Original Commentary

The political system of the United States is very organized and a lot has been thought through in order to provide the best for the country and the people within. However, mankind's greatest flaw of selfishness is always underestimated.

The system of checks and balances with the three branches of government, executive, legislative, and judicial, seems very well planned. There are many ways that Congress, which includes the Senate and the House of Representatives, establishes rules in this country. Changes to the Constitution start out as bills and can possibly become amendments. There are a variety of ways that the Senate and House can pass/veto bills, and ways that the President and executive branch can also. The executive branch is in charge of enforcing laws that are created by the legislation and mandated by the judicial branch. The Supreme Court has the ability to interpret the Constitution to their discretion and enforce their interpretations through the Elastic Clause. There are so many ways that the President can overrule the legislation but the legislation can overrule the President with a certain majority.

The only reason that so many "checks and balances" are needed is because of the innate human trait of greed. If all people were good in nature and it was the genuine desire for people to help others, then we would not have to worry so much about fraud, embezzlement, and people being treated fairly. There would not have to be so many levels of courts and so many laws and craziness among people, if people were not so selfish. It seems like everyone these days has so much to say and to complain about, but so little to offer. Today on CNN, there is a major article about Representative Anthony Weiner being enraged at the Republican House members who banned together to defeat a bill that provided health care to 9/11 responders. This is a huge deal because people are so different in their beliefs and views. But that is what politics and our government is all about. Our nation supports the fact that there are so many different beliefs but at the same time it is difficult to balance them all and to be tolerant of them all.

WIKILEAKS AND THE NEW YORK TIMES

Blog stage 4 is critiquing a blog posting and I chose an article called, "Wikileaks and the New York Times," by John Hinderaker and it was posted on July 26, 2010. It was posted in the Power Line, which is a conservative blog.

The intended audience is other conservative people or Republicans. The author, John Hinderaker, is a fairly credible source because he has written about public policy for about 20 years with his former law partner. He graduated from Dartmouth College and the Harvard Law School.

The blog talks about the New York Times and the leaking of the classified documents about the war in Afghanistan. Hinderaker discusses an interview with Robert Gibbs, White House Press Secretary, regarding the leaking. Hinderaker talks about how Gibbs never asked the New York Times to refrain from publishing about the information. Hinderaker takes a stand to say that Gibbs and the Obama campaign allow that sort of action to occur but mentions that later in the interview, Gibbs states that Obama is against "such law-breaking." Hinderaker agrees with Gibbs' statement, "I think there are certainly better ways to -- to discuss and register one's opposition, rather than putting people in potential harm's way." However, Hinderaker believes that the actions that the Obama administration and other Democrats are showing towards the previous behavior of the New York Times' law breaking during the Bush administration are wrong, and does not blame anyone for not taking the New York Times and other left-leaning agencies seriously when it comes to their concerns about national security leaks.

I agree with Hinderaker, in that the way the information is presented in his blog, it looks as though the Obama administration verbally supports one action and actively supports another. I have hardly read political blogs, however, and find his point of view and thoughts interesting. It is also interesting to read the other opinions and jokes on the blog as well.

Reform Moves Ahead

My Stage Three blog post is critiquing an editorial, “Reform Moves Ahead,” from the Opinion section of The New York Times. It was published on July 18, 2010 and none of the editorials on The New York Times website had authors published.

The New York Times being a more liberal newspaper, the author’s audience is liberals or people leaning left, at the least. Because the author is an author for an established national newspaper, he must have reputation and credibility within the writing and journalism industry. However, I am not aware of his experience in politics or health care. But, as this is an editorial, I can see where he established his opinion, and then ran with it.

In the article, the author is making the argument that the health care reform bill, which was passed just a few months ago, has been making progress, that it has not been easy for Administration to get to this point, and that insurance companies are the bad guys. The author makes sure that Republicans are acknowledged in their plan “to file(d) suit to nullify two important requirements of the new law” and that “The White House will have to keep pressing back and keep explaining why reform is in the clear interest of the nation.” He makes the Republicans sound like toddlers that you have to “keep” repeating explanations to. The author calls insurance companies out by describing their actions as “indefensible,” when they rescind coverage after someone falls ill or for not “covering children with pre-existing conditions.” People will instantly be against insurance companies when they read that. It does not make any sense to withhold health care from sick people, especially children. It seems that significant progress has been made in the area of purchasing prescription drugs and the author names a few actions that have already been taken or will be taken soon with drugs. The author touches on the difficulties of agreeing on the definition of “care” and opening temporary high-risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions in the insurance world. He then also talks about the employer aspect of the whole issue, as he has already mentioned the insurance companies and everyday people. The government and administration sounds like the good guy because they are offering “tax credit to help defray the cost of insuring their workers” and implementing a new program that will ease employers to insure retirees. Lastly, the author sarcastically supports President Obama’s decision to appoint a health care expert to lead the Center of Medicaid and Medicare Services. He says there is no one to sign on crucial decisions and to take care of the happenings at the agency.

I think providing health care for everyone is the right thing to do; it is heartbreaking if someone who is sick is denied treatment because he cannot afford it. I know the costs and logistics of the health care bill will continuously be debated, and money is the main reason for all the argument. But I feel that people and relationships are more important. The author of this editorial can support certain outcomes of the legislation and argue against others; some of it, like the bit about insurance companies, is entertaining. His view is interesting and sparks good conversation, as proven by the comments on the article.

Fed Gets More Power, Responsibility

I read an article today from The Wall Street Journal called "Fed Gets More Power, Responsibility" and it talks about the new law passed by Congress, which has expanded the Federal Reserve's role and given it more power. A quick summary is included in the following:

Before, it was thought that the powers of the Fed would actually be reduced because of its failure to prevent the financial crisis in 2008 and for not bailing out Wall Street in more recent times. However, the new law allows the Fed more responsibility and power in protecting the financial market and preventing financial crises. Doubts occur because people wonder if this additional power will indeed help the Fed to further prevent crises, and what will happen if it cannot. Oversight of the financial institution remains with the Fed and other organizations within the Financial Stability Council. The Fed is now given the power to break up large financial companies if the stability of the financial system is threatened, and to "scrutinize the largest hedge funds." The law will probably bring the actions of the Fed into political controversy. However, in the consumer-finance regulation, the Fed will give up most of its powers to a different agency. The Federal Reserve Board was also given an additional vice chair position, which is appointed by the White House, and the Fed is now also in charge of setting merchant debit card fees.

This article is worth reading because one sees how legislation and Congress makes a difference in society, especially the financial world. The new law opens up so many doors for the Fed, and I learned a lot regarding the duties of the Fed. The government has many regulations that people are usually unaware of and I feel that it is interesting to read about how the government works to protect us and to what extent.