Setting Stage Eight for a Solution

Are Americans growing tired of the bipartisan ways? Jeremy Schmidt seems to think so in his article “Final Thoughts on Politics.” “[B]ipartisanship has torn our country’s national government in two, both sides seemingly destined to disagree on everything they possibly can.” He discusses the continuing fighting between the political parties and distain followers of one party have for those of the other party. People of the nation dislike each other simply because of their political ideology. Schmidt details how one representative voiced his frustration for his colleges voting along party lines and not personal feelings. Schmidt makes a radical suggestion: destroy the two party system.
I must commend Schmidt for not blaming a single party for these issues. Many people are not willing or unable to step outside of their political view. Normally people claim it is the other guys fault. However, it is the system that is broken. The nation has forgotten how to simply talk to each other and workout political issues. In elementary school everyone learns that they must give a little to get a little. Political parties do not want to give a little. Yes, abortion is a dividing issue, but why can parties not talk about dealing with the budget or tax cut. By handling issues that are not as divided maybe people can regain faith in the government. However, currently the government is broken
Yes, I agree with Schmidt that the system needs to be fixed, but I do not know how. Schmidt’s ideal of eliminating parties seems ideal, but I am not sure how to implement that. People naturally want to join with like minded people. Would we make this illegal? Would it just be a free for all in running for office?
This article is must read because it deal with the basic issue of government and it offers a solution, something few people are willing to do.

Stage Seven of Knowledge

Republican leader Mike Pence confirms that the GOP has credibility issue in regards to their budget plan in his interview with Meet the Press. The GOP has advocated keeping the Bush era tax cuts, but they have not purposed away to make up for the tax deficit this will cause. Pence acknowledges that he has been trying to deal with runaway spending done by Republicans. However, he says that republicans now understand their problems and can deal with them, but Democrats still do not acknowledge their problems.
Now I am a proud Democrat, but I must give kudos to the Republican Party. National parties have spent so much of this campaign season, and every past one, showing the faults of the other party. Democrats discus how the Bush administration lead us to war, cut tax for the rich, and did not do enough for the poor. Republicans have bashed health care reform, continued high jobless rate, and continued down fall of the economy. Yes, these are all valid issues, but it is refreshing that a party can look at the issues that it has.
The tax cuts given to the wealthy and businesses were meant to cause a trickledown effect, but it is against the GOP’s basic ideal. The GOP advocates getting the government budget under control, but continuing tax cuts jeopardize the budget. The GOP leader does not offer a solution, but it is refreshing to hear an honest admission that sometimes people do not know all the answers.

Stage Six Bipartisan System is the Problem

The 2010 blog How’s Obama Doing? features an article entitled “Obama? Really?” this details the author’s distain for President Obama’s current performance. Included in President Obama’s short coming is a list of promises he made during the election campaign that have yet to be realize. For example, his promise to remove troops, but has subsequently sent more troops into the war. In addition are “the economy, health care, legislation, Congress, politics itself and many other issues.” In addition, the author feels Obama’s race is the sole reason he got elect, but that it is time to go back to the days in which honest was how we judge presidential contenders
I do respect the author intellectual courage to be able to stand up and say that race played a role in the election, but I fear that the author may be crossing into intellectual arrogance. People across the nation truly believe race placed a large part in Obama’s election. Yet, few can say it out loud out of fear of being judge. I must commend the author for this. However, sometimes in stating beliefs it is forgotten one does not know all.
Obama being elected was because McCain made a careless mistake. Prior to pick his VP McCain pointed out Obama for lack of experience in foreign affairs. Obama heeded this warning and selected a VP that had more experience especially in foreign affair. Though, McCain ignored his own warning and pick an Alaskan governor, who admitted herself she did not know how things worked in Washington. Yes, race played a role from getting people to vote for Obama and for people not voting for him. However, to belittle the people that they could not vote for him on other points, such as the poor performance of the previous resent, is highly unfair to their intelligence. Even if that was the case, then I think we should fear for the nation no matter which party is in office
In addition, the nation must remember that congress is the law making body. The president does not work alone, but must get approval of others. People are angry with President Obama for not enacting policies. However, he can only make his issues and point of view know, but congress has the ultimate say. Yes, you should be but also be mad at our congressmen who cannot get off their parties high horse to work together. Be made at our bipartisan system.
I feel this article does make valid point, but fail to acknowledge what the author just does not know. Am I a loyal Obama supporter? Yes. Do I think he has screwed something up? Yes, but I also recognize that he is not alone. Every year we hear promises from candidates, but they cannot accomplish anything until we stop this party line voting.

Setting Stage Five for Right v. Wrong.

On Capitol Hill representatives got an impassioned and much needed speech about simply doing what is right. representatives introduced a bill deciding if 9/11 first responders should receive medical care. However, the GOP had enough votes to prevent its passage. New York Representative Anthony Weiner was infuriated that his fellow representatives said the bill presented was good, but the procedure was not right. The procedure the GOP talked about was that in a previous vote, it was decided that the bill could not be amended. Rep. Weiner did not have an issue with people who did not support the content of the bill. However, he was enraged at those who claimed the bill was good and the right thing to do but felt the house should fallow normal procedure on all bills.

Even if some felt Weiner’s speech was overzealous, he ultimately spoke of the main issue with government. The nation has grown sick of congressmen and presidents who tell of everything they will change, but once in power do nothing. Every four years there is a claim that immigration form will occur, yet still hasn’t. Congress needs to stop worrying about procedure, whether it is being able to amend a bill or voting with party lines. Instead they merely stop and do what they believe is right and wrong. This means if they think the measures per posed by a bill are wrong then yes vote not, but if they believe the bill is right then vote yes. It is only when the nation can see that the congress is concerned with right and wrong will people have faith that the government is looking out for its citizens.

Stage Four Tax Cuts=Trouble

Christopher Beam asserts that the nation must let the Bush era tax cuts expire is not the same as increasing taxes in his 2010 Slate editorial, “Taxonomy.” In 2001 and 2003 the Bush administration gave tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and business on the bases that the trickledown effect would save the economy. For example “The Bush tax cuts, for example, slashed the top estate tax from 60 percent in 2001 to 45 percent.”

Beam is able to connect with an audience that does not understand the political jargon of Capitol Hill. He first explain in lemans teams the different ways that taxes can change. Finally, beam explains that letting the tax cuts expire is what this nation needs because it will restore the “world as it was and should be” and is not punishing the wealthy.

I suggest every person reads this article not because he is the most persuasive, but you do learn something. Beam understands that the slate audience is a younger that does not want the strenuous details of politics. So, he writes for those people, however, his writing would not be taken serious by those outside this circle. So why do I say you should read it? You learn about tax. Everyone is affected by taxes and it is our job to know what options the government has when it comes to taxes.

Beam I give you a C on persuasiveness, but a B+ on educating the masses.

Richard Cohen asserts that there is no hope for President Obama to increase his approval rating in his 2010 Washington Post article, “Who is Barack Obama?” Cohen details the continuing down fall of the economy and the health care reform that has not had an impact. In addition, the American public does not trust President Obama because his promises on these issues are constantly changing. Though I still have full faith in President Obama and that the Democrats are not a lost cause for the midterm election or the presidency in two year. I cannot deny the soundness of an argument from a man with extensive political knowledge.

Cohen uses his extensive knowledge of history to detail the parallels between President Obama and Regan’s administration. By midterm in Regan’s presidency his approval had steeply fallen and a recession continued, but the worst came when “Republicans lost House seats in the 1982 midterm elections, just as the Democrats are fated to do.” Cohen asserts that if President Obama’s ratings are falling and the recession continues then the Democrats will lose seats like in Regan’s midterm election and trouble is ahead for President Obama in two years. Cohen’s uses a classical valid argument form, hypothetical syllogism. This allows the readers to follow his train of thought and to trust he is not over simplifying the issue. In addition, given the history of politics we must also conclude that his premises are truthful and not simply a rant of emotions. his argument is a valid and all premises are true, this can only mean the argument as a whole is sound.

However, a sound argument must come from someone with extensive knowledge and Cohen has knowledge of politics. He has been reporting exclusively on politics for the Washington Post since 1968. This only adds to the faith the diverse readers of the Washington Post have in Cohen to revel the truth as he sees fit.

Stage Two See who the Third branch Sides With

According to CNN President Obama does not believe the issue of immigration will be settled this year, however, he hopes for a bipartisan solution eventually. This hope comes as the federal government files a federal lawsuit to prevent the infamous Arizona immigration law from going into effect. The Arizona law makes it legal for officers to ask to see immigrants alien registration paperwork if and only if the officer is stopping that person for another reason (speeding, public intoxication, etc). There has been much talk that this law will cause racial profiling, but the federal government is not basing its case on this. Instead the federal government says that the law is violating the supremacy clause because immigration is under the federal, not state government control. The law will be heard in federal court and may go to the Supreme Court.

This article is a must read for two reasons: immigration reform is emanate and state v. national government. A new branch of government is being brought into this heated issue. This battle will go to the Supreme Court. What will the third branch say? If the court rules with the state will it push our states to make their own immigration laws? However, if the court sides with the federal government will the nation demand a decision as to how to deal with illegal immigration? The second issue, what is a states right and what is the national governments right? We have been through a period in which states are gaining more power and federal government is being pushed out. This will be interesting to see which way the court will rule.