tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73468219693795434752024-03-13T19:41:06.717-07:00Kat's Gov. Blogkatharinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03465420346432751637noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346821969379543475.post-14997450250122343352010-03-25T15:51:00.000-07:002010-03-25T21:25:08.323-07:00"Fixes" bill passes the HouseThe House of Representatives has passed<a href="http://iwillserve.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/nancy_pelosi-jpeg.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 289px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 386px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://iwillserve.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/nancy_pelosi-jpeg.jpg" /></a> the bill that<br /><br />was "fixed" by the Senate. This moves completes the top priority on President Obama's domestic policy. The bill, which passed with a 220-207 vote, will now go to the President to get signed into law. Among the fixed parts were provisions to shift government funding of student loans away from commercial banks and towards new educational initiatives, because previously, commercial banks have gotten federal subsidies for student loans. The bill also added over $60 million to the original plan, partly to expand insurance subsidies for lower and middle class families.<br />President Obama must feel that a great weight has been lifted from his shoulders with the passing of this bill by the House of Representatives. His top priority for here at home has finally come to pass, even though it was later than he wanted it. Last year, the healthcare reform had recieved no Republican support in any major votes, so the legislation must have been altered enough to appeal to enough Republicans that the bill could be passed. As stated in a previous blog, the executive order involving federal funding of abortions also helped to gain key Republican votes that ensured the passage of the legislation.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/2010/03/25/health.care.main/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/2010/03/25/health.care.main/index.html</a>katharinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03465420346432751637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346821969379543475.post-66366185960335044342010-03-25T15:40:00.000-07:002010-03-25T21:08:14.471-07:00Battle over Benefits<a href="http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/Tom_Coburn.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 206px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 290px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/Tom_Coburn.jpg" /></a> <span style="color:#33cc00;">The Senate is again battling over a short-term extension of unemployment benefits, right before the two-week spring recess. The real issue at hand is whether Congress should explicitly state where the almost $10 billion per month funds are going to come from, or just go ahead without designating how to pay for the program. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) wants to eliminate additional government spending to pay for the bill. On the other hand, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) believes that the bill needs to be passed immediately, because the recession qualifies this bill as emergency. Currently, federal unemployment benefits start after the state-funded 26 weeks are over. Congress has approved up to 73 additional weeks, which it funds. </span><br /><span style="color:#33cc00;">I can't decide where I stand on this issue; on one hand, we already have enough federal debt, and we don't need any more. But my problem with Coburn's stand is what programs are going to be cut to provide the funding. And on the other hand, I agree with Durbin that the recession does make this issue an emergency, because the jobless rate is staying rather steady at a high level, and to really end the recession, that rate needs to decrease, and this program would help encourage that. So, both sides have valid points.</span><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/2010/03/25/senate.jobless.benefits/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/2010/03/25/senate.jobless.benefits/index.html</a>katharinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03465420346432751637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346821969379543475.post-22534239558476887832010-03-24T15:50:00.000-07:002010-03-25T20:53:54.469-07:00The Court and "Under God"<a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/images/Michael-Newdow-at-bkfst.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 329px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 249px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/images/Michael-Newdow-at-bkfst.jpg" /></a> The 9t<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">h</span> US Circuit Court of Appeals in San <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">Francisco</span>, California, upheld the c<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">onstitutionality of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The court rejected two legal challenges brought by Michael Newdow, a Sacramento athiest. "The Pledge is constitutional," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling. "The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded." In 2002, Newdow sued his daughter's school for having students recite the Pledge. The case reached the Supreme Court, but was dismissed because Newdow didn't have custody of his daughter, on who's behalf he was suing. </span><br />I completely agree with this decision, because the Pledge of Allegiance has been recited for years and years, and it shows, as Judge Carlos Bea said, a unity for our country, and that we are proud to be Americans, and no matter what religion someone is, the Pledge should incite patriotic feelings in that individual, if he or she is proud to be an American.<br /><br /><a href="http://repairstemcell.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/obama_signs_executive_order_2009_january_2.jpg"></a><br /><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/11/federal-appeals-court-california-upholds-god-pledge-allegiance/">http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/11/federal-appeals-court-california-upholds-god-pledge-allegiance/</a>katharinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03465420346432751637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346821969379543475.post-61288981085788855822010-03-24T14:45:00.000-07:002010-03-25T20:38:31.335-07:00Federal Funding of Abortions<a href="http://repairstemcell.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/obama_signs_executive_order_2009_january_2.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 379px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 251px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://repairstemcell.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/obama_signs_executive_order_2009_january_2.jpg" /></a><span style="color:#33cc00;">President Obama has signed an executive order that ensures that no federal money can be used for elective abortions. The President agreed to the order to appease the anti-abortion Republicans and to make sure that his healthcare reform bill was passed. There was a bloc of House members that wanted to make sure that the current policy did not change. The order prohibits federal funding of abortions, except for instances of rape, incest, or danger to the woman's life.</span><br /><span style="color:#33cc00;">This executive order is a very good move, mostly because President Obama was desperate to get his healthcare reform bill passed, and this gained him many important votes in the House, including anti-abortion Rep. Bart Stupak (Mich.). </span><br /><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span><br /><span style="color:#33cc00;"><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/24/obama-signs-executive-order-reaffirming-laws-federal-funding-abortion/">http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/24/obama-signs-executive-order-reaffirming-laws-federal-funding-abortion/</a> </span>katharinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03465420346432751637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346821969379543475.post-80670511517150314482010-03-24T14:40:00.000-07:002010-03-25T18:26:31.706-07:00Foreclosure Relief Effort<a href="http://www.ustream.tv/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/obama-official-photo.jpeg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 184px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 267px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.ustream.tv/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/obama-official-photo.jpeg" /></a>Three people briefed on the matter said that on Friday, the Obama administration will announce a plan that will reduce the amount that some people owe on their home loans. The plan is expected to include at least 3 months of temporary assistance for borrowers who have lost their jobs and an expanded effort to allow borrowers to refinance into Federal Housing Administration loans. The previous and current foreclosure prevention programs have been a failure to date, including the $75 billion foreclosure relief effort program. According to Moody's Economy.com, nearly 1 in 3 homeowners with a mortgage owe more than their property is worth.<br />This plan, I think, will help those that are very much in debt from their mortgage bounce back from this recession, stimulating the lowest bracket of homeowners back into the economy. From this, each economic class will then get stimulated as well. This is what the administration is hoping for, I believe.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/25/watchdog-blasts-obamas-mortgage-relief-plan/">http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/25/watchdog-blasts-obamas-mortgage-relief-plan/</a>katharinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03465420346432751637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346821969379543475.post-4772565724418794952010-03-23T12:02:00.000-07:002010-03-25T17:35:29.884-07:00"Don't ask, don't tell"<a href="http://blackchristiannews.com/news/gates.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 221px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 154px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://blackchristiannews.com/news/gates.jpg" /></a> <span style="color:#33cc00;">Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has announced that the Pentagon will ease the enforcement of it's "don't ask, don't tell" policy of allowing gays to serve openly in the military, effective in 30 days. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy was first enacted in 1993. Among others, President Obama and Adm. Mike Mullen are supporting the change in policy, which will apply to all current cases. 69% of Americans feel that openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military, whereas 27% were opposed to it, according to a Feb. 12-15 CNN poll. </span><br /><span style="color:#33cc00;">The gay movement has been such a hot topic lately, and I feel that this is an important step in forwarding the movement as well. There is no reason that openly gay people should be prevented from serving in the military any more than from preventing minorities from serving, especially because they signed up for it and it's what they want to do.</span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/military.gays/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/military.gays/index.html</a>katharinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03465420346432751637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346821969379543475.post-64242471131842358062010-03-23T12:01:00.000-07:002010-03-25T17:25:33.238-07:00"Fixed" bill clears the Senate<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/assets/images/2010/03/22/100322110730_obamahealthcare2_466x262_nocredit.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 309px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 197px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/assets/images/2010/03/22/100322110730_obamahealthcare2_466x262_nocredit.jpg" /></a> The United States Senate has passed a slightly altered version of the heathcare bill, and it will go on to the House for final approval. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said that the Democrats have the votes to pass the measure, which will then go to President Obama to be signed into law. The bill, which passed with a 56-43 vote, makes small changes to the bill President Obama signed into law on Tuesday, including removing two small student loan funding stipulations.<br />I have to say, the passing of the healthcare reform bills has happened rather suddenly, I think. I remember blogging about how President Obama wishes for the reforms to be passed by Christmas, and then how that didn't happen. I, personally, haven't heard much about the bills in the months since then, and then all of a sudden, we have new healthcare laws!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/health.care.main/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/health.care.main/index.html</a>katharinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03465420346432751637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346821969379543475.post-76966739941837870332010-03-22T13:22:00.000-07:002010-03-22T13:33:55.627-07:00Sanctions on Iran<img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 143px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 203px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.umich.edu/~ac213/student_projects07/global/hillary.jpg" /><span style="color:#33cc00;">Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that the United States will not accept a nuclear-armed Iran, and will introduced sanctions against the country that will encourage Iran to "come clean" about it's suspected atomic program. In turn, Iran claims that it is not trying to produce a weapon of mass distruction, and that their forays into nuclear territory are merely to provide electricity. Clinton has stated that there will be real consequences for not proving that their nuclear activities will not lead to a nuclear weapon. </span><br /><span style="color:#33cc00;">What I'm curious about is what kind of sanctions are going to be put into place to try to convince Iran to admit, if it's even true, that they are trying to build a nuclear weapon. The country is dead set against the United States and its allies, and so it's not feasible to expect them to tell us if they are making a bomb. Even if they are not trying to build the weapon, they are most likely relishing in the threat and fear that it is imposing in the Western world.</span><br /><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span><br /><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span><br /><span style="color:#33cc00;"><a href="http://www.fownews.com/politics/2010/03/22/clinton-wants-iran-sanctions-bite/">http://www.fownews.com/politics/2010/03/22/clinton-wants-iran-sanctions-bite/</a> </span><br /><br /><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span><br /><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span>katharinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03465420346432751637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346821969379543475.post-49741891377865219642010-03-22T13:11:00.000-07:002010-03-22T13:22:03.155-07:00Anti-Abortion LanguageThere was no way that the new healthcare reform bill<a href="http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20100321&t=2&i=79573253&w=460&r=2010-03-21T202505Z_01_BTRE62K1KQE00_RTROPTP_0_TOYOTA"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 273px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 193px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20100321&t=2&i=79573253&w=460&r=2010-03-21T202505Z_01_BTRE62K1KQE00_RTROPTP_0_TOYOTA" /></a> would have passed last night if it hadn't been for many anti-abortion Democrats switching their "no" votes to "yes" votes. The bill ended up passing with a narrow 219 to 212 vote. The main controversy about the language in the bill about abortion was whether or not taxpayers would be forced into paying for abortions. What made the anti-abortion Democrats change their votes was that President Obama said that he would issue an executive order that would make sure that the current limits on federal funding of abortion would remain the same. <br />Since the heathcare bill had already passed in the Senate, and the House merely changed a few parts in the bill, I feel that the Senate will, probably, accept these changes if they are appropriately explained. If not, the bill that the Senate had passed would indeed become the law.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/abortion.heath.care.vote/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/abortion.heath.care.vote/index.html</a>katharinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03465420346432751637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346821969379543475.post-65288522319478188502010-03-01T13:32:00.001-08:002010-03-01T13:44:41.049-08:00Civil Rights in Greeley, CO<span style="color:#33cc00;">A civil complaint filed by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has caused four people to pay a total of$10,000 worth of damages each. Each of the defendents has been accused of violation Colorado's Fair Housing laws by targeting Hispanic homebuyers, resulting in illegal discriminatory housing practices.</span><br /><span style="color:#33cc00;">"Over the past three years, Colorado Civil Rights Division and Commission have really cracked down on predatory lending cases that discriminate against our most vulnerable homeowners," said Colorado Civil Rights Director Steven Chavez. </span><br /><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span><br /><span style="color:#33cc00;">The discrimination against minorities, like the Wick Wo case that we learned about in the video earlier in class, can be taken to court by the minorites in question, even if they aren't citizens of the United States.</span><br /><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span><br /><a href="http://www.ncbr.com/article.asp?id=27902">http://www.ncbr.com/article.asp?id=27902</a>katharinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03465420346432751637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346821969379543475.post-71975842580561399232010-02-04T11:52:00.000-08:002010-02-08T13:25:13.447-08:00Bad news for the Democrats?<a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0120a67983f9970c-450wi"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 172px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 195px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0120a67983f9970c-450wi" /></a><br /><br /><br />With 37 seats in the Senate up for election this year, the Democratic majority may be in jeopardy, if certain possibilities were to occur.<br /><br />There are two seats where the Democrats don't, almost for sure, have the seats secured due to retirements: North Dakota and Delaware. In Delaware, Attorney General Beau Biden has chosen to not run for his father's former seat, which means that the popular Republican Mike Castle has a very good chance at election. In North Dakota, Democrat Byron Dorgan's retirement has taken away the Dem's best chance at reelection, because the state has been tending towards the red in the past few years.<br /><br />The second possibilty is that certain incumbents' chances at reelection are diminishing. These seats include Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, D-Nev., Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., Ken Salazar, D-Co., and President Obama's seat in Illinois. Reid's approval ratings are approximately 30%, and his opponents, a Miss-America runner-up and a son of a basketball coach notorious for scandals, are faring much better in the polls. Three surveys in two weeks have shown Lincoln losing to four other candidates in her run for a third term. In Illinois, the Democratic candidate, Alexis Giannoulias, has been portrayed in a corrupt way, and with the public's outrage with the impeachment of their governor, being portrayed as such could really hurt Giannoulias' chances. In Colorado, Michael Bennet, who took Salazar's seat, is having trouble gaining recognition among his voters.<br /><br /><br /><p>I really doubt that the Democrats will lose their majority, because for that to happen, the perfect scenarios will have to favor the Republicans, and while it is possible that they will gain some seats, it is not very probable that every single event will happen to favor the Republicans.<br /></p><a href="http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1958995,00.html?cnn=yes">www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1958995,00.html?cnn=yes</a>katharinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03465420346432751637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346821969379543475.post-89726134280050655742010-02-04T11:35:00.001-08:002010-02-04T11:51:59.740-08:00Ability to filibusterSenate-elect Scott Brown, R-Mass., was expected to be sworn in today in Washington, D.C., after Massachusets governor Deval Patrick signed the certificate of election at 9:30, ET. Brown was expected to take his office the 11th of February, but was eager to push the date up due to a couple very important votes that are going to take place before next Thursday. These votes include approval of two people nominated by President Obama, one to the National Labor Relations Board and one to the General Services Administration.<br /><p><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 271px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 211px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://images.politico.com/global/click/090923_brown_ap_397_regular.jpg" /></p><p>The addition of Scott Brown to the Senate was, in the first place, an interesting vote by Massachusets, and secondly, a bad omen for Obama and his fellow Democrats. Massachusets, typically being a blue state, went red for the first time in decades (according to Mr. Coit, and I'll just trust him on this). This should warn the Democrats that public opinion towards the healthcare bill (Brown's campaign was built almost solely on his promise to block the bill) may be leaning towards the negative, enough for extremely liberal Massachusets to vote in a Republican senator. Brown being in the Senate will also give the Republicans the power to filibuster to block the efforts of Obama and the Democrats to pass legislature.<br /></p>katharinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03465420346432751637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346821969379543475.post-44456326311622297562010-01-08T11:52:00.000-08:002010-03-01T13:25:29.358-08:00Patching up national security<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00241/barack-obama_241821s.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 274px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 188px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00241/barack-obama_241821s.jpg" /></a>President Obama has released his most in-depth and detailed report of the attempted terror attempt on Christmas Day. There were many avoidable mistakes that led to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab being allowed onto a Northwest Airlines flight with a bomb attached to his underwear: 1. The suspect's name was misspelled, which prevented the State Department from revoking his passport after his father informed them of his son's radicalism and disappearance. 2. Personnel at the National Counterterrorism Center and the CIA did not search all of the avaliable databases for Abdulmutallab.<br />As for the changes, Obama has required visas to be checked against extremist databases, both after they are issued and at the time that they were requested. Also, the Department of Homeland Security will acquire $1 billion dollars of new airport screening technology.katharinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03465420346432751637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346821969379543475.post-91514402301103504552009-12-06T18:47:00.000-08:002009-12-15T20:05:37.242-08:00African-American Legacy<span style="color:#33cc00;"></span><a href="http://www.sundaypaper.com/Portals/0/2009/083009/ramage-kasim-reed.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 202px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 286px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.sundaypaper.com/Portals/0/2009/083009/ramage-kasim-reed.jpg" /></a> <span style="color:#33cc00;">The race for the Atlanta mayor's position, as discussed in a previous blog, has come to a conclusion: the African-American Kasim Reed has come out on top, with less than a 1% lead in the votes. Reed is the fifth consecutive black mayor for Atlanta. But this race has highlighted the failing Atlanta politcal machine. </span><br /><span style="color:#33cc00;">The city has a history of electing blacks to politics, and whites to business ventures. However, the population is increasing, the white community in particular, and the newcomers are unaware of the customs. Also causing the failing politcal machine is that the black politcal community is not as united as it once was, and more whites than ever are running for politcal office. </span><br /><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span><br /><span style="color:#33cc00;">The changing of the dynamics of Atlanta's politics are a good thing, I feel. It's 2009, for goodness' sake. The candidate that best represents the beliefs of his constituents should be elected, no matter what race they are. The lasting political dynasty of African-American mayors in the city was a very close call for this race, and who knows what will happen the next time the mayoral seat it up for grabs?</span><br /><br /><div><a href="http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/78620642.html">http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/78620642.html</a><br /><br /><div></div></div>katharinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03465420346432751637noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346821969379543475.post-9368246647282668262009-12-06T17:27:00.000-08:002009-12-15T17:48:46.919-08:00New health-care bill on President's desk by 2010?<a href="http://www.celsias.com/media/uploads/admin/president-obama.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 335px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 380px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.celsias.com/media/uploads/admin/president-obama.jpg" /></a><br /><div>President Barack Obama met with the Democratic senators to talk about the passage of the health-care reform. The forty-five minute meeting apparently gave President Obama reason to believe that his deadline of the new year for a health-care reform bill will be met, because on his way out, he stated, "They're going to get it done." A new proposal was also presented; this new proposal would have a health plan similar to the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. The Office of Personnel Management would oversee the plan, and all of the options would be non-profit. </div><div>Senator Olympia Snowe (Rep - ME) says that she believes that this will be a good compromise, because it will give the public options to buy insurance from private companies.</div><div></div><div>I really think that this idea is a good one; obviously, this is not the whole extent of the bill, but this little summary makes the proposal sound good. There should be the option for consumers to buy their own health insurance, instead of everyone having to do the government's option. Personally, I think that in the future (this could very well change once I get there) I will buy privately, as long as I live within a community like this currently, with a good, solid company such as RMHMO, that has gained national attention. </div><div> </div><div><a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-4383-Portland-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m12d6-Politics-on-Sunday--Obama-to-Dems-Pass-health-care-reform">http://www.examiner.com/x-4383-Portland-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m12d6-Politics-on-Sunday--Obama-to-Dems-Pass-health-care-reform</a></div>katharinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03465420346432751637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346821969379543475.post-36130976477304230692009-12-05T11:05:00.000-08:002009-12-15T17:38:20.452-08:00Palin backs "birthers"<a href="http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/sarah-palin-1.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 232px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 365px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/sarah-palin-1.jpg" /></a><br /><div><span style="color:#33cc00;">Sarah Palin has lent her support to people that are questioning President Barack Obama's citizenship. "Birthers" are the people that don't believe that President Obama does not have a US birth certificate. </span></div><div><span style="color:#33cc00;">Palin went on "The Robert Humphrey's Show" on Thursday, December 3, to talk about her book, "Going Rogue." </span></div><div><span style="color:#33cc00;">"I think it's a fair question," Palin says, "just like I think past associations and past voting records - all of that is fair game."</span></div><div><span style="color:#33cc00;">"I think the public is still rightfully making it an issue."</span></div><div><span style="color:#33cc00;">She later went on Facebook to declare that she merely supports these people, and has not raised questions about it herself.</span></div><div><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span></div><div><span style="color:#33cc00;">Even in the article, it states that this idea is a "conspiracy theory," an secret plot that the general public is largely unaware about. This is a ridiculous idea; being a prominent politition, even before he was elected President, there has to be checks into his background. I do support Palin that past voting and associations is a very big deal, because when senators or representatives have changed their voting patterns it can cause a scandal and that might not get the incumbents reelected, but a politician's birthplace? Really? Can we get more paranoid?</span></div><div><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span></div><div><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120404214.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120404214.html</a></div>katharinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03465420346432751637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346821969379543475.post-49052350412129198452009-12-01T19:18:00.000-08:002009-12-01T19:39:32.942-08:00Black vs. White Turnout<a href="http://www.ajc.com/multimedia/dynamic/00293/reed-norwood_293076g.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 338px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 235px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.ajc.com/multimedia/dynamic/00293/reed-norwood_293076g.jpg" /></a><br /><div>The race for the next mayor of Atlanta might be dependent on which race votes for a candidate. The two candidates are Mary Norwood, a city councilwoman, and Kasim Reed, who resigned from the Senate to run. In the city of 38% whites and 57% blacks, one strategist claims that the race could hinge on Norwood getting more black votes than Reed gets white votes. As for spending money, Reed gained momentum and money from a recent media blitz, and, according to the latest financial report, spent $790,000, and Norwood spent $566,000. </div><div> </div><div>The strategist that claimed that Norwood would have to get more black votes than Reed gets white has a very good point; some ignorant voters, and I emphasize the "some", may vote for either candidate because of their race. However, other voters claim that race didn't pertain to their choice; as one voter said, "I can't necessarily say that weighed heavily into my decision, it was an added bonus."</div><div> </div><div> </div><div><a href="http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/National/US_Atlanta_Mayor.html">http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/National/US_Atlanta_Mayor.html</a></div>katharinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03465420346432751637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346821969379543475.post-31022563076132434062009-11-12T16:31:00.000-08:002009-11-12T16:52:03.498-08:00Ambassador to Afganistan explains reservations on troop increase<span style="color:#33cc00;">The Ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, has contacted the President to express his concerns about the plan to increase troops. The recently elected Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, has since contacted the US Embassy in Afghanistan to try to determine exactly what was said. Officials have not confirmed the contents of the cables, instead merely saying that <img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 400px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 266px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.defenselink.mil/dodcmsshare/newsstoryPhoto/2006-01/screen_20060105181828_3eiken.jpg" />Eikenberry "expressed concern and reservations about troop increases in Afghanistan." The reason for his concern is that he is not quite sure how exactly Karzai is going to implement his hand in the government, and exactly what type of government Karzai is going to bring. Eikenberry has, in the past, expressed his concerns about corruption in Karzai's government, and how effective he will be in working with the US to fight the Taliban. Eikenberry also feels that Karzai has not been consistent in his behavior, which is worrisome for Obama.</span><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/12/obama.afghanistan/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/12/obama.afghanistan/index.html</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="color:#33cc00;">Although the article did not say much about Karzai's questioning about the documents (who's existance has been confirmed by White House officials on two seperate occasions), this paranoid behavior seems to say that the Afghan president is indeed flaky, as Eikenberry had expressed. Even though the United States has managed to implement a democratic voting system in Afghanistan, there is still a lot to do before the corruption, etc., are out of the system.<br />To fight the Taliban, the US is going to definitely need to cooperation of the Afghan government, which, as Eikenberry states, is not definite.</span>katharinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03465420346432751637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346821969379543475.post-18851657669146094482009-11-12T16:03:00.000-08:002009-11-12T16:26:20.751-08:00Palin's Oprah interview.... in the Politics section?Even though the whole country, I'm sure, is obsessed with the Palin family's fued with almost family-member Levi Johnston, <a href="http://blog.beliefnet.com/onecity/Sarah-Palin-Supporters.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 400px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 300px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://blog.beliefnet.com/onecity/Sarah-Palin-Supporters.jpg" /></a> there should be no reason that Sarah Palin's interview with Oprah should be posted in the "Politics" section of CNN.com. While the topic is interesting (why would the Palin's still condsider Johnston as "part of the family" after the war of words that has persisted between the two parties?), it would be better placed, say, in the "Entertainment" section of the site. This is not political news, despite the fact that Sarah Palin <div>is still making headlines for multiple reasons. There are much more important stories that are actually politcally-orientated that would be much more use to the site, such as the President of Afghanistan relaying his feeling about an increase of troops to the region to Obama, or the number two Republican in the House, Eric Cantor, denying reports that he will run for President. The article about Palin held absolutely nothing about anything political, unless you count the fact that Palin declares that the campaign staff encouraged her to do the Katie Couric interview that she said was a "bad interview." We really need to relegate posts such as these to the "Entertainment" section, and let REAL political news take the headlines.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div><a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/12/palin-were-not-really-into-the-drama/">http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/12/palin-were-not-really-into-the-drama/</a><br /><br /></div><div></div>katharinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03465420346432751637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346821969379543475.post-55952734182716580952009-11-10T17:39:00.000-08:002009-11-10T18:03:27.050-08:00Congress to miss health-care deadline<span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="color:#33cc00;">President Obama set a deadline of the end of the year to get a health-care reform passed. Dick Durbin, D-Il., the second-highest ranking Democrat in the Senate, said that while the President's deadline wont be met, he at least hopes to pass a health-care bill in the Senate by that time.<br />Former President Bill Clinton visited the White House to discuss the bill with the Senate Democrats. After trying and failing to get a health-care overhaul passed while in office, Clinton told the current Senators that they had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to push through a reform package that is crucial to the country's long-term health.<br />The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, D-Nv, has in the past expressed his doubt that the deadline could be met. Right now, the most crucial obstacle is whether or not to include a government-public run option.<br />However, leaders in both the House and the Senate have agreed on a couple broad changes that would be included in the bill: subsidizing insurance for a family of four for up to $88,000 per year; expand Medicaid and create health insurance exchanges; and limit out of pocket expenses and prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.<br /></span><br /></span><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/10/health.care/index.html"><span style="font-family:georgia;">http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/10/health.care/index.html</span></a><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;color:#33cc00;">The Dems need to hurry and try to push their bill through both the House and the Senate, before the elections coming up next year. </span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;color:#33cc00;">It's also my personal opinion that they should indeed add a stipulation for a government-run public option, because the states would have till 2014 to decided whether or not to accept this. That will give the states time to take polls, and determine if it would be beneficial for the people in their states.<br /></span><br /><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/10/health.care/index.html"></a>katharinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03465420346432751637noreply@blogger.com1