States short $1 trillion to fund retiree benefits

A new report has found that states are not experiencing a 1trillion dollar deficit for public employees retirement funds. That can be condensed to a 8,800 dollar shortfall per household in the nation. According to the report, the states ran into this problem because they by not making annual contributions and by making more benefits to pay for. States must pay the money because they are legally bound to by a union contract. The way that they will most likely come up with the money is by raising taxes for the people. Most states are coming up with rules to be applied to new employees. States are also losing the extra benefits and raising the retirement age.

I think that this is a very alarming situation. Obviously the states should have thought more about the outcomes of their actions before they did them, but that can't be changed. I think it is good that they are trying to come up with solutions to the problem, but I'm not sure the solutions will be able to last very long. If they just continue to raise the retirement age and raise taxes, eventually people will be dead before they reach retirement. Personally, as a young adult I would like to know that I will eventually be able to use the money that I will be contributing to my retirement fund one day. I also would not like to have to work for my entire life. Basically, I think it is good that the states are trying to come up with plans to fix the issue, however these plans will not work for the future. The states should also be concentrating on working on a system that will make retirement available for the future as well.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/18/news/economy/public_pension_gap/index.htm

Issue # 2 Spending What We Can Afford

The federal budget is developed by both the president and congress. The president first develops a budget and then it is passed on to congress to be approved. The budget outlines the nation’s priorities and explains how they will reach their goals. Over the last 40 years the government has spent more money than it has taken in. This excessive spending causes threat to entitlement programs. Of course, the people are becoming very angry with the governments over spending. Congress has said that they are going to rein spending with a system called paygo. Some of the arguments for paygo is that it will cause congress to realize that deficits matter and should be monitored. Congress will have to act in the same way that families and businesses do to monitor their own budgets. Arguments against paygo are that it will just cause taxes to go up in order to provide money for new programs. They think that deficits should be taken care of by economic growth rather then cutting budget. They also think it will hinder congress’s ability to respond to national crisis. They also think that this program will cause voters to become angry.

I think that pay go is a good idea. I am not positive it will work but I don’t see why the government can’t put it through a test run. I also think it wouldn’t hurt to force them to go through and look very closely where the money is being spent and make alterations and cuts to better ensure the money is going to good use and not getting wasted on unnecessary programs. Right now the fourth largest category of spending is going towards nothing. It goes to pay off interest on the national debt. If we keep spending as we are, the debt will only increase along with the amount of interest owed. President Obama recently said on a radio address that paygo is a common sense rule.



President Obama's paygo opinion - http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/02/13/potus-says-paygo-is-common-sense-rule/?test=latestnews

Issue #1 - War dollars - http://felicia01.blogspot.com/2010/02/issue-1-war-dollars_18.html

Issue # 3- Social Insecurity- http://mschmidt1.blogspot.com/2010/02/issue-3-social-insecurity.html

Biden: Major terror attack on U.S. unlikely

On Larry King Live the Vice President Joe Biden stated that he doesn't think that there will be another mass terrorist attack similar to 9/11, despite popular belief. He thinks that instead, terrorist will take a smaller approach. Making attacks similar to the "underwear" bomber on a recent airplane. He is confident that there will be small "attemps" of terrorists but he is confident that administration will handle them well.

I don't understand why he is so confident that there will not be another big attack. From what I have heard, after the recent video by Osama Bin Laden, there is expected to be some sort of big attack if everything follows the pattern of what has happend in the past. It does seem as though terrorist have resulted to smaller attacks lately but I don't think that that decreases the chances of there be a much larger attack. I would feel more confident in Biden saying that he thinks there will not be a mass terrorist attack if he had reason to backup his case. In my opinion we should be on the look out for both small scale attacks and large scale attacks because nobody can know what will happen for sure.

video: http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2010/02/10/sot.lkl.biden.terror.911.cnn

'Tenther' movement aims to put power back in states' hands

It seems as though states rights have been pushed aside over time. There is a recent movement by the states to make their rights clear through the 10th amendment which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The movements have been fueled by recent attempts of the federal government to force policies on the states. Some people believe that the movement of the states has crossed the line because they feel that it is ignoring federal laws.

I think that the states should be authorized to make their own decisions about certain issues such as, abortion and gay marriage. Like the article says, this system allows the states to live united without fighting over these topics. This way the people of the state can vote for whatever they feel comfortable with. I think the 10th amendment is a touchy thing to follow. The states want to make their own decisions but where is the line between what they get to decide and what the federal government gets to decide? It's also hard for the federal government because they want to do what they think is best, and some issues are important for all of the states to agree on. In my opinion education is something that I feel all of the states should go about in the same way. It's not fair just because somebody lives in a different state to have a poorer education then somebody else who lives in the neighboring state. I think that there needs to be a clear "rule book" for the 10th amendment stating what issues should be decided by federal government and what should be decided by state government specifically.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/10/tenth.amendment.movement/index.html

Service members, vets share views on 'Don't ask, don't tell'

The debate continues about the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy in the military. President Obama stated that he would like to see the DADT law repealed. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that he would like to make a plan to have the law repealed by the end of the year and to replace it with a more humane policy. Most of the input from current or previous military personel, including homosexuals, state that the law is fine the way it is, or that being homosexual does not even matter in the military.

I feel that the don't ask don't tell policy had good intentions of protecting homosexuals in the military. However, like most laws, I feel it has been corrupted. I think that the law should be something more along the lines of "don't ask, don't show". It is not fair for someone who is homsexual to have to keep that part of themselves completely hidden in order to be able to serve our country. I think that homosexuals serving in the military should be able to say they are gay, or talk about it if they choose. There is bound to be a conversation that comes up or maybe a slip up while telling a story, and I don't believe it is right to discharge someone from serving because of this. I do agree that they should not be "showing" their homosexuality, such as, holding hands with one another and so forth. Reason being that this would most likely make many people uncomfortable. I say that homosexuals are just as dedicated to serve the country as heterosexuals.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/03/dadt.servicemembers.thoughts/index.html