The accurate glance at the ACA!

In the media, they will blow things out of proportion a hell of a lot bigger then it should be. In Carlos Aguirre’s post on Blame it on Obama, Carlos lays out the negative side effects of the Affordable Care Act on the website itself. I am afraid that the website is not the only thing (if it is not working properly) that the populace should be worried about. What a lot of people do not know is the personal and business mandates that the law encircles. The website itself is just a scratch on the surface of a massive, and bigger problem waiting to be unearthed. Since the passing of the act back in 2010, Obama’s administration had 3 years to get everything in order, so that by the time it was time to enforce the law, there would be very little to worry about. I do understand that the affordable care act is meant to be a big overhaul since Medicaid was instituted under the Johnson administration in 1965. I also think it is safe to say that the nation needed some type of reform to healthcare since its foundation 48 years ago. Romney, who campaigned for the election in 2012, had set up a health insurance program back in the state of Massachusetts when he was governor.

         The 40 million Americans that Obama has promised to fight tooth and nail for that never had health care coverage will hurt people in the process. The website is what we should not be worried about. The thing that we should be worried about are the personal mandates, which will take affect this coming tax season; and the business mandates, which have been delayed a year. After Obama said that people could keep their insurance plans, during the enrollment period; those same insurance plans were “randomly” dropped due to insurance companies not being able to meet government regulations. These insurance companies had no other choice but to cancel those who were insured before, which were the same people that were told that if they liked their plan they could keep it by Obama.

         Furthermore, The Affordable Health Care Act’s business mandate will be responsible for the lay off for those that currently have a middle class job. Small business’s who show more then 50 employees on their books will have to meet stricter government regulations by the year after next. It is already proposed that these small businesses will have to lay off people in the process. Businesses will be in the same boat as the insurance companies. Having to cancel plans because their hands were tied behind their back because of government regulation, small businesses will be incapacitated because of the Affordable Care Act.

         On top of paying an increasing tax, if someone is not federally covered by a health plan in the years to come, to businesses drastically cutting jobs; the website enrollment numbers are, to me, not worthy of consideration. If we are focusing on negative enrollment numbers due to a poor website rollout, then we are going to set ourselves up for failure down the road, because there is a ton more in which people will be affected, in a negative sense, in the upcoming years. I think that the generalized media is doing a piss poor job, like usual, in only focusing on a small fraction of the encompassing and unabridged problem that, we as a nation, are going to suffer with a great and inconsolable fate.

The Perennial Benchmark of Hypocrisy

Upcoming is another strike day for fast-food workers who want to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour. One of the arguments that faces this nation is whether or not raising the wage can help keep employers around, thus producing a steady job rate growth; or hurt jobs in the long term effect. At The Daily Beast, Brandy Zadronzny posted a business article on December 9,2013. Included with the article is a chart showing the minimum wage as a percentage of hourly earnings from 1938-2013. What’s interesting to note is that one would expect the wage to rise during periods of inflation since the great depression. Making the data more interesting is that from the late 1960’s to the early 70’s, we had in increase in inflation but the peak of $11/hour in the late 60’s has been on the decline to $7.25/hour. Along with congressional support of raising the wage over the next two years to $10.10, the president shows his support of the raise. Whether or not if a dramatic increase to $15 would promote or hurt the job markets (in particular fast food chains), but my stance on the argument would be the value of the workers that lie within the employers eyes. I think that there are many hardworking individuals who are some what disfranchised from climbing the ladder to success and, in effect, working in the fast food business is all they do in life. If a worker, who works at a fast food chain, is a hard laborer at their job, then they should be compensated for their work. I think in this case that fast food chains are there to serve as a starting step in a working career.  If you want to be more valuable to your employer, then an individual should take all steps to move to a career path that will benefit them, for the better good, in their life.

An inimical look at gay rights.

In response to the post titled Stay out of this! by Dreams for the American People, the argument is stated on how gay rights should be available to every same sex couple. As implied by the separation of church and state, the US government or states should not have a say of whether two people of the same sex can’t or can be married. Also argued, is that all of the states should adapt to gay rights as legal forms of marriage.

One of the arguments that’s against gay rights, I find, that is hardly ever is spoken of is the basic function of society survival. Instead, a lot of anti gay rights arguments evolve around religious perspectives. Russia is an example of a country that has passed laws against gay rights. In promoting the conservative government body, Russia has put forth that it is illegal to distribute publications or propaganda promoting homosexual activity. Also in the law is the power to impose taxes among those who end up marrying in a non-traditional way and divorcing, even in a traditional marriage.

Yelena Mizulina, who is a member of Russia’s parliament, has said this is necessary for the Russian people because of a sharp decline in demographics have been occurring since the end of the cold war. Battling this concern with declining birthrates, Russia has put in effect this law to ensure Russia prosperity into the future. To the extent, Russia portrays the US as a dissipated western superpower in inflicting a moral decline on the people of Russia.

Even though the US survival is not on the minds of the majority of people, I think it still plays an important part in continuing the US prominence in the world. While not mentioning any religious points of why gay rights could harm us, I think population growth is a reason why some in the US are reluctant to move a head with gay rights. A country is great because of its people and population. In making sure the survival of the country depended on the legitimacy of why the constitution was written, I think that the framers would see this as a threat to the documents they drafted more then 200 years ago.

The Puppet Master of Big Governement

It's amazing what you learn from the first time you vote. Even though I have voted at times over the last decade, the first time you vote, you expect to go in to select a candidate for a office and get out. In all of the elections that people participate you can sometimes vote for a candidate, depending on if its a general or primary election, but you will find out out anytime you do vote there are propositions and amendments to vote on. Meaning every time you do vote there are cases were you will not be voting for someone to office.
I remember back in the 2004 general election, I went in to vote for a candidate and then looked at the rest of my ballot I had to fill out. About 2/3rds to the majority of the ballot were propositions and amendments to the state of Florida. I had no idea what the hell I was reading. Everything was in a complex language with terms I did not understand. I literally felt like a fool standing there trying to decipher the wordage for the numerous amendments while people were waiting in line for me to finish. By the time I finished darkening the circles, I must have had 5 to 7 sets of elderly citizens on each side of me pass me up. I felt like they knew everything that was going on in the local community. Presumably being retired military seniors while enjoying the emerald waters off the gulf coast of Florida, they probably had nothing better to do then gossip about the same propositions I was having a hard time understanding. My point in being that the generation voted with me that same day  understand the proper balance between the national government and state / local governments. They knew that in the local community it was there that they could make the most improvements for their welfare of themselves and those around them.

Moving back to today, I was stunned that out of the 9 amendments that were proposed none were readily talked about in the local news outlets (local talk radio and the local tv stations). The big headlines for the Austin local area were of course the entrenching side affects of Obama care, which has been going strong for the last 3 weeks, and the criticism of a town council member taking an extravagant trip to south Africa using tax dollars. Not once did I hear anything relating to the water conversation projects and amendments that the city and state have debated on, or the reverse mortgages that seniors might be able to apply for during an agreement to purchase another house.

 I look back to the wisdom and knowledge that the seniors had when they voted and can only assume one thing: We are being distracted, today, from the local concerns that we should have to enrich the lives around us locally; and sacrificing that distraction to make us focus on the trustworthiness of the national government. In looking up numbers and statistics to support this I went directly to the Pew Research site and pulled up a graph showing how the trustworthiness of the governments has been in rapid decline over the last 50 to 60 years. It shows that back in the late 1950's, when this data was recorded, that 73% of the time, you would be able to trust the national government to to do its job and probably not have to worry about national affairs to the extent to what is reported today. Logically, in the same period, a citizen would have a better understanding of what was going on in the local community; and by the time it was time to vote, people knew what the important topics were and how they would affect the local community as a whole. As one looks at the same graph today, being at a low 19%, I think its safe to presume that the media has focused our attention from local concerns to national concerns.

In all I think this trend hurts the nation in more drastic ways. If you go into vote and see that the majority of a ballot deals with local concerns that are proposed to amend the states constitution, then how much harder is it going to be to focus on a local level then it was 60 years ago?

The insidious view: Lets blame the Constitution for this one!

With the polls showing that the majority population blames the House of Representative and the faction of the Tea Party Republicans for the government shutdown, there are others who are pointing the finger to the documents that founded this nation as to blame for. To begin with I hope the particular tone of this article, from the blog, Think Progress, does not reach any major news media outlets as to render it as "news worthy" material. If it does, I will be more than happy to literally throw the "book of ignorance"at them.

In the article titled Don't Like the Shutdown? Blame The Constitution, a blogger by the name of Ian Millhiser from Think Progress published a piece on September 30, 2013. The article argues how the Constitution provided the means to cause the shutdown. Providing that we should look to other countries, like Canada, for thier wisdom and knowledge on preventing future government shutdowns; we should emulate a parliamentary system in place of our current democracy. He goes on to describe that Canada faced a budget crisis, much like the US, and was able to resolve the crisis by holding an election in order to resolve the impending doom that was at Canada's doorstep. Based on their "Parliamentary Democracy", the chief executive (president) can be efficiently replaced by the parliament based on a election to equalize disputes and arguments. Faced with a budget crisis, the president can be voted out by congress so that a deadlock can be averted to allow life to go on. One might argue that this would be a very good way of solving future issues in the US. Once faced with a crisis, congress can throw their weight around and put someone in control to favor their argument over the president polices.

The House of Representative, which are controlled by the Republicans, would not pass the fiscal year budget without first coming to an agreement between the senate and the President to defund the ACA (the Affordable Care Act / "Obamacare"). With the Senate and President not willing to cave in to the republicans side of the vote, a dead lock occurred and the spending budget was not passed once October 1st hit, causing the impending government shutdown.

However, the US is established by a sitting president that exercises a "Presidential Democracy". In the Constitution, it is set in stone that elected officials will have 2, 4, or 6 year terms. 2 year terms for the House for each state, 4 year terms for the president, and 6 year terms for the senators from each state. These terms are set forth in the Constitution, so that there can be an equal power shift from the state representation to the national (big government) representation of the country. Looking back at history, the balance of powers had flaws generated in the Articles of Confederation. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist took part in argument as to what was best for the problems they were facing after the Revolutionary War. They sure as hell did not want to go back to a parliamentary system where one side has more power then the other. A better constructed argument for this article could have been based on the process and need for an amendment to be put in place of blaming the Constitution as whole for the latest government shutdown.

A solution to Immigration Reform

In Fixing Immigration From the Ground Up The New York Times published an opinion from the editorial board on October 6, 2013. Among the predicaments that face this nation, the question is asked can California set a conclusive example to nudge the national government to move forward in immigration reform? Back in June of 2013 the democratically controlled senate passed a bill for immigration reform. However, this bill was unpopular in the republican controlled house. The failed vote for a complimentary path to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants forced congress back to the drawing board. The House contended that the enforcement of borders was the unfolding precedence in debate, while the senate favored an extension to a broader pathway for citizenship into the country.

California, which is home to an estimated 2.5 million immigrants, proposed a bill that was signed by the state. In hoping to spotlight California onto the national stage, Governor Brown contributed a solution in the form of a bill, titled The Trust Act. The Trust Act is meant to reproach Obama’s agenda and congresses idleness by making it harder for the US Customs and Border Protection agency to deport unauthorized California’s aliens. Trying to set a positive example for the rest of the nation, the governor’s goal was to “lessen the problems” by “protecting [the] civil rights and public safety” of a large population of California, who are non-violent criminals that “live outside the law”. Referring to illegal immigrants, as the subject, the product of The Trust Act set way for other bills and provisions that were also signed separately by the state of California.

On the agenda, California has enabled a pathway for certain immigrants to become licensed lawyers. Other items that have been introduced are issuing drivers licenses, opportunities to work as poll officials during an election, and a measure to allow immigrants to serve on juries. The opinion argues that, by expanding basic human rights while finding approachable solutions, California is on the leading edge of immigration reform. Even though a single state cannot fix immigration reform for the rest of the nation, it can be a start to press congress for an agreement to move forward on immigration reform.

I can admire the state for providing a solution to the problem facing immigration reform. However, the state of California is accomplishing, in my opinion, a short term fix that could lead to bigger problems. For instance, the state bills that would let immigrants drive, serve on juries, and work as polling officials in elections without obtaining a social security number to fulfill civic duties, scares me. A thing comes to mind that is not published in this opinion is the fact that one of the largest banks in the US came out to the public, a couple of years ago, saying that they would start accepting credit card applications without a social security number. As being insightful to the argument, the issue of being able to get credit to pay for transactions, or serving in basic traditional civic duties without a social security number can lead to bigger problems such as identity theft. By 2040 it is estimated that minority groups, once combined, will be the majority of the population within the borders of the United States.

I believe that we cannot ignore a predictable trend that in mere decades, immigrants and minorities will be the majority of the population. I recognize that the state of California is trying to provide  solutions to the nation and a stagnated congress on immigration reform; but before applying short term fixes to please a populace, the elected officials should look at the situation more closely to prevent overlooked problems that could arise in the future. For now we can see congress and the other branches of government trapped into a corner; with two sides brawling over a different policy that has split the nation on both sides of the fence. As for immigration reform, the subject remains in inactivity, even if the state of California moves towards solutions to prod a national government into action.

The Looming Government Shutdown

As the deadline for October 1st approaches, are we headed towards talk of yet another government shutdown? This article published on September 21, 2013 on NPR's site by Tamara Keith could tell us all about the impending event. In short, the House passed a stopgap bill to ensure that funding would continue until December 15 of this year. The only condition, the bill calls for defundment of the The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act. Anticipating that President Obama will veto the House's proposed stopgap bill, the Senate will refuse to defund one of the most fought over pieces of legislature that has come across the House and Senate. In turn, a looming government shutdown is fast approaching if congressional approval is not met by October 1^st. Should we be worried about this? The answer is absolutely. The last time a government shutdown occurred was in 1996. During that time, federal employers were furloughed and essential employees went without a paycheck. The Congressional Research Service later reported that the shutdown hit the tax payer with a $1.4 billion fee. So, if the funding or defunding of The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act does not adversely affect yourself, you might notice a slight decrease in your tax refund or pay check if Congress does not take action.