Polling at its worst

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/nyregion/07bloomberg.html?ref=todayspaper

The above URL is a link to a NYT article. This article exposes a poll used to debase his opponent. It really shows how polls can be used for negative reasons, and how they can be misued and conducted improperly.

Louisiana, a Test Case in Federal Aid

Before the $787 billion was dropped for the national stimulus bill, Louisiana was given $51 billion in reconstruction money after Hurricane Katrina occurred. This was one of the largest amounts given at one time to a single state. There have been positive effects such as a drop in unemployment and construction projects that are contributing to an “ongoing boom”. The government has offered Louisiana another $98 million in stimulus money, but the state’s Republican governor, Bobby Jindal, plans to reject it. As you can imagine, this has been a controversial decision, but it is clear that Jindal should not reject money that his state needs. New Orleans needs a new hospital which they are estimating to be about $500 million but FEMA has only offered them $150 million, this is just one example of how money can still be put to good use in the state of Louisiana.

Jindal is very much anti government spending. Considering the state of the current economy, it is understandable to be cautious about how what money we do have is being put to use. However, what is not understandable is how a governor would reject needed money for his own state. What Jindal needs to consider is where stimulus money is being the most effective. The government is not turning a blind eye to the rest of the nation, as seen by the $787 billion. Still, the federal stimulus money has not proven to be anywhere as effective as it has in Louisiana. If something’s working, you don’t stop it.

Above all, a governor has a responsibility to work for his state and ensure that the needs of the people are met. By turning down this stimulus, he is not fulfilling his responsibility to the citizens of Louisiana.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/us/05louisiana.html?ref=politics

Barack Obama G20 Speech

http://video.nytimes.com/video/playlist/world/europe/1194811622213/index.html#1194839116960

President Obama’s recent trip to Europe for the G20 was relatively successful. Obama called it a “historic agreement” yet it seemed like more of a photo shoot than actually creating new policy. The true success of the meeting seemed to come in the form of a united desire to work collectively to help the world economy. Still there were a wide range of solutions that were proposed. European counties such as France and Germany were looking to promote the creation of a global finance police. Other countries such as Russia are looking to pay bailouts with no strings attached relying fully upon the free market. This goes to show that although all of the countries said that they want to work together on this they all are going to go their separate ways where actual policy is concerned. This meeting should not be judged a success until it is certain that these words will be followed up with wide spread international policy.

What this meeting did foster is more of the confidence that everyone thinks is vital if the financial system is going to recover. On the day the US markets rose with the meeting showing that the meeting certainly ended on a positive note and shows how important this confidence is. The specific things that did get accomplished such as the 250 billion to boost world trade and the 750 billion given to the IMF seem like causes that are extremely broad and ineffective ways of using collective resources. Many developing countries that have received aid from the IMF have complained heavily due to the nature of the organization. Instead of this lip service to the world economic issue countries need to start coming together more removing local trade barriers and promoting the international flow of money. If the G20 was really a historic agreement then a lot more would have been accomplished.

A Shift to Make the Border Safe, From the Inside Out

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/us/06napolitano.html

The article discusses a new initiative to keep the southern border of the country safe. The plan involves sending an additional 360 agents to the border with Mexico. The main point of the plan, along with increasing the effectiveness of already existing border patrol methods, is to conduct southbound investigations. Additionally, Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Secretary, plans to complete the remaining 60 miles of fencing along the border, which has cost an estimated $4 million per mile.

Is this a good use of federal funding and agents? On the one hand, 360 agents is not something to treat lightly; they are very highly trained. Could they be put to better use? Also, an additional $240 million of federal spending when the economy is suffering should be considered unwise. After all, Napolitano herself said, “You show me a 12-foot fence and I’ll show you a 13-foot ladder.” The fence is obviously not foolproof and therefore may not warrant the additional spending. On the other hand, border security is something of extreme importance. People and illegal items leaving the country pose just as much danger as those entering it. This initiative also may prevent people from working in the United States while they live in Mexico. Especially with the country in its current economic state with fewer available jobs, this is of extreme importance. Southbound inspections will help to increase national security and decrease unwanted international travel.

One possible stance is to keep the additional agents there but abandon the plan, at least currently, to continue adding to the fence. This will still allow southbound inspections and also increase security against immigrants entering the United States without costing an additional $240 million. The southbound inspections are likely to decrease the trafficking of illegal substances and immigrants between the United States and Mexico. The initiative to decrease immigration from the southern border is of extreme importance and should not be discounted.

Gates Budget Plan Reshapes Pentagon's Priorities

Robert M. Gates, the Defense Secretary of the United States, announced Monday that there will be major renovations to the current Pentagon budget.  The budget, comprised of over $500 billion, handles all military funding including funding for the armed services, military facilities, equipment, weapons and innovative technology.  Gates has proposed drastically cutting into the budget for more traditional military technology such as deep-water Navy ships, missile programs and F-22 fighter jets.  Accompanying these cuts will be a cutback in the number of Army brigades, the cancelation of a new Presidential helicopter and a reduction in the number of Army land vehicles.  The trade-off is that Gates will increase spending on technologies to help combat terrorism and other current threats.  He would like to add soldiers to the army, increase spending on helicopter production, spend $2 billion on battlefield intelligence gathering, increase numbers of the F-35 fighter and continue to produce drone jets such as the Reaper.

One interesting concept on this is how this information is so readily available to the public.  The article goes into a lot of depth about what is being cut and what isn’t and what is currently in development.  It is hard to draw a line between transparency, which is a good thing because tax payers get to see what their money is actually doing, and just giving away too much information.  Here Gates does a good job of informing people on what is happening but yet conceals enough so that others with alternative motives, terrorists for example, can do practically nothing with the information.

At a first glance, the article may seem upsetting for those that believe the military is one of the most important and high priorities when discussing the U.S. budget.  One may think that the proposed budget cuts on military spending looks too much like what the Clinton administration did in the 1990s. Clinton drastically cut military funding to the point where some even blame the cuts for the U.S.’s poor preparation in Iraq.  But unlike Clinton, Gates is proposing the right cuts and smart additions.  The Cold War is over.  There is no need for military technologies designed for large combat between two or more huge superpowers.  In today’s world, country leaders stress diplomacy rather than war.  Globalization is a huge ideology and today’s world is a lot more closely knit than that of 20 years ago.  Counties all across the Earth rely on each other.  The U.S. relies on imports from China among others and those countries rely on the U.S. for their business.  This is just one of hundreds of examples.  The U.S. relies on China even more now as they continue to borrow enormous amounts of money from them in light of the recent economic recession.  The point being made here is that war today is different from war 20 years ago.  The U.S. needs to adapt to its surroundings and focus on technology that will help them to fight in this modern environment.  With the economic recession in full gear, it is the perfect time to start to phase outdated technology out and bring in new technology equipped to tackle the obstacles of a changing world.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/us/politics/07defense.html?ref=politics

A Nuclear Free World?

While in Prague, President Obama announced his plan to rid the world of nuclear weapons. He calls it America’s “moral duty” because we are the only country that has ever used one. But is it our moral duty? First of all, this plan seems extremely unrealistic. Even if the world were to be nuclear free, what is stopping a country from building more bombs? Today, North Korea launched a long range missile. This proves that countries can, and will quickly build nuclear missiles. Not having our own nuclear missiles would not provide us with any protection from countries that would develop them. Obama answered this question about our defense by stating that there will be "real and immediate consequences" for countries that violate this policy. America should not be the country who spearheads punishing countries for developing their military. This would set us up for too much controversy, which would cause us to make more enemies, thereby putting us a greater risk for attack. Second, this plan makes President Obama look soft. It is known that European countries that support the nuclear-free cause are viewed as soft and naïve. If President Obama were to implement this plan, countries would see him as soft and take advantage of this. This too, would put American citizens at risk.

Although his plan is unrealistic, it has good intentions. It can be the start of a weakening of tensions between countries that possess nuclear bombs, which is a more realistic goal. Obama’s first step is to renegotiate the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians. This is a good start to appeasing nuclear tension. However, in the same speech in Prague, Obama stated that he would like to implement a missile defense system in the countries of Poland and the Czech Republic. Planning this has caused grief between Russia and the US, which seems contradictory to his plan for peace. Instead of setting up this defense system that will anger countries, he should work on getting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ratified and signed by all of the 44 countries who have nuclear capabilities. This would effectively ban all nuclear explosions in all environments, for military or civilian purposes, and would hamper any countries hopes at testing their nuclear potential.

Jewish groups upset with Obama's latest decision

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/

The state department announced today that the United States will try to get back into the United Nations Human Rights Council.  Why isn't the US currently in the UN Human Rights Council?  Well it was, until during the Bush administration, they boycotted this group because of its criticism towards Israel, and its refusal to criticize other countries like Sudan.  Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said that this is in an attempt to bring about a "new era of engagement" under the Obama administration.

However major Jewish groups across the country are "outraged".  They explain that the track record of the UN Human Rights Council is "abysmol".  They refuse to lend aid to situations such as Darfur and turn their back on the violation of human rights that occurs in the member countries.

The UN Human Rights Council is a stage for much slander against the State of Israel and President Bush realized that they would not get anywhere by being a part of this group.  The United States wishing to join back in this group will cause a setback in the Israel-US relationship, as well as hurt many Jews in the country.

I agree that joining this group is probably not the best thing to do at this time, especially when Israel is currently under as much scrutiny as it is.  If the UN Human Rights Council does fail to look at the member countries violating human rights, than there is no reason that the United States should feel inclined to be a part of it.  So far, joining this group has caused more turmoil than it has good, and for that reason alone, it hasn't been worth it.