In Response to Snapp's Posting: "Pro Choice or Pro Life"

I have to say that for choosing such a controversial topic you couldn't have approached it better. I would consider myself a fence rider on the topic also. I do not believe that the government should make such personal decisions for it's citizens. I do think that maybe the law could be changed. I understand that Roe v. Wade gave the right to these decisions to the mother-to-be, but I think that abortion should be banned at the federal level during the third trimester. I also believe that the states should enforce more prerequisites during the second trimester, like viewing video and pictures as some have attempted in the past. Good posting Snapp!

You can view Snapp's original post at: http://centralparkdemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/11/pro-choice-or-pro-life.html

Will We Be Spending Less at the Pump?

According to CNN.com the Senate passed a mandate this June to dramatically raise the corporate average fuel economy standard. The completion would come by 2020 and would raise cars from 27.5 miles per gallon and trucks from 22.2 miles per gallon to 35mpg fleet-wide. The corporate average fuel economy has not been raised in over thirty years.

There are significant loopholes in the bill which include automakers receiving credits for producing flex fuel cars, which are able to run on ethanol. But even this is still benefiting the environment and the consumer's pocket book. What is interesting is that even though automakers currently have built millions of flex fuel cars only 1.5 percent used the ethanol.

Ethanol is not widely available. The US only produced 4 billion gallons of biofuels in 2005. The bill that the Senate passed this June would include requiring this to increase to 36 billion by 2022.

One concern that this bill brings is the increasing potential for manufacturers to go overseas for minimized production costs. The possibility of adding a provision to the bill that would limit these possibilities has been discussed, mainly by House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell.

Another initial negative aspect could be the increase of cost passed on to the consumer. These changes will be costly for the manufacturers and we would be the ones helping to pay those costs initially.

With global warming being a concern and a focus of our nation, the costs may be considered minimal for the long term improvements. We also need to realize the potential cost of gasoline by 2020, twelve years from now. Twelve years ago, in 1995, gasoline averaged $1.50 in our country. What increases can we even expect?

I believe that this bill should be passed by the House, who has not yet voted. I think that we are now trying to proactive to the concerns that have been so widely discussed and debated for years.

In response to Maintaining Freedoms' blog: "Not Protecting the Citizen."

"Not Protecting the Citizen" seems to lack any statistical facts or truths. It is seemingly a few discriminatory sentences slapped together to meet an assignment deadline. According to Dictionary.com the definition of discrimination is: "To make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit." This blog approaches the issue of illegal immigration all wrong.

What research led to the fact that the illegal immigrants in the United Stated "...Rob the stores, banks, become gangsters, etc.?" Illegal immigrants in this nation do everything in their power to stay under the radar. In no way do they want to be arrested and sent back to Mexico, knowing that they would have to try to make it back to the Land of Opportunity a second time. According to Center for Immigration Studies "Researchers and observers, aware that widespread concern over crime committed by immigrants can boil over into hate crimes committed against them, rarely hesitate to note that the majority of immigrants are law-abiding. Often, they go further, adding that immigrants commit fewer crimes than the native-born."

Illegal immigrants work extremely hard for the money that they make. Yes, these illegal immigrants should be paying taxes on the income they are making, because they do utilize many government programs and benefits that other citizens use. These immigrants are paying taxes, if not income tax then sales tax. Although many "illegal immigrants" take over social security numbers and do pay income tax.

Hispanics/Latinos make up 14.8% of our nations’ population according to the 2006 U.S. Census Bureau. I don’t think that we are being pushed out by these immigrants, and I don’t think that this blog holds any truth.

View Maintaining Freedom's blog at: http://dancgov.blogspot.com/ and my comment at https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=83777301037322891&postID=7522350130795183278

Comedic Discriminaton? (Blog Stage Five- Original Article)

Stephen Colbert was planning to run as a democratic candidate for the 2008 presidential election. According to CNN's article published November 1, 2007, candidates must demonstrate two requirements to get on the ballot: that he or she is viable nationally and has spent time campaigning in the state. Chairwoman of the state Democratic Party, Carol Fowler, and a member of the executive council stated that Colbert did not meet the requirement of national viability. The South Carolina Democratic Party voted to keep Colbert's name off the Democratic Primary ballot.

So, should Stephen Colbert be allowed to run for president? If Marc Katz can run for mayor, and Arnold Schwarzenegger can run for governor, why can't a political based comedian run for president? The hope is that our system is advanced enough that if Stephen Colbert is not qualified he would never make it as the primary, let alone into office.

What does "viable nationally" mean? Viable has numerous definitions, most of them including "capable of living," but I am going to go with "having the ability to grow, expand, develop, etc." (dictionary.com). How can a group of individuals decide one's viability? Don't we all have the ability to grow, expand and develop if we so desire?

So, it is not that I think that Stephen Colbert should be the next President of the United States, but I do believe that he should have the ability to be on the primary ballot. It is not that I think that Stephen Colbert running for president would not make a mockery of our political process, but it seems that if he is able to provide the necessary requirements to be a candidate, he should have that ability.

House Fails to Override Bush Veto of Child Insurnace Bill

Bush vetoed a proposed five-year expansion and $35 billion spending increase in children's health care. This was the fourth veto in Bush's career. He has proposed increasing the program by a minimal $5 billion. The SCHIP program currently covers 6 million children and this vetoed bill would have expanded the coverage to 10 million lower and middle-class children.

The additional expense was to be covered by an increase in cigarette tax, $.61 per pack. President Bush could not possibly understand the true needs of these families. The war in Iraq doesn't mean anything to the middle class family who cannot afford to take their child to the doctor when they are ill.

The bill fell 13 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed for an override, 273 to 156, with 44 Republicans voting for the override. Democrats have made it clear that they will not rest until they pass this bill.

Does public opinion matter? Seemingly not in this instance.

"A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Wednesday found strong support for Democrats' efforts to override the veto. The poll found 61 percent of Americans believe Congress should overrule Bush, while 35 percent believe the veto should be sustained.
Pollsters interviewed 1,212 people from Friday through Sunday. The survey has a sampling error of 3 percentage points."

I am saddened by President Bush's lack of compassion and sypathy for the working class and for the lack of care and concern for our children, our future.

This article can be viewed at: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/18/schip/index.html

Does the US Torture Terrorists?

According to an article on CNN.com titled, "Debate Rages Over Secret Justice Memo on Torture" Bush went beyond the realms of US policy in order to gain information from terrorists. In December 2004 a memo was publicly announced that rejected the use of torture in interrogations. Yet, the New York Times has reported that a secret Justice Department opinion in 2005 allowed the torture of terror detainees. The article goes on to say that the 2005 memo amounted to "an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the CIA." The CIA responds with "The CIA does not comment on specific interrogation methods."

It seems that the entire article is a circle of deception and hidden truths. The White House press secretary Dana Perino confirms the existence of the 2005 undisclosed memo, but then says "U.S. policy is not to torture--and we do not." Well, if Dana Perino says so we should believe it? It seems as if everyone is trying to make up for the fact that the Bush administration has done what they deemed necessary with no regard for human rights. There have been reports of torturous activities such as shaving off facial hair, freezing temperatures and simulated drowning.

I cannot say that our country should not do everything in its power to protect our nation and our citizens, but the truth cannot be denied. It makes you wonder if such blatant disregard of humanity could bleed into our U.S. justice system. I don't believe that George W. Bush is over the rights outlined in the Geneva Conventions. I feel safe that 2008 brings a much needed light at the end of a dark and seemingly torturous tunnel.

This article can be viewed at: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/04/justice.torture.memos/index.html

Dollar Signs with Obama

Senator Barack Obama is proposing to lower taxes for the lower and middle classes. Senator Obama announced a tax relief plan that would cut $80 billion this week. By cracking down on the $1 trillion in corporate tax loopholes, international tax havens and increasing the dividend-and-capital-gains tax for the wealthy, it would offset the cost of income tax cut of $500 per person. He is paying special attention to the seven million senior citizens making less than $50,000 per year. Approximately $150 million American citizens will receive this tax relief. Senator Obama points out that this $500 tax cut would essentially eliminate all income taxes for 10 million working Americans, for the amount of the cut is greater than their income tax bill.

The second part of Senator Obama's tax relief plan is to simplify the filing process for a majority of Americans. Since the IRS already collects wage and bank account information this could be a simple verification process. This would save on time and additional expenses spent on a tax preparer.

This article is worth reading because it would directly affect everyone of us. I don't know anyone who enjoys tax season and the difficult process that is involved with it. Senator Obama seems to have the American public's best interests in mind. Besides, we could all use a little tax relief!

This article can be viewed at http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/18/obama.taxplan/index.html