Vwilkie13's Blog

Illegal Immigration

vwilkie13 — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 23:54:09 +0000

One issue that has received massive attention from the media, especially in the last few weeks, is the issue of immigration. As a disclaimer, I am talking about illegal Mexican immigrants. This debate is one that both conservatives and liberals have very strong opinions on. The opinions tend to be very polar, but some sources say that there is a medium. Personally, I do not agree with illegal immigrants living and working in our country and taking advantage of the services that are typically reserved for citizens. But I do know that there are many illegal workers in the system whom without them, it could have a huge impact on the economy.
While looking at the conservative views, I found that many of them hold the same opinion that if you come to our country, you will learn our language. They are anti-bilingual and do not want to see the US become a bilingual country because of the number of immigrants. They also don’t want them to have an ability to vote. This would seem to be very obvious, but some illegal’s find ways of providing false or just the right documents to the government that they are able to vote in elections. An extreme view and one that is held by many conservative is that if you come here illegally and we catch you, you are being deported, no exceptions.
The liberals are also against them using tax payer services without paying taxes, but think that there should be a path for illegal immigrants for becoming legal. Their opinion is that if we catch you and find that you are an illegal, we will let you stay here till we have had a chance to look at your background then if you are ok, you will be put on track to the path of citizenship, but if you don’t have a clean background, you will be deported. Some liberals support giving illegal immigrant’s driver’s licenses. Doing this would require a total overhaul of the license system and could complicate things not only in the immigration system, but also for those who are legal citizens.
And just like usual, the balanced unbiased view is a mixture of the two sides. Illegal immigrants would be required to check in with government offices and provide proof that they are here working and not just freeloading, but also that the government is able to track them and send them back if something comes up.
One thing I noticed is the liberals, who receive most of their votes from minorities and those who may have friends and relatives who may be in the US, are more for not deporting them. They want to keep them here and help them become citizens in hope that it will boost the numbers of people who are voting for them. Whereas the conservatives, who receive a majority of their votes from people who are the majority of the population, Caucasian Americans, are anti-illegal immigration. As for whether or not they sway you in one direction or the other, they defiantly do. With the conservative side of the immigration laws, they make it seem like if you are here illegally, then you are going to be deported no matter what, when in fact there is a way for the illegal’s to become citizens. I also found that I have a more conservative view when it comes to politics so I try and make sure I know what I am talking about before I take on side or the other.

Special Interest Groups

vwilkie13 — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 04:28:39 +0000

One of the special interest groups that I would benefit from would be those that deal with agriculture related issues. During the summer, I work as a scale girl and as much as I love the job, there are some things that could stand to be fixed in the industry. One of the things that should be adjusted is that you should be able to make double over time or there should be a maximum number of hours that you are allowed to work no matter your age. I worked for 88 hours a week and my partner worked 105 hours a week and we only received single overtime and we could have worked more hours than we did in a week. We were also not allowed lunch breaks, eating lunch and dinner on the job. I would like to see double overtime paid to ag related positions or a limit put on the amount of hours that can be worked in a week. This would not only benefit me, but also anyone else who works in ag related businesses which is quite a few people.

Another policy that I would benefit from are those relating to public service careers. I am planning on going into teaching in the public school system where there is a need for teachers, especially in isolated areas. I would be willing to take part in a program that if I commit a certain amount of years of teaching for them, they will help offset some of my schooling costs. This would help out those who are having trouble financing their education and guarantee work for them when they are done with school. It would also benefit the areas that are having difficulty getting teachers into areas that are isolated. Thus it would be beneficial for the common good.

One special interest group that I did some research into was Focus on the Family. Focus on the Family is a group of advocates that push for traditional family values and oppose gay marriage and are anti-abortion. I agree with just about all that they are fighting for. They are a Christian based organization that believes that God and family should come first and offer many resources for adults so that they may build a better family for themselves and those in their family. I believe that their work is for the common good. They are trying to better the world by offering advice and support to people who wish to make the most out of their relationships not only with other people but also with God. The other group that I did research into was the NRA. The NRA is an anti-gun control advocacy group that pushes for protection of the second amendment. They say that Americans should be allowed to own guns and keep them in their homes but also say that the guns need to be registered with the government. The registration process is where some people run into issues though. Some people can get a gun registered just fine and have a perfect background, but then go and use the gun for a criminal purpose. I agree with their general idea that Americans should be allowed to own guns, but I think that the process it takes to obtain a gun needs to be revised so that people who are using them for purposes other than their original intent can be tracked and dealt with. I think that what they are doing is for the common good, but this can be a very touchy issue with some people and can be difficult to sway ones opinion on.

I think special interest groups can work for the common good, but their work needs to prove that they are working for the common good.

Cathy Mcmorris Rodgers

vwilkie13 — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 02:40:05 +0000

Cathy McMorris Rodgers is the representative for Washington’s 5th District. She is a leader in the Republican Party and sits on various committees in D.C. McMorris Rodgers sits on the House Armed Services Committee, Education Labor committee and the Natural Resources committee. She also was chosen as a member of the Republican Leadership team where she sits as vice-chair of the conference.
Some of the issues that her website talks about are in step with the Republican Party’s opinions, but she also is paving her own way with a few things that are important to her. One of the main topics where she is in line with her party is where her ideas on business and economy. According to her website, she is interested in protecting jobs and lowering taxes for middle class families, ending bailouts, keeping energy and fuel costs low. She is also interested in providing access to healthcare and protecting purchasing power. Another area where she is in line with the Republican Party is military and veterans. She has supported legislation that supports vets who are coming back from the Middle East and also for elderly veterans. She also works to keep Fairchild Air Force Base in Airway Heights open. According to her site, FAFB is the largest employer in the 5th congressional district and thus closing it down would be detrimental to the economy of the area. Rodgers also has an interest in higher education. She has supported legislation that helps provide students with more federal money to attend college. One of her other major concerns is that of Energy and Environment. According to her website, she believes that we should use our own resources for energy before we are importing from other countries. She supports offshore drilling and getting oil from Alaska. One of her own concerns that effects her personally is that of funding to children with special needs. Rodger’s son has Down syndrome so the issue of special care for children with disabilities is very important to her. Although she doesn’t sit on any committees that influence children with special needs, she supports legislation that does.
On her campaign page, she talks about a lot of the same issues that she talks about on her other page. On this page though, she tends to lean more toward the agriculture side of things. This makes sense since the people in the district are involved with ag-related business. On her election page it does mention that she identifies herself as a republican and it says that she is a leader in the Republican Party. It also mentions in her bio that she lives by a quote made by President Ronald Regan.
I think she is living up to the standards set by the republican party as well as going her own way on trying to put issues that are important to her and to the people in the district as well.

Cathy McMorris Rogers

vwilkie13 — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 03:34:39 +0000

For this blog post, I did my research on Cathy McMorris Rogers, who is the representative for the Eastern Washington area, which is where my hometown of Davenport is. I knew a little bit about Cathy McMorris Rogers before this assignment, but I didn’t know all of the financial information that had helped get her into office and do the work that needed to be done. I did find some areas where she received funding from companies that would benefit from legislation that she would support while in Congress.

One of the first things that I figured out was the committees that she sat on. McMorris Rogers sits on three committees, Armed Services, Education and Labor, and Natural Resources. Then I went and looked to see who her top contributors where in her campaigns. Some of the top contributors for her are Weyerhaeuser Co., Manson Construction, Edge Wireless, Empire Paper, and Nelson Irrigation. When you look at the committees that she sits on, this make some sense. Weyerhaeuser Co., is a company that uses natural resources to make their products and Nelson Irrigation does work with irrigating farm land. Although she doesn’t sit on an agricultural committee, she is able to get funding from farm related companies in hopes that she will use her influence on her Natural Resource committee. Some of the bills that McMorris Rogers had sponsored have also been a reflection of her financial sponsors.

Another way that is influenced by her bills is by the committees she sits on. She sits on the Armed Services, Education and Labor and the Natural Resources boards. Her bills that she has sponsored deal with military like bills such as bills relating to the National Guard and Air Force and Success in Energy Saving. She also brings an influence from her personal life that is influenced in her bills. McMorris’ son had Down syndrome and so she supports bills that help out children with disabilities.

I think that she is doing a good job in Washington D.C. She tries to get the issues that matter the most to the people in Eastern Washington brought to the forefront so that she kind better serve the people in her district. I actually heard on the news tonight that she is the 5^th most influential republican in Congress and the most influential Republican woman. To reach this level, she has to be doing something right.

Judicial Activism

vwilkie13 — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:30:17 +0000

The Judicial System has been under constant scrutiny from the time the first judge laid down his verdict. This continues to happen today, and will continue to happen as long as a court system exists. However, some judges have taken their positions for granted and used it in ways that probably weren’t right for the job. In my opinion, judges should leave the legislation to the Congressmen and they should show more restraint and fairness while they are on the bench. If they are truly passionate about an issue, they need to find a way to become more active with the cause outside of the courtroom. The courtroom is a place for fairness and shouldn’t be where people come and try to push their opinions on others.

The court system should show more restraint because if they are there trying to gain support for their cause, then they aren’t there doing what they are supposed to be doing and need to make some changes to the way that they are conducting business. If they are more concerned with trying to get people to agree with their side of things, then they aren’t able to keep a free and clear mind so that they can make fair judgments and make sure that the appropriate penalty is handed down to the appropriate party. If the wrong party is punished, then the court could be under more scrutiny than before. No one likes it when it when the wrong party is punished and it takes years to bring the right person to justice.

One other reason the courts should show more restraint is that it can cause the people to lose faith in the court system. The court is there to help make sure that the people are given a fair trial and to make clear, rational decisions. If the people start to lose faith in the court system then they aren’t going to want to take their problems to the court and then the system starts to fail and is not there working the way that it was meant to.

Judicial Activism is appropriate when the activists cause is pertinent to the case that they are hearing. If they have very strong feeling for the issue being handled for the case, then some activism is allowed. But even this activism needs to be limited so that they judge is able to see both sides and make a fair judgment for the case. Even if the case is a favorite for the judge then they still need to keep a fair mind and try to make sure that they aren’t being too bias.

So in all, I don’t think that activism from the bench is a good thing. It can cause problems with the case which can lead to unfair trials and the wrong person being punished. The judges need to make sure that they are keeping a clear head in the court room and treat each case with the same fairness as any other case.

FDA and FBI

vwilkie13 — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:14:18 +0000

One part of bureaucracy that needs a major overhaul is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They aren’t able to function as best as they can because they aren’t receiving appropriate funding from the national government. Since they don’t have the proper funding, they aren’t able to let the American public know about potential health concerns that may be in our food or in the prescription drugs that we are taking. But this isn’t necessarily their fault, without the right funding, they don’t have the technology and the staff to research what is going to be beneficial for us, and what is going to be harmful to our health. According to one report, the FDA receives only 2 billion in funding from the government. When a person looks at all of the things that the FDA is responsible for, (food, drugs, vaccines, medical devices, gene therapy) 2 billion is not enough to keep this organization running at the level it should be. They are only looking at the vital things, they aren’t looking at cosmetics, certain vitamins and over-the-counter medications, things that the American people use every day, because they simply don’t have the funding to research the things that could have serious potential impacts on our health and well-being.
The best way to improve the FDA is to give them more money so that it has the funds available to research the things that Americans use every day that could be harmful to our health. With proper funding, it will be able to inspect more food and drugs to let us know what is harmful, as well as what is beneficial to our health. They will also be able to get a closer look at some of the imported food and drugs that are coming into the United States. This will help prevent diseases that can be found in our meat and other foods such as the Mad Cow outbreak of 2003 (which came from imported beef from Canada), or the Swine Flu outbreak of 2009 (which originated in Mexico). With the proper funding, the FDA will be able to better detect these diseases and come up with vaccines to combat them if they do enter the United States.
One of the most important assets to the country is the Federal Bureaucracy of Investigation (FBI). According to the FBI’s website, their mission is “to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats and to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.” They investigate not only possible terrorist plots against the United States, but also very domestic issues such as government fraud, sports bribery as well as combat domestic terrorism. They have helped to solve many different crimes since its foundation and have also worked with other countries to help solve crimes that span across our borders. Currently, they are working with Mexico to try and combat the drug cartels that have contacts in the United States or to make sure that the US citizens, who are in Mexico, are getting across the border safely. As great as the FBI is, like any organization, it has its faults. Some people believe that the FBI has too much power and can cover up crimes as they see fit. This allows for corruption from within and distrust by the people in the country. No matter which branch of bureaucracy you research, they are going to have their faults and their high points. That is bureaucracy at its finest.

FDA information: http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/problems-in-the-fda/article55513.html
FBI info: www.fbi.gov

Healthcare and Congress

vwilkie13 — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:42:38 +0000

The debate over healthcare has been going on for a long time now. I wouldn’t expect anything different though when Congress is trying to pass a bill that could potentially change the future of the United States. Healthcare is an issue that many people in the United States are divided on. It would help the people in the states that don’t have health insurance, but it is going to be very costly to have a program like this a part of the government. This is where you find most of the division in Congress about healthcare.
One of the major ways that a bill doesn’t get passed into law is because of a filibuster. Senators will talk for hours trying to get the other congress people to try and go along with the bill and everything that comes along with it. Since the senator has an unlimited amount of time to stand up there, they can talk for hours or days on end which prevents the bill from moving forward. This has happened with the healthcare bill a couple of times and has caused really slow progress for the bill. Since stopping a filibuster requires a three-fifths vote to end the filibuster, it makes it difficult to stop one from happening.
It can also take a long time for the bill to get out of committee and into Congress. The bill may need to undergo serious revisions before it can be taken to Congress. If the committee that is working on it doesn’t have much concern about whether or not the bill gets passed, it can make this process even slower.
When a bill gets to the floor, it can also take a long time there when the representative is talking about it and trying to get the other congress people to agree with it. When the speaker is there they have the ability to try and stop the bill from going through and this too can also slow the progress of the bill on its way through Congress.
One other reason that the bill can take a long time to be passed is because the make-up of Congress is constantly changing. There are new Congress people that are coming in all the time and other who are retiring or sometimes, a death in Congress can lead to a new representative being put into their spot. This new person isn’t always of the same party and sometimes has a different opinion on how the bill should be handled. With the parties’ swinging back and forth between who has the most power, it can take a long time for the bill to get through if enough people vote against it.
With all of the aforementioned happening, it can take a highly controversial bill such as the healthcare bill a long time before it can be signed into law. Although congress it getting closer to the bill being passed into law, I think it is a good thing that they have taken a long time to figure this bill out. This bill has the potential to change the future of the people of the United States and everything needs to be as perfect as possible before it is enacted into law.

Blog #3

vwilkie13 — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:10:28 +0000

I believe that the government does have a certain responsibility to protect us from dangerous people in the United States. The phrase, “you don’t have any rights if you are dead”, makes a really good point. If the government was able to obtain information about the person that was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, maybe they would have been able to prevent it from happening and so many people losing their life. I am a little on the fence about this issue however. I believe that most people won’t have a problem with the government looking at their records and monitoring their activity, unless they have something to hide. In the case of having something to hide, that would be a reason to investigate them.
By the government having the ability to monitor personal documents such as emails, they would be able to see if someone is communicating with a terrorist group. If a person is communicating with a member of an international terrorist group, the government needs to know about that. The government would be able to track the emails and find out who they are communicating with and when and if they are planning to make an attack on the people. They would then be able to send the appropriate forces to the scene and be able to apprehend the suspect and thus be able to prevent the person from making an attack on the United States.
I also believe that the government has a right to monitor phone calls, with just cause. If they get a tip from someone that a person is acting suspiciously, then in the interest of the others around them the government has the responsibility to do everything in their power to protect the people. If that means that the government has to access our phone records, I would rather have them do that then have them claim that “their hands are tied” because they weren’t able to access certain documents in order to protect the people that were in danger.
I do believe that there should be certain limits on the government accessing personal documents. The only reason that the government should access personal documents and records should be only in the case of protecting the people around us and ourselves. I don’t think it is right that the government is randomly able to access our personal information. I believe that that there has to be just cause before it is done. There needs to be some sort of threat before the government is able to access those documents.
I do think that the government has the right to access our personal documents, but only in the case of protecting the people of the United States. For the government to be able to access personal documents such as emails and obtain phone records is acceptable, but like I said before, only in the case of protecting the people.

Same-Sex Marriage and Federalism

vwilkie13 — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 22:46:16 +0000

I believe that in some respects, Federalism is a great way to handle political issues. However, in the case of same-sex marriage, I do not think that it should be handled by the federal government. I believe that an issue such as same-sex marriage needs to be an issue that is handled by the individual states. My main reason for believing this is that all other marriage laws are made by the individual states and this issue should be no different.

The issue of same-sex marriage is a good example of federalism because it demonstrates how the states have control over issues that would be better off solved by a smaller group of people, instead of one rule made for millions of people. The people in individual states tend to hold a common belief in their morals and have a common idea of how they want their government ran. A state such as Vermont is a very liberal state and believes that same-sex marriage is ok. Where as a state such as Alabama is a very conservative state and is very against same-sex marriage.

Some disadvantages of setting same-sex marriage on a state by state basis are that of taxes. A married, hetero-sexual couple receives tax benefits from the government. Would a same-sex couple receive the same advantages as a hetero-sexual couple? If it were a federal law, it would be clearer when it came to taxes. It is also a disadvantage because if it was outlawed in all of the states, a same-sex couple would not be able to get married if they wanted. They would have to go to another county to do so and that would cause all sorts of problems if they chose to live in the United States.

I am not sure what to think of the full faith and credit clause pertaining to same-sex marriage. Personally, I believe that same-sex marriage is wrong and do not support it. But I do believe that everyone has the right to choose who they want to marry. So one the issue of same-sex marriage I am divided. If the government allows it, we wouldn’t have to worry about having to decide to honor the marriage because it would be just like any other law that is set by the states and is recognized by the other states as well.

I do not think that the federal government should have a role in the same-sex marriage debate. I think that it should be handled by the state just as every other issue relating to marriage is handled by the states. Having the states handle the matter would make it so that if same-sex couples do wish to get married, they can.

28th Constitutional Amendment

vwilkie13 — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:18:58 +0000

The issue of Polygamy is one that people may say is outdated and no longer holds any meaning in today’s society. I believe that it is still a large part of our society today and that it needs to be handled by the American Government. Take a look at the spring of 2008, when the polygamist colony was busted in Texas, or the women who talked about their polygamist living on Oprah. Both of the groups consisted of many wives. The laws of all 50 states prohibit polygamy and yet it still continues to happen in many states around the country. If made an amendment, the government would have better control over the situation and those who are affected by polygamy will finally be able to experience real freedom.

In many polygamist communities, young teenage girls are married off to men that usually have another wife or two as well as dozens of children with the other wives. The girls are often seen as just another girl to mother children. The girls are usually selected by an elder in the community. Often times the men are also told who they are going to marry and neither party has a choice of who they marry. These girls are responsible all of children of the household, not just their own. For a young girl to be responsible for so many children at such a young age is unacceptable.

The young men of the polygamist colonies are often forced to take more than one wife and are not seen as a true man in the colony if they don’t take more than two wives or refuse to take a wife at all. To live with the fact that you are going to be responsible for not just one wife and a couple of children, but multiple wives and many, many children that you do not want, is not something that anyone should have to live with. The men begin taking wives at a young age and continue to take more wives as they get older.

Prohibiting polygamy would ensure peace of mind to those who are part of the polygamist communities. In many cases there is child abuse and prostitution happening along with the forced marriages. With the prohibition of Polygamy, there would be less child abuse and underage marriages which result in multiple children.

I was surprised at how many pro-polygamist groups are out there. Many of the modern polygamists live in one large house with dozens of children, but only one of the women are actually married to the man in the house. The more modern polygamists voluntarily enter in to these marriages knowing that the man is already married to another woman. Many of these “Modern” groups of polygamists live in suburban communities in palace like houses that are usually associated with movie stars or wealthy business people. The Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS) are who typically people associate the idea of polygamy with. They are the ones that the marriage is forced upon and child abuse is found. One other fact I found in the “Modern” polygamist groups is that many of the wives are sisters. One woman I read about and her twin sister both live with the same man and their children together.

Regardless of how we view polygamy, it is wrong. No one should be forced to marry someone that they don’t want to be married to. With the prohibition of polygamy, there would be less underage marriages and child abuse.