What on earth is H.J.Res.5

Good question, because until just a few minutes ago, I thought this was a just a bunch of random letters and numbers. But no such luck, guys. H.J.Res.5 is a bill currently circulating in the House of Representatives. The full bill is relatively short and reads as follows:


HJ 5 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 5

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 6, 2009

Mr. SERRANO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

‘Article--

‘The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.’.



But what does this mean?

Okay, for the most part, this bill is self-explanatory. However, I'll take the time to sum it up for you.

The 22nd Ammendment to the Constitution stipulates that no single person can hold the office of President for more than two full terms. One full term is approximately four years. A Vice President who takes the office of President during his term as Vice President, may run for President and hold the office for two full terms under his own Presidency.

Repealing the 22nd Ammendment would mean that a single person could, theoretically, hold the office of President for as many terms as the American public would elect him/her for.

So what's the big deal?

The issue here is that some people are worried that this would allow an unfavorable person to be President for a much longer time, and be able to make more changes.

Of course, the other side of this would be that the American people would never elect someone who isn't satisfactory.

At the same time of course, the two term limit allows new blood, fresh ideas, and the opportunity for the other party to gain power. It also prevents the American people from voting for the same President over and over again, just because he's familiar. This particular pattern happens often in local governments, and is only slightly dammaging to local economies. However, on a national scale, this practice could have serious and negative consequences.

How likely is it that this bill will be passed?

Very unlikely. The bill would have to win both in the House and in the Senate. After that, it would have to be signed into law by the President, and the United States Supreme Court would have to declare it consitutional. So for this bill to become law, it would take a lot of work, and a lot of support, which it doesn't have as of now.

What do you think about this bill? Do you support it, or do you oppose it? Post your opinion, and let the world know what you think. View my opinion at AmeriKad.

Kaydee

Tomorrow's topic: Gitmo.

What is the deal with ACORN?

ACORN stands for Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now.

Acorn defines itself as the "nation's largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families, workiing together for social justice and stronger communities" ("What is Acorn" 1).

Acorn was established in 1970 is Little Rock, Arkansas. It doesn't say on their official website, but my guess is that they formed in response to the Little Rock Nine event. They have grown to over 350,000 member families, and corporations they own include two radio stations, a voter registration network, and a housing corporation.

Acorns objective is to successfully campaign for better housing, schools, neighborhood safety, health care, job conditions, and more on both a local and national scale.

To learn out more about Acorn, and find a chapter near you, visit their website, Acorn.org.

So what's the big deal about Acorn?

The problem with Acorn has everything to do with their voter registration network, and the fact that the taxpayers are funding them.

Back in 2008, prior to the 2008 elections, Acorn campaigned fiercely for voter registration. They registered hundreds of thousands of voters. However, in October of 2008, evidence came to light that some of these registered voters were actually non-existent people. Acorn had registered people such as Mickey and Minnie Mouse, to vote in the United States. To make matters worse, both Mickey and Minnie voted in the 2008 elections.

Fast forward to today. Many people, in both Congress and the general public, believe that these fradulent voters helped put President Obama in office. Some people have gone as far as to say that President Obama wouldn't have become president without Acorn's voter registration fraud.

And of course, we also have the issue of taxes. The government gives a substantial amoung of money to Acorn annually; money they get from the American taxpayers. Many people are furious that their hard-earned money is going to an allegedly corrupt organization.

And on top of all this, many are concerned with the slowed investigation process. Since Obama's election, the investigation in the alleged voter fraud of Acorn has slowed down considerably. Many believe it is because of Acorns ties to the president, and the fact that Obama was and still is a member of Acorn.

What do you think? Check out my opinion at AmeriKad.

Enjoy!

Kaydee


Bibliography

"What is Acorn?" Acorn.org. 20 June 2009 <http://www.acorn.org/>.

"Editorial: What is Acorn?" 10 Oct. 2008. The Washington Times. 20 June 2009 <http://www.washingtontimes.com/>.

Tomorrow's topic: ACORN

What are American Czars?

Lately we've been hearing a lot about czars. But aren't czars what Russia called their rulers before going communist? Thats true, but now the term is being used on the Obama administration, and not with a positive connotation.

The term "czar" did originate in Russia. In America, we tend to attach a negative connotation to the word along the lines of "an all-powerful, micro-managing tyrant." The word first appeared in the States during the Reagan administration. The "Drug Czar" oversaw the war on drug traffiking and usage, but was, for the most part, unsuccessful and costly.

The concept of a czar in American government was put aside for the most part until the Bush Sr. administration. President Bush Sr. appointed "czars" for several issues in the American government.

American czars in the 21st Century, according to the Obama administration, are "newly created positions imbued with unprecedented authority to cut through the bureaucracy and get things done" (Lute 1). So far President Obama has appointed czars to oversee government action in several areas; Katrina relief, economy, technology, climate, health care, energy, and intelligence, just to name a few. The purpose of the czar is to regulate and oversee the governmental involvement in these areas of interest.

The Obama administration has created the following "czar" positions:

• Drug Czar - responsible for trying to control the flood of illegal drugs into the United States.
• U.S. Border Czar - works on issues along the turbulent U.S.-Mexican border.
• Urban Czar - works on city issues
• Stimulus Accountability Czar - ensures the $787 billion in economic stimulus funds is spent properly.
• Iran Czar - seeks to improve U.S. relations with Iran and head off its nuclear ambitions.
• Energy Czar - has the global-warming portfolio.

These are just a few of the newly elected "czars."

So why is everyone upset about these czars?

The main issue here, is consitutionality. The problem with these so-called "czar" positions, is that the people elected to them, and their staff, are not accountable to Congress. This raises the issue, who are they held accountable to?

They fall directly under the executive branch, which means they answer to the president. Many people are worried that the creation of these "czar" positions gives the executive branch too much unchecked power.

Our country was founded on a system of checks and balances, which ensures that no one branch of government has too much power. It also ensures that if one branch does begin to overstep its boundaries, the other two branches of government can stop it.

Some people believe that these czars undermine this system of checks and balances, allowing the executive branch to control too much of the federal government without being accountable to the other two branches.

So what do you think? Are these czars unconstituional? Or simply a new means of distributing power, and responsibility? Will they be successful in their goals? Post your opinion, or ask more questions. I'd love to hear from you.

Check out my opinion at AmeriKad.

-Kaydee

Bibliography

"DeMint on Fox." 11 June 2009. Jim DeMint. 19 June 2009 <http://www.demint.senate.gov/>.

Lute, Douglas. "The Tin-Star Title." 20 May 2007. The New York Times. 19 June 2009 <http://www.americanthinker.com/>.

Myer, Bob. "Obama's Czars." 13 Nov. 2008. American Thinker. 19 June 2009 <http://www.americanthinker.com/>.

Will, George. "American Czars." 28 Dec. 2008. The Washington Post. 19 June 2009. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/>.

What is TARP?

If you read "The Letter" post on my parent blog site AmeriKad, or have been following the news, you may have heard about a program called TARP. But what exactly is TARP?

First, let's take a look at what led up to the creation of this program. The problem began with banks that made home loans to consumers who couldn't afford to pay them back. These mortgages were then sold to Wall Street investors who then sold these "mortgage-backed securities" ("What is Congress" 1) to other investors. Eventually, these investors realized that they had invested in securities that were losing money because homeowners began to default on their mortgages. Naturally, these investors sought to sell out these securities and cut their losses.

So many investors participated in the mortgage-backed security market, that virtual every aspect of the US banking and financial services sector was deeply, and negatively affected. In layman's terms; banks were losing money, and losing it fast. Because of this, they began hoarding money, not loaning it out to anyone. This resulted in mass unemployment, and the laying off of employees by large and small businesses alike.

Now comes the involvement of the government, and the creation of TARP, or Troubled Assets Relief Program. To address the growing economical and financial problem, the government authorized the United States Treasury to spend over $700 billion to stabalize the economy through TARP on October 3rd 2008.

TARP was designed to take bad mortgages out of the hands of American banks, and into the hands of the federal government. TARP takes the "toxic" ("The Troubled" 2) mortgages out of the financial system, and allows the credit needed to fuel the economy to be issued.

The problem is that there is a lack of certainty about the value of mortgage assets, and trading in them has virtually ceased. Because these toxic loans are stuck on the balance sheets of banks, these institutions are unable to issue new productive loans.

So whats the hype about?

The issues here are money, and transparency.

As I explained previously, TARP takes the debt of the failed mortgages from the banks and brings it to the federal government. The problem is that it's not just the federal government that is taking on this debt; it's the American taxpayers. That's billions of dollars of debt that the American taxpayers now owe.

Transparency is an issue as well; neither the Obama administration nor Congress have presented a reasonable plan as to how we're going to pay this debt off. It is generally accepted that to pay off such a high debt, we would need to increase taxes. And we all know an increase in taxes is not something anyone wants.

If you would like to view the legislation that proposed TARP, visit The Trouble Asset Relief Program. This site gives the full text of the bill, and background information as well.

What do you think? Post your opinions, and weigh in on the subject. I'd love to hear what you think.

-Kaydee


Bibliography

"What is Congress doing to help the nation's economy?" 2 Feb. 2009. Jeff Bingaman. 19 June 2009 <http://www.bingaman.senate.gov/>.

"The Trouble Asset Relief Profram." TARP. 19 June 2009 <http://www.troubled-asset-relief-program.net/>.

What is the Federal Reserve?

If you've been watching the news recently, you've probably heard a lot about the Federal Reserve. So what is the Federal Reserve exactly, and why are people hyped up about it?

The Federal Reserve System, established in 1913 with the signing of the Federal Reserve Act by President Woodrow Wilson, is the central banking system of the United States. It was created to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system.

There are three parts to the system: the Board of Governors, the Federal Open Market Committee, and the 12 Regional Federal Reserve Banks.

Board of Governors - oversees the Federal Reserve System. It's made up of seven members who are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, and lead by a Chairman and a Vice Chairman.

Regional Federal Reserve Banks - Under the Federal Reserve System, the U.S. is divided into twelve regions or districts. Each district has a Reserve Bank serving/operating in it. The twelve banks are named after the cities where they are located; Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Richmond, Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Dallas, and San Francisco. The picture up top shows the 12 different Federal Reserve Districts.

Responsibilities of "The Fed"

• Oversee and conduct the nation's monetary policy to help maintain employment, keep prices stable, and interest rates relatively low. (monetary policy - actions taken by the Federal Reserve to help encourage a healthy economy).
• Supervise and regulate banks.
• Provide financial services (including loans) to the U.S. government, and foreign national banks.
• Distributing money to the nation's banks, credit unions, savings banks, and loan associations.
• Distributing information about the local and national economy.

Common Misconception: The Fed doesn't print paper money, or produce coins.

FOMC - stands for Federal Open Market Committee. This committee consists of 12 members; the seven members of the Board of Governors, and five of the Regional Federal Reserve Bank Presidents (chosen randomly). It's purpose is to determine the nation's financial policy, and report it's conclusions to the public.

So why has the Fed been in the news recently?

Simply put it, the Obama administration has proposed a bill that would give the Federal Reserve System, and thereby the Board of Governors, more power in order to guard our economy against the types of risks that could bring down the entire system.
The administration wants the Fed to have the legal ability to regulate large companies such as General Motors. If these big institutions fail, they believe it could potentially ruin our economy. Through government regulation, the Obama administration intends to prevent this from happening.

So what's the problem? This sounds good.

It's true, this does sound like a great plan. However, there are some constitutional issues to consider. If the Fed is allowed to control large institutions, it means they are allowed to control major contributors to important consumer industries; health care, banking, automotive, and major commodities.

The question then becomes, is this consitutional? Some people say that this measure would ensure the success and recovery of our economy. Others say that government regulation of private businesses goes against the Constitution, which by its nature favors state's rights over federal power.

What do you think? Post your opinions, and join the national debate. Check out my opinion at AmeriKad.

-Kaydee

Bibliography:

"Federal Reserve: Kids Page." 10 May 2007. The Federal Reserve Board. 19 June 2009 <http://www.federalreserve.gov/>.

"Federal Reserve System." The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2008. Encyclopedia.com. 19 June 2009 <http://www.encyclopedia.com/>.

"Administration Pledges to Overhaul Financial System." 15 June 2009. FoxNews.com. 19 June 2009 <http://www.foxnews.com/politics>.