I share the same opinion as K. Reading in her commentary “National Prayer Day??? Can there be such a thing…?” She states that even though she is not personally offended by the establishment of the day, she thinks it is not the government’s role to do it. Besides my belief that the National Prayer Day was first created with the noble intention of peacefully celebrate all forms of religion, it may not be the right thing to do.
Actually, not only is our opinion that government should play no role in religion, but as we studied in class the First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” Thus, the creation of a National Prayer Day is unconstitutional. And that leads me to think: if the establishment of a National Prayer Day is not right, then the national holiday of Christmas day should not be right either, since it is a celebration important for determined religions only.
The separation of the state and the church is an idea that was first defended in The United States by Thomas Jefferson. Although it is not directly stated in the Constitution, the First Amendment supports the idea. However, it does not forbid the President of saying “God bless America” after every speech to the nation - act that, for me, seems very contradictory.
The educational system is always an issue during electoral campaigns. And it should be. A nation should always try to improve their citizens’ education, since knowledge today is more important and decisive than in any other time. President Obama promised to reform from kindergartner to high school, invest more in early childhood education and make colleges more affordable. It is a big promise, which he has not fulfilled yet, but at least he started.
One of the steps he took towards the reform of education concerned the affordability of college. He states his goal: “by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.” These changes are happening through the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act and they consist of a stronger Pell Grant program that makes student loans directly without involving banks, investments in community colleges and more support for Minority Serving Institutions.
I understand that those are already very helpful changes and it certainly increases the chances for more people to have a higher education. However, they do not seem enough. College tuitions are extremely costly, even at universities that receive public funds. The American government offers student loans, which sometimes is the only chance for a person to go to college; but after he or she graduates, payments will have to be made sometimes for up to 20 years. And there are the books and other materials. I am finishing my third semester at ACC and I still cannot understand how a very used book can only be $15 cheaper than a brand new one that costs $100– I am sure it does not happen just in Texas. The total cost of a college is extremely high.
In my point of view, The United States has the capability of developing a fairer college education system; one that allows more people to enter universities without having to make huge debts. Maybe one that offers the students the possibility to work for the government after graduation for a certain period as a form of payment. Or even universities completely subsidized by public funding. All we need is a government willing to make the difference between the poor and rich become smaller.
I beg to disagree with my classmate Claudia Franco’s opinions expressed in her text “Legally Driving Controversy.” She supports that illegal immigrants should be granted with a driver’s license. I am an immigrant as well, but I do not support giving driver’s license to illegal immigrants.
I think the adjective already says a lot: “illegal.” If a person is in the country against the law, I do not see how such an important document should be given to this person. It is not fair with the American citizens and legal immigrants who pay taxes in order to have good public schools, roads and other kinds of public services, like the police and fire department. Illegal immigrants also take advantage of these public services and do not help maintaining them. Simply giving driver’s license to illegal immigrants will not solve any of the country’s problems, but it will just disguise them.
I sympathize with tough stories of people who come to this country to make a better living and help family in their home country; I personally know people who have been through this. However, in my point of view, the right way to look for better opportunities in The United States is to come legally to this country and show to the American people and government that you are willing to be a good citizen and not break the law.
I agree in one point with Claudia Franco when she says that “The United State should make a law that can help the country because our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed some way.” Immigration laws are tough and it usually takes a long time, even years, and a considerable amount of money for any one who tries to move here. I understand that certain requirements should be fulfilled, but I believe theses processes should be quicker, especially for those who already have family living here and are willing to sponsor the new immigrant.
The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 and enforced in 2005. 186 countries have ratified it. It is the year 2010 and the United States, the second in the list of the countries that most release carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, has not ratified the Protocol yet.
During the last administration there was the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which has good energy efficiency provisions, but not all of them were approved. (Annex, 2007) It was the only major act on energy policy and not entirely successful. It demonstrates the lack of interest of the Bush’s administration in looking for more efficient ways of producing energy (or maybe I should say a great interest in maintaining energy production/consumption the way it is.) Also, the non-ratification of the Kyoto Protocol showed the country was not willing to make environmentally protective decisions in detriment of business profits. That can be the only explanation, since the knowledge of the damage that greenhouse gases have been doing to our planet is well known for decades.
Obama seems and talks as if he were a lot more concerned about the production of clean energy. And he should be. The delay of the American government to take actions on this matter has been bringing considerable damage to the whole world. Considering that the United States is the second country that most releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, just imagine how much change it would bring to our planet if the American government were more seriously committed to reducing its emission levels of polluting gases. It would represent a huge impact on nature.
I am very hopeful that this administration will pass an energy bill that will bring significant changes. Obama has already proved to be a lot more committed to it when in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act $80 billion were designated to help clean energy investments. He also increased fuel economy standards for cars and trucks produced in 2011 and on. I hope the Legislative finally understands the importance of clean energy and support the President efforts in this issue. It would be a great opportunity for the country to demonstrate the concern with the world’s nature and it would also be an opportunity to rebuild the image of the United States before the other nations.
Steve Benen is the writer of “When the Leader of the Free World Leads,” published in his blog in the online magazine Washington Monthly. He states his favorable opinion on President Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit. Benen claims that the President’s posture regarding international issues has been improving the way other countries see the United States. In other words, this Nuclear Security Summit not only works in terms of national/world security but also works strengthening the United States politically – a belief that I share with Benen. Before explaining how great are the changes that President Obama has been making, he gives us some of the reasons why the U.S. has been losing its power as a leading country. The author presents real examples of foreign matters with which America has not succeeded, like “getting the Israelis and Palestinians on a two-state pathway; or ending the anachronistically simmering Cold War conflict in U.S.-Cuba relations; or persuading Iran to forgo a nuclear weapons track.” By presenting first the evidence that things were not going well for the America’s image before the world, Benen gives even more strength to what is presented after. Next, examples of Obama’s positive actions are presented. Some of the examples are: “the breakthrough on a new arms treaty with Russia, followed by the Nuclear Posture Review, followed by this week's successes during the Nuclear Security Summit.” These actions, according to Steve Benen, demonstrated that the President is able to fulfill promises and that he does not make shallow or bilateral proposes, but applicable and realistic ones. The author clearly leans to the Democratic Party and writes to a Democratic audience. Even though his text follows a logic pattern (the statement of his claims followed by evidences of how things were and how things are becoming), I believe more evidence would have to be presented if it were written to Republican readers.
The article entitled “Don’t blame Congress for leaders’ faults,” written by the History and Public Affairs Professor at the University of Princeton Julian E. Zelizer, is a comment on Senator Evan Bayh’s words about the Congress. Senator Bayh said he would not run for another term because he thinks the Congress became a “dysfunctional institution.” After mentioning Bayh’s words, Zelizer affirms he is not the first one to make the complaint, but he does not mention other names, what makes it somewhat vague.
Despite agreeing with Senator Bayh’s view and even mentioning some of the difficulties in legislating, like “the use of filibusters, the power of interests groups and their lobbyists and the pressure to fundraise,” he points out to the fact that it is not fair to blame exclusively on the system, but the failures in the leadership should also be accounted. Zelizer explicitly criticizes the Democratic Party and clearly states the problems in leadership he is talking about. First, he addresses to the fact that the White House in the year of 2009 seemed to have let go of some power and let the Congress impose the “timing and substance of legislation.” Second, the Professor drew attention to the lack of ability of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in moving important bills, like health care and climate change. Those critiques are not only fair to be made, but also well supported by his direct approach.
The main point of Zelizer’s article is to show that the gaps and difficulties of the Legislation system should not be entirely blamed and that leaders are the main responsible for failures. In order to prove that it is possible - despite all the challenges - to make major changes when enough effort is made by congressmen, Zelizer cites several historical examples, like Teddy Roosevelt and the Speaker Joe Cannon, and even the case of Judge Howard Smith of Virginia, who blocked a bill by leaving town instead of showing for the meeting. By revealing historical evidence to the readers, Zelizer gives more power to his criticism of those who blame everything on Congress and do not use their power and leadership to solve great problems of our current society.
Julian Zelizer’s text is a fair critique of the work being - or not being - done in Congress. He is very direct and objective, giving support to all of his complaints. He exercises a fair critique by pointing out that, even though Congress failed in passing big bills, it is active with smaller issues. However, I beg to disagree that “laments about congressional process are old and will always be with us.” If laments are constant and numerous, the people, the voters, ought to recognize that and demand changes.
The news on a health care practice written by Jennifer Hyde and Drew Griffin for CNN is definitely worth reading. Entitled “’Perverse incentive’ in current health care system,” it draws the attention to how people who work in the health care are paid. According to the researcher cited in the news, Dr. Elliott Fisher, “they are rewarded for more services, not better services. They are rewarded for more care, not better care.” This may originate in some cases the malpractice of asking for more medical services than needed, like an excessive number of exams or very long stays at hospitals without the need for it. They explain the particular case of McAllen, here in South Texas, where beneficiaries of Medicare spend almost twice the national average, most probably due to malpractices mentioned before. Hyde and Griffins words are good reminders of the duty of citizens to keep themselves alert to misuses of public resources, like Medicare. The facts presented certainly help the ordinary citizen analyze the urgency for a health care reform so that good health care can be evenly distributed and at a fair price.
