Posted Prices and the Capitol Hill Stalemate Machine

Thomas Ferguson, 10/17/11, 11:34 AM ET
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-ferguson/posted-prices-and-the-cap_b_1015669.html

At first glance, I was immediately intrigued to read this article due to the economic recession America is going through. Everyone has faced some sort of financial handicap in recent years and with all the budget cuts, job layoffs, and national income becoming stagnate, I am curious to see what our government is doing to solve the problem. Along with the title and purpose of this post, I wanted to revisit America’s financial situation that many have been distracted from by the upcoming election. Now, after reading Ferguson’s post, I find it to be extremely important that others receive this message due to the severity of the public’s current situation.

                Income distribution is a topic that all American’s can relate to which was an idea that Ferguson clearly understood. Because the post was almost completely informational, Ferguson is able to get his point across all levels of political ideology. But before addressing Ferguson’s message, here is some background information. Thomas Ferguson is Professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts, Boston and a Senior Fellow of the Roosevelt Institute. He received his Ph.D. from Princeton University and taught formerly at MIT and the University of Texas, Austin. He is the author or coauthor of several books, including Golden Rule (University of Chicago Press, 1995) and Right Turn (Hill & Wang, 1986). Most of his research focuses on how economics and politics affect institutions and vice versa. His articles have appeared in many scholarly journals, including the Quarterly Journal of Economics, International Organization, International Studies Quarterly, and the Journal of Economic History. He is a long time Contributing Editor to The Nation and a member of the editorial boards of the Journal of the Historical Society and the International Journal of Political Economy.

Ferguson opens with a brief historical tie to politics today. According to Ferguson, political corruption began in 1909 with J.P. Morgan and the “Millionaire’s club.” The interest of making a profit from politics was a common idea that is now practiced today, but now in more extreme manners. Now, living under government in 2011, over half of the members of congress are millionaires who have put themselves entirely before the people they serve.  Politics in America have become more of a money making strategy that involve “stealing from the people” to ensure financial satisfaction. The whole adds up to something far more sinister than the parts. Big interest groups can control the membership of the committees that write the legislation that regulates them. Outside investors and interest groups also become decisive in resolving leadership struggles within the parties in Congress. But the real rub is the way the system centralizes power in the hands of top Congressional leaders. “In the new pay-to-play system, individual representatives dole out contributions to their colleagues to gain support for their individual bids for key positions within each chamber.” But the system also requires them to make large contributions to the House and Senate national campaign committees.

Remember that saying that “money can’t buy happiness”, well it has reversed to where money is now the commanding authority of our nation.  “In 2009, when the Democrats controlled the House, their leadership slotted many junior representatives on the Financial Services Committee so they could haul in cash with both hands to enhance their prospects for reelection.”  Because this issue is so evident, I completely agree with Ferguson. The corruption our political system has faced really could “throw world financial markets into turmoil or force draconian” because the future interest of America has been lost. Our political leaders have ultimately converted from living, for the people, by the people, of the people, to for themselves, by themselves, of themselves.

Balancing gun rights with public safety

By Editorial, Published: October
9http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/balancing-gun-rights-with-public-safety/2011/10/06/gIQANAXbYL_story.html

I recently read an editorial about gun rights in the Washington Post and wanted to bring some attention to the matter because it is referring to the second amendment. This has also been a very debated topic over the past few years.  In 2007, the U.S Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit looked over the District’s gun regulations. The court struck down this handgun ban as unconstitutional and made it required that other guns in homes “be kept unloaded and secured with trigger locks at all times.” Last week, the issue was reviewed again and two of the judges gave some pretty surprising input. “Chief Judge Douglas Henderson upheld the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.” The editorial board seemed pleased by this decision because of its methodology.

 I too find this conclusion to be very necessary because the severity that gun’s have on the world at the moment. For decades, the arms race has been a primary objective for many nations.  Many people are unaware that weapons manufacturing and dealing is actually one of Americas strongest and most consistent sources of income. Now this isn’t unnecessary by any means, thought because weapons are mass produced, it is becoming easier and easier for the public to acquire assault and rapid fire guns. The very objects that were designed to protect its people are now being used by its own citizens. This is why gun rights could undergo such a change.

Much has changed since the constitution was first written. As we have witnessed the world take tremendous leaps in technology, weapons technology has also drastically changed. Gun registration, the judges ruled, is “deeply enough rooted in our history to support the presumption” that it is constitutional. The ban on semiautomatic long guns is permissible, they concluded, because it does not prohibit possession of “the quintessential self-defense weapon” — the handgun. However, fully automatic guns “pose a danger to innocent people and particularly to police officers.”

Because I live in Texas, I do agree that people should have the right to bear arms, but these rights should be modified. The reason that the editorial board found the judges’ conclusion acceptable is because they protected the 2^nd amendment but also supported the reasoning behind the ban because of the weaponry that many Americans have in their possession. It is reasonable to have a semi-auto rifle or pistol, but it can be dangerous to carry a modified one or automatic gun. The fact that many guns can be concealed patronizes others, especially law enforcement. Removing gun rights from the constitutional is unacceptable but making slight changes to gun rights is more than acceptable.

Obama impeachment a possibility, says Ron Paul

By DAN HIRSCHHORN | 10/3/11 3:52 PM EDT
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65035.html

On Monday, Ron Paul said the President Obama would be faced with potential impeachment due to his killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American born Al-Qaeda leader. When asked at a Manchester, N.H. town hall meeting, Texas congressman said impeachment would be “possible,” but that he wants to know more about how the administration “flouted the law.” Because al-Awlaki was American born, Paul, along with several other delegates, find Obama’s act a movement towards Tyranny.  Concluding the meeting Paul’s stuck with the civil libertarians who’ve criticized the targeted killing of an American citizen without public due process. “If our lives and our liberty are our own, we ought to be able to keep the fruits of our labor,” he said.

With America in dispute over Obama, it is interesting to see our Republican candidate’s viewpoints on our current president. Ron Paul clearly demonstrated his strong dislike for Obama but also showed the world his lack of common and moral sense. Paul put himself into odds when he gave comments over foreign policy in Manchester. Paul stated “I put responsibility on the president because this is obviously a step in the wrong direction,” and the act was “disrespectful to the constitution.” Al-Qaida, one of the world’s largest terrorist organizations, should be given American constitutional rights? Yes the member was American but America has been in the War against terrorism for the past 10 years. As a human, American or not, anyone joining an organization that practices onslaught and pre-meditated murder must be considered equals. Furthermore, the executive branch has made it a priority to eliminate all forms of terrorism, especially those that attack our country. If Ron Paul is this blinded by self gain, which has also been a trait President Obama has clearly displayed, how would “change” come to our nation that so many republicans desire? With the election right around the corner, it is important to comprehend the political beliefs and personality of a candidate.

Civics Quiz

Full Civic Literacy Exam - You answered 27 out of 33 correctly — 81.82 %