Last Blog

On Wednesday the Senate approved a bill to cover the cost of medical care for rescue workers of the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. Many of these workers became sick from breathing in toxic fumes, dust and smoke from the attacks, which is why this bill was created. The vote was passed by unanimous consent. It came soon after a deal was reached between conservative Republicans and Senators Charles E. Schumer and Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrats of New York. Mr. Schumer and Ms. Gillibrand agreed to changes demanded by the conservative lawmakers, who raised concerns about the measure’s cost. These same conservative lawmakers in fact prevented the bill from advancing in the Senate. After drawing criticism in recent days from Democrats and Republicans alike, the Republican senators backed down. Under the new agreement, the bill provides $4.3 billion over five years for health coverage to the 9/11 workers, instead of the original $7.4 billion over eight years.

I understand why this bill had unanimous support as it is one which provides health care for the courageous people who served as first responders to 9/11. In a joint statement Mr. Schumer and Ms. Gillibrand declared this bill will “protect the health of the men and women who selflessly answered our nation’s call in her hour of greatest need”. An interesting point was stated by one of the main critics of the bill, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma. His problem was not providing these heroes with money but it was the amount of money that was being provided. Although he expressed satisfaction with the legislation’s final price tag he stated that, “it is not compassionate to help one group while robbing future generations of opportunity”. He makes sure to provide the heroes of today with money while also being cognizant of the fact that the heroes of tomorrow may also need money.

The Assembly of Executives

On Wednesday President Obama will host a roundtable with about 20 corporate chiefs. Executives from many different industries are expected to come including American Express, Cisco Systems, Dow Chemical, Google, Motorola, Intel, UPS and PepsiCo. However the White House said it would not divulge attendees until the meeting. Mr. Obama and the executives will discuss a variety of issues such as deficit reduction, an overhaul of the tax code, government regulation, export promotion and public-private investments in areas like technology and clean energy, and efforts to improve education and job skills. The main concern being addressed is not competition between Democrats and Republicans but making sure we are preparing the next generation to compete globally. The partnerships the administration had developed early on were quickly frayed by differences over subsequent White House efforts, especially on overhauling the health insurance and financial regulatory systems and he hopes to repair some of them.

I think this roundtable of leaders and executives of important companies who have a huge impact on today’s economy and a societal impact, is very smart of President Obama. It is important that our government goes beyond just dealing with themselves and doing interior business. They need to stretch out to being involved with other agencies and companies and being acquainted with other outside influences. Our government is not the only power that has an effect on the lives of American citizens and it seems that President Obama realizes this. It is also a very intellectual move on his part because many of the partnerships he did have were severed and this meeting will hopefully allow him to ease strained relations with business and continue building on ones he still may have.

The Tax Dilemma

Most recently there has been a lot of debate about proposed tax raises and tax cuts. Just this Saturday the Senate rejected President Obama’s proposal to raise taxes for the highest-income Americans. Obama’s plan would have extended the lower rates on income up to $250,000 a year for couples and $200,000 for individuals. Obama’s plan was approved by the House but it did not have the 60 votes required to get passed by the Senate. The White House and Congressional leaders are now discussing a deal to extend the reduced tax rates at all income levels, at least temporarily, perhaps for two years. But as the Democrats in the Senate and the White House are split on their views, and many do not want to continue Bush’s economic policies, compromise seems difficult. If Congress does not act, the tax rates expire for everyone on Dec. 31. This means the rate in the lowest bracket would rise to 15 percent from 10 percent and in the highest bracket to 39.6 percent from 35 percent.

I think that the consequences of the absence of a decision make agreeing on these tax rates all the more important. If there is no agreement then there will be a raise for everyone no matter what their income is. I think that whatever action is taken, whether it is a tax cut or a tax raise, the income tax should remain graduated as the government should understand that some for some people, they need all the money they have and for others with a lot of money, they don’t need all of it that much. I’m unsure of how much taxes benefit the economy, but I think that since most of middle and lower class America is suffering heavily from the economy than their taxes definitely shouldn’t be raised. I think that of the different propositions and ideas I would agree with the raising taxes for one million dollar incomes and above since people with that much money are not nearly as affected and damaged by the economy as lower and middle class America.

To Increase or Not To Increase? That Is the Question!

There is a current conflict over whether the fees to benefit from Tricare, health care provided by the military to military retirees and their families, should go up. The driving force behind this movement to increase the fees for Tricare is the Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. He is considering whether to ask for Tricare fee increases in next year’s budget. The reason behind his desire to increase fees is that because of nearly 4.5 million military retirees and their families, about three-quarters are estimated to have access to health insurance through a civilian employer or group. But more than two million of them stay on Tricare. Mr. Gates presents a very understandable fear that rising health care costs will make less money available for new weapons, repairs to a worn-out arsenal and quality-of-life programs like schools on military bases. However those opposed to Gates’ movement believe that we should not take away from those who have served our country which is an equally valid point.

I agree more with Robert M. Gates because if the majority of these people are being supported by other health care benefits then there is really no need for them to be benefited by Tricare either. And by increasing the costs that will get rid of the people who don’t need Tricare as much however it will allow those who really need it and are willing to pay for it to continue to have it. I also agree with his view that the Tricare benefits should and will only be cut from the veterans and their families, not the ones on duty. The increase in Tricare costs will not affect those 65 and older who use a free program. Gates movement to increase Tricare costs is with the best intentions and if he succeeds I hope it will do as it is intended.

Treaties Do Have A Preference

Seven months ago President Obama signed the New Start treaty. This treaty is between Russia and the United States and is basically an agreement between the two which bars each side from deploying more than 1,550 strategic warheads and 700 launchers. It also resumes inspections that were halted when the first Start treaty expired last year. The treaty has yet to be approved and passed in the Senate. What I find interesting is that many treaties proposed by Democratic Presidents in the past have been left unapproved or have been rejected. The senate rejected Woodrow Wilson’s Treaty of Versailles as well as Bill Clinton’s Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and President Jimmy Carter’s Salt II Pact. Unlike the Democrats Republicans have had success in winning Senate consent for big treaties — Richard M. Nixon with Salt I and the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaties, Ronald Reagan with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty, George H. W. Bush with the first Start treaty, and his son George W. Bush with the Treaty of Moscow, an arms reduction agreement.

I find this contrast in the passing of the treaties between the two parties very intriguing. First of all I often forget that treaties are often passed. During my lifetime it has been the wars which have gotten all the attention such as the Afghan war and the Iraq War. The treaties however don’t get that much news coverage or I am just not watching the news close enough. But the one thing about this news which got my attention was the idea that one party can be more successful than another in passing treaties. Treaties seem like something to me which isn’t about parties as treaties are between our country and other countries, it is nothing something that is strictly within the United States. A treaty with another country wouldn’t just benefit the Republicans or Democrats, but the country as a whole. Despite my beliefs however certain parties have been more successful with passing treaties and I hope to discover why in the future.

A Woman Surrounded By Controversy

The day on which the House decides its speaker is nearing. The current speaker Nancy Pelosi seems like she will win the position of the Speaker of the House again. However she continues to face a small rebellion within her own party about returning as Democratic leader. More than 15 House Democrats have expressed concerns about Ms. Pelosi’s hanging on to the party’s top spot. Some of Ms. Pelosi’s allies said she had retained a strong core of support in the Democratic caucus and would be easily re-elected. Democratic officials say those who have gone public represent a much broader spectrum of House Democrats who are uneasy about Ms. Pelosi’s remaining as leader after the crushing losses on Election Day. Despite people being opposed to Pelosi, no one has stepped forward to challenge Ms. Pelosi. The main Democratic leadership fight for the moment continues to be for the party’s No. 2 slot.

I find it surprising that in these times, when the Democratic Party is struggling so much and losing control of the Senate and losing seats in the house, they do not all support one another as much as possible. It seems that to me in times of weakness the party would bond and become stronger however the situation of Pelosi shows that is not the case. In fact people in the Democratic Party continue to dislike and criticize and go against Pelosi. However this is only a minority who has expressed a concern for Pelosi having the position of Speaker once again. It’s also very interesting to me how she’s uncontested at the moment. It makes the opposition seem like they are either cowardly or they just don’t believe in their ideas and beliefs strong enough to take action about them. The Speaker of the House position is one surrounded by controversy however it seems that it’s a one woman race that Nancy Pelosi is running.