The argument for fiscal responsibility is one that has been tossed around by both political parties for years. Neither party can lay a claim to the title of "Fiscally Responsible", as since the end of the Vietnam war we have only established a surplus four times, which was when a Democrat was in the White House and Republicans controlled Congress. The country has gone through five Republicans and three Democrats since then and the current debt level stands at $12.5 trillion. There have been many causes for such a deficit and its ever increasing rate of increase. Both parties have embarked on deficit funded projects and have yet to seriously address ways in which to reign in the deficit.
The annual increase in the federal deficit is the amount of money that the government spends on top of the total revenue it collects from various taxes. Last year alone the deficit was $1.4 trillion. Both parties make claims as to what needs to be done in order to reduce the deficit. Democrats will generally advocate for tax increases on the wealthy and cuts in Defense spending. On the flip side Republicans want spending cuts on programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Republicans and Democrats are both hasty to advocate for cuts that resonate with their base, even if what they advocate is not the solution.
President Roosevelt created Social Security in 1935 to provide benefits to retired people who have contributed to their nation during their lifetime. Republican calls for dramatic cuts in Social Security in order to keep the program solvent, I believe, are misplaced. Social Security just ran a deficit for the first time, where it paid out more in benefits than it collected, due to the "Baby Boomer" generation retiring. Over the next ten years Social Security will add $200 billion dollars to the deficit, or $20 billion a year on average. In comparison the Republican Bush Tax Cuts, which were passed through Reconciliation, have added $1 trillion to the deficit over the past nine years. It is hypocritical to call for cuts in a program that benefits seniors because it isn't fiscally responsible while embarking on the largest fiscally irresponsible program in the past decade, matched only by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans wish to cut the program of benefits while the Democratic approach is vastly different. United States citizens pay for Social Security through a "Social Security Tax" that appears on a pay stub. The tax is only payed on earnings up to $106,800 (which is only reached by the wealthiest 10%), as soon as an individual makes that much money in one year they no longer have to pay for Social Security, the Democratic approach is to raise that cap to $250,000. As a result Social Security would stay fiscally sound for more than one-hundred years. However neither party has done anything about it and can not be considered fiscally responsible as, as of now, the program is in the red for the long run.
The current debt outlook is that over the next decade $9 trillion will added to the deficit, bringing it up to $21 trillion dollars. The fact that neither party addresses is that $4.8 trillion of that debt will be simply on interest the United States accumulates trying to pay off our current debt. By 2015 the interest the United States pays on debt will be $533 billion, which is one third of all federal income taxes. There are three main areas in which money is spent, the Department of Defense ($690 billion in 2009), Health and Human Services ( $790 billion in 2009), and the Treasure Department ($705 billion in 2009, which includes interest on debt). Democrats call for cuts in Defense spending for various reasons, the United States spends 47% of all Defense spending worldwide. The amount we spend would only be justifiable if we were at war with the entire world. At a local level Colorado pays $10.8 billion a year in Defense related taxes, that is the equivalent of giving every college student in Colorado a $54,000 scholarship a year. If Defense spending was cut in half everyone here at the University of Denver could get a $27,000 scholarship on top of all their current scholarships. Ideally if Defense spending were cut in half it would go towards lowering the deficit, the scholarship figures are simply to put in perspective how much we spend on Defense alone.
Neither party has taken any significant actions to reduce the deficit. Democrats passed a deficit financed Stimulus package that cost $787 over three years, Republicans and Democrats passed the Troubled Asset Relief Program which cost $750 billion and lasted less than 6 months, while Republicans passed the Bush Tax Cuts which have already cost $1 trillion and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars which have already cost $1 trillion. All of the programs were not paid for and simply added to the deficit. The only fiscally responsible package in this Congress has been the Health care bill which, if passed, would reduce the deficit by $100 billion over the next ten years and insure 30 million more Americans. The package itself is tremendously moderate, it has no public option, no medicare expansion, and is in fact eerily similar to the package Mitt Romney (R) passed in Massachusetts and the bill Republicans offered in 1994 as a response to Bill Clinton's proposed Health care package.
Simply put the deficit is continuously growing and neither party has enacted any of their proposed ways to cut the deficit. The proposals range from across the political spectrum, from spending cuts, to more affordable health care, to tax increases, yet neither party is willing to enact their proposals as the other party stands ready to blast them with propaganda to aid in the next election. It has gone from politicians doing what's in the best interest of their constituents and their country, to doing what's in the best interest of their re-election campaign in order to win in the most partisan elections in the history of our nation. Fault does not lie alone with politicians, the average American holds 134% of their annual income in debt, until the citizenry comes to terms with itself about their fiscal irresponsibility neither will politicians. Abraham Lincoln put it best, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Republicans and Democrats must find whatever common ground lies between them if America shall continue to stand.
When people nowadays hear the words “Republicans and Democrats” and “Healthcare reform” in a conversation they tend to only think of the major differences between the two parties. Major differences do exist between the two parties, no one can disagree on that, however there is plenty of common ground that exists between the two parties and common principles, if understood, would help bridge the ideological divide between Republicans and Democrats. The main common ground between the two parties is the common hope to improve care amongst the American people; the only difference is each party look at a different side of the same coin. Both parties are working toward reducing the cost of health insurance, eliminating preexisting condition, and to make it more accessible. The Democrat’s Healthcare reform is more effective in the current time because it will reduce the budget deficit, and provide a cheap, obtainable health insurance to Americans with various incomes, and decrease the number of uninsured 94-96% of Americans will have coverage.
On the other hand, Republicans don’t believe that the government should interfere in people’s life and the healthcare insurance company shouldn’t be increasingly regulated. Free market works great when there is economic prosperity and surpluses in the national income, because companies compete against each other to provide the costumers with the best products. When countries depend on free markets during recession it takes a long time to fix the economy because every company will be working only for its own benefits only, and if a country is in an economical crisis then people will save their money instead of spending it. When people save their money the companies’ profits decreases and in attempt to cut the companies’ loses they raise the prices on the products. This scenario is very likely to happen if the government doesn’t interfere. The reason for that is people are losing their jobs therefore they can’t afford to pay for health insurance, the number of insured people will decrease and with it the health insurance companies’ profits so the health insurance companies’ will raise the prices. The Democrat’s healthcare reform will provide cheap, profitable health insurance coverage to help poor and middle class to get on their feet again, and if others are satisfied with the coverage they have, they can keep it. The current bill would force insurance companies to spend 80 cents of every dollar on your healthcare, as opposed to the seventy-some odd cents they currently spend. It's only fair that you get what you paid for. The Healthcare reform plan is a win-win deal, it will help poor people and middle class people and it will reduce the budget deficit.
Now there is an example of what could happen if the government doesn’t react fast and effectively, which is my family. My family is a lower middle class family, my family consists of 4 people: my father, my mother, my sister, and myself. My dad work 60 hours a week and my mother works about the same, every year collectively my parents make between 25,000 and 30,000 dollars a year. At the same time my sister and I are attending to college, I was fortunate to get a full ride scholarship but my sister wasn’t. My parents are doing their best to help her with the cost of college, but they have to pay for rent, cloths, food, and all other life necessities. The cost to have modest health care for a family of three people is approximately 6,000 dollars a year in Colorado according to America’s Health Insurance Plan (AHIP 2009), the estimated cost for my family of four is around $9,000 (2009) and by 2015 without the Senate Healthcare bill it would be $15,000, which is more than half my family's income (with the bill it would be about $7,000). The prices will increase in the future if no change happens. It’s impossible for my family to have a descent and humane health insurance coverage and my family is just one example of millions of hard working families across America who are facing the same pain and worry of getting sick and not being able to get proper treatment. There are currently 45,000 people who die every year in America due to the lack of health insurance according to the latest Harvard Medical Study.
Both parties Republicans and Democrats agree that the healthcare status quo is weak and flawed and both parties should agree that walking away from the millions of Americans people is not an option. The change that both parties should agree on for the common good for Americans must provide American people with the security of not losing their insurance coverage if they lost their jobs, providing health insurance to people with preexisting condition, reducing the prices of health insurance coverage and built a non-profitable health insurance company. Republicans were in control of the whole government, Executive, Judicial, Legislative, for six whole years and did nothing about it. It's only fair that Democrats have a chance to do what Republicans failed to acknowledge, through a moderate bill that has no government option, refrains from taking away the power of the free market, and provides subsidies for families like mine.
Recently, an extension of the USA Patriot Act with reforms of its abusive powers of unreasonable search and seizure against American citizens has passed house of representative. The House voted 315-97 to extend the USA Patriot Act with 20 not voting. Three sections of Patriot Act are still in force, which are now extended until Feb 28th, 2011. The provisions give the government the authority to access business records, to operate roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple hones and to conduct surveillance on a noncitizen suspects with nothing to do with foreign governments or terrorist groups. The USA Patriot Act still authorized the government strong power for the purpose of protecting the security of the states; as a result, it sacrifices the rights of Americans in terms of privacy as well as liberty.
The proponents of extending Patriot Act believe that the security of the state is still a serious problem for all Americans to face with today. Just as a recent as Christmas day, the attampted terrorist attack on Northwest Airline, Americans are reminded that they are still at a war with terrorists who intend to harm them and destroy their country. In this case, Patriot Act is able to make a difference and to reduce the potential of terrorism taking place. That's why Bush government came out with the USA Patriot Act for the greater security of the states right after 911 attack. As congresswoman Candice Miller states, who supports to extend the Patriot Act, " The provisions in the Patriot Act provides critical tools to our national security and law enforcement agents to better combat terrorism and protect out nation."
Therefore, the benefits that the USA Patriot Act brings to its people is obvious, and here, I am not saying that it is not necessary to have it. However, for doing a paper, I started my research on the topic of USA Patriot Act, as a result, the more information I learned about the Patriot Act, the stronger feeling of the unfairness I have for the common U.S. citizens. Frankly, as an international student, I have been admired the freedom that all Americans have since I learned the speech of " I have a dream" by Martin Luther in my middle school time. That's what confuses me to question that how could a democracy country harms its people's privacy and liberty to be called democratic? Thus, my following argument will list some aricles of the USA Patriot Act covers, which gives abusive power to government agents to cause the harm on U.S. citizens. Standing at a foreigner position, a noncitizen, I absolutely have no capability to vote, but I wish that the persons who have the voting rights would consider my suggestion, and think about the situations of the common people in the U.S. as well as those foreigners.
Firstly, here are a few of the liberties Americans have lost: in the section 213, it not only authorized the FBI to secretly break into your home and rummage through it, but even you wouldn't be informed that the government has committed this until 18 months has passed. Accordingly, a resent report shows that FBI breaks into people's homes without telling them, is most often used for drugs cases instead of terrorism cases. Section 218 gives a secret court the power to authorized secret searches, wiretaps of private conversations and examine any financial transaction of American if there is a mere suspicion of foreign intelligence. Section 215 and Section 505 authorized the governments to secretly examine your private information relating to foreign intelligence, international terrorism, including your financial, library, travel medical, etc. Therefore, these sections (a little part of the all) are related to the privacy and liberty Americans are losing now. Somehow, no one would like to be obtained by others like a prisoner, even though they are innocent and nothing needs to be hidden.
Moreover, it creates a burden for doing business with foreign companies. A familiar example could be the bookstore industry that anyone bought some certain books could be provided their names to the FBI only because those book might include some sensitive concept relating to "Terrorism", and then FBI will track on those people who bought those books. If so, I would rather not buy the books at all. On the other side, I would say it is not far for non-citizens to be checked as if they were terrorists. However, as the third provision passed states, the "agent of a foreign power" includes individual foreign terrorists who may not be directly affiliated with a foreign power of international terrorist organization. Thus, I would say it is not a hospitality way to warm the foreigners with checking all their stuffs when the U.S. government tells the whole world that they want their society to be diversity. In my own experience, it is really annoying to be asked to open my suitcases when entering the Customs because I have to repack all my stuffs. At the same time, another business industry could be affected is the airports, where a great deal of labor needs to be hired for doing checking jobs, so it slows down the efficiency and causes the loss of money.
Again, my opinion is that Patriot Act goes too far, because of the authorized governments abusive powers, to result in the burdens on business industry and privacy loss of the U.S. citizens. As a foreigner, I could feel how hard it could be for losing privacy, how about you, who are experiencing it right now? Therefore, we need a change, a change on the USA Patriot Act to be truly patriot, a change to keep Democracy United States truly democratic.