Wanna Fly Now? (Post 28)

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has a new policy regarding searches at US airports. Pat-downs and full body scans are now part of the routine.




Interest groups such as the ACLU are protesting the pat-down procedures.

Are you willing to allow extra security at the expense of your liberties?

Please post by the end of the week.

The Bush-Era Tax Cuts and the Nation's Economic Health (Post #27)

UPDATE: Obama has signaled a compromise has been reached with Republicans that would extend the tax cuts for all income levels but also extend unemployment benefits and provide for a temporary payroll cut on social security taxes for the middle class.

Below is a list of the main provisions of the Bush-era tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 that are set to expire on December 31, 2010:

• The two "marriage penalty elimination" provisions will expire, so that:
  • The standard deduction for married couples will fall, no longer double what it is for single filers; and
  • The ceiling of the 15% bracket for married couples will fall, no longer double what it is for single filers
• The 10% tax bracket will expire, reverting to 15%
• The child tax credit will fall from $1,000 to $500
• The tax rate on long-term capital gains earned by middle- and upper-income people would rise from 15% to 20%
• The tax rate on qualified dividends earned by middle- and upper-income people would rise from 15% to ordinary wage tax rates
• The 25% tax rate would rise to 28%
• The 28% rate would rise to 31%
• The 33% rate would rise to 36%
• The 35% rate would rise to 39.6%
• The PEP and Pease provisions would be restored, rescinding from high-income people the value of some exemptions and deductions
• The estate tax would be restored with an exemption level of $1 million and rates that top out at 55%

Here is a visual of the savings for each income bracket under the Bush tax cut and the alternative plan of the Democrats. Allowing all Bush-era tax cuts to expire will save the US government about $700 billion. It is clear that the Republican plan will save the most money for the wealthiest classes. But will those tax cuts to the wealthiest allow money to trickle-down to the rest of society?

Earlier this week the U.S. House of Representatives voted to extend the so-called Bush Era tax cuts for families making $250,000 or less. The House allowed the tax cuts to expire on those making $250,000 or more.

On Saturday, the Senate, led by Republicans, voted to not to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for those making $250,000 or less. The Republicans are playing a game of chicken. By voting no on extending the tax savings to the middle class, they are trying to push Democrats to extend the Bush-era tax cuts to all groups, including those making millions of dollars a year.

Our politicians are struggling with two polarizing concepts. One, the US economy needs a boost and extending tax cuts will increase aggregate demand and hopefully spur spending and hiring. But which groups in society should benefit from a tax cut? On the other hand, we are facing a $13 trillion debt and ending the Bush tax cuts will provide the US government with over $700 billion, helping to reduce the deficit.

Here are more detailed arguments in favor of extending or ending the tax cuts:

Arguments for allowing the tax cuts to the rich to expire.

Arguments for extending the tax cuts to the rich.

Your task:
Should the Bush-era tax cuts be extended to all groups including millionaires or only on the middle class? Or should all the Bush-era tax cuts expire?

Other questions to consider: what is a fair tax? Who should shoulder the burden of taxes in society? What is more important, balancing the budget or stimulating the economy?

Be sure to post by Wednesday, December 8 at 8:00am.

Judge Rules against Oklahoma law (Post #26)

The First Amendment to the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The Supreme Court has ruled that states as well cannot pass laws that violate the 1st Amendment.

On Nov. 2, Okalhoma voters passed SQ755 (similar to our propositions) by a vote of 70 to 30 percent.  The slogan of "Save Our State" was used by supporters for the law which would require Oklahoma courts to "rely on federal and state law when deciding cases" and "forbids courts from considering or using" either international law or Islamic religious law, known as Sharia, which the amendment defined as being based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.

A Federal judge has issued a permanant injunction (stop) against the law that you can read about in this article.  Sharia law is used in many muslim countries and many of its aspects violate federal and state laws.  Politicians in Oklahoma are upset by the ruling and many claims are being made by both sides of the issue.  The U.S. Supreme Court could eventually hear the case.

The questions are:
Can religion currently be used as an excuse to break laws that by themselves do not discrimnate against religions? (for example: polygamy, drug use, rape)
Can states pass laws that target a particular religion?
What was the purpose of this law in Oklahoma?  Was it necessary to pass?  Are you surprised that voters passed it?
Do you believe the law violates the first amendment and why?
If the law is not a violation, what kind of precedent does it create for other states?

Post your responses by 8:00AM Friday

Conflict in the Koreas (post #25)

In 1953, an armistice was signed to end the fighting of the Korean War.  The two nations share a history, ethnicity, and language, but are separated by a heavily patrolled border and two very different governments.  The U.S. has accused the North of seeking to build nuclear weapons and has bases in South Korea and Japan.  The North has strong relations with China, today the world's other superpower, besides the U.S.  Their leader Kim Jong-il's has named his son, Kim Jong-un, as the next ruler.   Last Tuesday, North Korea attacked a South Korean island killing four and forcing an evacuation.  No further fighting has occurred, but tensions are high and other countries could become involved.  The North has one of the world's largest militaries and far exceeds that of South Korea.  Read this link for more info or watch the video and then answer the question below.



If North Korea were to attack again, what position should the United States take?
Consider, we are friends and trading partners with South Korea and Japan and are their main military protector.
North Korea has tested nuclear weapons and may be capable of short range attacks.
China is allied with North Korea and assisted them against us in the Korean War.
We are still fighting in Afghanistan (which also borders China) and have troops in Iraq.
Wars are expensive and we have a large budget deficit.
Explain why you believe we should be involved or not and in what way.  Remember human lives are at stake in any war, both U.S. soldiers and citizens of other nations, so be considerate in your comments.

Rep. Rangel Guilty of Breaking 11 House Rules (Post #24)

Yesterday New York House Of Representatives member Charles Rangel walked out of an house ethics hearing in which he was found guilty of almost all the charges against him for all sorts of financial issues from misspent campaign donations to accepting vacation gifts (see article here). He has no plans of stepping down and was just re-elected for his twentieth term by a huge margin. At what point should a politician step down? How many mistakes will the voters accept? Are these just political shenanigans? What do you think? Is Rangel an extreme example of what voters will accept or have the voting public's standards dropped so much?