Thursday, November 10, 2011

Obligations of citizenship


Do Citizens have obligations toward one another that they do not have toward other people in the world?
          We consent to be governed by accepting citizenship in the country of birth (Remember, children of dual birth must make a decision when they reach the age of consent). ( An exception might be the American of Jewish decent born in America may be sent in their teens to help become military personnel in Israel, usually attending a pre-training  the summer before actual induction . As long as the citizen complies with the country of origins duties and obligation, they can participate in another country, however loyalty to the mother country must be kept.). 
Yes, they do feel as if they owe loyalty and communalty, however, they also remember the amounts of money they pay towards the protection of the country that provide the peace and serenity of the community.  When that peace and serenity is interrupted by corrupted government, or lack of enforcement the citizen starts to stop the loyalty.  These are the people who start to look to other forms of government or other forms of government or other countries to move to.
If a country is attractive to foreigioners, enough to seek crossing our borders illegally, usually the people of that country “love” the country Patriotically enough to be virutious.  However, if a country treats citizens of other countries the same as said countries own citizens, especially of people coming into said country and not paying the same “taxes” a normal citizen pays, the originating  citizenry will not accept the incoming immigrants because they have not paid their fair share and are not entitled to the same benefits.
Should citizens be treated differently than other people from other countries?  Citizens should be treated differently than other people who live here.  Citizenship means that the people who have that position in their country have participated in making the country what it is.  They have put the hard work into the council meetings, the physical work of knocking on doors, discussing the pros and cons of issues towards passage, taking part in the government as a citizen.  People coming from other countries have been raised in their government’s political contacts, alliances,funding their own political structures and are unfamiliar with the manner in which we solve our political problems and elections.
These people need to be treated differently for many reasons.  They have not participated in our political process, including going through the naturalization process.  They may be receiving benefits from other countries.  They would be bending our citizenship prerequisites  such as receiving emergency medical aid,  which could be conceived as receiving American Citizenship through the backdoor.  Spending the money set aside for American Citizens on illegal migrants could be considered a form of foreign aid without Congressional approval.
The moral answer is the people who take part in the governcy process do not receive the benefits, but outsiders benefit when they are not entitled to it!
Citizens within a country feel a kinship with fellow citizens. They understand that people fall on hard times and sometimes need a hand up. Citizens do not like fellow citizens that “use” the system, like staying on welfare for life, not attempting to find a job, milking hospital emergency rooms, They will the other way when fellow citizens fall on hard times, like a natural disaster, because they are fellow citizens. However, immigrants have another country to fall back on for their emergencies. Why should the current country of their existence pay for discomfort? Usually churches help those people who are in a time of need, however, people who cause the mother country to build expensive fences, provide border guards to help out our country, raise the funds spent by all citizens and make the expenses in the mother country high. Citizens do not appreciate the countries that encourage their citizens to leave their country because they do not have an economy that can assist their own “citizens” with education enough to be able to get jobs that could help their economy. The class system in these countries keeps the uber-rich in charge and keeps most of the remaining citizens mired in an economy that can not be a threat to the uber-rich.
People are more accepting of citizens accepting welfare than providing welfare for non-citizens. America provides foreign aid to other countries world-wide, however, welfare to immigrants become a form of foreign aid for those immigrants. Logically America should be sending a statement of charges spent on each illegal immigrant,plus the cost for giving the funds plus interest. That would have to go through Congress and it would never happen, however, the way it is being handled goes around Congress- takes money from our Treasury and raises taxes on our existing citizens. The taxes our citizens pay for these items are specifically for US Citizens, not for illegal immigrants. The moral significance on resource allocation within national boundaries is those funds belong to the citizens who have paid for the assistance, it is not foreign aid.
This distinction is morally defensible and is not a prejudice of our own kind. No other country allocates foreign aid to our Country- if we do not stick to our policies, our own citizens would not receive needed assistance. Our government has seen the need for assistance and our citizens support that decision both with paying taxes and voting for those people who submitted the legislation.
Who should we care about “our own”? People in America live in the one country where opportunity is a key word. Anyone can work hard enough in America to become a rich-person. All areas of America keep that “opportunity” word at the forefront of their duties – People take pride in helping others, as evident in most endeavors with America.  



Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Factcheck , your source for the truth

Do you ever wonder if what a politician is saying in is speech, or in his proposed legislation is truth or fiction?  Well, the Annenberg Foundation has provided the answer.
http://www.annenbergfoundation.org  The Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) was established in 1993.”  Its’ main purpose sought to increase the impact of the scholarship produced at Penn’s Annenberg School for Communication. “By conducting and releasing research, staging conferences and hosting policy discussions, its scholars have addressed the role of communication in politics, and other major fields.”  The discussion  always meet the high road of neutrality and have searched out the main facts that are true to the issues discussed.
If you want to know if your candidate is speaking the truth, go to http://www.factcheck.org/ the next day and find out what the Annenberg people have to say.
Remember, your job as an educated citizen is to seek out the truth about what is happening in politics and add it to your frame of reference.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

"and all the advantages of cool deliberation"

and all the advantages of cool deliberation”
                                Thomas Paine, December 1778
                  A Serious Address to the People of Pennsylvania
            In a response to a letter from Conrad Alexander Gerard, French Prime Minister to the United States, Thomas Paine included material about how the particular form of our” new constitution had not then been made a matter of controversy; so that the members meet unbiased, unprejudiced, and unawed by party influence, and all the advantages of cool deliberation.”
I bring this up because you as an educated citizen, need to strive for your vote in an “unbiased, unprejudiced and unawed…and all the advantages of cool deliberation. 
Because you as a citizen need to make an educated decision upon the votes placed before you, being objective about the material is an obligation.  Try not to go into any vote carrying the burden of your entire friend’s opinions, TV ads, signs, opinion polls, etc.  You need to gather the evidence listening to all the evidence with an open-mind, not a mind that has been charged with political rhetoric, but with facts, hardened with evidence.  This takes time.  Research is the key element.  You must trust your resources, commentators, political news, then weigh the evidence so you feel comfortable about your decision.  This is what gives you “all the advantages of cool deliberation”.
What about political affiliation?  Yes, people stand behind their party’s convictions, however, by keeping an open mind; you should be able to weigh those convictions against facts and your hypothesis about the issue.  It is at that point that you make your decision.  The conviction should be strong enough so you feel “all the advantages of cool deliberation”
 

Monday, September 19, 2011

Build up instead of tearing down!

I see many articles in the periodicals tearing down existing laws, court cases, items to consider: What I don't see in these articles is something to replace what they want to tear down with workable material.
Somewhere beforehand, elected officials, bosses, whomever, saw a need for such an action.  Perhaps after using the action for several years there are flaws apparent.  Most of the pundits give reasons to do away with the item all together.
What they should be writting about is the flaws they see, and possible SOLUTIONS to those flaws, perhaps with avenues to make the corrections in the fastest way possible. (i.e. word changes, cuts in the budget for obsolete items, etc.)
It is very easy to criticize someone's work, because they have already done the hard work; to research, write, gain passage, help with regulations, etc.  When you add how to correct the flaws, the critics do not want to go through the hard work the original "author" did to gain passage.



Sunday, August 28, 2011

Republicans want tax increase!!

In last Friday's Arizona Republic, there was an article about the Republican party desiring a tax increase.  Wouldn't that ruin their "Pledge" ?  In their pledge, they say they will not accept any tax increases.  The tax increase they are espousing is the increase on wages--of course on the common man only!!  This is the kind of material you need to dig up to see which side you want to vote for, be sure of your vote.

Friday, July 22, 2011

Loopholes, not for everyone, just the rich

Loopholes, according to New Webster's Dictionary is: "a textual basis in a document or law for escape or evasion of taxes, legal commitment, or obligation".
For those who would like to read a book about "loopholes" in the Internal Revenue Department, I recommend David Cay Johnston's book" Perfectly Legal--the covert campaign to rig our tax system to benefit the super rich--and cheat everybody else.  This book discusses and explains the various dodges the super-rich and their accountants take to insure they do not pay any taxes.
Perhaps you have heard in the Debt Ceiling discussion, the Democrats saying they want to eliminate the private jet exemption.  What they are talking about is an exemption for the super-rich, that the normal person does not have the option to take.  First, the super-rich can afford a passenger jet, and they get to write off the cost/ maintenance/pilot expense/fuel/ repairs/ you name it, right off their Income.  Second, they get to have many houses in different areas, and get to write it all off because they have to entertain their potential clients, same with athletic tickets. 
Perhaps you or your parents have participated in the mortgage interest deduction, it brings down your gross income down to less of a tax to pay, that one you get to participate in, " however the strategy to broaden home ownership has instead morphed into a vast subsidy for the best-off Americans.   The more the house cost, the bigger the tax subsidy.  And the more owners earned, and thus the higher their tax rates, the bigger the subsidies.  Combining these two factors created a huge benefit for highly affluent Americans but only a minuscule one for those most in need of help to buy their home."
The "Recession" we are in today comes as a result of lending to people who desired that tax "subsidy", however, did not have the money to pay for any increases in interest raises, nor the backup funds to cover them if they should be laid off.
Currently the debt ceiling discussion has talked about eliminating the "Mortgage Deduction" from the tax code.  President Obama mentioned to Boehner that it could be put on the table.  That would really hurt the lower 90% of the population, but not the affluent.  That looks dead now, because the Republicans would not budge on tax increases.
I won't go into all the loopholes discussed in the book.  He has another one out that is newer, I have to get a copy.  I would recommend reading this book as a minimum, then get the next one if you want.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Compromise - settle by mutual agreement

As an educated citizen, you follow the discussions on TV, radio, media.  One of the biggest political problems that is facing America at this date, is raising the deficit limit.  America has a good credit rating to this point, however, if the deficit limit is not raised so America can continue to write checks to pay bills, America could be faced with defaulting on interest payments to the bond holders that have been supporting our economy.  That would be very bad for America.
Currently the Republican Party has a majority in the House of Representatives, the body in Congress that is the only one that can initiate revenues for the government.  The President and the Senate are in the hands of the Democratic Party.  There is an impasse between the two majorities about the deficit limit.  The Republicans are unwilling to have any taxes raised on the wealthy, nor taking away subsidies to corporations, or tax breaks for the wealthy.  The Republicans desire the Democrats to make spending cuts in Medicare and Welfare, of which there is starting to have some movement towards Compromise.
The date for the settlement must be struck by August 2nd.
Both sides of this "battle" seem to be weakening, which is what is necessary to reach a compromise. It is up to you as an educated citizen to search out both sides of the issue, study them and be able to support your position to neighbors, letters to the editor and Congressmen, and friends.  Up to this point the Republicans have been adamant they were not going to compromise in any way.  They are taking a second look, can you find out what they are looking to compromise on?  The Democrats? Once they try to "Compromise" can either side get everything they want?  Both sides will be able to go back to their constituencies and explain that they fought hard for their positions, however the compromise included what was good for the entire population and the economy.  They will have to attempt to get what they were trying to get in their original ideals at some later time.