Commentary of "Congress Out of Touch With America's Volunteer Organizations"

I strongly believe and know that non-profit organizations need adequate funding. My mother is a chief financial officer for a non-profit organization. That is her full-time, 40 (more like 60) hours a week job. Those are hours she spends creating, analyzing and maintaining a budget. It upsets me to think that members of Congress are not aware of the importance and necessity of financing non-profit organizations. Manpower, time, and money are only a few of the requirements needed to have a functioning agency or corporation. Non-profit organizations are not an exception. Without paid, full-time staff on hand, like you and my mom, non-profits would cease to function. Irrelevant this may be to some people, recovering drug addicts, abused family members, those living in poverty, those affected by natural disasters and many other members of society would beg to differ. I would like to point out that these citizens could fall into any social class, which I am of the opinion some people don't realize.

If our officials do lack the education on the issue, then the non-profits need to take big steps to enlighten the policy makers of our country. I know response to the cuts of federal support has not been taken lying down. AmeriCorps has an online petition to the U.S. Senate with over 117,000 signatures (one of them is mine) since February 19, 2011. I also read on the Corporation for National & Community Services website that President Obama proposed a $109 million budget increase for CNCS. It is comforting to know that funding cuts for non-profits does not seem to be too trendy in national politics. 

For those interested, here is the link to the AmeriCorps petition:

http://www.change.org/petitions/save-americorps#?opt_new=t&opt_fb=t

The Fear of Tax Hikes and What It's Costing Americans

Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, assumed his current position of January 5, 2011. Republicans took over the House on a campaign that promised more jobs for America. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate in the United States is an alarming 9.5%. Understandably, changes need to be made. Despite the basis of their campaign, job creation bills have yet to be proposed, while three in favor of anti-abortion views have been on the floor. This does not sound like economic reform to me. Instead of proposing bills that could generate jobs as promised, the main focus is on slashing government spending, like education and clean energy funding and union support.

Republican vogue is keeping taxes low. Without taxes, how does the U.S. government intend to raise any money to reduce the looming deficit? The government can't not spend money. How would we pay Mr. Boehner and all other elected officials? Taxes pay our leaders, fund government programs, and overall keep our country running. Complaints are always running around that our public school system is below par along with other government run programs. What do you expect? Public school teachers are paid minimal salaries and only those that are exceptionally passionate about their job are going to do it well. Low standards of public workers is another issue that goes hand-in-hand with low taxes/low salaries. What I do not think Americans realize is that we get what we pay for. If you are not willing to bite the bullet and allow higher taxes, inefficiency will only continue.

Republicans say why raise taxes when we can just get rid of the inefficient sectors (aka the public ones)? Cutting our public programs will only deplete the job market more, worsening the economy. I do not see Republicans making any movement towards creating jobs that would replace those provided by our public works.

The whole purpose of our government is to make the country we live in a better one for future Americans. I think it is time for certain self-serving Americans to start thinking about what will benefit the country as a whole and not just a small traditionalist group.

Abortion: A Bargaining Chip for Obamacare

I was very interested in the editorial by Carlton W. Veazey, “Insurance Bans on Abortion Go for the Jugular.” As the President and CEO of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, it is obvious Veazey is writing for pro-choice advocates like myself. Abortion is a national issue as made by the Roe v. Wade United States Supreme Court decision in 1973, which basically gave women the right to have an abortion. Veazey informs his audience that under the new healthcare law, bills are attempting to be passed by numerous states that prohibit insurance companies from covering abortion. Previous laws passed by certain individual states simply prolonged and complicated the already distressing process of abortion. Pro-life advocates may argue that since abortion is a distressing procedure, women should not have them. In my opinion, although abortion can be a decision with unfortunate consequences, so can an unwanted pregnancy. The new devious endeavors, Veazey states, will make it more difficult for women seeking abortions to have them than any of the previous laws, requiring these women to go through the similarly disagreeable process of pregnancy.

I agree when Carlton W. Veazey argues that the attempt to rid women of their access to their rights, namely to choose to have an abortion, limits a woman's life options and can make way for bitter, uncaring parents. Although I see eye to eye with him on the abortion issue, he does not give any sources for his claims in the editorial. He suggests that the U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops and other extreme political organizations are behind the scheme. Having been raised Catholic; I know they are firmly against abortion unless the mother's life is in jeopardy. Therefore, it seems realistic that a Catholic organization would promote such legislation, but he does link any verification for this statement. Veazey also proclaims that 80 percent of private insurance plans cover abortion. I did a bit of "googling" and found that most people seem to think most insurance plans do not cover abortion. However, if he were credible in his statement, for states to prohibit abortion coverage would be preposterous and insensitive. If it is Catholics and extreme political organizations behind the effort to ban coverage on abortion, they are being selfish and intolerant of opposing beliefs.

Real Issue of Unions: Nonsense Benefits

The union battle in Wisconsin and other parts of the Midwest that is currently heating up the press right now interested me. Among the many articles I researched that pertain to the issue, The New York Times’s article, “Union Contracts, Not Pay, Are States' Problem” appealed to me the most. It points out a more accurate problem with union contracts and also gives a realistic solution to that problem. The author, David Leonhardt, first recalls previous big city mayors that have been involved in past union issues. He points out a misconception that unions have monetary deals with politicians and that they are corrupt. He also points out that government agencies can do as they please, whether they do it well or not, because they are irreplaceable. They stay right where they are, at least until now. In Wisconsin, Republican Governor Scott Walker is trying to cut the state budget not only by slashing union worker income and benefits, but is also trying to rid workers of their right to even negotiate. Leonhardt's solution is more reasonable. Cut the nonsense benefits --"the wasteful health plans, the pensions that start at age 55 and still let retirees draw a full salary elsewhere, the definitions of disability that treat herniated discs as incurable." Leonhardt notes that this would only solve long-term budget deficiency. For the here and now, below average performance of public workers must be dealt with. By protecting inefficient workers, unions are discouraging governmental progress and must go through more serious evaluations of their workers and weed out the bad.