Last night, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) filed a resolution against the "racist elements" of the Tea Party movement. NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous said in a written statement that they have no problem with the organization itself, just its tolerance for racism and bigotry.
This comes on the heels of a billboard in Iowa created by a local tea party group which pictured Adolf Hitler, Barack Obama, and Vladamir Lenin, with the words "Radical leaders prey on the fearful & naive" underneath. The group admitted that in hindsight, the billboard did not accurately portray the message they were going for, and other tea party groups have voiced their disagreement with the billboard.
Where both the NAACP and the Iowa incident get it wrong, is that the tea party is not a national organization. It is a conglomeration of local groups who believe in a common cause. There is no national organizing structure or leader, nor is there a set code of conduct or platform. Yes, there have been groups who have claimed to be in charge and who have organized tea party conventions and conferences, but they are mistaken. It is a grassroots movement.
And that is the point of the tea party- people who get together on their own because they share a concern and love of their country. I have attended three tea party events in two cities and interviewed dozens of tea party members. I have seen everyone form grandparents to toddlers at the events. I have even interviewed tea party opponents and protestors. And in no instance on either side have I seen any act of violence, bigotry or racism. Yes, there may be individuals with those beliefs in the tea party, but that is not the point of the group. The group is about opposing out of control government spending and the overreach of government authority, not about bashing blacks or gays. If it was, I would not call myself a member of the organization.
Yes, I consider myself a member of the tea party. I also consider myself a libertarian, and supporter of gay rights. But i consider myself first and foremost a journalist. I have never attended a tea party event as a participant, only as a reporter. I do not support the actions of the group in Iowa, nor do I believe it can or should represent the group as a whole. Maybe those who claim to know what the group is about and how dangerous and racist it is should attend a meeting, rally, or simply do some research.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
15 States Sue Over Health Care Law
15 States Sue Over Health Care Law
By: Ashley Freije
Within minutes of President Obama singing the health care bill into law, 13 states filed a joint lawsuit against the government, claiming the law was unconstitutional.
The attorney generals of Florida, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, and South Dakota filed suit against the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services. In their suit, they claim that the health care legislation violates numerous articles of the Constitution. Indiana and Virginia have also filed their own lawsuits.
The suits claim that the new law infringes on states rights, by indirectly dictating how states must allocate funds. The new law cuts federal funding for Medicaid. However, coverage must remain the same, so states are responsible for funding the difference. This, the lawsuit argues, is the government taking control of state budgets, which violates state sovereignty.
The tax on individuals who do not have health insurance, the states argue, violates Section 9 of Article 1, which says that the Congress can levy no direct tax. The states also claim that the law violates individual liberties, and that the Constitution does not allow the government to mandate that people have health coverage, or buy any product.
It will take some time, however, to see how these lawsuits play out. According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, in an interview with Newsmax magazine, that lawsuits such as this take about four years to work their way to the supreme court. Napolitano believes the new law is equivalent to “commandeering” state legislatures. He says that the Supreme Court has already ruled that areas of human behavior that are not delegated specifically to the federal government fall under state jurisdiction.
The best case that states have in a lawsuit seems to be that the Constitution requires that all citizens be treated equally. With the “Louisiana purchase” and “cornhusker kickback” for Nebraska, the law does not treat these states and their citizens the same as all of the other people in America. While the Nebraska deal was removed in the reconciliation bill, Tennessee and North Dakota received deals in the same bill.
The White House has not remained silent on the lawsuits. They cited two Supreme Court decisions in their support for the constitutionality of the bill. In US. V Southeastern Underwriters Association (1944), the Court rules the Sherman Anti-trust act applies to insurance companies. And in Gonzales v Raich (2005) the Court said that Congress could ban the use of cannabis, even where states had approved its use for medical use. These cases, the White House argues, show a precedent for government involvement both in the area of insurance, and in state issues.
However, the White House fails to note that Congress itself went against the Southeastern decision. In the decision, the Court said that it was not up to them to decide if Congress should mandate insurance, and that the Court would go along with whatever Congress decided. In 1945 Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act. This act exempted insurance companies from most federal regulations, as long as states regulate the industry. It also says that federal acts that do not explicitly seek to regulate insurance cannot supersede state acts. The health care bill seeks to change health care, not regulate insurance. Under this act, whatever regulations are to be put on insurance in the bill are a violation of Congress’s own laws.
While the states suing the government do have a solid case, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will overturn the law. With two elections likely before the court even hears the case, there is a stronger chance for the law to be repealed than overturned by the Court.
By: Ashley Freije
Within minutes of President Obama singing the health care bill into law, 13 states filed a joint lawsuit against the government, claiming the law was unconstitutional.
The attorney generals of Florida, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, and South Dakota filed suit against the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services. In their suit, they claim that the health care legislation violates numerous articles of the Constitution. Indiana and Virginia have also filed their own lawsuits.
The suits claim that the new law infringes on states rights, by indirectly dictating how states must allocate funds. The new law cuts federal funding for Medicaid. However, coverage must remain the same, so states are responsible for funding the difference. This, the lawsuit argues, is the government taking control of state budgets, which violates state sovereignty.
The tax on individuals who do not have health insurance, the states argue, violates Section 9 of Article 1, which says that the Congress can levy no direct tax. The states also claim that the law violates individual liberties, and that the Constitution does not allow the government to mandate that people have health coverage, or buy any product.
It will take some time, however, to see how these lawsuits play out. According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, in an interview with Newsmax magazine, that lawsuits such as this take about four years to work their way to the supreme court. Napolitano believes the new law is equivalent to “commandeering” state legislatures. He says that the Supreme Court has already ruled that areas of human behavior that are not delegated specifically to the federal government fall under state jurisdiction.
The best case that states have in a lawsuit seems to be that the Constitution requires that all citizens be treated equally. With the “Louisiana purchase” and “cornhusker kickback” for Nebraska, the law does not treat these states and their citizens the same as all of the other people in America. While the Nebraska deal was removed in the reconciliation bill, Tennessee and North Dakota received deals in the same bill.
The White House has not remained silent on the lawsuits. They cited two Supreme Court decisions in their support for the constitutionality of the bill. In US. V Southeastern Underwriters Association (1944), the Court rules the Sherman Anti-trust act applies to insurance companies. And in Gonzales v Raich (2005) the Court said that Congress could ban the use of cannabis, even where states had approved its use for medical use. These cases, the White House argues, show a precedent for government involvement both in the area of insurance, and in state issues.
However, the White House fails to note that Congress itself went against the Southeastern decision. In the decision, the Court said that it was not up to them to decide if Congress should mandate insurance, and that the Court would go along with whatever Congress decided. In 1945 Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act. This act exempted insurance companies from most federal regulations, as long as states regulate the industry. It also says that federal acts that do not explicitly seek to regulate insurance cannot supersede state acts. The health care bill seeks to change health care, not regulate insurance. Under this act, whatever regulations are to be put on insurance in the bill are a violation of Congress’s own laws.
While the states suing the government do have a solid case, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will overturn the law. With two elections likely before the court even hears the case, there is a stronger chance for the law to be repealed than overturned by the Court.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Time to Be Counted
Time to Be Counted
By Ashley Freije
It is hard to go to the bathroom on campus without seeing a flyer for the 2010 census on the inside of the front door.
After a controversial pre-census survey last fall, asking questions such as how much time a person spends driving to work or how many times they flush their toilet, the official 2010 census will arrive in mailboxes in mid-March.
The Constitution requires a count of all people in the nation every ten years, in order to get a count of how many people live in the country, and to reevaluate how many representatives every state receives in the House of Representatives. The results of the census also lead to redrawing congressional districts, and determine how money is distributed among districts.
With such high stakes on the line, districts make huge efforts to make sure every resident in their area completes the census, and Bloomington is no exception. Count Us IN is a campus effort to get out the word about the 2010 census, and what students need to do. According to the group’s video, students living on campus or in Bloomington should fill out their census in Bloomington, as it is their “usual residence.” Even international students, according to the video, should fill out a census in Bloomington.
Some, however, do not think this is correct. According to IU senior Courtney Flannery, “I think that counting students with college as their main residence is a disservice to the students home communities.”
Flannery says that she does not want tax dollars going to Bloomington due to her being counted on the census, as she will only be living in the city for a few more months. She says other students she knows feel the same. She also disagrees with Count Us IN’s claim that international students should fill out a census, saying she does not feel non-citizens should be counted on the census.
She also says she does not want to be counted twice by filling out the census in Bloomington. Question 10 on the census form asks if any member of the house sometimes lives elsewhere, including the option of “college housing.” If a student’s parent fills them out on their census, and they fill out their own, Flannery worries she and others will be counted twice on the census, giving inaccurate population figures.
The government is not taking the census lightly. It bought a $3.5 million ad during the Super Bowl to advertize the census with several Hollywood actors, and nationwide campaigns to raise awareness for the census before questionnaires arrive in mailboxes in mid-March.
The census will become even more important next year when redistricting occurs, and candidates prepare for reelection. Districts may have completely different make-ups, or may be lost and given to more populous states.
Those who chose not to fill out their forms and turn them in face the possibility of a census worker coming to their door, and a $5000 fine. While there are other questions on the survey, all have been deemed “necessary and proper” to governance. The official census day is April 1. For more information visit census.gov or 2010census.gov
By Ashley Freije
It is hard to go to the bathroom on campus without seeing a flyer for the 2010 census on the inside of the front door.
After a controversial pre-census survey last fall, asking questions such as how much time a person spends driving to work or how many times they flush their toilet, the official 2010 census will arrive in mailboxes in mid-March.
The Constitution requires a count of all people in the nation every ten years, in order to get a count of how many people live in the country, and to reevaluate how many representatives every state receives in the House of Representatives. The results of the census also lead to redrawing congressional districts, and determine how money is distributed among districts.
With such high stakes on the line, districts make huge efforts to make sure every resident in their area completes the census, and Bloomington is no exception. Count Us IN is a campus effort to get out the word about the 2010 census, and what students need to do. According to the group’s video, students living on campus or in Bloomington should fill out their census in Bloomington, as it is their “usual residence.” Even international students, according to the video, should fill out a census in Bloomington.
Some, however, do not think this is correct. According to IU senior Courtney Flannery, “I think that counting students with college as their main residence is a disservice to the students home communities.”
Flannery says that she does not want tax dollars going to Bloomington due to her being counted on the census, as she will only be living in the city for a few more months. She says other students she knows feel the same. She also disagrees with Count Us IN’s claim that international students should fill out a census, saying she does not feel non-citizens should be counted on the census.
She also says she does not want to be counted twice by filling out the census in Bloomington. Question 10 on the census form asks if any member of the house sometimes lives elsewhere, including the option of “college housing.” If a student’s parent fills them out on their census, and they fill out their own, Flannery worries she and others will be counted twice on the census, giving inaccurate population figures.
The government is not taking the census lightly. It bought a $3.5 million ad during the Super Bowl to advertize the census with several Hollywood actors, and nationwide campaigns to raise awareness for the census before questionnaires arrive in mailboxes in mid-March.
The census will become even more important next year when redistricting occurs, and candidates prepare for reelection. Districts may have completely different make-ups, or may be lost and given to more populous states.
Those who chose not to fill out their forms and turn them in face the possibility of a census worker coming to their door, and a $5000 fine. While there are other questions on the survey, all have been deemed “necessary and proper” to governance. The official census day is April 1. For more information visit census.gov or 2010census.gov
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Obama Provides Health-Insurance Plan
Obama Provides Health-Insurance Plan
By: Ashley Freije
President Obama released his own health insurance reform proposal on February 22. Unlike previous attempts, his proposal is not an actual bill. Rather, it is a list of points divided into ten sections. The proposal preceded his meeting with republican and democratic lawmakers on February 24.
As with previous bills, people may keep their current insurance. “Nothing in the proposal forces anyone to change the insurance they have. Period,” reads the White House website. The proposal aims to create a “health insurance exchange” which will consist of private insurance companies that will compete for business and will have to “follow common-sense rules of the road that rein in the worst insurance industry abuses.“
In a new move, though, the proposal requires members of congress to purchase their health insurance from this same exchange.
The proposal will punish those who do not have health insurance, saying those who can afford insurance have “the responsibility to purchase it.” There are waivers: if premiums exceed 8 percent of one’s income, if one has a religious objection, makes less than the amount required to file taxes, or is a member of an Indian tribe, they are not required to purchase health insurance. If they are under the age of 30, however, they can purchase a “low-cost catastrophic plan” to cover serious injury or illness.
When it comes to funding, the proposal lacks details. It says the government will save money by increasing rebates on Medicare prescription drugs. All the website says is that “when enacted” health insurance reform will be completely paid for, and that it will reduce the deficit by more than $100-billion. It will enact excise taxes on insurance premiums costing $27,500 for families and $10,200 for singles in 2018.
The website devotes an entire section to republican ideas that the president incorporated into the bill as well, including expanding the dependency age to 26, and advancing medical liability reform.
The president also proposed “hundreds of billions of dollars” in tax credits to help middle-class families pay for insurance. The plan proposes tax credits for families making less than $250,000 There will also be financial assistance for low-income families. It also claims “tens of billions” of dollars in tax credits for small businesses to purchase insurance for their employees.
The proposal does, however, set many restrictions on insurance companies. New plans must offer preventative care, such as immunizations, for free. Current plans will be prevented from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, having different premiums based on gender or salary, and from dropping coverage when someone becomes sick. The act also limits the amount insurance companies can charge based on age.
The bill devotes an entire section to Medicare. The proposal will give incentives to doctors to improve care, and it will provide seniors with $250 to offset prescription costs when they reach the gap in Medicare coverage. The website says, “Medicare is a sacred trust with America’s seniors, and this Act preserves it.”
Like other proposed legislation, the president’s plan calls for an increased health care workforce, and provides ways to increase it, such as student loan repayment programs and greater scholarship programs.
The entire proposal can be read at whitehouse.gov
By: Ashley Freije
President Obama released his own health insurance reform proposal on February 22. Unlike previous attempts, his proposal is not an actual bill. Rather, it is a list of points divided into ten sections. The proposal preceded his meeting with republican and democratic lawmakers on February 24.
As with previous bills, people may keep their current insurance. “Nothing in the proposal forces anyone to change the insurance they have. Period,” reads the White House website. The proposal aims to create a “health insurance exchange” which will consist of private insurance companies that will compete for business and will have to “follow common-sense rules of the road that rein in the worst insurance industry abuses.“
In a new move, though, the proposal requires members of congress to purchase their health insurance from this same exchange.
The proposal will punish those who do not have health insurance, saying those who can afford insurance have “the responsibility to purchase it.” There are waivers: if premiums exceed 8 percent of one’s income, if one has a religious objection, makes less than the amount required to file taxes, or is a member of an Indian tribe, they are not required to purchase health insurance. If they are under the age of 30, however, they can purchase a “low-cost catastrophic plan” to cover serious injury or illness.
When it comes to funding, the proposal lacks details. It says the government will save money by increasing rebates on Medicare prescription drugs. All the website says is that “when enacted” health insurance reform will be completely paid for, and that it will reduce the deficit by more than $100-billion. It will enact excise taxes on insurance premiums costing $27,500 for families and $10,200 for singles in 2018.
The website devotes an entire section to republican ideas that the president incorporated into the bill as well, including expanding the dependency age to 26, and advancing medical liability reform.
The president also proposed “hundreds of billions of dollars” in tax credits to help middle-class families pay for insurance. The plan proposes tax credits for families making less than $250,000 There will also be financial assistance for low-income families. It also claims “tens of billions” of dollars in tax credits for small businesses to purchase insurance for their employees.
The proposal does, however, set many restrictions on insurance companies. New plans must offer preventative care, such as immunizations, for free. Current plans will be prevented from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, having different premiums based on gender or salary, and from dropping coverage when someone becomes sick. The act also limits the amount insurance companies can charge based on age.
The bill devotes an entire section to Medicare. The proposal will give incentives to doctors to improve care, and it will provide seniors with $250 to offset prescription costs when they reach the gap in Medicare coverage. The website says, “Medicare is a sacred trust with America’s seniors, and this Act preserves it.”
Like other proposed legislation, the president’s plan calls for an increased health care workforce, and provides ways to increase it, such as student loan repayment programs and greater scholarship programs.
The entire proposal can be read at whitehouse.gov
Let's Set the Record Straight Once Again
I stumbled upon a blog today. It picks apart my friend and I's appearance last week on Fox and Friends to discuss Baron Hill. Many blogs have written about the incident and its fallout, but with this blog, I feel it is time to set the record completely straight.
My "class project" was for J-210 Visual Communications. I was to create a photo slideshow using still photographs and natural sound. I knew that the school newspaper would have an audio recording of the town hall that I could use, and I gathered sounds from outside of the event.
Once inside the event, I saw that no audio or video recording was allowed. Not wanting to break the rules, I went to the woman handing out press passes and explained my project. I gladly gave her my contact information, assured her that I would not use flash or be a problem, and she gave me the press sticker.
After we were pulled aside and told to start filming, I was ready to let it go. I wanted an answer though, and asked my friend to ask the congressman why we couldn't film. I did not want to become a part of the story, just report on it. Ask any of my professors, they will tell you every piece of mine has been fair and objective.
I never had any ill-intentions or want to make a hit-piece on the congressman. I only wanted a few photographs of him speaking at the event for my project.
Was I a republican? Yes. Am I now? No, I am a libertarian. Yes, I have donated to republican candidates. Yes, I admire Bill O'Reilly. However, when reporting, I keep my views out of it. It is not my place to frame a story to meet my needs.
Since when did having a dream and a political ideology become a crime? Would this blog have mentioned either if I said being on CNN was a dream come true or if I was liberal? I doubt it. I feel they are non issues, and I will apologize for neither.
Yes, the story is 6 months old, but it is completely relevant if Congressman Hill is running for office, no matter what it is. All constituents, not just Congressman HIll's, have a right to question their leaders. They are the ones employing them. They are the boss.
At least my name is out there. I may need to retool this blog to be more news oriented and create a new opinion one, as this blog has been linked too in the article. But I will keep doing what I love to do: reporting the news and providing analysis and opinion. I hope you will stick around for the ride.
My "class project" was for J-210 Visual Communications. I was to create a photo slideshow using still photographs and natural sound. I knew that the school newspaper would have an audio recording of the town hall that I could use, and I gathered sounds from outside of the event.
Once inside the event, I saw that no audio or video recording was allowed. Not wanting to break the rules, I went to the woman handing out press passes and explained my project. I gladly gave her my contact information, assured her that I would not use flash or be a problem, and she gave me the press sticker.
After we were pulled aside and told to start filming, I was ready to let it go. I wanted an answer though, and asked my friend to ask the congressman why we couldn't film. I did not want to become a part of the story, just report on it. Ask any of my professors, they will tell you every piece of mine has been fair and objective.
I never had any ill-intentions or want to make a hit-piece on the congressman. I only wanted a few photographs of him speaking at the event for my project.
Was I a republican? Yes. Am I now? No, I am a libertarian. Yes, I have donated to republican candidates. Yes, I admire Bill O'Reilly. However, when reporting, I keep my views out of it. It is not my place to frame a story to meet my needs.
Since when did having a dream and a political ideology become a crime? Would this blog have mentioned either if I said being on CNN was a dream come true or if I was liberal? I doubt it. I feel they are non issues, and I will apologize for neither.
Yes, the story is 6 months old, but it is completely relevant if Congressman Hill is running for office, no matter what it is. All constituents, not just Congressman HIll's, have a right to question their leaders. They are the ones employing them. They are the boss.
At least my name is out there. I may need to retool this blog to be more news oriented and create a new opinion one, as this blog has been linked too in the article. But I will keep doing what I love to do: reporting the news and providing analysis and opinion. I hope you will stick around for the ride.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Bayh Leaves Indiana Up For Grabs in 2010
Bayh Leaves Indiana Up For Grabs in 2010
By: Ashley Freije
Evan Bayh took the political world by surprise on February 15 by announcing he would no longer seek reelection for the Indiana senate seat he has held for two-terms.
It was a move no one saw coming. Reports say that even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was unaware of Bayh’s intention to step out of the race. Most polls had Bayh beating any challenger by large margins (in polls against Representative Mike Pence, Bayh looses, but Pence has said he will not run for the senate).
The Bayhs in Indiana can be equated to the Kennedys in Masachusettes. Bayh was Secretary of State before serving two-terms as governor, then moving to his two-terms in senate. His father, Birch Bayh, was an Indiana Senator from 1963-1981. Both enjoy huge popularity in the state.
Bayh’s announcement came the day before the filing deadline to get on the ballot for the May primary. This short notice meant that no candidate was able to get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Bloomington restaurant owner Tamyra d'Ippolito was thought to be a possible replacement, but she failed to garner enough signatures.
Since there are no official candidates, the state democratic committee will be given the task of choosing a nominee for the seat. According to The Indianapolis Star, the committee can pick a nominee as early as next week, or as late as August. Bayh told the Star he would rather not get involved with choosing his successor, but hopes the party will choose someone that is a “consensus candidate.” He believes that at least two or three serious candidates will emerge.
The lack of Bayh, a strong force in Indiana politics for over two-decades, leaves the field wide open for a large field of republican candidates. Five republicans received enough signatures by filing time to get on the primary ballot, including Dan Coats, the man from whom Bayh won his senate seat in 1998.
The US Senate seat is not the only heated primary in Indiana. 4th district US Representative Steve Buyer, republican, announced that he would not be seeking reelection due to his wife’s illness. This lead current Secretary of State Todd Rokita to announce that he would seek the seat. He faces off against eight other republicans in the primary.
Then there is Indiana’s 9th district, a congressional race that has been very heated in recent elections. Incumbent Baron Hill, democrat, will face off against three other democrats in the primary. The republicans have four candidates in the primary, including Mike Sodrel, who took the seat from Hill in 2004, but lost to hill in 2006. Many factors could influence this race, including the possibility of Hill becoming the democrat nominee for senate, or possibly running for governor in 2012.
All of this puts Indiana very much in play for 2010.
After many years of reliable republican presidential votes, the state gave its electoral votes to Barack Obama in 2008. Bayh’s absence makes Indiana another state that is up for grabs in 2010.
By: Ashley Freije
Evan Bayh took the political world by surprise on February 15 by announcing he would no longer seek reelection for the Indiana senate seat he has held for two-terms.
It was a move no one saw coming. Reports say that even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was unaware of Bayh’s intention to step out of the race. Most polls had Bayh beating any challenger by large margins (in polls against Representative Mike Pence, Bayh looses, but Pence has said he will not run for the senate).
The Bayhs in Indiana can be equated to the Kennedys in Masachusettes. Bayh was Secretary of State before serving two-terms as governor, then moving to his two-terms in senate. His father, Birch Bayh, was an Indiana Senator from 1963-1981. Both enjoy huge popularity in the state.
Bayh’s announcement came the day before the filing deadline to get on the ballot for the May primary. This short notice meant that no candidate was able to get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Bloomington restaurant owner Tamyra d'Ippolito was thought to be a possible replacement, but she failed to garner enough signatures.
Since there are no official candidates, the state democratic committee will be given the task of choosing a nominee for the seat. According to The Indianapolis Star, the committee can pick a nominee as early as next week, or as late as August. Bayh told the Star he would rather not get involved with choosing his successor, but hopes the party will choose someone that is a “consensus candidate.” He believes that at least two or three serious candidates will emerge.
The lack of Bayh, a strong force in Indiana politics for over two-decades, leaves the field wide open for a large field of republican candidates. Five republicans received enough signatures by filing time to get on the primary ballot, including Dan Coats, the man from whom Bayh won his senate seat in 1998.
The US Senate seat is not the only heated primary in Indiana. 4th district US Representative Steve Buyer, republican, announced that he would not be seeking reelection due to his wife’s illness. This lead current Secretary of State Todd Rokita to announce that he would seek the seat. He faces off against eight other republicans in the primary.
Then there is Indiana’s 9th district, a congressional race that has been very heated in recent elections. Incumbent Baron Hill, democrat, will face off against three other democrats in the primary. The republicans have four candidates in the primary, including Mike Sodrel, who took the seat from Hill in 2004, but lost to hill in 2006. Many factors could influence this race, including the possibility of Hill becoming the democrat nominee for senate, or possibly running for governor in 2012.
All of this puts Indiana very much in play for 2010.
After many years of reliable republican presidential votes, the state gave its electoral votes to Barack Obama in 2008. Bayh’s absence makes Indiana another state that is up for grabs in 2010.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Despite Economic Hardships, State of the Union Remains Strong
In just over 70 minutes, with 86 breaks for applause, President Barack Obama used his first State of the Union to reassure Americans that things are not as bad as they seem, and that he is hopeful for the country’s future.
The main theme of the speech was the lack of trust in government. Numerous times, Obama mentioned the “deficit of trust” citizens have in the government. The president cited the media and partisan bickering in Washington as the reason there is “so much cynicism…so much disappointment” amongst the people.
The president started his speech by addressing the economic hardships facing the nation. He said that most of the money given as bailouts to banks had been recovered, and that to recover the rest, he would call for increased payments from the largest banks. If they can afford to give out bonuses, Obama said, they can afford to give more money back.
Later, he proposed a three-year spending freeze on government spending starting in 2011. Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and national defense spending would not be affected.
He also announced his main initiative for 2010: jobs. He called for a jobs initiative package to be on his desk “soon.” “I do not accept second place for the United States” when it comes to job creation, he said.
The most obvious partisan divides came during the section on energy. Republicans stood when Obama mentioned searching for new sources of oil, and offshore drilling. Democrats jumped up when Obama mentioned a clean energy bill. The president also mentioned increasing US exports, and engaging in new global trade agreements.
Education was another key issue for the president. He said that no person could be forever in debt because they chose to go to college. Therefore, he proposed a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college, and an increase in Pell grants. He also proposed capping student loan payments at 10% of a person’s income, and forgiving debt after 20 years. That time would be cut in half if a student chose to go into government work.
Obama did not forget the pressing issue of health care reform. He said he did not choose to tackle the issue because it was politically popular, but because it was necessary. He says he welcomes other ideas for reform, but “will not walk away” from Americans who do not have health care.
He also did not abandon his promise of transparence, calling for a new requirement that would force lobbyists to post online any contacts they make with members of congress, or his administration.
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of his speech was during his section on equality. Obama mentioned his fight for equal employment and pay, and then called on congress to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a policy that prevents gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military.
He also addressed security in the wake of the Christmas Day attempted plane bombing, saying his administration had filled holes found by the even. He also said Iran would face increasing “consequences” for pursuing nuclear weapons.
“America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity,” Obama said. He called on Americans to continue forward, despite a difficult year, and carry on the ideas of America ending, as presidents always do, “God bless America.”
The main theme of the speech was the lack of trust in government. Numerous times, Obama mentioned the “deficit of trust” citizens have in the government. The president cited the media and partisan bickering in Washington as the reason there is “so much cynicism…so much disappointment” amongst the people.
The president started his speech by addressing the economic hardships facing the nation. He said that most of the money given as bailouts to banks had been recovered, and that to recover the rest, he would call for increased payments from the largest banks. If they can afford to give out bonuses, Obama said, they can afford to give more money back.
Later, he proposed a three-year spending freeze on government spending starting in 2011. Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and national defense spending would not be affected.
He also announced his main initiative for 2010: jobs. He called for a jobs initiative package to be on his desk “soon.” “I do not accept second place for the United States” when it comes to job creation, he said.
The most obvious partisan divides came during the section on energy. Republicans stood when Obama mentioned searching for new sources of oil, and offshore drilling. Democrats jumped up when Obama mentioned a clean energy bill. The president also mentioned increasing US exports, and engaging in new global trade agreements.
Education was another key issue for the president. He said that no person could be forever in debt because they chose to go to college. Therefore, he proposed a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college, and an increase in Pell grants. He also proposed capping student loan payments at 10% of a person’s income, and forgiving debt after 20 years. That time would be cut in half if a student chose to go into government work.
Obama did not forget the pressing issue of health care reform. He said he did not choose to tackle the issue because it was politically popular, but because it was necessary. He says he welcomes other ideas for reform, but “will not walk away” from Americans who do not have health care.
He also did not abandon his promise of transparence, calling for a new requirement that would force lobbyists to post online any contacts they make with members of congress, or his administration.
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of his speech was during his section on equality. Obama mentioned his fight for equal employment and pay, and then called on congress to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a policy that prevents gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military.
He also addressed security in the wake of the Christmas Day attempted plane bombing, saying his administration had filled holes found by the even. He also said Iran would face increasing “consequences” for pursuing nuclear weapons.
“America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity,” Obama said. He called on Americans to continue forward, despite a difficult year, and carry on the ideas of America ending, as presidents always do, “God bless America.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)