Get Rich Quick, Ruin Your Life Quicker (Commentary)

One of my classmates wrote an interesting thread about the lottery and the effects on those who win it. Braden's article, Get Rich Quick, Ruin Your Life Quicker, made some great points. People who tend to be less wealthy are generally the ones who purchase lottery tickets on a regular basis. Millions of people spend millions of dollars on these tickets in hopes of winning the jackpot. The chances of this are so slim, it's ridiculous. Yet people continue to waste their money on it.

Braden told a story of a man who won the lottery and lived to regret even buying the ticket: "He won a 315,000,000 dollar lottery. Within 10 years, his daughter and granddaughter had died of drug overdose, his wife had divorced him and he spent his time lounging in strip clubs, where at one point he was drugged and was robbed of over 500 thousand dollars. Later he wept to reporters 'I wish I’d torn that ticket up.'” Braden went on to state that lotteries are "one of the most cunning ways that the government uses to raise money. The governments market the get-rich-quick scheme to the people who are most desperate and are willing to spend what money they do have on tickets."

Personally, I don't think it's necessarily the smartest thing to play the lottery. The money people spend on it could be spent in more constructive, productive ways. They need to understand it's just another way to funnel money into the government's pockets.

Presidents or Celebrities?

I was thinking this week about the different ways our Presidents and Presidential candidates interact with the American people and things they do to stay visible in the public eye. One of these outlets is talk shows.

Why do Presidents and political candidates go on talk shows anyways? You might say they do it in order to push an agenda or call attention to an important issue. To me, it just seems that most of the time these people appear on talk shows because it feels glamorous. Usually, Presidents and candidates do anything from make jokes about opponents or give opinions on fashion. Both parties take part. It is a matter of status and glitz.

I feel that, sometimes, appearances like this take priority over critical issues facing our country that should be addressed. Let's talk about meaningful issues rather than playing Brad Pitt for an hour. Am I being to over-the-top? Maybe I just feel that there are more important things that need taking care of - like the economy or the job crisis that still exists.

Dear past and future Presidents,
Please get your priorities straight.

Sincerely,
An American who cares about the future of her country.

Left Hook, Right Jab

On November 2nd, one of my classmates wrote a great article on her blog, Coming Out of Political Darkness, about the alarming decline in our culture's political involvement. She talked about how we, as a nation, used to take pride in being involved in the election process. However things have changed dramatically. She says, "It seems millions of Americans just don’t care who wins or loses anymore. And why should they? We haven’t been given any real reasons to. Instead of what they can do for our country, the presidential candidates seem more interested in tearing each other down and saying whatever it takes to win publicity." She's got a good point. These days, presidential campaigns are just plain ol' ridiculous. Almost every ad consists of some bold allegation or petty slight directed at the opposing candidate. Both parties are guilty of this; neither are blameless. Campaign ads and debates are much like watching children argue back and forth: "We can blame the politicians, but it’s not all their fault. We allow this to go on and millions actually encourage it. The American public doesn’t want to watch an actual debate. They want a show. American viewers want to see a cat fight where the gloves come off and the blows get dirty. Not a well rounded argument that forces them to give us actual facts." I agree that things have gotten out of hand... and it's time that we reevaluate where we are and where we are going. If we want things to change, then we are going to have to be willing to take measures to force the change.

Honesty is the Best Policy

I want to expound a bit on my previous post.   In review, the article, “Coincidence of the day: Head of California agency that under-reported unemployment stats an Obama donor,” written by Doug Powers, informs the public of an incorrect report of some recent unemployment statistics data. That report, submitted by California, withheld the truth about the unemployment situation there.

Powers writes: "Last year California Governor Jerry Brown appointed a man named Marty Morgenstern to head the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency, which oversees the Employment Development Department that 'failed to fully document' jobless claims [...] Here’s the total coincidence part that will shock the hell out of you..." Powers then provides a chart that itemizes Morgenstern’s campaign donations in 2008.

Here's my problem: I don't care if you're a Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, male or female, etc. - no matter who you are or what you do, you should be honest in all matters. We've had all sorts of issues in the past where public officials were dishonest in such things as campaigns or reports. The information in the above article is simply one example of many.

Our system is so corrupted. Unfortunately, ethics are often pushed aside in pursuit of personal gain (or political gain in this case), without any regard to the outcome. Why can't people just be honest? Why do we feel like we have to sneak around to fulfill ulterior motives?

I think it is especially important for our elected officials, those people we select ourselves, to act with our best interests in mind. We elect them because we feel they are the best choice to make correct decisions on our behalf. You have trouble trusting someone who has a history of being dishonest. So, I say, honesty is the best policy.

Oh, the Irony

Coincidence of the day: Head of California agency that under-reported unemployment stats an Obama donor. This is the title of an article written by Doug Powers regarding an interesting finding within some recent unemployment statistics data. Doug Powers is an author for a right-leaning political blog, but in this case, however, I don't think that matters in light of the fact that he is simply reporting facts. Unfortunately for Obama supporters, these unearthed facts don't help his cause.

"On Oct. 11, the federal government reported that weekly jobless claims were down significantly, suggesting a dramatic national increase in economic growth and a steep decline in layoffs. Jobless claims, according to the Labor Department, had fallen by 30,000 to 339,000, their lowest level since February 2008." Doug Powers muses at how quickly the media (sources such as CNN) made claims like “Jobless claims fall to four-year low.”

Powers goes on to state: "But within hours, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Labor Department analysts announced that one major state had failed to fully document jobless claims. They declined to name the state. [...] Early Thursday, the federal government finally revealed that California had, in fact, under-reported jobless data, skewing the national jobless claims results. This week’s updated jobs report corrected the error and showed unemployment claims spiking back up by 46,000 to 388,000..."

"Last year California Governor Jerry Brown appointed a man named Marty Morgenstern to head the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency, which oversees the Employment Development Department that 'failed to fully document' jobless claims [...] Here’s the total coincidence part that will shock the hell out of you..." This is where Powers provides a chart itemizing all donations made by Morgenstern to the Obama campaign.

It is perfectly clear where Powers stands on this issue. He seems amused at the irony, yet disgusted all at once. I can't help but be upset about the under-reported unemployment data "coincidence" myself.

The Debate on the Debate

The Obama Matrix, a commentary in the Wall Street Journal, gives a glowing report of Mitt Romney's debate performance, but depicts a rather grim view of Obama's performance.

"Liberals and the media are attempting to explain President Obama's anemic debate performance by claiming that..."

The first sentence in this article is a dead giveaway as to what the author's position and party affiliation are. He doesn't categorize himself openly, but based on the opinions contained in his commentary, we know that he is most likely Republican and a strong Romney supporter. He also describes Obama's debate performance as "anemic" - a less than favorable description.

"For the first time, the carefully crafted campaign illusions that the President has constructed were exposed." The author points out that (during the portion of the debate on future economic plans) Mitt Romney explained his economic plan in depth and point by point, while President Obama "repeated his lines from the stump about Mr. Romney's $5 trillion tax cut for millionaires and billionaires that 'dumps those costs on middle-class Americans' and raises their taxes by $2,000." It did seem as though President Obama was struggling to come up with a response beyond his notes and predetermined arguments.

President Obama spoke in length about his past four years as President and how, in spite of his many "inherited" problems, he has made great, positive progress. The author states that "The evidence of Mr. Obama's time in power includes his 2008 vow to cut the deficit in half. Instead he doubled it in 2009 and then presided over three more $1 trillion-plus reprises. He said he'd cut health costs by $2,500 per family, yet average employee-sponsored family premiums have climbed $1,975 since ObamaCare passed. These are facts." The author goes on to describe the dismal numbers and percentages of unemployment in our country and the number of people who can't get jobs.

This author is definitely more supportive of Governor Romney's debate performance, but don't let that distract from some good, valid points he makes. He also supports his claims with video clips of similar commentary, so be sure to watch those in order to help better understand his view.

Abuse of Executive Power?

A recent article in The New York Times asks this question: “How have presidents used executive power to get re-elected? Is this an abuse of power, or just the usual ‘incumbency advantage’?” It is an interesting question – one that begs to be pondered.

The article presents the views of five various debaters on this issue, specifically where the upcoming 2012 Presidential election is concerned. In regards to President Obama, some believe he is using his executive powers strictly for the purpose of collecting promises for future votes. Paul Butler, a law professor at Georgetown University and a former United States Department of Justice prosecutor, writes, “Look at the bounty that this election year has brought President Obama’s Democratic base: A Dream Act here, an endorsement of gay marriage there. If this be abuse of executive power, let’s make the most of it.”

 

Another one of the five debaters, Linda Chavez, director of public liaison in the Reagan White House and the G.O.P. Senate nominee from Maryland in 1986, reasons that all Presidents, at one point or another, have used their executive powers in this manner to some degree. However, she believes that President Obama has abused this power more than most. Curious about what she has to say?

These five, equally thoughtful and intelligent people make fair points. They don’t all agree with each other on the debate, but they each have valid insight into the thought and motives “behind-the-scenes” in some re-elections.

Issues such as this one are important to consider, especially in the midst of a re-election year. In my opinion, it’s easy to make promises and talk big – whether you’re the current president running for re-election or the man hoping to take his place. Anyone can talk. No matter the promise, or the person making it... if you were prepared to make it, you better be prepared to back it up.