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.