Unit 4

Defense Spending Myths: Cutting Through the Noise
Link:http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/03/08/1690591/defense-spending-myths/?mobile=nc

Everyone everywhere will be affected by the sequester. Thus a heated debate on how the defense budget will be cut. The first debate came when the house passed a bill to cut the budget of the Pentagon. Most debate has risen from how the defense spending will be cut most coming up with theories and possible ways to cut the budget. The first theory that they come up with is to measure the percentage of GDP to see the capability of how the military will achieve quests. All that goes into the GDP comes from private consumption, investment, and defense spending. If the GDP goes down while the spending is decreased but many think that how much is spent should not be determined by the GDP but by the level of threat and strategy. The second myth would that defense budget cuts would result in unemployment. Most of the unemployed would come from job programs and defense industry. The third theroy is that the Defense Department will be cutting at least $487 billion over the coming 10 years. The main reasoning is because, projected plans would increase the defense budget. However war spending has decline over the last years since the end of the Iraq war and the decrease in sending troops to Afghanistan.
There are many types of theories on how each part of the government will be effected by the sequester. Many are still unknown while some have adapted to coming up with a bill in order to cut a budget. This and hand comes in hand with what we have done in class. we have debated on if a bill should be passed, changed or denied, each party having their own view. On my view, I think that some of the projects that the military has should be cut because we are sort of wasting money on what we do not need. Also, there are better things in what the government should be spending with the money that they cut. 

Unit 3

The Sequester That Wasn't Meant To Happen Begins
Link:http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/03/01/173276447/the-sequester-that-wasnt-meant-to-happen-begins

      Many in Washington D.C never thought that they would have to come to an agreement to cut spending. The thought of cutting money from the federal budget was not a thought that cross the mind of the congress. Most spending cuts would be towards the Defense and domestics programs from the budget. Things in Washington are not what President Obama thought they would be from what he had planned. Most parties have demonstrated how defective they could be in this time being. Most Republicans would be more defensive when it comes to not cutting any money that goes towards the military and Democrats on federal spending, but both parties did not seem to be effected by so. However Republicans see it as a small advantage because they would get 1.2 trillion in overall federal spending cuts over 10 years. This in hand would also help the GOP with small government/low tax identity and would also have less public backfire with the sequester. On the Other hand Democrats are more alarmed with large federal spending cuts.  With the budget sequester it will in hand force both Democrats and Republicans to come to a compromise with the budget.  

Those in Washington seem to be the ones who are untouched with the upcoming sequester. Programs and benefits are being cut that are quite essential to the poor. Those in the upper class will be paying higher taxes when the sequester is approved. Some will be happy beacuse those who have a bigger paycheck at the end of the day pay more taxes later on but  tax increases will hurt jobs more than budget cuts. Over $85 billion will be cut in in 2013, in the coming years however, the amount that is cut will increase. 

Unit 3

Some GOP-led states look at electoral vote change 

Link:http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/25/politics/electoral-college/index.html?iref=allsearch

 Virginia's Republican-led state Legislature have considered changing the way they distribute the electoral votes. It was brought up to their attention during Obama's re-election in November. Obama won all 13 electoral votes while Romney won 11 of the congressional district votes. The legislature thought up of a new system they could use instead of the electoral college.
The number of congressional votes a candidate would get would determine the divided the electoral votes a candidate would receive. Thus the electoral vote would go to the candidate who won the most congressional districts. Those who approve of it do not see it as a violation of a demographic principle. They see it more as an opportunity  to step away from a "winner-take-all" system to become a more legitimate system.
 Many  however, disprove the plan that Virginia has proposed, those believe that the system they already use works just fine. Others see it as a bad idea because it would end in an endless cycle of recounting votes. However with this new system it would give a better chance for the republicans to win the electoral vote. The debate has risen on whether they should use it or not. The number of votes they receive should not matter, they should be more considerate of the people's choice. More people want a representative government. Each country and each district should have an equal voice in the electoral college.

Unit 3 
Obama's Gerrymander
Link:http://www.propublica.org/article/obamas-gerrymander

 Many question if Obama being elected was influenced by gerrymander of the districts. It was especially brought up during his political gain in the city of Chicago. 
 Some assume that Obama consulted with the Democrat party to "draw a state senate district tailored for him". The reason for why he took the action, was because the African-American region would not put faith into someone who attended the University of Chicago. However when it was further investigated, that in 1999, Obama was defeated campaigned against congressman, Bobby Rush who represented 62% of the African-American District. Therefore years later he was capable of reshaping the senate district when the Democrats were in control of Illinois redistricting. This in effect would boost Obama's influence to run for senate in 2004. 

Unit 2

Americans' 90% tax rate

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/08/opinion/mccaffery-marginal-tax-rates/index.html?iref=allsearch

Many of those who are living in poor economic conditions face losing benefits since marginal tax rates are increasing to at least 90%. Many were asked about their tax income in an opinion survey. Those who stood out in the survey were those with a low income.

In this article the poor are being targeted when it comes to facing marginal tax rates.  Most of them are losing as much as 90% in benefits when they try to improve their lives. Therefore some benefits that are being received will no longer work out. For example those who work more than 20 hours a week or more and decide to get another job because they may think it is helping them but actually hurting them.   During the poll some are flabbergasted when those make more than $300,000 a year only face an income tax rate of 39% or less.  For those who say that we should raise taxes on the rich, this would be one point in their argument that I would concur with.  However the reason for why they increase the tax rate for the poor is because of the government aid that many receive, mostly welfare. On the other hand not many receive or ask for government aid because they are working more. Some are trying to bring in more money for their children that they are supporting or sharing cost in a marriage. For many marginal taxes are debatable. As they have stated in the article, it I said that high marginal taxes are a “poverty trap” that keep the poor in a loophole of being poor and not being able to reach the middle class.  On the other hand it may seem impossible for those in low income classes to marry because of their economic status.  Many of those people are being thrown under the bus by political parties because they do not have a steady marriage but they fail to see that they cannot simple afford to be married by their economic status.

Unit 1   
McConnell: Debt debate 'starts today'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/02/mcconnell-debt-debate-starts-today/


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is ready to have a debate against Obama. McConnell is disagreeing about how much our government is spending especially government based programs. Basically the article is about how much the government spends/barrows based on our debt.
 What McConnell is proposing about cutting government based programs because they are the reason why we are in much debt is absurd. Some of the programs that the government runs are necessary and useful to to the public. The main reason of our money problems is from the current 16.394 trillion debts from all the money the government is borrowing. How has the country come to so much debt? However, congress will come with a deal that will cut spending as one of their budget resolutions. What congress needs to do, is to create more jobs to help get America out of debts instead of relying on debts and creating more debts.