Gambling in Texas

Visit www.lettexansdecide.org to show your support for gambling in Texas.  We have the right to vote on this issue.  Gambling in Texas will keep a lot of money, $2.5B, in the state.

Roe vs. Wade and the Age Old Debate on Abortion

As noted in Sarah Harrison's blog on Roe vs. Wade, this controversial decision turned 40 this year.  In response to her blog I have this to say.

I think you are right that abortion is more of a non-issue these days.  I understand women should have the right to choose but I do think a waiting period is a good thing.  It's a very hard decision and there are other alternatives. 

There is scientific evidence that as soon as a female's egg is fertilized life begins.  This website does a good job of explaining all the different points of when life begins.  To me what it boils down to is a moral, religious, and/or ethical decision.  These things vary depending on who you talk to and are very personal issues and choices.

I don't know if I could ever have an abortion.  But I do think they should be completely legal and up to women if she has one and what stage she has it, regardless of what I personally think. 

Budget Cuts - Congress Fighting - What's New

So after hearing all about the looming spending cuts and the internet search I did on the same topic,  I have to say I am ashamed of our Congress.  Just last week they were off, knowing that these cuts were imminent unless they do something about it.  If they would actually stay in Washington and work we wouldn't have this problem.  The deadline to avoid these latest automatic cuts is Friday and according to one article I read neither the House or the Senate has any kind of vote for the looming cuts today.  They continue to let these deadlines come down to the wire.  Any why, for political grandstanding? 

Instead of Congress working together and in unity with the President, I see the typical it's not my fault, it's your fault crap we usually get when something important needs to happen.  Plus, there is a stalemate between President Obama and Congressional Republicans.  Republicans are wondering if they are being set-up to look like the bad guys by the President, Democrats are busy saying it will be the Republicans fault when these cuts happen, and President Obama is saying "These cuts do not have to  happen."  But you don't see him trying to compromise or work with Republicans.  Let's be real, it's all of their faults; Congress seems to be more concerned about their political future than the American people ( in my opinion, this is the norm) and the President, well let's just say he's the reason we are in such a bad spot anyway.  Senate Republican Leader, Mitch McConnell says,
“There are smarter ways to reduce the size of government. And with the national debt well over $16 trillion dollars, it’s time for the White House to stop spending all its time campaigning, and start finding smarter ways to reduce the deficit."  Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, said "The White House needs to spend less time explaining to the press how bad the sequester will be and more time actually working to stop it."

Is this budget cut issue being blown out of proportion just like the "fiscal cliff" issue we had at he beginning of this year?  That remains to be seen.  All Congress has to do to avoid these cuts is to approve funding at today's levels through September 30th and then use the time to come to an agreement on cuts and taxes, just like they did to avoid the "fiscal cliff."  Smoke & mirrors seems to be the game.

I don't pretend to know everything the U.S. Government spends money on, God forbid they be transparent to the American people, but I truly believe there are ways to cut spending and set-up taxes to be even across all income levels.  Republican Senator, Tom Coburn, agrees, "They have plenty of flexibility in terms of discretion on how they spend money. There are easy ways to cut this money that the American people will never feel. What you hear is an outrage because nobody wants to cut spending."

The articles I read are:

Trending: With the deadline looming, White House details cuts

Spending Cut Countdown: What's Congress Doing?

Spending Cuts Showdown may drag on

Comments on a Fellow Student's Blog

Legalization of cannabis (marijuana) is a very controversial subject.  In the blog titled, The Legalization of Marijuana, the writer, Jessica, is pro-legalization for medical and recreational use in the State of Texas.

I think there are medical benefits to using cannabis, such as nausea and glaucoma.  However the FDA states "marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and has a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision". I found a Wikipedia article which gives very detailed information about its medical uses, the benefits derived, and the history of use.

In the blog, Jessica states “…federal government are recognizing the good uses that marijuana carries…” According to the research I did, this is not the stance of the federal government. Any use of marijuana remains illegal, per the Controlled Substances Act and is classified as a Schedule I drug (the strictest classification, same as heroin, LSD and ecstasy). In contrast to this position, there are new federal guidelines which have been enacted about pursuing the prosecution of medical users.  According to the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, "It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal."

I think there are many other criminals that are much worse than someone dealing marijuana and believe the law should provide for a less strict punishment so the jail systems have more room for hard criminals, such as murderers.  I also think the legalization of marijuana could be a beneficial tax revenue stream for the government.

Regardless of a person’s personal view the rules are changing when it come to the legalization of marijuana.

Immigration: Where to start?

Our government is currently trying to come up with a bipartisan plan to "fix" the immigration issues facing this country.  I'm glad to hear they are attempting this.  So far the bare bones of the plan seems like it will work.  Of course, the meat of the plan has yet to be revealed and like most things in Congress, I doubt they can come up with a cut and dry plan.  They will be trying to insert this here or there or cater to a special interest group.  I hope for the sake of our country they can actually come up with a good plan.

The first problem is the borders.  Illegals come here all the time, the borders are not secure in the least and they aren't sent home.  What are they going to do about that; dig a fence that can be dug under, or climbed over, have unreasonable searches of every vehicle and boat that comes from another country?  So far I have seen nothing that addresses this issue.  I think once you make the laws tough enough on them, they'll stop coming illegally.

The second problem is what to do with the illegal aliens already here.  The plan somewhat addresses this in that they state they will have to go to the end of the immigration line for citizenship.  Okay, do they have any idea how many illegals are in this country; what would that do to the timeline of obtaining citizenship; does it mean they have to leave the country until it's their turn in line or do they continue to live here until it's their turn?  More questions for this problem are what if the illegal alien doesn't want to get their citizenship; are law enforcement personnel going to have the authority to send them back to their home country?

The third problem is how are you really going to collect back taxes?  How do expect get to proof of their wages?  I think this part of the plan is ridiculous.  They should just pay taxes from day one once they obtain their citizenship.  Of course, this goes back to the second problem.

Here are some more of my thoughts.

Arizona took a hard stance against illegals and was criticized by some other states and the U.S. Government.  The State ended up in the Supreme Court.  Arizona had the right idea, a good plan to curb illegal immigration, a way to secure their border and a way to send them back home.  Their hard line attitude reduced the number of illegal aliens going into Arizona. Maybe our Congress should take a look at what Arizona did and get some ideas from them.

Illegal aliens are a drain to our economy.  They use our programs and don't pay taxes.  Yes, I know that here in the Southwest they make up a good portion of blue collar workers and without them we would have a lot of jobs to fill.  I have heard it said they do the work that lazy Americans don't want to do.  Is that true; if all illegal aliens were sent home, would the Americans do the work?  Who knows, there is only one way to find out.

Immigration and illegal aliens is a very tough subject and a fine line to walk.  I believe the U.S. Government needs to change the process for becoming a citizen and limit the bureaucracy in the Immigration Department.  It is very time consuming and cumbersome to become a legal citizen.  Why wouldn't someone want to sneak into the country and reap all the benefits when it's much easier than coming in legally?  Even work visas are cumbersome to obtain.  I did a Google search to see how long the process is and the immigration government website doesn't give a clear answer, they state it depends.

Let me conclude by stating I respect anyone willing to work to support themselves and/or their families.  I don't care what you look like or what country you come from - just come legally!

Mandated Birth Control - Big Religious War

Another recent hot topic is mandating birth control for all insurance plans.  I read a political blog from National Review by James C. Capretta on this issue.  The blog is a little long, 2 pages, but is a good read and I recommend it for people who want to stay in the know.

The issue is the Obama administration wants to mandate that all insurance policies issued by employers have to have a provision for free birth control for women.  The controversy is making religious institutions adhere to the mandate.  Many believe it's against the U.S. Constitution, although the constitutionality of the proposed mandate has not been determined.  You can read more on that here.

James Capretta (James) was commenting on a column in the Washington Post by E.J. Dionne.  The column in the Washington Post says the Obama administration's proposed compromise on this issue should end the "Big Religious War."

James agrees there is a "Big Religious War" but that the proposed compromise by the Obama administration will not end it.  James goes on to thoroughly discuss the downside of the proposed compromise.  He goes into detail about about the whole issue and points out the proposed compromise is not an olive branch; it's just another way that will not allow religious institutions, that offer insurance, "to dissent from the prevailing secularism of the day."  He makes a very compelling argument backed by facts. 

One of the highlights is his statement, "Never mind that access to free and low-cost contraception has been the norm in the United States for years."  He goes on to remind everyone of the subsidies already in place from the Federal government to offer free and low-cost contraception.

I would say the information presented and James are creditable.  It appears he really did his homework and wasn't just speaking off-the-cuff.  It is noted at the end of his blog he is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center; he was also an Associate Director at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from 2001 to 2004, where he had responsibility for health care, Social Security, education, and welfare programs; and he currently at the American Enterprise Institute, he will be researching how to replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (best known as Obamacare) with a less expensive reform plan to provide effective and secure health insurance for working-age Americans and their families.. 

This whole blog caught my attention and I agree totally with James' viewpoints.  In my opinion, this is just another way for the government to try and take more control of our lives.  This issue has been in debate since last year.  It will be interesting to continue to follow it and see what happens.  I personally hope this mandate does not happen because in my viewpoint it will infringe upon religious beliefs. 

Immigration Plan - Good or Bad

There is a current bipartisan immigration plan that may just work.  In an editorial posted by USA Today Editorial Board speaks in favor of the plan. 

One of the highlights of the editorial is that the 11 million illegal people here would have to go to the back of the line of legal prospective immigrants.  There wouldn't be a speedy process for them just because they're here.  Letting them go through the citizenship process would bring them into mainstream society and force them to pay taxes for the benefits they receive by being in our country. 
The Editorial Board makes a good point in saying the Democrats view of hurrying the process up is to bolster voting.  The editorial also makes a point of stating President Obama (Democrat) won 70% of the Latino vote in the last election.

The editorial was thorough on the parts they covered and didn't try to hide information.  I think The Editorial Board did a good job of presenting their information in a non-biased way.  They spoke of Republican, Democrat and Liberal viewpoints.  They did not pick apart any group; they stuck to the facts.  They also brought up some questions the plan doesn't answer.  Those questions are "How exactly would back taxes be assessed and collected? And at what point would people be allowed to participate in government benefit programs such as food stamps or Medicare?"

The editorial also provided links for people reading it to get more information.  Those links are:
The 5 most important sentences in the Senate's immigration plan
Bipartisan immigration plan point by point

They also include a link for the opposing view, which doesn't really seem to disagree with The Editorial Board or the plan except for the length of time it takes to become a citizen.  And it brings up some valid points about the backlog of the system and that we shouldn't create a system where people can't become citizens.

I noticed the editorial did not specifically address the 4 points of the immigration plan.  Instead they talked about the politics of the plan and the fact that people from different parties may have finally come to an agreement.  Of course, without all the details of the plan being in place that could fall apart.

It comes across as easy to read which means their audience could be anyone, i.e. don't have to have an advance degree to understand what the plan is.  The USA Today is a respected national paper and therefore I think their editorials are creditable.

At it's face value, I agree with the first go at the bipartisan immigration plan.  However, the nuts and bolts have not been determined yet.  Like how are the borders going to be secured, are they going to reduce the time it takes to obtain permanent residence?  I would need more information about the plan before I could definitively say I agree with it or not.  I most definitely believe our borders need to be secure and if people want to come here go through the channels.  I agree the channels take to long so I hope to see a quicker time for obtaining residency be established.  The only people we are hurting with our laws is us.

Gun Bans

Senator Dianne Feinstein proposed on Thursday the 24th a new federal ban on some assault rifles, semi-automatic weapons, and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. CNN.com reports the story.

The story discusses past gun bans that Congress declined to renew, one of which Feinstein authored in 1994, President Obama's proposals, the details of Feinstein's measure, and opponents and proponents stand on the issue. One thing that stood out is the most support seems to be coming from Democrats.

The measure would stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of 100 firearms. It is noted not all the weapons in the bill meet the technical definition of assault weapons.

The story quotes Sen. Feinstein as saying "We should be outraged at how easy it is" for attackers to get hold of the semi-automatic weapons or large-capacity magazines used in those slaughters. Seriously, is she that naive? It will not matter if there is a ban on certain rifles or ammunition clips, criminals will still commit their crimes whether it's with a 9mm or an AK. Do she and other Democrats really believe the criminals care about the law or that it will stop them from possessing banned weapons and ammunition clips?

Opponents of gun control measures say the Second Amendment forbids the government from this type legislation and also worry weakening of gun rights leaves us more vulnerable to criminals and against potential future government tyranny or abuse. I whole heartedly agree with them.

Proponents acknowledge the right to bear arms but say rifles capable of firing multiple rounds exceed reasonable needs of hunter and gun enthusiasts. The second amendment has been interpreted to mean the people have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from the government. I have never heard of an interpretation that had to do with hunters and collectors.

We have to stay informed about the government taking our rights or before we know it we won't live in a democracy anymore.

I don't personally own an assault rifle but I am a gun owner and firmly believe we have the right to own whatever type of gun we need.

My Political Views

I first remember discussing politics with my mom when President Reagan was in office.  She was a Republican, which influenced me to have Republican views.  We debated the issues whether we agreed or not since we always had our individual take on the issues.  Our discussions inspired me to keep up with national politics.  I registered to vote as soon as I turned 18 and have voted in every Presidential election since then.  I used to think I was a Republican, but now I don't affiliate myself with any party.  The change in my views developed as I got older and realized just how crooked a lot of politicians are and how much bologna they feed you.  I am for the people and wish we could get "people" in office and not politicians.  It would be refreshing to have people who use common sense in office and to get rid of lobbying and backwards handshaking.  I am not holding my breath.

Once I began working for a local government I started to take an interest in local politics after I realized City Councils have everything to do with what happens in the City you live in.  Their decisions directly affect quality of life and what your local tax dollars are spent on.  Within the last 10 years I started voting in some local elections.  But find myself not as interested in learning about local politicians as I am in the national ones.