http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/government.spying/index.html#cnnSTCText
In response to Rep. Harman's allegations, the NSA has been systematically reviewing the programs that they have in place for wiretaps and intercepts in order to ensure that law abiding U.S. citizens are not being surveyed. Through the course of these back checks, the NSA has reported a few incidents in which certain communications were inadvertently intercepted. This has raised controversy over laws established post 9/11 that are slowly eroding the privacy of U.S. citizens. While it is unfortunate that these communications were unlawfully intercepted, the most important this now is that we know about them.
This incident has shown the effectiveness of the system that we have in place where a branch of our government reports their follies through the bureaucratic system and goes about correcting their processes. This branch of the government controls the flow of communications and information through the United States, it would not have taken a lot of energy to prevent this information from reaching the public. However, we now know of their inadvertent illegal intercepts and see that their governing processes are effective and ensure transparency.
Additionally, in an attempt to put these few violations in perspective it is important to imagine the amount of communications that pass through NSA inspection regularly. They are charged, by us, with monitoring all communications made by non-U.S. persons that are reasonably believed to be outside of the United States. If they inadvertently intercept a handful of illegal communications it dos show that the system is not perfect; however, it shows that the system is pretty efficient.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Obama & Torture (FOLLOWUP)
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/20/obama.cia/index.html
The President had recently cleared up the details about the possible prosecution of CIA officials than engaged in physical interrogation. He has claimed that if their efforts were consistent with the Justice Department's legal advice at the time then there would be not prosecution. He also made a very good move in saying that it is not only a a waste of resources to backtrack and punish government officials for such techniques, it is also a place where he does not want his new administration. He feels that it would further divide the country and that he is very concerned with moving forward. He says that this issue is about turning the page on previous interrogation practices, adhering to our own principles, and allowing the new administration to act in accordance with their new goal of total transparency.
In order to adhere to this, Obama has ordered the release of "Top Secret" government documents from the CIA that outline the limits of our interrogation ability and highlight exactly what was and what was not sanctioned during the Bush years. While this does highlight the Presidents wish to allow people to see what exactly the government is doing, it also allows our enemies the same privilege. It is noble that the President stick to his promise of forcing the government to work under the observation of the people it serves, as this is truly democratic; the issue is that he is sacrificing secrecy in a time of war.
To allow ruthless enemies to know exactly how far we are willing to go is to embolden them and to allow them to see our weaknesses. By allowing our enemies to see our boundaries is to allow them to fight outside of them. Just the very nature of publicly releasing top secret documents that outline our secret military practices shows our inability to effectively defeat our enemy. Obama is quoted as saying that in order to truly beat our enemy, we must adhere to our principles even when it is hard. And while it may be harder to fight in this fashion, it will put us on the better side of history. This envisioned grandeur may make us seem righteous and true, but it also puts our soldiers and citizens at a higher risk as we will ineffectively battle our enemies thus allowing conflict to remain longer than it must.
The President had recently cleared up the details about the possible prosecution of CIA officials than engaged in physical interrogation. He has claimed that if their efforts were consistent with the Justice Department's legal advice at the time then there would be not prosecution. He also made a very good move in saying that it is not only a a waste of resources to backtrack and punish government officials for such techniques, it is also a place where he does not want his new administration. He feels that it would further divide the country and that he is very concerned with moving forward. He says that this issue is about turning the page on previous interrogation practices, adhering to our own principles, and allowing the new administration to act in accordance with their new goal of total transparency.
In order to adhere to this, Obama has ordered the release of "Top Secret" government documents from the CIA that outline the limits of our interrogation ability and highlight exactly what was and what was not sanctioned during the Bush years. While this does highlight the Presidents wish to allow people to see what exactly the government is doing, it also allows our enemies the same privilege. It is noble that the President stick to his promise of forcing the government to work under the observation of the people it serves, as this is truly democratic; the issue is that he is sacrificing secrecy in a time of war.
To allow ruthless enemies to know exactly how far we are willing to go is to embolden them and to allow them to see our weaknesses. By allowing our enemies to see our boundaries is to allow them to fight outside of them. Just the very nature of publicly releasing top secret documents that outline our secret military practices shows our inability to effectively defeat our enemy. Obama is quoted as saying that in order to truly beat our enemy, we must adhere to our principles even when it is hard. And while it may be harder to fight in this fashion, it will put us on the better side of history. This envisioned grandeur may make us seem righteous and true, but it also puts our soldiers and citizens at a higher risk as we will ineffectively battle our enemies thus allowing conflict to remain longer than it must.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Obama for Prosecution of those Involved in the Interrogation of Terrorists
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/21/obama.memos/index.html
On Tuesday President Obama left open the prosecution of those involved in the writing of the legal documents that provided the basis for interrogation tactics that are deemed by some to be "torturous". The President claimed that our nation has lost our moral compas when it comes to torture and human rights. This bantor clearly links to his campaign promises to bring back humane interrogation tactics and to close facilities like Gitmo.
This article then touches two very sesitive subjects: the merits of physically interrogating those suspected of involvment of terrorism and the validity of prosecuting those involved with previously sanctioned practices by the incumbant administration.
To even suggest that government officials can be held accountable for legal ducuments that sanctioned "torture" while it was being approved by the administration in power is simply political garbage. There is no basis for prosecuting individuals that were acting with the approval of the government in writing documents that supported physical interrogation. It was approved by the government at the time, and at the time they did nothing wrong. While the U.S. was "officially" against physical coercion, it employed the practice regularly. The President was simply doing what he does best, using tough bantor to scare certain republicans while attemptiong to make our national policies appeal to foreign governments.
Secondly, while I won't even attempt to tackle the whole moral argument against "torture" or its effectiveness, the fact of the matter is that it happens. Suspects are physically coerced into forfeiting secrets whether we do it or we send them to foreign governments to do it. Our enemies do it and this is where the rationale tends to be "we can't sink to their level". The fact is that this is where our arrogance sets in, reasoning that we are above our enemies and we cannot employ the same practices as them because we are better. Our "War on Terror" isn't one-sided, and if that doesn't blatantly show that our enemy is formidable then nothing will. We have have better technology than our assailants but we are not above them. While we should respect the natural rights of humans, people can forfeit those rights. And If everyone is equal, then 100 lives are greater than 1 and 28 roadside bombing victims are of greater importance than the 2 or 3 detainees that might have known about the impending attack. The torture question is not about violating human dignity, it is a question about how far will we go to protect it.
On Tuesday President Obama left open the prosecution of those involved in the writing of the legal documents that provided the basis for interrogation tactics that are deemed by some to be "torturous". The President claimed that our nation has lost our moral compas when it comes to torture and human rights. This bantor clearly links to his campaign promises to bring back humane interrogation tactics and to close facilities like Gitmo.
This article then touches two very sesitive subjects: the merits of physically interrogating those suspected of involvment of terrorism and the validity of prosecuting those involved with previously sanctioned practices by the incumbant administration.
To even suggest that government officials can be held accountable for legal ducuments that sanctioned "torture" while it was being approved by the administration in power is simply political garbage. There is no basis for prosecuting individuals that were acting with the approval of the government in writing documents that supported physical interrogation. It was approved by the government at the time, and at the time they did nothing wrong. While the U.S. was "officially" against physical coercion, it employed the practice regularly. The President was simply doing what he does best, using tough bantor to scare certain republicans while attemptiong to make our national policies appeal to foreign governments.
Secondly, while I won't even attempt to tackle the whole moral argument against "torture" or its effectiveness, the fact of the matter is that it happens. Suspects are physically coerced into forfeiting secrets whether we do it or we send them to foreign governments to do it. Our enemies do it and this is where the rationale tends to be "we can't sink to their level". The fact is that this is where our arrogance sets in, reasoning that we are above our enemies and we cannot employ the same practices as them because we are better. Our "War on Terror" isn't one-sided, and if that doesn't blatantly show that our enemy is formidable then nothing will. We have have better technology than our assailants but we are not above them. While we should respect the natural rights of humans, people can forfeit those rights. And If everyone is equal, then 100 lives are greater than 1 and 28 roadside bombing victims are of greater importance than the 2 or 3 detainees that might have known about the impending attack. The torture question is not about violating human dignity, it is a question about how far will we go to protect it.
Abuse of Power?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/21/harman.wiretap/index.html
Democratic Representative Jane Harman's outrage towards being wiretapped back in 2005/2006 has again sparked a debate on Capitol Hill about the legality of wiretapping and the Patriot Act. She claims that the NSA monitoring of her conversations with an alleged Israeli agent was a gross abuse of power. While the actual legality of that practice is still very vague and up to the interpretation of the Patriot Act, the more important issue is the monitoring of government officials. Rep. Harman claims that she never knew that the government monitored her actions.
In this specific inident, she was acting in her capacity as a representative for the United States of america in her dealing with an alleged Israeli agent. Thus the NSA was not monitoring Jane Harman, they were overseeing a representative of the government making deals with an alleged agent for a freindly nation. The government was overseeing is own people that were actiong on its behalf. So in regards to this specific incident, nothing is "secret" when your acting in a capacity that gives you the bargaining power of an entire nation. Her conversations had to be documented to maintain a log of the events in that specific dealing.
This incident also brings up the old argument of the limits of the American Government's power. Special interest groups and lobbyists have jumped on this issue taking the oppurtunity to champion the privacy of citizens from their government. While this case is seemingly a clean cut case of national security, these groups are still trying to make a case to speciffically limit the governments capacity to monitor those that it protects. While innocent people have nothing to hide, some argue that it is the principle of the matter that is at stake. That if we surrender our privacy to the government, what else is next? However, if a call was intercepted and that information was used in the thwarting of an attack, there would be very little upheaval about that use of power.
The fact is that since there is so much information out there, we cannot set lilitations to what can be monitored and what cannot be. In order to detect the very very few trails that threats to national security leave behind we must allow the government to monitor it all. Nobody will argue that the would surrender their safety for their privacy, therefore this is a matter of the efficiency of this method. But the fact of the matter is that small freedoms must be surrendered in order to serve the greater good of the nation and if this means that the government has the power to listen to you dealing with potential Israeli agents, then so be it.
Democratic Representative Jane Harman's outrage towards being wiretapped back in 2005/2006 has again sparked a debate on Capitol Hill about the legality of wiretapping and the Patriot Act. She claims that the NSA monitoring of her conversations with an alleged Israeli agent was a gross abuse of power. While the actual legality of that practice is still very vague and up to the interpretation of the Patriot Act, the more important issue is the monitoring of government officials. Rep. Harman claims that she never knew that the government monitored her actions.
In this specific inident, she was acting in her capacity as a representative for the United States of america in her dealing with an alleged Israeli agent. Thus the NSA was not monitoring Jane Harman, they were overseeing a representative of the government making deals with an alleged agent for a freindly nation. The government was overseeing is own people that were actiong on its behalf. So in regards to this specific incident, nothing is "secret" when your acting in a capacity that gives you the bargaining power of an entire nation. Her conversations had to be documented to maintain a log of the events in that specific dealing.
This incident also brings up the old argument of the limits of the American Government's power. Special interest groups and lobbyists have jumped on this issue taking the oppurtunity to champion the privacy of citizens from their government. While this case is seemingly a clean cut case of national security, these groups are still trying to make a case to speciffically limit the governments capacity to monitor those that it protects. While innocent people have nothing to hide, some argue that it is the principle of the matter that is at stake. That if we surrender our privacy to the government, what else is next? However, if a call was intercepted and that information was used in the thwarting of an attack, there would be very little upheaval about that use of power.
The fact is that since there is so much information out there, we cannot set lilitations to what can be monitored and what cannot be. In order to detect the very very few trails that threats to national security leave behind we must allow the government to monitor it all. Nobody will argue that the would surrender their safety for their privacy, therefore this is a matter of the efficiency of this method. But the fact of the matter is that small freedoms must be surrendered in order to serve the greater good of the nation and if this means that the government has the power to listen to you dealing with potential Israeli agents, then so be it.
Monday, April 13, 2009
US eases Cuban travel, money restraints
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090413/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_cuba
Today President Obama lifted some of the restrictions placed on Cuba by the Bush Administration. This eases travel restrictions on Cuban-Americans and allows others to possibly to visit Cuba, but does not fully allow complete access for all Americans. This also allows Cuban-Americans to send money back to family in Cuba. This did not lift the trade embargo placed on Cuba either, yet it was a step in the right direction.
This issue actually applies directly to Bentley University in particular. A few years ago, Bentley was able to receive permission to enter Cuba for educational purposes. A group of students along with some professors were going to go to Cuba and take some international courses there. However, President Bush banned all travel to Cuba for any reason along with any type of money transfer to the country and the planned trip was cancelled.
This particular decision by the Obama administration was purely political. It does not allow free travel to Cuba, and does not remove the trade embargo. In essence, it simply gives Cuban-Americans the right to travel back to their home country and for them to send money to their own families. These basic rights should never have been taken away. It is simply designed to help Obama’s image within the immigrant populations and to separate him further from the Bush administration.
The Obama administration should use this as a stepping-stone and continue to improve U.S.-Cuba relations. Another stepping-stone could be to allow Cuban Diplomats to travel outside of Washington D.C. Currently, Cuban Diplomats are not allowed to leave the capital city. Eventually all travel restrictions should be lifted. Then, in time, the trade embargo should be removed too.
Cuba is slowly starting to become more and more capitalist. Cell phones are now allowed on the island. Part of this may be due to the fact Fidel Castro was replaced by Raul Castro. The easiest way to speed up this change is to allow Americans to enter the country. Once some American college students enter the country, Cuba will very quickly have to adapt to American culture. The easiest way to end Cuba’s communism is to immerse them with American culture. Once most Cubans begin to experience many American conveniences, communism will not last much longer. This will also greatly increase the U.S.’s “soft power” with Cuba. Cuba will also benefit in that their tourism industry will quickly become the most profitable industry in the country. It will actually have to build many more hotels in order to accommodate the large influx of tourists.
Cuba could one day become a valuable trade partner for the U.S. Since they have been missing many conveniences for many years, U.S. imports could become important to many Cubans. In addition, many U.S. agricultural lobbyists argue for an end to the trade embargo, because they hope that they can ship their products to Cuba too. Overall, the trade embargo only hurts the Cuban people and may do more harm than good in terms of trying to convince them to become democratic. It obviously has not done anything to convince Cuba to change their ways in the last 50 years. What will convince them to change in the next few years?
Today President Obama lifted some of the restrictions placed on Cuba by the Bush Administration. This eases travel restrictions on Cuban-Americans and allows others to possibly to visit Cuba, but does not fully allow complete access for all Americans. This also allows Cuban-Americans to send money back to family in Cuba. This did not lift the trade embargo placed on Cuba either, yet it was a step in the right direction.
This issue actually applies directly to Bentley University in particular. A few years ago, Bentley was able to receive permission to enter Cuba for educational purposes. A group of students along with some professors were going to go to Cuba and take some international courses there. However, President Bush banned all travel to Cuba for any reason along with any type of money transfer to the country and the planned trip was cancelled.
This particular decision by the Obama administration was purely political. It does not allow free travel to Cuba, and does not remove the trade embargo. In essence, it simply gives Cuban-Americans the right to travel back to their home country and for them to send money to their own families. These basic rights should never have been taken away. It is simply designed to help Obama’s image within the immigrant populations and to separate him further from the Bush administration.
The Obama administration should use this as a stepping-stone and continue to improve U.S.-Cuba relations. Another stepping-stone could be to allow Cuban Diplomats to travel outside of Washington D.C. Currently, Cuban Diplomats are not allowed to leave the capital city. Eventually all travel restrictions should be lifted. Then, in time, the trade embargo should be removed too.
Cuba is slowly starting to become more and more capitalist. Cell phones are now allowed on the island. Part of this may be due to the fact Fidel Castro was replaced by Raul Castro. The easiest way to speed up this change is to allow Americans to enter the country. Once some American college students enter the country, Cuba will very quickly have to adapt to American culture. The easiest way to end Cuba’s communism is to immerse them with American culture. Once most Cubans begin to experience many American conveniences, communism will not last much longer. This will also greatly increase the U.S.’s “soft power” with Cuba. Cuba will also benefit in that their tourism industry will quickly become the most profitable industry in the country. It will actually have to build many more hotels in order to accommodate the large influx of tourists.
Cuba could one day become a valuable trade partner for the U.S. Since they have been missing many conveniences for many years, U.S. imports could become important to many Cubans. In addition, many U.S. agricultural lobbyists argue for an end to the trade embargo, because they hope that they can ship their products to Cuba too. Overall, the trade embargo only hurts the Cuban people and may do more harm than good in terms of trying to convince them to become democratic. It obviously has not done anything to convince Cuba to change their ways in the last 50 years. What will convince them to change in the next few years?
Allies Ponder How to Plan Elections in Afghanistan
Ten of the 364 districts in Afghanistan are under Taliban control and 156 districts are considered high risk. The presence of the Taliban in the country pose a threat to the upcoming presidential elections. For now, Afghan officials and their American and NATO allies are determined to go through with the elections. Many people are unhappy with the current president and believe he is corrupt and ineffective as half the country is now engulfed in war. This election will be a way for them to voice their opinions, however even if security can be established in enough places, there is concern that the vote will be so compromised that its credibility will be questioned. With the questioning of the credibility would come the questioning of the legitimacy of the current and future Afghan governments and presidents.
In order to help secure the country for the elections, 30,000 more American troops are set to arrive. These troops have a broader goal as well; to stem the insurgency which has escalated in the recent years, and turn the war. Even with these extra troops, it will be extremely difficult and maybe even impossible for elections to be held in some of the districts because of the extent of the Taliban control. Even still, all but 8 or 10 districts took part in voter registration and are therefore expected to take part in the election. There is also a question as to if individuals would even go out and vote. Many already believe fraud would play a large part in the election, and many individuals registered solely to receive voter cards which makes it easier to travel through government checkpoints.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/world/asia/12kabul.html?_r=2&ref=politics
Even though there is potential for the election to be compromised due to the Taliban and it will be difficult to conduct the election in some of the districts, the election still must happen. If this election does not happen as planned, it will send a message to both people inside and people outside of the country that the state of the country is so bad that not even an election to attempt to remedy the situation can occur. It would be an indicator of how bad the war is actually going. As the article also states, not having the elction would "throw the country into a political and constitutional crisis."
In every election there are going to be people who register to vote and then do not end up voting on election day. In Afghanistan this number may be greater than in other countries due to some individuals wanting a voting card for previously stated reasons, or due to the fact that it may be dangerous in some cases to cast a vote. The fact that a number of people will not vote should not be reason enough to not hold an election. There will still be a great number of people who vote, and they deserve to have their voices heard especially at a time when a change in leadership could be crucial to turn the state of the country around and get it going in the right direction. As the article stated, all but 8 0r 10 districts took part in voter registration out of the 364 districts in the country. That is a substantial percentage.
The article also mentions that the Taliban have held back from large-scale disruption of elections in the past because they rely so much on the people and do not want to alienate them. This means that although there is always going to be potential risk for the election to take place, it is not even certain that the Taliban would try to sabotage the vote or disrupt the election in some other way even if they do oppose presidential elections. Overall, the planned election must not be canceled. The extra 30,000 American troops being sent to Afghanistan should be able to provide some extra security for the elections, and at a time like this an election could possibly benefit the country of Afghanistan greatly.
In order to help secure the country for the elections, 30,000 more American troops are set to arrive. These troops have a broader goal as well; to stem the insurgency which has escalated in the recent years, and turn the war. Even with these extra troops, it will be extremely difficult and maybe even impossible for elections to be held in some of the districts because of the extent of the Taliban control. Even still, all but 8 or 10 districts took part in voter registration and are therefore expected to take part in the election. There is also a question as to if individuals would even go out and vote. Many already believe fraud would play a large part in the election, and many individuals registered solely to receive voter cards which makes it easier to travel through government checkpoints.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/world/asia/12kabul.html?_r=2&ref=politics
Even though there is potential for the election to be compromised due to the Taliban and it will be difficult to conduct the election in some of the districts, the election still must happen. If this election does not happen as planned, it will send a message to both people inside and people outside of the country that the state of the country is so bad that not even an election to attempt to remedy the situation can occur. It would be an indicator of how bad the war is actually going. As the article also states, not having the elction would "throw the country into a political and constitutional crisis."
In every election there are going to be people who register to vote and then do not end up voting on election day. In Afghanistan this number may be greater than in other countries due to some individuals wanting a voting card for previously stated reasons, or due to the fact that it may be dangerous in some cases to cast a vote. The fact that a number of people will not vote should not be reason enough to not hold an election. There will still be a great number of people who vote, and they deserve to have their voices heard especially at a time when a change in leadership could be crucial to turn the state of the country around and get it going in the right direction. As the article stated, all but 8 0r 10 districts took part in voter registration out of the 364 districts in the country. That is a substantial percentage.
The article also mentions that the Taliban have held back from large-scale disruption of elections in the past because they rely so much on the people and do not want to alienate them. This means that although there is always going to be potential risk for the election to take place, it is not even certain that the Taliban would try to sabotage the vote or disrupt the election in some other way even if they do oppose presidential elections. Overall, the planned election must not be canceled. The extra 30,000 American troops being sent to Afghanistan should be able to provide some extra security for the elections, and at a time like this an election could possibly benefit the country of Afghanistan greatly.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Cities Turn to Fees to Fill Budget Gaps
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/business/11fees.html?ref=politics
Cities and local governments, hit hard by the economy, are finding ways to make more money. All sorts of fees are being created and existing fees are being driven up, all in an effort to raise money. It makes sense; just as the people struggle, the government struggles too. But this is crossing the line. Some of the various fees from different parts of the country mentioned in the article are listed below:
-$316 accident response fee
-"fivefold increase in the cost to renew a livestock license"
-raised car registration fees
-raised birth certificate fees
-raised landfill fees
-raised penalty fees for annual dog licenses
-raised fees for AIDS testing
-Personal Favorite: "Washington’s mayor, Adrian M. Fenty, has proposed a 'streetlight
user fee' of $4.25 a month, to be added to electric bills, that would cover the cost of
operating and maintaining the city’s streetlights."
It is understood that governments are running low on cash, but some of these fees are simply awful. Was this country not built on the idea that ridiculous taxes and fees that go to the government are just that...ridiculous? There are two main reasons that the government should not be doing this. Primarily, it is wrong to make the people pay extra money on top of taxes. When people are digging deep in their pockets for some money, it is not the time to implement fees that will catch some off guard and unprepared. At a time when general sentiment is at a scary low, such fees will do nothing but add to the economic problem of these people. It seems obvious, but trying to pull money from people who just do not have it or are not willing to give it up for fear of further economic issues is not what a government should be doing. If I've seen my money in the market cut in half because of the recession, the last thing I need to see is that the government is adding to my problems with a "streetlight user fee" and an "accident response fee." Where are my tax dollars going?
A related reason is the response of the people that the government now has to deal with. If people are asked to pay more without the means, then they are going to be upset. When they are upset, the government is going to hear about it. Instead of unity between people and government, the people will rise up and exacerbate the problems that we are having in this nation. The woman in the article that was charged $316 for the police to come to the scene of her accident has already come forward and maintained she will not pay because she does not think it is fair. Meg Seymour, a town clerk in Londonderry, NH (home of raised dog license penalty fees), "is dreading local reaction." In 2002, when similar fees were raised, the calls were "vicious." How does public outrage possibly benefit a government?
These fees are wrong and insensitive to the people and they create a schism between the people and the government. In a time when unity and optimism are necessary, this is not the right thing to do.
Cities and local governments, hit hard by the economy, are finding ways to make more money. All sorts of fees are being created and existing fees are being driven up, all in an effort to raise money. It makes sense; just as the people struggle, the government struggles too. But this is crossing the line. Some of the various fees from different parts of the country mentioned in the article are listed below:
-$316 accident response fee
-"fivefold increase in the cost to renew a livestock license"
-raised car registration fees
-raised birth certificate fees
-raised landfill fees
-raised penalty fees for annual dog licenses
-raised fees for AIDS testing
-Personal Favorite: "Washington’s mayor, Adrian M. Fenty, has proposed a 'streetlight
user fee' of $4.25 a month, to be added to electric bills, that would cover the cost of
operating and maintaining the city’s streetlights."
It is understood that governments are running low on cash, but some of these fees are simply awful. Was this country not built on the idea that ridiculous taxes and fees that go to the government are just that...ridiculous? There are two main reasons that the government should not be doing this. Primarily, it is wrong to make the people pay extra money on top of taxes. When people are digging deep in their pockets for some money, it is not the time to implement fees that will catch some off guard and unprepared. At a time when general sentiment is at a scary low, such fees will do nothing but add to the economic problem of these people. It seems obvious, but trying to pull money from people who just do not have it or are not willing to give it up for fear of further economic issues is not what a government should be doing. If I've seen my money in the market cut in half because of the recession, the last thing I need to see is that the government is adding to my problems with a "streetlight user fee" and an "accident response fee." Where are my tax dollars going?
A related reason is the response of the people that the government now has to deal with. If people are asked to pay more without the means, then they are going to be upset. When they are upset, the government is going to hear about it. Instead of unity between people and government, the people will rise up and exacerbate the problems that we are having in this nation. The woman in the article that was charged $316 for the police to come to the scene of her accident has already come forward and maintained she will not pay because she does not think it is fair. Meg Seymour, a town clerk in Londonderry, NH (home of raised dog license penalty fees), "is dreading local reaction." In 2002, when similar fees were raised, the calls were "vicious." How does public outrage possibly benefit a government?
These fees are wrong and insensitive to the people and they create a schism between the people and the government. In a time when unity and optimism are necessary, this is not the right thing to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)