Joanne Senyk’s article, "Un-American Activity", discusses liberty, freedom, and voting".  In her interesting article Senyk wonders about the intent of more restrictive voter registration legislation, comments on the attitudes of President Obama and conservative fundamentalist Brian Fischer, and relates the 2010 census results to a growingly diverse America.

           

              Senyk begins with a thought provoking quote, “Free people, remember this maxim: We may acquire liberty, but it is never recovered if it is once lost.”  Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778).  Segueing from the quote into her article’s premise of diminishing freedom and the right to vote helped capture my attention. 

           

              I found her analysis of the proposed voter registration laws in line with my own views.  It is hard to imagine a more restrictive voting process increasing the turnout at the polls.  Americans need to exercise their right to vote and anything that may restrict that right should not be allowed.

            According to Ms. Senyk the 2010 census shows an increasingly diverse nation.  To ensure the diversity is protected she promotes improved education of citizens on the importance of their vote.  Promoting the rights of individuals is up to each citizen, they must exercise their right to vote and encourage others to educate themselves and vote as well. 

Senyk moves on to quote the president and Brian Fischer of the American Family Association.  She doubts the president’s follow through on his proclamation of religious freedom, citing increased scrutiny of Muslim activities inside the U.S. including Congressional hearings, demonstrations, and attacks on mosques.  Moving on to Mr. Fischer, who believes the Constitutional right to religious freedom was intended only for Christians.  While the framers of the Constitution may have written the Constitution intent on preserving their own rights, interpretation of the document over the years has solidified the First Amendment to cover all religions.  As I read her commentary and concern over the attitude of Americans I was reminded of a great story I read.  "2 Muslims travel 13,000 miles across America, find an embracing nation" I highly recommend reading this story as a reaffirmation of the openness, tolerance, and greatness of Americans.

HELP WANTED! Leadership opportunity

Job Description:
-  Eliminate the United States spending deficit
-  Save the U.S. before it is too late.

Must have:
-  Dynamic leadership skills
-  Charismatic personality
-  Ability to convince everyone in Congress to back off their party's philosophy
-  Common sense

-  Please contact the American people  if you meet all the qualifications.

               Many of the American people in need don't even realize their country is at risk.  The policy of deficit spending can potentially ruin America.  It is too bad that in our great United States there does not seem to be someone who meets the qualifications to lead us away from the deficit monster.  This leader would have to be an amazing personality who could convince Conservatives to raise taxes and convince Liberals to slash funding to entitlement programs.  Drastic steps are needed to save the United States from becoming too deeply indebted.   Our government is operating this fiscal year on a $1.1 trillion deficit  (Washington Post)  They are spending over $1 trillion more than they are bringing in.  These numbers are so huge it is hard to comprehend.  Think of the United States as one of your friends who has a job making $26,000 a year.  Picture that person spending $37,000 in that year.  Does not seem like a sustainable lifestyle for one person does it?  You would tell your friend to try and earn more and spend less.  Sound advice, but Congress and the politicians won't heed good advice.  The United States government continues to operate on a deficit and borrows more money each year.  The U.S. has to borrow money in the form of Treasury Bonds it sells to individuals and other governments.  The U.S. receives cash for the bonds and promises to pay the debt back plus interest.  (Think about your friend from above running up their credit card and then getting a new one each year).

            China operates its government on a surplus.  They save money each year and invest it.  One of the largest investments from the Chinese government is U.S. Treasury bonds.  We are paying the Chinese government to finance the U.S. deficit.  This is an unacceptable situation and must stop. As of February 2011 China owns $1.154 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds. (Treasury.gov) We owe the Chinese over a trillion dollars and are paying interest on it right now.  We owe the Japanese $890 billion, the British $295 billion.  Last fiscal year the United States paid just under $414 billion in interest payments owed on debt.  $413,954,825,362.17 to be exact  (Treasurydirect.gov).   That is an incredible amout of money, and that is just the interest payment.

            Payment.  If things do not change soon the creditors could come calling at America's door.  If that happens who do you think Uncle Sam is going to turn to for cash?  You.  So if you know someone who fits the job description send them to Washington!

Commentary on Lily Streiff's No Child Left Behind Article

                A controversial and much ridiculed subject in schools across America today is the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).  As a largely under-funded mandate laid down by the federal government NCLB has placed more demands on a strained educational system without providing sufficient funds to implement it properly.  In her article commenting on NCLB (Government According to Lily)  Lily Streiff makes some important observations on the positives and shortfalls of the program. 

                Ms. Streiff likes the premise behind the program and I agree with her.  It is hard to argue that something intended to improve the education of children is not worthwhile.  The program’s intent is to improve the American education system by increasing the standards for students and teachers.  More qualified teachers should be able to create an environment where students can thrive.  Thriving students should learn and understand more.  To show growth of students and the effectiveness of teaching there needs to be something to measure.  Standardized testing of subjects gives the government something to measure to ensure the program is working.  This is supposed to create greater accountability.

                Greater progress through accountability sounds great but Ms. Streiff makes a great point, “Because of the standardized tests, teachers focus so much on the subjects on the test the students miss out on other aspects of learning and are forced to put all their efforts on a single test.”  Too much emphasis and importance is placed on the tests and it affects the whole school system.  There is no motivation for a teacher to dive deep into a subject that interests their students if they are punished for student performance on a test that does not include such detail.  Students are deprived of deep, enriching lessons that create greater interest and engagement simply because it won’t be tested. 

            While well intentioned, NCLB is not adequately funded to achieve goals that are themselves flawed.  No Child Left Behind has unfortunately created an atmosphere and philosophy that may leave all our children behind.

How to Win the Next "Libya"

            The war, yes war, in Libya is certain to become another drain on the United States.  At this time the U.S. is debating the arming of Libyan rebels.  The rebels are also now in contact with CIA operatives.  (CNN)   The decision to consult with, train, and arm rebels should have been made well before any action by rebel forces or commitment of U.S. military resources.  More effective intelligence work would have determined a decisive course of action and a quick victory by the rebels.  Instead the U.S. will be fighting another war, in a third different country, 7,000 miles from home.  This is just one more responsibility placed on the military. 

            The U.S. military is an incredible entity, more capable than any armed force in the world.  Although they are highly trained and well equipped the U.S. military is not designed to be an occupation force.  Counterinsurgency is a very demanding mission.  Iraq and Afghanistan have shown military leadership the best plan for dealing with insurgents is to enable the populace to care for and police itself.  Proper intelligence work can lay the groundwork for a populace to rise up but more importantly the information can be given to leadership so they can make a proper assessment of the situation.  Correct assessment of rebel intentions, strategies, and capabilities allow the U.S. to implement plans that have a higher probability of success.  Conversely, correct assessment could also allow the U.S. to steer clear of situations deemed less likely to be beneficial or worthwhile.  Improving and broadening the intelligence capabilities is a complex undertaking but is possible with more funding.

            The United States has $703 billion proposed for the defense budget in 2012.  (Washington Post)  While the defense budget is important for maintaining and improving our military to defend our country and project power across the globe, some of this money could be better spent to reduce the need for some military missions.  Only $55 billion has been allocated for non-military intelligence services.   (Harvard National Security Journal)  While this may seem like a large amount, the money is spread between 12 separate agencies*.  An influx of money to the intelligence community would allow the U.S. to increase, diversify, and improve international intelligence operations.  These operations could produce more desirable results at a lower cost than full scale military action.  A cost effective solution to a broadening global situation is the best course.

            Steering our military away from unnecessary conflicts and empowering other countries to do more for themselves is a worthwhile and attainable goal. 

    

*The agencies are the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Energy (Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence), Department of Homeland Security (Office of Intelligence and Analysis), Department of State (Bureau of Intelligence and Research), Department of the Treasury (Office of Intelligence and Analysis), Drug Enforcement Administration (Office of National Security Intelligence), Federal Bureau of Investigation (National Security Branch), National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Office of the Director of National Intelligence.  (http://www.dni.gov/faq_intel.htm)     

Gangsters, Pinocchio, and Government?

     In an editorial highly critical of Democrats efforts to cut from the budget Kevin D. Williamson hits the mark.  Gangster Government, Pinocchio Government, Whatever is from The National Review and was published March 8, 2011.  First off, the title grabbed my attention.  Gangsters and Pinocchio sounded much more intriguing than war, default, stocks, and money articles that I barely gave a glance. 

     I really appreciate the sarcasm and wit that Williamson uses to highlight his stance.  Williamson quips "Michele Bachmann  (and I) call it “gangster government.” The Washington Post calls it “three-Pinocchio” government, assigning the Democrats’ most recent budget claims a credibility rating of roughly You’ve Got To Be Kidding Me. Seriously: Even the Washington by-God Post is getting the message about Fiscal Armageddon."  At issue is the Democrats proposing cuts to a budget that doesn't exist yet.  In response to Democrats claims of meeting the Republicans in the middle for budget cuts, Williamson writes "At issue are Democratic claims that they are offering the Republicans a meaningful compromise on spending cuts, that they are meeting them “halfway.”  Which, as the Post points out, is true, if your baseline is an imaginary budget that was never enacted." 

     Williamson's intention is to appeal to a conservative audience.  The National Review is a conservative site so most people who will read his article are conservatives who use the site or other people seeing what the conservatives are saying.  While the intended audience is conservative Williamson does a great job (humorously) laying out some important national issues that can appeal to a broader audience.  The budget is a key issue for all Americans and many people around the world. 

     Williamson transitions from his general budget talk to his opinion and some specific numbers on Obama Care.  "Given the uncertain constitutional status of Obamacare, and given the sneaky way it’s been budgeted for, how about we hold onto that $105 billion in implementation spending that Michele Bachmann is so excited about until we’ve got a Supreme Court ruling on the mandate, etc? That does not seem to me unreasonable, and making the Republicans’ $60 billion in cuts $165 billion would move us that much closer to national solvency."  Once again mixing wit, sarcasm, and common sense to prove his point I find it hard to disagree with Williamson's logic. 

     The arguments in this article are convincing and well written.  I really enjoyed the humor he used to bring people on his side before he went into his own agenda.  In all I would recommend "Gangster Government, Pinocchio Government, Whatever" to anyone interested in American Government.

    

           "The Prison That Won't Go Away" is an editorial that appeared in the New York Times on March 9, 2011 (Page A26).  The article gives a brief overview of the prison at Guantanamo Bay.  The author first blames the Bush administration for the creation of the prison but quickly attacks the Obama administration as well.  “…Barack Obama raised the hopes of millions around the world in 2008 when he campaigned on the promise of closing it.  On Monday, that promise crumbled, the victim of Congressional spinelessness and President Obama’s inability to create political support for a way out of the moral quagmire created by his predecessor.”  Most of the “moral quagmire”  the author refers to revolves around one concept, indefinite detention.  The prisoners cannot be tried (either because evidence to prosecute them is classified or gathered illegally).  Even though the prisoners cannot receive a trial they are deemed too dangerous to release.  The author goes over some things Obama has been able to improve but quickly points out how disappointing those improvements are.  Presidential administrations are not the only groups to feel the authors bite.  “…members of Congress from both parties, in an act of notable political cowardice, banned moving those trials to the United States.”

            The unnamed author clearly dislikes the entire concept of an American prison without American laws and I have to agree.  Shame, anger, revulsion.  These are all words describing how the writers of our Bill of Rights would feel if they knew about the prison America has at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  There are only ten main guarantees in the Bill of Rights, and Guantanamo Bay tramples on four of them.  The fourth (unreasonable searches), fifth (due process), sixth (speedy trial and trial by jury), and eighth (cruel and unusual punishment) amendments are being ignored.  While the people there are not U.S. citizens it is our moral imperative to uphold our ideals, not to ignore them when it suits us.  Yes, the terrorists need to be stopped, but at what cost?  Holding these prisoners indefinitely because they are dangerous opens a Pandora’s Box of resentment and fear from other countries.  Our freedom is why so many people try to make it to America.  If we are so ready to take away those freedoms from others and justify it by saying, “It’s okay, it’s in Cuba.”  I fear what parlor tricks to dance around the Constitution our government may try next.

"The Prison That Won't Go Away"

"Little Love from Guvs for Obama" from Fox News

     I highly recommend this article because it is a good example of many points discussed in Unit 1 for our class.  The article shows examples of federalism, grant programs, states rights, and political ideology.  "Little Love from Guvs for Obama" http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/25/little-love-guvs-obama/ also references the checks and balances of government.     

     "Little Love from Guvs for Obama" details issues between the state executive branch (governors), and the federal executive Barack Obama.  The article highlights issues facing the states as they try to eliminate or reduce the power and scope of government worker unions in an economically tough time.  It also discusses Medicaid and the new national health care plan and how states are trying to cope with a federally mandated program that will cost the states large amounts of money.  The article also discusses the politics of trying to implement policy while also seeking to please the people who are key to re-electing the politicians involved.  I found it fascinating how much of the Unit 1 reading became more relevant with modern day examples I could relate to and I think you will too.