In It For The Money Again!!

    The first cutting of legislation began with a Republican Senator named George Norris in 1934. In 2010, the proponents for a unicameral legislature are democrats. The reason for this is to bring efficiency, transparency, and accountability back to government. Transparency, efficiency, and accountability will not come if the state government is unicameral, most of society problems will not be fixed because the job will be overwhelming.
    Currently Nebraska is the only state with a single legislative body in the United States. It has been like this since 1937. So why does half a dozen of states want to cut the size of legislature? This is because cutting the size of legislature will cost half as much to run as the old one. If the government is smaller, where will all the money go that is being saved on running one legislature? The answer to that is no one knows.
    Therefore, the purpose of cutting down legislature to save millions of dollars, for themselves because no one knows where all that money is going to go. The government is designed for two legislative bodies to ensure legislation receives sufficient attention. So one legislature might not only corrupt the government more, it will create a loss in jobs, which is bad for the economy. 
    The only reason there is a debate over a  unicameral legislation is because state government is secured with cash. Due to the recent recession many state governments have spent over their budget, now they are trying to get more money by taxing others, and cutting legislation. This kind of actions tells you government is only in it for the money and not in it for the interest of their constituents.
    If a bicameral legislature is barely serving the people needs, how will a unicameral ever be able to do a better job? The answer is they will never be able to do a good job because it is less people in the legislature and there will never be time to serve the people fully.

What's On Your Ipod Does Not Make You A Bad Role Model!!!

In The Wall Street Journal, Thomas Chatterton Williams wrote the article President Obama's 'Rap Palate.' In the article Williams writes about what President Obama has on his Ipod. In the article Williams comes to the conclusion that President Obama is not a good role model when he learns that Mr. Obama listens to rap music.

Thomas Chatterton Williams holds a B.A. in Philosophy from Georgetown University and a Master's degree from the Cultural Reporting and Criticism program at New York University.Williams is the author of LOSING MY COOL: How a Father's Love and 15,000 Books Beat Hip-Hop Culture. He currently writes for The Wall Street Journal, mostly about the dangers of Hip-Hop culture. His latest article is about President Obama and the Rap music on his Ipod. 

The intended audience is the U.S. population especially does who are against Hip-Hop music or the Obama administration. Williams argument is based on President Obama not being a good role model because of the type of music that is on his Ipod. Thomas Williams thinks it is the wrong message for the President to be sending black Americans. Williams said, "Naming thuggish rappers might make Mr. Obama seem relatable and cool to a generation of Americans under the sway of Hip-Hop culture, but it sends a harmful message-especially when, in black America,  some 70% of babies are born out of wedlock." This statement is trying to say that because you listen to Hip-Hop music it encourages young black Americans to get into illegal stuff and it also encourages them to have children out of wedlock. I disagree with this statement because no one can force you to do something you do not want to do. 

I disagree with Williams argument because what's on your Ipod does not you a bad role model. Just because Mr. Obama is the President it does not mean he cannot listen to whatever type of music he likes. It is his personal belongings and that should not be brought to the public's knowledge. The statement Mr. Obama made last year at the NAACP gathering that, " our kids can't all aspire to be LeBron or Lil Wayne. I want them aspiring to be scientists and engineers, doctors, and teachers, not just ballers and rappers." It does not mean he is contradicting himself by listening to rap music, he was just trying to make the point that not every child can be a LeBron James or a Lil Wayne so they should aspire to be more than that because they all have the potential to be better. In the end, music does not make you who you are, your dreams and aspiration does.  

Higher Taxes or Tax Break

       In the New York Times "The Angry Rich" article in the opinion section was written by Paul Krugman. The article is about higher tax rates for the wealthy. Paul Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University, his PhD from MIT. Mr. Krugman has been with the New York Times for eleven years as a columnist in the Op-ED page, he is currently a professor of Economic and International Affairs at Princeton University. He is the author an editor of twenty books and more than two hundred   papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional image rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the "New Trade Theory," a major rethinking of the theory of international trade.
       Krugman's intended audience are the lower income people, he believes the wealthy should pay higher taxes. His argument is based on the wealthy complaining about the unfairness of higher taxes being placed on them. As Krugman said, "Politicians spend a lot of time hanging out with the wealthy. So when the rich face the prospect of paying an extra 3 or 4 percent of their income in taxes, politicians feel their pain, - feel it much more acutely, its clear, than they feel the pain of families who are losing their jobs, their houses, and their hopes." It is because they do not know or fail to realize what lower-income families face, and they choose to let them suffer more than the rich, but to make money you have to spend money so the wealthy should realize that equal taxes is not the best solution for the economy. In the end as Krugman said, "the people currently defending the incomes of the elite will go back to demanding cuts in Social Security and aid to the unemployed."
       I agree with Paul Krugman's argument because some wealthy people who has large companies have been bailed out by taxpayers funds, but they refuse to pay higher taxes. In the end when the economy is down again the money will be used to help them out. They also believe that their company should get be helped out, but are angry when the suggestion of those bailouts should include temporary limits on their bonuses. It is ridiculous, they should be grateful that they won't lose their jobs, or anything else, instead they are more worried about more money. I strongly believe that the wealthy should be taxed more, because it is not like they do not have the money. In the end as Krugman said, "America must make hard choices, they'll say; we all have to be willing to make choices, they'll say; we all have to be willing to make sacrifices. But when they say we, they mean you."
                                              

                                               Sacrifice Is For The Little People!!  

 

Some Democrats Break With Leaders On Tax Cuts!!

Should Bush-era tax cuts expire?

Yes, I think it should expire because President Obama’s proposal is reasonable enough for everyone. In this article from CNN , it states that you clearly see that the Democrats are leaning towards Obama’s proposal that involves maintaining the reduced tax rates for people who earns $250,000 a year, and allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire for everyone who earns more than $250,000 a year. Most of the Democrats facing re-election this year are pushing to get an extension on the expiring tax break for everyone, but mainly most if not all of the Republicans wants to keep what former President Bush put in action which was tax cuts for income levels and the wealthy.  
In the last month or so, the outcome of polls that were conducted indicates that a slight majority do not want tax breaks for the wealthiest earners to be extended.  While reading this article the percentage of people who does not want to extended tax cuts for wealthy income earners is a not shocking to me because I agree with Obama’s proposal and I think it is going to help everyone for every income level.