On the issue of gay marriage

Melissa Rangel’s article, “Is Gay Marriage Constitutional? Or Not?” is less about the question stated in her title and more about a critique on our nation’s refusal to evolve.  Her opinion that gay marriage should be constitutional is one that I couldn’t agree with more.  

At first glance, the issue appears to be the simple locking of horns based on discriminatory attitudes and narrow-mindedness, but the arguments for and against gay marriage extend further than that.  Those who oppose gay marriage cite religious reasons and argue against the effects it has on raising children.  On the other hand, those who are for it believe that regardless of sex or gender, marriage is a right that we should all have.  All valid viewpoints, of course, and thus it’s no surprise that this complicated issue remains contentious.  

Image Source: startribune.com

In response to those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons - the condemnation of homosexuals have the right to exist within the realms of religious practice, but those beliefs and judgments belong strictly to those religions and should not interfere with the governing of a country and restrict the rights of other people.  

Also, our children are growing up in a modern world that’s ever-evolving and the effects of gay marriage on child rearing would eventually cease to exist when we respect human rights.  The sooner we teach them about different lifestyles and demonstrate acceptance - the better.  

Furthermore, the demographics of this country are vastly different from when the Founding Fathers signed the Constitution.  Rangel states, "As Professor Seago once said during class, our founding fathers built this system, but even they were unsure [of] how it was going to work."  That's absolutely right.  

Same-sex marriage continues to be a source of debate and controversy in America despite our country’s social and political evolution over the past several decades.  It really is amazing that more than half of the States declare gay marriage unconstitutional.  Seriously, it's just absurd.  What about the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, which states that no person should be denied the "equal protection of the laws"?   

I share Rangel’s sentiment that changes are in order; it’s time to resolve this issue and make gay marriage constitutional and focus on other problems.  

McCutcheon ruling invalidates political spending restrictions

The McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission case was decided on Wednesday, April 2.  SCOTUS struck down aggregate campaign contribution limits set by federal law which capped the amount of money individuals can give to candidates for office and to political action committees at $123,200.00 for the two-year election cycle.  

In favor of McCutcheon, the justices voted 5-4.  The justices were split between party lines, with conservatives voting the majority.  Chief Justice Roberts announced the decision, claiming that the aggregate limits don’t actually prevent corruption and that the overall limits “intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise the most fundamental First Amendment activities.”  

Image Source: theprogressivecynic.com

What concerns me the most about this decision, which is consistent with the series of recent SCOTUS rulings (i.e. the 2010 Citizens United case), is that it further decreases the public’s trust in the government.  In Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion, he argues that the plurality opinion confines corruption to “quid pro quo” corruption, which narrowly defines it as “a direct exchange of an official act for money.”  That definition doesn’t recognize corruption as “garnering ‘influence over or access to’ elected officials or political parties’” like it had in a prior case.  He further explains that previous cases in history have shown that Congress regulated campaign contributions in order to maintain the integrity of government institutions, which demonstrates a broader interest than what the plurality acknowledged.  

Image Source: paytoplaylawblog.com

The First Amendment should protect not only the individual’s right to free speech, but the public’s collective speech as well.  So, it’s understandable that the appellant felt his First Amendment rights were being restricted by the aggregate limits.  I mean, who wouldn’t?  It’s your money, you earned it - shouldn’t you be able to support your chosen candidates and shape your future to serve your interests?  Why are you limited to just 16 candidates when you'd really like to endorse 28?  I get it.  However, the Court’s decision did not take into account the public’s interest.  Regardless of the legal definition of corruption, money talks.  This decision just made it easier for the wealthy to continue to buy elections and harder for the voice of the general public to be heard.  This ruling went the wrong direction.  Many already feel like their interests and opinions don’t matter - this just means the public’s confidence in our system will erode even further.      

Obscurity arouses suspicions

In his article, “Government Secrecy” Langston Behr discusses the issue of how much government information is kept from the public and the impact this has on our trust in the system.  I agree with his stance that the government should make more information available to its citizens.  To those who argue that doing so poses a security risk, I think if someone was in fact interested in being malicious towards our country, they would figure out a way to get whatever information they wanted.

It’s interesting that during the President’s second term, the Obama administration withheld double the amount of information withheld in his first term.  In addition to the question, “What is the government hiding from us?” I have to ask, “Why are they hiding it?”  

I don’t know if I wholly agree with the broad statement that the government should flat out give us the information we ask for.  But if denied the information, we should be informed as to why - we deserve an explanation.  This may be just as unrealistic, but at least we are treated with more respect.  

As for underground societies, the illuminati, and whatnot - I’ve often wondered about these stories myself.  Mr. Behr, I’d love to talk more about conspiracies with you!  

The 2014 Civil Rights Summit - Inspiring!

"Social Justice in the 21st Century: 
Empowering Minds, Changing Hearts, and Inspiring Service"

Social justice leaders gathered for a panel discussion at the 2014 Civil Rights Summit to share their thoughts on the issues Americans face today and spread hope about making a difference in society.  The dialogue between moderator Shirley Franklin and speakers Lex Frieden, David Robinson, Maria Shriver, and Steve Stoute was candid and optimistic.  Done in a loose Q&A format, each leader informed us about the causes closest to their hearts and presented enlightening ideas and perspectives.    

After watching The Shriver Report’s documentary "Paycheck to Paycheck," I was excited to learn that Maria Shriver was speaking at the Summit and I'd be able to watch it streaming online.  Her work in promoting women’s issues has made me reconsider some of my beliefs about public programs.  For instance, at the panel she said that not only can the government do better, but women can do better by thinking of themselves as providers.  A message like that empowers not just the women who need help but the people who want to help them.    

As a journalist, Shriver believes in telling a story to get the message out there and have an impact on the issues we’re still facing.  Basically, everyone has a story to tell - this is my philosophy as well.  While I have no plans of becoming a journalist, the idea of storytelling as a way of helping people gives me hope that I (and others like me) can make a difference in society (and in politics!) through a gentle yet equally powerful medium.    

Another highlight from the discussion is the media’s focus on getting ratings rather than presenting facts.  Franklin stated, “If it bleeds, it leads,” and Stoute confirmed that the number one leading story in local news is “missing white girls.”  It’s wonderful that they touched on this problem a little bit.

On the topic of what we can do to affect lives, the panel agreed that change really begins within the individual.  With respect, kindness, and compassion, one person can inspire others and good things will follow.  Frieden spoke about people with disabilities - how important it is for people to see beyond what they can’t do and instead focus on what they can do.  This thought struck a chord with me because as an avid observer of people, I’ve spent a lot of time watching how energy flows from one person to the next.  In school hallways, I witness peoples’ interactions and notice that certain people aren’t included in conversation not because they lack interest in participating, but because of assumptions made about them (as if being in a wheelchair or using a walking stick automatically makes them so different from everyone else).  Then, something beautiful happens - one person makes an effort to include someone who’s not currently in the conversation, and I can see their eyes light up.  Ideas are exchanged through conversation and these seemingly small moments can affect a person’s life. 

While it only lasted slightly over an hour, I very much enjoyed the talk.  It was upbeat and heartfelt.  Ahh, if only there were more programs like this on TV…

The reality of living paycheck to paycheck

Image Source: HBO.com

HBO and The Shriver Report's documentary Paycheck to Paycheck: The Life and Times of Katrina Gilbert gives us a glimpse of what it’s like being a struggling, single mother of three in America.  Ms. Gilbert is just barely getting by making $9.49 an hour as a full-time certified nursing assistant.  Her financial problems seem never-ending - she receives zero child support, she can’t afford health insurance, she isn’t eligible for financial aid for school, and so on and so forth.  Despite working long hours and doing her best, she essentially gets nowhere.  Without any safety nets, the routine of her day to day existence hangs by a thread...one small act of Murphy's Law could spell disaster for her and her children.  

As a nation, we must do more to support those who are honestly striving to get out of poverty.  Low-income households headed by single mothers who typically lack skills and resources are unable to withstand financial setbacks.  Subsequently, the people who’ve already been struggling to stay afloat are often the hardest hit by economic downturns and policy changes.  It’s obvious how people living paycheck to paycheck remain stuck in their situations.

The systems in place now are insufficient, but what can we do?  Providing paid sick leave and expanding family tax credits are possible policy alternatives.  Greater efforts from lawmakers and administrators to keep policy requirements consistent would help avoid the loss of benefits.  Most importantly, we should promote and invest in programs that take a comprehensive approach (a combination of childcare, education, guidance, etc.) in dealing with the problem.  

During the filming of Paycheck to Paycheck, Ms. Gilbert loses her food stamp benefits and I was curious as to why (the film provided no explanation).  After doing some online research, I still don’t have the facts of what happened with her eligibility status exactly, but I learned some interesting information about the recent cuts to the SNAP (food stamps) program.  

In 2009, as a response to the economic decline, Congress passed a stimulus bill called the Recovery Act which raised SNAP benefits, providing recipients a temporary boost.  It was great for the time being, but unfortunately, it ended in November 2013.  Ripping off this band-aid was painful for many individuals: an estimated 47 million low-income households were affected.  According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, this meant about a $10 reduction per person per month.  Without the added Recovery Act money, SNAP benefits are expected to average below $1.40 per person, per meal this year.  That’s a measly $126 bucks allotted per person each month.  Is Congress planning on passing legislation that will address this problem any time soon?  The CBPP thinks it’s unlikely.  

Additionally, the new farm bill that passed in February 2014 will cut roughly $8 million dollars from food-stamp financing over the next ten years.  For some 850,000 households, that means an average reduction of approximately $90 per month.  Furthermore, certain people are blocked from receiving benefits: college students are lumped together with illegal immigrants, lottery winners, and the deceased.  The bill limits the type of qualifying classes to “career and technical education, remedial courses, basic adult education, literacy, or English as a second language.”  Consequently, should Ms. Gilbert manage to attend college and pursue a degree, certain courses would likely disqualify her from the SNAP program.  I wonder if anyone would bother to point this out to her.  

It's important to understand that regardless of who we are, it takes an enormous amount of determination to overcome the hurdles that life throws at us.  Moreover, we cannot accomplish everything alone; we must ask for help when we need it.  But what if we've tried our best?  What if we've done all we can do, year after year, and still can’t climb out out of the depths of our struggles?  42 million women in America are living in or near poverty and of that, more than 13 million are mothers of young children.  When this problem is so prevalent, so widespread - then there is something inherently wrong with the system that’s supposed to work with us, not against us.  

GOP stirs media with immigration principles

The recent immigration principles presented by the House Republicans sparks an exploration of the potential undesirable effects of the changing demographics on the Republican party in a recent blog post by Joshua Holland.  Although his article on The Smirking Chimp, “The GOP Won't Pass Immigration Reform — and It Could Prove Disastrous” is thought-provoking, it is mainly speculative.  

No stranger to the world of politics, Holland is a regular blog contributor to The Smirking Chimp, author of “The Fifteen Biggest Lies About the Economy,” and host of progressive radio talk show, “Politics and Reality Radio.”  The article is aimed at readers who are likely to be politically informed liberals.  

Holland argues that Republicans are possibly alienating key constituents (young voters and minority groups) with ‘dog whistle politics’.  While he brilliantly executes a well-researched and substantial discussion regarding serious concerns for the future of the Republican party, it lacks solid evidence directly proving his main assertion.  

Kicking off the piece is a report of the Republican response to their proposed Standards for Immigration Reform which was released in January.  Citing an informal poll conducted by Roll Call, Holland notes that only 19 House Republicans responded as being openly supportive of the immigration principles.  He fails to mention that 127 have not yet responded to Roll Call.  So, how did Roll Call journalists come up with these numbers?  By combing through public statements and asking directly.  An unofficial report like this doesn’t say much and can be interpreted in a variety of ways.  

A whopping fifteen links are available to support Holland’s argument.  He touches on gerrymandering, points out the increase in racial polarization, and even cites one of his own articles about the fast-growing Asian-American population and its preference for big government that provides more services.  As if that weren’t enough, to illustrate how problematic it is for Republicans that some party members are blatantly and publicly racist, he throws in a couple of their cringe-worthy quotes and bewildering videos.  Ba-bam!

In both the headline and text, Holland is careful to write that these issues “may” and “could” lead to a decline in Republican supporters.  These words define speculation, so what we have here are several pieces of a puzzle and a persuasive expert suggesting how they fit together.  

Image Source: advancingjustice-chicago.org

$10.10 raise kind of a joke

Teresa Tritch, of the New York Times Editorial Board, argues that the Democrat proposal of raising the federal minimum wage is a meager request.  She states plainly, “‘$10.10 tomorrow’ is still inadequate," in her post in the New York Times, “The Minimum Minimum Wage."   

Having spent 12 years covering politics and taxes at Money magazine, Tritch is experienced in writing about economic issues.  This particular article is likely geared to the bulk of the news site’s reader demographics: left-leaning, middle-class 18-49 year olds with a college education.

Image Source: washtenawvoice.com

Tritch efficiently structures her to-the-point argument by first laying out some numbers, pointing to a report by the EPI which shows how the proposed raise compares to the historical averages of minimum wage raises dating back to 1939.  The data is fact based and clear, but it’s important to note that the EPI is a liberal organization.  I have to question why she would cite only one source.  

She also links to an article that explains how $10.10 is low compared to economic benchmarks like “purchasing power, wage growth, and productivity growth.”  While this article provides useful background information to further explain her position, the article was compiled by people from the very same New York Times Editorial Board which Tritch serves on.  Isn't this a bit like quoting yourself?  We're basically seeing just one side of the story.  I wouldn't suggest this article alone to educate people on how the minimum wage affects the economy; consult additional sources.  

Image Source: nydailynews.com

Tritch then mentions how President Obama, in his 2008 campaign, had promised to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2011.  She asserts that President Obama is “not suggesting a higher amount to make up for the delay” despite being late by three years in coming through with his promise.  Should this late promise matter to the degree that it change the amount of the raise?  I think not.  In any case, I don’t see how this proves the amount is too low.

Image Source: fox11online.com

There's one more paragraph about workers striking for more than $10.10 - for instance, the fast food workers who were asking for a raise from $9.00 to $15.00, an  almost a 70% increase.  Quite frankly, that's a bit wild compared to historical averages.  Besides, merely asking for a raise does not make it valid or justified.  

Lastly, she calls to Democrats to take more action and (with controlled enthusiasm) concludes by reminding readers of their Democratic values: shared prosperity and protection from the unfair practices of corporate executives.  Well, I'll admit it, emotional appeals work on me.

Despite my cautious nature, I agree with Tritch.  Her argument presents numbers and figures that clearly indicate that the proposed federal minimum wage raise from $7.25 to $10.10 is inadequate.  With a bare-bones background knowledge of economics, initially I supported the idea that the free market should set wages.  Also, I felt that $10.10 was a decent raise from $7.25, considering that ten years ago when I worked for minimum wage, I was making $5.25.  After some thought on what Tritch has said, I am now convinced that the rate is low.

That being said, I'm all for the raise to $10.10, however, I don't think that we should raise it beyond $10.10 at this point, given the estimations from the CBO.  The CBO’s report shows mixed results on the concerns of both Democrats and Republicans, estimating gains of 900,000 people lifted out of poverty that could come at a price of 500,000 jobs.  Before raising it, I'd want to know the effects that higher amounts would have on workers, businesses, and consumers.  I’m much more comfortable with gradual increases.

Will Obamacare empower 2 million workers to quit?

David Lauter’s Los Angeles Times article, “Affordable Care Act will prompt some to work less, report says” presents opposing views from Republicans and Democrats on Obamacare’s future impact on the number of hours people work.  According to a report by the Congressional Budget Office, the reduction of work hours will begin in 2017.  The CBO explains that the requirements and availability of government subsidies will decrease the incentive to work more hours.  This projection caused controversy between supporters and non-supporters of the Affordable Care Act.  Republicans argue that reduced work hours will hurt the economy - especially the middle class.  Democrats took a more optimistic view on the matter, claiming that the impact will be fairly small and people will find it empowering to make personal choices about how they spend their time.  

This article presents information from an unbiased view and gives us a clear starting point from which to continue investigating the Affordable Care Act’s possible impact on our lives and the economy.  Many of us (especially millennials - myself included) have yet to form a firm opinion on Obamacare.  An objective look at both sides of a debate allows us the detached perspective necessary to consider the positive and negative aspects of this new bill and decide for ourselves what we think.  Imagine what life would be like if people worked less hours.  If most of us are living balanced, health-insured lives, would the complacency get to us eventually?  Would working less be such a bad thing?  Quantity doesn't always equate to quality...and the saying applies to both sides of the argument.