Is snitching situational?

In the article “No Free Rides for Snitches”, the author provides a very strong argument against law enforcement allowing leniencies to people who “snitch.” I agree partly with the author but point out that it depends on the offense. My personal guideline has always been will this person hurt themselves or someone else? Although hurt is a very broad definition so it is up to personal judgment.
In the article Bait and Snitch by Alexandra Natapoff of the Slate, it points out the cost to law enforcements for using snitching in crime solving. The author of the Slate and No Free Rides for Snitches point out it creates more criminals because it causes a “slap on the hand” punishment. This may be true in drug abuse but, when it comes to kidnapping case would you rather an accomplice rats on someone who has kidnapped someone. The police with his information are able to find the person and save his or her life. I would rather the accomplice get off with a shorter jail sentence, than anyone gets killed. There are certain situations that I feel it is worthy of using. Some argue it brings a more social strain on an already bad neighborhood, that it undermines loyalty. I would rather criminals feel singled out and paranoid than be able to organize and conquer. I do believe that snitching is the main detective tool in drug cases. This does undermine police investigation making them depend on someone to snitch. This indirectly dulls a detective’s skills for police investigation and can cause wrong arrests. I do agree with the author that nobody should be punished for not snitching. Unless they are a direct accomplice to a crime, they shouldn’t be punished.
In any case snitching should only be used to save someone’s life and not become a new investigative procedure. It hurts the reliability of cases and dulls the skills of investigators on solving crimes.

Separation of Church and State

The government should not have any policies or legal documents that are directly designed around any religion. America was formed by people that wanted a separation of church and state. Some laws that exist today discriminate against non-religious people or people not accepted by religions. As a country based on freedom, we have freedom of religion, but we should also have freedom from religion.

There are several articles from the Constitution that cause controversy to the subject. There are people including myself that see these articles as support for the Separation of Church and State. Throughout my research on the subject, I found that these quotes showed up the most. There is another quote from the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists that supports the separation of church and state. These I pulled from rationalrevolution.net that has a lot more interesting facts and quotes that support the Separation of Church and state.

Article VI: Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Article II Section I: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

First Amendment: 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.

Some people argue that religion becomes interpreted into policies; I believe some are and others cross into moral decisions which can be influenced by religion not for religion. There are a few issues that are being debated now. These issues are abortions, and gay marriages. I can see how some would feel the policy of abortion can be interpreted based on a religious background. Regarding abortion I think it is a moral decision, which is usually influenced by religion. Another policy that is being debated about that I feel does involve religion directly is gay marriage. I feel marriage should not be enforced by the law, instead leave it up to the church whether or not they “accept” the marriage. No government official should be able to tell a couple whether they can or cannot get married. By the same token, I do not think marriage should involve any legal ties other than just a religious union. I think we should make anyone who wants to be legally and financially unified, file for a separate government union, such as the civil-union. This will allow everyone to have equal rights and put less strain on the marriage issue.

Home Foreclosure

I am posting in regards to Jason Lundin’s blog, No Foreclosure Bailout. I have to agree with you Jason about the fact that the government should not bail people out completely. I am hoping to soon be a home owner myself, and have heard tons of horror stories with loans. I usually do financial research before doing any kind of investment. A lot of people do not know where to get started. I do believe the government should offer free debt relief classes and work with the people to get on a plan to pay their debt and keep their houses. I know a few people that have gone to debt relief classes and were very pleased by them. Education and making someone apply it themselves create a self efficient person. If you completely bail someone out, they have learned nothing. They will still not know how to keep from falling in the same situation again.

I think they should start teaching high school students how to stay out of debt. Investing, saving, and smart financing so that they will stay on a good path and not overextend their finances. They do teach this at high schools, but it is not mandatory and very limited. In the article “An ‘F’ for economics curriculum,” Ruth Mantell states that only 17 states require students take an economics class to graduate high school. Only seven states require a person-finance course to graduate.

Middle-class, the most financially burdened?

Is middle class becoming harder financially than the poor-class in today’s world? I am looking at today’s financial burdens and future financial burdens. I know there are social, security, and all around well-being factors also when comparing these two classes, but I am not looking at those in this article. I will be comparing middle-class to poor-class in the areas of education and health insurance because I know these are two critical burdens financially; I will not add upper-class into the equation. I feel upper-class’s burden is not near the other two classes in these areas. Poor-class is an annual family income of around $0-$19,177 and middle-class is around $36,000 to $57,657.

Education is becoming more and more a required standard for living decent. More jobs are requiring college education. This being said, funding for college education is now a regular payment, like a car. Families’ survival depends on members going to college. Parents of middle-class students tend to have to help with their kids’ college career if they want them to “have a better life.” This puts financial strain on their already strenuous life. A lot of middle-class parents have to take out loans or even pull money from their retirement.

FASFA, the agency that handles financial aid, makes you fill out your parents’ financial information when applying for financial aid. They assume that parents make contributions towards their childrens' college education. A student can claim independence when filling out their tax information but not when filling out financial aid information. They combine a students’ income with their parents’ income and then figure out if one qualifies for aid and of what kind. The majority of students that I spoke to or read about do not meet the requirements to receive financial aid through grants from the government. Instead they receive financial aid through loans, which most students try to stay away from loans for fear of debt. One student I spoke to said her income of $16,000 a year and her moms of $25,000 a year was too much to receive grants, so she resorts to accepting only student loans. Another way students pay for their college is by using credit cards. According to an article by Tamera Briones in The Green Gazette, 24% of students put their school expenses on credit cards. There is some hope for middle-class students though. Ivy League schools are starting to pay full or partially for middle-class students’ tuition but because of the competition for those schools,for most students that is not an option. Also students that are considered within the poor class usually have an advantage when attending public schools. Often these students qualify for grants and scholarships, which do not have to be paid back, because of their parents "understood" inability to contribute.

Health insurance is a major financial burden, if not the greatest financial burden. According to an article by Robert Pear of International Herald Tribune, about 17 million people of the 47 million uninsured have a family income of 40,000 or more. This number is steadily increasing as middle-class is becoming more of a struggle. The same article writes about a lady who made 60,000 a year working for herself. She could not get an insurance company to insure her for a reasonable price because she previously had cancer. She would have to pay $2,400 a month for insurance. A few of my coworkers have to pay about $400 a month for their families to be insured. One of them had to take his wife off of his insurance plan because he could not afford her, so she is uninsured. This is a known occurrence with middle-class families. They constantly have to make sacrifices to their health to deal with the increasing cost of insurance. The same lady that had cancer has to pay out of pocket for doctor visits which she attends sparingly to save money. Also her medicine that costs about $300 a month, she must takes 3 times a week instead of 7 to save money. If you are classified as being within the poverty group you can qualify for Medicaid, which will cover most of your medical expenses including medicines.

I am not saying lower-class should not get help with medical expenses by all means. I am saying the government has left the middle-class out of the aid equation. I spoke to a woman who is considered in the poor-class, who is scared to work for fear of earning too much. By earning too much Medicare will get taken away from her, thus rendering her enable to afford her necessary medications. This causes more unemployment because people feel working makes their lives harder.

The government has created a black and white system. You either get aid or you do not. A lot of people I talked to in the poor-class feel that moving up the economic ladder is unfeasible becauseof the loss of help when you make more money. I think the middle-class needs help from the government, just not as much as the poor-class. If the government increases the maximum family income limit that received financial help and kept it percentage based, it would help several of our economy’s problems. There would be less uninsured, and it would help unemployment as more people feel that working truly benefits them.

Overpaid Insurance

I'm critiquing an article by Vincent Navarro, entitled "The Next Failure of Health Care Reform", on Counterpunch.Health Care is a major problem in the United States of America. People have problems maintaining and accessing healthcare when they need it. When they do access their healthcare, they have problems paying their bills. The number of people that were uninsured in 2006 was 47 million or 15.9% of Americans. That does not even include the number of people who are underinsured and cannot pay their medical bills. Health care has become a political point at least on the democratic side during presidential campaigns. The problem is finding a president that has an effective plan to support a dramatic change to the healthcare system.

It started with Dukakis who spoke of universal health care but was afraid of being too radical, so it did not succeed. In 1992, Bill Clinton put universal health care at the center of his program. Clinton’s ties with Wall Street and Robert Rubin caused the lack of commitment to antagonize the insurance industries. He did manage to reform the health care system with one called “managed care,” which left insurance companies at the center of the system. Bill had a good system setup, but he compared to the Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration health plan. The problem was that those programs are managed by the government, a single-payer. The healthcare system we have now is managed by insurance companies. These insurance companies also donate large sums of cash to campaigns. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the insurance industry has contributed $525,188 to Hillary Clinton, $414,863 to Barack Obama, and $274,724 to John McCain. Interestingly not one of the candidates is asking for a publicly funded system. This is not allowed in most other democratic systems, so why is it allowed in the U.S.? There are things wrong with our system in my opinion, but is it completely bad?

The single-payer system of Canada is good if you do not have any emergencies. Ever wonder why people come to the U.S. for critical conditions? The U.S. has good medical facilities and offers good services. The question is at what price? Would you rather get treated now and worry about the large bill later, or wait in a long line but pay less.I found an article from CBSNEWS entitled "Canadian Health Care in Crisis." In the article they discuss that the Canadian healthcare system is still good but it also needs work. One of the better aspects is that medical doctors know that they will get paid because they get reimbursed by the government, unlike the U.S. where they have to fight insurance companies. Usually the person being treated is stuck in the middle fighting their insurance. In the meantime, they are turned into collection agencies and it in turn damages their credit. The main problem is, like I stated, the waiting line for government hospitals. There were an estimated 1 million Canadians waiting for medical needs in 2005. In some parts of Canada they allow private hospitals where immediate assistance can be obtained.

If we cut out the middle man in the U.S., the insurance companies, I think that would put us in the right direction. The overhead for the public system in Canada is only 4% compared to the U.S. of 30% that goes to marketing administration. The U.S. spends 14% on their GDP on insurance which is more than Canada. What would be the reason for keeping insurance companies? Is it an economic reason or is it a political reason?

Unjust Housing

The City of Kyle passed ordinances in 2003 to increase the minimum requirements for a single-family home. The lot size was increased by 200 square feet to 6,825 square feet. The home size was also increased to 1,200 square feet and must have masonry on all exterior walls including garages. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Home Builders Association of Greater Austin (HBA), and the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) filed a lawsuit against the city. Their claim is, by the city increasing their minimum requirements on housing, they have increased the total cost of housing. Increasing the cost of housing indirectly causes minorities the inability to buy houses in Kyle; thus violating the Fair Housing Act. The Fair Housing Act states that housing cannot consist of more than 30% of a household’s income. The Plaintiffs claim that the houses went from being a $100,000 entry-level home to a $138,500 home. This would require that the yearly household income be atleast $44,282 to maintain the law of 30%. The annual income of Hispanics in the area, according to the plaintiffs, is $41,928 in the city of Kyle,$35,649 in Hays County,and $38,356 in Austin-San Marcos area. The city of Kyle would not be racist then because Hispanics make the most in the city compared to the surrounding areas. It would rather be the question of the city trying to flush out low income. They say that the average media wage for whites is,$53,813 in the city,$49,679 in Hays County,and $54,065 Austin-San Marcos. The Plaintiffs claims that 46.8% of Hispanics in Kyle will not be able to buy a new home. This figure only applies if every Hispanic that lives in Kyle want a new home from these builders. I looked up these figures and I found on HBA of Greater Austin that with Kyle's new ordinance, entry level homes would cost $120,000 rather than $138,500 HBAAustin. This is coming directly from one of the plaintiff's own sites. If the price is off by $18,500, would the other statistics on their complaint be reliable information? According to the plaintiff, this puts the average African-American and Hispanic family out of the housing market. The City of Kyle claims that the ordinance was in order to slow the growth of the city, and they deny the statistics that the plaintiffs presented. After an extensive examination of the area, done by a qualified government official, if the numbers are correct than I think the ordinance should be modified. The City of Kyle is not the only city worried about the outcome of this trial. The repercussions of this case have other small/developmental cities worried. The City of Manor, City of Round Rock, City of Pflugerville, and the City of Jonestown submitted a Trial Brief on Disparate Impact Claims. They built a form of questions that should be answered during the trail to make the case valid. I listed the link under "Trail Brief Support" below. The other two links are to the Plaintiffs' claims and the City of Kyle's defense.

Housing Article
Plaintiffs' complaint
City of Kyle's answer
Trail Brief Support

Lenient Spending

Monday, February 4th bush rolled out a $3.1 trillion budget proposal for additional military. He plans to cut projected spending for Medicare and Medicaid, having a noticeable impact in Texas. The plan assumes higher taxes on upper middle class, doesn’t include the additional funding for the wars in Iraq beyond 2009. Ideally it is suppose to cause a surplus by 2012 to get us out debt. It was cut funding from the state for Medicaid causing Texas to shift funds from other programs or drop the Medicaid amount reimbursed. This will cause lack of care or more money out of the pocket for the society. Some of the other programs that could be cut include but not limited to is, noncitizens in state prison, grants for undergraduate students, highway planning and construction, foster care, anti – poverty programs and subsidized housing. The $5.9 trillion hole we are in for “necessary” spending to defend against terrorism and to wage the wars in the Middle East. “Security is worth whatever it takes in order to make sure that we’re secure,” said Mr. Nussle. Defense and security are areas to grow in Bush’s budget. Defense would rise to $515 billion, the most inflation-adjusted term since WWII. 70 billion goes to the war in the Middle East. Bush would eliminate research funding for oil & natural gas exploration and provide a measly 1 million for energy-efficiency & renewable programs. I think all Americans should be aware of government spending for the fact that it affects their own life. How your money is spent effects your life through the money you take home to the services from your government you enjoy. Without people taking notice to government spending allows the government to choose for you, and no government official makes perfect decisions.


Bush's Spending Plan