Today was all about the latest
legislation on tax cuts: whether it
was via a media outlet or in passing
conversation, one could not get away
from the fact that the political
landscape has been abuzz with the
most recent tax law.
Yes, today was filled with constant
commentary on what this will mean for
the future---and no I don't mean in
regards to policy, I mean in regards
to the shift in the power hiarchy of
the political landscape. Questions
like: is this a sign of Obama
conceding to the R's? What will
liberals do if it passes? What will
conservatives do if it fails? In
either scenario, all people seemed to
care about is who should be thrust up
as the victors and who should hang
their head in shame.
While I'm always game for an indepth
session full of speculation about
what may or may not constitute as
dirty playground bullying tactics on
Capital Hill---I must admit that what
I really want to know is---and this
is the most shocking question of all
----what does the new legislation
mean exactly? How will it impact the
people?
Below you will find a breakdown of
the bill as provided by National
Write Your Congressman (for more
information please visit
http://www.nwyc.com/).
Obama Outlines Tax Compromise -
12.07.2010
Highlights of Tax Cut Deal
President Obama proposed a compromise
“framework” Monday night to resolve
the year-end standoff over the
extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax
cuts. Obama’s compromise proposal
would:
Extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts,
which are set to expire on Dec. 31,
for all income levels.
Revive and extend the expired estate
tax at a rate of 35 percent and an
exemption level of $5 million.
Renew and extend for the 13 months
expired funding for emergency
unemployment benefits.
Cut the Social Security payroll tax
from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent for
one year.
Allow businesses to write off the
full cost of capital investments for
one year.
Revive and extend through 2011 the
expired “patch” to prevent millions
of taxpayers from having to pay the
alternative minimum tax.
Extend other elements of the 2009
economic stimulus law (PL 111-5).
President Obama sought a quick end to
the tax standoff on Capitol Hill and
offered a compromise “framework” that
includes several concessions to
Republicans.
The framework would extend all of the
2001 and 2003 tax cuts for two years
while also extending jobless benefits
for 13 months, reviving the expired
estate tax and cutting payroll taxes
for a year.
While Obama secured concessions from
Republicans—notably the unemployment
benefits extension and the payroll
tax cut—he bartered away a central
plank in the Democratic platform for
the past decade: that tax breaks for
the highest income brackets should
expire at the end of this year.
Obama announced the outline which he
wants the House and Senate to pass
before leaving for the year.
Republicans immediately cheered the
plan, while Democrats remained quiet
as they prepared to review the
details.
The proposal would extend expanded
unemployment benefits, which expired
last week, for 13 months, without
paying for the new coverage. It also
would establish a new 2 percentage
point payroll tax credit for 2011, at
a cost of $120 billion, and allow
businesses to write off the full cost
of new capital investments for a
year.
Obama conceded that he had given in
to Republicans on an issue important
to him and many congressional
Democrats—allowing the expiration of
the Bush-era tax cuts for family
income above $250,000. But he told
Democrats and Republicans unhappy
with the deal that it needs to happen
this year.
“I know there’s some people in my own
party and in the other party who
would rather prolong this battle,
even if we can’t reach a compromise,”
Obama said. “But I’m not willing to
let working families across this
country become collateral damage for
political warfare here in
Washington.”
“The American people didn’t send us
here to fight symbolic battles or win
symbolic victories,” Obama added.
Beyond Democratic resistance to the
extension of the upper-income rates,
the estate tax deal is likely to
anger liberals, who have long hoped
to let the levy shoot up to 55
percent, with a $1 million exemption,
as scheduled on Jan. 1. The estate
tax deal is more generous than the
proposal favored by President Obama
and most congressional Democrats—a 45
percent rate with a $3.5 million
exemption level.
Republicans, however, appeared to
embrace the deal, having conceded
earlier that they would allow a long
-term extension of expanded jobless
benefits in return for the tax cut
extension.
Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), the incoming
chairman of the Ways and Means
Committee, said that “preventing a
massive, job-killing tax increase on
families and small businesses is my
No.1 priority. This framework will
allow us to extend all current tax
rates and give economic recovery and
job creation a chance. The failure to
reach and pass an agreement
preventing a tax hike would have been
devastating for families, especially
those who are still looking for
work.”
Senate Republicans suggested that the
Obama proposal is effectively a done
deal. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
(R-KY) said on Twitter, “I am
optimistic that Dems in Congress will
show the same openness to preventing
tax hikes the admin has already
shown.”
Obama said his proposal included the
extension of several other expiring
pieces of the stimulus.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Debate Continues Over the Bush Tax Cuts
Debate Continues Over Bush Tax Cuts - 12.01.2010
[Image]President Obama and congressional leaders remain at odds over an extension of expiring Bush-era tax cuts, but they have agreed to set up a negotiating body that could come to an agreement by the first of the year. The President met at the White House this week for a lengthy meeting with the top Democratic and Republican leaders from each chamber to discuss the nation’s finances.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, said, “I think there was . . . widespread agreement that the two most important things to do, obviously, decide how we’re going to fund the government for the next 10 months and decide the tax issue.”
Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-IL, said that the White House meeting produced a plan for dealing with the tax issue. “We had a good conversation,” he said. “We’ve got a path forward.”
The President appointed Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and White House budget director Jacob Lew to lead a group with four negotiators — one from each party in each chamber . Creating jobs, putting people back to work and setting the stage for a growing economy are the goals of the negotiators.
A revised estate tax, the extension of tax incentives - known as tax extenders - for businesses and individuals and a “patch” for the alternative minimum tax are expected to be dealt with in the context of the 2001 and 2003 tax cut debate.
For more information, please visit www.nwyc.com or email me at gms@yourvotecountspittsburgh.com.
[Image]President Obama and congressional leaders remain at odds over an extension of expiring Bush-era tax cuts, but they have agreed to set up a negotiating body that could come to an agreement by the first of the year. The President met at the White House this week for a lengthy meeting with the top Democratic and Republican leaders from each chamber to discuss the nation’s finances.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, said, “I think there was . . . widespread agreement that the two most important things to do, obviously, decide how we’re going to fund the government for the next 10 months and decide the tax issue.”
Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-IL, said that the White House meeting produced a plan for dealing with the tax issue. “We had a good conversation,” he said. “We’ve got a path forward.”
The President appointed Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and White House budget director Jacob Lew to lead a group with four negotiators — one from each party in each chamber . Creating jobs, putting people back to work and setting the stage for a growing economy are the goals of the negotiators.
A revised estate tax, the extension of tax incentives - known as tax extenders - for businesses and individuals and a “patch” for the alternative minimum tax are expected to be dealt with in the context of the 2001 and 2003 tax cut debate.
For more information, please visit www.nwyc.com or email me at gms@yourvotecountspittsburgh.com.
Senate Passes Food Safety Overhaul
11.30.2010
The Senate passed a sweeping food safety bill on Tuesday that would give more power to the Food and Drug Administration, more than a year after the House of Representatives passed a similar measure.
The legislation is designed to bolster the safety of the nation’s food supply and passed 73 to 25. The measure passed with both Democrat and Republican support, particularly in the wake of several national outbreaks of food poisoning that involved eggs, peanuts and spinach.
The House approved a stricter version of the bill and House leaders have indicated that they would accept the Senate version of the bill. Proponents hope to have the legislation signed into law by the end of the lame-duck session.
The overhaul drew opposition from some tea party activists, who see it as government overreach. The bill also revealed a dividing line between burgeoning local-food movements and major agriculture businesses. Small farmers remain concerned about the cost of new federal regulation and were opposed to the bill, arguing that since most cases of national food-borne illness are caused by large companies, small producers should not be subjected to the same standards.
Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), a farmer, included an amendment before Thanksgiving that exempts small farmers and those who sell directly to consumers. This Tester amendment outraged many large agriculture groups, arguing that no one should be exempt from producing safe food.
The Food Safety Overhaul places a greater responsibility on manufacturers and farmers in preventing contamination, which is a departure from the current regulation that relies on government inspectors to catch contamination after the fact.
Standards are also set for imported food in the new legislation, requiring importers to verify that products grown and processed overseas meet safety regulations. Public health experts say that this is desperately needed, claiming that the FDA has only been inspecting about 1 percent of imported food products.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), a well-recognized critic of the legislation has claimed the bill is unnecessary. He has objected to the cost, estimating that it will total about $1.4 billion over four years. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that it will have a negligible impact on the federal deficit.
The legislation is designed to bolster the safety of the nation’s food supply and passed 73 to 25. The measure passed with both Democrat and Republican support, particularly in the wake of several national outbreaks of food poisoning that involved eggs, peanuts and spinach.
The House approved a stricter version of the bill and House leaders have indicated that they would accept the Senate version of the bill. Proponents hope to have the legislation signed into law by the end of the lame-duck session.
The overhaul drew opposition from some tea party activists, who see it as government overreach. The bill also revealed a dividing line between burgeoning local-food movements and major agriculture businesses. Small farmers remain concerned about the cost of new federal regulation and were opposed to the bill, arguing that since most cases of national food-borne illness are caused by large companies, small producers should not be subjected to the same standards.
Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), a farmer, included an amendment before Thanksgiving that exempts small farmers and those who sell directly to consumers. This Tester amendment outraged many large agriculture groups, arguing that no one should be exempt from producing safe food.
The Food Safety Overhaul places a greater responsibility on manufacturers and farmers in preventing contamination, which is a departure from the current regulation that relies on government inspectors to catch contamination after the fact.
Standards are also set for imported food in the new legislation, requiring importers to verify that products grown and processed overseas meet safety regulations. Public health experts say that this is desperately needed, claiming that the FDA has only been inspecting about 1 percent of imported food products.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), a well-recognized critic of the legislation has claimed the bill is unnecessary. He has objected to the cost, estimating that it will total about $1.4 billion over four years. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that it will have a negligible impact on the federal deficit.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Bill to Extend Jobless Benefits Stalls
The House was unable to pass a measure to extend the expanded jobless benefits through February even though the unemployment rate remains at nearly 10 percent. But Democratic leaders brought the bill to the floor under suspension of the rules, which requires a two-thirds vote for passage.
With the House gone for the Thanksgiving recess, and Senate leaders still struggling to put together a strategy for the December portion of the lame-duck session, the benefits are expected to lapse on Nov. 30, as they did earlier this year, before lawmakers moved to renew them retroactively.
Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) said that he is concerned that “pontificating, preaching about deficits” is threatening a program that, economists argue, provides a particularly high bang for the buck in terms of getting money into people’s hands and spurring economic activity.“Going back many years, the argument has always been made that even if you have to deficit spend for unemployment insurance in the midst of a really brutal economy for a lot of people, that can be supported because you’re helping someone get from here to there get from joblessness to a job and you’re providing a jump-starting effect that helps the economy,” Casey said.
The last renewal of jobless benefits, which was not offset, just barely overcame a GOP filibuster in the Senate on a 60-40 vote, with Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska voting no and the two Republican moderates from Maine, Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins, providing the deciding votes. Senate Democratic leaders argue that jobless benefits should not have to be offset. But this week, Snowe said that she is concerned about the “open-endedness” of Congress’ support for expanded jobless benefits, and the length of time for which they’re being extended. “I think we need to revisit some of those issues, and how we pay for it,” she said.
On Thursday, 143 members of the House Republican caucus, which will control that chamber in January, opposed the $12 billion unemployment insurance extender bill on the floor, making a cost argument that may prove fatal. Twenty-one Republicans voted yes.“The sad thing, Madam Speaker, is this—we could extend unemployment benefits and pay for it. This is not a hard one. There are harder decisions coming with the debt our country is facing and economic uncertainty,” Rep. Charles Boustany Jr. (R-LA) said on the House floor.
For more information, please visit www.nwyc.com or email me at gms@yourvotecountspittsburgh.com.
With the House gone for the Thanksgiving recess, and Senate leaders still struggling to put together a strategy for the December portion of the lame-duck session, the benefits are expected to lapse on Nov. 30, as they did earlier this year, before lawmakers moved to renew them retroactively.
Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) said that he is concerned that “pontificating, preaching about deficits” is threatening a program that, economists argue, provides a particularly high bang for the buck in terms of getting money into people’s hands and spurring economic activity.“Going back many years, the argument has always been made that even if you have to deficit spend for unemployment insurance in the midst of a really brutal economy for a lot of people, that can be supported because you’re helping someone get from here to there get from joblessness to a job and you’re providing a jump-starting effect that helps the economy,” Casey said.
The last renewal of jobless benefits, which was not offset, just barely overcame a GOP filibuster in the Senate on a 60-40 vote, with Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska voting no and the two Republican moderates from Maine, Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins, providing the deciding votes. Senate Democratic leaders argue that jobless benefits should not have to be offset. But this week, Snowe said that she is concerned about the “open-endedness” of Congress’ support for expanded jobless benefits, and the length of time for which they’re being extended. “I think we need to revisit some of those issues, and how we pay for it,” she said.
On Thursday, 143 members of the House Republican caucus, which will control that chamber in January, opposed the $12 billion unemployment insurance extender bill on the floor, making a cost argument that may prove fatal. Twenty-one Republicans voted yes.“The sad thing, Madam Speaker, is this—we could extend unemployment benefits and pay for it. This is not a hard one. There are harder decisions coming with the debt our country is facing and economic uncertainty,” Rep. Charles Boustany Jr. (R-LA) said on the House floor.
For more information, please visit www.nwyc.com or email me at gms@yourvotecountspittsburgh.com.
Bill to reach settlement with Black farmers and American Indians
The Senate is expected to approve $1.15 billion to fund a settlement initially reached between the Agriculture Department and minority farmers more than a decade ago. The legislation will pair an extension of a major welfare program with the settlement of longstanding claims that the federal government mismanaged funds owed to American Indians and discriminated against black farmers.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is seeking unanimous consent to clear the measure.
The 1997 Pigford v. Glickman case against the U.S. Agriculture Department was settled out of court 11 years ago. Qualified farmers are set to receive $50,000 each to settle the claim pertaining to racial bias, under a federal judge’s terms dating back to 1999.
“This is much long overdue justice for black farmers,” said John Boyd, founder and president of the National Black Farmers Association.
The bill would also include settlements dealing with Native American water rights sought by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ).
It would extend Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the basic federal welfare program, through September 30, 2011, and extend for six months a supplemental TANF grant program for states with high population growth or historically below-average welfare grants.
The Senate failed several times to ratify agreements reached in December 2009 between the Interior Department and American Indian plaintiffs in the Cobell v. Salazar class action lawsuit, and in February 2010 between the Agriculture Department and representatives for black farmers.The settlements were dropped from two House-passed bills that were revised to win Senate passage. In August, Wyoming Republican John Barrasso stopped action on a stand-alone Senate bill to ratify the settlements, raising objections to attorney fees and other items in the Cobell agreement.
Coburn has now been satisfied that the bill is budget-neutral, spokesman John Hart said Thursday. Budgetary offsets would come from customs fees, a fund for Indian safety and health and rescissions from the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program.
The Interior Department agreement would provide $3.4 billion to settle allegations that the agency mismanaged trust accounts and cheated thousands of American Indians out of their share of revenue generated by leasing their land.
For more information, please visit www.nwyc.com or email me at gms@yourvotecountspittsburgh.com.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is seeking unanimous consent to clear the measure.
The 1997 Pigford v. Glickman case against the U.S. Agriculture Department was settled out of court 11 years ago. Qualified farmers are set to receive $50,000 each to settle the claim pertaining to racial bias, under a federal judge’s terms dating back to 1999.
“This is much long overdue justice for black farmers,” said John Boyd, founder and president of the National Black Farmers Association.
The bill would also include settlements dealing with Native American water rights sought by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ).
It would extend Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the basic federal welfare program, through September 30, 2011, and extend for six months a supplemental TANF grant program for states with high population growth or historically below-average welfare grants.
The Senate failed several times to ratify agreements reached in December 2009 between the Interior Department and American Indian plaintiffs in the Cobell v. Salazar class action lawsuit, and in February 2010 between the Agriculture Department and representatives for black farmers.The settlements were dropped from two House-passed bills that were revised to win Senate passage. In August, Wyoming Republican John Barrasso stopped action on a stand-alone Senate bill to ratify the settlements, raising objections to attorney fees and other items in the Cobell agreement.
Coburn has now been satisfied that the bill is budget-neutral, spokesman John Hart said Thursday. Budgetary offsets would come from customs fees, a fund for Indian safety and health and rescissions from the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program.
The Interior Department agreement would provide $3.4 billion to settle allegations that the agency mismanaged trust accounts and cheated thousands of American Indians out of their share of revenue generated by leasing their land.
For more information, please visit www.nwyc.com or email me at gms@yourvotecountspittsburgh.com.
Airport Scanners May Pose Many Concerns
Many congressmen are asking the Transportation Security Administration to reconsider the “enhanced pat down” practice in Airports.
“While we agree that security measures should be enhanced in the wake of recent attempted terrorist attacks on the aviation system, we are concerned about new enhanced pat down screening protocols and urge you to reconsider the utilization of these protocols,” said House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), chairwoman of the subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection in a letter sent to TSA head John S. Pistole Friday.
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ranking Republican John L. Mica (R-FL) and Thomas E. Petri (R-WI) ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee, struck a similar note in their own note to Pistole.
“While the purpose behind the recent change in procedures is understandable, we have concerns that the TSA is not achieving the proper balance between aviation security and the privacy rights of United States citizens,” they wrote.
Mica and Petri said the use of pat-down procedure—which TSA uses for passengers who decline to pass through whole-body image scanners—is an example of the agency’s tendency to approach threats in a reactive, rather than proactive manner.The GOP lawmakers noted that the last terrorist incident involving a passenger smuggling explosives aboard—Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempt at detonating a plane above Detroit on Christmas—took place 11 months ago.
Mica and Petri stated that TSA should only use pat-downs in cases of suspicious behavior, or when screening machines are unable to rule out a threat. They continued that the Department of Homeland Security should be working on initiatives such as intelligence, threat analysis and integration of more biometrics technology, rather than emphasizing physical screening.
In September, Thompson and Jackson Lee’s committee expressed concerns about the procedure. “Before implementing this new, more invasive pat-down procedure, as a preliminary matter, TSA should have had a conversation with the American public about the need for these changes,” they wrote. “Even before that conversation, TSA should have endeavored to ensure that these changes did not run afoul of privacy and civil liberties.”
Also facing controversy are the whole body imagers in airports. The TSA has approved two types of whole body imagers for use in airports—“millimeter wave” units from L-3, which use high-frequency radio waves, and “backscatter” unites from Rapiscan, which use extremely small doses of X-rays. While the Food and Drug Administration has said that the dose from one of the backscatter units is so low that it presents an extremely low risk, some in the medical community have expressed concerns about the effects of repeated exposure—a question that John D. Dingell(D-MI) posed in his letter.
He wrote to TSA, “I do not believe security measures like [Advances Imaging Technology] units should be rushed into use without a full and thorough examination on the impact of their use on human health,” he said.
“My concern about this assessment is it does not address the question of what the potential long-term health impact would be for those who have prolonged exposure to screenings either through frequent travel, by nature of their employment or [those] vulnerable to radiation exposure due to immune system deficiencies,” Dingell wrote.
Meanwhile, TSA has announced that it has taken steps to streamline airport security for the pilots of U.S. airlines. The agency plans to eventually phase in a nationwide secure access system for pilots.
“Pilots are trusted partners who ensure the safety of millions of passengers flying every day,” Pistole said in a joint release with several pilots’ associations. “Allowing these uniformed pilots, whose identity has been verified, to go through expedited screening at the checkpoint just makes sense for smart security and an efficient use of our resources.”
For more information, please visit www.nwyc.com or email me at gms@yourvotecountspittsburgh.com.
“While we agree that security measures should be enhanced in the wake of recent attempted terrorist attacks on the aviation system, we are concerned about new enhanced pat down screening protocols and urge you to reconsider the utilization of these protocols,” said House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), chairwoman of the subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection in a letter sent to TSA head John S. Pistole Friday.
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ranking Republican John L. Mica (R-FL) and Thomas E. Petri (R-WI) ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee, struck a similar note in their own note to Pistole.
“While the purpose behind the recent change in procedures is understandable, we have concerns that the TSA is not achieving the proper balance between aviation security and the privacy rights of United States citizens,” they wrote.
Mica and Petri said the use of pat-down procedure—which TSA uses for passengers who decline to pass through whole-body image scanners—is an example of the agency’s tendency to approach threats in a reactive, rather than proactive manner.The GOP lawmakers noted that the last terrorist incident involving a passenger smuggling explosives aboard—Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempt at detonating a plane above Detroit on Christmas—took place 11 months ago.
Mica and Petri stated that TSA should only use pat-downs in cases of suspicious behavior, or when screening machines are unable to rule out a threat. They continued that the Department of Homeland Security should be working on initiatives such as intelligence, threat analysis and integration of more biometrics technology, rather than emphasizing physical screening.
In September, Thompson and Jackson Lee’s committee expressed concerns about the procedure. “Before implementing this new, more invasive pat-down procedure, as a preliminary matter, TSA should have had a conversation with the American public about the need for these changes,” they wrote. “Even before that conversation, TSA should have endeavored to ensure that these changes did not run afoul of privacy and civil liberties.”
Also facing controversy are the whole body imagers in airports. The TSA has approved two types of whole body imagers for use in airports—“millimeter wave” units from L-3, which use high-frequency radio waves, and “backscatter” unites from Rapiscan, which use extremely small doses of X-rays. While the Food and Drug Administration has said that the dose from one of the backscatter units is so low that it presents an extremely low risk, some in the medical community have expressed concerns about the effects of repeated exposure—a question that John D. Dingell(D-MI) posed in his letter.
He wrote to TSA, “I do not believe security measures like [Advances Imaging Technology] units should be rushed into use without a full and thorough examination on the impact of their use on human health,” he said.
“My concern about this assessment is it does not address the question of what the potential long-term health impact would be for those who have prolonged exposure to screenings either through frequent travel, by nature of their employment or [those] vulnerable to radiation exposure due to immune system deficiencies,” Dingell wrote.
Meanwhile, TSA has announced that it has taken steps to streamline airport security for the pilots of U.S. airlines. The agency plans to eventually phase in a nationwide secure access system for pilots.
“Pilots are trusted partners who ensure the safety of millions of passengers flying every day,” Pistole said in a joint release with several pilots’ associations. “Allowing these uniformed pilots, whose identity has been verified, to go through expedited screening at the checkpoint just makes sense for smart security and an efficient use of our resources.”
For more information, please visit www.nwyc.com or email me at gms@yourvotecountspittsburgh.com.
Friday, September 24, 2010
The Time to Act is NOW
I am not content to sit by idly as our nation teeters on the brink of disaster: the people, who should so rightfully drive our country’s initiatives, have become disillusioned taking our unique political process for granted. I do not believe that we as a people are inherently lazy when it comes to our future. Rather, I believe that my fellow Americans have gone into a state of arrested development due to the lack of clear, unbiased information about the legislative issues of the day. We are constantly inundated with information by media that has become so polarized with strong rhetoric that is exhausting for anyone trying to seek the truth. There is an understandable, although misguided, perception that in order to fully understand political concepts one must be either extremely liberal or conservative. Yet this is unfounded and quite frankly the minority. The vast majority of Americans fall in the middle. At the first sign of a political discussion, this group will label themselves as moderate and fall silent. Over the past few years I have personally wondered why this is the case and have pondered the many reasons. I have observed a commonality among all these people: they do not feel that they knew enough about the topic at hand to partake in the discussion, and this fear is what keeps them on the sidelines. But why not research such topics more to prevent future incidents like this from happening? This is how the misguided belief that Americans are politically apathetic is founded. Due to a shortage in unbiased, accessible and understandable outlets for political content the average American has given up the search for their own understanding. Instead, they either align themselves with one side and learn to champion it or they deem that there is no such thing as news that allows the public to formulate its own opinion and tune out.
I am not here to promote one side over the other. This is not to say that I do not have an opinion on issues, I most certainly do, but I am not here to tell you what to think or how to vote. My personal stance on politics is that the people should have the right to formulate their own opinions from unbiased, concise material that presents all the facts. I have witnessed concerned constituents try to become involved in politics only to have the spark of their desires die due to confusion, overcomplicated use of language, and fear of ridicule. People have forgotten that the government is here to serve us, and therefore the people have the right to information and an open flow of communication with their elected officials. It is my mission to help educate my fellow Americans on the legislative topics of the day in a rhetoric free environment that promotes unhindered thought and dialogue; fostering a nation of citizens who are accountable for their futures and the future of this country.
I am not here to promote one side over the other. This is not to say that I do not have an opinion on issues, I most certainly do, but I am not here to tell you what to think or how to vote. My personal stance on politics is that the people should have the right to formulate their own opinions from unbiased, concise material that presents all the facts. I have witnessed concerned constituents try to become involved in politics only to have the spark of their desires die due to confusion, overcomplicated use of language, and fear of ridicule. People have forgotten that the government is here to serve us, and therefore the people have the right to information and an open flow of communication with their elected officials. It is my mission to help educate my fellow Americans on the legislative topics of the day in a rhetoric free environment that promotes unhindered thought and dialogue; fostering a nation of citizens who are accountable for their futures and the future of this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)