Clip the Claws

According to FOXNews.com, Barack Obama has officially begun to openly attack Hilary Clinton. He was quoted recently explicitly saying that he did not believe Clinton was being truthful about what she would do as President. Specifically, he feels that Clinton will not live up to her own expectations on Social Security. He also feels that she has been "going back and forth" on the Iraq and Iran issues. Obama also says that he does not want to attack Clinton on a personal level. In fact, he feels that these recent criticisms are only a way of distinguishing himself from her.

Obama may be trying to distinguish himself from the current democratic front runner, but I think its just another attempt to discredit Clinton. We've recently seen the entire Republican field attack Hilary Clinton in a debate, and now we've got the democratic candidate who is currently in second in most national poles attacking Clinton. Is this really the way to get elected in America? Does this really appeal to voters? Personally, I'm not a big fan of Clinton, but all of these attacks have me sympathizing for her. In the end, that could be what the Republicans want.

Debate Anyone?

I don't have an article to reference for this one, but I was watching the most recent Republican debate and I was immediately struck by a few things. First of all, I find it amazing that people actually watch these things and even take stock in what is going on. All of these debates (both Democratic and Republican) have been completely pointless. The moderator literally hand feeds the candidates questions and tries his best to give them an answer before finishing said question. At one point, the moderator even started bashing on President Bush. He was practically queuing the candidates to start their own debasements on the Prez. Just another example of how the party is abandoning Dubya.

Another thing I find amazing about this particular debate was the main focus of the debate itself. Basically, it seemed as if the entire debate was simply a tool to attack Hilary Clinton. Every chance the candidates got they talked about Mrs. Clinton's stance on any issue and how terrible it would be for America. At the end of the debate, FOXNEWS even asked a focus which candidate they thought would be more likely to beat Clinton in a national election after watching that night's debate. I may be a little romantic, but I want to see a debate with substance. I want to see moderators ask difficult questions and to keep the candidates focused on the issue at hand. I want to see candidates stumble in their speech and not dance around tough issues. But I'll probably never see...not as long as we live in the age of the horse race.

Open the Gates!

The first of the baby boomers has finally reached the promised land! Thats right, according to Foxnews.com the first baby boomer has officially filed for social security. That for which we have feared has finally come. The flood has officially begun that will allegedly run Social Security dry. In fact, by 2017 we will be paying out more than we are bringing in. Interestingly enough, a major problem resides in other areas of government. One reason that Social Security could run dry is that other government entities have been borrowing from the Social Security surplus for years. So, when Social Security needs this money back, will they get it? NO!

It seems to me that this is one more problem with the bureaucratic chain. In many cases, when one department shows a substantial surplus, other departments will ask for a piece of it. Mostly because they are under the belief that it's government money, so we should all get a piece of it. This idea is prevalent in most bureaucracies. In fact, you can find the same thing being done all around you. But I digress. The New Deal was a catalyst for our current state of the over-abundance of red tape. Ever since this point we have seen an exponential increase in our government bureaucracy. I've never been one to criticize big government, but I think I've officially had enough. I believe in a strong central government, but I can't advocate our current state of bureaucracy. It is a stale system designed to promote accountability and ease of communication, but, in actuality, it only promotes mediocrity and inhibits communication when it has grown too large.

Alterior Motives

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that a federal judge in San Francisco has rule to keep the feds from prosecuting businesses for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. However, they would only be prosecuting those businesses that did not immediately fire an employees that did not have social security numbers that match numbers in the federal database. The judge has placed an injunction on the current "no-match law" so that a suit filed by labor unions will have time to be heard. Apparently the judge feels that this "no-match law" will have severe consequences on many legitimate California employees.

The reasoning of this judge seems to be flawed, because legitimate workers should have nothing to fear from a governmental background check. It seems to me that the real motive of this judge is to protect the California economy. It is a well known fact a crackdown on illegal immigration will have serious effects on industries like the agriculture. We're talking about a multi-billion dollar industry that could hardly function without illegal immigration. I may be being a little cynical, but it seems to be that this judge has more on his mind than the protection of "legitimate" California workers.

Both Sides

MSNBC.com recently reported that Barack Obama spoke on the issue of emission control regarding climate change. His plan calls for several billion dollars to investigate alternative forms of energy and reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. This is a very pro-active plan, and Obama makes sure that his audience realizes that Hilary is not backing a similar plan.

It is very obvious that Obama is trying anything at this point to make up the 32 percentage point gap between him and Hilary in the latest polls. However, it is very interesting that he keeps calling Hilary out on her voting record in the Senate, when he has several past discrepancies also. In fact, he backed Bush's 2005 energy that was not popular among conservation groups. It should be noted that this bill did bring $40 million to Illinois. However, Obama is now criticizing the current administration on this very same bill. That totally makes sense! We've seen several cases of mud-slinging against Hilary for her voting record, but maybe the "pots" behind her in the polls should be careful when calling-out the "kettle."

Feel the Power!

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that President Bush has vetoed a bill that would give over 600,000 children from low-income families health insurance. The article goes on to say that Bush has used his veto power sparingly, but this is probably the most controversial veto during his administration. The bill did pass the senate with 68 votes (enough to override a veto), so it will be interesting to see what happens.

This situation is especially surprising considering this bill is endorsed by 63 Republicans in Congress and 43 governors. Bush claims that he vetoed this bill because it brings us one step closer to government controlled health care, but more than a few Republican leaders have put support behind this bill. The timing of this veto is also interesting considering the fact that President Bush just sent a proposal to Congress asking for $160 billion for the war in Iraq and this bill will only cost about $60 billion. It seems very strange that he would veto a bill that would have extremely beneficial and long-lasting results so late in this presidency. It is hard saying what is going through Dubya's head, but this could have serious implications on this "legacy" that he has been so concerned with lately.