Obama Dines With Republican Senators: Evidence of Future Bipartisanship?

"I like a good party"
(not especially relevant, but thought it was funny)

Just a few hours ago, Obama and Senate Republicans met for dinner to discuss various topics. The exact topics discussed have not yet been released, but a White House official said that, chiefly, Obama will talk about fiscal matters. Other possible topics, according to what the president has recently discussed with Republican lawmakers, include "guns, immigration and energy."

Yes, this is definite progress for bipartisan cooperation. However, the same White House official said that "These are just conversations... Getting from there to a deal is hard." We've already seen evidence of bipartisanship when it comes to immigration reform, but gun control has seen less than an equal share of the same bipartisanship. Perhaps cooperation concerning immigration was little more than a rational choice by Republicans, made in order to survive. Clearly Republicans have been making great efforts to appeal to Latino voters. Immigration reform is evidence of the fact by itself, but Marco Rubio's meteoric rise to fame is further proof of an attempt to gain favor with Latinos.

Senator Lindsey Graham is a proven supporter of gun rights

Now, back to Obama's Senate "party".... Who attended this crucial dinner?  The guest list consisted entirely of Republican Senators, most of which were rank-and-file Republicans that Obama has not spent much time communicating with. These legislators were Saxby Chambliss (GA), Kelly Ayotte (NH), Dan Coats (IN), Tom Coburn (OK), Richard Burr (NC), Mike Johanns (NE), Pat Toomey (PA), John Hoeven (ND), Bob Corker (TN), Ron Johnson (WI), John McCain (AZ), and Lindsey Graham (SC). The most high profile of these Senators are former presidential nominee, John McCain, and outspoken Obama critic Lindsey Graham. Lindsey Graham is more recently known, however, for his proposed gun legislation that focuses on the mentally ill. The NRA has given him an "A" rating, clearly showing his pro-gun views. His presence at the dinner indicates that gun control is extremely likely to be a topic of discussion.

FOX News' article, however, presents a somewhat negative outlook on this dinner, claiming in the headline that "Obama goes around GOP leaders." True to FOX's notorious reputation of criticizing Obama, the article continues on to include a few irrelevant points. Among others, Obama is supporting "janitors... seeing a pay cut." How this is even related to this dinner, I have no clue. In this case, the NBC article on the subject, didn't present very much, if any, anti-Republican sentiment.

Just before I was about to publish this post, it was revealed that:

 "At the top of the dinner's agenda was the possibility of a grand bargain combining entitlement reforms with lowering tax rates and closing loopholes that would head off the sequester and tackle some of the country's worst budget woes."

What effects do you think this dinner has on bipartisan cooperation, short term and long term? Will we see a spike in bipartisanship in the coming weeks? Is this, and the previous immigration reform cooperation, evidence of an upcoming period of bipartisanship? Does Obama like a good party?

A New Chapter in Venezuelan History: Hugo Chavez Dead at 58

Hugo Chavez lost his 2 year fight against cancer

Earlier today, Venezuelan President, and leader of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), Hugo Chavez passed away after losing his long battle with cancer. Instead of reflecting upon the life of Chavez and his history with the Venezuelan socialist movement, I'd like to emphasize what will be happening in Venezuela in the near future, particularly in the next 30 days.

Following the Venezuelan Constitution, a presidential election to replace Chavez must be held within the next 30 days. Until then, the Venezuelan government has stated that Vice President Nicolas Maduro will serve as an interim President. Also a member of PSUV, Maduro is an obvious favorite to win the upcoming election. Running against Maduro is Venezuelan Governor Henrique Capriles. Capriles is the governor of the second most populous state in Venezuela, Miranda. Although a  charismatic politician who is a favorite among the people of Miranda, "Foes say he is really an 'ultra-right' politician in the pocket of Venezuela's pro-U.S. traditional elite, but masquerading as a real progressive." To read more about the eccentricities, criticisms, and histories of both candidates, click here.

VP Nicolas Maduro

Governor Henrique Capriles

But which candidate would the United States like to see take office? In 2008, Chavez broke off diplomatic relations with the US. Surely, the US government would like to see a "US-friendly" person take power. How about a "politician in the pocket of Venezuela's pro-U.S. traditional elite?" Yes, yes I think that fits the US's desires fairly well... Senator Marco Rubio released a statement earlier today:

“I urge the Administration and the community of democracies in the western hemisphere to keep a watchful eye on the security situation in Venezuela in the coming weeks and months. We must help encourage a leadership transition in accordance with Venezuela’s constitution and avoid a vacuum that is filled by power-hungry and violent forces seeking to maintain the status quo. We should instead support Venezuela’s democrats committed to writing new, more hopeful chapters in their country’s long and proud history.”

On one hand, Rubio encourages a "transition in accordance with Venezuela's constitution," but he also speaks against tyrannical leaders who seek "to maintain the status quo." He continues on to state that the US should support "democrats committed to writing new, more hopeful chapters." Mr. Rubio, are you proposing that Venezuela should write a new Constitution, one that is more favorable to US diplomatic interests? The US has already been accused of attempting to overthrow Castro and the Venezuelan socialist government... In 2002, Chavez blamed a failed coup attempt on then-president George W. Bush. More recently, in fact today, VP Maduro attacked the US for being somehow responsible for Chavez's sickness and death. The US promptly denied the accusations, calling them "absurd." Anti-US sentiment only continues... "Do not think that the situation of pain over the health of President Chavez will translate into weakness" says Venezuelan Foreign Minister Elias Jaua. Clearly, Venezuelan leadership is maintaining its opposition to the US. President Obama released a similar statement today:

Just one example of anti-US imagery in Venezuela

"At this challenging time of President Hugo Chavez's passing, the United States reaffirms its support for the Venezuelan people and its interest in developing a constructive relationship with the Venezuelan government... As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the United States remains committed to policies that promote democratic principles, the rule of law, and respect for human rights."

Yes, I believe it is clear that the US, with the support of both of its major political parties, supports increased diplomatic relations with Venezuela at this pivotal moment in Venezuelan history. Both Rubio and Obama stress the importance of "democratic principles" in the coming months. But until the election does happen, somewhere within the next 30 days, Venezuela will both mourn and celebrate the death of its both beloved and loathed leader.

Now to you... Which candidate do you think will win the upcoming election? Will Maduro's control of Venezuelan media in the next 30 days make him a virtual lock for the presidency? What actions do you think the US should take to ensure that its best interests are fulfilled in Venezuela? Does Rubio really support the "writing" of a new Constitution, or is it a mere coincidence of diction?

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: How Far Can It Reach?

Okay, be honest... Have you ever lied about something on Facebook? Have you ever stretched the truth? Think hard, but it's probably not very difficult to remember a specific example. Now imagine that you could be charged with a felony for posting false personal information on Facebook. Absurd, right? Technically, this is not far from the truth. Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) of 1984, a simple lie could translate into a felony and possibly prison time.

Originally, CFAA was intended to stop hacking related crimes at the relative beginning of the internet boom. Under CFAA it is "illegal to access a computer without authorization or in a way that exceeds authorization." This broad language, though it was helpful in including various forms of hacking when it was enacted, has some serious implications today. The problem is that the excerpt was never explicitly defined, which has led some prosecutors to claim that terms of service violations are punishable under CFAA. Such an interpretation would mean that anytime you violate that long agreement that you never read but always choose "yes" could, technically, lead you to a felony. Here's a couple notable examples:

1. Under Facebook's agreement, users cannot "provide any false information on Facebook."
2. Craigslist states that no user can post "false or fraudulent content."
3. Pandora makes users agree to "not allow others to use any aspect of your Account Information."
4. For you savvy, up-to-date people who read the New York Times online... you must "be courteous" and "use respectful language" when commenting on articles. (No trolling, troll.)
5. Just in case some of you have an eHarmony account, you are prohibited from sending messages that are "sexually oriented." Sorry sexters...
6. For a couple more, click here.

Swartz speaking out against government regulations of the internet

Now why is this debate coming to the surface now if the law was enacted some 28 years ago? Some of you may know that the Reddit co-founder/social activist, Aaron Swartz took his own life on January 11 of this year. Mr. Swartz was charged under CFAA for providing government-related documents to the public for free, while the same documents were available previously for a small charge. According to his family and friends, the circumstances surrounding his death are suspicious, but many believe the stress of his trial caused him to commit suicide. For more information about his untimely demise, read this New York Times article.

Now to you... do you think that the government has the authority to charge civilians with felonies for simple terms of service violations? What about misdemeanors? How much control, if any, should the government have over the internet?

Florida Sinkhole Home Doomed to Demolition

Watch your step. We'd hate to lose you.

There's been a bit of commotion over this news recently. On Saturday, a house in Florida collapsed due to a sinkhole. A man reportedly feel in while sleeping and is still missing. It is doubtful whether or not he survived. Family members were allowed to quickly collect some belongings before leaving the grounds. Jeremy Bush kept trying to look for his missing brother Jeff, but found no trace of him. The area is still unstable and unsafe for people to enter. Listening devices had to be used, but the authorities report no sign of Jeff.

Sinkholes are not uncommon in Florida due to the geography. Rainfall dissolves bedrock in the ground that creates sinkholes. As of today, the home is beginning to be demolished but the dislodged family still in grief over  the lost family member, who is now "presumed dead." NBC News quoted Administrator Mike Merrill as saying that "With all the equipment that we brought in and specialized help, we have just no been able to locate Mr. bush, and so for that reason the rescue effort is being discontinued."

After the house is brought down, the officials will attempt to stabilize the 30 feet wide and 60 feet deep sinkhole. However, it is doubtful that Bush's body will be found. There were also two nearby houses that required evacuation, though the residents were allowed a few minutes to gather possessions.

How do you think the state of Florida can do to prevent such tragedies? Should the government get more involved in its peoples lives in incidences such as these? Do such deaths deserve more coverage than others? Share your thoughts.

No Killing the Wolves, They're Too Endangered to Die!

"I am a farmer, You killed my livestock, prepare to die" ... or not

 

Here's news animal lovers probably like. The "no-kill" wolf ban in Oregon, implemented only a while ago, seems to be effective. This ban came to be when the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife revealed plans to shoot two wolves. However, they were sued on the groups of the Endangered Species Act. A compromise was eventually worked out to protect the lives of the wolves and the livestock they were known to prey on. Researchers note that while wolf populations are increasing, cattle deaths have not been significantly on the rise, seeming to show that the ban is working. Hopefully this is proof that nature and humanity can coexist peacefully with one another.

Nonlethal methods to keep wolves away include utilizing bright lights and loud noises, known as fladry, to disuade them from attacking nearby livestock. However, local ranchers fear that these nonlethal methods may lose effectively as the wolf populations become accustomed to them; some recommend returning to a shoot-to-kill policy like was used in the past.

Hopefully these methods will spread to other states. In Washington state, 74.5 percent of those polled thought that it would alright for wolves to recolonize their state. Idaho is another location where this ban can be tested. Notably, while wolf populations went down, livestock killings actually went up, creating uncertainty among researchers. Though, some disagree. Interviewee Patton felt that "It's frustrating, more than anything, because we have our hands tied... You can kill a man [who] comes into your house to rob you. Wolves are more protected than people." Of course, humans aren't exactly endangered like many wolf populations are (or used to be).

Do you believe this no-kill wolf ban is a good idea? Would you like this implemented in other states? Are there any trade-offs or opportunity costs related to this ban? Feel free to answer.

James Holmes Could Plea for Insanity

James Holmes is insane? Tell us something we don't know.

Alright. Now let's discuss an update from the trial of the Colorado shooter James Holmes. In a sudden move, lawyers defending the gunman suspect are thinking of pleading not guilty for Holmes due to his alleged insanity. However, he lawyers noted that they have to wait for the judge to rule on this motion first because it involves the state's insanity defense law. As ABC News notes, this law could be unfair for defendants "who invoke it because it requires the disclosure of potentially incriminating information." In other words, mental health records would have to be shown.

The prosecutors of the case have no made a move to go for a death penalty yet. However, the decision to involve Holmes's insanity complicates the issue. His lawyers are going to work to convince the court that the state's insanity defense law is unconstitutional, or at least some of it is. Some analysts believe that this is a strategic attempt to prevent prosecutors from obtaining a notebook Holmes gave to his psychiatrist that has ideas about his attack. Under the law, it was protected because it involved the relationship between psychiatrist and patient. Should such issues get in the way of determining justice? I feel such evidence would be pivotal in this case.

If Holmes is not found guilty of insanity, he could be freed from his facility if psychiatrists determine that he has recovered. Though, this is not a likely outcome. His conviction would probably lead to life imprisonment or the death penalty. As CNN noted, Holmes is "charged with 166 counts, including murder, attempted murder, and other offenses" from his attack on the movie theater viewers.

So do you think Holmes committed his crime out of insanity? Should the notebook be denied as evidence? Is there a possibility of this reaching the Supreme Court? I doubt it, but what do you think?

For more depth of discussion, check out this video.

The Cuts Are Here! Let the Blame Game Begin (or Continue)!

It can't get worst than this ... right?

Well, the dreaded spending cuts have finally arrived. President Barack Obama and the Senate could have potentially made a compromise to deal with these reductions, but perhaps unsurprisingly, they didn't. Now these cuts will hold back economic recovery and perhaps even worse. Not only is our country's economy damaged, but our national security could also be in dire jeopardy. The influence of these cuts are not immediate, but they are coming. Reuters quotes President Obama as saying that "not everyone will feel the pain of these cuts right away. The pain through will be real. Beginning this week, many middle-class families will have their lives disrupted in significant ways."

Half of the $85 billion cuts will be on the back of the Pentagon. The other cuts will also lead to meat shortages, delays in air-traffic, and losses to federal contractors. All this and perhaps more is necessary to deal with the $16 trillion debt that burdens the United States of America. Meanwhile, in Congress, the blame game continues. The New York Times reports that John Boehner responded to reporters with "The revenue issue is now closed ... how much ore money do we want to steal from the American people to fund more government." Democratic Representative Steve Israel was not impressed. He said that "John Boehner consistently paints himself into a corner and traps himself on cliffs, and that's been teh story of the speakership." Certainly Boehner might have been able to do a better job, but the truth is that neither side seems willingly to budge. Interestingly, Sen. Orrin Hatch feels he has a more reasonable spending cut plan, which he talks about here.

The President has given an official statement on the Sequester, which can be read here. If you squint, you might be able to make out some well-hidden criticism of Congress. An example of which is when the president noted that "So I recognize that Speaker Boehner has got challengers in his caucus. I recognize that it's very hard for Republican leaders to be perceived as making concessions to me."

Do you feel these cuts will benefit America in the long-run? Is there truly a better plan than the one being implemented? Will Congress ever gets its act together? Feel free to express your opinions.

Man is Manning in Trouble

Private Bradley Manning (on the left)
"To leak, or not to leak, that is the question"

As you probably well know, army private Bradley Manning was arrested for his role in the WikiLeaks affair (cable leaks) a while ago. Now, he has pleaded guilty to the 10 charges against him. Those charges could land him in prison for about 20 years. He said he was not guilty of "aiding the enemy," which could land him life imprisonment. He claims that he did it in order to "spark a debate over foreign policy" over the US military's "bloodlust." There is no evidence yet that he had any other motives for providing the files to WikiLeaks. The New York Times lists the material leaked as "videos of airstrikes in Iraq and Afghanistan in which civilians were killed, logs of military incident reports, assessment files of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and a quarter-million cables from American diplomats stationed around the world."

For the Obama Administration, Private Manning's actions are questionable.  It is arguable if he accomplished what he set out to do and didn't just publicly embarrass the United States of America. As quoted from the Detroit Free Press, "The Obama administration has said that the release of the documents threatened valuable military and diplomatic sources and strained America's relations with other governments. The administration has aggressively pursued individuals accused of leaking classified material, and Manning's is the highest-profile case." Has Private Manning actually changed anything? Of course, President Obama hopes for the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan as soon as possible. However, I seriously doubt the WikiLeaks affair was a major factor in his decision-making process.

Interestingly, Private Manning claimed that tried contacting The New York Times and The Washington Post before he gave the files to WikiLeaks. CBS News states that the private was not taken seriously and his tips not returned. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has commented that "the only way to get these cowards to publish anything is to get WikiLeaks to publish it first."

So what's your opinion? Did the leaks unnecessarily damage public relations between America and other countries? Do you feel Manning made the best choice under the circumstances? Did he, whether intentionally or not intentionally, aid "the enemy?" I await your thoughts.

A video of the news is provided for your viewing pleasure.

Gay Rights Issue Thickens as Obama Takes a Stand

The next step in human evolution

In a historic gesture, President Barack Obama has just recommended that the Supreme Court act to repeal California's ban on same-sex marriage via the Proposition 8 ballot measure. The Obama Administration filed a friend-of-the-court brief (read here) that marks the first instance of an American president has called on the justices to increase the rights of gays and lesbians. However, President Obama did not explicitly push for marriage equality under the law as strongly as he did during the January inauguration. This shows that there might still be some hesitation in the government to call for full-out equality for gays and lesbians. Perhaps he is worried about offending some of his constituents?

The Associated Press quotes the administration for writing that "They establish homes and lives together, support each other financially, share the joys and burdens of raising children, and provide care through illness and comfort at the moment of death." It is likely that if the Supreme Court chooses to heed Obama's urgings, then gay marriage would likely become legal in Delaware, Illinois, Hawaii, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island. While the friend-of-the-court briefs cannot force the justices to conform to the president's viewpoints, the justices will more probably keep his words in mind as they hear oral arguments regarding the case.

The New York Times also quotes Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. for saying that the brief "seeks to vindicate the defining constitutional ideal for equal treatment under the law." Of course, this is a massive turning point in American politics if the Supreme Court decides to interpret "equal protection under the law" from the Fourteenth Amendment as applying to gays and lesbians who would receive further protection under the Constitution. I am interested in just how the Court interprets the decision with this clause or whether they will choose to ignore it.

Of course, the opposition is not exactly thrilled about this ruling. The Washington Times quotes Tony  Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, for criticizing the president on flip-flopping. He notes that Obama said in the past that gay marriage was "an issue that is going to be worked out at the local level. The National Organization for Marriage has also expressed confidence that Proposition 8 is going to be upheld. Of course, the court ruling has not been made yet. There is time for the justices to change or make up their minds.

So how do you feel about this? Most probably support Obama's decision since Gallup had a poll that said most Americans supported gay rights. Are there any political reasons why Obama should not have supported gay marriage during this time? How much influence do you feel this will have on the justices? And how close do you feel the vote will be?

The United States Plans to Further Aid the Terror-, I Mean Rebels!

These aren't the rebels you're looking for Assad

They say that one's terrorists are another one's freedom fighters. The question for the United States is who we consider the Syrian rebels to be.

The New York Times reported that the United States is considering increasing its assistance to Syrian rebels resisting Assad's regime. The rebels will receive military advice, equipment, and training at a base in Syria. Secretary of State John Kerry actively called for the United States to provide additional assistance to the Syrian rebels while visiting Paris. While this good fortune for the rebels, what does this mean for the United States? Getting dragged into yet another military conflict in the Middle East seems contradictory to President Obama's hopes that the Afghanistan War would end within a year so that the troops come return safely. If the United States chooses to expand the range of its assistance to the rebels, there is the distinct possibility that our troops could be deployed there.

As The Christian Science Monitor points out, President Obama's possible decision to provide more "nonlethal" aid to the rebels steps on morally questionable grounds. To be fair, without direct intervention, radical Islamist groups are gradually gaining support in Syria. Providing defensive military equipment to hold back potential future terrorists is not a bad idea. The problem is that the Syrian rebels themselves are technically terrorists. They could be just as dangerous as radical Islamist groups if they choose to give some of the equipment to terrorist groups or begin using them to slaughter civilians as they see fit. As thousands of people are dying in Syria, perhaps the act of doing nothing is casting the United States in a bad light, forcing President Obama to call for more intervention. Of course, polls show most Americans aren't itching for a fight.

On Thursday, John Kerry will attend a meeting in Rome to discuss the Syria situation and will probably call for more international aid for Syria. USA Today quotes the director of the Middle East Center at the London School of Economics for noting that "I think we are going to see the Obama administration directly engaging the armed opposition inside Syria - a flow of U.S. (aid) to the armed opposition, including various material and also training, and command and control intelligence." That's definitely more than a little help, in my opinion. With the United States backing the rebels, they have a good chance of overthrowing Assad. However, there could be future consequences. It is always possible that the United States may be indirectly arming Al-Qaeda if the rebels ever choose to follow the terrorist group's mindset. Should we act rashly, we could endanger the fate of Syria.

Do you feel the United States should get more involved in the Syria conflict? Should we encourage other countries to help out as well? What are the chances of American support actually helping the rebels win? Are the rebels actually better than Assad in the long-run? These questions and more need to be answered if we are to take the correct path in Syria.

Here's a video news report on this issue for your viewing convenience.

Endgame on Sequestration Countdown - Is All Hope Lost?

"Sorry President Obama, but you're too late!"

Is there any hope left for America? The $85 billion sequestration cuts that begin on Friday has already led many government agencies to reduce cuts and tell employees off. There is little expectation among both Republicans and Democrats that the two parties will be able to put aside partisan issues and work together in time for the cuts. On Thursday, I feel it is more likely that any debate over the sequestration cuts will just be political fanfare, nothing substantial. The Democrats want to move an omnibus spending package for the rest of the year. However, the 60 votes that would be necessary to pass this package is unlikely due to Republican concerns.

The result of the cuts would have dramatic consequences for the economy, more likely than not. The Republicans are worried about the cuts giving too much power to President Obama's administration, spending money without any of their input or consensus. Some Republicans also fear President Obama will use this opportunity to shift money and help his health care plan, which they obviously have no great love for. Politico quotes Mike Simpson as saying that "One of the things that they mention is that we've been able to control spending in Obamacare, and if we give [the White House] flexibility, they may fund all these parts of Obamacare we don't want to fund." It is quite disheartening that even in such a crisis, politicians still have a tendency to focus on things like Obamacare instead of hurriedly working out a bipartisan solution.  Pew isn't helping either. But then, we can't say we aren't used to this.

President Obama himself is not too happy with the way things are going. He fully expects that these cuts will cause businesses to "tumble downward." Of course, his concerns are not going to prevent the probable budget battles that are erupting even before Friday. Fiscal gridlock is not a pleasant idea. However, John Boehner and President Obama have come no closer to finding a final deal than before. The New York Times quotes Stan Collender for saying that "I don't think there's a grand bargain out there - not this year, not next year, maybe not until after 2016."

Well that's certainly a depressing thought. I think we should be prepared for the worst. What do you think is going to happen? Will a miracle allow Democrats and Republicans to suddenly work together? How will the rest of the world respond? I doubt Adam Smith saw this coming when he first described the market system.

For more information, feel free to watch this video.

Jack Lew Confirmed as Treasury Secretary ... Well, After He Signs

"Mr. Lew is a great master (of the budget process). He's as experienced as Hillary Clinton and as creative as his signature." 

Not too long after Hagel's appointment was confirmed, the Senate has voted to approve Jack Lew as President Barack Obama's new Treasury Secretary. In a less nail-biting finish, the majority of senators, including all the Democrats, supported Lew in a 71-26 vote. While there was some Republican complaints over Lew's connections to big banks after he left New York University to work at Citigroup Inc. (especially regarding his approximately $1 million bonus) as well as his signature, the former Office of Management and Budget Chief and Chief of Staff pulled through without too much of a struggle.

Of course, now that Lew has been appointed, he has the happy job of having to land smack in the middle of the current budget crisis. One of Lew's priorities is to find a compromise that will prevent any serious reprecussions from $85 billion spending cuts that will take effect the beginning of Friday. Hopefully his experience will allow him to perform competently as Tim Geithner's replacement. However, this humorous Salt Lake Tribune writer thinks differently. Rick Lowry sarcastically claims that "at Citi, Lew established beyond a doubt his expertise at getting paid. In 2008, as the bank nearly blew up and laid off one-seventh of its employees, Lew ran its disastrous Alternative Investments unit - and got paid $1.1 million." Also, during the 2011 debt ceiling talks, he and his team were the ones who helped create the original idea for the cuts, but they weren't taken too seriously at the time.

Thankfully, President Obama seems confident in this appointment. Politico quotes Obama as saying that "As my chief of staff, Jack was by my side as we confronted our nation's toughest challenges... His reputation as a master of fiscal issues who can work with leaders on both sides of the aisle has already helped him succeed in some of the toughest jobs in Washington." Senator Orrin Hatch, the top Republican party member on the Senate Finance Committee, stated before the vote that "I intend to vote in favor of Mr. Lew's nomination and obviously my vote in favor of Mr. Lew comes with no small amount of reservation." Whether or not that comment means anything depend on your interpretation. However, at least the seat of Secretary Treasury is filled when we need it most.

I personally believe that Jack Lew's experience working under both President Obama and Clinton should indicate that he will make a capable Treasury Secretary. It is worth noting that he became Treasury Secretary without as much trouble as Chuck Hagel or his predecessor had in their final vote counts. But what's your opinion on Lew? Will Lew be able to handle his new job? Can he get enough bipartisan support for any policies he might have in mind? Does he read The Wealth of Nations in his bedroom? Comment as you see fit.

If you want to watch Lew's nomination, watch this video.

Illegal Immigrants Will Not Be Tolerated ... Unless We're Facing a Budget Problem

The United States of America: The Land of Opportunity. Even the Illegal Ones Benefit!

As mandatory budget cuts are about to take effect, many illegal immigrants held in United States prisons are going to be released. The Department of Homeland Security has chosen to release these immigrants because they feel that the jails should hold inmates who, as Gilligan Christiansen said, "pose more of a threat to public safety." The Republicans are simply going livid. In the words of Bob Goodlatte, "By releasing criminal immigrants into the streets, the administration is needlessly endangering American lives."

I personally find Mr. Goodlatte's statements a bit extreme. I doubt illegal immigrants are going to instantly go on killing sprees once they are released. Besides, the National Immigrant Forum revealed that it costs approximately $164 a day to keep an illegal immigrant jailed for being, well you know, illegal. President Obama has already promised in his State of the Union address to help improve immigration policies so that legal and illegal immigrants have a less difficult time entering the United States. The economy is bad enough with JP Morgan and perhaps soon other banks laying off their workers. Wasting money to hold immigrants who probably just want to find work and support their families is not very productive, in my opinion. However, perhaps there are certain trade-offs that I have not identified. Maybe these illegal immigrants will start stealing jobs from normal, legal Americans who also desperately need work. Would that be fair? Compare your views with the views in this graph.

Overall, the budget costs are the most likely reason why so many illegal immigrants are starting to be released. Sheriff Paul Babeu had little love of this policy, calling it a "mass budget pardon" that Obama is using as a "political tactic in this sequester battle." While allowing all illegal immigrants to go free might not be the best policy ever, Obama probably has to make some hard choices and compromises in order to deal with the current economic crisis. Illegal immigrants has some costs, as this video shows.

It's not total chaos though. The New York Times has stated that "Under supervised release, defendants in immigration cases have to adhere to a strict reporting schedule that might include attending appointments at a regional immigration office as well as wearing electronic monitoring bracelets." Still, that doesn't mean every illegal immigrant is being monitored. It's impossible for the federal government to account for every man running around in this country.

So share your thoughts. Is this the best plan for the government to follow under the current circumstances? Is there a better path? And will these illegal immigrants actually lead to serious disorder in the country, as Republicans are worried about?

The Post's View: "The Voting Rights Act's work isn't finished"

As you may know (and this NPR article fully explains), the Supreme Court will consider the future application of some provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on Wednesday. Currently, the Voting Rights Act requires certain states and localities to clear proposed changes to voting rules with the federal government (much like a sort of "prior review" for areas with a history of discrimination). The question in consideration by the Supreme Court is whether such "pre-clearance" is now an undue and unwarranted burden on jurisdictions that must still legally comply. 

Shelby County, Alabama is arguing that "immense progress since 1965 in rooting out official discrimination" renders the provision baseless, "unjustifiably subjecting some states to unequal treatment and violating their constitutional prerogative to regulate elections within their borders." In addition, the county's lawyers assert, " The formula Congress used to sort out which states are subject to pre-clearance and which aren’t... is out of date."

However, the Editorial Board of The Washington Post disagrees, citing persistent voting discrimination techniques (they call gerrymandering for the sake of "slic[ing] and dic[ing] minority populations into myriad districts to limit their electoral influence" an "oil poison in new bottles") as evidence that "the Voting Rights Act's work isn't finished."

Their thesis concludes, "In reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act seven years ago, a bipartisan majority of lawmakers — 390 to 33 in the House, 98 to 0 in the Senate — determined that the evidence justified maintaining pre-clearance. Shelby County and its allies have not given the high court reason enough to repudiate Congress’s resounding judgment."

Do you agree with the WP Editorial Board that "the Voting Rights Act's work isn't finished?" If so, what evidence is there to support the need for the "pre-clearance" provision? If not, what evidence is there to demonstrate that this provision of the Voting Rights Act did its job and is ready to retire?

TL;DR? Time to look ourselves in the mirror, nation. How much have we really changed?