Commentary: Where do we put our Money?

In a post on the blog Kandis Initiating Forward Motion, the author addresses Illinois Governor Mitch Daniels' recent decision to sign legislation which would cut state Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. The legislation agrees to re-fund Planned Parenthood after it ceases abortion services. In my colleague's blog, I see that she is careful to note that while Mitch Daniels originally ran on a platform of fiscal conservatism focused on the making cuts to tackle the climbing budget deficit, his current decisions can be traced back to pressures from a moral agenda established by powerful far-right conservatives. Further, the last paragraph of her editorial provides more salient points.I completely agree that cutting funding for abortion will not solve the basic problem of rampant unwanted pregnancy, especially among young, and often uninsured people. Planned Parenthood provides family planning services not limited to abortions, and also include education and STD testing, vital services for those who are struggling financially and at risk of an unwanted pregnancy.  As I have written about in past posts, I see our current legislators as being in a particular state of corruption and power grabbing, most often at the expense of us, the people who are now increasingly uninsured and without public services because of a clout battle in our state and national Congresses.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-b-keegan/think-congresss-anti-choi_b_860538.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20058310-503544.html

http://www.texasobserver.org/component/k2/item/17763-deuell-puts-planned-parenthood-in-no-win-scenario

Commentary: Where's the Real Solution to Gas Prices?

Here is an issue that average Americans are all concerned about. Beginning in April, the price per gallon of regular gasoline nationwide averages near $4.00. While Austin prices are still climbing to that peak, an article posted on April 11th indicated that economists project that once that threshold has been reached nationwide, public ire and the consequences for citizens' budgets will have consequences on consumer spending on non-gasoline products and could also harm the transportation sector.
     While the economists have already attributed the increased commodity price of foreign crude on the political turmoil broiling in the Middle East, political commentators have shown that national politicians are using the issue to propel their party's interests to the forefront, and will likely not result in a reduction in the cost of gasoline. Democrats, including the President, have begun campaigning to drop tax subsidies that have given major oil corporations extra billions in revenue for almost a century now. This has turned into a political weapon, many agree, that Democrats are using to paint Republicans as siding with corporate interests in the face of growing citizen concern and the not-so-startling fact that oil companies are enjoying record profit. Republicans defend the tax subsidies and say that removing them will only increase the price of oil.
    I agree that these ancient tax deductions are funneling money into foreign markets by allowing corporations to deduct their foreign-based royalties as taxes, and also that removing them may in the short-term cause corporations to collectively decide to raise prices in what they consider "compensation".  What does a company need to compensate when they are receiving over $10 billion in three months in revenue, like Exxon? However, how is this partisan battle going to solve this? John Broder iterates this concern in a recent NYTimes article, arguing that the divided Congress will probably prove the greatest obstacle in creating solutions to gas prices, and mostly likely, other concerning issues being considered in the 2012 budget.
          But some hope, I find, has come from a more progressive argument. Daniel Esty, commissioner for the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and Michael Porter, a business professor at Harvard, collaborated in an op-ed contribution to the NY Times describing their solution for sky-rocketing oil prices, which is carbon-emissions taxation. The argument is often feared by many conservatives who see it as an impetus to their beloved and established energy industries, it however tries to tackle the real issue: The fact is, Americans are reliant on an unsustainable, unreliable, and dangerous source of energy, which is foreign oil, controlled largely by oligopolies and other proven corrupt governments. Their proposal calls for an incentive-building policy, with incremental increases in the carbon tax that would spur the national transition first to natural gas and hybrid energy, decreasing the nation's carbon emissions and oil consumption by half. In the long-term, the goal is to innovate the energy industry towards renewable sources spurred by increased competition for efficiency in renewable energy.  The policy is built to rouse increased innovation and give the entrepreneurial spirit our nation was built on a new vigor, for an issue that seems the most pressing for this generation's future.

The Budget Deal: What's to Come

In an article posted by American Government two weeks ago, the budget negotiations between Republicans and Democrats in Congress was described as it looked before the budget cuts were passed.  Since then, the game has changed a bit. Congress passed the resolution a mere hour before missing the deadline, which would have set off the initial stages of a partial federal shutdown. Presumably, the heated, mostly partisan debate would have continued past the deadline were it not for the Obama administration urging Congress to pass the spending cuts through compromise, as a government shut-down could stop the economy's recovery.
           The results? Both sides of the debate have had to compromise significantly to their equal dismay, foreshadowing heated debate to continue in amending the bill. While Republicans, influenced in great part by the interests of tea-party activists' demands, originally fought for budget cuts of up to $61 billion for the 2011 fiscal year ending in September, the cuts only slipped through the divided Congress after Democrats whittled this number down to the final compromise of $38.5 billion. The dizzying array of cuts and amended cuts represent victories and defeat for both side, and notable cuts include federal high-speed rail funding, funding for the removal of Guantanamo prisoners into the U.S. or a foreign country, and emergency first responders
.
        It seems evident through the course of these political battles and the upcoming debates over cuts on the 2012 GOP budget proposal that the interests guiding legislators in these battles are focused on strategies for the dominance of their party, rather than the social welfare, nor the consequences for average citizens.  While republicans are battling for widespread overhaul of federal projects to reign in the staggering debt, the actions of legislators can also be seen as continuing their support from Tea party activists who are pushing the cuts the hardest. Meanwhile, senate Democrats have worked to protect much of the defense budget and federal subsidies for Democratic pet projects, which keeps their constituent interests happy. While I would love to see the staggering $14 trillion of debt we have built dealt with seriously by our legislators, it seems that the upcoming negotiations that will shape the 2012 federal budget may result in some equally unsatisfying compromises.

NPR CEO Vivian Schiller Resigns Following Controversy

In a commentary on AMERICAblog, contributor John Aravosis takes his stance on the recent controversy NPR has gotten itself into that has resulted in the resignation of CEO Vivian Schiller on Wednesday. The decision made by NPR's board of directors followed a leaked video in which NPR executive Ron Schiller stated he believes that the Tea Party is full of "racist, racist people" and that the Republican party appeals to a largely uneducated American population.Most agree that his most damaging statement however was that NPR would do better in the long-run if federal funding was cut. Congressional Republicans are now using this statement as additional fodder in their continued effort to cut federal funding for public broadcast, among other federal social services.
         The commentary's author is obviously speaking to a like-minded, liberal audience. He argues that NPR's surprisingly swift response meant that NPR was caving to powerful conservatives after this and a similarly humiliating controversy from the organization several months ago. He states that this is a common tactic in the "Democratic playbook", and that rolling over to Conservative demands is only a sign of weakness that will inevitably incite them to further condemn Democrats and liberals in the future. The author cites an unnamed Democratic Senator during the Bush era who admitted that Democrats were signing onto "unconscionable Bush legislation" so that Conservatives would not accuse them of "siding with Osama bin Laden." I have recognized that this same power play is being acted out in the struggle between Congressional Democrats, who have now agreed to four billion dollars worth of funding cuts, and Republicans who now say they require additional cuts or they will block the move to increase the government's debt ceiling. It seems that this is a credible argument by the author and it represents the looming partisan battles that are now debilitating our democracy.

President Obama's DOMA Decision

On Wednesday this week, President Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder issued a letter to the House stating that the administration would no longer defend the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because the act violates equal rights protection under the constitution.

In an editorial published in the Washington Post on Thursday, the author concedes that while the decision is a victory for homosexual citizens and gay rights activists, the administration's methods for getting the issue pushed are risky, and could possibly have unwanted effects for Obama in the future.
When claiming the argument that DOMA "relegates the nation's gay and lesbian citizens to second-class status" the article's author cites the very cases that have incited Obama and Holder to reject DOMA: Edith Winsdor in New York, and Gerald Passaro of Connecticut, who both brought complaints against DOMA because they had experienced marriage rights discrimination when they expected their legal marriages to be upheld.
While the author seems to be on Obama's side on this, and on the fact that DOMA violates the citizen's equal protections under the 5th amendment, he or she does not show thorough investigation of this claim. Rather he proclaims Obama's decision correct "as a matter of policy, and simple decency", simply praising the decision rather than providing his readership with evidence or logic to support that. That's not to say that I don't entirely agree with the position (because I do), merely it seems that the author isn't making a claim substantial enough for his own side.
Following this, however, the author makes the most important of his arguments. He perceives that the  Obama administration's chosen method for pushing the issue comes with certain "potential pit-falls", most notably the decision to order the Justice Department to continue defending DOMA legislation in its' decisions because it is still a duly-enacted law. Other writers who are condemning the administrations move have contended that Obama is actually over-stepping his power by officially arguing against DOMA in the first place, while this author seems to downplay the idea that DOMA is still enacted law and must be upheld.

The author's law argument seems to be the most salient, however. The author's values (his/her support of gay rights and objection to DOMA) may be getting in the way of his objectivity a few times in the article, but when it is suggested that the president would have been better off working with Congress to get the law taken out of the books in order to eliminate its' discriminatory effects, I couldn't agree more.

Dealing with the Federal Deficit Turns Political Brawl

The debate over the upcoming move to increase the federal government's debt ceiling is heating as the deadline for reform nears. The debt is expected to reach its current limit by the first week of April, and if a new limit hasn't been established by then, the government will have difficulty refinancing, keeping its' various programs running, and risks defaulting. While Democrats are fighting for a budget increase with no strings attached, some Republicans in the House are insisting on significant cuts in the budget. Some White House democrats are worried that conservatives and Tea Party activists in the GOP are going to use their Congressional dominance to push these cuts through without concession, or push the entire issue to next fiscal year through political brinkmanship. White House Officials, on the other hand, believe that the limit increase can be achieved "cleanly". They see the advantage with the Democrats because of recent evidence of political fraying within the GOP, and the unpopularity of domestic budget cuts with the American people.  While both parties face an almost impossible task in getting their budget plan passed without concession, they're also reluctant to reach any bipartisan compromise, except for a small group of senate Democrats and Republicans who plan to organize a bipartisan fiscal commission. But of course, it's equally likely to see support from the
House. If the issue does not reach resolution and results in a federal default, the consequences for the elderly, those on federal assistance, people seeking mortgages and the economy could be severe.

You can read the article here.