Is the conflict in Libya sending gas prices higher?

       We Americans love to drive, and most of us like going on road trips. Since we love cheap gas too, increasing fuel costs can put a damper on the mood to drive long distances. But across the ocean, there’s a continent filled with people like us who’ve lived with high gas prices for years. They’re called Europeans. According to an article I read in daily finance, citizens in other countries are paying almost 10 dollars per gallon at the pump! (click here to read article) In addition, an AOL News article stated, "Gasoline pump prices were already at the highest levels for this time of year prior to the Libyan rebellion, and they've now pushed even higher. The national average on Tuesday rose slightly to $3.587 per gallon, according to AAA, Wright Express and Oil Price Information Service. A gallon of regular has climbed 23.3 cents in the last month and 78.7 cents since last year. Gasoline is now more than $4 per gallon in California, Alaska and Hawaii."

       With Gadhafi's days numbered, could the conflict in Libya continue to affect our gas prices? Drivers are concerned about how the heightened conflict could change prices at the pump. With the involvement of other powers right now and military action going on, it could have a couple different effects. If it goes quickly and Gadhafi is out, it could stabilize and help oil prices. If it drags on and the infrastructure that produces the oil is damaged, that could push prices back up. The summer driving season is coming soon. Ordinarily, the price of gas rises during this time. A quick resolution to the Libyan situation, however, could bring prices down, and that would be a huge relief for drivers. Fortunately, Americans have shown that they can adjust their behavior when faced with sticker shock at the pump. As soon as gas prices rose in the past, the sale of fuel efficient and hybrid vehicles skyrocketed. The car pool was back in style, and public transit use reached a new year high. When it costs over $30 to fill up a 12 gallon tank with regular gasoline, all options are on the table.

Republican Govenors using same strategies for Budgets: Harming the Poor, Rewarding the Rich.

       I think this blog was written for the liberal audience. The author, David Dayden believes that Republican govenors are harming the poor and rewarding the rich. click to view article Dayden’s argument, “This is practically a right-wing blueprint of their budget priorities. Across the country, Republican governors want to reduce health care costs by kicking the poor off the rolls or reducing prescription drug coverage. Basic health plans that go above Medicaid are being gutted. In addition, GOP governors want to increase retirement ages or shift into 401(k)-style plans for state worker pensions, which is a terrible idea based on incorrect fearmongering about pension shortfalls. And of course, there’s the attack on unions, about which Jim DeMint was refreshingly candid today, saying that “without the unions, the Democrat Party fades away.” He also believes that solving the deficit isn’t the governors goal. I agree with the author, and the protestor in the PCCC ad, “these issues are not unique to the state of Wisconsin, these are national issues. Money is being taken away from workers, and tax breaks given to major corporations.”

       This seems to be the case in most states. Budgets take money from the poor and middle class, and give tax breaks to the rich and large corporations. I’m starting to believe that American’s political system is corrupt, and morality’s long gone. One political party, the Republicans, stands for little except tax cuts, which they place above any other goal. The Democrats have a bit wider set of interests, such as support for healthcare, education, and training. But, like the Republicans, the Democrats, are keen to shower tax cuts on their major campaign contributors, predominantly rich Americans. The US budget deficit is enormously out of control. The poor are squeezed by cuts in social programs and a weak job market. Many Americans need and depend on food stamps to eat. Despite these circumstances, one political party wants to gut tax revenues altogether, and the other is concerned about keeping its rich contributors happy. Maybe one day a strong third party will emerge, committed to cleaning up American politics and restoring a measure of morality and fairness.

Why Social Security is welfare

      

       Robert J. Samuelson works as an Op-Ed columnist for the Washington Post. I presume that he's writing from the perspective of a wealthy person. I also think his intended audience was the wealthy. The author doesn't often respond to previous columns, but due to the importance this issue, he felt it necessary to follow up on Social Security benefits. In his previous column, Who rules America? AARP. Samuelson wrote, “No one wants to strip needy seniors of essential benefits. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid provide crucial protections for millions of poorer and older households. But for many relatively healthy and economically secure Americans, these programs constitute middle-class welfare.” click here to view article. Samuelson’s goal was to explain how Social Security benefits are welfare. He believes the reason that it’s not referred to as such by politicians, and media outlets is because no one wants to offend the American public. The author wrote, “Here is how I define a welfare program: First, it taxes one group to support another group, meaning its pay-as-you-go and not a contributory scheme where people's own savings pay their later benefits. And second, Congress can constantly alter benefits, reflecting changing needs, economic conditions and politics. Social Security qualifies on both counts.” I disagree with the author’s language in presenting his argument of why Social Security is welfare.
       Year after year, billions of taxpayers’ money are redistributed to low wage earners in America. Still, attempts to reform the system have failed. In this country, welfare is a controversial issue with many social stigmas attached to it. There are some that continue to milk the system; while grandparents caring for grandchildren, due to circumstances beyond their control, benefit from it. Yet, there a countless individuals being denied daily who are in need of the system. Due to the stigmas attached to welfare, my Grandmother refused it. She worked multiple jobs to send her children to college. Next year, my mother will retire after forty years of putting into the system. Social Security benefits consists of  Federal Old-Age (Retirement), Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Unemployment benefits, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Health Insurance for Aged and Disabled (Medicare), Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs (Medicaid), State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). 
       The writer of this article may never need any of these programs, but there are many in this country that do. Mr. Samuelson may have an IRA account that he invests in regularly. I’m sure he has both health and disability insurance should he ever need it. In addition, I seriously doubt that he uses food stamps at the grocery store. The Social Security System is far from being perfect, but it has provided for the welfare of the working class people of our society for years. It allows young parents to care for their families without worrying about the basic needs of elderly parents. As I stated before, the author of this column is wealthy, or earns more than the average American. The system was not intended to meet any basic needs of the wealthy. And, the wealthy aren’t contributing any more actual dollars to the system than the middle, and lower economic individuals. The wealthy are entitled to the same dollar benefits, based on their contributions, as the poor. Yes, maybe it is a welfare system that allows us to be a civilized society that truly attempts to meet the bare basic needs of all.

Spokesman Loses Job for Sharing His E-Mail

Kurt Bardella was terminated from his position as chief spokesperson for Republican Congressman of California, Darrell Issa, after it was discovered that he was sharing emails. (click here) Bardella shared emails with a New York Times reporter who is supposedly writing a book about Washington’s political culture. According to the article, Bardella’s supervisors knew that he was a part of the book project, but they didn’t know that he was sharing e-mails on a regular basis. I thought this article was interesting because it suggests that Kurt Bardella was terminated because it was inappropriate to share e-mail exchanges from other journalists. I do not disagree with the decision made to terminate him. His actions to share political information that he was trusted with was completely unprofessional. I feel that’s inappropriate in any area of life. It’s my understanding that Bardella was also expected to be featured in the book. What’s wrong with this picture? National politics and government are in such a fragile state right now. Americans are without jobs, healthcare, and they are losing homes. Funding for education is being cut in every state. How can politicians afford to allow their right hand men to participate in additional projects that are not related to making things better for their constituents?