Posts
It seems to me, after thoughtful reflection, that smokers have at least two things in common with gay people. Both groups pay higher taxes, smokers have an exorbitant sales tax on tobacco products, and gay people are denied marital options on their income tax. Smokers and gay people face similar discrimination when it comes to health insurance also.
On the political level gay rights are about money, and those issues should be addressed. It is an unfortunate truth, however, that there just isn't room for the gay marriage issue at the federal level at this point in time.
If you followed Barack Obama through his first 100 days, then you know he's a pretty busy guy. North Korea is being a pain and the Somali pirates have been upstaged by a Supreme Court Justice nomination. The auto industry problems are not helping Wall Street. I'm sorry gay people, but there is nothing wrong with gay marriage being decided on a State by State basis. Decisions are being made.
Compromises, however, still need to be negotiated. Perhaps states who vote against gay marriage should not be allowed to charge a state income tax. That would at least give gay people some tax relief, which is one of the things they are asking for. Sorry California.
There's a lot of talk right now about restructuring the way California operates. They might want to take a look at the money section I wrote earlier if they need a few ideas getting started, but California has a lot of creative people living there, surely they can come up with something better than another federal bailout.
I remember hearing about several states that turned down their portion of the recovery money. Perhaps we could use the money they rejected to help California. Perhaps California will legalize and tax marijuana.
Every state contributes to the federal process, but every state also has the right to it's own individuality. We don't all have to be alike. It's okay that we're different.
Gay people can get married in Vermont and Iowa and last time I checked we honor marriages from each other's states. I know that's not a perfect solution, but for right now, could we just be happy with it? Personally, I think gay people will win the battle if they simply get gay marriage to be legal in Vegas.
I will say that I do not support the issue of gay marriage on the federal level at any point in time, simply because it is not an issue that can separate church and state no matter how hard it tries. The money arguments are in fact a matter of civil rights, however, the marriage aspect is historically a religous sacrament instituted by churches. I do not believe any church should be forced or coerced into performing marriages that go against their church doctrine. You have to keep in mind that the U.S. of A. was founded on freedom of religion. The Mormons have a right to their beliefs, as do the Catholics, the Methodists, the Muslims and the Jews.
I realize some people believe being gay is a choice and some people believe being gay is matter of biology. It seems to me that being gay is much like being an alcoholic. Nobody chooses to be an alcoholic, however, a lot of people choose not to drink. Those who know they are alcoholics and choose to drink anyway suffer the consequences of their own actions.
I suppose it might be different if being gay were acceptable worldwide, but it isn't. In some countries being gay is punishable by death. Even the ancient Greeks who promoted homosexuality among men in order for older men to teach younger men about sex believed that after a certain age homosexuality was not acceptable, according to Plato's Republic. And just so we're clear, Plato's Republic was the first major work ever written on the subject of political philosophy some 2500 years ago, before the existence of Christianity.
I don't believe gay people should have to pay higher taxes, or face job discrimination, or be the victims of hate, but then I'm a smoker.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Security
When 9/11 proved that our national security was an illusion, we began to work harder to achieve as much security as we could for our country. It is much wiser to be cautious and safe, than to panic and live in fear, however, being cautious does not necessarily mean we have to be paranoid.
I don't believe many will argue that the whole Guantanamo Bay situation is a mess from start to finish, however, I also believe that all sides are to blame for the mess. An investigation, at this point, would be a waste of time and money. I blame the Bush administration for not being more discreet and promoting fear. I blame the Obama administration for making things worse by releasing memos that only prove transparency in government is a useful tool to distract the masses when you don't want them watching what you are doing, and I blame the media for having bad taste in promoting the whole sordid mess. I sincerely hope the courts have the good sense not to make pictures available to the public. No good can come from doing such a thing.
As much as I don't like the whole issue of waterboarding, the fact of the matter is that Al Jazeera, our enemies television station, broadcasts the beheading of their prisoners. I think we are by far the more civilized people and I find it very doubtful they don't already know we use waterboarding. Releasing the memos wasn't a matter of national security, it was simply a matter of poor taste.
The primary question we have to ask ourselves is do we want to wait for terrorists to come to us, or do we want to hunt them down?
If we wait for them to come to us, then we have a lot of work to do securing our borders. Just because one exercises patience doesn't mean they have a death wish. We already know what their intention is. It's up to us to prepare ourselves for their return.
If we hunt them down, then the second question becomes, what do we do with them when we catch them? The assumption is that we're hunting them, so we can find Osama Bin Laden, therefore, we kind of need to ask them what they know about him. We have to have someplace to ask our questions. Since it's not likely they want to talk to us, they might have to be our guests for awhile, unless of course we simply want to have a polite conversation and let them go on their merry way when they don't answer any of our questions or give us any useful information.
Now I admit, I'm not certain exactly what all the legal ramifications and responsibilities are in this situation, but I am fairly certain that we do have laws that only allow people in this country to be detained for questioning for a certain number of hours or days. These laws make it impossible for us to keep suspected terrorists in our police stations for any length of time, but I don't know if these laws necessarily have to apply to any of our military bases. I believe a military base of some kind is the appropriate place to put the people we catch. It isn't right to put anyone in prison that hasn't been convicted of a crime. I also think it wouldn't be a bad idea for the military to conduct terrorist trials. We all know how backed up our public courts already are. I don't believe the military has that problem.
As for which military base, I don't know. I'll leave that up to my elected officials, at least for now. I'm not sure there are many Americans who live on military bases that want the terrorists on their base, but I could be wrong. I know we have military bases in other countries, but I don't know if other countries will let us take our detainees there.
Yes, it is politically correct to use the term detainees, but the people we catch are really prisoners of war. We declared war on terrorism. We are fighting an army of terrorists. Did you really think we wouldn't take any prisoners? Do you really think using nicer words will make war more tolerable? Waterboarding may not be pretty, but think about what they do to their prisoners of war. I am by no means suggesting we stoop to their level. War will always be ugly. Deal with it. People choose to give up their civil/human rights when they choose to fly planes into buildings full of other people.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
I don't believe many will argue that the whole Guantanamo Bay situation is a mess from start to finish, however, I also believe that all sides are to blame for the mess. An investigation, at this point, would be a waste of time and money. I blame the Bush administration for not being more discreet and promoting fear. I blame the Obama administration for making things worse by releasing memos that only prove transparency in government is a useful tool to distract the masses when you don't want them watching what you are doing, and I blame the media for having bad taste in promoting the whole sordid mess. I sincerely hope the courts have the good sense not to make pictures available to the public. No good can come from doing such a thing.
As much as I don't like the whole issue of waterboarding, the fact of the matter is that Al Jazeera, our enemies television station, broadcasts the beheading of their prisoners. I think we are by far the more civilized people and I find it very doubtful they don't already know we use waterboarding. Releasing the memos wasn't a matter of national security, it was simply a matter of poor taste.
The primary question we have to ask ourselves is do we want to wait for terrorists to come to us, or do we want to hunt them down?
If we wait for them to come to us, then we have a lot of work to do securing our borders. Just because one exercises patience doesn't mean they have a death wish. We already know what their intention is. It's up to us to prepare ourselves for their return.
If we hunt them down, then the second question becomes, what do we do with them when we catch them? The assumption is that we're hunting them, so we can find Osama Bin Laden, therefore, we kind of need to ask them what they know about him. We have to have someplace to ask our questions. Since it's not likely they want to talk to us, they might have to be our guests for awhile, unless of course we simply want to have a polite conversation and let them go on their merry way when they don't answer any of our questions or give us any useful information.
Now I admit, I'm not certain exactly what all the legal ramifications and responsibilities are in this situation, but I am fairly certain that we do have laws that only allow people in this country to be detained for questioning for a certain number of hours or days. These laws make it impossible for us to keep suspected terrorists in our police stations for any length of time, but I don't know if these laws necessarily have to apply to any of our military bases. I believe a military base of some kind is the appropriate place to put the people we catch. It isn't right to put anyone in prison that hasn't been convicted of a crime. I also think it wouldn't be a bad idea for the military to conduct terrorist trials. We all know how backed up our public courts already are. I don't believe the military has that problem.
As for which military base, I don't know. I'll leave that up to my elected officials, at least for now. I'm not sure there are many Americans who live on military bases that want the terrorists on their base, but I could be wrong. I know we have military bases in other countries, but I don't know if other countries will let us take our detainees there.
Yes, it is politically correct to use the term detainees, but the people we catch are really prisoners of war. We declared war on terrorism. We are fighting an army of terrorists. Did you really think we wouldn't take any prisoners? Do you really think using nicer words will make war more tolerable? Waterboarding may not be pretty, but think about what they do to their prisoners of war. I am by no means suggesting we stoop to their level. War will always be ugly. Deal with it. People choose to give up their civil/human rights when they choose to fly planes into buildings full of other people.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Government
The theory that supports the existence of all forms of government is that government exists in order to take care of the segment of the population over which it rules that cannot take care of themselves. Babies cannot take care of themselves. Therefore, government exists, at least in part, to take care of babies.
President Obama has proposed spending money to provide home visits to low-income, first-time parents by trained professionals.
I do not support this initiative. In the first place, this sounds to me like an increase of power for Child Protective Service agencies. They already have too much power to destroy families. The State of Texas proved that when more than 400 children were taken from their families over one phone call. If you want to arrest men for practicing polygamy because it is illegal in this country, then go for it, but do not traumatize the women and children who haven't done anything wrong. You don't have to agree with their beliefs any more than they have to agree with yours. But no one should have the right to traumatize countless families over one phone call. It's just not right.
If we want to make sure our babies are taken care of, then yes, we do need to make sure the parents have the necessary skills to accomplish this goal. I, however, believe that investing more money in public school education and community sponsored parenting classes is a better way. Keep CPS out of it.
I propose putting a daycare center in every high school and allowing students to learn first hand about child care from taking a class that will increase not only their knowledge, but their job skills. Who knows, an hour a day with real, crying, diaper changing needing babies might be a good way to help high school students decide getting pregnant isn't something they want to do while they're still in school. It's just a thought.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
President Obama has proposed spending money to provide home visits to low-income, first-time parents by trained professionals.
I do not support this initiative. In the first place, this sounds to me like an increase of power for Child Protective Service agencies. They already have too much power to destroy families. The State of Texas proved that when more than 400 children were taken from their families over one phone call. If you want to arrest men for practicing polygamy because it is illegal in this country, then go for it, but do not traumatize the women and children who haven't done anything wrong. You don't have to agree with their beliefs any more than they have to agree with yours. But no one should have the right to traumatize countless families over one phone call. It's just not right.
If we want to make sure our babies are taken care of, then yes, we do need to make sure the parents have the necessary skills to accomplish this goal. I, however, believe that investing more money in public school education and community sponsored parenting classes is a better way. Keep CPS out of it.
I propose putting a daycare center in every high school and allowing students to learn first hand about child care from taking a class that will increase not only their knowledge, but their job skills. Who knows, an hour a day with real, crying, diaper changing needing babies might be a good way to help high school students decide getting pregnant isn't something they want to do while they're still in school. It's just a thought.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Reality
When looking at the big picture, reality is global. What we do will have an effect on other people in other countries. Our economic crisis proved that. What other people in other countries choose to do will have an effect on us. Cuba, Mexico, Pakistan, North Korea, China, all prove that. Still, no matter what does or doesn't happen, the worst thing we can do is panic. Swine Flu proved that.
So what do we do now? Well, first thing on my list, is pray. I pray to God, to the Universe, to whatever powers that be that might be listening. Hope requires faith of some kind and I have a lot of hope. Second thing on my list, is to take care of my own personal medical needs. If I want to be useful, then I have to be at least moderately healthy and moderately clean. What we all need to be doing now is paying attention to our own realities without fear.
I've noticed that the media uses fear to make money. I've stopped watching my local news. I don't think criminals deserve to have their names broadcast in my home. I don't want to be suportive of murderers and rapists. I don't want to be a part of their 15 minutes of fame. But that's just me. I still watch the world news. I want to keep up with what's going on in my country. But I have learned that there is such a thing as watching too much television news, so I limit myself to thirty minutes per day.
Reality is that I've got a guy that's getting paid to pay attention to the big picture for me and his name is Barack Obama. He doesn't look scared. Looks can be deceiving. That's why I keep an eye on him. He does, on occasion, get mildly annoyed with reporters. I guess that's one thing he and I have in common.
Reality's not as bad as it looks or seems. Not when you have hope, mixed with a little faith, and some self-respect thrown in for good measure. I hope I live long enough to watch my grandchildren grow up. I have faith that whatever is meant to be will be. I respect myself enough to not want to live my life in fear.
People who use fear to manipulate other people are by definition, terrorists. I don't want to be a terrorist and I don't want to know any terrorists. Just knowing that they exist inspires me to pray. People in other countries are not as fortunate as I am.
Reality is, no matter how bad things might be for people in our country, just about everybody here has it better than a lot of other people in several different countries. Reality is I live in America. I am very lucky. I just hope I remember everyday to be grateful for that.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
So what do we do now? Well, first thing on my list, is pray. I pray to God, to the Universe, to whatever powers that be that might be listening. Hope requires faith of some kind and I have a lot of hope. Second thing on my list, is to take care of my own personal medical needs. If I want to be useful, then I have to be at least moderately healthy and moderately clean. What we all need to be doing now is paying attention to our own realities without fear.
I've noticed that the media uses fear to make money. I've stopped watching my local news. I don't think criminals deserve to have their names broadcast in my home. I don't want to be suportive of murderers and rapists. I don't want to be a part of their 15 minutes of fame. But that's just me. I still watch the world news. I want to keep up with what's going on in my country. But I have learned that there is such a thing as watching too much television news, so I limit myself to thirty minutes per day.
Reality is that I've got a guy that's getting paid to pay attention to the big picture for me and his name is Barack Obama. He doesn't look scared. Looks can be deceiving. That's why I keep an eye on him. He does, on occasion, get mildly annoyed with reporters. I guess that's one thing he and I have in common.
Reality's not as bad as it looks or seems. Not when you have hope, mixed with a little faith, and some self-respect thrown in for good measure. I hope I live long enough to watch my grandchildren grow up. I have faith that whatever is meant to be will be. I respect myself enough to not want to live my life in fear.
People who use fear to manipulate other people are by definition, terrorists. I don't want to be a terrorist and I don't want to know any terrorists. Just knowing that they exist inspires me to pray. People in other countries are not as fortunate as I am.
Reality is, no matter how bad things might be for people in our country, just about everybody here has it better than a lot of other people in several different countries. Reality is I live in America. I am very lucky. I just hope I remember everyday to be grateful for that.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Recovery
In February of this year, President Obama got a $787 billion stimulus package through Congress. This money is supposedly going to stimulate the economy, help the people that elected all the politicians and put our country back on track....sometime within the next 10 years.
It is interesting to note, that while this stimulus package, also referred to as The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, is attached to the 2009 fiscal year budget, not all of the money will be spent in 2009.
In keeping with his promise for transparency in government, however, Barack Obama has made certain that we can all have access to where and how this money is spent.
Supposedly, if you're interested, almost every penny will be accounted for here:
http://www.recovery.gov/
If you're interested in just how much money went to each government department and how much of it they've spent so far, you can go here:
http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/investments-agency
If you're interested in how much of the stimulus package was made available to your state and for what purpose, you can go here:
http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/investments-state
If you want to read the actual Recovery Act, and compare it's intent with it's actual outcome, you can go here:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.pdf
If, after reading the Recovery Act you have anything to say about it, please, by all means, put your comments here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ARRA_public_review/
I heard a lot of complaints about the stimulus package in January and February, before it passed, but I haven't really heard the media report much about the actual spending of it, other than a couple of states that didn't want their share of the money. I really hope Texas does not secede from the union. I'd rather have Barack Obama as my President than Chuck Norris. No offense.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
It is interesting to note, that while this stimulus package, also referred to as The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, is attached to the 2009 fiscal year budget, not all of the money will be spent in 2009.
In keeping with his promise for transparency in government, however, Barack Obama has made certain that we can all have access to where and how this money is spent.
Supposedly, if you're interested, almost every penny will be accounted for here:
http://www.recovery.gov/
If you're interested in just how much money went to each government department and how much of it they've spent so far, you can go here:
http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/investments-agency
If you're interested in how much of the stimulus package was made available to your state and for what purpose, you can go here:
http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/investments-state
If you want to read the actual Recovery Act, and compare it's intent with it's actual outcome, you can go here:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.pdf
If, after reading the Recovery Act you have anything to say about it, please, by all means, put your comments here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ARRA_public_review/
I heard a lot of complaints about the stimulus package in January and February, before it passed, but I haven't really heard the media report much about the actual spending of it, other than a couple of states that didn't want their share of the money. I really hope Texas does not secede from the union. I'd rather have Barack Obama as my President than Chuck Norris. No offense.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Family
Family is a good thing. We don't always think so, but it's true. All families have issues. Nobody's perfect. Our new President seems to be big on families. A large portion of his budget proposal, as well as his stimulus package is directed towards "middle-class" families. In fact, President Obama is so big on families that he put Vice-President Biden in charge of the White House Task Force on Middle-Class Working Families.
I've been wondering what the Vice-President's been up to and now I know. His task force has a website. http://www.whitehouse.gov/StrongMiddleClass/
Now the stimulus package that was passed in February supposedly contained money to subsidize COBRA insurance payments, cover the Child Tax Credit, give $2 billion to the Child Care and Development Block Grant, $1 billion to Head Start, and $1.1 billion to Early Head Start, $20 billion for Food Stamps, funding for food banks and WIC. In addition, the stimulus package included $5 billion to help low income families make their homes more energy efficient, and $3.95 billion for the Workforce Investment system,to support green job training, summer jobs for young people, and other opportunities, $25 per week for Unemployment recipients and incentives for states to expand unemployment eligibility, as well as an extra $250 payment to Social Security and SSI beneficiaries and new resources for the TANF program.
I tell you these things so you'll know what families are already supposed to be getting. The Vice-President and his task force have asked that you send them your ideas on the following subjects:
1) How can we make retirement secure?
2) How can we make child and elder care affordable?
3) How do we improve workplace safety?
4)How are we going to pay for college?
5) What can we do to help parents juggle work and family?
6) What jobs of the future can we begin to create?
No offense, but in my opinion, I think both the stimulus package and the task force failed to address the very first question they should have asked which is: How do we keep more families together?
Perhaps we might consider raising the legal age to marry to 21.
Perhaps Wal-Mart, or Target, or K-Mart, or somebody will give away board games and popcorn on "family night." After all, if Milton-Bradley really wants to promote "family-night" then they might want to consider mass give-aways of one board game to entice cash strapped families to invest in other board games.
Families that have family-night might want to invite friends or neighbors. Who knows, block parties could make a comeback.
I think I'll send some of my ideas to Mr. Biden. I hope you do the same. If we all work together, maybe we can solve all the problems. You might have the best idea. It would be a shame for you not to share it.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=valleyranchlady1" target="_top">
Free Counter
I've been wondering what the Vice-President's been up to and now I know. His task force has a website. http://www.whitehouse.gov/StrongMiddleClass/
Now the stimulus package that was passed in February supposedly contained money to subsidize COBRA insurance payments, cover the Child Tax Credit, give $2 billion to the Child Care and Development Block Grant, $1 billion to Head Start, and $1.1 billion to Early Head Start, $20 billion for Food Stamps, funding for food banks and WIC. In addition, the stimulus package included $5 billion to help low income families make their homes more energy efficient, and $3.95 billion for the Workforce Investment system,to support green job training, summer jobs for young people, and other opportunities, $25 per week for Unemployment recipients and incentives for states to expand unemployment eligibility, as well as an extra $250 payment to Social Security and SSI beneficiaries and new resources for the TANF program.
I tell you these things so you'll know what families are already supposed to be getting. The Vice-President and his task force have asked that you send them your ideas on the following subjects:
1) How can we make retirement secure?
2) How can we make child and elder care affordable?
3) How do we improve workplace safety?
4)How are we going to pay for college?
5) What can we do to help parents juggle work and family?
6) What jobs of the future can we begin to create?
No offense, but in my opinion, I think both the stimulus package and the task force failed to address the very first question they should have asked which is: How do we keep more families together?
Perhaps we might consider raising the legal age to marry to 21.
Perhaps Wal-Mart, or Target, or K-Mart, or somebody will give away board games and popcorn on "family night." After all, if Milton-Bradley really wants to promote "family-night" then they might want to consider mass give-aways of one board game to entice cash strapped families to invest in other board games.
Families that have family-night might want to invite friends or neighbors. Who knows, block parties could make a comeback.
I think I'll send some of my ideas to Mr. Biden. I hope you do the same. If we all work together, maybe we can solve all the problems. You might have the best idea. It would be a shame for you not to share it.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=valleyranchlady1" target="_top">
Free Counter
Monday, May 4, 2009
Civil Rights
In this modern era of information technology, one of President Obama's major "changes" is providing the American people with "transparency" in our government.
In order for all of us to keep up with how well he's keeping his campaign promises, the OMB website has a link to the President's agenda. This agenda is the President's list of things he wants to do while he is in office.
The first issue on President Obama's to do list is Civil Rights.
In his first 100 days in office, the President believes he made progress in the civil rights arena by signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This "act" is said to restore "basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers."
I found that interesting. In the first place, as a woman, I didn't know my basic protections needed to be restored. That would imply that at one time women apparently had these protections and then used them or damaged them in some way that they needed to be put back to their original condition.
I appreciate the President looking out for me, and I understand his drive to accomplish as much as he can in his limited time in office, but I'm not sure he did women any favors. The current job market is tough. I know people who are less concerned with pay discrimination than they are with finding a job that will keep their electricity turned on.
Minimum wage jobs look more attractive when they're about the only jobs available. Doesn't minimum wage already apply to everybody? (except migrant farm workers, of course). With so many employers going out of business these days, are there really so many women on the upper rungs of the corporate ladder, that they need Lilly Ledbetter?
Here's the kicker. For decades women have been waging a campaign for equal rights. To legally bind an employer, in the current job market, to pay a woman the same as he does a man, takes away one small edge women have in finding jobs. Good luck single moms, the job market just got tougher for you.
I think I'll keep an eye on President Obama's civil rights agenda and see what he does in the second 100 days. He intends to give the Justice Department more money to protect voting rights,and fight discriminaton in his 2010 budget. He also seems to be in favor of "Gay Rights" so he might "restore" something they don't know they've lost. That could be interesting. We shall see.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
In order for all of us to keep up with how well he's keeping his campaign promises, the OMB website has a link to the President's agenda. This agenda is the President's list of things he wants to do while he is in office.
The first issue on President Obama's to do list is Civil Rights.
In his first 100 days in office, the President believes he made progress in the civil rights arena by signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This "act" is said to restore "basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers."
I found that interesting. In the first place, as a woman, I didn't know my basic protections needed to be restored. That would imply that at one time women apparently had these protections and then used them or damaged them in some way that they needed to be put back to their original condition.
I appreciate the President looking out for me, and I understand his drive to accomplish as much as he can in his limited time in office, but I'm not sure he did women any favors. The current job market is tough. I know people who are less concerned with pay discrimination than they are with finding a job that will keep their electricity turned on.
Minimum wage jobs look more attractive when they're about the only jobs available. Doesn't minimum wage already apply to everybody? (except migrant farm workers, of course). With so many employers going out of business these days, are there really so many women on the upper rungs of the corporate ladder, that they need Lilly Ledbetter?
Here's the kicker. For decades women have been waging a campaign for equal rights. To legally bind an employer, in the current job market, to pay a woman the same as he does a man, takes away one small edge women have in finding jobs. Good luck single moms, the job market just got tougher for you.
I think I'll keep an eye on President Obama's civil rights agenda and see what he does in the second 100 days. He intends to give the Justice Department more money to protect voting rights,and fight discriminaton in his 2010 budget. He also seems to be in favor of "Gay Rights" so he might "restore" something they don't know they've lost. That could be interesting. We shall see.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Friday, May 1, 2009
The Cabinet
Now that the first 100 days are over, it's time for a crash course in government. We've seen what our President can be capable of, now we have to figure out exactly what we want him to do.
First, it would seem that the one thing we all agree on, is that our primary focus these next 100 days has to do with our money. We can't do anything about the past. What's done is done. Fiscal year 2009 ends September 30th. We have to have a better budget to work with in 2010.
The federal budget is our nation's list of priorities and goals. The currently proposed budget lists our priorities and goals as follows:
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
National Intelligence Program
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of State and Other International Programs
Department of Transportation
Department of the Treasury
Department of Veterans Affairs
Corps of Engineers—Civil Works
Environmental Protection Agency
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Small Business Administration
Social Security Administration
Corporation for National and Community Service.
When any President gets elected, they have an agenda, a list of campaign promises, things they want to accomplish while they're in office, all of which are going to cost money.
One of the first things a new President has to do is hire a team of people that are going to help him achieve his goals. This team will be known as his Cabinet. These are his advisors. These are the people that will put together the numbers that tell the President how much his goals are going to cost.
Barack Obama's team of advisors are:
Vice President of the United States
Joseph R. Biden
Department of State
Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton
Department of the Treasury
Secretary Timothy F. Geithner
Department of Defense
Secretary Robert M. Gates
Department of Justice
Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Department of the Interior
Secretary Kenneth L. Salazar
Department of Agriculture
Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack
Department of Commerce
Secretary Gary F. Locke
Department of Labor
Secretary Hilda L. Solis
Department of Health and Human Services
Secretary-designate: Kathleen Sebelius
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary Shaun L.S. Donovan
Department of Transportation
Secretary Raymond L. LaHood
Department of Energy
Secretary Steven Chu
Department of Education
Secretary Arne Duncan
Department of Veterans Affairs
Secretary Eric K. Shinseki
Department of Homeland Security
Secretary Janet A. Napolitano
The following positions have the status of Cabinet-rank:
Council of Economic Advisers
Chair Christina Romer
Environmental Protection Agency
Administrator Lisa P. Jackson
Office of Management & Budget
Director Peter R. Orszag
United States Trade Representative
Ambassador Ronald Kirk
United States Ambassador to the United Nations
Ambassador Susan Rice
White House Chief of Staff
Rahm I. Emanuel
Now, when talking about the budget, the guy to pay particular attention to is the Director of the Office of Management & Budget, Peter R. Orszag. Peter is not only the guy that disburses the money, he's also the guy every other department head must defend their budget to. When it comes to the budget, it's Peter's job to cover the President's derriere. Whatever makes it into our budget, has to make it past Peter first!
If you're interested in keeping up with your tax dollars, then make this one of your favorite places, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
Mr. Orszag may well be the person to send any correspondence regarding the federal budget. At the very least, he would be one person we might want to inform of what we don't want in there. It's just a thought.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
First, it would seem that the one thing we all agree on, is that our primary focus these next 100 days has to do with our money. We can't do anything about the past. What's done is done. Fiscal year 2009 ends September 30th. We have to have a better budget to work with in 2010.
The federal budget is our nation's list of priorities and goals. The currently proposed budget lists our priorities and goals as follows:
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
National Intelligence Program
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of State and Other International Programs
Department of Transportation
Department of the Treasury
Department of Veterans Affairs
Corps of Engineers—Civil Works
Environmental Protection Agency
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Small Business Administration
Social Security Administration
Corporation for National and Community Service.
When any President gets elected, they have an agenda, a list of campaign promises, things they want to accomplish while they're in office, all of which are going to cost money.
One of the first things a new President has to do is hire a team of people that are going to help him achieve his goals. This team will be known as his Cabinet. These are his advisors. These are the people that will put together the numbers that tell the President how much his goals are going to cost.
Barack Obama's team of advisors are:
Vice President of the United States
Joseph R. Biden
Department of State
Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton
Department of the Treasury
Secretary Timothy F. Geithner
Department of Defense
Secretary Robert M. Gates
Department of Justice
Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Department of the Interior
Secretary Kenneth L. Salazar
Department of Agriculture
Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack
Department of Commerce
Secretary Gary F. Locke
Department of Labor
Secretary Hilda L. Solis
Department of Health and Human Services
Secretary-designate: Kathleen Sebelius
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary Shaun L.S. Donovan
Department of Transportation
Secretary Raymond L. LaHood
Department of Energy
Secretary Steven Chu
Department of Education
Secretary Arne Duncan
Department of Veterans Affairs
Secretary Eric K. Shinseki
Department of Homeland Security
Secretary Janet A. Napolitano
The following positions have the status of Cabinet-rank:
Council of Economic Advisers
Chair Christina Romer
Environmental Protection Agency
Administrator Lisa P. Jackson
Office of Management & Budget
Director Peter R. Orszag
United States Trade Representative
Ambassador Ronald Kirk
United States Ambassador to the United Nations
Ambassador Susan Rice
White House Chief of Staff
Rahm I. Emanuel
Now, when talking about the budget, the guy to pay particular attention to is the Director of the Office of Management & Budget, Peter R. Orszag. Peter is not only the guy that disburses the money, he's also the guy every other department head must defend their budget to. When it comes to the budget, it's Peter's job to cover the President's derriere. Whatever makes it into our budget, has to make it past Peter first!
If you're interested in keeping up with your tax dollars, then make this one of your favorite places, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
Mr. Orszag may well be the person to send any correspondence regarding the federal budget. At the very least, he would be one person we might want to inform of what we don't want in there. It's just a thought.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
