found here
13-year-old Jahi McMath went in for tonsil surgery earlier this month in an effort to fix some breathing issues. Though things seemed fine immediately after the procedure, everything began to go south when she began "bleeding profusely" and then went into cardiac arrest. A few days after, McMath was declared brain dead by doctors.
Now McMath's family is fighting for what is left of her life. In response to an offer from New York to keep Jahi on life support, the family is raising money to transport their daughter. They say that Jahi is not dead, and that she has responded to her mother's touch and voice.
Although several doctors have proclaimed her irreversibly brain dead and the hospital wishes to cut her from life support, Jahi's family continues to fight in court and pray for a miracle. They believe that "a parent has the right to make decisions concerning the existence of their child," and accuse the hospital of pressuring them into ending Jahi's life forever.
Currently, the "unplug" date for Jahi is set for January 7th.
Even though this doesn't directly relate to the kind of healthcare we've been talking about, I do think that it is worth discussing in the context of our individual rights in the medical world. I agree that parents should hold the power of life and death in this instance, but also think that, after so many negative results from numerous doctors, this family should reconsider whether or not they should continue to put their daughter on life support. If her condition is, in fact, irreversible, wouldn't the facilities being used to keep her "alive" be better used to save a life that could be brought back?
I believe that the parents do have the right to decide whether or not their daughter is taken off life support; perhaps all they need is time to accept their daughter's passing without being bombarded by hospitals and court trials. I see the hospital's point, but I think that a little more compassion on their part is due.
The way that this case is handled could and most likely will be a model for future cases, and I hope that the judge will keep this in mind when they decide whether or not to take Jahi off of life support on the 7th.
What this all boils down to, and what does apply to what we've been talking about, is who will ultimately make the decisions for our healthcare as US citizens? Will it be us or our government, and who will pay for it?
Article found here
13-year-old Jahi McMath went in for tonsil surgery earlier this month in an effort to fix some breathing issues. Though things seemed fine immediately after the procedure, everything began to go south when she began "bleeding profusely" and then went into cardiac arrest. A few days after, McMath was declared brain dead by doctors.
Now McMath's family is fighting for what is left of her life. In response to an offer from New York to keep Jahi on life support, the family is raising money to transport their daughter. They say that Jahi is not dead, and that she has responded to her mother's touch and voice.
Although several doctors have proclaimed her irreversibly brain dead and the hospital wishes to cut her from life support, Jahi's family continues to fight in court and pray for a miracle. They believe that "a parent has the right to make decisions concerning the existence of their child," and accuse the hospital of pressuring them into ending Jahi's life forever.
Currently, the "unplug" date for Jahi is set for January 7th.
Even though this doesn't directly relate to the kind of healthcare we've been talking about, I do think that it is worth discussing in the context of our individual rights in the medical world. I agree that parents should hold the power of life and death in this instance, but also think that, after so many negative results from numerous doctors, this family should reconsider whether or not they should continue to put their daughter on life support. If her condition is, in fact, irreversible, wouldn't the facilities being used to keep her "alive" be better used to save a life that could be brought back?
I believe that the parents do have the right to decide whether or not their daughter is taken off life support; perhaps all they need is time to accept their daughter's passing without being bombarded by hospitals and court trials. I see the hospital's point, but I think that a little more compassion on their part is due.
The way that this case is handled could and most likely will be a model for future cases, and I hope that the judge will keep this in mind when they decide whether or not to take Jahi off of life support on the 7th.
What this all boils down to, and what does apply to what we've been talking about, is who will ultimately make the decisions for our healthcare as US citizens? Will it be us or our government, and who will pay for it?
Friday, October 25, 2013
Should Doug Gansler Have Done More About Underage Drinking Party?
25 October 2013
Interest Groups
Article found here
A photograph of Attorney General Gansler of Maryland at a party with underage drinkers was discovered. Upon the finding of the picture, Gansler stated that he was there to check on his son. This raised the question of whether or not it was Gansler's responsibility to stop the teenagers from their illegal activities.
In the article, the argument was that Gansler was just compromising and was justified in his actions because he was being a reasonable parent. However, many argued that he should not have let such things happen without taking action. I thought this was an interesting juxtaposition of the groups supporting traditional morals and values and the groups willing to take a modern stance. I honestly think that he should have stopped the kids from what they were doing because it was illegal and dangerous (though the parents of the teens had rules in place, there is never a guarantee that kids will listen). I also thought that Gansler's initial response to questioning, that "there could be Kool-Aid in the red cups," was, quite frankly, embarrassing. No matter how you look at it, underage drinking is still illegal, and the laws stating that should be upheld.
Interest Groups
Article found here
A photograph of Attorney General Gansler of Maryland at a party with underage drinkers was discovered. Upon the finding of the picture, Gansler stated that he was there to check on his son. This raised the question of whether or not it was Gansler's responsibility to stop the teenagers from their illegal activities.
In the article, the argument was that Gansler was just compromising and was justified in his actions because he was being a reasonable parent. However, many argued that he should not have let such things happen without taking action. I thought this was an interesting juxtaposition of the groups supporting traditional morals and values and the groups willing to take a modern stance. I honestly think that he should have stopped the kids from what they were doing because it was illegal and dangerous (though the parents of the teens had rules in place, there is never a guarantee that kids will listen). I also thought that Gansler's initial response to questioning, that "there could be Kool-Aid in the red cups," was, quite frankly, embarrassing. No matter how you look at it, underage drinking is still illegal, and the laws stating that should be upheld.
Obama: If We Can Afford Shutdown, We Can Afford to Fund Education
25 October 2013
Interest Groups
Article found here
Last Friday after visiting an advanced Brooklyn high school, President Obama stated that he thinks that he thinks we need to focus more on investing in education over prioritizing spending cuts in other areas. His reasoning was that, if we wish to be globally competitive, we need to up our educational game by incorporating more innovative methods into our education system.
As a student in high school, education is something that I think about every day. Initially, I was very excited to see that there had been some statements made about improving our country's education system; what student wouldn't be? After reading the article, however, it soon became apparent that the desires stated were a little too good to actually happen. Education is a tricky topic; while people want their children to be educated and for other people to pay for it, most are not willing to pay for the same thing for other people's children. Americans say that we need to spend more on education, but are they willing to pay the higher taxes required in order to make improvements? Are they willing to give teachers higher salaries and therefore better incentive for others to become teachers, even if that means money out of their own pockets? I think that Obama's ideas are nice, but that they will probably stay just that: ideas. There might be a few minor changes made, but at the rate that things are going in Congress, I doubt that the changes will be drastic.
Friday, October 18, 2013
New Jersey Supreme Court to Allow Same-Sex Marriages
October 18 2013
Article found here
Last month, a judge in New Jersey ruled that the state "must recognize same-sex marriage." The judge also stated that Monday, October 21st will be the day on which the gay weddings start. Many say that the delay for same-sex marriage legality in the state is due to Gov. Christie and his veto last year on a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. It has not been decided yet what will come of the same-sex marriages performed in the "waiting period" before the issue is determined if the ban should be kept.
In continuing with the theme of the last post, I thought this was another great example of the same interest group once again using the court system to get what they want. This issue is bigger than ever, with 14 states now having legalized gay marriage and several more in the midst of deciding. Again, I don't know of an answer to give the people on either side of the issue; this is a moral issue, and with questions of morality there is never an answer to satisfy everyone.
Article found here
Last month, a judge in New Jersey ruled that the state "must recognize same-sex marriage." The judge also stated that Monday, October 21st will be the day on which the gay weddings start. Many say that the delay for same-sex marriage legality in the state is due to Gov. Christie and his veto last year on a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. It has not been decided yet what will come of the same-sex marriages performed in the "waiting period" before the issue is determined if the ban should be kept.
In continuing with the theme of the last post, I thought this was another great example of the same interest group once again using the court system to get what they want. This issue is bigger than ever, with 14 states now having legalized gay marriage and several more in the midst of deciding. Again, I don't know of an answer to give the people on either side of the issue; this is a moral issue, and with questions of morality there is never an answer to satisfy everyone.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Federal Judge: Michigan Gay Marriage Ban Will Go to Trial
16 October 2013
Article found here
Interest Groups
A lesbian couple from Michigan, wanting to adopt each other's children, has decided to challenge the state's law banning same-sex marriage by taking their case to trial. In doing this, they hope to gain the same legal rights for themselves and their children enjoyed by same-sex couples in other states.
I'm not sure how I feel about this issue. On the one hand, I can understand where these women are coming from; they feel that this would be the best thing for their children, and are willing to do what it takes to procure the legal binds needed to fully parent each other's children. I can also see why this is such a heated topic nationwide; the people of this interest group feel that they have a right to marry whomever they choose, and that they deserve the same legal rights as choosing traditional marriage. Given my religious beliefs, I don't agree with gay marriage or adoption rights for same-sex couples, but from a legal perspective, I'm not sure that government has the right to decide such things. This then raises the question, "Well, who does?" I can't answer this question, and apparently no one else can give a satisfactory answer either, or else the issues of gay marriage and adoption laws would no longer be under debate.
Article found here
Interest Groups
A lesbian couple from Michigan, wanting to adopt each other's children, has decided to challenge the state's law banning same-sex marriage by taking their case to trial. In doing this, they hope to gain the same legal rights for themselves and their children enjoyed by same-sex couples in other states.
I'm not sure how I feel about this issue. On the one hand, I can understand where these women are coming from; they feel that this would be the best thing for their children, and are willing to do what it takes to procure the legal binds needed to fully parent each other's children. I can also see why this is such a heated topic nationwide; the people of this interest group feel that they have a right to marry whomever they choose, and that they deserve the same legal rights as choosing traditional marriage. Given my religious beliefs, I don't agree with gay marriage or adoption rights for same-sex couples, but from a legal perspective, I'm not sure that government has the right to decide such things. This then raises the question, "Well, who does?" I can't answer this question, and apparently no one else can give a satisfactory answer either, or else the issues of gay marriage and adoption laws would no longer be under debate.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Grand Canyon Reopens in National Parks Deal with States
12 October 2013
Interest Groups
Article found here
Synopsis
The government and several states, including Arizona, Utah, Colorado, New York, and South Dakota, have worked out a deal to reopen (or partially reopen) the states' National Parks with the stipulation that they must pay for it. The states have also been told that there is little guarantee of them being reimbursed for this. Though paying for the parks is a large cost (the partially reopened Grand Canyon will cost $93,000 per day), these states have decided that the revenue they will get outweighs these costs.
Analysis
I think this is an excellent example of an interest group. These states all get significant revenue from their National Parks, and the shutting down of these parks has already had a huge impact (the Grand Canyon alone gets about $1 million per day at this time of year). The longer these parks are shut down, the more money the local and state economies lose. Although this compromise is expensive, I think that these states made the right decision in taking the offer proposed by the Obama administration. It will be interesting to see if other states (possibly Oregon?) follow suit in reopening their National Parks.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Shutdown Nears as House Passes Funding Bill that Delays Obamacare
September 30, 2013American Political CultureArticle found hereSynopsisWith the deadline for government funding looming near, the House of Representatives passed a bill on Saturday to continue providing the government with money but delaying the implementation of Obamacare for another year. The Republicans of the House have made it clear that the Senate must choose between a government shutdown or the passage of this new bill.
AnalysisAfter reading this article and hearing the in-class debate on this topic, I am inclined to agree with the sentiments of press secretary Jay Carney when he said that "Any member of the Republican Party who votes for this bill is voting for a shutdown." I think that even considering a shutdown as an option is preposterous, and I wish that the Republicans of the House would unite over another issue where they could actually get something passed and make a difference. It seems that there is no logical way for this bill to ever get past the House, with a Democratic majority in the Senate and the President sure to veto any bill delaying or making ineffectual his legislation.In the text, it talks about how Americans, generally speaking, no longer trust the government to do what is right and feel that public officials do not care what they think. The House, and therefore the most Republican part of our current government, by passing this new bill, has put the economic interests of our country in jeopardy. How do these men and women of the Republican party ever expect to win the trust of the people or another presidential election when they make decisions which could be so detrimental to the people they represent? I am definitely not a fan of Obamacare, but is a government shutdown really a preferable option? I think that those against the Affordable Care Act need to find a more reasonable, rational approach to opposing that act that doesn't threaten our country's recovering economy.
Friday, August 30, 2013
DOJ Won't Challenge Washington, Colorado Marijuana Laws
August 30, 2013
The Study of American Government
Synopsis
The Department of Justice has decided to respect the authority of states in regards to the recent laws passed in Colorado and Washington regarding the limited legalization of recreational marijuana, choosing instead "to use a 'trust but verify' policy."
Analysis
I found it very interesting that the Federal government decided to back off on this issue. The passage of those laws was very hotly debated, and now that the Department of Defense, though seemingly still very cautious about the matter, has announced their stance, I wonder if other states will follow suit.
Recently we have been talking in class about states vs. Federal rights, and this is an excellent example of how the power is split between the two. The Federal government realizes that sometimes they need to compromise and give the states the power to decided in specific situations if that balance is to be kept.
In this instance, the states started off by passing laws in direct conflict with those passed by the federal authority, and now have been given permission to live by those laws, if under strict guidelines. It will also be interesting to see how major cases involving the breaking of those laws are handled by the states themselves and if the Federal government decides to get involved, and also how new states wanting to pass similar laws will be treated.
Here is the link to the article:
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com
The Study of American Government
Synopsis
The Department of Justice has decided to respect the authority of states in regards to the recent laws passed in Colorado and Washington regarding the limited legalization of recreational marijuana, choosing instead "to use a 'trust but verify' policy."
Analysis
I found it very interesting that the Federal government decided to back off on this issue. The passage of those laws was very hotly debated, and now that the Department of Defense, though seemingly still very cautious about the matter, has announced their stance, I wonder if other states will follow suit.
Recently we have been talking in class about states vs. Federal rights, and this is an excellent example of how the power is split between the two. The Federal government realizes that sometimes they need to compromise and give the states the power to decided in specific situations if that balance is to be kept.
In this instance, the states started off by passing laws in direct conflict with those passed by the federal authority, and now have been given permission to live by those laws, if under strict guidelines. It will also be interesting to see how major cases involving the breaking of those laws are handled by the states themselves and if the Federal government decides to get involved, and also how new states wanting to pass similar laws will be treated.
Here is the link to the article:
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)