Occupy Wall Street and What?

      Devin Rosario’s blog about the Occupy Wall Street as a “soft mannered revolution” leaves readers   slightly confused. Read his blog here: http://governmentmirror.blogspot.com/2011/11/occupy-once-more.html The article Devin blogs about is found here: http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/11/17/the-whole-world-watches-again-occupy-wall-street-strikes-back/

     He mentions speaking with Brighton Wallace of Austin, TX, but does not specify what Wallace said that was so passionate and driven or why Devin was fortunate to speak with him. Devin could have engaged his readers with dialogue from his and Wallace’s intimate conversation. In question also, is what Brighton Wallace’s job loss was a result of; what protestors are speaking out against? After writing of his conversation with Wallace he claims, “Since that day I have been approached by young men with bandana’s covering their faces, passing out packets often filled with grammatical errors and loosely worded paragraphs”. Readers are confused at his statement because it lacks background information why of young men are wearing bandanas over their faces or what the packets were about. Rosario leaves his readers with questions such as: the grammatical errors and loosely worded paragraphs are of what significance to the movement or us? What did the packets have inside them? Rosario needed to explain in detail how the packets the young men were passing out related to his amazement with the Occupy Wall Street movement.


     Rosario states, “It amazes me that in my time I would see a movement such as Occupy” and does not further explain why it is amazing. It would be to his advantage if he told his readers why Occupy Wall Street is important and not just compare the Vietnam protests to it. He goes on to say, “One of the biggest differences I noticed in this article was the anticipation leading up to November 17^th…”. Beside his sentence being too long he states their was a difference he noticed. Readers do not know what the difference is because they are not told what other event he is thinking of. I assume he meant an article on a Vietnam protest.

     Rosario ends his blog telling readers that the movement gains interest and publicity every day. He says the article he is blogging about inspires him to look further into the cause and success of the Wall Street Protest, yet he does not offer any links or websites with sources of reporting about the movement. Rosario left his readers with a link to the article he read, a brief recollection of speaking with a leader in the Austin movement and not much else.

As Our Country Continues to Die Congress Remains Stubborn about Taxes

     The November 23rd deadline is coming soon enough. Congress has been ordered to “to cut at least $1.2 trillion from federal spending. The real deadline, though, is Monday, when the Congressional Budget Office needs to put a price tag on any offer.”
Democrats and Republicans in the supercommittee have yet to reach a compromise on a 2012 budget. The problem is taxes. Republicans are laughing at the Democrat’s claim to have “met their offer on revenue”. Both parties are holding firm in their proposals. Democrats saying, “it has to be fair to the American people and done in a way that doesn’t put the burden on working families and addresses the issues of getting people back to work. We are waiting for them to accept that.” While Jeb Hensarling
argues, “I am unaware of any offer or any idea from any Democrat that did not include a minimum of a trillion dollars or more of tax increases.” Defending the Republican force and attacking the Democrats claim, Speaker John Boehner said, “You need to understand that there’s been exactly one proposal on the table in the committee. And that proposal came from the six Republican members – House and Senate. Where it was outlined what we’d be willing to do. There have been discussions among individual members but it’s very clear to be that there’s never been a Democrat position. Not one. Not one time have they coalesced around a plan that will address this issue.”
    
     The Democrats and Republicans plan to aggressively work on an agreement and prove they have made changes in their proposals accommodating the other party. With all the previous efforts to reach a compromise ending in stubborn resistance, there is little hope for Congress to agree this time. The Democrats believe they have adjusted the budget enough for Republicans to accept their proposal. Republicans say they have not seen any altering of the proposals from the Democrats. If one or the other does not put party affiliation aside and work for the American people, there will be no compromise.
Sources:


　
　http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68604.htmlhttp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/17/8864413-supercommittee-deadlocked-on-familiar-issue-taxeshttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68604_Page2.html#ixzz1e11ywWQ5http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68604.html#ixzz1e10ClJGJ

"Perry's Campaign Decision"

     I hope not to sound harsh, but I find Mrs. Yessica Martinez’ blog dull. The title lacks an attention grabbing phrase. Presidential campaigns are a current issue, however; our focus in government class should be on important issues. The campaign style of a presidential candidate falls far behind the importance of what is happening in Congress. With the recession, the failed Obama administration legislation, the occupy- wall -street protests, the bank’s criminal activities, there is so much more to report on and discuss. What I found interesting in her blog was the statement of how “These debates are just a way to discredit each other in front of the American people.” I found this worth reading because it reminds the American people of how we choose our leaders. Yessica simply offers her disappointment with how current political campaigns compare to those of the 19^th century, noting the old use of “stump speeches” where citizens could become more personally familiar with the candidates. Again, Mrs. Martinez’ blog lacked valuable news and research. She offered the blog readers a link to a website to read more about Perry’s decision to remove him-self from debates instead of paraphrasing and including a hyperlink to her research.  

     After reading her entire blog three times I found myself thinking, “I already knew that campaigns are not run fairly or for the purpose of showing what a candidate is made of behind the scenes.” If I were to revise this blog I would research how and why presidential debates affects our perceptions of them and what could happen to Perry’s votes  once he stops debating. Still, I wouldn’t use this blog for our government class because we are asked specifically to blog of politics in a critical thinking manner and this article would be that if there were more details about how the 2012 campaign dynamics would be affected.

 Mrs. Martinez' blog can be read here:

 

http://ymartinezaccgovt2305.blogspot.com/2011/10/perry-ignites-discussion-over-debates.html

 

Struggling with a Mortgage? "Sorry", says Obama Adminsitration.

Of all the news I’ve heard or read myself about our failing economy, this makes me the saddest. Also, I admit this is my biggest wake up call to the seriousness of our economy’s depression. HOPE was the promise Obama made to his supporters. His intentions were strong, bright, and energetic but have dimmed with the shortfalls of his efforts to help the economy; specifically the housing market. It has been said another recession is around the corner if Obama and Congress cannot strengthen the housing market or create more jobs. I believe it will be sooner than later that we see another recession due to increasingly faint progress.

The most critical choices in helping the housing market were strongly influenced by Treasury Secretary  Timothy F. Geithner and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan, claiming the market would only benefit from homeowners who had good credit because it would mean secure payments in the future if their monthly debt was reduced. That’s a logical assumption; however, homeowners who needed the most help are not currently in good credit and are unable to pay their mortgage every month. Currently, the Obama’s administration programs has permanently reduced one tenth of one percent of underwater borrowers debt. That percentage is ridiculous.

The HARP (Home Affordable Refinance Program) created by the Obama administration, intended to help underwater homeowners (people who owe more than their house is worth) with reducing their mortgage payments to avoid foreclosure. The argument for the program made by Obama’s chief advisors, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, and Secretary of Housing and Urban development, Shaun Donovan was that under this new program 11 million homeowners would be helped by the banks who received federal bailouts. Sadly, only 70,000 were assisted while 2.5 million homeowners foreclosed. After a revamp of the program, Obama decided to ask banks to forgive a percentage of homeowner’s debt without paying any additional taxpayer money to help cover the bank’s loss. In 2009 Obama originally supported a bill which would enable homeowners to have more power against banks in court which was said to force banks to reduce mortgage payments, but Timothy Geithner strongly advised against it stating, “If he had an extra $100 billion more to spend, he would never advise spending it on housing.” Obama decided to pass on the bill when it came time to vote on it in Congress.

Since then statistics of how little the HARP program has helped, Obama asked his administration to work harder on solving the mortgage crises. Currently, a $25 million settlement with banks over foreclosure abuses will be paid by reducing borrower’s debt. This settlement is almost at end with its process.  Despite the new efforts on Obama’s behalf, there were many opportunities for him to be more aggressive in fueling the housing market. Aware of how little HARP has helped Americans, he could easily demand banks to follow executive orders and reduce their borrower’s debt. Obama and his administration were aggravated by warnings from a former Bush administration FHFA (Federal Housing Finance Agency) director James Lockhart who said any money spent on the mortgage crisis would save money. Instead of bending to the warnings, they listened to the new FHFA director, Edward DeMarco, who was eager to control the largest mortgage owners, Fannie May and Freddie Mac. An official and confidential letter from DeMarco addressed to Donovan in 2011 stated he would not allow Fannie May and Freddie Mac to endure losses in their loans unless of course Congress used taxpayer money to help cover the loss. It was too late for that idea because Congress had then voted against new uses of funds.  

Everyone reading my blog knows of somebody in a mortgage struggle. The news of banks needing the tax money of their current borrowers to cover the loss of the same borrower’s reduced mortgage payment is sickening. You can relate to my disgust and will tell somebody about this depressing news. Students, parents, the employed and the unemployed all of you know the importance of the failure of HARP. It is common knowledge that we need to ask Congress for change. Write your representative here https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml. Tell them how home loss and financial trouble is killing our communities. Ask more of Congress in reducing mortgage debt for all homeowners.   

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-efforts-to-aid-homeowners-boost-housing-market-fall-far-short-of-goals/2011/09/22/gIQAoJdeAM_story_4.html

http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/new-refi-rules-offer-help-to-more-underwater-borrowers/

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/24/8470326-a-guide-to-administrations-new-mortgage-refi-plan

Senate Votes Against Obama’s Proposed Job Bill

          With Republicans and Democrats at war for holding Congress, voting on issues to improve the economy has become painfully aggravating. This past Tuesday “The American Jobs Act” bill proposed by Obama was shutdown, literally filibustered, by four Democrats and all Republican Senators.  Has your jaw dropped or have you choked yet? I came close to exclaiming, “NO WAY!” in the library when I came across this news. Seriously though, the bill in whole would have created almost two million jobs. Read that last sentence again please. Even though “The American Jobs Act” has good intentions, it did not win the hearts of all the Senators. I knew I had to research this crazy filibuster before I could be so justifiably outraged. After my research I came to the conclusion that it is OK this bill wasn’t passed because there are issues with its intended solutions.

          Bob Cesca of the Huffington Post blogged, “If you’re angry about the gloomy status of the economy, bookmark this post and remind yourself occasionally which group of politicians filibustered an iron-clad solution for job creation and economic growth”, angrily. I have a bone to pick with Cesca. Even though the majority of the votes against the bill were from Republican Senators, there were FOUR Democrats who voted against the bill. I am just as disgusted as Cesca is with how Republicans are notorious for disrupting negotiations in vital Congressional meetings, but he isn’t fair in blaming Republicans for the bill’s death. Also, Cesca uses 2/3 of his blog to inform his audience of how Republicans use clever deceiving names for bills that are disguised as beneficiary for the U.S. but are actually detrimental. He mentions the infamous Frank Luntz and his reputation of “popularizing the use of tricky opposite-day titles” for controversial issues such as, “’climate change’ instead of ‘global warming’”. As true as his statements are they do not focus on the filibustered bill or why it was filibustered. Cesca should inform his audience of why four Democrats voted against the bill and what the next step for the Senate is regarding the bill.  

So why did the Senate dismiss the bill? In a related blog by Jennifer Bendry, she discusses two Democrats who voted against the bill, Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Jon Tester (Mont.) and two other Democrats who voted to debate the bill but voted against the bill itself; Senators Jim Webb (Va.) and Joe Manchin (W. Va.).  According to Bendry’s blog Tester himself said, “The things I support in this bill are outweighed by the things I can’t support…It is an expensive, temporary fix to a problem that needs a big, long-term solution.” Before the vote Webb asserted “he couldn’t support the bill because of its proposal to offset costs by raising taxes on the wealthy….the real problem is that the bill would tax people’s ordinary income versus capital gains, where he said most wealthy people make their money” Even I can see how that is not a solution. These Democratic Senators have legitimate reasons for voting against the bill, which Cesca chose to omit from his blog.

There is hope, however. The Senate will dissect the bill after Obama chooses which areas of the bill he would like Congress to vote on. Bob Cesca failed to report that news in his blog as well; leaving his readers with the assumption that Republican Senators are always trying to completely deny any legislation in support of creating jobs. He is right, however that in the past Republicans have kept Congress in a rut and busy themselves with other issues instead of consuming all their time with job creation legislation. We will see how they vote when parts of the bill are presented later. Cesca’s blog is a rich example of how even Democrats (obviously who Bob Cesca is or favors) can mislead others; the exact action Cesca accuses Republicans of doing. If he wants to report such an important issue, he should report it with all the facts. This blog can be used to show students like me, they need to research an event which is blogged about to know the entire truth.

Blog Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/11/obama-jobs-plan-senate-vote_n_1005900.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/senate-republicans-succes_b_1008103.html

Tax Increases or Government Budget Cuts?

As every American knows by now, our country is in drastic trouble; that's an understatement. Yes, I know this is probably the millionth time you've read about how unorganized and unfocused our government is, and I know you have strong opinions about which party is to blame. I, however, truly am unbiased because I believe there is corruption everywhere in the government and too much corporate money levying our politicians. The New York Times featured an article reporting that Republicans are at fault for keeping our government and economy in a rut. The writer argues that Obama has, "given the supercommittee a clear blueprint for $3.6 trillion in deficit reduction through a mix of spending cuts and tax increases on the rich. If the committee followed even half of that program, it could exceed its original mandate, wrap up its work quickly and accomplish a great deal." (NY Times 1) The supercommittee they write of is a new committee which the Republicans have formed to brainstorm budget cuts that are supposed to save the economy; all the while leaving out tax cuts.

I agree with the author that Republicans are not resolving the economy by not compromising with Democrats, because that is what our government leaders should be able to do. On the other hand, I know the author feels strongly about the Democrat's tax increases on the rich and budget cuts across the board, but Republicans have a few logical reasons as to why they don't want tax increases. The author correctly observed that Republicans who oppose tax increases on the rich are not for the American people, but I doubt the author thought of how the Democrats would keep tax increases over the next decade if they held Congress. Is it wrong to increase taxes? Yes and no. The opposing argument I acknowledge is our country is dying and more tax revenue from the wealthy would help, but when would the taxing end? Can we trust Democrats or even Republicans to reduce taxes later? I don't want to entertain the idea of having 40-60% of each dollar I earn go to taxes. 

As Republicans fight for only budget cuts, they will soon realize that disproportionate cuts would be forced upon military spending, which is their main program of choice to keep a large budget for. The author writes, " If the two sides cannot agree, [Democrats and Republicans] there will be automatic cuts, which largely spare social-welfare programs but would severely reduce military and security spending." and they quote Rep. Howard McKeon saying, "It is my suspicion that the White House and Congressional Democrats insisted on that defense number for one purpose: to force Republicans to choose between raising taxes or gutting defense." How can McKeon blame the White House and Congressional Democrats for cornering Republicans when Republicans box in Democrats? The author is correctly identifying the outcome of the supercommittee's stubbornness. The author of this article clearly cheers on Obama and his will behind his proposed recovery plan and argues with mostly facts.

When they write,

    

     "The committee has only one option, Speaker John Boehner said a few days ago: cutting domestic spending and social-insurance programs, including Medicare and Social Security. Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, the co-chairman of the committee, said the president’s plan was “undermining the work” of the group.

     The opposite is true. Mr. Obama identified $570 billion in detailed cuts to mandatory spending programs over 10 years. If committee members actually looked at the plan, instead of dismissing it, they would find scores of useful proposals for savings: $31 billion in agriculture subsidies; $18.6 billion in Postal Service reform, including ending Saturday delivery; $27.5 billion in increased fees charged to lenders by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; $42.5 billion in higher health premiums and pension contributions for federal and military workers; $135 billion in less generous Medicare payments to drug makers."

The detailed cuts Obama proposed is true and the argument that if committee members looked at the proposal and recognized its potential, our economy could have a fighting chance is logical. Their obvious Democratic stand is not easy to find flaws with, but as with any argument there is another side. In conclusion, I find this author refreshingly calm and logical with their argument.

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/opinion/sunday/the-supercommittees-stark-choice.html?ref=editorials

The House Votes to keep Governement Open

The fiscal year ends September 30th 2011. A voice vote in the House last week approved federal funding for keeping Congress in session until the end of the fiscal year. The vote was quick and its usual opposing votes were not seen. Even the predictable politicians who would have objected to the vote stayed quiet to avoid the government shutdown and to argue against the Democratic budget plan for 2012 on the first Tuesday of the new fiscal year. The calm and mature nature of the vote is new for the American people to see; especially since all the conflict and stubbornness intoxicating the House has been frustrating and unbelievable. This article reports that certain "mavericks" that are in the GOP should soon be seen before midnight Thursday September 29th to throw out the vote. I would be disappointed to hear such a stupid report because our government needs to start agreeing on and passing budget plans for 2012; it's their job. As of now, government spending and budget plans for 2012 are vital to our economy; which is why this article is top news.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-shutdown-vote-expected-to-be-quick-but-crucial/2011/09/28/gIQA3SR04K_story.html