Thursday, November 29, 2007
Take a Lead Requires more than Being a Good Politician
Gwaltney had talked about in class how when one canidate starts to get a lead, things get a little nasty on campaigns. Candidates attacking other candidates within the presidential elections through private and personal matters. For example, Romney went Christmas shopping with his grandchildren to display more dedication to his family, as a campaign against Giuliani. Then Giuliani had uncovered some criminal records of Romney. With New Hampshire Primary six weeks away, candidates are doing anything to influence the public for a vote.I thought it's interesting because it discussed how the campaigns took a different turn with primaries coming up. Now that the candidates are officially in the race, they are attacking every weak point to get ahead. And then the whole issue on hilary. All the other democratic canidates are getting a little cruel about Hilary. With comments and personal attacks they take the only women canidate down anyway they can and did i mention she's on top with a lead. Yes a lead makes things a little complicated. What do you think, is it immature, should politicians just focus on themselves and how they can improve the country or should they step over someone to get ahead?
Monday, November 12, 2007
Tax on Smokers or Tax on Snacks for Healthcare
Note to any one who has read my past two posts, I tried to post something last week but it didn't come up on my blog, that's why there are two posts for today, November 12th.
You guys all know the new legislature of tax on smokers for the funding of healthcare, well recently I read an editorial claiming to tax something else to fight healthcare on all terms. The editorial pointed out that not only is it a tax but initially a way to make smoking less desirable for "nicotine enthusiasts". Smokers make up 13.3 % of adults according to the California Department on health. The tax can reduce smokers and increase funding for healthcare, aiding health on all levels.
The author then recalls her introduction of obesity as a serious health issue. Unlike smoking which is discouraged within public places, cars, and even the work place, obesity is not given enough attention. She is promoting a tax on snacks, if the tax has the same effect on smokers, it will correlated to obesity as well. Junk food is a major source of the weight on American healthcare , presently. According to the author, “ It finally would force junk food to contribute to healthcare instead of just weighing on the system”(1).
Her article was not only funny but true. Healthcare can be fought at many angles, and with one legislation working double duty, that just might be the trick. Obesity has been talked within the media, and within education, but the choices are still directed to the people. With taxes, the choice is threatened to pick the fructose filled, overly fried, and sugar coated snack to funding for healthcare. Tax on smokers was smart, but taxing on snacks is even better.
You guys all know the new legislature of tax on smokers for the funding of healthcare, well recently I read an editorial claiming to tax something else to fight healthcare on all terms. The editorial pointed out that not only is it a tax but initially a way to make smoking less desirable for "nicotine enthusiasts". Smokers make up 13.3 % of adults according to the California Department on health. The tax can reduce smokers and increase funding for healthcare, aiding health on all levels.
The author then recalls her introduction of obesity as a serious health issue. Unlike smoking which is discouraged within public places, cars, and even the work place, obesity is not given enough attention. She is promoting a tax on snacks, if the tax has the same effect on smokers, it will correlated to obesity as well. Junk food is a major source of the weight on American healthcare , presently. According to the author, “ It finally would force junk food to contribute to healthcare instead of just weighing on the system”(1).
Her article was not only funny but true. Healthcare can be fought at many angles, and with one legislation working double duty, that just might be the trick. Obesity has been talked within the media, and within education, but the choices are still directed to the people. With taxes, the choice is threatened to pick the fructose filled, overly fried, and sugar coated snack to funding for healthcare. Tax on smokers was smart, but taxing on snacks is even better.
Seperation of Church and State , Creating Loop Holes
I read an article last week, talking about the church and clergy abusing donations for their own benefits. Are donations really becoming a blessing or a burden? Did you ever wonder where the money goes when you drop five bucks during the offetory?A senate committee is investigating, but one key issue is coming up the separation of church and state. The separation not only means church influences out of politics but politics out of the church............... right? Or is that just what we assume?
Senate of finances committee sent letters to six high profile churches requesting a record of salaries, expenses accounts, credit cards, etc. According to senate, “churches are no different to other nonprofit groups they have to abide by tax rules”(1).
Part of the difficulty of these issues, is that some churches run as enterprises. Another problem is the fact that nonprofit organization has to send documents with details about their expenses to the IRS, while religious institutions are exempt.
Even though churches are separate when it comes to politics, does that mean they are exempt from rules and regulations from government that everyone has to follow? I think religious institution should be treated like nonprofits, otherwise the money will not be documented and in some cases used and abused.
After all “church and state were never about giving churches the ability to break the law”(2). Do you think churches should be looked upon a little closer according to their finances?
Senate of finances committee sent letters to six high profile churches requesting a record of salaries, expenses accounts, credit cards, etc. According to senate, “churches are no different to other nonprofit groups they have to abide by tax rules”(1).
Part of the difficulty of these issues, is that some churches run as enterprises. Another problem is the fact that nonprofit organization has to send documents with details about their expenses to the IRS, while religious institutions are exempt.
Even though churches are separate when it comes to politics, does that mean they are exempt from rules and regulations from government that everyone has to follow? I think religious institution should be treated like nonprofits, otherwise the money will not be documented and in some cases used and abused.
After all “church and state were never about giving churches the ability to break the law”(2). Do you think churches should be looked upon a little closer according to their finances?
Friday, November 2, 2007
Local governments have been fighting against global warming instead of the nation as a whole. Even though it may seem like the country is only examining the problem now, local governments and communities have strived for the ozone long before the nation's government has. Examples such as governor of New York making regulations of carbon dioxide emissions, and Gov. Schwarzenegger filing a lawsuit against Environmental Protection Agency for not going through with efforts to restrict emissions of Carbon Dioxide from cars and trucks.
The states are hoping to pressure Congress to move toward a national mandatory emission program. California’s lawsuit is intended to make Washington reconsider about environmental issues. For two years, California has been seeking permission to put its own regulations on cars and trucks, which can go under the Clean Air Act. The automobile industry does not want California to create the standards or even get the authority. Federal courts, more and more are coincide with California’s new laws and regulations on the emissions. Last month, federal government of Vermont argued that automakers are fully capable of abiding by California’s standards.
The only comfort, federal governments have is the fact that “ president bush agreed global warming is a problem and he cares about it.” One practical way to show his concern is to grant the California its waiver and get behind efforts in Congress to control emissions. Its interesting that the media portrays the United States for not doing enough, but really we are doing enough separately, it’s the problem of Uniting the country under congress, to pass national acts to save the environment. I personally think the country should go national to make a better impact, sure everyone can make a difference in a small way, but in order to make an apparent difference, a larger group of people need to participate or become more aware.
The states are hoping to pressure Congress to move toward a national mandatory emission program. California’s lawsuit is intended to make Washington reconsider about environmental issues. For two years, California has been seeking permission to put its own regulations on cars and trucks, which can go under the Clean Air Act. The automobile industry does not want California to create the standards or even get the authority. Federal courts, more and more are coincide with California’s new laws and regulations on the emissions. Last month, federal government of Vermont argued that automakers are fully capable of abiding by California’s standards.
The only comfort, federal governments have is the fact that “ president bush agreed global warming is a problem and he cares about it.” One practical way to show his concern is to grant the California its waiver and get behind efforts in Congress to control emissions. Its interesting that the media portrays the United States for not doing enough, but really we are doing enough separately, it’s the problem of Uniting the country under congress, to pass national acts to save the environment. I personally think the country should go national to make a better impact, sure everyone can make a difference in a small way, but in order to make an apparent difference, a larger group of people need to participate or become more aware.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)