ITS TIME WE HAD A COMMISSION FOR THE PEOPLE, NOT THE INTERNET

So on the 21st of December, as we were all at home, happily baking Christmas cookies, taking part in some family bonding, or making some last minute shopping trips, a little branch of a branch of the government, known as the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) released noticed to the press of some “action” they decided to take. By action, they meant new rules that they passed, “to preserve the Internet as an open network enabling consumer choice, freedom of expression, user control, competition and the freedom to innovate” (SOURCE) The rules to be enforced by the FCC include one of transparency for broadband companies, one of the prevention of blocking, and one of the prevention of unreasonable discrimination. (See the above source for a longer explanation of all three).

The general consensus, even by the majority of the FCC, agrees that the openness and free operation of the Internet has largely contributed to the success of the internet as a market. A market responsible for attracting billions of dollars of investments, and creating jobs for thousands of Americans just within the past year. The World Bank recently reported that a 10% increase in high-speed Internet connections is correlated to an increase in economic growth by 1-1.3%. (SOURCE)

My question becomes, then, why must we accept the extension of federal government regulation in the name of “preserving” the Internet? Doesn’t “preservation” have to do with the continuation of the essence of how something once was or once came into being? I’m pretty sure the Internet did not explode as such an economic and societal contributor because of any sorts of government rules that surrounded its origination. I’m also pretty sure that the micromanagement of the operations of broadband companies is not precedented within the history of the growth and prosperity of the internet.

Furthermore, there has been no such threat or market failure that I’m aware of that mandates such a move from the Federal Communications Commission. This concept of “preservation” directly alludes to the potential harms that the FCC paints as coming from the potential biases of broadband companies. My first point, is that there is no such proven harm that has actually ever been incurred by the Internet’s operation. One of the dissenting commissioners, Meredith Baker, stated, “The majority is unable to identify a single ongoing practice of a single broadband provider that it finds problematic upon which to base this action” (SOURCE). My second point is that not only is this unprecedented, but it’s an outright usurpation of the powers of Congress. The FCC is NOT a legislative body, but a regulatory one. The only piece of legislation cited by the FCC in giving them authority to take such action is Title II of the Communications Act, which as far as I have read, only relates to the regulation of television broadcast services. (read it! SOURCE). Okay, this blog is used to the government taking the entirety of the Constitution lightly. But it seems undue and unnecessary that a governmental entity will also take its own liberties in reinterpreting specific paragraphs within a specific title within a specific single piece of legislation passed in 1996.

Oh, but wait, my third point is the best. And it has nothing to do with the end of all that is internet and holy by next year because of these silly attempts by the FCC. What I love and hate most about this situation is how entirely mundane it is in the confluence of governmental and political matters today. Should not we be used to the government telling us what kind of insurance we should have, what kind of TV we should buy, and what kind of rules our companies should follow? My third, and final concern, is how and when did the government start preempting potential harms and hypothetical bad decisions by the People, rather than the People preempting the potential harms of the government. Do we have a balance of powers, termed elections, division of states and federal rights because we always believed in the goodness and perfections of the government? Or because we were aware of the risks that come with powerful government? ... Thanks for your efforts, FCC, but I’d rather someone start regulating YOU.

-E.C.Mignanelli

See Judge Napolitano on the subject...

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEARS! -FROM AOP

Apparently our government is filled with liars and thieves, who's asking Santa for the head of Mr.Wikileaks, And "HOPE" as a promise faded quickly, Cause we all can't make more money.

Our poor soldiers are afar fighting wars so bizarre, Trying to make the middle east understand what democracy are, And I think those Iranians don't think that's so funny.

Meanwhile our internet is being bullied by FCC's rotten ruling, A "neutrality" so screwy, To keep a closer eye on what we are doing, And makes me wonder if freedom of speech still exists.

So these times can be tough but at least we don't live in huts, Not in a potato famine rut or cooking for Christmas our doggie mutt, Instead we've got family to be with.

So at least for these holidays put the fear far away, Embrace the cold winter days and feel the warmth that they say, In every joyful tiding they sing.

And from all of us to you, both the reds and the blues, Despite our differences or disputes, Our sex or our hue, A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Years Eve!

-N.S.Soria

JULIAN ASSANGE & WIKILEAKS

Our First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or the press". Yet we find ourselves currently mentioning Julian Assange, publisher and director of Wikileaks, in the same breath as concepts like “enemy of the state”, “cyber warfare”, “treason”, and “espionage” (SOURCE). Obama has called upon the Justice Department to investigate the possibility of prosecuting Assange for the number of “leaks” he has published on his website regarding US military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for the most recent leaks revealing tens of thousands of secret Diplomatic cables to the public...

It has been mentioned that we ought to consider prosecuting Assange under the US Espionage Act for having obtained and published confidential material, which, according to characters like our president and secretary of defense, Robert Gates, were harmful to US military strategy and to the US’ reputation around the world, specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan (SOURCE) .... Yet, it has not been sufficiently questioned, HOW we might ever consider bringing an Australian citizen under trial in the USA, in order to try him for espionage and treason against the US government. As far as I’m aware, the Espionage Act is a US law, used only in application to US citizens, and furthermore, I think it would be hard to convict one of treason against a country where one is NOT a citizen...

Furthermore, and a little more disturbing in my mind, many of our own Congresspeople have made out Assange and the Wikileaks organization to be an enemy of our state. Representative King of NY urged the President to "use every offensive capability of the U.S. government to prevent further damaging releases." (SOURCE) In our news sources and in Congress, we, the American people, have been hearing more rhetoric about “security threats” and fear of “damaging materials” than we’ve heard about an outrage with a government clearly lying to its people, and doing a bad job at hiding it.

As far as I’m concerned, censorship and avoidance of government transparency has me more bothered than an international news organization that publishes documents harming our reputation in a way warranted by our own actions. As far as I’m concerned, Assange has broken no US law or committed no act of war against us that warrant such attacks. Wikileaks has already been blacklisted by the US government and the Australian government, causing the destruction of the relationship they had with their financial sponsor. What more does our government want to do to them?

Many people once thought the release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971 to be an illegal act, punishable under the Espionage Act. But the Supreme Court did not find The New York Times guilty of treason, and furthermore, the papers released shed light on the lies surrounding our initial attack to begin the Vietnam War (SOURCE). The whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg, and The New York Times are viewed as heroic for revealing the lies that led us to that dark place in our history.

I think a reevaluation of how we view wikileaks is much needed. I fear the embarrassment of our government is a greater contributor to its brash reaction than a true assessment of any harm that has actually been done. Representative Ron Paul, called the US Congress to begin asking the right kinds of questions regarding this current situation. And I think we, the American people, ought to be asking these questions too. Just to name a few...

“*Do the America People deserve to know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?
*Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?
* Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations?
* If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?
*Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?”
(SOURCE)

...Let us not fear the dissenting voice, and rather brave the storm of standing up to what accepted knowledge we find in our current age.... If our government is wrong for such deep and permanent involvements in so many places abroad, let us just say so.

-E.C. Mignanelli

STARTing TO RETHINK OUR FOREIGN POLICY

The US Senate, during its “lame duck” session, is currently being urged by President Obama to ratify the START treaty with Russia, signed by Obama and President Medvedev of Russia last Spring. The treaty, upon ratification, would subsequently renew the Arms Reduction negotiations we have had with Russia since the end of the USSR, and would further lower our nuclear warhead count to 1,550. (SOURCE)

It seems all roads point to the eventual renewal of this treaty... Followed by the claim to diplomatic victory for the US... Followed by the proclamations of the great gains for world peace, international cooperation, and global nuclear deterrence...

It seems our choices are to follow those for the treaty, and consequently be pro-world peace, or to follow those opposed to the treaty, and be pro-nuclear development to the point where the US has an unchecked, unnecessary right to develop an unlimited amount of nuclear warheads however we would enjoy doing so.

But let’s take a close look at what this treaty even begins to entail. These disarmament treaties deal with only one of three categories of nuclear warheads. It is said that we will have reduced our amount of nuclear warheads by 80% by the completion of the terms of this treaty, but that is only counting one of the three types of nuclear warheads that exists in American and Russian “arsenals”. According to the Guardian, (SOURCE) there is a difference between “deployed”, “reserve”, and “retired” warheads (not to mention all the short-range nukes we have that don’t concern Russia). The treaty only counts and addresses the “deployed” warheads. Furthermore, in fulfilling the terms of a disarmament treaty, we often imagine the removal and destruction of the these “deployed” warheads from our warehouses. Instead, it has been more common in recent years for ourselves and Russia to simply remove warheads from their missiles and place them in a bunker somewhere, where they are still kept under constant maintenance. They are then counted as “reserve” warheads instead. The largest amount of nuclear weaponry, though, is found in the stockpiles of “retired” nuclear arms owned by the US and Russia... and somehow, this is the number that nobody counts, even though there is no reason they cannot be reassembled and used if the “security needs” of one country might demand so... (for more information on current state of global nuclear developments check out the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)

I’m not writing today to simply rail on the START treaty and its essential uselessness. Instead, I wonder why we need START or anything like it begin with. Wasn’t it Jefferson who said “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” ..?... Was it not George Washington who stated, “'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.”...?... Was our government not elected to act in representation of the American people and not the Russian people?

Perhaps treaties like this can be a grand thing promoting gains in international cooperation as never seen before. But to what point and to what avail? At what point is our “leadership” in the world going to be a debilitating thorn in the side of our federal government? When will the concerns and demands of the “international community” start to trump those ordinary concerns of our very citizens? Or have topics like Iran, North Korea, China and Russia already become more time-consuming for our elected officials than topics like education and American industry?... Perhaps it was times such as these that our very founding fathers were warning us about...

-E.C.Mignanelli

A NEW MIDDLE GROUND

After our most recent election, it may appear that our country is more polarized now than it has been in ages. It seems the gap of ideological differences my never be overcome... But my question remains as to whether or not the differences are mere constructions? Is the gap between left and right really so huge, when either way, under whichever party, we seem to be expanding federal government power, increasing an unsustainable amount of entitlements (aka “government handouts”), and we seem to be looking toward the president to do Congress’ work in representing the “will of the people”.

It seems that no matter what is emphasized by either party, whether it be “fixing” health care for the left or “fixing” taxes for the right. Whether we ever solve for the economy, immigration, or gay rights - we have yet to create and elect an ideology that permanently slows the growth of our government and tackles the bureaucratic beast that was once the federal government.
This is why I didn’t vote, the left seems to me to be unrealistically idealistic in how much the federal government is capable of accomplishing. And the right seems to merely say “no” to all their ideas, or worse, sometimes snag them as their own. This is where the confusing convergence of the parties has impacted the will to vote.

Last week, I referenced one of my favorite authors, Anthony Downs. This classic political scientist also extrapolates on the framework for the conditions necessary for a third and new party to arise and seize power from one of the existing two. One or all of these things might occur:

a. “There is an opportunity for [the new party] to cut off a large part of the support of an older party by sprouting up between it and its former voters”...
Kind of like how old Republicans might have gotten disgruntled about their party taking issues like abortion and anti-gay rights and anti-immigration and global domination to create a “conservative” platform... some might have become “former voters” because they’re idea of conservative -- small government and free markets and constitutional preservation --might no longer be truly represented in any party.

b. “Another situation which may be productive of new parties is a social stalemate... Where voters are massed bimodally at opposite ends of the [ideological] scale... peaceful governance becomes difficult... a faction desirous of compromise may grow up” ...
Is anybody worried about a “stalemated” system for our Congress anytime soon? Would it be disastrous and chaotic? Or would it be an opportunity?

c. “Another situation opportune for new parties is when an entirely new block of voters enters the electorate”....
This is why my hope for the next generation’s ideology for governance lies mostly with the people who are NOT voting right now. There is some ideology that is not factored on our “scale” between left and right which currently stands as being represented by the two parties. These “nonvoters”, if their numbers continue to increase, might soon be a “new block” of future voters.

This is why disgruntled voters that don’t “vibe” entirely with either party right now, may someday have the power soon to create anew. This is why I do not fear a social stalemate, but anticipate it with a hope that the people might be given responsibility again to demand that which they want from our government. This is why I do not vote. Right now it is a waste of my time. Right now, it is more useful for us, the nonvoters, to figure out what the people can agree on someday. A balanced budget? A clear definition of the balance of powers? A few less invasive military presences around the world? A regeneration of that which we find good about our political system... A new middle.

-E.C.Mignanelli

A HOUSE DIVIDED? MAYBE NOT.

Welcome back to our discontented and often cynical reports on the status quo of the American political system. Please forgive me for having taken time off from writing in order to get married (hence the new last name), move living situations again, and begin to pursue my dream of a legal education.

We revisit this blog right now, not in hopes of convincing you, the reader, to share completely in our dissatisfactions and opinions. Rather, we invite you to consider, engage, and debate with our findings, so as we clash and wrestle with the current state of our society, we might work together to agree in how to promote the improvement thereof. JS Mill once said, “If any opinion be compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.”

I write today, because I’ve been disturbed by our last election. We read headlines of a gridlocked and stalemate system. We hear foreign news agencies facilitating debates as to whether or not the American system is now broken. We witnessed a drop in voter turnout by over 20% of the entire population compared to the last election (SOURCE). This is by far the most disturbing aspect for me. For when the people are willingly choosing to abstain from an election, we know that the people’s opinions have been silenced. The danger, then, according to Mill, would be the supposition of the infallibility of those opinions that seem to prevail in our current status quo.

This blog does not believe all to be lost. Rather, perhaps all is merely beginning...
Anthony Downs once summarized, in his most famous work, his economic theory for the interworking of democracies and the interactions between voters and parties (SOURCE). He extrapolates on how the majority of voters, in the standard two-party system, remain mostly in the middle of the two parties when voting. The strategy for both parties, therefore, would likely be the gradual shifting of these parties, closer and closer to the middle point in their ideologies in order to safely win over the voters in the middle, without losing too many of the voters that remain on their respective fringes. The shifting of the two parties, in our case, seems to have resulted in the homogenization of the left and right into one super-political party.

We saw how the floosy rhetoric of abstractly positive concepts such as “hope” and “change” and “cooperation” helped win a landslide victory in our last presidential election. Because it only took these feel-good platforms, and an attractive character to spout them, in order to satisfy voters on both spectrums, it is not surprising to me to have seen a shift in power to the opposition Republicans in the House of Representatives just two short years later. The shift in voter preference does not seem to come entirely from a sense of dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party, but also from a lack of participation due to an inability to be able to differentiate between the goals, beliefs, records, and therefore trustworthiness of the two parties.

I say this because it is clear the people still believe voting to be important. A recent federal government survey found that 93% of infrequent voters agree that voting is an important part of being a citizen. Also, 81% of nonvoters agreed it is an important way to voice their opinions on issues that affect their families and communities (SOURCE). If this is true than people choose not to vote because (a) they believe issues facing the federal government no longer affect their families or communities, (b) they believe neither party to have unique solutions to the issues at hand affecting their families, rendering voting a waste of time, or (c) they believe neither party to have ANY solution, still rendering voting a waste of time.

We will try to prove next week, given any of these three scenarios, why all of this gives way to an opportunity for the emergence of a third and new party to become one of the major two, turning our status quo into our generation’s political revolution...

-E.C.Mignanelli

TEA PARTYING IN KANSAS CITY, 04-15-2010

I got off my lazy bum to visit a Tea Party here in the Kansas City area. I really didn't know what to expect from the experience. I went based off my intrigued and wanted to witness first hand a rally that has been vilified by the media and our own Government. When people have talked about the Tea Parties, you hear terms like "crazies," and "racists," and you hear a lot of wild allegations against a group who is speaking out about real issues that they strongly believe in. I'm still sitting and digesting the whole experience, but I think despite my agreement or disagreement with their issues, I was certainly humbled. Witnessing this large group coming together with concerns for a cause, who are hardworking Americans from the surrounding Midwest areas, ranging from farmers to local retail stores clerks to small business owners, really inspired me. I'm admittedly an idealist and can easily hide behind my computer or canvas, but these people were the ones putting their backs into their work, hoping to achieve that American dreams by it, and who were active in trying to speak out about what they view is wrong with the Government. Seeing this kind of action by this group was definitely inspiring.

With that being said, when you have the President of the United States, Obama, stating fleeting comments about these rallies like, "I've been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes. You would think they would be saying thank you," (SOURCE) it makes you question his working-for-you tactics the current administration is trying to adhere to. Who is this administration really working for? Solely and supposedly the poor people? The Unions? Special interest groups that funded his campaign? As Dana Mills from the Washington Post wrote in her article about the Tea Parties she snubbly pointed out that these people who are protesting are "wealthier than average" and "better educated." (SOURCE) Just because you're wealthy and educated does that mean the rest of the world should turn a deaf ear to you when you have a problem with the Government? Isn't that the end goal of this Country, that American Dream, wealth and education? I think it's unfair to merely shrug off what they have to say based on their supposed "elite" status. Despite that, from what I witnessed, the people who I talked with were from a working class, some who were even Veterans from past and present wars, who were tired of big government and who believed in an honest pay for honest work.

Granted, I'm sure, as Ms. Mills pointed out in her article, you can easily latch on to the supposed corrupt elite hand in this situation, just as easily as I can point out Andrew Stern's elite hand in the Obama-Health-Care-Bill, but that won't get us anywhere at this point. I think the main issue at hand is what those people were there for; it was a yearning for change in our Government that has strayed from it's foundation. Honestly, I don't think we should rule them out so quickly. We should take a closer look at the issues and take them seriously. These people are just as American as anyone else is, and they certainly have a right to be doing what they're doing.

Here are some more photos I took that evening (some pretty hilarious)...

I don't know if my dad would like that one! Ha! (He works for the IRS.)

Some boys dressed up patriotically, passing around a Pro-life petition.

This was a hilarious happening. I read the first part of this gent's sign and found it funny...

Then when he turned around, someone yelled "YEAH RON PAUL!" and I caught him in the perfect moment. YES!

Aye... Palin.

They did a tribute to Veterans there at the Rally. There were a LOT of Veterans there that night.

Gotta love that quote!

Do it man... do it.

-N.S.Soria

4TH AMENDMENT POLICIES AND IMMIGRATION LEGALITIES

Two weeks ago, one of my student’s father’s was by the side of the freeway, helping his brother-in-law fix a car that had broken down. A police officer pulled over, immediately questioned them both for proof of their citizenship or residence status. This father (being undocumented) was immediately taken to prison, and is currently in the process of being deported to Mexico; leaving behind him a family, job, and a hope of returning anytime before 10+ years. The warrant for him having been searched and questioned: he looked Mexican.

In April of last year, a Baptist pastor was driving home to Phoenix from San Diego. At a border checkpoint, he was questioned and interrogated while still in his automobile. After refusing to cede to an unwarranted search, he was forced to allow the authorities to search his vehicle after they busted open his two front windows, dragged him from his vehicle, and nearly beat his head to the point of unconsciousness (SOURCE). The warrant for him having been beat into submission for a search (which ended in finding nothing but tools): he was driving close to Mexico.

A few months ago, a good friend from Phoenix was stopped by a police officer while riding his bike through a residential area. The police officer proceeded to attempt to intimidate my friend into showing some sort of identification, after citing a bike light law that he was apparently infringing upon. After citing his fourth amendment rights, the police officer eventually backed off, and left my friend in peace. Warrant for the interrogation: my friend looks Mexican. (Or maybe the officer was really more concerned with public safety… I’ll let you, the reader, judge…)

The fourth amendment of the United States Constitution provides, “The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Today, this amendment is largely forgotten about in a country which fears more the undocumented Mexican immigrant than the inflated policing and regulatory powers we are entrusting to local authorities in the name of stopping the immigration “problems”. Some might hold that the first police officer was justified in questioning lawful and peaceful citizens, because that officer ended up catching and deporting an undocumented resident. I would argue that once we cede the rights of any human beings within our borders, we eventually cede those rights of all human beings within our borders. The ACLU eloquently states, “the fundamental constitutional protections of due process and equal protection embodied in our Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to every "person" and are not limited to citizens. The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, all understood the essential importance of protecting non-citizens against governmental abuse and discrimination.” (SOURCE). The very circumstantial racial profiling that you might sometimes find justified, easily leads to the entrusting of great power to police to racially profile in all circumstances, as long as they find it subjectively necessary to do so (i.e. in the case of my friend, a lawful and natural citizen, being questioned unnecessarily).

The concept behind the drafting of the Bill of Rights was to guarantee certain human rights within American territory (to all human beings, not just card-holding citizens). The protection of all people (whether documented or undocumented) is necessary in order to preserve the morals behind the fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution. By rendering Mexican migrants as dangerous, and a threat to our society, we have enabled authorities to periodically forgo the humanity of the Mexican person under question, and usurp authority to search them without warrant, all in the name of preserving a fluid definition of our “security”. By forgoing the humanity of a Mexican person, we set the precedent for any person’s humanity to be rendered less valuable (i.e. the case of the pastor or the case of my friend riding his bike).

I’m not ready to trust any individual policing authority in America with subjective entitlement to creating arbitrary warrants, probable cause, and due process in the interrogation or searching of any person within our borders. As far as I’m concerned, the founders of my country entrusted these duties to the judiciary. And as long as I’m here, I’ll strive to see that those powers continue to belong there.

-E.C.Soria

TO LOBBY OR NOT TO LOBBY, THAT IS THE QUESTION

I've been questioning "Lobbyists" and "Special Interests Groups" for awhile now and came to a point of being very confused and frustrated. Due to my ignorance, I was approached by a lobbyist who represents public agencies and was able to interview her on her career and got a broader idea of what lobbying is all about. In this media fueled world it's easy to hear from both sides, Democratic or Republican, about how "Special Interest Groups" are bad and must be stopped. I was almost quick to jump on that bandwagon but now after speaking with this individual I have a deeper appreciation for the job and find it not to be so cut and dry after all.

Special interest groups have been apart of our political structure even before America was America. It wasn't until the Progressive Era when our country started to become highly critical and aware of lobbyists, and yet the Progressive Era itself came to pass due to heavy influence by lobbyists. The Princeton Review regards the lobbying career as the, "art of persuasion." The woman I interviewed, whom I will refer to as Jane for anonymity sake, regarded it as, "the art of education." Either way they play a crucial role in our government and we as U.S. citizens must be aware and educated of this process.

An interesting thing Jane brought up to me during the interview was, "[When Obama was a Senator] Obama's staff rocked because they obtained expert information from interest groups such as mine, and then imparted their acquired knowledge to Senator Obama, who then was able to make educated decisions on how he was going to vote in the Senate. That was the only way he was able to maintain his seat in Congress." She later hinted that information could have come from constituents or U.S. citizen as well but even so you can't really be sure if they were hired by a special interest group or not. The responsibility of a lobbyist is certainly high, and most of their time is spent watching and reading through bill after bill, making sure the issues they are fighting for are being catered to, and then they correspond to the staff which in turn dictates how the Senator would vote. It's a seemingly rigorous process and can definitely be admired, yet it's also intimidating. I'm not willing or have the time to do what lobbyists do and read through every bill, looking for every issue that I have a problem with and then start emailing my representative! I mean I had enough problems reading the HealthCare Bill and before I could even finish reading it they already voted on it!

I do agree with Jane when she brought up this idea; it is strange to see how some of these Senators, like Obama, speak out against lobbyism and yet use that very system to get ahead or maintain their seat. I'm still not quite sure if lobbying is necessarily the evil here, but maybe it's once you step into the world of Political Action Committees (PAC) in special interest groups... that's when things start to get dangerous. Considering Jane is working with public agencies, her group does not have a PAC. PACs lie more within cooperate entities. What are PACs? As far as we know they've been around since 1944 and are pockets in special interest groups where they hold money for campaigning for or against Senators. Using PACs a lobbyist could essentially promise money to a senator's campaign when facing reelection. This is where a red flag comes up. From a mere citizen's standpoint, this Political Action Committee just sounds like a fancy term for "bribe." I think we need to learn the distinction between some of these interest groups, especially the ones who are using PACs, because I now know that there are some doing great good out there, and others who are abusing the system.

Speaking of money exchange, recently laws have been created to try to keep lobbyist in check. The Lobbyist Disclosure Act (LDA) was actually put into place in 1995. It requires lobbying spending to be made public and have them frequently report their spending to the Office of the Clerk. Although it seems a lot of these tasks are left in the hands of registered lobbyist, so I could see where one might be able to abuse the system. There have also been reports of "loopholes" in the legislation so it might be fair to say it isn't fail proof. But the information is there and readily available. Evenmore so, there is a website dedicated to keeping track of lobbyist and interest groups and gives light to some of their dealings: OpenSecrets.org Where would we be without the internet?

Well I know my interest in special interest groups will not stop here, but for now I'll conclude this article. I think the most enlightening thing about the interview was when she said, and I've heard this said before, that "Lobbyist are just exercising their 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech... We are democracy in action." Despite how frustrating this process can be or how much corruption is in it, I find two key words in that statement, "exercising" and "action," that put responsibility on me as a United States Citizen. Essentially lobbyist aren't doing anything you or I couldn't do. When they find concerns in legislation they respond accordingly by sending emails or phone calls to get the eyes of the representatives on it. That's something I don't do. I think a lot of us don't do it. It's much more easier to sit on the sidelines and point a finger at problems rather than approach it.

In the end, if anything this encourages me to take more action towards the things I want to see change in the world around me, and I'm not talking merely within a relationship between a Citizen and a Representative, but with anything that I might have a problem with; cooperations, public services, my own property. We should start voicing our concerns more clearly and I think a lot of us don't and that's what's hurting our Country. I know far too many people who scourer the internet looking for things to criticize. That's not going to change anything. It's like what Teddy Roosevelt said,

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

So despite however big you think this government is and however impossible it is to change it, take courage and try anyways. Hell! The lobbyists are, so why shouldn't we?

-N.S.Soria

NOT MERELY "JUST A BILL"

The Healthcare Bill has recently been passed by our Federal Government and is certainly a turning point in our history. Whether good or bad no one can argue against that fact. Whether for or against no one can deny that this is a prevalent and important issue in our Country right now. I could easily dive into arguments against the bill, but what's done is done, and there will probably be plenty more arguments to come whether here in this blog or in the Courts. Right now I want to implore our readers to take care in those verbal battles that will occur. We, as humans, are passionate creatures and sometimes can let issues come between friendships, families, and community.

As it's said in Proverbs 15:1, "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." Now, as ever, we should embrace that noble device known as serenity. Issues will rise and fall like the sun, but we must be steadfast in our approach, and through serenity we will be able to make the necessary changes in people's hearts as well as the necessary changes in our government. "With patience a ruler may be persuaded, and a soft tongue will break a bone." (Proverbs 25:15) There is power in the serene approach, the kind that can effect a man's soul. That is the necessary change we need right now... our souls.

With this calm approach I believe it will give us clarity of mind to then challenge what we need to challenge, and be able to pick our battles wisely. Despite what may come, let us be in the hands of the Creator and by that be able to live courageously. There will be things we must do and say, and let us say them fearlessly. As Winston Churchill once said, "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Let us approach these issues with that balance. I know I'm no god, and I know the government is far bigger than me, therefore it's my job to educate myself as much as I can and then move how I see necessary.

With all that in mind, let us act. Let us not lay stagnent by our computers or televisions, but let us be real and affect the world around us. The economy is bad, our liberties are at stake, and our country is becoming split in two (or three) but none of these issues will be resolved merely by our anger or brass criticisms, but by our solving the problems inside each of us individually, and then going out and trying to help our neighbors. Part of the problem is that we are not pursuing our dreams that we have the liberty of pursuing. Instead we either shrug problems off or wave a criticizing finger at a world bigger than us. Well, we are apart of that world, and by it we should work hard and enjoy the satisfactions of it's byproducts. As JFK famously said, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." This is just as true now as it was then. What is it that we can do? What is it that you can do? What is it that you need to do? I think we all have the answer inside of us if we are truly searching for it.

I'm writing about these things because I need this reminder just as much as you do. I'm frustrated and can easily become heated about these issues, but I need to keep a sharp and calm mind, not merely for my benefit (Proverbs 16:24) but for the benefit of the people around me. (Matthew 22:36-41) These are important issues so let us handle them by using just as, if not moreso, important standards. Then and only then can we truly make a change.

-N.S.Soria

Ron Paul on the issue.

WHAT IS THE US EXPORT-IMPORT BANK?

One slightly hidden part of the federal government, which also originated during FDR’s Administration, is referred to today as the US Export-Import bank (the Ex-Im Bank). The Ex-Im Bank exists, according to Sec. 2(b)(1)(A) of its charter, to “minimize competition (through export subsidies)… and to reach international agreements to reduce government subsidized export financing” (SOURCE). The main purpose of this largely financed arm of the Federal Government should cause a pause right away. Essentially, the charter claims that this is an organization, which manages the subsidizing powers of the government (in foreign trade), in an effort to eventually weed out the need for government subsidies altogether. It’s like creating a government-subsidized health insurance organization, which works towards the creation of a world where cheaply provided governmental insurance would no longer be in demand. When have we ever experienced a government bureaucracy efficiently decreasing in its own size and power?

But what exactly, does this extra Federal Bank do? Well, that’s a great question, that I’m still trying to navigate after two days of tossing and turning over government documents and the void-of-actual-numbers website (SOURCE) that the Ex-Im Bank manages. Here’s what I have gathered so far to share with all of you (and for any economists out there, please feel free to elaborate, correct, or better-explain any economic details in which I attempt to unravel in this post)…

The Ex-Im Bank is the official “export credit agency” of the United States. They seek to aid in financing the export of goods and services, with the justification of seeking to contribute to the employment of U.S. workers. The “credit” provided to foreign buyers includes “export credit insurance, loan guarantees, and direct loans”. Their website is careful to specify, as often as possible, “80% of their transactions directly benefit U.S. small businesses” (SOURCE). As much as I wanted to find access to easily understood numbers on their actual website, it proved much easier to turn to other reporting agencies in order to figure out who are really the biggest beneficiaries of this Ex-Im Bank.

Maybe 80% of “transactions” benefit small businesses, but that might just say a lot about the massive budget they maintain, if they can make that claim while simultaneously providing Exxon Mobil with a $3 billion loan in order to fund an oil venture in Papua New Guinea (SOURCE). Correct me if I’m wrong, but I never considered Exxon Mobil as small for size, or as one for creating many American jobs…

Large US corporations aren’t the only bodies that seem to have undue clout amongst the bureaucrats running the Ex-Im Bank. China has also been noticed as having received up to $4 billion in US subsidies from the Ex-Im Bank annually (SOURCE). And these estimated numbers would not even be able to account for the indirect ways in which Chinese buyers and sellers have been assisted. Chinese ethanol benefits from an additional U.S. subsidy. “In 2004, the Ex-Im subsidized construction of an “ethanol dehydration facility” in Trinidad and Tobago—exactly the sort of facility through which foreign ethanol passes duty-free into the U.S.” The very next year, China more than tripled its rate of ethanol exports: the vast majority imported to the US (SOURCE) ….

Would I dare argue, then, that this large Federal Bureaucracy could possibly lapse at times and be more concerned with China’s welfare than that of its very own people? I sure hope the Ex-Im’s bias toward Chinese goods and investment doesn’t have anything to do with the $895 billion in government securities it had accumulated as of last December (SOURCE). The truth is, the US now depends on foreign bodies to buy “securities” from the US Treasury in order to finance our national debt. Without countries like China, Japan, and the Oil Wealth Nations buying out debt, our dollar would’ve collapsed a long time ago (with the rampant creation of money that the Federal Reserve is somehow entitled to). Therefore, the more debt we create, the more dependent we are on countries like China to finance it. The more China finances our debt, the more intertwined our economies become. The more intertwined our economies, the more inclined our Federal financial institutions might be to favor Chinese trade and investment.

But what’s so wrong with this? Is it really so bad to be economically interdependent in an age of post-industrialization and globalization? And in the midst of this era of greater global trade and dependence, will we need larger governmental bodies, like the Ex-Im Bank to finance and protect us in the process? I would argue no on all accounts. The Ex-Im Bank seems nothing more than a glorified form of welfare for the corporate world. And just like we argued last week, the realm of business would also benefit much more richly from the creativity that abounds amidst real competition void of governmental interference. And as for our entangling alliance with the People’s Republic of China… well, let’s just say that I can’t wait to tackle that sucker next week…

-E.C.Soria

PERTURBED PRESIDENTIAL POLICIES PART II

As you may have gathered from last week’s post, I’m currently in the midst of a long struggle, torn between my natural tendency to look to my president for great “change” and my desire to hope for a renewed sense of the authority that the Constitution ought to hold in how we are governed. The ever-looming question remains, though, what are we to do in times of great economic, social, or political struggles? This is why I’d like to branch out from our case-study of Andrew Jackson and consider instead the moral dilemmas that were faced by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his decisions to deviate from the Constitution.

The presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt came much later, and at a very different point of political and national turbulence than that of Andrew Jackson. FDR entered during a time of national desperation. Unemployment was reaching record highs and continuously increasing, farm prices were falling dramatically, bank runs were costing the American public billions of dollars. (SOURCE).

In FDR’s first Inaugural Address, he claims his anticipation of departing from the “normal balance” between executive and legislative authority in an effort to meet the tasks before the country. In the event of Congress not abiding to such measures, FDR stated, “I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe”. SOURCE) The American public believed themselves to be facing a foe just as threatening as a foreign enemy, and the popular consensus was waiting on the President to act in their favor.

As imaginable, FDR took office in 1932 with great support from the voters. After such a successful election, members of Congress were unprecedentedly eager to work with Roosevelt in order to secure prospects for reelection. Roosevelt strategically utilizes this political clout by almost immediately calling Congress into a special session, to draft what historians refer to as “the Hundred Days Policies” (or the beginning of the New Deal). (SOURCE see pg.5). During these first hundred days in office, Roosevelt was able to pass major Banking and Economic Acts, with little to no hesitation from Congress. Several years later, Congress had to pass more legislation in order to ensure the President had adequate resources to follow through with the Hundred Days Policies. Many of which were monumental pieces of legislation, because of their having granted powers to the Presidency in being able to act alone in the allocation of large budgets coming from Federal dollars. The Emergency Relief Appropriation (ERA) of 1935 is one example (SOURCE see pg.5). Altogether, throughout the span of the New Deal Era, there were a countless amount of new programs and agencies developed to address the social and economic woes of the American people. Most of which, we are still living with today, in the form of federal government bureaucracies. The Social Security Act, Farm Security Administration, and the Fair Labor Standards Act might be a few of the pieces of legislation today remembered as having protected the poor, preserved American Agriculture, and defended the laborer from an evil “laissez-faire” capitalistic system.

But have we, as common and current US citizens, cared to step back for a bit to consider the ramifications of this heroic, powerful, and historic presidential figure? Why should I bother critiquing a president we should probably be more concerned with honoring for his courage in carrying a nation through such a hopeless time? I personally think the most interesting part of FDR’s legislative binge-stint was the reorganization that had to come about within the Executive branch. A couple years after the Hundred Days Policies, FDR was also successful in passing the Executive Office of the President (EOP) Act. The EOP consists of immediate staff to the president, called the White House Office, and the Bureau of the Budget: a minor departmental transfer originally housed in the treasury department” (SOURCE see page 8). This act was primarily passed in order to allow the President to formulate and execute policy ideas within the White House. This was a monumental transfer of power from the legislative branch into the House of the Executive, but done so in the name of “waging war against an emergency”. Why then, is this EOP concept unquestioningly inherited by all of Roosevelt’s successors to the Office of the Presidency as well? Even though Roosevelt might have seen the expansion of the presidency as necessarily unconstitutional, but inherently temporary, we are still operating largely under the institutionalization of an inflated Executive, as established during the Great Depression.

What’s my largest problem with the cheapening of the Executive Branch into a short-cut policy-making machine on demand for the American majority? It seems we have only examples in our history of this pattern having tipped the scales of the checks and balances system, which is designed so carefully in order to protect the people from encroaching powers-plays by the government, by helping uphold the authority of the Constitution (an authority that ought to be greater than any person or institution can achieve). In the more extreme case of Andrew Jackson, we were at risk of losing Constitutional accountability governmental figures should have in order to not be able to assume whatever powers they might see fit for their office. But in the more subdued and humanitarian case-study of FDR, we are left with the story of a hero who pulls a country out of a Depression, but leaves the legacy of a contemporary American public more dependent on the growth of the government for their everyday needs (even without the looming “war-like” threat of an economic depression).

The legacy of governmental expansion has never been successfully maintained as “temporary”. And aside from the fact that we don’t have funds to sustain such consistent growth in the long-run, I’m more bothered by thinking we don’t have the human capacity to maintain and grow our creativity to match a government that is already promising to provide for the “common goals” of America. As quoted by Ron Paul, a young historian Alexis DeTocueville, was most impressed while traveling the early United States by the ability of Americans to form voluntary associations in order to achieve common goals. He wrote, “wherever, at the head of some new undertaking, you see the Government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association” (Paul, The Revolution, 75). The reason why it might be difficult for us to start to expect less from the figure-head of our country is because it means we will surely have to expect more from ourselves. Instead of waiting for Obama to create the change in my neighborhood, I would only have myself to look to. As scary or daunting as that might appear, I would rather try my hardest and use whatever creative abilities I have in the process, even with potential failure looming. To not do so, would be to waste the freedoms that I have inherited, limit the responsibility human beings ought to have for fellow human beings, and crush the development and redefinition of the dreams we have as a nation for our nation. Let’s put creating, dreaming, and goal-setting back in the hands of everyday human beings.

-E.C.Soria

PERTURBED PRESIDENTIAL POLICIES PART I

In light of recently celebrating George Washington’s birthday yesterday, I felt eager and anxious to reconsider why it has been so natural for me to criticize my president while simultaneously expecting he ought to service me with better schools, farmers, bankers, and jobs? From where did this demanding and borderline-needy ethos develop within our nation? And why do I care so much when the rest of the world criticizes the US President for not accomplishing enough?

In case you’re not already familiar with the Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, they are a series of articles written for early American newspapers to publish in order to inform the American public of the law and theory behind the Constitution, in an effort to guarantee public support and ensure its ratification. According to Federalist Paper number 69, the job of the president seemed pretty clear and comparatively simple. Hamilton elaborates on four main functions (and no others). He discusses the president’s power to return any bills passed by Congress, to assume position of Commander-in-Chief over the Army and Navy, to receive and send foreign ambassadors, and to sign treaties (upon Congressional approval). (SOURCE)

Tracking the record of how these powers expanded across all the differing eras and presidencies in our country’s history would take more of a thesis format rather than a humble little “common-sensical” style blog post. That’s why I’d like to examine briefly two case scenarios as two definitive turning points in pushing our nation toward the current track we walk of executive power inflation: the Jackson era and the FDR era. Alas, it was so tempting, and so easy for me to drool over the expansion of the presidency that took place under George W. Bush’s term, but I have resisted the temptation to attack his administration specifically in this post, because I would argue that presidents like Bush and Obama are merely falling into a pattern that was jump-started by larger characters in our country’s history, like the two case-examples to follow…

Jackson remains remembered as one of the great presidents because he transformed the understanding of the presidency into the only office that serves as the direct representative of the American people (in its entirety). Since the chief executive is the only office voted onby everybody, Jackson interpreted his role as one that needs to be, first and foremost, a voice for the majority. Also a firm believer in democracy, Jackson stated, “The first principle of our government is that the majority ought to govern”. As the only representative of the majority in one office, Jackson went far beyond the reach of his predecessors in interpreting his constitutional role as president, since the “majority” was his only real check in power (and not the other two branches of government, so much). He was the first president to introduce the “spoils system” in Washington, where federal bureaucrats are fired because of their political disagreements with the president. He also took his veto power to another level. Before his presidency, nine bills had been vetoed. He alone vetoed twelve. He also discovered and utilized the “pocket veto”, where a bill is vetoed right before recess, thereby removing any chance of the veto to be overturned. (SOURCE See pages 105, 114, 126)

Jackson helped to bring the presidency into a more influential position, and utilized his influence in the name of supporting the equality of the middle class (or average citizen). The danger of such dependency on the majority ensues when the majority is wrong. Aside from Jackson nearly single-handedly conquering Florida and setting the stage for the annexation of Texas, his treatment of the Cherokee Indians remained uncontested by his check (the majority), even in light of the Supreme Court decision he blatantly ignored. In 1832, the Supreme Court ruled that Georgia could not impose its laws on Cherokee tribal lands. Jackson is often quoted as responding with, “(Chief Justice) John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!” Jackson went on to pressure Cherokee leaders to sign a removal treaty thereby forcibly removing Cherokee Indians from their lands, to walk the “Trail of Tears”, recorded as having caused the death of over 4,000 Cherokee Indians (SOURCE).

Perhaps this is an extreme example of the frighteningly powerful potential for a presidential figure with widespread popular appeal. The American populous can enable great expansion of the Executive when the Executive believes in its inherent entitlement to interpret the limits of its own position. But this is the very genius of the “checks and balances” system, defined by Rousseau, and adopted by the drafters of our Constitution. The president does not exist to represent the majority, Congress does. The president does not exist to interpret the Constitutional limits of its ability to act in the name of the people, the Supreme Court does. Why then, should we be comforted when President Obama tells us, ““My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington.”?? (SOURCE) Thanks Obama, but no thanks. I would rather my Congressperson feed me that line, and my president care more deeply about focusing on the tasks designed to occupy the presidency. Not the tasks currently delegated to a host of persons, working for a host of organizations, organized under a host of bureaucracies, placed under the heads of a host of presidential advisors, in order to feed the massive machine of our contemporary executive branch.

It seems blatantly apparent, from the example of Jackson’s legacy, that “justice” can be fluidly interpreted when too much power of interpretation is given to the office of one man. But what about under desperate conditions, when the people truly want the President to act in the name of their survival? Is there ever a case where deviation from the Constitution ought to be considered in the name of the protection of the people? We’ll consider these questions, and the case study of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in next week’s post. Until then, have a happy President’s Day week!

-E.C.Soria

INTERLUDE: BANKS BANKING OFF OF BAD BUSINESS

E.C.Soria, our most respected writer, is undergoing a hefty project, continuing her previous post about the President's role in comparison to the U.S. citizen's role in our nation. She is still in the process of digesting her thoughts and was fearful of rushing the process. I commended her efforts and encouraged her to continue on perfecting what she's trying to convey. I think it's going to be one of her finest pieces on this blog and I look forward to supporting it with my Illustrations. SO! My dear readers, please forgive our lack of a post today and think of this as a brief interlude. Next week will certainly shine with E.C.'s usual eloquence, but for now let's sit back and listen to a favorite politician and Senator of ours, Dr.Ron Paul. As controversial as he has been, I think he makes valid points and in this clip in particular he and Judge Napolitano make great observations on what's been going on between our Government and the Banks they/we are bailing out. Much thanks to M.G.Gonzales for directing us to this clip. Definitely take a listen and we'll be sure to see you next week!

-N.S.Soria

STATE OF THE UNION DECREE

Thank you, Mr. President…

As spurred on by the State of the Union Address last week, I’ve been recently reflecting on the state of the American Presidency. Obama’s Address was definitely a great speech (as most expected it to be), but most commentary after the Address focuses critiques on whether or not the speech accomplished what Obama needed to accomplish in order to strengthen his administration. It seems nominally questioned, though, whether or not we are simply expecting way too much from one speech, and more importantly, from one man.

The Address last week followed a cliché pattern of addressing accomplishments, admitting to trials faced and trials to come, and then proclaim a four-tiered paradigm for striving toward a strong USA…

The first layer of Obama’s speech, in terms of the direction of immediate government action, was in regards to financial reform. One can easily refer to the below post in order to gauge our sentiments on the only type of financial reform that seems to have taken place within this administration. Namely, pumping federal dollars into banks, only to turn around and tax them, in the name of redistributing such “gains” to smaller banks funding smaller businesses. This appears not only counter-productive, but wasteful.

The next layer of Obama’s speech, called for an investment in “greener” innovation. While the thought of more “green” industry in America sounds like a two-fold win, a more environmentally friendly America with more domestic “industrial” jobs. We ought also to be careful that money invested is going towards private industry, which will be more effective in providing gains in green technology while securing more jobs for the future, rather than investing more money in more government bureaucracies (i.e. $10 billion this year on the mere operation of the federal EPA), which hands greater responsibility to the federal government while also teaching us to depend on government expansion in order to create more jobs. This would not count as a win. (SOURCE)

The third step towards success was an allusion toward Obama’s newest National Export Initiative. I would fervently disagree that more agricultural exports guarantees more American jobs and that more agricultural subsidies equals more successful farmers. But even with these ideological differences aside, the logical conclusion from past patterns of government agricultural subsidies is that they are a waste. Over $95 billion was spent between 2001 and 2006 on agricultural subsidies, while 1.3 billion of those dollars went to landowners that didn’t plant a single crop (SOURCE). Furthermore, according to the current National Export Initiative, as listed under the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) Department of the US Department of Agriculture, the $54 million proposed for this Initiative will serve towards increasing salaries within the FAS by $34.5 million. Therefore, the leftover $19.5 million probably cannot be expected to ramp our agricultural prowess in the world by much. (SOURCE)

Obama’s final step in guaranteeing our comeback as a strong economically stable nation was laid out in the form of educational reform. Whereas, the need for an improved educational system is acknowledged across the board, the need to place greater responsibility in the hands of the federal government ought to be questioned. An example of Obama’s progress in educational reform includes one of his latest initiatives, referred to as “Race to the Top”. States have the opportunity to apply for grants for their schools that have been making progress in meeting national standards and for state-funded programs in meeting lower-scoring school’s needs. While more money for states sounds like a step in the right direction, this initiative will only grant money to 11 of the 50 states. (SOURCE). How is this a constitutionally sounds way to spend federal money (which ought to belong in the hands of the Union as a whole)?

If you’ve managed to even force your way this far through my droning complaints regarding Obama’s State of the Union Address, you might find yourself begging the same question I’m internally struggling with right now. How did I manage to write an entire post resembling the very whining and groaning of the thousands of journalistic commentators that I was calling into question at the beginning of my post? Maybe the greater question is how have we, collectively as a nation, become accustomed to looking to the face, speeches, and ambitions of one man, to give us our bankers, jobs, and schools? The process of critiquing this presidential figure has become much too easy for anyone (even myself), because we’ve turned his position into a presidential king of sorts, looked toward for providing us with everything and anything we can think of asking of him. Perhaps the investigation of how we’ve found our nation in this collectively needy and demanding position is worth considering. Perhaps a conversation to be continued for next week’s post…

-E.C.Soria

ILL FITTED TAXATION

Today is another day. The Sun is still shining, no matter where you are, high or low, beneath or above the clouds, it's there. There used to be a time, under that same Sun, when failure was acceptable to talk about, and truth was better investigated. Maybe because failure can mean the end of comfort, we avoid it and therefore avoid what lays before us each day; an opportunity to step ahead of our mistakes made in the past. No, there will be no golden-trumpets-of-truth to hit the fan about where the $3 trillion U.S. dollars went. Now we find ourselves unknowing and quick to punish.

"Daddy Warbucks," in this case the common U.S. citizen, has been busy paying for the bailouts of every failed big business. The money intended to jumpstart the economy has only left the economy in sagging disarray while rewarding bad business practices and political organizations for their ill intended business paths. For instance, ACORN received $5.2 billion USD in bailout money, and while currently under Federal investigation of voter fraud. And now the plan is to tax institutions for our own perpetuation of these horrible practices. These unallocated taxes are the kind of taxes that the founders of the U.S. Constitution fought against, taxation without representation. Is the Obama administration as guilty as the U.S. Congressional House and Senate who opened the gates of financial purgatory? Who dealt it smelt it, or is it who smelt it dealt it?

And still, ironically enough President Obama stated that "While the financial system is far stronger today than it was one year ago, it is still operating under the exact same rules that led to its near collapse." He is suppose to be the protector of the United States and representitive of the Constitution who tells Congress "You shall not pass" when they try to reward businesses who have spent beyond their ability to produce revenue. Now it seems we live in an age of titles of nobility, and of course not to be confused with real nobility. President Obama now wants to punish the very banks he saved by implementing a "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee" at a yearly rate of $1,500 for every $1 million borrowed to finance lending and other activities. This could mean that every U.S. citizen will pay higher rates when they borrow money. The said intentions of the "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee" are to force banks into submission and keep them small, creating "leverage." A controlled market, cannot and will not sustain liberty for long. Anarcho-capitalist free market is what our founders intended to have, but of course with a civil government governed by the common citizens and a set of U.S. laws and bindings listed in the U.S. Constitution. This all leaving room for our posterity and property which may bring forward courageous innovations under freedom, as well as a liberty to fail. Failure is important for a society which wishes to be free and helps it make prolific advances towards a better day.

With all that said, and a half an hour later after devouring a bag of Dorito chips, I must conclude; we live in a nation where punishment is brought on in the form of spanking a dead horse. Obama may have good intentions to punish businesses that were awarded bailout money which was spent on frivolously party-times, but where does the line get drawn? Allowing a person, or business to fail is the best thing to do and accounts as a learning process. As Abraham Lincoln said, "The fiery trials through which we pass will light us down in honour or dishonour to the latest generation." Let us learn from these mistakes and move on.

(Sources: Stossel's Report & Holman Jenkins' opinion)

-M.G.Gonzales with N.S.Soria

IMMIGRATION TALKS

Today’s blog does not come to you from any front-page news headlines, any inspiring words from Obama, or from any recent election results upsetting the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Rather tonight, I’m more troubled by the story of a dear friend (and fellow Spanish teacher/co-worker) of mine who has had to endure painstakingly long trials as a result of her attempt to legally navigate the US immigration system with her husband. Three years ago, upon getting married, my friend and her husband decided together they desired to make his status in the U.S. legal. According to their attorney (whom they cannot afford), it was legal for him to remain working in the states while waiting for his Permanent Residency Status to be confirmed. Two years later, the law changed, and with his status still pending, he was sent back to Mexico. One year later, his application for legal admission to the US is still indefinitely pending, and my friend is left here, debating with herself over the ethical merits of working here (away from her husband) to support her child, or moving to Mexico to be with her husband at the risk of them not being able to affording supporting a family. The most disturbing part of this story is the sheer commonality of it all. I’m certain we have all known people who have been affected in similar ways by US Immigration Law.

While it might initially seem outrageous to most of us to be sympathizing with any “illegals”, there are many reasons to believe we are creating harmful popular views of immigration under the current direction of our immigration system. After viewing a brief history of our Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureaucracy, one might observe that, historically, the area of Immigration Law fell under the arm of the Department of Commerce or Labor or Justice. Those seem to flow logically with the general purposes that immigration has served in our country in the past. Devastatingly though, upon the year 2003, when we were busy entering Iraq, the USCIS (Citizenship and Immigration Services) was altered in its make-up, and placed under the oversight of the Department of Homeland Security (also a newly evolved entity of 2003) (SOURCE) . Does it seem strange to anyone else that the Secretary of Homeland Security, who oversees things like “Counterterrorism” and “Preparedness, Response and Recovery”(SOURCE), also has the largest role in “promoting flexible and sound immigration policies and programs” (SOURCE)? We need to shift away from this perception of immigrants as part of “the other” or “potential threat” population, and rather, view them for what they are; future Americans, future us’. This is why efforts to thwart Comprehensive Immigration Reform need to be cautiously examined and avoided if they exist to only instill fear, thereby limiting the potential for greatness that our country really might have.

In the most recent holiday issue of the Economist, one article argues that “a country’s economic prospects depend in large measure on whether it is a place where people want to be”. Essentially, the more desirable a place is to be, the more creative people it will attract. The more creative people it attracts, the more ingenuity it inspires. And the more ingenuity it inspires, the greater its numbers of productivity and prosperity (SOURCE). “No matter where an immigrant hails from, he can find a cluster of his ethnic kin in America”. We need to stop viewing this appealing nature of our essential make-up as a burden, and rather view it as an opportunity and a definitive aspect of our country’s founding and development. We have all descended from migrants who have made their way to America over the past couple hundred years, and we have all descended from people who have played a significant role in the development of this nation into an appealing place to live. If we want to be great, let’s not start fearing this pattern now.

-E.C.Soria