The Risks of Dismantling the Department of Education

In recent years, there has been a growing debate over the role of the U.S. Department of Education. Last week, rumors swirled that President Trump would sign an executive order dismantling the department. Many conservatives have argued for eliminating the department for years as a move to reduce what they deem as federal overreach and return control of education to states and local governments. However, the consequences of such a move could be severe, potentially leading to increased disparities in educational quality, reduced oversight, and weakened protections for students who need them most.

The Department of Education: A Necessary Balance

Established in 1979, the Department of Education was designed to support state and local education efforts, ensuring a level playing field for students across the country. While concerns about excessive federal involvement are valid, the department provides critical functions such as distributing federal funding, enforcing civil rights protections, and promoting accountability in education systems.

Advocates for dismantling the department often cite the importance of local control. While decentralization allows for tailored educational policies, history has shown that without federal oversight, disparities between wealthy and low-income districts can widen, and underserved communities may be left behind. The department plays a vital role in ensuring that all students—regardless of socioeconomic background—have access to a quality education.

US Education funding

In 2019, the United States spent approximately $15,500 per full-time equivalent (FTE) student at the elementary and secondary levels, which was 38% higher than the average of OECD countries reporting data ($11,300). This placed the U.S. fifth in spending per student at these levels, behind Luxembourg, Norway, Austria, and the Republic of Korea. 

At the postsecondary level, U.S. expenditures were even higher, averaging $37,400 per FTE student. This amount was more than double the OECD average of $18,400, making the U.S. second only to Luxembourg in higher education spending. 

Despite these substantial investments, the U.S. often lags behind other nations in key educational outcomes, such as standardized test scores in math, reading, and science. This discrepancy raises questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of educational spending in the United States. 

It's important to note that while the U.S. invests heavily in education, the distribution of these funds can vary significantly across states and districts, leading to disparities in educational quality and access. This underscores the critical role of the Department of Education in promoting equitable funding and resources to ensure all students receive a quality education.

We should also note that many countries do not factor transportation costs into their education funding totals, as children often ride free on public transportation systems, particularly in large cities. In contrast, in the U.S., many districts rely on busing as the primary form of transportation to and from schools, which significantly raises costs. Additionally, most foreign countries provide government-created and distributed primary and secondary education curricula, whereas U.S. districts often spend considerable amounts on privately developed curricula, driving up education expenses. Lastly, the U.S. is one of the few nations without a public healthcare system, and the costs associated with providing healthcare for teachers are included in their employment costs, but are not a factor in education costs elsewhere in the world. These factors collectively contribute to the significantly higher cost of public education in the U.S.

The Role of Public and Private Education

Without the Department of Education, the future of public schools could become uncertain. State-driven policies could lead to significant differences in educational quality, while an expansion of private school voucher programs might divert essential funds from public institutions.

While school choice has its benefits, including increased competition and flexibility for parents, the potential risks of unchecked privatization must also be considered. Voucher programs, in particular, often do not cover the full cost of private school tuition, meaning that families who cannot afford to pay the difference are left without viable options. As a result, these programs tend to disproportionately benefit wealthier students who can already afford private education, while leaving lower-income families struggling to access high-quality schooling.

Additionally, many private schools receiving vouchers are not held to the same accountability and transparency standards as public schools, meaning that taxpayer dollars could go to institutions that do not provide adequate education or uphold civil rights protections. This redirection of public funds further weakens public schools, which serve the vast majority of American students, leading to larger class sizes, fewer resources, and reduced teacher salaries.

Proper oversight is needed to ensure that all students receive a fair and effective education, regardless of whether they attend public or private schools. Without such safeguards, the expansion of voucher programs could deepen educational inequalities rather than resolve them.

Protecting Civil Rights and Equity

One of the key functions of the Department of Education is the enforcement of laws like Title IX, which protects students from discrimination based on gender. Additionally, the department helps uphold protections for students with disabilities and ensures that federal education funds reach the schools and students who need them most.

The department also plays a crucial role in supporting special education programs through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This federal law mandates that students with disabilities receive free and appropriate public education, and the department helps provide necessary funding and resources to ensure these students have access to the support they need. Without federal oversight, states may struggle to maintain equitable special education programs, potentially leaving vulnerable students without the resources required for their success.

A careful, balanced approach is necessary. While states should have significant control over education policy, there must also be a mechanism to prevent discrimination and ensure equal opportunity for all students. Eliminating the department could weaken these safeguards, potentially leading to inconsistencies in how student rights are upheld across different states.

A Thoughtful Approach to Reform

Instead of dismantling the Department of Education, a more pragmatic approach would involve reforming it to be more efficient and responsive to local needs. Streamlining bureaucratic processes, providing more resources, and allowing for greater support to
the state and local levels could help strike a balance between national standards and local control.

Education is a cornerstone of democracy and social mobility. While it is important to evaluate and improve the role of federal oversight, a complete dismantling of the Department of Education could create unintended consequences that may harm students, educators, and communities. A collaborative, bipartisan approach is essential to ensuring that every student has access to a high-quality education, no matter where they live.

Unconstitutional Actions in Trump's Second Term

 In his second term, President Donald Trump has already undertaken several actions that have been widely criticized as unconstitutional, undermining the foundational principles of American democracy.

Our constitutional republic was formed with a broad separation of powers. Trump in his first two weeks has committed a broad assault on the constitution, which is leading to a constitutional crisis.

Assault on Birthright Citizenship

On his first day back in office, Trump issued an executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents. This move directly challenges the 14th Amendment, which unequivocally grants citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status. Legal experts have denounced this action as a blatant violation of constitutional rights. Multiple federal judges have acted quickly to block the order, affirming its unconstitutionality.

Dismantling Democratic Institutions

In collaboration with Elon Musk, Trump established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), purportedly to streamline federal operations. However, this initiative has led to the closure of essential government agencies, freezing of federal funds, and unauthorized access to private information. Such actions erode the checks and balances integral to the U.S. political system, concentrating power in the executive branch and sidelining legislative and judicial oversight. In the constitution, the only branch with the authority to add or eliminate a government agency or department is the legislative. As such, eliminating the Department of Education and USAID both violate the separation of powers and the constitution. Article I clearly gives this power only to Congress, and the actions taken by the President and Musk have violated this. 

Politicization of the Federal Civil Service

Trump's administration has aggressively reclassified career civil servants as political appointees, stripping them of protections and making them directly answerable to the president. This move undermines the apolitical nature of the civil service, turning public servants into instruments of the executive branch's agenda. Such actions compromise the integrity of federal agencies and violate principles designed to prevent authoritarianism. This action violates multiple laws including the Civil Service Reform Act.

Erosion of Civil Rights Protections

Through a series of executive orders, Trump has targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within federal agencies and among federal contractors. These orders seek to dismantle programs aimed at promoting equal opportunity and addressing systemic discrimination. By undermining DEI efforts, the administration is reversing decades of progress in civil rights, contravening constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.

These actions represent a concerted effort to consolidate power and dismantle democratic safeguards. It is imperative for citizens and institutions alike to remain vigilant and uphold the constitutional principles that form the bedrock of the United States.

In the face of these unconstitutional actions, it is more important than ever for Americans to defend the principles of democracy, the rule of law, and the Constitution itself. Trump's second-term overreach demonstrates a dangerous disregard for legal precedent and institutional norms, setting a precedent that, if left unchecked, could permanently weaken the nation's democratic foundations. Congress, the judiciary, and the public must push back against these violations, ensuring that no president—regardless of party—can place themselves above the law. The resilience of American democracy depends on an engaged and vigilant citizenry committed to upholding the Constitution.

Why Do We Have the Same Number of Representatives That We had 100 years ago?

In the constitution, the duty of assigning the number of representatives is granted to Congress. The constitution states "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative."

A proposed amendment included in the original package of amendments now known as the Bill of Rights capped the number of individuals one representative could represent at 50,000. 

The last time a full apportionment including increasing sets raised the number of members of the House of Representatives at 433. This was in 1911, and we have only increased the number to 435 by adding the states of Hawaii and Alaska. When the permanent apportionment act was passed in 1929, the US population was approximately 121,767,000. US population is expected to shortly climb to above 330 million individuals. At that time, it meant each representative represented about 281,000 people. Now each representative in the House represents over 758,000 individuals. Is it no surprise that members of Congress are often very out of touch with the individuals they represent? 

Additionally, smaller states are overrepresented while larger states are underrepresented. The Electoral College, which is based partly on the number of congressional representatives, is skewed by the current imbalance. This contributes to the perception that votes in some states carry more weight than in others, undermining the principle of equal representation.

Worldwide Legislative Size

How does this stack up to the rest of the world, though? We are the worst in the world for representation. The next worst is Japan at one representative per 272,000. The graphic below from Vox shows clearly why the US house desperately needs to be expanded to increase our nation's democracy. If the US had the same proportions as Japan we would have 1223 representatives. 

Congress this year had the ability to increase this number to make us more representative, but once again we have pushed off a desperate need. One proposal referred to as the "Wyoming rule" would make the smallest state by population, Wyoming, as the basis for the smallest district possible. This would increase the size of the US House of Representatives to 573, or one representative per 575,000 individuals. This more modest proposal would help to fix the many issues, but we need to do more to uncap the house and make our democracy more representative of our nation, and more accessible to individuals.

What about the House chambers? They couldn't handle that number of Representatives, right? Well, rarely are all members of the house in the chambers, but the capitol was specifically designed by George Washington with it's large dome with the intent that it would expand as needed. Temporarily, new members could be in the gallery if needed for the State of the Union and other major speeches. Other accommodations such as secured distance voting could also be allowed. 

The Benefits of Expanding the House

Restoring Proportional Representation

Increasing the number of seats would better align representation with population growth. A larger House would ensure that representatives are more directly accountable to their constituents and can advocate more effectively for their specific needs.

Improving Electoral Fairness

A bigger House would also lead to a fairer Electoral College. By redistributing electoral votes more equitably, presidential elections would more accurately reflect the will of the people.

Enhancing Diversity

A larger House would allow for a broader range of voices in government. More seats mean greater opportunities for candidates from underrepresented communities, leading to a Congress that better reflects the racial, ethnic, and socio-economic diversity of the U.S. population.

Reducing the Influence of Big Money in Politics

With smaller districts, the cost of running for office would decrease. Candidates could rely less on large donations and Super PACs, making elections more accessible to grassroots campaigns and ordinary citizens rather than corporate-backed candidates.

 

Where do we go from here as a nation?

The 2020 election concluded when the last polls closed on November 3, 2020. In the following days, final vote tallies were completed, some states conducted recounts, and the process reached its conclusion. There is little doubt that the outcome—a Biden victory—will remain unchanged. The question now is: where do we go from here?

The past two decades have been among the most divisive in modern American history. Our nation bears deep wounds that must be healed, with divisions that have been exacerbated by increasing tribalism and partisanship. It is imperative that we learn from recent history and find a way to move forward together. The challenges ahead demand unity, and the way we have operated over the last twenty years cannot define the next decade.

As a lifelong registered Republican, my lack of support for Trump has never been a surprise to those who know me. There is a common misconception among Trump supporters that opposition to him stemmed solely from partisan loyalty. However, I did not vote for Clinton or Trump in 2016, fully aware that my preferred candidate would not take office in 2017. My opposition to Trump was not about party allegiance; it was rooted in disagreement with many of his policies and leadership style over the past four years. In the same way, I opposed Obama on numerous issues throughout his presidency, while also acknowledging his successes. Like anyone, I have personal biases against Trump, but I have also made a conscious effort to listen to his supporters, to understand their frustrations and aspirations. Many of them feel that their faith, their vision of America, and their political ideology have been under attack for the past twelve years.

At the same time, there is a misconception among many Democrats that Trump supporters are predominantly ignorant or racist, that they harbor hatred toward people of color and embrace bigotry. From my experience, this is simply not true. Many Trump supporters are compassionate, decent people in their everyday lives. Their support for Trump was based on a variety of reasons, and if we are to move forward as a nation, it is critical that we listen and seek to understand those reasons.

There are good people in both parties. What we must stop doing is labeling and dismissing each other. Instead, we should commit to listening more, engaging in thoughtful reflection, and striving to find common ground. I personally am making a commitment to listen and reflect more, and I hope that in the coming years, others will do the same. Reuniting as a country requires meaningful dialogue, especially with those we disagree with. We don’t have to agree on everything, but we should strive for compromise and progress. I hope this shift occurs not only in Washington but also in our own homes.

May God bless America.

Donald Trump Can't Make America Great Again

By The White House - whitehouse.gov, Public Domain

The election is over. Donald Trump has been sworn in as the President of the United States of America. Whatever you may think of him, if you are a U.S. citizen he is your president.

There is a hard road ahead of him. Our country faces many problems which will need his action. He will face economic, diplomatic, and military crises through the next four years. He will face opposition from democrats, republicans and the American people. No matter what he does he cannot, however make America great again.

He can help to make the American economy better. He can work to solve problems the American people face on domestic and foreign issues, but he cannot make America great. If we accept the claim that America once was great but it is no longer great, the cause is not economic problems, diplomatic, or dangers that we face from inside or without. We have always faced those problems in one form or another. Economies change, politics change, but if America is not great now and was before the only thing that I can say is that it is that we lack unity.

Why are we not united? Our politics and the media have hit the wedge between the limbs of our tree, but the true wedge that is splitting us in two is a lack of engagement. Our nation has split in two because we are no longer embracing social and civic interaction. We have begun to not trust each other. It is easier to stay at home and watch Netflix than it is to go and attend your city council meetings. Fewer Americans are becoming involved in our society, and so as a whole our society is struggling. When you only hear your own opinions, you are less likely to have them challenged. If what you watch, read and listen to confirms that, you are less likely to change wrong assumptions.

The longer this cycle goes, the more we begin to begin othering. Those "other" people are to blame. Those "left" or "right" wingers, our president, Congress, immigrants, other races, etc, are to blame. We stop seeking solutions that we ourselves can implement and withdraw into our echo chambers.

On the other hand when we are engaged we build stronger communities that can act, creating lasting change that can and will have a positive impact on the communities in which we live. In a book by Dr. Robert Putnam called "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community," Dr. Putnam sites multiple studies that show that those who are engaged are more likely to be healthier, wealthier, and happier. They are less likely to commit crimes, and have stronger marriages. So not only will you make your communities and country better, but you will become a better person.

Trump cannot solve these problems. He cannot issue an order to make us all attend PTA, City Council or other civic meetings. He cannot make us become involved. So if you want to make America great again, get out of your comfort zone, perform an act of service, join a club, get involved in your cities, your neighborhoods, etc. Listen to someone with a different opinion and try to see things from their viewpoint. Seek to truly build unity by creating bonds across races, religions, genders, and political beliefs. If you truly want to make America great, it starts with you, not Donald Trump.

America's Infrastructure Is Crumbling

Image Source:Flickr

This week Congress once again failed to pass a continuing resolution to fund the government. One of the issues they continue to push down the road is the issue of infrastructure funding.

Most of our funding for infrastructure comes from sales tax on gasoline. As vehicles become more efficient, less gas is needed and funding for our infrastructure diminishes.

The American Society of Civil Engineers’(ASCE) most recent report card on the U.S. infrastructure scored a D+. And according to the World Economic Forum, the U.S. now ranks 16th overall in quality of infrastructure, behind other major countries like France, Spain and Japan. According to the ASCE report, an estimated $1.7 trillion in additional spending is needed by 2020 for our surface transportation to be adequately improved.

A recent report showed that there are at least 61,000 bridges which are structurally deficient and in need of serious repair or replacement. These bridges see tens of millions of drivers daily and there is no telling when the next one will fail.


Our roads, for example, require a lot of maintenance, especially after long winters. Potholes and rough roads cost drivers an estimated $324 a year on car repairs. Many cold-weather states and cities sink much of their transportation budgets into repairing these roads yearly.

Right now 42% of America’s city highways are considered highly congested. And that costs our nation's economy an estimated $101 billion in wasted time and fuel each year. Maintaining our infrastructure is also very costly.

Everyone in Congress will tell you that they are very concerned about the nation's crumbling infrastructure, but no one can agree on an approach to repairing it. Short resolutions have pased

The biggest issue is how to fund it. The most commonly suggested plan would be to raise the gas tax a few cents in order to bolster federal Highway Trust Fund revenue. House Republican leaders want to change corporate tax laws that encourage U.S. companies to park foreign profits overseas and use this revenue to fully pay for highway and transit aid. The change would allow corporations to transfer money back to the U.S. at a lower tax rate.

Senator Bernie Sanders, former presidential hopeful, introduced a bill last year which would have increased infrastructure spending by $1 trillion over five years. "My legislation puts 13 million people to work repairing the backlog of infrastructure projects all across this country,” Sanders said. “These projects require equipment, supplies and services, and the hard-earned salaries from these jobs will be spent in countless restaurants, shops and other local businesses. It’s no surprise that groups across the political spectrum – from organized labor to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – agree that investing in infrastructure will pay dividends for future generations.”

One suggestion by former republican presidential hopeful Ohio Governor John Kasich, was that the federal government decrease their gas tax, thereby allowing individual states with greater infrastructure needs to increase their own gas taxes accordingly, thereby cutting out the middle man and making sure the funding goes to the states with the greatest need.

"Instead of sending our gas tax money to Washington, where federal bureaucrats skim some off the top to pay for their own agencies, Congress should dramatically cut the 18.4 cents-per-gallon federal gas tax to just a few cents per gallon — just enough to pay for interstate connectivity and other safety concerns. States would then be free to set their own gas tax rates, aligned to their own needs as identified by their own residents, communities, and leaders."

For years, transportation experts have called for a massive investment to save a network of roads, bridges and transit systems that has fallen into disrepair. Will Congress work to solve this problem now or punt the question down the road again?

10 Qualities of a Great President

The role of the President of the United States is one of the most demanding and influential positions in the world. A great president must possess a unique blend of skills, character, and vision to lead effectively. Here are ten essential qualities that define a great president:

From my observations of U.S. history, I would say there are 10 qualities of a great president. They are:

1. A love of our country It would be rare to find a president who truly does not love their country, but it truly should be the number one requirement for the job. This person will be a parental figure for our country, bringing counsel and comfort. They will be the example to all other leaders within our country in the way they should act. Good leaders lead from love, not from greed or lust for power. They truly love everyone in that country, and want to help bring all to higher heights. If you look at George Washington, FDR, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln, I can't think of many men who loved their countries more. All of them showed that love in their leadership in war and in peace. Because of their love of our country, they sought to move us forward 

2. Vision of the future Each president must look to the future with a clear vision of what America will become. Presidents need to look beyond here and now, seeing the vast future of possibilities and framing a future for the country. The problems they must solve are not just the current ones that are occurring, but possible future ones. Ronald Reagan clearly saw the end of the Cold War, and prepared our country for that future. John Adams knew the only way our country would be secure and truly independent of European powers was for us to have a strong military, especially a navy. Our founders understood the need for a strong but limited government of the people. Each great president's vision of the future has led us into new heights as a country, and if we work to elect another great president, we can reach higher heights than ever before.

3. Accountability and adaptability Great presidents understand that mistakes happen, and they own up to those mistakes. They also understand there is a limit to their power. Understanding that their accountability is to the people, they are open and honest about their intentions and their actions. Great presidents own their mistakes, and then adapt to meet the needs of the time. They work to make our nation better by finding ways to be better leaders.  

4. Respect Often respect is overlooked in our search for a president. When I speak of respect, I am referring to respect for the office of the president, respect for the people who have entrusted you with great power, and respect for those who disagree with you. Too often we look at political correctness as the problem in Washington DC, but in my opinion it is a lack of respect that I find most disturbing. To have respect for someone who disagrees with you means you are willing to hear them out, and consider their opinion as well. Under the Washington administration, he leaned on Congress heavily, understanding that his presidency required power from the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives.

5. Empathy and Compassion Great presidents bring people together. They don't blame everything on the previous administration or the opposing party. They always have their eye on one single idea: unity brings us strength. We can only build a greater nation on stronger bonds of unity.

6. Courage As commander in chief and chief executive, it is extremely important that a president have courage. Every presidency has, and every future presidency will, face tough challenges with the potential for terrifying outcomes. Millions of lives will be at stake, and with that comes the need to be courageous and strong in the face of those challenges. During his tenure as president, Lincoln faced a country torn apart, and throughout all of the trials and disappointments he held us together with courage in the face of opposition.

7. Honesty In our basic social contract as a society, we must remember that honesty and integrity are essential to our survival as a nation. As we come together, we trust each other and rely on each other for security and strength. Honesty is essential to trust. Dishonesty breaks the bonds of trust that bind us together as a nation, making us weaker as a whole. 

8. Compassion On the battlefield and here at home, each president must have compassion. Compassion for the mother who loses a son away at war. Compassion for the individual who lost their home to natural disaster. They must have compassion for each individual and see them for who they are-brothers and sisters sharing this planet. As leader of the free world, our nation still shines as an example, and part of that is the compassion and giving that we have shown and continue to show. 

9. Great communicator It’s simply impossible to be a great leader without possessing the skills of a great communicator. Whether you think of FDR, John Adams, JFK, Abraham Lincoln or Ronald Reagan, each of our great president's have been great communicators. Especially in times of trial, we have relied on our presidents to comfort us, strengthen us, and lead us forward through great speeches. Being able to clearly and persuasively articulate policies, goals, and national values is crucial for any president to unite and guide the country

10. Being a servant of the people last of all comes a reminder that they are always here to serve our country, not their own ambition. The position of president is not that of celebrity in chief, but of servant in chief. Each president should remember and respect their office. While selecting a president we should remember that this person will join the ranks of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, and Reagan.

How to Pick a Candidate to Support

Being an informed voter generally means that you have researched the candidates and issues on a ballot before voting in an election. This can take a lot of research, and can be difficult especially in local races, where up until the election you generally won't see anything in newspapers or online about candidates.

With my experience I have decided on a variety of factors I look into before I decide on which candidate I want to support.

The first is consistency, because this shows their integrity as a leader. I look at each candidate's record to see if the record reflects what they have said in the past. I do not discount anyone before I have begun the process, and I try to not allow snap judgements to guide my actions in deciding who to support.

I look at the candidate's experience in politics and the various types of roles and responsibilities that the candidate has had over the course of their business and political career. Sometimes you may want candidates with specific types of experience, such as governors and presidents.

The third thing is that I have a rather extensive list of issues that I believe in and think would be important to prioritize in order to improve society as a whole. So I check the list of issues for each candidate and I generally tend to vote for a candidate who has stated positions on issues that align the best with where I stand on various issues that important to me.

Specific to the presidential race, one group has put together the site ISideWith.com. This site allows you to answer a series of questions in order to determine which candidate matches up with you best on the issues. It is incredibly important to weight the questions based upon your feelings on the issues and to make sure to check the additional answers.

Each of us wants to leave a positive impact on the world we leave behind. We each have our own vision of how to solve the issues facing this country. The more informed we are on candidates and issues, the more I believe we will be able to move forward in the future as a country.

Witness Testimony Shows Depth of VA Cover-Ups While Veterans Are Dying

Image source: Flickr

Over the last few years, the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) has come under fire for failing to take care of veterans. From 2007 to 2013 the VA's patient load increased by 46%. Patient wait times increased dramatically, and the VA began to draw fire from many members of Congress. Patient care also decreased as staff was not able to keep up with demands. Funding had increased by only 16% which did not keep up with the need to hire and train new staff. This led to delay or impromper care of veterans.

The worst problems appeared at the Phoenix VA, where many soldiers died of improper care. One tragic example of the failure of the Phoenix VA is the case of 71-year-old Navy veteran Thomas Breen. Breen visited the Phoenix VA in September of 2013 after discovering blood in his urine. Having a history of cancer, and proud of his military service, he would go nowhere but the VA. The VA marked his chart as urgent, and stated that he could see a primary care physician in one week's time.

He was sent home without being seen. His family contacted the VA hospital several times over the following weeks trying to get an appointment, but was unable to schedule an appointment. Thomas Breen died on November 30, more than two months after visiting the VA. The death certificate shows that he died from Stage 4 bladder cancer.

A new report from the Inspector General shows that more than 300,000 American veterans likely died while waiting for health care services from the VA and nearly twice as many are still waiting to receive help. It also shows that VA workers marked thousands of unprocessed healthcare applications as completed and may have deleted as many as 10,000 or more electronic records over the past five years.

This report also shows that VA facilities cost twice the normal amount for public facilities, a claim that is likely to reignite a debate about moving toward the privatization of some VA services. The findings also contradict the department’s claim that most patients are satisfied with the care they receive.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is responsible for both providing care to returning disabled veterans as well as determining their status. As you may be aware because of this increased number this has also meant there has been an increased demand for nursing home beds, injury rehabilitation, and mental health care. The VA processes healthcare claims for service-connected disabilities.

Rather than focus on fixing the issue, the VA has gone on the offensive attacking whistle-blowers. Chris Kirkpatrick, a former psychologist at the Tomah Veterans Affairs Medical Center, was reprimanded by his supervisor in April 2009 after raising questions about the medications being prescribed for veterans. When he was fired three months later, according to Senate testimony, he returned home and committed suicide.

On Tuesday, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on the VA’s treatment of whistle-blowers. Kirkpatrick's brother asked for more help protecting federal whistle-blowers.VA whistle-blowers from across the country told the Senate committee that the department has continually failed to hold supervisors accountable for chronic delays processing claims of veterans seeking medical care and for falsified records covering up the waits.

Witnesses spoke of improperly trained nurses in the Phoenix VA who improperly triaged patients leading to dangerous delays. Others outlined how some patients were over medicated to the point of causing harm which could have proved to be fatal. The workers stated that the supervisors were more interested in keeping their jobs than assisting veterans. Even when these supervisors are caught reprimanding whistle-blowers, the VA rarely fires them. Of 40 supervisors who have had action taken against them for this cause, only one has been terminated.

Senator Ron Johnson, (R-Wis.), who led Tuesday’s hearing, said: “The VA has a cultural problem with regards to whistleblower retaliation.”

Solutions to the systemic problems with the VA are slow coming. Earlier this month the new healthcare undersecretary of the VA spoke of his plans moving forward. “We are working hard with Congress to make sure we have the resources we need to care for them, and I am very optimistic about what this year will bring.”

The VA will need more than optimism though, to solve the problems facing the department. Criticism from veterans and Congress on slow moving reforms is unlikely to go away as long as veterans face month long waits to receive care. Desperate reforms are needed now to stem this crisis of dying and neglected veterans.

What do you think of the VA scandal? What should be done to solve the problems with the VA? Let us know in the comments.

We Are Headed For Another Government Shutdown and It Could Be Costly

The Senate is expected to vote this week toward avoiding a government shutdown on October 1. With little support coming from the House though, it is likely we will see the government shutdown next week. The only real hope is a coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats working together to pass something this week.

Congressional Republicans are holding up the continuing funding resolution due to a debate over funding Planned Parenthood. This began with videos which showed Planned Parenthood officials discussing payment for procuring aborted baby tissue. These videos have caused an uproar among conservative members of the house and they have been weighing whether to try to strip federal funding for the nation's largest provider of abortions in a spending bill that must be passed before the government’s current funding expires on September 30.

A government shutdown results in non essential portions of the government being shut down. Vital portions would stay intact such as the USPS, Department of  Defense, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Most of the government actually isn't affected at all, and often even those who are still have workers performing their job functions.The shutdown, saw roughly 800,000 federal employees sent home and national parks and services closed.  Most of these employees however continued work from home on their projects unpaid until the shutdown ends. They were then given back pay for this time period.

The 16-day shutdown in 2013 also stopped the creation of an estimated 120,000 new jobs, according to one report by the Council of Economic Advisers. It dug into the GDP for that year by over 24 billion dollars. Considering the instability in China's markets and with several countries around the world, this is not the time for the government to be causing any decline in economic output.

Until recently, Senate Republicans had indicated they would likely wait to see what kind of spending bill would be passed by the House, where there is greater GOP opposition to any spending measure that includes Planned Parenthood funding. Since the House is only in session for a short time this week and has no such measure on it's calendar the Senate looks to be attempting to act first.

“It’s an exercise in futility," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in an interview with Politico. "I’m anxious to defund Planned Parenthood" but "the honest answer of that is that’s not going to happen until you have a president who has a similar view."

This comes as presidential hopeful Senator Ted Cruz has stated his opposition to any bill allowing Planned Parenthood funding. "In light of recent and horrific revelations that Planned Parenthood is trafficking in fetal tissue and body parts from abortions, we urge you not to schedule or facilitate the consideration of any legislation that authorizes or appropriates federal dollars for Planned Parenthood."

Last month he also stated, "I believe we should use every and any procedural tool available to defund Planned Parenthood."

Other Senators have criticized Ted Cruz for his views on a government shutdown. "Given the challenges and threats we face at home and abroad, I oppose risking a government shutdown, particularly when it appears there is no chance of achieving a successful result. Nevertheless, as I understand it, you have been circulating a letter to our colleagues asking them to oppose any government funding bill that continues to authorize funding for Planned Parenthood. … How do we get 60 votes? And if for some reason there were 60 votes, how do we get 67 votes in the Senate to overcome a Presidential veto?” Senator Kelly Ayotte asked in a recent letter. “During the last government shutdown, I repeatedly asked you what your strategy for success was when we did not have the votes to achieve the goal of defunding Obamacare, but I did not receive an answer."

With fears of the economic effects a shutdown could have, industry leaders are calling for compromise. "A democracy is a compromise by its nature. It’s not a dictatorship. So anyone who says, “my way or the highway on one issue,” isn’t necessarily thinking about the United States of America. And so I wish people to overcome that kind of stuff. A government shutdown is just bad management."JP Morgan Chase’s CEO Jamie Dimon said in a recent interview with MSNBC.

Many Americans view it as that; failed leadership by both parties that is leading to a shutdown. A lack of compromise lead the last Congress to be the least effective in history. There is a strong belief that the extremism we are seeing in Congress, displayed in the house especially is directly linked to the gerrymandering of districts throughout the country by both parties. This gerrymandering guarantees seats and power at the cost of extremism. This has lead to the rise of the Tea Party and concerns over the debt ceiling being raised and government shutdowns.


With less than 9 days to go before a possible shut down, it is becoming more and more likely that Congress will not be able to pass a funding bill in time. Democrats are unlikely to back down, and President Obama has already promised he will veto any bill that defunds Planned Parenthood. Some have argued that it was not the founders intent to use the veto as a partisan tool, but rather as a constitutional safe guard against abuse. Others point that this authority has been used in this manner for decades.  Needless to say, if this shutdown lasts longer than the one in 2013 (16 days), it could become very costly to our economy and our government.

10 Questions That Should Be Asked at the Next Republican Presidential Debate

Source:Flickr

The second Republican Presidential debate is Wednesday night 8 PM ET on CNN. The last debate afforded each candidate only a few minutes to answer questions.  With the large group of candidates we have, we probably won't be able to see each of these questions answered by each candidate, but I have outlined 10 questions that I wish I could hear each candidate answer.

Under each question I have outlined several other points that need to be addressed, and possible follow up questions for the candidates. Often our debates stop focusing on the issues and start to be shows of entertainment and popularity. We should try to focus on what matters most in our country. I have tried to base my questions on that ideal-that the debates should be about substance not delivery.

1.What is your plan to address immigration reform?
-Some candidates should be asked about their plans such as Trump, whose plan has been deemed by many as unrealistic at best.
-Others support plans to allow illegals to stay, how do they defend that to people who are unemployed or taxpayers who pay at least part of the bill?
-If you are opposed to deportation how do you justify all of the money spent on illegals (education, healthcare and benefits to children etc.)?
-How do you justify it when so many are still out of work?
-How do you plan to secure the border?

2. How do you plan to decrease the deficit and balance the budget?
-What are the  specifics of their plans, some candidates are supporting tax cuts without specifying what they will cut to offset those tax cuts.
-Do you support increasing taxes in any way?
-What do you think about a national sales tax?

3. Do you support or oppose the Iran nuclear deal?
-As commander and chief if you oppose it will you commit to use of military force in Iran?
-If you support it, what would you do if Iran is found cheating on the plan?
-With evidence showing Iranian support of Isis how do you justify supporting the deal?

4. Do you support defunding planned parenthood?
-How would you address those who are concerned about the loss of women's health clinics?
-If you don't support defunding, how will you address the federal government giving half a billion dollars a year to the biggest provider of abortions in our country?

5. The U.S. infrastructure has received a D rating. How would you address our failing infrastructure?
-Some estimates estimate we need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars right now just to bring our infrastructure up to date, including 60,000 bridges which are in need of immediate repair or replacement how will you fund this?
-In what ways will you bring our infrastructure into the 21st century?

6. What are your plans to reform education?
-If you are opposed or support common core how do you think national education should be handled?
-Do you support a national curriculum?
-What are your plans to push our nation forward in education?

7. Do you support legalizing less harmful drugs like marijuana?
-The war on drugs has been costly, how would you address those who say that the war on drugs has failed?
-How do you justify continuing to imprison people for having very small amounts of marijuana on them.
-Do you support drug courts where a person gets treatment instead of going to jail?
-If they support legalization, how do you justify legalizing drugs which can have negative impacts on the brain?
-Do you support more research for DUI testing methods like breathalyzers for marijuana?


8. What is your plan to strengthen our economy?
-Many believe regulations are crippling our economy, as president what regulations would you change?
-Many are concerned about the affects income inequality is having on our country, with wealth increasingly going to the richest 1%. How do you address these concerns as president?
-Consumer debt has almost equaled our national debt, how would you address the growing concerns over the massive amount of debt which is becoming a drag on our economy, especially student loan debt?


9. How will you bring people together to move America forward? Great leaders are measured by what they have done working through compromise to accomplish. We have had too much extremism and not enough listening and compromise.
-What would you do to work across the aisle?
-How have you worked across the aisle to get things done?
-How would you work to mend the wounds within our nation?


10. The next president will inherit 3 massive trade deals the TPP, TTIP and TISA. Would trade negotiations change under your presidency?
-How would you address our growing trade deficit?
-How would you use trade to move our nation forward in the years to come?

What would you like to see asked in the debate? Comment with your question below.

Fact Check: Trump on Iran and 'Do These Republican Senators Support the Iran Deal?'

Last Saturday in an interview on the "John Fredericks Show" Trump made a statement about the Iran deal: "If Israel attacks Iran, I think -- of course this wouldn’t happen, it wouldn’t happen with me, with Obama you never know -- but we’re supposed to be on Iran’s side if this happens. OK? And nobody knows this and even talks about that point but, basically, we’re supposed to protect them."

Earlier that day in an interview with CNN he made similar comments on the topic: "You know, there is something in the Iran deal that people I don't think really understand or know about," he said. "And nobody is able it to explain it, that if somebody attacks Iran, we have to come to their defense."

So I wondered, is it true that the U.S. has to support Iran if they enter into armed conflict with Israel? Let's dig into the facts. According to Politifact: 

"At the heart of the claim is Article 10, Annex III, of the accord which states:

"E3/EU+3 parties, and possibly other states, as appropriate, are prepared to cooperate with Iran on the implementation of nuclear security guidelines and best practices."

That includes the following:

• "Co-operation in the form of training courses and workshops to strengthen Iran's ability to prevent, protect and respond to nuclear security threats to nuclear facilities and systems as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems;

• "Co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems."

This article has been criticized in the Israeli media.

"One of the clauses in the nuclear deal reached between world powers and Iran last week guarantees that the world powers will assist Iran in thwarting attempts to undermine its nuclear program," Israel Hayom, a newsletter, said July 20.

But experts told PolitiFact Florida in late July that such interpretations are, at best, exaggerated. The aim of the provision, they said, is to protect nuclear materials from theft (say, if terrorists tried to steal Iranian assets) or from sabotage (with the intent of causing a hazardous-materials threat to health)."

It is also important to note that this deal is not being presented as a treaty; it is considered an "executive agreement" and therefore doesn't have much hold on the U.S. When a new president is sworn into office in 2017, he or she will have to decide what to do with the agreement and whether or not they will continue to follow it.

Earlier this year during a committee hearing, Senator and presidential hopeful Marco Rubio questioned Secretary Ernest Moniz and Secretary John Kerry about this provision:

Rubio: "If Israel decides it does not like this deal and decides it wants to sabotage an Iranian nuclear program or facility. Does this deal that we have just signed obligate us to defend Iran against Israeli sabotage or for that matter the sabotage of any other country in the world

Moniz: "I believe that applies to physical security and safeguards all of our options and those of our allies would remain in place."

Rubio:If Israel conducts an airstrike against a physical facility, does this deal, the way I read it, does it require us to help Iran protect and respond to that threat?"

Kerry: "No. The purpose of that is to have longer term guarantees as we enter the world in which cyber warfare that when you are going to have nuclear capacities we want to make sure you are properly protected. But I can assure you we are going to coordinate in every possible way with Israel."

Rubio: "If Israel conducts a cyber attack against the Iranian nuclear program, are we obligated to help them defend themselves against the Israeli cyberattack?"

Kerry: "No, I assure you, that we will be coordinating very, very closely with Israel as we do on every aspect of Israel’s security."

It seems pretty clear that while there are some security features in here, that we will not be required under the deal to protect Iran against Israel. This claim is rated false.

Going along with this I also came across another claim on facebook, that several Republican senators had supported the Iran deal.

The claim is simply that these senators supported the Iran deal. We took a look at each of these senators press releases and statements to the media. 

Senator John McCain is one of the leading opponents of the deal and has even gone so far as to call Secretary Kerry "delusional." 

Senator Lindsey Graham has made opposing the Iran deal a central part of his presidential campaign message.

Senator Hatch stated: “For decades, the Iranian regime has been dangerous in its aims and duplicitous in its quest for nuclear weapons.  Any deal that removes sanctions without robust means of ensuring the regime's disarmament and compliance with its international obligations is worse than no deal at all.  Empowered by the bipartisan Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act that we passed into law earlier this year, Congress must fully scrutinize this agreement and must not hesitate to oppose the deal if it endangers the security of the United States or our allies in the region.” He has been a major opponent of the bill.

Senator Alexander opposes the deal stating that it "does not sufficiently restrict Iran's nuclear program and makes no effort to put a brake on its other conduct as the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism." He continued,"The agreement puts some limits on Iran's nuclear program, but it also legitimizes it, thereby encouraging a nuclear arms race in the most unstable area of the world," Alexander said. "The agreement takes the pressure off Iran at a time when pressure is likely to succeed."

Senator Coats' statement on the deal explains:

"Members of Congress now have the opportunity to review the pending deal, and every member must determine what this deal buys us and at what cost. We must ignore the coming public relations campaign that will trumpet this deal as a victory for diplomacy and the false premise that the deal is a choice between peace and war."

President Obama has defended his deal by challenging critics to put forth an alternative. How about exercising American leadership and enacting more vigorous sanctions to persuade the Iranian leaders to reconsider their positions or persuade the Iranian people to reconsider their leaders?

Congress should reject this bad deal."

Senator Corker stated that “Rather than end Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, over time this deal industrializes the program of the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. ... Congress should reject this deal and send it back to the president.”

Senator Flake said he opposes the deal because “While Congress has received assurances from the administration that it does not forfeit its ability to impose sanctions on Iran for behavior on the non-nuclear side, these assurances do not square with the text of the [agreement]," 

Senator Perdue plainly stated that the senate should "reject the deal"

To put it simply, this post is flat out false on all counts. There isn't a shred of truth to the statement. If you see a friend post this meme or the above quote please feel free to refer them to this article.

The Fight to Defund Planned Parenthood : What's it All About?

Image Source: Flickr

Yesterday, the ninth in a series of undercover Planned Parenthood sting videos was released.  The video from the Center for Medical Progress features Perrin Larton, a procurement manager for the company Advanced BioScience Resources, which works with a Planned Parenthood clinic in California and provides aborted baby tissue to researchers. Previous videos have outlined Planned Parenthood's sale of aborted baby tissue and organs, which has caused them to come under fire from many groups, politicians and celebrities.

Planned Parenthood's response to the videos has been to claim that they were faked or highly edited. They also made this statement: "The allegation that Planned Parenthood profits in any way from tissue donation is not true. Our donation programs – like any other high-quality health care providers – follow all laws and ethical guidelines. Over our 100-year history, we have continually engaged leading medical experts to shape our practices, policies, and high standards – and always will."

To be clear, federal law bans the sale of unborn babies’ body parts and organs.  In fact, it’s considered a criminal act.  However, the law provides a loophole allowing payment for a wide range of services associated with the "donation" of aborted babies organs, including “reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.” Planned Parenthood does receive payment for these "donations" to an approximate total of $23 million per year. Because of these concerns over buying tissue of aborted babies, many conservatives are calling for Planned Parenthood to be defunded.

It is important to note that, with the exception of extreme cases, federal money cannot be used to fund abortions. Planned Parenthood however, does receive a large amount of it's funding from the federal government.

Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the U.S. They have received scrutiny in the past for some of their practices, including many undercover videos seeking to expose them for coercive abortions, failure to notify parents, and encouraging abortions over other options.

Those who defend Planned Parenthood note that the company provides many other services including contraception, STD/STI screenings, cancer screenings (not mammograms though), and other women's health services. These are the services for which they receive federal funding. According to their annual report, abortions make up approximately 3% of their yearly medical services.

That 3%, however, equaled 327,000 abortions last year. In total it is estimated that there were just over 1.05 million abortions performed in the U.S. in 2011 (the last available year). If this number has stayed even, it would mean that Planned Parenthood performed nearly one-fourth of all abortions in the U.S. last year.  In total Planned parenthood has conducted over 6 million abortions. They are the largest provider of abortions in the country.

So why do people want it defunded? If Planned Parenthood is defunded by the federal government, they would lose approximately $500 million in funding per year. Their total yearly budget is approximately $1.1 billion per year. This means over 40% of their yearly budget comes through federal funding. Opponents believe that because so much of their operating budget comes from the federal government, this means they are thereby funding abortions as well. If Planned Parenthood were not allowed to have federal funding it would deal a serious blow to the company. It is foreseeable that this could cause them to close several clinics throughout the country, thereby limiting their ability to perform as many abortions as they do.

The Senate already attempted a vote to defund Planned Parenthood which failed by a 53-46 margin. This is not the end of the debate in Congress though. The federal government is set to run out of funding September 30th, and members of Congress are threatening to stand firm on Planned Parenthood funding, with some even threatening to shut down the government in order to defund Planned Parenthood.

When talking about whether they would seek to defund Planned Parenthood as part of the debates on government funding Mitch McConnell stated, "We just don’t have the votes to get the outcome that we’d like. I would remind all of your viewers, the way you make a law in this country, the Congress has to pass it, and the president has to sign it. The president has made it very clear he is not going to sign any bill that includes defunding of Planned Parenthood, so that’s another issue that awaits a new president, hopefully with a different point of view about Planned Parenthood."

We will see over the next few months what will happen with federal funding for Planned Parenthood. For those who are pro-life, Planned Parenthood represents abortion in the U.S. This debate has been waged for decades now and has become one of the most politically charged topics in our country. No matter what decision is made concerning Planned Parenthood funding, this debate will not be over soon.

What's Wrong With the News?

About 50 years ago more than 80 companies controlled the majority of print and television media in the U.S. That number is now down to 6. These 6 mega huge corporations — News Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, CBS, and Comcast have changed the way we receive the news on a daily basis, and that isn't necessarily a good thing.

It isn't fully their fault that most people are ill informed, part of the blame lies with each of us. We have at our fingertips the ability to access nearly limitless amounts of information. Our 20 second attention spans and lack of interest in doing our own research is part of the problem. But part of the issue is the major shift we have seen from print media to online and cable TV news reporting.

Many of the old time newspapers were able to focus on subscriptions which meant quality reporting was their main focus. The more quality reporting you had, with quality writers and columnists, the more subscriptions you could sell. Advertising sales would increase with subscriptions, but the focus was on content. Reporters would dig deep to get scoops on corruption in government, and issues that were affecting the average person.

Then the internet came around and for over 7 years now print media has declined, especially subscription to newspapers. Many will only get the newspaper for coupons or shopping ads on Sunday. Other sections that were once considered must reads go into the recycling bin as boring and out of date.

Switching to online media has made many of these companies go away from traditional reporting to celebrity and click worthy news reports. Digital advertising has grown massively with these companies, as they have sought to cover the loss from print media. The focus has shifted from news and print media to online and cable news networks.

We have seen a rise in entertaining news rather than informative. The massive popularity shows like the O'Reilly Factor, the Daily Show, the Colbert Report, and Last Week Tonight are indicative of this. Trials like Jodi Arias, which were once only covered by local media now become media circuses with live coverage. 24 hour news cycle is forcing news outlets to have news out immediately as events unfold, even if reporting hasn't been completed.

Facebook and Twitter have also had their impact. Focus on social media and mobile has forced content into 140 characters or less idea, leaving readers with the base understanding, but lacking any depth in content. News media outlets like The Huffington Post, Drudge and The Blaze have taken so much of the online focus that much of news has become focused on being viral content.

Since this shift has occurred you are more likely to hear about Kanye West running for president in 2020 than possible ideas to change the tax code. With old print media, there was the opportunity to explain an issue in great depth; now it often must either have a great deal of opinion and controversy or some sort of celebrity pull for it to be front page news.

Some news outlets are focusing on specific demographics, applying themselves to the "left" or "right" in order to get more people watching their networks, or reading their articles.

There is some hope however, with focused news sites like politico and the hill, which focus much less on biased political reporting and more on facts and informing. Aggregate news sites like realclearpolitics can help you weed through some of the distractions to meaningful posts.

These changes to the way news media functions have altered the way we view our country, our government and the world in general. Citizens are less informed while having more access to news media than ever before. The news channels or stations we watch and listen to can also have a major impact on how informed we are as citizens.

As we now face a new presidential election cycle it is more important than ever that we focus on educating ourselves on the issues and candidates, having open minds and hearts, and being aware of the needs of our country. We should challenge ourselves to do better, by being wiser in what we watch, read and listen to.

Looking forward to 2014 Politics in the U.S.

Christmas is over and gone, most of us are looking at making resolutions and a new year. As we look forward to a new year, 2014 has many issues on the horizon. As we mentioned before, Congress last year was one of the least effective in decades, it has many policy questions lying in front of it. Additionally we have midterm elections.
So here are some of the thing to look at come next year:

1. Austerity, deficit spending and the debt ceiling. We saw a government shutdown last year what will happen when the debt ceiling needs to be raised again come mid February. Our debt has already passed 17 trillion dollars, what is the plan moving forward?

2. Midterm elections, many think it's a given that the house will remain in Republican hands, but how many seats will change hands? The Senate is more of a toss-up and recent polling shows Democrats and republicans in a dead heat in polling.

3. Will immigration reform or gun control be addressed? These two hot button issues affect a large population of the United States, and most people think some form of reform is needed. What will happen though, especially as both sides remain sharply divided.

4. Will the economy have a better recovery next year and will it be substantial? Unemployment continues to lag, what will be done to turn things around? What will our leaders do to improve things?

5. The vast majority of Americans support minimum wage increases, but with the current gridlock in washington, what will become of it? Should it be raised and what will the effect be?

6. Foreign policy in Iran, North Korea and Cuba what will happen here? Will Iran and North Korea be forced to abandon their Nuclear policies, will Cuba and the U.S. warm in relations?

One thing is for sure, next year won't be a boring one in the political field. Be sure to follow these issues and more next year on the Political Discussions blog.

From all of us at Political Discussions we want to wish you a  Happy New Year!

Congress the Least Productive in Decades

While the Senate is expected to end session today, the house has already adjourned for the holiday season. Election after election it seems we hear of members of Congress running on jobs and the economy and after the election is over, they go back to partisan infighting while our economy and infrastructure disintegrate. It is becoming apparent that Congress has forgotten about the biggest concern facing most americans—jobs and the economy. While most Americans are struggling to make ends meet, Congress continues to sit back and do nothing.

We continue to see debate over debate on the same old issues of raising the debt ceiling and funding the government and we are left to wonder, where are the bills to restore American jobs? These issues of debt and spending will be solved by fixing the economy. If we fix our economy and restore the middle class the tax base will increase, fewer Americans will be dependent on welfare and our debts will decrease. But Congress is not acting on these issues, even though most Americans would prefer they focus on restoring the middle class, lowering the unemployment rate, strengthening our infrastructure and improving our economy.

According to the Senate calendar, from when the government reopened on October 16th until the beginning of December , there were only been three bills (S. 815, H.R. 3204, S. 1197) considered on the floor. Two of these are appropriations bills, and the third adds protections for minorities in the workplace. None of them will provoke any significant change to improve the economy.

That is an entire month and a half where they only considered three bills. As citizens of the U.S. we should expect more than this from our representatives.  There have been only 58 bills signed into law so far this year, one of the lowest totals in recent history. This is not an insignificant feat. After all, the 112th Congress (2011-2013) was the most unproductive since the 1940s and even they had passed 62 bills by this point in 2011. That is simply unacceptable.

While Congress waits, our economy continues to sputter and our unemployment rate remains high. From infrastructure to trade, there are many issues Congress needs to act on now, not postpone further. We continue to see unfulfilled campaign promises and we need Congress to get to work now to help the economy and rebuild our infrastructure.