Current Events | Political Science News

Will Elena Kagan Become the Next Supreme Court Justice?

: Image via Wikipedia

The hearings in the U.S. Senate have wrapped up and now we wait for the vote. President Obama is very optimistic that his nominee for the Supreme Court will win approval even though she has never served as a judge in any capacity in the past. Elena Kagan is currently the Solicitor General of the United States and is a former Dean at the Harvard Law School.

At her confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kagan promised to keep her politics separate from her judging. She says she will decide cases based on the law and not her personal feelings but some Republicans are not convinced. There are a number of conservative senators who are already on record saying they will vote against her. Senator John McCain did not like the way that she blocked military recruiting while she was Dean of the Harvard Law School and says he can’t support someone who discourages military service.

While there are a handful of senators who have said they will vote no, there are many more who say they will vote yes. They are not concerned over her lack of judicial experience and point to other great justices who did not have any experience at the time that they were named to the court like William Rehnquist. They are also quick to point out that she does have high court experience serving as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. Democrats hold a 58 to 41 seat advantage in the Senate so it would appear to be a lock that she will be approved and the question becomes how many Republicans will vote in favor of the nomination. There were eight Republicans who crossed the aisle and joined Democrats in supporting President Obama’s last high court nominee, Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Filed Under: Current Events, Discussions Tagged With: Elena Kagan, Supreme Court, United States

Why Does McDonalds Go After the Kids?

: Image by Mr ATM via Flickr

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has had it with McDonalds. They are trying to put pressure on the fast food giant to stop marketing its products to kids. The group has accused McDonalds of predatory marketing by using its Happy Meals to get generation after generation of children hooked on unhealthy junk food. While the Center calls the practice “creepy” the top executive at McDonalds is calling the claim absurd.

Jim Skinner is McDonalds CEO and has put an open letter on the company website defending the chain. He writes that the claims from the Center for Science in the Public Interest are an insult to all of their employees around the world. Skinner says that by selling Happy Meals with popular toys they are carrying on a thirty year tradition that customers love. In his letter to the executive director of the group he writes “that parents understand and appreciate that Happy Meals are a fun treat, with right-sized, quality food choices for their children.”

The Center though compares McDonalds to the stranger on the playground offering kids candy. They claim that the practice undermines parents attempts to raise healthy kids but it appears that public opinion is not on their side. Comments related to this story on the web show that most people are defending the sale of Happy Meals pointing out that kids are not the ones driving to McDonalds and buying the food, parents are. Most people agree it is the parents job to control what their children consume and if they are o.k with an occasional burger and fries then the Center for Science in the Public Interest should be o.k. with it. Others say it is ridiculous to accuse McDonalds of trying to harm children after all the work the company has done establishing Ronald McDonald houses near hospitals all over the world where critically ill children are treated. The houses give the parents a place to stay for free so they can be close to their children while they get treatment.

Filed Under: Current Events, Discussions, Society Tagged With: Fast food, Happy Meal, McDonald

Future of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

The United States military has long had a policy of allowing gays to serve in the armed forces as long as they did not openly disclose their sexuality. The policy termed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has long been ridiculed by gay rights organizations and now President Obama has vowed to change it. During the campaign in 2008, Obama made this one of his major issues but two years later nothing has happened. The military appears to be very concerned about how a policy change could affect recruitment and troop morale.

To try and get a better handle on what affect a change might have on soldiers, over 200,000 surveys are going out to both active members of the military as well as members of the reserves. Questions like, how would you feel if you had to share a bathroom with a homosexual are on the survey which commanders will use to help them implement a new policy. The President has given the military until December 1 to complete a study about how the change would affect troops and the survey is a key part of the study.

Congress will ultimately have to approve any change in the policy that was adopted when Bill Clinton was President. Most Republicans are already on record with their opposition to allowing gays to openly serve in the military and a majority of Democrats say they will only sign on if military commanders support the change. This issue is certainly going to be one of the big topics on the campaign trail this fall with every member of the House of Representatives up for relection along with 36 members of the U.S. Senate. Recent public opinion polls have shown a great deal of support for repealing the don’t ask don’t tell policy with three fourths of Americans believing gays should be able to openly serve in the military.

Filed Under: Current Events, Politics, Society Tagged With: Don't ask don't tell, Military, United States

Blame the Slow Economy

: Image via Wikipedia

The popularity of the President is falling and experts believe it is because he has not delivered on a promise to create new jobs. A new Washington Post/ABC News poll reveals that 60% of the people asked do not believe the President will make the right decisions for the country. This poll shows a big switch from just a year ago when he had a much more favorable rating. When it comes to the economy, only 43% of those surveyed approved of the job he is doing.

This poll shows a growing dissatisfaction with all people in power. A majority of those asked also lack confidence in democratic and republican lawmakers in Congress to cure the nations problems. Only one fourth of the people polled say they plan to vote again for their representative in Congress with the others saying they would be inclined to support someone else. The anti-incumbent sentiment could lead to a major shift in the balance of power in Washington this fall if Republicans can take back control of the House and Senate.

Driving all the discontent is an unemployment rate around ten percent and a slow economy that has not recovered yet from the recession. Consumer confidence is low and until new jobs are created in greater numbers, it is not expected to get any better. While the President’s popularity is sliding, it should be pointed out that his poll numbers are close to those of President Clinton and President Reagan two years into their first terms. They were both able to bounce back and win reelection despite the low approval ratings. President Obama will be able to do the same if the economy recovers from the recession as expected. However, it could be tougher for the President to get his plans through Congress if the Democratic majority goes away in November.

Filed Under: Current Events, Policies, Politics Tagged With: Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan, United States

Financial Reform Plan Ready for Adoption

Will it end greed on Wall Street or hinder future economic growth? Only time will tell if the financial reform bill will achieve the goals set out by the President. He says it will prevent another economic meltdown like the one that sent the United States into a deep recession but opponents say the new regulations will only slow down the recovery.

It took three Republicans from New Jersey to cross the aisle and join the Democrats in the Senate to give the President the votes he needed to pass the bill and make it filibuster proof. The fight over reform has been a difficult one with the two political parties finding themselves once again on the opposite side of the issue. The Democrats say new reforms are absolutely necessary to make sure that the financial industry is never in a situation like the one a few years ago which required a massive taxpayer bailout. Republicans maintain that the new rules are not necessary and will only make the cost of borrowing money more expensive.

Republican leaders are worried that the bill will make the current financial crisis worse. They fear the impact of new regulations on community banks which provide loans to small businesses. They say they are opposing the regulations because of the negative impact it will have on the ability by business owners to get credit to create new jobs. Democratic leaders argue that the Republicans are just out to protect the special interest groups that they rely on for large donations.

Supporters say a key feature of the reform bill will be new stress tests required of big banking companies to try and identify any potential problems before they get so large that they threaten the future of the banking company. A new agency, the Financial Services Oversight Council will watch over the bank regulators to make sure that they are doing their job.

Filed Under: Current Events, Discussions Tagged With: Business, Financial Services, New Jersey, United States

Better Internet Connections Coming for Rural America

: Image via Wikipedia

High speed Internet access is coming to more rural areas across the country and you can thank your Uncle Sam. You no longer have to depend upon your TV or radio for political science news, now you can surf the web and get all your politics whenever you want. How is this possible?

The stimulus package designed to boost the economy included over $7 billion to extend broadband service into parts of the United States that are still depending on dial-up Internet access. The plan calls for the installation of millions of miles of fiber optic cable and it is now underway.

Among the first areas to enjoy the high speed service are parts of Alaska and Kansas and the reviews have all been very positive. Doctors and small business owners have hailed the new service and say it has dramatically changed how they operate. The hope is that it will lead to expansion of services and new jobs. About 200 projects have been approved so far, with many more to come before the deadline of September 2010 to give out all of the money. The chairman of the F.C.C. says this work is just as significant as efforts to wire rural parts of the country for electric back during the 20^th Century.

The project has not come without the critics though with conservatives on Capitol Hill questioning why the government is subsidizing the broadband companies who will profit from this. The Republicans will argue that federal spending is already out of control and needs to be reigned in. These lawmakers question whether the $7 billion dollar investment will actually create jobs and give the economy a boost.

Some of the opponents were pushing for tax credits for small business owners to do as they wished with the money. If they felt that high speed Internet access was a priority, they could have used the money for that. However, if that is not a priority then the businesses could have used the stimulus funds in other ways to expand and create new jobs. Now, they have no choice.

Filed Under: Current Events, Policies Tagged With: Broadband Internet access, Kansas, Rural area, United States

Has California Doctor Gone Too Far?

Ever since the woman dubbed “Octomom” gave birth to octuplets her doctor in California has been under investigation. Medical experts from all across the country have condemned Dr. Michael Kamrava for implanting so many embryos in Nadya Suleman and the outcry has caught the attention of the state Medical Board. The latest allegation is that Dr. Kamrava also implanted seven embryos in a 48 year old woman causing the death of a fetus.

Fertility doctors say Dr. Kamrava has given everyone in their profession a black eye for operating so recklessly. Kamrava is now facing the loss of his license to practice medicine and many of his critics say that cannot happen soon enough. This latest case occurred after “Octomom” made national headlines and attracted the attention of lawmakers on Capitol Hill who have been considering tighter regulations against the fertility industry. The issue has been hotly debated because of the dispute over when life begins, at birth or at conception.

Georgia was one of the first states to try and use the “Octomom’s” case to try and change the law to limit how many embryos could be implanted by fertility doctors and that proposal was met by widespread opposition. Critics called it an excuse to pass an anti-abortion measure and argued that the process should not be subject to arbitrary rules because each individual case can be difficult. The American Society of Reproductive Medicine has adopted industry guidelines for fertility doctors which they recommend be followed. The organization says the number to be implanted depends on the age of the mother and they recommend a maximum of 5 embryos for women over 40 who are expected to run into the greatest difficulty of carrying a child to full term. A healthy young woman attempting the procedure should have no more than two embryos implanted according to the group.

Filed Under: Current Events, Policies, Society, Woman Tagged With: Medicine, Michael Kamrava, Nadya Suleman, United States

Bonds, Bond Values and Their Place in Society

A bond is the major instrument by which people save and invest money in U.S. society. When you buy a bond from a bank or other institution, you become a lender to the bank. The bank promises to pay you interest at a regular interval; this is called the coupon. The bank also promises to pay back the capital; this is called maturity.

Banks are the big corporate lenders. Banks have the ability to loan large sums of money to growing companies or the public sector. The money for this kind of lending comes from ordinary people like you, who buy bonds from the banks. Government bonds are similar; governments of nations use the accumulated money to pay for current expenditures. Bonds are, therefore, very important in society. They are the main method by which excess money is circulated back into financial systems as liquid capital.

For the individual, on the other hand, buying a bond is an important way of becoming involved in the financial mainstream. Buying a bond helps individuals lend to big and small companies, and take part in corporate endeavors. Bonds are important ways to build up your savings, as well; for some people, interest accrued from bonds are their principal source of income.

It is, therefore, important for people to have a good understanding of bond values. The bond value is the actual current value of a bond that you have purchased. It’s calculated using various models, all of which take into account the current discount rate for the bond and current amount of expected cash flow. It is good to value your bonds correctly, so that you are always abreast of the exact amount of receivable cash from your bonds. After all, your bonds will probably become one of the primary ways you will keep making money even after you retire.

Filed Under: Current Events, Policies Tagged With: Bonds, Business, Stocks & Bonds

Racism Allegations Surround Tea Party Movement

It all started with a billboard that had photos of Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Lenin and President Barack Obama. It was sponsored by the Northern Iowa Tea Party organization and contained the caption “Live Free or Die.” The group says it was meant to criticize what they say are the socialistic policies of the President but instead it has evoked cries of racism from groups like the NAACP. The billboard was taken down as soon as it went up and now the Tea Party movement is feeling the backlash.

The NAACP wasted no time in going after the tea party group encouraging it to combat bigotry and not to tolerate bigoted statements. In their defense though, the tea party movement says it stands for smaller government and fiscal responsibility and welcomes people of all colors. Former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has been the most vocal of the political leaders standing up for the tea party. On her Facebook page, Palin writes that she knows how it feels to be falsely accused and says “the honest, freedom-loving patriots of the Tea Party movement are truly undeserving.”

There have been other examples of possibly racist behavior attributed to members of the tea party movement. There was the famous use of the N-word aimed at black members of Congress during the health care debate and what some have termed offensive signs at tea party rallies. There are those who believe the tea party is just the KKK re-branded but that type of rhetoric has no place in the debate according to most of the people on both sides of the issue. Tea party leaders say that when people promoting bigotry are found within their ranks they are kicked out. Even the head of the NAACP is quick to point out that they don’t believe the whole group is racist just that some followers have exhibited racist behavior.

Filed Under: Current Events, Policies, Politics, Society Tagged With: Barack Obama, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Racism

Equal Pay for Equal Work

: Image via Wikipedia

President Obama is calling on Congress to approve the Paycheck Fairness Act. This is a measure that is very similar to one that was proposed a few years back that makes it easier for women to sue if men in the office are getting more money for the same work. Government statistics have found that women typically make about 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man in a similar position.

Supporters of the measure say women now make up 50% of the workforce and believe it is time to finally achieve true pay equality. The last major piece of legislation in this area was adopted in 1963 and those who back the Paycheck Fairness Act say it is time for an update. The biggest source of contention is helping women find out if they are being underpaid and the new rules would open access to financial records. It would also strengthen the penalties for companies which are not following the law.

The American Association of University Women has done a study to show that over the course of a career, the pay inequities will cost the typical female executive over $700,000. The study also shows that retirement benefits for women are impacted because those are based on the money earned while working. The group says the arguments that women are paid less because they take time off for child bearing or fail to work as many hours as men are not true.

Opponents of the Paycheck Fairness Act include organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It doesn’t think it is fair to force companies to publicize worker salaries and questions how comparable work would be defined. They also object to provisions in the bill which lift current limits on the amount of jury awards in cases that involve sex discrimination in the workplace.

Filed Under: Crimes Against Children, Current Events, Discussions, Society, Woman Tagged With: American Association of University Women, Law, United States, Women