Bank of America Repays $45 Billion

The Bank of America, as of Wednesday, had repaid entire $45 billion sum which it got from the government bailout plan earlier in the year. According to some, this is a sign that the economy is rising once again, because banks are now starting to actually stand on their own two feet. However, it seems that the money was paid back because the bank did not like the government restrictions which came with the funds. Apparently, the government rules where hampering the banks ability to select a new CEO, and without these government controls, this process could take the front seat for the bank. So far, a total of $116 billion have been payed back from the initial bailout, a sign that at least some of the companies are showing signs of growth and success. It seems that the criticized bailout has actually done something positive for the economy, as shown by this move of repayment. Banks are beginning a new era of management, hopefully, and will learn from the governmental which were place on them for a time. The link to the article is here.

Subpoena of White House Crashers

Apparently, in Congress, a House Homeland Security Committee voted, on Wednesday, to subpoena the couple which crashed a White House party last month, in an attempt to know the truth about what went wrong. Certain subjects in the Secret Service have already been put on a leave of absence, but the committee just wants to know what happened from the crashers point of view. However, the Salahis have invoked their 5th amendment write to not answer and questions. Overall, in my opinion, this issue is a waste of time for Congress. Yes, something went wrong; but no, we do not have to spend a month trying to sooth the feelings of the media. The United States Congress, after all, has much more important things to be working on than trying to figure out how a couple crashed a party. I understand that it is an issue of safety, but their are more important issues of safety which the House could be using their time to discuss. The link to the article is here.

A Medicare Buy-In?

Currently, one issue being debated on Capitol Hill is that of a possible Medicare buy-in for people who have not yet reached the 65 year cutoff. The buy-in discussed would be for people of ages 55 to 64 who do not have any sort of private insurance. The main problem, however, is the fact that the buy-in would cost an average of $7,600 a year as a premium. This is well above the average premium in the private sector, which is in the $4,000 range. The expense of the Medicare buy-in comes from the general costs of running the program. So if Medicare is a good option for this "middle-of-the-road" group, how could they pay for it? The answer at the moment seems to be subsidies from the government. In my mind, this seems quite strange, considering the $7,600 cost would practically be paid to the government to cover cost. So, if the government is also providing subsidies for the cost, they would essentially just be lower the age requirements for Medicare, because costs would cancel each other out. To me, it seems that Congress should come up with a more effective idea for covering this middle age group, without compromising the Medicare plane for the people which already have it. The link to the article is here.

Leaked Climate Change Emails Stir Congress

When a hacker broke into the private emails of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, emails were made public on the internet that were never meant to be so. The controversy behind the emails caused the director of the unit, Phil Jones, to stand down. This may have been unimportant to American politics had Congress not been debating climate change issues on Wednesday. The emails made some skeptics of climate change resort to their founded beliefs. Republican representative James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin stated an argument along the lines that the email invalidated the recently concreted thought that humans are a cause of climate change. Others, however, such as Democratic representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts, say that climate change is a threat to our planet, and all of this is a diversion from the real problem at hand. For the most part, I agree with this view from Markey. A couple of private emails that were not supposed to be released to the public should not make legislators change their mind about the issues. The scientific reports are what should be concentrated on. However, because scandal is God in America, the issue of the contradicting emails will be blown out of proportions. The link to the article is HERE.

Medicare Cuts to Stay in Health Care Bill

In anther issue of bill amending, the proposed cuts in Medicare that are currently in the health care bill are to remain in the bill. This was decided upon the decline of an amendment put forth by Arizona Republican Senator John McCain. The proposal from McCain would have given up the 400 billion dollar cuts from Medicare in the health care bill, which would have overall added more money (400 billion dollars) to the cost of the bill. The bill was vetoed with a 58-42 vote. The Republicans who supported the bill were worried that 400 billion cut from Medicare would make people who rely on Medicare Advantage lose some benefits. Democrats argued against this by saying that no "guaranteed" benefits would be lost in the cut. Interestingly enough, and perhaps the most interesting aspect of this story, is the fact that the AARP strongly supported the Democrats in this decision. To me, it seems strange that the interest group supporting retirees would support a cut in Medicare, because retired people are the majority of people who would be effected by the cut. In this sense, their Democratic support goes against rational thought. In a way, it shows that other measures in the health care bill are more important that this single Medicare cut; other privileges supported by the bill must balance out the cut in the eyes of the AARP. This issue shows the amendment process in the legislature, as well as the influence of interest groups in politics. The AARP is powerful, and their support does not go unnoticed. The link is HERE.

Senate Passes Second Amendment to Health Care Bill

As the Senate debates the controversial health care bill, amendments to the bill have begun to arise. One such amendment was passed today, the second to be passed regarding the bill. This amendment, forwarded by Maryland Democrat Barbara Mikulski, would expand, specifically, the coverage of women's health care. The amendment, which was passed 61 to 39, would allow the government to require health insurance companies to cover screenings and other preventative care measures for women at little or no cost to the woman. This proposal was one of two regarding women's health care coverage, the other being an amendment to the bill introduced by Alaskan Republican representative Lisa Murkowski. Mikulski argued that Murkowski's plan did not do enough to cover the up-front costs of preventative measures for women; Mikulski want "universal access" for the service. This is an interesting event in the health care process, because it shows an issue not often thought about in health care reform. It is known that screenings and preventative measures for women are needed, but it is not so well known that many people cannot afford what the bill is basically calling "essentials." This is also and interesting issue because it shows the legislative debate process. While a bill is on the floor, many changes are made through and amendment process - an amendment process which takes time and money. It shows the thouroughness, yet slowness, of the American Legislative system. The article link is HERE.

Senate to Determine Health Care Bill's Immediate Fate Saturday

An important reformation in American health care is currently the focus of the United States legislature. Saturday in the United States Senate will bring an important vote which could either push the Democrat-proposed bill onto the floor for debate, or uphold action with more delay. Currently every member of the Democratic caucus, including independents, will need to be behind the initial vote in order to have the bill move forward even with the constant wall of Republican opposition. Even if the bill moves to the floor, it is likely to be debated until well around Christmas. Then, if the bill actually manages to pass this round of the Senate, the House version of the bill and the Senate version of the bill will have to be reconciled. A defeat of the bill at this stage would be a large setback for the Obama administration, as they have spent much of their time in office working towards this reform. The main issue with the vote for Democrats is that some Democrats from conservative areas have to keep in mind the will of the people they represent. Even though the legislators are intelligent enough to make their own valid decisions, it's a matter of being reelected in the next election. It's hard to win an election without the support of the popular will a candidate represents. This collision of interests is what the 8pm vote Saturday night will bring forth into the light. The article link is here.

Hershey Finds Possible Bidding Partner in Ferrero

This topic may not seem important in the grand scheme of government, because after all, what does chocolate have to do with anything pertinent in today's society? Well the answer falls in the economy. Bidding wars between two large companies are normally a sign of either a strong economy, or an economy on the verge of bettering itself. The fact that Hershey has gone beyond the borders of the United States to find a bidding partner in Ferrero International SA shows that the company is serious about countering the $16.4 billion bid from Kraft. In the end, even though it is just a chocolate bidding war, this buyout could show just how confident some companies are in their yearly revenue and and intake in terms of spending ability. Article link is here.

Billions of Improper Spending in 2009

The White House recently reported that during the fiscal year for 2009, there have been approximately $98 billion worth of improper payments made by the federal government. This is around a 38 percent increase from the $72 billion in improper spending the government witnessed in 2008. What are the causes? Anything can cause such errors ranging from outright fraud to illegible signatures. One item that many suspect to be the culprit behind some the the misdirected money is the $787 billion economic recovery plan passed earlier in the year. The administration says that a sharp crackdown on the payments now will provide a solid base for less mistakes in the future. This most important consequence of this problem seems to be the fact that it will be hard to the country to recover from debt when it loses track of nearly $100 billion dollars in a single year. We can't borrow from China forever, after all. The link to the article is here.

Obama's Visit to Asia Leads to the Chinese Premier

President Obama's trip to Asia finally lead to the meeting between the President and the premier of the Chinese government, Wen Jiabao, on Wednesday. They first met in public in order to show a public cooperation between the two governments, then they met in private to discuss serious matters. In this discussion, the main topics were to be climate change, nuclear weapons, and human rights. This last issue was brought about cautiously, because no more strain was wanted between the two countries than what already exists. As far as the subject of climate change went, both leaders agreed to work toward cleaner technologies and a global agreement to lower greenhouse gas emissions. It seems that although this is a great step forward in the relationship between our two nations, it does not say much for the effort of actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions within the two countries. The United States and China are two of the most polluting/least green countries in the world, and as such they need to show an effort in cutting emissions themselves. If the world powers do not commit to cutting emissions in their own countries, small countries will not feel obligated to change their own way of living. This is a problem that I see with this agreement. Click on the image for a link to the article, or here.

"Uncle Sam sitting on a goldmine"

As the value of gold approaches record high prices, it is good to know who holds the most gold around: The U.S. government. Currently, the government has 261.5 million of ounces in depositories around the nation. With gold selling at 1,100 dollars an ounce, this gold amounts to around 300 million dollars in inert metal. With a yearly deficit of nearly 1.7 trillion dollars, 300 billion would hardly make a difference in paying off the debt. So why keep the gold instead of selling it? Economist Judy Shelton says that if the U.S. sold the gold at today's prices, in raise in value in the future would be seen as an opportunity missed. Geithner doesn't want to be the Treasury Secretary who sells the gold for something less than it is worth in another time. Also, many countries are collecting gold in order to create a sense of financial security, so the gold the U.S. could sell would go straight to other countries. The one thing that I wonder the most about this article and this concept is the cost of actually holding all of the gold throughout the nation. For all we know, the cost to keep the gold up to this point in time (over all the years) might add up to an amount somewhat close to the actual worth of the gold. It seems that the only reason we are holding the gold is to say to other countries, "look, we have some too!" Article link here.

Video: Pollsters on Health Care, 2010

Interesting video HERE. SEARCH FOR VIDEO TITLED Pollsters on Health Care, 2010. This video discusses the impact of the health care bill and the overall economy on the separate parties and the nation's trust in Washington. The most interesting point made was the fact that people, whether Democrats or Republican, are becoming fed up with the interest groups and other limitations that occur in Washington. The 2010 election could be a hard one for any incumbent because so many people are fed up with almost everything to do with Washington. Can the Obama administration weather the storm? It seems to me that the elections of 2010 will depend mostly on the state of the economy come time of the election. If it is better, the Democrats will be like more than if the economy is down. If is it down, it's likely that people will fall into republican support.

The Furious Michele Bachmann

The main rallying point for the protesters of the health care bill on Capitol Hill recently has not been one of the GOP's great, powerful leaders, but rather a well known, widely liked for her appearance women representative named Michele Bachmann. She is furious with the health care reform that could "take over" 18 percent of the American Economy, and she is making her voice heard in this matter. She does not go through the normal channels of the GOP, but rather goes around these methods and uses television appearance as her method to get messages across. And these messages are emotionally charged. With her never die attitude, some say that she could hurt the Republican Party. I say let her speak and say what she has to say, because the party itself should not have control over everything that its members release to the public. If the person believes it is necessary for the good of the country to give forth information and opinions, then the country has the right to hear opinions and make its own decision. The problem is that many people follow blindly without knowing true issues. The article link is here.

Life in Prison w/out Parole Unconstitutional for Juveniles?

Today, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments against the imprisonment of juveniles for life without parole. The arguments against this punishment focus around the 8th Amendments, stating that this harsh punishment could be considered cruel and unusual punishment. The main focus of the case is a mother who is in prison for a crime by association punishment committed as a minor, after the birth of her first child. Currently there are approximately 2,500 people serving life in prison without parole for crimes committed as juveniles. The interesting thing about this case is that many of these crimes were of the crime by association category, with the people convicted not actually committing the punished crime. The article can be found here.