Commentary Response

    I agree with Kyle that jumping to a swift conclusion to take away weapons is a fine line for citizens. Indeed gun laws need to change. But to what? Complete government control? This will only drive people to illegal means to obtain weapons. This is the major issue now, guns are purchased illegally more than legally as it is. We most certainly do not want to trample our 2nd amendment yet how do we as concerned citizens draw the line between those who are responsible and those who should be barred from ever owning a gun? I personally speaking believe that some sort of psychological test should be conducted as well as longer waiting periods between application and purchase. Hopefully by setting more barriers and regulations, this will create discouragement for those with less than favorable means. I personally have owned guns that took less than 30 minutes to obtain.  That bothers me that all that is looked at is my criminal record. Not how many I have purchased, the frequency of my purchases nor my reasons for this. Someone with a spotless record can easily pull a trigger and that’s all it takes for tragedy to happen. How often are these mass shooters repeat offenders, fewer than many think. It only takes one calculated massacre and officials are scratching their head as to how this could have been prevented. The most recent shooting in Wisconsin, as well as Colorado are just sad reminders that this country clearly cannot handle certain freedoms. I would gladly go through a stricter approval process knowing that my gun(s) will be used for protection not to cause unnecessary harm. There are stricter regulations on government assistance than gun laws. It’s easier to buy a pistol than to receive food stamps. I cannot be the only one who sees this.

Link to Kyle Grier's Post:

http://usgovern.blogspot.com/2012/07/gunning-down-elections.html

Comment Critique

In reading the commentary of the thoughts of Mr. Nicholas Quaschnik’s editorial on mandated healthcare, I find that the author conveyed his feelings in a crisp manner. I agree that mandating healthcare is a two-sided grey area. I say this because Americans who are able bodied and are medically covered via their employer set the example that others can do the same. Why should I in one way or another, be responsible for the next person’s ability to receive care if they are making no effort to do so on their own. Mr. Quaschniks view of government support as a means to help those who need it, also can be used as a crutch, as we see in today’s society. The current welfare rate is steadily increasing, with the current rate at close to 30,000,000 Americans, or about 9% of the population. The average family within this 9% receives one form of government assistance either food financial assistance or medical care for young children.  On the other hand, the reminder receives multiple forms; Section 8 Housing Assistance, Medicaid Healthcare, WIC, Food Stamps, among others.  This is where working people cry foul. Why do I have to go to work every day, when there are some who have everything taken care of by the government and my tax dollars? Most adults will go without health care in an effort to maintain coverage for their child. Hence, the higher rate of children’s policies funded by states.  In finding these statistics, I wonder exactly who besides those with pre-existing conditions and children, would benefit from mandatory healthcare? In paying for healthcare, how often does one actually see their physician? Aside from a health scare or occasional minor injury, maintaining healthcare you will not effectively use is a waste of hard earned money.  Unfortunately this decision is not left to the American people, hurt a few to help many. 

Kylie Moden Commentary
http://governmentgrumbles.blogspot.com/2012/07/government-responsibility-with.html

One ID? Not enough anymore

Election year is upon us, and with the election year comes the American duty to vote for the next leader of the free world.

American, that word has different meanings for everyone. One may view an American as anyone born in the United States.  To another, the process of naturalization equates to American equality. Since the 2008 election, states across the country began analyzing voting identification requirements in hopes of streamlining and determining who is truly eligible to vote.

This begs the question, why now?

Why does it matter now who shows up the polls? Is this not why our founders fought to create the legislation that allows all to participate in the selection of our next leader. If no other election before now has looked as close into the validity of those voting, why does it matter now? Simply put, to make President Obama a one term president.

As despicable as that sounds, I find that the shift in the political atmosphere is one for the books. The constant smear campaigning and mudslinging that is present with any political election is amplified now. And for what? To prove you’re the better candidate?  In my own personal opinion, anyone who has put forth the effort to obtain American identification, be it a simple state ID, a passport or even an application to begin the naturalization process shows effort. With that being said, I know that we do not live in such a world where these simplicities exist. A state issued government ID will be the staple this year, the gold standard to vote.  The notion that millions of “Americans” will be turned away from the polls because the picture ID presented 4 years ago is now invalid, only for this particular election of course, is saddening. Millions of people who came to America for a better life, those who work and make an honest living here will be denied a voice this year. Libertarian and equal opportunity groups cry “foul” and “racism” when presented these changes. How so? The major ethnic groups that this particular change targets are predominately Hispanics who migrated to America through the southern states, and African Americans who are unable to obtain identification for any number of reasons ranging from legal barriers to lack of transportation to the nearest dmv. I find that in these days, we have come far from hoses and dogs to have them morph into an updated form of discrimination.  The election that ushered in President Obama was one for the records, the staggering number of people who came out to vote was only matched in 1971 when the voting ages was lowered to 18. As a voter I am inclined to leave my id at home this year and avoid polling places all together. However, that would not be very American of me. Well, if the states have it their way, the lines will be shorter and you can rest assure any and all non-citizens will not present to voice their opinion about the country they also live in.

Mandatory Healthcare - Supreme Court Deliberates

    Personally speaking, I have not given much attention to the debate over mandatory healthcare, only because I have healthcare provided through my employer. When I came across this particular article, I was curious to inquire about the fuss over President Obama's Healthcare Plan. In reading this article I was clarified on grey areas I did not fully understand, again, I have not given much thought to this particular issue because I felt it did not pertain to me. I was wrong.

    The author, Jeffery Young, presents the current hard pressed task the Supreme Court faces in deliberation on the future of this reform. The decision will affect hundreds of millions of Americans. The author points that a hot button is the mandatory coverage of all Americans, even if they feel they do not need it or face a fine.

    Some argue that making health insurance mandatory is unconstitutional. It is simply another attempt to infringe on our right to choose and refuse.

    He writes "A ruling against the law would be a major blow to Obama, who achieved a goal that eluded presidents from Roosevelt to Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton". For the President to attempt to go against a few to take care of millions shows affirmation to make a better future. Yet, where is the President allowed to make changes on our behalf if we do not want it, even if it may be our best interest. Unfortunately, the public is mainly concerned with one main part, a fine. These citizens with this thought unfortunately exclude those who would breathe a sigh of relief from the simple fact of acceptance of coverage to alleviate the financial burden.

    The writer in my opinion, is unbiased on the issue, only presenting the layout about the situation, which is hard to find in today’s media. This particular article was intended to inform all instead of a few without a one sided view on the subject. I can appreciate this with all the one sided journalism in today’s world, aimed at pushing their own agenda instead of the greater good.  He added clickable links to men, women and children, young and old, which are examples of those this change would help significantly. Those who are rejected coverage but desperately need it. He adds "Cutting out the mandate alone will reduce the number of newly covered Americans and make health insurance more expensive". This is true, if the health care insurers are not required to offer coverage to all, they will continue to discriminate against pre-existing conditions, age and gender. Prime example, the few mentioned above. In addition he adds “The Obama administration insists it is within its rights to regulate how Americans pay for health care services they inevitably will consume during their lives", true in theory, but how to convince those who feel they will never need health care or those who feel they will not need enough care that requires coverage? that is the issue that needs resolving to make this accepted.  The writer does a wonderful job of conveying the necessary information to those like myself who were wary due to the display that this reform was another way for the government to continue to control out pocketbooks.  

Link to article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/27/supreme-court-health-care-decision_n_1630596.html

Mitt Romney: "Mysterious Non-Answers"

    In looking at the recent articles regarding President Obama and Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, I came across articles critiquing Mr. Romney’s inability to relay a clear response to the President’s recent halt of deporting young illegal residents. Immigration is a topic due to recent attempts of a few states to block certain groups from voting in the upcoming election.

     I chose this article written by Eugene Robinson, a bi-weekly columnist blogger, because I was intrigued by the title “Mitt Romney’s mysterious views on immigration”. The writer does not have an argument per say, but a citizens’ look at the recent interview Mr. Romney gave following the announcement. I felt that Mr. Robinson was able to point to the temporary conclusion that Mr. Romney did not give an answer for fear of losing potential backing and voters. At this time I found this article, Mr. Romney did not make any official statements on the subject.

     This article focuses on the interview with Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation”. Mr. Romney was unable to give a clear cut answer, or any real opinion if any when asked the same question multiple times. Mr. Romney began to answer the questions but changed directions to avoid any direct answer. The writer offers a slight possible explanation to the reasoning behind this. He states “It’s also possible, however, that Romney was trying to conceal how close his real views on immigration are to Obama’s”. This led me to believe that the possibility of siding with the President would be a political bomb on his part, considering he is the opposition. I agree with the writers’ idea that Mr. Romney is only avoiding the question at this point to not sway potential voters away. In reading this article multiple times, I do believe Mr. Robinson’s thoughts are intended to catch the attention of minority and Democratic voters. I draw this conclusion due to the current subject at hand. In addition,  this brings attention to the possibility that Mr. Romney may impose deportation on millions of illegal residents. The writer also points that Mr. Romney is unable to state, if elected, if he will keep the current changes in place or make changes of his own. Clearly, a possible presidential candidate, needs to be clear and concise to gather and continue a following clear to the white house.     

     Eugene Robinson brought to a dim light that the inability to answer a simple question, honestly, and not based on possible ratings is important. Important not only because we as the voters would like to know your thoughts, but also because there are millions of illegal citizens of all nationalities who need to be informed. 

Here is the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-mitt-romneys-mysterious-views-on-immigration/2012/06/18/gJQA2ukLmV_story.html

Florida only wants US Citizens next Election Day

If you are not a legal citizen of the United States and live in Florida, you may not be allowed to vote for the next Presidential Election.

    In the multitude of issues plaguing Florida that have been thrust into the lime light for the world to see, there is now a lawsuit against the state on claiming discrimination of voters. The Justice Department has filed suit against the state on the grounds of illegally purging voters from voting lists, the state wide list you must be on to cast your vote. Scrubbing the Department of Transportation records and deleting names of those who may have voted during the last election and making them ineligible this election year. I find this funny because during the last presidential election, this was not an issue, everyone was encouraged to vote, and showed up in record masses. As we have seen in the past that Florida can be a key, and controversial state during election time. What is the true reasoning behind this and why many other states are attempting to implement the same blockades, only with different titles and amendments. Is this based on the coming election?

    Florida Governor Rick Scott states this is solely to uphold the regulation that only American citizens can vote for the next presidential picking, some would say this is an attempt to oust President Obama from office by blocking a majority of the minority vote, a vote that clearly placed him in the white house.  

    Either way you look at it, politics will always swing in the favor of those given the power to make the big decisions. When the time comes to pick a new leader of the free world, if they do not like who is in charge, they will make sure they find every loop hole to get him out. Legally of course.

    I chose this article for one because I have the right to vote and do not see a problem with anyone who steps foot in this country voicing their opinion, they live here too after all? Secondly, allow those same voters who elected him to decide to re-elect or not, do not try to block potential voters who may vote differently this time around because you fear the current president will have another 4 years.  Elections are the one of the few times we as citizens play a major role in political decisions and the government it allowing this freedom, but with fine print.

Democrat or Republican? Republican or Democrat?

At some point in our ongoing adult lives we make a choice of which direction we will follow or support. But how so we come to this decision. Do we follow our parents example? Or those around us. Or do we simply venture out and research a party we agree with personally.

In my own defense, I followed who my parents agreed with. When they loved a certain President, I liked that President. When whey planted support signs in the front yard, I leaned towards that representative. When my turn came to cast my first vote ever during a political year, I was eager to realize whom I would vote for. That age old question crept up again. Democrat or Republican.

This lead me to realize that I do not have a personal "favorite", per say, when it comes to congress. I really do not care for either party. In the sense that i do not know enough about either to make a solid conclusion on which party I may support. This comes to a surprise to those around me. I do not gravitate to the "Popular" candidate, or the candidate who makes all the promises in the world to fix everything or make one set of citizens happy while making grief for another. By no means am I speaking on any one member in particular, this thought is geared towards all members of leadership, from the local Mayor to the Commander in Chief.

In taking this class I truly hope to gain a better understanding of the political world past and present. Where did we begin? How did we get where we are today? Is there anything that could have changed in the past to create a better future?  I have views on politics, some may not agree, but then again, who always will?