Expansion in the House for Better Representation?

In the House of Representatives there are 435 members who represent about 700k constituents each. It is not hard to see why this is a major problem for most of the population. One man/woman is responsible to make 700,000 voices heard loud and clear. The idea is far-fetched and unreasonable. 

Many ask "How will the system work?"

Even if the House were to expand by tripling the number of representatives, each member wouldn't have less than 250,000 constituents. I firmly believe that expanding the house will not solve any major issues. The most it will do is produce more "backbenchers", people who do not have any exact responsibilities but have plenty of noise going on around them. 

Another problem with having a bigger House is that the nation would end up with more unbalanced districts. Expanding the Congress would literally make more problems rather than solving them. 

I do believe that expanding could help in the long-run, but only when/if people get smart. The reason why there is only a 12% approval rate is because there is a 95% re-election rate. If every district believes that their congressman is superior to all the others, there will never be change. The House needs new, fresh representatives, raise the approval rate, and actually contribute to make the difference everyone is always talking about. 

In conclusion, we should not expand the House of Representatives. Until the population can open up their eyes and make the change, expanding will be a waste of time and money. 

Same Sex Marriage

 "Same sex marriage is recognized in fourteen out of fifty states in our country. A country also known as the promise land where citizens are suppose to have rights and be equal to one another. Yet two individuals of the same gender can't be joined as one because the federal government does not believe it is constitutional. President Barack Obama is the first sitting president to publicly declare support for the legalization of same sex civil marriage, which of course made conservatives go crazy.
     What is the big deal about allowing two people of the same sex join in matrimony. They should be able to have the same benefits as any heterosexual marrying. This would extend a civil right to a minority group. An American history scholar, Nancy Cott argues that "there really is no comparison, because there is nothing like marriage except marriage."
     Opponents of same sex marriage ground their arguments on parenting concern, religious concerns, concerns that would change the definition of marriage that could lead to incest or polygamy. All which comes to one simple conclusion  if you do not agree with it don't deal with it. If you don't like people who are homosexuals or think it is against your religion then don't be around them. But it is not fair that because certain people disagree with something that has no affect in their personal life what so ever others have to sacrifice tremendously.
     The gay community isn't asking for the American flag to be changed to a rainbow one all they want is the same respect and rights any other individual demands. They deserve to be able to be under their spouses health plan or inherit any property if one was to pass. Same sex marriage doesn't have to accepted by everyone but it should simply be respected and be treated like any other marriage." -http://mguerrero22.blogspot.com/


Many conservatives have been raised on such traditional values that it may be all they know. It is no excuse to discriminate against homosexuals, bisexuals or transgenders. 
There are many benefits to having same sex couples. For example, due to the incapability of reproducing, the couples have a choice to adopt children. They are providing a child with a home. 
I fully support the author about this huge controversy. Same sex couple should be able to get married in all 50 states. This country is the UNITED states of America, so why are only 14 states allowing same sex marriage? This separates us as a country. 
I enjoyed reading this article because not only did she include facts, but also added in her own personal opinions and feelings to it. It was not dry or boring.
The author has established her credibility by providing quotes and statistics. However, it would have been a more persuading article if there was an opposing argument. Having that would bring up more issues with this topic in the author's favor. One last criticism for the author would be to supply the audience with possible solutions. How do we get every state to change their same sex laws? How will conservatives react? Will it even work? Including these things will successfully execute the topic.

Race to Renew

Before the Affordable Care Act takes the full effect on January 1, 2014, many small business owners are trying to renew their policies. 2014 may be the last year most companies will even offer health insurance. People who are not insured by Jan. 1 may face a penalty. Each year, the penalties will increase:
2014 annual penalty is $95/person with up to a maximum of $285 per family OR 1% of family income.
2015 annual penalty is $325/person with up to a maximum of $975 per family OR 2% of family income.
2016 annual penalty is $695/person with up to a maximum of $2,085 per family OR 2.5% of family income.
Whichever is the greater amount, is what the family will be penalized with. Children penalties are half of the amount.
If you are already insured, children can remain on their parent's plan until they reach the age of 26.
Companies are restricted to drop you if you become sick. Also, after the deadline employers can still adjust premiums, plans, and deductibles.
For college students, the insurance options are either with a school plan or with parents if the student can't afford it. Students who can't afford insurance, but make an income that is above the federal poverty level can qualify for Medicaid benefits. Other inexpensive plans are good for students but will only cover situations where intensive care is needed.
Citizens who have low income may be exempt, but they have to have certain qualifications. If you are exempt, that means you must pay more than 8% of your family income. If you do not fit the qualifications, but the insurance is still too high for you, you can use the Health insurance marketplace to find lower costs on monthly premiums.
Lastly, if you are over the age of 65, the health care closes the temporary limit on what the drug plan covers. Medicare covers preventive care services.

The population needs to be informed about the causes and effects of Obamacare. The people must know their options before having to pay hundreds of dollars annually.

Is the Government the Nation's Biggest Criminal?

Published on October 23, 2013, New York Times' contributing opinion writer and longtime Wall Street executive, Steven Rattner wrote the article "The Biggest Economy Killer: Our Government."

The article was written in the appeal of pathos and logos. Rattner passionately wrote about how the government shutdown was the most irresponsible decision the government has made. He uses many examples so his audience could relate to the matter and have a better understanding of the issue. He uses big numbers and precise percentages in his writing, without euphemising anything. The article contains numerous factual evidence following the shutdown. 

Not only did Rattner successfully inform his readers, but he also provided solutions. His article was very informative and did not lack professionalism. The graphs provided the audience with visuals that may have been easier to understand than his technical terms in the writing itself. One reason why his work was enjoyable to read is because he keeps a balanced mindset and does not harshly antagonize one side.

 "In overall spending, the lack of a thoughtful budgeting process in Congress has shifted priorities in unfortunate ways."

This article was very well written, provided facts and solutions to how it could have been handled differently. It also persuaded his audience to rethink about what the government is doing to our own economy.  

Mass Murderers & National Security Leakers

On Sunday, September 29, 2013, a USA Today journalist published an opinionated argument article, "Security clearance flaws: Our view". The article explains the similarities that Aaron Alexis, mass murderer, and Edward Snowden, national security secrets leaker, had in common: national security clearance.

The author does an excellent job of "digging" up the unknown information about the two men to inform the audience that they should be upset with the government. They note many major flaws that are towards Alexis' credibility. I enjoyed reading this article not only because I agree with the author, but also because the author kept their audience informed. The opinion was clear from the very beginning and was not biased. Many journalist cannot be one sided because of the audience, whom varies in opinions. However, this author felt that their views needed to be shared in a powerful way.

The only problem that I had with this article was that it might have been not as relatable to the audience. It lacked examples of the problem. Instead, everything was implied, which is dangerous when explaining an argument. They carry a plethora of information and comparisons, but does not go into detail about each example. Towards the end of the work many instances were named and left unexplained. For example, "Since the Navy Yard shootings, officials in many of the agencies involved have scurried to investigate and promise reforms."  This statement was very vague and did not flow with the rest of the article. 

Overall, the article had many flaws, but also many well-written moments. The author did intensive research over the argument and influenced many about it was published. I enjoyed critiquing the author's work. 

Wall Street Profiteers > Free Higher Education?

On Monday, September 16, 2013, populist, Jim Hightower, published an eye-opening article, "Finding the money to fund higher education for all". In the article, Hightower explains how political leaders have failed to realize that providing Americans with free higher education is more beneficial than letting lobbyist profiteers "make a few more billions-of-dollars each year".  The article explains how banks and government lenders have made obtaining a higher education nearly impossible for students who want a brighter future. There is a "financial barrier" which leads to an unfair opportunity for students whom come from a wealthy family, versus students who have to constantly apply for financial aid or take out loans with mountain high interest.

Reading the article will open the public's eyes, as to where our future is going. The government is making it extremely difficult to become successful and have a financially satisfying career. Wall Street's political leaders have benefited from students shoveling money into banks in order to acquire the education needed to become a professional in their area of study. Hightower suggests that the government tax the money that the Wall Street speculators make and put it towards a free higher education system.