Senate Passes $696 Billion Defense Bill

Recently, the Senate approved a defense policy bill 90-3. The House passed the bill earlier and will send it to President Bush to endorse. This bill permits $696 billion for military spending, which includes $189 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and $10 billion for ballistic missile defense. The bill would also give more aid to returning troops, establish conditions for contractors involved in the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan, and establish management guidelines for expensive weapon programs. The bill also includes a 3.5% pay increase for service members, guaranteed mental health evaluations for combat veterans within 30 days, no fee raises to the military’s health care system, and a guaranteed three additional years of Veterans Affairs health care for returning troops from Iraq and Afghanistan after being discharged. The bill requires that private security contractors working in a war zone obey military regulations and orders from commanders, and an auditing system would be created to watch over reconstruction contracts in Afghanistan. Do you think the US is spending its money wisely? Will this increased military spending help the war in Iraq and Afghanistan or will it just prolong the war? Should the US redirect this money towards domestic issues instead? If so, what domestic issue would you direct it towards?

Is Giving N. Korea Another Chance a Good Idea?

While doing a little more research on the previous post, I came across this cartoon.



Is it wise to trust N. Korea?
It also depicts the worthlessness of the United Nations, does it not?

Improved Relations with North Korea?

Today, North Korea's president Kim Jong-il agreed to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula as long as the US makes an effort to improve relations with them as well.

Bush told the press:

“I got his attention with a letter and he can get my attention by fully disclosing his programs, including any plutonium he may have processed and converted some of that into whatever he’s used it for. We just need to know.”

In October, the communist country had already agreed to dismantle its nuclear weapons and publicize all nuclear programs in exchange for 950,000 tons of oil (or the same in money). Some are displeased with this resolution because it doesn't make N. Korea fork over all the warheads and plutonium they have secretly stored up. Others believe that this is one of the few successes Bush has achieved in this period of disappointing foreign diplomacy.

The White House celebrates its victory: a letter passed through N. Korea's representative to the United Nations, from Kim Jong-il, stating that N. Korea would keep its word as long as the US stuck to its side of the bargain.

Do you guys think that Mr. Kim will REALLY disclose all the programs and disassemble all the nuclear warheads so none of them are operational, just for a oil? Is this a victory of Mr. Bush and show his competence in foreign diplomacy?


Full Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/washington/15korea.html?ref=washington

New Jersey First to Prohibit Death Penalty in 40 Years

New Jersey will be the first state in forty years to eliminate the death penalty (the governor will sign the measure in a few days). Government members voted in favor of replacing the death penalty with life in prison without parole 44-36. Supporters state that the death penalty has not discouraged murder from occurring and the death penalty sentence provides the possibility of killing an innocent person. Opponents of the measure such as Assemblyman Richard Merkt, state that the bill is “a victory for murderers and rapists. It does not benefit families. It does not benefit New Jersey society. It does not benefit justice.” Senate Republicans offered a compromise of upholding the death penalty for those who murder law enforcement officials, rape and murder children, and terrorists, but the Senate denied the suggestion. Since the Supreme Court permitted the death penalty in 1976, 1,099 people have been executed. While some states have deliberated about prohibiting the death penalty, currently, 37 states use the death penalty. Is the death penalty too radical of a punishment, and should other states follow New Jersey’s example of banning the death penalty?

New Energy Legislation Passed by Senate, but Watered Down...

New energy legislation has been cleared through the Senate! It's good news, but the legislation was cut and stripped of many provisions that would cost the oil industry billions and billions of dollars before finally receiving its wide margin of approval.

This legislation includes an increase in fuel-economy standards for motor vehicles and boosts for alternative fuel. However, the 13 billion dollar tax increase on oil companies, and a requirement that 15% of electricity be from renewable sources were cut in order to secure Republican votes in the Senate.

To end debate on the bill, Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, announced the removal of tax provisions, allowing for passage with a vote of 86 to 8.

The oil industry's own voice was clearly heard in their own campaigns to oppose tax increases; they argued that paying the government more money would get in the way of developing new sources of energy in terms of funding.

Do you think that the bill should have been watered down? What does this say about the power of the oil industry in Congress? Do you think the tax provisions should have been passed? Will they ever be able to make it through Congress?

Full Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/washington/13cnd-energy.html?ref=washington

New Government Stand to Control Immigration

Last Friday, landowners along the southern border (mainly Texas and Arizona) were told that if they did not comply with the federal government to build a fence meant to help prohibit and prevent illegal immigration, the government would take control of their land. Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security Secretary, is allocating thirty days for these landowners to decide if they will permit US officials on their land to see if it is proper for fencing. If landowners decide not to let US officials on to their land, Chertoff warns that he will “turn to the courts to gain temporary access”. Also, if the department deems that the land is suitable for fencing and landowners do not oblige, the department will look to the courts to get permission. The government’s goal is to construct 370 miles of border fencing by the end of next year, but Chertoff says, “dealing with uncooperative landowners” is an obstacle. Many landowners oppose border fencing because they claim that the fence will thwart their access to the Rio Grande, their main supply of fresh water. Also, businesses claim that the border fencing will delay cross border traffic that is essential for local economies. However, some believe that the border fencing is not only to prohibit illegal immigration, but also to mend differences in the Republican Party on the immigration issue. Bush once supported an immigration bill that would provide some legal status to illegal immigrants in the US. Many Republicans were angry at Bush’s “amnesty” and argued that “enforcement should be the government’s sole response”. On one side of the issue, it is unfair to force these private landowners to build a fence on their property that would restrict their access to the Rio Grande and hurt local economies, but on the other hand, the fence prevents the major national issue of illegal immigration.

How would you feel if you were forced to comply with the government’s demand of building a fence on your property while restricting your rights, but it was to help prohibit these illegal immigrants that our taxes are helping to support and who are taking away jobs from your fellow American citizens? Should the government be allowed to force landowners to comply to help the national issue of illegal immigration, while infringing on the landowner’s rights?

President Bush Vetoes Child Health Bill

So President Bush has vetoed a Children's Heath Care Bill again!
His explanation?

“Because the Congress has chosen to send me an essentially identical bill that has the same problems as the flawed bill I previously vetoed, I must veto this legislation, too.”

This is the 10th veto of Bush's presidency and exemplifies his continuing conflicts with the Democrat-led Congress.

What is the debate about? Money! Spending has been the issue of frustration and dispute!

The current plan of which more than 6.6 million children are enrolled in, called the S-Chip program, needs more funding if it is to continue. To continue, an estimated $5.8 billion is needed per year, which is $800 million more than the current annual budget. Democrats sent the bill allowing increased spending of $35 billion and allowed another 4 million children to join the program.

However, the White House responds by saying

“This Congress failed to send the president legislation that puts children first, and instead they sent for a second time one that would allow adults onto the program, expand to higher incomes, and raise taxes,” said Dana Perino, the White House press secretary.

What will become of this constant debate between White House and Congress?

Full Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/washington/12cnd-bush.html?hp