National Government: Are Taxes Getting Out of Hand?

Are states desperate for money or so strongly opposed to a type of business they start to tax it? Should the national government take a step in to moderate some of these state taxes? They are obviously getting a bit out of hand.

For example, most people who go to strip clubs probably do not want to publicize their being there. Fox appropriately called it a “slip in and slip out” ordeal. Interestingly enough, Pennsylvania lawmaker is proposing a “poll” tax on lap dances, officially called Sexually Oriented Business Act. Where patrons of gentleman's club would have to pay an extra $5.00 that go towards Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape.

This is an intriguing tax. Seriously, I wonder how many more unorthodox taxes the state governments will concoct before they start charging for the air or light we use? Therefore, (probably to the state's legislator's opinion) this tax could help reduce the amount of attendees to these clubs and make the strippers, exotic dancer, or whatever you want to call it... consider alternative occupations.

To be honest, I am not a huge fan of this tax. Not because I visit these type of places but instead I cannot believe that the government would be doing this for our own benefit. Sure, I think there should be more funding for rape victims across the nation but I doubt that this will be a suitable solution. I am also, not a supporter of this “entertainment”, but making these types of laws or taxes upon these types of institutions may not be the route to take towards disliked industries within America.

So far, we have many different taxes: state tax, sin taxes, income taxes, sales tax and so forth. I can see other states leaning towards this type of tax. I doubt there will be much opposition towards this tax due to the type of customers it likes to attract, people who just want to “slip in and slip out”. One reason, in my own opinion, that the national government has not made a stand on either side of this because they understand that either way public opinion on the matter is diverse and they are not willing to deal with the criticism from both sides. That is why, I see it as a state issue rather than a national issue, simply because of the extreme viewpoints.

Although, concerning the tax issue, I think that the national government should help regulate the different types of taxes among states because they very so much. I think that some state legislatures go a little overboard on the taxes they install within their state. This is a great example of an issue that congress should help moderate/regulate or at least overlook and/or oversee some state legislation concerning these types of taxes.

**Interesting note: Texas had this tax according to news sources, but has since been shut down and deemed "unconstitutional".

Religion: good or bad for presidential candidates?

http://usnationalgoverment.blogspot.com/2008/06/i-am-not-against-religion.html
A blog from a fellow classmate for my Government class. It is very well argued but I would debate the idea of getting rid of religion within presidential candidates and politics.

Religion is a topic of controversial discussion among many, if not all, American citizens. The United States has set a long tradition of separating church from state, yet somehow tends to intertwine within politics.

Is it a bad thing? Let us start with the publics view on this. According to an August 2007 poll (http://pewforum.org/surveys/campaign08/) by Pew Forum and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, the majority (67%) of Americans agree that it is important for a president to have strong religious beliefs. Yet, 63% of the American public opposes churches for endorsing candidates during election campaigns.

Think about it, we live in an increasingly religious world in which belief and faith affect every dimension, therefore politicians talk about it and address their beliefs. In China, dominantly atheistic within politics, repress believers because they believe that Christianity and/or the Catholic Church were a factor in undercutting the Soviet Union. Therefore, if we were to take religion out of politics freedom of speech would, in a sense, be limited. It is a topic that our presidential candidates should stand firm on and voice. This helps us gain a better understanding about their tendencies on ethics and civics.

So, when we are attacked by people whose ideologies we cannot understand unless we learn to take their religious doctrines seriously. Politicians whom have no religious orientation or position would not know how to handle those situations.

Our country was founded upon the want to gain more freedoms as well as religious freedoms. England was known for repressing its citizens due to their religious status. They even have a national religion: Christianity. This discourages other religions due to favoritism towards a certain religion.

Just seeing a difference in beliefs among our politicians is a comforting note on behalf of citizens in America who practice many different beliefs without the fear of prosecution.

Very well written, yet I would have to disagree on your proposal that religion should not be brought into politics (even on the subject of presidential candidates).

Gas price average: Arm-and-leg US $/Gallon

America, land of the free and home of the soaring gas prices? Yes, it seems that there is a large portion of commuters having to travel for work, school, food, and kids... name the reason and we’ve got it. Is the oil industry taking advantage of our need for this product? I would say yes. I question what is causing this? As a solution, I will list some options on how our national government can help correct it or at least, ease our nation's pocket books.

Within a span of five years, according to gasbuddy.com, our lowest gas price average was 1.43 US $/Gallon. Today, our highest USA average is 4.08 $/Gallon. Anyone can look at these charts and see that overall there is a linear trend (dare I say almost exponential) among the US average gasoline price. Why is the government is not taking a stand to aid lowering these outrageous gas prices? Or at least, begin a government funded research program that will give Americans alternate solutions to this transportation problem.


Furthermore, my personal favorite, is the idea of funding for research within top university’s to work towards producing other fuel dependent sources of transportation. But we all know that the government is stingy with their money and would rather allocate it towards social security, Medicare, and defense. This would be a huge problem among oil industries because of the loss of business. I do not understand to much complex economics, but I do understand supply and demand. The oil industries are using our demand to their benefit, and there should be no doubt about it.

Especially, in Austin, Texas, not every community has access to buses and most definitely subways. Another solution that comes to mind, is congress could pass legislation for national or state funding bus and subway systems. This would ease pollution and help save American’s money.

Another, proposal commented on by CBS would be a four day work week. This would be great for all of the 9-5 jobs held by the majority of the US. But what about the retail, factory, or other various jobs requiring time consuming business restraints (most of these held by the lower classes)? Overall this would be impractical, and would only be beneficial to the majority of the middle and higher paid citizens of the US. They are the ones that can actually afford owning a car and paying its gas prices.

How is it, that gas prices have surged tremendously over the past 6 to 10 years, whereas other commodities, like food, have not? This is not a problem that the people of the United States can deal with, therefore the government should step in. The American public needs solutions and we need them fast. When will the national government start addressing and correcting this issue?

Fist bump, pound, or terrorist fist jab?

“Fox Nutwork: Why does anyone think it's real?”, written under the pseudonym Karo X on the Daily Kos. It turns out that a fist pound was in question on the Right-leaning network, Fox. Daily Kos, a left-leaning blog goes on the defense for their candidate, Barack Obama. Karo believes that the Fox network is out of their minds to not understand a simple fist bump. Since Daily Kos is a left-leaning blog the content does tend to hit hard on Fox.

The basic argument is that Fox is picking the “dumbest crap” and pretending it is news. Karo is tired of the Fox network for picking on the Obamas and this petty choice for news should be avoided. The blogger wonders why Fox would need to call in a body language expert to analyze it.

This article features Fox's airing of Obama's fist pound. This backs up Karo's thoughts about the reporter's response to the event in question. Even the body language expert stated, “It is a connection that they have together. Something personal between the two of them, like I am proud of you.” She claims that it is something that this young generation can relate with. The expert adds that the mistake some body language experts “pigeon-hold” one gesture into one meaning. She (body language expert) believes this to be “unscientific”.

Karo makes an interesting point, Fox should not be showing this as news. In reality, they have the right to. It is second nature for reporters to look between the lines and dig up things that the public should create their own opinions. Karo failed to comment on Fox picking on Bush's Chest bump between an US Air Force Academy graduate. Fox even dismissed both of being a wrong gesture. Yet, the gesture was on the smaller scale of being classified as news. And probably should not have been contested as a questionable action. Although, some older generations would be unfamiliar with. I whole-heartedly agree the Media should make some improvements on what is considered news. This is an example of some of the oddities that they present. It does make the news more entertaining, yet is it needed? I would have to say no.

The argument was put forth to point fingers at Fox, just as they did with Obama. I doubt two wrongs make a right, but this did open my eyes to the way the Media likes to point fingers to make news. Historically, party's television ads attack opposing presidential nominees. This go around, the Media are dipping their toes in this smudge-fest. Attacks are aimed at swing-voters, who would be influenced to pick the other party because of accusations. Generally, effective when concerning important issues the majority holds strong opinions on. The fist bump question would probably not sway any voters left or right. Although, I can see the younger generation's enjoyment of youthfulness within a candidate.

Hillary Clinton: Not Pushing Obama for Vice President

Today, Greg Sargent, blogger for Talking Points Memo (TPM) wrote commentary declaring Hillary's spokesperson made a public statement that she is not seeking Vice Presidency. This informs Democratic Americans where their potential President candidates are standing. Sargent quotes Hillary's spokesperson, Howard Wolfson, to not only keep his audience's attention but gives them a reliable source on Hillary's current thoughts on gaining a Vice President ticket with Obama. This helps the readers understand her stance and make informative decisions of their own concerning content of Sargent's blog. This goes on to shape several of his thoughts on the subject, such as Obama "offer[ing] the slot to her more remote."

Sargent argues that Hillary is not seeking the Vice President (VP) nomination from Obama. Therefore, the choice is his and "his alone" and she will not push for it. Sargent comments that Hillary's "supporters for her to be make Veep are now hurting more than helping--moves to distance itself from all such efforts by sending out this statement." In essence, the only thing everyone should do is wait and see the result of Obama's VP decision. This seems to be the most important issue concerning Hillary's VP ticket through Obama, according to Sargent.

The argument is backed up by a reliable source, Hillary's spokesman, Wolfson. Sargent's interpretation seems to be right-on. There is not much concern that the quote was misinterpreted or misquoted because it is claimed to come from VoteBoth, a group devoted to bring about an Obama-Hillary ticket, from senior adviser Lanny Davis. Sargent even gave a URL to VoteBoth that is also linked in his blog. His argument and reasoning seemed to just restate facts and give an update on his view of Clinton's stand on her possible VP position.

Sargent's argument shows to be successful. It convinces me, as a reader, through sources and does not veer from his main objective. He gives the facts and shows that Clinton is a contender for VP ticket. Clinton has a lot of power and voters backing her up, but I am uncertain if she is the right person for this job. Clinton is a strong lady, of whom has a ton of experience, may be what we need in our executive office in 2008. Time can only tell who Obama will pick. Although, I believe that this will have some division among the Democrats if this did take place. It could turn out to be a weapon, but it could also be a problem for the Democrats.

This is a significant task for Obama, that surely he will take quite a lot of thought into. This argument was a must for Democratic citizens, but now that it is here it will be a very tough issue for both parties. This could mean the end for Hillary as a participant for this election, but it could also mean a beginning of something that would make or break the Democratic party's candidate gaining Presidency in election 2008.