Obama Moves Census Control

Last week, President Obama has moved the census out of the control of the Secretary of Commerce into the control of the White House, in a move that can only be described as purely political. Typically, the census is headed by the Secretary of Commerce. However, after a withdrawal from Democrat Bill Richardson, Obama’s new Commerce Secretary is Republican Judd Gregg. This has caused many minority leaders, mainly Barbara Lee, to question Gregg’s ability to conduct an inclusive census. These allegations have led Obama to make the change.

The traditional way of counting US citizens is by going door to door and getting a hard count. Democrats wish to change the way the census is taken and implement a sampling strategy. This means that general statistics about a certain area will essentially be estimated. The Democrats feel that sampling helps count the minorities and homeless in urban areas that are often miscounted. This sampling method is not the best option. Even if it can compensate for the miscounted (which studies proved it does not do better than the hard count), it cannot place them into a precise enough area for it to be effective. Obama will exploit this flaw in the next census to redistrict political boundaries to favor himself. This was shown when Utah, a conservative state, was denied a fourth seat in the House after the last census was taken under Bill Clinton. This gerrymandering will help him gain votes in the Electoral College, and will completely skew the way federal funds will be appropriated to their respective districts.

Secondly, this change is not only political, I believe it is illegal. The Federal Statute “Title 13” states that the census can only be performed “as an agency within, and under the jurisdiction of, the Department of Commerce” (13 U.S.C. 2.). It also states that the census can only be viewed by “sworn officers of the Department.” If the White House has direct control over the census, it is very well possible that this confidentiality will be breached, thus breaking the law even further.

As you can see, President Obama’s decision to move control of the census is nothing but political. The census should remain in the control of Secretary of Commerce Judd Gregg, and the sampling method of counting should not be considered.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/09/gop-sounds-alarm-obama-decision-census-white-house/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423384887066377.html

Tests from Abroad

Three developments outside the borders of the United States in the past week that have received less publicity than the economic crisis and other national problems are listed below:

• Iran launched its first satellite into orbit, demonstrating that its missile technology, with all its inescapable military implications, is inching forward.
• Pakistan freed A.Q. Khan, the creator of the Pakistani nuclear bomb and the seller of nuclear secrets to unsavory characters around the world.
• The government of Kyrgyzstan, likely acting in concert with its Russian benefactors, ordered the closure of a crucial American air base in its country, robbing the U.S. of a key facility in the struggle to contain the Taliban in nearby Afghanistan.

These developments abroad seem to be quite unwelcome. The launch of the satellite by Iran can be attributed to coincidence. The other two occurrences may be a result of something more intentional and possibly sinister.

The freedom of A.Q. Khan could be considered troubling. The concurrent launch of the satellite by Iran, which proves the advance of the military technology of Iran, and the release of a seller of nuclear secrets could cause unrest from Americans. There is no evidence that Khan has any intention of even contacting anyone in Iran; however the process of his release is questionable. The Pakistani government has decided not to appeal the decision of his release, which was classified by the article as “perplexing.” Also, it is not the case that Iran is likely to take offensive action against the United States so there is little need for any immediate worry.

The circumstances surrounding the closure of the American air base in Kyrgyzstan is definitely poses the most severe problem. It is far more likely that this was an act against America than the other two; it is unlikely coincidence that as soon as President Obama wished to send more troops there, the based was closed. It is also unlikely a coincidence that the $2 billion that Russia handed the Krygyz government is unrelated.

The release of Khan and the closure of the American air base in Kyrgyzstan could be a reflection on the Obama administration. It could be perceived that Obama is less likely to take immediate military action than the Bush administration, which is why Pakistan and Kyrgyzstan waited to take action. Vice President Biden has declared that the new administration will take the time to talk, and to consult (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/02/07/8375/). Whether these occurrences are coincidence or a reflection on the Obama administration is up to interpretation and remains to be seen.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123421528140065101.html

You Try to Live on 500K in this Town

Obama wants to set $500,000 as the top pay for banking executives whose firms accept government bailout money. Why 500K? Was it an arbitrary amount? Is it the magic number? Does it just sound good? And the most important question; is it enough? One must remember that the values of things are different depending on where you are. Some things to consider about a banker living in New York City: Mortgage 96,000 a year, Co-op Maintenance fee 96,000 a year, school tuition 32,000 a year per student, and the list goes on and on. To a lot of people $500,000 is a lot, and don’t get me wrong, I think it is too. But when things are laid out and broken down, maybe it’s not as much as we initially thought.

But there’s a detail I’ve skipped over, many would argue, a very important detail indeed. The limit is for the banking executives whose firms accepted government bailout money. Why should a select number of people get to take our money and then pay themselves with it? That’s not fair. Well, that’s the way it works sometimes. Remember all the controversy when CEOs of the auto industry flew on their private jets to D.C. to ask for money? Who do they think they are? Let’s be honest, if you had a private jet you wouldn’t be so eager to trade it in for a coach seat either. American society is driven by self-interest; to take that away would alter who we are as a society.

Let’s think big…if we start setting limits on a couple banking executives’ salaries today, when are we going to set limits on the people in the next tier down? Or what’s the next industry to have salary caps? Please someone tell me so I know not to get a degree in an industry where my salary is already predetermined. We live in the United States; the idea of the American Dream motivates the citizens. To take away the idea that the sky is the limit is wrong.

The economy is bad, that’s no secret, but this is not the answer. So what do we do? We should focus less on the people making money and more on the ones that aren’t. Simply put, we need jobs. What if a tax incentive is given to businesses that don’t lay people off, or even better, hire a certain amount of people? Instead of limiting earning potential in America, let’s try to create it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashion/08halfmill.html?em

The Virginia Tech Betrayal

A gun control proposal in memory of the Virginia Tech shooting was rejected in Richmond, Virginia this past week. The proposal pushed for an end to "sportsmen's shows" in which people can go and purchase guns with no background checks required. These shows serve as loopholes where felons and deranged people are able to purchase weapons where as they would be rejected at a local gun shop. Are these shows really the reason behind illegal gun procession? I'm sure that there are tons of ways to get illegal weapons in this country. Gun shows may be a small part of the problem but nothing more. I believe that there are many dealers that either buy guns legally and then sell them illegally or import weapons from other countries illegally.

Banning gun shows would be a start to getting guns under control in this country however to truly deal with the problem more must be done. The United States has the highest gun related deaths out of any country in the world. (MedicineNet.com) This problem needs to be addressed in an appropriate manner. I am not in support of a total ban on firearms. A complete ban would be a violation of the second amendment and I believe that guns are a part of this country's history. What I would propose is a ban on all handheld and assault weapons. I think this solution would take care of the problems that guns cause while still pleasing hunters and stark Republicans that want to hold on to their rifles. Handheld guns such as pistols are the real threat to safety as they are the easiest weapon to conceal. Most gun related deaths in the United States are caused by pistols. Think about it. People aren't going to be carrying around rifles with the intention of using them against others because there’s no way of easily concealing them. As for assault rifles, these are absolutely unnecessary and serve no purpose what so ever. I believe that these should be used strictly for military purpose and to be honest I have no idea how they are still legal for personal use today. Banning these types of weapons would not eliminate gun deaths obviously but I do believe that it would lower these deaths dramatically.

As I noted above the only guns that would be legal in my plan would be rifles and shotguns (not including sawed-off shot guns). This allows for people to still use their guns for hunting, which I see as the only reason for keeping guns around. I believe that by just simply eliminating these gun shows would not solve the problem. People that plan to obtain guns illegally from the shows will just find another way to acquire them. Gun control is a very touchy subject because even though the logical reasoning would be to eliminate them, not everyone agrees. I think that the plan I suggested does a decent job of accommodating both sides. Of course eliminating handheld and assault guns will not be easy but it’s a solution that just might work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/opinion/08sun3.html

No More Private Jets? CEO's might have to fly economy class?

White House has been talking on bailouts for weeks now. With Ford, GM, and Chrysler all struggling the government is drafting bills to come to their aid. Senator Dodd, who is the Chairman of the Banking Committee is also proposing that GM CEO be removed as part of the deal. The deal would also eliminate all chartered or private aircraft, no bonuses for executives, not "golden parachutes", and no stockholder dividends.

As much as this article makes it seem like Chris Dodd and democrats are really attacking the CEO's and big executives within the auto industry we all know that these people will still be living the same life style they always have. Funded by the taxpayers this time. AIG executives have been seen flying private jets, staying in fancy spas, and renting out large banquets for parties.

Do these CEO's feel any guilt in having the hard working American tax payer, pay for luxuries most have never even experienced? Our politicians should force all three CEO's to step down. American car companies have not been investing in the future for a long time. They have been concerned with their SUV's, Trucks, and high margin vehicles. Forget about the hybrids, electric, and solar powered ideas of the future.

What kind of example does this give to companies in other industries? The banking industry had millions of peoples life savings, retirements, college savings, and mortgages. But do we really need to save the Ford Explorer? Companies have failed before because of poor decisions, and new and better ones have risen up. Whats to say someone else won't step up?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/business/09auto.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

First One Hundred Days

The article I chose is about Obama wanting to make a speech in an Islamic country within his first one hundred days as president. Obama's goal in doing this is to get on better terms with the large Muslim population of the world. I think this is definitely a good idea, especially since the US is definitely not known for its excellent foreign relations. One of Obama's many goals for his term is to better relations with other countries, and this would definitely be a step in the right direction as long as his speech goes over well and is accepted by the Muslims and does not further alienate them from America. The major debate in the article is where his speech should be made, since there are a variety of countries where Islam is very popular. The article mentions Cairo in Egypt as the prime spot for this great speech to bring the world closer together. I think going to the middle east would be better than Egypt though. We clearly have more problems getting along over there and it would seem like we were really trying to make an effort with our direct former enemies if we went the middle east. Egypt seems like we are trying to get as close as we can to the problem spot without actually going in it. Although I think it is a good idea to better our relations with the rest of the world, and certainly starting that within the first one hundred days sets it as a priority, Obama should choose his location wisely in order to have the most positive impact.

article found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/politics/04web-cooper.html

James Jones Jr. James Jones: Obama's National Security Surprise

Barack Obama has recently made a shocking decision by choosing James Jones as his national security adviser. Jones led the marines from 1999 into the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003. Many are saying this is more of the same old policy from the Bush and Clinton years. But I think this is a good move because he needs experience on his staff. It is important that he doesn't get get new faces in Washington but people with experience at handling these issues. Jones is a capable adviser and was on of the men who oversaw the beginning of the Iraqi invasion. Jones has a deep understanding of the military and military operations. He is a war veteran, with many medals of honor, but most importantly he doesn't have any political affiliation. So he will be more likely to worry about bureaucracy and worry more about what is best for the country. Jones also has a great relationship with Clinton and many other new members of Obama's new cabinet. So overall I think this is a good decision for Obama because he chose a man who knows what he is doing from experience in the job and is still up to the task of handling Washington politics. This is an important decision because of the volatile situation not only in Iraq but also in Iran. Jones will have to deal with ending the war in Iraq and rising conflict with the Irani government. His advisement on how we handle the situation could decide wether we move into another foreign war or not.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1862911,00.html?cnn=yes