National Debt Crisis

According to Mr. Waggoner, the United States government needs to start changing things if we as United Stated citizens want better future. According to him all Democrats and Republicans needs to come up with a plan to get us out of the debt. One of the plans had the idea to raise the gasoline price and increase the retirement age for Social Security to age of 69. Waggoner also mentions that now a day both Democrats and Republicans are focusing on upcoming Presidential elections and no one is paying attention on country’s problems. The Obama’s administration need to show citizens that they are trying to fulfill their promises for long term deficits. On the other hand, Republicans need to show that they will consider increasing taxes. The national debt is keeping our country back from growing and we need active leaders to help us overthrow national debt. The national government needs to limit its spending so that we are not in inflation in the first place. Waggoner also states that we need to come up with a plan which can get us out of debt because this can cause us serious problem in future. In my view, Mr. Waggoner did great job explaining the national debt crisis. One thing national government can do to get us out of national crisis is to bring our military troops back because every day we spend billions of dollars on them. According to The New York Time budget puzzle in 2013, we will be spending nearly 90 billion dollars on war. Imagine, bringing back or reducing the size of the troops can save us this much money. With this money we as a nation could get a better health care plan. Not only that, then we doesn’t have to raise taxes, or the price of the gasoline, or the Social Security age limit. Our government needs to take an action now if they want America’s better future. In my opinion Waggoner’s argument is correct U.S. needs to stop wasting money on irrelevant activities and projects.

What Powers Does Congress Have?

     United States Constitution has granted so many powers to our bicameral Congress such as law making, declaring war, impeachment, over sighting, budgeting, and advising and consent. Congress plays a big role in United States government; a bill which is passed by both house and Congress can only proceed to White House. The president can sign the bill into law, veto the law, or exercise a pocket veto. A pocket veto is an automatic veto achieved when a bill sits unsigned on a president’s desk for ten days when congress is out of session. In addition to that, the lawmaking process has become more “unorthodox.” Although the United States has formally declared war only five times in its history, the framers of the Constitution gave Congress the ability to declare war. In fact, the framers of the Constitution divided the war power by making the President as commander in chief of the armed forces, but reserving to Congress the power to declare war.       
     Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution gave the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach [to bring formal charges against a federal official, including the president] an official for three offenses: treason, bribery, or “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Congress also provides oversight, or close scrutiny, of the federal agencies and programs it creates and of the actions of the other branches of government. The legislative veto allows Congress to rescind rules promulgated by an executive agency. The congressional review requires an approval by both houses and the president, which can stop implementation of executive branch regulations. In addition the president makes recommendations regarding the budget; the Constitution gives Congress alone the authority to decide how the money will be spent. Budget resolution is a early step in budgeting process in which both houses of Congress set spending goals. In my opinion, the framers of the Constitution gave so many powers to Congress. The President should have the ability to declare war since he is the commander in chief of the armed forces. Overall, framer of the Constitution distributed the Congress powers well. Framers gave the President the power to sign a bill which later becomes a law and gave Congress the authority over budgeting.

"Going Green"

"Role of the President in National Government"

Today in my blog, I’m going to talk about the United States President’s powers and about his role in our national government system. The President of the United States is the head of the national government, leads the executive branch of the federal government, and is the commander-in-chief of United States armed forces. Several powers are granted to the President by the Constitution. Those powers include appointment, budgeting, and law enforcement. Millions of Americans depend on the President because he is the chief executive officer of the nation. The President can choose leaders for top-administration posts. As our textbook explains, “Washington filled over one thousand positions...usually on the basis of statements attesting to the candidate’s good character and moral virtue.” Those posts can either be cabinet or recess appointment.
The cabinet positions consists of people appointed by the president to the major administrative unite of the executive branch but must seek the advice and consent of the senate for their approval. The recess appointment is a political appointment that is made by the President when Congress is out of session. Although the Constitution gave Congress the power to control the budget, The Office of Management and Budget assists the President in generating the budget. While generating the budget the President can issue within the budget an impound of the budget, rescission of the budget, or line item veto. An impound of the budget means the President refuses to expand funds appropriated by Congress. On the other hand, the President can recess the budgets by cutting back the funds for particular programs that require congressional approval. The President also can make a line item veto, meaning he rejects a portion of a bill those about budget. Today, the chief executive not only enforces laws concerning crime but also for public health, business regulation, and civil rights, among many other issues of today’s society. President has the power to enforce law but also holds the power to pardon convicted criminals.

"The Obama Rope-a-Dope"

A lame-duck presidency will give Obama a shot at reelection.

On October 7^th, 2010 Victor Davis Hanson posted a blog at National Review Online. In his blog he argued that, “After 2010, will he [Obama] be Carter or Clinton? This is the developing question, how will Obama face true or real heavy defeat in the midterm elections next month? In 1978 during Jimmy Carters’ administration when he had high inflation, interest rates, and unemployment he was stuck to his liberal agenda. In comparison, after the Democratic Party was killed in 1994 midterms by losing 52 house and nine senate seats. Bill Clinton in 1996 moved to the center and freely won the reelection. “So what will Obama do if he loses the Democratic majority in the House and quite possibly the senate, as his approval rating tank to 40 percent?” Reasonably he will stick to his faithful liberals. Although there are good chances of him being reelected. Right now, banks, corporations, and small businesses have trillions of dollars in hand from two years of low interest rates. Although, if the republicans get back the house, the entire Obama redistributive agenda will be deled.  

This equilibrium will give a boost to the business cycle and probably businesses will start hiring and buying more. By losing congress Obama might see the economy bound back and he’ll take credit from a different position. Despite the failure of his early borrowing schemes. President Obama can let the Republican Congress take the hit for the unpopular loop of entitlement. In a Zen way, Obama will allow Republicans to restore financial sanity to his administration, even as be blasts them for cutting programs and hurting the needy. With control of the presidency and both house and congress for the last two years, the liberals were sure Obama could easily fulfill campaign promises. For example he could end the, “don’t ask, don’t tell policy,” and passing into law amnesty for illegal aliens, card check for unions, and cap-and-trade for the green lobby. From all of his promises he didn’t fulfill any of that because his liberal polls were below 50 percent. Overseas, most of the reset Obama foreign policy reverted back to the polices of George W. Bush. Both Iran and North Korea are against Americans and loonier than ever.

Obama’s Iraq, Afghanistan, and anti-terrorism policies are simply Bush Administration’s policies. If Democrats get smashed in November, expect such a passive rope-a-dope strategy, different from the last two years. In my opinion, Victor Davis Hanson is a republican, trying to persuade readers by using military words on his blog. He argues that Obama’s administration literally has done nothing, and the “hope and change,” he promised is not working for Republicans. But on his article he is not stating what Obama’s administration have done in past and what are they working on now. I think that we need to give president Obama some time because previous administration didn’t leave a smooth road for him. He is working hard to do best for our country.

"A Health Care Plan for Colleges" By: Peter Orszag

On September 18, 2010 Orszag posted an article on The New York Times newspaper under opinion section. Peter Orszag is the director of the White House of Management and Budget from 2009-10. In his article he is trying to make the argument that in the recent decade state government has given more money to Medicaid, the health care plan for poor, by cutting down the higher education fund. However, in past years government supported higher education by 50 percent greater than Medicaid. But now the relationship between higher education and Medicaid has been flipped. Over the past three decades health care and Medicaid costs have been increasing. Peter Orszag’s research shows that when economy collapses states takes away education funds to pay for Medicaid. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, since 2008 approximately 43 states have cut down financing for public colleges and universities or raised tuition fees. Tuition fees have been increasing since 1985, but are still not enough to offset the state government’s cuts. The result of the increase to Medicaid is that public universities are not competitive with private universities.
In a 1987 survey, there were eight public schools among the top 25 schools in the US. This year there were only 3 schools on top but none of them were in the top 20. In 1987, University of California at Berkeley was number five, but this year, 2010, Berkeley was ranked 22 out of 25. According to Peter Orszag, we can reverse this trend by providing more federal support for Medicaid when recession comes, because that is when the state takes away education funds. It is better to handle the rising cost of health care now, because increasing costs for health care are holding down wages. By slowing the growth of health costs we can help our next generation get a higher education at a good public college or university. In my opinion Peter Orszag argument is accurate and precise. As a student I can completely understand how not having enough funds for education can keep me back from getting good education at a public university. If America wants this young generation or the upcoming generation to be educated then our state government needs to provide enough funds to Medicaid and education. So when recession hits there is no need to cut one fund for another. By doing this our young generation can be educated, and successful in their lives. If Americans wants to secure their future they need to educate their young teens today.

“Study finds sharp drop in number of illegal immigrants”

After searching through several different websites, I came across this article which was addressing one of America’s big issues, illegal immigration. The title of my blog will give you a general over view of this article. In past 20 years, this is the first significant decrease in US. illegal immigration. The Pew Hispanic Center said, the U.S. Latino’s population have dropped to 11.1 million in 2009, which is less than 12 million from year 2007. However, illegal immigration from Mexico has been at a lower rate from past several years. Also, there is a great drop in illegal immigrants from the Caribbean, Central America and South America. California has estimated 3 percent decrease since 2005, but California still has more number of immigrants than Texas or Florida. Research shows that the reason behind the downfall is the recession and the border enforcement. Due to the recession there are not many jobs to offer, and people come to US. in search of a jobs or for opportunity. According to the Obama Administration, the border security has started to work now. The Immigration control advocates said that the reason behind the decline is the tougher enforcement.